Role of the theme of Much Ado About Nothing in Romeo & Juliet

The central theme of Much Ado About Nothing may be summarized by three complementary motifs:

• Our partiality—attraction or aversion—is an arbitrary projection based on imputed qualities not inherent in the object of our feelings.
• Our feelings of liking or hating are often conjured up by a misperception of reality.
• These arbitrary feelings, born of misperception, often create unnecessary strife and turmoil, and hence “much ado about nothing.”

This same theme echoes through the whole of Romeo and Juliet, with the misperception of reality mainly caused by the error of reifying the labels of “Montague” and “Capulet” to the extent that they define who their enemies are. It creates a dichotomy of interpretation which Shakespeare highlights throughout the play, and the resulting strife and suffering that ensues is truly much ado about nothing.

The dichotomy of interpretation is introduced by Shakespeare right from the start of the play in the dialogue between Sampson and Gregory, two members of the house of Montague. When they meet up with members from the house of Capulet, a fray begins and we witness a more pronounced dichotomy of interpretation between Tybalt and Benvolio.

Tybalt: What, art thou drawn among these hartless hinds?

Turn thee Benvolio, look upon thy death.

Benvolio: I do but keep the peace; put up thy sword,

Or manage it to part these men with me.

Tybalt: What, drawn and talk of peace? I hate the word

As I hate hell, all Montagues, and thee.

Have at thee coward!

Tybalt encounters the same situation as Benvolio but his reaction is the exact opposite of Benvolio’s. While Benvolio tries to stop the melee, Tybalt—well immersed into his role as a Capulet—escalates the violence. If Benvolio uttered words of wisdom, Tybalt’s words must be the height of human stupidity. Even animals do not behave that stupidly.

That this quality of attraction and aversion is an arbitrary imputation is further emphasized by Shakespeare in the banquet scene. Here we find members of the house of Montague reveling amicably among the Capulets, until Tybalt discovers that someone with the label of Montague is among the guests.

Tybalt: This by his voice should be a Montague.

Fetch me my rapier, boy. What dares the slave

Come hither, covered with an antic face

To fleer and scorn at our solemnity?

Now by the stock and honour of my kin,

To strike him dead I hold it not a sin.

This hatred of Tybalt stems from the misperception embodied in the failure to realize that labels do not inherently exist but are merely imputed entities. Nothing has actually changed in Romeo to make him an enemy. The label “Montague” does not inherently belong to him.

This is further emphasized in the scene just before the fateful duel, where we find Tybalt spoiling for a fight over their respective labels. Romeo, newly married to Juliet, has a clearer view of the truth. He knows names do not demarcate them as enemies. Even by the labelling convention, his marriage to Juliet now makes the Montagues and the Capulets kinsmen. Romeo thus tries placating the belligerent Tybalt.

Romeo: Tybalt, the reason that I have to love thee

Doth much excuse the appertaining rage

To such a greeting: villain am I none, 

Therefore farewell. I see thou knowest me not.

Tybalt: Boy, this shall not excuse the injuries

Thou hast done me, therefore turn and draw.

Now the play’s thematic resonance on the dichotomy of interpretation reaches a dangerous level. Romeo sees Tybalt as a kinsman, while Tybalt sees Romeo, ominously, as a mortal enemy.

The irony is that even the label “kinsman” or “enemy” is not an inherently existing thing. They are merely imputed entities and do not inherently belong to either Romeo or Tybalt, not any more than the artificially attached names of “Montague” and “Capulet.” 

The danger of labels lie in their tendency to imbue us with a sense of being a separate self, an isolated being, often at odds with others. The connotations attached to labels may also lead us into dichotomies of interpretation and conflict situations, causing suffering and strife when we are induced, in a deranged way, to play our roles in accordance with the labels. It is all much ado about nothing. 

At the end of the play, Shakespeare again emphasizes that all the anguish and strife were unnecessarily brought about by the arbitrary projection of imputed qualities that do not inherently belong. We find Capulet and Montague finally realizing the tragic error of their enmity.

Capulet: O brother Montague, give me thy hand.

This is my daughter’s jointure, for no more

Can I demand.

Montague: But I can give thee more:

For I will raise her statue in pure gold,

That while Verona by that name is known,

There shall no figure at such rate be set

As that of true and faithful Juliet.

Capulet: As rich shall Romeo’s by his lady’s lie,

Poor sacrifices of our enmity!

It has taken the death of Romeo and Juliet in an embrace of unity to finally reconcile the Capulets and the Montagues. In Romeo and Juliet, the peril of misperception found in Much Ado About Nothing is thus honed to its most potent and emotionally devastating form. For the sake of humanity, it is imperative that we heed this message of the play at this critical time of human history.