Events Of Romeo And Juliet example essay topic

The events of Romeo and Juliet are heavily influenced by fate, as oppose to the actions of the characters. To be precise, occurrences in the play are not always as a result of conscience choices that characters make. Rather, chance occurrences (or predestination, depending on one's opinion) cause events to take place; these events seriously alter the course of the play. Fate affects us all every single day, but the sheer number of occurrences related to fate, as well as the powerful affect these events have on the plot creates a specific connection between the play of Romeo and Juliet and fate. Shakespeare makes it very clear to us that Romeo and Juliet are subject to fate.

Before the play even begins, Shakespeare outlines the play for us in the prologue. The prologue summarizes the plot, this seems odd, but this was because Shakespeare's audience was already familiar with the story and the play was a portrayal of the well-known story. Importantly, Shakespeare establishes immediately within the prologue that Romeo and Juliet's plot includes heavy elements of fate. "A pair of star-crossed take their life". (Shakespeare, Act 1 Prologue L. 6) Shakespeare refers to Romeo and Juliet as "star-crossed", referring to the belief of predestination (fate) and its connection with the constellations. Additionally, the prologue indicates a second time that the plot is influenced by fate; "The fearful passage of their death-marked love".

(Act 1 Prologue L. 9) The love of Romeo and Juliet is "death-marked", meaning that it is destined to result in death. This evidence suggests that the tragedy occurs as a result of predestination instead of chance, but nonetheless, this is fate. Fate has such a large roll in Romeo and Juliet that it influences not only the overall story, but also nearly every character in the play. Romeo is affected greatly by fate, arguably more so than any other character. Instances of Romeo being affected by fate abound in the play, from initial coincidences all the way up to his final dramatically ironic death.

Romeo's involvement with Juliet in the first place is based on fate. "God gi' go-den. I pray, sir, can you read?" (Act 1 Sc. 2 L. 58) The illiterate servant that Romeo stumbles upon gives Romeo the opportunity to attend the Capulet party, if this incredibly unusual event had not taken place, Juliet would have married Paris. The entire balcony scene where Romeo establishes his love for Juliet happens as a result of fate.

"It is my lady! O, it is my love!" (Act 2 Sc. 2 L. 10) Romeo ducked away from his friends and happened to stumble into the Capulet's orchard while came out on the balcony, an astonishing instance of fate. Fate seems to work against Romeo as well. At the party, Romeo stumbles into Tybalt (a confrontation that ultimately means death for Mercutio and Tybalt as well as exile for Romeo), "This, by his voice, should be a Montague".

(Act 1 Sc. 5 L. 56) Tybalt stumbles into Romeo by hearing him; this is an unlikely (chance) occurrence. Romeo is clearly suspect to fate, but what affect does it have on his overall role? Everything. It is fate that causes Romeo to pursue Juliet, and ultimately fate that tears him away. Juliet is subject to fate in very much the same way as Romeo.

Juliet's relationship with Romeo happens as a result of fate on her part as well. Juliet meets Romeo in an unusual way, and only because they met in this way was it possible for Juliet to persist with Romeo. Had Juliet known Romeo was a Montague she would not have pursued him, but she did not know this. For she later asks her Nurse, "What is yond Gentleman?" (Act 2 Sc.

5 L. 130) Therefore, Juliet is wooed by Romeo and falls in love with him, then only later finds out he is a Montague. Because Juliet had already fallen in love with Romeo, when she states, "My only love sprung from my only hate". She remains in love with Romeo, but she probably would not have done so had she first found out Romeo was a Montague, and then met him. Just like with Romeo, it is occurrences of fate (like this meeting) that draws her into the relationship. Amazingly, fate contributes greatly in destroying Juliet as well. When Juliet returns to her father after constructing a plan with Friar Lawrence, she accepts the wedding (as part of the plan).

"I'll have this knot knit up tomorrow morning!" (Act 4 Sc. 2 L. 24) Juliet's father changes the wedding to the next morning, but the poison was still going to last 42 hours! Even though Friar Lawrence had constructed a marvelous plan, this instance of fate provides a large complication, which ultimately contributes to Romeo and Juliet's deaths. Juliet is greatly affected by fate; she is lead into a relationship with Romeo, and death by it. Mercutio is also affected strongly by fate; he dies because of it. Mercutio dies fighting Tybalt, but fate is his true killer.

Mercutio is brought into this situation by fate. Confrontation between Romeo and Tybalt earlier caused Tybalt to approach the boys in order to fight Romeo. Romeo doesn't want to fight Tybalt, rather he says, "good Capulet, which name I tender" (Act 3 Sc. 1 L. 72) Mercutio finds this dishonorable, "O calm dishonorable, vile submission!" (Act 3 Sc. 1 L. 74) At this point, Mercutio decides himself to fight Tybalt, but some of the responsibility for this fight must be placed on fate. Tybalt confronting Mercutio's friend, and Romeo's backing down and therefore displaying dishonor influences Mercutio to fight.

Mercutio made the wrong the decision, but there were other factors involved here; fate had a hand in this fight. Whether one deems Mercutio's fight the result of fate or of poor judgment, it is clear that the outcome happens a result of fate. Romeo attempts to stop the fight, any by doing so, causes Mercutio to be left open for an attack. Tybalt takes advantage of the situation and stabs Mercutio.

Mercutio then dies, but because he was restrained by Romeo, not because Tybalt was the better fighter. Mercutio is clearly affected strongly by fate; it causes his death. Tybalt is actually affected by fate very little relative to other characters, but still affected nonetheless. Tybalt's troubles are generally brought on by his own will, not fate.

Tybalt is a large player in the servant quarrel of Scene 1 (by his own admission), he challenges Romeo himself, and kills Mercutio by choice. Tybalt's place in the story is as difficult as the others, but this is primarily due to the fact he is hotheaded. However, Tybalt is challenged by Mercutio, and does die to Romeo rather quickly. Things don't go to well for Tybalt, fate takes its course and the affects are great. Tybalt is affected by fate heavily, but he has himself to blame as well. In addition to intervening in the lives of many key characters, fate has an immensely powerful influence on the outcome of the play.

Even though every character in the play worked against fate to achieve their goals, in the end, fate manages to give Romeo and Juliet its "tragedy" distinction rather effectively. Towards the end of the play, it looks as if Romeo and Juliet have a solid chance of living happily ever after. Friar Lawrence's plan is fully thought out and (if executed correctly) seems to be able to grant freedom to Romeo and Juliet. However, fate strikes back, and the entire plan becomes a mess. Firstly, the message never reaches Romeo.

The reason for this is that Friar Lawrence's messenger was sentenced to quarantine. This was not the fault of Friar Lawrence, the messenger, or Romeo; it was fate. Because of this, Romeo and Juliet's chances of success become very small. Romeo goes to Juliet's tomb and kills himself.

Amazingly, had he waited just a few moments, he would have witnessed Juliet's awakening, escaped, and lived happily ever after. But due to an incredibly strange occurrence of fate, Romeo commits suicide, and then Juliet. This astonishing ending alone is enough to suggest that the entire plot has an emphasis on fate. Fate's affect on the overall outcome is catastrophic, these two occurrences alone change the outcome completely, let alone the dozens of instances of fate throughout the play. The important question here is: "Is Shakespeare showing us spiritual fate (i.e. predestination), or is it merely a sting of strangely coincidental events?

In order to understand this question we must develop an overall understanding of fate in plays and Shakespeare. Early plays by Greek playwrights like Sophocles were loaded with references to fate (as predestination). In Oedipus Rex, for example, Oedipus is told he is destined to kill his father and marry his mother! In the end, interestingly enough, he does it!

The difference however, is that Shakespeare wrote during Elizabethan times. This period was during the Renaissance; therefore Shakespeare is a "modern" writer. Greek writers included predestination in their plays, but that is because Greek writers were mythological, while Renaissance authors are supposedly rational. This is a strong proof to the argument that Shakespeare wasn't referring to predestination in Romeo and Juliet. There is also some amount of evidence in other Shakespeare plays that he was referring to coincidental events. For example in Julius Caesar it is written, "Men at some times are masters of their fate".

(Act 1 Sc. 2) Also, a possible explanation for Shakespeare's references to astrology and superstition is that the characters in his plays believed in such things. Through the assumption that Shakespeare was logical and some evidence from his other works; it is feasible to say Shakespeare is portraying strange occurrences to us in Romeo and Juliet, not predestination. There also happens to be a strong argument to suggest that Shakespeare wrote Romeo and Juliet displaying actual predestination.

Shakespeare refers to superstitions prominently in Romeo and Juliet, suggesting (if taken literally) that such was the cause of the events in the play. Also, nearly all of Shakespeare's works are littered with fate (e.g. Othello, Ant & Cleo, Julius Ceasar, Twelfth N, and Henry V), are we to say that all of these plays contain such strange coincidental occurrences. It would make much more sense to say that Shakespeare has a fundamental belief in predestination that appears in many of his plays. By taking Shakespeare's plays perfectly literally, one could also logically conclude that Shakespeare was referring to predestination in Romeo and Juliet.

A third explanation that includes aspects of both of the other interpretations is also applicable. Many believe that Shakespeare was not referring to predestination in his plays, and was not referring to coincidence either. A common explanation is that Shakespeare did have a religious belief that events that take place happen as a result of a greater force. However, Shakespeare believed these events were controlled, but not that they were predetermined. Rather, the explanation is that events take place indirectly as a result of our actions. Or simply, Shakespeare believed that the outcome of Romeo and Juliet happened as a result of their sin, "passion".

This opinion is also a valid interpretation of Shakespeare's instances of fate in Romeo and Juliet. The Encyclopedia Britannica's section on Shakespeare comments on this issue, backing up one of the opinions, "There has been some debate among modern historians as to Shakespeare's religious affiliation, but it is widely accepted that he did not recognize as Calvinist and did not accept predestination. Divine reward and punishment explains Shakespeare's infatuation with what seems like destiny in his plays. Romeo and Juliet's tragic demise was due to their transgression, their 'passion'". (Encyclopedia Britannica, "Shakespeare"). However one accepts fate to be taking place in Romeo and Juliet, it is clear that certain events are taking place, and they aren't as a result of direct conscience decisions by characters.

These events of fate have immeasurable affect on the characters and story. Among the lessons of love and hate in this play, this message, that we are not always in control of what happens to us, is very important and relevant.