HW HomePrevious CNView CNView TNMView TNINext CN

Line 2341 - Commentary Note (CN) More Information

Notes for lines 2023-2950 ed. Frank N. Clary
For explanation of sigla, such as jen, see the editions bib.
2341 Try what repentance can, what can it not,3.3.65
1746 Upton
Upton
2341-2 Try . . . repent] UPTON (1746, p. 343): “i.e. cannot willingly and from the heart repent; in opposition to a forc’d and feigned, and half-way resolution of repentance.”
1774 capn
capn
2341 repentance] Capell (1774, 1:1:139): “The soul of this wretched man is endeavouring, as sin always does, to impose upon itself: He sets out with imagining, that contrition and prayer is ‘repentance:’ but has hardly entertain’d that idea, before he feels an inward conviction, that there was a part more essential than them — restitution, and such amends as are possible; which part he wanted strength to resolve upon, and therefore says with great energy,——What can such repentance avail me, when it truth ‘tis no repentance at all? Thus taken, the expression is amazingly forcible, and the utmost effort of genius cannot word the thought better than is done in these two lines. That this was the speaker’s sense of ‘repentance,’ is evinc’d by one of his exclamations that follows: ‘Restitution’ had been in his mind, and had brought along with it the idea of his ill-got possessions; setting them in their best point of view, and making parting impossible; and hence the propriety of the exclamation at [3.3.68 (2344)],——‘O limed soul; that, struggling to be free,| Art more engag’d!’ Which he has no sooner pronounc’d, than, to shew the soul’s inconsistency, he falls into his first-conceiv’d penitence, acts of prayer and contrition, or (more properly) into attempts of them.”
1805 Seymour
Seymour: contra john
2341-2 Try . . . repent] Seymour (1805, p. 182): “Dr. Johnson’s words, I believe, afford no explanation of these, the sense of which I take to be, let me try what repentance can do—repentance can do any thing—ay, I know that is true; but with him who cannot repent, repentance is a word of no efficacy,—it is an empty name. I cannot perceive that the words in the text at all admit of Dr. Johnson’s wide inference—penitence, detached from a resolution to amend.”
1878 rlf1
rlf1: Tmp. //; Abbott
2341 can] Rolfe (ed. 1878): “Can do. Cf. Tmp. [4.1.27 (1680)]: "Our worser genius can," etc. Abbott 307.”
1891 dtn
dtn
2341 Try] Deighton (ed. 1891): “let me try.”
1903 rlf3
rlf3 = rlf1 minus Abbott for can (2341)
1939 kit2
kit2
2341 can] Kittredge (ed. 1939): “can accomplish.”
kit2: Ariosto analogue
2344 limed soul] Kittredge (ed. 1939): “The figure is that of a bird caught by alighting upon a twig smeared with the sticky substance called birdlime. The harder it struggles, the more it is besmeared and ensnared (‘engaged’). Thus the King’s soul, in its efforts to find some escape from guilt, merely succeeds in convincing itself that no escape is possible—since he can neither pray nor repent. Cf. Ariosto, Orlando Furioso, xxiii, 105: ‘Like the heedless bird that finds itself caught in a net or in birdlime: the more it beats its wings and strives to get loose, the more it entangles itself.’”
1980 pen2
pen2=rlf3 minus Tmp. //
2341 can] Spencer (ed. 1980): “can do.”
1982 ard2
ard2: Lr. //
2341 can] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “Absolute use. Cf. [4.7.84 (3081)]; Lr [4.4.8 (2356)] (‘What can man’s wisdom. . .?’); etc.”
1984 chal
chal
2341 can] Wilkes (ed. 1984): “can is capable of.”
1993 dent
dent=pen2 without attribution
2341 can] Andrews (ed. 1993): “Can do.”
1997 evns2
evns2 = evns1
2006 ard3q2
ard3q2 ≈ chal
2341 can] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “i.e. can achieve.”
2007 ShSt
Stegner: 2345 xref
2341-2 Stegner (2007, p. 119): “Yet Claudius never refers to ritual in the prayer scene; on the contrary, when Claudius debates, ’Try what repentance can. What can it not? / Yet what can it, when one can not repent?’ the language of ritual present in the Ghost of King Hamlet’s speech is absent (3.3.65-66). Claudius may display a remnant of traditional beliefs in beseeching angels for help (’Help, angels!’), but he attempts to offer a satisfactory penitential prayer rather than seek a priestly mediator (3.3.69). By refraining from killing Claudius, Hamlet simultaneously reveals a Protestant belief in the sufficiency of private repentance and a traditional conception of the spiritual powers conferred on priests in the sacrament of confession through his evocation of the priestly role of binding sins.”
2341