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.

1848 Strachey

Strachey

96 Strachey (1848, p. 26): “ . . . [H]is habitual modesty of mind appears in his checking his assertion that he can inform Marcellus of the cause of the military preparations in the country: [quotes].” Strachey also refers to 164 as indicative of modesty: So haue I heard.

1929 Bradby

Bradby

96 Bradby (1929, pp. 145-50): <p. 145> Readers and auditors are not likely to notice any discrepancies in Horatio’s character because, mainly, he simply agrees with Hamlet. He seems to be much older than Hamlet, because he recognizes the armor the ghost wears; yet, according to Hamlet’s praise of him in 3.2, it seems they must have been great friends and for a long time. </p. 145> <p. 146> One problem is Horatio’s failure to contact Hamlet since arriving at Elsinore for the funeral, almost a month before the beginning of the action. And their first meeting does not sound as if they are intimates. More important is that he seems to be 2 characters: one well-known to Marcellus and Barnardo, knowledgeable about Danish history and political affairs, who knew the king well; </p. 146> <p. 147> in act 4, he attends the queen herself. But in 1.2, 1.4, Horatio knows much less: Hamlet has to explain a Danish custom to him. He does not know what the flourish of trumpets means. </p. 147> <p. 148> Hamlet’s “Though I am native here” suggests that Horatio is not. Also, in 1.2 Horatio only saw the king once. Also, he hasn’t heard of Yorick, and does not recognize Laertes. </p. 148> <p. 149> Bradby ascribes the discrepancies to Sh.’s changed plans, having started to make him Hamlet’s foster brother and ending by making him something else. He points out that Sh. jumps back and forth between the two characterizations: His theory is that the second Horatio was interspersed in the existing material for the 1st Horatio. He theorizes that since Horatio matters only with respect to Hamlet, the change in Horatio must be connected to a change in the Hamlet. </p. 149> <p. 150> He will further on discuss the idea that perhaps just as there are two Horatios, so may there be two Hamlets. </p.150>

1934 cam3

cam3

96 Wilson (ed. 1934, pp. xlvii-xlix) explains that the discrepancies between Hor. as one who knows Denmark’s past history [96] but not its customs [617] is not a problem <p. xlvii> if one recognizes it as part of Sh.’s technique; he rejected consistency for dramatic effect, knowing that audiences would not worry about such things. </p. xlvii> <p. xlviii> Wilson explains that Hor. “is not a person in actual life or a character in a novel but a piece of dramatic structure. His function is to be the chief spokesman of the first scene and the confidant of the hero for the rest of the play. As the former he gives the audience necessary information about the political situation in Denmark, as the latter he is the recipient of information even more necessary for the audience to hear. The double role involves some inconsistency, but rigid logical or historical consistency is hardly compatible with dramatic economy which requires all facts to be communicated through the mouths of the characters. Yet only a very indifferent playwright will allow an audience to perceive the joins in his flats. And Shake </ p. xlviii><p. xlix> speare is able to give his puppets an appearance of life so overwhelming that his legerdemain remains unperceived not only by the spectator, who is allowed no time for consideration, but even by most readers. In the case of Horatio he secures this end by emphasising his humanity at three critical moments of the play: in the first scene, just before the Gonzago play, and in the finale. In short, we feel we know Hamlet’s friend so well that it never occurs to us to ask questions about him.” </ p. xlix>

1953 Alexander

Alexander:Trilling

96-112 Alexander (1955, p. 34): This information tells us something about King Hamlet and his times. He is not a university man and had no scholarly interests. Hamlet, the scholar who studies at Wittenberg, is an altogether different type, from a different age. Cf. CN 295.

Ed. note: Alexander, p. 30, credits Trilling with the premise that the idea of a work becomes clear “when two contradictory emotions are made to confront each other and are required to have a relationship with each other.”

1980 Bradbrook

Bradbrook

96-124 Bradbrook (1980, p. 109) finds exposition in dialogue even more awkward than in soliloquy: characters are made not to know what they can reasonably have been expected to know. She refers to Sheridan’s The Critic 2.2, offering a diagnosis of “temporary amnesia of the first act” for the playwright’s dilemma that Sheridan satirizes. See n. 86.

1980 pen2

pen2

96 That can I] Spencer (ed. 1980) says that though Horatio is a consistent character, his role in the play is not. Here he knows more than his companions; later he knows less.

1982 ard2

ard2: cam3a; Bradby

96 Jenkins (ed. 1982) comments on the discrepancy between Hor.’s knowledge here and his “familiarity with affairs in Denmark in [617].”

In a LN for 617, Jenkins says: “The play shows Shakespeare in two minds about [Hor.].” He refers to cam3, p. xlviii; G. F. Bradby, Short Studies in Shakespeare, pp. 145 ff. Jenkins also refers to this LN in his note for 124+18, which see.