3630-2 in a dozen passes . . . nine] Johnson (ed. 1765) : “ This wager I do not understand. In a dozen passes one must exceed the other more or less than three hits. Nor can I comprehend, how, in a dozen, there can be twelve to nine. The passage is of no importance; it is sufficient that there was a wager. The quarto has the passage as it stands. The folio, He hath one twelue for mine. “

3630-2 in a dozen passes . . . nine]

3630-2 in a dozen passes . . . nine] Malone (apud Steevens, ed. 1778) : “ This passage compared with two others in which this wager is again mentioned, is certainly obscure; yet with a slight correction already made by Sir T. Hanmer in the last of them, the three passages may, I think, be reconciled. By a dozen passes between yourself and him , I understand a dozen passes for each. The meaning then is— ‘The king hath laid, that in a dozen passes apiece between you and Laertes, he shall not have the advantage of you by three hits. He (viz. the king) hath laid on the terms of Laertes making twelve hits for nine which you shall make.’—Or perhaps the last he means Laertes, and then it will run.— ‘He (viz. Laertes) hath laid on terms of making twelue hits for nine which you shall make.’ This just exceeds Hamlet’s number by three,—If therefore Laertes in his 12 passes should make 12 hits, and Hamlet in his 12 but 9, the king would lose.—If on the other hand, Laertes should make but 11 hits, and Hamlet 9, or Laertes 12 and Hamlet 10, his majesty would win.—The other two passes in which this bett is mentioned, shall be considered in their proper places. MALONE”

3630-2 in a dozen passes . . . nine] Malone (1780, I:363, n. 5) : “ Add to my note [n.5].] Passes are, I think, used for bouts . So Hamlet afterwards: ‘I’ll play this bout first.’ MALONE”

3630-2 in a dozen passes . . . nine] Ritson (1783, p. 211-3) : <p. 211>“This wager dr. Johnson candidly professes hisself unable to understand. In a dozen passes, he says, one must exceed the other more or less than three hits: nor can he comprehend how, in a dozen, there can be twelve to nine. Mr. Malone, however, with the assistance of a ‘slight correction already made by sir T. Hanmer,’ thinks he has reconciled all difficulties. By a dozen passes between yourself and him, he understands a dozen passes for each. The meaning then, says he, is—’The king hath laid, that in a dozen passes a-piece between you and Laertes, he shall not have the advantage of you by three hits. He (viz. the king) hath laid on the terms of Laertes making twelve hits for nine which you shall make.’—Or perhaps, he adds, the last he means Laertes, and then it will run—’He (viz. Laertes) hath laid on terms of making twelve hits for nine which you shall make.’ This, continues the ingenious critic, just exceeds Hamlets number by three. If therefor, says he, Laertes in his 12 passes should make 12 hits, and Hamlet in his 12 but 9, the king would lose.—If on the other hand, Laertes should make but 11 hits, and Hamlet 9, or Laertes 12 and Hamlet 10, his majesty would win. </p.211>

<p. 212>“Mr. Malone has evidently bestowed great pains in the above nice and accurate calculation. And great is his praise as an ingenious commentator, and a dexterous arithmetician. It must, therefor, be with no small diffidence after so laboriou and methematical a discussion of this intricate subject, which he has, doubtless, most satisfactoryly expounded, and, in the stile of his good old school-master, the venerable mr. Cocker, made plain to the meanest capacity, that any anonymous scribbler should venture to question the radix of his figurative system: and if that should unfortunately cause a demolition of the whole fabric, alas the day!

“That a dozen passes a-piece were NOT intended, does evidently appear from the ensuing scene, in which the king, previously to the encounter, declares, that, ‘If Hamlet give the first or second hit, Or quit in answer of the third exchange,’ he will then drink his health. It is clear from this, that Laertes might get these three hits. But, in case either party (no matter which) were to be the sole assailant for the first twelve passes, and the other stand altogether on the defensive, as the ingenious commentators own idea allows one to suppose, the kings proposal would be ridiculous and absurd; for, if Hamlet plays his bouts first, Laertes could not have a single chance out of 12 passes, or, at least, 9: and, on the contrary, if Laertes took the lead, there would be no possibility of Hamlets getting a single hit. The ingenious critic takes it for granted that passes might be made without a hit on either side; a conjecture for which there is not the slightest gorund in the play: each pass (or number of passes) seems to have been made for the purpose of getting the hit, and did not end till the hit was given. But let us </p.212><p.213>see how the parties behave in the trial scene. ‘Here they play,’ each endeavouring, we find, to hit the other. Hamlet gets the first and second hits, and calls on his antagonist for the third bout; praying him to pass with his best violence: they play again: Laertes wounds Hamlet: they become incensed, change rapiers, and Hamlet wounds Laertes. There does not seem the least foundation for the ingenious hypothesis and calculation in the note; the whole structure must, therefor, inevitably fall to the ground. Had they played with coolness, and suppposign their skill equal, the odds were (and so we are to understand Osrick) 12 to 9 in favour of Hamlet; for Laertes, to win, must have got 8 hits at the least; whereas Hamlet would have won if he had onely got 5; so that he had clearly the advantage of Laertes, in point of number, three whole passes or hits, and the odds were 8 to 5, which is in the same arithmetical proportion as 12 to 9, in Hamlets favour, before they begun to play. This is Shakspeares meaning, and renders the text clear and consistent throughout. And it onely remains to be considered whether dr.Johnson or mr. Malone has understood the passage best?” </p. 213>

3630-2 in a dozen passes . . . nine]

3630-2 in a dozen passes . . . nine]

3630-2 in a dozen passes . . . nine] Anon. [T.H.W.] (1787, p. 479-80):<p. 479>“Laertes, being the most expert fencer, was to give Hamlet nine hits out of twelue passes. Johnson’s note seem more difficult to be understood than the passage itself. But this learned annota- </p. 479> <p.480> tor, employed in unraveling such trivial entanglements, is Hercules spinning: Et manu, clavam modò quâ gerebat, Fila deduxit. T.H.W.” </p.480> [“And with his power, in a style of carrying a club , he unravels the threads,” my poor translation]

[Ed:Is this Holt White, who had earlier notes in Gents ?]

3630-2 in a dozen passes . . . nine] Malone (ed. 1790) : “The meaning, I think, is , The king hath laid that in a game of a dozen passes , or in other words, in a trial of skill with foils, which is to be within , or at the utmost, not to go beyond , a dozen passes or bouts, Laertes does not exceed you three hits; the king hath laid on the principle of him who makes a bet, with the chance of gaining twelue , for nine that he may lose: or, in the language of gamesters, the king (by the advantage allowed to the prince,) hath odds , tantamount to four to three.

“So, in The Tempest , ‘—each putter out, on three for one ,’ means, each player out of money on the terms of gaining three pounds, &c. if he returns from his travels, for one that that he hath staked, and will lose, if he does not return.

“If the words, ‘he hath lay’d , &c. relate to Laertes , they must mean, I think that ‘Laertes hath laid on the principle of one who undertakes to make twelue passes for nine , that his adversary shall make; on the ratio of twelve to nine.

“ Dr. Johnson objects very plausibly to this wager, that in a dozen passes one must exceed the other more or less than three hits: nor can there, says he, in a dozen passes be twelue to nine . If my interpretation of the words— he hath laid on twelue for nine , be right, the latter objection is done away: for these words relate to the nature or principle of the bet , and not to the number of passes actually to be made.

“Let us then consider the other objection.— In a dozen passes or bouts, if they are play’d out , one must certainly exceed the other more or less than three hits; for the victor must either gain eight to four, or seven to five. But Shakspeare by the words— in a dozen passes, meant , I believe,— within a dozen passes, or in a game that at the utmost may be extended to a dozen passes . In such a game it might be ascertained that Laertes could not exceed Hamlet by three hits, without the twelve passes being made: for if Hamlet obtained the first five hits, the king would win his wager, and it would be useless to play out the remaining passes, inasmuch as Laertes could not, in that case, exceed five, and Hamlet in the second five,—the game would be at an end, and Hamlet be victorious; for the remaining hits could avail Laertes nothing: and so in other cases that might be put.

“A case, however, it must be acknowledged, might arise, in which it might be necessary to play out the whole twelve passes. Thus, if Hamlet had made four hits, and Laertes, seven, Hamlet would have a right to insist on the twelfth bout being played, because if he was successful in that, his antagonist would be defeated, and lose his wager.

“Shakespeare probably did not advert to the circumstance, that if the whole twelve passes were made, one must exceed the other by more or less than three hits, because it is obvious that the wager might be determined without twelve passes being made.

“Three hits, was, I suppose, the usual number by which superior skill in the use of the sword was ascertained in Shakspeare’s time. In Master Slender’s engagement with a master of defence, the victor on making three uenies , i.e. hits, more than his antagonist, was to have a dish of stew’d prunes. How many bouts or passes were allowed, is not mentioned; but probably the game generally was limited, and not permitted to exceed twelve passes.—The passage alluded to, has been misunderstood. See the note on it in Vol. X. in the APPENDIX. MALONE”

3630-2 in a dozen passes . . . nine] Wesley (typescript of ms. notes in ed. 1785): “I cannot reconcile ‘he shall not exceed you three hits’ with ‘he hath lay’d on 12 for 9’; which latter may perhaps mean, he (the king) hath wagered that if he hit you 9 times, you shall hit him 12. I would read ‘he hath lay’d that in a dozen passages you shall exceed him 3 hits; he hath lay’d on 12 for 9’. This seems to put the matter right. I do not agree with Johnson that ‘the passage is of no importance’.”

3630-2 in a dozen passes . . . nine] Rann (ed. 1791-): “bouts—Laertes was to give Hamlet nine hits out of twelue passes.”

3630-2 in a dozen passes . . . nine] Steevens (ed. 1793) : “As three of four complete pages would scarcely hold the remarks already printed, together with those which have lately been communicated to me in MSS. on this very unimportant passage, I shall avoid both partiality and tediousness, by the omission of them all.—I therefore leave the conditions of this wager to be adjusted by the members of Brookes’s, or the Jockey-Club at Newmarket, who on such subjects may prove the most enlightened commentators, and must successfully bestir themselves in the cold unpoetick dabble of calculation. STEEVENS.”

3630-2 in a dozen passes . . . nine]

3630-2 in a dozen passes . . . nine] Seymour (1805, 1:203) : <p. 203> “Dr. Johnson says, he does not understand this wager; and Mr. Steevens chooses to consign the terms of it to the acuteness and sagacity of the Jockey Club: but surely there is no necessity for intruding on the serious and important avocations of those gentlemen in the present case.

“‘The king hath laid, that in a dozen passes between yourself and Laertes, he shall not exceed you three hits; he shall not hit you three times oftener than you will hit him; if in the dozen passes Hamlet shall be hit seven times, and Laertes only three, the king will lose the wager.’”

3630-2 in a dozen passes . . . nine]

3630-2 in a dozen passes . . . nine] Jackson (1819, pp. 362-3) : <p. 362>“There is but one mode of explaining this enigmatical wager, and which our Author, in one of his waggish moments, seems to have designed as a puzzle, by making Osric change his affected phraseology for that of the Clown, who, in the first scene of this Act, in answer to Hamlet’s question, says,—’he will last you some eight year, or nine year: a tanner will last you nine year.’ To perfectly understand my meaning, explunge the pronoun you, in which the quibble lies, and the sense is obvious:—The King, sir, hath lay’d, that in a dozen passes between yourself and him, he shall not exceed three hits.

“Now the wager is this:—There are to be a dozen passes: the King lays, that Laertes shall not, in the dozen, exceed three hits: the other nine, Hamlet’s skill shall either parry, or he shall hit Lertes: thus, the odds is materially against the King; for if Laertes gains four hits, the King loses, though Hamlet proves the better swordsman. He hath laid on twelue for nine, is but a </p. 362> <p. 363> repetition of the principle on which the wager is founded, and was, I suppose, a phrase sufficiently familiar, in Shakespeare’s time, to all fencers: its simply meaning is—that, on twelue passes, Laertes shall miss nine: thus, should he gain but three hits, the King must win the wager.” </p. 363>

3630-2 in a dozen passes . . . nine]

3630-2 in a dozen passes . . . nine] Delius (ed. 1854) : “scil. a wager.” [“scil. a wager.”]

3630-2 in a dozen passes . . . nine] Hunter (ms. notes, -1855) : <p. 230> “[HUNTER has crossed out the following line] Much has been written & to very little purpose of this passage. At the risque of being called a very rash commentator, I [illeg] my opinion that this is one of the many gross faults of typography from which this play has suffered since the hour of its birth. For he hath laid on twelve for nine , read he hath laid on your side —[word unclear?] him, Hamlet is not told that the King had laid his wager on his head: it is the reading of the original quarto, the recovery of which might itself reduce the searches after old pamphlets.--[3 words illeg] which the shallower critics & those who are no critics at all endeavour to pour upon them. See the whole sentence Ham. And how’s the wager? I understnd you no Gent. Marry, Sir, that young Laertes in twelve venies At Raperier and Dagger do not get three odds of you, And on your side the King hath laid And desires you to be in readiness. “</p. 230>

3630-2 in a dozen passes . . . nine] Elze (ed. 1857, 256-7): <p. 256>"Johnson bekennt, dass er die Bedingungen dieser Wette nicht versteht, und Steevens will die Aufklärung derselben den Mitgliedern des Jockey-Club überlassen.—Wir denken uns die Sache so. Zwölf Gänge sollen gemacht werden, und Hamlet soll drei voraushaben; das liegt in den allerdings dunkeln Worten: he hath laid on twelve for nine. Hamlet darf also in den zwölf Gängen höchstens sieben Mal getroffen werden; wird er zum achten Male getroffen, so hat er verloren. Laertes dagegen darf nur viermal getroffen werden; wird er zum fünften Male getroffen, so hat er die Wette verloren. Dass nicht Laertes den Hamlet zwölf, und dieser jenen neun Mal treffen soll, wie Johnson meint, geht aus der Zahl der Gänge hervor, denn eine solche Wette könnte möglicher Weise erst durch den zwanzigsten Gang entschieden wwerden. Der Vortheil ((the odds, d.h. the difference inf avor of one and against another)) liegt somit auf Hamlets Seite, der es auch gegen Horatio ausspricht, dass er bei den ihm gewährten günstigern Bedingungen gewinnen werde—I shall win at the odds. Der König wettet, das Hamlet gewinnen werde, in welchem Falle Laertes die sechs französischen Prachtdegen zu geben hat, wogegen im andern Falle, wenn Hamlet verliert, der König die sechs Berberrosse zahlen muss. So weit scheint die Sache ganz klar, und es kommt nur noch darauf an, die Worte Hamlets in §. 232: Your grace hath laid the odds o’the weaker side, damit zu vereinigen. M. Mason, Malone uind Ritson fassen ’odds’ hier in der Bedeutung des werthvolleren und unverhältnissmässigen Einsatzes. Sir T. Hanmer liest: Your Grace hath laid upon the weaker side. Beides scheint unnöthig, indem aus B. Jonson Volpone IV, 1; If i had but one to wager with, I would lay odds now, he tells me instantly, klar hervorgeht, dass ’to lay odds’ nicht mehr und nicht weniger als ’wetten’ bedeutet. Der Sinn ist also folgender: Euer Gnaden hat auf die schwächere Seite ((nämlich Hamlet)) gewettet, woruf der König erwidert: Das fürchte ich nicht; ich habe euch beide gesehen; da er sich aber verbessert </p. 256> <p. 257>hat, haben wir auf unserer Seite günstigere Bedingungen, nämlich drei voraus."</p. 257> [Johnson confesses that he cannot understand the conditions of this bet, and Steevens wants to leave the explanation to the same members of the Jockey Club.—We think the matter so: 12 passes will be made, and Hamlet shall have three in advance; this lies in the obscure words, to be sure: ’he hath laid on twelve for nine." Hamlet dares in the 12 passes to be struck the highest 7 times; if he is struck for an 8th time, he has lost. Laertes, in comparison, will be struck only 4 times; if he is struck for a fifth time, he loses the bet. That Laertes shall not strike Hamlet twelve times and Hamlet strike Laertes 9 times, as Johnson means, comes from the number of the passes, if such a bet could be determined possible first through the 12th pass. The advantage ((the odds, i.e. the difference in favor of one and against another)) therefore lies on Hamlet’s side, who expresses it even against Horatio, that he will win against him on easily guaranteed terms—I shall win at the odds. The King bets that Hamlet will win, in which case Laertes has to give the 6 French magnificent swords, against which in the other case, if Hamlet loses, the King must pay the 6 Barbary horses. So far the terms seem entirely clear, and it is the point to combine Hamlet’s words in §232: ’Your grace hath laid the odds o’ the weaker side.’ M. Mason, Malone and Ritson hold ’odds’ here in the terms of the valuable and disproportionate wager. Sir T. Hanmer reads: ’Your Grace hath laid upon the weaker side. Both seem unnecessary, in which, from B.Jonson Volpone IV, I, ’If I had But one to wager with, I would lay odds now, he tells me instantly,’ appears clear that ’to lay odds’ means nothing more and nothing less than ’bet.’ The sense is also following: ’Your grace has bet on the weaker side ((namely Hamlet)), to which the King responds: ’I do not fear that; I have seen both of you; if he is but improved, we have the favorable odds on our side, namely 3 in advance.]

3630 dozen passes] Tschischwitz (ed. 1869): “Unter a dozen wird hier nicht grade die Zwölfzahl, sondern wie oben [[2.2.566]] some dozen or sixteen, eine unbestimte Anzahl verstanden. Die Unbestimmtheit wird aber dadurch limitirt, dass als Norm das Verhaltniss von 12:9 angenommen wird, über das sie nicht hinausgehen dürfen, also 21 Gänge im Ganzen. Es kann also aufsteigen von H.3:L.0; H 4:L.1. H.5 L.2; H. 6:L.3. H.7:L.4. H.8:L.5. H.9:L.6. H.10:L.7. H.11. L.8. H. 12:L.9, d.h. nach dem dritten Stosse, den H. empfangen, muss [?] dem Laertes einen beibringen, sonst ist die Wette verloren. Sodann vor dem 5ten den 2ten, vor dem 6 ten den 3ten, vor dem 7ten den 4 ten etc; es darf aber nie bis zu H. 12:L.8 kommen, weil dazu für H. der 4 Stösse mehr erhalten hätte, die Wette schliesslich doch verloren ware. Die 12 Stösse darf also H. nicht hinter einander erhalten, sondern er muss in der Zeit, wo er sie erhält, seinem Gegner mindestens 9 beigebracht haben, daher kann es sehr wohl bei 9 Gängen bleiben, wenn nämlich H. das Glück hat, seinem Gegner 9 Stösse hintereinander beizubringen; sie müssen aber bis zu 21 Gängen gehen, wenn laertes wirklich ein so vorzüglicher Fechter ist, dass er dem Prinzen immer um 3 Stösse überlegen bleibt. Dieser überzähligen Stösse würden beim Verlust der Wette immer nur 4 sein, nämlich H. 12: L.8. H.10: L.6. H.8:L.4. H.6: L.2. H.4:L.0, die der Prinz neben der Schmach des Verlustes davontrüge. Dass meine Erklärung die richtige ist, beweisen die Worte des Königs [[5.2.270.]] If Hamlet give the first or second hit, or quit in answer of the third excchange—wenn H. seinen Gegner den 1ten oder 2ten Stoss ertheilt, oder nach dem dritten Gange noch das Glück hat den laertes zu treffen.—Die Ausleger haben bei der Erläuterung dieser Wette vielfach geirrt.” [Among a dozen the number 12 will not [[be]] in degree; on the contrary, we, on the surface, understand an indeterminate number, as [[2.2.566]]some dozen or sixteen. The indeterminate will be limited but in this way, that as a model, the relationship will be taken from 12:9, above which they dare not exceed, also 21 times in total. It can also climb from H.3:L.0; H 4:L.1. H.5 L.2; H. 6:L.3. H.7:L.4. H.8:L.5. H.9:L.6. H.10:L.7. H.11. L.8. H. 12:L.9, that is, according to the three thrusts which Hamlet receives, he must produce one [[thrust]] for Laertes or else the wager is lost. So then, before the 5th thrust, the second; before the sixth, the third; before the seventh, the fourth, etc. it dare never arrive at H. 12. L.8, if in that Hamlet had obtained 4 more thrusts, the wager finally would be lost. Also, Hamlet dare not obtain 12 thrusts one after another; on the contrary, he must at the time where he obtains them, have produced at least 9 for his opponent. Therein, it can remain very well in 9 times,, if Hamlet fortunately has luck to produce 9 thrusts one after another for his opponent.; But they must go for 21 times, if Laertes is genuinely so excellent a swordsman that he stays always at 3 thrusts superior to the Prince. These excess thrusts would be a loss of the wager always only 4, namely H. 12: L.8. H.10: L.6. H.8:L.4. H.6: L.2. H.4:L.0, which would leave the Prince an insult of the loss. That mine explanation is correct is pointed out in the words of the King [[5.2.279]] If Hamlet give the first or second hit, or quit in answer of the third exchange—if Hamlet imparts to his opponent the first or the second thrust, or after the third time the luck has come to Laertes.—The commentators have frequently erred in the elaboration of this wager.]

3630-2 in a dozen passes . . . nine]

3630ff Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “Johnson has pointed out the impossibility of this wager, but Elze understands it to mean that in the twelve passes Hamlet could only afford to be hit seven times, and Laertes four times, without losing. This is no doubt true, but it does not explain the form in which the wager is put.”

3632 twelue for nine] Moberly (ed. 1873): “This passage is difficult; but the following appears to be the explanation. Before Laertes’ journey to Paris, which is the best existing school of fencing (Lady of the Lake, v. 15), he and Hamlet were nearly equal. Since then both have been in practice; but Paris instruction has made Laertes the better man. They are therefore handicapped. Each is to attack twelve times, going on till a hit is made; and Laertes bets that he will hit Hamlet twelve times before Hamlet can hit him nine times. That is; Hamlet has three points given him, and with these odds he trusts that he shall win.”

3630-2 in a dozen passes . . . nine] Furness (ed. 1877) : “This [RITSON’s note] is, I think, virtually the same explanation as that given by ELZE.”

3630-2 in a dozen passes . . . nine] Mitford (apud Furness, ed. 1877): “The reading of the Ff of one for ‘laid on’ may be an error for won, or on; indeed the whole phrase, ‘he hath laid on twelve for nine,’ seems very like an interpolation from the margin. One might say that, by a loose manner of speaking, not exceeding three hits may mean not exceeding more than two. It may also be observed that these numbers were probably represented by Arabic figures, and not by letters, and were more liable to be altered and made corrupt.”

[Ed: This is Gent Mag. 1845.]

3630-2 in a dozen passes . . . nine] Quarterly Review (apud Furness, ed. 1877): “Osric never stoops to use the language of ordinary mortals. ‘He hath laid on twelve for nine’ is not he has laid twelve to nine,b ut he has wagered for nine out of twelve. The King backs Ham. Laer., who is the celebrated fencer of the age. is to give the Prince great odds:—the King stipulates out of the twelve passes for nine hits from Laer. without his being ddeclared winner. So also in the former part of the sentence, ‘he shall not exceed you three hits,’ does not mean that the sum of Laertes’s hits over Hamlet’s shall not be more than three. In a dozen passes six hits each wuld place them on a par, and Osric calls Laetes’s excess the number of hits that he makes above his own half. This, the King bets, will not surpass three, rendering the total amount to nine, which tallies with the other form under which the bet is expressed.”

[Ed: This is March 1847, vol. lxxix, p. 332.]

3630-2 in a dozen passes . . . nine] Moberly (apud Furness, ed. 1877): “‘This passage is difficult; but the following appears to be the explanation. Before Laertes’ journey to Paris, which is the best existing school of fencing (Lady of the Lake, v. 15), he and Hamlet were nearly equal. Since then both have been in practice; but Paris instruction has made Laertes the better man. They are therefore handicapped Each is to attack twelve times, going on till a hit is made: and Laer. bets that he will hit Ham. twelve times before Ham. can hit him nine times. That is: Ham. has three points given him, and with these odds he trusts that he shall win.’”

3630-2 in a dozen passes . . . nine] Furness (ed. 1877): “Tschischwitz assumes that ‘a dozen’ is merely an indefinite number, and gives an elaborate calculation on the basis of twenty-one rounds. It may be said of all these calculations what Clarendon says of one of them, they are doubtless correct, but do not explain the form in which the wager is put. Steevens refers this very ‘unimportant passage to the members of the Jockey Club, at Newmarket, ‘who on such subjects may prove the most enlightened commentators, and most successfully bestir themselves in the cold unpoetic dabble of calculation.’”

3630-2 in a dozen passes . . . nine] Symons (in Irving & Marshall, ed. 1890): “This wager is, of course, as it is put, impossible: but a gentleman of Osric’s fineness of speech could not be expected to be very preecise in a matter of mere arithmetic. ‘It was impossible,’ says Marshall, Study of Hamlet, p. 199, ‘that Osric could state anything clearly or simply; but I think the meaning is plain. “A dozen passes” does not mean simply twelve hits, for in a pass both might score a hit, the wager being that Laertes will not gain three more hits than Hamlet. To do this it is plain Laertes must hit his opponent twelve times at least in every twenty-one, or four times in every seven; the odds, in short, that Laertes lays on himself are twelve to nie, or four to three. It would have been quite clear if Osric had said that the King had laid that Laertes would not win best out of seven hits three times, for that is what it really comes to. I think the expression “a dozen” was a very vague one in Shakespeare’s time, and that if the text is corrupt, the corruption lies in these words. In the Quarto 1603 [Q1] we find the Gravedigger, speaking of Yorick’s skull, says to Hamlet, “Looke you, here’s a skull hath bin here these dozen yeare.” In Ff. and Qq., it will be remembered, the passage reads: “Here’s a skull now; this skull hath lain [hath lain you] in the earth three and twenty years.”’”

3630-2 in a dozen passes . . . nine]

3630-2 in a dozen passes . . . nine] Travers (ed. 1929): “It has even been proposed, in consequence, ((Herford)) to loosen the arithmetical knot by taking the ‘dozen’ of 1. 166 [3630] to mean, not strictly 11+ l, but some larger and more amenable number, e.g. 21 (which, since 12—9 = 3, would enable Hamlet to win for the king by making more than 9 hits against 12 of Laertes’). There fortunately seems to be no great harm in repeating, after Johnson, ‘it is sufficient that there was a wager.’"

3630 layd sir] Wilson (1934, 2:261): hath laid GLO

3630-2 in a dozen passes . . . nine] Wilson (ed. 1934): “We can be certain that to the Elizabethans the passage was important, and that Sh. would have given much thought to the details of a sporting event whichw as one of the major attractions of his play (cf. note 5.2.222 [3674-6]S.D.). And there is no real difficulty, once it is grasped that in ‘He hath laid on twelve fo rnine’ the ‘he’ is the ‘he’ of the previous sentence, viz. Laer.; and that ‘laid’ and ‘laid on’ mean, not ‘laid a wager’ as in l. 106, but ‘laid down conditions’ as at 5.2.259 [3718] (v. note and G.). These conditions are: on the K.’s side, that Laer. must win by at least three up (as a modern sportsman would put it); and on Laer.’s, that the match must be one of twelve bouts instead of the ususal nine in order to give him more elbow room, since to win ‘three up’ in a match of nine would mean winning six bouts to Ham.’s three, with no allowancee for ‘draws,’ which would be fearful odds to give. Q1 reads, ‘that yong Leartes in twelve venies At Rapier and Dagger do not get three oddes of you’—which supports this interpretation. v. Silver (Introd. pp. xi-xiii) for further discussion.

3630 passes] Kittredge (ed. 1939, Glossary): “a thrust.”

3630 dozen passes]

3630-2 in a dozen passes . . . nine]

3630-2 in a dozen passes . . . nine]

3630-2 in a dozen passes . . . nine] Spencer (ed. 1980): “In the event, Hamlet wins the first two bouts ((lines 275 and 280 below)). The score of two-nil against him is serious for Laertes, for it means he must win at least eight of the remaining ten bouts in order to win the match. The King thereupon says Our son shall win (( line 281)). But what is the meaning of He hath laid on twelve for nine? By the natural run of the sentences He would be the King. The actor might convey that He was laertes. It would be natural to take twelve for nine as being related to Hamlet’s advantage’ of three hits. Perhaps for nine means ‘instead of nine’: Laertes wants a larger number of bouts than usual, in order to achieve a lead of at least four hits over Hamlet. Unofrtunately there is no evidence that nine was the usual number of bouts. Perhaps the wager is that Laertes will not achieve twelve hits before Hamlet has achieved nine. If so, they might have to fight as many as twenty bouts; for the score, after the nineteenth, could be 11 to 8.”

3630 passes] Spencer (ed. 1980): “((probably means ‘bouts’ or ‘rounds’, which ended when one of the contestants scored a hit).”

3630-2 in a dozen passes . . . nine]Jenkins (ed. 1982, Longer Notes, 561-3) <p. 561>“The terms of the wager pose an insoluble problem: these two statements of them appear to be incompatible. The first is, as Kittredge remarks, ‘clear enough’: the King bets that in a match consisting of twelve passes, or bouts, Laertes will not make three more hits than Hamlet. Johnson’s objection to this, ‘In a dozen passes one must exceed the other more or less than three hits’, though much cited, is not valid; for ‘more or less than three’ will be decisive, and ‘passes’ are not the same as ‘hits’. Though a pass would normally end with the scoring of a hit ((and many discussions envisage nothing )), one with no score is possible and may occur at [3775],,, though not all commentators agree that ‘Nothing neither way’ implied that the bout is at an end. The difficulty, however, comes when the second statement is added: he had laid on twelve for nine. This is most naturally taken to refer to the excess of three hits—twelve by Laertes for nine by Hamlet, which is not of course compatible with ‘a dozen passes’ altogether.

“Aside from this apparent contradiction, there is an ambiguity in the subject pronoun he, In the repetition of ‘The King, sir, hath laid . . . he hath laid’ it is natural to presume that the subject is the same. But a moment’s thought will show that if you bet on </p. 561> <p. 562>a man’s not exceeding his opponent by three hits, you cannot lay on but are laying against his making twelve for nine. Hence there is something to be said for the view that he now refers to Laertes, so that the re-statement of the wager’s terms gives them from the other side.

“In either event it certainly looks as though the two statements were meant to correspond. The second sustains the idea of a contest of twelve while preserving a margin of three; but if it is the margin of hits that is now particularized as twelve for nine, there has been a shift from twelve as the number of passes to twelve as the winning score. Unless we are to suppose a textual error, I think we must conclude that, as between these two twelves, the author has not decided, or not said, what he meant.

“Some attempts to evade the problem ascribe the confusion to Osric, here ridiculed by Shakesepare as ‘unable to state intelligibly the very thing he was sent to tell’ ((Verity)). Yet Osric temporarily drops his linguistic convolutions when at length he gets to the point; the sentence that causes all the trouble is the tersest thing he says. Shakespeare sometimes leaves plot details unstated, or even contradictory; but he can hardly have dsigned the wager to be obscure, and Hamlet, who mocks everything else Osric says, gives no sign of finding it so.

“More commonly there have been attempts t find an interpretation of one or both of the statements which would permit them to be reconciled. The precise terms of the first leave little room for manœuvre. Not all the mathematical bravura of Sprinchorn in computing ‘The Odds on Hamlet’ can possibly persuade us in defiance of plain English that ‘to exceed you three hits’ means to score three hits in succession ((Columbia U. Forum, VIII, 41-5, reprinted in Zitner, The Practice of Modern Literary Scholarship, pp. 335-41; refuted by J.A.Kilby, N&Q, CCXIII, 133-6)). A Victorian writer in the Quarterly Review ((LXXXIX, 333)) maintained that it meant to score not three hits more than Hamlet but three more than the par of six; and by also maintaining that he hath laid on twelve for nine meant that he had wagered for nine out of twelve, he managed to make the two statements equivalent. The second statement, one may grant, in the absence of a noun, admits more flexibility. From the time of Malone the notion has recurred that it may refer not to the number but to the ratio of hits, so that twelve for nine is tantamount to four to three. But no arithmetic can show how such a ratio can achieve a difference of three within a maximum of twelve. The use of the word ‘odds’ has bedevilled discussion through confusion among its various meanings. As used </p. 562> <p. 563>in [3660-1, 3721] it refers to the advantage granted to Hamlet; in the sense of probabilities it appears to be irrelevant if not anachronistic; and it is hard to see how odds of ‘twelve to nine in favour of Laertes’ ((Sprinchorn)) can apply to a wager in which odds in one sense are set at ‘six Babary horses against six French swords’ and in another at ‘three hits’.

“Two interpetations have been proposed which, instead of associating twelve with hits, simply refer it back to the ‘dozen passes’. Dover Wilson supposed that Laertes, when he laid on twelve for nine, laid down the condition of twelve passes instead of the nine that were usual ((WHH, pp. 278-9)). But there is no evidence that nine was a normal expectation—the single instance cited ((from Silver’s Paradoxes of Defence, p. 3)) only goes to show that three threes need not be the same as nine—and it is beyond all credibility that laid, as repeated in this context, does not retain its ordinary betting sense. The other interpretation, reviving the theory that in a wager on twelve passes Laertes wagers for nine hits, suggests that in his confidence he has thus stepped up the odds ((handicap)) ((NQ, ccxiv, 142-5)). The objections to this again relate to both language and manners: it offends both th ephrasal balance associating twelve with nine and the presumption that the parties to the wager would agree upon its terms before the messenger announced them. And it leaves us with what nothing else in the play suggests, two wagers instead of one ((cf. 3639-42, 3660-1, 3716-21]. This may be the best we can do with the puzzle of the text as it stands; but it is very hard to believe in as a rendering of Shakespeare’s intent.

“My own belief is that the discrepancy reflects a divided intent. A wager is laid on whether Laertes will score three more hits than Hamlet in a match of twelve; but is this to be over twelve passes or while scoring twelve himself? The second idea perhaps forms while the first is being penned, giving rise to an uncertainty which the text shows unresolved. So Laertes over twelve passes is to win by a margin of three, he is to score twelve against Hamlet’s nine; it will not at once strike the audience in the theatre, and may not have struck Shakespeare, that the two things are not the same.

3630 passes] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “bouts. Cf. [3752] ((bout)) and [TN 3.4.262 (1790)].”

3630 passes]

3630-2 in a dozen passes . . . nine] Edwards (ed. 1985): “There are those who claim to understand this wager, and those who, like Dr. Johnson and the present editor, do not. There are to be twelve bouts, and the bet is that Laertes will not lead by more than three wins. As soon as Laertes has got eight hits, he can’t lose; as soon as Hamlet registers five hits, he can’t lose. But what is this ‘twelve for nine’? It has never been satisfactorily explained.”

3630-2 in a dozen passes . . . nine] Hibbard (ed. 1987): “The initial stipulation is intelligible enough. In order to win Laertes must take at least eight of the twelve bouts. But there is no way in which this stipulation can be brought into line with ‘twelve for nine’. The odds are that Shakespeare himself was in a muddle about it all. But, while the details of the wager are far from clea, its purposes are plain enough: to offer Hamlet odds that are an insult to his skill, designed to sting him into acceptance of the challenge; and, even more important, odds which will give Laertes at least five opportunities, supposing that Hamlet wins each of the first five bouts and thus brings the match to an end, to strike the blow that will be fatal.”

3630 passes]

3630 layd] Bevington (ed. 1988): “wagered.”

3630 passes]

3630-2 in a dozen passes . . . nine] Bevington (ed. 1988): “Possibly the King bets that Hamlet will win at least five out of twelve, at which point Laertes raises the odds against himself by betting he will win nine.”

3630 dozen passes]

3630-2 in a dozen passes . . . nine]