The once-respected name of Britannica has really sunk. In an article on Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, they misquote and misinterpret the most famous line of the play, while thinking they’re correcting a misconception.

The most famous line of the play, “Wherefore art thou, Romeo?”, is often misinterpreted. The archaic word wherefore does not mean “where”, but “why”, rendering the modern English translation as “Why are you, Romeo?”

That’s not what the line is! It’s “Wherefore art thou Romeo?” with no comma. Juliet isn’t asking why Romeo exists. She’s asking why he’s Romeo — meaning why he is Romeo Montague, a member of an enemy family. The next lines make this clearer: “Deny thy father and refuse thy name, Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love, And I’ll no longer be a Capulet.”

It’s one thing for non-specialists to misunderstand sixteenth-century English. It’s another for hacks, leaning on the name of a once-famous encyclopedia, to screw up while pretending they’re more competent than the average high school student. Any website trying to cover the whole range of human knowledge will have errors, but this is one of the most widely discussed literary misreadings in English literature. There’s no excuse.

The article correctly notes that the Montagues and Capulets existed in literature before Shakespeare. It says that they “originated in the Divine Comedy by the Italian author Dante Aligheri.” In Purgatorio, there’s a passing reference to “Montecchi and Cappelletti”; Shakespeare altered the names for English-speaking audiences. Dante doesn’t explain, but other sources indicate they represented two political factions in Lombardy. Contrary to Britannica’s claim, Dante didn’t “originate” the names; they belonged to real people.

For extra amusement, their article on Nashua, New Hampshire has an uncredited photograph of the city hall which I took with a cheap camera back in 2006. I think I uploaded it to Wikipedia, so it’s legitimate for them to use it, but I’m not even close to a professional photographer.

Wherefore are they Britannica, if they can’t keep up its good name?