Notes for lines 0-1017 ed. Bernice W. Kliman
| 765 O horrible, ô horrible, most horrible. | 1.5.80 |
|---|
1765 john1
john appendix
765 Johnson (ed. 1765, 8: L12v): “It was very ingeniously hinted to me by a learned lady, that this line seems to belong to Hamlet, in whose mouth it is a proper and natural exclamation, and who, according to the practice of the stage, may be supposed to interrupt so long a speech.”
1772 Garrick
Garrick
765 Garrick (1772) supposedly followed the learned lady’s suggestion.
1772 SJC
Anon. Hic et Ubique: Garrick
765 Hic et Ubique [Steevens] (St. James’s Chr. no. 1717 [20-22 Feb. 1772]: 4): “I approve much of Hamlet’s speaking the line ‘O horrible, horrible’ which divides the long Speech of the Ghost, and gives a Line of Energy to Hamlet, who is too long silent without it—yet I doubt whether Shakespeare intended it.”
1773 gent1
gent:
765 Gentleman (ed. 1773):“This line in representation is very judiciously given to Hamlet, as the remark more fitly comes from him; and it pleasingly divides the Ghost’s speech, which in the original is very tedious.”
1774 gent2
gent 1774 = gent 1773 (subst.)
765 Gentleman (ed. 1774):“This line, in representation, is very judiciously given to Hamlet, as the remark more fitly comes from him; and it pleasingly divides the Ghost’s speech, which in the original is very prolix.”
1773 v1773
v1773 = john1 appendix
765
1778 v1778
v1778 = v1773
765
1785 v1785
v1785 = v1778
765
1800? C. Boaden
Boaden: v1793
765 Boaden (ms. notes, c.1800): “It has been conjectur’d that the line ‘Oh, horrible, &c.’ should be given to Hamlet: I confess I think otherwise; and that Shakespeare intended to keep Hamlet breathless with attention and horror, till the Ghost disappears.”
Ed. note: in copy of Q5 (DYCE M 8965 D.25.63)
1803 v1803
v1803 = v1793
765
1813 v1813
v1813 = v1803
765
1819 Jackson
Jackson: john, Ritson, as in 762, without attribution
765 Jackson (1819, p. 349): “The lady who suggested to Dr. Johnson that this line belongs to Hamlet was unquestionably right. The exclamation is natural, and must have been waited for by the Ghost. Even the subsequent verse shows that the Ghost approves the horror, and, at the same time, the sympathy displayed by Hamlet at the unprepared state in which his father was sent to answer for his crimes. Nor does the impression become in any measure defaced, while awaiting a suitable opportunity to revenge his father’s cause. See [3.4] where the King is at his prayers. The same horror strikes Hamlet’s imagination, and he deems revenge incomplete, unless he can send him to the other world, unprepared, ‘With all his imperfections on his head.’ ”
1821 v1821
v1821 = v1813
765
1839 knt1
knt1
765 Knight (ed. 1839): “This line, in all the old copies, is given to the Ghost; but it was always spoken by Garrick, in his character of Hamlet, as belonging to the Prince according to stage tradition.”
1843 col1
col1: Johnson [erroneously]
765 Collier (ed. 1843): “Johnson recommended that this line should be transferred to Hamlet, and Garrick so repeated it; but that it was not so intended by the poet is proved by every old copy, including the quarto, 1603. One reason stated by Johnson for assigning it to the hero was, that the speech of the Ghost was too long uninterrupted for the practice of the stage: according to the earliest copy of the play, Hamlet here interposed the interjection of ‘O God!’ but it is found in no other edition.”
Ed. note: Collier is wrong on two counts: Johnson was not the one who recommended the change and Q1 does show Hamlet interrupting the ghost, if with a different exclamation from that in 765.
1844 verp
verp = john; = knt1 on Garrick +
765 Verplanck (ed. 1844): “In the earliest edition of the tragedy, the Ghost’s speech is here broken by Hamlet’s interjection of ‘Oh, God!’ On this authority, added to the strong internal evidence, I have ventured to deviate from the old copies. This has been done with less reluctance here, because errors of this nature, the assigning words or lines to the wrong person, are not uncommon in the old editions; and, in several instances, no editor has hesitated to correct them.”
1853- mEliot
mEliot ≈ sing1 without attribution
765
1854 del2
del2 standard
765 Delius (ed. 1854): “Einige Herausgeber haben, im Widerspruch mit den alten Ausgaben und ohne Grund, diese Zeile dem Hamlet zuertheilen wollen.” [Some editors, in contrast to the old editions and without basis, want to give this line to Hamlet.]
Singer, below, provides the ground.
1856 hud1
hud1 :
john1 [by way of
col1?], Garrick,
Verplanck 765 Hudson (ed. 1856): “The old copies print this line as part of the Ghost’s speech. Johnson thought it should be transferred to Hamlet, and Garrick delivered it as belonging to the Prince, according to the tradition of the stage. These authorities and the example of Mr.
Verplanck have determined us in the change.
H.”
1856 sing2
sing2 = john1; knt1 and others without attribution
765 Singer (ed. 1856): “This line in the old copies is given to the Ghost. It had long since been suggested to Johnson that it evidently belongs to Hamlet, and Garrick always thus delivered it.”
1858 col3
col3 = col1 minus everything after the date 1603 (i.e. the last sentence) +
765 Collier (ed. 1858): “The old annotator on the fo. 1632, also, who was usually very attentive to such matters, made no change. We therefore make none.”
1860 stau
stau ≈ sing2 without attribution
765 Staunton (ed. 1860): “Notwithstanding the unanimity of the old copies in assigning this line to the Ghost, there can be little doubt it was intended to be spoken by Hamlet, as in acting, indeed, it usually is.”
Ed. note: stau did not, however, change the text.
1861 wh1
wh1 ≈ sing1
765 White (ed. 1861): “This line is part of the Ghost’s speech in all the old copies; but Dr. Johnson thought, with reason, that it should be spoken by Hamlet, and such was Garrick’s practice. After it in the 4to. of 1603 Hamlet exclaims, ‘O God!’”
1864 N&Q
Algar
765 Algar (3 N&Q 6 [Dec. 10, 1864]: 468): “by the first exclamation he refers, perhaps, to his own condition; but by the latter, to the Queen’s marriage, as he immediately explains. H. Algar.”
1866 dyce2
dyce2 : standard on Mrs. Montague without attribution, ref. to Q1 ≈ verp without attribution
765 Dyce (ed. 1866): “Perhaps the second of these lines belongs to Hamlet.—The corresponding passage in the quarto of 1603 is ‘With all my accompts and sinnes vpon my head, | O horrible, most horrible! | Ham. O God! | Ghost. If thou hast nature in thee, beare it not.’”
1866 cam1
cam1: john ; knt1 without attribution
765 Clark & Wright (ed. 1866)“‘A very learned lady,’ probably Mrs Montagu, suggested to Johnson that this line ‘O, horrible! O, horrible! most horrible! should be given to Hamlet. Rann appears to be the first editor who put it in his text. Mr
Verplanck and Mr Hudson have followed his example.
“In the Quarto of 1603, (Q1), the Ghost says ‘O horrible, most horrible! and Hamlet interrupts with ‘O God!’”
Ed. note: Gentleman was the 1st ed. to put the SD in his text, which was based on Garrick’s practice. knt1 was the 1st mainstream editor who mentioned Garrick for this line.
1867 Keightley
Keightley: sing2 without attribution (or one of those who precede or follow sing2)
765-6 Keightley (1867, p. 288): “Beyond question, as Johnson saw, this exclamation belongs to Hamlet. Ham. and Ghost had been effaced.”
Ed. note:When Keightley supplies words, mostly at the beginning of lines, he says it’s because ms. edges got rubbed off. Keightley probably got the idea about john from wh1, because wh1 also gets it wrong; it’s not Johnson but an unnamed lady (see cam1) who suggested the SP Ham.
1868 c&mc
c&mc
765 Clarke &
Clarke (ed. 1868): “Notwithstanding that all the old copies concur in assigning these words to the ghost, some editors have given them to Hamlet. We think they markedly belong to the ghost, if it were only on account of the emphatic triple iteration, which is so completely consistent with the previous three-fold ‘List, list, oh, list!’ [707] and the subsequent repetition of ‘Swear!’”
1872 cln1
cln1
765 Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “Given by Rann and some other editors to Hamlet.”
1872 hud2
hud2 ≈ hud1 (me instead of us)
765
1874 Corson
Corson: F1, cam1 +
765 O . . . ô] Corson (1874, p. 15): “The ‘Cambridge editors make no distinction between the emotional interjection, ‘Oh,’ and the ‘O’ vocative, but print both ‘O.’ It can be seen, I think, that the distinction was intended to be made in the F.; the use of ‘Oh’ and ‘O’ is, however, quite irregular there. But in a modernized text, consistency requires that the distinction should be made, as it is one that is observed in modern orthography. It is a distinction, too, not merely factitious, as might be supposed, but based on good ground. ‘There is a difference between “O sir!” “O King!” and “Oh! sir,” “Oh, Lord!,” both in sense and pronunciation. As to the sense, the O prefixed merely imparts to the title a vocative effect; while the Oh conveys some particular sentiment, as of appeal, entreaty, expostulation, or some other. And as to the sound, the O is enclitic; that is to say, it has no accent of its own, but is pronounced with the word to which it is attached, as if it were it unaccented first syllable. The term Enclitic signifies “reclining on,” and so the interjection O in “O Lord” reclines on the support adfforded to it by the accentual elevation of the word “Lord.” So that “O Lord” is pronounced like such a disyllable as alight, alike, away; in which words the metrical stroke could never fall on the first syllable. Oh! on the contrary, is one of the fullest of monosyllables, and it would be hard to place it in a verse except with the stress upon it. The example from Wordsworth illustrates this. “But she is in her grave,— and oh The difference to me!”’ Earle’s Philology of the English Tongue, 2d ed. pp. 191-2.”
1877 dyce3
dyce3 = dyce2
765
1878 col4
col4 ≈ col3 minus ref. to old corrector
765
1881 hud3
hud3 = hud2; Dyce on Q1 without attribution
765
1883 wh2
wh2: standard
765 White (ed. 1883): “not improbably this line should be an exclamation by Hamlet.”
1885 mull
mull: standard
765 Mull (ed. 1885): “Some editors think that this line should be given to Hamlet. It certainly seems more appropriate to him.”
1888 macl
macl: standard
765 Maclachlan (ed. 1888) thinks the line belongs to the ghost, as designated in Q2 and F1.
1939 kit2
kit2: Q2/F1 VN; quotes the part of john that supports the view that the line belongs to Ham.; +
765 Kittredge (ed. 1939): "The next line is clearly the Ghost’s reply to Hamlet’s exclamation."
1977 Teaching Sh.
Beckerman
765 Beckerman (1977, p. 312): "In that cry Hamlet assimilates his father’s pain. The words, in themselves, are undistinguished. Yet coming as they do at the crux of the Ghost’s reaction, they express the deepest revulsion at the same time as they mark an end of the reaction to what has passed. They are followed by directions for the future. The Ghost has successfully transferred the burden of revenge from himself to his son."
Eds note: In insisting on Hamlet’s having this line, does Beckerman subvert his general argument?
1980 pen2
pen2
765 O . . . most horrible] Spencer (ed. 1980): “On the stage, from Garrick’s time, this line has often been transferred to Prince Hamlet. The interruption serves to break up the Ghost’s long speech.”
1982 ard2
ard2: john; kit2
765 Jenkins (ed. 1982): “Johnson remarks that it was ’ingeniously hinted’ to him ’by a very learned lady’ that this line should belong to Hamlet. Many eds., including Kittredge, have given it to him, and many actors of Hamlet, including Garrick, Irving, and Forbes Robertson, have spoken it. But it is not out of character for the Ghost, who would appear from Q1 to have spoken it on the Elizabethan stage, and who is not to be deprived of it against the united authority of all three texts.”
2006 ard3q2
ard3q2: rann; ard2; performance
765 Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “Johnson, who claimed to be following the hint of ’a learned lady’, notes in an appendix that this line might be spoken by Hamlet; Rann’s edition was the first to reassign it (though Q1 has Hamlet interject ’O God’ at this point). Editors have conjectured that Johnson’s lady was either Elizabeth Montagu or Elizabeth Carter, but Oya (23) points out that in fact the suggestion had been made to Garrick in a letter from P[[eter]] W[[halley]] dated 20 February 1744 (see Boaden, 23) and he spoke the line on stage. Subsequent Hamlets, including Kemble, Kean, Irving, Gielgud, Olivier (in the 1948 film) and Jacobi (in the 1980 BBC television version) have also used it effectively to break the Ghost’s monologue. Kiasashvili (186) records that, without having access to any of these sources, Ivane Machabeli independently gave the line to Hamlet, the only significant change in his otherwise faithful Georgian translation of 1886.”
765 766
