A friend sent me an article called “Romeo and Juliet In A Nutshell” by Joseph Pearce for Crisis Magazine, a publication associated with the Catholic Church, and he asked my opinion. Mr. Pearce got a few things right- that Romeo & Juliet is a play about lust, not romance or love, and it's about the inevitable punishment of that lust.
Though I was pleased that Pearce and I agreed on that aspect, a simple observation which most of us miss, since Shakespeare was an expert at hiding multiple alternate and deeper meanings in his plays. But in that nutshell is a much more complicated scenario that includes huge amounts of alchemical, pagan, and Gnostic references and symbolism.
A Roman Catholic priest (called Friar) makes a terrible mistake (this usually goes without notice as well) in marrying the 13 yr old Juliet to Romeo, a boy of indeterminate age but probably 17 or 18. Did Friar really make a mistake? Or did things turn out as planned? Why is there a happy ending to the play, as peace comes to Verona and a golden statue of Juliet Capulet is promised to be raised by old man Montague?
This is a short companion article to my 3-hour podcast episode that goes through R & J scene by scene. This essay delivers the gist of what’s hidden in the play, but without most of the details in the text, which are many and quite shocking. For that you’ll have to listen to the podcast. This essay is the 7 minute shortcut.
The play is very profound and it’s not about romance or love. Romance and doomed love are a masterful misdirection, even a ruse. It is a play about lust, it is about alchemy and an ancient practice designed to bring peace to the city, a ritual once practiced openly centuries ago. This ancient ritual is now part of the extreme edge of our modern dark occult: human sacrifice.
Thus my reading makes Romeo and Juliet a horror story. Friar is secretly a Gnostic alchemist working in cahoots with Nurse, using Romeo as bait, luring Juliet in for a sacrifice in order to bring peace to Verona. All the evidence for this reading is right there in the text of the play. Let’s have a look.
The symbolism is dense- much of it is clearly occult, Gnostic and alchemical. It needs to be read, as the words fly by on the stage and screen, and some of the dialogue is cut out in most productions. The raunchy sexual imagery and slang, linked to violence, is non-stop in the play. But how about this? The sun is referred to as a god 8 times, the first time in the first act, spoken of as “worshipped sun”. The sun is referenced 19 times overall, and the constant theme or motif of light and dark has been mentioned by many critics.
Even the pretend Catholic priest refers to the sun as god, which is a giveaway. He calls the sun a “burning eye” which is a clear if subtle nod to the Gnostic mystery religion of Mithraism where the sun was called “Mithra’s eye”. In Freemasonry, highly influenced by Mithraism, the sun is a primary symbol, if not the primary symbol for initiates, as the “eye of providence” is embedded in and part of the sun. It’s on the back of your dollar bill.
Mithraism, the widespread secret religion of sun worship, has some associations with human sacrifice. [Burkert, Ancient Mystery Cults]
Naturally Mr. Pearce and I part company regarding the character of the Friar (Catholic Priest).
Pearce: “However, he [Friar] is told by the Prince at the end of the play [as Juliet and Romeo and Paris lie in pools of blood nearby] that “we still have known thee for a holy man”, a judgment which has been borne out, for the most part, by his actions.”
FOR THE MOST PART? HOLY ACTIONS? I beg to differ Mr. Pearce. What about those other parts? Friar was always pretend-holy, a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a snake in the grass, a poisonous spider in the cupboard, a satanist in the church.
The Friar’s actions are suspect the entire play. He has an unusually close relationship with the very young Romeo. Romeo calls Friar his “ghostly father”. For all Friar’s, shall we say poor judgement, the 'Prince” [boss-man of Verona] lets Friar go at the end of the play, despite the three bloody corpses in the crypt, for political reasons.
The Prince character is widely considered a reference to Machiavelli and Machiavellian political philosophy. Surely it must be! The Prince lets the priest go after the priest was caught by the Watchman, in the cemetery outside the crypt, running away, in the graveyard scene that concludes the play. Later we will see that Friar is suspected of being a grave robber by the stage directions, as the symbolism of what he carries with him suggest. Even the Arden Shakespeare says as much.
Also at the end the play, old man Montague, formerly Juliet Capulet's sworn enemy, promises to raise the dead Juliet, she is to be reborn as a golden statue. This golden statue is the ultimate in alchemical symbol, the "coniunctio oppositorum", a Latin phrase referring to the alchemical goal of ‘union of opposites’. The Montagues and Capulets have been joined, like the Twin Towers. Alchemical symbolism runs deep throughout the play as it runs throughout many of the Shakespeare plays. I mean the Francis Bacon plays, he who was the first modern cheerleader for Science.
The goal of Friar’s alchemy was the gold of peace in Verona, but via pharmakos, a common practice in the ancient world, which involved sacrifice. Friar was aided by Nurse. (Again for all the references and signals in the text listen to the podcast). Friar’s alchemical working was social engineering and it required the sacrifice of a rule breaker, someone who was a threat to the social order. Also, original ancient alchemists (who were Gnostics) were required to perform sacrifice in order for their experiment to succeed.
But it’s a Shakespeare play, so parallel symbolism is layered on top of layer on top of layer. Juliet is also the symbol of a Vestal Virgin, the Roman virgins who tended the eternal flame of the Eternal city, who were punished if they ever violated the vow of chastity they took for the honor of tending the flames. The specific punishment was to be buried alive, which is exactly what happens to Juliet.
The clue here is that Juliet is told by Romeo to “cast off her vestal livery”. Livery being a common Elizabethan term meaning “distinctive dress worn by the members of a particular group”.
“Vestal livery” are ‘Vestments - liturgical garments’. Romeo would have her cast off her Vestal promise of chastity, in a famous bit of dialogue:
“But, soft! what light through yonder window breaks?
It is the east, and Juliet is the sun.
Arise, fair sun, and kill the envious moon,
Who is already sick and pale with grief,
That thou her maid art far more fair than she:
Be not her maid, since she is envious;
Her vestal livery is but sick and green
And none but fools do wear it; cast it off.”
Juliet does as she is told. She betrays her vow as maid to the chaste moon goddess Diana/Artemis/Empire. She must be punished. (She had earlier in the play expressed a desire for chastity). Sun and moon are two core alchemical symbols that saturate the play. There are plenty more.
Mr. Pearce states: “It is clear, therefore, that Juliet is betrayed by those who should have saved her from her own immature folly.” This is indeed the crux of the play, but the Catholic priest absolutely takes the lead in this betrayal. Pearce would see Friar as mostly holy, and in this common reading lies the fantastical mastery and subterfuge of ShakesBacon - nobody seems to see that the Friar and Nurse, are clearly secretly evil (both in the story itself and in a wider sense, in the understanding of the audience). For Shakespeare it’s evil meant to preserve the good. It’s dualism, it’s antithesis, it’s Gnostic. Unlike the pharmakos of old, in modern Verona it is hidden, in Verona of the play, in the play itself, and it remains hidden in society today.
More layering: there is a substantial amount of Vampire imagery in the play. I know, sounds crazy! Listen to this: the first thing we learn about Romeo is that he stays out all night and comes home only as the sun is rising. This happens three times in a play where the action spans only four days, with a total dead body count of six. Romeo is a creature of the night and he turns Juliet into a creature of the night, with a kiss, all clearly marked in the text. This is her true sin, she has violated the Gnostic dedication to light, and has become enslaved in base materiality of night. In yet another layering and meaning, this is very similar to the story of Sophia, the Gnostic creator goddess.
In reading the play as a horror story, Romeo is the bait (described as by far the most handsome lad in all the land) to lure in a Virgin to desecrate and ultimately sacrifice.
Why is Romeo so close to the Friar? It’s weird. Friar has really captivated Romeo and made him into a night creature. Recall that Romeo calls Friar “ghostly father”. Romeo and then Juliet speak many eloquent hymns to the night. Friar at first wanted Rosaline, Romeo’s first exalted love for all eternity, but that failed. Rosaline (a reference to the exalted Rosicrucians) remains pure. Rosicrucians, like the Freemasons, consider themselves enlightened, with special knowledge or gnosis. Freemasons even call themselves “sons of light”.
Friar marries Romeo and Juliet in order to insure that Juliet will be sure to consummate her very sudden lust, making their one night of love palatable to an Elizabethan audience, and to Juliet herself, who of course, is still a good girl, if you will. As for Juliet's sudden and determined lust, more Vampire imagery, it’s as if Juliet was bitten by Romeo’s two kisses. That very night, soon after the kiss she turns into a raging lustful creature. Odd for a 13 yr old girl, no? It’s very, very odd. Romeo is a baby vampire, a magician’s vampire’s assistant.
Just one more example of Vampire imagery:
JULIET
O God, I have an ill-divining soul!
Methinks I see thee, now thou art below,
As one dead in the bottom of a tomb:
Either my eyesight fails, or thou look'st pale.
ROMEO
And trust me, love, in my eye so do you:
Dry sorrow drinks our blood. Adieu, adieu!
Vampire tales existed in the time period of the writing of the play, in various forms. They are a part of the Grail and Troubadour legends like Morte d’Arthur that also form another back drop to the action of the play, in the typically insistent, dense and obscured references and symbolism of ‘Shakespeare’.
Juliet, having consummating her sudden lust, can then be punished, even though she is married, for still she has violated her vow of chastity to the moon goddess as a vestal virgin, and as Sophia. The violation is also in defying her father in marrying Romeo instead of Paris, thus a threat to the social order. Juliet is just all wrong! Friar performs the hidden marriage rite, hoping, as he says, that it will bring peace to Verona! Turning from the light to become a creature of darkness, denying her father the sun, Juliet has betrayed not only Mithra, and Diana the moon, but the Gnostic Troubadorian vow of purity, service to light and the rejection of the world. She must die.
Nurse appears by her earlier speeches to have been grooming Juliet all along, and even at one point encourages Juliet to go to bed with Romeo. Nurse is clearly in cahoots with Friar. (Multiple clues). But in classic Shakespearean antithesis she at one point urges Juliet to forget about Romeo and to marry Paris- and this ‘adult betrayal’ is what the audience remembers about Nurse. This is one technique of how the dark Bard hides the real meanings of his plays. Nurse, who was Juliet’s ‘wet-nurse’ (she had breast fed Juliet as an infant) and had betrayed Juliet long ago.
The Friar is then caught fleeing the crypt after he went to check on Juliet, whom he had rendered unconscious with his herbal alchemy. He figured she would be soon awakening but the time doesn’t quite square, he’s actually a day early. At any rate he is carrying as mentioned - by stage directions- a shovel, a crowbar and a lantern. This portrays him as a grave robber, which fits with his ability to concoct powerful potions as an alchemist/magician/herbalist. He suddenly flees from the crypt after meeting with the just-having-awoken Juliet, because he hears others coming. Very soon after he scampers away, Juliet kills herself. This is the ultimate betrayal of Juliet, and by a Catholic priest to boot. We can safely put away any notions of some that Shakespeare secretly advocated Catholicism! Friar is then put under “great suspicion” by the Watchman (because of the crowbar, shovel and lamp) but then is inexplicably pardoned on the spot by the Prince, after a lame explanation and lame excuse from Friar.
The Prince, in a classic Machiavellian move, lets him go! The Machiavellian Prince says “we still have known thee for a holy man”. He was probably in on the whole thing because the unrest in Verona made him look weak and threatened his rule. The populace of Verona was sick of the Montague/Capulet violence in the streets, and the Prince needed to do something. Thus, pharmakos. The tragedy overwhelms the rancor and the intense, violent hostility is subsumed.
Peace returns to the City. The ancient ritual, now modern social alchemy, was successful. Juliet is now golden.
There’s TONS more in the details which is why the deep analysis takes me 3 hours. This play is bursting at the seams with many occulted meaning.
Challenge Shakespeare, the master sorcerer. Let dark meet the light. Sinister subtexts and meaning are in many of the plays, hidden by rich imagery, strange words and the flow of unusually hypnotic language in the iambic rythyms of the heart. Check the close readings of the Tempest, Macbeth, Hamlet and As You Like It for starters. Any Freemason would approve, since they are ‘enlightened’ and the very Sons of Light.
And as for Romeo and Juliet, everyone thinks the play is about romance. INCREDIBLE!
Thank you Contarini! Dare I send it to Pearce? 😬
OK I will! Thanks again!
"We can safely put away any notions of some that Shakespeare secretly advocated Catholicism!"
This line is mostly familiar to me from Clare Asquith in 'Shadowplay' and how she constructed it is most interesting. Her central claim is that every time "Shakespeare" uses "high" or "fair" (or close synonyms thereof) he means Catholic and the inverse ("low" and "dark") means Protestant. Small problem: "low" and "dark" were commonly applied to anything an author wanted to look bad. It's nonsense. What Asquith really wanted was to find a way to give Stratford Will the university education he so obviously needed - so if he was a secret Catholic then, she argues apparently seriously, he was smuggled into Catholic-sympathising Oxford under an alias! That's how he learnt it all! Don't worry about the specific references to Cambridge.... or that the whole thing is a fantasy house of straw.
Is Clare Asquith just some random eccentric? No. Her mother is Viscountess Sidmouth. Her husband is Raymond Asquith, great-grandson of H.H. Asquith UK PM 1908-16. Quigley and Docherty/MacGregor have plenty to say about Asquith the PM. There are few men with more blood on their hands. Raymond Asquith was British Ambassador to the USSR in the 1980s - a "safe pair of hands" in situ for momentous events.
Clare Asquith isn't the only female Stratfordian writer with some interesting connections. Charlotte Stopes 'The Bacon/Shakespeare Question' is probably the worst slice of Strafordianism it's been my displeasure to read. It's like being locked in a room with Stanley Wells, Jonathan Bate and James Shapiro. The section where she tries to paint C16th Stratford as Florence-upon-Avon and Mary Arden as some sort of cross between Catherine De Medici and Jane Austen is unintentionally hilarious. Well, Stopes' daughter was no other than Mary Stopes, the insane eugenicist and Britain's answer to Margaret Sanger! Charlotte Stopes wrote as "C.C. Stopes" and CC=33.
I'm not going to rehash the evidence that Stratford Will was Catholic or Protestant. It's a classic fake binary. Authors like Asquith and Stopes will never admit (except perhaps very obliquely in code like "freethinker") that these are not the only two options - Gnostic, Luciferian, Pagan, Middle Eastern, even outright Satanism, these are all off the table in the way they're trying to shape the debate.