3289-3303 Ham. There’s . . . ha] Raynolds (ed. 1606, rpt. 1880, 13:84-86): <p. 84>“Then sat I downe, vpon the carpet grasse, Where after thankes, to God for that our meate, He did begin, the dinner time to passe, With sad discourse, but not a bit did eate: For in his hand, he tooke the dead mans scul, The which did seeme, to fill his stomacke full.

“He held it still, in his sinister hand, And turn’d it soft, and stroakt it with the other, He smil’d on it, and oft demurely saund, As it had beene, th head of his owne brother: Oft would h’haue spoke, but something bred delay, At length halfe weeping, these words did he say.

“This barren scull, that here you do behold, Why might it not, haue beene an Emperours head? Wose store-house rich, was heap’d with massy gold, If it were so, all that to him is dead: His Empire, crowne, his dignities and all, When death tooke him, all them from hid did fall. </p. 84>

<p. 85>“Why might not this, an Empresse head haue beene, Although nowe bare, with earth and crooked age? Perhaps it was, the head of some great Queene, Vertuous in yhouth, though now spoil’d with earths rage: Well if it were, so rich a treasure once, Now tis no more but ratling gastly bones.

“Say that it were, the head of some great man, That wisely searcht, and pri’s out euery cause, And that inuented, eu’ry day to skanne, The deep distinctions, of all sorts of laws: And sometimes so, cut off his neighbours head, Why if it were, himselfe is now but dead.

“And might it not, a Lady sometimes joye, T’haue deckt, and trim’d, this now rainbeaten face, With many a trick, and new-found pleasing toye? Which if that now, she did behold her case: Although on earth, she were for to remaine, She would not paint, nor trime it vp againe.

“Why might not this, haue beene some lawiers pate, The which sometimes, brib’d, brawl’d, and tooke a fee, And lawe exacted, to the highest rate? Why might not this, be such a one as he? Your quirks , and quillets, now sir where be they? Now he is mute, and not a word can say.

“Why might not this, haue garnisht forth some dame, Whose sole delight, was in her dog and fanne, Her gloues, and maske, to keepe her from the aime, Of Phebus heate, her hands or face to tanne: Perhaps this might, in euery sort agree, To be the head, of such a one as shee.</p. 85>

<p. 86>“Or why not thus, some filthie pander slaue, That broaker like, his soule doth set and sell, Might not haue dyed, and in an honest graue, After his death, gone thether for to dwell: And I come there, long after he were dead. And purchase so, his filthy panders head.

“Or say ‘twere thus, some three chind soggie dame, The which was so, but then a bawd was turn’d, and kept a house, of wanton Venus game, Vntill such time, her chimneis all were burn’d: And there some one, with Gallian spice well sped, May dye of that, and this might be her head.

“But O I runne, I runne too farre astray, And prate and talke, my wits quite out of doore, Say ‘twere a King, Queene, Lord, or Lady gay, A Lawyer, Minion, Pander, or a whore: If it were noble, t’were not for mee to creake on. If it were base, it were too vile to speake on.

“But what so ere it was, not ‘tis but this, A dead mans sscull, vsurped from his graue, Yet doo I make it, still my formost dish, For why? ‘tis all the comfort that I haue: In that I may, when any dine with mee, Shew what they were, and eke what they shall bee.

“Then on the cloath, he set it downe againe, And with a sigh, hart-deepe with halfe ag roane, Which drew salt teares, from out his eyes amaine, Although he cloak’d them, with a prittie moane: Well sir quoth he, although your chear’s not great, This is the sawse, you shall haue to your meate.” </p. 86>

3289-3303 Ham. There’s . . . ha] Randolph (ed. 1632, pp. 58-61): <p. 58> “Sext: This was a captains skull, one that carried a storm in his countenance, and a tempest in his tongue. The great bug-beare of the citie, that threw drawers down the stairs as familiarly as quart-pots; and had a pension from the Barbour-chirurgeons for break </p. 58><p.59> ing of pates. A fellow that had ruin’d the noses of more bawds and pandrs, then the disease belonging to the trade.—And yet I remember when he went to buriall, another corse took the wall of him, and the ban-dog ne’re grumled.

“Asotus, prodigal son of the doting Simo: Then skull (although thou be a captains skull)

I say thou art a coward,—and no Gentleman; Thy mother was a whore,—and thou liest in thy throat.’=

“Sexton: This was a poeticall noddle. O the sweet lines, choice language, eloquent figures, besides the jests, half jests, quarter jests, and quibbles that have come out o’these chaps that yawn so! He has not now so much as a new-coyn’d-complement to procure him a supper. The best friend he has may walk by him now, and yet have ne’re a jeere put upon him. </p. 59>

<p. 60>“ Sexton: Death is a blunt villain, Madam: he makes no distinction betwixt Jones and my Lady. This ws the prime Madam in Thebes, the generall mistresse, the onlely adored beauty. Little would you think there were a couple of starres in these two augur-holes: or that this pit had been arch’d over with a handsome nose, that had been at the charges to maintain half a dozen of severall silver arches to uphold the bridge. It had been a mighty favour once, to have kiss’d these lips that grin so. This mouth out of all the Madams boxes cannot now be furnished with a set of </p. 60> <p. 61> teeth. She was the coyest overcurious dame in all the city: her chambermaids misplacing of a hair, was as much as her place came to.—Oh! if that Lady now could but behold this physnomie of hers in a looking-glasse, what a monster would she imagine herself! With all her perrukes, tyres and dresses, with her chargeable teeth, with her cerusse and pomatum, and the benefit of her painter and doctor, make this idol up again?

“Paint Ladies while you live, and plaister fair, But when the house is fallne ‘tis past repair.

Much of 4.4 seems to carry back allusions to Hamlet and the gravedigger scenes (esp. 3380-2). GREY points to one moment, but there are others by the Sexton that echo back to Hamlet’s discourse with the gravedigger:

3290 skull of a Lawyer] Grey (1754, 2: 303-04) : <p. 303>“There is a thought not very unlike this, in Mr. Tho. Randolph’s Jealous Louers , act iv. sc. iii. p. 68. Sexton . ‘This was a lawyer’s skull; there was a tongue in’t once, a damnable eloquent tongue, that would almost have persuaded any man to the gallows. This was a turbulent, busy fellow, till death gave him his Quietus est ; and yet I ventured to rob him of his gowne, and the rest of his habiliments, to his very buckram bag, not leaving him so much as a poor halfpenny to pay for his wastage, and yet the poor man never repined at it.’” </p. 304>

3289-3303 Why may not . . . . no more] Rushton (1858, pp. 7-11 ): <p.7> “Why should Hamlet, in his reflections on a skull, suppose that it belonged to a lawyer, in preference to a doctor or a divine? But let the reader notice how many law terms are made use of in this passage [quotes full passage with law terms, to which he refers below, in italics].

“Quiddets and quillets, cases and tenures, are terms with which many persons, who are not at all familiar with the laws of England, are perfectly well acquainted. But statutes, and recognizances, fines, double vouchers, and recoveries are somewhat more technical and abstruse. Recognizance, (recognitio,) though in special signification it only acknowledges a certian debt, and is executed upon all the goods and half of the lands of the recognizor, yet by extension it is drawn also to bonds, commonly called statute merchant and statute of the staple. A statute merchant (so called from the 13th Edward I., De mercatoribus,) was a bond acknowledged before one of the clerks of the statutes merchant, and mayor, or chief warden of the city of London, or two merchants of the said city, for that purpose assigned; or before the mayor, </p.7><p.8> chief warden, or master of other cities or good towns, or other sufficient men for that purpose appointed, sealed with the seal of the depter of the King, which was of two pieces, the greater was kept by the said mayor, chief warden, &c., and the lesser piece thereof by the said clerks. Statute staple was either properly so called or improperly. A statute staple, properly so called, was a bond of record, acknowledged before the mayor of the staple, in the presence of the two constables of the same staple, founded upon the statute anno 27th Edward III., cap. 9. A statute improper, was a bond of record, founded upon the statute anno 23rd Henry VIII., cap. 6, of the nature of a proper statute staple, as touching the forces and execution thereof, and acknowledged before one of the chief justices, and, in their absence, before the mayor of the stapel and the recorder of London. The statutes referred to by Hamlet are doubtless statutes merchant and statutes staple, and not acts of parliament; because between these statutes and recognizances there exists a reciprocal relation. Statutes staple, statutes merchant, and recognizances, in the nature of a statute staple, are not obsolete. The term fine, as used by Shakespeare in this passage, signified an amicable agreement or composition of a suit, whether real or fictitious, between the defendant and tenant, with the consent of the judges, and enrolled among the records of the court where the suit was commenced, by which lands and tenements were transferred from one person to another, or any other settlement was made respecting them. This assurance was called finis, or finalis concordia, from the words with which it began, and also from its effect, which was to put </p.8><p.9> an end to all suits and contentions. Thus, Glanville says: ‘Et nota quod dicitur talis concordia finalis, eo quod finem imponit negotio, adeo ut neuter ligitantium ab eâ de cetera poterit recedere;’ and Bracton says: ‘Finis est extremitas unius cujusque rei, et ideo dicitur finalis concordia, quia imponit finem litibus.’ A recovery, in its most extensive sense, was a restoration of a former right, by the solemn judgment of a court of justice; and judgment, whether obtained after a real defence made by the tenant, or upon his default, or feint plea, had the same force and efficacy to bind the right of the land so recovered, and to vest a free and absolute estate in fee-simple in the recoveror. A common recovery was a judgment obtained in a fictitious suit, brought against the tenant of the freehold in consequence of a default made by the person who was last vouched by warranty in such suit. The end and effect of this recovery was to disontinue and destroy estates tail, remainders, and reversions, and to bar the former owners thereof, and in this formality three parties were required, namely, the defendant, he that brought the writ of entry, and might be termed the recoverer; the tenant, he against whom the writ was brought, and might be termed the recoveree; and the vouchee, he whom the tenant vouched, or called to warranty for the land in demand. [quotes Cym Act 2, Scene 2, for voucher, and Cor Act 2, Scene 3, for vouches] </p.9><p.10>

“A recovery might be, and was, frequently suffered with double, treble, or further voucher, as the exigency of the case required, in which case there were several judgments against the several vouchees.

“The reader will from this explanation perceive that Shakespeare has used the terms recovery and double voucher not indiscriminately, but in a relative sense, as the mention of one term suggests the idea of the other, with which it is inseparably connected. Fines and recoveries were abolished by the 3rd and 4th William IV., c. 74, which contains provisions enabling tenants in tail to dispose of their estate so as to create a fee-simple absolute, or any less estate. This act received the royal assent on the 28th August, 1883, and came into operation on the 1st January, 1834.

“Shakespeare displays his acquaintance with the custome of conveyancing lawyers in this passage: [quotes 3301-3 The very conueyancees . . .no more] Why should Hamlet compare the grave to a box? Not because there is any resemblance between a box and a grave, but because conveyances and attorneys keep their deeds in wood or in boxes. If the reader, recollecting the explanations that have been made, will take the trouble to dwell a short time on these reflections of Hamlet, he will percieve that the word fine there made use of is intended to signify, not a penalty, but an end. The fine of his fines means the end or termination of his fines. That his fine pate is filled, not with fine dirt, but with the last dirt which will every occupy it, leaving a satirical inference to be drawn, that even in his lifetime his head was filled with </p/10><p.11> dirt. From the follliwng passages it appears that Shakespeare uses the term fne in that sense: [quotes AWW, Act 4, Scene 4; Ado, Act 1, Scene 1; Lucrece;Oth, Act 3, Scene 3; an d Wiv, Act 4, Scene 2, all for fine or some form of this term).” </p.11>

3290 skull of a Lawyer] Staunton (ed. 1859) notes a similarity of these lines to Thomas Randolph’s ‘The Jealous Lovers” played before Charles the Second at Cambridge, published at Oxford, 1668: “Sexton. [Shewing a skull.] This was a poetical noddle. O the sweet lines, choice language, eloquent figures, besides the jests, half jests, and quibbles that have come out of these chaps that yawn so! He has not so much as a new-coined complement to procure him a supper. The best friend he has may walk by him now, and yet have ne’er a jeer put upon him. His mistris had a little dog, deceased the other day, and all the wit in his noddle could not pump out an elegie to bewail it. He has been my tenant this seven years, and ain all that while I never heard himr aila gainst the times, or complain of the neglect of learning. Melpomene and the rest of theMuses have a good turn on’t that he’s dead; for while he lived, he ne’er left calling upon ‘em. He was buried (as most of the tribe) at the charge of the parish: and is happier dead than alive; for he has now as much money as the best int he company,—and yet has left off the poetical way of begging, called borrowing.—Act IV. Sc. 3.

“Sexton . Look here; this is a lawyer’s skull. There was a tongue in’t once, a damnable eloquent tongue, that would almost have perswaded any man to the gallows. This was a turbulent busie fellow, till Death gave him his Quietus est : and yet I ventured to rob him of his gown, and the rest of his habiliments, to the very buckram bag, not leaving him so much as a poor halfpeny to pay for his wastage, and yet the good man nere repin’d at it.—Now a man may clap you o’ th’ coxcomb with his spade, and never stand in fear of an action of battery.”

3290 Lawyer] Browne (apud Furness, ed. 1877): “Thee is a striking imitation of this passage in Raynoldes’s Dolarny’s Primerose, 1606: ‘Why might not this haue beene some lawier’s pate, The which sometimes brib’d, brawl’d, and tooke a fee and lawe exacted to the highest rate; Why might not this be such a one as he? Your quirks and quillets, now Sir, where be they? Now he is mute and not a word can say,’ &c.”

3290 Lawyer] Furness (ed. 1877) : “[Raynolde’s Dolarny’s Primerose ]which, despite the eulogy of Sh. contained in it, Caldecott pronounces a ‘a very mean performance.’”

3290 Lawyer] Neil (ed. 1877, Notes): “It has been pointed out by C.E. Browne that in Raynolde’s Dolarny’s Primeroses, 1606, this passage is versified: [cites Raynoldes; see Browne above].”

3289-303 why may . . . no more, ha] Bate (2008, p. 324): quotes a passage from Dekker’s Gull’s Hornbook, illustrating the sort of “lawyers’ tavern talk” that Hamlet comically apes in this graveyard passage. Dekker “told of how in tavern conversation with laymen, attorneys would talk of nothing but ’statutes, bonds, recognizances, fines, recoveries, audits, rents, subsidies, sureties, enclosures . . . . The knowledge of the law revealed by Shakespeare’s plays rarely goes beyond commonplace jargon of this kind. It is thin in comparison with that to be found in the drama of many of his contemporaries, such as . . . John Marston . . . . . ”