Notes for lines 2023-2950 ed. Frank N. Clary
| 2411 {Ger.}<Qu.> As kill a King{.}<?> | 3.4.30 |
|---|
1778 v1778
v1778
2411 Steevens (ed. 1778): “This interrogation may be considered as some hint, that the queen had no hand in the murder of Hamlet’s father. Steevens.”
Ed. note: The queen’s guilt or innocence must be decided in performance. See Hapgood "History": "Miss Elsworthy (1864)... is exceptional among Gertrudes...in being played as Claudius’s accomplice in the murder of her husband."
1780 malsi
malsi: Hystory of Hamblet analogue
2411 Malone ( 1780, p. 358): “It has been doubted whether Shakspeare intended to represent the queen as accessary to the murder of her husband. The surprize she here expresses at the charge seems to tend to her exculpation. Where the variation is not particularly marked out, we may presume, I think, that the poet intended to tell his story as it had been told before. The following extract therefore from The Hystory of Hamblet, bl. let. relative to this point, will probably not be unacceptable to the reader: ‘Fengon [the king in the present play] boldened and encouraged by such impunitie, durst venture to couple himself in marriage with her, whom he used as his concubine during good Horvendille’s life; in that sort spotting his name with a double vice, incestuous adulterie, and paraacide murther.—This adulterer and infamous murtherer slaundered his dead brother, that he wave slaine his wife, and that hee by chance finding him on the point ready to do it, in defence of the lady, had slaine him.—The unfortunate and wicked woman that had received the honour to be the wife of one of the valiantest and wisest princess in the North, imbased herselfe in such vile sort as to falsifie her faith unto him, and, which is worse, to marrie him that had bin the tryrranous murtherer of her lawful husband; which made diverse men think that she had beene the causer of the murther, thereby to live in her adulterie without controle.’ Hist. of Hamb. sig. C 1. 2.
“In the conference however with her son, on which the present scene is founded, she strongly asserts her innocence with respect to this fact: ‘I know well, my sonne, that I have done thee great wrong in marrying with Fengon, the cruel tyrant and murtherer of thy father, and my loyal spouse; but when thou shalt consider the small meanes of resistance, and the treason of the palace, with the little cause of confidence we are to expect, or hope for, of the courtiers, all wrought to his will; as also the power he made ready if I shold have refused to like him; thou wouldst rather excuse, that accuse mee of lasciviousness or inconstancy, much less offer me that wrong to suspect that ever thy mother Geruth once consented to the death and murther of her husband; swearing to have resisted th tyrant although it had beene with the losse of my blood, yea and my life, I would surely have saved the life of my lord and husband.’ Ibid. sig. D4.
“It is observable, that in the drama neither the king or queen make so good a defence. Shakespeare wished to render them as odious as he could, and therefore has not in any part of the play furnished them with even the semblance of an excuse for their conduct.’ Malone.”
Compare source-related note provided by Grey, which finds model in Saxo Grammaticus—see 2401 and 2408.
1783 Ritson
Ritson: contra v1778; xrefs.
2411 Ritson (1783, pp. 205-6): <p.205> “This exclamation, which Mr. Steevens things may be considered as some hint, that the queen had no hand in her </p.205><p.206> husbands murder, is as likely to proceed from
surprised guilt, as
conscious innocence. There is, indeed, no direct proof before us, of her being accessory to the late kings death: but his referring her punishment [quotes 1.5.26-28 (771-3): “to Heaven . . . sting her”] and her own confession of the
black and grained spots she sees in her very soul,
which will not leave their tinct [3.4.90-1 (2466-7)], do, surely, render her share in that shocking transaction very
suspicious.”
1784 Davies
Davies: contra v1778 (Steevens’s comment only)
2411 Davies (1784, p. 103-4): <p.103> “I cannot, with Mr. Steevens, suppose this interrogation of the Queen as a hint to the auditors that she had no concern in the murder of her husband. The words are absolutely equivocal, and may be a proof of her guilt as well as her innocence. The Ghost had charged her with being won to the lust of his brother and murderer; there he stopped, and, with the most pathetic tenderness, cautions Hamlet not to think of punishing his mother, but to leave her to heaven and her conscience. But there is one passage, in the play acted before the King and Queen, which brings the guilt of murder home to Hamlet’s mother. The Player-Queen says, among other professions of inviolable constancy,— ‘In second husband . . . kill’d the first!’ [3.2.179-180 (2047-8)].
“These lines we may suppose to be put into the old fable, by Hamlet, on purpose to probe the mind of the Queen; and his immediate reflection on her behaviour </p.103><p.104> plainly proves that they stung her to the quick: ‘That’s wormwood!’” </p.104>
1785 v1785
v1785 = v1778, malsi +
2411 Steevens (ed. 1785): “I know not what part of this tragedy the king and queen could have expected to enter into a vindication of their mutual conduct. The former indeed is rendered contemptible as well as guilty; but for the latter our poet seems to have felt all that tenderness which the ghost recommends to the imitation of her son. Steevens.”
1790 mal
mal = v1785 minus v1778 +
2411 Malone (ed. 1790): “Though the inference already mentioned may be drawn from the surprize which our poet has here made the queen express at being charged with the murder of her husband, it is observable that when the player-queen in the preceding scene says, ‘In second husband let me be accurst! None wed the second, but who kill’d the first,’ he has made Hamlet exclaim— ‘That’s wormwood.’ The prince, therefore, both from that expression and the words addressed to his mother in the present scene, must be supposed to think her guilty.—Perhaps after all this investigation, the truth is, that Shakspeare himself meant to leave the matter in doubt. Malone.”
mal
2411 Malone (ed. 1790): “Had Shakspeare thought fit to have introduced the topicks I have suggested, can there be a doubt concerning his ability to introduce them? The king’s justification, if to justify him had been the poet’s object, (which it certainly was not,) might have been made in a soliloquy; the queen’s, in the present interview with her son. Malone.”
1793 v1793
v1793 = v1778, v1785, mal + magenta underlined
2411 Steevens (ed. 1793): “This exclamation may be considered as some hint, that the queen had no hand in the murder of Hamlet’s father. It might not unappositely be observed, that every new commentator, like Sir T. Hanmer’s Othello, must often ‘make the meat he feeds on.’ Some slight objection to every opinion already offered, may be sound; and, if in doubtful cases we are to presume that ‘the poet tells his stories as they have been told before,’ we must put new constructions on many of his scenes, as well as new comments on their verbal obscurities.
“For instance—touching the manner in which Hamlet disposed of Polonius’s body. The black-letter tells us he ‘cut it in pieces, which he caused to be boiled, and then cast it into an open vault or privie.’ Are we to concluded therefore that he did so in the play before us, because our author has left the matter doubtful? Hamlet is only made to tell us, that this dead counsellor was ‘safely stowed.’ He afterwards adds, ‘—you shall nose him’ &c.; all which might have been the case, had the direction of the aforesaid history been exactly followed. In this transaction then (which I call a doubtful one, because the remains of Polonius might bave been rescued from the forica, and afterwards have received their ‘hugger-mugger’ funeral) am I at liberty to suppose he had had the fate of Heliogabalus, in cloacam missus?
“That the Queen (who may still be regarded as innocent of murder) might have offered some apology for her ‘over-hasty marriage,’ can easily be supposed; but Mr. Malone has not suggested what defence could have been set up by the royal fratricide. My acute predecessor, as well as the novellist, must have been aware that though female weakness, and an offence against the forms of the world, will admit of extenuation, such guilt as that of the usurper, could not have been palliated by the dramatick art of Shakspeare; even if the father of Hamlet had been represented as a wicked instead of a virtuous character. Steevens.”
v1793 restores v1778 note, omitted in mal, but substitutes “exclamation” for “interrogation” and expands considerably.
1819 Anon. ANN.
Anon. ANN. = v1813
2411 Steevens (apud 1819, p. 8): “This exclamation may be considered as some hint that the Queen had no hand in the murder of Hamlet’s father. Steevens.”
1819 cald1
cald1 = v1813
See abbreviated version of malsi note, provided at 2410.
1821 v1821
v1821 = v1813 +
2411 Boswell (ed. 1821): “The notes on this subject are already so long that I will content myself with asking if it can be supposed that Shakespeare intended so important a point to be left in doubt; or that Hamlet, in this interview, would directly reproach his mother with her marriage alone, if she had added to it guilt so much more enormous as the murder of her husband? Boswell.”
1826 sing1
sing1: v1778, v1793
2411 Singer (ed. 1826): “There is an idle and verbose controversy between Steevens and Malone, whether the poet meant to represent the Queen as guilty or innocent of being accessory to the murder of her husband. Surely there can be no doubt upon the matter. The Queen shows no emotion at the mock play when it is said—‘In second husband let me be accurst, None wed the second but who kill’d the first’—and now manifests the surprise of conscious innocence upon the subject. It should also be observed that Hamlet never directly accuses her of any guilty participation in that crime. I am happy to find my opinion, so expressed in December, 1823, confirmed by the newly discovered quarto of 1603; in which the Queen in a future speech is made to say—‘But, as I have a soul, I swear by heaven, I never knew of this most horrid murder.’”
Singer’s comment represents the editor as not only a scholar of opinion but one who finds in Q1 evidence for solving a controversy between scholars who could rely only on Q2 and F1 for their textual authority. Singer assumes that variants in this earliest extant quarto may be taken as authorial and authoritative.
1826 sing1
sing1 = v1821
For comment on controversy over Gertrude’s guilt, see n. 2410.
1874 Corson
Corson
2411 Corson (1874, p. 29): “The Queen’s speech should be uttered with a strong inquiring surprise. The C[am]. has a!”
In each of his “jottings on the text,” Corson notes variants between F1 and cam1, stating his preference and, to a greater or lesser extent, offering a rationale.
1877 v1877
v1877: Hystorie of Hamblet analogue
2411 Furness (ed. 1877): “See Appendix,
The Hystorie of Hamblet, p. 94 and p.
100, in reference to the Queen’s innocence; also Q1, line
1582.”
1878 rlf1
rlf1 ≈ v1877 without attribution
2411 Rolfe (ed. 1878): Kill a king?] “According to the Hystorie of Hamblet (see p. 13 above) the queen was not privy to the murder of her husband. Cf. the 1st quarto: ‘But as I haue a soule, I sweare by heauen,/I neuer knew of this most horrible murder.’ [Q1CLN 1582-3]”
1928 gor
gor
2411 Gordon (ed. 1928, p. 488): <p. 488> “In the terrible interview of mother and son, as we now have it, though she does not plead guilt, she cannot plead innocence. She was clearly no murderess; in </p. 488> <p. 489> the [. . . ] play scene it is the King who starts [3.2.265 (2136)]. She was ignorant at least how the murder had been done. But her conscience is mottled. She had guessed at the murder, and asked no questions. This terrible truth, as it settles in Hamlet’s mind, completes his tragic solitude, and makes him at once and finally the lonely Hero of the play. [. . . ] [A]fter his mother’s fall everything becomes circumstance to him, nothing more. The end is fated. There is a curse on the family which even the sentinels feel in the first scene, and it swallows them all, murderer, accomplice, revenger, with their meddling dependents.”</p. 489>
1929 trav
trav: Bradley; xref.
2411 Ger.]
Travers (ed. 1929): “in sincere amazement. See Prof. Bradley’s study of Gertrude’s ‘soft animal nature, very dull and very shallow. She loved to be happy like a sheep in the sun, and . . . it pleased her to see (or imagine) others happy like more sheep in the sun.’ Cp. p. 130 [3.2.230 (2098)], n. 5.”
1934 cam3
cam3: trav (Bradley)
2411 Wilson (ed. 1934): “’The astonishment . . . is evidently genuine’ (Bradley, p. 166).”
1947 cln2
cln2 ≈ v1778
2411 Rylands (ed. 1947): “Gertrude’s amazement shows that she is innocent of the murder of her husband.”
For comment on controversy over Gertrude’s guilt, see n. 2410.
1980 pen2
pen2 ≈ cln2
2411 Spencer (ed. 1980): “The Queen’s amazement and horror both remind the audience of the terrible nature of the King’s crime and confirm our impression of her innocence of any knowledge of it.”
1982 ard2
ard2: xref.
2411 Jenkins (ed. 1982): “Nothing said by the Ghost has accused the Queen of complicity in the murder. Her reaction manifests her innocence, but the text hardly entitles us to infer that Hamlet is deliberately putting it to the test. Rather, he does not distinguish the elements of killing and marrying in what he apparently regards as one composite crime. Cf. [3.2.184-5 (2052-3)].”
2006 ard3q2
ard3q2
2411 As kill] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “as to kill.”
2411
