Notes for lines 2023-2950 ed. Frank N. Clary
| 2628 And whats vntimely doone, | 4.1.41 |
|---|
1723- mtby2
mtby2
2628 Thirlby (1723-): “F. leg. [strong conj.] that calumny vel that [xed] the breath of fame vel the wind whose whisper v. 445.20, 1, 2. Mr. T reads Haply Slander.”
Transcribed by BWK; however, I substituted “fame” for “same,” and “Slander” for “Slanders.” BWK adds: “The last, re Mr T, is diff. from what precedes it.” She evidently means that” the last” is in a different hand and must have been added later after theo1, when the emendation was first is introduced. theon has two diff. conjectures: “Happily, Slander” and “Happily, rumour.” All four theo eds. have “For, haply, Slander.” The Q2 passage [4.1.41-4 (2628+1-2628+4)], which comes between “untimely done.” and “Oh come away,” is transcribed at the bottom of the page by Thirlby. Theobald was the first to introduce this phrase. Subsequent editors substitute other phrases and alter punctuation. No editor in the 18th or 19th century makes reference to Thirlby in their notes.m STAU will later conjecture “Thus calumny,” which approximates Thirlby’s “that calumny.”
mtby2
2628+2 Thirlby (1723-): “Shot from the deadly level of a gun.”
1726 theon
theon: Cym. //
2628 doone] T
heobald (ed. 1726, pp. 107-108): <p.107> “The
Quarto Edition of 1637 has an Addition in this Place, which has been admitted into most of the
modern Editions; tho’ it has not the Authority of any earlier Date in
Print, as I know of, than that
Quarto [actually Q2-Q4 have these lines restored]; and yet seems to bear the very Stamp of
SHAKESPEARE upon it. The Coin, indeed, has been clipt from our first receiving it; but it is not so diminished, but that, with a small Assistance, we may hope to make it pass current. the Reading, as it has hitherto come to us, is thus; ‘And What’s untimely done. Whose Whisper o’er the World’s Diameter, As level as the Cannon to his Blank, Transports his poy’son’d Shot, may miss our Name, And hit the woundless Air.
“‘Tis plain here the
Sense is defective, as well as the
Verse imperfect, which introduces it: and from the Additional Lines beginning with the
Relative WHOSE, without any preceding
Nominative of which it is govern’d, it is as plain that the latter Part of the foregoing
Hemistich fell out in the
printing, or was so blind in the
Copy as not to be guess’d at, and therefore necessarily came to be omitted. I wonder, Mr.
Hughs, who inserted this Passage in his Impression, and could not but see that </p.107><p.108> something was wanting, did not at the same time endeavour to supply it. We have not, indeed, so much as the Footsteps, or Traces, of a corrupted Reading here to lead us to an Emendation; nor any Means left of restoring what is lost but Conjecture. I shall therefore offer only what the Sense of the Context naturally seems to require. I am far from affirming that I shall give the Poet’s very Words, but ‘tis probable that they were, at least, very near what follows in Substance. ‘
And what’s untimely done. Happily, * <n.> *
Or Rumour. </n.> Slander.’
“’Tis evident, This restores us the Sentiment seemingly requisite, and there is the more Room to suppose it the very Sentiment of our
SHAKESPEARE. The Poet, I remember, has the same Thought about the diffusive Powers of
Slander in another of his Plays; tho’ he has express’d it with some Difference, as well as with greater Diversity of
Metaphor and
Allusion.
Cym., [3.4.33-7 (1704-8)], pag. 176. ‘—No, ‘tis SLANDER, Whose Edge is sharper than the Sword, whose Tongue Out-venoms all the Worms of Nile, whose Breath Rides on the posting Winds, and doth belye All the Corners of the World.’” <p.107>
1733 theo1
theo1: pope; Cym. //
2628 doone] Theobald (ed. 1733): “Mr. Pope takes Notice, that I replace some Verses that were imperfect, (and, tho’ of a modern Date, seeem to be genuine;) by inserting two Words. But to see, what an accurate and faithful Collator he is! I produc’d these Verses in my SHAKESPEARE restor’d, from a Quarto Edition of Hamlet printed in 1637, and happen’d to say, that they had not the Authority of any earlier Date in Print, that I knew of, than that Quarto. Upon the Strength of this Mr. Pope comes and calls the Lines modern, tho’ they are in the Quarto’s of 1605 and 1611, which I had not then seen, but both of which Mr. Pope pretends to have collated. The Verses carry the very Stamp of Shakespeare upon them. The Coin, indeed, has been clipt from our first receiving it; but it is not so diminish’d, but that with a small Assistance we may hope to make it pass current. ‘Tis plain, the Sense, as well as one of the Verses, is defective: and a Sentence beginning with the Relative WHOSE, without any preceding Substantive to which it can refer, it is as plain that the latter part of the Hemistich fell out in the Printing, or was so blind in the Manuscript as not to be guess’d at, and therefore necessarily came to be omitted. We have not, indeed, so much as the Footsteps, or Traces, of a corrupted Reading to lead to an Emendation; nor any Means of restoring what is lost, but Conjecture. I am far from affirming, therefore, that I have given the Poet’s very Words; but the Supplement is such as the Sentiment naturally seems to demand. The Poet has the same Thought, concerning the diffusive Pow’rs of Slander in another of his Plays. ‘No, ‘tis Slander; Whose edge is sharper than the Sword, whose Tongue Out-venomes all the Worms of Nile, whose Breath Rides on the posting Winds, and doth belie All Corners of the World.’ Cym. [3.4.33-7 (1704-8)].”
1733- mtby3
mtby3 ≈mtby2
2628 Thirlby (1723-): “F. leg. [strong conj.] that calumny vel that the breath of fame, Whose &c. v. 338. 339. 2. Mr. T reads Haply Slander. Hoc ibi.”
Transcribed by BWK.
1740 theo2
theo2 = theo1 minus “‘Tis . . . came to be omitted.”
There are a few minor adjustments: “poison’d” for “poyson’d,” “We have not, ‘tis true” for “We have not, indeed” and “to lead us to” for “to lead to”; also lc for “notice” and “means”
1747 warb
warb: theo
2628 doone] Warburton (ed. 1747): “[For, haply, Slander] “Conjectural words of Mr. Theobald.”
1747-53 mtby4
mtby4 = mtby3 (abbrev.)
2628 Thirlby (1747-53-): “yt calumny vel the breath of fame. Mr T reads haply slander. Hoc ibi.”
1757 theo4
theo4 = theo2
Two minor adjustments: “restored “for “restor’d” and “happened”for “happen’d”
1765 john1/john2
john1 = theo2 minus challenge to emendation (“We have not . . . Conjecture.”) + magenta underlined
2628 doone] Johnson (ed. 1765): “Mr. Pope takes Notice, that I replace some Verses that were imperfect, (and, tho’ of a modern Date, seeem to be genuine;) by inserting two Words. But to see, what an accurate and faithful Collator he is! I produc’d these Verses in my SHAKESPEARE restor’d, from a Quarto Edition of Hamlet printed in 1637, and happen’d to say, that they had not the Authority of any earlier Date in Print, that I knew of, than that Quarto. Upon the Strength of this Mr. Pope comes and calls the Lines modern, tho’ they are in the Quarto’s of 1605 and 1611, which I had not then seen, but both of which Mr. Pope pretends to have collated. The Verses carry the very Stamp of Shakespeare upon them. The Coin, indeed, has been clipt from our first receiving it; but it is not so diminish’d, but that with a small Assistance we may hope to make it pass current. I am far from affirming, that, by inserting the words, For, haply, Slander, I have given the poet’s very words; but the Supplement is such as the Sentiment naturally seems to demand. The Poet has the same Thought, concerning the diffusive Pow’rs of Slander in another of his Plays. ‘No, ‘tis Slander; Whose edge is sharper than the Sword, whose Tongue Out-venomes all the Worms of Nile, whose Breath Rides on the posting Winds, and doth belie All Corners of the World.’ Cym. [3.4.33-7 (1704-8)].”
1773 v1773
v1773 = theo2 minus challenge to emendation (“We have not . . . Conjecture.”)
1774 capn
capn
2628 doone] Capell (1774, 1:1:141): “The restorer of the passage that follows, the third modern, reads—For, haply, slander: the latter words are well chosen, and, in all appearance, the true ones; but, for, makes not so good connection as—’so.’”
1785 Mason
Mason: contra theo
2628 doone] Mason (1785, p. 392): “Theobald is right in attributing the following description to slander; but instead of ‘for haply slander,’ we should read, ‘so haply slander’; the sense requiring that or some other woird which implies, in that case, or by those means,—So is the best word that occurs to me.”
1790 mal
mal
2628 doone] Malone (ed. 1790): “Neither of these words [haply and slander], nor the following three lines and a half, are in the folio. In the quarto, 1604, and all the subsequent quartos, the passage stands thus: ‘—And what’s untimely done. Whose whispers o’er the world’s diameter, &c.’ the compositor having omitted the latter part of the first line, as in a former scene; (see p. 310, n. 4 [3.2.166+1 (2035+1)] a circumstance which gives additional strength to an observation made in Vol. VII. p. 575, n. 8. Mr. Theobald supplied the lacuna by reading—For haply slander, &c. So appears to me to suit the context better; for these lines are rather in apposition with those immediately preceding, than an illation from them. Mr. Mason, I find, has made the same observation.
“Shakspeare, as Theobald has observed, again expatiates on the diffusive power of slander, in Cym. [3.4.33-7 (1704-8)]: ‘—No, ‘tis slander; Whose edge is sharper than the sword, whose tongue Out-venoms all the worms of Nile, whose breath Rides on the posting winds, and doth bely All corners of the world.’ Malone.”
1793 v1793
v1793
2628 doone] Steevens (ed. 1793): “Mr. Malone reads—So viperous slander. Steevens.”
1803 v1803
v1803 = v1793
Adjusts references: “(see p. 202, n.9)” and “Vol. XVII, p. 257, n. 5.”
1821 v1821
v1821 = v1813
Adjusts references: “(see p. 355, n. 9)” and “Ant. 5.1.”
1822 Nares
Nares
2628+2 blanck] See 2086.
1826 sing1
sing1: WT //
2626 blanck] SINGER (ed. 1826): “The blank was the mark at which shots or arrows were directed. Thus in WT [2.3.5-6 (904-5)]:— ‘Out of the blank and level of my aim.’”
1843 col1
col1
2628 And . . . doone] Collier (ed. 1843): “These words [so, haply slander] are of Theobald’s introducing, in order to make the sense complete: no part of the passage down to ‘And hit the woundless air,’ is to be found in the folio, and it was perhaps omitted, because without some addition, like that of Theobald, it was unintelligible.”
1847 verp
verp: standard
2628 And . . .
doone]
Verplanck (ed. 1847): “‘
So haply slander.’—This half line is a conjectural insertion of some words to this effect, evidently omitted in the quartos, where only the passage is found.”
1854 del2
del2: theo
2628 And whats untimely doone] Delius (ed. 1854): “In der Fol. schliesst sich an untimely done, mit Auslassung des in den Qs. Folgenden, gleich der Schluss der Scene: O, come away etc. - dieWorte so haply slander, ohne welche die folgenden Verse unverständlich bleiben, sind eine sinnreiche Ergänzung von T h e o b a l d ; denn nur die Verläumdung kann es sein, deren Geflüster über die ganze Breite der Welt hin ihren Giftpfeil schiesst.” [In the Folio edition, untimely done is followed immediately by the concluding O, come away etc. without the intervening lines that are in the Quartos.—The words so haply slander, without which the following lines are unintelligible, are a sensible addition by Theobald, for it is only slander whose whisper could send a poisoned arrow throughout the whole world.]
1856 hud1 (1851-6)
hud1 = sing1 on blanck minus WT // without attribution
hud1 ≈ sing1 + magenta underlined
2628 And . . . doone] Hudson (ed. 1851-6): “The words, ‘so, haply, slander,’ are not in any old copy, but were supplied by Theobald as necessary to the sense. The well-known passage in Cym. [3.4.33-7 (1704-8)], beginning,—’No; ‘tis slander,’—will readily occur to any student of Shakespeare, as favouring the insertion. H.”
1857 dyce1
dyce1: theon
2628+1-2628+4 Whose whisper . . . ayre] Dyce (ed. 1857): “This passage (from ‘Whose whisper’ to ‘woundless air’ inclusive) is only in the quartos, 1604, &c., and imperfect at the commencement. To complete the sense, Theobald inserted ‘for haply, slander,’ which was afterwards slightly altered as above [so haply slander,].”
1857 fieb
fieb: mal,theo; Cym. //
2628+1-2628+4 Whose . . . ayre] Fiebig (ed. 1857): so, haply, slander] “Neither the words, ‘so, haply, slander,” nor the following three lines and a half, says Malone, are in the folio. In the quarto, 1604, and all the subsequent quartos, the passage stands thus: “—And what’s untimely done,/Whose whisper o’er the world’s diameter,” etc. the composer having omitted the latter part of the first line, as in a former scene. Theobald supplied the lacuna by reading,—For haply slander, etc. So appears to suit the context better; for these lines are rather in apposition with those immediately preceding, than an illation from them. Malone reads—“So viperous slander.” – Shakespeare again expatiates on the diffusive power of slander, in Cym. Cym. [3.4.33-7 (1704-8)]: “—No, ‘tis slander;/Whose edge is shaper than the sword, whose tongue/Out –venoms all the worms of Nile, whose breath/Rides on the posting winds, and doth bely/All corners of the world.’”
1860 stau
stau ≈ theon minus Cym. //
2628 And . . . doone] Staunton (ed. 1860): “In the old copies the passage reads—‘And let them know both what we mean to do And what’s untimely done,’ &c.; the latter portion of the line having been accidentally omitted. Theobald supplied the hiatus by inserting ‘for haply, slander:’ Malone by reading, ‘so viperous slander,’ &c.; we should prefer to either, ‘—thus calumny,—Whose whisper,’ &c.”
1861 wh1
wh1: theo, mal
2628 so, haply slander] White (ed. 1861): “From ‘Whose whisper,’ in the next line, to ‘the woundless air, inclusive, the 4to. copies supply the text. But to complete the sense, and give an antecedent to ‘whose,’ there was plainly a part of a line needed. This Theobald most happily supplied with ‘for haply slander,’ which Malone improved by reading ‘so haply,’ &c.”
1866b cam1
cam1: xref.; rowe, pope, han, warb, theo, john, v1773, v1778, v1793, cap, Mason, mal, stau
2628-2628+4 And whats . . . ayre,] Clark and Wright (ed. 1866): “[4.1.40-4, 45 (2628–2628+4, 2629)]. In the second and third Quartos these lines stand literatim as follows: [quotes Q2: ‘And what’s . . . soule &c.’]
“The later Quartos, including those of 1676, 1683, 1695, and 1703, spelling apart, have the same reading.
“In the first Folio, followed substantially by the rest, we find only these words: ‘And what’s vntimely done. Oh come away, My soul &c.
“Rowe, Pope, Hanmer and Warburton followed the Folios.
“Theobald first adopted the text of the Quartos. In his Shakespeare Restored, p. 108, he had suggested ‘Happily, slander,’ or ‘Happily, rumour;’ in his edition he supplied the blank thus: ‘And what’s untimely done. For, haply, Slander (Whose whisper &c.’
“Hanmer, in his copy of Theobald’s edition, erased the passage with a pen.
“Johnson, and Steevens in his editions of 1773, 1778, and 1785, followed Theobald.
“Capell filled the hiatus by ‘So, haply, slander,’ and was followed by Steevens (1793) and most modern editors. Mason seems not to have consulted Capell’s edition, for in 1788 he puts forward this reading as a conjecture of his own.
“Malone (1790) read: ‘So viperous slander.’
“Mr. Staunton proposes ‘Thus calumny,’ but in his text he follows Capell.
“‘Malice’ or ‘Envy,’ in the sense in which it is often used by Shakespeare, would suit the passage as well as ‘Slander.’”
1869 tsch
tsch: contra theo, cap, del, dyce, elze
2628 Tschischwitz (ed. 1869): “Die Lesart: So, haply, slander rührt von Theobald her, der For haply slander schrieb, was Capell in so h. s. änderte. Ihm schliessen sich auch Del., Dyce, Elze an. Ich glaube indessen, dass Sh. geschrieben hat, wie ich es in den Text aufgenommen: by this, suspicion etc., da sich die Worte auch auf vorangehendes: what we mean to do, d. h. H. nach England zu schicken, beziehn. Da des Königs Absicht ist, den Prinzen dort tödten zu lassen, so ist Hamlets blutige That recht geeignet, des Königs mörderischen Vorsatz gegen ihn zu bemänteln, und ihn am Tode des Prinzen hinterher unschuldig erscheinen zu lassen. Möglich dass die Worte nach done bis woundless air vom König bei Seite gesprochen wurden. In der dritten Scene sagt Claudius ausdrücklich: this deed must send thee hence with fiery quickness.” [The version: So, haply, slander comes from Theobald, who wrote For haply slander, which Capell changed to so h. s. Del., Dyce, and Elze followed him. I believe though, that Shakespeare wrote, as I have taken it into the text: by this, suspicion etc.. since the words also refer to the preceding what we mean to do, that is, send Hamlet to England. Since it is the king’s purpose to have the prince killed there, Hamlet’s bloody deed is well suited to cover up the king’s murderous plot against him, and to let the king appear guiltless of the death of the prince later. It is possible that the words from done to woundless air are spoken by the king in an aside. In the third scene Claudius says clearly: this deed must send thee hence with fiery quickness.]
1870 rug1
rug1: theo
2628+1 Moberly (ed. 1870): so haply, slander] “These words have been well inserted by Theobald. The half line is accidentally omitted in the quarto editions.”
1872 del4
del4 = del2 +
2628 Delius (ed. 1872): “Eigentlich las Theobald for, haply, slander und Capell setzte so für for. Malone las so viperous slander. —Die Cambridge Edd. meinen, das Sh.’sche Wort habe eben so wohl malice oder envy, wie slander sein können.” [Actually, Theobald had for, haply, slander, and Capell put so for for. Malone had so viperous slander. —The Cambridge editions suggest that the Shakespearean word could just as well have been malice as slander.]
1877 v1877
v1877 ≈ theon, theo, capn, cam1, tsch, strat
2628 so, haply slander]
Furness (ed. 1877): “
Theobald (
Sh. Rest. p. 108) suggested
Happily, slander or
rumour, as being at least very near, in substance, the words that had dropped out of this line. He changed them in his ed. to ‘For, haply, slander.’
Capell (
Notes, i, 141 says: ‘
For makes not so good connection as
so’; and the majority of editors since his day have adopted this modificaiton.
The Cambridge Editors (
Note xxiii):
Malice, or
Envy, in the sense in which it is often used by Sh,. would suit this passag as well as ‘slander.’ Tschischwitz reads
by this, suspicion, and understands it as referring to what the King ‘means to do,’ viz. send Hamlet to England. He also suggests that the lines following it down to ‘woundless air’ may have been an
Aside.
Stratmann: I think Tschischwitz’s reading the most suitable, but it might, perhaps be improved by the substitution of
so that for
by this.”
1877 col4
col4 = col3 minus “and it was . . . unintelligible.”
1878 rlf1
rlf1: Mac., Rom. //s
2628 vntimely] Rolfe (ed. 1878): “Often used adverbially; as in Mac. [5.8.16 (2456)],
“Rom. [3.1.118; 5.3.234 (1553; 3109)], etc.”
rlf1: theo, cap
2628 Rolfe (ed. 1878): So, haply, slander] “The text of both quartos and folios is defective here. Theo. inserted “For, haply, slander,” and Capell changed “For” to “So.” The emendation has been generally adopted. The remainder of the passage, ‘Whose whisper . . . woundless air,’ is found in the quartos, but not in the folios.”
rlf1: contra rug + magenta underlined
2628+2 ore . . . dyameter] Rolfe (ed. 1878): “M. explains this, ‘Slander can pass in direct line from hence to the antipodes without going round by the semicircumference of the earth;’ but we doubt whether S. thought of it in that mathematical way. O’er the world’s diameter probably meant to him to the ends of the earth.’”
1881 hud3
hud3: cap, theon (Cym. //), mal
2628 so, haply slander] Hudson (ed. 1881): “so, haply, slander] So Capell. the words so, haply, slander are wanting in all the old copies. This leaves the sentence without any subject; and some insertion is imperatively required. Theobald reads ‘for, haply, slander.’ Malone reads ‘So viperous slander,’ as the Poet has, in Cym. [3.4.33-7 (1704-8)], ‘the secrets of the grave this viperous slander enters.’ But in the present passage the sense of viperous is given in ‘poison’d shot.’”
1882 elze2
elze2: theo, cap
2628 doone] Elze (ed. 1882): “The words So haply slander have been introduced into the text by Capell; they are a happy modification of Theobald’s ingenious conjecture: For, haply, slander.”
1883 wh2
wh2: theon
2628 so, haply slander] White (ed. 1883): “these words supply, by the happy conjecture of Theobald, a part of the line which has been lost.”
This note is in the Folger Library copy but not in the photocopy from which we recorded notes.
1885 macd
macd
2628 vntimely] MacDonald (ed. 1885): “unhappily.”
macd
2628 MacDonald (ed. 1885): “Here most modern editors insert, ‘so, haply, slander.’ But, although I think the Poet left out this obscure passage merely from dissatisfaction with it, I believe it renders a worthy sense as it stands. The antecedent to whose is friends: cannon is nominative to transports; and the only difficulty is the epithet poysned applied to shot, which seems transposed from the idea of an unfriendly whisper. Perhaps Shakspere wrote poysed shot. But taking this as it stands, the passage might be paraphrased thus: ‘Whose (favourable) whisper over the world’s diameter (from one side of the world to the other), as level (as truly aimed) as the cannon (of an evil whisper) transports its poisoned shot to his blank (the white centre of the target), may shoot past our name (so keeping us clear), and hit only the invulnerable air,’ (‘the intrenchant air’; Mac. [5.8.9 (2448)]. This interpretation rests on the idea of over-condensation with its tendency to seeming confusion—the only fault I know in the Poet—a grand fault, peculiarly his own, born of the beating of his wings against the impossible. It is much as if, able to think two thoughts at once, he would compel his phrase to utter them at once.”
1890 irv2
irv2: cap, theo1 + magenta underlined
2628 so, haply slander] Symons (in Irving & Marshall, ed. 1890): “So, haply, slander was first inserted by Capell, who modified Theobald’s conjecture: ‘For haply, slander.’ The words do not occur in either Ff. or Qq: but that something is omitted is evident, and the reading adopted seems to supply the omission in a fairly satisfactory way. It has been generally followed, and there seems no reason why, in the utter absence of all original authority, it should not be accepted as a plausible enough make-shift.”
1899 ard1
ard1: theon, theo1, capn, mal, stau
2628 so, haply slander] Dowden (ed. 1899): “F omits all between done and O, [4.1.44 (2628+4)]; Q reads: ‘And whats vntimely doone, Whose whisper.’ Theobald suggested ‘Happily, slander,’ or rumour, and read ‘For haply, slander.’ Capell read as above, and is followed by many editors. Malone 1790: ‘So viperous slander.’ Staunton suggested ‘thus calumny.’”
1903 rlf3
rlf3 ≈ rlf1 for vntimely (2628)
1934 Wilson
Wilson: theo, cap (conj.)
2628 Wilson (1934, rpt. 1963, 1:30): <1:30> “the substance of [the half-line omitted] has to be supplied by the ingenuity of editors. . . . Three alternative explanations seem possible for this phenomenon: (i) that the missing half of [4.1.40 (2628)] was accidentally omitted by the transmitters of both texts; (ii) that it was missing in the manuscript which lies behind both texts, in other words that Shakespeare himself left it out, which would in turn explain why the whole passage, brief and harmless enough in itself, came to be cut in F1; and (iii) that the lines in question were marked for omission in the original manuscript not by transverse lines of deletion but by one kind of brackets or rectangular enclosure, and arm of which accidentally appeared to delete the first half-line of the passage, so that the Q2 compositor set up all but that half-line. It is one of the few instances in Hamlet of a ‘depravation’ which is hopelessly beyond repair, and we have to content ourselves with ‘so haply slander’ which Theobald and Capell devised between them—a makeshift, but a happy one.” </1:30>
1934 cam3
cam3: MSH
2628 Wilson (ed. 1934): so haply slander] “(Capell, Theobald) Q2, F1 omit the half-line, so that we have no clue to what Sh. wrote. MSH. p. 30.”
1939 kit2
kit2: theo, cap
2628 Kittredge (ed. 1939): “Both Second Quarto and Folio omit the rest of this line and the Folio omits [2628+1-2628+4] (through air). The text accepts Capell’s conjecture, which is an improvement on Theobald’s ‘For, haply Slander.’”
1974 evns1
evns1
2628 Evans (ed. 1974): “Some words are wanting at the end of the line. Capell’s conjecture, so, haply, slander, probably indicates the intended sense of the passage.”
1980 pen2
pen2
2628 Spencer (ed. 1980): So haply slander] “There is a gap in the Q2 text here (F omits the whole sentence). Some extra words are needed for both metre and sense. Those printed here, proposed by eighteenth-century editors, seem more satisfactory than other suggestions.”
1982 ard2
ard2: Wilson (for theo, cap conjs.) + Cym., WT, R2, 1H6, 2H6, H8, R3, Tro. //
2628 Jenkins (ed. 1982): “So envious slander] For the words missing from the text most eds. have accepted Theobald’s suggestion, as improved by Capell, So, haply, slander. But haply, a too evident stopgap, adds little to may (l.43) unless some inappropriate doubt, and an adjective describing slander seems preferable. Munro uniquely, and oddly, supposes no words lost. On the normal assumption, other suggestions for the gap include references to rumour – Theobald’s own alternative, (SR, p.108) – calumny, malice, or suspicion. Though we can never know what Shakespeare wrote here, envious slander is at least Shakespearean. He often personifies slander, and thinks of it as having not simply a tongue but poison and weapons. See e.g. Cym. [3.4.33-5 (1704-6)], ‘Slander, Whose edge is sharper than the sword, whose tongue Outvenoms all the worms in the Nile’. In WT [2.3.87 (1006-7)] these two attributes coalesce in slander, ‘Whose sting is sharper than the sword’s’. R2 had already given us ‘slander’s venom’d spear’ R2 [1.1.171 (178)], which parallels the poison’d shot of Ham. As an epithet for slander in this context viperous, which Malone imported from Cym. [3.4.33 (1704)], risks both redundancy and mixed metaphor. Envious would link slander’s actions with their cause and it is a favourite with Shakespeare to describe malicious tongues. See 1H6 [4.1.90 (1839)]; 2H6 [3.1.156 (1456)] (not to mention as being of doubtful authorship, H8 [3.2.446 (2360)]. 1H6 also has ‘envious malice’ [3.1.26 (1230)], R3 even ‘envious slanders’ [1.3.26 (491)], and Tro. ‘envious and calumniating Time’ [3.3.174 (2026)].”
1988 bev2
bev2
2628 And . . . doone] Bevington (ed. 1988): “(A defective line; conjectures as to the missing words include So, haply, slander [Capell and others]; For, haply, slander [Theobald and others]; and So envious slander [Jenkins]).”
2006 ard3q2
ard3q2: standard
2628 what’s untimely done] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “what action has been inopportunely or improperly committed (by Hamlet). It is generally assumed that the second half of this line is missing in Q2. In F the King continues O come away as at 44, omitting the intervening lines.”
2628
