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.

1875 Marshall

Marshall: xref.; Kean (performance)

2131-2135 Powres . . . . Gonzagoes wife] Marshall (1875, pp. 43-44): <p.43> “While the mimic poisoner is in the very act of pouring the poison into the sleeping king’s ear on the stage, Hamlet half rises from his recumbent attitude and thus explains the incident: [quotes Q2 version of 2132-5].

“At this point most of the actors, that I have seen in the part of Hamlet, are wont to execute what I must venture to call the most vulgar piece of melodramatic absurdity which can be conceived. They crawl on their hands and knees from the feet of Ophelia to the King, whilst the poisoner is speaking his short speech on the stage; they then scream, or rant, in </p.43><p.44> the king’s ear these words, in such a manner as to justify any respectable and sane member of the Court of Denmark in conducting Hamlet to the nearest dungeon. Tradition, deriving itself from Edmund Kean, is said to justify this astonishing piece of business (technically so called); but not every actor, much less every man, is an Edmund Kean, and what may have appeared natural and effective to him, certainly appears quite the contrary to his imitators. To me it seems an error from the actor’s point of view, for surely it would be much more effective, as well as natural, that Hamlet should not abandon himself to the intensity of his excitement until he is alone with Horatio.” </p.44>

1877- Fleay

Fleay

2131 Fleay (n.d., p. 96): “the alteration made by Hamlet in the play is the poisoning in the garden a sleeping man by pouring a drug into his ears: it is this reproduction of his own act that frights the King: because it shows him Hamlet knows of his guilt; it is his fright that tells Hamlet the ghost was true: hence this incident (altered from some other manner of murder and the speech thereto belonging must have been the speech in question.” See n. 1581.

1953 Joseph

Joseph

2131-6 Joseph (1953, p. 82): Hamlet and Claudius each “learns what is behind the others mask at precisely the same moment: Hamlet when he sees his adversary blench, Claudius, when the ’talk of the poisoning’ convinces him unmistakably that his nephew has guessed his secret.”

1993 dent

dent: Mac. //s

2131 Powres] Andrews (ed. 1993): “Pours (with the same wordplay on ’powers’ as in Macbeth, 1.5.28 [373], 4.1.18 [1598]).”