Henry, would it be possible for you to include the act/scene/line references when you quote from the plays in your Shakespeare essays? It would make it a lot easier to find them when I'm taking notes.
Am I the only one that sees this as a story about genuine love? Am I a shmuck?
Just to play devil's advocate here (because, Henry, you do make a very convincing argument about Romeo's dark side), maybe your essay puts too much emphasis on the internal madness of Romeo. I think the madness in this play is 50:50, within Romeo and without.
So the play is really two plays overlapping one another...'Why art thou Romeo' layered on top of 'Why art thou mad, Romeo?' If we lean into either reading too far then we end up with less complexity, less potency. (The 'Why art thou Romeo' version gives us the madness of society. There is a degree of irrationality in power, dependency, survival, and nurturing. In all things human, I guess.)
"From forth the FATAL loins of these two foes"...the prologue does insist on the "fate" reading. But I would say--and maybe you would agree--that this is not the fate of predestination but rather the highly contingent nature of existence. We don't get to choose our families. We don't get to choose which country we are born into nor when we are born. We don't get to decide beforehand whether or not we have good parents or grandparents, wealth, good schools nearby etc.
Romeo's despair and madness are what lead him to Juliet. As you point out, these qualities also provoke his barbarism. But he still loves her and she him beyond measure.
When we keep both plays at 50:50 without pushing too far in either direction then the production comes alive in its darkest complexity. As George Eliot said, "Appetite is the ancestor of tyranny, but it is also the ancestor of love."
I like this. There’s definitely a lot in the text about the social failure surrounding R&J. And no doubt the love is genuine. Critics point to it being an ensemble play because that is how Shakespeare emphasises the social failure. Major parts for the people who don’t control the chaos. Fatal means deadly, I think, but there are elements of fate in the prologue for sure, star crossed for example. The interesting question is why this play isn’t a comedy—and yes it’s part the society part them.
1599 mentions "the clown" part as a possibility although that might have been in reference to a different play. that book talks about how the clown actor would have minor roles and seemed to be included as comic relief. in R&J i suppose this would be the servant that Old Capulet sends out with his list of invites to the ball. the servant cracks some jokes about not being able to read and then he runs into Romeo in the street. that is how Romeo sees the list of invitees which includes Rosaline.
there would be a nice poetry to it if this same actor performed the prologue, i think.
Henry, would it be possible for you to include the act/scene/line references when you quote from the plays in your Shakespeare essays? It would make it a lot easier to find them when I'm taking notes.
Will try, not always easy when I’m editing. I keep a browser tab open with the plays text in (Folger good for this) if I need to search for a ref.
Hi Everyone!
Am I the only one that sees this as a story about genuine love? Am I a shmuck?
Just to play devil's advocate here (because, Henry, you do make a very convincing argument about Romeo's dark side), maybe your essay puts too much emphasis on the internal madness of Romeo. I think the madness in this play is 50:50, within Romeo and without.
So the play is really two plays overlapping one another...'Why art thou Romeo' layered on top of 'Why art thou mad, Romeo?' If we lean into either reading too far then we end up with less complexity, less potency. (The 'Why art thou Romeo' version gives us the madness of society. There is a degree of irrationality in power, dependency, survival, and nurturing. In all things human, I guess.)
"From forth the FATAL loins of these two foes"...the prologue does insist on the "fate" reading. But I would say--and maybe you would agree--that this is not the fate of predestination but rather the highly contingent nature of existence. We don't get to choose our families. We don't get to choose which country we are born into nor when we are born. We don't get to decide beforehand whether or not we have good parents or grandparents, wealth, good schools nearby etc.
Romeo's despair and madness are what lead him to Juliet. As you point out, these qualities also provoke his barbarism. But he still loves her and she him beyond measure.
When we keep both plays at 50:50 without pushing too far in either direction then the production comes alive in its darkest complexity. As George Eliot said, "Appetite is the ancestor of tyranny, but it is also the ancestor of love."
I like this. There’s definitely a lot in the text about the social failure surrounding R&J. And no doubt the love is genuine. Critics point to it being an ensemble play because that is how Shakespeare emphasises the social failure. Major parts for the people who don’t control the chaos. Fatal means deadly, I think, but there are elements of fate in the prologue for sure, star crossed for example. The interesting question is why this play isn’t a comedy—and yes it’s part the society part them.
thanks! I didn't entirely convince myself but figured I would give it a shot.
what actor/part would have delivered the chorus/prologue when the play was initially staged?
Oh I’m not sure… I’ll see if I can find out
1599 mentions "the clown" part as a possibility although that might have been in reference to a different play. that book talks about how the clown actor would have minor roles and seemed to be included as comic relief. in R&J i suppose this would be the servant that Old Capulet sends out with his list of invites to the ball. the servant cracks some jokes about not being able to read and then he runs into Romeo in the street. that is how Romeo sees the list of invitees which includes Rosaline.
there would be a nice poetry to it if this same actor performed the prologue, i think.
Ah yes that makes sense esp as there’s no fool part as such in randj