Where for art thou Jessica?

I am just curious, [name]Jessica[/name] is a Shakespearian name, introduced by [name]William[/name] [name]Shakespeare[/name] in The Merchant of [name]Venice[/name]. It is also believed to have been inspired by the biblical name ‘Jesca.’ But does this mean [name]Jessica[/name] is a classic? Yes, she was popular during the 80s and 90s, but if [name]Ophelia[/name], [name]Rosalind[/name], Hermione, [name]Hermia[/name], [name]Juliet[/name] etc. are all classics and in style now, isn’t she as well?
I understand that just like [name]Jennifer[/name], she has become recognised for these particular decades, but I just wondered since these other names are gaining traction once more. This is purely just out of curiosity as my own name is in fact [name]Jessica[/name].

I’m not sure, but based on your reasoning, perhaps [name]Jessica[/name] IS a classic. Either way, I want to say that I have always LOVED the name. It’s really beautiful.

I used to love [name]Jessica[/name]… until I found a lot of them.
I know many Jessicas around my own age (20), but none of it for the little kids now.
[name]Jessica[/name] is petty, but I don’t really consider it as classic.

I think this is a lovely name and definitely a classic. (I also think [name]Jennifer[/name]–my name–should be as well, despite its popularity in recent decades.) My cousin is named [name]Jessica[/name], after our great-grandmother [name]Jessie[/name], and I have several friends named [name]Jessica[/name]. We were all born in the late 70s. I only knew one [name]Jessica[/name] when I was baby-sitting in the mid-late 90s, though, and haven’t really heard it since then. I think it’s a soft, pretty, and comfortable kind of name.

My daughter has a 4 year old [name]Jessica[/name] in her preschool class, and it’s quite cute to see it on a little girl. I imagine she won’t have to share her name with too many other kids in her class. I think [name]Jessica[/name] is a name that has classic beauty, and even though it’s losing popularity now, it’s not because it’s not beautiful, it’s because there are a lot of [name]Jessica[/name]'s around. I see it making a comeback in another generation or two.

I think it depends on whether you wear the name or not, haha. I wouldn’t consider [name]Jessica[/name] classic–it’s been around for years, but has been off-and-on the top 1000 list since it was created–a good chunk of that time being off the list. It has history, but I wouldn’t say that every name that has history is classic. To me, [name]Juliet[/name] and [name]Ophelia[/name] aren’t classic, either. [name]Catherine[/name]'s classic. [name]Anne[/name] and [name]Mary[/name] and [name]Jane[/name] and [name]Julia[/name] and [name]Margaret[/name] are classic. But not [name]Jennifer[/name] and [name]Jessica[/name] (nice though they are, and with lots of history). I’ve heard people say that [name]Ashley[/name]'s really dated, too, though, and trendy, and I have to remind myself that it’s true. To me, [name]Ashley[/name] is a name that has existed for decades (albeit on the opposite gender), it’s classically spelled, it’s respectable. I have to remind myself that no matter how classic [name]Ashley[/name] may seem to me, it really isn’t a classic name. It has history, but it’s not really classic. :slight_smile: I feel the same way about [name]Jessica[/name] (and [name]Jennifer[/name]).

Take [name]Olivia[/name], for example. imo, [name]Olivia[/name] is a classic Shakespearean name. We can’t really know before 1880, but it has ranked in the top 500-ish (for seven years in the late 60s/early 70s, it ranked above 500, but never going into the 600 range) bracket since the SSA list was established. Most years, it’s in the 200 range (obviously not this decade, lol). It has a shot of popularity right now, much like [name]Katherine[/name]/[name]Kathryn[/name]/[name]Catherine[/name]/[name]Katie[/name]/etc. did about 20 years ago, but I would still consider both of them classic. :slight_smile:

To me, [name]Jessica[/name] is really dated, I can’t see the appeal at all because I’m just so tired of hearing it. It’s a nice name, I appreciate the [name]Shakespeare[/name] connection, but it’s just not for me.

With the resurgence of [name]Shakespeare[/name] names, it might have a chance, but since so many people in [name]America[/name] still see it as dated, I don’t think it’ll come back for a while. Although it seems rather classic in Australia and the UK, it’s been popular there for years, much longer than it was here, it seems.

Going off what [name]Ashley[/name] wrote…I think [name]Olivia[/name] is the new [name]Jessica[/name]. While I think [name]Jessica[/name] has definitely earned her street cred (thanks [name]Shakespeare[/name]!), she’s not the “traditional classic” the way [name]Catherine[/name] and [name]John[/name] are. She’s more of a trendy classic almost. But I do like the name, even if I dislike the number of Jessicas I’ve met who were born in the 80’s/early 90’s. My own mother wanted to name me [name]Jessica[/name].

I’m a [name]Jessica[/name] born in the 80s. [name]Jessica[/name] was also the #1 girl’s name in my state the year of my birth (no surprise there), but I have met relatively few Jessicas near my age. I never got this “overdone” vibe that a lot of people seem to have with the name. I love being a [name]Jessica[/name], and I do not understand why so many berries consider it dated. I think it’s time to give [name]Jessica[/name] another chance. Maybe one day she’ll be considered a traditional classic. If I weren’t one, a future daughter probably would be.

There was a reason that [name]Jessica[/name] was an ultra-popular name among today’s 20-somethings, and I can’t help but think the Shakespearian influence owed to this. The way I see it, just because a name wasn’t the name of an English queen, doesn’t mean it’s not classic. I think the only things holding back [name]Jessica[/name] form being a “classic name” is because of the recent popularity. Give it a generation or two, once it has the potential to make a comeback, then maybe I’d say it’s cemented into “classic” status.