Skip to main content Skip to navigation

Pico Della Mirandola: Oration On the Dignity Of Man (15th C. CE)

If there is such a thing as a “manifesto” of the Italian Renaissance, Pico della Mirandola’s “Oration on the Dignity of Man” is it; no other work more forcefully, eloquently, or thoroughly remaps the human landscape to center all attention on human capacity and the human perspective. Pico himself had a massive intellect and literally studied everything there was to be studied in the university curriculum of the Renaissance; the “Oration” in part is meant to be a preface to a massive compendium of all the intellectual achievements of humanity, a compendium that never appeared because of Pico’s early death. Pico was a “humanist,” following a way of thinking that originated as far back as the fourteenth century. Late Medieval and Renaissance humanism was a response to the dry concerns for logic and linguistics that animated the other great late Medieval Christian philosophy, Scholasticism. The Humanists, rather than focussing on what they considered futile questions of logic and semantics, focussed on the relation of the human to the divine, seeing in human beings the summit and purpose of God’s creation. Their concern was to define the human place in God’s plan and the relation of the human to the divine; therefore, they centered all their thought on the “human” relation to the divine, and hence called themselves “humanists.” At no point do they ignore their religion; humanism is first and foremost a religious movement, not a secular one (what we call “secular humanism” in modern political discourse is a world view that arises in part from “humanism” but is, nevertheless, essentially conceived in opposition to “humanism”).

Where is humanity’s place on the “chain of being?” What choices do human beings have? How might these views have arisen from the views expressed in Boccaccio’s story of Ser Ciappelletto?


I once read that Abdala the Muslim, when asked what was most worthy of awe and wonder in this theater of the world, answered, “There is nothing to see more wonderful than man!” Hermes Trismegistus (1) concurs with this opinion: “A great miracle, Asclepius, is man!” However, when I began to consider the reasons for these opinions, all these reasons given for the magnificence of human nature failed to convince me: that man is the intermediary between creatures, close to the gods, master of all the lower creatures, with the sharpness of his senses, the acuity of his reason, and the brilliance of his intelligence the interpreter of nature, the nodal point between eternity and time, and, as the Persians say, the intimate bond or marriage song of the world, just a little lower than angels as David tells us. (2) I concede these are magnificent reasons, but they do not seem to go to the heart of the matter, that is, those reasons which truly claim admiration. For, if these are all the reasons we can come up with, why should we not admire angels more than we do ourselves? After thinking a long time, I have figured out why man is the most fortunate of all creatures and as a result worthy of the highest admiration and earning his rank on the chain of being, a rank to be envied not merely by the beasts but by the stars themselves and by the spiritual natures beyond and above this world. This miracle goes past faith and wonder. And why not? It is for this reason that man is rightfully named a magnificent miracle and a wondrous creation.

What is this rank on the chain of being? God the Father, Supreme Architect of the Universe, built this home, this universe we see all around us, a venerable temple of his godhead, through the sublime laws of his ineffable Mind. The expanse above the heavens he decorated with Intelligences, the spheres of heaven with living, eternal souls. The scabrous and dirty lower worlds he filled with animals of every kind. However, when the work was finished, the Great Artisan desired that there be some creature to think on the plan of his great work, and love its infinite beauty, and stand in awe at its immenseness. Therefore, when all was finished, as Moses and Timaeus tell us, He began to think about the creation of man. But he had no Archetype from which to fashion some new child, nor could he find in his vast treasure-houses anything which He might give to His new son, nor did the universe contain a single place from which the whole of creation might be surveyed. All was perfected, all created things stood in their proper place, the highest things in the highest places, the midmost things in the midmost places, and the lowest things in the lowest places. But God the Father would not fail, exhausted and defeated, in this last creative act. God’s wisdom would not falter for lack of counsel in this need. God’s love would not permit that he whose duty it was to praise God’s creation should be forced to condemn himself as a creation of God.

Finally, the Great Artisan mandated that this creature who would receive nothing proper to himself shall have joint possession of whatever nature had been given to any other creature. He made man a creature of indeterminate and indifferent nature, and, placing him in the middle of the world, said to him “Adam, we give you no fixed place to live, no form that is peculiar to you, nor any function that is yours alone. According to your desires and judgment, you will have and possess whatever place to live, whatever form, and whatever functions you yourself choose. All other things have a limited and fixed nature prescribed and bounded by our laws. You, with no limit or no bound, may choose for yourself the limits and bounds of your nature. We have placed you at the world’s center so that you may survey everything else in the world. We have made you neither of heavenly nor of earthly stuff, neither mortal nor immortal, so that with free choice and dignity, you may fashion yourself into whatever form you choose. To you is granted the power of degrading yourself into the lower forms of life, the beasts, and to you is granted the power, contained in your intellect and judgment, to be reborn into the higher forms, the divine.”

Imagine! The great generosity of God! The happiness of man! To man it is allowed to be whatever he chooses to be! As soon as an animal is born, it brings out of its mother’s womb all that it will ever possess. Spiritual beings from the beginning become what they are to be for all eternity. Man, when he entered life, the Father gave the seeds of every kind and every way of life possible. Whatever seeds each man sows and cultivates will grow and bear him their proper fruit. If these seeds are vegetative, he will be like a plant. If these seeds are sensitive, he will be like an animal. If these seeds are intellectual, he will be an angel and the son of God. And if, satisfied with no created thing, he removes himself to the center of his own unity, his spiritual soul, united with God, alone in the darkness of God, who is above all things, he will surpass every created thing. Who could not help but admire this great shape-shifter? In fact, how could one admire anything else? . . .

For the mystic philosophy of the Hebrews transforms Enoch into an angel called “Mal’akh Adonay Shebaoth,” and sometimes transforms other humans into different sorts of divine beings. The Pythagoreans abuse villainous men by having them reborn as animals and, according to Empedocles, even plants. Muhammed also said frequently, “Those who deviate from the heavenly law become animals.” Bark does not make a plant a plant, rather its senseless and mindless nature does. The hide does not make an animal an animal, but rather its irrational but sensitive soul. The spherical form does not make the heavens the heavens, rather their unchanging order. It is not a lack of body that makes an angel an angel, rather it is his spiritual intelligence. If you see a person totally subject to his appetites, crawling miserably on the ground, you are looking at a plant, not a man. If you see a person blinded by empty illusions and images, and made soft by their tender beguilements, completely subject to his senses, you are looking at an animal, not a man. If you see a philosopher judging things through his reason, admire and follow him: he is from heaven, not the earth. If you see a person living in deep contemplation, unaware of his body and dwelling in the inmost reaches of his mind, he is neither from heaven nor earth, he is divinity clothed in flesh.

Who would not admire man, who is called by Moses (3) and the Gospels “all flesh” and “every creature,” because he fashions and transforms himself into any fleshly form and assumes the character of any creature whatsoever? For this reason, Euanthes the Persian in his description of Chaldaean theology, writes that man has no inborn, proper form, but that many things that humans resemble are outside and foreign to them, from which arises the Chaldaean saying: “Hanorish tharah sharinas”: “Man is multitudinous, varied, and ever changing.” Why do I emphasize this? Considering that we are born with this condition, that is, that we can become whatever we choose to become, we need to understand that we must take earnest care about this, so that it will never be said to our disadvantage that we were born to a privileged position but failed to realize it and became animals and senseless beasts. Instead, the saying of Asaph the prophet should be said of us, “You are all angels of the Most High.” Above all, we should not make that freedom of choice God gave us into something harmful, for it was intended to be to our advantage. Let a holy ambition enter into our souls; let us not be content with mediocrity, but rather strive after the highest and expend all our strength in achieving it.

Let us disdain earthly things, and despise the things of heaven, and, judging little of what is in the world, fly to the court beyond the world and next to God. In that court, as the mystic writings tell us, are the Seraphim, Cherubim, and Thrones (4) in the foremost places; let us not even yield place to them, the highest of the angelic orders, and not be content with a lower place, imitate them in all their glory and dignity. If we choose to, we will not be second to them in anything.

Translated by Richard Hooker


(1) This mystical Egyptian writer, much quoted by Renaissance alchemists, probably lived in the 2nd-3rd century.

(2) Psalms 8:5.

(3) Moses was reputed to have written the first five books of the Bible.

(4) These are the three highest orders of angels in the medieval and Renaissance theory of angelic hierarchy which is, in descending order, Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, Dominations, Powers, Angels, Archangels.

 


 


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.This is an excerpt from Reading About the World, Volume 1, edited by Paul Brians, Mary Gallwey, Douglas Hughes, Azfar Hussain, Richard Law, Michael Myers Michael Neville, Roger Schlesinger, Alice Spitzer, and Susan Swan and published by Harcourt Brace Custom Books.

 

The reader was created for use in the World Civilization course at Washington State University, but material on this page may be used for educational purposes by permission of the editor-in-chief:

Paul Brians
Department of English
Washington State University
Pullman 99164-5020

This is just a sample of Reading About the World, Volume 1. This is just a sample of Reading About the World, Volume 1. If, after examining the table of contents of the complete volume, you are interested in considering it for use at your own campus, please contact Paul Brians.

Reading About the World, Vol. I

reader_cover_1Reading About the World, Volume 1, edited by Paul Brians, Mary Gallwey, Douglas Hughes, Azfar Hussain, Richard Law, Michael Myers Michael Neville, Roger Schlesinger, Alice Spitzer, and Susan Swan.

This anthology prints short selections sharply focussed on major topics of interest to beginning students of World Civilizations. It combines traditional historical sources with literary and philosophical selections.

 

 

 

By clicking on the hotlinks below you can access samples from Reading About the World, Volume 1. The third edition was published in 1999 by Harcourt Brace Custom Publishing.

 


  • Mesopotamia
  • Enuma Elish: The Babylonian Creation Epic
  • The Epic of Gilgamesh: The Flood Story
  • Three fragments describing evil spirits
  • Sumer-Akkadian Hymn to Ishtar
  • Hymn to the Moon God, Nanna
  • The Code of Hammurabi, extracts
  • Sumerian Proverbs
  • Babylonian Proverbs

  • Egypt
  • Hymn to Sekhmet-Bast
  • Hymn to Osiris
  • Three Love Poems from the New Kingdom
  • Dialogue of a Man With His Soul
  • In Praise of Learned Scribes
  • Hymn to the Aton of Akhnaton








  • Japanese Poetry: from the Manyoshu and other early collections
    • Imayo from the Heike Monogatari
    • Various Japanese Poetry 
    • Lady Horikawa: Will he always love me?
    • Kakinomoto Hitomaro: In the sea of ivy clothed Iwami
    • Kakinomoto Hitomaro: I loved her like the leaves
    • Lady Kasa: Six Tanka written for Otomo Yakamochi

  • The Islamic World
  • The Qur’an
  • Sa’di: Story from the Gulistan
  • Sufi Verse: Hafiz, Rumi
  • Nizami: Layla and Majnun
  • Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi: The Dove’s Necklace
  • Wallada: To Ibn Zaidun
  • Firdausi: The Struggle Between Esfandiyar and Goshtasp
  • Usamah Ibn-Mundqidh: The Character and Customs of the Franks

  • The European Middle Ages
  • Hildegard of Bingen: Hymn to the Virgin
  • Tommaso di Celano: Dies irae, dies illa*
  • Stabat mater dolorosa
  • The Wife’s Lament
  • The Will of Wulfgyth
  • Anna Comnena: The Alexiad
  • Omittamus Studia from Carmina Burana
  • La Comtessa de Dia: Estat ai en greu cossirier
  • Provençal Dawn Song
  • Dante Alighieri: The Inferno: Canto 3
  • St. Thomas Aquinas: On Moral Principles & On Faith and Reason
  • The Black Death: From The Chronicle ofJean de Venette


  • Subsaharan Africa
  • Bamba Suso: The Epic of Sunjata
  • Ibn Battuta: Travels in Sub-Saharan Africa

  • Pre-Columbian America
  • The Popol Vuh: The Mayan Creation Story
  • Aztec Birth Rituals for Boys and Girls
  • Aztec Poetry
  • Christopher Columbus: Letter to the King concerning his first voyage

*Selections marked are supplementary readings omitted from the 2nd edition of Reading About the World.


Reading About the World, Volume 2


Reading About the World is now out of print. You can search for used copies using the following information:Paul Brians, et al. Reading About the World, Vol. 1, 3rd edition, Harcourt Brace College Publishing: ISBN 0-15-567425-0 or Paul Brians, et al. Reading About the World, Vol. 2, 3rd edition, Harcourt Brace College Publishing: ISBN 0-15-512826-4.

Try Chambal:
http://www.chambal.com/csin/9780155674257/ (vol. 1)
http://www.chambal.com/csin/9780155128262/ (vol. 2)

All other queries should be directed to Paul Brians at paulbrians@gmail.com.

This is an excerpt from Reading About the World, Volume 1, edited by Paul Brians, Mary Gallwey, Douglas Hughes, Azfar Hussain, Richard Law, Michael Myers Michael Neville, Roger Schlesinger, Alice Spitzer, and Susan Swan and published by Harcourt Brace Custom Books.

General Education home page

Washington State University home page

paulbrians@gmail.com

Michel de Montaigne: On Cannibals (1580)

The discovery of so many new lands in the Renaissance had less impact on most Europeans than one might suppose. They were largely absorbed in recovering (and competing with) their own classical past and engaging in violent theological and political disputes among themselves. Yet some Europeans were profoundly shaken by the new discoveries into realizing that much of the world thought and lived very differently from what was then known as “Christendom.” No writer was more strongly moved to view his own society from a new perspective in the light of reports brought back of the habits of the natives of the “New World” than Michel de Montaigne. He began a long tradition of using non-European peoples as a basis for engaging in a critique of his own culture, undoubtedly in the process romanticizing what Jean-Jacques Rousseau would later call “the noble savage.” It is a theme which still appeals to many Westerners.

What reason does Montaigne give for judging cannibalistic Native Americans to be preferable to Europeans?


When King Pyrrhus invaded Italy, after he had reconnoitered the armed forces that the Romans had sent out against him, he said, “I don’t know who these barbarians are”–for the Greeks called all foreign peoples barbarians–“but the organization of the army I see before me is not at all barbaric.” The Greeks said the same when Flaminius invaded their country, as did Philip, when he saw from a hill the orderly layout of the Roman camp which had been set up in his kingdom under Publius Sulpicius Galba. These examples illustrate how one must avoid accepting common prejudices: opinions must be judged by means of reason, and not by adopting common opinion.

I had with me for a long time a man who had lived for ten or twelve years in this other world which has been discovered in our time, in the place where Villegaignon landed, which he named Antarctic France (1). This discover of an enormous land seems to me to be worth contemplating. I doubt that I could affirm that another such may not be discovered in the future, since so many greater people than I were mistaken about this one. I’m afraid that our eyes are bigger than our stomachs, and that we have more curiosity than comprehension. We try to embrace everything but succeed only in grasping the wind.

. . . I do not find that there is anything barbaric or savage about this nation, according to what I’ve been told, unless we are to call barbarism whatever differs from our own customs. Indeed, we seem to have no other standard of truth and reason than the opinions and customs of our own country. There at home is always the perfect religion, the perfect legal system–the perfect and most accomplished way of doing everything. These people are wild in the same sense that fruits are, produced by nature, alone, in her ordinary way. Indeed, in that land, it is we who refuse to alter our artificial ways and reject the common order that ought rather to be called wild, or savage, (2) In them the most natural virtues and abilities are alive and vigorous, whereas we have bastardized them and adopted them solely to our corrupt taste. Even so, the flavor and delicacy of some of the wild fruits from those countries is excellent, even to our taste, better than our cultivated ones. After all, it would hardly be reasonable that artificial breeding should be able to outdo our great and powerful mother, Nature. We have so burdened the beauty and richness of her works by our innovations that we have entirely stifled her. Yet whenever she shines forth in her purity she puts our vain and frivolous enterprises amazingly to shame.

Et veniunt ederæ sponte sua melius,
surgit et in solis formosior arbutus antris,
et volucres nulla dulcius arte canunt.
(3)

All our efforts cannot create the nest of the tiniest bird: its structure, its beauty, or the usefulness of its form; nor can we create the web of the lowly spider. All things, said Plato are produced by nature, chance, or human skill, the greatest and most beautiful things by one of the first two, the lesser and most imperfect, by the latter.

These nations seem to me, then, barbaric in that they have been little refashioned by the human mind and are still quite close to their original naiveté. They are still ruled by natural laws, only slightly corrupted by ours. They are in such a state of purity that I am sometimes saddened by the thought that we did not discover them earlier, when there were people who would have known how to judge them better than we. It displeases me that Lycurgus or Plato didn’t know them, for it seems to me that these peoples surpass not only the portraits which poetry has made of the Golden Age and all the invented, imaginary notions of the ideal state of humanity, but even the conceptions and the very aims of philosophers themselves. They could not imagine such a pure and simple naiveté as we encounter in them; nor would they have been able to believe that our society might be maintained with so little artifice and social structure.

This is a people, I would say to Plato, among whom there is no commerce at all, no knowledge of letters, no knowledge of numbers, nor any judges, or political superiority, no habit of service, riches, or poverty, no contracts, no inheritance, no divisions of property, no occupations but easy ones, no respect for any relationship except ordinary family ones, no clothes, no agriculture, no metal, no use of wine or wheat. The very words which mean “lie,” “treason,” “deception,” “greed,” “envy,” “slander” and “forgiveness” are unknown. How far his imaginary Republic would be from such perfection:

viri a diis recentes (4)

Hos natura modos primum dedit. . . . (5)

They have their wars against peoples who live beyond their mountains, further inland, to which they go entirely naked, bearing no other arms that bows and sharpened stakes like our hunting spears. The courage with which they fight is amazing: their battles never end except through death of bloodshed, for they do not even understand what fear is. Each one carries back as a trophy the head of the enemy that he has skilled, and hangs it up at the entrance to his home. After having treated their prisoners well for a long time, giving them all the provisions that they could one, he who is the chief calls a great assembly of his acquaintances. He ties a rope to one of the arms of the prisoner and on the other end, several feet away, out of harm’s way, and gives to his best friend the arm to hold; and the two of them, in the presence of the assembled group, slash him to death with their swords. That done, they roast him and eat him together, sending portions to their absent friends. They do this, not as is supposed, for nourishment as did the ancient Scythians; it represents instead an extreme form of vengeance. The proof of this is that when they saw that the Portuguese, who had allied themselves with their adversaries, when they executed their captives differently, burying them up to the waist and firing numerous arrows into the remainder of the body, hanging them afterward, they viewed these people from another world, who had spread the knowledge of many vices among their neighbors, and who were much more masterly than they in every sort of evil, must have chosen this sort of revenge for a reason. Thinking that it must be more bitter than their own, they abandoned their ancient way to imitate this one.

I am not so concerned that we should remark on the barbaric horror of such a deed, but that, while we quite rightly judge their faults, we are blind to our own. I think it is more barbaric to eat a man alive than to eat him dead, to tear apart through torture and pain a living body which can still feel, or to burn it alive by bits, to let it be gnawed and chewed by dogs or pigs (as we have no only read, but seen, in recent times, not against old enemies but among neighbors and fellow-citizens, and–what is worse–under the pretext of piety and religion. (6) Better to roast and eat him after he is dead.

Translated by Paul Brians


(1) Brazil.

(2) Sauvage in French means both wild and savage.

(3) The ivy grows best when it grows wild, and the arbutus is most lovely when it grows in solitude; untaught birds sing most sweetly . Propertius, I, ii, 10.

(4) Men freshly molded from the hands of the gods. (Seneca: Epistles, 90.)

(5) These are the first laws laid down by Nature. (Virgil: Georgics, II, 20.)

(6) Montaigne is describing the tortures frequently carried out by the Holy Inquisition against heretics.


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

This is an excerpt from Reading About the World, Volume 2, edited by Paul Brians, Mary Gallwey, Douglas Hughes, Azfar Hussain, Richard Law, Michael Myers, Michael Neville, Roger Schlesinger, Alice Spitzer, and Susan Swan and published by Harcourt Brace Custom Books.The reader was created for use in the World Civilization course at Washington State University, but material on this page may be used for educational purposes by permission of the editor-in-chief:

Paul Brians
Department of English
Washington State University
Pullman 99164-5020

This is just a sample of Reading About the World, Volume 2.


Reading About the World is now out of print. You can search for used copies using the following information:Paul Brians, et al. Reading About the World, Vol. 1, 3rd edition, Harcourt Brace College Publishing: ISBN 0-15-567425-0 or Paul Brians, et al. Reading About the World, Vol. 2, 3rd edition, Harcourt Brace College Publishing: ISBN 0-15-512826-4.

Try Chambal:
http://www.chambal.com/csin/9780155674257/ (vol. 1)
http://www.chambal.com/csin/9780155128262/ (vol. 2)

François Rabelais (1494-1553): Letter from Gargantua to his son Pantagruel

So famous is the wildly obscene humor of Gargantua and Pantagruel that its author’s name has given rise to an adjective–“Rabelaisian”–to describe just such humor. Rabelais was a monk and a physician, but in his writings he celebrated his real loves: scholarship and drinking, with the latter often serving as a symbol of the former. As a beneficiary of the age of the printing press, he was intoxicated by the sudden availability of all manner of books. As much as any of the Renaissance Humanists, it is Rabelais who articulates their view that a new age has dawned. If his portrait of the Middle Ages as a time of ignorance and superstition is grossly exaggerated (and it is), it nevertheless helps to convey the excitement of the Humanists during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. This passage, a letter from father to son advising him on his education, is written in the elaborate, balanced style of formal prose in the period, quite unlike the tumbling, bawdy narrative that surrounds it. Read aloud, with appropriate pauses at the punctuation marks, it conveys a grand rhythmic majesty.

Of what invention of the Renaissance does Gargantua not approve?

But even though my late father Grandgousier, of blessed memory, strove with all his ability that I should profit from and learn political knowledge, and even though my labors and studies matched or even surpassed his desires, nevertheless, as you can well understand, the times were not fit or favorable for learning as is the present; and I did not have the abundance of such instructors as you have had. The times were still dark (1), and reflected the misery and calamity of caused by the Goths (2) who had destroyed all good scholarship. But, through divine grace, during my life light and dignity have been restored to learning; and we witness in them so much improvement that now I would have trouble being accepted into a children’s beginning class, I who in my maturity was reputed (and not wrongly) the most learned man of the time. I do not say this out of vain boasting–even though I could properly do so in writing to you as you may understand by the authority of Marcus Tullius Cicero in his book Old Age, and the teachings of Plutarch in his book titled How to Praise Oneself Honorably (3)–but to inspire in you the desire to strive for the highest achievements.

Now all the disciplines have been restored, languages revived: Greek, without which it is shameful for a person to call himself learned: Hebrew, Chaldean (4), and Latin. Elegant and correct printed editions are available, the result of a divinely-inspired invention of my time, as are in contrast guns–the product of diabolical suggestion. The world is full of learned men, fine teachers, ample libraries; and it is my opinion that neither in the time of Plato (5), nor of Cicero (6), nor of Papinian (7) were there such opportunities for study as we see today; and no one should now go out in public who has not been well polished in Minerva’s workshop (8). I see the robbers, hangmen, freebooters and grooms of today more learned than the theologians and preachers of my day. What can I say? Even women and girls (9) aspire to the honor and celestial manna of good learning. Things have changed so much that at my advanced age I have had to learn Greek, which I had not rejected like Cato, but which I had not had the leisure to learn in my youth; and I delight in reading the Morals of Plutarch, the beautiful Dialogues of Plato, the Monuments of Pausanias, and the Antiquities of Athenaeus as I await the hour at which it may please God, my Creator, to summon and order me to leave this world.

Translated by Paul Brians


Notes

(1) The Humanists were fond of referring to the Middle Ages as dark, but this must not be confused with later definitions of the Dark Ages which ended centuries before the Renaissance.

(2) The Goths, headed by Alaric, sacked Rome in 410. This invasion is often considered to have marked the end of the classical world and the beginning of the Dark Ages (although many historians reject this latter term). The Humanists used the term broadly to mean barbaric, and considered the artistic styles which sprung up in their wake barbaric as well, calling the great cathedrals of the High Middle Ages Gothic as an insult.

(3) Like the other Humanists, Rabelais delights in making references to ancient Latin works.

(4) The language of the Biblical Babylonians, famed for their astronomical and astrological studies.

(5) 5th Century BCE, Greece.

(6) 1st Century BCE, Rome.

(7) 3rd Century CE, Rome. Papinian was a great authority on Roman law.

(8) Minerva (Greek Athena) was the goddess of wisdom, so her workshop is scholarship.

(9) Rabelais was a great friend and admirer of the queen and writer, Marguerite de Navarre, to whom he dedicated one of his books.


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

This is an excerpt from Reading About the World, Volume 2, edited by Paul Brians, Mary Gallwey, Douglas Hughes, Michael Myers, Michael Neville, Roger Schlesinger, Alice Spitzer, and Susan Swan and published by American Heritage Custom Books.The reader was created for use in the World Civilization course at Washington State University, but material on this page may be used for educational purposes by permission of the editor-in-chief:

Paul Brians
Department of English
Washington State University
Pullman 99164-5020

This is just a sample of Reading About the World, Volume 2.


Reading About the World is now out of print. You can search for used copies using the following information:Paul Brians, et al. Reading About the World, Vol. 1, 3rd edition, Harcourt Brace College Publishing: ISBN 0-15-567425-0 or Paul Brians, et al. Reading About the World, Vol. 2, 3rd edition, Harcourt Brace College Publishing: ISBN 0-15-512826-4.

Try Chambal:
http://www.chambal.com/csin/9780155674257/ (vol. 1)
http://www.chambal.com/csin/9780155128262/ (vol. 2)

Questions about Islam

How long did it take to make the Alhambra.
Most of the construction was done over 120 years, from 1238 to 1358; but undoubtedly not continuously or at a steady pace.

What was the purpose of the fountain in the Alhambra?
It is traditional to have water features like pools and fountains in Islamic architecture. They help cool the air and make life more pleasant.

I am curious about why the Jews had to convert or leave the country.
Queen Isabella was a religious fanatic who was determined to cleanse Spain of the last traces of people who were not Christians. Columbus sold her on the idea of financing his voyage to the Far East partly to raise money to fund a new crusade aimed at the Muslims in the Holy Land.

What are the Spanish songs How did other subdivisions of Islam react to Sufism? Their cultural views seem somewhat different?
Sufis have often been persecuted (and are now being persecuted) by other Muslims, but because many of the greatest poets and most popular musicians of Islam have been Sufis, their influence is great.

Do Muslims and Hindus still live by each other?
In India Muslims and Hindus do live in the same cities, though often in separate neighborhoods. Old Delhi is dominated by Muslims, New Delhi by Hindus, for instance. As Hindu nationalism has become more aggressive in recent years, there has been a tendency for the two to separate; but there have been long periods in which religion didn’t separate people that much, especially in the cities.

Why is Islam so tolerant of Hinduism when it conflicts with it in so many ways?
It wasn’t always tolerant. Some Muslim rulers of India were fanatics who destroyed as many Hindu temples as possible; but others were not particularly religious and were happy to live and let live. Remember, the Hindus always vastly outnumbered the Muslims. They couldn’t convert or kill them all.

What about belly dancers? Did they originate in Muslim countries?
Yes, but they have nothing to do with Islam, which generally frowns on dancing (except for Sufis). Here’s a page on the history of “belly dance.”

What about Fatima?
Fatima was the name of Muhammad’s daughter, his only child,; but the Fatima you’re probably thinking of is the Virgin of Fatima, an apparition of the Virgin Mary near Fatima, Portugal. Read about it here.

Where did Gypsies originate?
Most modern scholars think they emigrated from northern India (now Pakistan) West into Europe. You can read more about this history of the Gypsies here. There is a terrific documentary of the various kinds of Gypsies and their music called Latcho Drom. I requested it for the library, but it doesn’t seem to have arrived yet.

Explain more bout Sufi practices and the role of poetry.
For general background, see the Sufism site you can look at this site. Other resources: “What is Sufism?” Sufism naturally lends itself to poetry, because mysticism works through symbols, the language of poetry. Human love is compared to divine love, the intoxication of wine to the rapture of the human soul as blends with the divine spirit of God. Much Sufi poetry reads to Westerners as extremely sensual and physical; but it is read by believers as allegorical, like the Hindu erotic poems addressed to Krishna in your reader. Visit the Rumi Website. See also Irene Markoff’s “Introduction to Sufi Music and Ritual in Turkey.”

I don’t know if this has something to do with Islam, but I was wondering why most people in the Middle East don’t want their pictures taken.
I hadn’t heard this, and I don’t know if it’s true. However, some very conservative Muslims and Jews alike are opposed to photographs of people, and films and television as well. They make up a small minority of people in the Middle East, however. Many people are irritated when total strangers invade their privacy by snapping pictures of them without asking first. It doesn’t necessarily have to do with religion.

Please show more of the paintings and talk more about who would have painted them.
I am not an expert on Persian miniatures (the paintings I showed in class), but there is a good exhibit online here.

I would like to know more about how they make the writing into pictures.
Arabic lends itself in its many scripts to being shaped into attractive abstract designs, including some that resemble plant and animal life. See the Islamic Art and Calligraphy pages.

In the last lecture you mentioned the bump on the forehead. Is that why the Muslims wear the painted red dot on their forehead?
The red dot (tilak) is originally Hindu, but is generally worn by South Asians today merely as a body decoration, with no particular religious significance. It has nothing to do with the mark on the forehead which is acquired by the pious by bumping their heads to their prayer mats.

More about what the Muslims think of other religions.
You’ll find a good deal of information about Muslim views of Christianity at Basic beliefs of Christians and Muslims side by side.

I would like to know more about the lives of Muslim women.
There is a very wide variety of lifestyles among Muslim women. Pakistan, one of the more conservative Muslim states, has had two women heads of state, which puts it ahead of the U.S. in that regard. Many Muslims tend to be rather defensive about Western critiques of their ideas on proper gender roles. For a typical defense, see “Women in Islam.” Another very interesting comparison of the roles of women in three religions is “Women in Islam versus Women in the Judaeo-Christian Tradition: The Myth and the Reality.” The extreme positions being taken by the Taliban in Afghanistan are not typical of most Muslims.

I would like to know more about whether they are any practices or rituals that are common between Islam and Christianity or Judaism.
All pray, all encourage charity to the poor, all have marriage ceremonies. Jews and Muslims both practice circumcision and have similar rules about the ritual butchering of animals for consumption. Many Christians, like Muslims, go on pilgrimages; but doing so is not a required practice for any Christian. Each religion observes one “holy day” a week.

I would like to know more about the Sunni & Shiite differences in Islam.
For a brief introduction, see “Shi’ism. There’s a very scholarly paper on Shiism for really serious scholars on “The Origins of Shi’ism.”

How does the Islamic religion tie in with Malcolm X and his preachings?
The Nation of Islam, or “Black Muslim” movement whose most famous founder was Elijah Muhammad, attempted to develop an alternative religion which would support the aspirations and hopes of African-Americans. Besides urging self-sufficiency and strict morality, he preached that black people were God’s chosen people, and that whites were “blue-eyed devils.” His most famous disciple and spokesman was Malcolm X. Elijah Muhammad held many unorthodox views, as Malcolm discovered when we traveled to Mecca and returned convinced that the Nation of Islam had misled its followers. Malcolm converted to orthodox Islam and tried to found an alternative group, but was assassinated soon after. Louis Farrakhan leads a famous splinter group which has branched off from the original Nation of Islam. Orthodox Muslims insist that the racially-based teachings of the Nation of Islam are abhorrent to the traditional believer.

Why do people who convert to Islam change their names?
Elijah Muhammad, leader of the “Nation of Islam” (see above) urged his members to take Islamic names partly to reject the family names imposed on them during slavery times. The “X” in names like “Malcolm X” stands for the unknown original African name of the family from which modern a modern African-American is descended.

Why were Muslims not allowed to drink wine?
The Qur’an regards the drinking of alcoholic beverages as sinful. In Sura 4, verse 43, it says that an intoxicated person has a “befogged mind” which does not permit of proper prayer. Wine-drinking is associated with gambling as a vice and totally prohibited in Sura 5, verses 90-91.

Did Muslim architecture influence the architecture in Russia? The Pointed domes in Iran look similar to the domes in Russia.
Yes indeed. The form of Orthodox Christianity which entered Russia a thousand years ago was profoundly influenced in its architectural style by Turkish traditions. The “onion-shaped” dome is common to both Middle Eastern Mosques and Russian Orthodox churches. Interestingly, such domes also occur on Catholic churches in southern Germany, where Muslim influence was strong during the Renaissance.

Could you explain more about the animals with red lines on their necks?
I haven’t been able to find any examples on the Web, but I’ve seen images of deer grazing, for interest, with a thin red line indicating that they have actually been beheaded, the artist hoping that this will avoid breaking the prohibition against depicting living beings in art.

I would like to read some more of the love poetry.
You’ll find Sufi love poetry at “Traveling the Path of Love,” but of course these are allegories with religious meanings. You can read more about Layla and Majnun in my study guide to the work. WSU doesn’t own a copy of the Gelpke translation which those notes refer to, but there is a copy of Colin Turner’s translation.

Questions about Ancient Greece

By far the most popular questions were about the Greek gods and Greek myths generally.
We can’t do much with this topic in this class, unfortunately, but I can make a few comments and direct you to other sources. The Greek gods are important because long after anyone still believed in them, they became personfications of various ideas for Europeans, particularly in the period from the Renaissance to the present, though usually they were referred to by their Roman rather than their Greek names, often based on the stories in the Metamorphoses of Ovid. Ares (Roman Mars) stood for war, Poseidon (Roman Neptune) for the sea, Athena (Roman Minerva) for wisdom, and Aphrodite (Venus) for love. You can view many images of the various gods at Mythological Images of Greek Gods. A good introduction is The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Greek Mythology. You’ll find more myths covered at Mythica. Note that both contain many hyperlink cross-references. A basic intro to the major gods is at Mythweb. You can see how the various gods relate to each other at Greek Gods and their Associates.

If this subject really interests you, consider taking one of our two terrific courses on the subject: Humanities 101 (The Ancient World) and Humanities 103 (Mythology). Either course fulfills the “H” requirement for a humanities class.

Are Greeks currently traditional towards their gods?
The Greeks converted to Christianity early in the common era, and religious ones today are mostly Greek Orthodox. No one seriously worships the ancient Greek gods any more.

Many of you asked questions about the Olympic Games.
There are many good sites explaining their history on the Web. I’ll point out only a few things, and you should then explore the best of them,  Ancient Olympic Games Virtual Museum. Unlike the modern Games, the ancient ones were strictly Greek. Non-Greeks couldn’t participate. They were begun supposedly as a way of cementing a peace treaty, and always had religious associations.

What foundations for modern democracy or modern world political government did Greece contribute?
Although the emerging democracies of the 19th century were happy to hark back to the Greeks as models, there was in fact almost no direct influence from the ancient Greek model on modern forms of government.

I would like to know more about Greek currency.
The Encyclopedia Britannica article is detailed, but you’ll find more pictures of coins at the Ancient Greek and Romans Coins.

Did they develop the first indoor plumbing in a city?
They weren’t the first, and their plumbing wasn’t as good as Roman plumbing, but some houses did have indoor toilets. See the History of Plumbing.

Why did most of the plays that were written in this period disappear from existence?
The original authors did not expect them to be performed more than once. They were thought of as events, not as literature. By the time people began to try to preserve the texts of some of the plays, only the most popular had been kept, and only some of those managed to survive in the ensuing centuries. Only plays by Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides survived, though we have the names of many other authors and titles. After a while, the Greeks stopped writing new tragedies, and preserved only these “classics.”

Exactly what was the Oracle at Delphi and how did it work?
The Oracle of Apollo at Delphi dates back to 1400 BCE, and wass considered the most sacred shrine in Greece. Visitors asked questions of the Pythia (the priestess of Apollo), who gave cryptic answers interpreted by priests. Although the oracle was consulted by many people, but its answers were famously often ambiguous or misleading. For more details, see here.

I want to know more about the statue of Athena in the Parthenon.
All we have are small copies. You can read more about it and see one at http://www.ancient.eu/article/785/.

I want to know more about the military tactics Athens used to defeat the Persians.
See Livio C. Stecchini’s The Persian Wars. Read the chapter on “the Battle of Marathon,” perhaps the most famous battle fought in ancient Greece.

What are the great battles of the Greeks?
The two most famous conflicts are the Persian War, which culminated in the Battle of Marathon, and the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta. The first you can read about in Herodotus, the second in Thucydides.

If you felt like drinking, would you worship Dionysis until you didn’t want to drink any more?
Although the worship of Dionysus involved drinking, Greeks felt no need to worship him when they drank. They tended to look down on drunkeness most of the time, watering their wine with two parts water to one part wine. In Plato’s Symposium, he depicts as drunkenness as silly, and Socrates as superior because he could drink a good deal of wine without becoming drunk. But the ecstatic side of Dionysus’ worship did involve becoming deliberately intoxicated to induce a sacred ecstasy.

If you felt like having sex, you need to worship Aphrodite?
Men might pray to Aphrodite for help if they were trying to seduce a woman, or a woman might pray to her sometimes if she was trying to conceive a child; but her services were not needed for ordinary sex. Of course she was not involved in the male-male sex that was so common in Greece either.

I would like to know more about Greek architecture.
Greek architecture, as continued and modified by the Romans, has been the most influential in the Western World. There don’t seem to be any really comprehensive sites on Greek architecture, though there are many good books in the library, and you can get a general overview in the Encyclopedia Britannica. But the Perseus site lets you search for images by site or period. There are even more photos at the University of Colorado’s Harpies art site

About how long did it take to build the temples that were made out of stone?
The Parthenon took 15 years. It was exceptionally large, but Athens also had exceptional resources to pay for it (taxes from its empire).

Why didn’t the women exercize in the nude?
Spartan girls did; but generally the Greeks felt that women’s nude bodies were shameful, unlike men’s. Most of them reserved athletic events from men alone–clothed or unclothed. The Spartans were more concerned about free citizens vs. slaves rather than men vs. women, so they were willing to have women participate in activities shunned in other Greek societies. There was one race for women in the Olympic games in which women ran clothed, except that one breast was bared: a theme often picked up later in European art.

Why was Sophocles persecuted?
You’re thinking of Socrates, the philosopher, who was condemned to die by the Athenians, rather than the playwright Sophocles, who was greatly honored by them. We’ll talk about the death of Socrates in class.

Why did the Greeks decide that women had no rights? Did they get it from another culture or did they decide it themselves?
I’m not sure anybody has the answer to this question. Most ancient cultures gave women few rights, but many of the oldest myths of the Greeks seem aimed at rationalizing downright hostility to women. Did the myths cause the hostility or the hostility cause the myths? Hard to say.

Why were women so excluded in Greek society by men, but men worshipped goddesses?
Some goddesses, like Zeus’ wife Hera, served to help keep women in their place, by emphasizing traditional wifely roles and being clearly subservient. The Greeks probably worshipped some goddesses like Athena before becoming to severely sexist, then had to rationalize their beliefs in terms of their new attitudes. For instance, they argued that Athena was born out of Zeus’ forehead rather than from any woman, and that she always sided with men. She was “the exception that proves the rule.”

What was the new idea of male homosexuality about? How was it derived?
Their accepting attitude toward male homosexuality is one of the most distinctive traits of the ancient Greeks, yet they wrote surprisingly little about it. Michel Foucault, in his influential History of Sexuality, scrutinized what little was left; and none of it really explains how these attitudes first arose. However, we can speculate. In many cultures and subcultures in which women are strictly banned, men substitute young men for the missing women. The stringent Greek efforts to banish most women from public life left only prostitutes and boys available for extramarital sex.

From the skimpy evidence we have, it was expected that many teenagers would take an adult male lover who would train and educate them as well as have sex with them. Oddly, the younger partner was discouraged from enjoying the sex, though some clearly did. They were supposed to outgrow this passive role and go on to take younger lovers of their own. It was seen as a stage to pass through. Plato depicts adult males as having a somewhat comical passion for Socrates (notoriously old and ugly at the time), and presents male-male love as superior to love for women so long as it was not expressed physically; but he seems to have been exceptional in this as in so many other things. There are numerous love poems expressing love between men, including some that seem to be pretty indifferent to whether the love object is male or female. There is some pretty graphic art depicting male-male love, though you won’t see it in textbooks. There are some in Cecile Beurdeley’s book, L’Amour bleu or for some mild examples, go to Perseus and search for vases vases using the keyword “courting.”. Some other people did condemn the Greek attitude toward homosexuality, but many Middle Eastern cultures were pretty tolerant as well (the Jews were the big exception). Alexander the Great was famously more devoted to his male lover than to the various princesses he married for diplomatic reasons. Models like that kept gay love fashionable for a long time, even among the Romans, who sometimes criticized it. For more information, see Mentorship in the Education of Males and Male Love in Ancient Greece.

What about the education of children?
See Ancient Greek Education.

Did lesbians come from the city of Lesbos?
Lesbos is an island, not a city. Women who love women are associated with the island only because Sappho, who wrote passionate love poems to both women and men, came from it. Ancient Greeks didn’t particularly associate the place with “lesbians” in the modern sense.

How respected were artists?
Unlike in most other societies, artists often signed their work. Even vase painters sometimes became famous. Sculptors could sometimes charge huge fees. They were sometimes criticized and attacked, but generally one can say that artists had higher status in Greece than in most other ancient cultures, where they were viewed as little better than servants.

I’m interested in Greek technology (building methods and inventions).
The Greeks were famously ingenious in devising various technical devices, but generally disinclined to apply them to practical use. The Romans were far more interested in practical engineering. You can study some of the most famous Greek inventions at the Technology Museum of Thessaloniki. Why did Greece spread so far west and south?
They made a deliberate effort not to let their poleis grow beyond a certain size, and sent out people to create new poleis in colonies.

Were they big fishermen because they lived on water?
They did fish a good deal, but seem to have preferred lamb and goat, judging by their writing.

Why do the men have to stay in the military until they are 30? Are they able to live with their wives or note? Do they care if they see their wives or not?
The Greeks you are referring to are the Spartans, whose customs were viewed as rather bizarre by other Greeks. They thought that men would be more manly separate from women. Men could only visit their wives by sneaking out of the barracks, but this was thought to be good training for being sneaky soldiers and spies in the military. Clearly they did sneak out successfully or the Spartans would have died out.

If they questioned religion, did they have temples for the Gods and goddesses? Did they worship them like other cultures did their gods and goddesses?
The Greeks differed a great deal among themselves, from fervent faith to deep scepticism. Some ceremonies, like the annual renewal of Athena’s cloak in the Pan-Athenaic procession to the Parthenon, were as much civic celebrations of political import as religious rites. But what makes the Greeks distinctive from a very early date, is the tendency of numbers of them to criticize their own gods and myths, and to try to consciously invent new philosophies which other peoples would have tried to derive from their gods.

In some of the first Olympics is it known whether or not the winners of events won medals back then? Or was it just something like honor?
No medals, just an honorary olive wreath. If you were a really successful athlete, a statue might be made of you, or a poem written praising you. Some were fed at public expense after their victories. But the ideal at the Olympics was sport for sport’s sake (and the honor of the gods).

I would like to know more about Greco-Roman wrestling.
See The Ancient Greeks and the Sport of Wrestling.

I’m interested in how come the Greeks repeated the names of places and how they handled it. Ex: Argos (2), Thebes (2).
I don’t know. Maybe they liked the thought of recreating a famous city. There’s a Troy, Idaho not far from here, and an Athens in Georgia. The habit seems to be a persistent one.

How large is Greece today (land area)?
It has an area of 50,959 square miles if you include all the islands. For more on the geography of modern Greece, see the Greek Embassy’s Facts About Greece page.

Why did they look at art from a realistic view?
Probably because they admired themselves so much. No civilization put so much emphasis on the importance of the human form; so it was probably inevitable that their sculptures would become more and more realistic. You can find a good history of Greek sculpture in the Britannica, with lots of illustrations showing how the works became more and more realistic, but the Britannica doesn’t try to explain why they did.

Other useful sites:
University of Pennsylvania: Ancient Greek World
Tufts University’s Perseus Project
Fordham University’s list of online texts and other resources.
Oxford University’s Classics Resources on the Web
Ancient Greece.com.
Maecenas: Images of Ancient Greece and Rome.

The Role of Women in Ancient Greek Art
Another set of links

Leonard Bernstein: West Side Story

Music: Leonard Bernstein
Book: Arthur Laurents
Lyrics: Stephen Sondheim
Choreography: Jerome Robbins

Original Cast (1957)
Maria: Carol Lawrence
Tony: Larry Kert
Anita: Chita Rivera
Bernardo: Ken LeRoy
Riff: Mickey Calin
Film Cast (United Artists, 1961)
Maria: Natalie Wood (songs dubbed by Marni Nixon)
Richard Beymer (songs dubbed by Jim Bryant)
Anita: Rita Moreno (some songs dubbed by Betty Wand & Marni Nixon)
Bernardo: George Chakiris
Riff: Russ Tamblyn

Tony Mardente, who played A-rab on the stage, was Action in the film.

Of all the contributions of American culture to the arts, the Broadway musical is one of the most significant. Its predecessor, the European operetta (a play with spoken dialogue but abundant singing in operatic style), typically featured exotic settings, aristocratic characters, and wildly improbable plots. Although the musical’s roots were in England, it quickly evolved in the hands of such geniuses as Irving Berlin, Jerome Kern, Richard Rogers and Lorenz Hart and the incomparable George and Ira Gershwin into a distinctively American form featuring popular songs, many of which were to become “standards,” still widely performed and loved today.

Leonard Bernstein took the musical to new heights of seriousness in his 1957 production, West Side Story, based loosely on Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. Its true subject was the growing menace of gang warfare (or “juvenile delinquency” as it was known then) in the context of racial tensions created by clashes between whites and Puerto Rican immigrants. Consciousness of racism was very much on the rise in the U.S. of the late fifties; and Bernstein, a life-long liberal, wanted to portray the issue in an uncompromising fashion.

The subject is treated in a fairly complex fashion. Note especially “I Want to Live in America,” which expresses the ambiguous feelings of the immigrants about their homeland while forthrightly condemning American white racism. Some people feel this number reinforces stereotypes about Latinos, and the musical has been the target of protests in some areas on that grounds.

Note that the Jets display their ignorance and/or hostility by consistently mispronouncing “Puerto Rico” as “Porto Rico.” The Sharks always pronounce it properly.

This is also an extraordinarily sophisticated musical work. Notice the complex layering in the reprise of “Tonight” with each individual or group voicing its own anticipations for the evening.

Originally the script was to have dealt with a Christian/Jewish romance (called “East Side Story”), but Bernstein decided to choose a more immediately relevant theme. Ironically, neither Broadway nor Hollywood was able to rise above its own institutionalized racism to cast a Latina actress as Maria.

The gangs of that time were much less well armed than today’s, and the exigencies of stage and film production in the fifties forced the libretto to use somewhat censored language (somewhat dated now, but fairly hip then), so that the modern viewer may be tempted to look at this story of gang warfare as somewhat innocent and naive. But at a deeper level, the hatreds and frustrations articulated here are authentic reflections of an ongoing American tragedy.

West Side Story features classic dances by Jerome Robbins, especially in the hyper-athletic masculine style pioneered by choreographer Agnes de Mille in Rodeo and Oklahoma , and several extraordinarily beautiful songs, many of which have become classics. Bernstein, at this time the most famous conductor in the world, leading the New York Philharmonic, and exponent of a wide range of classical and popular music, had the skills to write music considerably more complex that contained in most musicals.

The musical style is based on hard-hitting big band jazz and Latin-beat music like the mambo. Popular dance music had not settled exclusively on rock and roll yet when this work was being written.

If a musical is not an opera, neither is it a play. It is necessary to accept the fact that characters are constantly bursting into either song or dance. It is in these songs and dances that the very essence of the musical exists.

A few definitions:

JD’s are juvenile delinquents
DT’s are delirium tremens, symptoms of extreme alcoholism
“Tea” is marijuana.
“Social Disease” is a polite term for a sexually transmitted disease.
A “zip gun” was a home-made device for shooting projectiles, powered by strong rubber bands. It could be lethal under the right conditions. Actual guns were much harder to get hold of in the fifties than they became later.

Your assignment:

Discuss some aspect of this production, writing at least 50 words. Be sure to specify scenes and characters, using this study guide.

How does the musical reflect the same values as Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet? In what ways is it different?

Describe the dancing in this production. How is the choreography different from that you saw in the Prokofiev ballet? How about the vocal technique? What makes it different from the techniques used in La Traviata? How are gestures, camera angles, and lighting used to convey ideas and feelings? What kinds of melodies are used? How does the music change to convey different emotions? Discuss how Bernstein sometimes layers one kind of music on another, or creates abrupt contrasts.

What aspects of the action seem to relate specifically to gangs in the 50s and which seem relevant to today gang violence and racism?

When you consider the ending of the musical, keep the following in mind. The 1950s marked a new phenomenon: a youth culture largely independent of adult influence. In Shakespeare’s day the Prince could stand for the sanctioned authority of the state (in his case, Queen Elizabeth, who detested dueling). The end of the play resolves the conflict by reimposing traditional authority. But Sondheim, Bernstein, and the rest identified more with the developing youth culture in its rebellion against adult society. Notice how parents are kept offstage, with only one good but powerless adult–Doc–anywhere to be seen. The recreation center leader is a clueless idiot and the cops are corrupt racist thugs. In the world of West Side Story hope for the future can reside only in the next generation. It can’t end like Shakespeare’s play because its creators don’t share his values. The conclusion is meant to place responsibility for ending the conflict squarely in the laps of its young viewers.

Comment on these and other matters, then respond to what someone else has said, going beyond merely agreeing or disagreeing–try to engage them in conversation by addressing their ideas with ideas of your own.

Please note that this production, though it is being shown to you from a DVD, is not a “video.” Refer to it as a “film” or “movie.”

Lots more information at the West Side Story Web Site.

More study guides for Love in the Arts:

Last revised November 28, 2005.

Giuseppi Verdi (1813 1901): La Traviata

Libretto by Francesco Maria Piave

Directed by Franco Zeffirelli, 1982

Violetta Valéry (a courtesan, dying of tuberculosis): Teresa Stratas

Alfredo Germont (young poet in love with Violetta): Placido Domingo

Giorgio Germont (Alfredo’s father): Cornell MacNeill


When Agenor, son of the Duc de Guiche, fell in love with a notorious if charming and brilliant courtesan named Marie Duplessis, his father was not amused. He feared that his naive son would ruin his reputation and his fortune by becoming involved with such a woman, and he forced the young man to break off the relationship.

Alexandre Dumas fils, son of the author of The Count of Monte Cristo, also had an affair with Marie in which she behaved rather badly, but he seems to have retained great affection for her even after breaking up with her.

Not much later, she died (at the age of 23) of tuberculosis, then called “consumption,” the most commonly deadly disease in the 19th century. Dumas then avenged the younger generation by blending his own story with Agenor’s by creating a novel, then a play, in which an idealized courtesan named Marguerite Gautier who loves camelias proves to be more loving and generous than the hero’s father. Both works became hugely popular under the title La Dame aux camélias (or in English, Camille).

The story is a quintessential romantic attack on conventional bourgeois morality, arguing that a good heart is more important than propriety, that the social distinctions which split the beau monde(high society) from the demimonde (the world of illicit sex) are cruel and hypocritical, and that true love must triumph over all. That the story ends tragically is today often smugly said to indicate that the 19th-century readers could celebrate sexual freedom only when they doomed those who exercised it. But this is unfair. Dumas is expressing the romantic notion that the highest virtue in a human being is a good heart. If some people are too good for this world, that is the world’s loss.

To understand the story, it is important to keep certain facts in mind. In mid-19th-century France, almost as much as in England, sexual hypocrisy was widespread. Prostitution and gambling were extremely popular and widespread even as they were being publicly condemned on every hand. Men were expected to have mistresses whom they supported financially; but they were expected to conceal that fact, and they were expected not to fall in love with them. Such courtesans were not classed with common prostitutes, but there should be no illusion about their motivation for participating in these affairs: they were in it for the cash and gifts, and were faithful to their lovers only so long as it suited them. (It should be obvious, however, why an opera about a good-hearted courtesan would be appropriate in a film like Pretty Woman (1990), where Julia Roberts is enchanted by Violetta’s story).

Any woman who slept with a man before marriage was thought to be “ruined” (i. e., rendered unfit to be wed), and should be shunned as a social leper. For many such women, some form of prostitution was the only means of survival. Respectable women feared and detested the courtesans, and would not permit them to mix in “polite society,” as it was then called. Further, they were presumed to be predatory temptresses, bent on extracting their wealth from guileless young men, then abandoning them. The very most respectable families would not even want to be associated with another family in which one of the members was entangled with such a creature. It is this stereotype that Dumas set himself to break. It is a commentary on the complexity of moral attitudes during the time that the result was wildly popular.

In 1853, one year after Dumas dramatized his work, the Italian Giuseppi Verdi turned the story into one of the most popular operas ever written: La Traviata (“The Wayward Woman”), retaining the Parisian setting but changing the heroine’s name to an Italian one: Violetta. The Italians were considerably more conservative in sexual matters than the French, and Verdi removed most of the seamier scenes from the original play and made his Violetta an almost angelic creature whose self-contempt and fear of risking love is almost incomprehensible unless one knows what everyone then knew: that she was a courtesan, loved only for her body and her high spirits, destined to die young and alone. This production hints at the shallowness of the affection her friends have for when, at the end of the first scene, one of her female guests placidly steals a valuable snuffbox off the mantle as she departs.

In Franco Zeffirelli’s striking production of the opera, we scan across Paris to the lavishly decorated apartment of Violetta, and, as the music from the prelude to Act V is “previewed” (there is no overture) we see her as she will appear in the last scene, abandoned, destitute, dying, her belongings being carted off to pay her bills. One of the young men who has come to help transport the goods is entranced by her portrait, and then catches of glimpse of her. Violetta then seems to see herself as she was in happier days; and as we travel swiftly back in time, the first scene begins. Although this unusual opening is not present in the original opera, it reflects the opening of Dumas’ novel, which depicts a dreary auction of the impoverished Marguerite’s belongings.

In the first act, Alfredo tries to persuade Violetta to abandon her current lover, an older baron. To love this young man who has no money of his own (though his father is rich) would not only impoverish her, but open her up to disappointment. So long as she is the mistress of men like the baron, her heart remains untouched; but if she allows herself to believe in true love, she fears disappointment.

In the second act, they have moved to the country; but Alfredo does not understand that this expensive way of life is being paid for by Violetta. His father comes to persuade her to give him up. Although he learns that, contrary to his expectations, she is not being supported by Alfredo, it is even more unacceptable to him (and polite society in general) to see a respectable young man being supported by the income of a “fallen woman.”

The third act features an elaborate ballet in which guests dressed as Spanish gypsies perform a dance combining the themes of passion, money, and death which run through Traviata. In order not to interfere with the viewing of the brilliant visual spectacle of this ballet, subtitles are omitted during this section, but you will want to know what is being sung, so a loose translation is offered here:

We are matadors from Madrid,
Heroes of the bull-ring.
We have come to enjoy the celebration
That Paris makes over the fattend ox.
There a story we can tell, if you’ll listen,
which will tell how we can love!

Listen!
There’s a handsome, bold
Matador from Biscay
Strong of arm, and proud;
He is the lord of the arena.
He fell madly in love
With a young woman from Andalucia;
But the disdainful beauty
Spoke to her admirer thus:

“I want to see you kill
Five bulls in a single day;
And, if you succeed, when you return
I will give you my hand and heart.”

“Yes,” he said to her; and the matador
Stepped into the ring,
And became the conqueror of five bulls
which he stretched out in the arena.

The other guests then sing:

Bravo, bravo, matador,
You have shows yourself to be heroic
And in this way have proved
your love to the young woman!

The bullfighters reply:

Then, he returned, through the applause,
To the beauty he loved
And embraced his much-desired prize
In his loving arms.

Other guests:

This is how matadors
Prove themselves conquerors of women.

Bullfighters:

But we have softer hearts,
It’s enough for us to have fun and games.

All:

Yes, happy friends, let us first
Try our luck at games of chance;
Let us open the contest
To the bold gambler.

(Translation by Paul Brians)

In this act, her sacrifice is completely misunderstood by Alfredo, which is partly as she wished it; but he behaves ignobly in deliberately treating her as a whore before a large assembly, provoking the Baron to challenge him to a duel. Note that Alfredo had come to the party bent on challenging the Baron, but in the end it is the Baron who defends Violetta by challenging the young man by ritually slapping him with his glove.

In the last scene, Alfredo has gone on a long voyage to forget her; but his father, realizing the true nobility of Violetta, has written to him to tell him the truth. She is hanging on, hour by hour, hoping to be reconciled with him before she dies.

By simplifying the emotions, purifying the heroine and pouring into this opera many of his most achingly beautiful melodies, Verdi created one of the masterpieces of romantic opera. Listen closely to the aria in the second act in which Alfredo sings of his love reaching across the universe. The melody recurs from time to time as Violetta is thinking of his love for her, including briefly just before the end. Contemporary critics usually scorn what they call sentimentality; but the romantics meant to soften the heart and render the audience more humane, tolerant, and loving by telling this kind of story. Thanks to Verdi’s genius, for audiences willing to set aside their sophisticated skepticism, it can still work.


A Note on Watching Opera

Opera is drama set to music, and both are important. The melodies of arias (solos), the complex interweaving of contrasting melodies in duets and trios, and the rousing harmonies of choruses are the very heart and soul of opera. Emotional raptures which might seem exaggerated in the theater are brought to life by music. It is crucial not to get so wrapped up in following the plot that you don’t pay attention to the music. This is, above all, one of the most glorious musical compositions produced in the Romantic era, filled with memorable melodies, duets, and choruses.

One of Verdi’s favorite devices is to have one or more singers perform a throbbing rhythmic pattern while another sings a long, soaring melodic line over the top. Listen for this effect in the duet between Violetta and Alfredo’s father at her place in the country, and again in the duet between Alfredo and Violetta when he returns at the end of the opera.

If you have never seen an opera before, it may take some time to get used to hearing characters sing their lines instead of speaking them. There can be a certain comic quality to some of the chorus’ unison exclamations, for instance; but such artificialities are required by the music; and experienced opera-goers take them for granted.

When you begin writing about the opera, please do not use the word “music” to mean the orchestral accompaniment as contrasted with the “singing.” Singing is music, the main form of music in an opera. If you feel that the “singing” gets in the way of the “music” then you aren’t really experiencing what opera is.

Operas are usually sung in the language in which they were originally written; hence you will hear these Parisians conversing in perfect Italian. The reason for not performing the opera in translation is that the musical values of certain syllables are not preserved when one changes languages. Instead, to assist those of you who are not fluent in Italian, the filmmaker has provided subtitles (supertitles are used in most modern American opera productions for the same reason). If you are not used to it, this may be a bit distracting at first, but without them you would get much less of the story. After a while reading the titles becomes automatic. Because they appear at the very bottom of the screen, it is important to sit close enough to read them clearly and to have a clear view of them, without some other student’s shoulder cutting them off. Choose your seat carefully. If you are watching the opera on DVD in private, be sure to use the menu to turn on the subtitles before you begin watching.

When the chorus or other singers begin to repeat the same lyrics over and over, the subtitles cease in order to let you concentrate on the music. During the ballet, much of the time there are no subtitles, to let you concentrate on the spectacle without distraction (see lyrics above); but the rest of the time you can be assured that if there are no titles on the screen, the words being sung are repetitions of phrases which have already been translated for you.

Important note: If the subtitles do not appear when the singers first start singing, go back to the main menu and choose English subtitles.

More study guides for Love in the Arts:


First mounted June 17, 1995.

Last revised March 5, 2007

Madame de Lafayette: The Princesse de Clèves

Based on the translation by Robin Buss, for Penguin Classics

The Princesse de Clèves was an innovative novel in at least two ways. It can claim to be the first historical novel in that its author (with some help) made a serious attempt to research the French court of the preceding century and weave historical events into her tale’s tapestry. If the emotions and attitudes are more characteristic of the seventeenth century than the sixteenth, that is a common failing of historical novels in all ages. More serious perhaps is the way in which the historical passages remain largely undigested clumps of information scattered throughout her narrative, not really blended into it. She uses the past largely as an excuse for examining her own time. Its other claim to priority is perhaps more important: as the first roman d’analyse (novel of analysis), dissecting emotions and attitudes in a highly intelligent and skillful way. This sort of writing was to become a hallmark of French fiction until it was swept away by the tide of Romanticism which preferred to revel in emotions rather than analyzing them.

But emotions are the not primary objects of de Lafayette’s analysis: morals are. This is a book about ethical issues which avoids easy judgmental simplifications which might sort behavior neatly into sin and virtue and instead ponders at length the moral dilemmas which even the best-intentioned person can fall into. Especially interesting for us is the way in which the emerging ideal of romantic marriage is treated in the novel. Although Renaissance comedies often enough concluded romances with marriage, that age was far more prone to find entertainment in adultery and be very cynical about happiness in marriage. Arranged matches were still the rule among well-to-do people, and love was thought to be an agreeable but uncommon result of marriage. Keep in mind as well as you read the novel that divorce was impossible and annulments very rare at this time.

The 17th century marked a crucial turning point in European attitudes toward love. The exalted language of the 12th-century troubadours which had turned into pallid clichés and cynical jokes by the 16th century began to be applied seriously to the every-day romances of ordinary men and women. Many people began to feel that it might not be a bad thing if one were able to love one’s spouse romantically, rather than merely companionably. Numerous stories and plays were written in which the demands of young love conflict with those of overbearing parents. Whereas Romeo and Juliet could defy their parents only by wedding in secret and had to pay for their rashness with their lives, by this time it is common–indeed, routine–for the defiant young lovers to get their way by the end of the tale. But the challenge to established tradition was muted and indirect. The parents are often depicted as exceedingly foolish people who are made to come to their senses. They do not necessarily represent the ordinary run of parents. One of the most common plots involves parental rejection of the intended on the grounds that he/she is of too low a social station. This conflict is invariably resolved by a last-minute revelation that the two lovers are indeed of the same social class, and perfectly fitted for each other. Thus 17th-century readers could fantasize about triumphing over the unhappiness often imposed by arranged marriages without fundamentally challenging the social system.

Madame de Lafayette, a notorious social-climber herself, no more challenges the social structure of her time than any other writer, at least overtly. But her work poses a direct challenge to the mores of the court that foreshadows the views of the rising bourgeoisie far more than those of the aristocracy she so admired. Her ideal marriage involves partners truly in love with each other, confiding in each other, acting as each other’s best friends and as lovers. If such a marriage seems impossible in the novel, that is because the idea was relatively novel. Not only did the heroine’s openness with her husband shock the court in the novel, contemporary readers had the identical reaction in the author’s own time. In a social milieu where adulterous romances were normally the sole romances, the ideal of wedded bliss was titillating and strange.

In the centuries that followed her model of romantic marriage grew with the class that embraced it: the bourgeoisie. In the 18th and early 19th centuries, it became a mark of distinction from the “decadent” aristocracy, which still viewed love as a game. Many Romantic works contrast the earnestness of middle-class love with aristocratic cynicism. With the triumph of the bourgeoisie, romantic marriage came to be seen as not only desirable, but normal. Obviously, the ideal was not always fulfilled, as Gustave Flaubert’s Madame Bovary made painfully clear; yet it remained the cherished dream of most Westerners of all classes for the better part of two centuries. When it was noted that in other times and places romance and marriage were not connected with each other, it was supposed that those other times and places were at fault: surely romantic marriage was normal.

In our own time, the ideal is under heavy attack. Modern ideas about the importance of sex diminish drastically the importance of virginity and the romanticization of fidelity which were a part of it. Easy divorce robs the concept of some of its more exalted aspects–few people expect “happily ever after.” Psychiatrists counsel that it is a mistake to expect one other person to fulfill all one’s emotional needs and blame many break-ups on excessively high expectations for romance. Most of the fictional romantic couples of the 18th and 19th centuries would be diagnosed as neurotic co-dependents today. Being willing to die for love is distinctly out of fashion. Feminists have criticized the romantic ideal as damaging women, idealizing thrilling but unstable, unsupportive men and counseling them to damaging self-sacrifice. The instability of modern marriage combined with the enormous lengthening of the modern life span has also made people more distrustful of love at first sight. People are much more pragmatic about their demands for a suitable partner than in the Romantic Age. Hence our ancestors would probably judge us as hopelessly incapable of true love, just was we may judge them as emotionally disturbed. We still speak the language of romantic love, echoing those long-ago troubadours, but few of us live it.

As we struggle to define what we think love should be in this age of transition, it is fascinating to look back three centuries to that earlier age of transition in which the ideal enshrined in so many novels, plays, and poems was struggling to emerge.

Book One

The endnotes beginning on p. 177 explain who many of the historical characters are. It is important to realize that Diane de Poitiers, Duchesse de Valentinois (also called “Mme [“Madame”] de Valentinois), official mistress to King Henri II is far more prominent at the court than Henry’s legitimate spouse and queen, Catherine de Medici.

Kings had less choice in their marriage partners than anyone. Only women of the most exalted rank could qualify, and political considerations normally overrode personal ones. But the king was normally compensated for his unromantic marriage by being able to publicly maintain a mistress of his own choosing. She was required to be suitably noble, and it was strongly preferred that she be a married woman whose husband could be bought off or ignored because it was crucial that any children the mistress bore the king not be able to make legitimate claims on the succession to the throne. If the king’s illegitimate offspring were officially designated the children of another man, the country was protected from potentially ruinous power struggles among claimants for the throne. (This precaution did not always work: some illegitimate offspring made just such claims.) The husband and children were usually rewarded with titles and estates.

On the other hand, the queen, whose sole important role was to bear legitimate heirs to the throne, was closely watched to make sure she did not take lovers. An affair with the queen was technically high treason, punishable by death.

The other courtiers naturally indulged in love affairs as well, though more discreetly than the king. For the little inbred community at Versailles, gossip about who was sleeping with whom was a major source of entertainment. Technically, these people were all Christians who disapproved of adultery, but actually they assumed it was nearly universal, so much so that faithfulness could seem an astonishing novelty. However, official morality dictated that a married woman whose affair became public should be disgraced and banished from polite society. Therefore the usual pattern was to be discreet enough to avoid a serious scandal, whatever gossip might be going around. For women, the game was extremely dangerous.

Like all historical novelists, Madame de Lafayette romanticizes the period she is writing about. In fact, the court of Louis XIV, where she lived, was far more splendid, refined, and brilliant–if also more artificial and constrained–than the court of Henri II.

Dauphin is the French title for the heir to the throne, just as in England the heir is called the “Prince of Wales.” Note that the Queen is not content to fade into the background, and constantly schemes to undermine the power of the Duchesse de Valentinois. She cannot confront her directly, however; and carefully hides her true feelings. As you read, note examples of people at the court concealing their true feelings. This is a major theme in the novel.

In the paragraph beginning “Never has any court . . . ” a number of people are named, and there are many similar passages to come. Read the notes about them, but don’t worry about keeping track of anyone named here except the Dauphin and Dauphine and “Madame, the King’s sister,” all of whom will turn up again later. Despite the large number of people named in this novel, fewer than a dozen of them are important to the plot. The Duc de Nemours is one of the three most important figures in the novel. What are his main characteristics? How successful is he with women? What role does love play in his life?

Note how marriages and love affairs are intimately entangled with power struggles: at the court the personal is literally political. The notion that Queen Elizabeth I might have been romantically interested in the (fictional) Duc de Nemours is of course highly flattering to the French; but the main reason for the invention of this one-sided “romance” will become apparent later. If M. de Nemours had married Elizabeth, he would have become King of England.

The heroine is introduced as the most beautiful of women, as had been the case with almost every heroine in European fiction before her. How has Mlle (Mademoiselle=”Miss”) de Chartres been raised differently from other women? What are her mother’s views on love? What is her image of an ideal marriage?

In the era before literary Realism, psychological description was considered much more important than physical description. What precisely do we know about Mlle de Chartres’ appearance? How does the Prince de Clèves react when he first sees her, and how does his reaction affect her? How does he react to her reaction? “Madame” (“Mrs.”) is the form of address appropriate to a married woman. We have now met all three of our principals: Mlle de Chartres, the Prince de Clèves, and the Duc de Nemours. Secondary characters to keep track of include Mme (“Madame”) de Chartres and the Chevalier (“Knight”) de Guise (also called by his other title “Vidame”). Remember that “true” love in this era is always love at first sight.

Note the classic passage in the paragraph beginning “Mme de Chartres, who had been so careful” outlining the connection between love and politics at court. What do you think it is about a court like this that makes love affairs so much more consequential than they usually are in a democracy? “A certain age” is a coy French expression for middle age as it applies to women. The implication is that women who are aging and no longer likely to engage in love affairs are likely to turn toward “virtue.”

After having preached the virtues of love in marriage to her daughter, how does Mme de Chartres proceed to find her a suitable husband? Note the phrase “Those of a romantic disposition are always pleased at finding any excuse to speak with their lovers.” This sort of aphorism was extremely popular in 17th-century France. Writers loved to deploy their worldly wisdom by making keen observations of human behavior. It is one of their chief contributions to literature, aimed at teaching the reader about human emotions and behavior.

Why is it especially courageous of the Prince de Clèves to court Mlle. de Chartres after his father’s death? Note that although he is a mature man of high rank, he could not proceed against his father’s wishes during the latter’s lifetime. “M.” is the standard abbreviation for “Monsieur,” “Mister.” Rephrase and explain this sentence: “The only flaw in his happiness was the fear that she might not find him to her liking, and he would have preferred the good fortune of being loved by her to the certainty of marriage without it.” Note especially the last sentence in this paragraph. It is the key to much of the rest of the novel. How does Mlle de Chartres react to this declaration? What are her feelings toward him? What about Mme de Chartres’ behavior contradicts her earlier statements? “Person” in this context means ‘body.” How does Mlle de Chartres defend herself against the Prince’s criticism? How does he reply to that defense? Which of them is the more insightful, in your opinion?

When the young woman tells her mother how distressed she is by the Prince’s passion for her, the latter is astonished at her frankness. This openness contrasts sharply with the normal patterns at the court; and though technically it is a high virtue, it will prove her downfall. Why is her mother so anxious that this match not fall through? Note that when Mlle de Chartres is married she becomes the Princesse or Mme de Clèves.

What does it mean to say that “as a husband, he did not cease to be a lover”? What about their first meeting seems to indicate that Mme de Clèves and M. de Nemours are “meant for each other”? Why does the Dauphine say it is flattering to the Duc that Mme de Clèves claims not to know who he is? Note Mme de Chartres’ comment, “If you judge by appearances in this place, you will often be deceived, because what appears to be the case hardly ever is.” The long passage in which Mme de Chartres recounts the story of Mme de Valentinois is interesting but of no direct relevance to the plot of this novel although it illustrates well the social attitudes and customs of the court. In what sense was the former King “scrupulously faithful to his mistresses”? Note that Mme de Valentinois was first one of unofficial mistresses of this King and then the mistress of his son, the present King.

What is M. de Nemours giving up because of his love for Mme de Clèves? Why, despite his extreme discretion, is the Princesse able to tell that M. de Nemours is in love with her? Why does M. de Nemours object to seeing his mistress at a ball? Analyze Mme de Clèves’ reaction. What reason does she give her mother for avoiding the ball, and why is it significant? How does her mother discover her affection for M. de Nemours? Analyze the paragraph beginning “The Dauphine believed Mme de Chartres. . . .” It is a classic example of analysis of the kind that characterizes the roman d’analyse.

Why doesn’t Mme de Chartres want her daughter to know that she knows that the latter loves M. de Nemours? What causes her to feel ashamed about her feelings toward her husband? Note how consistently major developments hinge on what is not said or done. In a closed society where everyone knows everyone else intimately, the slightest nuances can be very revealing. It is not surprising that this sort of fiction evolves in courts. Try to list some examples as you go on.

Analyze the paragraph which begins “She could not help being disturbed at seeing him.” What mixed feelings does she feel, and for what reasons? Mme de Chartres’ deathbed interview with her daughter is one of the most important scenes in the novel. Her words are to exercise a powerful influence over her daughter for the rest of her life. It is crucial to remember that Mme de Clèves has been utterly devoted to her mother who has raised her to be exceptionally virtuous. Her statement that she would prefer to die before having to witness her daughter’s infidelity to her husband must be particularly influential. To give in would be to shame her mother’s memory. “Preparing for death” involves religious devotion, thoroughly confessing and repenting of sins and looking toward heaven and away from earthly things, even such a beloved thing as one’s daughter. Why does the Princesse come to feel that M. de Clèves can protect her from her feelings for M. de Nemours?

Book Two

The story of Mme de Tournon is interesting in itself; but its main contribution to the plot is to provide a bad example of a faithless woman which can repel our heroine and make her want to flee temptation. There is a kind of pattern set up in the episodes of the missing ring (dealt with here), the missing portrait and the missing letter (which come later). The paragraph beginning “I am giving you the advice,” is one of the major turning points of the novel. What is your initial reaction to the Prince’s declaration of how he would act if his wife told him she was attracted to someone else? Why is Sancerre “in a state where [he] can neither be consoled, nor hate” Mme de Tournon? Why does Mme de Clèves think it is safe for her to follow her husband’s advice that she should start seeing people again? In what way do subsequent events prove her wrong? What does this paragraph mean: “These last words of the Dauphine’s caused Mme de Clèves to feel a different kind of agitation from the one she had experienced a few moments before”? How does Nemours manage to court Mme de Clèves in their interview in her bedroom without seeming obviously to do so? What is her reaction? Look for a good example of an aphorism on p. 75. How do Mme de Clèves’ attempts to flee M. de Nemours affect him? Why is she reluctant to tell her husband that it is rumored that M. de Nemours is in love with her?

The king’s point in scoffing at the astrologer’s prediction is only social equals could duel; and only another king could legitimately duel with a king. Watch for the ultimate outcome of this prediction. Why does everyone suddenly agree that astrology is worthless? How does M. de Nemours turn this conversation to his advantage? Why is M. de Nemours able to recognize the signs of her love for him although they are successfully hidden from others? Why does she dislike Queen Elizabeth’s portrait? Elizabeth was highly intelligent, though perhaps not all that beautiful; but we shall never know because she rigidly controlled the official portraits made of her according to a stereotyped image. Read note 16, on Marguerite de Navarre, a most extraordinary woman. Besides being a writer, she was friend and protector to the great Renaissance French writer François Rabelais.

The sketch of Henry VIII’s life retells the familiar tale of his split with Rome and his tumultuous marital career. All of this is relevant because he was Elizabeth’s father. Note that the portrait of Mme de Clèves wins out easily over the portrait of the Queen of England. Why doesn’t Mme de Clèves demand her portrait back? What forces are acting on her? What use does M. de Nemours make of her hesitancy?

Though during the 16th century the armored knight was being rendered obsolete by the gradual improvement in firearms, tournaments were still a popular form of entertainment. Why is the Duc de Guise so upset at Mme de Clèves’ reaction to M. de Nemours’ accident? What effects does the lost letter have on Mme de Clèves? Women in court society rarely approached men as lovers; they waited to be courted. Why is the Queen an exception, do you think?

Book Three

Why is M. de Nemours unperturbed by Mme de Clèves’ initial refusal to see him? How does the missing letter bring the two of them closer together? In what way does the Dauphine say that Mme de Clèves is unlike all other women? Note that the failure of the clumsy forgery has momentous consequences for the Dauphine. In this society of multiple casual affairs jealousy can still be a powerfully destructive force. Analyze Mme de Clèves’ own analysis of her feelings of jealousy concerning M. de Nemours. These are important in understanding her subsequent actions.

The momentous discussion between M. and Mme de Clèves in the country is the most important scene in the novel. Why does she speak as she does? What is his reaction? Why doesn’t M. de Nemours assume at first that it is himself that she loves? What is his ultimate reaction after the discussion is finished? What effect does her husband’s trust have on Mme de Clèves? What do you think of M. de Nemours’ use of the conversation in the country which he had overheard between M. and Mme de Clèves? In what way are M. de Nemours and Mme de Clèves trying to deliver messages to each other while seeming to speak to the Dauphine on p. 127? What messages are they conveying? As mentioned earlier in the description of the preparations for the tournament, it was traditional for the combatants to include some decoration in their costume which alluded more or less discreetly to their beloveds. How does M. de Nemours allude to his love for Mme de Clèves in his costume, and how does his choice fit in with one of the recurrent patterns we have discussed in this novel?

Book Four

Notice that one of the consequences of the King’s death is the exile of the formerly powerful Duchesse de Valentinois. Note Mme de Clèves’ complex reaction to the news that M. de Nemours is coming to see her. Why has M. de Clèves been unable to live up to the ideal of sympathetic husband he preached earlier? The scene of the wrapping of the cane seems irresistibly phallic to modern interpreters, who may not be far off the mark; for Renaissance writers delighted in naughty allusions like this. In the meditations of M. de Nemours after the scene of the cane-wrapping, he uses familiar stereotyped love language: “the greatest of favors” is intercourse, “unkindness” is refusal to have intercourse.

It was universally believed that strong emotions could lead directly to a life-threatening fever; and indeed, modern research has done much to link emotional disturbances to organic disease. Dying “with fortitude” was considered admirable because a good Christian should display confidence that he/she is about to enter into eternal life. What effects does his death have on Mme de Clèves? Which of M. de Nemours’ qualities especially attract Mme de Cléves when she glimpses him in garden? What prevents her from marrying him now that she is legally able to? What are her fears about the future course of their relationship should she allow it to develop? What do you think of her arguments? Try to see both sides of the issue.

What effect does the approach of death have on Mme de Clèves’ feelings? Since she dies pious and virtuous, would you say that the message of this novel is a religious one? Why or why not?

More study guides for Love in the Arts:

 

First mounted October 16, 1997

Last revised March 22, 2000.

Shakespeare: Romeo and Juliet (1591?)

The notes were prepared for use with an edition of Romeo and Juliet bound together with the book for West Side Story and in conjunction with a showing of Franco Zeffirelli’s film version of the play, but they will be useful with any edition or production.

The introduction focuses primarily on comparisons with West Side Story, so it has relatively little to say about the play as such. As noted, this is often regarded as a lesser Shakespeare tragedy by scholars, but what should also be kept in mind is that audiences have made it one of the most beloved plays of all time from the Elizabethan Age to the present. Romeo and Juliet are often considered the archetypal lovers, and at one time “a romeo”–meaning a lover–was a common noun. Several operas and ballets have been based on the story. The play also contains some of Shakespeare’s most-quoted lines, and some of the most beautiful.

Although Shakespeare’s dialogue often reads beautifully enough on the page, please keep in mind that he never intended his words to be read. This is a script for performance, and our study of it will prepare us for a version of the real thing: the film version directed by Franco Zeffirelli. Like all productions, it is an interpretation, leaving some things out, putting others in, placing emphases differently than other productions. Your goal in this assignment should be to familiarize (or refamiliarize) yourself with exactly what Shakespeare wrote so that you can observe what it is Zeffirelli has done with it.

Shakespeare wrote almost no original plots. He used an English poetic retelling of an old Italian tale: Arthur Brooke’s The Tragicall History of Romeus and Juliet. Despite its Italian setting, the language, attitudes, and customs are generally English. In one respect, Shakespeare altered the story in a way which is shocking to modern audiences: he lowered Juliet’s age from sixteen to just under fourteen. There are several reasons he might have done so. Boys played the female roles in Shakespeare’s theater, and they might have been more convincing as young girls than as more mature women (though audiences presumably found a boy playing Cleopatra or Lady Macbeth satisfactory). Shakespeare emphasizes the over-hastiness and premature nature of this love affair and probably felt he was underlining this theme at a time when marriage at fifteen was considered by no means shocking, though marriage at eighteen or twenty was in fact much more common. Shakespeare was notoriously inept at depicting children in his plays and he may not have had a really clear idea of what a fourteen-year-old girl would be like. Finally, the fact that the story is Italian may have fitted in with Northern European prejudices about hot-blooded early-maturing Southerners. However we imagine her, Juliet is given some of the most brilliant and memorable lines in the play, and is notable for her courage and wit.

Italian cities were infamous for their long-lasting, deadly feuds between prominent families. Elizabeth, like most absolute monarchs, abhorred dueling and feuding and tried to suppress it. Shakespeare’s play is in part his contribution to her “just say no” campaign against such conflicts.

Prologue

Modern taste prefers not to be told right at the beginning of a play how it will end; but many in Shakespeare’s audience already knew the story and were looking to enjoy how well it was told, not seeking to be surprised by original plot turns.

Act I: Scene 1

The Elizabethans delighted in word-play, especially puns. Much of this seems labored and dull to modern readers, but imagine it as a game in which actors are flinging out their lines at a smart pace with the audience scrambling to follow and untangle the word-play in a sort of contest between playwright and audience. The slow delivery and heavy emphasis which many modern actors bring to these lines is utterly alien to their original spirit. This early scene between the servants of the Capulets and Montagues illustrates the foolishness of the quarrel between the two families.

The sexual punning begins in ll. 25-35 and continues throughout the play. The love of Romeo and Juliet, although idealized, is rooted in passionate sexuality. The Victorian ideal of “pure,” non-sexual romantic love has not yet evolved. In this play there are crude allusions to sex and exalted ones, but the erotic is never very far under the surface.

“Benvolio” means “good will,” and he is obviously more congenial (or “benevolent”) than the irascible Tybalt. Note how Lady Capulet mocks her husband’s eagerness to join the combat at l. 83 and Lady Montague similarly tries to hold her husband back. Although Zeffirelli does not use these lines, he does build upon the attitudes hinted at in a few spots to create tension between the Capulets. Elizabethan audiences loved elaborate sword-play, and a stage direction like they fight conveys little of what might have been very prolonged and complex stage action. Why do you suppose the Prince is so strongly opposed to this sort of feuding?

Montague’s description of Romeo’s melancholy fits exactly contemporary ideas of lovesickness. Thus far, Shakespeare is following tradition. His original contribution will come in contrasting Romeo’s mooning over Rosaline with the fresh, spontaneous passion which Juliet will inspire in him. It is much more difficult for modern audiences to detect the contrast between these two moods, but it is important to be aware that Shakespeare intends a contrast, and a sharp one. The many oxymorons in Romeo’s speech are clichés, meant to evoke his callow, stereotypical attitude toward love. The sexual metaphor at l. 193 is a good example of how far Shakespeare will go to insert erotic allusions into the most unlikely places. The theme (ll. 234-236) that it is a shame for a beautiful young person not to reproduce is worked out at great length in the famous and controversial “procreation sonnets.” What are the most extreme and extravagant things that Romeo has to say about Rosaline?

Act I: Scene 2

Note that Capulet is perfectly aware of what modern medicine has confirmed: early teenage pregnancies are dangerous to the mother. This fact may have been somewhat obscured in Shakespeare’s time by the fact that a great many women of more mature ages died in childbirth; in fact, this may have been the main cause of death in women. The fact that all of Capulet’s other children have died is also a sad reminder of the extremely high infant mortality rates of the day. As we shall see, Juliet’s own mother gave birth at this age, and is therefore now less than thirty, though she thinks of herself as old (her husband is much older). Life was short and people aged rapidly then, facts which make the urgency expressed in this play more understandable. What image in Capulet’s speech to Paris suggests the delight that older men such as they feel in observing attractive young girls? In Elizabethan society, the insane were often imprisoned, chained and beaten in hopes of driving out the devils that possessed them (ll. 55-57), notoriously at London’s Bethlehem Hospital (shortened familiarly to “Bedlam”) where people often went to observe and laugh at the antics of the insane. Inmates could even be rented as entertainment for parties, so there is a consistent connection made between “madness” and humor. What is Benvolio’s motivation in encouraging Romeo to crash the Capulets’ party?

Act I: Scene 3

The nurse is one of Shakespeare’s most memorable characters. The bawdy old lady who revels in sex and sympathizes with young lovers is an old stereotype, dating back at least to the Middle Ages. In many tales, she is a professional bawd, a go-between who facilitates the illicit meetings of young lovers, sells love potions, surgically repairs maidenheads, and provides young brides with the means of faking virginity on their wedding night. Though she is no professional, the character of the nurse would have been a recognizable type to Shakespeare’s audience. Note that her very first words are about sex, referring to the fact that the last time she was a virgin she was twelve. The mixture of high tragedy and comedy, of noble characters and common ones like the nurse, is a distinguishing characteristic of Elizabethan drama, much objected to in the 17th and 18th centuries by classical critics. Such blendings were to be allowed in comedy, but not in tragedy. Today they satisfy our preference for life to be portrayed complexly, as a mixture of incongruities.

The first long speech by the nurse illustrates her propensity to run on and on in response to the simplest of questions. Susan (l. 18) is the child the nurse bore and lost the same year that Juliet was born. Nurses often nursed their charges literally. A woman who had lost her own baby was an ideal source of milk for an upper-class infant whose mother preferred not to be troubled with doing her own nursing. Babies were weaned by having a foul-tasting salve smeared on the nipple (l. 30). The bodily intimacy between Juliet and the nurse helps to explain the insistent physicality of the latter’s speeches. Zeffirelli leaves out some of the more obscure references, particularly those alluding to the earthquake. Today a man who would joke about a toddler’s future sexual attitudes would be viewed as distinctly weird, but in the Renaissance such a joke would have been commonplace, intended to connect the married couple with each other over the child’s head. The nurse’s late husband was not sexualizing the child, but reminding his wife how she differs from Juliet in her enthusiasm for sex.

Juliet’s reply to her mother at l. 66 is one of Shakespeare’s often-quoted lines, remarkable in its diplomacy for a young teenager. It is at ll. 71-73 that we learn that Lady Capulet cannot be older than 28. By what process does Lady Capulet seem to expect Juliet to come to love Paris? How is the imagery of her speech reflected in Juliet’s reply? Note that the nurse’s final line also suggests that the main joy of marriage is to be found in lovemaking.

Act I: Scene 4

Most of the opening exchange between Romeo and Mercutio is omitted in the film version. What is the consistent theme of Romeo’s speeches in it? The famous “Queen Mab” speech of Mercutio has been discussed endlessly. It has been criticized because of its seeming irrelevance and extraordinary length. Such criticisms inevitably lead to defenses which declare the speech to express the essence of the play. It certainly illustrates the “mercurial” Mercutio’s character: whimsical, impulsive, and satirical. It has also been a great influence on our modern image of fairies, who were physically indistinguishable from normal humans in most Medieval traditions, though Shakespeare’s fairies, like the older ones, are primarily mischief-makers. Zeffirelli, rather than cutting or omitting the speech as some directors have done, uses it to give an unusual interpretation to the character of Mercutio. See whether you can figure out what he is trying to achieve and how whether you think he has succeeded. What is the mood expressed in Romeo’s final speech?

Act I: Scene 5:

Note how Capulet urges the ladies on to dance even as he excuses himself. He would seem by the following conversation with “Second Capulet” to be in his fifties or sixties. Romeo bursts into some of Shakespeare’s finest poetry upon seeing Juliet for the first time. Men often married much later than women, when they had built sufficient fortunes to earn them a beautiful and noble wife. The modern reader may at first find his musings on Rosaline and his raptures over Juliet equally artificial; but the former are simply a flat recitation of clichés, whereas he makes commonplaces new by the richness of their expression. Paleness of skin was so prized at this time that women painted their skin with lead compounds that rendered them as white as clowns. With the growing importation of African slaves, many painters seized on the contrast between dark-skinned servants and their pale mistresses to “set off” European beauty. The contrast was undoubtedly racist, but based more on aesthetic preferences than racial hatred.

Look for a dark-haired woman meant to be Rosaline early in the film’s ball scene and note how Juliet comes into view. What about his initial praise of her foreshadows her early death? Romeo anticipates the line of approach he will take during the dance by saying that her touch will “bless” his hand. It is crucial to remember that it was universally believed at this time that true love always struck at first sight; love that grew gradually was no love at all. Take note of Capulet’s rebuke to Tybalt in ll. 79-90. Zeffirelli makes one of his most daring moves in his use of this speech. Watch for it. What effect does it have on the subsequent love scene to place this encounter with Tybalt just before it?

The speeches that follow are far too artificial for modern taste, but read sympathetically they are revealing and even moving. However, the religious imagery used by the pair should not deceive you into thinking that this is a pious or even solemn exchange. This is a quick-witted bout of flirtation in which both sides are equally smitten, as is made clear by what follows, but in which Juliet plays the proper young girl’s role of dissecting Romeo’s “lines” as fast as he can think them up. The religious language is more blasphemous than pious. The following modern rewording may convey (feebly) the meaning of the exchange more clearly so that you can go back and enjoy Shakespeare’s beautiful language as he intended it.

Romeo (holding her hand as they dance): “You are like a shrine enclosing a holy relic, and I would be unforgivably uncouth to touch it with my unworthy hand except that I am ready to “kiss away” the damage I have done.” (In other words: “I love holding your hand; may I kiss it?”)

Juliet (probably amused, but cautious, teases him): “There’s nothing wrong with your hand (I like it!), and handholding while we dance is quite legitimate; but you’re being a little too bold in wanting to kiss me. If you’re really a pilgrim, you should greet me only with your hand, as ‘palmers’ do.”

Romeo: “Hey, even holy pilgrims are human: they’ve got lips. Please let me kiss you.”

Juliet: “Pilgrims use their lips for praying, not kissing.”

Romeo: “Fine, so I’m praying to you to let me kiss you. If my prayer isn’t answered I may lose my religious faith.”

Juliet: “Well, if I were a statue of a saint you were praying to, I might just grant your prayer although I’d remain motionless.” (In other words, “I won’t kiss you; but yes, you can kiss me.”)

Romeo: “Stand still while I kiss you.” (He kisses her lips.) “Just as a pilgrim might kiss the statue of a saint in hopes of receiving forgiveness for sins, so your acceptance of my kiss undoes any sin I committed by holding your hand.”

Juliet (thrilled and amused at the same time): “So you claim to have gotten rid of your sin by kissing my lips. Now I’ve got the sin. What are you going to do about that?”

Romeo: “You want me to kiss you again? Great!” (Kisses her again.)

Juliet: “You don’t really need all this artificial argumentation to justify kissing me, you know. Let’s get serious.”

Who would you say is more in charge of the course of events here? Why?

Zeffirelli seems to give the word “chinks” in l. 118 a bawdy meaning even though scholars generally agree that the nurse is for a change speaking of Juliet’s wealth rather than her body. At l. 120, Romeo puts his predicament into bookkeeping language. As the notes say, Juliet is now his life; but more ominously, his continued existence is now in danger because her relatives may well kill him for courting her. Why do you think Juliet asks the nurse about several other people first before mentioning Romeo? Note the foreshadowing in ll. 136-137. The speech that begins on l. 140 is evidently muttered to herself, only half-heard by the nurse. In what sense could it be called a rhyme that she learned from Romeo?

Act II: Prologue

What is it that the Chorus says gives the couple the power to overcome the obstacles which separate them?

Act II: Scene 1

Why do Mercutio’s teasing speeches not bother Romeo? As the notes suggest, ll. 23-30 are a series of sexual puns comparing magic conjuration with sexual intercourse.

Act II: Scene 2

This is the famous “Balcony Scene,” one of the most renowned in all of Shakespeare. But because of its romantic associations it is often misunderstood. Romeo’s passion for Juliet is unambiguously erotic. To Elizabethans sexual desire was not antithetical to romance; it was the essence of romance. In calling for the triumph of the sun over the moon, Romeo is hoping she will not remain a virgin much longer. Women who prolonged their virginity excessively were thought to suffer from “green-sickness,” a malady which could only be cured by healthy lovemaking. Thus the entire opening to this scene is devoted to Romeo’s fevered desire that she will make love with him. Despite his passion, he is shy enough, and polite enough, not to simply burst in upon her. It is the tension between his overwhelming desire and his reticence that shows how much he truly loves her.

The comparison of a woman’s eyes to bright stars was a commonplace, but Shakespeare makes it new by elaborating it in a dazzling series of lines dwelling on the luminosity of Juliet’s beauty. In what way does he say her eyes are brighter than stars? Note the physically intimate image of ll. 24-25. Any poet could call his lady angelic; Shakespeare composes a mini-poem on the theme in ll. 26-32. Pay particular attention to the note on l. 33, which is consistently misinterpreted and even misquoted by people unfamiliar with Elizabethan usage. Note that it is Juliet who is thinking through the consequences of their love more systematically and practically than is Romeo. Does this make her less romantic than he? Explain your answer. Note that it is a series of coincidences which moves this affair along so quickly without Juliet being portrayed as shameless. How does Juliet’s speech at ll. 58-60 reveal both her love and her fear? Note that she almost immediately speaks of the death that threatens him. From the beginning their discourse is threaded with allusions to death. When he says he is in more danger of being slain by her eye, he is using conventional courtly language which goes back centuries. In l. 82 “pilot” is used in the original sense of one who expertly guides a ship through hazardous waters.

Juliet’s long speech starting at l. 85 makes clear that she is still a virtuous young woman who wishes her love had not been so promptly revealed; but now that it has been, she does not intend to look backward. Note how she alludes to Ovid’s famous statement that Jove laughs at the oaths of lovers. Much of the rest of her speech examines a paradox in traditional European attitudes toward love as they concerned women: a woman should fall instantly in love upon first seeing her beloved, but it was highly improper for her to reveal her feelings. Instead, she should insist on a prolonged courtship during which the lover would earn her love. Her rejection of this centuries-old stereotype is thrilling, but also highly dangerous. Note throughout the rest of the play the many references to haste. Haste obviously has its hazards; but what justification does Juliet have for acting quickly?

Just as Romeo had scorned the moon for its virginity, Juliet rejects it as too variable. Again Juliet allows herself to flirt with blasphemy in calling Romeo her god. Romeo’s statement at l. 125 is obviously startling to Juliet, but he quickly recovers by insisting that he will love her faithfully. Having once proclaimed her love, the font of Juliet’s eloquence is unstopped, and she becomes the dominant figure in the rest of the scene. A secret marriage involving an underage girl would certainly not have been valid in England, but Italy is a sort of fantasy-land to the Elizabethan audience: anything is possible. Like “by and by” “anon” meant “immediately;” but it was used so often by people trying to put off demands for immediate action that both expressions eventually came to mean “after a while.” Here it retains its original meaning. In l. 156, “want” means “lack.”

One of the most charming touches in this scene is Juliet being so overwhelmed by Romeo’s presence that she cannot remember why she called him back. The following exchange foreshadows their parallel debate before their parting at dawn the day after their wedding. The first two lines of Romeo’s final speech make clear that lovemaking is still very much on his mind. It is put most romantically, but the sense of his words is “I wish I were lying on top of you.” Zeffirelli picks up on these consistent references to sex to justify having his young lovers all over each other during the scene, spicing things up by dwelling on Olivia Hussey’s considerable cleavage. Despite the fact that no Elizabethan production would have been so physical, Zeffirelli is being true to the message that would have been conveyed by the words to the original audience. Remember that this young pair knows very little about each other except that they are extremely attractive and witty.

Act II: Scene 3

Friar Laurence is sometimes played as a bit of a fool; but Zeffirelli gives him a good bit of dignity. His speech on the healing and harmful properties of plants is another bit of foreshadowing. Just as healing herbs can kill, so love can also lead to death. Note also the image of death in a grave at ll. 83-84. What justification does Laurence offer for agreeing to this highly improper marriage?

Act II: Scene 4

Zeffirelli puts Mercutio’s speech beginning at l. 29 to more aggressive use in his film version. The film’s Mercutio makes the obscene meaning of ll. 95-96 unmistakable. When Mercutio suggests that the nurse is a bawd, he is alluding to the stereotype discussed above. In her speech beginning on l. 159, the nurse expresses her outrage at Mercutio in language intended to expresses her intention to thrash him; but she unintentionally uses a series of terms with double meanings which describe sex instead. So while her intended message is “I’ll beat any man who bothers me” what the audience hears is “I’ll have sex with any man that approaches me.” The original audience probably found this hysterically funny; it is a challenge for the modern actress to convey the ambiguity while keeping the nurse apparently unaware of the double meaning of her speech. Note how Zeffirelli solves this problem.

Act II: Scene 5

The classic comic exchange between Juliet and the nurse illustrates the contrast between old and young which Juliet had outlined in her introductory speech. Note l. 65, in which Nurse is impressed by how “hot” (eager) Juliet is. Zeffirelli takes his cue from this line to direct Olivia Hussey to be extremely agitated, which fits her age and state of mind.

Act II: Scene 6

Watch how Zeffirelli directs this scene to emphasize the “violence” of the young peoples’ passion and trims the dialogue to concentrate the scene. The Friar’s last speech provides plenty of justification for Zeffirelli’s staging. Lots of foreshadowing here.

Act III,: Scene 1

Italians normally take a nap after lunch during the heat of the day. In the height of summer the heat is supposed to create madness. Shakespeare may have moved the action from spring to summer for just this reason. Despite all the laws against it, everyone was intimately familiar with the rules of dueling: to decline a challenge is to declare one’s loss of manhood and nobility. To call someone a villain was a very strong form of challenge. Romeo is here making a tremendous sacrifice for his love, but it looks to the bystanders like cowardice. What does l. 94, usually quoted as “A plague on both your houses,” mean in this context? Note that Mercutio does not die on stage, but is led off. When people do die on stage, Shakespeare has their bodies dragged off, for the simple reason that his stage lacked a curtain, and there was no other way to get the “dead” actors off. Modern directors are not so limited, of course. Why would this be a stronger scene if we were to witness Mercutio’s death? Romeo’s desire for vengeance triumphs over his love for Juliet. Can you make out an argument that this does not necessarily make him an unworthy lover? How is the theme of fatal speed illustrated by this scene? Capital punishment was routine for a wide variety of offenses in the Renaissance (a fact which seems to have done remarkably little to deter crime), as were mutilation, fines, and exile. Imprisonment was rarer, because it was expensive.

Act III: Scene 2

Under the flowery language, Juliet knows exactly what she wants: to make love with Romeo. She seeks to overcome her maidenly modesty and enjoy the legitimate pleasures of marital sex. In classical mythology, many heroes such as Orion were turned into constellations. In imagining such a fate for Romeo she unwittingly foreshadows his imminent end. Juliet’s reaction to the death of Tybalt is one of the pivotal points of the play, and one of the most difficult to stage convincingly. She must be seized by grief but still end by loving Romeo. What mood changes does she go through in this scene, and what causes these changes of mood? Note that Juliet’s rashness in changing moods mirrors that of Romeo in the previous scene. The theme of a young woman marrying death is an ancient one, featured prominently, for instance, in Sophocles’ Antigone.

Act III: Scene 3

Just as Juliet has said she is likely to be wedded to death, so Friar Laurence says Romeo is wedded to calamity. Willfully seeking death–committing suicide–was a mortal sin to both Catholics and Anglicans, a fact that is conveniently ignored by Shakespeare much of the time, but alluded to by the Friar at l. 24. Note how Romeo rebukes him for being old, just as Juliet at rebuked her nurse in Act II: Scene 5. One can understand why this play has always been popular with young people. What reasons does the Friar offer that Romeo should consider himself blessed? Mantua is the nearest city to Verona, roughly 25 miles distant.

Act III: Scene 4

The theme of undue haste continues. What earlier rash act causes Capulet’s rash decision to hurry the marriage of Paris and Juliet? Modern audiences may be prone to blame Paris for not courting Juliet directly, but he is behaving in a much more proper fashion than Romeo. Private courting between young people, though often romanticized, was officially disapproved of. Marriages were supposed to be negotiated by parents. However, widespread resentment against this pattern is reflected in countless stories from the Middle Ages through the 19th Century, when Europeans finally abandoned the custom.

Act III: Scene 5

Shakespeare opens this scene with a variation on the aubade, or “dawn song” tradition of the Middle Ages. Lovers who have spent the night together listen to the morning song of the birds with some alarm as they realize they must part. Again, what makes the scene fresh is not the theme itself but the elaborate and original treatment Shakespeare gives it. Zeffirelli underlines the physicality of the couple’s love in a way that would have been impossible for Shakespeare, by showing quite a bit of their flesh. See whether you think this works (though if you are liable to be offended by R-rated nudity, you may look away). Note how the threat of death runs through their dialogue. Every time we have seen Romeo and Juliet together there has been some form of pressure enforcing haste. Can you recall what these pressures have been? Note the foreshadowing in l. 56.

Juliet indulges in one of Shakespeare’s most clever word-games at ll. 60-65. It is worth puzzling out, and admiring the Elizabethan audience for having been able to pick up on it quickly. When at l. 85 Juliet says she wishes no one but she would avenge her cousin’s death what is the ambiguity in her speech? She continues to equivocate in her next speech where her mother hears her saying she hopes to behold Romeo dead while she is actually saying she will never be satisfied until she beholds him, and that her heart is dead. Her desire to “wreak her love” on Romeo’s body is even more obviously ambiguous: she wants to make love with him again. Why does Juliet ask her mother to find someone to carry a poison to Romeo: isn’t she placing his life in danger? Some viewers react negatively to the way Zeffirelli has directed Olivia Hussey to react to the news of her impending marriage to Paris; but it is important to keep in mind that she is very young, as the director emphasized the very first time we saw her in the film. She is having a typical fourteen-year-old tantrum. Her language is so often sophisticated we may be in danger of forgetting how immature she really is. Shakespeare’s audience expected such language from all manner of characters, and would not have seen an incongruity here. Note that her parents are as rash as she. Their overreaction may seem incredible, but in fact the choice “marry your designated husband or die” was a cliché. Many of us can remember otherwise sane adults banishing their male offspring from their homes when they returned from college with long hair in the sixties, and many parents claimed following the Kent State shootings that they would have wanted their own children to be shot to death by the National Guard had they been involved in antiwar protests. One of the major themes of this play is the foolishness of the older generation, whose passions are even more destructive than those of the younger generation. We have seen before that the nurse lacks scruples; but thus far her lax morals have benefited Juliet. Now she urges Juliet to commit bigamy, which was both illegal and a grievous sin. Juliet reacts quickly, cutting off the nurse from all further confidences. Note how in the final line Juliet is contemplating suicide, though she sensibly seeks Friar Laurence’s advice first.

Act IV: Scene 1

Paris seems to view marriage, as her father does, as a form of medical treatment for Juliet’s sorrow. They think she is too young to know what’s good for her. In what sense is Juliet’s face not her own (l. 36)? Friar Laurence’s plot may seem desperate, but remember that he is in big trouble. He has performed an illicit wedding and fervently wants to avoid colluding in bigamy. Juliet is threatening suicide, as had Romeo. Juliet’s willingness to dwell in a tomb (“charnel house”) is of course prophetic of her actual fate, and encourages the friar to unfold his plot to her. Well into the 19th century physicians were often unable to distinguish deep comas from death, leading to concern that people might sometimes be mistakenly buried alive. Such a story would not have been nearly so far-fetched in Shakespeare’s day as it would be in ours.

Act IV: Scene 2

Now that Juliet is determined on her course of action she does not hesitate to lie outright to her parents.

Act IV: Scene 3

It was traditional for the nurse to sleep in the same room with her young charge until she was married, so Juliet has to find an excuse to be alone. Her terrors at taking the drug are well depicted; she is no dashing heroine to drink off the potion without hesitation, but a very human young girl. Her determination is all the more striking because she has to overcome these very understandable fears. Not only does she fear going mad in the tomb, she almost goes mad here, as she imagines she sees Tybalt’s ghost seeking revenge on Romeo.

Act IV: Scene 4

Had Shakespeare been a woman he might have hesitated to describe an elaborate wedding banquet being planned and executed overnight. From now on Zeffirelli ruthlessly cuts dialogue from most scenes, omitting one important scene altogether. What effect do you think he is trying to achieve by thus abridging the ending of the play?

Act IV: Scene 5

Which character restates the theme of the bride wed to Death? On what grounds does Friar Laurence argue that Juliet is better off dead? What does l. 83 mean: “Yet nature’s tears are reason’s merriment”?

Act V: Scene 1

How does Romeo’s first speech foreshadow his eventual fate? How is the theme of excessive haste continued in this scene?

Act V: Scene 2

What has prevented Friar Laurence’s message from reaching Romeo?

Act V: Scene 3

Note that Zeffirelli omits an important incident from this scene. Why do you think he does? Why does Romeo say he loves Paris better than himself (l. 64)? In what way is his speech to Tybalt’s corpse parallel? Sometimes when Zeffirelli wants more dialogue than Shakespeare provides him, he simply has a line repeated. He rather overdoes this effect with l. 159. Again Juliet shows herself to be bold and resolute in action. Her suicide would of course have been viewed by the Church as a damnable act, but that did not keep the popular imagination from romanticizing it. The theater was considered a thoroughly wicked institution by pious folk and plays do not necessarily reflect the official morality of the day. After all, one of Shakespeare’s few poems published during his lifetime was “The Rape of Lucrece” which idealized suicide. Given what you know of Elizabethan values, why is the Prince’s role at the end of the play so important? Modern directors with different values are apt to prune his part severely or even omit him altogether from the conclusion. How do Montague and Capulet intend to symbolize their reconciliation?

More study guides for Love in the Arts:

Last revised February 2, 2000.