Skip to main content

What are three reasons that the Prince's response to Tybalt's death is fair or unfair?

In Act III, Scene 1, both Mercutio and Tybalt are killed in a street fight. Mercutio is stabbed by Tybalt while Romeo is attempting to break up the fight. Once Mercutio dies, Tybalt, who had run away, inexplicably returns to the scene where he is promptly challenged and killed by the grieving Romeo. When the Prince arrives, he listens to Benvolio, who had been a witness to the violence, give an account of the fight....

In Act III, Scene 1, both Mercutio and Tybalt are killed in a street fight. Mercutio is stabbed by Tybalt while Romeo is attempting to break up the fight. Once Mercutio dies, Tybalt, who had run away, inexplicably returns to the scene where he is promptly challenged and killed by the grieving Romeo. When the Prince arrives, he listens to Benvolio, who had been a witness to the violence, give an account of the fight. Benvolio explains truthfully, although Lady Capulet says he is lying. Her version, however, is actually full of lies, claiming that the Montagues had ganged up on Tybalt. She demands the death penalty for Romeo. The Prince listens and his judgement is that Romeo should be banished from Verona. This verdict is unacceptable to Lady Capulet because earlier in the play the Prince had decreed that the penalty for fighting in the streets would be death, with no exceptions.


The Prince's decision is fair for three reasons. First, Tybalt instigated the fight by challenging Romeo and then insulting him by calling him a "villain." Second, even though Mercutio's death was somewhat of an accident, Tybalt was responsible and should have received the Prince's penalty of death. Third, because Tybalt returned to the scene, it is fair to believe that Romeo was simply defending himself against a man who had earlier threatened him.


One might also argue that the Prince's decision was unfair. One argument (Lady Capulet's) might claim that Romeo should suffer the death penalty because that was the law and Romeo should have understood that fighting in the street would bring the harshest judgement. Another argument that Romeo should face the death penalty is that Romeo was actually at fault for Mercutio's death as well as Tybalt's. Romeo should have initially fought his own battle and not allowed his friend to take his place. Romeo even admits this just before Tybalt returns:





This gentleman, the Prince’s near ally,
My very friend, hath got this mortal hurt
In my behalf. My reputation stained
With Tybalt’s slander—Tybalt, that an hour
Hath been my cousin! O sweet Juliet,
Thy beauty hath made me effeminate
And in my temper softened valor’s steel.





Another way to look at the decision would be to argue that even banishment was totally unfair to Romeo. After all, he did all he could to attempt to stop the fighting between Tybalt and Mercutio. He backed down to Tybalt and even told Tybalt that he loved him. When Mercutio was stabbed, Romeo was only trying to break things up. Tybalt was at fault for virtually everything that happened, and Romeo was only reacting to the shock of seeing his best friend dead.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the meaning of "juggling fiends" in Macbeth?

Macbeth is beginning to realize that the three witches have been deceiving him since he first encountered them. Like jugglers, they have kept changing their forecasts in order create confusion. This is particularly apparent when the Second Apparition they raise in Act IV,   Scene 1 tells him that no man of woman born can overcome him in hand-to-hand battle--and then Macbeth finds himself confronted by the one man he has been avoiding out of a... Macbeth is beginning to realize that the three witches have been deceiving him since he first encountered them. Like jugglers, they have kept changing their forecasts in order create confusion. This is particularly apparent when the Second Apparition they raise in Act IV,   Scene 1 tells him that no man of woman born can overcome him in hand-to-hand battle--and then Macbeth finds himself confronted by the one man he has been avoiding out of a sense of guilt, and that man tells him: Despair thy charm. And let the angel whom thou still hast serve...
Post a Comment
Read more

What are some external and internal conflicts that Montag has in Fahrenheit 451?

 Montag, the protagonist of Fahrenheit 451, faces both external and internal conflicts throughout the novel. Some examples of these conflicts are: External Conflicts: Conflict with the society: Montag lives in a society that prohibits books and critical thinking. He faces opposition from the government and the people who enforce this law. Montag struggles to come to terms with the fact that his society is based on censorship and control. Conflict with his wife: Montag's wife, Mildred, is completely absorbed in the shallow and meaningless entertainment provided by the government. Montag's growing dissatisfaction with his marriage adds to his external conflict. Conflict with the fire captain: Montag's superior, Captain Beatty, is the personification of the oppressive regime that Montag is fighting against. Montag's struggle against Beatty represents his external conflict with the government. Internal Conflicts: Conflict with his own beliefs: Montag, at the beginning of th...
Post a Comment
Read more

In A People's History of the United States, why does Howard Zinn feel that Wilson made a flimsy argument for entering World War I?

"War is the health of the state," the radical writer Randolph Bourne said, in the midst of the First World War. Indeed, as the nations of Europe went to war in 1914, the governments flourished, patriotism bloomed, class struggle was stilled, and young men died in frightful numbers on the battlefields-often for a hundred yards of land, a line of trenches. -- Chapter 14, Page 350, A People's History of the United States Howard Zinn outlines his arguments for why World War I was fought in the opening paragraph of Chapter 14 (referenced above). The nationalism that was created by the Great War benefited the elite political and financial leadership of the various countries involved. Socialism, which was gaining momentum in Europe, as was class struggle, took a backseat to mobilizing for war. Zinn believes that World War I was fought for the gain of the industrial capitalists of Europe in a competition for capital and resources. He states that humanity itself was punished by t...
Post a Comment
Read more