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.

1929 trav

trav

697 foule crime] Travers (ed. 1929): Though Hamlet has described his father as an exemplary husband and king, the description, like that in 1571-2, may express the idea that all humans are sinful.

1939 kit2

kit2

697 foule crimes] Kittredge (ed. 1939): "We are not to think of Hamlet’s father as a criminal. He is simply expiating the ordinary sins of mortality, which now appear to him in a more serious light than when he was alive. Crime is common in the general sense of ’fault,’ ’sin.’ Cf. [764, 935, 2357]."

1963 Devlin

Devlin: contra Battenhouse

697-707 Devlin (1963, p. 45): "In the ancient descriptions, still current among Elizabethan Catholics, the physical pains of Purgatory were exactly the same as those of Hell, except in point of duration."

1980 pen2

pen2

697 foule crimes] Spencer (ed. 1980): “The Ghost does not necessarily imply that he has been particularly wicked, but refers to the common situation of a sinner in this mortal life.”

pen2

697 my . . . nature] Spencer (ed. 1980): “this mortal life.”

1982 ard2

ard2: xref

697 crimes] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “The ’imperfections’ of 764. Cf. 2357. We need not suppose that ’crimes’ implies offences of great gravity. Cf. 935.”

1985 cam4

cam4

697 foule crimes] Edwards (ed. 1985): "See Hamlet’s reference to his father in the prayer scene [2357], ’with all his crimes broad blown’. In both places the ordinary sinfulness of humanity is meant; in both places the language is strong with revulsion against the poisoner who did not allow King Hamlet the absolution he would have sought at the time of death. For crimes = faults, see [935]."

1988 bev2

bev2: standard

697 crimes] Bevington (ed. 1988): “sins.”

1999 Mallin

Mallin

697 Mallin (1999, p. 137): “ . . . Hamlet consciously refuses to de-idealize his namesake, despite the ample evidence of the Ghost’s (and thus his father’s) rank corruptions . . . .”

2006 ard3q2

ard3q2: xref

697 foule crimes] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “As at [761-4] and at [2356-60], the degree of the former King’s sinfulness is perhaps exaggerated to intensify the horror of his dying without the opportunity for confession and absolution.”

2007 ShSt

Stegner

697 Stegner (2007, p. 117): “While Claudius may have bound King Hamlet to a purgatorial existence ’[t]ill the foul crimes done in [his] days of nature Are burnt and purg’d away,’ political and romantic motivations fueled the murder.”