Line 633 - Commentary Note (CN) 
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.
Notes for lines 0-1017 ed. Bernice W. Kliman
| 632 633 Haue burst their {cerements?} <cerments,> why the Sepulcher, | |
|---|
632 633 637 1744 han1
han1
633 cerements] Hanmer (ed. 1743, 6: Glossary): A Cearment [Ham. 633], the wrapping of an embalmed Body. Ital. Ceramento.
1765 Heath
Heath: cerements = han glossary without attribution See n. 632
633 cerements]
1765- mtol2
mtol2
633 cerements] Tollet (ms. notes in Heath, p. 531): “King Henry 7 ordered his wife’s body to be inbalmed with rich spices & gums, and wrapped in 60 ells of fine holland Cered, and inclosed it in lead &c &c” also, “See Drake’s historia Anglo-Scotica. p. 311; Embowelled & imbalmed and Cered & inclosed in lead.”
Ed. note: See also 632 doc. Though Tollet, it appears, collected notes for Steevens, the latter apparently did not use this note.
1773- mstv1
mstv1 ≈ Heath without attribution
633 cerements] Steevens (ms. notes in Steevens, ed. 1773): “ Cerements, clothes dipt in wax, in which dead bodies are wrapt.”
1774 capn
capn = han (subst.) without attribution
633 cerements] Capell (1774, 1:1: Glossary): “Encearings, Wrappings in Cear-cloths. Ital. Ceramenti.”
1787 ann
ann
633 sear up (Henley (1787,p.6}, re Cym. 1.2.? (000), has a note meant to follow Steevens’s in ed. 1785, which alluded to Ham. 633 and speculated that sear should have been spelled cere: Henley turns this point inside out: “May not sear up, here mean solder up, and the reference be to a lead coffin? Perhaps cerements in Hamlet’s address to the ghost, was used for searments in the same sense. Henley.”
Ed. note: OED cere v.2c. has “to shut up (a corpse in a coffin), to seal up (in lead, or the like),” and provides an analogue in Lord Berners, Froissart (1525).
1793 v1793
v1793 = Heath
633 cerements]
1803 v1803
v1803 = v1793
633 cerements]
1813 v1813
v1813 = v1803
633 cerements]
1819 cald1
cald1 ≈ Heath without attribution
633 cerements] Caldecott (ed. 1819): “Waxen envelope.”
1821 v1821
v1821 = v1813
633 cerements]
1826 sing1
sing1 See 637
633 cerements]
1832 cald1
cald2 = cald1
633 cerements]
1854 del2
del2
633 cerements] Delius (ed. 1854): “cerements sind die mit Wachs getränkten Grabtücher, in welche man die ‘im Tode bestatteten’ Gebeine gewickelt hatte.” [cerements are the wax-impregnated grave clothes in which they wrapped the bones of the dead.]
1856 sing2
sing2 = sing1
633 cerements]
1860 Walker
Walker
633 cerements] Walker (1860, 2: 73) asserts that “Ceremony and ceremonious [are] frequently contracted in pronunication.”
1868 c&mc
c&mc
633 cerements]
Clarke &
Clarke (ed. 1868): “See [
MV 2.7.51 (1024), n. 87].”
1872 cln1
cln1: Q1
633 cerements] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “‘Cerecloth’ occurs in [MV 2.7.51 (1024)], where see our note. The quarto of 1603 here reads ‘ceremonies.’ As this copy is probably derived from short-hand notes taken at the play, it would seem to show that ‘cerements’ was pronounced as a trisyllable. ‘Sepulchre’ is usually, but not always, accented by Shakespeare on the first syllable.”
1872 hud2
hud2 contra cln1 + in magenta underlined
533 cerements] Hudson (ed. 1872): “Cerements is a dissyllable. It is from a Latin word meaning wax, and was so applied from the use of wax or pitch in sealing up coffins or caskets so as to make them water-proof.”
1877 v1877
v1877: cln1, Staunton, Walker; hud2 without attribution + // Mac. ; Cotgrave
633 cerements]
Furness (ed. 1877): “[quotes
cln1] Does it not rather show that ‘ceremonies’ was pronounced as a trisyllable: ‘cer’monies?’ and is it not an additional proof of what Staunton and Walker affirm in reference to the monosyllable pronunication of
cere in
ceremony, ceremonious, ceremonials? See [
Mac. 3.4.35 (1297)].
Ed. See Cotgrave: ‘
Creat: A Plaister made of Waxem Gummesm &c., and certaine oyles; wee also, call it, a Cerot or Searecloth.’”
I see no ref. to the pronunciation of
cerements in Staunton’s edition (1860). It may be in some other writing. Check the spelling in
Furness. Bernice, remember to do spellcheck!
1881 N&Q
Nicholson: Steevens and Malone on Cym.; Coles, Cotgrave, Sherwood, Baret, Cooper, Rider, Minsheu.
633 cerements] nicholson (N&Q 1881, p. 444), in the process of discussing sere in Cym. 1.1.116 (137) says, “To sear is now, and was in one form then, to burn or cauterize, and in some cases—from its results—to close up by burning or heating. But Steevens and Malone suggest that here Shakespeare licentiously cast aside its primary sense, and used it as meaning simply ‘close up’! Steevens however, also suggested the change to ‘cere up,’ and Malone said, ‘In the spelling of the last age, however, no distinction was made between cere-cloth and sear-cloth. Coles, in his Latin Dictionary, 1679, explains the word cerot[um?] by sear-cloth.’ For that matter, he might as well have quoted searecloth in [MV 2.7.51 (1024)]. The fact is that sear, searing, and sear-cloth were the recognized and all but universal modes of spelling cere, cering, and cere-cloth. Cotgrave (though he had the French cire, &c. before him), Sherwood, Baret in his Alvearie, 1580, Cooper in his Thesaurus, 1578, Rider’s Holy-Oke—my edition is 1640,—and Minsheu, 1617, invariably give the s form—never cere, &c. The difficulty in the Cymbeline passage has only arisen from our ignorance of this mode of spelling cere. It is true that cerement is so spelt in Hamlet, 1623, misspelt ceremonies in 1603, cerment, 1604; but this is because it was a word newly adopted into English (possibly by Shakespeare himself). This can be seen from Cotgrave, who, under the French ‘Cirement,’ gives six English synonyms of the word, but no cerement. Neither does Sherwood nor any of the above-mentioned authorities give it. Br, Nicholson.”
He got Q2 and F1 mixed up or I did. Check.
1881 hud3
hud3 = hud2 minus (so as . . . waterproof.)
633 cerements]
1883 wh2
wh2: standard
633 cerements]
1939 kit2
kit2: standard
633 cerements] Kittredge (ed. 1939): "the waxed cloth in which the body was wrapped."
1957 pel1
pel1: standard
633 cerements] Farnham (ed. 1957): “waxed grave-cloths.”
1957 pen1b
pen1b
633 cerements] Harrison (ed. 1957): “the waxen coverings in which the bodies of the illustrious dead were wrapped.”
1970 pel2
pel2 = pel1
633 cerements] Farnham (ed. 1970): “waxed grave-cloths”
1980 pen2
pen2: standard
633 cerements] Spencer (ed. 1980): “(two syllables, pronounced ’seer-’) waxed shroud.”
1982 ard2
ard2: standard
633 cerements] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “A Shakespearean coinage for ’burial clothes’, the unusual word adding to the solemnity. Though Q1 corrupts to ceremonies, the word connects not with this but with cerecloth, lit. waxed cloth (to cere = to wax, Fr. cirer), which will indicate pronunciation. Cf. F cerments, F2-4 cearments.”
1985 cam4
cam4
633 cerements] Edwards (ed. 1985): "grave-clothes. Pronounced seer-ments."
1987 oxf4
oxf4: standard
633 cerements] Hibbard (ed. 1987): "grave-clothes. This word, meaning literally ‘waxed wrappings for the dead’, is a Shakespearian invention, derived from the normal cerecloth which he had used in [MV 2.7.51 (1024)]."
1988 bev2
bev2: standard
633 cerements] Bevington (ed. 1988): “grave-clothes.”
2006 ard3q2
ard3q2: standard; Q1
633 cerements] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “grave-clothes (pronounced ’seerments’); apparently a Shakespearean coinage from the more familiar ’cerecloth’, meaning literally ’waxed cloth’. The word is not connected with ’ceremonies’, the Q1 reading, which could be an aural or visual error.”