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

Line 705 - Commentary Note (CN)

Commentary notes (CN):

1. SMALL CAPS Indicate editions. Notes for each commentator are divided into three parts:

In the 1st two lines of a record, when the name of the source text (the siglum) is printed in SMALL CAPS, the comment comes from an EDITION; when it is in normal font, it is derived from a book, article, ms. record or other source. We occasionally use small caps for ms. sources and for works related to editions. See bibliographies for complete information (in process).

2. How comments are related to predecessors' comments. In the second line of a record, a label "without attribution" indicates that a prior writer made the same or a similar point; such similarities do not usually indicate plagiarism because many writers do not, as a practice, indicate the sources of their glosses. We provide the designation ("standard") to indicate a gloss in common use. We use ≈ for "equivalent to" and = for "exactly alike."

3. Original comment. When the second line is blank after the writer's siglum, we are signaling that we have not seen that writer's gloss prior to that date. We welcome correction on this point.

4. Words from the play under discussion (lemmata). In the third line or lines of a record, the lemmata after the TLN (Through Line Number] are from Q2. When the difference between Q2 and the authors' lemma(ta) is significant, we include the writer's lemma(ta). When the gloss is for a whole line or lines, only the line number(s) appear. Through Line Numbers are numbers straight through a play and include stage directions. Most modern editions still use the system of starting line numbers afresh for every scene and do not assign line numbers to stage directions.

5. Bibliographic information. In the third line of the record, where we record the gloss, we provide concise bibliographic information, expanded in the bibliographies, several of which are in process.

6. References to other lines or other works. For a writer's reference to a passage elsewhere in Ham. we provide, in brackets, Through Line Numbers (TLN) from the Norton F1 (used by permission); we call these xref, i.e., cross references. We call references to Shakespearean plays other than Ham. “parallels” (//) and indicate Riverside act, scene and line number as well as TLN. We call references to non-Shakespearean works “analogues.”

7. Further information: See the Introduction for explanations of other abbreviations. Click here for more information about browsing the entries and here for more information about the special symbols used in Hamletworks. Click the question mark icon above to remove this help message.

Notes for lines 0-1017 ed. Bernice W. Kliman

For explanation of sigla, such as jen, see the editions bib.

705 Like quils vpon the {fearefull} <fretfull> Porpentine,	1.5.20

1778 v1778

v1778

705 fearefull Porpentine] Steevens (ed. 1778): “The quartos read fearful porcupine, Either epithet may serve. This animal is at once irascible and timid. The same image occurs in The Romaunt of the Rose, where Chaucer is describing the personage of danger: ‘Like sharpe urchons his heere was grow.’ An urchin is a hedge-hog. Steevens.”

1785 v1785

v1785 = v1778 (corrected in magenta)

705 fearefull Porpentine] Steevens (apud ed. 1785): “The quartos read fearful porpentine . . . .”

1790 mal

mal = v1778

705 fearefull Porpentine]

Malone (ed. 1790) appears to have copied Steevens’s uncorrected note from ed. 1778 rather than the corrected note from ed. 1785. Malone’s practice here is consistent with his use of graphics from ed. 1778, which in turn usually follows those in Capell (ed. 1768). He certainly uses v1785 as a reference text, however.

1793 v1793

v1793 = mal minus “porcupine” +

705 fearefull Porpentine] Steevens (ed. 1793): “The old copies, however, have—porpentine, which was frequently written by our ancient poets instead of porcupine. So in Skialetheia, a collection of Epigrams, Satires, &c. 1598: ‘Porpentine-backed, for he lies on thornes.’ ”

Ed. note:Steevens seems to take cognizance of Reed’s note in v1785; Steevens’ note begins “The quartos read—fearful &c.” thus omitting the word porcupine, which he uses in v1778 or porpentine, as in v1785.

1803 v1803

v1803 = v1793

705 fearefull Porpentine]

Ed. note: Reed accepted Steevens’s text and note here (rather than that of v1785 which he had brought to completion.

1813 v1813

v1813 = v1803

705 fearefull Porpentine]

1821 v1821

v1821 = v1813

705 fearefull Porpentine]

1826 sing1

sing1: v1813 + in magenta underlined

705 fearefull Porpentine] Singer (ed. 1826): “Vide note on [Err. 3.2.? (777)]. It is porpentine in the old editions in every instance. Fretful is the reading of the folio; the quartos read fearful. The irascible nature of the animal is noted in a curious passage of Speculum Vitæ, by Richard Rolle, MS.: ‘That beest is fell and sone is wrath, And when he is greved he wol do scathe; For when he tenes [[angers]] he launches out felly The scharpe pinnes in his body.’ ”

sing1

705 Porpentine] Singer (ed. 1826, 4:167 n. 23): “Porcupine throughout the old editions of these plays is written porpentine. I find it written porpyn in an old phrase book, called Hormanni Vulgaria, 1519, thus: ‘Porpyns have longer prickels than Yrchins.’ But it is also spelt thus in Haloet’s Dictionary, 1552. Of the later dictionaries, Baret has it porcupine, and Cooper porkepyne. As porpyn, from the abbreviated sound of porc-espine, was the old name, it is probable that in the popular language of the time, porpentine was used for porcupine.”

Ed. note: Cooper, 1578, does not have the spelling porkepyne.

1854 del2

del2 ≈ v1785 without attribution

705 Porpentine] Delius (ed. 1854): “Dieses alte Wort, das Sh. überall anwendet, haben die Herausgeber willkührlich in porcupine angeändert, obwohl Qs, und Fol. nur porpentine kennen.” [This old word, that Sh. always uses, the editors have unnecessarily emended to porcupine, but the 4tos and folio have only porpentine.]

1856 sing2

sing2 = sing1

705 fearefull Porpentine]

1872 cln1

cln1 ≈ del2 without attribution

705 Porpentine]

1872 hud2

hud2 ≈ cln1 or del2 without attribution

705 Porpentine] Hudson (ed. 1872): “Such is the old form of the word, and so Shakespeare always has it. It is commonly printed porcupine, both here and in other places; but this perhaps savours too much of modernizing the Poet’s language.”

1878 rlf1

rlf1≈ hud without attribution minus comment abt eds. +

705 Porpentine] Rolfe (ed. 1878): “Cf. Ascham, Taxophilus: ‘nature geve example of shootinge first by the porpentine,’ etc. Topsell, in his Hist. of Beasts, 1607, has ‘porcuspine.”

1880 Tanger

Tanger

705 fearefull Tanger (1880, p. 125): Q2 variant “probably owing to the negligence, inattention, or criticism of the compositor.” The Q1 reading “confirms, or at least countenances, [the F1] reading.”

His viewstrikes me as especially arbitrary.

1881 hud3

hud3 = hud2 minus 2nd sentence

705 Porpentine]

1883 wh2

wh2 ≈ del without attribution

705 porpentine] White (ed. 1883): “S. knew no other name for the porcupine.”

1885 macd

macd

705 fearefull] MacDonald (ed. 1885): “The word in the Q. suggests [F1] fretfull a misprint for frightful. it is fretfull in the 1st Q. as well.”

1924 vand

vand

705 fearefull] Van Dam (1924, p. 137): The Q2 is right because a porcupine is not fretful but is one of the more fearfull creatures, meaning full of fear.

1932 Wilson

Wilson MSH

705 fearefull] Wilson (1934, p. 177) states that there is no doubt that Q2 is the correct reading but asserts that the editor is free to adopt the F1 reading, here and in other instances, on aesthetic grounds.

1934 Wilson

Wilson MSH

705 fearefull] Wilson (1934, pp. 149-57) objects to Greg’s (Principles of Emendation, pp. 56-8; Aspects of Shakespeare, pp. 183-5, 191-3) claim that the F1 variant could be the result of Shn revision. For some in this class of variants Greg identifies as Shn revisions, like 363, 705, 858 in the first 1000 + lines, F1 = Q1. For others in this class, see 56, 89, 313, 530, 634, 648, 703, 720, 747, 754, 792, 1012, 3459.

1938 parc

parc

705 lemma] Parrott & Craig (ed. 1938): “gloss.”

1939 kit2

kit2: standard

705 Porpentine] Kittredge (ed. 1939): "porcupine."

1957 pel1

pel1: standard

705 Porpentine] Farnham (ed. 1957): “porcupine.”

1970 pel2

pel2 = pel1

705 Porpentine] Farnham (ed. 1970): “porcupine”

1980 pen2

pen2

705 fearefull Porpentine] See TNM. Spencer (ed. 1980): “porcupine when it has become angry. Q2 has ’fearfull’ (’timid’) for F’s ’fretfull’.”

1985 cam4

cam4

705 Porpentine] Edwards (ed. 1985): "porcupine. The name was spelled in many different ways: this is the normal Shakespearean form."

1987 oxf4

oxf4

705 fearefull] Hibbard (ed. 1987): "impatient, bad-tempered."

1988 bev2

bev2: standard

705 Porpentine] Bevington (ed. 1988): “porcupine.”

1992 fol2

fol2

705 fearefull Porpentine] Mowat & Werstine (ed. 1992): “uneasy (threatened) porcupine”

1994 OED

OED

705 Porpentine] OED says that Porpentine was the form known by Sh. (and this form is listed among the variants for porcupine) and adds that he uses it 7X, usually for the sign of an inn.

2006 ard3q2

ard3q2: cam4

705 fearefull] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “fear-inducing, terrifying. Edwards argues that F’s ’fretfull’ is stronger, reading fearful in the more common modern sense as ’frightened’.”

ard3q2: standard

705 Porpentine] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “porcupine (porpentine is Shakespeare’s usual form) —assumed by the Elizabethans to be an aggressive animal which could shoot its quills out like darts”