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

Line 76 - 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.

76 Such was the very Armor he had on,	1.1.60

1733 theo1

theo1 in JC.

76 Armor] Theobald (ed. 1733, 6:175 n. 22): “Now Horatio, being a School-fellow of young Hamlet, could hardly know in what Armour the Old King kill’d Fortinbras of Norway; which happen’d on the very day, whereon young Hamlet was born. Besides, in strictness, why should the Ghost of the Old King walk in Armour, who was murther’d in Time of Peace, sleeping in his Garden? But these Circumstances and strokes of Fancy dress up an amusing Picture, for which the Poet, perhaps, is neither accountable to Propriety, nor Probability.”

1736 Stubbs

Stubbs contra theo1 without attribution

76 Armor] Stubbs (1736, pp. 10-11), in discussing the choice of armor, determines that Sh. had four choices: regal garments, the garb of interment, some common habit, or some fantastic garment. After considering each in turn, Stubbs decides that none will do: regal costume is too common [on stage if not in life], grave clothes would be horrible rather than terrible [the desired effect], common clothes would not inspire awe, and something invented might be grotesque; armor “affects the Spectators, without being phantastick” and gives rise to the “fine image that follows.”

1876 N&Q

Anon.

76 Anon. (5 N&Q 6 [5 Aug. 1876]: 103-4): <p. 103> on how Horatio would have known about armor worn thirty years before. “Age of Horatio.— “In a widely known national picture of ours, in all pictures on the subject I have seen, and on the stage, Horatio is represented as of the same age as Hamlet, a very grave and injurious mistake. Few young men of thirty would have had sufficient experience of the world, or stability of character, </p.103> <p. 104>

1877 v1877

v1877: N&Q

76 Furness (ed. 1877): “Was this the very armour that he wore thirty years before, on the day Hamlet was born (see [3338].) How old is Horatio?”

1891 dtn1

dtn1

76 Deighton (ed. 1891): “not necessarily the very armour, but armour closely resembling it.”

1899 ard1

ard1 = v1877 +

76 Dowden (ed. 1899): “ . . . the armour could be remembered and be pointed out, when worn later.”

1903 rlf3

rlf3 ≈ ard1

76 Armor]

1917 MLR

Greg

76-9 Greg (MLR 12 [1917]: 408-9): Horatio, as a friend of Hamlet’s, cannot have been more than a baby during the events he describes. He speaks as if he knew the king very well. Cp. CN 375, where Horatio admits to having seen the king only once.

1934 cam3

cam3

76 Armor] Wilson (ed. 1934): “That the Ghost appears ‘in arms’ is clearly of great significance to all who speak of it; cf. [124+3, 391, 421-6, 456, 637]. It gives Ham. the clue to the apparition before he sees it; and makes him suspect ‘foul play’ and the need for vengeance [456]. That the armour was also dramatically extraordinarily effective, we cannot doubt; Sh. replaced the stock stage-spook from Tartarus clad in a leather pilch by a Christian spirit ‘in his habit as he lived’ [2518]. Cf. F. W. Moorman, The Pre-Shakespeaian Ghost and Shakespeare’s Ghosts, M.L.R. vol. 1. and Sh. Eng. 2, 268. ”

1982 ard2

ard2: ard1 +

76 Jenkins (ed. 1982) believes that Sh. was not concerned about the dating of the event described in the following lines until later, when he put it at the time of Hamlet’s birth.

1984 Klein

Klein: ard1; Stoll

76 the very Armor] Klein (ed. 1984): “Horatio’s knowledge here and below [97-124] is problematic (just like his ignorance in [617]). According to [the gravedigger, 3338] that combat happened 30 years ago. Horatio’s presence would render him very old. Desperate speculations (like Dowden’s imagining that this particular armour became famous) help less than the concept of Horatio’s choric function (cf. Ophelia [noble mind 1806-16], Gertrude [willow 3158-75] and Fortinbras [last speech 3895-3904], . . . E.E. Stoll, Poets and Playwrights [Minneapolis, 1930], pp.75-6). The concept does not necessarily lead to a disintegration of this character. Horatio owns certain traits (dry humour is one of them, see e.g. line 28 above) and has his own line of development, leading him from the periphery of the court to its centre.”

1994 Derrida

Derrida

76 Armor] Derrida (1994, p. 8, quoted by Griffiths, pp. 160-1): <p. 160> “The armor, this ’costume’ which no stage production will ever be able to leave out, we see it cover, from head to foot, in Hamlet’s eyes, the supposed body of his father. We do not know whether it is or is not part of the spectral apparition, This protection is rigorously problematic [[ . . .]] for it presents perception from deciding on the identity that it wraps so solidly in its carapace. The armor may be the body of a real artifact, a kind of technical prosthesis, a body foreign to the spectral body it dresses, dissimulates and protects, masking even its identity. The armor lets one see nothing </p.160> <p. 161> of the spectral body, but at the level of the head and beneath the visor, it permits the so-called father to see and to speak. Some slits are cut into it and adjusted so as to permit him to see without being seen, but to speak in order to be heard. The helmet, like the visor, did not merely offer protection: it topped off the coat of arms and indicated the chief’s authority, like the blazon of his nobility.” </p. 161>

Ed. note: On the contrary, many productions, both on stage and on film, do leave out the armor. Nevertheless they may still use the word armor: perhaps it’s up to the audience to envision it.

1996 Snyder

Snyder

76-80 Snyder (1996, rpt. 2002, p. 94) points out that from the first, as part of the buildup of suspense about impending war, Sh. encourages us to think of the ghost in military terms: “It all fits: the strict watch [87], the munitions-makers [89] and shipwrights working overtime [92], and now this ghost in the likeness of the original combatant.”

Ed. note: See also Snyder’s notes in 86, 195, 395, 958

2000 Edelman

Edelman

76 Armor] Edelman (2000, pp. 20-2) <p. 20> speculates that Shn actors wore real armor, but whether of plate or mail is uncertain. </p. 20><p. 21>“A suit of field armour could weigh upwards of 50 pounds, but since the weight was evenly distributed, moving freely was not as difficult as is often thought </p. 21><p. 22> [ . . . ] and it is not at all unrealistic for Horatio to know the Ghost is King Hamlet by recognizing” him by his armor. </p. 22>

2002 Kliman

Kliman

76-7 Most commentators assume that Horatio refers here to the same person named in 99. But since more than one battle between the two countries is possible, Fortinbrasse of Norway may not be the king but the king’s brother. Separating the two battles clarifies a number of issues: the problem of Horatio recognizing the king’s armor and the position of young Fortinbras. See n. 105 and the repeated references to Norway meaning the King of Norway: none unequivocally links the word to Fortinbras or his father.

Ref. to Norway meaning king of Norway: 114 (either country or king), 207, 214, 1084, 1094, 1097, 1094, 2743+7, 2943+14. Only the 1st could be Fortinbras’s father. The rest refer to the present elderly king.

2005 ShSur

Foakes

76 Armor] Foakes (2005, pp. 34-5) <p.34> asks “why is this ghost, uniquely among the more than sixty stage ghosts in drama of the period, clad in armour? </p.34> <p.35>. . . . Horatio [391] says he is armed ’at point’, or properly in every detail, ’cap-a-pie’. This term, commonly glossed in editions as equivalent to ’from head to foot’, was properly used to describe a kind of heavy armour that encased the whole body, and was intended for use on horseback.” </p.35>

Foakes

76 Armor] Foakes apud Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006, for CN 51): Thompson & Taylor: “Foakes (’Ghost’) points out that the costume . . . might have emphasized the character’s association with an obsolete kind of militarism, in contrast to the contemporary military uniforms worn by the sentinels; all the other characters in Shakespeare’s plays who are associated with body armour appear in plays set in the past, whether the period of classical Greece and Rome or that of the War of the Roses.”

2006 ard3q2

ard3q2: xref; List of Roles

76 the very Armor] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “The assumption here seems to be that Horatio recognizes the armour, which is mentioned again at [391], just as Hamlet later recognizes ’My father in his habit as he lived’ ([2518]), but this raises problems of chronology (and Horatio’s age) when we learn that the event referred to happened 30 years previously ([3334-52]); see [97-112]n. and List of Roles, 10n.”