HW HomePrevious CNView CNView TNMView TNINext CN

Line 2174 - Commentary Note (CN) More Information

Notes for lines 2023-2950 ed. Frank N. Clary
For explanation of sigla, such as jen, see the editions bib.
2174 Guyl. No my Lord, <rather> with choller,3.2.303
1854 del2
del2
2174 rather] Delius (ed. 1854): “ie Qs. lassen das höfliche rather, das für den Höfling charakteristisch ist, weg; ebenso in Hamlet’s nächster Rede far vor more.” [The Quartos leave out the courtly rather,that is characteristic for a courtier; and likewise in Hamlet’s next speech leave out the far before more.]
1857 fieb
fieb
2174 choller] Fiebig (ed. 1857): “Choler means bile, anger, rage.”
1872 cln1
cln1: 1H4, r2 //
2174 choller] Clark and Wright (ed. 1872): “anger. See 1H4 [1.3.129 (450)]: ‘What, drunk with choler? stay and pause awhile.’ And R2 [1.1.153 (158)]: ‘Let’s purge this choler without letting blood.’”
1885 macd
macd ≈ Feib + magenta underlined
2174 choller] MacDonald (ed. 1885): “Choler means bile, and thence anger. Hamlet in his answer plays on the two meanings: —‘to give him the kind of medicine I think fit for him, would perhaps much increase his displeasure.’
1891 dtn
dtn ≈ macd + magenta underlined
2174 choller] Deighton (ed. 1891): “wrath; literally bile, in which sense Hamlet pretends to take the word.”
1929 trav
trav
2174 Travers (ed. 1929): rather] “The would-be delicately clever “rather” (F.) affords to Hamlet a pretext for misunderstanding again by taking the cause to be a physical, bilious, state and not (the real meaning in 291) the emotion of anger.”
1931 crg1
crg1
2174 choller] Craig (ed. 1931): “bilious disorder, with quibble on the sense ‘anger.’ ”
1934 Wilson
Wilson: xrefs.
2174-7 Wilson (1934, rpt. 1963, 2:258): <2:258> “Here my proposed rejection of ‘farre’ [3.2.306 (2177)] cuts across the editorial tradition, since most editors have followed F1 in both passages [i.e. “rather” at 2174]. It may well, indeed, be asked why the word ‘rather’ should be accepted in [3.2.303 (2174)] and its almost exact parallel ‘farre’ be refused in [3.2.306 (2177)]. And the answer is that, as in the case of [5.1.173, 181 (3361, 3368)], it is the very closeness of the parallel which makes the second instance suspect. At 2174 the F1 addition is justified by the context. Just as the F1 version of Polonius’s speech at [2.2.213-4 (1256-7)], with its added obsequiousness, makes Hamlet’s rude rejoinder, ‘You cannot, sir, take from me anything that I will more willingly part withal,’ far more effective, so in the later passage when Hamlet outrageously (as it would seem to a courtier) enquires whether the King is ‘distempered with drink, the reply of Guildenstern, ‘No my Lord, rather with choller’ (F1) has a touch of veiled menace which the bald phrasing of Q2 lacks. The F1 ‘farre’ at [3.2.306 (2177)], on the other hand, if well considered, is found to add nothing whatever to the context. Indeed, its rather pointless emphasis weakens the force of Hamlet’s pretended solicitude for his uncle’s health and so blunts the edge of the irony. In other words, it is probably nothing more than the offspring in the fertile mind of Scribe C of the ‘rather’ just above; having once linked ‘rather’ with ‘choller,’ his paraphrasing memory adds ‘farre’ to ‘more choller’ later on.” </2:258>
1934 cam3
cam3: xref.
2174 rather with choller] Wilson (ed. 1934): “i.e. at Ham.’s outrageous behaviour at the Play-scene, v. note [3.2.244 (2112)] above.”
1937 pen1
pen1
2174 choller] Harrison (ed. 1937): “wrath; but Hamlet pretends that Guildenstern means biliousness, the choleric temperament being due to excess of bile.”
1939 kit2
kit2
2174 choller] Kittredge (ed. 1939): “bile. In the speech that follows Hamlet puns on the word. The King pretends to be suffering from a sudden attack of indigestion, causing dizziness—from what we still call a ‘bilious attack.’”
1942 n&h
n&h ≈ pen1; xref.
2174 choller] Neilson & Hill (ed. 1942): “anger; but Hamlet [3.2.307 (2178)] plays upon the other meaning, billiousness.”
1947 yal2
yal2
2174 choller] Cross & Brooke (ed. 1947): “The other meaning of ‘choler’ is bilious disorder, and so again Hamlet pretends to misunderstand it.”
1947 cln2
cln2fieb
2174 choller ] Rylands (ed. 1947): “anger (lit. bile).”
1974 evns1
evns1 ≈ n&h
2174 choller] Evans (ed. 1974): “anger (but Hamlet willfully takes up the word in the sense ‘biliousness’).”
1980 pen2
pen2 ≈ cln2
2174 choller] Spencer (ed. 1980): “anger (supposed to be caused by bile in the stomach).”
1982 ard2
ard2 ≈ trav
2174 choller] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “Anger at Hamlet’s behaviour seems to the court the natural explanation of the King’s perturbation (distemper). But Hamlet takes choler in the sense of the physiological ‘humour’ i.e. bile.”
1984 chal
chal ≈ pen2
2174 choller] Wilkes (ed. 1984): “anger (which Hamlet takes instead as the ‘humour’ caused by bile).”
1984 klein
klein: Bradley
2174 Klein (ed. 1984): “Already here Bradley’s interpretation of the court’s view of the play episode as a grievous insult to the King is confirmed, see Shakespearean Tragedy (London; 1904, repr. 1962), p.109, note.”
1987 oxf4
oxf4: OED
2174 choller] Hibbard (ed. 1987): “ (I) anger (OED sb. 2); (2) bilious attack (IC).”
1992 fol2
fol2 ≈ evns1; n&h (xref.)
2174 choller] Mowat & Werstine (ed. 1992): “billiousness (The word has a second meaning of ‘anger,’ which Hamlet plays on at [3.2.307 (2178)]).”
1997 evns2
evns2 = evns1
2006 ard3q2
ard3q2 ≈ pen2
2174 choler] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “anger.”
2174