Line 874 - 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
| 874 Or such ambiguous giuing out, to note) | 1.5.178 |
|---|
8691726 theon
theon
874 to note] Theobald (1726, p. 59): “This small Change of Two Letters (from to note to denote) not only gives us a Verb that makes the whole Tenour of the Speech clear and intelligible; but a Verb too, that carries the very Force and Sense which we before wanted in this Place. To denote, as very raw Grammarians know, implies, to signify, to shew by Marks: And thus it is usual with our Poet to employ this very Word.”
Ed. note: Theobald has //s for denote in Oth. “But it denoted a fore-gone Conclusion” and Hamlet “That can denote me truly.”
1773 jen
jen: theo1
874 to note]
Jennens (ed. 1773): “All the editions before
T[heobald] read
to note: But with this reading the sentence would not be complete.”
-1778 mmal1
mmal1: theo
874 to note] Malone (-1778, fol.51r-51v): <51r> “I do not see any necessity for the modern reading. Hamlet in the foregoing speech had said ‘—Swear by my sword Never to speak &c.’ Swear is understood here. ‘Here as before (swear) never—so help you Mercy— that you, at such time seeing me, never shall With arms encumber’d thus or thus, head shake; or by pronouncing— to note That you know ought of me— This not to do swear— Such is the reading of the Folio— If we read ‘Nor by pronouncing &c the passage will be more correct; but Shakespeare was not studious of minute accuracy— The words This not to do—seem a confirmatin of the old reading to note.
“Shakespeare seems to have considered the words “swear </51r> <51v> that you never shall head shake as if he had written—‘swear never to shake your head’—&c. so threw the conclusion of this speech into a form that cannot be reconciled to grammar but by supposing such a beginning.” </51v>
Steevens choice shows that he did not accept Malone’s idea about to note but he places the rest of Malone’s note in ed. 1778.</51v>
1778 v1778
v1778: theo1
874 to note] Steevens (ed. 1778): “The old copies concur in reading to note. The alteration, which seems necessary, is Theobald’s. Steevens.”
1780- Watson
Watson: Porson
874 to note]
Watson (1861, pp. 349-50) <p. 349> : “From a few unpublished notes of his on [Sh.], preserved in the library of his college [Cambridge U.], a friend has selected for us the following as worthy of being made known.” For
Lr. 2.4.168 [1452]): “ . . .
Porson suggested . . . that ‘to-fall’ may be taken as one word on the analogy of ‘to-pinch’ in
Wiv, [4.4.58 (2180)], ‘to-cease’ in
2H6 [5.2.45 (3267)], </p. 349><p. 350>, and ‘to-note’ in
Ham. [874], ” </p. 350>
Ed. note: See also Over (ed. Whiter, 1967, pp. xviii-xix n.1), J. S. Watson, Life of Richard Porson, 1861, pp. 349-50. I do not see any evidence in Watson for a date for Porson’s note. He was writing about literature and Sh. by age 20, however, so this could be as early as 1780.
1785 v1785
v1785 = v1778
874 to note]
1787 ann
ann = v1785
874 to note]
1790 mal
mal: v1785 minus Steevens
874 to note]
1793 v1793
v1793 = mal
874 to note]
Ed. note: Steevens has xrefs: 3:12 n2 and 7:60 n7
1803 v1803
v1803 = v1793
874 to note]
Ed. note: Malone’s note has xref to IV.13n6, IX.268n9 and p.396n4.
1805 Seymour
Seymour: Henley; theo
874 Seymour (1805, 2:164): “Mr. Henley [ann], whose remarks are, in general, useful, pointed, and ingenious, appears, in this instance at least, to be chargeable with all that oversight which he imputes to Mr. Theobald; and the error of his conception has led him to misstate the text which is substantially this:—swear, as before, that you never shall—what? to note? is this English? Mr. Theobald appears to have restored the author’s word, denote. ”
1813 v1813
v1813 = v1803
874 to note]
The interesting thing is that Boswell does not include the Malone note. He does not need it because he emended the line and included the “missing” negative.
1866 Bailey
Bailey: theo, han
874 to note] Bailey (1866, 2:5): “The other proposed substitution, of denote for to note, seems demanded to give anything like interdependency to the parts of the sentence. As it stands, the word shall in [869] has no verb in the whole sentence to which it can attach itself as an auxiliary; but by the suggested alteration it becomes connected with denote, and the long parenthetical clause beginning with arms encumbered, ends after giving out.
“The construction of the sentence will then be, ‘Swear that you never shall, with significant gestures or ambiguous phrases, denote that you know aught of me.’
“If any reader go over the passage with these two small alterations, he will be sensible, if I mistake not, of the perspicacity and consistency which they impart to it, and will probably conclude with me that so it came from the clear-headed author.
“On looking into the editions of Theobald and Hanmer, I find that they both have denote.”
1868 c&mc
c&mc
874 such giuing out]
Clarke &
Clarke (ed. 1868): “The previous ‘by’ [871] before ‘pronouncing’ is here understood as repeated before ‘such.’”
1870 Abbott
Abbott
874 to note] Abbott (§ 416) says that sometimes to is “inserted to connect a distant clause with the first part of a sentence.”
1872 cln1
cln1
874 giuing out] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “profession. Compare [MM 1.4.54 (406)]: ‘His givings-out were of an infinite distance from his true-meant design.’
cln1
874 to note] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “The ‘to’ is superfluous in the construction, which follows ‘never shall,’ line 173. Compare Beaumont and Fletcher, The Prophetess, iv. 4: ‘Thou would’st entreat thy prisoners, like their births And not their present fortune; and to bring ’em Guarded into thy tent.’ And [Wiv. 4.4.57 (2179)]: ‘Then let them all encircle him about And, fairy-like, to pinch the unclean knight.”
874 giuing out]
Schmidt (1874): “anything uttered, assertion.”
1877 v1877
v1877 = cln1 minus quotation from MM
874 giuing out]
Furness (ed. 1877): “
Clarendon: Profession. See [
MM 1.4.56 (407)].”
v1877 = cald; cln1
874 to note]
Furness (ed. 1877): “
Caldecott: The grammar here is defective, and its construction embarrassed: [[Swear]] here as before, never,—that you never shall,—by pronouncing some doubtful phrase or the like, [[do aught]] to mark or denote, &c.
Clarendon: The ‘to’ is superfluous in the construction, which follows ‘never shall.’ Compare [
Cor. 5.3.123 (3478)] and [
Wiv. 4.4.57 (2179)].”
1878 rlf1
rlf1: //s MM 1.4.54; Oth. 4.1.131
874 giuing out] Rolfe (ed. 1878): “Indication, intimation.”
1899 ard1
ard1 = rlf1 without attribution ; = cln1 without attribution
874 giuing out]
1924 vand
vand: Abbott; Franz’s Shakespeare-Grammatik; cln1
874 to note]
Van Dam (1924, p. 142), criticizing editors for returning to the Q2 reading, says: “Though Shakespeare uses the verb
to note more than 60 times, he nowhere uses it in the meaning of
to denote, to indicate; nor does the strange grammatical construction occur anywhere else in his words or, so far as we know, in those of his contemporaries.” He points out that neither Abbott nor Franz show this construction and criticizes Clark and Wright for their references to
Cor. 5.3.123 (3478) and
Wiv. 4.4.57 (2179).
1939 kit2
874 giuing out] Kittredge (ed. 1939): "utterance."
kit2 contra vand without attribution
874 note] Kittredge (ed. 1939): "indicate."
1980 pen2
pen2
874 giuing out] Spencer (ed. 1980): “intimation.”
pen2
874 to note] Spencer (ed. 1980): “to draw attention to the fact.”
1982 ard2
ard2 = ard1
874 giuing out] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “intimation (Dowden), publication. Cf. MM 1.4.54.”
ard2: OED; xref; Abbott; etc.
874 to note] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “to indicate (OED note v.2 5). To is often inserted before an infinitive, even one which would not normally require it, when the infinitive stands at a distance from its preceding verb (here shall, 869). Cf. 702-3, ’Make . . . to part’. See Abbott 350, and, for instances of shall. . . to, ES, 26: 142-4.”
1987 oxf4
oxf4
874 giuing out] Hibbard (ed. 1987): "hinting, intimation. Compare [MM 1.4.54 (406)], ‘His givings-out were of an infinite distance From his true-meant design."
oxf4: OED note v2.5; Abbott § 130
874 to note]
1988 bev2
bev2: standard
874 giuing out] Bevington (ed. 1988): “intimidation, promulgating.”
bev2: standard
874 note] Bevington (ed. 1988): “draw attention to the fact.”
1992 fol2
fol2
874 giuing out] Mowat & Werstine (ed. 1992): “expression”
fol2 = kit2 without attribution
874 note] Mowat & Werstine (ed. 1992): “indicate”
2006 ard3q2
ard3q2: xref
874 giuing out] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “pronouncement (as at [722])”
ard3q2: xref
874 to note] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “to indicate. To is redundant, since note is governed by never shall in [869].”
2007 ShSt
Stegner
874-5 to note . . . me] Stegner (2007, p. 115): “Hamlet’s insistence that his companions do not reveal ’aught of me’ implies that he considers the only possibility for revealing the inauthentic nature of his madness comes from without.”