Download The Determining of Good and Evil in Romeo and Juliet

CAS Review 9, no. 1 (August 2014): 63-76
CAS Review
Vol. 9, No. 1 August 2014
Joachim Emilio B. Antonio
NOTES
The God of My Idolatry:
The Determining of Good and Evil in Romeo
and Juliet
Joachim Emilio B. Antonio
Abstract
William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet is one of the Bard’s
most recognized tragedies due to the depiction of the star-crossed
lovers and the vendetta culture, but is this as deep as one can go
with the material? The paper argues that there is a strong theme of
sin depicted in the play as manifested in the major and minor
characters as well as Friar Lawrence’s commentary on the play’s
action. This argument is presented by first defining sin based on
the Catechism of the Catholic Church, then establishing patterns
from the different plot points, and then synthesizing the established
patterns. With the established pattern, the paper shows that there
is indeed an underlying theme of sin depicted in Romeo and Juliet,
providing a fresh area for discussion in an otherwise welldiscussed material.
Introduction
Like in many of Shakespeare’s plays, particularly in his
tragedies, Romeo and Juliet easily provides moments and insights
that may evoke a deep awareness of man and his interactions with
others. The drama of Romeo and Juliet, after all, does cover young
love, hatred, despair and suicide. But does the play Romeo and
63
The God of My Idolatry: The Determining of Good and Evil in Romeo and Juliet
Juliet touch on man’s relationship with his Creator? This study
argues for it as the play tackles the theme of sin and makes a strong
statement on it.
To build this connection, the argument will be presented in
three major steps. First is the establishment of a working definition
of sin. Second is the presentation of the instances in Romeo and
Juliet that either fit or discuss the definition of sin. The
presentation of instances can be broken down into the following
sections: the circumstances of Romeo’s suicide; the courtship of
Romeo and Juliet; the mindset in “Fair Verona”; Friar Lawrence
on nature and misapplication; “Fair Verona” in misapplication.
The third step will be the synthesis of these instances.
Defining Sin
It would be difficult to discuss sin in Romeo and Juliet
without having a basic definition for an observable pattern. For this
purpose, one may start with a section from the Catechism of the
Catholic Church:
Sin is an offense against God: "Against you, you alone,
have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight."
Sin sets itself against God's love for us and turns our hearts
away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt
against God through the will to become "like gods,"
knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus "love
of oneself even to contempt of God." In this proud selfexaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of
Jesus, which achieves our salvation.1
In addition to this, it is important to consider the following:
Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die
in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God's
1
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: United
States Catholic Conference, 2000), no. 1850. Henceforth CCC.
64
Joachim Emilio B. Antonio
command. This is what man's first sin consisted of. All
subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and
lack of trust in his goodness.2
What, then, would be applicable for Romeo and Juliet? While
all of these may be useful, the role of God is not so explicitly
pronounced in the play. However, the act of sinning, that is, “the
will to become “like gods,” knowing and determining good and
evil,” and it being an abuse of freedom bring about a pattern
emerging throughout the play. This will be the working definition
of sin in analysing the play, beginning with the circumstances of
Romeo’s suicide.
The Circumstances of Romeo’s Suicide
It is usually said that Romeo and Juliet’s suicide was driven
by mere rashness and passion. However, upon examining
Romeo’s actions leading to his suicide, one may say that the action
was not rash, but rather a deliberate decision of one taking his own
life. It should be considered that Romeo’s decision to take his own
life began as early as Mantua, the moment he finds out from his
servant Balthazar that Juliet is dead. “Well, Juliet, I will lie with
thee tonight.”3
Before he committed suicide, Romeo still had to convince the
apothecary to sell him poison, travel all the way back to Verona (a
good 20 miles), sneak through the city gates, fight Paris, and break
into the Capulet vault. Not only do these actions demonstrate too
long a passage of time to be considered rash, but they require a
sense of deliberation that would be inconsistent to someone rashly
committing suicide. Romeo’s suicide, then, was a very deliberate
course of action.
2
Ibid., no. 397.
Act V, scene 1, 37 in William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet (New
York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 1992).
3
65
The God of My Idolatry: The Determining of Good and Evil in Romeo and Juliet
But how does self-justification of suicide come in? Romeo
clearly tells the apothecary upon buying the poison, “I sell thee
poison; thou hast sold me none.”4 Furthermore, Romeo, in his
soliloquy declares the poison not as a poison but a cordial,
determining that the poison is good for him.5 Why Romeo declares
the poison good is further understood in his courtship with Juliet.
The Courtship of Romeo and Juliet
Romeo’s rationalization of the circumstances leading to his
suicide is not a sudden change of character. In fact, it has been
consistently characteristic of Romeo and Juliet’s relationship as
can be seen in both characters. The lovers’ rebellion against a
given reality is explicitly captured in Juliet’s famous line: “What’s
in a name? That which we call a rose/ By any other word would
smell as sweet.”6. The lovers stick to this mind frame throughout
their courtship. Romeo assures Juliet of his love by telling her,
“My life were better ended by their hate/ Than death prorogued,
wanting of thy love”7; and Juliet goes so far as to tease Romeo
with “if thou wilt, swear by thy gracious self,/ Which is the god of
my idolatry,/ And I’ll believe thee.”8 A counter argument to this
observation is that Romeo and Juliet are just courting each other
and all this is just sweet talk and merely metaphorical. However,
this sweet talk takes a more serious turn after Romeo kills Tybalt,
Juliet’s cousin, to regain his honor and avenge his friend Mercutio.
In Act III, scene 3, Romeo and Friar Lawrence find out that
Prince Escalus decided to have Romeo banished instead of
executed, a threat the Prince posed if a Montague or Capulet were
ever to fight in Verona. Friar Lawrence sees the Prince’s verdict as
4
Act V, scene 1, 87.
Act V, scene 1, 90.
6
Act II, scene 2, 46-47.
7
Act II, scene 2, 82-83.
8
Act II, scene 2, 120-121.
5
66
Joachim Emilio B. Antonio
an act of mercy; Romeo sees banishment as a death mistermed.9
Romeo expounds on this by saying, “’Tis torture and not mercy.
Heaven is here/ Where Juliet lives…”10 Romeo’s mindset here is
consistent as in Act II, Scene 2, but the context is no longer sweet
talk.
The same can be said with regard to Juliet after she hears of
Tybalt’s murder and Romeo’s banishment. Without much detail of
the circumstances, she reprimands her Nurse for speaking ill
against Romeo: “Blistered be thy tongue/ For such a wish! He was
not born to shame./ Upon his brow shame is ashamed to sit,/ For
‘tis a throne where honor may be crowned/ Sole monarch of the
universal Earth.”11 The level of praise she showers on Romeo is
similar to that in Act II, Scene 2, but the context is not of sweet
talk.
Again, the determination of good and evil is manifested in the
way Romeo and Juliet view each other. Juliet cannot put it any
more plainly when she calls Romeo “the god of my idolatry.”12
This also is the explanation why Romeo would call the poison a
cordial, as Juliet—his determined greatest good—is gone.
The Mindset in “Fair Verona”
This pattern expands to the viewpoints and actions of the
supporting and peripheral characters of the play. The most obvious
of these is Tybalt in Act I, Scene 5. When Tybalt discovers
Romeo’s intrusion in the Capulet gathering, he immediately asks
for his sword, with an obvious intent to kill Romeo. He then
justifies his intended act with the following lines, “Now, by the
stock and honor of my kin/ To strike him dead I hold it not a sin.”13
9
Act III, scene 3, 22.
Act III, scene 3, 31-32.
11
Act III, scene 2, 99-103.
12
Act II, scene 2, 120.
13
Act I, scene 5, 66-67.
10
67
The God of My Idolatry: The Determining of Good and Evil in Romeo and Juliet
This is spoken despite the Prince’s edict that disturbing the peace
through brawls was forbidden on pain of death. Tybalt’s intent is
prevented by Capulet, which humiliates the former, making him
swear to himself “I will withdraw but this intrusion shall,/ Now
seeming sweet, convert to bitt’rest gall.”14
This is not an isolated case. In Act I, Scene 1, the Capulet
servants, Gregory and Sampson, attempt to pick a fight with
Abram, a servant of the Montagues. While the initial attempt to
pick a fight fails, the succeeding incident sparks the fight. It is
important to note that the cause for this fight is that one servant
claims to work for a better master than another.
GREGORY:
ABRAM:
SAMPSON:
a man as you.
ABRAM:
SAMPSON:
Do you quarrel, sir?
Quarrel, sir? No, sir.
But if you do, sir, I am for you. I serve as good
No better.
Well, sir.
Enter Benvolio.
GREGORY: [aside to Sampson] Say “better”; here comes
one of my master’s kinsmen.
SAMPSON: Yes, better, sir.
ABRAM:
You lie.
SAMPSON: Draw if you be men.—Gregory, remember thy
washing blow. They fight.15
The quarrel of the servants on who serves the better master
quickly escalates with the involvement of the kinsmen from the
two houses, Benvolio and Tybalt. This quarrel, in turn, escalates
with the involvement of other citizens of Verona as well as of the
heads of the households themselves, Montague and Capulet. Like
Tybalt’s reaction to Romeo, the quarrel between the households
14
15
Act I, scene 5, 102-103.
Act I, scene 1, 53-61.
68
Joachim Emilio B. Antonio
can be traced back to a declaration of the other’s value or lack
thereof.
This perception also manifests when Benvolio testifies to
Prince Escalus about the circumstances of Tybalt’s death and Lady
Capulet reacts, “He is kinsman to the Montague./ Affection makes
him false; he speaks not true.”16 While Lady Capulet may
reasonably suspect Benvolio and is likely to be emotionally
charged at this point, her enmity against the Montagues clearly
comes out.
The examples of Tybalt, the servants, and Lady Capulet call
to mind the unexplained “ancient grudge” between the Montagues
and Capulets. The reason behind the grudge does not matter; what
matters is that the Montagues and the Capulets took it upon
themselves to declare the other household as evil. These, too,
demonstrate the characters’ determining of good and evil.
Friar Lawrence on Nature and Misapplication
It can be argued that the observations above may just be
coincidental and that the theme of sin is merely being forced on the
text. However, the soliloquies and monologues of Friar Lawrence
enforce the theme already presented. Friar Lawrence first appears
in the play picking herbs and flowers, delivering a soliloquy on the
medicinal and poisonous qualities of the plants. This, of course,
can be seen as an introduction of his abilities to come up with
sleeping potions. However, Friar Lawrence also points out clear
observations that can act as metaphors to what will happen in the
events of the play.
Within the infant rind of this weak flower
Poison hath residence and medicine power;
For this, being smelt, with that part cheers each part
Being tasted, stays all senses with the heart.
16
Act III, scene 1, 185-186.
69
The God of My Idolatry: The Determining of Good and Evil in Romeo and Juliet
Two such opposed kings encamp them still
In man as well as herbs—grace and rude will.17
The metaphor in this part is rich; for one, good when misapplied
becomes evil. In the case of sin, freedom is misapplied by
determining good and evil, as can be seen in the earlier statements
of Tybalt, Romeo, and Juliet.
Friar Lawrence goes back to this principle with his reactions
to the events of the play. When he first hears that Romeo is in love
with Juliet, Friar Lawrence’s response is not merely disapproval
but a criticism of Romeo’s exercise of love.
Holy Saint Francis, what change is here!
Is Rosaline, that thou didst love so dear;
So soon forsaken? Yong men’s love then lies
Not truly in their hearts, but in their eyes.
Jesu Maria, what a deal of brine
Hath washed thy cheeks for Rosaline!
How much salt water thrown away in waste
To season love, that of it doth not taste!18
Friar Lawrence’s disapproval also highlights what love is not
supposed to be, given the way Romeo exercises it.
When Romeo defends himself by saying that his love for
Juliet is reciprocated while his love for Rosaline is not, Friar
Lawrence commends Rosaline by saying, “O, she knew well/ Thy
love did read by rote that could not spell.”(Act II, scene 3, 94-95).
These two disapprovals put the otherwise romanticized Act II,
scene 2 in a proper context, particularly Romeo’s professions of
love for Juliet.
With love’s light wings did I o’erperch these walls,
For stony limits cannot hold love out,
17
18
Act II, scene 3, 23-29.
Act II, scene 2, 71-73.
70
Joachim Emilio B. Antonio
And what love can do, that dares love attempt.19
The disapproval, also, is timely as it comes immediately after Act
II, scene 2, acting as a criticism to the previous scene while the
latter is still fresh in the audience’s minds.
The disapproval in Act II, scene 3, is not ill-founded either as
can be seen in Act III, scene 3, when Friar Lawrence reprimands
Romeo again when the latter attempts suicide at discovering
Juliet’s grief.
Fie, fie, thou shamest thy shape, thy love, thy wit,
Which, like a usurer, abound’st in all
And usest none in that true use indeed
Which should bedeck thy shape, thy love, thy wit.
Thy noble shape is but a form of wax,
Digressing from the valor of a man;
Thy dear love sworn but hollow perjury,
Killing that love which thou hast vowed to cherish;
Thy wit, that ornament to shape and love,
Misshapen in the conduct of them both,
Like powder in a skilless soldier’s flask,
Is set afire by thine own ignorance,
And thou dismembered with thine own defense.20
The reprimand echoes Friar Lawrence’s soliloquy in Act II, scene
3 on herbs and men, wherein Romeo is not acting as a human
being should. By Act III, Romeo displays his inability to fulfill the
nature of his marriage vows as well as the other weaknesses of
character that Friar Lawrence pointed out as early as Act II. Aside
from his reaction in Act II, scene 3, there also is his response to
Romeo in Act II, scene 6.
ROMEO: Amen, amen. But come what sorrow can,
It cannot countervail the exchange of joy
That one short minute gives me in her sight.
19
20
Ibid.
Act III, scene 3,132-144.
71
The God of My Idolatry: The Determining of Good and Evil in Romeo and Juliet
Do thou but close our hands with holy words,
Then love-devouring death do what he dare,
It is enough I may call her but mine.
FRIAR LAWRENCE:
These violent delights have violent ends
And in their triumph die, like fire and powder;
Which, as they kiss, consume. The sweetest honey
Is loathsome in its own deliciousness
And in the taste confounds the appetite.
Therefore love moderately. Long love doth so.
Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow.21
With Friar Lawrence’s reprimand in Acts II and III, it is clear
that Romeo fails to live up to his marriage vows as his concept of
love is skewed. This skewing, in turn, also affects his other
faculties. Hence, the accusation of Friar Lawrence that Romeo
does not act like a man holds true.
A further point here is a repetition in the image of fire and
powder, in both Act II, scene 6, and Act III, scene 3, emphasizing
Romeo’s error and the possible dangers of this error. His obstinate
cling to “violent delights” despite Friar Lawrence’s repeated
warnings from Act II to Act III eventually leads to Romeo’s
“violent end,” to that of murdering Paris and committing suicide.
“Fair Verona” in Misapplication
In the same way that the pattern in Romeo’s action manifests
in Juliet and the other characters, so does the pattern of
consequences in other characters prove Friar Lawrence’s point: as
Prince Escalus says towards the end of the play, “all are
punished.”22
21
22
Act II, scene 6, 3-15.
Act V, Scene 3, 305.
72
Joachim Emilio B. Antonio
Juliet’s suicide, for example, stands in stark contrast to
Romeo’s. As pointed out earlier, Romeo applies his freedom to
dictate the circumstances of his death, when, where, and how he
would die. Juliet gets no such opportunity. The moment she
decides to die like Romeo, all her attempts get frustrated: Romeo
had drunk all the poison, and the poison was no longer on his lips.
When Juliet finally kills herself, she does so with a dagger, first
saying “Yea noise? Then I’ll be brief” before she stabs herself. 23
Her statement emphasizes her need to adjust to her circumstances.
Any delay would have people preventing her suicide, so she settles
for the dagger. Juliet’s attempt to poison herself though, shows that
she would have rather died by the poison used by Romeo.
The events leading to Tybalt’s death can be traced back to
when he says, “Now, by the stock and honor of my kin/ To strike
him dead I hold it not a sin.”24 Tybalt gets to confront Romeo in
Act III, Scene 1, and tries to provoke him to fight by throwing
challenges and insults.
TYBALT: Romeo, the love I bear thee can afford
No better term than this: thou art a villain.
Mercutio, Romeo’s friend, takes offense at Tybalt’s insults,
and steps up to fight Tybalt since Romeo refuses to do so. The
high—and disproportional—regard for honor, begins with verbal
insult that rises to a swordplay culminating with Mercutio’s death.
While it can be said that Romeo fights Tybalt to avenge Mercutio,
the motive is not that simple. Upon hearing the news of Mercutio’s
death, Romeo reflects on what Mercutio died for and reassesses his
situation:
23
24
Act V, Scene 3, 174.
Act I, Scene 5, 66-67.
73
The God of My Idolatry: The Determining of Good and Evil in Romeo and Juliet
This gentleman, the Prince’s dear ally,
My very friend, hath got this mortal hurt
In my behalf. My reputation stained
With Tybalt’s slander—Tybalt, that an hour
Hath been my cousin! O sweet Juliet,
Thy beauty hath made me effeminate
And in my temper softened valor’s steel.25
This realization is further enforced in Romeo’s challenge to
Tybalt when he says, “Now, Tybalt, take the “villain”/ back again”
and this eventually leads to Tybalt’s death.26 Tybalt may not have
considered killing Romeo a sin, but the reality around him would
state otherwise: Mercutio takes offense at Tybalt’s attempt to
provoke Romeo, who takes offense at the attempt as well, and it is
Tybalt’s killing of Mercutio that moves Prince Escalus to change
Romeo’s execution to exile.
Ultimately, the abuse of freedom manifested in Montague and
Capulet by determining each other’s houses as evil has the
strongest consequence in the play, and Prince Escalus states it
rather explicitly:
Where be these enemies?—Capulet, Montague,
See what a scourge is laid upon your hate,
That heaven finds means to kill your joys with love,
And I, for winking at your discords too,
Have lost a brace of kinsmen.27
Conclusion
As shown in the arguments above, the bloody outcome in
Romeo and Juliet can consistently be traced back to the characters’
actions characterized by their determination of good and evil: the
feud between the Montagues and Capulets determines the other as
25
Act III, scene 1, 114-120.
Act III, scene 1, 129-130.
27
Act V, scene 3.
26
74
Joachim Emilio B. Antonio
evil, Tybalt’s desire to kill Romeo determines Romeo’s death as
good, Romeo and Juliet determine each other as each other’s
highest good, and Romeo determines his suicide beside Juliet as
good as well.
These actions are tied together thematically, as emphasized
first by Friar Lawrence’s soliloquies and reprimands to Romeo, as
well as the conclusions themselves. Their determination of good
and evil clashes against reality, and therefore led to tragic
consequences. More than just sad, Prince Escalus is correct at
saying, “punished.”
The actions and events in Romeo and Juliet demonstrate even
further another point in the CCC:
Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it
is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a
perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of
man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an
utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.28
The same idea manifests in Act III, scene 3, with Friar Lawrence’s
reprimand on Romeo, “Are you a man?” It is not merely a taunt on
Romeo’s manhood, but a criticism on his actions contrary to what
a human being should be. All these are illustrated in Romeo and
Juliet. But the discussion of sin does not end simply at the human
level.
Sin is present in human history; any attempt to ignore it or to
give this dark reality other names would be futile. To try to
understand what sin is, one must first recognize the profound
relation of man to God, for only in this relationship is the evil
of sin unmasked in its true identity as humanity's rejection of
28
CCC, no. 1849.
75
The God of My Idolatry: The Determining of Good and Evil in Romeo and Juliet
God and opposition to him, even as it continues to weigh
heavy on human life and history.29
With the way the characters in the play arrive at their
decisions, despite what reality dictated to them, an important and
profound theme can be extracted from the text that achieves the
aim of creating awareness of man’s relationship with his Creator:
man’s freedom and the nature of sin.
Works Cited
Catechism of the Catholic Church. 2nd ed. Washington, DC:
United States Catholic Conference, 2000.
Shakespeare, William. Romeo and Juliet. New York: Simon &
Schuster Paperbacks, 1992.
___________________________
Joachim Emilio B. Antonio ([email protected]) is a
literature professor and playwright. He received his Ph.D. in
Creative Writing from the University of the Philippines Diliman,
and his MA in Humanities with Specialization in History from the
University of Asia and the Pacific.
29
CCC, no. 386.
76
CAS Review 9, no. 1 (August 2014)