Line 3612, etc. - 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 2951-end ed. Hardin A. Aasand
| 3612+1 {Ham. I dare not confesse that, least I should compare with} 3611+1 * Bernice number here? | |
|---|
3612+2 {him in excellence, but to know a man wel, were to knowe himselfe.}
1765 john1
john1
3612+1-3612+2 Ham. I . . . himselfe] Johnson (ed. 1765) : > “I dare not pretend to know him, lest I should pretend to an equality: no man can completely know another, but by knowing himself, which is the utmost extent of human wisdom. JOHNSON”
1773 v1773
v1773 = john1
3612+1-3612+2 Ham. I . . . himselfe]
1778 v1778
v1778 = v1773
3612+1-3612+2 Ham. I . . . himselfe]
1785 v1785
v1785 = v1778
3612+1-3612+2 Ham. I . . . himselfe]
1787 ann
ann = v1785
3612+1-3612+2 Ham. I . . . himselfe]
1790 mal
mal = v1785
3612+1-3612+2 Ham. I . . . himselfe]
1791- rann
rann
3612+1-3612+2 Ham. I . . . himselfe]Rann (ed. 1791-) : “I pretend not to know him perfectly, lest I should be thought to assume an equality with him, and, by inference, to lay claim to that self-knowledge, which is the highest pitch of human wisdom.”
1793 v1793
v1793 = mal
3612+1-3612+2 Ham. I . . . himselfe]
1794 Whiter
Whiter
3612+1-3612+2 Ham. I . . .
himselfe]
Whiter (1794, p. 52-3): <p. 53> “This thought [citing
AYL 5.2.58 (2464)] we find in Hamlet.” </p. 53>
1803 v1803
v1803 = mal
3612+1-3612+2 Ham. I . . . himselfe]
1803 v1813
v1813 = v1803
3612+1-3612+2 Ham. I . . . himselfe]
1819 cald1
cald1 = v1813 + brief preface (magenta underlined)
3612+1-3612+2 Ham. I . . . himselfe] Caldecott (ed. 1819) : “No one can have a perfect conception of the measure of another’s excellence, unless he shall himself come up to that standard.”
1821 v1821
v1821 = v1813
3612+1-3612+2 Ham. I . . . himselfe]
1826 sing1
sing1 = v1821
3612+1-3612+2 Ham. I . . . himselfe]
1832 cald2
cald2 = cald1 + closing afterthought (magenta underlined) [via WHITER?]
3612+1-3612+2 Ham. I . . .
himselfe]
Caldecott (ed. 1832) : “
See a similar turn of thought and expression in [AYL. 5.2.58(2464) Ros.]”
1854 del2
del2 : standard
3612+1-3612+2 Ham. I . . . excellence] Delius (ed. 1854) : “Dass ich die Vortrefflichkeit des Laertes kenne, würde ich nur dann zu gestehen wagen, wenn ich mit ihm darin es aufnehmen wollte.” [That I know the excellence of Laertes, I would risk acknowledging only when I took it up with him.]
1856 hud1 (1851-6)
hud1 = sing1 (without attribution ; minus “extent”)
3612+1-3612+2 Ham. I . . . himselfe]
1856 sing2
sing2 = sing1
3612+1-3612+2 Ham. I . . . himselfe]
1860 Walker
Walker : cap
3612+2 but]
Walker (1860, 3:274) : <p. 274> “Surely the sense requires ‘
for’” </p. 274>
3612+2 but] Lettsom (apud Walker, 1860, 3:274) : “(So Capell.)” </p. 274>
[Ed:This note by Lettsom to Walker’s original note supplies a precedent for Walker’s reading of for to know a man well.]
1866 dyce2
dyce2 ≈ Walker
3612+2 but] Walker (apud Dyce,e d. 1866) : “Surely the sense requires ‘for’ [which Capell gave].Walker’s Crit. Exam. &c. vol. iii. p. 273.”
1872 del4
del4 = del2
3612+1-3612+2 Ham. I . . . excellence]
1872 hud2
hud2
3612+2 but to know a man wel, were to knowe himselfe] Hudson (ed. 1872): “The meaning is, that he will not claim to appreciate the excellence of Laertes, as this would imply equal excellence in himself; on the principle that a man cannot understand that which exceeds his own measure. Hamlet goes into these subtilties on purpose to amaze Osric.”
1873 rug2
rug2
3612+2 but to know a man wel, were to knowe himselfe] Moberly (ed. 1873): “To know oneself to be like him: on the principle that Ómoion _moƒ÷ gnwrƒzetai. [I liken the same to be acquainted.]”
1877 v1877
v1877 = john1
3612+1-3612+2 Ham. I . . . himselfe]
v1877 ≈ Walker
3612+2 but]
1881 hud2
hud3 ≈ hud2
3612+2 but to know a man wel, were to knowe himselfe] Hudson (ed. 1881): “The meaning is, that he will not claim to appreciate the excellence of Laertes, as this would imply equal excellence in himself; on the principle that a man cannot understand that which exceeds his own measure. Hamlet goes into these subtilties on purpose to maze Osric.—The words, ‘but to know,’ mean ‘only to know.’ Ignorance or oversight of this has sometimes caused the text to be thought corrupt.”
1883 Kinnear
Kinnear
3612+1 confesse]
Kinnear (1883, p. 411): <p. 411>“‘
confesse’=
profess.</p. 411>
Kinnear
3612+2 but to know a man wel, were to knowe himselfe]
Kinnear (1883, p. 411-2): <p. 411>“
but to know a man
well,’
i.e. to know a man
but well=
thoroughly,—were to
be himself,
i.e. in all respects his equal. The old eds. have ‘were to
know himself’—’
know’ having been carried from earlier in the sentence. All the compared eds. retain the old text. The folio has an</p. 411><p. 412>example of the error of carrying on words (3.3.14)[2287-8], folio,—’That
Spirit, vpon whose
spirit depends and rests The liues of many.’ where the second
spirit is a misprint for
weal’ of the quartos.”</p. 412>
1885 macd
macd ≈ standard
3612+2 but to know a man wel, were to knowe himselfe]
1899 ard1
ard1 : standard
3612+2 but to know a man wel, were to knowe himselfe] Dowden (ed. 1899): “to know another implies self-knowledge, the height of human wisdom.”
1929 trav
trav
3612+2 himselfe]
Travers (ed. 1929): “apparently = oneself. ‘No man can judge another, because no man knows himself; for we censure others but as they disagree from that humour which we fancy laudable in ourselves, and commend others. but for that wherein they seem to quadrate and consent ((=accord, p. xvi)) with us. So that in conclusion all is but that (p. 16, n. 11) we all condemn, self-love’ ((Sir Thomas Browne,
Religio Medici; pub. 1643)).”
1931 crg1
crg1
3612+1-3612+2 I . . . excellence] Craig (ed. 1951): “but to know a man as excellent, were to know Laertes.”
1934 cam3
cam3
3612+1-3612+2 Wilson (ed. 1934): “An elaboration of Math. vii.1 ‘Judge not, that ye be not judged.’ Verity quotes Browne, Religio Medici, ii.4 ‘No man can judge another, because no man knows himself.’ v.G[lossary]. ‘compare with.’”
cam3
3612+1 compare with] Wilson (ed. 1934, Glossary)
1934 rid1
rid1
3612+1-3612+4 Ridley (ed. 1934): “Here again we can see the F reviser at work. He cuts as the brackets indicate [3610+1-+25]: but then he sees that Hamlet’s What’s his weapon is left hanging in the air: so he readds before his cut You are not ignorant of what excellence Laertes is at his weapon.”
1939 kit2
kit2
3612+1-3612+2 I . . . excellence] Kittredge (ed. 1939): “I dare not say that I know how excellent Laertes is, for such an assertion would be an implied claim of equal excellence on my own part, since only the excellent can judge of excellence.”
kit2
3612+2 himselfe] Kittredge (ed. 1939): “one’s self.”
kit2 = john1
3612+1-3612+2 Ham. I . . . himselfe]
1947 cln2
Cln2 ≈ Cln1 (minus Tro. //)
3612+3 imputation]
Cln2
3612+1-3612+2 Ham. I . . . himselfe] Rylands (ed. 1947, Notes): “i.e. oneself. Cf. ‘No man can judge another because no man knows himself’ (Sir Thomas Browne, Religio Medici).”
1951 crg2
crg2=crg1
3612+1-3612+2 I . . . excellence]
1957 pel1
pel1 : standard
3612+1 compare] Farnham (ed. 1957): "compete."
1970 pel2
pel1 : standard
3612+1 compare] Farnham (ed. 1957): "compete."
1974 evns
evns1 ≈ standard
3612+1-3612+2 I . . . excellence]
evns1
3612+2 but] Evans (ed. 1974): The sense seems to require for.”
evns1
3612+2 himselfe] Evans (ed. 1974): “i.e. oneself.”
1980 pen2
pen2 ≈ cam3 w/o attribution
3612+1-3612+2
pen2
3612+1 compare] Spencer (ed. 1980): “vie.”
pen2 ≈ standard
3612+2 himselfe]
1982 ard2
ard2 ≈ standard +
3612+1-3612+2 Ham. I . . . himselfe] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “Implying that only the excellent can appreciate excellence and that only through self-knowledge can a man thoroughly know another. The first proposition, however, does not entail the second, which exceeds it. Hence but.”
1987 oxf4
oxf4 : Tilley
3612+1-3612+2 Ham. I . . .
himselfe]
Hibbard (ed. 1987, Appendix A, p. 368): <p. 368>“becore one can know the true character of another one must know oneself ((provebial Tilley K175)).”
oxf4 ≈ standard
3612+3 imputation]
1988 bev2
bev2: standard (kit2 ; cln2)
3612+1-3612+2 Ham. I . . . himselfe]
1993 dent
dent ≈ standard
3612+1 compare]
3612+1 3612+2