My Photo

Fair Verona, where we lay our scene...

  • MASTER OF VERONA cover
    These are images of Verona and the surrounding areas, all having to do with the novel The Master of Verona.

July 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    
Blog powered by TypePad

Romeo & Juliet

Two Dominant Searches

Of all the various seach terms that bring people to this site, there are two that are dominant. 1) Capulet-Montague feud; and 2) Tomorrow and tomorrow.

The first is rather obvious - I've written a novel about the cause of the Capulet-Montague feud in Romeo & Juliet. But the second is due to a single piece I wrote last summer, where my wife and I put forward our notion of the first half of the famous speech as Lady Macbeth's suicide note.

Well, someone else has just found it, and commented upon it. The link is here. And for those interested, the original link is here.

Now I have to figure out how to attract more people searching for the Muppets.

Breaking News - Amazon Short Available!

Just in time for Kindle...

VARNISHED FACES, an Amazon Short Story by David Blixt.

VARNISHED FACES is from a line from The Merchant of Venice. Shylock refers to the celebrations taking place outside his home as the Venetians revel in masks. He warns his daughter against those "varnish'd faces," meaning the leather masks - and also the men behind them.

In Romeo & Juliet, Romeo and his friends crash the Capulet ball in masks. Lord Capulet tries to recall when he last wore a mask to a party, and "Old Capulet" replies that it was at "Lucentio's wedding."

All these elements are brought together in my first short story, published through Amazon Shorts, and available here for only 49 cents. A steal.

This is the first of nine stories I'll be publishing as a lead-up to the sequel to THE MASTER OF VERONA. Due next Fall, it's entitled VOICE OF THE FALCONER.

For those keeping score, VARNISHED FACES falls between chapters 27 and 28 in MV, at the very beginnng of the Fourth Act entitled The Exiles.

There are several reasons why this story pleases me. First off, it fills in a few deficencies in the novel - we get to meet Giotto here, whereas he's only referenced in the book. We get a good long glimpse of Padua, a place only visited at night in MV's Prologue. And while the rivalry between Pietro and Carrara has a nice arc, I never really touch on the natural anger that Antony has for the Paduan knight. Understandably, Antony blames Mariotto for the ending of their friendship, and that's what plays out in the book. But Carrara had a hand in those events as well, and Antony certainly would not have forgotten that fact.

But my favorite reasons for writing this story are the Paduans themselves. While the novel takes place in and around Verona (hence the title), Padua was one of Shakespeare's favorite places to reference. In this story I'm able to bring all those references together. Characters from Much Ago, Shrew, Merchant, and R&J all meet up in Baptista's garden.

So while you wait to see what happens to Cesco, Pietro, Cangrande and the rest, use this to help fill the void. I promise, it's worth every penny.

The real Capulets & Montagues

Someone just found this site by Googling the names "ANTONIO CAPULLETTO" and "MARIOTTO MONTECCHIO." Which is flattering, as the only way that person could have gotten those names is by reading my novel.

Because I made them up.

With that in mind, I feel honor-bound to make clear a bit about names and history.

There were Montagues and Capulets, they were real families - Montecchi e Cappelletti. Dante is the most famous person to mention them (PURGATORIO, canto VI), but they are in many histories and period chronicles as well. They actually clashed more in the area of Cremona than Verona, but were so famous for their squabbles (and famously mentioned) that their names became synonyms for "feuding families" - much as Hatfield and McCoy are today.

My only answer as to why so many writers connected them with Verona is that there is a castle and a village between Verona and Vicenza, both called Montecchio. Naturally, one would assume that the Montecchi lived there, no?

Actually, most often period Italian names indicate the place of origin, not the place you currently resided. If I was born in Parma, but lived in Venice, I would be David of Parma. Everybody would know who that was. Then, after a few generations, the name is still there. My son would be Dash of Parma, even though he'd never been to Parma in his life.

Now, there were Montecchi who were intimately involved in Veronese affairs - but that wasn't the branch of the family famous for fueding. It's more likely that the Montecchi in Cremona originally came from the village of Montecchio, and were neither the owners of that castle nor the masters of that village.

However, all of that is mere speculation on my part, as my research has been focused on the area around Verona and how to mesh Shakespeare with history. Presupposing that both families lived in Verona, I invented histories to both.

All of which is a long way of saying that Antony and Mari are fictional characters, their names stolen from elsewhere.

Mariotto's name was taken from the poet Masuccio Salernitano’s 33rd Novel from IL NOVELLINO - an early version of the R&J story.

The name Antonio I borrowed from Luigi da Porto, a native of Vicenza and the first person to name the famous lovers Romeo & Giulietta. In his version he mentions that the young girl's father is called Antonio.

That's where those names came from. Instead of working forward from history, I worked backwards from the play, setting Shakespeare's characters in among the true historical figures. Because, by the time of the novel, most of the Capulets and Montagues had died off, or moved away - notably, to England, where there is a famous family called Montagu.

Which brings the whole thing full circle and is enough to make a grown man weep.

Birth Day, Death Day, Wedding Day *

July Twelfth.

Today in the year 100 BC, Julius Caesar was born. His mother, Aurelia, already had two daughters living. Their births were uncomplicated, but Caesar was trouble from the start. Still, both mother and son survived, though Aurelia had no more children after that. Caesar went on to – well, do just about everything.

Today in 1543 King Henry VIII married his final wife, Catherine Parr, in Hampton Court Palace. Finally, a love to last.

In 1812, America invaded Canada, starting – well, the War of 1812.

But, most significantly, it’s a vital day for the play Romeo & Juliet. It’s mentioned in the text that we’re “a fortnight and odd days” away from Juliet’s fourteenth birthday. We know she was born on “Lammas eve at night,” which means she was born either late July 31 or early August 1.

Which sets the action of the play right around today.

My timeline for the novel means that the events of R&J happen in the year 1339. In that year, July 12 was a Monday. Working backwards from references in the play ("What day is this?" - "Monday, my Lord." - "Monday!"), we know that the show begins on a Sunday morning.

This means that Monday, July 12, 1339, is the day that:

- Friar Laurence marries Romeo to Juliet in secret

– Mercutio is killed by Tybalt

– Tybalt is killed by Romeo

– Romeo is banished from Verona

– Capulet arranges for Juliet to marry Paris

– Juliet and Romeo have their one night together

So, today is the day of crisis in the play.

It’s also my birthday. I’m thirty-four years old today.

Cheers,

DB

* This is a repost of one of my early essays. Please forgive the repetition. I have, of necessity, altered the age. Would that I did not have to....

"And young Benvolio is deceased as well..."

If you wanted to throw my whole theory about the cause of the feud out of whack, you could point out to me that Lady Montague does not, in fact, have the final death in the play.

I would answer with a nod, a sigh, a smile. “I know. Benvolio does.”

The first legitimate publication of Shakespeare’s plays was the First Folio. Put together by his actors after he died in a wonderfully mercenary attempt to raise cash, it sets down in print together for the first time the Bard’s most famous plays.

But there are discrepancies. Because of the expense involved in copying out a play, only the prompter or stage manager would have had a full text. Actors had their cues, their lines, and their stage directions, usually worked into the text. So when Condell and Heminges tried to put together 36 plays, there were several missing. Some they reconstructed by memory, or got lucky and the actors had held onto their rolls of ink-stained parchment (where we get the word 'role'). Some they had complete, thanks to a fastidious stage-manager. And some were taken from the Quartos.

In publishing terms, a Quarto is the result when four leaves of a book are created from a standard size sheet of paper. Each leaf is usually printed on both sides, leaving eight printed pages in total. In Shakspeare’s time this was true, but there was another wonderful connotation – bootleg.

Today when a movie comes out there are always some jerks in the audience with video cameras, and a shaky version of the film shows up the next day on the internet. This happened during Shakespeare’s heyday, too. Pretend you’re an Elizabethan going to see, say, Measure For Measure. You’re rich, so you’ve got a seat in the balcony. Down the row from you some shifty-looking patron is sitting with a quill and inkpot, scribbling in a fast shorthand every word the actors below are saying. A week later you see advertised at a different theatre a play called, astonishingly, Measure For Measure. There are no copyright laws, no redress or remuneration for the author. That’s just the way it goes.

Sometimes a Quarto would be published by the author, but far more often a Quarto of some play would appear having been ‘stolen’ as it were from a live performance. These Quartos sometimes have wild differences from the Folio versions, as bootleggers often could not write as fast as actors spoke. There were gaps that had to be filled in. If there are lots of these gaps, caulked in with low verse and poor rhymes, you get what is known as a ‘bad’ Quarto.

What has all this got to do with Benvolio? Because in the Second Quarto (the ‘bad’ Quarto, the ‘eeevil’ Quarto) of Romeo & Juliet, printed by Thomas Crede for Cuthbert Burby in 1599, Benvolio dies.

What? you cry aloud. How? Why?

Alas, I reply, we don’t know. Montague brings us news that his wife is dead. Then he adds, as if in after-thought, ‘And young Benvolio is deceased as well.’ No word of how or why. All we know is that no one makes it out of this play alive.

I actually like this line. It gives me a lot of freedom as a director. Several times now I’ve contrived ways to kill Benvolio in the latter part of the play. My favorite is to have him meet a girl at the Capulet party. Later, after Juliet has drunk her potion but before she’s found, Benvolio meets this girl for an assignation. They embrace, but she recoils at once. His sword-hilt is jabbing her. Sexily, she either removes his sword belt or unsheathes the weapon and lays it aside.

At that moment, unseen by Benvolio, Gregory and Sampson from the opening scene creep up. Benvolio senses them, however, and puts up a desperate fight. But he’s unarmed and is quickly killed. It’s a nice parallel to the light-hearted melee at the top of the show. Then – ah-ha! – Lady Capulet arrives to pay off her three servants, who then remove the body.

Lady Capulet. She’s already told Juliet that she’s planning to send a poison to Mantua and have Romeo done in. But she blames Benvolio for spinning a web of lies around the death of Tybalt, despite the fact that he spoke true. Would she let him, ‘a kinsman to the Montague,’ live? I think not!

So there’s a peek at how my mind works, filling in gaps much like the bootleggers of Shakespeare’s time.

I could refute the claim that Benvolio gets the final death by saying that maybe he died days ago, while Lady Montague died this very night. Maybe she sensed her son’s passing. Maybe she killed herself for her part in the fued. Maybe she did in fact die of grief. Or maybe she and Benvolio had a sexual-suicide pact and leapt naked off of one of Verona’s forty-eight towers. The world may never know.

Origin of the Capulet-Montague Feud

Due to the recent interest in this site, and seeing as how the publication of MV is fast approaching, it seems appropriate to explain how the book (and, in turn, the blog) came about.

Early in 1999 I was directing Romeo & Juliet at the Ann Arbor Civic Theatre (a great space that to my everlasting regret has since become a church). It was my fourth or fifth encounter with the play, but my first as director.

Getting ready to direct Shakespeare for the first time became an event. I read and re-read the script, watched other productions, even visited Verona as a lark – not that Shakespeare ever went there, but for the past hundred years or so the city has become, at least partially, an industry town for the play. 

As an actor, you focus on your role and leave the overall play to the director. But as a novice director, I was forced to explore the play as a whole for the first time since ninth grade English class. I looked at all the questions, including the perennial ‘What caused the feud?’

The cause is never actually mentioned in the play, and it’s not vital to either an actor’s or audience’s understanding of the show. At the top of Act One, the ‘ancient grudge’ is already an established fact. But still, I pondered it for a time, then set it aside for more immediate concerns.

Today when I direct, cutting a script is my least favorite chore. Back then it was murder – what to take out, what to keep? In Shakespeare there are many seeming repetitions, but it was impossible not to hear each one in my head as the best expression of a certain thought.

At last I made it to the final scene – Paris is slain, Romeo and Juliet are both dead, we’re firmly into the denouement. It was then that a line jumped out at me. Capulet and his wife find their daughter's bleeding body. Romeo’s father, Lord Montague, enters to tomb, and the Prince addresses him: ‘Come, Montague, for thou art early up / To see thy son and heir now early down.’

Montague replies:

    Alas, my liege, my wife is dead tonight;

    Grief of my son’s exile hath stopped her breath.

    What further woe conspires against my age?

These lines baffled me. Realize, I’d been looking at the show for days thinking about actors entering and exiting, who I could double-cast and so forth. I clearly didn’t need Lady Montague for the final scene – her husband just told us she’s dead. I flipped back to find her last scene. She’s listed as entering in Act Three, Scene Four, when Mercutio and Tybalt both buy it – but she’s strangely quiet in that scene. Lord Capulet, too, but at least people talk to him. No one addresses Romeo’s mom, even when her son is banished. In fact, looking at it harder, Lady Montague hasn't been heard from since Act One, Scene One, in which she uttered a mere two lines!

So this was my quandary – do I cut Montague’s lines at the end of the show? Why not? Here we are, the play is basically over. We’ve just watched the two romantic leads die pitiably, and young, kind, noble Paris just croaked it as well. Why do we care if some woman we barely remember is dead?

But it continued to bother me. There had to be a reason she was dead.

Of course, in Shakespeare’s day, there was a very good reason. The actor who played Lady Montague was probably needed in another role – the exigencies of the stage.

Even realizing this, I couldn't let go of the line. My wife is dead tonight. The rules of dramatic structure nagged at me. An off-stage death like that is supposed to be symbolic. But of what? Clueless, I left the line in, hoping my actors could figure it out.

In the event, they didn’t have to. I was going about my business later that week when it hit me – the feud! The thing that gets closure at the end of the show is the feud! Montague and Capulet bury the hatchet. ‘Brother Montague,’ Capulet calls him. They're even going to build statues to honor their dead kids.

Could Lady Montague’s death be symbolic of the end of the feud? The only way that could work would be –

                                                                

If she were the cause of the feud.

                                                                  

I remember a heart-stopping moment as the idea formed – a love triangle a generation earlier, between the parents! Romeo’s mother, engaged to a young Capulet, runs off with a young Montague instead. That’s certainly cause for a feud, especially if young Capulet and Montague were friends. Best friends, childhood friends, torn apart by their love for a woman. A feud, born of love, dies with love.

This explains so much in the play – Lord Capulet, Juliet's doting father, suddenly threatening to kill her for refusing to marry the man he’s chosen for her. He tells her to ‘hang, beg, starve, die in the streets’ – this from a man who has called her ‘the hopeful lady of my earth.’ His fury seems to come out of nowhere and is brutally excessive. But if his own bride-to-be had jilted him and run off with his best friend instead, of course Juliet’s similar behavior would press his buttons.

This notion also goes on to inform much of Capulet's relationship with his wife – a younger wife, we know from the script, not well content in her match, married to a man who thinks she is ‘marred.’ It hints, in turn, at her relationship with Tybalt. In fact, the behavior of both families is wonderfully colored by this single, simple idea. Romeo’s mom jilted Juliet’s dad.

Oddly enough, all this doesn’t affect the actual performance of the show overmuch. It’s fun for the actors to play, and there are moments when it can be very clear, but the play stands, as it always has, on its action and language. The backstory ends up being superfluous.

But it was an idea that had its hooks in me and wouldn’t let go.

So I wrote a book

                                                                                                         - DB

Friar Lawrence - Culpable

    A couple days ago I reconnected with Harlan Underhill, my high school Shakespeare teacher from half a lifetime ago. Harlan was also the co-director of my very first production of the Bard's work (of course, it was Romeo & Juliet. And, yes, I played Mercutio).
    He and I wrote back and forth about the book, but he said he was thinking of me because he was involved in a discussion of why Romeo and Juliet don't just run off together in the middle of the show.
    It's a question that always gets to me - in fact, makes me angry. Not at the play, or at the person asking the question. No, I get mad at a single character in the show. Friar Lawrence.
    I hate the Friar. Not as a role. As a person.
    There was a musical running here in Chicago a couple years back - I believe it was a Second City script, performed at CST on Navy Pier - that was something about the Trial of Friar Lawrence. They humerously blame him for everything that goes wrong in R&J.
    But to me, that's not a joke. It's the God's honest truth. The blame falls squarely on the Friar's shoulders. Everything he does - and I mean everything! - is done in secret, behind men's backs. It is not a flattering portrayal of ecclesiastic meddling. I grant that the secret wedding is well within the bounds of a normal Shakespeare play, Comedy or Tragedy (Othello comes to mind).
    But the moment Tybalt is killed, the Friar should be on his way to the Prince. "My lord Escalus - these children are married. Do what you can for them." But it doesn't seem to occur to him. Instead he comes up with a plan so that Romeo can have his wedding night, then ditch town. Romantic, perhaps. But hardly practical - except in a man devoted to secrecy, and afraid of being caught.
    Why don't Romeo and Juliet flee at that moment? Because of the Friar's counsel. He's the wise authority figure, the man of years. Of course they listen to him.
    Then comes the moment when Juliet comes to him, threatening to kill herself unless he can prevent her marraige to Paris. Lawrence swipes a page from Friar Francis in Much Ado - fake her death! Now, if it's me (Friar Dave, as it were) here's my plan: "Juliet, I've got a horse out back. Let's get you out of town." But no, much better to drug her. That way, the secret is still safe.
    But the thing I detest the Friar for the most, the single act that I cannot forgive him for, is what happens in the tomb. Discovering Romeo and Paris slain, he hears a noise and fears discovery. He tells the groggy and terrified Juliet to come with him - "I'll dispose of you among a sisterhood of holy nuns!" Even now he's fearful of the story coming out. Then he does the unforgivable thing - he leaves her. "I dare no longer stay!" The cowardly friar shows his true color - yellow. The man responsible for her situation, this wise man of years, runs away, leaving a thirteen year-old girl in her family crypt beside the corpses of her cousin, her fiancee, and her husband. Honestly, what does he think will happen?
    It is my sincere hope (and my strict direction when I'm in charge of a production) that when the Prince says some shall be "punished," he's looking directly at Friar Lawrence.
    I've played most of the male roles in this show (excluding only the Prince, Paris, and Benvolio, I think). And there is great fun to be had in them all, and Lawrence is no exception. The Friar is a great character to perform. I just loathe him as a person.
    Why? Why love Mercutio and revile the Friar? Easy. While Mercutio is wild and trouble, playing the catalyst in the precipitating event, the disaster that follows is entirely due to the secrecy and fear that pervades the character of Friar Lawrence.

R&J Prologue

I never enjoy productions of Romeo & Juliet that play the Tragedy from the beginning. In fact, I think the famous Prologue is tacked on - it doesn't appear in the First Folio! In the earliest texts we have, the show begins with two guys walking down the street talking about sex and violence - "I'll push Montague's men from the wall and thrust his maids to the wall!"

No, I think if the Prologue was in fact written by Shakespeare, it was as a disclaimer - "Don't laugh too much, folks, because they're gonna die." Shakespeare didn't think much of Prologues. The only other times I can think of that he used them was in Troilus & Cressida, where he was aping the Greek style, and in Henry V, where he was making a political statement at the top of each act.

Why use it in R&J, then? Because this show could have gotten him lynched. Imagine if the disclaimer wasn't there. The audience is laughing at the nurse, smiling at the familiar banter of the lovers, enjoying the light-hearted swordplay. Then, snap, someone's dead. Then another person is dead. Then weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then, oh, look, "they're going to be fine - what, they're dead?!"

So, it's a warning to the audience. One that the author felt the need to repeat, because just before the balcony scene the Prologue returns to remind them, as if to say, "Glad you're enjoying the show, folks, but they're still gonna buy it! See you at the Epilogue!"

I've said it before, but Romeo & Juliet really was the Snow White of its day. Just as in 1937, no one had ever seen anything like it. Snow White revolutionized film-making and animation, comedy and music. R&J revolutionized the world of theatre, shook up the idea of formula and stock character.

More R&J thoughts soon.

DB

R&J Thoughts

For the last nine or ten years, I've been giving a lecture on Romeo & Juliet to students at Howell High School in Michigan. In a couple of days, I'll be doing it again, six hours straight of repeating a fun but exhausting run-through of all the important bits of R&J that I wish someone had pointed out to me as a teen.

(The students aren't there for six hours - they've got, like, 42 minutes per class period. It's about two hundred kids each time, which keeps things lively for me)

The high points that I'll be hitting:

Romeo & Juliet is not a Tragedy. A Shakespearean Tragedy (or Aristotilean, if you're being picky) is the tale of a single strong central male figure who is the best at everything a man can be - lover, poet, politician, warrior, philosopher - but who has one tragic flaw that leads to his ultimate destruction. With Macbeth it's Ambition, with Othello it's Jealousy, and so on.

That definition doesn't apply to R&J. Romeo is a prat. At the start of the show he locks himself in a dark room during the day, then wanders the edge of the forest at night, thinking about his love, Rosaline, who he's never really spoken to, and who is going to become a nun! He's an idiot!

No, Romeo is much more an Orlando, a Claudio, an Orsino. He's a Comedic lover.

With that in mind, look at the elements of a Shakespearean Comedy: a young lovesick fool, a smart and capable young girl, clowns, disguises, musicians, and mistimings, secret weddings. Then run down the list for R&J : lovesick fool - Romeo; capable girl - Juliet; clowns - Mercutio, Nurse, Peter, Potpan, etc.; disguises - masked ball (though it's only the boys who are crashing who show up in masks!); musicians - the often cut, but truly funny (if played right) musicians when they discover Juliet "dead"; mistimings - Friar Lawrence's message misses Romeo, Romeo kills himself just before Juliet wakes, Tybalt kills Mercutio by accident, yadda yadda yadda; and a secret wedding to boot! The only thing it's missing is shipwrecks and Juliet dressing as a man!

So, think about R&J in that light. The first half of the show is a Shakespearean Comedy, complete with sex jokes and idiot lovers. Only, at that point where in, say, Shrew, everything is revealed, people start to die. That leaves these Comedic characters trapped in an awful situation, trying to find the Comedic solution. It's not a mistake that the Friar's plan is the exact same one that Frair Francis uses in Much Ado.

Romeo and Juliet is not a Tragedy. It is something much worse. Because first it makes you laugh.

More on this soon.

DB

Titles revisited

Everyone is asking about the title to Book 2. I don't have a good answer. I did, then something changed and events that were going to happen in Book 2 were moved to Book 3, which I'm working on right now (when not adapting classic crime fiction for the stage, playing with Dash, or wasting a whole day playing Medieval II Total War - damn, but that's a good game!).

The former title is actually a Romeo line from Act III scene i. It was used by Raphael Sabatini for one of his lesser known works (the man wrote a ton of novels, but only three remain in print! Sacrilige!)

But, because that is now the title of Book 3, I'm back to the drawing board on Book 2. There's a lot of falconry in the sequel, leading me to a Juliet line, "O for a falconer's voice to call this tassel gentle back again." A Falconer's Voice. I like it for the symmetry - Juliet's line for Book 2, Romeo's for Book 3. Coolio.

But it's not a compelling title. After all the bruhaha and nonsense over the title for MV (Book 1), I'm looking for something with more snap. Keeping with the Falcon imagry, I could use the Petruchio line, Sharp & Passing Empty. But that's no better. I'd avoid that book!

Then I thought about the events of the sequel, and thought that maybe The Falcon's Lure might be a better fit. That's where I'm at just now.

Tomorrow I'll probably dump the whole falconry thing and call it The Heir of Verona. Which is also accurate, if uninspired.

Grrrr. On the plus side, they've announced that The Muppet Show Season Two is coming out this fall. So, all told, I'm having a good day.

DB