Notes for lines 2023-2950 ed. Frank N. Clary
| 2369 And that his soule may be as damnd and black | 3.3.94 |
|---|
1747-53 mtby4
mtby4
2369 damnd and black] Thirlby (1747-53): “f damned as.”
1765 john1
john1
2369-70 his soule . . .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.”
See also 2350 for commentary by other editions and commentators.
1773 v1773
v1773 = JOHN1
See also note on 3848-3850.
1773 gent1
gent1
See 2350 for commentary and for comments by other editors and commentators.
1774 gent2
gent2
See 2350 for commentary and for comments by other editors and commentators.
1778 v1778
v1778 = v1773 +
2369-70 his soule . . .goes] Steevens (ed. 1778): “The same fiend-like disposition is shewn by Lodowick, in Webster’s Vittoria Corombona, 1612: ‘—to have poison’d The handle of his racket. O, that, that!— That while he had been bandying at tennis, He might have sworn himself to hell, and struck His soul into the hazard!’
“Again, in The Honest Lawyer, 1616: ‘I then should strike his body with his soul, And sink them both together.’
“Again, in the third of Beaumont and Fletcher’s Four Plays in one: ‘No, take him dead drunk now without repentance.’ Steevens.”
v1778 = v1773 +
2369-70 his soule . . .goes] Malone (apud ed. 1778): “The same horrid thought has been adopted by Lewis Machin, in the Dumb Knight, 1633: ‘Nay, but be patient, smooth your brow a little, And you shall take them as they clip each other, Even in the height of sin; then damn them both, And let them stink before they ask God pardon, That your revenge may stretch into their souls.’ Malone.”
See also 2350 for commentary by other editions and commentators.
1785 v1785
v1785 = v1778 +
2369-70 his soule . . .goes] Reed (apud Editor, ed. 1785): “I think it not improbable that when Shakspeare put this horrid sentiment into the mouth of Hamlet, he might have recollected the following story: ‘One of these monsters meeting his enemie unarmed, threatened to kill him if he denied not God, his power, and essential properties, viz. his mercy, suffrance, &c. the which, when the other desiring life pronounced with great horror, kneeling upon his knees: The bravo cried out, nowe will I kill thy body and soule, and at that instant thrust him through with his rapier.’ Brief Discourse of the Spanish State, with Dialogue annexed intitled Philobasilis. 4to, 1590. p. 21. Editor.”
See also 2350 for commentary by other editions and commentators.
1790 mal
mal = v1785 +
2369-70 his soule . . .it goes] Malone (ed. 1790): “A similar story is told in The Turkish Spy, Vol. III. p. 243. Malone.”
1793 v1793
v1793 = mal +
2369-70 his soule . . .goes] M. Mason (apud ed. 1793): “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. M. Mason.
“That a sentiment so infernal should have met with imitators, may excite no surprize; and yet . . . .”
This interplation is located between JOHNSON gloss and STEEVENS parallels from v1778. Mason comment from1785, p. 390. See also 2350 for commentary by other editions and commentators.
1805 Chedworth
Chedworth
2369-70 his soule . . .goes] Chedworth (1805, p. 355): “This horrid sentiment cannot be too strongly reprobated. There is no passage in our author’s writings at which I am so much offended as at this.”
1807 Douce
Douce: Howel, Chetwind analogues
2369-70 his soule . . .goes] Douce (1807, p. 250): “To the stories collected in the notes that illustrate Hamlet’s shocking design of killing the king at his prayers, may be added one in Howel’s Parley of the beasts, p. 91, and another related in Chetwind’s Historical collections, p. 77.”
See also 2350 for commentary by other editions and commentators.
1815 Becket
Becket: contra john1; Oth. //
2369-70 his soule . . .
goes] B
ecket (1815, 1:58-9): <p.58> “This outcry of Dr. Johnson and his followers in regard to the
damnatory (condemnatory) speech of Hamlet, is somewhat singular. The plain meaning of it is,
may he be punished according to his sins, and this, it should be remembered, is in conformity with the Christian doctrine of rewards and punishments. ‘And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.’ Now what is to be understood of
damnation? Is it to be held as something more than being condemned to eternal torments—than
being sent into everlasting fire? Surely not. The whole matter is this—The Prince could not speak of Claudius as being the worst
of all possible villains, that is to say, an
hypocritical villain;—his present humility proceeding not from a contrite, but an attrite heart. In a word, he is so very criminal, that it would be a wickedness nearly equal to his own to wish </p.58><p.59> him to find salvation: to hope that he might receive forgiveness at the hand of his maker. We find in another page of the play,—’the devil take thy soul,’—, and in
Oth. [3431-32], ‘May his pernicious soul Rot half a grain a day!’ With many the like imprecations. Why then are these passed over as
blameless, while the one in question is so loudly exclaimed against? Such fulminations had been better hurled at the anathemas, the
holy maledictions, of the Church of Rome.” </p.59>
See also 2350 for commentary by other editions and commentators.
1819 cald1
cald1 = mal + expanded explan., oth, KJ //s; Revenger’s Tragedie, Apol. for Herodotus analogues.
2369-70 his soule . . .goes] Caldecott (ed. 1819): “ How much, and how justly soever modern feelings may revolt at the exhibition of this refinement of revenge, the playwright here had, it is conceived, a full justification in the opinions and practice of the age in which he lived. That it was without foundation in religion and morals, or just and regulated feeling, will admit of no doubt: but whether it is a faithful picture of human nature in a barbarous age would be the true question to be made. With your ruder northern ancestors, revenge, in general, was, in earlier times, delivered down in families as a duty; and the more refined and exquisite it was, so much the more honourable was it thought to the relation and the clan: and not only is that character or feature of it, of which we are not speaking, to be found in every book that in these times applies to the subject; but there are hardly any of those commentators upon Shakespeare who exclaim against it, that have not produced instances of it from all description of authors. Neither can it be denied, that it was a sentiment brought upon the stage by subsequent tragedians as late as the middle of the next century; and Shakespeare has here in some sort laid a ground for the introduction of it, by making the king himself, the object of this horrid purpose, proclaim, (IV. 7.) ‘Revenge should have no bounds;’ and though it is in one instance, withdrawn by Othello, he repeatedly insists upon this idea.
“To the instances produced, many might be added. We shall give one from a very popolar prose word of that day, and which has much of the phraseology of Shakespeare; and only mention one other play in which it repeatedly occurs, because that play is a work of considerable merit, the Revenger’s Tragedie, 4to. 1606. The instance is from R. C. H. Stephens’s Apology for Herodotus, fo. 1608, p. 143. ‘An Italian, having nourished malice and rancour in his mind for the space of ten years together, dissembling all the while to be friends with is foe, as he was walking on a time with him in a by place, came behind him and threw him downe, and holding a dagger to his throate, told him, that, if he would not renounce God, he would kill him. The man, being at first very loth to commit so horrible a sinne, yet in the end yeelded to do it, rather than to lose his life, and so renounced both God and the Saints, and all the Kyrielle (as they spake in those dayes) whereupon the wicked wretch, having his desire, stabbed him with his dagger, which he held to his throate, and afterward bragged that he had taken the kindliest and bravest revenge of his enemie that ever man did, in that he had destroyed him both body and soule.’ . . . . And upon her husband Emilia pours imprecations bitter as these: ‘May his pernicious soul Rot, half a grain a day.’ Oth. 5.2 [3431-32] . . . . “This principle, which the notions of our untutored ancestors seemed almost to sanctify, (see Salisbury’s ‘holy vow;’ KJ 4.3 [2066]) was, from the hold it had upon public opinion, resorted to as an engine in the minds of the audience of sufficient force to justify that delay of Hamlet in the execution of his purpose, whice was necessary to enable our author to carry on his drama through this and the succeeding act.”
cald1 incorporates parallels and explanatory comments from STEEVENS, MALONE, REED, AND MASON, which appear in mal, but inserts the above preliminary note and capping note on Hamlet’s disposition to revenge, as well as a newly interpolated parallel from Othello. Following the new Othello parallel, cald1 provides MALONE’s parallel from Machin’s Dumb Night, REED’s parallel from Brief Discourse of the Spanish State (with a parallel reference to The Turkish Spy attributed to Reed, though v1813 attributes it to MALONE), and MASON’s seconding of JOHNSON’s observation (though this last had appeared prior to the parallels in v1813). cald1 then adds the new cap note. Ellipses have been inserted above to indicate where mal commentary fills the gaps between new material. See also 2350 for commentary by other editions and commentators.
1826 sing1
sing1: john1, Mason
2369-70 his soule . . .goes] Singer (ed. 1826): “Johnson has justly exclaimed against the horrible nature of this desperate revenge; but the quotations of the commentators from other plays contemporary with and succeeding this, show that it could not have been so horrifying to the ears of our ancestors. In times of less civilisation, revenge was held almost a sacred duty; and the purpose of the appearance of the ghost in this play is chiefly to excite Hamlet to it. The more fell and terrible the retributive act, the more meritorious it seems to have been held. The King himself in a future scene, when stimulating Laertes to kill Hamlet, says, ‘Revenge should have no bounds.’ Mason has observed that, horrid as the resolution of Hamlet’s is, ‘yet some moral may be extracted from it, as all his subsequent misfortunes were owing to this savage refinement of revenge.’”
See also 2350 for commentary by other editions and commentators.
1832 cald2
cald2 = cald1 + Oth., 2H6 //s
2369-70 his soule . . .
goes]
Caldecott (1832): “See ‘double damn’d.’ 4.2 [2729]
Oth.: and our author makes even the philosophizing and moralizing Squire of Kent, in his beloved retirement from the ‘turmoils’ of the world and state, exclaim, on killing Cade,
2H6 [2983-84] Iden; ‘And as I thrust thy body in with my sword, So wish I, I might thrust thy soul to hell.’”
In retained note, cald2 substitutes “rude northern ancestors” for “barbarous northern ancestors.” These new parallels are located after the Oth. //.
1856b sing2
sing2 = sing1 minus “The more fell . . . . refinement of revenge” +
2369-70 his soule . . .goes] Singer (ed. 1856): “Yet perhaps there is nothing more in it than another constitutional stratagem of Hamlet to find an excuse for deferring action.”
Substituted comment indicates Singer’s shift from reading Hamlet as an earnest immoralist to reading him as a constitutional procrastinator. See also 2350 for commentary by other editions and commentators.
1857 fieb
fieb ≈ john, v1778
2369-70 And . . . goes] Fiebig (ed. 1857): “This speech, says 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; yet, as Mason adds, some moral may be extracted from it, as all his subsequent calamities were owing to his savage refinement of revenge.—That a sentiment so infernal should have met with imitators, may excite surprise; and yet the same fiend-like disposition is show by Lodowick, in Webster’s White Devil, or Vittoria Corombona, 1612: ‘-- -- to have poison’d/’The handle of his racket. O that, that!/’That while he had been bandying at tennis,/’He might have sworn himself to hell, and struck/’His soul into the hazard! St.”
1877 v1877
v1877 ≈ john, Mason, v1778, mal, v1785, cald1, Wordsworth
2369-70 And...
goes]
Furness (ed. 1877): “
Johnson: This speech, in which Ham., 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. M.
Mason: Yet some moral may be extracted from it, as all his subsequent calamities were owing to this savage refinement of revenge. [
Steevens cites from Webster’s
White Devil,
1612;
The Honest Lawyer,
1616; the third of Beau. & Fl.’s
Four Plays in One, to show that the same fiend-like disposition is displayed by the various characters there portrayed.
Malone, to the same end, cites Machin’s
The Dumb Knight,
1633. As this does not illustrate Sh., but his successors, I have not repeated the half page from the Var.
1821.
Ed.]
Reed: I think it not improbable, that when Sh. put this horrid sentiment into the mouth of Ham., he might have recollected the following story: ‘One of these monsters meeting his enemie unarmed, threatened to kill him, if he denied not God, his power, and essential properties, viz. his mercy, suffrance, &c., the which when the other, desiring life, pronounced with great horror, kneeling upon his knees; the bravo cried out,
nowe will I kill thy body and soule, and at that instant thrust him through with his rapier.’ —
Brief Discourse of the Spanish State, with a Dialogue annexed intitled Philobasilis, 4to,
i59o, p. 24.
Caldecott: Sh. had a full justification in the practice of the age in which he lived. The true question is not whether this practice were founded in religion, but whether or not Sh. gave a faithful picture of human nature in a barbarous age. 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; and this character or feature of it is to be found in every book that in those times applies to the subject. And it was a subject brought upon the stage by subsequent tragedians as late as the middle of the seventeenth century. Sh. has here in some sort laid a ground for the introduction of it by making the King himself proclaim (4.7.
129 [3118]) : ‘Revenge should have no bounds,’ and he makes even the philosophizing and moralizing Squire of Kent, in his beloved retirement from the turmoils of the world, exclaim on killing Cade, 2
Hen. VI: 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, p.
2o8) finds for Ham. the same palliation as does Caldecott.”
1881 hud2
hud2
2369-70 his soule . . .goes] Hudson (ed. 1881): “Hamlet here flies off to a sort of ideal revenge, in order to quiet his filial feelings without crossing his reason. Yet it is a very mark-worthy fact, that the King is taken at last in the perpetration of crimes far worse than any that Hamlet anticipates. But that, to be sure, is the Poet’s ordering of the matter, and perhaps should be regarded as expressing his sense of justice in this case; though Hamlet may well be supposed to have a presentiment, that a man so bad, and so secure in his badness, will not rest where he is; but will proceed to some further exploiting in crime, in the midst of which judgment will at last overtake him.”
1907 Werder
Werder
2369-70 his soule . . .
goes]
Werder (1907; rpt. 1977, p. 146): <p.146 > “The King falls in perpetrating a crime even greater than his first, at the moment when he is committing a threefold murder. Rather than be betrayed he suffers even his own wife to drink the poison which he has prepared for Hamlet; in this moment utterly hopeless of salvation he falls, so that his soul will be ‘as damned and black as hell whereto it goes.’” </p.146>
1958 mun
mun: contra john
2369-70 And . . . goes] Munro (ed. 1958): “Johnson, quoting these words, held Hamlet’s idea of damning Claudius ‘too horrible to be read or uttered.’ Such, however, was Richard III’s wish in killing Henry VI, etc. See p. 368 above. More apposite is Cutwolfe’s vengeance on Esdras in Nashe’s Unfortunate Traveller (1593), XII, in which Esdras is hounded down, and made to consign his soul to hell before he is slain. There are other similar instances.”
See also 2350 for john, as well as for commentary by other editions and commentators.
1987 oxf4
oxf4: Tilley
2369-70 as damnd . . . hell] Hibbard (ed. 1987): “(a proverbial simile, Tilley H397).”
2369