Fallacies of Authority

We've all read Romeo and Juliet, and it's definitely an interesting play. I was asked earlier this year to look at it and write an essay on it, so I took a different approach, put aside the love story, and tried to do a little digging on what we can take out of it. Hopefully you find it interesting.

So here is something a little different:

Fallacies of Authority

The notion of authority is, without question, an abstract concept. Authority is the idea of having certain power and right over constituents. Usually, this authority is used to govern and maintain order within a society. However, authority can also cause people with less power in a society to blindly follow. By this definition of authority can be viewed negatively, displaying just how subjective it can be. In Romeo and Juliet, there are a variety of characters with some type of authority and most, if not all of the major characters with power prove to be inept at wielding such authority. It becomes clear through the renowned Shakespearian play that authority itself may just be a romantic fantasy and that without trying to adamantly enforce and impose authority, life may in fact be much easier and simpler due to the avoidance of conflict. All in all, obtaining and truly enforcing a successful authority with regards to all constituents is impossible.  

                It is clear from the very first act and scene of the play that order is near impossible in Verona due to the longstanding dispute between the Capulet and Montague families. We can also see an act of disobedience from the two families, in relation to the Prince of Verona. The Prince is an authoritative figure in the play, and another example of a character that is inept at the ability to use authority. Despite having rule over the land, the Prince cannot control his constituents, namely the Capulet and Montague and due to this, frequent frays occur, leading to even more death. The fray in 1.1 clearly displays the chaos in Verona and lack of control the Prince has. At the end of the riot however, the Prince declares that future conflict will be dealt with strictly, through blood. In 3.1, after Romeo and Juliet have been wed, another brawl occurs in Verona, resulting in Romeo killing Tybalt. In this instance the Prince declares Romeo banished from Verona, not dead. Also, in 5.3 after the death of Juliet, Paris and more, the Prince’s action is seemingly weak. The death and chaos is a notion of failure to uphold any civility and only magnifies his inability to establish any authority in Verona.

                Not only do the households of the Capulet and Montague also hold authority, but both families share a sense of pride and cross the border of arrogance. Arrogance is a preventing factor to establish successful authority. Both families bear an “ancient grudge” as outlined by the prologue, and a grudge which bloodies the “civil hands” of each other. Upon examining the ancient grudge first, it becomes apparent that “ancient” implies that this tension between the two households has been prevalent for quite some time; so long that it is impossible to even assume that the two parties can coexist. Given that they bloody the others’ civil hands, this shows that this grudge is leading both groups astray. Without the presence of the other household, Verona could very well be a peaceful city. This ultimately leads to the impossibility of Romeo and Juliet to ever be together.

                This tension between the two households and the authority of the parents displayed towards both Romeo and Juliet is a manifestation of just how foolish the two families are. It also shows the similarities and discrepancies of authority. There is absolutely no doubt that the marriage of Romeo and Juliet would be unacceptable for both families. However, the fact that Capulet allowed Romeo to escape from the masquerade he held in 1.5 shows just how slippery authority is. Capulet denied Tybalt his wish to slay Romeo at the masquerade. This shows an act of civility but the idea of Romeo marrying or even being interested in Juliet is by no means acceptable. It is this authority and mindset of the parents that ultimately creates the conflict. This instance also exemplifies the arrogance within the authority of each set of parents through their disapproval of the opposite household. This shows exactly why arrogance is a preventing factor towards a successful authoritative role, as Capulet (and for that matter, Montague too) would never approve the marriage of Romeo and Juliet. Arrogance ultimately negates proper usage of authority, specifically shown by Capulet when he allows Romeo to flee the masquerade unharmed. Capulet avoids a fray by letting Romeo go. However, by disapproving the marriage of Romeo and Juliet, he only shows just how impossible authority is, and how quickly it can be rendered useless.

                The deaths of Romeo and Juliet are a consequence of a vast sequence of events and inept ability to use apparent authority. The parental authority of both Capulet and Montague denies Romeo and Juliet the right to love each other, or even see each other for that matter. Ultimately, conflict is created and it is through this persistent arrogance and inability to compromise, which leads to numerous deaths. These deaths are also a factor of the disobedience to authority and the most obvious examples of this are Romeo and Juliet.  Both willingly disobey their authoritative figures [their families], in hopes of being together. Not only is this an act of disobedience, but it is an act of finding a solution by stepping away from authority. Ultimately this displays that in order to find solutions with certain conflicts, that authority must be dispelled and that stepped away from. Although disobedience is natural with respect to any authority, it shows just how problematic and impossible a truly successful and universal authority is.  

                The Nurse is another exemplar of a character that goes against and disobeys authority. She is clearly under the rule of Capulet and Lady Capulet however the Nurse disobeys them by aiding Juliet. If the Nurse was caught, she would have certainly been punished and dispatched by Capulet. However, in order to find a resolution for dear Juliet, she feels the need to undermine and step away from her authorities. By extension this dispels the notion that authority can truly work again. Although it can be argued that the Nurse is under the authority of Juliet, the Nurse also takes Capulet’s feelings into account. Her wavering between the two different authorities once again shows that authority is a mere idea from person to person and that authority amongst all constituents is seemingly impossible and that the variation of authority creates conflicts.

                Friar Laurence perhaps best displays the act of stepping away from authority in order to find solutions to chaos and conflict that authority has otherwise caused. The Friar is a holy man devoted to Church and God. However, the Friar clearly steps away from the Church and ultimately his supposed holy persona in more than one instance. The first instance of Friar Laurence stepping away from not only the authority of the Capulet and Montague household, but of the Church as well, is by marrying Romeo and Juliet. By doing so secretly, the Friar has undermined both families and committed a clearly unholy act. Despite having good intentions, the Friar is still stepping away from a greater authority in order to find a solution and this shows that authority is subjective and can vary based on situation. Once again, this dispels the notion that one true authority can ever exist.

                The second instance where Friar Laurence steps away from authority of the families and the church is when he devises the plan for Juliet to take the poison. Once again, this is an unholy act by the Friar in order to deceive both families and allow Romeo and Juliet to elope and live a secret married life. The magnitude of this deviation from the authority is much greater because the Friar has stepped away, not just from the families, but from the Church and even God to an extent, which can be considered rather blasphemous. The Friar is defying the very authority he believes in as a purpose for his life shows that deviating from authority is at times necessary. This then begs the question and pondering of whether authority is even necessary and again perhaps dispels any notion that an authority that works can ever be achieved.

As a result of the fallacies of each character’s authority, a large number of citizens die and suffer without finding any resolution. Instead of providing a sense of order and civility, this authority only provides conflict and chaos. None of the characters in Romeo and Juliet can properly use their authority without causing conflict or contributing to an existing conflict. The ineptitude of controlling such authority implicates that without it, perhaps conflict can be avoided. However the elimination of authority altogether would be unreasonable and chaos would still exist. Human nature itself leads citizens to strive for greatness and this can potentially be at the expense of another. This is the ultimate reasoning behind the introduction of authority. However through the play, it becomes strikingly clear that the mastering of authority and ability to use it in such a way to avoid conflict is just a mere romantic fantasy. Romeo and Juliet displays just how insidious authority can be. The concept of authority is an abstract idea that flirts with the idea of order and civility, despite it being nearly impossible to accomplish when there is a single entity with power over another less powerful citizen. There will always be those that choose to undermine or step away from authority to find resolution in their lives, as shown through the disobedient actions displayed in Romeo and Juliet.