3690 Hamlet . . . wronged] Delius (ed. 1854) : “Hamlet gehört dann selbst zur gekränkten Partei, zur Partei des Laertes.” [“Hamlet belongs then himself to the wronged party, to the party of Laertes.”]

3688 Then . . . madnesse] Tschischwitz (ed. 1869): “Diese Erklärung H’s. hat insofern etwas Auffallendes, als er sich doch bewüsst sein muss, dass sein Wahnsinn nur fingirt zur Entschuldigung des Todtschlags an Pol. moralisch nicht entfernt ausreichend ist. Aber die Situation ist viel zu ernst, als dass er hier nur ein leeres Spiel mit Worten treiben, den doppelt gekränkten Laertes hintergehen söllte. Es ist unmöglich die Stelle anders zu vestehen, als dass man die Aufregung, das Aussersichsein, in das er sich [[3.3.406 (0000)]] versetz, und as ihn noch beim Eintritt ins Zimmer der Mutter beherrscht (Sc. 4) als Veranlassung zu dem in gewissem Sinne doch unvorsichtigen Stosse durch die Tapete betrachtet. Jenen ekstatischen Zustand deuten auch die wilden Rufe: Mutter, Mutter, Mutter, die nur die Fol. und zum Theil Q1. aufweist, hinlänglich an. Diese Auffassung widerlegt, wenn sie die richtige ist, jene scheinbar berechtigte Behauptung englischer Kritiker; Hamlet seit vom Dicter in gewissen Momenten als von wirlichem Wahnsinn befallen dargestellt worden, und giebt ausserdem eine ausreichende Erklärung für die Worte Hamlets [[3.4.176 (0000)]]. I will bestow him, and will answer wll the death I gave him. Dazu kommt, dass H. ja um keinen Preis verrathen darf, wie eigentlich das unglückselige Versehen entstanden ist, da dies sein Vorhaben für immer vereiteln würde, obwohl er immer nboch genug andeutet, wenn er sagt: I have shot mine arrow o’er the house, and hurt my brother. 254 u[[und]] 55.” [“Hamlet’s explanation has so far something of the remarkable about it, as if he must himself still be aware that his madness, feigned only for an excuse for the manslaughter of Polonius, is not morally, remotely adequate. But the situation is much too serious for him to carry on only an empty play with words, whose ambiguity should deceive the distraught Laertes. It is impossible to understand this passage otherwise, for one to examine the agitation, the withdrawal into which he shifts himself [[3.4.406 (0000)]] and which has a command over him still at his entrance into his mother’s room as an occasion for a careless thrust through the tapestry. The former, ecstatic condition indicates as adequate even the wild cries—Mother, Mother, Mother—which are exhibited only in the Fol and in the component of Q1, This interpretation, if it is the correct one, disproves the formerly plausible, authoritative assertions of English critics: Hamlet may have been placed by the poet in stable moments as if experiencing genuine madness, and gives moreover a sufficient explanation for Hamlet’s words in [[3.4.176 (2553-4)]]. I have shot mine arrow o’er the house, and hurt my brother. To that end, it happens that Hamlet certainly dares divulge for no price how the particular, miserable mishap originated, since this would have forever frustrated his revenge, although he hints still sufficiently when he says, I have shot mine arrow o’er the house and hurt my brother. [[3695-6]].”

3690 Hamlet . . . wronged]

3686-8 If Hamlet from himself . . . denies it] MacDonald (ed. 1885): “‘refuses the wrong altogether—will in his true self have nothing to do with it.’ No evil thing comes of our true selves, and confession is the [casting?] of it from us, the only true denial. He who will not confess a wrong, holds to the wrong.”

3686-8 If Hamlet from himself . . . denies it] Rushton (1907, p. 40: “In all crimes there must be an evil disposition; a mere mistake is not punishable; and those that are to be esteemed guilty of any offenses must have the use of their reason, and be at their own disposal or liberty (Woods Inst., 2nd ed., p. 340, 339), for, Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea (3 Inst. 107), the act does not make a man guilty unless his intention were guilty.”

3689-96 Who dooes it . . . my brother] Rushton (1907, pp. 40-2): <p.40> “Hamlet says [quotes 3689-91] </p.40><p.41> And in criminal cases idiots and lunatics are not chargeable for their own acts, if committed at a time when they are non compos mentis, fir it is a maxim of the law of England that Furiosus solo furore puniatur, a madman is only punished by his madness (Co. Litt. 247b; Bal. Com., 24, 25). So Hamlet says he is of the faction that is wronged, and he seems to refer, not only to the maxim thta the act does not make a man guilty unless his intentions were guilty, but afterwards, in the same passage, to the kind of homicide to which it is applicable—[quotes 3693-6] viz., homicide per infortunium, or by misadventure, <n> Homicide (form the Latin homocidium; homo, a man, and cido, to strike, kill) signifies the killing of a human creature, and it is of three kinds, justifiable, excusable, and felonius. </n> which is, where a man doing a lawful act, without any intention of hurt, by accident kills another; as, for instance, where </p.41><p.42> a man is working with a hatchet, and the head flies off and kills a bystander. So Braeton says, ‘De amputatore arborum, qui cum rarmun projiceret, inscius occidit transeuntem, aut cum quis pilam percusserit, &c., ex cujus ictu occisus est, tales de homicidio non tenentur’ (lib. 3, fo. 136b). If a man shooting at butts or a target, by accident kills a bystander, it is misadventure (I. Hale, 472, 475, 380), but this must be understood of cases where a proper precaution to prevent accidents has been taken, for if the target be placed near a highway or path, where persons are in the habit of passing, the killing would probably be deemed manslaughter.” </p.42>

3689 madnesse] Granville-Barker (1930, rpt. 1946, 1: 258) claims that it is Hamlet’s understanding that his previous questioning of his duty was madness that leads him to claim here that he has been mad: he looks back “to the old self-torture as ’madness.’ ”

3690 faction] Kittredge (ed. 1939): “party.”

3690 faction] Kittredge (ed. 1939, Glossary): “party.”

3690 faction]

3690 faction]

3690 faction]

3690 faction]

3686-8 If Hamlet from himself . . . denies it] Hibbard (ed. 1987): “Compare ‘To not be oneself’ ((Dent ) 64.1)).”

3690 faction]

3690 faction]

3690 faction]