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.

1854 del2

del2

2039+1 litlest] Delius (ed. 1854): “Der Superlativ littlest kommt sonst nirgend bei Sh. vor; er gebraucht immer das gewöhnliche least.” [The superlative form littlest appears nowhere else in Shakespeare; he always uses the usual form least.]

1857 fieb

fieb

2039+1 litlest] Fiebig (ed. 1857): “Littlest as well as littler, the regular forms of comparison, are supplanted by the irregular comparative and superlative, less, least.”

1860 Walker

Walker: xref.; B&F, Jonson, Marston, Chaucer analogues; Luc. //

2039+1 litlest] Walker (1860, 1: 52): “XLI. Littlest; gooder and goodest; badder and baddest. Hamlet, 3. 2.—[quotes 2039+1 and 2039+2]. Beaumont and Fletcher, Queen of Corinth, 4.1. Moxon, vol. ii. p. 39, col. 2,—’to hold The poorest, littlest age in reverence,’ &c. One might compare parvissimus, which, I think, occurs in Lucretius;’ but littlest in the above passages is not a mere synonym of least (Note, by the way, gooder and goodest, badder and baddest, in our old poets. Beaumont and Fletcher, Love’s Cure, 3.4, vol. ii. page 166, col. 2, ad fin.,—‘Good faith, sir, I shall prick you. Saav. In gooder faith I would prick you again.’ Jonson, Alchemist. I. 1, Gifford, vol. iv. p. 90,—‘It is the goodest soul!’ Bartholomew Fair, iv. 2, near the end, p. 481,—’And mistress Justice there, is the goodest woman!’ Marston, Antonio and Mellida, p. I. iii. 2,—’Tis even the goodest lady that breathes.’ In this last passage it is perhaps a price of affectation; see context. Poems of Uncertain Authors, Chalmers, vol. ii. p. 431, cii. 1, speaking of an ill-matched wife and husband,— ‘A badder match cannot betide.’ Heywood, Rape of Lucrece, I. 3,— ‘—you shall find the baddest legs in boots, and the worst faces in masks.’ Chaucer has badder. Canterbury Tales, 10538. ‘As lewd people demun comunly of thinges, that been made more subtilly Than they can in his lewdnesse comprehende They demen gladly to the badder end’).”

1869 tsch

tsch

2039+1 litlest] Tschischwitz (ed. 1869): “Ueber littlest, das bei M. unerwähnt bleibt, lehrt Koch I. p. 440. "In Norfolc und im Craven-Dialectˆ bildet man: little, littler, littlest; es entspr. fr. le plus petit.".” [About littlest, not mentioned by M., Koch I. p. 440 explains: In the ’Norfolc’ and in the ’Craven-Dialect’ is put together ’little, littler, littlest;’ corresponding to French ’le plus petit’.]

1872 del4

del4 ≈ del2

1872 cln1

cln1 ≈ Walker (B&F analogue) without attribution

2039+1 litlest] Clark and Wright (ed. 1872): “Still used in some provincial dialects for ‘smallest.’ Compare Beaumont and Fletcher, Queen of Corinth, iv. 1: ‘To hold The poorest, littlest age in reverence.’”

1877 v1877

v1877 ≈ Walker, del

2039+1 litlest] Furness (ed. 1877): “See Walker (Crit. i, 271) for instances of this word; gooder and goodest; badder and baddest. ‘But littlest is not [here] a mere synonym of least. Delius: This is not found elsewhere in Sh.”

1878 rlf1

rlf1: Walker (B&F, Chaucer analogues) without attribution

2039+1 litlest] Rolfe (ed. 1878): “Walker quotes B and F., Queen of Corinth, iv. 1: "The poorest littlest page." He also gives examples of gooder and goodest, badder and baddest, from writers of the time. Chaucer has badder in C.T. 10538.”

1891 dtn

dtn ≈ v1877

1903 rlf3

rlf3 = rlf1

1934 cam3

cam3

2039+1-2039+2 Wilson (ed. 1934): “FI omits these lines, which merely repeat the sense of l. 167. It is clear that Sh. wrote this Gonzago play hastily, leaving several tangles for the prompter to unravel.”

1987 oxf4

oxf4: Tilley

2039+1-2039+2 Hibbard (ed. 1987, Appendix): “It is hard to be sure whether the disappearance of this wordy couplet from F is due to design or accident. But no matter what the reason for it may be, the loss of this ‘copious’ version of ‘Love is never without fear’ (Tilley L507) is no cause for regret.”