Matthew Penaranda
Reading Shakespeare’s renowned play Romeo and Juliet for the first time as a sophomore in high school, the idea of star-crossed lovers destined by fate was a romantic and reassuring concept amongst the uncertainty towards the future as I began to consider colleges. Being a similar age to both Romeo and Juliet, my teenage self was optimistic towards the notion of destiny and my Christian background had always implied some sense of predestination despite the free will that the Church claims is our God given virtue. In retrospect, resigning myself to fate was something of a crutch I used to escape the personal responsibility. The crisis between free will and fate is not an uncommon narrative for the teenage lush that Shakespeare confronts through the tragedy of his Romeo and Juliet. A senior now in the final stretch of my college education, I have confronted many forms of uncertainty and overcome them and am now less amiable to the idea of being at the mercy of fate. This essay will consider the degree of responsibility the “star-crossed lovers” have amidst the seemingly circumstances which seem to predetermine their tragedy.
There are several reasons that contribute to the argument that Romeo and Juliet were destined to fail from the beginning. To begin with, the ongoing feud between the two influential families, the Montagues and Capulets, is the foundation for the notion of theirs being a forbidden love. Romeo a Montague and Juliet a Capulet, the two were raised worlds apart. The pre-existing tension between the two families is probably the most influential metaphor for circumstances of fate and is continuously cited by characters of the play as an argument against their relationship. While there is overwhelming circumstance against them, I believe there are decisions made by Romeo and Juliet which are pivotal to sealing their own fates so to speak.
The first is, deciding that they love each other. There is extensive argument that theirs is not love but something to the extent of a teenage crush considering the “love at first sight” which led to them being wed not long thereafter. That being said, Juliet eloquently confronts the issue of fate and questions presuppositions of her as well as Romeo’s identity by asking the timeless question “what’s in a name, that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet” (Act II, ii). This question simply and elegantly undermines labels and categories of people. This is the sort of introspection and keystone in my opinion in which he characters have destroyed the concept of fate and have accepted control of their lives actively choosing each other despite being aware of their families circumstance and the “fate” of not knowing each other. The other decision besides their suicide the affirms the narrative of free will in my opinion is Romeo killing Tybalt. Despite being an act of passion, Romeo gives in to the narrative of Montagues vs. Capulets which embodies the idea of fate. Instead of choosing to restrain himself, Romeo literally loses control and effectively this symbolizes being at the mercy of fate instead of his own reason and capacity for free will.
I have done my best to confront the question of free will versus destiny in this tragedy through literary analysis but am concerned that my own perspectives may have made me biased. I wonder whether I will retreat to Sartrean existentialism later in life if by chance I am reading this tragedy on my deathbed suffocating with regrets instead of surrounded by friends or family. Reading the play we are faced with the choice of the degree of control and free will we have over our own destinies. I am reminded of the serenity prayer:
“God, give me grace to accept with serenity
the things that cannot be changed,
Courage to change the things
which should be changed,
and the Wisdom to distinguish
the one from the other.”
In my opinion, there is free will for Romeo and Juliet but there are circumstances out of their control.
Works Cited
Shakespeare, William, and John Hankins Erskine. Romeo and Juliet. Baltimore: Penguin, 1971. Print.