HW Home	Previous CN	View CN	View TNM	View TNI	Next CN

Line 179 - Commentary Note (CN)

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.

Notes for lines 0-1017 ed. Bernice W. Kliman

For explanation of sigla, such as jen, see the editions bib.

179 {Claud.} <King> Though yet of Hamlet our deare brothers death	1.2.1

1677 Rhymer

Rhymer

179-203 Thomas Rhymer, The Tragedies of the Last Age (qtd. Vickers, Shakespeare, 1974, 1:191): “. . . Usurpers generally take care to deserve by their conduct what is deny’d them by right.”

1754 Grey

Grey: theo without attribution

179-92 Though . . . wife] Grey (1754, 2:285) notes: “Saxo Grammaticus gives an account of this parricide, and incestuous marriage.” He quotes a long passage from Saxo in a footnote: “Tantæ felicitatis. . . constituit.—Ubi datus. . . adjecit.—Idem atrocitatem . . . nomine coloraret. Sax.Gram . ibid. Meursi Hist. Danic. lib.i.p.11."

1784 Davies

Davies

179-311 Though . . . away] Davies (1784, 3:11): “This seems to have been pointed out, by the author, as the King’s first appearance in public after his usurping the crown and marrying his sister; and is therefore celebrated as a gala-day. He therefore seizes an opportunity to compliment Hamlet’s concession [i.e., his willingness to remain in Wittenberg], as he would fain term it, in his own favour, by firing off the cannon to his honour at every toast.”

1805 Seymour

Seymour: Steevens +

179 Seymour (1805, 2:141-2): <p.141> “The particles ‘if’ and ‘though’ are continually misleading our writers, and their readers, to con- </p.141><p.142> found the moods, subjunctive and indicative: to the former, one or other of these signs is always necessary; yet they often belong to the latter, as in the instance before us. The greenness or freshness of the memory is hypothetic or suppositious, but possitive [sic] and real; and the proper mood of the verb could not be mistaken, if, for ‘though’ we substitute ‘as,’ a word that here may take its place.” </p. 142>

1819 mclr

mclr

179-203 Coleridge (ms. notes, 1819, in Ayscough, ed. 1807): “The set pedantically antithetic fever[?] of the king’s speech, yet tho’ in the concerns that galled the heels of conscience, rhetorical below a king, yet in which follows not without majesty. Was he not a royal brother?”

1819 mclr

mclr apud Foakes

179-203 Florish. . . . him] Coleridge (1819, rpt. 1987, 5.2:297): “The set pedantically antithetic form of the King’s Speech—yet tho’ in the concerns that galled the heels of Conscience, rhetorical below a King, yet in what follows not without Majesty. Was he not a Royal Brother?”

1856 hud1

hud1: Coleridge 217

179-220 Coleridge (apud Hudson, ed. 1856): “‘In the king’s speech,’ says Coleridge, ‘observe the set and pedantically antithetic form of the sentences when touching that which galled the heels of conscience,—the strain of undignified rhetoric; and yet in what follows concerning the public weal, a certain appropriate majesty.’ H.”

1870 Froude

Froude

179-220 Froude (“Fresh Evidence about Anne Boleyn.” Fraser’s Magazine, 1.6 [June 1870]: 731-48; 2.1 [July 1870]: 44-65) discovered letters written by Eustace Chapuys, the ambassader to England for Emperor Charles V, 1529-45. Not all of Chapuys’s opinions and interpretations are valid, says Froude, but here are the main points: Catherine and her daughter Mary had been put aside by Henry VIII in favor of Anne Boleyn, Elizabeth’s mother. Soon after Boleyn’s second male child was born dead, Henry had her executed on the charge of adultery and days later married Jane Seymour. The several men accused did not deny their guilt (though one confessed and then recanted). No one objected—even close relatives of Boleyn. People apparently approved of the marriage to Seymour. What seems to be true is that Boleyn antagonized everyone, including Henry, who was tiring of her in any case (746, 749), by her attacks on Catherine and Mary (and her wish to see them dead—though he would not have minded either), her nagging, attacks on all she considered her personal enemies, and her wish to ally England with France rather than the Empire. The Pope was dilatory in issuing a Bull of Excommunication, which might have roused Catholics to oppose Henry; the Emperor was also slow to act: he preferred being allied to Henry to fighting a war against him or boycotting England to the detriment of his own economy. In the meantime, Catherine died, poisoned, her physician believed, and some thought through Boleyn’s agency (745). Mary was finally asked to sign the Act of Supremacy (this was shortly after More was asked and refused and was beheaded) and did so, having been assured that it was not wrong to save her life and that a forced oath did not really count, Froude’s Part 2 does not add much. H8 divorced Boleyn days before he had her executed: the grounds were murky, but perhaps the best one was that she had been affianced to Northumberland. Chapuys always calls her “the concubine.” Elizabeth was declared illegitimate. H8’s illegitimate son Richmond was declared next in line and then died—perhaps of poisoning. That left Mary, who was brought back in, partly by Jane Seymour’s wish. She had been a lady-in-waiting to Catherine.

Ed. note: The point is, wouldn’t these issues of poison, speedy remarriage, adultery and the like have been rather hot topics that might shed an ill light on the English monarchy?

1870 rug1

rug1 ≈ clr; Froude

179-220 Moberly (ed. 1870): “The studied antitheses repeated over and over in this speech give it a very artificial appearance, suited to the character of Claudius. His politic and parliamentary reasons for marrying the queen are like those which Mr. Froude supposes to have moved Henry VIII. after the death of Anne Boleyn. (History of England, vol. 1.: see however an article by the same writer in Fraser’s Magazine, June 1870.”

1872 hud2

hud2 ≈ Coleridge without attribution or rug1 without attribution

179-220 Hudson (ed. 1872): “Note the strained, elaborate, and antithetic style of the King’s speech thus far [through 194]. As he is there shamming and playing the hypocrite, he naturally tries how finely he can word it. In what follows, he speaks like a man, his mind moving with simplicity and earnestness as soon as he comes to plain matters of business.”

1873 rug2

rug2 ≈ hud2 on Coleridge; no Froude

179-220 Moberly (ed. 1873): “The studied antithesis repeated over and over in this speech give it a very artificial appearance, suited to the character of the thoughts to be expressed. The king’s politic and parliamentary reasons for marrying the queen remind us of the similar motives which an eminent writer supposes to have influenced Henry VIII. in his prompt remarriages.”

1877 v1877

v1877 CN at 176; 190 ≈ clr, rug2

179-220 Coleridge (apud Furness, ed. 1877): “In the king’s speech observe the set and pedantically antithetic form of the sentences when touching that which galled the heels of conscience—the strain of undignified rhetoric, and yet in what follows concerning the public weal, a rather appropriate majesty. Indeed, was he not a royal brother?”

1878 rlf1

rlf1 = Furness on Coleridge without attribution

179-220

1881 hud3

hud3 = hud2

179-220

1929 trav

trav

179-92 Travers (ed. 1929): “The diplomatic periods, cautious involutions, and parallel antitheses of the thirteen first lines form so many defences of the vulnerable spot . . . .”

1930 Granville-Barker

Granville-Barker

179-80 our deare brothers death . . . greene] Granville-Barker (1930, rpt. 1946, 1: 217): “We encounter [the king] first . . . speaking of his brother’s death with dignified sorrow.”

1930 Granville-Barker

Granville-Barker

179-246 Granville-Barker (1930, rpt. 1946, 1: 50): “From the first—and the actor of Claudius can easily show it—he will have resentfully noted this defiant mourning brought to a Council called for the attesting of his marriage: it is little short of an insult. The Prince’s fellow-councilors will note it too, and be awaiting the inevitable royal rebuke. The subtle Claudius, however, first belittles the matter by ignoring it. And even now—though there is the added provocation of the muttered ’A little more than kin, and less than kind’ [245] (it is not mannerly when your sovereign addresses you at the council table to indulge in obscure comment)—he contents himself with a mild, if slightly ironic ’How is it that the clouds still hang on you’ [246].”

1934 cam3

cam3

179 Hamlet] Wilson (ed. 1934): “The traditional name, found in many variant forms, of the hero of the old saga (v. Intro. pp. xii-xiii). It is perhaps an accident that the name was current in Warwickshire and that Shakespeare’s own son (b. 1585) was christened Hamnet, a variant of it.”

1934 cam3

cam3

179 Hamlet] Wilson (ed. 1934, lix-lxiv) believes (1) that the issue of procrastination is built into the play. He counters Stoll’s argument against it in Art and Artifice in Shakespeare, pp. 94-5, 101. <p. lxi> “His melancholy and his procrastination are all of a piece, and cannot be disentangled. Moreover, his feelings are shared and expressed by other characters” notably Francisco and the player king. Even the king hits the note [ 3112+5-3112+7]. Even the ghost, as Bradley pts out (p. 139) notes Hamlet’s delay. </p. lxi>

<p. lxii> (2) Hamlet has involuntary attacks of sudden action, 1. Cellarage scene. 2. Ophelia’s closet. 3. self reproach in 2.2. 4. Nunnery scene after “Where is your father?” 5. 2nd half of queen’s closet scene (Wilson calls it the bedroom scene!) 6. graveyard scene with Laertes. These differ in tone, running the emotional gamut from hilarity </p. lxii> <p. lxiii> to dejection. “Thus the ill-timed, not to say profane, merriment of 1.5. follows immediately upon the most solemn moment of the play, the talk with the Ghost and the oath of consecration, while it is succeeded by that ominous and despondent couplet [quotes 885-6].” He continues with a similar analysis of 3.4.

“This convulsive oscillation between extremes of frenzy and tranquillity is so marked a feature of the Prince’s behaviour and provides so large an element of the rhythm of the whole play, that to miss it is to miss one of the principal clues to the understanding of Hamlet. 1 It is obviously of great importance theatrically, since Hamlet’s excitement in its various forms adds much to the excitement of the audience.” But its purpose goes well beyond that </p. lxiii> <p. lxiv> Hamlet’s struggles with his “paroxysms of passion . . . is in large measure the groundwork of is tragedy. Wilson refers to Robert Bridges </p. lxiv>

<n. 1> <p. lxiii> “1 Dr Bradley (op. cit, p. 124) notices it but fails, I think, to appreciate its true importance.” </p. lxiii> </n. 1>

1939 kit2

kit2

179-218 Claud. . . . dutie] Kittredge (ed. 1939): "This speech deserves careful study with reference to the character of Claudius, which is often misconceived. Its artificial style and balanced antithesis are not the effects of hypocrisy, but merely of ceremony. Being the King’s first speech from the throne since his coronation, it is formal and dignified, especially so through [194]—the end of the King’s acknowledgment of the aid of his advisors. Then follows, in a style still dignified but less stilted, an account of the business for which this particular council has been assembled. [195-203] sum up facts already known to the Council, and the rest of the speech concerns the dispatching of Voltemand and Cornelius as ambassadors to Norway. The whole address is appropriate, skilfully constructed, and even eloquent. It gives the audiene a high idea of the intellectual powers of the King, whom we as yet have no reason to suspect or dislike."

1947 cln2

cln2

179-244 Rylands (ed. 1947, p. 21): “Claudius must be established as a cunning and worthy opposite of the Prince. Shakespeare gives him some sixty lines at once eloquent and formal, modulating into a silkier tone as he lingers over the repetition of Laertes’ name—other instruments supporting him the while, the Ambassadors, Polonius, Laertes—until at long last comes the expected cue [quotes 244].”

1953 Joseph

Joseph

179-85 Joseph (1953, p. 53): “Claudius reminds his audience that his behaviour could indeed be regarded as not in accordance with what is normally held as the best of taste [quotes 179-85]. . . . It is easy to accept [Claudius’s] words as perfectly reasonable, and forget that he is guilty of at least a gross breach of etiquette in marrying so soon [after his brother’s death].”

1980 pen2

pen2

179-80 Barton (Intro., ed. 1980, p. 53) considers the abrupt end of mourning to celebrate the marriage the first of the “maimed rites” [3408] that characterize the play: others are the debasement of royalty in drunken debauches [308], the “hugger mugger” burial of Polonius [2821] and Ophelia, the cutting short of the play-within [2130] and the fencing match [3779].

1980 pen2

pen2

179 our] Spencer (ed. 1980): “The King uses the ’royal plural’, but sometimes in this speech we, us, and our refer to the Danish nation.”

1982 ard2

ard2: Knights; Coleridge, Kittredge +

179-218 Jenkins (ed. 1982): “no ceremony can gloss over the essential fact that the new king, with an admixture of ’mirth’ and ’delight’, has married his ’sometime sister’ [cf. 186 and n.) while his brother’s death is still fresh”

ard2: survey of opinions +

179 Hamlet our deare brother] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “The succession by a king’s brother rather than his son was permitted by the system of an elective monarchy, which Denmark in fact had. See G. Sjögren, ’Hamlet and the Coronation of Christian IV’, [SQ 26, 155 ff.; Dollerup, pp. 131-4. Cf. ’th’election’ [3844]. The succession of a brother is paralleled within the play in Norway [207]. Dover Wilson’s argument that Claudius is a usurper (WHH, pp. 30 ff.) is refuted by Honigmann (Stratford-upon-Avon Studies, 5, pp. 129 ff.) and by A. P. Stabler (SP, 62: 654-61), who shows nevertheless that ambiguity on the point is inherited from Belleforest. I do not think, with Stabler, that uncertainty about Hamlet’s rights can lave been designed as part of his plight; nor, with Honigmann, that the present scene creates a ’mystery’ about the succession which is to be clarified as the play proceeds. The play does, however, as it progresses, increase dramatically our sense of Claudius’s unfitness. It is when he is established as a ’murderer and a villain’ that Hamlet says he ’stole’ the kingdom [2479]. It is when he has used his kingly power to plot Hamlet’s death that the Prince asserts his own right [3453]. Finally will come the hint that Claudius had anticipated the process of election [3569]. But although this leaves the manner of Claudius’s succession in some ambiguity, it is clear that he became king with public consent. The play does not question the legality of his title, even though it also regards the Prince of Denmark as the future king. See [482-5, 1808]. At [291] the King publicly nominates Hamlet as his successor; but this is not necessarily compatible with the principle of election, in which the Prince’s hereditary status and ’the voice of the King’ [2211-12] won’t be important. Jas. Howell in 1632 refers to the eldest son of the Danish king as ’King elect of Denmark’, explaining that ’though that Crown be purely elective, yet for these three last Kings, they wrought so with the people, that they got their eldest sons chosen, and declared before their death’ (Familiar Letters, ed. Jacobs, p. 294). From the reference to the Queen as jointress [187] Dover Wilson infers that Gertrude had a life-interest in the crown, and it may be that Shakespeare had in mind how in earlier version of the story Hamlet’s father acquired the throne by marriage; but the rights he accords Gertrude as dowager he is content not to define. What is clear is that Claudius became king before taking her ’to wife’ but consolidated his position by a prudent marriage.”

1987 oxf4

oxf4

179 our] Hibbard (ed. 1987): Claudius uses both the royal first person plural and the national plural We Danes, blurring as the speech develops the distinction between the royal we and communal we, and giving the impression that the country is unified behind him.

1987 Mercer

Mercer

179-85 Mercer (1987, p. 138) tries to tease out what the audience might have thought of this speech: “Do we, for the moment, see Claudius as he would have himself be seen or do we instantly feel that the whole performance to be so suavely politics, so self-serving in its reasonableness, that we wonder rather how he gets away with it?”

1988 bev2

bev2: standard

179 our] Bevington (ed. 1988): “(The royal ’we’; also in the following lines.).”

1995 Matheson

Matheson

179-94 Matheson (1995, p. 387): “In Claudius’s first speech (1.2.1-39 he represents himself as a model of Stoic balance worthy of Hamlet’s emulation, and he figures the mind as a place where strong emotions and conflicting forces are balanced and reconciled by the sovereign faculty of reason.”

1999 Orgel

Orgel

179 Orgel (1999, p. 147): Neither in Mac. nor in Ham. does anyone press the claim for anyone but the sitting king. “In both plays, there is deep uncertainty about the relation between power and legitimacy [. . . ].”

2006 ard3q2

ard3q2: ard2

179-218 Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “The King’s opening speech has often been admired as a demonstration of his political skill in (a) putting a positive ’spin’ on his own rather delicate position and (b) dealing firmly with the threat from Fortinbras (see Jenkins). He is certainly masterly in his deployment of second person pronouns —our, us, we— which slide from the royal ’we’ to include the whole Court in his discourse. ”