Notes for lines 0-1017 ed. Bernice W. Kliman
| 30 {Hora.} <Mar.> What, ha’s this thing appeard againe to night? | 1.1.21 |
|---|
1774 capn
capn
30 Hora.] Capell (1774, 1:1:122): “Of this question Marcellus is made the asker in modern editions, and in the folio’s: But can it be imagin’d, that the same person, who, but a line or two after, calls the apparition—‘this dreaded sight,’ should, in this line, call it—‘this thing?’ the levity of the expression, and the question itself, are suited to the unbelieving but eager Horatio; and to him they are accoordingly given, by authority of all the quarto’s.”
1819 mclr2
mclr2
30-8 Hora. What . . . it] Coleridge (1819): “LoI am not sure what he means by this . The preparation informative of the audience, just as much as was precisely necessary—how gradual first, and with the uncertainty appertaining to a question, What! has this thing appeared again to night? (even the word again has its’ creditibilizing effect. Then the representative of the ignorance of the audience, Horatio (not himself but Marcellus & Bernardo) anticipates common solution —“tis but our phantasy—last Marc. [??] into dreaded sight–then this “thing” becomes at once an apparition, and that too an intelligent spirit that is to be spoken to . . .
1819 Coleridge
Coleridge: mclr2
30-8 Hora. What . . . it] Coleridge (1819; rpt. 1987; 5.2:295): “The preparation informative of the Audience, just as much as was precisely necessary—how gradual first, and with the uncertainty appertaining to a question, What? has this THING appeared again to-night? (even the word again has its credibilizing effect [)].—Then the representative of the ignorance of the audience, Horatio (not himself but Marcellus to Bernardo) anticipates the common solution—‘tis but our phantasy’—but Marc. rises 2ndly into dreaded Sight—Then this ‘thing’ becomes at once an Apparition, and that too an intelligent Spirit that is to be spoken to.—”
1843 col1
col1
30 Hora.] Collier (ed. 1843): “In all the quartos, that of 1603 excepted, this line is assigned to Horatio, who had come purposely to inquire about the ghost. The folio, 1623, gives it to Marcellus.”
1854 del2
del2
30 Hora.] Delius (ed. 1854): “ . . . Horatio selbst ist noch ungläubig und daher weniger dabei interessirt, wesshalb die Frage in seinem Munde weniger passend enscheint.” [Since Horatio still is unbelieving and is therefore less interested in the question, it is less likely to be his.]
del2
30 thing] Delius (ed. 1854): “thing soll nichts Verächtliches ausdrücken, wie Schlegel hier ‘Ding’ übersetzt, sondern wird bei Sh. auch von belebten Geschöpsen gebraucht; = Wesen.” [thing does not imply contempt as in Schlegel’s translation Ding, but is also used by Sh. to refer to living creatures.]
1856 hud1
hud1: standard, Coleridge
30 Hora.] Hudson (ed. 1856): “The folio assigns this speech to Marcellus. The quartos are probably right, as Horatio comes on purpose to try his own eyes on the Ghost.—We quote from Coleridge again: ‘Bernardo’s inquiry after Horatio, and the repetition of his name in his own presence indicate a respect or an eagerness that implies him as one of the person who are in the foreground; and the scepticism attributed to him prepares us for Hamlet’s after eulogy on him as one whose blood and judgment were happily commingled. Now, observe the admirable indefiniteness of the first opening out of the occasion of this anxiety. The preparative information of the audience is just as much as was precisely necessary, and no more; —it begins with the uncertainty appertaining to a question: ‘What! has this thing appear’d again tonight?’ Even the word again has its credibilizing effect. Then Horatio, the representative of the ignorance of the audience, not himself, but by Marcellus to Bernardo, anticipates the common solution,—‘Tis but our fantasy;’ upon which Marcellus rises into,—‘This dreaded sight twice seen of us;’ which immediately afterwards becomes ‘this apparition,’ and that, too, an intelligent spirit that is to be spoken to!’ h.”
1858 col3
col3 = col1 +
30 Hora.] Collier (ed. 1858): “but the mistake is remedied by the old annotator on the folio, 1632, which is made to conform to the 4tos.”
Ed. note: Collier refers to mcol1 (the annotations in the Perkins Folio)
1861 wh1
wh1 ≈ del2 without attribution
30 Hora.] White (ed. 1861) explains that Marcellus should be the speaker because Horatio ,“as yet, does not believe that the Ghost has appeared at all.”
1868 c&mc
c&mc: clr; ≈ wh1 without attribution
30 Hora.]
Clarke &
Clarke (ed. 1868): “The latter Quartos assign this speech to Horatio; but the first Quarto and the Folio give it to Marcellus. We think there is more probability that these are right, because the word ‘again’ has (as Coleridge justly remarks) its
credibilising effect; and as Horatio is sceptical on the subject of the apparition, he would hardly use the word ‘again,’ even in irony.”
1870 Abbott
Abbott
30 What] Abbott (1870) §73a: “What and when are often used as exclamations of impatience.”
1872 hud2
hud2 ≈ hud1 (minus argument abt SP)
30 Hudson (ed. 1872): “There is a temperate scepticism, well befitting a scholar, in Horatio’s “has this thing appeared again to-night.’ Thing is the most general and indefinite substantive in the language. Observe the gradual approach to what is more and more definite. ‘Dreaded sight’ cuts off a large part of the indefiniteness, and ‘this apparition’ is a further advance to the particular. The matter is aptly ordered for what Coleridge calls ‘credibilizing’ effect.”
30 thing]
Schmidt (1875) has many references to
thing without a pejorative sense. See, e.g.
Ven. 996;
Cor. 3.1.178 (1883).
1877 v1877
v1877: cap, col, tsch, hud, elze, wh1
30 Hora.]
Furness (ed. 1877) summarizes: “Collier gives it to Hor., because Hor. had come purposely to inquire about the Ghost.
Tschischwitz: Mar. is a firm believer in the Ghost, and the allusion to it as a ‘thing’ betokening contempt and doubt can come only from the skeptic, Hor.
Hudson: There is a temperate skepticism well befitting a scholar in this speech of Horatio’s. On the other hand,
Elze advocates Mar. ‘Horatio, being the invited guest, remains in the background, attentive and expectant, while Marcellus is more forward in his zeal to convince Horatio of the truth of his story.’
White: Horatio does not yet believe that the Ghost appeared at all.”
1880 meik
meik = Abbott without attribution; clr by way of hud with some mistaking + in magenta underlined
30 What, . . . againe] Meikelhorn (ed. 1880): “The O. E. interjection, generally used to call a person; sometimes also used as an exclamation of impatience. . . . Coleridge points out that ‘even the word again has its credibilising effect,’ and how Horatio rises from this thing to this dreaded sight, and then to this apparition—‘an intelligent spirit, that is to be spoken to.’”
1883 macd
macd: standard
30 Hora.] MacDonald (ed. 1883): ”Better, I think; for the tone is scoffing, and Horatio is the incredulous one who has not seen it.”
1890 irv2
irv2: standard + in magenta underlined
30 Marshall (ed. 1890) gives as a reason for the line being given to Horatio that Bar. had welcomed him first, and therefore it’s natural that he should speak first, “and the line is characteristic of his sceptical attitude at this time with regard to the Ghost. Marcellus would never use such a vague and contemptuous expression as this thing of that which is always to him a dreaded sight, an apparition. It appears to me that much of the wonderful dramatic force of this opening scene, noticed in note 1, above, would be missed if Horatio does not speak this line in a tone of polite incredulity, an incredulity which is soon to be changed to reverent horror when with his own eyes he beholds the spectre whose existence he now doubt.”
1891 dtn1
dtn1: VN, wh1 +
30 Deighton (ed. 1891): “in [Horatio’s] mouth the words need not mean more than ‘has your imagination again been conjuring up this apparition you told me of?’”
1899 ard1
ard1
30 Hora.] Dowden (ed. 1899) argues that the coincidence of SP Mar. in both Q1 and F1 argues in its favor and that thing need not be disrespectful. Marcellus may say it “with awe.”
1913 tut2
tut2 ≈ ard1 on Marcellus’s awe without attribution; tsch on Horatio’s contempt +
30 Goggin (ed. 1913), though he uses Mar. says that if it’s Horatio’s line, “the words this thing are contemptuous; from Marcellus they would betoken awe.”
Ed. note: Goggin is the 1st to recognize that the line can go to either character, depending on tone .
1928 Greg
Greg
30 Hora.] Greg (1928, apud Munro, ed. 1958) “supports the Q2 reading as part of Horatio’s banter.”
1934 Wilson
Wilson MSH
30 Hora.] Wilson (1934, p. 37) believes the speaker has to be Horatio, because the question is “contemptuous.”
1934 cam3
cam3
30 Wilson (ed. 1934), echoing his note in MSH, says that Horatio must be the speaker. “The contemptuous word ‘thing’ clearly comes from the sceptic, and Mar.’s speech beginning ‘Horatio says’ [32] seems more natural, if Hor. has just spoken.”
1938 parc
parc: standard +
30 Hora.] Parrott & Craig (ed. 1938): “The fact that it belongs to Marcellus in [Q1] shows that it was in his part in an early performance, and was assigned to the actor of that part in the manuscript on which F. is based. But [Q2], no doubt, represents Shakespeare’s original intention [. . . ].”
1947 cln2
cln2
30 Hora.] Rylands (ed. 1947) believes the line suits Horatio the sceptic more than it does the reverential Marcellus. Rylands (ed. 1947, p. 197) detects in Marcellus “ a more gentle soldier in his reverence for the apparition. To him also are given the beautiful lines [156-63] about the holy and gracious season of Christmas when no spirits stir abroad.”
Ed. note: But he is the one who offers to strike at the apparition (137). Here as often Sh. provides mixed signals, layers of possibility in characterization.
1958 Hardy
Hardy: Coleridge
30 Hardy (1958, pp. 245-6), <p. 245> using Coleridge’s notes on this passage and the ghost in general, demonstrates that Coleridge was as concerned for dramatic effect (aesthetics and dramaturgy) as he was with psychological realism. Quoting more than I have in this doc. from the same source (“O heaven! words are wasted to those that feel and to those who do not feel the exquisite judgement of Shakespeare” from
SC 1:20, 21) </p. 245> <p. 246> she says of “judgement” that it is “one of Coleridge’s technical terms, and it means formal planning. [. . .] He sees character as part of the structure, not as its psychological content. He sees the dramatic function which directs even highly individualized character.” She refers to
SC 1:30, 35, and 25 as further examples of Coleridge’s concern with form and as character as a tool of form. </p. 246.>
1980 pen2
pen2
30 Spencer (ed. 1980) argues for the Q1 and F1 SP Mar. : “this thing indicates his puzzled awe.”
1982 ard2
ard2 ≈ cap without attribution; ≈ clr without attribution
30 thing] Jenkins (ed. 1982) points out, “By these unspecific allusions [thing, dreaded sight (34), this apparition (37)] wonderfully keeps us in suspense. Only when the Ghost has actually appeared does he particularize it as a figure ‘like the King that’s dead [53].’”
1984 Klein
Klein: Dowden; Wilson WHH, 51-86
30 Hora.] Mar. Klein (ed. 1984): “the [speech prefix] is disputed. The most interesting defence of F1 and Q1 (Marcellus) is Dowden’s, who argues, referring to [Cor. 4.5.116 (2774)] ’Thou noble thing,’ that thing is being spoken here full of awe, cf. below 147. Yet Dowden offers no example of thing in this usage without an epithet, and a deprecatory use of thing exactly fits Horatio’s initial scepticism (Capell); however, cf. 401. On the question of contemporary thinking about ghosts see Wilson, What Happens in ’Hamlet’ (Cambridge, 1935, rpr. 1964), pp. 51-86, where he places Horatio within the framework of differing schools of thought current at the time, assuming he is of the Protestant persuasion.”
1985 cam4
cam4 ≈ ard1 without attribution + in magenta underlined
30 Edwards (ed. 1985) assigns this speech to Marcellus because the agreement of Q1 and F1 suggests that is what was spoken on stage. “Marcellus’s next speech follows very naturally from this anxious enquiry.”
cam4 ≈ ard1 without attribution + //
30 thing] Edwards (ed. 1985) denies that the word, meaning creature, implies contempt. He refers to Tmp. 1.2.419 (563) where Ferdinand is called “a thing divine.”
1987 oxf4
oxf4: standard
30 Hibbard (ed. 1987) argues that the line is Marcellus’s because of the agreement of Q1 and F1 and the naturalness of Marcellus, the last person addressed, responding. He also counters the argument that thing is disrespectful, citing Banquo in Mac.
1993 dent
dent
30 to night] Andrews (ed. 1993) thinks that words separated allow for more nuance.
1999 Bernstein
Bernstein
30 Bernstein (1999, pp. 67-8) conveniently summarizes views about Mar. or Hor. as the speaker and comes down on the Mar. side.
2006 ard3q2
ard3q2 = macd
30 Hora. Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006):
ard3q2: standard
30 this thing] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “This lack of definition—see this dreaded sight [34], this apparition come [37] and it [38—serves to enhance the suspense, as does the alternation between ’a [55] and it [52].”
2007 Wilson
Wilson
30 ha’s this thing appeard]
Wilson (2007, pp. 121, 127, quoting Derrida on
Hamlet in
Specters of Marx p. 121): <p. 121>“ ’ . . . Everything begins by the apparition of a spectre. More precisely by the
waiting for this spectre. The anticipation is at once impatient, anxious, and fascinated: this, the thing (this thing) [30] will end up coming. The
revenant is going to come. It won’t be long. But how long it is taking.’ </p. 121> <p. 127>Yet for Derrida, the figure of Shakespeare as a night-watchman on the ramparts of a tired ’Old Europe’ whose ’time is off its hinges’ enough for ’poetic and thinking peepholes’ to open on migrant meanings was the image of hospitality; as the receptiveness of his text to new and unintended interpretation was itself a model of a multi-cultural pluralism.” </p. 127> See also Derrida, 1993, p.4. See CN 76.
30 76