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

Line 124+5 - 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.

124+5 { Hora. A moth it is to trouble the mindes eye:}

1572 Lavater

Lavater

124+5-124+13 Lavater (1572, apud Wilson, 1935, p.77): “‘Before the alterations and chaunges of kingdomes and in the time of warres, seditions, and other dangerous seasons, ther most commonly happen very straunge things in the aire, in the earth, & amongst liuing creatures clean contrary to the vsuall course of nature. [. . . ]

“‘Many signs and wonders happen before the deathe of greate Princes. It is wel knowen by histories, what signes went before the deathe of Iulius Caesar, [. . . ].’

<n. 2> “Lavater, [ed. Wilson and Yardley for Sh. Soc., 1929] pp. 80-1. ” </n. 2>

1729-30 mtheo2

mtheo2

124+5 the mindes eye] Theobald (1 Jan. 1730, fol. 4r): “Scholiast upon the passage of AEsculus expounds dedoeca by these Termes, [Greek].

1780 mals1

mals1

124+5 the mindes eye] Malone (1780, 1:672 n. 7), on Son. 113: “—mine eye is in my mind,]] We meet the same phrase in Hamlet: [quotes 374] Again, in [Luc. 1426] ‘Was left unseen, save to the eye of mind.’ Malone.”

1790 mal

mal:

124+5 moth] Malone (ed. 1790): “A moth was only the old spelling of mote, as I suspected in revising a passage in [Jn. 4.1.91 (1670)]. See a note on the passage referred to, in the Appendix, Vol. X.”

mal

124+5 moth] Malone (ed. 1790, 4:526), on Jn. 4.1.91 (1670), says, “Our author, who has borrowed so much from the sacred writings, without doubt remembered,—‘And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye,’ &c. [Matthew 7.3]. So in Hamlet: [and he quotes]. A mote is a small particle of straw or chaff. It is likewise used by old writers for an atom.

“So also, in the preface to Lodge’s Incarnate Devils of the Age, 4to. 1596: ‘—they are in the aire, like atomi in sole, mothes in the sonne.’ See also Florio’s Italian Dict. 1598: ‘Festucco.—a moth, a little beam.”

mal

124+5 moth] Malone (ed. 1790, Appendix, 10:616-17): <p. 616> “In my note on this passage [in Jn.] I mentioned that I thought we ought to read mote, and I have since found my conjecture confirmed. Moth was merely the old spelling of mote. In the passage quoted from Hamlet [quotes 124+5] </p. 616><p. 617>the word is spelt moth in the original copy, as it is here. So also, in the preface to Lodge’s Incarnate Devils of the Age, 4to. 1596: ‘—they are in the aire, like atomi in sole, mothes in the sonne.’ See also Florio’s Italian Dict. 1598: ‘Festucco.—a moth, a little beam.” </p. 617>

1791- rann

rann ≈ mals1

124+5 the mindes eye] Rann (ed. 1791-): “ ‘—In my mind’s eye.’ [374] Ham. ”

—“save to the eye of mind. Poems, p. 554 [Luc. 1426.]

—“Mine eye is in my mind.” Poems, p. 672

1793 v1793

v1793: mal Jn. 8:122 n.6 [Jn. [4.1.91 (1670)]

124+5 the mindes eye]

1803 v1803

v1803 = v1793

124+5 the mindes eye]

1813 v1813

v1813 = v1803

124+5 the mindes eye]

1819 cald1

cald1:mal, mal Jn. note +

24+5 moth] Caldecott (ed. 1819): Moth is throughout our author, [MND 5.1.318 (2112)] Dem. [Jn. 4.1. 91 (1670)] Arth. & [H5 4.1.179 (2027)], the reading for mote or atom. . . . [mal references] ‘ Mowghe, tinea’ in Prompt. parvulor. is in Ortus Vocabulor, spelt mought.

1821 v1821

v1821 =v1813

124+5 the mindes eye]

1822 Nares

Nares: standard

124+5 moth] Nares (1822): “A mote, or atom, any very small object; clearly a corruption of mote, which is so spelt in some of these examples. [quotes 124+5]. So it stands in the quarto of 1611. [quotes Jn.4.1.91 (1670) from F1; H5 4.1.179 (2027), Lodge’s Inc. Dev. Pref.].”

1832 cald2

cald2 = cald1 w/ italics in magenta

124+5 moth] Caldecott (ed. 1832): Moth is throughout our author, [MND 5.1.318 (2112)] Dem. [Jn. 4.1. 91 (1670)] Arth. & [H5 4.1.179 (2027)], the reading for mote or atom. . . . [mal references] ‘ Mowghe, tinea’ in Prompt. parvulor. is in Ortus Vocabulor, spelt mought.”

1843- mLewes

mLewes

124+5 Lewes (1843-): “Why this absurd change? a mote is the consecrated expression,” referring evidently to Matt. 7.3.

1844 Dyce

Dyce

124+5 moth] Dyce (1844, p. 204): “Here Mr. Knight (like Caldecott) very injudiciously prefers the reading of the first quarto, ‘moth,’ —which is merely the old spelling of mote!—yet, with the greatest inconsistency, he prints mote in [Jn. 4.1.91 (1670)]; [quotes] where all the old editions have ‘moth.’”

-1845 mHunter

mHunter

124+5 mindes eye] Hunter (-1845, fol. 221v): “We may observe as a perculiarity in Shakspeare that he has sometimes a favorite idea which he repeats in the same play & is then not used again. ‘Mind’s eye’ is one, which is [?] soon after repeated ‘In my mind’s eye Horatio.’ [374]”

1869 Galaxy

White

124+5 moth] White (1869, p. 551): re Jn. 4.1.91 (1670): “This spelling is consequent upon the pronunciation of th as t in Shakespeare’s time, which was asserted in the New England edition, to be denied stoutly in several quarters, by Mr. Marsh among others; but he having become convinced of the soundness of the opinion in question, with his usual candor, acknowledged his error.”

1870 rug1

rug1

124+5 moth] Moberly (ed. 1870): “A small matter as compared with the great things which it portends.”

1872 cln1

cln1: mal on Matthew + Luke, // in LLL

124+5 moth] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “spelt moth in three of the early quartos. See Matthew vii. 3. 4. 5, Luke vi. 41. 42, and Love’s Labour’s Lost, [LLL 4.3.159 (1498)], where quartos and folios read moth: ‘You found his mote; the king your mote did see; but I a beam, do find in each of three.’

1877 v1877

v1877 = mal largely from App., some from Jn.

124+5 moth]

modern spelling moth; Lodge; Florio.

1878 rlf1

rlf1: standard on alternate spelling and wh without attribution on pronunciation + // AYL p. 179

124+5 moth]

1880 meik

meik ≈ rug1 without attribution

124+5 moth] Meikeljohn (ed. 1880): “a small matter as compared with the significance of the things it portends.”

1890 irv2

irv2: Florio ≈ mal without attribution

124+5 moth]

1899 ard1

ard1: standard on obsolete sp.

124+5 moth]

1903 rlf3

rlf3 = rlf1 minus //

124+5 moth]

1904 ver

ver

124+5 Verity (ed. 1904): “i.e. a thing as troubling to the mental vision as a particle of dust is to the natural eye. Horatio is not belittling the incident.”

1912 dtn3

dtn3

124+5 Deighton (ed. 1912): “it (sc. the apparition) like a mote in the eye, which, minute as it is, causes that organ infinite pain, perplexes and molests our mental sight.”

dtn3: mal Lodge, standard gloss

124+5 mote] Deighton (ed. 1912): “a particle of dust, speck, formerly spelt moth.”

1929 trav

trav

124+5 mote] Travers (ed. 1929): “Horatio characteristically reduces to scale, so to say, the incident that has just taken place—without denying its ominous nature.”

1934 cam3

cam3 ≈ rug without attribution; cln1 // without attribution + in magenta underlined

124+5 moth] Wilson (ed. 1934): “Q2 ‘moth’—a common sp. cf. [LLL 4.3.158 (1498)]. Hor., recovering his balance, belittles the Ghost; the apparition, he says, is nothing to what happened before Caesar’s death or to more recent portents.”

1934 rid1

rid1: standard

124+5 moth] Ridley (ed. 1934, Glossary): “mote”

1935 Wilson

Wilson WHH

124+5-124+13 Wilson (1935, p.77) contrasts Horatio’s bookish knowledge of spirits (possibly via Lavater) to Marcellus’s folk knowledge.

1937 pen1

pen1: standard

124+5 Harrison (ed. 1937): “Here Horatio the scholar speaks from his reading of Roman history.”

1939 kit2

kit2: standard

124+5 moth] Kittredge (ed. 1939): "mote: a speck of dust. Cf. Matthew, vii, 3."

1947 cln2

cln2

124+5 moth] Rylands (ed. 1947): “speck of dust, mere nothing.”

1950 Tilley

Tilley

124+5 moth] Tilley (1950, M 1189): “He is a mote in their eyes 1600 P. Holland Rom. Hist. Livy I, p. 33: Then every day more than other began Tullius to be a continual mote in their eies.”

1957 pel1

pel1

: standard

124+5 moth] mote Farnham (ed. 1957): “speck of dust.”

1970 pel2

pel2 = pel1: standard

124+5 moth] moteFarnham (ed. 1970): “speck of dust”

1982 ard2

ard2 contra Wilson MSH; ≈ ver without attribution; : Tilley M 1189; standard on spelling; xrefs

124+5 Jenkins (ed. 1982): “ [. . . ] an irritation in the (mind’s) eye. [. . . ]”

ard2: Hugh of St. Cher, on Paslm 4.4 (Vulgate, Basle, 1904)

124+5 trouble] Jenkins (ed. 1982), after an analogue about future portents, concludes: “The emphasis, however, is on present perplexity rather than on future clarification.”

1985 cam4

cam4 ≈ ard2 without attribution

124+5 moth] Edwards (ed. 1985): “Like an irritant in the eye, it disturbs and perplexes the mind, which cannot see ahead clearly.”

1987 oxf4

oxf4

124+5 mote] Hibbard (ed. 1987) points out that though Sh. uses a proverbial expression, he extends it by making the mote irritate the mind’s eye, a phrase that OED records as the first use (eye sb. 1 4d).

1995 OED

OED

124+5 mote] OED: Jn. [4.1.91 (1670)]: “O heauen: that there were but a moth in yours, A graine, a dust, a gnat, a wandering haire, Any annoyance in that precious sense:”

2006 ard3q2

ard3q2: Shaheen

124+5 moth] mote Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “piece of grit or dust. Horatio presumably doesn’t mean to underestimate the significance of the Ghost but to see it as a serious cause for concern. Shaheen cites the biblical parable, ’Let me pul out the mote that is in thine eye’ (Luke, 6.42) and ’Why seest thou the mote, that is in thy brother’s eye? ’ (Matthew, 7.3).”

ard3q2

124+5 mindes eye] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “This instance and Hamlet’s line at [374] are the first uses of this phrase recorded by OED, but the basic metaphor is a traditional one in classical, medieval and Renaissance texts.”

2007 Wilson

Wilson: contra Kernan (1995) [see play as a whole]

124+5 Wilson (2007, p. 237): “ . . . something distressing has entered peripheral vision with the Jacobean Quarto that was not there in the Elizabethan text [Q1, 1603], and will be censored from the Folio. And this irritation, topical allusions to the king and his Oldenburg relations imply, is the ’swinish’ [621+3] reality of the new Stuart monarchy, with those ’heavy-headed revels’ [621+1]. . . . [W]hat cannot be cut from Hamlet [as the Q2-only lines are cut in act 1] is a rising apprehension, as the new age dawns, of the disaster of Stuart rule.”