From: The Shakespeare Electronic Conference [SHAKSPER@eae.shaksper.net]
on behalf of Hardy M. Cook [editor@eae.shaksper.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 09:55
To: SHAKSPER@eae.shaksper.net
Subject: SHK 13.1188 Re: Romeo and Juliet

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1188  Tuesday, 30 April 2002

[1]     From:   Sam Small <samsmall@globalnet.co.uk>
        Date:   Monday, 29 Apr 2002 16:15:10 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1160 Re: Romeo and Juliet

[2]     From:   Philip Weller <pweller@mail.ewu.edu>
        Date:   Monday, 29 Apr 2002 14:00:16 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1160 Re: Romeo and Juliet

[3]     From:   Larry Weiss <pandw@akula.com>
        Date:   Tuesday, 30 Apr 2002 01:00:06 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1160 Re: Romeo and Juliet


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sam Small <samsmall@globalnet.co.uk>
Date:           Monday, 29 Apr 2002 16:15:10 +0100
Subject:        Re: SHK 13.1160 Re: Romeo and Juliet

Yes, interesting stuff from Jimmy Yung.  But I disagree.  I still think that R&J is an anti-civil war play.  But the point about chance and fate is still interesting.  I have always thought that the letter incident etc was very forced, amongst other things.  But let us not underestimate the writer.  It is true there is no single antagonist - but surely that role is played by the warring families?  Perhaps Shakespeare is saying that when two halves of a society engages in bloody conflict innocent people will be butchered by chance and fate. Rather like the army opening fire on a crowd - some die, some don't.  Is there a real reason why those that died died?  In a way yes, and also no.  The stars have it.

SAM SMALL
http://www.passioninpieces.co.uk

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Philip Weller <pweller@mail.ewu.edu>
Date:           Monday, 29 Apr 2002 14:00:16 -0700
Subject:        Re: SHK 13.1160 Re: Romeo and Juliet

In both of Brian Willis' latest posts on this thread he seems concerned with the question of how we can feel sympathy for Romeo.  I think it's a key question, but I don't agree with an implication (I thought I saw) in his first post.  I think the implication is that we can't sympathize with Romeo if he's a sap.  When Romeo throws himself on the floor and bawls Romeo is quite sappy  ("unmanly" is Friar Laurence's word for it).  Still, we can sympathize, even in age in which it's been cool to be cool for so long that we're practically frozen.  I think that the creation of a sympathetic sap is as great an achievement as the creation of a sympathetic Shylock.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <pandw@akula.com>
Date:           Tuesday, 30 Apr 2002 01:00:06 -0400
Subject:        Re: SHK 13.1160 Re: Romeo and Juliet

> Tybalt was already dead.
>
> The law would have ended the life of Tybalt

What support is there for this?  Romeo was not executed for killing Tybalt; just sent about 20 miles away.  Why would anyone assume that Tybalt would have suffered a more grievous doom.  In any case, the point of Romeo's killing of Tybalt was that he acted out of rage with no time to stop to think.

But that does not seriously affect the point that R&J are not entirely the victims of fate.  To blame fortune alone is to deny that this play is a true tragedy; that there is no hamartia.  All the unfortunate events directly flow from the main characters' rash insistence on immediate gratification of their lust.

>It occurs to me that one other reason to introduce fate or the stars as 
>an
active hand in the play might be the lack of a villain.

There is no strong candidate for villain in A&C either, and that play is also about two lustful lovers who kill themselves.  But no one, I think, would seriously contend that they are mere passive victims of fate.

Brian Willis says

> I would like us to consider however how the feud DOES play into all of 
> this. Could Romeo and Juliet come out in the open with their marriage? 
> Of course they could. But what would be the consequences of such an 
> action? Their parents would certainly not condone the match.

Are you sure?  There are strong hints that the embers of the feud are burnt out in the older generation.  It is kept alive only by the servants, for whom it is a source of exercise, and Tybalt, whose attitude is roundly condemned by Capulet.  The latter, in fact, has some kind words to say about Romeo.  Why did WS give us these passages if not to suggest that a little patience and diplomacy might have brought the lovers together and given quietus to the feud into the bargain.

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, editor@shaksper.net
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the editor assumes no responsibility for them.
