Looking At The Fate Of Romeo And Juliet English Literature Essay

Looking At The Fate Of Romeo And Juliet English Literature Essay Romeo pronounces these words right after having mortally wounded Tybalt, guilty of having just killed Romeos friend Mercutio. In a fit of rage, Romeo takes his sword and attacks Tybalt ferociously, killing him. This is the climax of the play, that will change inevitably the destiny of the two star-crossed lovers. Romeo realizes what he has done, now he knows he has to pay the consequences of his deed, his already dangerous love for Juliet is going to cause a compulsive chain of tragic events, bringing the two lovers to certain death. He defines himself as a puppet of the unpredictable destiny. Even from the opening lines, the audience is informed about the tragedy that is going to affect the two protagonists, establishing fate as a theme at the foreground of the play. The idea that tragic circumstances were decided from birth for these two lovers is suggested: from forth the fatal loins (I.i.5). This line together with, a pair of star-crossed lovers take their life (I.i.6) explains to the audience that destiny was what first brought them together and is what will eventually separate them. The Choruss opening speech is continually echoed throughout the rest of the play by other characters making direct references to fate. As Susan Snyder states: tragedy can be seen as a ritual sacrifice, in which the protagonist is both hero and victim, [], separated from the ordinary, but destined for destruction.  [2]   Even though Romeo defines himself as helpless victim of his fortune, there is much evidence of the important roles that Romeo and Juliet have in shaping and, in many cases, worsening, their destiny. After a careful reading of the play we can state that it is not just a question of destiny. Romeo and Juliet would have been able to save their relationship simply by using more acuteness, composure and resolution. The choice of means confronting Romeo and Juliet is not confined to a single occasion, they are given a series opportunity of choice  [3]  , but unluckily they always seem to choose the wrong way in which to direct their story. Again we find a metaphor relating to the stars, as if Shakespeare has chosen these celestial bodies as symbols for the fatality that lies over the whole play. But here we find the first of Romeos mistakes, he takes a decision without thinking of the consequences: he has read the list of guests that are going to be at the feast and although he is informed about the presence of Capulets, Montagues arch-enemies, he decides to attend in any case. As already mentioned, Romeo kills Tybalt out of rage, even though he knows it makes things all the worse for his current situation with Tybalts cousin, Juliet; but a far more basic instinct, the desire of a man to avoid being thought a coward prevails and Romeo is driven to fight Tybalt. While Romeo lacks composure, Juliets flaw is impetuosity. During the balcony scene, Juliet hurries Romeo into marriage by constantly questioning his love for her and saying things like, If thy purpose marriage, send me word tomorrow (II.i.143-4). The Friars flaw, which in the end had a big effect on this tragedy, is to be too impulsive. He offers to marry Romeo and Juliet, even though he knows there is a huge conflict between the families, probably hoping that the marriage would have solved all the rivalries. Moreover, we must remember that it is the Friar who gives Juliet the potion for suspended animation, which aggravates things even more. Even though the protagonists share many fatal defects, lots of things happen to their misfortune that is not their fault. First of all, Romeo and Juliet shared the unfortunate fate that they were from feuding families, putting their relationship in jeopardy from the beginning. Juliet expresses well this idea in her soliloquy on the balcony: Whats in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other word would smell as sweet [] (II.i.86-87). A second strike of bad luck is the fact that the Capulets, being a typical upper-class traditionalist family, had arranged a marriage between Juliet and Paris, against the will of their daughter. The scene in which Romeo finds out about the feast is another twist of fate. The illiterate servant of Capulets was given the job of telling people about the party. Since he could not read, he was forced to ask two strangers to explain it to him. Those two people could have been anyone, but they just happened to be Romeo and Benvolio. Another ironic fact is that Romeo went to the party because he was madly in love with Rosaline. If Rosaline had been there, and she returned Romeos love, then all the following suffering would never have occurred. Romeo was completely in love with another woman going to the party, which he only found out about in the first place through an adverse stroke of luck. Another example of bad luck is that Romeo never received the letter of Friar Laurence informing him about his and Juliets scheme because of the plague in Mantua, the city where Romeo went to stay after his banishment from Verona. The letter must reach Romeo in time so that he knows of the arran gement between Juliet and the Friar, but the city has been put under quarantine because of a plague. So Romeo never receives the letter and he is left unaware of the plan between the Friar and Juliet: Again we find the concept of fortune. The Friar curses this fate, the unhappy fortune, aware that the story of the two lovers has probably came to an end. Romeo is told by Balthasar that Juliet has died: Her body sleeps in Capels monument, and her immortal part with angels lives (V.i.18-19). These events are the last straw and they will lead to the demise of both characters. Obviously the fate is closely related to the concept of time. Timing, in fact, played the largest role in deciding if they would live or die. Many scholars have defined it as the lovers enemy, which retards his pace when the lovers are separated and accelerates it when they are together:  [4]   O lamentable day! O woeful time! (IV.iv.57) In the balcony scene Juliet hurries because the Nurse is calling her; if Romeo had arrived a few minutes later at the tomb, the tragedy would not have happened; moreover, if the wedding of Juliet and Paris had not been brought forward from Thursday to Wednesday the letter would have had more time to reach Romeo in Mantua; if the Friar had entered the tomb earlier he could have explained the situation to Romeo and no harm would have happened to anyone. These are only a few examples of the negative and mysterious force that seems to control the happenings. We can definitely say that Romeo and Juliet is a crossing of fortuitous events, coincidences and personal responsibilities, all masterfully managed by fate and time. The love story did not have to begin, the two lovers were not meant to meet each other, son and daughter of rival families. They both knew this, but they could not accept it, their love was bigger than anything else. What if it was the temptation of the forbidden which increased their love? Two teenagers, two rebels living in a sexist society made of wedding vows and past rivalry. They preferred to risk, but risking is a matter of fate, a cruel fate which brought them to a certain death. As said by Cassius in Shakespeares Julius Caesar  [5]  , The fault, [à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦], is not in our stars but in ourselves (I.ii-139-40).

Knowledge Is Virtue Essay

We define knowledge as the state or fact of knowing, familiarity, awareness or understanding, gained through experience or study and virtue as the moral excellence and righteousness. All of us have knowledge but not all the knowledge we have is the same, same with virtue. All of us have virtue but not all is practicing it. All of us have knowledge because it is a gift from God that we can keep and share to others. Through knowledge, one is also given the knowledge of understanding one’s self and what surrounds him. One can be taught about life through knowledge. Having knowledge is also having the ability to know what is right and what is wrong. With knowledge we can also do change or improvements. For instance, the knowledge of sickness, the more we know about our sickness, the more we know that it can be cured and by that, life our life is improved. We can make improvements through knowledge physically and mentally. We can identify problems and find solutions because of knowledge, but these problems is not caused by knowledge itself but from the individuals’ use of knowledge. By having simple knowledge about these problems, it already creates vision of solutions. Knowledge is a virtue that we should know what is good for us. Virtue is something that is good or something that is right. If we have done something that is not right, for example, if the knowledge of power is used improperly, it is not because of the mere knowledge already. It is because of the emotions that caused him to do that. If that’s the case, he doesn’t possess virtue. Knowledge is like the other virtues that we should keep and be reminded of always. We should use it not to seek advantage over others but to share it and make them a better individual. Through knowledge, we know how to understand and we know how to act right. We just have to use knowledge justly so we will know about virtue. Thus, knowledge is the creation of virtue. Knowledge is virtue.

God of Small Things Quotes Essay

Extended metaphor: â€Å"Perhaps Ammu, Estha and she were the worst transgressors. But it wasn’t just them. They all broke the rules. They all crossed into forbidden territory. They all crossed into forbidden territory. They all tampered with the laws that lay down who should be loved and how. And how much. The laws that make grandmothers grandmothers, uncles uncles, mothers mothers, cousins cousins, jam jam, and jelly jelly. Rahel and Estha live in a society with very rigid class lines. â€Å"Commonly held view that a married daughter had no position in her parent’s home. As for a divorced daughter – according to Baby Kochamma, she had no position anywhere at all. And for a divorced daughter from a love marriage, well, words could not describe Baby Kochamma’s outrage†¦Ã¢â‚¬  â€Å"Chacko told the twins that, though he hated to admit it, they were all Anglophiles. They were a family of Anglophiles. Pointed in the wrong direction, trapped outside their own history and unable to retrace their steps because their footprints had been swept away† The concept of â€Å"Anglophilia† is a big one in this book, from the way everyone fawns over Sophie Mol, to Chacko’s cocky attitude about his Oxford degree, to the whole family’s obsession with The Sound of Music. But it’s pretty clear that the thing they love also holds them down. When Chacko says their footprints have been swept away, he is making a reference to the way members of the Untouchable caste have to sweep away their footprints so that people of higher classes don’t â€Å"pollute† themselves by walking in them. Even though by Indian standards their family is of a relatively high social status, they are of a low social status in relation to the British. Pappachi would not allow Paravans into the house. Nobody would. They were not allowed to touch anything that Touchables touched. Caste Hindus and Caste Christians. Mammachi told Estha and Rahel that she could remember a time, in her girlhood, when Paravans were expected to crawl backwards with a broom, sweeping away their footprints so that Brahmins or Syrian Christians would not defile themselves by accidentally stepping into a Paravan’s footprint. In Mammachi’s time, Paravans, like other Untouchables, were not allowed to walk on public roads, not allowed to cover their upper bodies, not allowed to carry umbrellas. They had to put their hands over their mouths when they spoke, to divert their polluted breath away from those whom they addressed. (2.270) This quote speaks volumes about the experience of the Untouchables, and it helps us appreciate the kinds of deeply ingrained attitudes that drive so much of the prejudice and hate we see in the novel. Then [Baby Kochamma] shuddered her schoolgirl shudder. That was when she said: How could she stand the smell? Haven’t you noticed? They have a particular smell, these Paravans. (13.129) Like Mammachi, Baby Kochamma has a heap of prejudices against other social classes, and these prejudices run deep. By disparaging Velutha out loud and saying that his smell must have been intolerable, she tries to show just how high class she is. Mammachi’s rage at the old one-eyed Paravan standing in the rain, drunk, dribbling and covered in mud was re-directed into a cold contempt for her daughter and what she had done. She thought of her naked, coupling in the mud with a man who was nothing but a filthy coolie. She imagined it in vivid detail: a Paravan’s coarse black hand on her daughter’s breast. His mouth on hers. His black hips jerking between her parted legs. The sound of their breathing. His particular Paravan smell. Like animals, Mammachi thought and nearly vomited. (13.131) Again, we see just how deeply Mammachi’s prejudices run. She doesn’t see Ammu and Velutha’s relationship as love between two people, as it might look to us. As far as she is concerned, it is as low as two animals going at it in the mud. The idea of a â€Å"coolie† (lower-class laborer) having sex with her daughter is so repulsive to Mammachi that it almost makes her puke. Still, to say that it all began when Sophie Mol came to Ayemenem is only one way of looking at it. Equally, it could be argued that it actually began thousands of years ago. Long before the Marxists came. Before the British took Malabar, before the Dutch Ascendancy, before Vasco da Gama arrived, before the Zamorin’s conquest of Calicut. Before three purple-robed Syrian bishops murdered by the Portuguese were found floating in the sea, with coiled sea serpents riding on their chests and oysters knotted in their tangled beards. It could be argued that it began long before Christianity arrived in a boat and seeped into Kerala like tea from a bag. That it really began in the days when the Love Laws were made. The laws that lay down who should be loved, and how. And how much. (1.207-210) This quote is full of what might seem like obscure references, but what it’s basically doing is pushing us to think about what caused everything to fall apart for Estha and Rahel. Did everything come crashing down because Sophie Mol came to Ayemenem? Or do the events of the novel happen as a result of decisions, actions, and rules that were made thousands of years before any of our characters were even born? Do things happen for a reason, because they’re part of this huge plan, or do they just happen because the world is fickle like that? [Estha] knew that if Ammu found out about what he had done with the Orangedrink Lemondrink Man, she’d love him less as well. Very much less. He felt the shaming churning heaving turning sickness in his stomach. (4.245) We can be pretty sure that if Ammu ever found out that Estha was molested, she wouldn’t be upset with him. She’d be unbelievably angry at the Orangedrink Lemondrink Man, but she would never actually blame Estha. Yet, in Estha’s mind, what happened to him is his fault, and he carries it around as his shame Ammu touched her daughter gently. On her shoulder. And her touch meant Shhhh†¦.Rahel looked around her and saw she was in a Play. But she had only a small part. She was just the landscape. A flower perhaps. Or a tree. A face in the crowd. A Townspeople. (8.48-50) This moment turns the way Rahel understands her role at home upside-down. All of a sudden, things are totally different than they usually are. Rahel’s realization that they’re in a â€Å"play† shows us that everyone here is playing a part to some extent – they aren’t being themselves. Sophie Mol’s arrival topples over Rahel’s reality; she goes from being one of the leads to being the â€Å"nobody† in the background. Now, all these years later, Rahel has a memory of waking up one night giggling at Estha’s funny dream. She has other memories too that she has no right to have. She remembers, for instance (though she hadn’t been there), what the Orangedrink Lemondrink Man did to Estha in Abhilash Talkies. She remembers the taste of the tomato sandwiches – Estha’s sandwiches, that Estha ate – on the Madras Mail to Madras. (1.10-12) Rahel’s ability to remember things that happened to Estha and not her tells us a lot about their joint identity and how profoundly she understands him.

The Novel The Killer Angels By Michael Shaara

From April 12, 1861 to April 9, 1865 the United States of America was at a war unlike any other in its history; a war against itself. This civil war was fought between the North, known as the Union and the South, known as the Confederacy. Its most memorable battle was the Battle of Gettysburg, the bloodiest and most costly of our nation s history. The attitudes of the Northern leaders and the Southern leaders during the Civil War were both distinct and comparable. Michael Shaara captures the disparate and related attitudes of the Union and the Confederacy in his book, The Killer Angels. The Union and the Confederacy fought for opposing ideas and had contrasting thoughts on the true source of the war, the North had better morale. As a†¦show more content†¦Confederate, Jim Kemper, Major General of the 7th Virginia Infantry, discussed what the war was really about when speaking to Fremantle, an English visitor. Kemper solidified, â€Å"what we are fighting for is our freedom f rom the rule of what is to us a foreign government. That’s all we want and that’s what this war is all about. We established this country in the first place with strong state governments just for that reason, to avoid a central tyranny-† (page 65). Kemper reveals that the war is not about slavery, for it is a mere detail, but instead about people who want to be relieved of United States control so they may govern as they see fit and be comfortable under the government which rules them. In contrast, Tom Chamberlain expressed his views on what the Confederacy said about the influence of the war. Chamberlain believed the war was about slavery and he asserted, â€Å" I don’t care how much political fast-talking you hear, that’s what it’s all about and that’s what them fellers died for, and I tell you, Lawrence, I don’t understand it at all.† (page 343). As many others in the Union, Chamberlain s attitude is that the war is on ly about slavery. Those in the Union were perturbed that soldiers in the Confederacy would kill for something as cruel as slavery. Overall, Michael Shaara conveyed the attitudes of war leaders towards the influence of the Civil War in his writings of the Battle of Gettysburg. Northern and Southern officers of