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.

1635 Anon.

Anon.

774-5 Anon. (The Lady Mother, 1635, 4.1, in Bullen’s Old Plays, 2: 178, apud Ingleby et al. 1932, 1: 392): “Warme charity, no more inflame my brest Than does the glowewormes ineffectual fire The hand that touches it.”

1773 gent

gent

774 Gloworme] Gentleman (ed. 1773): “The idea of the glow-worm is very poetical; and the warning not to bear resentment, inculcates a regard for the living, after nature’s debt is paid.”

1836 Gent. Mag.

Fennell

774 Gloworme] Fennell (Gent. Mag. 5 [1836]: 126-7): <p. 126> “This insect, so famous for its luminousness, is a species of beetle—the lampyris noctiluca, Pericles mentions, </p. 126><p. 127> ‘a glow-worm in the night, The which hath fire in darkness, none in light.’—(Pericles, ii.3.) The Ghost, noticing the short time it has to spare to converse with Hamlet, on account of the approach of morning, the time when all spirits vanish, remarks that, ‘The glow-work shows the matin to be near, And ’gins to pale his uneffectual fire.’—(Hamlet, i. 5.) At the approach of dawn the glow-worm’s light, begins gradually decreasing, until at length it is extinguished on the disappearance of the night’s darkness. By designating its light ‘uneffectual,’ Shakspeare alludes, I think, to the circumstance that its utility is so unapparent that it seems to answer no effect or purpose. Various naturalists have offered their respective notions concerning the object for which nature has furnished the glow-worm with this remarkable property, Thus, Dumeril, Kirby, Spence, Knapp, and others, contend that the female, who is wingless, possesses this light that it may serve as ‘a lamp of love’ to guide the winged male to her. The Baron de Geer objects to this notion, because the glow-worm shines when in its infant states of larva and pupa, in both of which states it cannot propagate, and consequently can have no need of a ‘lamp of love.’ Others urge in objection, the fact that not merely the female but the male also, is luminous, the discovery of which circumstance has, hitherto, been ascribed to Ray, and has since been corroborated by the observations of Waller, Geoffroy, and Muller. Kirby and Spence, again, conjecture that it may defend the insect from its enemies, by its radiance dazzling their eyes, ‘Possibly,’ says Waller, ‘the use of this light is to be a lantern to the insect catching its prey, and to direct its course by in the night, which is made probable by the position of it on the under part of the tail, so that by bending the same downwards, as I always observe it to do) it gives a light forward upon the prey or object. The luminous rays in the mean time not being at all incommodious to its sight, as they would have been if this torch had been carried before it. This conjecture is also favored by the placing of the eyes, which are on the under part of the head, not on the top.’ *

In the preceding quotation from Hamlet, Shakspeare by applying the possessive pronoun ‘his’ to the glow-worm, when referring to its ‘uneffectual fire,’ ascribes luminosity to the male; thus placing himself, perhaps alone, in opposition to other poets and the majority of prose writers, who would have us believe, for the sake of a pretty idea, that only the female is luminous, that she—poor wingless creature!—may attract the winged male. I have already cited the names of Ray, Waller, Geoffroy, and Muller, as observers of the luminosity of the male.”

Shakspeare has committed an error respecting the part where the light is situated in the insect, as in the Midsummer Night’s Dream he makes Titania order the Fairies to light their tapers ‘at the fiery glowworms’ eyes.’ ‘I know not,’ says Johnson, ‘how Shakspeare, who commonly derived his knowledge of nature from his own observation, happened to place the glow-worm’s light in his eyes, which is only in his tail. Johnson’s note is a very proper one, the larva of the glow-worm emitting its light from only the two last segments of the abdomen, and the imago, or perfect insect, from only the last four segments of the abdomen. . . . ”</p. 127>

<p. 127><n*> “* Philosphical Transactions, No. 67, as quoted in Blount’s Natural History (1693). ” </n*> </p. 127>

1857 Elze

Elze

774 matine] Elze (ed. 1857), though he keeps matin, says, “man fühlt sich versucht, es in ‘matins’ zu ändern.” [It seems certain it should be changed to matins.]

1859 stau

stau = Douce (see n. 743)

774

1869 str

str ≈ elze

774 matine] Stratmann (ed. 1869, p. 114): “Elze (Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Leipzig 1857) suspects ‘matine’ is a misprint for ‘matines.’”

Ed. note: See also n. 153 where the 1st relevant note re dawn and spirits appears.

1869 elze2

elze2

774 matine] Elze (ed. 1869,apud Furness, ed. 1877): “Drake, in his Sh. and his Times, ii, 414, print matins in his citation of this passage. The rare occurrence elsewhere of ‘matin’ is sufficient to arouse suspicion, and one is tempted to change it to matins here.”

1872 cln1

cln1

774 matine] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “morning. We can find no other instance of this word in the sense here used.”

1875 Schmidt

Schmidt

774 matine] Schmidt (1875): “morning.”

1877 v1877

v1877: elze2, cln1

774 matine]

1878 rlf1

rlf1 ≈ Schmidt without attribution; Elze; + Milton

774 matine] Rolfe (ed. 1878) “Matin hour, morning; used by S. only here”; he points out that Milton has the noun in the singular in L’All. 114.

1881 hud3

hud3

774 matine] Hudson (ed. 1881): “properly morning-prayers, is here put for morning.”

Synedoche / metonymy

1882 elze3

elze3: elze2, cln1

774 matine] Elze (ed. 1882): “Drake, Shakespeare and his Times, II, 414, print matins in his quotation of the present passage, and the editors of the Clarendon edition say that they can find no other instance of this word in the sense in which it is here used. From the following passages it would appear that singular matin is sometimes used in the sense of the plural matins, sometimes in the sense of morning. Milton, L’Allegro 114: Ere the first cock his matin rings. Paradise Lost, VI, 525 seq.: and to arms The matin-trumpet sung. Horace Smith, Hymn to the Flowers (st. 2):—Ye matin-worshippers! who bending lovely Before the uprisen sun, God’s lidless eye! Throw from your chalices a sweet and holy Incense on high! James Hogg, The Skylark:— ‘Bird of the wilderness Lonesome and cumberless Sweet be thy matin o’er moorland and lea!”

1904 ver

ver

774 matine] Verity (ed. 1904): “there seems to be no other instance of this noun-use [he means the singular] = F. matin.” Milton has it as an adjective several times and the one time it is a noun it means morning-note.”

1929 trav

trav: standard +

774 matine] Travers (ed. 1929): Sh. may have preferred matin to morning because it was uncommon.

1939 kit2

kit2: standard

774 matine] Kittredge (ed. 1939): "the dawn."

1957 pel1

pel1: standard

774 matine] Farnham (ed. 1957): “morning.”

1970 pel2

pel2 = pel1

774 matine] Farnham (ed. 1970): “morning”

1980 pen2

pen2: standard

774 matine] Spencer (ed. 1980): “morning.”

1982 ard2

ard2: standard (see CN 775)

774-5 Jenkins (ed. 1982): “The poetic diction (matin) gives heightened significance to the familiar ritual of dawn. Cf. 165-6. But whereas the mortals spoke of daylight beginning, the spirit speaks of a darkness ending. uneffectual, not, as Warburton supposed, because the glow-worm gives light without heat, but because its light is now disappearing. Cf. Per. 2.3.43-4, ’a glowworm . . . which hath fire in darkness, none in light’. ’As uneffectual as the glow-worm’s fire’ in the anonymous Charlemagne (Bullen, Old Eng. Plays, 3: 170) is probably an echo rather than a source.”

1987 oxf4

oxf4: OED

774 matine] Hibbard (ed. 1987): "morning (OED 3) – not found elsewhere in Shakespeare."

1988 bev2

bev2: standard

774 matine] Bevington (ed. 1988): “i.e., morning.”

1989 OED

OED

774 matine] OED. Usually found in the plural but there is at least one 1400 work that also has the singular.

1992 fol2

fol2: standard

774 matine] Mowat & Werstine (ed. 1992): “morning”

2006 ard3q2

ard3q2

774-5 Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “i.e. the fact the faint light of the glow-worm is diminishing shows that morning (matin) is approaching. This is Shakespeare’s only use of the word matin and it may be chosen for its religious connotations, ’matins’ being a church service that takes place in the morning.”