Tak Maga
Arcangelo/Potts
English 9 1o
17 February 2017
Romeo and Juliet
Since is first performance in 1595, William Shakespeare’s play The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet has been telling the story of the “pair of star crossed lovers who take their life…” (Romeo and Juliet 1.0.6). It explains how the two young Italians living in Verona, under pressure from their families and each other, commit suicide after finding each other dead. This famously ironic ending is no news to anyone, but one may ask, who is to blame? Is it the people around them, who drove them to this ending? Or is it Romeo and Juliet themselves? The answer, it seems, is less satisfying than that. The evidence available suggests that there is no singular person or event that can be blamed for Romeo and Juliet’s death; therefore, chance is at fault. This can be found when breaking down key events in the exposition and rising action, climax, and resolution of the drama.
From merely observing this synopsis of the play, one might see the many impossible gaps of probability and logic that mesh together to bring about the fall of Romeo and Juliet. This is particularly evident in the exposition and rising action of the drama. One of the most prominent lines of the book, “From.. these two foes a pair of star-crossed lovers take their life…” (Romeo and Juliet 1.0.5-6) supplies the first line of evidence in this argument. The fact that these two humans were born in this time period, to their two respective families, that happened to be having a feud, is a highly volatile one. However, even though the odds of this happening are astronomically low, this is not sufficient to completely pin the blame on chance. Every human that is born has the same probability to get their own environment (e.x. improbable things happen, the evidence is all around the Earth). Having made this point, the argument turns to more concrete evidence. One of the major plot developments in the story is when Romeo meets Juliet. But to retrace Romeo’s steps puts us in the place where he first learned of the party. During Act 1 Scene 2, a messenger, entrusted with delivering invitations for Lord Capulet’s ball, wanders the streets of Verona, as he is illiterate and therefore cannot read the list of invitees. In enlisting the help of Romeo, he inadvertently alerts Romeo as to the fact that his current love, Rosaline, will be attending. The weight of the plot that hinges on this event should not be lost. If that servant were not illiterate, Romeo would have never met Juliet and fallen in love. If the messenger did not happen to have coincidently met Romeo on the street, the entire facade of the plot would come crumbling down. These highly improbable occurrences continue throughout the first act. After Romeo is spotted at the party by Tybalt, Tybalt is prevented from throwing Romeo out before he had fell in love with Juliet. This is only because Lord Capulet, with the prince’s decree fresh on his mind, tells Tybalt to “Let him alone” (Romeo and Juliet 1.5.74). Without the brawl in the street that opens the play, the plot may not have advanced far beyond that point. Continuing with the development of the drama brings us to the famed balcony scene (Act 2 Scene 2) where the two lovers meet for the first time alone. Upon close scrutiny, however, this does not seem likely to be easy to accomplish. Given the large amount of servants employed by the Capulets, it would seem improbable that Romeo should be able to get by them, even with his “...cloak to hide me from their eyes” (Romeo and Juliet 2.2.80). If he were caught, the two lover’s affair would be extremely short lived. The possibility of all these factors conspiring to hurry Romeo and Juliet to their deaths is minute. Even given that they would be born in the position that they were in, the events leading up to the party where they fell in love and shortly afterwards met are of such low chance. It is therefore not possible to blame any one person, group, or event, as there is a plethora of developments that put the characters in positions that in all likelihood, would not have been produced if one or two events turned out a different way.
There are plenty of improbable events to choose from as well, because chance fails the two lovers in the climax of the book as well. Looking for revenge and a Montague to duel, Tybalt roams the streets of Verona. He happens upon Mercutio and Benvolio, two of Romeo’s friends, and promptly challenges Romeo with the words, “Thou art a villain” (Romeo and Juliet 3.1.62).That Tybalt would meet this set of people in a city such as Verona points to nothing else besides the fact that nobody is to blame for their death. The fight scene continues, after Romeo turns down Tybalt’s challenge. The challenge is promptly taken up by Mercutio, who falls under Tybalt’s blade. Romeo then avenges him by killing Tybalt. This brings the argument to the second scene in Act Three. Here, Juliet learns of what has happened from her nurse. Collapsing into tears, she mourns for her cousin, Tybalt, but also acknowledges that Romeo could have been killed if he did not strike Tybalt. She goes back and forth upon this problem. “Beautiful tyrant, fiend angelical!” (Romeo and Juliet 3. 1. 81). After debating the problem in her head, she decides to continue her support and love for Romeo. It is easy to visualize what might have happened if Juliet decided otherwise. Although both would be distraught if they decided to break off their marriage, it is an almost certainty that they would have both lived. Juliet also had more than one marriage to think about as well. Lord Capulet, trying to bring joy back into the household, decides to have Juliet married in a couple of days, to Count Paris. This creates some foreseeable problems for Juliet, such as the fact that she is already married, and is a major plot development. However, the arbitrarily chosen date, saying “O’ Thursday let it be” (Romeo and Juliet 3.5.23) creates considerable timeline problems for the Friar when he tries to come up with his plan. These are further intensified when, after Juliet gives her consent to the marriage, Capulet decides that “We’ll to church tomorrow” (Romeo and Juliet 4.2.28). This impulsive action on the part of Capulet ensures that things will not go to plan. This does not pin the blame on Capulet, rather, it does the opposite. We find yet again a field rife with unfortunate events that have sprung up as a direct result from actions and results that are not dictated even by probability.
“There was never a tale of more woe, than this of Juliet and her Romeo” (Romeo and Juliet 5.3.320-21). Even in the dramatic finale of Shakespeare’s masterpiece, there are a wealth of implausible events. With the dreams of a peaceful marriage in tatters, Romeo travels to Mantua after his banishment. He is soon visited by his servant, who, it is implied, he instructed to bring him messages from Verona. However, the messenger has failed in his duty. When asked “Hast thou no letters to me from the Friar?” (Romeo and Juliet 5.1.33) Balthasar’s reply is a negative. However, we can infer that if he actually did ask the Friar for any letters, the Friar would have told Romeo of his plan through that avenue, rather than his own messenger. This small issue results in the death of Romeo, and therefore Juliet. These issues continue further into the scene, where, when asked if he had any poison, the apothecary replies, “Such mortal drugs I have…” (Romeo and Juliet 5.1.70). The illegal possession of such drugs allows Romeo to arrive and Verona before Juliet can awake. Meanwhile, Friar Lawrence’s means for communicating with Romeo fails. Friar John, who bore the letter to Romeo informing him of the plan, did not make it to Mantua. This was because he happened to be quarantined, because an official thought he had a disease. Not only did they “[seal] up the doors and…not let us forth” (Romeo and Juliet 5.2.11), but they also would not “... get a messenger to bring [the letter] to thee”. If either one of those things did not happen, Romeo and Juliet would not be dead. When Romeo arrives, he gets there half an hour too early. If he were to get there a bit later, He would have found Juliet living and breathing. These gaps of probability are too much for any one event or person too cross. This cannot be attributed to fate either. There is no direct evidence linking the events depicted in the drama to an outside power. Rather, the only explanation is that their death was lamentable, but not a murder by any means. Only by acknowledging this, can it be seen that nobody was to blame for the death of Romeo and Juliet.
Ultimately, throughout Romeo and Juliet, written by William Shakespeare, one can garner arguments for and against many people and events when trying to find who is to blame for the deaths for the two lovers. However, one cannot produce a satisfactory for any single entity. The onslaught of coincidental events produces the only available option. This is that the deaths of Romeo and Juliet are due to be blamed on chance. Admittedly, this does not assemble a pleasing answer. The expectation would be to level the finger of blame on an individual or event, and be able to say, “This is why they died.” Nonetheless, this does not always happen. Too often, we try and assign blame to somebody, where in reality, there is no one who is worthy of it. It is much harder to look at the evidence available, and to say that there is no solution.
Arcangelo/Potts
English 9 1o
17 February 2017
Romeo and Juliet
Since is first performance in 1595, William Shakespeare’s play The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet has been telling the story of the “pair of star crossed lovers who take their life…” (Romeo and Juliet 1.0.6). It explains how the two young Italians living in Verona, under pressure from their families and each other, commit suicide after finding each other dead. This famously ironic ending is no news to anyone, but one may ask, who is to blame? Is it the people around them, who drove them to this ending? Or is it Romeo and Juliet themselves? The answer, it seems, is less satisfying than that. The evidence available suggests that there is no singular person or event that can be blamed for Romeo and Juliet’s death; therefore, chance is at fault. This can be found when breaking down key events in the exposition and rising action, climax, and resolution of the drama.
From merely observing this synopsis of the play, one might see the many impossible gaps of probability and logic that mesh together to bring about the fall of Romeo and Juliet. This is particularly evident in the exposition and rising action of the drama. One of the most prominent lines of the book, “From.. these two foes a pair of star-crossed lovers take their life…” (Romeo and Juliet 1.0.5-6) supplies the first line of evidence in this argument. The fact that these two humans were born in this time period, to their two respective families, that happened to be having a feud, is a highly volatile one. However, even though the odds of this happening are astronomically low, this is not sufficient to completely pin the blame on chance. Every human that is born has the same probability to get their own environment (e.x. improbable things happen, the evidence is all around the Earth). Having made this point, the argument turns to more concrete evidence. One of the major plot developments in the story is when Romeo meets Juliet. But to retrace Romeo’s steps puts us in the place where he first learned of the party. During Act 1 Scene 2, a messenger, entrusted with delivering invitations for Lord Capulet’s ball, wanders the streets of Verona, as he is illiterate and therefore cannot read the list of invitees. In enlisting the help of Romeo, he inadvertently alerts Romeo as to the fact that his current love, Rosaline, will be attending. The weight of the plot that hinges on this event should not be lost. If that servant were not illiterate, Romeo would have never met Juliet and fallen in love. If the messenger did not happen to have coincidently met Romeo on the street, the entire facade of the plot would come crumbling down. These highly improbable occurrences continue throughout the first act. After Romeo is spotted at the party by Tybalt, Tybalt is prevented from throwing Romeo out before he had fell in love with Juliet. This is only because Lord Capulet, with the prince’s decree fresh on his mind, tells Tybalt to “Let him alone” (Romeo and Juliet 1.5.74). Without the brawl in the street that opens the play, the plot may not have advanced far beyond that point. Continuing with the development of the drama brings us to the famed balcony scene (Act 2 Scene 2) where the two lovers meet for the first time alone. Upon close scrutiny, however, this does not seem likely to be easy to accomplish. Given the large amount of servants employed by the Capulets, it would seem improbable that Romeo should be able to get by them, even with his “...cloak to hide me from their eyes” (Romeo and Juliet 2.2.80). If he were caught, the two lover’s affair would be extremely short lived. The possibility of all these factors conspiring to hurry Romeo and Juliet to their deaths is minute. Even given that they would be born in the position that they were in, the events leading up to the party where they fell in love and shortly afterwards met are of such low chance. It is therefore not possible to blame any one person, group, or event, as there is a plethora of developments that put the characters in positions that in all likelihood, would not have been produced if one or two events turned out a different way.
There are plenty of improbable events to choose from as well, because chance fails the two lovers in the climax of the book as well. Looking for revenge and a Montague to duel, Tybalt roams the streets of Verona. He happens upon Mercutio and Benvolio, two of Romeo’s friends, and promptly challenges Romeo with the words, “Thou art a villain” (Romeo and Juliet 3.1.62).That Tybalt would meet this set of people in a city such as Verona points to nothing else besides the fact that nobody is to blame for their death. The fight scene continues, after Romeo turns down Tybalt’s challenge. The challenge is promptly taken up by Mercutio, who falls under Tybalt’s blade. Romeo then avenges him by killing Tybalt. This brings the argument to the second scene in Act Three. Here, Juliet learns of what has happened from her nurse. Collapsing into tears, she mourns for her cousin, Tybalt, but also acknowledges that Romeo could have been killed if he did not strike Tybalt. She goes back and forth upon this problem. “Beautiful tyrant, fiend angelical!” (Romeo and Juliet 3. 1. 81). After debating the problem in her head, she decides to continue her support and love for Romeo. It is easy to visualize what might have happened if Juliet decided otherwise. Although both would be distraught if they decided to break off their marriage, it is an almost certainty that they would have both lived. Juliet also had more than one marriage to think about as well. Lord Capulet, trying to bring joy back into the household, decides to have Juliet married in a couple of days, to Count Paris. This creates some foreseeable problems for Juliet, such as the fact that she is already married, and is a major plot development. However, the arbitrarily chosen date, saying “O’ Thursday let it be” (Romeo and Juliet 3.5.23) creates considerable timeline problems for the Friar when he tries to come up with his plan. These are further intensified when, after Juliet gives her consent to the marriage, Capulet decides that “We’ll to church tomorrow” (Romeo and Juliet 4.2.28). This impulsive action on the part of Capulet ensures that things will not go to plan. This does not pin the blame on Capulet, rather, it does the opposite. We find yet again a field rife with unfortunate events that have sprung up as a direct result from actions and results that are not dictated even by probability.
“There was never a tale of more woe, than this of Juliet and her Romeo” (Romeo and Juliet 5.3.320-21). Even in the dramatic finale of Shakespeare’s masterpiece, there are a wealth of implausible events. With the dreams of a peaceful marriage in tatters, Romeo travels to Mantua after his banishment. He is soon visited by his servant, who, it is implied, he instructed to bring him messages from Verona. However, the messenger has failed in his duty. When asked “Hast thou no letters to me from the Friar?” (Romeo and Juliet 5.1.33) Balthasar’s reply is a negative. However, we can infer that if he actually did ask the Friar for any letters, the Friar would have told Romeo of his plan through that avenue, rather than his own messenger. This small issue results in the death of Romeo, and therefore Juliet. These issues continue further into the scene, where, when asked if he had any poison, the apothecary replies, “Such mortal drugs I have…” (Romeo and Juliet 5.1.70). The illegal possession of such drugs allows Romeo to arrive and Verona before Juliet can awake. Meanwhile, Friar Lawrence’s means for communicating with Romeo fails. Friar John, who bore the letter to Romeo informing him of the plan, did not make it to Mantua. This was because he happened to be quarantined, because an official thought he had a disease. Not only did they “[seal] up the doors and…not let us forth” (Romeo and Juliet 5.2.11), but they also would not “... get a messenger to bring [the letter] to thee”. If either one of those things did not happen, Romeo and Juliet would not be dead. When Romeo arrives, he gets there half an hour too early. If he were to get there a bit later, He would have found Juliet living and breathing. These gaps of probability are too much for any one event or person too cross. This cannot be attributed to fate either. There is no direct evidence linking the events depicted in the drama to an outside power. Rather, the only explanation is that their death was lamentable, but not a murder by any means. Only by acknowledging this, can it be seen that nobody was to blame for the death of Romeo and Juliet.
Ultimately, throughout Romeo and Juliet, written by William Shakespeare, one can garner arguments for and against many people and events when trying to find who is to blame for the deaths for the two lovers. However, one cannot produce a satisfactory for any single entity. The onslaught of coincidental events produces the only available option. This is that the deaths of Romeo and Juliet are due to be blamed on chance. Admittedly, this does not assemble a pleasing answer. The expectation would be to level the finger of blame on an individual or event, and be able to say, “This is why they died.” Nonetheless, this does not always happen. Too often, we try and assign blame to somebody, where in reality, there is no one who is worthy of it. It is much harder to look at the evidence available, and to say that there is no solution.