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.

1805 Seymour

Seymour:

872-3 Seymour (1805, 2:164): “There is no reason for these detached sentences being unmetrical, except for the last hemistic, which the interruption will excuse: I would read, ‘As well, we know, or we could an we would; Or if we list to speak, or there be those; An if they might! —’”

1868 c&mc

c&mc

872 could] Clarke & Clarke (ed. 1868): “‘Tell,’ or ‘say’ is elliptically understood after ‘could.’ See Tim. 3.s.l (0000), n. 67].”

1869 strat

strat: Koch; tsch

872-3 and] Stratmann (ed. 1869): “The modern editors tacitly change ‘and’ to ‘an,’ probably supposing a correction what a true critic cannot but call a falsification. [[Koch, hist. Gram. der engl. Sprache 2, 410, thinks this an (for and) = A. Sax. ono, Goth, an, and Tschischwitz implicitly takes it for granted. See however Diction. of the O. Engl. language in voce and.]]

1870 Abbott

Abbott: Tooke; Stratmann

872 and if] Abbott (§ 101): “And or an (= if). (The modern and is often spelt an in E. E.).” Tooke falsely derived the particle from an, the imperative of unnan, to grant, and adopted by the Cambridge editors. “But the word is often written and in Early English (Stratmann), as well as in Eliabethan authors, “almost always in the Folio,” he says in a note. (§ 103): “There is nothing remarkable in the change of and to an. [. . .] And or an is generally found before a personal pronoun or ‘if,’ or ‘though’ [. . .].

1872 cln1

cln1

872 and if] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “a reduplication, like ‘or ere,’ [331].”

1880 Tanger

Tanger

872 well, well] Tanger (1880, p. 126): F1 variant “probably owing to the negligence, inattention, or criticism of the compositor.”

1917 yal1

yal1

872 and if] Crawford (ed. 1917): “an intensive form of if.”

1929 trav

trav ≈ yal1 without attribution; ≈ cln1 without attribution

872 and] Travers (ed. 1929): “(of which the ‘an’ of most modern editions is a later, clipped form) = if; so that ‘and if’ is an intensive reduplication = if indeed.”

trav

872 As, or] Travers (ed. 1929): these words do not count metrically; they are like “directions, at a rehearsal.”

1939 kit2

kit2: standard

872 and if] Kittredge (ed. 1939): "an if: if."

1957 pel1

pel1: standard

872 and if] Farnham (ed. 1957): “if.”

1970 pel2

pel2 = pel1

872 and if] an if Farnham (ed. 1970): “if”

1980 pen2

pen2

872 and if] Spencer (ed. 1980): “if.”

1982 ard2

ard2:

872 well] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “The duplication of well (Q1, Q2) has all the air of an actor’s repetition, which Q2 may have taken from Q1. The close correspondence of the two quartos throughout this awkward speech casts doubt on several of the Q2 readings (cf. 870 CN).”

ard2: standard

872, 873 and if] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “ = if.”

1985 cam4

cam4: standard

872, 873 and if] Edwards (ed. 1985): "if."

1987 oxf4

oxf4: standard

872 an if] Hibbard (ed. 1987): "if, if only."

1988 bev2

bev2: standard

872 and if] Bevington (ed. 1988): “if.”

1992 fol2

fol2: standard

872 and if] Mowat & Werstine (ed. 1992): “if”

1996 OED online

OED

872, 873 and if] OED (1996 online): an, an’ (n, ()n), conj. [weakened from AND.]1. = AND B. (L. et.)In this sense the weak form an appears soon after 1100, and is not uncommon in ME., esp. northern, but very rare after 1500, till it reappears in modern times in the representation of dialect speech, in which it is printed an’ with the apostrophe, recognizing the dropped letter. But and is almost always so pronounced in conversation, and even in reading, though this is conventionally considered a fault.As the prec. sense was not at this time written an, modern writers have made a conventional distinction between the two forms, an’ for `and,’ L. et, being dialectal or illiterate, but an’ or an for `and,’ L. is, archaic, or even literary. Except in an’ ’t, an is found only once in the 1st Folio of Shakspere (see below); but modern editors substitute it for the full and usual and in Shakspere and hiscontemporaries. Dialectally the two senses are alike an’; the intensified and if, an if, common in 17th c., remains in the s.w. dial. as nif. OED an conj. = AND, C. = if. (L. si.) arch. and dial. In this sense an, an’, is rare bef.1600, when it appears occasionally in the dramatists, esp. before it, as an’ ’t please you, an’ ’t were, etc. As the prec. sense was not at this time writtenan, modern writers have made a conventional distinction between the two forms, an’ for `and,’ L. et, being dialectal or illiterate, but an’ or an for `and,’ L. si, archaic, or even literary. Except in an’ ’t, an is found onlyonce in the 1st Folio of Shakspere (see below); but modern editors substituteit for the full and usual in Shakspere and his contemporaries. Dialectally thetwo senses are alike an’; the intensified and if, an if, common in 17th c.,remains in the s.w. dial. as nif. SHAKS. L.L.L. V. ii. 584 “There, an’t shall please you.” Ibid. V. ii. 232 Nay then two treyes, an if you grow so nice.”

2006 ard3q2

ard3q2: ard2

872 well, well] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “Jenkins sees this duplication in Q2 and Q1 as having ’all the air of an actor’s repetition’.”

ard3q2: standard

872 could . . . would] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “could [[tell]] if we wanted to”

ard3q2: OED

872, 873 and if] an if Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “if (intensive). All three texts have ’and if’ but editorial convention prefers an in contexts where ’and’ could be misleading: see OED conj. 2c.”