Romeo and Juliet: An Aristotelian Tragedy of Human Powerlessness
Marcus Chow
For many, the heartache from Romeo and Juliet lies in the suicide of the ill-fated lovers. However, the play’s status as a tragedy is not solely a consequence of their demise. In Poetics (Aristotle, ca. 350 B.C.E./1997), Aristotle defines tragedy as a dramatic representation of action and life, whereby action refers to a sequence of events that reflect a serious and complete aspect of human reality – illustrating a cosmic truth on a physical stage. The imitation of reality functions to evoke pity and fear in the audience: pity for the protagonists as they identify with the characters, and fear for themselves as they realize the plot’s resonance with their lives. These emotions are ultimately resolved in the denouement through an emotive catharsis – emboldening the audience with a renewed optimism. In my opinion, Romeo and Juliet constructs fatally-flawed characters and pathos-heavy plot developments to engender this audience rapport.
Tragedy requires a protagonist who is neither a paragon of justice nor wickedness for the audience to connect with (Aristotle, ca. 350 B.C.E./1997). In contrast to the violence of peripheral characters, Romeo is portrayed as “virtuous and well-governed” (Shakespeare, 1597/2008, 1.4.137) – dissociated from the carnal fray. He deplores “mis-shapen chaos of well-seeming forms” (1.1.175), criticizing henchmen for disguising their banality with honour and loyalty. Similarly, he urges Mercutio to retract his sword and stop “this outrage” (3.1.85) – emphasizing his noble persona. Likewise, his “honourable reckoning” (1.2.4) emphasizes his aristocratic status , highlighting the significance of his eventual descent. However, Romeo is not wholly righteous; his ‘love’ for Rosaline is superficial, “not truly in… hearts, but in… eyes” (2.2.68). He forsakes his kinsmen, readily claiming “henceforth I never will be Romeo” (2.1.94). His characterization as an imperfect protagonist, ahead of his time, arouses audience compassion; an eminently upright character would be unrelatable, whilst a villain’s demise would be satisfying.
The audience’s sympathy for Romeo is strengthened by a relatable hamartia – impetuousness. This moral weakness causes Romeo to act impulsively, precipitating his undoing. He falls for Juliet at once, pleading, “did my heart love till now?”, and marrying her the next day (1.4.165). Juliet compares his heedlessness to “lightning” – “too rash, unadvised, sudden” (2.1.161-162). He is quick to fight Tybalt, his “fire-eyed fury,” reflecting his recklessness (3.1.124). Moreover, his taunting of death to “do what he dare” (2.5.7) reveals his hubris. Just as Friar Laurence cautions that “they stumble that run fast” (2.2.94), Romeo’s erratic nature initiates his destruction as he is forced into exile. As such, Romeo embodies a tragic hero – admirable yet handicapped by intrinsic flaws that evoke the audience’s pity and fear: pity for his disproportionate misfortune, and fear derived from “resemblance between sufferer and ourselves” (Aristotle, ca. 350 B.C.E./1997).
Pity and fear are fortified by plot developments that expose a fundamental truth; a sequence of orderly mishaps in the falling action prompts the audience to recognize the dominance of fate. Juliet takes the potion early because her wedding is accelerated, resulting in “unhappy fortune” (5.2.17) of Balthasar’s message arriving before Friar John’s. This motivates Romeo to “lie with [her] tonight” (5.1.34) in death; the characters remain asynchronous as the “unkind hour” (5.3.145) results in Romeo committing suicide moments before Juliet wakes. The orderly nature of these near-misses are contrived such that the audience realizes that “a greater power” (5.3.153) has intervened to determine their deaths, and human attempts to “deny” (5.1.24) fate are futile. The use of pathos in the suicides, with Romeo lamenting his “world-wearied flesh” (5.3.112), moves the audience from acknowledgement to fear of this reality. The lovers were “death-marked” (Prologue. 9) – their destruction partially of their own flaws but more substantially of fate’s manipulations; the audience, likewise, recognizes powerlessness in themselves.
Audience emotions are further amplified by peripeteia/ “reversal” and anagnorisis. The sudden reversal of Romeo and Juliet’s fortunes is triggered by the climax of Romeo’s victory over Tybalt; whilst Romeo’s victory is momentarily pleasing, the action turns out to be disastrous as it “dooms [him to] death” (3.1.134). The reversal capitalizes on accumulated positive sentiment for the couple from the rising action to evoke apprehension when they are separated. Similarly, Romeo’s anagnorisis of fate provokes audience introspection; his acknowledgement of “inauspicious stars” (5.3.111) and being “fortune’s fool” (3.1.136) posits that fate overwhelms will.
In conclusion, plot and character dovetail to reveal a cosmic truth on human powerlessness and fate, inducing pity and fear. These emotions, however, are reconciled in the denouement; the protagonists are martyred as “true and faithful” with “statue[s] in pure gold” (5.3.299-302) – their deaths produce a new, improved equilibrium. This resolution extends to the audience’s catharsis, as the perception of human willpower eventually overcoming adversity provokes pride and re-invigorated faith in humanity – making Romeo and Juliet an exemplar of Aristotelian tragedy.
References
Aristotle. (1957). Aristotle’s Poetics (G. Whalley, Trans.; J. Baxter & P. Atherton, Eds.). McGill-Queen’s University Press. (Original work published ca. 350 B.C. E.)
Shakespeare, W. (2008). Romeo and Juliet: The Oxford Shakespeare (J. L. Levenson, Ed.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1597).
Writer's Bio:
