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

Line 39 - 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 0-1017 ed. Bernice W. Kliman

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

39 Hora. Tush, tush, twill not appeare.	1.1.30

1572 Lavater

Lavater

39-56 Lavater (1572, 1.2:9-10, apud Hoy, ed. 1963) asserts that ghosts, both evil and good, do rarely appear, but that most are imagined. He also says that philosophers tend to deny the possibility of spirits visiting men. Later, Lavater (1572, 2.13: 159-61, apud Hoy, ed. 1963) says that such spirits are always either good or bad angels, that the souls of men do not reappear on earth.

1819 mclr2

mclr2

39-47 Hora. Tush . . . pole] Coleridge (ms. notes, 1819, in Ayscough, ed. 1807): Then the shivery feeling, at such a time, with two eye-witnesses, of sitting down & hear a story of a ghost—and this too a ghost that had appeared two nights before this very time—the effort of the narrator to master his own imaginative terrors—the consequent elevation of his style, itself a continuation of this effect—the turning off to an outward object “yon same star” ....

Ed. note: Taken directly from the B.L. ms.

1819 mclr2

mclr2

39-47 Hora. Tush . . . pole] Coleridge (1819; rpt. 5:295): “—Tush, tush! twill not appear.—Then the shivery feeling, at such a time, with two eye-witnesses, of sitting down to hear a story of a Ghost—and this too a ghost that had appeared two nights before about this very time—the effort of the narrator to master his own imaginative terrors—the consequent elevation of the style, itself a continuation of this effort—the turning off to an outward Object ‘yon same Star’—O heaven!—words are wasted to those that feel and to those who do not feel the exquisite judgement of Sh—”

1819 Coleridge

Coleridge

39-56 Coleridge (1819, Lectures, 2:139-40): <p. 139> Horatio’s confirmation of his Disbelief—and the silence with which the Scene opened again restored by the narration—the solemnity of it and the exquisite proof of the narrator’s deep feeling of what he is himself about to relate by his turning off from it as from a something that is forcing him too deep into himself to the outward objects, the realities of nature that had accompanied it—Last night of all &c—seem to contradict the the critical law that what is told makes a faint impression compared with what is presented to the Eyes beheld, and does indeed convey thro to the mind more than the eye can see/and the interruption of the narration at the very moment, when we are most </p.139><p.140> intensively listening for the sequel, and have been our thoughts diverted from the dreaded Sight in expectation of the desired yet almost dreaded Tale—thus giving all the suddenness, and surprize of the original appearance/—

Peace, break thee off!—look where it comes again!

The judgement in having two of the persons present who had as having seen it twice before—hence naturally confirming their former opinions—/while the Sceptic is silent—and after twice been addressed by his friends, answers with two hasty syllables—Most like—and confession of horror—”</p.140>

1854 del2

del2

39 Tush] Delius (ed. 1854): “Ausruf der Verachtung, der mehr Pah! als unserm Still! entspricht.” [Horatio expresses skepticism (Pah!) not calling for silence (Still!)]

1868 c&mc

c&mc ≈ cald in 55 doc.

39-56 Clarke & Clarke (ed. 1868): “Ineffably fine as the opening of this supreme drama is, with its chill midnight terrors clinging to every line that is uttered, there is nothing more artistically conceived in the whole conduct of the first scene than the incredulity of Horatio as to the dead king’s spirit having appeared. It forestalls the want of belief that exists among us who read the play or witness its performance, and by the effect produced upon Horatio’s mind when the spectre actually comes is created the due impression that the author intends to make upon our senses. Horatio’s previous light treatment of the men’s assertion that they have seen the dread apparition, makes his subsequent words of acknowledged awe, his solemn admission of the truth of what he beholds, together with his trembling and turning pale (noticed by his companions), affect us as if they were the involuntary expression of our own awe-stricken imaginations.”

1879 Clarke & Clarke

Clarke & Clarke ≈ c&mc

39-56

1890 irv2

irv2: standard

39 Marshall (ed. 1890): “the scepticism of Horatio; whose attitude towards the Ghost is that of doubt, exactly as we should have expected in the chosen intimate of Hamlet. But Horatio, once having seen the Ghost, is thoroughly convinced, and doubts no more; while Hamlet, though he has much more reason to be thoroughly convinced of the genuineness of the apparition, yet is persecuted with doubts almost to the very end.”

Ed. note: Marshall ignores the nature of Horatio’s and Hamlet’s doubts. Once Horatio knows that such things can be he no longer doubts that such things exist, but he is no more certain than is Hamlet about what it is. See 1933, where Hamlet expresses his doubts about the apparition’s nature and Horatio does not contradict him.

1891 dtn1

dtn1: the gloss is implicit in clarke & clarke

39 Tush] Deighton (ed. 1891): “an exclamation of impatient incredulity.”

1962-63 mCraig

mCraig

39 Craig (1962-3, Box 3, ƒ B5, p. 79): Sh. makes Hamlet less incredulous than Horatio, perhaps because he thought of Hamlet as having “a wider ranging mind than” Horatio’s.

1996 Kliman

Kliman: Craig

39 Kliman (1996): There could be dramatic reasons for the difference between Horatio and Hamlet that mCraig notes; the audience needs Horatio’s skepticism to help it believe in the ghost; by the time Hamlet hears of the ghost, he can be less skeptical, though certainly he is, as Craig points out, only somewhat less incredulous than Horatio. Another reason could be variety. Another is that belief in the ghost of his father, though he does not readily assent to it, gives Hamlet a focus for his unease.

2006 ard3q2

ard3q2

39 Tush] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “an expression of contempt” Ed. note: much stronger than others’ glosses, and out of character for Horatio.