Where did Claudius learn this? How does he know that punishing Hamlet outright will blow back on him? It feels like he’s had some experience with this. He hasn’t been king for very long so it would seem likely that he learned his politics in the court before becoming King. What was his position before? Something like Polonius’?
Was he charged with delivering some punishments to beloved people in the past?
I can imagine a time in the past where Claudius had to do some dirty work like this for Hamlet Senior and it blowing back on him, feeding the fire of bitterness that had likely been glimmering since their childhood. Perhaps it was the moment that Claudius began hatching his plan.
He’s loved of the distracted multitude, Who like not in their judgment but their eyes;
So Claudius thinks Hamlet’s popular with the people because he’s handsome? Is that the idea here? It’s funny because the distracted multitude must not be so enamored of Hamlet, otherwise they might have clamored for him to be king after the death of his father. It takes no time at all for Laertes to hustle up some multitudes to support him – so one would think that if Hamlet were popular enough, the people might have been moved to at least pipe up and be like, “Hey what’s going on here? Isn’t Kingship supposed to travel from father to son?”
But as far as we know, nothing like this happens. Maybe the people don’t like Hamlet quite as much as Claudius thinks.
Yet must not we put the strong law on him.
What was the balance of law and royalty? It’s hard for me to imagine from this democratic society I live in how these things interacted. It would seem that royalty, being “divinely” selected and so on are technically above the law. That is, Claudius seems to have a choice here about whether or not to let the laws work. And maybe, at the time, there’s not, like, a system in place – it’s like – it’s the law not to kill people but it’s sort of up to the king if that law gets enforced. Is that the deal?
I mean, in our society, there is, at least, the illusion that no one is above the law. A highly privileged well connected person can work the system to his advantage but he still has to run it through the system. He can’t just skip it at the whim of the King.
This line does, though, make me wonder if Claudius doesn’t actually mean throwing Hamlet on a legal system – but “strong law” as code for execution. That is – is the law of the land that murder leads to execution? That the death penalty is the strong law?
That’s what this line feels like to me.
And of course this is an old old system.
*
I wrote this bit about a year and a half ago and it has felt in recent months that a highly privileged well-connected person has been working the system so hard that he has actively undone the system to suit him. But today it feels as though the rule of law will catch up with him. If we’re lucky, all that he has undone will not have been enough to keep him from the law. Michael Flynn pled guilty today and hopefully it’s all going down from here.
How dangerous is it that this man goes loose!
It is awfully convenient for Claudius that Hamlet kills Polonius. I mean, he was going to send him to England anyway but once he kills Polonius, he suddenly has the perfect cover story for this decision. Previously, he’d have had to publicize Hamlet’s madness with here-say. But with a murder? Well…it’s clear that something that must be done. And “England” is that convenient, ready made plan.
Also – side note – on the day that this post is going up – Michael Flynn has just pleaded guilty and it feels like American Christmas! There have been so many men it has felt dangerous to have loose and it feels like we’re getting closer to fixing that problem. Merry Mueller Month!
I have sent to seek him and to find the body.
How quickly we go from personhood to the impersonal body. Not even an hour before this moment, Polonius was a person with a body, of course, but he was himself. If you were looking for Polonius, you would not inquire after the body. But the moment death kicks in, your body, while seemingly still connected to the idea of a person, suddenly becomes the body.
There is a clear difference between the living body and the dead one. It is not always immediately clear in the moment. There is a moment of blurriness between life and death but once that moment has passed, the body becomes the body and the person a memory.
Hide fox, and all after.
This is thought to be a reference to a game like hide and seek.
If this is the case, this is the second reference to a game that Hamlet has made.
RULES for the Fox Hunt Game (as imagined by a theatre maker hundreds of years after the fact)
The group gathers together in a tight cluster. There is a moment of expectancy while everyone waits to find out who will be the fox and who the hounds. The person who feels called to will tag someone on the elbow and shout, “Hide fox, and all after.” And whomever is tagged is the fox and s/he must run quickly and hide. The hounds (everyone remaining) must count to 30 together before pursuing the fox in whichever direction s/he rain. The one to find the fox then chooses the next fox.
And so it goes until all are tired of the game.
Bring me to him.
There are times when I wish I were religious. This is one of those times. I would like to somehow assure my dying grandmother that she’s on her way to heaven…that I might be able to bring her to Him, as it were.
In times like this, you really can see how religion got invented. Yes, of course, you’re not DYING so much as GOING on to the better place! You’re on your way to reunite with all your loved ones. You’re on your way to see your God. It’s all good news.
But fundamentally, I don’t believe any of this – so it’s hard to say reassuring things like it, even if SHE thinks they’re so.
Maybe we should hire a religious bedside sitter to bring her to Him.
Of nothing.
One of the notes on this line references a “well-known” association of Shakespeare’s time for the word “Nothing,” It says it was a well-known euphemism for the vagina. Now. I’m not gonna quibble with an editor – but I would like some evidence for this “well-known” idea. I feel like I can get pretty deep into the weeds with scholarship –particularly bawdy scholarship – but this “well-known” euphemism is not known to me. An “O” I will accept and I can see how an “O” could lead quite neatly to nothing. O looking like ZERO, which equals nothing. Okay.
But maybe because I am possessed of an “O” or a “case” or a “pillicock –hill” or a “pie”, I am not at all keen on the “nothing” euphemism. Nothing? Really?
A thing, my lord?
Guildenstern says absolutely nothing this entire scene and he finally chooses to join in with THIS line? Wha?
It doesn’t SOUND like a line with a lot of significance and yet it must have some because not ONLY is it Guildenstern’s only line in the scene, it is the last one that either Rosencrantz or Guildenstern say in the scene (and not incidentally the last line Guildenstern says in the play.)
Whatever Guildenstern is doing here, he’s triggered Hamlet somehow – such that he decides to stop toying with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern and just go see Claudius.
Is it a threat? Does it somehow align Guildenstern with the King? Guildenstern has made his allegiance clear in a previous scene – so maybe he’s stepping in to be the King’s muscle here? The line wants more than a casual repetition of what Hamlet said a moment before. What that more is, I don’t know. I think, if I were playing Guildenstern, I’d have to find it.
The King is a thing –
There are scholarly assessments of what Hamlet might be about to say here. I’d suggest that they probably know what they’re talking about – but as the words are not ACTUALLY here, they COULD be anything we want. I want them to be something like:
The King is a thing
That goes ring a ding ding
And sometimes kaching
When the meter’s running.
But I know it is definitely NOT that.
The thing is, though, imagining it to be so would create a very specific way to say the only part that is actually heard. It’s a moment for some possible comedy.
The Hamlet Project 