Notes for lines 0-1017 ed. Bernice W. Kliman
| 272 That father lost, lost his, and the suruiuer bound | 1.2.90 |
|---|
271 272 1710 2338 1726 theon
theon
272 That father lost, lost his] Theobald (1726, pp. 13-14): “All the Editions, that I have met with, old and modern, (and so, I know, the Players to this Day constantly repeat it,) read, ‘But you must know, your Father lost a Father, That Father lost, lost his; ----’ The Reduplication of the word lost here gives an Energy and an Elegance, which is much easier to be conceiv’d, than explain’d in Terms. Every Reader of this Poet, however, must have observ’d how frequent it is with him to use this Figure, (which the Rhetoricians have call’d Anadiplosis;) where he intends either to assert or deny, augment or diminish, or add a Degree of Vehemence to his Expression, Of this Usage, were it necessary, I could bring a great Number of Examples; but the Instances, that I can at present remember in him, which seem most to resemble this before us, are the following.”
Ed. note: He lists Oth. 1H4, Rom., Tim., and Mac. for examples of the device.
1728 pope2
pope2
272 lost, lost] Pope (ed. 1728, Aa4r) says that Theobald “would alter it,” which would spoil the meter.
1733 theo1
theo1= theon minus //s
272 That father lost, lost his]
1746 Upton
Upton:
272 That father lost, lost his]
Upton (1746, p. 339-40) <p. 339> names the line “iambic trimeter catalectic, of five feet and a semiped,” </p. 339> <p. 340> saying that “Verses of this measure are very frequent, both in Milton and Shakespeare.” [and quoting] </p. 340>
1747 warb
warb: pope; theo
272 That father lost, lost his] Warburton (ed. 1747): “Thus [i.e. with one lost cut] Mr. Pope judiciously corrected the faulty copies” and is ironic on Theobald’s “ ‘The reduplication of which word here gives an energy and an elegance which is much easier to be conceived than explained in terms.’ I believe so: For when explained in terms it comes to this: That father after he had lost himself, lost his father. But the reading is ex fide Codicis, and that is enough.”
1747- mtby4
mtby4: warb
272 That father lost, lost his] Thirlby (1747-): “For all this [Warburton’s explanation], I don’t doubt but it is genuine.”
1758 Edwards
Edwards: warb +
272 That father lost, lost his] Edwards (1758, p. 45), after quoting Warburton’s note: “Mr. W’s reason for believing, that the beauty of redoubling the word—lost— is easier to be conceived than explained, is; because, when it is explained, according to Him, it amounts to Nonsense. An odd reason this, why it should be easily conceived! Most people, when they talk nonsense, do it without conceiving at all: But Mr. W. it seems, has both parts of the Midwife’s Blessing; A quick conception, as well as an easy delivery.
“When the passage, as Mr. Theobald gives it, is rightly explained, it comes to this. That father, who is now lost (not after, but before he was lost himself) lost his father. But Mr. W.† ‘in spite of that extreme negligence in Numbers, which distinguishes the first Dramatic writers;’ is here misled by his dear Mr. Pope, into ‘all the finical exactness of a modern measurer of syllables.’ ”
[<n†>†Pref. P. XII </n†>]
BWK7th ed. edition has reason where 6th has reasoning, according to Hardin. Diff. from Hardin’s transcription in red. Check. 7th seems to be correct, and I can probably use it to silently correct 6th. Just in case, I am recording the page of the 7th ed. in all the Edwards items.
1765 Heath
Heath: warb; ≈ Edwards without attribution
272 That father lost, lost his] Heath (1765, p. 523): “That is, That father so lost by your father, lost his father too; which sense, being not only unexceptionable, but as evident as expression could make it, though Mr. Warburton chuses to misunderstand, or rather to misinterpret it, renders Mr. Pope’s alteration perfectly unnecessary.”
Explains the meaning; also corrects W.
1765 john1
john1 = warb +
272 That father lost, lost his] Johnson (ed. 1765): “I do not admire the repetition of the word, but it has so much of our author’s manner, that I find no temptation to recede from the old copies. ”
john1
272 lost, lost his] Johnson (ed. 1765, 8:L12): correction: “For your father lost, lost, his, read your father lost, lost his,
1773 v1773
v1773 = john; ≈ Heath without attribution
272 That father lost, lost his] Steevens (ed. 1773): “The meaning of the passage is no more than this. Your father lost a father, i.e., your grandfather, which lost grandfather, also lost his father. Steevens.”
1778 v1778
v1778 = 1773
272 That father lost, lost his]
1784 ays1
ays1: v1778
272 That father lost, lost his]
1785 v1785
v1785 = v1778
272 That father lost, lost his]
1787 ann
ann = v1785
272 That father lost, lost his]
1790 mal
mal = v1785
272 That father lost, lost his]
1793 v1793
v1793 = v1785 +
272 That father lost, lost his] Steevens (ed. 1793): “The metre, however, in my opinion, shows that Mr. Pope’s correction should be adopted. The sense, though elliptically expressed, will still be the same.”
1803 mBoaden
mBoaden
272 lost, lost] Boaden (ms. notes in F2): “ What is lost by this omission?”
Ed. note:In F2 Huntington 69388. The edition that omitted it was pope. Strange that Boaden should ask this, long after the two losts were reinstated.
1805 Seymour
Seymour: Steevens v1793 without attribution
272 Seymour (1805, 2:145-6): <p. 145>“ . . . a similar fatality [i.e., a stub] has attended another line in this speech, where, by an error of the press, the word ‘lost,’ having carelessly been caught from the preceding line, continues to be twice repeated, in defiance of propriety and the metre: ‘—Your father lost a father, That father (lost, lost) his, and the survivor bound,’ &c. . . . </p. 145><p. 146>
“Mr. Pope, indeed, very properly corrected the last line, which, nevertheless, is still exhibited in its old deformity.” </p.146>
1813 v1813
v1813 = v1803
272 That father lost, lost his]
1819 cald1
cald1 ≈ v1813
272 That father lost, lost his] Caldecott (ed. 1819): “That lost father (of your father), i.e. your grandfather) or father so lost, so his.”
1821 v1821
v1821 = v1813
272 That father lost, lost his]
1823- mBoaden
Boaden
272 That father lost, lost his] Boaden (ms. notes in Malone, ed. 1790), writing soon after a copy of Q1 came to light in 1823, may be the first to point out that its reading, “That father dead, lost his” (Q1CLN 188), supports Heath’s interpretation.
I don’t like this note; I did not quote exactly.
1826 sing1
sing1 = Heath without attribution; ≈ Boaden without attribution
272 That father lost, lost his] Singer (ed. 1826): “i.e. your father lost a father (your grandfather), which lost grandfather also lost his father. The first quarto reads, ‘That father dead, lost his’—”
1854 del2
del2 standard
272 Delius (ed. 1854): “das erste lost ist Particip und Apposition zu that father, das zweite lost Präteritum, wie auch das folgende bound sich als Präteritum fassen lässt, zu dem the survivor das Object bildet.” [The first lost is participial and appositive to that father, the second lost a past-tense verb as also the following verb bound, for which the survivor forms the object, may be taken as preterit.]
1870 Abbott
Abbott
272 That father lost, lost his] Abbott (§ 246): “ The Relative. . . . Apparently there is an ellipsis of ‘that (relative) is’ before participles in the following: . . . Compare the harsh construction in ‘But you must know your father lost a father That father (who was) lost, lost his [271-2].”
1872 cln1
cln1
272 bound] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “For a similar ellipsis compare [2338].”
1877 v1877
v1877 = Steevens (i.e. Heath); Abbott § 246
272 That father lost, lost his]
1880 meik
meik: Abbott; cln1 xref without attribution; Hunter
272 bound] Meikeljohn (ed. 1880): “= was bound. See Dr. Abbott’s extremely valuable chapter on Ellipses, [§] 382-405. See also [2338] . Mr. Hunter suggests: ‘Bound the survivor.’”
1929 trav
trav: meik xref without attribution
272 bound]
Travers (ed. 1929): “The same vigorous ellipsis will occur, it seems, in [2338].”
1939 kit2
kit2
272 bound] Kittredge (ed. 1939): "The subject of the verb is that father; the object is survivor. ’That father, by dying, laid his surviving son (your father) under an obligation to mourn for him.’ "
1982 ard2
ard2 = kit2
272 the suruiuer bound] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “Grammar and Kittredge suggest ’(that father) bound the survivor’, sense [for] ’the survivor (was) bound.’ ”
1987 oxf4
oxf4= Abbott § 246
272 father lost]
oxf4: standard
272 bound] Hibbard (ed. 1987): "was bound, was obliged."
1992 Duffy
Duffy
272-90 Duffy (1992, 2005, p. 8): "There is a case for saying that the defining doctrine of late medieval Catholicism was Purgatory. . . . [T]he Reformation attack on the cult of the dead was more than a polemic against a ’false’ metaphysical belief: it was an attempt to redefine the boundaries of the human community, and an act of exorcism, to limit the claims of the past, and the people of the past, on the people of the present." Though Duffy does not cite Ham., he might have pointed out that the king speaks like a Protestant reformer.
1993 Lupton&Reinhard
Lupton & Reinhard
272 Lupton & Reinhard (1993, p.28 and elsewhere) imply that the work of mourning (not for a dead parent necessarily but for blows to the child’s fantasy-conception of himself) is necessary for the construction of the individual psyche. Continuing this thought, I might add that the king subverts Hamlet’s necessary work by calling upon him to cease it. See Lupkin & Reinhard n. 1710. </p. 28>
Lupton & Reinhard (1993, p.34): Lacan refers also to the “work of mourning” in relation to Hamlet.
2006 ard3q2
ard3q2: standard
272 bound] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “was obliged, committed”
