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.

mtby2 1723-33? ms. notes in pope1

mtby2

3560 Why . . . imployment] Thirlby (ms. notes in Pope, ed. 1723 [1723-33?]): “i.e. I suppose they courted it. I see no cause why this verse should be left out [of Q2], for all it is not is not [this latter “is not” may be an error in transcription] in Q[2]. It is genuine without doubt sed v.v. 17, 8. [but turn to 3561-62].v.v. 553.20 That I to y[ou]r assistance do make love.”

1730 theol

theol

3560 Why . . . imployment] Theobald (26 Mar. 1730, [fol. 122r] [Nichols 2:579]): <fol. 122r> “After this line [3559] the first folio makes Hamlet begin with a verse, which I cannot imagine why the Editor should, if knowingly, throw out. ‘Why, man, they did make loue to this employment.’ i.e. it was of their own seeking. it is not, it is true, in the oldest quartos, but yet we find, in p. 224[source?not in POPE2]: ‘That I to your assistance do make loue.’” </fol. 122r>

1846 Schlegel

Schlegel

3560 Why . . . imployment] Schlegel (1808, rpt. 1811, tr. 1846, p. 405): <p. 405> “. . . we evidently perceive in him a malicious joy, when he has succeeded in getting rid of his enemies, more through necessity and accident, which alone are able to impel him to quick and decisive measures, than by the merit of his own courage, as he himself confesses after the murder of Polonius, and with respect to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.” </p. 405>

1854 del2

del2

3560 Why . . . imployment] Delius (ed. 1854) : “Diese Zeile, welche das Verhältniss der beiden Helfershelfer zu dem Anschlage des Königs andeutet und zur Erklärung von Hamlet’s Handlungsweise wesentlich ist, steht nur in der Fol.; wahrscheinlich fügte Sh. sie erst später hinzu.” [These lines, which hint at the relation of both accomplices to the plot of the king and is essential to the clarification of Hamlet’s conduct, appear only in the Fol; probably Sh. added them first later.]

1864-68 c&mc

c&mc

3560 Why . . . imployment] Clarke & Clarke (ed. 1864-68, rpt. 1874-78): “A more pointed form of the common phrase, ‘they courted this employment.’”

1869 tsch

tsch

3560 Why . . . imployment] Tschischwitz (ed. 1869): “Eine Andeutung des Dichters, um das Vefahren Hamlets zu rechtfertigen; er will sagen: sie drängten sich dazu, an mir zu Verräthern und Schurken zu werden. Ohne diese Andeutung wäre Hamlet’s Verfahren durchaus verwerflich.” [A hint by the poet to approve of Hamlet’s conduct: he will say: they forced them to become as traitors and scoundrels to me. Without this hint, Hamlet’s conduct might be therefore reprehensible.]

1872 del4

del4 ≈ del2

3560 Why . . . imployment] Delius (ed. 1872) : “Dieser Vers, welcher das Verhältniss der beiden Helfershelfer zu dem Anschlage des Königs andeutet und zur Erklärung von Hamlet’s Handlungsweise wesentlich ist, steht nur in der Fol.; wahrscheinlich fügte Sh. sie erst später hinzu.” [These verses, which hint at the relation of both accomplices to the plot of the king and is essential to the clarification of Hamlet’s conduct, appear only in the Fol; probably Sh. added them first later.]

1872 Hudson

Hudson

3560-62 Ham. Why . . . growe] Hudson (1872, 2:292-4): <p. 292> “The sensitive rectitude which I have ascribed to Hamlet may seem inconsistent with his doings in the matter of the substituted commission. He does indeed discover no particular squeamishness of conscience in that matter. He knows, or at least fully believes, that Guildenstern and Rosencrantz are privy and consenting to the hideous machination against himself: </p. 292> <p. 293> [cites 3560-62]

“Nor can I see any good reason why his moral sense, even granting it to be as deep and delicate as I have supposed, should stick at thus letting such a diabolical scheme ‘fall on the inventors’ heads.”[3880] It is noticeable that Horatio, in the talk he has with Hamlet on that subject, v.2. seems to regret or deplore the fate of the King’s two agents in crime. He may well think it rather hard. And it is natural enough to suppose that Hamlet, on learning the horrid purpose of his voyage, may have been surprised out of his equanimity, and transported into an act of indiscriminate vengeance. But, in fact, the instant effect of the discovery is, to kindle all his powers of thought into the highest activity. It appears, indeed, that the two agents were not fully in the secret of their commission, else they would have turned back to Denmark, after the separation of Hamlet from them. But then, for aught Hamlet knows, they may have had others reasons for contiuing the voyage; they may have been charged with other messages to England. It is to be noted also, that, at the time, Hamlet was expecting to go to England with them; and it has been suggested that, had he done so, he would have arrested the effect of the substituted commission. But I prefer the view taken by Professor Werder:

“‘ As surely as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern deliver their letter, his head falls. That letter, then, they must not be allowed to deliver; the must deliver a different one. Do you say he could have spared them/ he could have written something that would endanger neither him nor them? But does he know or can he discover from them so that he may depend upon their word, how far they are cognizant of the purport of their errand? whether they are not charged with some oral message? What if they should contradict what he might write of a harmless character? What if the King of England, being in doubt, should send back to Denmark for further direction, detain all three, and then, </p. 293> <p. 294>as surely was to be expected, put Hamlet to death? No, there is no expedient possible, no evasion, no choice between thus and otherwise. He must sacrifice them, and even without allowing them time to confess,—must do this even. For, if only they are allowed time for confession, after they are seized and made sensible of their position, there is no foreseeing what turn things may take for him.’

“It may indeed be said that all this is but to the effect, that Hamlet deems himself justified in resolving, or at all events does resolve, to make sure work, whether the sufferers be or be not really deserving of the fate to which his action sends them. And to this it may be replied that, in those dark complications of crime, Hamlet has no time to weigh nicely the possibilities or likelihoods of innocence on the part of the King’s agents; and that he has a perfect right to use whatever fitting and effective means of self-defence the situation puts in his power. It is moreover quite certain that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are at least the willing tools of Claudius, caring nothing for the moral complexion of their service, so they may have the honour and profit of serving him. So that here, again, I may fitly quote Professor Werder:

“‘The baseness of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern is their ruin: they promenade, so to speak, in the sphere of a fate which involves damnation, without scenting or wishing to scent the sulphur. Where such a king bears rule, his servants are always exposed to the very worst that can befall; and at any moment their ruin may come through circumstances and causes from which nothing may seem more remote than the catastrophe. Whoever serves such a king, and, without any misgiving of his crime, serves him with ready zeal, upon him Hell has a claim; and, if that claim be made good, he has no right to complain.—These are things in which Shakespeare knows no jesting, because he is so great an expounder of the Law, the Divine Law; and he holds to it as no second poet has done.’” </p. 294>

1889 Tomlinson

Tomlinson: Schlegel (see n. 3549)

3560 Why . . . imployment] Tomlinson (1889, p. 7): “It is true that he expresses no great regret at the death of Rosencranz and Guildenstern, but, on the other hand, he expresses no pleasure.”

[Ed: BWK: I detect a bit of gloating there in his hyperbole of 3549. ]

1929 trav

trav

3560 Why . . . imployment] Travers (ed. 1929):”The line ((not in the quartos)) leaves little room for doubt as to the tone in which Horatio has spoken, that of a man whose mind was not quite made up yet as to the justice of ‘it.’ —This employment. But, it has been judicially asked, did they know what the ‘letters’ contained? Both in Saxo and in Belleforest, they do, quite well; nor has Sh. given us the slightest reason to doubt the readiness of the pair to undertake any ‘employment’ for ‘such thanks.’”

1934 Wilson

Wilson

3560 Wilson (1934, 2:245) indicates this line as omitted in the Q2.

1939 kit2

kit2

3560-65 Kittredge (ed. 1939): “Horatio has not meant to suggest that there was anything wrong in Hamlet’s counterplot. Indeed, he feels some satisfaction in the poetical justice that has overtaken the King’s agents. But Hamlet, who is less calm by nature, is sensitive on that point, and feels that he must justify himself to his friend, as he has already justified himself to his own conscience.”

1947 cln2

cln2

3560 make love to] Rylands (ed. 1947): “ask for it, as we say.”

1980 pen2

pen2

3560 Spencer (ed. 1980): “were willing and active collaborators in Claudius’s schemes against me.”

1982 ard2

ard2

3560 Jenkins (ed. 1982): “It does not appear from the text that they knew the nature of the commission they carried. But it is made abundantly clear that they were willing agents. Hamlet assumes them to be willing for the worst (([3.4.204-9])), and we are probably meant to assume it too and to accept the poetic justice of their end.”

1985 cam4

cam4 ≈

3560 Edwards (ed. 1985): “This line is found only in F. I argue in the Introduction that this, with a passage in Hamlet’s next speech, was part of a crucial Shakespearean revision. See pp. 14-19.”

3560 Edwards (ed. 1985, Introduction, 16): <p. 16> “The change in Hamlet’s relationship with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, now sent to their deaths on a sudden impulse, is surely reflected in a line which is found in the Folio but not in the second quarto, and which may therefore be an addition or an insertion into the original script. In reply to Horatio’s pensive words, ‘So Guildenstern and Rosencrantz go to’t’, Hamlet ((in the second quarto)) impatiently replies ‘They are not near by conscience’, as indeed he might have some justification in saying if they were accomplices of Claudius whom Hamlet had long decided must be got out of the way. But if they are no more than repulsive sneaks, royal toadies, who are unwitting agents in the king’s plot, their grim punishment is a more sensitive affair. ‘Why man, they did make love to this employment’, says Hamlet in the Folio, ‘They are not near my conscience.’ In view of other important lines in Hamlet’s communication to Horatio which are also found only in the Folio . . . it seems very likely that Shakespeare revised this passage. If so the new line, ‘Why man, they did make love to this employment’, etches in Hamlet’s awareness of the unspoken accusation in Horatio’s remark, and his wish to exculpate himself in the new moral context for the deaths of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.” </p. 16>

1987 oxf4

oxf4 ≈ cam4 w/o attribution

3560