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.

1765 john1

john1

1743 Johnson (ed. 1765): “This is a touch of nature. Hamlet, at the sight of Ophelia, does not immediately recollect, that he is to personate madness, but makes her an address grave and solemn, such as the foregoing meditation excited in his thoughts.”

1765- davies

davies

1743-4 Davies (1765-): “Here Dr Johnson observes is a touch of Nature, on the sight of Ophelia he does recollect his assumed madness [JOHN had said does not recollect]—It is true nor was it possible after such deep reflection on a present & future state that he could possibly assume a personified character—It is to be observed here that he does not affect insanity till Ophelia offers to return his love presents to him and this awakens him into a sense of his danger, as he must conclude that her conduct is regulated by the will of her Father & perhaps with ye knowledge of the King himself —”

1773 v1773

v1773 = john

1773 jen

jen

1743 orizons] Jennens (ed. 1773): “The qu’s and 1st f. read orizons; the 2d, 3d and 4th fo’s read horizons; T. H. W. and J. read orisons; but the right word is certainly oraisons (the French for prayers) as R. and P. read.”

1784 davies

davies

Davies (1784, p. 78): "This, says Dr. Johnson, is a touch of nature; for Hamlet, on the sight of Ophelia, does not recollect himself; he forgets that he was to personate the madman.--It is very true; for it was not possible that he could, after such solemn sentiments, assume immediately a personated character. He does not affect insanity, it should be observed, till Ophelia offers to return his love-presents. This awakens him into a sense of his situation; as, from that circumstance, he must conclude, that her behaviour to him was regulated by her father, and perhaps with the King’s concurrence."

1791- rann

rann

1743 orizons] Rann (ed. 1791-): “—oraisons—prayers.”

1824 farren

farren

1743 Farren (1824, p. 378): “In Hamlet’s celecrated scene with Ophelia, which, from the manner in which it has generally been acted, has provoked censure on his conduct for barbarity towards the object of his affection -- the poet, with nice discrimination, has distinctly marked the three estates of Hamlet -- In the celebrated soliloquy, he displays a morbid sensibility, whic is his disease. On the sight of Ophelia, he appears ‘the glass of ashion, and the mould of form: The observed of all observers!’ which is his natural character; and when the remembrances are tendred to him, he puts his antic disposition on, but so ‘out-Herods Herod’ in his display, as to show distinctly that it is a mere assumption, and not, at the moment, a paroxysm of actual instnity. As the King most justly describes it ‘What he spake, though it lack’d form a little, Was not like madness.’ He first addresses Ophelia with an esay and familiar air, until the mention of past rembrances seems to raise in his mind suspicions that his known regard for her is about to be made the touchstone to try the nature of his mystery--that Ophelia is but another, though innocent, instrument in the hands of her father to accomplish the purpose for which Rosencrantz and Guildenstern had been sent to him in vain, and he instantly assumes his fantastic character, the more strongly to impress her mind, and through her report, the King himself, with a nortion of his madness. There is no unkindness, no coarseness of manner unqorthy of a prince or a gentleman, towards Ophelia-- he merely acts insanity before her, but with so much method, that he wraps in deeper mystery the secret endeavoured, through her means, to be extracted from him.”

1826 sing1

sing1=john1

1856b sing2

sing2=sing1

1865 hal

hal

1743 Nimph] Halliwell (ed. 1865): “It has been doubted if the title of Nymph, applied to any other than a water-deity, were in use in Shakespeare’s time. It occurs, however, applied to the heroine, in Lodge’s romance of Rosalynde, 1590.

1872 cln1

cln1

1743 orizons] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “prayers. Derived from the French oraisons. It occurs in Romeo and Juliet, iv. 3. 3: ’For I have need of many orisons.’ "

mbooth

1743 orizons] E. Booth (ms. notes in PB 82, HTC, Shattuck 108): “My ear insists on accenting the 2nd syllable—and, though I have been severely censured for it, I have Walker & several other authors to support me. E.B.”

1889-90 mbarrett

mbarrett

1743 orizons] L. Barrett (ms. notes in PB 82, HTC, Shattuck 108): “I have said orisons for twenty years—by authority of Walker—& of my sense of Euphony. L.B.”

1934a cam3

cam3

1743 Wilson (ed. 1934): “Ham. uses the same words at [(3434)]; there is no warmth in them.”

cam3

1743-4 Wilson (ed. 1934): “The touch of affestation in ‘nymph’ and ‘orisons’ (both pretentious words) and of sarcasm in ‘all my sins’ shows that Ham. speaks ironically, and not as Johnson maintained in ‘grave and solemn’ mood. Dowden sees ‘estrangement in the word ‘Nymph.”

1953 Alexander

Alexander contra Wilson

1743-4 Alexander (lecture 1953, published 1955, p. 21) makes the point that Hamlet’s lines, said to himself, show that he “sees Ophelia for the moment as something apart from the rottenness infecting the Denmark of his musings.”