I've reached a bit of essay that once again makes much of the differences in a single word between editions. Hamlet starts a soliloquy 'O that this too too solid flesh would melt.'
Except, of course, when he starts it with 'sallied' or 'sullied'.
Making a couple of pages out of this difference starts off with a lot of uphill with me. I've been reading these renaissance things in various versions for a few months now and the one thing that drives me absolutely nuts is that they had not, as yet, invented spelling. Sure, words looked roughly the same at various points on the same page, but then they'd up and do different just because they happened to feel like it this time. The time I've spent just going through the things with a red pen is, well, rather longer than I can really justify. I'm sure they had rules. I'm just as sure they didn't stick to them. So, first point:
You can't make an essay out of what might just as well be a typo.
Second and more important, all this argument seems to me to stem from the fundamental misperception of this play as a written text. And, understandable as that is for something we've got three printed versions of, that's just not right. Hamlet was written for performance, it was written to be spoken. And when you're speaking aloud, what's the difference between sallied sullied solid? On the page, sure, you can go back and stare at it and puzzle about it. But on the stage it's barely an eyeblink of a word, and if it's even hearable at all depends on the accent of the particular performer. And that isn't a problem, it's an opportunity. You want three meanings in your word? Okay, can do!
It's like the opening credits to Charmed... yes I'm comparing Charmed to Shakespeare... ANYway, there's this song over the credits, and I can't do this properly in writing, but it says 'I am the sun and air'. Or possibly 'I am the son and heir'. Or possibly some mix of the set. And subtitles have to choose which way to do it, but the song itself can carry all the meanings and benefit thereby.
Arguing which one Shakespeare meant is going to be fruitless until we invent a time machine.
More profitable by far to simply listen.
Except, of course, when he starts it with 'sallied' or 'sullied'.
Making a couple of pages out of this difference starts off with a lot of uphill with me. I've been reading these renaissance things in various versions for a few months now and the one thing that drives me absolutely nuts is that they had not, as yet, invented spelling. Sure, words looked roughly the same at various points on the same page, but then they'd up and do different just because they happened to feel like it this time. The time I've spent just going through the things with a red pen is, well, rather longer than I can really justify. I'm sure they had rules. I'm just as sure they didn't stick to them. So, first point:
You can't make an essay out of what might just as well be a typo.
Second and more important, all this argument seems to me to stem from the fundamental misperception of this play as a written text. And, understandable as that is for something we've got three printed versions of, that's just not right. Hamlet was written for performance, it was written to be spoken. And when you're speaking aloud, what's the difference between sallied sullied solid? On the page, sure, you can go back and stare at it and puzzle about it. But on the stage it's barely an eyeblink of a word, and if it's even hearable at all depends on the accent of the particular performer. And that isn't a problem, it's an opportunity. You want three meanings in your word? Okay, can do!
It's like the opening credits to Charmed... yes I'm comparing Charmed to Shakespeare... ANYway, there's this song over the credits, and I can't do this properly in writing, but it says 'I am the sun and air'. Or possibly 'I am the son and heir'. Or possibly some mix of the set. And subtitles have to choose which way to do it, but the song itself can carry all the meanings and benefit thereby.
Arguing which one Shakespeare meant is going to be fruitless until we invent a time machine.
More profitable by far to simply listen.