HW HomePrevious CNView CNView TNMView TNINext CN

Line 3131 - 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.
3131 And for <that> purpose, Ile annoynt my sword.4.7.140
1783 Ritson
Ritson
3130-1 Laer. I . . . sword] Ritson (1783, p. 210): <p. 210>“It is a matter of surprise that neither dr. Johnson, nor any other of Shakspeares numerous and able commentators has remarked, with proper warmth and detestation, the villainous assassin-like treachery of Laertes in this horrid plot. There is the more occasion that he should be here pointed out an object of abhorrence as he is a character we are, in some preceding parts of the play, led to respect and admire.”</p. 210>
1784 Davies
Davies
3131 And . . . sword] Davies (1784, pp. 128-30): <p. 128>“This unexpected change of disposition in Laertes must have struck every reader of the play. A young man of high breeding, with a noble sense of honour, who, from the warmth of filial piety, was ready to take arms against his sovereign, on a sudden becomes the a confederate with a vile plotter to destroy a prince. Shakspeare is generally such a complete master of nature, and so faithful a delineator of character, that we must not hastily condemn him. I am afraid he has trusted more than heought to the readers or spectators sagacity. laertes had been closeted by the usurper, who had doubtless thrown as much odium as he could upon his newphew;</p. 128><p. 129> he would not inform that Hamlet by chance or mistake put an end to his father’s life, but rather that he had dispatched him by an act of violence or treachery. How far this supposition may justify our author I know not; but surely if he had procued on the stage, such a conversation between the King and Laertes as I have suggested, it would perhaps have alleviated the guilt of the latter.
“The fourth act of Hamlet has been censured, by some critics, s much inferior to the three preceding acts. It we should grant that, yet it is certainly not without its merit. Laertes, whom Polonius and the King had given leave to travel to France in the first act, returns in the fourth; and, finding his father dead, and no authentic relation to be obtained in what manner he died, from a spirit of resentment, he raises a tumult in the palace.—The madness of Ophelia is a beautiful dramatic incident, and will alone make that part of the play very interesting.—Laertes is at first rash and violent; and soon </p. 129> <p. 130>after becomes an associate in villainous practices, for which I have endeavoured, in some sort, to account. The act closes with an affection relation of Ophelia’s death, which contributes to the fixing Laertes in his resolution to destroy Hamlet by any means”</p. 130>
1856 hud1 (1851-6)
hud1
3131 anoint my sword] Hudson (ed. 1856): “Warburton having pronounced Laertes ‘ a good character,’ Coleridge thereupon makes the following note: ‘Mercy on Warburton’s notion of goodness! Please to refer to the seventh scene of this Act; — ‘I will do’t; and, for this purpose, I’ll anoint my sword,’— uttered by Laertes after the King’s description of Hamlet: ‘He, being remiss, most generous, and free from all contriving, will not peruse the foils.’ Yet I acknowledge that Shakespeare evidently wishes, as much as possible, to spare the character of Laertes,— to break the extreme turpitude of this consent to become an agent and accomplice of the King’s treachery;—and to this end he re-introduces Ophelia at the close of this scene, to afford a probable stimulus of passion in her brother.’ H[udson]”
I’ll need to find out where Coleridge makes this assertion. I’ve checked his lectures on Sh. and couldn’t find references to it there.
1864-68 c&mc
c&mc ≈ Ritson (from “surprise that . . . admire.”) +
3131 Ile annoynt my sword] Clarke & Clarke (ed. 1864-68, rpt. 1874-78): “We cannot help wholly disagreeing with this latter observation of Mr. Ritson’s. We think that the dramatist has, with usual consistency in character, drawn Laertes throughout as a rash, ill-judging young man. He sets out by conceiving unfounded suspicions of Hamlet’s faith and truth, instilling them into his sister’s mind, and thus himself laying the foundation for her subsequent unhappiness: upon hearing of his father’s death, he rushes back, full of hot-headed fury, accusing and resenting, without a moment given to investigation or just inquiry, and falls an easy prey to Claudius’s specious representations, becoming at once the tool of the king’s hatred against his nephew. Is this a man to ‘respect and admire?’ Where is there a single really estimable point in Laertes’ character? His furious judgments, his hot-headed wrath, are precisely the characteristics that would lead to so murderous a deed as the one he now proposes; and as for its treachery, he believes, with his usual headlong style of leaping to unproved conclusions, that Hamlet has treacherously killed his father, and that therefore he is warranted in his contemplated assassination, as an act of filial revenge. For our parts, we can see nothing but perfect consistency of character-drawing as regards Laertes himself, and perfect harmony of dramatic composition as regards his intended vengeance for a father’s death, in all that Shakespeare has here achieved.”
1877 v1877
v1877 : rug (see n. 3125)
3131 annoynt] Moberly (apud Furness, ed. 1877): “Laer. shows by this horrid suggestion how little need there was for the King to prepare the temptation as carefully as he did.”
1885 macd
macd
3131 MacDonald (ed. 1885): “In the 1st Q. this proposal also is made by the king.”
1885 mull
mull
3131 annoynt] Mull (ed. 1885): “poison.”
1934 Wilson
Wilson
3131 for purpose] Wilson (1934, 2:248) characterizes the Q2 omission as “certainly omitted.” </p. 248>
1934a cam3
cam3
3131-32 Wilson (ed. 1934): “With a poss. quibble upon extreme unction: v. G[lossary]. [see Glossary].”
3131 annoynt] Wilson (ed. 1934, Glossary): “smear. Perhaps with a quibble on the religious ceremony of consecration (cf. unction).”
1939 kit2
kit2
3131 Ile . . . sword] Kittredge (ed. 1939): “This is Laertes at his worst. He forgets his own code of honour in his reckless pursuit of revenge, although he is aware that Hamlet killed Polonius by mistake for the King. The idea, however, of fencing with posoned swords is not unknown in Elizabethan literature. Cf. Soliman and Perseda, I.3.29-33 (ed. Boas, Kyd, p. 169): ‘In Italy I put my Knighthood on, Where, in my shirt, but with my sigle Rapier, I combated a Romane much renownd, His weapons poiint impoysoned for my bane; And yet my starres did bode my victory.”
1980 pen2
pen2 :
3131-39 Spencer (ed. 1980): “Part of the treacherous plan comes from laertes; in Q1 the proposal to poison the sword comes from the King himself. This may represent what happened in a performance earlier than the Q2 text, the change being intended to indicate the deterioration of Laertes under the King’s influence. At V.2.307-14 Laertes does not confess that the envenoming of the sword was his own idea.”
1982 ard2
ard2 : kit2 (Soliman and Perseda //)
3131 Ile annoynt my sword] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “‘Some barbarous nations there are who use to poison their swords’ ((Plutarch, Moralia, trans. Holland, Everyman, p. 117)). A precedent in the drama is a Roman referred to in Soliman and Perseda who fought with ‘his weapon’s point empoisoned’ ((I.iii.32)).”
3131