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

Line 245 - 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.

245 Ham. A little more then kin, and lesse then kind.	1.2.65

1730 Bailey

Bailey

245 kin] Bailey (1730): “[[prob. of kind, Teut. a Child]] related to.”

Bailey

245 kind] Bailey (1730): “[[prob. of cyn. Sax. an agree with others]] shewing good Will, &c.” and “[[cynne, Sax.]] Species or Sort.”

1744 han1

han1

245 Hanmer (ed. 1744): “It is not unreasonable to suppose that this was a proverbial expression, known in former times for a Relation so blended and confused that it was hard to define it.”

1746 Upton

Upton:

245 Upton (1746, p. 250): “There is a kind of pun in repeating pretty near the same letters with the preceding word, to which the rhetoricians have given a particular name, and in making a sort of jingling sound of words. Of this the sophists of old were fond, and they were ridiculed ingeniously in Plato’s Banquet for this affectation. [Greek] ” His many examples on pp. 251-4 show that it is a popular device with writers ancient and modern.

Upton

245 Upton (1746, p. 252): “Instances in Shakespeare are without number; however I will mention one or two.” He quotes from Mac. 1.7.5 (478): “surcease, success,” and this line from Ham.

Upton

245 Upton (1746, p. 252 n.) <n> “He seems to have taken this from Gorboduc, Act I. ‘In kinde a father, but not in kindelyness.’ ” </n>’

1747 warb

warb

245 Warburton (ed. 1747): “The King had called him cousin Hamlet, therefore Hamlet replies, A little more than kin,—i.e. A little more than cousin; because, by marrying his mother, he was become the King’s son-in-law: So far is easy. But what means the latter part? —and less than kind? The King, in the present reading, gives no occasion for this reflection, which is sufficient to shew it to be faulty [this man is insufferable!], and that we should read and point the first line thus, But now, my cousin Hamlet.— Kind my son—i.e., But now let us turn to you, cousin Hamlet. Kind my son, (or, as we now say, Good my son) lay aside this clouded look. For thus he was going to expostulate gently with him for his melancholy, when Hamlet cut him short [how could he cut him short if this were an aside?] by reflecting on the titles he gave him; ‘A little more than kin, and less than kind.’ which we now see is a pertinent reply.”

1747- mtby4

mtby4: warb

245 Thirlby (1747-): “monstrous [+ illeg. Latin].”

mtby4

245 then . . . kind]Thirlby (1747-): “fsql [weak conjecture] of kind & less of kin”

1753 blair

blair = han not warb

245

1765 Heath

Heath: warb +

244-5 Cosin . . . kind] Heath (1765, pp. 522-3) <p. 522> “ ‘But now, my cousin Hamlet,— Kind my son—’ The latter part of this line is an alteration of Mr. Warburton from the common reading ‘But now, my cousin Hamlet, and my son. —’ In order to account for the latter part of Hamlet’s reply, ‘A little more than kin, and less than kind,’ and to the King’s address to Hamlet thus altered, he assures us, ‘the reply is pertinent.’ I could wish he had at the same time obliged us with the meaning of it, that we might have judged whether it is pertinent or not. For if it be understood, not of the King, but of Hamlet himself, as Mr. Warburton directs us to understand it, I must own its meaning is beyond my comprehension. In order to make sense of it, appears to me that we must necessarily understand it to be spoken a parte, and of the King; and then the intended purport of it will be, You are a little more than of kin to me by your marriage with my mother, and less than kind,x by stepping in between me and my hopes of the kingdom. ” But then, according to this interpretation, the common </p. 522> <p. 523> reading will be right; nor will there be any occasion to suppose the latter part of the reply referred to something the King had precedently said, or that the expression was influenced by any thing else, but an inclination, too frequent with our poet, notwithstanding his superior genius,x to playing on words.” </p. 523>

Ed. note: x marks inserts by Tollet; see below

1765 john1

john ≈ warb, han1 +

245 Johnson (ed. 1765): “ Kind is the Teutonic word for Child. Hamlet therefore answers with propriety to the titles of cousin and son, which the King had given him, that he was somewhat more than cousin, and less than son.”

1765- mtol2

mtol2 = john, warb from john +

245 Tollet (ms. notes in Heath, p. 522) : “Quare [?] of Johnson’s note and see Somner of Gavelkind p. 7. ” [bracket] “ Somner says, Kind signifies a male child in the Dutch or Balzick [?] tongue no more than a female being a word common to children of either sex.

“Kind is the Teutonick word for Child, as Johnson says, and therefore Hamlet answers with propriety to the titles of cousin and son—Lombardéj Perambulation &c Kent says much the same p. 528,529. Sed quare.”

1770 Gentleman

Gentleman

245-57 Gentleman (1770, 1: 15): <p. 15> Hamlet’s “indifferent, contemptuous replies to the King, and his catching so eagerly at the word seems, used by his mother, are a happy commencement of his character.”</p. 15>

1771 han3

han3

245 kind] Hawkins (ed. 1771, 6: Glossary) “is natural: kind, is nature: kindless, unnatural.”

1765- mDavies

mDavies

245 Davies (1765-): “The meaning of this line however variously represented by Commentators seems to be very obvious.

“As I am the rightful Heir to the Crown I am more than your Relative, I am your King—And as you have robbed me of my inheritance & committed Incest with my Mother it is impossible that I can have any affection for you—”

1773 v1773

v1773 = john

245

1774 Gents

Q [Kynaston]: warb, john, han marked in red ; from upton the ref. to Gorboduc but not the same quotation; Q. in SJC 1768 without attribution with the multiple references to Gorboduc moved to a footnote + further analogues, //s in magenta underlined

245 Q. [Kynaston] (Gent. Mag. 44 [1774], 454-6): <p. 454>“In [244] the King thus addresses himself to the Prince, his nephew: ‘But now, my cousin Hamlet, and my son:’ to which Hamlet (aside) replies, ‘A little more than kin, and less than kind. </p. 454> <p. 455>

“Bishop Warburton, without the least necessity, considers kind as an adjective; having first, without the least authority, proposed an alteration in the text, as stiff • as it is arbitrary: ‘But now, my cousin Hamlet, kind my son.’

“Dr. Johnson remarks, that kind is the Teutonic word for child; ‘Hamlet therefore, says he, ‘answers with propriety to the titles of cousin and son, which the King had given him, that he was somewhat more than cousin, and less than son.’ The explanation is plausible; but does not, I think, come up to the full meaning of the text, frittering away all the smartness and sting of the reply.

“I have always supposed, with Sir Thomas Hanmer, that ‘this was a proverbial expression,’ of very ancient date; and have lately been confirmed in this opinion by the following passage in Gorboduc, a tragedy, written by Lord Buckhurst, and first printed two years after Shakespeare was born, 1565. Videna, Gorboduc’s Queen, [4.1] thus expresses her resentment against her younger son Porrex, the murderer of Ferrex, her elder son: ‘Thou, Porrax, thou this damne deed has wrought, Thou, Porrax, thou shalt deeply bye the same: Traitor to thy kin and kind, to sire and me, To thine own flesh, and traitor to thyself.’ A passage also in [Sh., R2 4.1.141 (2061)], ‘Peace shall go sleep with Turks and Infidels, And in this seat of peace, tumultuous wars Shall kin with kin, and kind with kind confound.’ serves to prove the truth of Hanmer’s observation, that this was indeed ‘a proverbial expression;’ though I cannot agree with him, when he adds, “known in former times for a relation so confused and blended, that it was hard to define it.” For nothing can be more certain, than that the word kind, which occasions all the difficulty, in the passages above produced, uniformly signifies nature, as may still further appear, by comparing them with the quotations † below, from the </p.455> <p.456> same authors, where that word will evidently admit of no other sense. Hence we easily discover Hamlet’s meaning to be, that the relation which he bore to the king, his uncle, was something more than that of a cousin, or nephew—[a little more than kin] —the King having married his mother; but though he was become his son by this marriage, yet was his near relationship still inferior to that of nature, still an unnatural one, —[and less than kind] —the marriage being founded in two unnatural crimes, murder and incest; hereby sarcastically glancing at the enormity of the King’s villainy, who, by such a complication of vice, was, against nature, entitled to call him his son, as well as his nephew, or cousin.” </p.456>

<n•> <p.455> “When I say this, I do not forget the frequent use of the epithet good before the pronoun possessive in this author; as ‘good my Lord, good my Liege,”. . . [&c] since it so frequently occurs in Shakespeare in that order. This may have led the learned Bishop into a mistake, and induced him to believe that the epithet kind might be used with the same freedom, ‘kind my son :’ whereas, though we do frequently meet with that epithet in the author [H5, H6 and elsewhere] , yet it is always in the proper and regular form of construction nor can there be a single instance produced, in all his works, where it is placed before the pronoun possessive. </p.455> </n•>

<n†><p.455> “ ‘— A father? no: In kind a father, not in kindliness.’ Gorboduc [1.1]. ‘And eke that they, whom Nature hath prepar’d In time to take y place in princely seat, May not be thought for their unworthy life, And for their lawless swerving out of kind, Worthy to lose what law and kind them gave.’ Ibid. [1.2]

. . . [after several more examples from Gorboduc] Ashby cites from [JC 1.3.64 (503)]:

‘But if you would consider the true cause Why birds and beasts, from quality and kind, all these things change their ordinance, Their natures, and presumed faculties, To monstrous quality—’ </p.455>

[from Tit 2.1.116 (679)]: <p.456>‘The forest walks are wide and spacious And many unfrequented plots there are, Fitted by kind for rape and villainy.’

[from Ant. 5.2.263 (3514)] ‘You must think this, look you, that the worm will do his kind.’ </p.456> </n†>

1774 capn

capn

245 Capell (1774, 1:1:123): “The expressions in [245], are an observation in this Author’s manner upon the words of the last speaker; importing,—a little more akin than you should be, and less kind.”

1778 v1778

v1778 = v1773 +

245 Steevens (ed. 1778): “In this line, with which Shakespeare introduces Hamlet, Dr. Johnson has perhaps pointed out a nicer distinction than it can justly boast of. To establish the sense contended for, it should have been proved that kind was used by any English writer for child. A little more than kin, is a little more than a common relation. The king was certainly less than kind, by having betrayed the mother of Hamlet into an indecent and incestuous marriage, and obtained the crown by means which he suspects to be unjustifiable. In the 5th Act, the Prince accuses his uncle of having popt in between the election and his hopes; which obviates Dr. Warburton’s objection to the old reading, viz. that ‘the king had given no occasion for such a reflection.’

“A jingle of the same sort is found in Mother Bombie 1594, and seems to have been proverbial, as I have met with it more than once: ‘—the nearer we are in blood, the further we must be from love; the greater the kindred is, the less the kindness must be.’ Again, in Gorbodoc, a tragedy, 1565: ‘In kinde a father, but not in kindelyness.’ As kind, however, signifies nature, Hamlet may mean that his relationship was become an unnatural one, as it was partly founded upon incest. Our author’s [JC, Ant, R2, and Tit.], exhibit instances of kind being used for nature; and so too in this play of [Ham. 1621]: ‘Remorseless, treacherous, lecherous, kindless villain.’”

1780 mals1

malsi : Steevens +

245 Malone (1780, 1:350) adds to Steevens’ note: “Hamlet does not, I think, mean to say, that his uncle is a little more than kin &c. The king had called the prince—‘My cousin Hamlet, and my son.’ — His reply, therefore, is—‘I am a little more than thy kinsman, [for I am thy step-son;] and somewhat less than kind to thee, [for I hate thee, as being the person who has entered into an incestuous marriage with my mother.] Or, if we understand kind in its ancient sense, then the meaning will be—I am more than thy kinsman, for I am thy step-son; being such, I am less near to thee than thy natural offspring, and therefore not entitled to the appellation of son, which you have now given me. Malone.”

1783 Ritson

Ritson: warb, john, Steevens +

245 Ritson (1783, p. 191): <p. 191>“i.e. we are, indeed, somewhat too nearly related, but our relationship savours very little either of nature or affection.

“Why the page of Shakspeare should be loaded and disgraced with such a quantity of ill-founded and injudicious notes, is a question that every reader will find frequent occasion to ask. To any one acquainted with the language of Shakspeare and of nature, the sense of this passage was sufficiently clear. Bishop Warburton and dr. Johnson, out of the abundance of their misunderstanding, have done every thing in their power to confound it; and those who look upon them to be the most intelligent and sagacious of all possible critics, are naturally led to conceive difficulties which do not exist. Mr. Steevens has established the true reading, and, if there be any necessity for a note, his, with a little alteration, should alone remain, and all the others be consigned to that oblivion they so well merit.” </p. 191>

1784 Richardson

Richardson

245 Richardson (1784, rpt. 1812, pp. 70-1): Feeling aversion for an incestuous uncle, “Hamlet delivers himself ambiguously, inclined to vent his displeasure, but unwilling to incur suspicion.”

<p. 70> Richardson explains aversion. It “not only implies dislike and disapprobation of certain qualities, but also an apprehension of suffering by their communion; and, consequently, a desire of avoiding them. As it arises on the view of groveling and sordid qualities, we treat the character they </p.70> <p. 71> belong to with contempt, rather than with indignation. They influence the imagination; we turn from them with disgust and loathing, as if they were capable of tainting us by their contagion; and, if those that possess them discover any expectation of our regarding them, we are offended at their pretensions. Claudius, endeavouring to caress and flatter Hamlet, of whose virtues and abilities he is afraid, thinks of honouring him by a claim on consanguinity, and is replied to with symptoms of contempt and aversion. Yet Hamlet delivers himself ambiguously, inclined to vent his displeasure, but unwilling to incur suspicion.” </p. 71>

1784 ays1

ays1: han1, john, Steevens summarized with attribution

245

1784 Davies

Davies ≈ mDavies + small diff. marked in magenta (not underlined); additions in magenta underlined

245 Davies (1784, 3:10):“Hanmer supposes that this might formerly have been a proverbial expression; but vulgar saying or proverbs are gathered from such things as frequently happen, and not from circumstances and events which are unusual.

“The meaning of this line, however variously understood by different commentators, seems to be very obvious: ‘As I am the rightful heir to the crown, I am more than your relation; I am your king. As you have deprived me of my birthright, and committed the crime of incest with my mother, it is impossible I can have any affection for you.’

“It should be observed, that, whenever Hamlet speaks of the King, it is in terms of reproach and of the utmost contempt; nor does he ever seem to pay him the least respect, in his behaviour or address, when he speaks to him.”

1785 v1785

v1785 = v1778, malsi minus (han, warb) +

245 Farmer (apud Steevens, ed. 1785) “observes that kin, is still used for cousin in the midland counties. Steevens.”

1785 Heron (Pinkerton)

Heron: v1773

244-5 Heron (1785, pp. 311-12): “‘A little more than kin, and less than kind.’ This answer of Hamlet to the king’s expression, ‘My cousin, Hamlet, and my son,’ puzzles all the commentators, who seem none of them to have known that Shakspere was a bit of a punster. ‘Son and cousin’ would Hamlet say is more than kin, and yet I am less than kind; i. e. have no kindness for him to whom I stand in this connection. Some explain it more than kin, nearer than common kindred; and less than kind, less than friends; or no friend, as kyth, or kind, signifies in old English and in Scotish. Kyth and kin, in the latter language, I observe to imply friends and relations. A gentleman of Scotland, when we were conversing on this passage, gave me the following instance of the meaning of kyth and kin.; When Oliver was Protector, the judges of the court of sessions, appointed by him, formed such wise regulations and decrees, in that court, that not one of them could be rescinded, tho their successors in Charles’ reign wished to shew them all possible contempt. Sir Hew Dalrymple of North Berwick, President of Session in Queen Ann’s time, upon this being remarked in conversation, said angrily </p. 311><p. 312> It is no wonder: these folks had neither kyth nor kin. Implying that the justice of their judgments was neither biased by the influence of personal friends, nor of relations. The highest praise! tho meant as a satire on their want of connections and of birth.” </p. 312>

1787 ann

ann = v1785

245

1790 mal

mal = v1785

245

1790- mTooke

mTooke: Farmer +

245 Tooke (ms. notes in Malone, ed. 1790): “kinsman, is common in all counties.”

1791- rann

rann ≈ standard without attribution

245 Rann (ed. 1791-): “You are a little more akin to me than you should be, and less kind—I am somewhat more than your cousin, and less than your son—more intimately allied to you by kindred than affection.— ‘The nearer in blood, the further from love.’ ‘The greater the kindred, the less the kindness.’ ”

1793 v1793

v1793 = mal

245

1793- mSteevens

mSteevens as in v1803

245 kin . . . kind] Steevens (ms. notes, ed. 1793) : “ In the Battle of Alcazar, 1594. Muly Mahomet is called ‘Traitor to kinne and kinde.’”

1801 Todd/ Milton

Newton (a prior editor)

245 kin . . . kind] Newton (apud Todd, 1801, 2:416), remarking on the front rhyme in Milton (“Beseeching or besieging” P.L. 5. 869), which some think is a fault, says, “This sort of jingle is like that in Terence, Andria [1.3.13] —‘inceptio est amentium, haud amentium;’ and that in Shakspeare, Hamlet [245, and quotes]. Newton.”

1803 v1803

v1803 = v1793+

245 Steevens (ed. 1803): “In the Battle of Alcazar, 1594, Muly Mahomet is called ‘Traitor to kinne and kinde.’ ”

1805 Gifford

Gifford

179-244 Gifford (ed. Massinger, 1805, 3:455-6), quoting from the Cumberland Observer Nos. 77-79, discusses the Hamlet-like Charalois in the Massinger/Field Fatal Dowry, commending Massinger’s emulation of Sh.’s use of silence for Hamlet “upon his first appearance.”

Charalois’s friend Romont refers to “black suits” and Gifford comments:

<p. 455> “This is Hamlet himself, his inky cloak, and customary suits of solemn black. The character of Charalois is thus fixed before he speaks . . . </p. 455> <p.456> [his] fine sensibility and high-born dignity of soul.” </p. 456>

1805 esch

esch : Johnson +

245 Eschenburg (ed. 1805): “‘Etwas mehr als Vetter, und weniger als Sohn.’ Im Engslichen: a little more than Kin, and less than Kind. Dieße letztere erklärt Dr. Johnson für das deutsche Wert Kind; es läßt sich aber wohl kein Beispiel anführen, daß es im Englischen jemals in diesem Sinne gebraucht sen. Die Meinung scheint indeß richtig getroffen zu senn, weil das Wort Kind ehedem auch blutsverwandt bedeutete.

1805 Seymour

Seymour

245 Seymour (1805, 2:144): “We are more than relations, and less than cordial friends.”

Seymour has Hamlet apply the terms both to the king and himself.

1813 v1813

v1813 = v1803

245

1813 mclr

mclr

245 Coleridge (Lectures on Shakespeare and Education, Lecture 3, 1813, Coleridge’s notes, transcribed by Ernest Hartley Coleridge, VCL ms BT 8; rpt. Coleridge, 1987, 5.1:540): “4. The first words that Hamlet speaks A little more than kin and less than kind—He begins with that Play of words, the complete absence of which characterizes Macbeth—This justify and? No one can have heard quarrels among the vulgar but must have noticed the close connection of Punning with angry contempt—add too, what is highly characteristic of superfluous activity of mind a sort of playing with a thread or watch chain, or snuff box.”

1816 Gifford

Gifford’s Massinger 3:467 = Gifford 1805

179-244

1819 Jackson

Jackson: pro john + in magenta underlined

245-7 Jackson (1819, p. 343): “Surely, Dr. Johnson’s explanation of this passage must be correct. The word kind (German for child) is more appropriate than any sense we can obtain from the English word kind. If I mistake not, in Scotland, the same word is in use, and has a similar meaning. It should also be observed, that the King hears not this observation of Hamlet, but is supposed to continue his speech—“How is it that the clouds still hand on you?” Here Hamlet answers him, and plays on the word sun,— ‘Not so, my lord, I am too much i’ the sun.’ When the King calls him son, in his former speech, Hamlet answers, aside, I am less than kind (son). But now he lets him take what meaning he pleases out of his words: his own being, I am too much of the son, in paying respect to a mother who disgraces Nature by sharing an incestuous bed.”

1819 cald1

cald1: Steevens without attribution; + underlined

245 Caldecott (ed. 1819): “More than a common relation, having a confusedly accumulated title of relationship, you have less than benevolent, or less than even natural feeling: by a play upon this last word, kind, in its double use and double sense: its use as an adjective and importing benevolent, and its sense as a substantive and signifying nature: the sense in which he presently afterwards uses it adjectively: ‘Remorseless, treacherous, lecherous, kindless, villain!’ [1621] Haml. where kindless means unnatural. And in this last sense of nature it is used, associated with kin, in the tragedy of Gorbodoc, 1561. ‘Traitor to kin and kind, to sire and me.’ [4.1]. A similar idea more than once occurs again. Donalbain says, ‘The near in blood, the nearer bloody.’ [Mac. 2.3.140 (2059)] and ‘Nearer in bloody thoughts and not in blood.’ [R3 2.1.93 (1219)] Glost.

“Mr. Steevens has supplied several apt instances of the joint use of these ideas and words: [and he quotes the Mother Bombie and Steevens’s Gorboduc ref., ‘Traitor to kinne and kinde’ —Battle of Alcasar, 1594]

“We have also, in his Venus and Adonis [204], ‘O had thy mother borne as bad a minde, Shee had not brought forth thee, but died unkinde.’ 4to. 1592.

“And Puttenham, in his Arte of Engl. Poesie, 4to, 1589, has ‘Whose kinne were never kinde, nor never good,” p. 189. See [Ado 4.1.74 (1733)] Claud.”

1819 mclr2

mclr2

245 Coleridge (1819-): “Play on words—either to 1. exuberant activity of mind, as in Shakespear’s higher comedy. 2. Invitation of it as a fashion which has this to say for it—why is not this ? better than groaning? or 3 contemptuous exultation in minds vulgarities and...success—Milton’s devils...the language of resentment, in order to express contempt—most common any... & origin of nick-names—or lastly as the language of supposed passion, especially of hardly smothered dislike . . . 3 of these combine in the present instance—and doubtless Farmer is right in supposing this equivocation carried on with too much in the sun.

1819 Coleridge

Coleridge

245 Ham. A . . . kind] Coleridge (1819, rpt. 1987, 5.2:297): “A little more than kin and less than kind—Play on words—either [due] to 1. exuberant activity of mind, as in Shakespear’s higher Comedy. 2. Imitation of it as a fashion which has this to say for it—why is not this now better than groaning?—or 3 contemptuous Exultation in minds vulgarized and overset by their success—Milton’s Devils—Or 4 as the language of resentment, in order to express Contempt—most common among the lower orders, & origin of Nick-names—or lastly as the language of suppressed passion, especially of hardly smothered dislike.— 3 of these combine in the present instance.— and doubtless Farmer is right in supposing the equivocation carried on into too much in the Son.”

1821 v1821

v1821 = v1813

245

1826 sing1

sing1 ≈ warb w/o attribution +

245 SInger (ed. 1826): “This passage has baffled the commentators, who are at issue about its meaning; but have none of them rightly explained it. A contemporary of the poet will lead us to its true meaning. A little more than kin has been rightly said [by warb] to allude to the double relationship of the king to Hamlet, as uncle and step-father, his kindred by blood and kindred by marriage. By less than kind Hamlet means degenerate and base. ‘Going out of kinde (says Baret), which goeth out of kinde, which dothe or worketh dishonour to his kinred [sic]. Degener; forlignant.’ —Alvearie, K.59. ‘Forligner (says Cotgrave), to degenerate, to grow out of kind, to differ in conditions with his ancestors.’ That less than kind and out of kind have the same meaning who can doubt?”

1826- Anon.

Anon: john, Tollet +

245 Anon. (ms. note in Singer, ed. 1826, 10:169) The hand is difficult to decipher. As near as I can make out, it disagrees with Singer’s note and suggests that Schlegel, in his translation, had the right idea, pronouncing the word Kind as kint. “One of the jingles of our Poet was obviously meant, as in ‘Gildg his double gilt”. The problty was that ‘kind’ was pronounced in his day as our saxon forefathers & the germans at present utter it, as if spelt ‘Kint,’ & meang, a child. This appears to have been so plain to Schlegel that witht note or comment he renders it thus in his admired translation of the play.”

1832 cald2

cald2 = cald1 with minor differences minus Puttenham

245

1839 knt1

knt1 = cald2 part of 1st sentence (and without attribution the part about nature) +

245 Knight (ed. 1839): “Caldecott interprets this passage thus: — ‘More than a common relation; having a confusedly accumulated title of relationship, you have less than benevolent, or less than even natural feeling.’ But surely Hamlet applies these words to himself. The king has called him, ‘my cousin Hamlet.’ He says, in a suppressed tone, ‘A little more than kin’—a little more than cousin. The king adds, ‘and my son.’ Hamlet says, ‘less than kind;’ —I am little of the same nature with you. Kind is constantly used in the sense of nature by Ben Jonson and other contemporaries of Shakspere.”

1843 knt2

knt2 = knt1

245

1843 col1

col1: han on proverb without attribution +

245 Collier (ed. 1843): “This expression seems to have been proverbial. In Rowley’s ‘Search for Money,’ 1609, (reprinted for the Percy Society) we meet with the following:—‘I would he were not so near to us in kindred, then sure he would be nearer in kindness.’—Sign. B.”

1845? mHunter

mHunter

245 Hunter (BL 24,497 fol. 32r): “A little more than kin and less than kind” is followed by an illegible short note Then he writes: “The king has just said

And now my Cousin Hamlet and our son

which Hamlet takes thus: He is not content with calling him his cousin (kinsman) but he further add now he is my father which I do not acknowledge, a little more than kin--but to use fathers less than kind, There is then thus no great fondness or regard for him

And Now the king goes on with his speech

Why is it that the cloud still hang on you

Hamlet replies, the same thought of the difference between kindness (kindness being still uppermost in his mind

Not so my Lord I am too much i the sun

Which first is responding to the clouds in the king’s speech--but the king in the Sun...” and I can’t make out the rest of the passage.

1843- mLewes

mLewes: S&A

245 kind] Lewes (1843-): “Note also: ‘In kinde a father, not in kindliness’ —Ferrex & Porrex.”

1844 verp

verp: standard, more like mal and Steevens than anyone else, I think + in magenta underlined

245 Verplanck (ed. 1844): “Commentators give different explanations of these words, chiefly funded on the different meanings of the word ‘kind’ when used as a substantive or an adjective. The expression was proverbial, and the use of it in several contemporary writers satisfies me that Hamlet means that he (Hamlet) is more than kin by his double relationship to the king, but less than kind, as bearing no kind feelings to him. Thus, in ‘Mother Bombie’—‘The nearer in blood, the further from love; the greater the kindred, the less the kindness.’ And in Rowley (1609)—‘I would he were not so near to me in kindred, then sure he would be nearer in kindness.’”

c. 1845 Hunter

Hunter

245 Hunter (apud mull, ed. 1885, p. xxv): “There is here, perhaps, a play on words, more than kin being more than three letters, and less than kind less than four. But mainly the young prince means he is something between cousin (collateral relation) and son, the titles which Claudius has just used. He is Claudius’s stepson as well as nephew, therefore a little more than kin.”

1845 Hunter

Hunter

245 Hunter (1845, 2: 216): “Deprived of the charities of kindred. See the explanation of this much-misunderstood line in the notes on [Ado 2.1.139 (546)] in vol. I, p. 250.”

Ed. note: Hunter has an extensive note about Ado, Lr., and Ham. in his 1:249-53.

1853- mLewes

mLewes ≈ Schlegel

245 Lewes (1832-): “Schlegel translates this line thus—Etwas mehr also Vater— minder als Kind.”

1854 del2

del2: standard

245 Delius (ed. 1854): “kin bezeichnet die Vetterschaft, kind die Blutsverwandtschaft, und Hamlet’s Vorhältnis zum Könige ist jetzt weder das Eine noch des Andere Völlig; kind ist zugleich ein in dieser Verbindung sprichwörtliches Worstspiel mit dem adjektivischen kind = freundlich. —Einen Bühnenweisung Aside wird hier von dem Herausgebern beigefügt.” [kin means the kin-group, kind the blood relationship, and Hamlet’s relation to the king is now neither one nor the other fully; kind at the same time in this connection a proverbial wordplay meaning friendly. Editors have added an aside stage direction.]

1856 hud1

hud1 ≈ sing1 without attribution minus struck out and with small differences in immaterials such as quotation marks &c.

245 Hudson (ed. 1856): “This passage has baffled the commentators, who are at issue about its meaning; but have none of them rightly explained it. A contemporary of the poet will lead us to its true meaning. A little more than kin has been rightly said to allude to the double relationship of the king to Hamlet, as uncle and step-father, his kindred by blood and kindred by marriage. By less than kind Hamlet means degenerate and base. ‘Going out of kinde,’ says Baret, ‘which goeth out of kinde, which dothe or worketh dishonour to his kinred. Degener; forlignant.’ —Alvearie, K.59. ‘Forligner’ says Cotgrave, ‘to degenerate, to grow out of kind, to differ in conditions with his ancestors.’ That less than kind and out of kind have the same meaning who can doubt?”

1857 fieb

fieb: john, Steevens, Farmer

245

1858 col3

col3 = col1

245

1860 stau

stau = col3 minus Percy Society and sig., without attribution

245

1861 wh1

wh1: standard

245 White (ed. 1861): “Is it necessary to say that Hamlet means, In marrying my mother you have made yourself something more than my kinsman, and at the same time have shown yourself unworthy of our race, our kind?”

1862 cham

cham = col3

245

1864 Fechter

anon

245 Anonymous (Morning Post in Fechter, p.2): “In the opening of the play Mr. Fechter’s Hamlet seems crushed to the earth with grief; but the sense of wrong gradually awakens him to action, and the scorn with which he receives the friendly overtures of the King is finely depicted.”

1864 Fechter

Anon. Daily News ≈ Morning Post

245 Anonymous (Daily News in Fechter, p. 2), continuing from 177: “The King and Queen advance among the fanfares of trumpets, bowing their salutations right and left; the Prince follows sadly, from which they are never raised until the specious protestations of the King rouse him impatiently for an instant and wring from him this bitter comments, ‘A little more than kin, and less than kind.”

1865 hal

hal = Steevens v1778, and col1 + in magenta underlined, immaterial variations in magenta

245 Halliwell (ed. 1865): “This expression seems to have been in some sort proverbial. [Then Steevens, v1778 via v1821, then continues with col1]. Again, in Rowley’s Search for Money, 1609, (reprinted for the Percy Society) we meet with the following.—‘Is it from earth (of our owne kindred)? I would he were not so neere to us in kindred, then sure he would be neerer in kindnesse, and then we must conclude (comming from earth) that thither he must returne, and therefore is now on earth.’

1868 c&mc

c&mc: standard + in magenta underlined

245 Clarke & Clarke (ed. 1868): “Hamlet implies that his uncle has made himself doubly a kinsman by his marriage to his brother’s wife: and yet is less than naturally and affectionately attached. The original analogy between the word ‘kind’ and ‘kindred’ is ably shown in Trench’s ‘Study of Words” (1852), p. 42.”

1870 rug1

rug1 ≈ cald

245

1872 cln1

cln1 : standard but both kin and kind describe Hamlet; dyce2

245 Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “ Hamlet says he is more than a mere kinsman, on account of Claudius’ incestuous marriage with his mother, and less than kind, because he hates him for the same reason. Dyce quotes from W. Rowley’s Search for Money, 1602, p. 5, ed. Percy Society: ‘I would he were not so neere to us in kindred. then sure he would be neerer in kindnesse.’”

1872 hud2

hud2: standard but not = hud1

245 Hudson (ed. 1872): “The King is ‘a little more than kin’ to Hamlet, because, in being at once his uncle and his father he is twice kin. And he is ‘less than kind,’ because his incestuous marriage, as Hamlet views it, is unnatural or out of nature. The poet repeatedly uses kind in that sense. See page 80, note 4.”

hud2

245 Hudson (ed. 1872, AYL 4.3.59 [2208]): “Kind was often used for nature, kindly for natural; akin to the sense of kindled as explained page 64, note 34. A relic of the same sense survives in the Litany of the Episcopal Church: ‘That it may please Thee to give and preserve to our use the kindly fruit of the earth.”

hud2

245 Hudson (ed. 1872, AYL 3.2.340 [1528]): “Kindled, here, is altogether another word than our present verb to kindle. It is from kind, which, again, is from a word meaning to bring forth. The word has long been obsolete.”

1875 Marshall

Marshall

245-67 Marshall (1875, p. 10): “In Hamlet the chief motive is filial affection . . . . The intense love and worship of his father, mark him out, on his very entrance, as alone in the crowd of courtiers around him; alone, too, even in the presence of those who should have loved and revered that memory highly, if not more highly, than Hamlet himself.”

Marshall

245 Marshall (1875, p. 17): these words, “probably intended to be spoken half aside, show how impossible was any reconciliation between stepfather and stepson.”

1877 v1877

v1877: warb, molt

245 Aside Moltke (apud Furness, ed. 1877): “There is no other instance in Shakespeare’s plays where the hero is first introduced with such a very brief soliloquy; secondly, no one plays upon words when speaking to one’s self; thirdly, Sh. invariably strikes the keynote of his dramas at the very outset. In this instance, after having in the first scene made us take sides with Hamlet against the King, and after having still fostered this feeling of sympathy for the one and dislike for the other by the King’s hypocritical speech from the throne, it is of the utmost importance that this opposition between the two should be emphasized, and that Hamlet himself should be shown, not only as perfectly aware of it himself, but as equally determined that the King himself should be aware of it. All these objects fail if the speech be spoken aside.”

v1877: han, john, Steevens, mal, cald, rug, knt, sing, cotgrave, col, elze, wh1, hud, clr (farmer).

245 Furness (ed. 1877): “Malone gives substantially the best paraphrase. . . .Elze calls attention to the fact that probably in no other work is the word ‘kind” used so frequently and so unambiguously as in The Tragedie of Gorboduc.”

1878 Stearns

Stearns

245 Stearns (1878, pp. 356: Hamlet’s first words “are fretfully ambiguous;—‘less than kind;’ meaning that he is no friend to the man who had just spoken to him . . . . ”

Continued in 247

1880 meik

meik: standard +

245 kind] Meikeljohn (ed. 1880): “The latter word must have been pronounced kinned; otherwise the antithesis would have been lost.”

1881 hud3

hud3 = hud2 (minus //) +

245 Hudson (ed. 1881): “Professor Himes, however, of Gettysburg, Penn., questions this explanation, and writes me as follows: ‘It seems to me that, since Hamlet has just been addressed as cousin and as son, he is still the object of thought, and words quoted must be referred by the Prince to himself, and not to the King. In other words, it is Hamlet who is ‘a little more than kin, and less than kind.’ For if we take kin as a substitute for cousin, and kind as a substitute for son, Hamlet is a little more than the first, for he is a nephew, and a little less than the second, for he is only a step-son. Hamlet’s aside is thus a retort upon the King’s words; as though he said, ‘I am neither the one nor the other,—a little more than the one, and not so much as the other.’”

1883 wh2

wh2 : standard; ≈ Elwin (see doc. 244) in magenta + in magenta underlined

245 White (ed. 1883): “Hamlet acknowledges that there was more than kindred between them, as his uncle was also his father-in-law, but he eagerly denies that he is Claudius’s son, of his kind. A little of precision in the thought is sacrificed to the jingle of the words.”

-1885 Hunter

Hunter

245 Hunter (apud mull, ed. 1885, p. xxv): <p. xxv>“There is here, perhaps, a play on words, more than kin being more than three letters, and less than kind less than four. But mainly the young prince means he is something between cousin (collateral relation) and son, the titles which Claudius has just used. He is Claudius’s stepson as well as nephew, therefore a little more than kin.” </p. xxv>

-1885 Ribton-Turner

Ribton-Turner: john

245 lesse than kind] Ribton-Turner (apud Mull, ed. 1885, p. xxvi): “Mr. C. J. Ribton-Turner’s, following Dr. Johnson, puts forth an excellent suggestion: he says, “In the Winter’s Tale the word ‘child’ is used in its provincial meaning of girl—Mercy on’s, a barn, a very pretty barn: a boy or a child?’ ”

1885 macd

macd: standard

245 MacDonald (ed. 1885): “An aside. Hamlet’s first utterance is of dislike to his uncle. He is more than kin through his unwelcome marriage—and less than kind by the difference in their natures. To be kind is to behave as one kinned or related. But the word here is the noun, and means nature, or sort by birth.”

1885 mull

mull ≈ Davies (mentions many others with whom he disagrees: cln1, rug (cald), Phelps, Rev. John Hunter, macd)

245 A little more than kin] Mull (ed. 1885, p. xxvi), criticizing the standard explanations as obvious, trivial and not meriting an aside, asserts: “Hamlet says, ‘A little (signifying very much) beyond mere relationship I stand to you—I am rightful heir to the crown; I am by right your king, and you my subject.’ Verily this is a ‘little more;’ and is it not Hamletian in its subtle significance and profound allusion? Is not this worthy an ‘aside’? and is not this dramatic contrivance invested with a character such as it should possess.”

Mull: knt1, cln1

245 lesse than kind] Mull (ed. 1885 , p. xxvi): “The content of ‘my cousin Hamlet and my son’ similarly justifies the use of the word ‘kind’ for ‘child.’ The meaning would then be, ‘and less’ (signifying none at all) ‘than child to you,’ Hamlet spurning the relationship claimed by the King.”

1888 macl

macl: standard

245 Maclachlan (ed. 1888) thinks the line (which he marks as an aside) is Hamlet’s comment on the king’s insincere my son, and on “the cruelty and crime of incestuous marriage.” Hamlet echoes this line when he says to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern “you are welcome: but my Vncle-father, and Aunt-mother, are deceaued ”[1422-3].

1899 ard1

ard1≈ v1877 (mal, knt are the only eds. mentioned by name); sing1 and others without attribution

245 Dowden (ed. 1899): “It can hardly be doubted that this—Hamlet’s first word—is spoken aside.”

1901 Phin

Phin: v1877; Schlegel without attribution; john, E. Booth

245 kind] Phin (1901, pp. 19-24): <p. 20>“Shakespeare, as is well known, uses several purely German words; he also employs one word which is used nowhere else, either by himself or by any other author, and there are several words which are used only once in his writings.

“Now, while it is probably true that the word Kind is used nowhere else as a synonym for child or son, it </p. 20> <p. 21> is a fact that in one, and perhaps in two instances, it forms part of a compound word in which it carries this meaning. One of these is found in the third quotation placed at the head of this note [“O, had thy mother borne so hard a mind, She had not brought thee forth but died unkind” Ven. 202]. In the last line the word unkind undoubtedly signifies childless: at least this is the meaning attached to it by some of our ablest commentators. </p. 21> [He turns to 1621, kindless, which he says may mean childless, “a condition that has always been a subject of reproach.” <p. 22> Phin quotes a letter to him from Edwin Booth, who disagrees: Booth thinks kindles means “none other of his kind or genus.” Phin then returns to 245] “ . . .the words of Hamlet are evi- </p. 22><p.23 > dently a commentary on the speech of the king. The king commences by addressing Hamlet as his cousin; then, evidently, after a slight pause for thought, he adds, ‘and my son.’ To Hamlet this address seems to imply just what any hearer would infer, viz., that cousin was not quite close enough, and yet there might be some hesitation in calling him son, seeing that he was only a stepson. Hence the propriety of Hamletˇs aside—a little more than mere cousin or kin and yet not quite a son, though the king had married his mother—the word kind being here employed instead of son for the sake of the jingle because kin and kind, the i in both being pronounced alike. </p. 23> <p. 24> Phin concludes by saying again that an imputation of childlessness is “one of bitterest.” </p.24>

“That the old dramatists were much give to these jingling contrasts is well known to all students of the literature of that age . . . .”

1904 ver

ver

245 Verity (ed. 1904): “It is significant that Hamlet’s first words should be a riddle, as incapable of positive interpretation as his own character, and cast in that style of ironical jesting which he uses so effectively throughout.

“One thing is clear: Hamlet echoes bitterly Claudius’s own very unfortunate reference to the peculiar relationship between them: kin being a glance at ‘cousin,’ and kind at ‘son.’ Compare Hamlet’s grim words in [1422-3: Vncle-father, Aunt-mother]. Probably Hamlet speaks to himself (i.e. ‘Aside,’ though this is not indicated in the original editions), and of himself, with the meaning: ‘I am indeed something more than merely your kinsman (‘cousin’), but very far from a ‘son” in kind feelings towards you.’

“There is obviously a bitter quibble on kin and kind (editors cite instances of the same word-play in other Elizabethan writers); and probably kind means ‘disposed, according to kind or species,’ i.e. ‘disposed as a son should be, filled with natural, filial feelings.” For Shakespeare often uses kind and unkind of children, with this notion. [refers to H5 Chorus 2.19, Lr., and Ham. calls the king kindless. [1621] “because he has proved himself so unnatural in his feelings and actions towards his brother and the Queen.

“Some editors believe that Hamlet’s words here apply to the King, meaning, ‘you are my step-father (which is more than kin), but in less than a natural relation, i.e. incestuously.

“One of the strangest notions about the line is that Shakespeare uses kind = the German kind, ‘a child.’”

1904 Bradley

Bradley

245 Bradley (1904, pp. 124-5), commenting on Hamlet’s wordplay: “That Shakespeare meant this trait to be characteristic of Hamlet is beyond question. The very first line the hero speaks contains a play on words.” Bradley finds in the puns in moments of high excitement the essence of Hamlet’s difference from other punning characters, as in "I’ll make a ghost of him who lets me" [672], and "Is thy union here" [F1 only, 3809].

1926 Tilley

Tilley 328 ≈ Steevens v1778 Mother Bombie 3.1.21; Euphues 30

245 “The greatest HATE springs from the greatest love”

1934 rid1

rid1 ≈ ver on riddling 1st words

245 Ridley (ed. 1934) notes the irony of Hamlet’s first words having been subjected to multiple interpretations. He also notes that the Elizabethan spelling sonne meant both sun and son.

1935 Wilson

Wilson WHH

245 Wilson (1935, p. 32) takes the comment as an expression of Ham.’s discomfiture at the king’s usurpation.

1935 Wilson

Wilson WHH

245-311 Wilson (1935, p. 34) believes that by the end of the scene, the audience is well aware of the theme of usurpation, which will play itself out throughout the action and explain the questions of Rosencrants and Guildenstern and much else, including the play-within. Wilson considers the subtext of usurpation second in importance only to the true nature of the ghost.

1938 parc

parc

245 kind]] Parrott & Craig (ed. 1938): “natural.”

1939 kit2

kit2: Steevens; Collier; many analogues

245 more than kin . . . ] Kittredge (ed. 1939): "Hamlet catches up the King’s words and continues them, under his breath, with bitter irony: ’Yes, nephew and son both!—a little more than normal kin, and yet not quite kindly in my feelings toward you.’ He is applying to his own case an old proverbial antithesis, of which Steevens and Collier quote three good examples: [quotes and adds several more of his own]."

1944, rpt. 1970 Bethell

Bethel

245 Bethell (1944, rpt. 1970, p. 105): This is the “type of aside [that] is meant for the audience only and is conventionally accepted as inaudible to other characters.”

Ed. note: The line has been spoken aloud in various productions to good effect.

1947 cln2

cln2

245 Rylands (ed. 1947, p. 21) < p. 21> finds in this line “distilled the enigma and the dilemma of the Prince. . . . Hamlet’s line is enigmatic, suggestive, and characteristic.” </ p. 21>

1950 Tilley

Tilley

245 Tilley (1950, K 38): “The nearer the Kin the less in kindness 1565 Norton and Sackville Gorboduc 1 i s. A3v: In kinde a father, not in kindlinesse. 1594 Lyly Mother B. III i 20: The neerer we are in bloud, the further wee must be from loue; and the greater the kindred is, the lesse the kindnes must be.”

1957 Mahood

Mahood apud de Grazia 2007, 241, n. 98

245 Mahood finds 90 puns in Hamlet’s part, more than in any other character in Sh.

1957 pel1

pel1: standard

245 kin] Farnham (ed. 1957): “related as nephew.”

pel1: standard

245 kind] Farnham (ed. 1957): “kindly in feeling, as by kind, or nature, a son would be to his father.”

1957 pen1b

pen1b

245 Harrison (ed. 1957): “too near a relation (uncle-father) but far from dear.”

1958 fol1

fol1: standard

245 A little . . . kind] Wright & LaMar (ed. 1958): “Hamlet is ironic and mutters that he and his uncle are more than kin (twice related: uncle/nephew and stepfather/stepson) but they are not kindred spirits.”

1970 pel2

pel2 = pel1

245 kin] Farnham (ed. 1970): “related as nephew”

pel2 = pel1

245 kind] Farnham (ed. 1970): “kindly in feeling, as by kind, or nature, a son would be to his father”

1980 pen2

pen2

245 Spencer (ed. 1980): “This must be spoken aside, as it interrupts Claudius’s sentence. Hamlet’s first words are, characteristically, a sardonic and cryptic pun. As Claudius’s nephew he is more than a cousin, but he resents being called son, for any natural relationship (kind), such as a father and son feel, in impossible between them. Perhaps kind also means ’kindly’ but we see no action of the King towards Hamlet which is not, at least on the surface, affectionate.”

1982 ard2

ard2: standard + comments

245 more . . . kind] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “more than kinsmen in our actual relationship and less than kinsmen in our likeness to one another and in our mutual feelings and behaviour. kind, members of a family as naturally united in community of feeling. Most commentators, not unreasonably, take these words to apply, like cousin and son, to Hamlet himself. But some, justly stressing the unnaturalness as well as the hostility denoted by less than kind, apply them Claudius. The difference is perhaps not greatly material; for what Hamlet seizes on in the words cousin and son is the relationship they signify. His rejoinder is therefore best applied, I think, to both himself and Claudius, or rather to the relation in which they stand to one another. A ’cousin’ is ’kin’ but a ’son’ is ’more’; and Hamlet’s resentment at being made Claudius’s son as well as nephew glances at the incestuous marriage which has created this ’more than’ natural relationship. Kind is often used as a near-synonym for kin, as in Gorboduc, [1.1.18], ’In kind a father, not in kindliness’. But the distinction there between kind and kindliness approximates to the one Shakespeare makes between kin and kind. Both words refer to the members of one family, but whereas kin has regard only to the fact of relationship, kind has regard also to its manifestation in a community and mutuality of feeling. Cf. kindless, [1621], void of natural feeling; Bastard, Epigrams, 1598, 3.29, ’Never so many cousins; so few kind’. The human paradox that kin are not always kind is often expressed in Elizabethan literature (cf. Tilley K 38), and the different meanings of kind are a favourite source of word-play. Instances are given by Kittredge and others. The adjective kind, in its Elizabethan use, included the modern sense (’benevolent’), but often retained the strong primary meaning of ’natural’, and especially ’showing feelings natural among blood relations’ (cf. Lear’s ’unkind’ daughters). Even so, the usual interpretation of the present passage, which takes kind as an adjective, instead of a noun in antithesis with kin, necessarily weakens its force.”

1985 cam4

cam4

245 Edwards (ed. 1985): "To call me ’son’ is more than our actual kinship warrants; and there is less than the natural feelings of such a relationship between us. In this riddling aside, there is a play on the two meanings of ’kind’; (1) belonging to nature, (2) affectionate, benevolent."

1985 Ferguson

Ferguson: Freud and others

245 Ferguson (1985, p. 293): "Hamlet’s remark unbalances the scale Claudius has created . . . in which opposites like ’delight’ and ’dole’ are blandly equated. Hamlet’s sentence disjoins what Claudius has linked; it does so through its comparative ’more’ and ’less,’ and also through the play on ’kin’ and ’kind’ which points by the difference of a single letter, to the radical difference between what Claudius seems or claims to be, and what he is. The pun on the word ’kind’ itself, moreover, works, as Hamlet’s puns often do, to disrupt the smooth surface of another person’s discourse. Hamlet’s pun, suggesting that Claudius is neither natural nor kindly, is like a pebble thrown into the oily pool of the king’s rhetoric."

1985 Weimann

Weimann

245 Weimann (1985, p. 283): His first words help him “to elude the constraints which [the] privileged position of representativity would otherwise have bestowed on Hamlet." Weimann assumes his first two speeches are asides, which invert "the representational standards of dialogue as an image of dramatic conversation or ’glass’ of courtly behavior.” [Weimann assumes that the King does not respond (because he does not hear), but that is not necessarily the case in performance, where Hamlet’s words, as in Kline’s 1990 performance, disrupt the King’s smooth public speech to Hamlet and divert him instead from a declamatory to a more colloquial response.]

1987 oxf4

oxf4: Tilley K38

245 Hibbard (ed. 1987), citing Tilley K38, defines kindness as liking. Hamlet says he’s more closely related to the king than he likes being.

1987 Mercer

Mercer

245 Mercer (1987, p. 141): “ . . .From the beginning of this scene, Hamlet’s very presence . . . has marked him out as one who disputes the elaborate show of reason and normality that Claudius has so carefully sustained” through his calm handling of state and personal affairs.

Mercer

245 Mercer (1987, p. 142): “It hardly matters if we fail to catch the reverberations of the joke; what is important is that Hamlet responds to his uncle’s solicitude with a bitter wit that goes straight past him to the audience.”

1988 bev2

bev2: standard

245 Bevington (ed. 1988): “i.e., closer than an ordinary nephew (since I am stepson), and yet more separated in natural feeling (with pun on kind meaning ’affectionate’ and ’natural,’ ’lawful.’ This line is often read as an aside, but it need not be. The King chooses perhaps not to respond to Hamlet’s cryptic and bitter remark).”

1990 Kline

Kline film

245 Kline, as Hamlet, says the line directly to the king, whose line 246 apparently substitutes for the smooth speech he had intended.

1990 Dusinberre

Dusinberre

245 Dusinberre (1990, p. 41), writing about dissent, states that like the voices of the women at the beginning of King John, Hamlet’s dissenting voice punctures the king’s “smooth official discourse.”

1992 fol2

fol2

245 more then kin] Mowat & Werstine (ed. 1992): “i.e., twice related: uncle/nephew and ’father’/ ’son’ ”

fol2

245 lesse then kind] Mowat & Werstine (ed. 1992): “i.e., in a less-than-natural relationship”

1993 Lupton&Reinhard

Lupton & Reinhard

245 Lupton & Reinhard (1993, pp. 2-3): <p. 2> “ . . . what’s more than ‘kin’ is, of course, the ‘d’ of ‘kind,’ the letter than makes the difference </p. 2><p. 3> upon which the pun depends. As a pun about punning, about linguistic and sexual similarity and difference, the line enacts the structural incest between literal incest and incest of the letter.” </p. 3>

1996 Brown

Brown

245-7 Brown (1996, rpt. Greenhaven, 1999, p. 55) accepts the fact that Hamlet’s first lines could be spoken as an aside, to himself or to the audience, or directly to the king. Whichever choice an actor makes “it would baffle full understanding of what Hamlet is trying to say or do, and break the previous interchange between characters.”

1999 Kliman

Kliman ≈ Brown

245 Kliman (1999): As John Russell Brown points out, the actor has a variety of choices for this speech. A little more than kin might be said directly to the king and then the second half aside or to Gertrude alone. Or the whole line may be said to the king; or the whole line may be an aside. Or the line may be said sotto voce or muttered to himself.

2001 Kiski

Kiski

245 lesse then kind] Kiski (2001, p. 113): “In a society where seniority matters a great deal, killing an uncle is an act which is ’less than kind.’ To atone for this breach against a basic social code, Hamlet is expected to kill himself, as Gertrude told him to. . . . [Killing the king] is an act of justice as well as an unforgivable offense.”

2006 ard3q2

ard3q2: Tilley; Steevens; Dawson, performance

245 Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “Characteristically, Hamlet’s first line is a play on words, indicating that the King is claiming an excess of kinship in designating himself father as well as uncle while acting in a way which could be construed as ’unkind’ or unnatural. ’The nearer in kin, the less in kindness’ was proverbial (Tilley, K38); Steevens quotes parallels in Thomas Sackville and Thomas Norton’s Gorboduc (1561), where the Queen remarks to one of her sons, ’A father? No. / In kind a father, not in kindliness’ (1.1), and in Lyly’s Mother Bombie (1591), where Maestius says to his supposed sister Serena, ’the greater the kindred is, the less the kindness must be’ (3.1). Many editors mark this speech as an aside (like Cordelia’s first words), and the fact that the King continues with his sentence structure supports this. But it could also be a deliberate piece of rudeness or confrontation—and was played as such by Colin Keith-Johnston in the first modern-dress Hamlet staged by Barry Jackson and H.K. Ayliff at the Kingsway theatre in London in 1925 (see Dawson [1995], 88).”

2007 de Grazia

de Grazia: Mahood via Weimann 1978

245 de Grazia (2007, p. 183): “Typically” [Hamlet’s puns] “float over the heads of the other characters and so go unremarked. As with his first three punning utterances, the dialogue continues as if they had not been spoken” [but see Kline 1990, and Brown 1996].