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.

1843 col1

col1: Schlegel

2743+37 euer . . . coward] Collier )ed. 1843): “Schlegel, in his work, Ueber dramatische Kunst und Litteratur, iii. p. 149, quotes this passage as a sort of key to Hamlet’s character, and the omission of such an important soliloquy, in connexion with what immediately precedes it, would convince us, even if we had no other reason for thinking so, that the abbreviation of this tragedy for the stage, as we find it in the folio, 1623, was the work of the players, and not of the poet.”

1858 col3

col3 = col1

1885 macd

macd

2743+37-2743+40 I doe not . . . doo’t] MacDonald (ed. 1885): “This passage is the strongest there is on the side of the ordinary misconception of the character of Hamlet. It comes from himself; and it is as ungenerous as it is common and unfair to use such a weapon against a man. Does any but St. Paul himself say he was the chief of sinners? Consider Hamlet’s condition, tormented on all sides, within and without, and think whether this outbreak against himself be not as unfair as it is natural. Lest it should be accepted against him, Shakspere did well to leave it out. In bitter disappointment, both because of what is and what is not, both because of what he has done and what he has failed to do, having for the time lost all chance, with the last vision of the Ghost still haunting his eyes, his last reproachful words yet ringing in his ears, are we bound to take his judgment of himself because it is against himself? Are we bound to take any man’s judgment because it is against himself? I answer, ‘No more than if it were for himself.’ A good man’s judgment, where he is at all perplexed, especially if his motive comes within his own question, is ready to be against himself, as a bad man’s is sure to be for himself. Or because he is a philosopher, does it follow that throughout he understands himself. Were such a man in cool, untroubled conditions, we might feel compelled to take his judgment, but surely not here! A philosopher in such state as Hamlet’s would understand the quality of his spiritual operations with no more certainty than another man. In his present mood, Hamlet forgets the cogency of the reasons that swayed him in the other: forgets that his uppermost feeling then was doubt, as horror, indignation, and conviction are uppermost now. Things were never so clear to Hamlet as to us.

“But how can he say he has strength and means—in the position in which he now finds himself? I am glad to be able to believe, let my defence of Hamlet against himself be right or wrong, that Shakspere intended the omission of the passage. I lay nothing on the great lack of logic throughout the speech, for that would not make it unfit for Hamlet in such mood, while it makes its omission from the play of less consequence to my general argument.”

1885 mull

mull

2743+37-2743+40 I doe. . . exhort me] Mull (ed. 1885): “This passage, as all the editions print it, seems corrupt, both verbally and in the punctuation. This is how it is received, ‘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. Examples, gross as earth, exhort me:’ This seems to me a palpable confusion and disorder. Hamlet, in his self-rebuke, plainly says, ‘Examples numerous exhort me to instant action, while yet I delay and say, ‘This revenge is still to do.’

“The first clause also, as I punctuate it, is admirable in its force, its sense, and its completeness; and the same characteristics are observable in the second [‘I do not know, While yet I live to say, “This thing’s to do”—Sith I have cause, and will, and strength, and means To do’t—examples gross as earth exhort me.’]. To make one sentence of the whole passage, and to read, ‘I do not know why yet I live,’ is to leave undetermined the suggestion as to whether it be this or whether some other constraint that delays him. Thus the sense is confused, and the force of the self-accusation materially weakened.”

Werder

2743+37–2743+38 I doe not know . . . doe] Werder (1907; rpt. 1977, pp. 157-8): <p.157 > “That is what the soliloquy says. Hamlet himself thinks and must think so because the crime of the King cannot be allowed to remain unpunished, because justice is necessary and must be accomplished for the sake of the eternal right which is inherent in it. And yet it has not been accomplished, and its accomplishment seems for the time to be farther off than ever. The opportunity of success has been utterly lost by his error! Therefore, at this moment, he is so discouraged that he scorns his own true thoughts! Therefore he cries out despairingly: ‘ I do not know Why yet I live to say—‘This thing’s to do.’’ Surely it must come to pass, and Hamlet lives indeed to say it and to bring it about. And yet he seems to live on forgetful of it, and now </p.157> <p.158> most forgetful he has paralysed his means and power.” </p.158>

1929 trav

trav

2743+37 euer] Travers (ed. 1929): “Hamlet would not be himself, if he did not generalize.”

trav: Stoll, xref.

2743+37 I . . . know] Travers (ed. 1929): “a most unusual confession to be made in an Elizabethan soliloquy (a device by which ‘any curious bit of human nature is labeled, any devious path in the intrigue placarded’, for the benefit of the audience). The remark is Prof. Stoll’s, who, however, has, again and again, energetically minimised the psychological significance of the present passage; for, he argues, will not the most practical person in the world, now and then, say, ‘I don’t know why I haven’t done that’? Not skilled enough in psychological analysis to imagine causes of delay when scarcely any traces of external obstacles (cp. Introd. as in n. 9, p.174) were left in the play, Sh. just relied on the instinctive fallacy that the confessedly inexplicable is all the more like reality (Sh. Studies, 1927).—But would such a very bald expedient have attained, after all, even the end alleged? Unknown as both the word ‘subconscious’ and the psychological concept for which it stands were to Sh., as to his audience (ibid.), little recognised as the dimme regions of the soul might then be, does not the present passage, almost explicitly, point in that direction? Cp. p. 174 n. 8 [4.4.40 (2743+34)].”

1947 cln2

cln2: xref.

2743+37-2743+40 Rylands (ed. 1947): “See n. [3.4.110 (2490)].”

1961 Rossiter

Rossiter

2743+37-2743+40 I doe . . . doo’t] Rossiter (1961, p. 177): “The true theme lies . . . in Hamlet’s feelings about his own discovered irresolution; in the mystery of his irresolution (of all irresolution: what becomes of our intentions when we cease to be conscience of them?); in the problem implicit in [quotes 2743+37-2743 +40]. Cause, will, strength, means: nothing is lacking. Yet since the thing remains undone, some or all of these must be illusory. . . ..”

1999 SQ

Grazia

2743+37-38 Grazia (1999, p. 260): “In Freud’s account of mental processes, however, vast stretches, of the mind were closed off to consciousness; the ’inner sanctum’ of the unconscious to consciousness explained Hamlet’s otherwise inexplicable unawareness of his motives. Why was it that a character as introspective as Hamlet had no idea why he was delaying, as he famously admits: ’I do not know/Why yet I live to say this thing’s to do’ (4.4.43-44 [TLN 2743+37-43+38, IV.iv.44-45])”

2006 ard3q2

ard3q2: West

2743+37-40 I do. . . do’t] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “Sam West, who played Hamlet in the 2001-2 RSC production directed by Steven Pimlott, remarked (in a talk given at King’s College London on 11 March 2002) on the power of these 26 monosyllables (three of which are do).”