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

Line 478 - 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.

478 And now no soyle nor cautell doth besmirch	1.3.15

-1547 Henry VIII Statute

Henry VIII Statute

478 cautell] Henry VIII Statute, quoted by Froude, 1:60, apud Cunningham, 5: 436): “compassed and practised by cautill, and subtle means,”

Ed. note: The Froude note is from an additional note in the 1860 rpt of Gifford’s Ben Jonson.

1590 Swinburn

Swinburn

478 cautell] Swinburn (apud Rushton (1869), apud Furness, ed. 1877).

1611 Cotgrave

Cotgrave

478 cautell] Cotgrave (1611, apud Furness, ed. 1877): “Cautelle: A wile, cautell, sleight: a craftie reach, or fetch, guileful deuise or endeuer; also, craft, subtiltie, trumperie, deceit, cousenage.”

1710 Gildon

Gildon

478 cautell] Gildon (ed. 1710, lxviii, printed as v. 7 of rowe1): cautless = uncautious.

Gildon

478 besmirch] Gildon (ed. 1710, lxviii, printed as v. 7 of rowe1): Besmirch’d = Daub’d &c.

1725 pope1

Sewell 7: liii = Gildon w/o attribution

478 cautell]

Sewell 7: liii = Gildon w/o attribution

478 besmirch]

1728 pope2

Sewell 10: 53b = Gildon w/o attribution

478 cautell]

Sewell 10: 53a = Gildon w/o attribution

478 besmirch]

1729/30 mtheo2

mtheo2

478 cautell] Theobald (14 March 1730, fol. 57; Nichols, Illus. 2:559): “I do not know what our Author means by this word here: or, if derived from Cautela, how it can accord with the sense to be required here.”

Ed. note: Theobald’s question inspired Warburton’s opinion; see below in theo1

1733 theo1

theo1

478 cautell] Warburton (apud ed. 1733): “Cautel, from Cautela, in its first deriv’d Signification means a prudent Foresight, or Caution: In its first deriv’d Signification means a prudent Foresight, or Caution; But when we naturalize a Latin Word into our Tongue, we do not think ourselves oblig’d to use it in its precise, native Signification. So here, traductively, ‘tis employ’d to mean, Deceit, Craft, Insincerity. And in these Acceptations we find our Author using the Adjective from it, in his [JC 2.l.129 (760)]. ‘Swear Priests, and Cowards, and Men cautelous.’

“In the like Manner the French use their cauteleux ; by which they understand, ruse, trompeur : and Minshew [1617] has explain’d the word Cautel thus, a crafty Way to deceive. Mr. Warburton.”

1744 han1

han1:

478 cautell] Hanmer (ed. 1743, Glossary), with reference to Ham. 478: “An ill designing Craft in order to ensnare. So cautelous [5:155], Crafty, Cunning, Deceitful. So is the French Couteleux always used in a bad sense, dangerously artificial.”

han1

478 besmirch] Hanmer (ed. 1743, 6: Glossary): “to besmear, to foul, to dirty.”

1747 warb

warb = Warberton in theo1 minus Minshew

478-9 no soyle . . . will] Warburton (ed. 1747): “From cautela, which signifies only a prudent foresight or caution; but, passing thro’ French hands, it lost its innocence, and now signifies fraud, deceit. And so he uses the adjective in [JC 2.l.129 (760)], ‘Swear priests and cowards and men cautelous.’ But I believe Shakespear wrote, ‘And now no soil of cautel —’ which the following words confirm, ‘—doth besmerch The virtue of his will: —’ For by virtue is meant the simplicity of his will, not virtuous will: and both this and besmerch refer only to soil, and to the soil of craft and insincerity.”

1765 Heath

Heath: warb

478-9 no soyle . . . will] Heath (1765, p. 525): “The common reading was, ‘And now no soyle, or cautel doth besmerch.’ That is, And at present no unlawful soil or insidious deceit stain the virtuous purity of his intentions. What occasion can there possibly be for altering this?”

1765 john1

john1 = warb +

478-9 no soyle . . . will] Johnson (ed. 1765) also rejects Warburton’s emendation: “Virtue seems here to comprise both excellence and power, and may be explained the pure effect.”

Ed. note: Johnson’s Warburton note appears to come from warb because he doesn’t have Minshew.

john1 2H4

478 soyle] Johnson (ed. 1765, 3:333) on 2H4 4.5.189 (2724): “Soil is spot, dirt, turpitude, reproach.”

1773- mSteevens

mSteevens

478 besmirch] Steevens (1773-): “To besmirch is to soil or discolour.”

1774 capn

capn

478 soyle] Capell (1774, 1:1:124): “is—soil of lust.”

1778 v1778

v1778 = v1773 +

478 cautell] Steevens (ed. 1778): “So, in the second part of Greene’s Art of Coney-catching, 1592: ‘—and their subtill cautels to amend the statute.’ To amend the statute was the cant phrase for evading the law. ”

1783 mals2

mals2

478 cautell] Malone (1783, p. 55): “This word is again used in our author’s Lover’s Complaint [303]: ‘In him a plenitude of subtle matter, Applied to cautels, all strange forms receives.’”

1785 v1785

v1785 = v1778; mals2

478 cautell]

1785 Mason

Mason: han without attribution +

478 cautell] Mason (1785, p. 375): “Cautel means craft. So Coriolanus says [4.1.31 (2469)]: ‘Your son will or exceed the common, Or be caught by cautelous baits and practice.’ ”

1787 ann

ann = v1785

478 cautell]

1790 mal

mal = v1785 minus most of warb; what’s left of warb without attribution

478 cautell]

1791- rann

rann: standard gloss; Mason Cor. // without attribution

478-9 no soyle . . . will] Rann (ed. 1791-): “no base plan of perfidy stains the sincerity of his attachments.”

1793 v1793

v1793 = v1785; mal; Mason

478 cautell]

1803 v1803

v1803 = v1793

478 cautell]

1813 v1813

v1813 = v1803

478 cautell]

1816 Gifford

Gifford’s Ben Jonson

478 cautell] Gifford (1816, rpt. 1860, 5:32): On cautelus in The Devil is an Ass, 1.3. “Our old writers seem to have included in this word not only the sense of wariness, but also of something artful and insidious, ingrafted upon it. In many instances, I will not say in all, it is clearly distinguished from cautious . . . . ”

1819 cald1

cald1 ≈ rann without attribution

478-9 no soyle . . . will] Caldecott (ed. 1819): “And now no spot, nor mental reservation, tarnishes the sincerity and clear purity of his intentions.”

cald1: han without attribution +

478 besmirch] Caldecott (ed. 1819): “Besmirch is besmear or sully. See [2863] Laert.; & [H5 4.3.110 (2357)] K. Hen.”

1821 v1821

v1821 =v1813

478 cautell]

1826 sing1

sing1: warb without attribution, including def., Minshew with attribution; mals2 without attribution on // Luc.; Mason without attribution on Cor.

478 cautell]

sing1: standard

478 besmirch]

1832 cald2

cald2 = cald1 minus Steevens; +

478-9 no soyle . . . will] Caldecott (ed. 1832): “‘Crafty way to deceave.’ Minshieu. ‘Breakinge his faithfull promise; through which cautell the Gothes were deceyved.’ Arth. Goldyng’s Aretine’s Warres betw. the Imperialists and Gothes. 8vo. 1563. p. 93, b. ‘We say, that a theft, or pickerie is done with a good grace when the cautels and subtilties of thieves and thieving is well observed.’ North’s Philbert’s Philosopher of the Court, 18 mo. 1575. p. 95. See ‘caught with cautelous baits and practise.’ [Cor. 4.1.33 (2474)] C.

cald2

479 vertue of his will . . . feare ] Caldecott (ed. 1832): “By giving a reading, which could not otherwise have been ascertained, the value of the quartos is felt. The reading of the folios is plainly a misprint of the by the eye catching, and giving the same word twice. And see ‘better heed and judgment’ [1009] instead of speed, the reading of the folios; and the omission of a line, necessary to the sense, ‘Whether ought, to us unknown, &c.’ [1036+1] King.”

1833 valpy

valpy: standard

478 cautell] Valpy (ed. 1833): “Subtlety, deceit.”

valpy

478 besmirch] Valpy (ed. 1833): “Discolor.”

1839 knt1

knt1: standard

478 soyle] Knight (ed. 1839): “Soil, is a spot;

knt1: standard

478 cautell] Knight (ed. 1839): “a crafty way to deceive;

knt1: standard

478 besmirch] Knight (ed. 1839): “to sully.”

1843 col1

col1

478 besmirch] Collier (ed. 1843, Glossary, 1: ccxcii): “besmeared, soiled, [4:542; 7:213]. See also ‘Smirched.’” There he says, “dirtied, soiled, [2:235, 246; 3:26; 4:542; 7:213]. See also ‘Besmirched.’”

col1

478 besmirch] Collier (ed. 1843): “‘Besmirch,’ in the previous line, is a word which has frequently occurred before ([2:235, 246; 3:26; and 4:542]) with the same meaning, viz. soiled or sullied.

1854 del2

del2: standard

478-9 no soyle . . . will] Delius (ed. 1854): “Der Tugend oder Reinheit seines Verlangens wird hier als Gegensatz soil und cautel, ‘Flecken und Arglist’ gegenübergestelt.” [The sinfulness or purity of his desire is here, in contrast, opposed to soil and cautel, ‘spots and guile.]

1856 hud1

hud1 = sing1, on cautel and besmirch, without attribution

478-9 no soil . . . will]

1856 sing2

sing2 = sing1 for cautell and besmirch

478-9 no soil . . . will]

sing2 ≈ cald2 without attribution

479 vertue of his will] Singer (ed. 1856): “The folio erroneously prints fear instead of will which is found in all the quartos.”

1858 col3

col3 = col1

1860 stau

stau standard

478 cautell] Staunton (ed. 1860): “Crafty circumspection.”

stau standard + in magenta underlined

479 virtue] Staunton (ed. 1860): “Virtue here seems to import essential goodness: as we speak of the virtues of herbs, &c. ”

1861 wh1

wh1 ≈ warb without attribution

478 cautell] White (ed. 1861): “a degraded relative of ‘caution,’ means deceit, craft.”

1865 hal

hal = cald2 +

478 cautell] Halliwell (ed. 1865): “‘In which you should finde suche corrections, such frsutrations, suche anticipations and cautelles, as the studient had every daie neede of a newe memorie to consider of his new coate clauses.’—Don Simonides, second part, 1584.”

Ed. note: TLN 365 has the above spelling of studient.

1866 dyce2

dyce2: standard

478 cautell] Dyce (ed. 1866, Glossary): “Craft, deceit.”

1868 c&mc

c&mc: standard

478 cautell]

c&mc: standard

478 besmirch]

c&mc: standard

479 The vertue of his will]

1869 Rushton

Rushton

478-9 cautell , , , his will] Rushton (1869, pp. 42-3): <p. 42>“Shakespeare may have written these verses remembering the following passages from Swinburn’s Treatise on Wills.

“‘It is an old question, whether he that hath taken an oth [sic] not to make a testament, may notwithstanding make a testament: and although there were many which did hold that in this case he could not make a testament, yet the greater number are of the contrarie opinion; esteeming the othe [sic] not to be lawfull, and consequently not of force to deprive a man of the libertie of making a testament. And therefore if a man first make a testament, and then sweareth never to revoke the same, yet notwithstanding he may make another testament and thereby revoke the former: for there is no cautele under heaven, whereby the libertie of making or revoking his testament can be utterly taken away.—Swinburn, 61. </p. 42><p. 43>

‘The clause derogatorie of the power of making testaments is utterly voide in law, neither can a man renounce the power or libertie of making testaments, neither is there any cautele under heaven to prevent this libertie; which also indureth whiles any life indureth, as hath bene aforesaid.—Swinburn, 266.

‘So large and ample is the libertie of making testaments, that a man may as oft as hee will make a new testament, even untill the last breath, neither is there any cautele under the sunne to prevent this libertie.—Swinburn, 263.’

“In the alphabetical table of the particular contents of this treatise of Swinburn’s are these words, ‘No cautell can take away the libertie of making a testament.’

“Laertes says, ‘no soile nor cautel doth besmirch the virtue of his will,’ and Swinburn ‘there is no cautele under heaven, whereby the libertie of making or revoking his testament can be utterly taken away.’” </p.43>

Ed. note: Henrie Swinburn, Bachelar of Civill Lawe. A Briefe Treatise of Testaments and Last Willes. London: Printed by John Windet, 1590.

1872 cln1

cln1 : standard def; // Cor.= Mason without attribution;// LC. = mals2 without attribution +

478 cautell] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “ . . . The word is used only once elsewhere by Shakespeare,” in LC 303.

cln1 = cald1 H5 // without attribution + quotation; no gloss

478 besmirch] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “[H5 4.3.110 (0000)]: ‘ Our gayness and our gilt are all besmirch’d’.”

1872 hud2

hud2 ≈ wh1 without attribution?

478 cautell] Hudson (ed. 1872): “a debauched relation of caution, and means fraud or deceit. See page 453, note 21.”

hud2 ≈ warb without attribution

478 cautell] Hudson (ed. 1872, JC 2.l.129 [760]): “Cautelous is here used in the sense of deceit or fraud; though its original meaning is wary, circumspect, the same as cautious. The word is said [by warb] to have caught a bad sense in passing through French hands.”

1873 rug2

rug2

478 Moberly (ed. 1873): “No unchaste thought nor caution inspired by his rank.”

1877 v1887

v1877: dyce; Cotgrave; cln1; Rushton,

478 cautell]

1880 meik

meik: standard gloss and JC // ; ≈ cln1 minus // LC

478 cautell] Meikeljohn (ed. 1880): “Only twice used by S.”

meik: standard gloss; H5 // + in magenta underlined

478 besmirch] Meikeljohn (ed. 1880): “The only other place where the word occurs is in [H5] . . . .”

1881 hud3

hud3 = hud2

478 cautell]

1883 wh2

wh2: standard

478 cautell] White (ed. 1883): “crafty purpose.”

1885 macd

macd: standard

478 cautell] MacDonald (ed. 1885): “deceit”

1885 mull

mull: standard

478 Mull (ed. 1885): “And now no spot nor craftiness doth sully his intention.”

1899 ard1

ard1 ≈ cln1 without attribution; Cotgrave (probably via v1877 without attribution)

478 cautell]

1938 parc

parc

478 cautell] Parrott & Craig (ed. 1938): “deceit.”

1939 kit2

kit2: standard

478 soyle nor cautell] Kittredge (ed. 1939): "foul thought" nor "wile, deceit."

1947 cln2

cln2: standard

478 cautell] Rylands (ed. 1947): "craft."

1957 pel1

pel1: standard

478 cautell] Farnham (ed. 1957): “deceit.”

1970 pel2

pel2 = pel1

478 cautell] Farnham (ed. 1970): “deceit”

1980 pen2

pen2: standard

478 soyle] Spencer (ed. 1980): “blemish.”

pen2: standard

478 cautell] Spencer (ed. 1980): “deceitfulness.”

1982 ard2

ard2: Cotgrave (see 1611 above); Cor. standard

478 cautell] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “ ’Cautelle: A wile, cautel, sleight; a . . . guileful device or endeavour; also craft, . . . deceit’ (Cotgrave). Cf. Cor. 4.1.33 (2474) ’caught With cautelous baits and practice.’ ”

1985 cam4

cam4

478 cautell] Edwards (ed. 1985): "deceitfulness."

1987 oxf4

oxf4

478 soyle] Hibbard (ed. 1987): "stain, blemish."

oxf4

478 cautell] Hibbard (ed. 1987): "crafty intention, deceitful purpose. Shakespeare does not use cautel elsewhere; but he does employ the adjective cautelous in [Cor. 4.1.33 (2474)] and in [JC 2.1.129 ()]."

oxf4

478 besmirch] Hibbard (ed. 1987): "earliest example of the infinitive cited by OED; besmirched occurs in H5 (4.3.111)."

1988 bev2

bev2: standard

478 soyle] Bevington (ed. 1988): “blemish.”

bev2: standard

478 cautell] Bevington (ed. 1988): “deceit.”

1992 fol2

fol2: standard

478 cautell] Mowat & Werstine (ed. 1992): “deceit”

2006 ard3q2

ard3q2: standard

478 soyle] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “impurity, stain”

ard3q2: standard

478 cautell] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “craft or deceit. Shakespeare also uses the adjective, as in Brutus’ reference to ’men cautelous’ (JC 2.1.129).”

ard3q2: standard; OED; xref

478 besmirch] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “deface, contaminate (OED’s first usage; see also unsmirched at [2864])”