The Prologue of the play immediately introduces the theme of conflict and informs the audience of the fate of the ‘star-crossed’ lovers who are to ‘take their life.’ It is through this ‘window’ of information that the audience are now to view each major event of the play, ensuring that a sense of dramatic irony permeates the journey towards death made by the young protagonists. The sonnet form of the Prologue, with the control and structure brought by Shakespeare’s use of iambic pentameter, supports this sense of the inevitable, as if the fate of the two families is as controlled – fated – as the rhythm of the Prologue that foretells of it.
The theme of conflict is established when we are told that the two families ‘From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,’ showing that this conflict, whilst old, may have been for a time somewhat dormant as it was a ‘grudge;’ however the idea of ‘new mutiny’ tells us that this resentment is to be stirred into action in the course of the play to the point where ‘civil blood’ will be shed. The promise of bloodshed forebodes physical conflict and, as we already understand, death. The Prologue also informs the audience that it is death – the final act of conflict – that will finally ‘bury their parents’ strife,’ with the irony of ‘bury’ in this line not being lost on the audience of the time, as only the burials of the lovers and the destruction of their love will end the dissension between the two ‘noble’ families. It is clear here that the play will explore emotional conflict as well, as the adjectival phrase, ‘death-marked love,’ introduces the juxtaposition which accompanies the story of the lovers to the last scene. The Prologue ensures that the audience is prepared for the various conflicts which are to develop during the course of the play.
Act 1 Scene 1 opens with an immediate sense of conflict, as Samson and Gregory, servants of the Capulets, discuss hatred of the house of Montague: masters, women and servants alike. Despite being a man slow to anger, Samson tells his friend that ‘A dog of the house of Montague moves me,’ with the insulting noun ‘dog’ revealing the level of animosity between the two families as Samson, himself a servant, ironically refers to the ‘opposition’ as being lower than he is himself. Samson’s language becomes increasingly violent in this discussion with Gregory, and he continues to say ‘I will show myself a tyrant. When I have fought with the men, I will be civil with the maids. I will cut off their heads,’ suggesting that this ‘treatment’ would be a generous way to treat the maidservants of the enemy’s house. A pun allows Samson to make an implication of sexual violence when he goes on to say ‘Ay, the heads of the maids, or their maidenheads’ with the suggestion of rape here. At this early stage in the play, the Elizabethan audience would certainly have known that the play they were about to enjoy was likely to present the conflict between these two families in exciting and perhaps shocking ways.
On sighting members of the Montague household approaching them on the street, Sampson’s immediate reaction is to wield his sword and to encourage Gregory to start a fight with them: ‘My naked weapon is out. Quarrel! I will back thee.’ The imperative here shows how readily Gregory is prepared to enter into physical conflict with his enemies, although the men soon find another way to incite violence without breaking the law by using a physical gesture (the biting of his thumb) to insult them instead and remain within the law.
The argument between the servants soon escalates as Tybalt misinterprets Benvolio’s attempt to pacify the situation, challenging him with ‘What, art thou drawn among these heartless hinds? Turn thee, Benvolio. Look upon thy death.’ Writing in iambic pentameter once more here, Shakespeare uses the organised structure of language to support the sense of control and power brought to the scene by these characters who quickly escalate their shared anger to the threat of violence. The theme of emotional, verbal and physical conflict is established here and is, perhaps, Shakespeare’s way of informing the audience of what is to come during the course of the play.
Conscious of the law against violent disorder, the men decide to challenge the Montague servants with a physical insult as Samson says ‘I will bite my thumb at them, which is a disgrace to them,’ knowing that they would be humiliated if they did not respond to this, thus breaking the law themselves. In Elizabethan times, violent crimes were often met with violent punishments, even execution, and perhaps Shakespeare wanted his audience to reflect upon this when enjoying the opening scene of the play in order to add to their excitement. As the verbal conflict becomes physical, the tense situation escalates with the entrance of Benvolio and Tybalt, who are soon fighting themselves, with Tybalt having told Benvolio ‘I hate the word’ peace. The juxtaposition of the words ‘peace’ and ‘hate’ reveal the depths of the conflict between the representatives of the two families in the play, and perhaps sets up the binary opposites that appear throughout the play through the ever-presence of love and hate, peace and conflict. Finally, the violence spreads with the introduction of the citizens of Verona, Capulet and Montague to the stage as the scene becomes one of a street brawl. The entrance of the Prince brings the warning of death, should the conflict be repeated, and a sense of foreshadowing that reminds the audience of the message of the Prologue.
Leaving the violent scene, Benvolio is sent to find Romeo who is experiencing his own, inner conflict through his unrequited love for Rosaline. Through a lexical set of binary opposites, Romeo shares his personal turmoil with his cousin: ‘Feather of lead, bright smoke, cold fire, sick health, Still-waking sleep, that is not what it is.’ These images represent the emotional and physical disquiet and confusion from which Romeo suffers, and also allows the audience to realise just how immature he is – and how passionately he experiences love – as will be compounded by the protagonist’s swift conversion to the love of Juliet a little later in the play.
The theme of conflict returns in Act 1 Scene 5 against the backdrop of Capulet’s masked ball. Having spotted Romeo at the party, Juliet’s fiery cousin Tybalt clashes with his uncle, Capulet, in an argument over whether or not to challenge the uninvited Montagues. Tybalt, having been asked to curb his anger, responds with ‘It fits when such a villain is a guest. I’ll not endure him.’ Once more, the constant undercurrent of violence is to be perceived and is accompanied by a hot clash between the uncle and nephew with Capulet warning him ‘He shall be endured….You’ll make a mutiny among my guests. You will set cock-a-hoop. You’ll be the man!’ At this point, perhaps Shakespeare wanted to let his audience know how easily the ever-present threat of violence could spill over into something out of control and fatal, as Capulet warns Tybalt that chaos will ensue among the guests if he challenges Romeo for being there. Through real dramatic irony, it follows that this familial conflict is to be the backdrop of the love and passion that quickly grows between the play’s protagonists.
Having finally met Juliet at the ball, and on learning that she is, in fact, the daughter of Capulet, Romeo finds himself faced with fresh emotional conflict: ‘Is she a Capulet? O dear account! My life is my foe’s debt.’ Shakespeare uses an ‘aside’ here, in order for the audience to share the agitated thoughts of Romeo, who realises that his death is what is sought by the young men of the Capulet family. Then, in response to Benvolio’s pleas for him to join his departing friends and leave the party, Romeo continues with, ‘Ay, so I fear. The more is my unrest.’ This ‘unrest’ shows the internal conflict that disturbs Romeo, and is also used here as a metaphor for the trouble he now perceives himself to be in.
Romeo’s turmoil here is mirrored a little later in the scene, when Juliet is also informed by the Nurse of his true lineage, responding with, ‘My only love sprung from my only hate! ….That I must love a loathed enemy.’ As with Romeo, her love is contrasted with – and projected onto – the backdrop of emotional and physical conflict wrought by the two feuding families, and again, Shakespeare uses juxtaposition to remind his audience of the mortal dangers of this passion to the young lovers because of the aggressive animosity between their two families. As the audience already knows the fate of the two characters, there is also, perhaps, a sense of conflict within these people who would naturally hope to see a happy ending to the play, yet would nonetheless, be caught up in the tension and drama of the situation which has, as Juliet mused, ‘sprung’ from a dramatic combination of new love and ‘ancient’ hatred.
Act 3 Scene 5 takes the audience to a scene shared between Juliet and her parents, as they each try to persuade her to marry Paris within just a few days. Previously, Capulet had shown care for his young daughter, asking Paris to wait for two summers while Juliet matured, and to use this time to win her affections properly. However, here we see none of that same consideration, and the clash to come between Juliet and Lord Capulet may well have shocked the Elizabethan audience who would have shared the cultural belief that a daughter’s place was to obey her father in all things. The dispute that is presented in this scene is a combination of verbal opposition and emotional distress (anger and fear) with Capulet resorting to the threat of physical force unless Juliet complies in marrying Paris, saying ‘…go with Paris to Saint Peter’s Church, or I will drag thee on a hurdle thither.’ The violent verb ‘drag’ implies his intention to force and dominate his daughter, and this is accompanied by the threat of Juliet being tied to a ‘hurdle’ – a cart on which Elizabethan prisoners were taken to their execution. This threat implies Capulet’s opinion of his daughter now, which can be supposed to be that to him, she will be no better than a criminal if she continues to refuse the marriage.
Using a lexis of insulting pre and post-modifiers, Capulet continues to abuse Juliet verbally, shouting ‘Out, you green sickness, carrion! Out you baggage! You tallow face!’ The images of ‘green sickness’ and ‘carrion’ suggest that he is comparing Juliet to rotting meat that causes sickness in the consumer. The fact that she is ‘baggage’ shows, simply, that Capulet sees his daughter as a possession, or even a burden that he would throw away. Finally, he insults her looks by suggesting that her face is white and waxy, like a candle. This is an aggressive verbal attack which takes the theme of conflict in the play to an unexpected height.
Despite her pleas – ‘Good father, I beseech you on my knees’ – Capulet continues with his barrage of angry and threatening curses: ‘Hang thee, young baggage! Disobedient wretch! …get thee to church o’ Thursday, or never look me in the face.’ As a female and a child at this time, Juliet would have had no other protection from a hard and dangerous world outside her father’s house, and Capulet’s threat to disown her would have been recognised by the audience at the time as being a very serious one indeed. The insults of ‘baggage’ and ‘wretch’ have the effect of de-personalising Juliet – she is no longer his beloved daughter, but a burden, a problem and at best, a despicable and contemptuous person to him now.
Capulet’s metaphorical comment ‘My fingers itch,’ tells us that he is ‘itching’ to strike Juliet, taking the conflict from being emotional and verbal to the next level of violence. His insults continue against his daughter until finally, he threatens her with absolute banishment from his care unless she marries Paris: ‘…hang, beg, starve, die in the streets, for by my soul I’ll ne’er acknowledge thee. Nor what is mine shall never do thee good.’ Again, the audience of the time would have easily understood what this outcome would mean to a young girl like Juliet. The shocking fight between Juliet and her father is, like the other examples of conflict in the play, used as a contrast against the all-encompassing love between Romeo and Juliet, showing what they risk in order to have each other.
Much of Capulet’s speech in this scene is written in iambic pentameter. As aforementioned, Shakespeare often used this structure to show control and power in his characters at certain points in his plays, and here we see Capulet’s attempts to wield the same over his daughter, and also to threaten her violently unless she complies as a willing daughter.
Conflict is present throughout the play in many forms: emotional and internal, verbal and physical, and also between characters and the generations they occupy. Shakespeare uses violent language and imagery to convey the conflict from the stage to the audience. He makes reference to social and legal threats – for example, the death penalty – with which the Elizabethan audience of the time would have been entirely familiar. Social codes of behaviour such as the expected obedience of a daughter to her father would have added tension and drama to the play for the audience which would have understood this as an expected societal norm. Not only have we seen conflict on the stage between the characters, but have commented on how the audience itself may well have experienced a sense of disquiet from their established knowledge of how the play will end in the death of Romeo and Juliet. The structure of the play’s plotline is, from the start, informed by the revelations of the Prologue: Romeo and Juliet will die. In doing so, they will reunite their families in the greatest dramatic of ironies. As they take their last breaths, as the curtain falls across the stage, their deaths will bring peace to the Montagues and Capulets at last.