Line 3500 - Commentary Note (CN) 
Commentary notes (CN):
1. SMALL CAPS Indicate editions. Notes for each commentator are divided into three parts:
In the 1st two lines of a record, when the name of the source text (the siglum) is printed in SMALL CAPS, the comment comes from an EDITION; when it is in normal font, it is derived from a book, article, ms. record or other source. We occasionally use small caps for ms. sources and for works related to editions. See bibliographies for complete information (in process).
2. How comments are related to predecessors' comments. In the second line of a record, a label "without attribution" indicates that a prior writer made the same or a similar point; such similarities do not usually indicate plagiarism because many writers do not, as a practice, indicate the sources of their glosses. We provide the designation ("standard") to indicate a gloss in common use. We use ≈ for "equivalent to" and = for "exactly alike."
3. Original comment. When the second line is blank after the writer's siglum, we are signaling that we have not seen that writer's gloss prior to that date. We welcome correction on this point.
4. Words from the play under discussion (lemmata). In the third line or lines of a record, the lemmata after the TLN (Through Line Number] are from Q2. When the difference between Q2 and the authors' lemma(ta) is significant, we include the writer's lemma(ta). When the gloss is for a whole line or lines, only the line number(s) appear. Through Line Numbers are numbers straight through a play and include stage directions. Most modern editions still use the system of starting line numbers afresh for every scene and do not assign line numbers to stage directions.
5. Bibliographic information. In the third line of the record, where we record the gloss, we provide concise bibliographic information, expanded in the bibliographies, several of which are in process.
6. References to other lines or other works. For a writer's reference to a passage elsewhere in Ham. we provide, in brackets, Through Line Numbers (TLN) from the Norton F1 (used by permission); we call these xref, i.e., cross references. We call references to Shakespearean plays other than Ham. “parallels” (//) and indicate Riverside act, scene and line number as well as TLN. We call references to non-Shakespearean works “analogues.”
7. Further information: See the Introduction for explanations of other abbreviations.
Click
here for more information about browsing the entries
and
here for more information about the special symbols
used in Hamletworks. Click the question mark icon above to remove this help message.
Notes for lines 2951-end ed. Hardin A. Aasand
| 3500 Ham. So much for this sir, now {shall you} <let me> see the other, 3500 | 5.2.1 |
|---|
1791- rann
rann
3499 the other] Rann (ed. 1791-) : “the secret commission.”
1754 Grey
Grey
3500 So . . .
other]
Grey (1754, 2: 308) : <p. 308> “‘So much for this, Sir; now let me see the other.’ Folios 1623, and 1632” </p. 308>
1805 Seymour
Seymour
3500 So much for this]
Seymour (1805, 2: 200) : <p. 200> “This account by Hamlet of his adventures is out of place: Horatio had a right to expect it at the first interview after the prince’s return.”</p. 200>
1854 del2
del2
3500 shall you see]
Delius (ed. 1854) : “
let me see]] d.h. lasst mich das Uebrige vornehmen, es Euch erzählen. So die Fol. Die Qs. viel matter:
now shall you see.—Hamlet ist beim Anfang dieser Scene bereits mitten in dem Bericht von der Seefahrt, die er mit
Rosencrantz und Guildenstern angetreten.” [“
let me deal with the rest, to relate it for you . So the Fol. The Qq more feebly :
now shall you see .—Hamlet is at the beginning of of this scene ready to send the report from the sea battle, which he set out for with
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.”]
1861 wh1
wh1
3500 shall you see] White (ed. 1861) : “now let me see ]] So the folio; the 4tos., ‘now shall you,’ &c. The phrases have equal colloquial propriety.”
1869 strat
strat : rowe [notes ROWE’s insertion of scene 2].
1869 tsch
tsch
3500 Tschischwitz (ed. 1869): “Es ist auffallend, dass H., der doch in der vorigen Scene schon mit Hor. zusammen war, jutzt erst dazu kommt, ihm seine Erlebnisse auf dem Schiffe mitzutheilen. Es sciient, dass er die Erzählung vorher begonen hat, und dass dann nur seine Aufmerksamkeit durch das Grab und dieVorgänge an demselben abgelenkt worden ist. Wohl zu beachten ist aber, wie auch der Zwischenfall nicht vermag, seine Aufmerksamkeit von seiner Aufgabe abzulenken. In hohem Grade befremdend ist dann der Ton, in welchem H. in dieser Scene zu Hor. spricht, den er zwei Mal in den ersten vier Zeilen und auch später noch mit Sir anredet, ohne das vertrauliche thou zu gebrauchen. Im ganzen Dialog wendet der Dichter sehr häufig die Auslassung des Personalpronomens an (s. [[5.1.40]] Anm. S. v. 14. 15) und bedient sich häufiger als sonst der Participial—und Infinitavsätze, so dass ich vermuthe, die Stelle bis v. 55 rührt nicht von Sh. her.” [It is noteworthy that Hamlet, who though he was with Horatio in the previous scene, now first comes to narrate to Horatio his experience on the ship. It seems that he had begun the narrative previously, and that then only his attention was diverted through the burial and the procession for it. Thus as even this episode doesn’t permit to attend, his attention is diverted from his duty. In the noble class the tone is indeed strange in which Horatio speaks to Horatio in this scene, whom he two times in the the first 4 acts and even later addresses with Sir, without using the familar thou. In the entire dialogue the poet very frequently uses the exclusion of the personal pronouns [[see 3224, note 3201-02]] and serves quite frequently instead the participal and the infinitive, so that I suppose this passage to [[3558]] doesn’t originate from Sh.]
1872 del4
del4 = del2
3500 shall you see]
Delius (ed. 1872) : “
let me see]] d.h. lasst mich das Uebrige vornehmen, es Euch erzählen. So die Fol. Die Qs. viel matter:
now shall you see.—Hamlet ist beim Anfang dieser Scene bereits mitten in dem Bericht von der Seefahrt, die er mit
Rosencrantz und Guildenstern angetreten.” [
let me deal with the rest, to relate it for you . So the Fol. The Qq more feebly :
now shall you see .—Hamlet is at the beginning of of this scene ready to send the report from the sea battle, which he set out for with
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.]
[Ed: Delius removes his adverb here from the commentary].
1872 hud2
hud2
3500 the other] Hudson (ed. 1872): “The other refers to the further matter intimated in that letter: ‘I have words to speak in thine ear will make thee dumb.’”
1875 Marshall
Marshall
3500-01 Marshall (1875, pp. 64-5): <p. 64>“Of what Hamlet had been previously speaking we do not know exactly; most probably, judging from the letter to Horatio (see Act IV., Scene 6), he had been giving his friend a more detailed account of his adventure with, and capture by, the pirates. The letter ends thus:—[cites 2996-3000]
“It is evident that Hamlet attached great importance to the news which he had to tell, and that, although he had all along suspected the King of some treacherous purpose in sending him to England, and had resolved to run the risk of going there with a hope of discovering that same treachery, yet, when his suspicions were so completely confirmed, he felt the same kind of painful satisfaction, and half-delighted agitation, which he displayed after the revelation made to him by his </p. 64> <p. 65> father’s ghost, though in that case, those feelings were then mingled with a horror, which is lacking here. We may, however, note this feature in Hamlet’s character, that while he is very ready to suspect some evil purpose in the minds of those about him, and though suspicions are in most cases justified by the event, he receives the confirmation of them with as much astonishment as if he had never had any suspicion at all. There is something of childish exultation at the proofs of his shrewdness; there is also that which shows us that his cynicism was of the mind and not of the heart—that however ill he thought of the world in general, his indignation against particular instances of evil-doing was in no degree blunted.
“Hamlet continues—’You do remember all the circumstance?’ To which Horatio replies, as if the very suspicion of forgetfulness on this subject was intolerble—’Remember it, my lord!’
“What was the circumstance, or, as we should say, what were the circumstances, to which Hamlet alludes? I suppose they were the circumstances under which he left Denmark; that is to say, just after the accidental killing of Pononius, the agitating interview with his mother, the reappearance of the ghost ‘to whet his blunted purpose;’ add to these the increased fear and suspicion with which the King evidently regarded him, and the small chance which, at the time of his departure, there seemed to be that Hamlet would ever accomplish the task of revenge which had been set him. All these circumstances would naturally agitate his mind, and heighten the apprehension of treachery which he felt. “ </p. 65>
1877 v1877
v1877 : ≈ tsch (paraphrased)
3500 sir]
Furness (ed. 1877) : “
Tschischwitz calls attention to the distant tone with which Ham. speaks to Hor.; twice in the first four lines, and afterwards, also, he addresses him
as Sir; furthermore, throughout the dialogue the frequent omission of the personal pronoun (as ‘had my desire,’ &c.), and the more frequent use of participial and infinitive clauses, justify the suspicion that the first fifty-five lines are not Shakespeare’s.”
1881 hud3
Hud3 = hud2
3500 the other]
1885 macd
macd
3500 MacDonald (ed. 1885): “I would suggest that the one paper, which he has just shown, is a commission the king gave to himself; the other, which he is about to show, that given to Rosincrance and Guildensterne. He is setting forth his proof of the king’s treachery.”
1934 Wilson
Wilson
3499ff Wilson (1934, 2:184-85): <p. 184> “In any event, our loss through </p. 184> <p. 185> omission in Q2 is probably considerable. It is certainly so, if 5.2. [3499ff] may be taken as typical, since no fewer than eight directions seem to have been omitted from the Q2 text in this scene. They concern the fencing-match and what ensures therefrom, and may be set out as they appear both in F1 and Q1.
F1 Q1
5.2.277 Prepare to play. Heere they play.
291 They play. They play againe.
292
311 Play. They catch one anothers
313 In scuffling they change Rapiers, and both are
Rapiers. wounded, . . .
333 Hurts the King.
338 King Dyes. The king dies.
342 Dyes. Leartes dies.
“It is of course conceivable that Shakespeare did not trouble to write down every one of these directions in his manuscript; but he cannot have left them all out. And if eight stage-directions are missing in a space of sixty-six lines, how many did the compositor omit in the text as a whole? It is is impossible to tell, for unfortunately the directions in F1 are as little likely to be complete as those in Q2. We have already noted that two are lacking from the first scene in the 1623 text; and it is only too probable that Scribe C ignored many more in the prompt-book he worked from.” </p. 185>
1934 cam3
cam3
3499 Wilson (ed. 1934): “For ‘the hall’ [SD] v. [3638].”
3500 Wilson (ed. 1934): “They enter in the midst of a conversation, the beginning of which we do not hear. Cf. 2.2. 392-93 ‘You say right . . . then indeed.’”
1939 kit2
kit2≈ standard
3500 the other]
kit2
3500 this] Kittredge (ed. 1939): “Hamlet has just finished telling Horatio certain early incidents of the voyage.”
1947 Cln2
Cln2
3500 Rylands (ed. 1947, Notes): “Hamlet re-enters at once in eager talk with Horatio. His rapid and excited narrative, told with a sense of power which is unusual with him leads us on to the entry of Osric the fop. The verbal fencing match, the flourishes of court dialect and fashionable etiquette are an ironical preparation for the realities of the encounter to come, and the pause tightens up the suspense. But it changes Hamlet’s mood to foreboding and fatalism and something of the old melancholy. In this gentler, sadder mood he makes the generous boyish apology to Laertes which Laertes pretends to aceept but stands upon his honour. The Prince wins the first bout. The King pledges his nephew, the trumpets sound, the cannon is discharged. The second bout is also Hamlet’s. The third is a draw, and the judges part them with a ‘Nothing neither way’. Laertes is desperate and resorts to foul play, lunging suddenly at the Prince when off his guard between the bouts. They close again. Hamlet’s blood is up. He drops his foil and wrests from Laertes his ‘venomed stuck’. Claudius bids the judges part them, but he is too late. Laertes falls back dying into the arms of Osric. And now the Queen falls poisoned by the cup prepared for her son; Laertes betrays his royal accomplice; and with a last effort Hamlet stabs Claudius and forces the dregs of poison down his throat. After the violent rush of the long-delayed action the tension relaxes, the pace slows up, the verse becomes at once more formal and musical, a warlike march is heard afar. Hamlet gives his dying voice to young Fortinbras who has ‘some rights of memory in the kingdom’. Shakespeare, as is his custom, gives us the quiet close of classical tragedy, and Hamlet is born off like a soldier to the sound of fife and drums and a peal of ordnance.”
3500-01 Rylands (ed. 1947, Notes): “Hamlet enters talking and already in the middle of his story.”
1974 evns1
Evns1 ≈ standard
3500 the other]
1980 pen2
pen2
3500 this] Spencer (ed. 1980): “Possibly the letter to England given to Hamlet.”
pen2
3500 the other] Spencer (ed. 1980): “The contrast [between the letter to England given to Hamlet and the ‘commission’] shows the King’s treachery.”
1982 ard2
Ard2 ≈ standard
3500 the other]
1984 chal
chal : 2998-3000 //
3500 the other]
1985 cam4
cam4
3500 this] Edwards (ed. 1985): “A mid-conversation entry, ‘this’ referring presumably to the first part of the story and ‘the other’ to the rest of it.”
1987 oxf4
oxf4
3499 Hibbard (ed. 1987): “It is marvellously appropriate that the keen and long drawn out duel of wits between the two ‘mighty opposites’, Hamlet and the King, should end in a physical duel between the Prince and the deadliest of the King’s instruments. It is also fitting that this mortal combat, unlike that between old Hamlet and old Fortinbras, which was absolutely fair and conducted according to rules, should take the form of a ‘friendly’ bout masking the deepest treachery and defying every rule of the game.”
oxf4 ≈ standard
3500 this]
1988 bev2
bev2: standard (hud2)
3500 the other]
1992 fol2
fol2≈ standard
3499 Mowat & Werstine (ed. 1992): “In the hall of the castle, Hamlet tells Horatio how he discovered the king’s plot against him and how he turned the tables on
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Osric enters to ask, on Claudius’s behalf, that Hamlet fence with Laertes. Hamlet agrees to the contest, despite his misgivings.
“Hamlet is winning the match when Gertrude drinks from the poisoned cup that Claudius has prepared for Hamlet. Laertes then wounds Hamlet with the poisoned rapier. In the scuffle that follows, Hamlet forces an exchange of rapiers, and Hamlet wounds Laertes. As Gertrude dies, Laertes, himself dying, discloses his and Claudius’s plot against Hamlet. Hamlet kills Claudius. Before Hamlet dies, he asks Horatio to tell the full story that has led to these deaths and names Fortinbras heir to the Danish throne. After Hamlet’s death, Fortinbras arrives, claims the crown, and orders a military funeral for Hamlet.”
1993 dent
dent
3499 Andrews (ed. 1989): “This scene returns us to the Castle, where Hamlet is telling Horatio what happened aboard the ship to England.”
3500 the other] Andrews (ed. 1989): “now shall I tell you about the other matter ((the ‘Words’ Hamlet promised Horatio in the letter delivered in IV.iv)).”
3500