Skip to main content

Why is Friar Lawrence blameworthy for the deaths of Romeo and Juliet in Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet?

Friar Lawrence is deserving of blame for the deaths of Romeo and Juliet because he is weak-willed and he has failed in his duty as spiritual adviser to follow through on the matters that he has said he would take action.


  • Romeo and Juliet's marriage

After admonishing Romeo that "violent delights have violent ends,"(2.1) and asking him how he could so easily have fallen out of love with Rosaline, the priest agrees to perform the marriage ceremony because he does not want Romeo to sin, and because he naively decides that somehow a marriage between Romeo Montague and Juliet Capulet might unify the two feuding families:



In one respect I'll thy assistant be;
For this alliance may so happy prove,
To turn your households' rancour to pure love. (2.2)



However, he makes no plans to confer with the two sets of parents as, normally, the priest and spiritual adviser of a community would. Instead, it seems that he leaves the amelioration up to chance.


  • Romeo's banishment

Friar Lawrence's idea for Romeo to go to Mantua is sensible; however, Friar Lawrence should have sent Romeo's servant Balthasar there periodically to check on him and advise him of the scheme involving Juliet. Had the Friar sent Balthasar to Mantua frequently with his messages, the servant would have prevented Romeo from ever believing that Juliet died. In addition, Balthasar would have discovered the quarantine of the city on another visit. Then, he would have reported this to Friar Lawrence, who could make different plans to prevent Romeo's misunderstanding of events.
If these visits by Balthasar were to have occurred, the actions of Romeo's purchase of poison and his coming to the Capulet tomb where he killed Count Paris and himself could all have been prevented. Consequently, Juliet would not have found him dead and then felt that she should kill herself.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.