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

Line 921 - 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.

921 You must not put another scandell on him, [E1v]	2.1.29

1723- mtby2

mtby2

921 another] Thirlby (1723-): “fsql [low-level probability] an utter fsq an open sed. v.v.seq.”

He seems to mean that the following lines contradict his conj. but then why does he critcize Theobald for recanting?

1726 theon

theon ≈ mtby2 without attribution

921-2 another . . . incontinencie] Theobald (1726, pp. 61-2): <p. 60> “The old Gentleman, ’tis plain, is of Opinion, that to charge his Son with wenching would not dishonour him, consequently would be no Scandal to him: For every Scandal, in such Degree as it affects any Man, proportionately dishonours him. Why then should he caution Reynoldo from putting Another Scandal on him? Methinks, there is some Reason to suspect this Word of not being altogether so proper here, if no Scandal at all had been yet offer’d. There can be no Second Scandal </p. 60> <p.61 > supposed, without a First implied. The Poet’s Meaning is, as I conceive it, simply this: To say, that he wenches, without Aggravation in the Circumstances, lays but a venial Liberty of Youth at his door; but to say, That he is open and addicted to Incontinency, amounts to an Habit of Licence, and throws an actual Scandal. A very slight Change will reconcile the Passage to this Sense; and therefore, if I am right in the Author’s Meaning, we may suppose he wrote; ‘ . . . An Utter Scandal . . . i.e. So far from their being an absolute, entire, and utter Scandal to him, that they may be none at all, but appear at worst the Libertie of Youth.”

1733 theo1

theo1: theon in blue, pope appendix + (minor differences) marked by magenta

921-2 another . . . incontinencie] Theobald (ed. 1733): “I once suspected, and attempted to correct, this Passage. The old Gentleman, ’tis plain, is of Opinion, that to charge his Son with Wenching would not dishonour him, consequently would be no Scandal to him. Why then should he caution Reynoldo from putting Another Scandal on him? There can be no Second Scandal suppos’d, without a first implied. On this kind of Reasoning, I propos’d to correct;

“ ‘ . . . an utter Scandal . . . .’ Mr. Pope, I observe, seems to admit the Emendation, but I retract it as an idle, unweigh’d Conjecture. The Reasoning, on which it is built, is fallacious; and our Author’s licentious Manner of expressing himself elsewhere, convinces me that any Change is altogether unnecessary. So in King Richard II. ‘Tendring the precious Safety of my Prince, And free from other misbegotten Hate, Come I Appellant to this princely Presence.’ Now, strictly speaking, here, tendring his Prince’s Safety is his first misbegotten Hate; which Nobody will ever believe was the Poet’s Intention. And so, in Macbeth; ‘—All these are portable With other Graces weigh’d.’ Malcolm had been enumerating the secret Enormities he was guilty of; no Graces were mention’d or suppos’d; so that in grammatical strictness, these Enormities stand in the Place of first Graces; tho’ the Poet means no more than this, that Malcolm’s Vices would be supportable, if his Graces on the other hand were to be weigh’d against them.

1733- mtyb3

mtby3: theo1

921-2 another . . . incontinencie] Thirlby (1733-) indicates he too had had the idea of an utter: “M: fsql an utter fq an open sed v.v. seq.” The symbol “M” means that this was a note in Pope, 1723, a note that Theobald would not have seen until after writing SR. Next to Theobald’s note for 921, “I once suspected . . . ,” Thirlby writes: “In his Shakespear Restor’d does he mean?” Where Theobald retracts an utter, Thirlby writes, “the more fool you.” About Theobald’s parallel in R2, Thirlby writes, “Quite a different case,” and next to the Mac. parallel “And so is this.”

1773 jen

jen: theon

921-2 another . . . incontinencie] Jennens (ed. 1773): “T[heobald] in his Shakespeare Restored, thinks we should read an utter scandal, &c. (in which conjecture he is followed by the editors after him, except C[apell]) but retracts his opinion in his own edition.”

1774 capn

capn

921-2 another . . . incontinencie] Capell (1774, 1:1:129) “By being ‘open to incontinency’ is meant—pursuing a constant course of debauchery; a very different affair from lapsing now and then into ‘drabbing,’ and therefore ‘another scandal,’ or scandal of another kind.”

seems similar to THEO, Cross reference at TLN 916-8 doc.

v1778, v1785 retain the old JOHN note though by then Steevens certainly had read JEN and used him repeatedly.

1785 Mason

Mason: theon +

921-2 another . . . incontinencie] Mason (1785, p.379): “Polonius had said in his foregoing speech, that Reynaldo might insinuate that his son was addicted to drabbing; but here he charges him not to represent him as open to incontinency, which appears at first view to be absurd and contradictory; but the meaning of Polonius is this: ‘You may say that he sometimes amuses himself with a wench, but you must not represent him as an abandoned whore-master.’ And as this appears to be the meaning of the passage, I think Theobald’s amendment not only ingenious, but necessary: —I therefore read with him, ‘You must not put an utter scandal on him That he is open to incontinency. That’s not my meaning.’

“That is, ‘That is not what I meant when I permit you to accuse him of drabbing.’ ”

1790 mal

mal = jen without attribution

921 another] Malone (ed. 1790): “Mr. Theobald in his Shakspeare Restored proposed to read—an utter scandal on him; but did not admit the emendation into his edition.”

1791- rann

rann: standard

921-2 another . . . incontinencie] Rann (ed. 1791-): “—an utter scandal, and charge him with being an abandoned whoremaster; I do not mean to include so much in the term drabbing.”

1793 v1793

v1793 = mal

921 another]

1803 v1803

v1803 = v1793

921 another]

1807 Mason

Mason 1807 = Mason 1785

921-2 another . . . incontinencie]

1813 v1813

v1813 = v1803

921 another]

1819 cald1

cald1: theon

921-2 another . . . incontinencie] Caldecott (ed. 1819):“A different and a further charge; that he is a professed libertine.”

1821 v1821

v1821 = v1813

921 another]

1832 cald2

cald2 = cald1

921-2 another . . . incontinencie]

1870 rug1

rug1

921 another scandell] Moberly (ed. 1870): “The deeper kind of scandal.”

1873 rug2

rug2 = rug1 +

921 another scandell] Moberly (ed. 1873): “ . . . much as [Greek] means ‘particularly,’ and [Greek] in the Odyssey, ‘an out of the way or foreign traveller.’”

1877 v1877

v1877 = theon, theo1, mal, rug2

921 another] Furness (ed. 1877) says that because Theobald. found other examples of such usage (as another) in Shakespeare, he didn’t use his emendation an utter in his edition, and gave the reason, but that others followed him.

1899 ard1

ard1: theo, mal, hud +

921 another] Dowden (ed. 1899) suggests that Malone may be right: “Polonius, who loves nice distinctions, sees a difference between occasional ‘drabbing’ and lying wide open to the access of vice.”

1982 ard2

ard2:

921 another] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “Not implying that the things already mentioned are scandals, which Polonius has denied. In Elizabethan usage, other may refer to an instance of a different kind instead of to a different instance of the same kind. See OED other adj. 7.”

1987 oxf4

oxf4: OED; // Mac.

921 another scandell] Hibbard (ed. 1987): "i.e. a very different and really scandalous fault. ‘Other was formerly used to characterize things as of a different kind from those previously mentioned: e.g. other sinful men = other men, who are sinful’ (OED other adj. 7). Compare [Mac. 4.3.98-90 ()], ‘All these [deadly sins] are portable, With other graces weighed.’ "