Download cover next page > cover next page

cover
next page >
Cover
Literature and Language
English Language; Shakespeare; Language and Linguistics; Linguistics; Stylistics
title:
author:
publisher:
isbn10 | asin:
print isbn13:
ebook isbn13:
language:
subject
publication date:
lcc:
ddc:
subject:
A Grammar of Shakespeare's Language
Blake, N. F.
Palgrave Macmillan (UK)
0333725905
9780333725900
9781403919151
English
Shakespeare, William,--1564-1616--Language, English
language--Early modern, 1500-1700--Grammar.
2002
PR3075.B54 2002 eb
822.3/3
Shakespeare, William,--1564-1616--Language, English
language--Early modern, 1500-1700--Grammar.
cover
next page >
< previous page
page_i
next page >
page_i
next page >
Page i
A GRAMMAR OF SHAKESPEARE'S LANGUAGE
< previous page
< previous page
page_ii
next page >
Page ii
Also by N. F. Blake and published by Palgrave
A HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
AN INTRODUCTION TO ENGLISH LANGUAGE
(with Jean Moorhead)
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LANGUAGE OF LITERATURE
THE LANGUAGE OF SHAKESPEARE
< previous page
page_ii
next page >
< previous page
page_iii
next page >
page_iii
next page >
Page iii
A Grammar of
Shakespeare's
Language
N. F. BLAKE
< previous page
< previous page
page_iv
next page >
Page iv
© N. F. Blake 2002
All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of
this publication may be made without written permission.
No paragraph of this publication may be reproduced, copied or
transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with
the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988,
or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying
issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court
Road, London W1T 4LP.
Any person who does any unauthorised act in relation to this
publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil
claims for damages.
The author has asserted his right to be identified
as the author of this work in accordance with the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
First published 2002 by
PALGRAVE
Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS and
175 Fifth Avenue, New York, N. Y. 10010
Companies and representatives throughout the world
PALGRAVE is the new global academic imprint of
St. Martin's Press LLC Scholarly and Reference Division and
Palgrave Publishers Ltd (formerly Macmillan Press Ltd).
ISBN 0–333–72590–5 hardback
ISBN 0–333–72591–3 paperback
This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and
made from fully managed and sustained forest sources.
A catalogue record for this book is available
from the British Library.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Blake, N. F. (Norman Francis)
A grammar of Shakespeare's language / N. F. Blake.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and indexes.
ISBN 0–333–72590–5
1. Shakespeare,William, 1564–1616—Language. 2. English
language—Early modern, 1500–1700—Grammar. I. Title.
PR3075 .B54 2001
822.3′3—dc21
2001036531
Printed in Hong Kong
< previous page
page_iv
next page >
< previous page
page_v
next page >
page_v
next page >
Page v
For Carol
< previous page
< previous page
page_vi
next page >
page_vi
next page >
Page vi
< previous page
< previous page
page_vii
next page >
Page vii
Contents
Preface ix Abbreviations xiv 1 Introduction 1 1.1 The texts and their background 1 1.2 Studies of Shakespeare's
language 7 1.3 This grammar 14 2 The Linguistic Background 15 2.1 The general background 15 2.2 Punctuation 22
2.3 Spelling 30 3 The Noun Group 34 3.1 The noun group and its parts 34 3.2 Morphology 35 3.3 Structure and use
48 4 The Verb Group 87 4.1 The verb group and its parts 87 4.2 Morphology 88 4.3 Function and use 103 4.4 Verb
types 139 5 Adverbials, Interjections, Conjunctions and Prepositions 148 5.1 Adverbials 149 5.2 Interjections 163 5.3
Conjunctions 165 5.4 Prepositions 177 6 Concord, Negation, Ellipsis and Repetition 201 6.1 Concord 201 6.2
Negation 206 6.3 Ellipsis 216 6.4 Repetition 229
< previous page
page_vii
next page >
< previous page
page_viii
next page >
Page viii
7 Clause Organisation and Sentence Structure 233 7.1 Declarative 233 7.2 Imperative 247 7.3 Interrogative 252 7.4
Exclamatory 255 7.5 Sentence structure 256 7.6 Unusual structures 267 8 Discourse and Register 271 8.1 Forms of
address 271 8.2 Conversational strategies 283 8.3 Discourse markers 290 8.4 Ideolects and registers 300 9
Pragmatics 304 9.1 The co-operative principle 304 9.2 Discourse and class 317 9.3 Politeness theory 320 10
Conclusion 326 10.1 Shakespeare's language 326 10.2 Editing 331 10.3 Conclusion 344 Bibliography 345 Index 362
General 362 Words 387
< previous page
page_viii
next page >
< previous page
page_ix
next page >
Page ix
Preface
Grammar can mean many different things to different people (Greenbaum 1988) and so it is best that I indicate
what is included in this grammar. Although sometimes included in books on Shakespeare's language, I do not,
except incidentally, deal with such topics as phonology, lexicography, word-formation, dialects and variation in usage
since these are topics which do not fall within the domain of grammar. This book is principally concerned with
morphology and syntax. However, modern grammatical studies have enlarged the scope of grammar beyond the
clause to include what is often described as text grammar, and I have followed this example. So this book tackles
not only the organisation of the various elements within clauses, but also the way clauses are organised to create
larger patterns in the language. These patterns fall partly in the domains of stylistics and rhetoric, but I do not focus
directly on either of these in this book. Although some have complained that historians of the language have shown
‘indifference to stylistic values’ (Houston 1988: 92), it would take too much space to go deeply into this subject,
though I have learned much from Houston's books. One of the justifications for compiling a grammar of
Shakespeare's language is that Shakespeare exploited the resources of his language, which naturally reflects his
command of style and rhetoric. In addition, this book does not concern itself with metre or rhyme, although it could
reasonably be claimed that each may have some impact on the way Shakespeare organises his language. These two
do not fall within the domain of grammar and would also take too long to deal with adequately in this kind of book.
Some examples are noted as occurring in rhyme where this seems helpful to the reader.
Dr Johnson complained that ‘The style of Shakespeare was in itself ungrammatical, perplexed, and obscure;’
(Smallwood 1985: 41), but in more recent times scholars have tended to believe that Shakespeare could do no
wrong. Spevack asserted that ‘the fundamental premise in dealing with Shakespeare's language is that whatever is,
is right.’ (Spevack 1985: 344). Kermode has in his lat
< previous page
page_ix
next page >
< previous page
page_x
next page >
Page x
est book adopted a more sensible attitude towards Shakespeare's language (Kermode 2000). Unfortunately, it is
difficult to know how much of what survives in the quartos and First Folio represents Shakespeare's own work. That
he worked with other playwrights on many of his plays is beyond dispute. That the plays may have been altered
during the production is almost certain. That scribes and compositors made adjustments to the text or failed to copy
what was in front of them is inevitable. Nevertheless, a book dealing with Shakespeare's grammar cannot go into the
details of what precisely may or may not have been written by Shakespeare himself, even if others claim that they
can tell what is and what is not his. Hence a book like this is really dealing with the language of the plays and
poems attributed to the Shakespeare canon without dealing with the vexed question of which parts may actually be
his. In essence this book deals with a restricted area of the language at the end of the sixteenth and beginning of
the seventeenth century. It attempts to be descriptive within those limits. There are inconsistencies in usage and
failures of expression in the canon, whether they are attributable to Shakespeare or not. There is no assumption
here that whatever is found in the canon is ‘right’, but mostly the usage is described without reference to whether it
is good or bad grammar – concepts which Shakespeare would not have found easy to understand.
The language of Shakespeare is a topic to which literary scholars pay lip-service, though they rarely pay as much
attention to it as it deserves. It is naturally easy for language scholars to assume that the subject is more important
than anything else since it forms the foundation of Shakespeare's meaning. Perhaps inevitably both sides adopt
rather opposed positions in any such debate, as van Peer has stated:
Linguistic analysis has an in-built tendency to overestimate the importance of linguistic form, and to underestimate
the influence of context (except in some areas, such as pragmatics and discourse analysis). Literary studies, on the
other hand, tend to the opposite, i.e. to underestimate the importance of form and to overestimate the contribution
of contextual information (except in some areas, such as stylistics and poetics). It is not difficult to see how an
overemphasis on either of the necessary ingredients may easily lead to one-sided or ill-founded interpretations.
(van Peer 1988: 8)
< previous page
page_x
next page >
< previous page
page_xi
next page >
Page xi
In this book I have not tried to offer many interpretations, though I do from time to time suggest that a passage
may be misunderstood or mispunctuated in some modern editions. Since I use Wells and Taylor (1988) as the basis
of referencing to the text, I have often used their text as an example of where I think the text may have been
misunderstood. I must emphasise that this is merely a matter of convenience and in no way does it indicate that I
think their text should be held up as an example of incomplete editing. In most cases their text simply reflects what
has become traditionally accepted in modern editions.
Wells, for his part, has been rather critical of language scholars, especially as regards modernisation of the text. In
Wells 1984 (p. 7) he refers to an anonymous professor of English Language whom he consulted about some matter
of language in Shakespeare. He claims that this professor was almost apoplectic when he discovered that the edition
Wells was preparing was to be modernised. Wells went on to recognise that ‘while students of the language may
prefer old-spelling editions for working purposes, those concerned with literary and dramatic values are happy with
modernised versions’ (1984: 7). He goes on in this book to offer his justification for modernising Shakespeare for the
modern reader, which I have commented on elsewhere (Blake 1990b). It is interesting that Shakespeare is treated
as a rather special case when it comes to modernisation. Editions of other authors of his time, such as Spenser and
Jonson, are often available in the original, if somewhat modified, spelling although modernised spelling editions are
also produced. But the tradition with Shakespeare has been to present his language in a modernised form, and
edited old-spelling editions of his plays are less easy to come by. As Wells himself has recognised ‘no remotely
satisfactory old-spelling edition exists’ (1984: 7). I have decided that, as this book focuses on language, it is most
sensible to quote the text in F, where that is available, and when that does not contain the example I wish to use I
quote from a quarto version, usually the first quarto. In all cases the original punctuation is kept, though there are
times in F when it is difficult to decide whether a full-stop or a comma is meant because of the difficulty of
interpreting the printing. To rely upon modern editions with their modern punctuation may be to perpetuate
misunderstandings or unnecessary emendations of the text, as one can see by looking at examples quoted in Abbott
(1870) or Franz
< previous page
page_xi
next page >
< previous page
page_xii
next page >
Page xii
(1924). But the lineation has for convenience been tied to the edition by Wells and Taylor (1988), rather than to the
Through Line Number (TLN) system, since the former is more likely to be accessible to the ordinary reader. It is also
my belief that all students of Shakespeare, whether of a literary or linguistic inclination, benefit from reading the
plays and poems in a facsimile of the original texts to get away from the accretion of modern scholarship which may
sometimes hinder rather than help a full appreciation.
In this book I have used a grammatical terminology which is somewhat eclectic as it draws upon both traditional
grammatical and functional grammatical terms. Functional grammar is the modern grammar which is closest in its
terminology to traditional grammar, and it is not difficult to marry the two. Since traditional grammar is still the
grammar known to most literary scholars and ordinary readers of Shakespeare, it is my hope that the adoption of
this mix of terminology in this book will make it easy for both linguists and literary scholars to follow what is included
in this book and how it is arranged. In some ways the present time is possibly not the ideal one for the compilation
of a grammar of Shakespeare's language. The language in dramatic works of his time has much in common with the
spoken language of today, but it is only recently that attempts have been made to work out a grammar for modern
spoken English. Professor Carter and his colleagues are establishing the Cambridge and Nottingham Corpus of
Discourse in English (CANCODE), and this will form the data for the establishment of a grammar of spoken English,
though the results may not appear for some time yet. It is undoubtedly true that there could be much to link studies
of Shakespeare's grammar with whatever future grammar this project produces. It is also true that there are many
cases in Shakespeare's language, as with modern spoken English, where it is difficult to decide what is the best
explanation of the grammar, for there are different ways in which it might be interpreted. Sometimes alternative
explanations are offered, but at others a single interpretation is presented, though there may be other ways of
understanding the text.
This grammar has inevitably been prepared over a number of years and during this time I have lectured on
Shakespeare's language in many universities and conferences both at home and abroad. Most of these talks have
subsequently been printed in
< previous page
page_xii
next page >
< previous page
page_xiii
next page >
Page xiii
one form or another, and many are listed in the Bibliography. Some of the examples quoted in these papers have
been used again in this book. I am grateful to my audiences for the many comments I received and for the
discussions which followed my presentations since this has helped me both to refine my views and to improve my
presentation. It should also be apparent that I could not have written this grammar without relying on the work of
those scholars, both past and present, who have written on Shakespeare's grammar and more generally on the
language of the Early Modern English period. Their work has been a support and an inspiration to me over the years.
Although individual debts are not recorded here, I should like to thank all those scholars in whose footsteps I tread.
Needless to say, the interpretations of Shakespeare's language offered here are my own, though they may build on
what other scholars have written. I should like to thank Professor Ron Carter for lending me his copy of Calvo
(1991), Professor Javier Pérez-Guerra for sending me a copy of his book (Pérez-Guerra 1999) and Dr Elena Seoane
Posse for providing me with copies of some of her articles. I have enjoyed conversations about Shakespeare with
various colleagues in Sheffield, especially Professor Mick Hattaway, with whom I have had debates about the various
editions he has produced. I should like to thank the staff at the University of Sheffield Library, who have always
been very helpful in providing me with material. I am grateful to the understanding of my wife Valerie who had
assumed that when I retired I would be able to devote more time to her, but often found that the completion of this
book prevented that. I would also like to thank my niece, Carol Chapman, who has taken me to see many
performances of Shakespeare's plays, and as a small mark of my gratitude this book is dedicated to her.
Norman Blake
Sheffield 2001
< previous page
page_xiii
next page >
< previous page
page_xiv
next page >
Page xiv
Abbreviations
Titles of Shakespeare's works cited
The principle followed has been to use, where possible, two capital letters to reflect the first two words (excluding
determiners) or the first two significant words of a work's customary title. Where there is only one word in a title,
the abbreviation has a capital letter followed by two lower-case letters. This type of abbreviation is used for one of
two titles where both plays could have had the same abbreviation, as with Titus Andronicus (TA) and Timon of
Athens (Tim). As there are no quotations from The Two Noble Kinsmen, TN is used for Twelfth Night. Titles with
English kings' names are differentiated by the number of the play (if there is more than one for that king), the
capital letter of the king's Christian name and the Arabic numeral of which king of that name it is (e.g. 1H4 = The
First Part of King Henry IV).
AC Antony and Cleopatra
AW All's Well That Ends Well
AY As You Like It
CE Comedy of Errors
Cor Coriolanus
Cym Cymbeline
1H4 The First Part of Henry IV
2H4 The Second Part of Henry IV
H5 Henry V
1H6 The First Part of Henry VI
2H6 The Second Part of Henry VI
3H6 The Third Part of Henry VI
H8 Henry VIII (or All is True)
Ham Hamlet
HL The History of King Lear (the Quarto text)
JC Julius Caesar
KJ King John
KL King Lear (the First Folio text)
LC A Lover's Complaint
< previous page
page_xiv
next page >
< previous page
page_xv
next page >
page_xv
next page >
Page xv
LL Love's Labour's Lost
MA Much Ado About Nothing
Mac Macbeth
MM Measure for Measure
MN A Midsummer Night's Dream
MV Merchant of Venice
MW The Merry Wives of Windsor
Oth Othello
Per Pericles
R2 Richard II
R3 Richard III
RJ Romeo and Juliet
RL The Rape of Lucrece
Son The Sonnets
TA Titus Andronicus
TC Troilus and Cressida
Tem The Tempest
TG Two Gentlemen of Verona
Tim Timon of Athens
TN Twelfth Night
TS The Taming of the Shrew
VA Venus and Adonis
WT The Winter's Tale
Other Abbreviations
A adverbial
Ad addressee
adj adjective/modifier
aux auxiliary
C complement
Co object complement
Cs subject complement
cf. compare
conj conjunction
D distance
F First Folio (1623)
FLH Folia Linguistica Historica
FTA Face Threatening Act
I interjection
ME Middle English
N negator
< previous page
< previous page
page_xvi
next page >
Page xvi
O object
Od direct object
OE Old English
OED Oxford English Dictionary
Oi indirect object
P power relation
PdE Present-day English
pl plural
Q quarto(s) (distinguished as Q1 [first quarto], Q2 [second quarto] as necessary)
R risk
Rptd reprinted
S subject
sg singular
ShE Shakespeare's English
Sp speaker
SS Shakespeare Survey
V verb
voc vocative
W weight
< previous page
page_xvi
next page >
< previous page
page_1
next page >
Page 1
1
Introduction
1.1 The texts and their background
1.1.1 Shakespeare lived from 1564 to 1616. His earliest and his final years were spent in Stratford-upon-Avon, but
during his middle years he was in London, though he may occasionally have lived elsewhere (Honigmann 1985).
During his early years in Stratford he attended the grammar school until he was about 15, and not long afterwards
in 1582 he married Anne Hathaway. The details of his career in London, where he must have arrived in the late
1580s or early 1590s, remain uncertain, but he was writing plays and poetry from an early age; however, it was the
latter which was published early, not long after his arrival in London.
1.1.2 His two best known poems, Venus and Adonis and Lucrece (now known as The Rape of Lucrece), were
published in 1593 and 1594 respectively. Each contains a dedication to Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, with
Shakespeare's name at the end. Both were carefully printed by Richard Field, who like Shakespeare came from
Stratford, and they may have been published from Shakespeare's holograph and under his supervision. Although
Venus and Adonis is described in the dedication as the first heire of my inuention, Shakespeare had already started
to write plays before 1593; the poem is his first known published piece. Both these poems were reprinted several
times in Shakespeare's life-time and appear to have been very successful.
Other poems attributed to Shakespeare may have been published without his consent. The first edition of The
Passionate Pilgrim is extant only in fragments and the title page is missing. A second edition was printed in octavo by
William Jaggard in 1599 and Shakespeare is credited as the author of its contents on the first title page; the first
edition was possibly in the same year
< previous page
page_1
next page >
< previous page
page_2
next page >
Page 2
and seems to have had the same contents as the second. A second title page without Shakespeare's name is found
on fol. C3r. The contents include alternative versions of two of Shakespeare's sonnets, extracts from Love's Labour's
Lost, and another 11 poems of uncertain authorship, though some are certainly not by Shakespeare. The attribution
of this volume to Shakespeare suggests that he was already well known as an author and that his name was a
useful marketing device. A third edition of 1612 included some additional poems by Thomas Heywood, though
Shakespeare's name appears as author of the contents on the title page. Heywood objected to his work being passed
off as someone else's and it seems Shakespeare himself was not pleased with what had been done, which may be
why the second edition had a second title page and this third edition had the original title page cancelled and a new
one without Shakespeare's name inserted.
Another poem, now known as The Phoenix and the Turtle, was printed without title, but attributed to Shakespeare,
in 1601 in a composite volume principally devoted to Robert Chester's Love's Martyr, which appears to have been
composed for Sir John and Lady Salusbury, with whom Shakespeare had no known connection.
Finally, a volume of poems entitled SHAKE-SPEARES SONNETS Neuer before Imprinted was printed by George Eld
for Thomas Thorpe in 1609, but in addition to the Sonnets this volume also contained the poem A Lover's Complaint,
though it is uncertain whether this is Shakespeare's. Some of the 154 sonnets in this collection had circulated in
manuscript form before this time (two had appeared in The Passionate Pilgrim), and scholars are divided as to
whether this edition was pirated or authorised by Shakespeare. There are relatively few mistakes in its printing and
it is probable that the Sonnets had been specially copied into a clean copy text for the printer. Some editors of the
Sonnets favour the idea that Shakespeare was in some way responsible for this edition (Duncan-Jones 1997).
1.1.3 Shakespeare wrote perhaps as many as 40 plays during his career, though in many of them he co-operated
with other playwrights and some titles of what are probably plays by him may be variant titles of known plays or
may represent plays which have not survived. Shakespeare worked in the playhouse for his company, writing plays
either alone or with others. These plays
< previous page
page_2
next page >
< previous page
page_3
next page >
Page 3
would have existed at first in his draft version or foul papers. A fair copy may have been prepared by the author for
the playhouse, which could have served as the prompt book for the prompter in the London playhouse, or else a
prompt copy would have been made direct from these foul papers. The plays would, however, have been adapted
for performances of different types and with different numbers of actors. When, for example, the plays were
performed outside London, the company may have had fewer actors at its disposal than in Southwark. This would
mean adapting or shortening the plays to make it possible for a smaller company to perform them adequately. This
might lead to different versions of the same play existing in prompt copies. It is also possible, and it is a view that
has attracted much attention recently, that Shakespeare himself revised his plays. This theory has been particularly
promoted for King Lear, and the Oxford edition of the complete plays (Wells and Taylor 1988) contains two versions
of this play, with the separate titles The History of King Lear (based on Q) and The Tragedy of King Lear (based on
F).
1.1.4 The plays are extant today in two types of edition, quarto and folio, though only 20 plays are found in quarto
versions. The First Folio [F] was published in 1623 after Shakespeare's death and is a collected edition of all the
plays which the publishers, John Heminge and Henry Condell, could find and acquire permission to print. They had
been helped in the planning of this edition by William Burbage, another actor, who died before the book was printed.
This edition is described more fully in 1.1.5. During Shakespeare's lifetime individual plays were published in quarto.
Some of these were printed without his permission or that of the company, and these may represent memorial
reconstructions by individual actors, who would naturally remember certain acting parts much more completely than
others. These quartos, which have incomplete or variant texts, are referred to as ‘bad quartos’, though this label is
somewhat unfortunate since it implies a corrupt, rather than possibly an adapted or early, version. Some of these
were reprinted during Shakespeare's lifetime direct from the existing bad quartos and others were reprinted with a
better text in what is known as a ‘good quarto’. Good quartos have the text of the plays in what are today accepted
as complete versions and generally show little variation of substance
< previous page
page_3
next page >
< previous page
page_4
next page >
Page 4
from the texts which later appeared in F. All of the texts published in bad or good quartos appeared in F in 1623,
except Pericles, which first appeared in a complete edition of the plays in the Third Folio (1664).
Three plays were published in bad quartos [the first dates in brackets] and subsequently appeared in good quartos
[the second and third dates in brackets] during Shakespeare's lifetime: Romeo and Juliet (1597 and 1599, 1609),
Love's Labour's Lost (?1598 and 1598), and Hamlet (1603 and 1604/5, 1611). The bad quarto for Love's Labour's
Lost is not extant, but as the good quarto claims to be Newly corrected and augmented, presumably a bad quarto
had appeared previously. The following plays were published as bad quartos one or more times during
Shakespeare's lifetime [with the date of the earliest edition]: The Taming of the Shrew (1594), Henry VI Part Two
(1594), Henry VI Part Three (1595), Richard III (1597), Henry V (1600), The Merry Wives of Windsor (1602), and
King Lear (1608). Pericles appeared in 1609 and was reprinted twice before Shakespeare's death. The plays which
appeared in good quartos one or more times before Shakespeare's death are with the date of the earliest edition:
Titus Andronicus (1594), Richard II (1597), Henry IV Part One (1598), The Merchant of Venice (1600), Much Ado
about Nothing (1600), Henry IV Part Two (1600), A Mid-summer Night's Dream (1600), and Troilus and Cressida
(1609). Othello appeared in a good quarto in 1622. The text of each play in F has a different relation to the extant
quarto(s). In a few instances F may be little more than a reprint of the good quarto; but in other cases F's text may
show variations from the earlier quarto.
The language of the quartos, especially that of the bad quartos, can be quite different from what is found in F,
especially in vocabulary, morphology and syntax. For example, the second person of the personal pronoun (a
feature which has attracted so much interest) may appear in the singular in Q and the plural in F, or vice versa. Also,
James I introduced legislation against blasphemy so that oaths and asseverations in many of the earlier quartos,
both good and bad appearing during Elizabeth's reign, are modified in F so that swounds (i.e. God's wounds) might
be changed to something less offensive like by heaven. In the latter example it is reasonable to assume that the
change was dictated by the new legislation and that the quartos contain Shakespeare's original text. But in most
other cases, as is true of the first example,
< previous page
page_4
next page >
< previous page
page_5
next page >
Page 5
it is difficult to be certain whether Q actually contains what Shakespeare had written or whether Q represents a
corruption resulting from memorial reconstruction or F represents a modernisation of his text. The majority of
modern editions start from F as their base text, but may include some forms from Q, where the play in question is
extant in a quarto or quartos. Selected readings from the quartos are found in the collations of modern editions,
though such sparse entries may make it difficult to recognise what the passage as a whole looked like in Q to
understand what was motivating the printer of Q.
1.1.5 F appeared in 1623 under the editorship of Heminge and Condell, who had been fellow actors of Shakespeare
and had received money from him under his will. They claim in their introductory To the great Variety of Readers.
that they produced this edition because as where (before) you were abus'd with diuerse stolne, and surreptitious
copies, maimed, and deformed by the frauds and stealthes of iniurious impostors, that expos'd them: euen those,
[the plays] are now offer'd to your view cur'd, and perfect of their limbes; and all the rest, absolute in their
numbers, as he [Shakespeare] conceiued the[m]. F was supposed to be a collected edition of the plays with their
complete and authoritative texts as written by Shakespeare. The texts of the various plays, however, came from
different sources, as modern scholarship has set out to show. Some, like The Merry Wives of Windsor and The
Tempest, were printed from transcripts made by the scribe Ralph Crane; some, like A Midsummer Night's Dream and
Troilus and Cressida, came from a quarto, either directly or after it had been compared with some other text such
as a promptbook or simply emended; some, such as Henry V and The Comedy of Errors, came from the foul papers
or a transcript of them; some, like Macbeth, came from a promptbook; and the copy used for others, like Othello,
remains uncertain. It is claimed that there may be 13 different permutations of the possible copytext(s) which lie
behind the text of a given play in F (Bowers 1955: 10–12). Although Heminge and Condell had no previous
experience as editors, they did not use any of the quartos which are today labelled ‘bad’, which suggests that this
label is not without some justification.
The printing of the plays was a laborious business which did not proceed smoothly. The plays had to be collected
and a decision
< previous page
page_5
next page >
< previous page
page_6
next page >
Page 6
made as to which were Shakespeare's. Copies of the texts had to be acquired. For Troilus and Cressida the
publishers ran into difficulties, possibly caused by the copyright holder, so that the printing of this play was
interrupted and its title does not occur in the table of contents. It was printed last and then inserted as the first play
of the tragedies, though without the pagination which was provided for the other tragedies, for the next play
Coriolanus starts the tragedies at page 1. There are numerous inconsistencies and infelicities in the printing of F,
which help us to understand what the sources for the plays may have been. Spelling and punctuation differ
according to which compositor set up a sheet. Some plays are divided into acts, others in acts and scenes, and yet
others have no divisions whatsoever. Lists of the dramatis personae appear in only seven plays. The names of the
characters vary within a play, from the names found in an early version to those found in the latest version and/or
to names of the actors who played the parts in the company. Text in prose may appear as verse and vice versa. The
pagination is irregular and incomplete. The disposition of the text on the page and the amount of space which
surrounds titles and so on vary considerably. The corrections made at proof stage appear in some extant copies, but
not in others, so that each single copy of F may be unique in its mixture of corrected and uncorrected sheets. A
modern facsimile (e.g. Hinman and Blayney 1996) may represent a text which never existed for it can be made up
of corrected leaves from different copies of F. The disparity in production outlined in this paragraph underlines the
difficulty the editors and printers had with this large volume, and the problems they found in trying to organise the
various sources which they used as copytexts.
The 36 plays in F were arranged in three groups: comedies (14 plays), histories (10 plays) and tragedies (Troilus
and Cressida and 11 other plays). F does not contain Pericles or The Two Noble Kinsmen, normally included in
modern editions of the collected plays, but it does contain Henry VIII, now usually known as All is True, among the
histories. As noted, Pericles joined the canon in the Third Folio; but The Two Noble Kinsmen was never included in
any of the four seventeenth-century folios of his collected works, though it was printed for the first time in 1634
where it is attributed to Shakespeare and Fletcher. It was included in the second folio edition of Fletcher's works of
1679. Shakespeare also collaborated with Fletcher in the play Cardenio, which though now
< previous page
page_6
next page >
< previous page
page_7
next page >
Page 7
lost was performed in 1612–13. The incomplete play, Sir Thomas More, was another collaborative venture to which
Shakespeare may have contributed for he is now credited as the author of 168 of its lines (147 in his own
handwriting and another 21 lines in a scribe's hand). This play survives only in a manuscript written in numerous
hands and was apparently never performed. Shakespeare is said by Francis Meres in 1598 to have been the author
of a play Love's Labour's Won, but it has not survived.
F was set in print by at least five compositors (Hinman 1963). Each compositor can be recognised by such features
as his spelling preferences and the way each handled the copytext he was using. This in itself introduces another
problem in tackling the language of the plays, which may affect the poems to some extent as well. Compositors were
able to impose their own spelling and punctuation on the text they were setting up, though in practice the result was
a compromise between what was in their copytext and the systems of spelling and punctuation with which they
were most familiar. In addition, compositors may have been influenced in their spelling and punctuation by such
matters as the available space, a matter which was particularly relevant to the two-column First Folio where line
length was short. If they had to cram words into a limited space, they could alter the spelling of certain words to
reduce the number of pieces of type they would have to fit into the composing stick. The implication of this is that
we cannot be certain that what is found in F or the early prints of the poems replicates Shakespeare's own spelling
and punctuation system, even if we could assume that he had a system which remained constant throughout his
life, which is unlikely. But if they are not Shakespeare's, they come from his period and may reflect the type of
system he used, even though they are not identical with his in every particular. If we are to understand his language
as fully as possible, it is important to follow the original sources rather than a modernised version, as so many books
about his language do. And it is to a brief review of works about his language to which I now turn.
1.2 Studies of Shakespeare's language
1.2.1 The language of Shakespeare has been studied and his texts edited almost from the moment he died in 1616.
Two features
< previous page
page_7
next page >
< previous page
page_8
next page >
Page 8
have remained constant in this work. The first is his vocabulary, which has been a regular focus of comment, partly
because editors need to make sense of what his words mean and partly because he has always been recognised as
a great innovator of words and their meanings. It is true that in the eighteenth century his exuberance in vocabulary
was somewhat frowned on, for Dr Johnson in particular regretted the way in which he had mixed different registers
in what he wrote. In Rambler 168 (1751), for example, he objected to the words dun and knife in Macbeth 1.5.49–
51:
Come thick Night,
And pall thee in the dunnest smoake of Hell,
That my keene Knife see not the Wound it makes,
His objections were that dun was an ‘epithet now seldom heard but in the stable, and dun night may come or go
without any other notice than contempt’; and as for knife it was ‘the name of an instrument used by butchers and
cooks in the meanest employments’. Yet both these words are given to Lady Macbeth in a passage of high emotional
intensity. To mix words from a low level of usage with those more appropriate to the grand rhetoric of other
passages indicated to Dr Johnson a lack of taste and discrimination. However, this view has not been echoed in
more recent criticism, which is almost uniformly appreciative of Shakespeare's inventiveness. It is often pointed out
how many phrases we still use today which are attributable to Shakespeare. The credit due to him as someone who
expanded the English vocabulary may have been overstated, as Schaefer (1980) has pointed out, but to the man in
the street his inventiveness in word usage and new forms is one of the glories of Shakespeare as author. It might
also be said that vocabulary is thought by many to be an easier subject to handle and research, because dictionaries
on specialist areas of his usage have been and continue to be published (e.g. Williams 1997). But a study of
Shakespeare's vocabulary is not included in this grammar.
1.2.2 The second feature is grammar. As with his vocabulary, editors in the eighteenth century, following on from the
strictures against Shakespeare's poor grammatical usage found as early as Ben Jonson who noted his use of double
comparatives, deplored
< previous page
page_8
next page >
< previous page
page_9
next page >
Page 9
the ‘mistakes’ in grammar which they found in Shakespeare's works and often emended them to present him as a
figure whose grammar was less reprehensible. As early as the Second (1632), Third (1664) and Fourth (1685) Folios
alterations are found which eliminate some double comparatives in F (1623). In Coriolanus 3.1.122–3 F reads Ile
giue my Reasons, More worthier then their Voyces., but in the later folios worthier is changed to worthie/worthy,
presumably to avoid the double comparison. Similarly editors in the eighteenth century started to emend
Shakespeare's text to eliminate what they considered grammatical solecisms. Thus in Julius Caesar 3.2.181 F reads
This was the most vnkindest cut of all., but Pope in his edition (1723–5) expunged the double superlative by
emending the line to This, this, was the unkindest cut of all. But such attempts to sanitise Shakespeare's grammar
became less frequent with the nineteenth century.
The nineteenth century saw the beginnings of the systematic study of Shakespeare's grammar, though this was
usually done with a view to pointing out the differences between Shakespeare's usage and the English of the
nineteenth century. In English the best known and still the most frequently cited grammar is that by E. A. Abbott,
entitled A Shakespearian Grammar, first published in 1869 and frequently revised and reprinted. Abbott was able to
look back from a period in which English grammar had apparently been regulated and standardised (the nineteenth
century) to Shakespeare's time, where it seemed as though any violation of propriety in grammar was permissible.
As he wrote in his introduction:
ELIZABETHAN English, on a superficial view, appears to present this great point of difference from the English of
modern times, that in the former any irregularities whatever, whether in the formation of words or in the
combination of words into sentences, are allowable. In the first place, almost any part of speech can be used as any
other part of speech. … In the second place, every variety of apparent grammatical inaccuracy meets us. … On a
more careful examination, however, these apparently disorderly and inexplicable anomalies will arrange themselves
under certain heads. It must be remembered that the Elizabethan was a transitional period in the history of the
English language.
(pp. 5–6)
< previous page
page_9
next page >
< previous page
page_10
next page >
Page 10
He evidently, though erroneously, thought that nineteenth-century English had achieved a stability which made that
of the Elizabethan period look chaotic, partly because of the changes which were taking place in the sixteenth
century. Hence he focuses in his book on the differences which are to be found between the Elizabethan and the
Victorian periods in the language, and that is why his book has as its subtitle An Attempt to Illustrate Some of the
Differences between Elizabethan and Modern English. Inevitably, therefore, his book highlights what he considered
those differences to be, which in turn meant that his grammar is partly a collection of the infelicities and mistakes in
Elizabethan English rather than a comprehensive grammar, as its main title might lead one to expect. This emphasis
on grammatical ‘mistakes’ gives the book an unfortunate tone.
A more comprehensive grammar was produced by Wilhelm Franz, which appeared for the first time in 1898–9, and
was subsequently revised and in its third edition (1924) appeared as Shakespeare-Grammatik. This is an altogether
fuller grammar, though it too tends to focus on the differences between the English of the turn of the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries and that of Shakespeare's time. Franz included in his grammar not only morphology and syntax,
but also phonology and word-formation. Although a much fuller grammar than Abbott's, it is less frequently referred
to by modern Anglo-American editors, possibly because they are not familiar with German or because their
somewhat limited interest in Shakespeare's grammar is satisfied by Abbott. Nevertheless, it is more methodical and
systematic, and still repays careful reading. It is, however, very dense and is built on German philological models
which may make it somewhat alien to many Anglo-American editors.
There have been no substantial grammars of Shakespeare's language since Franz's, and the grammars that have
appeared are altogether slimmer volumes with relatively little detail; and most of them have built upon the work of
Franz and Abbott (e.g. Brook 1976 and Scheler 1982). Indeed, it could be said that Shakespeare's grammar is a
neglected topic, and it is hardly surprising that the recent Arden CD-ROM (1999) includes Abbott's grammar to
illustrate Shakespeare's language. The reasons for this lack of a modern comprehensive grammar are probably to be
found in the development of linguistics and the gradual de
< previous page
page_10
next page >
< previous page
page_11
next page >
Page 11
mise of philology. The twentieth century is one in which linguistics has been a significant force, but it has
concentrated on living languages, whether English or foreign. The historical study of language has gradually lost
ground so that grammars of dead authors, even those of the calibre of Shakespeare, have become less fashionable,
though there are signs that this neglect is now changing. This has created a problem for modern editors and critics
of Shakespeare's works. They often find modern linguistics difficult or irrelevant to their concerns, and so they have
in their turn become less interested in the minutiae of the language of the text they are editing. Often a mere
reference to Abbott or to the Oxford English Dictionary satisfies their conscience that they have explained the
difficulty in syntax or vocabulary which exists in the text. But such references not only do not explain how the text is
to be understood, but they also direct the reader to reference works which may not be readily available to those
outside universities. Editors spend more of their time grappling with other problems, such as the printing of F or
individual quartos, or the cultural references in or the productions of the play they are dealing with, and thus fail to
offer satisfactory explanations of the language which may baffle many readers. When they offer an explanation of
the language, it is as often as not borrowed from previous editors.
Thus in Macbeth the very first scene finishes in F with all the witches speaking the following:
Padock calls anon: faire is foule, and foule is faire,
Houer through the fogge and filthie ayre.
(1.1.9–11)
No edition which I have consulted comments on the word Houer or how it is to be understood. Is it a verb or a
noun and, if the former, is it an imperative or the first person plural of the present indicative with ‘we’ understood as
its subject although this is not expressed? Or is the subject of the verb the preceding clause faire is foule, and foule
is faire, with the verb in the plural rather than perhaps the expected singular form? The dictionaries (e.g. Schmidt
1902) take it as a verb, but do not explain its morphology. If the verb is an imperative, do the witches address the
command to one another; or if it is first person present plural, are the witches
< previous page
page_11
next page >
< previous page
page_12
next page >
Page 12
indicating a weak imperative ‘let us hover’? If Houer is a noun, could it mean the state of hovering in the air? I
would suggest that whichever grammatical interpretation one chooses has a significant implication for an
understanding of the tone and purpose of this scene.
In the lines quoted above from Macbeth editors normally emend the first three words by distributing them among
two witches so that the second says Padock calls and the third says anon. No modern editor to the best of my
knowledge comments on the language of these words and asks whether they could make sense as they appear in F.
On the face of it, Padock calls anon: is a normal English clause which can be understood as subject + transitive verb
+ object (with anon as the object, i.e. what Paddock calls) or as subject + intransitive verb + adverb, or even as
subject + transitive verb + adverb + object (with the couplet faire is foule etc. acting as the object). If these words
make sense in one of these ways, is it necessary to change what is found in F and does any emendation give better
sense than F? My own answer to that final question is definitely negative, for the text in F gives better sense than
the current widely accepted emendation (for reasons, see Blake forthcoming). Equally, earlier in this same scene
one of the witches asks where they will meet and is told that they will meet on the heath, which the third witch
qualifies with There to meet with Macbeth. (1.1.7). As almost every schoolchild knows, this play opens with When
shall we three meet againe? (1.1.1), and yet editors never bother to ask themselves whether there is any difference
between this meet of the first line and the slightly later meet with. But meet with is a phrasal verb which in ShE had
the sense ‘to attack, ambush’, as the OED makes clear, and to understand the phrasal verb in this way alters our
whole perception of this scene. These examples merely illustrate that, although Shakespeare's plays have been
edited continuously, there are still many elements of his language which are overlooked by his editors. It is time that
his language was given more attention than it currently receives; and this is one purpose behind this grammar.
1.2.3 The previous subsection should not be taken to imply that no work had been done on Shakespeare's language
since the publication of Franz's grammar. Not unnaturally, books about the development of Early Modern English
(Görlach 1991, Barber
< previous page
page_12
next page >
< previous page
page_13
next page >
Page 13
1997 and Lass 1999) have appeared in which details of Shakespeare's language are often provided, though naturally
such books are not intended to be grammars of his language. Equally, general books on the development of English
syntax (Visser 1963–73) draw on many examples from Shakespeare, though books like his may be difficult for those
with no linguistic background to find their way through. A great deal more is now known about the language and its
development in this period so that Shakespeare can be seen against the linguistic background of his time. Syntactic
patterns within Shakespeare have been studied by using computer technology to test the frequency of certain
syntactic patterns (Burton 1973), but such studies have not been frequent or particularly fruitful. More specific
features of syntax, such as modal verbs (Kakietek 1972) and infinitive complements (Fanego 1992), have also been
studied. These works have been linguistically motivated and have often used the data from Shakespeare as part of a
wider synchronic and diachronic study of English. It is also interesting that many of these works have been written
by those outside the Anglo-American scholarly tradition, where a stronger philological tradition has remained.
However, in the last 25 years or so, attention has been increasingly given to features like style, discourse analysis
and pragmatics, often with a view to indicating how the study of certain linguistic features may help to a fuller
understanding of the plays. It is symptomatic of this trend that Houston 1988 has the title Shakespearean
Sentences: A Study in Style and Syntax. Much of this work has often appeared in the form of articles, and a
collection of them may be found in Salmon and Burness (1987). Pragmatics has been a growing source of studies
on Shakespeare (Rudanko 1993), though such studies have so far had little impact on the editing of Shakespeare's
texts. As noted earlier, editors are largely content to limit their consultation of language material to Abbott and a few
dictionaries, as though all the difficulties about Shakespeare's language have been satisfactorily explained long ago.
It may be unfortunate that many of the articles which have appeared more recently about different aspects of
Shakespeare's English (ShE), such as Brown and Gilman's study of politeness theory and Shakespeare (1989), are
found in journals which are possibly never consulted by editors of Shakespeare.
< previous page
page_13
next page >
< previous page
page_14
next page >
Page 14
1.3 This grammar
In this book I follow the spelling found in F, unless otherwise stated. The readings of F have been taken from the
second edition of the Hinman facsimile (Hinman and Blayney 1996). However, the lineation system is that found in
the compact edition of Wells and Taylor 1988, since it is a widely used edition. This edition has certain drawbacks,
for its lineation and scene divisions are not those found in other editions. It is also somewhat revolutionary in some
of its decisions, which may not stand the test of time. It does not follow that, because I have followed its lineation, I
agree with all its editorial decisions; the choice of this edition was meant as a convenience to my readers. When I
quote from a poem or a quarto of one of the plays, I quote from a facsimile of the original. The Sonnets are quoted
from the quarto reproduced in Booth (1977). Unless otherwise stated, the quarto used where there is more than one
of a given play or poem is the earliest one, if it is complete. For many of the plays I have used the facsimiles in Allen
and Muir (1981), and for the rest of the plays and the poems I have used copies of the Shakespere-Quarto Facsimiles.
< previous page
page_14
next page >
< previous page
page_15
next page >
Page 15
2
The Linguistic Background
2.1 The general background
During the Middle English period three languages were current in England: the various dialects of English itself,
Anglo-Norman which had given way to Central French, and Latin. By the end of this period the latter two had
become second languages which had to be learned, and the triumph of English as the national language was
guaranteed. Although French may have been familiar to certain classes, especially nobles, lawyers and merchants,
the nationalist spirit generated through the Hundred Years' War meant that it was never going to be accepted by the
general population. For its part, Latin underwent an important transformation during the fifteenth century in that the
Latin of the Middle Ages was Vulgar Latin, the spoken variety of Latin especially associated with the Catholic Church.
The humanists from the fourteenth century in Italy and from the fifteenth in England set about recreating classical
Latin as that variety of the language which should be taught and used for all purposes. This had several important
implications. The first was that Latin ceased for all practical purposes to be a spoken language and so was no longer
a competitor with English as the language of spoken communication in England. English could develop unchallenged
as the spoken and ultimately the written language of England. But a second result of the reinstatement of classical
Latin as the taught form was that Latin was no longer a living language; it was taught in the dead form of the
language. Thus Latin was taught in a form which carried tremendous prestige as the language of classical literature
which was venerated as one of the peaks of human achievement. Classical literature, which was of course secular,
became the ultimate aim of the teaching of Latin, which had significance for a country like England when it became
Protestant. English as a spoken language, with all the imperfections and
< previous page
page_15
next page >
< previous page
page_16
next page >
Page 16
variations of speech, could never compete in excellence with Latin as a language, and the literature written in
English by the middle of the sixteenth century did not have the same permanence or literary sophistication as Latin.
It was potentially easier for an educated person to read Virgil than to read Chaucer. English would always seem a
poor relation of Latin, which was both immutable and the storehouse of outstanding literature. English had no
standard and was continually changing, as all living languages do. This was particularly significant because language
was accepted as the medium for moral and spiritual expression, and the people of a country who spoke an imperfect
language might by the same token seem to have corrupt morals.
Latin remained the language of religion and scholarship, and as a language it was regarded as the model which
other languages should emulate. The aim of education was a proper command of the Latin language, which
provided access to the literature of classical Rome and the spiritual and moral writings of the primitive Church. The
teaching of Latin was thus the primary aim of the grammar schools, for a knowledge of Latin was considered the
sine qua non for entry into the professions, politics and civilised society. In England Henry VIII had decreed in 1540
that William Lily's Latin grammar was the only authorised grammar to be taught in schools; this grammar contained
the rules of Latin together with many examples. This decree, which was unique in Europe, remained in force for the
Tudor and Stuart periods and led to a number of consequences. No other grammar could compete with Lily's, which
retained a stranglehold on the teaching of Latin. This discouraged speculation about grammar or the development of
alternative grammars. Because one grammar was the norm it meant that the rules of Latin grammar seemed to be
immutable, because they were enshrined in Lily's work, which every schoolboy would know. Discussion about
language in England therefore centred not so much on what constituted grammar, as on how to teach this particular
grammar and how far one should use English as the way into it. Many teachers decided that the best way to teach
Lily's grammar was by giving some instruction and examples in English as a way into Latin, and this began to
produce some speculation about the grammar of English. Although it was understood that the teaching of English
was only an introduction to a command of Latin, it nevertheless allowed for the former to take place. Lily's grammar
was the one book which every educated
< previous page
page_16
next page >
< previous page
page_17
next page >
Page 17
person could reasonably be assumed to know, and many probably knew, or had known, it by heart. There is a
quotation in English from it in Much Ado 4.1.21–2, which the educated playgoer would presumably have picked up
and enjoyed, and one in Latin in The Taming of the Shrew 1.1.160. The knowledge that grammar-school children
had of Latin grammar is made fun of in Love's Labour's Lost. Among other examples, Moth makes a punning
reference to the various cases of the ablative in Latin grammar when he wittily responds to Armado's question What
wilt thou proue? with:
A man, if I liue (and this) by, in, and without, vpon the instant: by heart you loue her, because your heart cannot
come by her: in heart you loue her, because your heart is in loue with her: and out of heart you loue her, being out
of heart that you cannot enioy her.
(3.1.37–43)
In this witty retort by, in and without (out of) represent how a single English word, heart, when translating its Latin
equivalent in the ablative case would need to employ three different prepositions. Numerous other allusions to the
grammatical teaching of this time are found in Baldwin (1944: I.557ff). There are two features of the teaching of
Latin grammar which had an impact on Shakespeare and his composition in English. They were the development of
compound sentences and extensive noun groups, on the one hand, and the imitation of the compression of Latin
expression through ellipsis in English, on the other hand. Latin being a synthetic language it appeared that one could
say much more in fewer words. Shakespeare and his fellow pupils learned many Latin proverbial utterances by heart
and these were echoed and imitated in his own writings. After 1611, the second book that most educated people
would have known intimately became the Authorised Version of the Bible, though earlier translations would have
been known to Shakespeare.
Many writers in the second half of the sixteenth century commented on the poverty of English and its problems as a
medium for literature and learning (Jones 1953). For example, Richard Mulcaster in his The First Part of the
Elementarie (1582) noted that ‘our own tung remaineth but poor, and is kept verie low thorough som reasonable
superstition, not to haue learning in it.’
< previous page
page_17
next page >
< previous page
page_18
next page >
Page 18
(p. 52). From this it might seem that nothing was taught or written about English, though that is far from the truth.
Some schoolteachers, like Roger Ascham, recommended that Latin texts should be translated into English and then,
after a lapse of time, translated back into Latin by schoolchildren (Blake 1996c). Such a method would naturally
encourage the belief that there were many correspondences between the two languages and would lead to
discussions about the nature of English vis-á-vis Latin. Translations of classical texts and of writings in modern
European languages poured from the press and many works were produced about all different aspects of the English
language. The translators often highlighted the condition of English as an excuse for the poverty of their translation
compared with its original, but such protestations should be partly understood as a literary topos to curry favour with
the readers. In any case, during Shakespeare's lifetime and partly because of his own output, attitudes began to
change and a pride in English literature became more common. Writers more often after 1600 commented on the
achievements of English literature rather than its poverty. What is not in dispute is that language and grammar were
topics of great interest and concern at this time, as indeed they have remained until today. The state of English was
a subject of national debate. Where today people might write to the newspapers about the way English is being
corrupted, at the end of the sixteenth century writers produced whole books about the ways in which expressiveness
in English could be improved and this had important implications for the way in which texts were written (Donawerth
1984). Writers focused on vocabulary, grammar and rhetoric, and particularly after 1600 it was minor failings in
grammar such as double comparatives which increasingly attracted attention. This change is itself indicative of the
acceptance that English had now reached a certain level of expressiveness and that what was needed was more
grammatical control and purity.
Books about different aspects of the English language started appearing. Although dual-language dictionaries had
been found from Anglo-Saxon times onwards, the first monolingual dictionary was Robert Cawdrey's A Table
Alphabeticall (1604), which lists many of the hard words found in the language with brief definitions of their
meaning. Other compilations of hard words followed, but complete dictionaries did not appear until the eighteenth
century. However, dictionaries devoted to specialised areas
< previous page
page_18
next page >
< previous page
page_19
next page >
Page 19
of lexis such as the language of vagabonds appeared from the end of the sixteenth century, such as Thomas
Harman's A Caueat for Commen Cursetors (1567), and it is possible that Shakespeare drew some of his specialised
vocabulary from books like this (Musgrove 1981). At first grammatical writing in English was directed at explaining
the principles of Lily's grammar (Michael 1987). Thus John Stockwood in 1590 produced his A plaine and easie
Laying open of the Meaning and Vnderstanding of the Rules of Construction in the English Accedence, which is a
commentary on that part of Lily's grammar known as the Accedence, which handles the paradigms of Latin. The
example of Latin meant that English grammar was thought to contain the same make-up as that in Latin so that the
parts of speech in one had to be replicated in the other. This caused difficulty to writers about English as they tried
to force a lightly inflected language into a mould devised for a highly inflected one.
Nevertheless, a number of schoolbooks for schoolboys to understand the principles of English were produced and, as
an example, we may briefly glance at Edmund Coote's The English Schoolemaister (1596). This book is principally a
book about spelling. As with all books of this type it defines spelling in this way: ‘Thou hast but two principall things
to learne, to spell truly any word of one syllable, and to diuide truly any word of many’ (Preface A3v). The language,
in this view, consisted of monosyllables and polysyllables, and a child learned how to spell by starting with the
former. He or she could then apply that knowledge to polysyllabic words on the basis of a proper division of such
words into their constituent syllables, which corresponded to monosyllables. This concept presupposes that all
syllables are spelt in the same way whatever their function in a word. In following this scheme, Coote provides a list
of the letters of the alphabet, and then copious lists containing the spelling of every syllable which existed in the
language, starting with those of two letters and then those with three, and so on. It is possible that Shakespeare
refers to this system in Coriolanus when Menenius says disparagingly to the tribunes of the people: I can say, your
Worshippes haue deliuer'd the matter well, when I finde the Asse in compound, with the Maior part of your syllables.
(2.1.56–8, most editors emend can to cannot). Editors tend to assume that there is a reference here to the teaching
of Latin or to legal English. But anyone who had been through the school system would recognise that
< previous page
page_19
next page >
< previous page
page_20
next page >
Page 20
Menenius anachronistically points to the way English spelling was taught by building up syllables into words. The
syllable ass occurs in Coote's list of syllables with three letters. The fact that ass does not occur frequently in English
words may be part of Menenius's ironic rebuke to the tribunes, for they are exploiting the system of spelling in a way
which from their choice of monosyllable does them no credit, because of the meaning of this syllable as an individual
word. An appreciation of this point also renders the common modern emendation of can to cannot in this passage
unnecessary, for I can say may be understood ironically as ‘I have to say’ and thus helps to underline Menenius'
scorn of the tribunes. A similar joke which breaks a word down into its syllables occurs in Love's Labour's Lost
5.2.618–21, where Iudas is divided into Iud-as which is then interpreted as Iude (the name Jude) and Asse. An
understanding of this way of teaching spelling may also help us to appreciate word-formation at this time, for the
use of different morphemes in the construction of new forms, such as wiseness, wisedom, wisehead and so on,
would all seem to be part of an acceptable system. There would seem to have been little need to restrict this
variety at the time (Salmon 1970). Even the tribunes in Coriolanus were not doing anything grammatically incorrect;
they were merely making words through using a monosyllable which carried with it certain connotations to their own
detriment.
English had in the sixteenth century, as in Present-day English (PdE), diverse dialects and accents throughout the
country. Although there is today a Standard English and a Received Pronunciation, the former is significant only for
writing, especially spelling, punctuation and morphology, and the latter is used perhaps by no more than 5 per cent
of the population. But it is Standard English and Received Pronunciation which carry prestige and are the accepted
signs of educated language. The same prejudices were not so marked in the sixteenth century. The first steps
towards standardised spelling took place in the fifteenth century with the rise of Chancery English, the English used
by clerks in the Chancery or what might be thought of as the Civil Service. The clerks were taught to follow a
particular spelling and this gradually spread outwards from London. But this spelling system was not rigorously
standardised; it tended to eliminate gross provincialisms in the spelling system, but still allowed a certain amount of
variety within certain limits. It accep
< previous page
page_20
next page >
< previous page
page_21
next page >
Page 21
ted shal or shall, but not xal or xall. But this restriction of variety is more notable in public and printed material than
in private correspondence, for example Queen Elizabeth could use spellings which were not found in printed
material. Many books such as Coote's The English Schoolemaister contained extensive lists of spellings, but these
were not necessarily followed by all. Variety was reduced, but uniformity was not achieved. Punctuation was
sometimes mentioned in grammars, such as Jonson's, but the rules were not very clearly explained until well into the
seventeenth century. Several different approaches to punctuation can be traced in this period, though it is probably
true to say that punctuation at this time favoured a rhetorical rather than a strictly grammatical basis. By
Shakespeare's time English spelling had achieved a certain degree of standardisation through the elimination of some
variants which were grossly provincial, but total uniformity was not yet reached. After all, the word ass Menenius
refers to in Coriolanus is spelt Asse in F. But the limits of the variation in spelling had been considerably reduced by
the end of the sixteenth century.
Today we are familiar with the concept of Received Pronunciation, but an equivalent concept was hardly recognised
in Shakespeare's time. Although people like George Puttenham in his The Arte of English Poesie (1589) referred to
the language of London and the home counties as that which should be emulated (Blake 1996a: 188–9), this was far
from being a universal view. But people had become much more conscious of differences of dialect, and at this time
some dialects had begun to attract class and regional associations, as we can see from the peasant dialect adopted
as a disguise by Edgar in King Lear. Shakespeare himself does not make much use of differences in dialect, though
he does use register to exploit differences in class (Howard-Hill 1996), education and attitudes. But these are
differences which may be represented through a choice of vocabulary, whereas variations in speech have to be
shown through variations in spelling. The fact that spelling was not yet uniform meant that the latter was not so
easy to achieve. In any case, as this book is a grammar, it does not tackle variation in pronunciation. Shakespeare
did, of course, exploit pronunciation for punning and other forms of word play and these uses are well documented
(Kökeritz 1953).
The two elements of the written language which need some
< previous page
page_21
next page >
< previous page
page_22
next page >
Page 22
introduction to this grammar are the punctuation and spelling found in F and some of the other printed versions of
Shakespeare's works, and the rest of this chapter is devoted to them. The rest of the book is devoted to the
morphology, syntax and pragmatics of ShE. This book quotes Shakespeare principally from F and occasionally from
Q, and for readers who want to understand Shakespeare's English there is no better way to start than by reading
the plays in F and the poems in their early printed editions.
2.2 Punctuation
2.2.1 Punctuation became more important during the history of English, for as inflections gradually disappeared,
word order became more significant in so far as it can be claimed that word order replaced morphology in English.
Equally, as literacy became more widespread, the written word for many achieved a higher status than the spoken
word, because the former is more permanent. Word order, however, can be ambiguous in that without endings an
individual word in English can potentially fulfil various functions within a clause through the use of functional
shift. Punctuation is one of the means used to ensure that, as far as possible, alternative interpretations are reduced
to a minimum. It is common for modern editors of Shakespeare to harbour a dismissive attitude to punctuation in
early Shakespearian prints. While it is true that the punctuation of the late sixteenth/early seventeenth century may
seem arbitrary to a modern reader, it is not without its internal cohesion and principles. It needs to be taken more
seriously than it usually is. One of the problems facing those using punctuation was the change whereby written
texts, which had often been used for public declamation, became associated with private reading.
Some marks, such as inverted commas, never appear in F, while others, such as the exclamation mark, appear only
infrequently. The marks which appear most frequently are the full stop, the colon, the semi-colon and the comma;
the last two came into use only in the sixteenth century. It is hardly surprising, given the newness of these two
marks, that there was some confusion as to the relative weight of the four marks and there is no doubt that their
uses overlapped. Equally, punctuation which had been developed as an aid for reading aloud was increasingly intro
< previous page
page_22
next page >
< previous page
page_23
next page >
Page 23
duced for a reading public to help them understand the grammatical structures of what they were reading silently.
Although a rhetorical bias is probably still the major feature of punctuation in ShE, like all punctuation it had to serve
the double purpose of being read aloud and of silent reading. Sometimes trying to fulfil both functions may have
caused difficulties and uncertainties, but that is no reason to reject the evidence which the punctuation provides. The
hand which might be Shakespeare's in Sir Thomas More used a relatively light punctuation. It contains no colons or
question marks, and it has on average not more than one comma to every five lines; the number of full stops is also
less than one might have expected though the text may not be a finished version. However, after Shakespeare had
written his plays and poems, they would in their printed forms have gone through one or more stages of repunctuation, the last of which would be by the compositors for the printed text. How much of Shakespeare's own
punctuation remains in the printed texts is debatable, but the systems found in them may be taken to follow the
principles of that time. They are the closest we can come to Shakespeare's own system. A detailed study of the
punctuation systems of the different compositors of F has yet to be made, and the following comments highlight
some features of punctuation drawn mainly from F.
2.2.2 The feature which strikes modern readers of F immediately is its use of capitals, which are found for many, but
not all, nouns and occasionally for other parts of speech as well. This usage may be useful when functional shift
occurs as it helps to elucidate, for example, which word is a noun and which a verb. Equally, where the spelling of a
word may represent either a noun or a verb, the use of capitals may help to disambiguate the meaning. Capitals by
their very form mark out certain words and may have been used for emphasis, especially those which are not
nouns, though one should be careful not to over-interpret elements of punctuation which may have been
compositorial. When Henry V says of the traitors that they Receyu'd the Golden Earnest of Our death: (H5 2.2.166),
the capital in Golden underlines its link with the noun gold and thus suggests a meaning ‘of gold’, just as that in Our
implies royalty and thus suggests the enormity of the traitors' treason against their king. Capitals are used metrically
in the first word of a line of verse and grammatically with
< previous page
page_23
next page >
< previous page
page_24
next page >
Page 24
the first word of a sentence, though there are exceptions, especially where the second sentence may have some
close link with the first. Thus in Shall wee shogg? the King will be gone from Southampton. (H5 2.3.42–3), the
second sentence is without initial capital because it has an implied causal relation to the first ‘Let's be going, or else
the king will have left Southampton’. However, capitals may occur after other parts of speech like a colon, where a
new idea is introduced, so that the colon does duty as a full stop: My Loue, giue me thy Lippes: Looke to my
Chattels, and my Moueables: Let Sences rule: The world is, Pitch and pay: (H5 2.3.44–6). We are no doubt
encouraged to think of Pistol's speech as somewhat staccato here. Capitals are also used for proper nouns, even
when a noun is used as a modifier.
2.2.3.1 Commas have the widest range of usage compared with PdE. One significant role they have is to mark off
main clause elements like subject, object and adverbial:
A noun group, whether acting as subject or object, could be set off with a comma when it consisted of more than
one word or occupied a less usual position in the clause. Thus the subject or object and the main verb could be
separated by a comma: Fuluia thy Wife, First came into the Field. (AC 1.2.82), Things that are past, are done, (AC
1.2.90), but the Letters too Of many our contriuing Friends in Rome, Petition vs at home. (AC 1.2.173–5). This use
of commas occurs frequently with inversion: The last leaue of thee, takes my weeping eye. (R2 1.2.74). In a
sentence like Grates me, the summe. (AC 1.1.19), the summe is best understood as the subject of Grates, with the
comma marking the position of the subject (Blake 1997).
A comma may separate an indirect from a direct object, especially when the indirect one comes first: I could haue
giuen my Vnkles Grace, a flout, (R3 2.4.24), I promised your Grace, a Hunters peale. (TA 2.2.13).
An object and its complement may be separated by a comma: and make the Rabble Call our Cares, Feares: (Cor
3.1.139–40).
A clause acting as object may be marked off with a comma: Thou know'st, that we two went to Schoole together:
(JC 5.5.26).
An adverbial, whether a clause or not, may be marked off by a comma: When you sued staying, Then was the time
for words: (AC 1.3.33–4).
< previous page
page_24
next page >
< previous page
page_25
next page >
Page 25
2.2.3.2 Commas and brackets share the function of separating groups of words with a subordinate function in the
structure of a clause:
Relative clauses may be marked off by one or two commas: The hand could plucke her backe, that shou'd her on.
(AC 1.2.120), Our slippery people, Whose Loue is neuer link'd to the deseruer, Till his deserts are past, (AC 1.2.177–
9).
Prepositional phrases: In Natures infinite booke of Secrecie, a little I can read. (AC 1.2.8–9), Here comes the
Townes-men, on Procession, (2H6 2.1.71), To make it selfe (in Thee) faire, and admir'd. (AC 1.1.53), You know my
Father hath no childe, but I, (AY 1.2.16). This use of commas is frequent with inversions: Of Gouernment, the
properties to vnfold, (MM 1.1.3).
Words and phrases linked by and are normally set off by commas, even the final and of a series of linked words:
Now for the loue of Loue, and her soft houres, (AC 1.1.46), Eternity was in our Lippes, and Eyes, (AC 1.3.35). He
fishes, drinkes, and wastes The Lampes of night in reuell: (AC 1.4.4–5). The same applies to or and nor: Nor thou,
nor he are any sonnes of mine, (TA 1.1.290).
Non-finite clauses such as a participial clause, which may be elliptical, or an infinitive clause: 'Tis sweating Labour,
To beare such Idlenesse so neere the heart As Cleopatra this. (AC 1.3.94–6), To be more fresh, reuiuing. (Cym
1.5.42, ‘when one revives’).
A comma may appear before as and than: That shall reuerberate all, as lowd as thine. (KJ 5.2.170), Better a witty
foole, then a foolish wit. (TN 1.5.32–3).
2.2.3.3
Forms of address are frequently not marked off with a comma or brackets: My precious Queene forbeare, (AC
1.3.73), Ile leaue you Lady. (AC 1.3.86), though some compositors did highlight them with brackets: Newes (my
good Lord) from Rome. (AC 1.1.18).
Titles may be marked off when they form an apposition: Iaques of Chatilion, Admirall of France, (H5 4.8.93), but
infrequently as pre-modifiers: How now mine Hoaste Pistoll? (H5 2.1.28).
Appositional phrases may be marked off with commas or brackets: Our Earle of Warwicke, Edwards greatest Friend.
(3H6 3.3.45), As I (my poore selfe) did (Cym 1.1.120).
< previous page
page_25
next page >
< previous page
page_26
next page >
Page 26
Exclamations are often, but not regularly, marked off with commas or brackets: Nay sure, hee's not in Hell: (H5
2.3.9), By my troth he'l yeeld the Crow a pudding (H5 2.1.83). In the first example the punctuation implies ‘Certainly
not’ rather than ‘No, surely he's not …’, which modern editors prefer. An example with brackets, Which first
(perchance) shee'l proue on Cats and Dogs, (Cym 1.5.38), may suggest some scepticism on the doctor's part
whether the queen will bother to try the poison out first on cats and dogs.
2.2.3.4 Both brackets and commas are used to set off sententious or proverbial sayings or statements which are
given the force of such sayings. Thus in The Winter's Tale 2.1.43–5 Leontes’ remark in brackets indicates a sententia
which is the central plank of his argument (Lennard 1995: 78–81):
And yet partake no venome: (for his knowledge
Is not infected) but if one present
Th'abhor'd Ingredient to his eye,
2.2.4.1 Colons are used frequently where in PdE a full stop might be used:
Sometimes the colon may suggest a closer link with a previous clause than a full stop would, especially when the
next clause is not introduced with a capital: It must be thought on: if it passe against vs, We loose the better halfe
of our Possession: (H5 1.1.7–8), which can be taken to imply ‘We must consider the matter carefully, for if the bill is
passed we will lose most of our possessions’. As here, some causal link may be implied. Sometimes editors ignore
the colon and fail to realise the link between successive clauses. Oth 1.1.57–8 reads in F as follows:
Were I the Moore, I would not be Iago:
In following him, I follow but my selfe.
Editors usually change F's colon to a full stop. Honigmann comments: ‘F follows Q's colon and full stop, but this
punctuation is probably without authority. Reversing the colon and stop we make the lines slightly less baffling.
“Were I the
< previous page
page_26
next page >
< previous page
page_27
next page >
Page 27
Moor, I would not wish to be Iago. [But, being Iago,] I only follow him to follow my own interests”.’ (1997: 119).
But this fails to provide any link between the two lines and the interpretation remains ‘baffling’. In OED follow has
two senses relevant here: ‘to treat as a guide, leader’ (v. 7) and ‘to take as a model’ (v. 8), with the rider that a
servant must imitate his lord, but a lord need not imitate his servant. The sense of these lines is ‘If I were the Moor
I would not be Iago, just as in serving him I take myself as the model to follow’, with a play on the two senses of
follow. The implication is that Iago is not open and honest like Othello, and in serving Othello he does not change
his character to behave like Othello, as a servant ought to do. Nevertheless, a colon may not always express such a
close link between clauses.
A colon may be used when two clauses are set in contrast with each other: as he was Valiant, I honour him: But, as
he was Ambitious, I slew him. (JC 3.2.26–7). A colon may also be used to mark a speech which is interrupted and
then concluded by another speaker, as if the two parts form a single contrasted whole: Mira. Oh the heauens: Pros.
Marke his condition, and th'euent, (Tem 1.2.116–17) A full stop is also used in this situation.
2.2.4.2 Colons may be used to add emphasis to what follows: If thou with Cæsar Paragon againe: My man of men.
(AC 1.5.70–1). They are also, as in PdE, used to introduce a message in direct speech, for which a comma is also
used: Thus sayes my King: Say thou to Harry of England, Though we seem'd dead, we did but sleepe: (H5 3.6.117–
19).
2.2.4.3 Colons and semi-colons are often used instead of commas in longer sentences to break them down into more
manageable units, even when the units are long phrases or dependent clauses:
Should be the Father of so blest a Sonne:
A Sonne, who is the Theame of Honors tongue;
Among'st a Groue, the very straightest Plant,
< previous page
page_27
next page >
< previous page
page_28
next page >
Page 28
Who is sweet Fortunes Minion, and her Pride:
Whil'st I by looking on the praise of him,
See Ryot and Dishonor staine the brow
Of my yong Harry.
(1H4 1.1.79–85)
2.2.5 Full stops are used to mark the end of a sentence though, as we have seen, this function is also fulfilled by
colons (2.2.4.1) or even by semi-colons. Full stops are also used after abbreviations.
2.2.6 Exclamation marks are rare in F, but in modern editions they are ‘One of the most blatant examples of editorial
intrusion’ (Warren 1977: 158); question marks can indicate both interrogative and exclamatory sentences. This dual
role can lead to uncertainty as to which of the two was intended. When Henry VI says:
Why how now Lords?
Your wrathfull Weapons drawne,
Here in our presence? Dare you be so bold?
(2H6 3.2.238–9)
some editors keep all three question marks (Wells and Taylor 1988: 75), and others keep only the last two
(Hattaway 1991: 155), though it could be argued that the first two indicate exclamations rather than questions. A
decision one way or another would have some bearing on Henry's weakness of character.
2.2.7 Italics are used for names of people and places (as in the quotation in 2.2.4.3), though not usually for titles or
occupation names, such as Queen or Bishop, or for a place name which is part of a title ‘My Lord of Yorke,’ (2H4
4.1.230), ‘Lord Hastings,’ (2H4 4.1.229), ‘my Iohn of Lancaster:’ (2H4 4.3.354). They may also be used as in PdE to
represent other languages, especially Latin, and for quotations.
2.2.8 The apostrophe is used to signal missing letter(s) or sound(s), though sometimes they are introduced where no
letter or sound is missing; they are used only very rarely to indicate a possessive, and then only with personal
names. Examples of a redundant apostrophe are found in the plural of nouns, for example Prey's
< previous page
page_28
next page >
< previous page
page_29
next page >
Page 29
(Mac 3.2.54), which may arise through uncertainty of the grammar on the part of the compositor. Even where the
apostrophe does indicate a missing letter in writing, there is no guarantee that the missing letter was sounded in ShE
or that the various instances represent colloquial speech, though that is often assumed by modern readers. In some
instances it is quite likely that some forms were traditional and poetic, as remains true of forms like 'tis in some
archaising poetry in PdE. Examples include forms like 'a ‘he’, 'fore ‘before’, ‘gainst ‘against’, ha' ‘have’, hee'l ‘he will’,
let's, mou'd ‘moved’, seem'st ‘seemest’, 'tis ‘it is’; and those which are not true shortenings: again'st, whil'st, which
imply forms againest and whilest which are rare or non-existent. The apostrophe with final <s> on its own to
indicate his in modern editions is found at best only in some doubtful examples in F or Q. For example, in TC 3.1.87
Q has makes which editors interpret as make ‘s, ‘make his’; F has make. It is infrequent that an apostrophe is used
to indicate the possessive singular, but it is found occasionally with proper names: Cleopatra's health (AC 1.2.12).
2.2.9 Brackets, as we have seen, may be used instead of a comma for forms of address, exclamations, and
appositional and other short phrases. They are also used for interpolated phrases like quoth he. They sometimes
enclose adverbials as if for emphasis: That (almost) might'st haue coyn'd me into Golde, (H5 2.2.95). Occasionally
they set off a compound noun or adjective to avoid ambiguity: with such (more then impudent) sawcines from you,
(2H4 2.1.114–15). In some cases brackets are possibly used to indicate an aside: Where didst thou see her? (Oh
vnhappie Girle) With the Moore saist thou? (Who would be a Father?) (Oth 1.1.165–6).
The interpretation of some brackets may be ambiguous (Lennard 1991: 14–15). In King Lear 5.3.11–15, F reads
So wee'l liue,
And pray, and sing, and tell old tales, and laugh
At gilded Butterflies: and heere (poore Rogues)
Talke of Court newes, and wee'l talke with them too,
Who looses, and who wins;
where the brackets are not found in Q. In this passage in F, if the brackets were omitted the sense would be quite
different. Talke may be understood as a verb or noun, depending on whether
< previous page
page_29
next page >
< previous page
page_30
next page >
Page 30
the brackets are included or not. With the brackets the Rogues may be courtiers or fellow prisoners, but without
them either courtiers or Lear with Cordelia. Editors interpret this passage in different ways, for the brackets cannot
be retained in a modernised punctuation.
Brackets are also used for an aside or an afterthought: Her Andirons (I had forgot them) were two winking Cupids
(Cym 2.4.88–9), Sir (I thanke her) that She stript it from her Arme: (Cym 2.4.100–1).
2.3 Spelling
2.3.1 As noted already the compositors of F had different spelling systems, which they imposed on the text to a
greater or lesser extent. Hinman (1963) has shown the variation which exists between two of F's major compositors.
Compositor B used the spellings do, go and heere, whereas Compositor A spelt these words doe, goe and here.
Compositor A preferred the spellings griefe (or grieue), Traytor and young to the greefe (or greeue) Traitor and
yong, of Compositor B. There may also be compositorial spellings in individual plays as each compositor set different
sections: in Troilus and Cressida Compositor A's stint has Ulisses and Troian, whereas Compositor B preferred
Ulysses and Troyan. These spelling preferences are not carried out with total regularity by each man, for they were
sometimes influenced by their copytext or technical factors, such as justification of the lines. Other spellings show
considerable variation so that a word like hour may be spelt hour, houre, hower or howre, though in most cases this
variation did not cause confusion.
2.3.2.1 In PdE spelling has become standardised, although not all ambiguities have been resolved through the
spelling system. In ShE similar ambiguities existed, which are exacerbated through the variation which was still
current at the time. Two features may cause difficulty in interpretation. The first is the use of one spelling for two
words. For example, the spelling I can mean either the first person singular of the personal pronoun as subject or
the affirmative adverb ay, which is today restricted to northern dialects. Thus in Macbeth 1.1.8 the sentence I come,
Gray-Malkin. can be interpreted as either ‘I am coming, Greymalkin’ as the punctuation in F suggests or as ‘Yes,
come Graymalkin’
< previous page
page_30
next page >
< previous page
page_31
next page >
Page 31
which makes better sense in the context (Blake forthcoming; cf. Tim 2.1.34 where F's I go sir? is often edited as Ay,
go sir!, cf. Oliver 1959: 38). The second is the apparently arbitrary presence or absence of final <-e> in ShE, which
often in PdE is regulated to distinguish a noun from its equivalent verb. Today, for example, we spell the noun
breath without final <-e>, but the verb breathe with it. This discrimination is not found in ShE. At Antony and
Cleopatra 2.2.239 Enobarbus describes how, after running 40 paces, Cleopatra did And breathlesse powre breath
forth. In this clause it is possible to take breath as a noun, which is the object of a verb powre (Wells and Taylor
1988: 1011), or alternatively as the verb breathe which has as its object breathlesse powre ‘breathless influence’, a
reading which not only puts breathlesse and breath in much closer contrast, but also agrees better with the
indefinable influence she exercises over Antony (Blake 1983: 58–9).
2.3.2.2 F displays contemporary alphabetical distinctions. The graphs <v> and <u> are distinguished by position, not
by function, with <v> appearing initially and <u> internally in words: vntill ‘until’, haue ‘have’. The consonantal <u>
for /v/ was not normally used at the end of words, for its status as vowel or consonant might have been uncertain,
so that words which should have had a final consonantal <u> were given a final <-e> to make the <u> internal:
haue, aboue, diue. The graph <j> is not found, for <i> represents both the vowel and the consonant, though the
latter can also appear as <y>: iaw or yawe ‘jaw’, ioyne ‘join’, maior ‘major’, vntill ‘until’. Although <y> may appear
for the vowel <i>, for its part <i> does not appear initially for consonantal <y>: desyres, spryte, yew. In final
position <-y> interchanges with <-ie>: lady: ladie, and this influences the plural forms as well so that both days and
daies are found. In some words the three spellings <-ey>, <-ie> and <-y> may interchange: money, monie, mony.
Words of Latin origin may have <3/4>: Cæsar. What in PdE is usually written as a final <-c>, for example music,
may appear as <-ic/-ik/-ick/-ique>: music, musik, musick, musique. Words ending in PdE in <-ch> may have <k(e)>:
monarke ‘monarch’. Medial PdE <ch> may appear as <tch>: Dutchesse. Where PdE has <f>, ShE may have <ph>:
phang, prophane, curphew. Words with Greek initial <th-> may have <t->: tyme ‘thyme’. Initial <g> may be written
as <g-/gu-/gh->: gard ‘guard’, guifts ‘gifts’, ghesse ‘guess’. The group <sc> for /s/ is rare, usually appearing as <s>:
sent
< previous page
page_31
next page >
< previous page
page_32
next page >
Page 32
‘scent’, sythe ‘scythe’. Medial PdE <c> before <i> may appear as <t>: musition ‘musician’, physition ‘physician’. Initial
<w->, especially as a capital letter, may be written with a double <v>: vvall, VVhat. Final <-ed> of the past tense
and participle of verbs frequently appeared as <-t>: stockt ‘put in the stocks’. Some Latinisms had yet to be adopted,
hence ile, not isle; but debt, doubt with internal <b> and fault with internal <l> were regular.
2.3.2.3 Generally, a double vowel, e.g. <ee>, or two vowels together, for example <ou> sometimes written <ow>,
indicated a long vowel or diphthong: feet, loud; and double consonants <rr> or two consonants <ph> (except where
this represented /f/) indicated that the preceding vowel was short: horror, shepheard. Final <-e> originally indicated
the length of the preceding vowel when only one consonant intervened, for example tale; but in many words it had
become traditional in writing and in others final <-e> was sometimes present and sometimes not. It is often found in
words which have a stem long vowel or diphthong or a short vowel followed by two consonants: deere, finde,
keepe, milke. In none of these does the <e> have any phonological role. It was common for words ending in /l/ to
have double <-ll>, though a single <-l> is found, possibly influenced in main syllables by the occurrence of inflected
forms: magicall, call or cal, possibly influenced by cals.
2.3.2.4 Contracted forms are common in the plays and the Sonnets. In what is regarded as Shakespeare's section of
Sir Thomas More, the following contractions are found: th (for the): thipp ‘the hip’, (for thou): thart ‘thou art’, a ‘he’,
t (for it): tis, twere ‘it is, it were’, s (for us): letts ‘let us’, (for is): whats ‘what is’, thats ‘that is’, le (for will or
possibly shall): Ile ‘I will’, weele ‘we will’, youle ‘you will’, and ore ‘over’. The Sonnets also have t (for to):
t'anticipate, t'haue, (for it as enclitic): is't, for't, Wer't, and y (for you): y'are, y'haue. Many of these contracted forms
occur in F as well, though given its greater length and the different compositors, they can appear in different forms:
with or without apostrophe or in contractions, for a word like never has the apostrophe in different places.
< previous page
page_32
next page >
< previous page
page_33
next page >
Page 33
2.3.3 Two words can be run together even where contraction is not at issue: shalbe ‘shall be’. At other times, two
words may be joined by a hyphen to form, for example, a compound adjective: mans ore-labor'd sense (Cym
2.2.11), or a compound noun: Step-dame (Cym 2.1.57). Words which in PdE are treated as separate may appear as
compounds in ShE: Gordian-knot (Cym 2.2.34), Townes-men (2H6 2.1.71). However, many examples of what could
be compound adjectives or nouns appear as two words without a hyphen.
< previous page
page_33
next page >
< previous page
page_34
next page >
Page 34
3
The Noun Group
After a brief outline of what is meant by the noun group and its constituents (3.1), the chapter provides a review of
the morphology of the various parts of speech which make up the group (3.2). These include what in traditional
grammar are the noun (3.2.1), pronoun (3.2.2) and adjective (3.2.3). This is followed by a presentation of the
structure and use of the individual elements of the noun group (3.3). These include the head of the noun group
(3.3.1), including nouns and pronouns (3.3.2), modifiers, including some adjectives (3.3.3), determiners, including
the articles and demonstrative and possessive adjectives (3.3.4), predeterminers (3.3.5) and the qualifier (3.3.6).
How the noun group functions as a unit within the sentence is treated under the organisation of clauses and the
sentence in Chapter 7. Because the boundary between morphology and syntax is blurred, the structure of the
chapter involves some overlap. Readers who want the fullest information about a particular form or usage should
consult both subsections 3.2 and 3.3.
3.1 The noun group and its parts
The noun group consists of several elements. The head is that element in the group upon which all other elements
depend. Several elements can appear before the head, and they are in reverse order from the head: modifier,
determiner and pre-determiner. The head is usually a noun or a word which can function as a noun, especially
pronouns. The modifier is today most commonly a single word, usually an adjective, though it is possible for several
modifiers to modify the same head. In ShE a modifier consisting of several words is found more commonly than in
PdE. When a modifier consists of more than a single word, the group will consist of an intensifier and the modifier
< previous page
page_34
next page >
< previous page
page_35
next page >
Page 35
itself, excellent good, or of some phrase, a ten times barr'd vp Chest, (R2 1.1.180). Most adjectives and nouns
belong to the open class of words, which means that new words to occupy these positions can be formed easily in
English, from other parts of speech, through new word-formations or as loanwords from other languages. The
determiner consists of a single word and in PdE determiners are mutually exclusive. Words making up the determiner
class belong to the closed class, such as articles, and demonstrative and possessive adjectives, for new determiners
cannot be created easily, if at all. In PdE it is not normal to have two determiners before the head so that an
expression like this my book is no longer permissible, although structures of this type are found in Elizabethan
English. A predeterminer is any word which precedes the determiner, usually a single word or a single word with of,
as in all the boys or some of the girls, though in all stages of English predeterminers have never been common. The
qualifier is whatever follows the head and in PdE it is made up of a phrase or clause, consisting of more than a
single word. In earlier English it was possible for a single adjective to fill the qualifier slot, as in the siege perilous,
and in PdE this still remains possible in some archaic language and verse.
3.2 Morphology
3.2.1 Nouns had by Shakespeare's time reduced their inflectional system to a position not dissimilar from PdE; that is
to say, most nouns show a distinction in their ending between singular and plural, but in terms of case it is only the
possessive or genitive singular which regularly retains a distinctive ending, though nouns with irregular plurals could
also have distinctive genitive plural forms. The implication of this paradigm is that there was no distinction between
subject and oblique forms and there was no inflection in a noun after a preposition – features which had implications
for sentence structure. The difference with PdE lies more in the particular forms of inflection found in some words
than in the basic structure itself.
3.2.1.1 The standard plural of the noun is formed by adding <-(e)s> to the base form: Leagues (MA 1.1.4),
Letter~letters (MA 1.1.1 and 20). Other parts of speech functioning as nouns may
< previous page
page_35
next page >
< previous page
page_36
next page >
Page 36
take the plural inflection: Seueralls (WT 1.2.226). Group plurals occur: twenty Sir Iohn Falstoffs, (MW 1.1.2–3), three
Doctor Faustasses. (MW 4.5.65). As in PdE there are a number of exceptions to the rule of adding <-(e)s> to form
the plural, though in ShE more words fall into this category as the language has gradually through analogy reduced
the number of exceptions to the standard pattern:
Unlike PdE, words ending in <-es, -s, -se> are often written without the ending <-(e)s>, presumably because in
speech this ending was not pronounced and so it was not written: Their wiues haue sense like them: (Oth.4.3.93,
where sense is plural ‘emotions, feelings’), a thousand of his people butchered: Vpon whose dead corpes, (1H4
1.1.42–3 where the sense is plural, but at 2H4 1.1.191 the sense is singular), Your Mightinesse on both parts (H5
5.2.28, where the sense is plural) and Are there ballance heere to weigh the flesh? (MV 4.1.252). In some of these
cases the plural sense is clear, though in others like Mightinesse a collective noun might be implied.
Where the singular of a word ends in <f(e)>, the plural may have /v/ written <ue>, cf. PdE wife~wives, though the
number of words included in this category is greater in ShE, for example beef~Beeues (2H4 3.2.318). There is
instability in these plurals with variation between Q and F so that in this example beefes is found in Q and Beeues in
F.
Some nouns retain the mutated plurals with the variants <a~e, ou~i and oo~ee> (cf. PdE man~men, mouse~mice
and goose~geese).
Some nouns retain the old weak ending of nouns in <-en/ne> (cf. PdE oxen), though these forms appear to be
either poetic, used especially in rhyme, or colloquial: Kine ‘cows’ (1H4 2.5.478, spoken by Falstaff), eine ‘eyes’ (AY
4.3.51, rhyming mine,) and shoone. ‘shoes’ (Ham 4.5.26, rhyming one?, spoken by Ophelia when mad). Eyne is
common in the poems (e.g. VA 633, RL 643, 1229).
Many nouns indicating mass, weight, time or space had an uninflected plural, and remnants of this are found in PdE
(cf. five foot six); they include: fathom, foot, pound, shilling and year. Forms with and without <-s> are found: Full
fadom fiue (Tem 1.2.399) and Bury it certaine fadomes in the earth, (Tem 5.1.55); seuen hundred pounds (MW
1.1.46) and seauen hundred pound? (MW 1.1.53–4). Non-count nouns with a collective sense
< previous page
page_36
next page >
< previous page
page_37
next page >
Page 37
also occur in the plural without ending. Thus horse in the sense ‘cavalry’ was uninflected: The Generall of our horse
thou art, (AW 3.3.1). Even when words like this are count nouns, they could remain uninflected: if wee should serue
with Horse and Mares together, (AC 3.7.7),
Pet. Grumio, my horse.
Gru. I sir, they be ready,
(TS 3.3.77–8)
Other words in this category include cannon, folk, ordinance, poll ‘head’, sail, as well as words for animals and fishes
like sheep and mackerel. It is possible that roe is plural in Or at the Roe which no incounter dare: (VA 676, where
dare is probably plural, though this form might represent the third person singular), but it is definitely singular in the
fleet-foot Roe that's tyr'd with chasing, (VA 561, where that's is singular ‘that is’).
Analogy could lead to a double plural so that words with uninflected or mutated plurals added <-(e)s>: teethes (JC
5.1.42) and Sheepes (LL 2.1.219, though with a word play on Ships?). Even gallows, which is plural in that it
normally takes a plural verb, formed a new plural gallowses, which is probably colloquial: there were desolation of
Gaolers and Galowses: (Cym 5.5.298, spoken by Jailer). As in PdE some words occur both with and without <-(e)s>
and, when that happens, there may be a difference in meaning between the two forms though this is far from being
generally the case. Both brain and brains mean ‘brain, intelligence’ and both can take a singular verb: his Braines
still beating, puts him thus (Ham 3.1.177). Words and phrases which occur like this include: out of door(s), out of
gate(s), breech(es), buttock(s) and war(s). Some words have a plural form with a singular sense; in many cases this
is the result of the anglicisation or modernisation of a French or earlier English word ending in <-esse>; French
richesse and ME almesse gave riches and alms respectively: that ritches (Son 87.6), a present almes, (TS 4.3.5).
This may modify plural expressions of time: I haue not seene him this two daies. (KL 1.4.69–70). Other words which
take a singular determiner include means (though also in singular mean), news, thanks, tidings and ways: For with
her death That tydings
< previous page
page_37
next page >
< previous page
page_38
next page >
Page 38
came. (JC 4.2.206–7, where That has to be taken as a determiner to tydings); but this waies. (MW 2.2.45, spoken
by Mistress Quickly), which may be a parallel, is possibly a possessive adverbial, see 5.1.2.2 (ii).
In compounds the second element usually carries the plural form as Son in Lawes, (KL 4.5.182), though forms like
Men-Children (Mac 1.7.72) and wemen-kinde? (Per sc.19.174) are found.
3.2.1.2 The genitive singular of nouns is formed by adding <-(e)s> to the base of the word, as in PdE. The
apostrophe is not normally part of the inflection; it did not become common in this usage until after Shakespeare's
time, though it may be found with proper nouns: some to Caska's; (JC 3.3.37, Casca's house), and occasionally with
other words: Life's Feast (Mac 2.2.38). As with the plural, when a word ends in <f(e)>, for example, life, the <f>
appears in the possessive as <u>: his sweete liues losse. (KJ 4.3.106):
There are many cases where the inflectional ending <-e(s)> is not found. When a noun ends in <-s, -se, -ce>, it is
probable that the inflectional ending in polysyllabic proper names like Pythagoras was not sounded and thus not
added in writing. In PdE the absence of this ending may be indicated by the apostrophe without following <s> as in
Keats’ poems, though some write Keats's poems. Equally when the noun following the genitive form begins in <s>
or even <c>, pronounced /s/, the inflectional <-(e)s> of the genitive may be omitted: Brutus loue (JC 3.2.19),
Pythagoras time (AY 3.2.173), LVCRECE bed. (RL 301), at euerie sentence end; (AY 3.2.133), for God sake, (CE
5.1.33) and for Iustice sake? (JC 4.2.71).
There are cases where it is difficult to tell whether a genitive is meant or whether the first noun should be
considered part of a compound or even a noun used as a modifier through functional shift. F's horsebacke (KJ
2.1.289) may appear in modern editions as horse back, and in a phrase like on the Forrest side, (3H6 4.7.83) Forrest
may be understood as a noun acting as modifier rather than a noun in the possessive. The same applies to Penthouse Lid: (Mac 1.3.19), where Pent-house can be taken as a possessive or a modifier to the noun. In PdE the
phrase a stone's throw may be heard as a stone throw.
< previous page
page_38
next page >
< previous page
page_39
next page >
Page 39
One should be cautious about interpreting these forms as genitives, though certainty is impossible; the decisions of
modern editors as to modernising these forms are somewhat arbitrary. The same may apply to proper names where
<-(e)s> is not included, even though the name is relatively common and short, as in Rome gates, (Cor 3.3.108) or
Tyber bankes, (JC 1.1.58). Where the first word is an animal name, that may sometimes have a genitive inflection:
Whales bone. (LL 5.2.332), which would be the compound ‘whalebone’ in PdE, and Swallowes wings, (R3 5.2.23),
not a compound today. But dove occurs both with and without <-s> in Doues-downe, (WT 4.4.361) and Douehouse, (RJ 1.3.35).
An example of a potential genitive not recognised as such in modern editions is: Thy Souldier, Seruant, making
Peace or Warre, (AC 1.3.70), which could be understood as ‘thy soldier’ servant, making peace or war’ [i.e. your
soldier's servant]. A rather different example is provided by: Wherein my Letters, praying on his side, Because I
knew the man was slighted off. (JC 4.2.56–7) In modern editions this is interpreted as the plural letters with a
dependent participle followed by a singular verb was, as happens not infrequently in ShE (cf. Daniell 1998: 278).
But these lines could be edited in a modernised version as: Wherein my letters’ praying on his side, Because I knew
the man, was slighted off. This would provide a singular subject for the singular verb and allow the verb slighted off
to refer to praying rather than to letters, which would make the criticism stronger. A passage with examples of what
are interpreted as possessives, which may not be so, occurs when the third plebeian shouts in Julius Caesar: Teare
him, tear him; Come Brands hoe, Firebrands: to Brutus, to Cassius, burne all. Some to Decius House, and some to
Caska's; some to Ligarius: Away, go. (JC 3.3.35–8)
< previous page
page_39
next page >
< previous page
page_40
next page >
Page 40
In this passage it is not unusual to interpret all the personal names as possessive, as if the speaker through
anticipation of the later genitive forms intended Brutus’ house and Cassius’ house, though that is far from certain. An
audience could not know in advance that these were possessives and to Brutus might mean no more than ‘let's get
Brutus’ or something similar.
In proper names ending in <-s>, attempts to pronounce the genitive inflection <-(e)s> led to this ending being heard
as /iz/, as in PdE. As at this time initial /h/ before vowels was regularly dropped by speakers of all classes especially
in weakly stressed positions, it was easy to interpret this /iz/ as his since that is how the pronoun was pronounced.
Hence the genitival inflection, if it occurred, was frequently written as his as in Mars his true mouing, (1H6 1.2.1).
This was a logical spelling since the apostrophe was rarely used and thus Mars’ true mouing and Mars's true mouing
were not options. On the other hand, to have spelt this possessive as just Mars or as Marss would cause ambiguity.
The form Mars his is not the result of false etymology, as sometimes claimed, but an exploitation of the orthographic
resources of the language at this time. Other examples include Charles his glikes? (1H6 3.6.9) and, by analogy, the
Count his gallies, (TN 3.3.26). This form was more common after monosyllables since in bisyllables, the inflectional
ending might be suppressed altogether. From this usage, a feminine equivalent with her instead of his acting as the
genitive inflection was formed, though examples are not found in Shakespeare. Similarly a plural form their occurred
occasionally as a genitive: Then churls their thoughts, (Son 69.11, ‘the thoughts of churls’). Where compound nouns
consisting of several elements, such as titles with a prepositional phrase, occur in the possessive, the inflection is
usually on the final, or what was considered the most important, element: the Duke of Glousters purse. (R3
1.4.125). In cases where the elements are split before and after the head, then naturally the inflectional ending is
attached to that part before the head: The Arch-bishops Grace of Yorke, (1H4 3.2.119). Certain words implying
either type like kind or manner or space like side may occur with or without a following of: On this side Tyber, (JC
3.2.242, ‘on this bank of the Tiber’). There
< previous page
page_40
next page >
< previous page
page_41
next page >
Page 41
is often variation between Q and F whether of is found. Thus no manner person (R3 3.5.103, F) occurs in Q with of,
cf. How many store of Miles (Cym 3.2.67). When this type of word is preceded by a determiner and followed by a
plural head, then the determiner can be in the plural: These kind of Knaues (KL 2.2.99), these set kinde of fooles,
(TN 1.5.84–5), some kinde of men, (TN 3.4.237) and all kind of companies: (TS 1.1.240). Kind rarely appears as a
plural in such cases.
Two possessives can occur before the head: Cæsars deaths houre; (JC 3.1.155), ‘the hour of Caesar's death’, your
Husbands Brothers wife, (Ham 3.4.15). The use of a possessive after of is not uncommon: any deere Friend of
Cæsars, (JC 3.2.18–19), a Louer of mine, and a louer of hers. (AY 5.2.71), follower of my Ladies. (TN 5.1.275), this
dotage of our Generals (AC 1.1.1), nothing of Fords, but his Buck-basket, (MW 5.5.111). In some cases a postposed
adjective occurs as qualifier after the possessive: a Bastard of the Kings deceast, (KJ 2.1.65, ‘a bastard of the dead
king’, later folios read King). When two possessives are linked by and, then it is common for the first not to have the
inflectional <-(e)s>: your loue, and labours recompence. (R2 2.3.62). Where the two possessives have a head
understood from an earlier noun, then the inflectional <-(e)s> may be added to the first possessive: to haue one
shew worse then the Kings and his companie. (LL 5.2.510). However, when one of the co-ordinated words is a
pronoun, there is some variety in the disposition of the inflections: in theirs, and in the Commons eares (Cor 5.6.4).
The possessive can be expressed through of, though some examples strike us today as unusual: the set of Sunne.
(Mac 1.1.5). There is a tendency for the <-s> form to be restricted to animate beings and the of-form to nonanimate forms in PdE, though this is not yet marked in ShE. Some unusual forms of the of-form occur: Theeues of
Mercy, (Ham 4.6.19–20) means ‘merciful thieves’, and in threat you me with telling of the King? (R3 1.3.113) telling
of the King represents the King's telling here meaning ‘telling the king’. It is possible to find an absolute genitive in
ShE, usually implying place: I bought him in Paules, and hee'l buy mee a horse in Smithfield. (2H4 1.2.51–2, ‘St
Pauls’), Is he at M. Fords already think'st thou? (MW 4.1.1–2, ‘at Ford's house’), the hardest voice of her behauior
(to be english'd rightly) is, I am Sir Iohn
< previous page
page_41
next page >
< previous page
page_42
next page >
Page 42
Falstafs. (MW 1.3.41–3, ‘I am a member of Falstaff's staff’). For further examples, see 3.3.1.1.
3.2.2 Pronouns are the only part of speech which retain some differences in case, number and gender, and this is
particularly true of the personal pronouns.
3.2.2.1 The personal pronoun has three persons, masculine, feminine and neuter, distinguished in singular and
plural. Most had three cases: the subject or nominative case, the oblique case, which combined the former object
and post-preposition cases, and the genitive case, now the possessive pronoun:
The subject and oblique forms are largely as in PdE, except that the second person has singular thou (subject) and
thee (oblique) and plural ye (subject) and you (oblique). These forms were merging under you, which could be used
for all four forms. The subject first person singular and the oblique third person plural retained traces of older forms,
namely ich and hem, written <‘em>. The first was dialectal, but the second, representing loss of initial /h/, was
common. The subject third person masculine he often appears as a (modernised as <‘a> in editions). Although
colloquial, people of all ranks use it: Who ere a was, a shew'd a mounting minde: (LL 4.1.4, spoken by the Princess
of France). The oblique form him is used of animals, though whether that is a form of anthropomorphism or a trace
of the older inflection is uncertain: that he can shoo him [i.e. his horse] himselfe: (MV 1.2.41). The same applies to
the possessive adjective (3.2.3.3). The neuter subject form it appears occasionally as hit in F: keepe peace betweene
Th'effect, and hit. (Mac 1.5.45–6), He blushes, and 'tis hit: (AW 5.3.198). In the second example hit may be the
verb. Although hit was the Old English form, initial <h-> may have been introduced as a hypercorrection arising from
the instability of this initial sound.
The possessive pronoun differs from the possessive adjective (3.2.3.3) in the singular by using the mine and thine
forms exclusively, and in the plural by adding <-s> to the adjective forms, as in PdE: I am yours Vpon your will to
suffer. (AW 4.4.29–30), Your Seruants euer, Haue theirs, themselues, and what is theirs in compt, To make their
Audit at your Highnesse pleasure,
< previous page
page_42
next page >
< previous page
page_43
next page >
Page 43
(Mac 1.6.25–7), Why should their libertie then ours be more? (CE 2.1.10), our case is as theirs. (Tem 1.1.52).
Instead of the possessive form, the construction with of + oblique case of the personal pronoun may be employed,
examples at 3.3.2.1 (c).
3.2.2.2 The demonstrative pronoun has the same forms as the demonstrative adjective (3.2.3.2), except it has no
forms yon/yond/yonder.
3.2.2.3 The reflexive pronoun was traditionally represented by the oblique case of the personal pronoun and this
system is retained in ShE, though forms with the possessive pronoun and -self are not infrequent. Thus Ile withdraw
me, (1H6 4.2.8), thou bear'st thee like a King: (1H4 5.4.35), and I will discase me, and my selfe present As I was
sometime Millaine: (Tem 5.1.85–6). Some examples of the personal pronoun for the reflexive are unusual: A Traitor
to his God, his King, and him, (R2 1.3.108, ‘himself’). However, it by itself was not used as a reflexive; only itself is
found: Whilst it hath thought it selfe (Son 119.6); himself may be used instead of itself, though metaphorical
anthropomorphism cannot always be excluded: knauery cannot sure hide himselfe in such reuerence. (MA 2.3.118–
19), this streame, through muddy passages Hath had his current, and defil'd himselfe. (R2 5.3.61–2). In addition to
the personal pronoun forms, the plural includes forms with both -selues and -self. The distinction between
ourself~ourselves and the like is that the former is marked for singular and is frequently employed when a king or
queen uses the royal we: We will keepe our selfe till Supper time alone: (Mac 3.1.44–5) and Leaue vs to our selues,
and make your self some comfort (Cym 1.1.156). The third person form is always themselves rather than
theirselves: where they view themselues, (MM 2.4.125). The form oneself is not found.
3.2.2.4 Interrogative and relative pronouns are closely linked historically since the forms who, whom, whose and
what which were originally interrogative pronouns were subsequently deployed as relative pronouns as well. In
addition, that which had always functioned as a relative pronoun continued to do so. With the increasing importance
of word order, for interrogative and relative pronouns regularly come at the beginning of a clause, who could replace
the oblique whom, as is true today: Timon hath made
< previous page
page_43
next page >
< previous page
page_44
next page >
Page 44
his euerlasting Mansion Vpon the Beached Verge of the salt Flood, Who once a day with his embossed Froth The
turbulent Surge shall couer; (Tim 5.2.100–3). No doubt, in speech in Shakespeare's time as much as in our own, this
change was widespread, if not universal. Shakespeare was in advance of other writers of his time in the use of who
instead of whom in oblique cases of the relative pronoun, though he uses whom more often as a relative than as an
interrogative pronoun. There may be variation in usage between Q and F: Who didst thou leaue to tend his Maiesty?
(KJ 5.6.33) and I haue a wife whom [who Q] I protest I loue, (MV 4.1.287), but wayle his fall, Who I my selfe
struck downe: (Mac 3.1.123–4). The uncertainty surrounding the use of who/whom led to the occasional mixed
usage, as in PdE: Yours, whom in constancie you thinke stands so safe. (Cym 1.4.124–5, where the verb stands
demands the subject who, but you thinke suggests there should be an object whom). Who, whom and whose are
used for both singular and plural: friends that are both his, and mine, Whose loues I may not drop, (Mac 3.1.122–
3). Whose could be replaced by of which, of the which, probably developed from the partitive genitive before
becoming an independent unit, though this form is not common in ShE: in surety of the which, One part of Aquitaine
is bound to vs, (LL 2.1.134–5). Which, what ‘what sort of’ and whether ‘which of two’ are used as pronominal forms,
though the latter two mainly as interrogatives; the which also occurs as a relative pronoun: your good Deserts
forgot, Which he confesseth to be manifold, (1H4 4.3.48–9), his sweet vp-locked treasure, The which he will not
eu'ry hower suruay, (Son 52.2–3), What are they that would speake with me? (Ham 4.6.1), and Whether doest thou
professe thy selfe, a knaue or a foole? (AW 4.5.22–3). That occurs as a relative pronoun, as the preceding quotation
from Ham 4.6.1 shows, but it and which often showed variation from Q to F: I haue done these things (That [Which
Q] now giue euidence against my Soule) (R3 1.4.66–7).
Who, which and that are used indiscriminately as relative pronouns for animate or non-animate referents: The first
of gold, who this inscription beares, (MV 2.7.4), cf. The second siluer, which this promise carries, (MV 2.7.6); Rather
proclaime it (Westmerland) through my Hoast, That he which hath no stomack to this fight, (H5 4.3.34–5), was he
not proclaim'd By Richard that dead is, the next of blood? (1H4 1.3.143–4).
But after a negative in the main clause functions as a negative relative pronoun: no Iutty frieze, Buttrice, nor Coigne
of Vantage,
< previous page
page_44
next page >
< previous page
page_45
next page >
Page 45
but this Bird Hath made his pendant Bed, (Mac 1.6.6–8 where but may be interpreted ‘in which … not’), not an eye
that sees you, but is a Physician to comment on your Malady. (TG 2.1.37–9, ‘which is not’). Even after a positive
main clause, it can signal a negative relative clause: What is in Siluia's face, but I may spie More fresh in Iulia's, (TG
5.4.113–14, ‘Is there anything in Sylvia's face which I cannot detect …?’).
3.2.3 Adjectives are rarely inflected for case, number and gender. The only regular inflectional system with
adjectives was gradation, that is the comparative and superlative.
3.2.3.1 The plural of adjectives can exceptionally have final <-s> when, after the French model, the adjective follows
the noun and is a word of French or Latin origin: Letters Patents (R2 2.1.203) and Lords Appealants, (R2 4.1.95).
The form alder exhibits a survival of the old genitive plural in <-ra> in With you mine Alder liefest Soueraigne, (2H6
Add.Pass.A.5; Q omits).
3.2.3.2 The demonstrative adjective, like the demonstrative pronoun, distinguishes between singular and plural as
well as showing forms which refer to proximity. This refers to something close to or with reference to the speaker,
that to something distant from the speaker without reference to the listener, and yon/yond/yonder to something
distant from both speaker and listener. The respective plural forms are these and those, but yon/yond/yonder are
unchanged in the plural. Thus this parting (TG 2.2.20), at that time (Tem 1.2.70), That yon greene boy (KJ
2.1.473), yond same blacke cloud, yond huge one, (Tem 2.2.20), Yonder man (MM Add.Pass.A 2), yond dangling
Apricocks, (R2 3.4.30, Q yong), these two dayes (TG 4.4.43), those kissing cherries, (MN 3.2.141). The relative
pronouns which and the which are used almost like demonstrative adjectives: within which rift Imprison'd, (Tem
1.2.278–9), for the which blessing, I am at him vpon my knees (MA 2.1.24–5).
3.2.3.3 The possessive adjective was formed from the possessive pronoun. The singular forms are my/mine (first
person) and thy/thine (second person). Previously my and thy were used before words beginning with consonants
and mine and thine before words beginning with vowels or <h->: the Ladie is dead vpon mine and my masters false
accusation: (MA 5.1.233–5). This distinction was
< previous page
page_45
next page >
< previous page
page_46
next page >
Page 46
not observed regularly and F and Q may vary in this feature: his, and mine lou'd darling. (Tem 3.3.93, where mine
may be used emphatically). Before <h> the mine/thine forms are found frequently before host (e.g. TG 4.2.28) and
sometimes before other words, but not commonly. Thy/thine were being replaced by your. The third person singular
has two separate forms, masculine and neuter his, and feminine her. The use of his for the neuter makes it
impossible to decide whether something abstract or non-human is being anthropomorphised: Where hatefull death
put on his vgliest Maske (2H4 1.1.66), what a Face I haue, Since it is Bankrupt of his Maiestie. (R2 4.1.256–7). In
other cases there is no sense of anthropomorphism, as in I see the Iewell best enamaled Will loose his beautie: (CE
2.1.108–9). However, there were signs of a change in usage, for his is sometimes replaced by it or less often its:
(The innocent milke in it most innocent mouth) (WT 3.2.99), that it's had it head bit off by it young, (KL 1.4.199),
and Heauen grant vs its peace, (MM 1.2.4). The plural forms were our, your and their, as in PdE. There are possible
examples of the older her for their in ShE, though in modern editions of the plays they may be modernised to their:
These watergalls in her dim Element, Foretell new stormes to those alreadie spent. (RL 1588–9). The her in For why,
my bowels cannot hide her woes, (TA 3.1.229) may be the possessive plural referring to bowels (or possibly singular
if bowels is a collective noun).
3.2.3.4 The traditional inflections for the comparative and the superlative were respectively <-er> and <-est>, but
instead of these inflections more for the comparative and most for the superlative had started to appear. However,
the modern tendency restricting the inflections to monosyllables and more and most to polysyllables was hardly felt
at this time; it is also possible to use less and least. Equally, double comparatives and superlatives, that is with both
more/most and the inflection, are not uncommon, for grammarians had not yet purged them from the language.
More and most were the comparative and superlative of much, and they retain their adjectival sense in addition to
acting as intensifiers in comparative and superlative formations. As adjectives these forms often imply mass, whereas
moe (often modernised as more in editions) may replace more for number or absolutely, though it was dying out:
Why should their libertie then ours be more? (CE 2.1.10) and hath the Firemament more Suns then one?
< previous page
page_46
next page >
< previous page
page_47
next page >
Page 47
(TA 5.3.17, where the quartos have mo), but cf. and buy twenty moe (Tim 2.1.7), and many moe Of noble blood
(R2 2.1.240–1), no more ditties, sing no moe (MA 2.3.69, where moe is in rhyme), Get moe Tapers: (Oth 1.1.168),
Become the publicke plague of manie moe? (RL 1479), In me moe woes then words are now depending, (RL 1615).
In its function as part of the comparative more was an adverb, but it was also used as an adjective in the sense
‘greater’: Her best is betterd with a more delight. (VA 78).
Uses no longer common in PdE include:
more with monosyllables: more graue aspect. (TN 1.4.28), more smooth, (TN 1.4.32), more speed (CE 1.1.109);
the inflections <-er/-est> with polysyllables: Nothing certainer. (MA 5.4.62), a properer man (AY 3.5.52; cf. more
proper AY 3.5.56), rascallest sweet yong Prince. (1H4 1.2.80–1), and the perfect'st report, (Mac 1.5.2); and lesse
happier Lands, (R2 2.1.49) can be included here.
Participles used as adjectives have the same range of options: Curster then she, (TS 3.3.27), the lyingst knaue (TS
Ind.2.22–3) and The daringst Counsaile (H8 2.4.212).
Superlatives may be used of just two, my yongest daughter, Before I haue a husband for the elder: (TS 1.1.50–1)
and Our eldest, Malcolme, (Mac 1.4.38, said by Duncan who has only two sons), as well as with words which are
semantically superlative your chiefest thoughts (MV 2.8.43) and th'extremest verge (AY 2.1.42). Examples of double
comparatives and superlatives are not infrequent: more better (Tem 1.2.19) More worthier (Cor 3.1.123), more
sounder (AY 3.2.59), the most vnkindest cut (JC 3.2.181). The ending <-(e)r> can be added to comparatives which
are irregular: Our worser Genius (Tem 4.1.27) and With lesser waight (CE 1.1.108).
There is free variation between elder and older, though eld is distinctly archaic compared with old. The four forms,
later, latter, latest and last overlap in meaning: To leaue that latest, which concernes him first, (Oth 1.3.29) and in
his Bosome spend my latter gaspe. (1H6 2.5.38), where both latest and latter imply ‘last’. Near is the form of the
original comparative, whose positive was nigh, a form still common in Shakespeare. But the development of near as
the positive led to the new formation nearer. In Shakespeare's time, near was used in both functions. Thus my neere
occasions (Tim 3.7.10) and The neere in blood,
< previous page
page_47
next page >
< previous page
page_48
next page >
Page 48
the neerer bloody. (Mac 2.3.139–40). In the superlative the old form next was becoming restricted to time, whereas
nearest indicated place, either literally or metaphorically, though this distinction was not yet the norm: Next time Ile
keepe my dreames vnto my selfe, (2H6 1.2.53), home, home, the next way. (WT 3.3.120).
3.3 Structure and use
3.3.1 The head of the noun group is usually a noun or another part of speech functioning as a noun.
3.3.1.1 The relation of one noun to another can be expressed in three ways. It is possible to formulate the concept
‘the gates belonging to a castle’ as the castle's gates, the gates of the castle or the castle gates. The original method
in Old English was with the inflected genitive. With the fall of inflections some originally feminine nouns lost their
ending to produce what was interpreted as a compound, cf. PdE ladychapel. This encouraged the development of
other forms with a noun acting as modifier. The growth of the of-genitive meant the gradual separation of functions
with the <s> genitive being restricted to animate nouns usually with an objective function with personal nouns and
the of-genitive to non-personal nouns. The system was being adopted in ShE, but it was far from complete. This
produces some difficulties in interpretation:
With a noun as head it may be difficult to decide whether an immediately preceding noun is an adjective or part of
the head acting as a compound. To take a few examples from Antony and Cleopatra: At 1.3.101 Lawrell victory,
could be a compound noun, especially as Lawrell is spelt with capital <L> suggesting a noun. Most modern editors
take it to be a noun-modifier. At 4.10.21 F's Master leauer, is taken by most modern editors as a compound, for they
read master-leaver. At 2.1.21 in the line Salt Cleopatra soften thy wand lip, most editors modernise wand as wan'd
or wanned, but it could be interpreted as wand-lip, implying lips which have magic in them from the wand used by
sorcerers and magicians. This problem is particularly acute when two words mean roughly the same thing as foole
Gudgin, (MV 1.1.102) or have the same
< previous page
page_48
next page >
< previous page
page_49
next page >
Page 49
referent as father Iew. (MV 2.6.25). Pronouns before a head are presented as compounds: shee-Mercurie. (MW
2.2.79).
A different problem is to understand the relation of the head to a preceding possessive. In PdE the <s> genitive
usually has an objective sense so that the king's murder means ‘the murder of the king’ and not ‘the king murders
[someone]’. In ShE this applied equally where a subjective genitive occurs today: your attendance (TN 1.4.11,
‘attend you’ not ‘you attend’), My Loue and Feare, (3H6 2.6.5, ‘love/fear me’ not ‘I love/fear’), My Brothers loue, (R3
1.4.218, ‘love my brother’ not ‘my brother loves’), A Brothers murther. (Ham 3.3.38, ‘murder a brother’ not ‘a
brother murders’) and (Whose wrongs in vs God pardon) (1H4 1.3.147, ‘the wrongs suffered by him which we
caused’). In ShE the <s> genitive is not restricted to an animate noun, as in PdE: by nights Blacknesse; (AC 1.4.13),
I am his Fortunes Vassall, (AC 5.2.29), and the same applies to place-names: As I am Egypts Queene, (AC 1.1.31).
Such inanimate possessives can have a sense like animate nouns: my Scepters awe, (R2 1.1.118, ‘fear inspired by
my royalty’). When a head is preceded by two nouns in the possessive, the first may not have the ending <-s>, as
Vntill her husband and my Lords returne: (MV 3.4.30). Alternatively, one of the possessive nouns may be placed
after the head: In Gods name, and the Kings, (R2 1.3.11).
3.3.1.2 Abstract nouns, which in PdE are normally singular, are found in the plural with a singular meaning in ShE: to
my Behauiours: (JC 1.2.44), His Funerals shall not be (JC 5.3.104), holy men at their death haue good inspirations,
(MV 1.2.27–8), I will trie confusions with him. (MV 2.2.34), The borrowed Glories, that … longs To him (H5 2.4.79–
81), their Child-hoods; (WT.1.1.22–3). This use is especially common with a negative implication to the statement:
Which giue some soyle (perhaps) to my Behauiours: (JC 1.2.44), t'allay My Rages and Reuenges, (Cor 5.3.85–6),
must I hold a Candle to my shames? (MV 2.6.41). Abstract nouns express a concrete meaning, especially as
contemptuous forms of address: Now blasphemy, That swear'st Grace ore-boord, (Tem 5.1.221–2, ‘blasphemer’
addressed to boatswain), (thou vnconfinable basenesse) (MW 2.2.21, ‘base fellow’ addressed to Pistol), but cf. (my
diligence) (Tem 5.1.244, ‘diligent one’ addressed to Ariel) and your Royaltie. (WT 1.2.15, ‘your Highness’ addressed
to Leontes).
< previous page
page_49
next page >
< previous page
page_50
next page >
Page 50
3.3.1.3 Functional shift occurs when one part of speech is transferred to a different function and becomes a different
part of speech. Because most parts of speech had lost their inflections, it was increasingly easy in English to transfer
a word to a different grammatical function. Nouns were readily formed from other parts of speech, though many of
these new words operating as the head of a noun group occur in the base form and not with the distinctive ending
in <-(e)s> of plural or possessive.
Adjectives could readily function as nouns, though this may simply result from omitting the noun through ellipsis.
Most adjectives of this kind are treated as non-count nouns, as they are today: The euill that men do, liues after
them, The good is oft enterred with their bones, (JC 3.2.76–7), ‘twas Cauiarie to the Generall: (Ham 2.2.439–40,
‘the masses’), As to th'legitimate: (KL 1.2.18). An adjective may refer to a single person, though this use was
becoming rare: 'Tis not enough to helpe the Feeble vp, But to support him after. (Tim 1.1.109–10), The yonger
rises, when the old doth fall. (KL 3.3.24). Although such nouns are usually without modification, numerals can occur
as their modifiers: Fiue hundred poore (H5 4.1.295). Comparatives and superlatives also act as nouns: Better then
he haue worne Vulcans badge. (TA 2.1.89, ‘better men’), How like a yonger or a prodigall (MV 2.6.14), We haue
seene the best of our time. (KL 1.2.110), to th'lowd'st. (WT 2.2.42), be readie at the farthest (MV 2.2.109), thy most
worst. (WT 3.2.178). Other adjectives used as nouns include as ouer a Vast; (WT 1.1.30, ‘large distance’). Adjectives
with noun inflections include: The sweets we wish for, turne to lothed sowrs, (RL 867), To sucke the sweets of
sweete Philosophie. (TS 1.1.28), That Vulgars giue bold'st Titles; (WT 2.1.96). Adjectives denoting nationality can
function as the head of a noun group with more freedom than in PdE. They can take a range of modifiers, these
French. (KJ 2.1.214), or they can be without modifier or determiner: The blood of English (R2 4.1.128), When
English measure backward their owne ground (KJ 5.5.3). Adjectives like many, more and such can act as heads with
greater freedom than in PdE: thou art belou'd of many, (Son 10.3), though the deuill leade the measure, such are to
be followed: (AW 2.1.54–5), Nor haue I seene More that I may call men, then you good friend, (Tem 3.1.50–1).
Adjectives often appear as nouns in forms of address: Gentle heare me, (AC 4.16.49),
< previous page
page_50
next page >
< previous page
page_51
next page >
Page 51
How now my headstrong, (RJ 4.2.16), at my sute (sweet) pardon what is past. (TA 1.1.428).
Verbs function as nouns, though many used in ShE were short-lived: By false accuse doth leuell at my Life. (2H6
3.1.160, ‘accusation’), His faces owne margent did coate such amazes, (LL 2.1.246, ‘amazement’), According to your
Ladiships impose, (TG 4.3.8, ‘command, injunction’), Goe leuie men, and make prepare for Warre; (3H6 4.1.128,
‘preparation’, though make prepare could be understood as ‘cause to prepare’). Shakespeare makes fun of this
functional shift for, when in Twelfth Night Sir Toby encourages Sir Andrew Aguecheek to accost Maria, he addresses
her Good Mistris accost, I desire better acquaintance (TN 1.3.49–50). Some gerunds acting as nouns seem striking
today: Ile no gaine-saying. (WT 1.2.19, from the verb ‘to gainsay’), vndoe more doing: (WT 1.2.314, ‘further
action’). Phrasal verbs can also be formed into nouns, usually as a gerund: The deepe damnation of his taking off:
(Mac 1.7.20, ‘death, destruction’), for take off also appears in the meaning ‘to kill’ (Per sc.15.14). Personal pronouns
naturally act as the head of a noun group, but unlike PdE they sometimes adopt features of the noun through
modification by an article, modifier, qualifier or by assuming noun inflections: you are the cruell'st shee aliue, (TN
1.5.230), The faire, the chaste, and vnexpressiue shee. (AY 3.2.10), The Shees of Italy (Cym 1.3.30), What Lady
she (WT 1.2.44), they of Rome (Cor 1.2.2), hee of Wales, (1H4 2.5.339). When part of the reflexive, the pronoun
self may be printed as an independent word, but when it is separated from the possessive by a modifier it can adopt
a noun function: your faire selfe (LL 2.1.150), thy cursed Selfe. (R3 1.2.80), Woman it pretty selfe) (Cym 3.4.158,
‘its pretty self’), Your precious selfe (WT 1.2.81); note the form this same my selfe (MV 3.2.170). Self may be
preceded by a noun in the possessive: Tarquins selfe (Cor 2.2.94), Which Actions selfe, was tongue too. (H8 1.1.42),
and it has a noun function if it adopts the possessive ending: your selfes remembrance (R3 4.4.352), thy deere
selfes better part. (CE 2.2.126). Even when nothing indicates the noun function of self, some examples suggest it is
a noun and show how the reflexive form developed: To appoint my selfe in this vexation? (WT 1.2.328, ‘my
person’). Indefinite pronouns like nothing act as nouns through modification or by adopting noun inflections: to aire
nothing, (MN 5.1.16), a thousand nothings (AW
< previous page
page_51
next page >
< previous page
page_52
next page >
Page 52
2.5.29). Shakespeare uses one as a prop-word, a usage becoming more frequent at this time (see 3.3.2.7 (g)). Its
function as a noun is confirmed when it has a plural form, or is preceded by a determiner like another one or the:
when rich villains haue neede of poore ones, (MA 3.3.109–10), That's thousand to one good one, (Cor 2.2.79), I
meane the whisper'd ones, (KL 2.1.7).
Adverbs and prepositions also function as the head of a noun group. As in PdE once may be modified by this or that,
as Helpe me this once, (1H6 5.3.12), and note also a better where to finde. (KL 1.1.261 ‘place, home’), a so-forth:
(WT 1.2.218, euphemism for ‘cuckold’), there is nothing (in the betweene) (WT 3.3.60).
3.3.1.4 There are many varieties of compound noun, though it may be difficult to tell whether the two elements
make up a single word or not (3.3.1.1):
Compounds formed from a verb + noun, such as Shakespeare itself, are common. Those with a human referent
include That dayly breake-vow, (KJ 2.1.570), the mouth of all finde-faults, (H5 5.2.271), What a lacke-braine is this?
(1H4 2.4.15), By smiling Pick-thankes, (1H4 3.2.25), a breake-neck. (WT 1.2.364, ‘death’), no breede-bate: (MW
1.4.11). With many of these formations, the first element still has a strong verb sense. Others have a non-human
referent, such as but this blow Might be the be all, and the end all. (Mac 1.7.4–5), where the compounds are written
as separate words. Formations with a verb + preposition are also found: her assistant, or goe-betweene, (MW
2.2.253), that young start-vp (MA 1.3.61, possibly start means ‘tail’ rather than the verb).
An adjective + noun may form a compound as in do's the Thicks-lips owe (Oth 1.1.66, Thicks usually emended to
thick), in which the verb is singular for the reference of Thicks-lips is to Othello.
3.3.2 Though pronouns do not differ too much from their PdE forms and types, they do in usage.
3.3.2.1
The personal pronouns in the subject case acting as head of the noun group have been discussed above (3.3.1.3
(c)). Although speakers usually refer to themselves in the first
< previous page
page_52
next page >
< previous page
page_53
next page >
Page 53
person, singular or plural, they may use either the second or third person: What dost thou? or what art thou
Angelo? (MM 2.2.178, spoken by Angelo to himself); Speake, Cæsar is turn'd to heare. (JC 1.2.19, said by Caesar).
The oblique case retains some of its old dative uses and occurs where we today might use forms in -self instead. I
can buy me twenty at any Market. (Mac 4.2.41), hew him downe a Bough, (Mac 5.4.4, ‘for himself’). When this
pronoun is the same person as the subject, there is little difference from the use of a personal pronoun as a
reflexive, and in such cases the pronoun is just as redundant in meaning. But when the pronoun is different in
person, it may have the sense ‘to, for, by, with’: See, how this Riuer comes me cranking in, (1H4 3.1.95, i.e. ‘to my
detriment’), but heare me this: (TN 5.1.118, ‘from me’), Iohn layes you plots: (KJ 3.4.146, ‘for you’), you'l beare me
a bang for that I feare: (JC 3.3.18, ‘from me’), (Though you perceiue me not how I giue Lyne) (WT 1.2.182, ‘in my
behaviour’), I haue a minde presages me such thrift, (MV 1.1.175). This form is used to create the tone of
strangeness associated with other varieties of English: if you can carry-her your desires towards her. (MW 1.1.219,
said by Evans the Welshman). The personal pronoun acts as an ethic dative, especially after imperatives. It is
possible that this was retained by certain speakers as a colloquialism. The confusion it causes in The Taming of the
Shrew suggests that the form was becoming obsolete, for Petruccio's … knocke me heere soundly. is answered by
Grumio's Knocke you heere sir? Why sir, what am I sir, that I should knocke you heere sir. (TS 1.2.8–10). For its
non-imperative use, cf. he pluckt me ope his Doublet, (JC 1.2.264–5).
The oblique form of the personal pronoun is occasionally retained with former impersonal verbs: Me rather had, my
Heart might feele your Loue, (R2 3.3.190), where earlier English had Me were rather ‘it would be more acceptable to
me’. Note also Oh woe is me, (Ham 3.1.163) or even Woe me; (MM 1.4.26), where the sense is ‘It is misery to me,
I am sad’. Pressure to use the subject form in front of the verb encouraged examples like Poore Lady, she were
better loue a dreame: (TN 2.2.26) and I am woe for't, Sir. (Tem 5.1.141). The personal pronoun in its oblique case
is used after of to indicate the objective or subjective senses of the possessive adjective: The Natiue mightinesse
and fate of him. (H5 2.4.64),
< previous page
page_53
next page >
< previous page
page_54
next page >
Page 54
Tell thou the lamentable fall of me, (R2 5.1.44), the hopes of him: (WT 1.1.37, ‘expectations of his future’). The
possessive pronoun can be used in a similar way, though it may be emended by editors: the reuolt of mine is
dangerous: (MW 1.3.94). The oblique case is used with to and unto immediately after verbs like ‘to give, offer, pay,
promise’, as in she shall pay to me her Maydenhead (2H6 4.7.119–20), he gaue vnto his Steward A mighty summe.
(Tim 5.1.7–8).
It is hardly surprising that, with the disappearance of inflections in nouns and adjectives to distinguish subject and
object forms, personal pronouns which retained distinctive inflectional endings used some forms in the wrong
function from time to time. The following examples illustrate the use of subject for object or vice versa: I for me and
vice versa: here's none but thee, & I. (2H6 1.2.69), And hang more praise vpon deceased I, (Son 72.7), That's mee
(TN 2.5.76, a well-established usage), or both your selfe, and me, Cry lost, (WT 1.2.410–11). Me is also used in
complements after the verb ‘to be’: oh, the dogge is me, and I am my selfe: (TG 2.3.22–3). Thee for thou especially
after verbs in the imperative, though these may be taken as reflexive forms: Hearke thee, a word. (Cym 1.5.32),
Come thee on. (AC 4.8.13), fare thee well. (KL 4.2.24), How agrees the Diuell and thee about thy Soule, (1H4
1.2.113–14); and after parts of the verb ‘to be’: it is thee I feare. (2H6 4.1.119). He for him after prepositions or
where there is uncertainty as to which word is the subject: Which, of he, or Adrian, for a good wager, First begins to
crow? (Tem 2.1.30–1), And yet no man like he, doth grieue my heart. (RJ 3.5.83), and And he, my husband best of
all affects: (MW 4.4.85, where either he or my husband could be the subject), Thus he that ouer-ruld, I ouerswayed, (VA 109). Him for he especially when the meaning is ‘he whom’: when him we serues away. (AC 3.1.15),
Him I accuse: The City Ports by this hath enter'd, (Cor 5.6.5–6). She for her: you haue seene Cassio, and she
together. (Oth 4.2.3), Praise him that got thee, she that gaue thee sucke: (TC 2.3.236). Us for we in the elliptical
shall's, that is ‘shall us’, shall's attend you there? (WT 1.2.179).
< previous page
page_54
next page >
< previous page
page_55
next page >
Page 55
Ye and you are frequently confused, because the latter was taking over the functions of the former: Therein, yee
Gods, you make the weake most strong; (JC 1.3.90), though ye is common enough in plural invocations.
Them for they: for the which, my selfe and them Bend their best studies, (KJ 4.2.50–1).
Besides acting as a dummy subject, as with impersonal verbs, it acts as an object after some verbs which are
otherwise intransitive or which are converted from nouns or adjectives: Thou speak'st it falsely: (AW 5.3.114), Reuell
and feast it at my house to day, (CE 4.4.63), Lord Angelo Dukes it well (MM 3.1.360), to Prince it, (Cym 3.3.85), or
as object more generally: Well said Brazon-face, hold it out: (MW 4.2.123), Ile goe braue it at the Court, (TA
4.1.120). It acts as antecedent of a relative pronoun, most frequently that: it holds currant that I told you
yesternight. (1H4 2.1.53–4), for that's it, that alwayes makes a good voyage of nothing. (TN 2.4.76–7), As he had
seen't, or beene an Instrument To vice you to't, that you haue toucht his Queene (WT 1.2.415–16), and of an
infinitive non-finite clause: Now put it (heauen) in his Physitians minde, To helpe him to his graue immediately: (R2
1.4.58–9). Sometimes as object it summarises what has been said previously: then say My Wife's a Holy-Horse,
deserues a Name As ranke an any Flax-Wench, that puts to Before her troth-plight: say't, and iustify't. (WT 1.2.277–
80) It refers generally to the previous context: Goe, and we'll haue a posset for't soone at night, (MW 1.4.7–8,
where for't means ‘for the trouble Rugby has taken for Quickly’). It acts as a dummy subject for ‘he’ or ‘she’: it is the
stubbornest yong fellow of France, (AY 1.1.133–4), It is a peerelesse Kinsman. (Mac 1.4.58), Ile fetch her; it is the
prettiest villaine, (TC 3.2.31), when ‘twas a little prating thing. (RJ 2.3.189 referring to Juliet), where it referring to
‘she’ seems like a diminutive and has a colloquial feel. It can occur with they and a plural verb: they it were that
rauished our Sister, (TA 5.3.98, presumably as alternative to it were they that). Some personal pronouns, especially
the second singular in questions and imperatives, may be omitted since the distinctive
< previous page
page_55
next page >
< previous page
page_56
next page >
Page 56
verb inflection made the sense clear: Didst not marke that? (Oth 2.1.254–5), Wilt dine with me Apemantus? (Tim
1.1.207), Sufficeth not, that we are brought to Rome (TA 1.1.109), And being angry, does forget that euer He heard
(Cor 3.1.259–60).
The personal pronoun may be used to repeat the subject if the subject has so many qualifiers that listeners might
lose the thread of the argument and fail to recognise what the subject is: Thy Tyranny (Together working with thy
Iealousies, Fancies too weake for Boyes, too greene and idle For Girles of Nine) O thinke what they haue done, (WT
3.2.178–81) where they is used for tyranny and its associated evils. The pronoun is found immediately after the
subject either for emphasis or for metrical and rhetorical purposes: Our Father he hath writ, (KL 2.1.121), Your
friends at Pomfret, they doe need the Priest, (R3 3.2.109), and even where the punctuation in F suggests otherwise:
Mistris Anne Page? she has browne haire, (MW 1.1.43). It is repeated at the end of the clause for emphasis or
possibly as a colloquialism: I will not trust you I, (MN 3.2.341), we hunt not we, (TA 2.2.25). After some personal
pronouns, what is used to introduce a clause which emphasises that pronoun: I know you what you are, (KL
1.1.268), Wee'l heare him what he sayes. (AC 5.1.51).
3.3.2.1.1 A large literature has grown up over the use of the second person forms, singular and plural, of the
personal pronouns. There were both subject and oblique forms of the singular, thou~thee, and of the plural,
ye~you. The singular subject form took a distinctive ending of the verb in the second person singular present, and
often the preterite, indicative. As indicated in 3.2.2.1 (a), the plural forms had begun to adopt a singular meaning
and usurp many functions of the singular. This usage may have been influenced by the parallel with French, where
vous is the unmarked form, indicating politeness or subservience, and tu the marked form, expressing intimacy,
anger or contempt. There are undoubted cases of this usage in Shakespeare, but the system is not regular, so that
sometimes the singular forms may be marked, but at others unmarked. There are many instances where Q and F
have different
< previous page
page_56
next page >
< previous page
page_57
next page >
Page 57
forms as though the compositors did not pay attention to the distinction. This may be traced most easily in King Lear
(Blake 1991) in the parallel edition of the two texts (Weis 1993). The variation in usage has been interpreted in
different ways (reviewed in Calvo 1991: 10–29). Some scholars suggest that the use of singular or plural reflects a
change of attitude by the speaker to the addressee, though this fails to pay attention to the social dimension of
usage. Other scholars take the opposite view and claim that the variation reflects the social hierarchy and power
relationship among the characters. Yet others see in the variation a structural organisation reflecting forms which are
marked and unmarked, with sometimes the singular and sometimes the plural being the marked form. Calvo (1992)
has suggested that thou and you are social markers used by the speakers to negotiate their social identities and that
this may account for the variation over different scenes in a play because the type of social relationship between
speakers varies in each scene and has to be negotiated for each interaction. Social identity is not the same as status.
We may accept that there is a balance of social and conversational dictates at work in the variation in usage,
suggesting that there is scope for interpretation in individual scenes.
Certain aspects of the usage are worth highlighting. Calvo (1991) has shown how fools and their masters use the
forms. Fools are employed to keep their masters entertained, but use their position to tell some home truths to their
employers. They are not unlicensed, for they have to negotiate permission to speak. When this is granted, they may
achieve a dominant role in the exchange, though this can easily be terminated at the whim of their master. Fools are
not so much all-lycenc'd (KL 1.4.183), as Goneril claimed; they are granted a temporary licence only as their
employer wishes. It is not uncommon for parents to use thou~thee to their children and the latter to use ye~you to
their parents, as when Prince Henry talks to his father, Henry IV:
P.Hen. I neuer thought to heare you speake againe.
King. Thy wish was Father (Harry) to that thought:
I stay too long by thee, I wearie thee.
(2H4 4.3.220–2)
There are also many cases where anger or contempt leads to the use of the singular forms, but some cases are not
easy to interpret
< previous page
page_57
next page >
< previous page
page_58
next page >
Page 58
since the pronouns used can vary. When Henry IV is angry with the Earl of Worcester, he changes pronouns in:
Worcester get thee gone: for I do see
Danger and disobedience in thine eye.
O sir, your presence is too bold and peremptory,
And Maiestie might neuer yet endure
The moody Frontier of a seruant brow,
You haue good leaue to leaue vs.
(1H4 1.3.14–19)
Each scene has to be judged on its balance of social and personal relationships, and there is no ready yardstick
whereby any example can be interpreted.
3.3.2.2 The possessive pronoun is used to avoid repetition of a noun or even to anticipate one, Mine eyes ev'n
sociable to the shew of thine (Tem 5.1.63, ‘your eyes’), Let their beds Be made as soft as yours: (MV 4.1.94–5,
‘your beds’), and Goe to; let that be mine, Doe you your office, (MM 2.2.12–13, ‘my job, task’). The anaphoric use
could even refer to a concept or thing implied through another pronoun: so thriue I, and mine. (R3 2.1.24, ‘my
dependants’, inferred from I), By law of nature thou art bound to breed, That thine may liue, when thou thy selfe
art dead: (VA 171–2, where thine implies ‘your children’ which Adonis, thou, should father). When two possessives
linked by and modify the same head, the first seems to have been interpreted as anaphoric, referring forward, and
this was common with the singular forms: Mine and my Fathers death come not vpon thee, (Ham 5.2.282, ‘my
death’), Mine and your Mistris: (Cym 5.6.230, ‘my mistress’). This usage was extended to the third person singular
and all plural forms, which today seem distinctly odd: By hers, and mine Adultery: (Cym 5.6.186, ‘her adultery’) and
In yours, and my discharge. (Tem 2.1.259, ‘your discharge’), and with a possessive noun, rather than an adjective,
in theirs, and in the Commons eares (Cor 5.6.4, ‘their ears’; but note the repetition of in). The possessive pronoun
can follow the head even when the modifier consists of a possessive noun phrase: Of my Lords Tricks, and yours,
(WT 1.2.62). The possessive pronoun may be linked with a relative pronoun: and my Name Be yoak'd with his, that
did betray the Best: (WT 1.2.418–19, ‘the name of him who’), and all Eyes Blind with the Pin and Web,
< previous page
page_58
next page >
< previous page
page_59
next page >
Page 59
but theirs; theirs onely, That would vnseene be wicked? (WT 1.2.292–4, ‘except the eyes of them alone who’). The
possessive pronoun is used with the preposition of to create a double possessive: that flattering tongue of yours
wonne me: (AY 4.1.174–5), cf. Tem 5.1.63 quoted above. The possessive its differs from PdE in its absolute use in:
Each following day Became the next dayes master, till the last Made former Wonders, it's. (H8 1.1.16–18, ‘its own’).
3.3.2.3 The reflexive pronoun is used after certain verbs (4.4.2), and it occurs more frequently than in PdE: who
writes himselfe Armigero, (MW 1.1.8), the Gentleman had drunke himselfe out of his fiue sentences. (MW 1.1.159–
60):
Forms with -self were used non-reflexively as emphatic personal pronouns, appearing as the subject of a sentence:
my selfe did heare it. (1H4 1.3.155), My selfe haue Letters of the selfe-same Tenure. (JC 4.2.223), Himselfe, the
Primrose path of dalliance treads, (Ham 1.3.50), our selues will heare Th'accuser, and the accused, (R2 1.1.16–17,
where King Richard is the speaker), your selfe shall goe first. (MW 1.1.287), The pretty follies that themselues
commit, (MV 2.6.37), or both your selfe, and me, Cry lost, (WT 1.2.410–11). In verse the placing of two reflexive
pronouns with -self side by side with one acting as subject was considered rhetorically elegant: Narcissus so him
selfe him selfe forsooke, (VA 161), Two glasses where her selfe, her selfe beheld (VA 1129). Forms with self could
be used alone or together with the personal pronouns for emphasis: For my selfe, Ile put My fortunes to your
seruice (WT 1.2.439–40), I my selfe Would for Carnaruanshire, (H8 2.3.47–8), you your selfe, Are much condemn'd
(JC 4.2.61–2). The self element could be strengthened with an adjective immediately before it: (… Woman it pretty
selfe) (Cym. 3.4.158).
Plural forms are used to mean ‘to/with each other, one another’, as in Wee'l heare our selues againe. (Mac 3.4.31).
This sense is also expressed by the adverb together or the pseudo-auxiliary go, as in when we last spake together.
(R2 2.3.29), we haue knowne togither in Orleance. (Cym 1.4.33–4), I will goe wash: (Cor 1.10.67, ‘I will wash
myself’).
The reflexive pronoun is omitted sometimes: When shall we see againe? (Cym 1.1.124, ‘see each other again’).
< previous page
page_59
next page >
< previous page
page_60
next page >
Page 60
3.3.2.4 The demonstrative pronouns, this~these and that~those, originally had a straightforward singular~plural
relationship, which has been altered in PdE.
That, this and their plurals, when used anaphorically, can be followed by a participle, adverb or adjective: that most
deeply to consider, is The beautie of his daughter: (Tem 3.2.99–100), Foretell new stormes to those alreadie spent.
(RL 1589), or with a following clause: marry this, Coz: there is as ‘twere a tender, (MW 1.1.191). They often refer
generally to what has preceded: You neuer spoke what did become you lesse Than this; which to reiterate, were sin
As deepe as that, though true. (WT 1.2.284–6). Sometimes the reference is general: I that I doe, (MW 1.1.10), How
should this grow? (WT 1.2.431, where the referent is the matter in hand), how will this grieue you, When you shall
come to clearer knowledge, (WT 2.1.98–9).
This and that both refer to persons, but this is more usual than that in this function: they are both hang'd, and so
would this be, (H5 4.4.68, ‘this one’), a Sonne, Sir, by order of Law, some yeere elder then this; (KL 1.1.18–19),
Hee, That with the plume, (AW 3.5.78–9, ‘the one’). The same applies to these and those, though the former is
more usual, as in PdE: and these are diuels; (Tem 2.2.88), who are those at the gate? (CE 3.1.48), Those of his
Chamber, as it seem'd, had don't: (Mac 2.3.101). As may be noticed, that and those occur most frequently with
prepositional phrases. These pronouns may have an indefinite sense of ‘man, people’: euen as bad as those That
Vulgars giue bold'st Titles; (WT 2.1.95–6).
That could be followed by which, where PdE might have he who or the one which: I am all the Subiects that you
haue, Which first was min owne King: (Tem 1.2.343–4), or it can have a general non-human referent: Not that I
hope which you receiu'd of me. (MV 5.1.185), I haue that Within, which passeth show; (Ham 1.2.85). Uses (a) and
(c) are combined in Not that deuour'd, but that which doth deuour Is worthie blame, (RL 1256–7). This may also be
followed by which, though less commonly than that: (I meane In this, which you accuse her.) (WT 2.1.134–5).
That, like it, acts as a dummy subject: I that there was (MW 4.5.56), That's my noble Master: (Tem 1.2.301);
sometimes it occurs in the formula and that + adverb, introducing an afterthought: Ile repent, and that suddenly,
(1H4 3.3.4–5), and heard
< previous page
page_60
next page >
< previous page
page_61
next page >
Page 61
others praise, and that highly (Ham 3.2.29–30). This can sometimes be used instead of that: This were kindnesse.
(MV 1.3.141), This is signior Anthonio. (MV 1.3.38).
There was apparent confusion among compositors, and probably among speakers, between this and thus; Q and F
interchange the two: This it is Generall: (Oth 2.3.217, Q has Thus), this long's the text. (Per sc.5.40, where later
Folios have thus). Cf. thus much moneyes. (MV 1.3.127), and thou shouldst contemne me this? (VA 205). These is
repeated for emphasis: you shall heare these in her excellent white bosome, these. (Ham 2.2.111–12).
3.3.2.5 Interrogative pronouns are closely related to the relative pronouns, for the former provided most forms for
the latter. The interrogative pronouns are largely identical with those found today and have most of the same uses:
Who and whom, as interrogatives, usually introduce their clause, but as an interrogative whom regularly appears as
who (though whom often replaces who in later folios): Who can be wise, amaz'd (Mac 2.3.108), Who worse then a
Physitian Would this report become? (Cym 5.6.27–8, later folios Whom), To who? (Oth 1.2.52). Who can be linked
with ever, as in Who euer knew the Heauens menace so? (JC 1.3.44).
The original neuter form what acts as an adjective as well as a pronoun: what cares these roarers for the name of
King? (Tem 1.1.15–16), what Night is this? (JC 1.3.42). What can mean ‘who, what kind of’ in What's he That was
not borne of Woman? (Mac 5.7.2–3).
Whether ‘which of the two’ is frequent: whether had you rather lead mine eyes, or eye your masters heeles? (MW
3.2.3–4), Whether doest thou professe thy selfe, a knaue or a foole? (AW 4.5.22–3).
3.3.2.6 The relative pronouns show differences from PdE in syntactic function, the frequency and use of that, and
their frequent omission:
In PdE the relative fulfils two functions: it signals that the following clause is subordinate and it also acts as a
grammatical element, whether that is subject, object or whatever, within the subordinate clause. In ShE the relative
may fulfil
< previous page
page_61
next page >
< previous page
page_62
next page >
Page 62
only one of these two functions. In the Lear Quarto the following exchange in prose is found:
Lear. … I should bee false perswaded I had daughters.
Foole. Which they, will make an obedient father.
(HL sc.4.228–9)
In this exchange the Fool adds to Lear's sentence by adding what appears to be a relative clause, though Which
fulfils only a grammatical function as object anticipating father. When another clause comes between the relative
and its verb, the relative simply signals a subordinate clause, for the subject function is represented by another
pronoun: Which though it alter not loues sole effect, Yet doth it steale sweet houres from loues delight, (Son 36.7–
8), And both like Serpents are; who though they feed On sweetest Flowers, yet they Poyson breed. (Per sc. 1.175–
6). In this example who signals the subordinate clause, but Serpents is actually signalled by they twice, once in the
concessive clause and a second time in the relative clause itself. In churlish chiding of the winters winde, Which
when it bites and blowes vpon my body Euen till I shrinke with cold, I smile, (AY 2.1.7–9), Which merely indicates
subordination, because grammatically the subject of smile is I.
In some cases the relative refers back to a noun which is not the immediately preceding one: my faire name
Despight of death, that liues vpon my graue (R2 1.1.167–8), where that refers to name, not death. Who, whom and
whose are used as relatives, though the last more often appears as a modifier than a pronoun: the Queene … Who,
but to day hammered of this designe, (WT 2.2.51–2), that false Villaine, Whom I employ'd, (WT 2.1.50–1), I may
neither choose whom I would, (MV 1.2.22, Q who), but wayle his fall, Who I my selfe struck downe: (Mac 3.1.123–
4), I haue said with whom: (WT 2.1.90). There is considerable variation between who and whom caused often by
uncertainty in grammatical structure, particularly when some short clause like ‘I think, I say’ occurs between the
relative and the rest of its clause: whom I thanke heauen is an honest woman. (MM 2.1.69–70), The Nobility are
vex'd, whom we see haue sided In his behalfe. (Cor 4.2.2–3). Who and whom are used in the plural: Cleomines and
Dion, whom you know Of stuff'd-sufficiency: (WT 2.1.186–7, where
< previous page
page_62
next page >
< previous page
page_63
next page >
Page 63
the same confusion of case as noted above occurs); You are three men of sinne, whom destiny … Hath caus'd to
belch vp you: (Tem 3.3.53–6). Examples of the whom, patterned on the which, are found: Enioy your Mistris; from
the whom, I see There's no disiunction to be made, (WT 4.4.528–9). Examples of whose include: Come tell me
whose it was? (TC 5.2.91), I will not tell you whose. (TC 5.2.95). These relatives can refer to abstracts, though they
need not be regarded as anthropomorphised since these pronouns are not used exclusively of animates: She vaild
her eye-lids, who like sluces stopt The christall tide, (VA 956–7), Rotten Opinion, who hath writ me downe (2H4
5.2.127), the stones. Who though they cannot answere my distresse, Yet in some sort they are better (TA 3.1.36–8),
The Fabrick of his Folly, whose foundation Is pyl'd vpon his Faith, (WT 1.2.429–30). The sense of whose can be
expressed through who … his: a Wolfe, who hang'd for humane slaughter, Euen from the gallowes did his fell soule
fleet; (MV 4.1.133–4, where who … his soule = ‘whose soul’).
Which, with the same form in subject and oblique functions, is used frequently as a relative, especially with
reference to animate beings: I am married to a wife, Which is as deere to me as life it selfe, (MV 4.1.279–80), The
Mistris which I serue, (Tem 3.1.6), I cannot tell good sir, for which of his Vertues it was, (WT 4.3.87–8), To shoote
another arrow that selfe way Which you did shoot the first, (MV 1.1.148–9). Like other relative pronouns, which can
refer back to a possessive pronoun: to his Loue, which stands An honourable Triall. (AC 1.3.74–5, ‘for the love of
him who’). The antecedent of the relative which can be repeated immediately after it, especially when the relative
clause is some distance away from the antecedent or introduces some kind of afterthought: the fault was hers,
Which fault (KJ 1.1.118–19), Charles the Dukes Wrastler, which Charles (AY 1.2.116–17). But which together with a
single noun can refer to rather wider antecedents without repeating any word among the antecedents: So thou wilt
buy, and pay, and vse good dealing, VVhich purchase if thou make, (VA 514–15). Which may appear as a kind of
indefinite pronoun especially in the phrase which is more, where what might be used in PdE: I am a wise fellow, and
which is more, an officer, (MA 4.2.77–8), And which is more, she is not so Diuine, (1H6 5.7.16). Which and the
which can refer back to the general sense of what precedes rather than to a specific antecedent:
< previous page
page_63
next page >
< previous page
page_64
next page >
Page 64
Our prerogatiue
Cals not your Counsailes, but our naturall goodnesse
Imparts this: which, if you, or stupified,
Or seeming so, in skill, cannot, or will not
Rellish a truth, like vs: informe your selues,
(WT 2.1.165–9)
Here which refers generally to the preceding two lines and acts as a link between the clauses, though the
grammatical organisation is not clear. The which may be used instead of simple which in all grammatical positions:
his sweet vp-locked treasure, The which he will not eu'ry hower suruay, (Son 52.2–3), least your Iustice Proue
violence, in the which three great ones suffer, (WT 2.1.129–30), And through walls chink (poor soules) they are
content To whisper. At the which, let no man wonder. (MN 5.1.132–3), The many musits through the which he goes,
(VA 683).
That, originally the neuter demonstrative pronoun used as a relative, is the most frequent relative in ShE and refers
to both animate and non-animate antecedents: To pardon him, that hath from nature stolne (MM 2.4.43), my Name
Be yoak'd with his, that did betray the Best: (WT 1.2.418–9, where that refers back to Name, but is governed by
his, implying ‘of him’). That is used with forms of address: You, brother mine, that entertaine ambition, (Tem
5.1.75); it may also be separated from its antecedent, though that is not frequent: as if it were Caines Iaw-bone,
that did the first murther: (Ham 5.1.76–7, referring to it). Different relatives can be found in the same context: my
honestie, That lyes enclosed in this Trunke, which you Shall beare along (WT 1.2.434–6). The instability in the
relatives is registered through the variation in the forms found in Q and F: They smile at me, who shortly shall be
dead. (R3 3.4.107, quartos have that for who). That can also imply a preposition: who riseth from a feast With that
keene appetite that he sits downe? (MV 2.6.8–9, ‘with which’). The relative pronoun is frequently omitted. In PdE
this applies only to the object relative, but in ShE it occurs with both subject and object relatives: I haue a brother is
condemn'd to die, (MM 2.2.34), the hate of those loue not the King. (R2 2.2.128), this Action I now goe on, Is for
my better grace. (WT 2.1.123–4). Sometimes the omission even of the object relative seems forced
< previous page
page_64
next page >
< previous page
page_65
next page >
Page 65
today: All is imaginarie she doth proue, (VA 597). It is possible to omit the pronoun and the preposition it depends
on: As well appeareth by the cause you come, (R2 1.1.26 ‘in/for which you come’). It is difficult to decide in cases
where there is a single that, whether it means ‘that which’ or whether the second that/which is omitted: Now
followes, that you know (Ham 1.2.17, i.e. ‘that which’), though the former is the more acceptable alternative. Some
noun groups with a simple qualifier, but without a relative, are understood by Abbott 1870: 245 as examples of a
missing relative and its verb. The thought is elliptical, but a missing relative need not be assumed: What is he at the
gate Cosin? (TN 1.5.112–13), they in France of the best ranck and station, (Ham 1.3.73), Not that deuour'd, but
that which doth deuour Is worthie blame, (RL 1256), cf. 3.3.1.3 (c).
The relative pronoun may take a singular verb although the referent is plural, perhaps because it was indeclinable:
Tis not the many oathes that makes the truth, (AW 4.2.22), my obseruations, Which with experimental seale doth
warrant The tenure of my booke: (MA 4.1.167–9), ‘tis your Graces That from my mutest Conscience, to my tongue,
Charmes this report out. (Cym 1.6.116–18), though both <-s> and <-(e)th> are possible plural forms (4.2.2.(d)). The
relative pronoun may be supported by a personal pronoun in the oblique case within its clause, especially when the
verb dependent on the relative is some distance away: Father, whom (Though bearing Miserie) I desire my life Once
more to looke on him. (WT 5.1.135–7), You are three men of sinne, whom destiny … Hath caus'd to belch vp you;
(Tem 3.3.53–6). Instead of a preposition with the relative pronouns like which or that, it is common to find where
with the preposition attached to it, whereat, whereby, whereof, whereon, whereout, whereuntil, and so on: Thou
hast done a deed, whereat Valour will weepe. (Cor 5.6.132–3), by this light, whereby I see thy beauty, (TS
2.1.267), by thine owne faire eyes Wherein I see my selfe. (MV 5.1.242–3), from the loathed warmth whereof,
deliuer me, (KL 4.5.265–6, with both from and -of). It is possible to have a demonstrative pronoun that followed by
another that as a relative pronoun: Marke but my Fall, and that that Ruin'd me: (H8 3.2.440), I shall doe that that is
reason. (MW 1.1.195), Pursuing that that flies, (MW 2.2.202). In some cases that is used in the sense ‘the one
which/who’ but without
< previous page
page_65
next page >
< previous page
page_66
next page >
Page 66
a relative pronoun: that the Moore first gaue to Desdemona, (Oth 3.3.313), As great as that thou fear'st. (TN
5.1.148, ‘him whom’). That occurs without an antecedent or a following pronoun; possibly the relative is elided,
though probably that represents ‘that which’: Be that thou know'st thou art, (TN 5.1.147), Vnlookt for ioy in that I
honour most; (Son 25.4), I earne that I eate: (AY 3.2.71), I am that I am, (Son 121.9).
3.3.2.7 The indefinite pronouns, often used to express a general truth or to act as an informal passive, show some
differences from those in PdE. Many, like any and some, are used as singular or plural. Assertive and non-assertive
forms had not developed and so they are not a feature of ShE. Personal pronouns are used as indefinite
pronouns. Some, any, no/none and each/every are used alone or with man, body or one, which in their turn could
be used on their own. Forms with man were common in late Middle English, but were being replaced by forms with
one or body, possibly because they were colloquial: hath any body enquir'd for mee here to day; (MM 4.1.16–17),
Did'st thou not heare some bodie? (MA 3.3.124), cf. some one among vs, (AW 4.1.5), no body but has his fault:
(MW 1.4.12–13); Shakespeare did not use everybody or each body. Forms in -man were used, especially every man:
your Hero, euery mans Hero. (MA 3.2.96–7), Euery mans Conscience is a thousand men, (R3 5.2.17), You, or any
man liuing, (Oth 2.3.306). ShE has each man where PdE uses each by itself: Let each man do his best. (1H4
5.2.92), Take each mans censure; (Ham 1.3.69), for no man regards it. (1H4 1.2.89, ‘nobody’).
The following are the major indefinite pronouns in ShE:
Any ‘anyone, anybody’ usually takes a singular verb: Do's any heere know me? (KL 1.4.208), whiles any speakes,
That fought with vs (H5 4.3.66–7), cf. is there any else longs to see this broken Musicke (AY 1.2.131–2).
A body ‘one’: Ah, sirra, a body would thinke this was well counterfeited, (AY 4.3.167–8).
Every ‘each, everyone’: If euery of your wishes had a wombe, (AC 1.2.33), euery of this happie number (AY
5.4.170).
He and his are used alone or in conjunction with one: tell me he that knowes (Ham 1.1.69), the more one sickens,
the worse at ease he is: (AY 3.2.23–4), one cannot climbe it Without apparant hazard of his life. (TG 3.1.115–16).
< previous page
page_66
next page >
< previous page
page_67
next page >
Page 67
A man and men form part of universal truths as well as being used for ‘one’: Misery acquaints a man with strange
bedfellowes: (Tem 2.2.39), A man is Master of his libertie: Time is their Master, (CE 2.1.7–8); This is a very scuruy
tune to sing at a mans Funerall: (Tem 2.2.43), inuisible, As a nose on a mans face, (TG 2.1.127–8); Men feare the
French would proue perfidious (H8 1.2.157), That men shall sweare I haue discontinued schoole (MV 3.4.75). Many
is used as an alternative: That Booke in manies eies (RJ 1.3.93).
None in That none so small aduantage shall step forth (KJ 3.4.151) is probably a predeterminer; but in None better
in my Kingdome. (H8 5.1.156), it is a pronoun, compare there's no bottome, none In my Voluptuousnesse: (Mac
4.3.61–2). When used as a pronoun, it takes an adjective as qualifier: None, good my Liege, to please you with ye
hearing, Nor none so bad, (R3 4.4.388–9); and such in the qualifier position after none is particularly common: I am
none such. (Oth 4.2.127). In the sense ‘nothing’, none is relatively rare in Shakespeare: I haue eate none yet. (AY
2.7.88, i.e. ‘food’), I will haue none on't: (Tem 4.1.246, referring to stolen garments).
One as an indefinite pronoun developed through its use as a means of not repeating a noun which has just been
mentioned: I chose her when I could not aske my Father For his aduise: nor thought I had one: (Tem 5.1.193–4,
i.e. ‘father’). It has the sense ‘someone, somebody’ often with a qualifier: While one with moderate hast might tell a
hundred. (Ham 1.2.236), That's thousand to one good one, (Cor 2.2.79), there's one at the gate. (TN 1.5.121),
veines of one new burn'd: (KJ 3.1.204). The phrase as one would say is common: I haue taught him (euen as one
would say precisely, thus I would teach a dog) (TG 4.4.5–6), and one occurs after as and like: Hee dy'de, As one
that had beene studied in his death, (Mac 1.4.8–9). In some cases it stands for I, the speaker, possibly ironically:
Rom. And we meane well in going to this Maske,
But ‘tis no wit to go.
Mer. Why may one aske?
(RJ 1.4.48–9)
Other with a partitive genitive means ‘some others’: There's other of our friends (MM 4.5.12).
< previous page
page_67
next page >
< previous page
page_68
next page >
Page 68
Ought or aught ‘anything’ is found particularly in questions, and negative or conditional clauses: What's aught, but
as ‘tis valew'd? (TC 2.2.51), Liue you, or are you aught That man may question? (Mac 1.3.40–1), Nor ought so
good, (RJ 2.2.19), Nor ought obayes but his fowle appetite. (RL 546). The negative of ought is nought: nought shall
goe ill, (MN 3.3.46), wee'l Heare nought from Rome in priuate. (Cor 5.3.93–4).
Some occurs by itself or in the expression other some, equivalent to PdE ‘some others’: Goe some of you, and fetch
a Looking-Glass. (R2 4.1.258 ‘one of you’), you shall heare some. (Cor 4.2.16 ‘something’), Some say he is with the
Emperor of Russia: other some, he is in Rome: (MM 3.1.354–5), How happy some, ore othersome can be? (MN
1.1.226). As subject some other governs a plural verb: Some other giue me thankes (CE 4.3.5).
Somewhat ‘something’: This Gentleman told somewhat of my Tale. (MM 5.1.84), somewhat doth she meane: (TA
4.1.9), somewhat we must do: (R2 2.2.116), an old man can do somwhat. (2H4 5.3.79–80), here is a Letter will say
somewhat: (MW 4.5.116).
Forms in -thing are common and, as in PdE, usually take a post-posed adjective: Heard you of nothing strange about
the streets. (AC 4.3.3), By the pricking of my Thumbes, Something wicked this way comes: (Mac 4.1.61–2); but
cf. euery something (MV 3.2.181). Something can be expressed through somewhat (see (k) above), and anything
and nothing by ought and nought (see (i) above). After expressions like Here is, a word to indicate ‘something’ is
omitted: here is for your paines: (TG 1.1.127), There's for your silence. (2H4 2.2.154).
Who with its oblique forms and what act as indefinite pronouns either in the singular or plural, meaning ‘whoever,
whatever’: Who steales my purse, steales trash: (Oth 3.3.162), whom wee rayse, Wee will make fast (2H6 1.4.22–
3), And whom he [the boar] strikes, his crooked tushes slay. (VA 624), But who, O who, had seen the inobled
Queen. (Ham 2.2.505, ‘whoever might have seen’), and who resists Are mock'd for valiant Ignorance, (Cor 4.6.109–
10, ‘whoever resist’ with resists having plural <-s>), Looke what I said, my life shall proue it true, (R2 1.1.87), what
in the world hes [he's] That names me Traitor, villain-like he lies, (KL 5.3.91–2). It occurs frequently in the phrase
as who should say: He doth nothing but frowne (as who should say, and you will not haue me, choose: (MV 1.2.45–
6), And hums;
< previous page
page_68
next page >
< previous page
page_69
next page >
Page 69
as who should say, you'l rue the time (Mac 3.6.43), As who should say, lo thus my strength is tride. (VA 280).
3.3.3 Adjectives or modifiers normally consist of a single word, though there can be more than one modifier to a
head.
3.3.3.1 The normal pattern is for one or more modifiers to precede the head either with or without a linking and.
The normal position of the adjective(s) is immediately before the head, but exceptionally it may precede the
determiner: but poore a thousand Crownes, (AY 1.1.2), especially in forms of address: Ah poore our sexe; (TC
5.2.111). A few adjectives like enough follow the head: haue Napkins enow about you, (Mac 2.3.5–6), if roome
enough. (Tem 1.1.7).
Modifiers may be traditional adjectives, new formations such as compounds or other parts of speech acting as
modifiers:
A normal string of adjectives is The vnseene good old man. (Ham 4.1.11) or with a number of heads Feather of
lead, bright smoake, cold fire, sicke health, (RJ 1.1.177), where each head has an adjective as modifier except the
first, where the qualifier of lead is preferred to the adjective leaden.
New compounds may include More actiue valiant, or more valiant yong, (1H4 5.1.90, with active-valiant and valiantyoung as adjectival compounds), and I haue euer found thee honest true, (MV 3.4.46, often modernised ‘honesttrue’). Some are hyphenated in F: a Star-Chamber matter (MW 1.1.1–2), a more comming-on disposition: (AY
4.1.105–6). However, some adjectives are not compounds, pace Abbott 1870: 2: deepe contemplatiue: (AY 2.7.31)
and Horrible steepe. (KL 4.5.3), where deepe and Horrible are intensifiers (5.1.3.1). There are nonce compound
adjectives: (three-man song-men, all, (WT 4.3.41, often edited, e.g. Wells and Taylor 1988: 1117, as three-mansong-men, all). Compounds with the first element all- are frequent: this all-changing-word, (KJ 2.1.583), the allcheering Sunne, (RJ 1.1.131). Some like Almighty had lost their status as compounds, as the spelling suggests,
though often when linked with God it is postposed: God Almightie helpe me. (2H6 2.1.97), but cf. Of his almighty
dreadfull little might. (LL 3.1.198). Whereas new compound nouns have the form verb + noun (3.3.1.4), compound
adjectives exhibit the reverse with noun + verb:
< previous page
page_69
next page >
< previous page
page_70
next page >
Page 70
Merchant-marring rocks? (MV 3.2.269), your cony-catching Rascalls, (MW 1.1.117). Others are formed with
infinitives or intensifiers: Such to be pittied, and ore-rested seeming (TC 1.3.157 usually modernised as to-be-pitied
and o'er-wrested), In ranke, and (not to be endur'd) riots (KL 1.4.186). Compounds formed with a participle as
second element may be striking: Her pittie-pleading eyes (RL 561), Feast-finding minstrels tuning my defame, (RL
817, ‘minstrels who seek out feasts to perform’).
Nouns commonly act as modifiers though, as noted at 3.3.1.1 (a), it is not always possible to tell whether they are
modifiers or the first element of a noun compound: Musicke Vowes: (Ham 3.1.159), a Star-Chamber matter (MW
1.1.1–2), thou mountaine Forreyner: (MW 1.1.147), all the Region Kites (Ham 2.2.581). Proper nouns may possibly
act as modifiers: Carthage Queene, (MN 1.1.173), Rome gates, (Cor 3.3.108, where Rome might be a possessive
without <-s>, cf. 3.2.1.2 (b)). When an adjective is linked by and to a noun before a head, the noun must be a
modifier: his ponderous and Marble iawes, (Ham 1.4.31), with which cf. a Marble heart: (3H6 3.1.38, which could be
a compound). The same applies when the noun comes first of the two or when both are nouns: such Ferret, and
such fiery eyes (JC 1.2.187) and an Eunuch, or the Virgin voyce (Cor 3.2.114), and when the modifiers are
predicative: Since the more faire and christall is the skie, (R2 1.1.41). A compound noun can be a modifier: of so
flood-gate, and ore-bearing Nature, (Oth 1.3.56), where the adverbial intensifier so which can appear only before
adjectives or adverbs confirms the functional shift of flood-gate to modifier function. In the stranger pathes of
banishment. (R2 1.3.137) stranger might be either the noun ‘stranger’ or the comparative of the adjective ‘strange’.
Similarly an adjective may be a modifier or the first element of a compound, cf. PdE blackbird and a black bird. The
adjective mid is probably the first element of a compound in mid-age (TC 2.2.103) but a modifier in Past the mid
season. (Tem 1.2.240). Apart from being a pronoun, all can function as a modifier: Ile make all speede. (MM
4.3.102), All bond and priuiledge of Nature breake; (Cor 5.3.25). All is often post-posed after a pronominal head:
they all came (R3 2.3.23). Adverbs of different types function as modifiers: by often rumination, (AY 4.1.17–18), this
beneath world (Tim 1.1.44), of seldome pleasure. (Son 52.4), thy sometimes brothers wife (R2 1.2.54), thy
< previous page
page_70
next page >
< previous page
page_71
next page >
Page 71
home returne. (R2 1.3.256), the forehand sinne: (MA 4.1.50, ‘the sin committed in advance’), they [i.e. thy] heere
approach (Mac 4.3.134), my hence departure (WT 1.2.450). Only is used as an adjective more widely than in PdE:
Your worm is your onely Emperor for diet. (Ham 4.3.21–2), which are the onely prologues to a bad voice. (AY
5.3.11–12). In That after houres, with sorrow chide vs not. (RJ 2.5.2), after is more likely to be part of a compound
than an adjective.
Participles may be used as simple or compound adjectives, made of intensifiers and a participle: To her allowing
Husband. (WT 1.2.186), a mad olde man: (WT 3.3.116, usually edited as ‘made’), To keepe obliged faith (MV 2.6.7),
The best condition'd, and vnwearied spirit (MV 3.2.291), My too much changed Sonne. (Ham 2.2.36), a past-sauing
slaue (AW 4.3.143), too fast growing sprayes, (R2 3.4.35). The compound may be formed from the participle of a
phrasal verb or intensifier and present participle: a made-vp-Villaine. (Tim 5.1.97), th'vnthought-on accident (WT
4.4.538). Numerals function as modifiers, but when the numeral is preceded by a possessive the sense may not be
immediately apparent: your three motiues (Cym 5.6.389, ‘the motives of the three of you’), with your two helpes,
(MA 2.1.357–8, ‘with the help of the two of you’), cf. 3.3.4.5.
3.3.3.2 With words in the possessive, there may be problems in understanding first whether the possessive is a
modifier or the first element of a compound, secondly whether it is singular or plural, and thirdly whether the
possessive indicates a subjective or objective possessive. In And from my hearts loue, I do thanke thee for it. (R3
4.4.247), the stress pattern and the absence of capital <L> may suggest a compound heartslove, but in And with my
hand I seale my true hearts Loue. (R3 2.1.10) the metre indicates two words. Even in cases where uninflected heart
precedes a word with initial <s> and F prints a compound, as heart-string, it is possible that heart is an uninflected
possessive form acting as modifier, as the metre suggests: Though that her Iesses were my deere heart-strings,
(Oth 3.3.265). Some possessive forms may be either singular or plural: Haue added fethers to the learneds wing,
(Son 78.7), keepe a corner in the thing I loue For others vses. (Oth 3.3.276–7). Possessive adjectives can come
after, as well as before, the head: O Mistris mine (TN 2.3.38), especially in verse.
< previous page
page_71
next page >
< previous page
page_72
next page >
Page 72
3.3.3.3 When two or more modifiers, preceded by a determiner and associated with a single head, are linked by
and, the second and subsequent modifiers may follow the head: A very valiant Britaine, and a good, (Cym 4.2.371),
an honest Gentleman, And a courteous, and a kind, and a handsome, And I warrant a vertuous: (RJ 2.4.55–7),
though the same can obtain when the second modifier has no determiner: Free speech, and fearelesse, I to thee
allow. (R2 1.1.123). However, as adjectives are used as nouns, this usage could lead to potential ambiguity: a yong
man and an old in solemne talke. (AY 2.4.18) could refer to one person, were it not for the difficulty of taking both
yong and old to refer to a single individual. An adjectival group may be split before and after the noun: that fatall
Schreechowle to our house, (3H6 2.6.56, where fatall to our house is to be understood as an adjectival group), The
best condition'd, and vnwearied spirit In doing curtesies: (MV 3.2.291–2, ‘unwearied in doing courtesies’), the
neerest things to my heart, (WT 1.2.238, i.e. ‘the things nearest to my heart’). The split may take other forms: of
your audience beene most free and bounteous. (Ham 1.3.93), where the of group depends on free and bounteous.
A prepositional phrase dependent on an adjective may precede rather than follow it: he is of substance good. (MW
1.3.33).
3.3.3.4 Modifiers can be either subjective or objective: the insane Root, (Mac 1.3.82, ‘the root which causes
madness’), the steepe Tarpeian death, (Cor 3.3.92 ‘death caused by being thrown over the steep Tarpeian rock’),
two weake euils, age, and hunger, (AY 2.7.132, ‘two evils (age and hunger) which cause enfeeblement’), In ignorant
concealement. (WT 1.2.397, ‘concealment which keeps someone in ignorance’). Some have either meaning
depending on the context: dreadful means either ‘causing fear’ O'th dreadfull Thunder-claps (Tem 1.2.203.) or ‘full
of terror’ one that gathers Sampire: dreadfull Trade: (KL 4.5.15), and fearful either ‘inspiring fear’ Death is a fearefull
thing. (MM 3.1.116) or ‘full of fear’ vnto our fearefull mindes (CE 1.1.67). The same applies to possessive forms of
nouns: A brothers dead loue, (TN 1.1.30), where brothers could be the ‘love of a dead brother’ or the ‘love for a
dead brother’. This example also exhibits a transferred epithet, for dead refers to brothers rather than to loue.
3.3.3.5 Some modifiers through compression have an adverbial sense, as though the head had a verb significance:
the longer liuer
< previous page
page_72
next page >
< previous page
page_73
next page >
Page 73
(RJ 1.5.14, ‘he who lives longer’), Quicke proceeders (TS 4.2.11, ‘those who act quickly’), you imperfect Speakers,
(Mac 1.3.68, ‘you who speak incompletely’). Words for size often have some reference beyond the head: a great
eater of beefe, (TN 1.3.83) is ‘one who eats beef to a great extent’.
3.3.3.6
Because adverbs in ShE had not regularly developed the distinctive ending <-ly>, many had the same form as the
adjective. Hence when an adjective is used predicatively, it may have an adjectival or adverbial function: we walke
inuisible. (1H4 2.1.87; cf. for your walking inuisible. 1H4 2.1.89–90), Vneasie lyes the Head, that weares a
Crowne. (2H4 3.1.31), Boyes with Womens Voyces, Striue to speake bigge, (R2 3.2.109–10). Adjectives in a
qualifier position may fulfil the role of an adverb: Good-euen, and twenty (good Master Page.) (MW 2.1.185–6) is
best understood as ‘Good evening twenty [i.e. many] times’. As adverbs acting as intensifiers to modifiers may have
the same structure as the words they intensify, it is difficult to tell whether a word is another adjective modifying the
head or whether it is an adverb intensifying the adjective: I did thinke thee for two ordinaries: to bee a prettie wise
fellow, (AW 2.3.202–3, prettie is probably another adjective and not an intensifier), of a Foole, inconstant, And
damnable ingratefull: (WT 3.2.185–6, damnable could be an adjective or an intensifier). A number of words like
wondrous are normally intensifiers, and so in hot ice, and wondrous strange snow. (MN 5.1.59) wondrous is best
understood as an intensifier, since it contrasts with hot ice. But as wondrous appears as an adjective (e.g. in
wondrous motion. KJ 4.2.185), there may be instances where it is an adjective rather than an intensifier. In Your
wondrous rare description (1H6 5.7.1) it is possible to take it either way. Another word of the same type is excellent,
as in shee's an excellent sweet Lady, (MA 2.3.154), where either function is possible. Cf. also a iolly thriuing wooer.
(R3 4.3.43), He is so plaguy proud, (TC 2.3.175, where so suggests a following adverbial), starke spoyl'd (TS
3.2.53), Ile make assurance: double sure, (Mac 4.1.99). Some words or phrases acting as intensifiers may be
separated from their adjective, as (So soueraignely being Honorable.) (WT 1.2.325, ‘being supremely honourable’).
< previous page
page_73
next page >
< previous page
page_74
next page >
Page 74
The same lack of distinction between the form of adjectives and adverbs makes it difficult with certain adjectives to
tell whether a word is an adjective modifying the head or an intensifier to the adjective. For example, very was
originally an adjective, a function still found in ShE: his very friend. (TG 3.2.41) and my very heart-strings. (TG
4.2.59–60), where very is a modifier ‘true, own’ to friend and heart-strings. But very was developing an adverbial
function and could occur before an adjective, as in I am very heauy. (Tem 2.1.193–4), ‘Tis very pregnant, (MM
2.1.23) and A very superficiall, ignorant, vnweighing fellow (MM 3.1.401), where it has an intensifying function. In
the last example to take very as an adjective meaning ‘true’ would be counter to the sense of the other adjectives
modifying fellow. With other words the function may be less clear. Thus excellent occurs frequently as an adjective,
often with a positive sense though sometimes used ironically. When in Much Ado Ursula says doe you thinke I doe
not know you by your excellent wit? (MA 2.1.111–12), some irony may be intended. Later in the same play Hero
says of Benedick he hath an excellent good name. (MA 3.1.98); she may mean excellent as a modifier to name,
parallel to good, or she may mean it somewhat ironically as an intensifier to good. It is customary to understand this
and similar words as adverbial intensifiers to the adjectives they precede. Other adverbs can act as intensifiers, such
as somewhat and something: Be somewhat scanter of your Maiden presence; (Ham 1.3.121), she is something
lower then my selfe, (MN 3.2.305), a wrong Something vnfilliall: (WT 4.4.405–6), the Prouerbe is something musty.
(Ham 3.2.330–1). In some cases it is debatable whether something is the head or a modifier: in MN 3.2.305
something lower could be ‘a shorter something’ or ‘somewhat shorter’, and in Ham 3.2.330–1 the proverb may be ‘a
musty something’ or ‘somewhat musty’. Nothing is particularly ambiguous, though normally one may understand it to
be the head. In all that I can doe, is nothing worth; (H5 4.1.300), the sense could be ‘nothing of worth’ or ‘of no
worth’. In an expression like all we waile for. (Ham 2.2.152), the all is probably understood to mean ‘all (of us)’,
though it acts as a modifier rather than a partitive genitive.
< previous page
page_74
next page >
< previous page
page_75
next page >
Page 75
3.3.3.7 Numerals which function principally as adjectives (3.3.3.1 (h)) can function as nouns, though in each case
their function is similar to that in PdE.
3.3.4 Determiners can be articles, demonstrative and possessive adjectives.
3.3.4.1 In PdE a determiner is mutually exclusive in that each head is preceded by a single determiner. In earlier
English that was not the case, though in ShE it is mainly only this/these which appear as a second determiner before
possessive adjectives: This your request (WT 3.2.115), these my proper hands (WT 2.3.140), but once that occurs
before yon in That yon greene boy (KJ 2.1.473). In this no slaughter house (RL 1039), this is a second determiner
with the sense ‘this being no slaughterhouse’. The two determiners in examples like this are used for emphasis.
Many potential examples of two determiners, all your faire endeuours (LL 5.2.722) and & somthing a round belly.
(2H4 1.2.188–9), are best understood as predeterminer and determiner.
3.3.4.2.1 The definite article the is closely linked to this~these and that~those, which have a more emphatic sense,
though in many cases it is difficult to press this distinction. In You here shal sweare vpon this Sword of Iustice, (WT
3.2.123), this may imply what is prominently visible in the court, though that is not necessarily so. When Lancelot
Gobbo refers to this Iew my Maister: (MV 2.2.2), he means the Jew for Shylock is not on the stage. Will cleare, or
end the Businesse, (WT 3.1.18) may be compared with for this businesse Will raise vs all. (WT 2.1.198–9). Similarly
in The Merchant of Venice there is alternation of The first … The second … This third, (MV 2.7.4–8) in reference to
the three caskets which are not otherwise distinguished. In I can reade Waiting-Gentlewoman in the scape: (WT
3.3.71), the is used where this would occur in PdE. That occurs as the determiner before a head with a relative
clause, especially when the relative pronoun is omitted: that tongue I haue: (WT 2.2.55), that way thou wer't. (WT
3.2.213) that humor, That presses him from sleepe. (WT 2.3.38–9), but cf. the course that you haue done) (WT
2.3.48, with a relative pronoun). This is often used with a numeral as modifier: this two and twenty yeare, (1H4
2.2.17), Within this three houres (RJ 5.2.24).
< previous page
page_75
next page >
< previous page
page_76
next page >
Page 76
3.3.4.2.2 Throughout the history of English, and still to some extent in PdE, there is uncertainty when the article
should occur, so that we find examples both with and without the definite article.
In ShE it is used with titles such as Count, Lady, Lord: the Lady Valeria is come to visit you. (Cor 1.3.26–7), at the
Lady Heroes chamber window. (MA 2.3.88), The L. [i.e. Lord] Northumberland, (R2 2.2.53). It is not used when
another determiner, an adjectival group or the personal name precedes the title, nor is it found in forms of address:
Lord Marshall, command our Officers at Armes, (R2 1.1.204). It occurs with personal names which have acquired
the status of a title: The Dowglas and the Hotspurre both together, (1H4 5.1.116), There goes the Talbot with his
Colours spred, (1H6 3.7.31).
The article occurs before nouns with special emphasis: Audrey am I the man yet? (AY 3.3.2–3), I am alone the
Villaine of the earth, (AC 4.6.30), Liue you the Marble-brested Tirant still. (TN 5.1.122), Harry the Fift's the man,
(2H4 5.3.118).
The definite article appears in forms of address with words like gods and after a title or name: The Gods! it smites
me (AC 5.2.167), O the gods! what's the matter? (TC 4.3.10), How dost thou Benedicke the married man? (MA
5.4.98), The last of all the Romans, far thee well: (JC 5.3.98), My lord the King: the King? (WT 3.2.141). Examples
with gods are more exclamations than forms of address, and the form ye Gods is the usual one.
The noun death may be preceded by the definite article: The King is almost wounded to the death: (2H4 1.1.14), I
am hurt to th'death. (Oth 2.3.157), Either to dye the death, or to abiure (MN 1.1.65); but compare Will keepe a
League till Death. (R2 5.1.22), Falstaffe sweates to death, (1H4 2.3.16).
The definite article expresses the possessive when the object belongs to the subject of the clause or of the
preceding one: He hangs the lippe (TC 3.1.136), you shake the head at so long a breathing, (MA 2.1.339–40),
Cleopatra and himselfe in Chaires of Gold Were publikely enthron'd: at the feet, sat Cæsarion (AC 3.6.4–6).
The definite article is not usually found before river names: hee could wish himselfe in Thames (H5 4.1.114–15), you
shall haue Trent turn'd. (1H4 3.1.132), occasionally leading to confusion with names of towns. Words like heaven
and paradise can appear both with and without the article: Why rayl'st thou on thy birth? the heauen and earth? (RJ
3.3.118), gone to heauen. (MV
< previous page
page_76
next page >
< previous page
page_77
next page >
Page 77
2.2.60–1), Adam that kept the Paradise: (CE 4.3.16–17). Similarly, mathematics appears both with and without the
article: in Musicke, and the Mathematickes, (TS 2.1.56), in Musicke and Mathematickes: (TS 2.1.82).
The original instrumental case in Old English of the demonstrative adjective/pronoun, which was used before
correlative comparatives, is standardised as the in PdE ‘the more the merrier’, and this form is found before
comparatives in ShE: I am the worse (2H4 2.4.101), Makes me the better (TG 3.2.19). Many expressions which
today take the definite article may be without them in ShE, especially when a noun follows a preposition or in
idiomatic or figurative expressions: at window (MV 2.5.40), at mercy of my Sword, (TC 4.5.114), In shadow of such
Greatnesse? (2H4 4.1.241), Where is best place (1H6 1.6.43), foames at mouth, (TC 5.5.36), Who knocks so lowd at
doore? (2H4 2.4.355), as salt as Sea, (2H6 3.2.96). But cf. in the last, (Cor 5.6.41), in the best (Ham 1.5.27, ‘at
best’), i'th'night, i'th'haste, (KL 2.1.24, ‘in haste’). Most may be preceded by the or not in such expressions as I had
the most of them (1H4 4.2.41), Most of our City did. (TN 3.3.35).
3.3.4.2.3 When a gerund takes an object, it functions as a noun and may be preceded by the definite article: You
neede not feare Lady the hauing any of these Lords, (MV 1.2.97–8, ‘being married to any of these lords’), Nothing in
his Life became him, Like the leauing it. (Mac 1.4.7–8).
3.3.4.3.1 The indefinite article a, an has a close link with one, from which it descended: Heare me one word, …
heare me but a word. (Cor 3.1.214–15), He and his Phisitions Are of a minde, (AW 1.3.235–6), Doth not Rosemarie
and Romeo begin both with a letter? (RJ 2.3.197–8, ‘one, the same’), Susan & she, … were of an age. (RJ 1.3.20–1,
‘the same age’), These Foyles haue all a length. (Ham 5.2.212), Stay your Thanks a while, (WT 1.2.9).
3.3.4.3.2
The singular forms a, an can appear before words with a plural form in <-s>, which still applies to some words in
PdE, as well as before words which indicate a plural such as
< previous page
page_77
next page >
< previous page
page_78
next page >
Page 78
numerals, but are understood collectively: if a Gallowes were on Land (Tem 5.1.220), Vnlesse a man would marry a
Gallowes, (Cym 5.5.292), A many fooles (MV 3.5.63), a many thousand warlike French, (KJ 4.2.200), but poore a
thousand Crownes, (AY 1.1.2), a leuen widdowes and nine maides (MV 2.2.156–7, possibly a mistake for ‘eleven’).
Words implying mass usually are without the indefinite article: you slew great number of his people. (TN 3.3.29), I
do appoint him store of Prouender. (JC 4.1.30). Other forms may also omit the article: He tooke good rest to night:
(WT 2.3.10). Ever and never may be followed by the indefinite article or not: then I loue ere a scuruie young Boy
(2H4 2.4.274–5), was there euer man a Coward, (Tem 3.2.27), neuer was man thus wronged, (TN 4.2.29), ne're a
brother like you? (MA 2.1.303). The same applies to what: What ‘foole is she, (TG 1.2.53), what trouble Was I (Tem
1.2.151–2), What dreadfull noise of water (R3 1.4.22), what a sight it was (VA 343). The indefinite article is
frequently omitted after as, like and so: as way to Parish Church: (AY 2.7.52), With as bigge heart as thou. (Cor
3.2.128), In so profound Abisme (Son 112.9), VVith so full soule, (Tem 3.1.44), creeping like snaile (AY 2.7.146).
Words like choler, pity, rage and shame may be with or without the indefinite article: Put him to Choller (Cor
3.3.25), Tis pitty Loue, should be so contrary: (TG 4.4.81), he fall in rage (Cor 2.3.258), It were a shame to call (TG
1.2.51). The word death can be preceded by the indefinite as well as the definite article: a present death (WT
2.3.184). When a noun functions as a complement it may not have the indefinite article, as in many modern
European languages: If euer I were Traitor, (R2 1.3.194), If you be Mayd, or no? (Tem 1.2.430), as I am true
knight. (TN 2.3.52). Two adjectives before a noun could each be modified by the indefinite article, though both
adjectives apply to the same head: Where a malignant, and a Turbond-Turke (Oth 5.2.362); but in some cases each
adjective applies to a different head: With one Auspicious, and one Dropping eye, (Ham 1.2.11, where Q2 has an
and a respectively). Naturally, some cases may be ambiguous in this regard.
3.3.4.4 Some occurs before both singular and plural nouns, the former where the sense is abstract or collective or
where it has
< previous page
page_78
next page >
< previous page
page_79
next page >
Page 79
the sense ‘a certain’: to some foule Issue. (WT 2.3.153), some excellent Fortune: (AC 1.2.22), To some remote and
desart place, (WT 2.3.176), some other where? (CE 2.1.30), some seuen a clocke, (TS 4.3.185), by some meanes
(Cym 5.5.83).
3.3.4.5 There are three demonstrative adjectives which function as determiners: this (pl. these), that (pl. those) and
yon/yond/yonder. This means something close to the speaker, that something distant from the speaker, and yon
and its fellows imply that the thing referred to is distant from both speaker and addressee, though with the
implication that the object in question is visible. When Cinna refers to yon grey Lines, (JC 2.1.102) in the sky, we
assume that he and his hearers can see the dawn. When Lear in his madness meets Gloucester and exclaims how
yond Iustice railes vpon yond simple theefe. (KL 4.5.147–8), we may understand that the madman and the blind
man see these people imaginatively. But there are cases where neither speaker nor hearer could have seen the
object or person referred to.
A demonstrative or possessive adjective occurring before a modifier may make the meaning ambiguous, cf. 3.3.3.1
(h). So your knaues visage (MM 5.1.350) means not ‘the face of your servant’, but ‘your knavish face’, just as thy
womans weedes. (TN 5.1.271) means ‘your womanly clothes (i.e. clothes for a woman)’. In many cases the modifier
really qualifies the possessive rather than modifies the head: your louelie sake (MM 5.1.490) means ‘for the sake of
you who are lovely’ and Louers absent howres (Oth 3.4.171) ‘the hours when lovers are apart’. Thus in her naked
bed, (VA 397) means ‘Venus naked in her bed’, my sickly bed. (AW 2.3.112) ‘the bed in which I am ill’, and his
banish'd yeares (R2 1.3.203) ‘the years of his banishment’.
The possessive adjective normally has a subjective sense, but there are examples when it is objective: at his bloodie
view (VA 1037, ‘at the sight of him bloodstained’), and note to all our Lamention, (Cor 4.6.36, ‘to the distress of us
all’), our oppression hath made vp this league: (KJ 3.1.32, ‘the oppression of us’), forgiue me your trouble. (TN
2.1.30, ‘the trouble I have caused you’). When linked with a possessive noun, the adjective is also possessive: at the
very instant of Falstaffes and our meeting, (MW 5.3.14–15).
< previous page
page_79
next page >
< previous page
page_80
next page >
Page 80
The form your developed a specific sense: from a possessive acting as the unmarked form it developed the sense
‘one of a group’ implying a non-specific example and acted as a deictic marker (Wales 1985): Euerie true mans
apparrell fits your Theefe. (MM 4.2.41), Is your Englishmen so exquisite in his drinking? (Oth 2.3.74), Your worm is
your onely Emperor for diet. (Ham 4.3.21–2), Your Chessenut was euer the onely colour: (AY 3.4.10–11). Like the
ethic dative me it was colloquial and non-standard, and it is particularly used by fools and in utterances embracing
folk wisdom. It often has a mischievous, almost malevolent, tone.
The use of a demonstrative adjective as determiner creates adjectives out of words like same, self and very: this
same letter, (MV 3.4.47), that selfe way (MV 1.1.148), this very manner (MA 4.2.60).
The singular demonstrative adjective this can be used with plural nouns, especially those indicating length of time: I
haue forsworne his company hourely any time this two and twenty yeare, (1H4 2.2.16–17).
The possessive adjective his may be used to mean ‘of this one’ when used antithetically with others: Desire his
Iewels, and this others House, (Mac 4.3.81).
In ShE the possessive adjective may be used where PdE would use a personal pronoun with or without a
preposition: deny'de His accesse to me. (Ham 2.1.110–11, ‘denied him access to me’), locke her selfe from his
Resort, (Ham 2.2.144, ‘from access by him’).
3.3.5 Predeterminers are varied in their form and usage, though they may be characterised as falling into three
major types:
The position of the determiner and the modifier is reversed: Good my Lord, (Tem 4.1.204), Good my mother (KJ
2.1.163), (good my glasse) (LL 4.1.18), Good my complection, (AY 3.2.190), Tongue-ty'd our Queene? (WT 1.2.27).
Other types include such words as all and each: all the Husbands (WT 2.3.110), all my fortunes (MV 1.1.177), each
his needlesse heauings: (WT 2.3.35), halfe a million, (MV 3.1.51), were you both our mothers, (AW 1.3.159, ‘the
mother of both of us’), many a tall ship, (MV 3.1.5–6; cf. I doe know A many fooles MV 3.5.62–3), some my
standers by, (TC 4.7.74, Q; F has vnto my standers by,), cf. and other his
< previous page
page_80
next page >
< previous page
page_81
next page >
Page 81
continuall followers. (2H4 4.3.53), any the most vulgar thing (Ham 1.2.99). But adjectives which are intensified by
so or too can also come before the article: Too low a Mistres for so high a seruant. (TG 2.4.104).
An adverbial (word or phrase), used as an intensifier, or a numeral may precede the determiner: such a day (WT
1.2.65), but so disgrac'd a part, (WT 1.2.189), what so poore a man (Ham 1.5.185), two such sights, (WT 3.3.81),
something too prodigall (MV 1.1.129), Something too much of this. (Ham 3.2.72), full three thousand ducats: (MV
1.3.54), thus much moneyes. (MV 1.3.127). A third type consists of phrases like a kind of, a sort of and words with
a partitive genitive: a sort of men, (MV 1.1.88), a kinde of taste; (MV 2.2.16), one of these same dumbe wise men,
(MV 1.1.106). Instead of PdE one of, ShE uses one by itself with the head in the singular: one The truest manner'd:
(Cym 1.6.166–7), one The wisest Prince, (H8 2.4.46–7). Other numerals and related words, usually followed by of,
include some sixe or seauen dozen of Scots (1H4 2.5.103–4), a dozen of Cushions (2H4 5.4.14), Some certaine of
the Noblest minded Romans (JC 1.3.121). However, the predeterminer some may be omitted: there be of them, that
will (Ham 3.2.40, ‘some of them’).
3.3.6 Qualifiers, that part of the noun group which comes after the head, form the most inventive part of the group
and cover an enormous range of possible structures. They allowed Shakespeare to write elliptically (6.3) and to
express movement and action within a noun group.
3.3.6.1
The simplest form of qualifier is the occurrence of a single word after the head. This can be either an adjective,
often as part of the heightening of style since adjectives normally came before the head, or a noun in apposition: to
be Boy eternall. (WT 1.2.66), Princes (English) (H5 5.2.11). Expressions like my wrongs might make one wiser mad.
(CE 5.1.218) and of them (vnhappie a) (CE 1.2.40) imply ‘a wiser person’ and ‘those who are unhappy’; the former
has a parallel in PdE someone wiser.
Two or more adjectives joined by and can be placed after the
< previous page
page_81
next page >
< previous page
page_82
next page >
Page 82
head, as in PdE: Then come kisse me sweet and twentie: (TN 2.3.50), where sweet and twentie is to be understood
as ‘me, who am sweet and twenty years old’; twentie is not an adverb as in the phrase noted in 3.3.3.6 (a).
Appositions usually contain two or more words, though Prospero in The wronged Duke of Millaine, Prospero: (Tem
5.1.109) stands in apposition to Duke of Millaine. Often words in apposition are titles or descriptive phrases: Iohn of
Gaunt, time-honoured Lancaster, (R2 1.1.1) includes in time-honoured Lancaster both the title Lancaster and a
descriptive phrase time-honoured. A regular pattern is Antipholus my husband, (CE 5.1.137), where my husband
adds a descriptive element which is like a title to the head. Less usual forms of apposition include madnesse the
youth, … good counsaile the cripple; (MV 1.2.19–20), where the words in apposition anthropomorphise the abstracts
madness and good counsel, and redemption, the monie in his deske. (CE 4.2.45–6). Extended appositions are not
uncommon through ellipsis, usually consisting of the omission of a relative pronoun: my complexion, The shadowed
liuerie of the burnisht sunne, To whom I am a neighbour, and neere bred. (MV 2.1.1–3). An appositive phrase may
refer to a former noun in the possessive; in such cases the apposition may not retain the genitive inflection in <(e)s>: It is Othello's pleasure, our Noble and Valiant Generall. (Oth 2.2.1–2), in durance, at Maluolio's suite, A
Gentleman, and follower of my Ladies. (TN 5.1.274–5), in our foresaid holy Fathers name Pope Innocent, (KJ
3.1.71–2), Yoricks Scull, the Kings Iester. (Ham 5.1.176); but cf. the Duke of Norfolkes Seignories, Your Noble, and
right well-remembred Fathers? (2H4 4.1.109–10). The earlier examples of Millaine and of Gaunt illustrate another
type of qualifier, a prepositional phrase consisting of preposition and noun. With this type it is difficult to decide
whether the prepositional phrase is a qualifier or an adverbial. In What is he at the gate Cosin? (TN 1.5.112–13), it
might be thought that, on the analogy of such examples as Make me a willow Cabine at your gate, (TN 1.5.257), at
the gate was an adverbial, but it is best understood as a prepositional phrase acting as qualifier to he. But this
prepositional phrase functioning as a qualifier may be separated from the word on which it depends: What's her
name in the cap. (LL 2.1.209, i.e. ‘What's the name of her in the cap’).
< previous page
page_82
next page >
< previous page
page_83
next page >
Page 83
3.3.6.2 As a development of the examples in 3.3.6.1, it is possible to have an adjective or participle as the postposed element, which can be modified by an intensifier: a winde too great (MV 1.1.24), Portia, nothing vndervallewd
To Cato's daughter, (MV 1.1.165–6), affection wondrous sencible (MV 2.8.48), a neats tongue dri'd, and a maid not
vendible. (MV 1.1.112), men enforced (MV 3.2.33), thou vn-vrg'd (CE 2.2.116), my Dagger muzzel'd, (WT 1.2.158),
her sight dazling, (VA 1064, ‘being dazzled’), Thy Penitent reform'd: (WT 1.2.241), without My present vengeance
taken: (WT 1.2.282–3), where those with a past participle have a sense of action, past or to come. Even a pronoun
as head can have a post-posed participle: Not that deuour'd, (RL 1256, ‘that which has been consumed’). An
intensifier can readily be added to increase the sense of activity: The children thus dispos'd, (CE 1.1.83), a
Gentleman, thereto Clerke-like experience'd, (WT 1.2.391–2) Shame hath a bastard fame, well managed, (CE
3.2.19), a Lady richly left, (MV 1.1.161), an houre but short, (VA 23). The participle can have a further qualifier
either before or after it: Grandsire, cut in Alablaster? (MV 1.1.84), A vessell of our countrey richly fraught: (MV
2.8.30). Present participles are used as readily as past participles though often separated from the head: thou flout
me thus vnto my face Being forbid? (CE 1.2.91–2), make vs not beleeue (Being compact of credit) (CE 3.2.21–2).
These last two examples illustrate that the qualifier can be removed from the immediate head upon which it
depends (thou in the first and vs in the second) and how it acts as a non-finite clause meaning respectively
‘although you have been forbidden to do so’ and ‘though we readily accept what is said’. The element(s) dependent
on the qualifier may occur some distance from it and may even precede it: Hauing euer seene. In the prenominate
crimes, The youth you breath of guilty, (Ham 2.1.43–4, where In the prenominate crimes, is dependent on guilty,).
3.3.6.3 The final examples in 3.3.6.2 illustrate how the qualifier, which had some of the functions of a non-finite
clause, could be separated from the head on which it depended. In some cases this detached qualifier could come
before the head to which it referred: It's giuen out, that sleeping in mine Orchard, A Serpent stung me: (Ham
1.5.35–6), where sleeping in mine Orchard refers forward to me, although it comes at the head of the clause and is
much closer to Serpent than to me. In some instances the following qualifier is separated from its head by a clause,
which is usually adverbial,
< previous page
page_83
next page >
< previous page
page_84
next page >
Page 84
though it can be a relative: hee will proue the weeping Phylosopher when he growes old, being so full of vnmannerly
sadnesse in his youth.) (MV 1.2.47–9), where being so full of vnmannerly sadnesse in his youth refers back to hee
and is separated from it by the main verb and the adverbial clause when he growes old. This illustrates how the
desire to achieve rhetorical force often led to unusual structure, for Shakespeare wished to put old and youth in
contrast by setting them at the end of contiguous clauses. Another example from The Merchant of Venice has two
separated qualifiers:
How like a yonger or a prodigall
The skarfed barke puts from her natiue bay,
Hudg'd and embraced by the strumpet winde.
How like a prodigall doth she returne
With ouer-wither'd ribs and ragged sailes,
Leane, rent, and begger'd by the strumpet winde?
(MV 2.6.14–19)
In the first clause Hudg'd and embraced by the strumpet winde, consisting of past participles as the major element,
refers back to barke; in the second the With ouer-wither'd ribs and ragged sailes, consisting of a prepositional
phrase, refers back to she, that is the barke. The final line, Leane, rent, and begger'd by the strumpet winde, could
refer to sailes which immediately precedes it, but it more probably refers to she, to which leane applies more
convincingly, and the parallelism with the qualifier in the previous sentence suggests this is the rhetorical
explanation.
3.3.6.4 A qualifier can consist of a finite clause: Much attribute he hath, and much the reason, Why we ascribe it to
him, (TC 2.3.115–16, where the why-clause is dependent on reason).
3.3.6.5 It may be appreciated that a qualifier can consist of individual words, words in apposition, prepositional
phrases, non-finite clauses built around a participle, relative clauses or finite clauses, which can occur either singly or
in combination and some can be found before the head to which they refer. At times it is difficult to decide which is
the head of the clause, and the diversity of qualifiers leads to uncertainty as to the grammatical structure, which
takes second place to rhetorical effect, as in this example from The Winter's Tale:
< previous page
page_84
next page >
< previous page
page_85
next page >
Page 85
Why he that weares her like her Medull, hanging
About his neck (Bohemia) who, if I
Had Seruants true about me, that bare eyes
To see alike mine Honor, as their Profits,
(Their owne particular Thrifts) they would doe that
Which should vndoe more doing:
(WT 1.2.309–14)
It is natural to take he as the head, but it could be that Bohemia is the head, meaning that he that weares her like
her Meduall, hanging About his neck would be a qualifier coming before the head leading up to Bohemia as the
climax. This qualifier has a relative clause introduced by that referring to he and a non-finite participial clause acting
as a qualifier to Medull. After Bohemia there is the relative pronoun who which can refer only to Bohemia, but the
rest of the clause has as its subject they, that is the good servants which should be there. Who can only mean ‘to
whom’, with the sense that the servants would do ‘to whom’ that which would make any further action superfluous,
that is kill him. In any case the occurrence of this who makes the rest of the sentence a long qualifier dependent on
Bohemia. After who there is first a conditional clause, containing an embedded relative clause separated from its
referent Seruants with a qualifier made up of a phrase in apposition, and second the subject, verb and object
referring back to the original who, ‘to whom’, with this object itself qualified by its own relative clause introduced by
Which. Despite the sentence being so elaborate, it contains no main verb, for this is an elliptical sentence to be
understood ‘[It is] Bohemia’ as an answer to the question Who do's infect her? ‘There are similar involved qualifiers
throughout the plays and they provide much of the rhetorical force of the language as well as much of its
complication.
An example from The Merchant of Venice introduces a different constituent element:
So are those crisped snakie golden locks
Which makes such wanton gambols with the winde
Vpon supposed fairenesse, often knowne
To be the dowrie of a second head,
The scull that bred them in the Sepulcher.
(3.2.92–6)
< previous page
page_85
next page >
< previous page
page_86
next page >
Page 86
In this passage locks is qualified by the relative clause, introduced by Which, and a participial clause, introduced by
often knowne, and these are followed by a nominal clause without a main verb whose link to the head locks is
somewhat tenuous. This final verbless clause has the subject scull qualified by a relative clause, and its sense must
be ‘The skull which produced the hair [now being] in a grave’.
< previous page
page_86
next page >
< previous page
page_87
next page >
Page 87
4
The Verb Group
After a brief explanation of the verb group and its parts (4.1), this chapter deals with the morphology of the verb
(4.2), and its functions and use (4.3). In both 4.2 and 4.3 the constituent parts of the verb are discussed in this
order: infinitive (4.2.1, 4.3.1), present indicative (4.2.2, 4.3.2), present subjunctive (4.2.2.6, 4.3.2.1), imperative
(4.2.3, 4.3.3), preterite (4.2.4, 4.3.4), past participle (4.2.5, 4.3.5), preterite subjunctive (4.2.6, 4.3.6), expanded
verb forms (4.2.7, 4.3.7 with perfect 4.3.7.1, pluperfect 4.3.7.2, progressive 4.3.7.3–4, and modals 4.3.7.5–11),
present participle (4.2.8, 4.3.8), gerund (4.2.8.1, 4.3.8.1), passive (4.2.9, 4.3.9) and extension of the verb group
(4.2.10, 4.3.10). The final section deals with verb types (4.4), which includes impersonal (4.4.1), reflexive (4.4.2),
transitive and intransitive (4.4.3) and other verbs (4.4.4). As it is difficult to keep a strict division between the
accounts of morphology and function, readers are encouraged to consult both sections in order to obtain a full
picture. The function and position of the verb group within the sentence as a whole are dealt with in Chapter 7.
4.1 The verb group and its parts
The verb group is simpler in its structure than the noun group, though the verb's constituents have greater variety.
This group consists of three elements: the auxiliary, the verb itself and the extension to the verb. The auxiliary
precedes the lexical verb and is divided into modal and non-modal. However, a few verbs, like come and go, share
some characteristics with auxiliaries and are referred to as pseudo-auxiliaries. Auxiliaries add tone or mood to the
main verb, but they do not carry lexical meaning as such. The auxiliary at this time rarely consisted of more than a
single word, such as shall, though some double or even triple auxiliaries, such
< previous page
page_87
next page >
< previous page
page_88
next page >
Page 88
as should be and should have been, are found. The verb itself, that is the lexical verb, carries the main meaning of
the whole group; it is made up of a single word, which may occasionally be hyphenated. The extension normally
consists of a single word, or sometimes it may be a phrase. This word or phrase may be linked to the lexical verb to
form a phrasal verb with a different meaning from the simple verb; the phrasal verb meet with has a different sense
from the simple verb meet. It may be difficult to decide whether a prepositional adverb like with is linked to a lexical
verb to form a phrasal verb or whether it functions as an independent adverb; this is particularly true when the
extension of the group is separated from the verb itself, as in PdE drink your drink up.
4.2 Morphology
4.2.1 The present infinitive or base form of the verb consists, as in PdE, of two forms, the bare and the extended
form with preceding to (the to-infinitive): come~to come. Modal auxiliaries like shall do not have an infinitive. The
original inflection of the infinitive <-an> had been reduced to <en> or <-e>, and then disappeared entirely. In ShE
the old inflection <-en> survives archaically in To killen bad, (Per sc.5.20).
4.2.1.1 An infinitive occurs with the formal characteristics of the perfect whose sense, although it refers to the past,
can also be expressed by the bare infinitive, and the perfect infinitive is indeed sometimes co-ordinated with the
present infinitive: No lesse to haue done so: (Mac 1.4.31), Leuied an Army, weening to redeeme, And haue install'd
me in the Diademe: (1H6 2.5.88–9). There are expanded forms of the infinitive: he struggles to be gone, (VA 227).
When modals are involved but separated from the rest of the verb, as in he will still be doing. (H5 3.7.96), the
separation of will from be doing creates the impression of a modal and a bare infinitive, for will here may have the
volitional meaning of the lexical verb rather than act as a modal, though it is better to take this example as an
expanded verb form.
4.2.2 The present indicative of lexical verbs and non-modal auxiliaries has three distinctive persons in the singular,
but only one in the plural:
< previous page
page_88
next page >
< previous page
page_89
next page >
Page 89
The first person singular has the base form of the verb without any ending: I come (Tem 1.2.190).
The regular form of the second person singular in lexical verbs and the non-modals have and do is <-est>, often
abbreviated as <'st> probably because this ending was not pronounced as a separate syllable: What Present hast
thou there? (LL 4.3.187), if thou thou'st him some thrice, (TN 3.2.42–3). However, this form could be reduced to <s> to avoid heavy consonantal groups. This occurred either after or before consonants or consonantal groups like
<t> or <st>, for they could lead to heavy groups like <st'st>, <t'st> or <st't>. In questions, in which thou comes after
the verb, reduction to <-s> was common, and this may have influenced the inflection when thou preceded the verb.
There is variation between Q and F between the <st> and <s> forms: Against whom comes thou? (R2 1.3.33 Q;
com'st thou? F), what mean'st thou to curse thus? (TC 5.1.22–3, Q meanes), what is it thou requests. (R3 2.1.99),
That thou dead Coarse againe in compleat steele, Reuisits thus the glimpses of the Moone, (Ham 1.4.33–4), As thou
affects. (AC 1.3.71), thou do'st … And makes me call, (Oth 5.2.68–9), thou mistakes me much (2H6 5.1.128), cf.
thou fleet'st, (Son 19.5, which rhymes with sweets:). In modern editions <-s> may be modernised to <-'st>, though
less often now than formerly.
The standard ending of the third singular changed during Shakespeare's lifetime. The <-eth> ending was the regular
ending of this person in southern texts, but its replacement by northern <-(e)s> was widely accepted in the decade
1590–1600 except in the non-modals hath and doth where <-th> survived in writing among some writers till well into
the eighteenth century. The change to <-(e)s> occurs soonest after verbs with a final stem consonant, especially a
non-sibilant. Rhythm had a part in the process, for the <-eth> ending could add an extra syllable in that situation.
The effect is not so much one of metre, though that may be important, as one of rhythm, for the variation between
short and long syllables could be disrupted after a monosyllabic verb ending in a consonant if <-eth> gave way to <(e)s>. A sentence like ‘He standeth there’ is more harmonious than ‘He stands there’ with its clash of two stressed
syllables, whether in proseor verse; but with a verb like do there would be no change in rhythm between doth and
does. A three-stage process is
< previous page
page_89
next page >
< previous page
page_90
next page >
Page 90
discernible: (a) <-eth> is the dominant form; (b) a transitional stage where both <-eth> and <-(e)s> are found,
though <-(e)s> is the main form in verbs with a non-sibilant final root consonant, and (c) <-(e)s> is the regular form
in all environments except for hath and doth. The early plays show a preference for <-eth>, but in the period
covered by Love's Labour's Lost to The Merchant of Venice there is a transition stage where both are found; in the
later plays <-(e)s> is the norm except in hath and doth. Even with these two forms, there is a marked increase in
has and does forms in ShE after the turn of the century. The change from the <-eth> to the <-(e)s> ending is also
marked by the increasing use of the do-periphrasis, since the introduction of do could compensate rhythmically for
the loss of a syllable at the end of the verb. That prose is not a significant feature is suggested because, although
The Merry Wives of Windsor is largely in prose and Othello largely in verse, neither contains a significant number of
<-eth> endings because of their date of composition. However, there are certain stock phrases like it pleaseth mee
(AY 3.2.17), in which the <-eth> ending occurs even in prose. It is also the case that there is variation between Q
and F in the occurrence of these endings: it fits the spirit (LL 1.2.40, in prose, Q fitteth), As farre as touches my
particular: (TC 2.2.9, in verse, Q toucheth). Modern editors often choose the form which seems most appropriate to
them, regardless of their base text. The <-eth> form remained the written form which did not reflect everyday
pronunciation.
The standard plural is endingless like the base form: Clowds, Dewes, and Dangers come; (JC 5.3.63). A few
examples of older <-en> survive as an archaism or a non-standard form: perishen (Per sc. 5.35, spoken by Gower as
prologue), and waxen (MN 2.1.56, spoken by Puck). The plural could also end in <-(e)s> or <(e)th>, and examples
are not infrequent: Which very manners vrges. (KL 5.3.209), My old bones akes: (Tem 3.3.2), Vntimely stormes,
makes men expect a Dearth: (R3 2.3.35), Looke how thy wounds doth bleede at many vents: (TC 5.3.85), All his
successors (gone before him) hath don't: (MW 1.1.12). These forms are often considered erroneous so that <-(e)s>
or <-(e)th> are emended unnecessarily to the zero form in modern editions. The use of these endings and of is and
was with plural sub
< previous page
page_90
next page >
< previous page
page_91
next page >
Page 91
jects is probably due to the feeling among speakers of the language that the third singular form was the norm and
so they were applied to other forms such as the plural. This tendency is still found in modern dialects, but was
driven out of the standard language by the grammarians. This applies even more so to forms in <-(e)s> in certain
other conditions. Two nouns in the singular linked by and often have the present plural in <-(e)s>: faith and troth, …
Bids thee (TC 4.7.52–4), Hanging and wiuing goes by destinie. (MV 2.9.82), Where death and danger dogges the
heeles of worth. (AW 3.4.15). It could be argued that the compositor or even the author was influenced by two
nouns in the singular to make the verb singular so that it should be emended in modern editions; but the examples
are numerous enough to suggest this is not the case. When the verb precedes a plural subject, the verb may take
the <-(e)s> ending: Then what intends these Forces (2H6 5.1.60), There comes none [i.e. swaggerers] heere. (2H4
2.4.92), depends and rests The liues of many, (Ham 3.3.14–15). Examples like this existed in English long before
Shakespeare's time and continued to do so after him. None in the second example may have been regarded as a
collective singular which would takes a singular verb, but this explanation does not apply to other examples, just as
the subject in his Braines still beating, puts him (Ham 3.1.177), could be taken to be singular since we only have
one brain each so that the verb should have <-es>. Such examples need not be emended.
4.2.2.1 The verb to be has two paradigms in the present indicative: (a) singular am (first), art (second) and is (third)
and plural are; and (b) singular be (first), be'st (second), be (third), and plural be. The be forms are less common in
the singular than the plural. The singular forms other than be'st may be subjunctive (4.2.2.6), since they occur after
verbs like think or in conditional clauses. The plural forms be and are interchange, though it is uncertain whether
there is an implication of register in the choice of one or the other:
Sl. … be there Beares ith’ Towne?
An. I thinke there are, Sir,
(MW 1.1.268–9)
< previous page
page_91
next page >
< previous page
page_92
next page >
Page 92
The form is may be used with plural subjects: the meere Lees Is left this Vault, (Mac 2.3.94–5), more lynes, then is
in the new Mappe, (TN 3.2.74–5).
4.2.2.2 The modal auxiliaries, when used as modals, have a single form throughout the present indicative, apart
from the second singular. These auxiliaries are can, may, must, shall and will; will may appear as woll. The second
singular of must is unchanged; can and may take the regular ending <-(e)st>, whereas shall and will have <-t>
though often with a change in the root vowel: canst, may(e)st, shalt and wilt/wolt/wo't/woo't: I doe not thinke thou
canst, (Tem 1.2.40), thou maist knocke a naile into his head. (Tem 3.2.62), Thou shalt be Lord of it, (Tem 3.2.58),
Woo't weepe? Woo't fight? (Ham 5.1.272). There is variation between Q and F in the spellings wilt/woo't as in 2H4
2.1.59, for where F has wilt, Q reads thou wot, wot thou? (2H4 2.1.59). The modals, especially will and shall, are
often elided with the subject, particularly pronominal ones: he's gone: & wee'l no further, (Cor 4.2.1), You'l leaue
your noyse (H8 5.3.1), ice try (KL 4.5.240, ‘I shall’ spoken by Edgar in dialect), thou'se heare our counsell. (RJ
1.3.10, ‘thou shalt’ spoken by Lady Capulet).
4.2.2.3 New modals were developing at this time: dare, need, ought and used (to), though examples are infrequent
in ShE. When they retain the endings <-est> in the second person singular or <-(e)s/th> in the third person singular
they may act as lexical verbs, but when they occur without these endings they may be adopting the role of auxiliary,
for it can be difficult sometimes to distinguish an auxiliary role from a subjunctive: (for I know thou dar'st) (Tem
3.2.55), the folly of my soule dares not present it selfe: (MW 2.2.233–4), the little hang-man dare not shoot at him,
(MA 3.2.9–10), Where false Plantagenet dare not be seene. (1H6 2.4.74), what need she be acquainted? (CE
3.2.15), thou ought'st not to let thy horse weare a Cloake, (2H6 4.7.46–7), for discipline ought to be vsed. (H5
3.6.54), Who dares not stirre by day, must walke by night, (KJ 1.1.172). The central modals could also occasionally
retain the <-(e)s/th> ending and, when that happens, they too may act as lexical verbs rather than as auxiliaries: As
will the rest, so willeth Winchester. (1H6 3.1.166).
4.2.2.4 The original preterite-present verb wot exists in the present indicative with forms singular: wot, wot'st, wots,
plural wot: I wot
< previous page
page_92
next page >
< previous page
page_93
next page >
Page 93
well where he is: (RJ 3.2.139), for wot'st thou whom thou moou'st, (AC 1.5.22), in grosse braine little wots, What
watch the King keepes, (H5 4.1.279–80), you wot well (Cor 4.1.28).
4.2.2.5 The present and the preterite tenses have expanded forms, but as these had not yet been grammaticalised
they are treated with expanded verb forms (4.2.7).
4.2.2.6 The present subjunctive has no endings throughout the paradigm, which means that the forms for the first
singular and all plurals were identical in indicative and subjunctive. The only distinction lay in the absence of second
singular <-(e)st> and third singular <-(e)s/th> in subjunctives. The verb to be has be in all persons of the present
subjunctive. Modal auxiliaries have no subjunctive forms.
4.2.3 The imperative, whether singular or plural, consists of the base form of the verb, which may be accompanied
by thou or thee, ye or you, though thee and you may act as reflexives or a means of turning intransitive into
transitive verbs. The base form of the verb is thus used for the infinitive, the first singular and all plural persons of
the present indicative, all forms of the present subjunctive, and the imperative. It may, consequently, be difficult to
decide whether a particular example is imperative, infinitive or subjunctive, particularly as the imperative can take a
subject like thou. Modern editors reach different conclusions, for the punctuation in F may not be helpful in
elucidating the grammar: Breake we our Watch vp, (Ham 1.1.149) can be either an imperative or more probably a
hortative subjunctive. Phrases with pray like I pray thee, Pray heauen, I pray God, (I) prithee can be politeness
formulas equivalent to please, or form a main clause introducing a subordinate clause. In Pray heauen she win him.
(MM 2.2.128), win follows she and is evidently subjunctive; but in I pray heauen make thee new. (R2 5.3.144),
make may be an infinitive if we compare it with I pray Your Highnesse to assigne our Triall day. (R2 1.1.150–1). In
We pray you throw to earth This vnpreuayling woe, (Ham 1.2.106–7), said by Claudius to Hamlet, we might assume
an imperative is intended so that the passage could be modernised ‘We pray you, throw to earth | This unprevailing
woe.’ Equally in Great Ioue, Othello guard, (Oth 2.1.78) it is possible to read the sentence as either ‘May great Jove
guard Othello’ (subjunctive) or ‘Great Jove, guard Othello’ (imperative); and in I will chop her into Messes:
< previous page
page_93
next page >
< previous page
page_94
next page >
Page 94
Cuckold me? (Oth 4.1.195) Cuckold me? can be taken as an infinitive ‘to cuckold me’ used as an exclamation or as
an imperative used as an oath like ‘damn me’. Whichever punctuation is chosen in passages like this will colour our
perception of the participants and how the scene is understood. Imperatives with pronominal forms normally have
the pronouns after the verb, but those with nouns normally have the nouns before the verb, and this may sometimes
clarify the syntax.
4.2.3.1 The imperative is also formed with the do-periphrasis which may be emphatic, especially with negatives: Do
not doubt that: (Oth 3.3.19), Do but encaue your selfe, (Oth 4.1.80). As do is also used for interrogatives, it is
sometimes difficult to decide whether an imperative or interrogative is intended. In Behold her well: I pray you looke
vpon her: Do you see Gentlemen? (Oth 5.1.110–11) the two imperatives are followed by Do you see Gentlemen?,
which could be either an emphatic command ‘Look at her, gentlemen’ or a question ‘Can you see what sort of
person she is, gentlemen?’ When Iago says to Cassio Do you heare Cassio? (Oth 4.1.113), he probably means
‘Listen, Cassio’ rather than ‘Can you hear, Cassio?’, since Iago now occupies the dominant position.
4.2.3.2 Let expresses the imperative, principally in the first person plural: let's assist them, (Tem 1.1.51), let vs take
our leaue: (TG 1.1.56). The lexical verb may be omitted: let vs hence, (MA 5.3.30), goe bid them let vs in. (CE
3.1.30). When let is used with other persons, there is less sense of command: Let me remember thee (Tem
1.2.244), Let but your honour know (MM 2.1.8).
4.2.3.3 An imperative with the formal appearance of a perfect, formed with the auxiliaries have or be exists, though
the sense is of immediate force and differs only in emphasis from the normal imperative: haue done your foolishnes,
(CE 1.2.72), Begon to morrow, (AW 1.3.254).
4.2.4 Any account of the forms of the preterite must start with the two different types of verbs, traditionally labelled
strong and weak, and the link this tense has with the past participle. The strong verbs originally changed their root
vowels to form the preterite and past participle; the weak verbs did so by adding an ending
< previous page
page_94
next page >
< previous page
page_95
next page >
Page 95
which by this time took one of the spellings <ed/-t/-te/-de>. The strong verbs have been in decline throughout the
history of English. Many verbs existed in both weak and strong forms, and poets exploited this facility for the
flexibility it provided. The preterite and the past participle forms were undergoing a rationalisation in this period with
the vowel of the preterite extended to the past participle or that of the past participle taken over into the preterite.
At first glance, the system seems chaotic because of this process, though the variation rarely causes much difficulty,
for such variation is still found. In PdE strong verbs like swim, preterite swam and past participle swum are often
confused in preterite and past participle so that one can hear ‘He swum five lengths today’.
4.2.4.1
The ending of preterite and past participle of weak verbs is <-ed/'d>, though other spellings are possible, and verbs
which were originally strong and some which are still strong in PdE exhibit this ending: Which might haue well
becom'd the best of men (AC 3.7.26), I would haue blowed vp the Towne, (H5 3.3.35, said by Irishman Macmorris),
when Degree is shak'd, (TC 1.3.101), Beated and chopt with tand antiquitie, (Son 62.10).
When the preterite or the past participle ends in <t>, the inflectional ending of weak verbs may be omitted: (I fast,
and pray'd for their Intelligence) (Cym 4.2.349), There they hoyst vs (Tem 1.2.148), Well hast thou acquit thee: (R3
5.8.3, though acquitted also occurs), Ile haue this knot knit vp (RJ 4.2.24), Stood Dido … and waft her Loue (MV
5.1.10–11). This also applies to strong verbs which adopt a weak ending: If you had but look'd bigge, and spit at
him, (WT 4.3.104–5), though spit may be an alternative form of the past participle.
Many verbs exhibit preterite and past participial forms different from those in PdE and some have more than one
form. Examples of infinitive~preterite: bestride~bestrid (AC 5.2.81), catch~catcht (Cor 1.3.65), dig~digg'd (R2
3.3.169), get~gat (Per sc 6.6, rhyming at), ring~rung (MM 4.2.73), see~see (2H4 3.2.28 Q, F has saw), sit~sate (TN
2.4.114), weaue~weaude (Per sc.15.21); of infinitive~past participle: arise~arose (CE 5.1.391), fall~fell (KL 4.5.54),
graue~grau'd (R2 3.2.136)/grauen (R3 4.4.141 Q, F has branded), reach~raught (AC 4.10.29), shriue/shriu'd (RJ
2.3.172),
< previous page
page_95
next page >
< previous page
page_96
next page >
Page 96
striue~stroue (H8 2.4.28); and of infinitive~preterite and past participle eat~eate (MN 2.2.155, LL 4.2.25),
help~holpe (R3 1.2.107, MA 1.1.48), hold~held (Tem 5.1.118, Son 2.4, rhyming field)/hild (RL 1257, rhyming
fulfild)/Holden (2H6 2.4.72), speke~Spake (CE 2.1.50)/spoke/spoken (MM 5.1.334 and 358, Tem. 2.1.20), swim~
swom (TG 1.1.26)/swam (AY 4.1.35). Many unexpected forms occur, such as gaue ‘given’ (VA 571) and stroken
‘struck’ (RL 217) as past participles. Verbs which were originally strong may still have their strong preterite forms,
even though they have become weak in PdE.
4.2.4.2 The preterite indicative is distinguished morphologically only in the second singular which has the ending <(e)st>, and this applies to both weak and strong verbs. Examples with strong verbs include: Thou told'st me, Thou
did'st hold him in thy hate. (Oth 1.1.6) and thou drunk'st (1H4 2.5.154), but with weak verbs there may be some
reduction of the overall form: The milke thou suck'st from her (TA 2.3.144, modern editions modernise as suck'dst
or sucked'st), when thou cam'st first Thou stroakst me, (Tem 1.2.334–5 ‘you stroked’).
4.2.4.3 The verb to be has the following forms in the preterite: singular first was, second wert and wast, third was
(occasionally were); plural were (occasionally was): When thou wert Regent (2H6 1.1.195), Whom thou was't sworne
to cherish (R3 1.4.203), they it were that rauished our Sister, (TA 5.3.98), His giuing-out, were of an infinite
distance (MM 1.4.53), To say, Extreamities was the trier of spirits, (Cor 4.1.4). In these examples Q and F can differ
by reading, for example, was't for wert or a singular for a plural subject. In some modern editions such forms may
be modernised.
4.2.4.4 The modal auxiliaries have formal preterites in most cases, though their meaning may not be related to their
original form. The preterites of can, may, shall and will are could, might, should and would. The second singular is
the only inflected form ending in <-(e)st>: Might'st thou perceiue (CE 4.2.2), thou should'st be honest. (Oth
3.3.386), Thou would'st be great, (Mac 1.5.17); there are no examples of could'st in ShE. The preterite of must was
must, though it had largely died out. Possible examples are: there was good sport at his making, and the horson
must be acknowledged. (KL 1.1.22–3, where must may mean ‘had to be’ rather than ‘has
< previous page
page_96
next page >
< previous page
page_97
next page >
Page 97
to be’ since the general reference is to the past), And I must be from thence? (Mac 4.3.213, said by Macduff in
England who had to be absent when his family was killed).
4.2.4.5 The form quoth occurs with a following pronominal subject as both a present and a preterite tense. Examples
of the present include: Lend mee thy Lanthorne (quoth-a) (1H4 2.1.39–40), and of the preterite in the following
reported speech: friend (quoth I) you meane to whip the dog: I marry doe I (quoth he) you doe him the more
wrong (quoth I) (TG 4.4.24–6).
4.2.5
The past participle of strong verbs originally ended in <-en> and some verbs retain this form in PdE. Rather more
exhibit this ending in ShE, though there is rather greater variation than in PdE, and some verbs with <-en> in PdE
have no ending in ShE: H'as broke my head (TN 5.1.173), I haue already chose (Oth 1.1.16); I am beaten. (CE
2.2.41) and they had beate you (Cor 1.7.39). Some verbs retain the ending when the participle is used adjectivally:
well-foughten field (H5 4.6.18), Greaze that's sweaten (Mac 4.1.81); note the difference between participle and
adjective in I would Haue suncke (Tem 1.2.10–11) and With sunken Wrack, (H5 1.2.165).
The archaic prefix <y->, from Old English <ge->, is found only in Pericles: Iranyshed (sc.10.35, ‘ravished’), yslacked
(sc.10.1).
A perfect participle, formed by the present participle followed by the past participle, arose during the sixteenth
century, though examples are not frequent in ShE. The compositor's punctuation in him you would sound, Hauing
euer seene. In the prenominate crimes, (Ham 2.1.42–3) may indicate unfamiliarity with the construction. Other
examples include My Storie being done, (Oth 1.3.157) She that being angred, (Oth 2.1.155), the Iew hauing done
me wrong, doth cause me (MV 2.2.126).
4.2.6 The preterite subjunctive with no endings is indistinguishable from the preterite indicative except in the second
singular. It is often impossible to tell whether an indicative or subjunctive is intended. Where a subjunctive is
expected, then it may be expressed through the modal auxiliaries should and would. It is of course possible to have
a perfect subjunctive when the non-
< previous page
page_97
next page >
< previous page
page_98
next page >
Page 98
modal auxiliaries are found in the second or third person singular since they have a different form from those in the
indicative: If any wretch haue put this in your head, (Oth 4.2.16, Q ha), with haue of the third person of the present
subjunctive, rather than indicative hath.
4.2.7 Expanded verb forms with one or more auxiliaries occur, though their range is not as extensive as in PdE:
The perfect indicative is the most common expanded tense. Whereas in PdE this is formed by the non-modal
auxiliary have, in earlier periods both be and have were used. In ShE be occurs with verbs indicating change of state
like become, change and grow, and with intransitive verbs, particularly mutative verbs, such as arrive, come, go,
meet, retire, ride, set forth, steal away and turn, though meet also takes the auxiliary have when it is transitive: His
Lordship is walk'd forth into the Orchard, (2H4 1.1.4), So many of his shadowes thou hast met, (1H4 5.4.29), these
errors are arose. (CE 5.1.391). Some examples of the perfect may be mistaken as the passive: The King by this, is
set him downe to sleepe. (3H6 4.3.2) is the perfect of a reflexive verb. The perfect subjunctive, which is used in
hypothetical contexts, is formed with part of the verb have: 'Tis now strook twelue, (Ham 1.1.5) and it is strooke.
(Ham 1.4.5, possibly ‘twelve has struck’); the Lady Valeria is come (Cor 1.3.26), but Had not you come (R3 3.4.26),
and cf. is Signior Mountanto return'd (MA 1.1.29) with Hadst thou descended from another house: (AY 1.2.217).
Similarly, examples with have indicate something which is contrary to fact or has not happened yet: I haue not yet
Entred my house. (MV 5.1.272–3), for they are all gyrdled with Maiden Walls, that Warre hath [neuer] entred. (H5
5.2.318–19); and have may occur with reflexive verbs: I haue retyr'd me to a wastefull cocke, (Tim 2.2.159).
The pluperfect is formed with the preterite of have or be and the past participle of the lexical verb: the day had
broke before we parted. (Oth 3.1.30–1), A Sybill that had numbred in the world (Oth 3.4.70), Whereof by parcels
she had something heard, (Oth 1.3.153), thou wert emured, (LL 3.1.121), they were stolne vnto this wood; (MN
2.1.191). The pluperfect has a pure time reference to the past and should not be confused with an
< previous page
page_98
next page >
< previous page
page_99
next page >
Page 99
expanded verb of similar form which refers to the future in the past in a hypothetical sense, which in PdE is
represented by would have: thou had'st strooke thy Mother, (2H4 5.4.10), I had peopel'd else This Isle (Tem
1.2.352–3). Forms with should/would have are also found, cf. (f) below.
Progressive forms consist of a part of the verb to be with the present participle. More complicated forms can be
formed with part of the verb to have with the past participle been and the present participle: Yonder he is comming,
(MW 3.1.26), I haue bin talking with a Suitor heere, (Oth 3.3.42). Single modals are followed by the bare infinitive
and follow the pattern found in PdE: it may loose (Oth 1.1.73), They wold not take her life: (Tem 1.2.268), he must
dye. (MM 2.1.31). Some forms of shall, will, should and would are elided: Ile die your maid: (Tem 3.1.84), thou'd'st
vnfold, (Oth 4.2.145), I'ld not haue sold (Oth 5.2.153). Single non-modals (other than have and be when used to
form the perfect or pluperfect) may be followed by the bare form of the infinitive or the present participle as in PdE:
Macbeth doth come. (Mac 1.3.29), he did come. (Mac 1.3.27), our Thane is comming: (Mac 1.5.33), you were
comming, (KL 4.2.5). These forms had not yet been grammaticalised and were used as alternatives to the simple
tenses. Other words function as non-modals. Let, which is followed by the bare infinitive, is used in the first person
imperative plural and was perhaps more colloquial than the older forms like go we: let our selues againe but
vnderstand, (Oth 1.3.22). Come and go are usually followed by the bare infinitive, though go may take other verb
parts. The status of these verbs as auxiliaries is uncertain though, as other non-modals were not yet
grammaticalised, it is reasonable to suppose that there was some experimentation with what verbs could act as
auxiliaries. Generally, they are used in imperative constructions, though go is more flexible: Go make Money: (Oth
1.3.363), bid Cassio come speake with you. (Oth 3.4.50). Another verb, stand, can act as auxiliary replacing a part
of the verb to be. It is followed by the past participle: And how stand you affected to his wish? (TG 1.3.60), Stand
not amaz'd, (MW 5.5.223), Thou shalt stand curst, and excommunicate, (KJ 3.1.99). Other verbs can also act in a
way similar to be to form expanded verbs when they are followed by the present participle: And birds sit
< previous page
page_99
next page >
< previous page
page_100
next page >
Page 100
brooding in the snow, (LL 5.2.907), to seeme thus washing her hands: (Mac 5.1.27–8).
When a modal is used with another auxiliary then it is followed by a non-modal in the bare infinitive form and by a
participle, as in PdE. These forms are most often used in a hypothetical sense: I should haue knowne it (Oth
1.2.84), I rather would haue bin his hangman. (Oth 1.1.33), He should haue liu'd, (MM 4.4.27), Might in the times to
come haue ta'ne reuenge (MM 4.4.29), I must be circumstanc'd. (Oth 3.4.198). The infinitive or the past participle
may be omitted, as in this example where F and Q2 Hamlet vary: She should in ground vnsanctified been lodg'd
(5.1.223 Q2), She should in ground vnsanctified haue lodg'd, (F).
4.2.8 The present participle adds the ending <-ing> to the base form of the verb, usually with loss of final <-e>
where that occurs, and this form is also used for the gerund: for bragging, and telling … for prating, (Oth 2.1.224–
5). The present participle witting of the verb wot is found occasionally As witting I no other comfort haue. (1H6
2.5.16). In some words the <ing> ending is confused with <-en> producing such pairs as: beholding/beholden,
liking/liken.
4.2.8.1 The gerund is often confused with the present participle, but it has a different origin. It was a noun in <-ing>
formed from the abstraction of a verbal action, and in Old English it is often found after the prepositions on or a,
forms which are still found in ShE: a dooing. (Cor 4.2.5). However, this noun then developed various verb
characteristics: it could take a subject other than one in the possessive; it governed an object or complement; it
could be modified by adverbials otherwise used only with verbs, including not; and it came to have tense and voice
distinctions.
4.2.9 The passive was developed during earlier periods of English and by this time most verbs had a passive and an
active voice. The passive had originally made the direct object of an active clause the subject of the passive, and so
in principle intransitive verbs, which had no object, could have no passive. But the indirect object was increasingly
used to form a passive subject, though the direct object of the active is still the pre
< previous page
page_100
next page >
< previous page
page_101
next page >
Page 101
ferred subject of the passive. It was also possible to use the (pro)noun after a preposition in an active clause as the
subject of the passive, which left the preposition stranded so that it seemed to form a phrasal verb with the lexical
verb. Unlike Latin where the passive has an inflectional form, in English it is formed by using a part of the verb to be
with the past participle of a lexical verb. However, with some intransitive verbs like verbs of motion, the perfect
tense was also formed by using a part of the auxiliary be with the past participle. Thus he is exiled is a present tense
passive, for to exile is a transitive verb, but he is come is the perfect tense active, because to come is an intransitive
verb. It is hardly surprising that this could lead to confusion. At Oth 1.3.27 That Rhodes is dress'd in. could be taken
as a passive or as an active intransitive perfect. The verb to remember can be both transitive and intransitive so that
And now I am remembred, (AY 3.5.132) could be taken as the perfect tense of the intransitive form meaning ‘And
now I have remembered’ or as a passive ‘I am reminded’. The confusion caused by this ambiguity ultimately led in
PdE to the replacement of the auxiliary be with have to form the perfect of all verbs so he is come has become he
has come, and the passive became more regulated and was the only form using the verb to be in this context. In
ShE it is sometimes difficult to determine what is in the passive and some examples listed here and in 4.3.9 are not
unambiguously passive.
A passive infinitive occurs in both the present and perfect: I tooke him to be kil'd with a thunder-strok; (Tem
2.2.106–7), they be not to be talkt on, (RJ 2.4.42), I am easier to bee plaid on, (Ham 3.2.357–8), To confesse, and
be hang'd (Oth 4.1.36–7); Thou had'st bin better haue bin borne a Dog (Oth 3.3.367). The passive infinitive to be
sold is used where we might use for sale in PdE: Assuredly the thing is to be sold: (AY 2.4.95).
The present indicative passive uses the present tense forms of the verb to be: Still am I cal'd? (Ham 1.4.61), the Fire
Is spied (Oth 1.1.76–7), She is abus'd, stolne from me, and corrupted By Spels, and Medicines, (Oth 1.3.60–1), I am
found by you: (Oth 1.2.47), He weepes for what is done. (Ham 4.1.26). The preterite of the verb to be can express
the passive of both the active preterite and perfect tenses: So was I bid report here (Oth 1.3.15), they were parted
With fowle and violent Tempest. (Oth 2.1.34–5). The subjunctive forms use the subjunctive of the verb to be:
< previous page
page_101
next page >
< previous page
page_102
next page >
Page 102
if Rosalind the Dukes daughter bee banished (AY 1.1.100–1), though the Mast be now blowne ouer-boord, (3H6
5.4.3). Other verbs, such as become and stand, can act as auxiliaries to form the passive: Anthonio shall become
bound, well. (MV 1.3.6, in response to Anthonio shall be bound.), They, that when Richard liu'd, would haue him
dye, Are now become enamour'd on his graue. (2H4 1.3.101–2), And how stand you affected to his wish? (TG 1.
3.60). Sometimes the auxiliary is omitted: in time the rod More mock'd, then fear'd: (MM 1.3.26–7, some modern
editors insert becomes).
The preterite indicative of the passive uses the preterite of the verb to be: were you not sent for? (Ham 2.2.276). An
unusual form occurs in: it was vpon this fashion bequeathed me by will, but poore a thousand Crownes, and as thou
saist, charged my brother on his blessing to breed mee well: (AY 1.1.1–4). In this case it anticipates the plural but
poore a thousand Crownes, but it would have been simpler if the subject of the passive had been I. However, the
normal expectation is that it was also applies to charged giving the meaning ‘it was charged to my brother’ or more
simply ‘the will obligated him’. Preterite subjunctive forms of to be form the passive subjunctive: If it were done,
(Mac 1.7.1), though he were ill affected, (KL 2.1.97). The imperative has a passive form: be you rul'd by me. (Oth
2.1.263), Be assur'd (Oth 1.2.11), be aduis'd, (Oth 1.2.56), Be then desir'd By her, (KL 1.4.225–6). Expanded verb
forms take an auxiliary followed by be and the past participle of the lexical verb. Examples from Othello include: you
shall be well desir'd in Cyprus, (2.1.205), You'le be asham'd for euer. (2.3.156), that may not be heard, (3.1.15),
must be be-leed, and calm'd (1.1.29), how should she be murdred? (5.2.135), this would not be beleeu'd (4.1.242),
all Masters Cannot be truely follow'd. (1.1.43–4). The passive of transitive verbs could be formed by a part of the
verb to have with the past participle been: Many a morning hath he there beene seene, (RJ 1.1.128). A survival of
an old passive form is found in the word hight with the sense ‘is/was called’: This grizy beast (which Lyon hight by
name) (MN 5.1.138).
4.2.10 The extension of the verb group consists usually of a single word, though it may sometimes be a phrase, and
together they
< previous page
page_102
next page >
< previous page
page_103
next page >
Page 103
form a phrasal verb. Such phrasal verbs may have the same meaning as the simple lexical verb, though often they
have a rather different sense, though this is not always acknowledged in modern editions. Thus, as noted in 1.2.2, in
Macbeth's opening scene there is a distinction between meet and meet with. The first implies an arrangement made
by all parties concerned to have a meeting, the second a decision by one party to arrange a meeting (either hostile
or friendly) with another party of which that party is ignorant. Meet with can easily, therefore, suggest a hostile
intention and can be applied to an ambush and similar types of encounter. It may be difficult to decide whether a
group of words constitutes a phrasal verb. Sometimes the extension may be separated, as in PdE, from the main
verb: how many fruitlesse prankes This Ruffian hath botch'd vp, (TN 4.1.54–5) can be compared with And botch the
words vp fit to their owne thoughts, (Ham 4.5.10). On the other hand, the phrases had rather and had as lief occur
so frequently in ShE as to suggest they were idiomatic and thus had become phrasal verbs. The same applies to the
verb be wont, since wont rarely occurs except with a part of the verb to be. In these cases where it is rare to find
the extension separated from the lexical verb, then one is on reasonable grounds in thinking that such groups form a
phrasal verb.
4.3 Function and use
4.3.1 The infinitive occurs in either a simple form without to (the bare infinitive) or an extended one with to (the toinfinitive). Both are found with the same construction: it is best put finger in the eye, (TS 1.1.78–9) and If you
respect them; best to take them vp. (TG 1.2.134). The occurrence of to or not is more a matter of euphony or
clarity than of meaning; but at times the meaning requires the presence of to. The bare infinitive is used after
auxiliaries, though dare and ought may be followed by the to-infinitive. The verbs come and go when used as
pseudo-auxiliaries are followed by the bare infinitive: go get a-boord, (WT 3.3.7), Come buy of me, come: come buy,
come buy, (WT 4.4.229). In these and similar cases the roles of the infinitive and the imperative overlap. The bare
infinitive is also regular after let. However, the to-infinitive is found when it is required to make clear that an
infinitive is intended, if the infinitive is separated from the word on which
< previous page
page_103
next page >
< previous page
page_104
next page >
Page 104
it depends, because it either forms the second infinitive in a list or occurs as the head of a non-finite clause acting as
the subject of the main clause. The causative make is followed by the bare or the to-infinitive: to make his Anchor
hold, (WT 1.2.213) and hee makes the maid to answere, (WT 4.4.199). However, the history of English shows that
the frequency of the to-infinitive has increased, and so one might expect more examples without to in ShE compared
with PdE. Naturally, where several infinitives occur together, it was often sufficient to let only the first take to: Who
heard me to denie it or forsweare it? (CE 5.1.25), As good to dye, and go; as dye, and stay. (KJ 4.3.8), though,
when a contrast is implied, to may be repeated: To be, or not to be, (Ham 3.1.58). However, distance from the
main verb may, even when the first infinitive is without to, lead to a second one having it to emphasise its meaning
and function: Then let them all encircle him about, And Fairy-like to pinch the vncleane Knight; (MW 4.4.56–7), and
would no more endure This wodden slauerie, then to suffer The flesh-flie blow my mouth: (Tem 3.1.61–3). In both
examples the to-infinitive occurs in situations where to is not usual, after let and a modal. This arrangement occurs
frequently after rather … than: Brutus had rather be a Villager, Then to repute himselfe a Sonne of Rome (JC
1.2.173–4). Unusual word order may encourage the use of the to-infinitive: For Nature, so prepostrously to erre,
(Being not deficient, blind, or lame of sense,) Sans witch-craft could not. (Oth 1.3.62–4).
4.3.1.1
The to-infinitive occurs frequently as the subject of a clause; the bare infinitive is rare here: To reuenge is no Valour,
but to beare. (Tim 3.6.39). In some constructions it is possible to have the bare infinitive, but in these cases it is
debatable whether the infinitive is the subject: Better be with the dead, … Then on the torture of the Minde to lye In
restlesse extasie. (Mac 3.2.21–4). The infinitive can be the subject of a subordinate clause: Thou find'st to be too
busie, is some danger. (Ham 3.4.32). Sometimes the infinitive can be used in parallel with a gerund: Promising, is
the verie Ayre o'th'Time; … To Promise, is most Courtly and fashionable; (Tim 5.1.23–7).
The infinitive acts as the complement of the verb to be: if to be fat, be to be hated, then Pharaohs leane Kine are to
be loued. (1H4 2.5.477–8), to be honest as this world goes, is to bee one
< previous page
page_104
next page >
< previous page
page_105
next page >
Page 105
man pick'd out of two thousand. (Ham 2.2.180–1). In comparative sentences the verb to be may be omitted through
ellipsis: A bloody deed, almost as bad good Mother, As kill a King, and marrie with his Brother. (Ham 3.4.27–8).
When the subject of the infinitive, which is understood, is the same as the subject of the main verb which it follows,
the to-infinitive occurs after a simple verb: I loue to heare her speake, (Son 130.9, where the subject of heare is I
understood), He hath not fayl'd to pester vs with Message, (Ham 1.2.22). When the infinitive follows a phrasal verb,
then it may be either the bare or the to-infinitive: I had rather to adopt a Child, then get it. (Oth 1.3.190, where the
subject of adopt and get is I understood), I had as liue be a condemn'd man. (Cor 4.5.180), if thou tak'st leaue,
thou wer't better be hang'd: (2H4 1.2.91–2). The to-infinitive may be used where in PdE we might prefer a present
participle: CEase to perswade, (TG.1.1.1, cf. PdE ‘stop persuading’). Certain verbs take the to-infinitive after them:
You haue often Begun to tell me (Tem 1.2.33–4). The passive infinitive generally occurs in the to form: If he be not
borne to bee hang'd, (Tem 1.1.31). When the subject of the infinitive is the object of the main verb, it forms what is
traditionally known as the accusative and infinitive construction. In ShE the infinitive is frequently without to: when I
saw others runne. (1H4 2.5.305), You shall perceiue them make a mutuall stand, (MV 5.1.77), I pray thee (good
Camillo) be no more importunate: (WT 4.2.1–2, where be may be imperative rather than the bare infinitive), though
examples of the to-infinitive are found: I saw her corrall lips to moue, (TS 1.1.172), and certain verbs like bid, feel,
hear, mark and see more often take the to-infinitive: Who heard me to denie it (CE 5.1.25). The to-infinitive is
frequent, but by no means regular, after verbs expressing a wish, command, thought, feeling or event: Now do's he
feele his Title Hang loose about him, (Mac 5.2.20–1), I thinke this Lady To be my childe Cordelia. (KL 4.6.62–3),
many other Euidences proclayme her, with all certaintie, to be the Kings Daughter. (WT 5.2.37–9), I will wish thee
neuer more to dance, (LL 5.2.400), to those that wish him liue: (AW 2.1.130). In the following example an
accusative and infinitive construction is followed by another infinitive: we beseech you, bend you to remaine Heere
(Ham 1.2.115–16). Here you, bend is an accusative and infinitive, with you to
< previous page
page_105
next page >
< previous page
page_106
next page >
Page 106
remaine dependent on bend, which seems to make bend almost a reflexive verb.
After a preposition and a pronoun, the infinitive in a non-finite clause can act as the subject of a sentence: for me to
put him to his Purgation, would perhaps plundge him into farre more Choller. (Ham 3.2.292–4), For vs to leuy power
Proportionable to th'enemy, is all impossible. (R2 2.2.124–6). This construction may be a development of the
accusative and infinitive construction. The to-infinitive is used to express purpose or intention. Sometimes the sense
of purpose is weak: [Lear] by no meanes will yeeld to see his daughter. (HL sc 17.41–2), but generally it is quite
clear: I come to bury Cæsar, (JC 3.2.75). The tendency for go to develop the nature of an auxiliary means that
infinitives without to occur with parts of that verb: I must goe send some better Messenger, (TG 1.1.144). The
sense of purpose in to may be strengthened by adding for or some other prepositional adverb like about before it:
Forbid the Sea for to obey the Moone, (WT 1.2.427), thou … goest about to apply a morall medicine, (MA 1.3.10–
12). The infinitive can express a variety of senses which in PdE are more often expressed through a preposition and
gerund: Causality: you your selfe, Are much condemn'd to haue an itching Palme, (JC 4.2.61–2, ‘for having’), Oh
woe is me, T'haue seene what I haue seene: see what I see. (Ham 3.1.163–4, ‘for having seen’); Time: O my
Father, I haue broke your hest to say so. (Tem 3.1.36–7, ‘when I said so’); Condition: You scarce can right me
throughly, then, to say You did mistake. (WT 2.1.101–2, ‘by saying you made a mistake’), I should sinne To thinke
but Noblie of my Grand-mother, (Tem 1.2.118–19, ‘by thinking anything but nobly’); Exclamation: Mine innocence,
and S. George to thriue. (R2 1.3.84, ‘May my innocence and England prosper’). The reasons for the use of the
infinitive in these structures is partly for compression, partly for emotional colouring and partly because the precise
interpretation of what is meant is sometimes ambiguous. Thus in a Iew would haue wept to haue seene our parting:
(TG 2.3.11–12) could imply ‘if he had seen’, ‘because he had seen’ or even ‘when he saw’.
< previous page
page_106
next page >
< previous page
page_107
next page >
Page 107
The to-infinitive can be used after some nouns and adjectives, especially after those qualified by too or enough: The
mercilesse Macdonwald (Worthie to be a Rebell, …) (Mac 1.2.9–10), I am too young to be your Father, (R2 3.3.202),
these are barren taskes, too hard to keepe, (LL 1.1.47), there is not enough Leeke to sweare by. (H5 5.1.48), More
greefe to hide, then hate to vtter loue. (Ham 2.1.119). It may occur after a past participle acting as an adjective:
TARQVIN armed to beguild (RL 1544, where beguild should perhaps be understood as be guild meaning ‘armed to
be equipped for deceit’). A similar usage occurs in Tis much to borrow, (VA 411, ‘it is a heavy obligation to accept
[love]’). This applies equally to the passive infinitive: a question not to bee askt. (1H4 2.5.412–13), If there be any
good thing to be done, (Ham 1.1.111). It can also appear after adverbs like not as: not to dissemble (VA 641).
4.3.1.2 An infinitive normally expresses the same time as the main verb. When the main verb is formed with shall or
will, the infinitive expresses future time: He that will thinke to liue, till he be old, (KL 3.7.67). In other contexts the
infinitive also has a future sense: all the Villaines past, in being To come. (Cym 5.6.212–13), Past, and to Come,
seemes best; things Present, worst. (2H4 1.3.108). The perfect infinitive refers to the past: then to haue seene
much, and to haue nothing, is to haue rich eyes and poore hands. (AY 4.1.22–3, with a contrast between past and
present), Noble Banquo, That hast no lesse deseru'd, nor must be knowne No lesse to haue done so: (Mac 1.4.29–
31). After main verbs expressing wish, intention or expectation, the perfect infinitive expresses something which did
not happen: Claudio, I did thinke to haue beaten thee, (MA 5.4.107–8), I had thought t'haue yerk'd him here (Oth
1.2.5), thought to haue spoke thereof: (MN 1.1.112).
4.3.1.3 The fall of inflections allows the subject to replace the object case, with which it was now identical except for
personal pronouns, and this led to phrases with an infinitive following the subject: Women to change their shapes,
(TG 5.4.108), as monstrous to our humane reason, As my Antigonus to breake his Graue, (WT 5.1.41–2), Thou this
to hazard, (AW 2.1.183), and I to liue and die her slaue. (AY 3.2.151), Then I to speake my griefes vnspeakeable:
(CE 1.1.32).
< previous page
page_107
next page >
< previous page
page_108
next page >
Page 108
4.3.1.4 The infinitive acts as a kind of extra-grammatical form when it appears to suggest surprise, rejection or
mistrust: My Husband say she was false? (Oth 5.2.159), What? I loue, I sue, I seeke a wife, (LL 3.1.184), He shift a
trencher? he scrape a Trencher? (RJ 1.5.2), And he To die for't? (MM 2.2.5–6). Infinitive status is clear where the
subject is third person singular, but even for the first person singular (as in LL 3.1.184) it is the most appropriate
explanation.
4.3.1.5
The active infinitive may be used with a passive sense, as in PdE house to let. Examples include: Torches are made
to light, iewels to weare, (VA 163, ‘to be lit … to be worn’), And little is to do. (Mac 5.9.5, ‘to be done’), What's to
do? (JC 2.1.325, ‘to be done’), ‘Tis yet to know, (Oth 1.2.19, ‘to be discovered’), were I to get againe, Madam I
would not wish a better father: (KJ 1.1.259–60, ‘if I were to be born again’), boyes are not to kis. (AW 4.3.233, ‘to
be kissed’), his prankes haue been too broad to beare with, (Ham 3.4.2, ‘his behaviour has been too extreme to be
tolerated’), Sauage, extreame, rude, cruell, not to trust, (Son 129.4, ‘untrustworthy’). The phrase to blame ‘to be
blamed’ is frequent in the plays: the King's too blame. (Ham 5.2.273).
The infinitive may suggest a habitual or natural state of affairs, which can have some passive feel: what is yours to
bestowe, is, not yours to reserue. (TN 1.5.181, ‘to be kept back by you’), that kisse Which is my heauen to haue.
(AC 5.2.297–8, ‘whose delight is reserved for me’). The same probably applies in those proud Lords to blame, Make
weak made women tenants to their shame. (RL 1259–60, ‘blameworthy lords’).
The infinitive by itself can act as a finite form, though sometimes with a passive sense: the King Knowes at what
time to promise, when to pay. (1H4 4.3.54–5, ‘it has to be promised … has to be paid’), Though no man be assur'd
what grace to finde, (2H4 5.2.30, ‘will be found’).
An interesting example of a play between the active and passive senses of an infinitive is found at Much Ado 4.1.4–
8:
Fran. You come hither, my Lord, to marry this Lady.
Clau. No.
Leo. To be married to her: Frier, you come to marrie her.
< previous page
page_108
next page >
< previous page
page_109
next page >
Page 109
4.3.1.6 The phrase consisting of a part of the verb to be with infinitive is the equivalent of PdE have to: what I am
to say (WT 3.2.21).
4.3.1.7 A perfect infinitive is used after a main verb in a past tense: If you had pleas'd to haue defended it (MV
5.1.204), I had other things to haue spoken with her (MW 4.5.37).
4.3.2
The present indicative expresses immediate time: how impatience lowreth in your face. (CE 2.1.85), and generic or
omnipresent time: the cease of Maiestie Dies not alone; (Ham 3.3.15–16).
It expresses the past in what is traditionally referred to as the historic present: He tooke me by the wrist, and held
me hard; Then goes he to the length of all his arme; And with his other hand thus o're his brow, He fals to such
perusall of my face, (Ham 2.1.88–91), Suffolke first dyed, and Yorke all hagled ouer Comes to him, where in gore he
lay insteeped, And takes him by the Beard, kisses the gashes (H5 4.6.11–13), I was the other day talking on the
Sea-banke with certaine Venetians, and thither comes the Bauble, and falls me thus about my neck. (Oth 4.1.131–
3). However, the present may be used especially where an adverbial provides what time is meant, where in PdE the
perfect might be employed: That's the worst Tidings that I heare of yet. (1H4 4.1.128), How does your Honor for
this many a day? (Ham 3.1.93), haile: I come To answer thy best pleasure; (Tem 1.2.190–1), as I heare he was
much bound for you. (MV 5.1.137).
The present expresses futurity especially with adverbs of time: I Learne in this Letter, that Don Peter of Arragon,
comes this night (MA 1.1.1–2), to morrow is a busie day. (R3 5.3.18). Even without an adverb, futurity can be
implied through the context: Let me not liue (quoth hee) After my flame lackes oyle, (AW 1.2.58–9), If you goe out
in your owne semblance, you die Sir Iohn, (MW 4.2.59–60), forbeare your food a little while: Whiles (like a Doe) I
go to finde my Fawne, (AY 2.7.127–8). When the main clause contains a verb with a modal indicating futurity, a
dependent subordinate clause may use the present tense to imply the future: Then I by Letters shall direct your
course When time is ripe, (1H4 1.3.287–8).
< previous page
page_109
next page >
< previous page
page_110
next page >
Page 110
The progressive and the do forms had not yet been grammaticalised and so the simple present may be used for
them or the do form for the progressive: Goe: I come, I come: (TG 2.2.19, ‘I am coming’), A Drumme, a Drumme:
Macbeth doth come. (Mac 1.3.28–9, ‘Macbeth is coming’), What do you read my Lord? (Ham 2.2.193–4, ‘are you
reading’).
4.3.2.1 The present subjunctive was losing ground to the indicative through loss of inflections and its sense was
often expressed through modals:
It expresses a wish (optative): Neuer come such diuision ‘tweene our soules: (JC 4.2.287), Though not by Warre, by
Surfet dye your King, (R3 1.3.194), Some powerfull Spirit instruct the Kytes and Rauens To be thy Nurses. (WT
2.3.186–7). The optative subjunctive may be expressed with may: may it please you, (TG 1.3.39).
It has a hortative function, usually expressing an exhortation: sit we downe, And let vs heare Barnardo speake of
this. (Ham 1.1.31–2), Who hateth him, and honors not his Father, Henry the fift, that made all France to quake,
Shake he his weapon at vs, and passe by. (2H6 4.7.169–71), The deuill take thy soule. (Ham 5.1.255). However, in
a sentence like yield day to night; (1H6 1.1.1), the verb yield may be either hortative ‘Let day give way to night’ or
imperative ‘Day, give way to night’. As clear from Ham 1.1.31–2, the hortative subjunctive may be expressed
through let.
The subjunctive occurs in subordinate clauses which express a wish, statement or command which may not be
fulfilled: Tell him … He beare himselfe with honourable action, (TS Ind 1.107–8), Say that she be: (TG 4.2.105).
This wish can sometimes be included within a relative clause, as in Therefore take with thee my most greeuous
Curse, Which in the day of Battell tyre thee more Then all the compleat Armour that thou wear'st. (R3 4.4.188–90).
In subordinate clauses it often has an indication of futurity in relation to the time reference of the main clause, and
thus implies something non-factual. It is particularly associated with commands, requests, intentions and desires.
After verbs like think and phrases like it were better, the subjunctive expresses a hypothetical statement: I thinke he
be transform'd into a beast, (AY 2.7.1), ‘Twere best he speake no harme of Brutus heere? (JC 3.2.69), It is not meet
the Councell
< previous page
page_110
next page >
< previous page
page_111
next page >
Page 111
heare a Riot: (MW 1.1.32). However, there is some evidence to suggest that the use of be in subordinate noun
clauses after verbs like think, hope and a few others may have been retained because it was frequent and
conventional rather than because of the hypothetical nature of the statement (Fanego 1990: 131). This might mean
that in the sentence from Othello: I thinke my Wife be honest, and thinke she is not: (Oth 3.3.389) the variation
between be and is, which has often been considered significant of Othello's attitude to Desdemona, represents
simply a more conventional and more modern use of these forms respectively.
The subjunctive is used in conditional clauses, even when the condition is expressed through inversion of subject
and verb rather than with a conjunction like if: Here, if thou stay, thou canst not see thy loue: (TG 3.1.243), Liue
Roderigo, He calles me to a restitution large (Oth 5.1.14–15, ‘If Roderigo should live’); Liue thou, I liue (MV 3.2.61,
‘If you should live’). When condition is expressed through inversion, the form of the subjunctive is identical with that
of the imperative and interrogative: Approach thou like the rugged Russian Beare, (Mac 3.4.99, ‘If you approach
like …’). The verb please shows the confusion that was developing between subjunctive and indicative, for in many
cases the indicative and subjunctive are used indiscriminately; for example compare Pleaseth you walke with me (CE
4.1.12), with please it you that I call. (TS 4.4.1).
4.3.3
The imperative expresses a command and its range is much the same as in PdE. Examples of the first person
singular are less common, though forms with let take the object pronoun: let me be resolu'd. (JC 4.2.14). Examples
with the subject pronoun are rare and difficult to interpret: Broke be my sword, my Armes torne and defac'd, And I
proclaim'd a Coward through the world. (2H6 4.1.43–4). Some examples appear to be imperative, but fulfil other
functions: No, it will hang vpon my richest Robes, And shew it selfe, attyre me how I can. (2H6 2.4.109–10, i.e. no
matter how I present myself) where the sense is conditional (see (c) below). In the first person plural there are two
forms, one with the lexical verb (usually with we,
< previous page
page_111
next page >
< previous page
page_112
next page >
Page 112
though there is one example with us) and the other with let with the object pronoun us plus the verb in the
infinitive. It is possible that the latter is more informal; it occurs frequently in Merry Wives: Then go we neare her
(MA 3.1.32), Then sit we downe and let vs all consult. (TA 4.2.131), And pawse vs, till these Rebels, now a-foot,
Come vnderneath the yoake of Gouernment. (2H4 4.3.9–10, probably reflexive), Let's bee reueng'd on him: let's
appoint him a meeting: (MW 2.1.89–90).
The second person can be either thou/thee (singular) or ye/you (singular or plural). Forms with you are more
frequent than those with ye, which may be interpreted as a weakened form of you. However, there is a difference
between forms with thee and those with thou. Thou is the subject of the imperative, whereas thee may fulfil
different functions: Beare thou my hand (TA 3.1.281, subject thou), but Beare thee well in it, (MA 3.1.13, reflexive
thee). Some verbs like be, do and go have thou in the singular and you in the plural regularly. After verbs of motion
thee acts as a non-subject pronoun: haste thee quick away, (MM 4.1.7). Verbs of attention, like hark, mark, also
take a non-subject pronoun, which is virtually obligatory: But hearke thee Charmian. (AC 5.2.188). The other verbs
take a reflexive object pronoun which may be either direct or indirect: Get thee a good husband, (AW 1.1.209–10),
seek thee out some other chace (2H6 5.3.15). Seventeen verbs take either thou or thee, but do not necessarily
restrict themselves to the corresponding plural form. They can be allocated to three different categories, though get
appears in two. Nine are verbs of motion: come, fare, get, go, haste, hie, return, run and speed: speed thee straight
(Cor 4.5.88), get thee to Plashie (R2 2.2.90), where the pronoun acts as a reflexive direct object. In this category
get is always accompanied by an adverbial. Of these fare and go always use you when the referent is plural. Five of
the 17 have a reflexive indirect object: get, make, seek, seize and take: Get thee a good husband, (AW 1.1.209–10),
take thee that too. (Mac 2.1.5). The remaining four are verbs which attract the listener's attention: hark, hear, look
and mark, and all take you when the referent is plural: looke thee, heere's water to quench it. (Cor 5.2.72–3), I, and
marke thee too, Iack. (1H4 2.5.214). Otherwise, there are verbs which always take thee. Either they are imperatives
with transitivity or they indicate a direct or indirect object: Hold thee there's my purse, (AW 4.5.44), Oh calme thee
gentle Lord: (TA 4.1.82).
< previous page
page_112
next page >
< previous page
page_113
next page >
Page 113
Third person imperatives are frequently expressed with let. Constructions without let mostly occur with noun
subjects, though some of these examples may be optative subjunctives: Let not Light see my black and deepes
desires: (Mac 1.4.51), And ditches graue you all. (Tim 4.3.166), Be it knowne vnto thee by these presence, (2H6
4.7.27–8), Deepe, hollow, treacherous, and full of guile, Be he vnto me: (R3 2.1.38–9). Indefinite pronouns are also
used with third person imperatives, though generally they precede the imperative: one of you question yon'd man,
(AY 2.4.60), Some attend him. (H8 1.4.61), Go some and follow him, (2H6 4.7.220).
As the personal pronoun is placed after the simple imperative, there may be confusion between an imperative and
an interrogative: come you to me at night (MW 2.2.256–7). Some examples (e.g. TA 4.2.131 above) could be
interpreted as a present subjunctive: Come, go we to the King, (Ham 2.1.118). The imperative can also be
expressed with the do-periphrasis, which may be more emphatic: I, doe, perseuer, (MN 3.2.238), Do not presume
too much vpon my Loue, (JC 4.2.118).
The auxiliaries shall and will can have an imperative force: God shall mend my soule, (RJ 1.5.78), Youle begone sir
knaue, and doe as I command you? (AW 1.3.88–9). Other parts of speech occur in imperative structures: Soft you
now, (Ham 3.1.90), Soft now, to my Mother: (Ham 3.2.381), Vp Sword, (Ham 3.3.88); cf. But farewell it: (Ham
2.2.100). The imperative occasionally expresses a condition, though it may be difficult to tell whether an imperative
is intended. Liue a thousand yeeres, I shall not finde my selfe so apt to dye. (JC 3.1.160–1), may be a subjunctive,
but has an imperative form implying ‘If I live …’; similarly pray giue me that, Ile carry it to the pile. (Tem 3.1.24–5)
may be taken as an imperative expressing a condition, ‘if you give me that, I will take it to the pile’. Some modern
editors (e.g. Wells and Taylor 1988: 28) modernise See this dispatch'd with all the hast thou canst, Anon Ile giue
thee more instructions. (TS Ind.1.127–8) with a full-stop after canst, but the first line may be an imperative
expressing a condition, ‘If you attend to this at once, I will then give you further instructions’. In a case like (proue it
so) Let fortune goe to hell for it, (MV 3.2.20–1), proue cannot be a third person present indicative, for that would be
proues/proueth, and is best interpreted as an imperative. The absence of a subjunctive or modal auxiliary in the
main clause suggests
< previous page
page_113
next page >
< previous page
page_114
next page >
Page 114
that proue is not a subjunctive form either. Cf. Come more, for more you're ready: (Cym 4.3.30). This usage may
explain Q2's reading in Hamlet 1.3.108–9: Or (not to crack the winde of the poore phrase Wrong it thus) you'l
tender me a foole. Here Wrong is usually emended out of the text in modern editions, but it could be taken with
what follows rather than with what precedes despite the brackets in Q2. The latter line would mean: ‘Damage it
thus, you'll tender me a fool’ (i.e. If you corrupt your conduct in this way, you will present me with a bastard).
4.3.4 The preterite indicative expresses a completed action in the past, in contrast to the perfect which reaches from
the past to present time: Sir, you haue shew'd to day your valiant straine And Fortune led you well: (KL 5.3.38–9);
actions in the past which have no specific reference to the present, particularly with an adverbial: By all the vowes
that euer men haue broke, (In number more then euer women spoke) (MN 1.1.175–6), I saw not better sport these
seuen yeeres day: (2H6 2.1.2); but cf. I saw the man to day, if man he bee. (AW 5.3.206); a general truth: Men
were deceiuers euer, (MA 2.3.62); an action prior to a previous event in the past, which in PdE would be expressed
by the pluperfect: after they cloas'd [i.e. had closed] in earnest, they parted very fairely in iest. (TG 2.5.11–12). The
preterite and the perfect can interchange in the same passage: He hath brought many Captiues home to Rome,
Whose Ransomes, did the generall Coffers fill: (JC 3.2.89–90).
4.3.5 The past participle is primarily used with expanded verb forms (4.3.7) and the passive (4.3.9). Here its
functions as an independent item are treated:
The participle forms a non-finite clause resembling the Latin ablative absolute; the participle generally comes after
the noun or pronoun to which it refers. Such a structure indicates time past and could be expressed by a when
clause with a verb in a past tense: Six frozen Winters spent, (R2 1.3.204, ‘when you have spent six cold winters’),
My Lord, so please you, these things further thought on, To thinke me as well a sister, as a wife, (TN 5.1.313–14,
‘when these things have been considered further’). The construction can also express a condition: The which
obseru'd, a man may prophecie (2H4 3.1.77, ‘if that is
< previous page
page_114
next page >
< previous page
page_115
next page >
Page 115
evaluated’), Your Honor not o're-throwne by your desires, I am friend to them, and you: (WT 5.1.229–30, ‘if your
honour is not destroyed by your passions’), Now, this ouer-done, or come tardie off, (Ham 3.2.24–5, ‘if this is
exaggerated or improperly executed’). It is difficult at times to decide which sense is operative since what could
have happened may also be seen as a condition: Sweet recreation barr'd, what doth ensue (CE 5.1.79, where the
sense could be ‘When sweet recreation is barred'or ‘If sweet recreation is barred’). An adjective can be used for the
same function, showing the close link between past participle and adjective: With this she fell distract, And (her
Attendants absent) swallow'd fire. (JC 4.2.207–8). Sometimes the noun or pronoun to which the participle or
adjective refers is inferred from the context: and humor'd thus, Comes at the last, (R2 3.2.164–5, ‘and [a king]
having been humoured in this way, [Death] comes in the end’), Thy word is currant with him, for my death, But
dead, thy kingdome cannot buy my breath. (R2 1.3.224–5, ‘I being dead’).
An absolute participle, alone or with dependent words, is used as a qualifier after a noun or the end of a
prepositional phrase without forming a non-finite clause: this dreaded sight, twice seene of vs, (Ham 1.1.23, ‘which
has been seen by us twice’), after all this fearefull Homage done, (2H6 3.2.224, ‘after the completion of’), without
My present vengeance taken: (WT 1.2.282–3, ‘without exacting immediate revenge’), The painefull warrier famosed
for worth, (Son 25.9). The past participle come may be used absolutely before a noun to refer to the future: come
Lammas Eue (RJ 1.3.19, ‘at Lammas Eve’). Past participles with an active meaning occur as attributive adjectives: Me
thinkes y'are better spoken. (KL 4.5.10, ‘you speak better’), And I am all forgotten. (AC 1.3.92, ‘I am absolutely
forgetful’), All the whole Army stood agaz'd on him. (1H6 1.1.126, ‘in amazement’), And gladly quak'd, heare more:
(Cor 1.10.6, ‘willingly made to quake’). Past participles function as adjectives: the wearie and all-watched Night: (H5
4.0.38), one well studied (MV 2.2.188, ‘one who has studied well’), of all he dies possess'd of. (MV 5.1.293, ‘in his
possession’), take this transformed scalpe, From off the head of this Athenian swaine; (MN 4.1.63–4, ‘transforming’).
They may imply ‘provided with’: Your lop'd, and window'd raggednesse (KL 3.4.31, ‘provided with loops and
windows’ i.e. all in
< previous page
page_115
next page >
< previous page
page_116
next page >
Page 116
tatters), any creeping venom'd thing (R3 1.2.20, ‘provided with venom, venomous’), the Token'd Pestilence, (AC
3.10.9, ‘the plague which bestows tokens/spots on people’). The participle may itself be modified by adverbials: so
faire an offer'd Chaine. (CE 3.2.187).
The past participle can, when used adjectivally, produce subordinate forms such as negatives in <un->: yet but vnfelt
thankes, (R2 2.3.61, ‘thanks not yet received by you’).
4.3.6 The preterite subjunctive expresses something hypothetical, usually unrealisable. Forms with auxiliaries are
dealt with at 4.3.7.5ff.
The preterite subjunctive in the main clause expresses an unrealised wish usually within an exclamation: O that I
were a man (MA 4.1.304), I had rather haue my Wounds to heale againe, (Cor 2.2.69). The wish may be realised
although the speaker did not anticipate it: She were an excellent wife for Benedick. (MA 2.1.329). The preterite in
the main clause expresses something hypothetical when joined to a conditional if clause; in PdE this would be
expressed by would have: if my Father had not scanted me, … Your selfe (renowned Prince) than stood as faire As
any commer (MV 2.1.17–21, ‘would have stood’).
In subordinate clauses after verbs expressing a wish, the preterite subjunctive indicates an unrealised wish: I wish I
had a cause to seeke him there, (Cor 3.1.20), I would to heauen I had your potencie, (MM 2.2.69), I wold thou and
I knew, where a Commodity of good names were to be bought: (1H4 1.2.82–3). After verbs suggesting thought, it
indicates a supposition: I Thought the King had more affected the Duke of Albany, then Cornwall. (KL 1.1.1–2), the
Searchers of the Towne Suspecting that we both were in a house (RJ 5.2.8–9).
In conditional clauses, introduced by if, as if or as or indicated through inversion of subject and verb, the preterite
implies something hypothetical: it resounds As if it felt with Scotland, (Mac 4.3.6–7), our Caruers excellence, …
makes her As she liu'd now. (WT 5.3.30–2).
After clauses like ‘tis time, the subjunctive in the subordinate clause originally suggested something hypothetical with
future reference: ‘tis hie time that I were hence: (CE 3.2.163), Is it fit I went to looke vpon him? (Cym 2.1.42,
‘should go’).
< previous page
page_116
next page >
< previous page
page_117
next page >
Page 117
The subjunctive was used in some set phrases like I had as lief and were better (often reduced to better): I had as
lieue Hellens golden tongue had commended Troylus for a copper nose. (TC 1.2.100–2), Better it were a brother
dide at once, (MM 2.4.107).
4.3.7 There are many expanded verb forms, consisting of auxiliaries and a non-finite part of a lexical verb. Modal
auxiliaries, which can also act as lexical verbs, have both functions treated here.
4.3.7.1 The perfect tense, like the pluperfect, is formed with a part of the verb to have for transitive verbs and of
the verb to be with intransitive verbs, including verbs of motion, plus the past participle. The perfect uses the
present tense of the non-modals: I haue retyr'd me (Tim 2.2.159), he is retyred to Antium. (Cor 3.1.11), Don Pedro
is approach'd. (MA 1.1.90). Generally forms with have indicate:
a period of time beginning in the past and extending to the time of speaking, often associated with adverbs of
duration: I haue seru'd your Worshippe truely sir, these eight yeares: (2H4 5.1.39–40), how long haue you profest
apprehension? (MA 3.4.62–3), I haue knowne thee these twentie nine yeeres, (2H4 2.4.386–7), I haue drunke
poison whiles he vtter'd it. (MA 5.1.238);
an action completed in the past, but with no indication of when, often associated with adverbs of indeterminate
time: I haue watch'd and trauail'd hard, (KL 2.2.146), The times has bene, That when the Braines were out, the
man would dye, (Mac 3.4.77–8), The time hath beene, Would you haue beene so briefe with him, he would Haue
beene so briefe with you, to shorten you, (R2 3.3.11–13, cf. PdE ‘there was a time’);
the past activity has relevance to the present: I see this hath a little dash'd your Spirits: (Oth 3.3.218).
Forms with be tend to indicate a state following action or the result of an activity: He is walk'd vp to the top of the
hill, (1H4 2.2.9), And this Man, Is now become a God, (JC 1.2.117–18). The form have got implies having acquired
something in the past and still retaining it in the present: And show thee all the Treasure we haue got; (TG 4.1.73),
Fie, th'art a churle, ye'haue got a humour there Does not become a man, (Tim 1.2.25–6). The perfect may also
indicate repetition: I haue knowne those which haue walkt in their sleep, who haue dyed holily in their beds. (Mac
5.1.56–8), vvith thy braules
< previous page
page_117
next page >
< previous page
page_118
next page >
Page 118
thou hast disturb'd our sport. (MN 2.1.87), He hath brought many Captiues home to Rome, (JC 3.2.89), Iustice with
fauour haue I alwayes done, (2H6 4.7.66). The perfect may imply a passive sense: You, and I haue knowne sir. (AC
2.6.85, ‘you and I have been acquainted’). Occasionally, the preterite and the perfect interchange within a
speech. In you shall heare (Master Broome) what I haue sufferd, … I suffered the pangs of three seuerall deaths:
(MW 3.5.88–100), the haue sufferd suggests the suffering may still be active, where the suffered refers to three
separate and complete moments in the past. The present may be found with the perfect to indicate the unbroken
nature of the action: my Lord is often thus, And hath beene from his youth. (Mac 3.4.52–3). The perfect may be
used to express the future perfect to indicate a future action which precedes another: I do intreat you, not a man
depart, Saue I alone, till Antony haue spoke. (JC 3.2.61–2).
4.3.7.2 The pluperfect tense refers to a point in time before another past event and is expressed by the preterite of
to have or to be with the past participle. As with the perfect, forms with have indicate action and those with be state
following action: Hearing you were retyr'd, (Tim 5.1.57). However, forms with had in the main clause in expressions
like I had thought (WT 1.2.28) I had well hop'd (MA 5.4.111) often refer to something in the subordinate clause
which was not completed, and had in a subordinate clause may express an unfulfilled wish or action fulfilling the role
of the subjunctive: I thought King Henry had resembled thee, (2H6 1.3.56). The same applies to forms with two
non-modals, the first of which is had: Thou hadst bin gone (quoth she) sweet boy ere this, (VA 613, ‘you would
have left long ago’).
4.3.7.3
The progressive (or continuous) forms are normally formed with non-modals and the present participle. These forms,
which were not yet grammaticalised, do not necessarily carry the PdE implication of incompleteness and an
imperfective aspect. They are used in much the same way as the corresponding simple present and preterite tenses,
with which they can interchange, but they may retain a somewhat informal tone. Although common in Old English,
such forms were infrequent in Middle English. They increased in frequency in Early
< previous page
page_118
next page >
< previous page
page_119
next page >
Page 119
Modern English possibly through taking over some of the functions of the verb to be and the gerund and thus may
sometimes have a passive feel. The gerund often had a preposition, but forms with or without this preposition were
not yet fully merged (4.3.8.1). In principle the progressive indicates that not only the time but also the action or
state is incomplete, but this stage has not been reached in ShE: an old blacke Ram Is tupping your white Ewe. (Oth
1.1.88–9), she was comming with a full intent (3H6 2.1.117). The progressive interchanges with the non-progressive
forms: What do you read my Lord? (Ham 2.2.193–4), compared with What are you reading? (TC 3.3.89); for other
examples see 4.3.2 (d). Progressives also indicate simultaneous actions: As we were sharing, some sixe or seuen
fresh men set vpon vs. (1H4 2.5.181–2). The present can suggest futurity: He did receiue his Letters, and is
comming, (JC 3.1.282), To morrow, may it please you, Don Alphonso, With other Gentlemen of good esteeme Are
iournying, to salute the Emperor, (TG 1.3.39–41), Hee's comming hither, now i'th'night, (KL 2.1.24), And you shall
speake In the same Pulpit whereto I am going, After my speech is ended. (JC 3.1.251–3). Occasionally, the
progressive may emphasise the concrete process of the action associated with the attitude of speaker or addressee:
When you are hearing a matter betweene party and party, if you chaunce to bee pinch'd with the Collicke, you make
faces like Mummers, (Cor 2.1.71–3). The perfect indicates duration: I haue bin talking with a Suitor heere, (Oth
3.3.42). The present may also add some emotional colouring to the sense, often a touch of irritability: Thou art
alwayes figuring diseases in me; (MM 1.2.51–2), and the perfect may have a sense of immediacy: I haue bin
drinking hard all night, (MM 4.3.50–1), but such colouring is often difficult to confirm. Verbs of thinking also occur as
progressives, though usually only with a single modal: I am thinking Brother (KL 1.2.138). The form be going to
which originally had a sense of movement developed a sense of intentionality: the Duke himselfe will be to morrow
at Court, and they are going to meet him. (MW 4.3.2–3), I am going to visit the prisoner, (MM 3.1.515). As going to
developed the sense ‘about to’, intentionality became more marked, if not predominant: I am now going to resolue
him: (MM 3.1.191).
There are verb forms which are closely related to the progressive, but do not fall within its precise contours. Some
< previous page
page_119
next page >
< previous page
page_120
next page >
Page 120
participles are preceded by a, which suggests that the participle was a gerund: I kill'd the Slaue that was a hanging
thee. (KL 5.3.249). Other participles are followed by a preposition which again suggests that the participle may be a
gerund: as she was writing of it, (AY 4.3.11), Hee's hearing of a Cause; (MM 2.2.1); but cf. 4.3.10 for variation in
verbs with or without a preposition. Some participles are found with verbs other than to be, many of them with a
between the verb and the participle: that comes a wooing, (TS 3.1.34), a Dogge that seemes asleeping, (Tim
1.2.66), my nose fell a bleeding (MV 2.5.24). All are similar to the progressive, but are difficult to put unequivocally
into that category.
The progressive can have a passive sense: with <a>: while ‘tis a making: (Mac 3.4.33), Then when it was a
dooing. (Cor 4.2.5); without <a>: the whil'st this Play is Playing, (Ham 3.2.86), there is more owing her then is paid,
(AW 1.3.100–1 ‘which is owed’), he should stand in feare of fire, being burnt i'th hand for stealing of Sheepe. (2H6
4.2.63–5, ‘having been burned’); and even without part of the verb ‘to be’: Women are Angels wooing, (TC 1.2.282,
‘when being wooed’). The non-finite parts of the verb can show progressive forms, though infrequently: infinitive: I
would faine be doing. (TS 2.1.74), I wonder that you will still be talking, (MA 1.1.110, ‘intend to carry on talking’);
participle: To whom being going, (Cym 3.6.60, ‘about to depart’), being altogether wanting, … being altogether had,
(R2 3.4.14–16).
4.3.7.4
As the do-periphrasis had not been grammaticalised, it interchanges with the simple or even the continuous forms: I
doe despise a lyer, as I doe despise one that is false, or as I despise one that is not true: (MW 1.1.62–4). Its
development may have been encouraged by the growth of the modals which led to the decrease in the number of
simple verb forms. Longer verb forms became the norm. The use of do overcame the clustering of consonants, so
that thou dost approach replaced
< previous page
page_120
next page >
< previous page
page_121
next page >
Page 121
thou approach'st. The move to subject-verb-object word order, probably more marked in the spoken language, may
have promoted the use of do, since it allowed, for example, the lexical verb to follow the subject in interrogatives. In
PdE the do forms are found in negative and interrogative sentences, but in ShE such clauses can be with or without
do: I do not vnderstand. (Oth 1.2.52), it not appeares to me, (2H4 4.1.105), Do you vnderstand me? (Tem 2.1.273),
How say you by this change? (Oth 1.3.17). For imperatives with do, see 4.2.3.1. In addition to interrogative and
negative sentences, the do form is also used for affirmative and imperative sentences. As in PdE, do can be used for
emphasis and so it is often found with verbs like beseech, promise and think, but it may also be used for metrical
reasons. When Iago says Yet do I hold it very stuffe o'th'conscience (Oth 1.2.2) to Othello, he is no doubt
emphasising his ethical behaviour. The use of do was most prominent in questions, especially yes-no questions
when a second singular form in <-st> came after a <-d/-t>. With inversion this would lead to a heavy consonant
clash like received'st thou, which by having the do-periphrasis could be simplified to didst thou receive. This
influenced the spread of the do-periphrasis to other interrogatives, but its occurrence in other types of sentence was
less frequent. A kind of post-positioning of do is found occasionally, as in Giue me the Lye: doe: and try whether I
am not now a Gentleman borne. (WT 5.2.131–3). As in PdE, do can of course act as a transitive verb: and did the
third a blessing (KL 1.4.101–2), Doe my good morrow to them, (H5 4.1.26).
Other verbs, such as come, gan, go, let and stand, can act in much the same way as do, though to what extent they
are auxiliaries is difficult to say. However, in so far as do itself was not yet grammaticalised, it is not unreasonable to
suppose that other verbs could function in the same way as it did. Once do became grammaticalised, this use of
other verbs as auxiliaries became less frequent, except for let which had a different function as a more colloquial
form of the first person plural of the imperative. Generally in the imperative let was followed by a personal pronoun
(4.2.3.2), but it could also be followed immediately by the bare infinitive in which case it seems more like a pseudoauxiliary: let go, and let me go, (VA 379). The verb gin is usually followed by the to-infinitive, like a bold fac'd suter
ginnes to woo him. (VA 6), with the sense
< previous page
page_121
next page >
< previous page
page_122
next page >
Page 122
‘begin’, but its preterite gan may be followed by the bare infinitive and seems more like an auxiliary: Oh pitie gan
she crie, (VA 95), with swelling drops gan wet (RL 1228), but cf. and Phœbus gins arise, (Cym 2.3.20). As a pseudoauxiliary stand is usually followed by the past participle: my heart stands armed in mine eare, (VA 779), he stands
disgraced: (RL 718). These other auxiliaries, like do, add immediacy or emotional intensity to the lexical verb.
4.3.7.5 The modals were historically full verbs which gradually became restricted to use as auxiliaries. At this time
traces of some of their functions as lexical verbs are found, but as modals some sense of aspect is always there. A
feature of these verbs is that their present and preterite forms developed along separate tracks so that in some
cases the link between the two seems tenuous.
Will, preterite would, was originally a full verb and in that role it could govern an object, a to-infinitive, the
accusative and infinitive construction, and a clause introduced by that. Its primary meaning as a lexical verb was
volition or wish, and that remained most strikingly in negative statements: Ile no Pullet-Sperme in my
brewage. (MW 3.5.29–30), Soft, soft, wee'l no defence, (Cym 3.4.79); this is expressed by will have in PdE. It can
also be used affirmatively: Thinke what you will: (R2 2.1.210). Other uses include a that clause: Whether will you
that I goe To answere this your charge? (Oth 1.2.85–6), and an adverb or preposition denoting purpose or direction:
Ile about it this euening, (AW 3.6.74), I will not out of doores. (Cor 1.3.73).
When it is the only auxiliary in a verb group, will takes the bare infinitive and may indicate volition with futurity:
Perchance I will be there as soone as you. (CE 4.1.39), What will hap more to night, safe scape the King, (HL
sc.13.107), or habitual action: Many will swoon when they do look on bloud. (AY 4.3.159). However, the different
persons have somewhat separate uses in the wider sense of volition which this verb has, since volition leads easily
into a reduced sense of futurity. In the sense of futurity will varies with shall. Both were used interchangeably in this
function, as in The Time shall come (thus did hee follow it) The Time will come, (2H4 3.1.70–1), though shall was
becoming more common in the first person. Possibly in this
< previous page
page_122
next page >
< previous page
page_123
next page >
Page 123
usage will was more colloquial in its origin. The first person singular or plural expresses volition which is likely to be
fulfilled: I will not trouble thee my Child: farewell: Wee'l no more meete, (KL 2.2.392–3), What you will haue, Ile
giue, (R2 3.3.204). Questions with will in the first person may seem illogical, but are characteristic of colloquial
language: Will I liue? (TS 1.2.195), Will I? I faith that wee will: (MW 1.4.153). Will in statements can refer to the
immediate present, with a strong sense of volition and intentionality: I will tell you, he beate me greeuously, (MW
5.1.19–20), ile tell thee Aliena, I cannot be out of the sight of Orlando: (AY 4.1.205–6). In the second person the
use of will is rare in that you cannot express the will of another, so examples have the sense of a request or
command: You'l leaue your noyse anon ye Rascals: (H8 5.3.1). Questions with will in the second person are natural
and may have a sense of request: Wilt thou be gone? (TG 1.1.11).
In subordinate clauses will may indicate acceptance of the authority of the person addressed in the main clause: If
you will say so, you shall haue a kis; (VA 536), on my knees I begge, That you'l vouchsafe me Rayment, Bed, and
Food. (KL 2.2.328–9), I most fehemently desire you, you will also looke that way. (MW 3.1.8–9). It also expresses
probability: where (I thinke) they will talke of mad Shallow yet. (2H4 3.2.13–14). With conditional clauses it may
express volition in the main clause: Ile breake thy little finger Harry, if thou wilt not tel me true. (1H4 2.4.85–6), or a
type of promise if that will not suffice, I will be bound to pay it ten times ore, (MV 4.1.207–8). The group will be
with present participle is used of present or habitual time: A good old man sir, hee will be talking (MA 3.5.32),
possibly a non-standard usage.
4.3.7.6
Would, the original preterite of will, had lost much of its past meaning as it came to express something hypothetical.
However, with a following infinitive it expresses volition with a real past meaning principally in the negative, though
occasional examples of the positive, usually for emphasis, do occur: for one thing she did They wold not take her
life: (Tem 1.2.267–8), She that would be your wife, now ran from you. (CE 4.4.149). The positive expresses habitual
action in why she would hang on
< previous page
page_123
next page >
< previous page
page_124
next page >
Page 124
him, As if encrease of Appetite had growne (Ham 1.2.143–4).
When otherwise in the main clause would expresses volition, it is often understated and with a present meaning: I
would detaine you here some month or two (MV 3.2.9), Thou would'st be great, (Mac 1.5.17), Pistoll is below, and
would speake with you. (2H4 2.4.66–7), what wold'st thou haue with me? (1H4 2.4.92). In some cases would in the
main clause suggests non-volitional, though hypothetical, action, when the condition expressed in the subordinate
clause is met: Could great men thunder As Ioue himselfe do's, Ioue would neuer be quiet, (MM 2.2.113–14).
Hamlet's that would be scann'd, (Ham 3.3.75) probably means ‘That needs to be considered’. Other examples of
non-volitional would in the main clause, usually in the form would have plus past participle, suggest it was confused
in meaning with should, especially with verbs indicating thought or something similar. In some passages the two
modals are used indiscriminately: I would haue thought her spirit had beene inuincible … I would haue sworne it
had, … I should thinke this a gull, (MA 2.3.112–17), What would'st thou think of me, if I shold weep? I would thinke
thee a most Princely hypocrite. (2H4 2.2.45–7). In a subordinate clause after verbs of saying, it implies unfulfilled
intention: thou toldst me, thou woldst hunt the boare, (VA 614). In a conditional clause, introduced by a conjunction
like if or through inversion of subject and verb, it expresses hypothetical volition: If thou would'st, There should'st
thou finde one heynous Article, (R2 4.1.222–3), dost thou thinke Claudio, If I would yeeld him my virginitie Thou
might'st be freed? (MM 3.1.95–7), There is some soule of goodnesse in things euill, Would men obseruingly distill it
out. (H5 4.1.4–5). The same applies to the expression would have been which corresponds to PdE had been: The
time hath beene, Would you haue beene so briefe with him, (R2 3.3.11–12). As the object of a verb such as wish,
the clause with would represents what is wished for: I could wish he would modestly examine himselfe, (MA
2.3.198), and wish That warmer dayes would come: (Cym 2.4.5–6). When would occurs in the main clause, whether
with a subject or not, the roles are reversed with would as a verb meaning ‘wish’ and the dependent clause
containing what is wished for, though usually implying something which is unrealistic and unobtainable: I would to
God
< previous page
page_124
next page >
< previous page
page_125
next page >
Page 125
my heart were Flint, like Edwards, (R3 1.3.140), and would to heauen, Thy name in Armes, were now as great as
mine. (1H4 5.4.68–9), would halfe my wealth Would buy this for a lye. (Cor 4.6.167–8, ‘I would willingly give half
my wealth to prove this a lie’), Where would you had remain'd vntill this time, (CE 4.4.67, ‘If only you had stayed
here till now’).
Would can be used in the phrase would rather instead of had rather, though the latter is commoner than the former,
which is more often used when would and rather are reversed or separated by other words: I rather would entreat
thy company, (TG 1.1.5), I rather would haue lost my Life betimes, (2H6 3.1.297), he would misse it, rather then
carry it, (Cor 2.1.234–5), I'de rather then the worth of thrice the summe, (Tim 3.3.22, I'de possibly = ‘I had’).
4.3.7.7 Shall, preterite should, originally indicated obligation or necessity. It does not operate as a lexical verb. It
overlaps in meaning with will, in part because English was trying to express volition, obligation and futurity through
only two auxiliary verbs; some confusion of functions was inevitable.
In the main clause it is used with an adverb of direction: you shall not away to night. (2H4 5.1.1–2), or to express
necessity or obligation, with or without human will, often equivalent to PdE ‘will have to, must’: Death is certaine to
all, all shall dye. (2H4 3.2.35–6), Sea water shalt thou drinke: (Tem 1.2.465), and he shall go. (R2 1.3.237), Thou
shalt haue a share in our purpose, (1H4 2.1.91–2), hee that escapes me without some broken limbe, shall acquit him
well: (AY 1.1.120–1, ‘will have to’), The Money shall be pay'd backe againe with aduantage. (1H4 2.5.550), you
shall seeke all day ere you finde them, (MV 1.1.116–17, ‘you must search all day’). When its sense of obligation
becomes weak, shall implies little more than futurity and fulfils the same function as will, with which it can
interchange: we will foole him blacke and blew, shall we not sir Andrew? (TN 2.5.9–10), She shall be, … A Patterne
to all Princes (H8 5.4.20–2), whose Fortunes shall rise higher Cæsars or mine? (AC 2.3.15), You shall doe maruels
wisely: (Ham 2.1.3). Shall may indicate repeated action, especially under pressure of circumstances: Men shall deale
vnaduisedly sometimes, Which after-houres giues leysure to repent. (R3 Add.Pass.K5–6, F). Shall in the first person
is par
< previous page
page_125
next page >
< previous page
page_126
next page >
Page 126
ticularly used to express futurity since will implied volition: For this, I shall haue time enough to mourne. (2H4
1.1.136), (As I perchance heereafter shall thinke meet To put an Anticke disposition on:) (Ham 1.5.172–3). Evans in
Merry Wives uses shall for should/would in Shall I tell you a lye? (1.1.62), though this may suggest a Welsh
eccentricity.
Shall in a main clause can often imply a condition as though it fulfilled the function of a subordinate clause: You shall
obserue him, And his owne courses will deonte [denote] him so, (Oth 4.1.280–1, ‘If you watch him’). Shall occurs in
subordinate clauses. In a subordinate clause shall may indicate the subject in the main clause is of higher authority:
Her Mother, (euen strong against that match And firme for Doctor Caius) hath appointed That he shall likewise
shuffle her away, (MW 4.6.26–8). It may appear in conditional clauses, though infrequently, as the present
subjunctive is more common: If you shall proue This Ring was euer hers, you shall as easie Proue (AW 5.3.125–7).
In relative clauses it may express futurity: Who shall be of as little memory When he is earth'd, (Tem 2.1.238–9),
What is he that shall buy his flocke and pasture? (AY 2.4.87). In temporal clauses it also indicates futurity: shee'l
run mad When she shall lacke it. (Oth 3.3.322–3), When a mans seruant shall play the Curre with him (looke you) it
goes hard: (TG 4.4.1–2). The auxiliaries shall haue indicate future in a past relationship to another action: When
thou shalt haue ouerlook'd this, giue these Fellowes (Ham 4.6.12–13).
4.3.7.8
Should in the main clause expresses obligation or duty in hypothetical situations: A Friend should beare his Friends
infirmities; (JC 4.2.140), and in a passive form: We should be woo'd, and were not made to wooe. (MN 2.1.242),
what replication should be made by the Sonne of a King. (Ham 4.2.11–12). In subordinate clauses it expresses a
weaker sense of obligation than shall. In PdE it might be represented by a simple present, and the should form in
ShE may be an attempt to represent the older present subjunctive which was no longer distinctive in most persons:
Your Brother Kings and Monarchs of the Earth Doe all expect, that you should rowse your selfe, (H5 1.2.122–3), my
Neece is desirous you should enter, (TN 3.1.73–4). Should in
< previous page
page_126
next page >
< previous page
page_127
next page >
Page 127
either main or subordinate clauses often represents little more than a timeless modal auxiliary to emphasise the
speaker's attitude is negative, either through reluctance to do something or unhappiness at the turn of events, and
thus in ShE it is often found after verbs expressing anger, displeasure, grief or sorrow, on the one hand, or
amazement and surprise, on the other: It should seeme fellow, that thou hast not seen the Lady Cressida. (TC
3.1.37–8). It is often introduced by interjections like alas, alack: oh time, most accurst: ‘Mongst all foes that a friend
should be the worst? (TG 5.4.71–2), Would it apply well to the vehemency of your affection that I should win what
you would enioy? (MW 2.2.229–30), this I wonder at. Thus he vnknowne to me should be in debt: (CE 4.2.47–8),
alack, alack, for woe, That any harme should staine so faire a shew. (R2 3.3.69–70). Otherwise should is a
somewhat colourless modal which in subordinate clauses does little more than indicate subordination: Is it the
fashion, that discarded Fathers, Should haue thus little mercy on their flesh: (KL 3.4.68–9).
In the main clause, should in some examples has little more than an emotional or intensive force in an act of
recognition based on external circumstances (epistemic possibility): I should know that voyce: It should be, (Tem
2.2.87), So should a mutrherer [i.e. murtherer] looke, so dead, so grim. (MN 3.2.57), As I remember, this should be
the house, (RJ 5.1.55), By Heauen, that should be my Handkerchiefe. (Oth 4.1.155), where the diuell should he
learne our language? (Tem 2.2.66–7), whom (it should seeme) Hath sometime lou'd: (WT 4.4.359–60). Likewise
should in a subordinate object clause introduced by that has the same emotional character: it is not meet, that I
should be sad now my Father is sicke: (2H4 2.2.33–4), ‘Tis strange that they should so depart from home, And not
send backe my Messengers. (KL 2.2.185–6). This type is found in questions, particularly rhetorical questions: What's
Hecuba to him, or he to Hecuba, That he should weepe for her? (Ham 2.2.561–2). This construction is found even
when the that clause stands on its own with no main clause on which it depends: That it should come to this: (Ham
1.2.137), O, that right should thus o'recome might. (2H4 5.4.23–4). In some instances in the main clause there is no
sense of obligation and, like shall, it has the sense of futurity: thou should'st please me better, would'st thou weepe.
(R2 3.4.21), If all were minded so, the times should cease, And threescoore yeare would
< previous page
page_127
next page >
< previous page
page_128
next page >
Page 128
make the world away: (Son 11.7–8, where should and would are parallel). In these cases the use of should is
dictated by the conditional clause with which it is linked.
In conditional clauses, introduced by if or through inversion, should replaces the earlier subjunctive forms to indicate
the hypothetical nature of what is said: thinke you Hellen, If you should tender your supposed aide, He would
receiue it? (AW 1.3.233–5), should she thus be stolne away from you, It would be much vexation to your age. (TG
3.1.15–16), Should a Villaine say so, (The most replenish'd Villaine in the World) He were as much more Villaine:
(WT 2.1.80–2). The auxiliaries should haue plus past participle refer to an event which has not taken place: Had he
been ta'ne, we should haue heard the newes; (3H6 2.1.4), And if an Angell should haue come to me, And told me
Hubert should put out mine eyes, I would not haue beleeu'd him: (KJ 4.1.68–70). In one instance it refers to an
event which did not take place, but corresponds to PdE ‘was to have’: his Sonne, that should haue marryed a
Shepheards Daughter. (WT 4.4.766–7).
4.3.7.9
Can, preterite could, meant ‘know how to’ as a lexical verb. It developed the meaning ‘be able to’ as it adopted the
role of modal auxiliary. May, preterite might, originally meant ‘have permission to, be allowed to’, but it adopted
some of the senses of can. In part this arose because might was used in the sense of ‘could, was able to’. The two
became confused and were used interchangeably, a development well under way by the Elizabethan period, though
there was some attempt to restrict can to physical ability and may to mental or moral possibility. Both verbs indicate
neutral possibility. With may this possibility may be more uncertain. Cases where their meanings overlap include:
Here can I sit alone, vn-seene of any, (TG 5.4.4), Looke how he can, she cannot chuse but loue, (VA 79), I neuer
may beleeue These anticke fables, (MN 5.1.2–3), May this be possible? May this be true? (KJ 5.4.21), May it be
possible, that forraigne hyer Could out of thee extract one sparke of euill That might annoy my finger? (H5 2.2.97–
9). Some variation between Q and F occurs: My good Lo: [Lords] both, with all the heede I may. (R3 3.1.184 Q; F
has can). Adverbs like chance, haply and
< previous page
page_128
next page >
< previous page
page_129
next page >
Page 129
perhaps when linked with may are redundant: your minde [perhaps Q] may change. (Oth 3.3.455, the redundancy is
eliminated in F).
The lexical verb can is found in And they can [F ran] well on horsebacke, (Ham 4.7.70 Q2, ‘they know how to ride
well’), the strongst suggestion, Our worser Genius can, (Tem 4.1.26–7, ‘the most seductive temptation our basest
nature knows’), What can mans wisedome In the restoring his bereaued Sense; (KL 4.3.8–9, ‘Human knowledge
does not know how to restore his mind’). The original meaning of can ‘be able to’ as auxiliary occurs in: But can
you, if you would? (MM 2.2.52), I can call Spirits from the vastie Deepe. (1H4 3.1.51); and of may, ‘have
permission, accept possibility’, in: He shall know you better Sir, if I may liue to report you. (MM 3.1.421–2, ‘if I am
permitted to live long enough’), Vpon the which, that euery one may reade, Shall be engrau'd (1H6 2.2.14–15), a
score of good Ewes may be worth tenne pounds. (2H4 3.2.49–50, ‘twenty good ewes are possibly worth ten
pounds’). The past sense of could is clear in: When perforce he could not But pay me tearmes of Honour: (AC 3.4.6–
7), had that in't, which good natures Could not abide to be with; (Tem 1.2.361–2). May expresses the present
subjunctive, cf. 4.3.2.1. The negative of may indicating ability refers to the modal itself: That by no meanes I may
discouer them, By any marke of fauour. (JC 2.1.75–6). The negative of may is equivalent to ‘must’: Who ere he be,
you may not be let in. (1H6 1.4.7), You may not passe, you must returne: (Cor 5.2.7), Which Princes would they
may not disanull, (CE 1.1.143). Might and could express a hypothetical ability or permission, especially in connection
with conditional clauses: and longer might haue staid, If crooked fortune had not thwarted me. (TG 4.1.22–3), And
Maiestie might neuer yet endure The moody Frontier of a seruant brow, (1H4 1.3.17–18), I might not this beleeue
Without the sensible and true auouch Of mine owne eyes. (Ham 1.1.54–6), But might you doe't (MM 2.2.54, ‘Could
you perform it’), we could and if we would, (Ham 1.5.177), to fright me if they could; (MN 3.1.115), The hand could
plucke her backe, that shou'd her on. (AC 1.2.120, ‘could have restrained her’). Might is used optatively in what is
wished: Would I might But euer see that man. (Tem 1.2.169–70), Lord worshipt might he be, (MV 2.2.88), and
indicates past action, which with a negative expresses what has not been: Which till to night I nere might say
before. (Oth 2.3.228–9).
< previous page
page_129
next page >
< previous page
page_130
next page >
Page 130
4.3.7.10 Must, which has no other form, has a sense of obligation or necessity: That may be, must be Loue, on
Thursday next. (RJ 4.1.20), to morrow thou must goe; (TG 1.3.75). A rather weaker sense of necessity verging
towards futurity is suggested in: a charmed Life, which must not yeeld To one of woman borne. (Mac 5.10.12–13,
‘will not/may not’; cf. 4.1.96–7 For none of woman borne Shall harme Macbeth.). It approaches certain futurity in:
Hee must fight singly to morrow with Hector, (TC 3.3.240, ‘he will/is to fight’), Descend, for you must be my torchbearer. (MV 2.6.40, ‘are to be’), the bouncing Amazon … To Theseus must be Wedded; (MN 2.1.70–2, ‘is to be
married’). It indicates what appears to the speaker certain to happen: What must our mouths be cold? (Tem 1.1.50,
‘Are we going to die?’). Like other modals it can appear without a lexical verb, especially where motion is implied: I
must to Couentree, (R2 1.2.56).
4.3.7.11 The verbs dare, need, ought and used (the last one usually with to) are often considered to be marginal
auxiliaries because they were developing along similar syntactic lines. Dare with forms in the present indicative with
and without inflections was used with both bare and to-infinitive: If she dares trust me with her little babe, (WT
2.2.40), a valiant Flea, that dare eate his breakefast on the Lippe of a Lyon. (H5 3.7.141–2), In their so sacred
pathes, he dares to tread (MW 4.4.59). The preterite of dare is durst in all persons, though it may also have a
present sense: I loue you; And durst commend a secret to your eare (H8 5.1.16–17). Need, used in the present
tense only, occurs with both bare and to-infinitive, though the third person usually has final <-s>: I neede not to
aske you, (AW 4.3.278–9), You neede but pleade your honourable priuiledge. (AW 4.5.90), as a Gentleman need to
be; (1H4 3.3.13–14), What needs this itterance, Woman? (Oth 5.2.157). Originally the preterite of the verb ‘to owe’,
ought is used once with an object and no infinitive: You ought him a thousand pound. (1H4 3.3.134), but otherwise
it takes the bare or to-infinitive with the sense of ‘should’ or even ‘must’: you ought not walke Vpon a labouring day,
(JC 1.1.3–4), wee ought to looke to it. (MN 3.1.30). The form oughtest survives: thou ought'st not to let thy horse
weare a Cloake, (2H6 4.7.46–7). The verb use to, which in PdE is confined to used to ‘to be accustomed to’, is found
in the present and perfect tenses as well as the preterite: they alwayes vse to laugh at nothing. (Tem 2.1.179–80),
thou vsest to forsweare thy selfe. (3H6 5.5.74), Th'vnstained Sword
< previous page
page_130
next page >
< previous page
page_131
next page >
Page 131
that you haue vs'd to beare: (2H4 5.2.113), His eyes are humbler then they vs'd to be. (H5 4.7.65).
4.3.8
The present participle is principally used in forming progressive forms of verbs, see 4.3.7.3, or as an adjective. There
was evident confusion between the ending <-ing> and the <-en> of the older past participle so that Shakespeare
sometimes uses one form when the other might be more appropriate: his all-obeying breath, (AC 3.13.77, ‘his word
obeyed by all’), Your discontenting Father, (WT 4.4.532). This confusion may account for the occurrence of
beholding instead of the expected beholden (the form usually found in modernised editions): I am beholding to you.
(JC 3.2.66), He findes himselfe beholding to vs all. (JC 3.2.68).
As the examples in (a) show, it was used as an adjective before a noun. But it also appears as a qualifier after the
noun or even separated from it. In that case it retains more of its nature as verb. It can refer to the subject of a
clause, whether pronominal or nominal, or it can form a non-finite clause equivalent to the Latin ablative absolute:
Why should he then protect our Soueraigne? He being of age to gouerne of himselfe. (2H6 1.1.163–4), Where the
impression of mine eye enfixing, Contempt his scornfull Perspectiue did lend me, (AW 5.3.48–9). It was a short step
from this usage to introduce a participle with an unexpressed subject either inferred or found in a previous clause:
Or in the night, imagining some feare, How easie is a bush suppos'd a Beare? (MN 5.1.21–2, ‘one imagines’), I may
not be too forward, Least being seene, thy Brother, tender George Be executed (R3 5.5.47–9, ‘if I am seen’), though
I with Death, and with Reward, did threaten and encourage him, Not doing it, and being done: (WT 3.2.162–4, i.e.
death for not doing it and reward for fulfilling it); it can be used with the past participle in passages where the sense
is compressed: that seeing vnseene We may of their encounter frankely iudge, (Ham 3.1.35–6, ‘we seeing them, but
not being seen by them’). As a result some participles adopted the function of a conjunction: Being that I flow in
greefe, The smallest twine may lead me. (MA 4.1.252–3, ‘Given that’); cf. PdE considering.
The participle is used elliptically to express a condition, cause or other relationship more often expressed through a
< previous page
page_131
next page >
< previous page
page_132
next page >
Page 132
conjunction: But being moodie, giue him Line, and scope, (2H4 4.3.39, ‘if he is moody’, where the participle agrees
not with the subject, but with the object, of giue), Being so enrag'd, desire doth lend her force, (VA 29, ‘as she is so
angry’, with the participle agreeing with her and not desire), Resolue me with all modest haste, which way Thou
might'st deserue, or they impose this vsage, Comming from vs. (KL 2.2.201–3, ‘in view of the fact that you were
sent by me’), not helping, death's my fee, (AW 2.1.189, ‘if I don't help’), It is too little, helping him to all: (R2
5.1.61, ‘in view of the fact that you assisted him to win everything’), being set, Ile smother thee with kisses. (VA 18,
‘when you are seated’, with the participle agreeing with thee, not I), Tript me behind: being downe, insulted, rail'd,
(KL 2.2.116, ‘when I was down, he insulted and abused me’), The truth is then most done not doing it: (KJ 3.1.199,
‘when one does not do it’). In other cases the expected participle is not included and an adjective or prepositional
phrase takes its place: I should not seeke an absent argument Of my reuenge, thou present: (AY 3.1.3–4, ‘you being
present/as you are here’), Thy word is currant with him, for my death, But dead, thy kingdome cannot buy my
breath. (R2 1.3.224–5, ‘but being dead/when I am dead’), I haue heard him oft maintaine it to be fit, that Sonnes at
perfect age, and Fathers declin'd, (KL 1.2.73–5, ‘sons being of mature age/when sons are old enough’), The scull
that bred them in the Sepulcher. (MV 3.2.96, ‘The skull being in the grave’).
A perfect participle, consisting of a present participle as an auxiliary and the lexical verb as a past participle, occurs
occasionally and acts in the same way as a gerund: In hauing knowne no trauaile (TG 1.3.16), for hauing wearied
you: (Tem 3.1.19). It is also possible to have cases where there is an adjective rather than a past participle, though
the status of some of these is difficult to judge. In the following example absent fulfils the role of a past participle
with the adverb hence depending on it: of our being absent hence, (MV 5.1.120). In some cases a participle may be
a post-posed adjective or part of an expanded verb: shall there be Gallowes standing in England (1H4 1.2.58).
4.3.8.1 The gerund is a noun, an abstraction formed from a verb of activity, which then gradually developed
characteristics of a verb and thus resembled the present participle (4.3.8):
< previous page
page_132
next page >
< previous page
page_133
next page >
Page 133
The original form modified by the preposition a is found in There is some ill a bruing towards my rest, (MV 2.5.17),
His Greatnesse is a ripening, (H8 3.2.358).
When qualified by a prepositional phrase introduced by of, it is necessary in PdE to have the determiner the or
equivalent. Although this structure is also found in ShE: the bringing home Of Bell and Buriall. (Ham 5.1.227–8), the
inclusion of the is not obligatory so that the following examples are quite acceptable: so finde we profit By loosing of
our Prayers. (AC 2.1.7–8), your Voice, for Crowning of the King. (R3 3.4.28), About relieuing of the Centinels. (1H6
2.1.71), What haue you lost by losing of this day? (KJ 3.4.116). There are examples where the gerund, with the and
without of, has an object as though it acted as a verb: the seeing these effects will be Both noy-some, and
infectious. (Cym 1.5.25–6), In the delaying death. (MM 4.2.165), Nothing in his Life became him, Like the leauing it.
(Mac 1.4.7–8), on the reading it, he chang'd almost into another man. (AW 4.3.4–5). There are examples without the
determiner the or the preposition of: we will nothing pay For wearing our owne Noses. (Cym 3.1.13–14), for pulling
Scarffes off Cæsars Images, (JC 1.2.285–6).
It occurs after phrases like there is and is preceded by the adjective no: There is no shuffling, there the Action lyes
(Ham 3.3.61), for heere is no staying: (2H6 4.7.214–15). Such constructions imply a sense of urgency, sometimes
almost a command: Fly, flye my Lord, there is no tarrying heere. (JC 5.5.30, ‘You must not stay here’). A non-finite
clause with a gerund can act as the subject of a sentence: so throwing him into the water, will doe him a benefit.
(MW 3.3.173–4).
The gerund also developed a passive sense: cloathes you send forth to bleaching. (MW 4.2.111, ‘for bleaching, to be
bleached’), put the Liueries to making, (MV 2.2.110–11, ‘to be made’), or else shall he suffer not thinking on, (Ham
3.2.127–8, ‘not being thought about’), To keepe it from divulging, (Ham 4.1.21, ‘being made known’). This was also
the case with a preceding possessive adjective: and excuse his throwing into the water, (MW 3.3.184, ‘being
thrown’).
Shakespeare used an abstract noun where PdE has a gerund: Had I plantation of this Isle my Lord. (Tem 2.1.149,
‘the planting’), Least being mist, I be suspected of Your carriage from the Court. (Cym 3.4.187–8, ‘of carrying you’).
< previous page
page_133
next page >
< previous page
page_134
next page >
Page 134
4.3.9 As noted in 4.2.9 the passive is formed by making the direct or indirect object of a transitive verb the subject
and then using a part of the verb to be with the past participle of that lexical verb; the part of the verb to be may be
preceded by a modal. Its use was growing in popularity, but in Elizabethan English it carried formal overtones and
occurs less in drama than in technical writing (Seoane Posse 1998). Its use results from the tendency to choose the
person or thing which is the psychological subject to be the grammatical subject of a sentence as well. A typical
example is I was kill'd i'th'Capitol: (Ham 3.2.99–100), which is followed by the active Brutus kill'd me. (Ham
3.2.100).
Although transitive verbs formed their active perfect and pluperfect by using a part of the auxiliary to have,
intransitive verbs formed their active perfect and pluperfect by using a part of the verb to be but, as intransitive
verbs by definition could not take an object, they in principle have no passive forms. But the distinction between
transitive and intransitive verbs is not always clear-cut, for some verbs can have both transitive and intransitive
forms, and many verbs that are intransitive in PdE were reflexive verbs in ShE. A verb like change could be
considered as either active perfect or present passive: you are maruellously chang'd. (MV 1.1.76), In nothing am I
chang'd But in my Garments. (KL 4.5.9–10). Neither is strictly passive, because the object of an active clause is not
the subject; though one might think that in the first there was an active ‘Something has changed you’ behind it.
Nevertheless, both have a passive feel to them. The same is true of had these Gentlemen … Beene thus encountred.
(Ham 1.2.196–9), which could suggest an active form ‘these two men had encountered something’ or ‘something
had appeared to these two gentlemen’. The verb to appear also shows many examples which are ambiguous, partly
because the role of past participle and adjective were so closely linked. Is our whole dissembly appeard? (MA 4.2.1)
could be represented in PdE as ‘Is everyone present?’ and seems to be a normal perfect form, but your Fauour is
well appear'd by your Tongue. (Cor 4.3.9, sometimes emended to approved) could be understood as the passive of
an active ‘Your language has revealed your identity perfectly’. Even He was gotten in drink: (MW 1.3.20) could be
the passive of ‘His parents conceived him
< previous page
page_134
next page >
< previous page
page_135
next page >
Page 135
when they were drunk’, because in drink: refers to the parents. Evans in Merry Wives employs unusual forms, which
are not strictly passive but may be intended to suggest Welsh forms, as in Gold, and Siluer, is her Grand-sire vpon
his deaths-bed, (Got deliuer to a ioyfull resurrections) giue, (1.1.47–8, ‘has given’), and her father is make her a
petter penny. (1.1.55, ‘has made’). Such sweet obseruance in this worke was had, (RL 1385) may be understood as
a passive, where the active would be ‘Lucrece took such pleasure in looking at this work’. Some examples of the
passive seem unusual today as if Shakespeare was looking for a more portentous way of expressing an idea: As one
that had beene studied in his death, (Mac 1.4.9), where there is no active equivalent unless it is ‘as one who had
studied his death’.
A possible example of the indirect object in the active forming the subject of the passive is: the Duke was giuen to
vnderstand (MV 2.8.7), perhaps based on an active clause like ‘someone told the Duke’. But with intransitive verbs
which have a kind of indirect object, such as a prepositional phrase dependent on the verb, it is possible to make the
head of the prepositional phrase the subject of the sentence and the preposition remains with the verb to form a
phrasal verb: You are lookt for, and cal'd for, (RJ 1.5.11) based on what in PdE would be the active ‘People are
looking and calling for you’; you are staid for. (TG 2.2.19), based on what in PdE would be the active ‘People are
waiting for you’. Similarly, he may be more wondred at, (1H4 1.2.198) could reflect the active ‘People wondered at
him more’. In the case of Yet heere she is allowed her Virgin Rites, (Ham 5.1.226), it is possible to assume that this
is a reflex of a possible active form ‘One allows the virgin rites to her’. In many of the cases in (b) the present
passive is an older way of expressing what in PdE is a progressive: Is he pursued? (KL 2.1.108, ‘Is he being
pursued?’). The passive has other functions. It expresses habitual action: No profit growes, where is no pleasure
tane: (TS 1.1.39); it indicates futurity in a conditional clause: If he be taken, he shall neuer more Be fear'd of doing
harme, (KL 2.1.109–10), I dare not, Least I be taken: (AC 4.16.23–4), or in a temporal clause: Let vs seeme
humbler after it is done, (Cor 4.2.4), or it may do duty for a reflexive in PdE: How comes it (Michaell) you are thus
forgot? (Oth 2.3.181,
< previous page
page_135
next page >
< previous page
page_136
next page >
Page 136
‘you have forgotten yourself’). The present passive is used where has/have been would be used in PdE: Is execution
done on Cawdor? (Mac 1.4.1), Arthur, whom they say is kill'd to night, (KJ 4.2.165), thy Lippes are scarce wip'd,
since thou drunk'st last. (1H4 2.5.153–4).
The preterite, perfect and pluperfect reflect their use in PdE, though the last may indicate something hypothetical:
The man that once did sell the Lyons skin While the beast liu'd, was kill'd with hunting him. (H5 4.3.94–5), when the
fight was done, (1H4 1.3.29), There hath beene a man or two (lately) kil'd about her. (2H4 5.4.6), Had he beene
slaine, we should haue heard the newes: (3H6 2.1.5), I haue beene so affrighted. (Ham 2.1.76). Other non-finite
and finite forms of the passive have been illustrated incidentally in discussions of the active. Sometimes the passive
is used, as in PdE, as a (possibly empty) threat or promise because who makes or what is making the threat or
promise is not explicit; it is often formed with a modal. When Shallow says to Falstaff: this shall be answer'd. (MW
1.1.107) and you'll be laugh'd at. (MW 1.1.112), the passive allows the agent to whom this refers or to whom an
answer will be made in the first example, or in the second who will be doing the laughing, to be concealed; and this
makes the threat general. And you shall well be spar'd. (MM 2.2.14) is a kind of threat implying ‘No one will miss
you at all’. Otherwise, shall be can mean ‘is to be’: What shall be done Sir, with the groaning Iuliet? (MM 2.2.15).
The passive with its more formal tone is used to express something in high-flown terms, so as to curry favour with a
superior: My best endeuors shall be done herein. (MV 2.2.167, ‘I will do the best I can’). Other forms indicate
hypothetical possibility: That in your knowledge may by me be done, (MV 1.1.159), If he may bee conueniently
deliuer'd, (TN 4.2.68), It would be spoke too. (Ham 1.1.43, where would suggests ‘wishes’ and spoke to ‘to be
spoken to’). Determination is expressed in This must be knowne, (Ham 2.1.119). The passive is also used in what
are proverbial utterances: Madnesse in great Ones, must not vnwatch'd go. (Ham 3.1.191, with go acting as a
pseudo-auxiliary). There are some unusual examples of what can be passive constructions: I am appointed him to
murther you. (WT 1.2.412), which may be another way of saying ‘He has appointed me to murder you’, though
other interpretations are possible;
< previous page
page_136
next page >
< previous page
page_137
next page >
Page 137
Deposing thee before thou wert possest, Which art possest now to depose thy selfe. (R2 2.1.107–8), where the
word-play on possest refers both to the crown and witchcraft or self-delusion; but in How haue I bin behau'd, (Oth
4.2.111) haue bin is used instead of the active reflexive verb and means ‘How have I behaved myself, i.e. What can
I have done?’
It is suggested that verbs like get and go can create a weak passive, but there are few unambiguous cases, cf. (e)
above. Examples like we must either get her rauished, or be rid of her, (Per sc.19.13–14) come close to a passive
sense.
4.3.10 The extension of a verb consists of a word or phrase after the lexical verb which forms an integral unit with it,
and together they can have a meaning different from the lexical verb on its own. With some verbs there may be
only a prepositional object (i.e. an object introduced by a preposition), for the preposition may not be closely linked
with the verb. In most modern editions insufficient attention is given to the phrasal verb, although phrasal verbs can
significantly alter the meaning or tone of a passage. Undoubtedly the nature of phrasal verbs was recognised
because in F the two elements are joined by a hyphen: Come-on, come-on, come-on: (2H4 3.2.1) and their
development caused some confusion among speakers of the language at this time for Shakespeare can play on their
meaning, particularly those which include to and with. When Timon asks Apemantus Wilt dine with me Apemantus?,
he responds No: I eate not Lords. (Tim 1.1.207–8), and this makes sense only if Apemantus understands dine with
to mean ‘to eat, to dine on’. Shakespeare plays on the meaning of to bear and to bear with in this exchange:
Prince. Vnckle, your Grace knowes how to beare with him.
Yorke. You meane to beare me, not to beare with me:
(R3 3.1.127–8)
Here the meanings ‘to carry (on one's shoulders)’ and ‘to put up with’ are at issue with rather grim connotations.
However, the meaning of some phrasal verbs is no different from the simple verb and F and Q may vary in their use:
Can wash the Balme [off Q1] from an anoynted King; (R2 3.2.51). Note also that where F reads Coosin, throw
downe your gage, (R2 1.1.186) meaning ‘pick up’, Q1 reads throw vp. What constitutes a phrasal verb is not
< previous page
page_137
next page >
< previous page
page_138
next page >
Page 138
always easy to decide: Breake we our Watch vp, (Ham 1.1.149), probably contains a phrasal verb to break up, but
which haue freely gone With this affaire along, (Ham 1.2.15–16), may not have a phrasal verb to go along. With
other similar examples, one may wonder whether there is any difference between a phrasal verb and its simple
form; in my sinnewes, … beare me stiffely vp: (Ham 1.5.94–5) there seems to be little difference between the verbs
to bear up and to bear apart from emphasis. With some phrasal verbs like stand vpon, the extension upon may be
separated from the verb itself: It stands your Grace vpon, to doe him right. (R2 2.3.137), it stands me much vpon
To stop all hopes, (R3 4.2.60–1).
The meaning of some phrasal verbs is transparent because of their make-up and they may occur frequently, like had
rather or come along, but others which occur less commonly may be more important. The meaning of others is
recognisable when it is pointed out, but they have sometimes been misunderstood. Thus Oliver says of Orlando
begin you to grow vpon me? (AY 1.1.81), where grow vpon means ‘to become troublesome to’. Other examples from
Macbeth illustrate this point. Reference was made in section 4.1 to meet with, which occurs in the play at 1.1.7. As
far as I know no editor comments on There to meet with Macbeth, although meet with can, and here probably does,
mean ‘come upon by surprise, waylay’ – an appropriate meaning in this scene. The witches will meet (1.1.1) one
another, but they will meet with (1.1.7) Macbeth. When on Macbeth's arrival home Lady Macbeth says Onely looke
vp cleare: (1.5.70), the verb looke vp means ‘to have a cheerful expression, to look happy’ and so this both
strengthens the meaning of cleare and reinforces Lady Macbeth's duplicity, for she means ‘Show a transparently
happy face’. When at 1.7.79–80 Macbeth says I am settled, and bend vp Each corporall Agent, the sense of what he
says is heightened if one realises that the phrasal verb bend vp is used of making bow-strings taut since that
emphasises the nervous tautness which Macbeth feels at this stage. When he is at bay in his castle of Dunsinane,
Macbeth orders Seyton, send out: (5.3.51). This phrasal verb usually means ‘to proclaim’ and is more often
transitive. Here it could be understood to mean ‘Seyton, issue [proclamations]’, though there are none actually to
issue. It is a desperate action which cannot be fulfilled, and is not. Later during the siege he issues the order Hang
out our Banners on the outward walls, (5.5.1). This phrasal verb, Hang out, is used for hanging out different
implements and
< previous page
page_138
next page >
< previous page
page_139
next page >
Page 139
signs, though they are not always grand for they include bedding and urinals. This might suggest that Macbeth's
defiance is slightly illusory since the banners may be equated with these other signs. When Siward says of the battle
Some must go off: (5.11.2), this is often explained as ‘die’ by editors. But go off usually embodies a sense of
suddenness and a gloss ‘be killed’ is more accurate. It is important, therefore, to realise that there are many phrasal
verbs in Shakespeare and that they have a meaning of their own. All plays contain examples of phrasal verbs. In
Hamlet the following could be noted: put on him ‘accuse him’ (2.1.19), deeme of. ‘imagine’ (2.2.10), brought vp with
him: ‘educated with’ (2.2.11), hold not off. ‘conceal (something)’ (2.2.293), we were sent for. ‘summoned’
(2.2.294), we shall rellish of it. ‘taste it’ (3.1.120–1), I am easier to bee plaid on, ‘to be manipulated’ (3.2.357–8), to
beare with, ‘to be endured’ (3.4.2), ‘Tis so concluded on. ‘agreed, determined’ (3.4.185).
There are a number of verbs which show forms with or without a following preposition. They include the following:
many so arriue at second Masters, (Tim 4.3.506), ere we could arriue the Point propos'd, (JC 1.2.112); shall I
complaine on thee to our mistris, (TS 4.1.26), Where then (alas may I) complaint my selfe? (R2 1.2.42, Q
complaine); T'obey in all your daughters hard commands: (KL 3.4.139), obey thy Parents, (KL 3.4.74); the flower
that smiles on euerie one, (LL 5.2.331), Smoile you my speeches, (KL 2.2.82). There are in several of these cases
significant differences in the constructions. Cf. 4.4.3 (b).
4.4 Verb types
4.4.1 Impersonal verbs in ShE can have either no subject at all or a dummy subject, usually it. The history of English
shows a steady reduction in the number of these verbs. This movement was expedited by the reduction of the
inflectional system, for as the old dative lost its ending the trend was to have a personal subject, for an older
sentence like me thinks ‘to me it seems’ was readily interpreted as ‘I think’. Impersonal verbs are especially
characteristic in the expression of happening and seeming (befall, chance, seem); mental processes (like, please,
repent, think); and lack or want of something (lack, need).
Some impersonal verbs have simply ceased to be such in PdE: but it dislikes me. (Oth 2.3.43, ‘I dislike doing it’), it
faints
< previous page
page_139
next page >
< previous page
page_140
next page >
Page 140
me To thinke what followes. (H8 2.3.104–5, ‘I am frightened’), It doth import him much to speake with me. (TC
4.2.53), And yet it irkes me (AY 2.1.22), so it skilles not much when they are deliuer'd. (TN 5.1.286), It yernes me
not, (H5 4.3.26, ‘I am not upset’).
The change from impersonal to personal verb is marked in the Elizabethan period, for there are a number of verbs
which can take either form. These include: chance if he chance to faile (MM 3.1.513–14), if it chance the one of vs
do faile, (1H6 2.1.31). happen What euer I shall happen to deuise. (R2 4.1.319), It hath happen'd all, as I would
haue had it, (AW 3.2.1). like The following example illustrates both personal and impersonal forms: Dio. I doe not
like this fooling. Ther. Nor I by Pluto: but that that likes not me, pleases me best. (TC 5.2.104–6) please Examples
like Please you, (TG 2.1.121) or In what you please, (TG 4.4.41) may be either impersonal or personal, and the
same applies to If Cæsar please, (AC 3.13.49), for in these cases you and Cæsar could be either subject or indirect
object. But there can be no doubt that And if it please you, (TG 2.1.123) and so please him come (JC 3.1.141) are
impersonal, because of the it in the first and the non-subject him in the second example. To please shows specific
characteristics as it changes from impersonal to personal verb. Generally the impersonal form remained longest in an
if clause: If it please your honour, I am the poore Dukes Constable, (MM 2.1.46–7). In if clauses it is rare for the
person in control of the verb in this clause also to be the subject of the action in the main clause. This applies even
when the conjunction is expressed by an(d). In the following: Fal. Good-morrow, good-wife. Qui. Not so, and't
please your worship. (MW 2.2.34–5)
< previous page
page_140
next page >
< previous page
page_141
next page >
Page 141
Quickly is politely rejecting Falstaff's assertion that she is a wife, where her Not so is elliptical for ‘I am not so [i.e. a
wife]’. But in other subordinate clauses, there was a trend to convert the verb into a personal one when the person
in control of the pleasing was the same as the person controlling the action of the verb of the main clause: I may
say so when I please. (MA 2.1.84, with I as subject in both clauses) and It rested in your Grace To vnloose this
tyde-vp Iustice, when you pleas'd: (MM 1.3.31–2, with you in the subordinate clause referring to your Grace, who is
the person controlling the action of rested). But compare and her haire shal be of what colour it please God, (MA
2.3.33–4, where since the colour is controlled by God, neither the woman nor the hair have control of the colour and
please is impersonal).
The typical form of the impersonal is the third person present or preterite indicative, for such verbs usually have it as
their subject. A few unusual forms occur: mee-think'st thou art a generall offence, (AW 2.3.252–3, with thou of the
subordinate noun clause attracted to act as subject of the main clause as well). The preterite would normally be
thought, but As I stood here below me thoughts his eyes VVere two full Moones, (HL sc.20.69–70 Q; F has me
thought) and me thoughts I did requoyle Twentie three yeeres, (WT 1.2.156–7) have thoughts with <-s> taken over
from the present tense or possibly indicating the register being used. A few impersonal constructions survive in ShE,
though they have an equivalent personal form: Me rather had, my Heart might feele your Loue, (R2 3.3.190), I had
rather hee should shriue me then wiue me. (MV 1.2.127–8). Other forms: Well be with you Gentlemen. (Ham
2.2.382), and so betide to me, (R3 2.4.70, ‘May I enjoy the same good fortune’), are rare. Other constructions
which had been impersonal developed a personal form in ShE, though I were better to be eaten to death (2H4
1.2.219–20 Q) may seem somewhat awkward because it comes from the earlier me were better ‘it would be better
for me’. Some impersonal verbs adopted the role of adverbials in ShE and some of these, like maybe, survive in PdE.
They include phrases like how chance, so please you, please God and others which can be regarded as discourse
markers (8.3).
4.4.2 A reflexive verb has the same object (usually a reflexive pronoun) as its subject, and in former stages of the
language
< previous page
page_141
next page >
< previous page
page_142
next page >
Page 142
some verbs existed only as reflexives. Intransitive verbs in ShE are reflexive when they have the indirect object coreferential with the subject, as in: Good Margaret runne thee to the parlour, (MA 3.1.1), Come thee on, (AC 4.8.13).
In ShE, however, there are many instances (not only in the imperative) where the subject is not given and so the
reflexive pronoun as object refers to the assumed subject. There are also examples where following a main verb the
accusative and infinitive construction can be formed with the infinitive of a reflexive verb, so that the object of the
main clause acts as the subject of the infinitive and the reflexive pronoun of the infinitive refers back to that object
acting as subject (see Cor 1.3.28–9 below). A reflexive verb is not unlike an intransitive verb, in that there is no
object separate from the subject, and thus could be said to have no real object. The history of such verbs is much
the same as that for impersonal verbs, for their number has been reduced throughout the history of English. This is
easily done by leaving off the reflexive pronoun and turning the reflexive verb into an intransitive one, as still
happens in PdE; the verb to behave oneself is now more usually simply to behave. It is equally the case that it was
in ShE, and to some extent still is, possible to convert an intransitive verb into a reflexive verb by adding the
reflexive pronoun as its object. Hence verbs like to hie ‘hasten’ and to complain are both reflexive and intransitive:
vnto the wood they hie them, (VA 323), weary of the world, away she hies, (VA 1189); of wearinesse he did
complaine him, (RL 845), if they did complaine, What could the Belly answer? (Cor 1.1.121–2). The reflexive
pronoun still retained the same form as the personal pronoun and what is now the reflexive pronoun was only just
adopting this function: And thence retire me to my Millaine, (Tem 5.1.314) and giue me leaue to retire my
selfe. (Cor 1.3.28–9), To all the Host of Heauen I complaine me. (RL 598) and Where then (alas may I) complaint
my selfe? (R2 1.2.42, complaine Q). New reflexive verbs include Least … it confound it selfe? (R2 3.4.60–1), Beyond
the Riuer wee'le encampe our selues, (H5 3.6.171), endeauour thy selfe to sleepe, (TN 4.2.98). A reflexive verb may
have the same meaning as the passive: I feare me (2H6 1.1.148, ‘I am frightened’), and a passive might in some
cases replace a reflexive construction: your Fauour is well appear'd by your Tongue. (Cor 4.3.9, sometimes emended
to approued in modern editions, cf. 4.3.9). In other examples to appear occurs as what might be taken as a reflexive
verb: wee will hold it as a dreame, till it appeare
< previous page
page_142
next page >
< previous page
page_143
next page >
Page 143
it selfe: (MA 1.2.18–19, ‘until it shows itself’), but disguise That which t'appeare it selfe, must not yet be, (Cym
3.4.145–6). In some of these examples, it is possible that the reflexive pronoun is used emphatically rather than as a
reflexive form, as though the example from MA 1.2.18–19 meant ‘until it itself appears’.
The use of the ethic dative is closely related to the reflexive verb, but the ethic dative is discussed at 3.3.2.1 (a).
4.4.3 A transitive verb differs from an intransitive verb in that the former has an object and the latter does not. A
transitive verb differs from a reflexive verb in that the latter has as its object the reflexive pronoun co-referential
with the subject. Transitive verbs may be divided into dynamic and stative, the former usually expressing an action
and the latter a state. Instead of an object stative verbs, which indicate a state, have a complement referring to
some aspect of the subject, as in ‘He is happy’ where happy is a quality of He. Stative verbs do not usually have
reflexive pronouns as their complement.
The same verb can have both a transitive and an intransitive form: I love her (transitive) ~ I love (intransitive ‘I am
in love’). In Elizabethan English the boundaries between the two were more flexible than in PdE and Shakespeare
uses many transitive verbs as intransitives: when the Rage allayes, the Raine begins. (3H6 1.4.147), when they do
not Eye well to you. (AC 1.3.97–8), lapland Sorcerers inhabite here. (CE 4.3.11), Whiles Nights black Agents to their
Prey's doe rowse. (Mac 3.2.54), If vertues glosse will staine with any soile, (LL 2.1.48), Shee staies exclayming on
the direfull night, (RL 741). Some intransitives reflect what had previously been impersonal verbs: There wanteth
now our Brother Gloster heere, (R3 2.1.43). Some verbs may appear as intransitives, though this may simply be
because the object is omitted through ellipsis: quoth he, I must deflowre; (RL 348) presumably implies that Tarquin
must deflower Lucrece whose name may be omitted through ellipsis.
Shakespeare turned intransitive verbs into transitive ones by adding an object, whereas in PdE such verbs would in
these cases be followed by a prepositional phrase (cf. 4.3.10): ere we could arriue the Point propos'd, (JC 1.2.112,
cf. PdE ‘arrive at the proposed point’), While she chats him: (Cor 2.1.205), I would your Highnesse would depart the
field, (3H6 2.2.73), and
< previous page
page_143
next page >
< previous page
page_144
next page >
Page 144
dare not stay the field. (VA 894), Dispaire thy Charme, (Mac 5.10.13), He ran this way and leapt this Orchard wall.
(RJ 2.1.5). Verbs indicating ‘to listen’ are frequent in this category where in PdE they would be followed by the
preposition to: List a breefe tale, (KL 5.3.173), To listen our purpose, (MA 3.1.12), hearkens my Brothers suit, (Tem
1.2.122).
The transitive form of an intransitive verb may have a causative sense: which being tane, would cease The present
powre of life, (Cym 5.6.255–6, ‘would result in putting an end to’), this aspect of mine Hath feard the valiant, (MV
2.1.8–9, ‘has caused the brave to be afraid’), I trust, My absence doth neglect no great designe, (R3 3.4.23–4, ‘does
not lead to great plans being delayed’). Other verbs may imply more than the action indicated by the transitive form:
my Sister in the least Would faile her Obligation. (KL 2.2.313–14, ‘would fail to fulfil’), shee hath recouered the King,
(AW 3.2.20, ‘restored the king to health’), VVho ore the white sheet peers her whiter chin, (RL 472, ‘allows to
appear’). But as these verbs may imply some causality as well, the distinction between them is slight. Verbs like
banish, which can in PdE take an animate object with the place indicated through from, may in ShE have two objects
in which the place or equivalent is the direct object and the person suffering the action the indirect one: banish not
him thy Harryes companie, (1H4 2.5.483), banish him our Citie (Cor 3.3.105). Verbs like run take a direct object and
an indirect object with preposition, as is still possible in PdE: The King hath run bad humors on the Knight, (H5
2.1.116), he danc'd thee on his knee: (TA 5.3.161), or bound my Horse for her fauours, (H5 5.2.141). Cf. also He
could not sit his Mule. (H8 4.2.16). Verbs, which have a restricted number of objects and are otherwise intransitive
in PdE, may take other objects in ShE: a gaping wound Issuing life blood. (MV 3.2.263–4), that ore ‘flowes such
liquor: (MW 2.2.147). Intransitive verbs usually form their perfect and pluperfect with a part of the verb to be as the
auxiliary: Malcolme, and Donalbaine … Are stolne away (Mac 2.4.25–6). But when they are converted into reflexive
or transitive verbs, they usually take the auxiliary to have: He … hath stolne him home to bed. (RJ 2.1.4). Compare
he is retyred to Antium. (Cor 3.1.11) with I haue retyr'd me (Tim 2.2.159), and Which accidentally are met together.
(CE 5.1.353) with How thou hast met vs heere, (Tem
< previous page
page_144
next page >
< previous page
page_145
next page >
Page 145
5.1.138), but there some exceptions to this: My life is run his compasse. (JC 5.3.25).
When verbs are formed from adjectives or nouns, they were more often used transitively, as that was the more
common type of verb, though they could also be used intransitively. The decline in the earlier verb ending <-en>,
sad~sadden, meant that when new verbs were created, they were usually without any ending in the base form: (i)
transitive Which happies those that pay the willing lone; (Son 6.6), That haue so cowarded and chac'd your blood
(H5 2.2.72), The white hand of a Lady Feauer thee, (AC 3.13.140); (ii) intransitive whilest you Doe Clymate here:
(WT 5.1.168–9), such stuffe as Madmen Tongue, and braine not: (Cym 5.5.239–40).
4.4.4 There are a number of other verb types which are worthy of brief comment:
Various verbs act as aspectualizers and focus on some part of the action which is indicated by the verb. They fulfil a
role which can be compared with that of the auxiliaries. They can focus on the start, finish, repetition or habitual
nature of that action:
Those with an ingressive function focus on the beginning of an action or situation. The Old English verb (on)ginnan
developed into gin (preterite gan), which was being replaced by begin. Although gin retained its ingressive aspect, it
weakened to become a pseudo-auxiliary. It shared some features with the auxiliaries for it could take an object, an
accusative and infinitive, or also a bare or to-infinitive. Its use, especially in the preterite, with the bare infinitive
resembles the way auxiliaries function and its meaning is reduced: When by and by the dinne of Warre gan pierce
His readie sence: (Cor 2.2.115–16), mine Italian braine, Gan in your duller Britaine operare [operate] Most vildely:
(Cym 5.6.196–8), and Phœbus gins arise, (Cym 2.3.20). An ingressive sense could be expressed through the loans
proceed to and commence, though they were not yet as common as begin and gin: PRoceed Solinus to procure my
fall, (CE 1.1.1).
Other ingressives may be followed either by a noun or by an adjective, including participles. The most common
< previous page
page_145
next page >
< previous page
page_146
next page >
Page 146
are become, grow (which was replacing wax) and turn. Wax is found principally in Shakespeare's earlier works: The
colt that's backt and burthend being yong, Loseth his pride, and neuer waxeth strong. (VA 419–20), The seas waxt
calme, (CE 1.1.91). Grow is used with nouns and adjectives: Those that would dye, or ere resist, are growne The
mortall bugs o'th'Field. (Cym 5.5.50–1), his loue-kindling fire … grew a seething bath (Son 153.3–7), And to my
State grew stranger, (Tem 1.2.76); As those that feed, grow full: (MM 1.4.40), Your light growes darke (LL
1.1.79). Both become and turn are also used with nouns and adjectives, though in the case of turn the noun it
governs is usually pejorative: you will turne good husband now Pompey, (MM 3.1.336–7, used ironically), I could
finde it in my heart to stay heere still, and turne Witch. (CE 4.4.156–7), This Hebrew will turne Christian, (MV
1.3.177). Become, on the other hand, is followed by nouns of a more neutral colour: my Master is become a hot
Louer. (TG 2.5.43), That it becomes a vertue. (MM 3.1.137), Now my Soules Pallace is become a Prison: (3H6
2.1.74). Come is used with adjectives in direct or indirect questions introduced by how: knowe but you how shee
came dead, (Per sc. 17.29), How came he mad? (Ham 5.1.152). Go occurs twice with the adjective mad, but mad
occurs more frequently with run and so the use of go may be a new development: the taker runs presently mad.
(MA 1.1.82–3), when the image of it leaues him, he must run mad. (TN 2.5.187–8), the yong Prince will goe mad:
(TC 4.3.2). Another recent ingressive verb is get, which usually occurs with the adjective clear: On the instant they
got cleare of our Shippe, (Ham 4.6.17–18), How to get cleere of all the debts I owe. (MV 1.1.134).
Those with an egressive function focus on the completion and termination of an action. They include verbs like
cease and leave off: Heare cease more questions, (Tem 1.2.185), Leaue off delayes, and let vs rayse the Siege.
(1H6 1.3.125). Those verbs with an iterative or continuative function indicate the repetition or the continued pursuit
of the action and include continue, keep on, remain: Continue still in this so good a minde, (2H6 4.8.17), keepe on
your way. (Cor 4.2.12), Imprison'd, thou didst painefully remaine A dozen yeeres: (Tem 1.2.279–80).
< previous page
page_146
next page >
< previous page
page_147
next page >
Page 147
Those verbs of a habitual function indicate actions which are characteristic of individuals and overlap with the verbs
in (iii). They include verbs like be use to, be wont to: To burne the lodgings where you vse to lye, (AY 2.3.24), he
was wont to call me Vsurer, (MV 3.1.43–4).
Some verbs may take an instrumental object, where the thing with which something is done is made the object: I
shal stay here the for-horse to a smocke, Creeking my shooes on the plaine Masonry, (AW 2.1.30–1). A few verbs
have a retrospective function, the main one being remember. In PdE such verbs can take both an infinitive, a gerund
and that introducing a finite clause. A gerund is essentially time-neutral, but where reference to time is needed it
may be indicated in PdE through the tense of the main verb. In ShE it is possible to have the main verb in the
present tense and to indicate past time by introducing a perfect infinitive: Such groanes of roaring Winde, and Raine
I neuer Remember to haue heard. (KL 3.2.47–8). The verb be + infinitive has the sense of obligation or necessity:
being you are to take Souldiers vp, in Countries as you go. (2H4 2.1.188–9), And such an Instrument I was to vse.
(Mac 2.1.43). It sometimes has a weaker sense of necessity with the infinitive in a passive sense or it has little more
than a sense of futurity: what's to do? (TN 3.3.18, ‘What needs to be done?’ or merely ‘What shall we do’). The verb
have has some uses which can be isolated: It can have a causative sense, usually in the structure have + object +
infinitive: And would'st thou haue me cast my loue on him? (TG 1.2.25), From which, we would not haue you
warpe; (MM 1.1.14). The structure have + infinitive has the sense of obligation or general intention: And thou shalt
haue to pay for it of vs. (AY 2.4.92). With the structure have + object + past participle, the following meanings are
possible: causative: And age in loue, loues not t'haue yeares told. (Son 138.12); the past participle with a passive
sense: how stand I then That haue a father kild, a mother staind, (Ham Add.Pass. J.47–8 Q2, ‘father who has been
killed and a mother who has been defiled’).
< previous page
page_147
next page >
< previous page
page_148
next page >
Page 148
5
Adverbials, Interjections, Conjunctions and Prepositions
This chapter deals with adverbials, interjections, conjunctions and prepositions, partly for convenience and partly
because these parts of speech overlap in function. Adverbials can include not only single-word adverbs, but also
adverbial phrases. Interjections can also consist of more than a single word, and it is often difficult to draw a line
between an adverb and an interjection. There is also a close link between adverbs and conjunctions, which may also
consist of more than a single word. In earlier periods of English the same word could function as either a
conjunction or an adverb, as is still true in PdE of a word like since, which is used adverbially in he hasn't been seen
since and as a conjunction in since he left. On some occasions it may be impossible to decide which function is
intended by a given word or group. A preposition forms part of a prepositional phrase, that is a preposition and the
noun group dependent on it, for if a preposition is not part of a phrase it will act as an adverb, as in put it down. A
prepositional phrase itself will often function as an adverbial in a clause, for on the table has the same function as an
adverb like there. Nevertheless in what follows the various parts of speech are treated separately because the
functions they fulfil in a clause are best kept apart.
I deal with each in the order: adverbials (5.1, including intensifiers 5.1.3.1, down-toners 5.1.3.2, time 5.1.3.3, place
5.1.3.4, manner 5.1.3.5, affirmation and negation 5.1.3.6, and clause adverbials 5.1.3.7), interjections (5.2),
conjunctions (5.3, including co-ordinate 5.3.1 and subordinate 5.3.2, with temporal and causal 5.3.2.4, conditional
5.3.2.5, result 5.3.2.6, final 5.3.2.7, concessive 5.3.2.8 and comparative 5.3.2.9) and prepositions (5.4), although
this
< previous page
page_148
next page >
< previous page
page_149
next page >
Page 149
involves some overlap. There is no separate section on the morphology of these parts of speech, since they show
little variation in form. Those morphological features needing comment are described in the sections dealing with
each part of speech. It is not difficult to create new adverbs or interjections, which belong to the open class of
words, but it is more difficult to create new conjunctions and prepositions, for they belong to the closed class of
words in English, though some new conjunctions and prepositions were introduced during this period, as they have
been in all periods of the language.
5.1 Adverbials
5.1.1 Adverbials, which consist of single-word adverbs or various types of phrase or clause, either modify another
part of speech, usually a verb, an adjective or an adverb, or they qualify a whole clause. In PdE the same word can
function in all these categories. He performed exceptionally; He performed exceptionally well; He is exceptionally
clever; Exceptionally, we will allow you to proceed to the next year. The same applies to ShE, though it is less usual
for a single word to fulfil all these functions. When an adverbial qualifies a clause, it is closely related to interjections
and conjunctions. In such cases they may act as discourse markers (8.3). In ShE the decision as to whether it is the
one or the other is made by the editor of modern editions through the punctuation. A good example is provided by
the word And, spelt an by modern editors in some functions:
Even when it appears at the beginning of clause, it is often understood as a conjunction which is used incorrectly to
express a vague co-ordination with what has gone before. This is to see its function through the glass of modern
prescriptive grammar. In most cases it is an adverb qualifying the clause as a whole, for such adverbs often add an
emotional tone to the clause. In PdE and is used in speech as an emotional intensifier, as for example in a sentence
like ‘And he's ever so clever’. For ShE let us analyse this passage:
Approach thou like the rugged Russian Beare,
The arm'd Rhinoceros, or th'Hircan Tiger,
< previous page
page_149
next page >
< previous page
page_150
next page >
Page 150
Take any shape but that, and my firme Nerues
Shall neuer tremble.
(Mac 3.4.99–102)
The verbs Approach and Take function through inversion of subject and verb as subjunctives in a conditional clause
with the meaning ‘If you approach … if you take’. The general sense of this sentence is ‘If you approach me in these
shapes, my nerves would never give way’. In a sentence like this and has no place grammatically as a conjunction,
because it is not acting in a co-ordinating function. It must be an adverb emphasising the strength of purpose
Macbeth would reveal under those conditions as compared with the terror he experiences at Banquo's ghost. This
usage was traditional for it occurs in old-fashioned songs like the one Iago sings in Othello when the troops in
Cyprus are rejoicing at the destruction of the Turks: King Stephen was and a worthy Peere, (Oth 2.3.82).
It is an intensifier to a phrase which adds extra information to what has already been said: The bruite is, Hector's
slaine, and by Achilles. (TC 5.10.3), You are abus'd, and by some putter on, (WT 2.1.143). This and is often
misunderstood by modern editors. Of yet pleade I must, And bootlesse vnto them. (TA 3.1.35 Q1 [Wells and Taylor
1988: 137 omit the second half which is not in F]) Bate writes: ‘But “And bootless unto them” is grammatically
awkward and forms a half-line interrupting the flow of speech’. He goes on to write of this half-line's ‘grammatical
disintegration’ (Bate 1995: 100–1). There is nothing grammatically unusual with And bootlesse vnto them, which is
a regular pattern in ShE, as the previous examples reveal. When in ShE and occurs immediately before if, the two
are taken together by most editors as a more elaborate form of if; but and is an adverb intensifying the clause as a
whole: And if I do not, may my hands rot off, (R2 4.1.48, where And means ‘assuredly, indeed’). Some editors
conceal the nature of this and by modernising it as an, as Wells and Taylor 1988: 387 do in this example. And by
itself can act as a conjunction meaning ‘if, as if’: and I thought he had beene valiant, and so cunning in Fence, I'de
haue seene him damn'd (TN 3.4.275–6), I will roare and 'twere
< previous page
page_150
next page >
< previous page
page_151
next page >
Page 151
any Nightingale. (MN 1.2.77–8). Both these examples are ‘modernised’ to an in Wells and Taylor 1988: 708 and 316.
And acts as an intensifier to other adverbs. It occurs after a full stop in F at Macbeth 4.1.164–5: And euen now To
Crown my thoughts with Acts: be it thoght & done:. Macbeth has been with the witches to find out what might
happen in the future and, learning of the dangers posed by Macduff, he decides to kill him without further ado. Here
And strengthens and intensifies euen now to underline his firmness in this decision. The same is true of the Queene
would speak with you, and presently. (Ham 3.2.362–3), where and strengthens and emphasises presently to mean
‘right now’.
5.1.2.1 In Old English some adverbs belonged to the closed class and their status is clear only from their function in
a clause. However, it was possible to form new adverbs belonging to an open class in several ways, such as adding
<-a> to an adjective, using the possessive form, usually <-(e)s>, of nouns, or using the dative plural <-um> of
nouns. In Old English <-lic> was the adjectival and <-lice> the adverbial ending. Both these endings became <-ly>,
allowing this morpheme to act as an adjectival and an adverbial ending: lovely, gladly. It came to be regarded as
the adverbial ending par excellence, and prescriptive grammarians encouraged its extension to all adverbs in the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It is one of the few examples in English of the growth, as distinct from the
disappearance, of an inflectional morpheme. The original endings of the adverbs, such as <-a> and <-um>,
disappeared as weak final syllables were eliminated from the language; only the ending <-(e)s> survived, and even
that now sounds archaic in PdE. When the ending <-a> disappeared, it meant that words which had had an
adverbial ending became identical with adjectives. Some words survive without the addition of <-ly> even today, for
fast can be both an adjective and an adverb. Others in their adverbial function may be used with or without the
ending; one can drive slow or slowly. The widespread adoption of the <-ly> ending had made little impact by the
end of the sixteenth century so that many words could function as adjectives or adverbs – and sometimes it may be
difficult to decide which function is intended. In Aske me what question thou canst possible, And I will answer
vnpremeditated: (1H6 1.3.66–7), some take possible as a transposed adjective for ‘what
< previous page
page_151
next page >
< previous page
page_152
next page >
Page 152
possible question’, but it may be an adverb ‘possibly’. The vnpremeditated of the following line must certainly be an
adverb meaning ‘without previous knowledge of it, extempore’. Similarly in Briefe, I recouer'd him, (AY 4.3.151),
Briefe is an adverb or even a discourse marker, meaning ‘in brief, to cut a long story short’. It was precisely this
potential for confusion which encouraged later grammarians to press for the ending <-ly> for all adverbs. That this
desire to separate adjectives from adverbs may have begun to have some influence even on Shakespeare is
suggested by the occurrence of adverbs in <-ly> where one would have expected an adjective: You looke wearily.
(Tem 3.1.32, ‘tired’), The ayre nimbly and sweetly recommends it selfe (Mac 1.6.1–2, ‘the sweet and gentle air’),
things vnluckily charge my Fantasie: (JC 3.3.2, ‘ill-omened events’). It is also possible to find adjectives which really
express an adverbial function: Held a late Court at Dunstable; (H8 4.1.27, ‘lately’), let vs speake Our free Hearts
each to other. (Mac 1.3.153–4, ‘freely’). It remains theoretically possible to convert any adjective into an adverb of
the open class; new adverbs in the closed class are rare.
The link between adverbs and prepositions is different. It happens sometimes that the extension of a phrasal verb is
found alone when the lexical verb itself is omitted through ellipsis. With the phrasal verb go along, the go may be
omitted to leave along in an adverbial role: Will you along? (Cor 2.3.150); cf. She neuer could away with me. (2H4
3.2.198, ‘she never could endure me’) where a lexical verb seems to be missing, though which is not clear.
5.1.2.2
As adverbs could be identical with adjectives, many adjectives functioned as adverbs: ‘Tis Noble spoken. (AC
2.2.103), liue as quiet in hell, (MA 2.1.241–2).
There were also some survivals of adverbs ending in <-(e)s>: Looking all downewards (TA 3.1.124), or betimes Let's
re-inforce, or fly. (Cym 5.4.4–5), here abouts dwells, (RJ 5.1.38). Most of these adverbs also have a form without
final <-(e)s>: and downward looke on vs (JC 5.1.85), we rise betime, (AC 4.4.20), Ile hide me here about, (RJ
5.3.43). Phrases whose last word ends with final <-(e)s> are now archaic: Come thy wayes (TN 2.5.1); since come
is an intransitive verb, thy wayes must be
< previous page
page_152
next page >
< previous page
page_153
next page >
Page 153
adverbial; hee would haue tickel'd you other gates then he did. (TN 5.1.191–2, ‘otherwise, i.e. more seriously’). It is
probable that Quickly's come a little neerer this waies. (MW 2.2.49) belongs here as well.
Adverbs could be formed from nouns, whether this represented an older dative plural in <-um> or not: talkt with you
yesternight, (MA 4.1.84), to teare her Limb-meale: (Cym 2.4.147, cf. PdE piecemeal, OE -mœlum). The closed class
of adverbs, which had no inflectional ending in Old English, includes words like far, near, rather: To mingle
friendship farre, (WT 1.2.111). In many instances where several adverbs are linked together, only one has the
ending <-ly>, usually the last one: he demean'd himselfe, rough, rude, and wildly, (CE 5.1.89), she will speake most
bitterly, and strange. (MM 5.1.36), and with sollemne march Goes slow and stately: (Ham 1.2.201–2). Prepositional
phrases acting as adverbials which originally had on or of before a noun such as on night, of day could appear with
the original preposition weakened to either a or o. This remnant of the preposition frequently remains separate from
the lexical word, or the two may be joined with a hyphen or an apostrophe: Looke vp a height, (KL 4.5.58), for
comming a night (AY 2.4.45), the King's a bed. (Mac 2.1.11), I am a horsebacke, (1H4 2.4.98), o'Nights, (2H4
2.1.78), a Monday morning (Ham 2.2.389–90), sets him new a-worke, (Ham 2.2.491).
5.1.2.3 The items in 5.1.2.2 (vi) illustrate the link between an adverb and a prepositional phrase acting as an
adverbial. The examples given there can be matched by those where the preposition retains its full form: of late (KL
1.4.172), on munday night, (MA 5.1.164–5). Equally common are adverbials consisting of a noun group like last
morning (TG 2.1.74–5). There has been a tendency in the language to convert single adverbs of place like hither
and hence into adverbial prepositional phrases to here and from here. In ShE there is a preference for the singleword adverb, though forms like from hence are found: I heare hither (Cor 1.3.31), you shall hence (MV 3.2.309),
from hence I go (AY 5.4.24).
5.1.2.4 Adverbs form their comparative and superlative in the same way as adjectives, either by using the suffixes <er, -est>
< previous page
page_153
next page >
< previous page
page_154
next page >
Page 154
or even <-ier, iest>, or by adding more or most before the adverb: Thou speak'st wiser then thou art ware of. (AY
2.4.53), I can easier teach twentie (MV 1.2.15), I should freelier reioyce (Cor 1.3.3), You haue taken it wiselier (Tem
2.1.22), The villaine is much lighter heel'd then I: (MN 3.3.3), the couertst sheltred Traytor (R3 3.5.32), the sowrest
natured dogge that liues: (TG 2.3.5–6). In the last three examples the comparative or superlative comes before a
participle used adjectivally and forms a compound with it. Like adjectives, adverbs can have double comparatives: a
thing inseperate, Diuides more wider then the skie (TC 5.2.151–2), He beares himselfe more proudlier, (Cor 4.7.8),
Come you more neerer (Ham 2.1.11), My Sister may recieue it much more worsse, (KL 2.2.140), no man lesser
feares the Greeks then I, (TC 2.2.8). The adverb better can be used with the meaning ‘more’: Neuer was Monarch
better fear'd and lou'd, (H5 2.2.25), ne're a King in Christendome, could be better bit, then I haue beene (1H4
2.1.16–17). A unique form ratherest is used by Holofernes: or rather vnlettered, or ratherest unconfirmed fashion,
(LL 4.2.17–18).
5.1.3 As in PdE adverbials are used for a variety of purposes and these are outlined in the following subsections with
examples drawn usually from single adverbs rather than from prepositional phrases.
5.1.3.1 Intensive adverbs, which add emphasis and emotional colour, belong to the vogue words in the language
and, although a few like too remain for long periods in English, most have a short life as new words are found to
create the desired effect as older ones become tired and lose their impact. As intensives, they normally come before
another adverb or an adjective, although they may occasionally appear independently. Intensive adverbs are more
characteristic of the spoken language, which is why they are found in dramatic works like Shakespeare's plays. New
adverbs, mostly intensives, formed from adjectives which occur first in ShE include: ample (Tim 1.2.127), damnable
(WT 3.2.186), damnably. (1H4 4.2.13), greeuous (1H4 4.1.16), horribly (MA 2.3.223), rarely (AC 5.2.154) and
villanous (Tem 4.1.248). There are a whole range of intensive adverbs in ShE, many of which flourished in this
period of English, including: all(e), far, full(y), hertely, most, much, right, sore, strongly, truly, verily and well. Some
intensives need particular comment:
< previous page
page_154
next page >
< previous page
page_155
next page >
Page 155
Very, originally an adjective meaning ‘true’, is both an adjective and an adverb: Thou art very Trinculo indeede:
(Tem 2.2.104), very falsely (Tem 2.1.72).
All is not only an intensifier, but also an adjective and a pronoun. As an intensifier it often governs a participial
adjective, and in both F and in modern editions it may be hyphenated to this adjective, but it can also intensify other
adverbs either alone or when they occur before adjectives. It also occurs independently: And dispossesse her all.
(Tim 1.1.143, ‘entirely, of everything’), With him his bondman, all as mad as he, (CE 5.1.142, ‘just’), When all aloud
the winde doth blow, (LL 5.2.905), All too soone I shall, (Cym 5.6.169), Hath all so long detain'd (TS 3.2.103), being
all too base (R2 4.1.27), all humbled (TG 1.2.59), this all-praysed Knight, (1H4 3.2.140), your all-lycenc'd Foole, (KL
1.4.183).
When intensive adverbs occur before other adverbs or adjectives, they may have the same form as adjectives,
though few have survived into PdE, as well as other forms. In some cases the emphasis can be turned up a further
notch by repeating the intensive adverb: a bed but cold to sleep (TS Ind. 1.31, ‘too’); cleane starued for a looke,
(Son 75.10), You grow exceeding strange: (MV 1.1.67), Excellent, excellent well: (Ham 2.2.176), Whose farrevnworthie Deputie I am, (2H6 3.2.290), cut the Clouds full fast, (MN 3.2.380), A maruellous witty fellow (MA 4.2.25),
a monstrous little voyce; (MN 1.2.48), passing fell and wrath, (MN 2.1.20), so much vnreasonable, (MV 5.1.203), I
am right loath to goe, (MV 2.5.16). There are examples of adverbs with the ending <-ly>: to knocke you indifferently
well: (H5 2.1.53, ‘pretty’) I am mainely ignorant (KL 4.6.58, ‘totally’).
Adverbs which occur before prepositions also have an intensive function, though these are normally only from the
closed class of adverbs: a certaine conuocation of wormes are e'ne at him. (Ham 4.3.20–1), though the classification
of forms like this is not easy.
Adverbs which have not survived in PdE include: (a) Most without any degree of comparison, with the sense is ‘very,
absolute(ly)’: oh most Best beleeue it. (Ham 2.2.121–2). (b) Much ‘very’: who began to be much Sea-sick, (WT
5.2.117–18). (c) Passing ‘very, exceedingly’: you apprehend passing shrewdly. (MA 2.1.73).
< previous page
page_155
next page >
< previous page
page_156
next page >
Page 156
5.1.3.2 If intensive adverbs add emphasis, their opposites are downtoners, those adverbs which reduce or tone
down the sense of the following adverb or adjective, or even occasionally a verb. The commonest are something and
somewhat, which correspond to PdE rather or quite. Others include pretty and even much, though the latter usually
intensifies a preposition. Examples include: hee is something peeuish that way: (MW 1.4.12), A good swift simile,
but something currish. (TS 5.2.56), That's somewhat madly spoken (MM 5.1.89), these foolish drops doe somewhat
drowne my manly spirit: (MV 2.3.13–14, Q somthing), a prettie wise fellow, (AW 2.3.202–3), I was your Mother,
much vpon these yeares (RJ 1.3.74).
5.1.3.3 Some adverbs of time have changed their meaning like ShE yet ‘now’. Some, such as anon, betime and
presently all meaning ‘immediately’, are obsolete or no longer occur as adverbs in this sense; others have changed
their form, so that after is now afterwards, and oft regularly often; and where there were several adverbs with a
similar meaning, a reduction in their number has taken place so that afore, before, before-times and tofore have
given way to before or earlier. In some cases these changes are motivated by the wish to keep adverbs separate in
form from conjunctions and prepo-sitions. Single adverbials whose meanings are different from their PdE equivalents
include: briefely we heard their drummes. (Cor 1.7.16, ‘not long ago’), but newly gone, (2H4 4.1.80, ‘recently, just’),
the Doctor, New come from Padua. (MV 4.1.107–8, ‘just’), Why haue these banish'd, and forbidden Legges, Dar'd
once to touch a Dust of Englands Ground? (R2 2.3.89–90, ‘now, again’), And comes to his election presently. (MV
2.9.3, ‘immediately’), thy sometimes brothers wife With her companion Greefe, must end her life. (R2 1.2.54–5,
adverb used adjectivally ‘one time, former’), Which heauen and fortune still rewards with plagues. (TG 4.3.31,
‘constantly’), As it on earth hath bene thy seruant still. (KJ 5.7.73), I will about it strait; (MM 1.4.84, ‘immediately’),
How yet resolues the Gouernour of the Towne? (H5 3.3.84, ‘now’), no word to your Master that I am yet in Towne.
(2H4 2.2.152–3, ‘already’). As with other adverbs there may be variation between adverbs with or without final <-s>.
Adverbs of time no longer found in PdE include: Put vp thy sword betime, (KJ 4.3.98, ‘now’), Thy company, which
erst was irkesome to me (AY 3.5.96, ‘previously’), the daughter of a Count That dide some tweluemonth since, (TN
1.2.32–3, ‘ago’), Haue you inform'd them sithence? (Cor 3.1.49, ‘since then’), I sometime lay here in Corioles, (Cor
1.10.81, ‘from time to time’).
< previous page
page_156
next page >
< previous page
page_157
next page >
Page 157
Multi-word adverbials like by and by or adverbial noun groups like this morning are common: I will speake with you
further anon. (AW 1.3.123, ‘at once’), which euer and anon He gaue his Nose, (1H4 1.3.37–8, ‘constantly’), (By and
by I come) (RJ 2.1.195, ‘soon’).
5.1.3.4 Many adverbs of place have a different range of meaning in ShE compared with PdE: A troubled mind draue
me to walke abroad, (RJ 1.1.117, ‘outside’), His hands abroad display'd, (2H6 3.2.172, ‘far and wide’); Come, bring
them away: (MM 2.1.41, ‘away from here to somewhere else’), She neuer could away with me. (2H4 3.2.198, ‘get in
step with’); Yet sometimes fals an orient drop beside, (VA 981, ‘in the vicinity’); I stole into a neighbour thicket by,
(LL 5.2.94, ‘in the vicinity’); Put forth thy hand, (2H6 1.2.11, ‘stretch out’), to answere them directly, How farre-forth
you doe like their Articles. (2H4 4.1.278–9, ‘to what extent’); Freedome liues hence, and banishment is here; (KL
1.1.180, ‘away from this place’); England, from Trent, and Seuerne, hitherto, By South and East, is to my part
assign'd: (1H4 3.1.71–2, ‘to this place’); How if your husband start some other where? (CE 2.1.30, ‘somewhere
else’); Some whether would she haue thee goe with her. (TA 4.1.11, ‘to some other place’).
5.1.3.5 Adverbs of manner can also have a wider range of meanings than those in PdE; others are now archaic or
obsolete; and yet others occur in contexts which are no longer possible.
Again developed a number of meanings from its original sense of ‘against, opposed’: Th'one is my Soueraigne, …
th'other againe Is my kinsman, (R2 2.2.112–14, ‘on the other hand’), call the Queene againe. (WT 2.1.128, ‘back’),
And I againe in Henries Royall name, … Giue thee her hand (1H6 5.5.116–18, ‘in return’), The vvall me-thinkes being
sensible, should curse againe. (MN 5.1.180–1, ‘in reply’), pricke me Bulcalfe till he roare againe. (2H4 3.2.172–3, ‘in
response’), Weeping againe the King my Fathers wracke. (Tem 1.2.393, ‘continually’).
Almost is used in negative clauses, where it comes after the word it qualifies, in the sense ‘hardly’, in rhetorical
questions to mean ‘even’, and otherwise meaning ‘generally, for the most part’: You cannot reason (almost) with a
man, (R3 2.3.39, ‘scarcely’), Would you imagine, or almost beleeue, (R3 3.5.33, ‘even’), in these thoughts my selfe
almost despising, (Son 29.9, ‘for the most part’).
< previous page
page_157
next page >
< previous page
page_158
next page >
Page 158
Along ‘at full length’: lay hee stretch'd along like a Wounded knight. (AY 3.2.235–6). It frequently qualifies with
though the two words may be separated: I haue intreated him along With vs, to watch (Ham 1.1.24–5), With him is
Gratiano gone along; (MV 2.8.2).
Amain ‘quickly, to the best of one's ability’: Venus makes amaine vnto him, (VA 5).
Anew ‘again, once more’: she doth anew begin. (VA 60).
Belike ‘perhaps, very likely’: Belike you meane to make a puppet of me. (TS 4.3.103).
But ‘only’: Burne but his Bookes, (Tem 3.2.96), Meane time, but aske What you would haue reform'd. (KJ 4.2.43–4).
It is also an adverb where some might interpret it as a conjunction: But thinke you Hellen, (AW 1.3.233, ‘Just think,
Helen’). When used with only it functions as a preposition: discourse grow commendable in none onely but Parrats:
(MV 3.5.43).
Case and chance ‘by chance’: If case some one of you would flye from vs, (3H6 5.4.34), I may chance haue some
odde quirkes and remnants of witte broken on mee, (MA 2.3.223–4).
Besides functioning as an adverb of time, even is an adverb of manner or intensifier meaning ‘just, exactly’: Euen
now, euen here, not halfe an howre since. (CE 2.2.14), Is it euen so, (AY 1.1.81), To die, euen when they to
perfection grow. (TN 2.4.40).
Happily, an alternative spelling to haply ‘perhaps’: haply you may find her in the Sea, (TA 4.3.8, Q happilie), That
the soule of our grandam, might happily inhabite a bird. (TN 4.2.52–3, Q haply).
Hardly means ‘firm, severely’ and, as in PdE, ‘with difficulty’: We house i'th'Rocke, yet vse thee not so hardly As
prouder liuers do. (Cym 3.3.8–9), Beshrew me, but his passions moues me so, That hardly can I check my eyes
from Teares. (3H6 1.4.151–2).
Home ‘fully, completely’: I cannot speake him home: (Cor 2.2.103).
How is used for however, howso(m)ever in: How wise, how noble, yong, how rarely featur'd. (MA 3.1.60).
Inly ‘inwardly’: I haue inly wept, (Tem 5.1.203), Sit patiently, and inly ruminate The Mornings danger: (H5 4.0.24–
5).
Jump ‘exactly, just, pat’, may appear as just in F, is derived from the verb jump with ‘to agree with’: iust at this dead
houre, (Ham 1.1.64, Q1 and 2 iump), And bring him iumpe, when he may Cassio finde (Oth 2.3.376).
< previous page
page_158
next page >
< previous page
page_159
next page >
Page 159
Like ‘in the same manner’: subtle as the Fox for prey, Like warlike as the Wolfe, (Cym 3.3.40–1), My fellow ministers
Are like-invulnerable: (Tem 3.3.65–6).
Other ‘otherwise’: were shee other then she is, (MA 1.1.166), Who dares receiue it other, (Mac 1.7.77).
Out ‘fully, completely’: Thou hast beate mee out Twelue seuerall times, (Cor 4.5.122–3), thou was't not Out three
yeeres old. (Tem 1.2.40–1).
Peradventure ‘by chance’: if peraduenture this bee true: (MA 1.2.20–1).
Round and roundly ‘openly, without equivocation’: No, I went round to worke, (Ham 2.2.140), And fell so roundly to
a large confession, (TC 3.2.150).
Severally ‘separately, in turn’ occurs frequently in stage directions and in: and compare their Reasons, When
seuerally we heare them rendred. (JC 3.2.9–10).
So has a much wider use in ShE than in PdE. It occurs in a rather vaguer sense of ‘in that way, indeed’ in contexts
where it would not be used today: We will so: (Cor 2.3.254, ‘we will do as you wish’), He had so, (Cor 4.5.159, ‘He
had indeed’). It is omitted in some clauses where it is found in PdE: Will the time serue to tell, I do not thinke: (Cor
1.7.46). It is used instead of also: Made In pursut and in possession so, (Son 129.9), Cosine farewell: and Vncle bid
him so: (R2 1.3.236). It has the general sense of ‘whatever’ in Good sir, or so, or friend, or Gentleman. (Ham
2.1.46), and particularly with numerals: Ile make one in a dance, or so: (LL 5.1.146). The meaning ‘in that way’
leads to the sense ‘thus, thereupon’ in And when this Haile some heat from Hermia felt, So he dissolu'd, (MN
1.1.244–5). It also does duty as a type of affirmative expressing approbation ‘that's fine’, just like PdE ‘so, so’: So,
so: Well done, well done: (Cym 1.5.82), Well of his wealth: but of himselfe, so, so. (TG 1.2.13). So could also
develop from ‘in this way’ to a kind of intensifier meaning ‘such’: VVith so full soule, (Tem 3.1.44), of so quicke
condition, (MM 1.1.53), In so profound Abisme (Son 112.9).
Something ‘somewhat’: I prattle Something too wildely, (Tem 3.1.57–8).
Sound, soundly ‘energetically’: Let them be hunted soundly: (Tem 4.1.260), cf. pinch him, sound, (MW 4.4.61).
< previous page
page_159
next page >
< previous page
page_160
next page >
Page 160
Wistly ‘intently’: what a sight it was wistly to view, (VA 343).
Withal ‘moreover, nevertheless’: I thinke withall, There would be hands vplifted in my right: (Mac 4.3.42–3).
Some adverbs occur with the verb to be elliptically: That Lucius banishment was wrongfully, (TA 4.4.76, ‘illegal,
falsely made’), That's worthily As any eare can heare. (Cor 4.1.54–5, ‘nobly spoken’), at that time the iealious–
rascally–knaue her husband will be forth: (MW 2.2.254–6, ‘will be out of the house’).
Adverbials can be more than a single word, where the first word may strengthen the meaning of the second: And
more aboue hath his soliciting, (Ham 2.2.127, ‘additionally, furthermore’).
5.1.3.6
Adverbs of affirmation are ay, yea, yes and a number of other occasional words. The first, normally spelt I in F, is
probably the commonest: I on mine honour. (Tem 3.2.116), I, I, he said foure. (1H4 2.5.202). Sometimes I (ay) is
found in Q and yes in F: Yes, that the King is dead. (R3 2.3.3, Q I). Yes faith will I, … I, and twentie such. (AY
4.1.108–11). Yea can be used alone, though it is frequently linked with no or nay: Yea, if it please you. (2H4
3.2.104), Receaues the scroll without or yea or no, (RL 1340), By yea and nay sir, than I swore in iest. (LL 1.1.54).
In some instances yea has the sense ‘indeed’: and make his bold waues tremble, Yea, his dread Trident shake. (Tem
1.2.206–7). It is used elliptically in:
Prince. … I warrant one that knowes him not.
Cla. Yes, and his ill conditions,
(MA 3.2.59–61)
where Claudio's remark means ‘That's true and one who does not know his bad character’. Otherwise agreement
may be indicated by expressions like certes, i’ faith, in sooth and truly, though these are not direct adverbs of
affirmation, for their meaning approximates more to ‘indeed, in truth’: Certis she did, (CE 4.4.76), Indeede Ile
breake thy little finger Harry, (1H4 2.4.85), Troth Sir, all is in his hands aboue: (MW 1.4.139).
< previous page
page_160
next page >
< previous page
page_161
next page >
Page 161
These adverbials are often used to support an adverb of affirmation and so it is hardly surprising that they took over
some sense of affirmation from them.
The variation between ay and yes in F and Q outlined at the beginning of the previous paragraph may distort the
tendency to have ay or yea as answers to positive questions or statements and yes to negative ones (Salmon
1965:133); compare:
Val. Madam, they are for you.
Silu. I, I: you writ them Sir
(TG 2.1.117–18)
with
Val. … Doe you not like it?
Sil. Yes, yes: the lines are very queintly writ,
(TG 2.1.114–15)
Adverbs of negation are more numerous. The opposite of the affirmative I (ay) was nay, but no is also found. Often
nay answers positive questions or statements and no negative ones: Is his head worth a hat? Or his chin worth a
beard? | Nay, he hath but a little beard. (AY 3.2.202–3), Why, doe you not perceiue the iest? | No, beleeue me. (TG
2.1.144–5), (cf. Salmon 1965: 133–4). The negator may be strengthened by a preceding intensifier: Faith no, as
you may season it in the charge; (Ham 2.1.29). Nay can act as an intensifier meaning ‘indeed’: To strike me, spurne
me, nay to kill me too; (MN 3.2.314). The traditional negative adverb with verbs was ne and this occurs in Pericles
as an archaism: Ne ought escapend (sc.5.36). One further example is found in All's Well, though its interpretation is
uncertain: my maidens name Seard otherwise, ne worse of worst extended With vildest torture, (AW 2.1.172–4, ‘nor’
or perhaps ‘nay’). In ShE ne is replaced by not, nothing, and never, the last being the most emphatic, though there
may be little difference in meaning between not on the one hand and nothing and never on the other: as I not
doubt, (Tem 5.1.307), it not belongs to you. (2H4 4.1.96), they nothing doubt preuailing, (Cor 1.3.101–2), It
nothing steeds vs To chide him (AW 3.7.41–2), His father neuer was so true begot, (KJ 2.1.130),
< previous page
page_161
next page >
< previous page
page_162
next page >
Page 162
hast thou neuer an eye in thy head? (1H4 2.1.27–8). Never can be used before so where in PdE one uses ever: be
he ne're so vile, (H5 4.3.62), If it be ne're so false, (WT 5.2.160). None is used in the expression none a stranger
there, So merry, and so gamesome: (Cym 1.6.60–1), but more frequently with the partitive genitive: But I will none
of them: (TG 2.1.119), I will none of thee, (MV 3.2.102). Some examples of no replace not, though the occasional
one is unusual: if no, then thou art doom'd to die: (CE 1.1.154), dwell with him or no. (MV 2.2.43), No had (my
Lord?) why, did you not prouoke me? (KJ 4.2.208, ‘Did I really not have one?’).
5.1.3.7 Clause adverbials, which modify the whole clause rather than a word, are linked to interjections and various
asseverations. An expression like Beshrew my heart in the sentence Beshrew my heart, but I pittie the man. (MN
5.1.285) can be understood as an interjection or a clause adverbial. In both cases the phrase adds an emotional
tone to the clause. As in PdE, these adverbials can be placed anywhere in a clause, though they tend to come at the
beginning or end. They consist of single words, phrases or even clauses:
As single words, they come from both the closed and open class. In the closed class, the case of and has been
illustrated above (5.1.1). Others include anon ‘then’ (AY 2.1.52), Faith (AW 1.3.98), how ere (AW 1.3.179,
‘however’), Therefore (Tem 3.3.100), and what, when and why. These last three need some comment, for they are
often misinterpreted as interrogative pronouns, although they also function as adverbs, adding a sense of irony,
scepticism or indignation to the clause which follows. Sometimes these words are followed by another adverb and
strengthen it: What, shall we suffer this? lets pluck him down, (3H6 1.1.59), Why then thou shalt not haue thy
Husbands Lands. (3H6 3.2.71), When Harrie when? (R2 1.1.162). See further 8.3.1.1. In the open class single
adverbs usually have the ending <-ly>: Admiringly (AW 5.3.45), Belike (Ham 3.2.133), Haply (Ham 3.1.174),
obscurely (JC 1.2.319), truly (Ham 2.1.87).
As phrases they are mainly prepositional phrases: by the faith of my loue, (AY 3.2.412), By heauen (LL 4.3.82), By
earth (LL 4.3.83), by Apollo, (KL 1.1.159), By'r lakin, (Tem 3.3.1). Sometimes the form can be abbreviated so that
the more usual at
< previous page
page_162
next page >
< previous page
page_163
next page >
Page 163
a word appears as a word: good sparkes and lustrous, a word good mettals. (AW 2.1.39–40); Good sooth (WT
4.4.160) is short for In good sooth. Similarly, when in All's Well Mariana says and the miserie is example, that so
terrible shewes in the wracke of maiden-hood, (3.5.21–2) example is an adverbial which is short for something like
by example.
As noted above, the question of whether clauses are adverbials is difficult to decide and the point was illustrated by
Beshrew my heart. Other possible forms include I pray thee, which was often reduced to the single word prithee or
pray: your humble patience pray, Gently to heare, (H5 1.0.33–4). That clauses like this were adverbials is suggested
by their appearance at different positions in the sentence and by their association with other clause adverbials: I
pray you pardon me. (Ham 5.2.244), And of all Christian Soules, I pray God. (Ham 4.5.198), (That Sun, I pray may
neuer set) (H8 3.2.416), And so I pray you all to thinke your selues. (TS 2.1.113). In some cases modern editors
may misunderstand the nature of these phrases as clause adverbials. When in All's Well Bertram says to Helena I
pray you stay not, but in hast to horse. (2.5.86), some editors (e.g. Fraser 1985: 91) keep F's punctuation. But it is
better with other editors (e.g. Wells and Taylor 1988: 868) to put a comma after you and to understand stay not as
an imperative, since this agrees much better with the brusque tone that Bertram employs to his wife. It is also
possible to have non-finite clauses as clause adverbials: and indeed such a fellow, to say precisely, were not for the
Court, (AW 2.2.11–13).
5.2 Interjections
5.2.1 Interjections usually consist of a single word, often repeated, though there are some short phrases, especially
those which are corrupted forms of oaths to conceal their original, somewhat blasphemous origin. There are also
forms of onomatopoeic origin. Interjections have a close link with discourse markers (8.3).
5.2.2 Interjections express a variety of emotional attitudes:
Pleasure: and cry, heigh ho for a husband. (MA 2.1.300), Freedome, high-day, high-day freedome, (Tem 2.2.185),
Our enemy is banish'd,
< previous page
page_163
next page >
< previous page
page_164
next page >
Page 164
he is gone: Hoo, oo. (Cor 3.3.141), Riuo, sayes the drunkard. (1H4 2.5.111).
Surprise, amazement: Ha, what sayest thou, (MV 3.1.16), Hollo, what storme is this? (TA 2.1.25), How? thy wife?
(MM 2.1.68). Sorrow, grief: Alacke, what hainous sinne is it (MV 2.3.16), Alas, the way is wearisome (TG 2.7.8), Oh
me, what hast thou done? (Ham 3.4.24), A welady, hee's dead, (RJ 3.2.37, ‘well-a-day’), Woe, alas: (Mac 2.3.86).
Scorn, contempt, defiance: Auant thou witch: (CE 4.3.79), Ha? fie, these filthy vices: (MM 2.4.42), Fo, fo, adew, you
palter. (TC 5.2.48), Pish for thee, Island dogge: (H5 2.1.40), Affection, puh. You speake like a greene Girle, (Ham
1.3.101), Out hyperbolicall fiend, (TN 4.2.26).
5.2.3 Some interjections introduce speeches and function as a greeting or summons, sign of resignation, or request
for attention or silence: Holla Barnardo. (Ham 1.1.15), Cry'd via, we will doo't, (LL 5.2.112), he hallow'd but euen
now. Whoa-ho-hoa. (WT 3.3.75–6), Why Iessica I say. (MV 2.5.6), why so: go all which way it will: (R2 2.2.87),
Marian I say, a stoope of wine. (TN 2.3.13), Husht master, (TS 1.1.68), Buzze, buzze. (Ham 2.2.395).
5.2.4 Some interjections are onomatopoeic: Ha, ha, ha. (Tem 2.1.38), Rah, tah, tah, would hee say, (2H4 3.2.280–
1), the watch-Dogges barke, bowgh-wawgh. (Tem 1.2.385–6), Weeke, weeke, so cries a Pigge prepared to th'spit.
(TA 4.2.145), The Larke, that tirra-Lyra chaunts, (WT 4.3.9), nightly sings the staring Owle Tu-whit to-who. (LL
5.2.902–3).
5.2.5 Various interjections are based on blasphemous oaths, though many of these appear only in Q because the
Jacobean period saw a tightening up of the campaign against blasphemy leading to the replacement of some
expressions by more anodyne exclamations: By Cocke they are too blame. (Ham 4.5.61), Cockes passion, silence,
(TS 4.1.105), I, by goggs woones quoth he, (TS 3.3.33), Come (Ham 5.1.271, Q2 S'wounds), Away (1H4 2.5.248, Q
Zbloud), Sfoote, (TC 2.3.5), Gods bodykins (Ham 2.2.532), marry and Amen. (1H4 2.5.115), Indeed, I thinke he
bee, (2H4 5.3.90, Q Birlady). Some clauses might fit in this category such as by grace it selfe I sweare: (AW
1.3.218).
< previous page
page_164
next page >
< previous page
page_165
next page >
Page 165
5.3 Conjunctions
Today we distinguish between co-ordinate and subordinate conjunctions. The former link together clauses, phrases
or words of equal status in a sentence, whereas the latter are hierarchical and link a dependent clause to a clause
higher up the status chain. The distinction between co-ordinate and subordinate clauses was less clear-cut at an
earlier period, for the same word could act as both a co-ordinate and a subordinate conjunction. Thus and and but
could be both co-ordinate and subordinate, although today they are confined to the co-ordinate class – at least in
written English. In addition to their co-ordinate functions, and was a subordinate conjunction introducing a
conditional clause meaning ‘if’ and but a subordinate conjunction introducing a conditional clause ‘unless’. As already
noted (5.1.1), conjunctions are closely related to adverbs and prepositions, and the same word could be employed in
one function or the other. Indeed, new conjunctions were formed by adapting the function of a preposition or an
adverb, which was done principally by adding that. Thus after, which was both an adverb and a preposition, became
after that as a conjunction. A number of conjunctions found in ShE have since disappeared from the language, and
a number of new ones have been introduced, usually those consisting of more than one word such as in view of the
fact that, where that is still used to indicate a conjunction. Nevertheless, in ShE the total number of conjunctions
used is less than one might have expected, even in prose. This may be explained by the extensive use of participles,
the employment of inversion of subject and verb in lieu of a conjunction, and the omission of any linking device
whatsoever to allow the sense to be inferred, as is also the case in colloquial PdE.
5.3.1 There are relatively few co-ordinate conjunctions and their functions are similar to those found in PdE. The
difficulty is more in determining when they function co-ordinately rather than in understanding their meaning when
they do so. They can link one word to another, one phrase to another or one clause of equal rank to another. The
main ones were and, but, or and nor, together with the correlatives either/or ~ or, neither/nor ~ nor/or. Although
the following words are normally co-ordinating, their function in some cases approximates a subordinating role.
< previous page
page_165
next page >
< previous page
page_166
next page >
Page 166
Although the main purpose of and is to link items of equal rank together in a cumulative sense, its meaning may
vary:
It has an adversative sense ‘but, however’: seruice is no heritage, and I thinke I shall neuer haue the blessing of
God, till I haue issue a my bodie: (AW 1.3.23–5).
It acts as a linking adverb ‘therefore, and so’: ‘tis a good dulnesse, And giue it way: (Tem 1.2.186–7).
It may occur only before the last item in a list: Of losse, of slaughter, and discomfiture: (1H6 1.1.59).
As in PdE, there is an overlap in meaning between and and or, and sometimes these two interchange between Q
and F, though editors may modernise the text: More white, and red, then doues, or roses are: (VA 10, where or
means ‘and’), If you suspect my Husbandry or Falshood, (Tim 2.2.152, where or is part of a hendiadys meaning
‘false husbandry, i.e. deceitful management’).
Although and is technically a co-ordinating conjunction, it frequently joins together two nouns or adjectives, one of
which is really subordinate to the other as part of the rhetorical figure hendiadys: with dances and delight: (MN
2.1.254, ‘with delightful dances’), that Time and Spight dare bring (2H4 1.1.151, ‘envious time’), thy Triumphs, and
returne (TA 1.1.110, your triumphal return’, though returne is taken by some editors to be a verb), his slow, and
mouing finger (Oth 4.2.57, ‘slowly moving’).
And, as in PdE, can be joined with both, though sometimes the and is omitted: hee both pleaseth men and angers
them, (MA 2.1.130–1), Whereas they had deliuer'd both in time, Forme of the thing; each word made true and
good, (Ham 1.2.209–10).
But expresses an adversative ‘however, nevertheless’: for me nothing remaines: But long I will not be Iack out of
Office. (1H6 1.1.174–5).
‘Except’: and but hee's something stain'd With greefe (that's beauties canker) yu might'st call him A goodly person:
(Tem 1.2.417–9). This use is also found after negative statements and questions: Can you not hate me, as I know
you doe, But you must ioyne in soules to mocke me to? (MN 3.2.150–1), no Iutty frieze. Buttrice, nor Coigne of
Vantage, but this Bird Hath made his pendant Bed, (Mac 1.6.6–8).
< previous page
page_166
next page >
< previous page
page_167
next page >
Page 167
By itself it can be a correlative: Not onely with what my reuenew yeelded, But what my power might els exact. (Tem
1.2.98–9). In such cases it does little more than introduce the main clause: The Sun no sooner shall the Mountaines
touch, But we will ship him hence, (Ham 4.1.28–9, ‘As soon as dawn breaks, we will ship him off’).
It has the subordinating sense ‘although’: they are not yet come back. But I haue spoke with one that saw him die:
(Mac 1.4.3–4).
Or may introduce alternatives of equal status, whether words, phrases or clauses, but its sense is often ‘or else,
otherwise’: I haue inly wept, Or should haue spoke ere this: (Tem 5.1.203–4), Speake softly, or the losse of those
great Townes Will make him burst (1H6 1.1.63–4). Or occurs with adverbs like else or whether: moue these eies? Or
whether riding on the bals of mine Seeme they in motion? (MV 3.2.116–18). Like and, it occurs in a list only before
the last of several possible alternatives: No floure was nigh, no grasse, hearb, leaf, or weed, (VA 1055). Or … or is
used instead of either … or, often disjunctively: Or I shall liue your Epitaph to make, Or you suruiue (Son 81.1–
2). This correlative may approximate to ‘whether … or’: VVhat houre is this, or morne, or wearie euen, (VA 495),
though this may also be expressed through or whether … or whether: Or whether doth my minde being crown'd
with you Drinke vp the monarks plague this flattery? Or whether shall I say mine eie saith true, (Son 114.1–3). It
can have an adversative meaning, resembling but: Such were our faults, or then we thought them none. (AW
1.3.131, ‘but at that time’). Nor is used to make negative a following word, phrase or clause, even though the
negative might have been assumed from a preceding negator like not or none where or is more usual in PdE: That
knowes not parching heat, nor freezing cold (RL 1145), None else to me, nor I to none aliue, (Son 112.7), sith
there's no iustice in earth nor hell, (TA 4.3.50).
< previous page
page_167
next page >
< previous page
page_168
next page >
Page 168
It links two sentences together which are otherwise grammatically separate: But the Law will not allow it Pompey;
nor it shall not be allowed in Vienna. (MM 2.1.218–19), These Boyes know little they are Sonnes to'th'King, Nor
Cymbeline dreames that they are aliue. (Cym 3.3.80–1).
It has an adversative sense ‘and not’ after a clause with no explicit or implicit negative: Then let my Fathers Honours
liue in me, Nor wrong mine Age with this indignitie. (TA 1.1.7–8).
It occurs by itself where neither … nor might be expected: But my fiue wits, nor my fiue sences can Diswade one
foolish heart (Son 141.9–10).
The correlatives either … or and neither … nor both indicate alternatives or imply inclusion of both elements: Till
either gorge be stuft, or pray be gone: (VA 58), But what needes either your Mum, or her Budget? (MW 5.2.8–9).
The alternatives may be more than two: neither sad, nor sicke, nor merry, nor well: (MA 2.1.274–5), Either this is
Enuie in you, Folly, or mistaking: (MM 3.1.402). The neither in the correlative neither … nor may be omitted, see (d)
(iv) above. Neither by itself can stand in place of nor: neither do I labor for a greater esteeme (AY 5.2.54).
5.3.2 In ShE, as in PdE, there are more subordinating conjunctions than co-ordinating ones.
5.3.2.1 The commonest is that either on its own or as an attachment to another conjunction. Its all-purpose nature
is manifest not only by turning other words into conjunctions (5.3), but also by acting as a repeat conjunction or
adverb when two subordinate clauses are linked: If we haue entrance, as I hope we shall, And that we finde the
slouthfull Watch but weake, (1H6 3.2.6–7, ‘and if’), Before we met, or that a stroke was giuen, (1H6 4.1.22, ‘and
before’). In
Nor time, nor place
Did then adhere, and yet you would make both:
They haue made themselues, and that their fitnesse now
Do's vnmake you.
(Mac 1.7.51–4)
that is an adverb, which parallels and varies yet. The two clauses are balanced then ~ now, and yet ~ and that,
haue made ~ Do's
< previous page
page_168
next page >
< previous page
page_169
next page >
Page 169
vnmake, although modern editors do not appear to understand this arrangement, for Wells and Taylor (1988: 981)
put a full stop after both. Difficulties of interpretation also arise when that is attached to conjunctions or even
prepositions. In Macbeth 1.2.9–12 the expression for to that:
The mercilesse Macdonwald
(Worthie to be a Rebell, for to that
The multiplying Villanies of Nature
Doe swarme vpon him) …
may be understood in one of two ways: with that as the supplementary conjunction added to for to meaning
‘because’, or with for meaning ‘because’ and to that ‘to that end, purpose’. When added to another conjunction,
adverb or preposition it can have a variety of meanings: Moreouer, that we much did long to see you, (Ham 2.2.2,
‘Quite apart from our great desire to see you’).
That is used as follows.
It introduces a finite or non-finite clause as subject, complement or object of the main clause: And that most deeply
to consider, is The beautie of his daughter: (Tem 3.2.99–100), Which was, That he … Should presently extirpate me
and mine (Tem 1.2.123–5), hoping that Adonis is aliue, (VA 1009). This that is frequently omitted: I after him, do
after him wish too: Since I nor wax nor honie can bring home, I quickly were dissolued from my hiue (AW 1.2.64–
6), Direct mine Armes, I may embrace his Neck, (1H6 2.5.37). If there are two subordinate clauses dependent on
the one verb, the first may be without that and the second with it: Shee saies I am not faire, that I lacke manners,
(AY 4.3.16), thinke you we are Turkes, or Infidels? Or that we would, against the forme of Law, Proceed thus rashly
(R3 3.5.39–41).
Expressing surprise, distress or indignation, it introduces what appears to be a subordinate clause, though no main
clause is found: ‘Mongst all foes that a friend should be the worst? (TG 5.4.72), that right should thus o'recome
might. (2H4 5.4.23–4). It introduces an optative clause, usually with a verb in the subjunctive: O, that you bore The
minde that I do; (Tem 2.1.271–2), O God, that Somerset who in proud heart Doth stop my Cornets, were in Talbots
place, (1H6 4.3.24–5). That is sometimes omitted: Good God, these Nobles should such stomacks beare, (1H6
1.4.88).
< previous page
page_169
next page >
< previous page
page_170
next page >
Page 170
It introduces a result clause meaning ‘so that’: His Faulchon on a flint he softly smiteth, That from the could stone
sparkes of fire doe flie, (RL 176–7). That may be omitted when so is found in the main clause: the toe of the Pesant
comes so neere the heeles of our Courtier, hee galls his Kibe. (Ham 5.1.136–7).
It introduces a reason for something with the sense ‘seeing that, in as much as’: I doubt he be not well, that hee
comes not home: (MW 1.4.38–9), their cheere is the greater that I am subdued, (MA 1.3.66–7).
It introduces a purpose clause meaning ‘in order that’: watch the doore with Pistols, that none shall issue out: (MW
4.2.44–5), Was Millaine thrust from Millaine, that his Issue Should become Kings of Naples? (Tem 5.1.208–9).
It introduces a relative clause even with a missing preposition: This is the houre that Madam Siluia Entreated me to
call, (TG 4.3.1–2, ‘at which, when’), thou lou'st mee not with the full waight that I loue thee; (AY 1.2.7–8, ‘with
which’).
That is used instead of a causal conjunction, with Q and F often showing variation in conjunction: That thou hast
sought to make vs breake our vowes, … take thy reward. (KL 1.1.167–71, F; Since HL sc.1.158, Q), I haue
entertained thee, Partly that I haue neede of such a youth, (TG 4.4.61–2, ‘because’).
It means ‘in that, namely’: There's something in't … that his good receipt, Shall for my legacie be sanctified (AW
1.3.240–3).
In some instances how takes on some characteristics of that, especially after verbs like beware, to take heed; and
the two can combine to produce the conjunction how that: he thereby may haue a likely gesse, How these were
they that made away his Brother. (TA 2.3.207–8), Duke Frederick hearing how that euerie day Men of great worth
resorted to this forrest, Addrest a mightie power, (AY 5.4.152–4).
5.3.2.2
As shares many characteristics with that, for it is added to adverbs or prepositions to turn them into conjunctions
and it may be added to other conjunctions: Like as the waues make towards the pibled shore, (Son 60.1),
Thereafter as they be: a score of good Ewes may be worth tenne pounds. (2H4 3.2.49–50), When as the Enemie
hath beene tenne to one: (3H6 1.2.74), While as the silly Owner of the goods Weepes ouer them, (2H6 1.1.225–6).
< previous page
page_170
next page >
< previous page
page_171
next page >
Page 171
By itself it has a range of meanings: As I am man, (TN 2.2.36, ‘in so far as’), As heauen shall worke in me for thine
auaile (AW 1.3.180, ‘to the extent that’), other strict obseruances: As not to see a woman in that terme, (LL 1.1.36–
7, ‘namely, to wit’), our recountments … As how I came into that Desert place. (AY 4.3.141–2, ‘namely’), we wil play
our part As he shall thinke (TS Ind.1.67–8, ‘so that’), If it be so Laertes, as how should it be so: (Ham 4.7.56–7,
‘for’).
It acts as a relative pronoun: those as sleepe, and thinke not (MW 5.5.52), I returne those duties backe as are right
fit, (KL 1.1.97), wild, and vsuall slips, As are Companions noted (Ham 2.1.22–3).
It indicates time: I pray you iest sir as you sit at dinner: (CE 1.2.62, ‘when’), Whom I encountred as the Battels
ioyn'd. (3H6 1.1.15, ‘when’), Say to the King, the knowledge of the Broyle, As thou didst leaue it. (Mac 1.2.6–7,
‘when’), Shee that you gaze on so, as she sits at supper? (TG 2.1.41, ‘while’), As Falstaffe, she, and I, are newly
met, (MW 4.4.52, ‘as soon as’).
As and like as can mean ‘as if’: Smoile you my speeches, as I were a Foole? (KL 2.2.82), As were our England in
reuersion his, (R2 1.4.34, ‘as if’), and did addresse It selfe to motion, like as it would speake: (Ham 1.2.216–17).
It means ‘like, as’: malicious Censurers, which euer, As rau'nous Fishes doe a Vessell follow (H8 1.2.79–80). In this
example, modern punctuation could interpret the sentence two ways: with a comma after doe, As is a conjunction;
but with the comma before doe, it becomes a preposition.
5.3.2.3 So shares many of the same functions and senses as as:
introducing an optative clause: so defend thee heauen. (R2 1.3.34);
‘and accordingly, thus’: So fare you well: (MM 1.1.58);
‘provided that, if’: and she by her good will, VVill neuer rise, so he will kisse her still. (VA 479–80), I am content: so
he will let me haue The other halfe (MV 4.1.379–80), I would I had, so I had broke thy pate (AW 2.1.65);
with the groups if so, so as and so that in the sense ‘if, provided that’: If so you'l not o'rerule me to a peace. (Ham
4.7.59), So as thou liu'st in peace, dye free from strife: (R2 5.6.27), so that thy State might be no worse, I would
my skill were subiect to thy curse: (R2 3.4.103–4);
< previous page
page_171
next page >
< previous page
page_172
next page >
Page 172
the correlatives so … as and as … so have a wide use in ShE: So long as I could see. (TN 1.2.16), as the morning
steales vpon the night (Melting the darknesse) so their rising sences Begin to chace (Tem 5.1.65–7);
it occurs elliptically for a whole clause, generally expressing approval or affirmation with the sense ‘so be it’: And if it
please you, so: if not: why so: (TG 2.1.123), If he will take it, so: if not adiew, (MV 1.3.168); cf. 5.1.3.5 (xxi).
5.3.2.4 Temporal and causal conjunctions include the following:
(i)
Afore, before, ere and or ere ‘before, sooner than’: Ere I learne loue, Ile practise to obey. (CE 2.1.29), this heart
shal break into a hundred thousand flawes Or ere Ile weepe: (KL 2.2.458–9), Ile forsweare keeping house, before Ile
be in these tirrits, and frights. (2H4 2.4.203–4, Q afore).
Against and ‘gainst indicate a future time when something will happen: Ile charme his eyes against she doth
appeare. (MN 3.2.99), Some sayes, that euer ‘gainst that Season comes Wherein our Sauiours Birth is celebrated,
The Bird of Dawning singeth all night long: (Ham 1.1.139–41).
But indicates time when: Compell'd these skipping Kernes to trust their heeles, But the Norweyan Lord, surueying
vantage, … Began a fresh assault. (Mac 1.2.30–3, ‘when’).
Since, sith and sithence both ‘when, since the time that’ and ‘seeing that’: I neuer prosper'd, since I forswore my
selfe at Primero: (MW 4.5.94–5), doe you remember since wee lay all night in the Winde-mill, (2H4 3.2.191–2), If so
the world will hold thee in disdaine, Sith in thy pride, so faire a hope is slaine. (VA 761–2), speedily to acquaint you
withall, sithence in the losse that may happen, it concernes you something to know it. (AW 1.3.115–7). Since
alternates with being in the sense ‘because’: That being of so young dayes brought vp with him: And since so
Neighbour'd to his youth, (Ham 2.2.11–12).
When, when as, what time and even where express time when and then may introduce the main clause: it was mine
Art, When I arriu'd, and heard thee, that made gape (Tem 1.2.292–3), so Iudas kist his master, And cried all haile,
when as he meant all harme. (3H6 5.7.33–4); He shall conceale it, … What time we
< previous page
page_172
next page >
< previous page
page_173
next page >
Page 173
will our celebration keepe (TN 4.3.28–30), Thou art not for the fashion of these times, Where none will sweate, but
for promotion, (AY 2.3.60–1), When my tongue blabs, then let mine eyes not see. (TN 1.2.59). But when
approximates to ‘if’ sometimes: I may say so when I please. (MA 2.1.84), what a thing should I haue beene, when I
had beene swel'd? (MW 3.5.15–16).
While, whiles, whilest and whilst express duration of time: and now no more resisteth, VVhile she takes all she can,
(VA 563–4), there's comfort in't, Whiles other men haue Gates, (WT 1.2.197–8), Purge all Infection from our Ayre,
whilest you Doe Clymate here: (WT 5.1.168–9), His company must do his minions grace, Whil'st I at home starue
(CE 2.1.86–7). They also mean ‘until’ and may imply causality: We will keepe our selfe till Supper time alone: While
then, God be with you. (Mac 3.1.44–5), Nor dare I chide the world without end houre, Whilst I (my soueraine)
watch the clock for you, (Son 57.5–6).
(ii)
Because, because that, for, for as, for because, for that and for why express causality: I thinke him so, because I
thinke him so. (TG 1.2.24), Because that I familiarlie sometimes Doe vse you for my foole, and chat with you, Your
sawcinesse will iest vpon my loue, (CE 2.2.26–8), let's assist them, for our case is as theirs. (Tem 1.1.51–2), for as
she hath Been publikely accus'd, so shall she haue A iust and open Triall. (WT 2.3.203–5), And for because the
world is populous, And heere is not a Creature, but my selfe, I cannot do it: (R2 5.5.3–5), for that I loue your
daughter … I must aduance the colours of my loue, (MW 3.4.77–80), but her face nothing like so cleane kept: for
why? she sweats (CE 3.2.103–4), For why, my bowels cannot hide her woes, But like a drunkard must I vomit them:
(TA 3.1.229–30).
Being, being that, seeing, and seeing that are used as ‘considering, in view of the fact that’: you loyter heere too
long being you are to take Souldiers vp, (2H4 2.1.187–8), Being that I flow in greefe, The smallest twine may lead
me. (MA 4.1.252–3), seeing gentle words will not preuayle, Assaile them (2H6 4.2.173–4).
Causality may be expressed by putting two clauses together without any conjunction; the causality is inferred rather
than stated: This Hebrew will turne Christian, he growes kinde. (MV 1.3.177, ‘Because this Hebrew is becoming
generous, it shows he is turning into a Christian’).
< previous page
page_173
next page >
< previous page
page_174
next page >
Page 174
5.3.2.5 Conditional clauses are introduced not only by and, but, and but that but also by an(d) and if. Q and F often
interchange between an and and: an't be not foure by the day, Ile be hang'd. (1H4 2.1.1–2), Ile tell you when, and
you'll tell me wherefore. (CE 3.1.39), if he make this good He is as worthy for an Empresse loue, (TG 2.4.73–4).
Modern editors modernise and as a conditional conjunction to an. So, except and without also introduce a
conditional clause: Ile frowne and be peruerse, and say thee nay, So thou wilt wooe: (RJ 2.1.138–9), Mourne not,
except thou sorrow for my good, (1H6 2.5.111), A very reuerent body: I such a one, as a man may not speake of,
without he say sir reuerence, (CE 3.2.90–2). If has a wide range of meanings: If I stand heere, I saw him. (Mac
3.4.73, ‘as surely as’), If he had spoke; the wolfe would leaue his praie, (VA 1097, ‘when’), Vouchsafe my pray'r May
know if you remaine vpon this Island, (Tem 1.2.425–6, ‘whether’). If … or means ‘whether … or’ in If Friend or Foe,
let him be gently vsed. (3H6 2.6.45). Be it that, upon condition (that), conditionally that, in/if case, provided (that),
and say (that) express conditionality: be it that she suruiue me (TS 2.1.124), Vpon condition Publius shall not liue,
(JC 4.1.4), Conditionally, that heere thou take an Oath, (3H6 1.1.197), If case some one of you would flye from vs,
(3H6 5.4.34), prouided, I haue your commendation, (Cym 1.4.151–2), Prouided that you do no outrages (TG
4.1.69), say that she were gone, (WT 2.3.7), But say it is my humor: Is it answered? (MV 4.1.42), Nor me, so I
were one. (TA 2.1.103, ‘provided that’). Except is used to mean ‘unless’: Except they meant to bathe in reeking
Wounds, Or memorize another Golgotha, I cannot tell: (Mac 1.2.39–41).
The variety of meanings expressed by if has led to some passages being misinterpreted. In Cym 1.4.45–6 F reads (if
I offend to say it is mended), which most modern editors emend to if I offend not to say it is mended (Wells and
Taylor 1988: 1136). Here if means ‘granted that’ (cf. OED If 4) and the clause means ‘granted that I offend you to
claim it is mended’.
5.3.2.6 Result or consecutive clauses are usually introduced by that, though as is found especially where so and such
occur in the main clause: then Il'd shrieke, that euen your eares Should rift to heare me, (WT 5.1.65–6), Haue you
not made an Vniuersall shout, That Tyber trembled vnderneath her bankes (JC 1.1.44–5), And findes the testie
Gentleman so hot, That he will lose his Head, ere giue consent (R3 3.4.37–8, Q As), And hath so humbled me, as I
confesse There is no woe to his correction, (TG 2.4.135–6), Such attribution
< previous page
page_174
next page >
< previous page
page_175
next page >
Page 175
should the Douglas haue, As not a Souldiour of this seasons stampe, Should go so generall currant (1H4 4.1.3–5), I
warrant you we wil play our part As he shall thinke by our true diligence He is no lesse (TS Ind.1.67–9).
5.3.2.7 Final clauses are introduced with for (that) ‘in order that’: And for the time shall not seeme tedious, Ile tell
thee what befell me (3H6 3.1.9–10), for that It is not night when I doe see your face. Therefore I thinke I am not in
the night, (MN 2.1.220–2). The negative ‘in order that … not’, often with a reduced sense ‘for fear that’, is
introduced with lest/least, fearing lest, and for fear lest: pursue him now, least the deuice take ayre, and taint. (TN
3.4.129–30), it were not good She knew his loue, lest she make sport at it. (MA 3.1.57–8), But fearing lest my
iealous ayme might erre, … I gaue him gentle lookes, (TG 3.1.28–31), Alreadie to their wormie beds are gone; For
feare least day should looke their shames vpon, (MN 3.2.385–6).
5.3.2.8 Concessive clauses are introduced by: albeit, (al)though, for all, howbeit, however, howsoever, howsomever,
notwithstanding, sometimes with a following that. Some were already archaic, so Q and F may differ with F replacing
an earlier form with although: I haue as much of my father in mee, as you, albeit I confesse your comming before
me is neerer to his reuerence. (AY 1.1.46–8), I will ease my heart, Although it be with hazard of my head. (1H4
1.3.125–6, Q Albeit I make a), The Moore (how beit that I endure him not) Is of a constant, louing, Noble Nature,
(Oth 2.1.287–8), how ere thou art a fiend, A womans shape doth shield thee. (HL sc.16.65–6), how somere their
hearts are seuer'd in Religion, their heads are both one, (AW 1.3.53–4), for all you are my man, goe wait vpon my
Cosen Shallow: (MW 1.1.252–3), notwithstanding thy capacitie, Receiueth as the Sea. Nought enters there, (TN
1.1.10–11), No maruell Lord, though it affrighted you, (R3 1.4.64). Certain expressions like What though? may
embody an elliptical concessive clause which has become more of an adverbial discourse marker: it is a simple one;
but what though? It will toste Cheese, (H5 2.1.7–8).
Forms ending with -somever vary with -soever, and this element may be separated from the first part such as how:
How strange or odde so ere I beare my selfe; (Ham 1.5.171).
5.3.2.9 Clauses expressing comparison are introduced by the following conjunctions:
< previous page
page_175
next page >
< previous page
page_176
next page >
Page 176
The main ones are as and so, either together or individually, with senses such as’ just as, in so far as, in proportion
to, according as, in as much as, as sure as’, but in some cases meaning simply ‘because’: As did Aeneas old
Anchyses beare, So beare I thee vpon my manly shoulders: (2H6 5.3.62–3), as with age, his body ouglier growes,
So his minde cankers: (Tem 4.1.191–2), So well thy words become thee, as thy wounds, (Mac 1.2.43), As Cæsar
lou'd mee, I weepe for him; (JC 3.2.23–4, ‘in proportion as’), as thou art but a man, I dare: but, as thou art a
Prince, I feare thee, (1H4 3.3.146–7, ‘in as much as’), as you looke To haue my pardon, trim it handsomely. (Tem
5.1.296–7), For (as I am a man) I thinke this Lady To be my childe Cordelia. (KL 4.6.62–3, ‘as sure as’), So come
my Soule to blisse, as I speake true: (Oth 5.2.257), as a madmans Epistles are no Gospels, so it skilles not much
when they are deliuer'd. (TN 5.1.285–6, ‘in so far as, because’), Hee's heere in double trust; First, as I am his
Kinsman, and his Subiect, (Mac 1.7.12–13).
Although comparisons in PdE have as … as, in ShE the first as may be omitted: That's worthily As any eare can
heare. (Cor 4.1.54–5), you should discouer a brace of vnmeriting, proud, violent, testie Magistrates (alias Fooles) as
any in Rome. (Cor 2.1.42–4). Sometimes in groups like as well as the second as may be omitted: I haue trusted
thee (Camillo) With all the neerest things to my heart, as well My Chamber-Councels, (WT 1.2.237–9), That's as
much to say, (CE 4.3.54).
The order so … as is used rhetorically when stating what to the speaker is a truism or a statement which cannot be
contradicted: if the truth of thy loue to me were so righteously temper'd, as mine is to thee. (AY 1.2.11–13). The
initial so can be linked with far, for, long, much, oft or soon with following as: Yea and elsewhere, so farre as my
Coine would stretch, (1H4 1.2.54–5), I saw him hold acquaintance with the waues, So long as I could see. (TN
1.2.15–16), so much interest haue in thy sorrow, As I had Title in thy Noble Husband: (R3 2.2.47–8), so soone as
euer thou seest him, draw, (TN 3.4.174–5), These offices, so oft as thou wilt looke, Shall profit thee, and much
inrich thy booke. (Son, 77.13–14). By how much is often paired with by so much, as in By how much better then my
word I am, By so much shall I falsifie mens hopes, (1H4 1.2.207–8); in some cases by so much is reduced to
something like the better: You are the better at Prouerbs, by how much a Fooles Bolt is soone shot. (H5 3.7.118–9).
It is possible to omit the as at the head of the second clause: mistake
< previous page
page_176
next page >
< previous page
page_177
next page >
Page 177
me not so much, To thinke my pouertie is treacherous. (AY 1.3.63– 4), For this alliance may so happy proue, To
turne your houshould rancor to pure Loue. (RJ 2.2.91–2).
Like is used by itself or paired with as: New Honors come vpon him Like our strange Garments, cleaue not to their
mould, But with the aid of vse. (Mac 1.3.143–5), Like as the waues make towards the pibled shore, (Son 60.1). Look
how or look as may act as the first element of a comparison: Looke how my Ring incompasseth thy Finger, Euen so
thy Brest incloseth my poore heart: (R3 1.2.191–2), Looke how a bright star shooteth from the skye; So glides he in
the night from Venus eye. (VA 815–16), Looke as the faire and fierie pointed Sunne, Rushing from forth a cloud,
bereaues our sight: Euen so the Curtaine drawne, his eyes begun To winke, (RL 372–5).
5.4 Prepositions
Prepositions were taking over the function of inflectional endings in English, though this process had not been
standardised, so it is hardly surprising to find cases where a preposition is not present in ShE where it occurs in PdE.
In such cases it is unreasonable to talk of the omission of a preposition, since the language was still adjusting to new
structures (5.4.1.1–2). Although prepositions belong to the closed class of words, new ones were created, usually in
a compound form. The increase in the number of prepositions is marked in PdE with such new creations as by
reason of, to the rear of, and so on. Some older prepositions, which because of their age were often monosyllabic,
have fallen out of the language since Shakespeare's time, such as maugre, sans, sith and thorough. ShE has fewer
prepositions than PdE, but those that did exist had a wider range of meaning. This range meant that prepositions
overlapped in meaning, resulting in different prepositions being used in the same semantic environment. The verb
repent could be followed by at, for, in, of, out or over: Repent at idle times (2H4 2.2.120–1, said by Falstaff), I
neuer did repent for doing good, (MV 3.4.10), almost all repent in their election. (Cor 2.3.254–5), Repent you (faire
one) of the sin you carry? (MM 2.3.20), Iudgement hath Repented ore his doome. (MM 2.2.11–12), I would repent
out the remainder of Nature. (AW 4.3.247–8, said by Parolles). This variety indicates that phrasal verbs were not yet
standardised,
< previous page
page_177
next page >
< previous page
page_178
next page >
Page 178
suggesting that these words should be analysed as prepositions rather than as verb particles in a phrasal verb. This
use of prepositions in this apparently random way encouraged later grammarians to reduce this flexibility by
restricting the options available with prepositions, so that each preposition had fewer uses and new prepositions
were created. It also presents difficulties to editors of modern editions of the plays, who rarely comment on the
meaning of the prepositions in any detail, if at all. They tend to focus on lexical words rather than grammatical
words like prepositions. When Lennox says What a haste lookes through his eyes? (Mac 1.2.46), editors focus on the
meaning of lookes rather than of through. Braunmuller (1997: 107) notes ‘looks through is visible through (OED
Look v.20b), appears’, which hardly helps the reader to understand the implication of through. But through can
mean ‘out of’ which is appropriate here, allowing lookes to be interpreted as ‘shows itself’ (Schmidt 1902: 667 (2)).
As its name implies, a preposition typically comes before its dependent noun group, but in ShE the preposition can
follow the noun group. This arrangement is found most often in verse and is usually motivated by the demands of
rhyme or rhetoric: least day should looke their shames vpon, (MN 3.2.386, rhyming gone), And goe the Foole [Q
fooles] among (KL 1.4.159, rhyming sung), Her lillie hand, her rosie cheeke lies vnder, (RL 386, rhyming sunder).
There are examples where rhyme and metre are not involved: (Richard except) (R3 5.5.197). It may be difficult to
decide whether the preposition remains as such or is an adverb, as with Round (see below). Prepositions may be
placed after and attached to words like there or where and the whole becomes an adverbial. The placing of a
preposition at the end of a clause is frequent in relative clauses, no matter whether the relative pronoun is included
or not: the thousand Naturall shockes That Flesh is heyre too? (Ham 3.1.64–5), The labour we delight in, Physicks
paine: (Mac 2.3.49); but it is not only with relative clauses that this happens: Such to be pittied, and ore-rested
seeming He acts thy Greatnesse in: (TC 1.3.157–8). Some prepositions like withal regularly come at the end of their
clause. Sometimes in the elliptical style adopted by Shakespeare, the word on which the preposition depends is
absent: Your knees to them (not armes) must helpe. (Cor 1.1.72, ‘kneeling to them [the gods]’). Sometimes the
preposition may help to explicate the new sense attributed to a verb: blushing on her (RL 1339, ‘looking at her with
a blush’).
< previous page
page_178
next page >
< previous page
page_179
next page >
Page 179
5.4.1.1 There are cases where in ShE a preposition which is found in PdE is not present. This occurs:
after some verbs, especially verbs of motion: he hath bin all this day to looke you. (AY 2.5.29–30);
in different types of adverbial phrase: Which time she chaunted snatches of old tunes, (Ham 4.7.149, ‘during’), And
the very Ports they blow, (Mac 1.3.14, ‘at’), Wearie Seu'nights, nine times nine, (Mac 1.3.21, ‘for’), he hath disgrac'd
me, and hindred me halfe a million (MV 3.1.50–1, ‘by’), I did suite me all points like a man, (AY 1.3.115, ‘in’);
in relative clauses where the preposition has been given in a previous clause: who riseth from a feast With that
keene appetite that he sits downe? (MV 2.6.8–9, ‘with which’), Shall your Citie call vs Lord, In that behalfe which we
haue challeng'd it? (KJ 2.1.263–4, ‘in which’), now thy image doth appeare In the rare semblance that I lou'd it first.
(MA 5.1.243–4, ‘in which’);
after verbs that have to be understood as transitive: That doe conspire my death (R3 3.4.60);
with pronouns which may be interpreted as old dative cases: Oh, feare me not. (Ham 1.3.51, ‘for me’), he hath bin
all this day to looke you. (AY 2.5.29–30, ‘for you’), cf. (a) above.
5.4.1.2 Prepositions occur in ShE in contexts not possible in PdE: Or haue we eaten on the insane Root, (Mac 1.3.82,
possibly implying ‘some of’), In viewing o're the rest o'th'selfe-same day, (Mac 1.3.92).
5.4.1.3 Prepositions may be repeated at the beginning and end of a clause: But on vs both did haggish Age steale
on, (AW 1.2.29), then the Sceane Wherein we play in. (AY 2.7.138–9), In what enormity is Martius poore in, that
you two haue not in abundance? (Cor 2.1.16–17), Of what kinde should this Cocke come of? (AY 2.7.90).
5.4.2 As prepositions, especially the common ones, have a wide variety of meanings, it is not possible to group them
into discrete categories. They are arranged alphabetically, though not every shade of meaning is included, and those
prepositions whose meaning is similar to that in PdE may not be listed:
A, like o, an abbreviated form of in, of or on: too't a Gods name, (TS 1.2.193), cloth a gold (MA 3.4.18), a plague a
both your houses. (RJ 3.1.91).
< previous page
page_179
next page >
< previous page
page_180
next page >
Page 180
About
‘around, surrounding’: clouds about his golden head. (RL 777);
‘near to, beside’: he shall not come about her, (WT 2.1.61), about the very houre (TG 5.1.2);
‘upon, belonging to’: you cannot see a white spot about her. (MW 4.5.105–6), Pierce euerie sense about thee. (KL
1.4.281);
‘around, through’: all about the brest: (LL 4.3.171), Ile leade you about a Round, (MN 3.1.101);
‘equal in size, quality or place’: About my stature: (TG 4.4.155);
‘occupied with, intent on’: I am now about no waste: (MW 1.3.37), He is about it, (Mac 2.2.4), About him (Fairies)
(MW 5.5.90);
‘concerning, with reference to’: We haue linger'd about a match (MW 3.2.51), I come about my Brother. (MM
4.1.47).
Across see Cross.
Afore
‘before’ of either time or place: and driue all thy Subiects afore thee (1H4 2.5.137–8), a fortnight afore Michaelmas.
(MW 1.1.187–8);
‘in the presence of’: here, afore heauen I ratifie this my rich guift: (Tem 4.1.7–8), He makes our profession as it
were to stincke afore the face of the gods (Per sc. 19.160–1).
After
‘behind, following, in pursuit of’: He after Honour hunts, I after Loue: (TG 1.1.63);
‘next to’: Warwicke, after God, thou set'st me free, (3H6 4.7.16);
‘according as, conformable to’: and doe's not talke after the wisest; (Tem 2.2.73–4), not made by Man and Woman,
after this downe-right vvay of Creation: (MM 3.1.369–70).
Note also: After well entred souldiers, (AW 2.1.6, ‘after we have become trained soldiers’), after all this fooling, (MM
1.2.68, ‘following on from all this fooling’).
Against, ‘gainst
‘in opposition to’: Though euery drop of water sweare against it. (Tem 1.1.56); ‘in opposition to’ readily becomes
‘contrary to’:
< previous page
page_180
next page >
< previous page
page_181
next page >
Page 181
And make my seated Heart knock at my Ribbes, Against the vse of Nature? (Mac 1.3.135–6);
‘towards, in a particular direction’, both literally and metaphorically: against my heart he set his sword (RL 1640), my
Loue and Dutie Against your Sacred Person; (H8 2.4.38–9); of time ‘shortly before, in expectation of’: an ‘twere a
nettle against May. (TC 1.2.171–2), Men shut their doores against a setting Sunne. (Tim 1.2.141), To buy apparell
‘gainst the wedding day; (TS 2.1.311);
Aloft ‘above’: but now I breath againe Aloft the flood, (KJ 4.2.138–9), and probably also at: The rampant Beare
chain'd to the ragged staffe, This day Ile weare aloft my Burgonet, (2H6 5.1.201–2).
Amid(st), midst ‘in the middle of, among’: amid this hurlie I intend, That all is done in reuerend care of her, (TS
4.1.189–90), enthron'd and sphear'd Amid'st the other, (TC 1.3.90–1), they left me ‘midst my Enemies. (1H6 1.3.3).
Among(st)
‘in the middle of’: Sometime he runnes among a flocke of sheepe, (VA 685), That such immanity and bloody strife
Should reigne among Professors of one Faith. (1H6 5.1.13–14);
‘jointly, together, in common’: You haue among you many a purchast slaue, (MV 4.1.89), and among'st them fell'd
him dead, (KL 4.2.44), And let his Knights haue colder lookes among you: (KL 1.3.17).
As ‘like, in the quality of’: whom she esteemeth as his friend. (TG 3.2.37), If I affect it more, Then as your Honour,
and as your Renowne, (2H4 4.3.273–4), When I perceiue that men as plants increase, (Son 15.5).
At
of place, before names of towns and so on, and to indicate a point reached: your father was at Venice, And that you
look't for him this day in Padua. (TS 4.4.15–16), When at Bohemia You take my Lord, (WT 1.2.39–40), or are you at
the farthest? (TS 4.2.74), (almost at fainting vnder The pleasing punishment that women beare) (CE 1.1.45–6);
< previous page
page_181
next page >
< previous page
page_182
next page >
Page 182
‘of, from’ after verbs of giving or asking in human contexts, especially in the expression at his/her hands: and at his
hands begge Mercy, (3H6 5.1.23), When at your hands did I deserue this scorne? (MN 2.2.130);
indicates value especially after verbs of buying and selling, ‘for’: At a few drops of Womens rhewme, … he sold the
Blood and Labour Of our great Action; (Cor 5.6.45–7), if my loue thou holdst at ought, (Ham 4.3.60);
after verbs indicating some antipathy: when you chidde at Sir Protheus, for going vngarter'd. (TG 2.1.69), I enuie at
their libertie, (KJ 3.4.73);
after verbs of motion to mean ‘to’: And blowe them at the Moone: (Ham Add.Pass. H.8, Q2);
‘occupied with’ and in this sense it may replace a in some examples: with whom thou was't at play? (Tem 5.1.188),
Oh they are at it. (Cor 1.4.21), a dog at all things. (TG 4.4.13);
‘on account of’: Doe not smile at me, (Tem 4.1.9), At this encounter doe so much admire, (Tem 5.1.156), how much
better is it to weepe at ioy, then to ioy at weeping? (MA 1.1.27–8);
in various other meanings: Where I haue liu'd at honest freedome, (Cym 3.3.71, ‘in’), for your Fathers
remembrance, be at accord. (AY 1.1.59–60, ‘in’), To be a secondary at controll, (KJ 5.2.80, ‘under’).
Unlike PdE, the noun group after at in ShE may contain determiner and/or modifier: at his verie loose (LL 5.2.734),
at a mortall warre, (Son 46.1), at ample view: (TN 1.1.26).
Athwart 'across, against’: whatsoeuer comes athwart his affection, (MA 2.2.6), Heaue him away vpon your winged
thoughts, Athwart the Sea: (H5 5.0.8–9).
Before has the same sense as PdE ‘in front of’, both of place and time, but occasionally with further connotations:
For well I wot, Thou runst before me, (MN 3.3.10–11, implying ‘quicker than, away from’), Who quickly fell before
him, (AY 4.3.132, ‘at his hands’), the ground shrinkes before his Treading. (Cor 5.4.19–20, ‘at’), before you, and
next vnto high heauen, I loue your Sonne: (AW 1.3.189–90, ‘in preference to’). It has the associated senses of ‘in
the presence of, through the authority of’: Know you before whom sir? (AY 1.1.40, ‘in whose presence’), Then I
confesse Here on my knee, before high heauen and you, (AW 1.3.187–8), That preferre A Noble life, before a Long,
(Cor 3.1.155–6).
< previous page
page_182
next page >
< previous page
page_183
next page >
Page 183
It occurs after its noun group in: Submissiue fall his princely feete before, (LL 4.1.89, rhyming with roare).
Beside, besides
‘out of’: Who with his feare is put besides his part, (Son 23.2), To put him quite besides his patience. (1H4 3.1.175);
‘in addition to, over and above’: besides your cheere you shall haue sport, (MW 3.2.73), Might yet enkindle you vnto
the Crowne, Besides the Thane of Cawdor. (Mac 1.3.119–20);
‘by the side of’: Foes That strike beside vs. (Mac 5.9.5–6).
Betwixt and ‘twixt were gradually losing ground to between, which is more common in F than Q, meaning:
in an intermediate space, of time or place: And twixt the greene Sea, and the azur'd vault (Tem 5.1.43), betweene
my Soules desire, and me, (3H6 3.2.128);
noting comparison or distinction: ‘twas iust the difference Betwixt the constant red, and mingled Damaske. (AY
3.5.123–4), Waigh'd betweene loathnesse, and obedience, (Tem 2.1.136);
indicating partnership or common aims: Things knowne betwixt vs three, (WT 4.4.560), heauens raine grace On that
which breeds betweene ‘em. (Tem 3.1.75–6).
But ‘except, otherwise than, than’, frequently after negatives: The greatest man in England, but the King. (2H6
2.2.82), You know my Father hath no childe, but I, (AY 1.2.16), Be subiect to no sight but thine, and mine: (Tem
1.2.303–4), that apprehends death no more dreadfully, but as a drunken sleepe, (MM 4.2.144–5).
By like many prepositions originally had the sense of spatial proximity, from which it developed meanings referring
to time and means, among others:
‘at the side of, near’, implying rest: When Isicles hang by the wall, (LL 5.2.897), also with a human referent as in I
could not but by her. (Ham 4.7.16, ‘I could not live without her’); hence
denoting motion along the side of something: I loue to walke by the Counter-gate, (MW 3.3.72–3), He can come no
other way but by this hedge corner: (AW 4.1.1–2);
‘on the way’: By'th'way, we met my wife, (CE 5.1.236);
< previous page
page_183
next page >
< previous page
page_184
next page >
Page 184
in by himself meaning ‘alone, apart’ and in the phrase to come by meaning ‘to acquire, gain possession of
(something)’: Britaine's a world By it selfe, (Cym 3.1.12–13), Loue is like a childe That longs for euery thing that he
can come by. (TG 3.1.124–5);
indicating time: by the next new Moon … prepare to dye, (MN 1.1.83–6, ‘at’);
‘with respect to, in the case of’: Though my mockes come home by me, I will now be merrie. (LL 5.2.627–8), How
say you by this change? (Oth 1.3.17), So disguise shall by th'disguised Pay with falshood, false exacting, (MM
3.1.536–7);
denoting instrumentality or the means to execute something: As I do liue by foode, (AY 2.7.14), run from her by her
owne light, (CE 3.2.98–9), Gather the sequell by that went before. (CE 1.1.95), also applied to human means: She
sent for you by Dromio home to dinner. (CE 2.2.157);
indicating measure between things or by what stages an action is accomplished: Not to come neere our Person, by
ten mile. (2H4 5.5.65), which you shal finde By euery sillable a faithful veritie. (MM 4.3.122–3), also correlatively in
the form by how much … by so much meaning ‘the more … the more’: By how much vnexpected, by so much We
must awake indeuor (KJ 2.1.80–1);
denoting the cause of some action or result, ‘because of, owing to’: the remembrance of my former Loue Is by a
newer obiect quite forgotten, (TG 2.4.192–3);
‘according to’: I stay too long by thee, (2H4 4.3.222, ‘in your opinion’), Talbot meanes no goodnesse by his Lookes.
(1H6 3.5.31);
indicating the agent who performs the action: cheated of our liues by drunkards, (Tem 1.1.53), And here was left by
th'Saylors; (Tem 1.2.271). In this and in some other uses it can be followed by a non-finite clause rather than a
noun group: By each at once her choppie finger laying Vpon her skinnie Lips: (Mac 1.3.42–3).
Concerning 'with respect to’: the question is concerning your marriage. (MW 1.1.203–4), That taske our thoughts,
concerning vs and France. (H5 1.2.6).
Cross has the same meaning as across: waft me safely crosse the Channell. (2H6 4.1.115), made her flight a-crosse
Thy Fathers ground (WT 4.4.15–16).
For, originally meaning ‘in front of’, developed a wide range of meanings which in PdE has been reduced by the
introduction of
< previous page
page_184
next page >
< previous page
page_185
next page >
Page 185
such compound prepositions as as a result of, because of, for the sake of, on account of, and owing to. It is
followed by either a noun group or a non-finite clause.
‘On account of’ and related meanings: They call'd vs, for our fiercenesse, English Dogges, (1H6 1.7.25), These
cheekes are pale for watching for your good (2H6 4.7.82), In bed he slept not for my vrging it, (CE 5.1.64), He were
the worse for that were he a Horse, (AC 3.2.53), I must not, For certaine friends that are both his, and mine, (Mac
3.1.121–2). In these meanings for may be preceded by another preposition like but or saue ‘except for’: she's very
well indeed, but for two things (AW 2.4.8), Of all one paine, saue for a night of groanes (R3 Add.Pass.K.16);
‘instead of’: see what now thou art. For happy Wife, a most distressed Widdow: (R3 4.4.97–8);
‘in exchange for, in return for’: she (a lac'd Mutton) gaue mee (a lost-Mutton) nothing for my labour. (TG 1.1.95–6),
I dare not for my head fill my belly. (MM 4.3.149–50);
‘with regard to, as regards’: For your intent In going backe to School in Wittenberg, (Ham 1.2.112–13);
‘in favour of’: He's for a Iigge, or a tale of Baudry, (Ham 2.2.503–4);
‘assigned to, for the benefit of’: It were for me, To throw my Scepter at the iniurious Gods, (AC 4.16.77–8), Nay, if
you be an vndertaker, I am for you. (TN 3.4.309–10);
‘to prevent, for fear of’: Now will I dam vp this thy yawning mouth, For swallowing the Treasure of the
Realme. (2H6 4.1.73–4), The which he will not eu'ry hower suruay, For blunting the fine point of seldome pleasure.
(Son 52.3–4);
‘because of’ readily becomes ‘for lack of’: O I die for food. (AY 2.6.1), the foles of time, Which die for goodnes, (Son
124.13–14), almost dead for breath, (Mac 1.5.35);
‘in the capacity of, in the quality of’: He excels his Brother for a coward, (AW 4.3.290), If thou be'st as poore for a
subiect, as hee's for a King, (KL 1.4.21), I dare and do defie thee for a villaine. (CE 5.1.32), I know him for a man
diuine and holy, (MM 5.1.143), Salute thee for her King, (KJ 2.1.30);
‘in spite of’: the Priest was good enough, for all the olde gentlemans saying. (AY 5.1.3–4), Nor is he dead for ought
that I can tell. (MN 3.2.76);
‘toward, in the direction of’: take your way for home, (AW 2.5.64), euery thing at bent For England. (Ham 4.3.44–
5);
< previous page
page_185
next page >
< previous page
page_186
next page >
Page 186
‘with a view to, serving as’: a peece Of skilfull painting, made for PRIAMS Troy, (RL 1366–7, ‘to represent’), For
more assurance that a liuing Prince Do's now speake to thee, I embrace thy body, (Tem 5.1.110–11);
‘in quest of, to acquire (something)’: How wilt thou do for a Father? (Mac 4.2.38–9), I am not couetous for Gold,
(H5 4.3.24);
for when followed by a (pro)noun with infinitive clause indicates conditionality: for their Tongues to be silent, and
not confesse so much, were a kinde of ingratefull Iniurie: (Cor 2.2.30–1), for for me to put him to his Purgation,
would perhaps plundge him into farre more Choller. (Ham 3.2.292–4).
‘Fore (cf. Afore, Before) ‘before’: At any time ‘fore-noone. (MM 2.2.166), ‘fore God they are both in a tale: (MA
4.2.30–1). Some editors keep ‘fore, though others prefer fore, and where Q has before this may be preferred by
editors (e.g. Wells and Taylor 1988: 551) above F's ‘fore (MA 2.3.177).
Forth ‘out of’: And driue the English forth the bounds of France: (1H6 1.3.33), Peer'd forth the golden window of the
East, (RJ 1.1.116), From forth thy reach he would haue laid thy shame, (R2 2.1.106). It may be linked with of: That
washt his Fathers fortunes forth of France, (3H6 2.2.157).
Fro ‘from’, often modernised to from, the form which appears once in Q for F's fro: That coap'st with death himselfe,
to scape fro it: (RJ 4.1.75, Q1 and 2 from), Why did you throw your wedded Lady fro you? (Cym 5.6.261).
From
‘out of’: Musicke from the spheares. (TN 3.1.109), he furnishd me From mine owne Library, with volumes, (Tem
1.2.167–8), adde more From thine inuention, (AC 3.12.28–9);
‘by means of’: to cram a maw, or cloath a backe From such a filthie vice: (MM 3.1.290–1);
‘by consent of’: Holds from all Souldiers chiefe Maioritie, (1H4 3.2.109);
‘away from’: banish'd from your eye, (Tem 2.1.132), We will not from the Helme, (3H6 5.4.21), sucke The Soyles
fertilitie from wholesome flowers. (R2 3.4.39–40);
‘outside, contrary to’: this is from my Commission: (TN 1.5.182),
< previous page
page_186
next page >
< previous page
page_187
next page >
Page 187
Quite from the maine Opinion he held once, (JC 2.1.196), Cleane from the purpose (JC 1.3.35);
‘through, in consequence of, after’: the operation of the Orbes, From whom we do exist, (KL 1.1.111–12), for from
broad words, … I heare Macduffe liues in disgrace. (Mac 3.6.21–3), cald so from his grandfather. (TS 3.1.51).
From may be strengthened by the addition of off or out: Would I might neuer stirre from off this place, (KJ 1.1.145),
you must cut this flesh from off his breast, (MV 4.1.299), the falling from of his Friendes, (Tim 4.3.403, sometimes
inappropriately modernised as falling-from), From out the fierie Portall of the East, (R2 3.3.63).
In, often abbreviated to i/i’ especially before the:
rest locally or temporally within which something is contained, and is especially used with proper nouns, as in PdE:
in Naples (Tem 3.3.27);
‘at’: When in that moment, … Tytania waked, (MN 3.2.33–4), to infringe my vow In the same time ‘tis made? (Cor
5.3.20–1);
‘on’: VVhat seest thou in the ground? (VA 118), fogges: Which falling in the Land, (MN 2.1.90), even before words
like pain or peril: In paine of your dislike, (2H6 3.2.259), In perill of precipitation From off the Rocke Tarpeian, (Cor
3.3.106–7);
motion, cf. PdE ‘into’, especially when associated with verbs of motion: a tailor cal'd me in his shop, (CE 4.3.7), to
bring me in some grace (AW 5.2.45–6), He's sodaine if a thing comes in his head. (3H6 5.5.85);
actions with varied meanings: hee'l haue but a yeare in all these ducates: (TN 1.3.21, ‘to enjoy’), weare our Health
but sickly in his Life, (Mac 3.1.108, ‘during’), in loue vnto Demetrius, I told him of your stealth (MN 3.2.310–11,
‘because of’), in the mildnesse of your sleepie thoughts, … The Noble Ile doth want her proper Limmes: (R3
3.7.123–5, ‘as a result of’);
‘when, while’ before gerunds occurring at the head of a non-finite clause: patches set vpon a little breach, Discredite
more in hiding of the fault, (KJ 4.2.32–3, ‘when they hide’), how in stripping it You more inuest it: (Tem 2.1.230–1,
‘when you strip’), Thou hast most traiterously corrupted the youth of the Realme, in erecting a Grammar Schoole:
(2H6 4.7.30–1, ‘when you erected’), though its presence in such contexts sometimes seems oti
< previous page
page_187
next page >
< previous page
page_188
next page >
Page 188
ose: he raues in saying nothing. (TC 3.3.242), cast Your stinking, greasie Caps, in hooting At Coriolanus Exile. (Cor
4.6.138–40);
‘through, by means of’: it is much darkned in your malice. (MM 3.1.408–9), I Learne in this Letter, (MA 1.1.1),
Cæsar and Anthony, haue euer wonne More in their officer, then person. (AC 3.1.16–17); ‘in relation to, with regard
to’: grosse in Nature (Ham 1.2.136), I am wealthie in my Friends. (Tim 2.2.181), Weene you of better lucke, I
meane in periur'd Witnesse, (H8 5.1.136–7), By ought that I can speake in his dispraise, (TG 3.2.47).
In can be attached to adverbs like where: The Play's the thing, Wherein Ile catch the Conscience of the King. (Ham
2.2.606–7), but in can also be repeated later: Wherein we play in. (AY 2.7.139).
Intill occurs once in the sense ‘into’: hath shipped me intill the Land, (Ham 5.1.73). This form is archaic and
originally northern, though whether it is meant to indicate the gravedigger's social standing is unclear, for it occurs in
a song.
Into normally indicates motion, in opposition to in which signifies rest, though motion can also imply a result: thrust
a Corke into a hogshead. (WT 3.3.91–2), laughe your selues into stitches, (TN 3.2.64–5). Some examples which
imply motion in ShE are thought of as indicating rest in PdE: ensconcing our selues into seeming knowledge, (AW
2.3.4–5), a man into whom nature hath so crowded humors, (TC 1.2.20–1), A Iewell lockt into the wofulst Caske,
(2H6 3.2.413). Other examples correspond to PdE to or unto: returne againe into France? (AW 4.3.44–5), I haue
borne this course Into the Market place: (JC 3.1.294–5); and some to PdE on(to): with declining head into his
bosome (TS Ind.1.118).
Into and to appear in some cases to be used interchangeably: Thence to a Watch, thence into a Weaknesse, (Ham
2.2.149).
Maugre ‘in spite of’, implying defiance, was already old-fashioned: maugre all thy pride, (TN 3.1.149), mauger all the
world (TA 4.2.109), Maugre thy strength, (KL 5.3.122).
Near
‘into’: Come neere the house I pray you. (MW 1.4.128–9);
‘at, about’: Is't neere dinner time? (TG 1.2.67);
‘close to what I mean’: do you come neere me now: (TN 3.4.63).
< previous page
page_188
next page >
< previous page
page_189
next page >
Page 189
Both next and nigh also mean ‘near, close to’: and that hee weares next his heart for a fauour, (LL 5.2.707–8),
Which is too nie your person. (Mac 4.2.73).
Of
‘from’: of this booke, this learning maist thou taste. (Son 77.4), and would you take the letter of her: (AW 3.4.1),
How I may be deliuer'd of these woes, (KJ 3.4.55);
‘by’, especially after the passive or past participles: I am (quoth he) expected of my friends, (VA 718), excus'd Of
euery hearer: (MA 4.1.218–19), Much marked of the melancholie Iaques, (AY 2.1.41), who of her selfe is a good
Lady, (AW 5.2.30–1);
describing an agent or cause: It was well done of you (LL 2.1.217), It was a bruite part of him, (Ham 3.2.101), Who
seekes for better of thee, (Tim 4.3.24);
in a temporal sense ‘during, in’: There sleepes Tytania, sometime of the night, (MN 2.1.253), Did you not of late
dayes heare (H8 2.1.147);
denoting the composition of something, especially after a noun: a gaile of snow, (VA 362), a vertue of necessity,
(TG 4.1.60), a bloody day of this. (1H6 4.7.34);
indicating the contents of a receptacle or similar: an excellent head of haire. (TN 1.3.93), a deepe glasse of
Rheinish-wine (MV 1.2.92–3);
‘with reference to, concerning, about’ followed by a quasi-object: Did you heere of a Stranger (Cym 2.1.32), What it
should bee … I cannot deeme of. (Ham 2.2.7–10) – a usage found especially with verbs like acquaint, brag,
complain, despair, doubt and so on;
as an object after adjectives, transitive verbs, and gerunds: ignorant of what thou art, (Tem 1.2.18), I shal desire of
you more acquaintance to. (MN 3.1.180), with straining of my courage, (1H6 1.7.10), becomming of their woe, (Son
127.13);
as a partitive genitive: All three of you, (LL 4.3.158), Which, of he, or Adrian, … First begins to crow? (Tem 2.1.30–
1); also with the omission of the superlative before the partitive of: I doe not like the Tower, of any place: (R3
3.1.68), I would not be a Roman of all Nations; (Cor 4.5.179);
denoting a quality: who are of such sensible and nimble Lungs, (Tem 2.1.178–9), a Gentleman of blood (TG
3.1.121).
< previous page
page_189
next page >
< previous page
page_190
next page >
Page 190
Of and on are frequently confused, possibly because both were regularly reduced to o’, with one being used where
the other seems more appropriate: Gramercy on his Soule. And of all Christian Soules, (Ham 4.5.197–8), a plague
of all drummes, (AW 4.3.300), to bestow it all of your worship. (MA 3.5.21), he had more haire of his taile then I
haue of my face (MV 2.2.92–3); Yet he vvould be King on't. (Tem 2.1.162), we are such stuffe As dreames are
made on; (Tem 4.1.156–7), two on's Daughters, (KL 1.4.101). It was not uncommon for of not to be included: at
eyther end the mast, (CE 1.1.85), of either side's nose, (KL 1.5.23), On each side her, (AC 2.2.208). However, in
many cases it is difficult to decide whether a preposition is omitted or the noun acts as a modifier or in apposition:
any moment leisure, (Ham 1.3.133), the Famous Ancient City, Toures, (2H6 1.1.5), thy stolne name Coriolanus (Cor
5.6.91–2), where omission of the preposition does not seem the best interpretation. Of may be included in forms of
address and in place names where it is not found in PdE: Coosin of Hereford, (R2 1.1.28, ‘cousin Hereford’), my
sonne of Yorke (R3 2.4.6, ‘son York’), the Riuer of Sidnis. (AC 2.2.194). It is used with relative pronouns and related
words where it does not occur in PdE: Make choise of which your Highnesse will see first. (MN 5.1.43), making iust
report Of how vnnaturall and bemadding sorrow The King hath cause to plaine, (HL sc.8.28–30).
Off, which may be confused with of, is found most frequently attached to other prepositions, though as prepositions
are often without a dependent noun or pronoun, the distinction between off as adverb and as preposition is less
clear in ShE than today. It appears either before or after other prepositions in: a sweet retyre From off these fields:
(H5 4.3.86–7), how farre off from the mind of Bullingbrooke (R2 3.3.44). It means ‘from, away from’, though
modern editors may modernise it to of: fetch you a hayre off the great Chams beard: (MA 2.1.251), This present
enterprize set off his head. (1H4 5.1.88). Some examples of of are sometimes modernised as off: speakes a little of
the matter, (MA 3.5.9–10), Our Britaine seemes as of it, but not in't: (Cym 3.4.139).
On, closely associated with upon, has as its primary sense:
being at rest on the surface of something, and in this sense and some others it is often little different from upon:
sitting on a banke, (Tem 1.2.392), farre off vpon a hill, (VA 697), He met
< previous page
page_190
next page >
< previous page
page_191
next page >
Page 191
me on the Mart, (CE 3.1.7), knocke vpon your gate, (TS 1.2.37). However, in these and other senses, on/upon may
give way to other prepositions such as about, at and in: you beat me at the Mart (CE 3.1.12), Knocke at the gate?
(TS 1.2.39). Other uses are:
to govern an abstract object dependent on the preposition: leaue her on such slight conditions. (TG 5.4.136), shall
you on your knowledge find this way? (MM 4.1.36), be not iealous on me, (JC 1.2.73); a temporal sense: On the
first view to say, to sweare I loue thee. (MN 3.1.134), Nere may I looke on day, nor sleepe on night, (CE 5.1.211),
On the instant (Ham 4.6.17–18); direction, especially after certain nouns or verbs like blush, frown, gaze: giues all
gaze and bent of amorous view On the faire Cressid. (TC 4.7.166–7), If Cæsar carelesly but nod on him. (JC
1.2.120), They do not point on me. (Oth 5.2.49); the business or activity a person has: On what submissiue
message art thou sent? (1H6 4.7.53), went to Iewry on Affaires of Anthony, (AC 4.6.11–12); ‘of, about’ after verbs
or expressions indicating speech or thought: Haplye I thinke on thee, (Son 29.10), say what the play treats on: (MN
1.2.8–9), I wonder on't, (Tim 3.4.12), I thinke not on my father, (AW 1.1.78).
On is often confused with of (for examples see of).
Only ‘except’: Moe reasons for this action At our more leysure, shall I render you; Onely, this one: Lord Angelo is
precise, (MM 1.3.48–50). Some editors (e.g. Wells and Taylor 1988: 793) make the sense more difficult by having a
full stop after you. But in it is certaine I am loued of all Ladies, onely you excepted: (MA 1.1.118–19), onely has the
sense ‘alone’, though this example shows how the sense ‘except’ developed.
Out 'out of, outside’, often preceded by from: those that bal out the ruines of thy linnen (2H4 Add.Pass.A.1–2, Q),
both within and out that Wall: (Tim 4.1.38), when you haue pusht out your gates, the very Defender of them, (Cor
5.2.41–2); To whip this dwarfish warre, this Pigmy Armes From out the circle of his Territories. (KJ 5.2.135–6), In
purchasing the semblance of my soule; From out the state of hellish cruelty, (MV 3.4.20–1).
< previous page
page_191
next page >
< previous page
page_192
next page >
Page 192
Over, abbreviated as o're, ore:
‘across, through’: Ouer hil, ouer dale, (MN 2.1.2), Heele goe along ore the wide world with me, (AY 1.3.131);
‘above’: To th'shore; that ore his waue-worne basis bowed (Tem 2.1.126), the Heauens are ore your head. (R2
3.3.17);
implying power over: And King ore him, and all that he enioyes; (KJ 2.1.240), be Regent o're the French, (2H6
1.3.208);
‘up to and beyond’: Though I be o're eares for my labour. (Tem 4.1.213–14), Being ore shooes in bloud. (MN
3.2.48);
denoting a state of attentiveness or engagement: So looks the pent-vp Lyon o're the Wretch, (3H6 1.3.13), You that
are thus so tender o're his Follyes, (WT 2.3.128);
‘on account of, for’: And I in going Madam, weep ore my fathers death anew; (AW 1.1.3–4), If you are so fond ouer
her iniquitie: (Oth 4.1.193).
Past
‘beyond’ of time or space: Past the mid season. (Tem 1.2.240), the Enemy is past the Marsh: (R3 5.6.75);
‘more than’: not past a pint, (Oth 2.3.61);
‘beyond, out of the reach of, without’: thou driu'st me past the bounds Of maidens patience. (MN 3.2.65–6), Past
reason hated, (Son 129.7), My Art is not past power, (AW 2.1.158).
Round, in a post-noun position ‘in a circular fashion, on every side’: anon wee'l drinke a Measure The Table
round. (Mac 3.4.10–11), skirre the Country round, (Mac 5.3.37)
Sans ‘without’: A confidence sans bound. (Tem 1.2.97), Sans checke, (TC 1.3.94), Sans witch-craft (Oth 1.3.64).
Saving, used in apologies, ‘with no offence to, with due respect for’: Sauing your tale Petruchio, I pray let vs that are
poore petitioners speake too? (TS 2.1.71–2), you would haue me say, sauing your reuerence a husband: (MA
3.4.29–30), and longing (sauing your honors reuerence), for stewd prewyns; (MM 2.1.87–8).
Since 'from the time of, after’: Not since widdow Dido's time. (Tem 2.1.81), Since death of my deer'st Mother (Cym
4.2.191).
< previous page
page_192
next page >
< previous page
page_193
next page >
Page 193
Sith, 'after’: I come to tell you things sith then befalne. (3H6 2.1.106).
Thorough, a variant of through: go thorough the streets (MW 4.5.29), thorough bush, thorough brier, … thorough
flood, thorough fire: (MN 2.1.3–5, Q).
Through
‘from end to end’: wander'd through the Forrest: (TG 5.2.36), follow'd, through Tooth'd briars, (Tem 4.1.179–80);
the medium, often abstract, which is passed: which through the cristal tears gaue light, (VA 491), thy glory through
my griefe will show: (LL 4.3.35), I look through thee. (AW 2.3.215–6);
‘throughout, over all’: to be the decay of lust and late-walking through the Realme. (MW 5.5.143–4), A Merchant of
great Trafficke through the world: (TS 1.1.12), those maimes Of shame seene through thy Country, (Cor 4.5.87–8);
‘by means of, by’: Begun through malice of the Bishops men. (1H6 3.1.77), Make Sacred euen his styrrop, and
through him Drinke the free Ayre. (Tim 1.1.83–4), When Anthony is gone, through whom I might commaund it: (AC
3.3.5–6);
‘on account of’: I loue the King, And through him, what's neerest to him, (WT 4.4.521–2), Oh I am prest to death
through want of speaking: (R2 3.4.73), Thou, that art like enough, through vassall Feare, … To fight against me
(1H4 3.2.124–6);
‘out of’: What a haste lookes through his eyes? (Mac 1.2.46).
Throughout ‘in every/any part of’: A man well knowne throughout all Italy. (TS 2.1.69), And ne're throughout the
yeere to Church thou go'st, (1H6 1.1.42).
Till, vntill
‘to the time of’: From morne till night, (VA 154), must not die, Till mutuall ouerthrow of mortall kind? (VA 1017–18),
vntill this time, (CE 4.4.67), Things growing are not ripe vntill their season; (MN 2.2.123);
before adverbs of time: till now. (VA 1062), till after Supper, (TG 3.2.95);
‘to’: Euen till a Lethied dulnesse – (AC 2.1.27).
< previous page
page_193
next page >
< previous page
page_194
next page >
Page 194
To
‘motion towards a place or state’: First goe with me to Church, (MV 3.2.301), to shoot me to the heart. (1H6 1.6.34),
Hell it selfe breaths out Contagion to this world. (Ham 3.2.378–9);
some work to be done or object to be pursued: Beware Of entrance to a quarrell: (Ham 1.3.65–6), they will too't
then: (MM 2.1.223), So to your pleasures, (AY 5.4.190);
‘as far as, till, until’: from the houre of my Natiuitie to this instant, (CE 4.4.31–2), all I haue, To the last peny, (H8
3.2.452–3), should diuide our equalnesse to this. (AC 5.1.47–8);
‘with the consequence of’: attach'd with wearinesse To th'dulling of my spirits: (Tem 3.3.5–6), What may befall him,
to his harme and ours. (3H6 4.7.95), I am hurt to danger, (Oth 2.3.190);
an abstract sense of direction, indicating tendency and application: I haue businesse to my Lord, (TC 3.1.57), that
his appetite Is more to bread then stone: (MM 1.3.52–3), Be the Atturney of my loue to her: (R3 4.4.344);
design and purpose, often equivalent to ‘for’: strip my selfe to death, (MM 2.4.102), Arme you, I pray you to this
speedie Voyage; (Ham 3.3.24), Was fashion'd to much Honor. (H8 4.2.50);
‘in the quality of, as, for’: Now therefore would I haue thee to my Tutor (TG 3.1.84), but ha's a Foole to his
Seruant. (Tim 2.2.96), Lord Brutus tooke to Wife: (JC 2.1.292);
‘in addition to, besides’: The Greeks are strong, & skilful to their strength, (TC 1.1.7), To the felt-Absence: now I
feele a Cause: (Oth 3.4.179), To them, the Legions garrison'd in Gallia After your will, haue crost the Sea, (Cym
4.2.335–6);
junction or association: my very lippes might freeze to my teeth, (TS 4.1.5–6), This gentle and vnforc'd accord of
Hamlet Sits smiling to my heart; (Ham 1.2.123–4), This fierce abridgment, Hath to it Circumstantiall branches, (Cym
5.6.383–4);
comparison and relation, leading to a sense of opposition or contrast: To th'most of men, this is a Caliban, (Tem
1.2.483), I to the world am like a drop of water, (CE 1.2.35), What's this to my Lysander? (MN 3.2.62), setst oath to
oath, Thy tongue against thy tongue. (KJ 3.1.190–1);
contrast leading to a sense of defiance: To see your Wiues dishonour'd to your Noses. (Cor 4.6.87), I shall liue and
tell him to his teeth; (Ham 4.7.55), face to face, And frowning brow to brow, (R2 1.1.15–16);
< previous page
page_194
next page >
< previous page
page_195
next page >
Page 195
‘according to, in harmony with’: fashion your demeanor to my lookes, (CE 2.2.33), If it be ought to the old tune (TN
5.1.105); hence also indicating correspondence and simultaneity: To dance our ringlets to the whistling Winde. (MN
2.1.86), If't be Summer Newes Smile too't before: (Cym 3.4.12–13);
employed where other languages or even English might employ a dative case (e.g. PdE give him it/give it to him)
after verbs, nouns and adjectives: This will proue a braue kingdome to me, (Tem 3.2.147), a daughter to his blood,
(MV 2.3.18), constant to my selfe, (TG 2.6.31).
Toward, occasionally towards,
‘to, in the direction of’, both of place and time in either a literal or metaphorical sense: That leads toward Mantua,
(TG 5.2.45), And sigh'd his soule toward the Grecian tents (MV 5.1.5), It drawes toward supper (KJ 1.1.204), Let vs
toward the King: (Mac 1.3.151); By doing euery thing safe toward your Loue And Honor. (Mac 1.4.26–7), Wherein
toward me my homely starres haue faild (AW 2.5.75);
‘tending to, as contribution towards’: toward the education of your daughters: I heere bestow a simple instrument,
(TS 2.1.98–9), If it be ought toward the generall good, (JC 1.2.87).
The two morphemes of toward may be parted with one before the dependent noun and the other after (but
attached to) it: And Tapers burnt to bedward. (Cor 1.7.32), Their Powers are marching vnto Paris-ward. (1H6 3.7.30,
with vnto … ward rather than simple to … ward).
Under
‘below, beneath’, both literally and figuratively: The Marriners all vnder hatches stowed, (Tem 1.2.231), Vnder that
colour am I come to scale Thy neuer conquered Fort, (RL 481–2), a sense also expressed by underneath;
denoting state or action: Vnlesse she doe it vnder this excuse, (MV 2.4.36);
denoting a subordinate position in a hierarchy: a Seruant, vnder his Masters command, transporting a summe of
Money, (H5 4.1.149–51);
< previous page
page_195
next page >
< previous page
page_196
next page >
Page 196
denoting protection and permission: but am boldned Vnder your promis'd pardon. (H8 1.2.56–7).
Unless ‘except’: heere nothing breeds, Vnlesse the nightly Owle, or fatall Rauen: (TA 2.3.96–7), we must not seeme
to vnderstand him, vnlesse some one among vs, whom wee must produce for an Interpreter. (AW 4.1.4–6).
Unto see To.
Up ‘from a lower to a higher position, along’: that runnes a Horse-backe vp a Hill perpendicular. (1H4 2.5.346–7), Vp
Fish-streete, (2H6 4.7.155). Cf. up and down: she sayes vp & downe the town, that her eldest son is like you. (2H4
2.1.106–7).
Upon used instead of on, possibly for metrical reasons:
with verbs of motion, often implying a hostile intent: I will … trip vpon the greene, (VA 145–6), He ran vpon the
Boare (VA 1112), a hundred vpon poore foure of vs. (1H4 2.5.161–2, with the verb understood);
to express an advantage gained over another: it will in time Win vpon power, (Cor 1.1.217–18, ‘to’);
to indicate a person or thing that suffers from or is given to some action, sometimes after verbs implying eating: For
euery trifle, are they set vpon me, (Tem 2.2.8), I beg the Law, the Law, vpon his head: (MN 4.1.154), And feast
vpon her eyes? (MM 2.2.184), And liue vpon the vapour of a Dungeon, (Oth 3.3.275);
to express the reason or occasion of some action: let me not finde you before me againe vpon any complaint (MM
2.1.235–6), Vpon what cause? (CE 5.1.124), Thy sonne is banish'd vpon good aduice, (R2 1.3.226);
to indicate a design or intention on which a person is employed: Do prophesie vpon it dangerously: (KJ 4.2.187),
Shall waite vpon your Fathers Funerall. (KJ 5.7.98, ‘for, until’), I haue no power vpon you: (AC 1.3.23);
‘at’: I iudge their number Vpon, or neere, the rate of thirtie thousand. (2H4 4.1.21–2).
Uptill ‘against’: found only in section of The Passionate Pilgrim not included in Wells and Taylor 1988 and so not
regarded as Shakespearian.
< previous page
page_196
next page >
< previous page
page_197
next page >
Page 197
With
implicit place: There was (mine Host) an old-fat-woman euen now with, me (MW 4.5.22–3, ‘in my room’), Returne
with her? (KL 2.2.384, ‘go back and live in her house’), Some say he is with the Emperor of Russia: (MM 3.1.354);
place in an abstract sense: ‘tis fresh morning with me (Tem 3.1.33), Is Cæsar with Anthonius priz'd so slight? (AC
1.1.58), He is not with himselfe, (TA 1.1.365 Q, F omits with), and thus such phrases as: What Tidings with our
Cousin Buckingham? (2H6 2.1.166), What would you with her, if that I be she? (TG 4.4.108);
a person or thing affected by an action or possessed of a quality: The Regent hath with Talbot broke his word, (1H6
4.6.2), And I am witnesse with her that she did: (CE 4.4.90, ‘on her behalf’), I would dissemble with my Nature,
(Cor 3.2.62);
a real or assumed comparison or community of action or behaviour: Measure my strangenesse with my vnripe
yeares, (VA 524, ‘against’), And with your speediest bring vs what she sayes, (AC 5.1.67), to waile it with their Age.
(R3 4.4.325);
being together: I lingerd with you at your shop (CE 3.1.3);
an action as a result of a verb of action, either explicit or implicit: rather damne them with King Cerberus, (2H4
2.4.165, i.e. let them go to hell), And with dishonor layd me on the ground, (3H6 3.3.9, i.e. laid in the grave among
dishonoured people); Ile be with you anon: (2H4 5.3.26–7, ‘I'll attend to you in a moment’), I will be with thee
straight. (MN 3.2.403, expressing a threat), I am with you. (2H6 2.1.53, possibly ‘I shall get even with you’);
‘from’ with verbs of separation: how did thy Master part with Madam Iulia? (TG 2.5.9–10), Hath willingly departed
with a part, (KJ 2.1.564, ‘given up a share’);
an accompanying external appearance or quality: he trots, as if he told the steps, VVith gentle maiestie, (VA 277–8),
let him dye: With euery ioynt a wound, (TC 4.1.29–30), That with his very heart despiseth me? (TG 4.4.92);
indicating means: I will maintaine it with some little cost. (R3 1.2.246), and send for his Master with a Purseuant
presently: (2H6 1.3.37–8), Ile fill these dogged Spies with false reports: (KJ 4.1.128);
as means of nourishment, ‘on, by’: I am faine to dine and sup with water and bran: (MM 4.3.148–9), I haue supt
full with horrors, (Mac 5.5.13), I liue with Bread like you, (R2 3.2.171);
< previous page
page_197
next page >
< previous page
page_198
next page >
Page 198
‘because of, as a result of’: sweating with guiltie feare; (RL 740), weepe with laughing, not with weeping. (Tim
4.3.487), I feele remorse in my selfe with his words: (2H6 4.7.102), I rather will suspect the Sunne with gold, Then
thee with wantonnes: (MW 4.4.6–7);
the external agency which causes something to happen, ‘by’: her best worke is ruin'd with thy rigour. (VA 954), to
be ouermastred with a peece of valiant dust? (MA 2.1.54–5), I saw him put down the other day, with an ordinary
foole, (TN 1.5.80–1), he was torne to pieces with a Beare: (WT 5.2.63).
Withal an emphatic form of with used when the preposition follows the noun group, often at the end of a relative
clause when it adopts a semi-adverbial function: who hath she to spend the night withall, (VA 847), These banish'd
men, that I haue kept withall, (TG 5.4.150), Such a fellow is not to be talk'd withall: (MM 5.1.341), Ile tel you who
Time ambles withall, (AY 3.2.302–3), hee hath generally tax'd their whole sex withal. (AY 3.2.339–40).
Within
‘in’: I would Haue suncke the Sea within the Earth, (Tem 1.2.10–11), Lo, how hollow the fiend speakes within him;
(TN 3.4.90);
‘in the innermost parts of, inside’: since I haue hemd thee here VVithin the circuit of this iuorie pale, (VA 229–30),
you are so without these follies, that these follies are within you, (TG 2.1.35–6), keepe your selfe within your selfe,
(AC 2.5.75, ‘in check’);
‘in a defined space or period of time’: no woman shall come within a mile of my Court. (LL 1.1.119–20), within
which space she di'd, (Tem 1.2.280), VVithin a quarter of an houre. (MW 4.4.4);
‘in close quarters with, close to’: Some get within him, take his sword away (CE 5.1.34), which is within a verie little
of nothing. (AW 2.4.25–6);
abstractly ‘in the ambit of’: Bring me within the leuel of your frowne, (Son 117.11), Come not within the measure of
my wrath: (TG 5.4.125);
‘among’: And that within our selues we disagree; (1H6 4.1.140).
< previous page
page_198
next page >
< previous page
page_199
next page >
Page 199
Without
‘outside, out of’: There is no world without Verona walles, (RJ 3.3.17), Why should I warre without the wals of Troy
That finde such cruell battell here within? (TC 1.1.2–3);
‘beyond, not within the reach of’: Without the perill of the Athenian Law. (MN 4.1.152), things without all remedie
Should be without regard: (Mac 3.2.13–14);
‘except’: Businesses, (which none (without thee) can sufficiently manage) (WT 4.2.14–15);
‘not having’: Their copious stories oftentimes begunne, End without audience, and are neuer donne. (VA 845–6), for
the liberall Artes, Without a paralell; (Tem 1.2.73–4).
In Two Gentlemen Speed plays on the meaning of without when he teases Valentine about his love for Sylvia and
the way he expresses that love. He responds to Valentine's Are all these things perceiu'd in me? with They are all
perceiu'd without ye. (2.1.31–2), where without means both ‘on your outside’ and ‘not with’ you.
5.4.3 Some phrases acting as compound prepositions occur, though it is not certain how many were grammaticalised
in ShE. They include both two-word phrases (some noted incidentally in 5.4.2) and groups consisting usually of
preposition + (the) + noun + preposition:
as concerning: as concerning some entertainment (LL 5.1.112–13);
as touching: the Contempts thereof are as touching mee. (LL 1.1.187);
because of: they dare not fight with me, because of the Queene my Mother: (Cym 2.1.18–20);
for the sake of: And for the sake of them thou sorrowest for, (CE 1.1.121), If for the sake of Merit, thou wilt heare
mee, (AC 2.7.54);
forth of: I haue no will to wander foorth of doores, (JC 3.3.3);
from out: From out the state of hellish cruelty, (MV 3.4.21 and cf. Out);
in hand with: In hand with all things, naught at all effecting. (VA 912);
in lieu of: In lieu of all thy paines and husbandrie, (AY 2.3.66);
instead of: if not inforced hate, In steed of loues coy tutch shall rudelie teare thee. (RL 668–9);
in the greatness of: And in the greatnesse of my word you die. (AY 1.3.88);
< previous page
page_199
next page >
< previous page
page_200
next page >
Page 200
in the hand of: Led in the hand of her kind Aunt of Gloster? (R3 4.1.2);
in spite of: (a) ‘to the mortification of’: To fashion this false sport in spight of me. (MN 3.2.195), (b)
‘notwithstanding’: In spight of your heart I think, (MA 5.2.62);
in the top of ‘above’: whose iudgement in such matters, cried in the top of mine) (Ham 441–2);
in the way of (a) ‘in respect of’: to what my Tongue can do I'th way of Flattery further. (Cor 3.2.136–7), (b) ‘with a
view to, for the purpose of’: they'll not shew their teeth in way of smile, (MV 1.1.55), as a woman should not do,
but in the way of honesty, (AC 5.2.247–8);
like to: Like to a new kild bird shee trembling lies: (RL 457), we grew together, Like to a double cherry, (MN
3.2.209–10);
long of ‘caused by’: and all this is long of you. (Cor 5.4.30), All long of this vile Traitor Somerset. (1H6 4.3.33);
near at: I am neere at home: (MM 4.3.91);
near to: Ne're to the Towne of Leicester, (R3 5.2.12);
on (the) height of: vrge it no more On height of our displeasure: (Tim 3.6.85–6);
on/in (the) pain of: Once more on paine of death, all men depart. (RJ 1.1.100), In paine of your dislike, or paine of
death; (2H6 3.2.259);
on/in peril of: on perill of a curse, Let goe the hand of that Arch-heretique, (KJ 3.1.117–18), In perill of precipitation
From off the Rocke Tarpeian, (Cor 3.3.106–7);
out of: and (out of all suspition,) she is vertuous. (MA 2.3.154–5, ‘beyond’), When did he regard The stampe of
Noblenesse in any person Out of himselfe? (H8 3.2.11–13, ‘except’).
< previous page
page_200
next page >
< previous page
page_201
next page >
Page 201
6
Concord, Negation, Ellipsis and Repetition
6.1 Concord
Concord is the matching of number or person through different elements within a clause. With the fall of inflections
there were fewer possibilities for the failure of concord, since the distinctions in number and person were traditionally
marked through inflections. Nouns now had inflections for number between singular and plural, and for case in the
possessive; they had few inflections for gender. For all practical purposes adjectives had no equivalent distinctions.
Personal and demonstrative pronouns were distinguished for number, and the former for case and gender. Most
verbs distinguished person in the third singular present indicative, and decreasingly in the second singular both
present and preterite indicative; the verb to be was an exception in that it had more distinctions of person than
other verbs.
6.1.1 Subject/verb concord
6.1.1.1 A co-ordinate subject, which is perceived as a single entity, may take a singular verb, but the inflection <(e)s> is both a third singular and a possible plural ending of the present indicative (4.2.2 (d)), though a zero plural is
the norm. This failure in concord arises because the two nouns are virtually synonymous: Sorrow, and griefe of heart
Makes him speake fondly, (R2 3.3.183–4); because, though quite different in their meaning, the two nouns are close
enough in relationship to share a common purpose: Our Master and Mistresse seekes you: (AY 5.1.59), Thou
know'st, that Banquo and his Fleans liues. (Mac 3.2.38); because the two nouns form a hendiadys: The Blood and
Courage that renowned them, Runs in your Veines: (H5 1.2.118–19, ‘the courageous blood’),
< previous page
page_201
next page >
< previous page
page_202
next page >
Page 202
your honor, and your goodnesse is so euident, (WT 2.2.46); or because the two nouns, though opposites, together
are thought to cause the action of the verb: Despaire, and hope, makes thee ridiculous. (VA 988). A co-ordinate
subject may take a plural verb when a co-ordinate pair nearby has a singular verb; the line VA 988, just quoted,
follows Thy weale, and wo, are both of them extreames, (VA 987). A singular verb may depend on a subject with
more than two nouns: all disquiet, horror, and perturbation followes her. (MA 2.1.243–4). Two nouns of the subject
linked with the correlative both … and can take a singular verb if they fall into one of the categories described
above: Both winde and tide stayes for this Gentleman, (CE 4.1.46).
6.1.1.2 The forms there is and here is may introduce a co-ordinate subject or, more frequently, a single subject in
the plural: and there is two or three Lords & Ladies more married. (MN 4.2.15–16), Here is a Frier, and Slaughter'd
Romeos man, (RJ 5.3.198); Here's flowres for you: (WT 4.4.103), There hath beene in Rome straunge Insurrections:
(Cor 4.3.13). There and here may also exhibit this feature with verbs other than the verb to be: Here comes the
Townes-men, on Procession, (2H6 2.1.71), There comes an old man, and his three sons. (AY 1.2.110), there liues
not three good men vnhang'd in England, (1H4 2.5.130).
6.1.1.3 Inversion of subject and verb in interrogatives or after an initial adverbial may also lead to a singular verb
followed by a plural subject: what cares these roarers for the name of King? (Tem 1.1.15–16), What knowes the
Lawes That theeues do passe on theeues? (MM 2.1.21–2, often emended to ‘law’ in modern editions), (for far
behinde his worth Comes all the praises that I now bestow.) (TG 2.4.69–70), Hath all his ventures faild, (MV
3.2.265), That Spirit, vpon whose spirit depends and rests The liues of many, (Ham 3.3.14–15, for spirit Q2 reads
weale). This is common when inversion with interrogatives involves a co-ordinate subject: And is the Bride &
Bridegroom coming home? (TS 3.3.24).
6.1.1.4 A collective noun when subject may govern either a singular or a plural verb, often depending on whether
there is the sense of a collection of individuals or of a unified body: the Senate haue concluded (JC 2.2.93), The
Senate hath sent (Oth 1.2.46, Wells and Taylor 1988: 823 omit hath), The Nobility are vexed, (Cor 4.2.2), True
Nobility, is exempt from feare: (2H6 4.1.131), which the rude multitude call the after-noone. (LL 5.1.84–5), the
great supply
< previous page
page_202
next page >
< previous page
page_203
next page >
Page 203
That was expected by the Dolphin heere, Are wrack'd three nights ago (KJ 5.3.9–11). A collective noun may take a
singular verb, though later be indicated through a plural pronoun: Fruite vnripe stickes on the Tree, But fall
vnshaken, when they mellow bee. (Ham 3.2.181–2).
6.1.1.5 Simple subjects in the plural may have a singular verb, though it is more difficult to say definitively that a
verb ending in <-(e)s> is singular. These two examples, Which very manners vrges. (KL 5.3.209), Fiue thousand
drops payes that. (Tim 3.4.93), could actually have a plural verb, but this is not true of: And then our Armes, like to
a muzled Beare, Saue in aspect, hath all offence seal'd vp: (KJ 2.1.249–50).
6.1.1.6
The real subject may be confused, especially where a prepositional phrase is involved, so that the verb may be plural
with a singular subject or singular with a plural subject, though final <-(e)s> can be the plural of the present
indicative (6.1.1.7). Although particularly common with phrases like a kind of, a sort of, they also occur with other
prepositional phrases:
Singular subjects with plural verbs: There are a sort of men, (MV 1.1.88), all the kinde of the Launces, haue this
very fault: (TG 2.3.2–3), I am glad this parcell of wooers are so reasonable, (MV 1.2.105–6), The posture of your
blowes are yet vnknowne. (JC 5.1.33), The Queene, With all the Northerne Earles and Lords, Intend here to besiege
you (3H6 1.2.49–50 ).
Singular subject with singular verb: O what a world of vilde ill-fauour'd faults Lookes handsome in three hundred
pounds a yeere? (MW 3.4.31–2).
Plural subject with singular verb: two paces of the vilest Earth Is roome enough. (1H4 5.4.90–1), The venome
clamors of a iealous woman, Poisons more deadly (CE 5.1.70–1). In most cases the verb is attracted to the number
of the nearest noun.
When a noun or pronoun comes close to the verb, it may replace the true subject in concord with the verb: Where
such as thou may'st finde him. (Mac 4.2.83, where the true subject is such), the sound that tels what houre it is, Are
clamorous groanes, (R2 5.5.55–6). This may explain F's The fraud of men were euer so, (MA 2.3.71, Q was). This
may lead to some ambiguity as in Yeeld him, who all the humane Sonnes do hate, (Tim 4.3.186),
< previous page
page_203
next page >
< previous page
page_204
next page >
Page 204
where the verb do points to Sonnes as the subject though the sense demands that him who is; either is
grammatically possible.
As most relative pronouns had no inflections, confusion as to what the subject was could arise: Third person singular
for plural: With sighes of loue, that costs the fresh bloud deare. (MN 3.2.97), So, so, so, so: they laugh, that winnes.
(Oth 4.1.121). Third person singular for second person (though in each example the <-es> ending could possibly be
a reduced form of <est>, 4.2.2. (b)): Caska, you are the first that reares your hand. (JC 3.1.30), Thou it seemes,
that cals for company (TS 4.1.91), Thou common whore of Mankinde, that puttes oddes Among the rout of Nations,
(Tim 4.3.43–4). Third person singular for first person: heare me, who professes My selfe your loyall Seruant, (WT
2.3.53–4). When two verbs with what should be the same subject follow in successive clauses, the second verb may
have a different person as though referring to another subject: Are you not hee, That frights the maidens of the
Villagree, Skim milke, and sometimes labour in the querne, (MN 2.1.34–6). When there is a co-ordinate subject the
verb may agree with only one of them: how doost thou and thy Master agree, (MV 2.2.94–5), that thou and I am
one, (AY 1.3.96), How agrees the Diuell and thee about thy Soule, (1H4 1.2.113–14), the World, and all that's in't, is
nothing, (WT 1.2.295, where the two subjects may be thought tautologous). Correlatives like either … or and
neither/nor … nor may take a plural verb: Nor thou, nor he are any sonnes of mine, (TA 1.1.290). A few plural
words or phrases like all things are thought of as singular, perhaps because they are taken to be singular indefinite
pronouns: All things is readie, (TS 4.1.103), Pewter and brasse, and all things that belongs To house or housekeeping: (TS 2.1.351–2), I am glad that all things sorts so well. (MA 5.4.7 Q; F sort). When in one clause a pronoun
refers back to something in the previous clause, its referent may be interpreted differently: thy sight is young, And
thou shalt read, when mine begin to dazell. (TA 3.2.83–4, where mine refers back to sight, but is taken to refer to
‘eyes’ understood and thus takes a plural verb). Indefinite pronouns acting as subjects may be followed by personal
or possessive pronouns in the plural: Each leaning on their elbowes and their hips: (VA 44), euerie one to rest
themselues betake, (RL 125).
< previous page
page_204
next page >
< previous page
page_205
next page >
Page 205
6.1.1.7 Early English had several different ways of forming the present plural of verbs and one of them was the use
of <-(e)s>, which still survives in some regional dialects. As indicated already, some examples of the plural in <-(e)s>
may arise from this source, especially in rhyme where archaic forms are often exploited by poets: Whiles I threat, he
liues: Words to the heat of deedes too cold breath giues. (Mac 2.1.60–1), She lifts the coffer-lids that close his eyes,
VVhere lo, two lamps burnt out in darknesse lies. (VA 1127–8).
6.1.2 Case and number of pronouns and demonstrative adjectives
Pronouns retained some distinctions of case and number so that, for example, the subject should be a subject
pronoun and the object or the post-preposition slot filled by non-subject pronouns. This did not always happen, as
still applies in PdE.
6.1.2.1 The non-subject pronoun appears in subject position: for the which, my selfe and them Bend their best
studies, (KJ 4.2.50–1). How agrees the Diuell and thee about thy Soule, (1H4 1.2.113–14). This occurrence is
frequent with imperatives, though some should be interpreted as reflexives: runne thee to the parlour, (MA 3.1.1),
Come thee on. (AC 4.8.13). Pronouns may act as both object in a prepositional phrase and subject in a following
clause, leading to lack of concord in one of the two situations: better then him I am before knowes mee: (AY
1.1.41), where him takes the object form after then ‘than’, but also acts as the subject of knowes.
6.1.2.2 Subject pronouns may appear as objects or after prepositions: And he, my husband best of all affects: (MW
4.4.85), Yes, you haue seene Cassio, and she together. (Oth 4.2.3), here's none but thee, & I. (2H6 1.2.69), all
debts are cleerd betweene you and I, (MV 3.2.316–17). There is some dispute as to the grammatical organisation of
the following passage where Hamlet claims the ghost has been making life horrendous for others:
Making Night hidious? And we fooles of Nature,
So horridly to shake our disposition,
With thoughts beyond thee;
(Ham 1.4.35–7)
< previous page
page_205
next page >
< previous page
page_206
next page >
Page 206
It is probable that we was thought to start a new sentence, hence the punctuation in F, though grammatically it is
dependent on Making and really formed an accusative and infinitive construction; however, instead of vs the idea
that this was a new thought led to we being used. A subject pronoun may start a sentence, although it later turns
out that it ought to have been an object pronoun: But he that disciplin'd thy armes to fight, Let Mars deuide Eternity
in twaine, And giue him halfe, (TC 2.3.239–41). When there are pronoun objects of the same verb in successive
clauses, the second may appear in the subject form: Praise him that got thee, she that gaue thee sucke: (TC
2.3.236).
6.1.2.3 Demonstrative adjectives may in phrases like this kind of agree with the main noun rather than with kind or
other determiner: These kind of Knaues (KL 2.2.99), these set kinde of fooles, (TN 1.5.84–5); cf. all kindes of blood,
(Son 109.10) with All kinde of arguments (LC 121).
6.1.2.4 A demonstrative adjective may not have the same number as the noun it modifies: This Sessions (WT 3.2.1),
this waies. (MW 2.2.49), though the latter example may be a possessive rather than plural (3.2.1.1).
6.1.2.5 An adjective may refer to a word which is not a noun or pronoun, especially a possessive adjective. In
Sleeping within mine Orchard, My custome alwayes … thy Vncle stole (Ham 1.5.59–61), Sleeping refers to the I of
My, for the subject of the sentence is Vncle.
6.2 Negation
There is a tendency in all languages to place the negator towards the beginning of a clause. As a negator has little
sentence stress, it will be weakened within the clause and so some strengthening is added. This takes the form of an
additional element (usually but not always a negative) later in the sentence. Once this element is added, the initial
negator may disappear because of its weak stress and because the negation is sufficiently signalled by the later
element. When that happens, the second element will gradually move forward in the clause to occupy the slot left
vacant by the original negator. The cycle of weakening and reinforcement can then start again.
In Old English the principal negator was ne before the verb. It
< previous page
page_206
next page >
< previous page
page_207
next page >
Page 207
carried weak stress within its clause and was frequently strengthened by the inclusion after the verb of naht/noht,
shortened forms of nawiht ‘nothing’, or similar negators. This naht/noht was soon reduced to not. By Middle English
this produced the sentence type subject + ne + verb + negator to give a sentence like I ne seye not; the inclusion
of an auxiliary with the negator had not yet developed. The negative particle ne dropped out of the language to
leave the pattern subject + verb + negator as in I know not: (WT 1.2.432). However, the existence of ne had not
been forgotten and it was added to texts to create an archaic flavour, as in Ne ought escapend but himselfe, (Per
sc.5.36).
Although subject + verb + negator may be accepted as the standard pattern of negation in ShE, the inevitable move
of the negator to a position before the verb had already begun to give forms like I not doubt (Tem 2.1.127), leading
to the strengthening of this negator by the addition of a further element after the verb, either another negator or
some kind of intensifier. The occurrence of two or more negators in a clause was normal at this time and should not
be regarded as a grammatical error. The grammatical ‘rule’, that two negatives make a positive and that when they
are used for negation alone they constitute a mistake in grammar, was introduced into English on the basis of Latin
only later in the seventeenth century, although this rule was known to Shakespeare and his contemporaries from
their exposure to Latin grammar and it is referred to in Twelfth Night, where Feste introduces the concept if your
foure negatiues make your two affirmatiues, (TN 5.1.19–20). Double or triple negation is, or perhaps rather was, a
natural phenomenon in English.
6.2.1.1 ShE contains a number of negators. The usual negator in ShE was not, which could appear both after and
before the verb: Thou attend'st not? (Tem 1.2.87), whose influence If now I court not, (Tem 1.2.183–4), My
charmes cracke not: (Tem 5.1.2), I finde Not my selfe dispos'd to sleep. (Tem 2.1.206–7), Sweete Prince, why
speake not you? (MA 4.1.63), And by his Treason, stand'st not thou attainted, (1H6 2.4.92); Whereof the Ewe not
bites: (Tem 5.1.38), I not know: (Tem 5.1.115), I not deny (MM 2.1.18), she not denies it: (MA 4.1.175), And not
beleeues himselfe. (Tim 4.3.157). Not is used elliptically in the worst is not, So long as we can say this is the worst.
(KL 4.1.27–8, ‘The worst point has not been reached’). A similar example occurs in And nothing is, but what is not.
(Mac 1.3.140–1). In these
< previous page
page_207
next page >
< previous page
page_208
next page >
Page 208
two cases it acts almost as a complement. Not could also appear after the object, especially if it is a pronoun: they
loue thee not that vse thee, (Tim 4.3.84). In ShE not is never abbreviated to n't, even though not occurs frequently
in the neighbourhood of other abbreviated forms, which sets it apart from PdE where forms like don't are common:
Haue the Disease, and feele't not. (WT 1.2.208), Ha’ not you seene Camillo? (WT 1.2.269), but that's not to the
point: (WT 3.3.87–8), and Ile not remember you of my owne Lord, (WT 3.2.229).
6.2.1.2 Never was used instead of not, though it may have additional emphasis: I can neuer cut off a womans head.
(MM 4.2.4–5), I neuer may beleeue These anticke fables, (MN 5.1.2–3), I haue nere a tongue in my head, (MV
2.2.152).
6.2.1.3 Nothing is used adverbially as a negator as well as a pronoun: That you do loue me, I am nothing iealous:
(JC 1.2.163), I am but sorry, not affear'd: delaid, But nothing altred: (WT 4.4.463–4, nothing in one clause parallels
not in a previous one), What course I meane to hold Shall nothing benefit your knowledge, (WT 4.4.502–3), Such
neighbour-neerenesse to our sacred blood, Should nothing priuiledge him, (R2 1.1.119–20).
6.2.1.4 Although no usually precedes a noun or adjective, it is used as an alternative to not. In Hamlet, for
example, Polonius says I vse no Art at all: and I will vse no Art. (2.2.97 and 100) which corresponds to Hamlet's I
have not Art (2.2.120–1). Other examples include I know no answer. (KL 1.1.200), It is no vicious blot, (KL 1.1.227),
I am no honest man, (KL 1.2.161–2), And be no turne-coats: (Tim 4.3.144), I, that I was no Prodigall. (Tim
4.3.280–1). No is used in opposition to affirmations and in conditions: If you be Mayd, or no? (Tem 1.2.429),
VVhether you will or no. (Tem 3.1.86), Beg thou, or borrow, to make vp the summe, And liue; if no, then thou art
doom'd to die: (CE 1.1.153–4).
In the absence of non-assertive forms, no acts as an indefinite adjective or pronoun in situations where PdE has
any: Yet do I hold it very stuffe o ‘th'conscience To do no contriu'd Murder: (Oth 1.2.2–3). Other negators may be
used in similar ways.
6.2.1.5 None is both the predicative form of the pronoun and the adjective used instead of no before vowels, and
may occur where PdE has not. Gloucester's response I'me none. (KL 3.7.31) to Regan's claim that he is a traitor
would be ‘I'm not’ in PdE. Antigonus answers a similar claim in the same way: I am none, (WT 2.3.83). It
< previous page
page_208
next page >
< previous page
page_209
next page >
Page 209
is used elliptically instead of not, especially at the end of clauses: Letters should not be knowne: Riches, pouerty,
And vse of seruice, none: (Tem 2.1.156–7, ‘none of these should be known’). In he must know ‘tis none of your
Daughter, nor my Sister: (WT 4.4.819–20), the sense must be ‘not something which is characteristic of your
daughter or my sister’.
6.2.1.6 Neither by itself is used (a) instead of no as the negative in answer to questions or (b) occasionally instead
of nor in the sense ‘and not’:
Lady. Would'st haue thy Head broken?
Hotsp. No.
Lady. Then be still.
Hotsp. Neyther, ‘tis a Womans fault.
(1H4 3.1.233–6, i.e. ‘no to that too’)
I speake not this, that you should beare a good opinion of my knowledge: insomuch (I say) I know you are: neither
do I labor for a greater esteeme (AY 5.2.52–4).
Neither can mean ‘none of two’: so many quirkes of ioy and greefe, That the first face of neither on the start Can
woman me vntoo't. (AW 3.2.49–51).
6.2.1.7 Nor is used to join two sentences, which are unrelated cohesively; and although nor has the negative sense
‘and not’, an additional negator is frequently included in the clause it introduces: Spirits are not finely tonch'd
[touched], But to fine issues: nor nature neuer lends The smallest scruple of her excellence, (MM 1.1.35–7), And
since I haue not much importun'd you, Nor now I had not, but that I am bound To Persia, (CE 4.1.2–4). The
repetition of nor may occur before nouns rather than at the front of clauses, where it may be repeated erratically:
Whose proofe, nor yels of Mothers, Maides, nor Babes, Nor sight of Priests in holy Vestments bleeding, Shall pierce a
iot. (Tim 4.3.125–7). The nor may be replaced by not as in: Not Frenzie, Not absolute madnesse could so farre haue
rau'd To bring him heere alone: (Cym 4.2.135–7). It is possible to vary this pattern by having a different negator as
the final element: nor Steele, nor Poyson, Mallice domestique, forraine Leuie, nothing, Can touch him further. (Mac
3.2.26–8).
6.2.1.8 Other words can act as negators, although as in PdE they do not have what might be considered a full-blown
negative sense.
< previous page
page_209
next page >
< previous page
page_210
next page >
Page 210
They include words like hardly, scarce(ly) and seldom: and scarce thinke Their eies doe offices of Truth: (Tem
5.1.157–8), are scarce catercosins. (MV 2.2.124), a bankrout, a prodigall, who dare scarce shew his head on the
Ryalto, (MV 3.1.40–1), I scarse know how. (Tim 1.2.180), my eye will scarsely see it. (H5 2.2.101), but such traitors
His Maiesty seldome feares, (AW 2.1.96–7), I thinke you'll hardly win her. (TG 1.1.129), I, it stands so that I may
hardly tarry so long: (TS Ind.2.122).
6.2.2 With a negator the usual order in declarative clauses was either subject + verb + negator (+ object) or subject
+ negator + verb (+ object). The use of auxiliaries with negative expressions could occur, but was not yet
grammaticalised. Where an auxiliary is found the order is normally subject + auxiliary + negator + verb (+ object),
as in PdE, though other orders were possible. See further 7.1.1.2ff.
SauxNV: You could neuer doe him so ill well, (MA 2.1.107), I will not stirre from this place, (MN 3.1.115–16), I
cannot tell, (H5 2.1.19), when I cannot liue any longer, (H5 2.1.14), I do not flatter thee (TA 1.1.212), I doe not set
my life at a pins fee; (Ham 1.4.46).
NSauxV: Not Nature (To whom all sores lay siege) can beare great Fortune (Tim 4.3.6–7). With interrogatives,
imperatives and in subordinate clauses with inversion, the negator normally follows immediately after the verb or
after the auxiliary, if there is one; other orders are possible.
auxN(S)V: Did not I dance with you in Brabant once? (LL 2.1.114), Do not you thinke, The Duke was heere, (MN
4.1.192–3), O doe not doe your cosin such a wrong, (MA 3.1.87), do not be so bitter with me, (MN 3.2.307), Which
do not be entreated too, (AC 2.6.32).
VNS/O: Dismay'd not this our Captaines, (Mac 1.2.34), Faile not our Feast. (Mac 3.1.29).
(aux)SNV: Doe you not hope your Children shall be Kings, (Mac 1.3.116), Had you not come vpon your Q my Lord,
(R3 3.4.26, ‘If you had not’), Know you not, he h'as? (Mac 1.7.30), Will you not tell me who told you so? (MA
2.1.114–15).
NVO: Neuer craue him, (MM 5.1.424).
VSNC: Wert thou not Beggar: (Tim 4.3.243, ‘if you were not a beggar’).
VON Feed, and regard him not. (Mac 3.4.57).
< previous page
page_210
next page >
< previous page
page_211
next page >
Page 211
6.2.3.1 The strengthening of negation is usually achieved by the addition of some element such as another negator
or some word or phrase acting as a type of intensifier. The two most common forms of the first kind are the
inclusion of neither towards the end or of nor at the beginning of a clause: This was no Damosell neyther (LL
1.1.281), and yet giue no thousand crownes neyther: (AY 1.1.82–3), Not so neither: (MN 3.1.141), It shall not
neyther. (WT 2.3.158), and yet say nothing neither. (Tem 3.2.19–20), and let not him speake neither. (MA 2.1.292),
Nor will you not tell me who you are? (MA 2.1.117), Which neuer were, nor no man euer saw. (TS Ind.2.95). Both
can be found together: My browes become nothing else, nor that well neither. (MW 3.3.54–5). Nor is often found
with multiple negation: nor neuer none Shall mistris be of it, (TN 3.1.157–8). Some double or triple negatives can
cause some ambiguity, as in: No, not to be so odde, and from all fashions, As Beatrice is, cannot be commendable,
(MA 3.1.72–3, ‘to be so perverse like Beatrice is not praiseworthy’). The same ambiguity may apply to noun groups
and prepositional phrases where two apparent negatives are side by side: for taking a Begger without lesse quality.
(Cym 1.4.21–2, ‘a beggar with lower rank (than hers)’). The use of two negatives to form a positive is found.
Camillo's Be not vncertaine, (WT 1.2.441), means ‘Be absolutely certain’, and Lady Macbeth's assessment of her
husband Art not without Ambition,(Mac 1.5.18) implies great ambition.
The strengthening of negation may be a grammatical procedure. When two negative clauses are linked by a coordinate conjunction, then all the indefinite words in the sentence are negative: but loue no man in good earnest,
nor no further in sport neyther, (AY 1.2.25–6) where no and neyther are found rather than any and either. In single
clauses this process may not be complete: You know neither mee, your selues, nor any thing: (Cor 2.1.66, with any
thing rather than nothing).
6.2.3.2 Negation can be strengthened by the repetition of the negative word or phrase. The most famous example is
Lear's cry: Neuer, neuer, neuer, neuer, neuer. (KL 5.3.284). There are numerous other examples, if none so striking:
Ne're looke, ne're looke; (TC 1.2.240), There is no Tongue that moues; none, none i'th'World (WT 1.2.20), my heart
daunces, But not for ioy; not ioy. (WT 1.2.112–13).
6.2.3.3 Strengthening could be achieved by the inclusion of some phrase as an intensifier after the negator. A
common phrase was
< previous page
page_211
next page >
< previous page
page_212
next page >
Page 212
i'th'World, already exemplified in 6.2.3.2; other examples include: I doe loue nothing in the world so well as you,
(MA 4.1.269), she's very well, and wants nothing i'th'world: (AW 2.4.4), There's nothing in this world can make me
ioy, (KJ 3.4.107). Other phrases are: I could perceiue nothing at all from her; (TG 1.1.131), I loue thee not a Iarre o
‘th'Clock, behind (WT 1.2.43), Not a iot more, my Lord. (Ham 5.1.110), No faith, not a iot. (Ham 5.1.202), (I prize it
not a straw) (WT 3.2.109), Not altogether so, (KL 2.2.404), I would not for the world. (Tem 5.1.176), Not that I
know. (MM 5.1.197), ne're a whit. (TS 1.1.233), Not a whit. (MW 1.1.24). This strengthening element may be
separated from the negator: for neuer a Kings sonne in Christendome. (1H4 1.2.96–7), no Offence i'th'world. (Ham
3.2.223–4).
6.2.3.4 Tag questions, or tags as they are more usually known, are included here because in PdE positive tag
questions may be used to emphasise a negative or a negative tag may emphasise a positive question: ‘She isn't
coming, is she?'or ‘She is coming, isn't she?’ A positive tag after a positive statement is usually ironic: ‘You are
coming, are you?’ In PdE these tags are part of informal style and are colloquialisms. The negative is regularly
abbreviated to n't; it is never not. Equally in PdE in a main clause which is negative, not appears in an abbreviated
form, though this does not apply to other negatives which may show abbreviation in the verb group: ‘She's never
going to arrive in time, is she?’
In ShE tag questions have not developed to this stage, though they are also characteristic of informal language.
When found in ShE they never show the abbreviated form characteristic of PdE, and other forms of what may be
taken to be embryonic tag questions are found.
Examples of negative tags after a positive clause include: Handg'd it? Haue you not? (Tim 1.2.21), thou'lt do thy
message, wilt thou not? (TA 4.1.116), you haue me, haue you not? (Ham 2.1.67), You heard what this knave told
me, did you not? (MW 2.1.160), you are afraid if you see the Beare loose, are you not? (MW 1.1.271–2), It might be
the Pate of a Polititian … might it not? (Ham 5.1.77–9). A possible embryonic tag is: His Beard was grisly? no. (Ham
1.2.239, grisly is often emended to grizzled). The normal expectation is that, if there is a reply, that reply will be in
the affirmative. There is one example in ShE where the third soldier replies to the fourth with a negative:
< previous page
page_212
next page >
< previous page
page_213
next page >
Page 213
4 It signes well, do's it not?
3 No.
(AC 4.3.12)
Negative clauses with a positive tag include: you haue not the booke of Riddles about you, haue you? (MW 1.1.184–
5), Not noted, is't, But of the finer Natures? (WT 1.2.225–6, with an abbreviated form in the tag); and with a verb
which is different from that of the main clause and which might be regarded as a discourse marker: Does it not,
thinkst thee, stand me now vpon (Ham 5.2.64). Examples of a positive tag after a positive clause used ironically
include: you are Grand Iurers, are ye? (1H4 2.2.88–9), You vse me well, M. Ford? Do you? (MW 3.3.192), She
comes of errands do's she? (MW 4.2.159–60), You see him there, do you? (TC 2.1.59, in some modern editions
edited as two sentences), thou wot, wot thou, thou wot, wot ta, (2H4 2.1.59, Q), I must wait on my selfe, must I?
(MW 1.1.183–4), Thou canst strike, canst thou? (TC 2.1.19). And an example with a different verb in the tag: And
wake him to the answer, thinke you? (TC 1.3.326). Examples of negative tags after a negative clause include: ist not
a gallant man to, ist not? (TC 1.2.209). Some examples can be taken either as an embryonic negative tag after a
negative clause or as a strengthening of the negative (cf. 6.2.3.2): I cannot get a seruice, no, (MV 2.2.151), I loued
nothing so well as you, but beleeue me not, (MA 4.1.272–3), Nay, that shall not serue your turne, that shall it not in
truth la. (TC 3.1.72–3). An example which suggests that tag questions were still not well developed is indicated by
the way the Hostess both delays and repeats the tag in: Throw me in the channell? Ile throw thee there. Wilt thou?
wilt thou? (2H4 2.1.49–51, though some editors, like Wells and Taylor 1988: 516, insert a stage direction and alter
the punctuation which alters the structure).
6.2.4 Negators can occur as determiners or predeterminers within the noun group: I haue nere a tongue in my
head, well: (MV 2.2.152), Ne're a fantastical knaue of them all shal flout me (AY 3.3.96–7), For no kinde of Trafficke
Would I admit: No name of Magistrate: (Tem 2.1.154–5), That none so small aduantage shall step forth (KJ
3.4.151), Your Italy, containes none so accomplish'd a Courtier (Cym 1.4. 92–3). Negators may also appear before a
comparative adjective: A Riding Suit: No
< previous page
page_213
next page >
< previous page
page_214
next page >
Page 214
costlier then would fit A Franklins Huswife. (Cym 3.2.76–7), whose beauty claimes No worse a husband then the
best of men: (AC 2.2.134–5), Whose action is no stronger then a flower? (Son 65.4).
6.2.5.1 Most of the negators listed in 6.2.1 can act as the first element of a compound, although they may not
always be hyphenated in F or in modern editions, and as such they are linked with modifiers or the head of a noun
group: To endlesse date of neuer-ending woes? (RL 935), the neuer surfeited Sea, (Tem 3.3.55), your neuerwithering bankes of Flowres. (Cym 5.5.192); Of the none-sparing warre? (AW 3.2.107); he professes notanswering;
(TC 3.3.259–60), for not Appearance, (H8 4.1.30); That nothing-guift of differing Multitudes (Cym 3.6.83); the
scarse-bearded Cæsar (AC 1.1.22), our scarse-cold Conqueror, (1H6 4.3.50).
6.2.5.2 There are affixes with a negative meaning in ShE, though in some cases the sense is the opposite of the
simple word rather than a negative as such. Those which are most productive of new words in ShE are:
dis–: I hope my words dis-bench'd you not? (Cor 2.2.70–1, ‘removed you from your position’, opposite to bench ‘to
raise to authority’), Er't be disburthen'd with a liberall tongue. (R2 2.1.230, ‘be reduced of its load by’, opposite to
the verb burthen ‘to load’), By the discandering of this pelleted storme, (AC 3.13.168, usually emended to
discandying and opposite of the verb candy ‘to sugar’), A little to disquantity your Traine, (KL 1.4.227, ‘to reduce in
number’, though Shakespeare does not use a verb quantity);
–less: your House-lesse heads, (KL 3.4.30, ‘with no house above your heads’); As ‘twere a carelesse Trifle. (Mac
1.4.11, ‘not cared for’), in your sightlesse substances, (Mac 1.5.48, ‘not visible’);
non–: for non-paiment, (VA 521, ‘not paying’), to non-regardance cast my faith, (TN 5.1.119, ‘with no regard’), Nonsuites my Mediators. (Oth 1.1.15, ‘frees me from my obligation to’);
un– may vary with in–, though the more striking forms have the former prefix: an inhumane wretch, Vncapable of
pitty, (MV 4.1.3–4, ‘not susceptible to’), she liues vncharm'd. (RJ 1.1.208, ‘without succumbing to magic’, but often
emended to unharmed, e.g. Wells and Taylor 1988: 339), And laid mine honour too vnchary on't: (TN 3.4.198,
‘without proper attention’).
< previous page
page_214
next page >
< previous page
page_215
next page >
Page 215
6.2.6 Negatives frequently occur in elliptical forms, for they are often adversative. The following exchange is found in
The Winter's Tale:
Leo. A mankinde Witch? Hence with her, out o'dore:
A most intelligencing bawd.
Paul. Not so:
(2.3.68–9)
Paulina's comment Not so means ‘You are wrong to call me a whore because I am not one’ and might be expressed
in PdE by ‘I'm not’ or ‘That's a lie’. Such expressions in their brevity convey anger and just indignation.
6.2.7 As noted earlier, double negatives are common in ShE, a situation which makes the use of non-assertive forms
as found in PdE unnecessary. Where in PdE one might have either ‘I have nothing’ or ‘I don't have anything’, in ShE
a clause like ‘I don't have nothing’ is perfectly acceptable as the equivalent to either of the two PdE expressions.
Thus we find statements like And to be King, Stands not within the prospect of beleefe, No more then to be Cawdor.
(Mac 1.3.71–3, where PdE would have Any more rather than No more). Nevertheless, certain expressions in PdE are
associated only with negatives, and by the same token some in ShE are largely confined to negative clauses. The
phrase at all is restricted in PdE to negatives clauses as in ‘I don't like him at all’. This is also characteristic of ShE,
though not so rigidly as in PdE since we can find in ShE a statement like this must craue (And if this be at all) a
most strange story. (Tem 5.1.118–19). Otherwise, this expression occurs with negatives or with prepositions and
verbs which have a negative quality: Or at least, desist To builde at all? (2H4 1.3.47–8), without expence at all,
(1H6 1.1.76).
6.2.8 As in PdE there is a tendency to front a negator into the main clause when it is really the subordinate clause
which is negative. Thus in PdE one tends to say ‘I don't think the train will arrive on time’ rather than ‘I think the
train won't arrive on time’, though both are possible. The same trend is found in ShE, but there are many examples
where the negator is found only in the subordinate clause: I thinke there is not in the World, either Malice or Matter,
to alter it. (WT 1.1.33–4), But Il'd say he had not; (WT 2.1.64), You
< previous page
page_215
next page >
< previous page
page_216
next page >
Page 216
speake a Language that I vnderstand not: (WT 3.2.79), Thou think'st there is no more such shapes as he, (Tem
1.2.481), but cf. I cannot thinke my Sister in the least Would faile her Obligation. (KL 2.2.313–14), I cannot thinke
(my Lord) your son is dead. (2H4 1.1.104),
6.2.9 It is difficult to determine the scope of negatives in ShE, because non-assertive forms were not used and
double or triple negation was common. Furthermore, an apparent negator like nor could often appear to have a
positive sense for it seems to do duty for or or and, and sometimes through ellipsis a negator might not be repeated
in a second clause although that clause is definitely negative. When Lear says I neuer gaue you Kingdome; call'd
you Children, (KL 3.2.17), it is clear that the second clause is also negative and depends upon the neuer of the first
one. However, the use of double negatives may make the scope and overall sense of a passage more difficult to
grasp. When Edgar says in King Lear:
No Port is free, no place
That guard, and most vnusall vigilance
Do's not attend my taking.
(KL 2.2.166–8),
the Do's not attend appears to refer back to both No Port and no place, though that creates some ambiguity in
comprehension. It is this use of multiple negation which can cause uncertainty in the scope of negation in ShE.
6.3 Ellipsis
Ellipsis and repetition have many points of contact, though for simplicity's sake they are kept apart here. However,
there is a significant difference between them for where repetition is likely always to be planned, ellipsis may not be.
Ellipsis may often be a matter of register. Ellipsis may represent an informal rather than a formal level of speech,
though it can be literary and highly artificial, even if it is not always easy to decide when this is so. Shakespeare's
plays exhibit ellipsis because they reflect conversational practice. In his poems ellipsis is more likely to be a reflection
of contemporary rhetorical teaching. In all texts ellipsis contributes to the emotional intensity of the scene as well as
in the plays contributing to the dramatic liveliness of the char
< previous page
page_216
next page >
< previous page
page_217
next page >
Page 217
acters. Ellipsis often means that the grammatical words are omitted so that the lexical words are in closer proximity
producing a density of suggestiveness.
It is a wide generalisation of some validity that there is less ellipsis in Shakespeare's earlier plays, where it is largely
confined to creating liveliness of dialogue. As an example consider the following exchange:
Pedro. Why how now Count, wherfore are you sad?
Claud. Not sad my Lord.
Pedro. How then? sicke?
Claud. Neither, my Lord.
(MA 2.1.269–73)
Claudio's first answer is elliptical for ‘I am not sad, my lord’ and Don Pedro's response is elliptical for ‘If you are not
sad, are you then sick?’ Claudio's reply is elliptical for ‘I am not sick either.’ All of these elliptical utterances are what
could readily be found in everyday conversation as much in PdE as in ShE, and they are designed to make the
dialogue more realistic, though the brevity of the exchanges does add some dramatic tension to this scene. It is only
with the later plays that ellipsis becomes employed more widely to increase the denseness of meaning, the tautness
of emotion and the possibilities of equivocation. The many examples have to be interpreted from the context or, in
some instances, they direct a reader or listener to build up a picture of what the context must be in its totality.
Consider a relatively straightforward example from Cymbeline, where at the beginning of Act 3 Scene 2 Pisanio
enters alone reading a letter and says aloud:
How? of Adultery? Wherefore write you not
What Monsters her accuse? Leonatus:
Oh Master, what a strange infection
Is falne into thy eare? What false Italian,
(As poysonous tongu'd, as handed) hath preuail'd
On thy too ready hearing? Disloyall? No.
(3.2.1–6)
The previous action of the play tells us that Pisanio's exiled master now believes his wife, who is a model of chastity,
has committed adultery with the Italian, Giacomo. The letter, we learn, is
< previous page
page_217
next page >
< previous page
page_218
next page >
Page 218
from this master relating to Pisanio this new state of affairs, and Pisanio reacts in disbelief. His How? Of Adultery?
reflects his disbelief and agitation at this turn of events, though in modern punctuation F's text might appear as
How, of adultery?, since the two elements are closely linked and the sense implied must be ‘Can he really accuse her
of adultery?’ Later the elliptical phrase in brackets (As poysonous tongu'd, as handed) describes the Italian, ‘whose
vicious tongue is as bad as his wicked deeds’. This ellipsis allows tongu'd and handed to be set in close proximity to
make the enormity of his wickedness clear; the Italian is all evil so he has been able through his subtle practice to
deceive Pisanio's master. Pisanio then asks himself whether his mistress is disloyal and answers with an unequivocal
negative. In this way Shakespeare can get across a lot of information, inject considerable emotion into the scene,
and confirm the goodness of both Pisanio and his mistress. The ellipsis in this passage is hardly confusing to the
audience, which is why it was chosen to start this section; it illustrates how common such ellipsis is in conversation.
In what follows it should be remembered that ellipsis has not always been introduced for its own sake: it may reflect
a deliberate choice among grammatical alternatives or stylistic levels. It may also reflect Shakespeare's education, for
ellipsis was promoted in part not only by metre but also by the cultivation of sententiae through schoolroom practice.
Sententiae can be expressed pithily, especially in Latin. It has been noted:
Shakespeare abounds in quotable sentences simply because he learned to think in sententiae as he sweated over
translation from Latin to English or from English to Latin, trying in each exercise to achieve maximum brevity and
maximum point.
(Whitaker 1953, p. 25)
However, what follows merely describes the different forms ellipsis can take in ShE, starting with simpler forms of
ellipsis, usually of a single word, and then going on to more complicated ones.
6.3.1 Omission of noun or pronoun
6.3.1.1 The subject noun or third person personal pronoun may be omitted when it can be deduced from the
surrounding context: Nor do we finde him forward to be sounded, But with a crafty Madnesse keepes
< previous page
page_218
next page >
< previous page
page_219
next page >
Page 219
aloofe: (Ham 3.1.7–8, where the subject of keepes is he understood from the him of the preceding line), They call
him Doricles, and boasts himselfe To haue a worthy Feeding: (WT 4.4.169–70, where himselfe could be the subject
or, if it is the reflexive pronoun, it implies a subject he), it was vpon this fashion bequeathed me by will, but poore a
thousand Crownes, and as thou saist, charged my brother on his blessing to breed mee well: (AY 1.1.1–4, where the
subject of charged, if a preterite, is presumably the will or its author, the speaker's father).
6.3.1.2 The omission of the subject first or second person pronoun is less common: they all rush by, And leaue you
hindmost: Or like a gallant Horse falne in first ranke, Lye there for pauement to the abiect, (TC 3.3.153–6, where the
subject of Lye is you, which is the object two lines above). The subject first person of the personal pronoun, either
singular or plural, is frequently omitted with verbs of command and request: Beseech you Sir, be merry; (Tem
2.1.1), pray you, (if you know) (AY 4.3.76), Presse me not (‘beseech you) so: (WT 1.2.19), Beseech your patience:
Peace (Cym 1.1.154). Impersonal verbs may appear without a subject, though it or may it is to be understood:
please you come something neerer. (WT 2.2.58), Waite you on him, I charge you, as becomes: (TS 1.1.231, ‘as it is
fitting to do, in an appropriate manner’). With the second singular personal pronoun, the inflectional ending often
allows the subject thou to be omitted. Its omission is common in questions, but it is not confined to them: Art any
more then a Steward? (TN 2.3.109–10), it was shee First told me thou wast mad; then cam'st in smiling, (TN
5.1.345–6), Fie vpon thee, art not asham'd? (MA 3.4.26), Wilt dine with me Apemantus? (Tim 1.1.207), What
wouldst do then Apemantus? (Tim 1.1.231), Should'st haue kept one to thy selfe, (Tim 1.1.268). In some cases the
absence of the second person pronoun may result from an uncertainty as to whether to use the singular or plural
form: Thou should'st haue made him, As little as a Crow, or lesse, ere left To after-eye him. (Cym 1.3.14–16, where
left could have been preceded by either thou or you).
6.3.1.3 The omission of the object, direct or indirect, is less common, for it may be difficult to decide whether a verb
is transitive or intransitive: take vp, take vp (Boy:), open't: (WT 3.3.113, with omission of it after each take), Who
taught ‘this? (WT 2.1.12, with omission of you after taught), You had musty victuall, and he hath holpe to ease [Q
eate] it: (MA 1.1.48–9, where you may be understood before the infinitive).
< previous page
page_219
next page >
< previous page
page_220
next page >
Page 220
6.3.1.4 An indefinite pronoun like there or it may be omitted. With impersonal verbs the subject it was traditionally
not there, though its appearance in many cases makes it seem as though it ought to be there in all: In the South
Suburbes at the Elephant Is best to lodge: (TN 3.3.39–40), and for such kinde of men, the lesse you meddle or
make with them, why the more is for your honesty. (MA 3.3.49–51), so please him come vnto this place (JC
3.1.141, ‘if it please him’), Remaines, that in th'Officiall Markes inuested, You anon doe meet the Senate. (Cor
2.3.140–2), whose wraths to guard you from, Which here, in this most desolate Isle, else fals Vpon your heads, is
nothing but hearts-sorrow, (Tem 3.3.79–81).
6.3.2 Omission of verbs
6.3.2.1 Part of the verb to be is omitted, either by itself or with an indefinite subject like there or it: I cannot, by the
progresse of the Starres, Giue guesse how neere to day – (JC 2.1.2–3), Many yeeres (Though Cloten then but
young) you see, not wore him From my remembrance. (Cym 4.4.22–4), ‘ Tis certaine, euery man that dyes ill, the ill
vpon his owne head, (H5 4.1.185–6), and no man in the presence, But his red colour hath forsooke his cheekes. (R3
2.1.85–6). In some cases the precise omission is not clear; in Why this a heauie chance (TS 1.2.45) the verb is may
be omitted or this may conceivably be an abbreviated form th'is ‘this is’. In some modern editions this and similar
examples may be reproduced as this’ (Wells and Taylor 1988: 32), though this is a somewhat confusing strategy
since the apostrophe is not normally used in PdE to represent the omission of a whole word. Some examples are
more complicated, as in the following example where an infinitive subject is qualified by a conditional and the object
then follows without a main verb: And to sinke in it should you burthen loue, Too great oppression for a tender
thing. (RJ 1.4.23–4).
It may be difficult at times to tell whether a part of the verb to be is omitted through ellipsis or a phrase is in
apposition to another. When in Timon of Athens the Poet responds to the Painter's How this Lord is followed.
(1.1.39) with The Senators of Athens, happy men. (1.1.40), happy men could be either a complement to the subject
The Senators of Athens with a part of the verb to be omitted or an appositional phrase to that subject in an
exclamatory sentence. This uncertainty may be why in this line some modern editors emend men to man (Wells and
Taylor 1988: 885). The same may apply to some examples where there are two determiners in a noun group. When
later in this first scene in Timon of Athens the
< previous page
page_220
next page >
< previous page
page_221
next page >
Page 221
Old Athenian says angrily This Fellow heere, L. Timon, this thy Creature, (1.1.118), it is possible to take this thy
Creature as a normal example of two determiners before a head (3.3.4.1). But the tone suggests greater emphasis
which might be provided by punctuating this phrase in a modern edition as this, thy creature, with the elliptical
sense ‘this [fellow who is no more than] your slave’.
6.3.2.2 Omission of non-modal auxiliaries is possible in certain contexts, though the past participle can act as an
adjective without the auxiliary: When seruice should in my old limbs lie lame, And vnregarded Age in corners
throwne, (AY 2.3.42–3, where omission of the auxiliary is need not be assumed), Here's a yong maid with trauaile
much oppressed, And faints for succour. (AY 2.4.73–4, where the And suggests that maid should be followed by
something like that is, though asymmetrical parallels are found in Shakespeare). The omission of the non-modal
auxiliary is common with past participles in which case the ellipsis provides a non-finite clause, which may be
interpreted as an ablative absolute (4.3.5): Lastly, my selfe vnkindly banished, The gates shut on me, and turn'd
weeping out, To beg reliefe among Romes Enemies, (TA 5.3.103–5), How euer: but a folly bought with wit, Or else
a wit, by folly vanquished. (TG 1.1.34–5). When the subject is some way from the lexical verb, the necessary
auxiliary with that verb may be omitted because Shakespeare may have forgotten what his sentence structure was:
that your faire Daughter, At this odde Euen and dull watch o ‘th’ night Transported with no worse nor better guard,
But with a knaue of common hire, a Gundelier, (Oth 1.1.124–7).
6.3.2.3 Omission of a verb of motion may occur after modal auxiliaries, especially will and shall, and some lexical
verbs: I your Commission will forthwith dispatch, And he to England shall along with you: (Ham 3.3.3–4), I will to
morrow (And betimes I will) to the weyard Sisters. (Mac 3.4.131–2), He purposeth to Athens, (AC 3.1.35), I must to
Couentree, (R2 1.2.56). The missing verb may not be a verb of motion: Signior Iachimo will not from it. (Cym
1.4.168, ‘will not default on this wager’). But there is no ellipsis in an expression like I am to thanke you for't. (Tim
1.2.147), for the group be + infinitive means ‘to have to’ (7.1.3.2).
6.3.2.4 Omission of modal auxiliary and lexical verb occurs in: There be many Cæsars, Ere such another Iulius: (Cym
3.1.11–12, ‘will be’), and Katherine's answer to Petruccio's question: It is extempore,
< previous page
page_221
next page >
< previous page
page_222
next page >
Page 222
from my mother wit. is A witty mother, witlesse else her sonne. (TS 2.1.258–9) must presuppose something like
would be in the sequence ‘or else her son [would be] witless’. A more complex example is To see no pastime, I: (AY
5.4.193), meaning ‘I [have no intention] of watching any entertainment’.
6.3.2.5 Omission of subject and verb is frequent in responses during a conversation, especially when the verb is a
non-modal preceding a participle: A deere happinesse to women, (MA 1.1.122, where That is may be understood).
When clauses are balanced against each other, this type of omission is frequent: Much deseru'd on his part, and
equally remembred by Don Pedro, (MA 1.1.12–13, where in the first clause It was is required, and in the second it
has been). However, the verb may be a lexical verb as well: no Shepherdesse, but Flora Peering in Aprils front. (WT
4.4.2–3, You are understood). A comparable example is: Most power to doe most harme, least knowing ill: For he
hath wit to make an ill shape good, (LL 2.1.58–9), where the main clause has an infinitive as its verb, with an
attached participial clause with the referent he understood from a he has to introduce the sentence; but the
subordinate clause has subject and verb. The omission of subject and verb may occur when a parallel sentence
provides the necessary clue to what is missing: And if we liue, we liue to treade on Kings: If dye: braue death, when
Princes dye with vs. (1H4 5.2.85–6), where braue death is the main clause from which something like it will be a is
omitted. Similarly, in answer to a question, the reply may imply the subject and verb in a succession of noun groups,
favoured in the early plays, as in the following where they are must be understood in answer to the question ‘Where
are the Prince of Wales and his followers’:
All furnisht, all in Armes,
All plum'd like Estridges, that with the Winde
Bayted like Eagles, hauing lately bath'd,
Glittering in Golden Coates, like Images,
As full of spirit as the Moneth of May,
And gorgeous as the Sunne at Mid-summer,
Wanton as youthfull Goates, wilde as young Bulls.
(1H4 4.1.97–104)
6.3.2.6 A different form of elision is to replace a repeated infinitive or similar form with it, as in But shall we dance,
if they desire
< previous page
page_222
next page >
< previous page
page_223
next page >
Page 223
vs too't? (LL 5.2.144), which for my part I will not be, though I should win your displeasure to entreat me too't. (KL
2.2.109–11).
6.3.3. Omission of prepositions may not always be cases of ellipsis, since where prepositions must occur was not
clearly regulated then. In Much Ado, for example, where Q has to see how much he is vnworthy so good a lady.
(2.3.199), it is possible to think that of is omitted after vnworthy, especially as F, which was set up from Q, reads
vnworthy to haue so good a Lady. But omission is more likely in would any but these boylde-braines of nineteene,
and two and twenty hunt this weather? (WT 3.3.62–4, ‘hunt in this weather’), and it is not uncommon in
asseverations, as is still true of PdE: Name of mercy, (WT 3.3.100, ‘In the name of mercy’). In some instances the
omission may be a matter of register, as in:
2 … it went o'th'Backe-side the Towne.
Clot. The Villaine would not stand me.
(Cym 1.2.11–13)
where the second lord uses an informal level for [of] the Towne in poking fun at Cloten, who responds in kind with
stand [against] me. Other examples include and euery officer his wedding garment on? (TS 4.1.42–3, ‘with’), And
the very Ports they blow, (Mac. 1.3.14, ‘from’ or ‘at’), Wearie Seu'nights, nine times nine, (Mac 1.3.21, ‘for’), I will
flye like a dogge, the heeles a'th'Asse. (Tim 1.1.275, ‘at’).
6.3.3.1 With relative clauses a preposition is often not present where it might be expected in PdE (5.4.1.1): those
That Vulgars giue bold'st Titles; (WT 2.1.95–6, ‘to whom’), As well appeareth by the cause you come, (R2 1.1.26, ‘in
which’), To dye vpon the bed my father dy'de, (WT 4.4.455, ‘in which’). However, when a preposition dependent on
a different word occurs before the relative pronoun, it is not repeated in the relative clause: Most ignorant of what
he's most assur'd, (MM 2.2.122, ‘of’); but in an example like those that weepe this lamentable diuorce (Cym 1.4.18–
19) weepe may be taken to be a transitive verb.
6.3.3.2 Omission of prepositions after what might otherwise be phrasal verbs is common after verbs of listening: To
listen our purpose, (MA 3.1.12), Listning their feare, (Mac 2.2.26). Examples of the presence and absence of the
preposition after other types of verb are given in 4.3.10.
< previous page
page_223
next page >
< previous page
page_224
next page >
Page 224
6.3.4 Ellipsis through parallelism
When two or more clauses are parallel or grammatically closely associated, one of the parallel elements may be
omitted. Sometimes there is a discrepancy such as tense between what is expected and what must be assumed from
the passage: Haue you, ere now, deny'd the asker: And now againe, of him that did not aske, but mock, Bestow
your su'd-for Tongues? (Cor 2.3.205–8, where Haue … deny'd presupposes in the later clause ‘have bestowed’ rather
than the apparent ‘do you bestow’); I returne those duties backe as are right fit, (KL 1.1.97, ‘which are most
appropriate to be returned [i.e. repaid]’); To be thus, is nothing, but to be safely thus: (Mac 3.1.49–50, ‘is
everything’); ‘Tis not enough to helpe the Feeble vp, But to support him after. (Tim 1.1.109–10, ‘But it is imperative
to support’), To reuenge is no Valour, but to beare. (Tim 3.6.39, ‘to bear injury is true valour’); But you like none,
none you for constant heart. (Son 53.14, ‘none like you’); Be guiltie of my death since of my crime. (RL 931, ‘since
you are guilty of my crime’); w[hich] being kept close might moue More greefe to hide, then hate to vtter loue.
(Ham 2.1.119–20, ‘might incite hate’); he will not heare, till feele: (Tim 2.2.7, ‘till he is able to feel’); What most he
should dislike, seemes pleasant to him; What like, offensiue. (KL 4.2.10–11, ‘What he should like seems
objectionable to him’); She was belou'd, she lou'd; she is, and dooth; (TC 4.7.176, ‘she is loved and does love’).
Sometimes the whole of one of the clauses in a parallel structure may be omitted. In The Night to ‘th'Owle, And
Morne to th'Larke lesse welcome. (Cym 3.6.91), the comparative lesse might have been absolute, but the sense
demands a parallel clause such as ‘than you are to us’. In other instances it may be difficult to decide whether
ellipsis is involved. When Cloten says of Posthumus first kill him, and in her eyes; (Cym 3.5.138), the problem is the
interpretation of and, which is either an adverbial or a co-ordinate conjunction. The first interpretation does not
involve ellipsis for the sense would be ‘First, I will first kill him right in front of her’ (5.1.1), whereas the second
would, since its sense would be ‘First, I will first kill him, and I will do it in front of her’; the first interpretation is
surely the correct one.
The parallelism may not always be immediately obvious; indeed, parallelism may not always be the right way to
describe it. Consider the following passage from Hamlet:
< previous page
page_224
next page >
< previous page
page_225
next page >
Page 225
All. Our duty to your Honour. Exeunt.
Ham. Your loue, as mine to you: farewell.
(1.2.252–3)
The two soldiers and Horatio say their farewell to Hamlet by expressing their ‘duty’, which implies they are always
prepared to serve him and in that sense of obligation depart. But Hamlet responds Your loue, a phrase which echoes
and parallels Our duty. Presumably, we are to understand that Hamlet wishes to replace duty with loue. He
emphasises that the terms of friendship between them are those of love rather than of duty and wishes to
reciprocate their love (not duty) with his own.
6.3.5 Longer ellipses
Longer ellipses involve the omission of more than one element in a clause and can result in a clause consisting of a
single word, most often an adjective or a participle. Participles and infinitives play a major role in many of the
significant ellipses where interpretation of the single element may be ambiguous. The less ambiguous ellipses are
those which occur as answers to questions, for the missing elements in the answer are supplied from the question,
as the following question and answer in Much Ado makes clear:
Iohn. … how canst thou crosse this marriage?
Bor. Not honestly my Lord,
(2.2.7–8)
Borachio's answer may be understood as ‘[I can]not [cross this marriage] honestly, my lord’, with the subject,
auxiliary, verb and object omitted. The sense of what he says is perfectly clear; and there are many similar
examples.
Ellipsis may involve most of one clause upon which another clause depends: Better I were distract, (KL 4.5.281,
where the subjunctive were implies a main clause with something like ‘It would be better if’), and Better thou had'st,
Not beene borne, (KL 1.1.233–4, where had'st must also be understood to be a subjunctive).
More complex are the ellipses with participles and infinitives (4.3.1 and 4.3.8), though in most cases with participles
there is
< previous page
page_225
next page >
< previous page
page_226
next page >
Page 226
some grammatical cohesion between the main clause and the participle. With some, ellipsis is hardly at issue, but
they provide evidence as to how other examples developed. When in Much Ado Leonato says: that griefe, Which
they themselues not feele, but tasting it, Their counsaile turnes to passion, (5.1.21–3), the difficulties lie, firstly, in
the agreement of tasting to the they implied in Their, and, secondly, in understanding the relationship of tasting it to
the following clause. Although grammatically an adjective, tasting retains its verbal sense and can be understood to
have a temporal significance ‘but when they taste [i.e. experience] it’. This example, like so many, is motivated by
the wish to have compression of expression, which necessarily involves ellipsis, to keep the action flowing. Other
examples use an adjective rather than a participle: thou present: (AY 3.1.4), meaning ‘since you are here’. Later
Shakespearian examples build on this wish to achieve compression and a few examples illustrate the range that can
be achieved: but there is No danger in what shew of death it makes, More then the locking vp the Spirits a time, To
be more fresh, reuiuing. (Cym 1.5.39–42, ‘when the body revives’), one of your great knowing Shou'd learne (being
taught) forbearance. (Cym 2.3.95–6, ‘since you have been taught’ or ‘once you have been taught’), they fayling I
must die much your debtor. (Cym 2.4.7–8, ‘if these expectations fail to materialise’), are both landed, Hasting to
th'Court. (WT 2.3.196–7, ‘and both are now making their way quickly to the court’), though I with Death, and with
Reward, did threaten and encourage him, Not doing it, and being done: (WT 3.2.162–4, ‘to be punished by death if
he did not do it and to be rewarded if he did do it’); Thus defide, I thanke thee for my selfe. (Cym 3.1.67–8, ‘Now
that you have been defied by this declaration of war’), when I kist the Iacke vpon an vp-cast, to be hit away? (Cym
2.1.1–2, ‘how dreadful to have my bowl hit away by another's bowl’), Oh, the most pitteous cry of the poore soules,
sometimes to see ‘em, and not to see ‘em: (WT 3.3.88–9, ‘sometimes I could see them, and sometimes I could not
see them); Had I bin Theefe-stolne, As my two Brothers, happy: (Cym 1.6.5–6, ‘If I had been kidnapped, as my two
brothers were, I would now be happy’). The participle is not always joined grammatically to the other clause,
because it may be a ‘hanging participle’, that is one where its referent is understood rather than expressed. Thus in
Discourse is heauy, fasting: (Cym 3.6.88), the fasting does not agree with Discourse in the previous clause. It can
agree only with a noun like man or a pronoun like one
< previous page
page_226
next page >
< previous page
page_227
next page >
Page 227
understood, for the sense must be ‘Talking is tiresome, when a man is hungry’. Another example occurs in As You
Like It, where the duke's question And did you leaue him in this contemplation? is answered by the Second Lord's
We did my Lord, weeping and commenting Vpon the sobbing Deere. (2.1.64–6). Here the lord's weeping and
commenting refers back to the he, that is Jaques, in the duke's question and not, as grammar might dictate, to the
subject We of the lord's reply. In these cases the context is crucial in providing the necessary meaning, but an
understanding of how participles and other parts of speech can operate is equally important. There are examples
which are difficult to decide whether they are elliptical or not. At The Winter's Tale 3.3.47–8, Antigonus places gold
in the casket containing the baby princess and says Which may if Fortune please, both breed thee (pretty) And still
rest thine. Here pretty may be a form of address to the baby (‘pretty one’), as suggested by the brackets, or it may
be an adverbial with an elliptical sense ‘prettily, that is into a pretty young woman’.
The examples in the previous paragraph often exhibit a grammatical relation between the elliptical phrase and
another clause, often because with participles there is an adjective-noun association. The difficulty comes from
deciding how the participle should be interpreted. Other examples, as we have seen in answers or responses within
dialogue, often carry forward the grammatical structure from the major clause into the elliptical one. In other
instances, the elliptical phrase has to be interpreted grammatically from the overall context. In Macbeth's soliloquy
before Duncan's murder we find:
Hee's heere in double trust;
First, as I am his Kinsman, and his Subiect,
Strong both against the Deed: Then, as his Host,
(Mac 1.7.12–14)
The phrase Strong both against the Deed: has no grammatical connection with what precedes or follows; it is
entirely self-standing. It can be understood only from the general context, and the clause of which this is an elliptical
form would have to read something like ‘And these (i.e. being his kinsman and his subject) are both excellent
reasons for not committing this murder’. In Richard II Bagot upbraids Aumerle by saying:
< previous page
page_227
next page >
< previous page
page_228
next page >
Page 228
I heard you say, that you had rather refuse
The offer of an hundred thousand Crownes,
Then Bullingbrookes returne to England;
(R2 4.1.14–16)
Here the grammar appears at face value to be acceptable for there are two objects of refuse set in contrast with
each other, but the problem is that an interpretation following the grammar does not make sense. The sense implies
‘rather to refuse the offer of a hundred crowns than to accept (or condone) Bolingbroke's return’. Sometimes the
precise interpretation is difficult even though the context provides some clues. When Arviragus welcomes Imogen as
a brother to their cave, she responds ‘Mongst friends? If Brothers: would it had bin so, that they Had bin my Fathers
Sonnes, (Cym 3.6.72–4). Here the sense must be ‘Among friends! But if only they had been my brothers too’. The
last sentiment being then repeated at greater length. Many editors (e.g. Wells and Taylor 1988: 1151) make the last
part of this passage an aside by Imogen and that makes the ellipsis difficult to understand, because a repeated
statement is addressed partly to the other people and partly spoken as an aside of the speaker's.
The difficulty in interpreting elliptical phrases is naturally even more true of very short or single-word ellipses, such
as so, for their interpretation may well depend upon the reader's or listener's response to the wider context. When
Imogen in fear is about to enter the cave not knowing what might be inside she says to herself at the end of her
monologue: Such a Foe, good Heauens. (Cym 3.6.27), the force of the utterance is largely emotional expressing her
apprehension. Its sense must be something like ‘What, my god, if I should meet inside the cave an enemy who
would not even look at my sword and just attack me’. When Guiderius says To ‘th'graue. (Cym 4.2.234), we may be
surprised because no one has yet been buried, for the sense must be ‘Let us now go to the grave which we are
going to provide for this young boy’. When the queen in Cymbeline at 1.5.82 says So, so: Well done, well done: the
interpretation of the two examples of so is very much a personal response to the queen's character and her plot. In
this case the two examples of Well done might suggest that so also expresses approval, but other interpretations are
equally valid. So is often rightly interpreted as a hedge while the speaker thinks what he or she will say in answer to
the addressee. This
< previous page
page_228
next page >
< previous page
page_229
next page >
Page 229
may be the way to understand Lucius's response to Cymbeline who has just refused tribute to Rome (Cym 3.5.7),
but it could also suggest surprise, indignation or even resignation.
6.4 Repetition
Repetition has already been introduced as significant in some forms of negation (6.2.3.2) and in having links with
ellipsis (6.3). Repetition is also a feature which is dealt with at length in many handbooks of rhetoric, and as
Shakespeare was clearly very familiar with rhetorical teaching, it is hardly surprising that it bulks so much in his
writings. Many forms of repetition are more concerned with style than grammar, and it is not appropriate here to go
through the rhetorical figures, though some of the types of repetition he used are not necessarily identical with the
figures found in the handbooks. Nevertheless, the introduction of examples of repetition will have some impact on
the way he organised his language. They are also used to add emotional intensity to certain high points in the
dramas and to the representation of various characters. Repetition is characteristic of certain plays such as Hamlet
(Jones 1995), though it is found throughout his work. Although it would not be sensible to claim that every example
he used was significant, his widespread use of repetition together with ellipsis contributes to the density of his
language. In what follows the examples are divided into single-word, two-word and longer repetitions, though the
reasons for using each form are not very different. There may be significant differences in the number of repeated
elements between Q and F, with the former often repeating a word or phrase more often than F.
6.4.1 Single word repetitions
When a word is repeated immediately the repetition may have a number of functions:
A number of examples show the repetition of single words as much as three or four times. These usually have some
bearing on the emotional state of the speaker. When Shylock says: Ho no, no, no, no: (MV 1.3.15), he expresses his
caution about Antonio's credit as the guarantor of the loan of 3000
< previous page
page_229
next page >
< previous page
page_230
next page >
Page 230
ducats. When the word is repeated two or three times it often expresses the anguish of the speaker. Thus Iago
exclaims Theeues, Theeues. (Oth 1.1.79, Q repeats Theeues three times, and at 81) twice when he refers to the
disappearance of Desdemona; Cassio Reputation, Reputation, Reputation: (Oth 2.3.256) when he realises he has lost
both his position and the immortall part of myselfe; Othello O monstrous! monstrous! (Oth 3.3.431) when he
suspects Desdemona has betrayed him with Cassio; and Othello Oh blood, blood, blood. (Oth 3.3.454) when he
intends to wreak revenge on Cassio and Desdemona.
Hamlet uses this type of repetition to poke fun at others or ironically: Excellent, excellent well: (Ham 2.2.176),
Words, words, words. (Ham 2.2.195), and Buzze, buzze. (Ham 2.2.395) are all addressed to Polonius, who seems
not to comprehend them. Hamlet utters A verie verie Paiocke. (Ham 3.2.272) at the end of a verse which he recites
to Horatio, where it is meant as a bathetic conclusion. It also occurs in the language of other characters in Hamlet,
such as Ophelia's quite, quite downe. (Ham 3.1.157), Guildenstern's those many many bodies (3.3.9), and Gertrude's
Drown'd, drown'd. (Ham 4.7.157) echoing the end of Laertes’ question drown'd? (Ham 4.7.156). In these cases it
appears to have a light emotional emphasis. That may also be true of Hamlet's own Oh that this too too solid Flesh,
would melt, (Ham 1.2.129). In many cases the repetition, in contrast to the use of a word on its own, suggests a
mild impatience. Examples of come, come; (Ham 2.2.278), which Hamlet uses to rebuke Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern, and Montano uses to Cassio who is drunk (Oth 2.3.148), or Tush, tush, (Ham 1.1.28) with which
Horatio expresses his scepticism of the guards’ opinion at Elsinore and which Petruccio uses to dismiss Grumio's
fears (TS 1.2.209). When Horatio says speake; speake: (Ham 1.1.49), it is his impatient entreaty to get the ghost to
speak. These words, when used on their own, do not have the same force. Otherwise, when a word occurs twice
over a sense boundary, the use is rhetorical and is intended to increase the stylistic level. Othello says to the Doge
That I haue tane away this old mans Daughter, It is most true: true I haue married her; (Oth 1.3.78–9), ending one
clause and beginning the next with true, a well-known rhetorical figure designed to increase the seriousness and
formality of the utterance. Othello's repetition
< previous page
page_230
next page >
< previous page
page_231
next page >
Page 231
of Of at the beginning of the three lines 1.3.134–6 and of She at the beginning of clauses at 1.3.158–62 fulfils the
same rhetorical function.
When a word is repeated at intervals through a speech it is intended either for wit or for emphasis, which often has
a threatening meaning. The playing with a word such as note in Much Ado 2.3.53–6 is common enough. That
example does have a slightly sinister overtone, as is even more true of the use of knave by Iago in Othello 2.1.238–
45, when he seeks to convince Roderigo of Cassio's deviousness and love for Desdemona. When a word is repeated
across a dialogue the effect may also be either witty or sinister. Thus the repetition by both Iago and Othello of
indeed, honest and think in their conversation at 3.3.103–10 is designed by Iago to put ideas into Othello's head
about the behaviour of Desdemona and Cassio without actually committing himself to any explicit expression of
condemnation, (Coulthard 1985: 184–92).
6.4.2 Two-word repetitions
These cases of repetition have many of the same functions as those for single words, though there are differences:
They express the emotional state of the speaker, whether it be despair as in Hamlet's O God, O God! (Ham 1.2.132),
and in Brabantio's My Daughter: oh my Daughter! (Oth 1.3.59), or contentment as in Othello's And this, and this
(Oth 2.1.199), or anticipation and excitement as in the cry A Saile, a Saile, a Saile. (Oth 2.1.52) which the speaker
thinks might herald Othello's arrival to Cyprus.
It may suggest bitter-sweet irony as in Hamlet's response to Polonius except my life, my life. (Ham 2.2.218–19, Q2
repeats except my life three times).
They can be used rhetorically to heighten style, though not always in an unambiguous manner, as when Hamlet says
to Rosencrantz Begger that I am, I am euen poore in thankes; (Ham 2.2.274), when Iago wishes to point the
conclusive step in his argument Why none, why none: (Oth 2.1.241–2) and when Timon provides the same
emphasis to his argument: who dares? who dares (Tim 4.3.13).
< previous page
page_231
next page >
< previous page
page_232
next page >
Page 232
Unlike the repetition of come alone (6.4.1 (d)), the phrasal verb come on when repeated is more relaxed and
informal: Come on, come on: (Oth 2.1.112) as said by Iago to his wife, or when Shallow encourages Slender with
his Come-on, come-on, come-on: giue mee your Hand, Sir; giue mee your Hand, Sir: (2H4 3.2.1–2).
6.4.3 Multiple word repetitions
Repetitions of more than two words, because they are overtly rhetorical, are more considered and formal, and they
fall into two main categories:
They are used rhetorically either to point the steps in an argument or to repeat in a modified form the major
statement of an argument, and they are found on the lips of speakers of different ranks. In these occurrences they
are usually the first words of successive clauses or sentences:
Haue I not in my time heard Lions rore?
Haue I not heard the sea, puft vp with windes,
Rage like an angry Boare, chafed with sweat?
Haue I not heard great Ordnance in the field?
And heauens Artillerie thunder in the skies?
Haue I not in a pitched battell heard
Loud larums, neighing steeds, & trumpets clangue?
(TS 1.2.199–205)
I haue known when there was no musicke with him but the drum and the fife, and now had hee rather heare the
taber and the pipe: I haue knowne when he would haue walkt ten mile afoot, to see a good armor, and now will he
lie ten nights awake caruing the fashion of a new dublet:
(MA 2.3.12–18)
Repeated phrases or clauses may often be used to punctuate a speech, and may then, as a kind of refrain, have a
more sinister sense of illicit persuasion. This applies to Iago's reiteration of Put Money in thy purse: (Oth 1.3.339–
51) to Roderigo to convince him of Desdemona's passion for Cassio, and even to his repetition of ‘tis so indeed. (Oth
2.1.173–8) to convince himself of the way to ensnare Cassio and Desdemona.
< previous page
page_232
next page >
< previous page
page_233
next page >
Page 233
7
Clause Organisation and Sentence Structure
This chapter is divided into two major sections. The first deals with the different types of clause: declarative (7.1),
imperative (7.2), interrogative (7.3) and exclamatory (7.4). In each case the basic structure is illustrated before
variant orders are presented. Although subordinate finite clauses (7.1.2) and non-finite clauses (7.1.3) are described
within the section on declarative clauses, their treatment depends upon all types of main clause, though some nonfinite participial clauses were dealt with under ellipsis in 6.3. The second major section deals with different types of
sentence structure within and beyond the sentence (7.5). Finally, there is a brief review of some distortions in syntax
(7.6). This second part has much in common with stylistics and the influence of rhetoric, though neither is tackled
directly.
7.1 Declarative
The standard arrangement of declarative active clauses in ShE mirrors that of PdE, namely SVO: I heard the
Proclamation, (1H4 1.3.145), I Nurs't her Daughter (RJ 1.5.114). When the verb is passive there is naturally no
object: The word of Peace is render'd: (2H4 4.1.313), but if there is an agent expressed as a prepositional phrase
(i.e. the subject of the active), the prepositional phrase may come between the subject and the verb: diseases
desperate growne, By desperate appliance are releeued, (Ham 4.3.9–10). The direct object could come before the
verb: I your Commission will forthwith dispatch, (Ham 3.3.3); see further 7.1.1.5. When in active clauses there are
direct and indirect objects, the order of the two may vary, though as in PdE an indirect object pronoun comes before
the direct object, whereas a prepositional phrase as indirect object
< previous page
page_233
next page >
< previous page
page_234
next page >
Page 234
comes after the direct object: I will giue thee for it a thousand pound: (1H4 2.5.60), it would giue eternall food to
his iealousie. (MW 2.1.95–6); but compare these examples with other orders: Ile procure this fat Rogue a Charge of
Foot, (1H4 2.5.548, with SauxVOiOd), and [we] can shew it you (1H4 2.5.260–1, with (S)auxVOdOi). An indirect
object can come at the head of the clause: To him will I: (AY 5.4.182). A reflexive pronoun usually follows the verb:
That you should here repent you, (MN 5.1.115). An ethic dative comes immediately after the verb and before the
object or adverbial: The clowdy Messenger turnes me his backe, (Mac 3.6.42), it ascends me into the Braine, (2H4
4.2.93–4).
7.1.1.1 An adverbial can occupy various positions in the clause, but when A comes first in the clause, it may cause
inversion of SV to VS: Yonder comes my Master, (AY 1.1.24), Thus doe all Traitors, (AY 1.3.51), Here liued I, (AY
2.3.73), but cf. and to morrow the wrastling is. (AY 1.1.90), (yet I know not why) (AY 1.1.155). Forms with and
without inversion are found together for rhetorical effect: Still is he sullein, still he lowres and frets, (VA 75).
Inversion is frequent when V contains an auxiliary, though normally only aux and S interchange to give the order
AauxSVO/A: Yet do I hold it very stuffe o'th'conscience (Oth 1.2.2), So was I bid report here (Oth 1.3.15), and the
very same day did I fight with one Sampson (2H4 3.2.30–1), but there are many examples without inversion,
especially with the auxiliary elided or when the subject is not a pronoun: Besides, Ile make a present recompence.
(MW 4.6.54), Haply your eye shall light vpon some toy (TN 3.3.44). In some cases, after A the inversion SauxV can
be to auxVS: Nine Changes of the Watry-Starre hath been The Shepheards Note, (WT 1.2.1–2, where hath been
means ‘has lasted’ and Nine Changes of the Watry-Starre is a prepositional phrase acting as adverbial without a
preposition, cf. 5.4.1.1). Inversion after A of Saux to auxS can be followed by inversion of VO to OV to give
AauxSO(A)V: So doth the woodbine, the sweet Honisuckle, Gently entwist; (MN 4.1.41–2). If O is placed first and is
followed by an auxiliary, this can still lead to inversion of SV to VS to give O(A)auxSV: That most ingratefull boy
there by your side, From the rude seas enrag'd and foamy mouth Did I redeeme: (TN 5.1.73–5). When A consists of
an adverbial clause rather than a simple adverb, inversion to VS or auxSV in the main clause does occur, but is less
common except when it also has an adverbial like so or then
< previous page
page_234
next page >
< previous page
page_235
next page >
Page 235
at its head. Thus we have AVS: Whiles we are sutors for their Throne, decayes the thing we sue for. (AC 2.1.4–5),
AAauxSVA: The like doe you, so shall we passe along, (AY 1.3.112), but ASV: When as the one is wounded with the
baite, The other rotted (TA 4.4.92–3).
In some cases it is possible to put both O and A before the verb or subject to give orders like OdOiAVSaux: This to
me In dreadfull secrecie impart they did, (Ham 1.2.206–7).
7.1.1.2 An adverbial can occur in almost any position in a clause and is even more flexible in position than in PdE. In
7.1.1.1 examples of its position at the head of the clause were given. It can also occur at the end of the clause: I
know you well enough. (1H4 3.3.63), well, on went hee, for a search, (MW 3.5.98). Other orders include SAV(O):
one man in his time playes many parts, (AY 2.7.142), we with wisest sorrow thinke on him, (Ham 1.2.6); and SVAO:
And [he] hath in his effect a voice potentiall (Oth 1.2.13). A may come between S and V, especially in verse: This
challenge that the gallant Hector sends, How euer it is spred in general name, Relates in purpose onely to
Achilles. (TC 1.3.315–17).
The same freedom of adverbial movement applies when the verb group contains an auxiliary. The orders can be
SAaux(O/C)V: He (in good time) must his Lieutenant be, (Oth 1.1.31), I scarce can speake (AY 2.7.171); AauxSAV:
Then did the Sun on dung-hill shine. (MW 1.3.56); SauxAV(A/O) (a common position): I doe heere walke before
thee, (2H4 1.2.10–11); The horson smooth-pates doe now weare nothing (2H4 1.2.37–8); and SauxVAO: We shall
haue shortly discord (AY 2.7.6).
When the adverbial is a negator, the same freedom applies to its position (numerous examples at 6.2.2). There are a
number of negators and some are less likely to be found in certain positions, but in principle there is flexibility to
give the following orders: SNVO: thou neuer saw'st good manners: (AY 3.2.39–40); SNOV: Yorke, not our old men
spares: (2H6 5.3.51); SNauxV(O): He neuer did fall off, (1H4 1.3.93); SauxNV(O): we will nothing waste (AY
2.7.134), I can no where finde him, (AY 2.7.2); SVNO: I know not his Name. (1H4 2.5.422); NS(A)VO: neuer a mans
thought in the world, keepes the Rode-way better (2H4 2.2.49–50); SVON: I know him not, (TS 4.2.98), I like him
not, (Ham 3.3.1); VOSauxN: Offended vs you haue not, (R3 1.4.173); NOVSA: Nere Mother Reioyc'd deliuerance
more: (Cym 5.6.370–1); VauxSN: Pray can I not, (Ham 3.3.38).
< previous page
page_235
next page >
< previous page
page_236
next page >
Page 236
7.1.1.3 When an interjection is at the head of a clause, then inversion of SV producing IVS may occur especially in
brief responses to a question, presumably to add emphasis: Marry doe I sir: (AY 1.1.116), Marry haue we sir: (2H4
3.2.93), Yes indeede do's he. (MW 1.4.29).
7.1.1.4
When the verb to be has a subject complement, the order can be either SVC or CVS. The order CVS is clear when C
is a modifier, but if it is a noun or pronoun it may be difficult to decide which element is S and which C: Firme, and
irreuocable is my doombe, (AY 1.3.82), they are the drops of thy Louers, (2H4 4.2.12–13), but Action is eloquence,
(Cor 3.2.76), sinne is damnation: (AY 3.2.42), she's a good wench for this gere: (MV 2.2.160–1). The same applies
when the dummy it repeats what may be S or C: to get it is thy duty. (VA 168). When V is omitted the order can be
simply C(A)S: witlesse else her sonne. (TS 2.1.259). With a dummy subject the order is SVC: It was our selfe thou
didst abuse. (H5 4.8.50), there is fortie Duckets, (RJ 5.1.59). Other orders are possible, such as CSV: This ‘tis: (TC
1.3.309), welcome thou art to me, (AY 5.4.145), ASCVCs: now the fleeting Moone No Planet is of mine. (AC
5.2.236–7). When there is an auxiliary, the order can be SauxCV: I will your very faithfull Feeder be, (AY 2.4.98) or
SAauxCV: He (in good time) must his Lieutenant be, (Oth 1.1.31). In a few examples C may precede aux which
leads to inversion of SauxVC to CauxSV: And such a one do I professe my selfe. (Oth 1.1.55), CSVNCo: two men
there are not liuing, (Ham 2.2.20), or even a more elaborate form such as ASCauxNV: Vnto the French, the dreadfull
Iudgement-Day So dreadfull will not be, (1H6 1.1.29–30). In examples with ellipsis: now am I in Arden, the more
foole I, (AY 2.4.14), More villaine thou. (AY 3.1.15), a part of the verb to be is omitted perhaps because of
uncertainty as to its form, is or am in the first and is or art in the second. When the clause starts with A, then the
order may be AVSC: Else are they very wretched. (AY 2.4.67).
When there is an object complement, it normally follows the object to give S(aux)VOCo: I know you wise, (1H4
2.4.104), you will make him mad. (1H4 3.1.50), fortune makes natures naturall, the cutter off of natures witte. (AY
1.2.47–8), make her
< previous page
page_236
next page >
< previous page
page_237
next page >
Page 237
fault her husbands occasion, (AY 4.1.165); but other orders are possible such as OSVCo: My Braine, Ile proue the
Female to my Soule, (R2 5.5.6); SVCoO: the splitting winde Makes flexible the knees of knotted Oakes, (TC 1.3.48–
9).
7.1.1.5 The direct object normally comes after V unless there is also an indirect object, but it was common in the
latter half of Shakespeare's career to have an SOV, especially Saux(A)OV, structure: the Clocks doe towle: And the
third howre of drowsie Morning nam'd, (H5 4.0.15–16), I can againe thy former light restore, (Oth 5.2.9), (as
Aeneas, our great Ancestor, Did from the Flames of Troy, vpon his shoulder The old Anchyses beare), (JC 1.2.114–
16). However, for rhetorical reasons Od may come at the beginning of the clause to give OdSV: Things base and
vilde, holding no quantity, Loue can transpose (MN 1.1.232–3), Thought, and Affliction, Passion, Hell it selfe: She
turnes to Fauour, (Ham 4.5.186–7), Hunting he lou'd, but loue he laught to scorne: (VA 4), That he will not, (MW
1.1.86), The Cicatrice and capable impressure Thy palme some moment keepes: (AY 3.5.23–4), and this applies
even when the verb is a subjunctive: Bonnet, nor vaile henceforth no creature weare, (VA 1081); OVS: This loue
feele I, (RJ 1.1.179), The last leaue of thee, takes my weeping eye. (R2 1.2.74), A partial slaunder sought I to
auoide, (R2 Add.Pass.B3, Q1); OVAS: Sport and repose locke from me day and night: (Ham 3.2.208), though in this
example which is S and which O is debatable; OdSVOi: All this I giue you, (AY 2.3.47); OS(aux)V(A): That face of
his I do remember well, (TN 5.1.47), That I loue her, I feele. (MA 1.1.214), Thus he that ouer-ruld, I ouer-swayed
(VA 109); OdSVA: My brother Iaques he keepes at schoole, (AY 1.1.4–5), Words, vowes, gifts, teares, & loues full
sacrifice, He offers in anothers enterprise: (TC 1.2.278–9); or OdauxSV(A), which is perhaps more common:
Something haue you heard (Ham 2.2.4), And all th'imbossed sores, and headed euils … Would'st thou disgorge into
the generall world. (AY 2.7.67–9), Thy Lands and all things that thou dost call thine, Worth seizure, do we seize into
our hands, (AY 3.1.9–10); OdauxSVCsuo: The strongest bodie shall it make most weake, (VA 1145). When the
object is re-called by a later it, the order may be CoSOdV: Conuay: the wise it call: (MW 1.3.26). An initial object
clause may be followed by an adverbial clause and S: What glory our Achilles shares from Hector, (Were he not
proud) we all should weare with him: (TC 1.3.360–1). Od may also come after an initial A to give AOdSV: in their
barkes my thoughts Ile charracter, (AY 3.2.6); after
< previous page
page_237
next page >
< previous page
page_238
next page >
Page 238
S to give (A)SOdV: At seauenteene yeeres, many their fortunes seeke (AY 2.3.74); after A to give SauxVAOd: We
shall haue shortly discord (AY 2.7.6).
7.1.2 Subordinate clauses have a greater tendency to an SVO structure with A retaining relative freedom to move
around.
7.1.2.1 Subordinate noun clauses acting as object or complement of a main verb (or verbal phrase acting as a verb)
can be introduced by but, how, lest, that or no conjunction: I desire you that we may be friends: (MW 3.1.109–10),
There had she not beene long, but she became A ioyfull mother (CE 1.1.49–50), But I fear'd Least I might anger
thee. (Tem 4.1.168–9), thou shalt heare how he will shake me vp. (AY 1.1.25–6), he thereby may haue a likely
gesse, How these were they that made away his Brother. (TA 2.3.207–8), my Manners tell me, We haue your wrong
rebuke. (Oth 1.1.131–2), The Constable desires thee, thou wilt mind Thy followers of Repentance; (H5 4.3.84–5).
The object noun clause is most frequently introduced by no conjunction at all, and that occurs possibly less than half
as often; the other conjunctions to introduce these clauses are found infrequently. The use of that appears to be
more characteristic of a higher level of formality and is more often found in verse than prose. Some verbs like swear
are bi-transitive and take two objects, one of which can be a noun clause as direct object which is put further back
in the word order, as in: And then I swore thee, sauing of thy life, That whatsoeuer I did bid thee do, Thou should'st
attempt it. (JC 5.3.37–9). This allowed this verb when it is passive in the main clause to have a noun clause as
object: Ile be sworne on a booke shee loues you: (MW 1.4.140–1). The object clause may come before the main
clause: The Turkish Preparation makes for Rhodes, So was I bid report (Oth 1.3.14–15, though some modern editors
have a full-stop after Rhodes). It is common for the object noun clause to be co-ordinated with a pronoun in the
main clause, usually it or this and the noun clause can precede or follow the main clause: That Cassio loues her, I
do well beleeu't: (Oth 2.1.285), I thinke it best you married with the Countie, (RJ 3.5.217), I will proclaime it, That
he which finds him shall deserue our thankes, (KL 2.1.59–60), but this I pray, That thou consent to marrie vs to day.
(RJ 2.2.63–4), know thou this, that men Are as the time is; (KL 5.3.30–1). Object noun clauses can also be
embedded in other clauses such as relative clauses: when I doe, I sweare It shall be
< previous page
page_238
next page >
< previous page
page_239
next page >
Page 239
Romeo, whom you know I hate Rather then Paris. (RJ 3.5.121–3, where I hate is embedded in the relative clause).
It is possible for the noun clause to act as though in apposition to some feature in the main clause: this approues
her Letter, That she would soone be heere. (KL 2.2.356–7, where the that clause expands on what Letter signifies);
I know not which pleases me better, That my husband is deceiued, or Sir Iohn. (MW 3.3.168–9, where the that
clause expands which), Newes haue I that my Doll is dead i'th Spittle of a malady of France, (H5 5.1.77–8).
Examples like this can produce complicated syntax (see Fanego 1990: 17–18). Examples of appositive clauses
without that are also found and they may be separated from the noun which they expand: the report goes, she has
all the rule of her husbands Purse: (MW 1.3.47–8, where she … Purse expands report), I here take my oath before
this honorable assembly kickt the poore king her father. (HL sc.13.42–4, Q, where the clause [she] kickt … father
expands oath).
Subordinate noun clauses, with or without that, can also depend upon an adjective or noun, or they can form
exclamatory clauses, dealt with more fully in 7.4:
with adjectives: I am doubtfull that you haue beene coniunct and bosom'd with hir, (HL sc.22.13–14, Q); I haue
beene content (Sir,) you should lay my countenance to pawne: (MW 2.2.6–7);
with nouns: For confirmation that I am much more Then my out-wall; (KL 3.1.22–3), I will confesse, thy Fathers
wealth Was the first motiue that I woo'd thee (MW 3.4.13–14);
exclamatory: Heauen be my witnesse you doe, (MW 4.2.121).
An object noun clause can be introduced by another conjunction such as why or what, sometimes leading to an
unusual word order. In the following example the order, though not entirely certain, is probably conjOAVS: tell me …
Why this same strict and most obseruant Watch, So nightly toyles the subiect of the Land, (Ham 1.1.69–71). When
what is a modifier, meaning ‘what sort of’, or an indefinite pronoun meaning ‘whatever, what thing or person’, the
order is normally O/CSV: Ile tell the world aloud What man thou art. (MM 2.4.153–4), Ioue knowes what man thou
might'st haue made: (Cym 4.2.208), Let me remember thee what thou hast promis'd, (Tem 1.2.244).
< previous page
page_239
next page >
< previous page
page_240
next page >
Page 240
7.1.2.2 A noun clause can also act as the subject of the main clause and in such cases it is frequently transposed
later in the sentence and the subject slot is filled with it or this: This is most strange, That she whom euen but now,
was your obiect … should in this trice of time Commit a thing so monstrous, (KL 1.1.212–16), ‘Tis strange, that from
their cold'st neglect My Loue should kindle to enflam'd respect. (KL 1.1.254–5). This transposition can also be found
with a passive verb in the main clause: Heere it is written, that the Shoo-maker should meddle with his Yard, (RJ
1.2.36–8). However, the subject noun clause can also come at the beginning of a sentence either with or without a
pronoun subject in the main clause: That I haue tane away this old mans Daughter, It is most true: (Oth 1.3.78–9),
That you haue wrong'd me, doth appear in this: (JC 4.2.53), That she is liuing, Were it but told you, should be
hooted at Like an old Tale: (WT 5.3.116–18), And what's to come of my despised time, Is naught but bitternesse.
(Oth 1.1.163–4), Why I do trifle thus with his dispaire, Is done to cure it. (KL 4.5.33–4).
The subject of the main clause can be preceded by an adjectival clause which can be interpreted as either a form of
address as vocative or as a type of modifier to the subject. Richard of Gloucester, the future Richard III, addresses
Anne: Fairer then tongue can name thee, let me haue Some patient leysure to excuse my selfe. (R3 1.2.81–2).
Fairer then tongue can name thee has nothing in the main clause to which it refers, though the context indicates
that this clause refers to Anne the assumed subject of let and thus acts as a modifier to an unnamed subject.
Otherwise, it is a form of address, which the courtly tone may well confirm. Anne replies to this with: Fouler then
heart can thinke thee, Thou can'st make no excuse currant, But to hang thy selfe. (R3 1.2.83–4), where the clause
Fouler then heart can thinke thee can be said to modify thou. The two sentences are parallel, but their grammatical
shape may be different: the first is best understood as a vocative, the second may be a modifier to the subject in the
main clause. When this modifying element is a non-finite clause formed with a participle, then the word order may
be adj(A)SV, for the participle is often placed next to the subject of the main clause: his bloody brow With his mail'd
hand, then wiping, forth he goes (Cor 1.3.36–7).
There can be a long modifier to the head of the main clause and this modifier may consist of participial clauses
which are only very loosely tied to the subject of the main clause:
< previous page
page_240
next page >
< previous page
page_241
next page >
Page 241
Each seuerall Article herein redress'd,
All members of our Cause, both here, and hence,
That are insinewed to this Action,
Acquitted by a true substantiall forme,
And present execution of our wills,
To vs, and to our purposes confin'd,
Wee come within our awfull Banks againe,
(2H4 4.1.168–74)
Here three non-finite clauses each with absolute participles precede Wee and depend loosely upon it grammatically,
though as characteristic of such clauses their sense is ‘when’ or ‘if’ the conditions outlined in them are met.
7.1.2.3 Certain verbs, such as chance, know, say and think, are often embedded in another clause so that it seems
as though instead of being the main clause, they give the appearance of being a discourse marker (8.3) so that it is
difficult to tell whether the other clause is main or subordinate. Examples include: and heare (I thinke, the very
latest Counsell (2H4 4.3.311), How chance thou art not with the Prince, thy Brother? (2H4 4.3.20), olde folkes you
know, haue discretion, as they say, (MW 2.2.125–6). The same applies to verbs like please or pray, which may be
either at the head of, or embedded in, other clauses as a politeness formula: I pray now keepe below. (Tem 1.1.10),
I pray thee marke me: (Tem 1.2.88), I beseech you heartily, some of you goe home with me to dinner: (MW
3.2.72–3).
7.1.2.4
In relative clauses, a subject relative pronoun may be followed directly by the verb or an adverbial: keeping … that
differs not from the stalling of an Oxe? (AY 1.1.8–9), people, who best know him, (AY 1.1.159–60), and an object
relative pronoun may be followed by either the subject or an adverbial: those that she makes faire, (AY 1.2.36), that
I kindle the boy thither, which now Ile goe about. (AY 1.1.162–3). More often in verse than in prose, the lexical verb
may be pushed towards the back of the relative clause after any adverbial or object: euerie eye, which in this
Forrest lookes, (AY 3.2.7, rhyming with Bookes,), O God! which this Blood mad'st, (R3 1.2.62), O Earth! which this
Blood drink'st, (R3 1.2.63), Chorus … Who Prologue-like, your
< previous page
page_241
next page >
< previous page
page_242
next page >
Page 242
humble patience pray, Gently to heare, (H5 1.0.32–4). If the relative clause contains a prepositional phrase, the
preposition may be separated from the noun group which depends upon it with the preposition at the end of the
sentence and the noun group before the verb: Whose wicked deed, thy most Ingenious sence Depriu'd thee of.
(Ham 5.1.244–5). If the verb group contains an auxiliary, then the auxiliary may be close to the relative pronoun
and the lexical verb set later in the clause: a youth, That can with some discretion doe my businesse: (TG 4.4.62–3),
Host, Who should against his Murtherer shut the doore, (Mac 1.7.14–15). Adverbials, especially negators, have
considerable freedom of position: Cassio, … That neuer set a Squadron in the Field, (Oth 1.1.19–21).
A relative clause, finite or non-finite, can occasionally act as if it is the subject of a sentence: Now, from the Oracle
They will bring all, whose spirituall counsaile had Shall stop, or spurre me. (WT 2.1.187–9).
Subordinate adverbial clauses generally follow the pattern S(aux)VO, with A, especially N, in a variety of positions,
though if there is an adverbial after the conjunction, it does not usually cause inversion of SV: when I breake that
oath, (AY 1.2.20), when I loue thee not, (Oth 3.3.92), when Nature hath made a faire creature, (AY 1.2.42), though
yet I know no wise remedy (AY 1.1.22–3), as they did in the golden world. (AY 1.1.113), if thou dost him any slight
disgrace, (AY 1.1.139), that I should come to such penury? (AY 1.1.36–7); but cf. as much as in him lies, (AY
1.1.18–19), though he in a fertile Clymate dwell, (Oth 1.1.70), that you shal surely find him (Oth 1.1.159). Non-finite
participial clauses forming what is traditionally known as the ablative absolute, but which function as an adverbial
clause, may simply have the subject and verb in SV order: Leonine being gone. (Per sc.17.30). Normally such
participial clauses have no object, but when an object is included, it may occur before the verb, as in you not your
childe well louing, (Per sc.17.37). The conjunction introducing a subordinate clause does not always appear and in
many cases modern editors may reproduce the text as two separate sentences. With conditional clauses the place of
the conjunction is taken by inversion of subject and verb, which will usually be in the subjunctive: were there twenty
brothers betwixt vs: (AY 1.1.46, ‘if’). A condi
< previous page
page_242
next page >
< previous page
page_243
next page >
Page 243
tion can also be implied where inversion does not occur but the verb is repeated, as in banish plumpe Iacke, and
banish all the World. (1H4 2.5.485, ‘if you banish plump Jack, you banish the whole world’), beare this, beare all:
(AY 4.3.15, ‘if I can stomach this, I can put up with anything’). In causal constructions the causality may be implicit
in what are otherwise two main clauses, which may indeed be printed as two sentences: I know my price, I am
worth no worsse a place. (Oth 1.1.11, ‘for I am worth’), there's no remedie. ‘Tis the cursse of Seruice; (Oth 1.1.34,
‘for’). This omission of a causal conjunction is found also with imperative clauses: poure in, poure in: his ambition is
dry. (TC 2.3.220–1, edited as two sentences in Wells and Taylor 1988: 729). The conjunction that in result clauses
may also be omitted: You are such another woman, one knowes not at what ward you lye. (TC 1.2.254–5, often
edited as two sentences in modern editions, e.g. Wells and Taylor 1988: 720).
7.1.3 The infinitive can appear as the bare infinitive, the to-infinitive or even as the for to-infinitive. This last appears
only infrequently in ShE. Bare infinitives are found after modal auxiliaries and after do and let. Non-finite infinitive
clauses can function as the subject or object of a verb as well as the complement of a noun or adjective. A
calculation of the occurrence of the bare and the to-infinitive in various syntactic structures in KL, MW, RJ and WT
reveals that the to-infinitive is the dominant form in all environments (subject, predicative and object clauses and
with noun and adjective complements), and the bare infinitive occurs extensively only in object clauses, but even
there the to-infinitive is in a three to two majority (Fanego 1994: 193).
Subject to-infinitive clauses may take a dummy subject like it or that and, if so, come either before or after the main
verb: To be, or not to be, that is the Question: (Ham 3.1.58), to bee more thankefull to thee, shall bee my studie,
(WT 4.2.18–19), yet were it true, To say this Boy were like me. (WT 1.2.136–7), Thus to persist In doing wrong,
extenuates not wrong, (TC 2.2.185–6); It is my Fathers Musicke To speake your deeds: (WT 4.4.518–19); and
within a subordinate clause I thinke it not vneasie to get the cause of my sonnes resort thether. (WT 4.2.48–9). The
subject infinitive is more likely to come after than before the verb it governs. Although subject clauses normally have
the to-infinitive,
< previous page
page_243
next page >
< previous page
page_244
next page >
Page 244
examples with the bare infinitive are found: compare To haue, is to haue. (AY 5.1.39) with And haue is haue, how
euer men doe catch: (KJ 1.1.173). MM 3.1.118–28 has a long sentence with numerous examples of both types of
infinitives (though mostly to-infinitives) acting as a kind of subject in a sentence which then changes its structure.
Predicative clauses as the complement of the verb to be take the to-infinitive: The good humor is to steale at a
minutes rest. (MW 1.3.25), What I doe next, shall be to tell the King Of this escape, (WT 4.4.663–4). Object clauses
are those with the most variety between the two types of infinitive. Various factors have been suggested for the use
of one form or the other, such as metre, separation of the infinitive from its governing verb, the occurrence of two
infinitives dependent on the same verb and the fronting of some part of the infinitive clause. Of these suggestions it
seems most likely that ‘the fronting of some element within the infinitive clause correlates with stronger marking, or
tends at least to favour it’ (Fanego 1992: 51). This means, for example, that if there is a so-called accusative and
infinitive construction, such as ‘They made him do it’, where him is the object (i.e. accusative) of made but the
subject of do, then because him is immediately before the infinitive, it has the bare infinitive form. But if the subject
of the infinitive is placed further forward in the sentence, as occurs with the passive, ‘He was told to do it’, where He
is the subject of both was told and to do, then the infinitive takes the to-infinitive form. Examples in ShE include: I
haue knowne her continue in this a quarter of an houre. (Mac 5.1.28–9, with the object her as the subject of
continue) and Stones haue beene knowne to moue, & Trees to speake: (Mac 3.4.122, where Stones comes at the
front of the clause and is the subject of to moue, and to speake is parallel to to moue), A fellow (sir) that I haue
knowne to goe about with Troll-my-dames: (WT 4.3.85–6). Similar to the object clause are infinitive clauses
dependent on a prepositional phrase, with the pronoun in the object case (a noun being without marked case),
especially when the preposition is for: For vs to leuy power (R2 2.2.124), for vs to vndergoe any difficultie imposed.
(TC 3.2.77). Examples of the to-infinitive after nouns: I haue more care to stay, then will to go: (RJ 3.5.23), Giue
me the Office To chuse you
< previous page
page_244
next page >
< previous page
page_245
next page >
Page 245
a Queene: (WT 5.1.77–8). The infinitive may interchange with a relative clause: that Power that made you King Hath
power to keepe you King, (R2 3.2.27–8). When the to-infinitive has an object, that object may come between the
infinitive and the noun it depends on: Wine enough, Cleopatra's health to drinke. (AC 1.2.12).
Examples of the to-infinitive after adjectives: if euer fearefull To doe a thing, (WT 1.2.260–1), I am nothing slow to
slack his hast. (RJ 4.1.3). In exclamatory sentences infinitives can act as the main verb, usually through some sort of
ellipsis: This L. [i.e. Lord] goe to him? (TC 2.3.196).
7.1.3.1 Infinitives can fulfil many functions, such as purpose: I wil not trouble you, As yet to question you (AY
2.7.172–3); causality: O my Father, I haue broke your hest to say so. (Tem 3.1.36–7); condition: I flie not death, to
flie his deadly doome, (TG 3.1.185); concession: To pay fiue duckets, fiue I would not farme it; (Ham Add.Pass.J.11,
Q2); and result: And one thing more, that you be neuer so hardie to come againe in his affaires, (TN 2.2.9–10).
Such infinitive constructions are usually less transparent than subordinate clauses introduced by a conjunction, with
which they interchange, for the relation of the infinitive to the main clause may be less immediately obvious.
Infinitive constructions are more frequent in the later plays, which are more compressed in style and ambiguous in
meaning.
7.1.3.2 The construction be + to + infinitive is common in ShE with both active and passive meanings, (a) the
former implying obligation, and the latter indicating either (b) a passive sense of what is to befall the subject or (c)
some concept of fitness. Examples include:
I am to thanke you for't. (Tim 1.2. 147, ‘I must thank’), Thou art to dye. (Oth 5.2.61, ‘thou must die’);
That's the next to do. (AC 2.6.59, ‘that's the next thing to be done’), And that most deeply to consider, is The
beautie of his daughter: (Tem 3.2.99–100, ‘the beauty of his daughter is to be considered most thoroughly’);
This disturbed Skie is not to walke in. (JC 1.3.39–40), his backward voice, is to vtter foule speeches, (Tem 2.2.91,
‘his worse voice is fit to utter slanders’).
< previous page
page_245
next page >
< previous page
page_246
next page >
Page 246
The modern passive form is also found: but hee's not to be found. (MM 1.2.163), But in this troublous time, what's
to be done? (3H6 2.1.159).
7.1.3.3 A gerund (4.3.8.1), formed with the ending <-ing>, may be used instead of an infinitive in ShE as in PdE,
though they are not entirely interchangeable. The <-ing> form was used to form a verbal noun and its use as a
noun continues, as in A rotten Case abides no handling. (2H4 4.1.159). Gradually it developed features of a verb.
First it took a prepositional phrase, usually with of, as qualifier to the noun before dropping the of created the effect
of verb + object. This led to that variety between forms with or without a following of, as in I'le attempt the doing of
it. (Oth.3.4.22, Q; the doing it., F). The gerund began to govern adverbials or objects: Scape being drunke, for want
of Wine. (Tem 2.1.152) and I can hardly forbeare hurling things at him, (TN 3.2.76–7). Some gerunds also exhibit a
passive sense: like one that feares robbing: (TG 2.1.23–4, ‘being robbed’) and who feares sinking (RL 280, ‘being
shipwrecked’).
7.1.3.4 Naturally finite and non-finite clauses can occur together to produce a compound sentence of some
complexity. As an example, consider this passage from Othello:
Damn'd as thou art, thou hast enchaunted her
For Ile referre me to all things of sense,
(If she in Chaines of Magick were not bound)
Whether a Maid, so tender, Faire, and Happie,
So opposite to Marriage, that she shun'd
The wealthy curled Deareling of our Nation,
Would euer haue (t'encurre a generall mocke)
Run from her Guardage to the sootie bosome,
Of such a thing as thou: to feare, not to delight?
(Oth 1.2.64–72)
This somewhat involved sentence opens with a participle Damn'd, with a dependent adverbial clause, modifying
thou, which is the subject of the main, very short, clause. This has an adverbial clause introduced by For which
occupies the rest of that line and upon which the rest of the sentence depends. The If clause in brackets is inserted
between the verb referre and the Whether clause
< previous page
page_246
next page >
< previous page
page_247
next page >
Page 247
dependent on it. This clause contains an indirect interrogative, which is why the sentence ends with a question mark,
although it is not customary in PdE to use a question mark in this situation. The subject of this Whether clause is
Maid with three post-posed adjectives and an adjectival phrase So opposite to Marriage with a result clause
dependent on it. The verb of the subject Maid is Would haue Run, with its first two elements separated by the
adverb euer and the last two by a non-finite clause in brackets probably to be understood to mean ‘with the result it
would incur universal disapproval’. The intransitive Run is qualified by what she is running from and where she is
going, the sootie bosome Of such a thing as thou. The as thou suggests ellipsis for ‘as thou [art]’. The final
prepositional phrases, to feare, not to delight, echo the prepositional phrase to the sootie bosome Of such a thing as
thou, and add a further dimension of meaning to what running to this end would mean.
This type of compound sentence is more characteristic of verse than of prose, which because of its more informal
tone avoids sentences which are too long. This example shows how Shakespeare builds up long sentences using a
variety of different grammatical structures without losing control of where the sentence is going.
7.2 Imperative
Imperatives are formed by the base form either of the verb alone or with a non-modal auxiliary, a pseudo-auxiliary
like come or go, or let. Imperatives in PdE are essentially restricted to the second person, though the first person
can be expressed through let. In ShE imperatives are more flexible in their syntax. Equally, although the imperative
can in PdE be accompanied only by a form of address, in ShE it was also used with the second person of the
personal pronoun. In the singular this could be either thou or thee; in the plural ye or you (see below 7.2.2). The
use of a pronoun with the imperative has since fallen out of the language because of the confusion between this
form of the imperative and that of the interrogative, which in ShE were identical and could easily be confused.
Where the pronoun is included, it normally follows the verb; a form of address can be immediately before or after
the verb and it can be either next to or detached
< previous page
page_247
next page >
< previous page
page_248
next page >
Page 248
from the verb. It is possible to accompany the imperative with a discourse marker, usually a type of interjection such
as prithee or I pray you, which more often comes before the imperative, but may follow it.
7.2.1 The normal order of the simple imperative is V(S)OA, though neither O nor A is an essential part of the clause
structure: Bring thou her husband, (TA 2.3.185), Hearke thee hither, (2H4 2.4.146), beare you these Letters tightly,
(MW 1.3.74), remember you your Qu. (MW 3.3.34), goe you through the Towne (MW 2.3.68), come your selfe with
speed to vs againe, (1H4 1.1.104), Support him by the arme: (AY 2.7.203); there may be a discourse marker (8.3)
either before or after the clause: Empty the basket I say. (MW 4.2.131). The negator occurs before or after the
object to give VON: perswade me not: (MW 1.1.1); VNOiOd: banish not him thy Harryes companie, (1H4 2.5.483),
or with N first: Ne're looke, ne're looke; (TC 1.2.240). A form of address comes either before or after the imperative
to give vocV, Vvoc, AvocV, VOvoc, (I)VA(A): Sweet sir, sit: (2H4 5.3.26), Come Neighbor: (1H4 2.2.76); Now, my
good sweet Hony Lord, ride with vs (1H4 1.2.158), Hold your hands Both you of my inclining, and the rest. (Oth
1.2.82–3), I pray your worship come a little neerer this waies. (MW 2.2.48–9). With an indefinite pronoun or noun
as S, the order may be SVO: each turne away his face. (LL 5.2.147), one of you question yon'd man, (AY 2.4.60),
Some Officers take them away: (KL 5.3.1). If there are both direct and indirect objects, the order outlined in 7.1.1.5
usually prevails: Giue me your answer, (H5 5.2.129–30), tell vs your reason: (1H4 2.5.237). In Now play him (me)
Patroclus, (TC 1.3.170), which has two pronominal forms, the order is presumably AVOdOivoc with the sense ‘Now
play him for me, Patroclus’, though (me) may be an ethic dative. Slightly different structures are: Write from vs, To
him, Post, Post-haste, dispatch. (Oth 1.3.46), Bid the Ostler bring the Gelding (1H4 2.1.96). An example of the base
imperative with the first person personal pronoun is go we to him straight: (TC 1.3.382), and with the pseudoauxiliary come: Come goe wee then togither. (TC 1.1.116). In verse O may be placed at the head of the clause,
usually for emphasis: the residue of your fortune, Go to my Caue, and tell mee. (AY 2.7.200–1), These Letters giue
(Iago) to the Pylot, (Oth 3.2.1), Therefore our euerlasting farewell take: (JC 5.1.116); OVCo: The sullen passage of
thy weary steppes Esteeme a soyle (R2 1.3.254–5, as foyle Q1). If O is a clause, then it may be placed after an
adver
< previous page
page_248
next page >
< previous page
page_249
next page >
Page 249
bial: take vpon command, what helpe we haue (AY 2.7.125). The imperative may be strengthened by an interjection
either before or after the clause.
When let is part of the imperative, the lexical verb may come at the end of the clause to give auxSCV: Let
gentlenesse my strong enforcement be, (AY 2.7.118).
7.2.2 The imperative can be strengthened by the inclusion of do or another verb like come or go, acting as pseudoauxiliaries before the lexical verb. When do is included, any pronoun subject normally comes immediately after it,
unless a negator is included which will often come after, though sometimes before, the subject pronoun. This
produces the orders auxSV(O)(A) and auxNSV(O)(A) or auxSNV(O)(A), though A can occur in other positions: Doe
thou amend thy Face, (1H4 3.3.23), doe thou stand in some by-roome, (1H4 2.5.28–9), Doe not thou when thou art
a King, hang a Theefe. (1H4 1.2.60–1), do not you grieue at this: (2H4 5.5.75–6), Do not you chide: (Oth 3.3.305),
do neuer leave calling Francis, (1H4 2.5.30–1, do thou neuer leaue Q). In doe not your selfe wrong, (2H4 3.2.251),
it is possible to take the structure as either auxNOCo or auxNOV. When there is no pronoun subject, the lexical verb
follows do, unless there is a negator which will come between do and the lexical verb, giving auxNV(O)(A): Do not
betray me sir, (MW 3.3.70), I prethee doe not draw. (2H4 2.4.199–200).
7.2.3 Strengthening of the imperative by the use of do in a type of tag occurs in Giue me your answer, yfaith doe,
(H5 5.2.129–30) and perhaps through immediate repetition in Doe, doe; (Tem 4.1.238), and by the use of an
interjection or equivalent either before or after the imperative clause: Pray you do so, (MW 3.3.85). Strengthening
of the imperative by a form of address is particularly common in insults: Toads stoole, learne me the Proclamation.
(TC 2.1.21–2), I, do, do, thou sodden-witted Lord: (TC 2.1.44).
7.2.4 The use of come and go as pseudo-auxiliaries creates a problem of interpretation, for some examples in
modern editions are interpreted as imperatives in their own right and are followed by a comma, whereas others are
allowed to act as a type of intensifier to the lexical verb. The use of these verbs as pseudo-auxiliaries is
strengthened by their occurrence in this role in other grammatical contexts: Yet haue I ventured to come seeke you
out,
< previous page
page_249
next page >
< previous page
page_250
next page >
Page 250
(KL 3.4.142), let her goe hang. (Tem 2.2.53). Examples of imperative use include: come buy, come buy, (WT
4.4.229), Go hang sir, hang: (AC 2.7.52), goe bring it hither (Tem 4.1.186), goe Iohn, goe enquire for my Master,
(MW 1.4.38).
7.2.5 The imperative go in the form go to occurs frequently as a type of interjection or discourse marker: Goe to, sir,
tell me: do you know Madam Siluia? (TG 2.1.13–14), Go-too then: (MW 3.3.36). The imperative come by itself may
have a slightly threatening sense but, when it is reduplicated, it has a much gentler tone with a sense of comfort or
encouragement: Come, march forward. (2H6 4.2.189), Come Warwicke, Take the time, (3H6 5.1.48), Come, come
let's fall in with them. (2H6 4.2.32).
7.2.6 There are perfect imperatives in that they are formed with be or have and the past participle which suggests
that to the speaker the action is already complete but still relevant at the present time. These usually occur in brief
clauses with no S or O: Go, go, be gone, (TG 1.1.141), Away, be gone, (RJ 1.5.118), Haue done, quoth he, (RL
645), Therefore haue done, (RJ 3.5.72). When there is a negator, it comes between be and the participle: Be not
acknowne on't: (Oth 3.3.324).
7.2.7 Imperatives with let have the subject of the verb which it governs as the object of let, as in PdE. These
imperatives take several forms:
Let acts as an auxiliary to the lexical verb: Let be, let be: (WT 5.3.61).
The subject of let is a first person personal pronoun, me or us often abbreviated to <‘s>, with the order (A)auxSVO:
Then let me see thy cloake, (TG 3.1.132), Let's all sinke with’ King (Tem 1.1.60).
There is no formal subject, but let has a third person object pronoun, a noun group or a proper noun as its object or
complement which can form the subject of the lexical verb auxO/SV(A): Then let it lye, (TG 1.2.76), Let her be as
shee is, (TC 1.1.66–7), Let Paris bleed, (TC 1.1.111), Let euerie eye negotiate for it selfe, (MA 2.1.168); or with the
object of the lexical verb preposed in the order OauxO/SV: all corners else o'th'Earth Let liberty make vse of: (Tem
1.2.494–5).
< previous page
page_250
next page >
< previous page
page_251
next page >
Page 251
Let can have what amounts to a form of address as subject of the lexical verb in an order auxAvocV: Let but your
honour know (MM 2.1.8).
Like other auxiliaries let is found without a verb of motion usually in the order auxO/SA: let vs thither, (MA 1.3.60),
Let vs to the great supper, (MA 1.3.66), let him to the Tower, (2H6 5.1.132, where a passive verb is understood).
The object personal pronoun with let acting as subject of the lexical verb may have a noun group in apposition to it
either before or after the clause: Each Troian that is master of his heart, Let him to field, (TC 1.1.4–5), and what
hee gets more of her, then sharpe words, let it lye on my head. (MW 2.1.172–4).
7.2.8 The form of the imperative is identical with the third person of the present subjunctive which is used to
express a wish, the optative or hortative subjunctive (4.2.3). When there is a form of address, or what might be
construed as a form of address, with this verb form, it is difficult to tell whether we are dealing with the imperative
or the subjunctive. Modern editors may enclose the form of address within commas and interpret the verb as
imperative or they may have no commas and so understand the verb as subjunctive. There may be little difference
in meaning, but the imperative has greater force. Most editors take Iudge me the world, (Oth 1.2.73) and Now
heauens forbid such scarcitie of youth. (TC 1.3.299) as subjunctives, but provide yield day to night; (1H6 1.1.1)
with commas round day which turns the verb into an imperative, though the previous clause, Hvng be ye heauens
with black, is usually accepted as subjunctive.
Most imperatives sentences are relatively short, though they can govern subordinate clauses, such as: Villaine, be
sure thou proue my Loue a Whore; (Oth 3.3.364). But those imperatives which are similar to subjunctives usually
form part of longer sentences. The example quoted earlier from Othello is part of this longer sentence:
Iudge me the world, if ‘tis not grosse in sense,
That thou hast practis'd on her with foule Charmes,
Abus'd her delicate Youth, with Drugs or Minerals,
That weakens Motion.
(Oth 1.2.73–6)
< previous page
page_251
next page >
< previous page
page_252
next page >
Page 252
This extension of the sentence may be the reason why editors accept the opening clause contains a subjunctive.
7.3 Interrogative
Interrogatives are divided into yes-no questions and wh-questions. The former consists of those questions which can
have either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ as an answer, such as ‘Are you coming tonight?’, the latter those questions which cannot be
answered by a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ such as ‘Where is the cat?’ Wh-questions usually start with an interrogative adverb
or pronoun beginning with <wh>, such as where, why, when, though how is also included in this category. Both
types can be mixed by adding what is really a politeness formula to a wh-question, such as ‘Can you tell me which is
the best way to the station?’ Although this question is technically a yes-no question, it would be understood by the
hearer as a wh-question. Tag questions consist of a declarative sentence (e.g. ‘It's a lovely day.’) to which a question
tag (‘isn't it?’) is added to turn it into a question. They may get an answer, but they are often more like rhetorical
questions. Tag questions are dealt with under negation in 6.2.3.4. Rhetorical questions are those questions which do
not expect an answer and can be found, for example, in soliloquies. Such questions could be ‘Isn't it a lovely day?’
or ‘Aren't I a good boy?’ These questions are dealt with under exclamatory clauses in 7.4.
7.3.1 Interrogative questions of either type may be formed with the lexical verb alone, with the auxiliary do and the
lexical verb in the bare infinitive, or with another auxiliary and the lexical verb in the bare infinitive or a participle. In
all questions there is inversion of the simple lexical verb and the subject giving (A)VS(O/C), or of the auxiliary and
the subject giving (A)auxSV(O) or OauxSV, although it is also possible to indicate a question through a declarative
sentence (7.3.3). In PdE the use of an auxiliary with questions has been grammaticalised, but in ShE this was not
the case. The basic structure is the same for transitive and intransitive verbs. In yes-no questions this gives the
patterns: Signior Gremio, came you from the Church? (TS 3.3.22), Heard you that? (MW 3.3.191), Reuolt our
Subiects? (R2 3.2.96), Are you fast married? (Oth 1.2.11), Be those the Garments? (Cym 3.5.146), And
< previous page
page_252
next page >
< previous page
page_253
next page >
Page 253
is the Bride & Bridegroom coming home? (TS 3.3.24), Will you giue thankes, sweete Kate, or else shall I? (TS
4.1.145); but there is the pattern OauxSV which may not be a question, as in many modern editions: Musicke do I
heare? (R2 5.5.41). In wh-questions the patterns are why wear'st thou that Gloue in thy Cappe? (H5 4.7.117–18),
Where is the rascall Cooke? (TS 4.1.148), Where hast thou stow'd my Daughter? (Oth 1.2.63). When do is part of
the verb group, no other modal is present: dost know this waterflie? (Ham 5.2.83–4) and Why did you laugh, when
I said, Man delights not me? (Ham 2.2.315–16), What didst thou lose, Iacke? (1H4 3.3.100), What doe you call him?
(H5 3.6.16).
The use of do is not entirely without restriction, since do occurs rarely with certain verbs like come, go and say,
though the figures are not extensive enough to offer definite conclusions.
7.3.2 When the negator is an adverbial in an interrogative clause with an auxiliary, it usually comes after S, when it
is a pronoun, as auxSNV(A): Why, did'st thou not come from heauen? (TA 4.3.88) or auxSNVC: Can he not be
sociable? (TC 2.3.207), but after the auxiliary, when S is a noun: Does not our liues consist of the foure Elements?
(TN 2.3.9), Cannot your Grace win her to fancie him? (TG 3.1.67), is not the humor conceited? (MW 1.3.20–1). With
a simple verb, the negator comes after V: is not he in Towne? (Oth 1.3.44), why speake not you? (MA 4.1.63), or
after S in came he not home to night? (RJ 2.3.1–2), hadst thou not order? (MM 2.2.8). The direct object may come
after the verb extension: could you not finde out that by her attributes? (TC 3.1.35–6).
7.3.3 A question may take the form of a declarative clause. That a question is intended may only be detectable from
either the answer it receives or the overall context. However, this second condition is not a reliable guide and
different editors may place a question mark at the end of a sentence where others do not. Thus Slender's I may
quarter (Coz). is taken by some (Salmon 1965: 114) to be a question because of Shallow's reply You may, by
marrying. (MW 1.1.21–2), though most editors no longer do so. However, with do a clause is more readily accepted
as a question. Thus Touchstone's You do loue this maid? is answered by William's I do sit [for sir]. (AY 5.1.35–6).
When a declarative clause contains a verb of thinking or believing or some discourse adverbial, it is more readily
accepted as a question: you came I thinke
< previous page
page_253
next page >
< previous page
page_254
next page >
Page 254
from France? is answered I did so. (AW 3.5.46), I hope my words disbench'd you not? receives the answer No Sir:
(Cor 2.2.70–1) and She is dead belike? is answered Not so: (TG 4.4.73). It is also the case that as what and why
are used at the head of a clause as discourse markers (8.3.1.1) as well as interrogative adverbs, uncertainty may
arise as to whether a question is intended or what its extent may be. Othello's comment to Brabantio:
What if [I Q] do obey?
How may the Duke be therewith satisfi'd,
Whose Messengers are heere about my side,
Vpon some present businesse of the State,
To bring me to him.
(Oth 1.2.88–92)
may more convincingly be punctuated by reading the first line as What, if [I] do obey, so that the rest of speech
becomes part of the whole sentence. There is no question mark after obey in Q.
7.3.4 Many questions are elliptical and their syntax has to be understood from the surrounding context. A good
example occurs in Hamlet:
Guild. The King, sir.
Ham. I sir, what of him?
Guild. Is in his retyrement, maruellous distemper'd.
Ham. With drinke Sir?
Guild. No my Lord, rather with choller.
(Ham 3.2.286–90)
Here Guildenstern's second comment has ‘the king’ as its subject which is carried over from his first one, and
Hamlet's rejoinder to this is built upon Guildenstern's comment since his With is dependent upon distemper'd. Even
more elliptical are other statements like this from The Tempest:
Fer. My Mistris (deerest)
And I thus humble euer.
Mir. My husband then?
(Tem 3.1.86–8)
< previous page
page_254
next page >
< previous page
page_255
next page >
Page 255
where Miranda puts forward the reference to husband because it collocates with Mistris, and her question implies
‘Does your calling me “Mistress” make you my husband?’
7.3.5 There has been considerable discussion about the nature of do stylistically in interrogative sentences. Some
have argued that it entered standard English from the language of lower social groups, whereas others have claimed
that it was more a feature of high style. There is no doubt that in verse do was often used purely for metrical
reasons. A more recent study has suggested that a comparison in its use between Shakespeare and the Authorised
Version of the Bible ‘strongly suggests, first, that the do-periphrasis was by no means regarded as an undesirable
modernism even in the most highly cultivated circles in early seventeenth-century England, and second, that
Shakespeare was rather less innovative grammatically than lexically’ (Henderson 1993: 147; and cf. Nurmi 1999).
7.3.6 Questions can act as greetings which are no more than statements, that can be ignored or turned into some
other comment by the addressee. In Timon of Athens Varro asks the Fool: How dost Foole?, to which Apemantus
replies Dost Dialogue with thy shadow? Varro then responds I speake not to thee. (Tim 2.2.49–51). In King Lear
when the Fool enters Lear says: How now my pretty knaue, how dost thou?, the Fool ignores this greeting and
speaks to Kent: Sirrah, you were best take my Coxcombe. (KL 1.4.95–6). These correspond to PdE greetings like
How do you do?, but greetings are dealt with more fully in 8.2.3.
7.4 Exclamatory
Exclamatory clauses are expressions of some emotion like surprise, pleasure, grief, anger or even cynicism, which do
not necessarily expect any response and are often found in soliloquies. They are frequently introduced by how, that,
what or an interjection like Oh, though they may appear in the form of declaratives or even imperatives or
interrogatives. Those utterances, which are somewhat critical of others present, are often marked as asides by
modern editors, though this may not always be the right solution. They may have a semi-proverbial
< previous page
page_255
next page >
< previous page
page_256
next page >
Page 256
feel to them and be particularly associated with certain characters. In Timon of Athens Apemantus utters mordant
comments which are essentially exclamatory. When he remains alone after speaking to Timon, he complains: Oh
that mens eares should be To Counsell deafe, but not to Flatterie. (1.2.250–1). In the previous scene, when he is
present while Alcibiades flatters Timon, he comments: The straine of mans bred out into Baboon and Monkey. (Tim
1.1.254–5, which Wells and Taylor 1988: 887 mark as an aside). Hamlet is another character who indulges in
exclamatory clauses. After seeing the players, he says of himself: Oh what a Rogue and Pesant slaue am I? (Ham
2.2.552), though the question mark in F does duty for an exclamation mark in PdE, as in modern editions. After the
opening scene at court he can lament about his mother's marriage That it should come to this: (Ham 1.2.137).
Before going on with the aim of killing Claudius he exclaims, using an imperative structure: Oh Heart, loose not thy
Nature; (Ham 3.2.382). Naturally, many other characters in the plays use exclamatory clauses. Brabantio in Othello,
when he knows Desdemona has fled, bemoans his fate with exclamations like (Who would be a Father?) (Oth
1.1.166, using an interrogative structure) and (Oh she deceaues me Past thought:) (Oth 1.1.167–8). Although
Roderigo is present, some remarks like these are said as much to himself as to Roderigo, which is why they are in
brackets in F, but others are addressed directly to Roderigo.
7.4.1 It may be seen from the previous paragraph that an exclamatory can follow the structure of declarative,
imperative or interrogative. This may make it difficult to decide whether a sentence is an exclamatory or not,
especially as question marks in F were used where PdE uses exclamation marks. When an exclamatory is introduced
by that, it frequently has either a modal auxiliary like should or would (as in the example in Ham. 1.2.137 in the
previous paragraph) or the verb in the subjunctive: That the whole life of Athens were in this, (Tim 4.3.284).
7.5 Sentence structure
The preceding sections outline different sentence types and the organisation of the elements within a clause.
Shakespeare organised his sentences to produce varied effects, often relying upon what
< previous page
page_256
next page >
< previous page
page_257
next page >
Page 257
he had learned from his exposure to Latin and rhetorical training at his school. However, we need to remember that
he brought various strategies to bear on his composition, as has been well expressed by Houston:
Much of what is distinctive in Shakespeare's grammar would seem to result from a synthesis of native literary
tradition, latinate patterns, acquired young and embedded in the mind, and little-noticed but widespread tendencies
of English speakers to follow at times principles in contradiction to their normal ones. There appears to be little that
is arbitrary or without precedent, even though Shakespeare's style can seem rather exotic in comparison with those
of other playwrights of his time.
(Houston 1988: 87)
Some of the ways he organised the parts within the sentence and the sentences themselves to create a flexible and
varied set of patterns are enumerated in what follows. Some of the structures enumerated here expand what was
described in the previous chapter.
7.5.1 Accretion and parallelism are significant structures used by Shakespeare. These can be asyndetic or syndetic.
7.5.1.1 Asyndeton is the heaping up of parallel words, phrases or clauses without being joined together by a
conjunction like and or or.
adjectives: This wimpled, whyning, purblinde waiward Boy, (LL 3.1.174), Remorselesse, Treacherous, Letcherous,
kindles villaine! (Ham 2.2.583);
nouns: Cry Woe, Destruction, Ruine, Losse, Decay, (R2 3.2.98, Q1 replaces Losse with and), The poore, lame, blind,
hault, creepe, cry out for thee, (RL 902), Should be called tyrants, butchers, murtherers. (AY 3.5.14), By watching,
weeping, tendance, kissing, (Cym 5.6.53);
determiner and noun: thou sham'st thy shape, thy loue, thy wit, (RJ 3.3.121), His honor, his affaires, his friends, his
state, Neglected all, (RL 45–6), A hand, a foote, a face, a leg, a head Stood for the whole (RL 1427–8);
< previous page
page_257
next page >
< previous page
page_258
next page >
Page 258
adjective(s) and noun (with order sometimes reversed): Beautifull Tyrant, fiend Angelicall: Rauenous Doue-feather'd
Rauen, Woluish-rauening Lambe, (RJ 3.2.75–6, modern editions usually omit Rauenous); with the same adjective
repeated: Mad world, mad kings, mad composition: (KJ 2.1.562);
noun groups: This royall Throne of Kings, this sceptred Isle, This earth of Maiesty, this seate of Mars, This other
Eden, demy paradise, This Fortresse built by Nature for her selfe, Against infection, and the hand of warre: (R2
2.1.40–4);
adverbials of various types: I humbly thanke you: well, well, well. (Ham 3.1.94), Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste,
sans euery thing. (AY 2.7.166), Tis thou that spurn'st at right, at law, at reason, (RL 880), By all the Battailles
wherein we have fought, By th'Blood we haue shed together, By th'Vowes we haue made To endure Friends, (Cor
1.7.56–8);
verb groups of various types: we still haue slept together, Rose at an instant, learn'd, plaid, eate together, (AY
1.3.72–3), Pray loue remember: (Ham 4.5.175–6), Abhorre it, feare it, doe not enter it. (AY 2.3.29), Cry the man
mercy, loue him, take his offer, (AY 3.5.62), I may wander From East to Occident, cry out for Seruice, Try many, all
good: serue truly: neuer Finde such another Master. (Cym 4.2.373–6), To diue like Buckets in concealed Welles, To
crowch in litter of your stable plankes, To lye like pawnes, lock'd vp in chests and truncks, To hug with swine, to
seeke sweet safety out (KJ 5.2.139–42), Cut off … Vnhouzzled, disappointed, vnnaneld, (Ham 1.5.76–7);
clauses: cast if off: It is my Lady, O it is my Loue, O that she knew she were, She speakes, yet she sayes nothing,
what of that? Her eye discourses, I will answere it: I am too bold ‘tis not to me she speakes: (RJ 2.1.51–6).
Forms of address particularly those used in scorn or exaggerated humour, often employ asyndeton: this same scall
scuruy-cogging-companion (MW 3.1.111–12); other examples are listed in the previous chapter.
7.5.1.2 Examples of syndeton are formed with and or (n)or between each parallel item:
adjectives: shee is pretty, and honest, and gentle, (MW 1.4.134–5), Is tyte, and yare; and brauely rig'd, (Tem
5.1.227);
< previous page
page_258
next page >
< previous page
page_259
next page >
Page 259
present participles used adjectively but with a strong verb sense: Mistris Page at the doore, sweating, and blowing,
and looking wildely, (MW 3.3.80–1), this Mistris Elbow, being (as I say) with childe, and being great bellied, and
longing (as I said) for prewyns: (MM 2.1.95–7);
nouns: there has beene Knights, and Lords, and Gentlemen, (MW 2.2.63–4), Since birth, and heauen and earth, all
three do meete (RJ 3.3.119), Till Candles, & Star-light, & Moone-shine be out. (MW 5.5.101), Sith I haue cause, and
will, and strength, and meanes To doo't; (Ham Add.Pass.J.36–7, Q2);
noun groups: you are call'd plaine Kate, And bony Kate, and sometimes Kate the curst: (TS 2.1.185–6), But
thought's the slaue of Life, and Life, Times foole; And Time, that takes suruey of all the world, (1H4 5.4.80–1); and
with negative co-ordination: neither the Schollers melancholy, which is emulation: nor the Musitians, which is
fantasticall; nor the Courtiers, which is proud: nor the Souldiers, which is ambitious: nor the Lawiers, which is
politick: nor the Ladies, which is nice: nor the Louers, which is all these: (AY 4.1.10–14);
adverbials: Triall did draw Bias and thwart, (TC 1.3.13–14), If there be any pody in the house, & in the chambers,
and in the coffers, and in the presses: (MW 3.3.200–1);
verbs: it eats, and sleeps, & hath such senses (Tem 1.2.415), whom they doted on, And bless'd, and grac'd, (2H4
4.1.136–7), Before you can say come, and goe, And breathe twice; and cry, so, so: (Tem 4.1.44–5), Pinch him, and
burne him, and turne him about, (MW 5.5.100), if I can recouer him, and keepe him tame, and get to Naples with
him, (Tem 2.2.68–9), That hang'd, and drawne, and quarter'd there should be (KJ 2.1.509);
clauses: Thy Mother was a peece of vertue, and She said thou wast my daughter; and thy father Was Duke of
Millaine, (Tem 1.2.56–8), but weeps and weeps, And now fals on her bed, and then starts vp, And Tybalt calls, and
then on Romeo cries, And then downe falls againe. (RJ 3.3.98–101).
Many, but certainly not all, examples of multiple syndeton are found in prose in the comedies, and it may be that
excessive use of and was, as it still is, a feature of colloquial language.
7.5.1.3 Shakespeare can also use a single and anywhere in a list of words, phrases or clauses to give patterns A and
BC(D), AB
< previous page
page_259
next page >
< previous page
page_260
next page >
Page 260
and C(D) or ABC and D, though there may be only three or more than four units in each series. Examples of and
after the first unit include: Royall Kings, Fear'd by their breed, and famous for their birth, Renowned for their deeds,
(R2 2.1.51–3), A Father cruell, and a Stepdame false, A Foolish Suitor to a Wedded-Lady, (Cym 1.6.1–2); after the
second unit: wherefore are you gentle, strong, and valiant? (AY 2.3.6), My Acts, Decrees, and Statutes I denie: (R2
4.1.203), through vassall Feare, Base Inclination, and the start of Spleene, (1H4 3.2.124–5), am faine to shufflle: to
hedge, and to lurch, (MW 2.2.25), That could controle the Moone; make flowes, and ebs, And deale in her
command, (Tem 5.1.273–4), Why rayl'st thou on thy birth? the heauen and earth? (RJ 3.3.118), The skipping King …
Mingled his Royaltie with Carping Fooles, Had his great Name prophaned with their Scornes, And gaue his
Countenance, against his Name, (1H4 3.2.60–5); and after the third unit: And priuate in his Chamber pennes
himselfe, Shuts vp his windowes, lockes faire day-light out, And makes himselfe an artificiall night: (RJ 1.1.135–7).
Other patterns are also possible such as A + B, C + D, E + F or A, B + C + D or others: Peace, I say, Gallia and
Gaule, French & Welch, Soule-Curer, and Body-Curer. (MW 3.1.89–90), He was the Marke, and Glasse, Coppy, and
Booke, (2H4 2.3.31); Lou'd Mall, Meg, and Marrian, and Margerie, (Tem 2.2.47).
Sometimes a group of words in asyndeton may be set against another group in syndeton or vice versa, as in:
‘Tis not alone my Inky Cloake (good Mother)
Nor Customary suites of solemne Blacke,
Nor windy suspiration of forc'd breath,
No, nor the fruitfull Riuer in the Eye,
Nor the deiected hauiour of the Visage,
Together with all Formes, Moods, shewes of Griefe,
That can denote me truly.
(Ham 1.2.77–83)
7.5.2.1 Whereas syndeton and asyndeton are often associated with narrative, for many of the examples in 7.5.1.1–3
push forward the story, apposition is descriptive and imaginative since it involves the massing of different units to
complement and extend an original noun or noun group with further characteristics and descriptive features
referring to or elaborating on the original element. Apposition may also involve figurative language. The
< previous page
page_260
next page >
< previous page
page_261
next page >
Page 261
units in apposition may be nouns, noun groups or relative clauses. A typical example consisting only of noun groups
and largely descriptive with little imagery is the description of Queen Elizabeth, the widow of Edward IV, by the Duke
of Buckingham: a poore Petitioner, A Care-cras'd Mother to a many Sonnes, A Beautie-waining, and distressed
Widow, (R3 3.7.173–5). This type of structure is very common in Shakespeare's early plays (Houston 1988: 22–43).
In his later plays Shakespeare increasingly used apposition to develop imagery and evocative effects, as the famous
description of sleep by Macbeth illustrates:
Macbeth does murther Sleepe, the innocent Sleepe,
Sleepe that knits vp the rauel'd Sleeue of Care,
The death of each dayes Life, sore Labors Bath,
Balme of hurt Mindes, great Natures second Course,
Chiefe nourisher in Life's Feast.
(Mac 2.2.34–8)
In this passages Sleepe is first expanded by the descriptive phrase the innocent Sleepe, after which Sleepe is
repeated. This is qualified by a relative clause introduced by that, which is then followed by five subordinate noun
groups each of which describes a different aspect of sleep and all are grammatically dependent on Sleepe. The
whole is based on asyndeton, for there is no other grammatical cohesion and this list of sleep's attributes could be
readily reduced or expanded with little detriment to the overall sense, though it would seriously affect the emotional
tone of the passage. There is in essence no reason why the list of attributes should end where it does. This is
imaginative description which has little bearing on the progress of the action as such. In such descriptive passages
Shakespeare may introduce a nay which creates a pause to increase the overall emotional impact:
I that haue beene loues whip?
A verie Beadle to a humerous sigh: A Criticke,
Nay, a night-watch Constable.
A domineering pedant ore the Boy,
Then whom no mortall so magnificent.
(LL 3.1.169–73)
< previous page
page_261
next page >
< previous page
page_262
next page >
Page 262
7.5.2.2 The alternative to apposition was a qualifier. Whereas short qualifiers are dealt with in 3.3.6, they can be of
considerable length and complexity. This complexity is achieved by the introduction of more clauses than phrases,
some of which depend upon words in the qualifier itself rather than upon the head of the main noun group. An
example is provided by this start to a rather tortuous argument presented by the Archbishop of Canterbury in Henry
V:
There is no barre
To make against your Highnesse Clayme to France,
But this which they produce from Pharamond,
In terram Salicam Mulieres ne succedant,
No Woman shall succeed in Salike Land:
Which Salike Land, the French vniustly gloze
To be the Realme of France, and Pharamond
The founder of this Law, and Female Barre.
(H5 1.2.35–42)
Here barre in the first line is qualified by a non-finite clause (with the sense ‘which can be made against your claim
to France’) and then by the single exception to the bar on Henry's claim introduced by But this which is in its turn
qualified by the which clause (whose subject they has no antecedent, but must mean ‘the French’), by the Latin
quotation which is in apposition to and defines this, and by the English translation of the Latin. The next clause
introduced by Which Salike Land is naturally dependent upon the immediately preceding Salike Land. This Which
Salike Land is the object of the verb gloze. The and Pharamond must be understood as Which Pharamond, referring
to the Pharamond in the earlier relative clause in line 37 and forming a second object to the verb gloze. The various
phrases and clauses are interdependent and it would be difficult to omit anything except possibly the Latin
quotation, since the English translation contains the words which are qualified later.
7.5.2.3 Apposition and some of the other structures dealt with earlier in this chapter are based on the way in which
the different parts of the clause hang together to create the desired effect. This is especially important in providing
variety in the language as well as compensating for the lack of many conjunctions. Of
< previous page
page_262
next page >
< previous page
page_263
next page >
Page 263
ten this leads to a nominal style and to parallelism. The basic structure of adjective + noun can be varied in many
ways.
The pattern can be repeated one or more times: A dimne Saint, an Honourable Villaine: (RJ 3.2.79) or the adjectives
can be compound: Doue-feather'd Rauen, Woluish-rauening Lambe, (RJ 3.2.76);
the second element can be inverted: Beautifull Tyrant, fiend Angelicall: (RJ 3.2.75);
instead of the inverted noun + adjective as the second element, it can be noun + qualifier: O louing hate, O any
thing, of nothing first created: (RJ 1.1.173–4), poore Shadow, painted Queen, The presentation of but what I was;
(R3 4.4.83–4), or an and can introduce the qualifier: Breefe abstract and record of tedious dayes, (R3 4.4.28);
instead of two adjective + noun forms in apposition to each other, the one can be made dependent on the other:
Dispised substance of Diuinest show: (RJ 3.2.77); the number of adjectives can be increased in one of the elements:
Dead life, blind sight, poore mortall liuing ghost, (R3 4.4.26).
This does not exhaust the possibilities.
Different types of parallelism can be used within a single sentence to create variety within similarity. Consider this
long sentence's make-up:
The skipping King hee ambled vp and downe,
With shallow Iesters, and rash Bauin Wits,
Soone kindled, and soone burnt, carded his State,
Mingled his Royaltie with carping Fooles,
Had his great Name prophaned with their Scornes,
And gaue his Countenance, against his Name,
To laugh at gybing Boyes, and stand the push
Of euery Beardlesse vaine Comparative;
Grew a Companion to the common Streetes,
Enfeoff'd himselfe to Popularitie:
That being dayly swallowed by mens Eyes,
They surfeted with Honey, and began to loathe
The taste of Sweetnesse, whereof a little
More then a little, is by much too much.
(1H4 3.2.60–73)
< previous page
page_263
next page >
< previous page
page_264
next page >
Page 264
In this sentence there are numerous forms of parallelism, both striking and subdued. The skipping King is matched
by With shallow Iesters, which is its turn set against rash Bauin Wits. Three phrases at the beginning, vp and
downe, With shallow Iesters and rash Bauin Wits, Soone kindled, and soone burnt, are joined internally by and,
though each is of a different length and grammatical structure. The many main verbs of the sentence have by
contrast only a single and to link them: ambled, carded, Mingled, Had, And gaue, Grew, Enfeoffed. Carping Fooles
echoes shallow Iesters and gybing Boyes, and Beardlesse vaine Comparatiue looks back to rash Bauin Wits. The
sentence takes a different course after Popularitie, for the next line starts with That which is best interpreted as
introducing a result clause ‘with the result that’. But the link of being to They is obscure. Mens Eyes, They seems to
echo skipping King hee, but whereas hee relates to King, They must refer to the men of Mens Eyes or rather to the
Iesters, Wits, Fooles, Boyes and Comparatiue, which all anticipate Mens Eyes. The sentence ends with little ~ little
being set in opposition to much ~ much. The whole is elaborately interwoven with similar, but diverse, forms of
parallelism, which are sometimes counterpointed by other effects such as alliteration, as in Comparatiue, Companion
and common.
7.5.2.4 Many sentences have this parallel structure in a different way, for the preceding example is relatively
straightforward in its structure which is basically NVA. But in other cases, the subject and verb may be delayed until
the end of the sentence. This organisation has already been described above with reference to short clauses
(7.1.1.5), but it also occurs with longer ones:
What it should bee
More then his Fathers death, that thus hath put him
So much from th’ vnderstanding of himselfe,
I cannot deeme of.
(Ham 2.2.7–10)
This sentence has an OSV structure. But other sentences with an adverbial clause at their head may be longer,
though when that happens parallelism becomes more significant to make sure the sentence remains comprehensible
when spoken.
< previous page
page_264
next page >
< previous page
page_265
next page >
Page 265
As by your high Imperiall Maiesty,
I had in charge at my depart for France,
As Procurator to your Excellence,
To marry Princes Margaret for your Grace;
So in the Famous Ancient City, Toures,
In presence of the Kings of France, and Sicill,
The Dukes of Orleance, Calaber, Britaigne, and Alanson,
Seuen Earles, twelue Barons, & twenty reuerend Bishops
I haue perform'd my Taske, and was espous'd,
And humbly now vpon my bended knee,
In sight of England, and her Lordly Peeres,
Deliuer vp my Title in the Queene
To your most gracious hands, that are the Substance
Of that great Shadow I did represent:
The happiest Gift, that euer Marquesse gaue,
The Fairest Queene, that euer King receiv'd.
(2H6 1.1.1–16)
In this sentence, the As … So structure provides the basic framework, and each part has a SV order which echoes
the other: I had in charge and I haue perform'd. The parallelism is emphasised because both open with an adverbial
phrase followed by subject and verb, and both continue with additional elements in the sentence. But there are also
differences, for the I haue perform'd of the main clause is paralleled immediately by was espous'd and then
somewhat later by another verb with a change of tense Deliuer vp. This third verb in the main clause is itself
preceded by a series of adverbials, which echo the adverbials which precede the earlier main verbs, and make it
seem almost as a parallelism of three units rather than of the two in the As … So construction. As with the example
quoted above from 1 Henry IV, this sentence also concludes in a slightly odd grammatical fashion. The last two lines
are almost naively parallel, and they form some kind of apposition, but to what is less clear. Presumably they refer
back to Title, which is some way off. The result in both instances is of a new idea tacked on to a sentence in a loose
grammatical way although it introduces a separate concept. As compared with the example quoted immediately
above from Hamlet, where the subject and verb are held back so that the sentence contains a tight structure, in 2
Henry VI and 1 Henry IV the structure is much looser and the effect is rambling, though that is held in check by the
controlling parallelism.
< previous page
page_265
next page >
< previous page
page_266
next page >
Page 266
7.5.2.5 Nominal style refers to clauses with no finite verb. At times this may not be apparent, because the use of
participles may suggest that there are verbs in the sentence; but at others the sentence appears incomplete and
breaks off in a way which a reader or audience has to respond to. The use of this nominal style may be invoked to
give an almost proverbial status to a pithy utterance, as in
If hap'ly won, perhaps a haplesse gaine;
If lost, why then a grieuous labour won;
How euer: but a folly bought with wit,
Or else a wit, by folly vanquished.
(TG 1.1.32–5)
In some cases modern editors may punctuate the text to make a sentence contain a finite verb or suggest that
something is missing in the text. In the following passage:
All furnisht, all in Armes,
All plum'd like Estridges, that with the Winde
Bayted like Eagles, hauing lately bath'd,
Glittering in Golden Coates, like Images,
As full of spirit as the Moneth of May,
And gorgeous as the Sunne at Mid-summer,
Wanton as youthfull Goates, wilde as young Bulls.
(1H4 4.1.97–104)
some editors (e.g. Wells and Taylor 1988: 474) indicate that a line is missing after Winde. But Vernon is replying to
Hotspur's question as to where Prince Henry and his madcap followers are. In such responses a nominal style is
perfectly understandable, because one can assume that ‘I saw them’ is presupposed as part of his answer, although
not expressed. Examples of nominal style are common in responses.
Even within a long sentence there are clauses with no finite verb, although the relationship of these to others may
be punctuated today to suggest they have a verb somewhere in the sentence. In 2 Henry IV there is a series of
when … then clauses, but some then clauses, although quite lengthy, contain no finite verb:
< previous page
page_266
next page >
< previous page
page_267
next page >
Page 267
And then, that Henry Bullingbrooke and hee
Being mounted, and both rowsed in their Seates,
Their neighing Coursers daring of the Spurre,
Their armed Staues in charge, their Beauers downe,
Their eyes of fire, sparkling through sights of Steele,
And the lowd Trumpet blowing them together:
(4.1.115–20)
The next line commences with a further Then, then, introducing another clause parallel to this one. The result is
highly descriptive and static.
7.6 Unusual structures
In this section I focus on a few cases where Shakespeare has created structures which are unusual or seem
unnatural. These may at times make an analysis of the grammar cumbersome, but extreme examples are not
chosen in what follows. It is possible to relate some of the examples to rhetorical features, but this should not be
emphasised. Regular word order could be disrupted as part of the general rhetorical concept of hyperbaton: Ioues
Lightning, the precursers O'th dreadfull Thunder-claps more momentarie And sight out-running were not; (Tem
1.2.202–4, where were not might more comfortably be placed after Thunder-claps), before they [for thy] heere
approach (Mac 4.3.134, where one might have expected something equivalent to ‘thy arrival here’, cf. 3.3.3.1
(f)). The natural order of events may be disturbed, though that is a matter more of sense than of structure: the
Egyptian Admirall, With all their sixty flye, and turne the Rudder: (AC 3.10.2–3, where the movement of the rudder
would normally precede the flight). Through hypallage it is frequent for a modifier to be placed before another word
than that to which it rightfully refers and the effects of this can be striking: with his stealthy pace, With Tarquins
rauishing sides, [? strides] (Mac 2.1.54–5, where rauishing properly refers to Tarquin), Forgiue my fearfull sayles,
(AC 3.11.55, where it is Cleopatra who was frightened rather than the sails). The use of brackets also fell under the
general concept of hyperbaton, since it disrupts the normal order of an utterance, and this occurs frequently in the
later plays for they are more adventurous in their use of structure to represent emotional turmoil. A good
< previous page
page_267
next page >
< previous page
page_268
next page >
Page 268
example occurs in Cymbeline when Giacomo is recounting how he deceived Imogen and Posthumus:
Vpon a time, vnhappy was the clocke
That strooke the houre: it was in Rome, accurst
The Mansion where: ‘twas at a Feast, oh would
Our Viands had bin poyson'd (or at least
Those which I heau'd to head:) the good Posthumus,
(What should I say? he was too good to be
Where ill men were, and was the best of all
Among'st the rar'st of good ones) sitting sadly,
Hearing vs praise our Loues of Italy
For Beauty, that made barren the swell'd boast
Of him that best could speake: for Feature, laming
The Shrine of Venus, or straight-pight Minerua,
Postures, beyond breefe Nature.
(Cym 5.6.153–65)
In this speech Giacomo interrupts his account with various expressions of regret and shame, some of which are in
brackets and some not. These interruptions may make it difficult to follow the thread of what is being said.
Some mixing of constructions, especially in comparatives, may be intended as examples of the rhetorical figure
Graecismus: hee hath simply the best wit of any handy-craft man in Athens. (MN 4.2.9–10, which mixes ‘better than
any craftsman’ with ‘the best of all craftsmen’); I doe not like the Tower, of any place: (R3 3.1.68, which mixes ‘I
dislike the Tower more than any place’ with ‘I dislike the Tower most of all places’).
Faulty syntax suggested through F's punctuation may be examples of amphibology. When Cassio asks Dost thou
heare me, mine honest Friend?, the Clown replies No, I heare not your honest Friend: I heare you. (Oth 3.1.21–2),
where the Clown presumably understands Cassio's me as an ethic dative. Quince, when presenting the play of the
artisans in A Midsummer Night's Dream, confuses the syntax in this way:
If we offend, it is with our good will.
That you should thinke, we come not to offend,
But with good will. To shew our simple skill,
That is the true beginning of our end.
(5.1.108–11)
< previous page
page_268
next page >
< previous page
page_269
next page >
Page 269
Presumably Quince was reading from a scroll and he misread the punctuation marks. There should be commas
rather than full-stops after both instances of good will, and a full-stop rather than a comma after offend in line
109. The noble audience realised what is going on, for Theseus says: This fellow doth not stand vpon points., to
which Lysander responds: He hath rid his Prologue, like a rough Colt: he knowes not the stop. (5.1.118–20). The
misplacing of a word, known as cacosyntheton, can be interpreted as such in the language of lower-class characters,
especially those given to bombast, as My name is Pistol call'd. (H5 4.1.63). However, this possible rhetorical
arrangement may be difficult to detect in modern editions since some examples of a potential misplacing are
emended. The following is an interesting case. For the final words of Act 1, Scene 3 of As You Like It Celia says in F:
now goe in we content To libertie, and not to banishment. (136–7). Many modern editions rearrange the word order
to go we in content, but F's order may be designed to bring we and content side by side to emphasise the point
made.
There are instances when the construction of a sentence changes so that there is a fresh start to the way the
thought is expressed:
Does it not, thinkst thee, stand me now vpon
He that hath kil'd my King, and whor'd my Mother,
Popt in betweene th'election and my hopes,
Throwne out his Angle for my proper life,
And with such coozenage; is't not perfect conscience,
To quit him with this arme?
(Ham 5.2.64–9)
The sentence starts with Does it not, but then changes midway to is't not. A rather different form of a change in
structure is found in another passage in Hamlet, which is usually emended in modern editions. When in Act 4 Scene
7 Laertes is talking about the poison he will smear his sword with he says:
I bought an Vnction of a Mountebanke
So mortall, I but dipt a knife in it,
Where it drawes blood, no Cataplasme so rare,
Collected from all Simples that haue Vertue
Vnder the Moone, can saue the thing from death,
That is but scratcht withall:
(Ham 4.7.114–19)
< previous page
page_269
next page >
< previous page
page_270
next page >
Page 270
In this case the problem is created by a change in overall sense as well as in structure. Laertes talks first about his
own experience in using the poison before emphasising its general qualities. His I but dipt a knife in it means ‘If I
only dipped my knife in the poison and presumably he intends to say death followed immediately. But he changes
what he is saying to the poison's universal character (possibly to hide the fact that he has killed with the poison) so
that the structure of the sentence changes as well; the condition expressed in I but dipt a knife in it has no
grammatical conclusion. Such changes of structure are common in the plays and suggest speakers who are
formulating their thoughts and get lost in the grammatical construction.
Various figures of repetition distort normal word order in a sentence. Thus the wish to repeat and emphasise like him
leads to like him you spake, like him you are, (Per sc.22.52–3), a structure which seems somewhat unnatural today.
Repetition could involve inversion in the figure antimetabole and this is found in witty exchanges. When in Richard
III Stanley says Richmond is on the Seas., Richard replies There let him sinke, and be the Seas on him, (4.4.393–4),
where is on the Seas becomes be the Seas on him, a somewhat strained expression for drowning. The Player King's
Greefe ioyes, Ioy greeues on slender accident. (Ham 3.2.190) in F may well be a compositor's emendation of the
quarto reading, for Q2 has Greefe ioy, ioy griefes, on slender accedent, (not in Q1). Perhaps the reading in Q2
should be Greefes ioy, ioy griefes to make the antimetabole regular and to explain why it has the spelling griefes
with its <f> for the verb. The figure polyptoton which requires the repetition of a word in a cognate form may lead
to some less than happy utterances, like Romeo's O single sol'd ieast, Soly singular for the singlenesse. (RJ 2.3.62).
These are merely a few examples of how rhetoric might lead to difficulties of interpretation of the grammar.
< previous page
page_270
next page >
< previous page
page_271
next page >
Page 271
8
Discourse and Register
The previous chapters are concerned with Shakespeare's grammar, largely irrespective of the fact that the texts
which mostly provide the data are dramas. This and the next chapter are devoted to an analysis of the dramatic
features of the language: what aspects of the language make it more suitable for the interaction of characters in a
play? This chapter will consider individual features of language such as forms of address (8.1), the stages of and
language for conversational strategies (8.2), discourse or pragmatic markers (8.3), different registers appropriate for
individual characters and for different situations (8.4). The next chapter will consider how the different elements are
combined with the context and discourse structure to provide a coherent pattern for dialogue in relation to the status
of the characters on stage.
8.1 Forms of address
In any dramatic text, and even in narrative poems like Rape of Lucrece and Venus and Adonis, there will be many
forms of address. In the plays these are necessary so that an audience understands who the characters are on the
stage, and in Shakespeare, where disguise is often employed, the use of forms of address at different stages of the
play is equally important. Forms of address also reflect differences in status, for equals may well use more familiar
terms of address, whereas those with lower status will be careful how they address those of higher rank.
Nevertheless, there are problems associated with the interpretation of forms of address. Although they may be
divided into separate categories like titles for particular classes of people, kin titles and titles expressing an emotional
attitude to the addressee, such categories are not watertight. Brother may be used both for
< previous page
page_271
next page >
< previous page
page_272
next page >
Page 272
a natural brother, for a priest, or as a mark of equality as when Philip of France addresses King John as Brother of
England, (KJ 2.1.548), and uncle may be used as a kin title or as a mark of familiarity as when the Fool addresses
Lear as Nunckle? (KL 1.4.104). The same person can be addressed or referred to with different terms in quick
succession as when Marcus sees the ravaged Lavinia and says: Who is this, my Neece that flies away so fast? Cosen
a word, (TA 2.4.11–12). The plays are situated in many countries and at different times. Shakespeare may employ
titles which seem appropriate to the particular country, such as Dolphin? for the French heir to the throne (1H6
1.3.25), or period of the play's action such as Emperour, (AC 2.7.99) for Antony, although he was only a triumvir.
Sometimes his use of titles is anachronistic as when Troilus is addressed as Prince Troylus? (TC 1.1.105) to signal he
is the son of King Priam. There are differences between the singular and plural forms of a title, for gentlemen has a
wider range of reference than gentleman. Some titles are used inappropriately by some characters for Pistol refers to
Fluellen as great Duke (H5 3.2.23), just before calling him Good Bawcock (H5 3.2.25). Although in this case the
inappropriateness is clear enough, other examples may be less easy to interpret. Furthermore, it is difficult to decide
what the significance of some terms is, for their use changes over time and from one play to the next. It is also true
that forms of address are not always identical in Q and F, which suggests some flexibility in their use.
8.1.1 Social stratification was more rigid in Shakespeare's time than today, and there are numerous examples where
the importance of forms of address is stressed. When Shallow for the first time encounters Pistol, who is using his
normal vulgar language, he addresses him as Honest Gentleman, but then acknowledges that he may have made a
mistake for he qualifies this by I know not your breeding. (2H4 5.3.108). When Jack Cade, a commoner, leads his
rebellion and learns that Sir Humphrey Stafford is coming to attack him, he recognises their disparity in social
standing and to correct this he says To equall him I will make my selfe a knight presently; (2H6 4.2.118), and then
proceeds to knight himself. Later he adds And now henceforward it shall be Treason for any, That calles me other
then Lord Mortimer. (2H6 4.6.5–6). That certain titles were appropriate to particular classes is indicated
< previous page
page_272
next page >
< previous page
page_273
next page >
Page 273
by Pandarus, who objects to the servant who uses Grace to him: Grace, not so friend, honor and Lordship are my
title: (TC 3.1.16–17). A change of status involves an adjustment to the appropriate form of address. When Edward V
succeeds to the throne on the death of his father, his brother's first speech, in answer to the new king's enquiry as
to how he is, starts: Well, my deare Lord, so must I call you now. (R3 3.1.97, Q dread). Richard II and Bolingbroke
exchange titles when the latter usurps the throne, and Richard angrily interrupts the Earl of Northumberland, who
begins a speech to him with My Lord. (R2 4.1.243), by saying No Lord of thine, … I haue no Name, no Title; (R2
4.1.244–5). The supernatural can cause particular problems, as Hamlet discovers when he meets his father's ghost.
He does not know how to address him, since the supernatural is usually addressed dismissively with thou/thee forms
(Yonglin 1991):
Be thy euents wicked or charitable,
Thou com'st in such a questionable shape
That I will speake to thee. Ile call thee Hamlet,
King, Father, Royall Dane:
(Ham 1.4.23–6)
Hamlet is looking for the right way to address his father and goes through various possibilities in an ascending order
of politeness. He uses thee forms to his father, which is appropriate in addressing the supernatural, but not for a son
addressing his father. For a son to call his father by his Christian name is unacceptable in that it shows lack of
respect; the title King with no honorific modifier is abrupt and rude; Father is a more appropriate usage for a son
and suggests familiarity; and finally Royall Dane accepts the status and dignity of the father's former position,
though Hamlet does not use any of the forms of address like my lord which are most neutral and appropriate. Royal
is often used as an honorific modifier in addressing kings, but an ethnic name like Dane is rare, for kings or queens
symbolise their country and so may be called by its name, as Cleopatra is called Egypt (AC 1.5.42). A child might
address a father more intimately when the father cannot hear, as for example when asleep. Thus Cordelia can
address Lear as O my deere Father, (KL 4.6.23) when he is asleep, but reverts to my Royall Lord? and your Maiesty?
(KL 4.6.37), Sir, (KL 4.6.50) and your Highnesse (KL 4.6.75) when he wakes up.
< previous page
page_273
next page >
< previous page
page_274
next page >
Page 274
8.1.2 From a social perspective there are various categories into which people could be divided. At the top are the
king or equivalent and members of the royal family, who need to be addressed with deference by all, either with a
general title such as sir, my lord, my liege or madam, or more formally either with your highness, your majesty or
with their specific title such as king, queen, prince, princess, emperor or empress, or where appropriate dauphin,
accompanied by some honorific modifier. Members of the higher aristocracy, who may in some cases be the ruler of
their country, like the Duke in Measure for Measure, can be addressed with the same general titles as the royal
family, or with more honorific general titles like your lordship or your ladyship or referred to as his Nobility. (1H4
1.3.44), the first two of which may be accompanied by the titles they have, or by their titles such as duke, thane (in
Macbeth) or count (in Romeo and Juliet and other plays with a continental setting). They for their part can address
those lower in the social hierarchy by such titles as boy, fellow or sirrah. Then there are the younger sons of nobles,
lesser gentry and members of the professions or occupational classes, who may be addressed with a general title
like my lord or master or with their title with or without name: Sir John, Sir Toby, Sir Oliver Martext. At the bottom
are the commoners, including labourers, artisans, common soldiers, pimps and prostitutes, who may be addressed
by their Christian name or some indeterminate name, surname, nickname or whatever and in some cases with their
name and trade: Robin Starueling the Taylor. (MN 1.2.54). The distinction in the use of master is exemplified in the
exchange between Lancelot and his father, Old Gobbo. Gobbo who is half-blind does not recognise his son who
pretends he is now a person of greater social status. Lancelot asks his father Talke you of yong Master Launcelet,
(MV 2.2.44), but his father rejects the implication of status with No Maister sir, but a poore mans sonne, (MV
2.2.47).
These social divisions are intertwined with family relationships, with names such as brother, cos, cousin or father,
with community roles with names such as child, friend, goodwife, husband or neighbour, with descriptive names
such as fair maiden or sweet saint, or with familiar nicknames or Christian names. They can also be overturned
through anger or hatred. Richard Duke of Gloucester and George Duke of Clarence address each other in Richard III
Act 1 Scene 1 as Brother, my Lord, Clarence, or Richard; Queen Elizabeth addresses Richard of Gloucester as
Brother of Glouster, (R3 1.3.62),
< previous page
page_274
next page >
< previous page
page_275
next page >
Page 275
Brother Gloster (R3 1.3.74), but as My Lord (R3 1.3.88) or My Lord of Glouster, (R3 1.3.103) when she is angry.
Richard can address Lord Brackenbury as Knaue, (R3 1.1.103) when he is angry or pretends to be. Lady Anne,
whose husband and father were killed by Richard of Gloucester, can call him Foule Diuell, (R3 1.2.50), Villaine, (R3
1.2.70), Homicide, (R3 1.2.125), and Dissembler, (R3 1.2.172); and Richard can call the gentleman who intervenes
between himself and the burial procession Vnmanner'd Dogge, (R3 1.2.39) and Begger (R3 1.2.42). Some forms of
address are general, crossing several social boundaries, whereas others have attracted specific connotations. Sir is a
universal form of address, which can be applied to people in most social ranks. It is used by a person like Costard in
Love's Labour's Lost almost as a discourse marker, for he repeats it so frequently (Fuami 1997: 6). Friend appears to
have been generalised and is used in circumstances where friendship is hardly in question. Antony can address the
crowd at Caesar's funeral as Friends, Romans, Countrymen, (JC 3.2.74) and Menenius can address the same sort of
people as Masters, my good Friends, mine honest Neighbours, (Cor 1.1.60, where the use of Masters may also be
seen as flattering). Damsel in ShE usually has a derogatory sense: Damsell, Ile haue a bowt with you againe, (1H6
3.5.16, said by Talbot to Joan of Arc in scorn, whom he has just addressed in the speech as Foule Fiend of France,
and Hag of all despight,). Although these forms of address form the backbone of the system, they can be modified
by dramatic or discourse considerations.
8.1.3 Generally speaking insulting, derogatory and familiar forms of address are short, usually a single
word. Insulting ones include: cur, dog, miscreant, villain, and even homicide and woolsack, though naturally they
can be either modified or qualified, as the example from 1 Henry VI quoted above (8.1.2) shows, and familiar ones
include boy, lad, wag or a single name such as Hal (for the Prince of Wales), though they can be modified by short
monosyllabic adjectives: sweet wag, mad wag. Familiar forms of personal names may be abbreviated: Meg (for
Margaret), Nan (for Anne) and Ned (for Edward). Christian names of important people may be used by those who
were familiar with them, though they were usually qualified by some honorific adjective: vertuous Henry, (1H6
3.1.79, by the Mayor of London), Princely Henry, (1H6 4.1.18, by Talbot), (sweet Henry) (1H6 4.1.81, by Somerset).
It may be for
< previous page
page_275
next page >
< previous page
page_276
next page >
Page 276
this reason that some status words and personal names when used alone, such as king or Douglas, seem impolite.
In Merry Wives Shallow is angry with Falstaff and says: Knight, you haue beaten my men, (MW 1.1.104). Personal
names of individuals are informal and usually indicate a shared sense of identity, as among the lower-class
characters and Prince Henry in 1 Henry IV, where the Prince of Wales allows himself to be called Hal. When a switch
is made from a more polite to a more informal name, this can suggest anger or contempt. When Henry IV addresses
the Earl of Northumberland's son, Hotspur, whom Blunt had referred to as Harry Percie (1H4 1.3.70, Q has Lord
Harry Percie), as Percy, (1H4 1.3.112) and then goes on to call him Sirrah, (1H4 1.3.116), another demeaning term
of address, there can be little doubt that this is meant to show lack of esteem by the king. It is rare for a deferential
form of address in ShE to contain more than a single modifier; one expects forms like my gracious lord, royal Lear or
honoured sir. But a string of qualifiers was appropriate for noble people if they contained the titles which the
individual had. Forms of address with a string of modifiers were common in correspondence, such as right worshipful
and my right tender mother, but in ShE they tend towards the hyper-polite or playful. Poins addresses Prince Henry
as my good sweet Hony Lord, (1H4 1.2.158), over-using the modifiers in an excess of politeness which may be a
sign that he is not familiar with their deployment. When Helen addresses Pandarus with My Lord Pandarus, hony
sweete Lord. (TC 3.1.64), however, she is using the terms in a playful manner. Pandarus responds in a similar vein
when he addresses Helen as my sweete Queene, my very, very sweete Queene? (TC 3.1.77–8). Poins is probably
out of his depth in his form of address to Prince Henry, but Helen and Pandarus can exploit the system for their own
ends. Other familiar forms of address show the same elaboration of various types: Sir Iohn Sacke and Sugar: Iacke?
(1H4 1.2.112–13), you horson round man? (1H4 2.5.140), you Starueling, you Elfe-skin, you dried Neats tongue,
Bulles-pissell, you stocke-fish: (1H4 2.5.248–9), my sweet Creature of Bombast, (1H4 2.5.330). The inclusion of you
was common in forms of address in both a complimentary and an insulting way, and sometimes modern editors
mark you off with a comma, where probably it goes with the form of address. When Falstaff is attacking the prince,
he addresses him as You Prince of Wales? (1H4 2.5.139); this is often edited as You, Prince of Wales (e.g. Wells and
Taylor 1988: 464), but perhaps it would be better to understand Prince of Wales as a type of insult which is
strengthened by you as in you horson round man? (see above) and in You Banbery Cheese. (MW 1.1.119, said
insultingly by Bardolph to Slender). Similarly You foolish Shepheard, wherefore do you follow her (AY 3.5.50), which
is normally edited You, foolish shepherd, (e.g. Wells and Taylor
< previous page
page_276
next page >
< previous page
page_277
next page >
Page 277
1988: 644), is better understood as a term of reproach and should be edited without a comma after You. It is hardly
surprising that thou is used as part of an insulting form of address: thou mountaine Forreyner: (MW 1.1.147, said as
an insult by Pistol).
It is possible that some phrases which are interpreted in modern editions as an ‘impatient exclamation’ (Brissenden
1993: 164) may actually be mock forms of address. When Rosalind says Good my complection, dost thou think (AY
3.2.190), she may be addressing her own complexion, just as later she can say speake sadde brow, and true maid.
(AY 3.2.209–10), which may be interpreted as other examples of an address to herself with sadde brow and true
maid as forms of address.
8.1.4 A consideration of a passage in depth will show how forms of address are used and may be adapted in
accordance with the developing relationship among the characters and the discourse situation. I analyse the opening
scene of King Lear, which exists in F (1623) and Q (1608), the basis of what is now often known as the History of
Lear. The following discussion and lineation reflect what is in F (KL) unless specific reference is made to Q (HL).
The scene opens with three people coming on stage, two of whom must be in the middle of a conversation in so far
as there are no opening greeting formulas or forms of address. At first the audience does not know who they are.
The third says nothing at first and may be presumed to be of a lower status than the other two, if only one of age
for he turns out to be younger than the others. The two speakers are discussing the political situation in which Lear
is referred to simply as The King (1ine 33) and they seem to be familiar and on good terms with each other. One
speaker (who turns out to be the Earl of Kent) then asks the other (the Earl of Gloucester) whether the third person
is his son, and in this question he addresses him as my Lord? (7). The other replies ambiguously as to his
relationship to the boy, who was born out of wedlock, but in this response he addresses the other per
< previous page
page_277
next page >
< previous page
page_278
next page >
Page 278
son as Sir, (8). In fact bastard sons were often considered as equivalent to younger sons in the family. In his
following two speeches Gloucester addresses Kent as Sir three times (12, 14, 18) and refers to his son as yong
Fellow (12) this Knaue (20) and the horson (22–3). At the end of the last of these responses, he then asks his
bastard son, whom he addresses as Edmond? (24), whether he is acquainted with Kent whom he describes as this
Noble Gentleman, (24). Edmund replies in the negative and addresses his father as my Lord. (25). Gloucester then
introduces him as My Lord of Kent: (26) and describes him as my Honourable Friend. (27). Edmund then says to
Kent: My seruices to your Lordship. (28), to which Kent replies without any form of address: I must loue you, and
sue to know you better. (29). Edmund then addresses Kent as Sir, (30) in his response to this civility of Kent's,
though this response is marked by a certain arrogance which is hardly deferential. The approach of the king puts an
end to this exchange.
Already one can see a pattern in the terms of address. Kent and Edmund address Gloucester as My Lord, whereas
Gloucester and Edmund address Kent as Sir, though Edmund refers to him as your Lordship which is not a form of
address as such. Gloucester addresses his son simply as Edmond and Kent uses no form of address to him. From
this section of dialogue alone, it would be possible to suggest three levels in the forms of address, with My Lord as
the most deferential, Sir as a polite, but possibly neutral, form of address, and the use of a Christian name on its
own as familiar, which may be appropriate to address equals or those who are younger in a family. The use of no
form of address at all may suggest uncertainty as to what form of address to use, for the status of a bastard son is
ambiguous. If this is so, Kent pays more deference to Gloucester, possibly because of his age and seniority, than
Gloucester shows to him, and Edmund claims to be on level terms with Kent because he does not show deference
with the title My Lord, but addresses him as Sir, as his father had done. Possibly Edmund even at this early stage is
striving to assert his right to be recognised as Gloucester's son. Gloucester addresses his son in a familiar manner,
but Kent decides not to use any form of address to Edmund.
As soon as Lear enters he addresses Gloucester as Gloster. (34), without any further title, which may be appropriate
for one higher in rank to use but also suggests familiarity or arrogance. He refers to the King of France and Duke of
Burgundy as Lords of
< previous page
page_278
next page >
< previous page
page_279
next page >
Page 279
France & Burgundy, (34). Gloucester responds deferentially with my Lord. (KL 35, my Leige. HL sc.1.36). Lear in his
next speech refers to his sons-in-law as Our son of Cornwal, And you our no lesse louing Sonne of Albany, (41–2),
and to the King of France and the Duke of Burgundy as The Princes, France & Burgundy, (45), although these are
not terms of address. He addresses his three daughters as my daughters (48) before inviting Gonerill, Our eldest
borne, (53–4) to speak first. She addresses him as Sir, (55) when she opens her effusive speech of love for her
father. Lear, addressing Regan as our second Daughter? Our deerest Regan, wife of Cornwall? (67–8), invites her to
speak. She in reply uses no form of address to her father, but she ends her speech by referring to your deere
Highnesse loue. (76). Lear then addresses Cordelia calling her our Ioy, (82), but uses no name or other form of
address. Cordelia responds with Nothing my Lord. (87). It is interesting that Goneril uses only the form of address
Sir and Regan uses no form of address at all. These two show in their terms of address lack of deference to, or
respect for, their father, and the terms they use or fail to use run counter to the expressions of love which they
make. Cordelia, however, uses my Lord to her father, although she refuses to express her love openly as her sisters
had done. Each sister addresses her father in a way which is the opposite of what she claims in the rest of her
speech: the two older sisters show their arrogance and the youngest one her respect towards their father. Lear for
his part addresses the daughters in a way which is inverse to their age: the eldest having the most formal and the
youngest the most affectionate form of address. With the two eldest daughters he uses their names, which he
qualifies by some term of endearment or status; the youngest he addresses in a way which is used by others for a
son (cf. KJ 3.4.104) or among good friends (cf. 1H6 1.6.1).
The exchange between Lear and Cordelia continues. She refers to him as your Maiesty (92), but he now uses plain
Cordelia? (94), which, if familiar, nevertheless suggests a coldness compared with his former way of addressing her.
Cordelia launches into a longer speech explaining her position with Good my Lord, (95), which she changes to my
good Lord. (105, good my Lord. HL sc.1.98) in her next speech. Even when Lear starts to get really angry, she still
retains a proper humility by addressing her father as my Lord, (107). Lear then disinherits her referring to her as
thou my sometime Daughter. (120, where again no comma after thou is
< previous page
page_279
next page >
< previous page
page_280
next page >
Page 280
needed). At this point Kent intervenes with Good my Liege. (120), presumably a deferential request for permission to
speak. Lear dismisses him with Peace Kent, (121) and rejects Cordelia without using any form of address. He then,
in his anger, refers to France, (126) and Burgundy, (127) like that, and he addresses his sons-in-law as Cornwall,
and Albanie, (127) who are now to divide Cordelia's inheritance between them. Kent intervenes again with Royall
Lear, (139), which he qualifies by the expressions of love and service he has shown him. Lear tries to silence him.
But Kent continues now in an angrier vein which embraces rudeness, as he himself recognises with his be Kent
vnmannerly, When Lear is mad, (145–6). To refer to his king by his name alone is indeed vnmannerly, for it shows
no deference. He compounds it by adding what wouldest thou do old man? (146), using not only the thou form of
the second person pronoun, but also old man as a form of address, which demotes Lear from king to old age
pensioner. By now Kent has accepted that it is time for plain speaking (To plainnesse honour's bound, 148). Lear
dismisses him with Kent, on thy life no more. (154), but he refuses to be silenced and addresses Lear both as Lear,
(158) and King (160) and continues to use the thou form, all of which may be considered lacking in deference to a
king. Lear, now beside himself with anger, calls him O Vassall! Miscreant. (161, Vassall, recreant. HL sc.1.153) and
banishes Kent without using any form of address. Kent accepts his banishment though he still addresses Lear simply
as King, (179). In his departing speech he addresses Cordelia as Maid, (181) and the assembled court as O Princes,
(185).
The King of France and the Duke of Burgundy are now ushered in by Gloucester who addresses Lear as my Noble
Lord. (187). The forms of address now used are elaborate and courtly: Lear addresses the duke as My Lord of
Burgundie, (188) and Right Noble Burgundy, (194), and the duke addresses Lear as Most Royall Maiesty, (192, HL
sc.1.183 Royall maiesty,). As soon as the duke realises Cordelia will receive no dowry, he withdraws his suit and
uses Royall Sir, (204) to Lear who responds with sir, (206). Lear then addresses France as great King, (207), who
uses no form of address to Lear in his reply. Cordelia, intervening to clarify why she has been disinherited, calls her
father your Maiesty. (223). Lear uses no form of address in his reply. France then addresses the duke with my Lord
of Burgundy, (237), who then approaches Lear with Royall King, (241), but Lear rejects any going back on
< previous page
page_280
next page >
< previous page
page_281
next page >
Page 281
his word with no form of address to either potential suitor. Cordelia rejects the duke with Peace be with Burgundie,
(247). France then claims Cordelia whom he addresses as Fairest Cordelia, (250), but addresses Lear simply as King,
(256). He dismisses his rival suitor with Not all the Dukes of watrish Burgundy, (258) and praises Cordelia as this
vnpriz'd precious Maid (259), whom he addresses as Cordelia, (260). Lear in his turn pointedly addresses the king as
France, (262) and the duke as Noble Burgundie. (266). Cordelia and her sisters exchange a few hard words with no
forms of address before France closes this dialogue with Come my faire Cordelia. (282, HL sc.1.273 faire Cordelia?).
The two older sisters then talk, where the opening speech by Goneril has the only form of address: Sister, (283).
The politest forms of address are those with either the possessive pronoun or an honorific modifier together with a
title or attribute. On the other hand, the use of no form of address at all suggests a coldness or distance which
verges on impoliteness. A single name or generalised title, such as duke or king, by itself is impolite if used by an
inferior to a superior and may be so if used by a superior to an inferior. A change in the form of address from
honorific plus name or title to name or title alone indicates a reduction in the level of politeness. However, the use
of an abbreviated form of a title alone such as Gloucester or Burgundy (rather than Earl of Gloucester/Duke of
Burgundy) may express familiarity or equality of rank provided it has not been preceded by the full title earlier in the
exchange.
One interesting form of address is that used by Cordelia and Kent when each tries to intervene to plead with Lear
that he should understand what is happening. They both use the form good my lord/liege with modifier + possessive
adjective + title rather than the more usual possessive adjective + modifier + title. There is evidence to suggest that
this form of address was the norm when a suitor was trying to ask for a hearing from, attract the sympathy of or
offer some excuse to, a superior. It is a form of address of particular deference. Although there are numerous
modifiers used in the middle slot of possessive adjective + modifier + title (including all-worthy, bounteous,
courteous, dear, dread, gentle, good, gracious, holy, honorable, honoured, kind, loving, loved, mighty, royal,
sovereign), a restricted number occur when the modifier comes first (dear, gentle, good, gracious, poor and sweet).
In at least 90 per cent of these cases good is used. In Hamlet it is used by
< previous page
page_281
next page >
< previous page
page_282
next page >
Page 282
Horatio when he excuses himself for having left Wittenberg (1.2.168), by Hamlet when he asks Polonius to make
sure the players are well looked after (Ham 2.2.525), by Ophelia when she enquires how Hamlet is (3.1.92), by
Guildenstern when he begs Hamlet to speak more appropriately (3.2.295) and when he suggests that Hamlet's
answers are discourteous (3.2.301), by Rosencrantz when he asks Hamlet what is the cause of his illness (3.2.324),
and by Horatio when he begs Hamlet to be quiet (5.1.262), by Osric when he wishes to counter what Hamlet has
said (5.2.106). There are a few examples which might need special attention. When Kent in King Lear uses this
formula, it is all he manages to say before he is interrupted by Lear, and so its precise interpretation may be
disputed, though probably it introduces what would have been a plea if he had not been interrupted. There are
three examples in Hamlet where it seems not to fit into this pattern of a petition. When, before leaving for France,
Reynaldo is receiving instructions from Polonius, he says as Polonius is saying goodbye to him Good my Lord.
(2.1.70). It is used in a similar way by Rosencrantz when Hamlet dismisses him and Guildenstern (2.2.550). Claudius
uses Thankes deere my Lord. to Polonius (3.3.35) when Polonius has just been giving him advice about the way to
treat Hamlet and explaining the further arrangements. In these three cases it may well be that this formula is used
as a parting formula by a subordinate to a superior or when a superior wishes to pay particular respect to an
inferior. Claudius when he uses it is in a troubled state of mind. However, the first two examples could be
interpreted as an attempt by an inferior to make a new request as a kind of post-parting formula (8.2.8) or open a
new line of talk with the superior, which is not taken up by the latter. The interpretation of the form of address
modifier + possessive adjective + noun as appropriate to a pre-request formula may alter the way some passages
are edited. In Troilus and Cressida when Pandarus is talking and joking with Paris and Helen, who assume that he is
trying to cover up an affair between Troilus and Cressida, Paris suggests that Pandarus means Cressida is the real
reason for the excuse he offers as to Troilus’ absence at the banquet. Pandarus says I good my Lord: why should
you say Cressida? (TC 3.1.88–9). This often appears in modern editions as Ay, good my lord. Why should you say
Cressida? (e.g. Wells and Taylor 1988: 730). But this may be to misinterpret both I and the form of address. The I
could be
< previous page
page_282
next page >
< previous page
page_283
next page >
Page 283
an interjection meaning ‘indeed’ and the form of address could be a signal of a polite request or petition. Perhaps it
should be edited with what follows: Ay, good my lord, why should you say Cressida?, meaning ‘Indeed, my good
lord, why should you mention Cressida?’. Pandarus's question may be a petition, implying that Paris should not
pursue this suggestion further.
8.1.5 Although forms of address are used to make sure the audience knows who the individuals on stage are, they
have a much wider use than that for they occur much more frequently than such a specific purpose requires. They
help to place the action of the play in time and place. More importantly they act as important keys to understanding
the relationship between characters both generally and at specific moments of high tension. They therefore
contribute to the dramatic nature of particular scenes and add emotional emphasis at important points. Nevertheless,
this usage is sometimes difficult to interpret fully for relationships are not static throughout a play, as the analysis of
the opening scene of King Lear has shown. Like most features of the language, forms of address have to be
interpreted sensitively.
8.2 Conversational strategies
Conversations follow a pattern, which is often more apparent in dramas than in everyday life (Gilbert 1997). It is
these structures which I focus on now. Different formulas may be used by different characters and in different
situations. Naturally, speeches in verse may use more formal language than that found in the more relaxed and
informal style of prose. But these formulas are important for our understanding of the action and may have a
bearing on the stage directions which editors insert into the plays.
8.2.1 A summons is used when one character, usually someone in a superior position, wishes to attract someone's
attention if they are already present or to appear before him or her, if they are not on stage. Sometimes it may not
be clear which of the two is intended. Either way the summons is the first stage in a conversation, since the person
issuing the summons wants to speak with the person
< previous page
page_283
next page >
< previous page
page_284
next page >
Page 284
being addressed or who will be addressed. The simplest summons is when the name of the person being summoned
is used alone. According to the stage direction at the start of Antony and Cleopatra Act 1 Scene 5, Cleopatra and
Charmian are both on stage, when Cleopatra says Charmian. (AC 1.5.1). Charmian answers immediately Madam. (AC
1.5.2), though whether this should have the question mark found in some modern editions (e.g. Wells and Taylor
1988: 1007) as though it means ‘What do you want?’ or whether it should be a statement as in F meaning ‘Here I
am’ is less clear. Indeed, when in The Merry Wives Caius says Iacke Rugby., who responds Sir. (MW 2.3.1–2), not
all modern editors (e.g. Wells and Taylor 1988: 494) include a question mark after this response. When someone is
being summoned to appear, the name is often accompanied by words which attract attention, such as what, ho and
so on. When Iago and Roderigo summon Brabantio who is assumed to be asleep, Roderigo starts with What hoa:
Brabantio, Siginor [sic] Brabantio, hoa., which is followed by Iago with Awake: what hoa, Brabantio: Theeues,
Theeues. (Oth 1.1.78–9). When Macbeth is surrounded in his castle of Dunsinane, he dismisses one servant and
says Seyton, I am sick at hart, When I behold: Seyton, I say, this push Will cheere me euer, or dis-eate me now.
(Mac 5.3.21–3). As Seyton enters at the end of the speech, Macbeth must be summoning Seyton though the
punctuation in F is not helpful. In each case the name Seyton, must be a call to his attendant who is off-stage, but
how much more of what he says is also addressed to the absent Seyton is less clear. Many editors take the I say, as
something addressed to Seyton, as though it expresses impatience. But it could, and perhaps should, go with what
follows so that Macbeth simply summons him by name alone. Naturally, not everyone is addressed by their name. In
some cases titles or family relationships are used, as recorded in 8.1. Often this is a call for attention, which is
immediately followed by some message, wish or instruction, and as such is hardly different from a greeting (8.2.3).
Malcolm in front of Dunsinane can say Cosins, (Mac 5.4.1), which is a general term likely to include all the nobles in
his immediate company, and he follows this immediately with I hope the dayes are neere at hand That Chambers
will be safe. (Mac 5.4.1–2). As we saw in the last section Goneril can address Regan as Sister, (KL 1.1.283), which
she follows by her assessment of their strategy. The summons can be neutral in tone, as Good day Sir. (Tim 1.1.1),
which suggests a more formal and rather distant relationship. A summons may be made through a third party as
when
< previous page
page_284
next page >
< previous page
page_285
next page >
Page 285
Lear asks Gloucester to bring the King of France and Duke of Burgundy to him: Attend the Lords of France &
Burgundy, Gloster. (KL 1.1.34).
Not every summons comes at the beginning of a scene, though if within a scene a summons usually comes at a turn
in the action, with someone leaving or entering, or within the conversation when a new topic is introduced. Not
every scene begins with a summons. In many cases the opening presupposes that the characters are already in the
middle of a conversation and so a summons would be inappropriate. Antony and Cleopatra opens with Philo saying
to Demetrius: Nay, but this dotage of our Generals Ore-flowes the measure: (AC 1.1.1–2), which is a response
rather than a summons, for Nay signals that the speaker seeks to counter or confirm what has already been said
and the deictic marker this presupposes that dotage has already figured in the conversation. Later in the play when
Lepidus says Trouble your selues no further: (AC 2.4.1), he implies that he has been in conversation with Maecenas
and Agrippa, since these words introduce a parting rather than a summons.
8.2.2 A summons will normally be followed by a response, which may be delayed as the person summoned may not
appear at once. As we have seen, Cleopatra's summons to Charmian was met with the simple response Madam. (AC
1.5.2). This may often take the form of an interrogative, though it is not always possible to distinguish a declarative
from an interrogative. Brabantio who was roused from his sleep responds to Iago and Roderigo with What is the
reason for this terrible Summons? What is the matter there? (Oth 1.1.82–3). Seyton when he appears asks Macbeth
What's your gracious pleasure? (Mac 5.3.31). Gloucester responds to Lear's request that he attend France and
Burgundy with a simple I shall, my Lord. (KL 1.1.35). Malcolm's address to his ‘cousins’ (Mac 5.4.1) is met with the
response by Menteith We doubt it nothing. (Mac 5.4.3).
8.2.3 If a person's attention has been invoked or if two people simply meet by chance, there will usually be an
exchange of greetings. In Timon of Athens, when the Poet meets the Painter and introduces the exchange with a
call to attention, this introduces an exchange of greetings and courtesies:
< previous page
page_285
next page >
< previous page
page_286
next page >
Page 286
Pain. I am glad y'are well.
Poet. I haue not seene you long, how goes the World?
Pain. It weares sir, as it growes.
Poet. I that's well knowne:
(Tim 1.1.1–3)
which leads to an enquiry as to what the Painter is doing there. When Gloucester brings France and Burgundy to
Lear, he greets Burgundy elaborately with My Lord of Burgundie, We first addresse toward you, who with this King
Hath riuald for our Daughter; (KL 1.1.188–90). Greetings may not be so elaborate as these. A common greeting is
How now, which could be either a question or a statement and which could be said by one or both parties. Pistol
greets the Host with How now mine Host?, who responds with How now Bully-Rooke: (MW 2.1.181–2, Q God blesse
you my bully rookes,). Then the Host greets Shallow with Caueleiro Iustice, I say. (MW 2.1.184), who responds I
follow, (mine Host) I follow: (MW 2.1.185) before greeting Page with Good-euen, and twenty (good Master Page.)
(MW 2.1.185–6). How now is probably a relatively informal greeting, though it may be used by high-class people,
but usually to those lower in status. Antony greets Enobarbus as he enters in F with How now Enobarbus. (AC
1.2.123; cf. Blake 1997), though in many modern editions (e.g. Bevington 1990: 90) this is edited as though it is a
summons rather than a greeting by placing Enobarbus’ entrance after these words. It is also a greeting that can be
used to oneself, as Thersites does when he comes in alone: How now Thersites? what lost in the Labyrinth of thy
furie? (TC 2.3.1–2). Greetings could be relatively neutral referring to the time of day, as we have seen, or by using
other formulas such as a word of welcome or blessing. Bardolph greets Nym with Well met Corporall Nym., who
responds Good morrow Lieutenant Bardolfe. (H5 2.1.1–2); Pistol greets Falstaff with ‘Saue you, Sir Iohn. [God saue
you sir Iohn. Q], who responds Welcome Ancient Pistol. (2H4 2.4.107–8); and Ford greets Falstaff with ‘Blesse you
sir. [God saue you sir. Q], who responds And you sir: (MW 2.2.150–1).
8.2.4 A greeting consists of, or may be followed by, the pre-liminaries to a request, sometimes called a pre-request
formula. When, after being dismissed from his position by Othello, Cassio meets Iago he greets him with In happy
time, Iago. (Oth 3.1.29), and after Iago's response he broaches his request with I haue
< previous page
page_286
next page >
< previous page
page_287
next page >
Page 287
made bold (Iago) to send in to your wife: (Oth 3.1.31–2) because he wishes to persuade her to act as an
intermediary to Desdemona. Iago then promoses to send his wife to Cassio. When in Timon of Athens the Old
Athenian wants to make a request to Timon, he says: Lord Timon, heare me speake. (Tim 1.1.112). Only when
Timon has agreed to listen does the old man broach his request that Timon should keep his servant away from his
daughter. When a superior talks to an inferior or when one equal speaks to another, the need for a pre-request
formula is less necessary. Lady Macbeth can ask one of her servants without more ado Is Banquo gone from Court?
(Mac 3.2.1) and the First Murderer can ask the newcomer But who did bid thee ioyne with vs? (Mac 3.3.1). Neither
speech is preceded by a form of address, a greeting or a pre-request formula. When in King Lear Oswald arrives at
Gloucester's house and meets the disguised Kent, he opens with a greeting and pre-request formula: Good dawning
to thee Friend, art of this house? (KL 2.2.1), which after Kent's response he follows up with his request Where may
we set our horses? (KL 2.2.3).
The master of the pre-request formula is Pandarus, who can spin it out famously. A good example is when he
wishes to broach with Paris the request that Paris should apologise for Troilus who is not going to attend the
evening's banquet. He opens his campaign in a roundabout way, exuding politeness in his greeting when Paris and
Helen enter: Faire be to you my Lord, and to all this faire company: faire desires in all faire measure fairely guide
them, especially to you faire Queene, faire thoughts be your faire pillow. (TC 3.1.43–6). It is only after a few
exchanges that he then utters a more direct pre-request formula: I haue businesse to my Lord, deere Queene: my
Lord will you vouchsafe me a word. (TC 3.1.57–8). It is only after some more exchanges between Pandarus and
Helen that he finally explains his request: my Lord he desires you, that if the King call for him at Supper, you will
make his excuse. (TC 3.1.74–5). Pandarus does not seem to realise that his over-elaborate pre-request naturally
raises suspicions as to the motives behind the request.
8.2.5 An alternative to a greeting is an announcement, usually made by a person of lesser status to one in higher
status. Gloucester had been sent to fetch France and Burgundy by Lear, and when he returns with them he
announces their presence with a simple: Heere's France and Burgundy, my Noble Lord. (KL 1.1.187). The arrival of
messengers from Rome is announced to Antony with
< previous page
page_287
next page >
< previous page
page_288
next page >
Page 288
Newes (my good Lord) from Rome. (AC 1.1.18). But announcements, like requests, may have to be prepared for.
Osric in Hamlet as part of his effusiveness prepares Hamlet for his news with Sweet Lord, if your friendship were at
leysure, I should impart a thing to you from his Maiesty. (Ham 5.2.91–2), though it takes him some time before he
can relate his message: his Maiesty bad me signifie to you, that he ha's laid a great wager on your head: Sir, this is
the matter. (Ham 5.2.102–4). Cassandra prefaces her announcement prophesying the destruction of Troy with Cry
Troyans, cry. (TC 2.2.96), which is then supplemented with Cry Troyans cry: lend me ten thousand eyes, And I will
fill them with Propheticke teares. (TC 2.2.100–1), before she finally delivers her prophecy. Although not of lower
rank, Cassandra was regarded as insane and so occupies a somewhat ambiguous status, but she was generally
looked down on.
8.2.6 After these preliminaries, conversations could develop in many different ways. When the main dialogue is at an
end, characters have to part and this event also involves patterns of behaviour, from agreement to part to the
parting itself. A parting is not so fraught with difficulty as a request or announcement, and many characters of lower
status simply stop speaking and are dismissed by their superior. The Messenger at the opening of Antony and
Cleopatra may be announced (AC 1.1.18), but he does not deliver his message and leaves without a dismissal.
When characters are of equal rank, they need to prepare for parting with a pre-parting formula. This can vary
depending on the status of those involved, but most are fairly brief. When the triumvirs have agreed that Antony will
marry Octavia, Octavius’ sister, Octavius says to Antony And do inuite you to my Sisters view, Whether straight Ile
lead you. (AC 2.2.174–5), to which Antony adds to Lepidus: Let vs Lepidus not lacke your companie. (AC 2.2.175–
6). Later in the scene Agrippa, when talking with Maecenas and Enobarbus, can say: Let vs go. Though he adds
immediately Good Enobarbus, make your selfe my guest, whilst you abide heere. (AC 2.2.249–51). Since in both
these cases the participants leave together, a final parting formula is not required. The same applies in Macbeth
where Macbeth, hearing that some messengers have arrived with news of Macduff, says Where are these
Gentlemen? Come bring me where they are. (Mac 4.1.171–2). Lower status characters can be just as abrupt though
their vocabulary may well be different. Nym
< previous page
page_288
next page >
< previous page
page_289
next page >
Page 289
can say Shall wee shogg? (H5 2.3.42), and the Host says Heere boyes, heere, heere: shall we wag? (MW 2.1.216).
But when addressing Mistress Page, Mistress Ford says will you goe, Mistris Page? (MW 2.1.146), which is more
polite than the language of the Host and Nym.
8.2.7 There are many parting formulas. Some take the form of a blessing, though these are not as common as one
might suppose: Sir Iohn, Heauen blesse you, and prosper your Affaires, (2H4 3.2.289–90); Peace be with you Sir.
(MW 3.5.53). Others may be relatively neutral and refer to the time of day, usually evening or night: Good-night
then; Caska: (JC 1.3.39), Good Night, my Noble Lord. (1H4 2.5.529), Good morrow, good my Lord. (1H4 2.5.553), A
kinde goodnight to all. (Mac 3.4.120), or express some sentiment for a safe journey or due deference: Fare you well
my Lord. (Ham 2.2.220), Farethee well, commend mee to them both: (MW 2.2.127), I commend my duty to your
Lordship. (Ham 5.2.142). Among lower status characters or when a superior speaks to an inferior, the formula may
be more abrupt: Well, be gone: (MW 3.5.52), hence: Auant. (2H4 1.2.92), away. By Iupiter, This shall not be
reuok'd. (KL 1.1.177–8).
8.2.8 The parting formula does not always lead to the withdrawal from stage of one or both of the parties
concerned, for sometimes the discussion is re-opened in what may be called a post-parting. This continuation may
arise because one of the parties feels there are some matters which still need to be discussed or because the parting
which the other side wishes to make is too abrupt or impolite. When Hamlet has seen the ghost and wishes to get
rid of the others, he says I hold it fit that we shake hands, and part:, before adding a few lines later and for mine
owne poore part, Looke you, Ile goe pray. (Ham 1.5.132–6). Horatio responds rather sharply to this with These are
but wild and hurling words, my Lord. (Ham 1.5.137) and clearly does not accept the parting formula as sufficient or
appropriate. The exchange continues for some further 60 lines, including the off-stage ghost's voice. When in
Macbeth Malcolm tests Macduff by pretending to be a man of depraved character, Macduff accepts this confession as
true and announces his departure: Fare thee well, These Euils thou repeat'st vpon thy selfe, Hath banish'd me from
Scotland. (Mac 4.3.112–14). Malcolm then discloses his stratagem and the scene continues with the two of them
planning how to overthrow Macbeth. There
< previous page
page_289
next page >
< previous page
page_290
next page >
Page 290
are times when the text is ambiguous and it is difficult to tell when a parting takes place. In Antony and Cleopatra
Caesar has a discussion with Antony's ambassador and, when that appears to be over, Caesar gives the instruction
Bring him through the Bands: (AC 3.12.25), which could be (and often is) understood as the ambassador's dismissal,
though there is no full-stop in F and the next few lines appear to carry on the same sentence. Caesar goes on to say
To try thy Eloquence, now ‘tis time, dispatch, From Anthony winne Cleopatra, (AC 3.12.26–7). This seems to be
addressed to the ambassador, although later in this speech Caesar addresses Thidias who is also being sent to
Antony. The first part of the continuation of this speech could be addressed to the ambassador, who would thus
remain in Caesar's presence, before Caesar turns to Thidias to give him his instructions (Blake 1999b). Is Caesar
using Antony's own ambassador as well as Thidias to undermine the partnership of Antony and Cleopatra, which
would be clever and possibly more successful, or does the ambassador leave after Bands, as most modern editors
assume? The frequency with which post-partings occur and the punctuation in F make the former of these
possibilities more likely.
8.3 Discourse markers
Conversation is full of small words and phrases which add emotional tone and colour to what is being said or which
reflect the speaker's own attempts to organise his or her contribution to the dialogue. These are often included in
written texts to give them a colloquial veneer. Some are characteristic of certain individuals and are employed as
part of that character's ideolect; others are used by many speakers and are part of the general conversational
resource. From a grammatical point of view, many could be classified as interjections (5.2), though others which are
phrases or even short clauses hardly fall into that category. Whereas interjections are more usually found at the
beginning of a clause or sentence, discourse markers occur in different parts of the sentence.
8.3.1.1 Two of the commonest discourse markers are why and what, whose role may not always be understood
because it is uncertain whether the word is a discourse marker or an interrogative adverb or pronoun. As questions
can express different
< previous page
page_290
next page >
< previous page
page_291
next page >
Page 291
shades of the speaker's attitude, why and what may form part of a question or express the speaker's emotional
input. As discourse markers, what indicates impatience or irritation, whereas why is conciliatory, suggesting possible
agreement or understanding, though each can be used in the same function as the other. What is frequently used in
a summons, especially when the speaker expected the prior or immediate appearance of the person summoned.
Thus Shylock can shout What Iessica, (MV 2.5.3) and repeat what Iessica? (MV 2.5.4) because she has not yet
appeared. But he then reverts to Why Iessica I say. (MV 2.5.6), which is mimicked by Lancelot Why Iessica. (MV
2.5.6). Whether such summons should have a question or an exclamation mark in modern editions is difficult to
decide, though in this scene only some examples today are provided with a question mark whereas others have an
exclamation mark. When can also be used in the same way, though it is less frequent. Brutus, having used What
Lucius, hoe? to summon Lucius, changes to When Lucius, when? awake, I say: what Lucius? for his second
summons (JC 2.1.1–5). John of Gaunt uses the same words when he is dismayed by his son's unwillingness to obey
him: When Harrie when? Obedience bids, (R2 1.1.162–3). Editors tend to keep the question mark, but the use of
when in both plays may be discourse markers expressing frustration and possibly anger. Both why and what as
illustrated above may be used with other discourse markers, and some speakers like Pandarus or Polonius may use
a number of discourse markers together. When Pandarus is getting tetchy at Cressida's devious responses to his
praise of Troilus, he bursts out with Why go to then, (TC 1.2.123, three markers punctuated in F as a single one)
before starting on his proof. Examples of what and why in questions where they do not form part of those questions
are: What? has your King married the Lady Grey? (3H6 3.3.174) and Why say, faire Queene, whence springs this
deepe despaire? (3H6 3.3.12). In neither case is it reasonable to accept that what and why form part of the
interrogatives. In the first case it expresses the French king's annoyance and amazement that Edward IV has
married Lady Grey since he was in negotiations to marry a French princess, and in the second it is the same king's
attempt to console Margaret, the wife of Henry VI. In other passages in 3 Henry VI, editors treat similar syntactic
contexts in different ways. Where F has What, shall we suffer this? lets pluck him down, (3H6 1.1.59), modern
editors keep F's comma after What and understand it to be a discourse marker
< previous page
page_291
next page >
< previous page
page_292
next page >
Page 292
expressing Westmoreland's indignation at York's behaviour. Later when the young Rutland is captured and is being
tormented by the Lancastrians, he says to Clifford I neuer did thee harme: why wilt thou slay me? (3H6 1.3.39).
Here modern editors follow F and have no punctuation after why and thus make it an interrogative adverb. But this
why could be a discourse marker expressing Rutland's dismay at the idea that they might kill such a young person as
he is. Clifford in his reply refers only to the statement in the first half of the line, which suggests that the second half
is meant to express Rutland's emotional state rather than to ask a direct question, ‘Can you really mean to kill me?’
Another example which shows editors following F and Q occurs in King Lear, when Cordelia responds to Goneril's
answer to their father with an aside: What shall Cordelia speake? Loue, and be silent. (KL 1.1.62). Presumably
editors (e.g. Wells and Taylor 1988: 945) understand this to mean ‘What shall Cordelia say (when it comes to her
turn)? Although I love him, I shall say nothing.’ This is a possible interpretation, although it may be more
appropriate to understand What as a discourse marker expressing her dismay and apprehension: ‘What [a dreadful
position I am in], must I say [something like that]? [No, I] love, but must remain silent.’, (which could be translated
as ‘O horror, do I have to speak too? No, I love but must remain silent.’) This makes the second half of the line a
more convincing rejoinder to her question in the first half (Blake 1992c). Sometimes editors ignore the punctuation in
F, as in What, lookt he frowningly? (Ham 1.2.229), where some editors (e.g. Wells and Taylor 1988: 658) read
‘What looked he? Frowningly?’ But F makes perfect sense taking What as a discourse marker ‘Indeed, did he look
displeased?’
8.3.1.2 Another common marker is well. This shows some in-teresting features (Fuami 1997: 162ff.). It can occur
both at the beginning of a speech turn or within a speech, though often at the start of a clause. Its frequency in
some plays is much higher than in colloquial PdE, where it remains a common discourse marker. In those plays by
Shakespeare which exist in bad quartos, the frequency of well in Q is higher than in F, especially when it is used at
the beginning of a speech turn. In The Merry Wives there are 43 occurrences of well in Q1, with its 1500 lines,
whereas there are only 34 in F with its 2700 lines. The missing 11 examples of well all occur at the start of speech
turns. Within a speech it may be used as a filler while the speaker thinks what to say
< previous page
page_292
next page >
< previous page
page_293
next page >
Page 293
next. Mistress Quickly ends one turn with but for you – well – goe too – (MW 1.4.149), but is interrupted by Fenton
before she can proceed. Otherwise, it may be used for emphasis and frequently precedes the first person pronoun
when the speaker wishes to assert something: Well, I wil looke further into't, (MW 2.1.222–3), Well, I will proclaime
my selfe what I am: (MW 3.5.132); it also occurs with the plural imperative: Wel, let vs see honest Mr Page: (MW
1.1.60). This is characteristic of its use initially, though when it is used at the beginning of a scene it may indicate,
among other things, that the conversation has been started off-stage or that this is the opening speech of a
character. In The Merry Wives Act 2 Scene 1, it is usually assumed that Master Ford and Pistol enter only in the
middle of the scene, although F has them on from its start. Most modern editors place the entrance of Ford and
Pistol about line 96, and Ford's first words to Pistol (for the two ladies draw back as they enter) are Well: I hope, it
be not so. (2.1.104). In Q well often occurs in several speeches by one character in a scene. In Act 1 Scene 3,
Falstaff in Q uses well four times to introduce his speech turns in succession, where F retains only a single example
(MW 1.3.27–34). It is sometimes difficult to tell whether well is a discourse marker or an adverb. In The Merry
Wives Page uses the formula I am glad to see you frequently, but in the first occurrence of this phrase F has I am
glad to see your Worships well: I thanke you for my Venison Master Shallow. (1.1.73–4). Modern editors keep well in
this position as an adverb, but it could be taken as introducing the following clause as a discourse marker. In PdE
well collocates with other discourse markers, like you know, but this is uncommon in ShE. It is most frequently
associated with forms of address in the quarto: Well sirs, (MW 1.3.27, Q Well my Laddes), many of which do not
occur in F.
Other single discourse markers include now, for in Now, Master Shallow, you'll complaine of me to the King? (MW
1.1.102–3), now has no temporal sense; and as in and there dwels one Mistris Quickly; (MW 1.2.2–3); I (i.e.
‘indeed’) in I that I doe, (MW 1.1.10); too in She beares the Purse too: (MW 1.3.61); and many others easily
recognisable as such, like la, tut and ha.
8.3.2 There are several examples in 8.3.1 of I say used as a sign of impatience when someone does not obey as
quickly as the speaker had expected. In Venus and Adonis a good example is found in what a rider says to his
horse: VVhat recketh he his riders angrie sturre, His flattering holla, or his stand, I say, (VA 283–4). It
< previous page
page_293
next page >
< previous page
page_294
next page >
Page 294
is for this reason that in Macbeth, when Macbeth summons Seyton for the second time (cf. 8.2.1), modern editors
understand I say to be part of that summons rather than to introduce the following clause: Seyton, I say, this push
Will cheere me euer, or dis-eate me now. (Mac 5.3.22–3). There are numerous variants of this phrase such as I will
say (MW 1.1.152), (as they say) (MW 1.1.162), said I well (MW 1.3.11), I haue spoke: (MW 1.3.13), and even I am
at a word: (MW 1.3.14) and How say you then, (Ham 1.5.125). If I say and similar phrases are understood to be
discourse markers, it raises the question, also characteristic of PdE, when a short clause like this is a discourse
marker and when a full clause with a possible object clause is dependent on it. Say by itself can be used as a
marker and editors often have trouble knowing how to edit it. What in F is Say, what is Horatio there? (Ham 1.1.16)
may appear in modern editions as ‘Say – what, is Horatio there? (Wells and Taylor 1988: 655), which makes Say
stand out from the rest of the sentence, whereas it might be better thought of as a marker emphasising what.
Forms with say either alone or as part of a phrase require particular care in their interpretation.
Other short clauses consisting at least of subject + verb, such as you know, I pray, you see, as I vnderstand, I
warrant you fall into the same category. Similar to these expressions are pseudo-imperative clauses like look you and
pray you. These short clauses, like many discourse markers, can occur at the beginning, middle or end of other
clauses. Gertrude assures Polonius that she will treat Hamlet sternly with Ile warrant you, feare me not. (Ham
3.4.7). When Prospero asks for his dukedom back from Antonio he says: and require My Dukedome of thee, which,
perforce I know Thou must restore. (Tem 5.1.134–6). Here there is the discourse marker perforce and the short
clause I know. This latter could be a main verb with its object clause Thou must restore., but it is probably better to
understand it as another discourse marker linked with perforce. Other examples where I know is in the middle of a
clause are more readily interpreted as discourse markers: Your Brothers death I know sits at your heart: (MM
5.1.386). A variant of this form is Apollo knows in though (Apollo knowes) ‘Tis dry enough, (TC 1.3.322–3). When
Ulysses responds to Nestor's comment if he haue lost his Argument. (TC 2.3.93–4), he says No, you see he is his
argument (TC 2.3.95), where you see should be understood as a discourse marker and appears as such in modern
editions. When Look you is used, it may be uncertain whether it is a discourse marker or not, though the
< previous page
page_294
next page >
< previous page
page_295
next page >
Page 295
former is almost always the right interpretation. When Thersites says Looke you, who comes here? (TC 2.3.67), F's
question mark suggests a question which turns Looke you, into a discourse marker. The Jeweller in Timon of Athens
can say: heere is a Water looke ye. (Tim 1.1.18), where looke ye is best taken as a discourse marker. Look you is
characteristic of Welsh speakers and is used frequently by Fluellen in Henry V and less often by Evans in The Merry
Wives. It is possible that speakers at this time distinguished between look you and look, the former being a
discourse marker and the latter an imperative. The former not only occurs in any place in a clause, but it may also
be followed by another verb, usually in the imperative, as Looke you lay home to him, (Ham 3.4.1). The latter acts
clearly as an imperative and is followed by what is to be looked on, as in Looke heere vpon this Picture, (Ham
3.4.52). Later in this scene Hamlet says to his mother who cannot see the ghost of his father: Why look you there:
looke how it steals away: (Ham 3.4.125), in which the look you is interpreted in modern editions as an imperative.
But it may be better to take it as a discourse marker supporting Why, and to take only looke as an imperative. This
would emphasise Hamlet's troubled state of mind. Examples with I pray show the same range: (That Sun, I pray
may neuer set) (H8 3.2.416), but its nature as a discourse marker may be more apparent because of the other
markers that are formed with the same verb: pray you, prethee and so on, many of which can stand alone without
an attendant clause. Pandarus can say to a servant: Friend, you, pray you a word: (TC 3.1.1) and later Helen can
say I, I, prethee now: by my troth (TC 3.1.103), using prethee with other discourse markers, probably to tease
Pandarus by imitating his style. Both look and see can appear on their own as potential discourse markers, though
their role is more ambiguous. When the Poet says see Magicke of Bounty, all these spirits thy power Hath coniur'd to
attend. (Tim 1.1.5–7) and the Painter says Looke moe. (Tim 1.1.41), both see and looke may here be discourse
markers. Many other verbs fall into this pattern of subject + verb or verb + subject, though not all can be listed
here. In This I presume will wake him. (TC 2.2.212), the clause I presume can be taken either as a discourse
marker or as a main verb with its object clause This will wake him. Bevington (1998: 202) has commas round I
presume, but Wells and Taylor (1988: 727) do not. Other short clauses are difficult to interpret. At the beginning of
As You Like It, Orlando says to Adam: and as thou saist, charged my brother on his blessing to breed mee well:
(1.1.3–4), which is one
< previous page
page_295
next page >
< previous page
page_296
next page >
Page 296
reason why commentators often suggest ‘Orlando and Adam enter in mid-conversation.’ (Brissenden 1993: 97). But
Adam, a servant, is not likely to suggest something from the will to Orlando and it could be that as thou saist is a
discourse marker which Orlando uses to drive home his complaint. He goes on to use another discourse marker (to
speak more properly) (1.1.7) to emphasise another, or rather the same, point he is making.
8.3.3 Beyond these short clauses there are somewhat longer clauses which fulfil much the same purpose as a
discourse marker. When Horatio says: For vpon my life, This Spirit dumbe to vs, will speake to him: (Ham 1.1.151–
2), his vpon my life is a marker to point what he is saying to convince the other two. Similarly, when the servant
introduces his answer to Pandarus with: That's too't indeede sir: marry sir, (TC 3.1.30), he is probably using
discourse markers to spin things out. Pandarus confirms his own statement when he says: let them take heede of
Troylus; I can tell them that too. (TC 1.2.55–6), and (for so ‘tis I must confesse) (TC 1.2.89–90); but his discourse
marker precedes the statement in I sweare to you, I thinke Hellen loues him better then Paris. (TC 1.2.103–4) That
these expressions are best interpreted as discourse markers is suggested by the large number of markers with which
Pandarus loads his conversation in this scene in which he tries to persuade Cressida of Troilus's pre-eminence. They
all are designed to show not only that Pandarus is telling the truth, but also his involvement in the seduction of
Cressida.
As we have seen, other markers, like as they say, (TC 1.2.203), work to the same end, though the truth of the
assertion is referred more to others’ report. Pandarus uses quoth hee, (TC 1.2.157, 160) and Quoth shee, (TC
1.2.153) as well. The first, in the form quoth'a, had become almost a catchword at this time: The humour of it
(quoth'a?) heere's a fellow frights English out of his wits. (MW 2.1.130–1). Note also:
Cham. At hand quoth Pick-purse.
Gad. That's euen as faire, as at hand quoth the Chamberlaine:
(1H4 2.1.48–50)
A similar expression, still found in PdE, is as it were: A most incomparable man, breath'd as it were, To an
vntyreable and continuate goodnesse: (Tim 1.1.10–11).
< previous page
page_296
next page >
< previous page
page_297
next page >
Page 297
It is not surprising that plays like The Merry Wives with their colloquialisms contain a host of markers, often in
tandem: Shallow can say he hath wrong'd me, indeed he hath, at a word he hath: beleeue me, (1.1.98–9). Other
examples include: as iust as you will desire, (1.1.45–6), by yea, and no (1.1.80), as much as though I did. (1.1.260–
1).
8.3.4 A number of discourse markers are formed from the imperatives of certain verbs, the most prominent of which
are come and go. Expressions with go often express (mock) surprise or annoyance: Go too, go too: You haue
knowne what you should not. (Mac 5.1.44–5), Goe too, goe too. How she holds vp the Neb? the Byll to him? (WT
1.2.183–4), Go thy waies, I begin to bee a wearie of thee, (AW 4.5.56), I, goe your waies, goe your waies: I knew
what you would proue, (AY 4.1.172–3), go by S. Ieronimie, (TS Ind.1.7). Those with come usually express some
sense of urgency or, alternatively with longer phrases, resignation: Come, come away, (H5 4.2.62), Come, come,
giue me your hand. (H8 5.1.95), Come, you and I must walke a turne together: (H8 5.1.93), Before you can say
come, and goe, (Tem 4.1.44), Well, come what will, Ile tarry at home. (1H4 1.2.143).
8.3.5 Many discourse markers are exclamations which have little referential meaning, especially those which consist
of a single word. Most of them express some emotional stance on the part of the speaker to what is happening,
though it is often difficult to decide what the precise tone is. They express regret or surprise: alas, alas the day, out
alas, well-a-day; disdain or contempt: fie, pish, and tilly-vally; resignation: heigh-ho; impatience: tut; general
agreement or encouragement: ha, la, lo, via; and emotions of uncertain tenor: oh, ah. There are other discourse
markers with an original referential meaning, but that meaning has been lost through corruption of the original form
of the word, such as oaths whose original meaning has been smoothed over to avoid blasphemy. The more extreme
ones, such as Zounds (God's wounds), sblood (God's blood) are used mainly by male characters, but others such as
Jesu, Lord and Marry (for Mary) are used even by female characters, servants and rustics. Many express surprise or
annoyance. Anger may also be expressed through these or through others which refer to less agreeable features like
the devil, plague or pox. Those asseverations which rely on some virtues associated with Christianity and are
introduced by a preposition with or without the possessive adjective my are more frequently used by women than
men: by my troth, by my faith, forsooth and i'faith.
< previous page
page_297
next page >
< previous page
page_298
next page >
Page 298
It is this type of oath that Hotspur objected to his wife using (1H4 3.1.243–52). Other asseverations used by all
speakers include reference to some attribute of importance to the speaker and bolster the veracity of what is said:
by the fair hand of my lady, by these gloves, on my word and upon my life.
8.3.6 As indicated sporadically in the foregoing sections, there may be some gender distinctions in the use of
discourse markers: males often use more forceful, or what were considered more forceful, markers (Fuami 1997).
Hotspur's disparaging remarks about women of a certain class using effete markers was referred to in 8.3.5. It is
true that in ShE discourse markers like I say, ‘sblood and what a plague are found more usually on the lips of men,
though it is uncertain how far Shakespeare's usage is typical of his time. The imperative do, or in the form do but,
occurs in Henry V and may be an acceptable masculine discourse marker. Whereas I say is considered forceful and
masculine, other markers like I protest and I tell are more neutral both in tone and gender usage, and are used by
both sexes. Women characters tend to use less assertive markers like truly and in good sooth, though there are
some women who indulge in more forceful markers. It is possible that Shakespeare may be hinting at male
characters who are less assertive through the use of markers which are less masculine. In The Merry Wives Slender
and Shallow both use markers which are otherwise more common among the female characters: Slender uses truly
and la often, and Shallow has a liking for truly, indeed and la.
8.3.7 Discourse markers are much more frequent in the prose passages of the comic scenes than in the more
elaborate verse. In much of the prose the discourse markers come in twos and threes, for much of the dialogue has
little information to convey other than the attitude of the speakers to one another. Mistress Quickly uses many of
them. Thus in a short section of her dialogue with Fenton in The Merry Wives of Windsor 1.4.128–49 she uses
numerous examples: I troa?, I pray you, In truth, and, I can tell you that by the way, I praise heauen for it, Troth,
Ile be sworne on a booke, Wel, thereby hangs a tale, good faith, (I detest [i.e. protest]), (indeed), well and goe too.
These occur both at the beginning and end of her utterances and are part of the way her effusive style is produced.
But discourse markers do appear in verse passages where they help to point the speech and bring across the emo
< previous page
page_298
next page >
< previous page
page_299
next page >
Page 299
tional standpoint of the speaker. Consider this speech by Miranda in The Tempest:
If by your Art (my deerest father) you haue
Put the wild waters in this Rore; alay them:
The skye it seemes would powre down stinking pitch,
But that the Sea, mounting to th'welkins cheeke,
Dashes the fire out. Oh! I haue suffered
With those that I saw suffer: A braue vessell
(Who had no doubt some noble creature in her)
Dash'd all to peeces: O the cry did knocke
Against my very heart: poore soules, they perish'd.
(1.2.1–9)
In this speech the discourse markers include it seemes, Oh!, no doubt, O, and perhaps poore soules. They occur
individually at strategic places in the speech so that they do not overwhelm the reader/listener with their force, but
they keep Miranda's anguish at the event very much to the forefront of our minds. They are lower key than those
used by Mistress Quickly. It is also the case that most of these discourse markers occur at or near the beginning of
the clauses to which they refer, unlike the markers used by Mistress Quickly, and this positioning is more
characteristic of verse than prose. Even some variant grammatical forms like did in did knocke may be used as
features of discourse to heighten the pathos of the passage.
It is possible that the frequency of discourse markers could be taken into account when editors decide whether a
speech should be in prose or verse. When Macbeth speaks to the two murderers he has recruited to murder Banquo
and Fleance, his first two speeches to them appear in F as verse. Most editors follow Rowe's arrangement of these
verse lines, but in Brooke's edition (1990: 145) they are printed as prose. He argues that the ‘passage is effectively
prose, in strong contrast to the verse before it (despite a number of iambic feet);’ (1990: 222). But the speeches do
contain a few discourse markers and these occur at the beginning of their clauses, and so at least from this point of
view the lines might be considered verse.
Some unexpected characters use discourse markers frequently. For example, Rosalind in As You Like It uses them
more than other characters in that play. This may be because, having adopted
< previous page
page_299
next page >
< previous page
page_300
next page >
Page 300
a disguise as a man, she uses discourse markers as part of her adoption of male attitudes and speech patterns.
However, the use of markers by characters in disguise has not been investigated, and even the question of how far
some markers in ShE may be gender specific has hardly been researched.
8.3.8 In different parts of this book variant forms have been noted in ShE because one or other of the variants was
not yet grammaticalised. This applies to do versus the simple present, the use of present tense as a perfect, the two
endings of the third person singular of the present indicative <-(e)s> and <-(e)th>, the different forms of the past
participle, for example writ and written, and so on. These variants may have had a discourse function, although they
could also be useful in verse where they could contribute to the metrical scheme. Because <-(e)th> was the older
ending of the third person of the present indicative, it attracted to itself a somewhat more formal and old-fashioned
feel. The <-(e)s> ending is common in prose and so it is not surprising that when Falstaff is pretending to be Prince
Henry's father and talks in King Cambyses’ vein, he should use some <-(e)th> forms: if that man should be lewdly
giuen, hee deceiues [deceiueth Q] me; (1H4 2.5.429–30). However, it is difficult to attach too much importance to
these relatively limited figures, because there may be a difference between what is found in F and Q, as is true of
the previous example.
8.4 Ideolects and registers
8.4.1 In 8.3 discourse markers that are appropriate to particular emotional states are recorded. Some characters
have certain peculiarities of linguistic usage which mark them out. These may be discourse markers or pet phrases.
The captains in Henry V speak different dialects, but each has a special set of discourse markers which enable the
audience to recognise each different speaker. Fluellen uses looke you or for looke you, as well as a plural of an
abstract noun where a singular might be expected, and Macmorris employs sayings like ish ill done and so
Chrish/God saue me and generally repeats what he says several times (H5 3.3. passim). Nym has certain pet
sayings, for he employs sayings which suggest a conclusion: there's an end., that is the
< previous page
page_300
next page >
< previous page
page_301
next page >
Page 301
rendeuous of it., there must be Conclusions,; he also uses cryptic, not to say enigmatic, semi-proverbial statements:
I say little:, I will liue so long as I may, Things must be as they may: (H5 2.1. passim); and he enjoys employing
short clauses with humour in them: the humor of it is too hot, These be good humors: (H5 3.2. passim). Touchstone
uses truly when addressing the rustic characters in As You Like It, which as it is otherwise a marker used often by
women may suggest that he is here humorously adopting a different speech for use to country folk, although he
criticises country people who have not been to court for lacking sophistication and manners.
8.4.2 In some cases characters share certain types of linguistic eccentricity, which is not specific to an individual.
Malapropism is a case in point. This usually involves the replacement of one morpheme in a Latinate word with
another one, often totally inappropriate in meaning. Malapropisms are found in the language of Mistress Quickly,
Dogberry and others. Quickly uses courageous (for outrageous), detest (for protest), erection (for direction),
infection (for affection) and speciously (for specially). But she creates her own corruption of words by replacing a
learned word with another word which sounds alike and which may already exist in the language: canary (for
quandary), fartuous (for virtuous) and honey-seed (for homicide).
Other characters use an inflated language, and although some of these may differ in detail they all have a certain
sameness about them. Pistol uses allusions to other writers and a high degree of alliteration in his bombastic
language: Shall dunghill Curres confront the Hellicons? (2H4 5.3.105), by cruell Fate, and giddie Fortunes furious
fickle Wheele, that Goddesse blind, that stands vpon the rolling restlesse Stone. (H5 3.6.26–7), though he can mix
obscene language with this pomposity. Armado in Love's Labour's Lost uses much the same type of language: GReat
Deputie, the Welkins Viceregent, and sole dominator of Nauar, my soules earths God, and bodies fostring patrone:
(LL 1.1.216–18) is how he addresses the King of Navarre in his letter. He asks Moth to release Costard with go,
tendernesse of yeares: take this Key, giue enlargement to the swaine, bring him festinatly hither: (LL 3.1.4–6). The
language of Holofernes differs only in that it contains many Latin, rather than Latinate, words:
< previous page
page_301
next page >
< previous page
page_302
next page >
Page 302
Most barbarous intimation: yet a kinde of insinuation, as it were in via, in way of explication facere: as it were
replication, or rather ostentare, to show as it were his inclination after his vndressed, vnpolished, vneducated,
vnpruned, vntrained, or rather vnlettered, or ratherest vnconfirmed fashion, to insert against my haud credo for a
Deare.
(LL 4.2.13–19)
8.4.3 It has been shown that choice of sentence structure may be characteristic of certain characters (Burton 1973:
21ff.). Thus Falstaff uses conditional clauses frequently. In 1 Henry IV, for example, a count of the total number of
conditional clauses used by Falstaff, Prince Henry and Hotspur reveals that Falstaff uses 66 per cent of them, Prince
Henry 22 per cent and Hotspur only 12 per cent. In fact there are two kinds of conditional clause. The first is when
one clause contains an optative imperative linked to an oath, promise, boast, prayer or vow, and as such what is
said is neither true nor false in so far as it relates to some future time or even to an unrealisable boast: and I haue
not Ballads made on all, and sung to filthy tunes, let a Cup of Sacke be my poyson: (1H4 2.2.43–5). The second is
more concrete in that it refers to what has happened or is supposed to have happened, and as such its accuracy
can be verified: Giue me a Cup of Sack, I am a Rogue if I drunke to day. (1H4 2.5.152). To this Prince Henry who
knows what Falstaff has consumed that day replies: O Villaine, thy Lippes are scarce wip'd, since thou drunk'st
last. (1H4 2.5.153–4). For the most part, Falstaff prefers to use the former kind of conditional which allows him to
boast and swagger without being made to seem a liar too often. Prince Henry's conditionals are more restrained,
although some refer to the future: This, in the Name of Heauen, I promise here: The which, if I performe, and doe
suruiue, I doe beseech your Maiestie, may salue The long-growne Wounds of my intemperature: (1H4 3.2.153–6).
Hotspur uses conditionals which convey extravagant promises and boasts, as befits his somewhat intemperate
nature: By heauen, he shall not haue a Scot of them: No, if a Scot would saue his Soule, he shall not. (1H4 1.3.213–
14).
In other plays Falstaff continues to use conditionals as his characteristic means of expression, which he can adapt by
using them inappropriately as a kind of non sequitur to enquiries or questions he may be asked. When the Lord
Chief Justice wishes to find out why Falstaff has acted as he did: Sir Iohn, I sent [for
< previous page
page_302
next page >
< previous page
page_303
next page >
Page 303
Q] you before your Expedition, to Shrewsburie., Falstaff ignores this enquiry by introducing a different topic: If it
please your Lordship, I heare his Maiestie is return'd with some discomfort from Wales. (2H4 1.2.103–6). He has the
knack of misinterpreting what has been said to him, as the Lord Chief Justice later remarks: I am well acquainted
with your maner of wrenching the true cause, the false way. (2H4 2.1.111–13). Analyses of characters in other plays
have revealed differences in their use of particular sentence types. It may not be surprising that in Richard II
Bolingbroke, the future Henry IV, uses far more imperatives than interrogatives, whereas the reverse is true of
Richard II, which helps to create the difference between them: the one as a man of action and the other as more
tentative and philosophical. There are more imperatives in Antony and Cleopatra than in Richard II, but many of
these are formed with let in the form of an optative imperative, which cannot be realised. These contribute to the
feeling of extravagant exaggeration we associate with Antony: Let Rome in Tyber melt, and the wide Arch Of the
raing'd Empire fall: (AC 1.1.35–6).
< previous page
page_303
next page >
< previous page
page_304
next page >
Page 304
9
Pragmatics
9.1 The co-operative principle
9.1.1 Pragmatics is closely related to discourse, the subject of the previous chapter, though its primary focus is on
language in use, especially in conversation. Much is inferred in dialogue from the context in which the speakers are
operating: the place, the relationship and status of the participants, the subject under discussion and the purpose of
the exchange. The basic features of conversation were outlined by Grice (1975 and 1981). He highlighted as the
most significant feature that all speakers in a conversation accept the co-operative principle (i.e. they co-operate to
make what is being said as clear and as meaningful as possible to all other participants). To achieve this cooperation, Grice claimed that four maxims formed the basis of conversation: namely quantity, quality, relation and
manner. Briefly, these four maxims embody the following assumptions: quantity: that a speaker should say as much,
and only as much, as is required to make his/her message clear to the other participants; quality: that a speaker
should say only what he/she believes to be true; relation: that each speaker should be relevant by contributing
meaningfully and directly to the subject under discussion; and manner: that what is said should be clear,
straightforward, succinct and well organised rather than obscure, ambiguous, long-winded and incoherent. It is
unusual for conversations to adhere to all, or sometimes any, of these maxims which represent the ideal
conversation. What is of interest is how far these maxims are observed and why speakers deviate from them.
Naturally, conversation in drama cannot match that in everyday life in every respect, because a play is designed to
be watched by an audience. The characters may have to relay information to one another which they could
reasonably be supposed to know already, but which needs to be provided for the audience so it is informed about
< previous page
page_304
next page >
< previous page
page_305
next page >
Page 305
the context of the action. Inevitably this will breach the maxim of quantity.
A further principle of conversation which has bulked large in discussions of pragmatics is that of politeness, and this
has also been extended to discussions about conversations in Shakespeare. This is discussed in 9.3.
9.1.2.1 The co-operative principle is important in editing an older text, because one needs to ascertain that what is
said makes sense within the dialogue or, if it fails to do so, why this should be. Failure to make sense could arise
either because editors have misunderstood the language and its implications or because the characters are
deliberately flouting the conversational maxims. We may begin by considering the first of these alternatives. Failure
to grasp the meaning of the language can lead to faulty punctuation or modernisation or to unnecessary
emendation. We have seen in previous chapters that there are many features of the plays which reflect the spoken
language, and indeed the spoken language in ShE was not so distinct from the written language as it was to become
from the late seventeenth century onwards. This presents a problem to modern editors because present-day
punctuation is essentially based on the standard written language and it is difficult to apply it to conversation with its
half-formed sentences, interruptions, ellipses and so on. It is important to remember that punctuation in
Shakespeare's time followed certain conventions even though those conventions, as outlined in Chapter 2, are not
identical with ours.
Consider the following example of potential modern misunderstanding in Antony and Cleopatra. At the beginning of
the play, Antony and Cleopatra are chatting when a messenger enters. In F the passage is represented like this:
Enter a Messenger.
Mes. Newes (my good Lord) from Rome.
Ant. Grates me, the summe.
Cleo. Nay hear them Anthony.
(1.1.18–20)
In most editions which modernise the language this exchange appears in this form, and I quote from Bevington's
edition (1990: 79):
< previous page
page_305
next page >
< previous page
page_306
next page >
Page 306
MESSENGER News, my good lord, from Rome.
ANTONY Grates me! The sum.
CLEOPATRA Nay, hear them, Antony.
Other recent editors have essentially the same punctuation with a heavy stop of some kind in the middle of Antony's
response to the messenger. Bevington interprets this response by Antony as ‘How irritating to be bothered by news
from Rome! Be brief about it.’ (1990: 79). Although Bevington makes no further comment, this interpretation
suggests that, although Antony is annoyed to be disturbed by news from Rome, he instructs the messenger to relay
to him the gist of the message. Neither he nor other editors explain how this response fits in with what Cleopatra
says. She orders Antony (she uses the imperative) to hear the message which has been brought from Rome.
Presumably her them is understood to refer either to the ‘news’, which is taken to be plural here although it is
usually singular, or to the fact that the messenger was actually accompanied by a number of people from
Rome. Why should Cleopatra order Antony to do something which he has, in accordance with the editors’
interpretation, just asked to be done? There is no match between these two elements of the dialogue. Their
explanations would probably have to follow one of two lines: either, because Cleopatra is wayward, she is given to
saying things which appear irrational, or she wishes Antony to hear the complete message rather than the brief
outline which he has requested from the messenger. Neither explanation is convincing and the co-operative principle
indicates another solution should be sought.
The problem resides in the interpretation of F's Grates me, the summe. The comma has been taken as a heavy stop
which divides the short speech into two independent clauses, both of which are elliptical. Although a comma can
represent a heavy stop, this is unusual in F. What is more common is for a comma to mark off the noun group
acting as subject or object, especially when it is extended or is found in a less usual position. In this sentence the
comma may be understood as marking off the subject with the summe acting as subject of Grates. The verb grate
exists in two meanings in ShE, the second of which is now obsolete. Formed from the noun grate ‘a bar, an iron
cage’, this verb from its original meaning ‘to confine within “grates” or “bars”’ came to mean ‘to hem in, imprison’.
This verb is not otherwise attested in ShE,
< previous page
page_306
next page >
< previous page
page_307
next page >
Page 307
though the noun from which it comes is. The other verb grate is still used and means ‘to harass, fret, irritate’. It is
this verb which editors feel is intended in this passage. The noun sum can have several meanings. The one which
editors have chosen ‘an abridgement, the upshot, essence’ is found elsewhere in ShE; but the word has another
meaning, namely ‘the whole number or quantity’, which is also used elsewhere in ShE as in fortie thousand Brothers
Could not (with all there quantitie of Loue) Make vp my summe. (Ham 5.1.266–8). Of the meanings available for
grate and sum, the most likely are ‘to hem in’ for the former and ‘the whole number’ for the latter. The meaning of
this line should be understood as ‘The total number of these messengers (i.e. the sum) hems me in’ (Blake 1997). It
is clear from the rest of the scene that there are other messengers who have been waiting to give Antony their
messages; this messenger represents simply the last in that line. They all signify the call of duty to Antony (that he
should attend to the business of the Roman state), although he prefers to live a life of indulgence with Cleopatra and
so is impatient with anything which reminds him of his other life. Cleopatra recognises the danger of his behaviour
and urges Antony to hear what the messengers have to say. Her them may indeed refer not to this single messenger
or his message, but to all those messengers waiting to deliver their messages. The co-operative principle is fulfilled if
the exchange is taken in this way. A messenger announces there is news from Rome. Antony complains that this
stream of messengers hems him in by reminding him of his duty; and the implication is that he will not hear this
one's message any more than those of the others. But Cleopatra by implication tells him not to be so silly and she
urges him to hear what the messengers have to say.
9.1.2.2 A different problem in editing may also be helped by a consideration of the implications of pragmatics in
relation to the portrayal of character in the plays. This is relevant to the introduction by modern editors of stage
directions which are not found in F. It is particularly significant in marking entrances and exits as well as what
speeches are claimed to be asides. A good example is provided by a slightly later passage in Antony and Cleopatra.
The opening of Act 1 Scene 3 in F (which has a different arrangement of lines from that found in modern editions) is
this:
< previous page
page_307
next page >
< previous page
page_308
next page >
Page 308
Cleo. Where is he?
Char. I did not see him since.
Cleo. See where he is,
Whose with him, what he does:
I did not send you. If you finde him sad,
Say I am dauncing: if in Myrth, report
That I am sodaine sicke. Quicke, and returne.
Char. Madam, me thinkes if you did loue him deerly,
You do not hold the method, to enforce
The like from him.
(1.3.1–8)
Modern editors not only rearrange the lines of this passage, but they also insert one or two stage directions. At the
beginning of Cleopatra's second speech, many insert the direction To Alexas; and at the end of that speech they all
insert the direction Exit Alexas. Bevington in his edition makes this comment: ‘Of the named persons present, Alexas
is the most likely to obey Cleopatra's orders, and editors have accordingly assumed, as here, that he must exit.
Conceivably an unnamed attendant or attendants are at hand as an alternative, though the opening stage direction
in F does not indicate this.’ (1990: 94). This assumption is based on the acceptance that if a person in authority
issues an order, someone will spring up and carry it out. It should also be recognised that the conversational
exchange is made somewhat ill-balanced by these stage directions. Although Cleopatra apparently makes her
opening question to all and sundry, her question is answered only by Charmian, who is of the servants the closest to
her. It would be natural to expect Cleopatra at that point to respond to Charmian rather than to address Alexas.
When Cleopatra has made her second speech, it is Charmian once again who responds. And it is these two who
continue the conversation until Antony himself turns up, apparently not brought by Alexas or anyone else. This
means that the only two people who participate in the dialogue as speaker or addressee are Cleopatra and
Charmian. This leads us back to the question whether an order given by a superior is immediately fulfilled. On
hearing Cleopatra's command Charmian responds with a statement to the effect that the order is silly and counterproductive. Parallel situations are common today. If I said to my daughter after dinner ‘Do the washing up for your
mother’, it is possible that she might respond ‘I did it at lunch’ or ‘It's not my turn.’ This would be an implicit re
< previous page
page_308
next page >
< previous page
page_309
next page >
Page 309
jection of my command, even though it could be claimed that I have the higher status within the family situation.
The same may be true of the relationship between Charmian and Cleopatra. The former is not afraid of telling the
latter when she is being silly and thus by implication refusing to do what she is ordered to. The conversation is more
coherent if we accept that Cleopatra orders Charmian to find Antony, and that Charmian for her part implicitly
rejects this instruction because she argues it is not the right way to go about holding Antony. Dramatically we are
being told something about Cleopatra's behaviour and the relationship between her and her closest female
companions, and this message is blurred if we assume that Alexas is instructed to do something and does it.
9.1.3 It is hardly surprising in the example in 9.1.2.2 that there were questions and commands, for these two types
of sentence are different from statements and exclamations, since they require a response from another person
participating in the conversation. Question and answer, like command and response, form what are known as
adjacency pairs, which are not requisite in other types of sentence. Coulthard (1985: 184) provides a list of
conditions which the speaker of a question must fulfil if he or she can expect a correct answer. These may be
represented as:
the addressee is listening;
the speaker asks the question at an appropriate time;
the addressee hears the question;
the addressee understands the question;
the addressee accepts that the speaker is a person who has the authority or the right to ask that question;
the addressee has reason to believe the speaker does not know the answer to the question;
the addressee is willing to answer the question; and
the addressee knows the answer to the question.
When in the passage in 9.1.2.2 Cleopatra asks Where is he?, she knows that those present will understand who this
he is and presumably assumes that one of them will know where Antony is. But condition 8 is not fulfilled as no one
knows where he is and so Charmian replies in the negative: I did not see him since., ‘I have not seen him in the
meantime’, which implies she does not know where he is, for the presupposition is that if she has
< previous page
page_309
next page >
< previous page
page_310
next page >
Page 310
not seen him, she cannot know where he is (though that presupposition would not always be true).
Cleopatra then issues her command that someone, presumably Charmian as I have suggested, should go and find
him. The conditions outlined as necessary for questions by Coulthard have been adapted by Rudanko (1993) to
commands or requests. The first five are identical except that ‘question’ is replaced by ‘command/request’. The last
three may be represented as:
6 the addressee would not perform the command or action without being instructed to do so;
7 the addressee is willing to perform the action embodied in the command; and
8 the addressee knows how to perform the action embodied in the command.
When Cleopatra issued her command, she had reason to believe that it would be fulfilled because she assumed the
eight conditions were present. But despite the fact that she was in a position to command Charmian to carry out her
orders, Charmian is unwilling to execute the command, and so condition 7 is not fulfilled because Charmian believes
that the order is not in the best interests of the speaker. She does not refuse directly as that would not be
appropriate for her status; she merely questions the wisdom of the command. The ensuing exchanges last until
Antony appears of his own accord and so the command is no longer appropriate for condition 8 is no longer
operative.
9.1.4 From the previous discussion it is apparent that there is another feature of conversation which needs to be
taken into account, namely presupposition. Conversational exchanges are full of presuppositions which the
participants in a conversation share. Some of these are possibly universal and others are culturally specific. If
someone shouted Fire, almost everyone who understood the language would presuppose that they should leave the
building or the vicinity immediately so that they did not burn to death. But if someone who said I have a headache
received the response There are some aspirins upstairs, not everyone would necessarily understand the
presuppositions. In England these include that aspirins cure headaches, that aspirins are normally kept in a cabinet
in the bathroom, that the bathroom in a
< previous page
page_310
next page >
< previous page
page_311
next page >
Page 311
house is normally upstairs, and that the person with the headache should go upstairs and take one of the aspirins to
get rid of the headache. The last presupposition may depend on the relation of the speaker and the addressee, for
the addressee might feel obliged to ask for permission to go upstairs to get an aspirin. Conversations could not
proceed as smoothly as they do without such presuppositions, for each contribution to a conversation would have to
fill in all the details understood from the presuppositions. Some presuppositions are more subtle than the ones just
outlined. When Charmian says to Cleopatra that her request is not a sensible one, the presupposition is that she will
not execute it, although this is not explicitly stated. In dramatic texts, the presuppositions may be rather more of
this kind, because a character may be trying to manipulate another one. Irony may often be created by the audience
being aware of presuppositions which the addressee is ignorant of.
9.1.5 There are many examples in the plays of a deliberate refusal to co-operate in a conversation. The most obvious
are those in which a clown or lower-class character deliberately misinterprets what has been said in order to create
humour; or those where characters of higher status do the same to exhibit their wit. Even with the lower-class
characters one may assume that the misunderstanding is deliberate. An example which illustrates this is the
following exchange from Troilus and Cressida:
Pan. Friend, you, pray you a word: Doe not you follow the yong Lord Paris?
Ser. I sir, when he goes before me.
Pan. You depend vpon him I meane?
Ser. Sir, I doe depend vpon the Lord.
Pan. You depend vpon a noble Gentleman: I must needes praise him.
Ser. The Lord be praised.
Pa. You know me, doe you not?
Ser. Faith sir, superficially.
Pa. Friend know me better, I am the Lord Pandarus.
Ser. I hope I shall know your honour better.
Pa. I doe desire it.
Ser. You are in the state of Grace?
(TC 3.1.1–15)
< previous page
page_311
next page >
< previous page
page_312
next page >
Page 312
While this is hardly one of Shakespeare's funnier scenes, it illustrates the point. The servant consistently
misunderstands Pandarus. When Pandarus asks if he follows (i.e. serves) Paris, the servant takes this literally by
saying he follows Paris if Paris walks in front of him. The servant then takes Lord not in the social sense of status,
but in the theological sense of the supreme being, and claims he does indeed depend upon God, who should receive
our praises. When Pandarus suggests that the servant knows who he is, he answers superficially as though he would
know him better if he were paid and in his service. Finally, the servant takes Pandarus’ expression I doe desire it. to
mean he desires to be better in a religious sense and so enquires whether Pandarus is in a state of grace. Because
the misunderstandings are not very amusing to us today, they make good examples of the way what is said can be
taken in a different way from that intended, when the presuppositions are inadvertently or deliberately
misunderstood. It is a trick which is still employed by modern comedians and others. Many of Shakespeare's puns
fall into this pattern (Mahood 1957).
More significant are those instances where a character deliberately confuses his addressee by failing to participate
co-operatively in the conversation in order to achieve a specific aim. The past-master at this strategy is Iago in
Othello, and it is his exploitation of this technique which has received considerable attention. Coulthard (1985: 188–
9) examines his contribution to the following dialogue:
Iago. Did Michael Cassio
When he [you Q1] woo'd my Lady, know of your loue?
Oth. He did, from first to last:
Why dost thou aske?
Iago. But for a satisfaction of my Thought,
No further harme.
Oth. Why of thy thought, Iago?
Iago. I did not thinke he had bin acquainted with hir.
Oth. O yes and went betweene vs very oft.
Iago. Indeed?
Oth. Indeed? I indeed. Discernd'st thou ought in that?
Is he not honest?
Iago. Honest, my Lord?
Oth. Honest? I, Honest.
< previous page
page_312
next page >
< previous page
page_313
next page >
Page 313
Iago. My Lord, for ought I know.
Oth. What do'st thou thinke?
Iago. Thinke, my Lord?
Oth. Thinke, my Lord? Alas, thou ecchos't me;
As if there were some Monster in thy thought
Too hideous to be shewne.
(Oth 3.3.96–112)
When Iago asks his first question, it is apparently an innocuous one. But the audience may well believe that Iago
already knows the answer to his question since he is otherwise so well informed about Othello and Cassio. One
might also ask whether the question is asked at the appropriate time (condition 2) and whether Iago is empowered
to ask this question (condition 5), since he assumes the position of a friend and confidant to ask it. However,
Othello does not question Iago's right to ask this question and by implication accepts that Iago has a much closer
relationship with him than Iago's rank would suggest. Indeed, a little later in the scene Othello refers to himself as
Iago's friend (3.3.147). Othello thus relinquishes some of his authority and reveals his own weakness. Othello
responds with a stronger affirmation than is perhaps required, but then questions why Iago has enquired about
Cassio's role. Here some editors may decide that this question is an afterthought (as in Coulthard 1985: 188) by
inserting three full-stops after last, or they may accept that it follows directly on from the answer. But this question
could imply that Othello is trying to regain lost ground in status or it may be that he is simply curious to know what
interest Iago has in his wooing and Cassio's possible role in that. Iago's answer breaks the maxim of quantity. It
would have been sufficient for him to say that he asked out of curiosity, but he adds No further harme. This is
elliptical and may be taken to imply ‘no additional mischief’, as though he recognises his question has injured Othello
in some way. To introduce this comment suggests that Iago believes Othello has understood Iago's original enquiry
to presuppose that Cassio should not have known of the wooing and, if he did, there must be some hidden,
unacceptable reason why Cassio was so well informed of the wooing.
Othello's next question is apparently neutral and also elliptical. But as it requests further information about what
Iago is thinking, it indicates that Othello realises there is more to what
< previous page
page_313
next page >
< previous page
page_314
next page >
Page 314
Iago is saying; Othello has not yet come to terms with what the presuppositions behind the response are. It does
not necessarily follow that Othello's suspicions have yet been aroused, though the basis for later jealousy is being
laid. Iago answers that he was not aware of Cassio's previous acquaintance with Desdemona. This is not a direct
answer to the question, since Othello had asked what Iago was thinking. He answers obliquely breaking the maxim
of relation, and he thus creates further confusion in Othello's mind. If Cassio knew of Othello's wooing, this is
unexpected information because Iago claims that he did not know Cassio knew Desdemona. Why should a man
know of the wooing, if he did not know the woman in question? Othello then responds that Cassio did know
Desdemona and often acted as intermediary between her and Othello, with the presuppositions that Cassio as a
Venetian gentleman had ready access to Desdemona and wooed her on Othello's behalf. To which Iago responds
Indeed? The question mark can be understood to indicate a question or an exclamation, though the force of each
would not be very different here. Either way this word expresses surprise and possibly anxiety. Its presupposition
may well be something like ‘Is that really the case? That is surprising.’ This begins to arouse Othello's concern,
though at first it is difficult to know whether he is angry with Iago or anxious about Cassio's relations with his wife.
He asks whether Iago sees any wrong in the role Cassio has played as go-between and adds the further question
whether Iago considers Cassio to be honest, which suggests he suspects that Iago knows more about Cassio than
he is prepared to say. Iago's response Honest, my Lord? flouts the maxim of quality, for it appears to mean ‘What
do you mean by “honest”?’, even though Iago must know what honesty is. It acts as a way of playing for time as
though he does not want to answer the question, and a deliberately clumsy attempt not to answer the question
serves merely to increase Othello's suspicions. Othello can do no more than repeat honest twice. Iago responds by
flouting the maxim of quantity, for instead of simply saying Yes, he says for ought I know., which implies ‘Yes as far
as I know’. But such a qualification implies that there may be something more to the answer than is stated. Othello
certainly thinks so for he asks directly What do'st thou thinke?, a much more abrupt formulation than his earlier Why
of thy thought, Iago? Iago responds in the
< previous page
page_314
next page >
< previous page
page_315
next page >
Page 315
same way, by simply repeating the key word in Othello's question, in this case thinke. It naturally has the effect of
increasing Othello's anger and suspicions. Othello now shows his concern openly by noting that there must be some
hidden horror which lies behind Iago's reticence which Othello wishes to bring into the open. Iago has said nothing
openly against Cassio, but by insinuation and careful answers he has aroused Othello's suspicions. Othello has begun
to think what Iago wishes him to without his having to say anything directly to Cassio's detriment. He has planted
seeds of suspicion in Othello's mind by the way he has conducted his side of the conversation.
9.1.6 Since the conditions for the utterance of a question or command were devised from spoken conversation in
PdE, there may be cases in ShE were their role is not easy to determine. Such cases may arise from the nature of
dramatic fiction and from the language of the time. A good example is provided by Lear's question to his daughters
at the beginning of King Lear (cf. Downes 1988):
Tell me my daughters
(Since now we will diuest vs both of Rule,
Interest of Territory, Cares of State)
Which of you shall we say doth loue vs most,
That we, our largest bountie may extend Where Nature doth with merit challenge.
(1.1.48–53)
This sentence is ostensibly a command Tell me, but it has within it a question Which of you … doth loue vs most,
which is grammatically here an indirect question despite its form as a direct question. The interpretation of shall we
say is also difficult and is never commented on in editions. It might best be understood as an emphatic discourse
marker (8.3), meaning little more than ‘really, truly’. The wider problem with Lear's demand is that the daughters are
asked to reveal who loves him most in order that he may divide his kingdom in accordance with their answers. But
we have already heard from Gloucester that Lear has divided his kingdom into three and that the portions destined
for the two elder daughters are of equal size. Lear himself, when
< previous page
page_315
next page >
< previous page
page_316
next page >
Page 316
he asks Cordelia to speak of her love for him, tells her that A third, more opilent then your Sisters? is earmarked for
her. The question is a charade. The speaker's conditions 6 and 7 are not fulfilled, for the addressees know that the
speaker already knows, or thinks he knows, the answer to his question and one of the addressees is unwilling to
answer the question as put by the speaker. If Lear's question is taken as a command, conditions 6, 7 and 8 would
not be operative. Cordelia as addressee would willingly perform the action demanded outside the framework of the
court scene and probably had done so many times already since Lear is so confident of her answer. Cordelia is not
willing to participate in the charade organised by Lear, and it is debatable whether her character is such that she
would know how to respond to Lear's demand in the public way he expects.
Parallels to this scene are found in PdE. A policeman who knows or thinks he knows that a suspect committed a
crime being investigated may ask the suspect to tell him or her what happened at a certain time and place. In this
situation there would be the same authority on one side and the same reluctance to oblige on the other. Both sides
are to some extent playing a game, though it is one with important consequences. Whether the conditions outlined
by Coulthard and Rudanko are relevant under these conditions is uncertain other than to confirm that the question
or command is not in fact a real one, since the appropriate conditions are not fulfilled.
9.1.7 Even with speeches which consist mainly or exclusively of statements, there may be difficulties in
understanding the way the conversation develops. This may sometimes be caused by Shakespeare himself, who may
have changed his mind or have forgotten to fill in what now remains obscure. An example which is often cited (cf.
Sprague 1980) is that from the second scene of Othello:
Iago Though in the trade of Warre I haue slaine men,
Yet do I hold it very stuffe o'th'conscience
To do no contriu'd Murder: I lacke Iniquitie
Sometime to do me seruice. Nine, or ten times
I had thought t'haue yerk'd him here vnder the Ribbes.
Othello ‘Tis better as it is.
< previous page
page_316
next page >
< previous page
page_317
next page >
Page 317
Iago. Nay but he prated,
And spoke such scuruy, and prouoking termes
Aganst your Honor, that with the little godlinesse I haue
I did full hard forbeare him.
(1.2.1–10)
The prblem is who this him (lines 5 and 10) may be. One would assume it was someone in the play as Othello
appears to know to what Iago refers by his answer ‘Tis better as it is. It could hardly be Brabantio and there is no
evidence that Othello knows Roderigo, though that would not prevent Iago from telling about him in order to build
up the image of himself as a soldier who is honest and moral. Although Iago's him is definite, Othello's answer is
sufficiently general for it to embrace a variety of different possible explanations. But whatever the answer is,
Shakespeare has not clarified it and this remains a puzzle rather than a pragmatic difficulty.
9.2 Discourse and class
It has been suggested by Howard-Hill (1996) that the pragmatics of speech acts are helpful in determining the
relation of class to discourse level in ShE. Like many others, he also has chosen his examples from Othello; but he
focuses on the relationship between Cassio and Iago. His argument is that in the first half of the play while Cassio is
Othello's officer or captain, he both is and acts like a gentleman of standing. It is only in the second half of the play,
when he has lost his position and his sense of place, that his actions and his language are lowered to the level of
that occupied by Iago, who throughout the play acts in a way which reveals his rank as that of a non-commissioned
officer. Howard-Hill suggests that this is made evident in the language which both use.
References later in the play indicate that Cassio played a significant role in the wooing of Desdemona on Othello's
behalf, but when the play opens and Cassio appears for the first time the following exchange occurs between him
and Iago:
Cassio. Aunciant, what makes he heere?
Iago. Faith, he to night hath boarded a Land Carract
< previous page
page_317
next page >
< previous page
page_318
next page >
Page 318
If it proue lawfull prize, he's made for euer.
Cassio. I do not vnderstand.
Iago. He's married.
Cassio. To who?
(1.2.49–52)
Cassio addresses Iago as Aunciant, his official title, which indicates a formal address which betrays neither
condescension nor friendliness. He enquires what Othello, the he, is doing there, although he must know that he
was getting married if he played such an important role in the wooing. He does not let his subordinate know or
suspect his involvement in this activity. Iago answers in a vulgar way by indicating that Othello hath boarded a Land
Carract. His boarded suggests piracy and a forced conquest, and Land Carract suggests an earth-bound equivalent
of a merchant-man loaded with the wealth of the Indies. Cassio claims not to know what Iago means. This may
imply either that he really does not understand or simply seeks to give the impression of not understanding this
language, or that Cassio does not understand to what Iago refers. When Iago tells him bluntly and without
equivocation that Othello is married, Cassio asks who is the bride, as if he was unaware of the person involved.
Cassio uses language designed to keep Iago at a distance; there is no apparent mutuality or sense of brothers-inarms here. Each is talking in his own way without adjusting his language to the other. When both have arrived in
Cyprus, Cassio in one ship and Iago with Desdemona and his own wife in another, Cassio greets Desdemona with
elaborate courtesy:
Oh behold,
The Riches of the Ship is come on shore:
You men of Cyprus, let her haue your knees.
Haile to thee Ladie: and the grace of Heauen,
Before, behinde thee, and on euery hand
Enwheele thee round.
(2.1.83–8)
What had been Land Carract on Iago's lips has now turned into Riches of the Ship, and the well-wishing of
Desdemona is effusive in the extreme. He then turns to greet Iago and his wife, as is only fitting. He does not
neglect the courtesies due to all:
< previous page
page_318
next page >
< previous page
page_319
next page >
Page 319
Good Ancient, you are welcome. Welcome Mistris:
Let it not gaule your patience (good Iago)
That I extend my Manners. ‘Tis my breeding,
That giues me this bold shew of Curtesie.
(2.1.99–102)
From Iago's reply it is clear that Cassio kisses Iago's wife. But he almost exults in his knowledge of proper behaviour
as a gentleman (my breeding) and calls attention to the fact that Iago does not have this sense of polite behaviour
and may not even appreciate it (gaule your patience). Cassio treats Iago with proper regard for their mutual rank
which includes a certain condescension. When Iago and Desdemona engage in some banter which takes a somewhat
vulgar and sexual turn, he informs Desdemona of Iago He speakes home (Madam) you may rellish him more in the
Souldier, then in the Scholler. (2.1.168–9). He distances Iago from polite and educated society by emphasising his
soldierly attainments rather than any social skills which might have come through instruction. Later in this scene
Iago in an aside comments on the way Cassio has behaved to Desdemona and his own wife, and all he can see in
this is a way to ensnare Cassio in his trap; he cannot appreciate the courtliness of the action. (2.1.170–81). Then in
Act 2 Scene 3 Cassio refuses to play Iago's game of using sexual innuendo in describing the possible scene in the
bedroom of the newly-wed Othello and Desdemona. They talk on different planes.
Things change as soon as Iago engineers Cassio's drunkenness, where he loses his self-control and is reduced to the
same level of politeness as Iago's. Once Cassio has been stripped of his position by Othello, he treats Iago with
more respect and fellow-feeling. In Act 3 Cassio tries to rehabilitate himself with Othello and uses Iago as a means
to this end. When Iago enters to Cassio, the latter welcomes him with In happy time, Iago. (3.1.29) – the tone has
changed. He is pleased to see Iago, greets him warmly and uses his name without more ado. In fact he uses the
name Iago frequently from now on, whereas he had used it sparingly before. He solicits Iago's help and, when it is
granted, he remarks I humbly thanke you for't. I neuer knew A Florentine more kinde, and honest. (3.1.38–9). He
uses humbly to someone who might now be considered his equal or even superior, and he adopts the common pose
of referring to Iago as honest. It is perhaps not entirely surprising that Cassio's dealings with Bianca figure
< previous page
page_319
next page >
< previous page
page_320
next page >
Page 320
in this second half of the play, for although they are essential to the plot they also show Cassio in a worse light than
hitherto. His language takes a turn for the worse as he can change from a more courtly to a coarser level of
discourse: Go too, woman: Throw your vilde gesses in the Diuels teeth, From whence you haue them. (3.4.180–2).
He is ashamed to be seen with her: I do attend heere on the Generall, And thinke it no addition nor my wish To
haue him see me woman'd. (3.4.190–2). These forms of address and expressions like Diuels teeth and woman'd are
not what we had come to expect from Cassio. The language embodies the change in his character and behaviour.
9.3 Politeness theory
9.3.1 Reference was made above to politeness theory and it is time now to consider that in relation to ShE. Basically,
the principle of politeness involves the relationship between the participants in a conversation and how they address
one another. It is suggested that each participant has both negative and positive ‘face’, the former indicating the
care that one should exercise not to injure the self-respect of the addressee and the latter highlighting that one
should try by what one says to embrace the addressee's interests by suggesting that what he wants is included in
what might be done. Essentially, that means one should do nothing to belittle the person one is talking to, either
overtly or by implication; on the contrary, one should do everything reasonable to bolster the self-esteem of the
person being addressed. Hence objections to what someone else has said should be approached in a way which
does not impinge on their negative face. Instead of saying, for example, something like ‘That's a stupid argument’,
one might say ‘I understand what you are saying, but I wonder whether you have thought of it like this.’ The
intention is to minimise the damage done to another's ‘face’. Equally, if one agrees with what someone has said, one
might emphasise the importance of the other's contribution to the discussion. Naturally, as with the co-operative
principle, this scheme represents the ideal in politeness, although that ideal is often not observed for various
reasons. These have to do with the relationship between the speakers, their social status and the topic under
discussion.
< previous page
page_320
next page >
< previous page
page_321
next page >
Page 321
It has been argued that politeness, like the co-operative principle, is a universal phenomenon (Brown and Levinson
1987). Any speech act, though particularly a directive or command, is a potential face-threatening act (FTA) for the
addressee, since it will infringe on his/her negative face, and there are various strategies which may be adopted by
the speaker. For example, when giving an order, the speaker can adopt one of the following strategies:
Give the order bluntly without any politeness features.
Give the order with positive politeness features.
Give the order with negative politeness features.
Give the order in a way which the addressee has to interpret.
Don't give the order at all.
Thus a tutor in a seminar could tell the last student who came into the seminar room ‘Shut the door’, which would
be a blunt way of issuing an order without any politeness features. But the tutor could say ‘I know you like to be
helpful, John, so would you be good enough to shut the door’ which is positive politeness, for it emphasises the
good qualities of the addressee and suggests that he will be doing something he wants to do. The tutor might
alternatively say ‘I think, John, we would be more comfortable if the door was shut’, which is a form of negative
politeness, for the command is implicit. If the tutor were to say ‘It's draughty in here’, it would suggest that the
student would have to interpret that the open door was causing the draught and that the tutor wanted it shut.
However, the tutor might not ask for the door to be shut at all and thus leave it to the students to decide whether
the door should be closed.
But these strategies are informed by what Brown and Levinson (1987) call three variables which dictate what
strategy one might adopt. These variables determine the weight (W) of politeness which the speaker will use. The
first is the social distance (D) between speaker (Sp) and addressee (Ad), that is what is the gap in status (if any)
between the speaker and the addressee. The higher the status of the speaker in relation to the addressee, the less
he/she will need to adopt strategies to minimise any FTA. In Antony and Cleoaptra Antony can say quite bluntly to a
messenger Forbeare me (1.2.114) because the distance is such that he does not need to adopt a more polite
strategy. The second is
< previous page
page_321
next page >
< previous page
page_322
next page >
Page 322
the current power relationship (P) between the addressee and the speaker. Although there may be a social distance
between two people, as in Hamlet between Hamlet and Horatio (a prince and a commoner), the power relationship
between them may be close because of their friendship arising from their both having been students at university
together. Equally, in King Lear the social status of Lear and his daughters may be the same, for they are all
members of the royal family, but the power relationship among them changes in the play when Lear divests himself
of the throne but intends to retain the appurtenances of power. Disguise can also affect the distance between
characters, as is true when in Measure for Measure the duke disguises himself as a friar, which leads to a different
power relationship between him and Lucius. The third is the risk (R) posed by the message which the speaker has to
convey to the addressee. In Antony and Cleopatra the information that news has arrived from Rome (1.1.18) poses
much less of a threat to the speaker than the news that Labienus has won victories in Parthia while Antony, who
should have been protecting the Roman empire, was enjoying himself in Egypt (1.2.92–7). These variables produce
the formula:
which means that the weight of politeness is the sum of these three variables, the social distance between speaker
and addressee, the power of the addressee in relation to the speaker, and the risk implicit in the message to be
uttered. Since it is impossible to provide precise weightings for these variables, the formula provides only a crude
estimate of the weight of politeness, but it does at least give a general guide to what level of politeness might be
expected.
Brown and Gilman (1989) provide examples of how these variables operate in ShE. In Macbeth a messenger comes
to Macduff's castle to warn Lady Macduff that Macbeth has sent men to kill her and her family while Macduff is
away. He says:
Blesse you faire Dame: I am not to you known,
Though in your state of Honor I am perfect;
I doubt some danger do's approach you neerely.
If you will take a homely mans aduice,
Be not found heere: Hence with your little ones
< previous page
page_322
next page >
< previous page
page_323
next page >
Page 323
To fright you thus. Me thinkes I am too sauage:
To do worse to you, were fell Cruelty,
Which is too nie your person.
(4.2.66–73)
The speaker opens with a greeting and a form of address, both of which are respectful, and he then goes on to
indicate the social distance between them by remarking that he is not known to her, because he is so inferior in
status, although he is well aware of her position and power. He says all this before he delivers his message which is
one of extreme urgency since it involves Lady Macduff's life. The message he has to convey is very risky because of
this. So all the variables are at the upper end of weight: the social distance and power differential are very high and
the risk involved in the message is extreme. It is so extreme that the speaker does not deliver the message bluntly.
He refers to some danger and its close approach without indicating precisely what that danger is. He suggests she
should flee the castle with her family to emphasise the danger, but he must know that this escape is difficult if not
impossible because the danger is too nie your person. The weight of politeness in this speech is at upper end of the
politeness scale.
At the other end of the politeness scale is Macbeth's order to a servant: Goe bid thy Mistresse, when my drinke is
ready, She strike vpon the Bell. (2.1.31–2). Here, there is no suggestion that the servant is someone who is known
by name in the household; he clearly does not have the same position in the castle as Seyton does later. He is just a
servant. Hence Macbeth does not use any form of address to him, because the social distance is great, but on this
occasion it is the speaker who is at the upper end of the social scale. The servant knows who his master and
mistress are, but he is not recognised as an individual and the power differential between Macbeth and the servant is
wide. The command is given bluntly and in a straightforward manner. There is no circumlocution or need to interpret
what is said. But the message which is conveyed is a perfectly ordinary domestic one which has no need to be
wrapped up in an implicit statement. The weight of politeness in this utterance is therefore at the low end of the
politeness scale: the speaker has high social rank and power in relation to the addressee and the message he wishes
to convey is without any risk to the addressee for it is part of his normal duties.
< previous page
page_323
next page >
< previous page
page_324
next page >
Page 324
9.3.2 Society in Shakespeare's day was more structured than today and importance was attached to the
maintenance of social distance and propriety (Williams 1992). This could be achieved in various ways. Forms of
address were an important way of expressing deference, respect, friendship and disrespect. As we have seen
(8.1.4), modifiers could be attached to forms of address to suggest intimacy, deference or anger. Politeness could
naturally be expressed in other ways. The second person personal pronouns can also be used to indicate the attitude
of the speaker to the addressee, with the plural being neutral and the singular indicating solidarity or contempt
(3.3.2.1.1). Strategies involving positive politeness include: noticing the admirable qualities of the addressee:
Therefore good Brutus, be prepar'd to heare: (JC 1.2.68); exaggerated sympathy: And finde I am alone felicitate In
your deere Highnesse loue. (KL 1.1.75– 6); avoidance of disagreement by using hedging devices: Labienus (this is
stiffe-newes) Hath with his Parthian Force Extended Asia: (AC 1.2.92–4); promises: Chop off his Head: Something
wee will determine: And looke when I am King, clayme thou of me The Earledome of Hereford, (R3 3.1.190–2);
assertion of mutual interest: the satisfaction I would require, is likewise your owne benefit. (MM 3.1.158–9); and
bestowing some gift: Ile giue you a pottle of burn'd sacke, to giue me recourse to him, (MW 2.1.200–1). Strategies
involving negative politeness include: indirectness in a request: Please you Sir, Do not omit the heauy offer of it: It
sildome visits sorrow, when it doth, it is a Comforter. (Tem 2.1.198–201); the assumption that the addressee might
be unwilling to fulfil a request: If you be pleas'd, retire into my Cell, (Tem 4.1.161); to minimise the nature of the
request: I shall craue your forbearance a little, (MM 4.1.22); to apologise for the inconvenience caused: Might you
dispense with your leysure, I would by and by haue some speech with you: (MM 3.1.157–8); to use a passive form
to impersonalise a request: Cassius, Be not deceiu'd: (JC 1.2.38–9); to use a general statement to gloss over what is
stated: Most true, if euer Truth were pregnant by Circumstance: (WT 5.2.30–1); and to accept that the fulfilment of
the request will impose an obligation on the speaker: Would thou hadst lesse deseru'd, That the proportion both of
thanks, and payment, Might haue beene mine: (Mac 1.4.18–20).
9.3.3 The norms of politeness are overridden by various emotional and psychological states. Anyone who is enraged
will not follow the normal principles of politeness. As we saw in 8.1.4,
< previous page
page_324
next page >
< previous page
page_325
next page >
Page 325
both Kent and Lear abandon the niceties of politeness in the opening scene of King Lear when each gets angry with
the other. Although this is particularly striking with Kent, who is a subject of the king's, it is also true of Lear himself
who as king should set an example. Madness also means that the norms of politeness are ignored, for madmen do
not follow the conventions of social behaviour, and this applies whether the madness is real or feigned, as with Lear
and Edgar in King Lear. As in PdE, the politeness principle has to be applied properly, for any exaggeration of the
norms of politeness may suggest insincerity, flattery or pomposity. Young Osric in Hamlet overdoes his terms of
politeness, partly because he has little to say and partly because he wishes to show what an exquisite courtier he is.
Hamlet does not refrain from poking fun at his language. Changes in levels of politeness may be significant in an
understanding of the motivation of a character and in assessing the tone of a scene.
< previous page
page_325
next page >
< previous page
page_326
next page >
Page 326
10
Conclusion
10.1 Shakespeare's language
Shakespeare's language needs to be approached in two ways: from the present to the past and from preShakespearian times to the Elizabethan period. What stands between us today and Shakespeare is the tradition of
grammatical correctness and acceptability which surfaced in the seventeenth century and was reinforced through
grammatical teaching in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Shakespeare was often a target for such faultfinding. Particular attention was given to such constructions as the double negative, the double comparative and the
lack of concord. Dryden was among the first to criticise Elizabethan writers for their poor grammar. In his Defence of
the Epilogue or An Essay on the Dramatic Poetry of the Last Age (?1672) he noted:
And, certainly, to observe errors is a great step to the correcting of them. But malice and partiality set apart, let any
man who understands English read diligently the works of Shakespeare and Fletcher; and I dare undertake that he
will find in every page either some solecism of speech, or some notorious flaw in sense; and yet these men are
reverenced when we are not forgiven.
(Kinsley and Parfitt 1970: 121)
Dryden goes on to point out many grammatical mistakes in Jonson's writings, and then consludes: ‘And what
correctness, after this, can be expected from Shakespeare or from Fletcher, who wanted that learning and care
which Jonson had?’ (Kinsley and Parfitt 1970: 125). Shakespeare, as we have seen, did indeed use many of these
‘mistakes’ like double comparatives (3.2.3.4) which Dryden isolated in Jonson, for they were part of the language of
his time. The most influential exposé of the grammatical
< previous page
page_326
next page >
< previous page
page_327
next page >
Page 327
mistakes of prominent authors was that by Bishop Lowth in his A Short Introduction to English Grammar: with
Critical Notes. (1762). He noted that there were two ways of inculcating good grammar: by promulgating rules and
‘by pointing out what is wrong’; and he adds ‘but the latter method here called in, as subservient to the former, may
perhaps be found in this case to be of the two the more useful and effectual manner of instruction’ (Lowth
1762/1967: x–xi). The critical notes in his book consist mainly of exposing the mistakes perpetrated by previous
literary authors, including Shakespeare. As he was writing in 1762, he had a far wider range of authors to attack so
Shakespeare does not provide him with most of the mistakes which are pilloried.
A tradition was established which looked upon Shakespeare's language as ungrammatical – and so it is if one judges
it by nineteenth-century standards, which many scholars did and do. Abbott in his grammar (1870) has a whole
section devoted to IRREGULARITIES, and the examples he gives are often implicitly criticised. He complains of a
confusion caused by proximity: ‘The following (though a not uncommon Shakespearian idiom) would be called an
unpardonable mistake in modern authors:’ (Abbott 1870: 412), and of an implied subject he comments: ‘Sometimes
a nominative [i.e. subject] has to be extracted ungrammatically from the meaning of a sentence.’ (Abbott 1870:
413). This attitude was very common in the nineteenth century and mistakes in Shakespeare could even appear in
exam questions. The Rev. Thomas Dale, the first professor of English at University College London, included the
following question in one of his exams (Palmer 1965: 22):
Derive and conjugate the irregular verb to break, and state whether there is any grammatical error in the following:
‘I have broke with her father, and his good will obtained’ – Shakespeare.
This attitude continued well into the twentieth century, where Shakespeare was often regarded as a free spirit who
could adjust the language to his own whims. Gordon (1928: 255) notes ‘Shakespeare was to do what he liked with
English grammar, and drew beauty and power from its imperfections’.
This attitude is perhaps understandable in so far as English grammar is traditionally presented within the framework
of a
< previous page
page_327
next page >
< previous page
page_328
next page >
Page 328
Latinate grammatical system. But Latin as a synthetic language has far more inflections than are found in an analytic
language like English. To force English into the mould of Latin inevitably distorts its nature and leads many to
assume that English is inherently an unsatisfactory, because an ungrammatical, language. The development of
modern linguistics in the twentieth century has gradually influenced the way we understand grammar in different
languages, and language is seen as a communicative system within which each language has developed its own
system to a greater or lesser extent. Each language has its own grammar with its own rules, though not all the rules
are universal for every language, though there are some universals. No user of a language can step outside the
bounds of the grammar of his or her language without incurring the risk of being incomprehensible. As Hirsch (1967:
47) puts it: ‘An author's verbal meaning is limited by linguistic possibilities but is determined by his actualizing and
specifying some of those possibilities’. This applies as much to Shakespeare as to any other author, whatever the
language. The development of this understanding of linguistic actuality has placed literary scholars, who are the
editors of Shakespeare's works, in a difficult position. They do not necessarily take steps to understand the
developments within modern linguistics and therefore still see Shakespeare from a traditional grammatical viewpoint.
For them Abbott still remains the last word on Shakespeare's grammar. They have tended to take two ways out of
this difficulty: the first is to refer any problematic construction to Abbott and feel that in doing so they have
explained it, and the second is to confine their comments on language to an absolute minimum, which for some can
mean none at all. Although progress in Shakespearian scholarship has made great strides on many fronts, language
has not been one of the beneficiaries of these advances although the history of editing Shakespeare has seen the
gradual jettisoning of emendations made on grammatical grounds by earlier scholars. Nevertheless, the reliance on
Abbott (1870) by most editors of Shakespeare even today has meant that the advances in our understanding of his
language are rarely reflected in modern editions.
An example I have referred to elsewhere (Blake 1990a) may highlight this point. When Hamlet, after speaking with
the ghost, apparently refuses in an off-hand way to be straightforward with
< previous page
page_328
next page >
< previous page
page_329
next page >
Page 329
his companions by saying flippantly There's nere a villaine dwelling in all Denmarke But hee's an arrant knaue. (Ham
1.5.127–8), Horatio rebukes him There needs no Ghost my Lord, come from the Graue, to tell vs this. (Ham
1.5.129–30). A small point of language is the interpretation of the grammatical form come, namely whether it is an
infinitive or a past participle. Of modern editors Jenkins (1982: 223) has the following note ‘come Infinitive (rather
than past pple.)’, though he offers no justification for this assertion; Edwards (1985: 111) does not think the point
worth a mention and has no comment; and Hibbard (1987: 192) has the note ‘come to come (Abbott 349)’, though
he offers no comment on the significance of this interpretation. Abbott (1870: 349) does indeed have a section
entitled Infinitive. ‘To’ omitted and inserted. But his examples are essentially the omission of to after some lexical
verbs, including go and come, though including the form hadst need, usually where the lexical verb acts as a kind of
auxiliary or in examples of the accusative + infinitive construction; but this passage from Hamlet is not among his
examples, for it does not fit into those patterns. Even if Hibbard is right in claiming that come in this passage is an
infinitive, he cannot call on Abbott to justify his claim. It seems probable that Jenkins was also influenced by Abbott
although he did not refer to that grammar, for this was a fairly standard comment in earlier editions. Indeed this
grammatical interpretation is found in editions almost from the time Abbott was published, for the Variorum edition
(Furness 1877: 110) claims the form is an infinitive and refers to section 349 in Abbott. The observation has
probably been handed down from one editor to the next. If come is an infinitive, there is little indication how the
editors understand the grammar. It is surely more likely that it is a past participle, despite Jenkins’ unsupported
claim to the contrary, for Shakespeare uses past participles as post-posed adjectives frequently (4.3.5 (b)). In any
case, editors who make the claim that come is an infinitive punctuate their text as though it is a past participle,
because they depart from the punctuation in F by omitting the comma after graue. If come is an infinitive and
parallels the other infinitive to tell, then it would be normal for these two parallel, non-finite clauses to be separated
by a comma, since there is no co-ordinate conjunction like and to link them. What editors say about the grammar
and how they edit the text appear to operate on separate levels instead of the former informing the latter.
< previous page
page_329
next page >
< previous page
page_330
next page >
Page 330
Shakespeare's language also needs to be approached from Old English times forward to Elizabethan English. The
language went through important developments from the fourteenth century onwards and many of those
developments were in progress during Shakespeare's own lifetime. Although these changes allowed for some
variation in ShE, it does not mean that anything was possible. Sometimes editors make statements about
Shakespeare's grammar which are at best misleading and at worst wrong, because they either know so little about
the historical development of the language or simply copy what other editors have written, as in the previous
example from Hamlet. A couple of examples from Macbeth may illustrate this point. In a note to And Fortune on his
damned Quarry smiling, (1.2.14) Brooke (1990: 97) writes ‘his may refer to Macdonald or to Fortune, since “his”
was often used for “her”.’ The position is as follows. In Old English, which had grammatical gender like Latin, words
like wif ‘wife’ or wifman ‘woman’, which referred to feminine beings but belonged respectively to a neuter and a
masculine grammatical paradigm, naturally took the possessive form his, which was the neuter and masculine form
of the possessive. Though grammatical gender was abandoned in English in Middle English, his was still a possible
neuter form in ShE (3.2.3.3), because its was only just being introduced. If Fortune was taken as inanimate, and
hence neuter, it could be represented by the possessive his; but his was certainly not a possible option if Fortune
was regarded as a feminine deity, for which her would be obligatory. To claim that his could refer to feminine
beings is simply erroneous and to assert that this usage was frequent merely compounds the error. In a later note to
I my selfe haue all the other, (1.3.13), Brooke (1990: 101) has ‘other Singular was often used for plural.’ Put bluntly
like this the note appears to mean that a singular noun or pronoun could be used quite arbitrarily instead of its
plural, as though one might say of PdE sheep ‘Singular was often used for plural’. Other, which in Old English had
the neuter <-u> plural in the nominative and accusative, lost this <-u> as vowel inflections dropped out of the
language through weak sentence stress making the singular and the plural forms identical. Gradually the influence of
analogy led to other adopting the ending in <-s> and this process was under way in ShE, which consequently had
both other and others. The choice between them depended on various factors, and in this particular example the
choice of other
< previous page
page_330
next page >
< previous page
page_331
next page >
Page 331
was determined by the rhyme with another. To those readers with no understanding of the history of English,
Brooke's note is misleading.
As noted in 6.1.1.1, there are examples where a plural subject has a singular verb, and sometimes these are
emended by editors to make the language conform to modern grammatical norms. Braunmuller (1997: 180) and
Wells and Taylor (1988: 988) modernise F's The times has bene, (Mac 3.4.77) to The time has been, though they
do not always make this ‘correction’ in other examples of this apparent lack of concord. In fact, as noted in 4.2.2.(d),
the plural of the present indicative could end in <-(e)s> and many examples are found in ShE.
10.2 Editing
Since part of the intention of this volume has been to show how a study of ShE can help editors understand his
language in the presentation of their editions of Shakespeare's works, it may be appropriate to pull together some of
the points made in the course of the book by making suggestions about some individual passages. I confine
examples to Macbeth. The choice of a single play should make clear that there are many passages even in one play
which need further elucidation than they have hitherto received, and this is particularly the case with Macbeth since
I have given further examples elsewhere (Blake forthcoming) that are not repeated here.
Punctuation is always a difficult area, because there is often a tension between the punctuation in F and the way an
editor understands the meaning (2.2). Such a passage occurs in the Porter's speech: Here's a Farmer, that hang'd
himselfe on th'expectation of Plentie: Come in time, haue Napkins enow about you, here you'le sweat for't. (2.3.4–
6). Most editors follow the lead offered by F's punctuation and begin a new sentence with Come in time, although
they have difficulty in understanding what in time refers to and how it might be explained. Other potential visitors
to hell are invited to come in and are addressed by some form of address, so we have come in, Equiuocator. and
Come in Taylor, (2.3.11 and 14). But as Braunmuller (1997: 148) notes ‘the rhetorical pattern (addresses
< previous page
page_331
next page >
< previous page
page_332
next page >
Page 332
to new arrivals in hell) has not yet been established’ with the farmer. There is, however, another parallel to the
description of the farmer's arrival in the speech when the Porter says ‘Faith here's an English Taylor come hither, for
stealing out of a French Hose: (2.3.12–13). Perhaps the come in the farmer's example is also a past participle
forming a perfect with the ‘s of Here's. The phrase in time means ‘at the right moment’ (Schmidt 1902: 1230) and
the Porter's joke is that the farmer got the time wrong regarding the crops in his expectation of Plentie:, but he has
got the time right in arriving at hell. The joke is more pronounced if one remembers that expectation at
Shakespeare's time often referred to the wait before going to heaven, whereas the farmer has arrived in hell. The
farmer was waiting for plenty, metaphorically also heaven, but arrived in time at hell. One needs to put in time, and
expectation of Plentie: in the same clause to make the humour explicit. So in a modernised edition this passage
could be represented as Here's a farmer, that hang'd himself on th'expectation of plenty, come in time. Have
napkins …, even though this sets up a slightly different pattern from what follows.
At 2.4.27–29 it may be better to follow the punctuation
in F, which reads:
‘Gainst Nature still,
Thriftlesse Ambition, that will rauen vp
Thine owne liues meanes:
Here Braunmuller (1997: 159) has a full stop after both still, and meanes, which makes the first three words a
comment on ‘the self-devouring horses and other unnatural events he has just listed’. Brooke (1990: 140) has a
dash after still, and a full stop after meanes, but no comment on the overall meaning. The significance of the dash is
difficult to elucidate. It may be better to think of ‘Gainst Nature still, as a pre-posed apposition (7.5.2.1) to
Thriftlesse Ambition, which allows Thine to refer to either Nature or Ambition, for the former is often
anthropomorphised. So the comma after still, could be retained. Slightly later in this scene these two editors diverge
where in response to Ross's Well, I will thither., Macduff says Well may you see things wel done there: (2.4.37–8) in
F. Braunmuller (1997: 160) keeps F's punctuation in that he has
< previous page
page_332
next page >
< previous page
page_333
next page >
Page 333
no comma after Macduff's first Well, for he suggests the comma proposed by Theobald ‘makes the line social
commonplace rather than ominous foreboding’. But the grammar of his line within the framework of PdE is difficult
to comprehend, for he seems to understand the two examples of well as fulfilling an identical function within the
sentence; presumably this dislocation of grammar is what he wishes to attribute to Shakespeare. But the first Well
must be a discourse marker (8.3.1.2) and it is clearer if it is marked off with a comma.
Some modern punctuation is contrary to modern norms when it follows F, though editors rarely provide their reasons
for doing so. When Lady Macbeth says:
Thould'st haue, great Glamys, that which cryes,
Thus thou must doe, if thou haue it;
And that which rather thou do'st feare to doe,
Then wishest should be vndone.
(1.5.21–4)
many modern editors (Braunmuller 1997 and Brooke 1990) retain a semi-colon after if thou haue it. Wells and
Taylor (1988: 980) have a comma here, which is surely right since both instances of that which are objects
dependent on Thould'st haue, and the second object should not be separated from its verb by a semi-colon.
Modernisation sometimes presents interesting problems, for modern spelling does not allow for multiple echoes in
the same way that ShE does. A problem passage for modern editors is that at 2.3.139–40: The neere in blood, the
neerer bloody. As noted in 3.2.3.4 (c), the original positive of near was nigh, whose comparative was near, but near
gradually became the positive and a new comparative nearer was created. Shakespeare and his contemporaries
used both near and nearer as forms of the comparative, hence the forms neere and neerer in this passage, both of
which mean ‘nearer’. For neere Brooke (1990: 138) simply modernises as near and translates the line as ‘those
closest in blood (to Duncan) are most in danger’, which fails to explain the meaning of neere or to convey the line's
meaning precisely. However, Wells and Taylor (1988: 985) and Braunmuller (1997: 157) modernise neere as nea'er,
which in
< previous page
page_333
next page >
< previous page
page_334
next page >
Page 334
this form does not exist in PdE and it may confuse the reader who may not be able to interpret what the spelling
means, although Braunmuller offers the translation ‘The more closely one is related to Duncan, the more likely one is
to be killed.’ Even this is not the proper explanation, for this sentence follows on from there's Daggers in mens
Smiles; (2.3.139) and the next clause, picking up mens Smiles, must mean ‘Those who are closer to us by family ties
are the more dangerous to us [i.e. more likely to kill us]’.
At 3.1.95–6 F has that the various types of hound are clipt All by the Name of Dogges:, where clipt is invariably
modernised as clept ‘called’. Braunmuller (1997: 166) notes ‘F's form and the verb itself are archaic’. Brooke (1990:
146) writes that clepe ‘was common in Middle English but already rare by 1600; F's “clipt” may also have the sense
of “embraced”, and might even have been suggested by the standard term for grooming shaggy dogs.’, though as
so often with his comments the precise implication is less clear. If clept is archaic, we need to ask why it was used
or whether it was used at all. It is not in rhyme, and called would have been as good for both sense and metre.
Clepe is used elsewhere in ShE, but not in this past participial form; generally it occurs as yclept. Clip in the sense ‘to
embrace, surround, enclose’ is found elsewhere in Shakespeare, both in the preterite form clipped and in a figurative
sense. The two verbs clip and clepe are confused in F, and one spelling often served both of them. The question is
whether clip rather than clepe may have been the predominant meaning in this example. The passage goes on to
note that members of a type are separated euery one According to the gift, which bounteous Nature Hath in him
clos'd: (98–100). There is an apparent echo between clipt and clos'd, both of which mean ‘embraced, enclosed’, and
it may be that we should modernise the first as clipped rather than clept.
That, whether as pronoun, conjunction or demonstrative adjective, may present difficulties of interpretation. As
pointed out in 5.3.2.1, that is the word used when variety demands that a conjunction or adverb should not be
repeated. This usage may cause confusion, especially as an adverbial. When Lady Macbeth castigates her husband
for lack of will, she exclaims:
< previous page
page_334
next page >
< previous page
page_335
next page >
Page 335
Nor time, nor place
Did then adhere, and yet you would make both:
They haue made themselues, and that their fitnesse now
Do's vnmake you.
(1.7.51–4)
Brooke (1990: 120) has trouble with and that their fitness, for he has the note ‘that their fitness their very fitness’. I
do not know how he came to this interpretation, which seems to be based on that their as a double determiner
(3.3.4.1), though these two words are never used as a pair in double determiners. Braunmuller (1997: 135) has a
different solution with his note ‘that their fitness now i.e. now they have become appropriate (“fit”)’, where his ‘i.e.’
indicates that this is what he wants the words to mean though he cannot explain why they should. There are a
number of parallels and contrasts in these lines: make~haue made~vnmake; then~now; themselues~you, and of
course and yet~and that. This parallelism makes evident that that is an echo of yet and explains that both phrases
fulfil an adverbial function with the sense ‘and yet’.
At 1.3.111 it is best to understand or that as meaning ‘or whether’ since it is parallel to Whether (109) and Or (110),
though this form is never explained by commentators. A different part of speech is the occurrence of that at 2.1.5
where Banquo says to Fleance when referring to the stars There's Husbandry in Heauen, Their Candles are all out:
take thee that too. (2.1.4–5). The uncertainty as to what that refers to here is one of several similar examples where
that or it are involved. The standard interpretation is to assume that Banquo, having given Fleance his sword to hold
at line 4, now divests himself of another piece of equipment which he asks Fleance to look after so that take thee
that too. means ‘Look after this as well’. It simply becomes a bit of stage action. One should consider whether too
is a different spelling for to, which would lead to the interpretation ‘Take yourself to that’ (i.e. understand what that
means). Examples like That's too't (‘that's the point’, TC 3.1.30) indicate that to could have this sense of application
or tendency (Schmidt 1902: 1235). It would help to point the reference to the Husbandry in Heauen, if we
understand that Fleance should take note of the portents in the sky.
< previous page
page_335
next page >
< previous page
page_336
next page >
Page 336
Forms of address are closely linked with editorial punctuation, for it is that which determines whether a form of
address is understood (8.1). Macbeth contains some unusual forms of address, including a few which should be
recognised as such, but have not been. In ShE insulting forms of address are often introduced with thou/you,
whereas complimentary ones have the possessive adjective my or your, as in My deerest Cooz, (4.2.14) said by Ross
to Lady Macduff. Typical insults are when Macduff's son calls the murderer thou shagge-ear'd Villaine. (4.2.84), who
responds with What you Egge? | Yong fry of Treachery? (4.2.84–5). Modern editors keep this punctuation with a
heavy stop, usually an exclamation mark, after both Egge and Treachery, and they then spend time trying to explain
the significance of ‘egg’. As insulting forms of address are often long and somewhat repetitive (8.1.3), it may be that
the murderer's insult is simply one long form of address and that there should be a comma after egg in modern
editions: What, you egg, young fry of treachery! In this punctuation young fry echoes egg, and treachery refers to
both of them. Both egg and young fry indicate the seed and offspring of those who are treacherous. When Macbeth
is shown Banquo's progeny by the witches and sees the second king in the line of succession he addresses it as
Thou other Gold-bound brow, (4.1.130). This is not so much a statement of fact as an insulting cry of despair – a
vain attempt to overcome this prophecy through language. Similarly when earlier as he goes to murder Duncan he
addresses the ground as Thou sowre and firme-set Earth (2.1.56), we may need to consider its tone and whether
the standard emendation/modernisation of sowre to sure is right. At best it is ironic, because later characters refer to
the earth moving that night (the Earth was feuorous, And did shake. 2.3.59–60). But the form of address with Thou
suggests that its tone is somewhat derogatory or at least uncertain. Since sour can mean ‘sad, gloomy’, it may be it
would be better to keep it, for it maintains that tone of foreboding which is so prominent in the rest of Macbeth's
soliloquy.
| Yong fry of Treachery? (4.2.84–5). Modern editors keep this punctuation with a heavy stop, usually an exclamation
mark, after both Egge and Treachery, and they then spend time trying to explain the significance of ‘egg’. As
insulting forms of address are often long and somewhat repetitive (8.1.3), it may be that the murderer's insult is
simply one long form of address and that there should be a comma after egg in modern editions: What, you egg,
young fry of treachery! In this punctuation young fry echoes egg, and treachery refers to both of them. Both egg
and young fry indicate the seed and offspring of those who are treacherous. When Macbeth is shown Banquo's
progeny by the witches and sees the second king in the line of succession he addresses it as Thou other Gold-bound
brow, (4.1.130). This is not so much a statement of fact as an insulting cry of despair – a vain attempt to overcome
this prophecy through language. Similarly when earlier as he goes to murder Duncan he addresses the ground as
Thou sowre and firme-set Earth (2.1.56), we may need to consider its tone and whether the standard
emendation/modernisation of sowre to sure is right. At best it is ironic, because later characters refer to the earth
moving that night (the Earth was feuorous, And did shake. 2.3.59–60). But the form of address with Thou suggests
that its tone is somewhat derogatory or at least uncertain. Since sour can mean ‘sad, gloomy’, it may be it would be
better to keep it, for it maintains that tone of foreboding which is so prominent in the rest of Macbeth's soliloquy.
Other forms of address may have no pronominal form to introduce them and this may cause some problems in
interpretation. When Macbeth shouts Come in, without there.
< previous page
page_336
next page >
< previous page
page_337
next page >
Page 337
(4.1.151), without there. is a form of address: ‘(You who are) outside’. Some other possible forms of address are
interpreted as elliptical statements by editors. When Macbeth refuses to return the daggers to smear Duncan's
attendants with blood, his wife exclaims Infirme of purpose: Giue me the Daggers: (2.2.50–1), which is usually
edited today with a heavy stop, usually an exclamation mark or semi-colon, after purpose. This makes it an elliptical
statement ‘(You are) weak-willed’. It might be better to have a comma, so that Infirm of purpose: becomes a form
of address which is demeaning rather than insulting for it is not introduced by thou.
Some pronoun and modifier forms can present difficulty. The possessive adjective can be either subjective or
objective (3.3.4.5 (b)), and the latter often seems strange to modern readers. On arriving at Macbeth's castle,
Duncan greets Lady Macbeth with The Loue that followes vs, sometime is our trouble, Which still we thanke as Loue.
(1.6.11–12). Braunmuller (1997: 129) comments ‘Duncan begins a tortuously polite exchange by remarking how he
sometimes finds troublesome others’ well-meaning respect and affection, over which they have taken so much
“trouble”.’ This interpretation, with our trouble apparently being understood as your trouble, does not explain the
sense of our trouble, satisfactorily. In this instance the possessive our means ‘the trouble which we cause, trouble on
our account’ (3.3.4.5 (b)). The love which follows Duncan is to be identified as trouble caused by Duncan, though it
is still regarded as a sign of love. This makes sense of the following sentence in which Duncan implicitly compares
himself with God, who also inflicts suffering on humans as a sign of his love for them. Discussion about variation in
personal pronouns from singular to plural or vice versa has been largely confined to the second person forms, but it
may be that the use of pragmatics can help us to see more significance in the variation between other pronominal
forms, especially first person ones. Kings use the plural we/us/our forms, but occasionally they relapse into the
singular ones. When Banquo is about to ride out with Fleance, Macbeth invites him to his feast to be held that
evening. Banquo responds to the invitation with:
< previous page
page_337
next page >
< previous page
page_338
next page >
Page 338
Let your Highnesse
Command vpon me, to the which my duties
Are with a most indissoluble tye
For euer knit.
(3.1.15–18)
This is a curious and elaborate acceptance. But Macbeth's offer was couched in these terms:
To night we hold a solemne Supper sir,
And Ile request your presence.
(3.1.14–15)
Both Braunmuller (1997: 161) and Brooke (1990: 142) emphasise that Banquo replaces Macbeth's request by
Command. Braunmuller also adds ‘Banquo emphasises his loyalty, perhaps to remind Macbeth of their shared
knowledge (i.e. the speech is subtle blackmail), or to reassure Macbeth he has nothing to fear’. But Macbeth's
invitation is notable for the change of tone from the first line with its we and sir, to the second line with Ile and
request. Macbeth goes from royal, formal pronouncement to the re-establishment of the friendly equality between
himself and Banquo. Banquo's response, by using your Highnesse and Command, is to reject this breach of status,
for a king cannot be on a par with his nobles.
The insistence on interpreting and only as a co-ordinate conjunction can make difficulties for editors (5.1.1). At
2.1.14–16 Banquo says to Macbeth regarding Duncan: This Diamond he greetes your Wife withall, By the name of
most kind Hostesse, And shut vp in measurelesse content. This final line has caused commentators trouble for many
years with later Folios taking shut vp to refer to a case for the diamond. Modern commentators, because they
understand And as a co-ordinate conjunction, take shut vp as parallel to greetes despite the change of tense. Brooke
(1990: 123) puts it this way: ‘shut up The phrase is effectively in apposition to “greets” despite the change of tense
resulting from reported
< previous page
page_338
next page >
< previous page
page_339
next page >
Page 339
action’, whereas Braunmuller (1997: 138) says about the passage ‘the grammar is stretched to report what Duncan
said (“greets”) and then what he has done (“shut up”)’. But this And is an adverbial rather than a conjunction (5.1.1)
and shut vp is a past participle; the whole being one of those non-finite clauses used as a final flourish to what is
said (3.3.2.4). The phrase is best introduced by a dash in a modern edition. Other examples in Macbeth with or
without an introductory and include: And all-thing vnbecomming. (3.1.13), No Sonne of mine succeeding: (3.1.65),
alwayes thought, That I require a clearenesse; (3.1.133–4). There is a further example which might perhaps have a
different punctuation in modern editions. When Ross tells Macbeth how Duncan has admired his efforts in the battle,
he says:
His Wonders and his Prayses doe contend,
Which should be thine, or his: silenc'd with that,
In viewing o're the rest o'th'selfe-same day,
He findes thee in the stout Norweyan Rankes,
(1.3.90–3
Editors take their lead from F's punctuation and have a full stop or semi-colon after his (line 91). But silenc'd with
that, may be an example of an added non-finite participial clause, though this time without and. Duncan's inability to
decide who had the greater share of honour would surely silence him.
There are many examples in the play where and is an adverbial rather than a conjunction, such as Macduff's
exclamation of despair And I must be from thence? (4.3.213), where some editors keep F's question mark which
here does duty for an exclamation mark; Malcolm's comment on Edward's healing powers and ‘tis spoken To the
succeeding Royalty he leaues The healing Benediction. (4.3.155–7), where the and should be preceded by a heavy
stop such as F's semi-colon rather than a comma as found in Braunmuller (1997: 211); and Macbeth's threat And
euen now To Crown my thoughts with Acts: be it thoght & done: (4.1.164–5), where And is linked with other
discourse markers, though it could also be thought of as an intensifier to euen.
< previous page
page_339
next page >
< previous page
page_340
next page >
Page 340
Following on from (f), we may note that the interpretation of non-finite clauses containing participles or adjectives
acting as participles causes difficulties. The grammar of the clause and its relation to the surrounding context may
not be easy to disentangle. When Macbeth says to Banquo: and at more time, The Interim hauing weigh'd it, let vs
speake Our free Hearts each to other. (1.3.152–4), the grammatical structure of The Interim hauing weigh'd it,
remains unclear. There could be a preposition missing before The Interim with the sense ‘(we) having considered it
in the meantime’ or The Interim could be the subject of the non-finite clause ‘The meantime having (given time) to
consider it’. In this example the sense is not very different either way. But in 2.2.26–7 there may be a difference of
interpretation in Listning their feare, I could not say Amen, When they did say God blesse vs. Braunmuller (1997:
144) understands Listning as ‘Hearing, listening to’, with Listning being dependent on I. But this could be a hanging
participial clause with their feare being the subject of Listning, meaning ‘as their fear was listening’, because the
sleepers had just woken up in fear and one had cried out ‘Murder’. An even more difficult case is presented by
Vnsafe the while, that wee must laue Our Honors in these flattering streames, And make our Faces Vizards to our
Hearts, Disguising what they are. (3.2.33–6). Here most editors keep a heavy stop before Vnsafe, as in F which has
a colon. Many commentators fail to explain the grammar and simply offer a general interpretation of the context.
Braunmuller (1997: 171) writes ‘unsafe … hearts For the period (“the while”) of our insecurity (see “unsafe”) we
must wash (“lave”) our titles in streams of flattery and make our faces masks (“vizards”) for our hearts.’ This fails to
explain the role of that or the structure of Vnsafe the while, and even less how that non-finite clause relates to what
follows. Brooke (1990: 149) has a dash before Vnsafe, but no explanation of the lines as such. Vnsafe the while is
the same as the Latin ablative absolute with an adjective being used instead of a past participle. The sense appears
to be ‘The times are so desperate [the time being unsafe] that we are forced to submerge our honourable status in
streams of flattery …’. Macbeth and his wife are king and queen, and yet they have to butter up a nobleman like
Banquo because of the troubled times.
< previous page
page_340
next page >
< previous page
page_341
next page >
Page 341
The passive infinitive may not always be recognised when it has an active form, which survives in PdE only in
idiomatic phrases (4.3.1.5). Lady Macbeth encourages her husband to commit the murder with her Onely looke vp
cleare: To alter fauor, euer is to feare: (1.5.70–1). Braunmuller (1997: 127) notes of the second line ‘Fear always
(“ever”) changes one's facial expression (“favour”); the construction is inverted to make a significant rhyme.’ This
implies a convoluted expression which is hardly convincing; to feare is probably a passive infinitive meaning ‘to be
feared’. This ties in better with the preceding line: ‘You must keep a serene expression, for to change one's
expression is always to be feared (i.e. to be guarded against as it gives away what you are thinking)’. Another
possible example of the passive infinitive, which has not been interpreted as such, occurs at 1.4.52–3, where
Macbeth says: yet let that bee, Which the Eye feares, when it is done to see. In this example Brooke (1990: 110)
and Wells and Taylor (1988: 980) have commas after both feares, and done which makes to see. dependent on
feares, presumably meaning ‘fears to look at’; whereas Braunmuller (1997: 121) has neither of these commas, which
suggests to see. is dependent on is done with the probable meaning ‘when it is done to be seen’, even if
Braunmuller does not interpret it this way. The occurrence of yet let that bee, (meaning ‘leave it alone’ cf. OED be,
v. 4) suggests that there is a contrast between this statement and the preceding one where Macbeth desires his
actions to remain hidden, so that Braunmuller's punctuation is preferable even if his precise interpretation is not
made clear. Banquo's death has to be accepted publicly.
Although there are a number of discourse markers in ShE (8.3), some which are interpreted as such may not be
among them. It is necessary to quote a longer passage to explain why one case may not contain a discourse marker.
O, these flawes and starts
(Impostors to true feare) would well become
A womans story, at a Winters fire
Authoriz'd by her Grandam: shame it selfe,
Why do you make such faces? When all's done
You looke but on a stoole.
(3.4.62–7)
< previous page
page_341
next page >
< previous page
page_342
next page >
Page 342
Most editors have a heavy stop after Grandam, and Braunmuller (1997: 179) has an exclamation mark after it selfe,.
Braunmuller offers no translation of shame it selfe, though his exclamation mark reveals he sees it as a discourse
marker. Brooke (1990: 156) has a comma after it selfe, and the comment ‘shame itself i.e. for very shame’, which
makes its status as a discourse marker evident. This particular type of structure is unparalleled for a discourse
marker, and another interpretation may be better. Perhaps shame is an infinitive dependent on would, like
become. The only difficulty in such an interpretation is the singular form it selfe, for the reference back is to flawes
and starts. But a singular form referring back to a plural subject is common enough, especially when the subject is
co-ordinate and some distance away from the later singular form which may consequently have been attracted to an
intermediate noun in the plural, in this example probably story. One may compare The seruice, and the loyaltie I
owe, In doing it, payes it selfe. (1.4.22–3), where it and it selfe. refer back to seruice, and the loyaltie.
Some phrases may be discourse markers, although they are not interpreted as such. When Macbeth asks whether
Duncan has asked for him at the feast and Lady Macbeth responds Know you not, he ha's? (1.7.30), modern editors
keep the question mark but leave out the comma, as though this is a question. Know you not, is better understood
as a discourse marker and the question mark may signal an exclamation, equivalent to PdE ‘Of course he has!’ or
‘You must know he has!’ There are many examples of now and even here, meaning ‘now’, as discourse markers.
There is an interesting example in
Here had we now our Countries Honor, roof'd,
Were the grac'd person of our Banquo present:
Who, may I rather challenge for vnkindnesse,
Then pitty for Mischance.
(3.4.39–42)
Here in this passage is a discourse marker meaning ‘now’ and in modern editions should be marked off with a
comma. I quote this passage at length because what appears to be a relative clause starting Who, is unusual in two
respects: the
< previous page
page_342
next page >
< previous page
page_343
next page >
Page 343
following clause is marked off by commas and the auxiliary may precedes the subject I. This suggests that the
intention is to create a question, as though Macbeth was more tentative than the statement usually attributed to
him. The sense may be: ‘Whom should I not accuse of unnaturalness rather than pity for suffering some mishap?’
and there needs to be a heavy stop after present: as in F. Other examples of here may also mean ‘now’ although
not necessarily as discourse markers. When Lady Macbeth exclaims Come you Spirits, That tend on mortall thoughts,
vnsex me here, (1.5.39–40), her here is almost certainly ‘now’, though as Braunmuller (1997: 125) notes ‘Actresses
have sometimes made “here” breast or groin; producers must decide whether Lady Macbeth's invocation is figurative
or acted out’. Surely Lady Macbeth refers to time and is distinguishing the future from the past.
There are various passages where pragmatics might be invoked to explain the context (9.1), though naturally in
many cases there is a tolerance in the interpretations that are possible. When the murderers are waiting for Banquo,
the following exchange takes place: 2. Then ‘tis hee: The rest, that are within the note of expectation, Alreadie are
i'th’ Court. 1. His Horses goe about. 3. Almost a mile: but he does vsually, So all men doe, from hence toth ‘Pallace
Gate Make it their Walke. (Mac 3.3.9–14) Most editors keep more to or less to the punctuation in F. But the First
Murderer's His Horses goe about. appears to be a question since it receives what is best understood as an answer
Almost a mile: from the Third Murderer. After the noise of the horses and confirmation that Banquo is coming, the
First Murderer appears to ask a question which may express his anxiety that Banquo is not coming the way that they
had been expecting, with the sense ‘Are the horses going a different way?’ The Third Murderer's response is a
reassurance that he is doing what all visitors do which is to walk the
< previous page
page_343
next page >
< previous page
page_344
next page >
Page 344
last mile. Instead of a plain statement, the First Murderer's His Horses goe about: is better taken to be a question.
The reverse is perhaps true of the opening comment by the First Witch on meeting Hecate, when she says Why how
now Hecat, you looke angerly? (3.5.1). Wells and Taylor (1988: 989) read Why, how now, Hecate? You look
angerly., whereas Braunmuller (1997: 184) and Brooke (1990: 161) have Why how now, Hecate, you look angerly?,
though Brooke omits the first comma. Neither solution is satisfactory. Why and how now are discourse markers and
do not require a question mark to follow. But You look angerly? is a statement rather than a question, which needs
at most an exclamation mark, though a full stop is probably sufficient. The Why as a discourse marker does not
change this statement into a question. The statement as statement underlines the anxiety of the witches, and
Hecate confirms that she is angry and claims to have good reason for her anger.
10.3 Conclusion
The preceding section has attempted to show how language study can be of assistance to editors even in a play that
has been so frequently edited in the past. Not everyone may agree with the grammatical analyses put forward here,
but the examples raise questions that need to be faced by editors if they are to present a reasonable appreciation of
the text to a modern audience. The examples underline how incomplete editions can be in representing
Shakespeare's text and show that readers receive insufficient help and guidance from editors in understanding how
the language works even in what appear to be relatively straightforward passages in Shakespeare. Editors often
repeat what previous ones have written and do not attempt to look at the language afresh. I hope that this book
may go some way to filling a gap in a full appreciation of Shakespeare's works.
< previous page
page_344
next page >
< previous page
page_345
next page >
Page 345
Bibliography
(a) Editions and facsimiles of Shakespeare's works
Allen, Michael, and Kenneth Muir. (1981) Shakespeare's Plays in Quarto: A Facsimile of Copies Primarily in the Henry
E. Huntington Library (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press).
Bate, Jonathan. (1995) Titus Andronicus. The Arden Shakespeare 3rd Series (London and New York: Routledge).
Bevington, David. (1990) Antony and Cleopatra. The New Cambridge Shakespeare (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press).
Bevington, David. (1998) Troilus and Cressida. The Arden Shakespeare 3rd Series (Walton-on-Thames: Thomas
Nelson).
Booth, Stephen. (1977) Shakespeare's Sonnets (New Haven, CT, and London: Yale University Press).
Braunmuller, A. R. (1997) Macbeth. The New Cambridge Shakespeare (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Brissenden, Alan. (1993) As You Like It. The Oxford Shakespeare (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press).
Brooke, Nicholas. (1990) The Tragedy of Macbeth. The Oxford Shakespeare (Oxford and New York: Oxford
University Press).
Daniell, David. (1998) Julius Caesar. The Arden Shakespeare 3rd Series (Walton-on-Thames: Thomas Nelson).
Duncan-Jones, Katherine. (1997) Shakespeare's Sonnets. The Arden Shakespeare 3rd Series (Walton-on-Thames:
Nelson and Sons).
Edwards, Philip. (1985) Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. The New Cambridge Shakespeare (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press).
Fraser, Russell. (1985) All's Well That Ends Well. The New Cambridge Shakespeare (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press).
Furness, H. H. (1877) A New Variorum Edition of Shakespeare. Hamlet Volume 1 (Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott).
Griggs, William. (no date) Shakspere's Venus and Adonis. The First Quarto 1593. Shakspere-Quarto Fac-similes 12
(London: W. Griggs).
Hattaway, Michael. (1991) The Second Part of King Henry VI. The New Cambridge Shakespeare (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press).
Hibbard, G. R. (1987) Hamlet. The Oxford Shakespeare (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Hinman, Charlton. (1996) The Norton Facsimile: The First Folio of Shakespeare. 2nd edn with a new introduction by
Peter W. M. Blayney (New York and London: W. W. Norton).
Honigmann, E. A. J. (1997) Othello. The Arden Shakespeare 3rd Series (Walton-on-Thames: Thomas Nelson).
Jenkins, Harold. (1982) Hamlet. The Arden Shakespeare 2nd Series (London: Methuen).
< previous page
page_345
next page >
< previous page
page_346
next page >
Page 346
Oliver, H. J. (1959) Timon of Athens. The Arden Shakespeare 2nd Series (London: Methuen).
Praetorius, Charles. (no date) Shakspere's Lucrece: The First Quarto 1594. Shakspere-Quarto Fac-similes 35
(London: C. Praetorius).
Weis, René. (1993) King Lear: A Parallel Text Edition (London and New York: Longman).
Wells, Stanley and Gary Taylor. (1988) William Shakespeare The Complete Works, Compact Edition (Oxford:
Clarendon Press).
(b) Secondary material
Abbott, E. A. (1870) A Shakespearian Grammar: An Attempt to Illustrate Some of the Differences between
Elizabethan and Modern English. 3rd edn (London: Macmillan).
Allen, Cynthia. (1995) ‘On doing as you please,’ in Jucker 1995: 275–308.
Altenberg, Bengt. (1982) The Genitive v. the of-Construction: A Study of Syntactic Variation in 17th Century English.
Lund Studies in English 62 (Lund: Gleerup).
Bækken, Bjørg. (1998) Word Order Patterns in Early Modern English with Special Reference to the Position of the
Subject and Finite Verb. Studia Anglistica Norvegica 9 (Oslo: Novus Press).
Bækken, Bjørg. (1999) ‘Periphrastic do in Early Modern English,’ FLH 20: 107–28.
Bækken, Bjørg. (2000) ‘Inversion in Early Modern English,’ English Studies 81: 393–421.
Baghdikian, Sonia. (1982) ‘A functional perspective of the system of negation in Early Modern English,’ FLH 3: 153–
61.
Baldwin, William. (1944) William Shakspere's Small Latine and Lesse Greeke. 2 vols (Urbana: University of Illinois
Press).
Bambas, R. C. (1947) ‘Verb forms in -s and -th in Early Modern English,’ Journal of English and Germanic Philology
46: 183–7.
Barber, Charles. (1981) ‘“You” and “thou” in Shakespeare's Richard III,’ Leeds Studies in English n.s. 12: 273–89.
[Rptd Salmon and Burness 1987: 163–79]
Barber, Charles. (1997) Early Modern English. 2nd edn (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press).
Biese, Y. M. (1952) ‘Notes on the use of the ingressive auxiliaries in the works of William Shakespeare,’
Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 53: 9–18. [Rptd Salmon and Burness 1987: 329–38]
Blake, N. F. (1983) Shakespeare's Language: An Introduction (Basingstoke: Macmillan – now Palgrave). [Rptd as The
Language of Shakespeare (1988)]
Blake, N. F. (1987) ‘Levels of language in Shakespeare's King Henry IV Part I,’ in M. Gomez Lara and J. A. Prieto
Pablos (eds), Stylistica: I Semana de Estudios Stylisticas (Seville: Alfar), pp. 89–107. [Rptd Blake 1996b: 3–22]
Blake, N. F. (1988) ‘Negation in Shakespeare,’ in Graham Nixon and John Honey (eds), An Historic Tongue: Studies
in English Linguistics in Memory of Barbara Strang (London and New York: Routledge), pp. 89–111. [Rptd Blake
1996b: 23–43]
Blake, N. F. (1989) ‘Standardizing Shakespeare's non-standard language,’ in
< previous page
page_346
next page >
< previous page
page_347
next page >
Page 347
Joseph B. Trahern Jr (ed.), Standardizing English: Essays in the History of Language Change in Honor of John Hurt
Fisher. Tennessee Studies in Literature 31 (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press), pp. 57–81. [Rptd Blake 1996b:
44–65]
Blake, N. F. (1990a) ‘Shakespeare's language: some recent studies and future directions,’ Shakespeare Jahrbuch
(West) 61–77. [Rptd Blake 1996b: 66–82]
Blake, N. F. (1990b) ‘Modernizing language and editing Shakespeare,’ Poetica [Tokyo] 34: 101–23. [Rptd Blake
1996b: 83–105]
Blake, N. F. (1991) ‘The language of the quarto and folio texts of King Lear,’ in Michio Kawai (ed.), Language and
Style in English Literature: Essays in Honour of Michio Masui (Tokyo: Eihosha for the English Research Association of
Hiroshima), pp. 3–26. [Rptd Blake 1996b: 156–72]
Blake, N. F. (1992a) ‘Early Modern English,’ in Nocera Avila et al. 1992: 13–37.
Blake, N. F. (1992b) ‘Shakespeare, discourse and the teaching of English,’ in R. Ahrens and H. Antor (eds), Text–
Culture–Reception: Cross-cultural Aspects of English Studies (Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag), pp. 431–
45. [Rptd Blake 1996b: 106–20]
Blake, N. F. (1992c) ‘Why and What in Shakespeare,’ in Toshiyuki Takamiya and Richard Beadle (eds), Chaucer to
Shakespeare: Essays in Honour of Shinsuke Ando (Cambridge: Brewer), pp. 179–93. [Rptd Blake 1996b: 121–38]
Blake, N. F. (1992–93) ‘Shakespeare and discourse,’ Stylistica 2/3: 126–33. [Rptd Blake 1996b: 139–55]
Blake, N. F. (1992–3 [1994]) ‘Antony and Cleopatra II.ii.56–58,’ Lore and Language 11.2: 223–6.
Blake, N. F. (1993) ‘Do the green sour ringlets make,’ Notes and Queries 238: 201–2.
Blake, N. F. (1996a) A History of the English Language (Basingstoke: Macmillan – now Palgrave).
Blake, N. F. (1996b) Essays on Shakespeare's Language 1st Series (Misterton: Language Press).
Blake, N. F. (1996c) ‘Shakespeare's language: past achievements and future directions,’ in Javier Pérez Guerra (ed.),
Proceedings of the XIXth International Conference of Aedean (Vigo: Universidade de Vigo), pp. 21–35.
Blake, N. F. (1996d) ‘Lexical links in Shakespeare,’ Poetica [Tokyo] 45: 79–103.
Blake, N. F. (1996e) ‘Holofernes' lyric in Love's Labour's Lost Act IV Scene II,’ in Stefan Hörlacher and Marion Islinger
(eds), Expedition nach der Wahrheit: Essays and Papers in Honour of Theo Stemmler (Heidelberg: Winter), pp. 177–
91.
Blake, N. F. (1997) ‘Editing Shakespeare: the role of language studies,’ European Journal of English Studies 1: 329–
53.
Blake, N. F. (1998) ‘Shakespeare's Sonnet 69,’ Notes and Queries 243: 355–7.
Blake, N. F. (1999a) ‘Studies on Shakespeare's language: an overview,’ The Shakespearean International Yearbook
1: 168–86.
Blake, N. F. (1999b) ‘Pragmatics and the editing of Shakespeare,’ in Christa Jansohn (ed.), Problems of Editing.
Beihefte of Editio 14 (Tübingen: Niemeyer), pp. 113–26.
Blake, N. F. (1999c) ‘Nonstandard language in early varieties of English,’ in Taavitsainen et al. 1999: 123–50.
< previous page
page_347
next page >
< previous page
page_348
next page >
Page 348
Blake, N. F. (forthcoming) ‘The study of Shakespeare's language: its implications for editors, critics and translators,’
in M. F. Garcia-Bermejo Giner, G. Rodr'guez Sánchez and F. J. Sánchez D'az. (eds), Sederi 10 (In Memoriam Patricia
Shaw). Yearbook of the Spanish Association for English Renaissance Studies (Zaragoza: Librer'a General), pp. 11–
30.
Blake, N. F. and Charles Jones (eds). (1984) English Historical Linguistics: Studies in Development. CECTAL
Conference Papers Series 3 (Sheffield: Centre for English Cultural Tradition and Language).
Blank, Paula. (1996) Broken English: Dialects and the Politics of Language in Renaissance Writing. The Politics of
Language (London and New York: Routledge).
Bolton, W. F. (1992) Shakespeare's English: Language in the History Plays. The Language Library (Cambridge, MA,
and Oxford: Blackwell).
Booth, Stephen. (1977) ‘Syntax as rhetoric in Richard II,’ Mosaic 18: 87–104.
Booth, Stephen. (1997) ‘Shakespeare's language and the language of Shakespeare's time,’ SS 50: 1–17.
Bowers, Fredson. (1955) On Editing Shakespeare and the Elizabethan Dramatists (Philadelphia, PA: University of
Pennsylvania Library for Rosenbach Foundation).
Brabant, Anja de. (1992) ‘The verb “speak” in Shakespeare's plays,’ in R. Tracy (ed.), Who Climbs the GrammarTree. Linguistische Arbeiten 281 (Tübingen: Niemeyer), pp. 33–51.
Bradbrook, Muriel C. (1954) ‘Fifty years of the criticism of Shakespeare's style: a retrospect,’ SS 7: 1–11.
Bradley, Henry. (1916) ‘Shakespeare's English,’ in C. T. Onions et al. (eds), Shakespeare's England (Oxford:
Clarendon Press), vol. 2: 539–74.
Breur, Horst. (1983) ‘Titel und Anreden bei Shakespeare und in der Shakespearezeit,’ Anglia 101: 49–77.
Brinton, Laurel J. (1988) The Development of English Aspectual Systems: Aspectualizers and Post-verbal Particles.
Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 49 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Brinton, Laurel J. (1994) ‘The differentiation of statives and perfects in Early Modern English: the development of the
conclusive perfect,’ in Stein and Tieken-Boon 1994: 135–70.
Brinton, Laurel J. (1996) Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Topics in English
Linguistics 19 (Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter).
Brook, G. L. (1976) The Language of Shakespeare. The Language Library (London: Deutsch).
Brosnahan, L. F. (1961) ‘The apostrophe in the genitive singular in the 17th century,’ English Studies 42: 363–9.
Brown, P. and Stephen Levinson. (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press).
Brown, Roger and Albert Gilman. (1989) ‘Politeness theory and Shakespeare's four major tragedies,’ Language in
Society 18: 159–212.
Burchfield, Robert. (1987) ‘The bare infinitive in The Winter's Tale,’ in Bernhard Fabian and Kurt Tetzeli von Rosador
(eds), Shakespeare Text, Language, Criticism: Essays in Honour of Marvin Spevack (Olms: Weidmann), pp. 34–56.
< previous page
page_348
next page >
< previous page
page_349
next page >
Page 349
Burton, Dolores M. (1973) Shakespeare's Grammatical Style: A Computer-assisted Analysis of Richard II and Antony
and Cleopatra (Austin and London: University of Texas Press).
Byrne, M. St Clair. (1964) ‘The foundations of Elizabethan language’, SS 17: 223–39.
Calvo, Clara. (1991) Power Relations and Fool-Master Discourse in Shakespeare: A Discourse Stylistics Approach to
Dramatic Dialogue. Monographs in Systemic Linguistics 3 (Nottingham: Department of English, University of
Nottingham).
Calvo, Clara. (1992) ‘Pronouns of address and social negotiation in As You Like It,’ Language and Literature 1: 5–
27.
Candido, Joseph. (1984) ‘The name of the king: Hal's “titles” in the Henriad,’ Texas Studies in Literature and
Language 26: 61–73.
Carroll, William C. (1976) The Great Feast of Language in Love's Labour's Lost (Princeton, NJ, and Guildford:
Princeton University Press).
Castillo, Concha. (1994) ‘Verb-particle combinations in Shakespeare's English: a syntactic study,’ Neuphilologische
Mitteilungen 95: 439–51.
Cercignani, Fausto. (1981) Shakespeare's Works and Elizabethan Pronunciation (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Charney, Maurice. (1969) Style in Hamlet (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; London: Oxford University
Press).
Cheshire, Jenny. (1994) ‘Standardization and the English irregular verb,’ in Stein and Tieken-Boon 1994: 115–33.
Christophersen, Paul. (1939) The Articles: A Study of their Theory and Use in English (Copenhagen: Munksgård;
London: Oxford University Press).
Coates, Richard. (1987) ‘A provincial bibliography on names in the works of Shakespeare,’ Names 35: 206–23.
Coulthard, Malcolm. (1985) An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. 2nd edn. Applied Linguistics and Language Study
(London and New York: Longman).
Culpeper, Jonathan and Merja Kytö. (1999) ‘Investigating nonstandard language in a corpus of Early Modern English
dialogues: methodological considerations and problems,’ in Taavitsainen et al. 1999: 171–87.
Cusack, Bridget. (1970) ‘Shakespeare and the tune of the time,’ SS 23: 1–12. [Rptd Salmon and Burness 1987: 23–
34]
Cusack, Bridget. (1982) ‘Complements and humours,’ in J. Anderson (ed.), Language Form and Linguistic Variation.
Papers Dedicated to Angus McIntosh. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 15 (Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John
Benjamins), pp. 29–42.
Cusack, Bridget. (1998) Everyday English 1500–1700. A Reader (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press).
Dahl, Lisa. (1969) Nominal Style in the Shakespearean Soliloquy (Turku: Turun Yliopisto).
Dahl, Torsten. (1956) Linguistic Studies in Some Elizabethan Writings II, The Auxiliary DO (Copenhagen:
Munksgård).
De Grazia, Margreta. (1978) ‘Shakespeare's view of language: an historical perspective,’ Shakespeare Quarterly 29:
374–88. [Rptd Salmon and Burness 1987: 473–87]
< previous page
page_349
next page >
< previous page
page_350
next page >
Page 350
De Grazia, Margreta. (1991) Shakespeare Verbatim. The Reproduction of Authenticity and the 1790 Apparatus
(Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Dekeyser, X. (1988) ‘Socio-historical aspects of relativization in late 16th century English: ca. 1550–1600,’ Studia
Anglia Posnaniensia 21: 25–39.
Dent, R. W. (1981) Shakespeare's Proverbial Language: An Index (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of
California Press).
Dillon, Janette. (1998) Language and Stage in Medieval and Renaissance England (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press).
Donawerth, Jane. (1984) Shakespeare and the Sixteenth-Century Study of Language (Urbana and Chicago:
University of Illinois Press).
Doran, Madeleine. (1976) Shakespeare's Dramatic Language (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press).
Downes, William. (1988) ‘King Lear's “question” to his daughters,’ in Willie van Peer 1988: 225–57.
Draper, J. W. (1952) ‘The objective genitive and “run-awayes eyes”,’ Journal of English and Germanic Philology 51:
580–3.
Eagleson, Robert D. (1971) ‘Propertied as all the tuned spheres: aspects of Shakespeare's language,’ The Teaching
of English 20: 4–15. [Rptd Salmon and Burness 1987: 133–44]
Eaton, Roger, Olga Fischer, Willem Koopman and Frederike van der Leek (eds). (1985) Papers from the 4th
International Conference on English Historical Linguistics. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 41 (Amsterdam and
Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins).
Edwards, P., I.-S. Ewbank and G. K. Hunter (eds). (1980) Shakespeare's Styles: Essays in Honour of Kenneth Muir
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Ehlich, Konrad. (1992) ‘On the history of politeness,’ in Richard Watts et al. (eds), Politeness in Language; Studies in
its History, Theory and Practice (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), pp. 71–107.
Ehrl, Charlotte. (1957) Sprachstil und Charakter bei Shakespeare. Schriftenreihe der Deutschen ShakespeareGesellschaft n.f. 6 (Heidelberg: Quelle and Meyer).
Eichler, Albert. (1925–26) ‘“Master” als Höflichkeitswort in Shakespeares Dramen,’ Englische Studien 60: 134–9.
Elam, Keir. (1984) Shakespeare's Universe of Discourse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Ellegård, Alvar. (1953) The Auxiliary Do: the Establishment and Regulation of its Use in English. Gothenburg Studies
in English 2 (Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell).
Ellis, Herbert A. (1973) Shakespeare's Lusty Punning in Love's Labour's Lost (The Hague: Mouton).
Elsness, Johan. (1994) ‘On the progression of the progressive in early Modern English,’ ICAME Journal 18: 5–25.
Evans, B. Ifor. (1959) The Language of Shakespeare's Plays (London: Methuen).
Fanego, T. (1990) ‘Finite complement clauses in Shakespeare's English,’ Studia Neophilologica, 62: 3–21 and 129–
49.
Fanego, T. (1991) ‘On the origin and history of the English syntactic type (and) none but he to marry with Nan
Page,’ English Studies 72: 513–19.
< previous page
page_350
next page >
< previous page
page_351
next page >
Page 351
Fanego, T. (1992) Infinitive Complements in Shakespeare's English: Synchronic and Diachronic Aspects (Santiago:
Universidade de Santiago de Compostela).
Fanego, T. (1994) ‘Infinitive marking in Early Modern English,’ in F. Fernández et al. 1994: 191–203.
Fanego, T. (1996a) ‘The development of gerunds as objects of subject-control verbs in English (1400–1760),’
Diachronica 13: 29–62.
Fanego, T. (1996b) ‘On the historical development of English retrospective verbs,’ Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 97:
71–9.
Fanego, T. (1996c) ‘The gerund in Early Modern English: evidence from the Helsinki Corpus,’ FLH 17: 97–152.
Fanego, T. (1997) ‘On patterns of complementation in verbs of effort,’ English Studies 78: 60–7.
Fernández, Francisco, Miguel Fuster and Juan José Calvo (eds). (1994) English Historical Linguistics 1992.
Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science IV: 113 (Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John
Benjamins).
Finkenstaedt, Thomas. (1963) You und Thou: Studien zur Anrede im Englischen (mit einem Exkurs über die Anrede
im Deutschen). Quellen und Forschungen zur Sprache- und Kulturgeschichte der germanischen Völker, neue Folge
10 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter).
Fisiak, Jacek (ed.). (1984) Historical Syntax. Trends in Linguistics 23 (Berlin, New York and Amsterdam: Mouton).
Forker, Charles. (1989) ‘Webster or Shakespeare? Style, idiom, vocabulary, and spelling in the additions to Sir
Thomas More,’ in T. H. Howard-Hill (ed.), Shakespeare and Sir Thomas More. Essays on the Play and its
Shakespearian Interest (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 151–70.
Frank, T. (1985) ‘The rise of do-support in Modern English: a re-appraisal,’ Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 10:
1–29.
Franz, W. (1902) Die Grundzüge der Sprache Shakespeares (Berlin: Felber).
Franz, W. (1924) Shakespeare-Grammatik. 3rd edn (Heidelberg: C. Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung).
Freeman, Neil. (1994) Shakespeare's First Texts (Deep Cove, Vancouver: Folio Scripts).
Fridén, Georg. (1948) Studies on the Tenses of the English Verb from Chaucer to Shakespeare with Special
Reference to the Late Sixteenth Century. Essays and Studies on English Language and Literature 2 (Uppsala:
Lundequistska Bokhandeln; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Fuami, Shigenobu. (1997) Essays on Shakespeare's Language: Language, Discourse and Text. Aries Series 11
(Kyoto: Apollon-sha).
Gibinska, Marta. (1987) The Functioning of Language in Shakespeare's Plays: A Pragma-dramatic Approach (Krakow:
Nakladem Uniwersytetu Jagiellonskiego).
Gilbert, Anthony J. (1997) Shakespeare's Dramatic Speech. Studies in Renaissance Literature 15 (Lewiston,
Queenston and Lampeter: Edwin Mellen Press).
Gillett, P. J. (1974) ‘Me, U, and Non-U: class connotations of two Shakespearean idioms,’ Shakespeare Quarterly 25:
297–309. [Rptd Salmon and Burness 1987: 117–29]
Görlach, Manfred. (1988) ‘The study of Early Modern English variation – the Cinderella of English historical
linguistics,’ in J. Fisiak (ed.), Historical Dialectology: Regional and Social (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), pp. 211–28.
< previous page
page_351
next page >
< previous page
page_352
next page >
Page 352
Görlach, Manfred. (1991) Introduction to Early Modern English (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Gordon, George. (1928) Shakespeare's English. Society for Pure English Tract 29 (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Graband, Gerhard. (1965) Die Entwicklung der frühneuenglischen Nominalflexion. Dargestellt vornehmlich auf Grund
von Grammatiker-zeugnissen des 17. Jahrhunderts (Tübingen: Niemeyer).
Graham-White, Anthony. (1995) Punctuation and its Dramatic Value in Shakespearean Drama (Newark: University
of Delaware Press; London: Associated University Presses).
Greenbaum, Sidney. (1988) Good English and the Grammarian. English Language Series 17 (London and New York:
Longman).
Grice, H. Paul. (1975) ‘Logic and conversation,’ in Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan (eds), Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 3
Speech Acts (New York: Academic Press), pp. 41–58.
Grice, H. Paul. (1981) ‘Presupposition and conversational implicature,’ in Peter Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics (New
York: Academic Press), pp. 183–98.
Gurr, A. (1982) ‘You and thou in Shakespeare's sonnets,’ Essays in Criticism 32: 9–25.
Henderson, R. A. (1993) ‘Interrogative do in the late 16th and early 17th centuries,’ in Maurizio Gotti (ed.), English
Diachronic Syntax. Collana Blu 20 (Milan: Guerini), pp. 139–48.
Hinman, Charlton. (1963) The Printing and Proof-Reading of the First Folio of Shakespeare. 2 vols (Oxford:
Clarendon Press).
Hirsch, E. D., Jr. (1967) Validity in Interpretation (New Haven, CT, and London: Yale University Press).
Holmqvist, Erik. (1922) On the History of the English Present Inflections Particularly -th and -s. (Heidelberg: C.
Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung).
Honigmann, E. A. J. (1980) ‘Shakespeare's “bombast”,’ in Edwards, Ewbank and Hunter 1980: 151–62.
Honigmann, E. A. J. (1985) Shakespeare: The Lost Years (Manchester: Manchester University Press).
Hope, Jonathan. (1993) ‘Second person singular pronouns in records of Early Modern “spoken” English,’
Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 94: 83–100.
Hope, Jonathan. (1994) The Authorship of Shakespeare's Plays (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Hope, Jonathan. (1999) ‘Shakespeare's “native English”,’ in David Scott Kaplan (ed.), A Companion to Shakespeare.
Blackwell Companions to Literature and Culture (Oxford and Maiden, MA: Blackwell), pp. 239–55.
Houston, John Porter. (1988) Shakespearean Sentences: A Study in Style and Syntax (Baton Rouge and London:
Louisiana State University Press).
Howard-Hill, T. H. (1996) ‘U and non-U: class and discourse level in Othello,’ in John M. Mucciolo (ed.),
Shakepeare's Universe: Renaissance Ideas and Conventions: Essays in Honour of W. R. Elton (Aldershot: Scolar), pp.
175–86.
< previous page
page_352
next page >
< previous page
page_353
next page >
Page 353
Hudson, Kenneth. (1970) ‘Shakespeare's use of colloquial language,’ SS 23: 39–48.
Hulme, Hilda M. (1962) Explorations in Shakespeare's Language: Some Problems of Word Meaning in the Dramatic
Text (London: Longmans, Green).
Hulme, Hilda M. (1964) ‘Shakespeare's language,’ in J. Sutherland and J. Hurstfield (eds), Shakespeare's World
(London: Arnold), pp. 136–55.
Hulme, Hilda M. (1972) Yours that Read Him: An Introduction to Shakespeare's Language (London: Ginn).
Hussey, Stan. (1992) The Literary Language of Shakespeare. 2nd edn (London and New York: Longman).
Jacobsson, Bengt. (1951) Inversion in English with Special Reference to the Early English Period (Uppsala: Almqvist
and Wiksell).
Jespersen, Otto. (1909–49) A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. 7 vols (Copenhagen: Munksgård).
Jespersen, Otto. (1917) Negation in English and Other Languages. Historisk-filologiske Meddelser udgivet af det Kgl.
Danske Videnskabernes Selskab I: 5. (Copenhagen: Munksgård). [Rptd in Selected Writings of Otto Jespersen
(London: Allen and Unwin, n.d.), pp. 3–152]
Jespersen, Otto. (1948) ‘Shakespeare and the language of poetry,’ in his Growth and Structure of the English
Language (Oxford: Blackwell), pp. 199–221.
Jones, John. (1995) Shakespeare at Work (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Jones, Richard Foster. (1953) The Triumph of the English Language. A Survey of Opinions Concerning the Vernacular
from the Introduction of Printing to the Restoration (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press).
Joseph, Sister Miriam. (1947) Shakespeare's Use of the Arts of Language (New York: Columbia University Press).
[Rptd New York and London: Hafner, 1966]
Jucker, Andreas H. (ed.) (1995) Historical Pragmatics. Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Pragmatics
and Beyond n.s. 35 (Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins).
Jucker, Andreas H. and Irma Taavitsainen. (2000) ‘Diachronic speech act analysis: insults from flyting to flaming,’
Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1: 67–95.
Jud-Schmid, Elisabeth. (1956) Der indefinite Agens von Chaucer bis Shakespeare: die Wörter und Wendungen für
‘man’. Swiss Studies in English 39 (Bern: Francke).
Kakietek, Piotr. (1972) Modal Verbs in Shakespeare's English (Poznan: Universytet im. Adama Mickiewicza).
Kakietek, Piotr. (1976) ‘The perfect auxiliaries in the language of Shakespeare,’ Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 8: 45–
53. [Rptd Salmon and Burness 1987: 309–17]
Kastovsky, Dieter (ed.). (1991) Historical English Syntax. Topics in English Linguistics 2 (Berlin and New York:
Mouton de Gruyter).
Kastovsky, Dieter (1994) Studies in Early Modern English. Studies in English Linguistics 13 (Berlin and New York:
Mouton de Gruyter).
Kellner, L. (1885) Zur Syntax des englischen Verbums mit besonderer Berücksichtingung Shakespeares (Vienna:
Hölder).
Kermode, Frank. (2000) Shakespeare's Language (London: Allen Lane).
King, Arthur H. (1941) The Language of Satirized Characters in Poetaster:
< previous page
page_353
next page >
< previous page
page_354
next page >
Page 354
A Socio-Stylistic Analysis 1597–1602. Lund Studies in English 10 (Lund: Gleerup).
Kinsley, James and George Parfitt (eds). (1970) John Dryden: Selected Criticism (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Kökeritz, Helge. (1950) ‘Punning names in Shakespeare,’ Modern Language Notes 65: 240–3.
Kökeritz, Helge. (1953) Shakespeare's Pronunciation (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).
König, Ekkehard. (1985) ‘On the history of concessive connectives. Diachronic and synchronic,’ Lingua 66: 1–19.
Kolin, Philip C. (1980) ‘The names of whores and their bawds and panders in English Renaissance drama,’
Midwestern Journal of Language and Folklore 6: 41–50.
Kopytko, Roman. (1988) ‘The impersonal use of verbs in William Shakespeare's plays,’ Studia Anglica Posnaniensia
21: 41–56.
Kopytko, Roman. (1993) Polite Discourse in Shakespeare's English. Seria Filologica Angielska 24 (Poznan:
Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza).
Kopytko, Roman. (1995) ‘Linguistic politeness strategies in Shakespeare's plays,’ in Jucker 1995: 515–40.
Kytö, M. (1991) ‘Can (could) vs. may (might): regional variation in Early Modern English? in Kastovsky 1991: 233–
89.
Kytö, M. (1994) ‘BE vs. HAVE with instransitives in Early Modern English,’ in Fernández et al. 1994: 179–90.
Lass, Roger (ed.). (1999) The Cambridge History of the English Language Volume III 1476–1776 (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press).
Leisi, Ernst. (1997) Problemwörter und Problemstellen in Shakespeares Dramen (Tübingen: Stauffenburg).
Leith, Dick. (1983) A Social History of English. (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul).
Leith, Dick. (1984) ‘Tudor London: sociolinguistic stratification and linguistic change,’ Midland Association of
Linguistic Studies (MALS) Journal 9: 47–64.
Lennard, John. (1991) But I Digress: The Exploitation of Parenthesis in English Printed Verse (Oxford: Clarendon
Press).
Lennard, John. (1995) ‘Pragmatics: and – beyond,’ in Jucker 1995: 65–98.
Levinson, Stephen C. (1983) Pragmatics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Levith, Murray J. (1978) What's in Shakespeare's Names (Hamden, CT: Archon; London and Sydney: Allen and
Unwin).
[Lowth, Robert.] (1762) A Short Introduction to English Grammar: with Critical Notes. (London: J. Hughs). [Facsimile
ed. Alston, Menston: Scolar Press, 1967).
MacIsaac, Warren J. (1978) ‘“A commodity of good names” in the Henry IV plays,’ Shakespeare Quarterly 29: 417–
19.
Magnusson, Lynne. (1997) ‘“Voice potential”: language and symbolic capital in Othello,’ SS 50: 91–9.
Magnusson, Lynne. (1999) Shakespeare and Social Dialogue: Dramatic Language and Elizabethan Letters
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Mahood, M. M. (1957) Shakespeare's Wordplay (London: Methuen).
< previous page
page_354
next page >
< previous page
page_355
next page >
Page 355
Markus, Manfred (ed.). (1988) Historical English, on the Occasion of Karl Brunner's 100th Birthday (Innsbruck:
AMOE).
Matthews, William. (1964) ‘Language in “Love's Labour's Lost”,’ Essays and Studies n.s. 17: 1–11. [Rptd Salmon and
Burness 1987: 499–509]
McIntosh, Angus. (1963) ‘“As You Like It”: a grammatical clue to character,’ Review of English Studies 4: 68–
81. [Rptd A. McIntosh and M. A. K. Halliday (eds) Patterns of Language: Papers in General, Descriptive and Applied
Linguistics (London: Longmans, 1966), pp. 70–82]
McIntosh, Carey. (1994) ‘Prestige norms in stage plays, 1600–1800,’ in Stein and Tieken-Boon 1994: 63–80.
McKenzie, D. F. (1959) ‘Shakespeare's punctuation – a new beginning,’ Review of English Studies n.s. 10: 361–70.
[Rptd Salmon and Burness 1987: 445–54]
McLeod, Randall. (1981) ‘Unemending Shakespeare's Sonnet 111,’ Studies in English Literature 1500–1900 21: 75–
96.
Melchiori, Giorgio. (1981) ‘The rhetoric of character construction: “Othello”,’ SS 34: 61–72.
Michael, Ian. (1987) The Teaching of English from the Sixteenth Century to 1870 (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press).
Millward, Celia. (1966) ‘Pronominal case in Shakespearean imperatives,’ Language 42: 10–17. [Rptd Salmon and
Burness 1987: 301–8]
Mitsui, T. (1985) ‘Relative pronouns in Shakespeare's colloquial English,’ In K. Araki, T. Egawa, T. Oyama and M.
Yasui (eds), Studies in English Grammar and Linguistics: A Miscellany in Honour of Takanobu Otsuka (Tokyo:
Kenkyusha), pp. 335–49.
Moessner, L. (1992) ‘Relative constructions and functional amalgamation in Early Modern English,’ in Rissanen et al.
1992: 336–51.
Moessner, L. (1994) ‘Early Modern English passive constructions,’ in Kastovsky 1994: 217–31.
Mulholland, J. (1967) ‘“Thou” and “you” in Shakespeare: a study in the second person pronoun,’ English Studies 48:
1–9. [Rptd Salmon and Burness 1987: 153–61]
Musgrove, S. (1981) ‘Thieves' cant in King Lear,’ English Studies 62: 5–13. [Rptd Salmon and Burness 1987: 245–
53]
Nagucka, Ruta. ‘Grammatical peculiarities of the contact-clause in Early Modern English,’ FLH 1: 171–84.
Nakatani, K. (1991) ‘Socio-stylistic varieties of Shakespearean language,’ in M. Kawai (ed.) Language and Style in
English Literature: Essays in Honour of Michio Masui (Tokyo: Eihosha), pp. 473–84.
Nash, W. (1989) ‘Changing the guard at Elsinore,’ in R. Carter and P. Simpson (eds), Language, Discourse and
Literature: An Introductory Reader in Discourse Stylistics (London: Unwin Hyman), pp. 23–41.
Nevalainen, Terttu. (1985) ‘Lexical variation and Early Modern English exclusive adverbs: style switching or a change
in progress?,’ in Eaton et al. 1985: 179–94.
Nevalainen, Terttu. (1987) ‘But’, ‘Only’ ‘Just’: Focussing Adverbial Change in Modern English 1500–1900. Mémoires
de la Société Néophilologique 51 (Helsinki: Société Néophilologique).
< previous page
page_355
next page >
< previous page
page_356
next page >
Page 356
Nevalainen, Terttu. (1994) ‘Aspects of adverbial change in Early Modern English,’ in Kastovsky 1994: 243–59.
Nevalainen, Terttu. (1997) ‘Recycling inversion: the case of initial adverbs and negators in Early Modern English,’
Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 31: 203–14.
Nevalainen, T. and L. Kahlas-Tarkka. (eds) (1997) To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language
in Honour of Matti Rissanen. Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique 52 (Helsinki: Société Néophilologique).
Nevalainen, T. and H. Raumolin-Brunberg. (1994) ‘Its strength and the beauty of it: the standardization of the third
person neuter possessive in Early Modern English,’ in Stein and Tieken-Boon 1994: 171–216.
Nevalainen, T. and H. Raumolin-Brunberg. (1995) ‘The pragmatics of address formulae in early English
correspondence,’ in Jucker 1995: 541–601.
Nevo, Ruth. (1987) Shakespeare's Other Language (London: Methuen).
Nocera Avila, C., N. Pantaleo and D. Pezzini. (eds). (1992) Early Modern English: Trends, Forms and Texts. Cultura
Straniera 49 (Fasano: Schena).
Nowottny, Winifred. (1957) ‘Lear's questions,’ SS 10: 90–7.
Nowottny, Winifred. (1960) ‘Some aspects of the style of Lear,’ SS 13: 49–57.
Nurmi, Arja. (1999) A Social History of Periphrastic ‘Do’. Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique 56 (Helsinki:
Société Néophilologique).
Onions, C. T. (1986) A Shakespeare Glossary. 3rd edn revised and enlarged by Robert D. Eagleson (Oxford:
Clarendon Press).
Ostheeren, Klaus. (1990) ‘Kontextualismus und Kontextualisierung in der Analyse der Sprache Shakepeares,’
Shakespeare Jahrbuch (West): 119–42.
Padley, G. A. (1985) Trends in Vernacular Grammar: I. Grammatical Theory in Western Europe 1500–1700
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Palmer, David J. (1965) The Rise of English Studies (London: Oxford University Press for Hull University).
Parkes, M. B. (1993) Pause and Effect: An Introduction to the History of Punctuation in the West (Aldershot: Scolar).
Partridge, A. C. (1964) Orthography in Shakespeare and Elizabethan Drama: A Study of Colloquial Contractions,
Elision, Prosody and Punctuation (London: Arnold).
Partridge, A. C. (1969) Tudor to Augustan English: A Study in Syntax and Style from Caxton to Johnson. The
Language Library (London: Deutsch).
Partridge, A. C. (1976) A Substantive Grammar of Shakespeare's Nondramatic Texts (Charlottesville: University Press
of Virginia).
Partridge, A. C. (1979) ‘Shakespeare's English: a bibliographical survey,’ Poetica [Tokyo] 11: 46–79.
Pérez-Guerra, Javier. (1999) Historical English Syntax. A Statistical Corpus-Based Study on the Organisation of Early
Modern English Sentences. Studies in Germanic Linguistics 11 (Munich: Lincom Europa).
Petit, Jean-Pierre. (1980) ‘A note on performatives in Richard II,’ in J.-P. Petit (ed.), Discourse and Style II (Lyons:
Editions l'Hérmes), pp. 105–7.
Porter, Joseph A. (1979) The Drama of Speech Acts: Shakespeare's Lancastrian Trilogy (Berkeley: University of
California Press).
Porter, Joseph A. (1986) ‘Pragmatics for criticism. Two generations of speech act theory,’ Poetics 15: 243–57.
Porter, Joseph A. (1989) ‘Fraternal pragmatics: speech acts of John and the Bastard,’ in
< previous page
page_356
next page >
< previous page
page_357
next page >
Page 357
Deborah T. Curren-Aquino (ed.), King John: New Perspectives (Newark, DE: University of Delaware Press; London:
Associated University Presses), pp. 136–43.
Quirk, Randolph. (1971) ‘Shakespeare and the English language,’ in Kenneth Muir and S. Schoenbaum (eds), A New
Companion to Shakespeare Studies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 67–82. [Rptd Salmon and Burness
1987: 3–21]
Replogle, Carol. (1973) ‘Shakespeare's salutations: a study in stylistic etiquette,’ Studies in Philology 70: 172–86.
[Rptd Salmon and Burness 1987: 101–15]
Rissanen, Matti. (1986) ‘Variation and the study of English historical syntax,’ in David Sankoff (ed.), Diversity and
Diachrony (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), pp. 97–111.
Rissanen, Matti. (1991) ‘Spoken language and the history of do-periphrasis,’ in Kastovsky 1991: 321–42.
Rissanen, M., O. Ihalainen, T. Nevalainen and I. Taavitsainen (eds). (1992) History of Englishes: New Methods and
Interpretations in Historical Linguistics. Topics in English Linguistics 10 (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter).
Rissanen, M., Merja Kytö and M. Palander-Collin (eds). (1993) Early English in the Computer Age: Explorations
through the Helsinki Corpus (Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter).
Ronberg, Gert. (1992) A Way with Words. The Language of English Renaissance Literature (London: Arnold).
Ronberg, Gert. (1995) ‘They had their points: punctuation and interpretation in English Renaissance literature,’ in
Jucker 1995: 55–63.
Rothschild, Herbert B., Jr. (1970) ‘Language and social reality in Richard II,’ in T. A. Kirby and W. J. Olive (eds),
Essays in Honor of Esmond Linworth Marilla (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press), pp. 56–68.
Rudanko, Juhani. (1993) Pragmatic Approaches to Shakespeare: Essays on Othello, Coriolanus and Timon of Athens
(Lanham, New York and London: University Press of America).
Rydén, M. and S. Brorström. (1987) The BE/HAVE Variation with Intransitives in English. Stockholm Studies in
English 70 (Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell).
Salmon, Vivian. (1965) ‘Sentence structure in colloquial Shakespearian English,’ Transactions of the Philological
Society, pp. 105–40. [Rptd Salmon and Burness 1987: 265–300]
Salmon, Vivian. (1967) ‘Elizabethan colloquial English in the Falstaff plays,’ Leeds Studies in English n.s.1: 37–70.
[Rptd Salmon and Burness 1987: 37–70]
Salmon, Vivian. (1970) ‘Some functions of Shakespeare's word–formation,’ SS 23: 13–26. [Rptd Salmon and Burness
1987: 193–206]
Salmon, Vivian. (1979) ‘Early seventeenth-century punctuation as a guide to sentence structure,’ in her The Study of
Language in 17th-Century England. Studies in the History of Linguistics 17 (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), pp. 47–
60.
Salmon, Vivian. (1986) ‘The spelling and punctuation of Shakespeare's time,’ in Stanley Wells and Gary Taylor (eds),
William Shakespeare: The Complete Works: Original-spelling Edition (Oxford: Clarendon Press), pp. xlii–lvi.
< previous page
page_357
next page >
< previous page
page_358
next page >
Page 358
Salmon, Vivian. (1988) ‘English punctuation theory: 1500–1800,’ Anglia 106: 285–314.
Salmon, Vivian and Edwina Burness (eds). (1987) A Reader in the Language of Shakespearean Drama: Collected
Essays. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science III: 35 (Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA:
John Benjamins).
Schaefer, Jürgen. (1973) Shakespeares Stil: germanisches und romanisches Vokabular (Frankfurt: Athenäum Verlag).
Schaefer, Jürgen. (1980) Documentation in the O.E.D.: Shakespeare and Nashe as Test Cases (Oxford: Clarendon
Press).
Scheffer, J. (1975) The Progressive in English. (Amsterdam: North Holland).
Scheler, Manfred. (1982) Shakespeares Englisch: eine sprachwissenschaftliche Einführung. Grundlagen der Anglistik
und Amerikanistik 12 (Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag).
Schiffrin, Deborah. (1987) Discourse Markers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Schlösser, Anselm. (1969) ‘Zur Bedeutung der Anachronismen bei Shakespeare,’ Jahrbuch der ShakespeareGesellschaft (Ost) 105: 7–24.
Schmidt, Alexander. (1902) Shakespeare-Lexicon. A Complete Dictionary of all the English Words, Phrases and
Constructions in the Works of the Poet. 3rd edn rev. by Gregor Sarrazin. 2 vols (Berlin: Georg Reimer).
Schneider, Edgar W. (1992) ‘Who(m)? Constraints on the loss of case marking of wh-pronouns in the English of
Shakespeare and other poets of the Early Modern English period,’ in Rissanen et al. 1992: 437–52.
Schneider, Edgar W. (1993) ‘The grammaticalization of possessive of which in Middle English and Early Modern
English,’ FLH 14: 239–57.
Scholtes, Gertrud. (1980) Umgebungsstrukturen von Verben im Shakespeare-Corpus (Frankfurt-am-Main: Peter
Lang).
Scholtes, Gertrud. (1983) ‘Das Passiv im dramatischen Dialog: Anmerkungen zu seinen Funktionen bei Shakespeare,’
Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 8: 197–209.
Sell, Roger D. (1975) ‘Two types of style contrast in King Lear: a literary-critical appraisal,’ in H. Ringbom et al.
(eds), Style and Text: Studies presented to Nils Erik Enkvist (Stockholm: Språkförlaget Skriptor AB and Åbo
Akademi), pp. 158–71.
Seoane Posse, Elena. (1998) ‘The passive as style marker in early modern English: evidence from the Helsinki
corpus,’ Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies 9: 155–72.
Simpson, Percy. (1911) Shakespearian Punctuation (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Singh, Rajendra. (1973) ‘Multiple negation in Shakespeare,’ Journal of English Linguistics 7: 50–6. [Rptd Salmon and
Burness 1987: 339–45]
Smallwood, P. J. (1985) Johnson's Preface to Shakespeare: A Facsimile of the 1778 Edition (Bristol: Bristol Classical
Press).
Smith, C. Alphonso. (1896) ‘Shakespeare's present indicative s-endings with plural subjects: a study in the grammar
of the First Folio,’ PMLA 11: 363–76.
Smith, Jonathan. (1968) ‘The language of Leontes,’ Shakespeare Quarterly 19: 317–27.
Smithers, G. V. (1970) ‘Guidelines for interpreting the uses of the suffix ‘-ed’ in Shakespeare's English,’ SS 23: 27–
37.
< previous page
page_358
next page >
< previous page
page_359
next page >
Page 359
Spevack, Marvin. (1968–80) A Complete and Systematic Concordance to the Works of Shakespeare. 9 vols
(Hildesheim: Olms).
Spevack, Marvin. (1985) ‘Shakespeare's language,’ in John F. Andrews (ed.), William Shakespeare: His World, His
Work, His Influence. 3 vols (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons), II: 343–61.
Sprague, A. C. (1980) ‘“True, gallant Raleigh”: some off-stage conversations in Shakespeare's plays,’ in Edwards,
Ewbank and Hunter 1980: 183–90.
Staufer, Annegret. (1974) Fremdsprachen bei Shakespeare. Das Vokabular und seine dramatischen Funktionen.
Studien zur Anglistik: Studienreihe Humanitas. (Frankfurt: Akademische Verlagsgemeinschaft).
Stein, Dieter. (1974) Grammatik und Variation von Flexionsformen in der Sprache der Shakespeare Corpus (Munich:
TU Druck und Verlags Union)
Stein, Dieter. (1985a) ‘Discourse markers in Early Modern English,’ in Eaton et al. 1985: 283–302.
Stein, Dieter. (1985b) ‘Stylistic aspects of syntactic change,’ FLH 6: 153–78.
Stein, Dieter. (1985c) Natürlicher syntaktischer Sprachwandel: Untersuchungen zur Entstehung der englischen ‘do’Periphrase in Fragen (Tübingen: tuduv Verlagsgesellschaft).
Stein, Dieter. (1986) ‘Syntactic variation and change: the case of DO in questions in Early Modern English,’ FLH 7:
121–49.
Stein, Dieter. (1987) ‘At the crossroads of philology, linguistics and semiotics: notes on the replacement of TH by S
in the third person singular in English,’ English Studies 68: 406–32.
Stein, Dieter. (1990) The Semantics of Syntactic Change: Aspects of the Evolution of ‘do’ in English (Berlin and New
York: Mouton de Gruyter).
Stein, Dieter. (1994) ‘Sorting out the variants: standardization and social factors in the English language 1600–1800,’
in Stein and Tieken-Boon 1994: 1–17.
Stein, Dieter and Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade (eds). (1994) Towards a Standard English 1600–1800 (Berlin and
New York: Mouton de Gruyter).
Stoll, Rita. (1989) Die nicht-pronominale Anrede bei Shakespeare. Neue Studien zur Anglistik und Amerikanistik 41
(Frankfurt-am-Main: Peter Lang).
Taavitsainen, Irma. (1995) ‘Interjections in Early Modern English: from imitation of spoken to conventions of written
language,’ in Jucker 1995: 439–65.
Taavitsainen, Irma, Gunnel Melchers and Päivi Pahta (eds). (1999) Writing in Non-Standard English (Amsterdam and
Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins).
Taylor, Estelle W. (1972) ‘Shakespeare's use of s endings of the verbs to do and to have in the First Folio,’ CLA
Journal 16: 214–31. [Rptd Salmon and Burness 1987: 371–88]
Taylor, Estelle W. (1976) ‘Shakespeare's use of eth and es endings of verbs in the First Folio,’ CLA Journal 19: 437–
57. [Rptd Salmon and Burness 1987: 349–69]
Tilley, M. P. (1916) ‘Some evidence in Shakespeare of contemporary efforts to refine the language of the day,’ PMLA
31: 65–78.
Traugott, E. C. (1972) A History of English Syntax: A Transformational Approach to the History of English Sentence
Structure (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston).
< previous page
page_359
next page >
< previous page
page_360
next page >
Page 360
Tritt, Carleton S. (1973) ‘The language of capitalization in Shakespeare's First Folio,’ Visible Language 7: 41–50.
Trnka, B. (1930) On the Syntax of the English Verb from Caxton to Dryden. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de
Prague 3 (Prague: Jednota Ceskoslovenskych Matematiku a Fysiku).
Trousdale, Marion. (1982) Shakespeare and the Rhetoricians (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press).
Trousdale, Marion. (1997) ‘Reading the early modern text,’ SS 50: 135–45.
Ukaji, M. (1973) ‘Imperative constructions in Shakespeare,’ Studies in English Linguistics 2: 71–107.
van Peer, Willie (ed.). (1988) The Taming of the Text: Explorations in Language, Literature and Culture (London and
New York: Routledge).
Vickers, Brian. (1968) The Artistry of Shakespeare's Prose (London: Methuen).
Vickers, Brian. (1971) ‘Shakespeare's use of rhetoric,’ in Kenneth Muir and S. Schoenbaum (eds), A New Companion
to Shakespeare Studies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 83–98. [Rptd Salmon and Burness 1987: 391–
406]
Vickers, Brian. (1993) Appropriating Shakespeare. Contemporary Critical Quarrels (New Haven, CT, and London: Yale
University Press).
Visser, F. Th. (1963–73) An Historical Syntax of the English Language. 3 parts [4 vols] (Leiden: E. J. Brill).
Wales, Kathleen M. (1978) ‘An aspect of Shakespeare's dynamic language: a note on the interpretation of King Lear
III.VII.113: “He childed as I father'd”,’ English Studies 59: 395–404. [Rptd Salmon and Burness 1987: 181–90]
Wales, Kathleen M. (1983) ‘Thou and you in early modern English: Brown and Gilman reappraised,’ Studia
Linguistica 37: 107–25.
Wales, Kathleen M. (1985) ‘Generic “your” and Jacobean drama: the rise and fall of a pronominal usage,’ English
Studies 66: 7–24.
Warren, Michael J. (1977) ‘Repunctuation as interpretation in editions of Shakespeare,’ English Literary Renaissance
7: 155–69. [Rptd Salmon and Burness 1987: 455–69]
Weidhorn, Manfred. (1969) ‘The relation of title and name to identity in Shakespearean tragedy,’ Studies in English
Literature 1500–1900 9: 303–19.
Weimann, Robert. (1972) ‘Shakespeare's wordplay: popular origins and theatrical function,’ in Clifford Leech and J.
M. R. Margeson (eds), Shakespeare 1971 (Toronto: Toronto University Press), pp. 230–43.
Wells, Stanley. (1980) ‘Juliet's Nurse: the uses of inconsequentiality,’ in Edwards, Ewbank and Hunter 1980: 51–66.
Wells, Stanley. (1984) Re-Editing Shakespeare for the Modern Reader, Based on Lectures Given at the Folger
Shakespeare Library, Washington, D.C. (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Wells, Stanley and Gary Taylor. (1980) Modernizing Shakespeare's Spelling, with Three Studies of the Text of “Henry
V” (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Wells, Stanley and Gary Taylor. (eds). (1987) William Shakespeare: A Textual Companion (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Whitaker, Virgil K. (1953) Shakespeare's Use of Learning (San Marino, CA: Huntington Library).
< previous page
page_360
next page >
< previous page
page_361
next page >
Page 361
Widdowson, H. G. (1982) ‘Othello in person,’ in R. Carter (ed.), Language and Literature (London: Routledge), pp.
41–52.
Wik, B. (1973) English Nominalizations in –ing: Synchronic and Diachronic Aspects (Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell).
Wikberg, Kay. (1975) Yes-No Questions and Answers in Shakespeare's Plays. Acta Academiæ Åboensis Ser. A vol. 51
nr 1 (Åbo: Åbo Akademi).
Willcock, Gladys D. (1934) Shakespeare as Critic of Language. The Shakespeare Association Papers 18 (London:
Oxford University Press).
Willcock, Gladys D. (1943) ‘Shakespeare and rhetoric,’ Essays and Studies 29: 50–61.
Willcock, Gladys D. (1954a) ‘Shakespeare and Elizabethan English,’ SS 7: 12–24.
Willcock, Gladys D. (1954b) ‘Language and poetry in Shakespeare's early plays,’ Proceedings of the British Academy
40: 103–17.
Williams, Gordon. (1997) A Glossary of Shakespeare's Sexual Language (London and Atlantic Highlands, NJ:
Athlone).
Williams, Joseph M. (1992) ‘“O! When degree is shak'd”: sixteenth-century anticipations of some modern attitudes
toward usage,’ in Tim William Machan and Charles T. Scott (eds), English in its Social Contexts: Essays in Historical
Sociolinguistics. Oxford Studies in Sociolinguistics (New York and London: Oxford University Press), pp. 69–101.
Wilson, F. P. (1941) ‘Shakespeare and the diction of common life,’ Proceedings of the British Academy 27: 167–97.
Wright, George T. (1981) ‘Hendiadys and Hamlet,’ PMLA 96: 168–93. [Rptd Salmon and Burness 1987: 407–32]
Wright, S. M. (1990) ‘Discourse, style and the rise of periphrastic do in English, FLH 10: 71–91.
Yonglin, Y. (1991) ‘How to talk to the supernatural in Shakespeare,’ Language in Society 20: 247–61.
Zitner, Sheldon P. (1974) ‘“King Lear” and its language,’ in Rosalie Colie and F. T. Flahiff (eds), Some Facets of King
Lear (London: Heinemann), pp. 3–22.
< previous page
page_361
next page >
< previous page
page_362
next page >
Page 362
Index
Note: In the Indices all references are to the section numbering in this book. References in the General Index in bold
type indicate the principal discussions of that feature as well as indicating that the feature is referred to in all or the
majority of subsections with the same initial digit(s): thus 7 embraces all or most references starting with 7; 7.1
those or most of those starting with 7.1, and so on. Sigils of the works of Shakespeare in brackets refer to the
specific play or poem in which the references to people or places are located.
GENERAL
Abbott, E. A. A Shakespearian Grammar 1.2.2–3, 3.3.2.6, 3.3.3.1, 10.1
ability 4.3.7.9; hypothetical 4.3.7.9
ablative absolute 4.3.5, 4.3.8, 6.3.2.2, 7.1.2.4, 10.2
accretion 7.5
accusative + infinitive 4.3.1.1, 4.3.7.5, 4.4.2, 4.4.4, 6.1.2.2, 7.1.3
Achilles (TC) 5.1.1, 7.1.1.2, 7.1.1.5
action 3.3.6, 3.3.6.2, 4.3.7.1–3, 4.3.7.7, 4.4.3–4, 5.4.2, 8.1.5, 8.2.1, 8.4.3, 9.1.1, 9.1.3; completed 4.3.4, 7.2.6;
conclusion of 4.4.4; habitual 4.3.7.5–6, 4.3.9, 4.4.4; hypothetical 4.3.7.6; inception of 4.4.4; non-volitional 4.3.7.6;
past 4.3.7.9; repeated 4.3.7.7, 4.4.4; simultaneous 4.3.7.3
Adam (AY) 8.3.2; (CE) 3.3.4.2.2
addressee 3.3.2.1.1, 3.3.4.5, 4.3.7.3, 4.3.7.5, 6.3.5, 7.3.6, 8.1, 9.1.2.2, 9.1.3–6, 9.3.1–2
adjacency pairs 9.1.3
adjective/modifier 2.2.2, 2.2.3.1, 3.1, 3.2.1.2, 3.2.3, 3.3, 4.2.5, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.3, 4.3.5, 4.3.8–9, 4.4.3–4, 5.1, 5.3.1,
5.4.2, 6.1, 6.2.1.4, 6.2.4, 6.2.5.1, 6.3.2.2–3, 6.3.5, 7.1.1.4, 7.1.2.1–2, 7.1.3, 7.5.1.1–2, 7.5.2.3, 7.6, 8.1.3–4, 9.3.2,
10.2: attributive 4.3.5; comparative 3.2.3, 3.2.3.4, 3.3.1.3, 3.3.4.2.2, 6.2.4: double 1.2.2, 2.1, 3.2.3.4, 10.1;
compound 2.2.9, 2.3.3, 3.3.3.1, 5.1.2.4, 6.2.5.1, 7.5.2.3; demonstrative 3.1, 3.2.1.1, 3.2.2.2, 3.2.3.2, 3.3.2.6, 3.3.4,
3.3.4.2.2, 3.3.4.5, 6.1.2, 10.2; gradation 3.2.3; group 3.3.3.3, 3.3.4.2.2; honorific 8.1.2–4; indefinite 6.2.1.4;
intensive 5.1.3.1; objective 3.3.3.4; participial 5.1.3.1, 6.3.2.2; plural 3.2.3.1; possessive 3.1, 3.2.2.1, 3.2.3.3,
3.3.2.1–2, 3.3.3.1, 3.3.3.2, 3.3.4, 3.3.4.1, 3.3.4.5, 4.3.8.1, 6.1.2.5, 8.1.4, 8.3.5, 10.2; post-posed 3.2.1.2, 3.3.2.2,
3.3.2.7, 3.3.3.1–2, 3.3.3.4, 3.3.6.2, 4.3.8, 7.1.3.4, 10.1;
< previous page
page_362
next page >
< previous page
page_363
next page >
Page 363
predicative 3.3.3.4, 3.3.3.6; subjective 3.3.3.4; superlative 3.2.3, 3.2.3.4, 3.3.1.3, 5.4.2: double 1.2.2, 3.2.3.4;
transferred epithet 3.3.3.4; transposed 5.1.2.1
Adonis (VA) 3.3.2.2, 5.3.2.1
adverb(ial) 1.2.2, 2.2.3.1, 2.2.9, 3.2.3.4, 3.3.1.3, 3.3.2.3–4, 3.3.3.1–2, 3.3.3.5–6, 3.3.5, 3.3.6.1, 4.2.8.1, 4.3, 4.4.1,
5.1, 5.3, 5.3.1, 5.3.2.1–2, 5.4, 5.4.2, 6.1.1.3, 6.2.1.3, 6.3.4–5, 7, 8.3.1.2, 10.2: affirmative 2.3.2.1, 5.1.3.5, 5.1.3.6;
comparative 5.1.2.4: double 5.1.2.4; direction 4.3.7.7; down-toners 5.1.3.2; durative 4.3.7.1; intensive 5.1.3.1;
interrogative 7.3, 7.3.3, 8.3.1.1; manner 5.1.3.5; negative 5.1.3.6; place 3.3.3.1, 5.1.3.4; prepositional 4.1, 4.3.1.1;
superlative 5.1.2.4; temporal 3.3.3.1, 4.3.2, 5.1.3.3, 5.1.3.5, 5.4.2: indeterminate time 4.3.7.1
adversative 5.3.1, 6.2.6
Aeneas (2H6) 5.3.2.9; (JC) 7.1.1.5
affirmation 4.3.7.5, 5.3.2.3, 6.2.1.4, 9.1.5
affix 6.2.5.2
Agrippa (AC) 8.2.1, 8.2.6
Aguecheek, Sir Andrew (TN) 3.3.1.3, 4.3.7.7
Albany, Duke of (KL) 4.3.6, 8.1.4
Alcibiades (Tim) 7.4
Alençon, Duke of (2H6) 7.5.2.4
Alexas (AC) 9.1.2.2
Aliena (AY) 4.3.7.5
Allen, M. 1.3
All is True see Henry VIII
alliteration 7.5.2.3, 8.4.2
All's Well That Ends Well 3.2.1.1, 3.2.2.1, 3.2.2.4, 3.3.1.3, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.4–7, 3.3.3.1, 3.3.3.6, 3.3.4.3.1, 3.3.4.5,
3.3.5, 4.2.2, 4.2.3.3, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.1.3, 4.3.1.5, 4.3.2–4, 4.3.7.3, 4.3.7.5, 4.3.7.7–8, 4.3.7.11, 4.3.8, 4.3.8.1, 4.4.1,
4.4.3–4, 5.1.3.2–3, 5.1.3.5–7, 5.2.5, 5.3.1, 5.3.2.1–4, 5.3.2.8, 5.4, 5.4.1.3, 5.4.2, 6.2.1.6, 6.2.1.8, 6.2.3.3, 6.2.5.1,
7.3.3, 8.3.4
ambiguity 2.2.2, 2.2.9, 2.3.2.1, 3.2.1.2, 3.3.3.3, 3.3.3.6, 3.3.4.3.2, 3.3.4.5, 4.2.9, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.9, 6.1.1.6, 6.2.3.1,
6.2.9, 6.3.5, 7.1.3.1, 8.1.4, 8.2.8, 8.3.2
analogy 3.2.1.1, 3.3.6.1, 10.1
anaphora 3.3.2.2, 3.3.2.4
Anchises (2H6) 5.3.2.9; (JC) 7.1.1.5
Angelo, Lord (MM) 3.3.2.1, 5.4.2
Anglo-Norman 2.1
Anne, Lady (R3) 7.1.2.2, 8.1.2
Antigonus (WT) 4.3.1.3, 6.2.1.5, 6.3.5
Antipholus (CE) 3.3.6.1
Antium (Cor) 4.3.7.1
Antonio (MV) 3.3.2.4, 4.2.9; (Tem) 6.4.1, 8.3.2
Antony (AC) 2.3.2.1, 5.4.2, 8.1, 8.2.3, 8.2.5–6, 8.2.8, 8.4.3, 9.1.2.1–2, 9.1.3, 9.3.1; (JC) 4.3.7.1, 8.1.2
Antony and Cleopatra 2.2.3.1–3, 2.2.4.2, 2.2.8, 2.3.2.1, 3.2.1.1–2, 3.3.1.1, 3.3.1.3, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.6–7, 3.3.4.2.2,
3.3.4.4, 4.2.2, 4.2.2.4, 4.2.4.1, 4.3.1.5, 4.3.3, 4.3.5, 4.3.7.1, 4.3.7.7, 4.3.7.9, 4.3.8, 4.3.8.1, 4.3.9, 4.4.1–3, 5.1.2.2,
5.1.3.1, 5.4.2–3, 6.1.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.3.4, 6.2.4, 6.2.5.1–2, 6.3.2.3, 7.1.1.1, 7.1.1.4, 7.1.3, 7.1.3.2, 7.2.4, 7.6, 8.1,
8.1.1, 8.2.1–3, 8.2.5–6, 8.2.8, 8.4.3, 9.1.2.1–2, 9.3.1–2
Apemantus (Tim) 3.3.2.1, 4.3.10, 6.3.1.2, 7.3.6, 7.4
< previous page
page_363
next page >
< previous page
page_364
next page >
Page 364
apposition 2.2.3.3, 3.3.6.1, 3.3.6.5, 5.4.2, 6.3.2.1, 7.1.2.1, 7.2.7, 7.5.2.1, 7.5.2.2–4, 10.2
archaism 3.1, 3.2.3.4, 4.2.2, 4.2.5, 5.1.2.2, 5.1.3.5–6, 5.3.2.8, 5.4.2, 6.1.1.7, 6.2, 10.2
Arden (AY) 7.1.1.4
Ariel (Tem) 3.3.1.2
Armado (LL) 2.1, 8.4.2
article 3.1, 3.3.1.3, 3.3.4: definite 3.3.4.2, 3.3.4.3.2; indefinite 3.3.4.3
Arviragus (Cym) 6.3.5
Ascham, Roger 2.1
Asia (AC) 9.3.2
aspectualisers 4.4.4: egressive 4.4.4; ingressive 4.4.4
asseveration 1.1.4, 4.2.3, 5.1.3.7, 5.2.1, 5.2.5, 6.3.3, 8.3.5, 8.4.3: male 8.3.6, female 8.3.6
asyndeton 7.5.1.1, 7.5.1.3, 7.5.2.1
As You Like It 2.2.3.2, 3.2.1.1–2, 3.2.3.4, 3.3.1.3, 3.3.2.1–2, 3.3.2.6–7, 3.3.3.1, 3.3.3.3–4, 3.3.4.2.2, 3.3.4.3.2,
3.3.4.5, 3.3.5, 4.2.2, 4.2.4.1, 4.2.7, 4.2.9, 4.3.1.2–3, 4.3.2, 4.3.2.1, 4.3.3, 4.3.7.3, 4.3.7.5, 4.3.7.7, 4.3.8, 4.3.10,
4.4.1, 4.4.4, 5.1.2.1–4, 5.1.3.3, 5.1.3.5–7, 5.3.1, 5.3.2.1–2, 5.3.2.4, 5.3.2.8–9, 5.4.1.1, 5.4.1.3, 5.4.2–3, 6.1.1.1–2,
6.1.1.6, 6.2.1.6, 6.2.3.1, 6.2.4, 6.3.1.1–2, 6.3.2.2, 6.3.2.4, 6.3.5, 7.1, 7.1.1.1–5, 7.1.2.1, 7.1.2.4, 7.1.3, 7.1.3.1,
7.2.1, 7.3.3, 7.5.1.1–3, 7.6, 8.1.3, 8.3.2, 8.3.4, 8.3.7, 8.4.1
Athenian, Old (Tim) 6.3.2.1, 8.2.4
Athens (AC) 6.3.2.3; (Tim) 6.3.2.1
Audrey (AY) 3.3.4.2.2
Aumerle (R2) 6.3.5
auxiliary 3.3.2.3, 4.1, 4.2.2.3, 4.2.7, 4.2.9, 4.3.1, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.6, 4.3.7, 4.3.8, 4.4.3–4, 6.2.2, 6.3.5, 7, 10.2: do (doperiphrasis) 4.2.2, 4.2.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.3, 4.3.7.4, 4.3.8, 4.4.4, 6.2, 6.2.2, 7.1.2.4, 7.2.2, 7.3.1, 7.3.5, 8.3.8; double
4.1; let 4.2.3.2, 7.2.7; marginal 4.3.7.11; modal 1.2.3, 4.1, 4.2.1, 4.2.1.1, 4.2.2.2–3, 4.2.2.6, 4.2.4.4, 4.2.6–7, 4.3.1,
4.3.2, 4.3.2.1, 4.3.3, 4.3.7, 4.3.7.2–4, 4.3.7.5–10, 4.3.9, 6.3.2.3–4, 7.1.3, 7.4.1; non-modal 4.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.2.3,
4.2.3.3; 4.2.6–7, 4.2.9, 4.3.7, 4.3.7.1–4, 4.4.3, 6.3.2.2, 6.3.2.5, 7.2; pseudo-auxiliary 3.3.2.3, 4.1, 4.3.1, 4.3.7.4,
4.3.9, 4.4.4, 7.2; triple 4.1
Bagot (R2) 6.3.5
Baldwin, W. 2.1
Banquo (Mac) 4.3.1.2, 4.3.3, 5.1.1, 6.1.1.1, 8.3.7, 10.2
Barber, C. 1.2.3
Bardolph (H5) 8.1.3, 8.2.3
Barnado (Ham) 4.3.2.1
Bate, J. 5.1.1
Beatrice (MA) 6.2.3.1
Benedick (MA) 3.3.3.6, 3.3.4.2.2
Bertram (AW) 5.1.3.7
Bevington, D. 8.2.3, 8.3.2, 9.1.2.1–2
Bianca (Oth) 9.2
Bible (Authorised Version) 2.1, 7.3.5
Blake, N. F. 1.2.2, 2.1, 2.2.3.1, 2.3.2.1, 3.3.2.1.1, 8.2.3, 8.2.8, 8.3.1.1, 9.1.2.1, 10.1–2
blasphemy 5.2.1, 5.2.5, 8.3.5
Blayney, P. W. M. 1.3
Blunt, Sir Walter (1H4) 8.1.3
Bohemia, King of (WT) 3.3.6.5, 5.4.2
Bolingbroke, Henry, Duke of Hereford (2H4) 7.5.2.5; (R2) 5.4.2, 6.3.5, 8.1.1, 8.4.3. See also Henry IV
< previous page
page_364
next page >
< previous page
page_365
next page >
Page 365
Borachio (MA) 6.3.5
Bowers, F. 1.1.5
Brabant (LL) 6.2.2
Brabantio (Oth) 6.4, 7.3.3, 7.4, 8.2.1–2, 9.1.7
Brackenbury, Lord (R3) 8.1.2
Braunmuller, A. R. 5.4, 10
Brissenden, A. 8.1.3, 8.3.2
Britain (Cym) 4.4.4
Brittany, Duke of (2H6) 7.5.2.4
Brook, G. L. 1.2.2
Brooke, N. 8.3.7, 10
Broom, Mr (MW) 4.3.7.1
Brown, P. 9.3.1
Brown, R. 1.2.3, 9.3.1
Brutus (Ham) 4.3.7.7; (JC) 3.2.1.2, 4.3.1, 4.3.2.1, 5.4.2, 8.3.1.1, 9.3.2
Buckingham, Duke of (2H6) 5.4.2; (R3) 7.5.2.1
Bullcalf (2H4) 5.1.3.5
Burbage, William 1.1.4
Burgundy, Duke of (KL) 8.1.4, 8.2.1–3, 8.2.5
Burness, E. 1.2.3
Burton, D. M. 1.2.3, 8.4.3
Cade, Jack [alias Lord Mortimer] (2H6) 8.1.1
Caesar, Julius (AC) 2.2.4.2, 3.2.1.2, 3.3.2.1, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.7.7, 4.4.1; (Cym) 6.3.2.4; (JC) 4.3.8.1, 5.3.2.9, 5.4.2, 8.1.2,
8.2.8
Caesarion (AC) 3.3.4.2.2
Cain (Ham) 3.3.2.6
Caius, Dr (MW) 4.3.7.7, 8.2.1
Calabria, Duke of (2H6) 7.5.2.4
Caliban (Tem) 6.2.1.1
Calvo, C. 3.3.2.1.1
Cambyses, King (1H4) 8.3.8
Camillo (WT) 4.3.1.1, 5.3.2.9, 6.2.3.1
Canterbury, Archbishop of (H5) 7.5.2.2
Capitol (Ham) 4.3.9
Capulet, Lady (RJ) 4.2.2.2
Cardenio 1.1.5
Carthage (MN) 3.3.3.1
Casca (JC) 3.2.1.2, 6.1.1.6
case 3.2.1, 3.2.2.1, 3.2.3, 3.3.2.6, 6.1, 6.1.2; ablative 2.1; dative 3.3.2.1, 4.4.1, 4.4.3, 5.4.1.1, 5.4.2; dative plural
5.1.2.1–2; ethic dative 3.3.2.1, 3.3.4.5, 4.4.2, 7.1, 7.2.1, 7.6; partitive genitive 3.2.2.4, 3.2.3.4, 3.3.2.7, 3.3.5,
5.1.3.6, 5.4.2; genitive see possessive; instrumental 3.3.4.2.2; nominative or subject 3.2.2.1, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.1.1,
3.3.2.3, 3.3.2.6; object 3.2.2.1, 7.1.3; oblique 3.2.1, 3.2.2.1, 3.2.2.3–4, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.1.1, 3.3.2.6; post-preposition
3.2..2.1; vocative 7.1.2.2, 7.2.1
Cassandra (TC) 8.2.5
Cassio (Oth) 4.2.3.1, 6.4.1, 6.4.3, 7.1.2.1, 7.1.2.4, 7.6, 8.2.4, 9.1.5, 9.2
Cassius 3.2.1.2, 9.3.2
Cato (JC) 3.3.6.2
cause, causality 2.2.2, 2.2.4.1, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.8, 5.3.2.4, 7.1.2.4, 7.1.3.1
Cawdor see Macbeth
Cawdrey, Robert. A Table Alphabeticall 2.1
Celia (AY) 7.6
Cerberus (2H4) 5.4.2
Chamberlain (1H4) 8.3.3
Chancery 2.1
character 9.1.5, 9.3.3; relationship of 8.1.4–5, 9.3.1; portrayal of 4.2.3, 9.1.2.2, 9.1.4, 9.1.6, 9.2; power relations
3.3.2.1.1
Charles (AY) 3.3.2.6; (1H6) 3.2.1.2
Charmian (AC) 4.3.3, 8.2.1–2, 9.1.2.2, 9.1.3–4
Chaucer, Geoffrey 2.1
Chester, Robert. Love's Martyr 1.1.2
Chief Justice, Lord (2H4) 8.4.3
Christianity 8.3.5
< previous page
page_365
next page >
< previous page
page_366
next page >
Page 366
Church, Catholic 2.1; primitive 2.1
Cinna (JC) 3.3.4.5
Civil Service 2.1
Clarence, George Duke of (R3) 4.3.8, 8.1.2
Claudio (MA) 4.3.1.2, 4.3.1.5, 4.3.10, 5.1.3.6, 6.3, 8.1; (MM) 4.3.7.6
Claudius (Ham) 4.2.3, 7.4, 8.1.4
clause 1.2.2, 2.2.1–2, 2.2.3.1–2, 2.2.4.1, 2.2.4.3, 3.1, 3.2.2.4, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.4–6, 3.3.4.2.2, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.8, 5.1.1,
5.1.2.1, 5.1.3.7, 5.3, 5.3.1, 5.3.2.3, 5.3.2.9, 5.4, 5.4.1.3, 6.1.1.5–6, 6.1.2.1–2, 6.2, 6.2.1.3, 6.2.1.7, 6.3.2.5, 6.3.5,
6.4.1, 6.4.3, 7, 8.3, 8.3.1.2, 8.3.2–3, 8.3.7, 8.4.1, 10.2; active 4.2.9; adjectival 7.1.2.2; adverbial 3.3.6.3, 5.1.3.7,
7.1.1.1–2, 7.1.1.5, 7.1.2.4, 7.1.3.4, 7.5.2.4; appositive 7.1.2.1; causal 7.1.2.4; causative 4.4.4; comparative 5.3.2.9;
concessive 3.3.2.6, 5.3.2.8; conditional 3.3.2.7, 3.3.6.5, 4.2.2.1, 4.3.2.1, 4.3.6, 4.3.7.5–9, 4.3.9, 5.1, 5.3, 5.3.2.5,
7.1.2.4, 8.4.3; declarative 6.2.2, 7.1, 7.3.3, 7.4, 7.4.1; exclamatory 7.1.2.1, 7.4; final 5.3.2.7; finite 3.3.6.4–5,
4.3.1.1, 4.3.8, 4.3.8.1, 4.4.4, 5.3.2.1, 7; if-clause 4.3.6, 4.4.1, 7.1.3.4; imperative 7.1.2.4, 7.2, 7.4, 7.4.1; infinitive
2.2.3.2, 3.3.2.1, 5.4.2, 7.1.3; interrogative 7.3.2, 7.4, 7.4.1; main 4.2.3, 4.3.2, 4.3.2.1, 4.3.3, 4.3.6, 4.3.7.2, 4.3.7.5–
8, 4.4.1–2, 5.3.1, 5.3.2.1, 5.3.2.4–6, 6.2.3.4, 6.2.8, 6.3.2.5, 6.3.5, 7.1.1.1, 7.1.2.1–4, 7.1.3.1, 7.1.3.4, 7.5.2.4;
negative 5.1.3.5, 6.2.3.2–4, 6.2.7; non-finite 2.2.3.2, 3.3.6.2–3, 3.3.6.5, 4.3.1, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.5, 4.3.7.7, 4.3.8, 5.1.3.7,
5.3.2.1, 5.4.2, 6.3.2.2, 7.1.2.2, 7.1.2.4, 7.1.3, 7.1.3.4, 7.5.2.2, 10.1–2; noun 3.3.6.5, 4.3.7.7, 7.1.2.1–2; object
4.3.7.8, 7.1.1.5, 7.1.2.1, 7.1.3, 8.3.2; optative 5.3.2.1, 5.3.2.3; organisation of 7; parallel 6.3.4; participial 2.2.3.2,
3.3.6.5, 6.3.2.5, 6.3.2.7, 7.1.2.2, 7.1.2.4, 10.2; positive 6.2.3.4; predicative 7.1.3; purpose 5.3.2.1; relative 2.2.3.2,
3.3.2.6, 3.3.4.2.1, 3.3.6.3, 3.3.6.5, 4.3.2.1, 4.3.7.7, 5.3.2.1–2, 5.4, 5.4.1.1, 5.4.2.1–2, 6.3.3.1, 7.1.2.1, 7.1.2.4,
7.1.3, 7.5.2.1–2; result 5.3.2.1, 5.3.2.6, 7.1.2.4, 7.1.3.4; structure 7; subject of 7.1.2.1–2, 7.1.3; subordinate
3.3.2.6, 4.2.3, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.2.1, 4.3.6, 4.3.7.2, 4.3.7.5–8, 4.4.1, 5.3.1, 5.3.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.8, 6.3.2.5, 7.1.2,
7.1.3, 7.1.3.1, 7.2.8; temporal 4.3.7.7, 4.3.9, 5.3.2.2; that-clause 4.3.7.5, 4.4.4, 7.1.2.1; verbless 3.3.6.5; whenclause 4.3.5, 7.5.2.5; which-clause 7.5.2.2. See also sentence.
Cleomines (WT) 3.3.2.6
Cleopatra (AC) 2.3.2.1, 3.3.4.2.2, 7.6, 8.1.1, 8.2.1–2, 8.2.8, 9.1.2.1–2, 9.1.3–4
Clifford, Lord (3H6) 8.3.1.1
Cloten (Cym) 6.3.2.1, 6.3.3–4
Clown (Oth) 7.6
Comedy of Errors, The 1.1.5, 3.2.1.2, 3.2.2.1, 3.2.3.3–4, 3.3.1.3, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.4, 3.3.2.7, 3.3.3.4, 3.3.4.2.2, 3.3.4.4,
3.3.6.1–2, 4.2.2.3, 4.2.3.2–3, 4.2.4.1, 4.2.4.4, 4.2.5, 4.2.7, 4.3.1, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.1.3, 4.3.2, 4.3.2.1, 4.3.5–6, 4.3.7.5–
6, 4.3.7.8–9, 4.4.3–4,
< previous page
page_366
next page >
< previous page
page_367
next page >
Page 367
5.1.2.2, 5.1.3.1, 5.1.3.4–6, 5.2.2, 5.3.2.2, 5.3.2.4–5, 5.3.2.9, 5.4.2–3, 6.1.1.1, 6.1.1.6, 6.2.1.4, 6.2.1.7, 7.1.2.1
command 1.2.2, 4.2.3.1–2, 4.3.2.1, 4.3.3, 4.3.7.5, 9.1.3, 9.1.6, 9.3.1; conditions 9.1.3–6. See also imperative
complement 3.3.2.1, 3.3.4.2.2, 4.2.8.1, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.8.1, 4.4.3, 5.3.2.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.3.21, 7.1.1.4, 7.1.3, 7.2.7;
adjective 7.1.3; infinitive 1.2.3; noun 7.1.3; object 2.2.3.1, 7.1.1.4, 7.1.2.1, 7.1.3; subject 7.1.1.4, 7.1.3
compositor(s) 1.1.5, 2.2.1, 2.2.3.3, 2.3.1, 2.3.2.4, 3.3.2.1.1, 3.3.2.4, 4.2.2, 4.2.5, 4.4.1, 7.6; ~ A 2.3.1; ~ B 2.3.1
compression 3.3.3.5, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.1.3, 4.3.8, 6.3.5, 7.1.3.1
concession 7.1.3.1
concord 6.1, 10.1
Condell, Henry 1.1.4–5
condition 4.3.1.1, 4.3.3, 4.3.5, 4.3.7.6–7, 4.3.8, 5.3.2.5, 5.4.2, 6.2.1.4, 6.3.2.1, 7.1.2.4, 7.1.3.1
conjunction 4.3.2.1, 4.3.8, 4.4.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.3.3–5, 5.3, 7.1.2.1–2, 7.1.2.4, 7.1.3.1, 7.5.2.3, 10.2; adversative 5.3.1;
causal 5.3.2.1, 5.3.2.4, 7.1.2.4, 7.1.3.1; conditional 5.3.2.5; co-ordinate 5.1.1, 5.3, 5.3.1, 6.2.3.1, 6.3.4, 10.1;
correlative 5.3.1, 5.3.2.3; pleonastic 5.3.2.1; subordinate 5.3, 5.3.2; temporal 5.3.2.4
conversation 6.2.3.4, 6.3, 6.3.2.5, 8.1.4, 8.2.1, 8.2.6, 9.1, 9.3; exchange 3.3.2.1.1; strategies 8.2: announcement
8.2.5–6; dialogue 6.3, 6.3.5, 6.4.1, 8.2.6, 8.3, 8.3.7, 9.1.1, 9.1.2.1; filler 8.3.1.2; formulas 8.1.4, 8.2; greeting 5.2.3,
7.3.6, 8.2.1, 8.2.3–4, 9.3.1: informal 8.2.3; hedge 6.3.5, 9.3.2; parting 8.1.4, 8.2.1, 8.2.6–8; post-parting 8.1.4,
8.2.8; pre-parting 8.2.6; pre-request 8.1.4, 8.2.4; presupposition 9.1.3–6; request 4.3.2.1, 4.3.7.5, 5.2.2, 8.1.4,
8.2.4–6, 9.1.3; response 6.3, 6.3.2.5, 6.3.5, 7.1.1.3, 7.5.2.5, 8.1.4, 8.2.1–3, 8.3.4, 9.1.3; summons 5.2.3, 8.2.1,
8.3.1.1, 8.3.2
co-operative principle 9.1, 9.3.1; maxims of 9.1.1, 9.1.5, 9.1.2.1; refusal to follow 9.1.5
co-ordination 5.1.1, 7.5.1.2
Coote, Edmund. English Schoolemaister 2.1
Cordelia (KL) 2.2.9, 5.3.2.9, 8.1.1, 8.1.4, 8.3.1.1, 9.1.6
Coriolanus 1.1.5, 1.2.2, 2.1, 2.2.3.1, 3.2.1.2, 3.2.3.4, 3.3.1.2–3, 3.3.2.1–3, 3.3.2.6–7, 3.3.3.1, 3.3.3.4, 3.3.4.2.2,
3.3.4.3.1–2, 3.3.4.5, 4.2.2.2, 4.2.2.4, 4.2.4.1, 4.2.4.3, 4.2.5, 4.2.7, 4.2.8.1, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.3, 4.3.5–6, 4.3.7.1, 4.3.7.3,
4.3.7.5–6, 4.3.7.9, 4.3.9, 4.4.2–4, 5.1.2.1, 5.1.2.3–4, 5.1.3.3, 5.1.3.5–6, 5.2.2, 5.3.2.9, 5.4, 5.4.1.3, 5.4.2–3,
6.1.1.2, 6.1.1.4, 6.2.3.1, 6.2.5.2, 6.3.1.4, 6.3.4, 7.1.1.4, 7.1.2.2, 7.3.3, 7.5.1.1, 8.1.2
Coriolanus (Cor) 5.4.2
Cornwall, Duke of (KL) 4.3.6, 8.1.4
Costard (LL) 8.1.2, 8.4.2
Coulthard, M. 6.4.1, 9.1.3, 9.1.5–6
Coventry (R2) 4.3.7.10, 6.3.2.3
Crane, Ralph 1.1.5
Cressida (TC) 4.3.7.8, 5.4.2, 8.1.4, 8.3.1.1, 8.3.3
Cydnus, River (AC) 5.4.2
Cymbeline 2.2.3.2–3, 2.2.9, 2.3.3, 3.2.1.1–2, 3.2.2.3–4, 3.3.1.3, 3.3.2.1–3, 3.3.2.5–6, 3.3.3.1,
< previous page
page_367
next page >
< previous page
page_368
next page >
Page 368
3.3.3.3, 3.3.4.3.2, 3.3.4.4, 3.3.5, 4.2.4.1, 4.3.1.2, 4.3.3, 4.3.6, 4.3.7.3–6, 4.3.8.1, 4.4.2–4, 5.1.2.2, 5.1.3.1, 5.1.3.5–
6, 5.3.1, 5.3.2.5, 5.4.2–3, 6.2.1.7, 6.2.3.1, 6.2.4, 6.2.5.1, 6.3, 6.3.1.2, 6.3.2.1, 6.3.2.3–4, 6.3.3, 6.3.3.1, 6.3.4–5,
7.1.1.2, 7.1.2.1, 7.3.1, 7.5.1.1, 7.5.1.3, 7.6
Cymbeline (Cym) 6.3.5
Cyprus (Oth) 4.2.9, 5.1.1, 6.4.2, 9.2
Dale, Rev. Thomas 10.1
Daniell, D. 3.2.1.2
Decius (JC) 3.2.1.2
Demetrius (AC) 8.2.1; (MN) 5.4.2
Denmark (Ham) 10.1
Desdemona (Oth) 3.3.2.4, 4.3.2.1, 6.4.1, 6.4.3, 7.4, 8.2.4, 9.1.5, 9.2
determiner 3.1, 3.2.1.2, 3.3.1.2–3, 3.3.3.1, 3.3.3.3, 3.3.4, 3.3.5, 4.3.8.1, 5.4.2, 6.1.2.3, 6.2.4, 6.3.2.1, 7.5.1.1:
double 3.1, 3.3.4.1, 4.3.8
dictionaries 1.2.1–3, 2.1
Dido (Tem) 5.4.2
Diomedes (TC) 4.4.1
Dion (WT) 3.3.2.6
discourse, analysis 1.2.3; and class 9.2; gender differences 8.3.6; level 9.2; marker 5.1.1, 5.1.2.1, 5.2.1, 5.3.2.8,
6.2.3.4, 7.1.2.3, 7.2, 7.2.1, 7.2.5, 7.3.3, 8.1.2, 8.3, 8.4.1, 9.1.6, 10.2: adverbial 7.3.3, deictic 8.2.1; marked
3.3.2.1.1, unmarked 3.3.2.1.1; situation 8.1.4. See also conversation
disguise 9.3.1
Dobbin (MV) 3.2.2.1
Dogberry (MA) 8.4.2
Doge of Venice (Oth) 6.4.1
Doll Tearsheet (H5) 7.1.2.1
Donalbain (Mac) 4.4.3
Donawerth, J. 2.1
Doricles (WT) 6.3.1.1
Douglas, The (1H4) 3.3.4.2.2, 5.3.2.6
Downes, W. 9.1.6
Dryden, John 1.2.2, Defence of the Epilogue 10.1
Dromio (CE) 5.4.2
Duke Vincentio (MM) 8.1.2, 9.3.1
Duncan (Mac) 3.2.3.4, 6.3.5, 10.2
Duncan-Jones, K. 1.1.2
Dunsinane (Mac) 4.3.10, 8.2.1
Edgar (KL) 2.1, 4.2.2.2, 6.2.9, 9.3.3
editing, editors 1.2.2–3, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2.1, 2.2.3.3, 2.2.4.1, 2.2.6, 2.2.8–9, 2.3.2.1, 3.2.1.2, 3.2.2.1, 3.3.1.1, 3.3.1.4,
3.3.2.1, 3.3.3.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3, 4.2.4.1, 4.2.9–10, 4.3.3, 4.3.9–10, 4.4.2, 5.1.1, 5.1.3.1, 5.1.3.7, 5.3.1, 5.3.2.1, 5.3.2.5,
5.4, 5.4.2, 6.1.1.3, 6.2.3.4, 6.2.5.1–2, 6.3, 6.3.2.1, 6.3.5, 7.1.2.1, 7.1.2.4, 7.2.4, 7.2.8, 7.3.1, 7.3.3, 7.4, 7.5.1.1,
7.5.2.5, 7.6, 8.1.3–4, 8.2.1, 8.2.8, 8.3.1.1–2, 8.3.2, 9.1.2.1, 9.1.6, 10: afterthought 2.2.9, 3.2.3.4; aside 2.2.9, 7.4,
9.1.2.1; dramatis personae 1.1.5; entrances 9.1.2.2; exits 9.1.2.2; modernisation 3.2.1.2, 3.2.2.1, 3.2.3.3–4, 3.3.4.5,
4.2.4.2–3, 4.3.8, 5.1.1, 5.3.2.5, 5.4.2, 9.1.2.1, 10.2; scene division 1.1.5; stage directions 5.1.3.5, 6.2.3.4, 8.1.4,
8.2.1, 8.3.1.2, 9.1.2.2
Edmund (KL) 8.1.4
Edward, King of England (Mac) 10.2
Edward IV (3H6) 8.3.1.1
Edward V (R3) 4.3.10, 5.4.2, 8.1.1
Edwards, P. 10.1
Egypt (AC) 3.3.1.1, 9.3.1
< previous page
page_368
next page >
< previous page
page_369
next page >
Page 369
Elbow, Mistress (MM) 7.5.1.2
Eld, George 1.1.2
Elephant Inn (TN) 6.3.1.4
Elizabeth I 1.1.4, 2.1, 3.3.1.3
Elizabeth, Queen, widow of Edward IV (R3) 7.5.2.1, 8.1.2; (3H6) 8.3.1.1
ellipsis 2.1, 2.2.3.2, 3.3.1.3, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.6, 3.3.6, 3.3.6.1, 3.3.6.5, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.8, 4.4.3, 5.1.2.1, 5.1.3.6, 5.3.2.3,
5.3.2.8, 5.4, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.1.5, 6.2.6, 6.2.9, 6.3, 6.4, 7.1.1.1, 7.1.1.4, 7.1.3, 7.1.3.4, 7.3.4, 9.1.2.1, 9.1.5, 10.2
Elsinore (Ham) 6.4.1
emotion 1.2.1, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.7.3–4, 4.3.7.8, 5.1.1, 5.1.2.4, 5.1.3.1, 5.1.3.7, 5.2.2, 5.3.2.1, 6.3, 6.3.5, 6.4, 6.4.1–2,
7.4, 7.5.2.1, 7.6, 8, 9.3.3; desire 4.3.2.1; indignation 5.1.3.7, 5.3.2.1; pleasure 5.2.2; scorn 5.2.2; sorrow 5.2.2;
surprise 5.2.2
emphasis 2.2.2, 2.2.4.2, 2.2.9, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.3–4, 3.3.4.1, 3.3.4.2.1–2, 4.2.3.1, 4.2.3.3, 4.3.1, 4.3.3, 4.3.7.3–4,
4.3.7.6, 4.3.7.8, 4.3.10, 4.4.2, 5.1, 5.1.3.1–2, 5.1.3.6, 5.4.2, 6.2.1.2, 6.2.3.4, 6.3.2.1, 6.4.1–2, 7.1.1.3, 7.2.1, 7.6,
8.1.5, 8.3.1.2, 8.3.2, 9.1.6, 9.3.1
England 2.1; (Ham) 5.4.2, 6.3.2.3; (1H4) 5.1.3.4; (2H6) 7.5.2.4; (Mac) 4.2.4.4; (R2) 4.3.1.1, 5.1.3.3, 6.3.5
English 1.2.2–3, 2.1–2, 3.3.1.3, 3.3.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.4, 4.2.9, 4.3.7.7, 5.1.2.1, 5.4.2, 6.2, 6.3, 7.3.5, 7.5.2.2, 9.1.4;
Chancery 2.1; colloquial/informal 3.2.3, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.7, 3.3.4.5, 4.2.7, 4.3.3, 4.3.7.4–5, 6.2.3.4, 6.3, 6.3.3, 7.5.1.2,
8.1.3, 8.3, 8.3.1.1; dialects 2.1, 2.3.2.1, 3.2.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.2.2, 5.4.2, 6.1.1.7, 8.4.1; of drama 8; early 3.2.1.1,
3.3.4.1, 4.2.9, 4.4.1–2, 6.1.1.7; Early Modern (Elizabethan) 1.2.2–3, 3.1, 4.2.4, 4.3.9, 4.4.1, 4.4.3, 4.3.7.3, 10.1;
figurative 7.5.2.1; formal 4.3.9, 6.3, 8.1.4; historical study of 1.2.2; history of 2.1, 3.3.4.2.2, 4.2.4, 4.3.1, 4.4.1–2,
5.3; legal 2.1; of lower classes 7.3.5, 7.6; Middle 2.1, 3.2.1.1, 3.3.2.7, 4.3.7.3, 6.2, 10.1–2; nineteenth century
1.2.2; non-standard 3.3.4.5, 4.2.2, 4.3.7.5; obscene 8.4.2; Old (Anglo-Saxon) 2.1, 3.2.2.1, 3.3.1.1, 3.3.4.2.2, 4.2.5,
4.2.8.1, 4.3.7.3, 4.4.4, 5.1.2.1–2, 6.2, 10.1; playful 8.1.3; poverty of 2.1; present day passim; Shakespeare's
passim; spoken 2.1, 4.3.7.4, 5.1.3.1, 9.1.2.1; standard 2.1, 4.2.2, 7.3.5, 9.1.2.1; teaching of 2.1; of vagabonds 2.1;
varieties of 2.1, 3.3.2.1, 8.3.8; written 2.1, 5.1.3, 5.3, 9.1.2.1. See also speech and style
Enobarbus (AC) 2.3.2.1, 8.2.3, 8.2.6
Europe 2.1
Evans the Welshman (MW) 3.3.2.1, 4.3.7.7, 4.3.9, 8.3.2
exclamation 2.2.3.3, 2.2.6, 2.2.9, 3.3.4.2.2, 4.2.3, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.6, 5.2.5, 8.3.5, 9.1.3, 9.1.5; impatient 8.1.3
exhortation 4.3.2.1
Falstaff, Sir John 8.1.2; (1H4) 3.2.1.1–2, 7.1.2.4, 7.3.1, 8.1.3, 8.3.8, 8.4.3; (2H4) 5.4, 8.2.3, 8.2.7, 8.4.3; (MW)
3.2.1.2, 3.3.4.5, 4.3.2, 4.3.9, 4.4.1, 7.1.2.1, 8.1.3, 8.3.1.2
Fanego, T. 1.2.3, 4.3.2.1, 7.1.2.1, 7.1.3
< previous page
page_369
next page >
< previous page
page_370
next page >
Page 370
Fenton, Mr (MW) 8.3.1.2, 8.3.7
Ferdinand (Tem) 7.3.4
Feste (TN) 6.2
Field, Richard 1.1.2
Fish Street (2H6) 5.4.2
Fleance (Mac) 6.1.1.1, 8.3.7, 10.2
Fletcher, John 1.1.5, 10.1
Flora (WT) 6.3.2.5
Fluellen (H5) 8.1, 8.3.2, 8.4.1
Folio, First 1.1.3–5, 1.2.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2.1–2, 2.2.4.1, 2.2.6, 2.2.8–9, 2.3.1, 2.3.2.1–2, 2.3.2.4, 3.2.1.1–2, 3.2.2.1,
3.2.2.4, 3.2.3.3, 3.3.1.1, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.1.1, 3.3.2.4–6, 3.3.3.1–2, 3.3.5, 4.2.2, 4.2.2.2, 4.2.3, 4.2.4.1, 4.2.4.3, 4.2.7,
4.3.7.7, 4.3.7.9, 4.3.10, 4.4.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.2.1, 5.1.3.1, 5.1.3.5–7, 5.3.1, 5.3.2.1, 5.3.2.5, 5.3.2.8, 5.4.2, 6.1.1.6,
6.1.2.2, 6.2.5.1, 6.3, 6.3.3, 6.4, 7.1.3.3, 7.4, 7.4.1, 7.6, 8.1, 8.1.4, 8.2.1, 8.2.3, 8.2.8, 8.3.1.1–2, 8.3.2, 8.3.7–8,
9.1.2.1–2, 10.1–2; later Folios 1.1.4–5, 1.2.2, 3.2.1.2, 3.3.2.4–5, 10.2
Fool (KL) 3.3.2.1.1, 3.3.2.6, 7.3.6, 8.1; (Tim) 7.3.6
Ford, Master (MW) 3.2.1.2, 6.2.3.4, 8.2.3, 8.3.1.2; Mistress (MW) 8.2.6
form of address 2.2.3.3, 2.2.9, 3.3.1.2–3, 3.3.2.6, 3.3.3.1, 3.3.4.2.2, 6.3.5, 7.1.2.2, 7.2, 7.5.1.1, 8.1, 8.2.4, 8.3.1.2,
9.2, 9.3.1–2, 10.2; deferential 8.1.3; insulting 8.1.3, 10.2; mock 8.1.3; social 8.1.1–2
France 3.3.2; (AW) 5.4.2; (Ham) 8.1.4; (H5) 4.3.2.1, 5.4.2, 7.1.2.1, 7.5.2.2; (2H6) 7.5.2.4; (3H6) 5.4.2; King of
(2H6) 7.5.2.4; (3H6) 8.3.1.1; (KL) 8.1.4, 8.2.1–3, 8.2.5; Princess of (LL) 3.2.2.1
Franz, W. Shakespeare-Grammatik 1.2.2–3
Fraser, R. 5.1.3.7
Frederick, Duke (AY) 5.3.2.1
French 2.1, 3.2.1.1, 3.2.3.1, 3.3.2.1.1, 3.3.4.2.2, 3.3.4.3.2, 7.5.1.3, 8.1
Friar (MA) 4.3.1.5, 4.3.10
Fuami, S. 8.1.2, 8.3.1.2, 8.3.6
Fulvia (AC) 2.2.3.1
functional shift 2.2.1–2, 3.2.1.2, 3.3.1.3, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.3.1
Furness, H. 10.1
Gadshill (1H4) 8.3.3
Gaul (Cym) 5.4.2; (MW) 7.5.1.3
Ganymede (AY) See Rosalind
gender 3.2.3, 3.2.1.1, 3.2.2.1, 3.2.3.3, 3.3.1.1, 3.3.2.5–6, 6.1, 10.1; distinction 8.3.6; grammatical 10.1
German 1.2.2
Gertrude (Ham) 6.4.1, 8.3.2
gerund 3.3.1.3, 3.3.4.2.3, 4.2.8, 4.2.8.1, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.7.3, 4.3.8, 4.3.8.1, 4.4.4, 5.4.2, 7.1.3.3
ghost of Hamlet (Ham) 6.1.2.2, 8.1.1, 8.2.8, 8.3.2, 10.1
Giacomo (Cym) 6.3, 6.3.2.3, 6.4.1, 7.6
Gilbert, A. J. 8.2
Gilman, A. 1.2.3, 9.3.1
Glamis see Macbeth
Gloucester, Duke of see Richard III
Gloucester, Earl of (KL) 3.3.4.5, 6.2.1.5, 8.1.4, 8.2.1–5, 9.1.6
Gobbo, Old (MV) 8.1.2
Görlach, M. 1.2.3
Goneril (KL) 3.3.2.1.1, 8.1.4, 8.2.1, 8.3.1.1
Gordon, G. 10.1
Gower (Per) 4.2.2
grammar 1.2.2, 6.3.3, 6.3.5, 6.4, 10.1; English 1.2.2, 2.1; Latin 2.1, 6.2; ‘mistakes’ in 1.2.2, 2.1, 6.2, 10.1; nature of
7.6; prescriptive 4.2.2, 5.1.1, 5.1.2.1, 5.4; Shakespeare's 1.2.2 and passim; study of 2.1; teaching of 2.1
< previous page
page_370
next page >
< previous page
page_371
next page >
Page 371
grammatical, cohesion 6.3.5, 7.5.2.1; correctness 10.1; function 3.3.1.3; structure 3.3.2.6, 3.3.3.3, 6.1.2.2, 6.2.3.1,
6.3.5, 7.1.3.4, 7.5.2.3–4
Greek 2.3.2.2
Greeks (TC) 5.4.2
Grey, Lady see Elizabeth, Queen
Greymalkin (Mac) 2.3.2.1
Grice, H. P. 9.1.1
Grumio (TS) 3.3.2.1, 6.4.1
Guiderius (Cym) 6.3.5
Guildenstern (Ham) 6.4.1, 7.3.4, 8.1.4
Hamlet 1.1.4, 3.2.1.1–2, 3.2.2.4, 3.3.1.1, 3.3.1.3, 3.3.2.1–4, 3.3.2.6–7, 3.3.3.1, 3.3.3.3, 3.3.3.6, 3.3.4.2.2,
3.3.4.3.1–2, 3.3.4.5, 3.3.5, 3.3.6.1–3, 4.2.2, 4.2.2.2, 4.2.3, 4.2.5, 4.2.7, 4.2.9–10, 4.3.1, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.1.5, 4.3.2,
4.3.2.1, 4.3.3, 4.3.5, 4.3.7.3, 4.3.7.6–9, 4.3.8, 4.3.8.1, 4.3.9–10, 4.4.1, 4.4.4, 5.1.1, 5.1.2.2, 5.1.2.4, 5.1.3.1,
5.1.3.5–7, 5.2.2–3, 5.2.5, 5.3.1, 5.3.2.1–4, 5.3.2.8, 5.4, 5.4.1.1, 5.4.2–3, 6.1.1.3–4, 6.1.2.2, 6.1.2.5, 6.2.1.4, 6.2.2,
6.2.3.3–4, 6.3.1.1, 6.3.2.3, 6.3.4, 6.4, 6.4.1–2, 7.1, 7.1.1.1–2, 7.1.1.4–5, 7.1.2.1, 7.1.2.4, 7.1.3, 7.1.3.1, 7.3.1,
7.3.4, 7.4, 7.4.1, 7.5.1.1–3, 7.5.2.4, 7.6, 8.1.1, 8.1.4, 8.2.5, 8.2.7–8, 8.3.1.1, 8.3.2–3, 9.1.2.1, 9.3.1, 9.3.3, 10.1
Hamlet (Ham) 4.2.3, 4.3.7.6, 5.4.2, 6.1.2.2, 6.2.1.4, 6.3.4, 6.4.1–2, 7.3.4, 7.4, 8.1.1, 8.1.4, 8.2.5, 8.2.8, 8.3.2,
9.3.1, 9.3.3, 10.1
Harman, Thomas. A Caueat 2.1
Hastings, Lord (2H4) 2.2.7
Hathaway, Anne 1.1.1
Hattaway, M. 2.2.6
head (of group or phrase) 3.1, 3.2.1.2, 3.3, 4.3.9, 6.2.5.1, 7.1.2.2, 7.2.1, 7.3.3, 7.5.2.2; plural 3.2.1.2
Hector (TC) 4.3.7.10, 5.1.1, 7.1.1.2, 7.1.1.5
Hecuba (Ham) 4.3.7.8
Helen of Troy (TC) 8.1.3–4, 8.2.4, 8.3.2–3
Helena (AW) 4.3.7.8, 5.1.3.5, 5.1.3.7
Helicon (1H4) 8.4.2
Heminge, John 1.1.4–5
Henderson, R. A. 7.3.5
Henry IV Part I 1.1.4, 2.2.4.3, 3.2.1.1–2, 3.2.2.3–4, 3.2.3.4, 3.3.1.1, 3.3.1.3–4, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.1.1, 3.3.2.3–4,
3.3.2.7, 3.3.3.1, 3.3.3.6, 3.3.4.2.1–2, 3.3.4.5, 3.3.5, 4.2.4.2, 4.2.4.5, 4.2.7, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.1.5, 4.3.2–3, 4.3.6, 4.3.7.1,
4.3.7.3, 4.3.7.5–7, 4.3.7.9, 4.3.7.11, 4.3.8–9, 4.4.3, 5.1.2.2, 5.1.2.4, 5.1.3.1, 5.1.3.3–4, 5.1.3.6, 5.2.2, 5.2.5,
5.3.2.5–6, 5.3.2.8–9, 5.4.2, 6.1.1.2, 6.1.1.6, 6.1.2.1, 6.2.1.6, 6.2.3.3–4, 6.3.2.5, 7.1, 7.1.1.2, 7.1.1.4, 7.1.2.4, 7.2.1–
2, 7.3.1, 7.5.1.2–3, 7.5.2.3, 7.5.2.5, 8.1.2–3, 8.2.7, 8.3.3–5, 8.3.8, 8.4.3
Henry IV Part II 1.1.4, 2.2.7, 2.2.9, 3.2.1.1–2, 3.2.3.3, 3.3.2.1.1, 3.3.2.6–7, 3.3.3.6, 3.3.4.1, 3.3.4.2.2, 3.3.4.3.2,
3.3.5, 3.3.6.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.2.2, 4.2.4.1, 4.2.7, 4.2.9, 4.3.1.1–2, 4.3.1.5, 4.3.3, 4.3.5, 4.3.7.1, 4.3.7.4–9, 4.3.7.11,
4.3.8–10, 4.4.1, 4.4.4, 5.1.2.1–2, 5.1.3.3, 5.1.3.5–6, 5.2.4–5, 5.3.1, 5.3.2.1–2, 5.3.2.4, 5.4, 5.4.2, 6.2.7–8, 6.4.2,
7.1, 7.1.1.1–4, 7.1.2.2–3, 7.1.3.3, 7.2.1–2, 7.5.1.2–3, 7.5.2.5, 8.1.1, 8.2.3, 8.2.7, 8.4.2–3
Henry IV (1 and 2H4) 3.3.2.1.1; (1H4) 8.1.3; (R2) 8.4.3. See Bolingbroke
< previous page
page_371
next page >
< previous page
page_372
next page >
Page 372
Henry V 1.1.4–5, 2.2.2, 2.2.3.3, 2.2.4.1–2, 2.2.9, 3.2.1.1, 3.2.2.4, 3.3.1.2–4, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.4, 3.3.2.7, 3.3.3.6,
3.3.4.2.2, 3.3.6.1, 4.2.1.1, 4.2.2.3–4, 4.2.4.1, 4.2.5, 4.2.7, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.5, 4.3.7.4, 4.3.7.6, 4.3.7.8–9, 4.3.7.11,
4.3.9, 4.4.1–3, 5.1.2.4, 5.1.3.1, 5.1.3.3, 5.1.3.4–7, 5.2.2, 5.3.2.8–9, 5.4.2, 6.1.1.1, 6.2.1.8, 6.2.2, 6.3.2.1, 7.1.1.4–
5, 7.1.2.1, 7.1.2.4, 7.2.1, 7.2.3, 7.3.1, 7.5.2.2, 7.6, 8.2.3, 8.2.6, 8.3.2, 8.3.4, 8.3.6, 8.4.1–2
Henry V (H5) 2.2.2, 3.3.4.2.2, 4.3.2.1, 7.5.2.2. See Henry, Prince
Henry VI Part I 3.2.1.2, 3.2.2.3, 3.2.3.4, 3.3.1.3, 3.3.2.6, 3.3.3.6, 3.3.4.2.2, 4.2.1.1, 4.2.2.3, 4.2.8, 4.3.2.1, 4.3.5,
4.3.7.9, 4.3.8.1, 4.4.1, 4.4.4, 5.1.2.1, 5.1.3.5, 5.3.1, 5.3.2.1, 5.3.2.5, 5.4.2–3, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.5.1, 6.2.7, 7.1.1.4, 7.2.8,
8.1, 8.1.2–4
Henry VI Part II 1.1.4, 2.2.3.2, 2.2.6, 2.3.3, 3.2.3.1, 3.2.3.4, 3.3.1.3, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.7, 3.3.3.1, 3.3.4.2.2, 4.2.2,
4.2.2.3, 4.2.4.1, 4.2.4.3, 4.3.2.1, 4.3.3–5, 4.3.7.1–3, 4.3.7.6, 4.3.7.11, 4.3.8, 4.3.8.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.4, 5.1.3.1, 5.1.3.4,
5.3.2.2, 5.3.2.4, 5.3.2.9, 5.4.2, 6.1.1.2, 6.1.1.4, 6.1.2.2, 7.1.1.2, 7.2.5, 7.2.7, 7.5.2.4, 8.1.1
Henry VI Part III 1.1.4, 2.2.3.3, 3.2.1.2, 3.2.3.2, 3.3.1.1, 3.3.1.3, 3.3.3.1, 3.3.3.3, 4.2.7, 4.2.9, 4.3.7.3, 4.3.7.8,
4.3.7.11, 4.3.9, 4.4.3–4, 5.1.3.5, 5.1.3.7, 5.3.2.2, 5.3.2.4–5, 5.3.2.7, 5.4.2, 6.1.1.6, 7.1.3.2, 7.2.5, 8.3.1.1
Henry VI (1–3H6) 2.2.6, 8.3.1.1
Henry VIII 2.1
Henry VIII (All is True) 1.1.5, 3.2.3.4, 3.3.1.3, 3.3.2.2–3, 3.3.2.6–7, 3.3.5, 4.2.2.2, 4.2.4.1, 4.3.3, 4.3.7.5, 4.3.7.7,
4.3.7.11, 4.3.8.1, 4.4.1, 4.4.3, 5.1.2.1–2, 5.1.3.7, 5.3.2.2, 5.4.2–3, 6.2.5.1, 8.3.2, 8.3.4
Henry, Prince [Hal, Harry] (1H4) 4.4.3, 6.3.2.5, 7.5.2.5, 8.1.3, 8.3.8, 8.4.3; (2H4) 3.3.2.1.1
Hereford, Earldom of (R3) 9.3.2; Duke of see Bolingbroke
Hermia (MN) 5.1.3.5
Hero (MA) 3.3.3.6, 3.3.4.2.2, 4.3.10
Heywood, Thomas 1.1.2
Hibbard, G. 10.1
Hinman, C. 1.1.5, 1.3, 2.3.1
Hirsch, E. D., Jr. 10.1
History of King Lear 1.1.3, 3.3.2.6, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.7.5, 4.4.1, 5.3.2.1, 5.3.2.8, 5.4.2, 7.1.2.1, 8.1.4
Holofernes (LL) 5.1.2.4, 8.4.2
Honigmann, E. A. J. 1.1.1, 2.2.4.1
Horatio (Ham) 6.3.4, 6.4.1, 8.1.4, 8.2.8, 8.3.2–3, 9.3.1, 10.1
Host (MW) 5.4.2, 8.2.3, 8.2.6
Hostess see Quickly, Mistress
Hotspur, Harry (1H4) 4.3.7.5, 6.2.1.6, 7.5.2.5, 8.1.3, 8.3.5–6, 8.4.3; (R2) 8.3.1.1; The Hotspur (1H4) 3.3.4.2.2
Hotspur, Lady Katherine (1H4) 6.2.1.6
Houston, J. P. Shakespearean Sentences 1.2.3, 7.5, 7.5.2.1
Howard-Hill, T. H. 2.1, 9.2
Hubert (KJ) 4.3.7.8
Hundred Years' War 2.1
Iago (Oth) 2.2.4.1, 4.2.3.1, 4.3.7.4, 5.1.1, 6.4.1–3, 8.2.1–2, 8.2.4, 9.1.5, 9.1.7, 9.2
< previous page
page_372
next page >
< previous page
page_373
next page >
Page 373
ideolect 8.3, 8.4
Imogen (Cym) 6.3.5, 7.6
imperative 1.2.2, 3.3.2.1, 4.2.3, 4.2.7, 4.3.1, 4.3.2.1, 4.3.3, 4.3.7.4, 4.4.2, 6.1.2.1, 6.2.2, 7.1.2.2, 7.1.2.4, 7.2, 7.4,
7.4.1, 8.3.2, 8.3.4, 8.4.3, 9.1.2.1: singular 1st 4.3.3, 2nd 4.2.3, 4.3.3, 3rd 4.3.3, plural 1st 4.2.3.2, 4.2.7, 4.3.3,
4.3.7.4, 8.3.1.2, 2nd 4.2.3; optative 8.4.3; passive 4.2.9; perfect 4.2.3.3, 7.2.6; pseudo-imperative 8.3.2; expresses
condition 4.3.3
Indies (Oth) 9.2
infinitive 3.3.3.1, 4.2.1, 4.2.3, 4.2.4.1, 4.2.7, 4.3.1, 4.3.3, 4.3.7.4, 4.3.7.6, 4.3.7.11, 4.4.2, 4.4.4, 6.3.2.1, 6.3.2.6,
6.3.5, 7.1.3, 10.1–2; active 4.3.1.5; bare 4.2.1, 4.2.1.1, 4.2.7, 4.3.1, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.7.4–5, 4.3.7.11, 4.4.4, 7.1.3, 7.3.1;
be to + ~ 7.1.3.2; expanded 4.2.1.1; for to + ~ 7.1.3; fronting of 7.1.3; functions of 7.1.3.1–2; passive 4.2.9,
4.3.1.1, 10.2; perfect 4.2.1.1, 4.3.1.2, 4.3.1.7, 4.4.4; present 4.2.1, 4.2.1.1; subject 7.1.3; to-infinitive 4.2.1, 4.3.1,
4.3.1.1, 4.3.7.4–5, 4.3.7.11, 4.4.4, 7.1.3; to be + ~ 4.3.1.6; indicates: habitual state 4.3.1.5, passive 4.3.1.5–6,
7.1.3.2
inflection 2.1, 2.2.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4.1, 5.1.2.1, 5.1.2.4, 6.1, 6.1.1.6, 6.3.1.2, 7.1.3.3, 10.1
Innocent, Pope (KJ) 3.3.6.1
insult 7.2.3, 8.1.3
intensifier 3.1, 3.3.3.1, 3.3.3.6, 3.3.5, 3.3.6.2, 5.1.1, 5.1.3.1, 5.1.3.5–6, 6.2, 6.2.3.1, 6.2.3.3, 7.2.3–4
intention 4.3.1.1, 4.3.2.1, 4.3.7.3, 4.3.7.5–6
interjection 4.3.7.8, 5.1.1, 5.1.3.7. 5.2, 7.1.1.3, 7.2, 7.2.1, 7.2.3, 7.2.5, 8.3; emotional 5.2.2; greeting or call 5.2.3,
oaths 5.2.5, onomatopoeic 5.2.4
interrogative 4.2.3.1, 4.3.2.1, 4.3.3, 4.3.7.4, 6.1.1.3, 6.2.2, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.4.1, 8.2.2, 8.3.1.1, 8.4.3; indirect 7.1.3.4.
See question
inversion 2.2.3.1–2, 4.3, 5.1.1, 5.3, 6.1, 6.1.1.3, 6.2.2, 7
invocation 3.3.2.1
irony 3.3.2.7, 3.3.3.6, 5.1.3.7, 6.2.3.4, 6.2.3.9, 6.4.1–2, 9.1.4
Italy 2.1, 3.3.1.3; (Cym) 7.6; (TS) 5.4.2
Jaggard, William 1.1.2
James I 1.1.4
Jaques (AY) 6.3.5
Jenkins, H. 10.1
Jessica (MV) 8.3.1.1
Jeweller (Tim) 8.3.2
Joan of Arc (1H6) 8.1.2
John, Don (MA) 6.3.5
John, King of England (KJ) 8.1
John of Gaunt (R2) 3.3.6.1, 8.3.1.1, 8.3.2.2
John of Lancaster (2H4) 2.2.7, 7.1.2.3
Johnson, Samuel 1.2.1
Jones, J. 6.4
Jones, R. F. 2.1
Jonson, Ben 1.2.2, 2.1, 10.1
Jove/Jupiter (Cym) 7.1.2.1; (KL) 8.2.7; (MM) 4.3.7.6; (Oth) 4.2.3
Judas (3H6) 5.3.2.4
Julia (TG) 5.4.2
Juliet (MM) 4.3.9; (RJ) 3.3.2.1
Julius Caesar 1.2.2, 2.2.3.1, 2.2.4.1, 3.2.1.1–2, 3.2.3.4, 3.3.1.2–3, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.3, 3.3.2.5, 3.3.3.1, 3.3.4.2.2,
3.3.4.3.2, 3.3.4.5, 3.3.5, 4.2.2, 4.3.1, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.1.5, 4.3.2.1, 4.3.3–5, 4.3.7.1, 4.3.7.3,
< previous page
page_373
next page >
< previous page
page_374
next page >
Page 374
4.3.7.8–9, 4.3.7.11, 4.3.8, 4.3.8.1, 4.3.10, 4.4.3, 5.1.2.1–2, 5.1.3.5, 5.1.3.7, 5.3.2.5–6, 5.3.2.9, 5.4.2–3, 6.1.1.4,
6.1.1.6, 6.2.1.3, 6.3.1.4, 6.3.2.1, 7.1.1.5, 7.1.2.1–2, 7.1.3.2, 7.2.1, 8.1.2, 8.2.7, 8.3.1.1, 9.3.2
Kakietek, P. 1.2.3
Katherine/Kate (TS) 6.3.2.4, 7.5.1.2
Kent, Earl of (KL) 7.3.6, 8.1.4, 8.2.4, 9.3.3
King John 2.2.3.2, 3.2.1.2, 3.2.2.4, 3.2.3.2, 3.3.1.3–4, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.6–7, 3.3.3.1, 3.3.3.6, 3.3.4.1, 3.3.4.3.2,
3.3.4.5, 3.3.5, 3.3.6.1, 4.2.2.3, 4.2.7, 4.3.1, 4.3.1.5, 4.3.7.8–9, 4.3.8, 4.3.8.1, 4.3.9, 5.1.3.3, 5.1.3.5–6, 5.4.1.1,
5.4.2–3, 6.1.1.4–5, 6.1.2.1, 6.2.3.3, 6.2.4, 7.1.3, 7.5.1.1–2, 8.1, 8.1.4
King Lear 1.1.3–4, 2.1, 2.2.9, 3.2.1.1–2, 3.2.3.3, 3.3.1.3, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.1.1, 3.3.2.4, 3.3.2.6–7, 3.3.3.1, 3.3.3.4,
3.3.4.2.2, 3.3.4.5, 4.2.2, 4.2.2.2, 4.2.4.1, 4.2.4.4, 4.2.7, 4.2.9, 4.3.1.1–2, 4.3.4–6, 4.3.7.1, 4.3.7.3–5, 4.3.7.8–9,
4.3.8–10, 4.4.3–4, 5.1.2.2–4, 5.1.3.1, 5.1.3.4, 5.1.3.7, 5.3.2.1–2, 5.3.2.4, 5.3.2.9, 5.4, 5.4.2, 6.1.1.5, 6.1.2.3,
6.2.1.1, 6.2.1.4–5, 6.2.3.2–3, 6.2.5.2, 6.2.8–9, 6.3.2.6, 6.3.3.2, 6.3.4–5, 7.1.2.1–2, 7.1.3, 7.2.1, 7.2.4, 7.3.6, 8.1,
8.1.1, 8.1.4–5, 8.2.1–4, 8.2.7, 8.3.1.1, 9.1.6, 9.3.1–3
Kökeritz, H. 2.1
Labienus (AC) 9.3.1–2
Laertes (Ham) 6.4.1, 7.6
Lancaster (R2) 3.3.6.1
Lancastrians (3H6) 8.3.1.1
Lancelot Gobbo (MV) 3.3.4.2.1, 8.1.2, 8.3.1.1
Lapland (CE) 4.4.3
Lass, R. 1.2.3
Latin 2.1, 2.2.7, 2.3.2.2, 3.2.3.1, 4.2.9, 4.3.5, 4.3.8, 6.2, 6.3, 7.5, 7.5.2.2, 8.4.2, 10.1; classical 2.1; vulgar 2.1
Lavinia (TA) 8.1
Lear (KL) 2.2.9, 3.3.2.6, 3.3.4.5, 4.3.1.1, 6.2.9, 7.3.6, 8.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.4, 8.2.1–3, 8.2.5, 9.1.6, 9.3.1, 9.3.3
Leicester (R3) 5.4.3
Lennard, J. 2.2.3.4, 2.2.9
Lennox (Mac) 5.4
Leonato (MA) 4.3.1.5, 4.3.10, 6.3.5
Leonatus (Cym) 6.3
Leonine (Per) 7.1.2.4
Leontes (WT) 2.2.3.4, 3.3.1.2, 6.2.6
Lepidus (AC) 8.2.1, 8.2.6
Levinson, S. C. 9.3.1
Ligarius (JC) 3.2.1.2
Lily, William 2.1
London 1.1.1, 1.1.3, 2.1; Mayor of (1H6) 8.1.3; Tower of (R3) 7.6; University College 10.1
Lover's Complaint, A 1.1.2, 6.1.2.3
Love's Labour's Lost 1.1.2, 1.1.4, 2.1, 3.2.1.1–2, 3.2.2.1, 3.2.2.4, 3.3.1.3, 3.3.3.1, 3.3.4.1, 3.3.5, 3.3.6.1, 4.2.2,
4.2.4.1, 4.2.7, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.1.4, 4.3.10, 4.4.3–4, 5.1.2.4, 5.1.3.1, 5.1.3.4–7, 5.2.3–4, 5.3.2.2, 5.4.2–3, 6.1.1.4, 6.2.2,
6.2.3.1, 6.3.2.5–6, 7.2.1, 7.5.1.1, 7.5.2.1, 8.1.2, 8.4.2
Love's Labour's Won 1.1.5
Lowth, Robert 10.1
Lucius (Cym) 6.3.5; (JC) 8.3.1.1; (MM) 9.3.1
Lucrece (RL) 4.3.9, 4.4.3
Lysander (MN) 5.4.2, 7.6
Macbeth 1.1.5, 1.2.1–2, 2.2.8, 2.3.2.1, 3.2.1.1–2, 3.2.2.1,
< previous page
page_374
next page >
< previous page
page_375
next page >
Page 375
3.2.2.3–4, 3.2.3.4, 3.3.1.3–4, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.3, 3.3.2.5–7, 3.3.3.1, 3.3.3.4–6, 3.3.4.2.3, 3.3.4.5, 4.2.1.1, 4.2.2.1,
4.2.4.4, 4.2.5, 4.2.7, 4.2.9–10, 4.3.1.1–2, 4.3.1.5, 4.3.2, 4.3.2.1, 4.3.3, 4.3.6, 4.3.7.1, 4.3.7.3, 4.3.7.6, 4.3.7.10,
4.3.8.1, 4.3.9–10, 4.4.3–4, 5.1.1, 5.1.2.1–2, 5.1.3.5, 5.2.2, 5.3.1, 5.3.2.1–2, 5.3.2.4–5, 5.3.2.9, 5.4, 5.4.1.1–2,
5.4.2, 6.1.1.1, 6.1.1.6–7, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.1.7, 6.2.2, 6.2.3.1, 6.2.5.2, 6.2.7, 6.3.2.3, 6.3.3–5, 7.1, 7.1.2.4, 7.1.3, 7.5.2.1,
7.6, 8.1.2, 8.2.1–2, 8.2.4, 8.2.6–8, 8.3.2, 8.3.4, 9.3.1–2, 10.1–2
Macbeth (Mac) 4.3.7.10, 4.3.10, 5.1.1, 6.3.5, 7.5.2.1, 8.2.1–2, 8.2.6, 8.2.8, 8.3.2, 8.3.7, 9.3.1, 10.1–2
Macbeth, Lady (Mac) 1.2.1, 4.3.10, 6.2.3.1, 8.2.4, 10.2
Macdonald (Mac) 4.3.1.1, 10.1
Macduff (Mac) 4.2.4.4, 5.1.1, 5.4.2, 8.2.6, 8.2.8, 9.3.1, 10.2
Macduff, Lady (Mac) 9.3.1, 10.2
Macmorris, the Irishman (H5) 4.2.4.1, 8.4.1
Maecenas (AC) 8.2.1, 8.2.6
Mahood, M. M. 9.1.5
malapropism 8.4.2
Malcolm (Mac) 3.2.3.4, 4.4.3, 8.2.1–2, 8.2.8, 10.2
Malvolio (TN) 3.3.6.1
Mantua (TG) 5.4.2
Marcus (TA) 8.1
Margaret, Princess (2H6) 7.5.2.4; Queen (3H6) 8.3.1.1
Maria (TN) 3.3.1.3
Mariana (MM) 5.1.3.7
Mars (1H6) 3.2.1.2
Martext, Sir Oliver (TN) 8.1.2
Measure for Measure 2.2.3.2, 3.2.2.3, 3.2.3.2–3, 3.3.2.1–2, 3.3.2.6–7, 3.3.3.1, 3.3.3.4, 3.3.3.6, 3.3.4.5, 4.2.3,
4.2.3.2, 4.2.4.1, 4.2.4.3, 4.2.7, 4.2.9, 4.3.1.4, 4.3.3, 4.3.6, 4.3.7.3, 4.3.7.6, 4.3.7.9, 4.3.8.1, 4.3.9, 4.4.1, 4.4.4,
5.1.2.2, 5.1.3.2–5, 5.2.2, 5.3.1, 5.3.2.3, 5.4, 5.4.2–3, 6.1.1.3, 6..2.1.1–2, 6.2.1.7, 6.2.2, 6.2.3.3, 6.3.3.1, 7.1.2.1,
7.1.3, 7.1.3.2, 7.2.7, 7.3.2, 7.5.1.2, 8.1.2, 8.3.2, 9.3.1–2
Menenius (Cor) 2.1, 8.1.2
Menteith (Mac) 8.2.2
Merchant of Venice, The 1.1.4, 3.2.1.1, 3.2.2.1, 3.2.2.4, 3.2.3.4, 3.3.1.1–3, 3.3.2.1–4, 3.3.2.6–7, 3.3.3.1, 3.3.3.3,
3.3.4.2.1–3, 3.3.4.3.2, 3.3.4.5, 3.3.5, 3.3.6.1–3, 3.3.6.5, 4.2.2, 4.2.4.1, 4.2.5, 4.2.7, 4.2.9, 4.3.1.1–2, 4.3.1.7, 4.3.2,
4.3.2.1, 4.3.3, 4.3.5–6, 4.3.7.3, 4.3.7.5–7, 4.3.7.9–10, 4.3.8, 4.3.8.1, 4.3.9, 4.4.1, 4.4.3–4, 5.1.2.3–4, 5.1.3.1–3,
5.1.3.5–6, 5.2.2–3, 5.3.1, 5.3.2.3–5, 5.4, 5.4.1.1, 5.4.2–3, 6.1.1.3, 6.1.1.6, 6.1.2.2, 6.2.1.2, 6.2.1.8, 6.2.3.4, 6.2.4,
6.2.5.2, 6.4.1, 7.1.1.4, 8.1.2, 8.3.1.1
Meres, Francis 1.1.5
Merry Wives of Windsor, The 1.1.4–5, 3.2.1.1–2, 3.3.1.1–2, 3.3.1.4, 3.3.2.1–7, 3.3.3.1, 3.3.3.3, 3.3.3.6, 3.3.4.5,
4.2.2, 4.2.2.1, 4.2.2.3, 4.2.7, 4.3.1, 4.3.1.7, 4.3.2, 4.3.2.1, 4.3.3, 4.3.7.1, 4.3.7.3–5, 4.3.7.7–8, 4.3.7.11, 4.3.8.1,
4.3.9, 4.4.1, 4.4.3, 5.1.2.2, 5.1.3.2, 5.1.3.5–6, 5.3.1, 5.3.2.1–2, 5.3.2.4, 5.3.2.8, 5.4.2, 6.1.1.6, 6.1.2.2, 6.1.2.4,
6.2.3.1, 6.2.3.3–4, 7.1, 7.1.1.1–3, 7.1.1.5, 7.1.2.1, 7.1.2.3, 7.1.3, 7.2.1–5, 7.2.7, 7.3.1–3, 7.5.1.1–3, 8.1.3, 8.2.1,
8.2.3, 8.2.6–7, 8.3.1.2, 8.3.2–3, 8.3.6–7, 9.3.2
Michael, I. 2.1
< previous page
page_375
next page >
< previous page
page_376
next page >
Page 376
Midsummer Night's Dream 1.1.4–5, 3.2.3.2, 3.3.1.3, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.6–7, 3.3.3.1, 3.3.3.6, 3.3.4.2.2, 4.2.4.1, 4.2.7,
4.2.9, 4.3.1.2, 4.3.3–5, 4.3.7.1, 4.3.7.8–11, 4.3.8, 5.1.1, 5.1.2.4, 5.1.3.1, 5.1.3.5–7, 5.3.1, 5.3.2.4, 5.3.2.7, 5.4,
5.4.2–3, 6.1.1.2, 6.1.1.6, 6.2.1.2, 6.2.2, 6.2.3.1, 7.1, 7.1.1.1, 7.1.1.5, 7.6, 8.1.2
Milan (Tem) 3.3.6.1, 5.3.2.1, 7.5.1.2
Minerva (Cym) 7.6
Miranda (Tem) 2.2.4.1, 7.3.4, 8.3.7
modifier see adjective
Montano (Oth) 6.4.1
More, Sir Thomas 1.1.5, 2.2.1, 2.3.2.4
morpheme 5.1.2.1, 8.4.2
morphology 1.1.4, 1.2.2, 2.1, 2.2.1, 3.2, 3.3.2.1.1, 4.2, 5; prefix 4.2.5
Moth (LL) 2.1, 8.4.2
Much Ado About Nothing 1.1.4, 2.1, 3.2.1.1, 3.2.2.3, 3.2.3.2–4, 3.3.1.3–4, 3.3.2.6–7, 3.3.3.1, 3.3.3.6, 3.3.4.2.2,
3.3.4.3.2, 3.3.4.5, 4.2.2.3, 4.2.3.2, 4.2.4.1, 4.2.7, 4.3.1.1–2, 4.3.1.5, 4.3.2–4, 4.3.6, 4.3.7.1–3, 4.3.7.5–6, 4.3.8–9,
4.4.1–4, 5.1.2.2–3. 5.1.3.1, 5.1.3.5–6, 5.2.2, 5.3.1, 5.3.2.1, 5.3.2.4, 5.3.2.7, 5.4.1.1, 5.4.2–3, 6.1.1.1, 6.1.1.6,
6.1.2.1, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.3.1, 6.2.3.3–4, 6.3, 6.3.1.2–4, 6.3.2.5, 6.3.3, 6.3.3.2, 6.3.5, 6.4.1, 6.4.3, 7.1.1.5, 7.2.7,
7.3.2
Muir, K. 1.3
Mulcaster, Richard. Elementarie 2.1
Murderer, (Mac) First 8.2.4, 10.2; Third 10.2
Musgrove, S. 2.1
name(s) 3.3.4.2.2, 8.1.4, 8.2.1; Christian 8.1.2, 8.1.4; familiar 8.1.3; in Folio 1.1.5; occupation 2.2.7; nickname
8.1.2; personal 2.2.7–8, 3.3.4.2.2, 8.1.3, 9.2; place 2.2.7–8, 3.3.1.1; proper 2.2.8, 3.2.1.2; river 3.3.4.2.2; surname
8.1.2; town 3.3.4.2.2, 5.4.2. See also noun, proper
Naples (Tem) 5.4.2, 7.5.1.2; King of 5.3.2.1
Narcissus (VA) 3.3.2.3
Navarre, King of (LL) 8.4.2
necessity 4.3.7.7, 4.3.7.10, 4.4.4
negation 6.2, 6.4; multiple 6.2, 6.2.3.1, 6.2.9, 7.3; scope of 6.2.9; strengthening of 6.2.3.1, 6.4
negative 3.2.2.4, 3.3.1.2, 3.3.2.7, 4.2.3.1, 4.3.5, 4.3.7.4–6, 4.3.7.8–9, 5.1.3.5, 5.3.1, 5.3.2.7, 5.4.2, 6.2, 7.5.1.2;
double 6.2.3.1, 6.2.7, 6.2.9, 10.1; triple 6.2.3.1, 6.2.9
negator 5.1.3.6, 5.3.1, 6.2, 7.1.1.2, 7.1.2.4, 7.2.1–2, 7.2.6, 7.3.2
Nestor (TC) 8.3.2
Norfolk, Duke of (2H4) 3.3.6.1
Northumberland, Earl of (1H4) 8.1.1, 8.1.3; (R2) 3.3.4.2.2
noun 1.2.2, 2.2.2, 2.3.2.1, 3.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.3.1, 3.3.1, 3.3.2.1–2, 3.3.2.6, 3.3.3.1–3, 3.3.3.7, 3.3.4.2.2–3, 3.3.4.3.2,
3.3.4.4–5, 3.3.6.1, 4.2.2–3, 4.2.8.1, 4.2.9, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.3, 4.3.5, 4.3.8, 4.3.8.1, 4.4.3–4, 5.1.2.1–2, 5.3.1, 5.4.2, 6.1,
6.1.1.1, 6.1.1.6, 6.1.2.3–5, 6.2.1.4, 6.2.1.7, 6.3.5, 7.1.1.4, 7.1.2.1, 7.1.3, 7.2.1, 7.3.2, 7.5.1.1–2, 7.5.2.1, 7.5.2.3;
abstract 3.3.1.2, 3.3.2.6, 3.3.4.4, 3.3.6.1, 4.3.8.1, 8.4.1; collective 3.2.1.1, 3.3.4.4, 4.2.2, 6.1.1.4, 8.4.1; compound
2.2.9, 2.3.3, 3.2.1.1–2, 3.3.1.1, 3.3.1.4,
< previous page
page_376
next page >
< previous page
page_377
next page >
Page 377
3.3.3.1–2, 6.2.4; count 3.2.1.1; feminine 3.3.1.1; group 2.1, 2.2.3.1, 3, 4.1, 5.1.2.3, 5.1.3.3, 5.4, 5.4.2, 6.2.3.1,
6.2.4, 6.2.5.1, 6.3.2.1, 6.3.2.5, 7.1.2.2, 7.1.2.4, 7.2.7, 7.5.1.1–2, 7.5.2.1–2, 9.1.2.1; non-count 3.2.1.1, 3.3.1.3;
noun-modifier 3.2.1.2, 3.3.1.1, 3.3.3.1, 5.4.2; omission of 6.3.1; plural 2.2.8, 3.2.1.1; possessive 3.3.2.2, 3.3.3.4,
3.3.4.5, 3.3.6.1, 5.1.3.3, 6.1; predicative 3.3.4.3.2; proper 2.2.2, 3.2.1.2, 3.3.3.1, 5.4.2, 7.2.7; verbal 7.1.3.3
number 1.1.4, 1.2.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2.1, 3.2.2.4, 3.2.3, 3.2.3.1–4, 3.3.1.2, 3.3.2.1.1, 3.3.2.2, 3.3.2.4, 3.3.2.6–7, 3.3.3.2,
3.3.4.2.1, 3.3.4.3.2, 3.3.4.4, 4.2.2–3, 4.2.3.2, 4.2.4.3, 4.3.1.4, 4.3.3, 6.1, 6.3.1.2, 8.1, 8.3.8, 8.4.1, 9.1.2.1, 10.1–2
numeral 3.3.1.3, 3.3.3.1, 3.3.3.7, 3.3.4.2.1, 3.3.4.3.2, 3.3.5, 5.1.3.5
Nym (H5) 8.2.3, 8.2.6, 8.4.1
oath see asseveration
object 1.2.2, 2.2.3.1, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.6, 3.3.4.2.2–3, 3.3.6.5, 4.2.8.1, 4.2.9, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.1.3, 4.3.3, 4.3.7.4–6, 4.3.7.8,
4.3.7.11, 4.3.8, 4.3.8.1, 4.4.2–4, 5.3.2.1, 5.4.2, 6.1.2, 6.2.1.1, 6.3.1.3, 6.3.5, 7, 9.1.2.1; animate 4.4.3; direct
2.2.3.1, 4.2.9, 4.3.3, 4.3.9, 4.4.3, 7; dummy 3.3.2.1; indirect 2.2.3.1, 4.2.9, 4.3.3, 4.3.9, 4.4.2–3, 7; instrumental
4.4.4; prepositional 4.3.10; reflexive: direct 4.3.3, indirect 4.3.3
objective 3.3.1.1, 3.3.2.1–2, 3.3.3.2, 3.3.3.4, 3.3.4.5
obligation 4.3.7.7–8, 4.3.7.10, 7.1.3.2
Octavia (AC) 8.2.6
Octavius Caesar (AC) 4.3.7.7, 5.4.2, 6.2.5.1, 8.2.6, 8.2.8
Oliver (AY) 4.3.10
Oliver, H. J. 2.3.2.1
Ophelia (Ham) 3.2.1.1, 6.4.1, 8.1.4
Orlando (AY) 4.3.7.5, 4.3.10, 8.3.2
Orleans, Duke of (2H6) 7.5.2.4
Osric (Ham) 8.1.4, 8.2.5, 9.3.3
Oswald (KL) 8.2.4
Othello 1.1.4–5, 2.2.4.1, 2.2.9, 3.2.1.1, 3.2.3.4, 3.3.1.4, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.4–7, 3.3.3.1–2, 3.3.4.2.2, 3.3.4.3.2, 3.3.4.5,
3.3.6.1, 4.2.2–3, 4.2.3.1, 4.2.4.2, 4.2.4.4, 4.2.5, 4.2.6–9, 4.3.1, 4.3.1.1–2, 4.3.1.4–5, 4.3.2, 4.3.2.1, 4.3.7.1,
4.3.7.3–5, 4.3.7.7–9, 4.3.7.11, 4.3.9, 4.4.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.3.5, 5.3.1, 5.3.2.8–9, 5.4.2, 6.1.1.4, 6.1.1.6, 6.1.2.2, 6.2.1.4,
6.2.5.2, 6.3.2.2, 6.4.1–3, 7.1.1.1–2, 7.1.1.4–5, 7.1.2.1–2, 7.1.2.4, 7.1.3.2–4, 7.2.1–2, 7.2.6, 7.2.8, 7.3.1–3, 7.4,
7.6, 8.2.1–2, 8.2.4, 9.1.5, 9.1.7, 9.2
Othello (Oth) 2.2.4.1, 3.3.1.4, 3.3.6.1, 4.2.3, 4.3.2.1, 4.3.7.4, 5.3.2.8, 6.4.1–2, 7.3.3, 8.2.4, 9.1.5, 9.1.7, 9.2
Oxford 1.1.3
Oxford English Dictionary 1.2.2, 2.2.4.1, 5.3.2.5, 5.4, 10.2
Padua (MV) 5.1.3.3; (TS) 5.4.2
Page, Master (MW) 8.2.3, 8.3.1.2; Mistress (MW) 3.3.2.1, 7.5.1.2, 8.2.6
Painter (Tim) 6.3.2.1, 8.2.3, 8.3.2
Palmer, D. J. 10.1
Pandarus (TC) 8.1.1, 8.1.3–4, 8.2.4, 8.3.1.1, 8.3.2–3, 9.1.5
Paris (1H6) 5.4.2; (RJ) 7.1.2.1; (TC) 7.2.7, 8.1.4, 8.2.4, 9.1.5
Parolles (AW) 5.4
Parthia (AC) 9.3.1
< previous page
page_377
next page >
< previous page
page_378
next page >
Page 378
participle 3.2.1.2, 3.2.3.4, 3.3.1.3, 3.3.2.4, 3.3.3.1, 3.3.6.2, 3.3.6.5, 4.2.7, 4.3.7.3, 4.3.8, 4.4.4, 5.1.2.4, 5.3, 5.4.2,
6.3.2.5, 6.3.5, 7.1.2.2, 7.1.3.4, 7.3.1, 7.5.2.5; absolute 4.3.5, 7.1.2.2; adjectival 5.1.3.1; hanging 6.3.5, 10.2; past
3.3.6.2, 4.2.4–5, 4.2.7, 4.2.9, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.5, 4.3.7.1–2, 4.3.7.4, 4.3.7.6, 4.3.7.8, 4.3.8–9, 4.4.4, 5.4.2, 6.3.2.2,
7.2.6, 8.3.8, 10.1–2; perfect 4.2.5, 4.3.8; post-posed 3.3.6.2, 10.1; present 3.3.3.1, 3.3.4.2.3, 3.3.6.2, 4.2.5, 4.2.7,
4.2.8, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.7.3, 4.3.7.5, 4.3.8, 7.5.1.2
part of speech 2.1, 2.2.2, 3.1, 3.2.1.1, 3.3.1, 3.3.1.3, 3.3.3.1, 4.3.3, 5.1.1, 5.3, 6.3.5
Patroclus (TC) 7.2.1
Paulina (WT) 6.2.6
Passionate Pilgrim, The 1.1.2, 5.4.2
Paul's, St (2H4) 3.2.1.2
Pedro, Don, Prince of Aragon (MA) 4.3.2, 4.3.7.1, 5.1.3.6, 6.2.1.1, 6.3, 6.3.2.5
Pericles 1.1.4–5, 3.2.1.1, 3.3.1.3, 3.3.2.4, 3.3.2.6, 4.2.1–2, 4.2.4.1, 4.2.5, 4.3.9, 4.4.4, 5.1.3.6, 5.4.2, 6.2, 7.1.2.4,
7.6
permission 4.3.7.9
person 3.2.2.1, 4.3.7.11, 4.4.3, 6.1; singular 3.2; 1st 4.2.2, 4.2.2.1, 4.2.2.6, 4.2.4.3, 4.3.1.4, 4.3.3, 4.3.7.4–5,
4.3.7.7, 6.1, 6.1.1.6, 7.2, 7.2.1; 2nd 4.2.2, 4.2.2.1–2, 4.2.6, 4.2.4.2–4, 4.2.6, 4.3.3, 4.3.7.4–5, 6.1, 6.1.1.6, 7.2; 3rd
4.2.2, 4.2.2.1, 4.2.2.3, 4.2.2.6, 4.2.4.3, 4.2.6, 4.3.1.4, 4.3.3, 4.3.7.5, 4.3.7.11, 4.4.1, 6.1, 6.1.1.6, 7.2.7–8, 8.3.8;
plural 3.2, 4.2.2, 4.2.2.1, 4.2.2.6, 4.2.3.2, 4.2.4.3, 4.3.7.5, 7.2 4.3.3
Petruccio (TS) 3.3.2.1, 5.4.2, 6.3.2.4, 6.4.1
Pharamond (H5) 7.5.2.2
Philip of France (KJ) 8.1
Philo (AC) 8.2.1
Phoebus (Cym) 4.4.4
Phoenix and the Turtle, The 1.1.2
phonology 1.2.2
phrase 2.2.3.2, 2.2.4.3, 2.2.9, 3.1, 3.2.1.1, 3.3.3.6, 3.3.5, 3.3.6.1, 4.1, 4.2.3, 4.2.10, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.1.3, 4.3.6, 4.3.10,
5.1.1, 5.1.2.2, 5.1.3.7, 5.2.1, 5.3, 5.3.1, 5.4.3, 6.1.1.6, 6.2.3.1–3, 6.3.5, 6.4.3, 7.5.1.1, 7.5.1.3, 7.5.2.2, 8.3, 10.2;
adjectival 7.1.3.4; adverbial 5.1.3.6, 5.4.1.1, 5.4.2, 7.5.2.4; appositional 2.2.3.3, 2.2.9, 6.3.2.1; interpolated 2.2.9;
pet 8.4.1; prepositional 2.2.3.2, 3.2.1.2, 3.3.2.4, 3.3.3.3, 3.3.6.1, 3.3.6.5, 4.3.5, 4.3.8, 4.3.8.1, 4.3.9, 4.4.3, 5.1.1,
5.1.2.2–3, 5.1.3, 5.1.3.7, 6.1.1.6, 6.1.2.1, 6.2.3.1, 7.1, 7.1.1.1, 7.1.2.4, 7.1.3, 7.1.3.3–4
Pisanio (Cym) 6.3
Pistol (MW) 3.3.1.2, 8.1.3, 8.2.3, 8.3.1.2, (2H4) 4.3.7.6, 8.1.1, 8.2.3, 8.4.2, (H5) 2.2.2, 8.1
Player King (Ham) 7.6
Pluto (TC) 4.4.1
Poet (Tim) 6.3.2.1, 8.2.3, 8.3.2
Poins (1H4) 8.1.3
politeness 3.3.2.1.1, 8.1.3–4, 8.2.4, 9.1.1, 9.2, 9.3.1–3: negative 9.3.1–2, positive 9.3.1–2; face 9.3.1: negative
9.3.1, positive 9.3.1; face-threatening act 9.3.1; formula 4.2.3, 7.1.2.3, 7.3; power relationship 3.3.2.1.1, 9.3.1; risk
9.3.1; theory 1.2.3, 9.3; weight of 9.3.1; impoliteness 8.1.4
Polonius (Ham) 6.2.1.4, 6.4.1–2, 8.1.4, 8.3.1.1, 8.3.2
Pontefract (R3) 3.3.2.1
< previous page
page_378
next page >
< previous page
page_379
next page >
Page 379
Pope, Alexander 1.2.2
Porter (Mac) 10.2
Portia (JC) 3.3.6.2
positive 4.3.7.6, 6.2, 6.2.1.4, 6.2.3.1, 6.2.9
possessive (genitive) 2.2.8, 3.2.1, 3.2.1.2, 3.2.2.1, 3.3.1.1, 3.3.1.3, 3.3.3.1, 3.3.3.2, 3.3.4.2.2, 3.3.4.5, 3.3.6.1,
4.2.8.1, 5.1.2.1, 6.1.2.4: absolute 3.2.1.2, 4.2.8.1, 6.1; double 3.3.2.2; objective 3.3.1.1, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.3.2, 3.3.4.5,
10.2; of genitive 3.2.1.2, 3.2.2.1, 3.3.1.1; plural 3.2.1, 3.2.2.1, 3.3.3.2; singular 3.2.1, 3.2.1.2, 3.3.3.2; subjective
3.3.1.1, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.3.2
possibility 4.3.7.9; epistemic 4.3.7.8, 4.3.9; hypothetical 4.3.7.9, 4.3.9; neutral 4.3.7.9
Posthumus (Cym) 6.3.4, 7.6
pragmatics 1.2.3, 2.1, 9, 10.2; speech acts 9.2
predeterminer 3.1, 3.3.2.7, 3.3.4.1, 3.3.5, 6.2.4
pre-modifier 7.1.2.2
preposition 2.1, 3.2.1, 3.3, 4.2.9, 4.3, 4.4.3, 5.1.2.1–2, 5.1.3.1–3, 5.1.3.5, 5.3, 5.3.2.1–2, 5.4, 6.1.2, 6.2.7, 7.1.1.1,
7.1.2.4, 7.1.3, 8.3.5; compound 5.4; omission of 6.3.3; post-posed 5.4, 5.4.2, 6.1.2.2; repeated 5.4.1.3, 5.4.2; zero
5.4.1.1, 10.2
Priam (RL) 5.4.2; (TC) 8.1
probability 4.3.7.5
promise 4.3.7.5, 4.3.9
pronoun 3.1, 3.2.1.2, 3.2.2, 3.3.1.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3.1, 3.3.6.2, 4.2.2.2, 4.2.3, 4.2.4.5, 4.2.9, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.3, 4.3.5,
5.1.3.1, 5.4, 5.4.1.1, 5.4.2, 6.1.1.4, 6.1.1.6, 6.1.2, 6.2.1, 6.3.5, 7.1.1.1, 7.1.1.4, 7.1.2.1–2, 7.1.3, 7.2.2, 7.2.7, 7.3.2,
8.3.1.1, 10.2: demonstrative 3.2.2.2, 3.2.3.2, 3.3.2.4, 3.3.2.6, 3.3.4.2.2, 4.2.9, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.3, 4.3.5, 6.1; indefinite
3.3.1.3, 3.3.2.6, 3.3.2.7, 3.3.3.1, 4.3.3, 6.1.1.6, 6.2.1.4, 6.3.1.4, 7.1.2.1, 7.2.1: assertive 3.3.2.7, 8.3.1.1, nonassertive 3.3.2.7, 6.2.7, 6.2.9; interrogative 3.2.2.4–5, 3.3.2.5, 5.1.3.7, 7.3; non-subject 6.1.2; omission of 6.3.1;
personal 1.1.4, 3.2.2.1, 3.2.2.3, 3.3.1.3, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.3, 3.3.2.6–7, 3.3.4.5, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.1.3, 4.3.3, 4.3.7.4, 4.4.2,
6.1, 6.1.1.6, 6.3.1.1–2, 10.2: singular 1st 2.3.2.1, 3.2.2.1, 6.3.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.2.7, 8.3.1.2, 10.2, 2nd 1.1.4, 3.2.2.1,
3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.1.1, 4.3.3, 6.3.1.2, 7.2, 9.3.2, 10.2, 3rd 3.3.2.1, 6.3.1.1; plural 1.1.4, 3.2.2.1, 3.2.2.3, 3.3.2.1.1, 9.3.2,
10.2; possessive 3.2.2.1, 3.2.2.3, 3.2.3.3, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.2, 3.3.2.3, 3.3.2.6, 6.1.1.6, 8.1.4; predicative 6.2.1.5;
reflexive 3.2.2.3, 3.3.1.3, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.3, 4.2.3, 4.3.3, 4.4.2–3, 6.3.1.1, 7.1; relative 3.2.2.4, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.2,
3.3.2.4–5, 3.3.2.6, 3.3.4.2.1, 3.3.6.1, 5.3.2.1, 5.4, 5.4.2, 6.1.1.6, 6.3.3.1, 7.1.2.4; subject 3.3.2.6, 7.1.2.4, nonsubject 4.3.3, object 3.3.2.6, 7.1.2.4; zero 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.3, 3.3.2.6–7, 3.3.6.1, 6.3.3
pronunciation 2.1; received 2.1
prose 1.1.5, 3.3.2.6, 3.3.3.1, 4.2.2, 5.3, 7.1.2.1, 7.1.2.4, 7.1.3.4, 7.5.1.2–4, 8.2, 8.3.7–8
Prospero (Tem) 2.2.4.1, 3.3.6.1, 8.3.2
Proteus (TG) 5.4.2
proverb (proverbial utterance/sententia) 2.1, 2.2.3.4, 3.3.3.6, 4.3.9, 6.3, 7.4, 7.5.2.5, 8.4.1
< previous page
page_379
next page >
< previous page
page_380
next page >
Page 380
Publius (JC) 5.3.2.5
Puck (MN) 4.2.2
punctuation 1.1.5, 2.1, 2.2, 3.3.2.1, 4.2.3, 4.2.5, 5.1.1, 5.3.2.2, 6.1.2.2, 6.3, 7.3.3, 7.5.2.5, 7.6, 8.2.1, 9.1.2.1, 10;
brackets 2.2.3.2–4, 2.2.9, 6.2.3.4, 6.3, 6.3.5, 7.1.3.4, 7.4, 7.6; capitals 2.2.2, 2.2.4.1, 2.3.2.2, 3.3.3.2; colon 2.2.1–
2, 2.2.4.1–3, 2.2.5, 10.2; comma 2.2.1–2, 2.2.3.1–4, 2.2.4.3, 2.2.9, 5.3.2.2, 7.2.4, 7.2.8, 8.1.3, 8.3.1.1, 9.1.2.1,
10.1–2; exclamation mark 2.2.1, 2.2.6, 7.4, 7.4.1, 8.3.1.1, 10.2; full stop 2.2.1–2, 2.2.4.1, 2.2.5, 4.3.3, 7.1.2.1,
8.2.8, 9.1.5, 10.2; grammatical 2.1; inverted commas 2.2.1; italics 2.2.7; light 2.2.1; question mark 2.2.1, 2.2.6,
7.1.3.4, 7.3.3, 7.4, 7.4.1, 8.2.1, 8.3.1.1, 8.3.2, 9.1.5, 10.2; rhetorical 2.1, 2.2.1; semi-colon 2.2.1, 2.2.4.3, 2.2.5,
10.2
purpose 4.3.1.1, 4.3.7.5, 7.1.3.1
Puttenham, George. Arte of English Poesie 2.1
qualifier 3.1, 3.2.1.2, 3.3.1.3, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.6–7, 3.3.3.1, 3.3.3.6, 3.3.6, 4.3.5, 4.3.8, 4.3.8.1, 7.1.3.3, 7.5.2.2–3,
8.1.3
quarto(s) 1.1.3–5, 1.2.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2.4.1, 2.2.8–9, 3.2.1.1–2, 3.2.2.4, 3.2.3.1, 3.2.3.3–4, 3.3.2.1.1, 3.3.2.4, 3.3.2.6,
3.3.4.3.2, 3.3.5, 4.2.2, 4.2.2.2, 4.2.4.1, 4.2.4.3, 4.2.6–7, 4.3.3, 4.3.7.9, 4.3.10, 4.4.1–2, 5.1.1, 5.1.2.1, 5.1.3.2,
5.1.3.5–6, 5.2.5, 5.3.1, 5.3.2.1, 5.3.2.4–6, 5.3.2.8, 5.4.2, 6.1.1.3, 6.1.1.6, 6.2.3.4, 6.3.1.3, 6.3.3, 6.4, 6.4.1–2,
7.1.1.5, 7.1.2.1, 7.1.3.1, 7.1.3.3, 7.2.1–2, 7.3.3, 7.5.1.1–2, 7.6, 8.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.3–4, 8.2.3, 8.3.1.1–2, 8.3.8, 8.4.3,
9.1.5–6; bad ~ 1.1.4, 8.3.1.2; good ~ 1.1.4, language of 1.1.4
question 2.2.6, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.7, 4.2.2, 4.2.3.1, 4.3.7.4–5, 4.3.7.8, 5.1.3.6, 6.2.1.6, 6.3.1.2, 6.3.2.4–5, 6.3.5, 7.1.1.3,
7.3, 8.3.1.1, 9.1.3, 9.1.5–6, 10.2; conditions 9.1.3–6; direct 4.4.4; indirect 4.4.4, 9.1.6; negative 5.1.3.6, 5.3.1,
6.2.3.4; positive 5.1.3.6, 6.2.3.4; rhetorical 4.3.7.8, 5.1.3.5, 7.3; tag 6.2.3.4, 7.2.2, 7.3; wh-questions 7.3, 7.3.1,
7.4; yes-no questions 4.3.7.4, 7.3, 7.3.1. See also interrogative
Quickly, Mistress 8.4.2, (MW) 3.2.1.1, 3.3.2.1, 4.4.1, 5.1.2.2, 8.3.1.2, 8.3.7; (2H4) 6.2.3.4
Quince (MN) 7.6
Rambler, The 1.2.1
Rape of Lucrece, The 1.1.2, 3.2.1.1–2, 3.2.3.3–4, 3.3.1.3, 3.3.2.4, 3.3.2.6–7, 3.3.3.1, 3.3.4.1, 3.3.6.2, 4.2.4.1,
4.3.1.1, 4.3.1.5, 4.3.7.4, 4.3.9, 4.4.2–3, 5.1.3.6, 5.3.1, 5.3.2.1, 5.3.2.9, 5.4, 5.4.2–3, 6.1.1.6, 6.2.5.1, 6.3.4, 7.1.3.3,
7.2.6, 7.5.1.1, 8.1
Regan (KL) 6.2.1.5, 8.1.4, 8.2.1
register 2.1, 2.2.1, 4.2.2.1, 4.4.1, 6.3, 6.3.3, 8.4
repetition 3.3.2.2, 3.3.2.4, 3.3.2.6, 4.3.7.1, 6.2.1.7, 6.2.3.2, 6.3, 6.4, 7.1.2.4, 7.2.3, 7.2.5, 7.5.1.1, 7.5.2.3, 7.6,
8.1.2; single-word 6.4.1, two-word 6.4.2, multiple-word 6.4.3
result 7.1.3.1
Reynaldo (Ham) 8.1.4
rhetoric 1.2.1, 2.1, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.3, 3.3.6.3, 3.3.6.5, 5.3.1, 5.3.2.9, 5.4, 6.3, 6.4, 7.1.1.1,
< previous page
page_380
next page >
< previous page
page_381
next page >
Page 381
7.1.1.5, 7.5, 7.6, 10.2: amphibology 7.6; antimetabole 7.6; cacosyntheton 7.6; euphemism 3.3.1.3; Graecismus 7.6;
hendiadys 5.3.1, 6.1.1.1; hypallage 7.6; hyperbaton 7.6; onomatopoeia 5.2.1, 5.2.4; polyptoton 7.6
Rhodes (Oth) 4.2.9, 7.1.2.1
Richard II 1.1.4, 2.2.3.1, 3.1, 3.2.1.2, 3.2.2.3, 3.2.3.1–4, 3.3.1.1, 3.3.1.3, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.3, 3.3.2.6–7, 3.3.3.1,
3.3.3.3, 3.3.3.6, 3.3.4.2.2, 3.3.4.3.2, 3.3.4.5, 3.3.6.1, 4.2.2–3, 4.2.4.1, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.3, 4.3.5, 4.3.7.1, 4.3.7.3,
4.3.7.5–8, 4.3.7.10, 4.3.8–10, 4.4.1–2, 5.1.1, 5.1.3.1, 5.1.3.3, 5.1.3.5, 5.1.3.7, 5.2.3, 5.3.2.2–4, 5.4.2, 6.1.1.1,
6.1.1.6, 6.2.1.3, 6.2.5.2, 6.3.2.3, 6.3.3.1, 6.3.5, 7.1.1.4–5, 7.1.3, 7.2.1, 7.3.1, 7.5.1.1, 7.5.1.3, 8.1.1, 8.3.1.1, 8.4.3
Richard II (R2) 3.3.2.3, 8.1.1, 8.4.3; (2H4) 4.2.9
Richard III 1.1.4, 2.2.3.1, 3.2.1.2, 3.2.2.4, 3.3.1.1, 3.3.1.3, 3.3.2.1–2, 3.3.2.6–7, 3.3.3.1–2, 3.3.3.6, 3.3.4.3.2, 4.2.2,
4.2.4.1, 4.2.4.3, 4.2.7, 4.3.2, 4.3.2.1, 4.3.3, 4.3.5, 4.3.7.6–7, 4.3.7.9, 4.3.8, 4.3.8.1, 4.3.10, 4.4.1, 4.4.3, 5.1.2.4,
5.1.3.5–6, 5.3.2.1, 5.3.2.6, 5.3.2.8–9, 5.4, 5.4.1.1, 5.4.2–3, 6.2.2, 6.3.2.1, 7.1.1.2, 7.1.2.2, 7.1.2.4, 7.5.2.1, 7.5.2.3,
7.6, 8.1.1–2, 9.3.2
Richard III (R3) 3.2.1.2, 5.4, 7.1.2.2, 7.6, 8.1.2
Richmond, Henry [Henry VII] (R3) 7.6
Robin Starveling (MN) 8.1.2
Roderigo (Oth) 4.3.2.1, 6.4.1, 6.4.3, 7.4, 8.2.1–2, 9.1.7
Romans (JC) 3.3.5
Rome 2.1, (AC) 2.2.3.1, 8.2.5, 8.4.3, 9.1.2.1, 9.3.1; (Cor) 3.2.1.2, 3.3.1.3, 3.3.2.7, 3.3.3.1, 5.3.2.9, 6.1.1.2; (Cym)
6.3.5, 7.6; (JC) 4.3.4; (MM) 3.3.2.7; (TA) 3.3.2.1
Romeo (RJ) 3.3.4.3.1, 7.1.2.1, 7.6
Romeo and Juliet 1.1.4, 3.2.1.2–3, 3.2.3, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.7, 3.3.3.1, 3.3.3.3, 3.3.3.5, 3.3.4.2.1–2, 3.3.4.3.1, 4.2.2.2,
4.2.2.4, 4.2.4.1, 4.2.9, 4.3.1.4, 4.3.3, 4.3.5–6, 4.3.7.8, 4.3.7.10, 4.3.9, 4.4.3, 5.1.2.2, 5.1.3.2–4, 5.2.2, 5.3.2.5,
5.3.2.9, 5.4.2–3, 6.1.1.2, 6.2.5.2, 6.3.2.1, 7.1, 7.1.1.4–5, 7.1.2.1–2, 7.1.3, 7.2.6, 7.3.2, 7.5.1.1–3, 7.5.2.3, 7.6,
8.1.2
Rosalind (AY) 8.1.3, 8.3.7
Rosencrantz (Ham) 6.4.1–2, 8.1.4
Ross (Mac) 10.2
Rowe, N. 8.3.7
Rudanko, J. 1.2.3, 9.1.3, 9.1.6
Rugby, John/Jack (MW) 3.3.2.1, 7.2.4, 8.2.1
Russia, Emperor of (MM) 5.4.2
Rutland, Earl of (3H6) 8.3.1.1
St George (R2) 4.3.1.1
Salic Law (H5) 7.5.2.2
Salmon, V. 1.2.3, 2.1, 5.1.3.6, 7.3.3
Salusbury, Sir John and Lady 1.1.2
Samson (2H4) 7.1.1.1
Schaefer, J. 1.2.1
Scheler, M. 1.2.2
Schmidt, A. 1.2.2, 5.4, 10.2
Scotland (Mac) 4.3.6, 8.2.8
Scots (1H4) 3.3.5
Senior, Duke (AY) 6.3.5
sentence 2.2.5, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.9, 5.1.1, 5.3, 6.1.2.2, 6.2.1.7, 6.2.3.1, 6.2.3.4, 6.3.2.1, 7, 8.3, 10.2; affirmative 4.3.7.4,
comparative 4.3.1.1;
< previous page
page_381
next page >
< previous page
page_382
next page >
Page 382
compound 2.1, 7.1.3.4; declarative 7.3, 7.3.1; exclamatory 2.2.6, 6.3.2.1, 7.1.2.1, 7.1.3; incomplete 9.1.2.1;
interrogative 2.2.6, 7.3.5; parallelism 6.3.4, 7.5; stress 6.2, 10.1–2; structure of 3.2.1, 6.3.2.2, 7, 8.4.3: embedding
7.1.1.3, 7.1.2.1–2; types 7.5. See clause
Seoane Posse, E. 4.3.9
Servant (TC) 9.1.5
Severn, River (1H4) 5.1.3.4
Seyton (Mac) 4.3.10, 8.2.1–2, 8.3.2, 9.3.1
Shallow (2H4) 6.4.2, 8.1.1, (MW) 4.3.9, 5.3.2.8, 7.3.3, 8.1.3, 8.2.3, 8.3.1.2, 8.3.3, 8.3.6
Shakespeare, William passim; hand of 2.2.1; life and works 1.1; studies of his language 1.2
Shakespere-Quarto Fac-similes 1.3
Shrewsbury (2H4) 8.4.3
Shylock (MV) 3.3.4.2.1, 6.4.1, 8.3.1.1
Sicily, King of (2H6) 7.5.2.4
Siward (Mac) 4.3.10
Slender (2H4) 6.4.2, (MW) 7.3.3, 8.1.3, 8.3.6
Smithfield (2H4) 3.2.1.2
social, boundary 8.1.2; distance 9.3.1–2; hierarchy 3.3.2.1.1, 8.1.2; stratification 8.1.1
Solinus (CE) 4.4.4
Somerset, Duke of (1H6) 5.4.3, 8.1.3
Sonnets 1.1.2, 1.3, 2.3.2.4, 3.2.1.1–2, 3.2.2.3–4, 3.3.1.3, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.6, 3.3.3.1–2, 3.3.4.3.2, 4.2.2, 4.2.4.1,
4.3.1.1, 4.3.1.5, 4.3.5, 4.3.7.8, 4.4.3–4, 5.1.3.1, 5.1.3.5, 5.3.1, 5.3.2.2, 5.3.2.4, 5.3.2.9, 5.4.2, 6.1.2.3, 6.2.4, 6.3.4
sounds: consonants 2.3.2.2–3, 3.2.3.3, 4.2.2: double 2.3.2.3; group 4.2.2, 4.3.7.4; non-sibilant 4.2.2; diphthongs
2.3.2.3; vowels 2.3.2.2–3, 3.2.3.3, 4.2.4, 6.2.1.5: double 2.3.2.3; long 2.3.2.3; short 2.3.2.3
Southampton (H5) 2.2.2
Southwark 1.1.3
speaker 3.3.2.1.1, 3.3.2.4, 3.3.2.7, 3.3.4.5, 4.3.7.3, 4.3.7.8, 4.3.7.10, 5.3.2.1, 6.3.5, 6.4.1–3, 8.3, 8.3.1.1, 9.1.2.2,
9.1.3–6, 9.3.1–2
speech 2.2.4.1, 3.2.1.1, 3.2.2.4, 5.1.1, 6.1.2, 8.3.1.2, 9.1.6–7; acts 9.2, 9.3.1; colloquial 2.2.8, 3.2.2.1, 3.3.2.7,
4.3.7.4–5, 4.2.7; direct 2.2.4.2; exchange 3.3.2.1.1; interruptions in 9.1.2.1; variation in 2.1
Speed (TG) 5.4.2
spelling 1.1.5, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2.2, 2.3, 4.2.2, 4.2.2.2, 4.2.4, 4.2.4.1, 10.2; abbreviation 2.2.5, 5.4.2, 6.2.1.1; alphabet
2.1, 2.3.2.2; apostrophe 2.2.8, 2.3.2.4, 3.2.1.2, 3.3.2.7, 3.3.6.1, 3.3.6.5, 5.1.2.2, 6.3.2.1; contracted 2.3.2.4–5,
2.3.3; elision 4.2.2.2, 4.2.7, 4.3.3.3; final <e> 2.3.2.1–3; graphs 2.3.2.2–4, 3.2.2.1; hypercorrection 3.2.2.1; hyphen
2.3.3, 5.1.2.2, 5.1.3.1, 6.2.5.1; standardised 2.3.2.1
Sprague, A. C. 9.1.7
Stafford, Sir Humphrey (2H6) 8.1.1
Stanley, Lord (R3) 7.6
state 4.3.7.1–3, 4.4.3
statement 2.2.3.4, 3.3.1.2, 4.3.7.5, 5.1.3.6, 5.3.2.9, 6.2.7, 6.4.2, 7.3.4, 7.3.6, 8.2.1, 9.1.3, 9.1.7; declarative 8.2.2;
hypothetical 4.3.2.1; negative 4.3.7.5, 5.1.3.6, 5.3.1; positive 5.1.3.6; repeated 6.3.5
< previous page
page_382
next page >
< previous page
page_383
next page >
Page 383
status 5.1.2.1, 5.3, 5.3.1, 8.1, 8.1.1, 8.2.3, 8.2.5–7, 9.1.2.2, 9.1.3, 9.1.5, 9.2, 9.3.1; class 2.1, 9.2
Stephen, King (Oth) 5.1.1
Stockwood, John. English Accedence 2.1
Stoll, E. E. 9.3.2
Stratford-upon-Avon 1.1.1–2
style 1.2.3, 3.3.6.1, 6.4, 7.3.5; bombastic 8.4.2; effusive 8.3.7; elliptical 5.4; formal 6.3, 6.4.3, 7.1.2.1, 8.3.8, 9.2;
high/literary 3.3.6.1, 4.3.9, 6.3, 6.4.2, 7.3.5; inflated 8.4.2; informal 4.3.3, 4.3.7.3, 6.2.3.4, 6.3, 6.3.3, 7.1.3.4;
nominal 7.5.2.3, 7.5.2.5
subject 1.2.2, 2.2.3.1, 3.2.1–2, 3.2.2.1, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.1.1, 3.3.2.3, 3.3.2.6, 3.3.4.2.2, 3.3.6.5, 4.2.2, 4.2.2.1–2,
4.2.4.3, 4.2.4.5, 4.2.8.1, 4.2.9, 4.3.1, 4.3.1.1–4, 4.3.2.1, 4.3.3, 4.3.6, 4.3.7.4, 4.3.7.6, 4.3.8, 4.3.8.1, 4.3.9, 4.4.1–3,
5.1.1, 5.3, 5.3.2.1, 6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.2, 6.2.2, 6.3.1–2, 6.3.2.5, 6.3.5, 7, 7.5.2.4, 8.3.2, 9.1.2.1, 10.2; compound
6.1.1.6; co-ordinate 6.1.1.1, 6.1.1.6; dummy 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.3–4, 4.3.7.6–7, 4.3.8, 4.3.10, 4.4.1, 7.1.1.4, 7.1.3;
grammatical 4.3.1.3, 4.3.9; indefinite 6.3.2.1; personal 4.4.1; psychological 4.3.1.3, 4.3.9; zero 4.3.10
subjective 3.3.1.1, 3.3.2.1–2, 3.3.3.2–4, 3.3.4.5
suffix 5.1.2.4
Suffolk, Earl of (H5) 4.3.2
Susan (RJ) 3.3.4.3.1
syllable 2.1, 3.3.3.1, 4.2.2, 5.1.2.1; bisyllable 3.2.1.2; final 5.1.2.1; long 4.2.2; monosyllable 2.1, 3.2.1.2, 3.2.3.4,
4.2.2, 5.4; polysyllable 2.1, 3.2.3.4; short 4.2.2
Sylvia (TG) 5.1.3.6, 5.4.2, 7.2.5
syndeton 7.5.1.2, 7.5.1.3, 7.5.2.1
syntax 1.1.4, 1.2.2–3, 2.1, 3.3.2.6, 4.2.3, 7.3.4; faulty 7.6; tortuous 7.1.2.1
Talbot, The (1H6) 3.3.4.2.2, 5.3.2.1, 5.4.2, 8.1.2–3
Taming of the Shrew, The 1.1.4, 2.1, 3.2.1.1–2, 3.2.3.4, 3.3.1.3, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.6, 3.3.3.5–6, 3.3.4.2.2, 3.3.4.4,
4.3.1, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.2.1, 4.3.3, 4.3.7.3, 4.3.7.5, 4.3.9–10, 5.1.3.1–2, 5.1.3.5, 5.1.3.7, 5.2.3, 5.2.5, 5.3.2.2, 5.3.2.5–6,
5.4.2, 6.1.1.3, 6.1.1.6, 6.2.1.8, 6.2.3.1, 6.2.3.3, 6.3.1.2, 6.3.2.1, 6.3.2.4, 6.3.3, 6.4.3, 7.1.1.2, 7.1.1.4, 7.3.1,
7.5.1.2, 8.3.4
Tarquin (Mac) 7.6; (RL) 4.3.1.1, 4.4.3
Tempest, The 1.1.5, 2.2.4.1, 3.2.1.1, 3.2.2.1, 3.2.2.3, 3.2.3.2, 3.2.3.3–4, 3.3.1.2–3, 3.3.2.1–2, 3.3.2.4–7, 3.3.3.1,
3.3.3.4, 3.3.3.6, 3.3.4.3.2, 3.3.5, 3.3.6.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.2.2–3, 4.2.3.2, 4.2.4.1–2, 4.2.5, 4.2.7, 4.2.9, 4.3.1, 4.3.1.1,
4.3.2–3, 4.3.7.4, 4.3.7.6–11, 4.3.8, 4.3.8.1, 4.4.2–4, 5.1.2.1, 5.1.2.4, 5.1.3.1, 5.1.3.5–7, 5.2.2, 5.2.4, 5.3.1, 5.3.2.1,
5.3.2.3–5, 5.3.2.9, 5.4.2, 6.1.1.3, 6.2, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.1.4–5, 6.2.1.8, 6.2.3.1, 6.2.3.3, 6.2.4, 6.2.5.1, 6.2.7–8, 6.3.1.2,
6.3.1.4, 7.1.2.1, 7.1.2.3, 7.1.3.1–3, 7.2.3–4, 7.2.7, 7.3.4, 7.5.1.2–3, 7.6, 8.3.2, 8.3.4, 8.3.7, 9.3.2
tense 4.2.8.1, 4.3.5, 4.3.8.1, 4.4.4, 6.3.4; indicative 4.2.2.6, 4.3.2.1, 4.3.6: future in past 4.2.7; future perfect
< previous page
page_383
next page >
< previous page
page_384
next page >
Page 384
4.3.7.1; perfect 4.2.3.3, 4.2.7; 4.2.8.1, 4.2.9, 4.3.2, 4.3.4, 4.3.7.1, 4.3.7.2–3, 4.3.7.11, 4.3.9, 4.4.3, 8.3.8, 10.2;
pluperfect 4.2.7, 4.3.4, 4.3.7.1, 4.3.7.2, 4.3.9, 4.4.3; present 1.2.2, 3.3.2.1.1, 4.2.1.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3, 4.2.4.5, 4.2.9,
4.3.2, 4.3.3, 4.3.7.1, 4.3.7.3, 4.3.7.5, 4.3.7.7–8, 4.3.7.11, 4.3.9, 4.4.1, 4.4.4, 6.1, 8.3.8: historic present 4.3.2,
expresses futurity 4.3.2; preterite 3.3.2.1.1, 4.2.2.5, 4.2.4, 4.2.6–7, 4.2.9, 4.3.4, 4.3.7.1–5, 4.3.7.7, 4.3.7.9,
4.3.7.11, 4.3.9, 4.4.1, 4.4.4; subjunctive 4.2.2.1, 4.2.2.3, 4.2.2.6, 4.2.3, 4.2.9, 4.3.2.1, 4.3.7.2, 4.3.7.8, 4.4.2.3,
5.3.2.1, 6.3.5, 7.1.1.5, 7.1.2.4, 7.2.8, 7.4.1: perfect 4.2.7, 4.3.4; present 4.2.2.6, 4.2.3, 4.2.6, 4.2.9, 4.3.2.1, 4.3.3,
4.3.7.7–9, 4.4.4; hortative 4.2.3, 4.3.2.1, 4.3.3, 7.2.8; optative 4.3.2.1, 4.3.7.9, 7.2.8; preterite 4.2.6, 4.2.9, 4.3.6
Thames, River (H5) 3.3.4.2.2
Thersites (TC) 4.4.1, 8.2.3, 8.3.2
Theseus (MN) 6.2.2, 7.6
Thidias (AC) 8.2.8
Thorpe, Thomas 1.1.2
threat 4.3.9, 5.4.2, 7.2.5
Tiber, River (AC) 8.4.3; (JC) 3.2.1.2, 5.3.2.6
time 4.3.1.1–2, 4.3.7.3, 5.3.2.2, 5.3.2.4, 6.3.5; duration 4.3.7.3; future 4.3.1.2, 4.3.2.1, 4.3.5–6, 4.3.7.1–3, 4.3.7.5,
4.3.7.7–8, 4.3.7.10, 4.3.9, 5.3.2.4, 8.4.3; future in the past 4.2.7, 4.3.7.7; generic 4.3.2; habitual 4.3.7.5; past
4.2.7, 4.3.1.2, 4.3.2, 4.3.4–5, 4.3.7.1, 4.3.7.6, 4.3.7.9, 4.4.4; present 4.3.1.2, 4.3.2, 4.3.4, 4.3.7.1, 4.3.7.5–6,
4.3.7.11, 7.2.6
Timon (Tim) 4.3.10, 6.4.2, 7.4, 8.2.4
Timon of Athens 2.3.2.1, 3.2.2.4, 3.2.3.4, 3.3.1.3, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.3.1, 4.2.7, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.3, 4.3.7.1–3, 4.3.7.6, 4.3.10,
4.4.3, 5.1.3.1, 5.3.1, 5.4.2–3, 6.1.1.5–6, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.1.4, 6.2.1.7–8, 6.2.2, 6.2.3.4, 6.3.1.2, 6.3.2.1, 6.3.2.3, 6.3.3–4,
6.4.2, 7.1.3.2, 7.3.6, 7.4, 7.4.1, 8.2.1, 8.2.3–4, 8.3.2–3
Titania (MN) 5.4.2
title(s) 1.1.5, 2.2.3.3, 2.2.7, 3.2.1.2, 3.3.4.2.2, 3.3.6.1, 8.1, 8.2.1
Titus Andronicus 1.1.4, 2.2.3.1–2, 3.2.3.3–4, 3.3.1.3, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.6–7, 4.2.4.2–3, 4.3.3, 4.4.3, 5.1.1, 5.1.2.2,
5.1.3.4–5, 5.2.2, 5.2.4, 5.3.1, 5.3.2.1, 5.3.2.4–5, 5.4.2, 6.1.1.6, 6.2.2, 6.2.3.4, 6.3.2.2, 7.1.1.1, 7.1.2.1, 7.2.1, 7.3.2,
8.1
Toby Belch, Sir (TN) 3.3.1.3, 8.1.2
Touchstone (AY) 7.3.3, 8.4.1
Tours (2H6) 5.4.2, 7.5.2.5
translation 2.1, 6.3, 7.5.2.2
Trent, River (1H4) 3.3.4.2.2, 5.1.3.4
Troilus (TC) 8.1, 8.1.4, 8.2.4, 8.3.1.1, 8.3.3
Troilus and Cressida 1.1.4–5, 2.2.8, 2.3.1, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.6–7, 3.3.3.1, 3.3.3.6, 3.3.4.2.2, 3.3.5, 3.3.6.4, 4.2.2,
4.2.4.1, 4.3.6, 4.3.7.3, 4.3.7.8, 4.3.7.10, 4.4.1, 4.4.4, 5.1.1, 5.1.2.4, 5.1.3.5, 5.2.2, 5.2.5, 5.4, 5.4.2, 6.1.2.2,
6.2.3.2, 6.2.3.4, 6.2.5.1, 6.3.1.2, 6.3.4, 7.1.1.2, 7.1.1.4–5, 7.1.2.4, 7.1.3, 7.2.1, 7.2.3, 7.2.7–8, 7.3.2, 7.5.1.2, 8.1,
8.1.1, 8.1.3–4, 8.2.3, 8.2.5, 8.3.1.1, 8.3.2–3, 9.1.5
Troy (JC) 7.1.1.5; (RL) 5.4.2; (TC) 5.4.2, 8.2.5
Turks (Oth) 5.1.1
< previous page
page_384
next page >
< previous page
page_385
next page >
Page 385
Twelfth Night 2.2.3.2, 3.2.1.2, 3.2.3.4, 3.3.1.1, 3.3.1.3, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.6–7, 3.3.3.2, 3.3.3.4–5, 3.3.4.2.2, 3.3.4.3.2,
3.3.4.5, 3.3.6.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.2.1, 4.2.4.1, 4.2.5, 4.2.10, 4.3.1.5, 4.3.5, 4.3.7.7–8, 4.3.9, 4.4.1–2, 4.4.4, 5.1.1, 5.1.2.2,
5.1.3.3, 5.1.3.5, 5.2.2–3, 5.3.2.2–4, 5.3.2.7–9, 5.4.2, 6.1.2.3, 6.2, 6.2.3.1, 6.2.5.2, 6.3.1.2, 6.3.1.4, 7.1.1.1, 7.1.1.5,
7.1.3.1, 7.1.3.3, 7.3.2
Two Gentlemen of Verona 3.2.2.4, 3.2.3.2–3, 3.3.1.3, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.7, 3.3.3.6, 3.3.4.2.2, 3.3.4.3.2, 3.3.5, 4.2.3.2,
4.2.4.1, 4.2.4.5, 4.2.7, 4.2.9, 4.3.1, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.1.3, 4.3.2, 4.3.2.1, 4.3.4, 4.3.7.1, 4.3.7.3, 4.3.7.5–10, 4.3.8–9,
4.4.1, 4.4.4, 5.1.2.3–4, 5.1.3.1–3, 5.1.3.5–6, 5.2.2, 5.3.2.1–7, 5.4.2, 6.1.1.3, 6.1.1.6, 6.2.1.8, 6.2.3.3, 6.3.2.2,
7.1.2.4, 7.1.3.1, 7.1.3.3, 7.2.5–7, 7.3.2–3, 7.5.2.5
Two Noble Kinsmen 1.1.5
Ulysses (TC) 8.3.2
Ursula (MA) 3.3.3.6
Valentine (TG) 5.1.3.6, 5.4.2
Valeria, Lady (Cor) 3.3.4.2.2
Varro (Tim) 7.3.6
Venetians (Oth) 4.3.2
Venice (TS) 5.4.2
Venus (Cym) 7.6; (VA) 3.3.4.5, 5.3.2.9
Venus and Adonis 1.1.2, 3.2.1.1, 3.2.3.4, 3.3.2.1–4, 3.3.2.6–7, 3.3.4.3.2, 3.3.4.5, 3.3.6.2, 4.2.1.1, 4.2.4.1, 4.3.1.1,
4.3.1.5, 4.3.7.2, 4.3.7.4–6, 4.3.7.9, 4.3.8, 4.4.2–4, 5.1.3.4–5, 5.3.1, 5.3.2.1, 5.3.2.3–5, 5.3.2.9, 5.4.2–3, 6.1.1.1,
6.1.1.6–7, 6.2.5.2, 7.1.1.1, 7.1.1.4–5, 8.1, 8.3.2
verb 1.2.2, 2.2.2, 2.2.3.1, 2.3.2.1, 3.3.1.3–4, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.6, 3.3.3.1, 3.3.3.3, 3.3.3.5, 3.3.4.2.3, 3.3.6.5, 4, 5.1.1,
5.1.3.2, 5.1.3.6, 5.3, 5.3.2.1, 6.1, 6.2, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.3.4, 6.2.7, 6.3.5, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.5.2.4–5, 8.3.2, 9.1.2.1;
bi-transitive 7.1.2.1; causative 4.3.1, 4.4.3–4; continuative 4.4.4; dynamic 4.4.3; expanded 4.2.1.1, 4.2.2.5, 4.2.7,
4.2.9, 4.3.5, 4.3.7, 4.3.8; extension 4.1, 4.2.10, 4.3.10, 7.1.1.5; finite 4.3.1.1, 4.3.9, 7.5.2.5; functions and use 4.3;
group 4, 7.1.1.2, 7.1.2.4, 7.5.1.1–3; impersonal 3.3.2.1, 4.4.1, 4.4.3, 6.3.1.2, 6.3.1.4; intransitive 1.2.2, 3.3.2.1,
4.2.3, 4.2.7, 4.2.9, 4.3.7.1, 4.3.9, 4.4.2, 4.4.3, 5.1.2.2, 6.3.1.3, 7.3.1; iterative 4.4.4; lexical 4.1, 4.2.1.1, 4.2.2,
4.2.2.3, 4.2.3, 4.2.3.2–3, 4.2.7, 4.2.9–10, 4.3.3, 4.3.7, 4.3.7.4–5, 4.3.7.7, 4.3.7.9–10, 4.3.8, 4.3.10, 4.4.2, 4.4.4,
5.1.2.1, 6.3.2.2–5, 6.3.2.7, 7.1.2.4, 7.2.1–2, 7.2.4, 7.2.7, 7.3.1, 10.1; main 2.2.3.1, 3.3.6.5, 4.2.10, 4.3.1, 4.3.1.1–2,
4.3.1.7, 4.4.2, 4.4.4, 6.3.2.1, 6.3.5, 7.1.2.1, 7.2.3, 7.5.2.3, 8.3.2; morphology 4.1, 4.2, 4.2.3.3; motion 4.2.9, 4.3.3,
4.3.7.1, 5.4.1.1, 5.4.2, 6.3.2.3, 7.2.7; mutative 4.2.7; non-finite 4.3.7.3, 4.3.8–9; omission of 6.3.2; personal 4.4.1;
phrasal 1.2.2, 3.3.1.3, 3.3.3.1, 4.1, 4.2.9–10, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.10, 5.1.2.1, 5.4, 6.3.3.2, 6.4.2, 7.1.2.1; plural 1.2.2,
3.2.1.1, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.6–7; preterite-present 4.2.2.4; progressive (continuous) 4.2.7, 4.3.2, 4.3.7.3, 4.3.7.4,
< previous page
page_385
next page >
< previous page
page_386
next page >
Page 386
4.3.8–9; reflexive 3.3.2.3, 4.2.3, 4.2.7, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.3, 4.3.9, 4.4.2, 4.4.3, 6.1.2.1; retrospective 4.4.4; singular 1.2.2,
3.2.1.2, 3.3.2.7, 6.1.1.1; stative 3.3.1, 4.4.3, 7.1.1.4; strong 4.2.4, 4.2.4.1–2, 4.2.5; transitive 1.2.2, 4.2.3, 4.2.7,
4.2.9, 4.3.5, 4.3.7.1, 4.3.7.4, 4.3.9–10, 4.4.2, 4.4.3, 5.4.1.1, 5.4.2, 6.3.1.3, 6.3.3.1, 7.3.1; weak 4.2.4, 4.2.4.1–2;
verbs of activity 4.3.1.1, 4.3.8.1, amazement 4.3.7.8, anger 4.3.7.8, attention 4.3.3, believing 7.3.3, buying 5.4.2,
change of state 4.2.7, command 4.3.1.1, 6.3.1.2, commendation 6.3.1.2, displeasure 4.3.7.8, eating 5.4.2,
expectation 4.3.1.2, feeling 4.3.1.1, grief 4.3.7.8, happening 4.4.1, intention 4.3.1.2, lack 4.4.1, listening 4.4.3,
6.3.3.2, request 6.3.1.2, saying 4.3.7.6, seeming 4.4.1, selling 5.4.2, sorrow 4.3.7.8, speaking 5.4.2, surprise 4.3.7.8,
thinking 4.3.1.1, 4.3.6, 4.3.7.3, 4.3.7.6, 4.4.1, 5.4.2, 7.3.3, wishing 4.3.1.1–2, 4.3.6, 4.3.7.6. See also auxiliary
Vernon, Sir Richard (1H4) 7.5.2.5
Verona (RJ) 5.4.2
verse 1.1.5, 2.2.2, 3.1, 3.2.1.1, 3.3.2.3, 3.3.3.1–2, 4.2.2, 5.4, 6.4.1, 7.1.1.2, 7.1.2.1, 7.1.2.4, 7.1.3.4, 7.2.1, 7.2.3.4,
7.3.5, 8.2, 8.3.7–8; metre 2.2.2, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.3.1–2, 4.2.2, 4.3.7.4, 5.4.2, 6.3, 7.1.3, 7.3.5, 8.3.8; rhyme 3.2.1.1,
3.2.3.4, 4.2.2, 4.2.4.1, 5.4, 6.1.1.7, 7.1.2.4, 10.1–2; rhythm 4.2.2; stress 3.3.3.1–2
Virgil 2.1
Visser, F. Th. 1.2.3
vocabulary 1.1.4, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 2.1; specialised 2.1; usage 1.2.1
voice 4.2.8.1; active 4.2.9, 4.3.1.5, 4.3.7.1, 4.3.9, 7.1, 7.1.3.2, 7.2.6; passive 3.3.2.3, 3.3.2.7, 4.2.7, 4.2.9, 4.3.1.5,
4.3.5, 4.3.7.1, 4.3.7.3, 4.3.7.8, 4.3.8.1, 4.3.9, 4.4.2, 4.4.4, 5.4.2, 7.1, 7.1.2.1–2, 7.1.3, 7.1.3.2–3, 7.2.7, 9.3.2, 10.2;
with active sense 4.3.5, 7.1
volition 4.3.7.5–7; hypothetical 4.3.7.6
Wales (1H4) 3.3.1.3; (2H4) 8.4.3
Wales, K. 3.3.4.5
Warren, M. J. 2.2.6
Warwick, Earl of (3H6) 5.4.2, 7.2.5
Weis, R. 3.3.2.1.1
Wells, S. and G. Taylor 1.1.3, 1.3, 2.2.6, 2.3.2.1, 3.3.3.1, 3.3.3.3, 4.3.3, 5.1.1, 5.1.3.7, 5.3.2.1, 5.3.2.5, 5.4.2,
6.1.1.4, 6.2.3.4, 6.2.5.2, 6.3.2.1, 6.3.5, 7.1.2.4, 7.4, 7.5.2.5, 8.1.3–4, 8.2.1, 8.3.1.1, 8.3.2, 10.2
Welsh 4.3.7.7, 4.3.9, 7.5.1.3, 8.3.2
Westmoreland, Earl of (3H6) 8.3.1.1
Whitaker, V. K. 6.3, 6.3.5
William (AY) 7.3.3
Williams, G. 1.2.1
Winter's Tale, The 2.2.3.4, 3.2.1.1–2, 3.2.3.3–4, 3.3.1.2–4, 3.3.2.1–4, 3.3.2.6, 3.3.3.1, 3.3.3.3–4, 3.3.3.6, 3.3.4.1,
3.3.4.2.1–2, 3.3.4.3.1–2, 3.3.4.4, 3.3.5, 3.3.6.1–2, 4.2.4.1, 4.3.1, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.1.3, 4.3.1.6, 4.3.2.1, 4.3.5–6, 4.3.7.2,
4.3.7.4, 4.3.7.8, 4.3.7.11, 4.3.8–9, 4.4.1, 4.4.3, 5.1.1, 5.1.2.2, 5.1.3.1, 5.1.3.5–7, 5.2.3–4, 5.3.2.4–6, 5.3.2.9, 5.4.2,
6.1.1.1–2, 6.1.1.6, 6.1.2.4, 6.2, 6.2.1.1, 6.2.1.3,
< previous page
page_386
next page >
< previous page
page_387
next page >
Page 387
6.2.1.5, 6.2.3.1–4, 6.2.6, 6.2.8, 6.3.1.1–3, 6.3.2.5, 6.3.3, 6.3.3.1, 6.3.5, 7.1.1.1, 7.1.2.2, 7.1.2.4, 7.1.3, 7.2.4, 7.2.7,
8.3.4, 9.3.2
Wittenberg (Ham) 8.1.4
Worcester, Earl of (1H4) 3.3.2.1.1
word 1.2.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.3.3, 3.1, 3.2.1.1, 3.3.1.4, 3.3.3.1, 3.3.5, 3.3.6.1, 3.3.6.5, 4.1, 4.2.10, 4.3.10, 5.1.3.7, 5.2.1–2,
5.3, 5.3.1, 5.3.2.1, 5.4, 6.2.3.1–2, 6.2.5.2, 6.3.5, 7.5.1.1, 7.5.1.3, 7.5.2.2, 7.6, 8.3, 8.3.1.1, 8.3.5; closed class 3.1,
5.1.1, 5.1.2.1–2, 5.1.3.1, 5.1.3.7, 5.3.1, 5.4; compound 2.3.3; co-ordinate 3.2.1.2; formation 1.2.2, 2.1, 3.1;
grammatical 5.4, 6.3; hard 2.1; indefinite 6.2.3.1; Latinate 8.4.2; lexical 5.1.2.2, 5.4, 6.3; loan 3.2; new 3.3.1.3; of
size 3.3.3.5; of mass 3.3.4.3.2; open class 3.1, 5.1.2.1, 5.1.3.7; order 2.2, 2.2.1, 3.2.2.4, 3.2.3, 4.3.1, 4.3.7.4, 6.2.2,
7; play 2.1, 4.3.9; status 8.1.3; vogue 5.1.3.1
Wriothesley, Henry, Earl of Southampton 1.1.2
Yonglin, Y. 8.1.1
Yorick (Ham) 3.3.6.1
York: Archbishop of (1H4) 3.2.1.2; (2H4) 2.2.7; Duke of (H5) 4.3.2; (3H6) 8.3.1.1; (R3) 4.3.10
WORDS
Note: Where feasible, the words in this index are modernised in spelling to make finding them easier for the user.
Forms separated by a slash are alternative spellings or forms; meanings are occasionally given in single inverted
commas. Parts of speech are included only when confusion could otherwise occur and are represented in this index
by standard dictionary abbreviations. Phrases are normally listed under the first word except with verb forms which
are listed under the lexical verb.
a ‘in, on, of’ 4.2.8.1, 4.3.7.3, 4.3.8.1, 4.3.9, 5.1.2.2–3, 5.4.2; ~ bed 5.1.2.2; ~ bleeding 4.3.7.3; ~ doing 4.2.8.1,
4.3.7.3; ~ hanging 4.3.7.3; ~ height 5.1.2.2; ~ horseback 5.1.2.2; ~ making 4.3.7.3; ~ Monday morning 5.1.2.2; ~
night 5.1.2.2; ~ sleeping 4.3.7.3; ~ wooing 4.3.7.3; ~ work 5.1.2.2; cf. o
a/'a ‘he’ 2.2.8, 2.3.2.4, 3.2.2.1
a/an art. 3.3.4.3.1–2; ~ age 3.3.4.3.1; ~ body 3.3.2.7; ~ brother's murder 3.3.1.1; ~ gallows 3.3.4.3.2; ~ great eater
of beef 3.3.3.5; ~ length 3.3.4.3.1; ~ man 3.3.2.7; ~ many fools 3.3.4.3.2; ~ present alms 3.2.1.1; ~ sail 6.4.2; ~
while 3.3.4.3.1; ~ word 5.1.3.7
about adv. 4.3.1.1; prep. 5.4.2
above 2.3.2.2
abroad 5.1.3.4
absent 3.3.4.5, 4.3.8
accost 3.3.1.3
accuse 3.3.1.3
acquaint 5.4.2
acquit 4.2.4.1
across 5.4.2; cf. cross
action's self 3.3.1.3
< previous page
page_387
next page >
< previous page
page_388
next page >
Page 388
active-valiant 3.3.3.1
adieu 5.2.2
admiringly 5.1.3.7
adopt 4.3.1.1
afore adv. 5.1.3.3; conj. 5.3.2.4; prep. 5.4.2
after adv. 5.1.3.3, 5.3; prep. 5.4.2; ~ hours 3.3.3.1; ~ that conj. 5.3, 5.3.2.4
afterwards 5.1.3.3
again 5.1.3.5
against/again'st/'gainst 2.2.8, conj. 5.3.2.4; prep. 5.4.2
ah 8.3.5
alack 4.3.7.8, 5.2.2
alas 4.3.7.8, 5.2.2, 8.3.5; ~ the day 8.3.5
Albany 8.1.4
albeit 5.3.2.8
alder liefest 3.2.3.1
all(-) 3.3.3.1, 3.3.3.6, 3.3.4.1, 3.3.5, 5.1.3.1; ~-changing 3.3.3.1; ~-cheering 3.3.3.1; ~ kind of companies 3.2.1.2; ~licensed 3.3.2.1.1; ~ points 5.4.1.1; ~ things 6.1.1.6; ~-worthy 8.1.4
allay 4.4.3
allowing 3.3.3.1
almighty 3.3.3.1
almost 5.1.3.5; ~ a mile 10.2
alms 3.2.1.1
aloft 5.4.2
along 5.1.2.1, 5.1.3.5; ~ with 5.1.3.5
also 5.1.3.5
although/though 5.3.2.8
altogether so 6.2.3.3
amain 5.1.3.5
amazes n.pl. 3.3.1.3
amid/amidst/midst 5.4.2
among/amongst 5.4, 5.4.2
ample 5.1.3.1
ancient 9.2
and/an adv. 5.1.1, 5.1.3.7, 8.3.1.2, 8.3.7; conj. 2.2.3.2, 3.2.1.2, 3.3.2.2, 3.3.3.1, 3.3.3.3, 3.3.6.1, 4.2.2, 4.4.1, 5.1.1,
5.3, 5.3.1, 5.3.2.5, 6.2.9, 6.3.2.2, 6.3.4, 7.5.1.1–3, 7.5.2.3, 10.1–2; ~ that 3.3.2.4; ~ this 6.4.2
anew 5.1.3.5
angered, being 4.2.5
anon 1.2.2, 5.1.3.3, 5.1.3.7
another 10.1
any 3.3.2.7, 3.3.5, 6.2.1.4, 6.2.3.1; ~ man 3.3.2.7
anybody 3.3.2.7
anything 3.3.2.7, 6.2.3.1
appear 4.3.9, 4.4.2
approach 5.1.1
approve 4.3.9, 4.4.2
arise 4.2.4.1, 4.2.7; arose 4.2.4.1
arrive 4.2.7, 4.3.10, 4.4.3; ~ at 4.3.10
as adv. 3.3.5; conj. 3.3.4.3.2, 4.3.6, 5.3.2.2–3, 5.3.2.6, 5.3.2.9; as … as 5.3.2.9; ~ if 4.3.6; ~ just as you will desire
8.3.3; ~ much as though I did 8.3.3; ~ one should say 3.3.2.7; ~ … so 5.3.2.3, 7.5.2.4; ~ well ~ 5.3.2.9; ~ who
should say 3.3.2.6–7; prep. 2.2.3.2, 3.3.2.7, 5.4.2; ~ concerning 5.4.2; ~ touching 5.4.2; ~ a result of 5.4.2
ass 2.1
at 4.2.4.1, 5.4.2; ~ all 6.2.3.3, 6.2.7; ~ a word 5.1.3.7, 8.3.2; ~ every sentence end 3.2.1.2
athwart 5.4.2
aught see ought
avaunt 5.2.2, 8.2.7
away adv. 5.1.2.1, 5.1.3.4; interj. 5.2.5, 8.2.7
ay 2.3.2.1, 5.1.3.6, 8.1.4, 8.3.1.2
balance 3.2.1.1
bands 8.2.8
banish 4.4.3; banished 3.3.4.5
bar 7.5.2.2
baseness 3.3.1.2
be 3.3.2.1, 4.2.2.1, 4.2.2.6, 4.2.3.3, 4.2.4.3, 4.2.7, 4.2.9,
< previous page
page_388
next page >
< previous page
page_389
next page >
Page 389
4.3.1.1, 4.3.1.6, 4.3.2.1, 4.3.3, 4.3.6, 4.3.7.1–3, 4.3.9, 4.4.3, 5.1.3.5, 6.1, 6.1.1.2, 6.3.2.1, 7.1.1.4, 7.1.3, 7.2.6; am
4.2.2.1, 7.1.1.4; art 4.2.2.1, 7.1.1.4, thart ‘thou art’ 2.3.2.4; be'st 4.2.2.1; is 4.2.2, 4.2.2.1, 4.3.2.1, 6.3.2.1–2,
7.1.1.4; he's ‘he is’ 4.2.2.2; what's ‘what is’ 2.3.2.4; is't ‘is it’ 2.3.2.4; tis/'tis ‘it is’ 2.2.8, 2.3.2.4; ~ time 4.3.6; this'
‘this is’ 6.3.2.1; that's ‘that is’ 2.3.2.4, 3.2.1.1; are 4.2.2.1; y'are 2.3.2.4; will be 4.3.7.5; being 3.3.6.2; was 4.2.2,
4.2.4.3; wast/wert 4.2.4.3; were 4.2.4.3, 4.2.9, 6.3.5, as it ~ 8.3.3; wer't 2.3.2.4; twere 2.3.2.4; it ~ better 4.3.2.1,
4.3.6; I ~ better 4.4.1; has/have been 4.2.7, 4.3.9; had been 4.3.7.6; would have been 4.3.7.6; be born 4.3.1.1; ~
going to 4.3.7.3; ~ to 4.4.4, 6.3.2.3, 7.1.3.2; ~ wont 4.2.10, 4.4.4; I am at a word 8.3.2; that's to't 8.3.3, 10.2; 'tis
better as it is 9.1.7; were better 4.3.2.1, 4.3.6, 4.4.1
be all n. 3.3.1.4
bear 4.3.10; ~ up 4.3.10; ~ with 4.3.10
beat/beated 4.2.4.1, beaten 4.2.5
because/because that conj 5.3.2.4; ~ of prep. 5.4.2–3
become 4.2.7, 4.2.9, 4.4.4, 10.2; becom'd 4.2.4.1
beef/beeves 3.2.1.1
befall 4.4.1
before adv. 5.1.3.3; conj. 5.3.2.4; prep. 5.4.2
beforetimes 5.1.3.3
beggar 8.1.2
begin 4.3.1.1, 4.4.4
beguild 4.3.1.1
behave 4.4.2; ~ oneself 4.4.2
beholden/beholding 4.2.8, 4.3.8
being/being that conj 4.3.8, 5.3.2.4
be it that conj. 5.3.2.5
belike 5.1.3.5, 5.1.3.7
believe me 8.3.3
bench 6.2.5.2
beneath 3.3.3.1
bend 4.3.1.1; ~ up 4.3.10
beseech 4.3.7.4
beshrew my heart 5.1.3.7
beside/besides adv. 5.1.3.4; prep. 5.4.2
best conditioned 3.3.3.1
bestrid/bestride 4.2.4.1
betide 4.4.1
betime/betimes 5.1.2.2, 5.1.3.3
better 5.1.2.4, 6.3.5
between n. 3.3.1.3; prep. 5.4.2
betwixt/'twixt 5.4.2
beware 5.3.2.1
bid 4.3.1.1
big 3.3.3.6
bishop 2.2.7
blame, to 4.3.1.5
blasphemy 3.3.1.2
bless you 8.2.3, 8.2.7
blood 6.4.1
blowed 4.2.4.1.
blush 5.4.2; blushing 5.4
boarded 9.2
body 3.3.2.7
Bohemia 3.3.6.5
books 7.1.2.4
both 3.3.5; both … and 5.3.1, 6.1.1.1
bound 4.4.3
bounteous 8.1.4
bowels 3.2.3.3
bow wow 5.2.4
boy 8.1.2–3
brag 5.4.2
brain v. 4.4.3; brains n. 3.2.1.1
branded 4.2.4.1
brave death 6.3.2.5
break-neck 3.3.1.4
break 10.2; pp. broke 4.2.4.1,
< previous page
page_389
next page >
< previous page
page_390
next page >
Page 390
10.2; ~ neck 3.3.1.4; ~ up 4.3.10; ~-vow 3.3.1.4
breath/breathe 2.3.2.1
breathless 2.3.2.1
breeches 3.2.1.1
breed-bate 3.3.1.4
breeding 9.2
brief/briefly 5.1.2.1, 5.1.3.3
brother 8.1, 8.1.2; ~ of England 8.1; ~ of Gloucester 8.1.2; brother's 3.3.3.4
brought up 4.3.10
Brutus love 3.2.1.2
bully rook 8.2.3
bull's pizzle 8.1.3
Burgundy 8.1.4
burthen 6.2.5.6
but adv. 3.3.6.2, 5.1.3.1, 5.1.3.5; conj. 5.3, 5.3.1, 5.3.2.4–5, 7.1.2.1; prep. 5.4.2; ~ for 5.4.2; ~ for you 8.3.1.2; ~
this 7.5.2.2; ~ that 5.3.2.5; pron. 3.2.2.4, 3.3.3.1
buttocks 3.2.1.1
buzz buzz 5.2.3, 6.4.1
by adv. 5.1.3.4; ~ and by 5.1.3.3; prep. 2.1, 5.4.2; ~ Apollo 5.1.3.7; ~ cock 5.2.5; ~ earth 5.1.3.7; ~ example
5.1.3.7; ~ the faith of my love 5.1.3.7; ~ goggs 5.2.5; ~ grace itself I swear 5.2.5; ~ heaven 1.1.4; ~ himself 5.4.2;
~ my faith 8.3.5; ~ my troth 8.3.2, 8.3.5; ~ night's blackness 3.3.1.1; ~ reason of 5.4; ~ the fair hand of my lady
8.3.5; ~ these gloves 8.3.5; ~ yea and no 8.3.3; birlady/by'r lakin 5.1.3.7, 5.2.5; ~ how much/~ so much conj.
5.3.2.9, 5.4.2
Caesar 2.3.2.2, 4.4.1; Cæsar's death's hour 3.2.1.2
call 1.2.2, 2.3.2.3; called 10.2
calm 4.3.3
can 2.1, 4.2.2.2, 4.2.4.4, 4.3.7.9; canst 4.2.2.2, 4.3.3
canary ‘quandary’ 8.4.2
candy 6.2.5.2
cannon 3.2.1.1
Carthage queen 3.3.3.1
case 5.1.3.5
catch, pp. catcht 4.2.4.1
cavaleiro justice 8.2.3
cease 4.4.3–4
certain of 3.3.5; certainer 3.2.3.4
certes 5.1.3.6
chance adv. 4.3.7.9, 5.1.3.5; v. 4.4.1, 7.1.2.3
change 4.2.7, 4.3.9
charged 4.2.9, 6.3.1
Charles his glikes 3.2.1.2
Charmian 8.2.1
chat 4.4.3
child 8.1.2
choler 3.3.4.3.2
chose pp. 4.2.5
churls their thoughts 3.2.1.2
Clarence 8.1.2
clean 5.1.3.1
clear 4.3.10, 4.4.4
clept 10.2
clerk-like 3.3.6.2
climate 4.4.3
clipped 10.2
closed 10.2
cock's passion 5.2.5
command 10.2
come v. 4.1, 4.2.1–2, 4.2.7, 4.2.9, 4.3.1, 4.3.3, 4.3.5, 4.3.7.4, 4.4.2, 4.4.4, 5.1.2.2, 5.2.5, 6.4.2, 7.2, 7.2.2, 7.2.4–5,
7.3.1, 8.3.4, 10.1–2; ~ along 4.3.10; ~ and go 8.3.4; ~ away 8.3.4; ~ by 5.4.2; ~ come 6.4.1–2, 8.3.4; ~ in 10.2; ~
on 4.3.10, 6.4.2; ~ thy ways 5.1.2.2; ~ up 4.3.10; ~ what will 8.3.4; interj. 5.2.5; ~ by 5.4.2
coming-on 3.3.3.1
commence 4.4.4
commend: ~ me to them 8.2.7; I ~ my duty 8.2.7
< previous page
page_390
next page >
< previous page
page_391
next page >
Page 391
commenting 6.3.5
complain 4.3.10, 4.4.2, 5.4.2; ~ me 4.4.2; ~ on 4.3.10
concerning 5.4.2
concluded on 4.3.10
conclusions, there must be 8.4.1
condition: upon ~ that 5.3.2.5
conditionally that 5.3.2.5
confess, I must 8.3.3
confound 4.4.2
considering 4.3.8
conspire 5.4.1.1
content 7.6
continue 4.4.4, 7.1.3
cony-catching 3.3.3.1
Cordelia 8.1.4
Cornwall 8.1.4
corpse 3.2.1.1
cos ‘cousin’ 8.1.2
could 4.2.4.4, 4.3.7.9
Count 3.3.4.2.2, 8.1.2; ~ his galleys 3.2.1.2
countrymen 8.1.2
courageous ‘outrageous’ 8.4.2
courteous 8.1.4
cousin(s) 8.1.2, 8.2.1–2
covertest 5.1.2.4
coward 4.4.3
creak 4.4.4
cross prep. 5.4.2
cry 8.2.5
cuckold 4.2.3
cur 8.1.3
curfew 2.3.2.2
curster 3.2.3.4
cut 3.3.6.2
damnable 3.3.3.6, 5.1.3.1
damnably 5.1.3.1
damn'd 7.1.3.4
damsel 8.1.2
dance 4.4.3
Dane 8.1.1
dare 3.2.1.1, 4.2.2.3, 4.3.1, 4.3.7.11; pret. durst 4.3.7.11; daringest 3.2.3.4
Dauphin 8.1, 8.1.2
days 2.3.2.2
dazzling 3.3.6.2
dead 3.3.3.4
dear 8.1.4; ~ my lord 8.1.4; ~ queen 8.2.4
death 3.3.2.6, 3.3.4.2.2, 3.3.4.3.2
debt 2.3.2.2
deceives/deceiveth 8.3.8
deem of 4.3.10
deep 3.3.3.1
deer 2.3.2.3
deflower 4.4.3
depart 4.4.3
descend 4.2.7
desire n. 2.3.2.2, 4.3.8; v. 2.3.2.2; I do ~ it 9.1.5
desist 6.2.7
despair 4.4.3, 5.4.2
detest ‘protest’ 8.3.7, 8.4.2
devil's teeth 9.2
dig, pp. digged 4.2.4.1
diligence 3.3.1.2
dine with 4.3.10
dis- 6.2.5.2
discourse 6.3.5
dislike 4.4.1
dissembler 8.1.2
distemper'd 7.3.4
dive 2.3.2.2
do 2.3.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3.1, 4.3.2–3, 4.3.7.4, 5.3.2.2, 6.1.1.6, 7.1.3, 7.2.2–3, 7.3.1, 7.3.3, 7.3.5, 8.3.6, 8.3.8; does/doth
4.2.2; did 8.3.7; ~ but 8.3.6; be doing 4.2.1.1, 4.3.7.3; done 10.2; being done 4.2.5; having done 4.2.5; ish ill done
8.4.1; don't 6.2.1.1
dog 8.1.3; unmanner'd ~ 8.1.2
doing n. 3.3.1.3
door 3.2.1.1
double sure 3.3.3.6
doubt n. 2.3.2.2; v. 5.4.2
Douglas 8.1.3
dove-house 3.2.1.2
doves-down 3.2.1.2
downward/downwards 5.1.2.2
dozen of 3.3.5
dread 8.1.4
dreadful 3.3.3.4
< previous page
page_391
next page >
< previous page
page_392
Page 392
drink 4.3.9; hath drunk himself 3.3.2.3
drown'd, drown'd 6.4.1
duchess 2.3.2.2
duke 8.1, 8.1.2, 8.1.4; dukes of waterish Burgundy 8.1.4
dun 1.2.1
durst see dare
each 3.3.2.7, 3.3.5; ~ man 3.3.2.7
earlier 5.1.3.3
easier 5.1.2.4
eat 4.2.4.1
Edmund 8.1.4
egg 10.2
Egypt 8.1.1; Egypt's queen 3.3.1.1
eine ‘eyes’ 3.2.1.1
either 6.2.3.1; either/or … or 5.3.1, 6.1.1.6
eld/elder 3.2.3.4
else 5.3.1
‘em see them
emperor 8.1, 8.1.2
empress 8.1.2
emured 4.2.7
encamp 4.4.2
end all n. 3.3.1.4
endeavour 4.4.2
enforced 3.3.6.2
English 3.3.6.1
enough 3.3.3.1, 4.3.1.1
enter 4.2.7
ere conj. 5.3.2.4
erection ‘direction’ 8.4.2
erst 5.1.3.3
eternal 3.3.6.1
even 5.1.3.1, 5.1.3.5; ~ now 5.1.1
ever 3.3.2.5, 3.3.4.3.2, 5.1.3.6, 7.1.3.4; ~ and anon 5.1.3.3
every 3.3.2.7; ~ man 3.3.2.7
everybody 3.3.2.7
example 5.1.3.7
exceeding 5.1.3.1
excellent 3.3.3.6, 5.1.3.1, 6.4.1; ~ good 3.1
except conj. 5.3.2.5; prep. 5.4; ~ my life 6.4.2
exceptionally 5.1.1
exile 4.2.9
expectation 10.2
eye v. 4.4.3
eyne see eine
fail 4.4.3
faint 4.4.1
fair: ~ maiden 8.1.2; ~ queen 8.3.1.1; fairest Cordelia 8.1.4
faith 5.1.3.7; ~ no 5.1.3.6
fall, pp. fell 4.2.4.1
fang 2.3.2.2
far 5.1.2.2, 5.1.3.1; ~ forth 5.1.3.4; ~ off 5.4.2; ~ unworthy 5.1.3.1
fare 4.3.3; ~ thee/you well 8.2.7–8; farewell 4.3.3
fartuous ‘virtuous’ 8.4.2
fast v. 4.2.4.1; adj 5.1.2.1; fasting 6.3.5
father 3.3.2.6, 8.1.1–2; ~ Jew 3.3.1.1
fathom 3.2.1.1
fault 2.3.2.2
fear 4.4.3, 10.2; ~ me 4.4.2, 5.4.1.1
fearful 3.3.3.4
fearing lest 5.3.2.7
feast v. 3.3.2.1
feast-finding 3.3.3.1
feel 4.3.1.1
fellow 3.3.3.6, 8.1.2
fever 4.4.3
fie 5.2.2, 8.3.5
field 4.2.4.1
find 2.3.2.3; ~-fault 3.3.1.4
fire 9.1.4
flaws and starts 10.2
fleet'st 4.2.2
flood-gate 3.3.3.1
fo fo interj. 5.2.2
folk 3.2.1.1
follow 2.2.4.1; I ~ 8.2.3
next page >
fool gudgeon 3.3.1.1
foot 3.2.1.1; feet 2.3.2.3
for conj. 5.3.2.4, 7.1.3, 7.1.3.4; ~ all 5.3.2.8; ~ as 5.3.2.4; ~ because 5.3.2.4; ~ fear
< previous page
page_392
next page >
< previous page
page_393
next page >
Page 393
lest 5.3.2.7; ~ God sake 3.2.1.2; ~ justice sake 3.2.1.2; ~ look you 8.4.1; ~ that 5.3.2.4, 5.3.2.7; ~ to 4.3.1.1; ~ to
that 5.3.2.1; ~ why 5.3.2.4; prep. 5.4.2, 7.1.3; for't ‘for it’ 2.3.2.4, 3.3.2.1; ~ the sake of 5.4.2–3; ~ ought I know
9.1.5
forbear me 9.3.1
Ford's 3.2.1.2
‘fore 2.2.8, 5.4.2; cf. afore, before
forehand 3.3.3.1
forest side 3.2.1.2
forsooth 8.3.5
forth adv. 5.1.3.4–5; prep. 5.4.2, ~ of 5.4.2–3
foul: ~ devil 8.1.2; ~ fiend of France 8.1.2
France 8.1.4
free 5.1.2.1
freelier 5.1.2.4
friend 8.1.2
fro prep. 5.4.2
from 3.3.2.6, 4.4.3, 5.4.2; ~ forth 5.4.2; ~ hence 5.1.2.3; ~ here 5.1.2.3; ~ off 5.4.2; ~ out 5.4.2–3
frown 5.4.2
fulfilled 4.2.4.1
full/fully 3.3.3.5, 5.1.3.1
further anon 5.1.3.3
gainsaying 3.3.1.3
‘gainst 2.2.8, conj. 5.3.2.4; cf. against
gallows 3.2.1.1
gall your patience 9.2
gate, at the 3.3.6.1
gaze 5.4.2
gentle 8.1.4
gentleman 8.1; gentlemen 8.1
get ‘beget’ 4.2.4.1, 4.3.1.1; gat pret. 4.2.4.1; ‘get’ 4.3.3, 4.3.9, 4.4.4; ~ got 4.3.7.1
gifts 2.3.2.2
gin 4.3.7.4, 4.4.4; gan 4.3.7.4, 4.4.4
girdled 4.2.7
give 3.3.2.1, 4.3.8; gave 4.2.4.1
gladly 5.1.2.1
Gloucester 8.1.4
glose 7.5.2.2
go 2.3.1, 3.3.2.3, 4.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.7, 4.3.1, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.3, 4.3.7.4, 4.3.9, 4.4.4, 5.1.2.1, 7.2, 7.2.2, 7.2.4, 7.3.1, 8.3.4,
10.1; ~ about 4.3.1.1; ~ along 4.3.10, 5.1.2.1; ~ by St Jerome 8.3.4; ~ off 4.3.10; ~ thy ways 8.3.4; ~ to 7.2.5,
8.3.1.2, 8.3.4, 8.3.7; will you ~ 8.2.6; ~ your ways 8.3.4; be going 4.3.7.3; being going 4.3.7.3; gone 5.4; be gone
8.2.7
go-between 3.3.1.4
god 3.3.3.1; ~ save you 8.2.3; gods 3.3.4.2.2; god's bodikins 5.2.5
gold 2.2.2
golden 2.2.2
Goneril our eldest born 8.1.4
good 3.3.3.6, 3.3.5, 8.1.4; ~ bawcock 8.1; ~ Brutus 9.3.2; ~ dawning 8.2.4; ~ day sir 8.2.1; ~ even and twenty
3.3.3.6, 8.2.3; ~ faith 8.3.7; ~ good 8.2.7; ~ morrow 8.2.3, 8.2.7; ~ my complexion 8.1.3; ~ my liege 8.1.4; ~ my
lord 3.3.5, 8.1.4, 8.2.7; ~ my mother 3.3.5; ~ sooth 5.1.3.7
goodwife 8.1.2
goose 3.2.1.1
gordian-knot 2.3.3
grace 8.1.1
gracious 8.1.4
grandam 10.2
grates v. 2.2.3.1, 9.1.2.1
grave 4.2.4.1, 10.1; graved/graven pp. 4.2.4.1
great: ~ duke 8.1; ~ king 8.1.4
greet 10.2
grief 2.3.1
grievous 5.1.3.1
grisly/grizzled 6.2.3.4
grow 4.2.7, 4.4.4; ~ upon 4.3.10
< previous page
page_393
next page >
< previous page
page_394
next page >
Page 394
guard 2.3.2.2
guess 2.3.2.2
guilty 3.3.6.2
ha interj. 5.2.2, 8.3.1.2, 8.3.5; ~, ha, ha 5.2.4
hag of all despite 8.1.2
Hal 8.1.3
half 3.3.5; ~ a million 5.4.1.1
handed 6.3
hang out 4.3.10
haply/happily 4.3.7.9, 5.1.3.5, 5.1.3.7
happen 4.4.1
happy adj. 4.4.3; v. 4.4.3
hardly 5.1.3.5, 6.2.1.8
hark 4.3.3
Harry Percy 8.1.3
haste 4.3.3
hate, I 7.1.2.1
have/ha’ 2.2.8, 2.3.2.2, 4.2.2, 4.2.3.3, 4.2.6–7, 4.2.9, 4.3.7.1–2, 4.3.9, 4.4.3–4, 7.2.6; t'have 2.3.2.4; has/hath
4.2.2, 6.1.1.4, 7.1.1.1; y'have ‘you have’ 2.3.2.4; ~ been 4.3.9; had 4.3.6, 4.3.7.2: being ~ 4.3.7.3; ~ as lief 4.2.10,
4.3.6; ~ rather 4.2.10, 4.3.7.6, 4.3.10; ~ to 4.3.1.6; had'st 6.3.5
he 3.2.2.1, 3.3.1.3, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.7, 3.3.6.3, 3.3.6.5, 4.4.3, 6.3.1.1, 6.3.5, 7.1.3, 9.1.3
headstrong 3.3.1.3
hear 4.3.1.1, 4.3.3
hearken 4.4.3
heart 2.1, 3.3.3.2; ~ string 3.3.3.2; heart's love 3.3.3.2
heartily 5.1.3.1
heaven 3.3.4.2.2; ~ bless you 8.2.7
heigh ho 5.2.2, 8.3.5
help 4.2.4.1, holp pret./pp. 4.2.4.1
hem ‘them’ 3.2.2.1
hence 4.3.8, 5.1.2.3, 5.1.3.4; ~ avaunt 8.2.7
her 3.2.1.2, 3.2.3.3, 3.3.2.1, 4.3.8, 7.1.3, 7.2.7, 10.1; ‘their’ 3.2.1.2, 3.2.2.1, 3.2.3.3
here 2.3.1, 3.3.3.1, 6.1.1.2, 10.2; ~ about(s) 5.1.2.2; ~ boys 8.2.6; ~ is 3.3.2.7, 6.1.1.2
hers 3.3.2.2
herself 3.3.2.3
hie 4.3.3, 4.4.2
high day 5.2.2
hight 4.2.9
him 3.2.2.1, 3.2.2.3, 3.3.2.1, 4.4.1, 6.1.2.1, 6.3.1.1, 7.1.3, 9.1.7; ~ who 6.1.1.6
himself 3.2.2.3, 3.3.2.3, 6.3.1.1
his 2.2.8, 3.2.1.2, 3.2.2.1, 3.2.3.3, 3.3.2.2, 3.3.2.6–7, 3.3.4.5, 10.1–2; ~ bloody view 3.3.2.2; ~ fortune's vassal
3.3.1.1; ~ horses go about 10.2; ~ Nobility 8.1.2
hit ‘it’ pron. 3.2.2.1
hither 5.1.2.3
hitherto 5.1.3.4
ho interj. 8.2.1; ~ no, no, no, no 6.4.1
hoist 4.2.4.1
hold 4.2.4.1, 4.3.3; held/hild pret. 4.2.4.1; holden pp. 4.2.4.1; ~ off 4.3.10
holla/hollo 5.2.2–3
holy 8.1.4
home 3.3.3.1, 5.1.3.5
homicide 8.1.2–3; see honey-seed
honest 6.4.1, 9.1.5, 9.2; ~ gentleman 8.1.1; ~ true 3.3.3.1
honey-seed ‘homicide’ 8.4.2
honey sweet lord 8.1.3
honorable 8.1.4
honoured 8.1.4; ~ sir 8.1.3
hoo oo interj. 5.2.2
hope 4.3.2.1, 4.3.7.2
horrible 3.3.3.1
horribly 5.1.3.1
horror 2.3.2.3
horse 3.2.1.1; ~ back 3.2.1.2
horson 8.1.4
host 3.2.3.3
< previous page
page_394
next page >
< previous page
page_395
next page >
Page 395
hour 2.3.1
hover 1.2.2
how adv. 5.1.3.5, 5.3.2.8, 7.3, 7.4; ~ now 8.2.3, 10.2; conj. 4.4.4, 5.3.2.1, 7.1.2.1; ~ chance 4.4.1; ~ that 5.3.2.1;
interj. 5.2.2
howbeit conj. 5.3.2.8
however adv. 5.1.3.5, 5.1.3.7; conj. 5.3.2.8
howso(m)ever adv. 5.1.3.5; conj. 5.3.2.8
humbly 9.2
humour 8.4.1
husband 7.3.4, 8.1.2
husht interj. 5.2.3
I/ich 2.3.2.1, 3.2.2.1, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.6–7, 4.2.9, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.8, 4.4.1, 10.2; see also ay
Iago 9.2
if 4.3.2.1, 4.3.6, 4.3.7.6, 4.3.7.8, 4.4.1, 5.1.1, 5.3.2.5; ~ case 5.3.2.5; if … or 5.3.2.5; ~ so 5.3.2.3
ignorant 3.3.3.4
import 4.4.1
impose n. 3.3.1.3
in/i/i’ prep. 2.1, 5.4, 5.4.1.3, 5.4.2; ~ case 5.3.2.5; i’ faith 5.1.3.6; 8.3.5; ~ good sooth 8.3.6; ~ hand with 5.4.3; ~
happy time 8.2.4, 9.2; ~ lieu of 5.4.3; ~ pain of 5.4.3; ~ peril of 5.4.3; ~ shadow 3.3.4.2.2; ~ sooth 5.1.3.6; ~ spite
of 5.4.3; ~ the best 3.3.4.2.2; ~ the cap 3.3.6.1; ~ the greatness of 5.4.3; ~ the hand of 5.4.3; ~ the last 3.3.4.2.2;
~ the top of 5.4.3; ~ time 10.2; ~ truth 8.3.7; ~ the way of 5.4.3; ~ the world 6.2.3.3
in- prefix 6.2.5.2
indeed 5.1.3.6, 5.2.5, 6.4.1, 8.3.3, 8.3.6–7, 9.1.5
indifferently 5.1.3.1
infection ‘affection’ 8.4.2
infirm of purpose 10.2
inhabit 4.4.3
inly 5.1.3.5
insane 3.3.3.4
instead of 5.4.3
interim 10.2
intill prep. 5.4.2
into 5.4.2
invisible 3.3.3.6
iravished 4.2.5
irk 4.4.1
islacked 4.2.5
isle 2.3.2.2
issue 4.4.3
it 2.3.2.4, 3.2.2.1, 3.2.2.3, 3.2.3.3, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.4, 4.2.9, 4.4.1, 6.3.1.1–4, 6.3.2.1, 6.3.2.6, 7.1.1.4–5, 7.1.2.2,
7.1.3
its 3.2.3.3, 3.3.2.2, 10.1
itself 3.2.2.3, 10.2; cf. 3.3.2.3
Jack Rugby 8.2.1
jar o'th'clock 6.2.3.3
jaw 2.3.2.2
Jesu 8.3.5
Jew 3.3.4.2.1
join 2.3.2.2
jolly 3.3.3.6
jot 6.2.3.3
Judas 2.1
Jude 2.1
jump 5.1.3.5; ~ with 5.1.3.5
just 5.1.3.5
keep 2.3.2.3, 6.3.1.1; ~ on 4.4.4
Kent 8.1.4
killen 4.2.1
kind n. 3.2.1.2, adj. 8.1.4; a/this ~ of 3.3.5, 6.1.1.6, 6.1.2.3; a ~ good night 8.2.7,
kine 3.2.1.1
king 3.2.1.2, 8.1.1–4
knave 6.4.1, 8.1.2
knife 1.2.1
knight 8.1.3
knit 4.2.4.1
< previous page
page_395
next page >
< previous page
page_396
next page >
Page 396
knock, did 8.3.7
know 6.1.2.1, 7.1.2.3; I ~ 8.3.2; you ~ 8.3.1.2, 8.3.2; ~ you not 10.2; Apollo knows 8.3.2
la int. 8.3.1.2, 8.3.5–6
lack 4.4.1; ~-brain 3.3.1.4
lad 8.1.3
lady 2.3.2.2, 3.3.4.2.2
ladychapel 3.3.1.1
land carrack 9.2
last 3.2.3.4, 9.1.5; ~ morning 5.1.2.3
late 5.1.2.1; later 3.2.3.4; latest 3.2.3.4
latter 3.2.3.4
laurel victory 3.3.1.1
league 3.2.1.1
lean 3.3.6.3
leap 4.4.3
Lear 8.1.4
learneds 3.3.3.2
least 3.2.3.4
leave off 4.4.4
less 3.2.3.4, 6.3.4; -less 6.2.5.2; lesser 3.2.3.4, 5.1.2.4
lest/least conj. 5.3.2.7, 7.1.2.1
let 4.2.3.2, 4.2.7, 4.3.1, 4.3.2.1, 4.3.3, 4.3.7.4, 7.1.2.2, 7.1.3, 7.2, 7.2.1, 7.2.7, 8.4.3; ~ go 4.3.7, 4.3.7.4; let's
2.2.8, 2.3.2.4; ~ that be 10.2; ~ us go 8.2.6
letter 3.2.1.1–2, 7.1.2.1; letters patents 3.2.3
lie 6.3.1.2
life 3.2.1.2
lighter 5.1.2.4
like adv. 5.1.3.5; conj. 5.3.2.2, 5.3.2.9, ~ as 5.3.2.2, 5.3.2.9; prep. 3.3.2.7, 3.3.4.3.2; ~ to 5.4.3; ~ him 7.6; v. 4.4.1
liken/liking 4.2.8
limb-meal 5.1.2.2
list 4.4.3
listen 4.4.3, 6.3.3.2; listening 6.3.3.2, 10.2
live: I will ~ so long as I may 8.4.1
lo int. 8.3.5
locks 3.3.6.5
long of prep. 5.4.3
look 4.3.3, 5.4, 5.4.1.1, 7.1.2.4, 8.3.2; ~ moe 8.3.2; ~ up 4.3.10; ~ you/ye 8.2.8, 8.3.2, 8.4.1; conj. 5.3.2.9, ~ as
5.3.2.9; ~ how 5.3.2.9
lord 3.3.4.2.2, 9.1.5; lords appellants 3.2.3; lords of France and Burgundy 8.1.4; interj. 8.3.5
loud 2.3.2.3
love 3.3.3.4, 4.4.3; loved 8.1.4
lovely 5.1.2.1
loving 8.1.4
Lucrece bed 3.2.1.2
lyingest 3.2.3.4
mackerel 3.2.1.1
mad 4.4.4; ~ wag 8.1.3; for ‘made’ pp. 3.3.3.1
madam 8.1.2, 8.2.1–2
made-up 3.3.3.3
magical 2.3.2.3
maid 6.3.2.2, 7.1.3.4, 8.1.4
mainly 5.1.3.1
major 2.3.2.2
make 4.2.3, 4.3.1, 4.3.3; makes 2.2.8; making 6.1.2.2; made 7.1.3
man 3.2.1.1, 3.3.2.7, 6.3.2.1, 6.3.5
manner 3.2.1.2
many 3.3.1.3, 3.3.2.7, 3.3.3.1, 3.3.5, 6.4.1
mark 4.3.1.1, 4.3.3
marry v. 4.3.1.3, 4.3.10; ~ to 4.3.1.3, 4.3.10; interj. 5.2.5, 8.3.3, 8.3.5; ~ and amen 5.2.5
Mars his true moving 3.2.1.2
marvellous 5.1.3.1
master 8.1.2; ~ leaver 3.3.1.1
mathematics 3.3.4.2.2
maugre 5.4, 5.4.2
may 4.2.2.2, 4.2.4.4, 4.2.7, 4.3.2.1, 4.3.7.9, 10.2; may(e)st 4.2.2.2
< previous page
page_396
next page >
< previous page
page_397
next page >
Page 397
maybe 4.4.1
me 3.2.2.3, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.4.5, 3.3.6.3, 7.2.1, 7.2.7, 7.6
means 3.2.1.1, 10.2
medal 3.3.6.5
meet 1.2.2, 4.1, 4.2.7, 4.2.10, 4.3.10, 4.4.3; ~ with 1.2.2, 4.1, 4.2.10, 4.3.10
Meg 8.1.3
men 3.3.2.7, 6.3.2.1; ~-children 3.2.1.1
merchant-marring 3.3.3.1
me thinks 4.4.1; me thoughts 4.4.1
mid 3.3.3.1; ~ age 3.3.3.1; ~ season 3.3.3.1
might 4.2.4.4, 4.3.7.9
mightiness 3.2.1.1
mighty 8.1.4
milk 2.3.2.3
mine 3.2.2.1, 3.2.3.3, 3.3.2.2, 3.3.3.2, 6.1.1.6; ~ honest neighbours 8.1.2; ~ Host 8.2.3
miscreant 8.1.3–4
mistress 7.3.4
moe 3.2.3.4
monarch 2.3.2.2
money 2.3.2.2
monstrous 5.1.3.1, 6.4.1
more 3.2.3.4, 3.3.1.3., 5.1.2.4; ~ above 5.1.3.5; ~ better 3.2.3.4; ~ nearer 5.1.2.4; ~ proudlier 5.1.2.4; ~ sounder
3.2.3.4; ~ stricter 10.1; ~ wider 5.1.2.4; ~ worse 5.1.2.4; ~ worthier 1.2.2, 3.2.3.4
moreover that conj. 5.3.2.1
most 3.2.3.4, 3.3.4.2.2, 5.1.2.4, 5.1.3.1; ~ royal majesty 8.1.4; ~ unkindest 1.2.2, 3.2.3.4
mountain foreigner 3.3.3.1
mouse 3.2.1.1
move 7.1.3; mov'd 2.2.8
much 3.2.3.4, 5.1.3.1–2
music 2.3.2.2; ~ vows 3.3.3.1
musician 2.3.2.2
must 4.2.2.2, 4.2.4.4, 4.2.7, 4.3.7.10
muzzled 3.3.6.2
my 3.2.2.1, 3.2.3.3; ~ breeding 9.2; ~ brother's love 3.3.1.1; ~ daughter 6.4.2, 8.1.4; ~ dear father 8.1.1; ~ dearest
cos 10.2; ~ diligence 3.3.1.2; ~ fair Cordelia 8.1.4; ~ good friends 8.1.2; ~ good lord 8.1.4, 8.2.5; ~ good sweet
honey lord 8.1.3; ~ gracious lord 8.1.3, ~ honourable friend 8.1.4; ~ husband 3.3.6.1; ~ king 8.1.4; ~ liege 8.1.2,
8.1.4; ~ life 6.4.2; ~ lord 8.1.1–2, 8.1.4, 8.2.2, 8.2.4, 8.2.7–8; ~ lord of Burgundy 8.1.4, 8.2.3; ~ lord of Gloucester
8.1.2; ~ lord of Kent 8.1.4; ~ noble lord 8.1.4, 8.2.5, 8.2.7; ~ royal lord 8.1.1; ~ sometime daughter 8.1.4; ~ sweet
queen 8.1.3; ~ very, very sweet queen 8.1.3
myself 3.2.2.3, 3.3.2.3
naked 3.3.4.5
name 3.3.2.6, 3.3.3.6; ~ of mercy 6.3.3
Nan 8.1.3
nay 5.1.3.6, 7.5.2.1, 8.2.1
ne 5.1.3.6, 6.2
near adj. 3.2.3.4; adv. 5.1.2.2, 10.2; prep. 5.4.2, ~ at 5.4.3, ~ to 5.4.3; nearer 3.2.3.4, 10.2
Ned 8.1.3
need v. 4.2.2.3, 4.3.7.11, 4.4.1
needs adv. 4.3.7.11
neglect 4.4.3
neighbour 8.1.2
neither 5.3.1, 6.2.1.6, 6.2.3.1; neither/nor … nor/or 5.3.1, 6.1.1.6
never 2.3.2.4, 3.3.4.3.2, 5.1.3.6, 6.2.1.2, 6.2.9; ~ so 5.1.3.6
new/newly 5.1.3.1
news 3.2.1.1
< previous page
page_397
next page >
< previous page
page_398
next page >
Page 398
next adj. ‘nearest’ 3.2.3.4; prep. 5.4.2
nigh adj. 3.2.3.4, 10.2; prep. 5.4.2
nimbly 5.1.2.1
no 3.3.2.7, 4.3.8.1, 5.1.3.6, 6.2.1.4, 6.2.1.6, 6.2.3.1, 8.2.1; ~ doubt 8.3.7; ~ further harm 9.1.5; ~ man 3.3.2.7; ~
manner person 3.2.1.2; ~ more 6.2.7
noble 5.1.2.2; ~ Burgundy 8.1.4
non- prefix 6.2.5.2
none 3.3.2.7, 4.2.2, 5.1.3.6, 5.3.1, 6.2.1.5; ~ a 5.1.3.6; ~ of 5.1.3.6
nor 2.2.3.2, 5.3.1, 6.2.1.6–7, 6.2.3.1, 6.2.9, 7.5.1.2
not 4.2.8.1, 4.3.1.1, 5.1.3.6, 5.3.1, 6.2, 6.2.1.1–2, 6.2.1.4–5, 6.2.1.7, 6.2.3.4; ~ so 6.2.6; ~-to-be-endured 3.3.3.1,
3.3.3.3; ~ vendible 3.3.6.2
note 6.4.1
nothing 3.3.1.3, 3.3.2.7, 3.3.3.6, 5.1.3.6, 6.2.1.3, 6.2.1.7, 6.2.3.1; ~ undervalued 3.3.6.2; ~ worth 3.3.3.6
notwithstanding conj. 5.3.2.8
nought pron. 3.3.2.7
now 8.3.1.2, 10.2
numbered 4.2.7
nuncle 8.1
o ‘on, of’ 5.1.2.2–3, 5.4.2; ~ nights 5.1.2.2; cf. a
oath 7.1.2.1
obey 4.3.10; ~ in 4.3.10
obliged 3.3.3.1
obscurely 5.1.3.7
of 3.1, 3.2.1.2, 3.2.2.1, 4.3.9; prep. 3.3.2.1–2, 3.3.3.3, 3.3.5, 4.3.8.1, 5.1.2.2, 5.4.1.3, 5.4.2, 6.3.3, 6.4.1, 7.1.3.3; ~
day 5.1.2.2; ~ late 5.1.2.3; ~ them 3.3.5; ~ which 3.2.2.4; ~ the which 3.2.2.4
off prep. 5.4.2
offer 3.3.2.1
oft 5.1.3.3
often 3.3.3.1, 5.1.3.3; ~ known 3.3.6.5
oh interj. 7.4, 8.3.5, 8.3.7; ~ me 5.2.2; ~ God 6.4.2
old, older 3.2.3.4, 3.3.3.3, 3.3.6.3; ~ man 8.1.4
on 4.2.8.1, 5.1.2.2, 5.4.1.2–3, 5.4.2; ~ account of 5.4.2; ~ (the) height of 5.4.3; ~ Monday night 5.1.2.3; ~ my word
8.3.5; ~ might 5.1.2.2; ~ (the) pain of 5.4.3; ~ peril of 5.4.3; ~ this side Tiber 3.2.1.2
once 3.3.1.3, 5.1.3.3
one 3.3.1.3, 3.3.2.7, 3.3.4.3.1, 3.3.5, 6.3.5; ~ of 3.3.5
oneself 3.2.2.3
only adj. 3.3.2.2, 3.3.3.1; adv. 3.3.3.1; prep. 5.4.2; ~ but 5.1.3.5
onto 5.4.2
or 2.2.3.2, 5.3.1, 6.2.9, 7.5.1.1–2, 10.2; ~ else 5.3.1; ~ ere 5.3.2.4; or … or 531; ~ that 10.2; ~ whether 5.3.1; ~
whether … ~ whether 5.3.1
ordinance 3.2.1.1
other adv. 5.1.3.5; ~ gates 5.1.2.2; ~ where 5.1.3.4; pron. 3.3.2.7, 3.3.3.1, 3.3.5, 10.1; ~ some 3.3.2.7
ought pron. 3.3.2.7; v. 4.2.2.3, 4.3.1, 4.3.7.11; oughtest 4.3.7.11
our 2.2.2, 3.2.3.3, 3.3.1.1, 3.3.4.5, 10.2; ~ dearest Regan 8.1.4; ~ duty 6.3.4; ~ joy 8.1.4; ~ no less loving son of
Albany 8.1.4; ~ second daughter, ~ son of Cornwall 8.1.4
ours 3.2.3.3
ourself 3.2.2.3, 3.3.2.3
out adv. 5.1.3.5; interj. 5.2.2; ~ alas 8.3.5; prep. 5.4.2, ~ of 5.4.3: ~ door(s) 3.2.1.1, ~ gate(s) 3.2.1.1
over/o're/ore prep. 2.3.2.4,
< previous page
page_398
next page >
< previous page
page_399
next page >
Page 399
5.4.2; ~ bearing 3.3.3.1; ~ wrested 3.3.3.1
overflow 4.4.3
owing 4.3.7.3; ~ to 5.4.2
oxen 3.2.1.1
paiocke 6.4.1
paradise 3.3.4.2.2
passing adv. 5.1.3.1
past prep. 5.4.2; ~ saving 3.3.3.3
Paul's 3.2.1.2
pay 3.3.2.1
peace be with you 8.2.7
peer 4.4.3
pent-house lid 3.2.1.2
peradventure 5.1.3.5
Percy 8.1.3
perfectest 3.2.3.4
perforce 8.3.2
perhaps 4.3.7.9
perishen 4.2.2
physician 2.3.2.2
pick-thanks 3.3.1.4
piecemeal 5.1.2.2
pish interj. 5.2.2, 8.3.5
pity 3.3.4.3.2; ~ pleading 3.3.3.1
plague 8.3.5
plaguy 3.3.3.6
playing 4.3.7.3; played on 4.3.10
please 4.2.3, 4.3.2.1, 4.4.1, 7.1.2.3; ~ God 4.4.1; ~ you 4.4.1; so ~ you 4.4.1; it pleaseth me 4.2.2
poll 3.2.1.1
poor 3.2.3, 8.1.4; ~ souls 8.3.7
possess 4.3.9
possible 5.1.2.1
pound 3.2.1.1
pour 2.3.2.1
power 2.3.2.1
pox 8.3.5
praise: I ~ heaven for it 8.3.7
pray 5.1.3.7, 7.1.2.3; ~ heaven 4.2.3; I ~ God 4.2.3, 5.1.3.7; I ll go ~ 8.2.8; I ~ 8.3.2; I ~ thee/you 4.2.3, 5.1.3.7,
7.2, 8.3.7; ~ you 8.3.2; praying 3.2.1.2
prepare n. 3.3.1.3
presently 5.1.1, 5.1.3.3
presume, I 8.3.2
pretty 3.3.3.6, 5.1.3.2, 6.3.5
prey 2.2.8
prince 8.1.2, ~ Troilus 8.1; O princes 8.1.4
princely Henry 8.1.3
princess 8.1.2
prithee/prethee 4.2.3, 5.1.3.7, 7.2, 8.3.2
proceed to 4.4.4
profane 2.3.2.2
promise 3.3.2.1, 4.3.7.4
properer 3.2.3.4
protest, I 8.3.6; see detest
prove 4.3.3
provided that 5.3.2.5
public 2.3.2.2
puh interj. 5.2.2
put on 4.3.10
Pythagoras time 3.2.1.2
quantity 6.2.5.2
queen 8.1.2
quick proceeders 3.3.3.5
quiet 5.1.2.2
quite 5.1.3.2, 6.4.1
quoth 4.2.4–5; ~ ‘a/he/she 2.2.9, 8.3.3
rage 3.3.4.3.2
rah, tah, tah interj. 5.2.4
rarely 5.1.3.1
rascalest 3.2.3.4
rather 5.1.2.2, 5.1.3.2; had ~ 4.3.7.6, 4.4.1; me ~ had 4.4.1; rather … than 4.3.1; would ~ 4.3.7.6; ratherest 5.1.2.4
ravishing 7.6
reach 4.2.4.1, raught pp. 4.2.4.1
reason 3.3.6.4
recover 4.4.3
recreant 8.1.4
refer 7.1.3.4
reformed 3.3.6.2
< previous page
page_399
next page >
< previous page
page_400
next page >
Page 400
refuse 6.3.5
region kites 3.3.3.1
relish of 4.3.10
remain 4.3.1.1, 4.4.4
remember 4.2.9, 4.4.4
repent 4.4.1; ~ me 4.4.2; ~ at/for/in/of/out/over 5.4
report 7.1.2.1
reputation 6.4.1
request 10.2
rest 4.4.1
retire 4.2.7, 4.4.3; ~ me 4.4.2–3; ~ myself 4.4.2
return 4.2.7, 4.3.3, 5.3.1
Richard 8.1.2
riches 3.2.1.1; ~ of the ship 9.2
richly 3.3.6.2
ride 4.2.7
right 5.1.3.1; ~ noble Burgundy 8.1.4
ring 4.2.4.1; rung pret. 4.2.4.1
rivo interj. 5.2.2
roe 3.2.1.1
rogues 2.2.9
Romans 8.1.2
Rome gates 3.2.1.2, 3.3.3.1
round prep. 5.4, 5.4.2
round/roundly adv. 5.1.3.5
rouse 4.4.3
royal 8.1.1, 8.1.4; ~ Dane 8.1.1; ~ king 8.1.4; ~ Lear 8.1.3–4; ~ majesty 8.1.4; ~ sir 8.1.4
royalty 3.3.1.2
run 4.3.3, 4.4.2–4, 7.1.3.4
sad v. 4.4.3; ~ brow 8.1.3
sadden 4.4.3
sail 3.2.1.1
same 3.3.4.5
sans prep. 5.4, 5.4.2
save: ~ for 5.4.2; ~ you 8.2.3
saving prep. 5.4.2
say v. 7.1.2.3, 7.3.1, 8.3.2; to ~ precisely 5.1.3.7; ~ what 8.3.2; as they ~ 8.3.2–3; how ~ you 8.3.2; I ~ 8.2.1,
8.2.3, 8.3.1.1, 8.3.2, 8.3.6, interj. 5.2.3; I ~ little 8.4.1; I will ~ 8.3.2; as thou saist 8.3.2; said I well 8.4.1; ~ (that)
conj. 5.3.2.5
‘sblood/zblood interj. 5.2.5, 8.3.5–6
scarce/scarcely 6.2.1.8
scent 2.3.2.2
scythe 2.3.2.2
see 4.2.4.1, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.2, 10.2; saw 4.2.4.1; having seen 4.2.5; you ~ 8.3.2
seeing/seeing that conj. 5.3.2.4
seek 4.3.3
seem, seem'st 2.2.8, 4.2.7, 4.4.1; it seems 8.3.7
seize 4.3.3
seldom adj. 3.3.3.1; 6.2.1.8
self 3.3.1.3, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.3, 3.3.4.5; -self/-selves 3.2.2.3, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.3
send: ~ for 4.3.10; ~ out 4.3.10
sense 3.2.1.1
serpent(s) 3.3.2.6, 3.3.6.3
servants 3.3.6.5
set 4.2.7, 4.4.3; ~ forth 4.2.7; ~ off 5.4.2
severals 3.2.1.1
severally 5.1.3.5
‘sfoot interj. 5.2.5
shaked 4.2.4.1
Shakespeare 3.3.1.4
shall 2.1, 4.1, 4.2.1, 4.2.2.2, 4.2.4.4, 4.2.7, 4.3.1.2, 4.3.3, 4.3.7.5, 4.3.7.7–8, 6.3.2.3; shalt 4.2.2.2; ice ‘I shall’
4.2.2.2; shalbe/shall be 2.3.3, 4.3.9; ~ have 4.3.7.7; shall's 3.3.2.1
shame 3.3.4.3.2; ~ itself 10.2
she 3.3.1.3, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.6.3, 4.2.3, 6.4.1; n. 3.3.1.3; ~ Mercury 3.3.1.1
sheep/sheeps 3.2.1.1, 10.1
shepherd 2.3.2.3
shilling 3.2.1.1
shog, shall we 8.2.6
shoone ‘shoes’ 3.2.1.1
should 4.2.4.4, 4.2.6–7, 4.3.7.6–8, 7.4.1; ~ be 4.1; ~ have 4.2.7, 4.3.7.8; ~ have been 4.1
< previous page
page_400
next page >
< previous page
page_401
next page >
Page 401
shrive 4.2.4.1; shrived pp. 4.2.4.1
shut up 10.2
sickly 3.3.4.5
side 3.2.1.2
sight 6.1.1.6
since adv. 5.1.3.3, 9.1.3; conj. 5.3.2.4; prep. 5.4.2
sir 8.1.1–2, 8.1.4, 8.2.1, 8.2.3, 8.2.5, 10.2; ~ John Sack and Sugar 8.1.3
sirrah 8.1.2–3
sister 8.1.4, 8.2.1
sit 4.2.4.1, 4.2.7, 4.4.3; sate pp. 4.2.4.1
sith/sithence adv. 5.1.3.3; conj. 5.3.2.4; prep. 5.4, 5.4.2
skill 4.4.1
skull 3.3.6.5
sleep 7.5.2.1; sleeping 3.3.6.3
slighted off 3.2.1.2
slow/slowly 5.1.2.1
smile/smoile 3.3.2.6, 4.3.10; ~ on 4.3.10
so adv. 3.3.3.6, 3.3.4.3.2, 3.3.5, 5.1.3.5–6, 5.3.2.1, 5.3.2.6, 6.3.5, 7.1.1.1; conj. 5.3.2.3, 5.3.2.5, 5.3.2.9; ~ as
5.3.2.3; so … as 5.3.2.3, 5.3.2.9; ~ Chrish save me 8.4.1; ~ far 5.3.2.9; ~ for 5.3.2.9; ~ God save me 8.4.1; ~ long
5.3.2.9, ~ much 5.3.2.9, ~ oft 5.3.2.9, ~ soon 5.3.2.9; ~ that 5.3.2.3
so-forth n. ‘cuckold’ 3.3.1.3
soft 4.3.3
soldier servant 3.2.1.2
some 3.3.2.7, 3.3.4.4, 3.3.5; ~ danger 9.3.1; ~ excellent fortune 3.3.4.4; ~ foul issue 3.3.4.4; ~ kind of men 3.2.1.2;
~ other 3.3.2.7; ~ whether 5.1.3.4
something 3.3.2.7, 3.3.3.6, 3.3.4.1, 3.3.5, 5.1.3.2, 5.1.3.5; ~ lower 3.3.3.6
sometime/sometimes 3.3.3.1, 5.1.3.3
-so(m)ever 5.3.2.8
somewhat 3.3.2.7, 3.3.3.6, 5.1.3.2
sons 6.1.1.6; son-in-laws 3.2.1.1
sore 5.1.3.1
sort of, a 3.3.5, 6.1.1.6
sound(ly) 5.1.3.5
sour 10.2; sourest 5.1.2.4
sovereign 8.1.4
sovereignly 3.3.3.6
speak 3.3.2.1, 4.2.4.1, 7.1.3; ~ speak 6.4.1; to ~ more properly 8.3.2; spake pret. 4.2.4.1; spoke(n) pp. 4.2.4.1;
spoke to 4.3.9; I have spoke 8.3.2
speciously ‘specially’ 8.4.2
speed 4.3.3
spit 4.2.4.1
sprite 2.3.2.2
stain 4.4.3
stand 3.2.2.4, 4.2.7, 4.2.9, 4.3.7.4–5; ~ upon 4.3.10
star-chamber 3.3.3.1; ~ matter 3.3.3.1
stark-spoiled 3.3.3.6
start 3.3.1.4; ~-up 3.3.1.4
stay 4.4.3; ~ not 5.1.3.7
steal 4.2.7, 4.4.3; ~ away 4.2.7, 4.4.3
step-dame 2.3.3
still 5.1.3.3, 10.2
stocked 2.3.2.2
stones 7.1.3
strait 5.1.3.3
stranger 3.3.3.1
straw 6.2.3.3
strive 4.2.4.1; strove pp. 4.2.4.1
stroakst 4.2.4.2
stroken/strook pp. 4.2.4.1, 4.2.7
strongly 5.1.3.1
study 4.3.9
submit you 4.4.2
such 3.3.1.3, 3.3.2.7, 3.3.5, 5.3.2.6, 6.1.1.6
suck'st 4.2.4.2
suffered 4.3.7.1
sum 2.2.3.1, 9.1.2.1
sunder 5.4
< previous page
page_401
next page >
< previous page
page_402
next page >
Page 402
sung 5.4
sunk/sunken 4.2.5
superficially 9.1.5
sure 10.2
swallow's wings 3.2.1.2
swear 7.1.2.1; I ~ to you 8.3.3; I'll be sworn on a book 8.3.7
sweaten pp. 4.2.5
sweet 3.3.1.3, 8.1.4; ~ and twenty 3.3.6.1; ~ creature of bombast 8.1.3; ~ Henry 8.1.3; ~ lord 8.2.5; ~ saint 8.1.2; ~
wag 8.1.3
sweetly 5.1.2.1
sweets 4.2.2
swim 4.2.4, 4.2.4.1; swam/swom pret. 4.2.4.1
‘swounds/swounds/zounds 1.1.4, 5.2.5, 8.3.5
take 4.3.3, 5.1.1, 6.3.1.3; ~ heed 5.3.2.1; ~ off 3.3.1.3; ~ thee that to 10.2; taken 3.3.6.2
taking off 3.3.1.3
tale 2.3.2.3
talk 2.2.9; be talking 4.3.7.3
t'anticipate 2.3.2.4
Tarpeian 3.3.3.4
Tarquin's self 3.3.1.3
tasting 6.3.5
teeths 3.2.1.1
tell 10.1: I ~ 8.3.6; I can ~ you by the way 8.3.7; I can ~ them that too 8.3.3; ~ me 9.1.6; was told 7.1.3
ten-times-barred-up chest 3.1
th ‘the’ 2.3.2.4
Thames 3.3.4.2.2
than 2.2.3.2, 6.1.2.1
thane 8.1.2
thanks 3.2.1.1
that adv. 5.3.2.1, ~ their 10.2; adj. 3.2.3.2, 3.3.1.3, 3.3.4.1, 3.3.4.2.1, 3.3.4.5; ~ riches 3.2.1.1; ~ tidings 3.2.1.1; ~
yon green boy 3.2.3.2, 3.3.4.1; conj. 4.3.7.5, 4.3.7.8, 4.4.4, 5.3, 5.3.1, 5.3.2.1–2, 5.3.2.6, 5.3.2.8, 7.1.2.1, 7.1.2.4,
7.4, 7.4.1, 7.5.2.1, 10.2; ~ that 3.3.2.4, 3.3.2.6; pron. 3.2.2.4, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.4, 3.3.2.6, 3.3.6.2, 3.3.6.5, 4.3.3,
7.1.3, 10.2; that is the rendezvous of it 8.4.1 ~ which 3.3.2.4, 10.2
the 3.3.1.3, 3.3.4.2.1–2, 4.3.8.1, 4.3.9, 5.4.2; ~ Archbishop's Grace of York 3.2.1.2; ~ better 3.3.4.2.2; ~ cripple
3.3.6.1; ~ death 3.3.4.2.2; ~ devil 8.3.5; ~ Duke of Gloucester's purse 3.2.1.2; ~ gods 3.3.4.2.2; ~ humour of it is
too hot 8.4.1; ~ king 8.1.4; ~ longer liver 3.3.2.5; ~ money in his desk 3.3.6.1; ~ set of sun 3.2.1.2; ~ very ports
5.4.1.1; ~ which 3.2.2.4, 3.2.3.2, 3.3.2.6; ~ whom 3.3.2.6; ~ whoreson 8.1.4; ~ worse 3.3.4.2.2; conj. 5.3.2.9
thee 3.2.2.1, 3.2.2.3, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.1.1, 4.2.3, 4.3.3, 4.3.8, 7.2, 8.1.1
their 3.2.1.2, 3.2.2.1, 3.2.3.3, 6.3.5
theirs 3.2.3.3, 3.3.2.2
theirselves 3.2.2.3
them 3.2.2.1, 3.3.2.1, 9.1.2.1
themselves 3.2.2.3, 3.3.2.3
then 5.3.2.4, 7.1.1.1
there 5.4, 6.1.2, 6.3.1.4, 6.3.2.1; ~ is 4.3.8.1, 6.1.1.2; there's an end 8.4.1; ~ must be conclusions 8.4.1
thereafter as 5.3.2.2
thereby hangs a tale 8.3.7
therefore 5.1.3.7
these 3.2.3.2, 3.3.2.4, 3.3.4.1, 3.3.4.2.1, 3.3.4.5; ~ be good humours 8.4.1; ~ kind of knaves 3.2.1.2; ~ set of fools
3.2.1.2
they 3.3.1.3, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.6, 3.3.6.5, 6.3.5, 7.5.2.2–3
< previous page
page_402
next page >
< previous page
page_403
next page >
Page 403
thick-lips 3.3.1.4
thieves, thieves 6.4.1, 8.2.1
thine 3.2.2.1, 3.2.3.3, 3.3.2.2, 10.2
thing 3.3.2.7; things must be as they are 8.4.1
think 3.2.2.4, 4.2.2.1, 4.3.2.1, 4.3.7.2, 4.3.7.4, 4.4.1, 6.4.1, 7.1.2.3, 9.1.5; what dost thou ~ 9.1.5; pret.
thought/thoughts 4.4.1
thipp ‘the hip’ 2.3.2.4
this 3.2.3.2, 3.3.1.3, 3.3.2.4, 3.3.4.1, 3.3.4.2.1, 3.3.4.5, 4.3.9, 6.3.2.1, 7.1.2.1–2, 7.5.2.2, 8.2.1; ~ knave 8.1.4; ~
morning 5.1.3.3; ~ noble gentleman 8.1.4; ~ once 3.3.1.3; ~ same my self 3.3.1.3; ~ three hours 3.3.4.2.1; ~ two
and twenty year 3.3.4.2.1; ~ two days 3.2.1.1; ~ unprized precious maid 8.1.4; ~ ways 3.2.1.1, 5.1.2.2; ~ which
3.3.2.4
thorough prep. 5.4, 5.4.2
those 3.2.3.2, 3.3.2.4, 3.3.4.2.1, 3.3.4.5
thou 3.2.2.1, 3.3.2.1–2, 3.3.6.2, 4.2.2–3, 4.3.3, 4.4.1, 6.3.1.2, 7.1.2.2, 7.1.3.4, 7.2, 8.1.1, 8.1.3–4, 10.2; ~ mountain
foreigner 8.1.3; ~ other gold-bound brow 10.2; ~ shag-eared villain 10.2; ~ sour and firm-set earth 10.2; ~
unconfinable baseness 3.3.1.2
three 3.3.3.1; ~ Doctor Faustuses 3.2.1.1; ~-man song-men 3.3.3.1
through prep. 5.4, 5.4.2
throughout 5.4.2
throw: ~ off 4.3.10; ~ up 4.3.10
thus 3.3.2.4, 3.3.5, 3.3.6.2
thy 3.2.2.1, 3.2.3.3, 3.3.4.5; ~ cursed self 3.3.1.3; ~ woman's weeds 3.3.4.5
thyme 2.3.2.2
Tiber banks 3.2.1.2
tidings 3.2.1.1
till prep. 5.4.2
tilly-vally 8.3.5
time honoured 3.3.6.1
tirra-lyra 5.2.4
to 3.3.2.1, 4.2.1, 4.3.1.1, 4.3.10, 4.4.3, 5.4, 5.4.2; ~ -be-pitied 3.3.3.1; ~ Brutus 3.2.1.2; ~ here 5.1.2.3; ~ the rear
of 5.4
tofore 5.1.3.3
together 3.3.2.3
tongue v. 4.4.3; tongue-tied 3.3.5; tongu'd 6.3
too 3.3.5, 4.3.1.1, 5.1.2.4, 5.1.3.1, 8.3.1.2; ~ fast-growing 3.3.3.3; ~ great 3.3.6.2; ~ much changed 3.3.3.1; ~ too
6.4.1
toward/towards prep. 5.4.2; to … ward 5.4.2
towns-men 2.3.3
traitor 2.3.1
Trent 3.3.4.2.2
troa, I 8.3.7
Trojan 2.3.1
troth 5.1.3.6, 8.3.7
true 6.4.1; ~ maid 8.1.3
truly 5.1.3.1, 5.1.3.6–7, 8.3.6, 8.4.1
turn 4.2.7, 4.4.4
tush, tush 6.4.1
tut 8.3.1.2, 8.3.5
tuwhit tuwhoo 5.2.4
twenty Sir John Falstaffs 3.2.1.1
two 3.3.3.1, 3.3.5
Ulysses 2.3.1
un- 4.3.5, 6.2.5.2
under prep. 5.4, 5.4.2
underneath 5.4.2
understand, as I 8.3.2
uneasy 3.3.3.6
unhappy 3.3.6.1
unless prep. 5.4.2
unluckily 5.1.2.1
unmannerly 8.1.4
unpremeditated 5.1.2.1
< previous page
page_403
next page >
< previous page
page_404
next page >
Page 404
unsafe the while 10.2
unthought-on 3.3.3.3
until 2.3.2.2, 5.4.2
unto 3.3.2.1, 5.4.2; unto … ward 5.4.2
unurged 3.3.6.2
unwearied 3.3.3.1
unworthy 6.3.3
up 4.3.3, 5.4.2; ~ and down 5.4.2
upon 5.4, 5.4.2; ~ my life 8.3.3, 8.3.5
uptil prep. 5.4.2
us 2.3.2.4, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.6.2, 4.3.3, 6.1.2.2, 7.2.7, 10.2
use/used to, be 4.2.2.3, 4.3.7.11, 4.4.4
valiant-young 3.3.3.1
vassal 8.1.4
verily 5.1.3.1
vertuous Henry 8.1.3
very 3.3.3.6, 3.3.4.5, 5.1.3.1; ~ very 6.4.1
via interj. 5.2.3, 8.3.5
villain 8.1.2–3
villainous 5.1.3.1
waft 4.2.4.1
wag n. 8.1.3; v. shall we ~ 8.2.6
walk 4.2.7
wall 2.3.2.2
wand(-lip) 3.3.1.1
war 3.2.1.1
warrant: I ~ you 8.3.2
wash 4.3.10; ~ off 4.3.10
wax 4.4.4, waxen 4.2.2
ways 3.2.1.1
we 3.2.2.3, 3.3.2.1, 4.3.3, 6.1.2.2, 6.3.5, 7.1.2.2, 7.6, 10.2
weak 3.3.3.4
wearily 5.1.2.1
weary seven nights 5.4.1.1
weave 4.2.4.1; weaved pret. 4.2.4.1
week week interj. 5.2.4
weep 6.3.3.1; weeping 6.3.5
welcome 8.2.3
well 3.3.6.2, 5.1.3.1, 8.3.1.2, 8.3.7, 10.2; ~ be with you 4.4.1; ~ done 6.3.5; ~ foughten 4.2.5; ~ met 8.2.3; ~ my
lads 8.3.1.2; ~ sirs 8.3.1.2
well-a-day 8.3.5; a welady 5.2.2
whale's bone 3.2.1.2
what 2.3.2.2, 3.2.2.4, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.5–7, 3.3.4.3.2, 7.1.2.1, 7.3.3, 7.4, 8.2.1; ~ time conj. 5.3.2.4; adv. 5.1.3.7,
8.3.1.1, 8.3.2; ~ ho 8.2.1; ~ Jessica 8.3.1.1; ~ Lucius ho 8.3.1.1; ~ a plague 8.3.6; ~ so 3.3.5; ~ though 5.3.2.8
whats 2.3.2.4
when 4.3.5, adv. 5.1.3.7, 7.3, 8.3.1.1; ~ Harry ~ 8.3.1.1; ~ Lucius ~ 8.3.1.1; conj. 5.3.2.4, ~ as 5.3.2.2, 5.3.2.4;
when … then 7.5.2.5
where adv. 3.3.2.6, 5.4, 5.4.2, 7.3; conj. 5.3.2.4; n. 3.3.1.3
whereat 3.3.2.6
whereby 3.3.2.6
wherein 5.4.2
whereof 3.3.2.6
whereon 3.3.2.6
whereout 3.3.2.6
whereuntil 3.3.2.6
whether 3.2.2.4, 3.3.2.5, 5.3.1, 7.1.3.4, 10.2
which 3.2.2.4, 3.2.3.2, 3.3.2.4, 3.3.2.6, 3.3.6.5, 7.1.2.1, 7.1.3.4; ~ is more 3.3.2.6; ~ time 5.4.1.1
while/whiles/whilest/whil'st 2.2.8, 5.3.2.4; ~ as 5.3.2.2
whit 6.2.3.3
who 3.2.2.4, 3.3.2.5–7, 3.3.6.5, 10.2; ~ dares 6.4.2; ~ ever 3.3.2.5; who … his 3.3.2.6
whoa-ho-hoa interj. 5.2.3
whom 3.2.2.4, 3.3.2.5–6
whose 3.2.2.4, 3.3.2.6; ~ wrongs 3.3.1.1
< previous page
page_404
next page >
< previous page
page_405
next page >
Page 405
why 3.3.6.4, 5.1.3.7, 5.2.3, 7.1.2.1, 7.3, 7.3.3, 8.3.2, 10.2; ~ none 6.4.2; interj. 5.2.3, 8.3.1.1, 8.3.2; ~ go to then
8.3.1.1; ~ Jessica 8.3.1.1; ~ so 5.2.3; ~ then 5.1.3.7
wife/wives 3.2.1.1, 10.1
will/woll aux. 2.3.2.4, 4.2.1.1, 4.2.2.2, 4.2.4.4, 4.2.7, 4.3.1.2, 4.3.3, 4.3.7.5–7, 6.3.2.3; wilt/wolt/wo't/woo't 4.2.2.2;
willeth 4.2.2.3; Ile 2.3.2.4; hee'l 2.2.8; weele/wee'l 2.3.2.4, 4.2.2.2; youle 2.3.2.4; ~ be 4.3.7.5
win 4.2.3
wind 7.5.2.5
wisedom 2.1
wisehead 2.1
wiselier 5.1.2.4
wiseness 2.1
wiser 3.3.6.1, 5.1.2.4
wish 4.3.7.6
wistly 5.1.3.5
with adv. 4.1; prep. 4.3.10, 5.1.3.5, 5.4.2, 7.3.4; ~ your two helps 3.3.3.1
withal adv. 5.1.3.5; prep. 5.4, 5.4.2
within prep. 5.4.2
without conj. 5.3.2.5; prep. 2.1, 5.4.2, 6.2.7
witting 4.2.8
woe interj. 5.2.2
woman: ~ it pretty self 3.3.1.3, 3.3.2.3; woman'd 9.2
women-kind 3.2.1.1
wondrous 3.3.3.6; ~ sensible 3.3.6.2
wooing 4.3.7.3
woolsack 8.1.3
word 6.4.1
worser 3.2.3.4
worthily 5.1.3.5
wot 4.2.2.4, 4.2.8; wot'st, wots 4.2.2.3
would 4.2.4.4, 4.2.6–7, 4.3.7.5–8, 4.3.9, 7.4.1, 10.2; ~ have 4.2.7, 4.3.6, 4.3.7.6; ~ have been 4.3.7.6; ~ rather
4.3.7.6
write: ~ himself 3.3.2.3; writ/written pret., pp. 8.3.8
wrong 4.3.3
wrongfully 5.1.3.5
y- prefix 4.2.5
ye pron. 3.2.2.1, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.1.1, 4.2.3, 4.3.3, 7.2; ~ Gods 3.3.4.2.2
yea 5.1.3.6
year 3.2.1.1
yearn 4.4.1
yes 5.1.3.6
yesternight 5.1.2.2
yet 5.1.3.3, 5.3.2.1, 10.2
yew 2.3.2.2
yield 4.3.2.1
yon/yond/yonder 3.2.2.2, 3.2.3.2, 3.3.4.5
you 3.2.2.1, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.1.1, 4.2.3, 4.3.3, 4.4.1, 5.1.3.7, 5.4.2, 6.3.1.2–3, 7.2, 8.1.3, 10.2; ~ Banbury cheese
8.1.3; ~ dried neat's tongue 8.1.3; ~ egg, young fry of lechery 10.2; ~ elfskin 8.1.3; ~ foolish shepherd 8.1.3; ~
imperfect speakers 3.3.3.5; ~ look angerly 10.2; ~ Prince of Wales 8.1.3; ~ starveling 8.1.3; ~ stockfish 8.1.3; ~
whoreson round man 8.1.3
young 2.3.1; ~ fellow 8.1.4
your 3.2.3.3, 3.3.3.1, 3.3.4.5, 4.2.3; ~ dear highness 8.1.4; ~ dear highness love 9.3.2; ~ fair self 3.3.1.3; ~
generous pleasure 8.2.2; ~ grace 4.4.1; ~ highness 8.1.1–2, 10.2; ~ husband's brother's wife 3.2.1.2; ~ knave's
visage 3.3.4.5; ~ ladyship 8.1.2; ~ lordship, 8.1.2, 8.1.4; ~ love 6.3.4; ~ lovely sake 3.3.4.5; ~ majesty 8.1.1–2,
8.1.4, 8.2.2;
< previous page
page_405
next page >
< previous page
page_406
Page 406
~ mightiness 3.2.1.1; ~ precious self 3.3.1.3; ~ royalty 3.3.1.2; ~ three motives 3.3.3.1; ~ trouble 3.3.4.5; ~ worm
3.3.4.5
yours 3.2.2.1, 3.2.3.3, 3.3.2.2
yourself 3.3.2.3
youth 3.3.6.3; the ~ 3.3.6.1
< previous page
page_406