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

1751 I neuer gaue you ought] Seymour (1805, p. 176): “More mutilation. I suppose it should be: ‘You do mistake; I never gave you aught.’”

1808 schlegel

schlegel

1751 Schlegel (1808, rtp. 1846, p. 405): “He has been chiefly condemned both for his harshness in repulsing the love of Ophelia, which he himself had cherished, and for his insensibility at her death. But he is too much overwhelmed with his own sorrow to have any compasison to spare for others; besides his outward indifference gives us by no means the measure of his internal perturbation.”

1812 Lamb

Lamb: theatrical practice

1751-1805 Lamb (1812, apud Williamson, p. 43): “All the Hamlets that I have ever seen, rant and rave at her as she had committed some great crime and the audience are highly pleased, because the words of the part are satirical and they are enforced by the strongest expression of satirical indignation of which the face and voice are capable. But then, whether Hamlet is likely to have put on such brutal appearances to a lady whom he loved so dearly, is never thought on. The truth is that in all such deep affection as had subsisted between Hamlet and Ophelia there is a stock of supererogatory love (if I may venture to use the expression) which in any great grief of heart, especially where that which preys upon the mind cannot be communicated, confers a kind of indulgence upon the grieved pry to express itself, even to its heart’s dearest object, in the language of a temporary alienation; but it is not alienation, it is a distraction purely and so it always makes itself to be felt by that object; it is not anger, but grief assuming the appearance of anger,—love awkwardly counterfeiting hate, as sweet countenances when they try to frown; but such sternness and fierce disgust as Hamlet is made to shew, is no counterfeit, but the real face of absolute aversion—of irreconcilable alienation, It may be said he puts on the madman; but then he should only so far put on this counterfeit lunacy as his own real distraction will give him leave; that is incompletely, imperfectly; not in that confirmed, practiced way, like a master of his art, or as Dame Quickly would say, ’like one of those harlotry players.”

Ed. note: For a gentlemanly Hamlet, see the Forbes Robertson performance discussed in Kliman, Film, Television, and Audio Performance, p. 251, in Hamlet Criticism section of hamletworks.org.

1856 sing2

sing2

1751 Singer (ed. 1856): “The folio has, ‘No, no,’ and in the next line ‘I know’. Two lines lower it misprints then for their, and left for lost.”

1861 wh1

wh1

1751 White (ed. 1861): “‘—No, not I’:—So the 4tos. The folio, ‘No,’ corruptly, without a doubt.”

1885 macd

1751 MacDonald (ed. 1885): “He does not want to take them back, and so sever even that weak bond between them. He has not given her up.”

The Q. reading seems best. The perfume of his gifts was the sweet words with which they were given; those words having lost their savour, the mere gifts were worth nothing.”

1899 ard1

ard1

1751 aught] Dowden (ed. 1899): “For a moment Hamlet has been touched by the sight of Ophelia with her book of prayers. Yet there is estrangement in the word ‘Nymph.’ She inquires for his health (having seen him yesterday); he answers as to a stranger; formally, as he does to Osric, v. ii. 82; and with some impatience; he will tell her nothing. She produces his gifts; he has been sent for by the King; Ophelia, like Rozencrantz and Guildenstern, has doubtless also been sent for; he falls vack on his accutomed method of baffling half-truths. These toys were the gift of another Hamlet to another Ophelia-not his.”