One is invariably drawn into an intricate web of power dynamics and political maneuvering that eerily mirrors the complexities of contemporary Machiavellian politics. The analytical piece by Jerry Weinberger at Michigan State University delves into the depths of Shakespeare's classic, dissecting its religious and political themes, characters, and narrative structure to unravel the intricate threads of the effects of religion, ambition, and societal hierarchy that underpin the tragic tale. By comparing the characters Prince Escalus and Friar Laurence, we can discern the Machiavellian conundrum between the traditional authority embodied by the Old Prince and the progressive ideals the New Prince represents.

Weinberger contends that Christianity and the divine played a significant role in shaping the plot's direction. He asserts at the outset of his analysis that Shakespeare did not intend to offer a commentary on divine intervention in tragedies, prompting readers to consider whether "God's Providence" constitutes a tragedy. The viewpoint he advocates is that the tragic fate of Romeo and Juliet does not result from divine intervention, but instead, it emphasizes the characters' perspectives on God within the narrative.

The discussion about Christianity's and the Divine's impact on the plot cannot be disregarded, yet this notion is reframed through the lens of Machiavellian thought. Machiavelli viewed the church as a means to interfere in political statehood. The exemplification of his views on the church can be seen through the introduction of Cesar Borgia to fight with the alliance of France, which had thought to expand the realm. Just as Borgia and the French sought to amplify the Church's influence, the Friar in the context of Weinberger's analysis can be perceived to be a puppet by the church, seeking to disrupt the independent peace of Verona in favour of a stronger religious state.

Friar Laurence is the secondary centrepiece of the play, marrying Romeo and Juliet to one another amidst the betrothal of Juliet to Count Paris. The argument that the Friar did this out of political means is undoubtedly true. The Friar confirms the intentions of Romeo before solidifying his plot, only agreeing to marry the two for a potential alliance between the two houses. An alliance between the two houses, and subsequent peace, was something that even the Friar knew was far from possibility. The risk he forces upon the children through their controversial marriage is used to further his plot. Regardless of the outcome, he begs for the heavens to take praise and bless the marriage, as though he allows fortune to dictate the outcome. Through the Friars' belief in Divine Providence, we see his religious exploitation to obtain a position of fortuity.

His position of fortuity stands to Christianize the state of Verona heavily. When Romeo is banished by Prince Escalus, he seeks nothing but to rejoin the realm. Weinberger argues that Romeo's longing for home and frustration with authority stems not from patriotism or loyalty to his family, but rather from his love for Juliet. Similarly, Juliet expresses her willingness to follow Romeo wherever he may lead, threatening suicide should he not return to Verona. The Friar even encourages Romeo to stay away from the realm, doing so most likely to persuade Juliet closer to the brink of suicide. But why would the pious Friar want to push her to suicide?

At this juncture of the play, Romeo and Juliet are both eager to restore the deep connection they felt during their first encounter at the masquerade. Separated only by the law, their love and intimacy for one another cannot be denied. To that extent, the Friar likely sees the suicide of Juliet as a means to push for equality between the Capulets and the Montagues. After all, if the houses were not at each other's throats, and had they handled the situation between Romeo and Juliet with cool heads immune from the tempers of old grudges, it can only be assumed based on Weinberger's assertions that they could have reconciled. The foresight that Weinberger alludes to is similar to one that Machiavelli himself proposes.

The Friar sees fortune before him but must use his calculations and have the foresight to execute his ambitions. To that extent, it is of no surprise when he proposes to Juliet that she should fake her death to escape the consequences of his actions. There is no doubt that the Friar sees the significant flaw within his plan. Just as Machiavelli alleges that one can exploit fortune to their ability, however, if one does not exploit their fortune and instead passively follows the fortune, then one will see nothing but defeat. The Friar had hoped that the events transpiring between Romeo and Juliet would only serve to aid him.

Now, however, the Friar is met with a new arrangement of complications. The Friar proposes to Juliet that she must now fake her death. Weinberger states multiple methods that the Friar could have imposed to further his scheme. He could murder Juliet, but he would not. Regardless of his political ambitions, he is still a pious man. Although he does not rule the death of Juliet out as an option, for he believes that peace could be achieved through their tragic deaths, he believes that Providence should have a say in their demise. After all, it is Providence that will dictate the future course of events, and acts as foreshadowing both by Shakespeare and by Weinberger who seeks to solidify the Christian Influence on Verona and the play as a whole. Should he take Juliet to Manuta with Romeo while he takes time for himself, also serves to cast some doubt. There would be a significant risk of the marriage being exposed, which Weinbergers thought, would only serve to benefit the Montagues, and not the Capulets.

Throughout the play, the Capulets can be observed to be intensely aristocratic. They believe that the Montagues are beneath them, and their attempts to marry their daughter to Count Paris only serve to further this notion. Had they discovered their daughter was married to a Montague, they would not only lose their future alliance, but they would also have their favoured daughter fall into the hands of their rival, which could result in an intensified feud between the two families, and not the peace that the Friar seeks to instate.

Instead, the Friar favours the final option; Resurrection. Resurrection takes away many of the blights of the realm and even punishes the Capulets. Weinberger's analysis states that the Capulets must first lose something, to appreciate the beauty and opportunity that lay before them. He further states that the Friar seeks to utilize Providence as a means to justify the occurrence, however, if one looks further, the enhanced message that Weinberger wishes to convey becomes painfully obvious. The Friar wants to Christianize the realm as previously stated by Weinberger, and wants to ultimately have his controlling arm in its politics. What better way to purport the reality and obvious presence of your religion, than to warp a major event of realm politics around it? Resurrection is a means to an end for the Friar. He sees this not only as a means to create peace but also as a means to further his control.

But who does he seek to control, if not his polar opposite; Prince Escalus. While the Friar endeavours to reconcile the Montagues and Capulets through the lovers' quarrel, the Prince aims for peace through aristocratic channels. He strives to serve Verona's populace impartially, without allegiance to any particular family. Weinberger further establishes that a discrepancy lies present between the Prince's public proclamations and personal motivations, emphasizing the theme of mercy versus strict justice. When Romeo is accused of slaying Tybalt, the Prince takes this form of mercy upon him, instead of pursuing the death sentence that a crime of this proportion typically gathers. Additionally, Weinberger draws attention to the Friar's interpretation of the Prince's actions as acts of kindness rather than adherence to the law.

The act of kindness is only further perpetuated by the Princes' creation of a new law. The Prince regards the dispute between the rivalling families of Verona as trivial chatter, which has led to him making sacrifices of his own. The Prince then creates a new law which seeks to punish either the Capulets or Montagues should they engage in another fight. The purpose of this law, and subsequently the arguments perpetuated by Weinberger, show that the Prince does not consider acting harshly upon the warring houses for it would serve to further the divide in Verona. Instead, he acts out of subsequent piety.

The Prince “forgives” Romeo for the alleged murder of his kinsmen and in turn bides into the Preacher, finding him innocent of wrongdoing. Weinberger highlights this interaction as a sign of not only the willful ignorance of the Prince, which transforms him under Machiavellian Ideals as the old prince of Verona, and warps the Friar as the new prince, for the new prince seeks to control and manage his realm, even if it is through methods that others may consider to be morally incomprehensible. So long as it brings about the success of the state, then why should the Friar abide by a prince who has not only let his realm fall into a silent civil war?

After all, Weinberger states that there is minimal confidence that the Prince, bound by his piety, will punish anyone to an extent that honours legal precedence. The sentiment that it would be far too little, and far too late is only logical. Mercutio's death occurs early in Act Three, marking the onset of a deeper exploration into the aristocracy of Verona. As Weinberger suggests, this setting reveals a society where people are deeply affected by the ongoing conflict, and desire nothing except peace between the rival houses. The Friar's interactions with the Prince reflect political calculations. While Weinberger may portray the Prince as a naive and pious figure, we can interpret his actions as driven by fear. He fears that if the populace becomes too discontented with the ongoing war, they may turn against the monarchy, for it is his people who maintain control over the realm, not himself.

The Prince's reluctance and own self-admittance to his soft execution of punishment only furthers Weinberger's prompt to the readers towards the conclusion of his analysis. Who holds genuine authority in Verona? This query prompts deep reflection and illuminates Weinberger's intended message. Like Machiavelli's critique of Cesare Borgia's dependence on the Catholic Church, Weinberger extends this criticism by suggesting that Friar Laurence solidified his influence through the story's unfolding events. Through meticulous manipulation of the narrative's pivotal moments, Friar Laurence emerges as a central figure shaping the destinies of Romeo and Juliet. His orchestration of events, including the controversial marriage arrangement involving Count Paris, serves as a manifestation of his authority and control over the unfolding tragedy.

The contrast Weinberger highlights between the Friar and the Prince is strikingly clear. When we delve into the historical account of Cesare Borgia and his father, Pope Alexander VI, the divergence that Weinberger prompts us to acknowledge becomes apparent. While Borgia depended on his father's authority, the Prince sought counsel from the Friar to achieve his aim of reconciling the feuding families. In much the same way as Borgia depended on his father to secure him a favourable position within an army and align himself with the French, Prince Escalus relied on another individual to achieve unity in his divided realm. However, this achievement came with significant repercussions.

If Prince Escalus intervened earlier in the conflict or perhaps stepped in during the duel between Tybalt and Romeo, he might have earned the people's favour for averting such a contentious relationship, albeit at a substantial cost. If the Prince had managed to reconcile the conflict between the Montagues and Capulets while ensuring fair consequences for their actions, there's a strong possibility, as Weinberger implies, that he would have garnered greater respect from the realm than the Friar. Moreover, it's plausible that the heartbreaking demise of Romeo Montague and Juliet Capulet could have been averted, as the Friar would have lacked the motive to advise Juliet to take her own life.

Jerry Weinberger's analytical examination of Shakespeare's timeless tragedy "Romeo and Juliet" unveils a rich tapestry of religious, political, and Machiavellian themes that resonate with contemporary complexities. Through meticulous dissection, Weinberger illuminates the interplay between traditional authority embodied by figures like the Prince and progressive ideals epitomized by characters like Friar Laurence. He challenges conventional interpretations by suggesting that divine intervention is not the driving force behind the tragic fate of the young lovers but rather the manipulative machinations of individuals like the Friar. Weinberger's juxtaposition of the Friar's calculated maneuvers against the Prince's perceived ineffectiveness underscores deeper questions of power and authority within the realm of Verona. By drawing parallels to Machiavellian politics, Weinberger invites readers to ponder the true nature of governance and the consequences of leadership choices. Ultimately, his analysis prompts us to reconsider the roles of key figures and the potential outcomes had different paths been chosen, offering valuable insights into the timeless relevance of Shakespeare's work and its reflection of human nature and societal dynamics.

Bibliography
Niccolò Machiavelli, “The Prince,” translation by Peter Bondanella, Oxford: Oxford World Classics, 2008.
Shakespeare, William. “Romeo and Juliet.” Barbara Mowat, Paul Werstine, Michael Poston, and Rebecca Niles, eds. Folger Shakespeare Library. Washington, DC: Folger Shakespeare Library. https://www.folger.edu/explore/shakespeares-works/romeo-and-juliet/read
Weinberger, Jerry. “Pious Princes and Red-Hot Lovers: The Politics of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet.” The Journal of Politics 65, no. 2 (2003): 350–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.t01-2-00004.