What does Hamlet mean by infusion here?
It would seem that it meant then more or less what it means now.
Is he pointing to a kind of essence of Laertes’ soul?
Is the infusion, like, concentrated extract of Laertes?
I mean, I know a lot of this is purposefully obscure language but in other instances, it is also accurate. Has he veered away from meaningful parody and just begun to get a little silly? Just seeing what he can get away with with Osric?
His semblance is his mirror? Is he trying to say he is what he seems? This sentence is not only what it seems.
Hamlet
But, in the Verity of extolment, I take him to be a soul of Great article.
Ah, the verity of extolment!
I’m writing this on the day of Dr. Ford’s testimony about Brett Kavanagh. And thinking about how high the praise has been of him by those who would like to see him seated on the Supreme Court.
I can see the verity of their claims. Oh, he is a great dad! Oh, he is a dedicated church goer! What a good guy! But you know what, fuckers?
Bill Cosby was also a great dad. He was America’s Dad when I was a kid. We all wanted Bill Cosby to be our father, too. But turns out – you can be a great dad and ALSO a rapist. You can go to church every Sunday and still commit sexual assault. The verity of your extolment doesn’t make the other things NOT true. It’s like none of these people ever read a book, watched a play or saw a movie. Bad guys don’t always look like bad guys, you knuckle heads.
Even Richard the murderous fucking Third knew how to appear pious.
Though, I know, to divide him inventorially would Dizzy the arithmetic of memory, and yet but yaw Neither, in respect of his quick sail.
This section makes me think about the idea of homo ludens – that is – that one of the principle characteristics that defines us as human is our ability, desire and need to play. Hamlet is a great player. He knows how to play in multiple ways. He knows how to make a game of many things. This game is the game of using as many silly honorific words as possible to describe Laertes – to sound as pompous as possible, without giving away the game. And the game grows as he plays it. He starts playing and the game opens out until it is a whole speech.
Also I’m curious about what “sail” is doing here.
Though, I know, to divide him inventorially would Dizzy the arithmetic of memory, and yet but yaw Neither, in respect of his quick sail.
This section makes me think about the idea of homo ludens – that is – that one of the principle characteristics that defines us as human is our ability, desire and need to play. Hamlet is a great player. He knows how to play in multiple ways. He knows how to make a game of many things. This game is the game of using as many silly honorific words as possible to describe Laertes – to sound as pompous as possible, without giving away the game. And the game grows as he plays it. He starts playing and the game opens out until it is a whole speech.
Also I’m curious about what “sail” is doing here.
Sir, his definement suffers no perdition in you.
This is a special skill – to be able to parody another’s language so swiftly, with accuracy of both meaning and style. Hamlet has actually said something while also saying a lot of words that are not necessary.
I used to enjoy making up faux course titles at my college using uber academic speech – but while it MAY have been funny, it was not actually meaningful nor did it make much sense.
I was able to either be funny or accurate but doing both was beyond me.
I beseech you, remember –
I do love a good hat lazzo. On again, off again. It will become even funnier if every time Osric puts his hat back on or takes it off he does a little flourish of some kind. If he can’t help but twirl it, brush it off or wave its feather and give a little bow or something? And every time he engages with the hat, it gets a little faster. The lazzi of the hat. Yeah.
But yet methinks it is very sultry and hot for my Complexion.
All these years into my life with Shakespeare and I never really examined “complexion” before. I thought of it how we mean “complexion” today – that is the color or state of one’s face/skin. Which – apparently it could also mean at the time of this play’s writing – but –
complexion originally meant one’s temperament and its relationship to the four humors. It only meant FACE as it related to how one’s personality or temperament was reflected there.
I feel like I want to go back in time and play Viola in 12th Night again. I’m not sure it would have come through but the line about loving someone of Orsino’s complexion would have meant a lot more to me if it had been about his temperament instead of his FACE coloring. I mean – it always struck me as so shallow and racially uncomfortable to have characters be so obsessed with their love interests’ complexions – that is, the hue of their faces. But it wasn’t about that at all, I learn now from a cursory etymological search.
It’s hot for Hamlet’s “complexion” – not because of his skin tone – but because of his temperament – his humors. I know a scholar who has done a bunch of research on the humors and I remember that she identified which of the humors Hamlet seemed to be – I want to say wetness was involved? And darkness? And also that the humors were associated with geography as well. Spain is hot and dry. Denmark is cold and moist. Is this right? Anyway. A sultry and hot bit of weather would not suit Hamlet’s humors. His complexion, that is, his face, would not be a factor.
The wind is Northerly.
In my citified life, I never have cause to think about the direction of the wind. I notice which way it blows my skirt – ahead of, or behind me- but which direction it comes from never enters my mind. I expect, in more open climates, the direction from which it comes is quite a bit more significant. Maybe you can feel the chill coming in from Canada or the heat from the rains down in Africa.
Here in NYC, I’d have to consciously think through which way the wind was coming from to know if it were Northerly.
No, believe me, ‘tis very cold.
I know Osric is a tool and a suck up and a water-fly. But I also think Hamlet is being kind of a dick. Like – who has more power – a prince or a landowner? I mean. Hamlet is abusing his authority a bit just because he’s not a fan of this guy. But he’s punching down, really.
It helps if Osric is played by someone who we want to see taken down a peg. It helps if we want to see Hamlet put him in his place.
On paper, though, I find myself sympathetic to him. He has no other recourse but to suck up to authority. He doesn’t really have any.
Put your bonnet to his right use.
What a funny sentence!
First – a bonnet to my mind, is a hat for a lady, which Osric is not.
But that’s not the funny part really.
The funny part is the peculiar anthropomorphization of the bonnet. It’s not “its right use.” It’s “his right use.” His.
The bonnet has a gender and it’s male.
And that’s kinda funny.
The Hamlet Project 