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

Line 2485 - 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.

2485 You heauenly gards: what would {your} <you> gracious figure?	3.4.104

1857 dyce1

dyce1: cald, knt, col (F1 textual variant)

2485 what . . . figure] Dyce (ed. 1857): “So the quartos, 1604, &c.—The folio has ‘What would you gracious figure?’ (the compositor having here omitted the letter r,—just as he has done afterwards in this play, [5.1.294 (3493)], ‘Strengthen you patience in our last night’s speech’); and accordingly Caldecott, Mr. Knight, and Mr. Collier do not scruple to print ‘What would you, gracious figure?’ ”

1874 Corson

Corson: knt1 (F1 textual variant)

2485 what . . . figure] Corson (1874, p. 29): “With a comma after ‘you,’ making ‘figure,’ vocative, the F. is the better reading. Knight has adopted it, so pointed. ‘figure’ doesn’t make, logically, a very good subject to ‘would.’ “

1877 v1877

v1877 ≈ dyce1, strat, Corson (rowe)

2485 would your] Furness (ed. 1877): “Dyce: The compositor of the Folio has here omitted by mistake the letter r. Stratmann agrees with Dyce. Corson: Making ‘figure’ the vocative [as in Rowe’s text] is the better reading. ‘Figure’ doesn’t make, logically, a very good subject to ‘would.’”

1891 dtn

dtn

2485 what would . . . figure] Deighton (ed. 1891): “what would you desire appearing thus?”

1903 p&c

p&c: Corson

2485 your . . . figure] Porter & clarke (ed. 1903): “With a comma after you, making figure vocative, Corson thinks the Folio reading better than the Quarto.”

1929 trav

trav: Brooke (xref.)

2485 You heauenly gards] Travers (ed. 1929): “Compare and contrast [1.4.39 (624)]: here, there is neither doubt nor, properly speaking, terror; awe rather, which will, almost at once, ‘merge into love’ (Stopford Brooke).”

1993 dent

dent ≈ trav (xref.)

2485 heauenly gards] Andrews (ed. 1993): “Angels. Compare [1.4.39 (624)].”

2006 ard3q2

ard3q2: 625-37 xref

2485-9 your. . . your. . . your] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “Hamlet’s pronouns (unlike thee/thou at 1.4.40-52 [625-37]) may explicitly acknowledge the Ghost as his father.”

ard3q2

2485 your gracious figure] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “F’s reading seems equally acceptable, and ’you’/’yor’ with final superscripts would be easy to confuse in manuscript.”

ard3q2: Mac //; Dawson, Dessen

2485 Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “This response makes it clear that unlike Horatio, Marcellus and Barnardo in Act 1, the Queen does not see the ghost. A comparable scene is Mac 3.4, where Macbeth alone sees the Ghost of Banquo, who, however, does not speak. Occasionally in productions it is indicated that the Queen does see the Ghost but still denies his existence (see Dawson, 156). Dessen (Elizabethan, 153) argues that the Queen’s blindness ’is designed primarily to italicize the larger issue of not-seeing in this scene and in the tragedy as a whole’.”