The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 19.0090 Monday, 11 February 2008
[1] From: John Robinson <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Sunday, 10 Feb 2008 15:37:18 EST
Subj: Re: SHK 19.0078 Solid Flesh
[2] From: David Bishop <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Sunday, 10 Feb 2008 15:42:53 -0500
Subj: Re: SHK 19.0078 Solid Flesh
[3] From: Paul E. Doniger <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Sunday, 10 Feb 2008 15:55:29 -0800 (PST)
Subj: Re: SHK 19.0078 Solid Flesh
[4] From: Alan Pierpoint <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 11 Feb 2008 10:37:49 -0500
Subj: Re: SHK 19.0078 Solid Flesh
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Robinson <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Sunday, 10 Feb 2008 15:37:18 EST
Subject: 19.0078 Solid Flesh
Comment: Re: SHK 19.0078 Solid Flesh
>What is the property of the flesh that Hamlet would like to melt? The
>Folio says 'solid', the second quarto says 'sallied', and many editors
>emend to 'sullied.' Does Shakespeare's use of 'solid' in other passage
>help with settling this crux?
The metaphor of "melt and resolve itself into a dew" (I don't have the
quote in front of me so forgive if it's not worded correct, the sense is
correct) refers to purification.
You purify that which is sullied or soiled not that which is
"solid"--think sins of the flesh.
Regards,
John Robinson
[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Bishop <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Sunday, 10 Feb 2008 15:42:53 -0500
Subject: 19.0078 Solid Flesh
Comment: Re: SHK 19.0078 Solid Flesh
I think the property of the flesh Hamlet would like to melt is youth,
and its associated strength. In other words, he's too far from death,
and the Everlasting forbids him to cut his miserably long life short.
The antithesis between solidity and melting seems to me, with the above
consideration of youth, to make the right reading all but certainly
"solid." The simplicity of this reading also contributes to its
plausibility. How the mistake made it into the quarto I don't know, but
I believe it's a mistake, unfortunately followed even by Jenkins--his
own worst mistake, if you ask me.
Finally, another reason it isn't "sallied" or "sullied" is that at this
point Hamlet still thinks of himself, more or less, as morally pure: "I
know not seems." You could say he feels tainted by his mother's "sin" in
marrying Claudius, or, supposedly, faking her grief, or by the general
sinfulness of humanity, but I think his rage at sin has yet to expand to
include himself. "Sullied" overstates the case. Either it's too general,
including Hamlet in sinful humanity, to carry the needed intensity, or
too unexplained, since we don't yet understand why Hamlet personally
would be sullied. His sense of inadequacy, or weakness, as distinct from
sinfulness, is tied to his youth, and to his subordinate position, which
forces him to hold his tongue. The point is that he wants out of this
sinful world. The problem is he's got such a long way to go before he
can expect to escape in the natural way.
Best wishes,
David Bishop
[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Paul E. Doniger <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Sunday, 10 Feb 2008 15:55:29 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 19.0078 Solid Flesh
Comment: Re: SHK 19.0078 Solid Flesh
According to the concordance on the Open Source Shakespeare website
(which is based on the Globe Edition), there are no (other?) instances
of the word 'sallied' in Shakespeare. Sullied, on the other hand, is
used twice elsewhere-only once as an adjective (Sonnet #197). 'Solid'
seems the most logical choice to me, too.
In a similar vein, I wonder what others on this list think of "Who, o
who had seen the inobled [enobled?] queen," as it appears in the First
Folio (2.2.502), versus "who, ah woe ... mobled queen" and the other
variant editings. Frankly, I have always thought the First Folio more
interesting and probably more accurate. Couldn't Hamlet's question, "The
mobled queen?" be a reaction to what he thought the player said, rather
than to what he actually said?
Paul E. Doniger
[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alan Pierpoint <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 11 Feb 2008 10:37:49 -0500
Subject: 19.0078 Solid Flesh
Comment: Re: SHK 19.0078 Solid Flesh
Here's hoping that the list can resolve the solid-sullied matter as
Martin Mueller suggests. In the meantime, I'll continue to have my high
school seniors cross out "sullied" and write "solid" in their copies of
the Folger Hamlet.
Alan Pierpoint
Southwestern Academy
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook,
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>
DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
|
