Interestingly when Juliet asked "wherefore art thou Romeo" she was not, in fact, asking where he was. Rather she was wondering as to why his name was Romeo.
The point being, she (daft tart) would have loved him (wuss) whatever his name was (would not a rose by any other name smell as sweet) but because he had the name he'd got, and the Montagues & Capulets weren't that struck on each other, then "there may be trouble, ahead", as it were.
Using that, and the fact that you are missing apparantly DW, I draw a number of conclusions....
You are in love with David
Your family doesn't like David's family
David has found out and caught the first train out of town.
That, or you never studied Shakespear.
|
> That, or you never studied Shakespear.
Where as I never studied how to spell it.
Martyn, *where* is that edit button ?
|
Mark
> > That, or you never studied Shakespear.
>
> Where as I never studied how to spell it.
Actually, Shakespear or Shakspear are among the many different ways the bard himself and his contemporaries spelled his name. Spelling of many words at the time was in a state of flux, as it were. Samuel Johnson was part of a trend towards standardising spelling a century or so later. Incidentally, American spelling (and possibly also pronunciation) is closer to what Shakespeare would have recogni(z)ed.
Not sure where this leaves us in terms of cars, though.
Chris
|
|
|
|
Mark (Brazil) wrote:
>
> That, or you never studied Shakespeare.
I would rather be a canker in a hedge than a student of the bard.
I always read 'wherefore art thou' bit as meaning 'what will you do'.?
This is backed up because in the following line she suggest what she wants him to do "Defy your father, refuse thy name". And then gives the option if he will not 'but swear your love, and I'll no longer be a Capulet'.
My 2p's worth.
|
> I always read 'wherefore art thou' bit as meaning 'what will
> you do'.?
Nope. Def. "Romeo, why are you [called] Romeo ?"
> This is backed up because in the following line she suggest
> what she wants him to do "Defy your father, refuse thy name".
> And then gives the option if he will not 'but swear your
> love, and I'll no longer be a Capulet'.
"Defy your Father, refuse thy name" - don't follow your family in this, and best, leave your family and renounce the association.
"'but swear your love, and I'll no longer be a Capulet" - alternatively, if you tell me you love me, I'll leave my family.
|
For further indication, it goes one...
>>'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
>>Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
Further showing that it is the name that is the problem.
>>So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
>>Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Romeo would still be perfect without that name.
>>Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
>>And for that name which is no part of thee
>>Take all myself.
Lose the name, it won't change you and then take me. (he doesn't, wuss)
And since its 25 years since I last read this, no apologies for the inaccuracies.
|
Mark
I reckon this is very debatable. "Wherefore art thou?" can mean "Why are you called Romeo?" in the sense of "why persist with it?" but I'm also happy with a translation as "Where are you going [with this situation]?" because that also fits with her plea to change his name. The word "wherefore" itself actually does literally mean "Why?" so you're right Mark, up to a point, but I think the context makes it less clear: Juliet is using a question about his name to ask about his intentions.
Chris
|
> I reckon this is very debatable. "Wherefore art thou?" can
> mean "Why are you called Romeo?" in the sense of "why persist
> with it?" but I'm also happy with a translation as "Where
> are you going [with this situation]?" because that also fits
> with her plea to change his name. The word "wherefore" itself
> actually does literally mean "Why?" so you're right Mark, up
> to a point, but I think the context makes it less clear:
> Juliet is using a question about his name to ask about his
> intentions.
"wherefore" within english of that time can be fairly accurately translated as "what circumstances cause to be true ?".
If you read it again, you can perhaps see that she is not wondering about his intentions at all. She is more contemplating her position in life and how desperate her situation is.
Her questions are hypothetical and were not even intended for the dingbat's ears. In fact, if he'd been down the bar with his mates, where he should have been, the whole screw up could have been avoided, rather than skulking around in some girlie's garden eavesdropping on her mindless (no surprise there) meanderings.
She begins with mourning the fact of his name and them moves on to whinging that all he needs to do is something, but much more from a wishful point of view than a request for deliberate action. She gets onto the question of what can be done about the situation, sometime after she stops whining about him being part of the wrong family.
|
Mark (Brazil) wrote:
> If you read it again, you can perhaps see that she is not
> wondering about his intentions at all. She is more
> contemplating her position in life and how desperate her
> situation is.
Sure enough, he's skulking, but she's well aware (in a literal sense) of why he's called what he's called. She's speculating on what caused them to be separated by feuding families, and thinking about what he or they can do about it (though she knows deep down that won't be enough). As I said, I agree with you on the literal meaning, but her speech is so fanciful, and the overall coherence of the scene so persuasive that (as with so much of Shakespeare) pinning one literal meaning to any one phrase is not enough.
Incidentally, the ancient story this was taken from, Pyramus and Thisbe, involves a lioness, a bloodied veil, and the man killing himself first.
Chris
|
Please add "... with nary a sleeping draught in sight." Edit button, where are you?
Chris
|
|
|
ChrisR wrote:
> Incidentally, the ancient story this was taken from, Pyramus
> and Thisbe, involves a lioness, a bloodied veil, and the man
> killing himself first.
Didn't Pyramus and Thisbe feature in Midsummer Nights Dream?
|
It is the play within the play. But it's also an ancient story, told by Ovid in his Metamorphoses. So it's Roman at least. I can't think of a single play by Shakespeare with a plot original to him.
Chris
|
ChrisR wrote:
>
> It is the play within the play.
That's what I meant! I wouldn't profess to know the sources for SHakespeares plays. - Except the Plutarch that inspired Tony & Cleo.
> I can't think of a single play by Shakespeare with a
> plot original to him.
As an un-educated guess The Tempest?
|
Dave wrote:
> As an un-educated guess The Tempest?
Based on news reports coming back from the new world about a shipwreck on the coast of Virginia or the Carolinas, and the amazing survival of a handful of settlers, helped by aboriginal people. William was a one to cash in on popular culture.
Chris
|
ChrisR wrote:
> Based on news reports coming back from the new world about a
> shipwreck on the coast of Virginia or the Carolinas, and the
> amazing survival of a handful of settlers, helped by
> aboriginal people.
Incredible range of knowledge!
If you'd gone to school with me I'd have kicked s**t out of you! ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
|
Dave wrote:
> If you'd gone to school with me I'd have kicked s**t out of
> you! ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
Ha, ha. I was a likely lad at school (and failed English o-level outright) but made up for it later, went to University and ended up teaching English in higher education. Although I write full time now (part-time today with all this posting), I still do a couple of hours a week at a Northern redbrick, for the fun of it (certainly not for the money).
Chris
|
ChrisR wrote:
> Although I write full time now
Journalism or Novels?
Anything I might have read? (Unless you're Alistair Maclean or Hammond Innes that'll be 'no'! ;-) ;-) )
|
A range of things. There is a novel in the desk drawer (more than one actually), but more for ballast than anything else. A bit of journalism, book reviews, and so on, but mostly specialist encyclopedias on things like popular culture, film, and American history. Other than that some pretty heavy and esoteric academic articles. Hammond Innes, I wish, but it's a living anyhow, and better than working.
Chris
|
|
this is all starting to become all too serious.
|
|
How good it must make some people feel to be able to impress others with their knowledge!!!!!!!!.
|
|
or with humour from a shining wit.
|
|
is that shining wit, or shining twit ;-)
|
ladas are cool wrote:
>
> is that shining wit, or shining twit ;-)
You're on the right track, but you need to think a little more. Or should I say " a mittle lore?"
|
|
Sorry for the delay, I was at lunch...
>As I said, I agree with you on the literal meaning, but her speech is so fanciful, and the overall coherence of the scene so persuasive that (as with so much of Shakespeare) pinning one literal meaning to any one phrase is not enough.
Well, there's two sides, at least, to this.
Firstly, the pinning of any deep and/or meaningful reasoning to William's work is a little iffy, since it was essentially entertainment for the masses delivered as fast as possible, with more thought to the production and legality than to the content.
However, insofar as it is possible to interpret another's meanings, it is rare for Shakespear to work at more than the obvious with half a hidden message.
Therefore, whilst pinning a single, literal or self-evident meaning to work can be fraught with difficulty, it is valid to do so with WS works if one doesn't try to get too philosphical.
The fact that the speech is fanciful is exactly the point. Shakespear has to be interpreted with an eye on both the society and behaviour of the times, and with an understandign of WS's intent.
It is, I think, intended to represent the romantic and simplistic meanderings of a 13yr old girl as to why her life is so difficult. As such, she is unlikely to be dealing with anything complex or subtle, instead resorting to the simplistic view that his name is the issue, and were it different, then the entire issue would dissappear.
Ignoring that she is as dumb and gullible as they get, and he's a total prat incapable of an opinon other than one reflected and/or interpreted from someone else's, one can assume that a simplistic understanding of an essentially simplistic character's view is probably appropriate.
Rather like my sister working out that if she had been born in Salt Lake than Donny would have been her boyfriend.
> Incidentally, the ancient story this was taken from, Pyramus
> and Thisbe, involves a lioness, a bloodied veil, and the man
> killing himself first.
Virtually all of WS's works were taken from pre-existing stories written to please the uneducated masses of the time. Witness, for example, the endless bodily function and sexual puns arising from virtually anything the Nurse has to say.
Mark.
|
Mark
Your post deserved a more considered reply, so here goes:
Mark (Brazil) wrote:
> Firstly, the pinning of any deep and/or meaningful reasoning
> to William's work is a little iffy, since it was essentially
> entertainment for the masses
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one: WS was an entertainer, but popular fiction is rarely "just" entertainment. It's naive to think that writers (even writers of encyclopedias) don't have opinions they want to share or persuade people about, or that they don't want to show off their skill with language.
> However, insofar as it is possible to interpret another's
> meanings, it is rare for Shakespear to work at more than the
> obvious with half a hidden message.
At a swipe you dismiss five hundred years of actors, directors, to say nothing of scholars, trying to get to grips with what the plays are (or can be) about.
> The fact that the speech is fanciful is exactly the point.
> Shakespear has to be interpreted with an eye on both the
> society and behaviour of the times, and with an understandign
> of WS's intent.
I agree that a broadly historicist approach can be useful. But the intentional fallacy is one of the deepest pits any student of literature can fall into (and it's full of venomous snakes as well):
> It is, I think, intended to represent the romantic and
> simplistic meanderings of a 13yr old girl
It's a mistake, I think to assume that characters in plays are speaking only for themselves, and not for the author, or the play as a whole: characters in stories are never individuals, since they are always part of the structure of the work, and are the product of an author's imagination. Besides, Romeo and Juliet is hardly a naturalistic play, and Juliet is hardly a naturalistic character.
> Virtually all of WS's works were taken from pre-existing
> stories written to please the uneducated masses of the time.
The plays were also popular with the educated masses, of course, so if he was a shrewd businessman, WS will have put some more complex stuff in there too, I reckon. The playfulness of the language (I forget how many words he actually coined, but it was thousands) suggests to me at least that WS was working far from mere literality, and in the realm of games, puzzles, obscurity and blurred meaning.
To read Shakespeare in such a literal way as you seem to want to is similar to saying that a Ferrari is only good for going down the shops. It probably will do that, but it does other things as well, and is more fun when it's doing them.
Chris
|
> Your post deserved a more considered reply, so here goes:
Thanks for nothing Crhis, this last post of yours has really got me going. I can see an entire afternoon disappearing on this!
> but popular fiction is rarely "just"
> entertainment. It's naive to think that writers (even writers
> of encyclopedias) don't have opinions they want to share or
> persuade people about, or that they don't want to show off
> their skill with language.
Point taken, but was WS really trying to do anything more than pack in the masses ? Surely one of the reasons why The Tempest was a better quality piece of literature was because his purpose, or main intent, had shifted from the "earning a buck" approach to one where his own opinion and sharing did start to show through.
I would say that part of interpreting his plays necessitates understanding the man and his intentions/desires at that moment. Therefore, I wouldn't see R&J as much more than that, much as it may have chaned, or at least evolved, in his later works.
> At a swipe you dismiss five hundred years of actors,
> directors, to say nothing of scholars, trying to get to grips
> with what the plays are (or can be) about.
True, and something I always struggled with. You can ask Mrs. Richardson, I used to drive her nuts in class. However, I *do* believe, that without taking away from Shakespears works as a valuable and unique contribution to the society of the time, as well as our understanding of that society and the artist, that 500 years of actors/whatever have tried to put more in to in than is warranted (from an analysis point of view). The nurse was just a nurse played for dirty laughs, Juliet was spineless 13 year old and Romeo was a crowd follower with a bit of money and out fro a good time.
> I agree that a broadly historicist approach can be useful.
> But the intentional fallacy is one of the deepest pits any
> student of literature can fall into (and it's full of
> venomous snakes as well):
Could you rexplain your meaning, I think I failed to get the point, but it sounds like an interesting one.
> It's a mistake, I think to assume that characters in plays
> are speaking only for themselves, and not for the author, or
> the play as a whole: characters in stories are never
> individuals, since they are always part of the structure of
> the work, and are the product of an author's imagination.
> Besides, Romeo and Juliet is hardly a naturalistic play, and
> Juliet is hardly a naturalistic character.
I would suggest that whilst it is a mistake to believe or proffer that this is always true, equally it is erroneous to think it is never true. With R&J I woudl say it is simplistic, notwithstanding that with some of his later works it clearly is not.
> To read Shakespeare in such a literal way as you seem to want
> to is similar to saying that a Ferrari is only good for going
> down the shops. It probably will do that, but it does other
> things as well, and is more fun when it's doing them.
Fun to one side, and I agree - witness this thread, I do still maintain that the earlier works can absolutely be taken in a literal and simplistic way. Espeically one such as R&J.
Where I would tend towards your more complex view would be something like Othello, where I believe that the way WS delves into the complexity of ego and human interaction puts R&J so far into the dark that it emphasises that he wrote at different levels depending both the time and the subject.
M.
(do your worst, I'm in a meeting for an hour "")
|
|
|
|
ChrisR wrote:
>
I think the context makes it less clear:
> Juliet is using a question about his name to ask about his
> intentions.
Yep! That's my reading of it!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark (Brazil) wrote:
> "Defy your Father, refuse thy name" - don't follow your
> family in this, and best, leave your family and renounce the
> association.
Agree.
> "'but swear your love, and I'll no longer be a Capulet" -
> alternatively, if you tell me you love me, I'll leave my
> family.
Or even better: If you swear yuor love in church I won't be a Capulet anymore. I reckon that's concrete.
|
|
|
|
|
|
one has never studied the works of shaking spear, as i just study the works of the wonderfully intelligent spike milligan ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
