HW Home	Previous CN	View CN	View TNM	View TNI	Next CN

Line 1762-3 - 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 1018-2022 ed. Eric Rasmussen

For explanation of sigla, such as jen, see the editions bib.

1762-3 Ham. That if you be honest & faire, {you} <your Honesty> \| should admit

1765 john1

john1

1762-3 Johnson (ed. 1765): [reads “you should”] “This is the reading of all the modern editions, and is copied from the quarto. The folio reads, your honesty should admit no discourse to your beauty. The true reading seems to be this, If you be honest and fair, you should admit your honesty to no discourse with your beauty. This is the sense evidently required by the process of the conversation.”

1773 v1773

v1773 = john1

1773 jen

jen

1762-63 That...beautie.] Jennens (ed. 1773): “So the fo’s, R. and C. The rest, you should admit, &c. J. thinks the true reading to be, You should admit your honesty to no discourse, &c. But the sense then will be the very same with that of the fo’s.”

1785 mason

mason

1762-3 Mason (1785, p. 386): “The reply of Ophelia proves beyond doubt that this reading is wrong. Johnson says that the folio reads, ‘Your honesty should admit no discourse to your ‘beauty.’’ which appears to be the right reading, and requires no amendment.-- ‘Your honesty should admit no discourse to your beauty,’ means, ‘Your honesty should not admit your beauty to any discourse with her;’ which is the very sense that Johnson contends for, and expressed with sufficient clearness.”

1793 v1793

v1793

1762-3 Malone (ed. 1793): “The reply of Ophelia proves beyond doubt, that this reading is wrong.

The reading of the folio appears to be the right one, and requires no amendment.--”Your honesty should admit no discourse to your beauty,” means,--”Your honesty should not admit your beauty to any discourse with her;” which is the very sense that Johnson contends for, and expressed with sufficient clearness.”

1762-3 Steevens (ms. notes, ed. 1793): “rara est concordia formæ at[que] pudicitiæ Ovid.” Steevens

MS notes in v1793 (Bod. Mal. C.193) by Steevens, p. 164

marginal note on Steeven’s note four: “rara est concordia formæ at[que] pudicitiæ” Ovid. Steevens

1805 seymour

seymour

1762-63 if you be...beautie.] Seymour (1805): “Every body, I believe, will here remark, in the words of Hamlet, ‘Nay, that follows not.’ The reading of the folio is good sense: ‘Your honesty should admit no discourse to your beauty.’ The obscurity is in the expression— ‘admit no discourse to your beauty—’ which means ‘allow, supply, afford no discourse;’ i.e. your honesty should not enter into any discourse, &c.”

1819 cald1

cald1

1762-3 Caldecott (ed. 1819): "No address, approach to. If you really possess these qualities, chastity and beauty, and mean to support the character of both, your honesty should be so chary of your beauty, as not to suffer a thing so fragile to entertain discourse, or to be parleyed with." The lady, ’tis true, interprets the words otherwise; giving them the turn that best suited her purpose: and nothing is more frequent in our author, or more necessary to the craft of his vocation, than so to shape the phrase of his dialogue, as to accommodate it to the occasions of the succeeding speakers. Instead of "your honesty" the quartos read "you."

1826 sing1

sing1

1762-3 Singer (ed. 1826):“‘i.e. your honesty should not admit your beauty to any discourse with her.’ The first quarto reads:--- ‘Your beauty should admit no discourse to your honesty.’ That of 1604:-- ‘You should admit no discourse to your beauty.’”

1843 col1

col1

1762-3 Collier (ed. 1843): “That this is the true reading we have the evidence of the quarto, 1603, where, however, the words are transposed, viz. ‘That if you be fair and honest, your beauty should admit no discourse to your honesty.’ The quartos, 1604, &c., have merely you for ‘your honest’ of the folio. In the next line, however, the folio commits an error by substituting your for ‘with,’ found in every quarto. As Mr. Barron Field observes to me, ‘Hamlet thoughout the scene is not speaking of Ophelia personally, but of woman generally: e.g. ‘I have heard of your paintings too,’ &c., where he does not mean that he had heard that Ophelia painted, but that women were in the habit of painting themselves.”

1856 hud1 (1851-6)

hud1

1762-3 Hudson (ed. 1856): "That is, ’your honesty should not admit your beauty to any discourse with it.’--The quartos have merely you instead of your honesty.--In the next speech, the folio substitutes your for with. --It should be noted, that in these speeches Hamlet refers, not to Ophelia personally, but to the sex in general. So, especially, when he says, ’I have heard of your paintings too,’ he does not mean that Ophelia paints, but that the use of paintings is common with her sex. H."

1856b sing2

sing2=sing1+

Singer (ed. 1856): “The meaning appears to be that ‘honesty may be corrupted by flattering discourse addressed to beauty’. Hamlet remarks respecting women generally.”

1857 “INDEX” [w. brotherhead]

1762-1763 That...beautie.] INDEX (Amer. N. & Q. 1 [1857]: 65): <p. 65> “One of the speeches of Hamlet to Ophelia, either from some omission of the printer or transcriber, seems defective. The text runs thus: ‘Hamlet’ (to Ophelia,) ‘That if you be honest and fair, you should admit no discourse to your beauty.’

“Ought not the text to read thus: ‘You should admit your honesty to no discourse with your beauty,’ for the corruption of honesty, by the force of beauty, is certainly intended for the predicate of the proposition. The reply of Ophelia seems to justify such an inference, for she says, enquiringly, ‘Could beauty, my lord, have better commerce than with honesty?’

“The text, as it is, cannot be called absolute nonsense, but I do not believe it was what Shakspeare set down. I give it as a mere surmise, however, and leave the point to be settled by others more critically qualified for the task of clearing the apparent obscurity.

“Some Shakspearian critics contend, that Hamlet was really mad, in the face of his declared intention of feigning it— his advice to the players— his eloquent disclaimings in the great scene with his mother— and that matchless scene with the grave-diggers.

Index.” </p. 65>

1872 cln1

cln1

1762 honesty] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “virtue. So As You Like It, iii. 3. 30: ’For honesty coupled to beauty is to have honey a sauce to sugar.’ Johnson proposed to read here, ’You should admit your honesty to no discourse with your beauty,’ which is the sense in which Ophelia understands the words. Hamlet says that honesty or virtue, personified as the guardian of beauty, should allow none, not even himself, to discourse with the latter. The folios read ’your honesty,’ the quartos, ’you’; but that of 1603 seems to give weight to the reading of the folios."

1877 clns

clns

1762-3 That if you be . . . . beautie] Neil (ed. 1877): Quotes Henry Irving.

1881 hud2

hud2

1762-3 Hudson (ed. 1881): “‘Your chastity should have no conversation or acquaintance with your beauty.’ This use of honesty for chastity is very frequent in Shakespeare. ---It should be noted, that in these speeches Hamlet refers, not to Ophelia personally, but to the sex in general. So, especially, when he says, ‘ I have heard of your paintings too,’ [3.1.142 (1798-9)] he does not mean that Ophelia paints, but that the use of painting is common with her sex.”

1885 macd

macd

1762-3 MacDonald (ed. 1885): “Honesty so here figured as a porter, --just after, as a porter that may be corrupted.”

1899 ard1

ard1

Dowden (ed. 1899): “Hamlet had ironically baffled Polonius by commending his wisdom in restraining and secluding Ophelia; the same irony will serve again. Your father and brother were right; your virtue should permit no one to hold converse with each other, and he accepts her reading of his words.”

1934a cam3

cam3

1762-3 Wilson (ed. 1934): “i.e. your modesty ought to have guarded your beauty better than to allow it to be used as a decoy in this fashion (harking back to ‘loose my daughter’ 2.2.162 [(1196)]. Oph. naturally misunderstands and supposes him to mean that her beauty and his honesty ought not to discourse together.”

1982 ard2

ard2

1762-63 Jenkins (ed. 1982): “The proverbial incompatibility of beauty and chastity (Tilley B 163) may owe something to Pettie’s translation of Guazzo’s Civil Conversation: ’Beauty breedeth temptation, temptation dishonour: for it is a matter almost impossible, and seldom seen, that those two great enemies, beauty and honesty agree together’ (Tudor Trans., ii. 10). This proposition became familiar as a basis for Elizabethan wit. See, e.g., AYL, which states it at I. ii. 34, ’Those that [Fortune] makes fair she scarce makes honest’ and applies it in Touchstone’s dialogue with Audrey in III. iii. 24-34, ’Would you not have me honest? - No, truly, unless thou wert hard-favour’d, etc. See also Donne, Paradoxes and Problems, ’Why are the farest, falsest?’ (Problem 7) and The Second Anniversary, where it is a sign of ideal perfection when ’beauty and chastity together kiss’ (l. 364)."