^{Note 1 in page 45} A. A. Raven, A Hamlet Bibliography and Reference Guide, 1877–1935 (Chicago, 1936).

^{Note 2 in page 45} The important Play-Scene is discussed in an earlier paper of mine, “Hamlet and the Mouse-Trap,” PMLA, liv (1939), 709–735.

^{Note 8 in page 46} Particularly since the appearance of V. Østerberg's Studier over Hamlet-teksterne, i (Copenhagen, 1920), the importance of which, in a modest monograph in a somewhat unfamiliar tongue, has escaped general notice. Professor Dover Wilson has twice performed a service in making this better known. In his edition of Hamlet (Cambridge, Eng., 1934), p. xviii, he gave a short outline of Østerberg's argument; and again, RES, xviii (1942), 385–394, he has paraphrased the essential portion at greater length. In the light of Østerberg's evidence, it seems hardly possible to doubt that Nashe, in the famous passage in the preface to Greene's Menaphon, was taking a dig at Kyd and his authorship of a Hamlet play. The similarities in style, structure, characterization and incidents between our Hamlet and The Spanish Tragedy are too familiar to need emphasis. Professor Wilson's paraphrase in the Review covers only the first fifteen pages of Østerberg's work. Much of what follows is of interest for the student of the early texts. No support is found for the theory that Shakespeare composed Hamlet in two separate versions (p. 23), or that Quarto i is a redaction of Kyd's play (p. 31). The whole essay should be made available in English.

^{Note 4 in page 47} Extended bibliographical references on a subject so well-documented as this do not seem necessary. A very sound and up to date treatment is that by Parrott and Craig, The Tragedy of Hamlet (Princeton, 1938). Their discussion of the Brudermord (pp. 10 ff.) is particularly valuable, though in some details one may differ. It is strange that Belleforest's version has not been made available more often in books published in Britain and the United States. I. Gollancz, Sources of Hamlet (London, 1926) printed it on pages opposite the Hystorie (164–311), and gave some critical comments and references to reprints in Germany (318–321). Both the Hystorie and the Brudermord (in translation) are conveniently accessible in the second volume of the Furness Variorum. H. D. Gray's “Reconstruction of a Lost Play,” P. Q. vii (1928), 254 ff., is suggestive.

In quoting from Shakespeare I use the text in Kittredge, Complete Works (Boston, etc., 1936). The same line-numbering is followed in his separate edition of Hamlet (Boston, etc., 1939). The notes in the smaller edition are important.

^{Note 5 in page 47} Gollancz, Sources, printed on opposite pages (93–163) the relevant portions of Saxo and of the translation by Oliver Elton in The First Nine Books of the Danish History of Saxo Grammaticus (London, 1894), a work also valuable for the “considerations on Saxo's sources, historical methods, and folk-lore” by F. York Powell. Elton based his rendering on the edition of Saxo by A. Holder (Strassburg, 1886); the Latin text printed by Gollancz is of the editio princeps, 1514. See also P. Herrmann, Erläuterungen zu den ersten neun Büchern der dänischen Geschichte des Saxo Grammaticus, i (Leipzig, 1901); ii (1922). This is an excellent piece of work. The first volume contains a translation; the second a commentary. The Amlethus story is discussed ii, 248–296. There is a bibliography of works on the Hamlet “sage” ii, 248. Gollancz, Hamlet in Iceland (London, 1898), has a valuable introduction. Saxo's indebtedness to Valerius Maximus should not be too far pressed. Kemp Malone, in his Literary History of Hamlet, i (Heidelberg, 1923), shows in a striking way the complexity of the material. J. Schick's Corpus Hamleticum is briefly reviewed below.

^{Note 6 in page 48} Gollancz, Sources, pp. 228 ff.

^{Note 7 in page 48} I omit the comma here; clearly a printer's error.

^{Note 8 in page 48} The bracketed portion is not in the Lyons edition of 1576; see Gollancz, p. 321.

^{Note 9 in page 48} Text: c'est.

^{Note 10 in page 49} This long section, of which I give only the narrative portion in outline, ends on p. 248.

^{Note 11 in page 49} For pendre?

^{Note 12 in page 49} Text: c'est.

^{Note 13 in page 49} Shakespeare's Problem Comedies (New York, 1931), Chapter II.

^{Note 14 in page 49} Child, No. 46.

^{Note 15 in page 49} Gollancz, Sources, pp. 242, 120.

^{Note 16 in page 50} J. Schick, Corpus Hamleticum, i Abt., i Bd., “Das Glückskind mit dem Todesbrief” (Berlin, 1912); ii Bd. (Leipzig, 1932). For bis definition of the type, see i, i, p. 8. For a list of his other publications, prospected or actually printed, see Raven, pp. 117 ff.

^{Note 17 in page 50} The reader may judge for himself. “Dieses Motiv nimmt also vielleicht keinen allzu grossen Raum bei Shakespeare ein; allein nach unserer Auffassung ist es für die Führung der Handlung und die Charakteristik Hamlets von der grössten Bedeutung. Es kommt an dem bedeutsamsten Wendepunkte der Handlung zur Verwendung, da wo in Hamlet die vom Vater ererbte Heldenkraft wieder erwacht. . . . So dient unser Briefmotiv dazu, die Rache und Strafe des Himmels recht komplett zu machen, es dient dazu, zwei weitere Schurken in den Tod zu schicken und auch die Perfidie an der Freundschaft mit grimmigem, blutigem Hohn zu richten und zu rächen. Ausserdem verleiht diese Reise Hamlets nach Brittanien dem Horizont des Stückes grössere Weite und gibt Shakespeare glänzende Gelegenheit, den Heldencharakter des Horvendills Sohn in hellstem Lichte leuchten zu lassen.” (i, i, 12 ff.)

^{Note 18 in page 50} I Abt., iv Bd., “Die Scharfsinnsproben“; I Teil : Der fernere Orient (Leipzig, 1934).

^{Note 19 in page 50} Hamlet in Iceland, pp. xxix f.

^{Note 20 in page 50} Herrmann, Erläuterungen, ii, 248, depending in part upon Schick, distinguishes four elements in the earlier part of the story, which ends with the death of Feng. I. Der verstellte Wahnsinn; II. Der Uriasbrief oder das Glückskind mit dem Todesbrief; III. Die drei Scharfsinnsproben; IV. Die Goldstäbe. That the story consists of a series of märchen is strongly emphasized (ii, 258). Herrmann's work gives a very convenient view of the structure and composition of Saxo's chronicle.

^{Note 21 in page 51} In Belieferest attention is called to Amleth's cleverness by marginal glosses, and in the text it is suggested that he was aided in his divination by the Devil. (Gollancz, Sources, pp. 232, 248, 236.)

^{Note 22 in page 51} Elton (p. 400) gives illustrations of the “difficulties” in Saxo, and notes that he “acquiesces in and reports these seeming puerilities without trying to smooth them down, or seeing that the reader will be thrown out.“

^{Note 23 in page 53} Little time need be wasted on the absurd idea that the pirate attack was not accidental, but planned by Hamlet. This was set forth by Miles (Southern Review, April and July, 1870; see Furness Var. i, 353 ff.; ii, 405). His argument was based mainly on Hamlet's announced anticipation of tricking the King, and the remark that the pirates “knew what they did.” He also urged that the fleet of Fortinbras was then at Elsinore, which is not stated in the play, and would mean little if it were. Snider (Var. ii, 183 f.) at first favored the idea of collusion, but rightly decided it must be abandoned “when we read Hamlet's account of the affair.” Miles's theory is refuted by R. Petsch, “Hamlet unter den Seeräubern,” Eng. Stud., xxxvi (1905), 231–237; see esp. 235.

^{Note 24 in page 53} Act iv, scene I.

^{Note 25 in page 53} Tragedy of Hamlet, p. 12.

^{Note 26 in page 54} Shakespeare's Plutarch, ed. W. W. Skeat (London, 1892), p. 43.

^{Note 27 in page 55} Gollancz, Sources, pp. 118–119.

^{Note 28 in page 55} Ibid., pp. 232–233.

^{Note 29 in page 55} Note that this important line is found only in the Folio. “It is more likely that the Q. printed dropped than that the scribe invented it.” (Parrott and Craig, Tragedy of Hamlet, p. 228.)

^{Note 30 in page 56} Theodore Spencer, Shakespeare and the Nature of Man (N. Y., 1942), p. 102.

^{Note 31 in page 56} [v. iii. 11 ff. Cf. also stage direction in iv. iv.

^{Note 32 in page 57} I must disagree with Theodore Spencer (op. cit., p. 100), who punctuates: “What a piece of work is a man; how noble in reason, how infinite in faculties; in form and moving, how express and admirable in action; how like an angel in apprehension; how like a god! the beauty of the world; the paragon of animals. And yet to me, what is this quintessence of dust?” (Cf. Dover Wilson, ed. Hamlet [Cambridge, England, 1934], 48, 175 f. Wilson puts commas after faculties, action, and apprehension.) This destroys the rhetorical balance and cadence. That express is “exactly suited to ‘action’,“ but not to ‘form and moving,‘ as Wilson suggests, I cannot understand, nor why the statement of St. Thomas Aquinas that the action of angels is restricted to apprehension is in point. Hamlet was not expounding a philosophy, in carefully chosen terms, but expressing spontaneously his conviction of the essential nobility of man.

^{Note 33 in page 57} John W. Draper, The Hamlet of Shakespeare's Audience (Durham, N. C, 1938), pp. 17–23, gives a detailed and interesting analysis of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, from which I am obliged to differ in some respects. He thinks that “the former expresses more Hamlet's own merry youth; the latter, the sinister purposes of Claudius,” that they “are not mere parallel doublets.” (23) And he discerns in them “men of loyalty and honor, trying to serve at once their King and their Prince without any realization of the clash between these two high purposes.” (19) These conclusions do not agree with the impression left by the play on audiences and readers generally. Draper notes that Hamlet changes from the familiar “thou” to the formal “you” in addressing the pair, as his suspicions deepen—a significant detail.

^{Note 34 in page 58} Granville-Barker, Prefaces to Shakespeare, Third Series, Hamlet (London, 1937), gives a very able analysis of these scenes. His comments are especially valuable as coming from an experienced actor and manager. He devotes a special section to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, 249–253.

^{Note 36 in page 58} Kittredge, ed. Hamlet, p. 252 f.

^{Note 36 in page 59} Kittredge elsewhere recognized the use of the term “their grand commission” for the message to the British king, and appeared somewhat less positive of the innocence of the two courtiers. “Whether King Claudius tells them its contents we are nowhere informed. Probably not.” (234) The plurals “there's letters seal'd” and “Our sovereign process, which imports at full, by letters congruing to that effect” must not mislead us. It does not mean that there must have been more than one document, since “letters” signifies a written message. (litterae) See Schmidt, Lexicon, sub letter (2).

^{Note 37 in page 60} I agree with Stoll, Schiicking, and others that Hamlet here gives his true reason, not “an unconscious excuse for delay” (Bradley); “merely a pretext for delay” (Kittredge); “a lame excuse” (J. Q. Adams).

^{Note 38 in page 61} Observe how Wilhelm (v, v) attributes to Shakespeare's greatness as a dramatist, instead of to the sources, the fact that there are two courtiers instead of one. Fictitious characters do not necessarily express an author's own views, but it seems safe to conclude that Goethe was here revealing some of his own convictions about Hamlet,

^{Note 39 in page 62} E. H. Wright, “Reality and Inconsistency in Shakespeare's Characters,” Columbia University Shaksperian Studies (N. Y., 1916), p. 390. This essay, and Stoll's comments, Shakespeare Studies (N. Y., 1927), pp. 120 ff., deserve careful reading.

^{Note 40 in page 62} Hazelton Spencer, “Hamlet's Soliloquies Uncut,” LTLS, Sept. 21, 1933, p. 631.

^{Note 41 in page 62} L. L. Schücking, Character Problems in Shakespeare's Plays (London, 1922), p. 52. (Translation based on the first German edition.) This soliloquy, in which Hamlet says he could take his revenge if he wanted to, is difficult to reconcile with the theory that he really did not delay at all; that he first had to ascertain that his uncle was guilty, and then to spare him at his prayers, and finally was powerless after the murder of Polonius. If there was no more delay than there had to be, why all this self-reproach and explanation, and why the Ghost's second visitation?

^{Note 42 in page 63} The word “event” may mean either “the matter in hand” (Schmidt), or “the outcome of the action.” Perhaps both meanings are combined; it is hard to draw a hard and fast line between them. In Act. v Hamlet is still turning over the question in his mind, asking Horatio whether it is not “perfect conscience” to kill Claudius.

^{Note 43 in page 63} Some needless difficulties seem to have been made over the “to be, or not to be” soliloquy. It is expressed in general terms, but dramatically justified by its obvious bearing on Hamlet's own case. He questions whether it is nobler to endure trouble or to contend against it, knowing that vengeance on Claudius will probably mean his own death. Then he reflects that death may be more than a mere sleep—we know not what, and that this is what deters us from dangerous action, just as it keeps men from suicide. Child's interpretation of “conscience” as consciousness of what may come after death seems more in keeping with the context than the modem meaning of the word. I. T. Richards, PMLA, xlviii (1933), 741–766, gives a detailed review of earlier explanations of the soliloquy, and places it in closer relation to the rest of the play. When he says (752) that there is “no hint of suicide” about it, I must dissent. “With a bare bodkin” can mean only murder or suicide, and Hamlet surely does not suggest that murder may be an escape from the pangs of love or the delays of the law or the contempt of superiors.

^{Note 44 in page 65} Op. cit., 147.

^{Note 45 in page 65} Shakespeare and Other Masters (Cambridge, Mass.) 1940, 120.

^{Note 46 in page 65} Doubts as to Stoll's conclusions have already been expressed in reviews (in 1943) of Shakespeare and Other Masters, on both sides of the Atlantic, with full recognition, however, of the importance of his work. See MLR (Eng. ), xxxviii, 49; MLN, lviii, 147 ff. ; PQ, xxii, 83.

^{Note 47 in page 66} Cf. p. 121 f. Mr. Stoll says that Hamlet has “(except Horatio, late in the story) no confidants,” but Hamlet makes it clear in the middle of the third act that he has already told Horatio of the King's crime. (iii. ii. 80 ff.)

Horatio would of course know, even if Hamlet did not tell him, that such “occulted guilt“

would impose upon a son the duty of revenge.

^{Note 48 in page 66} P. 118.

^{Note 49 in page 67} 159 f.

^{Note 50 in page 67} Kittredge Anniversary Papers (Boston, 1913), p. 266.

^{Note 51 in page 69} LTLS, October 10, 1942, p. 499. (Anonymous)