Notes for lines 0-1017 ed. Bernice W. Kliman
| 316 His cannon gainst {seale} <Selfe->slaughter, ô God, <O> God, | 1.2.132 |
|---|
1726 theon
theon
316 cannon]
Theobald (1726, pp. 15-17): <p.15>“The King, Queen, and Court, quitting the Stage,
Hamlet remains, and makes a Soliloquy; beginning with this double Wish, either that his too solid Fresh would melt away into a Dew, ‘
Or, that the Everlasting had not fixt His Cannon ’gainst Self-slaughter. — ’ There is a various Reading upon this Passage, as Mr.
pope might have observ’d, which in my Opinion, merits a Consideration, and, possibly, may give us the Poet’s own Words. If he wrote it as it now stands, his Thought is,
Or that the Almighty
had not planted his Artillery,
his Resentment,
or Arms of Vengeance
against Self-murther: But the Quarto Edition, published in 1703 (which, indeed, has no other Authority, than its professing to be printed from the
Original Copy;) and the Impression of
Hamlet set out by Mr.
Hughs, both read,
Or that the Everlasting had not fixt His CANON ‘gainst Self-slaughter. i.e., That he had not restrain’d
Suicide by his
express Law, and
peremptory Prohibition. It is a Word that
Shakespeare has used in some other of his Plays; and the Mistake of the Printers is so very easy, betwixt a double and a single
n, in
Cannon and
Canon, that it actually happen’d elsewhere in our author upon both these very Words.
Coriolanus. pag. 148. ‘—
Shall remain? Hear you this Triton
of the Minnows? mark you His absolute Shall? Comin. ’
Twas from the canon. </p.15> <p. 16> i.e.
from the Mouth of the Law, as Mr.
Pope rightly understands it; tho’ the second Folio Edition has it corruptly, ’
Twas from the Cannon. So again, on the other hand, twice in the second
Act of King
John, the second Folio Edition has it; ‘
The Canons
have their Bowels full of Wrath, &c.’ And afterwards, ‘
Their batt’ring Canon,
charg’d to the Mouths, &c.’ Tho’ ’tis manifest, in both Places, it ought to be
Cannon, with a double
n. I cannot help throwing in one Instance more, because the Error has not only obtained in the old and common Modern Editions, but has likewise got a new Sanction in Mr.
Pope’s Edition.
“
Timon, pag. 59. ‘
Religious cannons,
civil Laws are cruel, Then what should War be?’ The Propagation of this Fault is manifestly owing to the Negligence of Revisal; and all future Impressions must correct it, —
Religious Canons, &c. But to pass from these Mistakes of the
Press, there is another Passage in King
John, where the Poet uses the Word
Canon to signify Decree or Ordinance,
pag. 129. ‘
The canon of the Law is laid on him, &c.’ So in
Coriolanus, pag. 119, 120. ‘—
Where I find him, were it At home, upon my Brother’s Guard, even there Against the hospitable canon would I Wash my fierce hand in’s heart.’ But besides that the Poet frequently employs the Terme [canon], I have two or three Reasons more which induce me to think, that, in this Place of
Hamlet, he intended the
Injunction, rather than </p.16> <p.17> the
Artillery of Heaven. In the first Place, I much doubt the Propriety of the Phrase,
fixing Cannon, to carry the Meaning here supposed. The Military Expression, which imports what would be necessary to the Sense of the Poet’s Thought, is,
mounting or
planting Cannon: And whenever Cannon is said to be
fix’d, it is when the Enemy become Masters of it, and nail it down. In the next Place, to
fix a
Canon or
Law, is the
Terme of
Civilians peculiar to this Business. This
Virgil had in his Mind, when he wrote,
Æneid VI. ‘—Leges
fixit pretio, atque
refixit.’ And it was the constant Custom of the
Romans to say, upon this Occasion,
figere legem; as the Greeks, before them, used the
Synonymous Term,
paraphjai. [There is a tilde over the
h] But my last Reason, and which sways most with me, is from the Poet’s own Turn and Cast of Thought: For, as he has done in a great many more Instances, it is the very Sentiment which he falls into in another of his Plays, tho’ he has cloath’d it in different Expressions.” [
Cym. 3.4.76-8 (1750)] ‘
Gainst Self-slaughter There is a Prohibition so divine, That cravens my weak Hand’ ” </p.17>
Ed. note: The only 4to Theobald owns at this time is Q10. Also, he thinks that the poet John Hughes is responsible for 1723 (our wilk2), a copy of 1718 (our wilk1), the 1st 12mo edition of Ham. The spelling canon identifies the ed. Theobald means. On Hughes as ed. see Kliman, 2003b.
1733 theo1
theo1 = theon
316 cannon] Theobald (ed. 1733) deviates only a little from his previous note: “The Generality of the Editions read thus [Cannon], as if the Poet}s Thought were, Or that the Almighty had not planted his Artillery, his Resentment, or Arms of Vengeance against Self-Murther: But the Word, which I have restor’d to the Text, (and which was espous’d by the accurate Mr. Hughes, who gave an Edition of this Play;) is the Poet’s true Reading. i.e. That he had not restrain’d Suicide by his express Law, and peremptory Prohibition. Mistakes are perpetually made in the Old Editions of our Poet, betwixt these two Words, Cannon and Canon. I shall now subjoin my Reasons, why, I think, the Poet intended to say Heaven had fix’d his Injunction rather than its Artillery. In the first place, I much doubt the Propriety of the Phrase, fixing Cannon, in the Meaning here suppos’d. The military Expression, which imports what would be necessary to the Sense of the Poet’s Thought, is, mounting or planting Cannon: And whenever Cannon is said to be fix’d, it is when the Enemy become Masters of it, and nail it down. In the next place, to fix a Canon or Law, is the Terme of Civilians peculiar to this Business. This Virgil had in his Mind, when he wrote, ‘—Leges fixit pretio, atque refixit.’ Æneid VI.
“So Cicero in his Philippic Orations: Num figentur rursus hæ Tabulæ, quas vos Decretis vestris refixistis? And it was the constant Custom of the Romans to say, upon this Occasion, figere legem; as the Greeks, before them, used the Synonymous Term nomon parapaksai, and call’d their Statutes thence parapagmata. But my last Reason, and which sways most with me, is from the Poet’s own Turn and Cast of Thought: For, as he has done in a great many more Instances, it is the very Sentiment which he falls into in another of his Plays, tho’ he has cloth’d it in different Expressions.” [Cym. 3.4.76-8 (1750-2)] ‘Gainst Self-slaughter There is a Prohibition so divine, That cravens my weak Hand.’ ”
Ed. note: Because of the prestige of both Latin and Greek learning, Theobald probably thought he was enhancing the scholarly impact of his edition by including the references to Cicero and to Greek.
1740 theo2
theo2 = theo1 minus all but 1st ¶
316 cannon] Theobald (ed. 1740): “The Generality of the Editions read thus [Cannon], as if the Poet’s Thought were, Or that the Almighty had not planted his Artillery, his Resentment, or Arms of Vengeance against Self-Murther: But the Word, which I restor’d to the Text, (and which was espous’d by the accurate Mr. Hughes, who gave an Edition of this Play;) is the Poet’s true Reading. i.e. That he had not restrain’d Suicide by his express Law, and peremptory Prohibition. Mistakes are perpetually made in the Old Editions of our Poet, betwixt these two Words, Cannon and Canon.”
Ed. note: Tonson, Theobald’s publisher, presumably trimmed the notes, which were reinstated in later eds.
1752 Dodd
Dodd // = theo without attribution
316 seale slaughter] Dodd (1752, 1: 217):“Speaking of self-slaughter, in Cymbeline, he says; ‘’Gainst self-slaughter There is a prohibition so divine That cravens my weak mind.”
1757 theo4
theo4 = theo2
316 cannon]
1765 Heath
Heath ≈ theo
316 cannon] Heath (1765, p. 524): “This is, as Mr. Theobald rightly interprets it, his express law, and peremptory prohibition”
1765 john1
john1 = theo4 minus last sentence
316 cannon]
1773 v.1773
v1773 = theo minus Virgil +
316 cannon] Steevens (ed. 1773): “There are those who suppose the old reading to be the true one, as they say the word fixed seems to decide too strongly in its favour. I would advise such to recollect Virgil’s expression. ‘—fixit leges pretio, atq; refixit. Steevens.”
BWK: Ste on Virgil: cautions those who prefer cannon because of the word fixt in the preceding line should remember Virgil. Theobald’s argument against cannon is the same, yet Steevens presents this as if it’s a new wrinkle. Am I right here? Yes. He removes the Virgil ref. from THEO and then has his own VIrgil ref.
1774 capn
capn ≈ theon
316 cannon]
Capell (1774] 1:1:123-4): <p. 123> “It is scarce worth the noting, that ‘
canon,’ [316] is spelt —
cannon, in all old editions; the spelling of the words was not settl’d as now, but one is indiscriminately put for the other in all the books of that time: But the meaning of the word in this place is determin’d by ‘
fix’
d’; an </p. 123> <p. 124> expression appropriated to the passing of a ‘
canon’ or law, and that has a classical turn with it, as remark’d by the third editor [Theobald].” </p. 124>
1778 v1778
v1778 = v1773
316 cannon]
1783 Ritson
Ritson: Steevens; theo
315-6 fixt His cannon] Ritson (1783, p. 192): “A quibble between ordnance and ecclesiastical decrees. Mr. Steevens is an advocate of the former sense; mr. Theobald for the latter. What happiness, what immortal glory, to be the conciliator of such contending chieftains in criticism!”
This note looks incomplete to me. Check Ritson xerox, now being copied.
1785 v1785
v1785 = v1778
316 cannon]
1787 ann
ann = v1785
316 cannon]
1790 mal
mal = v1785, theon without attribution; theo2
316 cannon]
Ed. note: mal on Cym and on alternate spellings, says (1) Cym. has similar phrases: “’gainst self slaughter There is a prohibition so divine, That cravens my weak hand.” (quoted by theon not theo1) (2) In Shakespeare’s time, canon was frequently spelled cannon. Both these points, though, were made by theon and theo2, respectively. Malone credits Theobald only with the part he quotes from theo1.
1790 Gent Mag
Anon: theo +
316 As you like it [Anon.] (Gent. Mag.1790, p. 403): “I will just add, that Canon of Scripture is a very common expression; and that the regulations of ecclesaistical affairs are called Constitutions and Canons.”
Ed. note: Kuist identifies As you like it as either Thomas Holt White or John Loveday.
1791- rann
rann ≈ theo and mal
316 cannon] Rann (ed. 1791-) routinely names the speaker when citing parallel passages; other eds. do not.
1793 v1793
v1793 = mal
316 cannon]
Ed. note: Steevens has theo1 up to but not including the part also cut in theo2. So it’s likely, that this part was taken from theo2 or later ed., perhaps theo4. Steevens, though, says the old word cannon is not dead: to those who still think it should be cannon, he cites the line from Virgil that theo1 had but that theo2 did not have. theo1 had used this reference to help prove his pt; Steevens also uses it to support his agreement with canon. mal does the same thing: i.e., he cites the very lines from Cym that theo1 had but theo2 didn’t. mal also pts out what capn pts out, that the spelling had not been fixed.
1803 v1803
v1803 = v1793
316 cannon]
1807 Douce
Douce: mal
316 cannon]
Douce (1807, 2:201-2): <p.201>“Mr. Steevens says, ‘there are yet those who suppose the old reading (cannon, in the sense of artillery) to be the true one.’ He himself was not of that number. It must be owned that
fixing a cannon is an odd mode of vengeance on the part of the Deity; yet it is still more difficult </p.201> <p.202> to conceive in what manner this instrument could operate in avenging
suicide. The pedants of Hierocles, who were the Gothamites of their time, might, if now existing, be competent to explain all this; or, indeed, we might ourselves suppose that suicides could be blown into atoms as seapoys sometimes are, by tying them to the cannon’s mouth, a method equally humane with the practice of driving stakes through their bodies. Mr. Malone’s happy quotation has for ever
fixed the proper meaning.” </p.202>
1812 Lofft
Lofft
316 cannon] Lofft (1812, p. 3): “Rule, law.”
1813 Gifford
Gifford
315-16 Gifford (ed. Massinger, 1813, 3:44), comparing Ferdinand in
The Maid of Honour to Hamlet, says, <n> <p.44> “Massinger had Hamlet in view here. He has, however, improved his sentiments. It is pleasing to </p.44> <p.45> observe, amidst the colluvies [i.e., cesspools] of the times, how free the stream of his poetry runs from every taint of profaneness.” </p.45> </n>
Ed. note: The Maid of Honour: 2.4.15-23: ‘Livio. To die the beggar’s death, with hunger made Anatomies while we live, cannot but crack Our heart-string with vexation. Ferdinand. Would they would break, Break altogether! How willingly, like Cato, Could I tear out my bowels, rather than Look on the conqueror’s insulting face; But that religion,5 and the horrid dream To be suffer’d in the other world, denies it!’
1813 v1813
v1813 = v1803
316 cannon]
1819 cald1
cald1 ≈ theo without attribution +
316 cannon] Caldecott (ed. 1819): “Cannon is the reading of all the old copies: and cannon and canon (canwn) norma, regula, appear to be the same word. Certainly no different origin has distinctly been assigned them. On the contrary, in modern French the word in each of its sense is written canon. Minshieu spells both cannon; and, speaking of the piece of ordinance, says, ‘Canna muralis is a warlike engine to batter walls, and so called because cast long after the manner of great reeds; and the terms, applied to it as a rule or line, are so much in common to both, as in some degree to identify the On Milton’s candlelight visiting us, ‘With its long levell’d rule of streaming light.’ Com. 5.340.
“Dr. Hurd observes, that in the Euripides a ray of sun is called [Greek here]; to which Mr. Warton adds, that in [P.L.] 543, the sun is said to ‘level his evening rays.’ ”
1821 v1821
v1821 = v1813
316 cannon]
1826 sing1
sing1: from theo2 without attribution
316 cannon] Singer (ed. 1826): “the old copy reads, cannon; but this was the old spelling of canon, a law or decree.”
1832 cald2
cald2 ≈ cald1
316 cannon]
Caldecott (ed. 1832): “i.e. ‘solemn decree.’ It is remarkable, that, while
canon, Sax. the modern word in this sense,
kanwn, Gr. regula, norma, a line, rule, imperative law or thundering edict,
canon, and
cannon (the reading of all the old copies) a piece of ordnance or artillery, differ only in once letter
ordinance, or artillery in one letter only; and this difference in pronunciation is no way felt. No more distinct or better origin than ‘
Canna, a warlike engine to batter walls, because cast long and after the manner of great reeds’ (Skinn. and Minshieu) is assigned to the latter: and in modern French in each sense the word in the text is written
canon.
“Dr. Hurd observes, that in the Euripides a ray of sun is called [Greek here]; to which Mr. Warton adds, that in [P.L.] 4.543, the sun is said to have ‘levell’d his evening rays:’ as in Comus, 5.340, we have ‘long levell’d rule of streaming light.’ ”
1833 valpy
valpy: standard
316 cannon] Valpy (ed. 1833): “Law.”
1839 knt1
knt1 ≈ cald2 without attribution +
316 cannon] Knight (ed. [1839]): “In the old editions this word is spelt cannon; and thus the commentators think it necessary to prove that the levelling of a piece of artillery is not here meant. By a curious analogy, ordnance in the old writers is spelt ordinance. A canon and an ordinance have the same sense; and yet, according to the received etymologies, the words have no common source. A canon and a cannon are each, it is said, derived from canna, a cane;—its straightness applied as a measure, rule, giving us canon; its length and hollowness, cannon. Ordinance, of course, is derived from ordinare; and the first French cannoneers being named Gendarmes des Ordonnances, the guns which they used came, it is affirmed, to be called ordnance. We are inclined to think that these etymologies, as applied to artillery, are somewhat fanciful. We have canon direct from the Anglo-Saxon, while in that language a cane is bune. Looking at the precision with which ‘our greatest ordinance’ are described by Harrison,—their various names, weight of the shot, weight of powder used, &c., we are inclined to think that cannon and ordinance denoted such pieces of artillery as were made according to a strict technical rule, canon, or ordinance. In Harrison, cannon is spelt canon, showing the French derivation of the word.”
1843 knt2
knt2 = knt1
316 cannon]
-1845 mHunter
mHunter ≈ Hunter
316 cannon] Hunter (-1845, fol. 222v): “‘Canon’ is not a good word to use here—to say nothing of its being somewhat ambiguous. The fact is that the ‘Cannon’ of the King’s speech was still sounding in Shakspeare’s ear.”
1845 Hunter
Hunter
316 cannon] Hunter (1845, 2: 218): “Canon is an unhappy word to use here. I fear the truth is that the noise of the cannon in the King’s speech was still ringing in the Poet’s ears.”
Ed. note: The cannon could be ringing in Hamlet’s ears.
1854 del2
del2: standard
316 cannon] Delius (ed. 1854): “canon, in Sh.’s Orthographie cannon, ist das göttliche Verbot des Selbstmordes.” [canon, in Sh.’s spelling cannon, is God’s proscription against suicide.]
1865 hal
hal = mal
316 cannon]
1869 Galaxy
White
316 cannon] White (Galaxy, 1869, p. 557), referring to Cym. 3.4.76-8 (1750) as well as Ham. says, “Here are two very particular assertions of the existence of a specific prohibition of suicide by Divine Law. Shakespeare may have known the Bible, as he knew other things in his day knowable, so much better than I do that I may not without presumption question what he says with regard to it. But I have not been able to discover any such specific prohibition. Perhaps some of my readers have been, or may be, more successful.”
1872 cln1
cln1 ≈ theon def., // Tim. without attribution
316 cannon]
1874 Corson
Corson: F1, cam1 +
316 Corson (1874, pp. 9-10):<p. 9> “The verse does not scan so well in the [
cam1]. In the F., the ending -er of ‘slaughter’ should be read as an </p. 9> <p. 10> internal extra syllable: His can | non ’gainst | Selfe-slaught | er. |O God, | O God! | And every reader would feel the want of the second ‘O’ on which to dwell before uttering ‘God’ with a strong aspiration.” </p. 10>
1875 Marshall
Marshall: (1875, p. 10): on suicide
315-18 Marshall (1875, p. 125): “The solemn words that follow [quotes 315-16 through self-slaughter] show that Hamlet was no infidel, though his faith was enervated by doubts. There is deep pathos in that cry [continues 316-18]. It is a cry that many of us have uttered in the agonizing perplexity caused by the apparent triumph of Evil around us. It is to be noted how the words here echo the sense. Too much pains cannot be bestowed on the utterance of these lines. I have heard them spoken with such a deep thrill of despair in the voice as to be indeed awful.”
1877 v1877
v1877: theon, Hunter (2: 218), Grant White (the Galaxy, Oct. 1869), Wordsworth
316 cannon]
Wordsworth (
apud Furness, ed. 1877): “Unless it be the Sixth Commandment, the ‘canon’ must be one of natural religion.”
Shakespeare’s Knowledge of and Use of the Bible. placed in ck in library doc.
v1877= Corson (minus scansion of line)
316
1880 Tanger
Tanger
316 ô God, God] Tanger (1880, p. 122): F1’s additional O is “what seems to be owing to an interpolation of some Actor.”
1880 meik
meik: standard
316 cannon]
meik: standard + in magenta underlined
316 seale slaughter] Meikeljohn (ed. 1880): “the pure English phrase for suicide.”
1883 wh2
wh2 = White 1869
316 cannon]
1885 White
White 9th ed. 1896 rpt of 1885 ed. = earlier White
316 White (Studies 9th ed., p. 299): “I have not been able to discover any such particular prohibition.”
.
1887 Mackay
Mackay
316 cannon]
Mackay to do
1904 Bradley
Bradley: contra Dowden, ard1, pp. xx - xxi, without attribution; see Wilson, below
316 God, God] Bradley (1904, pp. 123-4) <p. 123> states that while repetitions like this are used by various Shn characters, "they are a
habit with [Hamlet]," and he cites
Thrift, thrift, 368;
Indeed, indeed [doubled only in F], <p. 123> <p. 124> and other instances to support his point. " . . . I am much mistaken if this
habit is to be found in any other serious character of Shakespeare." </p. 124>
1929 trav
trav
316 seale slaughter]
Travers (ed. 1929) points out that the word
suicide had not yet entered the language in Sh’s time.
1930 Granville-Barker
Granville-Barker
316 cannon . . . slaughter] Granville-Barker (1930, rpt. 1946, 1: 254) underlines the seriousness of suicide, a heresy in Sh.’s time and for at least three centuries after. The play stresses this point at several junctures.
1934 Wilson
Wilson MSH
316 ô God, God]
Wilson (1934, pp. 77, 81, 255), <p.77> like Dowden (
ard1, pp. xx - xx1), believes that Burbage added little ejaculations and they found their way into the F1 text: he gives as examples before 2.2. TLN 316, 319, 443, 630, 714, 789, 792. </p.77> <p.81> He asserts that if Q1 represents what someone heard, we can expect to see even more repetitions in it—and we do. </p.81> <p. 255> Wilson repeats the point about actors’ additions and some listed above, and 373, 586, 948
1938 parc
parc
316 cannon] Parrott & Craig (ed. 1938): “cannon.”
1939 kit2
kit2: standard
316 cannon] Kittredge (ed. 1939): "divine law."
1947 cln2
cln2 ≈ Wordsworth w/o attribution, probably via v1877
316 seale slaughter] Rylands (ed. 1947): i.e. the Sixth Commandment."
1957 pel1
pel1: standard
316 cannon] Farnham (ed. 1957): “law.”
1970 pel2
pel2 = pel1
316 cannon] Farnham (ed. 1970): “law”
1980 pen2
pen2: standard
316 His . . . slaughter] Spencer (ed. 1980): “The sixth commandment, ’Thou shalt not kill’ (Exodus 20:13), was generally regarded as a sufficient condemnation of suicide.”
pen2: standard
316 cannon] Spencer (ed. 1980): “religious law.”
1982 ard2
ard2: //; analogues
316 cannon . . . slaughter] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “Again referred to in Cym. 3.4.74-5. Commentators have puzzled unnecessarily over this; for while a ’divine’ prohibition may be easier to accept than demonstrate, what is easily demonstrated is that the Church regularly regarded ’self-slaughter’ as forbidden by the sixth commandment. See, e.g., Augustine, De Civitate Dei, line 20; Bishop’s Bible, margin on 1 Maccabees 6.46 and 2 Maccabees 14.41; Henry Smith, on Philippians 1.23 (Sermons, 1592, p. 543). Donne Biathanatos (3.2.8), while contesting the interpretation, acknowledges that ’the Commandment . . . is cited by all to this purpose.’ ”
1984 chal
chal: standard + in magenta underlined
316 cannon] Wilkes (ed. 1984): “law, decree. ’Thou shalt not kill’ was taken as a commandment against suicide, which was also the sin of despair”
1985 cam4
cam4; Plowden
316 cannon gainst seale slaughter] canon ’gainst self-slaughter Edwards (ed. 1985): "There seems to be no biblical injunction specifically against suicide. In Pilgrim’s Progress, Hopeful deters Christian from suicide by arguing that the sixth commandment, Thou shalt do no murder, applies a fortiori to murder of oneself. In the case of the suicide of Sir James Hales, which Shakespeare drew on later in the play [3198-3211], it was said that suicide was an offence against God ’in that it is a breach of his commandment, Thou shalt not kill, and to kill himself, by which act he kills in presumption his own soul, is a greater offence than to kill another’ (Plowden’s Commentaries, 1761, p. 261)."
1987 oxf4
oxf4
316 His . . . slaughter] Hibbard (ed. 1987): "It was taken for granted that suicide was prohibited by the sixth commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill’ (Exodus 20:13). Compare [Cym. 3.4.76-8 (1750-2) ‘Against self-slaughter There is a prohibition so divine That cravens my weak hand.’] Self-slaughter seems to be a Shakespearian coinage."
1988 bev2
bev2: standard
316 cannon] Bevington (ed. 1988): “law.”
1992 fol2
fol2: standard
316 cannon] Mowat & Werstine (ed. 1992): “law”
1995 OED
OED: 2nd ed.
316 cannon] OED: The spellings canon and cannon occur side by side down nearly to 1800, though the latter is the more frequent after c1660. This is true for both headwords cannon and canon.
1996 Kliman
Kliman
316 cannon] Kliman (1996): Theobald and others who discuss this line do not notice that if one were to hear the word, as in the theater, it would be up to each member of the audience to distinguish the meaning; even today probably some think cannon and some canon—and some can’t figure it out. But I think they get the idea—God is against suicide. See also 309 for the other Cannon (Q2).
2006 ard3q2
ard3q2: standard; pope; wilk2; etc.
316 cannon] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “divine law. Noting Pope’s spelling ’cannon’ here, and the correction to ’canon’ in John Hughes’s text of 1723, Theobald comments that Shakespeare ’intended the Injunction, rather than the Artillery of Heaven’ (Theobald, Restored, 16-17). ’This is an unhappy word to use here. I fear the truth is that the noise of the cannon in the king’s speech [309] was still ringing in the Poet’s ears’ (Hunter, 2.218). Caldecott observes that ’ordinance, which has the same sense as canon, differs also from ordnance, or artillery in one letter only; and this difference in pronunciation is no way felt.’ Booth picks up the canon/cannon echo as an example of the ’casual, substantively inconsequential relationships among words and ideas in Shakespeare’ whose ’undelivered meanings’ contribute to the richness of the effect (Booth, 43).”
ard3q2: //s
316 seale slaughter] self-slaughter Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “Q2’s ’seale slaughter’ is clearly erroneous. There is no specific biblical prohibition of suicide, although the sixth commandment, against murder, would cover it. Imogen also believes that ’Against self-slaughter / There is a prohibition so divine / That cravens my weak hand’ (Cym 3.4.75-7). For Shakespeare, this was clearly a major difference between Christian and pagan belief systems: see [3190-3218], and Edgar’s attempts to cure his father’s despair in Lr., and contrast the heroic suicides at the end of JC and Ant..”
316
