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.

1765- mDavies

mDavies: see Davies 1784

2151-2 share . . . one I] [Davies] (ms. not in johnson, ed. 1765, opp. 8: 226): Note torn out and only a few words legible.

1780 malsi

malsi: Account of the Ancient Theatres

2151-2 share . . . one I] Malone (1780, I: 356): “It should be, I think, ‘A whole one; —ay—For, &c.’ The actors in our author’s time had not annual salaries as at present. The whole receipts of the theatres were divided into shares, and each actor had one or more shares, or part of a share, according to his merit. See The Account of the Ancient Theatres, ante, p. 47. Malone”

1784 Davies

Davies: see mDavies 1765-

2151-2 share . . . one I] Davies (1784, pp. 95-6): <p.95> “The old actors divided their profits into equal shares, according to their several degrees of merit. Sometimes, indeed, a very indifferent performer, by his talents as a writer, gained an equal, if not a superior, portion of the surplus. It likewise not unfrequently happened, that a man, who had no other desert than furnishing a large part of the wardrobe, the scenes, and other decorations, claimed a considerable part of the treasure. Tucca, in Ben Jonson’s Poetaster, calls one of the lower actors Three-Shares.

“This custom, of portioning out the income of the theatre into parts, subsisted long amongst the French comedians, and is, I believe practised to this day.—Downs, in his Stage-History, informs us, </p.95><p.96> that the principal of actors of the king’s theatre, in Drury-lane, Hart, Mohus, &c. on an annual division of their profits, gained sometimes 1000£. each.” </p.96>

1785 v1785

v1785 = malsi

1790 mal

mal = v1785 + magenta underlined

2151-2 share . . . one I] Malone (ed. 1790): “It should be, I think, ‘A whole one; —ay—For, &c.’ The actors in our author’s time had not annual salaries as at present. The whole receipts of each theatre were divided into shares, of which the proprietors of the theatre, or house-keepers, as they were called, had some; and each actor had one or more shares, or part of a share according to his merit. See The Account of the Theatres, Vol. I. Part II. Malone.”

1793 v1793

v1793 = v1785

1803 v1803

v1803 = v1793

1813 v1813

v1813 = v1803

1819 cald1

cald1 ≈ malsi

2151 share] Malone (apud Caldecott ed. 1819): “See my Account of the Ancient Theatres. Malone”

cald1: I Would and Yet I Would Not analogue

2151 share] Caldecott (ed. 1819): ‘I would I were a player, and could act As many parts as came upon a stage: And in my braine could make a full compact Of all that passeth betwixt youth and age, That I might have five shares in every play.’ I would and yet I would not, 4to. 1614, Stanz. 74.”

1821 v1821

v1821 = v1813

1826 sing1

sing1: mal

2151 share] Singer (ed. 1821): “The players were not paid by salaries, but by shares or portions of the profit, according to merit. See Malone’s Account of the Ancient Theatres, passim.”

1832 cald2

cald2 = cald1 +

2151 share] Caldecott (ed. 1832): “See ‘ten shares,’ Tro. [2.3.220 (1427)]. Ulys.”

1839 knt1 (nd)

knt1: see 2146-50: “Illustration”

1847 verp

verp ≈ mal + magenta underlined

2151-2152 Halfe . . . whole one] Verplanck (ed. 1847): “Actors, in Shakespeare’s time, had not salaries, as now. The receipts were divided into shares, of which the proprietors of the theatre, or ‘house-keepers,’ as they were called, had some; and each actor had one or more shares, or parts of a share, according to his rank or interest. The custom is retained on the continent of Europe.

“A recent antiquarian discovery has shown that, in 1608, the Blackfriars Theatre was held by eleven members of the company, on twenty shares; of which Shakespeare owned four, while some others had but half a share each.”

1856 hud1 (1851-6)

hud1 = sing1 without attribution

1856b sing2

sing2 = sing1

1865 hal

hal = malminus “See The Account of the Theatres, Vol. I. Part II.” +

2151 Halfe a share] Malone (apud Halliwell in ed. 1865): “In a poem entitled I Would and I Would Not, by B.N., 1614, the writer makes a player utter a wish to possess five shares in every play; but I do not believe that any performer derived so great an emolument from the stage, unless he were also a proprietor. The speaker seems to wish for excellence that was never yet attained, (to be able to act every part that was ever written,) that he might gain an emolument superior to any then acquired by the most popular and successful actor:—‘I would I were a player, and could act As many partes as came upon the stage, And in my braine could make a full compact Of all that passeth betwixt youth and age; That I might have five shares in every play, And let them laugh that bear the bell away.’—Malone.”

1872 cln1

cln1: Henslowe

2151 share] Clark and Wright (ed. 1872): “In Henslowe’s Diary (pp. 5, 8) are memoranda of £15 being lent to Francis Henslowe for a share with the Queen’s players, and £9 for a half share with another company.”

1877 neil

neil ≈ mal for Half a share

1877 v1877

v1877 = mal, cln1 + magenta underlined

2151 share] Furness (ed. 1877): “Malone: The actors in Shakespeare’s time had not annual salaries as at present. The whole receipts of each theatre were divided into shares, of which the proprietors of the theatre, or house-keepers, as they were called, had some: and each actor had one or more shares, or part of a share, according to his merit. See Var. 1821, iii, [p.171. Also Collier’s Annals of the Stage, iii, p. 429.] Clarendon: In Henslowe’s Diary (p. 5) is a memorandum of £ 15 being lent to Francis Henslowe for a share with the Queen’s players, and [p. 8, three years afterwards, in 1596] £9 for a half share with another company. [In Halliwell’s very valuable Illustrations of the Life of Shakespeare, 1874, pp. 86-91, certain petitions and answers are reprinted, that were filed in 1635, in the Lord Chamberlain’s office, and although in date they are after Shakespeare’s day, they nevertheless throw great light on the early financial management of the Globe and Blackfriars theatres, and of the value of the shares in them. The substance of one of these petitions, which shows us what the house-keepers were, and that they and the actors were not always in accord, is as follows: ‘Robert Benefield, Eyllardt Swanston, and Thomas Pollard doe further humbly represent unto your Lordship. That the houskeepers beeing but six in number, vizt., Mr. Cutbert Burbadge, Mrs. Condall, Mr. Shankes, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Lowen and Mr. Robinson (in the right of his wife), have amongst them the full moyety of all the galleries and boxes in both houses, and of the tireing-house dore at the Globe. That the actors have the moyety, with the outer dores; but in regard the actors are halfe as many more, vizt., nine in number, their shares fall shorter and are a great deale lesse then the houskeepers; and yet, notwithstanding out of those lesser shares they sayd actors defray all charges of the house whatsoever, vizt., wages to hired men and boyes, musicke, lightes, &c., amounting to 900 or 1000 li. per annum or thereaboutes, beeing 3 li. a day one day with another; besides the extraordinary charge which the sayd actors are wholly at for apparell and poetes, &c. Whereas the sayd houskeepers out of all their gaines have not till Lady Day last payd above 65 li. per annum rent for both houses, towardes which they rayse betweene 20 and 30 li. per annum from the tap houses and a tenement and a garden belonging to the premisses, &c., and are at noe other charges whatsoever, excepting the ordinary reparations of the houses. Soe that upon a medium made of the gaynes of the howskeepers and those of the actors one day with another throughout the yeere, the petitioners will make it apparent that when some of the houskepers share 12 s. a day at the Globe, the actors share not above 3s. And then what those gaine that are both actors and houskeepers, and have their shares in both, your Lordship will easily judge, and therby finde the modesty of the petitioners suite, who desire onely to buy for their money one part a peece from such three of the sayd houskepers as are fittest to spare them, both in respect of desert and otherwise, vizt., Mr. Shankes, one part of his three,’ &c. Mr John Shankes not unnaturally remonstrated, and it is from his answer that we learn the value of a ‘share,’ not only of a ‘houskeeper,’ but in a ‘cry of players;’ he states that ‘he did buy [of William Hemings] one part hee had in the Blackfriers for about six yeeres then to come at the yeerly rent of 6 li. 5 s., and another part hee then had in the Globe for about two yeeres to come, and payd him for the same two partes in ready moneys i56 li.... about eleven months since, the sayd William Hemings, offering to sell unto your suppliant the remaining partes hee then had, viz., one in the Blackfriers, wherin hee had then about five yeeres to come, and two in the Globe, wherein hee had then but one yeere to come, your suppliant likewise bought the same, and payd for them in ready moneys more 350 li., all which moneys so disbursed by your suppliant amount to 506 li.,’ &c. Shankes, who had been one of Shakespeare’s fellow-actors, makes an appeal ad misericordiam as ‘beeing an old man in this quality, [see Ham. II, ii, 333 and 4i7], and then states that ‘Mr. Swanston one of them who is most violent in this busines,’ ‘hath further had and receaved this last yeere above 34 li. for the profitt of a third part of one part in the Blackfriers which hee bought for 20 li.’ Nor did ‘Cutbert Burbadge and Winifred his brothers wife, and William his sonne’ submit any more quietly than John Shankes to be ‘trampled upon,’ as they term it, and their answer is a Shakespearian discovery so recent and so interesting not only in its familiar allusion to Shakespeare as a ‘deserveing man,’ but also in its reference to the Children of the Queen’s Chapel, that the following extract will not be deemed too long nor out of place: ‘The father of us, Cutbert and Richard Burbadge, was the first builder of playhowses and was himselfe in his younger yeeres a player. The Theater hee built [the first ever built in England, in 1576. Ed.] with many hundred pounds taken up at interest. The players that lived in those first times had onely the profitts arising from the dores, but now the players receave all the commings in at the dores to themselves and halfe the galleries from the houskepers. Hee built this house upon leased ground, by which meanes the landlord and hee had a great suite in law, and, by his death, the like troubles fell on us, his sonnes; wee then bethougt us of altering from thence, and at like expence built the Globe, with more summes of money taken up at interest, which lay heavy on us many yeeres; and to ourselves wee joined those deserveing men, Shakspere, Hemings, Condall, Philips and others, partners in the profittes of that they call the House, but makeing the leases for twenty-one yeeres hath beene the destruction of ourselves and others for they dyeing at the expiration of three or foure yeeres of their lease, the subsequent yeeres became dissolved to strangers...Thus, Right Honorable, as concerning the Globe, where wee ourselves are but lessees. Now for the Blackfriers, that is our inheritance, our father purchased it at extreame rates, and made it into a playhouse with great charge and troble; which after was leased out to one Evans that first sett up the boyes commonly called the Queenes Majesties Children of the Chappell. In process of time, the boyes growing up to bee men, which were Underwood, Field, Ostler, and were taken to strengthen the Kings service; and the more to strenghthen the service, the boyes dayly wearing out, it was considered that house would be as fitt for ourselves, and soe purchased the lease remaining from Evans with our money, and placed men players, which were Hemings, Condall, Shakspeare, &c.’ Ed.]”

1881 hud3

hud3 = hud2 +

2151 share] Hudson (ed. 1881): “Perhaps, however, the allusion is rather to the custom, then in vogue, of making the theatrical property a joint-stock affair. Thus Shakespeare himself was a stockholder in the Globe theatre, and so hand not only his portion of the profits as one of the players, but also an income from the money invested, or from the shares he held in the stock.”

1883 wh2

wh2 ≈ sing1

2151 share] White (ed. 1883): “The fellows in a cry, or company, of players were paid by shares in the profits of the performance.”

1890 irv2

irv2: Halliwell (v1877 subst.)

2151 Halfe a share] Symons (in Irving & Marshall, ed. 1890): “The actors in Shakespeare’s time had shares in the profits of the theatre, and were paid according to the receipts, and proportionately to their merit. There is much interesting information on the subject of shares in theatres in Halliwell-Phillips’ Illustrations of the Life of Shakespeare, 1874, pp. 86-91, the substance of which is given by Furness in his Variorum d. of

Hamlet, pp. 260-262.”

1891 dtn

dtn = malsi minus “See The Account . . . , ante p. 47.”

2151 a share] Deighton (ed. 1891): “‘the actors in Shakespeare’s time had not annual salaries as at present. The whole receipts of each theater were divided into shares of which the proprietors of the theater . . . had some ; and each actor had one or more shares, or part of a share, according to his merit’” (Malone).

1899 ard1

ard1 ≈ malsi minus framing bits (“It should be . . . . at present.” and “See . . . Part II.”) and phrase “as they were called”; v1877 (hal)

2151 share] Dowden (ed. 1899): “Malone: ‘The whole receipts of each theatre were divided into shares, of which the proprietors of the theatre, or house-keepers . . . had some; and each actor had one or more shares, or part of a share according to his merit. See Furness for citation of documents from Halliwell.”

1931 crg1

crg1 ≈ sing1

2151 Craig (ed. 1931): “allusion to the custom in dramatic companies of dividing the ownership into a number of shares among the householders.”

1939 kit2

kit2: xref.; Dekker analogue

2151 Kittredge (ed. 1939): “

Horatio speaks with his customary mild humour (see 28). In Shakespeare’s time each regular member of a company of players had his proportion of the receipts instead of a salary. Some had a full share, some half a share. Cf. Dekker, The Wonderfull Yeare, 1603 (ed. Grossart, I, 1000): ‘The worst players Boy stood vpon his good parts, swearing . . . he would . . . be half a sharer (at least).’”

1982 ard2

ard2 ≈ cln1 (Henslowe) without attribution + magenta underlined

2151 Halfe a share] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “A sharer in a company of players, as distinct from a hired man, was joint owner of its property and participated in its profits (see Chambers, El. St., i. 352-5). The system also permitted of half-shares, as when Henslowe (Diary, 1 June 1595) bought one for his nephew Francis.

Horatio perhaps implies that the achievement

Hamlet boasts of is only half his (since he has needed the collaboration of the players).”

2006 ard3q2

ard3q2: 2160, 2162 xref

2151 Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “

Horatio seems to evince some degree of skepticism about the scale of

Hamlet’s success, and his replies at 280 [2160] and 282 [2162] are non-committal. In general his response to

Hamlet’s elation is muted.”