This question is for you well read hobbyists and providers out there. I have always been curious what this quote means. The phrase comes from Romeo and Juliet written by Shakespeare.

Can someone enlighten me on what Shakespeare meant by it? I have heard some interpretations before but have forgotten..

Thanks,

It refers to the name of Juliet Capulet... since the Montagues (Romeo's family) and the Capulets are feuding.

Their love cannot be since she is a Capulet, but Romeo is saying that "What's in a name?  A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"... so basically who cares what her name is, he loves her regardless.

He actually does go on to say that he would renounce his own name in return for her love.

I thought it might have symbolic meaning beyond the story. It is so often quoted, I was thinking there was a universal message to the phrase, and I think perhaps there is by your definition.

Thanks

It is actually Juliet who is opining what is in a name.

JULIET
O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?
Deny thy father and refuse thy name;
Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,
And I'll no longer be a Capulet.

ROMEO
[Aside] Shall I hear more, or shall I speak at this?

JULIET
'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.

ROMEO
I take thee at thy word:
Call me but love, and I'll be new baptized;
Henceforth I never will be Romeo.

Still gets me every time I read it!

HPG

There are some days I am so impressed by the quality of the membership here.  JMHO.

-- Staff

It's a suggestion that a thing is what it is, not what it is called.  For example, even if I were not called Luscious, I would still be as tasty.  Ha ha!  

If you are impressed at the quality you must have expected less.
Time for some introspection.  Lust and the admiration of and attraction to the female form are not exclusively rampant among the uneducated.  That TER offers a safe, anonymous forum for all to participate and exchange ideas and opinions is laudable, indeed. Remember, while the words were attributed to two teenagers, Shakespeare was very much an adult and his characterization of Juliet shows that had they had a TER in his day, he would have been a regular contributor!

Just as there are days, I'm sure, that you are not. lol

Could that be applied to how we view people? Whether they are rich or poor or even color of a skin. They might be called something else, but the essence of what they are is still the same.

Could you make that type of interpretation? Probably a bit beyond what Shakespeare was saying, but I wonder if it could be used in such a universal fashion?

L.L. that is a ridiculous question!  I did not think that "Luscious" is a name, I thought it is an adjective; you'd be as tasty if you were called "Hagar bint Laden". Of course, your blonde hair then would be out of place.

One of the hallmarks of great writing (and great art generally) is that it can be "owned" by anyone... the reader/viewer is free to apply his interpretations to the template the artwork provides; while the "Universality" test for art in the Aristotelian tradition may be arguable, this aspect of it isn't.

Shakespeare is amazing in both his summary of the human condition (only the Greeks are as spot-on) and in the ability of his plays to find fresh meaning in every era. "What's in a name" is one of those things that can be "owned" by anyone, and every reader might have a different shade of interpretation: there is no "correct" answer. The very fact that you are moved to question it points to the power of the words... they have done their work.

For me, the stanzas say that the power of love overpowers language, and by extension, culture and civilization: I find it a nice statement of both love's primacy and its primal nature... nature being key, love really is a "force of nature" and like a hurricane is unstoppable by Man's Conventions.

I would also say it is a caution: like Racine, Shakespeare regards love as truly a force, with destructive aspects... a rose by any other name smells as sweet, but by implication maybe the thorns are just as sharp? Society hampers love, but it may also reign in lust? jealousy? Don't forget, The Bard wrote "Othello" too...

Shakespeare is never simple.

O.

I think I would love to take a course in literature from you. Thanks for that insight. I had forgotten that this was one of the reasons that makes Shakespeare relevant today.

Laurel has it correctly.  I love Shakespeare, and my favorite Shakespearean expression comes from Act I Scene 1 of "Othello", and very appropriate for this forum, as Iago reports to Brabantio, a Venetian Senator, that his daughter and Othello (the Moor, a black man) "are now making the beast with two backs."  

I'll take that as a compliment, even though I'm not sure who/what you mean by "Hagar."  Is that Hagar, the mother of Ishmael, or Hagar the Horrible (of comic strip fame)?  Or something else?  I do have some Norse ancestors, but... yikes!  

-- Modified on 4/18/2003 5:43:02 AM

I've gotten hooked on this discussion board because the exchanges -- on all topics, whether pertinent to TER or not -- are so thoughtful and well-written.  The membership is clearly a remarkable bunch of people.

My coment about blonde hair would not apply to Hagar the Viking,who probably fits me more than you. I simply tried toinvent a name that obviously did not fit Luscious Laurel.

Hey, why not??

All walks of life. right?