Notes for lines 0-1017 ed. Bernice W. Kliman
| 621+21 {Doth all the noble substance of a doubt} | 1.4.37 |
|---|
621+20 621+21 621+22 31841561-1626 Bacon
Bacon See n. 621-20
1730 Bailey
Bailey
621+21 noble] Bailey (1730): “Parts of the Body, the Brain, Heart and Liver.”
1765 john1
john1 appendix: Heath +
621+21 Doth . . . doubt] Johnson (ed. 1765, 8:L12): “ ‘Doth all the noble substance of worth-out; ’] The Revisal reads, ‘Doth all the noble substance oft eat out’; Or, ‘Doth all the noble substance soil with doubt.’
“The authour would have despised then both, had they been another’s.
“Mr. Holt reads. ‘Doth all the noble substance oft adopt.’
“I think Theobald’s reading may stand.”
1773 v1773
v1773 = john, john appendix +
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.”
1778 v1778
v1778 = v1773 +
621+21 of a doubt] Steevens (ed. 1778): “[dout] . . . to efface or obliterate any thing drawn painted or written.
“In the first of these significations it is used by Drayton, in the 5th Canto of his Barons’ Wars: ‘Was ta’en in battle, and his eyes out-done.’ Steevens.”
1780 mals1
mals1
621+21 of a doubt] Malone (1780, 1:351): “If with Mr. Steevens we understand the words doth out to mean effaceth, the following lines in [1H4 ] may perhaps prove the best comment on this passage: ‘—Oftentimes it doth present harsh rage, Defect of manners, want of government, Pride, haughtiness, opinion, and disdain; The least of which, haunting a nobleman, Loseth mens’ hearts, and leaves behind a stain Upon the beauty of all parts besides, Beguiling them of commendation.’
“There is no necessity for supposing an error in the copies. His is frequently used by our author and his contemporaries for its. So, in Grim, the Collier of Croydon: ‘Contented life, that gives the heart his ease—’ I would, however, wish to read: ‘By his own scandal. Malone.”
1785 Mason
Mason
621+21 of a doubt] Mason (1785, p. 377): “As this passage [621+20-2] is capable of explanation as it stands [with base for eale], I should not attempt to alter it, were the present reading supported by any authority; but it seems that the old reading runs thus: — ‘doth all the noble substance of a doubt,’ and as that is the case, I think a better reading may be proposed than that which the editor has adopted: that which I should offer is, ‘Doth all the noble substance of’t corrupt.’
“An amendment which is at least as near the old reading as any of those hitherto proposed, which renders both the sense and expression more clear; and seems to be pointed out, and supported by the preceding lines, ‘Shall in the general censure, take corruption From that particular fault.’ ”
1787 Bell
Bell = v1778 minus as struck out:
621+21 of a doubt]
Steevens (
apud 1787, 6:31-2): <p. 31> “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
it, there is little difficulty in it. </p. 31> <p. 32> This is one of the low colloquial expressions,
phrases 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 painted or written.
“In the first of these significations it is used by Drayton, in the 5th Canto of his Barons Wars: ‘Was ta’en in battle, and his eyes out-done.’ Steevens.” </p. 32>
1790 mal
mal: Steevens without attribution, Theo +
621+21 a doubt] Malone (ed. 1790): [re worth dout] “To dout, as I have already offered in a note on [H5, 5: 552, n.8], signified in Shakspeare’s time, and yet signifies in Devonshire and other western countries, to do out, to efface, to extinguish, Thus they say, ‘dout the candle, dout the fire,’ &c. It is exactly formed in the same manner as to don (or do on,) which occurs so often in the writings of our poet and his contemporaries.
“I have no doubt that the corruption of the text arose in the following manner. Dout, which I have now printed in the text, having been written by the mistake of the transcriber, doubt, and the word worth having been inadvertently omitted, the line, in the copy that went to the press, stood, ‘Doth all the noble substance of doubt,—’
“The editor or printer of the quarto copy, finding the line too short, and thinking doubt must want an article, inserted it, without attending to the context; and instead of correcting the erroneous, and supplying the true word, printed—‘Doth all the noble substance of a doubt, &c.’
“The very same error has happened in [H5 4.2.10. (2179)]. ‘That their hot blood may spin in English eyes, And doubt them with superfluous courage:’ where doubt is again printed instead of dout.
“That worth (which was supplied first by Mr. Theobald,) was the word omitted originally in the hurry of transcription, may be fairly collected from a passage in [Cym. 3.5.87 (1996)], which fully justifies the correction made: ‘—Is she with Posthumus? From whose so many weights of baseness cannot A dram of worth be drawn.’”
1790 mal
mal = Steevens without attribution H5 “And dout them”
621+21 doubt] Malone (ed. 1790, 5:552 n.8 H5 4.2.10. [2179] ): “In the folio, where alone this passage is found, the word is written doubt. To dout, for to do out , is a common phrase at this day in Devonshire and the other western countries; where they often say, dout the fire, that is, put out the fire. Many other words of the same structure are used by our author; as, to don, i.e. to do on, to doff, i.e. to do off, &c. In Hamlet he has used the same phrase [quotes 621+19-20]
“The word being provincial, the same mistake has happened in both places; doubt being printed in Hamlet instead of dout.
“Mr. Pope for doubt substituted daunt, which was adopted in the subsequent editions. For the emendation now made I imagined I should have been answerable; but on looking into Mr. Rowe’s edition I find he has anticipated me, and has printed the word as it is now exhibited in the text. Malone.”
1791- rann
rann: standard
621+21 of a doubt] Rann (ed. 1791-): “worth ]] —good.
rann
621+21 Doth all . . . doubt] Rann (ed. 1791-): “&c. oft corrupt: oft work out: eat out:”
1793 v1793
v1793: Steevens v1785, mal +
621+21 of a doubt] Steevens (ed. 1793): “I once proposed to read—Doth all the noble substance [i.e. the sum of good qualities) oft do out. [Then material he and mal had had before on his and its; on doing out; on Drayton ]
“My conjecture—do out, instead of doubt, might have received support from the pronunciation of this verb in Warwickshire, where they always say— ‘dout the candle,’ —‘dout the fire;’ i.e. put out or extinguish them. The forfex by which a candle is extinguished is also there called—a douter.
“Dout, however, is a word formed by the coalescence of two others, (do and out) like don for do on, doff for do off, both of which are used by Shakspeare.
“The word in question (and with the same blunder in spelling) has already occurred in the ancient copies of [H5] : ‘—make incision in their hides, That their hot blood may spin in English eyes, And doubt them with superfluous courage:’ i.e. put or do them out. I therefore now think we should read: Doth all the noble substance often dout, &c. for surely it is needless to say—the noble substance of worth dout, because the idea of worth is comprehended in the epithet— noble.
“N.B. The improvement which my former note on this passage has received, I owed, about four years ago, to the late Rev. Henry Homer, a native of Warwickshire. But as Mr. Malone appears to have been furnished with almost the same intelligence, I shall not suppress his mode of communicating it, as he may fairly plead priority in having laid it before the publick. This is the sole cause why our readers are here presented with two annotations, of almost similar tendency; for unwilling as I am to withhold justice from a dead friend, I should with equal reluctance defraud a living critic of his due. Steevens.”
[Then mal ]
1800- mBoaden
mBoaden ≈ holt
621+21 of a doubt] Boaden (ms. notes in ed. 1790), agrees that Theobald’s worth out is redundant. He would rather emend to “Doth all the noble substance oft adopt . . . Dout is too vulgar for philosophy.”
1803 v1803
v1803 = v1793
621+21 of a doubt]
1807 Pye
Pye
621+21 doubt] Pye (1807, p. 312) re dout: “Something of this too much.”
1813 v1813
v1813 = v1803
621+21 of a doubt]
1826 sing1
sing1 = Boswell; sing; = mal without attribution + in magenta
621+21 doubt] Singer (ed. 1826): “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, that to doubt may mean to bring into doubt or suspicion; many words similarly formed are used by Shakspeare and his contemporaries. Thus to fear is to create fear; to pale is to make pale; to cease is to cause to cease. &c. I have followed the emendation in other respects, though I have ventured to read bale (i.e. evil) instead of base, as nearer to the reading of the first edition. A passage of similar import is in [1H4 and he quotes the same passage quoted by mals1 probably via cald1].
1839 knt1
knt1 see n. 621+20-621+22
1855 Keightley
Keightley
621+21 of a doubt] Keightley (1855, p. 306): “Of a doubt is like of a truth, etc. Query, out o’ doubt?”
1856 sing2
sing2
621+21 of a doubt] Singer (ed. 1856): “It seems to me most probable that Shakespeare wrote:— ‘Doth all the noble substance oft adoubt— ’ Using the word adoubt in its active sense of to bring into doubt or suspicion. We have numerous old words of similar form, and in Latin the verb dubito is written addubito, by Cicero and others. It is evident that dout could not have been the poet’s word, for the meaning is ‘the dram of base renders all the noble substance doubtful or suspicious,’ not that it extinguishes it altogether. This will appear from what precedes:— ‘Or by some habit, that too much o’erleavens The form of plausive manners.’
1857 fieb
fiebig ≈ Steevens gloss without attribution
621+21 all the noble substance]
fieb ≈ Steevens on dout
621+21 of a doubt]
1860 Jervis
Jervis: Keightley without attribution + in magenta underlined
620+21 Dram of eale. Jervis (1860, p. 16): “Read The dram of evil Doth all the noble substance oft outdo, to his own scandal. ‘He hath in this action outdone his former deeds doubly.’ Cor. 2.1.135 (1032). ‘Wherein the graver has a strife With Nature, to outdo the life.’—Ben Jonson.”
1860- mTawse
mTawse
621+21 of a doubt] Tawse (ms. notes in Staunton, ed. 1860): “ ‘the dram of ill Doth all the noble substance often dout (extirpate) (dout) To his own scandal’— or ‘the dram of ill Doth all the noble substance often flout to his own scandal.’ I believe [?] these beat the commentators hollow!”
1862 cham
cham: theo, Steevens, cald, knt, col, Mason, Mitford, Jervis
621+21 of a doubt] Carruthers & Chambers (ed. 1862), after listing the proposed variants by many editors, say, “We have adopted ‘oft subdue,’ suggested by Mr. Swynfen Jervis, and thus supported—‘And almost thence my nature is subdued To what it works in, like the dyer’s hand.’ Shakespeare’s Sonnets [Son. 111.6-7]. ‘Her infinite cunning, with her modern grace, Subdued me to her rate.’ [AWW 5.3.216 (2943)]. ”
1866- mWright Add. MS b.59, TCC
mWright
621+21 of a doubt] Wright (ms. notes, c. 1866, fol. 20): ‘perhaps ‘of a doubt’ should be ‘overdoubt’ or ‘overdo’ i.e. quench spoil. . .
1866 Bailey
Bailey
621+21 of a doubt]
Bailey (1866, 2:3-4): <p. 3> “The next line I propose to alter to: ‘Doth all the noble substance
oft weigh down, To his own scandal.’ The alteration may seem great, but there are, I think, sufficient reasons for it. By
the dram is meant, not a dose but a weight; and the notion conveyed is that a small quantity of evil weighs down the noble substance to its own infamy. We find a parallel expression in another play: ‘Let us be lead within thy bosom, Richard, And weigh thee down to rain, shame, and death.’ [
R3 5.3.? (0000)].
“A passage in ‘Timon of Athens’ may also be cited in support of the phraseology of the emendation, although it is not itself free from the suspicion of error: ‘a recompense more fruitful Than their offence can weigh down by the dram.’ [Tim. 5.2.? (0000)].
“The verbal change required could be attended with no great difficulty, especially if we take into consideration that
weigh in some of the old copies of Hamlet is spelt
way. Thus the proposed emendation implies the perversion of the three words
oft way down into
of a doubt, the present reading. </p. 3><p. 4> But it is the fitness of the phrase to the whole train of thought that must constitute its principal recommendation.” </p. 4>
1866 Athenaeum
Nichols ≈ Brae on doth as verb without attribution +
621+21 Doth . . . of a doubt] Nichols (Athenaeum 1866, p. 217), responding to conjectures in the last issue, says: “Why alter it at all? The passage as it stands contains within it its own explanation. The word ‘doth’ is the third person singular present tense of the verb to do, which means, according to Johnson, ‘to make anything what it is not, and he gives Shakspeare as his authority, ‘Off with his crown, and with the crown his head, And, while we breath, take time to do him dead [3H6 1.4.107]. The word of is the sign of the ablative, and is used indifferently by Shakspeare with by. These being admitted, the passage is clear enough. Hamlet is lamenting to his friend the drunken habits of his countrymen, and says, ‘Their virtues else, be they as pure as grace, as infinite as man can undergo, shall in the general censure take corruption from this particular fault. This dram of ill (i.e. this drunkenness, this fault) doth (i.e. converts, changes) all the noble substance of a doubt (i.e. by a doubt, by bringing its sincerity in question) to his own scandal.’”
1866 Athenaeum
Elze: dyce2
621+21 of a doubt] Elze (Athenaeum 1866, p. 186): “Among the numerous emendations of that notoriously corrupt passage, act. i, scene 4,— [quotes] that which Mr. Dyce has inserted into his text [quotes] certainly deserves the highest praise for its clear and unconstrained sense. It is, however, so remote from the reading of the old editions that, if it was what Shakespeare wrote, we can hardly conceive how such a corruption could have crept into the text. I think a very near approach to the text, together with an unobjectionable sense, might be obtained by reading, — ‘ . . . The dram of evil Doth all the noble substance often daub To his own scandal.’”
1866- Athenaeum
Anon: Elze’s Athenæum note, Dyce, Knight,
621+21 of a doubt] Anon. [H.D.] (Athenaeum 1866, p. 218): “None of these [commentators’] readings appear to me to carry out the drift of the context wherein Hamlet so emphatically insists that one little drop of evil always corrupts the whole mass, that he would not, I think, wind up by saying it often does so. I would, therefore, read as more probable ‘The dram of ill . . . overdout. . . . .’”
1868 c&mc
c&mc: VN, Steevens for emendation and gloss + analogue in magenta underlined
621+21 of a doubt]
Clarke &
Clarke (ed. 1868): “Of the many various readings of these two lines we adopt Steevens’s correction, as being the one which seems to us to afford the sense and words most likely intended by the author. ‘Dout’ signifies ‘do out,’ ‘put out,’ ‘extinguish,’ ‘obliterate.’
That ‘doubt’ and ‘dout’ were often printed the one for the other, and that the two words afforded scope for quibbling play upon them, is testified by the opening jest in ‘A C. Merry Talys,’ 1567 (reprinted in 1864), where we find:— ‘I never harde tell of more doutes but twayn, that is to say, dout the candell and dout the fyre.’”
1873 Roaster
Roaster
621+21-621+22 Robert Roaster (
Sunday Dispatch, Phila. 12 Jan. 1873,
apud Furness, ed. 1877, p. 88): “For ‘often dout’ read
oft endow, the final
t of ‘
dout ’ was inserted by the printer, misled by the occurrence of the letter at the beginning of the next line.
Endow was often used in Shakespeare’s time for
endue, which is rendered by Bailey ‘to supply,’ ‘to qualify.’ The meaning then is The dram of base doth oft qualify all the noble substance To its own scandal.”
1877 v1877
v1877: See n. 621+20
v1877 = c&cm
v1877: Furnivall, Gower, Mätzner
621+21 of a doubt]
Furness (ed. 1877): “For the latter sense (i.e. Furnivall’s
oft adote], see Gower’s
Confessio Amantis, III.ii, as quoted in Mätzner,
Wörterbuch, ‘the most wise ben otherwhile of love
adoted,’
i.e. made fools, besotted.”
Ed. note: The link between Gower and Sh. seems weak.
1878 Nicholson
Nicholson: Keightley
621+21 of a doubt] Nicholson (Letter to Ingleby 23/1/78, letter 56): “As to ‘of a fault’ Furnivale saying that ‘doth” often means ‘puts’ thinks it all right—But I can’t agree with him somehow [?] — submitting (for I have not looked into it) that doth is sometimes = puts, I say, just that here its position & the run of the sentence shows it to be merely an auxiliary verb—And secondly that doth (or puts) of a doubt &c. may be housemaids English but it certainly isn’t Shak’s. I don’t know whether you know my emend? ‘doth all the noble substance oft endoubt— endoubt being the causal form of doubt like ennoble, entwine, embrace &c. = make to doubt or make [[us]] to doubt.”
1878 col4
col4: standard ≈ col3 shortened
621+21 of a doubt] Collier (ed. 1878): “and in this line dout is to be understood as do out, still pronounced dout, and use colloquially for extinguish: thus we say, ‘dout that candle.’”
1878 wh2
wh2
621+21 of a doubt] White (ed. 1883): “ . . . and that, as to the next line, the form of the letters, hardly less than the general sense of the passage and particular words, corruption and scandal, which immediately precede and follow it, indicate the word in this text [adulter], which, strange to say, would seem the only possible word that has not heretofore been proposed. See Preface, pp. xviii-xx.”
1885 macd
macd ≈ Brae 1852 without attribution
621+21-621+22 MacDonald (ed. 1885): “I do not believe there is any corruption in the rest of the passage. ‘Doth it of a doubt:’ affects it with a doubt, brings it into doubt.[analogue from MM].”
1885 mull
mull:
cln1; various;
contra del, Furness; macd 621+21 of a doubt] Mull (ed. 1885): [quotes MacDonald approvingly].
1888 macl
621+21 Doth all] Maclachlan (ed. 1888) has a long note and, in an appendix, a poem by Thomas Churchyard (1588) that connects (among other things) the production of paper and the shaping of man: “Man’s secrete faults, and foule defects of minde Must be reformed, like raggs in Paper-mill [. . .] (p.172).” Maclachlan cites what he calls the well-known fact that oil (eale) ruins paper to justify his emendation ail from all and to support his conclusion that Sh. drew upon his audience’s certain knowledge of Churchyard’s “popular” poem to complete the simile. Maclachlan draws his inference about its popularity from the fact that not a single original is extant, only rare copies. Of his innovation, ail, he says, “I know of no other word in English which is so perfect an equivalent of the indefinite sickliness of the degenerate production liable to the censure of a doubt. This is like Shakespeare.”
Ed. note: See Kliman note on Maclachlan.
1899 ard1
ard1
621+21 of a doubt] Dowden (ed. 1899): “‘Oft devote’ (consign to evil) seems not to have been proposed.”
1913 Trench
Trench ≈ Nichols without attribution
621+21 of a doubt] Trench (1913, p. 69 n.1): “= by a doubt.”
1919 N&Q
Hill:
Furness (
Bibliophiles [or Bibliophus],
Ellershaw, H. D. in
The Athenæum of Aug., 18, 1866, Dyce, Lettsom, Elze) +
621+21 of a doubt]
Hill (1919, p. 5), after reviewing the notes in
Furness, suggests
overdaub: “The change would, I think, supply much the best sense and rhythm to the passage . . . . Compare [
Lr. 4.1.52 (2241)] , ‘Poor Tom’s a-cold. I cannot daub it further,’ which Warburton rendered ‘disguise further’; and [
R3 3.5.29 (2115)]: — ‘So smoother he daub’d his vice with show of virtue,’ and the following quotation from 1543 in the ‘N. E. D.’: ‘Perjury cannot escape unpunished, be it never so secretly handled and craftily daubed.’
N. W. Hill.”
1923 TLS
Haworth
621+20 - 621+22 dram . . . scandle] Haworth (1923, p. 232) solves the problem by placing a comma after substance, with eale meaning evil, and Doth meaning undoeth (citing NED), “In other words, one scandalous suspicion touching a noble nature brings its whole substance into disrepute (notwithstanding all the redeeming virtues it may possess).
1923 TLS
Kellner contra Haworth
621+20 - 621+22 dram . . . scandle] Kellner (1922, pp. 303-4): Translating doubt as suspicion, as Haworth does, misses the point. The passage discusses glaring flaws, not suspected but actual drunkenness. He repeats his conjecture from his 1922 book Shakespeare-Wörterbuch: oft adaunt, meaning subdue, a word current in Elizabethan English.
Haworth responds in TLS 1923, p. 404: The whole point is the unfairness of the imputation of a defective nature from the presence of some mole in the midst of perfection. Danes are misrepresented (traduced) as drunkards.
1925 Kellner = Kellner 1923
Kellner
621+21 of a doubt] Kellner (1925, p. 58): “f misprinted for ft . . . The much discussed passage . . . may well be a corrupt rendering of the original oft adants, i.e. often subdues.”
1928 Tannenbaum
Tannenbaum
621+21 of a doubt] Tannenbaum (1928, pp. 376-8) suggests adulter, and explains how the letters of that word might be misinterpreted as the letters of a doubt.
1938 parc
parc
621+21 doubt] Parrott & Craig (ed. 1938): “extinguish.”
1939 kit2
kit2: Steevens emendation
621+21 of a] Kittredge (ed. 1939): "often: Steevens’s emendation for [Q2]."
kit2: standard; Q2 VN; F1 xref 3184
621+21 doubt] Kittredge (ed. 1939): "dout: banish, nullify (literally, do out, put out)."
11 Dec. 1948-9 Dec. 1949 TLS
Gordon
621+21 noble] Gordon (1948, p. 697, 713, with responses 1 Jan. 1949, p. 9 by Greg, and a rebuttal to Greg 1949, p. 809 by John Buxton) thinks that noble could be singular for a nobleman, and cites a number of authorities. Greg (1949, p.9) counters: all Gordon’s instances are plural, not singular, except one, where the word is an adjective w/o a noun, common in verse. John Buxton counters Greg with examples from contremporary letters that use Noble in the singular.
1957 pel1
pel1
621+21 Doth . . . doubt] Farnham (ed. 1957): “This difficult and often altered line is here printed without emendation. In the famous crux of which it is a key part the intent of what Hamlet is saying had perhaps best be taken as a close rewording of what he has just been saying; he may be taken to say that the dram of evil imparts a doubtful quality to all the noble human substance, to his (its) own scandal, i.e. to the detriment of the nobility itself because of ’the general censure’ that he has mentioned before in developing at involved length what he offers here with the emphasis of brevity.”
1970 pel2
pel2 = pel1
621+21 Doth . . . doubt]
1974 evns1
Kermode: Steevens
621+21 of a doubt] Kermode (ed. 1774): “A famous crux, for which many emendations have been suggested, the most widely accepted being Steevens’ often dout (i.e. extinguish).”
1980 pen2
pen2
621+21 of a doubt] Spencer (ed. 1980): “Plausible emendations are ’oft adulter’ (’often adulterate or corrupt’) and ’often dout’ (’often efface’).”
1982 ard2
ard2:
621+21 substance] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “the essential nature of a thing in contrast with that which is accidental.”
ard2: previous editors and commentators
621+21 of a doubt] Jenkins (ed. 1982), in his long note, pp. 450-1, discusses many editors’ choices and various proposed emendations for this phrase. He cites two, overdout, overdaub, as “singularly unpersuasive.” Attempts by Corson and Dowden, Jenkins says, “strain the syntax beyond credibility.” He credits Hilda M. Hulme, Explorations in Shakespeare’s Language, 1962, with the best interpretation of 621+21 as it stands [in Q2]: “ ’Renders all the noble substance doubtful’ (p. 326), but it leaves us, after take corruption [in 621+19], with a feeble anticlimax.” Jenkins continues with several other possibilities, and finds that his choice, often dout “makes excellent sense.” Jenkins lists many other proposed emendations without attribution.
1997 nort
nort ≈ Hill [N&Q 1919] over-daub without attribution; standard variant "often dout"
621+21 of a doubt] Greenblatt et al. (ed. 1997): “over-daub Obscures the virtuous essence with adhering dirt. Emended from Q2’s ‘of a doubt,’ an incomplete thought: ‘often dout’ (extinguishes) is another plausible correction.”
2007 RES
MacDonald Jackson ≈ Hill, 1919 without attribution
621+21 Jackson (2007, pp. 229-31), not commenting on Jenkins’s rejection of overdaub, mentions its use by oxf3. Like Hill, whom Jackson does not cite, perhaps because Jenkins did not name him, Jackson deploys parallels in other plays to justify overdaub.
