2350 but . . . praying] Thirlby (1723-): “Q[2] male [bad].”

2350-70 Now . . . . goes] Stubbs (1736, p. 33): “Hamlet’s Speech upon seeing the King at Prayers, has always given me great Offence. There is something so very Bloody in it, so inhuman, so unworthy of a Hero, that I wish our Poet had omitted it. To desire to destroy a Man’s Soul, to make him eternally miserable, by cutting him off from all hopes of Repentance; this surely, in a Christian Prince, is such a Piece of Revenge, as no Tenderness for any Parent can justify. To put the Usurper to Death, to deprive him of the Fruits of his vile Crime, and to rescue the Throne of Denmark from Pollution, was highly requisite: But there our young Prince’s Desires should have stop’d, nor should he have wished to pursue the Criminal in the other World, but rather have hoped for his Conversion, before his putting him to Death; for even with his Repentance, there was at least Purgatory for him to pass through, as we find even in a virtuous Prince, the Father of Hamlet.”

2350-70 Now . . . . goes] Dodd (1752, p. 246): “It has been remark’d, there is great want of resolution in Hamlet, for when he had so good an opportunity to kill his uncle and revenge his father, as here, he shuffles it off with a paltry excuse, and is afraid to do what he so ardently longs for: the observation may be confirm’d from many other passages: in the next page, he himself observes, that all occasions do inform against him and spur his dull revenge: but ‘tis not my design in this work, to enter into exact criticism on the characters. See the speech in [4.4.33ff. (2743+26ff.)].”

2350-70 Now . . . . goes] Johnson (ed. 1765): “This speech, in which Hamlet, represented as a virtuous character, is not content with taking blood for blood, but contrives damnation for the man that he would punish, is too horrible to be read or to be uttered.”

2350-70 Now . . . . goes] Gentleman (1770, 1: 24): “The King’s soliloquy [3.2.37 (2312-48)]is a most finished piece of argumentative, pathetic contrition; and furnishes a very instructive picture of a guilty mind. Of Hamlet’s, which immediately succeeds, we cannot speak favourably, as it greatly derogates not only from an amiable but even a common moral character. Revenge, when most provoked, rather violates human feelings; however, as in some instances, the heart cannot decline it, and what more provoking than the death of a father? Yet life for life is the utmost that can be required. For a moral vice or failing premediately to plunge the perpetrator into a state of infinite misery, had we power, would be giving nature a diabolical bent. Therefore, when Hamlet resolves upon taking his uncle in some peculiar act of sin that his heels may kick at heaven, he certainly forms a design and utters sentiments more suitable to an assassin of the basest kind than a virtuous prince and a feeling man.”

2350-70 Now . . . . goes] Jennens (ed. 1773): “We have here the sudden starts of mind of one intent on doing a business of this nature more naturally expressed, Now might I do it, while he’s alone:—No, but he is praying now, which makes it an improper time.—Nevertheless I’ll do it; his prayers shan’t protect him.—But if I kill him now he is praying, he goes to heaven.—And so am I reveng’d, &c.”

2350-70 Now . . . . goes] See note on (3848-50).

2350-70 Now . . . . goes] Gentleman (ed. 1773): “A long speech of Hamlet’s is here commendably thrown aside, first, as being unnecessary, and next, as tending to vitiate and degrade the character, much.”

2350-70 Now . . . . goes] Gentleman (ed. 1773): “A long speech of Hamlet’s is here commendably thrown aside, first, as being unnecessary, and next, as tending to vitiate and degrade the character, much.”

2350-70 Now . . . . hell whereto it goes] Pilon (1777, p. 19): “Upon finding the king at prayers, he is about to put him to death; but recollecting that it was not in the moment of contrition, he killed his father, that he took him, full of bread, ‘With all his crimes, broad blown, as flush as May.’ he resolves to defer his vengeance to the unprepared hour of pleasure and debauch. This principal link, being omitted in the representation, and no other cause substituted, for Hamlet’s continuing to procrastinate, he appears weak and inconsistent, during the last two acts.”

2350-70 Now . . . . hell whereto it goes] Ritson (1783, p. 205): “‘This speech,’ says Dr. Johnson, ‘in which Hamlet, represented as a virtuous character, is not content with taking blood for blood, but contrives damnation for the man that he would punish, is too horrible to be read or to be uttered.’

“How far it detracts from the virtue of Hamlet to be represented as lying in wait for an opportunity to take an adequate and complete revenge upon the murderer of his father, is a question not, with submission to the great moralist, quite so easily decided. The late king has reported himself to have been destroyed in the most deliberate, horrid, and diabolical manner; [quotes 1.5.76-80 (761-5), “Cut off . . . most horrible!”] Under such aggravated circumstances, for Hamlet to be content with having what dr. Johnson calls blood for blood, would have been taking an inadequate and imperfect revenge, and, consequently, doing an act of injustice and impiety to the manes of his murdered parent. But, indeed, the reasons Hamlet here gives for his conduct, as they are better than any other person can make for him, will fully justify both him and it, against all such hypercritical opposition to the end of time.”

2350-70 Now . . . . goes] Mason (1785, p. 390): “This speech of Hamlet’s, as Johnson observes, is horrible indeed, yet some moral may be extracted from it, as all his subsequent calamities were owing to this savage refinement of revenge.”

2350-70 Now . . . . goes] T. Robertson (nd [1788], pp. 260-1): <p.260> “There was a superstition also in Hamlet, which prevented him from putting the usurper to death, when in the act of prayer. For the reason he himself gave for deferring this was, that if he killed the king in the midst of his devotions, he would in fact be doing him a good service, ‘sending a villain to heaven . . . save Heaven?’ [quotes Ff version of 2354-8]. He put up his sword, and waited till he should find him en- </p.260><p.261> gaged in drink, rage, incest, gaming, swearing, or other act that had ‘no relish of salvation in ‘t . . .whereto it goes’ [2367-70].

“The sentiments in this last passage have been considered the most difficult to be defended in the whole character of Hamlet. Without having recourse to a defence of them upon the principle of retaliation, and other pleas, there seems to be ground for an explication of a very different nature, founded upon what appears to be the real character of this personage, and altogether exculpating him from the charge of those horrid dispositions which he has been supposed here to possess.

“Hamlet, in these lines, (if it may be allowed to offer a conjecture) was really imposing upon himself* ; devising an excuse for his aversion at bloodshed, for his cowardice, his ‘craven scruple’ [2743+34]. In the first moments, he proposes instantly to strike—’now I’ll do’t.’ His ordinary softness immediately recurs; and he endeavours to hide it from himself, by projecting a more awful death at a future period, but which he seems never to have thought of afterwards, and which was not at all consonant to his general character.”

2350-71 euen . . . loue] Wesley (ms. notes in v1785): “(J. says this speech is too horrible to be read or uttered.) This note always seemed to me rather scrupulous than wise, Johnson may be thus far right that a man who is in the Christian spirit of loving his enemies (if such a man there be) will abstain from so deep a design of revenge as this of Hamlet; but when it is considered that his father had been ‘sent to his account’ ‘with all his imperfections on his head,’ nothing else than a similar punishment could be called just retaliation. The speech is quite in character; if it contain severity, it contains no injustice; if it is not Christianity, yet it is Nature.”

2350-62 Now . . . . his passage] Richardson (1808, Additional Observations, pp. 59-60): <p.59> “In like manner, the same state of internal contest leads him to a conduct directly opposite to that of violence or precipitancy: and when we expect that he will give full vent to his resentment, he hesitates and recedes. This is particularly illustrated in the very difficult scene where Hamlet, seeing Claudius kneeling and employed in devotion, expresses the following soliloquy [cites [3.4.73-82 (2350-62)]. You ask me, why he did not kill the Usurper? and I answer, because he was at that instant irresolute. This irresolution arose from the inherent principles of his constitution, and is to be accounted natural: it arose from virtuous, or at least from amiable, sensibility, and his feelings of tenderness, in a moment when his violent emotions were not excited, overcame his resentment. But you will urge the inconsistency of this account, with the inhuman sentiments he expresses: [cites 3.3.88-95 (2363-2370)] In reply to this difficulty, and it is not inconsidera- </p.59><p.60> ble, I will venture to affirm, that these are not his real sentiments. There is nothing in the whole character of Hamlet that justifies such savage enormity. We are therefore bound, in justice and candour, to look for some hypothesis that shall reconcile what he now delivers, with his usual maxims and general deportment. I would ask, then, whether on many occasions, we do not allege those considerations as the motives of our conduct, which really are not our motives? Nay, is not this sometimes done almost without our knowledge? Is it not done when we have no intention to deceive others; but when, by the influences of some present passion, we deceive ourselves? The fact is confirmed by experience, if we commune with our own hearts; and by observation, if we look around. When the profligate is accused of enormities, he will have them pass for manly spirit, or love of society, and imposes this opinion not upon others, but on himself. When the miser indulges his love of wealth, he says, and believes, that he follows the maxims of a laudable œconomy. So also, while the censorious and invidious slanderer gratifies his malignity, he boasts, and believes, that he obeys the dictates of justice. Consult Bishop Butler, your favourite, and the favourite of every real enquirer into the principles of human conduct, and you will be satisfied concerning the truth of the doctrine. Apply it, then, to the case of Hamlet: sense of supposed duty, and a regard to character, prompt him to slay his uncle; and he is with-held at that particular moment, by the ascendant of a gentle disposition; by the scruples, and perhaps weakness, of extreme sensibility. But how can he answer to the world, and to his sense of duty, for missing this opportunity? The real motive cannot be urged. Instead of excusing, it would expose him, he thinks, to censure; perhaps to contempt. He casts about for a motive; and one better suited to the opinions of the multitude, and better calculated to lull resentment, is immediately suggested. he indul- </p.60><p.61> ges, and shelters himself under the subterfuge. He alledges, as direct causes of his delay, motives that could never influence his conduct: and thus exhibits a most exquisite picture of amiable self-deceit. The lines and colours are, indeed, very fine; and not very obvious to cursory observation. The beauties of Shakespeare, like the genuine beauty of every kind, are often veiled; they are not forward not obtrusive. They do not demand, though they claim attention.”

2350-2 Now . . . am I reuendge] Anonymous (The Port Folio, 1809, 2: 66): “[Hamlet’s] evil genius suggests a curious refinement. He thinks that if the king should be killed while he was praying, he would certainly go to heaven, and thus he should lose his revenge. His uncle had killed his father when he was unprepared to die, and a just retaliation required that the king should be served in the same manner. He therefore determines to put off his vengeance until he finds the king engaged in some less holy business, and by that method send his soul to hell. Accordingly, he passes by the king without discovering himself.

“The conduct of Hamlet, upon this occasion is considered as an instance of savage barbarity, and so it would be if the reason which he assigns for the delay of his revenge were the true one. But it really was not his motive. It is inconsistent with the whole of his character. It was evidently a mere pretence to palliate to his own mind, his tardy indecisive measures. He is continually endeavouring to animate himself, to do acts of blood, which, when the time of action arrives, he shrinks form performing. The neglect of this opportunity proves fatal. While he is in conference with his mother, he hears a noise behind the arras, which he mistakes for the voice of the king, and at the impulse of the moment he aims a blow, which kills Polonius [sic]. The consequences are, that he is obliged to leave his country, Ophelia becomes distracted and perishes, and Laertes is made his implacable foe.”

2350-71 Coleridge (Lectures on Shakespeare and Milton, Lecture 12, 1812 rept. in John Payne Collier longhand transcript; rpt. Coleridge, 1987, 5.1: 389): “Another objection has been taken by Dr. Johnson, and has been treated by him very severely.n I refer to the scene in the third act where Hamlet enters and finds his Uncle praying, and refuses to assail him excepting when he is in the height of his iniquity: to take the King’s life at such a moment of repentance & confession Hamlet declares ‘Why this is hire & salary, not revenge.’ He therefore forbears, and postpones his Uncle’s death until he can take him in some act ‘That has no relish of salvation in’t.’ This determination sentiment Dr. Johnson has pronounced to be so atrocious & horrible as to be unfit to be put into the mouth of a human being <(See Mal. Sh. VII 382).> The fact is that it was only the determination was to allow the King to escape at such a moment was only part of the same irresoluteness of character. Hamlet seizes hold of a pretext for not acting, when he might have acted so effectually. Therefore he again defers the revenge he sought, and declares his resolution to accomplish it at some time ‘When he is drunk, asleep, or in his rage, Or in th’incestuous pleasures of his bed.’ This, as Coleridge contended repeated, was merely the excuse Hamlet made to himself for not taking advantage of this particular moment to accomplish his revenge.”

2350-73 Coleridge (ms. notes 1819 in Ayscough, ed. 1807; rpt. Coleridge, 1998, 12.4:855): <p. 855>“Dr. Johnson’s mistaking of the marks of reluctance & procrastination for impetuous, horror-striking fiendishness! Of such importance is it to understand the Germ of a character. But the interval taken up by Hamlet’s Speech is truly aweful! And then—‘My words fly up’—O what a lesson concerning the essential difference between Wishing & Willing: and the folly of all motive-mongering, while the individual Self remains.”</p. 855>

2350 but] Delius (ed. 1854): “pat] pat, früher als Adjectiv gebraucht, als Adverbium = passend, bequem. [pat, earlier used as an adjective, is here an adverb meaning suitably or easily.]

2350-70 Now . . . . goes] White (1854, pp.417-418): <p.417> “This Scene, in which Hamlet finds the King on his knees alone, immediately after the Play, and yet does not avenge his Father’s death, is altogether omitted in the stage copy. What an outrageous liberty! how injurious to the intent of the author! Hamlet is a man of contemplation, who is ever diverted from his purposed deeds by speculation upon their probable consequences of their past causes, unless he acts too quickly and under too much excitement for any reflection to present itself,—as in the last Scene of this Act and of the last Act. In the present instance he finds the King alone, and in a situation that seems to tempt revenge. He instantly determines on the deed, half draws his sword, steps forward—but the idea suggests itself ‘and so he goes to heaven’’ and in a moment the avenger of blood is converted into the moral philosopher; he discovers that such a death would be no expiation, and gladly seizes this excuse for procrastinating the execution of his task.

“By the omission of the Scene, Hamlet’s character is not developed according to the author’s intent; which is an offence unpardonable. There are certain Scenes and ar-<p.417></p.418> rangements of Scenes which have naught to do with the progress of the play or the development of the character, and which the improvement in stage business since Shakespeare’s time renders superfluous, perhaps; and these may be omitted, though they should be eliminated with great caution and reverence; but to touch a line which portrays character, because it is thought superfluous or inconsistent by commentators or stage managers, is much as if a man who liked aquiline features should knock off the nose of Apollo Belvidere, and say ‘it’s a small matter, only a nose; the face is a face without it; and besides, I would have made it Roman if I had made the statue.’ Wise above what is written! will they never learn that they did not make the Apollo, or Hamlet, or Romeo, or Lear!” </p.418>

2350 but] Fiebig (ed. 1857): “pat] conveniently.”

2350-70 Now . . . . goes] Cartwright (1862, p. 46): “On the way to his mother he suddenly comes on the king at his prayers; notwithstanding the privacy and secrecy of the opportunity, by a desperate effort of his will he controls the almost irresistible impulse to kill him; strange to say, this scene is regarded as a proof of his irresolution; and though Johnson accused him of being influenced by motives inhuman and fiendish, it is now universally agreed, the reasons assigned by Hamlet are not his real motives, but mere excuses, a self-deception, to avoid the shedding of blood, marks of irresolution and procrastination. The critics in accusing him on this occasion of weakness and irresolution, are certainly consistent with their previous opinion in attributing his deep grief to the death of his father, though he never uttered a single regret for him, nor said a word about him except that he was ‘an excellent king,’’ compared with his brother, ‘Hyperion to a satyr’ [1.2.149 (324)].”

2350 pat] Tschischwitz (ed. 1869): “Das Etymon s. bei Mueller II. 165.” [For the basic etymological form see Mueller II. 165.]

2350-70 Now . . . . goes] Miles (1870, p. 53-4): <p.53> “Hazlitt calls this ghastly, livid wrath, ‘a refinement in malice, to excuse his own want of resolution.’ A shallow plausibility, demolished by that resolute pass through the arras, aimed an instant later, at this King of shreds and patches. . . . Once fully abandoned to the terrible temptation </.53><p.54> which besets him, once made enough to ‘dare damnation,’ he is not going to sell his soul for a song; not going to kill the King at his prayers; he will give measure for measure, eternal doom, for eternal doom. The depths of faith are revealing darker possibilities of revenge; but the whole frightful passage is a fiendish suggestion, vividly presented, rather than deliberately embraced. It is the first wild, natural imprecation of a son for the first time sure that his uncle is the assassin of his father. This bitter certainty transforms him for the moment almost into a demon; and though his conscience re-asserts its sway, this is clearly the mood in which he afterwards meets his mother.” </p.54>

2350-51 so a goes to heauen] Moberly (ed. 1870): so he goes to heaven] “Hamlet had before said (1. 2)—‘Would I had met my dearest foe in heaven / Ere I had seen that day.’ This notion of killing soul and body must therefore be the natural impulse of his mind. So the contemplative Iden in 2H6 [4.10.79 (2984)]. wishes that he could thrust the soul of Cade down to hell; and an Italian, mentioned in Stephens’ Apology for Herodotus, actually induced his enemy to abjure God and the saints on a promise of sparing his life if he did so; and then instantly killed him, boasting that he had destroyed both body and soul. It seems better to simply admit this view of Hamlet’s speech than to consider it, as Coleridge does, to be at least half an excuse for not doing now the act of vengeance from which his soul shrinks, although an unbending law has imposed it on him.”

2350 but now] Clark and Wright (ed. 1872): “pat, now] Compare Lr. [1.2.134 (463)]: ‘Pat he comes, like the catastrophe of the old comedy.’”

2350-5 Now . . . heauen] Tyler (1874, p. 28): “In the soliloquy, which is spoken when Hamlet enters next after the play-scene, and finds the King on his knees at prayer, there is perhaps nothing which necessarily requires us to suppose the intervention of the supernatural, unless, indeed, it be the extreme suddenness with which Hamlet’s purpose is changed, and his hand stayed.”

2350 now . . . praying] Marshall (1875, pp. 163-4): <p.163> “It is evidently the mention of the word ‘praying’ which causes Hamlet to pause; the meaning of the first line I take to be ‘Now might it do it at once, now he is on his knees unable to defend himself, and so absorbed in his prayers that he is not even aware of my presence.’ Hamlet continues, drawing his sword—[quotes phrase] making a step towards the King at the same time; then the sight of the kneeling figure and the associations of the word ‘praying,’ which he cannot forget, make him pause. What Hamlet really felt, but what he would not admit to himself that he did feel, was </p.163><p.164> shame at the idea of killing a man so defenceless, and so occupied, as Claudius then was. Even to a man less religious than Hamlet was, there is a kind of awe which, insensibly perhaps, associates itself with any one engaged in devotion; at that moment the most violent rage and hatred may well pause before striking their victim.” </p.164>

2350 Furness (ed. 1877): “Hanmer ([i.e.Stubbs]Some Remarks, &c., 1736, p. 4i): This speech of Hamlet’s has always given me great offence. There is something so very bloody in it, so inhuman, so unworthy of a hero, that I wish our poet had omitted it. Coleridge: Dr Johnson’s mistaking of the marks of reluctance and procrastination for impetuous, horrror-striking fiendishness!--of such importance is it to understand the germ of a character. But the interval taken by Hamlet’s speech is truly awful! Hazlitt (p. 107): This refinement of malice here expressed by Ham. is in truth only an excuse for his own want of resolution. Hunter (ii, 255): In the whole range of the drama there is, perhaps, nothing more offensive than this scene. Ham. is made to doat on an idea which is positively shocking. Besides, as an excuse for not then executing the command, under the spell of which he lived, it is poor and trivial. Moberly: Ham. had before said [1.2.182 (370)]: ‘Would I had met my dearest foe in heaven,’ &c. This notion of killing soul and body must therefore be the natural impulse of his mind. It seems simpler to admit this view of Hamlet’s speech here than to consider it, as Coleridge does, to be at least half an excuse for not doing now the act of vengeance from which his souls shrinks, though an unbending law has imposed it on him. Horn (ii, 56): Now comes the moment for revenge, but only for revenge, not for righteous punishment, which must be preceded by a full, perhaps also by a public, conviction.”

2350-70 Watson (1878, p. 31): “In the first attempt [to take the king’s life] his arm failed him, for the moment, because his imagination pictured his father suffering the tortures of Hell, and for him to kill the King when found at prayers, would only be to send that father’s murderer to the felicities of Heaven. Hamlet’s reason for postponing the act, as such a time, has proved a stumbling block to the critics. The great Dr. Johnson regards it as ‘an atrocious and horrible sentiment on the part of Hamlet.’ But I say, that Hamlet naturally considered the question of the next world, for his dealings were with that world, under command of one of its own agents, and his necessarily immediate decision, (for, a moment later, he would have been discovered on dangerous grounds,) was influenced by the words of that same agent that were still ringing in his ears. The ghost had taken pains to impress the subject of the next world’s punishment upon Hamlet’s mind.”

2350-70 Now . . . . goes] Rolfe (ed. 1878): “This speech has been considered inhuman and unworthy of Hamlet. According to Coleridge, it is rather his way of excusing himself for putting off the act of vengeance. It seems better, however, with M., to regard this notion of killing soul and body at once as the natural impulse of his mind. It does not strike us as unnatural that the sight of the king at prayer should suggest the idea that killing him then and there would be sending him straight to heaven, and that for the moment Hamlet should shrink from doing this. His first thought is not so much of sending him to hell as of not sending him to heaven; but he dwells upon it in his usual meditative fashion until it leads him logically to that ‘damn’d and black’ conclusion. Caldecott says: ‘Shakespeare had a full justification in the practice of the age in which he lived....With our ruder Northern ancestors, revenge, in general, was handed down in families as a duty, and the more refined and exquisite, the more honorable it was.’ He also refers to [4.7.128 (3118)] below, where the king says ‘Revenge should have no bounds;’ and adds that ‘even the philosophizing and moralizing Squire of Kent, in his beloved retirement from the turmoils of the world, exclaims on killing Cade (2H6 4.10.79 [2984]): “Die, damned wretch, the curse of her that bare thee;/And as I thrust thy body in with my sword,/So wish I, I might thrust thy soul to hell.” ‘ Wordsworth (Shakespeare’s Knowledge of the Bible) excuses Hamlet in much the same way. See also p. 30 above.”

2350 but] Rolfe (ed. 1878): pat] “For pat, cf. MND [5.1.187 (1990)], and Lr. [1.2.134 (463)].”

2350-70 Now . . . . goes] Halliwell-Phillipps (1879, p. 65) <p.65> “Whoever has seen a manuscript play of the time of Shakespeare intended for the use of a theatre, with its alterations, erasures, inserted slips and marks of omission would be apt to believe that the tragedy of Hamlet, as we now have it, is a playhouse not the author’s text. That the repulsive speech of Hamlet at the end of the third act owes its violence of thought to the older play, and was one of the latter, can hardly be doubted.” </p.65>

2350-70 Oxon (1881): “See n. [3.2.266 (2137)].”

2350 but] Elze (ed. 1882): “pat] Compare Middleton, A Trick to Catch the Old One 4.4 (Works, ed. Dyce, II, 79): Cuds me, as pat as can be. Mrs Centlivre, The Busy Body 5. 2: Pat to my purpose.”

2350 Ham.] MacDonald (ed. 1885): “In Q1 this speech commences with, ‘I so, come forth, and worke thy last,’ evidently addressed to his sword, having changed his purpose, he says, ‘no, get thee vp agen.’”

2350-1 Mull (1888, pp. 12-13): <,p.12> “The true punctuation and rendering is this, ‘And now I’ll do it: and (= but) so he goes to heaven!’ Shakespeare uses this meaning of ‘and.’ It flashes into Hamlet’s mind, and the execution of this natural justice would send the King to heaven while he is repentant and in prayer; </12><p.13> so Hamlet ejaculates his surprise at what would be the result of his hasty determination. ‘The devil knows that when we have a relish for prayer, and apply ourselves in good earnest to it, we are in the way of [eternal] life.’ Sacra Privata, p. 16, by the late Bishop Wilson, of Sodor and Man.” </p.13>

2350 but] Barnett (1889, p. 50): “pat] conveniently. Cf. MND [3.1.2 (815)]—’Bottom. We are all met? Quince. Pat, Pat.’ And also v. 188—‘It will fall (happen) pat.’ There is a mixture in the word of A.S. plaetan to strike lightly, and the Du. pas fit, convenient in time. We might imagine Hamlet bringing his hand down as he says it.”

2350-70 Now . . . . goes] Symons (in Irving & Marshall, ed. 1890): “This speech of Hamlet has given great concern to the commentators, and is not easily reconciled with a too amiable view of the character of a man who could utter it. A writer in the Quarterly Review (vol. lxxix. 1847, p. 323, note—quoted in Furness, vol. ii. p. 169) interpretes it thus: ‘His reasons for not killing the king when he is praying have been held to be an excuse. But if Shakespeare had anticipated the criticism, he could not have guarded against it more effectually . Hamlet has just uttered the soliloquy: ‘—Now could I drink hot blood, And do such bitter business as the day Would quake to look on.’ In this frame he passes his uncle’s closet, and is for once, at least, equal to any emergency. His first thought is to kill him at his devotions; he second, that in that case Claudius will go to heaven. Instantly his father’s sufferings rise into his mind; he contrasts the happy future of the criminal with the purgatory of the victim, and the contemplation exasperates him into a genuine desire for a fuller revenge. The threat relieves him from the reproach of inactivity, and he falls back into his former self.’ This seems to be a very reasonable view, and the following passage from Strachey (pp. 71, 72) does something to explain the passage yet further: ‘Hamlet enters, and sees that now he ‘might do it pat;’ but only the coward or the assassin would willingly kill a sleeping, or a praying man, and when to this instinctive feeling are united Hamlet’s undoubted reluctance to shed his uncle’s blood, even as the just avenger of his father’s murder, and his habitual disposition to procrastinate, and put off action of every kind,—these motives are enough to stay his hand for the present. And to excuse his procrastination to himself and also to gratify that inclination ‘to unpack his heart with words’ which impels every man who, having deep thoughts and strong feelings, does not carry them out by action, he falls into language which, if he meant what he said, would certainly be as horrible and infernal as Dr. Johnson and others have called it. The under circumstances that might destroy his soul at the same time, has not only been adopted by more than one of Shakespeare’s dramatic contemporaries, but is said to have been really uttered and acted upon. And this may warn us not to think the words mere pretext, even in Hamlet’s case. Though assuredly Hamlet would not have deliberately done anything to accuse his uncle’s damnation, he gratifies his bitter hatred by saying that he desires, and will contrive it: he give sway (as I have observed on another occasion) to evil inclinations, instead of strictly restraining them, because he feels that they are not so bad, that is, so strong, as to lead to guilt of action. To avenge his father’s murder with his own hand, is, under all the circumstances of country, age, form of government, and social condition, in which Shakespeare has laid the scene of the play, a judicial act required of him by the strictest laws of public and private duty: but with the universal infirmity and sinfulness of human nature, he mixes up more or less of bad feelings with the performance of his duty.’”

2350 Now . . . but] Deighton (ed. 1891): “Now . . . pat] I could not find a time more fit for my purpose; cp. H8 [2.3.84 (1303)], ‘Come pat betwixt too early and too late; ‘this can hardly be other than the same word as pat, a tap . . . But the sense is clearly due to an extraordinary confusion with Du. pas, pat, convenient, in time, which is used in exactly the same way as E. pat’ . (Skeat, Ety. Dict.).”

2350-70 Freud (rpt. Crick trans. 1999, p. 204, n. 23 quoted by Griffiths, 2005, p. 52): “[W]hat inhibits him from fulfilling the task laid upon him by his father’s ghost? Here again we have at our disposal the knowledge that it is the particular nature of this task. Hamlet can do anything - except take revenge on the man who removed his father and took the latter’s place beside his mother, the man who shows him his own repressed infant wishes realized. The revulsion that should urge him to revenge is thus replaced by self-recrimination, by the scruples of conscience which accuse him of being, quite literally, no better than the sinner he has to punish.”

2350-55 Werder (1907; rpt. 1977, p.143): <p.143 > “At this moment Hamlet finds the King alone, unarmed and unprotected. He draws his dagger, for after what he has learned from the play he dares to kill him; he wills to do it—and does not do it. And we know that this is well. He would defeat his purpose if he now made the King dumb before the world, when the first attack upon him by means of the play had succeeded in wresting from him at least the pantomime of a confession.” </p.143>

2350-70 Werder (1907; rpt. 1977, p.18): <p.18 > “Werder here as elsewhere has made it perfectly clear what ‘the state of the case’ is, and why and how it ‘says’ what it would be superfluous for Hamlet to say; ‘It must be admitted, though, that the words of the hero when he comes upon the praying King are looked upon by very few persons as a truthful, or at lease as a full, expression of his mind.’ In other words, they will not believe what Hamlet says when ‘the state of the case,’ as they see it, says something different to them!” </p.18 >

2350-62 Werder (1907; rpt. 1977, p.150): “‘But,’ say the critics, ‘if he has only slain the King before, which would have been no crime, he would have saved himself from this real crime now. That was his error and for that error he commits this—and for that he is punished by this!’ Not at all! For then he would have committed a far greater error! Now there lies upon his soul a crime, a death-blow, but an undesigned blow, more an unfortunate than a guilt act; but in the other case, had he killed the King he would, indeed, have kept himself morally pure, but his duty, the one great object and aim of his being, would have been ruined, shattered into atoms, and his father would have remained for ever unavenged.”

2350-70 Waldock (1931, p. 8), after summarizing Richardson’s rationalization for Hamlet’s inaction in the prayer scene [pp. 6-7], objects: “The prayer-scene in Hamlet is not garbled or incomplete . . . . It bears every mark of being exactly what Shakespeare wished it to be: it is eminently finished and entire.” He concludes [p. 9] that “a good deal of Hamlet commentary . . . is produced by a radical fallacy of method.”

2450 Waldock (1931, rpt. 1973, pp. 64-5): <p. 64> Q1’s speech “is the same speech, as it might have been reported. In it the important word ’might’ has disappeared. It goes: [see Q1 for full quotation]

I so, come forth and worke thy last.

And thus he dies, and so am I revenged:

No, not so: he took my father. </p. 64>

<p. 65> It gives perhaps more plainly still the impression that the speech of the Second Quarto gives plainly: the dark joy at the opportunity; the imminence of the deed, the sword drawn from its scabbard; the sudden check, the dissatisfaction, the sword thrust back.” </p. 65>

2350-70 Now might . . . goes] Craig (ed. 1931): “This may be described as the crucial passage in the interpretation of Hamlet’s character. One school of critics, following Coleridge, has held that Hamlet fails to kill the king because of weakness of will; this group regards what he says as merely so many excuses for not doing his duty. A more recent and undoubtedly a sounder group take Hamlet’s reasons literally, saying that, like other heroes of revenge tragedies, he wishes to make his vengeance equivalent and complete.”

2350 Wilson (1934, rpt. 1963, 1:144-5): <1:144> “the line might have stood </1:144><1:145> unchallenged in all modern editions, had not F1 printed the variant—’Now might I do it pat, now he is praying,’ which proves beyond cavil that Shakespeare wrote ‘pat’ not ‘but.’ Yet the Q2 reading strongly suggests that he wrote it in such a way that it looked like ‘put,’ since if the compositor so set it up his corrector would naturally assume that the ‘p’ was turned ‘b.’ The misprint is then in the nature of a minim-misreading . . . .”

1:145n: “Vide 1:108-9.” </1:145>

2350-1 a’ is . . . a’ goes] Wilson (1934, rpt. 1963, 2:231): <2:231> “At one place, indeed, the ‘a’ adds a touch to Hamlet’s speech which is admirably dramatic . . . . Here the colloquialism [“a“ for “he”] clearly implies contempt, contempt which makes a fitting prelude to what follows.” </2:231>

2350 a is a praying] Wilson (ed. 1934): “(Q2) F1 ‘he is praying.’ MSH, p. 231. The familiar ‘a” adds a significant touch of contempt to Ham.’s words.”

2350 but] Kittredge (ed. 1939): “pat] readily, conveniently.”

2350 praying] Kittredge (ed. 1939): “and therefore off his guard.”

2350 Kittredge (ed. 1939, Introduction, p. xiii): <p. xiii> “The earliest moment at which Hamlet is justified in striking the blow does not come until the end of the third scene of the third act—or, in other words, until Shakespeare’s play is more than half finished. It is the moment when Hamlet finds his uncle at prayer [2350]. Now, for the first time, Claudius is off guard, and his attitude of prayer confirms the evidence—already strong enough—that he is guilty.” </p. xiii>

2350-71 Alexander (1939, rpt. 1946, pp. 157-8) <p. 157> says 3.3 is the key to Ham.’s character. The reasons sometimes offered for Ham’s inaction then are not true. </p.157><p.158> He can’t “stab a defenseless man.” And yet that is what he must do if he is to succeed. He can’t admit even to himself that this is the problem. The king must strike the first blow. </ p. 158> . . . . < p. 161>

“Alexander denies that in the play Sh. posits a battle between “savage and civilized,” because “murder and violence” remain with us. </ p. 161> < p. 162> He sees in Ham. a perfect “‘instinctive wisdom of antiquity and her heroic passions uniting,’ in the soul of the hero, ‘with the meditative wisdom of later ages’ [. . . ].” </ p. 162>

Ed. note:Alexander does not say whom he is quoting.

2350-71 Rylands (ed. 1947): “See n. [3.2.1 (2272)].”

2350 but] Cross & Brooke (ed. 1947): pat] “to a nicety.”

2350-70 Jones (1949, p. 82, quoted by Griffiths, 2005, p. 7): “The long ’repressed’ desire to take his father’s place in his mother’s affection is stimulated to unconscious activity by the sight of someone usurping this place exactly as he himself had once longed to do. More, this someone was a member of the same family, so that the actual usurpation further resembled the imaginary one in being incestuous. Without his being in the least aware of it, these ancient desires are ringing in his mind, are once more struggling to find conscious expression, and need such an expenditure of energy again, to ’repress’ them that he is reduced to the deplorable mental state he himself so vididly depicts.”

2350-71 Alexander (1955, p. 147) < p. 147> maintains that if Ham. had plunged a knife in the back of the kneeling king, he would have lost audience sympathy thereby, as he does not when he dispatches Rosencrants and Guildenstern. </ p. 147 > See also 3560.

2350 but] Farnham (ed. 1957): pat] “opportunely.”

2350-71 Now . . . daies.] Munro (ed. 1958): “This speech could be treated either as an aside or a soliloquy. Arnold, 4, prefers to treat it as a soliloquy and remarks: ‘Claudius has retired in prayer, and Hamlet, while conscious of the kneeling king, is virtually alone with his cogitations.”

2350-70 Erlich (1977, p. 31, quoted by Griffiths, 2005, p. 62): “By deferring the killing of Claudius, Hamlet can fantasize a situation in which the crucial punisher, God the Father, can be counted on; now is not a good time because God would be handcuffed by His own rules and, according to Hamlet’s tortured theology, He would have to pardon Claudius. Hamlet needs a God and a father who is not so tolerant of incestuous criminals. Nor do I think that the critics have noticed how closely the prayer scene is related to Hamlet’s ’let be’ attitude at the end of the play. His profession of belief in a ’divinity’ that shapes our ends can be a convenient sublimation for someone in desperate need of a strong father. Hamlet does not act in the prayer scene, I think because he unconsciously wants his father to act. He desperately needs a strong father who, like his putative God, will damn Claudius to hell.”

2350 pat] Spencer (ed. 1980): pat] “neatly, opportunely.”

2350-70 Golden (1984, p. 153): “Indeed in III.iii.73-95 [TLN 2350-70, III.iii.73-96], when Hamlet has a chance to confront his enemy directly and heroically, he finds a reason not to carry out his father’s injunction for vengeance which is totally alien to the world-view of these heroes. And later, when Hamlet has his interview with his mother and hears the voice of Polonius [TLN 2374, III.iv], he acts without establishing the conditions of an heroic confrontation. He thus finds that he has killed the silly but harmless old counselor rather than his real enemy. This is quite different from the conscious search for direct confrontation that marks the careers of the heroes we have mentioned previously [Achilles, Hektor, Othello].”

2350 but] Wilkes (ed. 1984): pat “pat F (Q but) opportunely with nicety.”

2350 a] Wilkes (ed. 1984): “’a [1.1.43 (55)].”

2350 a is] Edwards (ed. 1985): “Represents a slurred pronunciation of ‘he is’; compare 2.2.185 [1227]. We would write ‘he’s’, but perhaps the pronunciation was nearer ‘uz’.”

2350 but] Andrews (ed. 1993): “Most of today’s editions adopt the Folio’s pat. Since the Quarto reading makes good sense, there is no compelling reason to change it.”

2350-70 Now. . . goes] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “Johnson found this speech ’too horrible to be read or uttered’; other eighteenth- and nineteenth-century editors, such as Caldecott, justified its apparent barbarity as appropriate to the historical period represented. From Garrick onwards it has frequently been cut in performance. Hamlet’s stated desire not only to kill his uncle but to send his soul to hell contrasts with Othello’s words to Desdemona when he tells her to pray: ’I would not kill thy unprepared spirit. . . I would not kill thy soul’ (Oth 5.2.31-2).”

2350 But] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “gloss.”

2350 But] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “F has ’pat’ = conveniently, adopted by Jenkins without comment. But introduces Hamlet’s doubt immediately.”

2350 ’a is a-praying] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “F’s version may be easier to speak, but Hope points out (1.3.2c) that F has ’he’ for Q2’s ’’a’ three times in his speech (73, 74, 80) and that ’a (assumed to relate to the dialect roots of Shakespeare, who is one of the latest citations for its usage OED) is ’highly unstable textually, and liable to be changed to he by scribes and compositors’.”

2350 Stegner (2007, p. 118): “For Hamlet, private penitential prayer would thus avoid the necessary cautions regarding the equivocations and dissimulations present in public speech. Yet Shakespeare manifests the limitations of Hamlet’s faith in the relationship between interior and exterior through the dramatic timing of the scene: Hamlet does not overhear Claudius’s mental wrangling over his inability to repent, but only him ’a-praying’; and Claudius remains unaware of Hamlet’s presence and unknowingly saves his own life by attempting to repent sincerely (3.3.73). Given Claudius’s remark that ’[m]y words fly up,’ he presumably prays audibly rather than silently (3.3.97). Hamlet therefore bases his judgment that his uncle is ’in the purging of his soul’ (3.3.85) and ’is fit and season’d for his passage’ (3.3.86) on, as Claudius reveals after Hamlet exits, ’[w]ords without thoughts’ (3.3.98).”