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.

1784 Davies

Davies

1350-1 how...forme] Davies (1784, p. 45):"In uttering this beautiful description of man and his powers, the energy of Garrick was very striking; and the noble figure and movement of Barry added a double force to the sentiment. Notwithstanding this, I am of opinion, that, in this argument, in which Hamlet pretends to account for his melancholy, the actor is generally too tame and temperate in speech and action, and too forgetful of the part he has assumed."

1872 cln1

cln1

1351 faculties] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): "See the folios. The quartos have ’faculties.’ "

1882 elze

elze

1350-1 Elze (ed. 1882): “This celebrated passage has been imitated in Marston’s Malcontent (1604), I, 5 (Works, ed. Halliwell, II, 217): In body how delicate, in soule how wittie, in discourse how pregnant, in life how warie, in favours how juditious, in day how sociable, and in night, how! — O pleasure unutterable! Dr Ingleby, however, has not admitted this allusion into his Centurie of Prayse.”

1899 ard1

ard1

1350 man] Dowden (ed. 1899): “Dyce (ed. 2) thinks ‘a’ in Qq. 2-5 was shuffled out of its place before piece, and that Ff, instead of transposing ‘a,’ added another before piece.”

1934a cam3

cam3

1350-55 Wilson (ed. 1934): “Such is the pointing of Q2. Cf. that of the F1 text, accepted by all edd., substituting notes of exclamation for the orig. queries, the two being alternatives in old printing: What a piece of worke is a man! how noble in Reason! how infinite in faculty! in forme and mouing how expresse and admirable! in Action, how like an Angel! in apprehension, how like a God! the beauty of the world, the Parragon of Animals; This rhetorical, the declamtion of a player; Q2 without an exclamation of any kind, gives us the brooding Ham. The sense too is different, to the bewilederment of some critics. But the absolute ‘how like a god’ makes a fine climax, esp. as followed at once by ‘this quint--essence of dust’; ‘how like an angel in apprehension’ recalls ‘with wings as swift | As meditation of the thoughts of love’ [(714-6)]; while ‘how infinite in faculties, in form and moving’ may be paraphrased ‘how infinitely varied in his bodily powers: in sight, hearing and other qualities of sense (cf. ‘the very faculties of eyes and ears’ [(1606)]; in facial expression and gesture (cf. ‘his whole function suiting | With forms to hes cocnceit ‘ [(1596-7)]); and in the motion and activity of his body.’ The traditional (F1) rendering, on the other hand, involves two grave difficulties: (I) to a thinking Eliz. angels were discarnate spirits whose onlly form of action was ‘apprehension’ (cf. Aquinas, Summa, I. 50-8). To make Ham. compare human action to that of an angel is, therefore, to make him talk nonsense. (ii) The epithet ‘express’ goes so awkwardky with ‘form and moving’ that N.E.D. has had to devise a nonce--use, i.e. ‘well framed’ or ‘modelled’ to wxplain it; whireas its ordinary meaning, i.e. ‘direct and purposive’ is exactly suited to ‘action.’ MSH. pp.210-14.”