HW HomePrevious CNView CNView TNMView TNINext CN

Line 379 - Commentary Note (CN) More Information

379 Ham. saw, who?1.2.190
1805 Seymour
379 Seymour (1805, 2:148): “This is a common ellipsis, rather than wrong grammar. I.e. ‘Who (was it whom you saw?)’”
1854 del2
del2 ≈ Dyce without attribution
379 saw, who?] Delius (ed. 1854): “Die Herausgeber interpungiren meist Saw! who! schwerlich in Sh.’s Sinne; denn nicht darauf, dass sie sahen, lagt Hamlet den Nachdruck, sondern, wen sie sahen. Who steht, wie oft bei Sh., für whom.” [Most editors stick in punctuation Saw! who! hardly in Sh.’s sense; for Hamlet lays the emphasis not on the fact that they saw, but on whom they saw. Who stands for whom as it often does in Sh.]
1856 hud1
hud1 ≈ Dyce without attribution; del2 without attribution
379 saw, who?] Hudson (ed. 1856): “In colloquial language, it was common, as indeed it still is, thus to use the nominative where strict grammar would require the objective. Modern editions embellish the two words with various pointing; as thus: “Saw! who!” or thus: “Saw? who? H.”
Ed. note: His examples are not very likely. Only Ff have the 2 questionmarks, and none have the two exclamations.
1858 col3
379 saw, who?] Collier (ed. 1858): “‘Who’ is altered to whom in the corr. fo. 1632, and with strict grammatical propriety; but it may be doubted whether Shakespeare did not write it, as it has been printed: we therefore leave ‘who.’”
Ed. note: Collier disassociates himself from mcol1 by rejecting some emendations.
1870 Abbott
Abbott § 274
379 who] Abbott (§ 274): “Who for whom. The inflection of who is frequently neglected. ”
1872 hud2
hud2 = hud1
79 saw, who?]
1872 cln1
cln1hud2 without attribution + //s
379 saw, who?] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “‘Who’ is used by Shakespeare for the accusative case very generally. Editors have often corrected what they held to be an error. See [WT 5.1.108 (2859)]: ‘Make proselytes Of who she bid but follow.’ See also other examples in our notes on [Mac. 3.1.122 (1126], and [MV 1.2.23 (217)].’
1877 v1877
v1877: col3, cln1, dyce (Remarks, p. 205)
379 who]
1880 meik
meik: standard gloss + Cor. 2.1.7 (904) //
379 who]
1982 ard2
ard2: Dyce; Abbott
379 saw, who?] Jenkins (ed. 1982), who uses F punc.: “Dyce, arguing for the punctuation Saw who? [see TNI 379], adds, ’No pause . . . was made . . . by the two Kembles, Kean, and Young—none is made by the younger Kean’. Who for whom was common; cf. Abbott 274.”
1985 cam4
cam4; Davenant-Betterton; Hughs-Wilks; J. P. Kemble; Charles Kean; Macready; Dyce; Irving
379 saw, who?] Saw? Who? Edwards (ed. 1985): "All three texts give some kind of a pause between ’saw’ and ’who’. The Davenant-Betterton quarto of 1676 treats the phrase as a single question, ’Saw who?’. But the Hughs-Wilks promptbook of 1718 has ’Saw! Who?’ and this is found in J. P. Kemble’s version of 1800. Charles Kean’s version (1859) has ’Saw who?’. Both treated it as a single question, and so did Kean and Macready, according to Dyce (NV). Irving, however, restored ’Saw?- Who?’ (see Winter, Shakespeare on the Stage, 1911, p. 357)."
1987 oxf4
379 saw, who?] Hibbard (ed. 1987): "The Folio punctuation [Saw? Who?] brings out the importance of the moment. Hamlet’s taedium vitae disappeares. From now on he is all attention, probing the mystery with question after question."

oxf4= Abbott § 274 +
379 who] Hibbard (ed. 1987): who for whom is still common.
2000 Powers
Powers: Wright
379 saw, who?] Powers (2000, pp. 20, 15): Shakespeare often turned “at the crisis point in a play, or at the conclusion of a sonnet, when he wanted real clarity and lyric emphasis--to the monosyllable (p. 20).
“Such metric monosyllables can be seen as lines missing unstressed syllables; or, put another way, they are lines in which the poet has preferred a monosyllable even though the meter requires polysyllables. Wright cites famous instances in . . . Hamlet [when he utters] ’Saw Who?’ continued in Horatio’s, ’My Lord, the King your father’ [379-80]. Both are moments of intensity--and dare we say Hopkinsian metric displacement?
“Earlier in Hamlet, Horatio tries monosyllables in his ghostspeak, ’Stay, speak, speak, I charge thee speak’ to which the Ghost responds by exiting [65-6]. One might have expected more latinate language to address the supernatural, for whilch Latin is said to be handy. Recall that Marcellus urged Horatio to use his linguistic capacity, ’Thou art a scholar--speak to it, Horatio’ [54]. Interestingly, Horatio chooses monosyllables. Or he maybe he is not ’choosing,’ but caught in the emotive moment” (p.15).
2006 ard3q2
379 saw, who?] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “Modern performers usually make this a question, as in Q6.”
54 65 66 379 380