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.

1736 Stubbs

Stubbs

767-8 Let not . . . incest] Stubbs (1736, pp. 23-4) <p. 23> “We are to observe further that the King spurs on his Son to revenge his foul and unnatural Murder from these two Considerations chiefly, that he was sent into the other World without having had Time to repent of his Sins, and without the necessary Sacraments, (according to the Church of Rome,) as mr. Theobalds, (See his Note, p. 253 [762] has well explained it, and that consequently his Soul was </p. 23> <p.24> to suffer, if not eternal Damnation, at least a long Course of Penance in Purgatory; which aggravates the Circumstances of his Brother’s Barbarity. And Secondly, That Denmark might not be the Scene of Usurpation and Incest, and the Throne thus polluted and profaned. For these Reasons he prompts the young Prince to Revenge; else it would have been more becoming the Character of such a Prince as Hamlet’s Father is represented to have been, and more suitable to his present Condition, to have left his Brother to the Divine Punishment, and to a Possibility of Repentance for his base Crime, which by cutting him off, he must be deprived of.” </p. 24>

Ed. note: see also Stubbs’s CN 762 and, for his more general point, CN 710.

1864 N&Q

Algar

767-71 Algar (3 N&Q 6 [Dec. 10, 1864]: 467-8), starting with the last lines by Horatio [3875-80], especially “forced cause,” questions what exactly the Ghost had required Hamlet to do. <p. 467>“It was the meaning forced by Hamlet on certain words uttered by the Ghost, which ‘forced’ (mistaken) meaning was the ‘cause’ of his killing the King.

“The Ghost had said —[quotes 767-71].

“Here he speaks of but one act to be pursued, viz. the act of incest; or, perhaps, rather the contemplated act of putting an end to it by bringing about a separation between the King and Queen. And in pursuing this act, Hamlet was not to ‘taint his mind;’ was to do nothing wrong. He was not to be guilty of treason. The separation between King and Queen, involving, as it would, the cessation of a ‘damnèd’ act, would be an act of kindness to both. And this alone Hamlet was to aim at. The meaning of the passage is quite plain, if ‘neither’ be substituted for ‘nor’ in the last clause:—‘Neither let thy soul contrive against thy mother aught’: —words, which imply that it had been already said that he was not to contrive anything against his uncle. (The causing the separation would be doing something ‘for’ him—something to his advantage). ‘Nor let thy soul contrive,’ means, ‘do not even think of such a thing.

“Hamlet, however, supposes that it all means that he is to kill the King, though under circumstances that will leave his own mind untainted. Hence he is always endeavouring to find such an occasion, or to bring it about by working himself into a state of passion, that shall deprive him, for the moment, of the power of reflection, and so enable him subsequently to feel as if he were not responsible for what he has done. The desired occasion he hoped to have found when stabbing at the unknown person behind the arras. This latter point—of Hamlet seeking for a moment of unconsciousness—has, I believe, been brought out by Mr. Strachey. . . . </p. 467>

<p. 468> “A further proof that the Ghost did not require Hamlet to do anything vindictive is to be found in the fact that he represented as a spirit in a state of spiritual safety. Again, Shakespeare insists too often on the divine right of kings for him to have taught that treason did not ‘taint the mind.’ Hamlet’s purpose and act were treasonable, for the monarchy is represented as elective, and the King as having lawfully gained the majority of votes. This is stated in the line—‘Popp’d in between the election and my hopes’ [3569].

“The Ghost expressed himself imperfectly through haste. He is ‘brief,’ having ‘scented the morning air.’ But why does he not, on his last appearance, correct Hamlet? Because he knows nothing of what occurred. During the day he is ‘in fires.’ It is expressly shown in Act III. Sc. IV, that the last appearance occurs immediately before the King and Hamlet ‘go to bed.’ [2202]. He merely knows that the King and Queen are not separated.

. . . If Hamlet had done nothing more than ‘contrive’ the play, ‘all might have been well,’ as the King himself said. He was brought to some degree of repentance. The murder of Polonius ruined all. The King was hardened again . . . . H. Algar.” </p. 468>

[but he could not repent; what of that? Also, Algar goes into contortions to explain the meaning of the Ghost’s I find thee apt. I could help him out here. Hamlet does not have to kill the king to revenge the death. Revenge and murder are not synonymous.

1885 macd

macd ≈ Stubbs without attribution

767-71 MacDonald (ed. 1885): finds that Sh. differentiates between the king and queen: “It is on public grounds, as a king and a Dane, rather than as a husband and a murdered man, that he urges on his son the execution of justice. Note the tenderness towards his wife that follows—more marked [2493]; here it is mingled with predominating regard to his son to whose filial nature he dreads injury.”

1931 Waldock

Waldock

767 Waldock (1931, rpt. 1973, p. 56) points out that Hamlet is so upset about his mother that the death of his father takes second place. Ed. note: But for the ghost also, ending the incest is uppermost in his directives.

1993 ShSur

Muir

767-71 Let not . . . heauen] Muir (1993, p. 75): “Hamlet receives two commands from the Ghost: to kill Claudius, and not to harm Gertrude. As he cannot do the first without causing agony to his mother, he is given an apparently impossible task.”

Ed. note: The ghost’s entreaty is not, explicitly, to kill Claudius, but Muir’s point about two conflicting directives is valid.

1994 SQ

Mullaney

767-8 Mullaney (1994, p. 150): “The vengeful charge of the Ghost iself focuses not on the past crime of regicide but on the ongoing sexual transgression [quotes 767-8].”

2007 ShSt

Stegner

767 Stegner (2007, p. 120): “Hamlet’s faith in the success of Gertrude’s repentance [2540] . . . reinforces his role as an avenger because it redresses Claudius’s usurpation of the royal marriage by fulfilling the Ghost’s command to ’[1]et not the royal bed of Denmark be A couch for luxury and damned incest.’

“[D]espite the incompleteness of Gertrude’s repentance, Hamlet accepts her exclamation of contrition, ’thou has cleft my heart in twain’ [2540], and the fact that he never again mentions Gertrude’s incestuous relationship with Claudius--even at her death--suggests his confidence that she has ’[a]ssume[d] a virtue’ and avoided further sexual relations [2544].”