HW HomePrevious CNView CNView TNMView TNINext CN

Line 971 - Commentary Note (CN) More Information

Notes for lines 0-1017 ed. Bernice W. Kliman
For explanation of sigla, such as jen, see the editions bib.
971 Oph. {O my Lord, my Lord} <Alas my Lord>, I haue beene so affrighted,2.1.72
1755- mmal4
mmal4
971 affrighted] Malone (ms. note in Johnson Dict.,1755): “These colder climates are more rarely infested with such affrightful accidents.’ B.P. Hall Sermon 33.
1784 Davies
Davies
971-97 Davies (1784, 3:36): “The first indication of his assumed madness Hamlet gives to Ophelia, from a supposition that she would impart immediate information of it to her father.”
1853 Eckhardt (Verlesungen über Hamlet. Aarau)
Eckhardt
971 affrighted] Eckhardt (1853, p. 96, apud Furness, ed. 1877): “The supposition that Hamlet went to Ophelia directly after the interview with the Ghost is incorrect, and for the following reasons: first, the interview between Polonius and Reynaldo implies that some time has elapsed since the departure of Laertes for Paris; secondly, during this time Ophelia has returned Hamlet’s letters, and denied him access; her father asks her, ‘Have you given him any hard words of late?’ The letter which Polonius reads to the King must, therefore, have belonged to a period before the opening of the drama. Ophelia had strictly obeyed her father’s commands, and returned all Hamlet’s letters. Thirdly, Polonius goes at once to the King, and yet, when he speaks to him of Hamlet, the King already knew of Hamlet’s (feigned) insanity, and therefore must himself have seen the Prince before Ophelia saw him. Fourthly, between the close of the first act and the present scene, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern must have been summoned on account of Hamlet’s changed demeanor, and of the King’s suspicions which that demeanor had aroused.”
1873 rug2
rug2
971-97 Moberly (ed. 1873): “There is a wonderfully fine contrast between the prolix slyness of Polonius’ attempt to find out what would be better unknown [892-962], and the scene of distracting and passionate misery which shows how Hamlet’s soul has been shattered by an unsought-for revelation [970-97].”
c.1875 Fleay
Fleay
971 Fleay (c. 1875, p. 94) asserts that it is part of Hamlet’s plan to convince everyone that he is mad because of love. “He never thinks how this inferential madness may affect the girl.”
1877 v1877
v1877 = rug2
971-97
1880 Tanger
Tanger
971 O my Lord, my Lord] Tanger (1880, p. 126) F1 variant “seems to be owing to an interpolation of some Actor.”
1891 dtn1
dtn1 ≈ Davies without attribution
971-97 Deighton (ed. 1891, pp. xviii-xix): <p. xviii> “Hamlet knows well enough that a father’s vanity will be tickled by the belief that his daughter is loved to such distraction by one so much above her in station, and that the garrulous old man will not only at once carry the </p. xviii> <p. xix> news to the king, but will do his best to instill into him the same faith. No more crafty design could have been conceived for hoodwinking Polonius, and though him the king by whom he was held in such high esteem for his penetration.” </p. xix>
1898 Brandes
Brandes
971-97 Brandes (1898, pp. 381-2): <p. 381> “Hamlet draws away from Ophelia the moment when he feels himself the appointed minister of a sacred revenge. [In dramatic terms this is true even though their encounter in her closet occurs some 2 months after the ghost’s visitation.] </p. 381> <p. 382> In deep grief he bids her farewell without a word [. . . ].” </p. 382>
1898 Brandes
Brandes
971-97 Brandes (rpt. 1920, p. xii) detects in Hamlet’s “silent farewell” to Ophelia his disillusionment with all womankind. She is among the “trivial fond records” that he will now abjure. She has shown by her rejection of his letters and visits that she is not up to being a help to him.;
971