shakespeare63.1.kottman

7/28/2019 shakespeare63.1.kottman

1/39

Defying the Stars: Tragic Love as the Struggle for Freedom in

Romeo and Juliet

Paul A. Kottman

Shakespeare Quarterly, Volume 63, Number 1, Spring 2012, pp. 1-38

(Article)

Published by The Johns Hopkins University Press

DOI: 10.1353/shq.2012.0007

For additional information about this article

Accessed 20 May 2013 15:41 GMT GMT

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/shq/summary/v063/63.1.kottman.html
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/shq/summary/v063/63.1.kottman.htmlhttp://muse.jhu.edu/journals/shq/summary/v063/63.1.kottman.html


2/39

Positions

Defying the Stars:

Tragic Love as the Struggle for Freedom

in Romeo and Juliet

Pau A. Ka

For freedom is this: to be with oneself in the other.G. W. F. Hegel

Is it een so? Then I defy yo, strs!R J, 5.1.241

S

akpa Romeo and Juliet (1592) is rgbly the reeminentdocment of love in the West.2 Lie no other wor, the ly heightens or

desire for trgic love story tht we still see in mny formsin novells, nov-els, lms, msicls, nd oers. ere re fmilir exlntions for Shesereslove trgedy. Some regrd Sheseres lovers s victims of bd timing or cci-dentl misfortne; others mintin tht Romeo nd Jliet re in the throes ofyong love nd come to rin becse of their intemernce. Bt becse thesecconts redce the ction to rticlr circmstnce, they do not deqtelyexlin the myths niversl el.

e most common interrettion of the myth is tht it exoses conictbetween the lovers individl desires nd the reigning demnds of fmily, civic,nd socil norms in reltion to which those desires re formed. In this sense,R J is rdigm of modern trgedy, which in Hegels denitionof Sheseren drm tes for its roer sbject mtter . . . the sbjectiveinner life of the chrcter who is not, s in clssicl trgedy, rely individl

1 G. W. F. Hegel, Ezykp r phsphsch Wssschf Grwss in Wrk,vol. 8, section 24, ed. E. Moldenher nd K. Michelet (Frnfrt Srhm rn Min, 1970)qoted in Robert Piin, Wht Is the Qestion for Which Hegels eory of Recognition Isthe Answer? Erp Jr f Phsphy 8 (2000), 156. All cittions from R Jre ten from Brin Gibbonss edition (London: Methen, 1980) nd cited in the text by ct,scene, nd line.

2 Dymn Cllghn, ed., Introdction, in R J: xs Cxs (New Yor:Bedford / St. Mrtins Press, 2003), 1.


3/39

SHAKESPEARE QARTERLY2

embodiment of ethicl owers.3 Even the fmilir interrettion of the loversftes s ind of Lbs, by which their deths celebrte the strength nd

intensity of their devotion to one nother, oers version of this generl con-ict.4 Becse the lovers desires cnnot be reconciled to the life of the fmilyor society from which they sring, they mst extingish themselves. Nothingvindictes societys demnds so mch s the lovers self-destrction.5

e contors of this criticl rdigm hve been trced in mny dierentwys.6 Bt the forml strctre of this dilecticl tension between the loversindividl desires, on the one hnd, nd some rticlr form of socil, fmil-il, or civic life, on the other, remins the criticl rdigm tht frmes ornderstnding ofR J. Feminist scholrs Coli Khn nd Jnet

Adelmn, s well s their critic Jonthn Goldberg, rge tht the ideliztionof love in Sheseres ly is n ideologicl constrct (trirchl, heterosex-ist, homosocil, nd so forth) nd hence socil throgh nd throgh. Love isnot trnscendent stte of otherworldly bliss bt worldly redicment; sexlidentities entil sociohistoricl conditions of ossibility; socil forms nd sexlidentities re not sttic bt trnsformble nd sbject to critiqe nd revision tthe level of socil rctice. However, grnting ll of this does nothing to dislcethe criticl-interretive rdigm t isse here, which sees individl desires sirredcible to the socil norms by which they re shed.7

3 Hegel mentions R J longside H s exemlry in this regrd, lthogh helso describes R J s the trgic trnsience of so betifl love which is shtteredby the crzy clcltions of noble nd well-mening cleverness. See G. W. F. Hegel, DrmticPoetry, in Phsphrs Shkspr, ed. Pl A. Kottmn (Stnford: Stnford P, 2009), 73,8081.

4 Mrice Chrney, Shkspr Lv Ls (New Yor: Colmbi P, 2000), 80.5 Here we cold comre Sheseres ly to the love-sicide drms of Jnese ly-

wright Chks Mz (16531725), where the love ir conicts with socil orfmilil dties, economic interests, or obligtions (gr in Jnese). Or we might thin of

Denis de Rogements well-nown thesis tht ssionte love is hereticlly nihilistic oo-sition to Christin love or fedl mrrige. nwres nd in site of themselves, writes DeRogement in clssic formltion, the lovers hve never hd bt one desirethe desire fordeth! See Lv h Wsr Wr (Princeton: Princeton P, 1983), 46.

6 Dymn Cllghn observes certin formtion of desiring sbjectivity ttendnt onProtestnt nd esecilly Pritn ideologies of mrrige nd the fmily reqired by, or t lestvery condctive to the emergent economic formtion of, citlism. Althogh Cllghnsroch is ment to be nrrowly historicist, her essy nevertheless mes cler, in its invoctionof emergent forms of citlism, how this formtion of desire contines throghot cltrltrnsformtions in the modern er. See e Ideology of Romntic Love: e Cse of R J, in R J: Cprry Crc Essys, ed. R. S. White (New Yor: Pl-grve, 2001), 85115, es. 85.

7 Goldbergs debte with Khn nd Adelmn over the wy in which love is idelized orideologized in their interrettions ofR J only redobles the serch for, nd re-sosition of, criticl edge in forbidden desires with resect to the socil. We see this in the


4/39

DEFYING THE STARS 3

Ting n even broder view, we cn see why this interrettive rdigmcontines to hve sch exlntory force.8 After ll, rtre between the

desires of individls nd reviling societl norms, or the filre of dty-bondforms of life to stisfy individls, forms the core of hilosohicl cconts ofmodern sbjectivity. In Sheseres inence on Fred (or Freds inenceon or view of Shesere), recll fmilir ssge from Cvz IsDscs: On the one hnd, love comes into oosition to the interests ofciviliztion; on the other, civiliztion thretens love with sbstntil restric-tions.9 Stted more historiclly, growing rift between trditionl societiesnd individl desiresthe so-clled world liention exerienced by hmnbeings in the we of scientic, economic, nd hilosohicl modernity nd

the fndmentl rocesses s the reslt of which mn . . . lost his lce in theworldis by now fmilir troe in modern intellectl history.10

My gol is not to sirit s wy to birds-eye view of modernity, bt to cllto mind the stes imlied by or rdigmtic nderstnding of R J. We see or loves, ims, nd desires s dilecticlly conditioned by, btnever flly reconciled to, whtever or hoseholds, worlces, nd commnlbonds demnd of s. R J rises this dilecticl tension betweenindividl sbjects nd socil relity to fever itchnto deth. And the lydoes so, nforgettbly, by showing sexl love to be the roer horizon of thisconict, sering or vision of love to or self-wreness s modern sbjects, orstrggles for freedom nd self-reliztion. is, I thin, cconts for mch ofthe lys criticl recetion, s well s its olr el, its contining rgencynd relevnce.

wy tht Khn reds the ly s ording the lovers desire of their own tht is t odds withtrirchy. And lthogh he criticizes Khns heterosexist gend, Goldberg concldes thtto t ressre on the heterosexlizing ideliztion of the ly nd on the mgicl soltion itrrives t over the corses of the yong lovers . . . is to me them vilble for forbidden desires

tht ry cll trirchl rrngements into qestion. e hrse relly do nderscoresGoldbergs own ercetion of conict between forbidden desires nd certin (in this cse,trirchl) congrtion of the socil, the very conict tht remins the orgnizing formlistssmtion beneth or nderstnding of the myth. See Jonthn Goldberg, Shksprs H(Minneolis: of Minnesot P, 2002), 271, 281 (emhsis dded).

8 To cite recent exmle, in his new boo Stehen Greenbltt writes, Above ll, erhs, itis Sheseres lovers who enconter gin nd gin the bondries tht society or ntre setsto the most exlted nd seemingly nconned ssions . . . the eclir mgic of Sheserescomedies is tht loves reciosness nd intensity re not diminished by sch exosre to limitsbt rther enhnced. See Shksprs Fr (Chicgo: of Chicgo P, 2010), 3.

9 Sigmnd Fred, Cvz Is Dscs, trns. Jmes Strchey (New Yor: Norton,1961), 58.

10 Alexndre Koyre, Fr h Cs Wr h I Uvrs (Bltimore: Johns HoinsP, 1957), 2. World-liention is the hrse Hnnh Arendt sed to describe the sme rocessin T H C (Chicgo: of Chicgo P, 1958), 24857.


5/39


However, this interretive rdigm leves some trobling qestions botthe ly nresolved. e lovers sicides, for strt, still cll to be nderstood

(Go hence nd hve more tl of these sd things [5.3.306]). Nor will retro-sective ccont of the events convince s tht their stoln mrrige dy (l. 232)led cssry to Romeos bnishment, Jliets betrothl, the mgic otion, ndthe othecry, mch less to the doble sicide. e nrrtive of events oeredby the Frir (ll. 22868) is jst tht: smmtion of disjointed fcts nd cci-dents, not trgic yhs of conseqentil ctions, reversls, nd recognitions.

Moreover, we hve borne witness to wht the Frirs objective reconting hsmissed. We herd the blcony scene nd the bde, wtched the lovers h-iness nd their self-destrction. We now fll well wht the Frirs ccont

ignoresrcticlly everything tht mtters to s! Liewise, we recognize thtthe objective otcomecivic ecestnds removed from the hert of or reldrmtic investment. We did not relly cre whether Clet nd Montgecold be reconciled to one nother; indeed, for Clet nd Montge theglooming ece this morning with it brings (l. 304) is not worth the rice.Objectively nd ectively, it is Romeos nd Jliets sorrow nd joy tht we hvefollowed nd tht we contine to tl bot. For never ws story of morewoe / n this of Jliet nd her Romeo (ll. 3089). e connection betweenhrwoe nd the socil otcome (ece between the fmilies) still ers to sstrined, nstisfying, nconvincing, Poor scrices of or enmity (l. 303). Inshort, it trns ot tht or rdigmtic interrettion of the myth dilecti-cl tension between the lovers desires nd the demnds of society or ntrecnnot lsibly ccont for the lys otcome or the lovers own ctions, ll ofwhich strin this dilectic st its breing oint.

In his Lcrs F Ar, Hegel sensed tht Shesere ingrtedsomething lie nondilecticl concetion of trgedy. Here is Hegel voicing hisnxiety bot Sheseren drm: Since now it is not the sbstntil elementin these sheres [of fmily, stte, chrch, nd so on] which engrosses the interestof individls, their ims re brodly nd vriosly rticlrized nd in schdetil tht wht is trly sbstntil cn often glimmer throgh them in only very dim wy.11 In short, the conndrm tht Sheseren drm osed toHegel is the one I jst noted. In Sheseres drm, the tethering betweenindividl ctions nd the demnds of cltre or the clims of ntre slcensto oint t which the dilectic cn no longer tighten it.

11 Hegels discssion of Shesere comes t the very end of lengthy set of lectres on nert, s if he were somewht mmoxed by the wors tht he seems to hve regrded s theclmintion of hmn rtistic rodction (Drmtic Poetry, 73). For longer discssion ofShesere in the context of Hegels reections on rt, see my e Chrm Dissolves Ace:Shesere nd the Self-dissoltion of Drm, in Shkspr C Phsphy, ed.

Jennifer Btes (Albny: Stte niversity of New Yor Press, forthcoming).


6/39

DEFYING THE STARS 5

Modern hilosohers since Schelling nd Hegel, from Nietzsche, Fred, ndHeidegger to Adorno nd Benjmin, hve nderstood the trgic to be essen-

til to nderstnding the fte of modern sbjectivity. Bt while Sheserendrm is n imortnt object of their ttention, it is rimrily Attic trgedy(bove ll, tht of Sohocles) tht frnishes the model for hilosohys trgicdilectics.12 Remrbly, or interrettion of orselves s modern sbjects, lieor rdigmtic interrettion ofR J, tes root in hilosohi-cl trdition whose rimry model of the trgic is dilecticl tension betweensocil dties, not sexl love. It is Sohoclen, not Sheseren.13

In the resent essy, my im is to relce or rdigmtic interrettionof R J with dierent nderstnding of love s the strggle for

freedom nd to resent Sheseres drm s roerly modern vision ofor trgic sbjectivity. My rose is not to se R J s retextfor hilosohicl rgment tht cold be mstered withot reference to thely, bt to resent Sheseres ly s the reeminent drmtiztion of ormodern sbjectivity s trgic loversto exlin wht we re doing when weenct R J rther thn, sy, Ag. I will oer fller exlntionof elements of R J tht hve elded or nderstnding, sch sthe medicinl remedy nd the sicides. I will lso illminte how new inter-rettion of the ly yields deeer nderstnding of or strggle for freedomnd self-reliztion s lovers. Contesting the notion tht the trgic core ofor modern sbjectivity is rooted in conict between individl desires ndthe reigning demnds of fmily, civic, nd socil norms shing those desires,I contend tht Sheseres ly shows how Romeo nd Jliet re formed ssbjects throgh cts of mtl self-recognition tht mte sch conicts. Schcts constitte love ir.

R J is the drm of strggle for individl freedom nd self-reliztion, nd this drm hs trgic strctre. However, the trgic core ofor self-reliztion srings not from or ersonl strggles with externl socilor ntrl necessities bt from the dwning reliztion tht nothing, not evenmortlity, sertes or individtes s bsoltely. is wening leds Romeond Jliet to the reliztion tht, if they re to clim their lives s their own, they

12 For more on Sheseres imortnce to the Germn hilosohy of the trgic, see Pl A.Kottmn, Introdction, in Phsphrs Shkspr, 117. For n excellent overview of thetrgic s dilectic in Germn hilosohy, see Peter Szondi, A Essy h rgc (Stnford:Stnford P, 2002).

13 Attic writers did not te sexl love s roerly trgic redicment. According to Denisde Rogement, for the Grees, love rises roblems only if it enters into conict with morldty. It is not roblem in itself. One my ill ot of jelosy, or becse ones (socil) ride iswonded, bt one cnnot die of love (the methor itself is ridicled). See Lv Dcr: Essys h Myhs f Lv (New Yor: Pntheon, 1963), 12.


7/39


mst somehow ctlize their serteness for themselves, throgh one nother.eir love ir is not the story of two individls whose desire to be together

is thwrted by A greter ower thn we cn contrdict (5.3.153). Rther, it isthe story of two individls wh cvy c their serte individlity, theirown freedom, in the only wy tht they cnthrogh one nother. eir loveir demonstrtes tht their serteness or individtion is not n imosed,externl necessity, bt the oertion of their freedom nd self-reliztion. Toshow this, they will ste their lives.

II

Well not crry cols.1.1.1

e men of two fmilies rere to ght to the deth. Ned weons ondisly, ech seethes for domintion over the other, for the weest goes to thewll (1.1.33, 1213). Becse there is no cler distinction between mster ndservnt, even those who re ostensibly servnts ght for mstery. Since ech siderecognizes the other s gried by the sme desire, ght is in the ir.

Bt wht does ech wish to gin in the ght? Why the need for ght t ll?We cn qicly dismiss trditionl nswer to these qestionstht the men

ght becse they hen to be Clets or Montges, s if they were obligedto do so by n ncient grdge (Prologe, l. 3) between their resective hoses.14Becse sch grdges merely oer occsions for qrreling, they cnnot serve sthe roer im of the ght.15

e brwl in R J gives ech the chnce to rove his mnhood.16Bt wht is ment by mnhood is not some desired socil stnding, msclinevirte, or mnliness, lie the mn t rms in Cstigliones Bk f h Crr.Sch stnding my be desirble in certin contexts nd obtined in some cir-cmstnces by reviling in violent conict. However, becse violent conict

14 is is why Ws S Sry is mch less griing thn its Sheseren sorce. ere, theght to the deth is essentil to broder ethnic tribl strggle or gng wr, in which the loversre cght nd by which they re defeted. Hence, Tony nd Mris fte is not trgic, btmerely wretched, regrettble, nd thetics if the lovers merely hd the misfortne of beingin the wrong lce t the wrong time mong the wrong eole.

15 As Gregory nd Smsons oening exchnge mes cler, no one ghts on behlf of hishose or for glory nd honor. e qrrel is between or msters nd s their men / Tis llone (1.1.1819). Merctio lyflly cnowledges this in his nd Benvolios desire to qrrel,no mtter the reson or occsion: Why, tho wilt qrrel with mn tht hth hir more or hir less in his berd thn tho hst (3.1.127, es. ll. 1618).

16 ere is no se denying tht disly of sexl rowess motivtes the men (I will shMontges men from the wll, nd thrst his mids to the wll [1.1.1517]). Bt sexlrowess is not only form of socil restige bt lso strggle for self-reliztion.


8/39

DEFYING THE STARS 7

is not bsoltely cssry for the cqisition of sch stndingif nything,in Sheseres Veron, ones civic stts ers to deend on eeing the

ecethe desire to be recognized by hrs s mnly (or s Montge or Clet) does not exlin the necessity of ght to the deth. And it is ghtto the deth tht we mst exlin; something more elementl is t ste.

I rsk y f b h hsy the men fr prsg,r s c f rb y r ggrss; b rhr shw h h sr sy v(r sc) s rv bsy (Drw if yo be men [1.1.59]).

I r h y sr v. My by vy s h hghs v fr; bgc f s hghr g by whch y xsc s sr. I ksr f y w f by rskg .

If I c sk hs c, h sc sg r rcg f y hc b gf fr .17

is is the tmoshere in which Tyblt enters. Hting the very word ece,he nnonces wht is trly t ste: indeendence chieved throgh thedestrction of the other (Trn thee, Benvolio, loo on thy deth [l. 64]).Bt Tyblts drem of indeendence is shttered s soon s it is nnonced. Heis not defeted by his foe, the Montges, bt by the citizens of Veron, whooose not the qrreling men bt indeendent qrreling s sch (Rebel-lios sbjects, enemies to ece [l. 79]). Forced to row their mistemerdweons to the grond before the Prince, Tyblt nd the others re thrownbc into civic life (l. 85).18 By qrreling, the men wold only bring bot theirown deths. If ever yo distrb or streets gin / Yor lives shll y the forfeitof the ece (ll. 9495). Where life-nd-deth bttles led to the immeditedeth for ll combtnts, the very mening of the strggle is lost.19 s, Veron

17 is is exctly how Hegel describes the motivtion for the life-nd-deth strggle; see G.W. F. Hegel, T Phgy f Spr, trns. A. V. Miller(Oxford: Oxford P, 1977), 114

(rgrh 187).18 As Northro Frye notes, In view of Tdor olicy nd Qeen Elizbeths ersonl dislieof dels nd brwling, [Sheseres] ly wold hve no troble with the censor. Nrhp Fry Shkspr (New Hven: Yle P, 1985), 15. In n intriging essy clled e Del Dies,Kwme Anthony Aih exlores the demise of deling s socil rctice throgh whichhonor nd stnding re bestowed. We might thin of the citizens rising in R Js stging this sme demise. See T Hr C: Hw Mr Rvs Hpp (New Yor:Norton, 2010), 152.

19 Of corse, one might still see to me life meningfl by ghting to the deth, evenwhen deth is the certin otcome. is is wht hens in Mcbeths nl strggle. Hving lostll hoe of leving the bttle live, he refses both sicide nd srrender: Ly on, Mcd /And dmned be him tht rst cries Hold, enogh! (Mcbh, 5.8.3334). Bt s Sheseresrst diences erhs remembered better thn we do, on disly here is merely the nobility ofthe highest nimls who strggle even when doomed by their fetters. ey hve tied me to theste; I cnnot y, / Bt berlie I mst ght the corse (5.7.12). See Mcbh, ed. KennethMir (Wlton-on-mes, K: oms Nelson, 1997).


9/39


mes bondsmen of them ll. e men s themselves if the lw will bide somch s dent bite of the thmb: o shlt not stir one foot to see foe

(l. 78). is is the oening sttement ofR J, reminding s tht onlyby sting ones life cn one come to now wht is worth dying for: to now themesre of ones own life, tht which one loves bsoltely, s the core of onesvery being.

Mny hilosohers regrd the del s the elementl scene in the strggle forhmn self-reliztion.20 First, this is becse obvios externl necessities formthe dels horizon, esecilly tht wewill ll die. Not only will yo nd I die, btyo nd I will die in sch wy tht we cnnot see ech other ded. Or ser-teness hs the strctre of del becse it shows mortlity to be the horizon

of or otherness to one nother. It is the fctl serteness t the hert of llor reltionshis.21 Second, becse mortlity is linly nvoidble, it seems tobe the most essentil horizon for ny self-reliztion to which we cn sire.22t I will eventlly die, no mtter wht I do, is not only drery reminder ofmy freedom; my mortlity mes me conscios of my fr, since I nowstnd in reltion to my own mortlity nd not to some indierent end oint.In del, I ste my life with heightened ttention to the very rel ossibilitytht I will not srvive. ird, the del lys bre the wy in which my heightenedttention to y nitde entils my een wreness of nother who will eithersrvive me or be srvived by me. In the del, my mortlity is not mde ressingby some fct of the mtter (dnger, illness, ge, frilty) bt becse I recognizetht someone is trying to ill me.23 is mens tht the conditions nd limitsof my freedom, in the fll cnowledgment of my mortlity or my constittivenitde, cn only be mine throgh reltion to nother.

In ming the oint tht it is only throgh rising ones life tht freedom iswon, Hegel shows tht this ris entils seeing ones self throgh n enemy who

20

e signicnce of the del for modern self-consciosness is given its fllest elbortion inthe ssges from Hegels Phgy f Spr to which I hve lredy referred. Bt there rentecedents, for exmle, the b cr s, which in Hobbes Lvh (1651)chrcterizes the stte of ntre from which the instittionlly inheritble life of the com-monwelth srings.

21 For n elbortion of this sme thoght with resect to R J, see Jcqes Der-rid, Ahorism, Contertime, in Phsphrs Shkspr, ed. Pl A. Kottmn(Stnford:Stnford P, 2009), 17083, es. 174.

22 Althogh I locte this clim in Hegels deiction of the life-nd-deth strggle in T Ph-gy f Spr, it cn be fond in the wor of other hilosohers, erhs most fmoslyin Heideggers notion of Dseins being-towrd-deth. See Mrtin Heidegger, S z ,in Bg , trns. John Mcqrrie nd Edwrd Robinson (New Yor: Hrer nd Row,1962), 247.

23 In Hegels words, Jst s ech stes his own life, so ech mst see the others deth(Phgy f Spr, 114 [rgrh 187]).


10/39

DEFYING THE STARS 9

sees ones deth. It is not enogh for me to ris my life for this or tht reson:for God nd contry, to sve the life of nother, or for the sheer thrill of it. In

strggle to the deth with nother, I ris myself in reltion to nother hmnbeing who sees y deth. Indeed, I mst see tht h riss his life to ill ifIm to ris y life in the strggle. If I fil to erceive his mrderosness, I donot ste my life; I will simly be slghtered or mbshed. is moment ofself-externlity is Hegels focs.24 Yet in R J, Shesere showss tht, while not inescble, the life-nd-deth strggle is less elementl ndless drmticlly comelling thn the love reltion.25 Accordingly, the oeningbttle ofR J does not end in deth. Nor does it reslt in rel-tionshi tht might be historiclly reied in commnl or instittionl wy

of life, lie the mster nd slve to which Hegels life-nd-deth strggle givesrise.26 It is s if Shesere resciently greed with Hegel (nd other modernhilosohers) when he set the stes s n intensely drmtic strggle for free-dom nd self-reliztion. Bt it is s if Shesere new tht the scene nd itsdrmtic movement mst be lid ot rther dierently if these stes re to beflly grsed. Sbverting the hilosohicl reocction with life-nd-dethstrggles, Shesere begins his love trgedy with n borted del.

III

Bt Montge is bond s well s I,. . . nd tis not hrd I thin

For men so old s we to ee the ece.1.2.13

As bondsmen to the Prince, both Montge nd Clet redily cnowl-edge tht they mst nd wys other thn ghting to ss the time. ey re oldnd wnt nothing more thn to live ot their lives with some mesre of grti-ction. To this end, they hold fests to mr the coming of sring nd rrnge

mrriges. Clet sees flllment not in the qlity of the wrkhe cn nowccomlish bt in the reltive mstery he might demonstrte by lying mg-nnimos host nd deciding his dghters worldly fte: Erth hth swllowd

24 Hegel, Phgy f Spr, 114 (rgrh 187).25 I resent the fll demonstrtion of this clim, tht Sheseren drm shows dels to

be of secondry signicnce in the drm of hmn freedom, for forthcoming essy, Del,in Ery Mr Trcy: Oxfr wy-Frs Cry Apprchs Lrr, ed. HenryS. Trner (Oxford: Oxford P, forthcoming).

26 If nything, Sheseres drm dislys dissoltions of or inherited forms of comm-nl life nd their ttendnt rcticesthe frctring of civic ties, fmilil bonds, nd oliticllleginces. See Pl A. Kottmn, rgc Cs Shkspr: Dshrg h Gb(Bltimore: Johns Hoins P, 2009).


11/39


ll my hoes bt she; / She is the hoefl ldy of my erth (1.2.1415). Afterll, Clet still commnds servnts; he still rles his hosehold. Or so he

believes. Althogh we hve to s: cn the hosehold, or the life of the Fmily,rovide scient occsion for individls to see their stisfction?

For his rt, hving gldly missed the fry, yong Romeo nds it dicltto ss the time: Ay me, sd hors seem long (1.1.115, 159). e cse of thesdness tht lengthens Romeos hors is not mysterios; Benvolio discovers thetrth strightwy.

Wht sdness lengthens Romeos hors? Not hving tht which, hving, mes them short. In love? Ot. Of love? Ot of her fvor where I m in love.

(ll. 16166)

t love here mens sexl etite is obvios enogh; Romeo desires tohve Roslind (ll. 20614). is is why Roslind need not te the stge;she is mere lc, s Romeo sys, not hving. At this jnctre, Romeo isnothing other thn this desiring emtiness: Tt, I hve lost myself, I m not

here / is is not Romeo, hes some other where (ll. 19596). Worse, becseRoslind ers to Romeo sfrvrlcing, he regrds himself s condemnedto n existence of nstised longing.27

. . . shell not be hitWith Cids rrow, she hth Dins wit,And in strong roof of chstity well rmdFrom loves we childish bow she lives nchrmd.

(ll. 2069)

Were he to hve her, she wold lose her indeendent stts nd become conqered thing, lling for his lc. Sh (Roslind) is not wht Romeo is rellymissing here; wht he desires is stte of fllness. So long s he remins griedby this nstisble desire, Romeo lives emtily, s if ded: She hth forswornto love, nd in tht vow / Do I live ded, tht live to tell it now (ll. 22122).

27 When Merctio lter qis tht Romeo ses the nmbers tht Petrrch owed in, hereminds s of the Petrrchn edigree of both this rhetoric nd its nderstnding of desire(2.4.3940). Desire is deicted more or less s Jcqes Lcn describes it, s not the lc ofthis or tht, bt the lc of being whereby [] being exists. See Jcqes Lcn, Sr II: TEg Frs Try h Try f Pscyhyss, ed. J. Alin Miller, trns. S. Tomselli(New Yor: Norton, 1991), 223. Nmbers refer to the metricl mesre of love oem. Formore on Petrrch in reltion to R J, see Hether Dbrow, Echs f Dsr: EgshPrrchs Is Crscrss (Ithc: Cornell P, 1995), 26367.


12/39

Dfy SS 11

ccording to Benvolio, all that is required is that omeo orget osalind(l. 223.) and come to desire another. Benvolio suggests that i this does not

happen on its own, then omeos desire should be ruled b something else: Beruld b me, Benvolio sas, orget to think o her . . . xamine other beauties (ll.223, 226). What Benvolio ails to see is that there is no other omeo, no sel-conscious , apart rom the sexuall desiring omeo, and no wa or omeoto master his own desire, no wa or his desire to be ruled. n willul eorts inthis direction onl redouble his awareness o his involuntar desire or osalind:

Show me a mistress that is passing air;What doth her beaut serve but as a noteWhere ma read who passd that passing air?farewell, thou canst not teach me to orget.

(ll. 23235)

But Benvolios larger argument is this: as long as one is alive to the world andto others, even i onl halheartedl, then one lack can alwas be replaced withanother. omeos desire were truly limited to osalind, then it would signalthe end o his lie. Black and portentious must this humour prove / Unlessgood counsel ma the cause remove (ll. 13940). omeo will get over osalindas soon as he nds himsel once again subjected to desires promiscuit.28 o eel

the resuscitated arousal o desire or anothersome other maid / Tat willshow ou shining at this east (1.2.99100)is to be thrown back into lie,willingl or not.

ut man, one re burns out anothers burningOne pain is lessend b anothers anguish . . .ake thou some new inection to th eend the rank poison o the old will die.

(ll. 4546, 4950)

Such are the enjoments o the lie to which Benvolio and Mercutio seekto return oung omeo. t is thus no accident that the arrive as masquers;a masque is a sucientl pleasing wa to ormalize conditions under which a

28 n his later seminars, Lacan describes drive as nding some satisaction in substitutesor the ullness o being, or or being perectl ull. See Jacques Lacan, SeminarXI: Te FourFundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis, ed. Jacques-lain Miller, trans. lan Sheridan (ewyork: orton, 1977), and Seminar XX: Encore, On Feminine Sexuality, Te Limits of Love and

Knowledge, ed. Jacques-lain Miller, trans. Bruce fink (ew york: orton, 1998). See alsolenka Zupani, Ethics of the Real: Kant, Lacan (ew york: Verso, 2000); and Joan Copjec,Imagine Teres No Woman: Ethics and Sublimation (Cambridge, M: M Press, 2003). for aLacanian critique o Petrarchism, see Joel fineman, Shakespeares Perjured Eye (Berkele: U oCaliornia P, 1986).


13/39


veritble rde of sbstittble objects of desire might er to ech other(On, lsty gentlemen [1.4.113]). e msqe is more thn forml chrde.

In the bsence of qrreling or dels, the msqe hs now become the c,so to se, of Verons socil world.29 Where living is grsed s stisfyingsbstittion of one desire for nother, revelry is the most self-wre form of lifeto which one might sire: A visor for visor (l. 30).

As celebrtion of desires romiscity, the msqe shold be no more ndno less drmtic thn the wxing nd wning of etites. It oght to involve nosgc or conseqentil word or deed; only dncing, irting, eting, looing,liing. Anxiety shold rise merely from n ttentive concern for good cheer nd fll glss. e time sends itself in the stition of etites, ntil Clets

frewell: lets to bed. / . . . it wxes lte, / Ill to my rest (1.5.12426).

IV

Too erly seen nnown, nd nown too lte.1.5.138

Althogh Jliet desires no rticlr other when she enters the ly, she is,lie Romeo nd his comnions, wre of herself s sexlly desiring being.With news of her betrothl to Pris, Jliet roches the msqerde redy

to be moved by rs: Ill loo to lie, if looing liing move (1.3.97). She thsenconters Romeo in the sirit in which he enconters her. Moved by desirefor one nother tht relces ll others (Did my hert love till now? Forswerit, sight / For I neer sw tre bety till this night [1.5.5152]), they swiftlyrogress from looing to seing to cressing to issing (ll. 92109). I tethis moment to be sexl consmmtion, or s close s Shesere cn getto showing the lovers hving fll sexl reltions on stge: Yo iss by thboo(l. 109). I mention this rtly to exlin why I do not thin tht Jliets lterinsistence on mrrige hs nything to do with concerns on her rt bot

legitimting sexl reltions between them. (I will rovide my nderstnding oftheir mrrige shortly.) Be tting the sirit of the msqe, this is still n nony-mos, relceble desire.Both re robbly msed when they meet.30Nothingt this oint distingishes Romeo nd Jliets enconter from the sedction ofny other Clet by Benvolio or Merctio.

From wht, then, does the ensing drm between Romeo nd Jliet rise?e nswer trns ot to be rther simle: Romeo nd Jliet re not stised

29 I nderstnd this to be the reson tht Clet trns to msqes fter nerly thirty yersof ghting (1.5.3040) nd forbids Tyblt to ght with Romeo: Show fir resence nd to these frowns, / An ill-beseeming semblnce of fest (1.5.7273).

30 Recll Tyblts comment, is by his voice shold be Montge . . . Come hither, coverdwith n ntic fce (1.5.53, 55). It is not cler tht Jliet ever exmines Romeos fce by the lightof dy ntil their mrrige by the Frir.


14/39

DEFYING THE STARS 13

with the stisfction oered by the msqe nd its nonymity. is initildisstisfction is scient to sr the serch for stisfction of dierent

sort. Or, to t the qestion s Jliet does, Wht stisfction cnst tho hvetonight? (2.2.126).

For strt, Romeo nd Jliet do not wnt to remin nnown to onenother. Benvolio nd Merctio, by contrst, linly see to remin nidenti-ble t the msqe. ey remin revelers t hert nd become frther nd fr-ther estrnged from Romeo, whose ctions er to them s incresingly con-fonding: let [the ldies] mesre s by wht they will / Well mesre them mesre nd be gone (1.4.910). Romeo nd Jliet rse one nother becsestisfying sexl reltions often imly tht one hs not hd enogh of the other,

sexlly (O tresss sweetly rgd. / Give me my sin gin [1.5.1089]). Btthere is more to Romeos trnrond nd Jliets soliloqy on the blcony thnsexl rges; t the minimm, both wnt to now wh it is they desire (CnI go forwrd when my hert is here? / Trn bc, dll erth, nd nd thy centreot [2.1.12]). is is the decisive trning oint; if Romeo nd Jliet now wntto now, to single ot, wh they desire, then they mst be singled ot. isgenertes new roblem: how re they to recognize one nother?

V

Wht is yond gentlemn?1.5.126

Who is Jliet? And who is Romeo? Are they recognizble to themselves orothers s individls? In t lest one sense, Romeo nd Jliet re lredy identi-ed s rticlr individls. Within their resective hoseholds, Romeo nd

Jliet re neither fceless citizens nor nmeless msqers; in the bosom of theirfmilies, they re deemed individls. Fmily life is the mens by which theirsinglrity is cnowledged. Romeo nd Jliet re identible only insmch

s they belong individlly to hose, tribe, or fmily. Is she Clet?(1.5.116). His nme is Romeo, nd Montge (l. 135).

Moreover, the fmilies recognize the rticlrity of Romeo nd Jlietsbeing; they ttch n bsolte vle to this individlity, no mtter wht Romeond Jliet ctlly do, no mtter how they behve. e rst indiction of thisbsolte vle is mred by their roer nmes, their distinctive elltionwh the fmily.31 Bt deeer indiction of their bsolte vle to their fmi-lies is seen in the love shown to them fter their deths. When Jliets rentsmorn her deth fter her ingestion of the otion or t the lys end, we er-

31 is shold exlin why the lovers critiqe of the nme, to the oint of dong itentirely, mst ly to Clet nd Montge nd to Romeo nd Jliet (Cll me btlove nd Ill be new btized! [2.2.50]).


15/39


ceive tht they cnowledge Jliets rticlr vle to them, no mtter wht shedoes or hs done.

Ts ind of love, s Alexndre Kojve reminds s, is wht is relized in ndby the ncient Fmily.32 Kojve exlins wht sch love relly mens: SinceLove does not deend on the cs, on the cvy of the loved one, it cnnot beended by his very h. By loving mn in his c, one considers him s fhewere ded. Hence deth cn chnge nothing in the Love, in the vle ttribtedby the Fmily. And tht is why Love nd the worshi of the ded hve theirlce in the gn Fmily.33 In the ncient fmily, love of the living is only form of cring for the ded. Not only does Jliets deth fil to trnsform herfmilys recognition of her rticlr vle, her deth rms tht ll long she

ws tresred s n individl insmch s she ws, to them, s good s ded(life, living, ll is Deths [4.5.40]).

Jst s rents often loo on their children with the gretest tendernessnd recition when they re slee, so too Jliets (rst) deth conterfeits lesnt slee (4.1.106) in order to trigger the fmilys most solemn ct ofloving cre. Jliets lst words to her mother refse her comny t bedtime:I ry thee, leve me to myself tonight, . . . / So lese yo, let me now be leftlone / And let the Nrse this night sit with yo (4.3.2, 910). Jliets soli-tde fcilittes her secret ingestion of the otion, bt the rse signicntly lyson the confsion of the sleeing child with the ded child. In thy best robes,ncoverd on the bier / o shlt be borne to tht sme ncient vlt / Wherell the indred of the Clets lie (4.1.11012).

32 e hrse ncient Fmily is Kojves gloss of Hegels discssion of the originl or ri-mordil need for fmilil or inshi orgniztion need tht Hegel identies s cre for the

ded. So lthogh there re of corse mny dierences between ncient forms of inshi nd,sy, modern borgeois ncler fmilies, the term ncient here is less chronologicl-historicistdesigntion thn hilosohicl-nthroologicl one, ment to exlin the wy in which thets of the fmily lies rimordilly in the orgniztion of ritl ctivities tht trnsform ntrlfctsthe birth nd deth of individlsinto hmn deeds, lie nming nd brying. Byinvoing Kojves gloss of Hegel in the following ges, I men to invoe the ncient fmily inthis brod hilosohicl-nthroologicl sense, nmely, s tht form of hmn socility chrgedwith resonding to the need to cre for individls in their very being (ded or live). I nder-stnd Sheseres deiction of the Clet clnin rticlr, the emhsis on Cletsresonse to Jliets (rst) deth, nd the centrlity of the Clet tombs mnifesttionsof the ncient fmily in Kojves sense. For more on the imortnce of cring for the ded inhmn socility, see my discssion of Hegel nd H in my rgc Cs Shkspr(Bltimore: Johns Hoins P, 2009), 4477.

33 Alexndre Kojve, Irc h Rg f Hg, trns. Jmes H. Nichols Jr., ed. AllnBloom (Ithc: Cornell P, 1980), 61.


16/39


VI

Deth is my son-in-lw, Deth is my heir.My dghter he hth wedded. I will die,

And leve him ll: life, living, ll is Deths.4.5.3840

Is the strggle for freedom nd self-reliztion why conditioned by orconstittive mortlity? Cn we clim or fte s or own, nd thereby clim orvery lives s something more thn debt owed to mortlity, ntre, or fm-ily? Sch re the qestions tht hnt Romeo nd Jliets redicment. Jlietsredicment is rticlrly str in this regrd, since Romeos gender nd stts

give him reltive freedom of movement in Veron. Within the more stererestrictions of the Clet hosehold, Jliet is mere extension of her fthersctions, s witnessed by her betrothl to Pris.34 When Jliet sees to negtethe demnd tht she mrry Pris (Her me with tience bt to se word[3.5.159]), her fther will hve none of it.

Mistress minion yo, . . .. . . fettle yor ne joints ginst rsdy nextTo go with Pris to Sint Peters Chrch,Or I will drg thee on hrdle thither.

. . . get thee to chrch rsdyOr never fter loo me in the fce.Se not, rely not, do not nswer me.

(ll. 151, 153155, 16163)

Becse she cnnot even se the word no to her fmily, Jliet comes to seetht her life is vled by her fmily only becse she is, to them, lredy s goods ded, s we her in Ldy Clets chilling words: I wold the fool weremrried to her grve (l. 140).Tl not to me, she tells her dghter, for I ll notse word / Do s tho wilt, for I hve done with thee (3.5.2023).

If the ncient fmily loves individls s if they were s good s ded, ro-viding conditions only for cororel sstennce, nrsing, nd well-being,35 thensch cre is indeqte to living individl who sees to clim her fte s herown. e fmily loos lie womb of deth (5.3.45). By the very sme toen,

34 After Tyblts deth, Clet ers to sggest to Pris tht the mrrige is contingenton Jliets rovl: ings hve fllen ot, sir, so nlcily / t we hve hd no time tomove or dghter (3.4.12). All the sme, Clet oers Jliet no lterntive when he tsthe mtter to her directly.

35 Jliets Nrse, erhs the hosehold grepr xcc, ltimtely sides with the bio-logicl fmily s well, rging Jliet to consider her life only in terms of the conditions for meetingits biologicl necessities ( 3.5.21227). Jliet sees the Nrse, nlly, s Ancient dmntion (l.235). As well, consider how the Nrse rises Jliet to see herself s betifl corse from thestrt: o wst the rettiest bbe tht eer I nrsd (1.3.60).


17/39


however, the ncient fmily s trns itself into n occsion for Jliet to climher life s her own, by showing her exctly wht she mst rtre if she is to

relly live. e stes re clerJliet mst sbvert her hoseholds thority,s well s the very sorce of tht thority:the clims of mortlity on hmnsocility. Jliet mst refse something of this debt if her life is to become hers.is is why Jliet nlly sees her freedom by nderting thingk deth . . .t cost with deth himself to sce from it (4.1.7475; emhsis dded)nd why, for the sme reson, the lovers eventlly te their life togethernowhere bt in the fmily tomb (Prologe, l. 6).

VII

Prodigios birth of love.1.5.139

Only by showing tht the ncient fmily is oosed to nd ths serblefrom the clims of the living individl cn Jliet see herself s trly living hrlife. Bt this cn hen only from wh the life of the fmily, since the indi-vidl cnnot s yet regrd herself s free to see her own life otside the fmily.How might this come bot? Actlly, very little is reqired; nothing more thn hositble gestre. It is enogh for the fmily to dmit within its fold, for

time, some gests from the lrger commnity.

a ncle, this is Montge, or foe:A villin tht is hither come in siteTo scorn t or solemnity this night. . . .

apu Content thee, gentle coz, let him lone, . . .He shll be endrd.

(1.5.6062, 64, 75)

is seemingly innocos dmittnce of foe shows tht the ncient fmily

esily, even rotinely, cnowledges individl lives for whom it not cre(Yong Romeo is it? [1.5.63]). Becse Romeo does not er t the fests n externl enemy, bt s virtos nd well-governd yoth bot whomVeron brgs (ll. 67, 66), his resence bers witness to oenness wh thencient fmily tht, lie the chin in the wll between the hoses of Pyrmsnd isbe, hd been there ll long.

e occsion rovides Jliet nd Romeo with ll they reqire chnce toenconter one nother wh fmily withot needing to relte to one nother sfmily.36 s I enforce thy rotten jws to oen, / And in desite Ill crm thee

36 t Romeo nd Jliet re by rn, ge, title, nd Clets own dmission (1.5.6366)eligible mrrige rtners for one nother is dditionl sort for my clim tht the lovers re


18/39


with more food (5.3.4748). When Romeo nd Jliet lern of the hose towhich the other belongs, they do not desir. On the contrry, Jliet rejoices in

the ossibilities tht hve been oened:

My only love srng from my only hte.Too erly seen nnown, nd nown too lte.Prodigios birth of love it is to met I mst love lothed enemy.

(1.5.13740)

Given sch chnce, then, how is one to clim ones life s ones own? Whtwill cont s freely lived life? Wht stisfction cnst tho hve tonight?

(2.2.126).One trditionl nswer to this qestion is tht free life is one tht cnrse, or move towrd, whtever it desires.37 To be sre, there is no oint indenying Romeo nd Jliets desire for sexl nowledge of one nother (O thtI were glove on tht hnd, / t I might toch tht chee [ll. 2425]).However, does the stisfction of which the lovers tl in the blcony scenebese nything other thn n nticited sexl enconternything sidefrom hling oneself cross the eel ofrs, lc nd flllment, desire nd stis-fction? Is there nything more desirble for hmn beings thn the nimeded

motion of their limbs? Which mens sing: wht, nlly, do Romeo nd Jlietwnt with one nother?

VIII

And wht love cn do, tht dres love ttemt.2.2.68

We re now in osition to retrn to the qestions rised t the otset.ere, we sw tht climing my life nd my freedom s y w reqires both

tht I ris my life tht I nd myself in nother. Bt we sw tht Shesere,in contrst to Hegel, does not regrd the del s the most elementl scene forthis strggle. We sed, Hw s h srgg fr fr sf-rzbg, f s ? We cn now t the qestion nother wy: is the horizon

not divided by inserble socil obstcles. e hosehold (or womb of deth [5.3.45]) nowloos cble of giving birth to lifeof gestting love lifetht is not jst good-s-ded.

37 is is robbly the most recognizble denition of freedom in the modern liberl trdi-tion, with its origins in Hobbess fmos denition of freedom s the bsence of oosition[or] externl imediments. A Freemn, Hobbes writes, s h h, hs hgs whch by hssrgh w h s b , s hr wh h hs w . See Lvh, ed. A.P. Mrtinich (Ontrio: Brodview, 2002), 190.


19/39


of ll enmitythe fct tht one of s will see the other dietrnsformble, ifnot voidble? Cn externl necessitythe given fct of hmn mortlity, or

sertenessbe regrded s internl to free cts of mtl self-recognition?Sheseres wger will not srrise s. Romeo nd Jliet do indeed ste

their lives, bt not s mortl foes. ey te their lives s lovers whose eventlfte, s doble sicide wherein ech sees the other ded, confonds the verystrctre of the del, the externlity of enmity: Loo tho bt sweet / And Im roof ginst their enmity (2.2.7273). Romeo denies the clims of liennecessity on his life (he sees his freedom) not by strggle to the deth with foe, bt by reveling this necessity (for exmle, the historicl enmity of C-let nd Montge, or or constittive nitde s hmn beings) to be mere

retext for rising his life for something else entirely: nmely, for love reltion.My life were better ended by their hte / n deth roroged, wnting ofthy love (ll. 7778). He denies tht enmity is the only externl gronds for self-reliztion, nding these gronds insted in Jliet (Alc, there lies more erilin thine eye / n twenty of their swords [ll. 7172]).

To strive for recognition s lover is to nd moment of freedom tht mightbe regrded s hving byssed the need for ght-to-the-deth, withot hvingeliminted its ossibility. In fct, this is jst how Romeo nd Jliet see things:

u How cmst tho hither, tell me, nd wherefore?e orchrd wlls re high nd hrd to climb,And the lce deth, considering who tho rt,If ny of my insmen nd thee here.

With loves light wings did I oererch these wlls,For stony limits cnnot hold love ot,And wht love cn do, tht dres love ttemt:erefore thy insmen re no sto to me.

u If they do see thee, they will mrder thee. Alc, there lies more eril in thine eye

n in twenty of their swords. Loo tho bt sweetAnd I m roof ginst their enmity.(ll. 6273)

More generlly, the lovers see dierent reconing with mortlity. To be cler,the lovers re not denying mortlity s sch, s in the Christin mystery, whereGods love for the world is shown throgh Christs victory over deth nddying, or s in Dntes deiction of Betrice, where moros love leds to thevision of osthmos love, the fs of the beloveds immortlity. In myview, Dntes Christin fntsies re not methysicl ight from the clims

of the beloveds mortl embodiment. Rther, they exress remrble, if stillmystied, wreness tht the love reltion, the strggle for hmn freedom, is


20/39


not wholly determined by the hrd trth tht one will otlive the other. edeveloment of love ir hs n institting ower ll its own, corresondent

to the oetic invention deicting it. All the sme, Sheseres ly oers nofntsies of life fter deth.

W y hs vby, sy Sheseres lovers. W kw h wr r. W chg h y f r sprss.

B wh w ry rfs ccp s h hs y s , xr cs-syshg w pssvy sr s r sfr r sy.

W fy rsc pwrscg hjs s w fy h srs!If w f hs c, h w r fr.I fc, w w sk r vs shw h r sprss s cs-

sy whch w r svshy sbjc, rrspcv f r w cs.Q h crry! Or cs sh shw r sprss b wh s s

y r w.

IX

It is my ldy, O it is my love!O tht she new she were!

2.2.1011

So, let s s gin: wht stisfction cn the lovers hve tonight? Sheseresnswer is strightforwrd enogh: recognition. e lover sees recognition s lover in life from the only other one cble of bestowing this nontrnsferrblerestige: the beloved. is mens tht the beloved ers neither s n externlobject of sexl desire (s Roslind hd reviosly ered to Romeo) nor ssomeone to be conqered (lie the foe in the life-nd-deth strggle). On the con-trry, becse Romeo cnnot ossess or conqer Jliet she hs become s essentilto him s he is to her. [H]er I love now, Romeo confesses to the Frir, Doth grcefor grce nd love for love llow. / e other [Roslind] did not so (2.3.8183).

e beloved is living sbject on whose recirocl recognition the loverdeends in order to be, or to become, lover.38As Orlndo lerns in the Forest ofArden, no externl sign (no oetry hng on tree, no oth, no rotesttion)cn gin him recognition s Roslind / Gnymedes lover ntil she herself, theinexressive she, recognizes him. Orlndo cnnot even now hertht is, he

38 Becse Roslind ws merely n object of Romeos desiresomeone to be conqestshedid not need to recognize Romeo in order to be desirble to him, ny more thn glss of wterneeds to recognize thirsty erson in order to be thirsted fter. If Roslind only existed for hims something to be mde hs or hs, then she ws not trly free individl in reltion tohim; nd if she ws not seen by Romeo s trly free, then Romeo cold not be freely recognizedby her s free himself.


21/39


cnnot even recognize her shis very Roslindntil he gins from her rec-ognition tht he is her lover. To me ones love for nother nown to her entils

being recognized by her s her lover.39is reqires cnowledging her s free, self-conscios individl, not

merely nming her s the object of ones ections. Wht is reqired, then, is nct of self-recognition: Dost tho love me? I now tho wilt sy Ay, /And I will te thy word (2.2.9091). Moreover, becse freedom rises onlys moment of sch mtl self-recognition, the moment or recognition mstdly er to be freely erformed. Accordingly, the lovers diloge denies nynecessity iminging on its free develoment (for stony limits cnnot hold loveot [l. 67]). Lc, chnce, ntre, nd objective relities hve not fded from the

scene entirely, bt they now er on the world stge throgh fte climedby the lovers. e sce serting the orchrd from the blcony nd the timebetween this night nd tomorrow re given over to the lovers words. No thirdrty medites. ere is no mtchmer, ritl occsion, or historicl neces-sity. Nothing comels Jliet to her window; she ses to the strs of her ownccord. Romeo does not ccidentlly stmble on Jliet in the drness; he hsroseflly soght her ot.

Seing rst, in the nmbers tht Petrrch owed in (2.4.40), Romeorhsodizes the sight of Jliets singlr body: e brightness of her cheewold shme those strs / As dylight doth lm (2.2.1920). e in-roriteness of eideictic seech is immeditely rent; I nderstnd thisto be rt of Sheseres dee critiqe of Petrrchism.40 Becse his sonnetcold regrd Jliet only s n object of sight, she cold not be recognizedorcnowledged, s Stnley Cvell wold sythrogh the sonnet s sbjector seer of words.41 Hence, when the betifl rition sesAy me(l. 25)Romeo is forced to hlt his rhsody nd to recognize Jliet s freegent: She ses / O se gin bright ngel (ll. 2526). Becse Jlietsesfryto herself t night, nder no externl obligtion, to no other lis-tenerit is her own free ctions, her freedom, tht Romeo mst rehend ifhe is to recognize her t ll.

Romeo ths confronts Jliether thining, her qestionings the bd-ding ctliztion of her individl freedom. To tter or thin qestion isto discover tht there is nothing tht one might not thin or sy, no qestion

39 As Y Lk I, ed. Jliet Dsinberre (London: omson Lerning, 2006), 4.4.29.40 For discssion of the wy in which Sheseres sonnets nd lys strctrlly imly not

silent ddressee or love object bt nother seing sbject, see Dvid Schlwy, Spch Prfrc Shksprs Ss Pys (Cmbridge: Cmbridge P, 2002).

41 See Stnley Cvell, e Avoidnce of Love: A Reding of King Ler, from DswgKwg Sv Pys f Shkspr (Cmbridge: Cmbridge P, 2003), 39123.


22/39


one might not ose. How esily even the most stringent externl necessitylends itself to interrogtion! O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore rt tho Romeo?

(l. 33). Once Romeo sees tht recognizing Jliet mens recognizing her freeseech, the roblem of his own freedom is thrown into str relief. Nothingcomels Romeo to nswer Jliet; in fct, nothing revents him from reminingsilent, bering witness to her free seech withot climing his own. Becse noresonse is obliged or rohibited, Romeo mst clim his ction or inction shis own: Shll I her more, or shll I se t this? (l. 37).

Yet this moves bit too fst. Althogh Jliet ses freely to herself, qes-tioning nd thining lod, she hs not yet been recognized by nother s free.She is not yet free for nother, with nother. Not only mst Romeo lert Jliet

to his resence, he mst revel himself to her s her dience nd interloctor.His chllenge is to llow Jliet to er free tohim nd with himto mehimself necessry for Jliets freedom.

X

O be some other nme.2.2.42

ere re mny wys to er necessry for nothers self-reliztion. Most

evidently, one cn er cble of frnishing the occsion or conditions fornother to ct on his own. Let s sose tht these conditions rnge from rents loving ttention fcilitting childs develoing tonomy to the insti-ttionl forms of recognition tht cn bestow liberties on hmn being.In sch cses, ones ctions re necessry conditions for nothers freedom bybeing, in rincile, erformble by nyone endowed with certin stndingwithin the fmily, stte, or civil society. Becse only member in good stnd-ingsomeone ossessed of the rorite rn, title, or ositioncn extendthe form of recognition necessry for nothers reltive freedom, sch cts re

not mtllyfree. e eectiveness of the ctions of the member in good stnd-ing is deendent on her membershi, not on whom she recognizes.

Membershi in collective necessrily recldes cts of free mtl self-recognition, insmch s it remins fnction of hierrchy. is is why Romeond Jliets recognition of one nother is not deendent on ny hierrchiclmembershi in broder form of socil life. is, nd not the need to estblishtht who Romeo is cn be serted from wht he is clled, is why the loverswish to do their fmilies titles: Deny thy fther nd refse thy nme. / Or iftho wilt not, be bt sworn my love /And Ill no longer be Clet (2.2.3436). By distingishing Romeo from RomeoSo Romeo wold, were he notRomeo clld, / Retin tht der erfection which he owes / Withot tht title(ll. 4547)Jliet is not estblishing the obvios fct tht Romeos hysicl


23/39


singlrity is not nme. t rose by ny other word wold smell s sweetis hrdly qestionble conclsion. Insted, when Jliet observes, Tis bt thy

nme tht is my enemy: / o rt thyself, thogh not Montge (ll. 3839),she sserts the extent to which they cn recognize one nother, rt from nyother membershi or belonging:

u Romeo, do thy nme,And for thy nme, which is no rt of theeTe ll myself.

I te thee t thy wordCll me bt love, nd Ill be new btisd:Henceforth I never will be Romeo.

(ll. 4751)

All tht is reqired is tht tht der erfection which he owes / Withot thttitle dhere not in ny recognition bestowed by the hose of Montge, bt inhis ctive self-individtion.

o rt thyself, thogh not Montge.Whts Montge? It is nor hnd nor footNor rm nor fce nor ny other rtBelonging to mn. O be some other nme.

(ll. 3942)

It is this nscent own-ness tht Romeo encts when he resonds, nseen in thedrness.

By nmeI now not how to tell thee who I m:My nme, der sint, is htefl to myselfBecse it is n enemy to thee.Hd I it written, I wold ter the word.

(ll. 5357)

It cn be disconcerting to her By nme / I now not how to tell who I msoen in the dr by n nseen intrder. Jliet is given the chnce to recognizenot Romeos nme (nor ny other objective indictor, lie his fce) bt his ctive(soen) self-individtion:

u My ers hve yet not drn hndred wordsOf thy tonges ttering, yet I now the sond.Art tho not Romeo, nd Montge?

Neither, fir mid, if either thee dislie.

(ll. 5861)


24/39


In this mtl self-recognition, they re not only free in themselves bt imme-ditely free with one nother.

Of corse, if there is trly no medition here, if nothingry stnds betweenthem (Stony limits cnnot hold love ot [l. 67]), then there is nothing externl,nothing sbstntil, no third rty binding them bsoltely to one nother. Im ferd, / Being in night, ll this is bt drem, / Too ttering sweet to besbstntil (ll. 13941).

e lovers next imlse is to grs some externl bering throgh solemnvows: O gentle Romeo, / If tho dost love, rononce it fithflly (ll. 9394).By grsing t sch strws, it becomes rent tht nothing cn sbstntitethe oth:

Ldy, by yonder blessed moon I vow . . .u O swer not by the moon, thinconstnt moon . . . Wht shll I swer by?

u Do not swer t ll.Or if tho wilt, swer by thy grcios self,Which is the god of my idoltry,And Ill believe thee.

If my herts der loveu Well, do not swer. Althogh I joy in thee,

I hve no joy of this contrct tonight.(ll. 107, 109, 11217)

If contrcts bring no joy, then the soght stisfction mst lie in the free ctof mtl self-recognition, whereby one clims ones own freedom throghnothers. is is Sheseres nswer to the qestion wht stisfction cnsttho hve tonight?

exchnge of thy loves fithfl vow for mine.u I gve thee mine before tho didst reqest it,

And yet . . . . I wold it were to give ginAnd yet I wish bt for the thing I hve.My bonty is s bondless s the se,My love s dee: the more I give to theee more I hve, for both re innite.

(ll. 12729, 13235)

e yong Hegel referred to these lines s the rdigmtic exression ofmtl self-recognition nd erthly hiness, nd it is diclt to disgree.42t the lovers freely nd mtlly recognize one nother in sch short order

42 G. W. F. Hegel, Love, in Ery Tgc Wrgs, trns. T. M. Knox (Phildelhi: ofPennsylvni P, 1971), 307.


25/39


cconts for the exhilrting rsh of the scene: the rgency nd joy of climingones own life to be innite throgh nother, not s rivte trnscendence, bt

s worldly reliztion of freedom throgh nother. To diences rond theworld, this moment hs seemed qintessentil deiction of lovers, rofondrofession of hmn hiness.

So, wht goes wrong? Why does Shesere now tht we cnnot stohere?

XI

Prting is sch sweet sorrow.2.2.184

Shesere seems to hve been temted to end the scene t this moment;hence, the next lines: I her some noise within. Der love, die (2.2.136). Btending the scene here wold men showing the lovers to be sbject to worldlydemnds nd intrsions. Shesere nows, I thin, tht sch intrsions donot determine Romeo nd Jliets fte s loversthey re t most sorces offrstrting interrtionsnd so he does not let s o the hoo so esily. Stybt little, Jliet tells Romeo, I will come gin (2.2.138).

So Romeo stys. And stys.

No externl demnd relly comels them to rt this night. e only resontht Jliet cn nd to send Romeo wy is so tht he cn rrnge time ndlce for them to mrry. is rises the qestion: why do they mrry t ll? eFrir sees in the mrrige n oortnity to trn the hoseholds rncor to love;for her rt, the Nrse sees nothing more thn the chnce to me some extrmoney (2.4.14649). As I see it, Romeo nd Jliet do not mrry to legitimizetheir sexl reltions or to ese their fmilies, s if they were worried botwht God or the Nrse might thin of the roe ldder dngling from Jlietsbedchmber. ey seem content to celebrte the mrrige in the rivcy of the

confessionl, eschewing blic cnowledgment. Elsewhere, t ny rte, She-sere deicts mrriges tht not only ot socil execttion (Oh) btflll no socil fnction (As Y Lk I). Romeo nd Jliet mrry to nderscoretht their mtl self-recognition mens ting mtters into their own hnds, frther exression of their own self-determintion:

[B]t come wht sorrow cn,It cnnot contervil the exchnge of joyt one short minte gives me in her sight.Do tho bt close or hnds with holy words,en love-devoring deth do wht he dre;It is enogh I my bt cll her mine.

(2.6.38)


26/39


e trgic trn in the drm is not the retrn of lien necessities (fmilyenmity, civic lws, betrothls, biologicl necessities), bt rther reversl tht is

rsc to the lovers bility to defy externl necessity. is trn is so fmilirtht it sses lmost imercetibly. Becse nothing externl comes betweenthe lovers, they hve no obligtion to rt. Since they nevertheless mst se-rteeven if jst to sleethis rting mst itself become the content of theirnewfond freedom. Meticlosly, the conclsion of the blcony scene nfoldss reection on this self-defeting trn wh the lovers freedom. is trn isfmilir to ll lovers. Becse no externl ower divides them, it is to themto sy good nightree words, der Romeo, nd good night indeed; Athosnd times good night (2.2.142, 154).

Y hv b yr wysys Jliets h y c pc fr s rry.

And so Romeo derts, only to her himself clled gin. Hist! Romeo, hist!O for flconers voice / To lre this tssel-gentle bc gin (ll. 15859). Btwhy does Jliet lre him bc? Merely to s t wht time she shold send theNrse to him.

By the hor of nine.u I will not fil . . . .[Awkwr ps.]

I hve forgot why I did cll thee bc. Let me stnd here till tho remember it.

u Ishll forget, to hve h still stnd there,Remembering how Ilove hy comny.

And I still sty to hve h still forget.(ll. 16874, emhsis dded)

We now how these converstions go. ey mr the rhythm of n exchngetht hs discovered the vertiginos sbstnce of its own freedom. Y sy good

night; no,y sy good night . . . . Y hng ; no,y, hng . . . .Is this the shot of mtl self-recognition? Is hs wht the hiness offreedom loos lie? Good night, good night. Prting is sch sweet sorrow /t I shll sy good night till it be morrow (ll. 18485). If we re honest withorselves, is not wht every lover wnts t sch moments, relly, to hng thehone? To sy, sweetly nd sincerely bt nlly, good night? Wold not thenlity of the good night or be the trest ctliztion of this newfondfreedom? is, I thin, is wht we her when the drowsy Jliet tries to t stoto things, mrmring:

u Tis lmost morning, I wold hve thee gone,And yet no frther thn wntons bird, . . .


27/39


So loving-jelos of his liberty. I wish I were thy bird.

u Sweet, so [yws J] wold I.(ll. 17677, 18182)

Bt becse sertion is the oertion of the lovers very freedom, n rehen-sion hinders ecefl slee, yet I shold ill thee with mch cherishing (l. 183).

XII

ese violent delights hve violent endsAnd in their trimh die, lie re nd owder,

Which s they iss consme.2.6.911

O sweet Jliet, cries Romeo, before ting his sword ginst Tyblt, ybety hth mde me eeminte softend vlors steel / And in my temer(3.1.11517). Romeos love of Jliet is not disvowed by his mrder of Tyblt,ny more thn it is relced by his love of Merctio. Neither love is refsed.Wht Romeo lerns, rther, is tht to be loverof Merctio or Jlietreqires him to ste his life, even when there is no rize to be gined nd whenthe qrrel is mnifestly ointless nd decides nothing. Self-reliztion reqires

sting ones life throgh nother; becse Tyblt sees not n mbsh bt qrrel with Romeo, Romeo cnnot ste his life withot ting his sword.When Merctio comlins bot Romeos vile sbmission, he is not comlin-ing bot the hmilition of conceding to Clet; he is sggesting tht torefse to te the sword in the fce of chllenge is to ece oneself tterly.Romeos initil relctnce to do sonmely, tht he emties himself of stndings self-determining individl, self-evction throgh which Tyblts swordsses nobstrctedis wht brings bot Merctios deth. To s whetherthe del is worth ghting for some other reson or other (fmily enmity,

friendshi, or honor) is to s the wrong qestion. As both Hegel nd She-sere recognized, tht deling need hve no frther ethicl jstiction (honornd so forth) cconts for its signicnce in the strggle for self-reliztion. Inthe fce of this, Romeo mst ccet Tyblts chllenge if he is to rerm his ownexistence: Either tho, or I, or both (3.1.131).

At the sme time, by slying Tyblt, Romeo ends ccomlishing onlywht the city itself wold hve nderten: His flt concldes bt wht thelw shold end / e life of Tyblt (3.1.18788) Seen by others to hve tenthe lw, not his life, into his own hnds, Romeo loses his stnding s citizenwithot losing his life. e lw tht deth . . . trns thretend it to exile (3.3).Romeos life is sred, nd his only mortl foe vnqished: Tyblt wold ill


28/39


thee, / Bt tho slewst Tyblt. ere rt tho hy (ll. 13637). Romeosinitil rectionere is no world withot Veron wlls, bnished / Is

deth, mistermd (ll. 2021)loos, s the Frir oints ot, hystericl ndoverwroght. ere is every reson to thin tht the Frir is right to conseltience till we cn nd time / To blze yor mrrige, reconcile yor friends,/ Beg rdon of the Prince nd cll thee bc to Veron (ll. 14951). His com-fort . . . revivd by this sensible ersective (l. 164), Romeo scends to Jlietschmber to ressre her. Life hs broght few srrises, bt ll is fr from lost.No more leing over stony wlls. Romeo now mes himself t home for thenight in Jliets chmber.

Shesere shows the lovers loft t Jliets window, erhs in bed. ere

is no resigned, terfl ccetnce of the necessity of sying goodbye. On the con-trry, the lovers begin with bld-fced denil of the externl demnds tht theysosedly fce. Wilt tho be gone? begins Jliet (3.5.1). eir bde is wellnown; bt let s listen gin, this time for their denil not only of the externlnecessity of rting bt lso of ntres clims, societys demnds, times ssge,relitys necessities cr. e lovers grntly, lmost comiclly, clim forthemselves the ower to otstri relitys demnds.

It is not yet ner dy.

It ws the nightingle nd not the lrt iercd the ferfl hollow of thine er . . . .Believe me, love, it ws the nightingle.

(3.5.13, 5)

erefore, contines Jliet dently, sty yet: tho needst not to be gone (l. 16).None of this shold stonish s. We rotinely defy the worlds demnds

nd the ssge of time by shing the snooze btton on or lrm cloc or byshing it twice. Or by ming love in the morning, before heding o to wor.Or by clling in sic. To be free nd self-determining is to be erfectly cble

of ming dy night, or night dy. is is not disvowl of the rel limittionsof their worldly osition. Rther, the lovers together come to the reliztion thtthese limittions re not flly limiting so fr s they re concerned. If objectiveobstcles do not diser, then they do not govern their interctions bsoltely.Sy y: h s b g.

e strest relity with which they mst contend is not the Princes decreeor the erths rottion. e more rofond relity is tht night nd dy re whtthey me them ot to betht Romeo need not leve, tht Jliet need not sty,tht no externl ower sertes them bsoltely. Jliet hs lredy romised to

follow Romeo throghot the world, nd there is nothing to revent her fromsliing o to Mnt with him here (2.2.148). Jliet is erfectly willings we


29/39


see in the very next sceneto ccet the Frirs remedy in the hoes tht, whenshe wes from the drg, Romeo shll ber her hence to Mnt (4.1.117).

Althogh she is lter willing to ccet n esce to Mnt rther thn mrryPris, she does not rsh to ee t this moment, when she cold hve mde heresce disgisd (3.3.167) longside Romeo withot the se of exotic drgs.Shesere new erfectly well how to stge n esce for womn in disgise;the Frir sggests s mch.

At this oint, then, Romeo bndons his relism (I mst be gone nd live,or sty nd die [3.5.11]), tes Jliets wger, nd rises the nte.

Let me be ten, let me be t to deth,I m content, so tho wilt hve it so.Ill sy yon grey is not the mornings eye,Tis bt the le reex of Cynthis brow.Nor tht is not the lr whose notes do bete vlty heven so high bove or heds.I hve more cre to sty thn will to go.Come deth, nd welcome. Jliet wills it so.

(ll. 1724)

A se enses. Romeo nd Jliet hve greed to te their lives into their ownhnds, irresective of the worlds ower over them. In the end, it ws not so dif-clt to do. All tht is reqired is ll tht is ever reqiredtht they ste theirlives; tht they not inch in the fce of deth. As we now, Romeo nd Jlietnever recoil in the fce of deth. She will soon te his dgger. Desertemesres will come.

I s h fr f h h w spr h.O tell me not of fer (4.1.121).Romeos next wordsnot dethre wht trly terrify Jliet. Yr rgh,

y vRomeo sys y gh r wh w k h.I v. Y r. W c sy ghr. S . . . s k.

How ist my sol? Lets tl. It is not dy (3.5.25).Lets tl. With these words, it becomes cler tht wht sertes them is

the very freedom tht hs orded them sch exhilrtion. For Jliet mst nowsee Romeo himself. No night to hide her blsh; no fther to deny; no nme todo; no more wlls to climb; no more excses.

Bt how is this to be fced? If nothing externl divides them, then their se-rtenessif it is to be sorce of freedom nd hinessmst be ctivelyccomlished nd not ssively sered. Jliet does not hesitte. She bnishes

Romeo herself. It is [dy], it is. Hie hence, begone, wy (l. 26). e bird soloving-jelos of his liberty, throgh whose song externl obstcles rst vn-ished, now sings of freedoms internl discord.


30/39


It is the lr tht sings so ot of tne,Strining hrsh discords nd nlesing shrs.

Some sy the lr mes sweet division.is doth not so, for she divideth s . . .O now be gone.

(ll. 2730, 35)

XIII

If tho drst, Ill give thee remedy.4.1.76

By bnishing Romeo, Jliet clims something of her freedom. is is notto sy tht it ws esy or lesrble. After wtching Romeo descend from herwindow following jst one iss, she sys, Methins I see thee, now tho rt solow / As one ded in the bottom of tomb. / Either my eyesight fils, or tholoost le (3.5.5557). Romeo relies, trst me, love, in my eye so do yo. /Dry sorrow drins or blood (ll. 5859).

While for mny reders, this foreshdows the lys nl scene, I te themoment to be fr more rosic. e lovers re, in eect, breing . e rel-tionshi is not over, bt the lovers re coming to gris with their freedom with

one nother s their ccity for ctive sertion, with the fct tht cgthis serteness, even in its sorrowfl eects, is the essentil hiness of theirindividl lives. Neither wnts the other to trly die; Jliet is not sying thtshe ws to see Romeo ded in the bottom of tomb.43 Romeos rel dethwold indeed be incomtible with the hiness of her newfond freedom.Rther, she exresses something of the inverse; becse Romeo did not hveto die to ccomlish their sertions in the trditionl mrrige vow, ntildeth do s rtthey cn clim the sertion, this little deth, s their owndoing. ey hve not relly lost blood; they hve mde themselves le nd ll

these woes shll serve / For sweet discorses in or times to come (ll. 5253).For the rst nd lst time Jliet fces snrise, ftre, tht ers to her

oen nd ndecided. Perhs they shll . . . meet gin (l. 51). She is nything btsicidl t hs moment. She rdites the hiness of self-reliztion. She fces themorning sn with lomb. Be cle, Fortne . . . Bt send him bc (ll. 62, 64).44

43 Jliet hrdly lingers over the sight when she gets the chnce to see Romeo ded. Perhsn nlyst cold tell Jli Kristev why she wnts to clim tht Jliets joissnce is often sttedthrogh the . . . desire . . . of Romeos deth. See s f Lv, trns. Leon S. Rodiez (NewYor: Colmbi P, 1987), 221.

44 To the objection tht Jliet sends Romeo wy ot of fer of the socil owers inimicl tohis sfety, note tht Jliets words come before the Nrses erly wrninge dy is broe; be


31/39


Her self-determintion is immeditely t to the test by the news tht hermother cnnot wit ntil fter brefst to shre: Jliet mst mrry Pris on

rsdy. Hving only moments go tsted freedom with Romeo, she is foldedbc into the bonds of the ncient fmily. Ts, we might thin, is wht drivesher to sicide. And it is tre tht she wold rther die thn mrry Pris. Shewill negte her fmilys demnd t ny cost: Shll I be mrried then tomorrowmorning? / No! No! is shll forbid it. Lie tho there. [Sh ys w kf](4.3.2223, sd).

However, it is not exctly right to conclde only tht she resolves to illherself to void mrrying Pris. Becse this lterntivesicide or mrrigeto Priswold merely decide the fte of her individlity s it is lredy

cnowledged nd vled by her fmily, this choice ers to Jliet s nfree,nstisfying. Either wy, she wold belong to the Clets s lifeless body. 45In seeing remedy, wht Jliet wnts is third otionsomething other thnthis mrrige or sicide.

Becse the Nrse oers no remedy, Jliet trns to the Frir: If in thy wis-dom tho cnst give no hel, / Do tho bt cll my resoltion wise, / And withthis nife Ill hel it resently (4.1.5254). Jliet wnts to serte herself fromher fmily other thn by dying. She wishes to serte her deth from her fm-ilys clim on her life. is is why she does not ill herself strightwy onhering her fthers rm instrction. Insted, she thretens to in her sicideon the Frir shold he fil to hel her negte her fmilys demnd. Dying nderthese circmstnces wold sel her lce in the ncient fmily forever, bt lsobecse, if the Frir filed to rovide remedy, thennd hs, I thin, is thewild desertionsicide wold be sd necessity, n ct demonstrting herbsolte loss of freedom. She stes her life for freedom, in order to void direct, necessry conict with her fmily.

In light of this, we cn demystify the Frirs medicinl remedy devicetht is t lest s old s Xenohons olr Ephs , nd tht hs been notorios sorce of erlexity.

[If ] o hst the strength of will to sly thyself,en it is liely tho wilt nderteA thing lie deth to chide wy this shme,t cost with deth himself to sce from it.

(ll. 7275)

wry, loo bot (3.5.40). Concern for one nothers sfety did not revent them from send-ing the night together or from getting mrried. In short, if concern for the others sfety werermont, there wold be no drm.

45 Sch bject belonging is illstrted when Jliet enconters Pris on her wy to the Frir.Pris sees her ter-streed fce nd declres, y fce is mine, nd tho hst slnderd it (4.1.35).


32/39


e Frirs ln does not reqire Jliet to oose her fmily.46 On the contrry, itexloits the flllment of the fmilys highest dty in order to me ossible for

Jliet life beyond her vle to them. e oint is not to me her immortl, btto serte her life nd eventl (rel) deth from her fmilys ower to ssignher life its nl vle, not by denying the fmily the chnce to cre for her corse,bt by letting the fmily ccomlish recisely tht. His ln wold free Jliet byreconciling her to the Fmily, letting her be s ded to them s she hs lwysbeen. As he nows, Jliets freedom cnnot come throgh conict with theFmily; if her freedom is merely libertionfr fmily to which she mst stndin necessry oosition, she cn never clim her freedom s her own. e Frirsln llows those who love Jliet to be ble to clim tht love throgh the for-

ml ctivity rorite to it: the fnerry rite. Becse Jliets fmily loves herin her very being, nd ssigns to her body n bsolte vle of its own ccord,she does belong to them s this vled body. She mst cnowledge this debt ifshe is to clim her life. She mst die to them, be bried, nd be morned.

Bt becse this deth will be conterfeit thing lie dethit trns thefmilys most scred ct of love into ceremonil shm. She will nd freedomnot by oenly oosing the fmilys love bt by reveling tht love, once it hsbeen ccomlished, to be hollow formlityn emty tomb. In this sense, therse exoses the g between their blindness to hr (her self-reliztion, herfreedom) nd their ercetion of her individl bodily vitlity. By llowing Jlietto seem to her fmily recisely s she hs lwys seemed to them sleeingbety, s good s dedthe strtegy deends on nothing more thn thefmilys inbility to distingish between their dozing child nd their ded child.

Moreover, by srviving her own bril, Jliet wold chieve stte in whichthe mening of her ctions, for her nd s, will be irredcible to their conse-qences for the commnity into which she ws born. She neither sees nor ndsher freedom throgh some ction of hers the socil worldsy, by cting inrecognizble delity to socil norms (mrrying) or by oenly trnsgressing theworlds lws (sicide). On the contrry, by letting her body be bried in the fm-ily vlt in order to extricte herself from her fmily, she negtes the dierencebetween delity nd betryl, dty nd trnsgression.

However, the Frir is no mgicin. Jliet will y rice for this chnce offreedom beyond the mcbre bsiness of sleeing with the ded, of which she islredy well wre. Give me, give me! she cries, O tell me not of fer (4.1.121).Wht is reqired is not simly contct with corses, bt the cnowledgmenttht these corses were once her fmily, her ncestors.

46 e Frir in fct instrcts Jliet to gree to the mrrige: Go home, be merry, give consent/ To mrry Pris (4.1.8990).


33/39


How if, when I m lid in the tomb,I we before the time tht Romeo

Come to redeem me? eres ferfl oint!. . . vlt, n ncient recetcleWhere for this mny hndred yers the bonesOf ll my bried ncestors re cd,Where bloody Tyblt yet green in erthLies festering in his shrod.

(4.3.3032, 3943)

is wreness crries with it nother, drer relity. By ming mocery ofher fmilys cre for her ded bodyby trning fmilil love, nd its vltion

of her, into chrdeshe will not be ble to see her ded fmily members snything other thn mere corses, shes of ntrl degrdtion. Becse shewill hve emtied the fmilys fnerl of its mening, she will not be ble to ndin the bodies of the ded nything worthy of vltion, of loving tretment. eded will hve lost their dignity for her, nd will seem nothing more thn rottenremins. erefore, the cost of her freedom is high indeed. Not only mst sheotlive the clims of her living fmily members on her life, she mst forse thecommnity of the living nd the ded tht binds her to others s hmn. Mydisml scene I needs mst ct lone (l. 19). Henceforth, she cn do nothing for

the ded bt lnder their corses for mens of self-destrction.shll I not . . .

. . . mdly ly with my forefthers joints,And lc the mngled Tyblt from his shrod,And, in this rge, with some gret insmns boneAs with clb dsh ot my deserte brins? . . .Romeo, Romeo, Romeo, heres drin! I drin to thee!

(ll. 49, 5154, 58)

Wht mes Jliets strtgem ll the more shocing is the evidence of or

own ective investment in its otcome, or own disinvestment from the fte ofthe commnity. L Vr Ag ! A pg bh hss! Js hvrs c hr vs s hr w!

Jst s she hd fered, Jliet wens in the tomb, mong decying corses,covered with ded mn. y hsbnd in thy bosom there lies ded (5.3.155).A greter ower thn we cn contrdict / Hth thwrted or intentions,exlins the Frir (ll. 15354). Nevertheless, Jliets ims hve not been entirelycontrdicted. Yes, Romeo is ded, bt Jliets freedom hs not been foreclosedentirely, s she demonstrtes when she dismisses the FrirGo, get thee hence,for I will not wy (l. 160). In Romeos deth, she sees the otcome of his own


34/39


ctions.47 He ws not slin by Pris, nor ws he illed by civic thorities or bythe nstoble corse of ntre. He hd been helthy, in the bloom of life. She

recognizes tht he hs sted his own life in order to ly his body with hers, shis nl nd dening deed: Whts here? A c closd in my tre loves hnd?/ Poison, I see, hth been his timeless end (ll. 16162). s, she does notmorn his deth. Eschewing wht she elsewhere clls modern lmenttion(3.2.120), she refses to see Romeos deth s loss to be ssively sered.Insted, she sees throgh Romeo recisely wht she hd lwys soght: thefreedom to clim her sertion from him s her own: O chrl. Drn ll, ndleft no friendly dro / To hel me fter? (5.3.16364).

His lis re still wrm. Hly some oison yet doth hng on them (l. 165).

His body is not bloodied nd ers nblemished by externl injry. She mightyet nd betifl deth in long, slow iss to me me die with restortive(l. 166). e freedom of this hy end is mrred only by the noise of theworlds stirring, which comels qicer consmmtion throgh enetrtion(O hy dgger [l. 167]). We wish for her not longer life, bt more lei-srely dying.

XIV

Deth, lie tho there, by ded mn interrd.5.3.87

Neither Romeo nor Jliet cnowledges the others deth by cring for theothers ded body. Withot denying deths nlity, they void grief nd morn-ing. Insted, ech resonds immeditely by consciosly, even joyflly nd h-ily, committing sicide. How oft when men re t the oint of deth / Hvethey been merry! (5.3.8889). How is this to be exlined?

By resonding to the corse of ntre in nonntrl (let s sy hmn)fshion, fnerry rites enct the minimm conditions for hmn commnity.

Beginning with the ncient fmily or tribe, the commnity is orgnized by thenonntrl rctices (lie nming or bril) throgh which it cconts for thentrl fcts (lie births nd deths) tht re its nvoidble conditions. Schrctices mst be ritlized nd erformed by sccessive genertions. Only

47 It is not cler how Romeo interrets the cse of Jliets deth. I ssme tht he does nother Priss remr t the tomb, which ttribtes Jliets deth to grief for Tyblt (5.3.50).Given his own serch for oison, it is temting to conclde tht Romeo nderstnds her dethto hve been sicide by ingestion. Perhs he nderstnds the motive for Jliets sicide to hvebeen her betrothl to Pris, which he mentions nder his breth s he enters the vlt: Whtsid my mn, when my betossed sol / Did not ttend him, s we rode? I thin / He told mePris shold hve mrried Jliet. (ll. 7678).


35/39


in the erformnce of sch dties do individl fmily members belong to onenother. Hmn cstoms re revisble. Bt revisions in or rctices te lce

only throgh the reetition or trnsmission tht gives them their ritl stts.To belong to hmn commnity is to be bond to certin rctices, er-

hs the most irrevocble of which re fnerry rites, since withot cstomryrctices by which to rm the belonging of ded individl to the intergen-ertionl life of the commnity, there cn be no inheritble commnity. Con-versely, withot n inheritble commnitytht is, withot the reetble ctsby which tht commnity is institted nd mintinedno hmn life woldbe ossible; gin, by hmn life we cn men only lives tht re recognized ssch by commnity, throgh its ritl rctices.

To be morned is erhs the fllest, most biding form of hmn recogni-tion. An individl ttins her fll hmnity, her fll belonging to the hmncommnity only by hving her ded body morned nd cred for by the com-mnity.48 By the sme toen, to be left nbried, nmorned, is to be forsenby the commnity, bndoned bsoltely. is mens tht the ntrl fct ofdeth, the given mortlity of individl lives, is n externl necessity withotwhich there cn be no hmn belonging. For there to be ny inheritble hmncommnity, or nl sertion from ech nother mst remin something thtwe ser, or cnowledge s schit cnnot er s the conseqence of orown doing.

In his reections on these mtters, Hegel dds severl striing qlictions.Hegel describes deth s ntrl corse wherein n individls life, with llof its nredictble twists nd trns, nlly concentrtes . . . into single com-leted she nd flls into the clm of simle niverslity, the reose of deth.Deth ers s rocess whereby the rticlr individl is folded into theniverslity of ntrl rocesses (worms, decy, nd so on).

Whence, rofond worry: becse Ntre hs no movement of con-sciosness, the ntrl rocesses tht bsorb the individl er to redceconscios life to moment of biologicl necessitysy, to the feeding ofmicrobes. As Hegel oints ot, sch redction is tterly intolerble to con-scios beings, becse it entils dmitting either tht Ntre herself nder-tes the conscios ction of destroying the individl, or tht there re nocscs ctions.49 Obviosly, to dmit either of these conclsions is to tterlyerode ny clim for freedom nd self-reliztion. As Hegel ts it, the move-ment of consciosness mst ssert itself by interrting the wor of Ntre

48 For n elbortion of this thoght, in reltion to contemorry contexts, see two recentboos by Jdith Btler, Prcrs Lf (New Yor: Verso, 2004), nd Frs f Wr(New Yor:Verso, 2009).

49 Hegel, Phgy f Spr, 270, rgrh 452.


36/39


nd rescing the [ded individl] from destrction; or better . . . it tes onitself the ct of destrction. We stve o the ntrl forces tht destroy the

individl (by emblming or secil grments) in order to ccomlish thtdestrction for orselves (by bril or cremtion).

Bnd here is the oint to be nderlinedthe wor of Ntre cn onlybe interrted nd ten over by the deeds of the cy. In Hegels ccont,it is the ts of the fmilynot of free gents lcing commnl tiesto brythe ded. An individl cn ct on behlf of the fmily bt cnnot ccomlishthe ritl withot the jstiction rovided by commnity beyond herself.As Hegel exlins, the reson for this is the necessity with which we begn: thesheer fct of individls mortlity. In the bsence of n ongoing commnity of

the living nd the ded, nothing cn revent n individls life from eringto belong wholly nd nlly to ntre. If conscios life is to ssert itself , it mstdo so throgh the ritl ctions tht constitte the intergenertionl life of thecommnity.

With ll of this in mind, we cn come closer to nderstnding why Romeond Jliet did not erform ny fnerry rite for one nothernd t the smetime bring more flly into view strggle for freedom tht Hegel nd othersseem not to hve cnowledged. Becse Romeo is bnished nd Jliet estrngesherself from her fmily by mens of the rse, they cold not ct on behlf ofny commnity. Romeo still belongs to the Montge cln, which mornshim fter his deth. Bt he cold not cre for Jliets body s Montge, giventht she hs lredy been bried in the Clet tomb. In eect, ech hs lredydied to the commnity to which they belonged. (Recll Romeos freqentdeclrtions tht his bnishment is deth, mistermd [3.3.2021]). erefore,they cold resond to the others deth only with deed exressing no imhigher thn their own. Neither erforms ny ct of morning.50

At the sme time, their inbility to interrt the wor of ntre by t-ing on the ct of destrction does not men tht the lovers lives re therebyredced to the mere corse of biologicl necessity. In fct, neither sees the others simly bndoned to the relentless wor of ntre. is is recisely whtRomeo nd Jliet mnge, throgh their qic nd self-conscios ctions, tovoid: Well, Jliet I will lie with thee tonight. / Lets see for mens (5.1.3435).Ech scceeds in seeing in the others decesed body not the clm, cold reoseof dethrgr rs or the fol stench of decybt n individl wrmthnd vitlity of which ech hs intimte nd singlr nowledge. e clims ofntre nd hmn society re oted. Romeos lis re still wrm nd sle to

the iss; his bodys integrity is ndiminished by silled blood. And Jliet?50 Romeo rently mes good on his romise to inter Pris in trimhnt grve

(5.3.83) bt only fter slying him. He bries Pris s his mrderer, not his insmn.


37/39


O my love, my wife,Deth tht hs scd the honey of thy breth

Hth hd no ower yet on thy bety.o rt not conqerd. Betys ensign yetIs crimson in thy lis nd in thy chees,And Deths le g is not dvnced there.

(5.3.9196)

Romeo nd Jliet re not the ssive beneciries of good timing. Rther, s thedience nows, this moment is the reslt of the lovers own cts, the rose-fl ingestion of nntrl sbstnces, the nwvering resolve with which echcommits sicide in the others embrce. e lovers ssert their freedom nd

the movement of consciosness throgh deeds tht cn hve no commnljstiction, no socil exlntion. N cy c jsfy r xp hrcs. In their sicides, the lovers show the commnitys most scred dties tobe mere emty formlities. ey shine hrsh light on the frigid ceremony ofthe fmily tomb, nd stin e stony entrnce of this selchre with blood(ll. 141, 140).

And yet we commnlly venerte the lovers ctionsin or drm, in oroetry, in desire for the myth.In rt, this is becse we mistenly oer thisvenertion s memoriliztion of the lovers belonging to die

shakespeare63.1.kottman

Documents