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.

1723- mtby2

mtby2

244 sonne] Thirlby (1723-) marks the connection between sonne here and sun in 247: “nb and my son.” He also notes the xref to 1621.

1730 Bailey

Bailey

244 Cosin] Bailey (1730): “a kinsman by blood or marriage.”

1768 SJC

Anon. [Z]: warb, john, han; Upton without attribution + in magenta

244-5 Anon. [Z] SJC 1154 (July 21-23), 4. “There is a passage or two in the Tragedy of Hamlet, which I have never yet seen explained to my Satisfaction by any Commentator. In Act I. Scene II. the King thus Addresses himself to the Prince, his Nephew: ‘But now my Cousin Hamlet, and my Son.’ To which Hamlet [aside] replies. ‘A little more than Kin and less than Kind.” Bishop Warburton, without the least Necessity, considers kind as an Adjective, having first, without the least Authority, proposed an Alteration in the Text, as stiff as it is arbitrary: ‘But now my Cousin, kind my Son.’ Mr. Johnson remarks that ‘Kind is the Teutonic Word for Child. Hamlet therefore (says he) answers with Propriety to the Titles of Cousin and Son, which the King had given him, that he was somewhat more than Cousin, and less than Son.’ This Explanation is plausible, but does not, I think, come up to the full Meaning of the Text, frittering away all the Smartness and Sting of the Reply. I have always supposed, with Sir Thomas Hanmer, that ‘this was a proverbial Expression;’ and have lately been confirmed in this Opinion by the following Passages in Gorboduc, a Tragedy written by Lord Buckhurst and first printed two Years after Shakespeare was born, 1565. Videna, Gorboduc’s Queen, Act IV. Scene I. thus expresses her Resentment against her younger Son Porrex, the Murderer of Ferrex, her elder Son: ‘Thou, Porrax, thou this damn’d Deed has wrought, Thou, Porrax, thou shalt deeply bye the same: Traitor to thy Kin and Kind, to Sire and me, To thine own Flesh, and Traitor to thyself.’ And in the second Scene of the same Act, Gorboduc on the same Occasion says, ‘Porrex, if we so far should swerve from Kind, And from those bounds which Laws of Nature sets: No: We should not offend the Law of Kind If now this Sword of ours did slay thee here. And again, in his Answer to Arostus, advising him to bear his Misfortunes with Resolution: ‘Many can yield right, grave, and sage Advice Of patient Spirit to others Wrapp’d in Woe, And can in Speech both rule and conquer Kind.’ Porrex, urging in his Defense that his Brother had secretly practiced to deprive his Life by poison’s Force, adds: ‘When thus I saw the Knot of Love unknit, All hottest [?] League and faithful Promise broke, The Law of Kind and Troth thus rent in twain. And Marcella, the Mistress of Porrex, thus bewails herself for his Loss, after he had been murdered by Videna? ‘O silly Woman I; why to this Hour Have Kind and Fortune thus deferr’d my Breath? That I should live to see this doleful Day!’ The above Use of the Words Kin and Kind proves the truth of Hanmer’s Observation, that “this is a proverbial Expression;’ though I cannot agree with him when he adds ‘—known in former Times for a Relation so confused and blended that it was hard to define it.’ For nothing could be more clear than that Kind in the several Passages produced uniformly signifies Nature. Hence we easily discover Hamlet’s meaning to be ‘that the Relation, which he bore to the King, his Uncle, was something more than that of Cousin, or Nephew (a little more than Kin), the King having now married his Mother; but, though he was become his Son by the Marriage, yet was his new Relationship still inferior to that of Nature—still an unnatural one—(and less than kind) the Marriage being founded in two unnatural Crimes, Murder and Incest; Hereby sarcastically glancing at the Enormity of the King’s Villainy, who, by such a Complication of Vice, was, against Nature, entitled to call him his Son, as well as his Nephew or Cousin. . . . Z.”

1819 Jackson

Jackson

See his n. 245 on the connection between 244 and 246.

1853 Elwin

Elwin: standard gloss + in magenta underlined

244-7 and my sonne . . . in the sonne] Elwin (1853, pp. vii-viii): <p. vii> “The object of the usurping king in addressing his nephew as his son, is to elicit from him, in the hearing of the court, a real, or at least an apparent, concurrence in the position he assumes as his father; and Hamlet, who sees the intent, concentrates a murmured rejection of this claim of paternity, and an intimation of the unnatural treachery and distinguishing difference of the words kin and kind. He uses the word kin in its signification of relationship, and kind in the sense (the common to it) of nature, but also, adjectively, in that of kindness; and he remarks upon the salutation of his uncle, That it asserts too much of relationship of blood, and yet has less than the fellowship of nature; that although it adds a little too much to kin, it makes it less </p. vii> <p. viii> than kind (kindness). His subsequent reply to the further address of the king has a similar drift: I am too much o’ the sun.” </p. viii>

1856 hud1

hud1: see 245

1860 stau

stau: Q1

244-311 Staunton (ed. 1860): “The dialogue between the King, the Queen, and Hamlet, in this scene was much expanded and improved after the first draft: in the now-found quarto it runs thus meagerly,—[quotes Q1 CLN 172-200]. ”

1868 c&mc

c&mc: see 245

1870 rug1

rug1 ≈ Baily without attribution + marked in magenta underlined.

244 Cosin] Moberly (ed. 1870): “‘The derivation of this word (consobrinus, consororinus) allows of its including a nephew or niece.’”

1872 cln1

cln1 ≈ rug1 without attribution + //s

244 Cosin] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “This word was used to denote ‘uncle’ and ‘aunt,’ ‘nephew’ and ‘niece,’ as well as in the modern sense. Compare [TN 1.3.5 (123)] where it means ‘niece,’ and [3. 4. 68 (1584)], where it means ‘uncle.’”

1877 v1877

v1877 = cln1

244 Cosin]

v1877: warb

244 Trans.

1878 rlf1

rlf1 ≈ cln1 without attribution +

244 Cosin] Rolfe (ed. 1878): also “brother-in-law (1H4 3.1.51 [1577]), and grandchild. It is also a complimentary form of address between princes, etc. (H5 5.2.4 [2991]; R3 3.4.35 [2004] etc.).”

1880 meik

meik: rug without attribution; rlf1 without attribution + marked in magenta

244 Cosin] Meikeljohn (ed. 1880): “relative. (The word is a concentrated form of the Lat. consobrnus, a mother’s sister’s son) [. . .] . It was also, and is, a distant form of address between princes; the nearer form is brother, or sister.”

1883 wh2

wh2 ≈ cln1; see wh2 n. 245

244 Cosin]White (ed. 1883): “kinsman, in a very wide sense.”

1899 ard1

ard1: cln1 without attribution + “grandchild”

244 Cosin]

1904 ver

ver

244 sonne] Verity (ed. 1904, p. lxiv) makes the point that Q1’s king uses more affectionate language, more often calling Hamlet sonne and dearest sonne; “whereas, in the later Quarto, after a single effort at conciliation [there are perhaps three, all in 1.2: 244, 293, and 299], he seems to keep Hamlet at arm’s length as a dangerous foe.2” See 293.

<p. lxiv> <n. 2> Verity (ed. 1904): “2 But in this respect his part is capable of different interpretations.” <n. 2> </p. lxiv>

Ed. note: Aside from the three instances when Q2’s king addresses Hamlet as son [244, 293, 299] In 1079, 2590, 2817, and 3495 the king refers to Ham. as your sonne; in 3755, “Our sonne” when he is dissembling and when, possibly, he is speaking at large, not to the queen alone . He never refers to “sonne Hamlet” as Q1 does many times:

See Q1 CLN 172 178 186 197 1166 1603 1616 1627 1640

TLN Q1CLN

244 King. And now princely Sonne Hamlet, Exit. 172

299 All Denmarkes hope our coosin and dearest Sonne. 178

268-9 King This shewes a louing care in you, Sonne Hamlet, 186

304 King Spoke like a kinde and a most louing Sonne, 197

´ 1649-51 The cause of our sonne Hamlets lunacie? 1166

[Q2/F1 have him not son]

2592 King Now Gertred, what sayes our sonne, how doe you 1603

King Gertred, your sonne shall presently to England, 1616

2682 King Now sonne Hamlet, where is this dead body? 1627

2694 King But sonne Hamlet, where is this body? 1640

2701 King Well sonne Hamlet, we in care of you: but specially 1648

King. Come Gertred, wee’l haue Leartes, and our sonne, 2079

3677-3716 King Now sonne Hamlet, we hane laid vpon your head, 2129

1929 trav

trav

244 sonne] Travers (ed. 1929), who marks a pause after the line, says that the king tries out the word son tentatively and, rebuffed, uses it again only once. That Q1 repeatedly has him call Hamlet son “is one of its minor obtusenesses.”

1934 clowes

clowes

244-5 Harrison (ed. 1934) envisions the two lines as interwoven, which would be a novel approach to delivery: “The King has called him ‘my cousin Hamlet.’ He says, in a suppressed tone, ‘A little more than kin’—a little more than cousin. The King adds, ‘and my son,’ Hamlet says, ‘less than kind’—I am little of the same nature with you. Kind is constantly used in the sense of nature by Ben Jonson and other contemporaries of Shakespeare.”

1935 Wilson

Wilson WHH

244, 246, 268-99 Wilson (1935, p. 31) notes the change in tone when the king turns from Laertes to Ham., from admonitory at the outset but finally shading into affection.

1939 kit2

kit2: standard

244 Cosin] Kittredge (ed. 1939): "Often used for ’uncle,’ ’nephew,’ etc."

1957 pel1

pel1: standard

244 Cosin] Farnham (ed. 1957): “kinsman more distant than parent, child, brother, or sister.”

1958 fol1

fol1: standard

244 Cosin] Wright & LaMar (ed. 1958): “kinsman; actually, Hamlet is his nephew.”

1964 Hamlet at Elsinore

Hamlet at Elsinore

244 A BBC video production that uses F1’s question-mark stars Christopher Plummer as Hamlet, with Robert Shaw as Claudius.

1970 pel2

pel2 = pel1

244 Cosin] Farnham (ed. 1970): “kinsman more distant than parent, child, brother, or sister”

1976 Honigmann

Honigmann: standard for those who object to the aside interp.

245 Honigmann (1976, p. 120), writing of both 245 and 3588-90, says: “To label these exchanges ‘asides’ is to deprive them of much of their nervy edge. Hamlet enjoys insulting those he despises to their face (Claudius, Polonius, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern), and we have no grounds for supposing that he must treat Osric differently.”

1980 pen2

pen2

244 my . . . sonne] Spencer (ed. 1980): “Perhaps Claudius keeps his stepson (son ) waiting while he dispatches other business; thus Hamlet is kept in his place. Certainly Claudius’s refusal to permit Hamlet’s return to Wittenberg contrasts with his treatment of Laertes.”

1982 ard2

ard2: standard

244 Cosin] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “any kinsmen more distant than a brother; often used of a nephew.”

1987 oxf4

oxf4: standard

244 Cosin] Hibbard (ed. 1987): several blood relationships outside of nuclear family.

oxf4

244 sonne] Hibbard (ed. 1987): Only Q1 provides an exit for Laertes; perhaps he does not leave but steps back.

1987 Mercer

Mercer

244 Mercer (1987, p. 141): After his successful display of confidence and warmth, Claudius can turn to Hamlet “with a justifiable self-confidence.”

1988 bev2

bev2: standard

244 Cosin] Bevington (ed. 1988): “any kin not of the immediate family.”

1992 fol2

fol2: standard

244 Cosin] Mowat & Werstine (ed. 1992): “kinsman”

2006 ard3q2

ard3q2: standard

244 Cosin] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “used loosely in this period to denote a number of kinship relationships more distant than parent, child or sibling”

ard3q2: Q1, xref

244 sonne] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “Hamlet’s comment implies that he objects to this word, which the King repeats at [299] (and three more times in Q1).”