3250 soope] Jennens (ed. 1773) : “The qu’s [Qs] read soope, which is the clownish pronunciation of sup. The fo’s [Ff] and the rest, stoup or stoap.”

3250 soope] Capell (1779-83 [1774]:1:1:Glossary) : “ a Pot or large Cup full.”

3250 soope] Rann (ed. 1793) : “a vessel— soope a sup.”

3250 soope] Ritson (apud Caldecott, ed. 1819) : “A jug. ‘Stoup is a common word in Scotland at this day, and denotes a pewter vessel, resembling our wine measure, but of no determinate quantity; that being ascertained by an adjunct, as gallon- stoup, pint -stoup, mutchkin - stoup. The vessel, in which they fetch or keep water, is also called the water -stoup. A stoup of wine is therefore equivalent to a pitcher of wine.’ RITSON

“See (TN 2.3. [713]) Sir Toby.”

3250 soope] Caldecott (ed. 1832) : “a jug. Stoup, stoip. A deep and narrow vessel for holding liquids. S.A.S. stoppa. Jamieson’s Sc. Dict . Stoppa batiolus (batiola, Adam’s Dict .) a kind of cup or bowl. Benson’s As.S. Vocab .”

This note precedes the 1819 note, which CALD2 repeats.

3249-50 Goe get thee in] Collier (ed. 1843) : “Yaughan]] This is printed, in Italic type, as a proper name, in the folio: in the quartos we have only, ‘Go, get thee in.’ It is just possible that ‘ Yaughan’ was a mis-spelt stage-direction to inform the player that he was to yawn at this point.”

3249-50 Goe get thee in] Dyce (1844, p. 218) : <p. 218> “It is just possible that ‘ Yaughan’ was a mis-spelt stage-direction to inform the player that he was to yawn at this point. Collier

“If Martinus Scriblerus, instead of exercising his acuteness on the text of Virgil, had employed it on that of Shakespeare, he could hardly have offered a more felicitous conjecture than this. A fastidious reader, however, may object—that in the stage-directions of early dramas we find nothing of the kind,—nothing about coughing, sneezing, hiccupping, &c.” </p. 218>

3249-50 Goe get thee in] Collier (1853 [2nd ed.], p. 444): <p. 444> “For ‘Get thee to Yaughan,’ which some have supposed a misprint for a direction to yawn, and others, for an innkeeper’s name, the corrector has ‘Get thee to yon,’ or go yonder, and ‘fetch me a stoop of liquor.’”</p. 444>

3249-50 Goe get thee in] Delius (ed. 1854) : “Yaughan]] So die Fol., die Yaughan als freilich unbekannten Eigennamen in Cursiv druckt. Die Qs. haben nur: Get thee in.” [“ The Fol prints Yaughan indeed as an unknown proper name in Cursiv.”]

[Cursive, for Delius, is perhaps as COL1 above notes, in Italic “writing”]”

3249-50 Goe get thee in] Dyce (ed. 1857) : “to Yaughan]] So the folio.— The quartos, 1604, &c. have ‘Go get thee in,’ &c.—Mr. Collier ad. l.oddly conjectures that ‘Yaughan’ may be ‘a mis-spelt stage -direction to inform the player that he was to yawn at this point;’ and his Ms. Corrector, oddly too, substitutes ‘get thee to yon.’”’

3249-50 Goe get thee in] Elze (ed. 1857): "So QB folgg. QA: Goe thee thee gone; Fs: Go, get thee to Yaughan; MC: Go, get thee to you.—Die wahrscheinlichste Erklärung des angeblichen Eigennaamens ’Yaughan’ hat Collier gegeben, indem er denselben für eine Verderbniss einer vorhanden gewesenen Bühnenweisung erklärt ((etwa ’Yawns’)), nach welcher der Schauspieler hier zu gähnen hatte. Die Correktur des MC hat ganz das Aussehen einer erkünstelten Conjectur. Mommsen P.-S. 262." ["So Q2ff. Q1: ’Go, get thee gone"; Ff: ’Go, get thee to Yaughan; mCOL1: ’Go, get thee to yon.’ The supposed explanation of the alleged proper name ’Yaughan’ Collier gave, in which he explains this selfsame as a corruption of the available existing stage directions ((perhaps ’Yawns’)), according to which actor had yawned here. The Corrector of the MC [mCOL1] has the entire appearance of a feigned conjecture. Mommsen P.-S. 262."]

3249-50 Goe get thee in] Collier (ed. 1858) : “Go, get thee to YON ;]] So the corr. fo. 1632 [Perkin’s Folio 2], and it is as much as to say, ‘Go, get thee to yon alehouse; fetch me a jug of liquor.’ We must suppose the alehouse understood, and pointed to by the 1 Clown. It is misprinted in the folio, 1623, ‘Go, get thee to Yaughan ,’ and in our first edition we suggested that Yaughan might be a misunderstood stage-direction for the 1 Clown to yawn , and possibly it was so; but we accept the emendation which presents itself in the corr. fo. 1632. ‘To Yaughan’ was not comprehended in the 4tos, for there the text only is, ‘Go, get thee in.’”

3249-50 Goe get thee in] Dyce (1859, p. 190) : <p.190>“1. The Ms. Corrector is fortunate in such an expositor as Mr. Collier; without whom we certainly never should have guessed that ‘get thee to yon’ is equivalent to ‘get thee to yon alehouse.’”

“2. As to Mr. Collier’s conjecture that ‘Yaughan may be a misunderstood stage-direction for the 1 Clown to yawn,’ I still think (see my Remarks, &c., p. 218) that it would do honour to Martinus Scriblerus himself.” </p. 190>

3249-50 Goe get thee in] Staunton (ed. 1859) : “Yaughan]] Whether by ‘Yaughan’ a man or place is meant, of whether the word is a corruption, we are not qualified to determine. Mr. Collier once conjectured that it ‘might be a misunderstood stage-direction for the 1 Clown to yawn ;’! he now accepts the emendation of his annotator, who reads ‘to you .’”

3249-50 Goe get thee in] White (ed. 1861) : “Yaughan]] I suspect that ‘Yaughan’ is a misprint for ‘Tavern.’ But some local allusion understood at the day may lurk under it. The 4tos. have only, ‘Get the in.’”

3249-50 Goe get thee in] Lettsom (26 April 1861, Letter 63): “I am not aware that any editor but Collier has attempted to explain or alter Hamlet, [5.1.? (3250)]. ‘Go get thee to Yaughan; fetch me a stoup of liquor.’ Might we not read ‘Go get thee to ye ale, and fetch”? The quarto reading, ‘Go get thee in, and fetch,’ seems to have been altered to make something like sense. At any rate, the variation is very much against Knight’s notion that the folio text is founded on the 4to 1604.”

This is Lettsom’s letter to Dyce in the Victoria and Albert Museum, collected by Eric in 1995; DYCE 26 D 13 58-72. (W. Nansom Lettsom to Dyce)

3249-50 Goe get thee in] Lettsom (7 Sept. 1861, Letter 64): “. . . The next [Shakespearean difficulty] also involves the same companion of thee or the, or the, and ye. Hamlet, [5.1.? (3250)] ‘—go, get thee to Yaughan, fetch me a stoupe of liquor.’ Qu. ‘go, get thee to ye ale, and fetch’ etc. The reading of the 4to. 1604 and its successors (in and omitting to) looks like a sophistication from some MS which just here agreed with that from which the folio was printed . . . . “

This is Lettsom’s letter to Dyce in the Victoria and Albert Museum, collected by Eric in 1995; DYCE 26 D 13 58-72. (W. Nansom Lettsom to Dyce)].

3250 soope] Clarke (ed. 1864, Glossary)

3250 soope] Clarke & Clarke (ed. 1864-68, rpt. 1874-78): “‘A flagon,’ ‘a measure.’ See Note 22, Act ii, [TN].”

3249-50 Goe get thee in] Clarke & Clarke (ed. 1864-68, rpt. 1874-78): “Yaughan]] Probably meant for the name of the ‘liquor’-seller.”

3249-50 Goe get thee in] Dyce (ed. 1866) : “to Yaughan]] So the folio.— The quartos, 1604, &c. have ‘Go get thee in,’ &c.—Mr. Collier ad. l.oddly conjectures that ‘Yaughan’ may be ‘a mis-spelt stage -direction to inform the player that he was to yawn at this point;’ and his Ms. Corrector, oddly too, substitutes ‘get thee to yon.’ 1865. Mr. Collier in the second edition of his Shakespeare adopts his Corrector’s ‘yon:’ and certainly the Corrector is fortunate in such an expositor as Mr. Collier; without whom we never should have guessed that ‘yon’ is equivalent to ‘yon alehouse.’—Mr. Grant White, not happier than others in his note on this passage, ‘suspects that “Yaughan” is a misprint for ‘Tavern.’”’

3249-50 Goe get thee in] Clark & Wright (ed. 1866) : “Mr. Collier in his first edition conjectured that “Yaughan” might be ‘a mis-spelt stage direction to inform the player that he was to yawn at this point.’ Mr. Staunton says, ‘Whether by “Yaughan” a man or place is meant, or whether the word is a corruption, we are not qualified to determine.’ Mr. Grant White says, ‘I suspect that “Yaughan” is a misprint for “Tavern.” But some local allusion understood at the day may lurk under it.’”

3249-50 Goe get thee in] Keightley (1867, Yaughan, p. 431): <p. 431> “This might be taken for a corruption of Vaughan; but it is the Danish and German Johan (Y for J), Ben. Jonson has (Ev. Man out, etc. v.4) ‘a few, one Yohan.’ Shakespeare got Johan along with the other Danish names—Guildenstern, Rosencrantz, Osric.” </p. 431>

3249-50 Goe get thee in] Tschischwitz (ed. 1869): “to Yaughan]]Häufig wird to bei Verben der Bewegung gebraucht, z.b. Z. 45. So auch [[Temp. 5.1.298 (2295)]]Go to, away! [[H5 5.1.48 (2946)]] u. [[R2 5.5.98]]fall to. S.M. III. 98.” [“Frequently, to is used with verbs of motion, for example, [3229]. So also [[Temp. . . . “]

3249-50 Goe get thee in]

3250 soope] Delius (ed. 1872) : “Für stoope der Fol. haben die Qs. soope.” [“For stoope of the Folio, the Qs. have soope.”]

3249-50 Goe get thee in] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “to Yaughan]] So the folios. It is impossible to detect the meaning which lies under this corruption. The quarto of 1603 has ‘get thee gone,’ and the other quartos merely ‘get thee in.’ Dr. Nicholson (N &Q , Fourth Series, viii.81) conjectures that Yaughan may be a corruption of Johan, and that this may have been the name of a foreign Jew who kept an ale-house near the Globe Theatre. Such an alehouse is known to have existed, and ‘deaf John,’ the keeper of such alehouse is mentioned in Ben Jonson’s Alchemist 1.1.? and ‘a Jew, one Johna,’ is alluded to in Every Man out of his Humour, 5.4.?.”

3250 soope] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “This word, meaning a ‘drinking-cup,’ is still used in college halls. It was applied to vessels of various sizes, and occurs again in [TN 2.3.129 (713)], ‘A stoup of wine, Maria!’ and in [Oth. 2.3.30 (1141)], ‘Come, lieutenant, I have a stoupe of wine.’”

3249-50 Goe get thee in] Moberly (ed. 1873): “to Yaughan]] The names Yaughan and Yorick are supposed to be Anglicised forms of Johann and George: the latter being like ‘Hollock,’ the unceremonious pronunciation of ‘Hoheniohe.’”

3249-50 Goe get thee in] Elze (1876, pp. 25-6): <P. 25>"Es scheint noch nicht genügend bekannt zu sein, dass diese ’crux interpretum’ endlich von Brinsley Nicholson in Notes and Queries, 4th Series, Vol. VIII p. 81 gelöst worden ist. Mr. Nicholson’s Erklärung gründet sich auf eine Stelle in B. Jonson’s Every Man out of his Humour V, 4, wo es heisst: ’here’s a slave about the town here, a Jew, one Yohan, or a fellow that makes perukes, will give it on artificially.’ Also offenbar ein deutscher jude, der unter dem Aller-</p. 25> <p. 26> weltsnamen Johann als Friseur und Factotum in der Stadt bekannt war und vermuthlich als Theaterfriseur am Globus fungirte. Nun gehörte aber, wie wir aus Halliwell’s Illustrations of the Life of Shakespeare p. 88 wissen, zum Globustheater eine Kneipe ((tap-house)), die von den Theater-Eigenthümern für 20 bis 30 Pfund jährlich verpachtet war und zwar aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach an diesen nämlichen deutschen juden. Dies letztere geht aus einer zweiten Stelle bei B. Jonson hervor, The Alchemist I, 1, wo von ’an alehouse darker than deaf John’s’ die Rede ist. Vielleicht kann es als eine weitere Bestätigung angesehen weden, dass Carlo an der erstgenannten Stelle als ’my good German tapster’ angeredet wird. Man braucht in der That nicht viel Phantasie zu besiten, um diesen alten taubgewordenen jüdischen Theaterfreiseur und Theaterkneipier leibhaftig vor sich zu sehen. Was das Sprachliche anlangt, so kann es kein Bedenken erregen, dass hier ’Yaughan’ statt ’Yohan’ geschrieben ist, da ja such, wie Nicholson bemerkt, ’hough’ für ’ho’ vorkommt. Auf alle Fälle haben wir hier die entschieden wahrscheinlichste Erklärung der berüchtigten Stelle. Es scheint sich sogar noch etwas Weiteres daran zu knüpfen, was Mr. Nicholson nicht in Betracht gezogen hat, nâmlich das bekannte ’an absolute Johannes factotum’, das Grenne unserm Dichter vorgeworten hat. Woher kommt hier die ungewöhnliche und fremländisch klingende Form ’ˆJohannesˆ’ statt des üblichen ’Jack’? Hängt sie vielleicht auch mit dem deutschjüdischen Theaterfriseur zusammen, und war dieser der eigentliche und ursprüngliche ’Johannes factotum’? Der Grenne’sche Ausfall würde dadurch nichts an Schärfe einbüssen, sondern im Gegentheil nur an drastischer Handgreiflichkeit gewinnen, wenn er den Leser sofort an diese stadtbekannte Figur erinnert hätte." </p. 26> ["It seems still not to be sufficiently known that this interpretive crux finally has been loosened by Brinsley Nicholson in Notes and Queries, 4th Series, 8:81. Mr. Nicholson’s explandation is grounded in a passage in Ben Jonson’s Every Man Out of His Humour V,4, where it says: : ’here’s a slave about the town here, a Jew, one Yohan, or a fellow that makes perukes, will give it on artificially.’ Also clearly a German Jew who was known universally as Johann Barber and Factotum in the city and likely functioned as a Theater barber at the Globe. But as we know from Halliwell’s Illustrations of the Life of Shakespeare, p. 88, a tap-house near the Globe was owned, which was leased out by the Theater proprietor for 20 to 30 pounds yearly and indeed in all likelihood to this named German Jew. This latter person is presented in a second passage in B. Jonson’s The Alchemist 1.1, where from ’an alehouse darker than deaf John’s" is the utterance. Perhaps another further confirmation is found that Carlo was addressed in the first passage as my good German tapster.’ One needs possess in that thought not many illusions in order to see this old, deaf Jewish Theater barber and tapster incarnated. Regarding this speech, so it takes no hesitation that here Yaughan was written instead of Yohan, as Nicholson remarks, ’Hough’ stands for ho. For all situations, we have here decidedly likely explanation for this notorious passage. It seems thus even further connected, which Mr. Nicholson did not claim in his account, namely to the well known ’an absolute Johannes factotum,’ which Greene cast at our writer. Whence comes this unusual and foreign sounding form Johannes instead of the typical Jack? Perhaps it is connected also to the German Jewish Theater barber, and was this the particular and original Johannes factotum? The Greene attack would lose thereby none of its precision, on the contrary, in contrast it would gain a drastic obviousness if he had remembered the reader immediately in this city-known figure."]

3249-50 Goe get thee in]

3249-50 Goe get thee in] San (apud Furness, ed. 1877): “to Yaughan]] This is merely Shakespeare’s English way of representing the Danish Johan,—John.”

This is from N & Q, 5 Oct. 1861.

3249-50 Goe get thee in] Nicholson (apud Furness, ed. 1877): “to Yaughan]] Most probably Yaughan was the well-known keeper of a tavern near the theatre; and we have three items of corroborative evidence which show: First, that a little before the time of this allusion by Sh., which is not found in the Qq, thee was about town ‘a Jew, one Yohan,’ most probably a german Jew, who was a perruquier,—he is mentioned by Jonson in Every Man out of his Humour, V,vi; Second, in The Alchemist, I, I, which was produced eleven years afterwards, Subtle speaks of ‘an alehouse, darker than deaf John,’ a name which sounds like that of our foreign John, anglicised, and its owner grown deaf by lapse of time; Third, that there was actually an alehouse attached to the Globe Theatre is proved by the ‘Sonnett upon the Burneing’ of that playhouse (see Collier’s Annals of the Stage, I, 388). It is then unlikely that our wandering Jew, either in search of a business, or as a profitable extension of his theatrical connection, set up ‘the Globe Public-house;’ and was thus, as the known refresher of the thirsty actors and audience, mentioned by both Sh. and Johnson?”

[Ed. This is N&Q, 29 July 1871].

3249-50 Goe get thee in] Clark & Wright (apud Furness, ed. 1877): “to Yaughan]] It is impossible to detect the meaning which lies under this corruption.”

3249-50 Goe get thee in] Furness (ed. 1877): “to Yaughan]] Elze (Shakespeare-Jahrbuch, xi, 297), who accepts without qualification San’s and Nicholson’s suggestion, asks whether there be not an allusion to the same Johan in the sneering ‘Johannes factotum’ that Greene applies to Sh.”

3249-50 Goe get thee in] Browne (apud Furness, ed. 1877): “to Yaughan]] Yaughan is a common Welsh name, and it is surely only necessary to suppose that it was borne by some Welsh tavern-keeper near the theatre.”

[Ed. This is in The Athenæum, 29 July 1876].

3250 soope] Clark & Wright (apud Furness, ed. 1877): “This word, meaning a ‘drinking-cup,’ is still used in college halls. It was applied to vessels of various sizes, and occurs elsewhere in Sh. [See 5.2.254 (3727)].”

3249-50 Goe get thee in] Neil (ed. 1877, Notes): “Yaughan]] This word does not appear in 1603 and 1604 quartos. Can it be that it is a ‘survival’ of the Poetaster quarrel of 1601? In Dekkar’s Satiromastix, we find Sir Rees ap Vaughan encouraging Horace (Ben Jonson) to hope for his patronage, saying, ‘I have some cosenz-german at court shall beget you the reversion of the Master of the King’s Revels, or else be his Lord of Misrule now at Christmas;’ and if this were a misprint for Vaughan, it would mean that first grave-digger advises his fellow to betake himself to that fitting patron of such dull wits as he.”

3249-50 Goe get thee in] Bulloch (1878, pp. 232-4) : “to Yaughan]] The word Yaughan is marked in the Globe [see glo above] with an obelus, and the Cambridge [see cam1 above] notes supply a few conjectures and a </p. 232> <p. 233> reading or two. The Folios print the word in italics, and the five later Quartos leave it out entirely, reading ‘Go, get thee in, and fetch me a stoup of liquor’. The first or imperfect Quarto [Q1] gives only a portion of the speech, and in the guise of verse thus— “And if anyone ask thee herafter, say, A gravemaker, for the house he buildes Last still Doomesday. Fetch me a stope of bere, goe.’

“Rowe in his second edition reads ‘to Youghan’; Capell’s conjecture is ‘to Yaughan’s’; Singer in his first edition adopts ‘To vaughan’; Mr. Grant White’s conjecture is ‘to tavern’; an anonymous conjecture (N. and Q.), is ‘to Johan’ and another anonymous one is ‘to ye ale and’; Mr. Collier adopts the reading of the old MS. ‘to yon’.

“The special note of the Cambridge editors mentions that ‘Mr. Collier in his first edition conjectured that ‘Yaughan’ might be a mis-spelt stage direction to inform the player that he was to yawn at this point”. Mr. Staunton says, ‘Whether by “Yaughan” a man or a place is meant, or whether the word is a corruption, we are not qualified to determine’. Mr. Grant White says, ‘I suspect that “Yaughan” is a misprint for “Tavern”. But some local allusion understood at the day may lurk under it.’

“For the last word of the line the original of 1609 gives ‘yawes,’ the emendation being due to Malone who adopted it from the Capell MS.” </p. 234>

3249-50 Goe get thee in] Elze (ed. 1882): “I have nothing either to withdraw from, or to add to my my note in the Jahrbuch der Deutschen Shakespeare-Gesellschaft, XI, 296 seq., except that I take the reading of [F1] to be an extemporary joke of the clown that somehow or other found its way into the text. See Jahrbuch der Deutschen Shakespeare-Gesellschaft, XIV, 14 seq.”

3249-50 Goe get thee in] White (ed. 1883): “Yaughan]] Probably the name of the keeper of a well known ale-house near the Globe Theatre. It may have been Yaughan, which is Welsh; or that mayb e merely a spelling of Johan (which would be pronounced guttally Yohan) and which was the name of a man who kept a tavern hard by the Globe. The matter is of small importance.”

3249-50 Goe get thee in]Kinnear (1883, p. 408) : <p. 408> “Compare [Com. 3.1.84 (3249-50)—’Go, thee thee gone; fetch me an iron crow.’ [MND 2.1.194 (573)]—’Hence, get thee gone, and follow me no more.’ The quarto, 1603, has ‘Go get thee gone’—the other quartos have ‘Go get thee in, and’—the folio has ‘Go get thee to Yaughan’—probably a misprint for ‘gone and’ with ‘to’ interpolated. If a place had been named, it would have appeared in the quartos. Al the compared eds. print the folio. The Camb. eds. mark the text as corrupt.” </p. 408>

3249-50 Goe get thee in]Nicholson (1884, 423): <p. 423> “I may here add that the quartos show he elaboration of these phrases: [Q1] has, ‘Fetch me a stope of beere, goe’; [Q2], ‘Goe, get thee in [the italics are mine], and fetch mee a soope of liquer’; [Ff], ‘Go, get thee to Yaughan,’ &c. My interpretation was, and is, that Yaughan, or Yohan, was the keeper of the public-house attached to, or in the close vicinity of, the theatre. Br. Nicholson” </p. 423>

3249-50 Goe get thee in] Nicholson (1885, 83): <p. 83>“I now add that the Lindley Murray-like rule—’when speaking of going to a man’s innor shop, his name is put in the genitive, but when to a place it is left unchanged’—is, to my certain knowledge, not an invariable colloquial rule. I have not infrequently heard it infringed, and but the other day I—who, spite of M.A.’s sneers, think myself a little above the Gravedigger in intelligence and education—told our servant to ‘take the cheque to Rice,’ the said Rice being a haberdasher.

“As to M.A. himself, his views on the manner in which a discussion on literary points should be conducted are so different from my own that I cannot hereafter take any notice of his opinions or comments on this or on any other subject. Br. Nicholson” </p. 83>

3249-50 Goe get thee in] MacDonald (ed. 1885): “Yaughan]] Whether this is the name of a place, or the name of an innkeeper, or is merely an inexplicable corruption—some take it for a stage-direction to yawn—I cannot tell. See Q. reading.

It is said to have been discovered that a foreigner named Johan sold ale next door to the Globe.”

3249-50 Goe get thee in] Mull (ed. 1885, p. lv-lvi): <p. lv>“‘The conclusion arrived at by all the commentators is that stated by the above quoted editors. I submit,however, this emendation: ‘Go, get thee to’t again. Fetch me a stoup of liquor.’ There is a simple naturalness in this, admirably in keeping with the rough pleasantry of the whole episode. The Clown </p. lv><p. lvi> plainly repeats here, using it now as a pleasant jeer, the same phrase twice repeated just above, ‘To’t again, come.’ Reverse this, ‘Come, to’t again,’ and we get once more what is so familar in his mouth,’ Go, get thee to’t again’—make a simpleton of yourself again—which so suitably closes the fun and badinage that had passed between them.

“The call for liquor has no relation to the sentence preceding, as it is usually pointed; and under the belief that ‘Yaughan’ is the name of the publican whom the Clowns patronized, some editors read ‘and fetch me.’ ‘Go, get thee to the Red Lion,’ or ‘Go, get thee to Johnny Barleycorn,’ ought to be expunged from conjectural meanings—they are too ridiculous. ‘Fetch me a stoup of liquor’ is a direction self-contained, such as the Clown would trip off in a half sly, half serious manner.

“See the phrase to’t in line 128, page 110, and the Note. [see n. 3610+18].

”It is interesting to notice that the careless writing of ‘t might easily be made so as to be taken by a dull printer for the capital letter Y: the apostrophe might be so formed as to appear like the left slope, and the stroke to the t, if placed at the top, would aid the blundering: the rest of the letters nearly form again. But in what way mutilations took place in the early days of printing need not engage our attention much: the fact that they were numerous and of the boldest character has been too painfully experienced.” </p. lvi>

3250 in, and] Perring(1885, p. 317): <p. 317>“In my next piece of criticism I can hardly hope to command the suffrages and support of a majority of the critics; yet almost all will agree that some other word, than that which we have at present, was in all probability in Shakespeare’s MS. In that famous Scene, where two clowns in a churchyard rub their rough wits against each other right sparkingly, who will say much for ‘Go, get thee to Yaughan?’

“I do not doubt that ‘Yaughan’ very fairly represents the sound that proceeded from the gravedigger’s lips; but I feel pretty sure that the actual words were either ‘the tavern,’ or ‘the inn’—probably the former—where the stoup of liquor he wanted only waited for a fetcher.” </p. 317>

3250 in, and] Barnett (1889, p. 59): <p. 59>“Yaughan]]probably a corruption of Johan.”< /pp. 59>

3250 soope] Barnett (1889, p. 59): <p. 59>“stoup]] flagon.”</pp. 59>

3250 in, and] Symons (in Irving & Marshall, ed. 1890): “The Ff. print Yaughan in italics. In Qq. the passage reads, Go, get thee in, and fetch, &c. Yaughan is a word that has puzzled all the commentators, and it is impossible to say whether it is the correctly spelt name of some local tavern-keeper (the name is no uncommon Welsh one), whether it is a misprint, or whether it is a corruption of Johan or John. Dr. Nicholson (I give his argument as condensed by Furness) writes in Notes and Queries, 29th July, 1871: [cites Nicholson from v1877 above] Whether it is likely or not may be left to every man’s judgment. The suggestion is certainly ingenious, all the more so as it arises from such very problematical data.”

3250 soope] Symons (in Irving & Marshall, ed. 1890): “Stoup, or stoop, a drinking-vessel, is used again in [TN 2.3.129 (713)] and [Oth. 2.3.30 (1141)].Qq. print soope, which is almost certainly a misprint. Jennens suggests that is represents the clownish pronunciation of sup. As a matter of fact, such would be the Warwickshire pronunciation among the lower classes.”

3250 in, and] Dowden (ed. 1899): “Of several emendations recorded in the Cambridge Shakespeare, the most plausible is that of Mr. Tovey: ‘Go to, y’are gone: get thee gone, fetch.’ Y’are gone occurs, but in another connection, in Q1, meaning ‘you are out of it, you have failed to solve the question’; get thee gone occurs in the same Q2 after ‘the gallowes dooes well to them that do ill.’ Or we might read with Q2 ‘Go, get thee in,’ and add, ‘y’are gone,’ as en emendation of ‘Yaughan.’ If ‘Yaughan’ was a printer’s error of F[1], the reader for the press, taking “i” for a proper name, might have substituted ‘to’ for ‘in,’ and so produced the F[1] reading. Why has no ingenious gentleman suggested a shake and jumble of the letters, with an error of a or o (the boxes for these letters being next each other in the compositor’s case)? The first Clown’s ‘confess thyself’ was to be followed by ‘and be hanged,’ but he was interrupted; he proceeds, however, to say that the gallows may do well for his comrade. Now Yaughan easily yields us You (misprinted Yau); ghan is hang with the last letter misplaced as first. Read therefore, the ingenious gentleman might say, with Q1 ‘Go, get thee in,’ and add, ‘hang you; fetch, etc.’ The F[1] ‘to’ may be accounted for as mentioned above.”

[Ed. I have found no reference to a M. Tovey in cam1 or the derivatives of it].

3250 soope]

3249 in, and] Herford (ed. 1900):"Yaughan]]Perhaps the name of an actual tavern-keeper in Shakespeare’s London. Traces of a German ’Johan’ in London have been discovered, and ’Yaughan’ (rhyimg with Vaughan, which then had two syllables and a guttural between) would be the natural English way of spelling it."

3250 soope] Neilson (ed. 1906, Glossary): stoup

3250 soope] stoup]]

3249 in, and] Yaughan

3249 houses . . . Doomesday] Wilson (1934, 2:293): <p. 293> “The agreement of Q2 and F1 may be accidental, but on the other hand it may be due to the fact that ‘lasts’ stood in Shakespeare’s manuscript, and that the solecism was deliberately placed in the Grave-digger’s mouth. Dr. Greg is surely right in regarding the change [in CAM1 to ‘last’] as unnecessary.” </p. 293>

3249 houses hee] Wilson (1934, 2:252) characterizes the probability that Q2’s reading reflects an “omission” of the F1 reading to be “doubtful.” He adds, <p. 254> “I do not think, however, that it is possible to make out any case in favour of the F1 variants in list Iic, and should accordingly refuse to accept them. They add nothing perceptible to meaning or rhythm. “ </p. 254>.He observes too that POPE follows Q2

3249 lasts] Wilson (1934, 2:236): <p. 236> “and though ‘lasts’ [3249] is placed in the mouth of the grave-digger and is therefore ‘in character’, that will not do as an excuse for the others . . . “ </p. 236>

3250 SD Wilson (1934, 2:184): <p. 184>“This explanation [that Q2 delays Hamlet’s and Horatio’s entrance for four lines because 3255 is the last line on the leaf] is borne out by the entry for Hamlet and Horatio in 5.1., where Q2 postpones the S.D. for four lines for exactly the same reason.” </p. 184>

3249-50 in, and] Wilson (1934, 2:259-60): <p. 259> “No one has yet identified this ‘Yaughan’ [F1], but it is usually assumed that he was some Welsh or German tavern-keeper in the neighbourhood of the Globe theatre, and that the reference to him was ‘an interpolation on the part of the players’. This may have been so; and if it became a stock jest on the boards, Scribe C would naturally be careful to write it up in his copy for Jaggard, as he was careful to </p. 259> <p. 260>preserve Burbadge’s dying groans. And yet, is it not just as likely that he jest was Shakespeare’s own? 1 It was quite in his manner to introduce references to places of note in London; there is the mention in [Com.], for example, of ‘the Porpentine’, as the house of the Courtesan, which, as Mrs. Murrie discovered, was the name of a tavern or brother in Shakespeare’s London. 2 And if the Q2 compositor omitted the words ‘to Yaughan’ or ‘to Iohan’, his corrector would see that something was missing and supply an ‘in’ to make sense. Indeed, it is even conceivable that nothing was omitted but ‘to’ and that the ‘in and’ of Q2 was a misprint of some name-form like ‘Ioanne’. It seems to me more likely, however, that both texts omitted: Q2 ‘to Yaughan’ (or ‘to Ioanne’) and F1 ‘and’, since an ‘and’ would ease the F1 reading considerably. In other words, I conclude that an editor should read ‘Go get thee to Yaughan, and fetch me a stoup of liquor.” </p. 260>

<n> <p. 260> “1The point is further developed in anote in Hamlet (New Shakespeare). ‘Yaughan’ is not a Welsh name.”

<n> <p. 260>“ 2Vide The Times Literary Supplement (corr.) 13 Nov. 1930.” </p. 260>

3249 in, and] Ridley (ed. 1934): “If Yaughan, as is generally supposed, was a nearby inn-keeper, the allusion is the kind of topical one that might be introduced as an effective gag at any period of the play’s history. One ought to add that Q1 reads get thee gone, which might be a mishearing of ge t thee to Yaughan.”

3249 in, and] Wilson (ed. 1934): “to Yaughan]] But it is not necessary to bring in a german at all, seeing that ‘Johan’ is also the Danish for John, and that if ‘deaf John’s’ was the house intended, Sh. would naturally wish to translate it to Elsinore, just as he gives the Danish name Yorick to the K.’s jester, and Osric to the fop. Sh. prob. spelt it ‘Yohan’ as Jonson did, for the form ‘Yaughan’ belongs to the corrupt F1 text, while the notion quoted by Furness that it can be a Welsh name is apparently quite unfounded. That no name appears in Q2 may be set down to omission on the part of the compositor. MDH. pp. 259-60.”

3250 SD Wilson (ed. 1934): “It is clear from Ham.’s first words that they have overheard the song. Cf. note 3.2.290 [2163] S.D. and MDH p. 184. ‘Clad as a sailor’ is a suggestion by Mr. William Poel (v. Sh. in the Theatre, pp. 173-74), quoting ‘naked’ (4.7.44) and pointing out that the Sexton does not recognize him and that he has to declare himself at l. 251.”

3250 soope] Wilson (ed. 1934, Glossary): stoup

3249 in, and]

3250 soope]

3246 your] Kittredge (ed. 1939): “See note on [1.5.167 (864)]: ‘your philosophy.’”

3250 soope] Kittredge (ed. 1939, Glossary, stoup): “ a large cup or goblet.”

3249 in, and] Kittredge (ed. 1939): “Yaughan

3249 in, and]

3250 soope] stoup]]

3249 in, and] Rylands (ed. 1947, Notes): Yaughan]]

3250 soope] Alexander (ed. 1951, Glossary, stoup)

3250 soope] stoup]]

3249 in, and] Yaughan

3250 soope] stoup]]

3250 soope] stoup]]

3250 soope] Spencer (ed. 1980): “(pronounced like ‘stoop’; a flagon containing two quarts),”

3249 in, and] Jenkins (ed. 1982, Longer Notes, 547-8):<p. 547>“Yaughan]]Difficulty concerns not only the meaning of this but, since it occurs in F only, its authenticity. It is usually taken to be a topical allusion; but if it is, as often assumed, a </p. 547> <pp. 548>reference to a particular alehouse-keeper, it is less in Shakespeare’s manner than in Jonson’s and may be an actor’s gag, which F happens to preserve. On the other hand, the Q2 in, and looks suspiciously like a compositor’s stopgap for something he could not decipher or understand. Cf. a for sage by the same compositor at [3427]; and, though by another compositor, all for a conjectured impaund ((F impon’d)) as at [5.2.160 (3629)] and sir for comply at [5.2.184 (3651)]. F’s italics indicates a proper name and Yaughan is said to have occurred among immigrants from the Low Countries. That it was the name of an alehouse-keeper on the Bankside is possible; but attempts at further identification invite a little scepticism. It is not easy to see why ‘a Jew, one Yohan’ referred to in Every Man Out of his Humour ((5.6.48)) as ‘a slave about the town here’ is able to insert one dog into another’s skin should be an alehouse-keeper; and if Yaughan was the alehouse-keeper whom The Alchemist ((1.1.85)) subsequently called ‘deaf John’, he had by then anglicized his name. This is what is supposed by Brinsley Nicholson, who identifies all three figures in a neatly connected but entirely conjectural account ((N&Q, 4th ser. viii, 81-2)). Another fancy would see Shakespeare here translating into Danish a common English name (Johan, John. Cf. Yorick, [n. 3369]. But those who find this plausible perhaps fail to reflect that the more it would evoke Hamlet’s Denmark, the less it would suggest a notable of the Bankside. Emendations like y’are gone are unconvincing.”</p. 548>

3250 soope] stoup]]

3249 in, and] Edwards (ed. 1985): “Yaughan]]Q2 could make nothing of this name, it would seem.”

3246-7 your . . . beating] Hibbard (ed. 1987): “Compare ‘A dull ass must have a sharp spur’ ((Dent A348.1)).”

3249 in, and] Hibbard (ed. 1987): “One of the play’s minor mysteries, Yaughan was, presumably, a tavern-keeper operating in or near the Globe.”

3250 soope] stoup]]

3246-7 your . . . beating] Mowat & Werstine (ed. 1992): “i.e. a stupdid donkey does not move more quickly because it is beaten.”

3249 asse] Andrews (ed. 1993): “an ass. The Clown uses the familiar article.”

3249 mend] Andrews (ed. 1993): “improve.”

3250soope] stoup]]

3250 soope] OED stoup 2. A drinking-vessel, of varying dimensions; a cup, flagon, tankard. Also as a measure of definite quantity; often with defining word, as gill, pint, quart stoup. Now Sc. and north., and as a literary archaism.