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

1742-1805] Stubbs (1736): “Hamlet’s Conversation with Ophelia, we may observe, is in the Stile of Madness; and it was proper that the Prince should conceal his Design from every one, which had he conversed with his Mistress in his natural Stile could not have been.

“I am perswaded, that our Author was pleas’d to have an Opportunity of raising a Laugh now and then, which he does in several Passages of Hamlet’s satirical Reflections on Women; but I have the same Objections to this Part of the Prince’s Madness, that I have before mentioned, viz. that it wants Dignity.”

1770 GENTLEMEN

Gentleman

1742-1847 Soft... goe.] Gentleman (1770, p. 23): “The conversation between Hamlet and Ophelia is finely imagined to puzzle the spies who watch his words and actions; and though it exhibits madness, yet as Polonius remarks of a former scene— there is method in it; Shakespeare, in all his pieces, seems to have had great regard to the capital characters both as to strength and variety; the feigned madness in this piece tends greatly to the latter, and gives much scope, particularly in this scene, for powerful action— the King’s proposition of sending the prince to England, though a strange scheme, shews the apprehension which conscious guilt fixes on his mind.” </p. 23>

1808 SCHLEGEL

Schlegel

1738-42 Schlegel (1808, rpt. 1846. p. 404): “The whole is intended to show that a calculating consideration, which exhausts all the relations and possible consequences of a deed, must cripple the power of acting; as Hamlet himself expresses it [quotes 1738-42].”

1872 CLN1

CLN1

1742 Soft you now] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “hush, be quiet. Compare Much Ado about Nothing, v. 1. 207: ’But soft you, let me be.’ "

1885 MACD

MACD

1742 MacDonald (ed. 1885): “I allow this to be a general reflection, but surely it serves to show that conscience must at least be one of Hamlet’s restraints.”

1889-90 mBooth

mBooth

1742 name of action] E. Booth (ms. notes in PB 82, HTC, Shattuck 108): “Emphasize both words to convey the meanng of loss of even the very appearance of movement. E.B.”

1899 ARD1

ARD1

1742 action] Dowden (ed. 1899): “With the thought of action this soliloquy opens and closes. The train of ideas is a sfollows: -Active resistance to evil or passive fortitude-which is more worthy for me? To end troubles -perhaps by one’s own death? Well, the sleep of death will be most welcome; but what if there be terrible dreams? The fear of hereafter is universal, else men would not endure the ills of life; and thus it is that, perplexed by calculating consequences, we drop away from heroic action. Parallels, as possible sources for parts of this soliloquy, have been pointed out in Catullus (no traveller returns), Cardan (death a sleep), Seneca (no traveller returns, and fear of futurity), Montaigne (sea of troubles, death a desirable ‘Consumption,’ conscience makes cowards), Cornelius Agrippa (country of the dead irremeable), Marlowe’s Edward II. (Mortimer goes as a traveller to discover countries yet unknown). It seems probable, as Professor Skeat notices, that there are reminiscences here of the translation ascribed to Chaucer of The Romaunt of the Rose, lines 5637-5696; the word fardels is perhaps one of the echoes from this passage. It is worth noting that Mr. G. Macdonald eliminates the thought of suicide from the soliloquy, supposing that the bare bodkin is imagined as directed against an enemy. Suicide, indeed, is not the theme of the soliloquy, but it incidentally enters into it. ‘Clelia’ in his God in Shakespeare construes the opening sentence thus: ‘Whether ‘tis nobler to bear evil or to resist it the question is To be, or not to be, i.e. Is there a life after death?’ The note of interrogation after ‘end them,’ line 60, was first introduced by Pope.”