& A ; Juliet & # 8211 ; Star Crossed Lovers Essay, Research Paper& # 8220 ; A brace of star-crossed lovers & # 8221 ; , Romeo and Juliet.
From the gap scenes of the drama these two kids of feuding households were destined to fall in love together and finally decease together. How does the reader see this? How do we cognize it was destiny which triggered these events? Coincidence caused the decease of these two lovers. For this ground Romeo and Juliet is one of Shakespeare & # 8217 ; s great calamities. For happenstance to hold caused the decease of Romeo and Juliet it must hold been apparent in the events taking up to their deceases.
These events include their meeting and falling in love, their separation, their reunion and eventually their self-destructions. Solving the antediluvian feud between their households was the lone existent consequence of these ill-timed deceases. How did Romeo and Juliet meet? Was it by destiny or could it hold been avoided? Romeo and Juliet could non hold avoided coming in contact with each other, they were brought together by unmanageable fortunes.
In Romeo and Juliet & # 8217 ; s clip Verona ( a metropolis in Italy about 100 km West of Venice ) was a just sized metropolis, and & # 8220 ; knocking & # 8221 ; into an familiarity was improbable. During the class of Act I, Scene II, the contrary had happened, and happened by opportunity. As Romeo and Benvolio were approaching a public country they were stopped by a Capulet retainer. After Romeo had read the guest list to the Capulet party and the retainer was on his manner, Benvolio suggested that to alleviate himself of his unhappiness for Rosaline, Romeo should travel to the party and compare Rosaline to the other female invitees.
Romeo agreed Another illustration of happenstance is apparent here. If Rosaline had non been go toing, Benvolio would non hold thought anything of the party. During the Capulet & # 8217 ; s ball Romeo and Juliet had seen each other, one time this happened, there was no force that could hold stopped them from falling in love. The brush with the retainer in the metropolis set off an improbable concatenation of events. Given the information followers, none of these events could hold been altered or avoided. & # 8220 ; And for that discourtesy instantly we do exile him therefore, & # 8221 ; ( Romeo and Juliet, III, II, 191-192 ) .
Romeo & # 8217 ; s ostracism and the destiny involved with it is a premier factor in the deceases of Romeo and Juliet. Why ostracism? In Act I, Scene I the Prince & # 8217 ; s words were rather the contrary. Was it intentional that a adult male of such high criterion would travel back on his word? Possibly. Romeo & # 8217 ; s exile toxicants all possibility of felicity for himself and Juliet. His exile causes Juliet great sorrow, greater so if he had been executed, as stated by Juliet in Act III, Scene II, lines 130-131.
Juliet & # 8217 ; s grieve drives her to obtain a & # 8220 ; knockout potion & # 8221 ; from Friar Laurence which, in consequence causes Romeo to do some of import determinations sing his well being. Romeo & # 8217 ; s ostracism ( brought approximately by the decease of Tybalt ) initiated the Friar & # 8217 ; s strategy which finally leads the two lovers to their deceases. In reuniting the two lovers, clocking played the largest function in make up one’s minding if they would populate or decease. Friar Laurence had two opportunities to present the message to Romeo sing Juliet & # 8217 ; s present province. The first and most practical method of directing this message was through Romeo & # 8217 ; s & # 8220 ; adult male & # 8221 ; , Balthasar. The 2nd method was to direct the message with Friar John.
Timing was an of import factor in both of these events. Friar Laurence had missed his chance to direct the message with Balthasar and reverted to directing it with Friar John. As destiny would hold it, Friar John was locked up in a condemned house because of the pestilence. As a consequence Romeo received wrong information.
The lone information he received from the unsuspicious Balthasar was that Juliet was dead. There are two important points to note in this area of the play. One being the reference to star-crossing made by Romeo when he heard of Juliet’s death. “Is it even so? then I defy you, stars.
” (Romeo and Juliet, V, I, 24). The second being that when Romeo received the poison he states “Come cordial, and not poison, go with thee.” (Romeo and Juliet, V, I, 85). This is coincidental to what Juliet had said earlier, in Act IV, Scene III, when she drinks to Romeo. Cordial means hearty, or sincere. When someone drinks to someone else it is usually in good health. The reuniting of the two lovers in such circumstances (Romeo’s unawareness) could only have happened as it did by timing. One could ask what if the friar had left early?, or what if the friar had caught Balthasar and given him the message? Because of bad timing neither happened.
Coincidence is a controlling element regarding the deaths of Romeo and Juliet, more so than in other areas of the play. The following examples also deal with “close-calls”, which involve timing as well as coincidence After Romeo had slew Paris and entered the tomb and found Juliet’s seemingly dead body, he uttered some interesting words. “Death that hath sucked the honey of thy breath, hath had no power yet upon thy beauty.
Thou art not conquered; beauty’s ensign yet is crimson in thy lips and cheeks.” (Romeo and Juliet, V, III, 92-95.). Here Romeo is saying how alive Juliet looks. All he had to do was touch her and she may have been awakened and the play would have ended without a tragic closing. As Romeo drank the apothecaries mixture he drank to Juliet, as she had done before in Act IV, Scene III. This minor coincidence does not have much bearing on the course of the play, but changes the way we think of “toasting” to someone. Friar Laurence entered the tomb just less than half an hour after Romeo had killed himself.
If the Friar had entered the tomb earlier he could have explained the situation to Romeo and no harm would have come to anyone. The Friar has proved himself to be a brave man. He married Romeo and Juliet without the consent of Juliet’s father. Then why did the friar behave out of character and leave the tomb when he heard the call of the watch. This gave Juliet the opportunity to get hold of Romeo’s well placed dagger (coincidence?) and kill herself. If the Friar had not fled he would have convinced Juliet not to kill herself as he did with Romeo in Act III, Scene III. To prove Romeo and Juliet to be a tragedy we must first prove that the death of the two lovers was caused by circumstances outside of their control or more simply, by destiny.
The events which lead up to Romeo and Juliet’s death are all inter-related. If any of the events were absent from the list, the following events could not of happened. The list, as mentioned before is as follows; meeting, separation, reunion, and their suicides.
Romeo and Juliet’s meeting has been proved to be by coincidence. If Romeo and Benvolio had not “bumped” into the Capulet servant the events would not have unfolded in the way they did. Romeo and Juliet had been separated because Prince Escalus had ordered it, what makes this unusual is that in Act I, Scene I, the Prince’s warning indicated that further violent confrontations would result in death.
Romeo did not receive the message from the Friar in Act V, Scene I, because of coincidence. If he had received the message, the Friar’s scheme would have gone as planned. Coincidence is exceedingly evident when Romeo enters the tomb to die with Juliet as proven earlier. As the coincidences in the novel build up, the reader’s idea of reality changes, and enables Shakespeare create one of his greatest tragedies, Romeo and Juliet.