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

Line 2048 - 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 2023-2950 ed. Frank N. Clary

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

2048 None wed the second, but who kild the first. Ham. That’s	3.2.180

1615 Niccholes

Niccholes allusion to player queen’s speech

2047-8 Alex Niccholes (A Discovrse of Marriage And Wiving, printed 1620, p. 40: “In second husband let me be accurst, None weds the second, but who kils the first.” Allusion apud H. C. Hart in Ingleby et al. 1932, 1: 254 n): “ . . . the words ’weds’ and ’kills’ altered from ’wed’ and ’kill’d.’ ”

1869 tsch

tsch

2048 None wed] Tschischwitz (ed. 1869): “none wed, nulla femina nubat; der Imperativ. der dritten Pers. wird im Engl. wie der der ersten Pers. durch den blossen Conjunct. ohne may u. let gebildet: z. B. Make we here three dwelling places, Facieamus hic etc. S. M. I. 326.” [none wed, nulla femina nubat; the imperative of the third person is in English like that of the first person formed with the conjunction alone without "may" or "let:" For example, "Make we here three dwelling places, Facieamus hic" etc. See M. I. 326.]

1875 Marshall

Marshall: Fechter, Salvini

2248-9 Marshall (1875, p. 159): “It has always been the custom for the representative of Hamlet to hold something in his hand, with which to conceal the workings of his countenance as he watches the King; generally the actor takes Ophelia’s fan; but I think Fechter and Salvini are right in substituting a manuscript, supposed to contain the speeches as altered and added to by Hamlet. It is to be noted that Hamlet does not interrupt the Players for some time, except with the one exclamation—‘Wormwood, wormwood.’”

1885 macd

macd

2048 MacDonald (ed. 1885): “Is this to be supposed in the original play, or inserted by Hamlet, embodying an unutterred and yet more fearful doubt with regard to his mother?”

1891 dtn

dtn: Skeat

2048-9 Deighton (ed. 1891): “i.e. that stings him bitterly ‘ as we say ‘that’s gall and wormwood to him.’”

dtn

2048 but who] Deighton (ed. 1891): “except those who.”

1934 Wilson

Wilson

2048-50 That’s wormwood] Wilson (1934, rpt. 1963, 2:302): <p.302> “Hamlet’s comment upon the talk of second marriages in the Gonzago play is ‘That’s wormwood’ in Q2 and ‘Wormwood, Wormwood’ in F1. The F1 version is sanctioned by long usage, and seems as much in character as repetitions like ‘Very like, very like’ [1.2.236 (435)], ‘Except my life, except my life, except my life’ [2.2.216 (1259)], noted in 1:80. Yet Q2 gives excellent sense; it is the ‘copy entitled to preference’; and the F1 repetition may after all be nothing but one of Burbadge’s tricks.2 I should myself declare unhesitatingly for Q2, were it not that Q1 gives us ‘O wormewood, wormewood!’ which is proof that the repetition was current on the stage at the beginning of the seventeenth century and that Scribe C cannot be responsible for its presence in F1. Though that does not absolutely rule out Burbadge, it strengthens the case for F1. It is therefore safer, I think, to assume that both the main texts are guilty of omission at this point, which means that editors combine readings and print ‘That’s wormwood, wormwood.’” </2:302>

[<2:302> “2Vide vol. 1, § v (b).” </2:302>]

1934 cam3

cam3: MSH

2048-9 Wilson (ed. 1934): “Q2 ‘That’s wormwood,’ FI ‘Wormwood, wormwood,’ Q1 ‘O wormewood, wormewood!’ MSH. p. 302. Q2 prints this and the interruption at l. 223 in the margin, which suggests that they may have been added after the Gonzago play had been composed.”

1935 ev2

ev2

2048-9 boas (ed. 1935): “Hamlet means, ‘This will be very bitter to the king.’”

1953 Joseph

Joseph

2048-9 That’s wormwood] Joseph (1953, p. 85) speculates about meanings for Hamlet’s words, which come right after the previous line’s cutting “None wed the second, but who kild the first.” He speculates that it could refer to “the star which will precede the Day of Judgment, or may symbolize the rottenness of hypocrisy . . . : the words may also have no meaning other than a reference to the bitterness of the revelation, as bitter as the plant.”

1980 pen2

pen2

2048 None . . . who] Spencer (ed. 1980): “let no woman marry a second husband except the one who.”

1982 ard2

ard2: standard for but who

ard2: xref.

2048-53 Jenkins (ed. 1982): “I do not think we should infer that Hamlet actually suspects his mother of murder. That is more than the ghost has charged her with and than the Gonzago play represents. What is implied, I take it, is that through her second marriage she becomes an accomplice in her first husband’s death. Cf. [3.4.29 (2410)] and n.”

ard2: contra kit; OED

2048 None wed] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “plural indicative. Kittredge construes ‘Let no woman wed’, but for none as plural see OED none pron. 2 b.”

1987 oxf4

oxf4: kit; contra ard2

2048 Hibbard (ed. 1987): “ i.e. ‘let no woman wed a second husband unless she has murdered her first husband’ (Kittredge). Jenkins prefers to take none as plural and wed as indicative; but the structure of the sentence seems to call for the subjunctive.”

1988 bev2

bev2

2048 None] Bevington (ed. 1988): “i.e., let no woman.”

bev2

2048 but who] Bevington (ed. 1988): “except her who.”

1993 dent

dent

Andrews (ed. 1993): “Either (a) let none wed a second husband but those who killed their first, or (b) no women wed second husbands but those who killed their first husbands.”