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

Line 291 - 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.

291 You are the most imediate to our throne,	1.2.109

1723- mtby2

mtby2

291 Thirlby (1723-) “v. 353.7 [229]. nb the kingdom elective v.v. 2, 3 [290-1]. See [229] where I have another note. See [292] where this note actually appears.”

1773 v1773

v1773 ≈ mtby2 without attribution

291-4 Steevens (ed. 1773): “The crown of Denmark was elective. The king means, that as Hamlet stands the fairest chance to be next elected, he will strive with as much love to ensure the crown to him, as a father would shew in the continuance of heirdom to a son.”

1778 v1778

v1778 = v1773 +

291-4 Steevens (ed. 1778): “So, in Sir Clyomon Knight of the Golden Shield, &c. 1599: ‘And me possess for spoused wife, who in election am To have the crown of Denmark here, as heir unto the same.’ ”

1780 mals1

mals1

291-4 Blackstone (apud Malone, 1780, 1:350-1) says: <p. 350> “I agree with Mr. Steevens, that the crown of Denmark (as in most of the Gothick kingdoms) was elective, and not hereditary; though it might be customary, in elections, to pay some attention to the royal blood, which by degrees produced hereditary succession. Why then do the rest of the commentators so often treat Claudius as an usurper, who had deprived young Hamlet of his right by heirship to his father’s crown? Hamlet calls him drunkard, murderer, and villain; one who had carryed the election by low and mean practices; had </p.350 ><p. 351>‘Popt in between the election and my hopes—’ had ‘From a shelf the precious diadem stole, /And put it in his pocket:’ but never hints at his being an usurper. His discontent arose from his uncle’s being preferred before him, not from any legal right which he pretended to set up to the crown. Some regard was probably had to the recommendation of the preceding prince, in electing the successor. And therefore young Hamlet had ‘the voice of the king himself for his succession in Denmark;’ and he at his own death prophecies that ‘the election would light on Fortinbras, who had his dying voice,’ conceiving that by the death of his uncle, he himself had been king for an instant and had therefore a right to recommend. When, in the fourth act, the rabble wished to choose Laertes king, I understand that antiquity was forgot, and custom violated, by electing a new king in the lifetime of the old one, and perhaps also by the calling in a stranger to the royal blood. —e [=Blacstone]” </p. 351>

1783 Ritson

Ritson: v1778

291 imediate to our throne] Ritson (1783, p. 192), quoting Steevens— “ ‘The crown of Denmark was elective. Steevens.’

“Wherever the learned commentator acquired this piece of knowledge, certain it is, that his quotation from Sir Clymon proves no such thing: ‘And me possess for spoused wife, who in election am To have the crown of Denmark here, as heir unto the same.’ For it clearly appears, from this, that she was to take the crown by hereditary right. The words in election implying no more than that she had such right by the election, the chosenness, the elevation of her rank and family. The king tells Hamlet that he is the most immediate to the throne, i.e. heir apparent, or, at least, presumptive heir, which would be absurd, on an idea that the crown was elective. (See also the conversation of Laertes with his sister [483-7].)”

1785 v1785

v1785 = v1778; mals1 + signed Blackstone

291-4

1787 ann

ann = v1785

291-4

1790 mal

mal = v1785

291-4

1793 v1793

v1793 = mal

291-4

1803 v1803

v1803 = v1793

291-4

1813 v1813

v1813 = v1803

291-4

1821 v1821

v1821 = v1813

291-4

1832 cald2

cald2

291 imediate] Caldecott (ed. 1832): “In [Lr. 5.3.65 (3006)] Reg. he uses immediately for union the most direct and scarce divisible.”

Ed. note: cald2 erroneously cites 4.3. The word “immediately” is the Qq variant of F Lr. immediacy. Malone’s note in Lr. refers to Ham. 291.

1868 c&mc

c&mc: see n. 294

291-4 You . . . you] Clarke & Clarke (ed. 1868): “The monarchy of Denmark being elective, King Claudius implies that he will promote Hamlet’s being chosen as his successor to the throne no less than if he were his own son.”

1869 elze1

elze1 see n. 187

291 imediate] Elze (ed. 1869, apud Furness, ed. 1877): “It is not exactly consistent with this elective character that the queen should be called ‘the imperial jointress of this warlike state.’”

1875 Marshall

Marshall

291 imediate] Marshall (1875, p. 16): “Perhaps the comparative youth of Hamlet, and the fact that the kingdom was at that time threatened by an invasion of the Norwegians under young Fortinbras, were the reasons which induced the royal councillors of Denmark to place the sceptre in the hands of Claudius, who might be supposed better able to cope with so formidable a foe.”

See also TLN 193-4

1877 v1877

v1877: Steevens; Blackstone; elze1; Marshall (minus last clause).

291-4 imediate]

1885 macd

macd

291 MacDonald (ed. 1885): “Seeking to propitiate him with the hope that his succession had been but postponed by his uncle’s election.”

1899 ard1

ard1 ≈ Steevens without attribution (probably via v1877)

291 imediate]

1913 Trench

Trench ≈ Bradley on the king’s skill

291-4 You . . . Wittenberg] Trench (1913, pp. 51, 53): <p. 51> “Such is the courage of this admirable sovereign.” </p. 51> <p. 53 > The king conveys “before the world . . . the impression of generosity and superlative goodwill.” But the very ostentation of his fuss over Hamlet’s agreement to remain in court suggests his uneasiness. </p. 53 >

1929 trav

trav

291 Travers (ed. 1929) says the king’s promise may be equivalent to Hamlet’s dying voice for Fortinbras, 3845.

1930 Granville-Barker

Granville-Barker

291 Granville-Barker (1930, rpt. 1946, 1: 52): “By his concluding emphasis on the question of the succession, he implies—he will prefer it to be thought—that there is the secret, the ’is’ as against the ’seems’ of Hamlet’s recalcitrance.”

1935 Wilson

Wilson WHH

291 Wilson (1935, p. 32) comments on the king’s arrogance in naming as heir the man he has supplanted.

1939 kit2

kit2: sympathetic to Claudius

291-99 Kittredge (ed. 1939): "Thus the King solemnly proclaims Hamlet his heir; and, even in this elective monarchy, such an announcement would go far to determine the succession. Cf. [2211-12]. We must not regard his words as hypocritical. He loves the Queen passionately, and she is devoted to her son. Besides, Claudius is not an habitual or hardened criminal, nor does he wish to increase his guilt by further offences. He hopes to live at peace with Hamlet and to atone for past wrongs by kindness in the days to come. That this cannot be, is a part of the tragedy. It is the King’s nemesis that the good he proposes turns to evil in his hands."

1947 cln2

cln2: standard

291 most imediate] Rylands (ed. 1947): "nearest."

1957 pen1b

pen1b

291 Harrison (ed. 1957): “As is obvious from the play, Shakespeare regarded the throne of Denmark as elective. Critics have unnecessarily assumed that Elizabethan playgoers would have been puzzled by such a procedure. They were quite familiar with the story. Nor were elective monarchies unknown. When the luckless ambassador from Poland ventured on his master’s behalf to criticize Queen Elizabeth face to face in 1597, she retorted that his King was evidently an ignorant young man, ’non de iure sanguinis, sed iure electionis, immo noviter electus’ (being chosen not by right of blood but by right of election, and newly at that). ”

1980 pen2

pen2

291 the most imediate] Spencer (ed. 1980): “closest in succession. Hamlet’s position as heir under a quasi-elective system is strong. Ophelia testifies to his courtly qualities (3.1.151-5) and Claudius to his being loved by the people (4.3.4 and 4.7.18). Claudius seeks to placate Hamlet with the expectation that his succession to the throne has been merely postponed. But with this public declaration he loses some of his power: by taking a secret revenge, Hamlet could now easily achieve the throne. It is only when Hamlet’s disaffection shows him to be apparently irresponsible and dangerous and (eventually) to know about the fratricide that Claudius changes his intention about the succession. Shakespeare shows Claudius not as a usurper, but as duly elected. Later, facing death, Hamlet himself supports the election of Fortinbras, and Horatio thinks that this recommendation will win Fortinbras more votes (5.2.349-50 and 382-6).”

1982 ard2

ard2:

291 imediate] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “next in succession. Cf. 2H4 [5.2.71], ’the’immediate heir of England’ (Prince Hal). The King’s statement need not be inconsistent with an elective monarchy (see 179 n.]. Indeed in a hereditary monarchy there would be no occasion for it.”

1985 cam4

cam4

291 the most imediate to our throne] Edwards (ed. 1985): "i.e. the next in succession. The monarchy being elective, not hereditary, Claudius, the most important member of an electoral college, here gives his ’voice’ to Hamlet as his heir. Compare Hamlet’s own words at [3845]."

1987 oxf4

oxf4: AWW 2.3.130; 2H4 5.2.71

291 most imediate] Hibbard (ed. 1987): "next in succession. Compare All’s Well 2.3.130, ‘to nature she’s immediate heir’; and 2 Henry IV 5.2.71, ‘Th’ immediate heir of England.’ "

1988 bev2

bev2: standard

291 most imediate] Bevington (ed. 1988): “next in succession.”

1992 fol2

fol2: standard

291 most imediate] Mowat & Werstine (ed. 1992): “next in line of succesion”

2006 ard3q2

ard3q2

291 Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “’you are my heir’. The King seems to be claiming publicly that he has been rightfully elected, but Hamlet implies at [2478-80] and at [3569] that he has stolen the crown and that he, Hamlet, should have been king by now rather than crown prince.”