Romeo and Juliet Tragedy Essays

Romeo and Juliet Tragedy Essays Romeo and Juliet Tragedy Paper Romeo and Juliet Tragedy Paper Essay Topic: Romeo and Juliet It is my opinion that no one person can be held responsible for the tragic deaths of the two lovers, Romeo and Juliet. Rather it is a combination of people and circumstances that contrive to form a tragic ending. Obviously, Romeo and Juliet is a tragedy, and thus has all the generic features of a tragedy; that there is a fatal flaw on the part of the main characters, in this case their passionate love at first sight for each other, Did my heart love till now? This passionate love means the two lovers cannot be separated, and their desperation to be together could be the reason for their plight. Alternatively, it could also be argued that Shakespeare built up dramatic expectation, via prophetic fallacy and short scenes accelerating to a climax, that the death was necessary as a dramatic ending. This structure can be clearly seen throughout the play as a whole as Shakespeare uses lower status characters (talking in prose) usually to speed up the pace, using riots and conflicts, whereas he uses the higher status characters (talking in verse) at balls or parties to slow down the pace and deepen the play. Therefore, due to Shakespeares deliberately convoluted plot, it is imperative to discuss each topic in turn, evaluating how and to what extent, each factor was responsible; starting with, arguably, one of the most important reasons; fate, or chance. Fate, or chance, was an accepted philosophical belief in Elizabethan England, and both were linked to astrology; the belief that you can see the future in the planets, Some consequence yet hanging in the stars! The belief that the two lovers have a preordained destiny, i. . that the two, star crossd lovers cannot change their fate, recurs frequently throughout the play. Shakespeares references to fate are, almost without exception, asides, Some consequence yet hanging in the stars, which meant that the character was talking to himself (and therefore the audience), and showed that Shakespeare really wanted to emphasise this point in the play to the onlookers. On looking through the play, I found there were far more references to fate in t he first two acts than the last ones. This may be because these references to fate are coupled with prophetic fallacies; which are used to build tension and dramatic expectation, to maintain interest in the first half and then allow the omniscient audience to see the inevitable consequences. I believe Shakespeare used fate as the classic medium to create the fall from power, another traditional feature of a tragedy, and then used the portents to allow the pair to see their unavoidable downfall. This fateful incurrence provides the struggle of the play; the lovers conflict against their, death-marked loves. As a subsection of fate, the references to chance specifically are fewer, and in a direct contrast to the references to fate, appear mainly at the culmination of the play. This lends rather well to the feeling of chaos, as chance is a much more random idea than fate, and gives the impression that anarchy is at work. This set up has also been chosen as a way of showing that there could be more than one person behind the tragic deaths. That is, Shakespeare has deliberately given the final two scenes a chaotic feel to illustrate the convoluted plot lines and the intertwining motives each character has, especially true of the Friar Lawrence. The only real reference to chance (although it can be argued it is fate at work) is the failure of Friar John to deliver the letter, I could not send it! Linked to Fate, is social pressure, during the play, Shakespeare uses social pressure as an agency for fate; i. e. a way to focus the situation and explaining why the lovers cannot be together. It can be argued that this is the most important reason as without a conflict and inhibitor there would be no play as Romeo and Juliet could just be together. However, social pressure is a more modern idea and as such it is unlikely that Shakespeare purposely decided to use it, and I feel probably thought of it is the feud; indeed it is only with hindsight that we can see its effect. Shakespeare emphasise this point like most of the others from the very beginning of the play, dog of the house of Montague, and even before that in the prologue, ancient grudge break to new mutiny. This first scene cleverly reflects Act 3 scene 1, but Shakespeare has changed the roles so that Romeo discards his pacifist views and is provoked into fire-eyed fury. When Shakespeare draws references to Italy, he may be reflecting the traditional, and rather stereotypical, view of Italians as all having private vendettas or feuds. However, to a certain extent it works as Shakespeare is using a literary technique of setting the events in a place the Elizabethan audience would not know about apart from what theyve been told. In particular, by leaving the facts uncle ar about the ancient grudge, one begins to feel that perhaps there wasnt one, or that it has escalated out f all control. This is used for dramatic irony, as it is in inverse proportion to the amount of destruction incurred by the end of the final scene, all are punished! Another reason which Shakespeare decided to introduce was the Friars own motives. He says, to Romeo, that he wants to turn your households rancour to pure love, but he seems wary to allow the lovers to wed in public and appears more intent of the joining of the two households than that the two lovers are together, for this alliance may so happy prove. I believe that Shakespeare has left this reason in deliberately to offer an alternative view, and to give more variety to the end scene. Shakespeare also displays an ulterior personality trait of the Friar as he appears reluctant to be found with the bodies and hurries from Capels monument rather than be caught, and when he is the language he uses reflects the way that he is prepared to tell all. The language he uses is direct, there are no puns and little imagery and the language is non-theological when compared to his behaviour in his cell, Benedicte! and Holy Saint Francis! which demonstrates how unwilling he is to be dishonoured. Fellow characters echo this sentiment, and Juliet exclaims, What if it be a poison which the Friar subtly hath ministered to have me dead? This statement turns out to be ironical as although the potion is not a poison, the Friars plans do culminate in her and Romeos death. The friar, himself raises an interesting point as a cause, he blames the rude will of human nature (Act 2 scene 3) and disclaims that self-centredness results in evil if it gains priority over grace. Maybe, therefore, it is only human nature to cause such sufferings. Another point, which recurs throughout the play, is the patriarchal dominance of the society which the play is set in. In this community fathers had absolute sway over their daughters and gave them away to whosoever they chose, and were offended if they refused. It could have been the fathers stubbornness that the two were unable to join. This point is linked to the idea about the pointlessness of the feud; it was the fathers as head of the families who were the main upholders of the feud, and they never mention the reason for their doing so. As Elizabethan society was so patriarchal, it would therefore have been a dramatic point that Shakespeare was making when he uses Juliets sarcasm as a device to fight back at her father, It is an honour I dream not of! In the context of this play, this means that Capulet feels it is his right to pressurise Juliet, go with Paris to Saint Peters church, Or I will drag thee on a hurdle thither. The separation between Juliet and her father is repeated in the Lady Capulet, and the two seem uneasy when together. Shakespeare demonstrates this point by splitting a technique such as repetition across the two characters, so the two appear to be interrupting each other for example, Lady Capulet: The county Paris, at Saint Peters Church Shall happily make thee a joyful bride. Juliet: Now by Saint Peters Church and Peter too, He shall not make me there a joyful bride. Such repetition increases the tightening tension of the plot and gives an additional insight into the pairs characters. My final point is perhaps the most obvious, that it is the love or passion of Romeo and Juliet themselves that causes their death. The two lovers are so madly in love that are too hasty and Shakespeare emphasises this by short scenes accelerating to an abrupt climax. It can be argued that the structure of the play therefore reflects the pairs turbulent relations as when they are harmonious the pace is slowed, and this is then sped up when the two are desperately seeking each other. Perhaps the tragic ending is Shakespeares way of rebuking both love at first sight and the artificial, chivalric love between Rosaline and Romeo. In conclusion, as can be seen from the discussed reasons; there are, as with all of Shakespeares plays a multitude of factors, which are all equally valid and viable. Also, all of Shakespeares language is intentional, so he is able to cleverly link both individual passages and whole scenes to the play as a whole. However, Shakespeare emphasises some more than others and in this respect I believe it is fate, which is the most predominantly mentioned of the factors. This is consistently mentioned by Shakespeare and lends itself to the play as a whole well. As previously discussed it lends a feeling of impending doom, and inevitable tragedy to the play. This factor could have become too linear, so Shakespeare introduced the idea of chance, which adds a random and chaotic air to the play. Also, all of Shakespeares language is intentional, so he is able to cleverly link both individual passages and whole scenes to the play as a whole.