Comments on: “O That This Too Solid Flesh Would Melt” Soliloquy Analysis

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

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

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 It’s not a matter of it being outdated but rather a matter of looking at it with an educated mind.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.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Mon, 02 May 2016 00:13:53 +0000

Oh please. Nobody speaks like this anymore, and Shakespeare is hard to understand for a modern audience… which is why sites like this exist… to help people actually understand the outdated sentence structure and references that people just do not understand anymore. Language evolves and changes, yet the things like this that we force down the throats of high school students are stuck in the past!

By: Jordan

Jordan — Sat, 19 Dec 2015 06:21:56 +0000

“It’d be difficult to just put in modern terms the soliloquy without explaining the meaning behind it.”
Actually, it’s not.
Read this: http://nfs.sparknotes.com/hamlet/
While I acknowledge that this a cringe-inducing oversimplification that’s likely designed for grade-schoolers, it does prove that no, it is not difficult to just rewrite Shakespeare with a modern syntax and no, there is no logical reason this “translation” should be in third person. If you still don’t believe me, go to any Shakespeare production aimed at children. If the author felt the need to explain him or herself, he or she could have just written an analysis and tacked it on to the end.

By: Jordan

Jordan — Sat, 19 Dec 2015 06:13:27 +0000

This “translation” is more like a line-by-line explanation. If it were truly a translation it would preserve the original viewpoint of the source work. When you read a translated book or watch a subtitled movie, do the words therein try to explain to you what happened? Of course not. Because that’s not how a translation is supposed to work. Besides, you can’t actually “translate” Shakespeare. It’s written in Early Modern English, which we quite obviously still speak. And the idea that Shakespeare is just too difficult to read is not only patronizing, it’s just flat-out wrong.
But, let’s suppose for a second that this could actually be an analysis instead of a translation and was simply mislabeled. In that case, not only is this NOT how an analytical paragraph should read (at least not one your high school English teacher wouldn’t fail you on), it’s also incredible misleading. “He moaned. It was terrible.”? Not supported by the text.”He lifted his hands and blocked his ears as though to shut his father’s memory out.”? What part of “Heaven and earth! Must I remember?” says he covered his ears?
Needless to say, this just seems like shoddy work and should not be considered a viable resource. It does appear that the author has a good grasp on the material, so why is this such as mess? It feels like the author is talking down to his or her readers, which would be more than a little irritating IF that were the case. But personally, I’d rather think they were just pressed for time, or having a bad day.
This is also the first thing I’ve read on this website. Hopefully the rest isn’t this…unhelpful.

By: William Hopkins

William Hopkins — Tue, 09 Jun 2015 21:24:22 +0000

This must be from the First Folio or there’s a mistake…Shakespeare swapped the word “sullied” for “solid” in the final.

By: JC

JC — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 22:28:56 +0000

Well it should be obvious that the soliloquy itself is being spoken by Hamlet in the first person. Considering he is talking about himself. The translation is in third person, and is discussing not only what Hamlet is doing but what he is thinking and feeling. It’d be difficult to just put in modern terms the soliloquy without explaining the meaning behind it.

By: jozaud

jozaud — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 01:11:45 +0000

I don’t understand why the soliloquy is in the present tense but the translation is all in the past. “But break, my heart; for I must hold my tongue” becomes “But he would just have to break his heart, because he had to hold his tongue.” This doesn’t make any sense.