Juliet vs Rosalind Essay

by Lewis C.
Period 6
Romeo and Juliet, a romantic story of two youngsters from two different worlds
by William Shakespeare. It is a classic story but one that has its confusions and
misunderstandings. It's known that Juliet is the main love interests of Romeo, but in the
very beginning of the story, another girl is mentioned. That girl is Rosalind. Now, she
begs the question, "Why would Shakespeare add this girl into the story if the focus is on
Juliet?" Well, perhaps Shakespeare introduced Rosalind to have a contrasting force in the
story, to make fun of teenagers' naive interests, and to add a bit of realism to the entirety
of the story.
Rosalind isn't integral to the story, really, but she does seem to add to it. I said she
was a contrasting force. By this, I mean she shows the difference between Romeo's
"love" for her and Romeo's "love" for Juliet. She's there to make the story more
interesting. If you don't overthink it, it's somewhat evident she is just there for "filler".
Rosalind to Romeo is a some beautiful girl with no real meaning or value except for her
beauty. In Act 1, Scene 1, Romeo says, "The precious treasure of his eyesight lost. Show
me a mistress that is passing fair, What doth her beauty serve but as a nose..." Juliet to
Romeo is an angel, a Christian saint, a shrine even! In Act 1, Scene 5, Romeo says, "If I
profane with my unworthiest hand This holy shrine, the gentle fine is this: My lips, two
brushing pilgrims, ready tand..." She has more value to her than Rosalind, at least to
Romeo. It's a strange thought that such a great writer such as Shakespeare would add in
"filler" in the form of Rosalind, but it's not too far fetched.
On another note, perhaps attached to the previous note, Rosalind could be there as
to make parodical this play. After all, it may be a tragedy, but it is also still a comedy.
The entire play could be making fun of the idiocy and rashness of teenagers. Rosalind
was a sex object at best by how Romeo thought of her, only for her beauty. Yet Romeo
claims love for her. Act 1, Scene 1 is where he says, "In sadness, cousin, I do love a
woman." Later, when he sees Juliet, Romeo says words filled with near the same passion
he once felt for Rosalind. He changed his mind at the snap of a finger. That makes his
preceeding words degraded and his new found "love" rather unbelievable. In but a bit
more time in which he met her, they married. These are rash, young, rather irrational
results of teenage emotion and thought and Shakespeare may have been commenting on
that.
Now, both of those things I've stated could or could not be true, but it might have
been a conscious decision Shakespeare made to do those things in the hopes of making

the story realistic in a sense. You have a teenager, Romeo, that is portrayed as teenagers
are often portrayed: naive, reckless, and quick to change their mind. Shakespeare
could've added in Rosalind to show that Romeo could and would switch from one girl to
another. He wanted to connect the reader into this somewhat-of-a-fantasy world and
show that this boy, Romeo, was still a teenager. At the very, very beginning of the story,
the Chorus says, "A pair of star-crossed lovers take their life... The fearful passage of
their death-marked love..." Love isn't an easily attained thing and it is especially true for
a grandiose at-first-sight love that Romeo achieves. There needed to be some realism,
something the reader can feel right alongside the characters.
Juliet and Rosalind: the two known "love" interests of Romeo, our dear main
character. The presence of Rosalind is baffling to some individuals. It is an area of
discuss because why would Shakespeare add her into the story? Well, perhaps she was
there as a filler in a sense, or to add comedy to this comedic tragedy, or to add seminecessary realism to the play. You could say Shakespeare wanted to draw parallels
between Paganism and Christianity, personifying them into Rosalind and Juliet
respectively. Maybe Rosalind isn't as pure or as charming as Juliet because Shakespeare
wanted to make a metaphor of the inferiority of Paganism to Christianity. That's a tad bit
of a stretch seeing as how the two religions never really entered themselves into the play.
You can say many things about why Rosalind was added into the play, and I sure have
wrote much, but in the end it's all just speculation.