# Are Romeo and Juliet really supposed to be seen as in love? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [February 14, 2006, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-romeo-and-juliet-really-supposed-to-be-seen-as-in-love/344453 "2006-02-14T15:37:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Strinka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/strinka/32/512_2.png) [@Strinka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strinka)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-romeo-and-juliet-really-supposed-to-be-seen-as-in-love/344453/1 "2006-02-14T15:37:51Z")
At the very beginning of the play, Romeo is all heartbroken because he’s in love with a woman who doesn’t love him back. And the very instant he sees Juliet, he falls out of love with that other girl (sorry, I’m not good at remembering character names) and in love with Juliet. Given that, it seems like just a teenage crush. They say they’re in love of course, because they think they are. But is the audience supposed to believe it? ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-romeo-and-juliet-really-supposed-to-be-seen-as-in-love/344453/2 "2006-02-14T15:41:27Z")
That’s an excellent question. My take on it has always been they were infatuated, and took it too seriously. There’s a play (not sure of the title - something like “Goodnight Desdemona, Good morning Juliet”) that has lots of Shakespeare characters in it, including Romeo and Juliet. They keep falling stone-cold in love with every new person they see - pretty funny. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-romeo-and-juliet-really-supposed-to-be-seen-as-in-love/344453/3 "2006-02-14T15:45:02Z")
I always assumed they weren’t, that it was a crush, yes. That ( IMHO ) is what makes it such a tragedy - they both died for each other, yet if they’d stayed together they would inevitably realise they weren’t actually in love; instead of two people dying ( but dying for love ), it’s two people who were just pretty heavily crushing on each other. Their deaths weren’t only senseless, but pointless, too. ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-romeo-and-juliet-really-supposed-to-be-seen-as-in-love/344453/4 "2006-02-14T15:49:34Z")
Don’t forget that Romeo and Juliet are meant to be teenagers. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-romeo-and-juliet-really-supposed-to-be-seen-as-in-love/344453/5 "2006-02-14T15:56:47Z")
Isaac Asimov, in _Asimov’s Guide to Shakespeare,_ posited a theory I’ve never seen elsewhere: The play is really about the folly of romanticism. Several clues indicate the Montague-Capulet feud is on its last legs and only a few psychos like Tybault are keeping it alive. Viz., the scene where Romeo crashes Capulet’s party, Act I, Scene 5 – [http://www-tech.mit.edu/Shakespeare/romeo\_juliet/romeo\_juliet.1.5.html:](http://www-tech.mit.edu/Shakespeare/romeo_juliet/romeo_juliet.1.5.html:) > [@](#): > > TYBALT > This, by his voice, should be a Montague. > Fetch me my rapier, boy. What dares the slave > Come hither, cover’d with an antic face, > To fleer and scorn at our solemnity? > Now, by the stock and honour of my kin, > To strike him dead, I hold it not a sin. > > CAPULET > Why, how now, kinsman! wherefore storm you so? > > TYBALT > Uncle, this is a Montague, our foe, > A villain that is hither come in spite, > To scorn at our solemnity this night. > > CAPULET > Young Romeo is it? > > TYBALT > 'Tis he, that villain Romeo. > > CAPULET > Content thee, gentle coz, let him alone; > He bears him like a portly gentleman; > And, to say truth, Verona brags of him > To be a virtuous and well-govern’d youth: > I would not for the wealth of all the town > Here in my house do him disparagement: > Therefore be patient, take no note of him: > It is my will, the which if thou respect, > Show a fair presence and put off these frowns, > And ill-beseeming semblance for a feast. > > TYBALT > It fits, when such a villain is a guest: > I’ll not endure him. > > CAPULET > He shall be endured: > What, goodman boy! I say, he shall: go to; > Am I the master here, or you? go to. > You’ll not endure him! God shall mend my soul! > You’ll make a mutiny among my guests! > You will set cock-a-hoop! you’ll be the man! > > TYBALT > Why, uncle, 'tis a shame. > > CAPULET > Go to, go to; > You are a saucy boy: is’t so, indeed? > This trick may chance to scathe you, I know what: > You must contrary me! marry, 'tis time. > Well said, my hearts! You are a princox; go: > Be quiet, or–More light, more light! For shame! > I’ll make you quiet. What, cheerly, my hearts! > > TYBALT > Patience perforce with wilful choler meeting > Makes my flesh tremble in their different greeting. > I will withdraw: but this intrusion shall > Now seeming sweet convert to bitter gall. In the next moment, Romeo sees and falls for Juliet. He probably could go to her father and sue openly for her hand. But **she** is all excited about having a secret forbidden romance between star-crossed lovers from two houses at variance, and Romeo foolishly indulges her, with tragic consequences. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-romeo-and-juliet-really-supposed-to-be-seen-as-in-love/344453/6 "2006-02-14T17:59:27Z")
> [@Strinka](#): > > And the very instant he sees Juliet, he falls out of love with that other girl (sorry, I’m not good at remembering character names) and in love with Juliet. Rosaline. R & J is a “15 minute” play. If any character, at any time, had waited 15 minutes before doing something, the play would have been quite different. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Fretful\_Porpentine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fretful_porpentine/32/2873_2.png) [@Fretful\_Porpentine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fretful_Porpentine)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-romeo-and-juliet-really-supposed-to-be-seen-as-in-love/344453/7 "2006-02-14T18:32:38Z")
Yes, they are. Shakespeare was writing in a culture where people genuinely believed in love at first sight, or at the very least, it was an extremely common literary trope that people were perfectly willing to accept in fiction. Besides, they didn’t really have a sense of adolescent psychology as such; Romeo and Juliet are young adults in Renaissance eyes, not “teenagers.” This isn’t to say that they didn’t make a distinction between real love and “fancy,” or that they hadn’t observed that young people have a tendency to go through a succession of passing fancies; Friar Laurence’s “young men’s love then lies / Not truly in their hearts, but in their eyes” line is ample evidence that they did. What Romeo feels for Rosaline is definitely fancy, but I think it’s clear we’re meant to understand his feelings for Juliet as deeper and more lasting. The tip-off is the fact that his poetry gets a _lot_ better after she comes along – he drops the obligatory Petrarchan paradoxes and starts to sound like a real human being. Compare this passage from I.i. (in which he really seems to be in love with “love” in the abstract, not with Rosaline): > [@](#): > > Love is a smoke raised with the fume of sighs; > Being purged, a fire sparkling in lovers’ eyes; > Being vex’d a sea nourish’d with lovers’ tears: > What is it else? a madness most discreet, > A choking gall and a preserving sweet. to this one from the wedding scene (II. vi.) > [@](#): > > Amen, amen! but come what sorrow can, > It cannot countervail the exchange of joy > That one short minute gives me in her sight: > Do thou but close our hands with holy words, > Then love-devouring death do what he dare; > It is enough I may but call her mine. This is a young man who has grown up very fast, and is beginning to realize the weight of what he has done and the sacrifice that he is prepared to make. ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-romeo-and-juliet-really-supposed-to-be-seen-as-in-love/344453/8 "2006-02-14T19:27:58Z")
> [@Strinka](#): > > But is the audience supposed to believe it? Without analyzing the play (not that I could), I’ll just say that modern drama (turn on your TV) has tons of stuff that is improbable but the audience is asked to belief something that everybody knows wouldn’t really happen–“suspend your disbelief.” ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-romeo-and-juliet-really-supposed-to-be-seen-as-in-love/344453/9 "2006-02-14T19:47:39Z")
> [@bup](#): > > There’s a play (not sure of the title - something like “Good **night Desdemona** , Good morning Juliet”) that has lots of \*\*Shakespeare \*\*characters in it, including Romeo and Juliet. They keep falling **stone** -cold in love with every new person they see - pretty funny. Gargoyles? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Birdmonster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/71e660/32.png) [@Birdmonster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Birdmonster)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-romeo-and-juliet-really-supposed-to-be-seen-as-in-love/344453/10 "2006-02-14T20:06:00Z")
> [@Fretful Porpentine](#): > > Yes, they are. Shakespeare was writing in a culture where people genuinely believed in love at first sight, or at the very least, it was an extremely common literary trope that people were perfectly willing to accept in fiction… Hmm…can I get all SDMB-y on you and scream “cite” at the top of my lungs? I’d remark that in Shakespeare’s era, love wasn’t as common a trope as it is today. Marriages were often arranged and “true love”, although the concept existed, didn’t seem to be as important in his plays as most people assume it is. Some read “Twelfth Night” as a story of true love, others as a veritable handbook on “marrying up.” I don’t think it’s that cut & dry. ---
**Author:** ![Birdmonster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/71e660/32.png) [@Birdmonster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Birdmonster)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-romeo-and-juliet-really-supposed-to-be-seen-as-in-love/344453/11 "2006-02-14T20:07:28Z")
[I blew it] Sorry for the terrible coding. [/I blew it] ---
**Author:** ![Anne\_Neville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Anne\_Neville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anne_Neville)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-romeo-and-juliet-really-supposed-to-be-seen-as-in-love/344453/12 "2006-02-14T20:08:48Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > I always assumed they weren’t, that it was a crush, yes. That ( IMHO ) is what makes it such a tragedy My high school English teacher taught it that way, at least on Romeo’s part. I remember him saying that Romeo would fall in “love” with any pretty girl he saw. I don’t remember discussing Juliet’s motivations in the same way, but we very well might have. I like Asimov’s take on it, too. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-romeo-and-juliet-really-supposed-to-be-seen-as-in-love/344453/13 "2006-02-14T20:18:19Z")
> [@Birdmonster](#): > > I’d remark that in Shakespeare’s era, love wasn’t as common a trope as it is today. Marriages were often arranged and “true love”, although the concept existed, didn’t seem to be as important in his plays as most people assume it is. The idea of romantic love went back to the Middle Ages. ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtly\_love;](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtly_love;) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic\_love](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_love)) I recall reading that Eleanor of Aquitaine held a “Court of Love” devoted to discussing such conundra as, “Is connubial [marital] love possible?” That one was answered in the negative. A knight-errant might fall in love with a lady, but in almost all cases she would be some other lord’s wife. That was how it was supposed to go. What was just emerging in Shakespeare’s time was the idea that love should have anything to do with marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-romeo-and-juliet-really-supposed-to-be-seen-as-in-love/344453/14 "2006-02-14T20:24:28Z")
I think you could interpret the relationship as either true love or as infatuation. It’s not the only case in Shakespeare where multiple interpretations are possible: look at all the theories on why Hamlet delays his revenge for his father’s death, on on Hamlet relarionship with Ophelia. A third interpretation is provided by the parallel relationship between Will Shakespeare and Viola De Lesseps in the film **Shakespeare in Love** : that it’s a relationship which is fun at the time, but which reality (like your father deciding that the County Paris or Lord Wessex is a better match) might later intrude on. ---
**Author:** ![ddgryphon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8c91f0/32.png) [@ddgryphon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ddgryphon)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-romeo-and-juliet-really-supposed-to-be-seen-as-in-love/344453/15 "2006-02-14T20:31:27Z")
I believe that Romeo felt he was truly in love with Juliet – I think the closest to proof that Shakespere intended it be taken as true love was Friar Lawrence’s complicity in the marriage. He knew of Romeo’s prediliction for falling in and out of love, but something about this was definitely different. While modern psychology can give insights into Shakespere’s characters, it isn’t always the best way to understand them. In brief, I believe we are to accept them as fully in love with one another and willing to die or suffer whatever society would heap upon them for it. ---
**Author:** ![Birdmonster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/71e660/32.png) [@Birdmonster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Birdmonster)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-romeo-and-juliet-really-supposed-to-be-seen-as-in-love/344453/16 "2006-02-14T20:49:46Z")
I’m not saying the idea of love didn’t exist, I’m just saying that it wasn’t as universal a theme as it is. I mean, recall the last 10 Hollywood movies you’ve seen and I bet at least nine of them ended up with the main character falling in love. What I’m saying is we’re thrusting our current lionization (word?) of love onto are era where that theme was less used and fairly unrealistic. Shakespeare, to me, seems to be providing caution about young emotions running wild than telling us true love equals happiness. This was a tragedy, after all… ---
**Author:** ![betenoir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/258eb7/32.png) [@betenoir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoir)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-romeo-and-juliet-really-supposed-to-be-seen-as-in-love/344453/17 "2006-02-14T21:03:12Z")
I look it like this: it’s Shakespear. It’s like asking if Hamlet is a tragic hero or a neurotic git. You can read it either way. That’s why you can keep reading Shakespear over and over. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Isaac Asimov, in _Asimov’s Guide to Shakespeare,_ posited a theory I’ve never seen elsewhere: The play is really about the folly of romanticism. That’s a good point. I mean that a lot of Shakespear play can be read as comments…or at least reflections of the plays of his time; the romantic play, the revenge play, the Jews are evil play. I think you can say it was meant to be read as a tragic (sincere) romance, but it’s just like Shakespear to sneak disarming complexities in there. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-romeo-and-juliet-really-supposed-to-be-seen-as-in-love/344453/18 "2006-02-14T21:34:52Z")
> [@CookingWithGas](#): > > Without analyzing the play (not that I could), I’ll just say that modern drama (turn on your TV) has tons of stuff that is improbable but the audience is asked to belief something that everybody knows wouldn’t really happen–“suspend your disbelief.” It’s not that it’s improbable, I think we’re just meant to wonder “are these two particular people in love?” I don’t think the audience is supposed to doubt that Juliet loves Romeo. She sets everything else aside for him pretty quickly - her family, her obligations, her trust for the nurse who raised her, and so on. She risks a lot on a guy who’s a little questionable. So I do think that we’re meant to wonder about Romeo because he’s harder to trust from an audience perspective. Not only do we know about Rosaline (and any of the girls before her), we know that he’s just a passionate guy in general, and he doesn’t think things through. I don’t doubt that his feelings for Juliet are sincere, and I wouldn’t say it’s just a crush. Maybe it’s the first time somebody’s returned his love, and even with the poetry, I can’t be totally sure he grows up that fast. ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-romeo-and-juliet-really-supposed-to-be-seen-as-in-love/344453/19 "2006-02-14T21:59:57Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I don’t think the audience is supposed to doubt that Juliet loves Romeo. She sets everything else aside for him pretty quickly - her family, her obligations, her trust for the nurse who raised her, and so on. She risks a lot on a guy who’s a little questionable. I don’t think modern audiences truly grasp the enormity of that. To defy one’s family meant that you were bringing deep shame on your family. You might never see them again. Their social network would have collapsed. (Parents would forbid their daughters to speak with such a wicked girl as Juliet.) There were not only social, but economic repercussions-- the families lost dowry and bride gifts as well as the income which could come from alliances with other families. Not only that, breaking a betrothal was nearly as serious as a divorce. Juliet’s father lost a lot of credibility when his daughter failed to follow through on a promised marriage. He also looked bad in the eyes of the community-- didn’t he raise his daughter properly? For those two, eloping would have meant a life of almost certain poverty. (Folks in that class didn’t just go out and get a job, and secondly, the apprentice/master system meant that finding a decent one was unlikely.) There was no insurance-- if Romeo died, Juliet would have been utterly impoverished and completely alone. Families were often the providers of medical care-- if she fell ill, who would nurse her? If both of them died, who would feed their children? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-romeo-and-juliet-really-supposed-to-be-seen-as-in-love/344453/20 "2006-02-14T22:08:52Z")
> [@Lissa](#): > > For those two, eloping would have meant a life of almost certain poverty. I don’t think so. Romeo wasn’t doing anything to alienate **his** family. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-romeo-and-juliet-really-supposed-to-be-seen-as-in-love/344453.md?page=2)