Comments on: ‘O That This Too Solid Flesh Would Melt’ Soliloquy Analysis

By: Kellasyn

Kellasyn — Fri, 29 Jul 2022 08:44:40 +0000

It always makes me laugh when people seem to believe everyone spoke in iambic pentameter four hundred years ago

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 10 Nov 2020 15:37:23 +0000

In reply to Melissa. Mellisa you are very wrong. Saying it is written in an elevated language is a load of crap. You are just trying to sound elegant or assume by believing that you convince your self you are somehow more elegant than you are. It is clearly written using outdated words and phrasing that is not seen in modern writing or language today. Sure it is the same language but it is clearly outdated and by no means more elegant.

By: Mar

Mar — Tue, 25 Feb 2020 04:47:51 +0000

In reply to lazarbeam. who do u think u are sir

By: lazarbeam

lazarbeam — Sun, 09 Jun 2019 13:12:36 +0000

i think its sad that you are ranting about shackespear and yes i deliberalty made my grammer bad just two annoy u

By: Uberpanda

Uberpanda — Wed, 15 May 2019 01:30:30 +0000

The one ironic thing about these toxic replies is that you see the true extent of how useful an English degree is: The only time you use it is to prove or argue a non existent point on some website made to help millions of people with understanding something someone wrote almost 420 years ago. Good going guys :)

By: Peter Pegnall

Peter Pegnall — Sun, 05 May 2019 08:49:00 +0000

In reply to jpl2132.

It’s actually the second quarto; the first is a delightful memorial mish mush, fraudulently presented as Shakespeare’s approved text. It’s almost certainly why he rushed out the second quarto. it’s also an astonishing testament to the listening skills of the contemporary audiences, who may have been illiterate, but were marvellously attuned to language
Incidentally, i loathe spurious scholarship, but this is fascinating..

By: William Shakespeare

William Shakespeare — Mon, 28 May 2018 20:29:26 +0000

A most notable coward, an infinite and endless liar, an hourly promise breaker, the owner of no one good quality

By: DENIS

DENIS — Wed, 14 Mar 2018 15:16:46 +0000

my first visit to this site…and my last…what a load of pompous contributers ..each trying to out do each other in pseudo intellect

By: jpl2132

jpl2132 — Wed, 01 Nov 2017 14:16:19 +0000

In reply to William Hopkins.

Actually, “sullied” was first ‘swapped-in’ by a modern editor. The Folio reads “solid,” and the first quarto “sallied” (which doesn’t make sense). If you’re going by 17th century editions, those are the only two options.

By: Melissa

Melissa — Sat, 28 Jan 2017 06:41:25 +0000

In reply to Aaron.

Wow. Okay. Someone seems a bit salty. Regarding “the things like this that…are stuck in the past”

Shakespeare plays are written in an elevated language. It’s not a matter of it being outdated but rather a matter of looking at it with an educated mind.

I’d further explain this subject, however, I believe my explanation would fall on deaf ears (figuratively speaking).

Jordan is correct in many aspects on his/her comment here. Shakespeare needs no translation (so long as the party in question speaks english) and this hardly qualifies as an analysis. This is more a personal explanation/ interpretation of Hamlet’s Soliloquy by the author.