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.

1854 del2

del2

2490 Doe not forget] Delius (ed. 1854): “d. h. vergiss nicht dein Versprechen der Rache.” [i.e., do not forget your promise of revenge.]

1872 del4

del4 = del2

1934 cam3

cam3

2490-91 this visitation . . . purpose] Wilson (ed. 1934): “i.e. the only purpose of my appearing is to whet etc. (v. Introd. p. lxi). His appeal on behalf of the Queen is an afterthought, due to the pitiable state in which he finds her.”

1939 kit2

kit2: xref.

2490 Doe not forget] Kittredge (ed. 1939): “Cf. 1.5.91 [776].”

kit2: xrefs.

2490 this visitation] Kittredge (ed. 1939): “Since the Ghost has a private message of vengeance, intended only for Hamlet’s ear, he shows himself to Hamlet alone. His message is interrupted (at [1.5.91 (776)]) by his sympathy for the Queen’s distress. Cf. [1.5.84-88 (769-73)].”

1947 cln2

cln2: Bradley (xrefs.)

2490-91 Rylands (ed. 1947): “As A. C. Bradley noted, criticism of the Prince’s ‘delay,’ of his failure to act, is founded on two things in the text, namely, the Ghost’s reminder, ‘I come to whet thy almost blunted purpose’ [3.4.111 (2491)]and Hamlet’s own self-condemnation in the soliloquy which closes the second movement [4.4.43-46 (2743+37-2743+40)]: ‘I do not know Why yet I live to say ‘This thing’s to do;’ Sith I have cause and will and strength and means To do’t.’ An absorbed spectator will not pick these out of their context and put them together as a reader may. Hamlet’s words are provoked by the glimpse of Fortinbras and his army, a delicate and tender prince, a soldier, the Hamlet who might have been. They are closely linked with a piece of self-questioning which is the essence of his dramatic role—‘whether it be bestial oblivion or the craven scruple of thinking too precisely on th’event’ [4.4.41-42 (2743+34-2743+35]. By himself asking why the deed is still undone, Hamlet forestalls the critics who make so much of his ‘delay’—a delay which passes unnoticed in the theatre although a reader may condemn it.”

1982 ard2

ard2 ≈ kit2 )xref.)

2490 Do not forget] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “The first words now take up the last words of the Ghost’s former visitation [1.5.91 (776)], though with significant variation.”

2001 Greenblatt

Greenblatt

2490-5 Greenblatt (2001, p.224) points out that with Polonius’s body lying there, the Ghost has ample evidence of Hamlet’s remembering, “but perhaps remembrance and revenge are not as perfectly coincident as either the prince or the Ghost had thought.”