Line 975 - 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
| 975 No hat vpon his head, his stockins fouled, | 2.1.76 |
|---|
1733 theo1
theo1
975 fouled] Theobald (ed. 1733): “I have restor’d the Reading of the Elder Quarto’s,—his Stockings loose.—The Change, I suspect, was first from the Players, who saw a Contradiction in his Stockings being loose, and yet shackled down at Ankle. But they, in their Ignorance, blunder’d away our Author’s Word, because they did not understand it . . . .”
Ed. note: By elder Theobald means one of the players’ 4tos; for the earlier 4tos, he uses oldest.
1740 theo2
theo2 = theo1
975 fouled]
1752 Dodd
Dodd
975 fouled] Dodd (1752, 1: 231): “The reader will observe it is said—he came with his stockings loose, ungarter’d, and down-gyred to his ancle; that is, roll’d or turned down to his ancle; but to me there appears no difference in loose and ungarter’d, if they were loose, ’twas unnecessary to add ungarter’d, and so, vice versâ: the folio’s read, foul’d; now this gives another circumstance at least, and tho’ loose and ungarter’d might be justified, yet foul’d expresses an additional mark of his madness and neglect of himself, and is therefore (in my judgment) to be preferr’d: perhaps the reader may think, loosed, used in the subsequent lines [979], an argument in favour of the word I would support.”
1757 theo4
theo4 = theo2
975 fouled]
1765 john1
john1 = theo4
975 fouled]
1773 jen
jen contra theo4; cap
975 fouled]
Jennens (ed. 1773): “Instead of
foul’d,
T[heobald] puts down
loose; and, in his note, says he has restored the reading of the elder qu’s: but there is no such reading as
loose either in the qu’s, fo’s, or any edition before him: nevertheless the succeeding editors, except
C[apell], implicitly following him, read
loose.”
Ed. note: Jennens had not seen the players’ 4tos. Nor had Steevens, below.
1773 v1773
v1773 contra theo; ≈ jen without attribution
975 fouled] Steevens (ed. 1773): “Theobald is unfaithful in his account of this elder quarto. I have all the quartos and folios before me, and they concur in reading, ‘—his stockings foul’d.’”
1774 capn
capn contra [theo, han, warb]; ≈ v1773 without attribution
975 fouled] Capell (1774, 1:1:129) “The three latter editors [Theobald, Hanmer, Warburton] give us—loose, in this place, instead of ‘foul’d’; and the person who started it. gives it not as a correction, but as the word of the ‘elder quarto’s,’ which is a downright falsehood: The word is—foul’d in all copies, quarto’s and folio’s: neither can we get rid of it, for it is fix’d upon us by the line that comes after, which is a sort of explaining; a perpetual usage of Shakespeare’s when he has brought in a word that is remov’d from the common, and perhaps of his own coining, which is probably the case of this—foul’d: What the sense that is put on it, and whence deriv’d, may be seen in the ‘Glossary:’ but it is an ill-judg’d coinage; for the word is confounded in letters with one that should not be thought of [he means fouled meaning beshot], and the sound of it leads to another that makes absolute nonsense [disgraced?]; and yet to either one or the other, the common run of hearers and readers will be apt to incline.”
Capell has a VN w/o comment re THEO, HAN, WARB and comments then on THEON
capn
975 fouled] Capell (1774 1:1:Glossary): “pronounce—fool’d [Ham. 975] turn’d down. Fre[nch]. foulé.”
I do not see that word in my French dictionary. See OED below; it does not have a French derivation for this word.
[But Capell also is not counting players texts, as THEO obviously did; Capell probably had none.] Capell’s usual style is apparent here. Why can’t he say the two words he thinks people will think of? And then in the Glossary, he has a better definition, turned down.
-1778 mtol3
Tollet
975 fouled] Tollet (ms. notes, -1778): “dirty, to foul stockings [Wiv. 3.5.90 (1757)] . . . ”
1778 v1778
v1778 = v1773
975 fouled]
1785 v1785
v1785 = v1778
975 fouled]
1866 cam1
cam1: cap +
975 fouled] Clark & Wright (ed. 1866): “Theobald, who is followed by Hanmer, Warburton and Johnson, reads ‘loose’ for ‘foul’d,’ on the authority as he says of ‘the elder Quartos.’ It is not the reading of any of the first six [Q2-Q5], but of those of 1676, 1683, 1695, and 1703. Had Capell been aware of this, he would scarcely have designated Theobald’s mistake as ‘a downright falsehood.’ Theobald, at the time of writing his ‘Shakespeare Restored,’ knew of no Quarto earlier than that of 1637 (Shakespeare Restored, p. 70), and it is just possible that some copy of this edition (Q6 [i.e. Q5]), from which that of 1676 was printed, may have had the reading ‘loose.’ We have given in the note to [2443] an instance of different readings in two copies of Q6 [i.e. Q5]).
Ed. note: Clark and Wright designate what we call Q5 as Q6 because they consider that Q2 1604 and Q2 1605 are two different editions; they are not.
1877 v1877
v1877 = cam1 for 975, and 3.4.59 +
975 fouled]
Furness (ed. 1877): “This variation in copies of the same date has long been known to exist in the older Qq, but, I confess, I was not prepared to find much variation in later Qq of the same date. In no less than twenty-four instances, however, I have found that my copy of Q’76 differs from that of the Cam. Edd., as recorded in their notes.
Ed.”
Ed. note: Furness used what we are calling Q6,
cam1 what we are calling Q7, both 1676--neither evidently aware of the other’s 1676 edition.
1885 macd
macd: standard
975-6 his . . . ancle] MacDonald (ed. 1885): “His stockings, slipped down in wrinkles round his ankles, suggested the rings of gyves or fetters. The verb gyve, of which the passive participle is here used, is rarer.”
1929 trav
trav
975 no . . .
head]
Travers (ed. 1929): then shocking to an Elizabethan lady’s sensibility because a hat “was then removed from the head much less than with us.”
1939 kit2
kit2: contra trav without attribution
975 No hat] Kittredge (ed. 1939): "Hats were often worn in-doors. Ophelia would have expected to see Hamlet at the door with his hat on, but he would remove it as he crossed the threshold."
kit2 ≈ Tollet ms. note [mtol3] without attribution
975 fouled] Kittredge (ed. 1939): "soiled."
1980 pen2
pen2: standard
975 No . . . head] Spencer (ed. 1980): “Elizabethans normally wore hats indoors, even in church and at meals. Compare 5.2.93.”
1982 ard2
ard2: xref
975 No hat] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “Hats were normally worn in public, even indoors. See Sh.’s Eng., 2: 109. Cf. 3598 ff.”
ard2: source
975 stockins fouled] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “A detail that perhaps derives from Saxo via Belleforest, who describes Hamlet, when simulating madness, as wallowing in the filth and sweepings of the house (’se veautrant és balieüres et immondices de la maison’).”
1987 oxf4
oxf4
975 No hat] Hibbard (ed. 1987): "Shakespeare and his contemporaries, living in draughty houses, wore their hats indoors as well as out. Moreover, the hat was essential to good manners (see 5.2.92 ff [3598 ff])."
1992 fol2
fol2: standard
975 fouled] Mowat & Werstine (ed. 1992): “dirty”
1996 OED
OED
975 fouled] OED: foul from ME. “1. a. intr. To be foul, become foul. . . . 4. To make ugly (see FOUL a. 11); to deface, disfigure, spoil the look of. a 1340 HAMPOLE Psalter iv. 7 Swa to foule flis ymage [of God] flt it kan noght knaw til whas lycnynge it is made.”
2006 ard3q2
ard3q2: xref
975 No . . . head] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “Elizabethans normally wore hats indoors; see some play on this at [3598-3609].”
ard3q2
975 fouled] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “unwashed”
975