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

Line 11 - 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

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

11 Bar. Tis now strooke twelfe, get thee to bed Francisco,	1.1.7

1723- mtby2

mtby2

11 Thirlby (1723-) has cross-reference to 607, where twelve has again struck.

-1761 Rochester forgery

Rochester

11 Rochester (-1761, p. 191) conj. “‘ [. . . ] Tis now past Twelve.’ This is false Syntax.”

Ed. note: John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester b.1647, d. 1680, The purported Rochester notes on Hamlet are forged, published in 1761 as a newly discovered document; the forger used Q9, published in 1695, after Rochester’s death (it seems to be the only old edition the forger had) and probably used warb, from which he also had notes by pope, all presented as original, but some notes are actually original with the forger. See Browne; Rochester in bib.

1793 v1793

v1793: // Rom.

11 now strooke] Steevens (ed. 1793): “I strongly suspect that the true reading is—new struck &c. So, in [Rom. 1.1.161 (165)], “But new struck nine.” Steevens.

1803 v1803

v1803 = v1793

11 now strooke]

1813 v1813

v1813 = v1803

11 now strooke]

1819 cald1

cald1

11 now strooke] Caldecott (ed. 1819): “Although, as confounding time past and present, this use of ’tis for ’thas is anomalous, yet, as familiar language, it is common and allowed. We also say, ‘It is gone twelve.’ The instance in the text recurs in the opening of sc. 4 [608]: ‘It is struck twelve.’ And in [Ado 1.1.95 (90)] we have —‘Don Pedro is approached.’ Messenger.”

1821 v1821

v1821 = v1813

11 now strooke]

1832 cald2

cald2 = cald1 +

11 now strooke] Caldecott (ed. 1832): Cp. “‘My sister’s man is certainly miscarried.’ Lear [5.1.5 (2851)] Reg.”

1853 Collier

Collier: Steevens + mcol1 in magenta underlined

11 now strooke] Collier (1853, p. 418): “Steevens suspected that Bernardo ought to say, “’Tis new struck twelve;’ and in the folio, 1632, as corrected in the manuscript, such is the reading: Bernardo means that he deserves Francisco’s praise for his punctuality in coming just as the clock has struck.”

1853 Singer

Singer ≈ v1821; Collier, p. 418

11 now strooke] Singer (1753, p. 261): “Steevens conjectured that instead of ‘ ’tis now struck twelve’ we should read ‘ ’tis new struck twelve,’ and the correctors adopt his reading; this is another coincidence.”

Ed. note: By correctors Singer means the supposed correctors of the Perkins F2 (i.e. mcol1).

1854 del2

del2 : Steevens; mcol1

11 now strooke] Delius (ed. 1854, Nachwort): He points out that mcol1 has what Steevens suggested but did not use: new struck.

1857 dyce1

dyce1 ≈ del2 without attribution; Steevens, col2 probably from sing2

11 now strooke] Dyce (ed. 1857): “Steevens ‘strongly suspected’ that we ought to read ‘ ’Tis new struck twelve.’ &c.; which Mr. Collier’s Ms. Corrector also gives: but is not the sense the same with either reading?”

1857 fieb

fieb = Steevens v1793, but possibly via del2

11 now strooke]

1866 dyce2

dyce2 = dyce1

11 now strooke]

1868 c&mc

c&mc: Steevens without attribution +

11 now] Clarke & Clarke (ed. 1868): “It has been proposed to substitute ‘new’ for ‘now’ here; but ‘now’ has the elliptical force of ‘just now,’ ‘but now,’ ‘this moment since.’”

1870 Abbott

Abbott

11 get thee] Abbott (§ 205): “For reasons of euphony [. . . ] the ponderous thou is often ungrammatically replaced by thee, or inconsistently by you. This is particularly the case in questions and requests, where, the pronoun beuing espeically unemphatic, thou is especially objectionable.”

Abbott

11 get thee] Abbott (1870 § 212): “Thee for thou. verbs followed by thee instead of thou have been called reflexive. But though ‘haste thee,’ and some other phrases with verbs of motion may be thus explained, and verbs were often thus used in E. E., it is probable that ‘look thee,’ ‘hark thee,’ are to be explained by euphonic reasons. Thee, thus used, follows imperatives which, being themselves emphatic, require an unemphatic pronoun. The Elizabethans reduced thou to thee. We have gone further, and rejected it altogether.”

Ed. note: See also n. 51.

1877 v1877

v1877 ≈ dyce (minus all but last clause)

11 now]

1878 rlf1

rlf1 = v1877 without attribution

11 now]

1890 irv2

irv2 = c&mc without attribution

11 now] Marshall (ed. 1890): “just now.”

1912 dtn3

dtn3: Abbott on thee instead of thou § 205, § 212

11 get thee]

dtn3 ≈ Marshall without attribution

11 Francisco] Deighton (ed. 1912): “Though Francisco is, in [23], spoken of as an ‘honest soldier,’ and in the dramatis personae is called “a soldier,’ his question ‘Bernardo?’ [8] is more like that of an equal, and it has not been explained how a common soldier came to be relieved by an officer.”

1929 trav

trav

11 get thee] Travers (ed. 1929): These words are more familiar than go you. Bernardo here addresses Francisco with “kindly superiority”; in 14 and 16, he returns to you.

1980 pen2

pen2

11 twelfe] Spencer (ed. 1980): “(when ghosts begin to walk; this prepares for [607]; compare [2259])”

1993 dent

dent

11 strooke twelfe] Andrews (ed. 1993) thinks the spelling may reflect the pronunciation.

1993 OED

OED

11 strooke] OED: Strooke is one of the spellings under strike.

Ed. note: cap spells this “strook” so do Q5, Q6; in 608, F1, F2, F3 spell strook(e), but F4 has Struck in both places. Black & Shaaber include this variant under the heading “The current is substituted for an obsolescent, archaic, or inelegant word or form” (135) David George in his paper for SAA 1997, “Long Lines, Clipping, and the Editorial Ear: The Case of Coriolanus,” meantions that “ ‘Strooke’ for ‘struck’ (four times [1.7.4; 4.1.8; 4.2.21; 4.5.220]) indicates a pronunciation from north of the Home Counties, anywhere from Warwickshire to the Scottish border. (The ‘oo’ is still used to mark the phonemic vowel ‘u’ by some writers using Midland and Northern dialect.)” p.5.