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.

1839 knt1

knt1

1930 Knight (ed. 1839): “Here, again, is a very imptortant change found in the text of the folio, which has been rejected by the modern editors. The ordinary reading (that of the quartos) is ‘Even with the very comment of thy sloul.’ but Hamlet, having told Horatio the ‘circumstances’ of his father’s death, and imparted his suspicions of his uncle, entreats his friend to observe his uncle ‘with the very comment of my soul’--- Hamlet’s soul. To ask Horatio to observe him with the comment of his own soul (Horatio’s), is a mere feeble expletive.”

1843 col1

col1

1930 Collier (ed. 1843): “So the folio, for ‘thy soul’ of the quartos. Hamlet is putting Horatio in his place, for the purpose of watching the king, for though he intends to rivet his eyes on the face of the king, he must appear to be ‘idle’--’I must be idle: get you a place,’ are the words Hamlet afterwards employs.”

1844 dyce

dyce : collier, knight +

1930 thy] Dyce (1844, pp. 214-215): <p. 214> “Mr. Collier has in so many other places of this play rejected the readings of the folio as decidedly erroneous, that I am the more surprised at his retaining the misprint ‘my’ in the present passage. For Mr. Knight to adopt it, was only consistent with the deference which he has elsewhere paid to the authority of the folio in Hamlet,— of which tragedy his text is beyond all doubt the worst that has appeared in modern times. </p. 214>

<p. 215> “Mr. Collier’s explanation of the passage is self-contradictory. It would have been all very well for Hamlet to have ‘put Horatio in his place for the purpose of watching the king,’ if he himself had been unable, or had not intended, to do so; but, on the contrary, he expressly declares that he ‘will rivet his eyes to the face of his uncle.’ What Hamlet afterwards says, ‘They are coming to the play: I must be idle; Get you a place,’— has no sort of connexion with the present speech.

“When Mr. Knight objects to the reading of the quartos, ‘Even with the very comment of thy soul Observe mine uncle,’ that ‘to ask Horatio to observe him with the comment of his own soul (Horatio’s), is a mere feeble expletive,’ he shews by omitting all mention of the important word ‘very,’ that he has totally misunderstood the passage. ‘The very comment of thy soul’ is (as Caldecott well interprets it) ‘the most intense direction of every faculty;’ and Hamlet concludes the speech by informing Horatio why he wished him to watch his uncle with such close attention; ‘Give him heedful note; For I mine eyes will rivet to his face, And, after, we will both our judgments join In censure of his seeming.’” </p. 215>

1856 hud1 (1851-6)

hud1

Hudson (ed. 1851-6): "That is, with the most intense direction of every faculty. The folio has ’my soul,’ which Knight and Collier strangely prefer, on the ground that ’Hamlet is putting Horatio in his place, for the purpose of watching the king.’ One would think that Hamlet, though he ’must be idle,’ that is, appear so, means to stand in his own place, for that purpose; else why should he say,--’I mine eyes will rivet to his face?’ H."

1856b sing2

sing2

Singer (ed. 1856): “Here the folio reads, ‘my soul,’ which Mr. Knight and Mr. Collier both follow and defend.”

1857 dyce1

1930 Dyce (ed. 1857):"Even with the very comment of thy soul, &c." So the quartos, 1604, &c.--The folio has "--of my Soule," &c.--See my Remarks on Mr. Collier’s and Mr. Knight’s eds. of Shakespeare, p. 214.--Mr. Knight declares himself "not convinced" by what I have there said in support of the reading of the quartos; but Mr. Collier most probably will now agree with me, for he tells us, that "among other adoptions [by the Ms. Corector] from the quartos may be mentioned ’comment of thy soul’ instead of ’comment of my soul’ of the folios."

1861 wh1

wh1

1930 White (ed. 1861): “ ‘—the very comment of thy soul’:—so the 4tos. The folio has the common misprint of ’my’ for ’thy.’“

1867 ktlyn

ktlyn

1930 Keightly (1867, p. 292): “So the 4tos properly read; the folio has my for ‘thy.’”

1872 cln1

cln1

1930 with the very comment of thy soule] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “with all thy powers of observation.”

1874 corson

corson

1930 Corson (1874, p. 26): “I prythee, when thou see’st that Act a-foot, Euen with the verie Comment of my Soule Obserue mine Vnkle: F. . . . comment of thy soul Observe my uncle: C. after the Quartos. The F. reading is the more expressive: Hamlet’s meaning is, I would have thee so enter into my feelings, so identify thyself with me that, when thou seest that act a-foot, even with the very comment of my soul, thou wilt observe my uncle. The use of ‘my’ also gives force to ‘Even with the very,’ which has less force in the other reading.”

1882 elze

elze

1930 very comment of thy soule] Elze (ed. 1882): “i.e. mark him not only with the observation of thy eyes, but with that of thy soul; look at him not only with thy bodily eyes, but also with ‘thy mind’s eye’.”

1885 macd

macd

1930 MacDonald (ed. 1885): “I take ‘my’ to be right: ‘watch my uncle with the comment—the discriminating judgment, that is –of my soul, more intent than thine.’”

1899 ard1

ard1

comment of thy soul] Dowden (ed. 1899): “the emphasis is on soul; with the most inward and sagacious criticism. The F my would make Hamlet’s judgment the text, and Horatio’s the comment.”