Juliet’s birthday by Lamma’s date will be July 31st

By 

Sampson Iroabuchi Onwuka

Shakespeare’s immortal classic ‘Romeo and Juliet’ is one the best known Plays about love and hate between families – (Italian families) - who will not quit or bury their past. Shakespeare’s ‘Romeo and Juliet’ is a tragedy since love was drowned by the prejudices of hate in the great unraveling of Drama that goes beyond the two families. The families of the two protagonist after this incident tried to bury their past. The Drama of Romeo and Juliet is more profound than Sophocles’ ‘Oedipus Rex’ (King Oedipus; Oedipus the King)-, which is by far Sophocles’ best Play - although Antigone has a lot to say about it. Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet is one of the best Drama Yet and its theme of Love reconciled by death and Sacrifice ranks with Homer’s inexhaustible war Epic the ‘Iliad’. Other stories and Plays worthy of recognition may be Said of Snofu Snorri ‘Icelandic Saga’ and the Saga of Gilsi Sunsson, where through self-sacrifice, ‘The End you wanted will come’, which compares with Romeo and Juliet.  It is from Gilsi Sunsson – one of the protagonists that we learn that brutal conflicts may begin out of nothing but explain strange stereotypes associated with strange behaviors.

It may now seem that some of these extra-ordinary Plays and Poetry were based on actual historical events, and in terms of ‘Romeo and Juliet’, the incident took place in Verona which was not  part of Italy in 1288. Popular many sites and sources believe that the incident took place in 1331 and their argument does not merit a case, exist on its own without a line of argument saving the age of Scalingers from Spain. But the Play itself may provide us with some information about the history of the incident, what, where and when it happened. Besides the particularly on place and time which seem obvious, the Play ‘Romeo and Juliet’ contain direct and indirect allusion to the persons of the actor, rare linguistic phylla or near Freudian slips indicative of the origin and racial background of the Montagues and the Capulets. At least we know for sure that we read of Juliet saying that ‘you know’st that the mark of night is in my face’, she is not referring to a face painted darkly painted or the night. She speaks of her face- she gives reason for Romeo not seeing the blush.

From the play we may list the following as Characters of Interest, including a reminding that Verona is the City where in all happened

(1)          Romeo

(2)          Juliet

(3)          The Capulets (Juliet’s family)

(4)          The House of Montague (Romeo’s family)

(5)          Tybalt (Juliet’s Cousin)

(6)          Machusio (Romeo’s friend and Relative)

(7)          The Nurse (Juliet’s Nurse)

It is common sense to include except from the Play ‘Romeo and Juliet’ which may ordinarily reveal information of some interest. We shall also consider,

(I)                Tritons and fizzles in the play.

(II)               The Information about Juliet’s age and date of her birth date, which could promote the history of both Verona and Mantua. 

(1)          Romeo

(2)          Juliet

(3)          The Capulets (Juliet’s family)

(4)          The House of Montague (Romeo’s family)

(5)          Tybalt (Juliet’s Cousin)

It is common sense to include except from the Play ‘Romeo and Juliet’ which may ordinarily reveal information of some interest. We shall also consider.......

But there is no doubt, that Tybalt, Juliet, Lady Juliet, and the Capulets of the Play were Moors or Moorish, Blacks or different shades of Blacks. By the citation of Juliet to Pilgrim’s ‘palm to palm’ (Mediterranean, perhaps Arabic in origin) - we notice a hint of Muslim tradition. Perhaps the Capulets were not Moorish or even blacks but the point survives a second incarnation in interpretation through the early dispatches between Juliet, Lady Capulets, and a certain nurse at the courtyard earlier on the play. These three women sat together discussing Juliet’s future ‘a fortnight and some odd days’ to a certain Lammas’ tide (that is a celebration of new August Moon) – which also indicate their African (Egyptian) or Near East (Asian) origins. Some popular sources have mentioned that the ‘Lammasu’ is also Persian, that it was a common practice in the Mediterranean. No doubt that such practice existed in other places other than Egypt and the Near East (?) we are however concerned with the age of the incident and about the people who were the military and political power house in Venice and Verona in 1288. The incident in Middle East with arrival of Mongols from China and Russia which may happen again in Mediterranean and the Mediterranean which trapped a section them under…..

 The Information about Juliet’s age and date of her birth date, which could promote the history of both Verona and Mantua. 

But let us now consider a more common error with the play ‘Romeo and Juliet’, where many analyst (some of whom are not historians), some of whom have only read so much will lead us into believing that Romeo and Juliet was a story based on some Italian family. Of course, this is arguable true and false, choice is relative to one’s understanding of the world of Italy at the time of Romeo and Juliet.

(2) But one will like to point out that at no point do we discover the word ROME let alone ITALIAN in the whole episode of the Play. We are also looking at the story that probably took place during a certain Earthquake in Verona (Llama’s-Time; possibly meaning harvest or period of Lammas as in late July), which happened according to the Play, three years after the birth of Juliet. The Nurse mentioned that it was 11 years since the Earthquake and from that day till the hour of her speaking, Juliet will be Fourteen.

Going by the Earthquake in the piece, we can say for sure that the only recorded Earthquake in Verona in that era took place in 1277 A.D and on July 20th. From popular sources, it is possible to assert that an Earthquake took place on July 20th 1277 A.D in Verona, that this was probably the earthquake spoken of by the NURSE as docu-drama.

That, Verona in the 13th century A.D was in the hands of the Mamluks of Egypt is common history, and that they ruled it from Venice in spite of the decline of Fatimid who were in power is common history. It is known in History that the last decade of 13th century was a period of hostility against Muslims and others, leading to the MASSACRE of Muslims in Venice and Verona and in parts of Mantua in May 18th 1290. It is possible to also assert that from the day the Scaliger’s arrived at Verona from Spain, they may or may not have added the tension on the ground in Verona. We can state without doubt that these Scaliger supervised the Veronese extension into Venice. It may seem that in the light of the power in Spain and in Venice that these Scaliger’s actually extended the influence of Venice into Verona and not the other way round as ‘popular’ history will seem to indicate.

We can conclude that by 1289 and 1290, much of Verona and Venice were in arms against the Fatimid and such the uprising of the day co-incised with the fall of Fatimid. It would also seem to the best of us that 1289 and 1290 is perhaps a cumulating of series of similar incidents leading to the birth of Juliet and Romeo. These violent episodes may have also shrouded the life of Juliet, that she was already hardened by these strange vignette episodes and public hate at the tender age of 14. Hers, (the Capulets) was a family probably hated for reasons other than faith, yet much like faith, the high prejudice against the Moors and or Syrian Mussulmen reached suicidal proportions in that last decade.

The incident may be part of the general reason for the popular raiser-attack by Mamluks of Egypt in 1291, led by Al-Ashraf Khalil, who as they say (Roger Crowley; City of Fortune; 2011) was determined to ‘snuff’ the life of the Infidel in the Muslim land of Venice. Al-Ashraf Khalil and his group did exactly that on 1st of April 1291, almost a year after the massacre of these Muslims in the streets of Venice. But May 18th 1290 A.D massacre of these Venetians – mostly Moors, particularly Fatimid – began elsewhere but eventually reached Venice in matter of months.

The Venetians were middle men of the Mediterranean and they were mostly Muslims, many of whom were directly from North Africa – for instance the Fatimid and then the Syrian counterparts are notably Easterners or people of the East. They attempted and eventually succeeded to rule the Greek Islands of Ebro and Negro-Ponte (Black mountain, Black Bridge), called Remito by Italians but Remoun by others. The Moors built the connection bridge from Greek Island to the Mainland.

But in context of Romeo and Juliet, Juliet – assuming she was born three years before the Veronese Earthquake of July 20th, 1277 - we may suggest that she was probably born on July 20th 1274 or at least (1273). The second point is that Juliet was ‘14 years’ at the time of the incident – the time the love affair began with Romeo. According to the Nurse, we quote from Act I Scene III “on Lammas-eve at Night shall she be Fourteen”, upon this Lammas day…which is somewhere between the last week/s of July to first week of August –depending on the Christian or Moorish rites, should we hang our nose on Juliet and her birthday. The exact date of Lamma’s-tide is not known in July – but it was the beginning of a new moon which means the date somewhere between July 20-22, prove of such a day for the celebration is the statement by Lady Capulet that the Llama’s (Lemmas) tide on that year would be ‘a forth night and some odd days’.

This point will suggest that the three women, Lady Capulet, the Nurse and Juliet sat together in Verona at the Capulet’s house and on a porch sometime in July 6th 1288 or at least (July 4th or 5th 1288). And this point will necessary be due to the fact that a forthnight and few odd days is two weeks and some odd days (1-3 days or literally meaning a day or two night and 3 days) from the New Moon in July, probably July 19th -21st or July 20th or 21st. In one straight language, we suggest that the Lamma’s tide which the Play speak of and a certain earthquake which the Nurse spoke of, affirm that Juliet’s birthday took place on a certain period of the year fall exactly day on the same day as July 20th of 1274. Once more, we must argue that the Lamma’s tide of each year is by the play is the first day on the New Moon late in July, which possible takes place late in July and not the first day of the New Month, or as the case would seem, 1st of August.

The Actual quote from Shakespeare Romeo and Juliet; Act 1; scene 3, Lines 21-28 a-and 35 – the Nurse speaks to the Madam and to Juliet that “On Lammas-eve at Night shall be Fourteen, ‘Tis since the earthquake now eleven years. And she was wean’d – I never shall forget it. Of all the days of the year upon that day; for I had laid wormwood to my dug, sitting in the sun under the dove house wall; My lord and you were then at Mantua….V.35 ‘And since that time it is eleven years.”

From July 20th 1274 A.D (Juliet’s probable date of birth) to next fourteen years, should be close to 1288 A.D. At most, we can give it 1289 or at least 1287 A.D, but the incident of Romeo and Juliet most probably took place between 1288 and 89. At least, the 14th birthday of Juliet should fall between 1288 and 89 – and perhaps that scene with the Nurse would seem early in the play for a reason, and since the play is a series of incident that took place over a period of time, it is common sense to place 1288 as the year of occurrence leading perhaps through the year to next year 1289.

There is little doubt the year/s 1288-89 is wrong and there is every reason to believe that incident with Romeo possibly happened in the summer of 1288. The dates which appear elsewhere, for instance the 1331 dates as the year of Juliet birthday may be wrong, equally wrong is the preposition that Juliet’s birthday by Lamma’s date will be July 31st or 1st of August 1331. This date is completely arbitrary of the Play and probable – if not actually wrong. Going by the Play, the right date for Juliet’s birthdate is July 20th 1274. The historical fact that supports this reduction is that by 1331 much of Verona and Venice were directly under the thumb of one major party and one major force, the Egyptian Mamluks. They remained popular and territorial in Venice from 1093 till the 1800, interspersed by the brief collapse of the Fatimid at the middle of the 13th century A.D.    

We can also affirm that a quarrel existed between two groups of Veronese is also not in doubt, one would suggest that the quarrel was with people who made their homes in of people from Greek Islands who made home in Verona and another were these Venetians or Moorish Middle men. But the story takes a different form from there.  Above all, we can suggest that it is not a co-incidence that the very next year ‘1290’ was the year of the popular of Muslim massacre in Venice, all of which relate to the tension between several groups at the 13th century. 

So we get from this small historical sketch that an earthquake occurred three years after the birth of Juliet. That Juliet parents travelled to Mantua that night, that eleven years had passed since that last Earth quake which took place on Lamma’s Night, and in this (that) ‘year’ Juliet would be fourteen. The Nurse in this her narrative mentions Mantua, Mantua as we know too well, is one of the few towns and provinces that were “intermittently” under the control of the Moors. In fact all its history is full of decorated Moorish families.

After the Moors and a certain group of Normans burnt half Venice in 1093 or thereabout, they not only rebuilt Venice – although some claimed that the burning was not the direct result of the Moorish blockage of the sea – these Muslims reduced the rest of Venice to Ashes and remolded Venice it into their taste, including Sicily (their main house), Milan, Verona, Mantua, etc. 

As soon as Rome was sacked 1085 A.D the rest of the provinces in Italy, easily felled into the hands of Muslims leading to a new direction from the sea. Mantua and eventually Milan is also important because of Ludovico Il Moro – whose father was Ludovico Gonzaga; was one of the last Moorish family. It is possible that the family adopted Christianity or had been Christians like many Jews who are true to their color; Niiji, Nijri, Nigish, (Persians Djinn/Black/origin/Eugene) while Ethiopians were regarded as Nigarimi. The reason why this is important is that Gonzaga became prominent in the 13th century and they were just another Moorish family or some group that benefitted with the return of Mamluks.

Even in Africa, the Mizrahi were separated from other JEWS following the rise of the Al-mohovids. One of the people we remember from that era is Abraham Ibn Ezra, who lived in Africa at the turn of the 12th century. He was eventually exiled from Africa unlike Saadih Gaon, who was Moorish; i.e. Mizrahi Jew, and who earned the permission to remain in Alexander and Cairo, leading to his revolution of Hebrew. He was not the only Moorish Jew in Cairo but others such as Ibn Ezra, who was not directly Mizraayim, were not so lucky. We remember Ibn Ezra for a lot of things but also for his famous letters and poetry, especially the saying, ‘if my candles were Diamond; the “sun for sorrow will not show itself’”, a quote which also managed appeared in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet.

We also know that the name Romeo is realized version of the more common name used in the Play, for instance ‘Remito’ (Remoun). This part is confusing, for we can suggest that a thousand references exist for Romeo as Italian and they may be correct.  The case will however take a new form when we note that names such as Montague and Machutio of the house of Montague is relatively obscure name for an Italian, the name is remotely associated with French but since 75% of French is Latin, the names such Machutio and Montague is neither French nor Latin, nor Greek. As such, Romeo as Remoun and Remito is also a misnomer.

Montague seems to have meaning within a period of world history and a period of classic Latin that is not accessible. For instance, Montague really means ‘Black Mountain’ – a name that is closer to Spanish than Latin. Black Mountain (Negro Ponte) also like (Montenegro) in current Latin is ‘Negro-Ponte’ and is/was part of the Greek Island which included Ebro (Portuguese Ibo, a valley associated JEWS). In essence, the quarrel was between the Montagues –possibly referring to immigrants from the Greek Islands or Remito – also called Raytheon and Remoun – struggling to free themselves and others from the New Venetian Moors who were originally from North Africa and who successfully forced the Greek Islands into submission in the early part of 12TH Century after the Greek Island resisted for a century. The strife between took a new form before the end of that century and reached the level that was witnessed in the streets of Verona and Venice, late in 1290.

Historically these Greek Islands were mainly Christians of mixed background, some of whom were Jews – Jews N as they are called – and these people resisted the control of the Sea by Venice until the coming of the Fatimids (whose power waned from the middle of the 12th century) till the Mamluks and the Syrian Nasirid returned with full force. It is possible that the Montagues were Jewish N or possible Jewish people from the Greek Islands, that the Capulate were Arabic in the sense of the Fatimids who were Africans. For all goodness, the Fatimids were not Arabs in modern sense of the language - they were Africans and Syrians but could also include Arabs. It does not mean that the Capulets were actually Fatimids. In essence, the Capulets were Muslims who might or might not be Arabs.

It is quite possible that the two ‘faiths’ here were of Muslim and Jewish recrude but that it is only a possibility. The other possibility is that the quarrel was between two families, Christian and Muslims. The third possibility is that the quarrel is between Jewish families and Christians, and most people will find logic in the last probability. The Capulets were Muslims at the time of the composition of the Play and it is doubtful if Shakespeare’s world knew that world holistic. If William Shakespeare – by the structure of the Play - retained at least half of the story in the original composition, then Shakespeare was a master of records - if not history, and knew about the story quite well. And for that, he should be given the image and title of the man who composed or at least finalized (edited) the best version of Romeo and Juliet.

But these are highly improbable since the nature of the play show nothing of Judaism or Islam saving the mention of Tunic and Turban as one of the costumes of the Capulets. The Play made room for Mask - Capulet’s use of Vixen masks which probably appear during the Play which possibly relate to the incident of the New moon or the Lammas tide or time – being the first day of the New Moon. The use of Masquerades under the New Moon is characteristic of Moors, who also scare the face of their children and fought with Death mask and Sword of Destiny. It is only reasonably to insert that the New Mask is also used by Egyptians during New Moon as a form of Metamorphoses and I guess others in conjuring, exorcising, or celebrating, animal spirit during new moons. An extreme version this case will be the incident of ‘whare wolf’. That the party of antiques and animal mask was a celebration of a New Moon is reasonable, that the party was the Llama’s day spoken of by the Nurse is reasonable, that it was Juliet Birthday is probably.

It is not wrong to state that contrary to what may or may not be perceived as a conflict between two families that these two people and culture are within the same racial bracket and are not White. No offence.  They could be White families but the PLAY like the era about Venice and Verona was an era of truly great governors of these Italian Islands…the Moors.  Further, Shakespeare ‘Romeo and Juliet’ has nothing in common with his England and Britain – despite the embroidery of Susan or thereabout, it is a story that is quite old – possibly took place 300 years before Shakespeare wrote or rewrote his version. The version and verses from the PLAY was a property of the King’s men or Admiral’s MEN…many of whom were Venetian Immigrants. We may raise the plain fact that a reason also exist for     

Some Historians have asked why Shakespeare based much of his plays outside England, especially in what is now Italy, particularly, Venice. The answer is that much of Venice and Verona and parts of Island Cities of Mediterranean were not part of Italy or Rome as the time of Shakespeare’s play. These countries were actually incorporated into a new nation called Italy in the 19th century.

In fact, Historical Plays such as Anthony and Cleopatra, Julius Caesar, Titus Andronicus, attributed to Shakespeare were all set in Rome. Plays such as the Merchant of Venice and Othello were set in Venice, while ‘Romeo and Juliet’ was set in Verona for historical reasons and for the probable fact the incident probably took place during the time of the Salingers from Spain in the 13th century A.D and the Cangrande I (The Great Khan). This titles and history of Verona at this period will probably disappoint many, but going by Ibn Battuta, the Great Khan I was a Muslim and Moors were at the height of their throes in Spain and Europe. The Muslims (Almorovids) were not only the masters of Spain, they, like other Muslims (Fatimids and Mamuluks) were in control of Venice and Verona.

In common sense to the play, we regard that the story that was set in Verona for historical reasons other than its use as an entertaining Play. The Play in of itself IS an Italian Story. It is important to note that these places such as Venice and Verona were not Italian cities until recently.  At such the Play ‘Romeo and Juliet’ enables us to gape into the historical Atlas of Verona at the time of its composition and at the time of the incident. At the time of Romeo and Juliet and at the time of the earliest composition of the Play, Verona like Venice was just another City-state like Rome. These places were probably Christian societies at some point, and in many ways, these Cities were also something else, for instance Venice and eventually Verona was predominantly ruled by Muslims. Venice was Berberini’s (Berbers) home plate.

And going by popular history we may regard Verona as a place that was within the precinct of Roman Government in the 1ST Century before the birth of Christ.

We are concerned with the information contained in a Play that is so many years old. We are concerned that we reading too much into the play, and as such, the importance of the play may be diluted. Lt is without doubt that the information that the Play now provides is of great importance since matters from the Play and after the facts of the Play, would tend to throw light on the probable assumption that Venetians, whose bids, mask, Bronze works of Arts turn up in South East of Nigeria at Igbo Ukwu, may be that far from these Nigerians; the Igbos, the Binis, and the Yorubas of Ile-ife. But this is only after the facts. The tenuous relationship between Igbos (Ibos) of Nigeria and Ebros (Portuguese Ibos) of Greek Islands may serve its own purpose. It is therefore necessary that historical lacunae of ‘Romeo and Juliet’ in context of Venice and Venetians do not disappoint as far as their artifacts discovered in the South East ‘Igbo-ukwu’ of Anambra state will suggest. Are these Venetians and their Moors present in Nigeria, among their Igbos, Bini, Anyang, and the Yoruba of South EAST? Our point may look complex saving for what our short interaction will likely show, that Venetians and their Moors are interesting aspects of world history which is believed to have disappeared.    

From the play we may list the following as Characters of Interest, including a reminding that Verona is the City where in all happened

We are however very sure that the story is only an Italian story irrespective of my position that Romeo and Juliet were probably not White. We are worthy of the information which Romeo and Juliet now provides us. We can say for certain that some of the quotations in Romeo and Juliet, reflects the history at the time of the play. Although the story is set in Verona, it is not incorrect to state that the author of the play William Shakespeare was an English man who lived in 15th century.  It is also possible to indicate that some aspect of Shakespeare life managed to enter into the Play and such lubricated the characters quite well.

Beginning with race, its interpretation is that both the Montagues and the Capulets were perhaps Italian Whites or White others. Very rarely do we find interpretations of the Capulets as anything but Romans or Capulets as anything other than some rich White family. It is actually difficult to find the Montagues cast as Jews in any staging of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet.  And generally speaking, the domineering stay of the Play is about two families who are both alike in dignity. But such incident is not without reason and as far as the opening versions of the Play is concerned we read for instance, the Nurse saying to Romeo “That he that will lay hold of her, we have the Chinks.” What is the ‘Chinks’? It is a kind of money associated with Sailors, usually a form of wealth, jewels, connections or a form of merchant’s twigs that entitles you to row into areas generally monopolized by their kind.  Like a medallion of stones (a twig) and a network click. But such common position and sense is no longer vital and etymology of the chinks and the history it portends is no longer important.   

The reasons are quite obvious on account of what and how Shakespeare is perceived through the very eyes of the people who translate it is ancient sources. That it is written in English may have weight to the fact that much of what they play in very times believes itself to be, is what by circumstances of the yesteryears the play actually is. We must not fail to recognize from the play, a fair amount indicating, that Shakespeare at the time he wrote his book, lived in world that is less divided along racial lines. It is not a co-incidence that the general lens through which we view the story of Romeo and Juliet is through the peering stethoscope of Europe – particularly English speaking, remediating the names as Italians in common sense. 

The reason why it is now important is because the years when such play was merely an act anyone can put on has disseminated into Act that is associated with certain people. In essence, the Play has a historical side which no longer matters, but has become increasingly replaced by the new faces and new people - the Play loses its historicity and become perpetuated as a history from popularity of the Actors against the history of Romeo and Juliet which is on its own. In essence, while it is all a play and an Act - these Plays have historical meaning and historical facts, and it is quite relevant to our intellectual pursuit since the real history may be far from humdrum immediate realities, especially in films and in theatre industries.   

We cannot pretend that some benefit does not exist for pointing up that the two families, including the principal protagonist Juliet and Romeo, were not in history Whites or Romans in spite of it all. It gives one the impression of being an omnibus, an intellectual debonair with something on his sleeves. However dividing this reductionist view may seem, it is without shame the reason for this article, without which many people will not bother with such an idea. In fact, the Play is an archive of history, and understanding the verity of its particulars opens as many doors of illusions it shuts.  

We are sure that the verity of the words by Tybalt’s Aunty (Lady Capulet), who mentioned Act 3 Scene I (178) “Some twenty of them with this Black, strife…Twenty to kill but one life”. While the translation may differ on the point of the diorama unraveling of the Play, the Play sullies on the novae that pretend from that sentence since the line in merest possible extent could read “some twenty of them in this Black strife” in nearly all translations.

The Pontus is not averse to the ‘should have been’ insertion of quality stuff, rather the dive of spear is through the plate of pure grammar and notions of a Shakespeare sentence which converge more gingerly to this translation ‘…with this Black, strife’ as opposed to the popular translation ‘…in this Black Strife’. Whereas the term Black as in itself, is a word in the sentence that portends - or at least refers to a human being, that they it forces itself into the sentence suggest that it is a generic definition of a person, for instance a noun and not nearly a verb by any stretch. But the translation is the matter here. The older versions state the first, the younger and more idled versions of “Romeo and Juliet” char on the second in its ignominy ‘some twenty of them in this black strife’.

It is not without reason that the Play clearly manufactured a part for the Aunt of Tybalt as the Wife of the Capulet – assuming the word Capulet refers to one man - and Play also features her as Juliet’s Mother. Juliet will fall in love with Romeo and Tybalt being her cousin would be slain by Romeo in the play. It points to an Act within the definitions of Reasons, one of which is that Tybalt is the binding tie between Juliet and her mother Lady Capulet. The play may have worked differently had Tybalt being the brother of Juliet’s father. Yes, it may have equally invoked as much concern as the issues about love and hate, but it have inspired a different ends. 

The point survives in several forms largely on the account of Tybalt as the Black with whom Romeo and his friends would have fought – at least going by the exaggerated accounts of Tybalt’s Aunt (sister) by name Lady Capulet, which is a name that suggests that the word Capulet refers to a breed of business elite and family. If Tybalt is Black, his sister or Aunt would not be White, would she? Even if she is, she is not without a ‘shade of Black’ which seems to show up every now and then in Tybalt’s short life in the Play. That means that Juliet was not White either, she was the same race as Tybalt and the same probably goes for the Capulets. Yet again, at the Party in Capulets house which Romeo, Benvolio, and Machutio crashed, we notice Romeo responding to Benvolio who demands “Away be gone, the sports is at its best” referencing that Romeo depart from the house of the Capulets since the ‘sport’ was at its best. Romeo in that Acts 1 Scene 5 answered “Ay, so I fear. The more is my unrest”. There is a possibility that Tybalt noticed Romeo at the Party coming close Juliet and began to suspect the worst. A scuffle may have ensued between Tybalt and Romeo and the hide and seek led to Romeo disappearing and missing in action every now and then. It was perhaps the sports that Benvolio spoke about which was probably angering Tybalt.

Going exclusively by the comment “The more is my unrest”, we dare not mistake our words in saying that this is a case of grammatical blunder. For here, a verb ‘more’ is given the role of a noun, like the incident of statement ‘…with this black strife’ rather than ‘…with this Black, strife’, we notice that ‘more’ is not a noun or a one punch verb. We are drawing your common attention to the improbability of the word ‘more’ as a noun in the sentence, a term which now appear in comparative performance to Shakespeare’s use of the word ‘more’ and seems a proper fit for gullible diametric of Shakespeare works referring  to a set of people we call Moors. Saving the highly pronounced normative of Moor of the Play Othello, he, Othello, would have been bleached by peering ahistorical processes relevant mainly to European Standee and these America.  When we read a stray line from Juliet to Romeo saying in Act 2 Scene 2 “Thou know’st the mark of night is on my face…” we cannot fail to wonder at the disguise of the statement. Was she still wearing a mask long after the party is over, was saying, you can really see my blushing cheek because the face is color of the night, for instance dark. 

As such in this case of Romeo and Juliet, we may note that use of the definite article “the” preceding ‘more’, suggest that the author had a noun in mind. In the circumstance of that scene we may likely and more appropriately mean ‘The Moor is my unrest’ as opposed to the common translation “The more is my unrest”. It is also possible that Romeo’s comments at the time of this statement and sport were referencing ‘Tybalt’ who was very unhappy with Romeo’s presence at their Lamma’s (Lammas – possible referring to the Egyptian Lammasu (Lammesu), night of Golden Sphinx in human form) night of ‘Solemnity’. They may have been scruples and garnishing between Romeo and Tybalt at the Party and at Night. Tybalt was perhaps mocked by Romeo during that night élan, within which Tybalt chased Romeo while he may have disappeared in the dark playing some party hide and seek game. It was a sport that would have gone unnoticed, especially from Juliet.

Prove of this is that Juliet says to Romeo that night (dawn) that if her Kinsmen would find Romeo there, they will kill him and Romeo replied that he had night cloths to hide him from them.

Act 2 Scene II Juliet “How comest thou hither, tell me, and wherefore? The orchard walls are high and hard to climb, and the Place death, considering who thou art, if any of my Kinsmen find thee here….”And Juliet continued in later lines to Romeo, “If they do see thee, they will murder thee” And Romeo replied “I have night’s cloak to hide from their sight,…Let them find me, my life were better ended by their hate”

Second prove of this of this probably scuffle with Tybalt is that Benvolio in consequent scene weighs the possibility of Romeo fighting Tybalt and in the circumstance, Machutio (Mercutio) nearly asserted that Tybalt will Romeo. Preceding the party at the house of Capulets, Romeo and Tybalt never really or ideally met. He may have perhaps heard on him and may have known him or seen, but this would be a first encounter.  It is believed that Tybalt may have been to the house of the Montague to ask Romeo for a duel or some popular sites mentioned, they left a duel note ‘for Romeo at the house of Montague.’ It is strange that Tybalt that next morning discovered Romeo and his friends, and he immediately branded Romeo a Villain. Why didn’t Tybalt brand the rest of the Montagues at the Party ‘Villains’ and why did Tybalt focus on Romeo? The answer is not farfetched, Romeo and Tybalt had a clash at the party and a friendly sport ensued and Romeo was getting restless and had meaning to leave. The Moor he answered Benvolio was his unrest.   

But we notice this comment by Romeo ‘The Moor is my unrest’ as the first and probably only indication that after Tybalt’s death, we find a resonance of Tybalt’s race as ‘Black’ in the Romeo by Tybalt’s Aunt or Sister ‘Lady Capulet’.

A second set of examples concerning the use of the word ‘more’ as opposed to ‘Moor’ during translation should have be discovered in Acts 3 Scene I where Romeo will confront Tybalt following the slaying of his friend and relative Machutio. After the accidental death of Machutio at the hands of Tybalt, Romeo sought revenge and in that Scene spoke these words in Acts 3 Scene I “…Black fate on more day thus depend. This must begin the woe (war) others must end”. This citation “…Black fate on more day (s) thus depend,” is lifted from recent translations of Romeo and Juliet, and the second statement ‘This must begin the woe (war) others must end’ almost naturally justifies the first.

If one is able to look at the first line very closely, he or she will notice a hidden error, that without the second line which gives the first more than one meaning or alternate meanings and interpretations, the first does not mean anything. Assuming we take the first line ‘…Black fate on more day (s) thus depend’ as a point of discourse, we notice that the line is counter-intuitive. Black fate in terms of the line only portends dark days – it does not depend on it. Secondly, it talks about Black fate in terms of future war or woe ‘which others must end’. To be fair some older translations from 19^th century have it thus “This day’s blacke fate, on moe dayes doth depends. This but begins the woe others must end.” This passage and this translation make the case a little off and more difficult from the point of view of the whole Play. It was a Play from its beginning that mentions two households who were enemies and as such the Play was leading to something. These are very bad translations which may or may not stand.

As such the statement that ‘This but begins the woe others must end’ speaks of the here and the now kind of enemy, it seems to suggest that Romeo was going to ‘woe’ the house of Capulets and a war will ensue and others will complete it. It is doubtful that Romeo under regular circumstances will beat Tybalt, and the very point of the Play is that Love that force our hands into actions even we pretend to love. For if the above lines were also accurate, Romeo’s love of Machutio will here seem more mature if not more powerful than his love for Juliet – that’s assuming he loved her all. This may also explain why Tybalt may be cautionary about Romeo interference in their family’s affair. But something deeper runs through Romeo and within inner persons are articles and rags of hate, which make themselves accessible at the time of the fray and then indispensable when finally reached. There was a fate that was coming to these Moors (Conquerors from Venice) and it had to depend on something, something like the death of Romeo’s family member and friend, Machutio. 

For many reasons other than the force and fiery eyes of hate from love, it seems generally very unlikely that Romeo would even dent the cloths of Tybalt. Romeo was not noted as the first among his group and perhaps Tybalt was fired all the more. Unless Romeo from the speech was going to kill Juliet or any Capulet, but then as the play will suggest, Romeo encounters Tybalt who had earlier engaged and killed Machutio (Mercutio).  But the improbability of that is quite evident since Romeo the cause of anger then and in previous encounters has been Tybalt.  But by the translations, he revels on a near apocalypse for the Capulet. Even in earlier departures, we learn from Romeo the fear in his heart that 'misgives' about some 'vile forfeit' waiting to happen. He was entertaining the premonitions of inevitable. A kind of black fate.     

In essence, Romeo was going to fight Tybalt to his death or both, a point he made it clear in his famous line “Now, Tybalt take the “villan” back again that late thou gavest me, for Machutio’s (Mercutio) soul, is but a little way above our heads, staying for thine to keep him company, Either thou or I, or both, must go with him” This was not a fight to slay Tybalt but a fight an only Son could no longer avoid. He seems to suggest that he was confident of killing Tybalt – as if he bore the guy a grudge, but his part in the Play suggest that he has no idea how it will end.

Romeo is speaking as if he is not in the picture, as if it is a war that will not be avoided. The die is cast between Romeo’s people (Montagues) and Juliet’s people (Capulets) and something will have to happen.  From previous scenes leading to this one, this is not a war of ‘us versus them’ rather a finality of either ‘us or them’, their life – our death, or their death or our life in streets of Verona. Many translation grant us this view that we are talking about a kind of black fate which they t=day brought, but this is not the case. Going by the words of Romeo, it seems fairly obvious that this was a kind of long awaited ‘Black Fate’ which their enemies, the Capulets must meet. This is the language of someone not very eager to please, someone who see only war as the only solution to their problems.  We are considering that the word ‘more’ is not by accident, the word ‘more days’ is not a noun, it speaks of no enemy.  When we speak of the right translation of the same line ‘Black Fate on Moor’s day does depend’, we are talking about the thing, a kind of ‘one day’ event that could inspire the unraveling. The long awaited black fate needed something to trigger it, and this death of Machutio was for Romeo the fitting reason for a long awaited apocalypse – so to speak.

Then the Prince mentions that he has interest in her ‘hate proceedings’ (not heart proceedings) underlining a common incident of hate crime against Tybalt. Tybalt angst of Romeo and his people may have its own stories since we cannot rule out the comments of Lady Capulet ‘…some twenty for of them to kill but one life’ as a mere improvisation. She may or may not be drawing from incidents involving Tybalt and others, where in some distant past Tybalt may have been beaten by similar gang, may also pledge the claim from which hence his later mastery of the Sword – perhaps for self-defense, did come. This part was not mentioned in the Play and relatively if not entirely speculative.

It will make additional sense to make the point that the only description of Tybalt in the Play came from Machutio (Mercutio) who died in his sword. It seems anacrusis that the man who praised Tybalt also made a fight against him, and he died as well by Tybalts hands. In Acts II Scene IV, Machutio talks about Tybalt as ‘the very Butcher of Silk Button…’ and goes to a paragraph that is missing from recent translations ‘The Pox of such antique, lipping affecting phantasies, these new tuners of accent; by far a very good blade, a very tall,… a very good whore; Why is not this a lamentable thing grandfin (grandsire)? That we should be thus afflicted with these strange flies, these fashion mongers (possibly moguls), these pardon-mees, who stand so much on new forme (form) that they cannot fit at all on the olde bench. O their bones, their bones. ” Bench warming references is not a question of manners at all, it is a manner of their forms and structures, they are big people and small bench probably affect their manner of sitting. Why won’t they sit down with their new manners on any bench? The ‘olde bench’ was just small, old and uncomfortable – it hurts their bones.  

Unlike several edited paragraphs from ‘Romeo and Juliet’, this one survives translations? This Speech by Machutio (Mercutio) is the only rewarding summary of the whole Aspect of Tybalt and the Capulets. When we hear ‘on my brother’s child’ by lady Capulets, it is as if we are hearing the victim of hate.  And Machutio talked of their ‘lipping’ of such phantasies…meaning that they have big juicy lips as well or deliberately made it so. Even if it reads lisping…it still refers to unusual structure of their upper lips and mouth.  

We cannot fail to grasp from that paragraph and from this Machutio’s speech that Tybalt and the Capulets were new people or immigrants in the block, perhaps a first or second generation aliens, or may be a third - whose accents, bones, color, form, fashion, and strange forms of culture and ardent sword skills are foreign to the Mountagues and their son, Romeo. The ‘Pux (pox) of such antique’ (very dark or very black)…whose ‘forms’ does ‘not fit at all to the olde bench’, are baring description fitting a first and second generation immigrants. They arrived about a time not too far ago and the old bench is small for them. Machutio goes on to say ‘O their bones, their bones’ – either suggesting that these Capulets always complain of their bones after sitting in so old and uncomfortable a bench - that they are hardly Veronese let alone European is also clear. These departures in the writing goes to spook our curiousity as to what Romeo saw in Juliet. Since Machutio in one of those edited lines and paragraph described Tybalt as a ‘first caste’ or class – possibly referring to the immigrants status of Tybalt and some of his people, it is hardly impossible to see why Romeo was taken by Juliet, she was the girl of the time and she came from very manicured healthy class….

Sampson Onwuka Iroabuchi