The Works of William Shakespeare Cambridge Edition 8 of 9 by William Shakespeare ed Glover Clark

534 Pages·2021·8.82 MB·English

The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Works of William Shakespeare [Cambridge
Edition] [Vol. 8 of 9 vols.], by William Shakespeare

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of
the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have
to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook.

Title: The Works of William Shakespeare [Cambridge Edition] [Vol. 8 of 9 vols.]

Author: William Shakespeare

Editor: William George Clark
John Glover

Release Date: May 21, 2015 [EBook #49008]

Language: English

Character set encoding: ASCII

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WORKS OF WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE VOL 8 ***

Produced by Richard Tonsing, Jonathan Ingram and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net

THE WORKS

OF

WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE

THE WORKS

OF

WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE

EDITED BY

WILLIAM GEORGE CLARK, M.A.

FELLOW AND TUTOR OF TRINITY COLLEGE, AND PUBLIC ORATOR IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE;

AND WILLIAM ALDIS WRIGHT, M.A.

LIBRARIAN OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.

VOLUME VIII.

London and Cambridge:
MACMILLAN AND CO.

1866.

CAMBRIDGE:

PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A.
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

CONTENTS.

PAGE

The Preface
vii

Hamlet
3

Notes to Hamlet
185

The Tragicall Historie of Hamlet Prince of Denmarke
197

King Lear
249

Notes to King Lear
427

Othello
437

Notes to Othello
593

PREFACE.

1. The earliest edition of Hamlet appeared in 1603, with the following title-page:

The | Tragicall Historie of | Hamlet | Prince of Denmarke | By William Shake-speare. | As it hath
beene diuerse times acted by his Highnesse ser-| uants in the Cittie of London: as also in the two V-|
niuersities of Cambridge and Oxford, and else-where | At London printed for N: L. and Iohn
Trundell. | 1603.

We refer to it as (Q1).

A copy of this edition belonged to Sir Thomas Hanmer, though he does not appear to have mentioned it in his notes to
Shakespeare or in his correspondence, and its existence was not known till his library came into the possession of Sir E.
H. Bunbury in 1821. In a copy of the Reprint of 1825, now at Barton, Sir E. H. Bunbury wrote the following note:
'The only copy of this edition of Hamlet (1603) which is known to be in existence was found by me in the Library at
Barton when it came into my possession in 1821. The Hamlet was bound up with ten others of the small 4to editions of
Shakespeare's Plays (1598 to 1603) and with The Two Noble Kinsmen (1634). Most of these were complete. I sold
the volume in Dec. 1824 for £180 to Messrs Payne and Foss, who resold it to the Duke of Devonshire for £230.'
This copy wanted the last leaf containing the 22 concluding lines. A second copy, wanting the title-page but otherwise
perfect, was discovered in 1856 by Mr W. H. Rooney of Dublin. 'It was bought,' says Mr Timmins, 'by Mr Rooney
from a student of Trinity College, Dublin, who had brought it from Nottinghamshire with his other books. After
reprinting the last leaf, Mr Rooney sold the pamphlet to Mr Boone for £70, from whom Mr J. O. Halliwell bought it for
£120, and it is now in the British Museum.'
We have reprinted this edition, and recorded in foot-notes the few discrepancies which are found between the two
copies.
An extremely accurate reprint was made from the Devonshire copy in 1825, and it was lithographed in facsimile, with
the addition of the missing leaf, in 1858, under the direction of Mr Collier and at the expense of the Duke. In 1860 Mr
J. Allen, Junr., reprinted this edition and the Quarto of 1604, placing the corresponding passages as nearly as possible
on opposite pages, with a preface by Mr Samuel Timmins.
The edition of 1603 is obviously a very imperfect reproduction of the play, and there is every reason to believe that it
was printed from a manuscript surreptitiously obtained. This manuscript may have been compiled in the first instance
from short hand notes taken during the representation, but there are many errors in the printed text which seem like
errors of a copyist rather than of a hearer. Compare for example lines 37, 38 of Scene iii. of our Reprint, p. 205, with
the corresponding lines of the more perfect drama as it was printed in the Quarto of 1604, Act i. Scene 3, lines 73, 74,
p. 26.
In the Quarto of 1603 the passage runs thus:

And they of France of the chiefe rancke and station
Are of a most select and generall chiefe in that:

In that of 1604:

'And they in Fraunce of the best ranck and station,
Or of a most select and generous, chiefe in that:'

It is clear that the corruption in both passages is due to an error in the transcript from which both were copied.
Probably the author had originally written:

'And they in France of the best rank and station
Are most select and generous in that:'

and then given between the lines or in the margin, 'of,' 'chief', meaning these as alternative readings for 'in' and 'best' in
the first line. The transcriber by mistake inserted them in the second line. A few lines above both Quartos give 'courage'
for 'comrade,' a mistake due undoubtedly to the eye and not to the ear.
We believe then that the defects of the manuscript from which the Quarto of 1603 was printed had been in part at least
supplemented by a reference to the authentic copy in the library of the theatre. Very probably the man employed for this
purpose was some inferior actor or servant, who would necessarily work in haste and by stealth, and in any case would
not be likely to work very conscientiously for the printer or bookseller who was paying him to deceive his masters.
The Quarto of 1604, which we call Q2, has the following title-page:

THE | Tragicall Historie of | Hamlet, | Prince of Denmarke. | By William Shakespeare. | Newly
imprinted and enlarged to almost as much | againe as it was, according to the true and perfect |
Coppie. | At London, | Printed by I. R. for N. L. and are to be sold at his | shoppe vnder Saint

Dunstons Church in | Fleetstreet. 1604.

The printer 'I. R.' was no doubt, as Mr Collier says, James Roberts, who had made an entry in the books of the
Stationers' company as early as July 26, 1602, of 'A booke, The Revenge of Hamlett prince of Denmarke, as yt was
latelie acted by the Lord Chamberleyn his servantes.'
For some unknown reason the projected edition was delayed, and in the mean time the popularity of the play
encouraged N. L., i.e. Nicholas Ling, and the other publisher, Trundell, to undertake a surreptitious edition.
In the interval between the two editions Shakespeare seems to have changed the names of some of his Dramatis
Personæ, substituting 'Polonius' for 'Corambis' and 'Reynaldo' for 'Montano.' He may also have changed the order of
one or two scenes, and here and there erased or inserted a few lines, but we think that no substantial change was made,
and that the chief differences between (Q1) and Q2 are only such as might be expected between a bona fide, and a
mala fide, transcription.
The Quarto of 1605, which we call Q3, is not, properly speaking, a new edition, being printed from the same forms as
Q2, and differing from it no more than one copy of the same edition may differ from another. The title-page differs only
in the date, where 1605 is substituted for 1604.
Another Quarto, our Q4, printed in 1611, bears a title-page which does not substantially differ from that of Q3, except
that it is said to be:

'Printed for Iohn Smethwicke, and are to be sold at his shoppe | in Saint Dunstons Church-yeard in
Fleetstreet. | Under the Diall. 1611. |'

Another Quarto, without date, is said on the title-page to be 'Newly imprinted and inlarged, according to the true | and
perfect Copy lastly Printed,' and to be 'Printed by W. S. for Iohn Smethwicke.' Otherwise the title-page is identical
with that of Q4. Mr Collier supposes this undated Quarto to have been printed in 1607, because there is an entry in the
Stationers' books of that year and no edition with that date is known to exist. We are convinced however that the
undated Quarto was printed from that of 1611, and we have therefore called it Q5.

Another Quarto, printed 'by R. Young for John Smethwicke,' was published in 1637. This we call Q6. It is printed
from Q5, though the spelling is considerably modernized and the punctuation amended.

The symbol Qq signifies the agreement of Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5 and Q6.

Besides these, several editions, usually known as Players' Quartos, were printed at the end of the seventeenth and
beginning of the following century. Of these we have had before us during our collation, editions of 1676, 1685, 1695
and 1703. These we call respectively Q(1676), Q(1685), Q(1695) and Q(1703). We have given all readings which
seemed in any way remarkable, though we need scarcely say that the changes made in these editions have no authority
whatever. It is however worthy of notice that many emendations usually attributed to Rowe and Pope are really derived
from one or other of these Players' Quartos. When we give a reading as belonging to one of these Quartos, it is to be
understood that it occurs there for the first time and that all the subsequent Quartos adopt it.
The text of Hamlet given in the Folio of 1623 is not derived from any of the previously existing Quartos, but from an
independent manuscript. Many passages are found in the Folio which do not appear in any of the Quartos. On the other
hand many passages found in the Quartos are not found in the Folio. It is to be remarked that several of those which
appear in the Folio and not in the Quarto of 1604 or its successors, are found in an imperfect form in the Quarto of
1603, and therefore are not subsequent additions. Both the Quarto text of 1604 and the Folio text of 1623 seem to
have been derived from manuscripts of the play curtailed, and curtailed differently, for purposes of representation.
Therefore in giving in our text all the passages from both Folio and Quarto we are reproducing, as near as may be, the
work as it was originally written by Shakespeare, or rather as finally retouched by him after the spurious edition of
1603.
We have been unable to procure a copy of the Quarto edition of this play, edited in 1703 by 'the accurate Mr John
Hughs' (Theobald's Shakespeare Restored, p. 26), and have therefore quoted the readings of it on Theobald's
authority. It is different from the Players' Quarto of 1703, and is not mentioned in Bohn's edition of Lowndes's
Bibliographer's Manual. No copy of it exists in the British Museum, the Bodleian, the library of the Duke of
Devonshire, the Capell collection, or any other to which we have had access.
We have to thank Dr C. M. Ingleby for the loan of several editions of Hamlet which we should otherwise have had
difficulty in procuring.
2. King Lear first appeared in 1608. In this year there were two editions in Quarto. One bears the following title:

M. William Shakespeare, | HIS | True Chronicle History of the life | and death of King Lear, and his |
three Daughters. | With the unfortunate life of EDGAR, | sonne and heire to the Earle of
Glocester, and | his sullen and assumed humour of TOM | of Bedlam. | As it was plaid before the
Kings Maiesty at White-Hall, vp- | on S. Stephens night, in Christmas Hollidaies. | By his
Maiesties Seruants, playing vsually at the | Globe on the Banck-side. | Printed for Nathaniel Butter. |
1608. |

The printer's device is that of J. Roberts.

This we have called Q1. In the few instances in which there are differences between Capell's copy and that in the Duke
of Devonshire's library, we have distinguished the readings as those of Q1 (Cap.) and Q1 (Dev.) respectively. Through
the kindness of Sir S. Morton Peto and Mr Lilly, we have been enabled to collate two other copies, but without
discovering any variations from that in the Capell collection.
In the same year another Quarto edition of this play was issued by the same publisher. Its title is as follows:

M. William Shak-speare: | HIS | True Chronicle Historie of the life and | death of King LEAR and his
three | Daughters. | With the vnfortunate life of Edgar, sonne | and heire to the Earle of Gloster, and
his | sullen and assumed humor of | TOM of Bedlam: | As it was played before the Kings Maiestie
at Whitehall vpon | S. Stephans night in Christmas Hollidayes. | By his Maiesties seruants playing
vsually at the Gloabe | on the Bancke-side. | LONDON,| Printed for Nathaniel Butter, and are to be
sold at his shop in Pauls | Church-yard at the signe of the Pide Bull neere | St. Austins Gate. 1608. |

We have called this Q2. In the six copies we have collated there are a large number of very curious and important
variations. To distinguish them we have made use of the following notation.
1. Q2 (Cap.) The copy in Capell's collection.

2. Q2 (Dev.) The copy in the Library of the Duke of Devonshire.

3. Q2 (Mus. per.) A perfect copy in the British Museum (C. 34. K. 18).

4. Q2 (Mus. imp.) An imperfect copy (wanting title) in the British Museum (C. 34. K. 17); formerly in the possession of
Mr Halliwell.
5. Q2 (Bodl. 1). A copy in the Bodleian Library (Malone 35), with the title, but wanting the last leaf.

6. Q2 (Bodl. 2). A copy in the Bodleian Library (Malone 37), wanting title but having the last leaf.

It has been supposed in consequence of statements made by Malone and Boswell that a third edition of King Lear was
published in 1608. We shall show that there is no evidence for this. In the Variorum Shakespeare (ii. 652), edited by
Boswell in 1821, three Quartos are described, which are distinguished in the notes to the play by the letters A, B, C,
respectively. The first of these is a copy of Q2, quoted by us as Q2 (Bodl. 1); the second is a copy of Q1; and the third,
which is in reality another copy of Q2 and is quoted by us as Q2 (Bodl. 2), is described as follows:

"Title the same as the two former, except that like the first it begins at signature B: and like the second, has no reference
to the place of sale."
This statement of Boswell's is taken from a note in Malone's handwriting prefixed to the copy in question, which we
transcribe.
"This copy of King Lear differs in some particulars from the two others in Vol. IV.
"The title-page of it is the same as the second of those copies, that is, it has no direction to the place of sale, and the first
signat. is B,—notwithstanding which there are minute diversities; thus, in this copy in H3 verso, we have 'A foole vsurps
my bed'; in the other whose first signature is also B, we find—'My foote usurps my body', and in the copy without any
direction to the place of sale (whose first signature is A) 'My foote usurps my head'."
Now it is a little remarkable that at present the copy has no title-page at all, and there is no trace of the title-page having
been removed since the volume has been in its present condition. The probability is that the title was originally wanting
and that one had been supplied from a copy of Q1 before it came into Malone's hands, and that while it was in this
condition he wrote the above note upon it. It was then sent to be bound in a volume with other quartos, and the title
may have been lost at the binder's, or may have been intentionally removed as not belonging to the book. That
alterations were made by the binder is evident from the fact that the copy to which Malone refers as the second of
those in Vol. IV. is in reality the first. Malone, writing his note when Vol. IV. was arranged for binding, described the
then order of the plays, which must afterwards have been altered. In any case, however Malone's statement is to be
accounted for, it is quite clear that Boswell must have described the Quarto after it was bound, when the title could not
have existed.
We have said that Boswell quotes the three Quartos of Lear, now in the Bodleian, by the letters A, B, C, respectively.
In doing so, however, he is not consistent. We record his mistakes that others may not be misled by them. Bearing in
mind therefore that A = Q2 (Bodl. 1), B = Q1, and C = Q2 (Bodl. 2), we find in Act II. Scene 2 (Vol. X. p. 97)
'Quarto B, ausrent; Quarto A, reads unreverent.' Here B and A should change places. In Act III. Scene 7 (p. 188),
'Quarto A omits roguish:' for A read C. In Act IV. Scene 2 (p. 199), for 'Quartos B and C, the whistling,' read
'Quarto C' alone. In Act IV. Scene 6 (p. 220) B and A should again be interchanged. In Act V. Scene 3 (p. 277),
'Quarto A omits this line'; for A read B. It will be seen from these instances that A has been in turn made to represent
three different copies.
The differences in various copies of Q2 are accounted for by supposing that the corrections were made before the
sheets were all worked off, and that the corrected and uncorrected sheets were bound up indiscriminately. It will be
observed that the readings of the uncorrected sheets of Q2 agree for the most part with those of Q1, and this led us to
the conclusion which had previously been arrived at by Capell and also by J. P. Kemble, that the edition which we have

called Q1 was the earlier of the two printed in the same year. But upon collating a copy of Q2 in the Bodleian, which we
have called Q2 (Bodl. 1), we found evidence which points to an opposite conclusion. In Kent's soliloquy (II. 2. 160)
that copy, as will be seen in our notes, reads,

nothing almost sees my rackles

But miserie, &c.

which of course is an accidental corruption, by displacement of the type, of 'myrackles' (i.e. 'miracles') the true reading.
In the corrected copies of Q2 this is altered, apparently by the printer's conjecture, to 'my wracke', which is also the
reading of Q1. Throughout the sheet in which this occurs the readings of Q1 agree with the corrected copies of Q2, and
had it not been for the instance quoted, we might have supposed that the corrections in the latter were made from Q1.
But the corruption 'my rackles' for 'miracles' must have come from the original MS., and 'my wracke' is only a
conjectural emendation, so that the order of succession in this sheet at least appears to be the following. First the
uncorrected copy of Q2, then the same corrected, and lastly Q1. On the other hand it is remarkable that Q1, if printed
from Q2 at all, must have been printed from a copy made up, with the exception just mentioned from II. 1. 128 to II. 4.
133, and another containing from IV. 6. 224 to V. 3. 64, of uncorrected sheets. Another hypothesis which might be
made is that Q1 and Q2 were printed from the same manuscript, and that the printer of Q1 corrupted 'miracles' into 'my
wracke', while the printer of Q2 made it 'my rackles', which was afterwards altered by a reference to Q1. The question,
however, is very difficult to decide, and at most is one rather of bibliographical curiosity than of critical importance. We
may mention that, without giving the reasons for his conclusion, Jennens, in his edition of Lear in 1770, quotes as the 1st
Quarto that which we have called Q2 and vice versa.

A third Quarto, which we have called Q3, was printed very carelessly page for page from Q1 and published in 1655.

In the first Folio King Lear was printed from an independent manuscript, and its text is on the whole much superior to
that of the Quartos. Each however supplies passages which are wanting in the other.
Capell appears to have prepared the play for press in the first instance from Pope's first edition. The manuscript
readings and stage directions, marked in his copy of that edition but not adopted in his own, we have quoted as 'Capell
MS'.

3. Othello was first printed in Quarto in 1622 with the following title:

The | Tragœdy of Othello, | The Moore of Venice. | As it hath beene diuerse times acted at the |
Globe, and at the Black-Friers, by | his Maiesties Seruants. | Written by William Shakespeare. |
LONDON,| Printed by N. O. for Thomas Walkley, and are to be sold at his | shop, at the Eagle and
Child, in Brittans Bursse. | 1622. |

To this edition which we call Q1, the following preface was affixed by the publisher:

The Stationer to the Reader.

To set forth a booke without an Epistle, were like to the old English prouerbe, A blew coat
without a badge, & the Author being dead, I thought good to take that piece of worke vpon
mee: To commend it, I will not, for that which is good, I hope euery man will commend,
without intreaty: and I am the bolder, because the Authors name is sufficient to vent his worke.
Thus leauing euery one to the liberty of iudgement: I haue ventered to print this Play, and
leaue it to the generall censure.

Yours,

Thomas Walkley.

This first Quarto contains many oaths and expletives, which in all the later editions are altered or omitted. This shows
that the MS. from which it was printed had not been recently used as an acting copy. Many passages are omitted in Q1,
by accident or design, and some which we find only in the later editions look like afterthoughts of the author.
The title-page of the second Quarto is letter for letter the same as the first, except that it has the following imprint:

LONDON,| Printed by A. M. for Richard Hawkins, and are to be sold at | his shoppe in Chancery-
Lane, neere Sergeants-Inne. | 1630. |

Of this Quarto, which we term Q2, Mr Collier says: 'It was unquestionably printed from a manuscript different from that
used for the Quarto of 1622, or for the Folio of 1623.' But after a minute comparison of the two it appears to us clear
that the Quarto of 1630 must have been printed from a copy of the Quarto of 1622, which had received additions and
corrections in manuscript. The resemblances between the two are too close to allow of any other supposition. These
additions and corrections, though agreeing for the most part with the first Folio, which had appeared in the interval,
were derived from an independent source.

The third Quarto, which we refer to as Q3, was printed from the second, and is called 'The Fourth Edition.' It has the
following imprint:

LONDON, | Printed for William Leak at the Crown in Fleet- | street, between the two Temple
Gates, 1655 |

Jennens, in his edition of Othello, published in 1773, was not aware of the existence of the Quarto of 1630, and quotes
as the readings of the second Quarto those of the edition of 1655.
An edition in Quarto, without date, is quoted by Capell on the authority of Pope; but on reference to Pope's list it
appears that, though he has omitted the date, he refers to the Quarto of 1622, which contains the publisher's preface.
The kindness of Sir S. Morton Peto has enabled us to consult a copy of the first Quarto in the library at Chipstead,
which, in cases where its readings differ from those of the copies in the Capell and Devonshire collections, we have
distinguished as Q1 (Chip.) A Players' Quarto of 1695, for the use of which, as well as for other acts of kindness, we
have to thank Sir Charles Bunbury, is quoted as Q (1695).
In the Addenda we have given some readings which we had not previously seen from an anonymous tract published in
1752, with the title, Miscellaneous Observations on the Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. The rest are
chiefly from books which have been published since the greater part of our volume was struck off.

W. G. C.
W. A. W.

ADDENDA.

Hamlet, I. 1. 117, 118. Add to note, As stars with ... Distempered or As stars with ...

Discoloured Staunton conj.

I. 4. 36, 37. Add to note, the dram of leaven ... of a dough Cartwright conj.

the dram of evil ... oft weigh down Bailey conj.

I. 4. 73. your ... reason] of sovereignty your Hunter conj.
I. 5. 11. And for] Tho' in Anon. MS.
I. 5. 32, 34. shouldst ... Wouldst] wouldst ... Shouldst Anon. conj. (Misc. Obs.

on Hamlet, 1752).

II. 2. 82. Add to note, And think upon and answer Anon. conj. (Misc. Obs. on

Hamlet, 1752).

II. 2. 140. out of thy star] out of thy soar Bailey conj.
II. 2. 162. Be ... then;] Let ... then Anon. conj. (Misc. Obs. on Hamlet, 1752).
II. 2. 438, 439. tyrannous ... murder] treacherous and damned light To the

vile murtherer Anon. conj. (Misc. Obs. on Hamlet, 1752).

III. 1. 58. slings and arrows] stings and harrows Anon. conj. (Misc. Obs. on

Hamlet, 1752). stings and horrors Anon. MS.

III. 2. 21. scorn] sin Bailey conj.
III. 2. 22. the very age] the visage Bailey conj.
III. 2. 23. pressure] posture Bailey conj.
III. 2. 206. Nor ... give] Let earth not give me Anon. conj. (Misc. Obs. on

Hamlet, 1752).

III. 3. 15. The cease of] Deceasing Bailey conj.
III. 3. 169. Add to note, And either house Bailey conj.
IV. 7. 112. begun] begnawn Bailey conj.
V. 2, 180. and outward ... a kind] and out of the habit of encounter get a

kind Bailey conj.

V. 2. 180, 181. collection] diction Bailey conj.
V. 2. 182. Add to note, profound and renowned Bailey conj.

King Lear, I. 1. 72. Add to note, precious treasure Bailey conj.

I. 1. 226. Add to note, burden, or Bailey conj.
II. 4. 92. Add to note, Fiery? what? quality? Taylor conj. MS.

HAMLET.

DRAMATIS PERSONÆ[A].

Claudius, king of Denmark.
Hamlet, son to the late, and nephew to the present king.
Polonius, lord chamberlain.
Horatio, friend to Hamlet.
Laertes, son to Polonius.

Voltimand,

courtiers.

Cornelius,
Rosencrantz,
Guildenstern,
Osric,
A Gentleman,

A Priest.

Marcellus,
officers.
Bernardo,

Francisco, a soldier.
Reynaldo, servant to Polonius.
Players.
Two Clowns, grave-diggers.
Fortinbras, prince of Norway.
A Captain.
English Ambassadors.

Gertrude, queen of Denmark, and mother to Hamlet.
Ophelia, daughter to Polonius.

Lords, Ladies, Officers, Soldiers, Sailors, Messengers, and other

Attendants.

Ghost of Hamlet's Father.

Scene: Denmark[B].

Dramatis Personæ.] First given by Rowe.

Denmark] Edd. (Globe ed.) Elsinoor. Rowe.

THE TRAGEDY OF

HAMLET

PRINCE OF DENMARK.

[A]

[B]

[Exit.[10][13]

ACT I.

Scene I. Elsinore. A platform before the castle.

Francisco at his post. Enter to him Bernardo.[1]

Ber. Who's there?[2][3]

Fran. Nay, answer me: stand, and unfold yourself.[3]

Ber. Long live the king![3]

Fran. Bernardo?[3][4]

Ber. He.[3]

Fran. You come most carefully upon your hour.[5]

Ber. 'Tis now struck twelve; get thee to bed, Francisco.[6]

Fran. For this relief much thanks: 'tis bitter cold,
And I am sick at heart.

Ber. Have you had quiet guard?

Fran. Not a mouse stirring.

Ber. Well, good night.[7]

If you do meet Horatio and Marcellus,[7][8]

The rivals of my watch, bid them make haste.[7][8]

Fran. I think I hear them. Stand, ho! Who is there?[9]

Enter Horatio and Marcellus.

Hor. Friends to this ground.

Mar. And liegemen to the Dane.

Fran. Give you good night.[10]

Mar. O, farewell, honest soldier:[11][12]

Who hath relieved you?[13]

Fran. Bernardo hath my place.[13]
Give you good night.

Mar. Holla! Bernardo!

Ber. Say,[14][15]

What, is Horatio there?[14]

Hor. A piece of him.[16]

Ber. Welcome, Horatio: welcome, good Marcellus.

Mar. What, has this thing appear'd again to-night?[17]

Ber. I have seen nothing.

Mar. Horatio says 'tis but our fantasy,[18]
And will not let belief take hold of him
Touching this dreaded sight, twice seen of us:[19]

Therefore I have entreated him along[20]

10

15

20

25

With us to watch the minutes of this night,[20]
That if again this apparition come,
He may approve our eyes and speak to it.

Hor. Tush, tush, 'twill not appear.

Ber. Sit down awhile;[21]
And let us once again assail your ears,
That are so fortified against our story,[22]

What we have two nights seen.[22][23]

Hor. Well, sit we down,
And let us hear Bernardo speak of this.

Ber. Last night of all,
When yond same star that's westward from the pole[24]

Had made his course to illume that part of heaven[25]
Where now it burns, Marcellus and myself,
The bell then beating one,—[26]

Enter Ghost.

Mar. Peace, break thee off; look, where it comes again![27]

Ber. In the same figure, like the king that's dead.

Mar. Thou art a scholar; speak to it, Horatio.

Ber. Looks it not like the king? mark it, Horatio.[28]

Hor. Most like: it harrows me with fear and wonder.[29]

Ber. It would be spoke to.

Mar. Question it, Horatio.[30]

Hor. What art thou, that usurp'st this time of night,[31]
Together with that fair and warlike form
In which the majesty of buried Denmark
Did sometimes march? by heaven I charge thee, speak![32]

Mar. It is offended.

Ber. See, it stalks away!

Hor. Stay! speak, speak! I charge thee, speak![33]

[Exit Ghost.

Mar. 'Tis gone, and will not answer.

Ber. How now, Horatio! you tremble and look pale:
Is not this something more than fantasy?
What think you on't?[34]

Hor. Before my God, I might not this believe[35]

Without the sensible and true avouch[36]
Of mine own eyes.

Mar. Is it not like the king?

Hor. As thou art to thyself:
Such was the very armour he had on[37]

When he the ambitious Norway combated;[38]
So frown'd he once, when, in an angry parle,
He smote the sledded Polacks on the ice.[39]

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

'Tis strange.[40]

Mar. Thus twice before, and jump at this dead hour,[41]

With martial stalk hath he gone by our watch.[42]

Hor. In what particular thought to work I know not;[43]

But, in the gross and scope of my opinion,[44]
This bodes some strange eruption to our state.

Mar. Good now, sit down, and tell me, he that knows,[45]
Why this same strict and most observant watch
So nightly toils the subject of the land,[46]

And why such daily cast of brazen cannon,[47]
And foreign mart for implements of war;
Why such impress of shipwrights, whose sore task
Does not divide the Sunday from the week;[48]
What might be toward, that this sweaty haste
Doth make the night joint-labourer with the day:[49]
Who is't that can inform me?

Hor. That can I;
At least the whisper goes so. Our last king,
Whose image even but now appear'd to us,
Was, as you know, by Fortinbras of Norway,
Thereto prick'd on by a most emulate pride,[50]

Dared to the combat; in which our valiant Hamlet—[51]
For so this side of our known world esteem'd him—
Did slay this Fortinbras; who by a seal'd compact,[52]

Well ratified by law and heraldry,[53]

Did forfeit, with his life, all those his lands[54]

Which he stood seized of, to the conqueror:[55]
Against the which, a moiety competent
Was gaged by our king; which had return'd[56]
To the inheritance of Fortinbras,
Had he been vanquisher; as, by the same covenant[57]

And carriage of the article design'd,[58]

His fell to Hamlet. Now, sir, young Fortinbras,[59]

Of unimproved mettle hot and full,[60]
Hath in the skirts of Norway here and there
Shark'd up a list of lawless resolutes,[61][62]

For food and diet, to some enterprise[62]

That hath a stomach in't: which is no other—[63]

As it doth well appear unto our state—[64]
But to recover of us, by strong hand
And terms compulsatory, those foresaid lands[65]
So by his father lost: and this, I take it,
Is the main motive of our preparations,
The source of this our watch and the chief head
Of this post-haste and romage in the land.

Ber. I think it be no other but e'en so:[66][67]

Well may it sort, that this portentous figure[66]

Comes armed through our watch, so like the king[66]

That was and is the question of these wars.[66]

Hor. A mote it is to trouble the mind's eye.[66][68]

In the most high and palmy state of Rome,[66][69]

A little ere the mightiest Julius fell,[66]

The graves stood tenantless, and the sheeted dead[66][70]

Did squeak and gibber in the Roman streets:[66][71]

. . . . . . .

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115