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

Line 1016 - 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.

1016 This must be knowne, which beeing kept close, might moue	2.1.115

1747 warb

warb

1016-17 Warburton (ed. 1747): “i.e., This must be made known to the King, for (being kept secret) the hiding Hamlet’s love might occasion more mischief to us from him and the Queen, than the uttering or revealing of it will occasion hate and resentment from Hamlet. The poet’s ill and obscure expression seems to have been caused by his affectation of concluding the scene with a couplet.”

Ed. note: warb does not recognize the possibility that Polonius’ own convolutions could be the point. Since mal rarely includes Warburton’s notes and Steevens often excludes them, it seems likely to me that they include this long note because they think it belongs to Johnson.

1765 Heath

Heath

1016-17 Heath (1765, p. 535): “The sense, however obscurely expressed, is not difficult to discover. The concealment of it may be attended with consequences productive of greater calamity than the displeasure can possibly be with which the disclosing it may be received.”

Heath’s interpretation makes Pol. brave for telling the K and Q what they may not want to hear and doesn’t drag Hamlet into it unnecessarily.

1765 john1

john1 = warb; see han VN

1016-17 Johnson (ed. 1765): “Hanmer reads,

More grief to hide hate, than to utter love. Johnson.”

1765- mDavies

mDavies

1016-17 Davies (1765-): “The plain meaning of this passage is It will be much safer to acquaint ye King & Queen with Hamlet’s love to you than conceal it—Hamlets hate & resentment ont seem to be out of ye question.”

1773 v1773

v1773 = warb; john1

1016-17

1774 capn

capn: Heath

1016-7 This . . . loue] Capell (1774, 1:1:129): “The sense of that ill-express’d couplet [1016-17], is very properly given by the ‘Revisal” [Heath] in these words; ‘The concealment of it may be attended with consequences productive of greater calamity than the displeasure can possibly be with which the disclosing it may be received.’ ”

1778 v1778

v1778 = warb without attribution; john1 but credits john with whole note.

1016-17 Steevens (ed. 1778): Johnson (apud ed, 1778): “i.e., This must be made known to the king, for (being kept secret) the hiding Hamlet’s love might occasion more mischief to us from him and the Queen, than the uttering or revealing of it will occasion hate and resentment from Hamlet. The poet’s ill and obscure expression seems to have been caused by his affectation of concluding the scene with a couplet.

“Hanmer reads,

More grief to hide hate, than to utter love. Johnson.”

1785 v1785

v1785 = v1778 including miscredit

1016-17

1787 ann

ann = v1785 minus (last sentence from warb and all of john) but all credited to john

1016-17

1790 mal

mal = v1778 including miscredit

1016-17

1791- rann

rann ≈ Heath without attribution

1016-17 Rann (ed. 1791-): “It may be worse to conceal Hamlet’s passion, than to reveal it: the hiding it may be productive of more dreadful consequences, than the displeasure can possibly be which may attend it’s discovery.”

1793 v1793

v1793 = mal including miscredit

1016-17

1803 v1803

v1803 = v1793

1016-17

1805 Seymour

Seymour: misalludes to john for warb note

1016-17 Seymour (1805, 2:167): “The construction of this passage is very perplexed, and Dr. Johnson has in vain endeavoured to disentangle it: —the best explanation I can offer is this; this must be known, which would eventually, in the concealment, occasion of grief a greater measure than could of anger attend the disclosure, which would be an act of love.”

1813 v1813

v1813 = v1803

1016-17

1819 cald1

cald1 = v1813 (including citing john for warb note +

1016-17 This . . . loue] Caldecott (ed. 1819): “By this artificial, antithetical, and riddling style, our author, in other parts of his drama, frequently embarrassed his sense: but to conclude acts and scenes with a couplet, was the very opposite of affectation. The custom of the age fully warranted it; and not to have done it occasionally would have been an affectation of singularity. Ben Jonson did so in his tragedies; and it was the almost invariable course for a century afterwards.”

1821 v1821

v1821 = v1813

1016-17

1826 sing1

sing1 = cald1 without attribution; warb without attribution

1016-17 Singer (ed. 1826): “This must be made known to the King, for (being kept secret) the hiding Hamlet’s love might occasion more mischief to us from him and the queen, than the uttering or revealing of it will occasion hate and resentment from Hamlet.’ Johnson, whose explanation this is, attributes the obscurity to the poet’s ‘affectation of concluding the scene with a couplet.’ There would surely have been more affectation in deviating from the universally established custom.”

BWK: cald but with a slight twist; CALD says “occasionally” and SING1 implies that it is “always” appropriate to have the couplet-conclusion.

1832 cald2

cald2 = cald1 +

1016-17 This . . . loue] Caldecott (ed. 1832): “The sentiment here is simply this: ‘the keeping of this love affair a secret might be the cause of more mischief and unhappiness than all the evil passions, that would be set afloat by making it public.’ But the fashionable enigmatical quaintness and antithesis (and in this case more especially the latter, by the opposition of Love, the subject matter, to Hate) have introduced a jumble and confusion in the idea, if it has not entangled the grammatical construction of the passage. Our literal rendering would be; ‘suppressed it might create more general sources of unhappiness and heart-burning to conceal this Love, than it would that particular source of unhappiness, or passion, Hate, Love’s immediate opposite, to proclaim and avow it.’ Nor in any place by introducing matter nor very serviceable to his great end, could our author have complied more aptly with that rule, imperative upon every Play-wright, ‘Populo ut placeret Fabula.’

“And it may be here observed, that, at the close of an Act or when the Scene is shifted, and there is a pause in the action or business of the Drama, it was the usage of our Dramatists, down to the middle of the last century, not simply to divert attention from the main object, as here, by the introduction of a couplet or rhymes, but to make the subject of such couplet foreign altogether to the interests of the Drama, an unconnected flourish, and that, not infrequently, a laboured and florid simile.

“In such cases, in mere recitation, in unimpassioned scenes, in passages not marked with any particular character or interest, David Garrick, the child of nature, and within the last half century at least, certainly our only great general actor, was so much out of his element and to such a degree offended against all propriety and the common principles of recitation, as would in the upper forms of our great seminaries have discredited a schoolboy, (he had not had a regular education,) and has repeatedly given us pain, and made us feel both for him and ourselves; and equally admiring him, to think it no way unnecessary for his warm eulogist Churchill to say ‘Whist working from the Heart, and Fire I trace, And mark it strongly flaming to thy Face; Whilst in each Sound I hear the very Man—I can’t catch Words—and pity those, who can.’ Resciad,

“Johnson [sic] says, “The ill and obscure expression seems to have been caused by the poet’s affectation of concluding the scene with a couplet.’ For the charge, so pointed, there is not the slightest foundation.

“By this artificial, antithetical, and riddling style, our author, in other parts of his drama, frequently embarrassed his sense: but to conclude acts and scenes with a couplet, was the very opposite of affectation. The custom of the age fully warranted it; and not to have done it occasionally would have been an affectation of singularity. Ben Jonson did so in his tragedies; and it was the almost invariable course for a century afterwards.”

1854 del2

del2

1016-17 Delius (ed. 1854): “Die Verhehlung dieser Dinge, schliesst Polonius in dem ihm zusagenden gesuchten Antithesenstyl, würde mehr Schmerz verursachen, wenn [wie] wir ihn verbergen, als Hass, wenn wir die Liebe (d.h. Hamlets vermeintliche Liebe zur Ophelia) offenbarten. —Die Qs. fügen diesem Relmpaar noch ein Come bei.” [The concealment of these things, Polonius decides in his accustomed antithetical style, would cause us more pain if hidden, than hate, if we reveal the love (that is, Hamlet’s apparent love for Ophelia).

Delius does not think that the hate will come from Hamlet but from the king and queen, it seems.

1856 hud1

hud1 ≈ sing1 (including warb and disagreement with warb) without attribution

1016-17

1865 hal

hal = warb without attribution; john

1016-17

1868 c&mc

c&mc: standard

1016-17 Clarke & Clarke (ed. 1868): “‘Might occasion us more mischief were we to hide it from the king, than hate from Hamlet were we to speak of his love.”

1869 tsch

tsch

1016-17 Tschischwitz (ed. 1869, apud Furness, ed. 1877), says Furness, “cannot persuade himself that the author of the Sonnets and of Venus & Adonis could have composed lines so faulty in logic and style as these, and he therefore finds that even sticklers for the authorized text will pardon him for changing line [1017] to ‘More grief to him, then hate to us their love.’ He also marks ‘Ophelia’s exit’ after [1015].”

1870 Abbott

Abbott

1016-17 Abbott § 390: “i.e. ‘this ought to be revealed, for it (273), by being suppressed, might excite more grief in the king and queen by the hiding (356) of the news, than our unwillingness to tell bad news would excite love.”

1870 rug1

rug1: Davies without attribution

1016-17 Moberly (ed. 1870): “The king may be angry at my telling of Hamlet’s love; but more grief would come from hiding it.”

1872 cln1

cln1

1016-17 Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “In the couplets which conclude scenes, the sense in frequently sacrificed to the rhyme. The sense here seems to be—Hamlet’s mad conduct might cause more grief if it were hidden than the revelation of his love for Ophelia would cause hatred, i.e. on the part of the King and Queen. Yet the Queen afterwards expresses her approval of the match, [1688].”

Ed. note: They might also have mentioned the graveside speech: 3436.

1872 hud2

hud2 : hud1 gloss; warb on rhyme without attribution

1016-17 Hudson (ed. 1872): “The sense is rather obscure, but appears to be,—By keeping Hamlet’s love secret, we may cause more of grief to others, than of hatred on his part by disclosing it. The Poet sometimes goes out of his way to close a scene with a rhyme.”

1873 rug2

rug2 = rug1

1016-17

1877 v1877

v1877: warb; Heath; cald shortened with ref to warb added; cln1, with ref. to 3436 added; tsch

1016-17 Furness (ed. 1877): “Warburton: That is, this must be made known to the King, for (being kept secret) the hiding of Hamlet’s love might occasion more mischief to us from him and the Queen, than the uttering or revealing of it will occasion hate and resentment from Hamlet. The poet’s obscure expression seems to have been caused by his affectation of concluding the scene with a couplet. Heath: The concealment of it may be attended with consequences productive of greater calamity than the displeasure can possibly be with which the disclosing it may be received. Caldecott: At the close of an act or when the scene is shifted, and there is a pause in the action of the drama, it was the usage of our dramatists, down to the middle of the last century, not simply to divert attention from the main object, as here, by the introduction of a couplet or rhymes, but to make the subject of such couplet foreign altogether to the interests of the drama, an unconnected flourish, and that, not infrequently, a laboured and florid simile. Such a custom in Sh., so far from being what Warburton calls it, was the very opposite of ‘affectation;’ and not to have done it occasionally would have been an affectation of singularity. Clarendon: In the couplets which conclude scenes, the sense in frequently sacrificed to the rhyme. The sense here seems to be—Hamlet’s mad conduct might cause more grief if it were hidden than the revelation of his love for Ophelia would cause hatred, i.e. on the part of the King and Queen. Yet the Queen afterwards expresses her approval of the match [1688]/ Compare also [3436]. Tschischwitz cannot persuade himself that the author of the Sonnets and of Venus & Adonis could have composed lines so faulty in logic and style as these, and he therefore thinks that even sticklers for the authorized text will parden him for changing [1017] into ‘More grief to him, than hate to us their love.’ He also marks ‘Ophelia exit’ after [1015].”

1881 hud3

hud3 ≈ hud2 +

1016-17 Hudson (ed. 1881): “ . . . The Poet sometimes strains the language pretty hard in order to close a scene with a rhyme. The infinitives are here gerundial.”

1885 macd

macd; standard + in magenta underlined

1016-17 MacDonald (ed. 1885): “He hopes now to get his daughter married to the prince. We have here a curious instance of Shakspere’s not unfrequently excessive condensation. Expanded, the clause would be like this: ‘which, being kept close, might move more grief by the hiding of love, than to utter love might move hate:’ The grief in the one case might be greater than the hate in the other would be. It verges on confusion, and may mot be as Shakspere wrote it, though it is like his way. [quotes Q1].”

1901 gol

gol ≈ cald without attribution

1016-17 Gollancz (ed. 1901) defends Sh. against john1 [again the error] for following the “universally estabish custom” of ending scenes with couplets.

1904 ver

ver: standard king’s anger; standard on obscurity

1016-17 Verity (ed. 1904): “i.e. it will annoy Claudius to hear of Hamlet’s love of Ophelia, but still more trouble would be caused if it were kept from him. No doubt Polonius means that trouble might ensue to himself; cf. [1158-68]. where he is at such pains to disclaim connivance. The rhyme (together with the antithesis) accounts here, as often, for a certain obscurity of expression.”

1918 TLS

Sargeaunt

1016-17] Sargeaunt (“Hamlet’s Solid Flesh,” TLS 1918: 417-18) <p. 417> In the quarto, but not the folio, hate always means ha’t, the contraction of have it. The usual interpretation is that “to utter love” means “to reveal Hamlet’s love to the King and Queen. I hope I have something more rational to suggest. . . . By ‘This’ Polonius means the fact that Hamlet is mad for love of Ophelia. He has found the great secret, and is ready enough to make use of it to win favour. He would say, ‘That Hamlet is mad for your love must be known, which being kept close, might move more grief to hide, than it to utter </p. 417> <p. 418> would move love.’ He raises a strong objection to hiding and a sufficient reason for uttering the secret.” </p. 418>

Ed. note: Sargeaunt is correct that elsewhere in Ham.“hate” = have it: 1580, 3148, 3829.

1929 trav

trav

1016-17 Travers (ed. 1929): “To hide which might cause more grief (because more harm) to us than to utter (let out, tell) the Prince’s love for you may cause hatred on the part of the King and Queen (who may well suspect you of having entrapped him, and me of having either assisted or connived [see 1157-68]. Rhyme, antithetical emphasis, and compactness of emphasis, and compactness of sententious phrasing that might verge on oracular crabbedness, best suited (to Elizabethan ears and minds) the conclusion of a scene.”

1934 rid1

rid1

1016-17 Ridley (ed. 1934): Though the lines are possible to force into comprehensibility, “hate ia an oddly strong word, and the grammatical construction of love is awkward, and I feel there is probably some corruption.”

1938 parc

parc

1016-17 Parrott & Craig (ed. 1938): “This probably means: keeping Hamlet’s love a secret may cause more grief (i.e. in the continuation of his madness) than publishing it will cause hate (either on Hamlet’s part for having his love exposed or on the part of his royal parents).”

1939 kit2

kit2: standard

1016-17 which . . . loue] Kittredge (ed. 1939): "For us to conceal it might cause the King (and us) more sorrow than he will feel displeasure at learning that Hamlet loves you. Polonius, though of very high rank, does not believe that the King and Queen will approve Hamlet’s marrying Ophelia. He is mistaken, as the Queen’s words prove in [3436]."

kit2: standard

1016 close] Kittredge (ed. 1939): "secret."

1947 cln2

cln2: standard

1016-17 which . . . loue] Rylands (ed. 1947): "i.e. if we conceal it we may do more harm than the displeasure which will be caused by informing Claudius of Hamlet’s love."

1957 pel1

pel1: standard

1016 close] Farnham (ed. 1957): “secret.”

pel1: standard

1016 moue] Farnham (ed. 1957): “cause.”

1970 pel2

pel2 = pel1

1016 close] Farnham (ed. 1970): “secret”

pel2 = pel1

1016 moue] Farnham (ed. 1970): “cause”

1980 pen2

pen2

1016 This . . . knowne] Spencer (ed. 1980): “we must make this known to the King (probably, rather that ’whatever we may do to conceal it, the story of this will soon become common knowledge’).”

pen2: xref

1016-17 moue . . . loue] Spencer (ed. 1980): “cause more ill-feeling if I conceal this love (by leading to further derangement of Hamlet’s mind) than will be the indignation provoked in the King if I reveal (utter) it. Polonius feels that his daughter is no match for Hamlet; but later the Queen approves, discreetly at 3.1.38-42 and (after Ophelia’s death) plainly at 5.1.240-1.”

1982 ard2

ard2:

1016-17 might . . . loue]] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “Concealment might cause more grief (presumably because of what the mad lover might do—see 1001-2) than the publication of Hamlet’s love would give offence.”

1985 cam4

cam4

1016 close] Edwards (ed. 1985): "secret."

1987 oxf4

oxf4

1016-17 might . . . loue] Hibbard (ed. 1987): "i.e. this love affair could cause us more trouble and suffering, should we try to hide it, than any we may undergo (in the form of royal displeasure) for revealing it. Polonius, still casting beyond himself, thinks, quite mistakenly, that the King and Queen are sure to disapprove of a match between the heir to the throne and his daughter."

oxf4

1016 knowne] Hibbard (ed. 1987): "made known (to Claudius and Gertrude)."

oxf4 = Abbott § 377

1016 beeing kept close]

1988 bev2

bev2: standard

1016 close] Bevington (ed. 1988): “secret.”

bev2: standard

1016-7 might . . . loue] Bevington (ed. 1988): “i.e., might cause more grief (because of what Hamlet might do) by hiding the knowledge of Hamlet’s strange behavior to Ophelia than unpleasantness by telling it.”

1996 Kliman

Kliman

1016-17 Kliman (1996): “Either Polonius poises Hamlet’s resentment (hate) against the king’s ability to cause Polonius grief, or Polonius weighs the king’s resentment at this love affair against the danger of keeping it secret; Polonius, one would think, would have less concern about Hamlet than about the king.

2006 ard3q2

ard3q2: standard

1016 knowne] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “i.e. made known (to the King)”

ard3q2: standard

1016 close] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “secret”

ard3q2: standard

1016-17 might . . . loue] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “i.e. it might cause more pain to hide this love than distress to reveal it.”