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

Line 2743+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.

2743+1 {Enter Hamlet, Rosencraus, &c.} 2743+1	4.4.9

1784 Davies

Davies: Sheridan

2743+1-2743+60 Enter Hamlet . . . . worth] Davies (1784, pp. 120-1): <p.120> “This scene, which contains much excellent matter, after having been for a </p.120><p.121> long time disused, was restored to the stage by Mr. Thomas Sheridan.” </p.121>

1841 knt1 (nd)

knt1:

2743+1-2743+60 knt1 (ed. [1839] nd): “The whole scene, in which a clue is so beautifully furnished to the indecision of Hamlet, is wanting in the folio. It was perhaps omitted on account of the extreme length of the play, and as not helping on the action.”

1854 del2

del2

2743+1-2743+60 Delius (ed. 1854): “Der Rest dieser Scene fiel bei den späteren Aufführungen weg, und fehlt deshalb auch in der Fol., gewiss nur aus Rücksichten auf die bedeutende Länge des Dramas, die den Dichter zwang, in Allem, was nur zur Entwickelung des Charakters der Personen diente, ohne die dramatische Handlung zu fördern, Abkürzungen vorzunehmen. Die Auswahl solcher Stellen verräth überall Sh.’s eigne Hand, wie es denn in der That auch seltsam wäre, wenn er diese Abkürzungen, deren praktische Nothwendigkeit ihm so gut wie jedem Schauspieler im Laufe der Darstellungen einleuchten musste, Andern überlassen hätte.” [The rest of this scene is left out in the later performances, and therefore is omitted also in the Folio edition, certainly only from awareness of the considerable length of the play. This forced the dramatist to make cuts in everything that served only the development of the dramatic characters but did not further the plot action. The choice of such places betrays Shakespeare’s own hand, and it would be strange if he had entrusted to others such cutting, whose practical necessity must have been as clear to him as to every actor in the course of a performance.]

1857 fieb

fieb ≈ knt1 without attribution

2743+1-2743+60 Fiebig (ed. 1857): “The remaining part of this scene is omitted in the folio, no doubt by the poet’s own decision, who found it too long for being performed on the stage, and less important for any further development of Hamlet’s character.”

1872 del4

del4 = del2

1875 Marshall

Marshall

2743+1-2743+60 Marshall (1875, p. 43): “Not one of Betterton’s successors has ventured to restore the scene; but I have heard that, recently, Mr. Bandmann, a German actor who has mastered the English language to a certain extent, has done so; with what success I do not know. It would be very interesting if some Shakespearian scholar, with special capabilities for the task, like Mr. Halliwell or Mr. Furnivall, would collate the various acting editions of ‘Hamlet’ adopted by the great actors who have represented this part, from Betterton down to Irving.”

1877 v1877

v1877 ≈ knt1, col1 (see n. 2743+38), Lloyd

2743+1-2743+60 Furness (ed. 1877): “Knight: This scene, in which a clue is so beautifully furnished to the indecision of Ham., was perhaps omitted in the Ff on account of the extreme length of the play, and as not helping on the action. Collier: So important is it as a key to Hamlet’s character, that its omission convinces us that the abbreviation of the play as we find it in F1 was the work of the players and not of Sh. Lloyd (Crit. Essay, Singer’s 2d ed. p. 345): Beautiful as the soliloquy in this scene is, I am disposed to think that the excision of it may have been deliberate,—as unnecessary, prolonging the action, and, it may be, exhibiting the weakness of Ham. too crudely; it shows him making the most definite of resolutions to revenge precisely as he turns his back upon the last opportunity by quitting the country. The passage, however, with some others, is too fine to be suppressed, though I am inclined to think the poet sacrificed them, and worthily and properly they may take their place in brackets.”

1882 elze2

elze2

2743+1-2743+60 Elze (ed. 1882): “The dialogue between Hamlet and the Captain as well as Hamlet’s soliloquy (as far as the end of § 171) are only in Q2.”

1885 macd

macd

2743+1 MacDonald (ed. 1885): “This was originally intended, I repeat, for the commencement of the act. But when the greater part of the foregoing scene was omitted, and the third act made to end with the scene before that, then the small part left of the all-but-cancelled scene must open the fourth act.”

1934 Wilson

Wilson

2743+1-2743+60 Wilson (1934, rpt. 1963, 1: 30-31): <1:30> “It is an obvious cut made for theatrical purposes: it not only saves fifty-eight lines, but a considerable quantity of Burbadge’s breath. Moreover, as some critics have supposed that the fourth soliloquy may </1:30><1:31> have been an addition to the play by Shakespeare after the performances of 1601 and the construction of the original prompt-book, it may be observed that the Fortinbras scene was patently written in order to give occasion to the soliloquy and that the scene (without the soliloquy) is reported in Q1. It follows from this that Fortinbras and his army, together with Hamlet’s soliloquy, were in the completed text from the very first, but that the soliloquy was omitted from the prompt-book also from the first.” </1:31>

1937 pen1

pen1

2743+1-2743+60] Harrison (ed. 1937): “The rest of the scene is omitted in the Folio. The passage is topical. In 1601 Ostend was being defended by an Anglo-Dutch force under Sir Francis-Vere. In December the situation was critical, as Vere could only muster 1,200 fit men against 10,000 Spaniards. The Spaniards made a desperate assault which was repulsed with a loss of 2,000 dead and much material. Ostend, like Ypres in World War I, was defended rather as a symbol than for its military value, and the gallantry shown on both sides was much commented upon. Thus Camden: ‘There was not in our age any siege and defence maintained with greater slaughter of men, nor continued longer . . . . For the most warlike soldiers of the Low Countries, Spain, England, France, Scotland, and Italy, whilst they most eagerly contended for a barren plot of sand, had as it were one common sepulchre, but an eternal monument of their valour’.”

1939 kit2

kit2

2743+1-2743+60 Kittredge (ed. 1939): “The omission of these lines in the Folio is a mere ‘cut’ to shorten the play when acted. It would not do to delete Fortinbras altogether at this point, for something was needed to account for his indispensable presence at the end of the play.”

1987 oxf4

oxf4

2743+1-2743+60 Hibbard (ed. 1987, Appendix): “The omission of this long passage from F and from the text that lies behind Q1, where there is no trace of it, cannot be accidental. The lines have been deliberately excised because, while they extend the speculative scope of the tragedy with their discussion of war and its causes, they do nothing to advance the action, nor do they reveal anything new about Hamlet and his state of mind. In spite of all that has happened since the end of 2.2, he is still very much where he was then. His soliloquy is a confession of failure, summarizing what we have seen; and his determination to do better inspires little confidence, since we have heard it before, and at a time when circumstances were far more in his favour than they are now.”

2000 Edelman

Edelman: xref.

2743+1-2743+60 Edelman (2000): “See also [1.1.63 (79)].”