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.

1747-53 mtby4

mtby4

2438 presentment] Thirlby (1747-53): “fsq presentments.”

1791- RANN

rann

2438 counterfeit] Rann (ed. 191-): “copied resemblances.”

1819 cald1

cald1: MV, Ado //s; v1778 (Marston analogue)

2438 counterfeit presentment] Caldecott (ed. 1819): “Picture, or mimic representation. ‘Portia’s counterfeit,’ MV [3.2.115 (1462)], Bassan. ‘There never was counterfeit of passion came so near the life of passion.’ Ado [2.3.102, 105 (937, 939)], Leon. Mr. Steevens observes that we meet with several of the ideas found here in much the same terms in Marston’s Insatiate Countess, 1613: ‘A donative he hath of every God; Apollo gave him locks, Jove his high front.’”

1832 cald2

cald2 = Shewen, Schloer

2438 counterfeit presentment] Caldecott (ed. 1832): “and Tim. [5.1.80, 82 (2296, 2298)] and in Tho. Heywood’s Virgil Dr. Shewen points out the same use of presentment: ‘From whose smiling countenance I might gather Some presentment of the absent father.’

“The term picture was not yet familiarized in our language: and we find a singular instance of the use of the word, counterfeit, where we also find pattern (which in no very dissimilar sense often occurs in our author) in the translation of a funeral sermon on the kings of Sweden and Bohemia, who died Nov. 1632, in High Dutch congregation at the Hague by Fred. Schloer, 4to. 1633, p. 38: Lond. J. D. for Rich. Bourne ‘Thus have we viewed a patterne and lively contrafait of a pious and heroicke prince.’”

1857 fieb

fieb

2438 counterfeit presentment] Fiebig (ed. 1857): “The counterfeit presentment, is an apposition to picture, and means the copied form, representation, copy.”

1872 hud2

hud2: xrefs.

2438 counterfeit presentment] Hudson (ed. 1872): “Counterfeit presentment, or counterfeit simply, was used for likeness. See [0000] page 140, note 20. It is to be supposed that Hamlet wears a miniature of his father, while his mother wears one of the present King. See [0000] vol. iii. page 174, note 24.”

1872 cln1

cln1 ≈ cald2 (MV //) + Cotgrave magenta underlined

2438 counterfeit ] Clark and Wright (ed. 1872): “See MV [3.2.115 (1462)]. ‘Fair Portia’s counterfeit’; i.e. her picture. Here of course the word is used as an adjective. It is given by Cotgrave as an equivalent to the French ‘Pourtraict.’”

cln1: Tim. // + Milton analogue magenta underlined

2438 presentment] Clark and Wright (ed. 1872): “representation. The word occurs in Tim. [1.1.27 (39)], in a different sense. In Milton’s Comus, line 156, we have: ‘Of power to cheat the eye with blear illusion, and give it false presentments.’”

1877 v1877

v1877 ≈ cald1, cln1

2438 counterfeit presentment] Furness (ed. 1877): “Caldecott: The picture, or mimic representation. See MV [3.2.115 (1462)]. Clarendon: ‘Counterfeit,’ of course, is hear used as an adjective. It is given by Cotgrave as an equivalent to the French pourtraict.”

1878 rlf1

rlf1 ≈ cald2 (MV //) + Son., Tim. //s magenta underlined

2438 counterfeit] Rolfe (ed. 1878): “Cf. the use of the noun in Sonn. 16. 8: "your painted counterfeit;" and see also MV [3.2.115 (1462)] and Tim. [3.2.115 (1462)].”

rlf1 ≈ cln1 (Tim. //; Milton analogue)

2438 presentment] Rolfe (ed. 1878): “Representation. In the only other instance of the word in S. (Tim. [1.1.27 (39)]) it means presentation. Wr. quotes Milton, Comus, 156: ‘Of power to cheat the eye with blear illusion,/And give it false presentments.’”

1881 hud3

hud3 = hud2 minus “See page 140, note 20.”

1885 mull

mull x cald1

2438 counterfeit presentment] Mull (ed. 1885): “corresponding representations.”

1889 Barnett

Barnett ≈ cald1

2438 presentment] Barnett (1889, p. 51): “representation.”

1890 irv2

irv2 ≈ cln1 (Tim. //, Cotgrave)

2438 counterfeit presentment ] Symons (in Irving & Marshall, ed. 1890): “Counterfeit is often used in Sh. for portrait, as in Tim. [5.1.80, 82 (2296, 2298)]: ‘Thou draw’st a counterfeit Best in all Athens.’ Cotgrave has: ‘Pourtraict: m. A pourtrait, image, picture, counterfeit, or draught of.’”

1891 dtn

dtn: standard

2438 counterfeit presentment] Deighton (ed. 1891): “exact resemblance.”

dtn ≈ ard1 (MV //)

2438 counterfeit] Deighton (ed. 1891): “here an adjective, is frequently used by Sh., as a substantive, for a portrait, e.g. MV [3.2.115 (1462)], ‘Fair Portia’s counterfeit!’”

1899 ard1

ard1 ≈ cln1 (MV //)

2438 counterfeit presentment] Dowden (ed. 1899): “portrayed representation. Compare ‘Fair Portia’s counterfeit,’ MV [3.2.115 (1462)].”

1903 rlf3

rlf3 = rlf1 for counterfeit

rlf3 = rlf1 minus cln1 for presentment

1904 ver

ver

2438 counterfeit] Verity (ed. 1904): “’counterfeited,’ in the sense ‘portrayed’; without the idea ‘sham, fictitious,’ which comes from the verb’s ordinary sense ‘to imitate.’”

1909 Rushton

Rushton

2438 counterfeit presentment] Rushton (1909, pp. 39-43): <p.39> “It has been supposed that Hamlet in this passage refers to portraits or miniatures, and many actors have made use of them, <n.> In Rowe’s edition of Sh., published in 1709, there is representation of this closet scene with portraits of Hamlet’s father and uncle. </n.> but Sh. here refers to two Figures Hypotiposis or Counterfeit Representation, and Prosopographia, thus described by Puttenham—

“Hypotioposis or the Counterfeit Representation.

“The matter and occasion leadeth us many times to describe and set forth many things, in such sort as it should appear they were truly before our eyes though they were not present, which to do it requireth cunning: for nothing can be </p.39><p.40> kindly counterfeit or represented in his absence, but by great discretion in the doer. And if the things we covet to describe be not natural or not veritable, then yet the same asketh more cunning to do it, because to feign a thing that never was nor is like to be, proceedeth of a greater wit and sharper invention than to describe things that be true.

“Prisopographia.

“And these be things that a Poet or maker is wont to describe sometimes as true or natural, and sometimes to feign as artificial and not true, viz. The visage, speech and countenance of any person absent or dead: and this kind of representation is called the Counterfeit countenance: as Homer doth in his Illiades, divers personages: namely, Achilles and Thersites, according to the truth and not by fiction. And as our poet Chaucer doth in his Cantebury Tales set forth the Sumner, Pardoner, Manciple, and the rest of the Pilgrims most naturally and pleasantly.’

“One of these figures, the counterfeit representation, describes and sets forth many things in such sort as if it should appear they were not present, and the other figure, Prosopographia, is wont to describe the visage, speech, and countenance of any person absent or dead. </p.40><p.41>

“Hamlet when addressing his mother describes and sets forth many things in such a sort as it should appear they were truly before her eyes although they were not present. He describes the countenance and appearance of his father, who was absent and dead, and having given this counterfeit representation he says to his mother—’Look you now what follows,’ and then describes his uncle—‘like a mildew’d ear, Blasting his wholesome brother.’

“There would be nothing unusual in a portrait corresponding with Hamlet’s description of his father’s appearance, but a portrait representing Claudius murdering his brother would be something very uncommon. Besides, the murder and the manner of it were known only to Claudius until the Ghost told Hamlet in Act i. Scene 4 and between that Scene and Scene 4, Act iii., when Hamlet contrasts the two counterfeit presentments, there would not have been sufficient time to paint a portrait or miniature representing </p.41><p.42> Claudius pouring into his brother’s ear the juice of cursed Lebanon; besides, it is not likely that Claudius would allow such a portrait to hang on the wall at Elsinore.

“After the Ghost leaves this scene the Queen says—This is the very coinage of your brain,’ referring probably not only to Hamlet’s description of the Ghost’s appearance, but also to his counterfeit presentment of two brothers. Afterwards the queen says—’This bodiless creation ecstasy Is very cunning in;’ and according to Puttenham—’The matter and occasion leadeth us many times to describe and set forth many things, in such sort as it should appear they were truly before our eyes though they were not present, which to do it requireth cunning.’

“Counterfeit presentment is counterfeit representation, and I imagine when Sh. was composing this passage he found that the word representation would not suit his verse, and wrote presentment. Presentment </p.42><p.43> occurs twice in Sh’s works, representation never.” </p.43>

1931 crg1

crg1

2438 counterfeit presentment] Craig (ed. 1931): “portrayed representation; on the stage the portraits are sometimes presented as miniatures, sometimes as pictures on the wall.”

1937 pen1

pen1

2438 counterfeit presentment] Harrison (ed. 1937): “portrait. In modern performances Hamlet usually wears a miniature of his father, while Gertrude wears a miniature of Claudius. In the Eighteenth century, wall portraits were used.”

1939 kit2

kit2 ≈ ard1 (MV //)

2438 counterfeit presentment] Kittredge (ed. 1939): “representation in portraiture. Cf. MV [3.2.115 (1462)]; ‘Fair Portia’s counterfeit!’”

1947 cln2

cln2

2438 counterfeit ] Rylands (ed. 1947): “pictured.”

1947 yal2

yal2

2438 counterfeit presentment] Cross & Brooke (ed. 1947): “portrayed likeness.”

1957 pel1

pel1 = crg1 minus “on the stage . . . the wall.”

2438 counterfeit presentment] Farnham (ed. 1957): “counterfeit presentment portrayed representation.”

1974 evns1

evns1 ≈ yal2

2438 counterfeit presentment] Evans (ed. 1974): “painted likenesses.”

1980 pen2

pen2

2438 counterfeit presentment] Spencer (ed. 1980): “presentation by artistic portraiture.”

1982 ard2

ard2 ≈ kit2 (incl. MV //)

2438 counterfeit presentment] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “representation in an image or portrait. The noun counterfeit for a portrait (e.g. MV 3.2.115 [1462], ‘Fair Portia’s counterfeit’) was in regular use.”

1987 oxf4

oxf4 = pel1 + magenta underlined

2438 counterfeit presentment] Hibbard (ed. 1987): “portrayed representation (OED counterfeit adj. 5).”

1984 chal

chal

2438 counterfeit] Wilkes (ed. 1984): “counterfeit i.e. a copy, not the reality.”

1988 bev2

bev2 = oxf4 minus OED

1993 dent

dent

2438 counterfeit presentment] Andrews (ed. 1993): “Artificial rendering. Hamlet is probably holding up two portraits side by side.”

1995 ShSt

Stone

2438 Stone (1995, p. 81): “One consequence of Hamlet’s inability to isolate and then excise the woman from himself is that the distinctions he tries to draw between other people are confused as he is self-divided sexually. In the closet scene with his mother, Hamlet protests too much in overdrawing the contrast between the ’counterfeit presentment’ (3.4.54 [TLN, 2438, III.iv.54])”

1995 ShSt

2438 Stone (1995, p. 81): “In the closet scene with his mother, Hamlet protests too much in overdrawing the contrast between the "counterfeit presentment" (3.4.54) .”

1997 evns2

evns2 = evns1

2003 ShQ

Hirschfeld: 2105-06 xref

2438 Hirschfeld (2003, p. 441): “Into this repetition Hamlet himself enters in the figure of the second poisoner, Lucianus, nephew to the king. In introducing the nephew, Hamlet shifts the figurative alignments of the playlet (which he interprets ’tropically’ for Claudius [ll. 237-38]), insisting that the stage as well as the real audience reconfigure the allegorical identity of the Player King, who now seems to be more Claudius than Hamlet Senior, and reassess the threat of poison, which now seems a threat not of the past but of the future. In the character of Lucianus, then, Hamlet takes his place in a theological structure that perpetuates sex, sin, murder, and death as an inheritance shared by or through the family. That Hamlet’s assuming of this role is managed during a literal restaging of the primal scene--a couple’s embrace followed by a murder--further attests to the play’s traumatic logic, according to which a character’s place is realized only through the repetition of an earlier catastrophic moment. This same logic ensures that Hamlet will continue to repeat that moment. He does, of course, in Gertrude’s closet, where his berating her with portraits of husbands and siblings, ’The counterfeit presentment of two brothers’ (3.4.54), becomes the prelude to the construction of yet another private viewing of father and mother as the Ghost enters her bedroom. If either Claudius or Gertrude was the ’mouse’ Hamlet was trying to trap, he has done so only by trapping himself in the very scenes of parental sexuality he hoped to erase or put to rest.”

2006 ard3q2

ard3q2

2438 counterfeit presentment] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “artificial representation; counterfeit did not necessarily carry a negative connotation.”