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

Line 889 - 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.

889 Enter {old} Polonius, {with his man or two} <and Reynoldo>.	..

1770 Gentleman

Gentleman

889-967 Gentleman (1770, 1: 35): “as I remember, [Mr. Macklin] retained most of that scene at the beginning of the second act, which good sense and Shakespeare’s friends must lament the general omission of.”

1784 Davies

Davies

889-967 Davies (1784, 3:34): “This scene, between Polonius and his servant Reynoldo, has not been acted for more than a century, and is by no means essential to the play.”

1854 del2

del2

889 with his man or two] Delius (ed. 1854): “Die Fol nennt ihn Reynoldo, die Qs, denen die Herausgeber gefolgt sind, Reynaldo. Dass er Polonius’ Diener war, erhellt aus der Bühnenweisung der Qs. Enter Polonius with his man or two.” [The folio names him Reynoldo, the 4tos, followed by the editors, Reynaldo. That he is Polonius’ servant is clear from the 4tos’ stage direction: Enter Polonius with his man or two.]

1880 Tanger

Tanger

889 old Polonius] Tanger (1880, p. 115) believes that Q2’s old is Sh.s epithet, purposely meant to add information about Polonius, which F1 obliterates.

1947 cln2

cln2

889 Rylands (ed. 1947, p. 36) calls Reynaldo “the old servant.”

1961 Rossiter

Rossiter

462-602 and 889-1017 Rossiter (1961, pp. 172-3): <p. 172> “ . . . [N]early everything in the play can be felt as ‘happening to Hamlet’: and this includes those scenes in which he is not on the stage nor even being talked about. . . . </p. 172><p. 173> [T]he world of Polonius and his family [he here cites 462-602, but continues with 889-1017]—the private world of Elsinore—is but another aspect of unreality: of the ordinariness which can be disturbing (even frightful), because it looks so like the norm of normal life, and yet is only a distraction from the vile reality which is the truth. That vile reality is the ‘Hamlet-world’: though never the world of Hamlet himself. . . . Perhaps I exaggerate about the first Polonius scene; but that much discussed second one [889-1017], No. It does mark time; it does ‘prepare’ for more plotting; but placed just there, it gives a different kind of insane, dreamlike unreality to the play by its very infusion of ordinariness. The fussy father keeping an eye on son and daughter and the attitude of ‘what’s up with young Hamlet?’: it is all so wrong; and that going astray of the world-of-men about him and his mind is part of Hamlet’s experience. Hence i feel the scene as ‘happening to Hamlet’; though in the story, he gets only its unintelligible consequences: Ophelia’s returning his gifts.” </p. 173>

Rossiter

462-602, and 889-1017 Rossiter (1961, p. 173): “ . . . . The Ghost-world was, as it happens, quite real. But these ordinary events that follow, as well as human weakness, make it nearly impossible to go on thinking so. The average, usual, commonplace is the enemy of the deep, the intense: makes it appear ‘over-strained’ if not quite insane.”

1982 ard2

ard2:

889 Jenkins (ed. 1982): “The Q2 old gives a clue to Shakespeare’s conception of the character, and occurring now instead of at Polonius’s first appearance, perhaps suggests that the conception has developed. Q2’s (and presumably Shakespeare’s) or two is redundant; the scene as it came to be written envisages one man only.”

1985 cam4

cam4

889 Enter old Polonius, with his man or two] Enter Polonius and Reynaldo Edwards (ed. 1985): "So F. See collation for Q2’s striking authorial direction."

1996 Kliman

Kliman

889 with his man or two] Kliman (1996): While Q2 does not specify the name of the servant Reynaldo, it does specific his exit by name, and only his exit (accompanied by no one else). Thus the SD for the entrance could represent an earlier state, when Sh had not yet decided on the number to enter or the name. On the other hand, since the second line after the SD has the SP Rey. it hardly seems credible that Sh did not decide his name early. The option, it seems to me, is an opportunity to show Reynaldo’s stature by giving him an attendant or two, or not, an option that could be decided on an ad hoc basis in the theater.

F1, which does specify name (and number) for entrance, does not specify for exit. Q1 names one servant, Montano (not Reynaldo).

2006 ard3q2

ard3q2

889 Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “Q2’s entry direction has been taken as evidence that the text derives from an authorial manuscript: ’old Polonius elaborates on his first appearance in 1.2 and ’his man or two’ indicates uncertainty at the time of composition but, as the scene stands, only one man is needed.”