Romeo and Juliet – Philosophy from the Renaissance through to the Enlightenment

Romeo and Juliet, and in fact many other Shakespeare plays, portray ideas originating in the Renaissance, and influencing the Enlightenment. The Renaissance, spanning from the 14^th to the 17^th century had philosophers who worked on things such as freedom, fate and political philosophy. Shakespeare, writing mainly in the 16^th century influenced many during the Enlightenment, and Shakespearean ideologies are used during and near the period of the Enlightenment.

Focusing mainly on Romeo and Juliet, Romeo and Juliet heavily features the idea of fate vs free will, and the freedom one has to love who they want. The characters are very complex psychologically and embody the principles of Renaissance humanism. Romeo and Juliet practice this explicitly, expressing their self-knowledge, and intellectual freedom.

Romeo and Juliet also address the self, who it is, and their position in the world, society and humanity. Throughout the play, the characters of Romeo and Juliet gradually begin to develop more knowledge of themselves, rather than just looking at the identity they have been given, and assuming it to be so. But it is not just Romeo and Juliet who do this, other characters such as Tybalt and Mercutio do this, where they present rejection of how they are being placed on this metaphorical table of society, and place themselves where they want.

Order and disorder is also a big theme of Romeo and Juliet, and as previously mentioned, peoples places in society are not neatly arranged into groups, because members of the group choose where they want to go, as opposed to being there. However we encounter characters that will abide by the doctrines of their social entity, and see why other characters change their attitude towards the place society has put them, when they are introduced to new ideas and principles.

The characters of Romeo and Juliet in particular, as in the beginning they view each other as enemies, and are seen just as much members of their families and Lord Montague and Capulet themselves. This quickly changes when they meet each other, and their views on their families change. This gives me the impression that Shakespeare is trying to say is that experience is how we reason, because as soon and Romeo and Juliet experience each other (different from what they are used to) they change, because they have something to reason with. They cannot change with simply just using logic; they need more to reason with. This idea of “experience” is present throughout the play, as Romeo and Juliet had never actually felt dissatisfied with the limited freedom they had before they had met each other. This was only before they had actually felt properly liberated, so before experiencing this freedom, for Romeo and Juliet, freedom almost ceases to exist, therefore it doesn't affect them in any way, as they didn't realize they were being restricted, until they experienced freedom. Romeo and Juliet is a play that also heavily features the idea of influence, along with many other Shakespeare plays. The families influence clearly affect people like Tybalt and the servants strongly, as they very much fueled the conflict. This was because they had been influenced strongly by the families they belonged to, however Romeo and Juliet refused this influence, and thought differently to their counterparts.

These themes and ideas were all present during the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, and I will discuss how they have changed throughout that period of time.

Fate vs Free Will

We are all aware of how in the prologue, Romeo and Juliet are described as “star-cross’d lovers”, meaning that Romeo and Juliet were destined for each other and that it was fate that they had met. However this does not actually occur in the play, as the characters very quickly change their attitudes to one another when they meet each other. Additionally, why would it be fate that they fall in love, when they die as a cause of it? At the start of the play, Romeo was love sick over Rosaline, but then changed when he saw Juliet. And by loving each other, they show that have free will as that is not what they were being told to do.

However fundamentally, there is always a reason. I would strongly question why Romeo and Juliet actually loved each other, as all we are aware of, is that they fell in love. Some may argue that because there was no underlying cause to how they fell in love, and then they therefore fell in love of their own accord. No external cause had actually caused them to fall in love; therefore they had fallen in love freely without anyone dictating that they have to.

That is true. There was not something that caused them to fall in love; however it was the mere absence of something that caused them to fall in love, and that is just as strong a cause as any other, and a cause that was not in the hands of Romeo and Juliet. They had an absence of freedom. But freedom was something that they could give each other, and because of that, they inevitably fell in love with each other. This new found freedom liberated them. They were never aware that they were being restricted so much before they fell in love.

This is because they had never experienced the opposite of the place they were put in. For them to know what it is really like being restricted, they would have to experience the opposite, that being, freedom. When they finally did experience freedom, that is when they started to acknowledge how their families restricted them, and that is when they deny their social origins, as they realise how unjust their families are.

In Plato’s “Phaedo”, he mentions Socrates argument for the immortality of the soul, “The Cyclical Argument”. He argued that all things come from their opposite states, so for example something that is “larger” must have been “smaller” before. Thus, Romeo and Juliet felt “freer”, therefore they must have been “limited” before.

During the Renaissance, Plato’s works were popularized in the 15^th century, many acknowledging the thoughts and ideas created by Socrates and himself. Shakespeare was certainly part of this. Works of Shakespeare include themes and ideas that find their origins in ancient Greek philosophy. For example King Lear heavily features stoic ethics, as eventually, Lear loses interest in material things. He rips his clothes of, and does not care that his knights have left him, as eventually, he realizes that he has no control over them.

The very late Enlightenment philosopher, Hegel said:

“Identity of identity and non-identity”

- Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

By this, he meant that something’s identity will also constitute what it is not, to define its identity. He takes the abstract concepts of identity and non-identity, and that becomes the concept of absolute identity. In the same way that Romeo and Juliet needed to be limited and liberated, to know what absolute freedom is. Even into the Enlightenment, this idea of opposites is consistent.

Furthermore, the Capulets and the Montagues are seen as rival families. Opposites, one might argue. However they are in fact very similar, they are just the negation of one another. They make up each other’s identities, as a Capulet being a “non-Montague” and a Montague being a “non-Capulet”.

 Digressing back to freedom, It wasn't Romeo and Juliet themselves who have caused them to fall in love. Ironically, it was their families who had caused them to fall in love, without even knowing. When Juliet finds out that the person that she had met at the masquerade was Romeo, she exclaims “My only love sprung from my only hate” (1.5.138). So it is fair to assume that her love came from the fact that their families were feuding, and because of that, they were restricted from being together. But the fact that they were restricted from being together only made them love each other more, as it made them feel freer because they were completely rejecting all the doctrines their families tried to show them and loved the person that goes beyond the social limits that their families placed on them.

Locke argued that you can never have absolute freedom, as we will always act with regards to reason.

“Where there is no law, there is no freedom”

-John Locke

Even if those around who granted us freedom, and told us to do whatever we want, we as humans will still self-govern ourselves, as we will not act randomly of any accord. The things we do

But without these limitations, freedom pretty much ceases to exist. Without laws and restrictions, the concept of freedom fails to exist. You cannot be restricted, if you have never felt free, hence why Romeo and Juliet never felt unhappy with their families at the beginning of the play. Without experiencing its opposite in some way, this idea of being limited does not exist. Us as humans are as much subject to cause and effect as billiard balls on a table. The reasons why we do things do not originate inside us; they come from what is outside us. So in effect, I suppose you could argue that we are not responsible for our actions, as it all comes from external causes, and influence. Eventually, the freedom they had was shown, as they had the freedom to kill themselves.

 Power and Influence

In Romeo and Juliet and in many other Shakespeare plays, we encounter characters of a very powerful nature, which tend to be able to influence the others greatly. In Romeo and Juliet, you have the lords of the two families, Lord Montague and Lord Capulet. I would like to focus on Lord Capulet in particular, as in the play, we see him at his highest points of influence.

Lord Capulet has a very strong influence upon all the members of the Capulet family. If we look at Tybalt especially, we see him as being quite aggressive as he says “talk of peace! I hate the word” (1.1.60), and expresses how he hates “hell” and “all Montagues” (1.1.61). I suppose you could say he was a devout Capulet, as he followed this tradition of having hatred towards the Montagues. Tybalt is a very interesting character, as unlike Juliet, he seems to have been fed the doctrine that all Montagues are bad, and not just believed it, but consistently tried to do something about it. He went through great lengths to encourage a fight, and every time there was always a fight.

I think that Tybalt was almost a “victim” in all this. He lived in a family where he was told that all Montagues are bad, and never knew any better. It like how we look at children today from disadvantaged backgrounds, and see that they grow up to live terrible lives. We see them as victims, because the people around them never had any motivation to do well, or a good work ethic, and in turn, that influenced them. But back to Tybalt, we see him as being quite naïve, as he is strongly influenced by Lord Capulet. For example, during the masquerade at the Capulet household, Tybalt notices that Romeo is present. He says that he will “not endure him” (1.5.75), however Capulet persuades him to endure him, demanding that “he shall be endured” (1.5.76).

Some may argue that Capulet was just very good at influencing people to do what he wants, and there is nothing wrong with that, so why do we view Capulet at the “bad” guy? Well firstly, strongly influencing someone to do what you want is good, but Capulet manipulates the member is his family, for his own benefit. He indoctrinates Tybalt, making him believe that all Montagues are bad, and he forces Juliet to marry Paris, despite her refusal. All of this was only to bring some sort of benefit to Capulet. He did this to make him more powerful. Marrying Juliet to Paris would help him to build a relationship with the King, and Tybalt was used as a metaphorical weapon towards to Montagues.

This ethical position of Capulet is one that has mixed views. Montesquieu was an Enlightenment philosopher, who believed that a fair government was one that separated its powers among a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary. This was so one person could not have total power, as if he did, it was likely and he could and would abuse it, and use it to his own advantage. He said:

“There is as yet no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from legislative power and the executrix”

-Montesquieu

However, the same attitude was not present during the Renaissance. Amongst the most recognised people from the Renaissance period was Niccolò Machiavelli. Famous for writing “The Prince”, a short book on what makes a good ruler. He very much advocated the idea that it is okay to do wrong and manipulate people to your advantage, as long as the end justified the means. For Machiavelli, it was okay to use people as tools for your own advantage. But Shakespeare shows the complete opposite, as because of Capulet manipulating his family members wrongly, Romeo and Juliet inevitably die, and “never was there a story of more woe” (5.3.325).

The opinions of the idea of using people as tools for your own advantage varied greatly during the period of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, and still differs greatly today. But during the Enlightenment, there was also another popular philosopher, who may not have gone to the extremes that Machiavelli had, but certainly believed that we should be strongly governed, in order to live in a good society.

Thomas Hobbes believed that all humans are born naturally evil, and in particular selfish. We will only do something if it will benefit ourselves in some way. Thus making us put our desires first, and seeing fulfilling them as a good thing to do. However we live in a world where people have very different perceptions on what is good and bad, and if we allow everyone to satisfy their desires when they please, the world eventually turns into chaos.

This is why Hobbes proposed having a strong government, with strong and strict laws. This creates a lot more order, and is more satisfying than allowing everyone to have different views on what is good and thus trying to reach their desires in that way. Hobbes described life without a strong government as:

“... solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short”.

-Thomas Hobbes

Romeo and Juliet were evidently very strongly governed, but then soon broke out of that, by trying to satisfy their own desires. However, clearly that didn’t end too well, and it concluded that both of them died.

But the way you view Capulet and many of the other authoritative figures in the play all depends on the way you view the ending. Yes, Romeo and Juliet had died, but in the play they were not completely innocent. Romeo killed Tybalt, and Juliet lied to her father. All of this was to satisfy their own desires. Romeo and Juliet were almost selfish in a way, as they acted immorally for their own benefit, just like their families. This idea varies over Shakespeare’s plays. In Othello, Desdemona and Othello both die in the end, after all the suspicions that Iago plants in Othello’s head about Desdemona cheating on him. This was all because Iago simply hated Othello, and did all this to satisfy his hatred towards Othello. There is no doubt that we all view Iago as the villain in this play, as he manipulated Othello, and it concluded to the tragic end.

If we did acknowledge how Romeo and Juliet were also unethical, then the end to the play wouldn’t be as tragic as we usually see it. Yes, Capulet abused the power he had, but Romeo and Juliet also abused the freedom that they had.

It is definitely worth noting that Romeo and Juliet was set in Renaissance Italy, during the time of Machiavelli. Many of Shakespeare’s works include very Machiavellian characters, such as the previously mentioned Iago, and also Edmund in King Lear, is quite immoral in the way he acts to gain power.

Shakespeare definitely suited Romeo and Juliet to its time, with regards to its characters, but whether or not he thought the characters were good is questionable. I would argue that all the characters are quite manipulative, and it says a lot about society at the time. That yes, people were quite selfish, and did anything in order to benefit themselves.

Capulet definitely treated the members of the family like tools, especially Juliet. He married her off to Paris, just because he cared more about his position in the society, rather than his daughter. Marriage during that time was not really about love, most of the time, it was about a social contract between two families.

The Self

“The self” is a key theme in Romeo and Juliet. In the play, we look at identity, and its meaning, and also battle with the idea whether or not someone is given and identity, or they make it up for themselves.

A fairly obvious example of this would be the balcony scene between Romeo and Juliet (Act 2 Scene 2). Both of them deny their social origins for each other. Juliet says that she will “no longer be a Capulet” (2.2.36) and Romeo says that he will “never be Romeo”. By doing this, they are showing that the identity you have isn’t something that has been chosen for you, or perhaps given to you, it is something that you choose for yourself.

However Romeo and Juliet do not necessarily choose their own identities. In the same scene, Juliet says to Romeo, “Deny thy father and refuse thy name” (2.2.34). She is almost demanding Romeo to forget about his family name, and to instead adopt his own identity; however the identity he has will only be the one that he has to have to be with Juliet. They are not freely choosing their own identity, Romeo and Juliet are choosing it for each other.

We are not the ones who make us who we are. Other people make us who we are. I suppose you could compare man to a metaphorical sculpture, where throughout a lives, the people we meet mould it in such a way, making the ultimate “you”.

Romeo and Juliet did not become free to be who they wanted to be. It was just that someone else was making them who they are.

Some more interesting characters are Tybalt and Mercutio. Act 3 Scene 1 is a very big scene in the play. This was when there was a fight, resulting in the death of Tybalt and Mercutio. In this scene, Mercutio seems very careless of what people think of him, as upon Benvolio’s suggestion to calm down, and not cause any trouble, Mercutio refuses, saying that he” will not budge for no man’s pleasure” (3.1.26). Mercutio seems to not care what people think of him, which is quite odd, because considering that he is a relative of the Prince, you would expect that he has a reputation to upkeep.  Nevertheless, he seems rather aggressive, and in fact, he fuels the feud between the two families. Perhaps because he is not part of them, and so knows that it will not affect him. When Tybalt requests a word with Mercutio or Benvolio, Mercutio says that they should make it a “word and a blow” (3.1.17). Mercutio wants them to fight, however upon his death that is not what we see. When he is dying, he famously says “A plague o' both your houses” (3.1.59). It seems odd that Mercutio was the one that wanted the two families to fight, yet when he was dying, he suggests that they are both as bad as each other. This leads me to believe that perhaps Tybalt wasn’t being who he wanted to be. Perhaps society pressured him into being involved into the fight, or perhaps he was naturally influenced that way by Romeo and Benvolio, who wanted conflict. Tybalt acts differently when he was dying, and whether or not he was like that before is questionable. Maybe Tybalt has suddenly realised how badly he had been influenced, when death was upon him. The fact that he needs to die to realise the severity of the situation shows that he was very badly influenced by the conflict, and realised how he had been “moulded”, as before, he was completely oblivious to it. This suggesting that we do not know who we are, when other people is what makes us “us”.

What is ironic is that Tybalt seems to be the one acting rational, despite us seeing him as quite quick-tempered, and aggressive. Upon Mercutio’s request to fight, he demands a reason, as he says that he is “apt enough to that”, but them says that that you should “give [him] occasion” (3.1.18-19). It seems that Tybalt is being quite fair, as he requested a reason, but that was only because people were watching, and Tybalt is from a highly affluent family just like Mercutio, it is just that Tybalt did not want to ruin his reputation, so he acted very calm, and rational. However, we know this is an act, as we find out later of in the scene.

Later on, when Romeo appears, Tybalt says to him that there is “no better term” than to call him a “villain” (3.1.32). This just shows that Tybalt is trying to be the sensible one, as he chooses not to call Romeo any vulgar terms, only a “villain”. However later on, we see that Tybalt is not the only one who can stay calm, as Romeo says to Tybalt that “the reason that I have to love thee, Doth much excuse the appertaining rage” (3.1.33-34). We notice that Romeo is justifying himself, rather than gallivanting around with a sword, and pulling it on those who he hates, who we can see is very much in Tybalt’s character.  This clearly annoys Tybalt, and then I suppose we see the “true” side of Tybalt, as he almost victimizes himself, claiming that Romeo has injured his family, he should therefore “turn and draw” (3.1.38). That is when we can actually see Tybalt. He is annoyed how Romeo can stay composed, whereas for him, it is all an act! He wants people to see him as a good person, but really, he is probably the worst.

I have already mentioned that Tybalt seems to be a victim on family influence. He consistently is the one to cause the trouble, and is very much a “Capulet”. He only is the way he is because of the things I have previously mentioned. His family made him that way for their own benefit, and he has never seen any different. We are made up of our experiences as humans, and Tybalt never had any positive relation with a Montague.

In “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding” by John Locke, Locke wrote that someone’s personal identity consists of their conscience, and not substance. This idea is present in Romeo and Juliet, as Romeo and Juliet ignore their names, as it is “no part of thee” (2.2.48). Their identities only consist of their conscience, not substance or material things, and their name is just a label. In the same scene, Juliet says that “That which we call a rose, by any other word would smell as sweet” (2.2.43-44).  A rose will be the same, despite what we call it, because what we call it doesn't make up what it is.

Conclusion

Philosophical ideas that find their origins in the Renaissance are evident in Shakespeare’s works. However we also notice similar ideas coming after Shakespeare, during the Enlightenment, how they have changed, and how the plays that Shakespeare has wrote could have influenced the change, as his literary skill helped to show what was wrong with these ideas. Even today we look at the social issues portrayed in Shakespeare’s works, and learn greatly from them about morality, and society.