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

Line 222 - 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.

222 And now Laertes whats the newes with you?	1.2.42

1819 mColeridge

mColeridge

222-30 And . . . Laertes?] Coleridge (1819, rpt. 1987, 5.2:297): “—Shakespear’s art in introduce a most important but still subordinate character first—Milton’s Beelzebub—So Laertes—who is yet thus graciously treated from the assistance given to the election of the King’s Brother instead of Son by Polonius—”

1870 Abbott

Abbott

222- 38 you . . . thou] Abbott (§ 235): Thou. Apparent exceptions. “In [222-38] the King, as he rises in his profession of affection to Laertes, passes from you to thou, subsequently returning to you. . . . In almost all cases where thou and you appear at first sight indiscriminately used, further considerations show some change in thought, or some influence of euphony sufficient to account for the change of pronoun.”

Abbott

222- 38 you . . . thou] Abbott (§ 231): “‘Thou’ in Shakespeare’s time was very much like du now among the Germans, the pronoun of (1) affection towards friends, (2) good-humoured superiority to servants, and (3) contempt or anger to strangers. It had, however, already fallen somewhat into disuse, and, being regarded as archaic, was naturally adopted (4) in the higher poetic style and in the language of solemn prayer.”

1877 v1877

v1877 = Abbott §231; // Mac. 5.3.37

222- 38 you . . . thou]

Mac. v1873 (rpt. 1963) quotes Skeat (William of Palerne, p. xlii, E. E. Text Soc. 1867): “Thou is the langauge of a lord to a servant, of an equal to an equal, and expresses also companionship, love, permission, defiance, scorn, threatening; while ye is the language of a servant to a lord, and of compliment, and further expresses honour, submission, entreaty.”

v1877 = Coleridge

222-30 And . . . Laertes?]

1935 Wilson

Wilson WHH

222-30 Wilson (1935, p. 31) < p. 31> points out that the king turns not to Ham. but to Laertes. Alluding to a point made by his collaborator Harold Child, Wilson also notes that the king “positively coos over him, caressing him with his name four times in nine lines.” His attention argues his obligations to the family. </ p. 31>

1930, 1946 Granville-Barker

Granville-Barker: Child in Wilson

222-30 Granville-Barker (1930, rpt. 1946, 1: 50): “The repeated name is almost a caress [n. 5. A point made by Mr. Harold Child].”

1939 kit2

kit2

222-30 Kittredge (ed. 1939): "Ceremony over, and the state business dispatched, Claudius falls gracefully into a familiar strain, which becomes still more intimate as he proceeds, At [225] he abandons the royal we and the formal you for the personal and affectionate I (my) and thou. He is affable as well as kingly, and Shakespeare clearly means to depict him as endowed with distinct charm in speech and bearing."

1980 pen2

pen2

222 Laertes] Spencer (ed. 1980): “(accented on the second syllable: lay-�r-tees).”

1982 ard2

ard2: cam3; xref

222 Laertes] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “ ’Caressing him with his name four times in nine lines’ (Dover Wilson), the King shows his graciousness to Polonius’s son. But much more important, Shakespeare takes this opportunity of spotlighting the youth who is to be Hamlet’s ’image’ (cf. [3581), foil, foe, and ultimately killer. Cf. Intro., p. 133 [and Laertes doc.].”

1987 Mercer

Mercer

222-43 Mercer (1987, p. 140): “Again, this is the accomplished politician at work, assiduously drawing attention to his own virtues as he goes about the most routine tasks.” It also brings “into focus one of the structural parallels of the play . . . Polonius and Laertes are father and son . . . . ”

2003 Kliman

Kliman: Snyder

222 Kliman (2003): The way Sh. fools us is remarkable. I don’t think anyone has mentioned why the king would be willing to have either Laertes or Hamlet (both skilled swordsmen) depart before an impending war. His reason for having Hamlet stay is not so he can lead forces in war if necessary. And Laertes is allowed to go to pursue his own interests in spite of his being a natural leader (as appears in act 4). I think with these moves Sh. begins to turn away from what had appeared to be, as Snyder (2002) points out, the impelling action, of the first scene and the first movement of the second scene: war with the Norwegians.

2006 ard3q2

ard3q2

222-30 And . . . Laertes?] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “Sometimes in performance Hamlet seems about to address the King, who deliberately turns away from him to Laertes; the King may appear ingratiating by his repetition of Laertes’ name and flattery of his father; alternatively he may be coaxing a shy Laertes to speak up.”

ard3q2

222, 225 you, thou] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “The King mainly uses the more formal you to Laertes and to Hamlet at [246] and [268-99], while the Queen uses the more familiar thou to Hamlet at [248-53]; see also [465 CN]”