HW Home	Previous CN	View CN	View TNM	View TNI	Next CN

Line 2743+47 - 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

For explanation of sigla, such as jen, see the editions bib.

2743+47 {Euen for an Egge-shell. Rightly to be great,}	4.4.54

1765 john1/john2

john1: theo

2743+47-2743+48 Rightly . . . Is not] Johnson (ed. 1765): “This passage I have printed according to the copy. Mr. Theobald had regulated it thus, ‘—’Tis not to be great, Never to stir without great argument; But greatly, &c.’

“The sentiment of Shakespeare is partly just, and partly romantick. ‘—Rightly to be great, Is not to stir without great argument,’ is exactly philosophical. ‘But greatly to find quarrel in a straw, When Honour is at stake,’ is the idea of a modern hero. ‘But then,, says he, ‘honour is an argument, or subject of debate sufficiently great, and when honour is at stake, we must find cause of quarrel in a straw.’”

1773 v1773

v1773 = john1

1774 capn

capn

2743+47-2743+48 Rightly . . . argument] Capell (1774, 1:1:142): “The reduplication of the negative [“Tis not . . . never,” introduced by POPE1] was all that was wanting in this passage to give the meaning required: but the moderns, without regard to what they found in the copies, to propriety of language, or any other consideration but that of making smooth metre, read—’Tis not to be great,|Never to stir &c.∞Other trifling words had miscarry’d in the course of this scene, previous to that in this line; and one after it, which was supply’d by the second modern.”

1778 v1778

v1778 = v1773

1784 Davies

Davies

2743+47-2743+50 Rightly. . . stake] Davies (1784, p. 122): “The slightest affront, given with a formed intention to insult and provoke, has been ever held a sufficient cause of resentment.—A case in point is the behaviour of the Spaniards to the English on Falkland-island.”

1785 Mason

Mason

2743+47-2743+50 Rightly. . . stake] Mason (1785, p. 392): “The meaning of this passage appears to me to be this:—‘Rightly to be great, is not to stir without great argument, but to consider every thing, however trifling in its own nature, as a great cause of quarrel, in which your honour is concerned.’”

1785 v1785

v1785 = v1778

1790 mal

mal = v1785 minus theo on regulation of emendation

1793 v1793

v1793 = v1785

1803 v1803

v1803 = v1793

1805 Seymour

Seymour: 1H4 //

2743+47-2743+49 Rightly . . . straw] Seymour (1805, p. 195): “i.e. Magnanimously to find quarrel, &c. A kindred sentiment we find in the 1H4 [1665-68]. where Hotspur says, ‘—I’d give thrice so much land, To any well-deserving friend; But, in the way of bargain, I’ll cavil on the ninth part of a hair.’”

1813 v1813

v1813 = v1803

1819 cald1

cald1 ≈ v1813 minus john “This passage . . .it thus”

2743+47-2743+48 without great . . . greatly] Caldecott (ed. 1819):”Without sufficient reason, but magnanimously, &c. Dr. Johnson says, the sentiment is partly just, and partly romantic.”

1821 v1821

v1821 = v1813

1832 cald2

cald2 = cald1

1854 del2

del2

2743+47-2743+50 Rightly. . . stake] Delius (ed. 1854): “Wahre Grösse besteht nicht darin, dass man sich nicht ohne eine grosse Veranlassung in Bewegung setzt, sondern darin, dass man selbst in einem Strohhalm diese Veranlassung zum Kampfe findet, wenn die Ehre auf dem Spiele steht. - Viele Herausgeber trennen is und not durch ein Komma, was aber unstatthaft ist, da not einerseits zu is, anderseits zu dem Folgenden gehört, also eigentlich zweimal stehen müsste.” [True greatness does not consist therein, that one does not go into battle without a great cause, but therein, that one can find this cause even in a straw if it is a matter of honor.—Many editors separate is and not with a comma, but this is untenable since not belongs on the one hand to is and on the other to what follows, thus really would have to be used twice.]

1868 c&mc

c&mc: Cor. //

2743+47 an Egge-shell] Clarke & Clarke (ed. 1868, rpt. 1878): “Used for a type of extremist insignificance. See Note 29, Cor. [4.4.21 (2647)].”

1869 tsch

tsch

2743+47 Rightly . . . great] Tschischwitz (ed. 1869): “Wahrhafte Grösse besteht darin, sich still zu verhalten, wenn man nicht eine grosse Veranlassung zum Handeln hat, aber eine Veranlassung zum Streite schon in einem Strohhalm zu finden, sobald die Ehre ihs Spiel kommt.” [True greatness consists in keeping still when one has no great cause for action, but finding a cause for fighting as soon as it is a question of honor.]

1872 del4

del4 = del2

1872 cln1

cln1: contra pope

2743+47-2743+48 Rightly. . . argument] Clark and Wright (ed. 1872): “Pope made a bold alteration here, and read ‘’Tis not to be great, Never to stir without great argument,’ supposing that the sentence as it stood was contradictory. But the meaning is: ‘When honour is at stake, it is the greatest of all arguments’ and the slightest pretext justifies a quarrel then.’”

1877 v1877

v1877 = john1 for “Rightly . . . stake” emend.

1889 Barnett

Barnett

2743+47-2743+50 Rightly. . . stake] Barnett (1889, p. 55): “Real greatness is not stirred simply by great subjects, but even a straw will be a subject of quarrel to it, if honour is at stake.”

1891 dtn

dtn: standard

2743+47 an Egge-shell] Deighton (ed. 1891): “the merest, most worthless, trifle.”

1899 ard1

ard1: v1877

2743+47-2743+50 Rightly. . . stake] Dowden (ed. 1899): “To stir without great argument (matter in dispute) is not rightly to be great, but to find quarrel in a straw when honour’s at the stake is an attribute of true greatness. The ‘not,’ as Furness argues, belongs to the copula, not to the predicate.”

1907 Werder

Werder

2743+47-2743+50 Rightly . . . stake] Werder (1907; rpt. 1977, p. 162): <p.162 > “If Fortinbras has to fight such a battle as Hamlet had, the warlike brawl would be ignored in the seriousness of a great and sacred task. Fortinbras and his expedition do not impress Hamlet at all, because he knows a weightier duty is imposed on him and he has much more to think of. It fosters the bitterness in him, he makes an ill use of the impression against himself from inner wrath; but he knows very well how to estimate it at its proper value. Hamlet knows that ‘truly to be great’ means fighting for a far greater cause than a mere trifle when honour is at stake; but he knows at the same time that it means not to arouse one’s self without some great object, and this Fortinbras fails to have.” </p.162>

1929 trav

trav

2743+47 Rightly] Travers (ed. 1929): “in the right sense of the word, truly.”

1934 cam3

cam3 ≈ v1877

2743+47-2743+50 Rightly . . . the stake] Wilson (ed. 1934): “i.e. Fighting for trifles is mere pugnacity, not greatness; but it is greatness to fight instantly and for a trifle when honour is at stake (after Furness).”

1939 kit2

kit2: xref.

2743+47-2743+50 Rightly . . . stake] Kittredge (ed. 1939): “True nobility of soul is—to restrain one’s self unless there is great cause for resentment, but nobly to recognize even a trifle as such a cause when honour is involved. Hamlet rings the changes on the word ‘great.’ Greatly in [4.4.55 (2743+49)] means ‘nobly,’ ‘as a great soul should.’”

1980 pen2

pen2

2743+47-2743+50 Rightly . . . stake] Spencer (ed. 1980): “true greatness does not consist in rushing into action on account of any trivial cause; but when the cause is one involving honour, it is noble to act, however trivial the subject of dispute may be.”

1982 ard2

ard2: cap, Bradley, pope, john, mal, kit, v1877, ard1, ver, Dover Wilson,

2743+47-2743+50 Rightly . . . stake] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “The construction is that true greatness is not this but that; and the single negative requires to be taken in a double sense—i.e. Is not to stir = Is not not to stir, as Capell read. ln. This is perhaps an instance of what Bradley (p.76) calls Shakespeare’s negligence in ‘sometimes only half saying what he meant, and sometime saying the opposite’. Pope with his usual license rewrote the passage; but at least he led the early editors in grasping the double negation of the sense. The numerous attempts to interpret the words as they stand, with only a single negation, divide according as not is taken with Is or with to stir. The second half of the proposition creates no difficulty: there is greatness in fighting even over a trifling thing where honour is involved. It is what is being opposed to this that presents the problem. A long line of critics (from Johnson and Malone to Kittredge and his followers) finds that in a trifling matter it is great not to stir (1); a contrary line (running from Furness through Dowden, Verity, and Dover Wilson) finds that it is not great to stir (2). Interpretation (1), contrasting the greatness of not stirring with the greatness of stirring, misses the antithetical force of not . . . but and, by finding any praise for passivity, goes against the whole weight of the soliloquy. Interpretation (2), contrasting greatness and lack of greatness in stirring, offers a proposition of which the first half is so obvious as to be pointless; and by making the distinction turn solely on whether action is or is not associated with honour, enfeebles the antithesis.

“It seems clear that what Hamlet and Shakespeare are first asserting, even though the words do not precisely say this, is that there is no greatness in refraining from acting because the grounds are insufficient. That there may be virtue, rightly considered, is emphatically not greatness—which is, however, to be found in the perception, through a loftiness of spirit (greatly), even in a trivial circumstance, of some principle of honour which prompts to action. Thus the true antithesis is neither between two kinds of greatness (1), nor between two causes of action (2), but between greatness in taking action and lack of greatness in refraining from it; so that these lines fall in with and reinforce all the rest of the soliloquy by depreciating passive forbearance and emphasizing the nobility of action.”

1984 klein

klein: cap, evns1

2743+47-2743+50 Rightly . . . stake] Klein (ed. 1984): “Hamlet’s maxim expresses distance and criticism; the latter is partly neutralised by the subsequent self-criticism. (Capell, followed by Evans, inverts the entire sense by the ’mental’ adding of a second not.).”

1987 oxf4

oxf4: Tilley

2743+47 Egge-shell] Hibbard (ed. 1987, Appendix): “proverbially worthless (Tilley E95).”

oxf4

2743+47-2743+50 Rightly . . . stake] Hibbard (ed. 1987, Appendix): “i.e. true greatness does not consist in refraining from action when there is no compelling cause to act, but in finding a compelling cause in the merest trifle when one’s honour is in question.”

1998 Kelley

Kelley: pope, john, cap, mal, kitt, cam3, OED; xref.

2743+47-2743+50 Rightly . . . stake] Kelley (1998): “This line has caused confusion to critics and actors alike. Critics have concluded that Shakespeare was ‘only half-saying what he meant.’ Pope and Johnson and Malone and Capell and Kittredge and Dover Wilson have all focused on the adverb ‘not’ as the problem, many concluding that the real sense is a double negative (i.e., ‘Rightly to b e great/is not not to stir without great argument . . .’). The real solution is in the verb ‘stir,’ which has been misapprehended to mean ‘beginning decisive action.’ However, the OED reveals that ‘stir’ connotes ‘gently moving fom side to side.’ The word ‘without’ is used in the sense of ‘for lack of’ or ‘lacking.’ So, if we phrased the thought correctly: ‘Rightly to be great is not to stir without great argument’ (with this phrase describing a state of worried inactivity). We bow begin to get the real sense of the line: ‘Rightly to be great is not to [move gently from side to side for lack of a] great argument, but greatly to find quarrel in a straw when honour’s at the stake.’ As to ‘stir.’ The Shorter OED offers: I v.t. (1) (a) Move, set in motion; esp. cause to make a slight or momentary movement; disturb, move gently to and fro. OED II. v.i. 11. Begin to move; make a slight movement, move to and fro; move slightly (usu. in neg. contexts). Also, show signs of life or consciousness. OE. This approach to the line plays beautifully because it is comprehensible when spoken, is immediate rather than reflective, and (most important) offers a fresh contrast between action and inaction, the thing Hamlet has been grappling with for about three hours. Since he is presented with new information in the marching Norwegians (‘examples gross as earth’), and by the end of the speech has become a man of action, it is necessary that he has a Fresh insight at this moment. The penny has dropped. Hamlet believes that Fortinbras is marching against the Poles for a ‘straw’ (cf. [4.4.26 (2743+19)]—an insignificant thing, and yet Fortinbras does not engage in hand-wringing (stirring for lack of a Great Cause). Rather, he takes action, risking everything and showing tremendous courage. How much more should he (Hamlet), with every justification, have the courage to take action.”

2006 ard3q2

ard3q2: 2743+19, 2743+49 xref; Tilley

2743+47 eggshell] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “proverbially worthless (Tilley E95), like the straw of 25 [2743+19] and 54 [2743+49].”

ard3q2: Hibbard

2743+47-50 Rightly. . . stake] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “On the face of it, Hamlet seems to be saying that the truly great man will not stir (take up arms) without an important motive, but he will if his honour is being challenged. Many editors are unhappy with this meaning and insist that not should be read as a double negative: ’true greatness does not consist in refraining from action when there is no compelling cause to act, but in finding a compelling cause in the merest trifle when one’s honour is in question’ (Hibbard). Perhaps the underlying problem is that Hamlet insists on admiring Fortinbras while at the same time acknowledging the absurdity of his actions.”