HW Home	Previous CN	View CN	View TNM	View TNI	Next CN

Line 639 - Commentary Note (CN)

Commentary notes (CN):

1. SMALL CAPS Indicate editions. Notes for each commentator are divided into three parts:

In the 1st two lines of a record, when the name of the source text (the siglum) is printed in SMALL CAPS, the comment comes from an EDITION; when it is in normal font, it is derived from a book, article, ms. record or other source. We occasionally use small caps for ms. sources and for works related to editions. See bibliographies for complete information (in process).

2. How comments are related to predecessors' comments. In the second line of a record, a label "without attribution" indicates that a prior writer made the same or a similar point; such similarities do not usually indicate plagiarism because many writers do not, as a practice, indicate the sources of their glosses. We provide the designation ("standard") to indicate a gloss in common use. We use ≈ for "equivalent to" and = for "exactly alike."

3. Original comment. When the second line is blank after the writer's siglum, we are signaling that we have not seen that writer's gloss prior to that date. We welcome correction on this point.

4. Words from the play under discussion (lemmata). In the third line or lines of a record, the lemmata after the TLN (Through Line Number] are from Q2. When the difference between Q2 and the authors' lemma(ta) is significant, we include the writer's lemma(ta). When the gloss is for a whole line or lines, only the line number(s) appear. Through Line Numbers are numbers straight through a play and include stage directions. Most modern editions still use the system of starting line numbers afresh for every scene and do not assign line numbers to stage directions.

5. Bibliographic information. In the third line of the record, where we record the gloss, we provide concise bibliographic information, expanded in the bibliographies, several of which are in process.

6. References to other lines or other works. For a writer's reference to a passage elsewhere in Ham. we provide, in brackets, Through Line Numbers (TLN) from the Norton F1 (used by permission); we call these xref, i.e., cross references. We call references to Shakespearean plays other than Ham. “parallels” (//) and indicate Riverside act, scene and line number as well as TLN. We call references to non-Shakespearean works “analogues.”

7. Further information: See the Introduction for explanations of other abbreviations. Click here for more information about browsing the entries and here for more information about the special symbols used in Hamletworks. Click the question mark icon above to remove this help message.

Notes for lines 0-1017 ed. Bernice W. Kliman

For explanation of sigla, such as jen, see the editions bib.

639 Making night hideous, and we fooles of nature	1.4.54

1726 theon

theon

639 we . . . nature] Theobald (1726, pp. 39-41): <p. 39> “’Tis true, We fools—is a Reading that has the Countenance of all the printed Copies; but That Authority must not give a Sanction to Nonsense, and false Grammar, to the Injury of our Author, when a plain and unexceptionable Remedy is at hand. Making Night hideous, and </p.39 > <p. 40> making We Fools of Nature—Every Body must immediately see is not English. I must not, however, dissemble, that there are a few Passages more in our Poet, where I have observ’d the Nominative of Pronouns, is used, tho’ Grammar requires the Accusative. [examples from Cor. , MM, Ant., and Mac.] </p. 40> <p. 41> It may be alledged from these Instances and some few more that might be gather’d, that this was a Liberty which Shakespeare purposely gave himself, and that therefore it is not an Error of the Copies. Be this, as it will; if Grammar and the Idiom of the Tongue be directly against it, we have sufficient Warrant to make him now, at least, speak true English.” </p. 41>

1747 warb

warb

639 we . . . nature] Warburton (ed. 1747): “The expression is fine, as intimating we were only kept (as formerly), fools in a great family) to make sport for nature, who lay hid only to mock and laugh at us, for our vain searches into her mysteries.”

1765 john1

john1 = warb

639 we . . . nature]

1773 v.1773

v1773 = john1

639 we . . . nature]

1774 capn

capn ≈ theon without attribution; warb without attribution

639 we . . . nature] Capell (1774, 1:1:126): “ . . . [A]nd in [639], (where if the licence displeases you, you may read —us for ‘we,’ as the greater part of the moderns have done) man is very finely intitl’d—the fool of nature, a thing with which she diverts herself when he searches after matters beyond him.”

-1778 mmal1

mmal1

639-40 Malone (-1778, fol. 50v): “The same thought is found in some other part of our authour’s works ‘Thoughts are the slaves of life—and life Time’s fool—And time that takes survey of all the world Must have a stop—’”

Malone does not provide the exact refs. and Steevens does not add them. Malone has a diff. //.

1778 v1778

v1778 = v1773

639 we . . . nature]

1785 v1785

v1785 = v1778

639 we . . . nature]

1785 Mason

Mason

639 we . . . nature] Mason (1785, p. 378): “This seems to to be a paraphrase of the common expression, natural fools.”

His quotation has “us fools”

1787 ann

ann = v1785

639 we . . . nature]

1790 mal

mal ≈ warb without attribution; capn without attribution + in magenta underlined.

639 we . . . nature] malone (ed. 1790): “i.e., making us, who are the sport of nature, whose mysterious operations are beyond the reaches of our souls, &c. So, in [Rom. 3.1.136 (1575)]: ‘O, I am fortune’s fool.’”

1793 v1793

v1793 = warb; mal

639 we . . . nature]

1793- mSteevens

mSteevens as in v1803

639 fools of nature] Reed (ms. note in Steevens, ed. 1793):”This phrase is used by—Davenant in the Cruel Brother 1630 A5 Si.” Reed.

adds to his note #5

1803 v1803

v1803 = v1793 +

639 we . . . nature] Reed (ed. 1803): “This phrase is used by Davenant, in the Cruel Brother, 1630, [5.1] Reed.”

note placed in check original ed. doc.

1805 Seymour

Seymour

See n. 636

1813 v1813

v1813 = v1803

639 we . . . nature]

1819 cald1

cald1: theon without attribution

639 we . . . nature] Caldecott (ed. 1819): <p. 32>“Similar licenses in using the nominative for the accusative, and vice versa, as him for he, and she for her, and ye for you, occur throughout our author. Offending the rule of grammar, the present instance, it must be admitted, without adverting to the niceness and curiosity of modern times, offends also the ear. It must at the same time be allowed, that considering the unsettled state of the orthography of that day, a loose practise, of which there are to be found examples in the most elegant and learned writers, cannot justly be charged upon Shakespeare as vulgar and ignorant. In the comic and burlesque style, Dr. Lowth says, this license may perhaps be allowed. Gramm. 1783, p. 32, 3: yet in some of the instances to which he excepts, so far from being offensive, it recommends itself to the ear, and even appears necessary to effect: and these instances would be considered so much less exceptionable than the use of himself as a nominative case, were not the ear by custom familiarized to it.

But, after all, we are writing upon the pages of Shakespeare: and in speeches of any length, Shakespeare, careless of rule and rapid in conception, pours along in his flow of thought with perfect indifference to the grammatical connexion of his sentences, so that his ideas cohere; often changes the person; and possessed altogether with his subject, and with the image he has conceived kept as full before the reader’s mind as his own, while placed by his feelings in the middle of one sentence, he is found by his reader in the beginning of another.”

ECN 86, pp. 32-33. I also placed part of his note in TLN 451 doc. and part in Sh’s grammar doc. CALD1 goes in two directions: on the one hand, he says that Sh is justified in so-called grammatical errors which were not errors at all in his time, but were features of the writing of even the learned. Besides, some of these “errors” sound perfectly good to the ear. On the other hand, he seems to excuse Shakespeare on the ground that his images are clear and in the rush of creativity, he can overlap one sentence with another.

1821 v1821

v1821 = v1813

639 we . . . nature]

1832 cald2

cald2 = cald1

639 we . . . nature]

1854 del2

del2 “ standard

639 we . . . nature] Delius (ed. 1854): “fools of nature, in sofern die Natur ihr Spiel mit uns treibt, uns äfft. Für we sollte eigentlich us stehen, da die Construction ist: making us (to) shake our disposition.” [fools of nature, insofar as Nature plays its game with us, mocks us. Us should be where we is, since the construction is: making us (to) shake our disposition.]

1860 Walker

Walker

639 we . . . nature] Lettsom (Walker, 1860, 1:58 n. 16): “Walker evidently connects we fools with that [in 637], not (as Malone does) with making.—Ed.”

1867 Keightley

Keightley: standard

639 we] Keightley (1867, p. 288): “Grammar would require us for ‘we.’”

1868 c&mc

c&mc

639 we . . . nature] Clarke & Clarke (ed. 1868): “‘We ignoramuses in the numerous secrets and mysteries of nature.’”

1869 tsch

tsch

639-40 we . . . to shake] Tschischwitz (ed. 1869) believes that and we begins a new clause with the emendation do shake for the infinitive to shake in 640: To, he says, could easily have been mistaken for do.

1870 Abbott

Abbott § 216

639 and we] Abbott (§ 216): “After a conjunction and before an infinitive we often find I, thou, &c., where in Latin we should have ‘me,’ ‘te,’ &c. The conjunction seems to be regarded as introducing a new sentence, instead of connecting one cluase with another. Hence the pronoun in put in the nominative, and a verb is, perhaps, to be supplied from the context. . . [quotes 639 and also 2109].”

1872 cln1

cln1: standard

639 we] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “we ought in strict grammar to be ‘us.’

cln1: standard

639 fooles of nature] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “playthings of nature, who are completely under her influence. Compare [MM 3.1.11 (1214)]: ‘Merely thou art Death’s fool.’”

1872 hud2

hud2 : standard

639 fooles of nature] Hudson (ed. 1872): “in the sense here implied, is, we who cannot by nature know the mysteries of the supernatural world. Strict grammar would requie us instead of we. ”

hud2

639-41 Hudson (ed. 1872): “The general idea of the passage seems to be, that man’s intellectual eye in not strong enough to bear the unmuffled light of eternity.”

1873 rug2

rug2 See n. 636

639 fooles of nature] Moberly (ed. 1873): “‘playthings of nature,’ like ‘Ajax is their fool’ in [Lr. 2.2.125 (1203)].”

1877 v1877

v1877: theo; cald; cln1; = Lettsom; = rug2; = tsch; = Abbott § 216

639 we] Furness (ed. 1877): Theobald, Caldecott, and Clarendon say that in strict grammar us should be here used; but Walker (Crit. i, 58) evidently, as Lettsom notes, connects ‘we fools’ with ‘That,’ and so does Moberly in his excellent paraphrase [in 636]: ‘What may it mean that we with our blind nature (are made) so horribly to shake our composure of spirit with thoughts beyond the reach of our souls?’ adding: ‘This random connexion of the clause suits well with the headlong impetuosity of the speech.’ On the same grammatical grounds, Tschischwitz reads, ‘So horridly do shake.’ Abbott § 216, thus explains ‘and we’: After a conjunction and before an infinitive we often find I, thou, &c., where in Latin we should have ‘me,’ ‘te,’ &c. The conjunction seems to be regarded as introducing a new sentence, instead of connecting one clause to another. Hence the pronoun is put in the nominative, and a verb is, perhaps, to be supplied from the context. So, too, we have ‘we’ for us in [2109], since it stands quasi-independently at some distance from the governing word, ‘touches.’”

v1877: ≈ warb; ≈ Mason; ≈ cln1

639 fooles] Furness (ed. 1877): “Warburton: Intimating that we are only kept (as formerly fools in a great family) to make sport for nature, who lies hid only to mock and laugh at us for our vain searches into her mysteries. Mason (p. 378): A paraphrase of the common expression, natural fools. Clarendon: Playthings of nature, completely under her influence. See [MM 3.1.11 (1214)].”

1880 Tanger

Tanger

639 hideous, and] Tanger (1880, p. 125) ascribes the variant in F1 as “probably due to the critical revision which the text received at the hands of H.C. [Heminge & Condell], when it was being woven together from the parts of the actors.”

1881 hud3

hud3 = hud2

639 fooles of nature]

hud3 = hud2

639-41

1885 macd

macd ≈ c&mc without attribution

639 fooles of nature] MacDonald (ed. 1885): “fools in the presence of her knowledge—to us no knowledge—of her action, to us inexplicable. A fact that looks unreasonable makes one feel like a fool. See Psalm 73.22: ‘So foolish was I and ignorant, I was as a beast before thee.’ As some men are our fools, we are all Nature’s fools; we are so far from knowing anything as it is.”

1885 mull

mull ≈ hud3 without attribution

639 fooles of nature] Mull (ed. 1885): “susceptible to terror.”

1896 gol

gol: standard

639 fooles of nature] Gollancz (ed. 1896): “made fools by nature.”

1899 ard1

ard1 ≈ hud3 without attribution

639 fooles of nature] Dowden (ed. 1899): “The presence of the supernatural shows how the limitations of nature cheat and befool us.”

1904 ver

ver: standard

639 we] Verity (ed. 1904): “either we is an irregularity for us or it is the subject of some verb intended to be supplied from the context, e.g. are made. Either way, it is an instance of what we get so often in Shakespeare viz. irregularity of syntax reflecting the speaker’s agitation. For we = us cf. [Cor. 5.3.103 (3458)]: ‘to poor we Thine enmity’s most capital.’”

ver

639 fooles of nature] Verity (ed. 1904): “perhaps ‘victims of our weak mortal natures’; or ‘the sport of Nature, who deals with us as she pleases.”

1939 kit2

kit2

639-41 and we fooles . . . soules] Kittredge (ed. 1939): "and causing us (who are, in such a case, reduced to the condition of fooles by our weak human nature) to agitate our frame of mind with thoughts which grasp at more than our souls can comprehend.."

kit2: standard

639 we] Kittredge (ed. 1939): "Common Elizabethan grammar for us."

1947 cln2

cln2

639 fooles of nature] Rylands (ed. 1947): "dupes of nature (in the face of the supernatural)."

1957 pel1

pel1: standard

639 fooles of nature] Farnham (ed. 1957): “men made conscious of natural limitations by a supernatural manifestation.”

1970 pel2

pel2 = pel1

639 fooles of nature] Farnham (ed. 1970): “men made conscious of natural limitations by a supernatural manifestation”

1980 pen2

pen2

639 fooles of nature] Spencer (ed. 1980): “weak creatures limited by nature (but now having to face experience of the supernatural).”

1982 ard2

ard2: //; xref

639 hideous] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “Not, as usually now, physically repulsive, but terrifying. Cf. Rom. 4.3.50, ’these hideous fears’; etc. So at 1517.”

ard2: Abbott

639 we] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “for this use of the nominative before an infinitive, see Abbott 216.”

ard2: //s; xref

639 fooles of] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “playthings of, subject to the caprices of. Cf. ’Time’s fool’ (Son. 116.9), ’fortune’s fool’ (Rom. 3.1.133, ’Death’s fool’ (MM 3.1.11). We are ’fools of nature’ in being at the mercy of nature’s limitations (and hence confounded by what is beyond nature, 641)”

1985 cam4

cam4

639 fooles of nature] Edwards (ed. 1985): "natural creatures, too ignorant to understand what lies beyond."

1987 oxf4

oxf4

639 hideous] Hibbard (ed. 1987): "terrifying."

oxf4 = Abbott § 216

639 and we]

oxf4: //s MM, Rom. from theon and mal without attribution

639 fooles of nature] Hibbard (ed. 1987): "playthings, puppets of nature (because we have no idea of what nature is doing with us). Compare ‘Death’s fool [MM 3.1.11 (1214)], and ‘fortune’s fool’ [Rom. 3.1.136 (1575)]."

1988 bev2

bev2: standard

639 fooles of nature] Bevington (ed. 1988): “mere men, limited to natural knowledge and subject to the caprices of nature.”

1996 Kliman

Kliman

639-41 Kliman (1996): “ . . . Making night hideous and (making) us fools of nature shake our dispositions so horridly with thoughts that reach beyond our souls.”

2006 ard3q2

ard3q2: Blake

639 we . . . nature] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “i.e. turning us into ignorant or weak creatures limited by or victims of nature. For this use of we where we might expect ’us’ before an infinitive, see Blake, 6.1.2.2.”