An Organic "Romeo and Juliet"

An Organic Romeo and Juliet “Organic”: Of, marked by, or involving the use of fertilizers or pesticides that are strictly of animal or vegetable origin: organic vegetables; an organic farm. b. Raised or conducted without the use of drugs, hormones, or synthetic chemicals: organic chicken; organic cattle farming. c. Serving organic food: an organic restaurant. d. Simple, healthful, and close to nature: an organic lifestyle. ----http://www.thefreedictionary.com/organic Interest in food and other products that are produced organically---and locally---is on the upswing as the serious environmental problems engendered by centuries of long-term fossil-fuel based economic expansion are recognized around the world. So why not add critical responses to literature as another product (beside food, energy, clothes and furniture) that recognize and implicitly honor the planet, the sun, the sky, the oceans and other vital natural entities that are critical to our survival? First off, unnecessary additives should be avoided. The work of art, simple, plain, unadulterated, should be enough. So, for example, we really don’t need to insert the philosophies of Freud, Saussure, Wittgenstein, or other unrelated philosophers if we follow an organic model; the philosophy of the artist alone should be enough. Second, we should minimize secondary sources so as to minimize resource use (paper and books). Third, we want to choose to analyze a classic literary work that is also extremely popular, since popularity (i.e. the work is constantly in print, is produced again and again, studied in high schools, well-known by millions) should indicate interesting sociological “noise” around the work and promise some depth. It is akin to choosing the best soil and light for organic growing kale or lettuce; a promising environment will lead to excellent results. Romeo and Juliet fits all the requirements. Our work begins by placing the play on a table in the mind, so to speak, and examining its interesting aspects. The one that is most obvious is the strange fact that the lovers are almost always completely alone when they are together. Romeo and Juliet have five scenes together. Symmetrically, the first two and the last two, are set apart: in these scenes, they always play virtually alone, with other characters calling off-stage (or dancing nearby at the mask) but not functionally interacting with the couple as long as the couple is together. Thus Romeo and Juliet seem to exist in a separate realm where just the two of them are permitted ontological seclusion. Their ontological isolation is delineated structurally with a functional absence of interaction with other characters. But why? Following the idea of examining these important and strange scenes where the lovers are together, we should first examine the most well-known of them: the balcony scene. Park Honan calls the balcony scene in Act II, scene ii of this play, “the most famous scene is any drama” (Honan 210), while the first two lines of that scene contain the most famous metaphor in the English language: “Juliet is the sun”. The image is special not just because of its fame but also because of the way the sun is frequently attached to Juliet. At the beginning of the play, we learn that Juliet’s birthday is “Lammas-eve” (I.iii.17). (Lammas was a harvest festival, held August 1, with somewhat obscure roots which may be pre-Christian.) Examining the first incidence of the word “sun” in the play is even fruitful because here the image contains a seemingly incidental reference to pagan sun festivals in a line, spoken by Benvolio: “Madam, an hour before the worshipp’d sun/Peered forth the golden window of the east” (I.i.139-140) (my emphasis). But also the image “golden window of the east” echoes the metaphor “it is the east and Juliet is the sun” (and Juliet is found in her window/balcony) Romeo and Juliet contains 14 direct uses of the word “sun” and more allusions if you count indirect references such as “Titan” (II.iii.4), “Phaethon” (II.ii.3), and “Phoebus” (II.ii.2). Juliet seems to be a locus for these images (indirectly or directly): that is, the sun images seem often to cluster around Juliet in one way or another. Besides the famous “Juliet is the sun” (II.ii.3) line, Juliet herself seems to be driving the horses of Phoebus Apollo when she says “Gallop apace, you fiery-footed steeds/ Towards Phoebus’ lodging; such a waggoner /As Phaeton would whip you to the west” (III.ii.1-3) The Nurse’s reminiscences about Juliet’s childhood contain these lines: “Sitting in the sun under the dove-house wall” (I.iii.27), while Juliet herself utters four more instances of the word “sun”. Before meeting Juliet, and in the misery of his unproductive love aimed at Rosaline, Romeo is said to be “like a bud bit with an envious worm…ere he can dedicate himself to the sun” (I.i.150-153). Examining sun imagery can bring us part of the way to an understanding of the play: we can see activity, a cluster of activity of language oriented around the sun and Juliet. The bold and stunning line “Juliet is the sun”, one that has mesmerized Western culture for centuries indicates the presence of a secret identity----and one that is hiding in plain sight! But if the strange sequence of the lovers’ scenes contains one character (Juliet) who is a cosmic depiction of the sun, then who is Romeo? Friar Lawrence repeatedly calls Romeo “man”: “Romeo, come forth, come forth, thou fearful man/ Affliction is enamr’d of thy parts…(III.iii.1-3); “Thou fond mad man, hear me a little speak” (III. Iii. 52) Benvolio says, “Tut, man…” (I.ii.319) to Romeo. Frequently the phrase “madman” is spoken by Romeo or used when another character addresses him. Even Juliet, on her balcony (with Romeo hidden below) says “What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot/ Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part/ Belonging to a man.”(II.ii.42) It seems that Romeo is probably “Man” in a sweeping allegory. The first scene the lovers share (demonstrating the first stage of Mankind`s relationship with the Sun) is characterized, naturally, as one of worshipper and god. Thus when Romeo and Juliet meet (the first scene where they play together), they exchange puns along religious lines: she is a “holy shrine” (I.v.94); his lips are “two blushing pilgrims” (I.v.95). Celtic Pantheism was widespread around the British Isles in vestigial form until the 1400-1500s. It had nature goddesses and a sun god. Also, Shakespeare was familiar with Classical deities, including Apollo. It is important to note that Romeo doesn`t know Juliet`s name in this part of the anthropological pageant Shakespeare attempts to portray: Mankind is still operating without many skills or scientific knowledge. Theatrically, that is to say structurally within the play, this scene is one of introduction and one of reverence. The overall impression we can get from it is therefore the important part in characterizing its role within the hidden morality play. The second stage of the relationship between Mankind and the Sun is shown in the long and famous “balcony” scene (the second scene where Romeo and Juliet play together). Juliet is aloft, symbolizing her position in the sky above Man. (Her place on the balcony is another theatrical device, not a literary one). He knows who she is and understands her importance, but the sun—(nature religions)-- is no longer a god. He swears fidelity. She explains that she`ll “prove more true than those that have more coying to be strange”(II.ii.101) (That is, the sun will not become depleted.) The sun has stopped being a deity (with the advent of Christianity) but Man has not yet started using fossil fuels---ie, being unfaithful to the sun. This scene corresponds to the Middle Ages, a time of faith kept in agricultural ways of life. Romeo asks for her “faithful vow” (II.ii.127) in exchange for his. But an uneasy feeling “I am afeard…this is all but a dream” (II.ii.139-140) pervades. Can the Mankind of the West really be satisfied to stop his progress? He wants to unite with Juliet, or pledge fidelity to the Sun forever, but a strange metaphor undercuts the idea: Juliet says she “would have him gone---/And yet no farther than a wanton`s bird/That lets it hop a little from his hand/Like a poor prisoner in his twisted gives/And with a silken thread plucks it back again” (II.ii.176-180). She adds, “I should kill thee with much cherishing” (II.ii.184). It almost seems that wild freedom---even bringing calamity---might be preferable to imposed limits. The third stage of the pageant is the morning after the (secret) wedding night in Act III, scene v. (The fourth scene where Romeo and Juliet play together). Romeo has killed Tybalt in revenge. This action symbolizes Western Man’s action in choosing fossil fuels: an expedient to forestall a competitor from gaining advantage first. She recognizes his deceit, “O serpent heart” (III.ii.73). These events set up the sense of hurrying in the third tableau. It is the start of fossil fuel consumption (becoming exiled from the sun, as the Elizabethans were rapidly becoming), but the wedding morning tableau vivant proves that the transition is to include a long and self-aware good-bye to the natural life of living sustainably in seasonal rhythms. What could stop the industrializing process, once it began, except the disastrous depletion of the coal resources the whole process depended on? Romeo says, “I must be gone and live, or stay and die” (III.v.11), indicating Man’s predicament as he faced a stark choice to continue to use more coal---depleting it yet more---or suffer hardship as populations had expanded and economic collapse would be rough. “O, think`st thou we shall ever meet again?” (III.v.51) asks Juliet after she says “..I shall be much in years Ere I again behold my Romeo!” (III.v.46-47). The separation of the West (and its successor market cultures) and the sun (as primary energy source) through the economic process is to be protracted, but the outcome of this separation is certain: when the coal is depleted, man will go back to the sun. Finally, the intricate pageant ends with the last scene---in the indeterminate future with Romeo`s death---this death is a kind of social and economic collapse, in the sense of the term as Joseph Tainter defines it. In Tainter`s seminal 1989 work, The Collapse of Complex Societies, Tainter explains how societies develop complexity, specialization and higher levels of sociopolitical organization as they solve problems using available energy (Tainter 91-93). Complexity may bring about cities where many people no longer engage in agriculture or basic food production. A large elite class and specialized hierarchical occupations are also generated. But as the energy supporting the sociopolitical organization that controls the whole system becomes less available (either through geological depletion or through the technical inability to rule and maintain and control larger and larger areas of land), eventually people can no longer benefit from further investments in complexity; economizing by returning to lower levels of complexity follows. (Tainter 93) However, the complex and emergent nature of the system makes this process of decline a chaotic fall or breakdown. In the fourth tableau vivant, Romeo’s death symbolizes a huge change for the West and its successor market cultures, in some fashion at least (though through emergence) caused by his own hands. (It is important to note that a real collapse process could take centuries or millenia: Romeo’s suicide is an artistic and figurative illustration only.) What about the only scene where Romeo and Juliet interact fully with one other character? Friar Lawrence shares one brief scene with the couple (their third scene together) (II.vi.16-37). (This brief scene occurs directly before their secret wedding). He is the only character briefly permitted into their ontological “magic circle”(i.e. he can interact with them when they are together as no other character can) because, as a stand-in for Shakespeare, he is in on the secret. He is therefore called “ghostly” (“ghostly father”, “ghostly confessor”) four times in the play, (three times by Romeo and once by Juliet) to underscore his ability to cross through partitions such as the one of the secret play; Romeo and Juliet share a special bond with him and him alone. Of course, it isn’t possible to discuss fossil fuels in an organic Romeo and Juliet unless we find an actual concrete reference to them, and the first two lines of Romeo and Juliet are specifically about coal and even use the very words “coal” and “colliers”: “Gregory, on my word, we won’t carry coals”/ “No for then we should be colliers.” (I.i.1-2). The idea “we won’t carry coals” also seems to imply a future where fossil fuels have either become uneconomic or intolerable to produce. We know that Shakespeare often used the first lines of his plays to announce or reveal---- opaquely, sketchily and in metaphor----his major theme or purpose in that play. Frank Kermode writes, “Shakespeare normally opens with plot and thematic material of the highest importance, shrewdly and economically presented”. (Evans 1138) The image of coal is sustained later, although indirectly. The word “coal” does not appear again in the play, but the words “smoke”, “fume”, “choking” do, all in connection with Rosaline, the cold unloving woman Romeo pines for. Romeo uses the phrases, “bright smoke,” (I.i.180) “choking gall”(I.i.194) and “love is a smoke made with the fume of sighs” (I.i.190) all within 17 lines in Act I, scene i, and all within the context of his disappointed love for Rosaline. Other characters also reinforce the idea by describing Romeo (only in this scene) in similar dark imagery: a few lines earlier, Montague says that Romeo, in his misery, “makes himself an artificial night” (I.i.140), perhaps an image that recalls the coal-blackened London sky. Images of darkness are so numerous that they almost overwhelm the whole first scene: Romeo “steals himself…away from light”(I.i.137), “locks fair daylight out”(I.i.139), his humor is “black and portendous” (I.i.141) and “he is like a bud, bit with an envious worm” who cannot “dedicate himself to the sun” (I.i.153). The imagery conveys a picture of man bound by fossil fuels. In England, the process of intensifying economic structural dependence on coal, especially in London, occurred in the 1570s as population growth outstripped the ability of forests to provide fuel. Peter Brimblecombe explains: By the end of the Elizabethan era (ca 1600) coal had stopped being a solely industrial fuel, as the shortage of wood forced it into use in the home…The quality of London’s air deteriorated rapidly… (Brimblecombe, 1158) Barbara Freese explains what would have happened if British coal resources had not been present: If the (wood) fuel shortage of the 1500s had continued to deepen, it would eventually have slowed not just the economic growth, but also the population growth of London…It is hard to imagine (the flow of eager immigrants from the countryside into London) continuing despite a fuel shortage that would have choked the economy and made urban life even more difficult than it usually was. Eventually, life in London would have become unbearable, and people would have chosen to stay in the countryside, closer to the forests, where at least they could have afforded to heat their homes and bake their bread. Later, as the forests continued to shrink, the fuel shortage might have slowed the population growth of the entire nation. Demographic studies show that in preindustrial England, tough economic times caused people to marry later, lowering birthrates. But the energy crisis never got that severe for one reason: coal. Domestic coal use surged in the 1570s, and before the end of Elizabeth’s reign, in 1603, coal had become the main source of fuel for the nation, though not without complaint. (Freese 32-3) The northern areas of England indeed had vast coal reserves. Economic growth and resulting population growth could be sustained due to these coal reserves, which in turn necessitated further use of coal. As coal came to be used more and more, complexity in the culture was generated in an emergent and gradual process of problem-solving that Joseph Tainter describes in his 1989 book, The Collapse of Complex Societies.(Tainter 93)2 Shakespeare clearly benefited professionally and financially from the new, more modern, wealthy and complex economy that flourished in London. But perhaps, he had his doubts about the growing structural economic dependence on coal as well as about its pollution. In this, he was not alone. The rich in London tried to avoid using coal, which was “despised for its smoke” (Freese 33), but by 1620, “the nice dames and nice gents had succumbed…coal was (by then on) widely used in the homes of the rich as well as the poor. (Freese 33) “Many writers of the period wrote with considerable vehemence against the burning of coal” (Brimblecombe 1158), including John Evelyn who wrote the celebrated anti-coal book Fumifugium (1661). In 1578, “it was reported that Elizabeth I was ‘greatly grieved and annoyed with the taste and smoke of sea-colles”” (Brimblecombe, quoted in Freese 34). Hugh Platt in a tract written in 1603 noted that coal smoke “was damaging the buildings and plants of London” (Platt, quoted in Freese 34). Social historians describe what occurred economically in Britain, especially in London, in the second half of the 1500s as “an early industrial revolution”. (Nef quoted in Weimann 164). “Coal mining…developed so rapidly that deliveries to London increased more than threefold between 1580 and 1591 (1580: 11,000 tons; 1591-2: 35,000 tons)”. (Weimann 164) “Shipments of coal from Newcastle grew from 33,000 tons in 1563-64 to 163,000 tons in 1597-98” (Weimann 164). A “construction boom” (Weimann 164) took place in London, and a contemporary observer, John Stow noted its effects: In his great and stately Survey of London, published in 1598, when he was in his seventies, John Stow noted with dismay how many districts that formerly looked out on open fields where people could ‘refresh their dull spirits in the sweet and wholesome air’ now gave way to vast encampments of smoky hovels and workshops. (Bryson, 46) Shakespeare was born in 1564 and his childhood in Stratford-on-Avon, a country town, was fueled by wood (coal was burned in London, a port city, reachable by sea from the north, and in northern parts of England where it was mined). However, his adult life in London, where he moved in the late 1580s was fueled (ever increasingly) by coal. He would have noticed the difference in landscape, air quality, and population density. “Juliet is the sun” is finally an expression to show the risks and consequences-----and the process of becoming aware of these risks and consequences----of structural dependence on a fuel that both pollutes and depletes---and it was well-known in Shakespeare’s era that coal was depleting (Freese 28). Moreover, Shakespeare seems to have applied some of Giordano Bruno’s ideas about heliocentrism and cosmic unity directly to what Yates calls the “miseries of the times” (Yates GBHT 392), to show what Hamlet calls (in his description of the purpose of dramatic performance) “the very age and body of the time his form and pressure”(III.ii.23-4). Viewing the intellectual scene surrounding Shakespeare’s era in an organic way, we need to bring up, also Giordano Bruno since, by tying the sun (and its energy) to a way of life, Shakespeare was using the heliocentric ideas of Giordano Bruno (who had read Copernicus and used Copernicus’ ideas to build on his own ideas of an infinite universe) to artistically depict the energetic implications of heliocentrism for human beings. It is a systemic view, in line with the way that Bruno scholar Ingrid Rowland characterizes Bruno’s ideas as “the forest itself” (Rowland 2008: 109), a cosmic ecosystem of ultimate generative inputs, not merely Copernicus’ narrower mathematical calculations (or “footprints in the forest” (Rowland 2008: 109)). In the new infinite and radically centerless universe that Bruno posited, the earth depends totally on the sun. Bruno’s Lo Spaccio, the very book Gatti convincingly asserts is in Hamlet’s hands, starts off with: He is blind who does not see the sun, foolish who does not recognize it, ungrateful who is not thankful unto it, since so great is the light, so great the good, so great the benefit, through which it glows, through which it excels, through which it serves, the teacher of the senses, the father of substances, the author of life. (Bruno, 1584: 69) In particular, the “father of substances” and “the author of life” shows Bruno’s awareness of the sun’s role in generating the material to support life on earth. Bruno looked beyond just the Copernican mechanics: The Earth, in the infinite universe, is not at the center, except in so far as everything can be said to be at the center. In this chapter it is explained that the Earth is not central amongst the planets. That place is reserved for the Sun, for it is natural for the planets to turn towards its light and heat, and accept its law. (Bruno, quoted in Michel, 1962: 181) Bruno’s “new” cosmology was also, of course “old” in the sense that heliocentrism had already been proposed by the Green astronomer Aristarchus of Samos, in the third century B.C. , while other ideas Bruno included in his cosmology can also be seen, at least in nascent forms, in arrangements put forth by other ancient Greek thinkers. Romeo and Juliet was written during the time that Giordano Bruno was in prison (first in Venice and then in Rome). Earlier, however, Bruno had spent time in England, and had lectured there, also publishing his Italian dialogues in the 1580s. To sum up Bruno’s diverse (but connected) interests: religion, philosophy, science, the art of memory, magic, and more, is a bit beyond the scope of this paper. Yet his influence on Shakespeare, who was in his formative years when Bruno was in England, is much more profound than has been recognized Further evidence for this line of reasoning is found in the fact that the character Berowne is Giordano Bruno’s “namesake” (Yates GBHT 391) and “an echo of Bruno’s visit to England” (Yates GBHT 391). Yates argues that “a long line of writers (including herself)” (Yates GBHT 391) has tried to find the connection between Bruno and Berowne but “none of us has known what to look for in the play” (Yates GBHT 391). The complex mechanism is there, but subtly hidden: it is Berowne-Bruno’s finger pointing over to the next play, Romeo and Juliet, where the cosmic ideas of Bruno’s are adapted somewhat and framed in allegorical form.. Bruno, a philosopher, might not have dreaded the future effects of coal, but viewed the whole planetary energy structure and energy regime, including human experience within that, as a foregone conclusion, not something to be much bewailed. However, it is possible that Shakespeare wanted to portray things with a bit more of a judgmental tone. Friar Lawrence seems to suggest that Romeo has a choice whether to be good or bad. In the following passage, Friar Lawrence’s important “vice” and “virtue” speech, note how Romeo enters just in time to be compared to “this small flower”: O mickle is the powerful grace that lies In plants, herbs, stones, and their true qualities; For nought so vile that on the earth doth live But to the earth some special good doth give: Nor aught so good but, strain’d from that fair use, Revolts from true birth, stumbling on abuse, Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied, And vice sometime by action dignified. (enter Romeo) Within the infant rind of this small flower Poison hath residence and medicine power: For this, being smelt, with that part cheers each part; Being tasted, slays all senses with the heart. Two such opposed kings encamp them still In man as well as herbs, grace and rude will; And where the worser is predominant, Full soon the canker death eats up that plant. (II.3.15-30)) The comparison of Romeo to the flower can only be understood dramatically (since Romeo enters just when the Friar picks up the flower). The Friar doesn’t know that Romeo is there and so only the audience can make the connection between the flower and man. The suggestion is that a morality play is subtly in progress. Romeo later chooses the path away from Juliet when he kills Tybalt to avenge Mercutio’s death. Friar Lawrence’s entire speech also sets out an environmental message of a closed system (“The earth`s that`s nature`s mother is her tomb/What is her burying grave, that is her womb”) with material flowing from the earth as resources (“womb”) through human hands and bodies, then back into the earth again as waste (“tomb”) and there is also the idea of people and animals as dependent on these resources (“from her womb children of divers kind/We sucking on her natural bosom find”). The “womb”/”tomb” rhyme serves to underscore how the flow of materials is connected with the origin and disposal/composting of materials, through the earth. The lines that obliquely but clearly set forth Shakespeare`s doubts about the wholehearted embrace of coal use are lines 16-20: “in plants, herbs, stones, and their true qualities/ …some special good doth give/ Nor aught so good but, strain`d from that fair use/ Revolts from true birth, stumbling on abuse”. (my emphasis) “Stones” here may imply ‘coal’; coals look like stones, and early users of coal thought it was “a sort of stone”. (Freese 15) The word “stumbling” includes the idea of lack of intentionality, another piece of the puzzle in the emergent economic system he wishes to characterize. Shakespeare clearly recognized that humans had good intentions when they lit a coal fire. The waste they generated was unintentional. To underscore the positive, well-intentioned nature of human actions he gives Romeo the important, stand-alone line: “I thought all for the best” (italics mine) (III,i,104), at the turning point in the tragedy (when the dying Mercutio asks Romeo, “why the dev`l came you between us? I was hurt under your arm?”) ( III, i,102-103). Humans act defensively and positively. Yet because they are essentially locked in eternal competition (symbolized by the “ancient” feud between the Capulets and Montagues which has no stated reason, in the same way that competition arose out of evolutionary processes that go back eons), the emergent result in an economy/ecology may be a disaster: “all are punish`d” (V.iii, 295). At the end of Act II, scene iii (the beginning of the scene is Friar Lawrence`s speech about “stumbling on abuse”) Friar Lawrence says to Romeo, “Wisely and slow, they stumble that run fast” (II.iii.94), underscoring Shakespeare’s cautionary stance towards haste when it comes to energy transitions: leaving the sun may bring problems later. Shakespeare`s own disguised, but nevertheless poetic “lecture” on resources and ecology (Romeo and Juliet) is both scholarly and comprehensive and is, like Friar Lawrence`s opening speech a sort of treatise on material (coal) use/abuse: (a major clue to the real theme of this play is Friar Lawrence’s opening speech, which is a microcosm of the play).The play catalogues facets of the emergent economic structure---and does so also by using emergence in dramaturgy that comes about from interactions between past rituals, morality plays and present poetic styles and ideas: The profound interaction between poetic imagination and theatrical technique, renewed and refined at almost every level, serves, in Shakespeare, as a mode and a medium of perceiving and comprehending the world as a temporal, spatial and social experience. (Weimann 223) The ability of Shakespeare to produce an experience for the audience of “participating in a common cultural and social activity” (Weimann 223) comes from the underlying thematic message, deployed throughout the play in diverse ways, but structurally a unified one, which was examining the social, economic, human pressures related to coal use that entangled the Elizabethans, whether or not they knew it or wished it otherwise. Why did Shakespeare place---although discreetly--- his insights on economics and society in an emotional play about young love? The two streams of thought, romantic infinite love and cold-hearted ecological limits create a sort of polar opposition. Reconciling these two messages—one of physical limitation placed on us by ecology, the second of infinite ambition, desire and love---- is perhaps impossible. Populations (of all sorts of creatures) seem to naturally grow to the limits of available resources---and young love obviously plays a part in this process. Shakespeare perhaps alludes to the important issue of population growth when Lady Montague says to Juliet: Well, think of marriage now; younger than you, Here in Verona, ladies of esteem, Are made already mothers. By my count, I was your mother much upon these years That you are now a maid. (I.iii.68-73) In an organic Romeo and Juliet, it is necessary (besides addressing Friar Lawrence) to address the major character of Juliet’s nurse, who belongs to the tradition of the fool or clown. The fool or clown was, according to Weimann an archaic element, “closest to his early ritual heritage….. an atavistic agent of a cult…and its heretic”(Weimann 11): (The clown or fool’s) inexhaustible vitality and unbroken continuity have a good deal to do with the ambivalence of his dramatic functions: he retains the capacity both to enchant and disenchant. He can neutralize myth and ritual through the unmasking and debunking potential of mimesis, through his parody, criticism, or cynicism; but he can also generate a ritual dimension through the fantasy and madness of his topsy-turveydom, or through his inversion of values and the transformation of reality into something strange, sad, or comical.(Weimann 11) Through this topsy-turveydom, the fool or clown figure could have a powerful ability to tell the truth (hence the Nurse calls “God forbid” when she calls Juliet onto the stage, letting slip the truth), only it usually wouldn`t be recognized as such by other characters. It is mainly the nurse who can (verbally) access the sacred solar aspect of Juliet, because the Nurse’s dramaturgical lineage is old enough to go back to early rituals and festivals where the sun was indeed a god. Fools also traditionally “carried the ancient cudgel or clowns’s club (with its obvious phallic antecedants and links to fertility rites)” (Weimann 31). True to this spirit, Juliet’s Nurse is ever ready with a bawdy comment, and always in relation to Juliet: “Thou wilt fall backward when thou hast more wit” (I.iii.42), “But you shall bear the burthen soon at night” (I.v.76) and this aspect of Juliet (the sun associated with seasonal and pagan traditions involving fertility rites which the nurse relates symbolically by explaining that Juliet’s birth is on Lammas Eve) can, importantly, only be accessed---that is related or narrated----by the Nurse. Consequently, too, the nurse is the one whose voice (“Juliet!”) sometimes penetrates the scenes the lovers share. Shakespeare, we see, was a rather formal thinker with some clear ideas about how an allegory could and would reflect a complex social/economic system in “perfect” parallel design---(whether it actually does or not is not for me to say). In that sense, he may have also liked inserting puzzles and “conceits” (formal comparisons) where he could. For example, the formal title of Romeo and Juliet is “The Conceited Tragedie of Romeo and Juliet”. Another major “puzzle” type clue I did not notice this clue until I read Ron Rosenbaum’s book (Rosenbaum, Ron. The Shakespeare Wars. Clashing Scholars, Public Fiascoes, Palace Coups. New York, NY: Random House. 2006.) pages 378-9 after I had found the secret play. He says these lines hint at a secret play in Romeo and Juliet, but he cannot say what this play is and he does not perceive the secret allegory that I have found. occurs when Lady Capulet says to Juliet: Read o’er the volume of young Paris’ face, And find delight writ there with beauty’s pen. Examine every married lineament And see how one another lends content, And what obscured in this fair volume lies Find written in the margent of his eyes. This precious book of love, this unbound lover, To beautify him only lacks a cover. The fish live in the sea, and ‘tis much pride For fair without the fair within to hide, That book in many’s eyes doth share the glory That in gold clasps locks in the golden story. So shall you share all that he doth possess For having him, making yourself no less. (I.iii.87-100)(my emphasis) The italicized lines hint openly at the secret play contained in the larger play. And they also point philosophically to the importance of the hidden cosmic play for Shakespeare (“all that he doth possess”) Rosenbaum also points out how important these emphasized lines seem to be, although he cannot explain why.. In addition, the color “gold” (“gold clasps”and “golden story”) here is extremely important because “gold is the prime metal of the Sun” (Cohen 353). “The color gold had long been established in the classical canons of beauty and power. Almost two thousand years before Homer, in the time of the Proto-Indo-Europeans, the color was connected to the worship of Sun and fire, and to the adoration of a yellow dawn goddess”(Cohen 353). In effect, Shakespeare gives us another esoteric clue and hinting, and not for the first time, that Juliet is (at least in part) a sun goddess. References Aristotle, Metaphysics (http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.8.viii.html) Brimblecombe, Peter. London Air Pollution, 1500-1900. Atmospheric Environment, 11 (1977) 1157-1162. Bryson, Bill. 2007. Shakespeare. London: Harper Perrenial. Cohen, Richard. 2010. Chasing the Sun: the epic story of the star that gives us life. New York, NY: Random House. Corning, Peter. The Re-Emergence of ‘Emergence’: A Venerable Concept in Search of a Theory. Complexity, 7 (6) (2002) 18-30 (pages 1-21 on Web-formatted version) Ebeling, Florian. 2007. The Secret History of Hermes Trismegistus: Hermeticism from Ancient to Modern Times. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Freese, Barbara. 2003. Coal: A Human History. London: Penguin Books. Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas. 1971. The Entropy Law and the Economic Process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Reprinted 1999. Greenblatt, Stephen. 2004. Will in the World: How Shakespeare became Shakespeare. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company. Evans, G. Blakemore, ed. 1974. The Riverside Shakespeare. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Honan, Park. 1999. Shakespeare: A Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rosenbaum, Ron. 2006. The Shakespeare Wars: Clashing Scholars, Public Fiascoes, Palace Coups. New York: Random House. Tainter, Joseph A. 1988. The Collapse of Complex Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge Univertsity Press. Weimann, Robert. 1978. Shakespeare and the Popular Tradition in the Theater. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press. Reprinted 1987. Yates, Frances C. 1964. Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition. Oxon, U.K.: Routledge. Reprinted 2010. Yates, Frances C. 1975. Majesty and Magic in Shakespeare’s Last Plays. Boulder, Colorado: Shambhala Publications. PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 18