structural problem of Romeo and Juliet
Structural problem in Romeo and Juliet
Harold Bloom observes, “With just a few alterations, Shakespeare could have transformed Romeo and Juliet into a play as cheerful as A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” (Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human, p102) What he means is clear: the tragedy in Romeo and Juliet could have been a comedy with a few changes. This paper is a humble attempt to scrutinize whether the plot of Romeo and Juliet really has any structural problem, and if so, why did Shakespeare choose tragedy what could have been a comedy.
It is universally admitted that a tragedy opens happily and ends unhappily but a comedy opens unhappily and ends happily. Since Romeo and Juliet ends unhappily it has been treated as a tragedy. However, had Juliet awaken a few minutes earlier or Romeo arrived a few minutes later the consequence would have been totally different. The young couple would have united and lived happily thereafter defeating the older generation’s family feud. In that case, Romeo and Juliet would have been an exquisite comedy. Here lies the main point of the controversy. Is the end of a play is enough to decide whether a play is a comedy or a tragedy, or the development of the plot is equally important? There is no doubt that both are important factors as the rules of art because the development of the plot line of a tragedy significantly differs from that of a comedy.
In his discussion on tragedy, Aristotle instructed that “The change of fortune should be not from bad to good, but, reversely, from good to bad” (Poetics, XIII). Let us recall here some of the famous tragic protagonists. Oedipus Rex opens with the hero who is at the height of a great king. King Lear opens with the king as the most powerful monarch enjoying absolute power. Macbeth starts when the protagonist is at the highest peak of his success. All these tragic heroes gradually face adversity. Their respective fortunes change “from good to bad” and their stories take tragic
Harold Bloom observes, “With just a few alterations, Shakespeare could have transformed Romeo and Juliet into a play as cheerful as A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” (Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human, p102) What he means is clear: the tragedy in Romeo and Juliet could have been a comedy with a few changes. This paper is a humble attempt to scrutinize whether the plot of Romeo and Juliet really has any structural problem, and if so, why did Shakespeare choose tragedy what could have been a comedy.
It is universally admitted that a tragedy opens happily and ends unhappily but a comedy opens unhappily and ends happily. Since Romeo and Juliet ends unhappily it has been treated as a tragedy. However, had Juliet awaken a few minutes earlier or Romeo arrived a few minutes later the consequence would have been totally different. The young couple would have united and lived happily thereafter defeating the older generation’s family feud. In that case, Romeo and Juliet would have been an exquisite comedy. Here lies the main point of the controversy. Is the end of a play is enough to decide whether a play is a comedy or a tragedy, or the development of the plot is equally important? There is no doubt that both are important factors as the rules of art because the development of the plot line of a tragedy significantly differs from that of a comedy.
In his discussion on tragedy, Aristotle instructed that “The change of fortune should be not from bad to good, but, reversely, from good to bad” (Poetics, XIII). Let us recall here some of the famous tragic protagonists. Oedipus Rex opens with the hero who is at the height of a great king. King Lear opens with the king as the most powerful monarch enjoying absolute power. Macbeth starts when the protagonist is at the highest peak of his success. All these tragic heroes gradually face adversity. Their respective fortunes change “from good to bad” and their stories take tragic