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

Line 2656-57 - 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.

2656-7 Ham. The body is with the King, but the King is not \| with the {K2}

2657 body. The King is a thing{.} <—>	4.2.28

1747-53 mtby4

mtby4

2656 with the King] Thirlby (1747-53): “of kings [?].”

1765 john1/john2

john1/john2

2656-7 The body is . . . .the body] Johnson (ed. 1765): “This answer I do not comprehend. Perhaps it should be, The body is not with the King, for the King is not with the body.”

1765- mDavies

mDavies: see Davies 1784

2656-7 The body is . . . the body] [Davies] (ms. notes in Johnson, ed. 1765, opp. 8: 251): “H. The body is with ye King but the King is not with the body’ My Uncle has all ye outside shew & Pageantry of a King, but wants ye Dignity & Virtues wch constitute true Royalty —”

1773 jen

jen = john +

2656-7 The body is . . . the body] Jennens (ed. 1773): “Answer. The body, being in the palace, might be said to be with the king; though the king, not being in the same room with the body, was not with the body.”

1773 v1773

v1773 = john1 +

2656-7 The body is . . . the body] Steevens (ed. 1773): “Perhaps it may mean this. The body is in the king’s house (i.e. the present king’s) yet the king (i.e. he who should have been king) is not with the body. Intimating that the usurper is here, the true king in a better place. Steevens.”

1778 v1778

v1778 = v1773 +

2656-7 The body is . . . . the body] Steevens (ed. 1778): “Or it may mean—the guilt of the murder lies with the king, but the king is not where the body lies. The affected obscurity of Hamlet must excuse so many attempts to procure something like a meaning.”

1784 ays1

ays1 = john

1784 Davies

Davies: v1778; see mDavies 1765-

2656-7 The body is . . . . the body] Davies (1784, pp. 119-20): <p.119> “Hamlet, it should be observed, seizes every opportunity to speak contemptuously of his uncle; and here he readily embraces it, with a witty and sarcastic turn of expression. I cannot think Mr. Steevens’s explanation of this passage happy. Hamlet turns quickly, from the body of Polonius, to a severe and pointed reproach on the King: ‘My uncle,’ says he, ‘I grant you, has the body, the outside show and pageantry, of a monarch; but he wants the dignity and virtues which constitute true royalty.’ What he says, a </p.119><p.120> little after, by calling the King ‘a thing of nothing’ [2659], confirms me in my opinion.” </p.120>

1785 v1785

v1785 = v1778

1790 mWesley

mWesley: contra john, Steevens (v1785)

2656-7 Wesley (ms. notes in v1785): “(J. reads ‘The body is not with the King.’ S. explains ‘The guilt of the murder is with the King, but the King is not where the body lies’) This is the better idea. Johnson’s alteration is nothing worth.”

1790 mal

mal = v1785

1791- rann

rann

2656 with the king] Rann (ed. 1791-): “in the apartments of my usurping uncle, who is indeed invested with all the ensigns of royalty, but the essentials of a king do not accompany the regalia.”

1793 v1793

v1793 = v1785

1803 v1803

v1803 = v1793

1805 Seymour

Seymour

2656-7 The body is . . . the body] Seymour (1805, p. 193): “Rosencrantz had asked where the body was? meaning Polonius’s body; but Hamlet, under cover of his assumed madness, takes occasion to vent his satire against the king, and replies, ‘the body is with the king, but the king is not with the body, inferring, that the king possessed only the gross exterior of royalty, while the nobler part, the soul of it, was wanting—this seems to be connected with what follows.”

1807 Douce

Douce

2656-7 The body is . . . the body] Douce (1807, pp. 251-2): <p.251> “Hamlet’s riddle seems still unresolved. Can </p.251><p.252> this bee its meaning? Instead of giving a direct answer to the inquiry after the body of Polonius, he seizes the opportunity of venting his sarcasm against the king, by saying that the body, i.e. the external appearance or person of the monarch, is with his uncle; but that the real and lawful king is not in that body.” </p.252>

1813 v1813

v1813 = v1803

1815 Becket

Becket

2656-7 The body is . . . the body] Becket (1815, 1:62): “The answer of Hamlet is not in reference to the body of Polonius. His words are certainly to be considered as a covert allusion to the nefarious practices of the king. ‘Body’ is here, and according to the scriptural signification, reality. ‘The body is with the King,’ i.e. ‘Claudius is actually king: he has the reality, the power.’—‘But the king is not with the body,’ i.e. ‘Yet that power belongs not to him as lawful king: he has stolen the crown he possesses, and therefore, and in fact, the king, (for this is none) has not the reality.’ This, I think, is the conceit.”

1819 Jackson

Jackson

2656-7 The body is . . . the body] Jackson (1819, p. 356): “Hamlet plays on the word body; he means not the body of Polonius, but the collective body, the people: he therefore says, the body is with the king, because the king is the head of the people; but the king is not with the body, because, being a usurper, he is afraid to trust himself among the people; therefore, he is merely a thing, for he reigns not in the hearts of his subjects.”

1819 cald1

cald1

2656-7 The body is . . . the body] Caldecott (ed. 1819): “This may mean, ‘the king is not yet cut off from life and sovereignty: his carkass remains to the king; but the king is not with the body or carkass, that you seek: the king is not with Polonius.’

“But Hamlet, whose meaning is not merely to baffle these persons (not entitled to approach and question him with so little respect), but also to make allusions to matters, of which he could not, with prudence or safety to himself, speak openly, returns answers necessarily enigmatical.”

1821 v1821

v1821 = v1813

1826 sing1

sing1: contra john; v1773, Farmer

2656-7 The body is . . . the body] Singer (ed. 1826): “Hamlet affects obscurity. His meaning may be ‘The king is a body without a kingly soul, a thing—of nothing.’ Johnson would have altered ‘Of nothing’ to Or nothing; but Steevens and Farmer, by their superior acquaintance with our elder writers, soon clearly showed, by several examples, that the text was right.”

1832 cald2

cald2 = cald1 +

2656-7 The body is . . . the body] Caldecott (ed. 1832): “A more natural meaning is suggested; ‘The image raised, the impression made upon the King’s fears by the fate of Polonius makes his body or carcase present to the fancy of the king; who knew and has said that ‘it had been so with him, had he been there:’ but the King is not with the body, i.e. is not lying with Polonius, as Hamlet wished him to be, and would have said, had his situation made such an avowal safe.’

“Others interpret, plainly enough, if admissibly, ‘The body is with the king,’ i.e. intombed or in the other world with the late, the real king: but the King, i.e. he who now wears the Crown, the usurper, ‘is not with the body.’”

1854 del2

del2

2656-7 The body is . . . the body] Delius (ed. 1854): “Wie Hamlet immer die Worte, die an ihn gerichtet werden, zu verdrehen sucht durch ein geflissentliches Missverständniss, so thut er hier auch, als sei die Aufforderung, den Leichnam herauszugeben und zum König zu gehen, wie Eins und dasselbe gemeint, und erwiedert deshalb spitzfindig, indem er zwischen dem Leichnam und dem Könige unterscheidet.” [As he always does, here too Hamlet is distorting the words directed to him by deliberately misunderstanding them, as if the demand to give over the corpse and the summons to the king are the same, and he therefore answers with a hair-splitting distinction between the corpse and the king.]

1856 hud1 (1851-6)

hud1 ≈ sing1

2656-7 The body is . . . . the body] Hudson (ed. 1851-6 ): “Hamlet is purposely talking riddles, in order to tease and puzzle his questioners. The meaning of this riddle, to the best of our guessing, is, that the king’s body is with the king, but not the king’s soul: he’s a king without kingliness; ‘a king of shreds and patches.’ H.”

1856b sing2

sing2 = sing1 minus controversy summary (“Johnson . . .text was right.”)

1856+ msing

msing

2656-7 the King . . . the body] [Singer] (ms. notes in Singer, ed. ?): “may he not rather allude to the old maxim in civil law that ‘the king never dies’?”

1857 fieb

fieb: john, v1773

2656-7 body . . . body] Fiebig (ed. 1857): “Johnson, confessing not to comprehend this answer, says that perhaps it should be,—The body is not with the king, for the king is not with the body.—Steevens is of opinion, that perhaps it may mean this,—The body is in the king’s house, (i.e. the present king’s) yet the king (i.e. he who should have been king,) is not with the body; intimating that the usurper is here, the true king is in a better place. Or it may mean,—The guilt of the murder lies with the king, but the king is not where the body lies. The affected obscurity of Hamlet must excuse so many attempts to procure something like a meaning.”

1862 cham

cham: john, v1773, Anon. (QR)

2656-7 Carruthers & Chambers (ed. 1862): “Johnson said he could not comprehend this answer, but thought it might be, ‘The body is not with the king, for the king is not with the body.’ Steevens suggested that it might mean, the body is in the king’s house (that is, the present king’s), yet the king (that is, he that should have been king) is not with the body—intimating that the usurper is here, the true king in a better place. The anonymous critic in the Quarterly Review thinks there are two ways in which a meaning may be extracted: first, that Hamlet may, according to this custom, be playing upon words, and under the term of ‘the body’ may designate the king. The body of his uncle occupies the throne of Denmark, and in this sense the body is with the king; but he is a usurper, and therefore the king is not with the body. Another interpretation is this: By ‘the body is with the king,’ may be meant that the corpse of Polonius is in the king’s palace; and by ‘the king is not with the body,’ that the usurping murderer is not yet a corpse, as he deserves to be.”

1865 hal

hal = cald2

1868 c&mc

c&mc

2656-7 The body . . . the body] Clarke & Clarke (ed. 1868, rpt. 1878): “Hamlet is intentionally perplexing the courtierly spies, and keeping up their conviction of his insanity by these riddling replies. It appears to us that the underlying sense of what he here says is—‘Materiality and corporeal grossness characterise the king; but the king has no real or virtuous substance, no genuine matter in him: he is a thing of naught, a mere worthless nonentity.’”

1869 tsch

tsch

2656-7 The . . . body] Tschischwitz (ed. 1869): “Da H. die ideelle Wesenheit der Dinge stets von ihrer irdischen Erscheinung trennt, so antwortet er auf die Aeusserung: "Ihr müsst uns sagen, wo der Körper ist, und mit uns zum Könige gehn" ganz richtig, indem er body allgemein fasst: Der Körper ist beim Könige, d. h. er gehört zum Könige, aber der König, d. i. die majestas, gehört nicht zum Körper. H. hat auch hier wieder die Genugthuung, nicht verstanden und darum um so eher für wahnsinnig gehalten zu werden.” [Since Hamlet always separates the ideal character of things from their earthly appearance, he quite correctly answers the remark: you must tell us where the body is and go with us to the king by taking body in a general sense. The body is with the king, that is it belongs to the king, but the king, that is, the majesty does not belong to the body. Hamlet has here again the satisfaction of not being understood and therefore being so much sooner taken for insane.]

1870 rug1

rug1

2656-7 The body . . . body] Moberly (ed. 1870): “Apparently a sententious maxim from some political book. ’The body politic is joined with the king, yet the king is not to be considered part of the body politic, but a thing apart.’”

1872 hud2

hud2 = hud1 minus “ ‘a king . . . patches.’”

2656-7 The body . . . body] Hudson (ed. 1872): “Hamlet is talking riddles, in order to tease and puzzle his questioners. The meaning of this riddle, to the best of our guessing, is, that the king’s body is with the King, but not the King’s soul: he’s a King without kingliness.”

1872 cln1

cln1

2656 The body . . . King] Clark and Wright (ed. 1872): “Hamlet is talking nonsense designedly.”

1873 rug2

rug2 = rug1

1874 Tyler

Tyler: xref.

2656-7 Tyler (1874, pp. 21-2): <p.21> “In the words I have italicized ‘with’ cannot denote nearness or local contiguity. This, I think, may be certainly affirmed. Shakespeare, as it seems to me, affords us a clue to his meaning by making Hamlet say, ‘the king is a thing of nothing.’ Probably the sense is to be given after this manner: ‘The body is, like the king, a thing of nothing: therefore it is with the king in its worthlessness.’ But worthlessness is the only quality you can predicate of the body; for such material qualities as weight appear to be excluded. The body is not, as yet, offensive, though a month hence ‘you shall nose him as you go up the stairs to the lobby’ [4.3.36-7 (2697-8)]. But the King possesses other qualities </p.21><p.22> besides worthlessness; he possesses, for example, active malignity. But in these other qualities the King is not with the body; and so the King as a whole, being a congeries of qualities, ‘the king is not with the body,’ though at the same time, as already said, ‘the body is with the king’ in its one quality—worthlessness.” </p.22>

1877 v1877

v1877 = john, jen (minus “This answer . . . Answer.”), v1778, Douce, cald2, sing1, Elze, hud2, rug + magenta underlined

2656-7 The body . . . body] Furness (ed. 1877): “Johnson: This answer I do not comprehend. Perhaps it should be,— The body is not with the King, for the King is not with the body. Jennens: The body, being in the palace, might be said to be with the King; though the King, not being in the same room with the body, was not with the body. Steevens: Perhaps this— The body is in the King’s house (i.e. the present King’s), yet the King (i.e. he who should have been king) is not with the body. Intimating that the usurper is here, the true king in a better place. Or it may mean—the guilt of the murder lies with the King, but the king is not where the body lies. Douce: The body, i.e. the external appearance or person of the monarch, is with his uncle; but that the real and lawful king is not in that body. Caldecott: The king is not yet cut off from life and sovereignty: his carcase remains to the King; but the King is not with the body or carcase, that you seek; the king is not with Polonius. But Hamlet’s answers are necessarily enigmatical. A more natural meaning is suggested; The image raised, the impression made upon the King’s fears by the fate of Polonius, makes his body or carcase present to the fancy of the King; who knew and has said that ‘it had been so with him had he been there’; but the King is not with the body, i.e. is not lying with Polonius. Others interpret, plainly enough, if admissibly: ‘The body is with the King, i.e. intombed, or in the other world with the late, the real king; but the King, i.e. he who now wears the crown, the usurper, is not with the body. Singer: It may mean ‘The King is a body without a kingly soul, a thing—of nothing. Elze agrees with Eschenburg’s explanation: The corpse is here with the Kng, but the King is not with it, i.e. he is as yet no corpse. Hudson: The meaning of this intended riddle, to the best of my guessing, is: The King’s body is with the King, but not the Kng’s soul: he’s a King without kingliness. Moberly: Apparently a sententious maxim from some political book. ‘The body politic is joined to the King, yet the King is not to be considered part of the body politic, but a thing apart.’ [The present editor agrees with Clarendon, that Ham. is talking nonsense designedly.]”

1877 neil

neil ≈ cln1 (Psalm analogue) (see n. 2559); other biblical analogues

2657-9 The King . . . Of nothing] Neil (ed. 1877): “Hamlet, on being presumptuously interrupted by Guildenstern, completes his sentence by the tag of an old proverb, founded on Scripture, Amos, vi, 13; Fer. xiv, 14; Isa. xxix, 20, xli, 21; Psalm cxliv, 4 (Prayer-Book version): ‘Man is like a thing of naught.’”

1878 rlf1

rlf1 ≈ cln1 without attribution

2656 The body . . . . thing] Rolfe (ed. 1878): “If this is not meant to be nonsense, the commentators have made nothing else of it.”

1879 Herr

Herr: contra rlf1

2656-7 The body . . . . thing] Herr (1879, p. 125): “Of Hamlet’s reply, Rolfe remarks: ‘If this is not meant to be nonsense, the commentators have made nothing else of it.’ The answer has reference to the body of Polonius and is evidently but a slight equivocation or play on the words. Throughout this scene Hamlet has ‘put an antic disposition on,’ and is talking oddly in order to baffle all questioning, but yet expresses himself with an undercurrent of truth and sense. I would suggest as the proper interpretation, (required to be carried in the mind of the reader) that the meaning may perhaps be such as the accompanying interpolations denote: ‘The body is with the king (of Heaven), but the king (of Denmark) is not with the body.’ This view is confirmed further on, in [4.3.32-5 (2694-7)]: ‘King—Where is Polonius? Hamlet—In heaven; send thither to see: if your messenger find him not there, seek him I’ the other place yourself.’”

1881 hud2

hud3= hud2 + magenta underlined

2656-7 The body . . . body] Hudson (ed. 1881): “Hamlet is talking riddles, in order to tease and puzzle his questioners. The meaning of this riddle, to the best of our guessing, is, that the king’s body is with the King, but not the King’s soul: he’s a King without kingliness. Perhaps, however, the passage should be regarded simply as a piece of intentional downright nonsense.”

1883 wh2

wh2

2656-7 The body . . . body] White (ed. 1883): “Hamlet keeps up his semblance of madness.”

1883 Kinnear

Kinnear: xref; AWW //

2656-7 The body . . . body] Kinnear (1883, p. 407-8): “i.e. the externals of royalty are with the king, but the kingly spirit is not with the externals, &c. Compare [3.4.100-2 (2479-83)]. Hamlet has just said (line 25) [cites 2652-3] </p.407><p.408> Hamlet, in his assumed madness, speaks his thoughts, though not intelligibly to those he addresses. Helen did the same in the company of Parolles. See AWW [0000] Note (3).”

1885 macd

macd

2656-7 The body . . . body] MacDonald (ed. 1885): “‘The body is in the king’s house, therefore with the king; but the king knows not where, therefore the king is not with the body.””

1888 bry

bry ≈ v1773 without attribution

2656-7 Bryant (ed. 1888): “A difficult passage in which Hamlet is supposed to affect obscurity, with a reference to the king his father and the usurper.”

1890 irv2

irv2: v1877; ≈ jen

2656-7 The body . . . body] Symons (in Irving & Marshall, ed. 1890): “See Furness’ Variorum Ed. p. 316, for various conjectures as to Hamlet’s meaning in this dark paradox. If any explanation is required, perhaps Jennens’s is as good as any: the body, being in the palace, might be said to be with the king; though the king, not being in the same room with the body, was not with the body.’ But very likely it is intentional nonsense.”

1891 dtn

dtn

2656-7 Deighton (ed. 1891): “various subtle meanings have been read into these words, but they were probably used for no other purpose than that of mystifying Guildenstern—and commentators.”

dtn: standard + magenta underlined

2659-60 hide . . . after] Deighton (ed. 1891): “an allusion to the game of hide and seek, in which one of the players, called the fox, hides, and all the rest have to go after him and find out his hiding-place. Here, of course, merely a continuation of Hamlet’s feigned madness.”

1899 ard1

ard1: cln1 + magenta underlined

2656-7 The body . . . thing] Dowden (ed. 1899): “Clar. Press: ‘Hamlet is talking nonsense designedly.’ He wishes to baffle the courtiers, and have a private meaning, as often before. He has just called himself ‘the son of a king’; he has seen his father in his own castle. To the courtiers his words are nonsense; for himself they mean ‘the body lies in death with the King my father, but my father walks disembodied.’ He might have added something, but he is interrupted, and adopting Rosencrantz’s meaning of ‘King,’ completes his sentence otherwise than intended, yet so as to express a part of his mind; ‘the King—as you mean King—is for me a negligible quantity, a thing of nothing.’ In [5.2.64 (3568)]. Hamlet speaks of his father as my ‘king.’”

1903 p&c

p&c

2656-7 The body is . . . the body] Porter & clarke (ed. 1903): “Nonsense puzzles intended to seem obnoxious and be impossible to prove so. The obnoxiousness suggested is that the body or externality of royalty is with the king, but the king is not royal.”

1903 rlf3

rlf3 = rlf1

1904 ver

ver

2656 The body . . . King] Verity (ed. 1904): “It is easy to dismiss the difficulty by assuming that Hamlet’s words are intentional nonsense – as he means them to be for the two courtiers; but his enigmas generally have an inner significance – for himself. So here he may mean:

“‘The body of Polonius is not very far away from Claudius, but he who for me is the real king (i.e. his father) disembodied’ (i.e. murdered). (F.)

“Or again: ‘the body of Polonius is with (the late, the real) king, in the other world, but Claudius is not yet with that body,’ i.e. has not been killed (said in self-reproach).

“It would be quite in Hamlet’s mocking, enigmatic style to use “the king” of different persons.”

1909 subb

subb: ard1

2656-7 The body . . . body] Subbarau (ed. 1909): “[Dowden’s] seems to me the plainest and most natural interpretation. Hamlet of course talks enigmatically, punning on King to baffle the courtiers; but he does not (he never does) talk absolute nonsense, without an inner meaning. Hamlet’s answer sounds like a riddle to the courtier-friends who take the king to refer to Claudius only; but Hamlet alternately refers to the real king (his father) and the usurper (his uncle): ‘The body of Polonius, which you seek, is with the king (i.e. gone to the same place as the late king’s), but the king (i.e. he who now passes for the king) is not with the (that) body—he is yet to be killed, and shall be presently. The (real) king is (now) a thing—without a body (Hamlet was probably going to say, when he was interrupted.).”

1929 trav

trav: cln1, v1877, jen, Derocquigny

2656-7 The body . . . body] Travers (ed. 1929): “Hamlet is designedly talking nonsense according to Clarendon, Furness, and others (arguing from the impossibility of making sure of any meaning). From the earliest form of the story, however, speech that, while it seems nonsense, is truth, characterizes the hero’s feigned madness; and why should Shakespeare, just here, give up playing the game? One eighteenth century commentator, Jennens, proposed to understand: ‘the body is’ in the palace ‘with the king, but the king is not’ in the same room ‘with the body.’ Cp. M. Derocquigny’s still apter “Le corps est chez le roi; mais le roi n’a pas mis la main dessus,” Introd. p. XVI; which not only has the advantage of comparative simplicity, but assists in making the phrase sound as if borrowed from some child’s game (29-30).”

1931 crg1

crg1 ≈ ard1; ≈ yal1

2656-7 The body . . . body] Craig (ed. 1931): “There are many interpretations; possibly, ‘The body lies in death with the king, my father; but my father walks disembodied (Dowden); or ‘Claudius has the bodily possession of kingship, but kingliness, or justice of inheritance, is not with him.’ Yale editor explains, ‘The King is still alive (i.e., with his body), but he is not with the dead body (i.e., Polonius).’”

1934 cam3

cam3: Psalms analogue; xref.

2656-7 The body is with the King, etc.] Wilson (ed. 1934): “One of Ham.’s riddling quibbles, like ‘A little more than kin, etc.,’ intended prob. to set the audience guessing. I interpret: the body, i.e., Polonius, is in the next world with the king, my father, but the other king, my uncle, has not yet joined him there. The reference to Ps. cxliv.4 (v. next note) and the drift of Ham.’s remarks in 4.3. bear this out.”

cam3: Psalm

2657-9 a thing...Of nothing] Wilson (ed. 1934): “Cf. Ps. cxliv.4 (Prayer Book) ‘Man is like a thing of nought, his time passeth away like a shadow.’ Ham. at once insults the K. and hints that his days are numbered. v. Introd. pp. xl-xli.”

1939 kit2

kit2

2656-7 The body . . . body] Kittredge (ed. 1939): “Mere nonsense, designed to carry out Hamlet’s pretense of madness.”

1947 cln2

cln2

2656-7 The body . . . body Rylands (ed. 1947): “i.e. with the late King. But the present King has not joined him—as yet.”

1947 yal2

yal2

2656-57 The . . . body] Cross & Brooke (ed. 1947): “A passage about which there have been many conjectures. If Hamlet is not designedly talking mere nonsense, a possible interpretation is: “The King is still alive (i.e., with his body), but he is not with the dead body (i.e., of Polonius).”

1958 fol1

fol1

2656-7 The body . . . body] Wright & LaMar (ed. 1958): “this is probably aimless talk to confuse the King; the meaning is not clear.”

fol1

2656-7 the King . . . thing] Wright & LaMar (ed. 1958): “that is, the King is a mere mortal, Hamlet is both contemptuous and threatening.”

1974 evns1

evns1

2656-7 The body . . . body] Evans (ed. 1974): “Possibly alluding to the legal fiction that the king’s dignity is separate from his mortal body.”

1980 pen2

pen2: standard + magenta underlined

2656-7 The body is . . . body] Spencer (ed. 1980): “Hamlet may mean ‘the body is now in the next world with the King (my father Hamlet), but King Claudius has not yet been killed.’ Or he may be talking deliberate, sinister nonsense.”

pen2 ≈ cam3 (for Psalm analogue)

2657-9 The King. . . nothing] Spencer (ed. 1980): “Again Hamlet is using suggestive threatening language, echoing the passage in the Psalms about the transitoriness of mortal life: ‘Man is like a thing of nought. His time passeth away like a shadow’ (144.4; Prayer Book version). Claudius is doomed to death.”

1982 ard2

ard2: xrefs., v1877, kit, Plowden, Maitland, Kantorowicz

2656-7 The body . . . the body] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “This retort implies that the two commands are one, the body being where the King is. (1) The body (of Polonius) is here in the palace ‘with the King’; but the King, not being, as it is, dead, is ‘not with the body’. One may catch a hint of what might have been if Hamlet had not mistaken. Cf. [3.4.26 (2407)], 3.4.32 (2414)], 3.4.32 (2414)]. (2) The body (of the King) is necessarily where the King is, but his kingship, that which makes him king is not contained in the body. ln. The cryptic utterance assists the impression of madness, but it is impossible to agree with Furness, Kittredge, and others that this or anything Hamlet says is meant to be mere nonsense. Cf. [2.2.205-6 (1243-5)], [2.2.208-11 (1247-52)]. Many have supposed (though nothing in the context justifies this) a reference to King Hamlet, whom Polonius has joined in another world. But if, taking Hamlet’s words in the most direct sense, we assume him to refer as Rosencranz does to (1) the body of Polonius, then that body is still here and the implication is that t is in the very neighbourhood of the King, who will not have far to search for it, while the paradox that the King is nevertheless not with it must be a thrust at Claudius, who has not shared its fate.

“But it is entirely characteristic of Hamlet to confound is interlocutors by a shift of meaning, so that we may interpret ‘the body’ (2) as referring to the King. Political doctrine ascribed to a king two bodies, a body natural and a body politic, the first ‘a Body mortal’, the second ‘a Body that cannot be seen or handled’ but ‘contains the Office, government and Majesty’ of the king (Plowden, Reports, 1816, pp. 212a-213). Hence when the king dies, the body politic does not die but its ‘transferred and conveyed over’ from one body natural to another (Plowden, pl. 233a). See Maitland, Selected Essays, 1936, pp. 109-11; E. H. Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies, 1957. Thus, asked where ‘the body’ is in relation to ‘the King’, Hamlet indicates that the body (natural) is necessarily ‘with the King’ but that the essential of the king, his majesty and kingly office, does not inhere in or belong with that body. This does not imply (ass suggested in SQ, xviii, 430-4) that Claudius as king is free from the imperfections and guilt of his mortal being, nor offer this as an explanation of Hamlet’s difficulty about killing him. Nothing in the play attributes such a difficulty to Hamlet. Rather, Hamlet’s words hold a barely concealed threat – since the King’s body can be killed without impairing his kingship. Cf. Kantorowicz, p.23, on the execution of Charles I.”

ard2: Harvey, Kyd, Fletcher, Psalms analogues; Dover Wilson

2657-60 The King . . . nothing] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “(1) The essential king (see previous note and ln) is no material thing. But (2), in the sense of the common phrase, this particular king is a thing of no account. Thus a metaphysical profundity is turned into a deliberate anticlimax. ln. Cf. [3.4.97-102 (2476-83)]. For the phrase a thing of nothing meaning a thing or person of no consequence see, e.g., Harvey, Four Letters, Bodley Head Q, p. 35; Spanish Tragedy, Addn ii.8-10; Fletcher, The Humourous Lieutenant, iv.vi.28; etc. It goes back to the Psalms, ‘Man is like a thing of nought: his time passeth away like a shadow’ (cxliv.4, Prayer-book), and if the echo is still audible, Hamlet’s give may also hint that the King’s days are numbered (Dover Wilson).”

1984 chal

chal

2656-7 The body . . . body] Wilkes (ed. 1984): “This may mean that the body is in the castle, but that the King has not yet joined it in death. It may also allude to the doctrine of the king’s ‘two bodies’—one his mortal body, the other in which his kingship resides. Claudius (‘a thing’) qualifies for the first only.”

1984 klein

klein: cln1, kit, cald, Douce, rug; Gielgud, Wilson, Eschenburg, Kantorowicz, J. Johnson

2656-7 The body . . . body] Klein (ed. 1984): “Repeatedly (e.g. by Clark/Wright and Kittredge) dismissed as a consciously antic pose (and e.g. omitted by John Gielgud as Hamlet). Wilson (partly after Eschenburg and Caldecott) paraphrases: "the body, i.e. Polonius, is in the next world with the king, my father, but the other king, my uncle, has not yet joined him there." Already Douce and Moberly linked the passage with traditional theories of state; inspired by them and based on E.H. Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political Theory (Princeton, 1957), J. Johnson explains in the Shakespeare Quarterly 18 (1967), pp. 30-34: ‘The body (i.e. the body natural) is with (necessarily conjoined to) the king (the body politic), but the king (the body politic or kingship) is not (always, i.e. after death) with the body (natural). The king (kingship) is a thing (an abstract thing).’ Both elements may well be present concurrently: threat and insult as well as learned allusion.”

1985 cam4

cam4 ≈ Klein (J. Johnson, Kantorowicz); Alexander

2656-7 The body . . . body] Edwards (ed. 1985): “As J. Johnson and N. Alexander have argued (see the latter’s Poison, Play and Duel, p. 177) this is the riddling reference to the much-debated theory of the king’s two bodies, natural and politic, made famous in Kantorowicz’s book (The King’s Two Bodies, 1957). Claudius has a body, but the kingship of Denmark is not inherent in that body. Hamlet does not believe in kingship as an abstraction, as did those like Plowden, who stressed the importance of the Body Politic. He believes fiercely in kings as rightful kings, true royal persons. The king is ‘a thing of nothing’.”

1987 oxf4

oxf4

2656-7 The body . . . body] Hibbard (ed. 1987): “This pretty piece of chiasmus sounds impressive but is singularly reluctant to yield up a sense that can be apprehended by an audience in a theatre. Intended as a riddle, it remains a riddle.”

1988 bev2

bev2

2656-7 The body . . . body] Bevington (ed. 1988): “(Perhaps alludes to the legal commonplace of “the King’s two bodies,” which drew a distinction between the sacred office of kingship and this particular mortal who possessed it at any given time. Hence, although Claudius’s body is necessarily a part of him, true kingship is not contained in it. Similarly, Claudius will have Polonius’s body when it is found, but there is no kingship in this business either).”

1993 dent

dent: xrefs.

2656-7 The body . . . body] Andrews (ed. 1993): “Hamlet alludes to the doctrine of ‘the King’s two bodies’, the idea that a monarch has both a normal, mortal body and a mystical, spiritual body as the epitome of his realm. See the notes to [2.2.263 (1309)], [3.3.10, 14 (2282, 2287)]. As usual, Hamlet’s meanings are equivocal and multiple. One implication is that the body of Claudius is now attached to the Kingship, but that the true King (either the elder Hamlet or the younger Hamlet) is not identical with the Body (Claudius) who is now pretending to be King. In that sense, this ‘King’ is ‘a thing of nothing’ (lines 30, 32 [4.2.29, 31 (2658, 2660)], a Body that is not the thing it is taken to be. The obscene innuendo in ‘nothing’ (see the note to [3.2.117 (1971)] anticipates Hamlet’s calling Claudius ‘Mother’ in [4.3.49 (2713)].”

1997 evns2

evns2 = evns1

2006 ard3q2

ard3q2: Hibbard, Jennens, Jenkins

2656-7 The. . . body] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “’This pretty piece of chiasmus [the wordplay of reversing the parallel terms body and King] sounds impressive but is singularly reluctant to yield up a sense that can be apprehended by an audience in a theatre. Intended as a riddle, it remains a riddle’ (Hibbard). Jennens, however, explains, ’The body, being in the palace, might be said to be with the king; though the king, not being in the same room with the body, was not with the body.’ Hamlet might also mean that the King is not with the body in the sense that he is not (yet) dead. Other editors suggest an allusion to the theory of the king’s two bodies (natural and political), whereby Hamlet casts doubt on the legitimacy of this king, implying that his kingship does not reside in his physical body (see Jenkins).”

2006 ard3q2

ard3q2: Psalm 144

2657-59 The. . . nothing] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “The full stop after thing (26) in Q2 implies that Hamlet is insulting the King by calling him an object. F has a long dash after thing which makes Guildenstern’s question an interruption (usually played as shocked), or perhaps he expected some legal or philosophical definition of kingship which Hamlet deflates. ’A thing of nothing’ recalls Psalm 144: ’Man is like a thing of nought.’”