HW HomePrevious CNView CNView TNMView TNINext CN

Line 1285 - Commentary Note (CN) More Information

Notes for lines 1018-2022 ed. Eric Rasmussen
For explanation of sigla, such as jen, see the editions bib.
1285 <Let me question more in particular: what haue> 2.2.240
1774-79? capn
capn
1285-1316 Let me...attended] Capell(1774-79?, p. 131): “Towards the end of this page, (l. 30) begins a very large addition, the extent of which may be seen in the ‘V. R.:’ The occasion of it seems to have been,– an opinion in the Poet, that ’twas proper the discourse should be lengthen’d before Hamlet’s suspicion breaks out in the question about the cause of these gentlemen’s coming: he entertain’d it at seeing them, turns the discourse upon Denmark, (46, 2.) in order to sift them, and the answers he gets from them settle him in the thought he had harbour’d, and bring on the question.”
1778 v1778
v1778
1285-1316 Let me...attended] Steevens (ed. 1778): “All within the crotchets, is wanting in the quartos.”
1785 v1785
v1785 = v1778
1793 v1793
v1793 = v1785
1803 v1803
v1803 = v1793
1813 v1813
v1813 =v1803
1821 v1821
v1821 =v1813
1872 cln1
cln1 : standard
1285-1316 Let me...attended] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): "The whole of this passage is omitted in the quartos.”
1885 macd
macd
1285 Let me question] MacDonald (ed. 1885): “ ‘it is not true that the world is grown honest’: he doubts themselves. His eye is sharper because his heart is sorer since he left Wittenberg. He proceeds to examine them.”
1285-1316 Let me...attended] MacDonald (ed. 1885): “this passage, beginning with ‘Let me question,’ and ending with ‘dreadfully attended, ‘ is not in the Quarto.
“Who inserted in the folio this and other passages? Was it or was it not Shakespere? Beyond a doubt they are Shakespere’s all. Then who omitted those omitted? Was Shakespere incapable of refusing any of his own work? Or would these editors, who profess to have all opportunity, and who, belonging to the theatre, must have had the best of opportunities, have desired or dared to omit what far more painstaking editors have since presumed, though our of reverence, to restore?”
1934a cam3
cam3: standard
1285-1316 Let me...attended] Wilson (ed. 1934): “(F1) Q2 omits, possibly because the talk of Denmark as a ‘prison’ was thought dangerous with a Danish queen on the throne. MSH. pp. 96-8.”
1982 ard2
ard2
1285-1316 Let me...attended] Jenkins (ed. 1982): "The omission of this passage in Q2 leaves as signs of a cut two consecutive sentences beginning with ’But’, an anomalous capital after a semicolon, and a discontinuity of thought. Lines 269-70 ask a question in a way that suggests it has been put before - as indeed it has in ll. 239-41, which provide the necessary link between the discussion of Fortune’s treatment of the new arrivals have been part of the original text and is usually thought to have been suppressed, on account of the derogatory references to Denmark, out of deference to Anne of Denmark, James I’s queen."
1285