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.

1774 Richardson

Richardson

457 foule play] Richardson (1774, rpt. 1812, p. 90): “Hamlet, in some of the foregoing passages, betrays suspicion. But suspicion is not natural to a humane and ingenuous temper. Is it, therefore, a blemish, or the result of an amiable disposition influenced by the sense of virtue?” [Richardson then argues this point in several pages, 90-5, concluding,

Richardson (1774, rpt. 1812, pp. 95-6): <p. 95> “It is not wonderful, therefore, nor inconsistent with amiable and kind affections, that Hamlet, moved by an exquisite sense of virtue and propriety, shocked and astonished at the ingratitude and guilt of Gertrude, whom he had revered and believed incapable of any blemish, should become apprehensive of the total degeneracy of her nature, and harbour suspicions concerning his father’s death. To these suspicions, the suddenness of the event, the extraordinary and mysterious circumstances attending it, together with the character of the present king, give abundant colour. Hence, with a heart full of agony, prepared for the evidence, and willing to receive it, he exclaims ‘All is not well—I doubt some foul play.’

“Had Hamlet been more indifferent in regard to propriety and moral obligation, he </p. 95> <p. 96> would have entertained less esteem for his father, less aversion of Claudius, and less displeasure at the hasty nuptials of Gertrude: he would have entertained no suspicion, nor have given way to resentment: wholly void of anxiety and vexed by no uneasy reflection, he would have enjoyed the happiness of his exalted station. The observation is painful: it infers, that the union between virtue and happiness, so highly vaunted by so many mroalists, is not so independent of external incidents as their theories would represent.” </p. 96>

1872 cln1

cln1 See n. 220

457 doubt] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “suspect, fear. So [Rom. 5. 3. 44 (2897)]: ‘His looks I fear and his intents I doubt.’”

1872 hud2

hud2 ≈ cln1 without attribution

457 doubt] Hudson (ed. 1872): “The Poet has doubt repeatedly in the sense of fear, or of suspect.”

1880 meik

meik ≈ cln1 without attribution + Oth. 3.3.19 (1611) //

457 doubt]

1881 hud3

hud3 ≈ hud2

457 doubt]

1885 mull

mull = cln1 gloss only without attribution

457 Mull (ed. 1885): “suspect.”

1899 ard1

ard1 = cln1 without attribution

457 doubt]

1913 Trench

Trench

457 foule play] Trench (1913, p. 56): Hamlet immediately suspects “foul play, instinctively reaching what will prove to be the apparition’s true significance, which to the other men, on their speculations in Sc. 1, did not suggest itself even as one of the several possibly alternatives.” Ed. note: See the continuation of his remarks in Hamlet doc.

1930 Granville-Barker

Granville-Barker

457-8 I doubt some foule play . . . deedes will rise] Granville-Barker (1930, rpt. 1946, 1: 56): Hamlet “is quick at surmise. And in the iterated ’foul deeds’ [458] . . . there is even a touch of gratifying anticipation.”

1935 Wilson

Wilson WHH

457 Wilson (1935, p. 71): Hamlet believes that only the spirit can answer his questions.

1939 kit2

kit2: standard + in magenta underlined

457 I doubt some foule play] Kittredge (ed. 1939): "I suspect that something is wrong. Foul play did not to the Elizabethans, as to us, suggest exclusively murder. Hamlet has no definite suspicion of the truth until the Ghost reveals it (710, 711)."

Ed. note: Notice the word foul also occurs in 710. Much depends on how Hamlet says 711 to indicate whether or not he suspected murder before the revelation.

1957 pel1

pel1: standard

457 doubt] Farnham (ed. 1957): “suspect, fear.”

1970 pel2

pel2 = pel1

457 doubt] Farnham (ed. 1970): “suspect, fear”

1980 pen2

pen2

457 doubt] Spencer (ed. 1980): “suspect. Hamlet is already suspicious of the cause of his father’s death, and the Ghost’s revelations confirm his prophetic soul (1.5.40).”

1982 ard2

ard2: standard

457 doubt] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “fear, suspect (as often). Cf. 1080, 1823.”

ard2:

457 foule play] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “The disclosure of a crime was held to be one of the common reasons for a ghost’s appearance. Cf. 624 CN. It was not, however, among those speculated on by Horatio and his companions (85, 129-36). It is left to Hamlet to divine the nature of the Ghost’s errand (though not as yet, of course, its import). With this first clear hint not of what but of what kind the Ghost’s communication will be Shakespeare still further heightens suspense.”

1985 cam4

cam4: standard

457 doubt] Edwards (ed. 1985): "suspect."

1987 oxf4

oxf4: standard

457 doubt] Hibbard (ed. 1987): "fear."

1988 bev2

bev2: standard

457 doubt] Bevington (ed. 1988): “suspect.”

1992 fol2

fol2: standard

457 doubt . . . play] Mowat & Werstine (ed. 1992): “suspect some treacherous action”

2006 ard3q2

ard3q2: standard gloss; xref; Dent;

458-9 foule . . . eyes] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “i.e. crimes will eventually be revealed, even though the whole world attempts to submerge or bury them. See [1633-4]: ’For murder, though it have no tongue, will speak / With most miraculous organ’, and the proverbial ’Murder will out’ (Dent, M1315). The others have not mentioned their theory about the connection between the Ghost’s appearance and Denmark’s preparations for war; Hamlet’s notion of foul play seems immediately a more personal one, following on from his first soliloquy.”

ard3q2: dent; xref

458 fonde] foul Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “Q2’s ’fonde’ is plausibly explained as a misreading. Andrews, however, retains it and glosses ’foolish or mad’. The repetition of foul from [457] makes ’fonde’ attractive, but this sense seems strained (and misleading to a modern auditor or reader).”