When Tragedy Doesn't Strike:
The Similarities between Romeo and Juliet and "Rappaccini's Daughter"
Throughout literature, tragedies often have many corresponding characteristics. These elements range from symbolism to plot to characterization. Similarities are taken to an extreme between two works in particular, created several centuries and half a world away. Apart from the more humble characteristics of setting and romance, these two works are unorthodox tragedies which include similar symbolism, characters, and influences. Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet and Hawthorne's "Rappaccini's Daughter" both contain heroes and heroines who unwittingly cause their own problems influenced by outside condition which are both other characters and other immutable forces.
The tragic characters of Romeo and Juliet and "Rappaccini's Daughter" are not typical examples of tragic characters. The typical tragic hero is responsible for his own fate and falls out of great esteem due to an error in judgment caused by a tragic, "fatal" flaw. Generally, the tragic hero will realize his mistake, but will accept death with honor. Further, the audience usually fells pity and fear with regards to the characters. In short, a tragic hero is an exceptional person who falls an exceptional distance and possesses an exceptional flaw. However, this is not the case for either of the main characters in either Romeo and Juliet or "Rappaccini's Daughter."
In "Rappaccini's Daughter," the main tragic hero is Giovanni Gausconti. He is a young student, so while his family is able to afford a university education, he himself is on a tight financial budget, which is part of the reason he lodged in the building next to Rappaccini's garden in the first place. It is therefore easy to determine that Giovanni is not part of the nobility. In fact, as Terrence Martin observes in his book Nathaniel Hawthorne,
"Giovanni stumbles quite by chance into the role of redeemer or rescuer, the bringer of love. And he fails miserably, not through intent, not out of a conscious desire to do ill, but simply because he is a very ordinary and limited young man whose limitations are pointed up all the more explicitly by the exigencies of a role that demands what he cannot give."
Giovanni can almost be called an anti-tragic hero. He is not a particularly exceptional person. He does not choose to go into Rappaccini's garden, but is instead lured in by Beatrice's beauty (an occurrence that is quite similar to Romeo sneaking into Juliet's garden). At the end of the story, after Giovanni discover Beatrice's secret, he curses her as he sneaks into the garden. This shows his ungratefulness for Beatrice's actions; the actions she took in order to save Giovanni.
Beatrice is not a tragic heroine, either. Although she is certainly upper class as Rappaccini's daughter and she dies at the end of the story, Beatrice does not exhibit any fatal flaws. The taking the antidote is not so much her decision as it is Giovanni's, and Giovanni was manipulated into that position by Rappaccini and Baglioni. One of the few things that support Beatrice as a tragic character is her acceptance of her death; namely what she says to Giovanni as she is dying: "Oh, was there not, from the first, more poison in thy (Giovanni's) nature than in mine?" It is also true that she decided not to touch Giovanni and infect him with the poison. However, she infects him unwittingly and does not touch him because she is trying to save him. While this does not help to alleviate Giovanni's mistrust of Beatrice, it is not an error based on a fatal flaw and therefore does not make her a tragic heroine.
Romeo Montague and Juliet Capulet face similar problems with regards to their categorization as tragic characters. Many critics refer to the style of the play, arguing that Romeo and Juliet is not a tragedy, but rather a comedy without an uplifting ending. Juliet is the most similar to a tragic heroine, but even she falls short. There is not doubt she is of the upper class of Verona, and she does die at the end of the play. However, unlike many of Shakespeare's other tragedy plays, there is no pivotal moment of realization when the characters recognize they are the cause of events. Rather, Romeo and Juliet feel as if they are caught in the wheel of fortune and are helpless to do anything.
To a certain extent, all the characters are helpless and are merely caught up in the string of events. In both Romeo and Juliet and "Rappaccini's Daughter," the main characters are influenced by outside forces. In Romeo and Juliet, these outside forces are mainly fate, chance, and destiny, and, to a lesser extent, manipulation by other characters. The forces acting in "Rappaccini's Daughter" are almost solely largely other characters. While this might seem to be a large difference, it is still quite deviant from the average tragedy, in which the tragic hero chooses his fate.
Chance and fate seem to be the underlying tones of Romeo and Juliet. Many pivotal events happen not because of the characters actions, but due to chance. Lord Capulet sends an illiterate servant to invite his guests and when the servant asks someone to read his letter, the first people he sees are Romeo and Benvolio. If Romeo had never attended the banquet, it would almost be certain that he would have never met Juliet before she was married to County Paris. It is also chance that causes Tybalt to see Romeo on the streets of Verona shortly after the latter's wedding. It is chance that leads Friar Laurence's messenger, Friar John to suffer delay in Verona and never deliver the warning to Romeo. It is chance that draws Romeo to Juliet's tomb at the same time as Paris. All of these instances were unavoidable; no actions the characters could have taken could have avoided the disaster at the culmination of the play. It is observed that the lovers are merely the victims of events beyond their control.
Instances of fate also abound in Romeo and Juliet. Even in the prologue, the audience is told that Romeo and Juliet are "star-cross'd," a phrase meaning that even the heavens have aligned themselves against the duo. In the same Prologue, this love is also referred to as "death-mark'd" Later, at the very end of Act I, fate as a force is reaffirmed, as the Chorus says that "time means, to meet" to two lovers. Further, Mercutio's curse in Act III, scene i. reinforces the belief that there is a higher force manipulating the characters of the play. Romeo and Juliet also keep sensing the interference of fate; at times they call out to it and curse it. The idea of fate as a force also reinforces the allegation that Romeo and Juliet are not tragic heroes. Events are beyond their control and do not spring from their weaknesses. As Amanda Mabillard remarks, "Romeo and Juliet is a tragedy of unawareness…Fate works through the common human condition of not knowing."
The actions and motivations of other characters are the primary outside forces in "Rappaccini's Daughter." There are two characters in particular that influence the story. One of these is Pietro Baglioni; the other is Dr. Giacomo Rappaccini himself. Rappaccini is arrogant; perhaps as a result of being widely hailed as the best botanist in the world. Even Baglioni admits Rappaccini's abilities, before clarifying them mostly as luck. Perhaps it is this arrogance that leads Rappaccini to the actions he takes during the course of "Rappaccini's Daughter."
Rappaccini's motivations also lie in the love of his daughter. He loves Beatrice so much that he makes her poisonous – she grows up alongside the plant and breathes its poison, much in the same way that Giovanni will later breathe in Beatrice's poison. As Beatrice grows as she later becomes lonely in her prison of flora, Rappaccini arranges for her receive a suitor – Giovanni. Rappaccini hopes that Beatrice will be happy with a poisoned Giovanni. Unfortunately for all involved, Rappaccini, as a result of his arrogance, fails to consider the knowledge that Beatrice might not always do as Rappaccini expects her too. Rappaccini fails to realize that Beatrice would consider taking the antidote that Giovanni offers to her. Perhaps this failure to connect with his daughter as a result of his arrogance makes Rappaccini the tragic hero of the play.
The second character propelling Giovanni and Beatrice down the path of doom is Baglioni. Baglioni, professional rival of Rappaccini, takes possession of Giovanni the second Baglioni realizes Rappaccini is after the young student. Baglioni manipulates Giovanni, until the student is in a position where he is blinded by both love and hate for Beatrice. Again, it is Terrence Martin who makes an all important observation
"Baglioni cares more about vanquishing his rival than he cares for the welfare of Giovanni and Beatrice…The two scientists have used Beatrice and Giovanni as pawns in their own games…Doubt and skepticism (bred by power and pride, jealousy and revenge) prove to be the ultimate poisons of the heart."
The evidence for Baglioni's narrow minded view of the situation at hand is evidenced by the final lines in the short story:
"Just at that moment of Beatrice's death Professor Pietro Baglioni looked forth from the window and called loudly, in a tone of triumph mixed with horror, to the thunderstricken man of science – 'Rappaccini! Rappaccini! and this is the upshot of your experiment!' "
Baglioni consoles neither Giovanni nor Rappaccini. Instead, Baglioni calls out to the scientist, determined to have the last word in their rivalry.
Martin also asserts that Baglioni is the main reason why Giovanni failed to be the hero of the story. Additionally, there is the insinuation that Baglioni knew his antidote would be the "antidote that kills" Further, because Baglioni gave Giovanni the antidote with this very goal in mind, he has implicated himself with Beatrice's death. It is also interesting to note how it was Rappaccini that created both the plant and Beatrice and placed them into a garden that is often referred as Eden, but it is Baglioni that is responsible for Beatrice's death and, by standing at the window overlooking the garden, assumes a "god-like position" as Beatrice dies. This, coupled with Baglioni's earlier condemnation of Rappaccini's work and arrogance, adds to the dramatic irony Hawthorne presents to the reader.
The influence of characters is experienced to a slightly less extent in Romeo and Juliet, but is present all the same. Friar Laurence agrees to wed Romeo and Juliet, not because they are in love, but because he is trying to reconcile their houses (Shakespeare Act IV, s iii). While this would truly be a noble cause, it is also a sign of the manipulation of the main characters. Additionally, Friar Laurence fails to consider the consequences of such a marriage; namely that the rest of the family will still feud, especially if the marriage is kept secret.
Impulsiveness also plagues both stories. Bret Cardullo argues that there is no easily identifiable villain in Romeo and Juliet, and that they are instead fighting the abstract concept of impulsiveness.. Capulet makes several mistakes throughout the course of the play. First, he sends an illiterate servant with a written guest list into the streets of Verona. Later, he agrees to wed Juliet to Paris, without consulting Juliet first. Capulet also changes the date of the wedding, causing Juliet to impulsively burst out with excuse after excuse. As a result of Juliet's outburst, Capulet threatens to cast Juliet out of house. Juliet thinks he is serious, and this in turn affects her decision on whether or not to take Friar Laurence's potion.
Romeo also acts rather impulsively. Initially content to let Capulet's servant bumble through his chores, Romeo calls the servant back at the last moment and learns about the Capulet's party. When Romeo's love for Juliet arises before he has even met her. He is infatuated by simply seeing her. Also, after learning of Juliet's "death," Romeo's first course of action is to find an apothecary in order to buy poison. Romeo chooses not to investigate his love's untimely death or to speak with Friar Laurence.
Friar Laurence himself is also partially responsible for the deaths of Romeo and of Juliet. In addition to failing to consider the repercussions of manipulating the two infatuated teenagers, Friar Laurence also commits one fatal, impulsive act. Previous to Romeo's banishment from Verona, Friar Laurence agrees to make Romeo's servant Benvolio the designated messenger between the two parties. However, after Juliet's circumstances worsen and Friar Laurence gives her the sleeping potion, Friar Laurence fails to use Benvolio as a messenger. In fact, Friar Laurence gives the letter to a man who tends to the sick and is subsequently detained. If Friar Laurence hadn't acted so impulsively, it would stand to reason that Benvolio would have brought the correct information to Benvolio. Friar Laurence's impulsiveness is all the more ironic when observed alongside his earlier comments to Romeo and Juliet, counseling them not to rush. This proliferation of impulsiveness as a character trait has led Bret Cardullo to hypothesize that impulsiveness, a trait shared by a majority of the characters, is the true villain in the play.
Impulsiveness can also be found in "Rappaccini's Daughter," even if it is to a lesser extent than Romeo and Juliet. Giovanni purchases flowers from a street vendor with no use for them in mind; it is these flowers that he later tosses to Beatrice when he sees her in Rappaccini's garden. As he throws the flowers to the doomed Beatrice, Giovanni "scarcely" knows what he is doing. Throughout the story, Giovanni rushes around and even "abruptly" asks Beatrice about the poisonous plant that Dr. Rappaccini created. These actions are the result of instinct and impulse. They are also highly reminiscent of the examples of impulse in Romeo and Juliet.
Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet and Hawthorne's "Rappaccini's Daughter" contain unorthodox tragic heroes, whose downfall is brought about by outside forces. These forces include the manipulation of the respective lovers by other characters in the story and simple chance. The outside force held in common by both stories is impulsiveness, a trait possessed by multiple characters. These outside forces cause the lovers of both stories to cease being tragic and become merely doomed. The forces and the characters are but a few of the myriad examples of why tragedy failed to strike.