3654-5 a kind of histy colection . . . opinions] Warburton (ed. 1747) : “The metaphor is strangely mangled by the intrusion of the word FOND, which undoubtedly should be read FANN’D; the allusion being to corn separated by the Fan from chaff and dust. But the Editors feeing, from the character of this yesty collection, that the opinions, through which they were so currently carried, were false opinions; and fann’d and winnow’d opinions, in the most obvious sense signifying tried and purified opinions, they thought fanned and winnowed opinions had also a different signification: For it may mean the opinions of great men and courtiers, men separated by their quality from the vulgar, as corn is separated from the chaff. This yesty collection, says Hamlet, insinuates it self into people of the highest Quality, as yest into the finest flower. The courtiers admire him, but when he comes to the trial &c.”

3656 doe but blowe them, &c.] Johnson (ed. 1765) : “These men of show, without solidity, are like bubbles raised from soap and water, which dance, and glitter, and please the eye, but if you extend them, by blowing hard,separate into a mist; so if you oblige these specious talkers to extend their compass of conversation, they at once discover the tenuity of their intellects.”

3656 prophane and trennowed] Tollet (ms. notes in Theobald, ed. 1740): “most fond and winowed opinions]] fann’d Warb.”

3656 doe but blowe them, &c.]

3656 prophane and trennowed] Jennens (ed. 1773) : “Shakespeare seems to have written tres-renowned (which is the French method of forming the superlative degree) i.e. most renowned.. Then the description of these persons, as it stands in the old quartos, will be, Those who, out of accustoming themselves to encounter in all kinds of discourse, have got such a superficial collection of knowledge, as furnish them with words on all topics, and carries them through and through the most common (for so profane may here signify) and even the most renowned opinions; i.e. opinions, or branches of learning, which bring renown to the learned in them.”

3656 prophane and trennowed] See n. 3649-52

3656 prophane and trennowed] Tollet (ms. notes, -1778): “fann’d and winnowed seems right to me. Both words, ‘winnowed, fand, and drest,’ occur together in Markhams English Husbandman p. 117. So do fan’d and winnowed, fanned and winnowed in his Husbandry p. 18. 76 & 77. so Shakespeare mentions together the fan and win in [Tro. 5.3.41 (3198)]. Vol 9. p. 134.”

3656 doe but blowe them, &c.]

3656 prophane and trennowed] Malone (1783, p. 60) : :most fond and winnowed opinions]] I suspect that our author wrote— profound, which the quartos corrupted to prophane ,and the folio exhibited imperfectly, by the compositor’s eye catching only the second syllable of the word.”

3656 prophane and trennowed] Davies (1784, 3:139-40): <p.139>“fond and winnowed]] I think nothing can be more clear than that Shakspeare means, by this expression, that such fellows as Ostrick, by acquiring a little fashionable jargon, with a considerable stock of impudence, contrive to pass, upon men of the most approved judgement, for complete courtiers.—To impose their trash upon fond, or foolish, </p. 139><p.140>people, could be no matter of surprise. It is very probable, that, instead of fond, the author wrote sound.”</p. 140>

3656 doe but blowe them, &c.]

3656 prophane and trennowed] Mason (1785, p. 397): <p. 397>“On considering this passage, it always appeared to me that we ought to read, ‘the most sound and winnowed opinions.’ And I have been confirmed in that conjecture by a passage I lately met with in Howel’s Letters, where speaking of a man merely contemplative, he says, ‘Besides he may want judgment in the choice of his authors, and knows not how to turn his hand either in weighing or winnowing the soundest opinions.’ Vol. III. Letter 8.” </p. 397>

3656 doe but blowe them, &c.]

3656 doe but blowe them, &c.]

3656 doe but blowe them, &c.]

3656 prophane and trennowed] see n. 3655

3656 prophane and trennowed] Wesley (typescript of ms. notes in ed. 1785): “I think this [v1785’s ‘fond’] right; but I like Warburton’s reading, notwithstanding.”

3656 prophane and trennowed] Rann (ed. 1791-) : “found ]— fond, fann’d —Such empty coxcombs as this, by the help of a few fashionable phrases, and an easy address, mere superficial accomplishments, pass themselves for complete courtiers, and successfully impose upon persons of the most perfect and approved understanding.”

3656 doe but blowe them, &c.]Rann (ed. 1791-) : “These men of show, without solidity, are like bubbles raised from soap and water, which dance, and glitter, and please the eye, but if you extend them, by blowing hard, separate into a mist; so if you oblige these specious talkers to extend their compass of conversation, they at once discover the tenuity of their intellects.”

3654-5 a kind of histy colection . . . opinions] Mason (apud Steevens, ed. 1793) : “On considering this passage, it always appeared to me that we ought to read, “the most found and winnowed opinions:” and I have been confirmed in that conjecture by a passage I lately met with in Howel’s Letters , where speaking of a man merely contemplative, he says, ‘ Besides he may want udgement in the choice of his authors, and knows not how to turn his hand either in weighing or winnowing the soundest opinions .’ Book III. Letter viii. M. MASON “

3656 doe but blowe them, &c.]

3656 doe but blowe them, &c.]

3656 doe but blowe them, &c.]

see n. 3655

3656 doe but blowe them, &c.] Caldecott (ed. 1819) : “Thus has he—only got the tune of the time and outward habit of encounter (i.e. the turn of character, and exterior carriage or address), a kind of yesty collection (i.e. a frothy mass, compounded of modern phrase and manner) which carries them (i.e. enables them to pass current) through and through the most fond and winnowed opinions; (i.e. all judgments, not the simplest only, but the most sifted and wisest) and do but blow them to their trial, (i.e. prove them by how slight soever a wreath of inquiry or examination) the bubbles are out (i.e. burst) the imposition is detected.”

3656 doe but blowe them, &c.]

3656 prophane and trennowed] Singer (ed. 1826) : “The corruption of the quarto, ‘prophane and trennowed ,’ is not worth attention; and I have no doubt that fond in the folio should be fanned , formerly spelt fan’d , and sometimes even without the apostrophe. Fanned and winnowed are almost always coupled by old writers, for reasons that may be seen under those words in Baret’s Alvearie. So Shakspeare himself in [ cites Tro. 5.3.41 (3198)] The meaning is, ‘These men have got the cant of the day, a superficial readiness of slight and cursory conversation, a kind of frothy collection of fashionable prattle, which yet carries them through with the most light and inconsequential judgments; but if brought to the trial by the slightest breath of rational conversation, the bubbles burst: or, in other words, display their emptiness.’”

3656 doe but blowe them, &c.] Caldecott (ed. 1832) : “We have ‘ winnowed purity.’ [Tro. 5.3.41 (3198) Tr.”

3656 prophane and trennowed] Dyce (1844, pp. 220-1) : <p. 220> “The common interpretation of the passage is (I use the words of Caldecott), ‘which carries them (i.e. enables them to pass current) through and through the most fond and win- </p. 220> <p. 221> nowed opinions (i.e. all judgments, not the simplest only, but the most sifted and wisest),’ &c.

“Now, to suppose that ‘the most fond and winnowed opinions’ could mean ‘all judgments, NOT the simplest ONLY, BUT the most sifted and wisest,’ is little short of insanity. The admirable emendation of Warburton (which is not even mentioned by Messrs. Caldecott, Collier, and Knight!) evidently restores the genuine reading,—’the most fand (fanned) and winnowed opinions.’ That ‘fanned’ and ‘winnowed’ occur together in other writers, and that Shakespeare has ‘the fan and mind of your fair sword’ in [Tro. 5.3.41 (3198)], has been observed by Tollet.” </p. 221>

3656 prophane and trennowed] Verplanck (ed. 1844): “fond and winnowed]] This is the folio reading, and may well mean that such frothy facility imposes alike on fond (or weak) judgments, and those more critical. If this is not satisfactory, we must adopt one of the conjectural emendations; as Mason’s, ‘sound and winnowed;’—or Singer’s, ‘fanned and winnowed.’”

3656 prophane and trennowed] Delius (ed. 1854) : “most fond and winnowed opinions]] So die Fol. Die Qs. lesen: profane and trennowed opnions. Trennowed ist nur Druckfehler; profane aber bildet, wie das von Sh. dafür später gesetzte fond, den Gegensatz zu winnowed. Mit solchem Modeschwatz und äusserlichem Habitus, wie Osrick sie der Zeit abgelernt hat, kommt man sicher ‘durch die thörichtsten wie durch die gesichtetsten Ansichten der Menschen’ hindurch. Manche Herausgeber ändern ohne Noth fond in fann’d. [Trennowed is only a misprint; but profane suggests the opposite of winnowed, as, instead, the later, mature fond of Shakespeare. With such gossipy and outward Habitus as Osrick has learned from his time, one arrives to be sure ‘at the foolish as if the most visible view of man.’ Many editors alter needlessly fond into fann’d]

3656 doe but blowe them, &c.] White (1854, pp. 421-2): <p. 421>"CALDECOTT explains the last part of this passage thus,—’which carries them ((i.e. enables them to pass current)) through and through the most fond and winnowed opinions ((i.e., all judgments; not the simplest only, but the most sifted and the wisest)).’ Mr. Dyce says this is ’the common interpretation of the passage,’ and justly adds, ’to suppose that ’the most fond and winnowed opinions’ could mean ’all judgments, not the simplest only, but the most sifted and the wisest,’ is little short of insanity.’

"It is to be hoped that Mr. Dyce erred in supposing this to be the common interpretation of the passage. The meaning seams clear, and to be one of those very obvious significations which it is a marvel that any commentator or any educated reader could fail to apprehend. Mr. Dyce’s own reading, adopted from Warburton, seems as far from the truth as Caldecott’s explanation. Mr. Dyce would read, ’the most fand ((fanned)) and winnowed opinions;’ and he </p. 421><p. 422>quotes good authority for the use of both ’fanned’ and ’winnowed’ in the same sentence.

"But all this is from the purpose. Osric is a type of the Euphuist or affected courtier of Shakespeare’s time, who was a hair-splitter in thought, and absurdly dainty and extravagant in expression. Therefore Shakespeare makes Hamlet describe Osric as one who ((’with many more of the same breed’)) has ’only got the tune of the time,’ which was ’a kind of yesty collection which carries them [[the Euphuists]] through and through the most fond and winnowed opinions:’ that is, they go through and through [[they stop at no absurdity in]] the most fond [[affected or foolish]] and winnowed [[elaborately sought out]] opinions. It is difficult to imagine how ’opinions’ could be supposed by Caldecott to mean ’judgment,’ or ’carries’ to signify ’enables them to pass current.’ ’Fond’ is continually used as ’affected’ or ’foolish’ by the earlier English writers."</p. 422>

3656 prophane and trennowed] Hudson (ed. 1856) : “The quarto of 1604 has most prophane and trennowed opinions; in the other quartos trennowed is changed to trennowened : the folio reads as in the text. It may seem strange that this reading should have been thought unsatisfatory, but such is the case: Warburton changed fond to fann’d , and has been followed by divers editors. ‘Fond and winnowed opinions’ are opinions conceitedly fine and winnowed clean of the dust of common sense; such opinions as are affected by the amateur exquisites of all times. H”

3656 prophane and trennowed]

3656 prophane and trennowed] Dyce (ed. 1857) : notes here the Q2-3 readings, later Qq readings, and Ff readings. “In my Remarks on Mr. Collier’s and Mr. Knight’s eds. of Shakespeare , p. 220, I maintained that ‘fond and winnowed’ had been rightly altered to ‘fanned and winnowed ;’ and I still think that it is an alteration which most probably restores the true reading, although Mr. Grant White (Shakespeare’s Scholar , &c. p. 422) pronounces it to be altogether wrong. He says that ‘carries them through and through the most fond and winnowed opinions’ means, ‘ they go through and through [they stop at no absurdity in] the most fond [affected or foolish] and winnowed [elaborately sought out] opinions,’—an interpretation which, in my judgment, the words cannot possibly bear.”

3656 prophane and trennowed] Elze (ed. 1857, p. 257-8): <p. 257>"fond and winnowed opinions]] Fs. QB: the most prophane and trennowed opinions; QC folgg.: the most prophane and trennowned opinions; Johnson: the most sane and renowned opinions. Warburton und Tollet: fann’d and winnowed; M. Mason: sound and winnowed.—Fond ist=affected, foolish; winnowed= sifted, examined. Den Sinn hat Delius richtig angegeben: Mit solchem Klingklang von Redensarten und äusserm Betragen winden sie sich durch die thörichtsten wie die geprüftesten Meinungen der Menschen hindurch; bläst man sie aber zur Probe</p. 257> <p. 258>an, so sind die blasen entzwei. Vgl. Grant Shakespeare’s Scholar 421." </p. 258> "fond and winnowed opinions]] Ff. Q2: the most prophane and trennowed opinions; Q3 prophane and trennowned; Johnson: the most sane and renowned opinions [∑]. Warburton and Tollet: fann’d and winnowed; M. Mason: sound and winnowed.. —Fond is affected, foolish; winnowed = sifted, examined. Delius has correctly given the meaning: with such cling clang [resonance?] of expressions and external behavior, they wind through the foolish as through the most approved opinions of men; one blows upon them for a test, so they are bubbles in pieces. Compare Grant Schakespeare’s Scholar 421.

3656 prophane and trennowed] Collier (ed. 1858) : ? “‘Fond and winnowed opinions’ in the old copies, but Tollet proposed ‘fanned,’ and we feel convinced that such is the proper text. The 4to, 1604, reads, ‘the most prophane and trennowed opinions,’ which became trennowned in the 4to, 1611 and what could have been understood by it, it is hard to say.”

3656 prophane and trennowed] White (ed. 1861) : “fond and winnowed opinions]] “But ‘fan’ and ‘winnnow’ are so often coupled in the writings of Shakespeare’s day, and ‘fond’ [foolish] sorts so ill with ‘winnowed’ in its figurative sense, that I think, with Warburton and Mr. Dyce, that ‘fond’ in the folio is a misprint of ‘fand.’ But of the meaning of the passage in this form I am not quite sure, though it is probably to be found in Dr. Johnson’s paraphrase [gives Johnson’s paraphrase].’ The 4tos. read, ‘ a kind of histy [ or hesty ] collection which carries them through and through the most prophane and trennowed [or trennowned ]] opinions.”

3654-7 Nicholson (1864, 50): <p. 50> “Hamlet of course means that Osric and his compeers have not that inward wit necessary to parley true euphuism, but only the outward trick of the language, which, while it passed with folks of like mind, would not stand the trial of better judgments. So at least he says in the rest of the passage; but when he is made to say that their yesty collection of words carries them through and through the winnowed, or fanned and winnowed, opinions of the age—through the wheat of the world—he is made to say the contrary of what he means, and the contrary to the fact; for Osric did not pass through two such winnowed opinions as those of Horatio and Hamlet. Or if, contrary to all analogy of speech, the fanned and winnowed opinions are the chaff and not the wheat, what sense is there in a yesty collection carrying one through either wheat or chaff? or if a yesty collection did such a strange act, where, after such a passage, would be the bubbles that puff of air is to blow away? But if for winnowed or trennowed, we vinewed or vinnewed-and blue vinney is Dorsetshire, and vinewedst is spelt in the folio edition of Troilus and Cressida ‘whinidst’—we have a change that restores the sense—a word not incongruous with, but suggested by, the metaphorical yesty collection, and a repetition of that Shakspearian expression, a mouldy wit. Int ruth, Hamlet’s metaphor is drawn from Sly’s pot of ale, as is shown by the words, ‘blow them to their trial.’ The yesty collection is the frothiness of sour and stale beer, which passes with those of corrupted and vitiated taste; but when tried and blown upon by more sober judgments flies off, and does not remain like the true head of sound liquor or wit. B. Nicholson.” </p. 50>

3656 prophane and trennowed] Clarke (ed. 1864, Glossary): “Esteemed and choice.”

3656 prophane and trennowed] Clarke & Clarke (ed. 1864-68, rpt. 1874-78): “This is the Folio reading [fond and winnowed]; while the Quartos give ‘prophane and trennowed’ instead of ‘fond and winnowed.’ Warburton changed ‘fond’ to ‘fanned,’ a plausible alteration; but we think that probably here ‘fond’ is used to express ‘fondly cherished,’ ‘dearly esteemed,’ while ‘winnowed’ we take to mean ‘choice,’ ‘select.’ In a previous passage of the present play (see the one adverted to in Note 141, Act I.[784]). ‘All trivial fond reocrds,’ the word ‘fond’ is probably used in this same sense of ‘fondly cherished,’ ‘fondly entertained.’”

3656 prophane and trennowed] Dyce (ed. 1866) : “Mr. Grant White in his edition of Shakespeare prints ‘fann’d and winnowed.’”

3656 prophane and trennowed] see n. 3653-4

3656 prophane] Keightley (1867, p. 297) : <p. 297> “I quite agree with those who read fann’d.” </p. 297>

3656 trennowed] Tschischwitz (ed. 1869): “winnowed]] ags. vinujan, v.vind, ventilare; goth. vin[th]jan, lat. vannare, durch Wind ‘sichten.’” [winowed, A.S. vinujan, [[see]] vind, ventilare; Gothic vin[th]jan, Latin vannare, through wind ‘sight.’

3656 prophane and trennowed] Stratmann (ed. 1869): ‘’fond’ is possibly, as Warburton supposes, a misprint for ‘fand’ (fanned). Tschischwitz amends ‘prophane’ to ‘profound’.”

3656 prophane and trennowed] Romdahl (1869, p. 43_): <p. 43> “fond and winnowed] About fond compare 1.5.99 (784). Winnowed is here = sifted, examined.—As the usual modern editions of Sh. agree I this reading of the folios, we do not think it necessary to take up all the different readings and more or less reasonable conjectures about this passage.” </p. 43>

3656 prophane and trennowed] Delius (ed. 1872) : “most fond and winnowed opinions]] So die Fol. Die Qs. lesen: profane and trennowed opnions. Trennowed ist nur Druckfehler; profane aber bildet, wie das von Sh. dafür später gesetzte fond, den Gegensatz zu winnowed. Mit solchem Modeschwatz und äusserlichem Habitus, wie Osrick sie der Zeit abgelernt hat, kommt man sicher ‘durch die thörichtsten wie durch die gesichtetsten Ansichten der Menschen’ hindurch. —Für fond las Tollet fanned und M. Mason sound.” [ “Trennowed is only a misprint; profane only creates the opposite of winnowed, as the, instead, later, mature fond of Shakespeare. With such gossipy and outward Habitus, as Osrick has demonstrated[?] from the time, one arrives to be sure ‘at the foolishness as if through the characteristic view of man.’ For fond Tollet conjectured fanned and M. Mason sound.”]

3656 prophane and trennowed] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “fond and winnowed]] The reading of the folios. The quartos have ‘prophane and trennowed,’ or ‘trennowned.’ Both may be pronounced to be corruptions. Perhaps the true reading may be ‘profound and winnowed,’ as Tschischwitz has it. “Profound and winnowed,’ or well-sifted opinions, are properly contrasted with ‘yesty collection.’ Other conjectures are ‘fann’d’ and ‘sound.’ The metaphor is a mixed one, as is so frequently the case in Shakespeare. Osric, and others like him, are compared to the chaff which mounts higher than the sifted wheat, and to the bubbles which rise to the surface through the deeper water.”

3656 prophane and trennowed]Bulloch (-1875, New Readings, #16): “For this particular word [“fond”] Mr. Staunton adopts the reading of fanned, which he tells us was proposed by Warburton, and he adds, ‘The Quartos having—Most prophane and trennowed (and trennowned) opinions.’

“A knowledge of these several discrepancies in the short compass of one sentence as given above will go far to reconcile the student to much that might otherwise look like rash tampering with the text. We have no doubt in our own mind that these several lections of Quarto and Folio had each an independent origin, that they both emanated from the author, but that he saw cause to alter from the one to the other in the process of the tragedy to its final perfection as we have seen it. To begin with the Quarto reading. At first sight when the two are compared together there is a manifest discrepancy, but afterwards we are inclined to think for a moment that winnowed and trennowed are identical, the latter possibly a misprint which had been afterwards rectified. But the other variation trennowned soon disabuses us of that idea. We then see that this is a misprint for renowned, meaning famous or generally received opinions. But what shall we make of the other member of the clause, the word prophane? Why, that it is a misprint for proven, that is opinions that have been proved and stood the test. But then the author seems to have changed his mind, and doubtless for good reasons. Instead of these, he has given us as his final correction a more figurative mode of speech, taken from the winnowing of grain, in which opinions appear now as fully sifted. But again, what shall we make of the other member of this amended form, the word fond? why again, that it is a misprint for the word sound, meaning good, healthy opinions; and with these observations we leave the matter with our readers to exercise their judgments and decide for themselves—Quarto reading proven and renowned; Folio, sound and winnowed.

“N.B.—The f in fond, being mistaken for the long s.”

3656 prophane and trennowed] Furness (ed. 1877): “White (Sh. Scholar, p. 422) advocates ‘fond and winnowed,’ and interprets: ‘They go through and through (i.e. they stop at no absurdity in) the most fond (i.e. affected or foolish) and winnowed (i.e. elaborately sought out) opinions.’ But White, having found that ‘fan’ and ‘winnow’ are ‘often coupled in the writings of Shakespeare’s day,’ and ‘that “fond” (foolish) sorts ill with “winnowed” in its figurative sense,’ in his subsequent edition agreed with Warburton and Dyce that ‘fond’ of the Ff is a misprint for fand, and added, ‘of the meaning of the passage in this form I am not quite sure, though it is probably to be found in Dr Johnson’s paraphrase.’”

3656 prophane and trennowed] Clarke (apud Furness, ed. 1877): “‘Probably ‘fond’ is here used to express ‘fondly cherished,’ ‘dearly esteemed,’ while ‘winnowed’ means ‘choice,’ ‘select.’ ‘Fond’ is thus used in [1.5.99 (783)].”

3656 prophane and trennowed]Nicholson (apud Furness, ed. 1877): “Ham. of course means that Osr. and his compeers have not that inward wit necessary to parley true euphuism, but only the outward trick of the language, which while it passed with folks of like mind, would not stand the trial of better judgement. . . . . If for ‘winnowed’ or trennowed, we read vinewed or vinnewed—and blue vinney is Dorsetshire, and vinededst is spelt in the Ff of [Tro.] ‘whinidst,’—we have a change that restores the sense,—a word not incongruous with, but suggested by, the metaphorical yesty collection, and a repetition of that Shakespearian expression, a ‘mouldy wit.’ . . . . The ‘yesty collection’ is the frothiness of sour and stale beer, which passes with those of corrupted and vitiated taste; but when tried and blown upon by the more sober judgement flies off, and does not remain like the true head of sound liquor or wit. subsequently (N & Qu, 31 Dec. 1864), Nicholson added that he had forgotten the variant of vinewed, which is fenowed or fennowed. ‘The last was doubtless the form chosen by Sh. in this passage.’”

[Ed:Furness seems to forget himself and include his observation with Nicholson’s, intruding into Nicholson’s quotation.]

3656 prophane and trennowed] Furness (ed. 1877): “Bailey (ii, 17) changes this whole passage thus: ‘only got the tune of the time, and out of the habit of encounter [got] a kind of yesty diction which . . . . the most profound and renowned opinions.’ In support, he adds: 1. That the verb ‘got’ governs both the ‘tune of the time’ and ‘a kind of yesty diction,’ the latter of which he persons concerned got, ‘out of the habir of encounter.’” 2. That diction has been used by Ham. just before in the phrase, ‘to make true diction of him.’ 3. That ‘most profound and renowned’ comes much nearer the old reading than ‘most fond and winnowed.’ Besides, most winnowed is not English. We should not say of one sack of wheat amongst several that it was the most winnowed, but that it was the best winnowed.”

3656 prophane and trennowed] Furness (ed. 1877): “Tschischwitz proposed and adopted in his text: ‘profound and winnowed,’ on the ground that two opposite ideas, like ‘fond’ and ‘winnowed,’ cannot be connected by ‘and’ so long as ‘most,’ by qualifying both, combined them in one idea. ‘People of Osric’s class are like chaff that is to be found in a deep and well-sifted heap of wheat.’”

3656 prophane and trennowed] Furness (ed. 1877): “Clarendon inclines to Tschischwitz’s reading: ‘profound and winnowed’ as affording a proper contrast with ‘yesty collection.’”

3656 prophane and trennowed] Moberly (apud Furness, ed. 1877): “‘A set of frothy expressions suited perpetually to express the absurdest and most over-refined notions.’”

3656 prophane and trennowed] Bulloch (1878, pp. 238-9) : <p. 238> “fond and winnowed]] The Globe edition prefixes the obelus to the word ‘fond,’ and the reader must be aware that this passage is a continuation of Hamlet’s opinion of Osric already commented on. The Cambridge editors make up their text partly from the Quarto and partly from the Folio readings. The ‘fond and winnowed’ of the passage is from the Folios, while the Quartos read ‘prophane and trennowed,’ ‘prophane and trennowned,’ ‘profane and trennowned,’ and a quarto (of 1676) reads ‘prophane and renowned’.

“I have no doubt that these several lections of Quarto and Folio had each an independent origin, at the same time there are errors in both. At first sight trennowed and winnowed would seem to be identical, but the variation trennowned disabuses one of that idea. This is now a misprint for renowned, but what shall be made of the other member of the clause, prophane? This looks like a misprint for prouen, and ‘proven and renowned’ opinions one cannot gainsay. But the author now seems to have changed his mind, and we have now ‘fond and winnowed’.

“The Cambridge notes intimate that Hanmer adopted ‘fann’d and winnowed’ (by Warburton). Johnson conjectured ‘sane and renowned’. a reading by Jennens is ‘profane and tres-renowned’. My own opinion as noticed by the Cambridge editors is ‘proven and renowned’. Another conjecture furnished to the editors but withheld as having been forestalled by Mason in the last century, and I merely conclude with what I wrote before the Cambridge Vol. VIII. </p. 238> <p. 239> appeared—I leave the matter with my readers to decide for themselves—

“Quarto reading ‘proven and renowned’; Folio reading, ‘sound and winnowed’.

“P.S. Bailey’s conjecture is ‘profound and renowned’.” </p. 239>

3656 prophane and trennowed] Hudson (ed. 1881): “Here, fond is affected. The passage is well explained in the Clarendon edition: ‘Osric, and other slike him, are compared to the chaff which mounts higher than the sifted wheat, and to the bubles which rise to the surface through the deeper water.’”

3656 prophane and trennowed] Hudson (ed. 1881): “ fond and winnowed]] So the folio. The second and third quartos have ‘most prophane and trennowed opinions’; the later quartos the same, except that they substitute trennowned for trennowed. Warburton changed the folio reading to ‘most fanned and winnowed opinions,’ which several editors have adopted. But surely fond gives a natural and fitting sense,—affected or conceited; while the sense of fanned is fully expressed by winnowed. See [n. 3656 above].”

3656 prophane and trennowed] Kinnear (1883, p. 412): <p. 412>“Compare [AWW 2.3.201-6 (1108-13)], Lafeu to Parolles,—’I did think thee, for two ordinaries, to be a pretty wise fellow; thou didst make tolerable vent of thy travel; it might pass:’—’I have now found thee.’ So Osric and the same bevy passed current with men, like Lafeu, of most experienced and shrewd judgment, till blown to their trial. The folio has ‘fond,’ which Delius, the Camb. eds., and the Clar. P. eds. retain, the two latter considering the text corrupt. the other compared eds. print ‘fanned,’ after Warburton. The quartos have ‘the most prophane and trenowed [and trenowned]’—the initial ‘w’ of ‘winnowed’ has been mistaken for ‘tri.’ For ‘fann’d’—compare [Cym.1.6.177 (795-7)]—’The love I bear him Made me to fan you thus; but the gods made you, Unlike all others, chaffless.’ </p. 412>

3656 prophane and trennowed] Mull (ed. 1885): “The editors are in doubt over the word ‘fond,’ the different readings in the early copies adding to the perplexity. Staunton and others have adopted the change proposed by Warburton, ‘the most fanned.’ The reading of the folio is ‘fond,’ but the quarto has ‘prophane trennowed,’ or ‘trennowned,’ about which the Cambridge editors (cln1) say, [cites cln1 from “both may . . . deep water”)

“Dr. MacDonald explains, [cites n. 3653-4 “They have only . . . judgments.”]

3656 prophane and trennowed] Symons (in Irving & Marshall, ed. 1890): “fond and winnowed]] This is the reading of Ff. Qq. have prophane and trennowed or trennowned. Warburton conjectured fann’d and winnowed; Tschischwitz profound and winnowed, which the Clarendon Press edd. incline to. Either of these emendations may possibly be right; but fond and winnowed gives very good sense (though the metaphor is certainly mixed):fond opinions, foolish and affected ones; winnowed opinions, carefully tested, select ones—through both of which the fool’s yesty collection (frothy fragments of fly-away knowledge) bears him indiscriminately.”

3656 trennowed] Craig (ed. 1891: Glossary): “winnowed]] adj. wise, sensible.”

3656 prophane and trennowed] Dowden (ed. 1899): “Fleay proposes fond unwinnowed.”

3656 prophane and trennowed] Dowden (ed. 1899): “The metaphor in ‘winnowed’ seems to me incidental and latent; the meaning is ‘Their frothy acquisitions carry them successfully through the slight judgments of the most exquisite arbiters elegantiarum.’ If we read fanned, the same remains the meaning.”

3656 prophane and trennowed]

3656 prophane] Neilson (ed. 1906, Glossary, fond): “fond]]

3656 prophane and trennowed] Craig (ed. 1931): “fond and winnowed]] trivial and sensible (W.J. Craig), i.e. the are not able to distinguish, and utter wisdom and folly with equal facility.”

3656 doe but blowe them, &c.]

3656 prophane and trennowed] Wilson (1934, 2:328-31): <p. 328>“The crux we are here concerned to solve is ‘prophane and trennowed’/’fond and winnowed’; but I have quoted the speech in which it occurs at length, in order that the whole context may be before us; and I have quoted it exactly as it appears in Q2 and F1, except for two corrections in the former (‘yisty’ for ‘histy’ and the additon of ‘complie’) and one in the latter (‘many’ for ‘mine’). Let us therefore glance for a moment in passing at a couple of other little cruxes which precede our main objective and which have already been summarily dealt with in common with other variants on pp. 281, 277 above. ‘Beauy’ [3652] which F1 prints instead of the Q2 ‘breede’ is certainly the true reading, not only because it is the pithier word, but because Horatio has just previously described Osric as a lapwing, and a company of lapwings would appropriately be called a ‘bevy’. And I suggest as an explanation of the Q2 ‘breede’ that the compositor, misreading ‘beuie’, set it up as ‘bead’, and that the corrector, imagining his junior had omitted a letter, wrote ‘breede’ in the margin, which </p. 328> <p. 329> thereupon got into the text. On the other hand, the F1 text is certainly wrong wrong in its ‘outward habite of encounter’ [3654] for which Q2 reads ‘out of an habit of incounter’, a variant that is as certainly right; since the former leaves ‘a kinde of yesty collection’ in mid air, with no very definite meaning, while the latter, by making it the subject of ‘got’, shows that the ‘yesty collection’ consists of Osric-like ‘flourishes’, whether of speech or manners, which are the fruit of nothing more serious than the encounters of gallants at court. Hamlet’s words thus rectified read, ‘Thus has he—and many more of the same bevy that I know the drossy age does on—only got the tune of the time and, out of a habit of encounter, a kind of yeasty collection, which carries them through and through the most . . . opinions’. In other words, Osric is one of those empty-headed persons who are universally accepted because of their fashionable manners and ready address, which they pick up in conversation with others.

“Having now the general sense of the passage, we may turn to ‘fond and winnowed opinions’ as the F1 prints it. A ‘winnowed opinion’ can, I think, only mean a well-tried judgment, from which the keen winds of experience have blown away the chaff, leaving nothing but the weighty grain of wisdom behind; and what Shakespeare clearly intends to convey, as Dr. Johnson and others have agreed, is that fribbles like Osric are able by their superficial polish to impose upon the very elect. But if this be so, then ‘fond’ (=foolish) is most inappropriate, and is indeed in direct contradiction to ‘winnowed’. Warburton accordinly proposed ‘fanned’ for ‘fond’, which in the spelling ‘fand’ would be graphically very similar, and pairs neatly enough with ‘winnowed’. On second thoughts, however, ‘fanned and winnowed’ is open to the same objection as ‘hyre and Sallery’ at 3.3.79, that is to say it is too tamely tautological for Shakespeare. Moreover, both these tame tautologies come from the suspect F1, and we have not yet </p. 329> <p. 330>seen what Q2 has to offer us. Well, of course, it gives us nonsense; that was to be expected. In place of the slick ‘fond and winnowed’ it reads the impossible ‘prophane and trennowed’. And yet, once again, this monstrosity represents no doubt what the incompetent compositor could trace out from the letters in Shakespeare’s manuscript before his eyes, so that it may not prove on examination so impossible as it looks. At any rate ‘trennowed’ is easy enough. Shakespeare had a habit sometimes, if the Three Pages of Sir Thomas Moore may be taken as a guide, of beginning an initial ‘w’ with a bold down-stroke, so that the letter might be mistaken for ‘tr’. The ‘trennowed’, I assume therefore without hesitation, is nothing but a misprint of ‘wennowed’, a Shakespearian spelling for ‘winnowed’. But ‘prophane and winnowed’ is almost as self-contradictory as ‘fond and winnowed’. Indeed ‘prophane’ is absurd as it stands, and is therefore also certainly a misprint. Yet, absurd as it may be, its very shape gives us one piece of definite information, viz. that, whatever word it was that Shakespeare wrote, it must have been one quite different in graphical form from the F1 ‘fond’. At this point nothing remains but the guess and its justification. My guess is ‘profound’ 1 and my justification is that this word, in its common contemporary spelling of ‘profond’, if written with one of Shakespeare’s undersized ‘d’s, would differ very little in appearance from ‘prophane’, which any compositor might set up as ‘prophane’, while ‘profound and winnowed opinions’ is just the reading which the context requires.

“The quality of a guess depends upon the point from which it springs and the materials it has to draw upon. ‘Profound’, then, is a better guess than ‘fanned’, which is only a guess upon a guess, seeing that the F1 ‘fond’ from which it derives is itself nothing but a guess on the part of a playhouse scribe. ‘Profound’, on the other hand, is an emenda- </p. 330> <p. 331>tion based on a compositor’s misreading of a word written by the hadn of Shakespeare himself; and it not only follows the ductus litterarum of that misreading, but it allows for the idiosyncrasies of the Q2 compositor and also for the idiosyncrasies of Shakespeare’s spelling and handwriting. It is a better guess, therefore, than the F1 ‘fond’, since that reading, as the form of the word shows, was not rightly a guess at all, although we owe it probably to Scribe P who knew Shakespeare’s handwriting and spelling well and may have been actually looking at Shakespeare’s manuscript as he wrote. It was, in fact, either the makeshift of a scribe who could not be bothered to puzzle out a difficult word on the page before him, or, if Scribe C be responsible, the careless shot of one who could not even be bothered to look at the page but trusted to a treacherous memory. The crux is an appropriate one to conclude with, since it offers an almost perfect example of the problem confronting an editor of Hamlet.” </p. 331>

<n> <p. 330> “1 Anticipated by Tschischwitz in 1869” </p. 330> </n>

3656 prophane] Ridley (ed. 1934, Glossary, fond):

3656 trennowed] Ridley (ed. 1934, Glossary, winnowed):

3656 prophane and trennowed] Wilson (ed. 1934): “profound and winnowed]] (Tschiwchwitz) Q2 ‘prophane and trennowed,’ F1 ‘fond and winnowed,’ MSH. pp. 328-31. Warburton and many edd. read ‘fanned and winnowed,’ which is to emend F1 and gives tautological sense. The right principle is to emend Q2. If Sh. wrote ‘profund’ or ‘profond,’ misreading as ‘profane’ would be easy.”

3656 and doe but blowe them] Wilson (ed. 1934): “After ‘winnowed’ the word ‘them’ (=Osric and his like) is emphatic. One puff of breath, and the froth is blown out of the vat.”

3656 prophane] Wilson (ed. 1934, Glossary, fond): “fond]]

3656 trennowed] Wilson (ed. 1934, Glossary): ‘winnowed]] tested, freed from inferior or worthless elements.”

3656 prophane and trennowed] Kittredge (ed. 1936): “Fann’d and winnowed are identical in sense. To emphasize and explain a word by adding and with a synonym is one of the commonest of rhetorical devices.1”

<n> “1 Cf. ‘high and palmy’ ([1.1.113 (124+24)]); ‘rank and gross’ ([1.2.136 (319)]); ‘free and bounteous ([1.3.93 (558)]); ‘traduc’d and tax’d’ ([1.4.18 (621+1)]); ‘knotted and combined’ ([1.5.18 (713)]); ‘whiff and wind’ ([2.2.495 (1515)]); ‘deject and wretched’ ([3.1.163 (1764)]); ‘holy and religious’ ([3.3.8 (2235)]); ‘delicate and tender’ ([4.4.48 (2743+39)]).” </n>

3656 prophane] Kittredge (ed. 1936, Glossary, fann’d):

3656 prophane and trennowed] fond and winnowed

3656 prophane and trennowed] Parrott (ed. 1938): “fanned and winnowed]] very select, like wheat with the chaff fanned and winnowed away.”

3656-57 blowe . . . out] Parrott (ed. 1938): “put them to a test.”

3656 prophane and trennowed] Rylands(ed. 1947):

3656 prophane and trennowed] Rylands(ed. 1947, Notes): “Q2 reads ‘prophane and trennowed.’ The best emendations are ‘fanned and winnowed’ [HAN1], meaning ‘sifted and considered’, or ‘profound and winnowed’ [CAM3].”

3656 trennowed] Alexander (ed. 1951, Glossary, winnowed): “select.”

3656 prophane and trennowed] Craig (ed. 1951): “. . . fond and winnnowed (trivial and sensible, so [GLO], following W.J. Craig); text [bev1’s text] follows Warburton.”

3656 doe but blowe them, &c.]

3656 prophane and trennowed] Sisson (1956, 2:228): <p. 228>“Folio reads fond and winnowed for prophane and trennowed, and clearly gives the true reading for trennowed, another example of the frequent confusion of w and tr. But fond is as irrelevant as the Quarto prophane. The sense requires an adjective to go with winnowed, ‘choice and well-tested’, in opposition to ‘shallow’. Kittredge and Alexander, after Warburton, read fanned, which is tautological, and difficult to explain as a basis for prophane ((though not for fond)). New Cambridge, Tschischwitz, reads profound, rightly as I think. The source of the error in Quarto is intelligible if Shakespeare wrote pfound or prophane; and in Folio if the compositor simply omitted the p from similar MS. copy and read fond, which gave a kind of sense, and is a pointer to the copy.”

3656 prophane and trennowed]

3656 prophane and trennowed]

3656 trennowed] winnowed]

3656 opinions]

3656 doe but blowe them, &c.]

3656 prophane and trennowed] Spencer (ed. 1980):

3656 prophane and trennowed] Jenkins (ed. 1982, Longer Notes, 564-5): <p. 564> “The problem caused by variants in both epithets is aggravated by the semantic flexibility of the other words in the context. Does the froth of fashionable clichés, in carrying the derided courtiers through and through, merely bear them along unimpeded, does it overcome opposition, does it even infect or permeate its environment? Are the opinions approved of, in contrast with the empty froth, or not? It is now generally accepted that Q2’s meaningless trennowed ((the renowned to which it was progressively emended having no textual status)) must be a misreading of winnowed ((F)), and that winnowed, referring to the process of separating wheat from chatt, is essentially a term of approbation. This is supported by Shakespearean usage in such phrases as ‘a winnowed purity’ (([Tro. 3.2.163])) and ‘Winnow the truth from falsehood’ (([Cym. 5.5.134])) and most notably in ‘Distinction, with a broad and powerful fan, Puffing at all, winnows the light [[=worthless]] away’ ((Tro. 1.3.27-8])). The favourable connotations of winnowed must override its association ((in F)) with fond, foolish, and exclude the suggestions of foppishness in such consequent interpretations as ‘over-refined’ ((Chambers)), ‘fantastic’ ((Verity)), ‘exquisite’ ((Dowden)); and an assumption that fond and winnowed may indicate opposites is discouraged by their being joined together by most and together set against yeasty. What I find persuasive, and indeed compelling, is Warburton’s emendation of fond to fanned. That Shakespeare thought of winnowing as effected by a fan appears from the Troilus passaged cited; and in [Cym. 1.6.176] he uses the verb fan in that sense ((Iachimo, testing Imogen, is made to fan her and finds her ‘chaffless’)). Among Shakespeare’s contemporaries the synonyms fanned and winnowed were infrequently combined: Googe’s translation of Heresbach’s Four Books of Husbandry ((1577)) speaks of corn’s being ‘often fanned and winnowed’ and of ‘the often fannying and wynnowing’ as a remedy against weevils ((p. 43)); Markham’s Art of Husbandry ((1631)) takes over the same phrasing ((pp. 77-8)) and adds two instances of ‘fanned ((or fan’d)) and winnowed’ of its own ((pp. 18, 76)); Markham’s English Husbandman ((1613)) instructs that grain intended for seed ‘must be winnowed, fand, and drest so cleane as is possible’ ((p. 31)). Against such evidence of usage dover Wilson’s objection that fanned and winnowed is tautologous must, I think, give way; and his other objection that it errs against textual principle by emending F isntead of seeking the guidance of the more authoritative Q2 ((MSH, pp. 329-31)) overlooks the relationship of fanned to the Q2 prophane. He preferred to revive</p. 564> <p. 565>an earlier conjecture and emend prophane to profound ((cf. Bailey, ii. 17)), which he envisages spelt profond or profund. But fanned and profound are of equal textual status in that either, postulated as the reading of Shakespeare’s manuscript, requires us to suppose that Q2 and F give variant misreadings of it. Is it not the more likely thing, in view of the established association with winnowed, that the manuscript had fanned, spelt fand, as it is indeed in Markham ((see above)) and in Shakespeare’s own MND ((Q1 [3.2.142])), and that the word went twice unrecognized, being in the one case corrupted to fond and in the other, with the familiar confusion of d and e, misread as fane? It is at least as likely that the prefix pro- was supplied by the Q2 compositor, of whose willingness to guess this passage gives other evidence, as that it was dropped in the F transmission.” </p. 565>

3656 doe but blowe them, &c.] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “This continues the metaphor of yeasty: when you put Osric and his like to the test by as much as blowing on them, the bubbles burst, i.e. when you try to converse with them their fine phrases are shown to be empty of substance or thought.”

3656 prophane and trennowed] profane and winnowed]]

3656 prophane] Wilkes (ed. 1984): "widely experienced."

3656 Trennowed] winnowed Wilkes (ed. 1984): "tested."

3656 prophane and trennowed] Edwards (ed. 1985): “fanned and winnowed]] Synonyms for blowing the chaff off the grain. ‘fanned’ is Warburton’s emendation for F’s ‘fond’. Probably Shakespeare wrote ‘fand’. The Q2 compositor saw this as ‘fane’. The MS. must have been dirty or tattered; he thought he had the end of the word profane’. He could not read ‘winnowed’ either, and came out wildly with ‘prophane and trennowed’.

“The image is of a frothy mass working its way through refined material to the top, where it appears as mere bubbles which can be blown away. The superficial qualities of people like Osric takes them through the society of superior people, but they cannot last, and when they are tested, their hollowness reveals itself.”

3656 prophane and trennowed]

3656 and doe] Hibbard (ed. 1987): “yet do ((OED conj. 7b)).”

3656 doe but blowe them, &c.]

3656 prophane and trennowed]fanned and winnowed

3656 doe but blowe them, &c.]

3656 prophane and trennowed] fond and winnow’d Andrews (ed. 1989):”foolish and winnowed-out ((empty, chaff-like)) opiinions.”

3656 doe but blowe them, &c.]

3656 and doe] OEDb. Adversative: yet, but. Obs. OE West Saxon Gospels: Matt. (Corpus Cambr.) xii. 7 Ic wylle mildheortnesse [and ]na ons[ae diagraph]gdnysse. c1300 Havelok (Laud) (1868) 789 Hauelok was war [th]at grim swank sore For his mete, and he lay at hom. ?a1425 (c1400) Mandeville’s Trav. (Titus C. 16) 33 [Th]ei wenen [th]at [th]ei han bawme [and] [th]ei haue non. 1481 CAXTON tr. Hist. Reynard Fox (1970) 65 He complayneth and I playne not. a1500 (a1415) J. MIRK Festial (Gough) 33 Hor seruandys..gon yn ryche araye, and [th]ay homselfe yn pore wede. 1611 Bible (A.V.) Matt. xxii. 30 Hee said, I goe sir, and went not. [etc.]