Ophelia's "Nothing" Author(s): Thomas Pyles Reviewed work(s): Source: Modern Language Notes, Vol. 64, No.

5 (May, 1949), pp. 322-323 Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2909906 . Accessed: 19/04/2012 01:22
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Modern Language Notes.

http://www.jstor.org

322

MODERN LANGUAGE NOTES, MAY, 1949

William Petre on November8, 1596, should be given more serious consideration than it has yet received.
SIDNEY Queens College THOMAS

OPHELIA'S

"NOTHING

"

Mr. Eric Partridge,in his Shakespeare'sBawdy (London, 1947), apt climax of the " country has failed to perceivethe beautifully " dialogue in Hamlet, iII, ii, 119-129. Ophelia's replyto matters Hamlet's outrageouslyparonomastic " Do you think I meant " (adequately explained by Partridge, p. 95, countrymatters? shied away frompointing thougheditorshave prettyconsistently my lord." out the indelicacy) is, " I thinknothing,
Ham. Oph. Ham. That's a fair thought to lie between maids' legs. What is, my lord? Nothing.

Hamlet (or Dick Burbage) mightwell at this point have made the althoughthe "nothing" symbolby joining thumband forefinger, gestureis not at all necessaryto " get over" the joke: the word to titillate would, I think,have been sufficient itselfin this context the quickerwits in the audience.' In any event,Ophelia's " You my lord" indicatesthat she got the point well enough, are merry, that manymodernreadersdo -ven including thoughit is doubtful " in literatureand so perceptivean observerof " countrymatters language as Mr. Eric Partridge. of Ophelia's earlieruse of the a reflection For Hamlet's nothing, ina shape-metaphor word, is unquestionablyyonic symbolism, tended to call to mind the naught, or 0, which is elsewherein " bawdy" a symbolof pudendum if not in modern, Shakespearean, the passage takes on a beautifulclarity. muliebre. So understood, " Fair thought" is, of course, a quibble- " happy idea" and 6), as Professor "pretty trifle" (v. NED. "thought," definition Dover Wilson has recognized;2 " That [nothingmeaningpuden1 For thing with similarly " broad " meaning, cf. Partridge, s. v. (Cambridge, 1934), p. 199. Dover Wilson also got the point of "nothing," as his reference to 0 with identical meaning in Rom., i, iii, 90, and Cymb., II, v, 17, would indicate. To these he might appositely
2 Hamlet

OPHELIA'S

"NOTHING"

323

lum]'s a fair thought[a prettytrifle]to lie betweenmaids' legs," in addition to the more readily apparent meaning. Partridge has recognizedthat there is a wealth of yonic symbolism in Shakespeare. If the Elizabethan meaning of nothing " and added to those" country and naught (nought) 3be recognized whichhe glosses,this anatomicallocalizationof sexuality references pudendal moreimpressive. There is certainly becomesconsiderably in Flute's " A paramouris, God bless us, a thingof suggestiveness naught" (M. N. D., iv, ii, 13-14), which Partridge thinksmeans " and " obscene"; but the pun is actually no morethan " worthless as I as a sexual reference, if naughtbe understood triple-barreled, am convinced it would have been at the Globe. Naughty has similar triple paronomasiain Elbow's " This house, if it be not a house" (Meas., ii, i, '"-78). It bawd'shouse. . . is a naughty seemslikelyalso that Cressida's " You smile and mockme, as if I meant naughtily" (Troil., iv, ii, 38) is more indelicate than it firstappears. In any case, I thinkit safe to assume that Shakewell aware of the " loose" meaningof nothing speare was perfectly (y) in the venerealvernacularof his day, and that the and naught could use of thesewordsin thepassages cited,and perhapsin others, and civil fromthe groundlings not have failed to provokeguffaws leers fromthe gentles.
THOMAS PYLES of Florida University

MAUPASSANT'S

PARIS ADDRESSES

Maupassant's meteoric rise in letters and his corresponding indicated in as a professionalwriterare significantly prosperity his successiveParis addresses. There could be no more striking graph of materialsuccessthan one whichbegan in dingyone-room
have added those to the more obvious synonym naught (or nought), some of which I shall later cite. s Cf. the erotic symbolism of circle (Rom., II, i, 24) and ring (M. of V., V, i, 307, reminiscent of Hans Carvel's ring). Partridge thinks the sexual circle " physiologically inaccurate " (s. v. " circle," p. 87), but it is no more so than the conventionalized lozenges which carnal-minded moppets used to (and may still) scrawl on walls and fences as a representation of what, following the chaste example of the ending of Sterne's Sentimental Journey, I shall indicate here merely as