The Soliloquy of Friar Lawrence

1

Quinones

Layla Quinones

July 20, 2009

ENG 266.7500

Dr. Silva

Research Paper

The Soliloquy of Friar Lawrence

At the start of the third scene in the second act of William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, Friar Lawrence is introduced with a soliloquy about plants and their inner qualities. This speechalso offers the audience a sense of the paradoxical themes that are constantly present within the play. Despite the fact that it is so brief, it essentially “affords us a good instance of how much a philosophical notion can be viewed as an indirect, yet integral, summation of the tragedy” ( Freeman 44). With a close analysis of this particular speech, one can infer that Friar Lawrence is not only foreshadowing the destiny of Romeo and Juliet, but is also informing the audience about the outcome of the entire play. Due to its ambiguous nature, this speech identifies the paradoxical themes of love versus hate, and good versus bad that exist simultaneously. It also explains how these themes play a substantial role in the outcome of the two lovers.

Friar Lawrence begins his soliloquy with figurative language that vividly describes the dawn of a new day. The Friar is introduced to the play when he states: “The grey-eyed morn smiles on the frowning night; / Check’ring the eastern clouds with streaks of light, / And flecked darkness like a drunkard reels/ From forth day’s path and Titans fiery wheels” (2.3.1-4). With crafty use of figurative language in reference to Greek mythology, Friar Lawrence is giving the reader a vivid sense of what dawn may look like. The ancient Greeks considered Titan to be the sun god who rode on a chariot that represented the sun (Shakespeare 120). In Homer’s The Odyssey, the ancient Greek goddess of war, Athena, is referred to as “grey-eyed” (240). With this perspective, one can infer that Friar Lawrence is figuratively explaining how the “frowning night” is chased away by the light of day.

An additional interpretation to this section of Friar Lawrence’s soliloquy is that he employs his figurative language to metaphorically describe the love that Romeo and Juliet have for one another. In relation to the balcony scene prior to the Friar’s introduction, Romeo figuratively refers to Juliet as the sun by illustrating that “It is the East and Juliet is the sun” (2.2.3). Friar Lawrence himself refers to Juliet as the sun later on in the scene when he reveals to Romeo that she can clear away Romeo’s sighs with her love (2.3.77). In light of these analogies, the reader can infer that this soliloquy describes Juliet as the sun who chases away the “frowning night,” or sadness, that Romeo experiences prior to meeting her. In addition, since the goddess Athena is also the goddess of war and the Friar figuratively refers to her “grey eyes”; he may also be referring to the emergence of love as the beginning of conflicts that will occur during the play. These two interpretations of the same passage introduce the paradoxical and ambiguous theme of love and hate that is present throughout the entire play, as well as in the Friar’s speech.

Friar Lawrence continues his speech as he unveils his interest in the chemistry of natural substances, his interest in human nature, and the role he would assume during the play. He continues “Now, ere the sun advance his burning eye, / The day to cheer and nights dank dew to dry, / I must upfill this osier cage of ours/ With baleful weeds and precious-juiced flowers” (2. 3. 5-8). The Friar once again refers to the sun, or Juliet, as a force that “cheers” up the night, or Romeo’s sadness. Incidentally, he also uses the key word “I” which directly links him into the metaphor that he is describing. Robert O. Evans emphasizes that the osier cage stands as a metaphor for all the events that are conveniently woven together, and occur at just the right time in order to lead to the final catastrophe (66-67). With this in mind, the Friar is hinting at the fact that he will eventually need to take action and interfere, in a devious manner, with the relationships between the Monetgues and Capulets (46). Moreover, by emphasizing “baleful weeds and precious-juiced flowers,” the Friar is again indicating the paradoxical theme of good and bad that is concurrent during the play.

The paradox of good and bad is also evident in the continuing quatrain of the Friar’s soliloquy. He proposes that “The earth that’s nature’s mother is her tomb; / What is her burying grave, that is her womb; / And from her womb children of divers kind/ We sucking on her natural bosom find, / Many for many virtues excellent, / None but for some, yet all different” (2. 3. 9-14). Following this further, the Friar identifies how nature functions in contradicting ways when pertaining to life and death. Philip Williams declares that the paradox of earth being both “womb” and “tomb” for nature“suggests the concept that nothing is created without purpose” (401). He also agrees that within this purpose both negative and positive qualities may exist at one time (401). MacKenzie offers that “the sense of entombment benignly fruitful in this instance, provides a necessary source of life or, more precisely, 'life in death'” (35). These ideas complement the paradox as well as the use of potions and poisons by Romeo and Juliet later on in the play.

Although Juliet takes an elixir given to her by the Friar to fake her death, she does so with the good intention that she will then be able to live a clean and faithful life with her husband. Despite her good intentions, her actions cause the death of her husband and therefore instigate her own suicide. In the same way this method could have allowed her to be reborn and live a new life with her husband, instead it became the method that brought her to her “tomb.” In light of the paradox of good and bad, “the sacrificial death of the young is [also] what it takes to reconcile the elders and bring healing and regeneration to the community”(Freeman 45). Hence, by mending the relationship between Montegues and Capulets, the deaths of Romeo and Juliet, an essentially negative outcome, proves to have a positive function.

An additional interpretation of this quatrain can be given to explain how the Friar is actually indirectly addressing the role that he plays in the death of the young lovers. His intention for marrying Romeo and Juliet is of the utmost good; however, this action turned out to initiate a string of negative events. He also has good intentions for the young couple when he chooses to give Juliet an elixir to fake her death; however, his plan backfires and causes the death of the young couple. Despite the good intentions that the Friar has in mind, his actions essentially cause the catastrophe at the end of the play.

In the next piece of his speech, the Friar connects the paradoxical theme he associates with earth in the latter quatrain to human nature. He describes:

“O, mickle is the powerful grace that lies

In plants herbs and their true qualities.

For naught so vile that on the earth doth live

But to the earth some special good doth give;

Nor aught so good, but strained from that fair use,

Revolts from true birth, stumbling on abuse.

Virtue itself turns into vice, being misapplied,

And vice sometime by action dignified” (2.3.14-20).

The Friar first explains how there are great healing powers hidden in some of earth's natural resources and continues to go in depth about those good qualities. However, he also emphasizesthat if those good qualities are “abused” they will “revolt from true birth” and prove to initiate negative outcomes. On the other hand, if resources with dangerous qualities are used for good, those negative qualities can create positive outcomes. The Friar accordingly concludes that“virtue itself turns into vice, being misapplied.” In other words, good can turn bad if used for the wrong reasons. This paradigm also works for bad things that may prove to have a positive outcome when used for good reasons; therefore negative actions are then “dignified.”

Other than exploring the good and bad qualities of natural resources and human action, this particular piece corresponds to many of the events that occur during the play. Specifically, this excerpt complements the actions of Friar Lawrence when he helps Romeo and Juliet. He hasgreat intentions when marrying the young lovers however, this innocent act essentially leads to the destruction of their lives. Juliet and the Friar also have good intentions when scheming to fake her death. After recovering from her slumber, Juliet hopes to fulfill “physical rebirth after physical death” (MacKenzie 35). Yet, due to the fact that the potion is used in such a secretive and devious fashion, it ultimately leads to the death of Romeo followed by Juliet. Furthermore, Romeo uses the poison that he bought to reunite himself with his love in the afterlife; however, since Juliet is not actually dead, he kills himself in vain. It is precisely in this situation that “virtue turns into vice, being misapplied” (2.3.21).

The paradox of good and bad continues when Juliet kills herself in order to rightfully reunite herself with her lover. As C.G. MacKenzie stresses, “death becomes part of the solution to her problem, the means through which she will attain new life...[in effect achieving] spiritual life emerging from physical death” (34). Additionally, the fact that Romeo and Juliet killed themselves for pure love proves the paradox that something so good can be “reasonable for many persons’ deaths, and a thing as bad as death accomplishes the good effect of removing the parents’ hatred and bringing them together in sympathetic understanding” (Bowling 209). Hence, the peace between Capulets and Montegues results from both Romeo’s and Juliet's suicides. In this sense, “vice sometime by action dignified” (2.3.22).

The following lines of the Friar’s speech integrate his figurative meanings about plants with his interpretation of human nature. He elaborates on the qualities of a small flower: “Within this infant rind of this weak flower/ Poison hath resistance and medicine power:/ For this, being smelt with that part cheers each part; / Being tasted, stays all senses with the heart” (2.3.23-27). Literally, the Friar elucidates the dual properties of a plant that can be used for medical purposes if smelled; however, this same plant may as well be considered dangerous if abused to the extent that someone ingests it. David Freeman suggests that Friar Lawrence “dilates upon a flower whose twin properties of medicine and poison emblematize...the dual nature of man" (43). Indeed, by explaining the double qualities of a plant, the Friar emphasizes the double qualities in human beings that make them capable of acting good as well as bad. On the other hand, MacKenzie gives that "a single entity, in this case a flower, may harbor the potential for both ecstatic life and tragic death [and also] predicts the concoction Friar Lawrence will later offer to Juliet" (35). Ambiguously, this selection of Friar Lawrence’s soliloquy prepares the audience for what will soon occur in the play.

The Friar then elaborates on his association of the dual nature of humans and the dual nature of plants: “Two such apposed kings encamp them still/ In man as well as herbs–grace and rude will; / And where the worser is predominant, / Full soon the canker death eats up the plant” (2.3.28-31). According to Freeman, “human love is an earthly reflection of the divine dispensation of grace...[and]…individual human will is the mental faculty responsible for acts of intent ('rude will' will lead to violent acts)” (44). With this in mind, “grace and rude will” can accurately be associated with love and hate, which are major ongoing paradoxical themes within the play. For example, “grace”continues to be a constant presence in the play with the love between Romeo and Juliet; however, the Friar also asserts that “rude will” between Montigues and Capulets isconstant with the hate they possess for each other. Thus Romeo and Juliet found themselves “loving where they should be hating and hating where they should be loving” (Bowling 211).For this reason “two apposed kings encamp them still; in other words, Capulets and Montegues both possess “grace and rude will” for one another, therefore completing the paradox of love and hate.

Philip Williams holds that “the nature of this flower [that] seems analogous to the nature of man”also points to the final catastrophe (401). Recalling what C.G. MacKenzie stated about a single force having the potential to give life or cause death, he also asserts that this analogy suggests “bringing about [Juliet's] 'death' will allow her joyous reunion with Romeo,” leading to a new life (35). In essence, this assertion effectively predicts what will occur at the end of the play where “canker,” or love and hate existing at the same time, “eats up the plant.” Figuratively speaking, the Friar explains that in the end love and hate will be the force that drives Romeo and Juliet to their fate.Additionally, the Friar identifies that this occurs where the “worser is predominant,” meaning that the hate for the Montegues at the end of the play is strong enough to lead to the death of the two young lovers. The Capulets insist that Romeo be killed, causing him to be exiled and therefore misinformed about the death of Juliet. This misinformation causes him to kill himself and, as a result, causes Juliet to commit suicide as well.

Friar Lawrence’s soliloquy in the beginning of 2.3 is fundamentally a foreshadowing of the fate that the two young lovers, Romeo and Juliet, will endure. With his crafty use of metaphors and figurative language, the Friar is able to ambiguously inform the audience about the themes that occur in the play as well as the general outcome of the play itself. Friar Lawrence gives the audience an effective metaphor using the dual nature of a plant to illustrate the dual nature of human intention, as well as the variable outcomes of certain actions. Essentially, the implication Friar Lawrence is trying to convey to the audience is that “a particular thing or action may be either good or bad, depending upon the relative situation and its outcome” (Bowling 210). Thus, that paradoxical nature of good and bad eventually allowsthe final devastation and peace to occur simultaneously.

Works Cited

Bowling, Lawrence Edward. “The Thematic Framework of ‘Romeo and Juliet’.” PMLA, Vol. 64, No. 1 (Mar., 1949). 208-220. Modern Language Association. 20, July. 2009. <

Evans, Robert O. The Osier Cage: Rhetorical Devices in Romeo and Juliet. Lexington: University Kentucky Press. 1966.

Freeman, David. “Shakespeare and Philosophy.”Seminar of Philosophy and Culture and Axiology. University of Iasi. (May 2005). 19, July.2009.

Homer, John William Mackail. The Odyssey. J.Murry, 1905. Vol. 2. The University of California. (Oct. 2007).

MacKenzie, Clayton G. "Love, sex and death in Romeo and Juliet." English Studies 88.1 (Feb. 2007): 22-42. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Lagcc. N.Y.C, NY. 23 July 2009. <

Shakespeare, William. Romeo and Juliet. Ed. Barbara A. Mowat and Paul Werstine. Folger Shakespear Library. 1992. 2.3.1-31

Williams, Philip. “The Rosemary Theme in Romeo and Juliet.” Modern Language Notes. Vol. 68, No. 6. (Jun., 1953). 400-403. The JohnHopkinsUniversity Press. 20, July. 2009.

.