Skip to main content

What are three reasons why Friar Laurence is to blame for the deaths of the lovers in Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet?

Friar Laurence is to blame for the deaths of Romeo and Juliet for three reasons. First, he never should have agreed to marry them in the first place. He did so because of his idea that their marriage might mark the end of the bitter feud between the Montagues and Capulets. The part of his plan which was missing, however, was how the couple would ultimately announce that marriage. Although his heart was certainly in the right place, his decision ignored the possibility that several things could go wrong.


Second, the Friar should not have given Juliet the sleeping potion which would allow her to fake her death. While his plan sounded good in theory, it also had too many variables. When Juliet came to him at the beginning of Act IV, he should have advised her to confess to her father of her relationship with Romeo. It's quite possible, judging from Capulet's expressed opinion of Romeo and his love for his daughter, that he might have understood. He probably realized that Tybalt was out of control and his death inevitable, so he might not have blamed Romeo. 


Third, the Friar fails in the most important aspect of his plan. He was not able to get his message to Romeo in time to alert him to Juliet's situation. Instead of sending Friar John, he should have sent the message with Balthasar who, according to Act V, Scene 3, was someone that the Friar knew well. He must have known that the impetuous Romeo was capable of anything and how important reaching him in time was to the entire plan. As with his earlier decisions, the Friar again totally misjudges the situation. When he is confronted by the Prince in the end, he even admits his guilt:



I am the greatest, able to do least,
Yet most suspected, as the time and place
Doth make against me, of this direful murder.
And here I stand, both to impeach and purge
Myself condemnèd and myself excused.


Comments

Post a Comment

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 ...
Post a Comment
Read more

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.
Post a Comment
Read more