HW HomePrevious CNView CNView TNMView TNINext CN

Line 43 - Commentary Note (CN) More Information

Notes for lines 0-1017 ed. Bernice W. Kliman
For explanation of sigla, such as jen, see the editions bib.
43 What we {haue two nights} <two Nights haue> seene.1.1.33
1765 john1
john1
43 Johnson (ed. 1765): “This line is by Hanmer given to Marcellus, but without necessity.”
1773 v1773
v1773: john1
43
1773 jen
jen: han, john1
43 Jennens (ed. 1773): “This line, which all the former editions have made a part of Bernardo’s speech, H[anmer] seems justly to have given to Marcellus; though J[ohnson] thinks, without necessity. But can we suppose, that when Bernardo is beginning to speak about the ghost, Horatio would interrupt him, and say, Well, sit we down and let us hear Bernardo speak of this ? This behaviour must be very absurd.—The matter is plainly as follows. Horatio is incredulous, Bernardo says, ‘Sit down, let us endeavor to convince you, Horatio, of the truth of this apparition.’ Upon which Marcellus eagerly says to Horatio, ‘What we have two nights seen,’ and attest to the truth of, sure you may believe. ‘Well (says Horatio, interrupting him) I have heard the story of this ghost from you, Marcellus, already; let us sit down and hear what Bernardo has to affirm about it.’ It must be a very dull understanding that can perceive no necessity of H[anmer]’s alteration.”
1774 capn
capn: han
43 Capell (1774, 1:1:122) says that the line cannot belong to Marcellus: “The preposition against, [in the previous line’s] construction carries also into [this line]: which if the Oxford editor had consider’d, it is possible he had not made an imperfect [i.e. incomplete] speech of it, detaching it from the speech of Bernardo and giving it to Marcellus.”
1778 v1778
v1778 = v1773
43
1785 v1785
v1785 = v1778
43
1790 mal
mal = v1785
43
1793 v1793
v1793 = mal
43
Ed. note: Until v1793, all the notes say “Hanmer” but all from v1793-v1821 say Sir T. or Sir Thomas Hanmer, perhaps a sign of deference, a class development, or a stylistic development.
1803 v1803
v1803 = v1793
43
1805 Seymour
Seymour: han
43 Seymour (1805, 2:138): “I am persuaded we should adopt the regulation of Sir Thomas Hanmer, who gives the last line to Marcellus.”
1813 v1813
v1813 = v1803
43
1819 cald1
cald1: han without attribution +
43 What] Caldecott (ed. 1819): “We must here supply, ‘with,’ or ‘by relating.’”
1821 v1821
v1821 = v1813
43
1832 cald2
cald2: contra cald1
43 Caldecott (ed. 1832): “In grammar the two words story and what are put in apposition; and mean that story, the account or relation which we gave or made of the spectacle seen, etc. etc. Otherwise, with must be understood before what, and the second line be thrown into a parenthesis: but, as above interpreted, it is the natural and familiar, old English, dialogue language.”
1853- mEliot
mEliot: cald without attribution
43 What] Eliot apud Jane Irwin, orally (ms. notes in ed. 1832): “with omitted.”
1854 del2
del2
43 See n. 42
1868 c&mc
c&mccald without attribution
43 Clarke & Clarke (ed. 1868): “‘With’ is elliptically understood before ‘what.’”
1870 Abbott
Abbott
43 What] Abbott (1870, § 252): “What depends on a verb of speech, implied either in ‘assail your ears’ or in ‘story,’ i.e. ‘let us tell you what we have seen,’ or ‘our story describing what we have seen.’
“The antecedent was mostly omitted . . . . ”
1872 cln1
cln1
43
1877 v1877
v1877: han, jen, cald, ktly
43
v1877 also has a CLN1 note, which I had put in TLN 40-2 doc.
Ed. note: See v1877 n.40.
1880 meik
meikdel2 without attribution + in magenta
42-3 our story, What] Meikeljohn (ed. 1880): “Or the pointing ‘Our story—what we have two nights seen’ (the what we being an expansion or explanation of our story), might give the sense better.”
1880 Tanger
Tanger
43 Tanger (1880, pp. 121) attributes the F1 variant as “probably owing to the negligence, inattention, or criticism of the compositor.”
1881 hud3
hud3 ≈ cald2 without attribution
43 What] Hudson (ed. 1881): “‘With an account of what,’ is the meaning; the language is elliptical.”
1890 irv2
irv2: standard; review of han’s idea of SP, which he rather likes;
43 haue two nights]Marshall (ed. 1890) believes that the F1 word order is better because it keeps the auxiliary with its verb and makes two more emphatic.
irv2
43 What] Marshall (ed. 1890): “We may either take What to equal ‘With what’ or ‘Concerning what’; or we may take the whole sentence to be the explanation of the story in the preceding line.”
1903 rlf3
rlf3: standard
43 What] Rolfe (ed. 1903): “As to what, etc.”
1934 cam3
cam3
43 two nights] Wilson (ed. 1934): “The play opens on the eve of the coronation and marriage of Claudius; and the Ghost begins to walk three days before the ceremony.”
Ed. note: See time in the play
1938 parc
parc
43 haue two nights] Parrott & Craig (ed. 1938): “[Q2], supported by [Q1], reads have two nights; [F1] two nights have. This variant may be due to an editorial change for euphony, or ease of pronunciation. There are a number of such cases in [F1], Or it may be due, as Greg thinks, simply to careless work by the compositor of [F1].”
1939 kit2
kit2: standard
43 Kittredge (ed. 1939): "This clause is the object of assail your ears, i.e. force you to hear (with the suggestion of an attempt to convince): ’may make one more attempt to get a hearing from you for our account of what we have seen.’ "
1947 cln2
cln2
43 two nights] Wilson (apud Rylands, ed. 1947): “The play opens on the eve of the coronation and marriage of Claudius; and the Ghost begins to walk three days before the ceremony.”
2001 Greenblatt
Greenblatt
43 haue two nights seen] Greenblatt (2001, p.143): visits by ghosts were more likely when the memory of the loved one was fresh (or green as the king puts it), that is, within days or at most a month.
Ed. note: See, however, 322.
2006 ard3q2
ard3q2
43 What] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “i.e., with what”