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

Line 379 - 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.

379 Ham. saw, who?	1.2.190

1805 Seymour

Seymour

379 Seymour (1805, 2:148): “This is a common ellipsis, rather than wrong grammar. I.e. ‘Who (was it whom you saw?)’”

1854 del2

del2 ≈ Dyce without attribution

379 saw, who?] Delius (ed. 1854): “Die Herausgeber interpungiren meist Saw! who! schwerlich in Sh.’s Sinne; denn nicht darauf, dass sie sahen, lagt Hamlet den Nachdruck, sondern, wen sie sahen. Who steht, wie oft bei Sh., für whom.” [Most editors stick in punctuation Saw! who! hardly in Sh.’s sense; for Hamlet lays the emphasis not on the fact that they saw, but on whom they saw. Who stands for whom as it often does in Sh.]

1856 hud1

hud1 ≈ Dyce without attribution; del2 without attribution

379 saw, who?] Hudson (ed. 1856): “In colloquial language, it was common, as indeed it still is, thus to use the nominative where strict grammar would require the objective. Modern editions embellish the two words with various pointing; as thus: “Saw! who!” or thus: “Saw? who? H.”

Ed. note: His examples are not very likely. Only Ff have the 2 questionmarks, and none have the two exclamations.

1858 col3

col3

379 saw, who?] Collier (ed. 1858): “‘Who’ is altered to whom in the corr. fo. 1632, and with strict grammatical propriety; but it may be doubted whether Shakespeare did not write it, as it has been printed: we therefore leave ‘who.’”

Ed. note: Collier disassociates himself from mcol1 by rejecting some emendations.

1870 Abbott

Abbott § 274

379 who] Abbott (§ 274): “Who for whom. The inflection of who is frequently neglected. ”

1872 hud2

hud2 = hud1

79 saw, who?]

1872 cln1

cln1 ≈ hud2 without attribution + //s

379 saw, who?] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “‘Who’ is used by Shakespeare for the accusative case very generally. Editors have often corrected what they held to be an error. See [WT 5.1.108 (2859)]: ‘Make proselytes Of who she bid but follow.’ See also other examples in our notes on [Mac. 3.1.122 (1126], and [MV 1.2.23 (217)].’

1877 v1877

v1877: col3, cln1, dyce (Remarks, p. 205)

379 who]

1880 meik

meik: standard gloss + Cor. 2.1.7 (904) //

379 who]

1982 ard2

ard2: Dyce; Abbott

379 saw, who?] Jenkins (ed. 1982), who uses F punc.: “Dyce, arguing for the punctuation Saw who? [see TNI 379], adds, ’No pause . . . was made . . . by the two Kembles, Kean, and Young—none is made by the younger Kean’. Who for whom was common; cf. Abbott 274.”

1985 cam4

cam4; Davenant-Betterton; Hughs-Wilks; J. P. Kemble; Charles Kean; Macready; Dyce; Irving

379 saw, who?] Saw? Who? Edwards (ed. 1985): "All three texts give some kind of a pause between ’saw’ and ’who’. The Davenant-Betterton quarto of 1676 treats the phrase as a single question, ’Saw who?’. But the Hughs-Wilks promptbook of 1718 has ’Saw! Who?’ and this is found in J. P. Kemble’s version of 1800. Charles Kean’s version (1859) has ’Saw who?’. Both treated it as a single question, and so did Kean and Macready, according to Dyce (NV). Irving, however, restored ’Saw?- Who?’ (see Winter, Shakespeare on the Stage, 1911, p. 357)."

1987 oxf4

oxf4

379 saw, who?] Hibbard (ed. 1987): "The Folio punctuation [Saw? Who?] brings out the importance of the moment. Hamlet’s taedium vitae disappeares. From now on he is all attention, probing the mystery with question after question."

oxf4= Abbott § 274 +

379 who] Hibbard (ed. 1987): who for whom is still common.

2000 Powers

Powers: Wright

379 saw, who?] Powers (2000, pp. 20, 15): Shakespeare often turned “at the crisis point in a play, or at the conclusion of a sonnet, when he wanted real clarity and lyric emphasis--to the monosyllable (p. 20).

“Such metric monosyllables can be seen as lines missing unstressed syllables; or, put another way, they are lines in which the poet has preferred a monosyllable even though the meter requires polysyllables. Wright cites famous instances in . . . Hamlet [when he utters] ’Saw Who?’ continued in Horatio’s, ’My Lord, the King your father’ [379-80]. Both are moments of intensity--and dare we say Hopkinsian metric displacement?

“Earlier in Hamlet, Horatio tries monosyllables in his ghostspeak, ’Stay, speak, speak, I charge thee speak’ to which the Ghost responds by exiting [65-6]. One might have expected more latinate language to address the supernatural, for whilch Latin is said to be handy. Recall that Marcellus urged Horatio to use his linguistic capacity, ’Thou art a scholar--speak to it, Horatio’ [54]. Interestingly, Horatio chooses monosyllables. Or he maybe he is not ’choosing,’ but caught in the emotive moment” (p.15).

2006 ard3q2

ard3q2

379 saw, who?] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “Modern performers usually make this a question, as in Q6.”