Juliet's willful idealization of her lover, the mystification of the moment of mutual attraction, and the sheer excessiveness of the play's language of love accord more closely with psychoanalytic (especially Lacanian) than with
humoralist accounts of passion, so that Shakespeare might be seen as getting traction from Galenic thought as he makes contributions to an emergent humanism.
The kind of love toward which Shakespeare gestures in Romeo and Juliet defies the discursive range of language itself, even as it is constituted--not wholly but largely--by words on the page, so perhaps we should not be surprised to see it wiggle so persistently out of the grasp of both psychoanalytic and
humoralist interpretations.
But Hippocrates, Galen, and other
humoralists were definitely right on one point--that we are highly individualistic (thus the growth of precision medicine), and possibly right on another--that how fluids flow within the body could indicate health and disease.