B.Smith 1
Bradley Smith
English 378
Aug. 7, 2002
Romeo and Juliet’s Generational Gap:
Ideological Clash in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century England
Attempts to acknowledge situatedness have led scholars to expand the time
governed by modern ideals, splitting it into three main parts: pre-modernism or early
modernism, modernism and postmodernism. In these three different parts, scholars have
isolated characteristics of modernism, though they are treated differently in each time
period. Of the three, pre-modernism shows the attempt to recognize our own situatedness
most clearly, because it is an attempt to reclassify the time period usually thought of as
the Renaissance. The new name signifies a change in priorities in the latter part of the
twentieth century and into the twenty-first century, as Leah Marcus points out in her
essay “Renaissance/Early Modern Studies,” appearing in Redrawing the Boundaries: The
Transformation of English and American Literary Studies. Marcus writes, “Early
modern carries a distinct agenda for historians, who have adopted the name quite
consciously as a sign of disaffiliation from what they perceive as the elitism and cultural
myopia of an older ‘Renaissance’ history” (41-2). It is an attempt by scholars to look at
the time period and isolate and identify elements of modernism and postmodernism “in
embryo” (43). One of these elements is modern individualism.
The idea that all humans are individuals with equal rights was seemingly second
nature to mainstream twentieth century scholars as they looked back on history—so much
so, that they assumed every society throughout history valued individuality in the same
B.Smith 2
way they did. Recent scholarly developments, however, have proven otherwise. The
development of the human being as an individual is in fact the product of the modern
historical time period and our society. Assuming that society always privileged the
individual over the group or the family shows that we were blinded by our own values.
In Shakespeare’s plays there is a conflict between this newly privileged
individuality and the older sentiment that privileged the family and God over the
individual. Romeo and Juliet becomes a site where this conflict emerges. The play’s
different generations have different ideas of what should be valued. The younger
generation values individual autonomy and pursuit of happiness, as shown by Romeo and
Juliet. The older generation also values the autonomous individual, but less so. In a
moment of crisis, the older generation reverts to an older set of values by emphasizing
family loyalty and deference to the family’s patriarch.
Modernism’s beginnings coincide with a shift in the economic conditions around
Europe occurring in the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries. In England
during the sixteenth century, the economic culture was subtly shifting from a feudal
arrangement to agrarian capitalism. With wool’s prices rising and its relatively lighter
weight allowing for easier transportation, landowners with capital found it was more
economical to enclose their lands and use them as pastures for raising sheep rather than
continuing the traditional feudal arrangement where peasants raised grain for a manor’s
lord in return for a percentage of the harvest. The wool was used to establish an
international trade for other goods.
Since raising sheep was less labor-intensive than farming under the feudal system,
many poorer peasants were left without ways of supporting themselves. John Martin in
B.Smith 3
Feudalism to Capitalism remarks that during the first half of the fifteenth century the
peasants, no longer able to grow their own crops and raise their own livestock, began to
desert the manors for larger cities in order to earn a living as a wage laborer. “In the
second half of the century,” he writes, “as a result of high wool prices, landlord
aggressiveness took a new form: landlords actively sought to evict peasant communities
in order to convert peasant holdings to pasture” (123). The struggle that ensued between
landowners and peasants led to riots and the desertion of small towns, as peasants made
their way to the city, increasing the number of wage laborers. Around the same time
period, there was a shift in land ownership. Henry VIII, when he split from the Catholic
church, confiscated all of the church’s land in England and distributed or sold it. The
land was bought at a discount by Henry’s supporters or by urban merchants and yeoman
farmers who had the capital to purchase them. The buyers then sold the land at
considerable profits to gentry whose property neighbored the land for sale and wished to
increase their estate or were held by the merchants or farmers in an attempt to join the
gentry.
The morphing economic system led to a morphing ideological system to help
make meaning of and control the new economic conditions that had developed. In
“Ideology and the State,” Althusser describes the relationship between production and the
reproduction of the conditions of production (the base and the superstructure). He writes
there are two different parts to the structure of every society “the infrastructure, or
economic base (the ‘unity’ of the productive forces and the relations of production) and
the superstructure, which itself contains two ‘levels’ or ‘instances’: the politico-legal
B.Smith 4
(law and the State) and ideology (the different ideologies, religious, ethical, legal,
political, etc.)” (129).
Althusser writes:
The reproduction of labour power requires not only a reproduction of its
skills, but also, at the same time, a reproduction of its submission to the
rules of the established order, i.e. a reproduction of submission to the
ruling ideology for the workers, and a reproduction of the ability to
manipulate the ruling ideology correctly for the agents of exploitation and
repression, so that they, too, will provide for the domination of the ruling
class (127-28).
When the goals of the ruling class change, as they did in England during this time period,
the ideologies used to control people change as well. Under the feudal system, the ruling
class needed the peasants to work their land to produce food and goods in return for
protection and food. This required loyalty to the feudal lord. It also required the peasant
and his or her family to stay in a fixed place for generations.
Thus, as Lawrence Stone writes in Family, Sex and Marriage in England, 15001800, there was an emphasis on the Great Chain of Being. The peasants were taught that
their lord had a divine right to rule passed down from God. To leave the estate or
disobey their lord in any way was a sin. Moreover, God was thought of as a part of
everyday life. Peasants saw everything that happened as an act of God. Things like
death and birth in the family were certainly mourned and celebrated, but these events had
a less exaggerated impact on families when compared to later centuries. This lessened
sentiment caused feelings that all people of an equal station were interchangeable. “One
B.Smith 5
wife, one child could substitute for another, like soldiers in an army,” Stone writes (257).
The emphasis in this society was not on the individual, but to “assure the continuity of
the family, the clan, the village or the state” (Stone 258). As the economy shifted to
capitalism, these things became less important. After the shift it was better if peasants
were no longer tied to the land. Power shifted to a central government that controlled a
nation-state, and Peasants were required to shift their loyalty away from their feudal lords
to the nation-state. And like feudal lords, God too took on a different meaning. Stone
writes, God went from being a daily part of people’s lives to a distant watchmaker who
presided over the maintenance of a mechanical universe (246). The shift is one toward
the theology of Free Will.
Though he does not contribute the changes occurring during this time solely to the
new economic situation, Stone finds a great deal of change occurring around the status of
the individual in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century England. He cites a number of
changes in iconography as diverse as tombs to diaries showing the emphasis has switched
from the family to the individual. For example, tombs in the sixteenth and early
seventeenth centuries bore the family name and coat of arms with little recognition of the
individual. Stone writes, “It was a display of family pomp and position, not a memorial
to the individuality of the dead” (225). But as the seventeenth century ended and the
eighteenth century began, tombs began to become personalized, bearing a bust of the
deceased based on personal sittings or a death mask—though, as Stone notes, the
family’s coat of arms was still quite prominent.
Stone dismisses industrialized capitalism as a cause of these changes to the
family. He states the new family type developed in New England and England well
B.Smith 6
before industrialization began. Nor did the factory break up the family unit (661).
Stone’s error is that he is trying to pin the changes occurring during this time to
industrialized capitalism rather than capitalism in general. Stone writes, “What needs
explaining is not a change of structure, or of economics, or of social organization, but of
sentiment. [ . . .] There was a shift in a whole cultural system, defined as the growth of
Affective Individualism” (658). He cites the cause of this rise in autonomy to the
Renaissance ideal of the individual hero and the Calvinist ideal of guilt and anxiety about
salvation. Yet he never discusses what might have been the cause of these phenomena
and why they developed during this time period. The answer that Stone tries so hard to
overlook is the shift from a feudal system to a capitalist system.
It is easy to see capitalism lingering phantom-like behind all of Stone’s
arguments. He even cites capitalist ventures as being one of the main causes of changes
to the family structure. He cites changes that occur in the bourgeois class to help prove
his point. He even states that the professional and upper bourgeois classes are part of the
groups responsible for the change (661). This fact is important to note. In this new
economy the bourgeois classes are controlling ideology. They become the society’s
leaders, resulting in a replacement of ideology left over from the feudal system with a
new ideology to fit the new needs of a capitalist society. As ideology is a top-down
phenomenon, it shows that the bourgeois was becoming the new ruling class—the class
that imposes the method of reproducing the methods of production. That a bourgeois
class even exists during this time period proves deciphering what occurs in the dynamics
of family life is inextricably bound to capital.
B.Smith 7
In feudal society aristocratic marriages had a great deal to do with accumulating
wealth and solidifying power. Aristocratic fathers, ideologically speaking, therefore
needed close family ties and deference to his will to create the best economic situation for
his family’s continuance. Stone writes the feudal relationship between father and child
was characterized by a great deal of deference to the father. Children would kneel, or
stand if they were sitting, or doff their cap to their parents as signs of respect. These
forms of respect begin to fade, however, by the middle of the seventeenth century, and
they were replaced by a mutual affection and a less physical show of respect. Under the
feudal arrangement, the head of the family or clan would make marital decisions based
on what was best for the family, but as the feudal period ended and agrarian capitalism
began, children were given more and more power to choose their spouse or overrule the
judgment of their father. In addition, Stone writes, the reasons for marrying changed
from consolidation of power and wealth to companionship and friendship (though it must
be added this companionship was to be between social equals). “It is obvious,” Stone
writes, “that at the root of both of these changes in the power to make decisions about
marriage, and in the motives that guided these decisions, there lie a deep shift of
consciousness, a new recognition of the need for personal autonomy, and a new respect
for the individual pursuit of happiness” (273).
In the aristocracy near the end of the seventeenth century, marriage was not as
important in developing political ties, but it was still important in consolidating wealth.
However, the forms of wealth had shifted slightly. Land was still the most important
asset, but with enough money, urban merchants and yeoman farmers could buy land and
over the decades work their way into the gentry class. Therefore, marriage codes were
B.Smith 8
relaxed. Sons and daughters were no longer required to defer to their parents, but they
were given a limited autonomy in choosing their spouse with the consent of their family.
Romeo and Juliet give a glimpse at the autonomous individual’s emergence,
whereas, Juliet’s parents show a generation on the cusp of the ideological switch. From
“Two households, both alike in dignity,” Romeo and Juliet’s actions and words in the
play show they are less concerned with their family as they are with their individual
happiness. The first time the audience meets Romeo, he is suffering from melancholia
over the unrequited love of Rosaline. He avoids his father and his cousin Benvolio, and
locks himself up in his room or goes to a grove of sycamores to be by himself. This
longing to be by himself sets Romeo apart from Benvolio, who prefers being part of a
community over being by himself. As Romeo tries to leave him, Benvolio calls, “Soft, I
will go along; / An if you leave me so, you do me wrong” (Greenblatt 877).1 After the
Capulet’s feast, Romeo again wishes to be by himself. He gives Mercutio and Benvolio
the slip, remarking, “Can I go forward when my heart is here? / Turn back dull earth, and
find thy centre out” (889). Romeo is again privileging his own feelings over the
company of his kinsman. This time it is his love for Juliet that drives him from Mercutio
and Benvolio’s company.
Romeo’s romantic feelings for Rosaline and Juliet are a clue to his autonomy.
Stone admits that romantic love was sure to have been a part of feudal society, but he
writes,
1
All quotations from Romeo and Juliet were taken from The Norton Shakespeare, gen. ed Stephen
Greenblatt. See the works cited page for a full citation.
B.Smith 9
In the early seventeenth century, the melancholia induced by unrequited
love was an increasingly familiar theme both to dramatists and to scholars
like Robert Burton. It seems likely, therefore, that love before marriage,
however rare it may have been in the sixteenth century, may have been on
the increase in the early seventeenth century and after (283).
I think it’s reasonable to say that this shift away from economics toward affection when
choosing a spouse is based on an increase in individual autonomy. People were now
marrying to make themselves happy rather than to improve or retain the status of their
family.
As Juliet stands on her balcony, asking Romeo to defy his father and refuse his
name, Romeo is quick to take action on her request: “I take thee at thy word,” he
responds, “Call me but love and I’ll be new baptized. / Henceforth I never will be
Romeo” (892). “Art thou not Romeo, and a Montague?” Juliet asks. “Neither, fair maid,”
Romeo responds, “if either thee dislike” (892). This passage suggests that Romeo
believes there is more to who an individual is than his family name and by extension his
family.
Likewise Juliet believes the individual is more important than family. She
remarks,
That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet.
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo called
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title.
B.Smith 10
She continues by remarking Romeo’s name is no part of him: “Romeo, doff thy name, /
And for thy name – which is no part of thee – / Take all myself (891).
Yet again Romeo shows he values his own happiness and love over his family
when he refuses to fight Tybalt for the family honor. Tybalt challenges him and insults
him, and Romeo responds not in defense of his family honor, but in defense of his love.
“Tybalt,” Romeo says, “the reason that I have to love thee / Doth much excuse the
appertaining rage / To such a greeting” (905). As Tybalt continues to goad him, Romeo
responds, “I do protest I never injured thee, / But love thee better than thou canst devise
(905).
But it is in the Capulet household where the shifting ideologies can be most easily
recognized. At the beginning of the play, the county Paris wishes to marry Juliet.
Capulet, however, wants to give his daughter a chance to choose for herself, rather than
choose a husband for her. And Capulet tells Paris this: “woo her, gentle Paris, get her
heart; / My will to her consent is but a part, / And she agreed, within her scope of choice /
Lies my consent and fair-according voice” (878). As Stone shows, the arranging of
marriage underwent a considerable change with the change from pre-modernism to
modernism. Under the feudal system, Stone writes, “the choice is made entirely by
parents, kin, and family ‘friends’, without the advice or consent of the bride or groom”
(271). As time progressed, children began to make their own marital decisions with the
consent of their parents. “At the same time,” Stone writes, “there was inevitably a
marked shift of emphasis on motives away from family interest and towards well-tried
personal affection” (272). Marriage for romantic love, like Romeo and Juliet’s, was still
frowned upon.
B.Smith 11
Juliet is prompted to fall in love with Paris by her mother, but at the beginning of
the play the decision is ultimately Juliet’s. “What say you?” Juliet’s mother asks her,
“Can you love the gentleman?” Juliet responds, “I’ll look to like, if looking liking move”
(882). Their conversation is not based on a command passed down from Juliet’s father.
It takes into consideration Juliet’s amorous feelings.
It isn’t until after Tybalt’s death that Capulet steps in and consents to Juliet’s
marriage to Paris. And when he does so, he does it seemingly to cheer up Juliet, who he
believes is still mourning over the death of Tybalt her kinsman. As he makes his offer to
Paris, he still considers Juliet to be autonomous then quickly works to disguise the fact.
“Sir Paris,” says Capulet, “I will make a desperate tender / of my child’s love. I think she
will be ruled / in all respects by me. Nay more, I doubt it not” (915). The assurances of
the feudal relationship between father and daughter are gone, and Capulet does not expect
Juliet to defer to his decision, but he counts on her respect and affection for him to gain
her consent. He does not know of any reason why she wouldn’t accept his proposal in
this case, although the audience knows one does exist.
Juliet remains respectful but autonomous when her mother tells her the news that
she will be wedded to Paris: “I wonder at this haste, that I must wed / Ere he that should
be husband comes to woo. / I pray you, tell my lord and father, madam, / I will not marry
yet” (918). And she continues her respectful refusal as her father enters. She responds to
his questions about whether she isn’t proud he has presented such a worthy gentleman to
marry. “Not proud you have,” Juliet responds, “but thankful that you have. / Proud can I
never be of what I hate, / But thankful even for hate that is meant love” (919).
B.Smith 12
At this point the father/daughter relationship between Capulet and Juliet reverts to
the feudal ideological setting. Juliet is no longer allowed to have autonomy. Her will
becomes subject to her father’s:
Thank me no thankings, nor proud me no prouds,
But fettle your fine joints ’gainst Thursday next
To go with Paris to Saint Peter’s Church,
Or I will drag thee on a hurdle thither.
Out, you green-sickness carrion! Out, you baggage,
You tallow-face!
In response to Capulet’s anger, Juliet too reverts to the feudal relationship between father
and daughter. Before she addresses her father again, she kneels before him in an outward
sign of respect, which Stone has shown is an integral part of the feudal relationship
between a father and his children.
Though her parents have reverted to an older form of ideology, which would still
have been legitimate in this time for their social status, Juliet struggles to retain her
autonomy. She goes to Friar Laurence to see what can be done. Upon learning of the
friar’s plan, she returns home restored to her own autonomy. Openly, however, she
feigns deference to her father’s will. Again she kneels before him and tells him she has
been to see Friar Laurence,
Where I have learned me to repent the sin
Of disobedient opposition
To you and your behests, and am enjoined
By holy Laurence to fall prostrate here
B.Smith 13
To beg your pardon. (She kneels down) Pardon, I beseech you.
Henceforward I am ever ruled by you (924).
The real tragedy in Romeo and Juliet, then is the intergeneration gap that has been
created by the shifting ideologies of society. If family was not as important to older
generations, the feud between the two families could have been avoided, and Romeo and
Juliet, without that obstacle might have been happily married. Without Capulet’s
insistence on choosing a husband for Juliet, Romeo and Juliet might have been happily
married. But the blame is not one sided. If Romeo were not so susceptible to his
romantic feelings, Paris and Juliet might have been happily married. And if Juliet were
not so insistent on her own autonomy, she might have been happily married to Paris. The
catch is none of these options were the fault of the characters. They were bound by their
society’s ideologies for good or for bad.
B.Smith 14
Works Cited
Althusser, Louis. “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses: Notes Towards an
Investigation.” Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. Trans. Ben Brewster.
London: NLB, 1971.
Marcus, Leah S. “Renaissance/Early Modern Studies.” Redrawing the Boundaries: The
Transformation of English and American Literary Studies. Eds. Stephen
Greenblatt and Giles Gunn. New York: MLA, 1992.
Martin, John E. Feudalism to Capitalism: Peasant and Landlord in English Agrarian
Development. Atlantic Heights: Humanities Press, 1983.
Shakespeare, William. The Most Excellent and Lamentable Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet.
The Norton Shakespeare: Based on the Oxford Edition.. Gen ed. Stephen
Greenblatt. New York: Norton, 1997.
Stone, Lawrence. Family, Sex and Marriage in England, 1500-1800. New York: Harper
& Row, 1977.