Romeo and Juliet’s originally charitable love

From self-transcending to self-centered affection

---

As nuptial love makes, [charity] perfects mankind

—Robert Burton, The Anatomy of Melancholy (1621)

---

In Shakespeare’s principal source, Arthur Brooke’s Romeus and Juliet, the lovers seek to reconcile their families and bring peace to their city. And say so many times. 

For example, Juliet tells Romeus early on that she hopes their “alliance may procure / Unto our houses such a peace as ever shall endure” (427-8).

Later, she speaks of trying to “appease our fathers’ strife, which daily groweth still” (1118-9). 

Later still, as Romeus counsels Juliet on how to endure his exile, he tells her,  

One thing there was I did above the rest desire
To which as to the sovereign good by hope I would aspire.
That by our marriage mean we might within a while,
To work our perfect happiness, our parents reconcile. (1159-62)

A “sovereign good.” That which he desires “above” all else. For Romeus, reconciling their parents isn’t an afterthought. It’s a chief consideration. A principal motivation. 

Our happiness, our parents’ happiness—these things are inseparable, he says, expressing a remarkably selfless and mature perspective.

As such, Brooke’s lovers aren’t just about themselves. They hope their love will grow and spread. That it will transform the place they live.

How about in Shakespeare’s retelling?

Surely his lovers aspire to the same. Surely Romeo and Juliet, like their literary precursors, wish for and strive for peace, explicitly and repeatedly. Surely Shakespeare, using his superior poetic talent, takes this same sentiment—and makes it still more beautiful and powerful.

But no. They don’t say it more powerfully. Don’t say it at all. Rather, in stark contrast to his source, Shakespeare's lovers never once speak of reconciling their parents. Of helping end the feud. Of contributing to some greater good outside themselves.

Not when they meet. Not when they marry. Not when they die. Not. one. time. 

And I’m not alone in observing this. As another scholar writes,

Nowhere in the play do Romeo and Juliet view their love as a means of bringing the families together.

In fact, there’s a moment when another character mentions the idea to Romeo. And how does he respond? By ignoring it altogether.

In particular, after agreeing to wed the couple, Friar Laurence tells Romeo he’s going ahead in the specific hope that the marriage will help end the interfamilial enmity. “In one respect I’ll thy assistant be,” the Friar tells Romeo,

For this alliance may so happy prove
To turn your households’ rancor to pure love. (2.3.97-9).

And what does Romeo say next? Does he affirm the same? Does he answer, Yes, that’s my—our—principal concern and aspiration? Does he say, I ask not for myself alone. I ask for our families? 

No. Answers with the purest indifference. The purest self-interestedness. With a reiteration of his own desires. With the words, 

O let us hence! I stand on sudden haste. (2.3.100).

With, that is, Can we hurry up already? I have a girl to marry, a marriage to consummate. Places to go, people to do.

(Romeo’s use of “stand” appears blatantly if unwittingly sexual, the verb suggesting male arousal throughout the play. For example, the servants use the term this way in the opening scene, including in Samson’s statement, “Me they shall feel while I am able to stand, and tis known I am a pretty piece of flesh” (1.1.29-30)).

Clearly, bringing love to the families is the last thing on Romeo’s mind. Indeed hasn’t crossed it. Before: a priority. Now: a non-consideration. 

Do you see the significance of this? Wishing for peace. Striving for peace… It’s the lovers’ most redeeming sentiment! Most favorable quality. An ambition that, in the original story, made it difficult not to admire them. 

And Shakespeare’s taken it—and scrubbed it.

For all the supposed beauty of Romeo and Juliet’s words, all the supposed beauty of their sentiments, not once in the entire play does either give voice to any concern whatever for their kindred or community. 

Rather, in another easy-to-miss but profoundly important departure—in a change that, to my knowledge, has never received a word of commentary—Shakespeare’s made Romeo and Juliet—about Romeo and Juliet. And not one. person. else.

This is no small change. No minor omission. Rather, Shakespeare’s denying his couple something. Do you see what?

Concern for others.

Altruism.

The preeminent quality of love, properly defined. As he himself defines it in Love’s Labor’s Lost, where the men must learn compassion for others before the women will take them seriously as prospective spouses. 

Where Berowne, for example, must spend a year trying to bring mirth to the sick and dying in a hospital (5.2.943-4). 

Charity.

---

Subscribe

Subscribe to get an email when I post a new article—every 2 weeks or so.