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.

1780 malsi

malsi: LC //

2526 reword] Malone (1780, 1:[739] n2) on A Lover’s Complaint notes that the verb reworded means “repeatedly re-echoed” and that the same verb is found in Ham.

1847 verp

verp ≈ MacDonell (Halford analogue only) without attribution

2526-7 the matter . . . from] Verplanck (ed. 1847): “Sir Henry Halford, the accomplished President of the Royal College of Physicians, (London,) has made this passage the text of one of his ‘Essays and Orations, read before the College,’ and relates a case which occurred in his own practice, to prove the correctness of Shakespeare’s test of insanity.

“A gentleman of fortune had instructed his solicitor, a personal friend, to prepare a will for him, containing several very proper provisions, and then bequeathing the residue of his estate to this legal friend. He soon after became deranged and highly excited, so as to require coercion. The excitement passed off, leaving him composed, but very weak, so that his life was doubtful. He was now anxious to execute his will, which had been prepared according to his previous instructions, and which Sir Henry, and the other attending physicians were requested to hear read to him and to witness. When read to him, he assented distinctly to the several items. The physicians were perplexed, and retired to consult what was to be done under such questionable circumstances.

“It occurred to me, then, to propose to my colleague to go up again to the sick-room, to see whether our patient could re-word the matter, as a test, on Shakespeare’s authority, of his soundness of mind. He repeated the clauses which contained the addition to his mother’s jointure, and which made provision for the natural children, with sufficient correctness; but he stated that he had left a namesake, though not a relation, ten thousand pounds, whereas he had left him five thousand pounds only; and there he paused. After which I thought it proper to ask him to whom he had left his real property, when these legacies should have been discharged,—in whom did he intend that his estate should be vested after his death, if he died without children? ‘In the heir-at-law, to be sure,’ was the reply. Who is your heir-at-law? ‘I do not know.’

“Thus he ‘gambolled’ from the matter, and laboured, according to this test, under his madness still.

“He died, intestate, four days afterwards.’

“Our American commentator on the ‘Jurisprudence of Insanity,’ Dr. Ray, in his chapter on ‘Simulated Insanity,’ has also incidentally noticed this test, ‘In simulated mania, the imposter, when requested to repeat his disordered idea, will generally do it correctly: while the genuine patient will be apt to wander from the track, or introduce ideas that had not presented themselves before. This he illustrates from a modern French report.”

1854 del2

del2

2526 reword] Delius (ed. 1854): “to re-word = wörtlich, Wort für Wort, wiederholen.” [to re-word means to repeat literally, word for word.]

1856 Ramsay

Ramsay ≈ verp (Halford analogue)

2525-7 bring . . . gambole from] Ramsay (1856, 5: 125): <p. 125> “In a spirit of bitter irony, he in some degree countenances the idea of his own madness, although when about to address himself to an earnest and difficult task, he offers to expose himself to a test, which modern physicians have affirmed to be correct: [quotes passage]. The late Sir Henry Halford,† in an interesting essay on tests on insanity, gives some curious instances and illustrations of the correctness of the proposed test.” </p.125>

<p.125><n.> “†See Sir Henry Halford’s Essay on ‘Popular Classical Illustrations of Insanity,’ ‘Essays and Orations,’ p. 55.” <n></p.125>

1872 cln1

cln1 ≈ del2

2526 reword] Clark and Wright (ed. 1872): “repeat word for word.”

1882 elze

elze ≈ Ramsay (Halford analogue)

2526 And . . . reword] Elze (ed. 1882): “Compare Sir Henry Halford, Essays and Orations, Read and Delivered at the Royal College of Physicians, &c. (3d Ed., London, Murray, 1842) p. 49-59.”

1878 rlf1

rlf1 ≈ malsi without attribution

2526 reword] Rolfe (ed. 1878): “Repeat in the same words. Cf. LC 1, where it is applied to the echo.”

1891 dtn

dtn = cln1

2526 reword] Deighton (ed. 1891): “repeat word for word.”

dtn

2526-7 which . . . from] Deighton (ed. 1891): “whereas a madman would wander in fantastic fashion from the subject.”

1903 rlf3

rlf3 = rlf1

1931 crg1

crg1 ≈ cln1

2526 reword] Craig (ed. 1931): re-word] “repeat words.”

1980 pen2

pen2 = dtn

1984 chal

chal ≈ crg1

2526 reword] Wilkes (ed. 1984): “repeat.”

1985 Ferguson

Ferguson

2526 matter will reword] ferguson (1985, pp. 296): “The relation between the ’matter’ of the Ghost and the matter Hamlet will ’re-word’ in the ensuing passionate dialogue with Gertrude remains deeply mysterious. . . . In fact, the distinctions Hamlet draws between Claudius and Old Hamlet seem no less questionable, in their hyperbole, than the distinction he draws between himself and his mother when, alluding to the simple moral system of medieval religious drama, he calls her a vice and himself a virtue. A parallel dualistic oversimplification informs his sermon-like speech on the pictures of the two kings, ’the counterfeit presentment of two brothers,’ as he calls them.”

1987 oxf4

oxf4 = chal + magenta underlined

2526 reword] Hibbard (ed. 1987): “repeat (apparently a Shakespearian coinage).”

1988 bev2

bev2 = dtn

1993 dent

dent

2526 reword] Andrews (ed. 1993): “Recount. Hamlet’s point is that, if tested, he would be able to describe what he has seen in a coherent fashion that would prove that it was not the ‘Coinage’ (hallucination) of a disturbed brain.”

dent: xref.

2526-7 which . . . from] Andrews (ed. 1993): “Which madness would make impossible, gambolling (leaping) away from the topic in an incoherent manner. Compare [5.1.189 (3376)].”

2006 ard3q2

ard3q2

2526 And. . . matter] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “F’s ’I’ seems necessary for both sense and metre.”

ard3q2

2526 reword] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “repeat (as opposed to ’put into different words’): Hamlet offers to prove his sanity by being able to repeat something accurately.”