The conclusions of the article seem a bit far-fetched to me, and seem to ignore the rhetorical style of poetry and theatre at the time. One of the examples the author gives (where they missed a contracted instance of "the"):
[...] Look like th' innocent flower,/But be the serpent under ’t.
It is still acceptable in modern English to say something like
Seem like the innocent flower, but be as the serpent underneath it.
Certainly not casual, everyday speech -- but using a rhetorical strategy of referring to an archetypal innocent flower, or an archetypal serpent. I think it's an enormous stretch to claim that Lady Macbeth and Macbeth had a specific innocent flower in mind when they were speaking.
Comments
The conclusions of the article seem a bit far-fetched to me, and seem to ignore the rhetorical style of poetry and theatre at the time. One of the examples the author gives (where they missed a contracted instance of "the"):
It is still acceptable in modern English to say something like
Certainly not casual, everyday speech -- but using a rhetorical strategy of referring to an archetypal innocent flower, or an archetypal serpent. I think it's an enormous stretch to claim that Lady Macbeth and Macbeth had a specific innocent flower in mind when they were speaking.