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.

1854 del2

del2: Schlegel +

57 Delius (ed. 1854): “ . . . es ist . . . wohl nur die Vermuthung ausgedrückt, dass der Geist ‘mit sich sprechen lasse.’” [Schlegel translates “He would like to be spoken with, as if Bernardo read this wish in the ghost’s features, but probably the line means simply that the ghost is amenable to discourse.]

1857 fieb

fieb ≈ del without attribution

57 would be spoke to] Fiebig (ed. 1857): “It seems as if wanting, desiring, expecting to be addressed.”

1870 Abbott

Abbott

57 would] Abbott (1870, § 329) discusses the subjunctive and the near synonym wished [quotes 3270, not 57]. Furness refers to Abbott §329 but mainly for 2352: “Applied to inanimate objects, a ‘wish’ becomes a “requirement’ [and Abbott quotes 2352 among others.]”

Abbott

57 spoke] Abbott (1870, § 343): “Owing to the tendency to drop the inflection en, the Elizabethan authors frequently used the curtailed forms of past participles which are common in Early English: ‘I have spoke . . . . ’ &c.

1872 cln1

cln1 ≈ del2 without attribution; standard; ≈

Johnson in Boswell without attribution + in magenta underlined

57 Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “It wishes to be spoken to. There was, and is, a notion that a ghost cannot speak till it has been spoken to. For this form of the participle ‘spoke,’ see our note on Macbeth, i.4.3. and on Richard II, iii. 1. 13.”

1877 v1877

v1877: cln1 (minus Mac. and R2) , Abbott § 329, + xrefs, //s

57 would] Furness (ed. 1877): “See [Mac. 1.5.19 (301), 1.7.; Ham. 3.3.75 (2352) or 5.1.77 (3271)] or Abbott, § 329. Ed.”

1880 meik

meik: v1877 without attribution

57 would]

meik: Abbott § 343

57 spoke]

1881 hud3

hud3

57 would] Hudson (ed. 1881): “Would and should were often used indiscriminately. I am not clear, however, whether the meaning here is, ‘It wants to be spoke to,’ or ‘It ought to be spoke to.’ Perhaps both.”

1883 macd

macd: standard

57 MacDonald (ed. 1883): “A ghost could not speak, it was believed, until it was spoken to.”

1891 dtn1

dtn1: standard gloss; cln1; see Abbott on would § 329; Abbott on short participle § 343.

1899 ard1

ard1: Boswell

57 Dowden (ed. 1899): “Compare Boswell’s Life of Johnson (ed. Birkbeck Hill, iii. 307): “‘

Johnson once observed to me, ‘Tom Tyers described me the best: “Sir (said he) you are like a ghost: you never speak till you are spoken to.”’”

1913 tut2

tut2: standard on belief re ghost

tut2 ≈ Abbott on dropped -en without attribution +

57 spoke] Goggin (ed. 1913): “Where the curtailed form might be mistaken for the infinitive (e.g. take, shake) they used the form of the past tense [for the past participle]; hence such participles as took, shook, wrote.

tut2 ≈ Abbott on subjunctive without attribution

57 would]

1929 trav

trav

57 would] Travers (ed. 1929): “stressed.”

1931 crg1

crg1: standard

1934 cam3a

cam3a: standard

57 Wilson (ed. 1934): “Ghosts could not speak until spoken to. Dowden cites Boswell’s Johnson (ed. Birkbeck Hill, iii. 307).”

1980 pen2

pen2

57 Spencer (ed. 1980), to support the notion that ghosts had to be spoken to before they could speak, cites 2485-9.