Line 3502 - 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 2951-end ed. Hardin A. Aasand
3502 Hora. Remember it my Lord. | |
---|
1773 gent
gent
3502 Remember it my Lord] Gentleman (apud Bell, ed. 1773) : “There are eighty odd lines of the original, left out here: we think retaining a dozen or fifteen of them, would make the plot more clear. As to the scene, upon the whole, it would be dreadfully tedious, and most unnecessarily circumstantial.”
1780 mals
mals
3501ff You doe remember . . . ] Malone (1780, I:361) : <p. 361> “The Hystorie of Hamblet, bl [ack]. let[ter] furnished our author with the scheme of sending the prince to England, and with most of the circumstances described in this scene:‘Now, to beare him company, were assigned two of Fengon’s faithful ministers, bearing letters ingraved in wood, that contained Hamlet’s death, in such sort as he had advertised the king of England. But the subtil Danish prince (being at sea), whilst his companions slept, having read the letters, and knowing his uncle’s great treason, with the wicked and villainous mindes of the two courtiers that led him to the slaughter, raced out the letters that concerned his death, and instead thereof graved others, with commission to the king of England to hang his two companions; and not content to turn the death they had devised against him, upon their own neckes, wrote further, that king Fengon willed him to give his daughter to Hamblet in marriage.’ Hyst of Hamb. sig. G2.
“From this narrative it appears that the faithful ministers of Fengon were not unacquainted with the import of the letters they bore. Shakspeare, who has followed the story pretty closely, probably meant to describe their representatives, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, as equally guilty; as confederating with the king to deprive Hamlet of his life. So that his procuring their execution, though certainly not absolutely necessary to his own safety, does not appear to have been a wanton and unprovoked cruelty, as Mr. Steevens has supposed in his very ingenious observations on the general character and conduct of the prince throughout this piece. See Vol. X. p. 412.
“In the conclusion of his drama the poet has entirely deviated from the fabulous history, which in other places he has frequently followed. After Hamlet’s arrival in England (for no sea-fight is mentioned), ‘the king (says The Hystory of Hamblet ) admiring the young prince--gave him his daughter in marriage, according to the counterfeit letters by him devised; and the next day caused the two servants of Fengon to be executed, to satisfy as he thought the king’s desire.”’ Hyst. of Hamb. Ibid.
“Hamlet, however, returned to Denmark, without marrying the king of England’s daughter, who, it should seem, had only been betrothed to him. When he arrived in his native country, he made the courtiers drunk, and having burnt them to death, by setting fire to the banqueting-room wherein they sat, he went into Fengon’s chamber, and killed him, ‘giving him (says the relater) such a violent blowe upon the chine of the necke, that he cut his head clean from the shoulders.’ Ibid sig. F3
“He is afterwards said to have been crowned king of Denmark.
“I shall only add that this tremendous stroke might have been alledged by the advocates for Dr. Warburton’s alteration of naue into nape , in a contested passage in the first act of Macbeth , if the original reading had not been established beyond a doubt by Mr. Steevens, in his supplemental note to Vol. X [p. 358 in v1785 edition] late edition. MALONE” </p. 361>
1785 v1785
v1785 = MALS+
3501ff You doe remember . . . ] Malone (apud Steevens, ed. 1785) : “The Hystorie of Hamblet , bl. let. furnished our author with the scheme of sending the prince to England, and with most of the circumstances described in this scene: (After the death of Polonius) “ Fengon (the king in the present play) could not content himselfe, but still his mind gave him that the foole (Hamlet) would play him some trick of legerdemaine. And in that conceit, seeking to be rid of him, determined to find the meanes to doe it by the aid of a stranger, making the king of England minister of his massacrous resolution; to whom he purposed to send him, and by letters desire him to puthim to death.”
1787 ann
ann = v1785 (Only “The Hystorie of Hamblet , bl. let. furnished our author with the scheme of sending the prince to England, and with most of the circumstances described in this scene”)
3501ff You doe remember . . . ]
1793 v1793
v1793 = v1785 (minus final π[“I shall only add . . . late edition]) +
3501ff You doe remember . . . ] Steevens (ed. 1793) : “I apprehend that a critick and a juryman are bound to form their opinions on what they see and hear in the cause before them, and not to be influenced by extraneous particulars unsupported by legal evidence in open court. I persist in observing that from Shakespeare’s drama no proofs of the guilt of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern can be collected. They may be convicted by the black letter history; but if the tragedy forbears to criminate, it has no right to sentence them. This is sufficient for the commentator’s purpose. It is not his office to interpret the plays of Shakspeare according to the novels on which they are founded, novels which the poet sometimes followed, but as often materially deserted. Perhaps he never confined himself strictly to the plan of any one of his originals. His negligence of poetick justice is notorious; nor can we expect tht he who was content to sacrifice the pious Ophelia, should have been more scrupulous about the worthless lives of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Therefore, I still assert that, in the tragedy before us, their deaths appear both wanton and unprovoked; and the critick, like Bayes, must have recourse to somewhat long before the beginning of this play , to justify the conduct of the hero. STEEVENS”
1803 v1803
v1803 = v1793
3501ff You doe remember . . . ]
1813 v1813
v1813 = v1803
3501ff You doe remember . . . ]
1821 v1821
v1821 = v1813
3501ff You doe remember . . . ]
1885 macd
macd
3502 MacDonald (ed. 1885): “‘—as if I could forget a single particular of it!’”
1934 Wilson
Wilson
3499ff Wilson (1934, 2:184-85): <p. 184> “In any event, our loss through </p. 184> <p. 185> omission in Q2 is probably considerable. It is certainly so, if 5.2. [3499ff] may be taken as typical, since no fewer than eight directions seem to have been omitted from the Q2 text in this scene. They concern the fencing-match and what ensures therefrom, and may be set out as they appear both in F1 and Q1.
F1 Q1
5.2.277 Prepare to play. Heere they play.
291 They play. They play againe.
292
311 Play. They catch one anothers
313 In scuffling they change Rapiers, and both are
Rapiers. wounded, . . .
333 Hurts the King.
338 King Dyes. The king dies.
342 Dyes. Leartes dies.
“It is of course conceivable that Shakespeare did not trouble to write down every one of these directions in his manuscript; but he cannot have left them all out. And if eight stage-directions are missing in a space of sixty-six lines, how many did the compositor omit in the text as a whole? It is is impossible to tell, for unfortunately the directions in F1 are as little likely to be complete as those in Q2. We have already noted that two are lacking from the first scene in the 1623 text; and it is only too probable that Scribe C ignored many more in the prompt-book he worked from.” </p. 185>
3502