I'm forced to quote Shakespeare, "What is in a name? that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet;..." Juliet is basically saying a thing is a thing regardless of its name. The same is true for Knight's money.
So why is the naming important? Because one name occurs in 1704 and the other in 2013. The naming of things is how cultures identify their objects. It establishes the human interactions with objects and its effects. Basically, names tell stories.
In 1704, the Bay shilling was termed because it was coined in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. It emphasizes the location and the time period in which it was made, the conditions of government and the personality of the colony. England was refusing to provide the colony with coins in the mid 1600s since they were strapped for coins as well. In the absence of official standard, the colonist decided to strike their own coins. That just might have been one of the first strikes of colonial independence.
Today the shilling is called the Pine Tree Shilling because, well, look at it. It has a pine tree on it. It describes the thing, emphasizing the physical characteristics of the object. The naming has lost an important cultural emphasis. Even though the two names are the same object, they are expressions of two different cultures.
Which is more "real," the one on exhibit at the Smithsonian or the one in Sarah Kemble Knight's Journal? Smithsonian coin is real in the senses. It can be seen, touched, tasted (if gotten past extensive security and you don't mind federal imprisonment). It is physical, existing in the present. However Knight's coin is immaterial existing in the past as an expression of words into an idea. Yet, it is real because it communicates the culture of the thing.
A name is more than just a name. A thing is more than just a thing.
Word Count: 359
Total Edits: 0
No comments:
Post a Comment