Line 728 - 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 0-1017 ed. Bernice W. Kliman
| 728 Ham. O my propheticke soule! {my} <mine> Vncle? | 1.5.41 |
|---|
728 propheticke soule]
Richardson (1774, rpt. 1812, p. 96): “Shakespear was abundantly capable of exhibiting the progress of suspicion in the mind of Hamlet till it ripened into belief. Yet he proceeds in a different manner, and confirms his apprehensions by a testimony, that, according to the prejudice of the times, could not easily be refuted. In this he acted judiciously: the difficulty was worthy of the interposition.”
Ed. note: See 694 &c. See also n. 457, where
Richardson discusses Hamlet’s suspicions of his uncle—and mother.
1780 mals1
mals1
728 propheticke soule] Steevens (apud Malone, 1780, 1:667n. 4) connects Ham “Oh my prophetick soul! mine uncle.” with Son. 107.1, “not the prophetick soul.”
So what? Does this // add anything?
1807 Douce
Douce
728 propheticke soule] Douce (1807, 2:224): “Copied, perhaps maliciously, in Beaumont and Fletcher’s Double marriage, Act ii [line 4]. ‘Ses. Oh my prophetique soul!’ ”
1848 Hudson
Hudson
728 propheticke soule] Hunter (1848, pp. 91-4) explains Hamlet’s nature (91-3), and the destruction, after his mother’s remarriage, of his peace of soul and his faith in goodness (93-4). The ghost’s revelations “complete his desolation of mind” (94).
copy exactly. No note in hud1
1860 Walker
Walker
726-9 Walker (1860, 3:262): “Arrange [726-9],—‘The serpent, that did sting thy father’s life, | Now wears his crown. O my prophetic soul! | Mine uncle!’ (Perhaps,— ‘Mine uncle! Ghost. Ay, | Ay, that incestuous,’ &c. ”
See Art lxxix [2: 141-where he lists missing duplications, but not Ham.].”
1866 Cartwright
Cartwright ≈ Hudson
728 Cartwright (1866, p. 36): “ . . . does not the line [226] ‘I have that within which passeth show,’ denote there is a something dwelling on his mind; this undefined, this phantom something becomes more tangible, ‘My father’s spirit in arms! all is not well; I doubt some foul play” [456-7]; and it bursts forth in ‘Oh, my prophetic soul, my uncle!” he had long suspected it.”
1870 rug1
rug1
728 Moberly (ed. 1870): “‘My very soul abhorred the murderer even when I knew not his crime.’”
1872 hud2
hud2 ≈ Hudson
728 propheticke] Hudson (ed. 1872): “Hamlet has divined the truth before; hence the word prophetic here.”
1873 rug2
rug2 = rug1
728 Moberly (ed. 1873):
Interestingly enough, Hudson goes much less far in this note than he did in his lecture. Hudson, here, I think is saying that Hamlet has divined the truth before, not that he had specifically divined the truth about Claudius before—though that is part of it, too.
1874 Corson
Corson: F1, cam1
728 Vncle?] Corson (1874, p. 14): “The ? better represents the proper elocution.”
.
1875 Marshall
Marshall
728 Marshall (1875, p. 21): “The only other words he speaks [quotes 728] may be regarded less as the expression of gratified vanity, or malice, at finding that he had at once instinctively detected the murderer of his father, than as a sigh of relief that he had not wronged one who had given him the greatest cause for resentment.”
1877 v1877
v1877: hud2 1st clause; rug2
728
1881 hud3
hud3 ≈ hud2, Cartwright without attribution + in magenta underlined
728 Hudson (ed. 1881): “Hamlet has suspected ‘some foul play,’ and now his suspicion seems prophetic, or as if inspired.”
1885 macd
macd ≈ mob without attribution
728 MacDonald (ed. 1885): “This does not mean that he had suspected his uncle, but that his dislike to him was prophetic.”
1885 mull
mull: macd +
728 O . . . soule!] The first clause seems to express suspicion that his father’s death was the result of foul play; but Dr. MacDonald says it means, that Hamlet’s dislike to his uncle was prophetic.”
mull
728 my Vncle] Mull (ed. 1885): “The second clause is plainly a question, as the reply of the Ghost shows, yet all the editions treat is as an exclamation. The difference is by no means unimportant. [711] is a similar form of question.
1899 ard1
ard1: analogues in Fletcher (Douce without attribution ) +
728 O . . . soule] Dowden (ed. 1899): phrase in Massinger’s The Bondman, 4.1., and near the end of act 1 in his Emperor of the East.”
1939 kit2
kit2
728 Kittredge (ed. 1939): "My soul, in its abhorrence of my uncle, foreshadowed this revelation. To suppose that Hamlet had definitely suspected the murder destroys the dramatic force of the Ghost’s message [710]."
Ed. note: The suspicion of his uncle could have begun in 710 rather than before.
1947 cln2
cln2: standard
728 O . . . soule!] Rylands (ed. 1947): “i.e. this is what I feared.”
1980 pen2
pen2: xref
728 propheticke soule] Spencer (ed. 1980): “See 1.2.255-8.”
1982 ard2
ard2 ≈ kit2 without attribution
728 propheticke] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “Referring to Hamlet’s divination not of the murder (the revelation of which has taken him by surprise, 711) but of his uncle’s true nature.”
1985 cam4
cam4
728 my propheticke soule] Edwards (ed. 1985): "Implying not that Hamlet had already guessed the truth, but that the Ghost’s revelation is in accord with Hamlet’s general suspicions about Claudius and the recent goings-on."
1987 oxf4
oxf4
728 my propheticke soule] Hibbard (ed. 1987): "Hamlet does not mean that he suspected his father had been murdered by his uncle, but that his deep-seated intuitive distrust and dislike of Claudius have now been justified. He has known all along that Claudius is ‘a wrong un.’ "
1993 Lupton&Reinhard
Lupton & Reinhard
728 Lupton & Reinhard (1993, p. 111 n. 22): “In the line [quote 728], the two ‘my’s’ connect knower and known through linguistic identification.” [Idea credited to Lisa Hotchkiss and Jacques Duvoisin.]
2006 ard3q2
ard3q2: xref
728 propheticke] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “foreknowing, speculative; Hamlet has not expressed a specific suspicion that the present King murdered his father, though this confirms and justifies his hostile attitude in 1.2.”
2007 Wilson
Wilson
728 propheticke soule] Wilson (2007, p. 228): Hamlet’s response to uncle "suggests that ’our story’ comes to him as déjà vu."