Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T14:41:58.418Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Thematic Framework of Romeo and Juliet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2020

Lawrence Edward Bowling
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Although Romeo and Juliet is one of the most popular and best-loved of all Shakespeare's plays, rivaled only by Hamlet, those best qualified to evaluate Shakespeare's works usually speak of it condescendingly as a nice but immature play on the theme of young love. The apologetic attitude of these critics is based upon two incorrect assumptions. Perceiving within the tragedy no intellectual framework, they have concluded that it has no central unifying theme; disturbed by the presence of various apparently discordant elements, especially in technique, they have sought to account for (or excuse) these on the basis of the author's immaturity at the time the play was written. Dowden calls this play “the work of the artist's adolescence”, and Grant White, going far in this direction, attributes certain of the most controversial passages to a period earlier by several years than the rest of the play.

Type
Research Article
Information
PMLA , Volume 64 , Issue 1: Issue 1 part 1 , March 1949 , pp. 208 - 220
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1949

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The word dignity is sufficiently comprehensive in meaning to imply that the two families are equal not only in outward social rank but also in inward moral principles. This point of view is strictly adhered to by all unprejudiced persons in the play, particularly the Friar.

2 There are two contradictory points of view commonly taken regarding the Friar. Dowden sees him merely as a somewhat comical old codger interested in biology but uninformed in the science of human nature. Gervinus sees him as Shakespeare's mouthpiece for moderation. Dowden's position seems to me completely untenable since Shakespeare at no point in the play departs fundamentally from Arthur Brooke's portrayal of this aged holy man:

Not as the most was he, a gross unlearned fool,
But doctor of divinity proceeded he in school....
The bounty of the friar and wisdom hath so won
The townsfolks' hearts, that well nigh all to Friar Laurence run,
To shrive himself; the old, the young, the great and small;
Of all he is belovèd well, and honoured much of all.
And, for he did the rest in wisdom far exceed,
The prince by him, his counsel craved, was holp at time of need.
With this description may be compared Capulet's remark in the play: “this reverend holy friar, all our whole city is much bound to him.” To have Romeo and Juliet looking for guidance to such a character as Dowden describes would be to lower them in our estimation and dwarf their tragedy into a farce. Gervinus, in taking the Friar seriously, comes much nearer the mark, but misses the central point of the play by seeing moderation as the primary element in the Friar's philosophy. Although the Renaissance ideal of temperance is found in, or can be educed from, most of his speeches, the basic philosophy with which the Friar is chiefly concerned is much more complex and far more comprehensive than the simple idea of moderation.

3 In only three of the villain plays—Othello, King Lear, and Cymbeline—does the word appear more often. Originally referring to a low person economically and socially, it had come in Shakespeare's time to designate a low person intellectually or morally. In Romeo and Juliet, the word is used only once to refer to a servant; all the other times it is used disparagingly to signify low culture and moral degradation.

4 The worst that Romeo calls Paris is “boy”, and this action may be contrasted with Tybalt's calling Romeo “boy” during their duel. Compared with the more mature Romeo, Paris really is a boy. Therefore the use of this term by Romeo does not reflect upon the speaker. However, when Tybalt had called Romeo “boy”, the term did reflect upon the immaturity of the speaker, since it was Tybalt, and not Romeo, who revealed himself as being more the boy.