CRITICISM

Andrews, John F., ed. Romeo and Juliet: Critical Essays. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1993, 425 p.

Collection of essays focusing on the play's language and structure, performance issues, and the play as a reflection of Elizabethan culture.

Clemen, Wolfgang H. “Romeo and Juliet.” In Studies in Drama, edited by Ghassan Maleh and Yasser Daghistani, pp. 95-107. Beirut: Dar Al Fikr, 1972.

Argues that traditional style and a “surprising new language” co-exist in Romeo and Juliet, and demonstrates the way in which this duality is present in the play's imagery as well.

Crunelle-Vanrigh, Anny. “‘O Trespass Sweetly Urged’: The Sex of Space in Romeo and Juliet.” Cahiers Élisabéthains 49 (April 1996): 39-49.

Maintains that the struggle between young love and patriarchal power over sexual freedom directs the way space and movement in the play are handled.

Dorynne, Jess. “The Insignificant Mother of Juliet.” In The True Ophelia and Other Studies of Shakespeare's Women By an Actress, pp. 63-93. London: Sidgwick and Jackson, Limited, 1913.

Offers a character analysis of the often-overlooked and underrated role of Lady Capulet, stressing that Lady Capulet is the “strongest” character in the play.

Franson, J. Karl. “‘Too soon marr'd’: Juliet's Age as Symbol in Romeo and Juliet.” Papers on Language and Literature 32, no. 3 (Summer 1996): 244-62.

Observes that Shakespeare deliberately disregarded contemporary social custom by making Juliet younger than his sources, noting that the average marrying age of Elizabethan women was 25 or 26. Franson suggests that Shakespeare used various references to time throughout the play to symbolize the premature age at which Juliet is to wed.

Garber, Marjorie. “Romeo and Juliet: Patterns and Paradigms.” In Romeo and Juliet: Critical Essays, edited by John F. Andrews, pp. 119-31. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1993.

Asserts that Shakespeare constructed Romeo and Juliet in a manner designed to guide audiences toward a broader understanding of the intricacies of the play's language and structure.

Guenther, Leah. “Luhrmann's Top 40: Shakespeare and the Crisis of Shakespearean Consumption.” Journal of American Culture 22, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 17-23.

Examines the negative critical reactions to Baz Luhrmann's 1996 film William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet, and contends the director sought to resuscitate Shakespeare for the 1990s.

Halio, Jay L., ed. Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet: Texts, Contexts, and Interpretation. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1995, 155 p.

Collection of essays focusing on a variety of topics, including subversive elements in the play, mythical references, literary contexts, violence, the dueling scene, relevance of Elizabethan theatrical vocabulary, and points of comparison between the first and second Quartos.

Holmer, Joan Ozark. “‘Draw, if you be men’: Salviolo's Significance for Romeo and Juliet.” Shakespeare Quarterly 45, no. 2 (Summer 1994): 163-89.

Contends that Vincentio Saviolo's 1595 fencing manual offers evidence that Shakespeare may have been reacting to this book's diction and general theories in Romeo and Juliet.

Levenson, Jill L. “The Definition of Love: Shakespeare's Phrasing in Romeo and Juliet.” Shakespeare Studies 15 (1982): 21-36.

Studies the way in which Shakespeare manipulated the language and conventions of Petrarchism as it existed in sixteenth-century England.

Roberts, Sasha. “Family Dynamics.” In William Shakespeare: Romeo and Juliet, pp. 11-33. Plymouth, U.K.: Northcote House, 1998.

Reviews the topical relevance of Romeo and Juliet in the late sixteenth century, studying the contemporary issues regarding the nature of patriarchal power and its abuse within the family structure.

Stoll, Elmer Edgar. “Lecture I: Romeo and Juliet.” In Shakespeare's Young Lovers: The Alexander Lectures at the University of Toronto, 1935, pp. 1-44. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1937.

Surveys criticism by scholars who find that the characters of Romeo and Juliet possess flaws that contribute to their tragic fate. Arguing to the contrary, Stoll contends that the struggles Romeo and Juliet experience are generated by their feuding families, and by destiny.

Travers, Peter. “Just Two Kids In Love.” Rolling Stone, no. 747 (14 November 1996): 123-24.

Favorably reviews the performances of Claire Daines and Leonardo DiCaprio in Baz Luhrmann's 1996 film William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet, noting that Luhrmann's cuts of Shakespeare's dialogue were not as detrimental to the film as the cuts taken by Franco Zeffirelli in his 1968 film rendition of the play.

Wells, Robin Headlam. “Neo-Petrarchan Kitsch in Romeo and Juliet.” Modern Language Review 93, no. 4 (October 1998): 913-33.

Demonstrates the way in which Shakespeare uses kitsch to as a means of satirizing “sentimental self-deception” in Romeo and Juliet, observing that Petrarchism is employed toward this end.

Whittier, Gayle. “The Sonnet's Body and the Body Sonnetized in Romeo and Juliet.” Shakespeare Quarterly 40, no. 1 (Spring 1989): 27-41.

Examines Shakespeare's manipulation of the Petrachan sonnet form for dramatic purposes.