Jobe 1

Laurel Jobe

Humanities 1010

Professor McCarthy

5 December 2016

Love: Whats In A Name?

The notion of love and its definition differs substantially depending on the perspective in

which it is viewed. Two great contributors of literature, Plato and Shakespeare, have conflicting

views on who can achieve true love. Shakespeares tragic play, Romeo and Juliet, highlights the

nature of an ill-fated romantic relationship between a pair of lovers; though young and

inexperienced, they nonetheless hold unconditional love for one another. Meanwhile, Platos

philosophical text, The Symposium, proposes the existence of two types of love: Heavenly Love

and Common Love; the former version is exclusively found in male-only relationships due to the

intellectual aspect that which it is associated. Certain concepts of the two kinds of love found in

The Symposium are also present in Romeo and Juliet; while it may be argued that Romeo and

Juliets relationship is just Common Love, there is evidence which implies that their bond

contains intellectual elements, thus promoting the genuinity of Heavenly Love as shown through

interlocking language and mature insights that develop through a progression in gender roles.

Looking at The Symposium, the philosopher Pausanias explains that love is derived from

Aphrodite, and the differing versions emerge from the two portrayals of the goddess. The older

of the two is Heavenly Aphrodite; she is motherless, though is the daughter of Uranus. Common

Aphrodite is younger and is the daughter of Zeus and Dione (12). It is noteworthy that Heavenly

Aphrodite is older than Common Aphrodite, promoting the idea that Heavenly Love is the wiser,

more intelligent form of Love, giving it a superior label compared to Common Love. Pausanias
 Jobe 2

confirms this notion by proclaiming that Common Lovers ... are attracted to partners with the

least possible intelligence (13). He believes that the relationship between a man and a woman

can solely be Common Love, as their bodies attract rather than their minds. His claim derives

from womens innate societal and gender roles during this time; women did not have the same

opportunity for education as men, so it was less likely that intellectual bonds were to come out

of marital relationships. The objectives of these relationships are simply for reproduction

purposes and pleasure-seeking behaviors. Furthermore, it is interesting to observe the gender

differences between the two Aphrodites and their corresponding types of Love. Common

Aphrodite has both a mother and father, and the typical Common Love relationships are between

opposite genders; Heavenly Aphrodite has nothing in the female in her but only maleness (13)

as she is without a mother. This notion further exemplifies Pausanias view that exclusively male

relationships are superior to heterosexual ones due to the intellectual factor defined by gender.

By his definition, Romeo and Juliets relationship is an extension of Common Love simply by

looking at gender alone. Moreover, there are additional points which suggest that Romeo and

Juliets bond is one-dimensional. Typically, romantic relationships form over time and strong

feelings of love do not appear until the people involved develop an interpersonal bond with one

another. Because of this, many view Romeo and Juliets relationship as resembling a lustful

affair rather than love at first sight, due to the short period of time they knew each other, thus

highlighting its superficiality. This claim goes in hand with the Common Love ideals presented

by Pausanias in that Romeo is physically attracted to Juliet when he first sees her. Another aspect

of the couples relationship that is in conjunction with the Common Love theory is their age. As

Pausanias mentions, Common Love is the younger and less-wise of the two types, and Romeo
 Jobe 3

and Juliet are in their youth. Pausanias and other philosophers would argue that the newness of

the couples love and their lack of wisdom impairs their ability to know what true love means.

Nonetheless, there is stronger evidence that Romeo and Juliets affair is more than simple

Common Love because of the specific events of their first meeting and the presence of their

intellectual connection during their time together. Romeo and Juliets first meeting is the primary

sign that argues for their intellectually-stimulating bond that is Heavenly Love. Upon speaking

with one another, their words begin to form an interlocking sonnet. Romeo pronounces his

infatuation with Juliet as he says, My lips, two blushing pilgrims, ready stand / To smooth that

rough touch with a tender kiss (1.5.96-97). Juliet replies, Good, pilgrim, you do wrong your

hand too much, / Which mannerly devotion shows in this; (1.5.98-99). By rhyming Romeos

word kiss with this, Juliet picks up on the way in which her admirer is speaking to her,

demonstrating her intelligence. This connection of their minds significantly promotes the ideals

of Heavenly Love. As for the gender beliefs presented by Pausanias in The Symposium, one can

argue that this notion is invalid in Romeo and Juliet due to the time period. Platos work is older

than Shakespeares play, so gender roles changed as a result of the change in time. Womens

roles in Romeo and Juliet are still mainly focused on the household, and the heavy influence of

the patriarchy is also present, yet these things do not take away from Juliets intellectual abilities.

The fact that she and Romeo speak in interlocking sonnet upon first meeting each other is

remarkable and should not be taken lightly. There is more than just a spark of lust and the

attributes of Common Love found between them. Another way that Juliet defies Pausanias

gender roles by demonstrating her mature understanding of concepts occurs further along in the

play when the two find out about each others families. She ponders the nature of names and is

troubled how something so simple as a name can determine the outcome of a relationship. In a
 Jobe 4

lyrical assessment of this issue, Juliet contemplates, Tis but thy name that is my enemy / Thou

art thyself, though not a Montague / Whats Montague? It is nor hand, nor foot, / Nor arm, nor

face, nor any other part / belonging to a man (2.1.38-41). Juliet concludes that a name is

essentially meaningless and does not change the inner parts of an individual. She later concurs

that if Romeo went by a different name, their relationship would not have to be kept in secrecy.

Juliet also denounces the legitimacy of the family feud taking place between the Capulets and

Montagues as the root of the conflict is due to the family names. Juliets phrenic evaluation

further demonstrates how she refutes the definition of Heavenly Love set up by Pausanias in The

Symposium. Romeo and Juliets uncommon bond is characterized by both physical attractivity as

well as emotional and intellectual ties, which is why it falls moreso under the category of

Heavenly Love as opposed to Common Love.

An interpretation of what love in these two works means is dependent on which

perspective a reader is viewing them. This notion of Common Love versus Heavenly Love and

who can achieve them goes along with the understanding of who in society can possess

intelligence. Both authors points of view align with the time in which their works were

composed. Platos philosophical text was written several hundred years before Shakespeares

time, in Ancient Greece, a time when women had absolutely zero opportunities for education.

Considering these elements, Pausanias claim that superior Heavenly Love is typically only

achieved between two males is legitimate. Thus, under Pausanias viewpoint, Romeo and Juliets

short-lived, heterosexual relationship does not comply with Heavenly Love. This being noted,

one has to consider how the societal roles had changed, even ever so slightly, in the time between

Plato and Shakespeares works. Although women who lived during the Renaissance did not have

equal rights whatsoever, select women had opportunities for education; it can be assumed that
 Jobe 5

Juliet was one of the fortunate, as signs of her intellect are shown through her interlocking prose

with Romeo as well as her whats in a name speech. Juliet defies the gender roles that

Pausanias puts forth in his explanation of the differing Aprhodites by proving that she possesses

intellectual capabilities. In conclusion, when considering the time period and looking closer at

the intellectual exchange between the two lovers in Romeo and Juliet, it is obvious that their

bond is moreso tied to Heavenly Love. Through these works, the inclusiveness of Heavenly Love

widens with the progression of society. This love transitions from purely male-dominant to the

gradual inclusion of women as they slowly climb in society.

Works Cited

Plato, and Christopher Gill. The Symposium. London: Penguin, 2003. 12-13. Print.

Shakespeare, William, and Peter Holland. Romeo and Juliet. New York: Penguin, 2000. 30-39.

Print.