It is a little bit sad to me that I couldn’t identify the handwriting of my friends I’ve made since the information age began. The ones I knew before I know from their letters, their postcards, their notes.
Each person’s text messages look like every other person’s text messages. Each person’s emails look like every other person’s emails.
But the handwriting of the people I knew before, it’s written indelibly in my memory. If you were to put before me the handwriting of a handful of old friends, I could match them easily.
With new friends, I’d be guessing.
Author: erainbowd
Or is it some abuse, and no such thing?
Claudius is saying “abuse” but it feels like he really means “ruse.” The abuse, I suppose, would be an abuse of trust, perhaps?
Abuse does tend to feel sticky. What actually qualifies as abuse and what is just shitty behavior. Not so long ago, someone close to me acknowledged that someone close to him had probably been emotionally abusive to him, to me and probably to others as well. I agreed. But I’d never thought of it that way before. I’d just thought that person was being a shit. And she definitely behaved abominably. She treated me very badly. And she had authority over me. I would never have said I was emotionally abused but when it was described as such, it felt true. And yet still, it’s not a badge I’d claim. Is that because, when I hear abuse, I imagine bruises? Is it that abuse requires physical evidence? In a way, I think I don’t self identify as someone who has experienced any kind of abuse because it conflicts with some sense of myself – some tough girl “I ain’t a victim” mentality. But when someone else reflects it, I can’t deny it. We tell ourselves whatever we have to to keep going.
Are all the rest come back?
Who else did Claudius send on this trip? Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, for sure. There’s a captain and a crew (for fighting pirates, obviously – but also manning the ship). But who else is bound for England?
Tom Stoppard placed the Players on board – though I suspect that they probably usually travel on land – unless Claudius has specifically paid for their passage as far away from his kingdom as he can muster.
But who else? Is there someone Claudius cares about on this ship? Has he sent his buddy to England to collect some of that tribute he’s looking forward to receiving.
Does he have someone prepared to collect Hamlet’s head and bring it back to him? Who does Claudius trust to do his dirty work? Are there passengers that are hitching a ride from Denmark to England? The vanishing Marcellus – is he on board? Probably not. He disappeared too long ago. He probably caught a ship to Rome.
I like to imagine that there might be others on board – others that Claudius is as curious about as Hamlet. I’d very much like to see that ship’s log.
What should this mean?
I appreciate the use of “should” rather than “does.” “Does” has a definitiveness that does not always accurately reflect what meaning is.
When I teach Shakespeare, students constantly ask, “What does this mean?”
I am not wont to tell them – in part, for pedagogical reasons, in part, because there are often multiple meanings to be found once one goes looking for meaning. Maybe even more than “should,” I might go with “could.” There’s enough space in “could” for multiple meanings.
Hamlet
Hamlet doesn’t bother with a sign off. He doesn’t say “Yours truly” or “Sincerely” or “Til tomorrow” or “thine as thou usest him” or “Thine evermore, most dear lady, whilst this machine is to him” as he wrote to Ophelia or “He that thou knowest thine” as he wrote to Horatio. He’s just like, “Hamlet.” Not “Prince of Denmark” or “your nephew” or even “That guy you tried to have killed but failed to.”
When I shall, first asking your Pardon thereunto, recount the occasion of my sudden And more strange return.
I wonder what story Hamlet is planning on telling Claudius. Is it the pirate story? Or will he start with what he found in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s orders? Or will he start with, “So I know you killed my father…?”
In the end, he doesn’t really have time to recount all this stuff because their first re-encounter is over Ophelia’s dead body but I’m very curious about what Hamlet’s strategy would have been.
To-morrow shall I beg leave to see Your kingly eyes.
There’s a director I’ve worked with, who cannot stand sarcasm on stage.
If I ever made a sarcastic choice, it was instantly rejected. I get it. But…this line right here, is just bedecked in sarcasm. Of course it can’t be played that way because it’s Claudius, it’s not Hamlet. But Hamlet is surely being a total smart ass when he talks about Claudius’ kingly eyes and surely Claudius knows it, too.
It’s the kind of thing that won’t get you convicted of king-bashing but will make your feelings clear.
Also – smart-ass Hamlet is my favorite Hamlet.
You shall know I am set naked on your kingdom.
While it is super much fun to imagine a Hamlet running around the kingdom in his birthday suit, it’s likely that the nakedness is more a reflection of vulnerability than actual nudity.
An actual nude Hamlet would suggest the antic Hamlet, the Hamlet who is still playing the crazy card – but a metaphorically naked Hamlet is likely without his usual princely protections.
I suspect that this also suggests that he is alone and therefore without any of Claudius’ spies. If the ruse is that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were protecting him on his trip to England, to be returned naked is to suggest that he’s returned without anyone controlling him or reporting on him.
Nakedness can also suggest a brand new start – a rebirth – a beginning again.
High and Mighty
We use this phrase now, in exactly this word order. Is this line why? Is the natural connection of High and Mighty, only natural due to this play? Or were people calling each other High and Mighty before? Is this Hamlet being a little bit of a smart-ass even in addressing his letter?
Scholars: Weigh in!
Leave us.
This is probably a great relief to the messenger. After all the obfuscation of the message’s provenance, I expect there is some sense of danger in delivering it and to be dismissed means a bullet has been dodged. The messenger has avoided being killed.
I think I always thought that “Don’t kill the messenger” was a kind of joke – but it was surely one of the most serious liabilities of being a messenger. An angry recipient might easily take the bad news out on the person who brought it. Being told to leave a volatile message situation is likely a bit like surviving a car wreck.
The Hamlet Project 