Shakespeare’s intentions in writing “Romeo and Juliet” are open to interpretation. Some scholars believe that the play was intended to be a romantic tragedy, exploring the power of love and the tragic consequences of its denial. Others believe that the play is a satirical commentary on the absurdity of love and the blindness of young passion. Regardless of his intentions, Shakespeare’s play has become one of the most iconic love stories in the history of literature, and it has been adapted and reinterpreted countless times.

The play as a whole is not a satire, since it has an extremely serious idea—the damage to the state caused by warring factions. (The factional strife of the 15th century and the strife under Mary Tudor were recent elements of England’s past.) In addition, it deals quite seriously deal with elements of astrological determinism—Romeo, in particular, keeps blaming astrological forces when an Elizabethan audience would know than astrological forces only suggest and do not compel.

The play is not an idealization of young love. It is not a satire on the effects of lust, but a cautionary tale.

Perhaps the play should be thought of as a satire; the choric observations of Thersites and Pandarus serve throughout as a mordant commentary on the interconnectedness of war and lechery

It’s anti-catholic satire cleverly hidden as a romantic catholic tragedy. Remember, a highly controversial protestant queen paid Shakespeare’s bills, but his working class viewers and anti-queen courtiers could make life hell for him. He had to write something BOTH sides could get behind