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.

1929 trav

trav:

3112+1-3112+10 Travers (ed. 1929):“Such eloquently prolonged moralising, however ((on a significant theme, which was also that of the Player King’s longest speech, III,ii,175ff. [2054])), besides being quite in the style of Claudius ((cp. E.g. I,ii,89-106 [270-99]), has obvious tactical value ((cp. p. 199 n.8 [3090])).”

1982 ard2

ard2

3112+1-3112+10 Jenkins (ed. 1982): “These lines do not so much restate the idea as combine it with another. Love now grows dim not merely through the ordinary process of time but through being self-consuming: it dies [3112+5] through the very intensity with which it lives [3112+1]. The snuff is the charred portion of the wick which dims the flame which has created it. There is a similar paradox in the sigh of [3112+9-3112+10].

1985 cam4

cam4 ≈

3112+1-3112+10 Edwards (ed. 1985): “F omits the whole passage. The unkindest cut of all, since the passage is of such great interest thematically, and so illuminating of Claudius’s philosophy of life. We cannot think that Shakespeare would delete it unless he were under considerable pressure to shorten the play—which he may have been. Compare the cut at [5.2.100].”

1987 oxf4

oxf4

3112+1-3112+10 Hibbard (ed. 1987): “For a passage following this line in Q2 but not in F, see Appendix A, xvi.”

3112+1-3112+10 Hibbard (ed. 1987, Appendix, p. 366): <p. 366> “The excision of these lines from F is a gain. An audience eager to know Claudius’s plan may well become impatient at his elaborate moralizing. He himself acknowledges it has gone on too long when he concludes by saying: ‘But to the quick of th’ ulcer.’” </p. 366>

3572-85 Hibbard (ed. 1987, Introduction, pp. 109-10): <p. 109>“The cutting of Q2 is, then, the most important part of a logical and coherent process of revision designed to make a better acting version with a wide appeal. The excisions leave the action untouched but free the dialogue from some intricate and unnecessary elaborations, as well as from some matter that is rather tangential to the play’s main concerns. A typical instance of the former is the King’s discourse, after 4.7.99, on the way in which time eats into the essence of love, which is, in any case, self destructive. </p. 109><p. 110>Before he finishes with the subject, even Claudius seems to feel that he is overworking it, since he cuts himself short with the words ‘But to the quick of th’ulcer’. Moreover, the discourse itself is distinctly repetitive of the Player King’s lucubrations on the same topic at 3.2.176-99, a passage that has significantly left no mark whatever on Q1, suggesting that it had been cut from the acting version of Hamlet on which the reporter relied.” </p. 110>