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

Line 43 - 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.

43 What we {haue two nights} <two Nights haue> seene.	1.1.33

1765 john1

john1

43 Johnson (ed. 1765): “This line is by Hanmer given to Marcellus, but without necessity.”

1773 v1773

v1773: john1

1773 jen

jen: han, john1

43 Jennens (ed. 1773): “This line, which all the former editions have made a part of Bernardo’s speech, H[anmer] seems justly to have given to Marcellus; though J[ohnson] thinks, without necessity. But can we suppose, that when Bernardo is beginning to speak about the ghost, Horatio would interrupt him, and say, Well, sit we down and let us hear Bernardo speak of this ? This behaviour must be very absurd.—The matter is plainly as follows. Horatio is incredulous, Bernardo says, ‘Sit down, let us endeavor to convince you, Horatio, of the truth of this apparition.’ Upon which Marcellus eagerly says to Horatio, ‘What we have two nights seen,’ and attest to the truth of, sure you may believe. ‘Well (says Horatio, interrupting him) I have heard the story of this ghost from you, Marcellus, already; let us sit down and hear what Bernardo has to affirm about it.’ It must be a very dull understanding that can perceive no necessity of H[anmer]’s alteration.”

1774 capn

capn: han

43 Capell (1774, 1:1:122) says that the line cannot belong to Marcellus: “The preposition against, [in the previous line’s] construction carries also into [this line]: which if the Oxford editor had consider’d, it is possible he had not made an imperfect [i.e. incomplete] speech of it, detaching it from the speech of Bernardo and giving it to Marcellus.”

1778 v1778

v1778 = v1773

1785 v1785

v1785 = v1778

1790 mal

mal = v1785

1793 v1793

v1793 = mal

Ed. note: Until v1793, all the notes say “Hanmer” but all from v1793-v1821 say Sir T. or Sir Thomas Hanmer, perhaps a sign of deference, a class development, or a stylistic development.

1803 v1803

v1803 = v1793

1805 Seymour

Seymour: han

43 Seymour (1805, 2:138): “I am persuaded we should adopt the regulation of Sir Thomas Hanmer, who gives the last line to Marcellus.”

1813 v1813

v1813 = v1803

1819 cald1

cald1: han without attribution +

43 What] Caldecott (ed. 1819): “We must here supply, ‘with,’ or ‘by relating.’”

1821 v1821

v1821 = v1813

1832 cald2

cald2: contra cald1

43 Caldecott (ed. 1832): “In grammar the two words story and what are put in apposition; and mean that story, the account or relation which we gave or made of the spectacle seen, etc. etc. Otherwise, with must be understood before what, and the second line be thrown into a parenthesis: but, as above interpreted, it is the natural and familiar, old English, dialogue language.”

1853- mEliot

mEliot: cald without attribution

43 What] Eliot apud Jane Irwin, orally (ms. notes in ed. 1832): “with omitted.”

1854 del2

del2

43 See n. 42

1868 c&mc

c&mc ≈ cald without attribution

43 Clarke & Clarke (ed. 1868): “‘With’ is elliptically understood before ‘what.’”

1870 Abbott

Abbott

43 What] Abbott (1870, § 252): “What depends on a verb of speech, implied either in ‘assail your ears’ or in ‘story,’ i.e. ‘let us tell you what we have seen,’ or ‘our story describing what we have seen.’

“The antecedent was mostly omitted . . . . ”

1872 cln1

cln1

1877 v1877

v1877: han, jen, cald, ktly

Ed. note: See v1877 n.40.

1880 meik

meik ≈ del2 without attribution + in magenta

42-3 our story, What] Meikeljohn (ed. 1880): “Or the pointing ‘Our story—what we have two nights seen’ (the what we being an expansion or explanation of our story), might give the sense better.”

1880 Tanger

Tanger

43 Tanger (1880, pp. 121) attributes the F1 variant as “probably owing to the negligence, inattention, or criticism of the compositor.”

1881 hud3

hud3 ≈ cald2 without attribution

43 What] Hudson (ed. 1881): “‘With an account of what,’ is the meaning; the language is elliptical.”

1890 irv2

irv2: standard; review of han’s idea of SP, which he rather likes;

43 haue two nights]Marshall (ed. 1890) believes that the F1 word order is better because it keeps the auxiliary with its verb and makes two more emphatic.

irv2

43 What] Marshall (ed. 1890): “We may either take What to equal ‘With what’ or ‘Concerning what’; or we may take the whole sentence to be the explanation of the story in the preceding line.”

1903 rlf3

rlf3: standard

43 What] Rolfe (ed. 1903): “As to what, etc.”

1934 cam3

cam3

43 two nights] Wilson (ed. 1934): “The play opens on the eve of the coronation and marriage of Claudius; and the Ghost begins to walk three days before the ceremony.”

Ed. note: See time in the play

1938 parc

parc

43 haue two nights] Parrott & Craig (ed. 1938): “[Q2], supported by [Q1], reads have two nights; [F1] two nights have. This variant may be due to an editorial change for euphony, or ease of pronunciation. There are a number of such cases in [F1], Or it may be due, as Greg thinks, simply to careless work by the compositor of [F1].”

1939 kit2

kit2: standard

43 Kittredge (ed. 1939): "This clause is the object of assail your ears, i.e. force you to hear (with the suggestion of an attempt to convince): ’may make one more attempt to get a hearing from you for our account of what we have seen.’ "

1947 cln2

cln2

43 two nights] Wilson (apud Rylands, ed. 1947): “The play opens on the eve of the coronation and marriage of Claudius; and the Ghost begins to walk three days before the ceremony.”

2001 Greenblatt

Greenblatt

43 haue two nights seen] Greenblatt (2001, p.143): visits by ghosts were more likely when the memory of the loved one was fresh (or green as the king puts it), that is, within days or at most a month.

Ed. note: See, however, 322.

2006 ard3q2

ard3q2

43 What] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “i.e., with what”