Line 86 - 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 0-1017 ed. Bernice W. Kliman
| 86 Mar. Good now sit downe, and tell me he that knowes, | 1.1.70 |
|---|
1736 Stubbs
Stubbs
86 Mar. . . . knowes] Stubbs (1736, pp. 12-13): “The whole Discourse concerning the great Preparations making in Denmark is very Poetical, and necessary also towards the introducing of Fortinbras in this Play, whose Appearance gives Rise to one Scene, which adds a Beauty to the whole; I mean That wherein Hamlet makes those noble reflections upon seeing That Prince’s Army. Besides, this Discourse is necessary also to give the Ghost time to appear again, in order to affect the Spectators still more; and from this Conversation, the Interlocutors draw one Reason, why the Spirit appears in Arms, which appears rational to the Audience. It give also Horatio an Opportunity of addressing the Ghost in the beautiful Manner he does.”
1755 Johnson Dict.
Johnson
86 good now] Johnson (1755): “Good. adv. 1. Well; not ill; not amiss. . . . Good-now. interjection. 1. In good time; a la bonne heure. A gentle exclamation of intreaty. It is now a low word. [quotes Ham. 86-7a]
1773 gent1
gent1
86 Gentleman (ed. 1773): “We cannot be altogether of opinion, that persons struck by so awful and unusual an appearance, could so soon turn to another subject of conversation.”
1779 Sheridan
Sheridan
86 Sheridan (1779, rpt. 1946, p. 313), in The Critic; or A Tragedy Rehearsed 2.2, satirizes exposition; because the audience requires the information, playwrights make characters ask one another questions .
1819 cald1
cald1 = Johnson
86 good now] Caldecott (ed. 1819): “In good time: à la bonne heure. An interjection, a gentle exclamation of intreaty.—Johns. Dict. As an adverb, he interprets it, well.”
1819 Coleridge
Coleridge
86-95 Mar. Good . . . mee?] Coleridge (1819, rpt. 1987, 5.2:296): “The exquisitely natural transit into the narration retrospective.”
1832 cald2
cald2 = cald1
86 good now]
1854 del2
del2
86 Good now] Delius (ed. 1854): “good now bildet zusammen eine Interjection freundlicher Aufforderung, ähnlich wie sweet now, = wohlan ! und darf nicht getrennt werden.” [good and now together form an interjection of friendly encouragement similar to sweet now = now then! and may not be separated.]
1870 Abbott
Abbott
86 Good now] Abbott (§ 13): “The emphatic nature of this appellative ‘good’ is illustrated by [quotes 86] where the noun is omitted. . . . “Gunnow’ (good now) is still an appellative in Dorsetshire.”
Abbott
86 tell . . . knowes] Abbott § 364 indicates that the imperative can sometimes be used as a subjunctive but here is imperative.
1872 cln1
cln1: // WT 5.1.19 [2748]
86 good now]
1874 Corson
Corson: F1, cam1 +
86 Good now] Corson (1874, p. 9): “‘Good’ is a vocative, and ‘now’ belongs to ‘sit down.’”
1877 v1877
v1877: Johnson (def. 1 minus “low”); Abbott; Corson
86 Good now]
v1877 = Coleridge
86-145 Coleridge (apud ed. 1877): “How delightfully natural is the transition to the retrospective narrative! And observe, upon the Ghost’s reappearance, how much Horatio’s courage is increased by having translated the late individual spectator into general thought and past experience,—and the sympathy of Mar. and Ber. with his patriotic surmises in daring to strike at the Ghost; whilst in a moment, upon its vanishing, the former solemn awe-stricken feeling returns upon them; see 143-144.”
1881 hud3
hud3
86 Good now] Hudson (ed. 1881): “‘Good now’ was often used precisely as the phrase ‘well now.’ Also, good for well. . . .”
1891 dtn1
dtn1: standard
86 Good now] Deighton (ed. 1891): “very well, then; or perhaps used as in [WT 5.1.19 (2748) and quotes; Err. 4,4,22 (1303) and quotes], i.e. my good fellow.”
dtn1
86 tell . . . knowes] Deighton (ed. 1891): “let him who knows tell me.”
1894 rlf1
rlf1: + //s
86 Good now] Rolfe (ed. 1903): “For this “vocative use” of good (with or without now), cf. [Tmp. 1.1.3 (7), Err. 4.4.22 (1303), Tro. 3.1.122 (1586), Ant. 1.2.25 (105)], etc.”
1899 ard1
ard1 ≈ del without attribution + in magenta underlined
86 Good now] Dowden (ed. 1899): “Please you, as in [WT 5.1.19 (2748)]; Q1 places a comma after “good,” connecting “now” with “sit down.”
1913 tut2
tut2
86-95 Goggin (ed. 1913) reasons that while it is incredible that Marcellus, a soldier on watch, would require information from a
student recently returned from Wittenberg, especially since the king refers to the matter as well known (“that you know”), Sh, needs to provide the exposition.
tut2 ≈ rlf3 without attribution + in magenta underlined
86 Good now] Goggin (ed. 1913): “‘sirs’; for the vocative use of good with ellipsis of the noun cp. [WT 1.1.19 (390), and [Tmp. 1.1.16 (23)].”
1929 trav
trav
86 Good]
Travers (ed. 1929): “either adverbial = “well,” or, substantively in the vocative.”
1930 Granville-Barker
Granville-Barker
86 Granville-Barker (1930, rpt. 1946, 1: 47) thinks that all sit and relax, not expecting the ghost to return, but that the audience would expect the ghost to re-appear.
1931 crg1
crg1 : standard ≈ del
86 Good now] Craig (ed. 1931): “an expression denoting entreaty or expostulation.”
1939 kit2
kit2: //s Err., WT, Ant. without attribution; ≈ gog without attribution in providing the noun
86 Good] Kittredge (ed. 1939): “my good friend.”
kit2 = dtn without attribution
86 tell . . . knowes]
1947 cln2
cln2 ≈ ard1
86 Good now] Rylands (ed. 1947): “if you please.”
1980 Bradbrook
Bradbrook
86-124 Bradbrook (1980, p. 109) finds exposition in dialogue even more awkward than in soliloquy: characters are made not to know what they can reasonably have been expected to know. She illustrates this idea cleverly from Sheridan’s The Critic 2.2, diagnosing the technique as “temporary amnesia of the first act.”
1980 bev1
bev1 = crg1 without attribution
86 Good now]
1982 ard2
ard2 ≈ Abbott
86 Good now]
1985 cam4
cam4 = ard1
86 Good now]
1987 oxf4
oxf4 ≈ Abbott 13
86 Good now] Hibbard (ed. 1987): “Now my good friends.”
oxf4: Abbott § 364
86 tell . . . knowes] Hibbard (ed. 1987): “let him who knows tell me.”
1987 Mercer
Mercer
86-124 Mercer (1987, p. 129): In the question and answer, the ghost disappears in a mass of busy preparations and legalistic explanation, which takes us far from the direct action of the former king. Ed. note: See also Mercer’s comments in Play as a Whole section on this site.
1992 fol2
fol2 : standard
86 tell . . . knowes] Mowat & Werstine (ed. 1992): “i.e., let him who knows tell me“
1996 Snyder
Snyder
86-124+18 Snyder (1996, rpt. 2002, pp. 93, 100-2): <p. 93> Sh. devotes considerable space to set up an impending conflict that, abruptly, is resolved when the ambassadors return [1086-105]. By then the ghost’s disclosure to Hamlet had substituted another impetus for the plot, something closer at hand than an external enemy. Snyder treats the matter of “unfulfilled” “lines of action”: Though she points out secondary functions of the threat (the parallel motif of a son avenging a father; the opportunity for Sh. to develop the character of the king), she has something else in mind. </p. 93>
<p. 100> She suggests that Sh. begins this indirect way in several plays to turn from unmistakable outer enemy to ambiguous inner enemy. </p.100> <p. 101> She considers the effect on an audience to be a heightening of attention, a pulling-up short, a focusing of attention—an effect that would be lost on present-day audiences familiar with the play. </p. 101> <p. 102> Analogizing, she discusses the effect of turns in sonnets, effects more available to a modern audience because less familiar with the poems, and she ends with the assertion that the turns she has been discussing in the plays are deliberate. </p. 102>
2006 ard3q2
ard3q2: Mercer (1987) on change of mood without attribution
86-124+18 Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “It seems curious that the men, in all three texts, seem to recover from the shock of seeing the Ghost and move so quickly to the indirectly related topic of Denmark’s preparations for war, though this preoccupation makes the Ghost’s reappearance more effective.”
ard3q2: standard
86 Good now] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “’An expression of entreaty, good being a vocative with the omission of the noun’ (Jenkins), i.e. ’good friends’ or ’good Horatio’”
ard3q2 xref
86 sit downe] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “See [40] and n.”
2008 SQ
Halpern
86-95 Halpern (2008, p. 462): “These nameless laborers are no less anonymous than the maggots, worms, and violets that perform nature’s work—and theirs too proceeds without interruption, eradicating the distinction between Sabbath and work week, night and day. Perhaps this is in part what it means to say that time is out of joint . . . . In any case, this anonymous background bustle . . . serves as both foil for and mockery of Hamlet’s paralysis of the act.” [See Halpern, CN 2685].
86