Dr Kat and the Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet? 

My first year teaching English, I was working in a small town with a diverse population. One section was a group which struggled with the language, and so I tried to reinforce skills while enriching the curriculum with the works studied by the more advanced class. So, I had the unique opportunity of showing a very high quality film of R & J to a group of students who had actually never heard the story before. Due to our schedule, it was viewed over two consecutive days. The first day they were reluctant to watch t"hat old Shakespeare junk", but swords, laughter, and Juliet leaning over the railing showing significant cleavage entranced them. I felt a bit guilty the second day when they entered with great glee and high spirits. But, I said nothing, and continued the film. It was awful. They were destroyed by the deaths. They could not believe that it did not have a happy ending. Most of them were 15 years old. With the emotional immaturity of that age, some cried while others sought some relief in an actual fist fight. (Yes, Imagine my chagrin explaining to the principal that the fight was caused by an emotional reaction to Shakespeare.) I believe that they were the audience you describe. Not very sophisticated, but that audience. All of this is to say that I believe that Shakespeare meant both the comedy and the tragedy. I believe that he knew that to elevate our hearts with comedy would make the tragic end more painful. The complexity was ever part of him when he was at his best.

In my High School teaching days I taught Literature to 11th grade. We dedicated a semester to Romeo and Juliet, and to see those faces cracking up, or blushing as they “got” the double entendre was so much fun. As teenagers growing up in households where not one family member had ever actually read the play, they came away with a completely different understanding of the “tragedy” of Romeo and Juliet. They LOVED all the drama, and openly mocked the characters (especially Romeo). It’s such a fun play, lighthearted, even.

I think that from the perspectives of the people of Shakespeare's time, "Romeo and Juliet" could only have been a tragedy. For children of wealthy families were usually already betrothed before they reached their teens, and families and empires stood or fell based on those alliances. A clandestine marriage between sworn enemies would be unconscionable. Wherever would the couple go? To whom could they flee? I think that young girls watching that play would have fell in love with the idea of forbidden love; just as my generation did when pouring over teen magazines in the 1960s. Their parents would have used the ending of the play as an example of what could happen if they didn't conform to tradition and family values. Although Western marriages aren't often arranged these days, nothing much else has changed over the centuries when if comes to family dynamics, LOL. I remember when Franco Zeffirelli's "Romeo and Juliet" (1968) that employed teenagers in the starring role was released. The adult furor that arose over the casting drew teenagers in droves to the theaters (myself included; I was 13). We fell in love with the story and wept at the ending....something our English Lit teachers couldn't seem to achieve in us. Good memories.

3:25 In a way, after hearing that prologue, you can go home. That's the play.

Honestly I think that R&J is one of Shespeare's cleverest plays simply because of its mix of comedy and the end you didn't anticipate. I wonder if he may have been the first playwright to use this technique-it's certainly been borrowed in many movies where the shock value comes from the unexpected twist or sadness just when you're prepared for a laugh or happy ending. I think the Zeferelli movie captures all these elements using real teenagers in the lead roles. Shakespeare has cleverly set us up through the comedy to have the smile die on our lips as Tybalt is slain and Juliet doesn't wake up. I think it's a tragedy...because if it's performed well (I've seen it live as well) there isn't anything funny about the end-and that's what stays with an audience when they leave the theatre.

In terms of genre I've always been told in Shakespeare's era a "Tragedy" is simply a play with a unhappy ending, while a "Comedy" is one with a happy one. Thus some quite dark plays such as MEASURE FOR MEASURE or THE MERCHANT OF VENICE are viewed as comedies. And likewise there's quite a bit of comedy in many of the tragedies. Many critics and scholars initially praised Shakespeare for his quality, but complain that he blends the tragic and the comic. Of course that is precisely what helps make his works so wonderfully popular generation after generation. MACBETH is another one that brims with humorous moments, but which ends on about as dark and tragic conclusion on almost every level. Your instinct/insight is spot on. I think audiences laughed and cried during the plays called Tragedies. They also cried and laughed during the Comedies.

I just love your mini lectures. Thank you for your contributions.

Romeo and Juliet is one of the most captivating stories I've ever read. I think it is the mix of comedy and tragedy that does it. Through the comedy, you fall in love with the characters, no matter how faulted they are. And also through the comedy, you are given that hope, like you mentioned, that everything is going to be okay in the end. I can't imagine the emotions this must have evoked from the people of that time, not knowing what was going to happen. I'm sure, like any good art, it was the talk of the town for a very long time. Thank you for your perspective!

The hope you speak of, and it's ultimate loss, makes it the most effective of tragedies

I've always found Romeo and Juliet to be a rather cruel comedy. The romance never felt real to me (Romeo goes from loving Rosa-what's-her-face to loving Juliet in like 5 seconds) and it read more like adults ridiculing youthful passion, to be honest. Maybe it's because my parents always mocked my "overwrought" "dramatics" when I was a child and later teen...Adults mocking and belittleing the emotions of children is still commonplace today, it most likely was so in Shakespeare's day...

I first met this play when I was probably Juliet's real age. And I cried. To me at this time it was the ultimate tragedy. I never succeeded at liking the story. That impression has stayed with me for more than 5 decades, Even now I would prefer not to see it ever again. I'm sure that has something to do with my then impressionable age, I still have such empathy for star-cross'd lovers and it's marked me. I rarely read fiction and I don't like fantasy. There's plenty of tragedy in real life and non-fiction, as in the lives you so ably describe. I'd rather shed a tear for them than for a dreamt up character of no substance, you do absolutely wonderful work in bringing these long dead people to life so I'd rather just stick with you. Thank you, Fr. Kat!

I adore this play and have seen several versions of it, including the Frank Zafarelli version which is brilliant. I have always assumed it was a tragedy, but how wonderful to have someone make you look at a Shakespearean play through different eyes. I have read a lot of the comments below and I must agree with you and many others that it is really like a play cut in two halves. The first half full of light and the second half descending into shadow and darkness. The comedic quality of the first half adds zest and keeps the audience guessing and hoping despite the prologue. Like any human experience you must have both parts to properly appreciate the heights and depths, the Ying and Yang of life. The ending has always been a cathartic release for me, and an edifying warning against bitter prejudices that are held and nursed. Thanks again for your insightful analysis and great presentation. Cheers ;-)

I always felt ....even as a young person reading it in school...that there were absurd elements to Romeo and Juliet...and I felt the silliest people were the priest and the nurse....I mean they were the adults for crying out loud. Dr. Kat....thought provoking as ever and always enjoyable. Thank you

This is why I loved Baz Lurman's version of R & J because they were hot head teenagers, fighting parents, fighting norms, being impetuous. I was never a fan of R & J and didn't want to see Baz's version as it was modernised but it brought home the point he was aiming for. Really love it. Interesting what you say about it being more comedic. I need to revisit it .

I just love you and your channel, Dr. Kat! From one history geek to another, lol! I was born in the USA but raised by my born and raised British grandparents and my father who was born there until they traveled to America on the QE2! Thank you for your love and dedication to not just European but mostly, British and UK history..... If that makes sense? Lol. 💜💖

Yes! I never thought of this! I think you're totally right though!!!! 🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯

It seems to me that R&J is a cautionary tale. At that time it was a very serious issue to marry without family consent or to marry clandestinely. This tale demonstrates that an unsanctioned marriage will never end well - an "it will all end in tears" kind of warning.

I hope you know Prokofiev great ballet where he certainly reflects a lot of what you discussed. The lightness of the first scene with Juliet the lighter interludes as the play darkens to its conclusion. I always leave the theater shattered after a performance. Love your broadcasts

My 20 year old son had to sit and watch with me once you said it was not a tragedy. He said he agreed and that in his opinion, it is the original "first world problems" meme. He waited to see if you would mention this idea. He says that only people at a certain level of wealth would have the time to worry about fake poison and real poison. Poor people would have just run away or accepted their fate. Since Shakespeare did so much for our language, it's not much of a stretch to think he created the meme.

Perfect analogy! William was a bit sadistic here but I totally agree with your comments! Mocking the situation does seem to make it more tragic in the end. Good job again!

R & J does have its comic elements but you can't help noticing the body count. Two young, beautiful protagonists dying at the end because they believed their love was doomed just screams tragedy somehow. The near-hit elements at the end make it even more so. I love the film version with Leo DiCaprio and Claire Danes, especially the scene at the beginning where the chief of police in lieu of Prince Escalus is flying in a helicopter over the post-fight scene at a gas station and yelling, "Rebellious subjects, enemies to peace, throw your mistempered weapons to the ground!" And Romeo thrusts a fistful of dollars to a decrepit old drug dealer, saying, "Here is my gold!" when he's buying the late 20th century version of hemlock at the end. I love it.

Agreed. I think you're spot on re: Romeo's soliloquy in the tomb. I would have been in the Globe screaming at the actor "shes alive!"

I had a friend once who tried to convince me that Romeo and Juliet was a comedy, but I didn't believe her. You've made a very convincing argument for it though, and I find myself remembering how often I laughed during the di Caprio version. I reckon I'm pretty convinced now that the first half at least is meant to be a comedy.

R&J is my favorite play by the bard. I've always assumed it was a tragedy, but you put forth a compelling argument. I agree with you. It begins as a comedy, but that makes the tragedy worse.

Romeo and Juliet reflect life -- a mix of comedy and tragedy. I agree that the audience would have been vocal in response to the actions on the stage. I also think, despite being told beforehand what the outcome was going to be, the audience felt especially sad at the ending. The light-heartedness of the play throughout makes the ending even more tragic 😢💔

I see what you’re saying! My first exposure to R&J was the Franco Zeffirelli version when I was 14, so the story will always feel traumatic to me. But I think you’re likely right!

I remember reading through Romeo and Juliet in my freshman year of high school. After a week of reading through the play around the room, our class clown looked up in baffled disappointment, "This sucks. They all die." It was funny in the moment, but it seems that may have been Shakespeare's intent all along.

It's so interesting to hear about the comedic elements cause I never looked at it that way, but now that you mentioned it, that does make an awful lot of sense that it starts out as a more comedic, sweet piece and then everything goes wrong. And yeah, I think it does make it sadder in the end when we have all that hope and then it comes to nothing. Yep.

I love this reading of r&j. I have taught it for 11 years as a tragedy. But now I might attack it differently. Thanks

I learned a lot from your analysis. There are a lot more comedic elements then I ever realized. I think an audience would have had a lot of hope for these two despite the opening monologue of the play. In my opinion perhaps what makes this play so wonderfully and majestically tragic are those highlights of comedy and promise. I think maybe that was Shakespeare’s design. He used one just enough not to overshadow but to magnify the other. I have to say I think the 1996 film version did this amazingly well when we see Juliet open her eyes just as Romeo is preparing to drink the poison. As he raises the vial to his lips the camera shows her hand lifting to stroke the side of his face and it’s agony to watch and see which will reach him first. He’s just finished the vial when he feels her hand which he grabs in panic wide-eyed disbelief and then dies. But that moment where we know they could have been together emphasizes the tragic by the comedic better than straight tragedy could do.

I think it makes me cry every damn time. Such a wonderful play.

Finally got a chance to see this. I have never seen this play as having 2 halves. He starts the play with describing the tragedy. It was always meant to be a tragedy. Yes I love the comedy through out the play, but they are there to help the audience enjoy the play and also to really hit home how tragic these events are. Once Juliet's cousin is killed by her husband, there is no happy ending. Everyone, back then, knows it. Yes, I think Shakespeare still adds (as you call it) HOPE that it might turn out OK, but that is to show how senseless these two houses have been. The 5 deaths are meant to be sad - overly so - to show they should not have happened in the first place. I love this play because of all the emotions it stirs in me.

Must have been 20 years ago, I saw a historically informed performance of As You Like It at the New Globe with Mark Rylance. And that was an epiphany: Nowadays we worship Shakespeare and the ground he walked on; we take his texts as literal gospel (especially during final exams). But the plays were written to be watched and enjoyed, and with an all-male cast, the gender-bender puns and sight gags are pretty-much non-stop. (And an Elizabethan audience of course got them all.) Anyway, the tragedy in R&J is nothing like that in, say, Titus Andronicus. I agree--the woe is just a wee bit over the top. As it was said, "It's only a flesh wound..."

I think this makes perfect sense. My favorite version of "Romeo abd Juliet" is the one with Leonardo DiCapprio abd Claire Dainese. If you watch that particular movie, you can really see the duality of the two parts. In the first half, everyone is super melodramatic, almost cartoonish. There's tons of color, lively music, laughter. It's dripping with comedy. Then the second half hits and the entire look of the movie changes. Everything is washed out abd colorless, the antics are gone. Even characters which were incredibly funny, like the nurse, are suddenly subdued. I think the reason I like this version so much is because it shows the insanity of the entire situation. These crazy kids suddenly have a crush and rip their world apart because of it, and the changes in the cinematography illustrate it. Oh, and the death scene! She wakes up just as he's dying. Omg, their facial expressions were amazing. If you haven't watched it, give it a try for at least that scene. I cry every time.

This is a good support for the 90s version with DiCaprio and Danes. It was comical and its a good adaptation

I do think it starts as a comedy but ads, in a surprise to the audience (despite the words of warning at the beginning of the play) ends in tragedy.

I have seen R and J a few times. Shakespeare and Company (based in Lenox, Massachusetts) did a production which made the audience aware that neither the Capulets nor the Montagues remembered why they hated each other. Because the families continued hatred without the knowledge of why made the plight of the two young people more sorrowful.

Trying to put Shakespearan plays in categories of tragedy, history, or comedy is like trying to get a giant to sleep in a crib. It never works despite the best efforts of the manipulator.

in most of Shakespeare's tragedies there is a lot more bodies littering the stage at the end than Romeo and Juliet

I just discovered you and started watching your videos!! So much fun to hear and very well done!! Love your contents! Big thumbs up!!

I met my husband during the course of our University production of "Romeo And Juliet". As the Senior set and costume designer, I met this delectable new Irish Drama student.. cast as Romeo. He was and is a feast for the eyes and ears..still after 11 yrs of marriage. The Casting Dept. chose Brody because his Irish brogue TO THEM sounded "RIGHT". I WAS SMITTEN. HE...was getting there. In a bit of casting Master Will himself would have smirked at...my worst...rival was cast as Juliet. Please don't judge me TOO harshly that-for a teeny-tiny second I as Set Mistress-- responsible for the proper placement of all props--did BRIEFLY consider substituting a GENUINE DAGGER for the prop with the collapsible blade. I did not. And I am so GLAD, as my former detested rival is Godmother to my eldest daughter. The Wheel turned... Shakespeare would appreciate the irony....

Who was it who said, all Shakespeare's plays are tragedies? The tragedies end in death, comedies in marriage, which may as well be the same thing.

I am not ashamed to say that when my daughter studied this, I used it as a cautionary tale...... they died. 😏

It's amazing to me how much I did NOT know about the story of Romeo and Juliet. Dr. Kat, your videos always teach so much. I can't even imagine what it must have been like for those who were seeing this play for the first time all those years ago. The hope that they must certainly have felt throughout that things might end well. And the shock, maybe even devastation, when it ended so abruptly, and yes, tragically. There is no doubt of comedic genius threaded through the story, and as you mentioned, it probably did make the tragic parts see even worse. That could have been a deliberate tactic, knowing how it would affect an audience. The man was a genius of such caliber that is rarely seen. I adore how you always explain things in the way you do, from perspectives that I had never thought about.

I think modern audiences would expect a happy ending but I think audiences of the time may have taken the happy ending set up earlier in the play with a pinch of salt, knowing the impact of the strict mores of the time of disobeying your parents and a likely bad outcome of doing so. Also they may be teenagers to us but marriages at the time of people of that age were far more commonplace, but I think putting them at that age was meant to invoke intense passion/ risk it all for love that the young would employ. And whilst her mother at her door and boyfriend going out of the window may sound like a Brian Rix farce played out on stage it seemed to me to epitomise longing and danger and possibly worry about the consequences of their actions I was about 14 when my first exposure to the play was via Zepherellis 1968 film where the leads were teenagers - and I being of an age was with them every step of the way. I didn’t see any comedic elements only the intensity of the passion, the danger of it being thwarted even after they we married and the heart break of a tragic mistiming at the end. So powerful was this initial imprinting that I can’t see the play apart from through my teenage eyes

I wonder if audiences in period would have seen this as a cautionary tale. "See, THIS is what happens when you let young people fall into lust of the eye! You just remember this, young lady, and forget about that boy! Thank your father for providing you with a good sensible husband!"

Fascinating. Love your channel.

I first saw this as a 14 year old and all aspects of the story resonated with me. As an adult I wonder at their ‘over the top’ reactions.

There is comic relief in all of Shakespeare's tragedies. That doesn't make them tragicomedies or comedies.

It's based on a true story, with dramatic license. Well done.

A friend once told me that Romeo and Juliet starts out as a buddy comedy and then turns into a romance. Or something along that line.

Franco Zepharelli's Romeo and Juliette, starred Olivia Hussey and Leonard Whiting, who were only teenagers, she was a couple of years older than Juliette, but it was convincing

This was one of our studies in form 3 or 4. Teen agers! We all went to a movie production of the same, It was a Great Tragedy. To me now it is all a Great Comedy even twice that for fooling me when I was young.

My Shakespeare professor said of “Romeo and Juliet” that it is not a story about love - but a story about hate.

Hi Dr. Kat I feel guilty watching Your Videos without patron , do You have Patreon ?

In the light of Dr Kat's comments I'm quite ashamed that its never occurred to me to think of Romeo and Juliet as an early example of melodrama; and I momentarily looked up when melodramas appeared in England. After googling, they apparently appeared with the tantalising word "revival" in the reign of Charles II, but I could find no earlier references, which leads one to ask, what the hell did revival mean then? Where were they being revived from? I did wonder about Roister Doister, by Nicholas Udall, which is supposed to be the first written comedy in English in the 1550s, and the synopsis certainly reads as though it could be played as a melodrama, but that is pure speculation on my part. I've always had a love-hate relationship with Shakespeare; as far back as my school days, over forty years ago, when I slept through Paul Schofield's Macbeth. Incidentally one of the noisiest films I've ever encountered; the sound track at the cinema I saw it was ear shattering. I went on to love visiting the Memorial Theatre at Stratford, though I think I also slept through Winter's Tale. As a participant in am-dram ( ahem, non-professional theatre ) for many years, I certainly more enjoyed acting in Shakespeare than watching it. So hypocritical "I can't bear Shakespeare, but come and see ME". But I digress, which is qute your fault Dr Kat for setting a nearly old man off on these rambles. I've always hated the end of Romeo and Juliet; and now, having played in Victorian melodramas at various times, I cannot get it out of my head, that the only way to get away with that ghastly ending is to play them absolutely poker faced and straight, as a melodrama, even down to the final chorus. Descriptions of the playgoing public in the reign of Elizabeth and James I, and indeed even later through the Restoration to the rumbunctous Georgians, suggest that the public were not always so terribly well behaved; think Music Hall crossed with World Wrestling. Such an audience might well lend itself to a more melodramatic rendering of many of the sacred texts of Shakespeare than a modern audience might find "seemly".

The prologue sets out pretty clearly that the play is going to end tragically. The comic elements are simple diversions, probably meant to sustain people's interest over the course of a long night. Hamlet has several comic-relief moments -- the windbag ramblings of Polonius, the witty exchange between Hamlet and the gravedigger, the foppish "waterfly" who arranges the climactic duel, etc. Shakespeare was a master storyteller and knew how to shape the ebb and flow of staged entertainment.

When I was in the 9th grade, I remember studying Romeo and Juliet in my English class. 2 years later, we studied Shakespeare’s Julius Ceasar in that year’s English class. I always thought that Julius Ceasar was the superior play

On first read from the line "The lady doth protest too much" it was a twisted (ironic) comedy for me. Falls in line with "Brevity is the soul of wit".

I’m sorry i can’t help but love your book case set up !

Within the framework of acknowledging that Dr. Kat's has made arguments that R&J could be a comedy; I think her lecture is inane - full stop! Why? Tragedy. "a play dealing with tragic events and having an unhappy ending, especially one concerning the downfall of the main character." Modified to suit the occasion. Tragedy. "a play that ends in tragic events, having an unhappy ending, but one that begins with positive (happy, attaining a goal(s)) events happening to the protagonist(s) but eventually the main character(s) incur negative results including death.." Can you think of more unhappy ending than two teenagers falling love & dying! By their own hand? Any Shakespearian tragedy begins with good things happening to the protagonist(s). R&J: Two young people meet & fall in love. Any Shakespearian tragedy peaks and ends with bad things happening to the protagonist(s). R&J: Two young people die by their own hands. I die laughing.

Maybe Shakespeare was making fun of youthful folly. Most marriages were arranged in those days. Two young people defying their families would have had a serious element we don't feel in the modern, western world.

Another great education, thank you. Perhaps it should be a black comedy.

I saw a production once that played it this way! And even being extremely familiar with the plot I experienced it just as you say. One thing that really sold it was how childishly the leads acted. Zeffirelli cast teens, but there's a big difference between 13 and 17. This cast was older, but our Juliet even _moved_ like she was 13. And this made the whole situation ridiculous. We all know what middle schoolers can be like about that dreamy high school boy. And so the sudden lurch into tragedy at "a plague on both your houses" was severe. I had almost expected Mercutio to live. But even after that, they continued with the farce. Juliet's sleeping potion scheme was ridiculous. Romeo's poison was ridiculous. Our boy was dragging that speech out as far as it could go. Kept stopping to flourish the poison and then starting up again with more and more to say. What a drama queen. He didn't really mean it, until he did. Their deaths were a shock. Romeo and Juliet had never hurt me before.

Kat - As a new fan, I love your videos and commentaries, generally. On this one, however, you’ve stretched your musings just a bit too far. Consider: multiple young people (children, really) die during the play, the first - a “free spirited”, clownish, and huge hearted young man who continues to quip even as he’s dying and only ceases when he finally realizes he’s mortally wounded. Another youngster,Tybalt, is finished off shortly thereafter. A very young man needs to flee for his life, etc, etc, etc, and all before the deeply tragic and violent death of the two young main characters. All of this, of course, brought on by the idiocy of adults who insist on the continuation of a feud about which one suspects they’ve long forgotten its ancestral origins. The fact that there are humorous and “lighter” moments throughout the play is simply de rigueur for Shakespeare (or for ANY good writer, for that matter who’s written a two plus hour serious drama). Let’s remember, too, that Shakespere’s audiences included people who weren’t terribly literate nor educated and sorely NEEDED these lighter moments to retain their attention. C’mon - even Lear has his ever quipping fool to provide SOME comic relief ....

Off topic, do you think that Shakespeare really wrote the plays due to their complexities?

I also wonder if this was originally written as a comedy and converted to a tragedy if it wasn't quite working as a comedy (yes I've watched too much Upstart Crow and Bill the film but it is food for thought).

Black humor! Billy Wilder excelled at it. Only the end of a work determines its category. I think Shakespeare knew exactly what he was doing, the sadist. (lol) Even at this advanced age, having read and seen the play in every conceivable medium, I still tear up reading Juliet's speech, I still rail at the hideous irony of her waking up just as Romeo's died. I still wish it had ended differently. But that's what makes it great tragedy.

Issue: Can anyone actually discuss Romeo & Juliet without mentioning the Queen Mab speech? "O, then, I see Queen Mab hath been with you. She is the fairies' midwife, and she comes In shape no bigger than an agate-stone On the fore-finger of an alderman, Drawn with a team of little atomies Athwart men's noses as they lies asleep; Her wagon-spokes made of long spinners' legs, The cover of the wings of grasshoppers, The traces of the smallest spider's web, The collars of the moonshine's wat'ry beams, Her whip of cricket's bone; the lash of film; Her waggoner a small grey-coated gnat, Not half so big as a round little worm Pricked from the lazy finger of a maid: Her chariot is an empty hazelnut Made by the joiner squirrel or old grub, Time out o’ mind the fairies’ coachmakers. And in this state she gallops night by night Through lovers’ brains, and then they dream of love; O’er courtiers’ knees, that dream on court'sies straight, O’er lawyers’ fingers, who straight dream on fees, O’er ladies' lips, who straight on kisses dream, Which oft the angry Mab with blisters plagues, Because their breaths with sweetmeats tainted are: Sometime she gallops o’er a courtier's nose, And then dreams he of smelling out a suit; And sometime comes she with a tithe-pig's tail Tickling a parson's nose as a’ lies asleep, Then dreams, he of another benefice: Sometime she driveth o’er a soldier's neck, And then dreams he of cutting foreign throats, Of breaches, ambuscadoes, Spanish blades, Of healths five-fathom deep; and then anon Drums in his ear, at which he starts and wakes, And being thus frighted swears a prayer or two And sleeps again. This is that very Mab That plaits the manes of horses in the night, And bakes the elflocks in foul sluttish hairs, Which once untangled, much misfortune bodes: This is the hag, when maids lie on their backs, That presses them and learns them first to bear, Making them women of good carriage: This is she-" - Mercutio in Romeo and Juliet, Act I, scene IV

Dr Kat,the architectural historian Dan Cruikshank has a theory that the feud between two families idea came from a real feud between two English families in Shakespeares day that gave him the idea. I've forgotten most of the details but it was a Long family of Wiltshire and a family Osborne who sometime acquired the title Lord Danby. I don't know what the feud was about but it was really nasty and then one of the Longs murdered the young man who was then Lord Danby. The Danby Arch at Oxford Botanic Garden was made to commemorate this death. Mr Cruikshank reckons that is where the feud idea comes from. I'm not really qualified to know about the tragedy or comedy aspect. Why the Danby story is of particular interest to me is that my late Mums name was Margaret Danby. Her brother John Danby married his wife Vera in 1946 and they had a weeks honeymoon in Oxford and when they saw The Danby Arch they felt it was a good omen for their marriage. Danby is not that common a name that its always interesting to come across it. My Mums Danbys are from agricultural labourers in East Yorkshire.

It seems to me that the story of R&J is comprehensively concerned, simply, with being a teenager. We, and the couple's parents and friends, see their earnestness as drama of the sort that teens seem to revel in. It's of awful moment to the kids themselves, but because we've been there and passed through, we know it's a kind of uber-dramatic mania that they confuse with adult life. Thus, Romeo's pitiful crush on Rosalind feels silly and undeserving of anything but a wistful nod from the audience: "Yes, I remember when I was young and stupid." We see their parents' frustration with kids who are getting too big for their britches, making all the wrong choices, and embarrassing us with their foolishness. The nurse and Friar Laurence have a little distance, and they know teens. They sympathize with the ravages of teen angst, but R&J are just old enough to be dangerous. It's no longer all that funny when the young people choose to take an early step into adulthood and away from buffer zone of late adolescence. It's even worse because it's a CHOICE they make. The tragedy is of growing up too soon and seeking the fatal embrace of adulthood, but an additional facet of it is the Cassandra-like role of the adult audience.

I wonder if the prologue and final lines from the Prince were added at a later date by someone else? I wonder if that would explain why we tend to classify it as a tragedy, because without those two bits, the comedy argument grows stronger.

I agree. Romeo and Juliette is more Irony than tragedy. A morality or irony of morality play. I think it totally prays with the whole marriage brokerage system. Social commentary on political or business contracted marriage.

I saw the 1968 film version of R & J many times when I was a kid and I always wondered: when Lord Capulet told Juliet to marry Paris or be turned out of the house, why didn't she just say 'cool' and go off to pack? She probably could have crashed at the convent for a couple of days until the friar got everything set up.

He played us

I don't think that Shakespeare ever intended Romeo and Juliet to be a comedy. Every tragical poem, story or play does have comical scenes both at the beginning and in the middle of it. Then gradually the comical elements die out and tragical elements replace them. So it is with this play. However, this certainly is not a tragedy like King Lear, Hamlet or Macbeth. Those are tragedies from the start to the end. And probably the audience out there in 1595 must have been mature enough to comprehend that this play could end in tragedy. In any case, there weren't many comical elements in this play even at the start. The hero is melancholic and brooding from the very beginning. This melancholy is itself a foreboding of the things to come. This is my opinion. Thanks for giving us this brain exercise., Dr. Kat.

I have also thought that Romeo and Juliet Cadence was very much like his comedies.

firstly, it's may well be the most famous stage play ever. in the public mind, it's possibly the first stage play synonimous with the word "theatre" . secondly, it's well known that "comedy" is a term that refers in drama and literature before the 18'th century to " a happy ending of a plot". dante's divine comedy is anything but comic in "our" sense of the word. a tragedy is hence a "sad ending" thus, the public mind lumped romeo and juliet with the genre of tragedies.

It is more comedy than tragedy.

It's ridiculous but every time I read or watch this play I hope that the ending will be different.

I think that we do the character of Juliet a disservice when we say that she was motivated by puppy love or teenage hormones. She is old enough to be married off, as her father is trying to do early in the play (and the County Paris is a "good gentle youth," not a creepy cradle-robber). It is also clear that Juliet knows what she wants: she tells Romeo that she seeks honorable marriage with him, and that if he is interested in anything other than that, he should leave her in peace. When she is faced with the dilemma of keeping her marriage vow to Romeo or forsaking it to marry Paris, she is once again clear about what she wants. The Nurse is the voice of expediency -- a voice that Juliet utterly rejects. Finally, as Old Montague hears the story for the first time at the end of the play, I imagine him looking not only at the body of his son, but also at that of the young woman who could easily have walked away from her marriage vow but chose to risk her life in order to remain loyal. This is why he states that he will raise a statue to her memory -- because she remained "true and faithful" to his son even at the cost of her life. Juliet's actions are not those of a hormone-driven teenage girl, but of an honorable young woman who takes her vow of marriage with the utmost seriousness, choosing to keep it at terrible risk when (as the Nurse reminds us) she could simply have moved on.

Tragic alright...the depth of love The irresponsibility and gaucherie of youth. The overbearing natures of the 'elders' of the clans,the older cousins and others who are poor guides or confidants,the Church-God and all his angels falling foul of a resolution . Being caught in a hard place death is a way out,and the old sangine family honor maintained.Tragic...and all the fun and romance vanishes with Mercurio's murder!

Of course its sadder . Its doubled ' in tragedies to the tradegy , almost with heavy sarcasm and without irony , like a machine gun of assaults against Love itself . If somebody isnt a hopeless romantic pov , that would indicate he or she is a grinch n probably isnt fun to hang out with ( +❤

I think you have an argument with Titus Andronicus being a dark comedy. But r & j not so much. Romeo and Juliet still feels like a bit of “don’t trust a catholic priest with your impressionable youth.”

I don't believe in love at first sight, it's usually lust at first sight.

Not really., I think you are forgetting that how we interpret Comedies, tragedies and histories is different to how they did. You are looking at it from a 21st century viewpoint. Most of Shakespeare's plots are ludicrous, and would have been when he wrote them. That is not the point. His audience would have got that too. For instance there is evidence that the Montagues and Capulets were actually rival political parties, and Shakespeare and probably his audience would have been aware of that. So where does that take us? Satire? Political commentary? Or just some bloke who was churning out plays for the masses grabbing 2 familiar names that fitted the plot? It certainly puts the Mercutio/Tybalt thing in a new light. At least to a modern world. As for comedy, there is no way that you can take Hamlet seriously! Or is that just me and My 21st century mind? Lol. I think we forget that these plays were written like soap operas of their time. Throwaway stuff for anyone who could pay whatever it cost to get in. His audiences would have got every jibe at the politicos and ' celebs' and double entendres. We don't because we weren't there. It is our obsession with reading deeper meaning into them that has made them what they are now. We have beatified them and instilled them with more meaning than perhaps they deserve.

Since West Side Story was based on Romeo and juliet..do you consider West Side Story a tragedy?

Very interesting

I've always heard of Romeo and Juliet described as a comedy gone mad.

I disagree with this (though I love you, Dr. Kat!) Romeo’s fatal flaw is evident in his obsession with Rosaline. He does not change. His emotions guide his actions; he doesn’t consider the consequences of his actions. The comedy is comic relief. Mercutio’s behavior is typical Mercutio. His name defines his character and actions…

Would the combination of comedy and tragedy make this genre: "wtf"? It seems like so many stories unfolding today are both comedy and tragedy resulting in stories that leave us thinking "wtf" just happened? Should I laugh? cry? wtf do I feel?

Ok it not even 2 mins in and I have no idea what you are talking about!!! What is a Good/ Bad Quarto???? I asked Google and it went all Tounges on me and spoke ?Spanish?!?!?

First I have to admit, I've never been a great fan of Shakespeare's comedies. They don't really move me the way the tragedies and histories do. My favorite play is Hamlet, so there you go. After watching your video (great work as always; I love your series), I've started wondering if it wasn't a black comedy or satire. And if it's a satire, then what is he satirizing? Something contemporary (such as a widely known scandal or gossip) or something universal (the frankly political and acquisitive machinations that go into arranging noble marriages). I feel like there's some frame of reference that's missing - something we've ALL been missing. But I never would have thought of all this if I hadn't watched your video. So thank you for making me think of new things and teaching me something new.

It has been noted that some of Shakespeare's *tragedies* are, in some ways, more comic than his so-called *comedies*. I'd say that HAMLET really should be classified more as a comedy, than a tragedy.

Bravo

I hate Romeo And I’m not a fan of the play But I think it’s pure tragedy and the light fun sections just make the dark ending darker

Honestly, I think the comedic elements just serve to further the tragedy. If it was a poe-faced play throughout then the final scene where Romeo and Juliet kill themselves to be together wouldn't have as much punch. It's a case of "oh look how happy and carefree things could have been" to make the fact that they are fated to die that much worse because it gives you the false hope that they can find a way despite everything. I mean, if you don't have the hope that things will turn out okay then it makes you not care for the characters as much when things go wrong.

❤❤❤

I'm sorry but I just don't UNDERSTAND what they are saying!!! I REALLY WISH that there was a Modern speaking of this!!!! Or reading... I understand that it's kinda "Wrong" to change it but it's like a different language... I don't understand!!!

Obviously you're not a monk. Sorry, Dr Kat!