Explain what Juliet says about names. Do you agree?
Juliet says that if Romeo wasn't a Montague, there would be nothing to prevent their love. The name is not the thing that it labels, and if the name was changed, the thing would not be. The name is nothing in itself; it doesn't affect the actual thing in any way.
I agree that a name is not the actual thing. If we called a rose a muck, it would still be beautiful, but we might not be as inclined to use it in our writing. It might not be such a famous symbol of purity and beauty. Names are of little consequence in the overall scheme of things, but people often worry about what to name their babies because in our society, names do matter. People make up names for eachother, taunt eachother with names, and name things according to what they think of them. However, taunting does affect people, names do matter in terms of media and other such things.
"She speaks, yet she says nothing. What of that? Her eye discourses; I will answer it" (Shakespeare, 69).
I think that what Romeo meant by this is that what she says is not important. She cannot tell him that she loves him because their parents are sworn enemies, but she can look at him and by looking, he will know what she thinks. What she says is not important, he thinks, because it is not to him, and he is only listening to her beautiful voice, not the words that she speaks.
But then if names are of little consequence, why do they affect society's entire view of an object? If the word rose was muck and muck was rose, perhaps a muck would be a beautiful word to humans, and a rose would be unpleasant sounding. I believe that names hold significance only if one allows them to.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I think that names have everything to do with the society that we live in, and they are only important if you can understand what they mean. However, if we lived in a society in which no one spoke or knew how to speak, in which no one knew the names of anything, names would not be important, because it is the substance that really matters.
DeleteAnd yet Juliet understands what a Montague is, but still she loves Romeo. Is it understanding, or is it simply choosing to ignore the implications that come with that understanding?
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's either. Juliet fell in love with Romeo long before she knew his name. She fell in love with the actual person, not knowing his name, and she realized that the name did not characterize him, like she thought it did. The same is true of Romeo.
ReplyDeleteExactly. Juliet met Romeo, fell in love, realized that he was a Montague, but decided to ignore the implications that came with his name.
ReplyDelete