HW HomePrevious CNView CNView TNMView TNINext CN

Line 3657, etc. - Commentary Note (CN) More Information

3657+1 {Enter a Lord.} 3657+1 
3657+2 {Lord. My Lord, his Maiestie commended him to you by young}
3657+3 {Ostricke, who brings backe to him that you attend him in the hall,}
1819 cald1
3657+2 Lord. My Lord . . . Ostricke] Caldecott (ed. 1819) : “Made a gracious and respectful intimation. ‘The mayster commaundeth hym to you. Herus meus salutes tibi imperti .’ Vulgaria Stanbrigi, 4to Wynk. de Worde. ‘Tis a word Of commendation sent from Valentine, Deliver’d by a friend.’ [TGV 1.3.52-3 (363-4)] Prot.”
1832 cald2
cald2 = cald1
3657+2 Lord. My Lord . . . Ostricke]
1843 col1
col1 : standard
3657+1-+13 Enter a Lord . . . me] Collier (ed. 1843) : “From the entrance of this lord, to his exit, the text is only to be found in the quartos. It is to be traced in the quarto, 1603.”
1857 elze1
3657+1-+10 Enter Lord . . .]Elze (ed. 1857, 258): <p. 258>"Dieser ganze §. Bis: Exit Lord, fehlt in den Fs. In QA findet sich eine Spur davon in den Worten: The king and her majesty, with the rest of the best judgment in the Court, Are coming downe into the outward pallace." [This entire section to ’Exit Lord’ is absent in the Ff. In Q1 one finds a trace of it in the words: ’The king and her majesty, with the rest of the best judgment in the court, Are coming downe into the outward pallace."]
1858 col3
col3 = col1
3657+1-+13 Enter a Lord . . . me]
1861 wh1
3657+1-+10 Enter Lord . . .] White (ed. 1861) : “the 4to. of 1603 preserves fragments of Hamlet’s and Horatio’s conversation.”
1869 TSCH
3657+2 to you] Tschischwitz (ed. 1869): “Verben der Bewegung haben mit wenigen Ausnahmen den Infin.mit to bei sich, welcher vorzugsweise die Tendenz der Thätigkeit bezeichnet. Cf. This English nation, will it get to know the meaning of its strange new Today? Carlyle, Past a. Pres. 1.2. S.M. III. 36. β.” [Verbs of motion, with little exception, have the infinitive with to by it, which chiefly signifies the tendency of activity . . . ]
1872 cln1
3657+1-+13 Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “Omitted in the folios”
3657+2 commended] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “Compare [AYL 4.3.92 (2242)]: ‘Orlando doth commend him to you both.’”
1885 macd
3657+1 MacDonald (ed. 1885): “Osricke does not come back: he has begged off—but ventures later, under the wing of the king.”
3657+3 Ostricke] MacDonald (ed. 1885): “May not this form of the name suggest that in it is intended the ‘foolish’ ostrich?”
1929 trav
3657+1-+10 Travers (ed. 1929): “The folios, once again more economical both of personnel (cp. Introcd p. XX, n. 1 and 2) and of time, leave out 196-206 [3657+1-3657+13], no doubt as adding nothing of material importance. Claudius’s parade of insistent considerateness does not awaken mistrust in Hamlet, who still shows himself as ‘free’ from all suspicion of treacherous ‘contrivance’ as the action of the play requires. Nor was the ‘desire"’conveyed in 206-7 [3657+11-3657+12] necessary to confirm the resolve already expressed in 75-78 [3579-82]. Few attentive readers will fail to find some interest in the passage; none, however, will be surprised at its excision for practical motives.”
1934 Wilson
3657+1-3657+13 Wilson (1934, 1:32): <p. 32> “As for the other cut, it possesses the theatrical merit of saving a part, seeing that it altogether suppresses the lord, who follows Osric and does nothing but repeat the message and the question with which the latter had been charged. Shakespeare probably introduced this lord in order to show us that when Osric ‘re-delivered’ Hamlet’s reply to the King, the latter found him even more difficult to follow than hamlet had, and was therefore forced to send a second emissary to discover his meaning. But the Osric business is over-long in any event, and it is difficult not to regard the F1 cut as a definite improvement. The only serious loss is the message from the Queen bidding Hamlet ‘use some gentleman entertainment to Laertes’ before they ‘fall to play’. </p. 32>
3657+3 Ostricke] Wilson (1934, 1:148-49): <p. 148> “the most precious </p. 148> <p. 149> example of his [the press-corrector of Q2] is, I suggest, the spelling ‘Ostricke’ for ‘Osric’ or ‘Osricke’ throughout the whole of sheet N; and that the error is his and not the compositor’s is, I think, strongly suggested by the fact that the name appears correctly spelt in a stage-direction and speech-heading of sheet O [3838ff]. But why this change of spelling, which makes the fop look like a kind of bird? I believe the answer is that the corrector, studying his context as usual, and perceiving talk of a ‘Lapwing’ with a ‘shell on his head’ [3549-50] a few lines before the name first appears in the text [3657+3], actually imagined that the author intended to give him a bird-like name. And if all this be so, it is still further evidence for double correction in sheet N, the sheet in which most of our certain corrections occur.” </p. 149>
1939 kit2
kit2 Cln 1 w/o attribution
3657+2 commended
1985 cam4
3657+1-3657+13 Edwards (ed. 1985): “This passage is not found in F, which thus dispenses with an additional character not necessary to the play.”
3657+2 commended him to you] Edwards (ed. 1985): “sent his compliments to you ((see note to 1.5.184)).”
1987 oxf4
oxf4 : Wilson
3657+1-3657+13 Hibbard (ed. 1987, Appendix A, p. 368): <p. 368>“Even Dover Wilson admits that the excision of these lines, which serve no useful purpose and require an extra speaking actor, is ‘a definite improvement’ ((MSH p. 32)).”
3657+1 3657+2 3657+3