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

Line 2744 - 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.

2744 Enter {Horatio, Gertrard,} <Queene and Horatio> {and a Gentleman}. 2744	..

1774 capn

capn

2744 Enter . . . Gentleman.] Capell (1774, 1:1:142): “As the last excellent soliloquy, together with many speeches preceding, were omitted for the players’ convenience, so here they have eas’d themselves of a character, and made other improper changes in consequence, as may be seen in the ‘V.R:’ their last has some shadow of reason, but it is only a shadow; for the Queen’s assent to the advice that Horatio gives her, might be express’d by either gesture or look, or even by bare silence, and the Gentleman dispatch’d on his errand as well by them as by words. The last line of his speaking can want no interpreter, if what himself says before be reflected on, and what Horatio immediately adds to it.”

1843 COL1

col1

2744 and a Gentleman] Collier (ed. 1843): “The folio omits the ‘Gentleman,’ and gives all the quartos assign [sic] to Horatio, and what Horatio says to the Queen—no doubt to avoid the employment of another actor. We have restored the ancient, more convenient, and, as it seems to us, more natural distribution of the dialogue.”

1854 del2

del2

2744 Enter . . . Gentleman.] Delius (ed. 1854): [Enter Queen and Horatio] “So die Fol. Nach den Qs. tritt ausser den Beiden noch ein Gentleman als Berichterstatter über Ophelia’s Befinden auf. Dieser spricht die beiden ersten, dem Horatio in der Fol. zuertheilten Reden, und die Rede des Horatio (in den Qs.): ’T were good bis ill-breeding minds, theilt die Fol. der Königin zu. Die Vertheilung der Fol. ist mit Recht von den meisten Herausgebern adoptirt.” [The Folio edition has this. According to the Quartos a Gentleman comes on in addition to the two as a reporter of Ophelia’s condition. He gives the first two speeches given to Horatio in the Folio; and Horatio’s speech (in the Quartos) ’T were good up to ill-breeding minds is given to the queen. The distribution in the Folio is correctly adopted by most editors.]

1858 col3

col3 = col1

1860 stau

stau

2744 and a Gentleman] Staunton (ed. 1860): “the folio omits this character, and Horatio is made to speak what the former copies assign to him. We adopt the older distribution of the dialogue as the better one.”

1861 wh1

wh1

2744 Horatio, Gertrard] White (ed. 1861): Queen and Horatio] “I distribute the speeches in this scene according to the folio, from the arrangement in which I can see no reason for deviating. The 4tos. bring in ‘a Gentleman’ with the Queen and Horatio, and assign to that nameless person the speeches which the folio gives to Horatio, leaving him only two lines, (‘twere good she were spoken with,’ &c) in this whole Scene. If this were the original distribution, it certainly was bettered on subsequent representations. But it seems more than doubtful that such was the arrangement; for the two lines which it assigns to Horatio are the first two lines of the Queen’s speech, according to the folio; and they are much more appropriate as a reflection by which she is led to change her determination with regard to Ophelia than as a direct warning to a Queen from a subject. Strangely enough, they have hitherto been given either to Horatio or to the Queen as an outspoken speech!”

1868 c&mc

c&mc

2744 Clarke & Clarke (ed. 1868, rpt. 1878): Enter Queen and Horatio] “This is the stage direction in the Folio; while the Quartos introduce ‘a Gentlemen’ as well as the two other characters. But we think there is something exquisitely appropriate in making Hamlet’s beloved friend Horatio the one who watches and tenderly thinks for Ophelia during the prince’s absence, and brings her to his mother alone. Inasmuch as we feel this appropriateness, we believe it to have been Shakespeare’s re-considered intention.”

1869 tsch

tsch: glo, dyce, del2, elze

2744 Tschischwitz (ed. 1869): “In dieser Scene lässt die F. nur die Königin und Horatio, die Qs. dagegen ausser diesen noch einen Gentleman auftreten, den auch die Globe-Ed. aufnimmt. Vielleicht übernahm nur der Schauspieler, der den Horatio gab, nach der Weisung des Bühnenmanuscripts dies Rolle aus Rücksichten auf die Theaterkräfte. S. Dyce VII. p. 234, der, wie Del., die ganze Rede zwischen Hor. und die Königin vertheilt. Mir leuchtet indessen nur die Auffassung der Globe-Ed. ein, die die Worte Z. 16 “let her come in” der Königin zutheilt, während die Qs. und Elze sie noch von Horatio sprechen lassen. Ich nehme jedoch an, dass auf die Aufforderung der Königin sich Hor. nicht allein, sondern mit dem Gentleman entfernt, aber o h n e i h n mit Oph. zurückkehrt. Der Gentleman tritt erst nach Z. 97 wieder auf, um die Vorgänge vor dem Schlosse und die Ankunft des Laertes zu verkündigen. Elze lässt die Bühnenweisung fort und hat daher später nur Enter Ophelia wie die Qs.” [In this scene the Folio has only the queen and Horatio appear. The Qs., on the other hand, bring on also a gentleman, something the Globe-Ed. also picks up. Perhaps an actor playing Horatio took on this role, prescribed by the stage manuscript, out of consideration for the limitations of the theater troupe. See Dyce VII. p. 234. who, like Del., divides the entire script between Horatio and the queen. For me, however, only the Globe-Ed. version makes sense, which gives the words of line 16, let her come in to the queen, while the Qs. and Elze still have Horatio speak them. Nevertheless I assume that at the request of the queen not only Horatio withdraws, but also with him the gentleman, and Horatio returns without him with Ophelia. The gentleman appears again only after line 97 to report events in the castle and the arrival of Laertes. Elze leaves out the stage direction and thus has later only Enter Ophelia like the Qs.]

1872 del4

del4 ≈ del2

1872 cln1

cln1: xref.

2744 Enter . . . Gentleman.] Clark and Wright (ed. 1872): Enter Queen, Horatio, and a Gentleman] “The stage direction in the folios is ‘Enter Queene and Horatio,’ and the two speeches assigned in the quartos to ‘a Gentleman’ are given in the folios to Horatio. Lines 11-13 [2755-58], so cautiously obscure, seem better suited to an ordinary courtier that to Horatio.”

1874 Corson

Corson: xrefs.

2744 and a Gentleman] Corson (1874, p. 31): “It would appear that the Gentleman was afterwards dispensed with as a superfluity and his speeches given to Horatio. Lines [4.5.10-3 (2755-8)], which are given to Horatio, are, in the F. given more appropriately, to the Queen, along with the four following lines which are no doubt meant as an Aside, and are so designed by the C. The C. gives [4.5.14-16 (2759-61)], ‘ ’Twere good she were spoken with, for she may strew Dangerous conjectures in ill-breeding minds.’ to Horatio, and begins the Queen’s speech with ‘Let her come in.’ The whole speech, as it stands in the F., is as follows: [quotes 4.5.14-20 (2759-65)]. It would be perhaps better to regard the whole speech as an Aside, except ‘Let her come in.’”

1877 col4

col4 = col3 minus “We have restored . . . the dialogue.”

1877 v1877

v1877 ≈ Miles, Marshall

2744- Furness (ed. 1877): “Miles (p. 62): With this pomp and circumstance of Fortinbras and his army,—with this flash of a better fortune for Denmark athwart the deepening drama, the Act should end. Ending here, the interval consumed by the voyage to England, the return of Laer. from Paris, and the expedition of For. to Polland and back, is thrown between the Acts,—its natural place. This proposed extension of the Third Act would make this greatest of tragedies the most symmetrical too; while the Fourth Act, relieved of a confusion which is now mistaken for an anticlimax, would be devoted with a single purpose to its two superb contrasts: the revenge of Laer. with the revenge of Ham., and the utter madness of Oph. with the semi-counterfeit lunacy of her lover. Again almost as great for the closet as for the stage. Marshall (p. 77): The interval which elapses between this scene and the preceding is at least a month, and probably more. [Page 193.]—This may be seen by an examination of the remaining scenes. No break can occur at the end of this scene; the conversation between the King and Laer. in sc. vii is evidently part of that which ends this scene; the time occupied by sc, vi is merely sufficient for the King to explain to Laer, the circumstances of Polonius’s death. We find from sc. vi that Ham, has returned, having been taken by the pirates on his second day out; how long he was detained by them does not appear; it must have been for some time, since between Acts 4 and 5 there cannot elapse much more than two days, and at the end of Act V we find ambassadors announcing the death of Ros. and Guil., and For. returned from Poland, so that it is evident that the break implied by a new Act ought to occur at the end of 4.4. Moreover, if Ophelia’s madness were introduced at the beginning of a new Act, it would be more effective, and the interval which is supposed to have occurred would give color to the causes which produced it. [See notes on Act 4, p. 311 [4.1.1 (2586)].]”

v1877 ≈ col1, Dyce, wh1, Clarke, cln1

2744 Enter . . . Gentleman.] Furness (ed. 1877): “Collier: The omission in the Ff of the Gentleman was, no doubt, to avoid the employment of another actor. Dyce: There is certainly room for suspecting that the omission of the ‘Gentleman’ is to be attributed to the players. But be that as it may, there can be no doubt that if a modern editor adheres to F1 in this omission, he ought to restore to Hor. (what comes very awkwardly from the Queen) lines 14, 15; and that, whether he chooses to retain or omit the ‘Gentleman,’ he ought to make the Queen’s speech begin with line 16. White: I see no reason for deviating from F1. Lines 14, 15 are much more appropriate in the Queen’s mouth, as a reflection by which she is led to change her determination with regard to Oph. Than as a direct warning to a queen from a subject. Clarke: We think there is something exquisitely appropriate in making Hamlet’s beloved friend Hor. the one who watches over and tenderly thinks for Oph. during the Prince’s absence, and brings her to his mother alone. Feeling thus, we believe it to have been Shakespeare’s reconsidered intention. Clarendon: Lines [4.5.14-20 (2759-65)], so cautiously obscure, seem better suited to an ordinary courtier than to Hor.”

1878 rlf1

rlf1 ≈ cln1

2744 Rolfe (ed. 1878): “The stage-direction in the quartos is “Enter Horatio, Gertrard, and a Gentleman”; in the folio, “Enter Queene and Horatio.” The latter gives to Horatio the speeches of the Gentleman. ‘Lines [4.5.14-20 (2759-65)], so cautiously obscure, seem better suited to an ordinary courtier than to Horatio’ (Wr.).”

1882 elze2

elze2: col1

2744 Enter . . . Gentleman.] Elze (ed. 1882): “Enter Queene, &c.] As Mr Collier has pointed out, F1 omits the Gentleman ‘no doubt to avoid the employment of another actor’; it is evidently an alteration of the original text made by the players who were straitened in the number of supernumeraries at their disposal and therefore were glad of the opportunity of striking out a seemingly superfluous character. In consequence of this shift the two speeches given to the Gentleman in Q2 were assigned to Horatio, whilst the two lines spoken by Horatio (Twere good she were spoken with, &c.) were joined to the subsequent speech of the Queen. Besides, according to the arrangement of F1, Ophelia is to be introduced by Horatio, instead of the Gentleman. Although Q1 does not come to our assistance in this difficulty, yet it cannot be doubted, that the whole is a manager’s contrivance which out of the promptbook found its way into F1, whereas Q2 represents the authentic text. Compare note on § 186 (Enter Horatio &c.).”

1890 irv2

irv2: wh1

2744-61 Symons (Irving & Marshall, ed. 1890): “Queen and Horatio] Our text in the first twenty lines of this scene, as regards the personages and distribution of speeches, follows the Ff. In the Qq. we have ‘Enter Horatio, Gertrard, and a Gentleman,’ and to this Gentleman are given lines 2 and 3 (She is importunate . . . needs be pitied), and lines 4-13 (She speaks . . . much unhappily): while to Horatio are assigned lines 14-16 (’Twere good . . . Let her come in.). The Queen’s third speech being thus reduced to lines 17-20). It has been suggested that the omission in the Ff. of the ‘Gentleman’ was made to avoid the employment of an additional actor, and where, as in this case, his lines could be at least as properly delivered by Horatio, their assignment to him and the suppression of this unknown personage must be considered on every count an improvement in the stage business. Something more, however, must be said with regard to the assignment to the Queen, in the Ff., of the only lines (14-16) given in Qq. to Horatio. Line 16 (Let her come in.) clearly belongs to the Queen, and we agree with Mr. Grant White that lines 14, 15 (marked ‘aside’) are most appropriate in the Queen’s mouth as a reflection by which she is led to change her determination not to admit Ophelia to her presence. Many varying attempts have been made by modern editors to improve on the Q. arrangement; but none seems to us so satisfactory as that of the F.”

1899 ard1

ard1: col1

2744-61 Dowden (ed. 1899): “The only variation here from the distribution of speeches in Q is that assignment of the words ‘Let her come in’ [4.5.15-16 (2761)] to the Queen instead of to Horatio. Collier suggests that the omission in F of the Gentleman was to avoid the employment of another actor.”

1904 ver

ver ≈ v1877

2744 ] Verity (ed. 1904): “It is impossible to estimate closely the time supposed to elapse between this scene and the last. One writer estimates the interval at ‘about two months’; another reduces it to ’about a week.’

“There is considerable discrepancy between the Quarto and Folio as to the distribution of speeches up to the entrance of Ophelia. The chief reason is that the Folio omits the “gentleman” altogether; probably the manager of the theatre wanted to economise the number of actors. (F.).”

1929 trav

trav: Archer

2744 Travers (ed. 1929): “During the interval (contrast p. 162 n. 4) not only has Ophelia had time to lose her reason, and Laertes both to return from France and, for a while, to ‘keep himself in clouds’ [4.5.87 (2824)], but (since the following scene is, chronologically, a mere parenthesis between two parts of a conversation) Hamlet has left for England, has been captured in the course of the second day at sea [4.6.15-16 (2988)], and has come back. On the other hand, there will be no considerable, break in the action down to the end of the play, when Fortinbras will return also, from his Polish expedition. Indefiniteness as to time (as well as place) was indeed, among other ‘facilities’ (Wm. Archer, The Old Drama and the New, 1923) of Elizabethan technique. Cp. p. 2 col. 2. ”

trav: xref.; Robertson

2744 Gentleman] Travers (ed. 1929): “This gentlemen, F. economically suppresses (cp. Introd. p. 20 n. 1 and 2), giving his speeches to Horatio and [4.5.14-16 (2759-61)] to the Queen. As to Horatio’s presence at her side, it has been unsentimentally explained (J. M. Robertson) by the lack of any other courtier, known to us and now available. Some influence of the pre-Shakespearean play (Introd. p. 16) and the degree of understanding between mother and son now, even in the Shakespearean version (cp. sc. 1, 7, and 27 n.), may account for it as well.”

1934 Wilson

Wilson: cap

2744-8 Wilson (1934, rpt. 1963, 2:219-220): <219> “Q2 arranges [this passage] in a perfectly unobjectionable fashion [quotes passage]. For some reason, however, F1 prints it as prose: [quotes F1 version of same passage] </2:219><2:220> And Capell, despite his attachment to Q2, evidently took his cue from F1, which he and all subsequent editors have rearranged as follows: ‘Enter Queen, Horatio, and a Gentleman. Queen. I will not speake with her. Gent. She is importunate, indeed distract: Her mood will needs be pitied. Queen. What would she have? [half- line is staggered to complete verse line].” </2:220>

Wilson: xrefs.

2744 Wilson (1934, rpt. 1963, 1:38): <1:38> “In his eagerness to save a part, [the person responsible for the alterations] cuts out the Gentleman, giving his two speeches to Horatio [2746-7; 2749-58] and Horatio’s speech to the Queen [4.5.14-16 (2759-61)]. This is unfortunate, since the whole point of Horatio’s presence in the scene is to show him as the guardian of Hamlet’s honour which, as the Gentleman hints broadly, Ophelia’s mad talk is calling in question, yet F1 puts the Gentleman’s innuendoes into Horatio’s mouth!” </1:38>

1934 rid1

rid1

2744 Ridley (ed. 1934): “F gets rid of an extra actor by discarding the Gentleman altogether and giving his speeches to Horatio.”

1934 cam3

cam3

2744 Wilson (ed. 1934): “The interval of time between 4.4 and 4.5 has been estimated at ‘a week’ and ‘two months.’ It is improbable that Sh. made any estimate himself.”

1937 pen1

pen1

2744 Harrison (ed. 1937): “The division of the Act should fall after Hamlet’s departure for England. The plot is developed in three stages: (i) (Act 1) how Hamlet learnt of the murder of his father, (ii) (Act 2-Act 4, Scene 4) how he proved his uncle guilty but by the death of Polonius became himself the victim of Polonius’ avenging son. (iii) (Act 4, Scene 4 – the end) how Laertes plotted to kill Hamlet, and how both sons achieved vengeance. Between each episode there is an interval of time suggested in the dialogue.”

1947 yal2

yal2

2744 Cross & Brooke (ed. 1947): “Here the Folio omits the Gentleman, no doubt, as Collier suggested, to avoid the employment of another actor. A time interval of about a month occurs at this point, and this is the logical place to begin Act 4. Most editors continue the eighteenth century act division, which begins Act 4 with 3.5, because it has become conventional (This was apparently Betterton’s division, being indicated in the text of 1676.).”

1974 evns1

evns1

2744 Evans (ed. 1974): “4.5. Location: The castle.”

evns1

2744-65 Evans (ed. 1974): “See the Textual Notes for the lines that replace these in Q1.”

1980 pen2

pen2

2744 Spencer (ed. 1980): “There is clearly a considerable lapse of time between the previous scene and the opening of this.”

1982 ard2

ard2: xrefs.

2744 Jenkins (ed. 1982): “Horatio, and a Gentleman] F’s wish to save cast found an obvious opportunity here. Yet the dialogue requires a second speaker other than the Queen at [4.5.14-15 (2759-60)]. The role of attendant on or adviser to the Queen is, however, a strange one for Horatio, and the dramatist appears to forget him after [4.5.15-16 (2761)].”

1984 chal

chal

2744 Wilkes (ed. 1984): “[4.2. Location: Elsinore, the castle].”

1984 klein

klein

2744 Klein (ed. 1984): “The Queen is not with the King, but presumably talks with Horatio before the entrance of the Gentleman; and Ophelia wants specifically to see her. Already these two circumstances indicate that the room is one of hers. Ophelia’s first sentence is ambiguous, but Laertes’ analogous shout in line 110 implies that he has already looked for the King elsewhere. Thus the closet of 3.4 again seems to be the place in which to localise this scene.”

1987 oxf4

oxf4

2744 Enter . . . Gentleman] Hibbard (ed. 1987): “As at [4.1.0 (2586)] and [4.3.0 (2661)], F cuts out an unnecessary part. The Gentleman of Q2 is conflated with Horatio.”

1993 dent

dent

2744 Andrews (ed. 1993): “This scene returns us to the Castle, where the Queen has just received word that Ophelia wishes to talk with her.”

1997 evns2

evns2 = evns1