Shakespeare's definition of love
Shakespeare’s The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet acts as an inspiration for the world’s lovers of plays and literature through its poignant portrayal of the impacts of acting upon what love dictates. Since its publication in 1597, the play’s brilliant, subtle manner of describing love has been a subject of debate. Some savants argue that Shakespeare takes a cynical approach to love, for Romeo and Juliet, the play’s amorous protagonists, tragically end their lives. Others contradict the cynical approach by emphasizing the magical components of love that are able to bind the two opposing houses, the Capulets and the Montagues, together. Before anyone can form an opinion about the play’s stance on love or Shakespeare’s mindset, it is of the upmost importance that love itself be defined. It can be gleaned, through somewhat impalpable clues in The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet, that William Shakespeare defines romantic love as a fickle feeling driven by fate and fueled by sacrifice.
Romantic love is fickle by nature, and Romeo and Juliet experience this frustrating aspect of love throughout the play. The first portrayal of this complex ideology is evident when the love between Romeo and Juliet starts as lust and changes into a deeper connection more properly called love. When Romeo and Juliet first meet, they experience lust rather than love, for Romeo says,
“Did her heart love till now? Forswear it, sight, / For I ne’er saw true beauty till this night.” (Rom. I, v, 59-60). As the play goes on and Romeo and Juliet forge a more meaningful and fervent connection, their lust turns to love, most accurately expressed when
Romeo speaks to Friar Lawrence and exclaims, “Then plainly know my heart’s dear love is set. / On the fair daughter of rich Capulet... I’ll tell thee as we pass, but this I pray, / That thou consent to marry us today.” (Rom. II, iii, 61-68). The urge for an incessant connection through the act of holy marriage physically expresses the internal change love that Romeo experiences, and this feeling only comes from a more meaningful connection between two people fueled by knowledge, understanding, and time. Time also impacts love in The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet by heightening or lessening its importance. As young lovers, Romeo and Juliet feel
that love is by far the most paramount facet of life, and its place comes before that of family in Romeo’s priorities. In fact, Romeo denies his family by saying, “Call me but love, and I’ll be new baptized. / Henceforth I never will be Romeo.” (Rom. II, ii, 54-55).
Romeo’s ability to forswear his family name is not a rejection of his family, but rather as adulation for his love, Juliet. Unfortunately, due to love’s importance changing with age, Juliet’s parents wish to put family before romantic love, and express this by telling her, after her defiance in saying she will not marry Paris, “Hang thee, young baggage, disobedient wretch! / I tell thee what: get thee to church o’ Thursday, / Or never after look me in the face.” (Rom. III, v, 166-168). Though Juliet values Romeo above her family, her
family does not think in the same manner, for they are, in a way, hardened to the tender things in life like young love. Finally, love’s fickle properties are espoused by Shakespeare when it drastically alters one’s mental status, as seen in the death of Tybalt at the hands of Romeo. Romeo even admitted the role of emotions in this act when he passionately said, “…Fiery-eyed fury be my conduct
now” (Rom. III, i, 129). Indeed, Romeo’s murderous actions were caused partly from his emotion state due to his love with Juliet, and, without that love, Romeo would not be as emotionally compromised as he is during the duel. Romantic love in The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet is prone to changing, and that change ultimately contributes to the furthering of Shakespeare’s tragic plot.
Besides being fickle, love is fate-driven throughout The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet. Shakespeare places this idea at the forefront
of his tragedy when, in the prologue, he describes Romeo and Juliet as, “A pair of star-crossed lovers.” To be star-crossed means to be brought together by fate, and Romeo and Juliet, if driven by fate, cannot have a choice in the tragedy that is, according to fate, inevitable. In addition, the power of fate in defining love is apparent when, despite being inconvenient and inappropriate, people act upon feelings of love. Romeo and Juliet are not the ideal couple because of the ongoing feud between the Montagues and the Capulets. When Juliet finds out that the man she loves, Romeo, is a Montague, she remarks, “Prodigious birth of love it is to me / That I must love a loathed enemy.” (Rom. I, v, 154-155). Love is not best for the circumstances that Romeo and Juliet find themselves in, but, because it is fate-driven, love will endure despite unfavorable circumstances. Unfortunately, the disparaging circumstances deter
neither Romeo nor Juliet, and they continue down a path of destruction that is predestined. Finally, love is driven by the powerful force of fate in The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet, for it exists outside of physical expression like the institution of marriage. In fact, Friar Lawrence expresses the idea that Romeo and Juliet are physically alone by saying, “For, by your leaves, you shall not stay alone / Till Holy Church incorporate two in one,” (Rom. II, vi, 36-37), but they were not without love. The mere fact that love exists without explanation and physical rendition is proof that fate acts as a catalyst for love and compels it to exist. Without fate, love would not have been present in The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet, and, perhaps, in life itself according to Shakespeare.
The final facet of love’s definition as necessitating sacrifice is evident throughout The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet. This first incident of love requiring sacrifice is the sacrifice of Romeo’s sanity and way of being whenever he is in love. Benvolio is particularly in tune to this aspect of love’s impact on Romeo when, during the short period when Romeo was loveless, he remarks, “. . . Now art thou sociable, now art thou / Romeo, now art thou what thou art, by art as well as / by nature. For this driveling love is like a great / natural that runs lolling up and down to hide his / bauble in a hole.” (Rom. II, iv, 90-95). Unfortunately, despite this momentous instance of rationality and seceding repartee, Romeo becomes further plagued by the sanity-stripping nature of love that Shakespeare so blazingly employs. To further enhance this aspect of love, Shakespeare makes the love between Romeo and Juliet require them to sacrifice their respective families and friends. This is seen specifically when Juliet casts away the friendship and guidance of her beloved nurse after the nurse endorses her marriage with Paris. To culminate the severance of the relationship, Juliet bitterly remarks, “Is it more sin to wish me thus forsworn / Or to dispraise my lord with that same tongue / Which she hath praised him with above compare / So many times? Go, counselor. / Thou and my bosom henceforth shall be twain.” (Rom. III, v, 248-253). Shakespeare presents his protagonists with the terrible predicament of sacrificing either their love for each other or their love for family and friends, and both characters make the choice to sacrifice their family and friends. The final and most poignant
act of sacrifice in The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet is the rash act of sacrificing one’s life for lack of love that both Romeo and Juliet act upon. Juliet kills herself shortly after saying, “Yea, noise? Then I’ll be brief. O, happy dagger, / This is thy sheath. There rust,
and let me die.” (Rom. V, iii, 174-175). This incredible and impulsive sacrificing of life is required of love according to Shakespeare, for, when all else fails, love can require the ultimate sacrifice in order to endure. Far more tragic would the tale of Romeo and Juliet be if either Romeo or Juliet live to endure a life without love and its sacrifice. Love itself entails sacrifice, and Shakespeare believes that love cannot be achieved without it.
Love, being a feeling, is intangible, but it is well defined by Shakespeare’s definition of fickle feeling driven by fate and fueled by
sacrifice. Despite having a concrete definition created through the combination of subtext and textual hints, it is nearly impossible to precisely pinpoint the thoughts of William Shakespeare and his sentiments toward love. To perfectly define love, it would be necessary to combine Shakespeare’s definition with that of all others in the world. That idea itself is ludicrous, not only because of
the multitudinous amount of people in the world, but also because of the varying personal definitions that would accrue. Perhaps it is best to live on personal thoughts about love and its definition and be satisfied with a simulacrum of love’s nature as gleaned from The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet.
Romantic love is fickle by nature, and Romeo and Juliet experience this frustrating aspect of love throughout the play. The first portrayal of this complex ideology is evident when the love between Romeo and Juliet starts as lust and changes into a deeper connection more properly called love. When Romeo and Juliet first meet, they experience lust rather than love, for Romeo says,
“Did her heart love till now? Forswear it, sight, / For I ne’er saw true beauty till this night.” (Rom. I, v, 59-60). As the play goes on and Romeo and Juliet forge a more meaningful and fervent connection, their lust turns to love, most accurately expressed when
Romeo speaks to Friar Lawrence and exclaims, “Then plainly know my heart’s dear love is set. / On the fair daughter of rich Capulet... I’ll tell thee as we pass, but this I pray, / That thou consent to marry us today.” (Rom. II, iii, 61-68). The urge for an incessant connection through the act of holy marriage physically expresses the internal change love that Romeo experiences, and this feeling only comes from a more meaningful connection between two people fueled by knowledge, understanding, and time. Time also impacts love in The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet by heightening or lessening its importance. As young lovers, Romeo and Juliet feel
that love is by far the most paramount facet of life, and its place comes before that of family in Romeo’s priorities. In fact, Romeo denies his family by saying, “Call me but love, and I’ll be new baptized. / Henceforth I never will be Romeo.” (Rom. II, ii, 54-55).
Romeo’s ability to forswear his family name is not a rejection of his family, but rather as adulation for his love, Juliet. Unfortunately, due to love’s importance changing with age, Juliet’s parents wish to put family before romantic love, and express this by telling her, after her defiance in saying she will not marry Paris, “Hang thee, young baggage, disobedient wretch! / I tell thee what: get thee to church o’ Thursday, / Or never after look me in the face.” (Rom. III, v, 166-168). Though Juliet values Romeo above her family, her
family does not think in the same manner, for they are, in a way, hardened to the tender things in life like young love. Finally, love’s fickle properties are espoused by Shakespeare when it drastically alters one’s mental status, as seen in the death of Tybalt at the hands of Romeo. Romeo even admitted the role of emotions in this act when he passionately said, “…Fiery-eyed fury be my conduct
now” (Rom. III, i, 129). Indeed, Romeo’s murderous actions were caused partly from his emotion state due to his love with Juliet, and, without that love, Romeo would not be as emotionally compromised as he is during the duel. Romantic love in The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet is prone to changing, and that change ultimately contributes to the furthering of Shakespeare’s tragic plot.
Besides being fickle, love is fate-driven throughout The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet. Shakespeare places this idea at the forefront
of his tragedy when, in the prologue, he describes Romeo and Juliet as, “A pair of star-crossed lovers.” To be star-crossed means to be brought together by fate, and Romeo and Juliet, if driven by fate, cannot have a choice in the tragedy that is, according to fate, inevitable. In addition, the power of fate in defining love is apparent when, despite being inconvenient and inappropriate, people act upon feelings of love. Romeo and Juliet are not the ideal couple because of the ongoing feud between the Montagues and the Capulets. When Juliet finds out that the man she loves, Romeo, is a Montague, she remarks, “Prodigious birth of love it is to me / That I must love a loathed enemy.” (Rom. I, v, 154-155). Love is not best for the circumstances that Romeo and Juliet find themselves in, but, because it is fate-driven, love will endure despite unfavorable circumstances. Unfortunately, the disparaging circumstances deter
neither Romeo nor Juliet, and they continue down a path of destruction that is predestined. Finally, love is driven by the powerful force of fate in The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet, for it exists outside of physical expression like the institution of marriage. In fact, Friar Lawrence expresses the idea that Romeo and Juliet are physically alone by saying, “For, by your leaves, you shall not stay alone / Till Holy Church incorporate two in one,” (Rom. II, vi, 36-37), but they were not without love. The mere fact that love exists without explanation and physical rendition is proof that fate acts as a catalyst for love and compels it to exist. Without fate, love would not have been present in The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet, and, perhaps, in life itself according to Shakespeare.
The final facet of love’s definition as necessitating sacrifice is evident throughout The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet. This first incident of love requiring sacrifice is the sacrifice of Romeo’s sanity and way of being whenever he is in love. Benvolio is particularly in tune to this aspect of love’s impact on Romeo when, during the short period when Romeo was loveless, he remarks, “. . . Now art thou sociable, now art thou / Romeo, now art thou what thou art, by art as well as / by nature. For this driveling love is like a great / natural that runs lolling up and down to hide his / bauble in a hole.” (Rom. II, iv, 90-95). Unfortunately, despite this momentous instance of rationality and seceding repartee, Romeo becomes further plagued by the sanity-stripping nature of love that Shakespeare so blazingly employs. To further enhance this aspect of love, Shakespeare makes the love between Romeo and Juliet require them to sacrifice their respective families and friends. This is seen specifically when Juliet casts away the friendship and guidance of her beloved nurse after the nurse endorses her marriage with Paris. To culminate the severance of the relationship, Juliet bitterly remarks, “Is it more sin to wish me thus forsworn / Or to dispraise my lord with that same tongue / Which she hath praised him with above compare / So many times? Go, counselor. / Thou and my bosom henceforth shall be twain.” (Rom. III, v, 248-253). Shakespeare presents his protagonists with the terrible predicament of sacrificing either their love for each other or their love for family and friends, and both characters make the choice to sacrifice their family and friends. The final and most poignant
act of sacrifice in The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet is the rash act of sacrificing one’s life for lack of love that both Romeo and Juliet act upon. Juliet kills herself shortly after saying, “Yea, noise? Then I’ll be brief. O, happy dagger, / This is thy sheath. There rust,
and let me die.” (Rom. V, iii, 174-175). This incredible and impulsive sacrificing of life is required of love according to Shakespeare, for, when all else fails, love can require the ultimate sacrifice in order to endure. Far more tragic would the tale of Romeo and Juliet be if either Romeo or Juliet live to endure a life without love and its sacrifice. Love itself entails sacrifice, and Shakespeare believes that love cannot be achieved without it.
Love, being a feeling, is intangible, but it is well defined by Shakespeare’s definition of fickle feeling driven by fate and fueled by
sacrifice. Despite having a concrete definition created through the combination of subtext and textual hints, it is nearly impossible to precisely pinpoint the thoughts of William Shakespeare and his sentiments toward love. To perfectly define love, it would be necessary to combine Shakespeare’s definition with that of all others in the world. That idea itself is ludicrous, not only because of
the multitudinous amount of people in the world, but also because of the varying personal definitions that would accrue. Perhaps it is best to live on personal thoughts about love and its definition and be satisfied with a simulacrum of love’s nature as gleaned from The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet.
reflection
Process: This essay was heavily based on evidence, and that shaped its writing process. The first step in writing this essay was to brainstorm with my group, which came up with some good ideas. Those good ideas were narrowed down, and, as a group, we developed a definition of love according to Shakespeare. That definition was the basis of my essay because it was used as a major part of my thesis. The three parts of the thesis were broken down to serve as three body paragraphs, and, for each subtopic of the definition, I found three examples from The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet that proved my claims. All of this research was placed on a chart to facilitate the writing of the essay. Once the evidence-gathering stage was completed, I merely wrote what was in the chart in essay form, which was extremely easy. There were only a few adjustments made to create the final product. This essay was a weighty topic, but not a laborious process.
Product: I like a few things about this product. First, I think my intense use of evidence to support my claims is noteworthy because it makes my essay stronger and more difficult to refute. I may have even gone as far as to overuse evidence, which is a good situation to find oneself in. I was able to use so much evidence because I broke the main topic into subtopics of subtopics and found evidence to support every minute detail. That was what the teacher wanted, and that was what I did. I also like my diction. Words like “glean” and “simulacrum” add variety and are fun to use. These qualities certainly enhanced my writing.
Growth: I learned some important lessons through this assignment. First, I reaffirmed my distaste for group assignments. Working in groups is not ipso facto unpleasant, but, when I have to do so for a grade I tend to dislike it. I have a hard time trusting people to do a good job, and I tend to be under the false impression that their work will turn out to be sub-par. However, I was able to work through these apprehensions and receive a satisfactory grade on the assignment along with my group members. I also learned, through writing, that examples ad nauseum may not always be necessary to prove a point. Finally, I grew as a writer because it is extremely difficult to articulate other peoples’ ideas on paper if you do not agree with them or if you think they are those of a simpleton. I overcame this because it would be rude to ignore someone’s ideas. Group projects are perhaps the best medium through which to learn about oneself, and I undoubtedly took the opportunity to do so.
Improvement: There are numerous ways to improve this particular essay. First, I ought to have employed the use of quotations in a proper manner. Specifically, if the quotation of a piece of poetry is five or more lines, I need to separate it from the rest of the text, and I was remiss to not do that in this piece. Also, I ought to appease the teacher by not using words that are distasteful to her like the word glean even if my own personal adoration of that particular word makes it still near and dear to my heart. In addition, there was way too much information in here that it actually distracted from the points I was making. For example, I have no idea why I included the date of The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet’s publication. I do not know what I was thinking. Furthermore, I ought not to have forced Mrs. Boyd’s vocabulary into the text, but, at the group’s request, I had to use it even if it did not fit and hindered the flow. This essay was an odd experience, and the errors within it reflect my lack of comfort and direction.
Product: I like a few things about this product. First, I think my intense use of evidence to support my claims is noteworthy because it makes my essay stronger and more difficult to refute. I may have even gone as far as to overuse evidence, which is a good situation to find oneself in. I was able to use so much evidence because I broke the main topic into subtopics of subtopics and found evidence to support every minute detail. That was what the teacher wanted, and that was what I did. I also like my diction. Words like “glean” and “simulacrum” add variety and are fun to use. These qualities certainly enhanced my writing.
Growth: I learned some important lessons through this assignment. First, I reaffirmed my distaste for group assignments. Working in groups is not ipso facto unpleasant, but, when I have to do so for a grade I tend to dislike it. I have a hard time trusting people to do a good job, and I tend to be under the false impression that their work will turn out to be sub-par. However, I was able to work through these apprehensions and receive a satisfactory grade on the assignment along with my group members. I also learned, through writing, that examples ad nauseum may not always be necessary to prove a point. Finally, I grew as a writer because it is extremely difficult to articulate other peoples’ ideas on paper if you do not agree with them or if you think they are those of a simpleton. I overcame this because it would be rude to ignore someone’s ideas. Group projects are perhaps the best medium through which to learn about oneself, and I undoubtedly took the opportunity to do so.
Improvement: There are numerous ways to improve this particular essay. First, I ought to have employed the use of quotations in a proper manner. Specifically, if the quotation of a piece of poetry is five or more lines, I need to separate it from the rest of the text, and I was remiss to not do that in this piece. Also, I ought to appease the teacher by not using words that are distasteful to her like the word glean even if my own personal adoration of that particular word makes it still near and dear to my heart. In addition, there was way too much information in here that it actually distracted from the points I was making. For example, I have no idea why I included the date of The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet’s publication. I do not know what I was thinking. Furthermore, I ought not to have forced Mrs. Boyd’s vocabulary into the text, but, at the group’s request, I had to use it even if it did not fit and hindered the flow. This essay was an odd experience, and the errors within it reflect my lack of comfort and direction.