Brooke\u2019s version of the story features a Juliet of sixteen. If Shakespeare prefers her to be (almost) fourteen instead, he must have specifically written her for a boy of that very same age. The part is marvellous, and Shakespeare evidently wrote it for someone who was very special to him. That hypothetical boy player he seems to have courted, for instance (judged by the prologue, there is some truth in the theories that date some of the earlier Fair Youth-Sonnets this far back).<\/p>\n
Special the boy may have been, if he was to perform the heroin\u2019s part Shakespeare wrote him, he must have been exceptional. In 1978 a fourteen year old Rebecca Saire proved the part within reach of a treble boy, but that was a BBC production, which allowed her at least one hour to shoot the necessary takes for a single scene. The play\u2019s recording took a full week : for Juliet an average of two scenes a day. On stage are no second chances, as each performance involves \u2018one take\u2019-action for almost three hours.<\/p>\n
And the part is in shape (size) as mature as in contents (in both Juliet\u2019s personality and her sex life). This combines to the uneasy feeling that Shakespeare has written Juliet for a victim of late puberty after all, until the sudden hoarseness of Juliet at the end of scene 2 ; 2 is taken into account. Why complaining about a bad voice, if the audience had never heard her speak otherwise?<\/p>\n
Realising that Juliet must have changed player, her repeated withdrawals from the balcony turn functional, and they divide the part in sections of different level. Compatible changes of level occur throughout the play in Juliet\u2019s various stage appearances, while the kissing incident shows what level of performance Shakespeare expects from a boy of fourteen years and three months. The two years of individual improvement between versions restrict the original assignments to Q1.<\/p>\n
–<\/span><\/p>\n …..<\/span> Juliet I …………………………….<\/span> 2 scenes : 1 ; 3 \/ 4 ; 2\u00a0 (< 20 \/ 6 lines) scene 1 ; 3 ……………………………..<\/span> Few lines, but to be \u2018sung\u2019 nicely. scene 4 ; 2 …………………………….<\/span> Few lines, but be \u2018sung\u2019 exactly in tune. —<\/span><\/p>\n …..<\/span> Juliet II …………………………..<\/span> 3 scenes : 1 ; 5 \/ 2 ; 5 \/ 5 ; 3 (52 – 74 \/ 10 – 18 lines) The First Law of Art rules that shape equals contents. And if the kissing scene is shocking to the audience, it is intended to communicate that the staged love affair is shocking, period : a girl has to guard her virtue at any time, and to say that a Montague exchanging kisses with Juliet doesn\u2019t please the congregation of Capulets who have seen through Romeo\u2019s disguise, would be an understatement.<\/p>\n Because shape equals contents, this incident is also suggestive for the relationship between original performers. In which respect it stands to reason that none of the boys would have allowed Condell to kiss him this intimate in public. Edmund Shakespeare perhaps would, provided that the intimacy came from an intimate relative instead.<\/p>\n Having left home at the age of 7 (- 10) to learn a trade in distant London, his senior brother must have been acted as his substitute father. William, in turn, had left his wife and children to make a living in London. Under circumstances the brothers must have grown very close indeed.<\/p>\n scene 1 ; 5 …………………………….<\/span> Part moderate in size, great in poetry. scene 2 ; 5 ………………………………<\/span> scene 3 ; 5a …………………………..<\/span> For romantic contents initially regarded as written scene 5 ; 3 —<\/span><\/p>\n …..<\/span> Juliet III ………………………….<\/span> 5 scenes : 2 ; 2a \/3 ; 2 \/3 ; 5b \/4 ; 1 \/4 ; 3 (224 \/ 18 lines) 2 ; 2a ……………………………………<\/span> A romantic scene is the place to be for Shakespeare\u2019s scene 3 ; 2 …………………………….<\/span> Judged by size, another balcony scene. In Q2 at least. scene 3 ; 5b …………………………..<\/span> Q2 demands the maximum that Shakespeare trusted a scene 4 ; 1 ……………………………..<\/span> Not the size of the part is the problem in this scene, but scene 4 ; 3 …………………………….<\/span> Q1\u2019s compact expression of Juliet\u2019s fears is not really —<\/span><\/p>\n …..<\/span> Juliet IV ………………………….<\/span> 2 scenes : 2 ; 2b \/ 4 ; 5 (7 – 12 \/ 7 lines) 2 ; 2b …………………………………..<\/span>\u00a0 Juliet is now legally bound to marry Romeo (and vice 4 ; 5 …………………………………….<\/span> playing dead is not as easy as it looks, but the scene is —<\/span><\/p>\n …..<\/span> Juliet V …………………………..<\/span> 2 scenes : 2 ; 2c \/ 3 ; 5a (whispered lines only) 2 ; 2c ……………………………………<\/span> Juliet comes out to the balcony as a young girl scene 3 ; 5a …………………………..<\/span> Nothing but a common manuscript source can explain This reconstruction of the original cast for Juliet, sets the star treble apart as a class of his own. Especially in Q2.<\/p>\n In the composition scheme such a contrast must have priority over chronology. Even if the result renders the central position of the second balcony scene invisible :<\/p>\n Juliet …………<\/span> scene …………………………….<\/span> Q1 …………………………………………………..<\/span> Q2 ….<\/span> III (+IV & V)..<\/span> 2 ; 2 (balcony) ………….<\/span> extremely challenging …………<\/span> extremely challenging As to be expected, Juliet has the thirteen scenes to symbolise death. Which is a perfect number for divisions along the Golden Section : especially Q2 shows a 5 : 8 contrast in levels of performance that justifies the deployment of a boy of sixteen at least (head voice). Which is the age of Edmund Shakespeare at the time of the 1596 production. In Q1 this selection of five is probably just within range of the company\u2019s 1594 star treble. The difference indicates an upgrading to allow a star performance for Shakespeare\u2019s favourite boy actor. Interestingly, the reversed action of downgrading, does not result in deleting the pattern : Q1\u00a0 rather refines it.<\/p>\n As it happens, Dame Fortune has not the skills to handle the Golden Section. And the part\u2019s greater mathematical sophistication is an additional indication that the 1597 edition is based on an original manuscript. If not the neat hand copy for the first production, then at least one of the final draft versions.<\/p>\n The principal feature of the \u20188\u2019-sequence balance : two symmetrical sections in both Quarto-editions. And in both of them symmetry is enhanced by the axis of a challenging scene (showing in this imperfect lay-out as a gap), the second axis combines with the division of scene 3 ; 5 in balcony- and main stage scenes to the isolation of scene 4 ; 2. In this scene Juliet formally submits to her parents by a token acceptation of the marriage they have arranged for her. Traditionally (at least in fiction) the moment that isolates the unfortunate bride from true love. And in Q2 the axis of her surrender to her fate as a pawn on the chessboard of tactical family alliances is the highly appropriate set of lines six and seven from twelve :<\/p>\n Henceforward I am euer rulde by you. A cell isolates, and so does a closet. Which once and for all defines Q1\u2019s appearance as a pirate edition as a cover. There is no way to make a maimed transcription perchance responsible for placing \u2018Lawrence\u2019 without his cell in the line that divides Juliet\u2019s part in Q1 as 3 : 5, while the cell\u2019s substitute isolates Juliet from husband and family on the 5 : 3 division :<\/p>\n By holy Laurence to fall prostrate here, ……..<\/span> (3 before, 5 behind)<\/em> What better evidence than mathematical evidence? The 3 : 5 division is Juliet\u2019s only line in this scene that is identical in both Quarto\u2019s. Which, because of the lack of an Elizabethan standard spelling, is quite an achievement for Dame Fortune. In a play of this size, a verbal transcription can be expected to copy occasionally each single word in a line to the letter. But not too often, and this single scene has three of them. One for Juliet (with the 5 : 3 division nearly making a second), one for her father, and one for her mother. But Juliet\u2019s line of submission is the only one that stands out mathematically. Being in Q1 the first of two Golden Section-divisions, it is in Q2 the Golden Section-division of both her opening sequence of six lines, and of the nine lines it takes her to submit to her father\u2019s will.<\/a><\/p>\n
\n……………………………………………..<\/span> = age ca. 13
\n…..<\/span> Robert Gough<\/a> (*unknown)
\nBeing twelve or younger, he is of minimal age. But lacking the evidence to identify Gilbourne as the senior treble he seems to have been, Gough has to do. This Juliet is the one who will turn fourteen at Lammas Eve. Which is \u2018tonight\u2019 and invokes the \u2018real time\u2019-experience that is to haunt the original audience until the end.<\/p>\n
\nQ1 :\u00a0\u00a0 7\u00a0 (3) lines …………………….<\/span> For most of the time a duetto between Lady Capulet
\nQ2 :\u00a0\u00a0 7\u00a0 (3) lines …………………….<\/span> and Juliet\u2019s former nurse. Juliet herself has seven lines, ……………………………………………..<\/span> with a maximum of three at a stretch. And in such an
\n……………………………………………..<\/span> easy scene a young boy would have had no difficulty
\n……………………………………………..<\/span> with introducing Juliet to the audience.<\/p>\n
\nQ1 :\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 9 (5) lines …………………….<\/span> Still within reach for a boy of thirteen, and in this brief
\nQ2 :\u00a0 12 (6) lines …………………….<\/span> scene he makes an absolute star.<\/p>\n
\n…………………………………………….<\/span> including the homo-erotics of Romeo’s kisses
\n……………………………………………<\/span>\u00a0 = age 14
\n…..<\/span> Edmund Shakespeare<\/a> (*May 1580)
\nIf Shakespeare wrote Juliet for someone special to him, his kid brother is a far more likely candidate than a hypothetical lover boy. Juliet\u2019s second scene (1 ; 5) is her special one, and it places the boy on stage as a skilled actor. This dates the begin of his training some years back in time. Far enough even to suggest a causal connection with the visit of the Burbage troupe to Stratford in the summer of 1587. And the scene itself suggests the same :<\/p>\n\n
Shakespeare wrote this scene for a wide range of spectators, but primarily for a working class audience with a few years of primary school for general knowledge. People, in short, that are nowadays regarded by the more superior minds as ‘couch potatoes’. But even those people would regard Romeo’s unmasking in the 1978 BBC-production as an insult of their intelligence : talking with Juliet under the watching eyes of Tybalt and old Capulet, Romeo repeatedly lifts his mask for no apparent reason than enabling a positive identification. While it is obvious from the dialogue that his two enemies can do without a director’s help : Tybalt recognizes the voice of a Montague (by the posh accent probably), and Juliet’s father needs little time to decide which Montague answers the description of the youngster behind the mask. <\/span><\/em><\/h5>\n
In Q1 it is the same father who, a few seconds earlier, in a typical sample of small-talk between aged cousins has lost track of the precise age of his kinsman<\/span><\/em> Lucentio’s<\/span> son. After which demonstration of old age his correct identification of young Romeo can only be explained as a shrewd man’s much closer watch on the enemy, than on his own next of kin. <\/span><\/em><\/h5>\n
Q2 has a a much deviating version of the same small-talk that discusses <\/span><\/em>Luciento<\/span>‘s <\/span><\/em>son instead. This time as a conversation between two aged cousins of Juliet’s father. And the authorized version proves that this dialogue was never intended for the father in the first place : completely out of character. And while the additional lines in Q2 reduce Q1’s ‘father’ to an old fool, Q2’s father is reduced to just a shrewd observer in general. To the rather sobering effect that the authorized Q2-edition is in this respect not as good as\u00a0 the ‘corrupt’ Q1.<\/span><\/em><\/h5>\n
The 1624 First Folio copies the Q2-edition to the letter. But that only by manner of speech : the sequence of words may be exactly the same, <\/span><\/em>the spelling of these words is alm<\/span>ost identi<\/span>cal to Q1.<\/span> It even corrects the authorized version of the cousin’s name back to the original <\/span><\/em>Lucentio<\/span>. It is most unlikely that maths will ever accept chance as a statistical possibility for such a level of interaction. Not with one old cousin in Q1, two old cousins in Q2, and three old cousins in the Folio : <\/span><\/em><\/h5>\n
The First Folio therefore identifies\u00a0Q1 by design as an authorized copy.
<\/span><\/em><\/h5>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n
The theory that identifies the Fair Youth from the Sonnets as a player from Shakespeare\u2019s company does agree with the observation that Shakespeare kissed a performer who had no need for make-up to look feminine on stage : \u2018A woman\u2019s face by nature\u2019s own hand painted \/Hast thou the master-mistress of my passion,\u2019 as Sonnet 20 has it. Which line effectively rules Henry Wriothesley (*1573) by age out as the beloved one. What Shakespeare Studies now need is some good evidence to rule out young Edmund as well. \u00a0<\/span><\/em><\/h5>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\nQ1 :\u00a0 21\u00a0 (4) lines …………………..<\/span> More difficult than 1 ; 3, but still within reach of a
\nQ2 :\u00a0 19\u00a0 (4) lines …………………..<\/span> rather young treble.<\/p>\n
\nQ1 :\u00a0 20\u00a0 (8) lines …………………..<\/span> Easy in 1594.
\nQ2 : 42 (18) lines …………………..<\/span> Q2 requires a much better performer.<\/p>\n
\nbalcony scene ……………………….<\/span> for Shakespeare’s favourite. But Juliet V is the
\nQ1 : 31 (10) lines ……………………<\/span> obvious assignment. The correction resulted in
\nQ2 : 37 (10) lines …………………..<\/span> both Quarto’s in a line number signature.<\/p>\n
\nQ1 :\u00a0 11 (4) lines …………………….<\/span> Few lines, but they demand the best that a performer of
\nQ2 : 13 (8) lines …………………….<\/span> fourteen can give in dramatic expression<\/p>\n
\n…………………………………………….<\/span> = first treble ; age ca. 15
\n…..<\/span> Christopher Beeston<\/a> (*1579 or \u201880)
\nThis share of Juliet must be at the limit of a treble’s capacity. And scene 3 ; 5b may therefore have been played by Juliet V instead. Which is the boy who is with Romeo on the balcony in scene 3 ; 5a.<\/p>\n
\nQ1 : 64 (22) lines …………………..<\/span> leading treble. But he leaves the exchange of wedding
\nQ2 : 78 (22) lines ………………….<\/span> promises to his successor in 2 ; 2b.<\/p>\n
\nQ1 : 40 (12) lines …………………..<\/span> Q1 shows some evident omissions, which also accounts
\nQ2:112 (35) lines …………………..<\/span> for Q1\u2019s slightly shorter version of the nurse\u2019s part. Rather …………………………………………….<\/span> than being omitted, however, the impressive opening
\n…………………………………………….<\/span> monologue in Q2 seems to be an augmentation of the
\n…………………………………………….<\/span> original four-line intro. Likewise, Q1\u2019s compact expression
\n…………………………………………….<\/span> of Juliet\u2019s conflict of loyalties in her dialogue with the
\n…………………………………………….<\/span> nurse is not really looking like a reduced version of Q2’s
\n…………………………………………….<\/span> emotional roller-coaster.<\/p>\n
\nmain stage ……………………………<\/span> treble to perform in a single scene of Twelfth-Night<\/em>. In
\nQ1 : 46\u00a0 ( 8) lines …………………..<\/span> Q1 this scene may have suffered the occasional omission,
\nQ2 : 67 (10) lines …………………..<\/span> but is in outlines a shorter part for a younger Juliet.<\/p>\n
\nQ1 : 36 (11) lines …………………….<\/span> acting Juliet\u2019s state of mind in two very different en-
\nQ2:48(18) lines 2 …………………..<\/span> counters. Which makes the part in both versions highly\u00a0 …………………………………………….<\/span> sensitive for \u2018singing\u2019 in the required rythm and …………………………………………….<\/span> intonation.<\/p>\n\n
Apart from twelve lines for Juliet, Q1 omits both the friar\u2019s words on \u2018a bride <\/span>in the morning\u2019 and their upbeat by Paris. That is cunning design, and not quite <\/span>what one should expect from a bad copy.<\/span><\/em><\/h5>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\nQ1 : 22 (18) lines ……………………<\/span> looking like a reduced version of Q2\u2019s emotional roller-
\nQ2 : 55 (44) lines …………………..<\/span> coaster. The impressive closing monologue in Q2
\n…………………………………………….<\/span> therefore seems to replace Juliet\u2019s original eighteen
\n…………………………………………….<\/span> line speech. And again a scene seems to have been
\n…………………………………………….<\/span> rewritten on a treble\u2019s much improved skills.<\/p>\n
\n…………………………………………….<\/span> = age ca. 13
\n…..<\/span> Nicholas Tooley<\/a> (*1582 or \u201883)
\nBy lack of choice a rather young performer again, but this boy is said to have performed his first woman part at the age of seven.<\/p>\n
\nQ1 :\u00a0\u00a0 7 (7) lines …………………….<\/span> versa).\u00a0 \u2018Younger than 14 is old enough,\u2019 is the gist of
\nQ2 : 12 (7) lines …………………….<\/span> the reply by Paris on Old Capulet’s doubts.<\/p>\n
\nQ1 : mute …………………………….<\/span> not that long, attention is diverted to other actors, and
\nQ2 ; mute …………………………….<\/span> a fourposter has curtains.<\/p>\n
\n…………………………………………….<\/span> = changing voice ; age ca. 15
\n….. <\/span>John Duke<\/a> (*unknown)
\nIt is a rare privilege to witness a voice to break just for the fun of it. Duke is probably of the right age to do the trick. But so is Gabriel Spenser, and this reconstruction may have put the occasional right name in the wrong place.<\/p>\n
\n…………………………………………….<\/span> with romantic fancies. Before she is in again, she
\n…………………………………………….<\/span> plans her marriage like a mature woman.
\nQ1 : 23 (7) lines ……………………. <\/span>Did someone say that teenage children
\nQ2 : 24 (6) lines …………………… <\/span>can\u2019t make lovers?<\/p>\n
\nbalcony scene ……………………….<\/span> this scene\u2019s accurate duplication of Juliet\u2019s lines. Only
\nQ1 : 31 (10) lines ……………………<\/span> at the transition from balcony to main stage the Quarto
\nQ2 : 37 (10) lines …………………..<\/span> versions begin to deviate.<\/p>\n\n
When it comes to style basics, sharp contrast is a rather unexpected feature in a piece of Art <\/span>from 1594 London. But this performer-based contrast is just its least visible <\/span>manifestation : the play has a sharp division halfway, where tragedy takes <\/span>over from comedy. The division itself is in the tragic death of comedy\u2019s <\/span>incarnation Mercutio, while all tragedy follows from the uplifting death of <\/span>mirthless Tybalt. Who, unlike Mercutio, is generally bewailed as a victim. <\/span><\/em><\/h5>\n
In the feud of two great houses, the Montagues are consistently at the <\/span>receiving end of harrassment and provocation, yet Old Capulet is hated without <\/span>hating. As Juliet\u2019s father he is instrumental to the plot, and its starring part <\/span>as in \u2018star to star-crossed lovers\u2019. His counterpart, Old Montague, is by his <\/span>two scenes literally marginalized. And so on.<\/span><\/em><\/h5>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n….<\/span> I ……………..<\/span> 1 ; 3 ………………………..<\/span> piece of cake …………………………………..<\/span> piece of cake
\n…..<\/span>I …………….<\/span>\u00a0 1 ; 5 (+ R) ………………..<\/span> moderate (easy)…………………………<\/span> moderate (easy)
\n….<\/span>II …………….<\/span> 2 ; 5 ………………………..<\/span> moderate …………………………………..<\/span> moderate (diff.)
\n….<\/span> I ……………..<\/span> 2 ; 6 (+ R) ………………. <\/span>piece of cake …………………………………..<\/span> piece of cake
\n….<\/span> V …………….<\/span> 3 ; 5a (balcony) ……..,..<\/span> moderate (diff.) …………………………<\/span> moderate (diff.)
\n….<\/span> I …………….<\/span> 4 ; 2 ………………………..<\/span> piece of cake …………………………………..<\/span> piece of cake
\n…<\/span> IV ……………<\/span> 4 ; 5 ………………………..<\/span> piece of cake …………………………………..<\/span> piece of cake
\n….<\/span>II …………….<\/span> 5 ; 3 (+ R) ……………….<\/span> moderate (easy) …………………………<\/span> moderate (easy)<\/p>\n
\n….<\/span> III ………….<\/span> 3 ; 2 ………………………..<\/span> challenging ………………………..<\/span> extremely challenging
\n…..<\/span>III …………<\/span>\u00a0 3 ; 5b (main stage) ……<\/span> challenging ………………………..<\/span> extremely challenging
\n….<\/span> III ………….<\/span> 4 ; 1 ………………………\/.<\/span> extremely challenging …………<\/span> extremely challenging
\n….<\/span> III ………….<\/span> 4 ; 3 ………………………..<\/span> challenging ………………………..<\/span> extremely challenging<\/p>\n\n
Q1 divides the five scenes once more along the Golden Section. Here devised as 2 : 3. In the process enhancing the central position of scene 3 ; 5b (the Golden Section’s regular proportion). Scene 3 ; 5a (the play’s overall centre) is the fifth scene of 8 (Golden Section as 3 : 5) and 13 (Golden Section as 5 : 8).<\/span> <\/em><\/h5>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
As it happens, Dame Fortune has not the skills to handle the Golden Section. Just a pity then, that this objective classification of scenes is achieved by subjective personal judgement. And its decision on scene 4 ; 1 looks particularly dodgy. Downgrading seems appropriate. But not size is the problem here : the contrast in moods makes Juliet’s part highly sensitive on rhythm and melody. A level of singing her lines that resulted in ‘extremely challenging’ as the first impression. And this impression was on record long before a mathematical picture could emerge from the procedure. In consequence the entire classification procedure has been performed in full disregard of the effect of individual cases on the overall mathematics.<\/span><\/em><\/h5>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
\nI met the youthfull Lord at Lawrence cell.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n
\nNurse, will you go with me to my Closet, ……<\/span> (5 before, 3 behind)<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n