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.

1743 mf3bl

1721 we haue shuffled off this mortall coyle] mF3BL (1743, f.8): “The editi. 1723 reads more rightly—When we have—Coil is warfare, trouble. Perhaps foile, or swill ”

1747 warb

warb

1721 this mortall coyle] Warburton (ed. 1747): “i.e. turmoil, bustle.”

1765 heath

heath

1721 this mortall coyle] Heath (1765, p. 537): "I should imagine means, the incumbrance of tis mortal body."

1766-70 mwar2

mwar2

1721 mortall coyle] Warner (1766-70): “Coil i.e. Bustle. vid. Iunius & Skinner ad voc. So Timon of Athens pge. 19. Much Ado &c pge. 39. Tempest pge. 11. B. Johnson. v. 2. pge. 442.”

1773 v1773

v1773 = warb +

1721 coyle] Steevens (ms. note in Steevens, ed. 1773, 5:25): “bustle, tumult.”As usual, this mSTV1 note is not in v1778. Jn. 2.1. “I am not worth the coil that’s made for me.”

1784 ays

ays

1721 coyle] Ayscough (ed. 1784): “i.e. turmoil, bustle.”

1785 mason

mason

1721 Mason (1785, pp.383-6): <p.383> “This passage hath hitherto been unnoticed by any of the editors, and has of course received their tacit approbation; yet to me it appears to be erroneous. Hamlet is not considering what may passibly happen to us when we have got rid of the tummult and buslte of the world, which is the only sense that the words mortal coil, can possibly imply, but what may befal us when we have shaken off this covering of flesh, </p.383><384> that part of us which is subject to mortality.-- It appears clearly from the general tenor of the speech that this is Hamlet’s meaning; and I have never seen the part performed by a good actor who did not shew that he understood the passage in this sense; yet that is a sense which the words, as they stand, cannot possibly express. I am therefore thoroughly persuaded that we should read, ‘When we have shuffled off this mortal spoil,’ instead of coil, which differs but little from the former reading, expresses fully the idea of Hamlet, and that in language highly poetical.

“The slough or skin of a snake which he casts every year, is called his spoil.--- It is to this Shakespeare alludes; and the words shuffled off, happily express the kind of motion which the snake must necessarily make use of, in order to free himself from his old covering.

“An expression similar to that which I contend for, occurs in Howell, who may be considered as Shakespeare’s contemporary, being employed in public business at the time of Shakespeare’s death:--- In his last letter he says, ‘Yet noblest part of us may be said to be then set at liberty, when having shaken off this slough of flesh, &c.

“Slough of flesh and mortal spoil, are perfectly synonymous.

“In Bonduca, the Elder Daughter says to the Romans, ‘Would you learn | How to die bravely, Romans, to fling off | This case of flesh, lose all your care together, | Live as we’ve done.’ </p.384><p.385> And in the Elder Brother Charles says, ‘And sooner would I force a separation | Betwixt this spirit and the case of flesh, | Than but conceive on rudeness against chastity.’

“But the passage which most resembles that which is now under consideration, is one in the Merchant of Venice, where Lorenzo, in the night scene, says, ‘There’s not the smallest orb, which thou behold’st, | But in his motion like an angel sings, &c. | But whilst this muddy venture of decay | Doth grossly close us in, we cannot hear it.’ [5.1.60-5. (2472-7)

“An expression similar to that which I contend for, occurs also in the seventh canto of Taffo’s Jerusalem, where Ermina, deploring her hopeless fate and the absence of Tancred, says, ‘Forse averrá, fe’l ciel benigno ascolta | Affettuofo alcun prego mortale, | Que venga, in queste seve anco tal volta | Quegli, cui di me forse hor non cale, | Et rivolgendo gli occhi, ove sepulto | Giacerá questa spoglia, inferma e frale, | Tardo premio conceda a miei martiri | De pache lagrimette, e di sospiri.’

“It was much the fashion in Shakespeare’s days to study and imitate the Italian poets, and he has proved his particular admiration of them by a collection of no less than 154 very miserable sonnets, a quaint and languid kind of poem of Italian origin, in which a dozen insipid lines are to serve as an introduction to an epigram of two, which generally turns upon some forced conceit. Nothing but a violent attachment to those poets could have induced Shakespeare to deal so largely in a species of composition but ill adapted either </p.385><p.386> to the English language or the taste of his countrymen:-- And as it also appears from many passages in these plays, that he was more conversant in the Italian than any other foreign tongue, either ancient or modern, I think it not improbable that he borrowed the expression mortal spoil from this very passage.

“I should be very unwilling to oppose the sentiments of so many men of learning and judgement, who have supposed this passage to be correct, if I thought that they had really considered the subject;-- but this has always been one of those popular speeches, which they were taught to admire in their younger days, and which became of course so familiar to them that they never thought of examining whether it were properly expressed or not.”

1791- rann

rann

1721 this mortall coyle] Rann (ed. 1791-): “—these earthly incumbrances;--the shackles, which now bind us—mortal spoil—this slough of flesh.”

1793 v1793

v1793

1721 Steevens (ed, 1793): “A passage resembling this, occurs in a poem entitled A delightful Discours of Two Straungers, a Lady and a Knight, published by Churchyard, among the Chippes, 1575: ‘Yea, shaking off this sinfull soyle, Me thincke in cloudes I see, Among the perfite chosen lambs, A place preparde for mee.’”

1815 becket

becket

1721 When... coyle] Becket (1815, p. 41): “i.e. When we have shaken off the shackles, which at present bind or hold us.

“Coil is used in allusion to the coiling or strengthening of a rope by winding it in the form of a ring, whence coil is fetter.” </p. 41>

1826 sing1

sing1

1721 this mortall coyle] Singer (ed. 1826): “that is, ‘the tumult and bustle of this life.’ It is remarkable that under garbuglio, which has the same meaning in Italian as our coil, Florio has ‘a pecke of troubles;’of which Shakspeare’s ‘sea of troubles ‘ is only an aggrandized idea.”

1845 hunter

hunter

1721 When...coyle] Hunter (1845, p. 239): <p. 239>“‘Turmoil, bustle,’ says Warburton; rather perhaps, but I speak it </p. 239><p. 240> doubtfully, this coil of flesh which encompasseth the soul, what he elsewhere calls ‘this muddy vesture of decay.’ He was thinking of the coil of a rope. With this the expression ‘shuffled off’ better coheres.”</p. 240>

1856 hud1 (1851-6)

hud1

1721 this mortall coyle] Hudson (ed. 1856): “That is, the tumult and bustle of this life. It is remarkable that under garbuglio, which has the same meaning in Italian as our coil, Florio has ‘a pecke of troubles;’ of which Shakespeare’s ‘sea of troubles’ is only an aggrandized idea.”

1856b sing2

sing2=sing1

1856 c. mansfield ingleby

1721 When...coyle] INGLEBY (N.& Q. 2nd. S. No. 45 [8 Nov. 1856]: 368): <p. 368> “‘Not to crack the wind of the poor phrase,’ I must be allowed to answer X.’s ignoratio elenchi at the last reference. He says of me, ‘Nor does he produce any passage from any author to countenance his interpretation of body (meaning ‘of coil’). First, body for ‘coil,’ is not my interpretation, but is a popular misinterpretation. It was to expose it that I originally ventilated the subject in ‘N. & Q.’ Secondly, I did produce three passages from printed books, each being an example of the use of ‘coil’ for body; and I did so, not indeed to countenance that use, but to show that it was in vogue. Now how did the blunder originate? I have lately received a letter from a gentleman who is a stranger to me, written partly with the object of strengthening my position, that most people do understand body by the word ‘coil’ when they read Hamlet, and of explaining how the error arises. He cites Serjeant Shee’s defence of Palmer, which affords another example: and he considers that the public mind confounds Col. iii. 9. with the passage in question, and the natural history of Snakes (the coiled tribe), in casting or ‘putting off their sloughs.’ He calls to mind that St. Paul uses [Greek text], which is the word employed by Greek naturalists for expressing the annual casting of its skin by a snake. He also refers to 2 Cor. v. 1-5., as possibly assisting the confusion. Perhaps this supposition may be received as an account of the origin of the blunder. X.’s remark on the anthithesis between ‘coil’ and ‘quietus’ is excellent, and shows that he knows how to employ a powerful instrument to unpick Shakspearian [?]. Another time he would do well to read the note he professes to censure.” </p. 368>

1856 henry t. reed

1721 mortall coyle] REED (N.& Q. 2nd. S. No. 45 [8 Nov. 1856]: 368): <p. 368> “If Mr. Ingleby had admitted, among his ‘intelligent friends,’ those far-famed masters of the English tongue William Warburton and Samuel Johnson and asked them what they understood by ‘mortal coil,’ he most assuredly would not have received the reply,— ‘Why! the body of the person who makes his quietus.’ And had he pursued his inquiry, and asked his own friends, ‘Quietus, from what? From the body: the body make his quietus from the body?’ this unavoidable nonsequitur would surely (we borrow an expression of Cowper) have ramfeezled the whole [text missing] Mr. Ingleby and his friends; and they would have seen at once, with Warburton and all succeeding editors, that this ‘mortal coil’ must mean the coil— the unquiet state or condition— of this mortal life— ‘troublous storms that [?] the private state, and make the life unsweet.’

A poet laureat celebrating, in the year 1751 the birth-day of ‘our (afterwards) good old king,’ furnished us with the following lines, pat to the purpose: ‘By Temprance nurs’d, and early taught To tame each hydra of the soul, Each lurking pest; which mocks its birth, And ties its spirit down to earth, Immers’d in mortal coil.’ Whitehead, Ode 6.’

I say, pat to the purpose, for it shows, as I contend, that ‘mortal coil’ refers to the condition of mortality; and may refer, not only to its unquiet, its troublous condition, but, as in the poet laureate, perhaps to its corrupt or sinful condition.

I think that there can be little doubt that these words in Hamlet do bear reference to the body. It is not improbable that they were suggested to Shakspeare by the words in Romans vii. 24: ‘O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?’ Herman H, in his Pia Desideria, has adopted the same idea; and in one of his emblems represents a man encaged within a huge death or skeleton,— a notion stolen from him, like most of his other notions, by Francis Quarles, in his Emblems.” </p. 368>

1869 romdahl

romdahl

1721 coyle] Romdahl (1869, p. 31): “Coil. Thus all the old copies. One editor (Elze) has conjectured, vail (= veil, cover) or clay, another (Mason), soil. Coil, if that reading be accepted, is used in the now obsolete sense of tumult, bustle.”

1872 cln1

cln1

1721 coyle] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “entanglement, turmoil. The figure here is from ’coil’ of rope. Compare Much Ado about Nothing, iii. 3. 100.

1881 hud2

hud2=hud1+

1721 Hudson (ed. 1881): “...or, as Wordsworth has it, ‘the fretful stir unprofitable, and the fever of the world.’ Perhaps coil here means, also, the body.”

1882 elze

elze

1721 mortall coyle] Elze (ed. 1882): “For this reading I alone am responsible; QB: mortall coyle; FA: mortall coile; om. QA. I have nothing either to withdraw from, or add to, what has been said in my Notes &c. No. XCII.”

1899 ard1

ard1

1721 mortall coyle] Dowden (ed. 1899): “trouble or turmoil of mortal life. In this sense coil occurs several times in Shakespeare, as in Tempest, 1. ii. 207. He nowhere uses it in the sense of conccentric rings, nor does the New English Dictionary give an example earlier than 1627. The notion that mortal coil means the body, encircling the soul, may be set aside.”