HW HomePrevious CNView CNView TNMView TNINext CN

Line 3078+5 - Commentary Note (CN) More Information

Notes for lines 2951-end ed. Hardin A. Aasand
For explanation of sigla, such as jen, see the editions bib.
3078+5 {You haue beene talkt of since your trauaile much,}4.7.72
1818-19 mclr2
mclr2
3078+5-3102 Coleridge (ms. notes 1819 in Ayscough, ed. 1807; rpt. Coleridge, 1998, 12.4:858): <p. 858> “First awakens Laertes’ Vanity by praises of the Report—then gratifies it by the report itself—and then. ‘Did Hamlet so envenom with his envy [[3100]].—[’]”</p. 858>
1885 macd
macd
3078+5 trauaile] MacDonald (ed. 1885): “<n> travels</n>“
1982 ard2
ard2
3078+5-3103 Jenkins (ed. 1982, Longer Notes, 543-4): <p. 543> “The excessively elaborate introduction of the fencing stratagem suggests that, apart from its essential function in the plot, it had for the dramatist some ulterior significance. In particular, the centaur-like description of the Norman whose identity merges with that of his beast [3082-4] seems to make of him an emblematic figure. One can hardly help being reminded of the comparison </p. 543> <p. 544> of Claudius to a satyr ((I.ii.140)) and of kindred animal images, even while the horseman, in contrast with the satyr, is invested with a splendour of which no touch is ever given to Claudius or ((till Laertes)) his associates. Laertes’s skill in fencing, which is to be the means of Hamlet’s death, is presented ambivalently from the first. Simultaneously brilliant ((71-2)) and of dubious worth ((75-8)), it will befit the revenger in action, whom the play conceives of as both noble and base. As for the outcome, the name of the ‘wondrous’ messenger ((91)) is a presage of fatality, and the mere report of Laertes’s prowess carries a venom ((102)) which anticipates the actual poisoned foil.” </p. 544>
1993 dent
dent
3078+5 trauaile] Andrews (ed. 1989): “travel. The Elizabethan spelling reminds us that travel in the Renaissance involved considerable effort.
3078+5