HW HomePrevious CNView CNView TNMView TNINext CN

Line 240+1 - 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.
240-240+1 Polo. <He> Hath my Lord {wroung from me my slowe leaue} 
240+1 240+2 240+3
1854 del2
del2
240+1-240+3 wroung . . . consent] Delius (ed. 1854): “Die folgenden Worte des Polonius fehlen in den Qs.” [The continuation of Polonius’s words are missing in the 4tos.]
Ed. note: In del4 he clarifies this vague note by providing the terminus at consent. He meant to say that the passage is missing in the folios (not 4tos).
1874 Schmidt?
240+1 slowe] Schmidt (apud Meikeljohn, ed. 1880): “As the English adjective has no inflection, it was formerly apt to form a looser connection with its substantive than in other languages; and instead of expressing a quality or degree pertaining to the latter, to be employed to limit the extent and sphere of it. Thus a bloody fire in [MWW 5.5.95 (2579)] is not a fire that has the quality of being bloody, but, as it were, a blood-fire, a fire in the blood.’”
Ed. note: The Schmidt quotation is not at slow or bloody in the 1874-5 ed.
1880 meik
meik gloss; Schmidt
240+1 slowe leaue] Meikeljohn (ed. 1880): “slowly given leave. The freedom with which S, plays with adjectives is seen in many phrases. Thus, [Son. 2.1]: ‘Thus can my love excuse the slow offence.’ (= the offence of being too slow).”
1880 Tanger
Tanger:
240+1-240+3 Tanger (1880, p. 122): F1’s om. of Q2 lines “seem to be a simple accidental omission.” The Q1 reading “confirms, or at least countenances, [the Q2] reading.”
1881 hud3
hud3 cln1 + in magenta underlined
240+1-240+3 slowe leaue . . . hard consent] Hudson (ed. 1881): “Hard for reluctant, difficult; like slow just before.”
1885 macd
macd contra Tanger
240 Hath] MacDonald (ed. 1885): “H’ath—a contraction for He hath.
1929 trav
trav
240+1-240+3 Travers (ed. 1929): The folio’s omission robs Polonius of his “characteristically slow ponderousness.”
1934 Wilson
Wilson MSH
240 Wilson (1934, pp. 110-11) <p.110> ascribes the missing “He” in Q2 to a combination of accidents. </p. 110> <p. 111> Sh. probably used a for he, and then there was a a:o mistake. The compositor then attached the o to the SP. “The fact that all Polonius’ other speeches in the text are headed ‘Pol. ’ bears out the supposition.” </p.111>
Ed. note: But the a would have been A, and a compositor is not likely to mistake a capital A for a lower case o.

Wilson MSH
240 Wilson (1934, p. 247) lists He among the words certainly om. in Q2.
1982 ard2
ard2: Wilson +
240 Polo. Hath] Pol. He hath: Jenkins (ed. 1982): “Dover Wilson explains the omission of the pronoun in Q2 by suggesting that ’Polo. Hath’ represents a misreading of ’Pol a [= he] hath’ (MSH, pp. 110-11). Yet although Q2 invariably uses ’Pol.’ for the speech-heading elsewhere, it would not be unlike Shakespeare to write ’Polo’ on the first occasion and ’Pol’ subsequently.”
1987 oxf4
oxf4
240+1 laboursome] Hibbard (ed. 1987): "assiduous."
1992 fol2
fol2: standard
240-240+1 wroung . . . petition] Mowat & Werstine (ed. 1992): “i.e., finally persuaded me to allow him“
2003 Thompson
Thompson: Popple
240-1 Thompson (2003, pp. 97-8): "<p. 97>The range of possibilities for Polonius can be illustrated from an eighteenth-century </p. 97> <p. 98> commentator William Popple, who commented (in 1735) on what had become the traditional way of performing the character’s opening lines when he replies to the king’s question as to whether he has given his son Laertes permission to return to Paris. Popple notes:

Here is the most simple, plain, unstudied,
unaffected reply that could be given.
Yet how is this spoke and acted?
The eyes are turned obliquely and
dressed up in a foolish leer
at the king, the words
intermittently drawled out
with a very strong emphasis,
not to express a father’s
laughter . . . the voice toned like
the squeak of a bagpipe.

Polonius at this point was not just comic but farcical.</p. 98>