The turning point in Romeo and Juliet, according to Harold Goddard's The Meaning of Shakespeare (), is the point at which Romeo is unable to free himself from his violent upbringing, to turn his back on the incorrect teachings of history, his family and the feud - and "give all to love" (in the words of Emerson). When Mercutio and Tybalt begin to tangle, instead of sticking to his plan to befriend Tybalt (a Capulet, to whom he's now related by marriage), he instead tries to fight violence with violence, or as Goddard puts it: "He descends from the level of love to the level of violence and attempts to part the fighters with his sword". Here's the specific passage:

Draw, Benvolio, beat down their weapons

Gentleman, for shame, forbear this outrage!

Tybalt, Mercutio, the prince expressly hath

Forbidden bandying in Verona streets:

Hold, Tybalt! good Mercutio!

There is an argument to be made that at this point Romeo either could have let them fight it out (which perhaps would not have resulted in a death), or he could have revealed everything, including his secret marriage to Juliet. Instead he tried to interpose with the use of force, with the results we know, including the pathetic moment when Romeo answers Mercutio's reasonable question, "Why the devil came you between us? I was hurt under your arm", with: "I thought all for the best." Mercutio then turns away from him in disgust, anger, disbelief (take your pick) and says: "Help me into some house, Benvolio, or I shall faint."

One of my favourite moments, of many, in Harold Goddard's classic The Meaning of Shakespeare (1951) is in the essay on Romeo and Juliet, in which he gives his theory of the turning point of the action. One of the most marvelous aspects of the book is that it is filled with descriptions like this one, where the outcome of events is held in the balance and determined by a fateful decision. And the importance of these decisions is not immediately apparent, but Goddard is very persuasive in virtually every case, and at the very least we're left with an increased appreciation of Shakespeare's mastery of plotting and suspense. I'm going to employ a little suspense myself in this case, and reveal the full theory tomorrow. But in the meantime, here's a hint: the irrevocable decision is Romeo's.

After having quoted from Emerson's poem, "Give All to Love" (http://www.emersoncentral.com/poems/give_all_to_love.htm), Goddard writes the following: "The play is usually explained as a tragedy of the excess of love. On the contrary, it is the tragedy of the deficiency of it. Romeo did not 'follow it utterly', did not quite give 'all' to love." Tomorrow, I'll explain what he's referring to.