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

Line 662 - 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.

662 Which might depriue your soueraigntie of reason,	1.4.73

1747 warb

warb

662 depriue . . . reason] Warburton (ed. 1747): Deprive your sov’reignty of reason,] i.e. deprive your sov’reignty of its reason. Nonsense. Sov’reignty of reason is the same as sovereign or supreme reason: Reason which governs man. And thus it is used by the best writers of those times. Sidney says It is time for us both to let reason enjoy its due soveraigntie. Arcad. And King Charles, At once to betray the soveraignty of reason in my soul. [Greek, Eikon Basilike, “Kingly image”]. It is evident that Shakspear wrote, ‘—deprave your sov’reignty of reason.’ i.e. disorder your understanding and draw you into madness. So afterwards. Now see that noble and most sovereign reason like sweet bells jangled out of tune [1814].”

1752-71? mtheo3FOLc.1

mtheo3FOLc.1 ≈ warb

662 depriue . . . reason] Anon. (mtheo3FOLc.1) changes theo to deprave and has this note: “ . . . deprive , take away. T. & C. ”

1752 Dodd

Dodd contra warb

662 Dodd (1752, 1: 224-5): <p. 224>“The line [quotes] has something in it truly Shakespearian: deprive, is used in its primary sense, according to our author’s frequent method: which might deprive, i.e. take away, your sovereignty of reason, i.e. your sovereign reason. [quotes warb note] </p. 224><p. 225> The reader, I dare say, will not be displeased with this note of Mr. Warburton; as it seems the best that could be given to confirm the reading in the text; deprive your, &c., may be properly explained as he desires, i.e. disorder your understanding and draw you into madness: for was it to deprive his sovereignty of reason, or take it away—that must be the consequence. If the passage is translated literally into Latin, the learned reader will immediately see its propriety: it may be unnecessary, perhaps, to add, he uses contrive, in the same manner, in its primary sense: contrive an afternoon, i.e. spend an afternoon together. See [Shr. 1.?.?. (00)]. as he does frequently two substantive to express one thing; so, in Othello; ‘As when by night and negligence a fire is spied—’ i.e. fire occasioned by nightly negligence. And in numberless other places.” </p. 225>

1755 Johnson Dict.

Johnson

662 soueraigntie] Johnson (1755) does not have sovereignty in the sense of the highest commanding principle in a human being.

1765 Heath

Heath: warb

662 depriue . . . reason] Heath (1765, pp. 531-2): <p. 531> “Thus Mr. Warburton tells us ‘it is evident Shakespear wrote;’ that is, according to him, ‘your sovereign or supreme reason.’ And, in order to establish this reading, he produces several quotations, which imply only that reason ought to be the sove- </p. 531-2> reign principle in man. And this I suppose is to pass for learning and criticism. The common reading was ‘Which might deprive your sov’reignty of reason.’ But this Mr. Warburton is pleased to discard, in the shortest, and most authoritative, shall I say, or, most vulgar, way. He throws at it the reproach nonsense! and that is the whole he vouchsafes to object to it. But why. nonsense? The sovereignty in the constitution of the human mind, considered physically, and not morally, is that ruling commanding principle which in every instance determines our action and conduct. This principle, if I mistake not, is the [free] will, [Greek], not the understanding or judgment, much less the reason. It condescends indeed sometimes to take the advice of reason, and to follow it; but unhappily this is not always, nor perhaps most frequently, the case; especially where the mind is under the actual influence of any violent passion. And this happens to be the very case here pointed at. Horatio represents to Hamlet, that the place itself, to which the Ghost might draw him, was sufficiently frightful, and apt enough to put ‘—toys of desperation, Without more motive, into ev’ry brain;’ and that, if, besides this, it should itself assume some other horrible form, his affright might possibly be raised to so extravagant a pitch, as absolutely to overpower the governing, self-commanding principle within him [i.e., the will], and deprive it utterly of all use and assistance of his reason. See our note on [Lr. 1.4.232 (744+1) in 6:35].

1765 john1

john1 = warb +

662 depriue . . . reason] Johnson (ed. 1765): “I believe deprive in this place signifies simply to take away.”

1773 v1773

v1773 = john1 on warb +

662 depriue . . . reason] Steevens (ed. 1773): “Dr. Warburton would read deprave; but several proofs are given in the notes to King Lear of Shakespeare’s use of the word deprive, which is the true reading.”

1773 v1773 Lr.

v1773

662 depriue . . . reason] Steevens (ed. 1773, 9:329 n.4), on Lr. 1.2.4 (338): “wherefore should I . . . permit The curiosity of nations to deprive me”: “To deprive was, in our author’s time, synonymous to disinherit. The old dictionary renders exbaeredo by this word: and Holinshed speaks of the line of Henry before deprived. Steevens.”

1773- mstv1

mstv1 = warb

662 depriue . . . reason] Steevens (ms. notes in Steevens, ed. 1773): “deprave, i.e. disorder your understanding. Warb.”

mSTV below this note among other things not relevant to Ham. provides a counter-point in a WARB note that sees deprive as a transitive verb which requires an object; thus he says “deprive, of what? A line is here lost, that signified to deprive him of that right which his goddess Nature had given him. Warb.”

-1778 Tollet

mtol2 = warb

662 depriue . . . reason] Tollet (ms. notes in Heath, 1765, p. 531)

I believe that Tollet need not be listed among the commentators because he is simply citing the analogues from WARB; I don’t think it can be demonstrated that he encouraged Ste to include WARB because Ste does not include the analogues.

1774 capn

capn

662 depriue . . . reason] Capell (1774. 1:1:126) sees no reason for the mass of words expended on this line; it means simply “deprive you of the command of your reason, of that sovereignty which you now exercise over it.”

1778 v1778

v1778 = v1773

662 depriue . . . reason]

1785 v1785

v1785 = v1778

662 depriue . . . reason]

1785 Mason

Mason: warb +

662 depriue . . . reason] Mason (1785, p.378): “I think with Warburton that deprave was probably the right reading, and support it by a passage in Fletcher’s Little Thief, where Wid-brain, speaking of the Devil to Newlove, says, ‘Pray, come in quickly, For this is the malicious hour he walks in, The hour he blasts sweet faces, lames the limbs in; Depraves the senses.’”

1786 MR

Anon. (Pearce?)

662 your soueraigntie] Anon. [Pearce?] ( Monthly Review 75 [1786]: 166) in a review of Reed (ed. 1785) says, that “your —” is “a title . . . in the same manner as we now say , your highness; your excellence; your grace, &c. These titles were much more frequent formerly, than they are at present.” He includes their wisdoms, their amities, your modesty, your rhetoric [which he considers titles similar to your highness]. May not this give the true interpretation of a passage in [Ham. 662]? Horatio, advising Hamlet not to follow the Ghost, says ‘It may assume some other horrible which might deprive your sovereignty of reason.’”

1787 ann

ann = v1785

662 depriue . . . reason]

1790 mal

mal = v1785

662 depriue . . . reason]

1791- rann

rann ≈ Pearce without attribution

662 your . . . reason] Rann (ed. 1791-): “—your highness [ = you] of it, you of the command of it.”

1793 v1793

v1793 ≈ Heath def. + magenta underlined).

662 your . . . reason] Steevens (ed. 1793): “i.e. your ruling power of reason. When poets wish to invest any quality or virtue with uncommon splendor, they do it by some allusion to regal eminence, Thus, among the excellencies of Banquo’s character, our author distinguishes ‘his royalty of nature,’ i.e. his natural superiority over others, his independent dignity of mind. I have selected this instance to explain the former, because I am told that ‘royalty of nature’ has been idly supposed to bear some allusion to Banquo’s distant prospect of the crown.

“To deprive your sovereignty of reason, therefore does not signify to deprive your princely mind of rational powers, but, to take away from you that command of reason, by which man is governed.

v1793: deprive v1773 (including john1), warb, Lr. 14:32 n.7

662 deprive]

1793 v1793 Lr.

v1793 Lr.

662 soueraigntie] Steevens (ed. 1793, 14:32 n. 7): Edmund’s phrase “to deprive me” [Lr. 1.2.4 (338), means “disinherit.” The old dictionary (which one?) renders exbæredo [or exhæredo] by this word [deprive] : and Holinshed speaks of the line of Henry before deprived. Again, in Albion’s England, 1602. B. III. ch. xvi: ‘To you, if whom you have depriv’d ye shall restore again.’ Again, ibid: ‘The one restored, for his late depriving nothing mov’d.’ ”

Though he has the xref in Ham to this note, it does not seem particularly germane to Ham. Through Holinshed ref., this is the same note that is in v1773.

1793- mSteevens

mSteevens as in v1803

662 soueraigntie] Steevens (1793-) : “So in Chapman’s version of the first Iliad: ‘–I come from heaven to see Thy anger settled: if thy soul will use her soveraigntie In fit reflection.’”

1803 v1803

v1803 ≈ v1793 +

662 your . . . reason] Steevens (ed. 1803): “So, in Chapman’s version of the first Iliad: ‘—I come from heaven to see Thy anger settled: if thy soul will use her souveraigntie in fit reflection.’ ”

It seems that Steevens took up Chapman and used it at a few points in Ham.

1805 Seymour

Seymour ≈ Steevens v1793 without attribution

662 Seymour (1805, 2:157): “Incapacitate your governing or supreme intellect; strip it of its attributes.”

1813 v1813

v1813 = v1803

662 your . . . reason]

1816 Gifford

Gifford’s Jonson The New Inn 2.1 ≈ Pearce without attribution; contra Steevens; warb; john

662 your . . . reason] Gifford (1816, ed. Jonson, 5:352): “In Horatio’s adjuration to Hamlet not to follow the ghost, he urges, among other dissuasives, [quotes 658-63].

“This passage has proved a perpetual torment to the commentators—‘your sovereignty of reason,’ Steevens says, ‘is, your ruling power of reason!’ And then he proceeds with matchless gravity. ‘When poets wish to invest any quality or virtue with uncommon splendor, they do it by some allusion to regal eminence.’ — Warburton would read, deprave your sovereignty of reason—but it would be idle to produce more of this nature. The critics have stumbled over a difficulty raised by themselves; sovereignty here, as in the text, is merely a title of respect; and to deprive your sovereignty of reason, means neither more nor less, than deprive your lordship, or your honour, or your highness of reason. As if this was not enough, on a passage which it seems almost impossible to mistake, Dr. Johnson and Steevens disagree about the word deprive: the former ‘conceiving it to mean simply, take away,’ and the latter stoutly affirming it to signify disinherit!’ Is not this to turn criticism into the line of children!”

Here are the lines in BJ: The New Inn, 2.1

Host. Your ladyship and all your train are welcome.

Lady F. I thank my hearty host.

Host. So is your sovereignty.

The 1904 ed. of BJ by Cunningham repeats this note verbatim (2: 351).

1819 cald1

cald1

662 depriue . . . reason] Caldecott (ed. 1819) paraphrases: “ ‘Dispossess, displace, dethrone the sovereignty of your reason; the princely power of reason, seated in your mind.’ So that he throws his image forcibly before his reader, Shakespeare leaves it to him to arrange more than his pronouns and articles, and grammatically thread his meaning. ‘Nobility of love’ [Ham. 292, spoken by] King, is a similar phraseology.”

ECN 89, p. 33 The def. is not new, though newly phrased. He also has a remark about Sh’s grammar and creativity, which goes with that in 639. I put both in grammar doc.

-1821 mBoswell?

mBoswell?

662 depriue . . . sovereignty] Anon (ms. notes, Malone, ed. 1790): “vol. 8. p. 506 for [Lr. 1.2.4 (338)]

provides a xref..

1821 v1821

v1821 = v1803 + warb as it appears in john1 with the addition of own before soul.

662 depriue . . . reason]

1826 sing1

sing1: ≈ Heath, cap, Steevens v1793, cald1 + // Mac.

662 depriue . . . reason] Singer (ed. 1826) “signifies to take from you or dispossess you of the command of reason. We have similar instances of raising the idea of virtues or qualities by giving them rank in Banquo’s ‘royalty of nature,’ and even in this play we have ‘nobility of love,’ and ‘dignity of love.’ ”

1832 cald2

cald2 = cald1

662 depriue . . . reason]

1839 knt1

knt1: Pearce by way of rann? cald2, warb on King Charles without attribution.

662 depriue . . . reason] Knight (ed. 1839): “This is generally interpreted, and we think justly, ‘would displace the sovereignty of your reason.’ King Charles in the ‘Icon Basilike,’ has the precise expression in this sense:—‘At once to betray the sovereignty of reason in your own soul.’ But Gifford, in a Note on Ben Jonson’s New Inn [5:352] gives a more prosaic interpretation to the passage:—‘The critics have stumbled over a difficulty raised by themselves. Sovereignty is merely a title of respect.’ ”

1845 Hunter

Hunter: Gifford +

662 depriue . . . reason] Hunter (1845, 2:223): “There is a very arrogant note of Mr. Gifford’s, in his edition of the Works of Ben Jonson, on this passage, Vol. v. p. 352; the effect of which is, that we are to consider ‘your sovereignty’ as equivalent to ‘your honour,’ or ‘your lordship.’ But we want authority for this use of ‘sovereignty;’ that if the Host, in the scene of The New Inn, the play on which he was commenting, who spoke in jest, not being sufficient. Besides, it would be inappropriate as addressed to Hamlet, who was no sovereign. When so many eminent persons have attempted to explain this passage and failed, I may be excused for suggesting that we ought to read ‘Which might deprive of sovereignty your reason,’ which gives a clear and consistent meaning.”

1853 Dyce

Dyce : Gifford

662 depriue . . . reason] Dyce (1953, pp. 137-8): <p. 137> “There seems to be no doubt that Gifford was wrong in supposing ‘sovereignty’ to be here ‘a title of respect;’ and that the meaning is—Which might take away the sovereignty of your reason (or, as Steevens explains it, ‘take away from you the command of reason, by which man is governed’).

“In a note on Beaumont and Fletcher, Works, ix. 272, I have shown that ‘deprive’ is used there, as it is here, in the sense of —take away. Compare also; ‘And now, this hand, that, with vngentle force Depryu’d his life, shall with repentant seruice Make treble satisfaction to his soule.’ The Tryall of Cheualry, 1605, sig. F 3. ‘For pitty, do not my heart blood deprive, Make me not childless,’ &c.’ Sylvester’s Du Bartas,—The Magnificence, p. 210, ed. 1641, (where the original has ‘Ne me priue du sang,’ &c.). ‘But yet the sharp disease (which doth his health deprive) With-holdeth in some sort his sense and his wit,’ &c. A Paradox against Liberty, from the French of Odet de la Nova, —ibid. p. 313. ‘In short, this day our scepter had depriv’d, Had I not,’ &c. The History of Judith, translated by Hudson,— ibid. p. 377.”

1853 Hunter

Hunter ≈ Hunter 1845, Gifford, Dyce, mcol1

662 depriue . . . reason] Hunter (1853, pp. 22-3): <p.22 >“A remark on a single passage in Hamlet, and I have done. [quotes 662] Mr. Dyce very properly disposes of the conjecture of </p. 22><p. 23> Mr. Gifford; but it is not quite clear how he would himself read the passage. I submit that the true reading is, ‘Which might deprive of sovereignty your reason.

“Mr. Collier’s manuscript-corrector here, as in many other places, where his aid is most wanted, affords us no assistance.” </p. 23>

1853- mEliot

mEliot = Walker minus all but gloss without attribution

662 depriue] Eliot (1853-): “depose?”

Her notes could have been written anything from 1832 on; or they may have been written over time. Walker is 1860.

1854 del2

del2

662 depriue . . . reason] Delius (ed. 1854): “to deprive = ‘rauben’ wird oft mit dem Accusativ der Sache construirt; hier ist die beraubte Person aus dem your zu suppliren: ‘euch die Herrschaft der Vernunft rauben.’” [ to deprive meaning ‘to rob’ is often constructed with the accusative direct object. Here the deprived person is supplied by your, ‘to rob you of the sovereignty of reason.]

1856 hud1

hud1 = sing1

662 sovereignty

ck attribution

hud1 = v1821

662 depriue

1856 sing2

sing2 = sing1

662 depriue . . . reason]

1858 col3

col3 see VN, above, from which I derive a VN in the narrative

662 depriue . . . reason]

1860 Walker

Walker: Dyce

662 depriue . . . reason] Walker (1860, 3: 261-2): <p. 261>“Deprive, i.e., depose reason from her throne in your mind; deprive being here being synonymous with depose. 1 Ford, Broken Heart, iv. 2, Moxon, p. 65, col. 2,— </p. 261><p. 262> ‘—some angry minister of fate hath Deposed the empress of her soul, her reason, From its most proper throne.” </p. 262>

Lettsom: john +//s and analogues, contra Gifford

<n. 1> <p. 261>

662 your soueraigntie of reason] Lettsom (in Walker , 1860, 3: 261-2 n. 1): “1According to Mr. Dyce, in his note to Maid in the Mill, iv. 3, line 8, ‘deprives’ (in this passage of Hamlet) simply means ‘takes away.’ I have observed two examples of this use of the word in [Luc. ] clxx,— ‘’Tis honour to deprive dishonour’d life’; </p. 261><p. 262> the other ccli,—‘That life was mine which thou hast here depriv’d.’ Add Woman Kill’d with Kindness, Dodsley vol. vii, p, 261,—‘Fear, hunger, sorrow, cold, all threat my death, And join together to deprive my breath.’ Marston, Antonio & Mellida, Part i. III. i, Old English Plays, vol. ii, p. 145,—‘—Alas, what country rests, What son, what comfort that she (Fortune) can deprive?’ Johnson understood the sense of the word, but gave no example of it. Gifford misunderstood it.— Ed.” </p. 262> </n. 1>

1860 stau

stau : Gifford by way of Dyce or Lettsom?; warb by way of v1821 (see below)

662 depriue . . . reason] Staunton (ed. 1860): “Gifford was mistaken in assuming that ‘your sovereignty’ was here merely a title of respect like ‘your lordship,’ applied to Hamlet. To deprive your soveriegnty of reason, means to dethrone or displace your powers of reason. Warburton cites a passage from [Icon Basilike], where the precise expression occurs: ‘At once to betray the soveraignty of reason in my own soul.”

Note that stau adds own to the quotation and so does v1821. I suspect, therefore, that stau went no further than v1821 for his warb.

1865 hal

hal : john and Steevens (1793) without attribution + in magenta underlined

662 depriue . . . reason] Halliwell (ed. 1865): “Deprive, that is, take away. ‘I deprive, I take away a thyng from one,’ Palsgrave, 1530. The meaning is, which might take away the sovereignty of your reason, the command of reason by which man is governed. ‘The naturall proneness of youth to irregular liberty is such, as it is ever suggesting matter of innovation to the soveraigntie of reason,’ Braithwait’s English Gentlemen, 1630.”

Ed. note: He adds Palsgrave and Braithwait.

1868 c&mc

c&mc ≈ capn without attribution

662 depriue] Clarke & Clarke (ed. 1868): “here used elliptically (as Shakespeare uses some verbs) to express ‘deprive you of’ . . . .”

c&mc

662 soueraigntie of reason] Clarke & Clarke (ed. 1868): “signifies ‘pre-eminence of reason,‘ ‘exaltation of reason,’ ‘elevated quality of reason.’”

1870 Abbott

Abbott

662 depriue] Abbott (§ 200): “The preposition is omitted after some verbs which can easily be regarded as transitive. Thus if we can say ‘plot my death,’ there is little difficulty in the licence. . . . [quotes 515] . . . .

“‘Deprive,’ meaning ‘take away a thing from a person,” like ‘rid,’ can dispense with ‘of’ before the impersonal object. . . . This explains how we should understand — [quotes 662]. i,e, ‘which might take away your controlling principle of reason.’ . . . .”

Abbott

662 depriue] Abbott (§ 290): “Verbs, transitive (formation of).”

Furness refers readers to Abbott §290 on “the tendency to convert neuter verbs into active verbs; he may mean 291, “Sometimes an intransitive verb is converted into a transitive verb.”

Abbott

662 your soueraigntie of reason] Abbott (§ 423): “Transpositions in Noun-clauses containing two nouns connected by ‘of.’ It has been observed in 412 that two nouns connected by ‘of’ are often regarded as one. Hence sometimes pronominal and other adjectives are placed before the whole compound noun instead of, as they strictly should be, before the second of the two nouns. . . . [quotes 2964 “‘His means of death’ i.e. ‘the means of his death’”; 2207, 662]”

1870 rug1

rug1: standard

662 Moberly (ed. 1870): “Which might take from you your noble control of reason.”

1872 cln1

cln1: Lettsom + in magenta underlined

662 depriue] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “here used with the accusative of the thing, not, as usual, of the person. Lettsom quotes Lucrece, 1186: ‘’Tis honour to deprive dishonour’d life.’ And 1752: ‘That life was mine which thou has here deprived.’”

cln1: standard gloss + xref

662 your . . . reason] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “ . . . compare ‘your cause of distemper’ in [2207]. ”

1872 hud2

hud2 ≈ hud1

662 your . . . reason] Hudson (ed. 1872): government of reason instead of hud1 command of reason.

1873 rug2

rug2 = rug1

662

1875 Ingleby

Ingleby: Lettsom without attribution on Luc. //s; Dyce on def. without attribution; Hunter + in magenta underlined

662 depriue . . . reason] Ingleby (1875, pp. 92-3): <p. 92>“Some of the obscurities in Shakespeare’s text arise from the consilience of two sources of perplexity. Here is one example, in which a word employed in an obsolete sense forms part of a phrase which is iteself of peculiar construction. . . . The verb deprive is at present used with the same construction as bereave or rob; but in Shakespeare it corresponds to our ablate. [to take away]. Thus in Lucrece, st. clxx: ‘’Tis honour to deprive dishour’d life.’ And again in st. ccii.: ‘That life was mine which thou hast here depriv’d.’ But the passage from Hamlet contains yet another source of perplexity, viz., to ‘deprive your soveraignty of reason,’ i.e., to </p. 92><p. 93> deprive the sovereignty of your reason; or, as we should more naturally say, to deprive your reason of its sovereignty:* in view of which the Rev. Joseph Hunter (Few Words) proposed to transpose ‘your’ and ‘of.’ In defnse of the original text, take the following from a letter of Sir Thomas Dale, 1616 (the year of Shakespeare’s death). He calls Virginia ‘one of the goodliest and richest kingdowms in the world, which being inhabited by the king’s subjects, will put such a bit into our ancient enemy’s mouth as will curb his hautiness of monarchy.’” </p. 93>

He does not explain what the expression means. No wonder his work had to be 2x revised and corrected and expanded.

1877 v1877

v1877: john, Walker 3:261; Dyce B&F from Lettsom, probably; Lettsom, Abbott § 200, § 290, xref Ham. 515, on absence of prep. with verb

662 depriue]

v1877: warb, capn 1:126, Steevens, Gifford, ‡Hunter, cald, Abbott § 423, including xrefs and Mac. //. Furness also paraphrases only the ex. that Abbott does.

662 your . . . reason]

1881 hud3

hud3 ≈ hud2 minus (//s, substituting generalization)

662 your soueraigntie of reason] Hudson (ed. 1881): “The word was often used thus.”He has depose your government in addition to hud2’s take away from you the government

1883 wh2

wh2

662 depriue . . . reason] White (ed. 1883): “a reckless inversion, for rhythm’s sake, of ‘deprive your reason of sovereignty’ as in Sonnet CXXVI, ‘Time’s fickle glass, his sickle hour’); or else an almost equally reckless use of ‘deprive’ to mean take away.”

1885 macd

macd

662 soueraigntie] MacDonald (ed. 1885): “soul: so in [Rom. 5.1.3 (2725)]:—‘My bosom’s lord sits lightly in his throne.”

1899 ard1

ard1: warb; han; Lettsom; cald +

662 depriue . . . reason] Dowden (ed. 1899): “In the History of Hamblet, iv., ‘deprive himself’ means lose the right to the throne.”

1913 Trench

Trench

662-3 Trench (1913, p. 86) thinks that Horatio may have planted the seed for Hamlet’s decision to put on an antic disposition, a tendency that Hamlet had already exhibited in any case.

1936 cam3b

cam3b

662 Wilson (ed. 1936, rpt. 1954, add. notes): “This warning prepares us for Ham.’s ‘distemper’ after the interview in the next scene.”

1938 parc

parc

662 depriue . . . reason] Parrott & Craig (ed. 1938): “destroy the sovereignty of your reason.”

1939 kit2

kit2 ≈ stau without attribution

662 depriue . . . reason] Kittredge (ed. 1939): "take away that soveriegn control which your reason exercises over you; dethrone your reason."

1947 cln2

cln2: standard

662 depriue . . . reason] Rylands (ed. 1947): "dethrone your reason."

1957 pel1

pel1: standard

662 depriue] Farnham (ed. 1957): “take away.”

pel1: standard

662 soueraigntie of reason] Farnham (ed. 1957): “state of being ruled by reason.”

1957 pen1b

pen1b

662 soueraigntie of reason] Harrison (ed. 1957): “rule of reason.”

1970 pel2

pel2 = pel1

662 depriue] Farnham (ed. 1970): “take away”

pel2 = pel1

662 soueraigntie of reason] Farnham (ed. 1970): “state of being ruled by reason”

1980 pen2

pen2

662 your . . . reason] Spencer (ed. 1980): “your reason of its control over you.”

1982 ard2

ard2: //; xref; analogues; Abbott

662 depriue . . . reason] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “Not, of course, take reason away from your sovereignty, but take your sovereignty of reason away. In this use of deprive the direct object is the thing taken away, not, as in the more familiar construction (as at 3442), the person dispossessed. Cf. Luc. 1186, 1752 (’That life. . . which thou hast here deprived’). With your sovereignty of reason cf. 2207, ’your cause of distemper’ for ’the cause of your distemper’ (Abbott 423). Yet it seems better to regard your as qualifying the whole phrase sovereignty of reason, which refers to the proper condition of man in which reason is supreme. Cf. Eikon Basilike, ’to betray the sovereignty of reason in my soul’. Bright (p. 61) insisting that the body and vital spirits are subject to ’the mind’s commandment’, adds that nature ’commandeth only by one sovereignty: the rest being vassals at the beck of the sovereign commander’. This ’sovereignty’ belongs to reason, to which the epithet ’sovereign’ is therefore applied. See 1813. Cf. Par. Lost, 9: 1127-30 (after the Fall): ’Under standing rul’d not, . . . in subjection now To sensual Appetite, who . . . over sovran Reason claim’d Superior sway.’ ”

1985 cam4

cam4

662 Edwards (ed. 1985): "take away the sovereignty (supremacy) of your reason."

1987 oxf4

oxf4

662 depriue . . . reason] Hibbard (ed. 1987): "i.e. dethrone your reason from its proper sovereign place in your mind."

1988 bev2

bev2: standard

662 depriue . . . reason] Bevington (ed. 1988): “take away the rule of reason over your mind.”

1992 fol2

fol2

662 depriue your soueraigntie of reason] Mowat & Werstine (ed. 1992): “depose reason as ruler of your mind”

2004 DiMatteo

DiMatteo: sources, Aristotle, Cicero, Greek literature,

662, 1813 DiMatteo (2004, para 34-6): “Two passages of Hamlet that couple sovereignty and reason are linked to how others perceive a danger or change in Hamlet’s identity. One could trace back to classical sources the origin of Ophelia’s phrase ’noble and most sovereign reason’ [1813] said as part of her lament for Hamlet’s apparent madness. This ancient idea of wisdom as sovereign comprises what Aristotle called in The Politics the highest intellectual abilities of man making him fit for the good life, the quality of mind he termed synderesis and Cicero ratio recta. . . . Hamlet’s madness to Ophelia implies the loss of the best any state could hope for. A cultural and political ideal of the leader as the very best of men, the bedrock concept of natural law, is in grave peril.

“The other phrasing of this ancient idea in Hamlet comes in Act 1, Scene 4, when Horatio warns Hamlet of a loss of his reason or ’your sovereignty of reason’ [662] As does Ophelia’s speech, this passage asks us to consider the ancient idea of man’s sovereignty based on his reason in the context of a loss and threat to it. With both speakers crying out against this demise, these two passages suggest that Shakespeare is taking up an ancient function of poetry to warn and cry out against princely aspirations and dominion that inevitably come to naught—or worse— in the face of mortality, loss of reason and death. The play in these and other ways is a mirror for sovereigns, the reason why allusions to Hercules, Aenes and Alexander, for example, are numerous especially in how Hamlet thinks of himself.

. . . . Hamlet, [is] the one deprived of reason’s sovereignty (Jenkins [ard2] 453). In other words, a traditional phrasing would attribute sovereignty to reason and not reason to sovereignty, but Shakespeare’s wording for a brief moment envisions a sovereignty without reason.

“I would like to venture here that ’your sovereignty of reason’ would have a special resonance in late Elizabethan culture. . . . The fact that the dramatic context of the phrase ’your sovereignty of reason’ would have a special resonance in late Elizabethan culture. . . . The fact that the dramatic context of the phrase in [662 and 1813] is one of threat, lamentation and grief suggests that the play is sounding a threnodic note for a form of reason or conception of human governance losing out in contemporary European elite or ’princely’ culture.”

Ed. note: See DiMatteo in 3668-9, and the URL for his complete essay in the alphabetical bibliography.

2006 ard3q2

ard3q2

662 depriue . . . reason] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “Editors gloss ’deprive you of the rule or supremacy of reason’, but a modern ear or eye also understands ’deprive your highness of your reason’.”