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

Line 292 - 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 0-1017 ed. Bernice W. Kliman

For explanation of sigla, such as jen, see the editions bib.

292 And with no lesse nobilitie of loue	1.2.110

1723- mtby2

mtby2

292 with] Thirlby (1723-): “with’t,” overwritten “will’t” and “nb. the kingdom elective.”

Ed. note: marked as a high probability conjecture, according to Smith, mtby2’s meaning apparently is that the king promises in his will to speak for Hamlet as king in the election.

1730 mtheo2

mtheo2

292-4 And . . . you] Theobald (1730, fol. 57r; Nichols, Illus, 2: 559): “But what does the King impart? We want the Substantive to ye. Verb. I read And with’T no less Nobility of Love &c. i.e. I not only declare you my Successor, [letter(s) missing] impart to You the same cordial Love. yt. the fondest Father can impart to a Son.”

1733 theo1

theo1 = mtheo2

292-4 And . . . you] Theobald (ed. 1733): “But what does the King impart? We want the substantive govern’d of the Verb. The King had declar’d Hamlet his immediate Successor; and with That Declaration, he must mean, he imparts to him as noble a Love, as ever fond Father tender’d to his own Son. I have ventur’d to make the Text conform with this Sense.”

1740 theo2

theo2 = theo1

292-4 And . . . you]

Ed. note: The publisher, Tonson, reduced the number of notes substantially, in theo2. They were restored in some later eds.

1747 warb

warb

292 nobilitie] Warburton (ed. 1747): “Nobility , for magnitude.”

1747- mtby4

mtby4: theo

292 with] Thirlby (1747-): “T[heobald] with’t ex conj. mea [from my conjecture]”

mtby4

292 nobilitie] Thirlby (1747-): “f [strong conjecture] disinterestedness.”

1750 Edwards

Edwards = warb

292 nobilitie] Edwards (1750 [3rd ed.], p.155): defines “nobility” as “magnitude.”

1753 blair

blair = warb

292 nobilitie]

1757 theo4

theo4 = theo2

292-4 And . . . you]

1765 Heath

Heath

292 nobilitie of loue] Heath (1765, p. 523): “That is, eminence and distinction of love.”

Ed. note: Heath implicitly disagrees w warb.

1765 john1

john1 = warb + contra warb

292 nobilitie] Johnson (ed. 1765): “Nobility is rather generosity.”

1773 v1773

v1773 = john

292 nobilitie]

1774 capn

capn: Heath

292 nobilitie of loue] Capell (1774, 1.1.123) “ ‘nobility of love’ is —“eminence or distinction of love,” distinguish’d love, as the “Revisal” interprets . . . .”

1778 v1778

v1778 = v1773

292 nobilitie]

1784 ays1

ays1 = john1 without attribution

292 nobilitie]

1785 v1785

v1785 = v1778

292 nobilitie]

1785 Mason

Mason: v1778

292-4 And with . . . son] Mason (1785, p. 374): “I don’t think these last words can possibly imply, by the most forced construction, the sense that any of the commentators contend for. To impart toward a person, is not English; Shakespeare however, is so licentious in the use of his particles, that were that the only inaccuracy in the sentence, I should not object to it,—but the word impart is never used in a neutral sense [intransitive]; if you impart to any one, you must either impart yourself to him, or something else. And in this passage, as it stands, there is nothing that the King can be said to impart to Hamlet.

“There are two ways of amending the sentence, and those by very slight deviations from the text, as may read it thus, ‘and still no less nobility of love,’ instead of ‘with no less, &c.’ or we may amend the last line, by reading, ‘Do I my part toward you,’ instead of, ‘do I impart;’ with either of these changes, the sense and grammar will be preserved.”

1787 ann

ann = v1785

292 nobilitie]

1790 mal

mal = john1; Heath without attribution

292 nobilitie of loue]

1791- rann

rann ≈ Heath without attribution

292 nobilitie of loue] Rann (ed. 1791-): “distinguished affection.”

1793 v1793

v1793 = mal +

292 nobilitie of loue] Steevens (ed. 1793): “So, afterwards, the Ghost, describing his affection for the Queen: ‘To me, whose love was of that dignity.’ &c. Steevens.”

1803 v1803

v1803 = v1793

292 nobilitie of loue]

1813 v1813

v1813 = v1803

292 nobilitie of loue]

1819 cald1

cald1 = Steevens v1793 +

292 nobilitie of loue] Caldecott (ed. 1819): “With a degree no less high. Not to be better explained than by reference, as Mr. Steevens observes, to the character of the ghost’s passion for the Queen. [quotes].”

Ed. note: In his note for 662, cald refers to this phrase nobility of love as parallel in difficulty to sovereignty of reason. There the problem is missing words (he says), but what words might be missing from 292 he does not say.

1821 v1821

v1821 = v1813

292 nobilitie of loue]

1826 sing1

sing1 = Steevens v1793 without attribution

292 nobilitie of loue] Singer (ed. 1826): “This was a common form of figurative expression. The Ghost, describing his affection for the Queen, says:—‘To me, whose love was of that dignity.’ ”

1832 cald2

cald2 = cald1 +

292 nobilitie of loue] Caldecott (ed. 1832): “But see [Cor. 1.1.230 (250)] Mar. ‘I sin in envying his nobility.’ ”

1854 del2

del2

292 nobilitie of loue] Delius (ed. 1854): “Nobility of love ist die hohe Stellung, welche des Königs Liebe dem Hamlet anweist, als ob er sein wirklicher Sohn wäre.” [Nobility of love is the high position to which the king’s love for Hamlet places him, as if he were his own son.]

1856 sing2

sing2 = sing1

292 nobilitie of loue]

-1857 mstau

mstau ≈ stau

292 nobilitie of loue]

1860 stau

stau: Steevens xref without attribution; Badham

292 nobilitie of loue] Staunton (ed. 1860): “So the Ghost, —‘to me, whose love was of that dignity.’ Dr. Badham, however, proposes to read,— ‘—with nobility no less of love Than that.’”

1866 dyce2

dyce2: Badham; Steevens

292 nobilitie of loue] Dyce (ed. 1866): “Dr. Badham (Cambridge Essays for 1856, p. 272) would read ‘And with nobility no less of love;’ very improperly, I believe.—Steevens compares, in p. 123, ‘From me, whose love was of that dignity,’ &c.”

1868 c&mc

c&mc:

292 nobilitie of loue] Clarke & Clarke (ed. 1868): “‘exaltedness of affection,’ ‘elevated quality of affection.’”

1869 strat

strat contra tsch emendation

292 with] Stratmann (ed. 1869): “Tschischwitz (Shakspere’s Hamlet, Halle, 1869) boldly substitutes for ‘with,’ ‘wis,’ which he pretends to be = iwis.”

1875 Schmidt

Schmidt

292 nobilitie] Schmidt (1875), citing this line among others, glosses “dignity of mind, greatness.”

1877 v1877

v1877: theo, han, john, Heath, cap, Mason, del, Badham (via dyce2), tsch, ktly

292-4 And . . . impart] Furness (ed. 1877) implies that he does not approve of Tschischwitz’s choice: “What would Dyce have said had he seen Tschischwitz’s reading, which substitutes wis for ‘with,’ that is I wis (as in [MV 2.9.68 (1181), for the old ‘y-wis’), meaning assuredly?”

v1877: warb, john, Heath

292 nobility of loue]

1877 dyce3

dyce3 = dyce2

292 nobilitie of loue]

1881 hud3

hud3

292 nobilitie of loue] Hudson (ed. 1881): “is merely a generous or heightened phrase for love. See Critical Notes.”

hud3 contra Badham

292-4 nobilitie of loue . . . impart] Hudson (ed. 1881): “Dr. Badham would read ‘And with nobility no less of love,’ &c. This would give a definite object to impart, which now has no object expressed. So that the change is at least plausible. On the other hand, with this reading, nobility would have to be understood as meaning the honour of being heir-presumptive. But it may well be doubted whether Shakespeare would have used nobility with this meaning; and nobility, in the proper sense of the term, Hamlet has already by birth. If we could read “With this nobility no less of love,’ &c., the sense would come right; but that would perhaps be an unwarrantable change. See foot-note 23.”

1885 mull

mull ≈ mtheo2; theo without attribution

292-4 And . . . you] Mull (ed. 1885): “Several unaccepted conjectural emendations have been made to try to clear up the obscurity which apparently exists in [292-4]. I venture to suggest the following reading ‘And, with no less nobility than of love, Like that which dearest father bears his son, Do I impart toward you. [quotes standard version]. The King appears to say, ‘Not only do I impart to you this eminence and distinction (‘nobility,’ as heir to our throne), but my love, such love as a tender father bears his son.’ It is not, I submit, the ‘nobility of love,’ which the King imparts or tenders to Hamlet, but the two distinct things, my love and the regal state elect: the one no less precious than the other, An earnest tender of love itself could hardly be appropriately described as ‘nobility of love.’

“It may be contended that the quality of the regal state, its nobility, is here applied to distinguish the King’s love, and some may be content with that explanation. As the question is fairly debatable, I do not in this instance import my suggested reading into the text.”

1929 trav

trav ≈ hud3 without attribution

292 nobilitie] Travers (ed. 1929): “generous greatness.”

1939 kit2

kit2 = rann without attribution

292 nobilitie of loue] Kittredge (ed. 1939): "distinguished affection."

1982 ard2

ard2:

292 nobilitie] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “Though variously glossed, this word should give no difficulty. Shakespeare often describes as ’noble’ feelings and attributes of mind that are held up for admiration, and no less refers to quality not quantity. Paternal love is regarded as a noble passion, and Claudius says that his love for Hamlet is not inferior in kind to that of an actual father for his son.”

1987 oxf4

oxf4

292-4 And . . . you] Hibbard (ed. 1987) suggests two interpretations for the contorted syntax: either to impart means to offer to share with or Sh. forgot the beginning of the sentence by the time he reached the end. Hibbard prefers the 1st explanation, because the contorted syntax suggests that the king does not have the love he tries to convey.

oxf4

292 nobility of loue] Hibbard (ed. 1987): "love free from all base considerations."

Ed. note: See the apparition’s description of his love, 735 ff.

2006 ard3q2

ard3q2: oxf4 +

292-4 And . . . you.] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “The construction is awkward (with seems redundant), but the King clearly means to claim that he loves Hamlet like a son. Hibbard finds evidence of duplicity in the contorted syntax.”