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.

1861 wh1

wh1

1026 th’exterior . . . man] White (ed. 1866, 1: xix): “When Shakespeare wrote in one line of macbeth,— ‘Boil thou first i’ th’ charmed pot;’ and in another,— ‘In the cauldron boil and bubble;’ in a prose passage, ‘fold it, write upon’t, read it, afterwards seal it;’ in Lear, in two contiguous lines,— ‘O Regan, wilt thou take her by the hand? Why not by th’ hand, sir? How have I offended?’ and in Hamlet, — ‘Sith not th’ exterior nor the inward man,’ — he meant something by these distinctions. . It will not do to adopt a printing-office rule in this matter; for Shakespeare used contractions and elisions more and more freely as he grew older; and thus they are one of our guides in determining the dates at which his plays were written.”

1869 Romdahl

Romdahl

1026 Sith nor] Romdahl (1869, p. 23): “Sith = since. A.S. si∂i = late, lately, afterwards. From A.S. si∂ ∂ an, si∂ ∂ en, through O.E. sithen and a genitively enlarged form, sithenes, sithence, has arisen since. Compare hence from O.E. hens, hennes, A.S. heonan, hinan. From sequence in time sith and since were transferred to consequence in reasoning and causation, and were thus used indiscriminately down to the middle of the sixteenth century, or perhaps somewhat later. About that period good authors (for instance, Spenser, Hooker) established a distinction between the forms, employing sith only to signify logical consequence, whereas sithence and since were confined to the signification of time after. The words are in the English Bible of 1611 still retained, although the distinction is not always there so strictly observed. But the double forms with their different senses soon disappeared, and since is now-a-days the only usual form. — About Sh’s use of sith and since we may here remark, that, while sith seems to be used only where it implies logical consequence, since, on the contrary, indifferently expresses sequence and consequence.”

1872 cln1

cln1 : marsh

1026 Sith nor] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): "This is the reading of the quartos. The folios have ’ Since not.’ And similarly in line 12 the quartos have ’ sith,’ the folios ’ since.’ Mr. Marsh (Lectures on the English Language, p. 584-586) says that in the latter half of the sixteenth century good authors established a distinction between the forms, and used sith only as a logical word, an illative, while sithence and since, whether prepositions or as adverbs, remained mere narratives words confined to the significance of time after.’ Shakespeare, it is clear, did not observe this distinction, whether we take the quarto or the folio to represent his exact text."

1890 irv

irv = cln1 minus marsh

1026 Sith nor] Symons (in IRVING & MARSHALL ed. 1890): “Ff. Have Since not. Shakespeare uses the sith and since indifferently. In line 12 it is the Qq. that have sith, the Ff. since.”