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.

1850-85 Fish

Fish: Wordsworth

2124-2125 apt . . . fit] Fish (ms. notebook, Folger S.a. 194, p. 230): “‘The words ‘apt’ and ‘fit’ might be thought to differ only in this that the former is of Latin derivation, but ‘apt’ has an active sense, and fit a passive sense, a distinction clearly shown by Shakspere and by Wordsworth ‘Our hearts more apt to sympathize With heaven, our souls more fit for future glory.’ Reed’s Eng. Lit. Lect. 3. p. 106.”

1869 tsch

tsch: Jerrold analogue

2124-5 Tschischwitz (ed. 1869): “In unabhängigen oder elliptischen Satzgliedern wird der Artikel aufgegeben Cf. Dougl. Jerrold, Rent. Day. 1. 5. If you would take me through yon door, it must be heels foremost. M. III. 210.” [In independent or elliptical clauses, the article is omitted. Cf. Dougl. Jerrold, Rent. Day. 1. 5. “If you would take me through yon door, it must be heels foremost.” M. III. 210.]

1907 Werder

Werder

2124-2135 Werder (1907; rpt. 1977, p. 139): <p.139> “ In the pantomime which precedes the representation, the poisoner first plots the murder to gain the woman, and later, after the action of the poisoning, Hamlet expressly tells the audience, ‘You shall see anon how the murtherer gets the love of Gonzago’s wife.’” </p.139>

1909 subb

subb: v1877 (cf. 2056); xrefs.

2124-2130 Subbarau (ed. 1909): “Of course, Shakespeare wrote the whole of the interlude, and in a style which marks it from the main drama, He does not, however, make Hamlet propose to the Players that they should get up a whole new piece which he would give them, for the shortness of the time and the other circumstances would forbid such a course, and make it incredible. On the other hand, as Furness remarks, it would diminish the improbability of Hamlet’s finding an old play exactly fitted to Claudius’s crime in every detail, if it were given out that he was to insert a short speech therein which the player could easily learn during the interval that was available. The question is whether Shakespeare was content to resort to this dramatic device, and to induce, by a repeated reference to it, a false impression that there was in the interlude a speech of Hamlet’s insertion, and considered it the consummation of his art to create an endless discussion over it; or whether he did write any lines of the interlude, in personâ Hamleti. Indeed, what great difficulty would the poet have experienced in following the latter, positive, course? One would think it no more likely that Shakespeare once and again created a false impression of the insertion of a special speech, where indeed none was inserted, than that he inserted two such speeches to create an everlasting discussion which should be the highest tribute to his consummate art! I have no doubt that the poet meant Lucianus’s speech to mark the first six of the inserted lines, and meant us to imagine that if no interruption had been caused by the pouring of the poison into the sleeper’s ears and by the King’s rising, we should have heard the remaining six or dozen lines. Of course, the poet utilised the interlude as a vehicle of hard hits at the King [3.2.180 (2048)], [3.2.184-5 (2052-3)], [3.2.184-5 (2052-3)] and the Queen [3.2.178-9 (2046-7)], [3.2.214-5 (2082-3)], [3.2.216-23 (2084-9)], and of reflections arising from the special circumstances of the Prince [3.2.200-9 (2068-77)].”

1947 cln2

cln2

2124-2130 Rylands (ed. 1947): “This, it would seem, is the speech which the Prince himself composed and gave to the First Player to study. The ‘some dozen or sixteen lines’ are cut short.”

1980 pen2

pen2

2124 apt] Spencer (ed. 1980): “skillful (perhaps in preparing the poison or in pouring it into his victim’s ear).”

1982 ard2

ard2: ard1, Walker; xrefs.

2124-2131 Jenkins (ed. 1982): “Many have maintained that this is the speech inserted by Hamlet, but others have denied that his speech is to be found in the play at all. Most critical opinion probably agrees with Dowden, ‘If we were forced to identify Hamlet’s lines, we must needs point to the speech of Lucianus’. A. Walker emphasizes the sudden change in tempo, but not everyone would accept her estimate of the linguistic vitality of the lines (MLR, XXXI, 513-17). Cf. [2.2.541-3 (1580-2)] LN, [3.2.188-213 (2056-81)] LN.”

2006 ard3q2

ard3q2: ≈ ard2; Irving, Rosenberg

2124-31 Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “Some commentators have suggested that these lines are the ones inserted by Hamlet. Irving and other performers of Hamlet have (’often’, according to Rosenberg, 593) mouthed or spoken them along with the poisoner.”