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.

1796 Goethe

Goethe

2986-3002 Goethe (1796, 5.4.178): <p. 178>“To my mind these external circumstances [affecting characters and their movement] include the troubles in Norway, the war with youg Fortinbras, the ambassadorial mission to the old uncle, the settlement of the dispute, young Fortinbras’s march into Poland, and his return at the end of the play. Like Horatio’s return from Wittenberg, Hamlet’s desire to go there, Laertes’s visit to France and his subsequent return, the dispatching of Hamlet to England, his capture by pirates, and the death of the two courtiers because of the treacherous letter. All these things are circumstances and events which would give breadth to a romance, but they seriously disturb the unity of a play in which the hero himself has no plan, and are therefore defects.” </p. 178>

1818-19 mCLR2

mCLR2

2986-3002 Coleridge (ms. notes 1819 in Ayscough, ed. 1807; rpt. Coleridge, 1998, 12.4:857): <p. 857>“Almost the only play of Shakespeare, in which mere accidents independent of all will form an essential part of the plot; but here how judiciously in keeping with the Character of the over-meditative Hamlet ever at last determined by accident or by a fit of passion—”</p. 857>

This is also found in L.R., 233

1855 Wade

Wade

2986-3002 Wade] see n. 3054-58.

1870 Miles

Miles : Coleridge ; Goethe

2986-3002 Miles (1870, 70-1): <p. 70>“The letter to Horatio is longer [than the letter to Claudius]: [cites 2988-90 “Ere . . . valour”]

“Before discussing the rest of the letter, let us examine this perpetually misunderstood piratical capture. We have already noticed Hamlet’s first glance at it, ‘I see a cherub that sees them.’ But there is a previous most positive and most specific allusion to it, at the close of the interiew with his mother: ‘O ‘tis most sweet Where in one line two crafts directly meet.’ If the word crafts had its present maritime significance, in Shakespeare’s time, the pun alone is conclusive of a pre-arranged capture. How arranged, is neither here nor there; but opportunities of chartering a free crusier, could not have been wanting, to a prince of Denmark; and what is more significant, the fleet of Fortinbras was then in port at Elsinore. There is an understanding, just ever so vaguely glanced at, </p. 70> <p. 71>between the two young princes. But the following lines admit of but one interpretation: [cites 2577+1-2577+8] One would think it required a miraculous allowance of critical obtuseness to ignore a counterplot so strikingly pre-announced. Yet, opening Coleridge, you find, ‘Hamlet’s capture by the pirates: how judiciously in keeping with the character of the over-meditative Hamlet, ever at last determined by accident or by a fit of passion!’ And, opening Ulrici, [see n. 3189-91] you find, ‘He cheerfully obeys the command to visit England, evidently with the view, and in the hope, of there obtaining the means and opportunity ((perhaps the support of England, and a supply of money and men, for an open quarrel with his uncle)) to set about the work in a manner worthy both of himself and its own importance.’ —God save the mark! ‘Accident frustrates his plans. Captured by pirates, he is set on shore in Denmark against his will,’&c. And, opening Wilhem Meister [see n.] , you find Hamlet’s ‘capture by pirates, and the death of the two courtiers by the letter which they carried,’ regarded as ‘injuring exceedingly the unity of the piece, particularly as the hero has no plan.’ After such obvious, amazing, misconception, one may be pardoned for believing he sees ‘—’Two points in Hamlet’s soul Unseized by the Germans yet.’ To make assurance doubly sure, comes the letter to Horatio, ‘In the grapple I boarded them; on the instant they got clear of our ship: so I alone became their prisoner. They have dealt with me like thieves of mercy; but they knew what they did.’ Can circumstantial proof go farther? Could any twelve men of sense, on such a record, acquit Hamlet of being an accessory before, as well as after, the fact?” </p. 71>

1883 wh2

wh2

2986 ouer-lookt] White (ed. 1883): “looked over.”

1913 tut2

tut2 : contra Miles

2986ff goggins (ed. 1913): “[the conjecture that Hamlet has engineered this pirate interference] does not seem warranted by the letter, and is inconsistent with Hamlet’s account in V.ii.”

Kit2 ≈ wh2 w/o attribution

2986 ouer-lookt] Kittrede (ed. 1936)

2986 ouer-lookt] Kittredge (ed. 1936, Glossary):

1954 Sis

Sis ≈ standard

er-lookt] Sisson (ed. 1954, Glossary):

pel1 : standard

2986 ouer-lookt]

1970 pel2

pel2=pel1

2986 ouer-lookt]

1980 pen2

pen2 ≈ standard

2986 ouer-lookt]

1982 ard2

ard2 ≈ standard

2986 ouer-lookt]

1984 chal

chal : standard

2986 ouer-lookt]

1987 oxf4

oxf4 ≈ standard

2986 ouer-lookt]

1988 bev2

bev2 ≈ standard

2987 ouer-lookt]

1992 fol2

fol2≈ standard

2988 ouer-lookt]