The Blame Game
There hasn’t been much activity here lately, I am to blame of course. There’ll be more activity from now on… so let’s start a little discussion. Inspired by some things I saw while surfing the internet, I’d like to ask my readers:
Who is responsible for Romeo and Juliet’s deaths?
Don’t forget to back up your answer with a strong argument. Was it Friar Lawrence who created the plan to fake Juliet’s death? Was it their parents’ for their feud? Was it Romeo who was too quick to judge? Was it the entire city of Mantua for locking their gates to the messenger with the letter to Romeo? Or perhaps it was the Prologue who revealed the end at the beginning, and the characters naturally can’t stray from what he has to say.
I have a feeling it was Colonel Mustard, but I’ll put my two cents in a little later. Let’s get the ball rolling with an answer to the question…. Whodunnit?
Lisa Jan 22
I think it was Mrs. White, but we can come back to that later.
Seriously, however, I believe it was their parents from the start. Granted, the Prologue does give us the play in only 14 lines, but it also tells us why. Their parents and the feud they have, created an environment for forbidden love. Now, This could be a generalization, but some teenagers love to do things to rebel against their parents. That’s probably why I have 6 tattoos. Anyway, if the parents didn’t make the environment so hostile, they wouldn’t have had to pretend, then really kill themselves to make a point.
Gedaly Jan 22
I agree that their parents played a huge factor in their deaths by having their silly feud and opening the door to rebellion. But are they the direct cause? Did Mr. and Mrs. Montague and Capulet set things in motion years ago so that a chain of events leading to their child’s death was inevitable?
Perhaps there was room for change somewhere along the way (unless you believe it was their fate, and a good argument can be made for that I’m sure). Let’s look further along in the story. What was the action that was the point of no return for these lovers? Where do we know for sure that they have a “death-mark’d love”? (Again, throwing out fate, and the fact that everyone knows the ending already).
Lisa Jan 23
To answer your last question, without have the text in front of me, I would say that the point of no return was when they met with the friar and the nurse. What I find to be interesting is that it wasn’t even the climax of the play.
Willshill Jan 23
Gedaly wrote:
“Where do we know for sure that they have a “death-mark’d love”? (Again, throwing out fate, and the fact that everyone knows the ending already).”
______________________
Wow–that’s a tough one–
Given all of your provisos, is there an answer to your question?
Fate plays such a huge role in their demise. It’s burned into the metaphor of opposites in almost every speech the lovers have–and surely begins with Romeo’s rant to Benvolio on ‘Love’. “Brawling Love, Loving Hate…etc. Romeo’s prescience before the party”…my mind misgives/Some consequence yet hanging in the starres,/Shall bitterly begin this fearful date…he goes on…this night’s revels–expire the term/Of a despised life closed in my breast. Their Love, says Juliet: “It is Too rash, too unadvised, too sudden,/Too like the lightning which doth cease to be/Ere one can say, “It lightens”.
Night-day, darkness-light, and “Juliet is the Sunne.”
These are ‘clues’–portents,and they’re rife–the leitmotif running constantly through the dialogue. The Elizabethans, with all of their acting out of Christianity, were fascinated with the Fate Sisters–AND the Weyard Sisters–Shakespeare is appealing to their interest and strong belief. I think instead of knowing their Love is death-marked, we’re supposed to possibly sense that it might be. Interesting that up until Mercutio’s death, the play is really very funny–a comedy–though it’s rarely approached that way. Shakespeare has gotten the shaft from the critics for not having the knack just yet to figure out that he was mixing his metaphors. I think it was intentional.
And the giveaway Prologue?
Maybe Q2 shouldn’t get all the credit for being the definitive ‘acting edition’. And possibly that’s the reason for the Prologue’s first sonnet not being included in the 1st Folio,though the second one is included. Oversight?
Maybe by the time the play was well-known enough to be sold in Quarto, they figured everyone knew the ending anyway. Maybe Heminges and Condel
made the decision so as to not spoil the story for the future general reader. All of this is HIGH conjecture, I know…still… without the Prologue…what will happen next? Hint, hint…says the Bard.
Ultimately, I have to agree with Lisa– Human Nature–but not only their parents–all those around them, contributed to their demise–as did they themselves. Their Love was too Perfect,the brightest candle giving out light at both ends; –but too “Starre crossed” to exist, given the way of the World. It was like Lightning–very bright–mesmerizing, beautiful, capable of killing–then very dark. But it does make us stop to consider…Things.
Gedaly Jan 23
In that case this love was too perfect to last. Something so great is destined to end disastrously. Willshill, you’ve helped to further convince me that it’s largely a matter of fate. I was hoping that I could find choices that a character makes that could’ve eased everyone’s pain, but the given circumstances are just too good a set-up for tragedy.
I agree with you that the play does start out as what seems to be a comedy. And as soon as Mercutio kicks the bucket, the play is a continuous downward spiral of despair for our leading characters.
How can something be too perfect to last? Was it really too perfect? In the eyes of the two lovers it was the most perfect love in existence. From many adults point of view, it’s two naive, foolish, horny teenagers doing what they do and causing trouble.
Interesting thought about the Folio’s omission of the Prologue at the beginning. What might this play be like to those that know nothing of it? They really are guessing what happens next. I don’t remember any particular time in my life not knowing about this play. I’m certain that I knew the ending long before I ever saw a production on stage or film. That’s the problem with producing this play, I suppose.
Anyone else have different theories?
Willshill Jan 24
There will always be those who will gainsay “Love at first sight”. Arthur Brooke, Shakespeare’s source, blames it on the Lovers’ “unhonest desires”. ( Shades of Lisa’s analysis–I take it that he viewed himself as enough of a patriarchal figure to make that one-sided assessment.) But anyone who has felt what it is that we might assume R&J were feeling, knows that choice & behavior in an individual can be completely ruled when one is ’stricken’. Nothing else matters at the moment–it’s truly human. I think Shakespeare knew it–a good percentage of 154 sonnets is devoted to the subject.
It is a ‘problem play’ in that now, even without the Prologue, everyone knows what’s going to happen. But that’s why I think it’s so important to treat the comedy–seriously, if you will. It can endear the characters–esp. R&J– to the audience in such a way that they’re still rudely dropped off the edge of the precipice when the downward spiral you speak of begins.
landis Mar 10
the real theme of R @ J is that marriage is too important to be left to the sexual whims of teenagers
Willshill Mar 10
“the real theme of R @ J is that marriage is too important to be left to the sexual whims of teenagers”
—————–
Would that imply that the play also thematically instructs us to accept the wisdom that the important matter of the marriage (or not) of teenagers is better left to their callous, toxically image-conscious, emotionally infantile, and politically animalistic, feudal parents?
“For each and every action, there is…”
Gedaly Mar 10
Willshill, you can be my “Unsupported-Argument Police.”
Willshill Mar 12
I would humbly accept the position–but you already have one. His initials are WS.
You know, the bridge connecting language and philosophy Shakespeare constructed draws me like a magnet. And he continually reveals himself as True Philosopher, Logician, and Rational Thinker; always cognizant of both sides of a character, scene, or situation. At the same time, he can feel the very real pangs of Irrationality & Emotion, and offer stunning examples supporting their legitimacy. He is a truly prime– possibly THE prime–example of Human as Observer.