No, this is NOT a homework question. “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet”…that’s William Shakespeare’s position on the subject of love, right?
Well, this line has ALWAYS bothered me. What did Shakespeare mean? To me, if Romeo is so smitten by Juliet, then no other rose could ever smell as sweet NOR could any other name be as perfect as the sound of the one I love so deep. (Personally, I think Willie blew it as far as being the hottest romance writer.)
What’s the SD? Am I missing something here? Anyone else bothered by this line?
It’s been bugging me since 9th grade… - Jinx :mad:
Although this question really does have a definitive answer, you’d probably be better off having it moved to Cafe Society.
In any case, what the line means is that a name shouldn’t matter: Juliet is a
Capulet, and therefore out of bounds to Romeo. But what does her name matter? If it were Jones or Chang or anything else, wouldn’t she still be the same sweet person?
Same as a rose: what if it weren’t called it a rose? Wouldn’t it still smell as sweet? Of course it would.
Oh! I totally missed that interpretation, although I knew that was the main conflcit of the story. You see, I recall Romeo saying so many smitten-like things, like in one scene, “how I wish I were the glove on her hand”, or such, that I guess I thought this was another one of his gushy moments! OK…now I got it!
See? If only Shakespeare would have spoken English…
The crux of the plot is that they can’t be together just because of their families (their names).
Here’s the full passage (bolding mine):
In my words:
Juliet: “hey, you keep trying to get with me - why won’t you tell me your name?”
Romeo: “Well, you’re not gonna like it”
Juliet: “Try me!”
Romeo: “Ok, it’s Montague. Romeo Montague, of the Montagues your family so hates.”
Juliet: “Fuck! I wish you didn’t have that name…What’s in a name anyway? It doesn’t make up a person or anything, like a hand or a foot. And if your name is Montegue and you’re awesome, that’s ok too. If a rose was called Throatwarbler Mangrove, it’d still smell great - there’s nothing special about the word ‘rose’…”
Romeo: “I could go by just Romeo if you want. Like Cher. I don’t like being a Montague anyway…”
Juliet: “Yeah let’s just forget that our families hate eachother and come up here to my room so we can get it on.”
Romeo: “Right ho!”
Juliet: “Oh uh but be careful of my family, because THEY care about your name and they might kill you…”
Romeo: “…”
Dang, Zipper! Where were you when I was reading this play in 9th grade? I missed a heck of a lot, but then again, all my English teachers had some kind of superiority, inflated ego thing going. Instead of enjoying literature and learning together as a class, it was always “that’s for me to know, and you to find out” attitude. That’s what Honors meant…some honor! I missed out on a heck of a lot, I guess!
Bonus: What does “star-crossed lovers” mean to you? Ill-fated, as if the stars vexed them? Or, does it mean to say they were meant to be in love as destined by the stars themselves? Since they both die, I can see it going either way, but I prefer the latter.
But if Shakespeare believes (or his narrative alter-ego believes) the stars determine our individual fates, then Romeo and Juliet were “star-crossed” in the sense that their paths crossed by destiny.
Crossed here doesn’t refer to physical direction. It’s more like “thwarted.” The stars crossed (thwarted) the lovers, so that they were doomed never to be together no matter what they did. Nothing to do with crossing paths except in the most abstruse metaphorical sense.
I don’t think it’s that abstruse, and its certainly not irrelevant. Lots and lots of stuff Shakespeare says has both literal and metaphorical meaning, and often the interaction between the two creates a whole 'nother level of meaning. This is a big part of the brilliance of Shakespeare.
I think Jinx’s interpretation is valid in addition to yours, Dr. Drake. Their stars crossed - they were destined to be together, but their stars crossed them - it was impossible for them to be together. It’s all about the tragedy of their love - they cannot possibly be apart, but they cannot possibly be together. There’s something incredibly poetic and powerful in the trap they are thrown into. The line about star-crossed lovers captures this - no less a force than the stars, emblematic of the inconceivable power of the gods, crosses their fates together, but also keeps them apart.
Am I the only person who hopes Shakespeare wrote ‘‘Romeo and Juliet’’ totally tongue-in-cheek? They were a couple starry-eyed horny adolescents in luuuuuurve. I feel like that is what is truly tragic about this drama… the fact that they both died from what was essentially puppy love.
WoodenTaco, I agree with you in principle, but not with this example.
<checking Shakespeare dictionary, David Crystal’s Shakespeare’s Words>
Hm. “Star-crossed” is only defined as “thwarted.” A point for me.
“Cross” as a verb certainly does have both meanings in Shakespeare. A point, and a much stronger one, for you. Rats, I think you’re probably right.
Wow, I never thought I would see the day a female appreciated Hamlet. That is the ultimate *dude *story. Guy wants to go to college, has to kill, has a chick that he wants to get it on with and doesn’t know how, kills some people and and in the meantime convinces his GF she is a whore and causes her to kill herself.
I have a new appreciation for you, olivesmarch4th.
For 2008, my sister & I are reading all of Shakespeare’s plays. R&J is next week, and I’m not looking forward to it. I don’t remember liking the play, or Romeo, or Juliet 15 years ago, but maybe I’m in a better place to read it now.
(btw, if anyone wants to join us in reading them, PM me. We’re doing the discussions by blog)
When I read it in 9th grade, the play was censored a little. The textbook cut out the part in the next scene where one of Romeo’s family asks where he was last night, for his bed hadn’t been slept in. Romeo replies that, “the sweeter rest was mine,” meaning that he was in Juliet’s bed. My dad had The Complete Works at home, and I was titillated to know that the school didn’t want me to know that part.
I much prefer the tragedies too, though that might be because that’s how I was introduced to Shakespeare. Since I skipped grade 9 English, I missed Romeo and Juliet!
*Hamlet * was censored for us. We were reading along in the book while the teacher played a record (yes, it was that long ago) and we all became confused because the book wasn’t matching what was on the record.
I think it was the part where Hamlet told Ophelia to “get thee to a nunnery” or some such thing. Basically, he was telling her to get to a whorehouse.
Shakespeare was pretty raunchy, if you knew what he was saying. “All cats at night are black” indeed.
Romeo and Juliet is a tragedy, of course. Maybe it helped me that my 9th grade English teacher started on the book saying “This is not a sappy love story. It’s a brutal war story about two dumb kids who have no clue what they’re doing, and anyone who uses Romeo and Juliet as an example of perfect love has no clue what they are talking about.”
You just need to take yourself out of the preconceived understanding of the play as a love story.
That’s redonkulous! We got to see the Hugh Hefner co-produced version of Hamlet! Complete with Playboy branding and naked witches (actually, ewww on that last part). And Polanski’s version of R&J, complete with naked boy buttcheeks. And the Mel Gibson version of Hamlet. Our teacher actually left the room during the bedroom scene. I don’t blame her, who would want to see Mel Gibson and Glenn Close get it on?
I was pretty lucky. Upthread people have mentioned having all the fun of Shakespeare sucked out by bad teachers. I had great ones, and actually got to read out Hamlet’s soliloquy to the class while holding a plastic skull, and reenacted the battle between Hamlet and Laertes with some classmates.
