One of the most common mistakes in literary criticism is the presumption that Romeo and Juliet is about “true love”. I was taught at high school, as most high schoolers are still taught, that Romeo’s love for Rosaline is false whereas his love for Juliet is true. In fact, as Shakespeare clearly intended and as the text of the play equally clearly demonstrates, Romeo is a cad who leads an innocent thirteen-year-old astray.
I invite those who are still inclined to see Romeo as a romantic hero to read the article that I wrote recently for Catholic World Report:
So the balcony scene is really one of seduction.
We must cheer for the Montagues, Capulets.
They deserved their end.
Is that what Shakespeare intended?
I see the evidence, but I don’t FEEL it.
Mr. Pearce,
Thank you for this explanation of Romeo and Juliet. Whatever I learned back in high shool (cough, over 23 years ago) has been lost but I know it could not of been the truth. The truth in your article rings loudly, it rings with a knowledge that one knows that it is indeed true.
It is amazing what society has lost and how goodness has been twisted.
May the Holy Spirit continue to guide your pen in bringing more truth to the world from ages past.
God bless.
“Thanks is the highest form of thought.” – G. K. Chesterton
I am in the postition of a sulky child-maybe what you say is true, but I don’t really want to hear it.
I can’t quite let it go. What about Mercutio? Romeo’s words-‘you speak of nothing’
Does Romeo ‘speak of nothing’? Are all his words just to get her into bed?
It is very bold of you. You’re going against 300 years of interpretation.
And it occurs-how would a production of it-reflect this meaning?
How could an actor possibly play a caddish conniving Romeo?
Sensum fidelium comes to mind. That the faithful understand instictively the faith.
Maybe I’ll coin a new phrase-sensum artisticum. That actors, directors even playgoers have an instinctive understanding of plays.
Isn’t Romeo searching for the truth of things from the word go? But when it comes to love basically he turns into an opportunist.
James, I discuss Mercutio at length in my book. I can’t possibly do so here.
I’m not going against 300 years of interpretation just a century or so of nonsense.
A close reading of Romeo’s actual words will illustrate that he is not in the least bit interested in the truth of things. Read his responses to Friar Lawrence’s wisdom.
It would be very easy to portray Romeo as a cad. It would only need an honest director who will allow himself to be directed by the text of the play.
I think you’re right about Romeo–but I also think you attribute too much innocence to Juliet. Virginity does not equate innocence. Nor does an insistence on holy marriage “first”. She did something BIG, as big as Eve, in disobeying her father. Did she ask him if she could marry Romeo? Of course not. Why not? Right.
Dena, I don’t mean to exonerate Juliet. She has free will and is partially responsible for her downfall. It is a fact, however, that Shakespeare makes her only 13 years old, several years younger than in the source poem from which the Bard took his inspiration. Her tender years invites an element of sympathy. And, yes, she was wrong to marry Romeo without seeking her father’s consent. That being said, Capulet’s a pretty awful father!
Joseph,
You show the proper behavior of a young man and Romeo’s deviance from it, and yes–Shakespeare emphasizes the cad-nature of Romeo and the innocence of Juliet by making R older and J younger. But–he had a daughter Juliet’s age–right? His sympathy may be expected to be on Juliet’s side just the way any good father’s would.
Juliet–in a paternalistic world–would obey first father, then husband (as her mother demonstrates to perfection). But she disobeys. That can’t be ignored. Yes, Romeo is a cad. But Juliet is not “innocent”—–as a girl would be if she obeyed her father.
Dena,
I’m not sure that I disagree with you because I’m not sure that we’re in disagreement.
In my book I make it perfectly clear that Juliet is responsible for her “fall” from the balcony. I am merely saying that Shakespeare’s decision to make her so much younger than his source, only thirteen-years-old, is indicative of the degree of sympathy for her plight that is implied by Shakespeare’s decision to transform her from a woman to a child. Let me end with a question: Why did Shakespeare decide to make her so much younger than Romeo?
We’re not at all in disagreement, Joseph. I think Shakespeare’s sympathy is (admirably) paternal. If Juliet’s father had known what was happening out on that balcony, he’d have set the hounds to Romeo. And he wasn’t even a good father!
Sometimes, though, it’s actually true that “father knows best.” And though his timing is shocking, and his behavior toward his daughter inexecusable, her father was right: Paris would have made a fine husband for Juliet (in a few years). I have no patience with that irresponsible nurse, but about that, she was right.
*Especially* because she was a child, Juliet should have sought her father’s consent. He wouldn’t have given it, of course, but it’s what she should have done.
Nobody in this play is completely innocent. “All are punish’d.” That’s what happens when Bacchus rules. And in R&J, he ruled everybody, including Juliet.