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.

1752 Misc. Obs.

Anon.

719-20 shouldst . . . Would’st] Anon. (Misc. Obs., 1752, p. 17, apud Furness, ed. 1877): “As the passage stands, we must read it with a note of interrogation, and even then it is scarce passable. Transpose the ‘shouldst’ and the ‘Wouldst;’ ‘And duller wouldst thou be,’ &c. This is perfectly natural, and we find the Ghost speaks a little more to the purpose.”

1807 Douce

Douce

719-20 fat weede . . . wharffe] Douce (1807, 2: 223): The plant here alluded to might have been henbane, of which Gerarde says that it causes drowsiness, and stupefies and dulls the senses.”

Ed. note: See n. 747.

1854 del2

del2

719-20 fat . . . rootes] Delius (ed. 1854): “Die stumpfe Trägheit des fetten Udnkrants wird durch das almähliche Wegfaulen (rots) am Ufer der Lethe treffender bezeichnet, als durch das blosse Wurzeln (roots) daselbst. Die Qs haben diese, die Fol. jene Lesart. [The dull sloth of the fat weed shows more clearly by the gradual rotting on the bank of Lethe than just by rooting there.]

1869 tsch

tsch: Lucian

719 fat weed] Tschischwitz (ed. 1869, apud v1877): “If Sh. had any particular plant in mind, it must have been the asphodel, with its numerous bulbs, thick sown over the meadows of the lower regions. Lucian ([Greek], 5) thus introduces this plant in connection with the Lethean draft: [Greek].”

1870 Abbott

Abbott § 322

719 shouldst] Abbott (§ 322), without mentioning 719: “suggests a notion, if t of compulsion, at least of bounden duty.”

1872 cln1

cln1: Abbott without attribution

719 shouldst] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “We should now say ‘wouldst.’ There is a similar instance in [MV 1.2.92-4 (282-4)].”

1877 v1877

v1877 ≈ Anon 1752

719, 721 shouldst . . . Wouldst]

v1877: Abbott § 322, // Mac. 3.6.20 (2422)

719 shouldst]

v1877: tsch

719 fat weede]

1881 hud3

hud3 ≈ cln1 without attribution

719 shouldst] He also refers to his note 11, p. 146

1885 macd

macd

719 MacDonald (ed. 1885): “Hamlet may be supposed to recall this, if we suppose him afterwards to accuse himself so bitterly and so unfairly as in the Quarto [2743+34].”

Ed. note: See also Hamlet (character) on HW About the Play.

1904 ver

ver

719 shouldst] Verity (ed. 1904): “Wouldst have to be.”

1929 trav

trav

719 fat] Travers (ed. 1929) refers to Isaiah 6:10 where fat means dull.

1939 kit2

kit2: standard

719 shouldst thou be] Kittredge (ed. 1939): "wouldst thou assuredly be."

1980 pen2

pen2

719 shouldst thou be] Spencer (ed. 1980): “you would have to be.”

pen2

719-20 the . . . wharffe] Spencer (ed. 1980): “Lethe is a river of Hades: according to the classical poets, it caused oblivion in those who drank it. The word wharf is used because the spirits were supposed to embark on Charon’s boat in order to cross the river. As the fat weed Shakespeare may have had in mind asphodel, which grew in the fields of Hades.”

1982 ard2

ard2: gloss; xref; //; analogues; contra defenders of F1 and Bowers

719-20 duller . . . wharffe] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “Lethe, the underworld river of forgetfulness; dull, lethargic, inert. The whole image is one of torpor. Dull in Shakespeare is often applied to sleep (cf. 2093; Cym. 2.2.31, ’O sleep, thou ape of death, lie dull upon her’). There is an ironic anticipation of Hamlet’s own use of ’dull’ in his self-accusations of inactivity (1607, 621+17 [also 2743+28]). The sense of indolent unresponsiveness is reinforced by fat (OED a.11). This hardly supports the identification of the weed with the asphodel or poppy, which were said to grow beside Lethe, and the reminiscence detected by Baldwin (William Sh.’s Small Latine, 2: 468-70) of Virgil’s poppies in Lethean slumber (Georgics, 1: 78) is surely imaginary. Shakespeare need have had no particular plant in mind. Drayton had written of ’black weeds on Lethe banks’ (Isabel to Mortimer, line 31). The (mistaken) defenders of F rots as against roots (who include Dover Wilson and Kittredge) compare Ant. 1.4.45-7, ’Like to a vagabond flag upon the stream, Goes to and back, lackeying the varying tide, To rot itself with motion’. But the essential idea is quite different: the ’fat weed’—on the bank (wharf), not in the water—suggests (1) not motion, but immobility (contrast stir, 721), (2) not decay but rankness of growth. A more instructive comparison would be with Ant. 2.1.27, where ’a Lethe’d dullness’ is seen as the result of ’sleep and feeding’ (cf. fat, ease), which put a man’s ’honour’ in suspense. These are precisely the associations evoked by Hamlet’s ’dull revenge’ in 2743+27- 2743+29 etc. (dull, sleep and feed, oblivion, neglect of honour). The pattern of ideas, emphasizing a mindless and self- indulgent existence, is therefore against rots but can well accommodate roots. Thriving weeds ’root’ through neglect of cultivation in H5 5.2.46. It is thus more reasonable to suppose that Q1 and Q2 unite in the correct reading than that Q2 is contaminated by corruption in Q1. There is no analogy such as Bowers supposes (SQ 4: 51-6) between the roots-rots variants and the conjecture god for good at 1219.”

1985 cam4

cam4

719 fat] Edwards (ed. 1985): "heavy, torpid, sluggish."

1987 oxf4

oxf4

719-20 duller . . . wharffe] Hibbard (ed. 1987): "It is not clear which, if any, ‘fat weed’ Shakespeare has in mind. The asphodel, best known and most frequently mentioned of the plants connected with the underworld in Greek mythology, has often been suggested; but the word asphodel is not to be found in his works. Poppy, on the other hand, is [Oth. 3.3.330 (1971)], and with specific reference to its somniferous effects. It, therefore, seems the more likely of the two. Likeliest of all, perhaps, is the possibility that the Ghost conjures up a plant never seen by eyes ‘of flesh and blood.’ "

oxf4

719 duller] Hibbard (ed. 1987): "slower, more indolent. Cordelia gives a list of ‘idle weeds’ in [Lr. 4.4.2-4 (2353-5)]."

oxf4 Abbott § 322 on should for would

719 shouldst]

oxf4 : OED

719 fat] Hibbard (ed. 1987): "gross, lazy (OED a. 11)."

1988 bev2

bev2: standard

719 shouldst thou be] Bevington (ed. 1988): “you would have to be.”

bev2: standard

719 fat] Bevington (ed. 1988): “torpid, lethargic.”

1992 fol2

fol2

719 duller . . . be] Mowat & Werstine (ed. 1992): “you would be duller”

fol2

719 fat] Mowat & Werstine (ed. 1992): “thick”

1995 Hunt

Hunt: on sloth

719 fat] Hunt (1995, p. 27): “Gertrude’s judgment, spoken during the play-ending duel, ‘He’s fat and scant of breath’ [3756], appears to have been written by Shakespeare solely to provoke recollections of the earlier image [719], to provoke, that is, the conclusion that Hamlet and Sloth have become one.”

2006 ard3q2

ard3q2

719 fat weede] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “Commentators have failed to identify any particular plant; fat seems to connote bloated or perhaps torpid.”

2007 de Grazia

de Grazia: xref

719 weede] de Grazia (2007, p. 127): “Distillations of fatal weeds turn out to be the bane of Denmark. They poison King Hamlet (in narrative and then in two dramatic reenactments [747, 1996, 2127]), the Queen [2534, 3789], Claudius [3802, 3809], Laertes [3784], and finally Hamlet [3798],” not sparing even Ophelia [3164, 3166].