The Prince in 1.1: Peace, Authority - and Justice?

In Romeo and Juliet, the Prince makes just three major appearances, yet his character raises exciting interpretations on power, authority and justice within the play. We first encounter him in Act 1, Scene 1 as he interrupts a fight between members of the opposing houses of Montague and Capulet. He declares

“Rebellious subjects, enemies to peace, Profaners of this neighbor-stained steel— Will they not hear? – What ho, you men, you beasts! That quench the fire of your pernicious rage With purple fountains issuing from your veins: On pain of torture, from those bloody hands Throw your mistempered weapons to the ground, And hear the sentence of your moved prince.”

Shakespeare immediately positions the Prince as a personification of peace and power. In his first words (‘rebellious subjects’), there is a instant recogntion of his power and position in Verona. His desire to end this violent sprawl between the Montagues and Capulets is admirable and lends him a moral superiority, one which is strengthened in the view of an Elizabethan audience by the widely accepted idea of the ‘divine right of kings’, that the monarch is chosen by God.

The Prince’s choice of the adjective ‘neighbour-stained’ juxtaposes the sense of friendship and community between neighbours to the bloody image of ‘stained steel’, and his powerful use of the term ‘profaners’ suggests the Montagues and Capulets are almost sacrilegious in their violence. To a strongly Catholic Elizabethan audience, this accusation that aggression is against the will of God is a powerful advocation for peace and further aligns the Prince’s wishes with those of God (in continued relation to the ‘divine right of kings’).

This use of the Prince as a personification of peace places the phrase ‘enemies to peace’ in a new light; it pits him against those who brawl in the streets of Verona, positioning him in a position of peace against conflict. From the very beginning, the Prince advocates for a society in which the Montagues and Capulets are not in conflict. where Romeo and Juliet could be together, and in which their tragic deaths would not have occurred. Our sense of his moral superiority grows as the fighters are verbally degraded, turning, as they fight, from ‘men’ to ‘beasts’, callous, without control or emotion. In contrast to the stoic, more emotionless Queen Elizabeth I, the Prince is ‘moved’, reflecting a personal emotional distress, such is his desire for peace.

As the Prince threatens to uphold the peace ‘on pain of torture’, Shakespeare reminds us once again of his position of authority in the streets of Verona. His metaphor of ‘purple fountains’ describes noble blood, connoted through the colour ‘purple’ flowing from the ‘veins’ of the upper-class members of the Capulet and Montague households. Shakespeare’s comparison to a ‘fountain’ reflects the cascading outward impact the violence between the noble Old Capulet and Montague has had on the rest of Veronese society: resulting in conflict between their servants and their descendants.

The Prince continues to personify peace and authority, and his closing lines deliver an ultimatum:

“If ever you disturb our streets again, Your lives shall pay the forfeit of the peace.”

Some could find irony in the Prince’s words. His solution to end the violence which plagues Verona’s streets is more violence, through execution. However, what is more convincing is the Prince’s admirably immense desire for peace, willing to execute even members of the nobility to ensure it. Whilst Shakespeare unarguably sets up the Prince as a figure of authority and control, this characterisation could be questioned by the Prince’s decision to go back on his word in Act 3, Scene 1; he does not execute Romeo when he brawls on Verona’s streets, as he declared he would, but instead banishes him. There is a consistent sense of moral superiority in 1.1, which implies justness, but in the wake of 3.1, the audience may be left wondering whether the Prince’s blood connection to Mercutio has had any bearing on Romeo’s more lenient punishment. On the contrary, perhaps his decision not to have Romeo killed is a continued representation of the Prince as an advocate for peace. Maybe he never intends to carry out his threat of death, and this ultimatum isn’t very ironic at all. Whatever you agree with, there’s an interesting argument either way!