“All things that we ordained festival / Turn from their office to black funeral: / Our instruments to melancholy bells, / Our wedding cheer to a sad burial feast, / Our solemn hymns to sullen dirges change” (IV.5.84-88). This proclamation by Capulet, upon Juliet’s death, serves well to illustrate an important aspect of Romeo and Juliet; this play is neither a strict comedy, nor an absolute tragedy; this play is, rather, a fusion of both genres, with the comic movement of the first two acts turned to tragedy in Act III, Scene 1 with the deaths of Mercutio and Tybalt. In her article “Beyond Comedy: Romeo and Juliet”, Susan Snyder makes this point by asserting, “In the early play a well-developed comic movement is diverted into tragedy by mischance” (Snyder 171); Snyder’s assertion is dead-on in this regard, as, with the deaths of Mercutio and Tybalt, Romeo and Juliet makes an abrupt turn from comedy to tragedy. While this statement is an excellent observation of this hybrid genre which Shakespeare has presented, Snyder’s further claim that, following the death of Mercutio at the hands of Tybalt, “Romeo’s future is now determined: he must kill Tybalt, he must run away” (Snyder 178) is inaccurate, as Romeo makes his own choice in this matter, and, in doing so, seals his own fate.
Romeo and Juliet begins as a comedy, then later moves to tragedy. As Snyder tells us of this hybrid subgenre of “Italianate tragedy of love and intrigue” (Snyder 171), “its sources are typically novelle rather than well-known histories, its heroes are of lesser rank [than in tragedy], its situations are private rather than public, its main force is love” (Snyder 171). All of these criteria are filled in Romeo and Juliet, as its source is indeed novelle, while the characters, while nobles, are not kings, queens, or even princes; both the feud and the relationship of Romeo and Juliet are private matters, and the driving force behind the play is obviously love. In comedy, the rigid laws that govern a given society are proven to be changeable; “It renders impotent the imperatives of time” (Snyder 173). We find this to be the case in Romeo and Juliet, as the law, in this case the feud between Montagues and Capulets, is set up to be changed in the beginning, as the marriage of Romeo to Juliet is expected to ease the already waning tensions between the two families. This is, in fact, the entire reason Friar Laurence agrees to marry the two, as a means toward ending the feud; still thinking Romeo to be in love with Rosaline, the Friar reacts with surprise to Romeo’s request to be married to Juliet, but agrees immediately to perform the ceremony, “For this alliance may so happy prove / To turn your households’ rancor to pure love” (II.4.91-92).
Further, “the feud functions in Romeo very much as the various legal restraints do in Shakespearean comedy” (Snyder 175), as it gives the play its rigid law, or social restriction, which appears on its way to being eased up until Act III, Scene 1’s “shift” into tragedy, which cements it irrevocably in place. If this were a true comedy, the couple would eventually be married, and the feud ended; since this is not pure comedy, however, events proceed in the opposite direction. All is going well until Tybalt kills Mercutio, beneath the arm of separating Romeo, at which point the feud, apparently on the verge of being completely absolved by everyone save for Tybalt, is returned to the forefront. Here we have probably the most important moment in the play, as Romeo is forced to make the most important choice of his life; he can kill Tybalt, avenging his friend’s murder while plunging both families back into the bloody feud and creating considerable difficulties for himself and his future bride, or simply drop it: have Tybalt, the only one set on continuing the feud, arrested, punished, and out of the way, and marry Juliet, most likely ending the feud, and allowing them to live together in Verona, happily and legally.
As we know, Romeo chooses the former solution, thereby getting himself banished and turning Romeo and Juliet in a truly tragic direction. As Snyder states, “helplessness is the most striking feature of the second, tragic world of Romeo…Under pressure of events, the feud turns from farce to fate; tit for tat becomes blood for blood” (Snyder 178). The feud is now cemented as Romeo kills Tybalt in retribution; following with the tenets of tragedy, “tragic law cannot be altered, and tragic time cannot be suspended” (Snyder 173); just as important is the fact that, in a tragedy, events are irrevocable, in that “they will never happen again, and one by one they move the hero closer to the end of his own personal time” (Snyder 173). This is certainly the case here, as the progression hereon moves steadily downhill for the young lovers up until their eventual deaths. Romeo kills Tybalt, resulting in both his banishment and Capulet’s decision to marry Juliet to Paris. These events cause Juliet to follow Friar Laurence’s plan, which leaves Romeo thinking Juliet dead, for which reason he commits suicide, which causes the awakened Juliet to do the same; we have here a truly tragic chain of events, leading to a truly tragic ending, in which the young generation is decimated, and only the old are left. Romeo and Juliet are both dead, as are Tybalt and Mercutio, and Paris, and Benvolio has completely disappeared; we are left with only Montague, Capulet and his wife, Friar Laurence, and a few others, all of the older generation.
As Snyder points out, while there are two distinct genres at work in Romeo and Juliet, this does not signify any sort of disharmony, or obvious separation, between the two; “we are aware of premonitions of disaster before the death of Mercutio, and hopes for avoiding it continue until near the end of the play” (Snyder 180). Snyder’s assertions regarding the presence of both comedy and tragedy in Romeo and Juliet are absolutely valid; her claim, however, that, “Romeo’s future is now determined: he must kill Tybalt, he must run away” is both presumptuous and inaccurate. At this juncture, as mentioned earlier in this essay, Romeo is presented with a choice. He can kill Tybalt, sending events in a tragic direction, or he can let Tybalt live, to be punished by the Prince, enabling events to proceed in a much more favorable one. Which course is chosen is irrelevant here, as what matters is that he did have a choice regarding his actions, and, given this choice, he acted impulsively and immaturely, sealing his fate. The tragedy here, while definitely exacerbated from without, comes truly from within Romeo, as, while Mercutio’s death alone may not have been irrevocable, Tybalt’s truly is, and it is his death from which all subsequent tragedy stems.
“For never was a story of more woe / than this of Juliet and her Romeo” (V.3.310). The tragic ending of this play is summed up perfectly by the Prince in its final lines, and it has been made all the more tragic by the fact that events were moving in such a positive direction in the first, comedic, half of the play. Romeo and Juliet functions as a comedy in its first two acts, with characters of a “lower” nature, love as a main force, and an almost certain marriage looming in the near future. With the death of Mercutio, precipitating that of Tybalt, the sequence of events proceeds in a tragic direction, leading to a truly tragic ending, with the younger generation gone, and only the old remaining. Susan Snyder’s assertions regarding this aspect of the play are both accurate and relevant, save for her claim that Romeo is left with no choice but to kill Tybalt in revenge for Mercutio’s death. Romeo’s choice is just that, a choice between two possible courses of action; it is Romeo’s decision to kill Tybalt that initiates the chain of tragic events which lead ultimately to his, and Juliet’s, deaths. The true tragedy is that Romeo abandoned his calm temperament just when it really could have made a difference; he couldn’t save Mercutio, but be could have saved himself and Juliet if only he hadn’t acted so rashly.
