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

Line 922 - 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.

922 That he is open to incontinencie,	2.1.30

1790 mal

mal

922 incontinencie] Malone (ed. 1790, Appendix, 10:684): “After incontenency, a full point.”

1805 Seymour

Seymour

922 open to incontinencie] Seymour (1805, 2:166): “Apt, addicted, prone to incontinency.”

1854 del2

del2 standard

922 incontinencie] Delius (ed. 1854): “Polonius unterscheidet spitzfindig zwischen drabbing, das er für einem usual slip hällt, and incontinency, die allerdings seinem Sohn zum scandal gereichen würde.” [Polonius distinguishes subtly between drabbing, which he considers a usual slip, and incontinency, which indeed would bring the taint of scandal to his son.]

1881 hud3

hud3

922 open to] Hudson (ed. 1881): “The emphasis, here, is on open, and of [his emendation] is equivalent to in respect of. So that the meaning is, ‘You must not put the further scandal upon him, that he is openly incontinent, or that he indulges his passions publicly and “with unbashful forehead,” as this would argue him to be shameless.’ Polonius justly thinks that good appearance is worth something, and that, in a shameless vice, the shamelessness is the worst part of it; there being then nothing for amendment to fasten on.”

hud3 endnote ≈ hud3 +

922 open to] Hudson (ed. 1881): “The old text reads ‘open to incontinency.’ This is nowise reconcilable with the context, and involves a contradiction too palpable, surely, to be put into the mouth of Polonius. But it is quite in character for him not to regard the thing in question as casting any dishonour, so it be managed with decorous privacy. I understand him as having in mind a state of moral where, to quote Burke’s well-known saying, ‘vice itself loses half its evil by losing all its grossness.’ See [n. 922].”

1885 macd

macd

922 MacDonald (ed. 1885): “This may well seem prating inconsistency, but I suppose means that he must not be represented as without moderation in his wickedness.”

1938 parc

parc

922 incontinencie] Parrott & Craig (ed. 1938): “habitual licentiousness.”

1939 kit2

kit2

922 incontinencie] Kittredge (ed. 1939): "immoderate indulgence in any of these wild courses."

1947 cln2

cln2

922 incontinencie] Rylands (ed. 1947): "debauchery."

1957 pel1

pel1: standard

922 incontinencie] Farnham (ed. 1957): “extreme sensuality.”

1957 pen1b

pen1b

922 open to incontinencie] Harrison (ed. 1957): “it is open scandal that disturbs the politician.”

1970 pel2

pel2 = pel1

922 incontinencie] Farnham (ed. 1970): “extreme sensuality”

1980 pen2

pen2: standard

922 incontinencie] Spencer (ed. 1980): “habitual sexual indulgence.”

1982 ard2

ard2:

922 incontinencie] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “The distinction between this and ’drabbing’ is a question of how it is regarded—whether as confirmed libertinism or merely the natural hot-bloodedness of youth (913-15, 924-6).” Ed. note: Here (as in 523 ff.), Jenkins does not criticize Polonius as do Edwards and Hibbard, below.

1985 cam4

cam4

922 incontinencie] Edwards (ed. 1985): "sexual excess. Though it is possible that Polonius makes a distinction between an occasional visit to a prostitute (’drabbing’) and notorious profligacy (’incontinency’), I rather think that the joke is against Polonius, who, though he prides himself on a knowledge of the world, supposes that young men like his son might associate with undesirable females without actual fornication, and so believes that ’drabbing’ is not necessarily ’incontinency’."

1987 oxf4

oxf4

922 incontinencie] Hibbard (ed. 1987): "unrestrained sexual indulgence. Polonius’s distinction between drabbing and incontinency looks very like whore-splitting."

1988 bev2

bev2: standard

922 incontinencie] Bevington (ed. 1988): “habitual sexual excess.”

1992 fol2

fol2: standard

922 open to incontinencie] Mowat & Werstine (ed. 1992): “is habitually inclined to sexual indulgence”

2006 ard3q2

ard3q2: cam4:

922 incontinencie] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “Polonius seems to be drawing a distinction between acceptable and unacceptable levels of sexual licence (Edwards argues that he thinks naïvely that Laertes may visit prostitutes without actually having sex with them).”