Shakespeare broke these rules over and over again. He used comedy and subplots throughout his literature to give it a sense of reality, and to make it more interesting for the spectator. Yet every aspect of Shakespeare’s play contributes to the overall effect, nothing is carelessly placed. I believe that this is a more sensible interpretation of Aristotle’s Unity theory.
Despite the fact that Shakespeare broke Aristotle’s ‘rules’ whilst creating “Romeo and Juliet”, it is still known as one of Shakespeare’s greatest tragedies. So what is it about “Romeo and Juliet” that makes it a tragedy?
One example of Shakespeare conforming to Aristotle’s theory of unity is that throughout the whole of the play it is made blindingly clear that the whole basis of the plot relies on coincidence and fate. If any of these events were in any way altered or removed then the whole of the plot would change, and descend.
Right from the instigation of the plot, in the prologue, there is evidence of fate being responsible for the tragic conclusion of this play.
“From forth the fatal loins of these two foes
A pair of star-cross'd lovers take their life;”
This quotation implies that even from the very beginning, the young couple were doomed. ‘Star-crossed’ refers to the astrological outlook on destiny that was much more widely accepted when Shakespeare wrote his tragedy. By including this line so early in the book, Shakespeare creates a sense of anticipation in the audience. From the start they know what the eventual outcome will be, but the questions of ‘how?’ and ‘why?’ are only answered as the play progresses.
Another reference to show that fate was responsible for the death of the two lovers is
“Some consequence yet hanging in the stars
Shall bitterly begin his fearful date”
Here Romeo is speaking of the meaning of his dream; he is talking amongst friends of his premonition of death that shall occur at the feast of Capulets, “Fearful date”. This illustrates again that he believes they are not in control of their destinies; fate manipulates their lives as it wishes and they cannot deter it. This second reference shows that Romeo never felt happy with the idea of going to the Capulet party in the first place. If he had trusted his instincts and refused to go, the deaths of the two lovers may have been averted. By including these foreboding lines, Shakespeare suggests to the audience that the ultimate destiny of Romeo and Juliet was, in fact, fated.
A third quotation that shows Aristotle’s theory of unity throughout Shakespeare’s play is
“Then love devouring Death do what he dare”
Romeo whilst conversing with Friar Lawrence uses this personification of death to emphasise the fact that nothing can destroy his love, save death. He is almost challenging death to do what it can, and try to destroy their feelings. I think Shakespeare uses this idea effectively, as in the end it is death that is their misfortune. It shows a lack of command on Romeo’s part, he is handing his future over to death.
A final example of one of the characters from the play referring to fate is when Friar Lawrence is talking to Juliet shortly before she stabs herself:
“A greater power than we can contradict
Hath thwarted our intents.”
The “greater power” that Friar Lawrence refers to is, of course, fate. Shakespeare again chooses to place the blame on a higher power rather than an individual, signifying his desire to make the audience believe that no one person or thing was responsible for the deaths of the young couple but fate.
These previous quotations seem to prove that Fate was responsible for the death of the destined couple. However, is it true to say that Fate was the sole contributor to the deaths of the young couple, or was their demise brought about by the mistakes of others? I think it would be truer to say that although fate played a major role in the conclusion, the part of the other characters is also important.
The Friar, Romeo’s friend and assistant of Juliet in her final plan, changed the course of events by helping the young couple in their plans to marry and assisting Juliet in her scheme to be with Romeo once again. If the Friar had not agreed to marry Romeo and Juliet, it is possible that the couple would have given up on the idea of being together. On the other hand, Romeo and Juliet may have been fated to marry and would have partaken in the ceremony one way or another no matter what the Friar’s decision.
If the Friar had not suggested his dramatic plan to the desperate Juliet, she may never have seen Romeo again and the couple would have stayed alive, albeit in depression! Perhaps, however, that if Juliet had not had the chance to see Romeo again she would have committed suicide anyway. The couple may have been doomed regardless of the Friar’s decision to involve Juliet in his elaborate plot.
Mercutio, one of Romeo’s friends and a supporter of the Montague household, changed the course of events by encouraging Romeo to go the Capulet’s masquerade and duelling with Tybalt in town. If Mercutio had not encouraged Romeo to go to the Capulet’s dance, the couple would never have met and their deaths would have been averted. But was Romeo destined to meet Juliet, regardless of the actions of others?
If Mercutio had not taunted Tybalt in town whilst out with Romeo and Benvolio, Romeo would never have got into his fight with Tybalt and therefore would not have been banished. Perhaps, however, the fight initiated by Mercutio that hapless day was inevitable: could it be that Romeo was somehow destined to be exiled?
Just these two characters are examples of how the other characters effected the devastating annihilation of the couple. They also show examples of Shakespeare complying with Aristotle’s Unity theory. If these actions had not occurred then the whole of the play would have been altered.
Another example to prove how Shakespeare uses the idea of Unity to create tension and apprehension in the audience is at the Capulet ball. It is just coincidence that Romeo falls in love with Juliet, there were hundreds of girls at the ball and he happens to fall in love with the only daughter of his worst enemy.
“My only love sprung from my only hate”
This has proven that Shakespeare does fulfil one of Aristotle’s rules. The theory of Unity, if any of these incidents had been in anyway altered then the play would follow a different direction.
Although “Romeo and Juliet” does not follow the rules formed by Greek Playwrights based on Aristotle’s ideas, it does not disagree with Aristotle’s original views. Firstly there is a tragic hero, as required, although there is also a tragic heroine as well, never in Aristotle’s work does it declare that there must be only one main hero, this one of the misinterpretations of the play writes. Another point that the play agrees with is the idea of a harmatia. A tragic flaw which prevents the characters from ever being together. In Shakespeare’s tragedy “Macbeth” it is Macbeth’s excessive ambition that means that the conclusion is inevitable. But in “Romeo and Juliet” it is their haste, which causes them to hurtle towards their horrific ending.
A quotation to support this idea is in the balcony scene whilst Romeo is declaring his love, Juliet realises that they are being too hasty, and that they must wait a while.
“It is too rash, too unadvised, too sudden,
Too like the lightening, which doth cease to be.”
Shakespeare uses imagery to emphasise Juliet’s point.
“Like the lightening”, A simile that shows how quickly they are rushing into things. Yet immediately after making this point and asking to slow things down, Juliet succumbs to the racing passion of the atmosphere and declares,
“ My bounty is as boundless as the sea,
My love as deep”
This simile is very powerful, the ocean is deep and uncontrollable, and Shakespeare uses it to accentuate the idea that they are already declaring love, after just a few hours of meeting they are comparing their love to the size and depth of the largest part of the world. This shows just how rapid they are in the situation. This phrase is also used in Shakespeare’s “A midsummer nights dream” which was written at approximately the same time. In this play the two young lovers are also beset with problems, and Lysander uses the same image as Juliet to show the briefness of their relationship. I think it is a fitting description; it hits hard and fast, and for Romeo and Juliet it is fatal.
Another example of how quickly the circumstance occurs in is when Romeo runs to Friar Lawrence to ensure that he will marry them. This is only a few hours after meeting, and they wish to be married.
Romeo says
“O let us hence, I stand on sudden haste”
He is in a hurry; he cares not for detail but only for action. Friar Lawrence is far more sensible and considerate of the consequences.
“Wisely and slow, they stumble that run fast”
Here it becomes apparent how immature Romeo is, he has not considered what will happen after the marriage, or the fact that their families are great enemies, they are living for the moment, and they pay the consequences. Friar Lawrence is wise, he realises that they are moving too fast, but in his wish to do good is unable to prevent them.
Throughout the whole play there is evidence of their haste, and there is no consideration for the future, only that they must get married now. For instance Romeo kills Tybalt in haste, it is his immediate instinct on the death of his good friend Mercutio, he yet again does not consider the consequences. And when Romeo hears that he is banished, he very nearly kills himself without thought of anything else.
There are only a couple of instances when either part of the couple stop to consider their actions, they are too blinded by love to care. This tragic flaw is, alongside the sequence of preceding events, the main cause of their tragic death.