Romeus and Iuliet; Rhomeo and Iulietta

by Unknown

Excerpt from Romeus and Iuliet; Rhomeo and Iulietta

Whether the story of the loves and deaths of Romeo and Juliet, ren dered so famous by Shakespeare's Tragedy, had any foundation in actual fact is a matter which will probably ever remain in doubt it has been much and learnedly discussed, and in no works, with which I am acquainted, so exhaustively as in the excellent volume edited by Ales sandro Torri (pisa, 1831) in which are collected, and annotated, the tales of Da Porto, Clitia, and Bandello, together with Historical and Bio graphical notices, and other documents connected with the fate of our paire of starre-crost lovers,' whose actual existence the learned editor stoutly maintains. This volume is supplemented with the Lettere Critiche, etc. Of Filippo Scolari (also a firm believer in the authenticity of the Tragedy of Verona) published at Livorno in the same to them both I am indebted for many of the particulars set forth in these pages and I strongly commend the1r works to those who would wish to investigate the question.

Genres: Classics, Plays, Literature, Poetry

191 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1562

About the author

Books can be attributed to "Unknown" when the author or editor (as applicable) is not known and cannot be discovered. If at all possible, list at least one actual author or editor for a book instead of using "Unknown".

Books whose authorship is purposefully withheld should be attributed instead to Anonymous.

Reviews

[Czaruś, Czarodziej, Czarownik twój]

Idealny dowód na to że można zaliczyć laskę jak i zgona w 24 godziny

[Tyler]

Brooke's beautiful poetry should be studied more, instead of giving Shakespeare credit for the story of Romeo and Juliet. Every line in this 3,000 line poem is iambic, and trying to read prose afterward is difficult; I find myself angry when lines of prose are not iambic.

[A.H. Lyons]

I didn’t think it could get worse than Romeo and Juliet. It can.

[Zuza Kaniecka]

Spoko dupy nie urywa

[Alexandra Matri Aiello]

Read for my Topics in Creative Writing class. This was one of the main sources for Shakespeare when he wrote R + J. Both versions have their hits and misses but the Brooke account makes their love story more believable as Romeus and Juliet's relationship last around 9 months and Billy gets them together, in life and death, in less than a week.

I would really like to get the book as I'd like more time to spend with it than the week I had to read the piece.

[Laura Holt]

I can't believe I'd never heard of this until now, but it was glorious. Gorgeous. I'm crying. My heart is breaking. But all in the best way. You must read it if it you haven't.

[Rick Patterson]

This is the main source that Shakespeare used to compose his own Romeo And Juliet, which only goes to show how outstanding he was at making a good story into a better one. This is written in couplets, alternating between 12 and 14 syllables, with a dead regular rhythm that reminded me of Lewis Carroll's "'O frabjous day! Calloo! Callay!' he chortled in his joy." It should be acknowledged that Brooke pulls off quite an impressive feat in his verse re-telling of the original story (in his case, borrowed directly from a French translation of an Italian romance), but, as mentioned, the story is a blunt object compared to the stiletto that it becomes in Shakespeare's hands. There is way too much moralizing, starting early on in his note to the reader, in which Brooke starchily declares that this is "written to describe unto thee a couple of unfortunate lovers thralling themselves to unhonest desire, neglecting the authority and advice of parents and friends, conferring their principal counsels with drunken gossips and superstitious friars (the naturally fit instruments of unchastity), attempting all adventures of peril for the attaining of their wished lust,using auricular confession (the key of whoredom and treason) for furtherance of their purpose, abusing the honourable name of lawful marriage to cloak the shame of stolen contracts ; finally, by all means of unhonest life, hastening to most unhappy death." The Protestant pooh-poohing of Roman Catholic monks is very funny now, but this is Brooke being very very serious indeed, and his story continues in that vein, most of the time. There are moments, however, in which something of a sense of humor comes through, but it's rare and hard to spot. (Here's one, from an early description of Romeus: "How happy had he been had he not been forsworn; But twice as happy had he been had he been never born." That's a lovely bit of rhetorical construction, by the way.) Anyway, the contrast with Shakespeare is overwhelming, of course, and in this case it's impossible not to regret the absence of the bawdy cluelessness of the Nurse, or Mercutio's cynical vilifications of love, or the pornographic ribaldry of the opening passages, or any number of his additions that made this a tasty treat for the playgoing audience, rather than Brooke's more upscale poetry readers. (Another note: he occasionally invites his female readers to join him in weeping over some line--notably Juliet's suicide--but there is never an invitation to participate as eagerly and unreservedly as Shakespeare's groundlings would have done.) Is it worth reading? Absolutely. Anyone who is familiar with Shakespeare's updated version will find lots to appreciate, such as the presence of lines and phrases that are exactly the same (for example, Brooke's "no inconstant toy" is lifted directly into Friar Lawrence's speech to Juliet at the beginning of Act IV). However, the differences continue to impress us with what Shakespeare was adding to the text, sometimes very subtly. Notice this passage from Brooke, where he is explaining why Romeus is left alone at the dance just before he meets Juliet--
"The Capilets disdain the presence of their foe,
Yet they suppress their stirréd ire, the cause I do not know:
Perhaps to offend their guests the courteous knights are loth,
Perhaps they stay from sharp revenge, dreading the Prince's wrath.
Perhaps for that they shamed to exercise their rage
Within their house, 'gainst one alone, and him of tender age."
Notice that everyone seems to know that Romeus is there. Shakespeare settles the reason for his Romeo being allowed to stay on Capulet's shoulders alone, which makes for some very interesting conclusions about his motivations in doing so. (I don't want to be a tease here: I think Lord Capulet absolutely wants Romeo and Juliet to get together. There is overwhelming evidence to support this.)
So, if only for the scholarship and to appreciate Shakespeare's dramatic genius even more, this is worth a look.

[julka37]

No w sumie myślałam, że będzie gorzej. Nie lubię dramatów, ale ten nawet szybko i łatwo wszedł. Nawet ciekawe, ale czy ja wiem czy takie smutne, jak mówią. No wiadomo, postacie tragiczne to nie będą miały happy endu. Tak jak mówię, najgorsze to nie było, ale też jakieś wybitne nie (chociaż jak na tamte czasy, to nawet Szekspir się postarał).

[Royce Ratterman]

Read for a Shakespearean era related course and in conjunction with my English History studies.
Overall, I found this work of immense interest - a good work for the researcher and enthusiast also.
This work may prove to be one of my future resources for ghost authoring novels for E.MH. Ratterman.
I found this play's contents inspiring - number rating relates to the book's contribution to my needs.
A quick read/skim through.
Number rating relates to the book's contribution to my needs.