What's in a name? Meaningless Labels

The first time that I read Romeo and Juliet, I was a freshman in high school. I hated it, and my teacher hated it just as much. Unfortunately, it was a part of the curriculum, so it had to be taught. I remember my teacher stressing over and over again, the small details about the play that proved that it wasn't a love story, as well as the great comical moments. The most memorable comical scene is actually the opening altercation of the play between Abram, Sampson, and Gregory. I know that this is such a small section of the play (it doesn't even take up an entire scene), but it's importance is obvious simply because of its position at the opening of the play. So, for this post, I'm going to break down the first eight pages of the play and show why everything we possibly need to know about this play is right there.

Before I begin, I would like to say that I came into this assignment greatly distracted by the current political climate. I have said multiple times in the last two weeks that I was going to step away from social media, especially Facebook, because, too often, I was finding myself in frustrating comment exchanges where I was trying my best to remain calm and logical while the people on the other end had decided that they didn't like me from the moment they deemed me a "liberal." As a result, I began reading Romeo and Juliet through a lens of uneducated hatred.

I believe it was Sean that asked in his post, "why are the Montagues and Capulets even fighting?" I think this is an important question, but I think another question that rises from that is, "why do individuals from each of the families decide that they hate other individuals based solely on their name?" We are told in the prologue that the quarrel between the families is an "ancient grudge," so it's a fair assumption that nothing done by anyone living, from either of the families, could have been the cause of the feud (I.Prologue.3). That being said, the hatred portrayed over and over is simply the hatred of a name--a combination of meaningless letters that these characters deem positive or negative.

The opening of act 1 scene 1 introduces us, first, to two fairly unimportant characters, Sampson and Gregory of house Capulet. For no given reason, they begin gossiping about their hatred for the Montagues, and some of the things that they say are quite concerning. The most alarming thing is said by Sampson in regards to the women of the Montague house:

Sampson: 'Tis all one. I will show myself a tyrant.
When I have fought with the men, I will be civil
with the maids; I will cut off their heads.
Gregory: The heads of the maids?
Sampson: Ay, the heads of the maids, or their maiden-
heads. Take it in what sense thou wilt. (I.i.22-27).

While Sampson threatens physical violence to the Montague men, he is threatening rape against the Montague women--all of these threats are based solely on a family name. These threats and words of hatred seem to be very reminiscent of the feelings of animosity that are filling the air between political parties right now. While many have been peaceful, there have been outbursts of violence or threats of violence simply based on ideas or the labels of liberal or conservative. In direct relation to to the above quotation in the play, I have seen rape threats from both sides. Feminists have received rape threats for words that have been perceived to be against men, while conservative women have received rape threats by people who think it will make them more inclined to support some of the "liberal" causes.

Back to Romeo and Juliet, we soon see these simple words evolve into an actual fight in the streets of Verona between multiple members of both families, even the heads of each household. Even the civilians choose sides in the quarrel, for reasons unknown. The entrance of Prince Escalus is a breathe of fresh air in the midst of the hatred. The Prince is level headed, and, to relate him to my political commentary, he might be considered a centrist since he chooses neither side in the feud. While the entire exchange passes quickly, it gives us everything we need to know about the characters in the play. Their feud exists only in theory. They have been taught to hate each other for no reason other than a name, very much like those who hate others based solely on the assignment of a political label. The only admirable characters are those that acknowledge the futility of hatred (I know this is a stretch considering Romeo and Juliet's annoying naiveté, but that is beside the point).

To conclude, I think that the monologue of Prince Escalus is a perfect call to action for everyone in these divided times:

Rebellious subjects, enemies to peace,
Profaners of this neighbor-stainèd steel--
Will they not here?--What ho! You men, you beasts,
That quench the fire of your pernicious rage
With purple fountains issuing from your veins:
On pain of torture, from those bloody hands
Throw your mistempered weapons to the ground (I.i.83-89).

If I'm going to get political, I think we should take the prince's message to heart: perhaps it is time to drop these meaningless political titles that divide us and actually try to do some good for our country, in the same way Prince Escalus wants the people of Verona to drop the empty feud between the Montagues and the Capulets and actually think of the city as a whole.

LUV SUX

I am unsure if I have ever read Romeo and Juliet before. I feel like I might have read an excerpt it in high school, but if so, obviously I did not get much from it. TBH I did not care for the two acts we have read so far. This is probably because between rereading lines and lines of old English, and defining what words mean, I lost my momentum. I want so desperately to be one of those intellectuals that have a wealth of knowledge, all because they are so well read. With that said, although I did not fall in love with the play thus far, I can appreciate the writing, and acknowledge that everyone should have some background on Shakespeare’s most famous work. I look forward to being smarterer after this tragedy (i.e. the branch of drama and my pathetic interpretation).

Romeo and Juliet was written in a very different time, about a very different time, so it is hard to critique the validity of these possibly prepubescent youngster’s
love. BUT, as some of my classmates have already pointed out before me, the story is somewhat far fetched. This play is the definition of love at first sight

.

The play in a lot of ways demonstrates the excitement of young (foolish) love. It introduces Romeo as a love struck lad “friendzoned” by the beautiful Rosaline, but as soon as he laid his eyes on Juliet...lets just say Rosaline must not have had “Beauty too rich for use, for earth too dear”. Romeo’s love seems very juvenile, which is to be expected considering his age. I believe Romeo’s infatuations and rebound to Juliet has made the story relevant over the years, because young, lusty love is a milestone of everyone’s teen years.

I understand the story is intended to be romantic, because their love escalates so quickly, and we already know it is so strong it leads to their demise, but I find that underwhelming. If I really believed they loved each other maybe I would be more invested in their courtship, but dare I say Shakespeare needed more plot development. I DARE NOT HE IS SHAKESPERE….but if I was feeling crazy I might I suggest Act 1, scene 6 in which Romeo and Juliet go on a date where Juliet says more than 5 lines to Romeo.  The couples first encounter only lasted a grand total of one page, and Romeo is already talking about marriage. Is he loosing his mind? Yes.

One last thought…Although literally everyone knows Romeo and Juliet die at the end, I think it’s super lame it is literally stated in the prologue.