Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1995 :: February ::
Re: *Romeo and Juliet*
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0131.  Friday, 24 February 1995.
 
(1)     From:   Larry Hammer <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 22 Feb 1995 08:48:06 -0700 (MST)
        Subj:   Re: Romeo and Juliet
 
(2)     From:   John Boni <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 22 Feb 1995 09:56:01 -0600 (CST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0129 Re: *Romeo and Juliet*
 
(3)     From:   Dale Lyles <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 22 Feb 1995 11:19:28 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0129 Re: *Romeo and Juliet*
 
(4)     From:   Melissa Aaron <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 22 Feb 1995 14:11:06 +0200
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0129 Re: *Romeo and Juliet*
 
(5)     From:   Dan T. M. How <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 22 Feb 1995 17:19:20 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0129  Re: *Romeo and Juliet*
 
(6)     From:   William Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 23 Feb 1995 16:39:59 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   *Romeo and Juliet*
 
(7)     From:   Charles Adler <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 23 Feb 1995 21:02:41 -0500 (EST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 6.0129  Re: *Romeo and Juliet*
 
 
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Hammer <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 22 Feb 1995 08:48:06 -0700 (MST)
Subject:        Re: Romeo and Juliet
 
Frank Savukinas <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 > writes:
 
>Can somebody please give me a reason why Romeo and Juliet's marriage would not
>have lasted? After all it was true love.
 
Well, one does has one's doubts about how lasting a relationship is when the
teenage boy dumps a girl he is (or claims to be) in love with for another girl,
whom he marries the next day after only two conversations, both under rather
constrained circumstances.  And the bride is fourteen. We have no idea just how
compatable they would be in daily married life, expecially under the strain of
their family feuds.
 
And as the divorce rate in the United States demonstrates, love, even true
love, is not enough to make a marriage.
 
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Boni <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 22 Feb 1995 09:56:01 -0600 (CST)
Subject: 6.0129 Re: *Romeo and Juliet*
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0129 Re: *Romeo and Juliet*
 
RE: Frank Savukinas' query as to why Romoe & Juliet's marriage wouldn't have
lasted.  When I asked that of a class in Shakespeare Tragedies lo these many
years ago, a very bright female student answered by pointing to the intensity
of their existence and suggested the difficulty of imagining them as an old,
gray-haired couple.  Something about tragedy in that response.
 
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Dale Lyles <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 22 Feb 1995 11:19:28 -0500
Subject: 6.0129 Re: *Romeo and Juliet*
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0129 Re: *Romeo and Juliet*
 
I wonder.  Shakespeare's take on true love in the rest of his plays roundly
ridicules such romantic posing as goes on in R&J.  It's always been my
impression that he regarded that first passionate infatuation as something to
be gotten over as soon as possible. Besides, true love doesn't mean dying for
your love; it means staying alive with your love.
 
(4)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Melissa Aaron <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 22 Feb 1995 14:11:06 +0200
Subject: 6.0129 Re: *Romeo and Juliet*
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0129 Re: *Romeo and Juliet*
 
Re: Romeo and Juliet marriage: Because True Love doesn't last (though as
William Goldman points out, it's better than coughdrops.)  And I suspect W.
Godshalk is not the only Cynical Bill to walk the earth.  See especially the
Sonnets and my earlier suggestion that the Mortimers are madly in love through
lack of linguistic comprehension.
 
(5)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Dan T. M. How <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 22 Feb 1995 17:19:20 -0800
Subject: 6.0129  Re: *Romeo and Juliet*
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0129  Re: *Romeo and Juliet*
 
Can Romeo be truly in love with Juliet?  I would like to think so, but looking
at Romeo's recent affair with Rosaline, it would appear that Romeo falls often
and falls hard.  Conversely, Juliet is very much in love with Romeo, but is
that love out of desperation to escape a forced marriage? The difference
between Romeo and Juliet can be observed in the famous balcony scene, 2.2
Romeo says "Juliet" once, while Juliet says "Romeo" 12 times.  I would like
some feedback about that, actually.
 
Romeo compares Juliet to a multitude of wonderful lyric imagery (I wonder how
many of the same lines he used on whatzername?)  While Juliet, after her
initial embarrassment, takes control and plans their marriage.  Romeo is simply
happy to be wooing someone, ANYONE it seems.  :)   But in her rush to squeeze
in the subject of marriage and the time to meet, she forgets to tell him WHERE,
"I have forgot why I did call thee back.", which prompts the Nurse to look all
over the place, and arriving late, setting up 2.5
 
Dan Patterson brings up the interesting dilemma of why wasn't there any fanfare
of Romeo's involvement with Rosalind, if she indeed was part of the Capulet
clan.  This seems true by 1.2.84: "At this same ancient feast of Capulets'/
Sups the fair Rosaline whom thou so loves..."  How's this: Rosaline rejected
Romeo's love (this seems justified in the text), so there isn't any problem.
She rejected him because he was a Montague.  There doesn't seem much to justify
whether or not there was even an actual relationship between Romeo and
Rosaline.  I would conclude that Romeo simply has a crush on her.  1.1.166: "In
love?" asked by Benvolio would seem to indicate he had no idea that Romeo was
in love, and since Benvolio and Romeo are fairly close, it would seem to
indicate that Romeo's love of Rosaline is new.  Romeo goes to the masked ball
initially to find Rosaline, perhaps to try and convince her that it would be no
big deal if they got together, and OOPS!  guess who wanders into view?
 
"...O brave new world That has such people in't!"
                                 -The Tempest, Act 5, Sc 1
 
(6)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           William Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 23 Feb 1995 16:39:59 -0500 (EST)
Subject:        Romeo and Juliet
 
Frank Savukinas asks why I think Romeo and Juliet would not have lasted as a
couple. Let's admit right up front that this is extra-historical (in the Leah
Scragg sense) speculation. I don't see this teen relationship based on any
lasting qualities. Seen from the perspective of ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA, this play
seems to lack a "grown-up" dimension. Had Romeo and Juliet lived, what would
they be talking about 20 or 30 years down the road?
 
(7)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Charles Adler <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 23 Feb 1995 21:02:41 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 6.0129  Re: *Romeo and Juliet*
Comment:        Re: SHK 6.0129  Re: *Romeo and Juliet*
 
And, as a parting shot, let us not forget all those "ichy trigger fingers"
attached to various villains.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.