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

Line 104 - 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.

104 Well ratified by lawe and {heraldy} <Heraldrie,>	1.1.87

1746 Upton

Upton: Virgil; Ant.; Spenser

104 lawe and heraldy] Upton (1746, p. 308): “He [Sh.] sometimes expresses one thing by two substantives; which the rhetoricians call ‘hen dia duoin’[hendiadys, literally “one by means of two”]. As Virgil. ‘Patera libamus et auro, i.e. patris aureis [We will drink from a shallow dish and gold, i.e. literally from a golden dish]. In [Ant. 4.2.43 (2464)] ‘I hope well of to morrow, and will lead you Where rather I’ll expect victorious life, Than death and honour,’ i.e., honourable death. So Spencer [F.Q. 2.7.42]. ‘Soon as those glitter and arms he did espy. i.e. those glittering arms.’”

1747 warb

warb

104 lawe and heraldy] Warburton (ed. 1747): “The subject spoken of is a duel between two monarchs, who fought for a wager, and entered into articles for the just performance of the terms agreed upon. Two sorts of law then were necessary to regulate the decision of the affair: the Civil Law, and the Law of Arms; as, had there been a wager without a duel, it had been the civil law only; or a duel without a wager, the law of arms only. Let us see now how our author is made to express the sense. ‘a seal’d compact Well ratified by law and heraldry.’ Now law, as distinguished from heraldry, signifying the civil law, it is as much to say, An act of law well ratified by law, which is absurd. For the nature of ratification requires that which ratified, and that which is ratified, should not be one and the same, but different. For these reasons, I conclude Shakespear wrote, ‘—who by seal’d compact Well ratified by law of heraldry.’ i.e. the execution of the civil compact was ratified by the law of arms; which, in our author’s time, was called the law of heraldry. So the best and excellent speaker of that age: In the third kind, [i.e. of the Jus gentium] the law of heraldry in war is positive, &c. Hooker’s Ecclesiastical Polity.”

Ed. note: warb’s reasoning is that “seal’d compact” (TLN 103) is a law and it cannot be ratified by a law. warb explains seal’d compact as civil law, and law in the next line as civil law also. So he changes and to of. He also explains law of heraldry as law of arms; since both a wager (civil matter) and a duel (regulated by the law of arms) are involved, “[t]wo sorts of law then were necessary to regulate the decision of the affair....” See Heath for a contrary view.

-1760 mBrowne

mBrowne: warb

104 lawe and heraldy] Browne(TrinityCollege, Cambridge Ms 0.12.5755, -1760): “i.e. warranted by, or agreeable to the Civil Law and to the Law of Arms; Mr. Warb. objects to this reading, “That Law as distinguished for Heraldry, signifying the Civil Law; and this seald compact by a Civil Law act, it is as much as to say, an act of Law well ratify’d by Law, which is absurd for the nature of ratification requires that which [is] ratified, and that which is ratify’d, though not be one and the same, but different.” He therefore concludes Shakespeare wrote—by Law of Heraldry—i.e. “the execution of the Civil Compact was ratify’d by the Law of Arms.” But here Mr. W. has made a great mistake here in supposing, a compact by an act of Civil Law and of Civil Law itself, to be one and the same thing; and if they are not one and the same thing, there is an end of the absurdity of supposing the one of them may be ratify’d or warranted by the other. But there are undoubtedly many compacts, not only seald as Shakespeare expresses it, but executed in all the forms of the Civil Law, and in the sense ask[?] of the Civil Law, which yet because they are not agreeable to the Rules of the Civil Law, are not satisfyed or warranted by it, as where either of them partys to the Compact are—and any Legal incapacity[?] to contract, or where they have no power by Law to dispose of the thing they undertake.—to dispose of, or where by the subject matter of their agreement, is contrary to Law, in all the Taxes[?] Compacts however Legal in Form are yet not ratify’d by Law; it is therefore with great accuracy that Shakespeare here speaking of this Compact and in support of it, says that it was agreeable by and of Civil Law as well as by and of Law of Arms—Whereas by Mr. W.’s emendation, the Compact will have nothing to support it but the authorship of the Law of Arms; thus, in Mr. W’s opinion the function of both Laws is necessary—”

1765 Heath

Heath: warb +

104 lawe and heraldy] Heath (1765, pp. 520-1): <p.520> “Mr. Warburton himself instructs us, that ‘two sorts of law were necessary to regulate the decision of the affair here spoken of, the civil law for the wager, and the law of arms for the duel.’ Yet, in direct contradiction to his own assertion, he presently after tells us,‘ the execution of the civil compact was ratified by the law of arms.’ What he means by the execution being ratified doth not clearly appear, nor is it worth our enquiry. It is sufficient that the common reading, ‘—who by seal’d compact, Well ratified by law and heraldry,’ fully justifies its own authenticity, upon the very principles established by Mr. Warburton himself. Indeed, upon second thoughts, which in this instance were certainly none of the wisest, he takes great pains to prove, that this compact could not be ratified by the civil law. His reason, which is both pleasant and curious, is this; ‘a sealed compact is an act of the civil law; now, an act of law well ratified by law is absurd; for the nature of ratification requires that which ratifies, and that which is ratified, should not be one and the same, but different.’ The result of which most extraordinary reasoning is, that no compact, or other legal transaction, in which the established forms and rules of law have been strictly complied with, can be ratified, that is, made valid and binding, by that law. And thus, Mr. Warburton with one dash of his pen hath effectually invalidated all obligations, contracts and </p. 520> <p. 521> conveyances, made according to the forms prescribed by that law which is to give them their legal force and effect. A most wonderfully ingenious discovery, for which the lawyers will no doubt think themselves highly obliged to him.” </p. 521>

1765 john1

john1 = warb

104 lawe and heraldy]

1773 v1773

v1773 = john1; Upton +

104 lawe and heraldy] Farmer (ed. 1773, App. 10:Qq4r) “Puttenham in his Art of Poesie, speaks of the Figure of Twynnes,‘ horses and barbes, for barbed horses, venim & Dartes, for venimous Dartes, &c.”

1773- mstv1

mstv1: Farmer

104 lawe and heraldy]

1774 capn

capn

104 lawe and heraldy] Capell (1774, 1.1:122) “meaning—the common law of those countries, and the law of arms; both ratifiers of the “compact” in questions, the forms of both having been duly observ’d in the making it.”

1778 v1778

v1778 = v1773

104 lawe and heraldy]

1785 Mason

Mason ≈ warb in part without attribution

104 lawe and heraldy] Mason (1785, p. 372): “That is, according to the forms of law and heraldry. When the right of property was to be determined by combat, the rules of heraldry were to be attended to as well as those of law.”

1785 v1785

v1785 = v1778

104 lawe and heraldy]

1787 ann

ann = v1785 minus warb

104 lawe and heraldy]

1790 mal

mal = v1785 +

104 lawe and heraldy] Malone (ed. 1790):“i.e., to be well ratified by the rules of law, and the forms prescribed jure feciali; such as proclamation, &c. Malone.”

1791- rann

rann: standard

104 lawe and heraldy] Rann (ed. 1791-): “according to the forms of law and heraldry.”

1793 v1793

v1793 = Malone; Mason.

104 lawe and heraldy]

Ed. note: Steevens (v1793) slyly puts Malone’s comment after Mason’s, with an i.e., as if Malone were intent on explicating Mason. v1803 keeps that order; Steevens does not cite warb or capn.

1803 v1803

v1803 = v1793

104 lawe and heraldy]

1807 Pye

Pye = v1793 +

104 lawe and heraldy] Pye (1807, p. 309): “The sense of this passage is so obvious, that I should have marked Mr. Malone’s note with my signs of admiration!!!had not the wisdom of his colleagues made it necessary.”

1813 v1813

v1813 = v1803

104 lawe and heraldy]

1819 cald1

cald1 = Upton [by way of Steevens ], Farmer +

104 lawe and heraldy] Caldecott (ed. 1819): “By St. 13 R.II.c.2, the court of Chivalry has ‘cognizance of contracts, touching the deeds of arms or of war, out of the realm. . . . See ‘leave and favour.’ [232] Laertes.”

1821 v1821

v1821 = v1813

104 lawe and heraldy]

1832 cald2

cald2 = cald1

104 lawe and heraldy]

1839 knt1

knt1: Upton; ≈ Mason without attribution

104 lawe and heraldy] Knight (ed. [1839]): “The solemn agreement for this trial at arms was recognized by the courts of law and of chivalry. They were distinct ratifications; and therefore ‘law and heraldry’ does not mean ‘the herald law,’ as Upton says.”

1854 del2

del2 : standard, two laws

104 lawe and heraldy] Delius (ed. 1854): “law ist das allgemein gültige, heraldry das beim ritterlichen Zweikampf, von dem hier den Rede ist, in Frage kommende Recht.” [law is for common civil conflict, heraldry the chivalric, of which latter the discussion centers.]

1857 elze1

elze1 ≈ del without attribution; warb

104 lawe and heraldy] Elze (ed. 1857) discusses the two kinds of law: civil law and the law of arms and then summarizes Warburton without comment.

1870 rug1

rug1 ≈ elze1 from 97 + standard gloss

104 lawe and heraldy] Moberly (ed. 1870): “Law would be wanted to draw up accurately the contract, heraldry to give it a binding force in honour; as the court of chivalry ‘has cognizance of contracts touching deeds of arms or of war out of the realm.”

1872 cln1

cln1: standard + in magenta underlined

104 lawe and heraldy] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “A kind of hendiadys, meaning ‘heraldic law,} ‘jus fetiale’.”

1872 hud2

hud2

104 heraldy] Hudson (ed. 1872): “refers to the forms and rules of procedure observed in private duels; ‘the code of honour,’ as it is called.”

Ed. note: This note differs from others because it does not explain the two terms.

1874 Schmidt

Schmidt

104 lawe] Schmidt (1874): “2) any rule of direction.”

Schmidt

104 lawe and heraldy] Schmidt (1874): “= by the law of h., cf. And.”

Schmidt

104 and] Schmidt (1874): “Very frequently notions, of which one is subordinate to the other, are joined by and, a rhetorical figure called [Grk. here] by grammarians. . . . ”

1877 v1877

v1877: cap; contra Steevens; Upton; cln1; rug2 +

104 lawe and heraldy] Furness (ed. 1877): “Steevens erroneously cites Upton as giving this phrase as an instance of hendiadys, meaning the heraldic law, which it may be possibly (but I doubt it; Clarendon says it’s a kind of hendiadys), but the only example Upton gives from Sh. is from [Ant. 4.2.44 (2465)].”

1878 rlf1

rlf1 = cln1; Schmidt; rug2

104 lawe and heraldy]

1881 hud3

hud3 ≈ hud2; Upton + //s

104 lawe and heraldy] Hudson (ed. 1881): “‘Law and heraldry’ is the same as ‘the law of Heraldry’; what is sometimes called ‘the code of honour.’ Private duels were conducted according to an established code, and heralds had full authority in the matter. The Poet has many like expressions. So in [MV 5.1.217 (2641)]: ‘I was beset with shame and courtesy’; which means ‘with the shame of discourtesy.’ Also in [Lr. 1.2.46 (382)]: ‘This policy and reverence of age makes the world bitter,’ &c.; ‘This policy, or practice, of reverencing age.’”

1899 ard1

ard1

104 heraldy] Dowden (ed. 1899): “Part of a herald’s duty was to regulate the forms connected with a challenge and combat of state importance.”

1903 rlf3

rlf3 = rlf1 minus cln1

104 lawe and heraldy]

1912 dtn3

dtn3 = rug2 (probably via v1877)

104 lawe and heraldy]

1913 tut2

tut2: standard

104 Goggin (ed. 1913): “‘made binding by the law of nations as well as by the law of honour and of arms.’ Some editors regard the words law and heraldry as a hendiadys equivalent to ‘the law of heraldry.’ It was part of a herald’s office to superintend and regulate public ceremonials, and combat under special condition.”

1917 yal1

yal1: standard +

104 lawe and heraldry] Crawford (ed. 1917): “Nobles who signed binding agreements were wont to have their coats of arms added to their signatures.”

1929 trav

trav: standard, with opinion

104 lawe and heraldy] Travers (ed. 1929) prefers a reading that differentiates between a “legal bond” and “the obligation, in point of honour, imposed by the nobler law of arms, of ‘heraldry.’”

1929 adam

adam: standard but full

104 by lawe and heraldy] Adams (ed. 1929): “by the formalities of civil law (with bonds, signatures, and seals), and by the Heraldic Court which governed matters of chivalry.”

1931 crg1

crg1 : standard

104 lawe and heraldy] Craig (ed. 1931): “civil law and also the courts of chivalry.”

1934 cam3

cam3 on Q2 spelling +

104 heraldy] Wilson (ed. 1934): “The older form; cf. Glossary. Tournaments and state combats were regulated by the Earl Marshall, head of the College of Heralds, and his staff. Cf. [R2 1.3.99 (396)].”

1938 parc

parc = cam3 without attribution +

104 heraldy] Parrott & Craig (ed. 1938): “The older form . . . occurs as late as the mid-eighteenth century and should be retained.

1939 kit2

kit2: standard; ≈ cam3 on Q2 spelling as an older form + in magenta underlined

104 lawe and heraldy] Kittredge (ed. 1939) sees the two as a hendiadys, “ . . . equivalent to what we call ‘international law.’”

1947 cln2

cln2 ≈ gog without attribution

104 lawe and heraldy] Rylands (ed. 1947): “legalized by covenant and obligations of honour in the law of arms.”

1957 pen1b

pen1b: standard

104 heraldy] Harrison (ed. 1957): “because the heralds were responsible for arranging formal combats of honour.”

1957 pel1

pel1: standard

104 lawe and heraldy] Farnham (ed. 1957): “law of heralds regulating combat.”

1970 pel2

pel2 = pel1: standard

104 lawe and heraldy] Farnham (ed. 1970): “law of heralds regulating combat”

1971 r&k

r&k

110-11 Ribner (ed. 1971) says the language emphasizes the legality of the Danish claim to the lands in question.

1980 pen2

pen2

104 Spencer (ed. 1980) notes that King Hamlet’s world is older than Claudius’s; the former relies on chivalric codes, the latter on diplomacy.

1982 ard2

ard2

104 lawe and heraldy] Jenkins (ed. 1982) sides with those who do not see hendiadys here but two separate kinds of law. See his n. 103.

1985 cam4

cam4 ≈ ard2 +

104 heraldy] Edwards (ed. 1985) points out that heraldy appears again in 1498.

1992 fol2

fol2: standard

104 heraldy] heraldry Mowat & Werstine (ed. 1992): “the law of arms, regulating tournaments and battles“

1994 OED

OED

104 heraldy] OED: has a separate listing for heraldy = heraldry, and shows its use from M.A. though 18thc. Heraldrie and Heraldry probably should not be distinguished (or if they are distinguished, their identity must be mentioned in the commentary notes.

2000 Edelman

Edelman

104 lawe] Edelman (2000) points out that the ‘law of arms and laws of war, though often used interchangeably, were “not completely synonymous. ‘Law of arms’ refers more to the laws of the duel and trial by combat, as in the title of Sir William Segar’s The Booke of Honor and Armes (1590), than the related subject of the ‘laws of war’ that govern the conduct of combatants.”