i think that i'll celebrate valentine's day on the blog for awhile. so, thanks to CNN once again for providing some interesting fodder; here's a neolithic example of love and affection. so far, there are no hypotheses as to who or how old they were or how they died. it's interesting how the author(s?) link the pair to romeo & juliet, as the site is not terribly far from verona, italy. i guess that's a logical and fun thing to do, although the pictorial evidence accompanying the article impels me to come to different conclusions.
first, shakespeare's lovers are caught in the web woven by their spiteful families and are unable to escape their predestined (as revealed by the prologue) fate. with the millenia-old lovers, however, there is nothing to indicate any sort of physical or social strife. their burial site is too isolated (as discovered so far) to assume any such fate. the other piece that makes me think differently is the manner in which the skeletons are found. it is most often interpreted that after romeo has died, juliet stabs herself, causing her lifeless body to fall atop her lover's. thus, the sudden bodily trauma prevents any sort of intimacy in death. our other pair, by contrast, were discovered in a frozen embrace. while it could be posited that they were placed that way by others following individual deaths, my bit of random knowledge of burial practices tells me that there is no precedent for such an assumption. i would tend to believe that there was some sort of simultaneous event causing death. most likely the pair was buried (above or below ground, i don't know) together without being moved much. there are no volcanos near verona or mantua, so it's not possible for a pompei-esque sort of demise, but there could always be other causes.
all of that is pure guesswork, but to me, it's always fun to challenge immediate and off-the-cuff conjectures, especially if they involve shakespeare. :)
oh--word of wisdom: i know that people love to do this, but please don't take romeo & juliet as your love model. pick a pair that doesn't end up dead. read the plays before you pick. : P
first, shakespeare's lovers are caught in the web woven by their spiteful families and are unable to escape their predestined (as revealed by the prologue) fate. with the millenia-old lovers, however, there is nothing to indicate any sort of physical or social strife. their burial site is too isolated (as discovered so far) to assume any such fate. the other piece that makes me think differently is the manner in which the skeletons are found. it is most often interpreted that after romeo has died, juliet stabs herself, causing her lifeless body to fall atop her lover's. thus, the sudden bodily trauma prevents any sort of intimacy in death. our other pair, by contrast, were discovered in a frozen embrace. while it could be posited that they were placed that way by others following individual deaths, my bit of random knowledge of burial practices tells me that there is no precedent for such an assumption. i would tend to believe that there was some sort of simultaneous event causing death. most likely the pair was buried (above or below ground, i don't know) together without being moved much. there are no volcanos near verona or mantua, so it's not possible for a pompei-esque sort of demise, but there could always be other causes.
all of that is pure guesswork, but to me, it's always fun to challenge immediate and off-the-cuff conjectures, especially if they involve shakespeare. :)
oh--word of wisdom: i know that people love to do this, but please don't take romeo & juliet as your love model. pick a pair that doesn't end up dead. read the plays before you pick. : P
2 comments:
I've always thought that the real meaning of Romeo and Juliet was the folly of youth instead of the tragedy of star-crossed lovers and fate. Think about it: two kids meet, fall in love within hours, the boy gets into a huge fight where his best friend and girlfriend's cousin are killed, they hatch an elaborate plot to leave town, and then through a series of mishaps end up killing themselves over it. Where's the perspective?
personally, i think that R&J is ultimately about universal culpability. you're right in that R&J are pretty impulsive and in fact kind of stupid kids, and it's easy to peg the moms and the dads as the enablers behind all of the bad seeds in the families. don't just stop there though--the prince/duke/i-forget-the-rank hasn't YET stepped in to nip the brawl in the bud, and the result of his delay is, well, a tragedy. also, there's the priest. he appears to be the force of good and voice of wisdom in all of the chaos, but he does not use his holy office to address the families directly. instead, he actually trusts in deceit and scheming.
the thing that i love about shakespeare is that he's an equal opportunity offender; he doesn't let anyone leave the theatre without at least whispering 'mea culpa.'
Post a Comment