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.

1736 Stubbs

Stubbs

2349 Stubbs (1736, p. 32-3): <p.32> “The King’s seeming so very much touch’d with a Sense of his Crime, is supposed to be owing to the Representa- </p.32><p.33> tion he had been present at; but I do not see how Hamlet is introduced so as to find him at Prayers. It is not natural, that a King’s Privacy should be so intruded on, not even by any of his Family, especially, that it should be done without his perceiving it.” </p.33>

1853 COLN

coln

2349 Collier (1853, p. 426): “When Hamlet enters behind, another stage-direction (printed in no copy) states that he has his sword drawn ready to kill the King, if his resolution had held.”

1854 del2

del2

2349 Delius (ed. 1854): “Der alte Corrector fügt die Bühnenweisung with his sword drawn hinzu, wahscheinlich weil Hamlet das Schwert nachher wieder einsteckt mit den Worten: Up, sword. Hamlet hat aber in der That das Schwert nicht eher zu ziehen, als wenn der Anblick des in Gebet gesunkenen Königs ihn auf den Gedanken bringt, ihn umzubringen, also erst n a c h seinem Eintritt.” [The Old Corrector adds to this the stage direction with his sword drawn, probably because Hamlet sheathes his sword later with the words, Up, sword. But Hamlet does not have to draw his sword until the sight of the king sunken in prayer brings him to the idea of killing him, therefore after his entrance.]

1875 Marshall

Marshall

2349-71 Enter Hamlet . . . . sickly daies] Marshall (1875, pp. 45-46): <p.45> “Hamlet enters unseen by the King; he then speaks the lines which certainly betray a spirit of diabolical revenge. No doubt commentators have not ransacked contemporary literature of that day in vain for instances of similar ferocity; the desire had </p.45><p.46> been expressed by more than one vindictive nature to kill the soul as well as the body. I need to point out to you how impotent such malice is; man may slay his fellow-man unprepared, or even, as in some instances quoted, with a blasphemous denial of god on his lips, extorted from him through fear of death; but the ultimate fate of the soul is in the hands of God alone. The very extravagance of the idea may have struck Shakespeare, and he may have purposely put these horrible words into Hamlet’s mouth to shows the excess of vindictiveness to which his thoughts would go, out of defiance, as it were, of the timid inertness of his action. Violence of language is not uncommonly found in highly sensitive natures; but very rarely in such natures, except in the moment of extreme passion, is it supplemented by violent deeds. Complete as his conviction of the King’s guilt now must be, in face of the opportunity, in sight of the man himself tortured with the agonies of a guilty conscience, Hamlet shrinks from striking the fatal blow. He knows himself, that deliberate Murder—murder committed, not in the heat and fury of passion, but with sufficient leisure to allow of reflection, though justified, ever so strongly, by what we may call the natural laws of vengeance—is an act of which he is incapable. The ghost’s solemn exhortation to revenge may be ringing in his ears; in thought he is more than capable, indeed he is incapable of executing it; and so he indulges in this discussion with himself, in which, affecting a bloody-mindedness that he could not really feel, he excuses himself for once more putting off the time of action. The reason which he alleges at the end of his speech probably weighed more strongly with him than he was inclined to allow; he had yet to try and wake his mother’s conscience; that was a task much more congenial to his nature, much more within his capacity. I do not go so far as to deny that this speech of Hamlet’s is revolting to our feelings; it savours of an age when bloodshed and violence were unhappily familiar; it is consistent with the state of rude and imperfect civilisation which existed in the time of which this play treats; it must be admitted as one of the blemishes inseparable from all human work; but I do venture to assert that Shakespeare did not intend us to believe that these horrid sentiments were entertained with any seriousness by the mind of Hamlet.” </p.46>

1877 v1877

v1877 ≈ coln + magenta underlined

2349 Enter Hamlet] Furness (ed. 1877): “Collier: When Ham. enters behind, another stage-direction by the (MS) states that he has his sword drawn ready to kill the King, if his resolution hold. The old mode of acting the scene appears to have been, that, when Ham. came in at the back, the King was kneeling in front of the stage, and did not retire and kneel, as stated in modern eds.”