“Shy. Antonio is a good man.
Bass. Have you heard any imputation to the contrary?
Shy. Ho, no, no, no, no! My meaning in saying he is a good man is to have you understand me that he is sufficient.”
[I, ii, 201]. right—so in all texts. With this word the meaning is perfectly plain, but the substitution, in its place, of weight would better sustain the figure used in the preceding line. Weight is a word which it is not unlikely the printer would mis-read from the Ms. as right.
[I, ii, 207]. in your danger—regularly, “in your power”, “at your mercy”; so here, “in your debt”.
[I, ii, 245]. As—used here in its demonstrative meaning, to introduce a parenthetical clause. Cf. Abbott, S. G. § 110.
[II, i, 13]. sits—the common Elizabethan 3rd. person plural in s, generally and without warrant altered by modern editors. See Abbott, S. G. § 333. Cf. keepes, [V, ii, 37].
[II, i, 28]. was—monies is taken in the collective sense.
[II, i, 46]. interd a liuely graue—i. e., enter’d a lively [living] grave. G., who first prints it so, considers he has made a change in the first word, taking it in the Q. for interr’d, as does M., who suggests in a footnote the reading: enters alive the grave. But interd may be, and is best, taken as merely an old spelling for enter’d, naturally attracted to the i-form by the presence of the word interment in the preceding line.
[II, i, 63]. Remember best, forget not gratitude—ellipsis for: Remember best who forget not gratitude. Modern usage confines the omission of the relative mostly to the objective. In Eliz. Eng., however, the nominative relative was even more frequently omitted, especially when the antecedent clause was emphatic and evidently incomplete, and where the antecedent immediately preceded the verb to which the relative would be subject. See Abbott, S. G., § 244.
Cf. [III, i, 134–5]; [i, 139]; [i, 332]; [IV, ii, 61].
[II, i, 65]. viperous—according to various classical authorities [e. g., Pliny, X, 82], the young of vipers eat their way forth to light through the bowels of their dam. The figure here seems to be somewhat confused, as the dead hero is the son of the country, his mother, who devours him. The thought, perhaps, in the mind of the dramatist, albeit ill-expressed, was that the mother-country owed her existence to her son, and, viper-like had devoured the author of her life.