HW Home	Previous CN	View CN	View TNM	View TNI	Next CN

Line 2011-12 - Commentary Note (CN)

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.

Notes for lines 1018-2022 ed. Eric Rasmussen

For explanation of sigla, such as jen, see the editions bib.

2011-2 Ham. I, or any show that you will show him, be not \| you asham’d

1773 v1773

v1773

Steveens (ed. 1773): The conversation of Hamlet with Ophelia, which cannot fail to disgust every modern reader, is probably such as was peculiar to the young and fashionable of the age of Shakespeare, which was, by no means, an age of delicacy. The poet is, however, blameable; for extravagance of thought, not indecency of expression, is the characteristic of madness, at least, of such madness as should be represented on the scene.

1784 Davies

Davies contra Steevens

Davies (1784, p. 90): "Mr. Steevens reproves the author, for putting into the mouth of Hamlet unbecoming expressions during his personated madness. But it has been noticed, by those who have visited the cells of lunatics, that females, the most remarkable for modesty, have, in their insanity, thrown out very indecent and unbecoming expressions. In her madness, the innocent Ophelia chants scraps of such songs as would not have entered her mind when in her perfect senses."

1790- Wesley

Wesley contra S[teevens]

Wesley (ms. notes 1790, p.46): “(S. says ‘Extravagance of thought, not indecency of expression, is the characteristic of madness’.) This is not a proof of much experience among mad people. Indecency not only of expression but of action is peculiarly observable in them. That no indecency ought to appear ‘on the scene’ is true enough.”

1821 v1821

v1821 = v1813 +

Boswell (ed. 1821): “But how is he blameable if he did not produce it as a characteristic of madness; and if it was, as Mr. Steevens has remarked, the fashionable style of conversation at that time?”

[cf TLN 1970]