Notes for lines 0-1017 ed. Bernice W. Kliman
| 583 {Lends} <Giues> the tongue vowes, these blazes daughter | 1.3.117 |
|---|
583 1722 1774 capn
capn
583 blazes daughter] C
apell (1774, 1:1:124-5): <p. 124> “The epithet [gentle] that follows these words, seem’d fitter for the mouth of this speaker </p.124> <p. 125> than the exclamation the moderns have given him —
oh my daughter:” </p. 125>
1790 mal
mal ≈ capn without attribution
583 blazes daughter] Malone (ed. 1790): “Some epithet to blazes was probably omitted, by the carelessness of the transcriber or compositor, in the first quarto [Q2], in consequence of which the metre is defective.”
Ed. note: Malone, who wants the meter to be corrected by an adjective describing blazes not daughter, does not correct the meter in his text
1792 Ritson
Ritson: mal +
583 blazes daughter] Ritson (1792, p.97 ): “Some epithet, [Malone] says, has been omitted in consequence of which the metre is defective. There is not the smallest ground for such a supposition: “Blazes is a quadrisyllable. We may therefore read: ‘Lends the tongue vows: these bla-a-à-zes, daughter.’ ”
1793 v1793
v1793 = mal
583 blazes daughter]
1803 v1803
v1803 = v1793
583 blazes daughter]
1813 v1813
v1813 = v1803
583 blazes daughter]
1819 mclr2
mclr2:
583 blazes daughter] Coleridge (1819): “Climax a spondee has, I doubt not, dropt out of the text. After ‘vows’: insert either G t! or M rk yu! If the latter is preferred it might end the line. ‘Lends the tongue vows—go to!—these blazes, daughter’ or ‘Lends the tongue vows.—These blazes, daughter, mark you.’ or D. Shakespeare never introduces a catalectic line without intending an equivalent in the foot omitted in the pauses, or the dwelling emphasis, in the diffused retardation. I do not, however, deny that a good actor might by employing the last mentioned, viz. the retardation or solemn knowing drawl, supply the missing spondee with good effect. But I do not believe that in this or the foregoing speeches Shakespear meant to bring out the senility or weakness of Polonius’s mind. In the great ever-recurring dangers and duties of life, when to distinguish the fit objects for the application of the maxims collected by the experience of a long life requires no fineness of tact, as in the admonitions to his son and daughter. Polonius is always made respectable. But if the actor were capable of catching these shades in the character, the Pit and Gallery would be malcontent.”
1819 Coleridge
Coleridge
583 Coleridge (1819, rpt. 1987, 5.2:298): “Line 7. 2nd Column— a spondee has, I doubt not, dropt out of the text. After ‘vows’: insert either Gõ tõ! or ‘Mãrk you!’ If the latter be preferred, it might end the line— ‘Lends the tongue vows.—Go to!— these Blazes, Daughter’ or ‘Lends the tongue vows.—These blazes, Daughter—mark you—’
“N. B. Shakespear never introduces a catalectic line without intending an equivalent to the foot omitted in the pauses, or pauses or the dwelling emphasis, or the diffused retardation. I do not, however, deny, that a good actor might by employing the last mentioned, viz. the retardation or solemn knowing drawl, supply the missing Spondee with good effect. But I do not believe, that in this or the foregoing Speeches, Shakespear meant to bring out the senility or weakness of Polonius’s mind. In the great ever-recurring dangers and duties of Life, where <to distinguish> the fit objects for the application of the maxims collected by the experience of a long life requires no fineness of tact as in the admonitions to his Son and Daughter. Polonius is always made respectable—But if the Actor were capable of catching theses shades in the character, the Pit and Gallery would be malcontent.—”
1821 v1821
v1821 = v1813 +
583 blazes daughter] Boswell (ed. 1821): “Et tu, Brute! How many lines in this very play are equally defective.”
1843 col1
col1: Coleridge +
583 Lends] Collier (ed. 1843): “The folio has Gives for ‘Lends’ of all the quartos: the last is to be preferred, if on no other account, because the next line begins with ‘Giving.’ Coleridge did not doubt (Lit. Rem. [2:217]) ‘that a spondee had dropped out in this line,’ but we have had many previous examples of eight-syllable lines, and the old copies are uniform in the text.”
1854 Walker
Walker
583 daughter] Walker (1854, p. 206) “daughter is sometimes a trisyllable. Hamlet, 1,3,—[quotes 582-4]. . . . It is observable that in almost all these instances there is a pause—in at least half of them a full stop—after daughter. What was the original form of the word? Compare [Greek]. In Chaucer, as far as I am acquainted with him, it is uniformly a dissyllable.’
Lettsom
583 daughter] Lettsom (in Walker, 1854, p. 206n): “Quere, when did the guttural become mute in this word? When pronounced, it would have facilitated a trisyllabic pronunciation.”
1858 col3
col3 = col1 +
583 Lends] Collier (ed. 1858): “We meet with no addition to the line in the corr. fo. 1632; and it might easily have been made, supposing it warranted by any authority.”
1861 wh1
wh1= mal on epithet missing, without attribution
583 Lends] White (ed. 1861): “The folio has, ‘Gives the tongue,’ &c., the first word of the following line having caught the compositor’s eye. Two syllables, probably forming an epithet applied to ‘blazes,’ have doubtless been lost from this line.”
1866 dyce2
dyce2: Walker
583 daughter] Dyce (ed. 1866): “Walker (Shakespeare’s Versification, &c. p. 206) cites this line as containing an example of ‘daughter’ used as a trisyllable.”
1868 N&Q (19 Dec. 1868)
Nicholson: Nares
583 these blazes] Nicholson (1868, p. 573) suggests “these [bavin] blazes, daughter,” recalling “two passages in which ‘bavin’ is used by Lyly, and which are in part quoted by Nares:— ‘The bavin though it burn bright is but a blaze.’ Euphues, 1.26. ‘Prisius. Come, neighbor, I perceive the love of our children waxeth cold. Sperantus. I think it was never but lukewarm. Prisius. Bavins will have their flashes, and youth their fancies, the one as soon quenched as the other burnt.’ Mother Bombie. Act IV. Sc. 1.”
1870 Abbott
Abbott § 478
586 daughter] Abbott (§ 478): “Er final seems to have been sometimes pronounced with a kind of ‘burr,’ which produced the effect of an additional syllable. [. . .] Lénds the | tongue vows; | these blá | zes dáugh | tér.”
1870 rug1
rug1 ≈ Coleridge without attribution
586 Moberly (ed. 1870): “The strong irony on the word [vowes] makes it occupy the time of three syllables. Cp. [1722].”
1873 rug2
rug2 = rug1 + in magenta underlined
583 vowes] Moberly (ed. 1873): “The strong irony on the word [vowes], which is pronounced with a laugh of contempt, makes it occupy the time of three syllables. Cp. [1722]. See [AYL n. 3.5.27 (1798)]. This is better than supposing, as some editors do, that ‘daughter’ is a trisyllable.”
1877 v1877
v1877: mal, wh1, Coleridge (p. 153), Walker, Lettsom, rug2
583 daughter]
Furness (ed. 1877): “
Moberly adopts one of Coleridge’s suggestions, and thinks that the strong irony on the word ‘vows,’ which is spoken with a laugh of contempt, makes it occupy the time of three syllables.”
1877 dyce3
dyce3 = dyce2
583 daughter]
1880 Tanger
Tanger
583 Lends] Tanger (1880, p. 124): F1 variant “probably owing to the negligence, inattention, or criticism of the compositor.” and probably by contamination with Giving in the next line.
1885 mull
mull: del2 text +
583-6 Mull (ed. 1885): “The direct flow of the subject is surely this: ‘These blazes you must not take for fire,’ and so I have pointed it, but Delius points it thus [quotes].”
1899 ard1
ard1: pope; cap; Nicholson conj.; Coleridge conj.
583 blazes]
1934 Wilson
Wilson MSH
583 Lends]
Wilson (1934, pp. 56-7) <p.56> considers the F1 variant an anticipation from
Giving in the next line. He finds another such instance in 619, where F1
And is an anticipation of
And in 620. He believes that these were scribal rather than compositorial, because compositors rarely would look ahead, and he finds instances in F1 when the anticipation in many lines distant. </p.56> <p.57> He note another anticipation in 905,
And anticipating
And in 906. He finds similar anticipations at greater distances in 149 (anticipating from 151), 160 (anticipating from 166), and 262 (anticipating from 266). </p.57>
1939 kit2
kit2: standard gloss, rug analogue without attribution
583-5 these blazes . . . a making] Kittredge (ed. 1939): "such flashes of youthful fancy, which have more show than substance, and whose appearance and reality both die out suddenly, even while their promise is being uttered. Polonius is embroidering the proverb, ’Hot love soon cold.’ Cf. Lyly, Mother Bombie, iv, 1 (ed. Bond, III, 206): Bauins [[i.e., fagots of brushwood]] will have their flashes, and youth their fancies; the one as soon quenched as the other burnt."
1947 cln2
cln2
583 blazes] Rylands (ed. 1947): "flashes."
1982 ard2
ard2:
583 Jenkins (ed. 1982): “The metrical deficiency of this line has given rise to many suggestions for supplying a supposed omission.”
ard2:
583 blazes] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “Blaze often has the suggestion of a short spurt of flame. Cf. Greene’s Never Too Late, ’Lightning, that beautifies the heaven for a blaze’ (Green, 8. 142).”
1987 oxf4
oxf4: Tilley
583-6 these . . . fire] Hibbard (ed. 1987): "Compare the proverbial saying, ‘The bavin burns bright but it is but a blaze’ (Tilley B107)."
oxf4
583 blazes] Hibbard (ed. 1987): "short-lived bursts of flame (as often in Shakespeare). Compare [R2 2.1.33-4 (674)], ‘His rash fierce blaze of riot cannot last, For violent fires soon burn out themselves.’ "
2006 ard3q2
ard3q2
583 blazes] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “flashes of rhetoric (Hamlet’s vows)”
