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.

1805 Seymour

Seymour

2592 Gertrard, how] Seymour (1805, p. 192): “Some words are wanting; perhaps, ‘What, Gertrude? hast thou seen? and how does

Hamlet?’”

1890 irv2

irv2: v1877 (Clarke) + magenta underlined

2592-3 King . . . wind] Symons (in Irving & Marshall, ed. 1890): “The Queen has promised her son, in lines 197-199 of the preceding scene, that she will not betray the secret of his pretended madness; she here keeps her promise, and, as Clarke says (apud Furness, vol. I. pp. 311, 312), ‘with maternal ingenuity makes it the excuse for his rash deed. This affords a clue to

Hamlet’s original motive in putting ‘an antic disposition on’ and feigning insanity; he foresaw that it might be useful to obviate suspicion of his having a steadily-pursued object in view, and to account for whatever hostile attempt he should make.’ In Q. 1 there is a scene not found inany other edition, in which the Queen and

Horatio are seen counseling together how best they can aid

Hamlet in his counterplots agains the plots of Claudius. This scene precedes what is now 4.7. On the question of the Queen’s character as it finally leaves Shakespeare’s hands, see note . [1.2.213 (405)] above.”

1891 dtn

dtn

2592 how dooes Hamlet] Deighton (ed. 1891): “what is the state of

Hamlet’s mind?”

1982 ard2

ard2

2592 What, Gertrude] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “Not an interrogative, still less a feeble echo, but a (compassionate) examination.”

2006 ard3q2

ard3q2

2592 What, Gertrude?] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “perhaps a straight question (’What have you seen, Gertrude?); perhaps an exclamation of concern (’My poor Gertrude!’).”