Are Romeo and Juliet tragic heroes in the Aristotelian sense?

It seems to me that many of the analyses of Romeo and Juliet which deal with the classical "tragic flaw" determine that the teenagers are impulsive or rash. I have a couple problems with this analysis: 1) They are not the only characters guilty of rash behavior [Friar Lawrence and Tybalt come to mind], and 2) teenagers (and many adults who never grew up) are by nature impulsive. Life is not a chess match for many of us. How can that which is natural be considered a flaw?

I believe rather than rashness, we can attribute the downfall of these two young lovers to their secretive behavior. Neither one tells their parents of their love or of their marriage. We never see Romeo speak directly to his parents at all, and Juliet may speak with her parents, but she never tells them what is really going on. In fact, after the falling out with Lord Capulet over her refusal to marry Paris, Juliet feels free to lie to her father. Secrecy has grown into dishonesty: "Where have you been gadding...?" Capulet asks her.

She responds, "Where I have learned me to repent the sin / Of disobedient opposition . . .. / Henceforth I am ever ruled by you."

This failure to deal openly with their parents likely comes about from fear of their parents' reactions. Clearly the families are at war. Likely the parents would not approve of their love nor their marriage. And if we pursue this line of thought, I suppose we could as likely attribute their demise to their lack of courage as we could their failure to communicate. But fear of one's parents' reactions seems almost as natural as rash decisions in the teenage mind, so I find myself returning to the original thought I have stated above which is that the weakness of character we find in these two young heroes is that they will not tell their parents what is going on in their hearts. I used to be concerned that this analysis also reflected a natural state of the teenage heart and mind. But I have taken enough informal polls of teenagers to feel pretty sure that only about half of teenagers behave like Romeo and Juliet. The other half have at least one parent with whom they will share everything, at least one parent with whom they will share what is in their hearts.

So, I'm left wondering how many of the readers here agree with me. If we must assign a flaw to these lovers--if we believe that Shakespeare was following an Aristotelian model of tragedy, in other words--is it fair to say that these two teenagers weakness was their failure to communicate with their parents?

I don't believe that Shakespeare does slavishly follow the Aristotelian model in his plays - there are too many anomolies. Although his characters, like all people, have 'some vicious mole[s] of nature', I believe his characters are too 'alive' to have one isolated 'fatal flaw' - and in some cases (Macbeth and Othello spring to mind) the oft cited flaws are contradicted by the text.

I believe Romeo's biggest flaw is his impetuousness - "...they stumble that run fast." and all that.

I agree with Bandini completely. Shakespeare didn't create characters that are easily, or ever, explained. I think that Romeo and Juliet's lack of communication with their parents makes sense within the play, and it simplifies their characters to say that this is the root of all their problems.

Yes, food for thought there: "I don't believe that Shakespeare does slavishly follow the Aristotelian model in his plays," Bandini says. I suspect I believe that as well. There is no reason for us to deny that he could have been following a native tradition, a mystery play for a world full of sin. Romeo and Juliet, though human and flawed, may not be the central flaw. Perhaps Shakeaspeare wanted us to see that "the continuance of their parents' rage" had to be punished with "their children's end, [which] naught [else] could remove."

But I have difficulty subscribing to the "impetuosity" theory for the reasons I already mentioned above. Youth is practically defined by impetuosity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrMack

But I have difficulty subscribing to the "impetuosity" theory for the reasons I already mentioned above. Youth is practically defined by impetuosity.

---

Yes - but a cautionary tale can help to demonstrate the negative effects of a flaw. A morality tale.

And 'how can that which is natural be considered a flaw' - well Shakes. certainly believed that it could - remember Hamlet's "...vicious mole of nature..."?

I agree with Lit Dork. How would Mr 'your green carrion, whining mammet - go beg, starve in the street' Capulet have taken it?

That said, he is angry with Tybaly at the ball and speaks highly of Romeo - perhaps Shakes. is showing that...oh I don't know! I have to go now anyway!