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

Line 73 - 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.

73 Of mine owne eies.	1.1.58

1857 fieb

fieb

73 mine] Fiebig (ed. 1857): “Shakespeare continually uses mine instead of my, before a vowel, for the sake of euphony, though now it would be judged to be clearly ungrammatical. See thine p. 14.4) [he may mean 249]. Compare the following instance of it, in [Ham. 722, 748, 2331]. In Milton, also; close at mine ear. In Addison too, in the Spectator, No. 195, on prescribing a rule for drinking:—The first glass for myself, the second for my friends, the third for good humour, and the fourth for mine enemies.”

1929 trav

trav ≈ fieb without attribution + in magenta underlined

73 mine] Travers (ed. 1929): Sh often uses mine instead of my before a vowel “and then pronounced with “i” short, so that it glided unemphatically . . . on to the next word (often “own,” as here).”

1939 kit2

kit2

see n. 71

1990 Kliman

Kliman: OED; Bowers

73 mine] 73 appears to be the 1st instance in Ham. of mine as an adjective followed by a word with a vowel. The rule, according to OED, was that before a following vowel or h, mine was the appropriate form, through the 18thc, though it now sounds archaic. Note: my and mine were both available for use in 1600 as the appropriate word to precede a vowel. Therefore it seems that little can be made about genealogy through using the distinction. Bowers (“Relation [1]”) lists three instances of difference in his appendix A (all in 1.5) but does not list many others. My summary is as follows: Q2 has mine three times where F1 has something else (sometimes because of a change in the following word), F1 has mine sixteen times when Q2 doesn’t have it. And they have it in common 13 times.