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

Line 2577+1 - 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.

2577+1 { Ham. Ther’s letters seald, and my two Schoolefellowes,} 2577+1	3.4.203

1726 theon

theon: contra pope (text variant)

2577+1-2577+9 Theobald (1726, p. 106): “I have at last, I think, got thro’ all the Errors of this long Act, save a slight one, in which SHAKESPEARE is no ways concern’d, committed by Mr. POPE, in a Note of his own, upon the last Speech of it. The ten following Verses, says he, are added out of the old Edition. It must for the future be printed, The Nine following Verses, &c. for no more than that Number are restored either from the old Edition, or those modern ones which have inserted them.”

1855 Wade

Wade

2577+1-2577+9 Wade (1855, p. 16): “[Hamlet] very shrewdly and correctly suspects, that the real intention of the king is to get him killed out of the Royal way; but far from this prospect of his own personal danger driving him at once to the fulfillment of his enjoined mission of vengeance, he very quietly submits to his uncle’s decree of exile, amusing himself with the thought, at once childish and cruel, of tricking poor Rosencrantz and Guildenstern—the mere ignorant tools of the Arch-Murderer—into the death intended for himself. The shrinker from a dread work of earnest, is a first-rate hand at a serious practical joke; and to that, indeed, he sweeps. . . . He eschews the Royal feast of vengeance, to ‘prey on garbage’ of mere highway-murder.”

1857 fieb

fieb

2577+1 Ther’s] Fiebig (ed. 1857): “There’s instead of there is.”

1869 tsch

tsch: Cym. //; Marlowe analogue; Mueller; xref.

2577+1 Ther’s] Tschischwitz (ed. 1869): “Wenn das Prädikatsverb dem Subj. vorangeht, was häufig in Verbindung mit Ortsadverben der Fall ist, tritt im Englischen sehr oft der Sing. ein, wo naturgemäss der Pl. stehen müsste. Z. B. There is no moe such Caesars. Cym. 3.1.36. There’s two crowns for thee, play. Marl. Jew of M. 4. 5. Der Gebrauch reicht bis ins Ags. M. II. p. 141. c. Daher auch die F. im Beginne des 4ten Actes: there’s matters liest.” [When the verb precedes the subject, something that often happens in connection with adverbs of place, the singular often appears in English, where the plural would naturally stand. For example, There is no moe such Caesars. Cym. [3.1.36 (1415)]. There’s two crowns for thee, play. Marl. Jew of M. 4. 5. This usuage is common as early as Anglo-Saxon. M. II. p. 141. c. Therefore also the Folio has at the beginning of the 4th Act: there’s matters . [4.1.1 (2587)].

1872 cln1

cln1: xref.; TN //

2577+1 Ther’s] Clark and Wright (ed. 1872): “frequently used as here with a plural noun following, like ‘il y a’ in French. Compare [5.1.29 (3218)], and TN [2.4.93 (980)].”

1877 v1877

v1877: xref.; Mac. //; Abbott

2577+1 Ther’s letters] Furness (ed. 1877): “See [4.5.5 (2750)]; Mac. [2.3.140 (914)]; and Abbott, § 335.”

1881 Oxon

Oxon

2577+1-2577+9 Oxon (1881, p. 24): “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern knew nothing of the contents of the original letter, or they would at once have returned on losing Hamlet. Of the contents of the forged letter they were also ignorant, or they would never have gone to England. Hamlet probably inherited this love of conspiracy. He positively revels in plots and counterplots.”

1885 macd

macd: xref.

2577+1-2577+9 MacDonald (ed. 1885): “This passage, like the rest, I hold to be omitted by Shakspere himself. It presents Hamlet as divining the plot with whose execution his false friends were entrusted. The Poet had at first intended Hamlet to go on board the vessel with a design formed upon this for the outwitting of his companions, and to work out that design. Afterwards, however, he alters his plan, and represents his escape as more plainly providential: probably he did not see how to manage it by any scheme of Hamlet so well as by the attack of a pirate; possibly he wished to write the passage [5.2.10 (3509)] in which Hamlet, so consistently with his character, attributes his return to the divine shaping of the end rough-hewn by himself. He had designs —’dear plots’—but they were other than fell out—rough-hewing that was shaped to a different end. The discomfiture of his enemies was not such as he had designed: it was brought about by no previous plot, but through a discovery. At the same time his deliverance was not effected by the fingering of the packet, but by the attack of the pirate: even the re-writing of the commission did nothing towards his deliverance, resulted only in the punishment of his traitorous companions. In revising the Quarto, the Poet sees that the passage before us, in which is expressed the strongest suspicion of his companions, with a determination to outwit and punish them, is inconsistent with the representation Hamlet gives afterwards of a restlessness and suspicion newly come upon him, which he attributes to the Divinity.

“Neither was it likely he would say so much to his mother while so little sure of her as to warn her, on the ground of danger to herself, against revealing his sanity to the king. As to this, however, the portion omitted might, I grant, be regarded as an aside.”

1885 mull

mull

2577+1-2577+9 Mull (ed. 1885): “This speech, down to this line [3.4.210 (2577+9)], is plainly an ‘Aside.’ How Hamlet came to know of the letters and the arrangement for his deportation is not stated, but it would be preposterous to suppose that these lines, embodying his secret counter designs, should have been spoken to his mother. Then, further, the colloquy is most fitly resumed at line [3.4.211 (2578)]—This deed that I have done will be sufficient reason to pack me off whatever may be ‘concluded on’ otherwise.”

1891 dtn

dtn: Abbott

2577+1 Ther’s letters] Deighton (ed. 1891): “for the singular verb preceding a plural subject, see Abb. §335.”

1934 cam3

cam3: MSH

2577+1-2577+9 Ther’s letters...meete] Wilson (ed. 1934): “F1 omits. MSH. p. 28.”

1939 kit2

kit2: xrefs.

2577+1 Ther’s letters seald] Kittredge (ed. 1939): “See n. [4.5.31-2 (2774)]; [4.3.64 (2729)]; [5.2.26 (3527)].”

1982 ard2

ard2: xref.

2577+1 schoolfellows] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “Cf. [2.2.11 (1031)].”

1985 cam4

cam4: xref.

2577+1 Ther’s letters . . . meete] Edwards (ed. 1985): “These nine lines are not found in F. It is argued in the Introduction (pp. 14-19) that their removal is part of a revision by Shakespeare of the later part of the play. (1) Hamlet’s plan to postpone his revenge, it is suggested, seemed too definite; (2) Hamlet has had no way of learning of the king’s plan to send Rosencrantz and Guildenstern with him to England; (3) the determination to kill Rosencrantz and Guildenstern does not accord with [5.2.4-11 (3505-10)].”

1987 oxf4

oxf4

2577+1-2577+9 Hibbard (ed. 1987, Appendix): “The omission of these lines from F contributes to the suspense and surprise of what is to follow in Act 4 by making Hamlet’s letters to Horatio and the King completely unexpected.”

1993 dent

dent

2577+1 seald] Andrews (ed. 1993): “Written and certified with the King’s official seal in wax.”

2006 ard3q2

ard3q2: 3505-11, 3500-56 xref; Hibbard, Kozintsev

2577+1-9 There’s. . . meet] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “not in F. Edwards argues that this passage was cut by Shakespeare as part of a revision of the later part of the play; he claims that ’the determination to kill Rosencrantz and Guildenstern does not accord with 5.2.6-11 [3505-11]’ (where events are vaguely attributed to a divinity), but Hamlet seems to be resolving to outwit them here, not specifically to kill them. Edwards and Hibbard agree that the omission adds to the suspense in F. In the Kozintsev film, this part of the speech is moved to the later point where Hamlet’s description of his outwitting of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (5.2.1-53 [3500-56]) is dramatized.”