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.

1736 Stubbs see n. 3512-21

Stubbs

3501ff You doe remember . . . ][STUBBS] (1736, pp. 37): <p. 37>“Hamlet’s Return to Denmark is not ill contriv’d; but I cannot think that his Stratagem is natural or easy, by which he brings that Destruction upon the Heads of his Enemies, which was to have fallen upon himself. It was possible, but not very probable; because methinks, their Commission was kept in a vey negligent Manner, to be thus got from them without their knowing it. Their Punishment was just, because they had devoted themselves to the Service of the Usurper in whatever he should command, as appears in several Passages.” </p. 37>

1780 mals

mals

3501ff You doe remember . . . ] Malone (1780, I:361) : <p. 361> “The Hystorie of Hamblet, bl [ack]. let[ter] furnished our author with the scheme of sending the prince to England, and with most of the circumstances described in this scene:‘Now, to beare him company, were assigned two of Fengon’s faithful ministers, bearing letters ingraved in wood, that contained Hamlet’s death, in such sort as he had advertised the king of England. But the subtil Danish prince (being at sea), whilst his companions slept, having read the letters, and knowing his uncle’s great treason, with the wicked and villainous mindes of the two courtiers that led him to the slaughter, raced out the letters that concerned his death, and instead thereof graved others, with commission to the king of England to hang his two companions; and not content to turn the death they had devised against him, upon their own neckes, wrote further, that king Fengon willed him to give his daughter to Hamblet in marriage.’ Hyst of Hamb. sig. G2.

“From this narrative it appears that the faithful ministers of Fengon were not unacquainted with the import of the letters they bore. Shakspeare, who has followed the story pretty closely, probably meant to describe their representatives,

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, as equally guilty; as confederating with the king to deprive Hamlet of his life. So that his procuring their execution, though certainly not absolutely necessary to his own safety, does not appear to have been a wanton and unprovoked cruelty, as Mr. Steevens has supposed in his very ingenious observations on the general character and conduct of the prince throughout this piece. See Vol. X. p. 412.

“In the conclusion of his drama the poet has entirely deviated from the fabulous history, which in other places he has frequently followed. After Hamlet’s arrival in England (for no sea-fight is mentioned), ‘the king (says The Hystory of Hamblet ) admiring the young prince--gave him his daughter in marriage, according to the counterfeit letters by him devised; and the next day caused the two servants of Fengon to be executed, to satisfy as he thought the king’s desire.”’ Hyst. of Hamb. Ibid.

“Hamlet, however, returned to Denmark, without marrying the king of England’s daughter, who, it should seem, had only been betrothed to him. When he arrived in his native country, he made the courtiers drunk, and having burnt them to death, by setting fire to the banqueting-room wherein they sat, he went into Fengon’s chamber, and killed him, ‘giving him (says the relater) such a violent blowe upon the chine of the necke, that he cut his head clean from the shoulders.’ Ibid sig. F3

“He is afterwards said to have been crowned king of Denmark.

“I shall only add that this tremendous stroke might have been alledged by the advocates for Dr. Warburton’s alteration of naue into nape , in a contested passage in the first act of Macbeth , if the original reading had not been established beyond a doubt by Mr. Steevens, in his supplemental note to Vol. X [p. 358 in v1785 edition] late edition. MALONE” </p. 361>

1785 v1785

v1785 = mals+

3501ff You doe remember . . . ] Malone (apud Steevens, ed. 1785) : “The Hystorie of Hamblet , bl. let. furnished our author with the scheme of sending the prince to England, and with most of the circumstances described in this scene: (After the death of Polonius) “ Fengon (the king in the present play) could not content himselfe, but still his mind gave him that the foole (Hamlet) would play him some trick of legerdemaine. And in that conceit, seeking to be rid of him, determined to find the meanes to doe it by the aid of a stranger, making the king of England minister of his massacrous resolution; to whom he purposed to send him, and by letters desire him to puthim to death.”

1787 ann

ann = v1785 (Only “The Hystorie of Hamblet , bl. let. furnished our author with the scheme of sending the prince to England, and with most of the circumstances described in this scene”)

3501ff You doe remember . . . ]

1793 v1793

v1793 = v1785 (minus final π[“I shall only add . . . late edition]) +

3501ff You doe remember . . . ] Steevens (ed. 1793) : “I apprehend that a critick and a juryman are bound to form their opinions on what they see and hear in the cause before them, and not to be influenced by extraneous particulars unsupported by legal evidence in open court. I persist in observing that from Shakespeare’s drama no proofs of the guilt of

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern can be collected. They may be convicted by the black letter history; but if the tragedy forbears to criminate, it has no right to sentence them. This is sufficient for the commentator’s purpose. It is not his office to interpret the plays of Shakspeare according to the novels on which they are founded, novels which the poet sometimes followed, but as often materially deserted. Perhaps he never confined himself strictly to the plan of any one of his originals. His negligence of poetick justice is notorious; nor can we expect tht he who was content to sacrifice the pious Ophelia, should have been more scrupulous about the worthless lives of

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Therefore, I still assert that, in the tragedy before us, their deaths appear both wanton and unprovoked; and the critick, like Bayes, must have recourse to somewhat long before the beginning of this play , to justify the conduct of the hero. STEEVENS”

1803 v1803

v1803 = v1793

3501ff You doe remember . . . ]

1813 v1813

v1813 = v1803

3501ff You doe remember . . . ]

1821 v1821

v1821 = v1813

3501ff You doe remember . . . ]

1872 hud2

hud2

3501 circumstance] Hudson (ed. 1872): “Circumstance means the circumstantial account given by Hamlet in his letter to Horatio.”

1874 Corson

Corson

3499ff Corson (1874, p. 33): <p. 33>“For some reason or other, the 2d Scene of the 5th Act, is less correctly printed in the F. than any other portion of the play.” </p. 33>

1875 Marshall

Marshall

3500-01 Marshall (1875, pp. 64-5): <p. 64>“Of what Hamlet had been previously speaking we do not know exactly; most probably, judging from the letter to Horatio (see Act IV., Scene 6), he had been giving his friend a more detailed account of his adventure with, and capture by, the pirates. The letter ends thus:—[cites 2996-3000]

“It is evident that Hamlet attached great importance to the news which he had to tell, and that, although he had all along suspected the King of some treacherous purpose in sending him to England, and had resolved to run the risk of going there with a hope of discovering that same treachery, yet, when his suspicions were so completely confirmed, he felt the same kind of painful satisfaction, and half-delighted agitation, which he displayed after the revelation made to him by his </p. 64> <p. 65> father’s ghost, though in that case, those feelings were then mingled with a horror, which is lacking here. We may, however, note this feature in Hamlet’s character, that while he is very ready to suspect some evil purpose in the minds of those about him, and though suspicions are in most cases justified by the event, he receives the confirmation of them with as much astonishment as if he had never had any suspicion at all. There is something of childish exultation at the proofs of his shrewdness; there is also that which shows us that his cynicism was of the mind and not of the heart—that however ill he thought of the world in general, his indignation against particular instances of evil-doing was in no degree blunted.

“Hamlet continues—’You do remember all the circumstance?’ To which Horatio replies, as if the very suspicion of forgetfulness on this subject was intolerble—’Remember it, my lord!’

“What was the circumstance, or, as we should say, what were the circumstances, to which Hamlet alludes? I suppose they were the circumstances under which he left Denmark; that is to say, just after the accidental killing of Pononius, the agitating interview with his mother, the reappearance of the ghost ‘to whet his blunted purpose;’ add to these the increased fear and suspicion with which the King evidently regarded him, and the small chance which, at the time of his departure, there seemed to be that Hamlet would ever accomplish the task of revenge which had been set him. All these circumstances would naturally agitate his mind, and heighten the apprehension of treachery which he felt. “ </p. 65>

1881 hud3

Hud3 = hud2

3501 circumstance]

1885 macd

macd

3501 MacDonald (ed. 1885): “—of the king’s words and behaviour, possibly, in giving him his papers, Horatio having been present; or it might mean, ‘Have you got the things I have just told you clear in your mind?’”

1934 Wilson

Wilson

3499ff Wilson (1934, 2:184-85): <p. 184> “In any event, our loss through </p. 184> <p. 185> omission in Q2 is probably considerable. It is certainly so, if 5.2. [3499ff] may be taken as typical, since no fewer than eight directions seem to have been omitted from the Q2 text in this scene. They concern the fencing-match and what ensures therefrom, and may be set out as they appear both in F1 and Q1.

F1 Q1

5.2.277 Prepare to play. Heere they play.

291 They play. They play againe.

292

311 Play. They catch one anothers

313 In scuffling they change Rapiers, and both are

Rapiers. wounded, . . .

333 Hurts the King.

338 King Dyes. The king dies.

342 Dyes. Leartes dies.

“It is of course conceivable that Shakespeare did not trouble to write down every one of these directions in his manuscript; but he cannot have left them all out. And if eight stage-directions are missing in a space of sixty-six lines, how many did the compositor omit in the text as a whole? It is is impossible to tell, for unfortunately the directions in F1 are as little likely to be complete as those in Q2. We have already noted that two are lacking from the first scene in the 1623 text; and it is only too probable that Scribe C ignored many more in the prompt-book he worked from.” </p. 185>

1939 kit2

kit2≈ standard

3501 circumstance

1947 cln2

cln2

3500-01 Rylands (ed. 1947, Notes): “Hamlet enters talking and already in the middle of his story.”

1985 cam4

cam4 ≈ standard

3501 circumstance