R&J Free-Will and Fate

The Reality of Fate and the Illusion of Free-Will The tale of “A pair of star-crossed lovers” immediately rings in the reader’s mind two unfortunate lovers who are -by fate-meant to be apart. The author of The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet, William Shakespeare,1 wrote the story to bring about idealistic Petrarchan lovers going against social norms. The story commences with a prologue providing an overview of the entire bittersweet story. Both Romeo and Juliet are from feuding families who sometimes end up fighting leading to the loss of lives, try to have a relationship. As the story progresses obstacles get in the way and turn to the worst. The conflict, between having to fight against an identity given to them by fate and their resolution to absolve this, ends with the former crushing the latter, their inclination. As well, each maintains them self in an illusion, where there love they believe can survive against reality, a notion of insanity. In Romeo and Juliet, the dominant role of Fate2 is superior and supreme, yet not absolute, to the resistant contemporary ideal of free-will, symbolized as platonic love in the story. Before an actual head-on analysis of the two ideas, it is imperative to define Fatalism and its weapon in the play. Referring back to the prologue, at the very beginning, the tragedy is started as “Two households, both alike in dignity…From ancient grudge break to new mutiny.” (P.1). Fate has arranged from the start the entire story will be impacted by this ancient feud between families. Both families bring the feud with every generation as if having a rival family is an inheritance to be taken seriously. Whatever person born into the family, by Fate, is assigned his or her social position and hatred and is naturally fused with that person. As a result, each person performing something against the other family is not morally accountable for his or her action. A few more lines afterward the most dignified line appears defining the play, “A pair of star-crossed lovers take their life…” (P.6). The archaic definition of “stars crossed lovers” refers directly to Fate ultimately settling two people to never be together in liaison. With knowing these two will never be together by Fate, one knows beforehand that the play is about these two falling in love. As Romeo and Juliet kindle their love, the reader enjoys their Petrarchan speeches and forbidden love, but recounts their descending path to death. Lastly, towards the end of the Prologue, the results of the lovers’ death result in “And the continuance of their parents’ rage/ Which, but their children’s end, naught could remove …” (P. 10-11). Unlike Fate being an inexorable force, it is, the lovers can ultimately end the inherited rivalry trait. Moreover, the death is the final surrendering to Fate, but, of course, indirectly stopped Fate somewhere. As it seems, Fate was directly challenged by their love and succeeded at that, but was not utterly unstoppable. 3 Comparatively, Fatalism, with restrictions to the play, is defined as relentlessly sovereign. The antithesis of Fate, or Fatalism in general, is the similarly absolute idea of Free-Will in the form of love. Fast-forwarding to the most recognized scene in the entire play, the Balcony Scene, Juliet says, before Romeo revealing himself to her, “ Romeo, doff thy name,/And, for thy name, which is no part of thee,/ Take all myself.” (II.ii.50-52). Juliet does a significant action changing the story, as she enters a realm in which Fate seemingly has no grasp on. Entering the irrational realm of illusion by asking Romeo (she is talking to herself) to simply remove an abstract idea of a name to set aside her family’s feud with his family. Juliet permits herself to enter an irrational figment of her imagination for her love to manifest. In response to Juliet, Romeo surfaces himself and declares, “I take thee at thy word, / Call me but love, and I’ll be new baptized. / Henceforth I never will be Romeo.” (II.ii.53-54). Romeo as well enters by will to Juliet’s illusion becoming of his to renounce his name for love. Again, both lovers fail to recognize the complexity of a name, or more importantly the identity given by it. In a society or more in a world that stresses the meaning of a name, their actions seem juvenile and mad, as it directly goes against Fate. Consequently, if the individual symbolized Free-Will, then society will as well be symbolized as Fate. Furthermore, to conclude that Free-Will is deemed irrational is absurd, as Juliet warns a resistant Romeo, “If they do see thee, they will murder thee” (II.ii.75). For a moment, Juliet is brought back into logic recognizing the consequences of Romeo’s action. Being enamored though, she fought against the illusion of platonic love, something she fails at later. No doubt, her choice to warn her lover than to forsake his safety is reality, but she immediately abides her warning due to Romeo’ Petrarchan speech. Rather than being submissive to their birth name, their decision to fight against Fate with their will is alarming, even if it means a transition to insanity. All seems well with the introduction of Free- Will, but Fate proves to dominate the young ideal, its followers have perverted its system. Towards the end of the play, an accomplice of the illicit love, Friar Laurence runs to warn Romeo that Juliet is not genuinely dead; meanwhile, as he is going there he says, “Saint Francis be my speed!/ How oft to-night/How my old feet stumbled at graves…”(V.iii.121-122). As the Friar speeds his way to Romeo to save the antiphysic lovers, but, out of any days, he stumbled upon graves. This causality can be deduced as Fate trying to maintain its grip, by now “punishing”, for going against the natural force. Free-Will caught at its depths of despair, Fate sweeps it for its previous depir. Granting Fate could have done nothing, its actions can possibly be interpreted as Fate being vengeful and furious. Romeo, when in front of his “lifeless” wife he declares, “Death hath not suck’d the honey of they breathe/…beauty’s ensign yet/ Is crimson in thy lips and thy checks.”(V.iii.92, 94-95). Melodramatically, the audience knows she’s alive and Romeo could have also noticed her vivacity, but failed. His prodigious laments and love seems to blind him from the slight appearance of possible life. His past triumphs against Fate by choosing his own actions are drifted, and his choices revert back to Fate’s hands, leading to the tragedy. Juliet seeing Romeo’s death body and guards approaching, she asserts, “O happy dagger! / This is thy sheath/ there rust and let me die.”(V.iii.174-175). At first, it seems she sincerely dies, because her love has died as well. While that is true she chooses to die, a sign of Free-Will going for and against what is has been doing all along. As Romeo submitted to Fate, the overall principle, Free-Will submits itself to Fate, ending the revolution of the individual. The developing error of revolt is eventually suppressed by the greater force. The controller of events, Fate, is defied by the Free-Will its pawns though the expression of Love. Fate is divinely supreme, but even then it has a chance of revolt, though strictly unpopular. Free-Will is more than merely expressing with liberty, but going against, being free from moral responsibility and the price for it, enslavement. Although, Free-Will and Fate appear as antithesis of one another, Free-Will is the ultimate subject of Fate; as Fate chooses what occurs, it is dignified by itself to have its own Free-Will. Eventually, in William Shakespeare’s’ The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet, Fate is the master of all, the god-like figure, crushing what intents to counter it.