To What Extent Is Romeo Fortune's Fool in Act 3

708 Words3 Pages
To what extent is Romeo fortune’s fool in Act 3, Scene 1 of Romeo and Juliet In this essay I am going to include both sides of the argument of debating whether Romeo is Fortune’s fool in Act 3, Scene 1 of the play, Romeo and Juliet. On the one hand, Romeo could be seen as fortunes fool, which translates to meaning, victim of bad luck. Romeo could be seen to accurately describe himself as `Fortune's fool'. There are numerous incidents within the play where we see the truth in this statement. From the very start of the play when Romeo falls in love with Juliet to just hours before he dies, his life is fraught with misfortune. Some people may disagree with me and argue the point that there is no such thing as bad luck, and you yourself determine what is going to happen in your life. Romeo has to be able to control himself when bad things get in the way of his path. Romeo should have been able to control his own emotions and calm himself even slightly from when his best friend, Mercutio passed away. This, hopefully would have resulted in him not killing Tybalt. People could argue that Romeo only killed Tybalt simply because of his bad temper. A reason to support the view stating Romeo is fortunes fool and this bad act was destined to happen is the fact that Romeo is a Montague and Tybalt is a Capulet. This shows us that Romeo was born into bad luck, as both the families had always been rivals. Romeo and Tybalt are unable to prevent being born into these families, stating Romeo and Tybalt only fought considering that they were both born into families which had forever been enemies making Romeo bound to have killed Tybalt, or death could have easily occurred the other way round. Never the less, some people may still argue that Romeo isn’t fortunes fool, Romeo should have been more mature about the situation and gone around this a different
Open Document