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

Line 3697, etc. - 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.

3697 Laer. I am satisfied in nature,	5.2.244

3698 Whose motiue in this case should stirre me most

1773 v1773

v1773

3697-3703 nature. . . vngord] Steevens (ed. 1773) : “This was a piece of satire on fantastical honour. Though nature is satisfied, yet he will ask advice of older men of the sword, whether artificial honour ought to be contented with Hamlet’s submission. STEEVENS”

1778 v1778

v1778 = v1773 +

3697-3703 nature. . . vngord] Steevens (ed. 1778) : “There is a passage somewhat similar in the Maid’s Tragedy : ‘Euad. Will you forgive me then? Mel. Stay, I must ask mine honour first.’ STEEVENS “

1783 Ritson

Ritson : v1778

3697-3703 nature. . . vngord] Ritson (1783, pp. 213-4): <p. 213>“This, mr. Steevens says, was a piece of satire on fantastical honour. Though nature, adds he, is satisfyed, yet</p. 213><p.. 214>he will ask advice of older men of the sword, whether artificial honour ought to be contented with Hamlets submission. But, in fact, the passage is as little intended for a satire, as the honour Laertes alludes to, is artificial or fantastical. The ingenious commentator does not, surely, mean to contend that nature and honour are one and the same thing? The sentiments of Laertes, and almost his very words, would, one may venture to say, be adopted by men of real honour, in similar circumstnces, in any country or in any age. He is, notwithstanding, a treacherous and diabolical villain.” </p. 214>

1784 Davies

Davies

3697 Laer. I . . . nature] Davies (1784, p. 140) : <p. 140>“Laertes determined to act treacherously, and therefore seems puzzled to return a proper answer to Hamlet’s fair address and noble apology. To that, I think, we must place his referring the matter in dispute to able judges of affronts. His offering to receive his antagonist’s proffered love as love, and protesting not to wrong it, is as infamous as Hamlet’s attributing his vio-</p. 140> <p.141> lent behaviour at Ophelia’s grave to his madness.” </p. 141>

1785 v1785

v1785 = v1778

3697-3703 nature. . . vngord]

1787 ann

ann = v1785

3697-3703 nature. . . vngord]

1790 mal

mal = v1785

3697-3703 nature. . . vngord]

1793 v1793

v1793 = mal

3697-3703 nature. . . vngord]

1803 v1803

v1803 = v1793

3697-3703 nature. . . vngord]

1813 v1813

v1813 = v1803

3697-3703 nature. . . vngord]

1819 cald1

cald1 = v1813 (minus v1773 note)

3697-3703 nature. . . vngord]

1821 v1821

v1821 = v1813

3697-3703 nature. . . vngord]

1832 cald2

cald2 = cald1

3697-3703 nature. . . vngord]

1854 del2

del2

3697-3703 nature. . . vngord] Delius (ed. 1854) : “nature steht als Gegensatz zu dem folgenden honour. Für sein natürliches Gefühl hat Hamlet eine Genugthuug erhalten; ob diese aber auch für seine Ehrenverhältnisse (in my terms of honour) ausreicht, muss er der Entscheidung ‘älterer Meister’ als Ehrenrichter überlassen. Von solchen will er erst ihre Zustimmung und ein mustergültiges Beispiel, mit Hamlet Frieden zu halten (a voice and precedent of peace), sich geben lassen, damit sein guter Name unverwundet bleibe. Für ungor’d hat die Fol ungorg’d.” [nature stands in contrast to the following honour . For his natural regard, he considers Hamlet with satisfaction; but if this satisfaction is to suffice also in terms of his honor (in my terms of honour ), he must leave the decision to the elder masters as honorable judges. From such an action, he will first allow [elder masters] to give their consent and a model example to secure peace with Hamlet ( a voice and precedent of peace), in that his good name remains unwounded. For ungor’d the F?ol had ungorg’d. ]

1855 mHunter

mHunter

3697-3703 nature. . . vngord] Hunter (-1855) : <p. 230> “Bravo!—Honourable indeed! when he had the poisoned rapier before him. Laertes has his inconsistencies too, or the poet must suffer for it.” </p. 230>

(Prolegomena and Notes on Shakespeare [BL ADD. MS. 24495 ] : pp. 219-46)

1860 mHal1

mHal1: notes that cln 2142-4 are abridged version of 3699-3701

1864 ktly

ktly : standard

3698 motiue] Keightley (ed. 1864 [1866]: Glossary):”assistant, or mover.”

1869 tsch

tsch

3697 nature] Tschischwitz (ed. 1869): “nature, in meinem natürlichen Gefühl als Mensch und Sohn im Gegensatz zu honour, d.h. seiner Stellung als Edling, die ihn nach germanischen Begriffen zue Blutrache auch gegen den besten Freund verpflichtet haen würde.” [nature, in my natural feeling as a person and son, in opposition to honor, i.e. his place as a nobleman which would have bound him according to the Germanic notion of the vendetta even against his best friend.]

1870 Abbott

Abbott

3700 will] Abbott (§316): “Will is seldom used without another verb: [cites 3700].”

1872 del4

del4 = del2

3697-3703 nature. . . vngord]

1872 cln1

cln1

3700 reconcilement] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “reconciliation. Bacon, Essay iii. p. 10, has ‘witty reconcilements.’

1875 Marshall

Marshall

3697-3707 Marshall (1875, pp. 105-06): <p. 105> “The answer of Laertes is a perfect marvel of hypocrisy; one can hardly comprehend how any man could speak such words to a friend whom he was about to murder: [cites 3697-3707] It would really seem from the second sentence of this speech that Laertes had forgotten the double treachery which he and Claudius had planned; for it was, humanly speaking, impossible that Hamlet could escape with his life, and yet Laertes talks seriously here of appealing to a court of honour. It was hardly worth his while to invent such a piece of wanton duplicity; and I cannot help thinking that this is either an oversight of the poet’s, or that he means us to understand that Laertes had in his rage consented to this treachery, but that in his inmost mind he never had realised its execution. This speech, if intentionally untrue, shows a depth of falsehood almost incredible in one so young as Laertes; it is just what, had his better nature prevailed, we should have expected him to say to Hamlet, and I believe that we must suppose him to have forgotten, at the time he spoke it, how base a part he was about to play.” </p. 106>

1877 v1877

v1877 ≈ v1773

3697-3703 nature. . . vngord]

1885 macd

macd

3697 MacDonald (ed. 1885): “‘In my own feelings and person.’ Laertes does not refer to his father or sister. He professes to be satisfied in his heart with Hamlet’s apology for his behaviour at the funeral, but not to be sure whether in the opinion of others, and by the laws of honour, and by the laws of honour, he can accept it as amends, and forbear to challenge him. But the words ‘Whose motiue in this case should stirre me most to my Reuenge’ may refer to his father and sister, and, if so taken, should be spoken aside. To accept apology for them and not for his honour would surely be too barefaced! The point concerning them has not been started.

“But why not receive the apology as quite satisfactory? That he would not seems to show a lingering regard to real honour. A downright villain, like the king, would have pretended its thorough acceptance—especially as they were just going to fence like friends; but he, as regards his honour, will not accept it until justified in doing so by the opinion of ‘some elder masters,’ receiving from them ‘a voice and precedent of peace’—counsel to, and justification, or example of peace. He keeps the door of quarrel open—will not profess to be altogether friends with him, though he does not hint at his real ground of offence: that mooted, the match of skill, with its immense advantages for villainy, would have been impossible. He means treachery all the time; careful of his honour, he can, like most apes of fashion, let his honesty go; still, so complex is human nature, he holds his speech declining thorough reconciliation as a shield to shelter his treachery from his own contempt: he has taken care not to profess absolute friendship, and so left room for absolute villainy! He has had regard to his word! Relieved perhaps by the demoniacal quibble, he follows it immediately with an utterance of full-blown perfidy.”

1885 mull

mull

3700 will] Mull (ed. 1885): “will agree to.”

1899 ard1

ard1

3697 nature] Dowden (ed. 1899): “Hamlet has referred to ‘nature’ and ‘honour [3683]’; Laertes replies as to each point.”

1931 crg1

crg1

3697 nature] Craig (ed. 1931): “i.e. he is personally satisfied, but his honor must be satisfied by the rules of the code of honor.”

1934 rid1

rid1

3697-99 I . . . reuendge] Ridley (ed. 1934): “Laertes takes up both Hamlet’s points of ‘nature’ and ‘honour.’ He means ‘my inclination is certainly for forgiveness, so long as I can be assured by experts that I shall not stain my honour.’”

1934 cam3

cam3 : Saviolo

3697-3703 in nature . . . vngord] Wilson (ed. 1934): “Laer. is not speaking idly; in an age when a gentleman’s ‘honour’ was as important (even financially) as a business man’s ‘honesty’ is in ours, some kind of formal acquittal was a necessary precaution. Further, his reference to the decision of ‘some elder masters’ was acc. to custom; cf. Saviolo (op. cit. note l. 222 S.D., sig. Aa, 4r): ‘Touching all such matters whereon anye controuersie or dissencion maye growe, men ought specially to beware, not to be self-willed, but are rather to take counsail and aduise both of their freends and experienced men, and if there by cause to iude this course necessarie in anye matter, it ought cheefelye to bee in such cases, wherein a mans life and honour is touched, for we see that euen the wisest sorte to study and endeuour by all meanes possible to furnish themselues with men experienced and seene in chiualrye and armes, that they maye bee counsailed and aduised by them, and may in such sort wish them to the field, as may best stand with reason, which office may onely be executed by learned men and gentlemen, wherof the first are tearmed counsailors and the second Padrini.”

cam3 : ≈ ard1

3697-99 in nature . . . honor] Wilson (ed. 1934): “Cf. note l. 229 [3683] above. ‘Ham. has referred to ‘nature’ and ‘honour’; Laer. replies to each point’ (Dowden). He also deals (hypocritically) with ‘exception’ in ll. 248-50 [3703-05]. But Ham.’s frank statement and affectionate appeal, and his own treacherous reply make him uncomfortable, as is clear from l. 294 [3769].”

1939 kit2

kit2 ≈ standard

3698 motiue] Kittredge (ed. 1939, Glossary): “an impulse.”

kit1 ≈ 1821 (Steevens ; Ritson) w/o attribution

3697-3703 I . . . vngord] Kittredge (ed. 1939): “The distinction between nature (i.e. natural affection) and honour (the punctilio of society and convention) has already been made by Hamlet himself in [3683]. Cf. Nashe, Have with You to Saffron-Walden, 1596 (ed. McKerrow, III, 21): ‘after the same manner that one of these Italionate conferences about a Duell is wont solemnly to be handled, which is when a man, being specially toucht in reputation, or challenged to the field vpon equall tearmes, calls all his frends together, and askes their aduice how he sould carrie himself in the action.’”

1937 pen1a

pen1a : standard

3699 tearmes of honor] Harrison (ed. 1937) notes that Laertes will not commit himself to accepting Hamlet’s apologizes "without prejudice."

1947 cln2

cln2

3697 nature] Rylands (ed. 1947): “natural affection.”

1951 crg2

crg2=crg1

3697 nature]

1957 pel1

pel1 : standard

3697 nature]

pel1 : standard

3699 tearmes of honor]

1970 pel2

pel2=pel1

3697 nature]

pel2=pel1

3699 tearmes of honor]

1974 evns1

evns1 ≈ standard

3697 nature]

evns1 ≈ standard

3697-3703 I . . . vngord]

1980 pen2

pen2 ≈ standard

3697 nature]

pen2 ≈ standard

3698 motiue

pen2

3699 tearmes of honor] Spencer (ed. 1980): “condition as a man of honour.”

pen2

3700 will] Spencer (ed. 1980): “desire.”

1984 chal

chal : standard

3697 nature] see 3683

chal : standard

3699 tearmes of honor] Wilkes (ed. 1984): "conditions, rules applicable to the case."

1985 cam4

cam4 ≈ standard

3697 nature]

cam4 ≈ standard

3698 motiue

1987 oxf4

oxf4 : OED

3699 tearmes of honor] Hibbard (ed. 1987): “i.e. where my honour is concerned ((OED term sb. 10)). Shakespeare is rather addicted to this periphrastic use of terms of. See, for example, [MV 2.1.13-4 (529-30)], ‘In terms of choice I am not solely led|By nice direction of a maiden’s eyes’.”

1988 bev2

bev2: standard

3697 nature]

bev2:

3698 motiue] Bevington (ed. 1988): “prompting.”

1993 dent

dent ≈ rid1

3697-99 I . . . reuendge]

dent ≈ rid1

3697-3703 I . . . vngord]

1992 fol2

fol2≈ standard

3699 tearmes of honor]

fol2≈ standard

3699-3703 I . . . vngord]

3697 3698