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

Line 2040 - 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 2023-2950 ed. Frank N. Clary

For explanation of sigla, such as jen, see the editions bib.

2040 King. Faith I must leaue thee loue, and shortly to,	3.2.173

1857 fieb

fieb

2040 shortly] Fiebig (ed. 1857): “quickly, soon.”

1935 TLS

Oliphant, E. H. C., contra Chambers; Wilson

2040-53 Oliphant (1935, p. 537) claims that Chambers cannot be right about the Lucianus speech (2124-30) being Hamlet’s insertion because it is necessary to the play, while Hamlet’s addition must be an interpolation. The King’s rising during the speech shows he is agitated, but it is by the action, not the words. Oliphant also refutes another candidate that Chambers lists, the speech at 2054-77, thought by some to be Hamlet’s insertion because it is philosophical. J. D. Wilson opines that the play did not arrive at Hamlet’s insertion before the king interrupted it. Oliphant thinks that Sh.’s artistry requires a meaningful insertion, especially since Hamlet mentions it twice (1581-2; 1849); the speech must do something specific. Oliphant’s candidate is 2040-53 because it gets to the nub of the issue, the hasty remarriage, and it could relieve his feelings. They are just of the length required, that Hamlet’s comment wormwood shows the lines have affected the queen as he had wished them to.

1935 TLS

Sampson, George, contra Oliphant

2040-53 Sampson (1935, p. 552): We can’t find Hamlet’s lines because as a fictional character he can’t write any lines. Ed. note: Sampson is somewhat off the mark because Oliphant means the lines that Sh. meant the audience to think of as Hamlet’s insertion. The question remains, of course, whether we should worry about which lines they are.

1935 TLS

Pyle, Fitzroy contra Oliphant; Trench

2040-53 Pyle (1935, p. 565): objects to Oliphant’s choice because it is two speeches not “a speech,” and it is obviously not an interpolation because what follows it could not follow directly what precedes it. Most students of the play accept the fact that no candidate is viable. The play-within is an representation of a play performed for the king and queen (as Pyramus and Thisbe is presented as a full-length evening’s entertainment). Prof. Trench argues against the idea of Hamlet retaining his purpose of adding lines. He and Pyle think that Hamlet at the end of 2.2 had decided to rewrite the whole play to suit his purpose.

Ed. note: Hamlet’s rewriting the whole play does not agree with his “Speake the speech,” singular, but it does agree with his boast after the play-within, 2149. See Trench in “The play as a whole.”