On Some Passions of the Characters in Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet” (a Semiotic Prospective)

Introduction

The Semiotic Relevance of the Phenomenon

Treating any sort of artistic creation from the semiotic viewpoint means not only establishing relations among its constituent components, but deducing meaningful units from such relations as well. As is otherwise obvious, relational attitudes within semiotics, as well as their relevant interpretative possibilities, are as significant as establishing the mentioned relations themselves [see: (Deely, 2009)]. I emphasize this fact because of the “action” component which is an integral part of the “actors in scene” in the case of analyzing a theatrical work of art—a term which also complies with Greimas’s terminology [see: (Greimas, 1973)]. My intention here is to expose, as far as possible, ways of “resolving determined conflictual situations” so as to reach the point of complex signification processes. In conclusion, therefore, one should not treat only one of the semiotic processes whose aim is to signify, but several of them. This makes the problem as complex as the signification process in general is: whether taken from its ontological viewpoint [as explained, at least, in (Eco, 1979)] or from its epistemological viewpoint [as explained, at least, in (Greimas, 1973)].

If one has to consider both mentioned methodological approaches, then one can be certain that “relations” among characters should facilitate deducing a multitude of meaning possibilities. In conclusion, therefore, this thesis will be our main concern in the present text. What I mean by this is focusing on the form, rather than on the content, of a given artistic creation. In the case of a Shakespearean tragedy, it reveals a semiotic representational method which represents at least some of the following relations: contradictoriness, conjunction, disjunction, etc. [as is, after all, shown in (Greimas, 1973)]. My methodological approach should be seen as originating from the Russian formalists’ contribution, in the sense of subjecting artistic realities to a semiotic analysis [the historical and developmental points of view of such approaches can be seen in (Beker, 1986)]. If all mentioned components are taken into account, it is logical to state that, methodologically speaking, we start our analysis from phenomena opposed to each other, in the sense shown within the structural approach to semiotics, so as to extend such developed interrelations into their epistemological comprehension, aimed at a passional taxonomy of meaningful units. It should be remarked, however, that this last assertion needs further elaboration within the framework of its methodological representation, in an attempt to justify the theoretical background of the mentioned semiotic method [as explained in (Greimas & Fontanille, 1993)].

“Love” and “Hatred” as Possible Passion Taxonomies

If semiotics, among other related issues, pertains to the “world of possibilities”, in the sense explicated by Eco [see: (Eco, 1984); (Eco, 1994a)], then it is logical to assert that “love” and “hatred” as universal themes in Shakespeare (i.e. not only in “Romeo and Juliet”) [see (Shakespeare, 2002)] should be regarded as among such possibilities. Based on most of the plot aspects of the tragedy, a semiotician should single out such possible taxonomic results, thus enacting a “semiotics of action”, as explicated in Greimas and Fontanille (1993). Be they semiotic topoi or passional configurations obtained as parts of the semiotic possibilities, one should be aware of the “speculative” nature of such an analysis. This is due to the following:

It is therefore not surprising that the best-explored, and perhaps the most efficient level of the generative trajectory is, in fact, situated in the middle area between its discursive and epistemological components. We are referring above all to the modelling of narrativity and to its actantial organizations. The concept of the actant, freed from its psychological frame and defined only by its doing, is the sine qua non condition for developing a semiotics of action. (Greimas and Fontanille, 1993:VII-VIII)

The above citation claims the following to be true: even though relational attitudes might be an outcome of determined narrative units (where such units, as should be obvious, represent an outcome of determined plot aspects of an analyzed artistic discourse), a taxonomy must be deduced, which should finally obtain its semantic importance. This definitely makes semiotics a cognitive science within its interpretative competencies. Only in such circumstances can “love” and “hatred” be distinguished as contradictory units in the semiotic sense of the word, among other related entities under analysis. As is understandable, all such empirically obtained results should be subordinated to a subjectivizing component that is able to make such gained semantic units movable from one state to another. This last remark is ultimately made possible by introducing the “subject” within the framework of semiotic studies [as explicated in (Greimas, 1973)]. The “subject” concept can otherwise render itself “active” and be named a “knowable subject” [as shown in (Greimas & Fontanille, 1993)].

Prior to concretizing abstractions, at least if they are perceived within their semiotic mode of comprehension, let us examine some practical aspects of the given object of analysis.

As is obvious, in “Romeo and Juliet” a wanted love cannot come true due to conflictual situations between the families in question. It is for this reason that “hatred” following “despair” should be taken as one of the taxonomic solutions. The situation in question is not easy to resolve: as is otherwise known, besides the conflict, there is a “secret” not known to both lovers respectively: the poisoning component (wanted by both protagonists, either true or false – but we will mention this later on in this paper); such was their decision to resolve determined misunderstandings. I emphasize the last term because of the communication problem between the two parties, which, as a matter of fact, in Shakespearean terms, renders the conflict possible. Or in semiotic terms: the “absent structure” [see (Eco, 1968)] has to be resolved. By this notion, I intend the “enigma”, the seemingly “unknown” in this sort of work of art, on the one hand, and on the other, in reality, the full awareness of the audience regarding the created situation. It thus creates two axes in the Greimasian sense of the word: one that pertains to seeming and the other to reality. This is, after all, one of the main goals of an artistic creation: to enhance a certain feed-back reaction; or in other words: being able to reach reality through determined fictional components [a term widely used in Eco, as well; see: (Eco, 1994c)].

One may ask then: who is it that offers the mentioned ‘feed-back” information from the communicational point of view? It is only the audience that should be aware of the phenomenon of poisoning (either in terms of Romeo or Juliet): therefore it temporarily excludes the main protagonists of the scene, respectively. To my opinion, it renders at least two components visible: first, the enhancing of the audience as an active part of “participating” in the story narrated, and second, it points out, the “indetermination” component in a work of art [ see: (Eco, 1989)]. It should be remarked however that, although Eco ( 1989) asserts that the case of an “openness” of a work of art is more visible and noticeable in terms of modern artistic creativity, one should note that it occurs in previously created works: at our instance in conclusion, also because of its semiotic comprehension.

On the Movability of States from One to Another: Which Is the State of Affairs?

Not only are determined key actions of the plot aspect of the tragedy narrated in a superb way by the author, but they are also encoded. This sort of encoding entails a metaphoric usage, which renders the decoding process complex. It should be understood, on the other hand, that the story develops gradually to the peak of its importance, emphasized by the author himself. My aim here is to discuss only matters that are significant for the main characters, so as to obtain a semiotic process.

First, even in the exposition stage of the play, one can notice the aim of the main protagonists. Disregarding all other events happening in the tragedy (such as, for instance, the dispute among Romeo’s friends, as well as the events of both families respectively), one can easily notice that love between the two lovers is the key point keeping the audience interested in the story being narrated. Second, the dispute among the families makes itself evident almost from the beginning of the play. It should be noted, however, that it foresees the impossibility of a wanted love coming true. It can be concluded, therefore, that it points out at least two important plot components: first, that love between Romeo and Juliet has to come true, and second, that their respective parents do not want such a love to happen. It thus again pertains to both Greimasian axes: the first one in appearance, that Romeo and Juliet want their love to come true, disregarding their parents’ wishing-to-do (a matter that regards Greimasian “modalities”), and second, in reality, that their parents wish to marry their children to individuals equal to their respective economic statuses. Besides the distinctions mentioned above, two other related issues are evident here: the paradigmatic and syntagmatic axes of possible taxonomic deductions, which would supposedly presume determined obtainable and/or obtained passions. In conclusion, two relations can be noticed here: one that represents conjunction, and the other disjunction. If one analyzes the mentioned terms in such a context, then, semiotically speaking, relations among the characters themselves are a truth. However, one asks: how much of such love and hatred actually comes true throughout the tragedy? Without question, the last remark should regard the changeability and substitutional optionality among various attitudes within respective characters in the tragedy we are discussing. The instance of “substituting” determined actants for each other (and/or determined semantic units procedurally obtained) should definitely belong to a semiotic way of comprehending the discussed tragedy.

The above-mentioned question is nonetheless clarified further in the play. Besides the exposition of the story aspects, which we shall call “a story told”, as opposed to “ a story lived’, thus rendering the “story narrated’, [either seen within its psychological sense of the word, such as explained in (Griffin, 2003), or in its semiotic sense of the word, such as explained in (Eco, 1994b)], in the sense that can be seen in Act I, one finds further explication in the next parts of the play (and/or, in the next scenes or acts of the play), at least if one follows Russian formalists theories. What I intend by this is the “agent’ s’ role, (in compliance with Greimas’s theory) [ see: (Greimas, 1973); (Greimas & Fontanille, 1993)], or specifically speaking: either the nurse or the priest. In conclusion, if Romeo and Juliet mainly represent “objects” of a given story in the semiotic sense of the word, then the subjectivizing component shall consist of the ones who make matters speculative and dubious from the scientific point of view: the Nurse and Friar Laurence. What is the reason for this assertion? The action component itself: understandably, from the semiotic point of view. It is for this reason that the movability of states refers to semiotically perceived transformational processes, or by other words: it represents, moving from the state of affairs to the state of feelings. Finally then, the state of affairs is the one that is represented in the exposition of the story. In specific terms then: Romeo “has fallen in love” with a person who was the one “assigned” to him on the one hand, (represented by Rosaline), and on the other one, Juliet has also “fallen in love” with a person that was “assigned” to her (represented by Paris). Except for the main known characters of the play (which, understandably are, Romeo and Juliet), I shall name the Nurse and Friar Laurence “agents” in the Greimasian sense of the word. I intend by such notion, the action component in the dramaturgical sense of the word (or, the “modus vivendi” of the play): as according to Grimas and Fontanille (1993), a semiotics of action is based on the “doing” component. My aim, in conclusion, is to make the “intrigue” concept of the play exposable to a semiotic analysis.

Seeking for the State of Feelings

The “state of feelings” should be final; therefore, it should result in semantic entities. It renders at least the transformational component visible. The meaning component, or the meaning itself, “is defined by the transformation of meaning itself” [the paraphrase is mine; see: (Greimas, 1973); (Greimas & Fontanille, 1993)]. As should be understandable, meaning is created gradually, procedurally, out of the concept of meaning itself. In other words, a transformation of meaning from one state to another is what actually occurs. Finally, the “transformation” component is of crucial importance with regard to this sort of semiotic analysis. Let us see now what this looks like in practical terms.

Owing to the fact that love cannot come true due to certain circumstantial conditions, as we have said, two more characters have an implicit role (and/or act as “helpers” in the Greimasian sense of the word), as I would add, in the development of the story narrated itself. Such a role is seemingly unimportant—at least as far as the main line of narration goes (specifically in terms of both concepts of “love “ and “hatred” discussed)—but, realistically speaking, it is essential: as it entails in itself the intrigue-making phenomenon, which is very characteristic of Shakespearean writing. Thus, the wish of the lovers tends to come true. This is a part of the transformation process in semiotic terms. This is not semiotically disputable. What is it that is disputable, then?

First, the Priests’ choice as well as the request and consent of both lovers to use the poison offered by the Priest is a wrong choice. This entails the tragic consequences of the play. Second, the Nurse succeeds at secretly compounding both lovers, although being fully aware of other contextual conditions. Or by other words: this fact renders the “enigma” visible and/or understandable to the audience. Consequently, only in such given semiotic preconditions, can the state of feelings be deductible. In conclusion, therefore, one should see this process, after Act II, i.e., after determined conflicts in the play are already exposed and/or exposable to the audience and to the reader. Or specifically speaking: such a situation can be witnessed after the marriage between Romeo and Juliet is secretly performed by Friar Laurence. As it may be semiotically justifiable, this is the instance of the substitution component, or better expressed: the transformation process itself. Instead of applying this process with Paris (as desired and planned by the Capulets), there is another line of narration which pertains to disclosing the “enigma” to the audience. It is, as generally known, an attempt to at least dramaturgically unite the two main protagonists of the play. In such contents’ preconditions therefore, the semiotic preconditions are obtained: either in the sense of the general Greimassian dichotomy between reality and appearance (previously mentioned in this text), or in other consequential meanings, which are seen as causes of the tragic events of the play.

It is for these and similar reasons that one discovers determined meanings throughout the process of reading the tragedy, in the semiotic sense of the word. In conclusion, therefore, as we mentioned, the consequences of the terms “love” and “hatred” (which, as we said, remain contradictory and oppositional) are to be seen gradually as the content of the play develops in the form of semantic entities to be transformed into passion taxonomies, because of the “becoming” component: either in the Greimasian sense of the word, or in the philosophical sense of the word. One such situation, for instance, is experienced by Juliet. Does she feel love for Romeo or for her cousin Tybalt, who was just killed by Romeo? Was it an animosity created in her soul, so as to be transformed into a passion, or are her hesitations based on her love towards Romeo only? I shall quote her “confession” in this instance:

Shall I speak ill of him that is my husband?

Ah, poor my lord, what tongue shall smooth thy name,

When I, thy three-hours wife, have mangled it?

But, wherefore, villain, didst thou kill my cousin?

That villain cousin would have kill'd my husband:

Back, foolish tears, back to your native spring;

Your tributary drops belong to woe,

Which you, mistaking, offer up to joy.

My husband lives, that Tybalt would have slain;

And Tybalt's dead, that would have slain my husband:

All this is comfort; wherefore weep I then?

Some word there was, worser than Tybalt's death,

That murder'd me: I would forget it fain;

But, O, it presses to my memory,

Like damned guilty deeds to sinners' minds:

Tybalt is dead, and Romeo—banished;'

That 'banished,' that one word 'banished,'

Hath slain ten thousand Tybalts. Tybalt's death

Was woe enough, if it had ended there:

Or, if sour woe delights in fellowship

And needly will be rank'd with other griefs,

Why followed not, when she said 'Tybalt's dead,'

Thy father, or thy mother, nay, or both,

Which modern lamentations might have moved?

But with a rear-ward following Tybalt's death,

'Romeo is banished,' to speak that word,

Is father, mother, Tybalt, Romeo, Juliet,

All slain, all dead. 'Romeo is banished!'

There is no end, no limit, measure, bound,

In that word's death; no words can that woe sound.

Where is my father, and my mother, nurse?

(Shakespeare 2002:1278)

As can be seen, both feelings seem mixed in Juliet’s words in this instance: did she have to hate her husband who killed her cousin, or did she have to continue loving him? It should be noted, however, that Juliet is not aware of other facts occurring simultaneously in the tragedy, in the same way that Romeo is not aware of some other events as well. Juliet is not aware of the cause of Romeo’s killing Tybalt on the one hand, and on the other, Romeo is not aware of the reason for his being banished. He finds out this fact later, from Friar Laurence. These mentioned facts regarding the plot aspects of the story narrated in the play render the “action” component visible and faster in the play; or, in the semiotic sense of the word, the transformation process has already started to occur. In what way, though?

Feeling love towards Tybalt (her cousin) and Romeo at the same time, Juliet starts to change her state of affairs into a state of feelings, or in other words: she hesitates at her own “transformation” of states. Deciding finally to continue loving Romeo, as can also be inferred from her previous soliloquies, she is ready to stop thinking either as a Capulet or as a Montague. This definitely makes her states of feelings deducible: therefore, ready for “the meanings” that can be obtained due to a relational semiotic process. In conclusion, therefore, she feels love instead of a presumed hatred, and despair and anxiety instead of unwillingness to cope with her presumed ‘enemy”.

Romeo, on the other hand, being “banished”, cannot find out about many events closely related to his beloved Juliet. Therefore, he also passes through a process of transformation. Or in other words: his “state of feelings” is full of despair and hatred resulting from the created situation on the one hand, but full of love for his Juliet on the other. Romeo, in conclusion, also stops thinking as a Montague or as a Capulet. A state of feelings, as we mentioned, is possible and deducible on his part, too. This is, naturally, a common feature of both main protagonists of the play.

“The knowable” subjects, like we previously stated, the Nurse (in most of the cases “helping” Juliet) and Friar Laurence (in most of the cases “helping” Romeo), become “bridges’ of both lovers’ own mutual understanding(s) and/or misunderstanding(s). These actions as a matter of fact (rapidly happening in the tragedy), are the cause of the tragic events occurring towards the end of the tragedy. It is for these reasons that for instance, Friar Laurence finds a way to “offer” a solution either to Juliet (by overhanding the “false” poison to her), or to Romeo by planning their secret marriage. His “active subject” at this instance is the Nurse herself. Her activities initially seem sincere, as long as she does not attempt at “tricking” the Capulets (either consciously or unconsciously), a fact which consequentially and tragically enough, also includes Juliet herself. In conclusion, therefore, it is to state that the Nurse and Friar Laurence are in a relation of conjunction, if one follows Greimassian models.

Although all such mentioned events happen one after another, as is characteristic of a theatrical work of art, Friar John’s message to Romeo does not reach its goal. This is one of the reasons for the tragic events of the play.

Conclusion

In both cases (in terms of either Romeo or Juliet), as I have attempted to show, similar passions are obtained as a consequence of determined transformational processes, throughout determined stages of narration within the tragedy under analysis. By a transformational process, I mean either the substitution of determined states of the actants in the Greimassian sense of the word (represented by the syntagmatic axis), or the consequential flow of the narrative units gained (represented by the paradigmatic axis). Or in other words: if initially a seemingly calm situation can be perceived within the initial parts of the play, towards the subsequent parts of it, other lines of content occur, which argue the “intrigue making” phenomenon, thus rendering a tragic resolution of the work of art.

“Love” and “hatred” felt by both protagonists, owing to “the agents’” action in the play, are interwoven and changeable, therefore resulting in a process of semiosis. What does this mean? By a process of semiosis of this sort, I mean uniting determined actors’ actions into a single semiotic function. This can be understood, for instance, through the will, wishes, and traditions of the Capulets and Montagues respectively. Notwithstanding this fact, once the author’s message is discovered, as one may presume, that animosities have to be forgotten if true love and passion are in question, a transformational process is disclosed within the actors on scene, in an attempt to show how important this sort of attempt is to compound and/or unite a desired semiotic function. In conclusion, therefore, the failure of a desired love to come true or be fully expressed is due to other contextual factors, which, as may be concluded, play a dominant part in the discussed work of art.

My intention here, as I hope I have been able to show, was to demonstrate the existence of an epistemological component within this sort of semiotic analysis, so that the inexactitude and/or unequivocalness of the transmitted messages could be demonstrated within artistic creativity, among other semiotically related issues. In my opinion, this last point contributes to the universality of the discussed notions of “love” and “hatred” in the given object of analysis as well as to the omnipresence of the semiotic method in general.

References