3561 defeat] Capell (1774, 1:1:Glossary): “[Ham. 5.14.26; 56,3; 124,6] Overthrow. Fre. Defaite: also, —a Dispatch, i.e. Murther. se defaire is us’d by the French in the Sense of — to dispatch or murther one’s self. to defeat (Oth. [1.3.343(693)] undo, alter. Fre. defaire.”

3561-5 Ham. They . . . opposits] Robertson (Trans. of the Royal Soc. of Edinburgh, 1790, II: 262): <p. 262> “The execution of his school fellows, Rosencrant and Guildenstern, in consequence of an artifice which he contrived against them, has also drawn the censure of critics. But is there any evidence that Hamlet thought them unacquainted with the mandate which they carried for striking off his head in England? Whether they were in fact privy or not privy to this, is not the question. Did not Hamlet believe they were privy to it, and even were fond of it? ‘Whom I will trust (said he early) as I will adders fanged.’ And speaking afterwards to his confident Horatio, he added, ‘Why, man, they did make love to this employment; They are not near my conscience.’ That is, my conscience does not upbraid me; the cruelty lies not with me, but with them. And in this conduct of Hamlet, to the companions of his early days, does Shakespeare prove his skill in human nature; the strongest hatred succeeding, upon such occasions, to the strongest friendship: For that they were his school-fellows, he would consider, and with reason, as a great aggravation of their guilt.” </p. 262>

3561defeat] Rann (ed. 1791-) : “they owe their destruction to their oficious interference in this business, thrusting themselves into this employment.”

3561-5 Strachey (1848, pp. 94-8): <p. 94>“Steevens and Malone dispute as to Hamlet’s treatment of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, which the former vehemently denounces as atrocious, while the latter justifies it. But as that justification can hardly be called satisfactory, I must try and improve it. We see that Hamlet knows as much as we do (though probably not more) as to the extent to which the two courtiers are aware of the King’s schemes, and we may safely assume that he is as able as we are to draw inferences from the facts. He then (like ourselves) is aware that his old schoolfellows have lost all personal regard for him, and have devoted themselves to obtain the King’s favour by servilely adopting and justifying his dislike to Hamlet, as far as be avows it, and by consenting to be employed by him in any way he pleases, against Hamlet. The </p. 94> <p. 95> King declares that his person and crown are not safe while Hamlet is at large, and sends him as a prisoner to England, with sealed instructions respecting the disposal of him, to the ruler of that country, who will certainly obey implicitly, as he is the lately conquered and humble tributary of Denmark. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern readily accept the charge of the prisoner, and of the instructions, which they cannot doubt affect his liberty, if not his life, and are prepared to do their part zealously, whatever it may prove to be, in giving them effect. Hamlet might well say of them, ‘There’s letters seal’d : and my two schoolfellows,—Whom I will trust, as I will adders fang’d— They bear the mandate; they must sweep my way, And marshall me to knavery.’ When he opens the letters, and learns their contents, he adopts the only course for saving his own life which was conceivable under the circumstances. The king of England was quite subservient to Denmark, and even if he could have been roused to disobedience by the relation of Hamlet’s wrongs, and his uncle’s guilt, the chance of these being heard was precluded by the requirement, ‘That, on the supervise, no leisure bated, No, not to stay the grinding of the axe, His head should be struck off.’ And so, on the other hand, was it plain that if Rosencrantz and Guildenstern could get a hearing from the king of England, they would be able to convince him that Hamlet was sent to him at least to be kept as. a prisoner, and that if the letters (however we suppose them altered by Hamlet) were of a more favourable tenour, there must have been some fraudulent chance made in them,—and Hamlet would inevitably have been so kept till further instructions could be obtained from Denmark. If indeed Hamlet had been able to foresee the consequences of meeting the pirate next day, he might have saved his </p. 95><p.96> own life, and yet spared those of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, but this he could not do, and therefore acted as he did in mere self-defence. But something more than his own preservation is at stake: Hamlet is the representative and avenger of the rights of the crown and laws of Denmark, outraged by a murderer and a usurper, (for he was only elected because he contrived to murder the rightful possessor at a moment when his natural heir was absent) ; and he has therefore to act under those circumstances, which at rare and long intervals in the history of every country, call on some man to maintain the spirit of the laws, by disregarding for a moment their letter. It is Hamlet’s duty to avenge the crown and laws of Denmark by putting the tyrant to death; and if as a means to that end he has to sacrifice also the base instruments of the tyrant’s will, he is justified in doing it. In time of war the most just and humane general hangs or shoots, without hesitation or remorse, spies and deserters, for whose offences a civilian could hardly find punishment light enough: and we never doubt but that he is quite right. And Hamlet, with his princely and soldierly spirit, rests his defence of his conduct on this ground:—’Why, man, they did make love to this employment; They are not near my conscience; their defeat Does by their own insinuation grow: ’Tis dangerous when the baser nature comes Between the pass and fell incensed points Of mighty opposites.’

“Shakspeare seems to mean all Hamlet’s character to be brought together before his final disappearance from the scene;—his meditative excess in the grave-digging, his yielding to passion with Laertes, his love for Oplielia blazing out, his tendency to generalize on all occasions in the dialogue with Horatio, his fine gentlemanly manners </p. 96><p. 97> with Osric, and his and Shakspeare’s fondness for presentiment:—’But thou would’st not think, how ill all’s here about my heart but it’s no matter.’ [3661] To which summary I would add, his noble frankness in confessing his violence to Laertes and desiring his pardon, his friendship for Horatio, and his religious faith. I have asserted that it was Hamlet’s religion, his resorting to prayer, that saved him from utter loss of reason after his first interview with the Ghost, and now that it is his clear and religious faith in God’s presence and providence that dispels all the clouds from his path, and prepares a bright close to the stormy and shortened day of his life. It is true that the sentences and words on which these assertions rest are short and few: but I know not what other critical explanation of them can be given, and it must be always born in mind that the object of a Drama would be destroyed, and its perfectness as a poem, or work of art, all marred, if religion were brought prominently forward in it. For the aim of the drama is to exhibit the human, not the religious, side of man’s existence; and therefore though the two are inseparable, (for every man’s life is coloured and influenced either by the presence, or by the absence, of religious faith, nor is there any colour more marked than black, which is the absence of all colour,) the latter is to be assumed and suggested in a drama, rather than openly displayed and appealed to. The King’s soliloquy on prayer and repentance is an illustration of the distinction: for though the sentiments assume the true Christian doctrine of redemption as their groundwork, and as that which gives all their meaning to them, still they are not expressed at all in the language of Christian teaching; and the absence throughout of the Divine names where they would naturally have occurred, shows the poetic art with </p. 97> <p 98> which the whole is constructed, so as to avoid a colouring and tone which would have been out of keeping in a drama. With Ulrici I cannot concur on this point [see n. 3851-2].“</p. 98>

3561-2 Clarke & Clarke (ed. 1864-68, rpt. 1874-78): “‘Their defeat is the consequence of their having insinuated themselves into so base a service.”

3561 not neere my conscience] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “So in [H8 2.2.18 (1044)]: ‘It seems the marriage with his brother’s wife Has crept too near his conscience.’”

3561 defeat] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “misprinted ‘debate’ in the folios. See [2.2.598 (1611)].”

3561 defeat] MacDonald (ed. 1885): “destruction.”

[Ed: MacDonald uses the Ff reading of “debate” but glosses the Qq reading nonetheless.]

3561 neere] Mull (ed. 1885): “on.”

3561 defeat]

3561 defeat] Neilson (ed. 1906, Glossary): “sb. destruction.”

3561 They . . . my conscience] Trench (1913, p. 102): Hamlet gradually realizes they are not soul mates “until in the end with unjustifiable severity he will condemn them to the penalty of death.”

3561 are not neere] Travers (ed. 1929): “i.e. do not touch, affect. ‘I cannot quite get over that affair,’ Stopford Brooke wrote ((Ten more Tragedies of Sh. 1910)); ‘I only see in it the cunning almost of a madman . . . Moreover, it is a mistake in art to link Hamlet with the king in a treacherous and murderous action.’ It has been said, on the other hand, that we should welcome the assurance that the pair of court spies will not encumber the earth long; and this was certainly part of what Sh. expected his audience to feel,—just as he could count on their relishing the perfect accord between the general character of a tragedy of revenge and the Prince of Denmark’s retaliatory resourcefulness. Cp. p. 202 n. 9 [3130n].”

3561-5 by their owne insinnuation] Sargeaunt (1919, p. 113) explains that in his earlier comment he meant that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were not guilty as far as Horatio knew; Hamlet’s justification to Horatio of his treatment of them exonerates them. All Hor. hears about them in these lines suggests that their only crime was to come between the king and Hamlet (3564-5). See also CN 2988

3561 defeat]

3561 defeat] Wilson (ed. 1934, Glossary): “destruction . . . ‘to make defeat upon’=to bring about the ruin or destruction of.”

3561 defeat]

3561 defeat]

3561 defeat]

3561 defeat] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “See [2.2.566 n].”

3561 defeat]

3561 defeat]

3561 defeat]

3561 defeat]

3561 defeat] OED 1. Undoing; ruin; act of destruction. to make defeat upon (of): to bring about the ruin or destruction of. Obs.