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.

1882 elze

elze

1019 s.d. Rosencraus and Guyldensterne] Elze (ed. 1882): “The prevailing spelling of QB is Rosencraus, a palpable mistake for Rosencrans, which latter occurs at p. 30 and 35 of Mr Griggs’ facsimile, and Guyldensterne; that of FA Rosincrance and Guildensterne, whilst QA writes Rossencraft and Gilderstone. Mr Stratmann, in his edition of Hamlet, mixes the readings of QB and FA together; he prints Rosencrans, according to QB, and Guildensterne, according to FA. The spelling Rosencrantz which has been adopted by all modern editors, is due to Malone. I have no doubt that the spelling of FA might have come from Shakespeare’s pen just as well as that of QB, but for the sake of consistency I keep to the latter, which moreover leads us back to Shakespeare’s lifetime, whereas the former, however conformable it is to the genius of the language, yet may have taken its origin only after his death. The poet, no doubt, learnt these names from some of his friends who had been in Denmark, either as players or in some other capacity, such as the two actors Pope and Bryan, the celebrated musician Dowland, the no less celebrated architect Inigo Jones and others. See Cohn, Shakespeare in Germany, p. XXIII seq. and my Biography of Shakespeare, p. 162 and 165 seq. At a later date a Danish courtier or ambassador of the name of Rosencrantz is reported to have attended the coronation of James I. For curiosity’s sake it may be added that two young Danish noblemen of the names of Rosencrantz and Güldenstern were students at Padua in Shakespeare’s time; the former in 1587-9, the latter in 1603. See Jahrbuch der Deutschen Shakespeare-Gesellschaft, XIII, 155.”

1982 ard2

ard2: Duthie

1019] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “It was presumably the earlier references to Ophelia’s accompanying her father that misled Q1 into bringing her in here with him. Many suppose that Q1, with Ophelia’s entry here and with the plan for her to waylay Hamlet (lines 162-4 [1196]) followed immediately by its execution and the ’nunnery’ scene (3.1), preserves an earlier version. Comparison of the texts, however, points to Q1 as the derivative one (see Intro., p. 32n. and Duthie, pp. 206-19). It seems clear that Ophelia’s letter was introduced in place of Ophelia in person; and in Q1, no less than in the other texts, the discussion of the letter proceeds as though Ophelia were not present."