Juliet, Ophelia, Gertrude, Desdemona, Emilia: female Shakespearean characters that are only distinguishable by the nuances of their deaths. Across his writing, Shakespeare crafts female characters that are often portrayed as inferior to the male leads. With fewer lines and less influence, the female characters generally reflect the social role of women during the time of Shakespeare’s writing. To provide context of the environment in which the play, Much Ado About Nothing was presented, Jean Howard examines the atmosphere of The Globe Theatre and those who were in attendance. While several of  Shakespeare’s plays, particularly a comedy such as Much Ado About Nothing, were popular among the lower class, there was still a high attendance of upper class individuals, some of who even had the ability to censor the content of the plays. In catering to this diverse audience, Howard suggests that the Shakespearean plays “served the hegemonic interests of the state and dominant classes” by portraying common and  dominant ideologies (164). Although Shakespeare was known to provide some criticism of the ruling elite, generally his plays simply reflected the social structures of the time. In looking at the female characters of his plays, it is clear that women during this time period had a very restricted social role. Most of Shakespeare’s female characters did not have a lead role and were dominated by their husbands or male counterparts, who in most cases were responsible for the deaths of the women. In all, this sheds light on an English social structure that did not provide much liberty or opportunity to women. One character that stands out, however, is Beatrice of Much Ado About Nothing. Having a strong presence immediately in the first scene of the play, Beatrice dominates the plot unlike any other Shakespearean woman. Rather than moving quietly like her counterpart, Hero, Beatrice boldly speaks her mind and has a prominent role throughout the play. Chronologically placed between the presentation of characters such as Juliet of Romeo and Juliet and Ophelia of Hamlet, the significance of  Beatrice’s success in living through the entire play and ultimately achieving her goal of love is heightened considerably. Amid female characters who are dominated by men and unsuccessful in their attempts to achieve or retain love, why is Beatrice the only bold and successful woman? Why does Beatrice not conform to the norm of subservient women? Shakespeare shows that she is primarily successful because of her rhetoric. Beatrice overcomes the societal expectations and gender roles because of the use of prose, her use of wit, and assimilation with the male characters of the play.

In Much Ado About Nothing, Shakespeare breaks from his usual use of iambic pentameter and has the entire play spoken in prose. Immediately, this reduces the formality of the play. In other plays such as The Tempest, The Twelfth Night, The Merchant of Venice, King Lear, and even Much Ado About Nothing, Shakespeare creates a clear fool or clown character (“Shakespeare’s Clowns and Fools”). These characters are not only differentiated by what they say, but specifically how they say it. Usually, and in the previously mentioned plays, iambic pentameter was the common syntax structure used by Shakespeare’s educated characters, as opposed to prose which was reserved for the uneducated fool or clown character. The women in Shakespeare’s plays, having higher status than the fools but not as educated as the men, were generally stuck in the cumbersome middle position and unable to simply default to one particular structure. For this reason, their voice was incredibly limited. In Much Ado About Nothing, however, this divide is rejected. With even the most educated royalty of Don Pedro and Leonato speaking in prose like Dogberry, a more level field is established and women are immediately offered a greater opportunity to speak. Just as the syntax does not meet the expectation of a Shakespearean play, so too will the characterization, particularly the characterization of women, not meet the expectation of Shakespearean society. Without the pressure of determining the appropriate syntax, Beatrice speaks freely and defies the societal expectations and gender roles of the time. By using prose rather than iambic pentameter, the speech in Much Ado About Nothing has the “salience of wit rather than the ambiance of poetry” (McCollom 165). The structure of prose also puts greater emphasis on the meaning and message of the line rather than the rhythm in which it is delivered. In other words, prose proves to be a freer form of speech and a more suitable platform to showcase Beatrice’s use of diction and wit.

Beatrice’s language is different from other female characters because of this use of wit. According to McCollom, “wit drives the play” Much Ado About Nothing. With Beatrice being the primary instigator and dominator in witty conversation, it can then be said that Beatrice drives the play. She assumes a much different and more powerful role than Shakespeare’s other female characters.  McCollom suggests the use of wit is  “primarily between Beatrice and Benedick” and  “creates a tone of a ‘merry war’”(166). The term ‘merry war’ suggests that the banter of Beatrice is lighthearted and not taken seriously. Beatrice is successful in conveying a tone that is not too bold or offensive because despite speaking freely, she still understands the socially expected and accepted behavior. This is evident in lines such as “yes, faith. It is my cousin’s duty to make curtsy and say, ‘Father, as it please you.’”(II.i.49-50). In this line, Beatrice shows that she understands the importance of being respectful. With everyone around her knowing her genuine and courteous intentions, Beatrice can speak more freely and not be taken as too serious. For anytime there may be a misunderstanding or thought that she has overstepped her bounds, Beatrice clarifies her intention saying, “but I beseech your grace pardon me. I was born to speak all mirth and no matter” (II.i.311-312). Beatrice’s success in presenting this jovial tone is evident in her conversation with Benedick where she breaks her pattern of playful wit to very seriously tell him to “kill Claudio” (IV.i.288). Thinking that Beatrice is speaking out of jest like she normally does, Benedick responds, “ha! Not for the wide world” (IV.i.289). The fact that Benedick defaults to this understand of her tone shows that she was successful throughout the play in balancing respect and bold language. This provides Beatrice with more leeway to speak freely and use her wit more than other Shakespearean women were able or expected to.

With the use of wit that is par, if not superior to Benedick, Beatrice reveals her ability to assimilate with the male characters. Displaying herself as equal to the men,  Beatrice is able to have a greater role than most women of the era or female characters in Shakespeare’s other works. In Much Ado About Nothing, although no other female’s name begins with the same letter as their male counterpart, Beatrice shares the letter B with Benedick, immediately aligning her with the men. But she aligns with the men on more than just the first letter of her name. Beatrice “is as aggressive and guarded as the other men in the play” (Cook 191). Cook states that Beatrice’s “audacious speech might seem a serious violation of Messina’s conventions of gender, but it is significant how little she actually threatens Messina’s men, who regard her generally as rather a good fellow” (191). This analysis shows that rather than being viewed as an opposing threat, the men of the play consider her a companion and part of the group, further solidifying her assimilation. Examining Beatrice’s language on a surface or structural level, her equality with the men is seen in her capability to counter Benedick and mirror his use of language. Bold language was a quality of men at the time, and the fact that Beatrice is capable of mastering it rather than having a minimal voice like other female characters, reveals her masculine qualities. In the first scene alone, Beatrice and Benedick have twelve consecutive lines of witty banter, showing that Beatrice is just as prepared as Benedick to deliver a quick remark. Beatrice even proclaims, “you always ending with a jade’s trick. I know you of old” referring to the fact that it is always Benedick ending the conversation of the two (I.i.138). This suggests that Beatrice is more masculine than even Benedick who backs down from the challenge of witty banter. A closer analysis of her diction also displays Beatrice’s assimilation with men as she uses the same approach as Benedick in her banter. As Benedick renames and “address Beatrice as ‘my Lady Tongue’ or ‘Lady Disdain’”(Slights 174). Complimenting this, Beatrice counters and “renames Bendeck ‘Signior Mountanto’” (174). With this replicated counter, Beatrice not only aligns herself with Benedick, but aligns herself with Adam, who is considered the first male and most significant masculine image. Beatrice elevates herself to the ultimate level of masculinity as she and Benedick, “by exercising the power to create names, not only try to claim dominion over each other but pretend to an Adam-like independence from social control”, a position far superior to the role women were expected to play (175). Beatrice’s diction also reveals her shared qualities with the men that elevate her social role as she “ usurps the masculine prerogatives of language and phallic wit, speaking poiniards as an escape from feminine silence or inarticulate expression of emotion” (Cook 190). In showing that she can assimilate and revealing aspects in which she is equal to the male characters, Beatrice is able to elevate her status and influence despite being a woman.

Beatrice supersedes the gender roles and expectations of women at the time as she does not quietly go through the play controlled by men. Rather, she boldly asserts herself as their equal and is one of the few successful female Shakespearean characters able to rise above the limitations of gender roles and societal expectations of women. She does this through her use of prose, wit, and confidence in assimilating with the male characters of the play.

With the death toll amounting to four at the conclusion of the play, the question arises of who is to blame. Of these four deaths, Othello can be held directly responsible for two: Desdemona, and himself, but Iago is only directly responsible for one: Emilie. Despite only killing his wife, Iago is often blamed for other murders because of his manipulation of characters who carry out the physical act. Although it would be easy to blame the tragic outcome solely on Iago, Othello does carry a considerable amount of responsibility. Othello’s responsibility is demonstrated through the foil character of Roderigo, and through his syntax.

Roderigo, used as a foil character, displays Othello’s responsibility for the tragic outcome. Roderigo is not often blamed for his faults because he is manipulated by Iago. Shakespeare reveals Roderigo’s vulnerability primarily through his syntax that shows his lack of education. Generally, most clowns or comic relief characters from the lower class speak in prose while other higher class characters speak in iambic pentameter. Roderigo, using prose in act two scene one, aligns himself with the uneducated commoners despite being labeled as a “Venetian Gentleman”. Subjected to the powerful rhetoric and manipulation of Iago, the vulnerable Roderigo cannot be held responsible for his actions. This characterization of Rodrigo provides a stark contrast to the highly respected Othello and demonstrates that Othello should be held responsible for the tragic outcome.

Othello undergoes the same manipulation from Iago, but possessing the strength, knowledge, and experience that Roderigo did not, should still be held accountable for his actions. Unlike Roderigo, Othello is an esteemed military leader. His oratory skills, as displayed in his speech to Brabantio and the Duke in act one scene two, are exemplary. Not only is he able to manipulate, distract, and convince crowds with his language, he is also a renowned leader charged with the task of leading an army to defeat the Turks. If Othello is capable of standing up to the Duke and to the Turkish army, he is fully capable of standing up to Iago. Unlike Roderigo, Othello is strong-willed and cannot be completely controlled by Iago’s manipulation. Othello ultimately acts on his own accord in killing Desdemona and holds responsibility in creating the tragic outcome.

Furthermore, Othello’s syntax shows that he did not commit a crime of passion, but rather had time to consider his course of action and must therefore be held responsible for his actions. Othello is conscious of Iago’s powerful manipulation skills and confesses that he struggles to properly evaluate his character as he says, “ I think that thou art just and thou art not.” (III.iii.439-440). Although he is aware of this dark side, Othello still allows himself to fall prey to the deceitful Iago. In his entrance in act three scene three, Othello is not concerned about Desdemona’s unfaithfulness as he says, “I saw’t not, thought it not; it harmed not me. / I slept the next night well, fed well, was free and merry” (III.iii.390-391). By line 518, however,  Othello’s opinions have changed as he announces “My bloody thoughts, with violent pace / shall ne’er look back, ne’er humble love”  (III.iii.518-519). This was not a rash decision like would be shown if these two phrases were spoken back to back. Rather, the syntax shows that Othello has a considerable amount of time to think through the circumstance and navigate his emotions. The large gap in these lines allows time for thought and reflection before planning his final course of action. Othello’s actions were not a rash act of passion, rather he had time to think and plan, denying the impact of manipulation and validating that Othello hold responsibility of his own actions.

• Most interesting short assignment:

The short assignment that I found most interesting was my Romeo and Juliet assignment where I examined the parallelism between Juliet and Jesus Christ, and Romeo and a sinner. I really enjoyed discovering religious symbolism and the message Shakespeare was sending by including it.

• Most interesting play:

The most interesting play, for me, would be Henry V. This is due in part to the fact that I had not read it before, but I was also very interested in the play because of the evaluation of Henry as a leader. I really enjoyed his strategies to unite his soldiers, specifically his rhetorical strategies.

• Most interesting character:

The characters I found most interesting are Brutus, of Julius Caesar, and Beatrice of Much Ado About Nothing. I was very interested in Brutus because of the psychological analysis that comes into play when evaluating his actions and intent, and I enjoyed looking at his rhetoric. I was also drawn to Beatrice because of her rhetoric and was surprised by the sheer amount of lines that she has. I was really surprised to see such a strong female character, which is uncommon in most of Shakespeare’s plays.

• Themes that resonated with me:

I really enjoyed the themes of Hamlet and the justification of acts of terror or vengeance. I find myself struggling with questions like is revenge natural? Is it acceptable? Is murder in this case justified? Why?  I also really enjoyed the theme of perception vs reality in this play.

• Modern cultural practices:

I was not particularly drawn to any specific cultural elements or practices.

• Further areas of study:

I would really like to examine the role of women in Shakespeare’s plays. Traditionally at this time, women did not have many rights or social recognition. This is portrayed in the minor and subservient roles women play in Shakespeare’s plays, expect for Beatrice and Lady Macbeth who really stand out with their bold characterization. Why these two characters? Why this portrayal? If Shakespeare uses common themes of the time and makes social commentary, what does this say about women of the time?

When a magician performs his trick, he uses bright colored feathers and scarves to hind what is really going on beneath his cloak. Lacking bright colored tapestry, Claudius is left with only his words to help him hide the truth. Rather than reverting to physical distractions, Claudius relies on the structure of his speech to disguise the truth. In his first speech to the people that opens act one scene two, Claudius is hiding the fact that his coming to power is neither legitimate nor socially acceptable. Claudius distracts the crowd from this truth through his diction, as he uses first person plural pronouns, and his syntax, as he implements antithesis and sectioning in his speech.

Claudius, having no connection to the royal blood and no authority over the people of Denmark, tries to assert his position as the new King and formally part of the Denmark royalty. Claudius addresses the nation for the first time in act one scene two of the play. In the opening of his speech, Claudius uses ten first person plural pronouns in an attempt to hide that his coming to power was illegitimate . Rather than using the word “you” that would simply unify the crowd, Claudius uses pronouns such as “our”, “us” and “we”to include himself in the unification in an attempt to be accepted by the population (I.ii.1,2,6). By using these inclusive pronouns, Claudius tries to join the Denmark royalty and distract the crowd from the fact that his true and rightful position is separate from the throne.

Claudius also distracts the crowd in his speech through his syntactical choice of antithesis. In lines eight through thirteen, Claudius uses antithesis in phrases such as “our sometime sister, now our queen”, “with an auspicious and a dropping eye”, “mirth in funeral”, “dirge in marriage”, and “delight and dole” (I.ii.8-11). With this syntactical structure, Claudius is pairing together contrasted ideas and yet continues his rhythmic speech pattern, giving an air of normalcy. Similarly, Claudius, embodying the contrast of ‘Brother of the King’ and ‘King’, is trying to make himself appear normal. The repetition of these antithetical phrases is Claudius’ attempt to distract the population from the fact that his coming to power was not socially acceptable.

Claudius’ final way of distracting the crowd from the illegitimate truth of his power is through his overall structure of the speech. Claudius sections his speech into three parts. In the first section, lines one through sixteen, Claudius addresses Hamlet’s death and the power transition. In the second section, lines seventeen through twenty-five, he gives detail on the situation with Fortinbras, and then in the final section, lines twenty-six through thirty-nine, expresses Denmark’s response and calls the people to action. In ending with a call to action saying “and we here dispatch / You, good Cornelius, and you, Voltemand”,  Claudius is taking advantage of the psychological theory that an individual will retain the most recent information given to them (I.ii.34). This means that since Claudius put the controversial remarks about his coming to power in the beginning of the speech, the crowd is less likely to remember it and will rather focus on the final section of his speech, the situation with Fortinbras.  In structuring his speech this way, Claudius distracts the people from the truth of his illegitimate rise to power.

Almost as important as the message being spoken, is the body language with which it is delivered. Just as body language can strengthen what is being said, so too can the way the message is written reinforce the point it the speaker is making. This concept is particularly evident in King Henry’s speech in Shakespeare’s Henry V.  In Henry’s speech in act three scene six, he expresses to Montjoy that the English troops are tired, but they will continue to fight. The King does this not only through his words, but through his syntax and use of literary devices. Through the use of commas and the lack of alliteration and repetition, King Henry conveys that the English army is tired, but through his use of iambic pentameter, first person pronouns, and punctuation, he asserts that the English will still fight.

In King Henry’s speech in act three scene six, he admits that, although the English army has been successful in not losing any soldiers, they are tired. This message is evident not just in his words, but also in his use of commas and lack of alliteration and repetition. In his speech of twenty-eight lines, Henry uses twenty-seven commas and semicolons. The commas are often placed at the end of the lines, but are also dispersed through the middle of the lines. The punctuation in the middle of the line provides a break in the speech like the break that the army needs. Like the war, King Henry’s speech seems to be dragging on. Henry relies on the commas to move his speech along just as he is trying to find something to keep the English army moving forward despite them being exhausted. The lack of repetition and alliteration in Henry’s speech also expresses how tired the army is. If the King had used repetition it would add power and might to his speech, giving the illusion of confidence and reinforcements. Similarly, the use of alliteration would portray a sense of consistency as the sound and words would blend together, strengthening the message and image of the English army. He does not use these literary devices, however, and does not portray this message. Rather the lack of these devices shows that the English army is struggling. Tired and seemingly hesitant to rally together and continue fighting, the English “would not seek a battle” with the French (162).

King Henry asserts, however, that although his army is tired, they will not back down. If the French attempts to advance and engage in another battle, England “will not shun it” (163). Henry shows the seriousness of his message of retaliation through his use of iambic pentameter, use of personal pronouns, and punctuation at the end of his speech. Prior to his speech that begins on line 137, King Henry and the other actors of the scene are speaking in prose. Henry’s move from the relaxed tone and casual style of prose to the regimented and precise style of iambic pentameter is very significant. The transition of syntax makes the King’s tone more serious and his message more credible. The rhythm of the iambic pentameter mimics the rhythm of marching troops. Despite King Henry’s words saying the troops are tired,  the rhythm goes on, just as the English soldiers will. Like the syllabic pattern of the line, King Henry’s shows his actions are predictable, he will fight back if the French pursue a battle.
Henry’s assertion that the English will still fight is also evident in the his use of personal pronouns. In his speech, Henry uses twenty-three personal pronouns. Of these personal pronouns however, thirteen function as the royal we, whereas ten are Henry referring strictly to himself. Although this ratio does not seem like an incredibly stark contrast, it is still significant because it shows a building sense of comradery. Henry begins his speech using first person pronouns to only refer to himself, saying, “”I do not seek him now”, “I tell thee”, “that I do brag” and “I must repent” (III.vi.138, 146, 149, 150). When King Henry reaches the closing lines of his speech, however, where he asserts the English’s will to fight, he only uses the ‘royal we’ and plural form of the personal pronouns saying, “If we may pass, we will: if we be hind’red, / We shall your tawny ground with your red blood / Discolor” and “We would not seek a battle as we are. / Nor, as we are, we say, we will not shun it” (III.vi.158-160, 162-163). This is significant because it shows the rallying of the English troops. Henry is not alone in his crusade, but rather his forces are joined like his pronouns, showing England will not back down from battle. This definitiveness is also evident in his punctuation choices at the end of his speech. The lines of King Henry’s speech end mostly with commas, until the last two lines where he says, “Nor, as we are, we will not shun it. / So tell your master.” (III.vi.163-164).  This punctuation choice is significant because it expresses the assertiveness of the claim that England will continue to fight. He sharply ends the sentences like he ends the questioning of England’s motivation to continue the war. England may be tired, but they will fight.

A delicate emotion, love shows itself in the smallest of ways. With quick glances and a soft smile, it begins to form, slowly growing and making its presence known. In the play Much Ado About Nothing, however, Shakespeare skips the gentle early stages of love, and delves right into the loud and powerful parts of the emotion that absorb and influence everyone exposed to it. Shakespeare formulates his play around the concept of love which is expressed by Claudio, Hero, Beatrice, and Benedick, but is shared by everyone around them. The love of these two couples is not formed, held, and practiced in private, rather it is so powerful that experienced by all of their friends and family.  In the final scene of his play, Shakespeare fully develops his image of love as a force that involves more than the two engaged in emotions, that lacks order, and is open and never ending.

The play Much Ado About Nothing, Shakespeare presents two relationships, one between Claudio and Hero, and the other between Beatrice and Benedick. Despite it being just these four characters in relationships, everyone around them joins in on their exercise of love. In the case of Claudio and Hero, Don Pedro plays an active role in pairing the two together and is joined by the rest of Hero’s family in celebrating their love. Additionally, Borachio and Hero’s gentlewoman, under the guidance of Don John, have a role in Claudio and Hero’s love. Although the intention was initially malicious in destroying the love Claudio and Hero have for one another, Borachio’s actions do in the long run, strengthen the couple’s love. Shakespeare also clearly shows that love involves more than the two individuals as everyone joins forces to kindle the love between Beatrice and Benedick. Rather than a natural and private love forming, Don Pedro, Claudio, and Leonato along with  Hero and her gentlewomen join together to craft Beatrice and Benedick’s relationship. With this intense involvement and manipulation by outside members, Shakespeare shows that love is not contained between two people, but rather involves and extends to many others surrounding the couple.

Shakespeare also shows, through his plot and his syntax, that love lacks order. The love between both Claudio and Hero and Beatrice and Benedick are founded in deceit. It is created and revealed in unordinary ways as Don Pedro acts on behalf of Claudio, and Beatrice and Benedick are fooled into professing their love. There is no natural progression of a relationship, rather their love is pieced together almost haphazardly and lacks the order that is seen in Shakespeare’s other plays. Shakespeare conveys this same message through his use of syntax. Instead of using his normal writing style of iambic pentameter, Shakespeare writes primarily in prose. This style lacks the formality and order of iambic pentameter that adheres to specific beats, meters, and syllables. Just as Shakespeare’s words are formed loosely and fill the page, so too does love take whatever form it desires.

Finally, Shakespeare instills the message that love is open and never ending. He does this by not providing a formal ending to his play. The lack of conclusion is evident primarily in the handling of Don John. Whereas most of Shakespeare’s plays end with a restoration of natural order, this play does not. Although John is supposedly captured, his punishment has not been delivered. When compared to Macbeth, where both Macbeth and Lady Macbeth die and truly complete the process of restoring natural order, there is no finite result to correct the actions of Don John. Therefore, Shakespeare does not form a real close to the play, suggesting that it continues on. In this open ending, Shakespeare allows the theme of love to continue. He conveys this by closing the play prior to the actual marriage of Claudio and Hero and Beatrice and Benedick. Although it is clear that the ceremony is coming, is does not occur before the final lines and it is therefore suggested that the love and merriment continues on.

Romeo and Juliet’s Accountability

In Shakespeare’s play, “Romeo and Juliet”, it is often assumed that the two, young and inexperienced lovers are responsible for their irrational decisions and tragic ending of the play. This understanding, however, does not hold true under closer analysis. Rather, Romeo and Juliet cannot be held accountable because they are simply following their destined, spiritual paths.  Shakespeare crafts Romeo and Juliet in distinct roles of a sinner and Savior. Romeo and Juliet’s actions must follow these paths and therefore are not their own responsibility, but are predetermined and out of their control. By portraying Romeo as a sinner, and Juliet as the Christ figure that saves him, Shakespeare demonstrates that the two cannot be held accountable for the tragic outcome, but rather, they are simply following their destined paths.

Shakespeare depicts Romeo as a sinner as he commits two of the seven deadly sins in the Christian faith: lust and anger. The first sin Romeo commits is that of lust. Although Romeo is supposedly in love with Rosaline, he quickly becomes infatuated with Juliet. Seeing her at the party in act one scene five, Romeo quickly begins professing his love for Juliet rather than Rosaline. Romeo’s immediate change of heart reflects that his love is superficial and lustful, based only in appearance and out of physical desire. Romeo is “bewitched by the charm of looks” and acts out of lust, rather than genuine love (II.i.6). The Friar also supports this as he alludes that Romeo’s love is like young men’s love that “lies / Not truly in their hearts, but in their eyes” (II.iii.67-68). Furthermore, when Romeo professes his intent to marry Juliet and says his “love is set / On the fair daughter of rich Capulet”, he does not use proper iambic pentameter like his normal speech pattern and structure. Through this syntax, Shakespeare shows that just as he is forcing syllables into the line, so too is he forcing his love for Juliet. Shakespeare depicts that it is not a natural love, but an infatuation based in lust.

In addition to this sin of lust, Romeo also commits the deadly sin of anger. Shakespeare displays this in act five scene three when Romeo rashly kills Paris. There is a stark contrast to how Paris and Romeo react when seeing each other at Juliet’s grave. Paris, although upset, does not launch an attack, but simply says he will “apprehend” Romeo who “must die” for being a felon (V.iii.68, 57). Without Paris making any aggressive remarks or physical advances, Romeo is responsible for initiating the duel as the stage direction They fight is given directly following his line, “Wilt thou provoke me? Then have at thee, boy!” (V.iii.70). With this assault that has little build up or instigation, Shakespeare demonstrates that Romeo is quick to sin and act out of anger. Although these actions portray Romeo as being immature and irresponsible, he ultimately cannot be held accountable for them. Rather, Romeo is fulfilling his destined role as a sinner that Juliet, as the Christ figure, was meant to save.

Shakespeare portrays Juliet as the Christ figure in the play primarily through his use of imagery and parallelism. Juliet Capulet, bearing the same initials as Jesus Christ, is crafted as a savior figure. Shakespeare first uses the homonym ‘sun’ to draw the parallel between Jesus, the Son of God, and Juliet, who represents the sun. Throughout the entire play, Juliet’s beauty is admired and likened to that of the sun, light, and heavenly stars, images that are often associated with Jesus. In addition to Shakespeare’s use of imagery, he uses parallelism as Juliet’s actions closely parallel Jesus’ actions. Just as Christ did, Juliet offers love to her enemies, the Montagues. She metaphorically dies for her love of the sinner, Romeo, and is resurrected when she wakes up in the tomb twenty four hours later. Through this symbolism and parallelism, Shakespeare portrays Juliet as the Christ figure of the play. Her death, like Jesus’, is inevitable and necessary, suggesting that Juliet cannot be held accountable for the tragic outcome. Jesus had a specific role to play and path to follow during His time on earth. Just as Jesus cannot be blamed for the outcome of the path He was destined to follow, Juliet cannot be blamed for the tragic outcome of the play. She was simply following the predetermined course of action.

By depicting Juliet as the Christ figure, Shakespeare suggests that her actions are not necessarily her choice, but rather she is following her destined path. In the same way, Romeo is destined to be a sinner, and desperate to be saved; he cannot be held responsible for his actions either. Together, Romeo and Juliet are fated to have the relationship of sinner and savior. Their roles are assigned rather than chosen and they are following a path already determined for them. For this reason, Romeo and Juliet cannot be held accountable for the tragic outcome of the play, as it is not their conscious decisions that lead to their deaths.