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

Line 3448-49 - 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 2951-end ed. Hardin A. Aasand

For explanation of sigla, such as jen, see the editions bib.

3448 Of blew Olympus.	5.1.254

3449 Ham. What is he whose {griefe} <griefes>	5.1.254

c. 1618-19 Huth

Huth provides possible evidence for Hamlet’s leaping into the grave after Laertes

3449 Henry Huth (On ye Death of ye famous Actor R. Burbadge, c. 1618-19, apud Ingleby et al. 1932, 1: 272):

Oft haue I seene him leape into a Graue

Suiting ye person wth so true an Eye

That there I would haue sworne hee meant to dye . . . .

Huth’s ms. poem is one of the references tainted by John Collier’s name. His many forgeries led to Ingleby’s belief in his 1874 Allusions that a second very similar version of the above elegy published by Collier was spurious. Lucy Toulmin Smith writes that both versions, the one above, and the slightly different version in the Collier collection, are genuine. She collated both Huth mss. that are the basis for the printed versions. Though the specific grave is not mentioned, she assumes that Burbage was in the habit of leaping into the Ophelia’s grave. She comments that neither Kemble nor Irving call for a leap, authorized only by Q1.

Gentleman’s Magazine published the version above in June 1825, 95: pt. 1, p. 498

1770 Gentleman

Gentleman

3449 What . . . griefe] Gentleman (1770, I: 28-29): <p. 28> “The encounter of Hamlet and Laertes is supported with an excess of spirit on both sides and, if we consider the real state of things, rather blameably on the part of the former; he has killed the father and in consequence deprived the sister of her senses; yet when a grieving, injured brother and son vents an explanation, very excusable in his situation; the prince, even at the interment of a Women he pretends love for; indulges a most outrageous degree of passion; interrupts a sacred ceremony and offers his lesson is stile of a challenge to Laertes; nay after most insulting behaviour, when separated—he retorts accusation upon the challenged person in the following irritative taunt. ‘Hear you Sir, What is the reason you abuse me thus? I lov’d you ever—but tis no matter, Let Hercules himself do what he may, The cat will mew, the dog will have his day. [3487-91]</p. 28>

<p. 29>“There is indeed a palliative excuse made by Hamlet to Laertes for this inconsistent behaviour at the beginning of the last scene–where he says; ‘—This presence knows, And you must needs have heard, how I am punisht With a sore distraction; what I have done, That might you nature, honour and exception Roughly awake; I here proclaim was madness.’ [3678-9]

“Now if it be considered, that his madness has been assumed, this appears a mean prevarication to a man whom he has most deeply injured, and who, to his knowledge, never meant him wrong; to say that this passion was put on to deceive the court, weighs but little, as we find in the action, dishevelled hair, ungartered Stockings, &c. are laid aside for a composed appearance; and immediately after the bluster we find him not only regular in conversation with a coxcomb messenger of the King’s, but punctual in the terms of the challenge and cooly sensible in fulfilling it before the court without any design, more than the credit of victory in view.”</p. 29>

1773 gent

gent:

3449 What . . . griefe] Gentleman (apud Bell, ed. 1773) : “This violent frantic climax of passion, is very indecent, at such a time and place, therefore highly disgraceful to Hamlet.”

1780 Transactions

Robertson

3449 What . . . griefe] Robertson (Trans. of the Royal Soc. of Edinburgh, 1790, II: 258-9): <p. 258> “And if doubts should still be entertained about the existence of Hamlet’s love to Ophelia after her death, the question can be brought to the shortest issue. Hamlet himself will answer, That his love for Ophelia was greater than ever. When Laertes, half-delirious himself with grief for his sister’s madness and death, leaped into her grave, and imprecated ‘ten times triple woe upon the cursed head of him (Hamlet) who had deprived her of her most ingenious sense;’ Hamlet burst upon him at once from his concealment, like thunder from a cloud; [cites 3499-53; 3463-64; 3466-3468; 3471-76] &c. </p. 258><p. 259> His love had been only the deeper embosomed; it had become too sacred to be seen; and like fire, when pent up, it had acquired greater force.” </p. 259>

1780 The Mirror

Anon.

3449ff Ham. What is he whose griefe . . .] Anon. (The Mirror, no. 100 [22 April 1780]; rpt. 1781, 3:238-9): “The distraction of Hamlet, however, is clearly affected through the whole play, always subject to the controul of his reason, and subservient to the accomplishment of his designs. At the grave of Ophelia, indeed, it exhibits some temporary marks of a real disorder. His mind, subject from nature to all the weakness of sensibility, agitated by the incidental misfortune of Ophelia’s death, amidst the dark and permanent impression of his revenge, is thrown for a while off its poise, and, in the paroxysm of the moment, breaks forth </p. 238> <p. 239>into that extravagant rhapsody which he utters to Laertes.” </p. 239>

1829 Farren

Farren

3449 What . . . griefe] Farren (1827, pp. 377-8): <p. 377>“The last instance that will be adduced of the uncontrollable sallies that constituted his mental calamity, is his conduct at the grave of Ophelia. After a season of fastidious moralising with Horatio, and an interchange of gross repartee with the Grave-digger, during the funeral procession, the Prince recognises Laertes, whom he points out to Horatio: ‘That is Laertes, a very noble youth: mark!’

“When Hamlet understands that his lamentations bewail a chaste and hapless sister, he exclaims—’What, the fair Ophelia?’ but there is no sentiment or reflexion annexted to the expression. Laertes, in a transport of grief, leaps into her grave, and, frantic with affliction, calls out— [cites 3445-48] When these words, the desponding effusions of a brother’s love, reach the ear of Hamlet, unconscious of the solemnity of the scene, wholly forgetful of his former unkindness, insensible that he had slain the father of Laertes, and that the death of Ophelia was the result of disappointed love and filial sorrow, he bellows from his covert— [cites 3449-53]

“It is only necessary to peruse the remainder of the scene to stamp this violent explosion with the character of madness. After his mind has been seriously occupied on another subject, and reflection returns, he expresses to Horatio his extreme regret; and, as is usual in such cases, assigns an unsatisfactory reason:—[cites 3579-84] And before he commences his fencing match he is still more explicitly repentant:— [cites 3678-91]

“If Hamlet be considered as not really mad, his unmanly outrage on Laertes, at the grave of Ophelia, and the despicable lie he utters by way of apology, in the presence of the King, whom he detests, must stamp him as the most cruel, senseless, and </p. 377> <p. 378> cowardly miscreant that ever disgraced the human form.” </p. 378>

1845 Gents

Mitford

3449-50 Mitford (1845, p. 130): <p. 130>“See Sandys’s Christ’s Passion, p. 167, ‘What louder grief with such an emphasis Strikes on my ears?’” </p. 130>

1864-68 c&mc

c&mc

3449-50 Clarke & Clarke (ed. 1864-68, rpt. 1874-78): “Those who insist that Hamlet is really mad, point to his conduct at this juncture as a conclusive proof of the justice of their theory; whereas we think that in an impressionable temperament like Hamlet’s—subject to even morbid excitement at times, by the exceptionally potent causes of anguish from which he has suffered—the demeanour of Laertes at the grave of his sister would be exactly calculated to produce disgust and resentment; in short, the emotion which Hamlet afterwards, in confidential converse with his friend Horatio, describes as ‘a towering passion.’ A man need not be insane to feel outraged at ‘the bravery of grief,’ the rant of sorrow displaced by Laertes on this occasion: his rough insolence to the officiating priest, his vindictive curses invoked upon the head of him whose deed deprived Ophelia of reason, and his hyperbolical phrases of lament for one so gentle and so meek-natured as she who lies in that early grave, are each sufficient to excite indignation in the listenere—especially a listener like the sorely heart-smitten Hamlet.”

1869 tsch

tsch

3449 What] Tschischwitz (ed. 1869): “Das auf Personen angewendete what ist bereits [[4.6.1]] besprochen cf. [[1.1.46]].” [The what employed for a person is already spoken in [[4.6.1.]]. cf [[1.1.46]].

1870 Miles

Miles

3449-53 Miles (1870, 74-5): <p. 74>“Hamlet’s instant advance, is like the swoop of an eagle, the charge of a squadron, the levelled curse of a prophet. [cites 3449-81]</p. 74> <p.75>What can be juster, what can be grander! Mortal love and manly scorn were never strung before or since to such sublime intensity. The foot of true love lies on the prostrate sham love, like the foot of Michael on Lucifer; though here the angelic brow is flushed and ruffled with the rage of combat. The ‘living monument’ promised by the King, is already in position: over the dead maiden stands the doomed lover, proclaiming his full faith before assembled Denmark in tones, whose echoes ringing down the aisles of death, must have conveyed to her ransomed soul and re-illumined mind the dearest tribute of mortality to perfect the chalice of spiritual bliss. That sweet face on the threshold of another sphere, must have </p.75<p. 76>turned earthward awhile to catch those noble, jealous words. Yet this superb and well merited rebuke has been criticised as a mere ‘yielding to passion,’ as a ‘sudden fall, from the calm height of philosophical reflection on the frailty of humanlife, into the degrading depths of youthful passion and inconsiderateness;’ while the whole scene has been charged with ‘meditative excess,’ and with impeding the proper march of the action. Heaven help us, how we grumble over God’s best manna in the desert! Time, place, and circumstance considered, that annihilation of Laertes is the sublimest assertion of moral and intellectual supremacy on record.”

1877 neil

neil

3448 Olympus] Neil (ed. 1877, Notes): “A range of mountains between Macedonia and Thessaly, 9700 feet in height, on the summit of which the dynasty of the gods had their residence.”

1885 macd

macd

3449 MacDonald (ed. 1885): “The whole speech is bravado—the frothy grief of a weak, excitable, effusive nature.”

1898 Brandes

Brandes

3449-81 Brandes (1898, rpt. 1920, p. xvii): “Hamlet has not a thought for Ophelia in his excitement after the killing of Polonius; but Shakespeare gives us indirectly to understand that grief on her account overtook him afterwards.— [quotes 2614]. Later he seems to forget her, and therefore his anger at her brother’s lamentations as she is placed in her grave, and his own frenzied attempt to outdo the ‘emphasis’ of Laertes’ grief, seem strange to us. But from his words, we understand that she has been the solace of his life, though she could not be its stay.”

1914 Stewart

Stewart : see n. 3443-5

1980 pen2

pen2

3448 blew] Spencer (ed. 1980): “(presumably like a distant mountain).”

1982 ard2

ard2 ≈ standard

3448 Olympus]

1985 cam4

cam4 ≈ standard

3448 Olympus]

cam4

3448 blew] Edwards (ed. 1985): “because it reaches the sky.”

1987 oxf4

oxf4: OED

3448 blew] Hibbard (ed. 1987): “Shakespeare is the first English writer cited by OED to use this adjective with reference to mountains, flames, and the veins of the body.”

2008 OED

OED ≈ standard

33448 blew]OED b. Said of the colour of smoke, vapour, distant hills, steel, thin milk. Magnetism, defining the south pole of a magnet (of a steel-blue colour) as distinguished from the north (red) pole; also, the magnetism of this pole. 1602 SHAKES. Ham. V. i. 277 The skyish head Of blew Olympus.[etc.]