HW HomePrevious CNView CNView TNMView TNINext CN

Line 46 - Commentary Note (CN) More Information

Notes for lines 0-1017 ed. Bernice W. Kliman
For explanation of sigla, such as jen, see the editions bib.
46 Bar. Last night of all,1.1.35
46 50 51 608 1598
1746 Upton
Upton
46 Upton (1746, p. 336) calls 46 (as well as 608, 1598) “iambic monometer acatalectic, of two feet.”
1752 Anon.
Anon.
46-51 Anon. (1752, pp. 9-11): <p. 9>“The Poet has shown his Judgment in the Conduct of this Scene. The Time is Midnight, the Place a Platform </p.9 ><p. 10> before the Palace, upon which two officers make their Appearance, and along with them a Gentleman to whom they had communicated what they had seen two Nights successively, who wanted ocular Demonstration before he would credit the surprising Story. The Centinel is about to give a long circumstantial Narration, when he is unexpectedly interrupted by the Entrance of the Ghost. The Truth of the Observation ‘Segnius irritant animos demissa per aurem, Quam quæ sunt occulis subjecta fidelibus’ is here apparent.
“The most artful and spirited Recital could never have raised the Terror that possesses the Spectators at the Appearance of the Phantom, who, from first to last, is grand and majestick, and maintains an equal Character. Shakespeare has strictly observed that Rule of Horace, Nec Deus intersit nisi dignus vindice nodus.
“He has raised the dead, but it is to reveal a Secret which had never been discovered but by the Intervention and Assistance of a super-natural Power. None of his Plays are destitute of a Moral, this carries a noble one. ‘Though a Villain may for a Time escape Justice, and enjoy the Fruits of his Wickedness, yet divine Providence will at length overtake him in the Height of his Career and bring him to condign Punishment. Raro antecedentem scelestum Deseruit Pœna, pede claudo.’
“It had been better for his Successors in the Drama, </p. 10><p. 11> had this Play never been written; for when they observed the universal Applause he received, and indeed very justly deserved, for introducing on the Stage, this inimitable Piece of Machinery, they took Care to croud their Plays with Ghosts, tho’ they had no other Effect than to frighten and delight the credulous and ignorant. Thus what in the Hands of an able Master, is noble and sublime; attempted by a Bungler, appears absurd and ridiculous.” </p. 11>
1818 Coleridge
Coleridge
46-50 Coleridge (1818, Lectures, 2:139-40): <p. 139> “ [. . . ] the indefiniteness of the first opening out of the occasion of this anxiety . . . rising with the next speech into Touching this dreaded Sight, twice seen of us—. 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—</p. 140>
1877 v1877
v1877 = Coleridge
46-50 Coleridge (apud ed. 1877): “In the deep feeling which Ber. has of the solemn nature of what he about to relate, he makes an effort to master his own imaginative terrors by an elevation of style,—itself a continuation of the effort,—by turning off from the apparition, as from something which would force him too deeply into himself, to the outward objects, the realities of nature, which had accompanied it. This passage seems to contradict the critical law that what is told makes a faint impression compared with what is beholden; for it does indeed convey to the mind more than the eye can see; whilst the interruption of the narrative at the very moment when we are most intensely listening for the sequel, and have our thoughts diverted from the dreaded sight in expectation of the desired, yet almost dreaded, tale,—this gives all the suddenness and surprise of the original appearance.”
1891 dtn1
dtn1
46 Deighton (ed. 1891): “only last night.”
1904 ver
ver dtn1 without attribution
46 Verity (ed. 1904): “i.e. it was only (or but) last night that etc.; the ellipse is ‘of all nights.’”
1909 subb
subb ≈ ver without attribution
46 Subbarau (ed. 1909): “i.e. of all (nights); but last night; only last night.”
1924 vand
vand
46 Van Dam (ed. 1924, p. 121) asserts that “the original text” combined 46 and 50. The later texts placed 50 later for a stage effect, to have the ghost enter at the moment the word one is said.
1947 cln2
cln2 = dtn without attribution
46
1973 SQ
DeLuca
46-51 DeLuca (1973, p. 148) suggests that besides considering the ghost’s stated reason for returning (710 CN) we accept the sheer theatricality of his coming, which she says is through the trap.
1982 ard2
ard2 ≈ ver without attribution
46 of all] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “Emphatic; cf. last of all,”
1987 oxf4
oxf4 ≈ ver without attribution
46 Hibbard (ed. 1987): “Why, only last night.”
1987 Mercer
Mercer
46-50 Mercer (1987, p. 125): “ . . . the most striking feature of Bernardo’s tale is its strangely leisurely syntax; it is so circuitous that the literal object of his story—the Ghost himself—has appeared on stage before the narrator has reached the verb that would introduce him as a grammatical object.”
2006 ard3q2
ard3q2: standard
46 Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “i.e. the most recent night (’only last night’).”