621+20 dram of eale] Nowell (ca. 1567): “Eale, Ealu [and] Ealo. Ale, the auncient drinke of England.”

621+20 dram of eale] Gosson (apud Rushton, Euphues,1871, p. 93 apud Furness, ed. 1877, p. 88): “One dramme of Eleborus ransackes every vein.”

621+20-621+22 Bacon (1597, rpt. 1612, B8-B8v), in “Of Negotiating,” discusses outward accident and its undoubted effect on a man’s fortune, but this only glancingly, in this perhaps most cynical of the early essays. But he does not discuss the one flaw that can ruin a man’s fortune. Ed. note: See also Reed 1902, below.

621+20-621+22 Bacon (1612, N3), in “Of Fortune” (25. N3-N4v), says: “It cannot be denied, but outward accidents conduce much to a Mans fortune. Fauour, Oportune death of others; occasion fitting vertue. But chiefely the moulde of a mans Fortune, is in himselfe.”

Ed. note: Bacon discusses outward accident and its undoubted effect on a man’s fortune. But he does not discuss the one, inner flaw that can ruin a man’s fortune.” “of Fortune is XL in 1625, 2H2-2H3v, ed. Kiernan, pp. 122-4, esp. p. 122 = 1612 version except for accidentals: “It cannot be denied, but Outward Accidents, conduce much to Fortune: Favour, Opportunitie, Death of Others, Occasion fitting Vertue. But chiefly, the Mould of Mans Fortune, is in his owne hands.

621+20-621+22 the dram . . .scandle] Bacon (1625, G4v), in “Of Envy” (9. F4v-H1v, Kiernan, 1985, pp. 27-31, esp. 30) calls envy“a disease, in a State, like to Infection. For as Infection, spreadeth upon that, which is sound, and tainteth it; So when Envy, is gotten once into a State, it traduceth even the best Actions thereof, and turneth them into an ill Odour.”

621+20-621+22 the dram . . .scandle] Bacon (1625, 2N4v-2O2, Kiernan, pp. 145-7} “Of Negotiating”

621+20 eale] Skinner (1671): “ Evil, ab AS. [. . .], Malus [. . .].”

621+20 -621+22 the dram . . . scandle] Theobald (1726, pp. 35-6): <p. 35> “I come now to the concluding Sentence of this Degraded passage; ‘[—The Dram of Ease Doth all the noble Substance of A Doubt To his own Scandel.]’ Which, indeed, looks to be so desperate, that I suppose, Mr. Pope for that Reason only entirely left it out of his Quotation. In reality, I do not know a Passage, throughout all our Poet’s Works, more intricate and deprav’d in the Text, of less Meaning to outward Appearance, or more likely to baffle the Attempts of Criticism in its Aid. It is certain, there is neither Sense, Grammar, nor English, as it now stands: Yet with a slight Alteration I’ll endeavor not only to give it all three, but a Sentiment too, that shall make the Poet’s Thought close nobly. What can a Dram of Ease mean? or what can it have to do with the Context, supposing it were the allowed Expression here? Or, in a </p. 35> <p. 36> Word, what Agreement in Sense is there betwixt a Dram of Ease and the Substance of a Doubt? It is a desperate Corruption; and the nearest Way to hope for a Cure of it, is, to consider narrowly what the Poet must be supposed to have intended here. The whole Tenour of the Sentences foregoing is, That let Men have never so many, or so eminent, Virtues, if they have one Defect which accompanies them, that single Blemish shall throw a Stain upon their whole Character; and not only so, (if I understand him right,) but shall deface the very Essence of all their Goodness, to its own Scandal; so that their Virtues themselves will become their Reproach. This is not only a Continuation of his Sentiment; but carries it up with a fine and proper Climax. I think, therefore, it ought to be restor’d; ‘—The Dram of Base Doth all the noble Substance of Worth out To his own Scandal.’ The Dram of Base, i.e. the least Alloy of Baseness or Vice. It is very frequent with our Poet to use the Adjective of Quality instead of the Substantive signifying the Thing. Besides, I have observ’d that, elsewhere, speaking of Worth, he delights to consider it as a Quality that adds Weight to a Person, and connects the Word with that Idea. So, particularly, in [AWW 3.3.31. (1589)] ‘Let every Word weigh heavy of her Worth, That he does weigh too light.’ And I am the more inclin’d to flatter my self that my Emendation may have retriev’d the Poet’s very Words, because I find him using something like the same Thought and Metaphors in another of his Plays, and putting the same Terms of Baseness and Worth in Opposition to One another. </p. 36>

[Cym. 3.5.88 (1997)]. ‘From whose so many Weights of Baseness cannot A Dram of Worth be drawn.’ But I have intimated that it is frequent with our Poet to use the Adjective of Quality, instead of the Substantive signifying the Thing; and it may be expected of me to alledge a few instances of this Practice in him. [quotes adjectives used as nouns in MM 2.4.169 (1183); TN 2.2.29 (685); Lr. 3.7.63 (2136); Lr. 4.1.19 (2201); </p. 37> <p. 38> Jn. 2.1.101 (398); Cor. 3.1.127 (1824)] </p. 38>

621+20-621+22 Thirlby (1723-): “This I suppose Mr Pope left out because he cd make nothing of it.”

621+21 noble] Bailey (1730): “Parts of the Body, the Brain, Heart and Liver.”

621+20b -621+22 the dram. . . scandle] Theobald (ed. 1733): “Mr. Pope, who degraded this whole Speech [621+1-20], has entirely left out this concluding Sentence of it. It looks, indeed, to be desperate, and for that Reason, I conceive, he chose to drop it. In reality, I do not know a Passage, throughout all our Poet’s Works, more intricate and deprav’d in the Text, of less Meaning to outward Appearance, or more likely to baffle the Attempts of Criticism in its Aid. It is certain, there is neither Sense, nor Grammar, nor English, as it now stands: yet, with a slight Alteration I’ll endeavor to cure those Defects, and give a not only to give it all three, but a Sentiment too, that shall make the Poet’s Thought close nobly. What can a Dram of Ease mean? or what can it have to do with the Context, supposing it were the allowed Expression here? Or, in a Word, what Agreement in Sense is there betwixt a Dram of Ease and the Substance of a Doubt? It is a desperate Corruption; and the nearest Way to hope for a Cure of it, is, to consider narrowly what the Poet must be suppos’d to have intended here. The whole Tenour of the Sentences foregoing this Speech is, that let Men have never so many, or so eminent, Virtues, if they have one Defect which accompanies them, that single Blemish shall throw a Stain upon their whole Character; and not only so, (if I understand him right,) but shall deface the very Essence of all their Goodness, to its own Scandal; so that their Virtues themselves will become their Reproach. This is not only a Continuation of his Sentiment; but carries it up with a fine and proper Climax. I think, therefore, it ought to be restor’d; I have ventur’d to conjecture, that the Author might write; ‘—The Dram of Base Doth all the noble Substance of Worth out To his own Scandal.’ The Dram of Base, i.e. the least Alloy of Baseness or Vice. It is very frequent with our Poet to use the Adjective of Quality instead of the Substantive signifying the Thing. Besides, I have observ’d that, elsewhere, speaking of Worth, he delights to consider it as a Quality that adds Weight to a Person, and connects the Word with that Idea. So, particularly, in ‘Let every Word weigh heavy of her Worth, That he does weigh too light.’ [AWW 3.3.31. (1589)].

And I am the more inclin’d to flatter my self that my Emendation may have retriev’d the Poet’s very Words, because I find him using something like the same Thought and Metaphors in another of his Plays, and putting the same Terms of Baseness and Worth in Opposition to One another.

‘From whose so many Weights of Baseness cannot A Dram of Worth be drawn.’ [Cym. 3.5.88. (1997)]. But I have intimated that it is frequent with our Poet to use the Adjective of Quality, instead of the Substantive signifying the Thing; and it may be expected of me to alledge a few instances of this Practice in him. [quotes adjectives used as nouns in MM 2.4.169 (1183); TN 2.2.29 (685); Lr. 3.7.63-6 (2136); Lr. 4.1.19 (2201); </p. 37> <p. 38> Jn. 2.1.101 (398); Cor. 3.1.127-30 (0000)]

621+20b -22 the dram. . . scandle] Theobald (ed. 1733): “Mr. Pope, who degraded this whole Speech [621+1-20], has entirely left out this concluding Sentence of it. It looks, indeed, to be desperate, and for that Reason, I conceive, he chose to drop it. I do not know a Passage, throughout all our Poet’s Works, more intricate and deprav’d in the Text, of less Meaning to outward Appearance, or more likely to baffle the Attempts of Criticism in its Aid. It is certain, there is neither Sense, nor Grammar as it now stands: yet, with a slight Alteration I’ll endeavor to cure those Defects, and give a Sentiment too, that shall make the Poet’s Thought close nobly. What can a Dram of Ease mean? or what can it have to do with the Context, supposing it were the allowed Expression here? Or, in a Word, what Agreement in Sense is there betwixt a Dram of Ease and the Substance of a Doubt? It is a desperate Corruption; and the nearest Way to hope for a Cure of it, is, to consider narrowly what the Poet must be suppos’d to have intended here. The whole Tenour of this Speech is, that let Men have never so many, or so eminent, Virtues, if they have one Defect which accompanies them, that single Blemish shall throw a Stain upon their whole Character; and not only so, (if I understand him right,) but shall deface the very Essence of all their Goodness, to its own Scandal; so that their Virtues themselves will become their Reproach. This is not only a Continuation of his Sentiment; but carries it up with a fine and proper Climax. I think, therefore, it ought to be restor’d; I have ventur’d to conjecture, that the Author might write; ‘—The Dram of Base (as I have corrected the Text) means Doth all the noble Substance of Worth out To his own Scandal.’ The Dram of Base, i.e. the least Alloy of Baseness or Vice. It is very frequent with our Poet to use the Adjective of Quality instead of the Substantive signifying the Thing. Besides, I have observ’d that, elsewhere, speaking of Worth, he delights to consider it as a Quality that adds Weight to a Person, and connects the Word with that Idea.

“ ‘Let every Word weigh heavy of her Worth, That he does weigh too light.’ [AWW a.s.l. (0000)].

“ ‘From whose so many Weights of Baseness cannot A Dram of Worth be drawn.’ [Cym. a.s.l. (0000)].”

621+20b -621+22 the dram. . . scandle] Browne (1747-60, fol. ???): “Theob. reads—Base and of worth out [. . .] but this reading does not fully satisfy, nor can I understand, To his own scandal—”

621+20b -621+22 the dram. . . scandle]

621+20b -22 the dram. . . scandle] Heath (1765, pp. 529-30): <p. 529> “ ‘ —The dram of base Doth all the noble substance of worth out, To his own scandal.’ This is an emendation of Mr. Theobald’s, on which he applauds himself not a little, and which hath had the honour of being adopted by Mr. Warburton. The corrupt common reading was, ‘—The dram of ease Doth all the noble substance of a doubt To his own scandal.’ The first of Mr. Theobald’s alterations, ‘The dram of base,’ I readily acknowledge to be a very happy one, and have no doubt but it is the genuine read- </p. 529> <p. 530> ing. But I cannot so easily admit the other; not only because it departs too far from the traces of the corrupt text; but chiefly, because of the expression, to do out the substance, is a barbarous one, scarce English, or at least such bald English, as ought not, without better authority than the mere conjecture of a critick, to be fathered upon Shakespear. I should rather suspect the poet might have written, ‘Doth all the noble substance oft eat out.’ That is, The intermixture but of a dram of baseness often cankers, corrodes, and eats out the whole noble substance of the otherwise virtuous character. But, if the reader will dispense with a little farther departure from the printed text, I should think it still more probable that the true reading was, ‘Doth all the noble substance soil with doubt: ’ That is, A dram of base alloy stains all the noble substance of his virtues with the suspicion that they are mere tinsel appearances only, and not of the true sterling standard.” </p. 530>

See 621+1 heauy headed reueale east and west] Theobald (apud Johnson, ed. 1765): “I do not know a passage, throughout all our poet’s works, more intricate and deprav’d in the text, of less meaning to outward appearance, or more likely to baffle the attempts of criticism in its aid. It is certain, there is neither sense, grammar nor English as it now stands: yet with a slight alteration, I’ll endeavor <to cure those defects> {not only to give it all three, but a sentiment too, that shall make the poet’s thought close nobly [minus from “What can” through ‘Scandal’ ”] The dram of Base (as I have corrected the text) means the least alloy of baseness or vice. It is very frequent with our poet to use the adjective of quality instead of the substantive signifying the thing. Besides, I have observed, that elsewhere, speaking of worth, he delights to consider it as a quality that adds weight to a person, and connects the word with that idea.”

621+20 eale] Jennens (ed. 1773): “The 1st q. [Q2] eale; 2d [Q3] and 3d, [Q4] ease. T[heobald] base for ill; which I have ventured to put in the text instead of eale.” 

621+21 Doth . . . doubt] Steevens (ed. 1773): “Various conjectures have been employed about this passage. [quotes Heath and Holt] And Mr. Johnson thinks, that Theobald’s reading may stand. I would read Doth all the noble substance (i.e. the sum of good qualities) oft do out. Perhaps we should say, To its own scandal. His and its are perpetually confounded in the old copies. As I understand the passage, there is little difficulty in it. This is one of the low colloquial expressions, which at present are neither employed in writing, nor perhaps are reconcileable to the propriety of language. To do a thing out, is to efface or obliterate any thing in drawing. Steevens.”

621+20b -621+22 the dram. . . scandle] Capell (1774, 1:1:125-6): <p. 125> “The lines themselves . . . were much corrupted besides, their conclusion especially, which is amended from the third modern copy [theo1] : Upon the last amendment, [of worth out] the ‘Revisal’ has this observation; —that to do our the substance, is a barbarous expression; scarce English, or at least such bald English as should not be father’d on Shakespeare by meer conjecture; and then proceeds to offer two of his own, the first of which is as follows,—‘Doth all the noble substance oft eat out,’ [&c. continues the quotation] </p. 125> <p. 126> . . . . The observation is undoubtedly just, and the reading and it’s comment ingenious: but it should seem from this very comment [Heath’s on his emendation], and likewise from another that the same author makes upon his second amendment, that the lines stands in need of a substantive following ‘of’ to perfect the sense of it: And this, in truth, is the light in which the editor has view’d the corruption all along; that some word was slipt out of the copy, and ‘out’ chang’d to ‘a doubt’ by the printer’s ingeniousness: the vacancy cannot be fill’d better than by the word in possession; and the line may be cured of it’s badness by no very great licence, the change of ‘all’ into eat; after which, the comment that has been given above [Revisal’s, I think he means] is both a just and a perfect one.” </p.126>.

621+20-621+22 the dram. . . scandle] Ritson (1783, pp. 193-4): <p.193> “This must be allowed a very difficult, and perplexed passage. But as mr. Steevenses proposed reading (doth all the noble substance oft do out), or rather, indeed, mr. Holts (Doth all the noble substance oft adopt), comes nearest to the traces of the original </p.193> <p.194> (—The dram of ease Doth all the noble substance of a doubt), it ought to have been inserted in preference to Theobalds. And the whole speech, from the fourth line, should have been thrown to the bottom of the page, or, perhaps totally omitted, as apparently rejected, by the author, upon a revision of the play.” </p.194>

621+20-621+22 the dram. . . scandle] Davies (1784, 3:16-18): <p.16> “The admirable reflections of Hamlet upon national vice and personal blemish, on account of the length of the play, are entirely curtailed [on stage]. Our author, as excellent in morals as he was happy in character and passion, makes a just observation on the danger of indulging one favourite passion, vice, or folly; which, he says, taints the whole man, and tarnishes all his virtues, however great and eminent. This is, I believe, that plague of the heart which Solomon calls upon his people to pray against in the dedication of the temple. The apostle James, in his Epistle, hath a sentiment very similar to that of Shakspeare: For, whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. </p. 16> <p. 17>

“The text, as it stands in the quoted passage,— ‘—That dram of base Doth all the noble substance of worth out, To his own scandal,—’ is given up, by some of the commentators as very difficult and obscure; notwithstanding the explanation of Mr. Steevens, it still seems very harsh, if not unintelligible.

“The very trifling alteration, of adding a letter for one word, and the changing of two letters for one in another, will, I believe, restore to us the original reading: ‘—The dram of base Doth all the noble substance oft work out, To his own scandal.’

‘As a small quantity of certain medicines, but its potent operation, deprives the body of its strength and firmness, so this alloy of vice, this dram of base, works out, or renders useless, all the noble quantities of the mind. </p. 17> <p. 18>

“When I read this proposed emendation to the reverend and learned Mr. Robertson, he not only concurred with me, but assured me he had himself made the same amendment.” </p. 18>

621+20b -621+22 the dram. . . scandle] S[tephen] W[eston] (apud reed, ed. 1785): “Perhaps it should be, ‘—the dram of base, Doth all the noble substance oft work out.’ That is eat through as brass does silver when it is plated with it. S. W.”

621+20 eale] Malone (ed. 1790): “This passage [in Cym.] also adds support to the correction of the word eale in the first of these lines, which was likewise made by Mr. Theobald.— Base is used substantively for baseness: a practice not uncommon in Shakspeare. So in [MM 2.4.169. (1183)] ‘Say what thou canst, my false outweighs your true.’ ”

“Shakspeare, however, might have written—The dram of ill. This is nearer the corrupted word eale, but the passage in [Cym.] is in favour of the other emendation.

621+20b -621+22 the dram. . . scandle] Malone (ed. 1790): “The meaning of the passage thus corrected is, The smallest particle of vice so blemishes the whole mass of virtue, as to erase from the mind of mankind the recollection of the numerous good qualities possessed by him who is thus blemished by a single stain, and taints his general character.

621+20-621+21 the dram . . . doubt] Wesley (ms. notes 1790-, p. 44): “I like this reading viz: ‘The dram of base/Doth all the noble substance oft work out.”

621+20 the dram of eale] Rann (ed. 1791-): “The dram of base ]]—The least alloy of baseness extinguisheth, effaceth—The dram of ill.”

621+20 dram of eale] Morehead (1814, pp. 12-13): <p.12> “Here in the first scene of the first act, occurs a notable emendation of my great predecessor, ‘The dram of base Doth all the noble substance often dout To his own scandal.’ So this passage is now given, instead of the original corrupt reading, ‘The dram of eale Doth all the noble substance of a doubt To his own scandal.’ The emendation appears to me exceedingly harsh, and although that which I am going to suggest is too violent to be quite satisfactory to my cautious temperament, yet I think it carrieth some plausibility. I suppose there was a shifting of the types from the upper to the lower line, and read thus, ‘The dram of doubt Doth all the noble substance oft anneal To his own scandal.’ That is, the dram of doubtful or base metal doth often, in the operation of annealing, cause the whole substance to become durably as base it- </p.12.<p.13> self. Whether this emendation will be made out by a comparison with the processes used in the arts, I know not, as every thing connected with chemical science, of any branch of philosophy, appeareth to me too insignificant to bestow it one moment’s attention. Sir Humphry Davy, it is true, may be an ingenious sort of man in his way—but, assuredly his name is not to be mentioned on the same day with the illustrious name of the Bentleys, the Theobalds, the Steevenses, the Malones, the Monke Masons, the Sewards, the Sympsons, and the Webers. It would have given me great pleasure if I could have added the Chenevixes, as I was in hopes that Mr. Chenevix would, when he took to reading the old plays, have contented himself with the humble task of commenting upon them, instead of setting himself up as a rival to their authors; and it would have been a great triumph gained, if a distinguished chemist had deserted his blow-pipe for black letter; but it must really have been under the influence of an intoxicating gas that this gentleman conceived himself qualified to turn dramatic poet.” </p.13>

FNC: This note, which has the feel of parody about it, is as interested in criticizing the commentators as in offering a comment.

621+20-621+22 the dram . . . scandle] Caldecott (ed. 1819): “In this, the conclusion of the passage in brackets, taken from the quartos, there is doubtless much corruption: in those the two readings are ease and eale: the modern editors, interpreting eale, ill or evil, substitute the word base. Of a, they consider as a misprint for often; and doubt, as nothing more than another of spelling dout, or extinguish, as we find in [H5 4.2.11 (2180)]. Dauph; and [Ham (3184)] Laert. And, as appears, they have shewn great skill in the conduct of the business. ‘To his own scandal.” is to its own; i.e. working its own reproach; and such personifications, or changing either of these pronouns ad libitum, were frequent in Shakespeare and his contemporaries. We have the use of the personal pronoun for the neutral in [quotes Malone on Ham. 1768]: where Mr. Steevens produces a marked instance of it from [F.Q. 3.9.?]. ‘Then forth it break; and with his furious blast Confounds both land and seas, and skies doth overcast.’

“The sentiment above is also employed, as Mr. Malone observes, to point out the leading defect in Hotspur’s character [quotes mals1].”

621+20-621+22 the dram . . . scandle] Caldecott (ed. 1819): “The sense of the latter part of the speech is, a little vice will often obliterate all a man’s good qualities; and the effect is, that the vice becomes scandalous, i.e. offensive; being taken for his predominating character.”

621+20-621+22 the dram . . . scandle] Jackson (1819, pp. 346-7) <p. 346> “The quarto, where, it seems, this passage is only found, reads: —‘ The dram of eale Doth all the substance of a doubt.’

“In an antecedent part of this speech, Hamlet observes, that ‘Some habit too much o’er-leavens the form of plausive manners:” meaning, that a small portion of leaven (vice) corrupts the whole man. The figure exhibited in this passage bears much the same meaning; but, instead of fermenting the noble substance by leaven, it is fer-mented by yeast, which is produced by the intestine motion of ale, and which, when kneaded with flour, changes the entire mass. I should think, them that we have no necessity for so extraordinary a substitute as base for eale. I read: ‘—The dram of ale Doth all the noble substance over dough To his own scandal.’ </p.346> <p.347>

“The noble substance, (man,) the Poet compares to kneaded flour, or unleavened paste; but, when the dram of yeast (ale) is added to it, the entire mass becomes fermented. So with man, one particle of vice leaves him no longer in a state of purity; for, though he may possess many virtuous qualities, that vicious particle corrupts and destroys the good effects they might otherwise have produced.

“The word eale, as in the quarto, is according to the orthography of Shakespeare’s time: Of a doubt To, for over dough To, is evidently the error of the transcriber, who mistook the words, from their similarity of sound.

“In[Cym. 3.4.61 (1733)]. we meet a passage something expressive of the same meaning:—‘So then, Posthumus, Will lay the leaven on all proper men;’

“Which Mr. Upton interprets:—‘Will infest and corrupt their good name, (like sour dough that leaveneth the whole mass,) and will render them suspected.’

“That the present text is corrupt and unmeaning, must be obvious to every reflecting mind: I have endeavoured to give it some sense, but cannot speak with that perfect confidence which I do on most of my restorations: I at first thought we should read: ‘Doth all the noble substance oft a-dough,’ which phrase, though now obsolete, might have been used in Shakspeare’s time. That the word dough formed part of the passage, I am convinced, but I cannot work it up perfectly to my wishes. Mr. Dryden, speaking of the composition of man, says,— ‘When the gods moulded up the paste of man Some of their dough was left upon their hands, For want of souls, and so they made Egyptians.’” </p.347 >

621+20b -621+22 the dram. . . scandle] Boswell (ed. 1821): “These lines are evidently corrupt; but such difference of opinion has prevailed as to the best mode of emending them, that I have given the original text, and left it to the reader to judge between contending criticks.”

[He then follows up with mal, follows with Ste, then Holt and then his own comment on Holt and conjecture:]

“Another conjecture was many years ago proposed by Mr. Holt [i.e. in ed. 1765]. He would read: ‘Doth all the noble substance oft adopt.’ This, if we suppose the noble substance, by an inversion not uncommon in poetry, to be the nominative case, would afford a clear meaning. ‘The noble substance doth oft bring disgrace upon itself by adopting the dram of base.’ If this should not be received, instead of dout, which has not been shown in any unquestionable instance to have been used in grave composition, I would rather suppose that to doubt may have meant to bring into doubt or suspicion. Shakspeare and his contemporaries have many words similarly formed. Thus, to fear is to create fear; to pale is to make pale : ‘—Gins to pale his uneffectual light.’ To cease is to cause to cease. [Cym. 5.5.255 (3545)] : ‘A certain stuff, which being ta’en would cease The present power of life.’ So, to perish is to destroy, in Beaumont and Fletcher’s Honest Men’s Fortune: ‘—His wants And miseries have perished his good face.’ Yet I should prefer Mr. Holt’s emendation.”

621+20 ease] Caldecott (ed. 1832): “In this, the conclusion of the passage in brackets, taken from the quartos, there is doubtless much corruption: in those the two readings are ease and eale: the modern editors, interpreting eale, ill or evil, substitute the word base. Of a, they consider as a misprint for often; and doubt, as nothing more than another of spelling dout, or extinguish, as we find in [H5 4.2.11. (2180)] Dauph; and [Ham (3184)] Laert. And, as appears, they have shewn great skill in the conduct of the business: though ill is both more flowing and nearer in sound, and as close to the sense. ‘To his own scandal.” is to its own; i.e. working its own reproach; and such personifications, or changing either of these pronouns ad libitum, were frequent in Shakespeare and his contemporaries. We have the use of the personal pronoun for the neutral in [quote Malone on Ham. 1768]: where Mr. Steevens produces a marked instance of it from [F.Q. 3.9.?]. ‘Then forth it break; and with his furious blast Confounds both land and seas, and skies doth overcast.’ And see ‘Constrains the garb quite from his nature.’ [Lr. 2.2.97 (1173)]. Cornw. And [Tro. 1.3.? (000)]. Ullys.—‘Herself,’ [Oth. 1.3. ? (000)] Brab. & [Ant. 5.1.? (000)] Cl.”

“The sentiment above is also employed, as Mr. Malone observes, to point out the leading defect in Hotspur’s character [quotes malsi]. Wor.”

621+20-2 Valpy (ed. 1833): “Commentators have hitherto failed to discover any satisfactory elucidation of this corrupt passage.”

621+20-621+22 Knight (ed. 1839): “In the quarto (B), this difficult passage is found thus:—‘The dram of eale Doth all the noble substance of a doubt To his own scandal.’ In another quarto we have, ‘The dram of ease.’ The original text is certainly corrupt; and, amongst many conjectural emendations, the lines as we print them seem to give the clearest meaning. To dout is to put out, to extinguish. Perhaps we might read, ‘The dram of bale’.”

621+20-621+22

621+20-621+22 the dram . . . scandle] Collier (ed. 1843): “This sentence in the 4to. 1604, stands thus: — ‘the drama of eale Doth all the noble substance of a doubt To his own scandal.’ Some corruption is evident, but the text, as we have given it, affords a distinct and consistent meaning: it is easy to see how ‘ill’ might be misprinted eale, and ‘often dout’ of a doubt, the compositor having taken the passage by his ear only: indeed a stronger proof of the kind could hardly be pointed out. To ‘dout’ is of course to do out, to destroy or extinguish, and the word is still not out of use in some parts of the kingdom, particularly in the north. See Holloway’s General Provincial Dictionary,’ 1838.”

621+20-621+21 the dram . . . doubt] Verplanck (ed. 1844): “Some corruption is evident in the old copies, which read, dram of eale, or ease, and of a doubt; Collier substitutes ‘dram of ill,’ which gives a consistent meaning; ‘ill’ might be misprinted eale, and ‘often dout’ of a doubt, the compositor having taken the passage by his ear only. To ‘dout’ is to do out, to destroy or extinguish, and the word is still not out of use in the north of England. (See Holloway’s ‘Provincial Dictionary.’) But ease is a more natural error for base, and that reading has been preferred here; especially as it agrees with the poet’s habit of opposing base to noble, as, in [Cor.], ‘the base tongue,’ to ‘the noble heart.’ ‘Baseness nobly undergone,’ [Tim.]. The slight baseness, he says, mars and disgraces the general noble character.”

621+20-621+22 the dram . . . scandle] Brae (N&Q 1852, pp. 169-70): <p. 169> “‘The dram of eale Doth all the noble substance of a doubt to his own scandal.’ —Quarto of 1604. ‘The dram of ease.’ Quarto of 1605 [sic actually Q3, 1611]. ‘The dram of ill Doth all the noble substance often dout, To his own scandal.’—Knight and Collier.

“I cannot look upon this emendation, although sanctioned by the two latest editors of Shakspeare, as by any means a happy one. The original word in the second quarto, ‘ease,’ so nearly resembles ‘eale’ in the first quarto [sic] (especially when printed with the old-fashioned long “s”); and the subsequent transition from ease to base is so extremely obvious, and at the same time so thoroughly consistent with the sense, that it is difficult to imagine any plausible ground for the rejection of base in favour of ill. Dram was formerly used (as grain is at present) to signify an indefinitely small quantity; so that “the dram of base’ presents as intelligible an expression as can be desired.

But in addition to its easy deduction from the original, base possesses other recommendations, in being the natural antagonist of noble in the line following, and in the capability of being understood either in a moral or physical sense.

“If the whole passage be understood as merely assertive, then base may have, in common with ill, a moral signification; but if it be understood as a metaphorical allusion to substantial matter, in illustration of the moral reflections that have gone before, then base must be taken (which ill cannot) in the physical sense, as a base substance, and, as such, in still more direct antagonism to noble substance opposed to it.

“In a former paper I had occasion to notice the intimate knowledge possessed by Shakspeare in the arcana of the several arts; and I now recognise, in this passage, a metaphorical allusion to the degradation of gold by the admixture of baser metal. Gold and lead have always been in poetical opposition as types of the noble and the base; </p. 169><p. 170> and we re assured by metallurgists, that if lead be added to gold, even in the small proportion of one part in two thousand, the whole mass is rendered completely brittle.

“The question then is, in what way ‘the dram of base’ affects ‘all the noble substance?’ Shakspeare says it renders it doubtful or suspicious; his commentators make him say that it douts or extinguishes altogether! And this they do without even the excuse of an originally imperfect word to exercise the conjecture upon. The original word is doubt, the amended one dout; and yet the first has been rejected, and the latter adopted, in editions whose peculiar boast it is to have restored, in every practicable instance, the original text.

“Now, in my opinion, Shakspeare did not intend doubt in this place, to be a verb at all, but a noun substantive; and it is the more necessary that this point should be discussed, because the amended passage has already crept into our dictionaries as authority for the verb dout; thus giving to a very questionable emendation the weight of an acknowledged text. (Vide Todd’s Johnson.)

“Any person who takes the amended passage, as quoted at the head of this article, and restores ‘dout,’ to the original spelling, will find that the chief hindrance to a perfect meaning consists in the restriction of doth to the value of a mere expletive, Let this restriction be removed, by conferring upon doth the value of an effective verb, and it will be seen that the difficulty no longer remains. The sense then becomes, ‘the base doth doubt to the noble,’ i.e. imparts doubt to it, or renders it doubtful. We say, a man’s good actions do him credit; why not also, his bad ones do him doubt? One phrase may be less familiar than the other, but they are in strict analogy as well with themselves as with the following example from Twelfth Night, which is exactly in point: ‘Thou hast, Sebastian, done good feature shame.’

“Hence, since the original word is capable of giving a clear and distinct meaning, there can be no possible excuse for displacing it, even if the word to be substituted were as faultless as i t is certainly the reverse.

“For not only is dout an apocryphal word, but it is inelegant when placed, as it must be in this instance, in connexion with the expletive doth, being at the same time in itself a verb compounded of do, Neither is the meaning it confers so clear and unobjectionable as to render it desirable; for in what way can a very small quantity be said to dout, or expel, a very large quantity? To justify such an expression, the entire identity of the larger must be extinguished, leaving no part of it to which the scandal mentioned in the third line could apply.

“But an examination of the various places wherein scandal is mentioned by Shakspeare, shows that the meaning attached by him to that word was false imputation, or loss of character: then [?] in the contact of the base and the noble, the scandal must apply to the noble substance—a consideration that must not be lost sight of in any attempt to arrive at the true meaning of the whole passage.

“So far, I have assumed that ‘often” (the third substitution in the amended quotation) is the best representative that can be found for ‘of a’ in the original; and inasmuch as it is confirmed by general consent, and is moreover so redundant, in this place, that its absence or presence scarcely makes any difference in the sense, it is not easily assailable.

“The best way, perhaps, to attempt to supplant it is to suggest a better word—one that shall still more closely resemble the original letters in sound and formation, and that shall, in addition, [?] upon the sense not a redundant but an effective assistance. Such a word is offer: it is almost identical (in sound at least) with the original and it materially assists in giving a much clearer application to the last line.

‘For these reasons, but especially for the last, I adopt offer, as a verb in the infinitive rules by doth. in the sense of causing or compelling a sense that must have been familiar in Shakspeare’s time, or it would not have been introduce d into the translation of Scripture.

“In this view the meaning of the passage becomes ‘The base doth the noble offer doubt, to his own scandal”—that is, causes the noble to excite suspicion, to the injury of its own character.

“Examples of do in this sense are very numerous in Spenser; of which one is “F. Q., iii.2.34): ‘To doe the frozen cold away to fly.’

“And in Chaucer (Story of Ugolino): ‘That they for hunger wolden do him dien.’

“And in Scripture (2 Cor. viii.1.): “We do you to wit of the grace of God.’

“By this reading a very perfect and intelligible meaning is obtained, and that too by the slightest deviation from the original yet proposed.

“By throwing the action of offering doubt upon ‘the noble substance,’ it becomes the natural reference to “his own scandal’ in the third line.

“Hamlet is moralizing upon the tendency of the ‘noblest virtues,’ be they as pure as grace, as infinite as man may undergo,’ to take, from ‘the stamp of one defect, ‘corruption in the general censure’ (a very close definition of scandal); and he illustrates it by the metaphor: ‘The dram of base Doth all the noble substance offer doubt, To his own scandal.’ A.E.B.”

621+20-621+22 the dram . . . scandle] Anon [H. F.] (N&Q 1852, p. 236), responding to Brae: <p.236>“I suggest the following: ‘The dram of base Doth all the noble substance often dull, To his own scandal.’

“This reading of mine only makes it necessary to substitute the letters n forll, for a and o, in the quarto of 1605.

“Dull is a favourite word of Shakespeare’s; and surely it makes at least as good sense as any of the other readings. It is questionable whether the lines are Shakspeare’s; for the whole passage, from ‘this heavy-headed revel,” to “To his own scandal,” is omitted in the first and second folios, and also in the first known quarto of ‘1603.’

“To prove how easy it is for printers, or copiers from original manuscripts of authors, to make mistakes, I will call you attention to a serious blunder in tje first edition of Ben Jonson’s verses addressed to the Earl of Somerset. which are in the Athenæum of Feb. 21st. The twenty-first and twenty-second lines are thus printed: ‘So in thyr number may you neuer see Mortallity, till you a mortall be.’

“Ben wrote ‘immortal.’ H.F.” </p. 236>

H.F. “Passage in Hamlet (Vol. v., p. 169).” ser 1 N&Q 5 (6 March 1852): 236.

621+20-621+22 the dram . . . scandle] Anon. [Bibliophilus] (1852, p. 378), after criticizing Theobald, and praising Singer, suggests “ . . .I should prefer, as the least deviations from the old copies, to read: ‘The dram of base Doth, all the noble substance o’er, a doubt, To his own scandal:’ i.e. doth cast a doubt over all the noble substance, bring into suspect all the noble qualities by the leaven of one dram of baseness. This, according to your correspondent’s own showing, is the very sense required by the context, ‘the base doth doubt to the noble, i.e. imparts doubt to it, or renders it doubtful.” And when we recollect the frequent use of elision o’er for over by the poet, and the ease with which of might be substituted for it by the compositor, I cannot but think it conclusive. To me the proposed reading, ‘offer doubt,’ does not convey a meaning quite so clear and unequivocal.

“Conjectural emendation of the text of our great poet is always to be made with extreme caution, and that reading which will afford a clear sense, with the slightest deviation from the first editions, is always to be preferred. The errors are chiefly typographical, and often clearly perceptible, but they are also not infrequently perplexing.

“That Mr. Colier and Mr. Knight, who do not often sin this way, should on the present occasion have countenanced such a wide departure from the old copies as to read ill and doubt, may have surprised A. E. B. as it certainly did Periergus Bibliophiles.

621+20-621+22 the dram . . . scandle] Delius (ed. 1854): “Die Qs. lesen eale für bale, und of a doubt für off and out. Die alten Ausgeben verwechseIn off und of häufig, wie sie doubt und dout verwechseIn. Das im Manuscript zusammenfliessende andout liess sich dann um so leichter für a doubt misverstehen, wenn and abgekürst geschreiben war. Der Sinn wäre dann: die Drachme von Verderbniss verdrängt (doth off) und löscht aus (doth out) den ganzen edlen Gehalt zu ihrer eignen Schmach, d.h. so dass nur ihre eigne Hässlichkeit übrig bleibt. Die Herausgeber suchen dem jedenfalls corrupten Satze auf andere Weise aufzuhelfen. Sie lesen often dout, oft do out oder oft adopt.” [The 4tos read eale for bale, and of a doubt for off and out. The old editions often mix up off and of, as well as doubt and dout. In ms. the mistakenly undivided andout could then more easily be mistaken for a doubt if and were abbreviated. The sense would then be: The tiny bit of corruption displaces (doth off) and obliterates (doth out) all the noble essence to its own shame, that is, so that only hatefulness remains. The editors correct in various other ways: They read often dout, oft do out or oft adopt.]

621+20 eale] Keightley (1855, pp. 304-5): <p. 304>“We adopt the reading of the Quarto of 1604, reading for eale, evil, as it has [1639] deale for devil. It might </p. 304><p. 305> however be ill, i.e. e’il, like e’en from even. </p. 305>

621+20-621+22 the dram . . . scandle] Hudson (ed. 1856): “To dout is to do out, destroy. or extinguish. The word is still so used in some parts of England. As already stated, the passage is found only in the quartos, which have ‘dram of eale,’ for ‘dram of base,’ and of a doubt instead of often dout. Ill is preferred by some, and bale by others, as corrections of eale: we prefer base as being the proper antithesis of noble. Doubt is also preferred by some, as meaning to bring into doubt, or throw doubt upon: but no instance is produced of the word so used. H.”

621+20-621+21 eale . . . noble] Singer (ed. 1856):“I read base as suggested by the word ease of the quarto of 1611: from its more direct opposition to noble in the following line.

621+20 Dram] Feibig (ed. 1857): “in weight, the eighth part of an ounce; figuratively, as it is put here, a small quantity.”

621+20-621+22 the dram . . . scandle]

621+20-621+21 eale . . . noble] Dyce (ed. 1857): “The editor of the last ed. of the Variorum Shakespeare [v1821] allowed this passage to stand uncorrected: I follow his example; for the sundry attempts which have been made to amend it are all more or less unsatisfactory.—Theobald printed, —‘the dram of base Doth all the noble substance of worth out To his own scandal.’ Steevens reads, ‘the dram of base Doth all the noble substance often dout [i.e. do out], To his own scandal.’ which is adopted by Caldecott, Mr. Knight, and Mr. Collier,—except that they substitute ‘ill’ for ‘base.’ But, in the first place, ‘often” is very questionable, because, in all probability, ‘of’ in the old copies is a mistake for ‘oft;’ and secondly, as Mr. W. N. Lettsom observes to me, ‘the words “To his own scandal” are fatal to the reading “dout” (i.e. do out), for, if that alteration be right, they are superfluous. A verb,’ he adds, ‘I should think must lurk under the corruption “a doubt” or “doubt,” with the signification of turn, pervert, corrupt, or the like. Shakespeare’s meaning evidently is, that a little leaven leavens the whole lump,—that one vice will ruin the otherwise perfect character.’—Mr. Singer (in his Shakespeare, 1826) gives, ‘the dram of bale Doth all the noble substance often doubt To his own scandal.’ and he remarks; ‘I see no reason why dout should be substituted for doubt. The editors have unwarrantably made the same substitution in [H5 4.2.11 (2180)], and then cite it as a precedent. Mr. Boswell has justly observed that to doubt may mean to bring into doubt or suspicion.’ Now, with respect to the passage in Henry V., I am confident that there at least the true reading is ‘douts:’ and surely Mr. Singer will not maintain that in the present play (see p. 559 [3193-4]) Mr. Knight and myself have ‘unwarrantably’ altered ‘doubts’ to ‘douts,’ when we give, according to the text of the folio,— ‘I have a speech of fire, that fain would blaze, But that this folly douts it.’—Mason proposed, ‘Doth all the noble substance of’t corrupt,’ &c., which, he says, ‘seems to be pointed out and supported by the preceding lines, “Shall in the general censure take corruption From that particular fault.” ’—The above conjecture of Mason (which is not mentioned in the Variorum Shakespeare) was unknown to the Rev. J. Mitford, when he wrote to me as follows: ‘I would read ‘Doth all the noble substance oft corrupt,’ &c., —a reading to which the preceding word ‘corruption’ forms any thing but an objection; and you are sure that the sense is right.’—On turning to the edition of Hamlet recently published in Germany by Mr. Delius, I find ‘the dram of bale Doth all the noble substance of and out To his own scandal.’ !! What a pity that the worthy editor had no Englishman at his elbow to prevent him from substituting new nonsense for old!—to conclude this already too long note. In the Devonshire dialect to ‘eale” is to reproach: it may be asked, then,—did Shakespeare (who occasionally has provincialisms) write here ‘the dram of eale’ in the sense of ‘the drama of reproach’? for my own part, I hardly think so.”

621+20-621+22 the dram . . . scandle] Collier (ed. 1843): “This sentence in the 4to. 1604, stands thus: — ‘the drama of eale Doth all the noble substance of a doubt To his own scandal.’ Some corruption is evident, but the text, as we have given it, affords a distinct and consistent meaning: it is easy to see how ‘ill’ might be misprinted eale, and ‘often dout’ of a doubt, the scribe or compositor having taken the passage by his ear only: indeed a stronger proof of the kind could hardly be pointed out. To ‘dout’ is of course to do out, to destroy or extinguish, and the word is still not out of use unknown in some parts of the kingdom, particularly in the north; see Holloway’s General Provincial Dictionary,’ 1838.”

621+20-621+22 Staunton (ed. 1860): “The meaning here is tolerably obvious; it is explained by what goes before, but the diction, owing to some error in the first and second line, has occasioned ‘much throwing about of brains.’ For ‘eale,’ two of the quartos have ‘ease,’ which probably led Theobald to print,— ‘—the dram of base Doth all the noble substance of worth out To his own scandal.’ Steevens reads,— ‘—the dram of base Doth all the noble substance often dout [i.e. do out] To his own scandal.’ And this is usually followed in the modern text, ‘ill,’ however, being often preferred to ‘base.’ Mason conjectured ‘of a doubt’ was a mistake for ‘of’t corrupt.’ Mr. W. N. Lettsom, too, observes, ‘a verb I should think must lurk under the corruption, “a doubt,” or “doubt,” with the signification of turn, pervert, corrupt, or the like;’ and Dr. Ingleby writes, ‘I am convinced that “of a doubt” is a misprint for “derogate,” for 1st, “of a doubt” and “derogate” have the same number of letters; 2nd, they have the o, a, d, and t in common; and 3rd, “derogate” is the only verb that at the same time completes the sense and preserves the metre.’ The suggestion of ‘derogate’ is ingenious; but may not the construction have been this,— ‘The dram of base (or ill, or bale, or lead, or whatsoever word the compositor tortured into ‘eale’ or ‘ease’; doth (i.e. doeth, worketh,) all the noble substance of a pound to its own vileness’? We by no means pretend that pound was the actual word misrendered ‘doubt;” it is inserted merely because it occurs in opposition to dram, in a lines of Quarles’ ‘Emblems,’ b. ii.E.7,— ‘Where ev’ry dram of gold contains a pound of dross,’ —and because it is extremely probable some such antithesis was intended here.” [addenda 1: lxviii. “So in Spenser’s Faerie Queene, b. i.ciii.s.30:—‘a dram of sweete is worth a pound of sowre’.”]

621+20-621+22 dram of eale . . . scandle] Jervis (1861, p. 16): <p. 16>“Read The dram of ill Doth all the noble substance oft subdue, To his own scandal.’ ‘And almost thence my natue is subdu’d, To what it works in, like the dyer’s hand.’ Shakespeare’s Sonnets. ‘Her infinite cunning, with her modern grace, Subdu’d me to her rate.’ All’s Well that Ends Well, Act v. Sc.3.” </p. 16>

621+20-621+22 the dram . . . scandle] Nichols (1861, pt. 1: 25-6): “<p. 25> “This passage stands thus in the folio [sic]. Most modern editors, following Steevens, have substituted ‘often dout’ for ‘of a doubt,’ placing their reading in the text, and referring the reader to a foot note for the original; ‘to dout’ being accepted in the sense of ‘to destroy.’ Others have thought that ‘derogate’ should be substituted for ‘of a doubt,’ and one of the reasons given for the change is, that it contains the same number of letters; but this is taking a greater liberty with the text, than was taken with the will, in the ‘Tale of a Tub.’ Now, I think Shakespeare’s meaning is made clear enough by the words as they stand: ‘doubt’ is the instrument by which ‘the dram of eale,’ or evil, effects the change here mentioned; “of a doubt” and by a doubt are synonymous terms, of and by being formerly used, according to Johnson, indifferently as a sign of the ablative. ‘To do,’ according to the same authority, means—‘to make anything what it is not.’ as ‘to do him dead.’ </p.25>

<p. 26> “Should this explanation be deemed satisfactory all obscurity vanishes: ‘ . . .the dram of evil Doth all the noble substance by a doubt, To his own scandal.’

“Its meaning being that, let a man’s virtues be what they may—let them be ‘as pure as grace, as infinite as man can undergo,’ yet, should he possess one defect, that defect, that dram of evil, will, by casting a doubt upon his sincerity, convert them to his own scandal, laying him open to the charge of hypocrisy.” </p. 26>

621+20-621+22 the dram . . . scandle] White (ed. 1861): “Thus the 4to. of 1604; the undated 4to. [Q4] and that of 1611 [Q3], ‘the dram of ease’ I leave this grossly-corrupted passage unchanged, because none of the attempts to restore it seem to me to be even worth recording, and I am unable to better them. But it has occurred to me that perhaps the corruption lurks in a part of the passage hitherto unsuspected, and that ‘Doth’ is either a misprint of ‘Hath,’ or has the sense of ‘accomplishes.’”

621+20 -621+22 the dram . . . scandle] Corson (N&Q 1862, p. 269), after criticizing Steevens and Malone, offers his own original emendation: “All the difficulty is removed, I think, by understanding ‘noble,’ not as an adjective limiting ‘substance,’ but as a noun, in the accusative case; and ‘substance’ a verb of which ‘doth’ is the auxilliary. Thus: —‘The dram of eale’ [i.e. ill, or evil which is in a man,] doth all the noble [i.e. nobleness which is in him,] ‘substance of’ [i.e. with, a sense common in early English writers,] ‘a doubt’ [which works] ‘to his owne scandle.’

“The sentence should be read with brief pause after ‘noble’:—‘The dram of eale doth all the noble, substance of a doubt to his own scandle.’

“‘Substance” is used in its metaphysical sense: meaning, to imbue with a certain essence. ‘The dram of ill, or evil in a man, transubstantiates the noble,’—it essences the nobility of his nature.

“This explanation has at least the merit of being less forced than those given by Steevens and Malone.

“As a proof that Shakspeare was acquainted with the metaphysical sense of ‘substance’ the expression of Lady Macbeth, in [1.5.47 (398)] , may be cited:—“Come to my women’s breasts And take my milk for gall, you murd’ring ministers, Wherever, in your sightless substance, You wait on Nature’s mischief!’

“‘Sightless substances,’ i.e. (‘sightless’ being used objectively,) invisible substances, pure essences, with no phenomenal attribution.

“Chaucer, in The Prologue of the Nonne Prestes Tale (v. 14809 of Tyrwhitt’s edition, v. 16289 of Wright’s,) uses the word substance to express the essential character, or nature of a man: an evidence that the meaning I have given to the word in the passage in Hamlet is not peculiar to modern philosophy, but is as old as the language.

“The Host objects to the Monk’s Tale, as being too dull for the occasion; and, that the fault may not be thought to lie in himself, says: ‘And well I wot the substance is in me, If any thing schal wel reported be.’

“That is, I am so substanced, so constituted, so tempered, such is my cast of spirit, that I can appreciate and respond to, as well as the next man, a good story well told. . . . . Hiram Corson.”

621+20-621+22 the dram . . . scandle] Leo (1862, p. 502): “All difficulty would be removed, according to Mr. Hiram Corson, if Shakspeare had understood the word ‘substance’ of a verb; but, unhappily, he never has done so. It is a want in him, I dare say, but we must bear his faults with patience!

“Let me propose another emendation:—The doubtful word, ‘eale,’ in its real form, must have contained a sense opposite to ‘noble,’ and for this purpose I find no better word than ‘vile.’ ‘A doubt,’ I understand as a misprint for ‘a draught;’ for Hamlet has just spoken about drinking, and has just used this word ‘draughts:’ so that he quite naturally, after a moral discourse, returns to his first remark, uses it as an allegory, and, as Mr. Hiram Corson says, ‘imbues it with the essence’ of philosophical reflection.’ After that, I should like to change the word ‘Doth” into ‘Turns,’ and to read the line as follows:—‘The dram of vile Turns all the noble substance of a draught, to his own scandal.’ F. A. Leo.”

621+20-621+22 the dram . . . comes] Keightley (N&Q 1863, p. 42), praises Leo’s emendation, and continues: “. . . he has, it is evident, though he has not so pointed it, seen that the sentence is incomplete; being interrupted by the appearance of the Ghost.

“Some years ago, in my Life of Milton (p. 305), I had examined this passage. I saw clearly—though the editors seem not to have been aware of it—that the sentence was unfinished, and I marked it so. Observing that the 4to (1604), in which it occurs, reads elsewhere [1639] ‘a deale’ for ‘a devil,’ I read evil for eale; and for ‘of a doubt,’ I conjectured out of doubt. But I saw afterwards that doubt should be the name of some person or thing to which ‘substance’ belonged. I conjectured courtier, as Hamlet had been only speaking of persons, and I supposed the final letter might have been effaced. Conjecture, however, is idle, as we have only part of a context. I would read this:— ‘The dram of evil Doth all the noble substance of a doubt To his own scandal . . . Hor. Look my Lord! It comes.’ — as doubt is most certainly wrong, and there is so little chance of our ever hitting on the right word, that I should be almost tempted to put in an asterisk for it. . . . Thos. Keightley.”

621+20-621+22 Keightley (ed. 1864) marks the sentence as interrupted. He explains the crux in his separately-printed notes (1867): “‘The dram of eale Doth all the noble substance, of a doubt To his own scandal . . . —Look, my lord! it comes.’ This passage is not in the folio. As in 4to 1604, where it occurs, we have in [1639] ‘a deale’ for ‘a devil,’ I here read evil for ‘eale:’ in both cases vi may have been written like a; and for ‘of a doubt,’ which is to be found nowhere else, out o’ doubt, or perhaps ‘out of a doubt:’ some read often dout. The sentence, we may see, is not complete, and it should also be recollected that the language of the whole speech is involved, as if the speaker was thinking of something else, and merely talking against time.”

621+20-621+21 eale . . . of a doubt] Arrowsmith (1865, p. 6) uses this line as a metaphor: “‘ . . . because ‘The dram of base doth all the noble substance often draw to his own scandal,’ hence the slur derived from the printing-house about their credit [Heminge and Condell] as editors has left no parts of their work free from question . . . .”

621+20-621+21 eale . . . of a doubt] Cartwright (1866, p. 37): “ ‘the dram of evil Doth all the noble substance oft debase.’ Read leaven and of a dough.

“The 4to of 1604 has eale and of a doubt; the ease in the other quartos is a mere misprint for ‘eale,’ the l mistaken for a long s.”

I don’t know what emendation he is suggesting. Perhaps it will be clearer to me after I collate Dyce2. See below where v1877 credits Cartwright with emendation leaven.

621+20-621+21 eale . . . noble] Dyce (ed. 1866): “The editor of the last ed. of the Variorum Shakespeare allowed this passage to stand uncorrected: I follow his example; for the sundry attempts which have been made to amend it are all more or less unsatisfactory.—Theobald printed, —‘the dram of base Doth all the noble substance of worth out To his own scandal.’ Steevens reads, ‘the dram of base Doth all the noble substance often dout [i.e. do out], To his own scandal.’ which is adopted by Caldecott, Mr. Knight, and Mr. Collier,—except that they substitute ‘ill’ for ‘base.’ But, in the first place, ‘often” is very questionable, because, in all probability, ‘of’ in the old copies is a mistake for ‘oft;’ and secondly, as Mr. W. N. Lettsom observes to me, ‘the words “To his own scandal” are fatal to the reading “dout” (i.e. do out), for, if that alteration be right, they are superfluous. A verb,’ he adds, ‘I should think must lurk under the corruption “a doubt” or “doubt,” with the signification of turn, pervert, corrupt, or the like. Shakespeare’s meaning evidently is, that a little leaven leavens the whole lump,—that one vice will ruin the otherwise perfect character.’— The Rev. W. H. Arrowsmith (in Shakespeare’s Editors and Commentators, p. 6) cites the passage thus, ‘the dram of base Doth all the noble substance often draw To his own scandal.’— Mr. Singer (in his Shakespeare, 1826) gives, ‘the dram of bale Doth all the noble substance often doubt To his own scandal.’ and he remarks; ‘I see no reason why dout should be substituted for doubt. The editors have unwarrantably made the same substitution in [H5 4.2.? (0000)], and then cite it as a precedent. Mr. Boswell has justly observed that to doubt may mean to bring into doubt or suspicion.’ Now, with respect to the passage in Henry V., I am confident that there at least the true reading is ‘douts:’ and surely Mr. Singer will not maintain that in the present play (see p. 559 [3193-4]) Mr. Knight and myself have ‘unwarrantably’ altered ‘doubts’ to ‘douts,’ when we give, according to the text of the folio,— ‘I have a speech of fire, that fain would blaze, But that this folly douts it.’—Mason proposed, ‘Doth all the noble substance of’t corrupt,’ &c., which, he says, ‘seems to be pointed out and supported by the preceding lines, “Shall in the general censure take corruption From that particular fault.” ’—The above conjecture of Mason (which is not mentioned in the Variorum Shakespeare) was unknown to the Rev. J. Mitford, when he wrote to me as follows: ‘I would read ‘Doth all the noble substance oft corrupt,’ &c., —a reading to which the preceding word ‘corruption’ forms any thing but an objection; and you are sure that the sense is right.’—On turning to the edition of Hamlet recently published in Germany by Mr. Delius, I find ‘the dram of bale Doth all the noble substance of and out To his own scandal.’ !! What a pity that the worthy editor had no Englishman at his elbow to prevent him from substituting new nonsense for old!—to conclude this already too long note. In the Devonshire dialect to ‘eale” is to reproach: it may be asked, then,—did Shakespeare (who occasionally has provincialisms) write here ‘the dram of eale’ in the sense of ‘the drama of reproach’? for my own part, I hardly think so. For the reading now inserted in the text I alone am answerable.”

Ed. note: Dyce’s last sentence is true with respect to oft debase but not to evil, which he does not credit to ktly

621+20 dram of eale] Wright (c. 1866, fol. 20): “for want of better, I suggest ‘ill’ which is not unlike ‘eale’ in pronunciation of ‘soil’ the [long] s being confounded with the f in of. or, which is better, ‘le’ or ‘lye’ or ‘ley’ or ‘lay’ i.e. filth; this latter word is found in the compound lay-stalls . .. ”

621+20 dram of eale] Wright (ms. notes, 1866-, fol. 154): “Mr. Dyce was the first to note that eale as a verb is Devonshire for to reproach. It might have been heard by Shakespeare in his country strollings, but being put into the mouth of Hamlet, I am much more inclined to believe that it was for a time a courtly word. Raleigh preserved to the last his provincial mode of speech, and when he was in favour, his fashions would be the court fashions.

“The whole sentence is made easy of understanding and consonant with the preceding lines if we read: ‘Doth all the noble substance oft endoubt i.e. render suspect, to the scandal of the whole noble substance.’ Neither in this nor in the previous sentence does he say that their virtues or the noble substance are really corrupted by the one vice as by a leavein [leaven?], but only that they are deemed corrupt in the censure of the general public—”

621+20 -621+22 the dram . . . scandle]Wright (ms. notes, 1866-, fol. 154): “Doth all the noble substance oft endoubt i.e. render suspect, to the scandal of the whole noble substance. Neither in this nor in the previous sentence does he say that their virtues or the noble substance are really corrupted by the one vice as by a leavein[leaven?], but only that they are deemed corrupt in the censure of the general public—

621+20 eale] Bailey (1866, 2:2-3): <p. 2>“The last sentence is unintelligible, the words italicized being manifestly corrupt; and the proper way of restoring the passage has given rise to a long discussion. Without attempting to show the inadmissibility of the emendations proposed, I will content myself with suggesting another. </p. 2><p. 3> For eale I would read evil, which was usually spelt euill.”

621+20-621+22 Wetherall (apud Ingleby, ms. note in glo): “the dram of e’il . . . oft traduce. Wetherell conj.”

I have this from the original now, and should write it out. Wait to see what Eric sends.

621+20-621+22 Furnivall (apud Ingleby, ms. note in glo): “the dram of lead . . . oft adote. Furnivall.”

621+20-621+21 eale. . . of a doubt] Keightley (1867, p. 288): “As in 4to, 1604, where [eale] occurs, we have in [1639] ‘a deale’ for ‘a devil’, I here read evil for ‘eale:’ in both cases vi may have been written like a; and for ‘of a doubt,’ which is to be found nowhere else, out o’ doubt, or perhaps ‘out of a doubt:’ some read often dout.”

621+20 eale] Clarke & Clarke (ed. 1868): “This passage is omitted altogether in the Folio; while some of the Quartos give ‘ease,’ others ‘eale,’ for ‘base.’

621+20-621+22 dram . . . doubt] Stearns (1869, pp. 373-4): <p. 373> “Still other words are to be found in Shakspeare, which since his time appear to have dropped out of the language, while their place has not been supplied by any other half as good. For example, ‘The dram of bale Doth all the noble substance often doubt.’ This seems to be a figure of speech borrowed from the commerce in drugs, in which a great deal of adultera- </p. 363><p. 364> tion is practised, by the mingling of inferior substances. ‘Bale’ is the word from which comes our present word baleful (as doleful comes from dole,) and doubtless signified any thing hurtful or injurious. For this we have now only the foreign word alloy, to express that which vitiates or debases a ‘nobler substance.’” </p.374>

621+20 - 621+22 Anon (1869, p. 45): “This, the folio [sic] reading of the last three lines, is evidently corrupt, as it conveys no sense at all. But, unmeaning as it is, the passage is retained both by Mr. Staunton and the Cambridge editors, although more than one plausible emendation has been suggested. Knight and Collier read: — ‘The dram of ill Doth all the noble substance often dout To his own scandal.’ The objection to dout is obvious, for, if that were the reading, the concluding clausewould be altogether superfluous. Mr. Dyce, on the natural supposition that the original reference was to the little leaven leavening the whole lump, reads: ‘The dram of evil Doth all the noble substance oft debase To his own scandal,’ which appears to us the best emendation of this doubtful and corrupt passage yet suggested.”

621+20-621+22 Prowett (N&Q 1869, p. 250) reports on <p. 250> “the current issue” of Edinburgh Review, whom he quotes or paraphrases and then rebuts: “The Cambridge edition is also reprehended [i.e. by the Edinburgh reviwer] for leaving the unintelligible passage in Hamlet, [quotes]; and the reviewer, though not quite so clear on this point as on the last-mentioned, accepts Mr. Dyce’s emendation—[quotes].

“If Shakespeare wrote ‘oft debase’ it is not easy to imagine by what mistake of ear or eye the unmeaning words “of a dout’ got substituted for them. I suppose it may be taken for granted that these words at least are corrupt. If we are allowed guesswork, is it not possible that there was such a word as ‘eale,’ and that it is identical with another mysterious word used in Hamlet, ‘Would’st drink up Esil’ [3473], which is said to mean vinegar? In that case we may perhaps imagine that Shakespeare wrote the next line—‘Doth all the noble substance over-clout.’ The metaphor being the same as that used in [quotes 753-4].

“Thus Shakespeare would mean to say here, ‘the small quantity of vinegar or other acid mater ‘over-clouts,’ or curdles over, the whole of the substance to which it is added, so as to impart its own scandalous character to that substance.’ He had just before used the word ‘o’er-leavens,’ which may guide us to the image in his thought. Clout, to clot or curdle, is a well-known provincial expression. It is easy to conceive how the unfamiliar word ‘clout’ passed by a mistake of the eye into ‘dout’; and how by a mistake of the ear ‘over’ was written ‘of a.’ Garrick Club. C. G. Prowett.”

621+20 - 621+22 Anon. (N&Q 1869, p. 339): “ . . . It may be noted in passing, that there is nothing specially mysterious about esil. . . . Apart from other objections the suggested image is, it [i.e. vinegar] seems to me, too specific to suit either the context or the sentence itself.

“On further thought about the matter, I am disposed to adopt an emendation slightly different from any I have seen. Evil is used by the Elizabethan writers, and by Shakespare himself, as a monosyllable, and it would then be pronouned eale, just as devil is still pronounced ‘de’il’ in the northl and by a mistake of the ear, it might easily have been written as pronounced. Again, the word dout is used not only in the literal sense of, do out, extinguish, destroy, but in the secondary meaning of obscure, eclipse, prevent the manifestation of, as by Laertes himself in the same play [quotes 3184].

“This secondary sense very much does away with the force of Mr. Dyce’s objection to the reading dout in the passage; and I am disposed, therefore, to read it—‘The dram of e’il Doth all the noble substance often dout To his own scandal.”

621+20 - 621+21 Rossetti (N&Q 1869, p. 367) <p. 367>, referring to an earlier note by H. W. R. on “English Wines” to the effect that whoever eats eel dressed in wine “Shall ever afterward loathe wine” conjectures that the wine in which the eel was dressed might be known as eel [[eale]], so: “The dram of eel Doth all the noble substance often doubt To his own scandal”; “i.e. ‘the dram of eel-dressing [[vitiated wine]] doth often doubt [[bring into suspicion and disrepute]] the noble substance [[of pure wine]], to the scandal and discredit of said substance.’ This is in fact the same statement as that made by Maplett, a writer of Shakespearian age, whose assertion evidently embodies a popular supersition, prejudice, or axiom then current. . . . W. M. Rossetti.” </p. 367>

The article on wine is in 4th. ser. vol 4: 293.

Rosssetti’s note, “The ‘Edinburgh Review” and Shakespeare” N&Q 4 ser. 4 (30 Oct. 1869): 367-8.

621+20 the dram of eale] Rossetti (N&Q 1869, p. 487), adding to his prior note and retaining the idea of eale as eel, says, “The word dram, as we all know, signifies not only ‘a small quantity of liquor,’ but also ‘the sixteenth part of an ounce.’ In this sense it is written either drachm or dram—Ash’s Dictionary (1775) gives the latter spelling. Thus, instead of supposed a rather circuitous sense for eale (as in my original note), we can leabe it in its primary and direct sense; and understand ‘a dram of eale’ to mean simply and exactly ‘an extremely small weight or quantity, even the sixteenth part of an ounce, of the eel-fish.’ This small quantity (as the passage quoted proceeds to say, in general accordance with the assertion of Maplett [on wine]) can make ‘all the noble substance of wine disgustful. W. M. Rossetti.”

621+20-621+22 White (Galaxy 1869, pp. 547-8) criticizes Dyce (ed. 1866) for his emendation because there is no justification for it. Simply clarifying the meaning, which is clear anyway, is not reason enough for emendation. White had left it unemended in his 1861 ed.

621+20 TCC Add MS b.59. F20 dram of eale: for want of better, I suggest “ill” which is not unlike “eale” in pronunciation of “soil” the [long] s being confounded with the f in of. or, which is better, “le” or “lye” or “ley” or “lay” i.e. filth; this latter word is found in the compound lay-stalls. ..perhaps “of a doubt” should be “overdoubt” or “overdo” i.e. quench spoil...Perhaps “eale” is for “carle”=“churl” ie. a dramm or little churl

621+20 dram of eale] Daniel (1870, pp. 73-4) conjectures: “—the bran of meale Doth all the noble substance of it doubt: So this one scandal ... Enter Ghost. Hor. Look, my lord, it comes.” <p.73> “It seemed to me that the key to the solution of the difficulty lay in the four mysterious letters e a l e ; if they may be formed by the addition of an m into the word meale (the usual old spelling of meal), the change of the preceding word dram to bran is obvious, and we have then a sentence singularly in accordance with the argument of Hamlet’s speech, namely, that one particular fault or defect will in the general opinion discredit many fine qualities. He </p.73> <p.74> repeats this argument over and over again, and illustrates it by the homely simile of the bran doubting or discrediting all the noble substance of the meal. He is then proceeding to the ‘moral’ of his argument, which is that this one scandal of drunkenness darkens the reputation of the Danes, when the entry of the ghost makes him break off the speech, and Horatio completes the line by exclaiming, ‘Look, my lord, it comes!’

“If the bran of meal is accepted, the change of of a to of it hardly needs apology.

“On the change of To his own to So this one, it must be remarked that, as three separate errors of the press, they might easily be disposed of; it is their all three coming together that ‘must give us pause.’

In So, the S being next the T. the error would be easily accounted for. His and this are so frequently confounded in the old copies, that no one would hesitate to correct where the sense of a passage required the change. In this very play of ‘Hamlet’ I have noted fourteen instances. The corruption of one into own is a much more interesting subject of investigation, but I think the error is likely to have arisen from the similarity of sound of the two words. See note on [TGV 2.1.1-2 pronunciation of on and one, where also I have noted two instances of one and own being confounded.

“The simile of bran and meal seems to have been a favourite one with the writers of the Elizabethan period. Shakespeare, who so rarely repeats himself, uses it in two other places. In [Cym. 4.2.27. (2277)] ‘Nature hath meal and bran, contempt and grace.’ Again, in [Cor. 3.1.319. (2063)]: —‘he is ill school’d In bolted language; meal and bran together He throws without distinction.’ ” </p.74>

621+20 dram of] Abbott (§ 171): “Of is . . . used not merely of the agent but also of the instrument. This is most common with verbs of construction, and of filling, because in construction and filling the result is not merely effected with the instrument, but proceeds out of it. We still retain of with verbs of construction and adjectives of fulness; but the Elizabethans retained of with verbs of fulness also.”

621+20 - 621+21 dram . . . doubt] Miles (Review of Hamlet, 1870, p. 16, apud Furness, ed. 1877): “‘The dram of ill Doth all the noble substance throw in doubt’ seems to be the meaning of the line.”

621+20-621+22 dram . . . scandle] Moberly (ed. 1870): “The passage must surely be read— ‘The dram of ill Doth all the noble substance ever dout To his own scandal;’ that is, ‘the slight admixture of evil often quenches, or leavens down the noble substance into its own offensive quality;’ (‘to dout with superfluous courage’ is an expression in [H5 4.2.11 (2180)], and the word occurs in [3184, F1] of this play.”

621+20 dram of eale] Rushton (Euphues,1871, p. 93, apud Furness, ed. 1877, p. 88): “may be a misprint, or abbreviation, of dram of Hellebore, or ‘ele-bore,’ which old authors speak of as being very poisonous; [quotes Gosson, as above].

621+20-621+22 Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “We leave this hopelessly corrupt passage as it stands in the two earliest quartos.”

621+20-621+21 dram of eale . . . of a doubt] Hudson (ed. 1872): “the quartos have ‘dram of eale’ for “dram of vile,’ and of a doubt instead of oft abate. Eale is no word at all, and bale, base, ill, and vile, have all been proposed as substitutes for it. I prefer vile as more likely to have been misprinted eale. Some editors change of a doubt to often doubt, construing doubt in the sense of throwing doubt or distrust upon; others change it to often dout, taking dout in the sense of do out or destroy: as the Poet has a like use of doff and don. I have ventured to change of into oft, and a doubt into abate, which was often used by old writers in the sense of cast down or depress. Perhaps attaint would give a slightly more congruous sense; but I prefer abate as more apt to have been misprinted a doubt. Mr. Dyce in his last edition changes ‘of a doubt’ into ‘oft debase;’ which may be right.”

621+20 eale] Ford (1873, fol. 23) in a letter to Wright (TCC Add. Ms. b.60 fol. 23), suggests “Read evil for eale, and the words make sense”. . . cites passage in Milton’s Aeropagitica “Were I the chooser, a dram of well-doing should be preferred before many . . . hindrance of evil-doing”

621+20-621+22 dram . . . scandle]

621+20-621+22 the dram of eale . . . scandle] Corson (1874, pp. 13-14): <p. 13>“‘eale,’ whether it be a corrupt form of ‘ill’ or ‘evil,’ or whatever it be, stands, as a general term, for ‘some vicious mole in nature,’ the ‘habit that too much o’er-leavens The form of plausive manners,’ the ‘one defect,’ just alluded to by Hamlet. All the difficulty of the passage is removed, I think, by understanding ‘noble,’ not as an adjective, as all the commentators have understood it, qualifying ‘substance,’ but as a noun opposed to ‘eale,’ and the subject of ‘substance,’ a verb of which ‘doth’ is its auxiliary. Thus: ‘the dram of eale doth all the noble, substance of [i.e. ‘with,’ a sense common in the English of the time,] ‘a doubt [which works] ‘to his own scandal.’ ‘Sub- </p. 13><p. 14> stance’ is used in the sense of ‘imbue with a certain essence; ‘his’ is a neuter genitive, standing for ‘noble,’ and = ‘its.’ The dram of ill transubstantiates the noble, essences it to its own scandal. In regard of the uses of ‘of’ and ‘to,’ see Abbott’s Shakespearean Grammar, rev. and enl. ed. §§ 171 and 186.”

“The use of ‘substance,’ in the sense of ‘essence,’ was, of course, sufficiently common, and had been for more than two centuries, to justify the interpretation given. In [Mac. 1.5.49 (400), we have ‘sightless substances’ = ‘invisible essences,’ ‘sightless’ being used objectively. ‘Being of one substance with the Father.’ Book of Common Prayer. Chaucer, in The Prologe of the Nonne Prestes Tale (l. 14809 of Tyrwhitt’s edition, l. 16289 of Wright’s) uses the word to express the essential character or nature of a man. The Host objects to the Monk’s Tale, as being too dull for the occasion and, that the fault may not be thought to lie in himself, says, ‘And wel I wot the substance is in me, If eny thing schal wel reported be.’ That is, I am so substanced, so constituted, so tempered, such is my cast of spirit, that I can appreciate and enjoy, as well as the next man, a good story well told. Whether ‘substance’ can be found, in this sense as a verb, matters not. The free functional application of words which characterized the Elizabethan English, allowed, as every English scholar knows, of the use of any noun, adjective, or neuter verb, as an active verb. * See Abbott’s Shakespearean Grammar.”</p. 14>

<n.*><p.14> “This interpretation I communicated, in the main, in ‘Notes and Queries,’ some years ago, But I did not then recognize as important element in it that the pronoun ‘his” is a neuter genitive, standing for ‘noble’ used as a noun.” </p. 14> </n* >

621+20-621+22 the drama . . . scandle] Davies (N&Q 1876, p. 201), after declaring that provincialism can explain some obscure passages in Sh., discusses several examples, including this one: “ This passage is so unintelligible to all the editors that they have agreed almost unanimously to alter it. Messrs. Collier and Knight print it thus:—‘The dram of ill Doth all the noble substance often dout,’ i.e. put out or extinguish. Mr. Knight adds that perhaps we ought to read bale, which is the emendation adopted by Mr. Singer [sing1]. Other editors [many, including sing2] have substituted the word base, though we have no instance of such a use of the word in Shakespeare. There is no need of any change, The word eale, with the meaning reproach, is still used in the western counties. The phrase to do of, followed by a noun, is common both in the West and North. In my native county (Lancashire) a countryman will say of anything that made him tremble exceedingly, ‘It did me aw of a dither’ (Germ. zittern). The corresponding phrase, ‘It made me all of a tremble,’ is often used in a higher class of society. The meaning of the passage is that a dram of reproach makes all the noble substance of such a nature doubtful, or liable to suspicion. . . . [continues with other TLNs]. John Davies.”

621+20-621+21 eale . . . noble] Wetherill (Athenaeum, 20 Nov. 1869, apud Furness, ed. 1877, pp. 87-8) “suggests ‘The dram of e’il Doth all the noble substance oft traduce To his own scandal,’ bec ause Bacon, in his Ninth Essay, says that ‘as infection spreadeth upon that which is sound and tainteth it, so this evil eye traduceth even the best actions thereof, and turneth them into an ill odour.’”

621+20-621+21 eale . . . noble]

621+20 eale] Nicholson (Letter to Ingleby 12/1/78, letter 55): “As to ‘eale’ I am obliged now to say that I learn I have been forestalled by Dr. G, Richardson about 2 years ago—However, as I doubt if it be genl. known I give it you.

The form ‘evile’ does not occur in Hamlet till v.2 (bis). The first occurrence of ‘devil’ (II. 2 present edd.) in the same 1604 qto as ‘eale’ runs thus ‘May be a deale, and the deale hath power’ If therefore deale = devil then evil = eale Q. E. D, Of course it would be a corroboration greatly to be wished if [??], ‘evil’s & ‘devils’ of the play were so spelt. But that they are not does not alter the fact that up to v.2, eale & deale both occur & no other form. The occurrence of deale twice & in a most simple and easily understood passage prevents the belief in an accidental misprint. It is also clear that this spelling is the compositor’s and not Sh’s, for one ‘deale’ is in scansion disyllabic & in the other monosyllabic.

“My theory as distinct from the [?] fact, is that on the coming to England of a Scotch King (the first king for many years and a literary one), it became the fashion to copy his pronunciation and among others call the devil de’il & evil e’il or as it would be more broadly written or pronounced d’ eale & e’ale, In like manner, Raleigh being prime favourite, Eliz’s courtiers took to imitating his broad Devonshire accent.”

621+20 eale] Nicholson (Letter to Ingleby 23/1/78, letter 56): “As to the ‘eale’ passage I dont know the writer further back than B. Richardson who first found out the settling ‘deale—deals” Who was it?”

621+20 eale] Collier (ed. 1878): “in [621+20] ill is misprinted eale;” note continues:

621+20-621+22 Bullock (1879, p. 48) connects these lines with Eccles 10.1.

621+20-621+22 the dram . . . scandle] Herr (1879, pp. 122-5): <p.122> “There is no difficulty in knowing the general meaing of this passage, insofar as that is sufficiently manifest from the preceding words, whereof it is clearly a figurative summing up or corollary. The thought is that of a small leaven of evil corrupting the entire mass of ‘noble substance:’ and many words of that sense, such as ill, base, vile, soil, leaven, taint, etc., have been suggested to supply the place of ‘eale.’ So numerous have been the emendations proposed as to fill six or seven closely printed pages in Furness’s Variorum edition with a mere synopsis of them, some of which are fair and plausible, while others are absurd and non-sensical. White, in commenting, says: ‘I will leave this grossly-corrupt passage unchanged, because none of the attempts to restore it seem to me to be even worth recording, and I am unable to better them.’ But the trouble lies not so much with the rectification of ‘eale’ (which without much question must be either evil, leaven, base, or ill, no such word as ‘eale’ existing in the English language,) as in the emending of the phrase ‘of a doubt,’ now generally changed to ‘oft or often dout’ (=do out, efface) ‘oft corrupt,’ ‘ever dout,’ etc. As then so many attempts have alrady been made, it may seem futile to offer additional suggestions; but the passage remaining a source of fruitful conjecture we here venture, ‘under leave of Brutus and the rest,’ to give several new renderings that have recently occurred to us. First it may be said, that ‘dram’ here signifies, not a liquid, or distilled liquors, but an indefinitely small quantity, a grain, particle, atom; in this sense it is used by Dryden, who has, ‘no dram of judgment;’ and Quarles’ Emblems, b. ii. E. 7: ‘Where every dram of gold contains a pound of dross;’ in Spencer’s Fairie Queene; ‘A dram of sweet is worth,’ etc.; and now-a-days it would be spelled ‘drachm.’ ‘His own scandal.’ His, of course, is grammatically understood as its; and scandal here has been rightly defined as reproach, disgrace. These noted, the words may run—’The dram of base Doth all the noble substance oft weigh down, To its own scandal. ‘Base, or baseness,’ (identical in meaning with the author) is very often employed by him as synonymous with evil, vileness, vice, etc. This reading is sustained by the following from Cymbeline, 3.5.88: ‘Where is thy lady . . . Is she Posthumus? From whose so many weights of baseness cannot A dram of worth be drawn.’ </p.122><p.123> ‘Worth’ may be here reasonably considered as equivalent to ‘noble substance.’ Also Timon of Athens, v. I: ‘And send forth us, to make their sorrow’d render, Together with a recompence more fruitful Than their offence can weigh down by the dram.’ In All’s Well, 3.4.31, there is a sentence indirectly favoring:—’Write, write, Rinaldo, To this unworthy husband of his wife; Let every word weigh heavy of her worth That he doth weigh too light.’ This proposed reading harmonizes completely with all that precedes it in Hamlet’s speech. Next, we may emend by—’The dram of leaven Doth all the noble substance often drown, To its own scandal.’ ‘Leaven’ occurred to me long before I saw recently in Furness’s Variorum that it had already been proposed by Cartwright; and it has also been advocated by Hudson in his edition of Hamlet, published about two months’s ago. It is supported by the seventh line above in the same passage, ‘o’er-leavens;’ and by Cymbeline, 3.4: ‘And Sinon’s weeping did scandal many a holy tear, took pity From most true wretchedness, so thou, Posthumus, Wilt lay the leaven on all proper men; Goodly and gallant shall be false and perjured From thy great fall.’ Also Matt. XVI: ‘Beware the leaven of the Pharisses and Sadducess [sic];’ and 1 Cor. v,: ‘A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.’ As to drown, it is used by Shakespeare in the sense of ‘o’erwhelm,’ ‘extinguish,’ and can be justified by reference to Hamlet, iv. 7. 189, where, by the way, a similar error or point needs correcting: ‘I have speech of fire, that fain would blaze, But that this folly douts it.’ In the quarto and later folios the word douts of the last line reads drowns. Now it is clear and evident the quartos and later folios are right, insofar as Laertes’ figurative language naturally implies that the ‘speech of fire,’ or ‘blaze’ is drown’d’ ‘extinguish’d’ ‘overwhelm’d,’ by ‘this folly,’ i.e. the weak and womanly tears that spring to his (Laertes’) eyes at the drowning of Ophelia. It is likewise indirectly substantiated by his remark in the sixth line </p.123><p.124> above, where he speaks of ‘water’—a word equally associated with ‘drowns:’—’Too much of water hast thou, poor Ophelia, And therefore I forbid my tears: but Yet it is our trick; nature her custom holds.’ In this case, why then should not drowns be restored to the text, since it is the better word, and besides, is found in the quartos and later folios? In hundreds of instances the quarto readings have been preferred and adoptd to those of the first folio; why not then here? why this exception? So if it be established that drowns should properly supersede douts in this case, it should likewise take its place in the passage at issue, where ‘douts or doubts’ really means nothing intelligable [sic], and is, therefore, doubly nonsensical. Like mistakes in regard to ‘doubt or douts’ have already been pointed out in Henry V, 4.2.12; and the Tempest, 2.1; and as in all of these instances ‘drown or drowns’ is plainly more suitable, it may hence reasonably be questioned whether Shakespeare ever wrote doubts in either, all being typographical blunders. These are the only four passages in Shakespeare where the word ‘douts or doubts’ occurs, and in all of them it is wrong. But where ever else the genuine word—doubt—is met with, it will be found used by the poet in its proper place and sense, there and then, and easily recognizable by the reader; as, for instance, in this play 2.2, where it is right: ‘Doubt thou the stars are fire: Doubt that the sun doth move, Doubt truth to be a liar; But never doubt I love.’ So without doubt we should read the couplet—’I have speech of fire, that fain woujld blaze, Bt that this folly drowns it.’ There remains still another emendation; but it is necessary to state that it springs from the writer’s belief that the passage in quetion has by some unaccountable accident lost a line—perhaps dropped out in the printing—and hence the main difficulty and its chief corruption. This belief is supported by a remark of Mr. White, who, in discussing the same subject, apparently entertained the same supposition: ‘But it occurs to me that the corruption lurks in a part of the passage hitherto unsuspected.’ However, before undertaking to supply the omission then, it must be understood the writer does not presume or venture to present his own owrds in the supposed missing portion; but that the line in- <?p.124><p.125> terpolated is a piece of patch-work composed of sentences taken from Cymbeline which bear on the same idea. One of these passages has alrady been quoted above in this note, and the reader can refer to it; the other is also in Cymbeline, 3.4:—’All good seeming By the revolt, O husband, shall be thought Put on for villany.’ this clearly understood, the suggested reading might run—’The dram of leaven Doth all the noble substance of a deed, Good and gallant, make seem put on for false, To its own scandal.’ It may however be added, that this reading, being unsure and dubious, it hence were safer to entertain either of the two emendations previously given, of which the first is decidedly preferred by the present writer, as affording a clear and consistent meaning at leats.” </p. p125>

621+20 - 621+22 Hudson (ed. 1881): “His, again, for its, referring to substance, or, perhaps to leav’n. Of course ’em refers to virtues. So the meaning is, that the dram of leaven sours all the noble substance of their virtues, insomuch as to bring reproach and scandal on that substance itself. The poet seems to have had in mind Saint Paul’s saying, 1 Corinthians, v. 6: ‘A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.’ And so in Bacon’s Henry the Seventh: ‘And, as a little leaven of new distaste doth commonly soure the whole lumpe of former merites, the King’s wit began now to suggest unto his passion,’ &c. This is said in reference to Sir William Stanley, whose prompt and timely action gained the victory of Bosworth Field. Some years after, he became a suitor for the earldom of Chester; whereupon, as Bacon says, ‘his suit did end not only in a denial, but in a distaste’ on the part of the King. See Critical notes.”

621+20 - 621+22 Hudson (ed. 1881): “This dreadful passage may, I think, be fairly said to have baffled all the editors and commentators. Mr. Furness, in his superb Variorum, notes some forty different readings which have been printed or proposed, all of them so unsatisfactory that he rejects them, and gives the old text, apparently regarding the corruption as hopeless. There is surely no possibility of making any sense out of it as it stands; and so far, I believe, all are agreed. Lettsom, I think, was the first to perceive the reference to St. Paul’s proverbial saying: ‘Shakespeare’s meaning,’ he says, ‘evidently is, that a little leaven leavens the whole lump’; and the same thought occurred to me before I lighted on his remark. This clew was not long in guiding me to the two other changes I have made; in fact, the present reading was suggested to me by the passage from Bacon quoted in foot-note 11 [see above], which see. And the language is in just accordance with what Hamlet says a little before,—that too much o’er-leavens the form of plausive manners’ [613-14]. Nor was leaven, especially if written in the shortened form lev’n, unlikely to be corrupted into eale: at all events, we have many undoubted misprints much more emphatic than that. I was at one time minded to substitute yeast for eale; but I doubt whether yeast was ever used for leaven in Shakespeare’s time: certainly he does not use it so anywhere else.”

621+20 eale] White (ed. 1883): “The destructive confusion of the quarto text is plainly the result, in part, of an effort to make something out of copy that could not be deciphered. It seems to me that eale is a phonetic error for evil [that word and devil having been, like spirit, pronounced sometimes as two syllables and sometimes as one; in the quarto we have deal twice for devil) . . . .

621+20-621+21 Leo (1885, pp. 89-90): “My former readings were ‘the dram of ill Turns all the noble substance of a draught,’ and ‘Daubs all the noble substance of a man.” But now I should like to read—‘the dram of ill Doth all the noble substance oft addict To his own scandal.’

“There is no great change necessary, and the new word ‘addict’ is found in [Ham. 910] in a sense not too distant from the meaning here required, but written with one d in the Quarto 1604m and with two d’s in the First Folio.”

621+20 that particuler fault] MacDonald (ed. 1885): “‘Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour: so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honor.’ [Eccles. 10.1].”

621+20 eale] MacDonald (ed. 1885): “It is hardly necessary to suspect a Scotch printer; evil is often used as a monosyllable, and eale may have been a pronunciation of it half-way towards ill, which is its contraction.”

621+20 eale] Mull (ed. 1885): “ill.”

621+20 - 621+22 Bryant (ed. 1888): “The passage is perplexed; but its evident meaning, as Lettsom (cited by Dyce) remarks, is ‘that a little leaven leavens the whole lump.’ It may thus be explained: the dram of ill doth infect all the noble substance of a man’s nature, and doubt according to the partial evil in its composition.”

621+20-621+22 Orger (1890, pp. 82-3): <p. 82> “Mr. Grant White’s remark, that possibly the </p. 82><p. 83> corruption of the passage lies in the word ‘doth,’ induces me to add another to the numerous conjectures which have been made, hitherto without any signal success.

“I would, with diffidence, suggest that ‘doth’ ought to be ‘draweth.’ ‘Eale’ is most easily, I think, altered to ‘evil’; though ‘ill,’ or ‘base,’ which have been also proposed, will serve the purpose equally. The only further correction needed will be to transpose the prepositions ‘to’ and ‘of.’

“Hamlet says, the corruption of a part throws suspicion on the whole. This sense will follow on the reading proposed—‘The dram of evil, Draweth all the noble substance to a doubt Of his own scandal.’” </p. 83>

621+20 eale] Maxcy (ed. 1892): “obsolete form of ale.”

621+20-621+22 scandle] Dowden (ed. 1899) suggests that doth scandal could be a verb, separated as is not unusual, by an inversion: Doth scandal all the noble substance. Scandal is a verb in Cym. 3.4.60 (1732). He supposes scandal could precede to his own with substance understood and paraphrases: “Out of a mere doubt or suspicion the dram of evil degrades in reputation all the noble substance to its own.”

621+20 - 621+22 the dram . . . scandle] Reed (1902, § 110) quotes Bacon History of Henry VII 1621: “A little leaven of new distaste doth commonly sour the whole lump of former merits.”

621+20-621+22 Mackenzie (N&Q 1903, p. 323), after referring the reader to the variorum for other explanations, says: “The generally accepted conjecture is that [eale] is a corrupt spelling of ‘evil’ or ‘e’il,’ the v being omitted in the latter case, as it is in [1639], where we find ‘deale’ for de’ile=devil.

“It does not appear to have occurred to any one that this word is a syncopated form of ‘eisel,’ or as the First Quarto has it, ‘esile,’ from the Old French aisel=vinegar, gall (aiselle, according to Larousse in his ‘Dictionaire Universel,’ is still in use as ‘Agric. nom d’une variété de betterave qui renferme peu de sucre’); in other terms, that it is the same word that occurs after wards in ‘Hamlet,’ V.i.264 [299 Globe ed.]: ‘Woo’t drink up eisel?’ And in Sonnet cxi. 10:—‘I will drink Potions of eisel against my strong infection, No bitterness that I will bitter think.’ The elision of an s is quite as probable as that of a v, especially in words derived from the French language, in which the s is so frequently unsounded.

“Next comes the difficulty of the words ‘of a doubt.’ Here I surmise that ‘of a doubt’ is a phonetic blunder for of a bout—i.e., of a round of drinks, an expression clearly connected with the idea of the preceding lines:—[quotes 612-14, 621+1 &c.]. And if, allowing for a further very probable phonetic error, we read gall for ‘all,’ the passage would then run:— ‘The dram of e’ile Doth gall the noble substance of a bout To his own scandal,’ meaning—as is obvious from the context—that as a man’s character, though it be as pure as grace, shall in the general censure take corruption from one particular fault, so a dram of eisil in the wine served out in the general round will render bitter the entire bout. Compare Horace, Epis. I.ii.55:—‘Sincerum est nisi vas, quodcumque infundis, acescit,’ and Ecclesiastes x.1. ‘Bout’ was used in the sense of a drinking bout in 1670 by Maynwaring (vide, ‘Vita Sana,’ vi. 78). V. St. Clair Mackenzie.”

621+20-621+22 Verity (ed. 1904): “The difficulty in this much discussed passage is really verbal. The sense, in the light of lines [621+1-621+20a], is clear. Hamlet is summing up: ‘A man’s virtues, however eminent, will not avail, as regards his reputation, against ‘one defect’ in him, whether it be a natural blemish of character or an acquired evil habit; the world will judge him, not by his many virtues but by his ‘one defect’: thus the small admixture of evil degrades the whole body of good to the level of its own disgrace.’ [. . . ].”

621+20-621+22 ] Bullen (ed. 1907, 10: 432) declines to emend but says, “That ‘eale’ is an abbreviation of ‘evil’ may be safely conceded; and, of the endless emendations proposed, Steevens‘ ‘often dout’ for ‘of a doubt’ is the most probable.”

621+20-621+22 the dram . . . scandle] Adams (1913, pp. 41-2): <p. 41> “If this clause be so emended as to make a clear, epigrammatic sentence, perfectly intelligible to every one in the audience, the effect aimed at in the long, involved sentence that precedes would be destroyed. </p. 41>

621+20 eale] Trench (1913, p. 69 n. 1): “Eale = evil, just as deale [Q2 1639] = devil, or as e’er = ever . . . ”

621+20 eale] Sargeaunt (“Hamlet’s Solid Flesh,” TLS 1918: 417) thinks that eale should be “evle” (evil), the error in Q2 resulting from a confusion of a:v.

621+20 eale] Hill (N&Q Jan. 1919 and Jan. 1920, apud Hill, TLS 1923: 303) had suggested lees for eale, and, from Elze’s often daub for of a doubt, he suggests overdaub. In former times, actors smeared their faces with the lees of wine “to produce a weird effect.”

621+20-621+22 St. J. S (1919, pp. 4-5) <p. 4> “A.” lays out possibilities based on the assumption that Sh. wrote sense:

“(1) The printer, confronted with very bad handwriting, may have done his best—printed exactly what he made of it, with no intrusion of his own intelligence.

“(2) Finding the MS. unintelligible, he may have “emended” on his own, modestly or recklessly.

“(3) He may have printed from dictation, in which case his ear, not his eye, was deceived. Many of the proposed emendations seem to rest on this supposition. Is it a possible one?

“B. (1) It is commonly accepted that eale is a mistake for evil. Surely a very odd mistake! Evil is a common word, which it is hard to believe that any printer could corrupt into a rare or non-existent one. Yet, on the other hand, at [1639] the Quarto did print deale for devil. The presumed intermediate form e’il is hardly worth consideration, in spite of the Scottish ‘deil’ for devil. Shakespeare was writing English; and the notion that e’il was used for metre’s sake is ludicrous. The 24 lines of this speech contain 8 other hypermeters.

“(2) The only tenable suppositions are (a) that eale has displaced some other word; (b) that it is a genuine word itself which occurs nowhere else, and whose meaning is now lost. The ‘N. E. D.’ does not recognize it. As to (a), there is still an opening for a brilliant conjectural restoration; but the restorer must satisfy himself whether the printer was baffled by bad handwriting or misled by pronunciation.

“Is (b) possible? Note that the word passed through the Third Quarto unchallenged. The word is required to mean some ingredient of a mixture, a modicum of which has the power to spoil or corrupt the mass; as, e.g., rennet or some acids, dropped into milk or cream, would operate.

“C. It is also commonly agreed that ‘of a dout’ is wrong. ‘Often dout’ seems to me at present the least satisfactory. </p. 4><p. 5> dout (do out) to be taken as meaning ‘put out,’ ‘extinguish’? This is consonant with the idea of liquid in dram. Or as meaning ‘eject,’ ‘expel’? One objection that I have seen to the word often, viz. that it is too limited, is sufficiently refuted by oft in [621+7, 621+12].

“In a MS. the most likely word to be misread as dout would be clout. Clout=patch gives no sense; but a none clout is another form of clot, and the participle clouted, of clotted. The ‘N.E.D.’ admits under clouted that a verb clout for clot is conceivable, though no instances are listed. To revert to a notion indicated above, if eale could be a lost word for vinegar, or be a printer’s misreading for esil (Esile in the Folio), we should gain a good and clear metaphor; it often happens that a small portion of vinegar dropped into a nobler substance (such as milk) curdles it all.’

“That the operation of acids on mild was in Shakespeare’s mind at the time is shown by [754].

“D. ‘To his own scandal.’ Three meanings are possible. (a) His own refers to the subject, dram; to is used of result, as in Lamech’s ‘I have slain a man, to his hurt.’ The phrase then means ‘so as to incur blame for its operation.’

(b) His own refers to the object, “the noble substance’; then to=into: ‘spoils the noble substance by turning it into a corruption of itself.’ This is better suited than (a) to the general context and the scope of the metaphor; but the construction with dout is not very happy. It would suit clout well.

(c) His own means ‘the depraved man’s.’ This remoteness of reference, and false concord [i.e. of agreement of pronoun and antecedent], is more licentious writing, but thoroughly Shakespearean in style. H. K. St. J. S.”

BWK: The use without attribution of earlier notes in N&Q is perhaps to be expected and is not plagiarism; readers of N&Q expected earlier notes to be referred to. MacKenzie, however, is rather a long time away from St. J. S.

621+20 H.R.D. (1919, p. 5) proposes alloy for eale: “As thus rendered, the meaning would be that the dam of alloy doth all the noble substance often put out, or put down, to its own diminishment or abasement. The words ‘dout’ and ‘scantle’ are to be found in the ‘N.E.D.’ and Wright’s ‘Dialect Dictionary.’ I cannot find any authority for the word ‘eale’ as meaning alloy, but it may perhaps be discovered in some old alchemical work. H. R. D.”

621+20-621+22 Morgan (N&Q 1919, pp. 115-16): <p. 115>“ . . . H. K. St. J. S.’s third suggestion is that the printer may have set from dictation. I have had over fifty years’ intimacy with printing, and no printing office from the first ever worked in such a doubly expensive and objectless way. Hiring one printer to save another the trouble of reading his copy would assure early bankruptcy. We have only to consider how the words looked to the eye, not sounded to the ear. This debars several explanations.

“‘Esil,’ implying actual spoiling of substance, contradicts the explicit meaning of the passage, which applies only to what others think, not to what in fact is. ‘There virtues else . . . Shall in the general censure take corruption From that particular fault.’ That is, not that the fault has actually corrupted the man, but that people think it has. I agree fully that ‘eale’ is a most improbable form of ‘e’il.’ Shakespeare, writing for Londoners, would hardly use the Scotticism, anyway, or feel the need (felt nowhere else) of helping out his rhythm with it, as H. K. St. J. S. justly says.

“It has been my habit for many years often with surprising success, when I wished to decipher a hopelessly meaningless piece </p. 115><p. 116> of printing or typewriting, to scribble it carelessly with pen or pencil, and see what it might have been mistaken for. In this case, the very first trial produced results quite unexpected: confirming the oldest emendation of one word, and suggesting for the others something unthought of by any one, yet more satisfactory than any. Here is our ‘eale’:— bale

“Obviously, this is ‘base,’ as Theobald with his usual sagacity divined—or perhaps discovered by the same process. But another consideration, which had struck me before trying this experiment, strengthens it. In old usage only one class of substances are ever called ‘noble’—to wit, metals; and the regular antithesis was ‘base.’ Men did not speak of noble and base liquors or bread or cloth, but of pure and unadulterated, or honest and fraudulent, or coarse and fine. The former terms were taken from alchemy, a fertile theme of interest and literary capital in the Elizabethan time, and it would be exactly in Shakespeare’s fashion to annex a bit of its terminology, and in addition these terms had passed into popular use.

“Aside from the fact that some explanations of ‘of a doubt’ conflict with my first principle, none of them satisfy any one but their authors, and none explain at all the intensive ‘own’ in the next line. Here is my scrawl:— withallthe noble substance ofa doubt I read this, ‘Doth all the noble substance oft divert (diuert) To his own scandal.’ That is, ‘Turns his very nobility into his own scandal’: ‘makes the volume of his noble substance the measure of his public disrepute.’ Here ‘own’ is not only natural, but almost indispensable: the meaning is shorn of its strength without it.

“True or not, it leaves no raw edges of unsatisfied meaning, and has no sophistication or straining, Forrest Morgan.” </p. 116>

621+20 Cocks (N&Q 1919, p. 116): “There is little doubt that in [621+20-2] a process in cheesemaking is indicated.

“A piece of dried and salted stomach of a calf (the caul) was steeped in lukewarm water overnight: the liquid rennet (about half a pint) was then mixed with the milk, which slowly clouts or clots. The solid part, the clot, clout, or clod (hence clot or clouted cream; see ‘Friar of Orders Grey’), sinks, and instead of a tub or vat of nice pure white milk, there is seen a greenish unpleasant-looking fluid.

“The dram of caul fulfills its mission—curds, clots, or clouts the mild—and leaves a residue of which, to judge from its appearance, the dram is ashamed.

“This is an old-fashioned way of cheese-making in vogue in Shakespeare’s time, and the simile would be generally understood.

“The dram of caul, the pure milk, the clotting or clouting, and the residue which scantles or scandalizes the dram when the result is seen, all hang together logically. Oswald Cocks.”

621+20 Noble (N&Q 1919, p. 116): “ . . . I have always taken ‘eale’ to connote something the opposite of ‘noble,’ and thus I think it is possibly a mistake for ‘base.’ I take the whole passage to mean that a little corruption spoils the purity of the whole, and that the adulteration leads to an additional count against the cause of corruption. For this emendation one has of course no other authority than one’s own idea of sense. Richmond Noble.”

621+20-621+21 dram of eale] Wilson (1934, p. 25, pp. 320-1) <p. 25> calls this crux “the most famous of its kind in the whole Shakespearian canon.” </p. 25> Later <p. 320> he wonders at the interest commentators have had in the crux, which has “small dramatic interest,” while ignoring the much more significant one in 313. The key is the usual a: u, n confusion. eale is evil, spelt eule by Sh. He admits that this spelling occurs nowhere else in the canon, but the spelling deule at 1639( bis) (that is, deale (bis) where the a was mistaken for a u), he thinks, and then the spelling deule at 1985. Then there is also deuill in 2455+5 , </p. 320> <p. 321> which should be eule—because the contrast is not between devil and angel as Johnson thought, but between monster and angel, allowing the d word to be emended to evil, which makes sense. So he eventually gets around to deciding that dram of eale is dram of evil, and evil is what he has in his ed. </p. 321>

621+20-621+21 Ridley (ed. 1934) says that the usual emendation “is not satisfactory in sense. A flame can be ‘douted’: but how can a ‘noble substance’ be douted,’ and, if so, why by a dram? The sense required is infection rather than extinction. However, the general sense of the passage is clear enough.”

621+20-621+21 the drama of eale] Wilson (ed. 1934) considers the crux to be insignificant, in terms of understanding Hamlet and the play.

621+20-621+21 of a doubt] Wilson (ed. 1936, rpt. 1954, add. notes): “Commenting on my conj. emendation M. R. Ridley (‘New Temple’ Hamlet) writes: ‘A flame can be “douted”: but how can a “noble substance” be “douted,” and , if so, by a “dram”? The sense required is infection rather than extinction.’ But for Sh. and his contemporaries there was one ‘substance,’ and that most ‘noble,’ which could be ‘douted,’ douted by a dram, and douted after a fashion that was at once infection and extinction, viz. the gold which alchemists were always trying and always failing to make in their crucibles. Cf. N. E. D. ‘noble’ 7b (‘Of precious stones, metals, and minerals’) and note that a dram was avoirdupois as well as apothecaries’ weight with Sh. Ham. means that the character of his ‘particular man’ might have been pure gold but for the touch of evil or weakness which went to its composition and so brought him to ruin.”

621+20 - 621+22 Trench (1936, p. 300) declares that the sentence is broken off. Ed. note: With dashes not in use in Q2, a period at the end of an unfinished sentence could indicate interruption. See, for example, TLN 1219, where Q2 has a period and F1 a dash.

621+20 eale] Parrott & Craig (ed. 1938): “evil.”

621+30 dram of eale] Kittredge (ed. 1939): "small amount; little bit [of] evil."

621+20 dram of ease] Meyerstein (1945, p. 535) connects the word ease with Cutullus 51, 13-16—but without inferring that Sh. knew the Latin poet. Below is “a stanza either fragmentary or the Roman poet’s addition to his translation from Sappho:—

otium, Catulle, tibi molestum est;

otio exsultas nimiumque gestis:

“ ’prius perdidit’ paralells ’often dout’ [i.e. the emendation of ’of a doubt’] (do out), ’Catulle’ and ’ et reges prius et beatas urbes’ ’the noble substance,’ and ’otio exsultas nimiumque gestis’ ’some habit that too much o’er-leavens The form of plausive manners’ [621+14] in the Prince of Denmark’s long sentence. . . . That so reasoned a paragraph [sic] as [621+7 - 621+22] should close with a word of merely general import like ’evil’ (Keightley, Dover Wilson) or ’base’ (for baseness, Theobald) is surely undramatic. . . . The paragraph needs to be clinched by a definite example of ’o’ergrowth of some complexion.’ [He argues for ’ease’] ’idleness, sloth’ are the common meanings (Onions . . .).” and works with the ghost’s warning (719-21), which echoes the word ease.

621+20-621+22 the dram . . . scandle] Rylands (ed. 1947): "the taste or dose of ill puts the nobility of the whole man in doubt and brings him to disgrace (N)."

621+20-621+22 Tilley (1950, C 585; W240): “One ill Condition mars all the good [. . . ] 1581 B. Rich Fare. Mil. Prof., p. 197: Like as we saie, one vice spilles a greate noumber of vertues.” One ill Weed (turd) mars a whole pot of pottage (porridge) [. . . ] 1598 Barckley Fel. Man V, p. 439: For one drop of poyson spoyleth a great quantitie of good wine.”

621+20-621+22 dram of eale . . . owne scandle] Harrison (ed. 1957): “This is the most disputed passage in all Shakespeare. Though the text is corrupt, the meaning is clear: ’a small proportion of evil will bring scandal on the whole substance however noble’.”

621+20 eale] Harrison (ed. 1957): “evil.”

621+20 dram] Kermode (ed. 1774): “minute amount.”

621+20 eale] Kermode (ed. 1774): “ev’l : evil, with a pun on eale, ‘yeast’ (cf o’er leavens in line 29 [621+13].”

621+20 - 621+22 the . . . scandle] Spencer (ed. 1980): “These words do not make grammatical sense. It seems best to take the rather complicated sentence as broken off in the middle by the Ghost’s appearance.”

621+20 dram] Spencer (ed. 1980): “tiny quantity.”

621+20 eale] Spencer (ed. 1980): “Q2 prints ’eale’ (Q1 and F omit this passage), perhaps a misreading of ’evil’.”

621+20 - 621+22 the . . . scandle] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “ The little drop of evil often blots out all the noble substance and so (the evil but not the nobility being visible) brings it into disrepute. This passage, in Q2 only, is probably the most famous crux in Shakespeare. Q2 eale is usually regarded as corrupt, even by those b have remarked that it ’may possibly be . . . some obsolete word of unknown origin’ (Verity) or that eale was a dialect veil meaning ’reproach’ (Dyce; cf. Dial. Dict. ail v3). The still more unsatisfactory of a doubt in the next line points to the compositor’s having difficulty with his copy. It will be convenient to discus these two presumed corruptions separately. Q3 evidently found eale unintelligible, but its ease is an obvious makeshift and, being without authority, can give no support to the conjecture base. Of the many suggested emendations evil is by far the most convincing. (1) It is the word which is the most likely to have given rise to eale. Q2 itself has a possible analogy in deale for ’devil’ (twice) in 1639. Kittredge and Kökeritz (pp. 188-9) regard both eale and dealeas mere contractions, but if this is all there is to eale it is strange that Q3 did not recognize it. Dover Wilson explains them as misreadings of manuscript eule (i.e. evle) and deule (MSH, pp. 320-1). The spelling deule for ’devil’ actually occurs in Q2, 1639, as well as twice in the manuscript of Sir Thomas More in what we take to be Shakespeare’s own hand (Malone Society Reprint, Addn lines 176, 179). As there written the word would not be easy to mistake, and there is in any case no such authority for the spelling eule. But one can conceive of various ways of writing evil (including the common spelling euile) which could have led to printer’s error. (2) Moreover, evil fully satisfies the sense requirement for a word which will stand in opposition to noble substance. Cf. Sir Richd. Barckley, The Felicity of Man, 1598, p. 568, ’Evil is no substance. . ., but an accident that cometh to the substance, when it is void of those good qualities that ought naturally to be in them, and supplieth the other’s absence with his presence’. For the use of dram with an abstract cf. MV 4.1.6, ’any dram of mercy’; Cym. 3.5.89, ’A dram of worth’; FQ, 1.3.10, ’A dram of sweet.’

Among the rare attempts to defend eale, a recent interpretation would explain it as a fermenting agent, seeking to connect the word with gyle, a brewing term for wort in process of fermenting. This would continue the train of ideas in leaven and corruption and fit the general sense of the passage; but there are difficulties about attributing to Shakespeare in this context a hypothetical variant (eale) of a dialectal form (yele) (Hulme, pp. 324-6). Word-play on eale in this sense and ev’l is accepted in a note in the Riverside edition, which nevertheless deserts the former for the latter in its text. To the vast number of emendations proposed for of a doubt—itself an indication that no one of them has been found satisfactory—it is impossible to do justice, beyond the justice of ignoring most. The one thing we can be certain of is that the printer did not understand what he set up. Yet the general sense is clear: the small amount of evil in some way gets the better of ’the noble substance’. In what way depends upon the verb, which interpretation must locate; and it is natural to consider whether doubt, though taken by the printer for a noun, may not in fact be it. Boswell thought doubtmight mean ’bring into doubt or suspicion’, but I find no parallel for this. Doubt,is, however, an acceptable spelling of dout (= put out, extinguish): as such it occurs in F in 3184 and H5 4.2.11. Suggestions for a verb which would also incorporate a (adoubt, adopt, abate, adoulter, adote, adaunt, endow, eat out, etc.) or even of a (overdout, overdaub) have been singularly unpersuasive. Attempts to keep doubt as a noun by finding the verb in substance (Corson) or scandal (Dowden) strain the syntax beyond credibility. The idea that Doth may be the main verb rather than an auxiliary, recently revived by Sisson (New Readings), has more to be said for it if one notes MM 1.3.43, ’To do in slander’, but still leaves of a doubt a problem. The best interpretation of the line as it stands is probably Miss Hulme’s ’Renders all the noble substance doubtful’ (p. 326), but it leaves us, after take corruption, with a feeble anticlimax. It is not a tenable hypothesis that the difficulty is due to the interruption of the Ghost’s appearance before the sentence is complete: this is to confuse the distinction between life and fiction. Shakespeare does not deliberately write two lines of nonsense. To take doubt as the verb entails emending of a, but I see no reason to resist this since these words give difficulty by any interpretation. That they also do so in 539 suggests the possibility of a common error but may be a coincidence. The argument whether of a could arise from ofn as a contraction of often, as Greg thinks possible and Sisson not, seems to me to rest on a fallacy: a compositor seeking to force sense, or at least recognizable words, out of what he could not read, would not necessarily achieve letter-by-letter equivalence (cf. his silly for F sallery at 2355). This inevitably undermines confidence in attempts to recover the compositor’s original. But I see no insuperable objection to the reading adopted here. To object to often on the grounds that Shakespeare is referring to something that invariably happens is to ignore oft in 621+7. Ridley and Sisson among others object to dout as implying the total destruction of the ’noble substance’; yet if it rather means, as I suppose, efface (Dowden), obliterate, i.e. render invisible (to public view), dout makes excellent sense. And the acceptance of Nashe as a source for this passage gives strong support. As in Nashe (see 621+7 CN) the one imperfection will ’utterly obscure’ the good qualities so that they are ’unregarded of any man’, so here the little evil in a man causes the essential good to go unperceived. Or, as take corruption (621+19) may suggest, the substance itself is so coloured by the small admixture of evil that it ceases to appear as the ’noble’ thing it is. Cf. Ecclesiastes 10.1, ’Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour: so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honour’. This parallel, in which the flies bring the virtuous ointment in bad odour, supports the view that it is the noble substance which suffers scandal (disrepute) and to which his own thus refers.”

621+20-621+22 Grubb (1985, p. 189): “An alternative to emendation does exist, and that is to accept ’dram of eale’ and ’of a doubt’ as the language of Shakespeare. I would begin by arguing that the Second Quarto should be the copy-text for Hamlet, a position not disputed in any serious way since Dover Wilson’s New Cambridge edition [1934]. And then I would go on to invoke the older principle of difficilior lectio--that the more difficult reading should be preferred.”

620+20-621+22 Hibbard (ed. 1987): “For the general sense, see Tilley C585 [Dictionary], ‘One ill condition mars all the good,’ and especially the example given there from John Baret’s Alveary or Quadruple Dictionary (1580): ‘A proverb applied to those, which being so indued with very many good virtues, yet the vices that they are affected with do utterly stain and obliterate them . . . a little leaven leaveneth a whole lump.’ But while there is no difficulty about the main drift of the sentence, its precise meaning remains elusive. Many emendations have been proposed, but none of them is thoroughly convincing.”

621+20 - 621+22 the dram . . . scandle] Bevington (ed. 1988): “i.e., the small drop of evil blots out or works against the noble substance of the whole and brings it into disrepute. To dout is to blot out. (A famous crux.)”

621+20 dram]

621+20 eale]

620+20-621+22 Bevington (ed. 1997): “i.e., the small drop of evil blots out or works against the noble substance of the whole and brings it into disrepute. To dout is to blot out. (A famous crux.)”

621+20 dram of eale] Greenblatt et al. (ed. 1997): “Tiny amount (eighth of an ounce) of bad qualities. This is a conjectural emendation of Q2’s ‘eale,’ although there is no consensus on the correct reading.”

621+20 OED has no entry under eale.

621+20-621+22 the dram . . . scandle] Mowat & Werstine (ed. 1992): “These difficult lines have never been satisfactorily repaired, but the general sense may be that a small amount of evil makes even something admirable seem disreputable.”

621+20-621+22 the dram . . . scandle] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “a famously obscure passage (see [621+7-621+22 CN]). Theobald comments: ’In reality, I do not know a Passage, throughout all our Poet’s Works, more intricate and deprav’d in the Text, of less Meaning to outward Appearance, or more likely to baffle the Attempts of Criticism in its Aid. It is certain, there is neither Sense, Grammar, nor English, as it now stands’ (Restored, 35). The general meaning is clear (see [621+7-621+22 CN]): a very small quantity (dram) of badness can damage a good thing or person (noble substance) to the extent of bringing it or them into disrepute (scandal). But it is difficult to derive this meaning very precisely from the words on the Q2 page because of (a) the absence of a verb apart from the unsatisfactory Doth, (b) the otherwise unknown word eale, much emended (see TNM), usually to ’evil’ on the analogy of Q2’s spelling ’deale’ for devil at [1639], (c) the phrase of a doubt, also much emended (see TNM). The sentence may be left unfinished because of the appearance of the Ghost, and this is an attractive option in performance.”