3609 Thirlby (ms. notes in Pope, ed. 1723 [1723-33?]):“I think there is somewhere above Remember your courtesie and be cover’d or somthing like it.”

3610 Nay good my Lord . . .] Theobald (26 Mar. 1730, [fol. 123v] [Nichols 2:579-80]): <fol. 123v> “I will give you two speechs from the old quartos that I think are very necessary to be restored, as shewing thoroughly the foppery and affectation of Osrick, and the humour and address of Hamlet in accosting the other at once in his own vein and style.” [3610+1-+15]

3610 Nay good my Lord . . .] Theobald (ed. 1733) : “I have restor’d here several speeches from the elder Quarto’s, which were omitted in the Folio Editions, and which Mr. Pope has likewise thought fit to sink upon us. They appear to me very well worthy not to be lost, as they thoroughly shew the Foppery and Affectation of Osrick, and the Humour and Address of Hamlet in accosting the other at once in his own Vein and Style.”

3610 Nay good my Lord . . .]

3610 Nay good my Lord . . .]

3610 Cour. Nay good my Lord . . . faith] Farmer (ms. notes, ed. 1778) :“This seems to have been [th]e affected phrase of [th]e time.—Thus in Marston’s Malecontent , ‘I beseech you, sir, be covered.’—’No, in good faith for my ease.’ And in other places. FARMER”

3609 Hamlet moves him to put on his hat] Jennens (ed. 1773) : “This direction is first inserted by J.[Johnson].”

3610 Cour. Nay good my Lord . . . faith] Farmer (apud Steevens, ed. 1778) :“This seems to have been the affected phase of the time.—Thus in Marston’s Malecontent , ‘I beseech you, sir, be covered.’—’No, in good faith for my ease.’ And in other places. FARMER”

[Ed. HLA:This note is added after v1778 changes to the Qq reading from the Folio reading of ‘in good faith’ accepted by v1773.]

3610 Cour. Nay good my Lord . . . faith] Malone (1783, p. 60) : <p. 60> “It seems to have been the common language of ceremony in our author’s time. ‘Why do you stand bare-headed?’ (says one of the speakers in Florio’s SECOND FRUTES, 1591) ‘you do yourself wrong. Pardon me, good sir (replies his friend); I do it for my ease.’ Again, in A New Way to pay old Debts, by Massinger, 1633: ‘—Is’t for your ease You keep your hat off?’ MALONE” </p. 60>

3610 Nay good my Lord . . .]

3609 I beseech you, remember ] Malone (ed. 1790) : “‘Remember not your courtesy ,’ I believe, Hamlet would have said, if he had not been interrupted. ‘Remember thy courtesy,’ he could not possibly have said,, and therefore this abrupt sentence may serve to confirm an emendation which I proposed in [LLL 5.1.103 (1831)] Vol. II. p. 396, n. 8.) where Armado says-— ‘I do beseech thee, remember thy courtesy;—I beseech thee, apparel thy head.’ I have no doubt that Shakspeare there wrote, ‘—remember not thy courtesy,’— and that the negative was omitted by the negligence of the compositor.’ MALONE”

3609 I beseech you, remember ] Malone (ed. 1790, 10: Appendix, pp. 575-6) : <p. 575>“In Hamlet, the prince, when he desires Osrick to ‘put his bonnet to the right use,’ begins his address with the same words which Armado uses: but unluckily is interrupted by </p. 575> <p. 576>the courtier, and prevented (as I believe) from using the very word which I suppose to have been accidentally omitted here. ‘Ham. I beseech you, remember—Osr.Nay, good my lord, for my ease, in good faith.’ </p. 576>

3610 for my ease in good faith] Malone (ed. 1790) : “It appears to have been the common language of ceremony in our author’s time. ‘Why do you stand bare-headed?’ (says one of the speakers in Florio’s SECOND FRUTES, 1591) ‘you do yourself wrong. Pardon me, good sir (replies his friend); I do it for my ease.’ Again, in A New Way to pay old Debts, by Massinger, 1633: ‘—Is’t for your ease You keep your hat off?’ MALONE”

3609 I beseech you, remember ] Rann (ed. 1791-) : “to be covered.”

3610 for my ease in good faith] Rann (ed. 1791-) : “not for my own accommodation, I protest, but in obedience to your commands.”

3609 I beseech you, remember ]

3610 Cour. Nay good my Lord . . . faith]

3609 I beseech you, remember ]

3610 Cour. Nay good my Lord . . . faith]

3609 I beseech you, remember ]

3610 Cour. Nay good my Lord . . . faith]

3610 Cour. Nay good my Lord . . . faith] Becket (1815, p. 73) : : <p. 73> “‘For my ease.’ The commentators do not seem to know the meaning of this expression. For my ease does not here signify to be relieved from any bodily pain, but simply: It is my pleasure : it is agreeable to me .” </p. 73>

3610 Cour. Nay good my Lord . . . faith] Caldecott (ed. 1819) : “See [LLL 5.1.103 (1831)] Armado to Holofern.”

3609 I beseech you, remember ]

3610 Cour. Nay good my Lord . . . faith]

3610 Nay good my Lord . . .]

3610+1 sir here . . . ] Knight (ed. [1839]) : “Though it furnishes a most happy satire upon the affected phraseology of the court of Elizabeth, and displays the wit and readinesss of Hamlet to great advantage, the poet perhaps thought it prolonged the main business somewhat too much. Several other passages in this scene, which we find in the quarto, are omitted in the folio; and these we have placed in brackets.”

3609 Hamlet moves him to put on his hat] Delius (ed. 1854) : “Diese Bühnenweisung ist modern, aber ohne Zweifel richtig, nur dass vielleicht bonnet statt hat stehen müsste. Hamlet hatte schon vorher gesagt: Yhour bonnet to his right use, ‘t is for the head.” [This stage direction is modern, but without doubt correct, only that perhaps bonnet instead must be read for hat . Hamlet had already said earlier: Your bonnet to his right use, ‘t is for the head . ]

3610 Cour. Nay good my Lord . . . faith] Delius (ed. 1854) : “In der Fol. fährt Osrick hier fort: Your are not ignorant of what excellence Laertes is at his weapon; worauf Hamlet fragt: What’s his weapon? Alles Dazwischenstehende haben nur in die Qs.” [In the Fol. Osrick continues here [following in good faith]: You are not ignorant of what excellence Laertes is at his weapon; to which Hamlet answers: What’s his weapon? All of these intermediate lines only the Qq have.” ]

3610 Cour. Nay good my Lord . . . faith] Singer (ed. 1856) : “The folio omits this and the following fourteen speeches; and in their place substitutes, ‘Sir, you are not ignorant of what excellence Laertes is at his wepon.’ It seems as if this dialogue was intended to ridicule the affected Euphuism prevalent among those shallow wits about the court, who mistook it for refinement.” </p. 314>

3609 I beseech you remember] Elze (ed. 1857, 253): "besser wol: your bonnet."

3609 Hamlet moves him to put on his hat] Elze (ed. 1857, 253): "Woher stammt diese Bühnenweisung?" ["From where derives this stage direction?"]

3610 Cour. Nay good my Lord . . . faith] Elze (ed. 1857, 253-4): "QB folgg. fs: Nay, in good faith; for mine ease, in good faith.—Nach den von Farmer aus Marston’s Malcontent ((1604)) und von Malone aus Florio’s Second Frutes ((1591)) angeführten Stellen waren die Worte: for my ease, eine stehende Höflichkeitsformel, um </p. 253> <p. 254>das Bedecken des Kopfes abzulehnen.—Nach dieser Betheusrung folgen in den Fs sogleich die Worte: you are not ignorant of what excellence Laertes is ((mit dem Zusatze: at his weapon)), worauf Hamlet unmittelbar frägt: What’s his weapon? So dass die ganze euphuistisch weitschweifige Einleitung zu Osrick’s eigentlicher Bestellung gestrichen ist. Pope ist hierbei den Fs gefolgt." [Q2ff Ff: Nay . . . faith.–According to the cited passage from Farmer out of Marston’s Malcontent ((1604)) and from Malone out of Florio’s Second Frutes ((1591)), the following were the words, ’for my ease," a standing court formula, for refusing the covering of the head—according to the declartion following in the Ff directly following, ’you are not ignorant of what excellence Laertes is ((with the addition: at his weapon)), to which Hamlet clearly asks, "What’s his weapon?’ so the entire euphuistic, diffuse introduction to Osrick’s actual message is struck out. Pope has followed the Ff here.]

3609 I beseech you remember] White (ed. 1861) : “Hamlet was probably about to add ‘your courtesy.’ See Supplementary Notes on ‘remember thy courtesy,’ [LLL 5.1.103 (1831)]

3610 for my ease in good faith]

3610 Nay good my Lord . . .]

3609 I beseech you remember] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “The full phrase is found in [LLL 5.1.103 (1831)]: ‘I do beseech thee, remember thy courtesy; I beseech thee, apparel thy head.’”

3610 for my ease] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “for mine ease]] Compare Marston’s Malcontent, Induction: ‘Cun. I beseech you, sir, be coverd. Sly. No, in good faith, for mine ease.’ See also Massinger’s New Way to Pay Old Debts, ii.3: ‘Is’t for your ease You keep your hat off?’ Malone quotes appositely from Florio’s Second Frutes (1591), p. 111: ‘Why do you stand barehedded? . . . . Pardon me, good sir, I doe it for mine ease.’”

3610 for my ease] Moberly (ed. 1873): “I really shold fel easier with it off.”

3609 I beseech you, remember ] Ingleby (1875, p. 74): <p. 74> “. . . in [LLL 5.1.103 (1831)], Armado says to Holofernes, ‘I do beseech thee, remember thy courtesy; I beseech thee, apparel thy head.’ Neither Capell nor Malone understood it, and they therefore proposed emendations. The latter wishes to insert not: ‘remember not thy courtesy,’ i.e. pay no further regard to courtesy, but rep[lace thy hat: as we should not say, ‘do not stand on ceremony with me.’ This was an absurd proposal, seeing that the phrase is frequent with the early dramatists; and in a curtalled [sic] form occurs in Hamlet. Yet Mr. Dyce (Few Notes, p. 56) adopted Malone’s conjecture. But he returned to the old text at the instance of the writer, who gave in the Illustrated London News a complete defense of the old reading, from a manuscript note of Mr. Staunton’s which will now be found in his edition of Shakespeare, vol. I. p. 83. Mr. Dyce on this occasion did not remember his courtesy: not only did he fail to acknowledge this service and assign to Mr. Staunton the credit of the restoration, but wrote contemptuously of the notes, of which this was one, evidently not perceiving that one and all were Mr. Staunton’s. (See Dyce’s Shakespeare, 1853. Vol. I. p. ccxvi., and p. 581, note (13).

“But the origin of the expression, ‘remember thy courtesy,’ has never been given. It arose, we think, as follows: the courtesy was the temporary removal of the hat from the head, and that was finished as soon as the hat was replaced. If any </p. 74> <p. 75>one from ill-breeding or from over-politeness stood uncovered for a longer time than was necessary to perform the simple act of courtesy, the person so saluted reminded him of the fact, that the removal of the hat was a courtesy: and this was expressed by the euphemism, ‘Remember thy courtesy,’ which thus implied, ‘Complete your courtesy, and replace your hat.’”

I have crossed out the first paragraph of this note since it refers particularly to LLL and is important to Ham. only in the closing paragraph I’ve given here.

3609 remember] Furness (ed. 1877): “Dyce shared this opinion[MAL’s], for he considered the ‘not’ [in LLL 5.1.103 (1831)] as indispensable. Staunton discarded the ‘not’ in [LLL], and in a note on the passage says: ‘Whatever may have been the meaning of the words, or whether they were a mere complimentary periphrasis, without any precise signification, the following quotations prove beyond a question that the old text is right, and that the expression refers to the Pedant’s standing bareheaded: —’I pray you be remembred, and cover your head.’—Lusty Juventus, ed. Hawkins, p. 142. ‘Pray you remember your courts’y . . . . . Nay, pray you be cover’d.’ —Every Man in His Humour, I, I. ed. Gifford.’ Grant White (The Galaxy, Oct. 1869) upholds Staunton, adding: It seems clear that Osrick’s completed speech would have been, ‘remember your courtesy.’ The phrase was a conventional one for ‘be covered.’ But why? The removal of the hat, in Shakespeare’s time, even more than now, was regarded as a mark of courtesy. I am unable to offer any explanation of the phrase which is acceptable even to myself. I can only suggest that the difficulty lies not in courtesy, but in some pecular and, perhaps, elliptical use of remember. Elze suggests ‘remember thy bonnet.’”

3610 for my ease in good faith] Furness (ed. 1877): “In Marton’s Malcontent several of Shakespeare’s fellow-players are introduced by name; among them William Sly, and some of Osric’s affected speeches are there put into his mouth, e.g. the present line, just cited by Farmer; where Malone [v1821; 3:206] inferred that he was the original performer of this part of Osr. See also Collier’s Memoirs of Actors, Sh. Soc. p. 154).”

3609 Hudson (ed. 1881): “When one takes off his hat in courtesy to another, courtesy requires that he should presently put it on again, and not stand with it in his hand. So here the full meaning is, ‘Remember your courtesy, and put on your hat.’ See vol. ii, page 74, note 9.”

3609 I beseech you remember] Elze (ed. 1882): “Compare Marston, The Malcontent, Induction (Works, ed. Halliwell, II, 200): ‘Cun[dale]. I beseech you, sir, be coverd. Sly. No, in good faith, for mine ease.’ In Dr. Ingleby’s Centurie of Prayse (2d Ed., p. 66) only Sly’s answer is quoted. See Dr. Ingleby’s Shakespeare Hermeutics (1875) p. 74 seq. Marlowe’s Works (ed. Dyce, in 1 vol., 1870 p. 130a.”

3609 remember] White (ed. 1883): “that is, remember thy courtesy: as in [LLL. 5.1.103 (1831)].”

3609 I beseech you remember]

3610 in good faith] MacDonald (ed. 1885): “‘in good faith, it is not for manners, but for my comfort I take it off.’ Perhaps the hat was intended only to be carried, and would not really go on his head.”

3610+1-3610+25 MacDonald (ed. 1885): “This and the following passages seem omitted for curtailment, and perhaps in part because they were less amusing when the fashion of euphuism had passed. The good of holding up the mirror to folly was gone when it was no more the ‘form and pressure’ of ‘the very age and body of the time.’”

3609 remember] Symons (in Irving & Marshall, ed. 1890):

3610 for my ease] Symons (in Irving & Marshall, ed. 1890):

3609 remember] White (1896, pp. 351-3): <p. 351>“Remember thy courtesy. On this phrase Dyce in his glossary says nothing, having accepted it (after some previous discussion)as meaning merely ‘put on your hat;’ and this explanation is given in the Shakespeare Lexicon. But it is quite possible (I am far from saying it is certain) that the speaker in this case (Armada, ‘LLL 5.1.103 (1831)], and in some others, does ask the person whom he addpresses to put on his hat, and yet that ‘remember thy courtesy’ does not mean ‘put on your hat.’ The phrase is one which I have found very perplexing, and, after no little consideration of it, I am even now far from certain as to its meaning. . . . The passage </p. 351> <p. 352>which seems to have determined Mr. Dyce’s judgment is the following, from ben Jonson’s ‘Every Man in his Hummour:’—’Knowell [to a servant bringing a letter]. To me, sir? What do you mean? Pray you, remember your courts’y. [Reads] “To his most selected friend Edward Knowell.” What might the gentleman’s name be, sir, that sent it? Nay, pray you, be covered.”a Here, plainly, as in the former case, the speaker tells the person spoken to to put on his hat. But does it follow therefore that ‘remember thy courtesy’ means ‘put on your hat?’ I think not. This is certain,—that it cannot have that purport without absolute reversal of the meaning both of remember and courtesy, which had the same meaning in Shakespeare’s time that they have now. Moreover, at that time, no less than now, courtesy required the removal of the hat, the doffing of the cap. It were needless to quote passages in support of this; but here is one very much to the purpose from Florio’s ‘Second Fruites,’ 1591:—’Let us make a lawe that no man put off his hat or cap, etc. . . . This is a kind of courtesy or ceremony rather to be avoided.’ Folio 55. Doffing hat or cap was indeed so much a part of a salute as making a leg. No well-behaved person, of whatever rank or condition, forgot it. And that to remember courtesy was not to forget the proprieties of salutation is shown (were that necessary) by this passage from ‘Sir Amadas’—’Thoffe1 [1Though] Sir Amadas wer in morning broght, His curtasy forgat he noght, Bot salud him full right.’ Line 407 To assume, therefore, that ‘to remember one’s courtesy’ meant ‘to put on one’s hat’ is to set aside custom wholly, both as to language and as to conduct. Moreover, the passages in question—those in [LLL 5.1.103 (1831] and in ‘Every Man in his Humour’ (and all others I believe that have been cited)—exhibit the phrase as used by a superior to an inferior, and therefore as implying an excuse of </p. 352> <p. 353>ceremony. But here is one in which it is used by an inferior to a superior, and in which, besides, it can have nothing to do with taking off or putting on the hat. In Marlowe’s ‘Doctor Faustus,’ a carter is talking with Faustus about a trick played upon a horse-courser who was made to believe that he pulled the doctor’s leg off; and this is aid:—’Carter. And do yu remember nothing of your leg? Faust. No, in good sooth. Car. Then I pray you, remember your courtesy. Faust. I thank you, sir. Car. ‘T is not so much worth.’ Faustus Act V. Sc. 1. Here the phrase used by the inferior to one greatly his superior is just that used by Knowell to the servant, and by the king to Armada, and there is no question of hats or bows. The point is a difficult one; but as remember could not mean ‘neglect, forget, or leave off,’ and courtesy required the taking off the hat, and as the phrase might be used by an inferior to a superior, it seems clear that ‘remember thy courtesy,’ although it may have had some connection with the waiving of ceremony, could not have meant ‘put on your hat.’” </p. 353>

3609 remember] Dowden (ed. 1899): “Remember that you have already complied with the requirement of courtesy; so cover your head.”5.1.103 (1831)

3610 for my ease] Dowden (ed. 1899): “but Sly also asks Sinko to ‘sit between my legs’ (a remiscence of Hamlet and Ophelia), to which Sinklo replies, ‘the audience will then take me for a viol-de-gambo, and think that you play upon me’ (a remiscence of Hamlet and the two courtiers).”

3610 for my ease in good faith] Travers (ed. 1929): “In one of Florio’s books of Italian and English dialogues, entitled Second Fruits to be gathered of twelve Trees of diverse but delightsome Tastes to the Tongues of Italian and .English men ((1591)), one speaker is supposed politely to ask, ‘Why do you stand bareheaded? you do yourself wrong;’ to which his interlocutor replies, ‘Pardon me good sir, I do it for my ease.’”

3609 remember]

3610 for my ease] Craig (ed. 1931): “conventional reply declining the invitation of ‘Remember thy courtesy.’”

3610 good my Lord] Wilson (1934, 1: 55) characterizes the F1 reading (in good faith) as an example of compositor repetition from a succeeding line.

3610 for my ease] Wilson (1934, 2:242): <p. 242> “A teasing little puzzle is presented by the use of ‘my’ and ‘mine’ before a vowell, F1 generally using the latter and Q2 the former. I suspect that, as with abbreviations, we are here in touch with some idiosyncrasy on the part of the Q2 compositor. Certainly it is odd to find Osric at 5.2.109 [3610] asseverating ‘for my ease in good faith’. The Q2 text, moreover, is inconsistent in the matter, giving us ‘mine’ at 1.1.68, 3.2.260 and 4.1.5, and ‘my’ at ten places elsewhere. Not that I supose Shakespeare was himself consistent in his usage, though he may have preferred ‘mine’ generally to ‘my’, because it would be easier to speak upon the stage. Probably, however, he bothered his head in no wise on the question; he would know that the players would say what suited them best whatever he happened to write.” </p. 242>

3610+1-+25, 3612+1-+4 Wilson (ed. 1934): “F1 abridges this to one sentence: ‘Sir, you are not ignorant of what excellence Laertes is at his weapon’—an obvious playhouse cut. MSH. p. 31[see n. 3610+1-3610+25].”

3610 for my ease] Kittredge (ed. 1939): “G. Why do you stand bareheaded? you do yourself wrong. E. Pardon me, good sir, I do it for my ease. G. I pray you be couered, you are too ceremonious. E. I am so well, that me thinks I am in heauen. G. If you loue me, put on your hat. E. I will doe it to obay you, not for any plesure that I take in it (Florios Second Frutes, 1591, Chap. vii, p. 111).””

3609 Wilson (2nd ed. 1936, Additional Notes)

3610 for my ease] Wilson (2nd ed. 1936, Additional Notes): “Travers quotes from Florio’s Second Fruits, 1591: “Why do you stand bareheaded? you do yourself wrong. Pardon me, good sir, I do it for my ease.”

3609 remember]

3610 for my ease]

3609 remember]

3610 for my ease] Farnham (ed. 1957): "I keep my hat off just for comfort ((a conventional polite phrase))."

3609 remember]

3610 for my ease]

3610 for my ease] Evans (ed. 1974): “i.e. I am really more comfortable with my hat off (a polite insistence on maintaining ceremony).”

3610 for my ease] Spencer (ed. 1980): “[he] does not put on his hat until he departs at line [3647].”

3609 remember] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “for ‘remember your courtesy’, a formula for ‘cover your heard’. The phrase has puzzled eds., who naturally suppose that courtesy would require one to remain uncovered; but its use not to demand but to waive this mark of respect is amply demonstrated, if not explained. [cites LLL , Lusty Juventus, Every man in//]. OED remember v. 1d. The implication appears to be that the demands of courtesy are now satisfied ((and that the hat should therefore be resumed)).”

3610 for my ease] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “The polite rejoinder. See above, [3599n].”

3610+1-+25, 3612+1-+4 Jenkins (ed. 1982): “This praise of Laertes fulfills [4.7.130-2]. The reduction of it in F to a single sentence is ‘an obvious playhouse cut’ ((Dover Wilson)).”

3609 remember]

3609 remember] Edwards (ed. 1985): “OED ((1d)) cleverly associates this with the rather odd use of ‘remember your courtesy’ or ‘be remembered’ to request someone to put on his hat or cover his head. Perhaps this is right; but perhaps Hamlet just asks him to remember what he has said.”

3610+1-3610+25 Edwards (ed. 1985): “F here imposes a swingeing cut. Like the cutting out of the Lord’s part, [3657+1-3657+12] below , this is clearly an attempt to shorten this very long build-up to the fial scene by cutting out material not essential to the plot. These lines are almost entirely fun at the expense of Osric’s diction.”

3609 remember]

3610 for my ease]

3610+1-3610+25 Hibbard (ed. 1987): “For Q2’s version of this passage, see Appendix A, xvii.”

3610+1-3610+25 Hibbard (ed. 1987, Appendix A, p. 366-7): <p. 366>“Since F reduces this passage to the one sentence: ‘Sir, you are not ignorant of waht excellence Laertes is at his weapon’, it seems plain that the excision was made to rid the play of a piece of over-elaboration. The difficulties Osric’s praise of Laertes and Hamlet’s parody of that praise gave both the compositor and the press-corrector of Q2 ((see p. 108)) also suggest that the lines may have been almost unintelligible to many in an Elizabethan audience.” </p. 366>

3610+1-3610+25 Hibbard (ed. 1987, Introduction, p. 108): <p. 108>“As for Osric’s eulogy of Laertes and Hamlet’s parody of it, since both evidently called for a better acquaintance with courtly affectations of speech than either Roberts’s [printer James Roberts] Compositor X or his press-corrector could muster, it is not surprising that Appendix A, xvii [3610+1-3610+25] should have gone the same way as the superfluous Lord who makes his entry after 5.2.155 to report that Osric has succeeded in conveying Hamlet’s message to the King.” </p. 108>

3610 for my ease]

3609 remember]