Line 2100-01 - 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 2023-2950 ed. Frank N. Clary
| 2100-1 King. Haue you heard the argument? is there no {offence} <Of-| fence> in’t? | |
|---|
1819 cald1
cald1: xref.
2100 argument] Caldecott (ed. 1819): “The subject matter. See Ophelia, supra [3.2.140 (2006)].”
1845 Hunter
Hunter
2100-1 Hunter (1845, 2:251-2): <p.251> “This seems to be an oversight, for the King is represented </p.251><p.252> as being present at the dumb show, which would make him well acquainted with the argument; and the only wonder is, that he could bear to allow the play to proceed when he had seen the show.” </.252>
1854 del2
del2: xref.
2100 offence] Delius (ed. 1854): “Auch hier, wie vorher (vgl, Anm. 39, A. 1, Sc. 5) wird offence in doppletem Sinne auggefasst. Der König versteht darunter ‘Anstoss, Aergerniss’, Hamlet ‘körperliche Kränkung, Beschädigung’.” [Also here as earlier (cf. Note 39, [1.5.135 (828)]) offence is used with double meaning. The king understands by it scandal, vexation, Hamlet a bodily offence, injury.]
1856b sing2
sing2 ≈ Hunter without attribution
2100-1 Singer (ed. 1856): “The King is represented as having been present at the dumb show, and the wonder is that he allowed the play to proceed.”
1857 fieb
fieb: xref.
2100-1 Offence] Fiebig (ed. 1857): “crime; so the king calls his murder, in his soliloquy, [3.3.36 (2312)]: ‘O, my offence is rank,’ etc.”
1868 c&mc
c&mc: xref.
2100 Haue . . .
argument]
Clarke & Clarke (ed. 1868, rpt. 1878): “This shows that the king is intended either not to have noticed the ‘dumb-show,’ or not to have known that it denoted the subject of the play. Possibly the latter; since Ophelia’s remark, ‘Belike this show imports the argument of the play,’ [3.2.140 (2006-7)] indicates that it does not necessarily do so.”
1869 tsch
tsch ≈ del2
2100 offence] Tschischwitz (ed. 1869): “offence - Verbrechen u. Aergerniss. Der König fasst das Wort in letzterm, Hamlet in ersterm Sinne auf, daher: they do but jest.” [offence - Verbrechen (crime) and Aergerniss (annoyance, scandal). The king takes the word in the second, Hamlet in the first sense, hence: they do but jest.]
1877 v1877
v1877 ≈ del2
2100 offence]
Furness (ed. 1877): “
Delius: Here again, as before in [1.5.135 (828)], this word is used in a double sense. The King means a
moral ‘offence,’ and Hamlet means a
physical ‘offence,’ or crime.”
1878 rlf1
rlf1: MND //; Halliwell
2100 argument] Rolfe (ed. 1878): “See on 122 above. The king could hardly be in doubt as to the plot of the play after seeing the ‘dumb-show.’ Halliwell asks: ‘Is it allowable to direct that the king and queen should be whispering confidentially to each other during the dumb-show, and so escape sight of it?’ If the dumb-show is to be introduced on the stage, that would not be a bad way out of the difficulty (see on 118 above). If S. is responsible for the dumb-show, we may consider it a piece of carelessness like making Philostrate in MND speak of shedding ‘merry tears’ at the rehearsal of the clowns’ play when he certainly could not have been present at the rehearsal—to say nothing of the fact that the play as rehearsed in [3.1. (814ff.)] is entirely different from the play as acted in [5.1. (1906ff.)].”
Halliwell does not make this comment in his ed. 1865.
1885 macd
macd
2100-1 MacDonald (ed. 1885): “—said, perhaps, to Polonius. Is there a lapse here in the king’s self-possession? or is this speech only an outcome of its completeness—a pretence of fearing the play may glance at the queen for marrying him?”
1889 Barnett
Barnett
2100 argument] Barnett (1889, p. 48): “plot.”
Barnett
2100-1 Offence] Barnett (1889, p. 48): “cause of offence.”
1891 dtn
dtn ≈ Barnett
2100 argument] Deighton (ed. 1891): “plot; as in [3.2.140 (2006)].”
dtn ≈ del
2100- is there . . . in’t] Deighton (ed. 1891): “does it not seem to you an objectionable one? ‘The king means a moral ‘offense,’ and Hamlet means a physical ‘offense’ or crime, as in [1.5.135 (828)]’ (Delius).”
1904 ver
ver: xref.
2100 the argument] Verity (ed. 1904): “cf. [3.2.140 (2006)]. Claudius’s next question certainly gives colour to the theory that he and the Queen did not take much note of the ‘dumb-show.’”
1913 tut2
tut2
2100-2101 is there no offence] Goggin (ed. 1913): “this question gives strong support to the theory that the King either did not understand or did not notice the dumb-show.”
1934 cam3
cam3: xrefs.
2100-1 Wilson (ed. 1934): “Cf. note [3.2.135 (1991)] S.D. The K. grows restive at the repeated performance to second marriages. In his reply Ham. quibbles on ‘offence’ as at [1.5.135 (828)]. v. G. ‘offence’”
1936 cam3b Glossary
cam3b
2100-1 offence] Wilson (ed. 1936, Glossary): “(a) anything offensive, (b) crime, injury; [1.5.135 (828)]; [3.2.236 (2104)].”
1937 pen1
pen1
2100-1 Haue . . . argument] Harrison (ed. 1937): “It was sometimes customary when plays were presented before distinguished spectators to provide them with a written or printed synopsis of the plot.”
1939 kit2
kit2: xref.
2100 the argument] Kittredge (ed. 1939): “an outline of the plot. When a play was presented at court, it was customary to submit such an outline beforehand in order to avoid incidents that might be offensive. The King’s question shows how well he is controlling himself. He knows what torture the play has in store for him (for he has seen the dumb show), but he does not betray himself, even by a tone or a look. To the courtiers his question seems to concern merely some resemblance between the play and Queen’s second marriage. Hamlet’s reply is meant to give another turn to the screw, but even then Claudius shows no distress. He merely asks [3.2.236 (2104)], with an air of polite interest, what the title of the play is.’”
1974 evns1
evns1
2100 offence] Evans (ed. 1974): “offensive matter (but Hamlet quibbles on the sense ‘crime’).”
1980 Frye, Northrop
Frye
2100-1 Frye (1980, p. 93): “It takes all the nerve of a very strong man not to break right there: when he speaks and it’s a long time before he speaks), he says [quotes 2100-1]. It’s the question of a suspicious tyrant, not of the affable and gracious king that Claudius still is to everyone except Hamlet and Horatio. . . . But it isn’t every murdering villain who would take to prayer in such circumstances.”
1980 pen2
pen2
2100-1 Spencer (ed. 1980): “The King presumably speaks to Polonius, though Hamlet replies to him.”
1982 ard2
ard2: WHH [J. Dover Wilson]; contra Hart
2100-1 Jenkins (ed. 1982): “The first sign of uneasiness in the King. It has been used both as evidence that he did not see the dumb-show, or he would have known there was ‘offence’ (e.g. WHH, p. 159), and as evidence that he did see it, or he would not have suspected ‘offence’ yet (e.g. Hart, RES, XVII, 17). (See [3.2.135 (1991)] S.D. ln.) But the pointed remarks on second marriage are obviously provocation enough. The King appears to be altered first on the Queen’s behalf rather than his own, though Hamlet’s reply can leave no doubt of what is to come."
1984 klein
klein: Mehl
2100-1 offence] Klein (ed. 1984): “If someone of the court did not understand the gesticulations in the dumb-show (cf. D. Mehl, The Elizabethan Dumb Show [London, 1965], p.118), then he or she will understand now. And Claudius must see his fears confirmed; if he felt none, he now has every reason to.”
1987 oxf4
oxf4
2100 offence] Hibbard (ed. 1987): “ (1) anything indecent or offensive to good manners (the sense Claudius has in mind) (2) any criminal action (the sense Hamlet gives it).”
1988 bev2
bev2
2100 offence] Bevington (ed. 1988): “cause for objection . . . crime.”
1993 dent
dent
2101 offence] Andrews (ed. 1993): “Offending (seditious or blasphemous) material.”
2006 ard3q2
ard3q2 ≈ pen2
2100-1 Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “These questions are perhaps addressed to Polonius rather than to Hamlet, though the latter replies. They have been taken as evidence that the King did not attend to the dumb-show, or alternatively as evidence that he did, and is now getting suspicious.”
ard3q2: 830-3 xref
2100 offence] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “The word echoes from hamlet and Horatio’s conversations about the Ghost at 1.5.136-9 [830-3]. In 1600 a monarch might be expected to find offence in a play which was less than circumspect on matters of state or religion, or which offered satirical comments that might be construed personally.”
2100 2101