This was everything. Everything!!! What an experience was to read all that you wrote... This is amazing! Fascinating! Finally!!!! I only read Romeo and Juliet once for a school project and couldn't believe what everyone said about it for ages, they painted it as this great supreme love story that was written in the stars and I was like... Did we read the same book/play? They still do. And I don't know, I may be a little overwhelmed and english isn't my first language so I guess I'm rambling... I never wanted to give any opinion to the story because it seemed it didn't matter against what everyone else said about it but years passed so I probably should read it again to freshen up my thoughts about it. But I'm thrilled! My favorite part was "For 400+ years, we’ve thought of the lovers as helpless victims of outside powers. But according to the nautical motif, the real threat isn’t outside but in. These two are a danger—to themselves."
Thank you so much, Gabriela! That's wonderful to hear! That's exactly how I felt when I first opened the scholarly literature: did we read the same play?! I don't know if you're aware, but most scholars romanticize it. I'm on a mission to prove them wrong. If interested, I present an overview of my argument here: https://johnmcgee.substack.com/p/mixed-up-loversand-mixed-up-critics. Thank you again! Thrilled to have you as a reader. John
You're welcome! And thank you for the support. Been working away on this project for like 15 years now, mostly in isolation, and so it really does mean a lot to me when I get enthusiastic responses such as yours
Why must it be either/or interpretation? Why can't it be "both"? And wouldn't "both" be even more fitting of Shakespeare's genius? Let me try to perform a marriage of the two metaphors -
In the Italian telling of the story, the heroes somehow overcome their emotions and save themselves from the shipwreck - maybe by sheer willpower? Whereas in the Shakespearean version, they are unable to heed the Friar's lesson and save themselves. Why can't they? It is true that they foolishly choose the wrong path; but those choices are a tragic consequence of their fixed characters. Romeo is impulsive; Juliet is fragile. They choose and act accordingly. Given who they are, their fate is sealed. The Italian ending seems to imply an uncaused, free will, deus ex machina ending.
This raises the question: what fixes their character? In Shakespeare's day, character was thought by many to be fixed by the stars. But you can jettison the astrology underpinning and keep the metaphor. (As I suspect Shakespeare intended.) "Star-crossed" then simply means that that their fixed characters are on a collision course that cannot be escaped. Today, we wouldn't attribute a fixed character to the stars, but maybe to genes or childhood experience. We could still refer metaphorically to a fatally flawed character as "star-crossed."
You can see the play as the unfolding of a perilous sea voyage. All of the nautical conceits are still fitting.
So, their fate is star-crossed in both senses at once: they chart a fatal path because they navigate by the wrong lights; but they can't help themselves navigating by the wrong lights because of who they are. Character matters, for good or ill. This is a recurring theme in Othello, Hamlet, Macbeth, etc.
Appreciate the engagement, Grant. In the abstract, it could indeed be as you say, but I'm not aware of evidence from the text to support such a "married" interpretation
Shakespeare's opus is littered with double entendre. Both understandings of "star-crossed" were prevalent in his day; the double entendre couldn't possibly have escaped Shakespeare's notice. The text is ambiguous. Those considerations might not compel, but I think it does gives the critic license to accept the marriage proposal - especially if it augments Shakespeare's genius. (Isn't a marriage license better than a shotgun wedding, anyway? LOL)
Further, as I note above, it is a recurring theme in Shakespeare's opus that tragic outcomes arise due to traits of character that, in the extreme, become flaws. (See Othello, Hamlet, Mcabeth, etc.) Character is destiny. The "Hollywood endings" where leopards suddenly change their spots are more typical of his comedies.
(I understand that Shakespeare began writing "Romeo and Juliet" as a comedy, and later transformed it into a tragedy. Maybe originally he was going to go with the Italian ending, but decided it was unsatisfactory and a tragic ending would serve his purposes better.)
I'm not a literary critic, just a mere philosopher. This is way out of my department. I owned a B&B in Stratford (Ontario) in the 2010s, so I saw a lot of his plays performed to a very high standard. Insights such as yours make the experience all the more enjoyable. I'll rewatch the video of the play again with interest. Thanks.
Nice of you to say! I'm always happy when people say an essay of mine makes them want to return to the text. So much more going on in R&J than most people realize! Cool that you're a philosopher and happy to have you as one of my readers.
This is a very good examination of the text. I'm not surprised that people have not understood the star-crossed reference. There aren't many people who have ever been on a boat, much less used the stars to navigate.
Thank you Joseph! Indeed! I wrote a bit about this in my published essay, which ended as follows: "To conclude, it may be worth underscoring the climate in which Shakespeare's play was composed, for, as Falconer writes, the play was written at a time when there was tremendous enthusiasm for maritime exploration; when bookshops were filled both with manuals about how to navigate as well as accounts of English navigations — including Richard Hakluyt's The Principal Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques and Discoueries of the English Nation, the first edition of which appeared in 1589 — when colleges in London were offering sailors public lectures on astronomy; when along the Thames, for mile upon mile, one would see "nothing but ships and seaman"; and when navigation itself was an issue of "national concern", being of prime importance in the matter of national defence. In this climate, it becomes difficult to suppose that Shakespeare meant for Romeo's conduct and fate to be sympathetic much less romantic."
Thanks again for the like and comment - both are welcome anytime!
Thank you John for highlighting the seafaring references but they compliment rather than negate an astrological reading. There is a whole branch of astrology known as electional astrology which is concerned with finding a propitious time to begin sn enterprise. Romeo feared 'some consequence yet hanging in the stars' but embarked on this course regardless.
Thanks Peter. It's a fair point or question, and one of several passages that I wanted to address, but the essay was already longer than I wanted it to be. Both this reference and another at the end ("O, here / Will I... shake the yoke of inauspicious stars") strike me as deeply ironic, as in both instances Romeo perceives some kind of agency in the stars, but then acts in a blatantly willful way. In the first instance, after perceiving some "consequence" in the "stars," he ignores the warning and goes recklessly ahead, using two imperatives: "But he that hath the steerage of my course / Direct my 'sail. On, lusty gentlemen." Later on, it's much the same: Romeo calls the stars "inauspicious" but then slams his boat into the rocks, again using a series of imperative commands ("now," "run on," etc.). Both times, nothing is acting on him; rather, he's deciding his fate. As mentioned, I'm arguing against the prevailing view that the stars "cross" him in the sense of victimize him. It seems to me there's zero meaningful evidence to support that claim.
Thank you for reading and responding! I appreciate the engagement.
The stars determine your character, and your character determines your actions. You might wonder about the consequences of your action, but be unable to choose another course because it would be out of character. You might suspect that you are being guided by the wrong light, but yet be unable to follow another...
I want to like your post twice, sir, but I cannot so I am leaving this comment. I wish my senior year English teacher were alive today so I could send him a link. He would be fascinated as I am. I hope you reach 100 likes–restacking now.
A very illuminating analysis. The utter recklessness of Romeo in particular is well captured by his deliberate shipwreck (suicide).. I always wonder if Shakespeare planned his extended metaphors or if the poetry ran away with him.
Thought the play said that Juliet's mother, was married at thirteen, and now, here she is, a year older, and still unwed. So 14 and 15.
Teenagers are known for many things, thoughtfulness, steadiness, planning are just some of the things that tend to be absent from them. Headstrong, impetuous, self-obsessed are well known qualities of them. That a pair are so well matched with such strong emotions and little thought is rare, but not unknown.
Will agree, yes, Shakespeare changed the play, then again, his version is still playing, while the others are long dead.
I appreciate the fresh take! I hadn't traced the nautical motif through the whole play like this, but I'm glad you are drawing attention to it. There's always room for deeper analysis and reconsideration of dominant interpretations.
Having said that, though, I think it's almost impossible to successfully argue against the reading views Romeo and Juliet as victims of fate. There is so much evidence for this--much of it from plot details (chance encounters and ill timings: Romeo's mistaken invite to the party, Friar Lawrence's foiled plan, the painfully timed deaths of the lovers) and specific lines ("from forth the fatal loins," "I am fortune's fool!" "Then I defy you, stars!")--that I think we don't have much choice but to wallow in dramatic irony, as we witness the inevitable, foretold tragedy playing out before us.
But I totally second the commentors here who have suggested complementary readings between the astrological and astronomical motifs! A really interesting balance between tension and harmony there, I think, and I'd be curious to see how you would develop that more. And after all, what image better highlights the relationship between free will and fate than a ship at sea? Yes, there is a captain steering and is in some control, but forces of nature are unmatched. If a storm comes upon you, you are usually at its mercy. With the Spanish Armada so close in the minds of Elizabethans, surely this would have been a natural consideration.
I'm open to your review of all that I have just said. Would be interested in hearing your thoughts. Thanks for sharing your analysis :)
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Mary! It's complicated indeed, and I could easily do a Pt 2 to deal with a number of passages I didn't have a chance to discuss here.
This may surprise you to hear: I do think the lovers are ultimately victims. Many passages strongly suggest this. For example, when the Prince says, "Seal up the mouth of outrage for awhile, / Till we can clear these ambiguities / And know their spring, their head, their true descent," he implies that the parents are ultimately responsible for all the violence, including that which the lovers inflict on themselves. Similarly, you're right to mention the oxymoron "fatal loins," which clearly implies the lovers are doomed from birth.
That said, I reject the astrological interpretation because the nautical references all appear profoundly ironic in context. For example, immediately after Romeo's “I deny you, stars,” Balthazar cautions, “I do beseech you, sir, have patience. / Your looks are pale and wild and do import / Some misadventure.” Here, Balthazar contradicts Romeo's perspective, suggesting his death will be the product not of astrological influence but his own extreme impatience and irrationality - and it appears to be Balthazar, not Romeo, who is vindicated, Romeo's suicide again being called a "misadventure" by the Prince.
Similarly, he calls himself "Fortune's fool" only a few lines after murdering Tybalt and ten lines after he surrenders his conduct to "Fury" personified, crying, "Away to heaven, respective lenity, / And fire-eyed Fury be my conduct now." Clearly Romeo's self-surrender to Fury personified is the cause of the murder, not being the plaything of Fortune.
Furthermore, as I argued in my article (but not here), all of his nautical references without exception convey willfulness, not victimization. To quote myself:
"Thus far, we have seen Romeo renounce steerage of his ship’s course, state his willingness to embark upon a suicidal sea voyage, and liken himself to one heedlessly scaling a topgallant mast. What is common to all of these metaphors is that they symbolize not helpless adversity but voluntary risk-taking... If nautical imagery has a natural symbolic bent, it is no doubt in the direction of victimization, a seagoing vessel being inescapably at the mercy of the elements. But, remarkably, this is never the significance this imagery has in Shakespeare’s play. In effect, Shakespeare takes this imagery and turns it on its head. No longer do the nautical metaphors convey helpless suffering. Now, without a single exception, they convey wilful self-endangerment."
Hope that's helpful. Thank you again for reading and engaging with my piece. Really appreciate your thoughtful engagement and thrilled to have you as a reader!
Thanks so much for the reply! I do think your audience is requesting a Part 2 based on the comments, so go for it :)
I have many follow-up questions coming to mind, but I'll offer just one for now: How does the plot factor into your reading? Maybe just consider the examples I already named: Romeo's chance/mistaken invitation to the party, Friar Lawrence's plan being foiled (by the plague, of all fateful things!), and the perfectly wrong timing of everything that happens in the Capulet tomb. Is 'Fortune' not indeed 'fickle?' Does Romeo not seem 'wedded to calamity'?
Hi again Mary. Good question! Here are my thoughts.
As you suggest, the best evidence of the role of chance is the explicit "accident" of Friar Laurence's letter not reaching Romeo because of the quarantine. That said, a far more powerful cause of the tragedy is the speed and/or recklessness with which Romeo acts. Here are a few examples:
Romeo chooses to go to the party. In fact, he doesn't want to go initially but his friends hope the social recreation will cure his love-melancholy. In deciding to go, he uses two imperatives: "But he that hath the steerage of my course Direct my sail. On, lusty gentlemen." As I discussed in my essay, the "He" he has in mind is Cupid, the god of violent passion. Here, the decision is especially striking because he has just shared a vision of his own demise, including a "vile forfeit of untimely death." Therefore, the decision is truly reckless.
The same is true again at the end: the Friar's plan is foiled because Romeo kills himself as quickly as possible. As I mentioned just above, Romeo's man urges him to "have patience." But Romeo responds dismissively—"Tush, thou art deceived." But Balthazar is obviously right. Many other details convey the same, ie. that Romeo acts with extreme impatience.
I don't know if you've read Shakespeare's source, Brooke, but here's an amazing detail: there, Romeus only takes his life AFTER checking Juliet's body for "signs of life" and finding none. In Shakespeare, the exact opposite is true: Juliet is manifestly showing signs of life, including reddening cheeks and lips—but this doesn't cause Romeo to hesitate. Instead, he kills himself as quickly as possible - indeed "some minute" before Juliet wakes up, as Friar Laurence says. Here again, the problem is clearly his impulsiveness and not some outside influence.
And then there's Friar Laurence's soliloquy, where he suggests that Romeo's "rude will" is the fundamental problem, indeed what the story is essentially about—one of my principal claims and one I plan to share later this year (in a piece called "The Triumph of Rude Will.")
Thank you again for your engagement and please feel free to follow up with any further thoughts or questions. And thank you for your restack! It's fun indeed to engage with people like you in this way.
Thanks for the reply! I totally agree that Romeo’s impulsiveness and passion-driven foolishness fuel the tragic sequence of events—but, I guess, for me that only seems to play into the hands of fate. I’m not arguing against a fate/free will tension in the play, but I don’t think a straight free will reading quite makes sense of the data. You can keep trying to convince me, though :)
On that note, I’m very interested in seeing the planned future piece you mention. The grey-eyed morn speech is literally my favorite in the whole play, so I’ll be eager to discuss your reading and how it relates to our current conversation.
I can see why it would be rejected...hear me out, John...I find with Shakespeare, 'scholars' tend to get one idea and stick with it (for so long) they're unwilling to change or bend, out of fear that they are wrong; I happen to love your insight, the ship metaphor comes up in his other works, as do stars, it could easily be poor navigation as it could be celestial intervention. I like Grant Brown's response; given Shakespeare's proclivity for various meanings of words (sans the convention of a dictionary) and double-entendres, both, either/or is probably what the Bard wanted us to be discussing all these years later. Good Article, John Thank-you for sharing!
Thank you CP! Glad you enjoyed it. Agreed it "could" be both, but to my mind the main question is which is most justified in the context. I may do a pt2 where I address several of the references to the stars that I didn't have the chance to discuss above, including Romeo's "I defy you stars," etc - a line which does lend some credence to the astrological interpretation but one that in my opinion is deeply ironic in context, Romeo proceeding to act with blatant willfulness... Thanks for sharing your thoughts - always happy to hear from you.
“Romeo and Juliet aren’t crossed by the stars. They have their stars mixed up. Are themselves mixed up.”
While most eighth grade teachers reduce the play in common ways, the idea in the passage quoted above is not uncommon. Have you read Simon Palfrey on Romeo and Juliet? He puts succinctly the four ways the play is most often read, one being their own fault, and quotes D.A. Stauffer: “The causes of the tragedy lie in the sufferers themselves…whose dangerous fault is their extreme rashness.”
Thanks for the comment, Harold! Yes, I've read both Palfrey and Stauffer. Stauffer doesn't actually think the fault is their rashness. Rather, he dismisses that as one of the play's "moralizings," then adds, "the actual ethical energy of the drama resides in its realization of the purity and intensity of ideal love" - a preposterous but common view. Palfrey's book on R&J is no better. In my experience, many teachers read the play more skeptically, which is to say, understand the play far better than scholars.
Fair enough, but if by “read the play more skeptically” wouldn’t that mean to read the play much closer to Brooke’s moral reading and overlook the significant changes Shakespeare made? My experience is that middle school teachers read the play skeptically because that’s a way to distill it to a theme. It also doesn’t wrestle with the idea that by play’s end Juliet will be married one way or another, else banished.
I agree Romeo obliterates the couple but isn’t it much earlier in the play when he intervenes in the duel between Mercutio and Tybalt? Initially he is trying to do right here, not be brash, but then kills Tybalt and from then on no good can come.
I enjoyed your article but have to admit I love reading Palfrey on R+J so I’m probably in the preposterous camp of a romantic reading.
Yes, it means reading the play closer to Brooke's moral reading. As you know, Brooke condemns the lovers as "thralling themselves to unhonest desire," etc. And yet the story that follows presents them much more sympathetically. I'll be arguing that Shakespeare tells the story that Brooke didn't, which is to say, makes all of Brooke's points come true. The topic of Shakespeare and Brooke is probably the one I have the most to say about. Shakespeare did indeed make significant changes, but they weren't to move away from Brooke's moral reading - the exact opposite. Don't know when I'll actually share this but sometime in the next year or two (wish I was exaggerating). Haha RE being in the "preposterous camp." Appreciate the engagement!
The abundance of inept or merely repetitive interpretations led me to keep my distance from such attempts. Your article, however, reminded me of what good interpretation truly means. My sincere congratulations, Dr. John McGee!
Thank you very much, Robert! That's very kind of you. Thanks too for the restack. My academic article on this topic from 2014 got completely ignored, and so it's been very gratifying to get appreciative reader responses such as yours.
This was everything. Everything!!! What an experience was to read all that you wrote... This is amazing! Fascinating! Finally!!!! I only read Romeo and Juliet once for a school project and couldn't believe what everyone said about it for ages, they painted it as this great supreme love story that was written in the stars and I was like... Did we read the same book/play? They still do. And I don't know, I may be a little overwhelmed and english isn't my first language so I guess I'm rambling... I never wanted to give any opinion to the story because it seemed it didn't matter against what everyone else said about it but years passed so I probably should read it again to freshen up my thoughts about it. But I'm thrilled! My favorite part was "For 400+ years, we’ve thought of the lovers as helpless victims of outside powers. But according to the nautical motif, the real threat isn’t outside but in. These two are a danger—to themselves."
Thank you so much, Gabriela! That's wonderful to hear! That's exactly how I felt when I first opened the scholarly literature: did we read the same play?! I don't know if you're aware, but most scholars romanticize it. I'm on a mission to prove them wrong. If interested, I present an overview of my argument here: https://johnmcgee.substack.com/p/mixed-up-loversand-mixed-up-critics. Thank you again! Thrilled to have you as a reader. John
Oh you can count me in, I'm saving all of your posts to read them later!! Thank you for being that voice.
You're welcome! And thank you for the support. Been working away on this project for like 15 years now, mostly in isolation, and so it really does mean a lot to me when I get enthusiastic responses such as yours
Why must it be either/or interpretation? Why can't it be "both"? And wouldn't "both" be even more fitting of Shakespeare's genius? Let me try to perform a marriage of the two metaphors -
In the Italian telling of the story, the heroes somehow overcome their emotions and save themselves from the shipwreck - maybe by sheer willpower? Whereas in the Shakespearean version, they are unable to heed the Friar's lesson and save themselves. Why can't they? It is true that they foolishly choose the wrong path; but those choices are a tragic consequence of their fixed characters. Romeo is impulsive; Juliet is fragile. They choose and act accordingly. Given who they are, their fate is sealed. The Italian ending seems to imply an uncaused, free will, deus ex machina ending.
This raises the question: what fixes their character? In Shakespeare's day, character was thought by many to be fixed by the stars. But you can jettison the astrology underpinning and keep the metaphor. (As I suspect Shakespeare intended.) "Star-crossed" then simply means that that their fixed characters are on a collision course that cannot be escaped. Today, we wouldn't attribute a fixed character to the stars, but maybe to genes or childhood experience. We could still refer metaphorically to a fatally flawed character as "star-crossed."
You can see the play as the unfolding of a perilous sea voyage. All of the nautical conceits are still fitting.
So, their fate is star-crossed in both senses at once: they chart a fatal path because they navigate by the wrong lights; but they can't help themselves navigating by the wrong lights because of who they are. Character matters, for good or ill. This is a recurring theme in Othello, Hamlet, Macbeth, etc.
Appreciate the engagement, Grant. In the abstract, it could indeed be as you say, but I'm not aware of evidence from the text to support such a "married" interpretation
Shakespeare's opus is littered with double entendre. Both understandings of "star-crossed" were prevalent in his day; the double entendre couldn't possibly have escaped Shakespeare's notice. The text is ambiguous. Those considerations might not compel, but I think it does gives the critic license to accept the marriage proposal - especially if it augments Shakespeare's genius. (Isn't a marriage license better than a shotgun wedding, anyway? LOL)
Further, as I note above, it is a recurring theme in Shakespeare's opus that tragic outcomes arise due to traits of character that, in the extreme, become flaws. (See Othello, Hamlet, Mcabeth, etc.) Character is destiny. The "Hollywood endings" where leopards suddenly change their spots are more typical of his comedies.
(I understand that Shakespeare began writing "Romeo and Juliet" as a comedy, and later transformed it into a tragedy. Maybe originally he was going to go with the Italian ending, but decided it was unsatisfactory and a tragic ending would serve his purposes better.)
I'm not a literary critic, just a mere philosopher. This is way out of my department. I owned a B&B in Stratford (Ontario) in the 2010s, so I saw a lot of his plays performed to a very high standard. Insights such as yours make the experience all the more enjoyable. I'll rewatch the video of the play again with interest. Thanks.
Nice of you to say! I'm always happy when people say an essay of mine makes them want to return to the text. So much more going on in R&J than most people realize! Cool that you're a philosopher and happy to have you as one of my readers.
This is a very good examination of the text. I'm not surprised that people have not understood the star-crossed reference. There aren't many people who have ever been on a boat, much less used the stars to navigate.
Thank you Joseph! Indeed! I wrote a bit about this in my published essay, which ended as follows: "To conclude, it may be worth underscoring the climate in which Shakespeare's play was composed, for, as Falconer writes, the play was written at a time when there was tremendous enthusiasm for maritime exploration; when bookshops were filled both with manuals about how to navigate as well as accounts of English navigations — including Richard Hakluyt's The Principal Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques and Discoueries of the English Nation, the first edition of which appeared in 1589 — when colleges in London were offering sailors public lectures on astronomy; when along the Thames, for mile upon mile, one would see "nothing but ships and seaman"; and when navigation itself was an issue of "national concern", being of prime importance in the matter of national defence. In this climate, it becomes difficult to suppose that Shakespeare meant for Romeo's conduct and fate to be sympathetic much less romantic."
Thanks again for the like and comment - both are welcome anytime!
Fascinating analysis through close reading that makes the play's language more cogent and coherent than I had realized.
Thank you Janice! So glad you enjoyed it.
Thank you John for highlighting the seafaring references but they compliment rather than negate an astrological reading. There is a whole branch of astrology known as electional astrology which is concerned with finding a propitious time to begin sn enterprise. Romeo feared 'some consequence yet hanging in the stars' but embarked on this course regardless.
Thanks Peter. It's a fair point or question, and one of several passages that I wanted to address, but the essay was already longer than I wanted it to be. Both this reference and another at the end ("O, here / Will I... shake the yoke of inauspicious stars") strike me as deeply ironic, as in both instances Romeo perceives some kind of agency in the stars, but then acts in a blatantly willful way. In the first instance, after perceiving some "consequence" in the "stars," he ignores the warning and goes recklessly ahead, using two imperatives: "But he that hath the steerage of my course / Direct my 'sail. On, lusty gentlemen." Later on, it's much the same: Romeo calls the stars "inauspicious" but then slams his boat into the rocks, again using a series of imperative commands ("now," "run on," etc.). Both times, nothing is acting on him; rather, he's deciding his fate. As mentioned, I'm arguing against the prevailing view that the stars "cross" him in the sense of victimize him. It seems to me there's zero meaningful evidence to support that claim.
Thank you for reading and responding! I appreciate the engagement.
The stars determine your character, and your character determines your actions. You might wonder about the consequences of your action, but be unable to choose another course because it would be out of character. You might suspect that you are being guided by the wrong light, but yet be unable to follow another...
Romeo is written as a serial killer, gangbanger: 2 on purpose, 1 accident....and deflowers a 13 yr old.
Will does another "bed trick." Is this play about love or tribal/clan hatred? Because hate wins....and kills love.
I want to like your post twice, sir, but I cannot so I am leaving this comment. I wish my senior year English teacher were alive today so I could send him a link. He would be fascinated as I am. I hope you reach 100 likes–restacking now.
Thank you very much Carol! That's very kind of you.
A very illuminating analysis. The utter recklessness of Romeo in particular is well captured by his deliberate shipwreck (suicide).. I always wonder if Shakespeare planned his extended metaphors or if the poetry ran away with him.
Thank you very much, Billy! The departure from his source Brooke strongly suggests planning, in my view. Appreciate your remark!
Thought the play said that Juliet's mother, was married at thirteen, and now, here she is, a year older, and still unwed. So 14 and 15.
Teenagers are known for many things, thoughtfulness, steadiness, planning are just some of the things that tend to be absent from them. Headstrong, impetuous, self-obsessed are well known qualities of them. That a pair are so well matched with such strong emotions and little thought is rare, but not unknown.
Will agree, yes, Shakespeare changed the play, then again, his version is still playing, while the others are long dead.
Nicely done analysis!
Thank you, Claire! And thanks for subscribing - great to have you on board (no pun intended, haha)
I appreciate the fresh take! I hadn't traced the nautical motif through the whole play like this, but I'm glad you are drawing attention to it. There's always room for deeper analysis and reconsideration of dominant interpretations.
Having said that, though, I think it's almost impossible to successfully argue against the reading views Romeo and Juliet as victims of fate. There is so much evidence for this--much of it from plot details (chance encounters and ill timings: Romeo's mistaken invite to the party, Friar Lawrence's foiled plan, the painfully timed deaths of the lovers) and specific lines ("from forth the fatal loins," "I am fortune's fool!" "Then I defy you, stars!")--that I think we don't have much choice but to wallow in dramatic irony, as we witness the inevitable, foretold tragedy playing out before us.
But I totally second the commentors here who have suggested complementary readings between the astrological and astronomical motifs! A really interesting balance between tension and harmony there, I think, and I'd be curious to see how you would develop that more. And after all, what image better highlights the relationship between free will and fate than a ship at sea? Yes, there is a captain steering and is in some control, but forces of nature are unmatched. If a storm comes upon you, you are usually at its mercy. With the Spanish Armada so close in the minds of Elizabethans, surely this would have been a natural consideration.
I'm open to your review of all that I have just said. Would be interested in hearing your thoughts. Thanks for sharing your analysis :)
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Mary! It's complicated indeed, and I could easily do a Pt 2 to deal with a number of passages I didn't have a chance to discuss here.
This may surprise you to hear: I do think the lovers are ultimately victims. Many passages strongly suggest this. For example, when the Prince says, "Seal up the mouth of outrage for awhile, / Till we can clear these ambiguities / And know their spring, their head, their true descent," he implies that the parents are ultimately responsible for all the violence, including that which the lovers inflict on themselves. Similarly, you're right to mention the oxymoron "fatal loins," which clearly implies the lovers are doomed from birth.
That said, I reject the astrological interpretation because the nautical references all appear profoundly ironic in context. For example, immediately after Romeo's “I deny you, stars,” Balthazar cautions, “I do beseech you, sir, have patience. / Your looks are pale and wild and do import / Some misadventure.” Here, Balthazar contradicts Romeo's perspective, suggesting his death will be the product not of astrological influence but his own extreme impatience and irrationality - and it appears to be Balthazar, not Romeo, who is vindicated, Romeo's suicide again being called a "misadventure" by the Prince.
Similarly, he calls himself "Fortune's fool" only a few lines after murdering Tybalt and ten lines after he surrenders his conduct to "Fury" personified, crying, "Away to heaven, respective lenity, / And fire-eyed Fury be my conduct now." Clearly Romeo's self-surrender to Fury personified is the cause of the murder, not being the plaything of Fortune.
Furthermore, as I argued in my article (but not here), all of his nautical references without exception convey willfulness, not victimization. To quote myself:
"Thus far, we have seen Romeo renounce steerage of his ship’s course, state his willingness to embark upon a suicidal sea voyage, and liken himself to one heedlessly scaling a topgallant mast. What is common to all of these metaphors is that they symbolize not helpless adversity but voluntary risk-taking... If nautical imagery has a natural symbolic bent, it is no doubt in the direction of victimization, a seagoing vessel being inescapably at the mercy of the elements. But, remarkably, this is never the significance this imagery has in Shakespeare’s play. In effect, Shakespeare takes this imagery and turns it on its head. No longer do the nautical metaphors convey helpless suffering. Now, without a single exception, they convey wilful self-endangerment."
Hope that's helpful. Thank you again for reading and engaging with my piece. Really appreciate your thoughtful engagement and thrilled to have you as a reader!
Thanks so much for the reply! I do think your audience is requesting a Part 2 based on the comments, so go for it :)
I have many follow-up questions coming to mind, but I'll offer just one for now: How does the plot factor into your reading? Maybe just consider the examples I already named: Romeo's chance/mistaken invitation to the party, Friar Lawrence's plan being foiled (by the plague, of all fateful things!), and the perfectly wrong timing of everything that happens in the Capulet tomb. Is 'Fortune' not indeed 'fickle?' Does Romeo not seem 'wedded to calamity'?
Hi again Mary. Good question! Here are my thoughts.
As you suggest, the best evidence of the role of chance is the explicit "accident" of Friar Laurence's letter not reaching Romeo because of the quarantine. That said, a far more powerful cause of the tragedy is the speed and/or recklessness with which Romeo acts. Here are a few examples:
Romeo chooses to go to the party. In fact, he doesn't want to go initially but his friends hope the social recreation will cure his love-melancholy. In deciding to go, he uses two imperatives: "But he that hath the steerage of my course Direct my sail. On, lusty gentlemen." As I discussed in my essay, the "He" he has in mind is Cupid, the god of violent passion. Here, the decision is especially striking because he has just shared a vision of his own demise, including a "vile forfeit of untimely death." Therefore, the decision is truly reckless.
The same is true again at the end: the Friar's plan is foiled because Romeo kills himself as quickly as possible. As I mentioned just above, Romeo's man urges him to "have patience." But Romeo responds dismissively—"Tush, thou art deceived." But Balthazar is obviously right. Many other details convey the same, ie. that Romeo acts with extreme impatience.
I don't know if you've read Shakespeare's source, Brooke, but here's an amazing detail: there, Romeus only takes his life AFTER checking Juliet's body for "signs of life" and finding none. In Shakespeare, the exact opposite is true: Juliet is manifestly showing signs of life, including reddening cheeks and lips—but this doesn't cause Romeo to hesitate. Instead, he kills himself as quickly as possible - indeed "some minute" before Juliet wakes up, as Friar Laurence says. Here again, the problem is clearly his impulsiveness and not some outside influence.
And then there's Friar Laurence's soliloquy, where he suggests that Romeo's "rude will" is the fundamental problem, indeed what the story is essentially about—one of my principal claims and one I plan to share later this year (in a piece called "The Triumph of Rude Will.")
Thank you again for your engagement and please feel free to follow up with any further thoughts or questions. And thank you for your restack! It's fun indeed to engage with people like you in this way.
John
Thanks for the reply! I totally agree that Romeo’s impulsiveness and passion-driven foolishness fuel the tragic sequence of events—but, I guess, for me that only seems to play into the hands of fate. I’m not arguing against a fate/free will tension in the play, but I don’t think a straight free will reading quite makes sense of the data. You can keep trying to convince me, though :)
On that note, I’m very interested in seeing the planned future piece you mention. The grey-eyed morn speech is literally my favorite in the whole play, so I’ll be eager to discuss your reading and how it relates to our current conversation.
this is gonna exist in my head rent free from now on
I can see why it would be rejected...hear me out, John...I find with Shakespeare, 'scholars' tend to get one idea and stick with it (for so long) they're unwilling to change or bend, out of fear that they are wrong; I happen to love your insight, the ship metaphor comes up in his other works, as do stars, it could easily be poor navigation as it could be celestial intervention. I like Grant Brown's response; given Shakespeare's proclivity for various meanings of words (sans the convention of a dictionary) and double-entendres, both, either/or is probably what the Bard wanted us to be discussing all these years later. Good Article, John Thank-you for sharing!
Thank you CP! Glad you enjoyed it. Agreed it "could" be both, but to my mind the main question is which is most justified in the context. I may do a pt2 where I address several of the references to the stars that I didn't have the chance to discuss above, including Romeo's "I defy you stars," etc - a line which does lend some credence to the astrological interpretation but one that in my opinion is deeply ironic in context, Romeo proceeding to act with blatant willfulness... Thanks for sharing your thoughts - always happy to hear from you.
Thanx, John! Keep the insightful articles coming!
Somebody had to say it
“Romeo and Juliet aren’t crossed by the stars. They have their stars mixed up. Are themselves mixed up.”
While most eighth grade teachers reduce the play in common ways, the idea in the passage quoted above is not uncommon. Have you read Simon Palfrey on Romeo and Juliet? He puts succinctly the four ways the play is most often read, one being their own fault, and quotes D.A. Stauffer: “The causes of the tragedy lie in the sufferers themselves…whose dangerous fault is their extreme rashness.”
Thanks for the comment, Harold! Yes, I've read both Palfrey and Stauffer. Stauffer doesn't actually think the fault is their rashness. Rather, he dismisses that as one of the play's "moralizings," then adds, "the actual ethical energy of the drama resides in its realization of the purity and intensity of ideal love" - a preposterous but common view. Palfrey's book on R&J is no better. In my experience, many teachers read the play more skeptically, which is to say, understand the play far better than scholars.
Fair enough, but if by “read the play more skeptically” wouldn’t that mean to read the play much closer to Brooke’s moral reading and overlook the significant changes Shakespeare made? My experience is that middle school teachers read the play skeptically because that’s a way to distill it to a theme. It also doesn’t wrestle with the idea that by play’s end Juliet will be married one way or another, else banished.
I agree Romeo obliterates the couple but isn’t it much earlier in the play when he intervenes in the duel between Mercutio and Tybalt? Initially he is trying to do right here, not be brash, but then kills Tybalt and from then on no good can come.
I enjoyed your article but have to admit I love reading Palfrey on R+J so I’m probably in the preposterous camp of a romantic reading.
Yes, it means reading the play closer to Brooke's moral reading. As you know, Brooke condemns the lovers as "thralling themselves to unhonest desire," etc. And yet the story that follows presents them much more sympathetically. I'll be arguing that Shakespeare tells the story that Brooke didn't, which is to say, makes all of Brooke's points come true. The topic of Shakespeare and Brooke is probably the one I have the most to say about. Shakespeare did indeed make significant changes, but they weren't to move away from Brooke's moral reading - the exact opposite. Don't know when I'll actually share this but sometime in the next year or two (wish I was exaggerating). Haha RE being in the "preposterous camp." Appreciate the engagement!
The abundance of inept or merely repetitive interpretations led me to keep my distance from such attempts. Your article, however, reminded me of what good interpretation truly means. My sincere congratulations, Dr. John McGee!
Thank you very much, Robert! That's very kind of you. Thanks too for the restack. My academic article on this topic from 2014 got completely ignored, and so it's been very gratifying to get appreciative reader responses such as yours.
Your article is truly excellent. I will quote it in one of my future articles. Then I will send you a link. Once again, congratulations for your work!