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.

1746 Upton

Upton

101 Hamlet] Upton (1746, p. 286) Rule 1: “Shakespeare alters proper names according to English pronunciation . . . . [For] Amleth, he writes Hamlet.”

1793 v1793

v1793

101 Hamlet] Steevens (ed. 1793, 15:B2v) “i.e. Amleth. The h transferred from the end to the beginning of the name. Steevens.”

1803 v1803

v1803 = v1793

101 Hamlet]

1813 v1813

v1813 = v1803

101 Hamlet]

1821 v1821

v1821 = v1813

101 Hamlet]

1832 cald2

cald2 = v1821

101 Hamlet]

1870 Abbott

Abbott

101 the] Abbott (§92): “The used to denote notoriety, &c. Any word when referred to as being defined and well known may of course be preceded by the article. Thus we frequently speak of ‘the air. Bacon (Essay] 231), however wrote, ‘The matter (the substance called matter) is in perpetual flux.’ . . . [Quotes 101], i.e. ‘the combat that ends all dispute.’ French influence is perceptible in these two last instances [the other the death from H5 4.1.172 (2019) and R3 1.2.179 (370). . . . ”

1872 cln1

cln1 : pope

101 combat] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “Pope, in order to make Shakespeare’s lines as smooth as his own, frequently made unwarrantable changes. Here he changed ‘combat’ to ‘fight’.”

1877 v1877

v1877: Abbott + gloss

101 the] Furness (ed. 1887): “Abbott, §92: i.e. the combat that ends all dispute. Or see [Mac. 4.2.72 (1792)]. ”

v1877 re Mac. 5.2.4 (2179) = Abbott (minus 2nd sentence)

101 the]

1880 meik

meik ≈ Abbott and v1877 without attribution + in magenta underlined

101 the] Meikeljohn (ed. 1880): “The is employed par excellence. The combat = the (mortal) combat which puts an end to discussion. So we speak of the air, the water; and Chaucer calls the Plague, The Dethe.”

1890 Orger

Orger

101-2 Orger (1890, p. 82): One can scarcely believe that the author would make Horatio expend a whole line on justifying his epithet ‘Valiant,’ as applied to the deceased king. It seems much more likely that he gave him a name of honour, which required such warranty. ‘As valiant as Hercules,’ occurs in [Ado 4.1.321 (1983)] and [1H4 2.4.270 (1227)], and Horatio may be supposed to call him so. This is in some degree supported by [336-7]—My father’s brother, but no more like my father Than I to Hercules.”

1891 dtn1

dtn1

101 Dar’d] Deighton (ed. 1891): “challenged; in the sense of venturing to do a thing. The verb ‘to dare’ has ‘durst’ for its preterite.”

dtn1: Abbott § 92

101 the]

1903 rlf3

rlf3 ≈ Abbott without attribution

101 combat]

1909 subb

subb = Abbott; quotation from Hystorie of Hamblet (Pavier’s, 1608)

101 the combat

1913 tut2

tut2 ≈ Abbott without attribution

101 the combat]

tut2

101 our valiant Hamlet] Goggin (ed. 1913): “i.e. the late king, not the hero of the play.”

1930 Granville-Barker

Granville-Barker

101-2 Granville-Barker (1930, rpt. 1946, 1: 47) points out that Horatio’s narrative adds stature to the apparition because Horatio invokes the memory of a renowned king.

1947 cln2

cln2: standard

101 Hamlet] Rylands (ed. 1947): “i.e. Hamlet’s father, the late king.”

1980 pen2

pen2

101 valiant Hamlet] Spencer (ed. 1980): that is, King Hamlet, whose sterling qualities include “virtue, dignity, valour, physical prowess, and personal beauty [. . . ]. It is in the shadow of his worth that Hamlet has to reveal himself to us, and to act.”

Ed. note: Spencer ignores such considerations as King Hamlet’s grievous sins for which he is suffering; his being a cuckold, considered by most to be a failing and a shame that falls on the husband; his (surely inappropriate) anger during a parley; his selfish demand that his son revenge his death even though revenge is wrong and comes to no good, etc.

1987 oxf4

oxf4 = Abbott § 92 +

101 the combat] Hibbard (ed. 1987): “single combat to the death.”

2006 ard3q2

ard3q2

101 the combat] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “i.e. that [[famous]] single combat”

2008 Pequigney

Pequigney: Saxo; Belleforest; Steevens; Upton + in magenta underlined

101, 112, 169 Hamlet] Pequigney (2008, personal communication): “The first mention of the name. It is spoken three times in the opening scene, always by Horatio, referring twice to the apparitional King [101, 112], and the third time to the Prince [169]. Hamlet derives from the name Amleth, used in the two earliest narratives of the legend, that of Saxo Grammaticus in his Historiae Danicae, written at the end of the twelfth century, and that in the fifth series of Francois de Belleforest’s Histoires Tragiques, published in 1570. Steevens (ed. 1793, 15:B2v) notices that the h at the end of Amleth was transferred to the beginning of the name to form Hamlet. Upton (1746, p. 286) affirms that Shakespeare, as here, regularly alters proper names according to English pronunciation, This is surely the reason for the alteration. It was not made, however, by Shakespeare but rather by the anonymous author of the Ur Hamlet, who would have modified the spelling between the appearance of his narrative source in 1570 and his dramatization of the story in the 1580s or early 90s. An older, Anglicized, non-theatrical form of the name was Hamnet. Shakespeare gave it to his only boy (1585-1596), thus honoring a Stratford friend, Hamnet Sadler, the child’s godfather. Wherever his first name may have come from, Sadler, who had married his wife Judith by 1580, would have been baptized many years before the source play was written. Now in Saxo and Belleforest the murdered father has a different name from his filial revenger. Who then named the father after the son? It had to be either the Ur-Hamlet playwright or Shakespeare. Though there is no way of knowing who, the deft effect of the move suggests Shakespeare. The shared name serves to draw the father and son emotionally and psychologically closer, and to underscore the deep involvement that each Hamlet feels in the fate of the other. Furthermore, Shakespeare repeated the device with a slain senior Fortinbras and an avenging junior Fortinbras, both also royal, both also ahistorical, and both definitely his invention.”