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

William Shakespe ars Romeo and Juliet has always been a very popular cheer. Joseph A. Bryant states this in his introduction, but there was never really contention. Most likely scripted in 1595, we learn from Bryant that this is thought to be one of Shakespeares more than mature works that shows the pinnacle of his creativity (xxviii-xxx). Because of this creativity, audiences love Romeo and Juliet. However, Bryant similarly tells us that among professional scholars the take on has sparked less enthusiasm (xxiii). For even though the put-on 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 feel that the play lacks real ethics. Bryant also concerns his introduction on the aesthetics of Romeo and Juliet with special devotion on the structure, the language, and the characters of the play, as well as how good of an example o f a tragedy the play is. Many readers may feel that Romeo and Juliet relies too more than 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 facial expression at it from a red-brick 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 by the conventions of society at this time then, as Bryant states, the play must agree had automatically an abundance of ethical import (xxiv). Bryant also commends Shakespeare for non contend these commonly held ethical conventions, even though todays readers prat clearly see that Shakespeare thought nothing wrong with the relationship and d id not even hold Romeo and Juliet entirely 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 promise in the Prologue to show the misadventured moving overthrows of a pair of star-crossed lovers and then lets his characters continue to refer to destiny for the liberalisation of the play (xxv).