864-76 but . . . helpe you] Theobald (1726, pp. 57-9) advances punctuation that, he says in ed. 1733, pope, (ed. 1728) accepted: <p. 57> “We come now to a Speech towards the Conclusion of this Act, which labours under so many Faults of Pointing, as well as some of Language, that the Sense is very much perplex’d, and the Text false both in Meaning and Grammar. I must transcribe the Whole first, as it stands [in pope1]; and then give it entire with its Corrections.” </p.57> <p.58> [quotes Pope, then continues] “Whoever will take this Speech asunder, and examine the Structure and Connection of it, will easily see that something is wanting to support the Sense and Grammar of the Whole. Hamlet is conjuring them to a Repetition of their Oath of Secrecy, as to what they knew concerning the Walking of his Father’s Spirit. Let’s dismount it from the Verse, and see what we can make of the Passage, as Sense plainly will lead us. ‘Here, as before,’ says he, ‘you shall swear (so Mercy help you!) that, however oddly I shall think fit to carry myself, you seeing me so transform’d, never shall —(by Motions, Shruggs, or any ambiguous Giving out to note,) —that you know any Thing of me.’ This is the whole Scope, in Miniature, of this Passage; and now for the Syntax of it. Never shall—do what? The Verb is manifestly wanting, and the Sense Consequently defective. Then, why, ambiguous Giving out to note? Does not, ambiguous Giving out, comprehend all the Poet intends here, without Words in the Tail to clog the Clearness of his Meaning? In short, it is necessary, to make the whole intelligible, to point and correct it thus: </p.58> <p. 59> ‘—But come; Here as before, Never, —so help you Mercy! How strange or odd soe’ver I bear myself, (As I, perchance, hereafter shall think fit To put an antick Disposition on:) That you, as such time seeing me, never shall (With Arms encumber’d thus; or this Head-shake, Or by pronouncing of some doubtful Phrase, As, well, —we know—or, we could, and if we would—Or, if we list to speak,—or, there be, and if there might—Or such ambiguous Giving out;) Denote That you know aught of me. This do you swear; So Grace and Mercy at your most Need help you!’ The small Change of two Letters not only gives us a Verb that makes the whole Tenour of the Speech clear and intelligible; but a Verb too, that carries the very Force and Sense which we before wanted in this Place. To denote, as very raw Grammarians know, implies, to signify, to shew by Marks: And thus it is usual with our Poet to employ this very Word. So in [Oth. 3.3.427. (2074)], pag. 540. ‘Othell. O monstrous! monstrous! Jago. —This was but his Dream. Othell. But it Denoted a fore-gone Conclusion.’ And so Hamlet, in a Speech to his Mother, upon the Nature of his Grief for his Father’s Death, pag. 354 [he quotes 258-64] . . . .” </p. 59>

864-76 but . . . you] Richardson (1774, rpt. 1812, p. 99): “Knowing that he must appear incoherent and inconsistent,” [Hamlet] is willing to be thought mad, as a cover for his action, which must be prudent.

864-76 but . . . you] Malone (apud ed. 1778): “If we read ‘Nor by pronouncing ’ the passage as it stands in the folio, though embarrassed, is still intelligible, provided the punctuation be changed.” ‘That you at such time seeing me, never shall With arms encomber’d thus, or thus, head shake; Nor by pronouncing of some doubtful phrase, As well, we know, or, we could, and if we would, Or, if we list to speak; or, there be, and if there might, Or such ambiguous giving out, to note That you know aught of me; this not to do (So grace and mercy at your most need help you!)’ Malone.”

I suppose this would go in conjectural emendations never used? I placed the comment in 863-4 doc. because it refers to the whole passage that begins “but come” in 864.

864 your] Davies (1784, p. 23): “The poet, by this observation, intended to humble the presumption and daring pride of certain philosophers, who, by arrogantly attributing known effects to causes which no human wisdom can ascertain, have disgraced their writings and misled their readers.”

864-76 but . . . you]

864-74 but . . . you] Henley (1787, 6: 47): “Mr. Theobald did not go so far into the context as he ought, before he made this alteration [to denote]; else he would have perceived that it must destroy the sense of the passage. The connexion of which is:— ‘Here, swear, as before, never, so help you mercy! how strange or odd soe’er I bear myself, to note that you know aught of me.’”

864-76 but . . . you] Malone (ed. 1790): “The construction [of Sh’s sentence] is irregular and elliptical. Swear as before, says Hamlet, that you never shall by folded arms or shaking of your head intimate that a secret is lodged in your breasts; and by no ambiguous phrases denote that you know aught of me.

“Shakespeare has in many other places begun to construct a sentence in one form, and ended it in another. So in [AWW 4.1.46, 49 (1959, 1962).] ‘I would the cutting of my garments would serve the turn, or the baring of my beard; and to say it was in stratagem.’

“Again, in the same play [1.1.51 (53)]: ‘No more of this, Helena; —lest it be rather thought you affect a sorrow than to have:’ where he ought to have written than that you have: or, lest you rather be thought to affect a sorrow, than to have.

“Again, ibidem [5.3.84. (2792)]: ‘I bade her—if her fortunes every stood Necessity’d to help, that by this token I would relieve her.’

“Again, in [Tmp. 1.2.28 (114).]: ‘I have with such provision in mine art So safely order’d, that there is no soul—No, not so much perdition as an hair Betid to any creature in the vessel.

“See also [4:156 n. 8 and 240, n.8].

“Having used never in the preceding part of the sentence [that you never shall—], the poet considered the negative implied in what follows; and hence he wrote— “or—to note,” instead of nor. ”

864-74 but . . . you] Malone (ed. 1790, 4:156, n. 8, WT 2.1.167 [780-2]): “Our author is frequently inaccurate in the construction of his sentences, and the conclusion of them do not always correspond with the beginning . . . [quotes other instances of tangled syntax in WT] a wish to reduce our author’s phraseology to the modern standard, has been the source of much errour in the regulation of his text.”

864-76 but . . . you]

864-76 but . . . you]

864-5 but . . . before] Seymour (1805, 2:163): “Interpolation again intrudes to spoil the metre; we should read: ‘But, as before, never so help you mercy,’ &c.”

64-76 but . . . you]

864-76 but . . . you] Caldecott (ed. 1819): “The grammar of this passage is defective, and its construction embarrassed. ‘[Swear] here, as before, never—that you never shall—by pronouncing some doubtful phrase, or the like, [do ought] to mark or denote, &c.’ We have a similar instance in [Tmp. 1.2.29 (115)] ‘There is no soul—No, not so much perdition as a hair Betide.’ Prospero.”

864-76 but . . . you]

864 your philosophie] "Gunthio" (1825, p. 342) indirectly indicates that Q1 your philosophie = Q2: “Every representative of the character I have seen, here laid an emphasis on the word your, as though Hamlet means Horatio’s ignorance; but surely nothing of the sort is intended. ’Tis a sneer at those philosophers who refer every circumstance, apparently marvellous, to natural causes, and reject altogether the notion of any supernatural agency in the affairs of the world: a doctrine, we have reason to think, little in harmony with Shakespeare’s notion upon such subjects. My conjecture is supported by a passage further on—’Sblood! there is something in this more than natural, if philosophy could find it out’ [1412-14]. So in the Second Chapter of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians, verse 8,—’Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit.’ ’Tis plain, then, I think, that in both the above passages philosophy should be graced with a capital, and that the your in the first of them does not relate personally to Horatio.*[note] The use of the pronoun in this general sense is still common, as ’your thorough-bred courtier is a most contemptible character,’ nay, an instance in point occurs further on in the play before us, where Hamlet says to the actor,

’Mary, and you mouth it, as many of your players do,

I’d rather heare a towne bull bellow.’[Q1 CLN 1850-1]

This censure is evidently levelled at players generally, and not at the particular company which the person addressed belongs to—Take note, by the way, that the ’towne bull’ originally held the place since usurped by the ’town crier’ [Q2 1851]

* [note] “Since this was written, I have been told by a friend that he had heard Mr. Young use the emphasis here suggested. To Mr. Y. therefore, the merit of the innovation (if it shall be allowed to possess any,) is exclusively due.”

Ed. note: Note that for 1851 also Collier initiates the Q1/F1 your choice among the editions; see TNM 1851. See also 135, 1414, 2120

864 Schlegel (ed. 1825-33): “Es gibt mehr Ding’ im himmel und auf Erden, Als Eure Schulweisheit sich träumt, horatio.” [There are more things in heaven and earth than your school-wisdom dreams of, Horatio.]

864-76 but . . . you]

864 Collier (1853): The Old Corrector makes a 10-syllable line: “Than dreamt of in Philosophy. But come,”

Ed. note: The Old Corrector is Collier’s name for the originator of ms. notes in F2--probably himself.

864 your] Delius (ed. 1854): “So [our] die Fol. und gewiss richtig, da Hamlet wohl eher als Horatio philosophy für sich in Anspruch nehmen kann. Die meisten Herausgeber lesen mit den Qs. your philosophy.” [The folio correctly has our since Hamlet, [i.e., with your]. would be claiming for himself a higher philosophy than for Horatio.]

864 your] Hudson (ed. 1856): “The passage has had so long a lease of familiarity, as it stands in the text, that it seems best not to change it. Besides, your gives a nice characteristic shade of meaning that is lost in our. Of course it is not Horatio’s philosophy, but your philosophy, that Hamlet is speaking of. H.”

864 your] Fiebig (ed. 1857): “Some editors prefer the reading of the folio, our philosophy, holding it more fit that Hamlet, as a scholar, claims for himself the right of being a philosopher, while Horatio is but a soldier quite ignorant of the secrets of philosophy. Most of the editors read your, according to the quartos, taking “in your philosophy” to be a phrase meaning: in your mind, in your thoughts, in your kind of reasoning about suprnatural things.”

864 your] Walker (2: 7): “Our, I think, with the folio . . . . The error your for our is frequent in that edition.”

864 your] White (ed. 1861): “The 4tos. have the poorer but commoner reading, ‘your philosophy’.”

864 your] Clarke & Clarke (ed. 1864, Glossary): “Sometimes put before a substantive; and used not so much as a personal pronoun, as a means of throwing the subject into impersonal or abstract mention, involving a kind of slight or scoff. [quotes “Your date” AWW 1.1.159 (163) and Ham. 864].”

864 your] Clarke & Clarke (ed. 1868): “This is the reading of all the Quartos, while the Folio gives ‘our’ instead of ‘your;’ which word used in the idiomatic manner so frequently pointed out, where the object is to instance a generality. See [Cor. 2.1.30 (927), n. 26].”

864 your] Abbott (§ 221) describes your as a “colloquial vulgarity,” and considers that Hamlet’s pretense of madness justifies it in 2686, and also explains Hamlet’s rudeness to the player, F1 1851.

864 your] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “For this colloquial and familiar use see [1851, 2688], and [Ant 2.7.26 (1363)]: ‘Your serpent of Egypt is bred now of your mud by the operation of your sun, so is your cocodile.’”

864 your]

864 your] Corson (1874, p. 16): “Hamlet and Horatio had been fellow-students at the University; this may explain the use of ‘our.’ Or it would be better, perhaps, to understand Hamlet as using it in the general sense of human philosophy, which is limited in its scope. Why he should say ‘your,’ does not appear.”

864 your] Furness (ed. 1877): “Walker (Crit. ii, 7; iii, 264) prefers our. White: This reading of the Qq is the poorer, but commoner. Clarendon: For this colloquial and familiar use, see [1854, 1978, 2688; Ant. 2.7.26 (1363)]. Corson: Hamlet and Horatio had been fellow-students at the University; this may explain the use of ‘our.’ Or it would be better, perhaps, to understand Hamlet as using it in the general sense of human philosophy, which is limited in its scope. Why he should say ‘your,’ does not appear. [[It is used ethically. See ‘me’ [1479]. Ed.]]”

Ed. note: That is, the ethical dative.

864 your] Tanger (1880, p. 126) F1 variant “probably owing to the negligence, inattention, or criticism of the compositor.”

864 your] Hudson (ed. 1881): “Strictly speaking, your is redundant here. Hamlet means any philosophy. The Poet often uses the pronouns in that way. So in [3360 and quotes]. In the text, however, I suspect that your is meant to convey a mild sneer at philosophy, which has sometimes been as arrogant as science in some of her modern representations.”

864 your] Hudson (ed. 1881): F1 “has at least as good authority, and is, I think, the better reading of the two, inasmuch as it conveys a mild sneer, which is well in keeping with Hamlet’s temper and cast of mind. Of course the stress is on philosophy, not on your.”

864 your philosophie] Bradley (1904, Ham. chapter, n.18): “Of course ’your’ does not mean Horatio’s philosophy in particular. ’Your’ is used as the Gravedigger uses it when he says ’your water is a sore decayer of your [[. . . ]] dead body.’ ” His quotation omits "whoreson."

864 your] Verity (ed. 1904): “Hamlet knows Horatio’s cool, sceptical nature. Some think that the emphasis is on ‘philosophy’ and that your is used (contemptuously) as in [1851].”

864 your] Travers (ed. 1929) thinks that it could “well mean no more than ‘philosophy, which, you know, is thought to embrace all things,’ though a gentle hit at Horatio’s “academic training. . . .would be in perfect accord with what precedes. The main emphasis, in any case, must be on ‘philosophy,’ not to make the courteous Prince a prig.”

864 your] Wilson (1934, p.282) believes that “the indefinite colloquial ‘your’ is clearly intended.” He discusses this variant at several places in his essay.

864 your philosophie] Ridley (ed. 1934, Glossary): “philosophy in general”

864 your] Wilson (1935, p. 70), in spite of his opinion in 1934 about “the indefinite colloquial ‘you,’” in 1935 thinks that Hamlet is teasing Horatio here about the “shallowness of his ‘philosophy.’”

864 dream’t of] Kittredge (ed. 1939): "emphatic: even dreamt of."

864 your philophie] Kittredge (ed. 1939): "this philosophy that people make so much of. Philosophy not your, is the emphatic word. It means ’natural philosophy’—what we cal ’science’—which takes no account of ghosts and spirits. Cf. [1413-14 and quotes]. For your cf. [2686]."

864 philosophie] Rylands (ed. 1947): "i.e. natural philosophy or science as then understood."

864 your philosophie] Farnham (ed. 1957): “this philosophy one hears about.”

864 your philosophie] Farnham (ed. 1970): “this philosophy one hears about”

864 your philosophie] Spencer (ed. 1980): “The exact meaning of your is difficult to decide. It may refer to Horatio’s rationalist philosophy (he was established as a sceptic at 1.1.23-32); or your philosophy may express a general disdain for rationalizing explanations, not Horatio’s modes of thought particularly.”

864 your philosophie] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “Not some particular philosophy of Horatio’s but philosophy in general, your being used in the indefinite sense then common. Cf. 135, 1851 (F1), 2688-9, 3247, 3360”

864 but come] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “A phrase like this, calling attention to what follows, is often extra-metrical. Cf. 934, 954; 1132. Only the last of these is printed as a separate line in Q2 and none of them in F.”

864 your philosophie] Edwards (ed. 1985): "So Q2 and Q1. F’s ’our’ is probably a compositor’s error. ’your’ is less likely to blame Horatio for his scepticism than to indicate slight contempt for philosophy itself (meaning intellectual investigation, science). Compare [3360-1], ’a score decayer of your whoreson dead body’."

864 your] Kliman (1996): The difference between Q2 your and F1 our is significant: Either 1) Hamlet differentiates between his and Horatio’s philosophy in Q2 (and the stress is on your) or 2) Q2 Hamlet uses a colloquial your as in your spirits in 135 (and if so the accent would be on philosophy); in 1851 on the other hand it is F1 that has your players (while Q2 has our). And on the other hand again, the F our puts Hamlet and Horatio together in a brotherly way. See fieb’s idiosyncratic interp of our. As many commentators have mentioned, your could be the impersonal, rather than the possessive adjective, pronoun. See also 627 (Corson),

864 your] Rasmussen (1997) pts out (e-mail 7/18/97) that compositor X set both 135 and 864. He may have a predilection for the colloquial form your. Compositor Y, on the other hand, set 3600-1—but there the colloquial form is absolutely expected—from the gravedigger’s mouth. Eric, on 7/22/97, added that “your worme at 2686 is compositor Y.”

864 your] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “Probably used colloquially (Blake, 3.3.4.5c) in a general rather than a personal sense (see Your worm at [2686] and your water at [3360]), though actors sometimes stress your, implying an attack on Horatio’s (limited) beliefs about the natural world. (F’s ’our’ is assumed to be an error by Edwards but not by Hibbard.)”

864-75 But . . . me] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “The syntax is disjointed in all three texts, perhaps reflecting Hamlet’s distraction as he both interrupts and repeats himself.”