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.

1857 fieb

fieb

2046 must needes be] Fiebig (ed. 1857): “i.e. would certainly be.”

1891 dtn

dtn

2046 Deighton (ed. 1891): “such love if entering my heart would be treason.”

1869 tsch

tsch

2046 needes] Tschischwitz (ed. 1869): “needs is substant. Adv. v. nedd Gen. nedde und Formen wie villes, sponte; unvilles, invite; gevealdes, ungevealdes etc. nachgebildet. S. M. I. p. 380.” [needs is a substantive adverb from nedd (gen. nedde), formed like villes, sponte; unvilles, invite; gevealdes, ungevealdes, etc. Cf. M. I. p 380.]

1935 TLS

Oliphant, E. H. C. contra Chambers and J. D. Wilson

2046-53 Oliphant (1935, p. 537): Hamlet must have composed lines [see 1849], and Sh. could not have omitted them. Chambers’ choice for the philosophical musings of the player king are hardly dramatic enough to qualify, and Wilson’s argument that the promise of lines was a McGuffin [as Alfred Hitchcock would have labeled it] won’t work either. The best choice is the player queen’s protestations, which should move the queen. Hamlet’s “That’s wormwood.” is meant to call the audience’s attention to just those lines. He has driven home “to his mother, his sense of the incestuousness of her marriage.” Ed. note: See CN 2047: Davies in 1784 supposed that these lines must be Hamlet’s addition.

George Chapman responds (TLS 1935, p. 552) that since Hamlet is a fictional character he cannot have written any lines. But Fitzroy Pyle (TLS 1935, p. 565) argues that if the player queen’s words were the added ones, the player king’s response would make no sense. He argues for Trench’s view; see CN 1582.