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

Line 418 - 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.

418 Ham. {Indeede} <Indeed, indeed> Sirs but this troubles me,	1.2.224

1726 theon

theon

418 Indeede] Theobald (1726, p. 20): The second Folio Edition (as Mr. Pope might have observ’d, who in so many Passages has a particular Regard to the Numbers,) makes a full Verse of this; ‘Indeed, Indeed, Sirs, but This troubles me.’ Which Reduplication of the Word seems to give a much stronger Emphasis to Hamlet’s Concern.”

Ed. note: Theobald had no F1.

1728 pope2

pope2: theon

418 Indeede] pope (1728, App., p. Aa4r): re theon’s doubling of indeed, with the implication that this is Theobald’s own idea: “he redoubles the word. . . .”

1773 gent1

gent1

418-41 Gentleman (ed. 1773): “There is an unspeakable degree of easy significant dialogue; in these short-well-put interrogations, and the replies.”

1805 Seymour

Seymour

418 Indeed] Seymour (1805, 2:150): “The repetition of ‘indeed’ incumbers the verse and is not in the quarto. . . .”

Ed. note: His note continues with other examples of verse-loading, which he deplores. He lacks gent’s sensitivity to colloquial ease. Theobald thought the extra indeed mended the meter.

1880 Tanger

Tanger

418 Indeede] Tanger (1880, p. 123): F1 variant “perhaps . . . owing to an interpolation of some Actor.”

1885 mull

mull

418 Sirs_^] Mull (ed. 1885): “The received punctuation of [418] seriously mars, I think, the form and significance of the reply. It seems obvious that the first clause is a courteous acknowledgment of the expressed duty of his friends towards Hamlet, and that the second relates to the startling revelation just made to him. By not treating the two clauses as independent of each other, a most impressive point is lost.”

1934 Wilson

Wilson MSH

418 Indeed] Wilson (1934, pp. 77-82) <pp. 77-9> discusses actors’ additions, </pp. 77-9> <p.80> but he wants to reconcile Q2’s omission of the extra indeed with the statement by A. C. Bradley (pp. 148-9) that Hamlet tends to repeat words and with Wilson’s own point that F1 often included actors’ additions. He disagrees with H. de Groot (Hamlet: Its Textual History, pp. 34-6) that all such additional are actors’. His conclusion is that both are right, but F1’s extraneous additions are detectable because they are extra-metrical while Q2’s omissions make the line unmetrical and therefore in those instances F1 is right. </p.82>

Ed. note: A problem with Wilson’s metrical system is that he counts on staggering lines to indicate metric lines and does not accept the evidence of other kinds of lines when it does not suit him. E.g. the extra very like in 435 presumably is one of F1’s egregious additions, but the metrical effect is not necessarily clear.

1939 kit2

kit2: Child; xref his n. 355

418 Indeede] Kittredge (ed. 1939): "Indeed, indeed, sirs: Quite right, gentlemen. ’This is Hamlet’s courteous acknowledgment of Horatio’s last remark [415-18], and indicates his approval of the conduct of his friends’ (Child). See note on [355-7]."

1982 ard2

ard2:

418-43 Jenkins (ed. 1982): “Here we pass, without abrupt or even definable transition, into one of those passages of rapid colloquial dialogue which are neither prose nor regular metre. It is with hesitation that I set out [419-42], as verse [i.e. staggering lines]; for Shakespeare clearly makes no sustained attempt to fit short speeches into pentameter lines. Yet the verse rhythm is never quite suspended; speeches of a five-foot length form single lines of blank verse . . . ; and as longer speeches supervene . . . the regular metre is resumed with perfect naturalness. Cf. 1-31 and CN.”

ard2:

418 Indeede] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “ assuredly.Not emphasizing what follows but approving what has just been said. For the F reduplication, cf. 319, 435, and Intro., p. 62.”

2006 ard3q2

ard3q2: ard2

418 Indeede] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “Q1/F’s repetition is seen as an actor’s interpolation by Jenkins, but again it regularizes the metre (see [333 CN).”