Good madam!

The note on Genius suggests that this line is evidence that Hamlet knows the drink is poisoned.

I don’t see it.

I see how it COULD be possible.

But it is certainly not evidence.

For one thing, this line is as open as the most open scene. It could be a way to say, “What the heck, mom!”

He could be responding to his mother drinking and given that we know how Hamlet feels about Claudius’ drinking, it’s possibly not positive.

Or it could be a way to accept the toast. It could be a cheers, or a response to the cheers. It could be a salute.

It could be a way to accept the toast. It could be a cheers, or a response to the cheers. It could be a salute.

It could be punctuated as

Good, madam.

Like. Good.

The exclamation point that some editor put here might lead one toward an expression of alarm – but still…

I feel that if Hamlet really thought the cup was poisoned and he really wanted to prevent his mother from drinking it, he’d do more than say “Good madam.” There’s a lot more effective ways to prevent someone from drinking a glass of wine.

Also – the notion that Gertrude knows it’s poisoned, too, and drinks it, is equally bonkers. Again, I see how it COULD be pushed in that direction but it lacks a clear motivation. Why not just spill it if she’s trying to keep Hamlet from drinking? What reason could she have for killing herself?

I mean, you could invent some, sure – she is stuck between a rock and a hard place with her husband and her son – but killing herself doesn’t SOLVE that – it just gets her out of it. I feel like we’d need a whole lot more back story to buy a Gertrude who drinks poison on purpose.

The queen carouses to thy fortune, Hamlet.

There really wasn’t much carousing among women back in the old days – or at least not in the classical literature. We have a lot of carousing men. We have Sir Toby Belch, Falstaff and Claudius here in this play but even when women are around in these scenes, they don’t really get to do any carousing themselves. They usually bring the drinks. One of the things I love about Gertrude is this choice to carouse to her son, when carousing is not women’s usual way.

I love that she chooses to do it and that she refuses to yield to Claudius’ order that she not. I mean, sure, it kills her but I love that her last act is one of rebellion. She bucks her gender role twice. One, to carouse in the first place and two, to refuse to obey her husband and her king.

Now a woman carousing has become fairly commonplace. Girls have gone wild at bachelorette parties, showers and brunches and as much as most of those gatherings are repugnant to me, it does signal that a girl CAN get away with carousing now. Carousing is no longer out of our gender lane.

Rub thy brows.

It is of note that Gertrude uses the plural of brow here.

Usually – the brow is the forehead and the most likely part of the body to dab with a handkerchief if one is sweating.

But she says “brows” plural. And the word brows, when it is this plural, usually suggests the eyebrows – as in “that model has her brows done at the local salon.”

Is Gertrude telling Hamlet to rub his eyebrows? Or is she speaking to both fighters suddenly – wishing for Laertes to rub his brow as well?

I doubt that.

It is most likely that she means brow.

And according to my friend ETYMOLOGY online – we get the word brow for forhead from the eyebrows  – that brow meant eyebrow first and expanded to cover the entire forehead in around 1200.

So maybe Gertrude is just a 1200 girl with her “brows.” Also – I’ve just realized as I wrote these words how weird English is – because browse sounds exactly like brows and means something entirely different.

Here, Hamlet, take my napkin.

While the word “napkin” apparently came from the French, the French themselves abandoned it in exchange for the much classier sounding “serviette.” This was a good decision as far as I’m concerned , as serviette is a much sexier word than the flatfooted napkin.

Interestingly, though I’ve almost always seen this instance of the word “napkin” here as a synonym for handkerchief, the etymology site does not mention the word’s period as a handkerchief.

Shakespeare seems to almost always use napkin in this sense. Even the very most famous handkerchief in the canon is called a napkin. (I’m talking about Desdemona’s “napkin” here.)

One of the origins of the word relates to the material so that it basically means little linen. (“Kin” being a diminiutive.) I wonder if, in Shakespeare’s time, a napkin like you use at dinner was actually the same as a handkerchief. Like, were they both just little squares of linen?

He’s fat and scant of breath.

Much has been made of Hamlet’s fatness. Is he or isn’t he? There are those who say “fat” here means “sweaty” or “full.” But, as Isaac Butler pointed out in his essay on this topic a few years ago, given how fat is used in the rest of this play, fat probably means fat. But what I find interesting is an assumption that Gertrude calling Hamlet fat means that Hamlet is fat, as if no mother ever called her son fat, even though he was not. As if no mother ever had body dysmorphia that she projected onto her children.

I’m very happy for Hamlet to have any type of body. In general, I believe all bodies are good bodies and that Hamlet should be able to be played by any one of them – male, sure but also female, trans, non-binary and questioning. He could be fat, thin, muscular, weedy – but also disabled and non-disabled.

So whether or not the character is written to be fat means nothing to me, really. Gertrude calls him fat because sometimes mothers do that sort of thing. Especially in a time that was perhaps not quite as fat phobic as the times we live in now. Even in our own time, there are cultures that find fatness much less taboo – that might call someone fat with affection and/or love. Maybe that’s what Gertrude is doing here. That’s how I played it when I played the part. Who knows if it read – but it helped me to say what I felt was an insult at the time. After a lot of exposure to fat activism, I’d feel less worried about it. It’s fine if Hamlet is fat. It’s fine if his mother calls him so. Even if he’s not.

Our son shall win.

GERTRUDE: Oh, he’s “our” son now, is he? Last time, it was all “your” son.

Also he’s not our son. He’s my son and your nephew and step-son, your nemesis, your thorn, your pea, your pearl, your trouble – but now, as he’s winning your bet for you, suddenly he’s “our” son.

I think the seed for Gertrude ignoring Claudius’ request that she not drink begins here. I think she’s pissed at him but is never in a position to say so.

A touch, a touch, I do confess.

Laertes is not a man used to losing.

There are those who think he’s letting Hamlet get those first two points. They think maybe it’s a way to get that poison Claudius has into him. But I really don’t think Laertes wants to let Claudius kill Hamlet – not because he doesn’t want Hamlet dead, he does – but because he wants to do it himself. I think Laertes is losing because he is distracted by his own ulterior motives, and the complex situation and also by his need to win. I think he is genuinely surprised to be losing here. I think he has to concede the point but he really doesn’t want to. And it’s probably fuel for the fire that leads him to jump out of line a bit and let the formality of the game go out the window. He’s losing. The only way to get his sword into Hamlet is to go a little loose cannon and attack.

Of course it could be played other ways. But this way makes the most sense to me and certainly has the most layers.

What say you?

After the last point was contested, Hamlet takes the question directly to Laertes first. He could have continued to ask for judgement from the outside authority but he goes to Laertes first. It’s a nice move, really. Or at least interpersonally sharp. Better to get the point from Laertes himself – keep the fight between them, rather than the outside authorities.

Ultimately none of it REALLY matters – they’re all gong to to die in a few moments – but at least – if, in death, we have to watch our last moments over and over, Hamlet won’t have to do a lot of wincing about his behavior.

Another hit.

For an underdog, for a guy who everyone said would lose, for a guy that the odds were adjusted for because everyone was so sure he wasn’t good at this, he’s doing really well.

Even Laertes has to confess he’s doing alright. And I don’t think Laertes is letting him win. Laertes has good reason to want to be the hitter not the hittee.

Come.

Hamlet begins the round/bout every time. It’s not until Laertes decides to go ahead and just kill him that he initiates any fighting and his “Have at you now!” is hardly an official beginning of a round. It’s not an invitation to play or an announcement or even, really, directed to Hamlet. It feels more like words used to power his own sword.

But Hamlet’s beginnings, like this one, are invitations, are starts to the bouts, each time.