Iago: These Moors are changeable in their wills: fill thy purse with money:—the food
that to him now is as luscious as locusts, shall be to him shortly as bitter as coloquintida.
Locusts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceratonia_siliqua
coloquintida: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citrullus_colocynthis
How did Shakespeare knew such plant names and proprieties back in those times, when information was not as easily gotten as today? Where did he found so many of his rare words?
Another example:
Holofernes: This is a gift that I have, simple, simple; a
foolish extravagant spirit, full of forms, figures,
shapes, objects, ideas, apprehensions, motions,
revolutions: these are begot in the ventricle of
memory, nourished in the womb of pia mater, and
delivered upon the mellowing of occasion. But the
gift is good in those in whom it is acute, and I am thankful for it.
Where did he find words like: ventricle and pia-mater?
>>7861199
it was the collective spirit of all creative geniuses across history working through a common vessel. just like with all the great authors.
he read a lot and since he didn't go to school he read even more to try to get on par with his peers
he had a complex about these things
>>7861199
bump because its interesting and for the double dubs
witnessed
also, look here:
http://www1.cmc.edu/pages/faculty/welliott/Shakespeare%20Vocabulary%20Chapter%20911.pdf
>>7861239
This desu senpai.
This is also why we don't have a lot of biography about his life. He just didn't do much other than read and write.
>>7862150
They don't.
>>7861199
He fucking loved the creative energy of language and especially of new words. He probably had access to a big library through one of his aristocratic friends, like the Earl of Southampton. And he clearly studied at least some Latin, Greek, French, and probably at least bits of Italian and Spanish. It was a wonderful time for translation and publishing and he was on the cutting edge of the expansion of the English language that was happening then. He didn't use fancy set or stage props -- his plays rely almost wholly on the imaginative and dynamic use of new language. It's the one detail from his inventiveness that doesn't carry through perfectly to today, unfortunately.
tl;dr: he fucking loved new words. Honorificabilitudinitatibus.
>>7862171
Yes we do.
>>7862312
I like you: you have read about Shakespeare and his language, and this is rare around this parts (and even in Universities, I guess: people are more cocearned with the themes, plots and characters of the plays).
>>7862312
>his plays rely almost wholly on the imaginative and dynamic use of new language. It's the one detail from his inventiveness that doesn't carry through perfectly to today,
But the reading public love his poetry, or am I wrong? To my eyes Shakespeare was and is so respected above all because of his language: if we take away his poetry his plays are not much. If the plays were written in simple, Becket-like prose, for example, they would not be remembered today. But since they contain the greatest poetry of all time they will live forever.
But I agree: people dont have the patience to hear large rethoric speeches today. I suspect that even in that time, Shakespeare's time, people in general liked much more the action, the blood, the swearing, the sword fights than the language: but, since they had no TV, cinema and internet, they had to tolerate the poetry in the theater.
>>7862434
>But the reading public love his poetry, or am I wrong? To my eyes Shakespeare was and is so respected above all because of his language: if we take away his poetry his plays are not much. If the plays were written in simple, Becket-like prose, for example, they would not be remembered today. But since they contain the greatest poetry of all time they will live forever.
>But I agree: people dont have the patience to hear large rethoric speeches today. I suspect that even in that time, Shakespeare's time, people in general liked much more the action, the blood, the swearing, the sword fights than the language: but, since they had no TV, cinema and internet, they had to tolerate the poetry in the theater.
Uh...wut? You're all over the place with this.
If you take away his poetry his plays are not much? If the plays were written in simple, Beckett-like prose they would not be remembered today? Literally, wut? Saying that, you're doing a disservice to Shakespeare AND Beckett.
How the hell do you separate the poetry from the plays? Hamlet, for example, has been separately described as the greatest novel, the greatest poem, and the greatest play ever written. Are you saying that if he wrote in modern English that Shakespeare would not have been as good? That's absurd.
As for the second comment, you don't have to suspect. We know for a fact that people liked Shakespeare's plays because they were full of action, blood, swearing, sword fights, etc., but they didn't "tolerate the poetry." The poetry is what elevated his plays filled with action, blood, swearing, sword fights, etc., to new heights that were accessible and interesting to both the commoner and the elite.
I'm sorry, man, but your comment is really confusing.
>>7862561
Sorry for the confuse toughts, but yes: I am pretty sure that Hamlet is not profound in its philosophy and message and that, if you take the poetry out, the metaphor texture out: if you rewrite it with simple, monotonous down to earth and practical language (Hemmingway; becket) the work will become mediocre. Shakespeare is the greatest writer of all time, but above all other things because of his poetry, his verbal mastery and inventivness. He is not a profound thinker: he ussualy repeats the common sense wisdom of the ages and the says things that have been said a thousand times, but never so memorably or beautifully. And I like Becket novels, but to me his plays are poor: almost charlatanistic.
>>7862434
>I like you
please stop saying this. it's childish and it doesn't suit you
>>7862150
How do you """know""" anything?.....
>>7863313
Indeed. Same as "are you me?!?" Reddit jargon. Or is this how some people use English in speaking nowadays in the decadent West?
>>7863170
>I like Becket novels, but to me his plays are poor: almost charlatanistic.
Triggered.
Both Endgame and Waiting for Godot are works of playful, puzzling, profound genius, demonstrating technical mastery and subtle philosophy.
You a shit.
>>7862434
His plays including a massive range, from prose language from popular characters to incredibly elaborate poetry following conventions from Petrarch or Ovid. One of my faves is Prospero showing off his rhetorical abilities just before he breaks his staff, drowns his book, and gives up his magic powers:
Ye elves of hills, brooks, standing lakes and groves,
And ye that on the sands with printless foot
Do chase the ebbing Neptune and do fly him
When he comes back; you demi-puppets that
By moonshine do the green sour ringlets make...
It's virtuosic and spectacular. And as you say, it's not to everyone's taste today. That said, Shakespeare's plots are often pretty compelling without the language. Just look at how many retellings of the Romeo and Juliet story there have been. West Side Story doesn't rely at all on Shakespeare's language.
>>7863458
>Beckett, Samuel. Author of lovely novellas and wretched plays.
>>7861199
He was a master of using many words only once:
http://www.creativepsychotherapy.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/HAPAXLEGOMENON.pdf
He probably got a lot of them from reading the sources for his plays (and that gave him also ideas for new metaphors and similes).
>>7864866
Does Nabokov do all of your thinking for you?
>>7865130
Nope, but I agree with him on this point.
