Mercutio In William Shakespeare's Romeo And Juliet

Like any true detective, the readers of Romeo & Juliet must discover with the evidence spread throughout the text, who is truly responsible for the young couple’s untimely demise? The culprit is someone who supported their marriage and helped them through every up and down of their relationship. The only stout supporter of this doomed duo was Verona’s religious leader, Friar Lawerence.
Primarily, Friar Lawerence approved of Romeo and Juliet’s love. He marries them early into their relationship, even though their parents wouldn’t approve(II.vi). Back then, what your parents said, went. A person wouldn’t dare disobey higher authority unless they feel vindicated by their intentions. Furthermore, after his entire plan is foiled by Juliet’s sudden marriage, he
devises a new plan to fake her death, and reunite the couple after Romeo’s exile( ). It takes true dedication to a cause from a person to fail the first idea, and create a second in order to see it succeed. Even more so when the odds are against them with Romeo’s recent exile. Whilst the failure of the Friar’s first plot was caused by an action he couldn’t have perceived, the following idea was foiled due to his own planning. In the midst of Romeo’s recent exile, Friar Lawerence promises he’ll keep in contact with the young Montague via his servant Balthasar( ). He then proceeds to forgo that promise and utilizes the services of Friar John to send Romeo’s message. This leaves Balthasar out of the loop and uninformed of Juliet’s “death” until he sees it with his own eyes, and believes it. There following, he travels to inform Romeo of his wife’s untimely demise, as is his duty as Romeo’s servant. The rest, they say, is history, as the young Montague returns to Verona for his suicide. But to further the Friar’s incompetence, he doesn’t inform Friar John that this letter is to be delivered with the utmost of urgency and allows him to visit a plague house to help a fellow monk. This, in turn, keeps John out of Mantua, due to the odds he might bring in disease( ). Had Verona’s religious leader been thorough with his strategy, his brother John would have sensed the speed with which the letter needed to be delivered, and rode to Verona post-haste without a second thought to any other ventures. Despite the father’s many failings, many would dispute that Mercutio is the true troublemaker of this tragic tale.
Their major evidence lies in act I scene IV where Mercutio persuades the Montague heir to join him at the Capulet party in hopes of finding a girl to dissolve any thought of Rosaline from his mind. Had Mercutio not insisted that Romeo join him in revelry, the two lovers would have never met, thus saving them from a doomed relationship. However, their relationship would not have been doomed, or even a relationship, if Friar Lawerence shut down the marriage proposal in the first place! The same collective would also argue that Mercutio’s death to Tybalt and Romeo’s subsequent murder of the Capulet was all the result of the Prince’s cousin, therefore he is responsible for the exile of Romeo. This argument is not wrong, but is pointless when you consider how the Montague reacts afterwards. He complains to the head of Verona’s church, and is given a plan which they are supposed to follow in order to return him to his wife. Then, the very man who devised this plot, goes against it and sends the wrong man! Whilst their youthful fling was started by the young royal, its result of it is on the old
monk. Many, if not all of the main characters of Romeo & Juliet have blood on their hands, but Friar Lawerence’s palms are soaked in it. Maybe he believed his approval and support of the young couple’s relationship was just, but it would cause the death of many before it was through. With the death of Mercutio and Tybalt, he continued to fight for this marriage and strove to return Romeo. Alas, he went against his own ideas and sent the wrong man for the job, leaving a crucial piece of the plan left out to inform his master of his bride’s “death”. Perhaps we should take this as a lesson to show a bit more scrutiny when choosing our battles.