410 motion] Hawkins (apud ed. 1765, App. Hh7v-Hh8r), re LLL 1:197: <p. Hh7v> “Oh! excellent motion, &c.” “I think this passage requires a note, as every reader does not know. that motiom.in the language of Shakespeare’s days, </p. Hh7v> <p. Hh8r> signifies puppet. In Ben Johnson’s Bartholemew Fair, it is frequently used in that sense, or rather, perhaps, to signify a puppet shew; the master whereof may properly said to be an interpreter, as being the explainer of the inarticulate language of the actors: . . . .” </p. Hh8r>

410 motion] Malone (1780, 1:548 n.9) comments on Luc. line 1326: “The heavy motion that it doth behold” that Sh. “seems to have been thinking of the Dumb-shows, which were exhibited on the stage in his time. Motion, in old language, signified a puppet-show; and the person who spoke for the puppets was called an interpreter. So in [Tim. 1.1.33 (47)]: ‘—to the dumbness of the gesture One might interpret.’ Malone.”

410 addresse] Caldecott (ed. 1819): “Make ready. See [MND 5.1.106 (1903)]. Phil.”

410 addresse]

410 Delius (ed. 1854): “es machte eine Bewegung, als ob es sprechen wollte.” [It made a motion as if it would speak.]

410 it] Craik (1864, rpt. 1902, pp. 160-71): <p. 161>“The word Its does not occur in the authorized translation of the Bible; its place is always supplied either by His or by Thereof. [. . .] Its, however, is found in Shakespeare. There is one instance [and only one, according to Rolfe, where it is not spelled it’s, with an apostrophe] in [MM 1.2.4 (100)] [. . .]. But the most remarkable of the Plays in regard to this particular is probably [WT 2.3.180 (1112); </p. 161> <p. 162> and other passages] . </p. 162> <p. 163> “[L]ong before its was generally received, we have it self commonly printed as two words, evidently under the impression that it was a possessive [. . .]. And even now we do not write itself. [. . .] There is also one passage in the English Bible, Levit. xxv, 5, in which the reading of the original edition is ‘of it own accord.’ The modern reprints give ‘its.’ </p. 163><p. 164> Dr. Trench, in his English, Past and Present, doubts whether Milton has once admitted its into Paradise Lost, ‘although, when that was composed, others frequently allowed it.” But he does use it occasionally, e.g. ‘The mind is its own place’—Par. Lost i, 254 . . . . Generally, however, he avoids the word, and easily manages to do so by personifying most of his substantives; it is only when this cannot be done that he reluctantly accepts the services of the little parvenu monosyllable.” Bacon frequently has his in the neuter. “Dr. Trench notices the fact of the occurrence of its in Rowley’s Poems as decisive against their genuineness.” </p. 164> [The rest of this is from Furness’s paraphrase:] The modern practice is the last of three distinct stages through which the language passed, as to this use of its, in the course of less than a century. First, we have his serving for both masculine and neuter; secondly, we have his restricted to the masculine, and the neuter left with hardly any recognized form; thirdly, we have the defect of the second stage remedied by the frank adoption of the heretofore rejected its. And the most curious thing of all in the history of the word its is the extent to which. before its recognition as a word admissible in serious composition, even the occasion for its employment was avoided or eluded. This is very remarkable in Sh. The very conception which we express by its probably does not occur once in his works for ten times that it is to be found in any modern writer. So that we may say the invention or adoption of this form has changed not only our English style, but even our manner of thinking. The Saxon personal pronoun was, in the nominative singular, He, masculine; He, feminine; Hit, neuter. He we still retain; for Hewe have substituted She, apparently a modification of Se, the feminine of the demonstrative; Hit we have converted into It (though the aspirate is still often heard in the Scottish dialect). The genitive was Hire for the feminine (whence our modern Her), and His both for the masculine and the neuter. It is to be understood, of course, that its, however convenient, is quite an irregular formation; the t of it (originally hit) is merely the sign of the neuter gender, which does not enter into the inflection, leaving the natural genitive of that gender (hi, hi-s) substantially identical with that of the masculine (he, he-s, hi-s).”

410 like as] Abbott (§ 107): “As, like ‘an’ (§ 102), appears to be (though it is not) used by Shakespeare for as if . . . . the ‘if’ is implied in the subjunctive. [quotes Mac. 1.4.11 (291) and paraphrases] . . . .”

§ 102, a discussion of and, clarifies § 107. It is not the As that contains the subjunctive sense if but the subjunctive verb that follows (or precedes). In the case of 410, the subjunctive is contained in the would.

410 like as] Abbott (§ 116): “As, like ‘that’ (see 287), is used as a conjunctional suffix: sometimes being superfluously added to words that are already conjunctions.”

410 as] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “as if. Compare Hamlet [988], and [Lr. 3.4.15 (1796)]: ‘Is it not as this mouth should tear this hand For lifting food to’t?’ See also [Oth. 3.3.77 (1677)], and [Ant. 3.13.85 (2254)].”

410 it] Craik (1864, page apud Furness, ed. 1877): “The word its does not occur in the authorized translation of the Bible; it is, however, found in Sh. There is one instance [and only one, according to Rolfe, where it is not spelled it’s, with an apostrophe] in [MM 1.2.4 (100)]. But the most remarkable of the plays in this particular is [WT 2.3.180 (1112); 3.2.101 (1280); [Jn. 2.1.160 (461)] . . . . There is also one passage in the English Bible, Levit. xxv, 5, in which the reading of the original edition is ‘of its own accord.’ The modern reprints give ‘its.’ [Rolfe adds: In the Geneva Bible, 1579, we have ‘it owne accorde,’ in Acts, xii, 10]. Trench (English Past and Present) doubts whether Milton has once admitted its into Paradise Lost, ‘although, when that was composed, others frequently allowed it.” But he does use it occasionally, e.g. ‘The mind is its own place’—Par. Lost i, 254 . . . . Generally, however, he avoids the word, and easily does so by personifying most of his substantives; it is only when this cannot be done that he reluctantly accepts the services of the little parvenu monosyllable. Bacon has frequently his in the neuter. Trench notices the fact of the occurrence of its in Rowley’s Poems as decisive against their genuineness. The modern practice is the last of three distinct stages through which the language passed, as to this use of its, in the course of less than a century. First, we have his serving for both masculine and neuter; secondly, we have his restricted to the masculine, and the neuter left with hardly any recognized form; thirdly, we have the defect of the second stag remedied by the frank adoption of the heretofore rejected its. And the most curious thing of all in the history of the word its is the extent to which. before its recognition as a word admissible in serious composition, even the occasion for its employment was avoided or eluded. This is very remarkable in Sh. The very conception which we express by its probably does not occur once in his works for ten times that it is to be found in any modern writer. So that we may say the invention or adoption of this form has changed not only our English style, but even our manner of thinking. The Saxon personal pronoun was, in the nominative singular, He, masculine; He, feminine; Hit, neuter. He we still retain; for Hewe have substituted She, apparently a modification of Se, the feminine of the demonstrative; Hit we have converted into It (though the aspirate is still often heard in the Scottish dialect). The genitive was Hire for the feminine (whence our modern Her), and His both for the masculine and the neuter. It is to be understood, of course, that its, however convenient, is quote an irregular formation; the t of it (originally hit) is merely the sign of the neuter gender, which does not enter into the inflection, leaving the natural genitive of that gender (hi, hi-s) substantially identical with that of the masculine (he, he-s, hi-s).”

410 like as] Furness (ed. 1877): “As if.”

410 like as]

410 to . . . would]

Blake (2002) discusses self separate and attached. I may try to find this. It’s bf p. 82.