古庄 信

When we hear or read the words of Shakespeare， we will find that there are solne repeated words or phrases， even sometimes sentences， which are very familiar ones to us， such as"words， words， word，"（HAM 2．2．192）or"To he， or競孟oわa．．孟o伽， to sleep＿to sleep＿to aream＿"（HAM 3．1．55－64）In such phrases， the one repeated thrice seems to be Inore often used than twice or other ones． When the writer reads Hamlet， this seems especially true to him． Moreover， we will recognize that these repetitions could be classified into some fixed patterns． We have to consider what in且uence on this repeated usage， for example， the Bible， or the Greek tragedies， etc． Or should we think what the effects of using these phrases are， when and how． But before that， we shall observe the frequency of each pattern first in this paper， and how many patterns are there in Hamlet？ "The plaゾs the thing！"

Following the former study，1）the aim of this paper is to discover Shakespeare's intention in citing the Biblical quotations in his works． This time we will handle the Merchant of Venice． The paper also relies heavily on Steven Marx's work2'． Although Portia says，"The quality of mercy is not strain'd， lt droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven．．．"（4．1．184），this is not the only phrase from the Bible． As for the number of the quotations here， there are about three times as large as that in Hamlet． If we carefully try to sew such Shakespeare's words and the words in the Bible， we may be able to find out why Shakespeare uses the metaphors in this work， or what Shakespeare's attitude to Christianity is like・

The aim of this paper is to discover Shakespeare's intention in citing the Bible in Hamlet． The paper relies heavily on Steven Marズs work in this field．1）If we read the drama carefully， we can easily find many expressions， such as"1η∂ηan（1醜is oηθfiesh＿" （Ham．4．3．52），quoted from the Bible． There has been much work done on the relationship between Shakespeare and the Bible， but Marx's recent analytic work2＞is particularly noteworthy：he tries to associate each of Shakespeare's work with the Bible very extensively in terms of卯ology and midrashl｝ Following his view， we may be able to get some different answers from ever to the questions：what theme did Shakespeare take from the Bible for Hamlet．P Or what was Shakespeare's attitude to Christianity？

As Dr， S． H． Ringe points out， D the women in the Bible have often been described as'only plain people whO are just gOod or bad， and do not have their identity， lacking their subject．'But as far as Mary Magdalene， she was the first woman that found Jesus'Resurrection， getting over the fear and told the disciples to preach His teachings all over the world， Not only Magdalene but also some other wOmen seem tO have had brave and powerful personalities as well as the men in the Bible． Without their activities， Christianity might not have developed as it did． If we pursue this line of thought， the Passion Play in Oberammergau could bripg us a new perspective on the wOmen sO that they could give us a chance to understand the meaning of their existence and get a greater understanding Of the perfOrmance itself．

Following the former research work？）the aim of this article is to observe the distribution of periphrastic do in the five versions of The Eflglish Hex∂pla：from the Tyn（抱1θversion （TY）to The A utわorisθd Version （AI／）， and to clarify how the ratio of transitive（t）to intransitive verb（1）changed with the use of do in these versions． According to Elleg邑rd，"（As for declarative sentences）inversion was very much more frequent with intransitive than with transitive verbs（2）．．． The dbinstances are a large and increasing Proportion of the transitive group， but a fairly small proportion of the intransitive one！3）（ln negative declarative sentences）it appears that the transitive verbs have a small， but clear and above all consistent advantage with regard to the use of db（1＞（For the part of questions）in the first place， db should be less frequent in questions with the object placed at the head （object－questions， o： v曲∂亡said he？）， in the second place， it should be less frequent in adverb－questions， a （曲e刀c∂1刀e hθ？） and verb－questions， v（wen t he？）， when the verb was intransitive'1）" No禽， from a detailed observation here， we can safely say that his hypotheses are true not only for Ty' C but al串o for．4τ／and the other Bibles：the proportion of transitive verbs and intransitive ones is similar to the propertion in his data． However， only in the affirmative declarative sentences with db， the proportion of t and i is reversed， The reason has not yey been discovered and so will be pursued in further resesearch．

The aim of this article is to observe the distribution of periphrastic do in the five versions of The English Hexapla：from the Tyndale version to The 、4uthorised Ve rs ion（AV）， and to clarify how the use of do changed in these verSlons． It is well known that the、4 V has maintained a prominent position， not only in English literature but also as a credjtable corpus of early Modern English as worthy as Shakespeare． Compared with the latter， however， the more old・ fashioned style in the former has to be noted． Then can we find in it any modern linguistic characteristics， such as the use of do in questions and negative sentences？In most cases， the answer must be "no"． But through a detailed observation of the five versions， we can safely say that the．4V， which was influenced by former versions such as those of Cranmer and Rhei〃zs， acquired its linguistic feature， at least of the usage of periphrastic do．

W．F． Bolton says，"Do is protean in Shakespeare's English． The com－ll） monest use by far is tautologica1"． Giving the following example， he also discusses the negation that"negatives can have or omit do∫both construc－（2） tions are common in Shakespeare， even within two lines．" Fell sorrowes tooth doth neuer ranckle more， Then when he bites， but launceth not the soare．（R2594－5）It is true that do sometimes occurs in such an environment as Bolton suggests in Shakespeare． But why？It could be safely said that one of the reasons is Shakespeare's English was just at the turning point from ME to PE， so Shakespeare could employ do or omit it at will． However， the ques・ tion seems still to remaih unsolved． So far we have observed the occurrence of do in each type of sentence and analyzed the ratio of do in the sentences， as Elleg邑rd did． But in this paper we shall observe how often such a switch in usage of do－type and c3 s－type occurs， irrespective of type of sentence， and how often they change， in what condition， etc． By observing the circumstances of the shift， we might find a more exact definition：in what cases do happens or why it is omitted and so on．

According to Ellegard， do・periphrasis developed most drastically in nega（2） tive questions by the 18th century． But as Jespersen says， it does not seem not plays a leading part in the development． The main point in this article is， to investigate the frequency of do in the negative questions in the works of Shakespeare and to stress how small the influence of not upon do－periphrasis in them is．

As for do－periphrasis， D． Stein（1990）advances a new theory of"phonotactically motivated strategy，"in which undesired word final consonant clusters are avoided， and some given verbs are inclined to be associated wjth'do，'especially in the present tense questions with'thou．'In this way he says that do－periphrasis originally began with'thou'and was generalized in other tense／person categories． According to his analysis and the data I collected this time， I was partly able to testify his theory． But still it seems doubtful to say do－periphrasis began originally with'thou，' because in some more categories'you'overwhelmes'thou．'