Notes for lines 2951-end ed. Hardin A. Aasand
3610+17 {Hora. Ist not possible to vnderstand in another tongue, you will}
3610+18 {doo’t sir really.}
1765 Heath
Heath
3610+17-18 Ist . . .
really]
Heath (1765, p. 550) : <p. 550>“Ibid. [p.256] Is’t not possible to understand in another tongue ? I conceive we should read, ‘
It is not possible to understand in another tongue.’ That is, such language as this is the only one which communicates ideas to us. It is spoken ironically.” </p. 550>
3610+17-18 Ist . . .
really]
Heath (1765, p. 550) : <p. 550>
“Ibid. ‘You will do’t, Sir, rarely . ‘We should undoubtedly read,
You do’t, Sir, rarely . That is, You have exactly hit upon the humour of this language.” </p. 550>
1765 john1
john1
3610+17-18 Ist . . . really] Johnson (ed. 1765) : “ Of this interrogatory remark, the sense is very obscure. The question may mean, Might not all this be understood in plainer language. But then, you will do it, Sir, really, seems to have no use, for who could doubt but plain language would be intelligible? I would therefore read, Is’t possible not to be understood in a mother tongue. You will do it, Sir, really.”
1773 v1773
v1773 = john1
3610+17-18 Ist . . . really]
1773 jen
jen ≈ Heath
3610+17-18 Ist . . .
really]
Jennens (ed. 1773) : “
Heath proposes to read,
It is not possible , &c. ironically.”
jen : Heath ;
3610+17-18 you will doo’t sir really]
Jennens (ed. 1773) : “
T.[heobald] alters
really to
rarely; followed by
W.[arburton] and
C.[apell]
Heath says, We should undoubtedly read,
You do’t, sir, rarely; i.e. you have hit upon the humour of this language.
J. [ohnson] would read,
Is’t possible not to be understood in a mother tongue? You will do’t , sir, really.
“But perhaps this passage, without any alterations but such as regard pointing, may become more intelligible. It has been supposed all along, this this speech is directed to Hamlet: but let us suppose it directed to Osrick, and see what sense we can make of it then. Hamlet has been contending with Osrick in his own unintelligible stile, and has got the better of him; for Hamlet’s question, The concernancy, sir? &c. seems not to be understood by Osrick, who therefore demanding his meaning, says, Sir— Horatio, finding him pos’d, says, Is’t not possible to understand? In another tongue you will do’t, sir, really; i.e. Are you defeated at your own weapons? Can’t you understand your own kind of jargon?—If so, you had better speak in another tongue, make use of common sense without any flourishes, and you’ll not be in danger of being put out of countenance.”
1774 capn
capn
3610+17-18 you will doo’t sir really]Capell (17741:1:148) [from TLN 3612+3)“rarely,]] is in the third and last moderns [WARBURTON & THEOBALD]. “
1778 v1778
v1778 = v1773 + magenta underlined
3610+17-18 Ist . . . really] Steevens (ed. 1773) : “Suppose we were to point the passage thus: Is’t not possible to understand? In another tongue you will do it, sir, really.
“The speech seems to be addressed to Osrick, who is puzzled by Hamlet’s imitation of his own affected language. STEEVENS”
1785 v1785
v1785 = v1778
3610+17-18 Ist . . . really]
1787 ann
ann = v1785
3610+17-18 Ist . . . really]
1790 mal
mal = v1785
3610+17-18 Ist . . . really]
mal : theo ; john1
3610+17-18 you will doo’t sir really] Malone (ed. 1790) : “Theobald has silently substituted rarely for really . I think Horatio’s speech is addressed to Hamlet. Another tongue does not mean, as I conceive, plainer language , (as Dr. Johnson supposed,) but ‘language so fantastical and affected as to have the appearance of a foreign tongue :’ and in the following words Horatio, I think, means to praise Hamlet for imitating this kind of babble so happily. I suspect, however, that the poet wrote—Is’t possible not to understand in a mother tongue? MALONE”
3610+17-18 you will doo’t sir really]
Malone (ed. 1790, 10: Appendix, p. 686): <p. 686> “Since this note was written, I have found the very same errour in Bacon’s
Advancement of Learning, 4to. 1605. B.II. p. 60: ‘—the art of grammr, whereof the use in
another tongue is small, in a foreine tongue more.’ The author in his table of Errata says, it should have been printed—in
mother tongue.’ Malone” </p.686>
-1790 mWesley
mWesley
3610+17-18 Ist . . . really] Wesley (typescript of ms. notes in ed. 1785): “This [Steeven’s decision to address this to Osrick] seems best to me.”
1791- rann
rann
3610+17-18 you will doo’t sir really] Rann (ed. 1791-) : “Might not the purport of this errand be couched in plainer terms? You could do it, sir, I am confident, if you would try— in a mother tongue .”
1793 v1793
v1793 = mal
3610+17-18 Ist . . . really]
1803 v1803
v1803 = v1793
3610+17-18 Ist . . . really]
v1803 + v1793 + magenta underlined
3610+17 another tongue] Malone (apud Reed, ed. 1803) : “Since this note was written, I have found the very same error in Bacon’s Advancement of Learning , 4to. 1605, B.II. p. 60: ‘—the art of grammar, whereof the use in another tongue is small, in a foreine tongue more.’ The author in his table of Errata says, it should have been printed—in mother tongue.’ MALONE”
1805 Seymour
Seymour
3610+17-18 Ist . . .
really]
Seymour (1805, 2:202) : <p. 202>“I believe the meaning is this:—Is it not possible to discover the speaker’s drift in a language never heard before? I really think, sir, that you would do it, since you have so aptly answered the jargon of this fellow.” </p. 202>
1813 v1813
v1813 = v1803
3610+17-18 Ist . . . really]
1815 Becket
Becket =v1785 + magenta underlined
3610+17-18 you will doo’t sir really]
Becket (1815, p. 74) : <p. 74> “‘
Is’t not possible to understand,’ &c. The latter part of Horatio’s speech certainly belongs to Osrick. Hamlet puts a question in which, by the way, ‘wrap” should be “warp.’ ‘Why do we turn or twist the gentleman thus? Why thus be giving our opinions of him, and which after all, perhaps, are but crude?’ To this Osrick replies: ‘Sir?—You will do it, Sir, really.’ i.e. ‘It is wholly owing to yourself.’ B “ </p. 74>
1819 Jackson
Jackson : v1778 (STEEVENS only)
3610+17-18 you will doo’t sir really]
Jackson (1819, p. 362): <p. 362> “The punctuation recommended by Mr.
Steevens should be adopted: sense cannot be extracted out of the passage in its present state. The word
really is erroneous. We should read: ‘Is’t not possible to understand? In another tongue you will do it, sir,
readily.’
“The speech is evidently addressed to Osric, who, foiled by hamlet in affectyed phraseology, is recommended by Horatio to translate the words into another tongue, by which he ironically tells Osric, that he will readily understand Hamlet’s meaning.”</p. 362>
1819 cald1
cald1 : Seymour
3610+17-18 you will doo’t sir really] Caldecott (ed. 1819) : “Seeing the facility with which Hamlet caught and knack and gibberish of this affected phraseology, Horatio asks, ‘Is it not possible to understand even in another, a different tongue from one’s own; in a language also, as well as a dialect, not one’s own? He then instantly adds, answering his own question: since, as Mr.Seymour says, you have so aptly answered the jargon of this fellow, I really think, you will do’t, you will effect it: you will be, or are, possessed of this talent or faculty. I cease to wonder or make question of the possibility. I see you really have done it.”
1821 v1821
v1821 = v1813
3610+17-18 Ist . . . really]
1826 sing1
v1821 : mal
3610+17-18 Ist . . . really] Singer (ed. 1826) : “This interrogatory remark is very obscure. The sense may be, ‘Is it not possible for this fantastic fellow to understand in plainer language? You will, however, imitate his jargon admirably, really, sir.’ It seems very probable that ‘another tongue’ is an error of the press for ‘mother tongue.’
3610
1832 cald2
cald2= cald1
3610+17-18 you will doo’t sir really]
1843 col1
col1 : v1803
3610+17 another tongue] Collier (ed. 1843) : “Malone suspected that we ought to read ‘in a mother tongue,’ but no change seems necessary: Horatio is adverting to the sort of affected language used by Osrick and retorted by Hamlet, and asks if it be not possible that they should understand each other in another tongue. For ‘You will do’t really,’ the quarto, 1604, has, ‘You will to ‘t really.’ Perhaps we ought to read rarely for ‘really.’”
1844 verp
verp : Sir Walter Scott
3610+17 another tongue]
Verplanck (ed. 1844): “Walter Scott has made the reader familar with the ‘euphemisms’ or finical phraseology of Elizabeth’s court, here ridiculed by Osric, and retorted in a caricatured extravagance by Hamlet, until Horatio impatiently asks if it is not possible to understand in another tongue; i.e. that of common use.”
1854 del2
del2
3610+17-18 you will doo’t sir really] Delius (ed. 1854) : “Horatio, dieser Floskeln satt, fragt: Ist es nicht möglich, sich in aderer Redeweise zu verstehen (d.h. als in so affectirter Sprache)? und fügt dann, zu Osrick gewendet, hinzu: Gewiss, Ihr werdet es schon (d.h.in anderer Sprache Euch verstehen).” [ “Horatio, instead of this empty phrase, asks: is it not possible to understand in another speaking fashion (that is, except in so affected a speech)? and [He] adds then, turning to Osrick: Certainly, you will [do]it already (that is to understand in another speech yourself).” ]
1856 hud1 (1851-6)
hud1
3610+17 another tongue] Hudson (ed. 1856): “Malone suspected this should be ‘in a mother tongue.’ Horatio means to imply, that what with Osrick’s euphuism, and what with Hamlet’s catching of Osrick’s style, they are not speaking in a tongue that can be understood; and he hints that they try another tongue, that is, the common one. H”
1856 sing2
sing2 = sing1
3610+17-18 Ist . . . really]
1857 elze1
elze1 : theo ; warb
3610+17 in another tongue]
Elze (ed. 1857, 255): <p. 255>"Wir müssen noch jetzt Johnson’s Bemerkung beipflichten, dass diese Stelle sehr dunkel ((und wahrscheinlich verderbt)) ist. Johnson vermuthet: Is’t possible not to be understood in a mother tongue? &c. Theobald hat ’rarely’ für ’really’ geschrieben, welcher Conjectur auch Collier beizustimmen geneigt ist. QB liest: You will to’t , sir, really. Dast best Auskunftsmittel scheint der Verbesserungsvorschlag Malone’s zu sein: Is’t possible not to understand in another tongue? &c. Horatio würde damit den Osrick verspotten ((die Frage ist nicht wie Malone will an Hamlet gerichtet)): ’ist es möglich, dass du Jemanden, der in deiner Muttersprache redet ((d.h. nicht bloss englisch, sondern in der dir eigenthümlichen Modesprache)) nicht verstehst? Du wirst das in der That fertig bringen.’ Das giebt einen untadeligen Zusammenhang: Hamlet überbietet Osricks Euphuismus in solcher Weise, dass dieser ihn nicht zu fassen vermag und kleinlaut wird, worauf Hoatio den hohlen Burschen mag und kleinlaut wird, worauf Horatio den hohlen Burschen obenein verhöhnt, dass er nicht einmal seine Muttersprache verstehe." [We must agree even now with
Johnson’s remark that this passage is very obscure ((and truly corrupt)). Johnson changes: ’Is’t possible not to be understood in a mother tongue? &c.’
Theobald has written ’rarely’ for ’really,’ which conjecture even Collier is inclined to concur with. Q2 reads ’You will to’t, sir, really.’ The best informed inquiry seems to be Malone’s offered improvement: ’Is’t possible not to understand in another tongue?&c’ Horatio could be thus deriding Osrick ((the question is not as Malone directs it to Hamlet)) ’is it possible that you of anybody, who speaks in your mother language ((that is, not mere English, on the contrary, in the proper manner of speech)) don’t understand? You will manage that indeed.’ That gives an unreproachable consistency: ’Hamlet surpasses Osrick’s euphuism in such a fashion that this one is unable to understand him and becomes subdued, for which Horatio taunts the aforementioned youth, that he doesn’t understand not even his mother tongue.]
1859 stau
stau
3610+17 in another tongue] Staunton (ed. 1859) : “Should we not read with Johnson, ‘in a mother tongue?’ or, ‘in’s mother tongue?’”
1860 Walker
Walker : v1821
3610+17 in another tongue]
Walker (1860, 3:273) : <p. 273> “Surely, with the critic in Var. [Johnson], ‘
a mother tongue;’ see Bacon there quoted.” </p. 273>
Walker : v1821
3610+18 really]
Walker (1860, 3:273) :<p. 273> “
‘Rarely’ (Theobald), of course.” </p. 273>
1864-68 c&mc
c&mc
3610+17-3610+18 Clarke & Clarke (ed. 1864-68, rpt. 1874-78): “This speech has been variously altered by various emendators; but its meaning appears to us to be, ‘Is it not possible to make us comprehend in other and simpler language? You will be able to do it sir, assuredly.’ The speech admits of yet another interpretation: ‘Is’t not possible to understand in another and more fantastic language than ordinary parlance? You will be at no loss to do so, sir, assuredly.’ The speaker is joining Hamlet in bantering Osric; and the poor gentleman-dealer in fine diction being utterly non-plussed by the torrent of sentences in mockering of his own style which the prince pours upon him, is exquisitely comic in effect.”
1866 dyce2
dyce2 : Walker
3610+17 in another tongue] Walker (apud Dyce, ed. 1866) : “Surely, with the critic in Var. [Johnson], ‘a mother tongue.’ Walker’s Critic. Exam. &c. vol. iii. p. 273.”
dyce2 : Walker
3610+18 really] Walker (apud Dyce, ed. 1866) : “‘Rarely’ (Theobald), of course. Walker’s Crit. Exam. &c. vol. iii. p. 273.”
1867 Ktly
Ktly
3610+18 really]
Keightley (1867, p. 297) : <p. 297> “I incline to read
readily.” </p. 297>
[Ed:In his edition, he reads really.]
1869 tsch
tsch: john1 : v1821 (Malone)
3610+17 another] Tschischwitz (ed. 1869): “Hor. meint: ist es nicht möglich seine eigne Muttersprache zu verstehn? da O. in diesem Jargon geboren und erzogen ist. Tie Lesart in another tongue führt zu sehr matten Auslegungen. Auf die von mir angenommene Lesart führt schon Malone, der denselben Druckfehler in einer Quartausgabe von Bacon’s Advancement of Learning (1605) p. 60 nachweist, wo es heisst: the art of gramar whereof the use in another tongue is small, in a foreigne tongue more’ etc. Bacon giebt dann selbst im Druckfehler-Verzeichniss an, dass a mother für another zu lesen sei.” [Horatio means: isn’t it possible to understand in your own mother language? if O[[sric]] was born and represented in this jargon. The reading in another tongue leads to very weak commentary. Malone already suggested my assumed reading, who detected the very same misprint in a quarto of Bacon’s Advancement of Learning, where it reads: the art of gramar whereof the use in another tongue is small, in a foreigne tongue more’ etc Bacon then offers himself in the errata list that a mother should be read for another.]
1872 del4
del4 = del2
3610+17-18 you will doo’t sir really]
1872 cln1
cln1 : john1 ; mal
3610+17 another tongue] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “but it may simply mean ‘other than this affected language.’”
cln1
3610+18 doo’t]Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “The quarto of 1604 [Q2 uncorr] has ‘too’t.’”
1872 hud2
hud2
3610+17 another tongue] Hudson (ed. 1872): “Horatio means to imply that what with Osric’s euphuism, and what with Hamlet’s catching of Osric’s style, they are not speaking in a tongue that can be understood; and he hints that they try another tongue, that is, the common one.”
1873 rug2
rug2
3610+17-+18 Hora. Ist . . . really] Moberly (ed. 1873): “ No alteration seems needed; the meaning may be ‘Can’t you understand your own absurd language on another’s tongue? Use your wits, sir, and you’ll soon be at the bottom of it.’”
1877 col4
col4 : col1
3610+17 another tongue] Collier (ed. 1877) : “We might, as Malone suggested,read ‘mother tongue’ for ‘another tongue,’ and really of the old copies ought most probably to be rarely, as we have printed it.”
1877 v1877
v1877 ≈ john1 ; Heath ; jen (only “This speech is addressed to Osrick . . . countenance”) ; v1821 (Malone’s note) ; ≈ Walker ; tsch ; hud1 (from “Horatio means . . . comon one”) ;≈ moberly
3610+17-+18 Hora. Ist . . .
really]
Furness (ed. 1877): “
Tschischwitz adopted it [
Johnson’s reading of “mother tongue”].”
3610+17-+18 Hora. Ist . . .
really]
Moberly (
apud Furness, ed. 1877): “‘Can’t you understand your own absurd language on another’s tongue? Use your wits, sir, and you’ll soon be at the bottom of it.’”
v1877 : Heath ; Heussi
3610+17-+18 Hora. Ist . . .
really]
Heath (
apud Furness, ed. 1877): “Undoubtedly read, ‘You do’t, sir, rarely.’
i.e. You have exactly hit upon the humour of this language.”
3610+17-+18 Hora. Ist . . .
really]
Heussi (
apud Furness, ed. 1877): “This is undoubtedly addressed to Osr. To Ham. he would not have used ‘sir,’ but ‘my lord.’”
1881 HUD3
hud3 = hud2
3610+17 another tongue]
1883 Kinnear
Kinnear : Jackson
3610+18 another tongue,
really]
Kinnear (1883, p. 411): <p. 411>“The old eds. have ‘
really’’—a word not found else where in Shakespeare;
‘readily’ occurs (
Lucrece, 1152), ‘tread the way out
readily.’ [2
H6 5.2.89 (3007)], ‘may
readily be stopp’d.’ All the compared eds retain ‘
really.’ Compare
[
2H4 1.1.84 (1431)]—’See what
a ready tongue suspicion hath!’ ‘
in another tongue’=in another
dialect. Compare [
Lr. 2.2.105-10 (1180-5)]—’
Kent. Sir, in good sooth [sic], in sincere verity, Under th’ allowance of your great aspect, Whose influence, like the wreath of radiant fire On flickering Phœbus’ front,—
Cor. What mean’st by this?
Kent.
To go out of my dialect, which you discommend so much.’ ‘
readily’ is the correction of Jackson.” </p. 411>
1885 Leo
Leo
3610+18 another tongue,
really]
Leo (1885,p. 108): <p. 108> “‘What does your speech concern? What is the matter with the gentleman? (Why do we wrap him in our breath, that, though only air, is rawer than himself—why do we speak of him?’’) and Horatio, who does not relish this eccentric sort of speech, asks in his matter-of-fact way: ‘Can’t you speak like other reasonable people?’” </p. 108>
Leo
3610+18 doo’t] Leo (1885, pp. 107-08): “too’t]] Thus the second Quarto [Q2(u)]. The following Quartos have doo’t instead of too’t.”
1885 macd
macd
3610+16 MacDonald (ed. 1885): “The Courtier is now thoroughly bewildered.”
macd
3610+17 MacDonald (ed. 1885): “‘Can you only speak in another tongue? Is it not possible to understand in it as well?’”
macd
3610+17-3610+18 you . . . really] MacDonald (ed. 1885): “‘It is your own fault: you will court your fate! you will go and be made a fool of!’”
1885 mull
mull
3610+17-3610+18 mull (ed. 1885): “‘Can you not understand your own inflated style when spoken by another?’”
mull ≈ macd
3610+17-3610+18 you . . . really]
1889 Barnett
Barnett
3610+17-+18 Hora. Ist . . .
really]
Barnett (1889, p. 63): <p. 63>“Is it not possible to understand my inflated language?” </p. 63>
1899 ard1
ard1 ≈ v1877 (john1 ; jen ; mal ; moberly) w/o attribution
3610+17-+18 Hora. Ist . . . really]
ard1 : v1877 (Heath) w/o attribution
3610+18 really] Dowden (ed. 1899): “The words are an ironical encouragement to Osric to talk like a rational human being—Believe me you will succeed.”
1900 ev1
ev1≈standard
3610+17 in another tongue] Herford (ed. 1900): "Osric’s own jargon is ’another tongue’ to him when touched to new issues by Hamlet. Yet Hamlet is but mimicking him. Osric can understand if he tries: ’You will do’t, sir, really.’"
1925 Kellner
Kellner
3610+17 in another tongue]
Kellner (1925, p. 66): <p. 66> “Read,
‘one another’s tongue.’” </p. 66>
[Ed: This is an example of Kellner’s belief that “i” is mistaken for an “o” so that in should be read as on.]
1931 crg1
crg1 ≈ standard
3610+17-+18 you . . . really]
crg1 ≈ standard
3610+19 nomination]
1934 Wilson
Wilson
3610+18 doo’t] Wilson (1934, 1:123) lists the uncorrected too’t of the Devonshire, Elizabethan Club of New York, and Folger copies of Q2 compared with the corrected doo’t in the British Library, Capell copy in Trinity College, and Grimston of the Bodleian Library copy of the Q2 as an example of a corrector interceding between Shakespeare and the Q2.
3610+18 doo’t] Wilson (1934, 1:131) sees this reading as a miscorrection of a misunderstanding of Shakespeare’s meaning.
3610+18 doo’t]
Wilson (1934, 2:294): <p. 294>“Once again the editors [of CAM1] have almost without exception followed the miscorrection.1 The difference of meaning is slight, though the original ‘too’t is the more vivid; cf. 2.2.449-50 ‘We’ll e’en to’t like the French falconers’. ‘You’ll get there in time’ says Horatio to Osric.” </294>
<n> <p. 294>“1Vide vol. 1, pp. 123, 126.” </p. 294>
1934 cam3
cam3
3610+17 in another tongue] Wilson (ed. 1934): “i.e. in more reasonable language.”
cam3
3610+17-+18 you . . . really] Wilson (ed. 1934): “You will be able to tackle it if you try; cf. ‘e’en to’t,’ 2.2.434.”
1939 kit2
kit2 ≈ standard
3610+17-+18 Hora. Ist . . . really]
kit2
3610+19 nomination] Kittredge (ed. 1939): “naming, mention.”
3610+19 nomination] Kittredge (ed. 1939, Glossary): “naming.”
1938 parc
parc
3610+17-3610+18 will doo’t] Parrott (ed. 1938): “too’t]] will get there.”
1942 n&h
n&h ≈ standard
3610+17 in another tongue
1947 cln2
cln2 ≈ standard
3610+17 in another tongue
cln2 ≈ standard
3610+17-+18 you . . . really]
1951 crg2
crg2 = glo
3610+17-+18 you . . . really]
crg2 = glo
3610+19 nomination]
1957 pel1
pel1 : standard
3610+19 nomination]
pel1:
3610+18 doo’t] Farnham (ed. 1957): to’t] "get to an understanding
1970 pel2
pel2=pel1
3610+19 nomination]
1974 evns1
evns1 ≈ standard
3610+17 in another tongue
evns1 ≈ standard
3610+17-+18 you . . . really]
evns1 ≈ standard
3610+19 nomination]
1980 pen2
pen2
3610+19 imports the nomination] Spencer (ed. 1980): “is your purpose in naming.”
pen2 ≈ standard
3610+15 more rawer breath]
pen2 ≈ standard
3610+17-+18 you . . . really]
1982 ard2
ard2 ≈ standard
3610+19 imports the nomination]
ard2
3610+17-+18 you . . . really] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “Apparently a call for a different ((simpler)) language, provoked by Osric’s failure to understand and addressed, I assume, to Hamlet. You will to’t, you will apply yourself to it, have a good go at it; really, assuredly. LN”
3610+17-+18 Jenkins (ed. 1982, Longer Notes, 559-60): <p. 559>“There has been much confusion about this speech, both as to what it means and to whom it is said. I agree with the minority who address it to Hamlet; for while it is true that Horatio always otherwise calls Hamlet
my lord, not
sir, it is at least as much to the point that he does not otherwise address Osric at all. This mocking comment is of a piece with his two other interjections in this dialogue, [3610+21], [3622+1], both <p. 559> <p. 560> directed to Hamlet.
In another tongue can only mean in a language different from the one you are using. The frequent interpretation of this phrase as referring to Osric’s inability to understand his own language on someone else’s tongue forces it to fit the context but seems to me quite beyond what the words will bear. Horatio is merely suggesting that they would all understand better if things were said more simply.
You will to’t, to judge from the ‘correction’, proved as baffling to the printing-house reader as it has been to editors since. Yet it is of course thoroughly idiomatic. Cf. [2.2.425, 5.1.54]; [
Rom. 3.1.169;
TGV 2.7.89]; etc. Its occasional obscurity arises through the indefiniteness of the pronoun, and to a lesser degree the preposition also.
To, implying motion towards, stands for
go to, come to, get to, etc., and often
give oneself to ((an activity)), as in the instances cited; but
it, unlimited by any specific antecedent, may refer to something, precise or imprecise, which only the context or situation can make clear. What the present context shows to be in mind is the practise of an esoteric manner of speech. Hnece
You will to’s is a compliment to Hamlet on his promise and assiduity in it: ‘You will get the trick of it’, or perhaps, in the modern colloquialism, ‘You will be into it’. Alternatively, if
You will to’t is taken to refer not to Osric’s but to
another tongue, it might carry a prophecy that there is what Hamlet will come to in the end ((and one could compare [3622+1], implying ‘I told you so’)). But I think that less idiomatic.
“All this is to interpret the passage as it first appeared in Q2. But many, beginning with the Q2 press-corrector, have thought emendation called for. The emendation a mother tongue, first suggested by Johnson, is attractive. This would allow Horatio to comment, when Osric fails to grasp Hamlet’s meaning, ‘Can the man not understand in what after all is his own language?’; and with the reference being thus to Osric’s tongue, would neatly lead on to the compliment on Hamlet’s use of it.”</p. 560>
1985 cam4
cam4 ≈ standard
3610+19 imports the nomination]
cam4
3610+17-+18 you . . . really] Edwards (ed. 1985): “Paradoxically, Horatio’s interjection is more obscure than the ridiculous colloquy which he interrupts. Some think he asks Osric if he can’t understand his own jargon when another person speaks it. Perhaps it is an appeal to start again a simpler language. ‘You will to’t’ may mean ((to Osrick)) ‘You will get there eventually.’”
1987 oxf4
oxf4 = john1+
3610+17-+18 you . . .
really]
Hibbard (ed. 1987, Appendix A, p. 368): <p. 368>“you will be reduced to it ((plainer language)), I assure you.” </p. 368>
1988 bev2
bev2: standard (cam4) +
3610+17-+18 you . . . really] Bevington (ed. 1988): “Alternatively, all this could be said to Hamlet.”
3610+17-+18 you . . . really] Bevington (ed. 1988): “you can if you try.”
1993 dent
dent ≈ standard
3610+19 imports the nomination]
1992 fol2
fol2
3610+17 possible] Mowat & Werstine (ed. 1992): “i.e. possible for Osric.”
3610+16 3610+17 3610+18
