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.

1870 Abbott

Abbott

871 of] Abbott (§ 178): “Of naturally followed a verbal noun. In many cases we should call the verbal noun a participle, and the of has become unintelligible to us. Thus we cannot easily see why Shakespeare should write—‘Dick the shepherd blows his nail.’ [LLL 5.2.923] and on the other hand—“The shepherd blowing of his nails.’—[3H6 2.5.3]. But in the latter sentence blowing was regarded as a noun, the prepositional ‘a,’ ‘in,’ or ‘on’ being omitted. ‘The shepherd was a-blowing of his nails. . . .”

Ed. note: Abbott does not quote 871

1877 v1877

v1877: Abbott § 178

871 of] Furness (ed. 1877): “For instances of ‘of’ following verbal nounces, see Abbott, § 178.”

1909 Rushton

Rushton

871-4 doubtfull . . . ambiguous] Rushton (1909, pp. 14-5): <p.14> “‘Then have ye one other vicious speech with which we will finish this Chapter, and is when we speak or write doubtfully and that the sense may be taken two ways, such ambiguous termes they call Amphibologia, we call it the ambiguous, or figure of sense uncertain, as if one should say Thomas Tayler saw William Tyler drunk, it is different to think either the one or the other drunk. Thus said a gentleman in our vulgar prettily notwithstanding because he did not not ignorantly, but for the nonce—’I sat by my Lady soundly sleeping, My mistress lay by me bitterly weeping.’ </p.14><p.15> No man can tell by this, whether the mistress or the man slept or wept: these doubtful speeches were used much in the old times by their false Prophets as appeareth by the Oracles of Delphos and of the Sybils prophecies devised by the religious persons of those days to abuse the superstitious people, and to encumber their busy brains with vain hope or vain fear.’

“Shakespeare in these passages may refer to this Figure Amphibologia or the Ambiguous, for, although he does not give examples of the Figures similar to Puttenham’s, he certainly mentions the doubtful phrase and ambiguous giving out.” </p. 15>

1929 trav

trav

871 pronouncing] Travers (ed. 1929): “ = the pronouncing; not till much later did this construction . . . become vulgar.”

trav

871 doubtful] Travers (ed. 1929): “implying something, though leaving in doubt what.”

1987 oxf4

oxf4 = Abbott § 178

871 pronouncing of]

oxf4 ≈ Rushton without attribution

871 doubtfull] Hibbard (ed. 1987): "ambiguous, likely to arouse curiosity."

1992 fol2

fol2 ≈ oxf4 without attribution

871 doubtfull] Mowat & Werstine (ed. 1992): “ambiguous”

2006 ard3q2

ard3q2 = fol2 without attribution

871 doubtfull] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “ambiguous”