Romeo and Juliet: Joseph A. Bryant’s Considerations :: Romeo and Juliet Essays

William Shakespeargons Romeo and Juliet has always been a very popular play. Joseph A. Bryant states this in his introduction, unless there was never really contention. Most likely written in 1595, we learn from Bryant that this is thought to be one of Shakespeares more mature whole kit and caboodle that shows the pinnacle of his creativity (xxviii-xxx). Because of this creativity, audiences love Romeo and Juliet. However, Bryant also tells us that among professional scholars the play has sparked less enthusiasm (xxiii). For even though the play possesses an ingenuity of the language and has a particular brilliance of the characterizations (xxiii) , Bryant informs us that critics are upset by the importance Shakespeare places on pathos, and therefore tactual sensation that the play lacks real ethics. Bryant also concerns his introduction on the aesthetics of Romeo and Juliet with special consideration on the structure, the language, and the characters of the play, as well as how good of an example of a tragedy the play is. Many readers may feel that Romeo and Juliet relies too much on pathos that its just a tear-jerking love story. However, Bryants answer to those who think that the play lacks real ethics is that they are looking at it from a modern standpoint. The play really needs to be looked at from the point of view of the Elizabethan audience of 1595. Bryant tells us that they knew by training what to think of impetuous young lovers who deceived their parents and sought advice from friars (xxiv). Elizabethan audiences also knew that suicide was a sin (xxiv). This was common sense knowledge, and if looked at through the conventions of party at this time then, as Bryant states, the play must have had automatically an abundance of honest import (xxiv). Bryant also commends Shakespeare for not attacking these commonly held ethical conventions, even though todays readers can clearly see that Shakespeare thought nothing wrong with the relationship and di d not even hold Romeo and Juliet all in all responsible for the consequences (xxiv). But some modern readers, Bryant tells us, are also uncomfortable with the numerous references to fate and destiny, and assume that Shakespeare meant the play to be deterministic (xxiv). Bryant tells us that Shakespeare does compact in the Prologue to show the misadventured piteous overthrows of a pair of star-crossed lovers and then lets his characters continue to refer to destiny for the rest of the play (xxv).