抄録
In Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, there are several scenes which are different from those of his sourcebooks: Arthur Brooke's The Tragicall Historye of Romeus and Juliet and William Painter's 'Romeo and Julietta'. I focus on the last scene of the drama. Both Brooke and Painter describe how the Prince of Verona gives punishment to the apothecary but not to Friar Lawrence. In Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, we are not told who should be punished or who should be exempted from execution. This means that the differences between Friar Lawrence and the apothecary are purposefully diminished in his drama. I think this difference is related to the English Reformation at that period. As G. Blakemore Evans says, there is a "harshly Protestant tone" in Brooke's poem. The apothecary is hanged. Friar Lawrence is not blamed, but Brooke stresses the "superstitious" nature of his act and leads him to self-accusation. The word "superstitious" was widely used to denounce Catholics in the Elizabethan England. In Painter's prose, Friar Lawrence is admired as a saint, while the apothecary is described as greedy. For this reason anti-Catholic critics vilified Painter's prose. In addition, his way of writing was thought to be Petrarchan and was widely associated with Catholic idolatry. In Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, the friar says that we can be good and evil at the same time. This implies that Friar Lawrence and the apothecary are equal, and the question of whether their acts are right or wrong does not matter. This reminds us of Luther's "certification by faith" rather than "act". Shakespeare does not use the word "superstitious", so it does not seem he is anti-Catholic; he does not blame anyone in this drama, and leaves the judgment to the audience.
