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

Line 2868 - 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 2023-2950 ed. Frank N. Clary

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

2868 There’s such diuinitie doth hedge a King,	4.5.124

1815 Becket

Becket: Xenophon analogue

2868 divinitie . . . King] Becket (1815, 1: 63): “See the dialogue of Xenophon entitled Hiero, beginning GREEK HERE; and in which Simonides says—‘The Gods have attached, as it were, to the person of a King, a certain grace, a certain virtue which makes us look on him not only with admiration but with awe.’”

1819 mclr2

mclr2

2868-70 There’s . . . will] Coleridge (ms. notes 1819 in Ayscough, ed. 1807; rpt. Coleridge, 1998, 12.4:856-7): <p. 856> “Proof, as indeed all else is, that Sh. never intended us to see </p. 856><p.857> the King with Hamlet’s Eyes—tho’ I suspect, the Managers have long done so.”</p. 857>

1819 cald1

cald1: xref.; Job, Jeremiah analogues

2868-70 There’s . . . will] Caldecott (ed. 1819): “Such divinity encompasseth about a king, that treason cannot distinctly see, cannot fully point its aim to its object.

“However, at first view, we may be led to think, that here either the language sinks under the ideas, or in dignity and even in decorum, the conception is no way adequate to the occasion, or the personage made to figure in the drama, this will, in part at least, be found to arise from our not being enough conversant with the phraseology of the day. Without instancing the use of words by different authors, and those treating different subjects, as appears from the word grunt, Ham. [3.1.76 (1731)]], it will be extremely hazardous to pronounce upon the fashionableness or vulgarity, upon the degree of estimation, in which any word or phrase was formerly had.

“The word hedge is used by the gravest writers upon the highest subjects: Satan, approaching the Deity, addresses him respecting Job, in these words. ‘Has thou not made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side?’ Job. I, 10.; and in III. 23. Job speaks of himself as a ‘man, whom (in another sense indeed) God hath hedged in;’ as in speaking of the Deity, the word is used in the Lament. of Jeremiah, III. 7.”

1832 cald2

cald2 = cald1 +

2868-70 There’s . . . will] Caldecott (ed. 1832): “It is not only worthy of observation, that the probable original reading here (that of the quartos) was wall; a term, which would give nothing of offence to the nicest modern ear, but was made to give place to hedge: a term , which we find . . . . Boswell enforces the maxim here laid down, by the observation of Chettle in his England’s Mourning Garment, and the undaunted carriage of Q. Eliz. who, on a shot striking a waterman on her barge near Greenwich, came forward, and said, “If the shot were made at her, they durst not shoot again: and she was, as all princes are or should be, so full of divine fulnesse, that guiltie mortalitie durst not behold her, but with dazzled eyes.”

1843 Macdonell

Macdonell

2868 Macdonell (1843, p. 44): “The divinity of kings, in our poet’s day, was maintained even with some degree of gravity. James the First, guided by that pedantry and superstition which render him, in the estimation of historians, as an individual altogether unqualified to direct the destinies of an empire, wrote a book to prove that kings governed their subjects by a right divine, a task worthy of the man, who was considered by Sully the most learned fool in Europe. Relying with too much confidence on the merits of this divinity, Charles, his son and successor, permitting himself to be swayed by the councils of ambitious prelates, and despotic statesmen, was plunged into those troubles which agitated the greater part of his reign, and which ultimately led to his decapitation, in spite of the weighty arguments of his royal father, and other authors of that age, who entertained such notions of kingly authority.”

1857 fieb

fieb

2868 hedge a King] Fiebig (ed. 1857): “There is so immediate an agency or influence of God, which does hedge a king, that, etc.—To hedge, properly to enclose with a hedge; to encircle for defence; to protect.”

1875 Marshall

Marshall

2868 such . . . King] Marshall (1875, pp. 78-79): <p.78> “One can hardly repress a smile at the idea of any divinity hedging such a remarkably valueless piece of ground (morally </p.78><p.79> speaking) as Claudius was; but there is no denying that if the respect he claimed was due to his office more than to himself, he acts the part of His Majesty to perfection; and no doubt, on the score of morality, he was not very far behind many of his royal prototypes in History.”

1877 v1877

v1877 ≈ Coleridge

2868-70 There’s . . . will] Furness (ed. 1877): “Coleridge: Proof, as indeed all else is, that Sh. never intended us to see the King with Hamlet’s eyes; though, I suspect, the managers have long done so.”

v1877=v1821

2868 diuinitie] Furness (ed. 1877): “Boswell: In Chettle’s Englandes Mourning Garment is the following anecdote of Queen Elizabeth: While her majesty was on the river near Greenwich, a shot was fired by accident, which struck the royal barge, and hurt a waterman near her. ‘The French ambassador being amazed, and all crying Treason Treason! yet she, with an undaunted spirit, came to the open place of the barge, and bad them never feare, for if the shnot were made at her, they durst not shoot againe: such majestie had her presence, and such boldnesse her heart, that she despised all feare, and was, as all princes are or should be, so full of divine fullnesse, that guiltie mortalitie durst not beholde her but with dazeled eyes.’”

v1877 ≈ cald1 (Job analogues only)

2868 hedge] Furness (ed. 1877): “Caldecott: See Job, i. 10; and iii, 23.”

1878 rlf1

rlf1: v1821 (for Chettle analogue)

2868 Rolfe (ed. 1878): “Boswell quotes from Chettle’s Englandes Mourning Garment the following anecdote of Queen Elizabeth: While her majesty was on the river near Greenwich, a shot was fired by accident which struck the royal barge, and hurt a waterman near her. ‘The French ambassador being amazed, and all crying Treason, Treason! yet she, with an undaunted spirit, came to the open place of the barge, and bad them never feare, for if the shot were made at her, they durste not shoote againe: such majesty had her presence, and such boldnesse her heart, that she despised all feare, and was, as all princes are or should be, so full of divine fullnesse, that guiltie moralitie durst not beholde her but with dazzled eyes.’”

rlf1: cald1 (Job analogues only)

2868 hedge] Rolfe (ed. 1878): “Caldecott refers to Job, 1. 10 and 3. 21.”

1885 macd

macd

2868 MacDonald (ed. 1885): “The consummate hypocrite claims the protection of the sacred hedge through which he had himself broken—or crept rather, like a snake, to kill. He can act innocence the better that his conscience is clear as to Polonius.”

1891 dtn

dtn

2868 hedge] Deighton (ed. 1891): “protect as with a hedge which cannot be passed or overleaped.”

1903 p&c

p&c

2868 such diuinitie] Porter & clarke (ed. 1903): “With reference to the title of Laertes, that of the false king was superior and might justify this fine sentiment, or else Shakespeare himself may be suspected of laughing at this kind of royal heroics, since he puts it in the mouth of the murderer.”

1903 rlf3

rlf3 = rlf1 for There’s . . . King

1904 ver

ver: R2, H5 //s

2868 There’s such diuinitie] Verity (ed. 1904): “The theory of the Divine Right of Kings is brought out more strongly in R2 than in any other play of Shakespeare. But the theory is an anachronism there. It grew up under the Tudors, especially Elizabeth, and reached its zenith under the Stuarts. Similarly the “imperial” conception of England glanced at twice in H5 (Prologues, 2.1.10-11 (472-3) and 5.1.30 [2880]) was essentially Tudor, having its origin in Henry VIII.’s breach with the Papacy and the Emperor. Shakespeare’s history was coloured by the conditions and views of his own day.”

1929 trav

trav: Belleforest analogue

2868 diuinitie] Travers (ed. 1929): “Cp. one of Belleforest’s additions, in Amleth’s speech to his mother: ‘les Roys sacrez, et qui soni les amis et compagnons des Dieux, et ceux qui representent leur majeste, et image.’”

1936 cam3b

cam3b ≈ trav (Chettle)

2868-9 There’s such . . . would] Wilson (ed. 1936): “Travers quotes from Chettle’s England’s Mourning Garment, 1603, a description of Q. Eliz.’s bearing after an attempt upon her life: ‘Such majesty had her presence, and such boldness her heart, that she despised all fear, and was, as all princes are or should be, so full of divine fullness that guilty mortality durst not behold her but with dazzled eyes.’”

1937 pen1

pen1

2868 Harrison (ed. 1937): “Spectators can hardly have failed to notice the parallel between this situation and what might have happened in Essex’s rebellion, had he succeeded in breaking into Whitehall Palace on 8th February, 1601. Queen Elizabeth was reported to have said, on hearing that Essex was winning, that He that placed her in that seat would preserve her in it, and that she wished to go with the troops against Essex ‘to see if ever a rebel of them durst show their faces against her’.”

1947 cln2

cln2

2868 There’s such diuinitie] Rylands (ed. 1947): “The idea of the Divine Right of Kings, which Shakespeare makes much of in RII, was encouraged by Queen Elizabeth and strongly held under the Stuarts.”

1953 Joseph

Joseph

2868-70 There’s . . . his will] Joseph (1953, p. 161): Sh. reminds us “for the first time that Claudius, usurper or not, is anointed, and, like the usurping dynasty in England’s Wars of the Roses, cannot be killed off with impunity: the issue is never of major importance in Hamlet, but the tone of the tragedy and our realization of the terrible position the Prince is in are deepened by this certainty, that, evil or not, the King cannot be killed without the risk of serious consequences.”

1958 mun

mun: Ovid analogue

2866 gyant like] Munro (ed. 1958): “Alludes to the rebellion of the giants against Jove: see Ovid, Metam., I 152 (Thomson: CL, 118).”

1980 pen2

pen2

2868 diuinitie] Spencer (ed. 1980): “(alluding to the doctrine of kings as divine representatives on earth, the Lord’s anointed). Claudius’s brave assertion of this doctrine in order to intimidate Laertes comes ironically from one who is himself a regicide.”

pen2

2868 hedge] Spencer (ed. 1980): “protect as with a rampart.”

1982 ard2

ard2: R2 //; Maid’s Trag. analogue, Chettle, MS Sloane, Figgis

2868-70 There’s such divinity . . . will] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “ln. Cf. R2 [3.2.47-57 (1403-12)], esp. ‘His treasons will sit blushing in his face, Not able to endure the sight of day, But self-affrighted tremble at his sin’; Beaumont and Fletcher, The Maid’s Trag. 3.13-41, ‘King: Draw not thy sword; thou know’st I cannot fear A subject’s hand . . . . Amintor: . . . There is Divinity about you that strikes dead My rising passions.’ Chettle gives an account of Queen Elizabeth, who, after a shot had struck her barge and all were crying ‘Treason’, ‘bade them never fear, for if the shot were made at her, they durst not shoot again: such majesty had her presence . . . that she . . . was as all princes are, or should be, so full of divine fullness, that guilty mortality durst not behold her but with dazzled eyes’ (England’s Mourning Garment, e2v-3). Curing the Essex rebellion she is reported to have said that ‘He that had placed her in that seat would preserve her in it’ (MS Sloane 718, fol. 26). For the political theory see J. N. Figgis, The Divine Right of Kings (1896).”

1984 chal

chal ≈ pen2 minus “Claudius . . . regicide.”

2868 Wilkes (ed. 1984): “referring to the doctrine that kings were God’s deputies, and so divinely protected.”

1984 klein

klein: R2 //; xref.

2868 Klein (ed. 1984): “This is the transcendental side of line 2843f. Antiquity and custom. The ’Divine Right of Kings’ belonged to the basic and at the same most problematic doctrines of the period, in reality as on the stage, cf. above all R2 (specifically 3.2.36-62 [1392-1417]). In Ham. this problem is not so central, but see [2567-74]. At this juncture even Claudius (the as yet undiscovered murderer of a king) represents the idea of monarchy in the face of the rebelling individual and the mass of the people.”

1988 bev2

bev2 ≈ dtn

2868 hedge] Bevington (ed. 1988): “protect as with a surrounding barrier.”

1993 dent

dent

2868-70 Andrews (ed. 1993): “A king, being God’s deputy on Earth, is so thoroughly surrounded with divine power that Treason can do no more than lift its head without having its will suppressed. In view of what ’Treason’ has done to Claudius’ predecessor, the King’s words are undercut by an irony that is lost on Laertes but not on the audience.”

2006 ard3q2

ard3q2: 2279-96 xref

2868 divinity. . . king] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “The king (outrageously) refers to the divine right which was seen as protecting monarchs; see 3.3.7-23 [2279-96].”

ard3q2

2868 hedge] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “surround, defend.”