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.

1870 rug1

rug1

2844 custome not knowne] Moberly (ed. 1870): “As if the government were to be settled by random plebiscites at the good pleasure of the rabble.”

1872 cln1

cln1: xref.

2844 forgot] Clark and Wright (ed. 1872): “forgotten, as in [3.2.132 (1985)], and elsewhere.”

1883 Kinnear

Kinnear

2844 Antiquity . . . custom] Kinnear (1883, p. 408): “‘Antiquity’ and ‘custom’ are here=old established custom, i.e. the established form of election of sovereigns,—this the rabble forget or ignore, and cry, ‘Let us choose,’ &c.”

1885 mull

mull: cam1 (contra han, Tyrwhitt, cap), contra cam1, macd

2844-5 Mull (ed. 1885): “All the editions print what I regard as a mutilation, thus, ‘The ratifiers and props of every word,’ which is nonsense. The emendation I have made (besides treating the line parenthetically) proves itself, and therefore calls for little remark.

“’Antiquity’ and ‘custom’ mean the old order, the old forms, precedent and prescription, as well as institutions, which have come down from the ages, and have been accepted by states or commonwealths as contributing to the general good and conserving or guarding from decay the ‘weal;’ thus ‘antiquity’ and ‘custom’ are said to be ‘the ratifiers and props of every weal.’

“Difficulty has been experienced to understand this passage. The Cambridge editors say, ‘Hanmer most unnecessarily transposed lines 2846 and 2847, making “caps, lands and tongues” “the ratifiers and props of every word.” For “word” Tyrwhitt proposed, and Capell read, “work.” But no change is required.’ Hanmer’s attempt to restore sense is wild and extravagant, and the other two fail as completely. The conclusion of the editors, too, is hasty, and not well founded.

“Dr. MacDonald says, ‘every word’ means ‘antiquity and custom’; but this makes them the ratifiers and props of themselves!”

1891 dtn

dtn

2844 Deighton (ed. 1891): “antiquity being treated by them as something that never had any existence, and custom as something which needed no recognition.”

1929 trav

trav: xref.

2844 custome] Travers (ed. 1929): “which, to whatever degree the crown may have been elective (cp [1.2.109 (291)]), could not give ‘the rabble’ the right to change their kings as they pleased.”

1947 cln2

cln2

2844-5 Rylands (ed. 1947): “i.e. prerogative and tradition which sanction and support every pledge being ignored.”

1987 oxf4

oxf4

2844-45 Hibbard (ed. 1987): “Traditional precedent and custom are seen here as absolutely essential if what is said is to have any validity. The words of Laertes’ followers have the sanction of neither. They are uttered in defiance of the word that does have such sanction—the civil contract between the King and his subjects.”

1993 dent

dent: xref.

2844 Antiquity forgot] Andrews (ed. 1993): “All age and tradition forgotten or disregarded. See [1.5.91-104 (776-789)].”

2001 Greenblatt

Greenblatt

2844 Greenblatt (2001, p. 254): <p.254> “It is a bit strange to invoke antiquity and custom in defense of the regime of the upstart Claudius. . . . ” </p.254>