HW Home	Previous CN	View CN	View TNM	View TNI	Next CN

Line 2429 - Commentary Note (CN)

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.

Notes for lines 2023-2950 ed. Frank N. Clary

For explanation of sigla, such as jen, see the editions bib.

2429 As from the body of contraction plucks	3.4.

1744 han1

han1

2429 contraction] Hanmer (ed. 1744): “By contraction here is meant the same thing as we understand now by contract: namely a solemn promise or ingagement.”

1745 han2

han2 = han1

1747 warb

warb

2429 contraction] Warburton (ed. 1747): “Contraction, for marriage-contract.”

1755 Johnson Dict.

Johnson Dict.

2429 contraction ] Johnson (1755): 1. “the act of contracting or shortening.”

2. “the act of shrinking or shriveling ”

3. “the state of being contracted, or drawn into a narrow compass.”

1765 john1

john1, john2 = warb

1765- mDavies

mDavies: see Davies 1784

2429-30 From . . . soul] [Davies] (ms. notes in Johnson, ed. 1765, opp. 8: 239): “Separates ye Soul from the body & alienates it from that Contract wch both Law & religion had by indissoluable tyes knit together.”

1773 jen

jen ≈ han1

2429 contraction] Jennens (ed 1773): “i.e. contract, solemn obligation.”

1773 v1773

v1773 = john1

1774 gent2

gent2 = warb without attribution

2429 contraction] Gentleman (ed. 1774): “Contraction—for the marriage contract.”

1778 v1778

v1778=v1773

1783 malsii

malsii ≈ gent2

2429 contraction] Malone (1783, p. 58): “Contraction is here used for the matrimonial contract.”

1784 ays1

ays1 = warb

1784 Davies

Davies: see mDavies 1765-

2429 contraction] Davies (1784, p. 105): “‘A deed which is like separating the soul from the body, and dissolves that contract which religion and law intended to render indissoluble.’”

1785 v1785

v1785 = v1778

1790 mal

mal = v1785

1791- rann

rann ≈ Davies

2429 contraction] Rann (ed. 1791-): “the marriage contract, do dissolve like rending the soul from the body.”

1793 v1793

v1793 = v1785

1803 v1803

v1803 = v1793

1813 v1813

v1813 = v1803

1819 cald1

cald1

2429 contraction] Caldecott (ed. 1819): “Annihilates the very principle of contracts.”

1821 v1821

v1821 = v1813

1832 cald2

cald2 = cald1

1843 col1

col1 ≈ warb

2429 contraction] Collier (ed. 1843): “‘Contraction,’ for marriage contract,’ says Warburton.”

1847 verp

verp = col1

2429 contraction] Verplanck (ed. 1847): “for marriage-contract.”

1854 del2

del2 ≈ rann

2429 contraction] Delius (ed. 1854): “ontraction ist das eheliche Band, das durch die That der Königin zu einem seelenlosen Körper geworden ist.” [contraction is the marriage bond that has become a body without a soul because of the queen’s deed.]

1856 hud1 (1851-6)

hud1 ≈ verp

2429 contraction] Hudson (ed. 1851-6): “Contraction here means the marriage contract. H.”

1857 fieb

fieb ≈ hud1 without attribution

2429 contraction] Fiebig (ed. 1857): “Contraction for marriage-contract.”

fieb ≈ del2

2229-30 plucks . . . soule] Fiebig (ed. 1857): “I.e. a deed which plucks, i.e. pulls, or draws the very soul from marriage.”

1858 col3

col3 = col1 minus attribution

1861 wh1

wh1 ≈ warb

2429 contraction] White (ed. 1861): “Of ‘contraction,’ found both in the 4to. and the folio, there seems to be no better explanation than Warburton’s, that it is put for the marriage contract. But I suspect that there is corruption.”

1862 cham

cham ≈ del2

2429 body of contraction] Carruthers & Chambers (ed. 1862): “the force or validity of a contract—the queen’s contract of marriage.”

1864a glo

glo ≈ fieb

2429 contraction] Clark & White (ed. 1864a [1865] 9: glossary, Contraction): “sb. the marriage contract. Ham. 3.4.”

1866 ktlyn

ktlyn = fieb for contraction

1869 tsch

tsch

2429 contraction] Tschischwitz (ed. 1869): “contraction ist wahrscheinlich ein Druckfehler für contractation, Vertrag, dem Ital. ontrattazione nachgebildet, wie ja die Ehe in gewissem Sinne ein solcher Vertrag ist. Lies body of als Trochaeus.” [contraction is probably a printing error and should be contractation meaning contract, from Italian contrattazione, as marriage is in a certain sense such a contract. body of should be read as a trochee.]

1870 rug1

rug1 ≈ cham

2429 contraction] Moberly (ed. 1870): “Takes the very soul away from the body of all engagements.”

1872 hud2

hud2=hud1 + magenta underlined

2429 contraction] Hudson (ed. 1872): “Contraction here means the marriage contract; of which Hamlet holds religion to be the life and soul insomuch that without this it is by as a lifeless body, and must soon become a nuisance. Rather superstitious, perhaps; but it should be considered that this play was written nearly three hundred years ago, when marriage was more a ‘despotism’ than it is now.”

1872 cln1

cln1 ≈ ktlyn + magenta underlined

2429 contraction] Clark and Wright (ed. 1872): “the making of the marriage contract. The word has probably never been used, before or since, in the same sense.”

1873 rug2

rug2 = rug1

1877 v1877

v1877 ≈ warb, cald1, wh1, tsch, hud2, cln1; + Stratmann, xref. magenta underlined

2429 contraction] Furness (ed. 1877): “Warburton: For ‘marriage contract.’ Caldecott: Annihilates the very principle of contracts. White: There seems to be no better explanation than Warburton’s. But I suspect that there is corruption. Tschischwitz: Probably a misprint for contractation, formed by analogy with the Ital. contrattazione. [This conjectural emendation (which Stratmann terms judicious, and compares with affectation of the Ff for ‘affection’ of the Qq in [2.2.444 (1488)]) Tschischwitz inserts in the text, and instructs us to read ‘body of’ as a trochee. Ed.] Hudson: ‘Contraction’ here means the marriage contract; of which Hamlet holds religion to be the life and soul, insomuch that without this it is but as a lifeless body, and must soon become a nuisance. Rather superstitious, perhaps; but it should be considered that this play was written nearly three hundred years ago, when marriage as more a ‘despotism’ than it is now. Clarendon: the word has probably never been used, before or since, in the same sense.”

1878 rlf1

rlf1: warb, Schmidt; ≈ cln1

2429 contraction] Rolfe (ed. 1878): “The marriage contract (Warb. and Schmidt). Sh. uses the word nowhere else.”

1881 hud3

hud3 = hud2 minus “Rather . . . now.”

1883 wh2

wh2 ≈ glo

2429 contraction] White (ed. 1883): “the marriage contract.”

1884 Gould

Gould: MM //

2429 contraction] Gould (1884, p. 40): “‘Contraction’ should be ‘contrition’, then the two clauses are in harmony with each other and mutually explanatory. It may be observed that the soul of contrition is sorrow for offence and resolution of amendment, and the body the words by which this condition is expressed. It follows, if the words are spoken without the feelings, that is done which Hamlet deprecates: ‘Heaven hath my empty words,’ says the king. See mm [4.1.2 (1004)].”

1885 macd

macd

2429 from . . . plucks] MacDonald (ed. 1885): “‘plucks the spirit out of all forms of contracting or agreeing.’ We have lost the social and kept only the physical meaning of the noun.”

1889 Barnett

Barnett = wh2

2429 contraction] Barnett (1889, p. 51): “the marriage contract.”

1890 irv2

irv2 = Barnett

2429 contraction] Symons (in Irving & Marshall, ed. 1890): “i.e. marriage contract.”

irv2 ≈ rlf1

2429 contraction] Symons (in Irving & Marshall, ed. 1890): “This word seems evidently to be used in the sense of the marriage contract; no similar use of it in this sense has been met with.”

1891 dtn

dtn

2429-30 As from . . . soule] Deighton (ed. 1891): “as robs the outward form of the marriage tie of that which is its essential grace.”

dtn ≈ rlf1

2429 contraction] Deighton (ed. 1891): “for marriage contract, is not found elsewhere.”

1899 ard1

ard1: Hakluyt, Mather analogues

2429 contraction] Dowden (ed. 1899): “act of contracting, specially of the marriage-contract. Hakluyt, Voyages, 1598: ‘The mutual contraction of a perpetuall league.’ Cotton Mather, Magnalia Christi, 1702: ‘After his contraction’ . . . unto the daughter of Mr. Wilson.”

1903 rlf3

rlf3 = rlf1 minus warb, Schmidt attributions

1905 rltr

rltr

2429 contraction] Chambers (ed. 1905): “troth-plight.”

1906 nlsn

nlsn ≈ irv2

2429 contraction] Neilson (ed. 1906, glossary): “marriage-contract.”

1931 crg1

crg1 ≈ rltr

2429 contraction] Craig (ed. 1931): “betrothal.”

1934 rid1

rid1

2429-30 from . . . soule] Ridley (ed. 1934): “makes all contracts valueless.”

1934 cam3

cam3

2429-30 from the body . . . soule] Wilson (ed. 1934): “i.e. by desecrating the most solemn type of agreement, that of marriage, it reduces all human contractual relations to empty form. The same thought is expressed in ‘and sweet religion . . . words.’”

1939 kit2

kit2 = nlsn + magenta underlined

2429 contraction] Kittredge (ed. 1939): “the obligation of the marriage contract.”

1942 n&h

n&h = crg1

1947 cln2

cln2 ≈ nlsn + magenta underlined

2429 contraction] Rylands (ed. 1947): “the contract and sacrament of marriage.”

1951 alex

alex

2429 contraction] Alexander (ed. 1951): “pledged faith.”

1957 pel1

pel1 = nlsn

1958 mun

mun: Onions, Schmidt, Wilson

2429 contraction] Munro (ed. 1958): “Onions glosses conraction as betrothal; Schmidt as marriage-contract; and it is so generally explained; Dover Wilson explains as contractual relations in general (damaged by desecrating the most solemn of all agreements, marriage).”

1974 evns1

evns1 ≈ han1

2429 contraction] Evans (ed. 1974): “the making of contracts, i.e. the assuming of solemn obligation.”

1982 ard2

ard2

2429-30 from the body . . . soul] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “Reduces to an empty form not merely the marriage-contract but contraction, the very principle of contracting solemn agreements of which the marriage-contract is the type.”

1984 chal

chal ≈ kit2

2429 contraction] Wilkes (ed. 1984): “contraction the making of contract, here marriage.”

1987 oxf4

oxf4 ≈ kit2 + magenta underlined

2429 body of contraction] Hibbard (ed. 1987): “i.e. substance of the marriage-contract, with word play on the two bodies that become ‘one flesh.’ ”

1988 bev2

bev2 = Barnett

1997 evns2

evns2 = evns1

1998 OED

OED

2429 contraction] OED (Sept. 14, 1998): “contraction (kntrækn). [a. F. contraction (13th c. in Littré), ad. L. contraction-em, n. of action from contrahere to CONTRACT.]

“ I. Related to CONTRACT v. I, II.1. a. The action of contracting or of establishing by contract; spec. the action of contracting marriage; also, betrothal (obs.). 1598 HAKLUYT Voy. I. 180 (R.) The mutual contraction of a perpetuall league and confirmation of friendship. 1602 SHAKS. Ham. III. iv. 46 Oh such a deed, As from the body of Contraction pluckes The very soule. 1630 R. Johnson’s Kingd. & Commw. 577 Contraction of peace and friendship. 1702 C. MATHER Magn. Chr. IV. iii. (1852) 62 After his `contraction’..unto the daughter of Mr. Wilson, he was married unto that gentlewoman. 1885 N. & Q. 28 Nov. 433 The second marriage..was probably in 1384, though the pardon for its (unlicensed) contraction is not dated until February 18, 1389.”

2006 ard3q2

ard3q2=oxf4

2429 body of contraction] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “substance of a (marriage) contract.”