03 January 2010

"The world is my oyster"

According to the Mail Online, this phrase has been routinely misinterpreted to mean "the world is at my feet."
[In] The Merry Wives Of Windsor, Sir John Falstaff says to the vainglorious idiot Pistol: 'I shall not lend thee a penny,' to which Pistol replies: 'Why then, the world's mine oyster, which I with sword shall open.'

An oyster is something that has to be prised open with a blade. The phrase means 'I will have to use force to get what I want'.

I wouldn't interpret it quite that way, but a quick Google doesn't turn up a definitive answer. There must be some (other) English majors out there who can speak with authority regarding what Edward deVere meant when he wrote this phrase.

8 comments:

  1. It's rather b. and c. from the link below, meaning the the world/the future/the fortune is in front of me and I'll take my chances and venture on my own without anyone's help.
    http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/7/messages/127.html
    Briefly, I'll try without help.I'm an English Major but that doesn't make me an expert on Shakespearean (or DeVerean) English. The use of sword in this is just to emphasize that Pistol is an idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Here's what Oxford English has to say: "P2. the world is one's oyster (in allusion to the possibility of finding a pearl in an oyster): one is in a position to profit from the opportunities that life, or a particular situation, may offer."

    An oyster can be (an was) opened with a 17th century short sword. Pistol declares he will strike out on his own and trust to fortune to carry him through.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's interesting about the sword although it was the 16th century. Now we should doubt not only De Vere's role but some later attempts to mess around with good ole Willy. Can you link to some mention of the sword as an oyster opener?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I find it interesting that an English teacher assumes that Shakespeare couldn't have written the plays because he wasn't an English major (didn't go to college). Well there have been several million English majors since, but no more Shakespeares. Face it, he was sui generis. An education wouldn't have helped(would in fact, have probably hurt him). The whole idea that you need credentials to be a genius flies in the face of what it means to be a genius. It's much easier for me to believe that the author of the plays came inexplicably from the provinces and eventually retired there (think Andy Warhol except for the retire there part)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Perhaps it means that he shall have to do what ever it takes to get the pearl.

    ie. not necessarily use force - but obtain what he wants through any means at his disposal. This would go a way into explaining the current meaning of "the world is at my feet" or "I can do whatever I want".

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Bub,

    The English teachers you speak of don't claim Shakespeare didn't write the plays because he didn't go to college.

    from Wikipedia:
    Another challenge to the mainstream view involves the extensive education doubters claim is evident in Shakespeare's works, including an enormous vocabulary of approximately 29,000 different words. Authorship doubters question whether a commoner from a small 16th-century country town, with no recorded education or personal library, could become so highly expert in translating foreign languages, knowledge of courtly pastimes and politics, Greek and Latin mythology, legal terminology, and the latest discoveries in science, medicine and astronomy of the time.

    Their idea is that different aristocrats of the time used Shakespeare as the "front man" of their works. They claim that whomever wrote the plays and sonnets were educated in universities and had an aristocratic background.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "The English teachers you speak of don't claim Shakespeare didn't write the plays because he didn't go to college.....they claim that whomever wrote the plays and sonnets were educated in universities."

    I stand by my earlier remark that education (credentials) doesn't explain genius. I think university education would actually hurt - conjure up an image of a nun wrapping young Will's knuckles every time he coined a new word rather than use one found in the King James version of the Bible. The subtext of the denier movement is that if we had all studied just a little bit harder we could have been like Shakespeare or perhaps been writing concertos at age 5 like Mozart. I don't think so. I'm sure there have been aristocrats who have been fine artists (no Shakespeares, Mozarts or Michelangelos though) but I can't think of any. Being an aristocrat is probably more of a handicap than going to college.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Heh heh, usually when its found in abundance and isnt a struggle for words. When everyone can agree and gives ear because its as much worth saying as it is listening to. I hear a commoner saying something echoing through the ages and is just what I think...which is the best probably. Its hard to say anything and have the same meaning at the other end...they try teach you this in the game TELEPHONE in grade 5. Someones always said it better, someone better would say it so everyone can understand...ITS THERE FOR THE TAKING??? yea probably some sociopath with a knife having dinner.

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...