Line 1309-12 - 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 1018-2022 ed. Eric Rasmussen
| 1309 < Ham. Then are our Beggers bodies; and our Mo-> | 2.2.263 |
|---|
1310 <narchs and out-stretcht Heroes the Beggers Shadowes:> 1310
1311 <shall wee to th’Court: for, by my fey I cannot rea->
1312 <son?>
1765 john1
john1
1309-10 Then ... Shadowes] Johnson (ed, 1765): “Shakespeare seems here to design a ridicule of these declamations against wealth and greatness, that seem to make happiness consist in poverty.”
1311-12 reason] Johnson (ed. 1765) in King John (3.480n2) says that: “To reason, in Sh., is not so often to argue, as to talk.” No Hamlet ref
1774-79? capn
capn
1311 Court] Capell (1774-79?, p. 131-132): “in l. 24. of the last-mention’d page, must mean– the king’s presence; for the speaker of it is in the court, some outer room of it probably, which the ‘players’ might well enough have access to: In the first speech of Hamlet that relates to these players, at 48, 18, is a phrase of some difficulty, which the reader will see explain’d in the ‘Glossary:’ this too (i. e. the sentence it stands in) is of later date than the rest of that speech.”
1791- rann
rann ≈ capn
1311 to the court] Rann (ed. 1791-): “—into the royal presence.”
1818-19 mclr2
mclr2 ≈ mclr
1309-12 Coleridge (ms. notes 1819 in
Ayscough, ed
. 1807; rpt.
Coleridge, 1998, 12.4:848): <p. 848>“I do not understand this—and S. seems to have <intended the> meanting it not to be more than snatched at—By my fay! I cannot reason.”</p. 847)
1826 sing1
sing1 = john +
1310 Singer (ed. 1826): “‘ If ambition is such an unsubstantial thing, then are our beggars ( who at least can dream of greatness ) the only things of substance, and monarchs and heroes, though appearing to fill such mighty space with their ambition, but the shadows of the beggar’s dreams.’ Johnson thought that Shakespeare designed ‘a ridicule of those declamations against wealth and greatness, that seem to make happiness consist in poverty.’”
1856 hud1 (1851-6)
hud1 = john
1309-10 Then are our Beggars bodies, and our Monarchs and outstretch’d Heroes the beggars’ shadows] Hudson (ed. 1856): “If ambition is such an unsubstantial thing, then are our beggars (who at least can dream of greatness) the only things of substance, and monarchs and heroes, though appearing to fill such mighty space with their ambition, but the shadows of the beggars’ dreams.--Johnson."
1311 by my fey] Hudson (ed. 1856): "Fay is merely a diminutive of faith. See The Taming of the Shrew, Induction, sc. 2, note 6. H."
1869 Romdahl
Romdahl = hud1 without attribution
1311 fey]
Romdahl (1869, p. 24-5): “
Fay = faith. The passages where Sh. uses this <p. 24> <p.25> word are, in this oath, Tam. Shrew Induct. Sc. II, 83. Romeo and J. A. I. Sc. V, 128.”
1872 hud2
hud2 ≈ hud1 (john without attribution)
1309-10 bodies] Hudson (ed. 1872): “Hamlet is here playing or fencing with words, and loses himself in the riddles he is making. The meaning, however, seems to be, our beggars can at least dream of being kings and heroes; and if the substance of such ambitious men is but a dream, and if a dream is but a shadow, then our kings and heroes are but the shadows of our beggars.”
hud2 = hud1 minus The Taming of the Shrew note
1311 fey] Hudson (ed. 1872): “ Fay is merely a diminutive of faith.”
1872 cln1
cln1
1311 fey] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): "a corruption probably of the French foi, which in its earlier forms was feid, feit, fey, fe. Or it may be an abbreviation of ’faith.’ Compare Romeo and Juliet, i. 5. 128 : ’By my fay it waxes late.’ "
1881 hud3
hud3 = hud2 minus meaning, + new meaning [???]
1309-10 bodies] Hudson (ed. 1881): “Hamlet is here playing or fencing with words, and seems to lose himself in the riddles he is making. The meaning is any thing but clear; perhaps was not meant to be understood. But bodies is probably put for substance or substances; and the sense appears to turn partly upon the fact that substance and shadow are antithetic and correlative terms, as there can be no shadow without a substance from which it is thrown. If ambition, represented by a king, is a shadow, the antitype of ambition, represented by a beggar, must be the opposite of the shadow, that is, the substance.’”
1310 out-stretcht] Hudson (ed. 1881): “The word outstretched infers , apparently, that the Poet had in mind the sculptured images of heroic kings lying in death, such as were in old times much used for monuments.”
1884 gould
gould
1310 out-stretch] Gould (1884, p. 38): “This is probably ‘our greatest’, which accords with the argument.”
1885 macd
macd = cln1 without attribution
1311 fey] MacDonald (ed. 1885): “foi.”
macd
1311 MacDonald (ed. 1885): “Does he choose beggars as the representatives of substance because they lack ambition—that being shadow? Or does he take them as the shadows of humanity, that, following Rosincrance, he may get their shadows, the shadows therefore of shadows, to parallel monarchs and heroes? But he is not satisfied with his own analogue—therefore will to the court, where good logic is not wanted—where indeed he knows a hellish lack of reason.”
1890 irv
irv = hud2, Bucknill
1309-12 Symons (in
Irving &
Marshall ed. 1890): “
Furness quotes several attempts to assign its precise meaning to this passage, which Coleridge confesses himself unable to understand. The best seem to me those of Hudson and Bucknill. The former observes: ‘Hamlet loses himself in the riddles he is making. The meaning, however, seems to be: our beggars can at least dream of being kings and heroes; and if the substance of such ambitious men is but a dream, and if a dream is but a shadow, then our kings and heroes are but the shadows of out beggars.’ Bucknill, more briefly and better still, says, ‘If ambition is but a shadow, something beyond ambition must be the substance from which it is thrown. If ambition, represented by a king, is a shadow, the antitype of ambition, represented by a beggar, must be the opposite of the shadow, that is, the substance.’
1899 ard1
ard1
1309 beggars bodies] Dowden (ed. 1899): “The monarch or hero is an outstretched shadow; a shadow is thrown by a body; body is the opposite of shadow; therefore the opposite of monarch, and heroes, namely, beggars, are bodies. Whether at one or two removes-shadow, or shadow’s shadow-it is a beggar who produces an ambitious monarch. Hamlet’s private meaning may possibly be that his uncle is a shadow-a mockery king-with a beggar for its substance. He purposely loses himself in his riddles, and, being incapable of reasoning, will to the court where just thinking is out of place.”
1311 fey] Dowden (ed. 1899): “faith.”
1909 subbarau
subbarau ≈ irv
1309-10 Then are our Beggers bodies . . . Beggers Shadowes] Subbarau (ed. 1909): “The passage is capable of a simple and clear explanation: ‘If your reasoning is to be accepted — if ambition is but a shadow’s shadow — it follows that our beggars are more substantial than our monarchs and outstretched heroes, because these latter, being personified ambition, must be shadows of personified shadows, i.e., of beggars (who are mere skeletons hunger-worn).’ Putting it more simply — If ambition is but a shadow’s shadow, an ambitious man (monarch) is but a shadowy man’s (beggar’s) shadow. If follows that beggar is the body and monarch the shadow: a monarch is but a beggar’s shadow — a veritable paradox, which Hamlet forces on the courtier-friends.”
1311-12 shall wee to th’Court . . . . reason] Subbarau (ed. 1909): “The ostensible meaning is — Shall we make a move towards the Court of the King, for I am tired of this quibbling and cannot continue it? The hidden meaning is — Let us go to the Court of the King and verify the truth of this paradox (viz., that monarchs are but beggar’s shadows) by a look at the beggar’s shadow seated on the throne, for indeed I cannot demonstrate it by reasoning. The insinuation is that they can readily see the King Claudius is but the shadow of the beggar Hamlet.”
1934a cam3
cam3
1311 Wilson (ed. 1934): “i.e. this sort of hair--splitting would do well enough at court, but is no pastime for sensible persons. “