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.

mtby2 1723-33? ms. notes in pope1

mtby2

3361 whorson] Thirlby (ms. notes in Pope, ed. 1723 [1723-33?]): “Infra [below 3364] Fol. whoreson.”

1854 del2

del2

3361 whorson] Delius (ed. 1854) : “whoreson als Adjectiv steht häufig ohne deutliche Beziehung auf die eigentliche Bedeutung des Wortes, ganz als scherzhaftes Schimpfwort, etwa unserm ‘verflucht’ entsprechend.”[“whoreson as an adjective stands frequently without a clear connection to the particular meaning of the word, as an entire, joking insult, perhaps corresponding to our ‘curse’ [verflucht]” ]

1855 Wade

Wade

3361-3403 heer’s . . . flaw] Wade (1855, pp. 20-22): <p. 20> “The ever-moody Prince then enters into conversation, and bandies pun, quirk and quibble, with the Grave-digger; nicely </p. 20> <p. 21> questions him as to ‘how long will a man lie I’ the earth ere he rot;’ and on the grave-delver producing another skull, thus resumes his profound brooding over the yawning darkness of that ever-present sense of mortality and apparent annihilation, upon the dread brink of which he lives, moves, and has his being:— [cites 3361-3403]

“This breaking into rhyme [3400-03] is a trick with Hamlet, and characteristic of the man; the sole business of whose life is to think and rant, and rant and think. He is a philosopher who is often fain at the close of his moralising to cut a fantastic caper in the air, in impatient ridicule of his own unavailing </p. 21> <p. 22> philosophy. Decorum not permitting this, his resource is the jingle of a quatrain or a couplet. Yet is Hamlet no poet, we may passingly observe: he is a thinker merely; no creater: dull death, not glorious life, is his ever-recurrent theme. The oet spurs at ‘The grave’s abysmal and inglorious hole;’ feeling, knowing, that it never was the prison of one divine human soul. For the soul of Hamlet, the grave, alas! seems, not always, but too often, the only futurity! And no marvel that he whose thoughts are thus incessantly as ghouls and vampires haunting tombs and charnel houses, should be incapable of high action, of the fulfillment of great human religious duty!” </p. 22>

1857 elze1

elze1

3962 23 yeeres] Elze (ed. 1857): "Wenn Hamlet nach der Angabe des Todtengräbers gerade dreissig Jahre alt, und Yorick schon drei und zwanzig Jahre todt ist, so müsste Hamlets Erinnerung aus seiner frühesten Kindheit stammen; er spricht aber von ihm, als hätte er ihn auch später, als Jüngling, in Gesellschaft und bei Tafel gekannt."["If Hamlet is exactly 30 years old, according to the appointment of the gravedigger, and Yorick already dead 23 years, so Hamlet’s memory must date from his earliest childhood; but he speaks of him as if he had known him later as a youth in company and at the table."]

1860 mHal1

mHal1: marks “dozen yeare” as “cur.” or “cur[tal” I believe for “shortened.”

1865 hal

hal

3962 23 yeeres] Halliwell (ed. 1865) : “a dozen years]] I have ventured to alter the text here by the aid of ed. 1603, in order to avoid a chronological difficulty, and, for a similar reason, to alter thirty to twenty in a preceding speech [3352]. It must be recollected that Hamlet is alluded to in the first act as a very young man.”

1870 Rushton

Rushton

3361 sore decayer] Rushton (1870, p. 62): “The preamble of the 25 Henry VIII., cap. xxi., concludes with these words:— ‘And because that it is now in these days seen, that the state, dignity, superiority, reputation and authority of the said imperial crown of this realm, by the long sufferance of the said unreasonable and uncharitable usurpations and exactions practised in the times of your most noble progenitors, is much and sore decayed and diminished, and the people of this realm thereby impoverished, and so or worse be liek to continue, if remedy be not therefore shortly provided.’”

1870 Miles

Miles

3361-73 Miles (1870, 73): <p. 73>“Hamlet’s tilt with the sexton is not the least enjoyable of his encounters, or the easiest of his victories. In a trial of wit between prince and clown, as in a battle between a lion and a fly, insignificance is apt to have the best of it. But even at this disadvantage, Hamlet’s patient courtesy is eventually an overmatch for the sexton’s shrewd and superhumanly aggravating incivility. The caustic old curmudgeon absolutely grows genial beneath the calm unruffled smile of him that was mad and sent into England. [cites 3361-73].

“And at the first full cadence of that divine voice, the sexton is mute forever!” </p. 73>

1877 v1877

v1877 ≈ hal

3962 23 yeeres]

-1877 Fleay

Fleay : also see n. 3351-2

3962 23 yeeres] Fleay (1877-, pp. 92-3): <p. 92>"It will be said »Hamlet a youth indeed! Why he is past 30 years old. The gravedigger expressly tells us so and Shakespeare who always is accurate in these little points and who has been so unjustly sneered, by Jonson for making Bohemia a seaport well knew that Danish princes went to school or college up to that age.« Yet I doubt if any one can keep the thought from his mind that Hamlet’s age is that of youth ((say about 23 or so)): from the early talk with his university companions to the Queen’s wiping his face with her napkin, all through his love affair and his eager rivalry with Laertes this impression of youth is strong upon us. We may reason it away, but it returns. It is at ary [sic] rate worth while to look into the evidence.

"The only ground for making Hamlet 30 years old is the statement of the gravedigger. But this varies in the editions. In the 1603 Quarto he says that Hamlet slew Fortinbras and Yorick was buried a dozen year since. In the Folio the dates are 30 and 23 years. But the exact words are these; our last king Hamlet oercame Fortinbras . . . . young Hamlet was borne . . . . I have bin sixteene here man and boy thirty yeares. . . . . This scul has lain in the earth three and twenty yeares.

"Now I have pointed out before how in an exactly parallel case errors have crept in from the printer misunderstanding the marginal corrections of his copy; and I believe the text here has been vitiated in a similar way. It is not likely that the printer should print sixteene" </p. 92> <p. 93>for sexton without any reason at all: but if the passage stood thus in his uncorrected copy

read three I have ben sexton heere man and boy thirty

and twenty for years . . . . This scul has lain in the earth thirty

thirty. sixteene. years

and corrections were put in the margin as I have placed them it is easy to see how the ductus literarum might induce a printer to alter sexton instead of thirty into sixteene and then insert the three and twenty in place of the wrong thirty. If this or similar correction be made all the evidence for Hamlet’s maturity disappears. The play is throughout carelessly printed as to numbers. In Ophelia’s speech ((III.a.135)) Hamlet’s answer shows that twice two is an error for two. Modern editors quite wrongly pass this reading in silence. Dr. Ingleby has shewn their error. Read then »I have been sexton here man & boy 23 years . . . . This skull has lain in the earth 16 years . . . . .«

"But in the 1599 version we read »here’s a scull hath been here this dozen years another confirmation « of my reading. For the original Yorick was undoubtedly Tarleton the jester toe the Queen’s Company of players. It was Tarleton that was a fellow of infinite mirth, that carried his fellow actor Burbadge on his back a hundred times that poured flagons of Rhenish on clowns heads for a joke, mad rogue as he was. Tarleton died in 1588. In 1599 1) he had been dead 11 1/2 years, in round numbers a dozen; in 1604 exactly sixteen, years. All the allusions agree ((if my reading be adopted)) with the present texts; the Editions of 1603 and 1604 are otherwise irreconciliably at variance. But the Hamlet of 23 years in 1588 is clearly too closely in correspondence with the Shakespeare of 24 ((he was born in 1564)) for us not to notice how well this agrees with the views of those critics who have so ably advocated the opinion that Hamlet is in some sense the most adequate personal representation of his creator that we possess." </p. 93>

<n>“1) N.B. 1599 extended to what is now called 25 march 1600.”</n> </p. 93>

1879 Hal

Hal

3962 23 yeeres]Halliwell (1879, pp. 49-50): <p. 49>“The discrepancy observed respecting the age of Hamlet may of course be one of the many instances of the poet not troubling himself about such matters, but I cannot help suspecting misprints in the numbers given in the old editions. Numerical errors are extremely </p. 49> <p. 50>common in our early printed works. Light-foote, in a leaf inserted at the end of the Second Part of the Harmony of the Foure Evangelists, 1647, mentions no fewer than twelve errors in numbers in one small table. The ‘23 yeare’ of the edition of 1604 are ‘this dozen yeare’ in that of 1603 [Q1].”

1881 hud3

hud3: see n. 3347-62

1884 Gould

Gould

3962 23 yeeres] Gould (1884, p. 62) : <p. 62> “The last three quartos ‘23;’ the first quarto has ‘dozen yeere,’ which should be the reading. For 23, plus his age at the time of the last pickabacking, plus the time between this and the death of Yorick, make him too old to be called ‘young Hamlet’ and ‘to go to school at Wittenburg.’ The gravedigger may be supposed to have added his boyhood. Shakspere’s contemporary Montaigne says a man is old at thirty. The first quarto also clearly shows that the pickabacking and the disgust at the skull are quite distinct. (See page 40 [3373-5])” </p. 62>

1885 Leo

Leo

3361-2 heer . . . yeeres] Leo (1885, pp. 103-04): <p. 103> “This is the entire material [cites 3333-36, 3338-39, 3351-2, 3362-3, 3369, 3372-76] for treating the </p. 103> <p. 104> still not decided question of Hamlet’s age. Yorick is dead twenty-three years, and has borne Hamlet a thousand times on his back. We have a right to suppose that in the time of Yorick and Hamlet the use was the same with children as nowadays, and that they were not more than about three years old when they most enjoyed to be carried pick-a-pack, and therefore we are entitled to give Hamlet twenty-six years, if the answers of the gravedigger do not contradict the fact—and they really do not! He has been employed in the church’s service for thirty years; he has been there already as a boy, in various occupations, is sexton after a few years, and later on grave-maker, and this on the same day that Hamlet was born. So he is in his position for thirty years, of which time he is grave-maker for twenty-six years.” </p. 104>

1900 ev1

ev1=v1877

3962 23 yeeres] Herford (ed. 1900): "Q1 has ’this dozen years.’ If the latter expression can be trusted, Shakespeare deliberately increased Hamlet’s age from nineteen to thirty in the second version. But Q1 may give merely a random figure."

1906 nlsn

nlsn

3361 whorson] Neilson (ed. 1906, Glossary): “bastard: used as a general term of contempt, sometimes affectionately.”

1931 crg1

crg1

3361 whorson] Craig (ed. 1931): “an intensive of little meaning.”

1934 Wilson

Wilson

3361-62, 3368-69 this same skull sir] Wilson (1934, 2:257) :<p. 257> “Once again, the stage-memory of Scribe C and his habit of repeating himself will explain everything; but as the four pairs of variants provide a rather pretty illustration of the considerations involved, we may spend a few moments upon them.

“To take the later pairs first: [cites Q2’s and then F1’s 3361-62] which should, I think, be read—’Here’s a skull now: this skull hath lyen you i’th’earth.’ [cites Q2 and then F1’s 3368-69] which should, I think, be read—’this same skull, sir, was, sir, Yorick’s skull.’ Behind all this, I suggest, there lies a simple piece of stage-business. Certainly the addition of ‘this skull’ with the pause before it in [331] helps us to picture the Clown turning the skull over in his hand as he speaks; and such I suggest was Shakespeare’s intention. But your player can never have enough of a good thing. Accordingly eight lines further on F1 repeats the repetition; and we may justificably suspect that the actor who placed the Clown spoke more than was set down for him, and that Scribe C remembered his addition.” </p. 257>

3361-62 heer’s a scull now hath lyen you] Wilson (1934, 2:251) sees the Q2 reading as reflecting a “probable” omission of the Ff reading. He also observes that POPE, v1821 follow Q2

1934a cam3

cam3

3361-2 heer’s . . . you] Wilson (ed. 1934): “The sexton turns it over in his hands, as he speaks. MSH. p. 257.”

3361 whorson] Wilson (ed. 1934, Glossary): “‘a coarsely abusive epithet . . . also sometimes expressing familiarity or commendation’ (N.E.D.).”

1939 kit2

kit2

3360 your] Kittredge (ed. 1939): “Cf. [1.5.167 (864); 4.3.21ff (2686)].”

3362 you] Kittredge (ed. 1939): “The ‘ethical dative,’ which gives a colloquial touch to the style but adds nothing to the sense.”

1938 parc

parc ≈ standard

3361 whorson]

1947 cln2

cln2

3361 whorson] Rylands (ed. 1947): “scurvy (lit. bastard)”

1980 pen2

pen2

3361 sore] Spencer (ed. 1980): “(an intensifying epithet: ‘terrible’).”

3362 lyen] Spencer (ed. 1980): “lien]] (an old form) lain.”

pen2 : Q1

3962 23 yeeres] Spencer (ed. 1980): “Q1 has a passage which combines [3332-9] and [3362] and gives about twelve years since Yorick’s death, so that in Q1 Hamlet could be in his late teens.”

1982 ard2

ard2 : Kit1 w/o attribution

3360 your] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “Cf. [1.1.141 (135), 4.3.21-3 (2686)] and nn.]”

ard2 : Cam3 w/o attribution

3361 whorson]

1984 chal

chal :

3361 whorson] Wilkes (ed. 1984): "a contemptuous intensive."

chal: Q2 VN

3962 23 yeeres]

1987 oxf4

oxf4 ≈ Cam3 w/o attribution; OED (b)

3361 whorson]

1992 fol2

fol2≈ standard

3361 whorson]

3362 lyen]

fol2

3360 your water] Mowat & Werstine (ed. 1992): “i.e. water.”

3361Your whorson dead body] Mowat & Werstine (ed. 1992): “i.e. bodies.”

3361 whorson]

1993 dent

dent : standard

3361 sore]

3361 whorson]

3362 lyen]

2008 OED

OED ≈ standard

3361 whorson]OED b. attrib.: commonly as a coarsely abusive epithet, applied to a person or thing: —Vile,’ —abominable,’ —execrable,’ —detestable,’ —wretched,’ —scurvy,’ —bloody’; also sometimes expressing humorous familiarity or commendation. c1440 York Myst. xxx. 60 Why, go bette, horosonne boy, when I bidde [th]ee. 1533 GAU Richt Vay 15 Scheyme happine the lowne hursone theiff. [etc.]