HW HomePrevious CNView CNView TNMView TNINext CN

Line 2040 - Commentary Note (CN) More Information

Notes for lines 2023-2950 ed. Frank N. Clary
For explanation of sigla, such as jen, see the editions bib.
2040 King. Faith I must leaue thee loue, and shortly to,3.2.173
1857 fieb
fieb
2040 shortly] Fiebig (ed. 1857): “quickly, soon.”
1935 TLS
Oliphant, E. H. C., contra Chambers; Wilson
2040-53 Oliphant (1935, p. 537) claims that Chambers cannot be right about the Lucianus speech (2124-30) being Hamlet’s insertion because it is necessary to the play, while Hamlet’s addition must be an interpolation. The King’s rising during the speech shows he is agitated, but it is by the action, not the words. Oliphant also refutes another candidate that Chambers lists, the speech at 2054-77, thought by some to be Hamlet’s insertion because it is philosophical. J. D. Wilson opines that the play did not arrive at Hamlet’s insertion before the king interrupted it. Oliphant thinks that Sh.’s artistry requires a meaningful insertion, especially since Hamlet mentions it twice (1581-2; 1849); the speech must do something specific. Oliphant’s candidate is 2040-53 because it gets to the nub of the issue, the hasty remarriage, and it could relieve his feelings. They are just of the length required, that Hamlet’s comment wormwood shows the lines have affected the queen as he had wished them to.
1935 TLS
Sampson, George, contra Oliphant
2040-53 Sampson (1935, p. 552): We can’t find Hamlet’s lines because as a fictional character he can’t write any lines. Ed. note: Sampson is somewhat off the mark because Oliphant means the lines that Sh. meant the audience to think of as Hamlet’s insertion. The question remains, of course, whether we should worry about which lines they are.
1935 TLS
Pyle, Fitzroy contra Oliphant; Trench
2040-53 Pyle (1935, p. 565): objects to Oliphant’s choice because it is two speeches not “a speech,” and it is obviously not an interpolation because what follows it could not follow directly what precedes it. Most students of the play accept the fact that no candidate is viable. The play-within is an representation of a play performed for the king and queen (as Pyramus and Thisbe is presented as a full-length evening’s entertainment). Prof. Trench argues against the idea of Hamlet retaining his purpose of adding lines. He and Pyle think that Hamlet at the end of 2.2 had decided to rewrite the whole play to suit his purpose.
Ed. note: Hamlet’s rewriting the whole play does not agree with his “Speake the speech,” singular, but it does agree with his boast after the play-within, 2149. See Trench in “The play as a whole.”
1581 1849 2040 2054 2124 2149