HW HomePrevious CNView CNView TNMView TNINext CN

Line 580 - Commentary Note (CN) More Information

Notes for lines 0-1017 ed. Bernice W. Kliman
For explanation of sigla, such as jen, see the editions bib.
580 My Lord, with {almost} all the {holy} vowes of heauen.1.3.114
1843 col1
col1
580 almost . . . holy] Collier (ed. 1843): “The folio reads poorly, and lamely, ‘With all the vows of heaven.’”
1858 col3
col3 = col1
580 almost . . . holy]
1872 cln1
cln1
580 almost . . . all] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “The folios omit the words ‘almost’ and ‘holy,’ which have the appearance of being insertions for the sake of the metre.”
1880 Tanger
Tanger
580 Tanger (1880, p. 124): Q2 variant results from “what is probably a foul case.”
1888 macl
macl
580 holy] Maclachlan (ed. 1888) declares that since to adorn vows with holy would have shown Ophelia to be a lost woman, she obviously did not use the word: “The woman that would gloze in that way about her lover’s vows before her father was already lost. So it was not Ophelia, and thus did she not gloze.”
1894 rlf
rlf
580 Rolfe (ed. 1894): “Almost and holy are not in the folio, and except for the measure might well be spared.”
1903 N&Q
Dey: rlf; macl without attribution
580 Dey (1903, p. 423): “The words ‘almost’ and ‘holy” of the Quarto do not appear in the Folio, and Rolfe remarks that ‘except for the measure [they] might well be spared.’ The word ‘almost’ is essential as marking the feature objectionable to Polonius. The father realizes that the difference in their rank renders it unlikely that his daughter will be married to the prince, and Ophelia is not so carried away by the force of love as to fail to see that certain vows—those peculiar to the actual marriage ceremony—have not been uttered. There might have been a promise, but the vows could not be made before the marriage. I was struck with the significance of ‘almost’ before learning that its importance had been denied. E. Merton Dey.”
1934 Wilson
Wilson MSH
580-1 Wilson (1934, pp. 216-18, 221) <p. 216> Wilson thinks that Q2 and F1 are equally wrong about lineation at various points, including </p. 216><p. 217> 580-1 and 917-19 in the first thousand lines and various others further on. </p. 217><p. 218> Though he thinks Sh. was responsible for the irregularities in 580-1, 917-19, Wilson (ed. 1934) follows the usual practice of editors in his lineation because he assumes that here Sh. requires correcting. </p. 218> <p. 221> However he does say that eds. should usually follow Sh.’s lineation. </p. 221>
1936 cam3b
cam3b
580 almost all] Wilson (ed. 1936, rpt. 1954, add. notes): “= even all, v. G[lossary]. (add).”
1936 cam3b
cam3b
580 almost all] Wilson (ed. 1936, rpt. 1954, add. Glossary): “Almost, even; cf. Tmp. 3.3.34 and Cor. 1.2.24 ‘ere almost Rome should know’ [580].”
1982 ard2
ard2:
580 with . . . heauen] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “A suspicion that Q2 almost and holy are metrical fill-ups is hard to reconcile with the belief that Q2 was printed from autograph. Omissions in F may connect with an attempt to adjust the metre following the mislining of ’my lord.’ ”
580