I hear this as a sort of “I’m not going anywhere. If the fight comes to me, fine. I won’t fight the fight. I’m just hanging here and if a duel just happened to run into me, I won’t resist but I’m not walking toward it, no sir. You wanna see me sword fight? You gotta bring the stuff to me.”
Author: erainbowd
I mean, my lord, the opposition of your person in trial.
Does Osric think that Hamlet hasn’t understood the proposition? Is he genuinely trying to clarify the wager? Or is he just flustered by Hamlet’s refusal to play the game? Of course he doesn’t have an answer for what would happen if Hamlet answered “no” – finding a response to that question would require a much higher pay grade.
It’s like asking the most rule-following cultural-norm-fulfilling, rote society-participator what would happen if you broke the rules; he doesn’t know and cannot even begin to imagine a world where people don’t follow their expected roles.
How if I answer no?
I mean – this is the real question, isn’t it? It’s kind of a joke question, like, a sort of facetious response to the way Osric has made the request for the wager. But what if Hamlet said no?
Like – is this a request or a demand? Is this wager something he can choose not to do? In a way, it isn’t. It’s pitched to him as an invitation but is more like a demand – which is all the more galling coming from Osric who should, in no way be in a position to make demands on Hamlet.
And it Would come to immediate trial, if your lordship Would vouchsafe the answer.
It is kind of wild that this match happens with no notice at all for Hamlet. Like – what if the current Prince William of England were approached suddenly in the hall and told that he should join a boxing match immediately. No time to change his clothes, no time to stretch just – strap on your gloves and go.
He hath laid on twelve for nine.
I’m not sure what Shakespeare’s trying to tell us here with this. The numbers don’t necessarily add up. There are twelve rounds, I guess? And if Laertes is only three points ahead of Hamlet, Claudius still wins. Is this twelve to nine? That this is meant to be the final score? That he’s laying odds on the final score being Laertes = 12, Hamlet = 9? Or is it that the odds are that?
But if they only play twelve rounds, how could Laertes get 12 points and Hamlet 9? They’d have to play 21 rounds to get that score. Or – points would have to be worth more than one on occasion. Is a hit worth three points? So Hamlet gets three hits and Laertes four in order to win? Or maybe it’s twelve somethings?
The math is funny.
But maybe that’s on purpose. To make it obvious that this weird competition is a set up and Hamlet’s about to get screwed with a sword.
The king, sir, hath laid, that in a dozen passes Between yourself and him, he shall not exceed you Three hits.
I just read Samuel Johnson’s note on this and it makes me like Samuel Johnson a lot. “This wager I do not understand” and “It is sufficient that there was a wager.”
I’d like to have a text-off with Samuel Johnson.
I mean, I know he’s dead.
But.
His attack on the text- and by attack – I mean approach – is something I quite connect to. On Genius, the commenter has labeled Johnson’s comment as “cranky” and maybe that’s why I like it – though I don’t see it that way.
I likewise do not understand the terms of this wager. They are quite complicated and it is not clear how anyone wins or loses. It is sufficient that there was a wager.
Why is this “imponed,” as you call it?
If only Hamlet asked more probing questions. If only he pulled on these tiny threads a little harder and saw them through to the dark intentions at the center of this thing. He might make it out of this play alive instead of falling into a trap, instead of getting killed. He gets nihilistic not long after this moment.
That’s the French bet Against the Danish.
This sounds very much like a reference to something that we no longer know what the points of reference are. Like – probably there was some joke about the French versus the Danish. Because that’s a thing. Yes.
Those swords are French. But Laertes is Danish. And Claudius may be Danish – but Barbary horses aren’t. Maybe these particular Barbary horses were born in Denmark but their Danishness is not their most important point. It feels like there must have been some bet or joke or something between those two countries round about when Shakespeare was writing this.
Six Barbary horses Against six French swords, their assigns and three liberal-conceited carriages.
What sort of arena could such a fight be in? Horse versus sword? And would either be manned or would it just be six swords laying around on the ground with all their gear and six horses prancing around – probably just ignoring swords. I mean – without a person to interfere with these things, pretty much nothing would happen. The trouble would begin when the swords got people behind them, and probably likewise the horses.
But, on:
I am on a little bit of an adventure. It’s kind of a tour. I started at my friend’s place in a small city in California. Today she drove me to Los Angeles. It is odd to make such a transition. To go from my home in New York to essentially a suburban life – my friend’s suburban life – and then to a city that I really don’t know at all.
I feel like I need an adjustment period.
*
It’s now been a couple of years since I went on that adventure. From this tiny apartment where I’ve been sheltering since Covid struck us, it is nice to revisit this moment in the middle of an adventure.
The Hamlet Project 