Set me the stoups of wine upon that table.

It’s funny to see something that I associated with Sir Toby Belch in the mouth of King Claudius. Weirdly, I feel like I was equally exposed to these two plays – as they were the ones I performed in rep at my first job out of college. But if I had to match a phrase to a character, a stoup of wine would go direct to Toby Belch and miss Claudius entirely. It’s not necessarily a sign of character, this “stoup” business. It’s pretty much just a cup. Well, it’s a big cup. It’s a tankard. Which does feel like a Toby Belch thing. Though, if Hamlet’s perspective is accurate – Claudius does have a bit of Toby in him. He does seem to have brought back some intense drinking rituals to Elsinore – so his calling for stoups, as opposed to a glass or a cup or a dram, may indeed be a sign of character.

Are there any characters who refer to stoups of wine that aren’t big drinkers?

Ay, my good lord.

Osric is a classic yes man.

If Hamlet wanted an honest answer to this question, he could not be sure with a question like this. If Osric can answer “yes” he will.
“Are they all the same length? “ “Yes!” “Are these swords all different lengths?” “Yes!”

You’d have to ask “What are the lengths of these swords?” to get something besides yes.

One of things I learned from teaching is what kinds of questions are fruitful and which are dead ends. Questions that lead to Yes or No are not very useful in that, aside from motivations to agree or disagree with the asker, they tend to stop the conversation.

“Is Osric complicit in this plot?” is not as productive a question as “How might Osric be complicit in this plot?”

Then you get some goods. And then you can ask its opposite, “In what ways might Osric be innocent?”

These foils have all a length?

Is their length the key bit of info here?
I mean – I’d think you’d want a different length depending on how tall or short you are. If you’re really small, a long foil is a liability. It would be harder to control, I think.

But then, I am not a sword fighter. I have done some sword fighting, though and I KNOW I would not like to have a particularly long sword. You can hit from farther away, sure – but you’ll lose a measure of control, the farther away from your center of gravity the center of the sword’s gravity is.

This likes me well.

I like the slight anthropomorphihization of the sword. Here it is with the ability to LIKE Hamlet, I mean who wouldn’t? What self-respecting sword wouldn’t nestle itself happily in the grip of Hamlet’s hand?

“I like Hamlet!” it says as it makes itself at home in his hand. “I always dreamed that it would be Hamlet that would choose me and here I am, the luckiest sword on the sword table!”

“Gee whiz, I am one lucky sword. What a good day. Hamlet is the best guy. What a Prince. Literally! Get it? He’s the Prince of Denmark and also a prince of a man. I mean. He is the best. Best guy. Gosh, I like this guy. Such a guy. Lucky sword with the best guy.”

This is too heavy, let me see another.

So many Laerteses will broadcast their villainy to the rafters in this moment. They may as well give an evil laugh and wiggle their fingers, it is so obvious that they are up to no good. (Sidebar: two adorable children gave me a tutorial on how to be a “mean guy” a couple of days ago. It involved smiling maniacally and wiggling my fingers.) But it is rather a practical problem that Laertes has here. He has sharpened and poisoned only one sword and if the sword hander-outer hands him NOT that sword, then all his plans of murder are spoiled. In fact, if, by chance, the hander-outer hands Hamlet the sharp poisoned sword, he’ll be in trouble. (I mean, he gets hit with it anyway – but that’s a problem for later.)

Given that Osric is handing out the swords, one might start to wonder if he’s in on it. If he IS in on it, then this bit about the heavy sword is all performance. It would suggest that they’ve thought to make a little production of choosing the poisoned sword accidentally.

If Osric ISN’T in on it, Laertes has to work out how to get the sword he needs for the killing job. He probably has to point to the one he wants while he distracts everyone.

But since he is better’d, we have therefore odds.

What a curious sentence! It sort of rounds on itself, with since and therefore pretty much doing the same job. There’s something kind of clunky about it, in a way that is unusual for Claudius.

The deal of this wager is very curious. This Laertes having to get more points to beat Hamlet than Hamlet will have to get to beat Laertes business is very curious.

It’s like making it clear to everyone that this game has been rigged.

And it has, in fact, been rigged.

It’s been rigged to get Hamlet killed, several ways.

But the appearance is that the game is rigged for Hamlet, rather than against him.

I cannot help but think of how 45 kept proclaiming the election was rigged against him while it was, in fact, in the process of being rigged in his favor.

I have seen you both.

The way Claudius says this, it sounds as if he’s watched both these guys in a show or something. Granted, I have a heavily theatrical sensibility – so of course it sounds like he’s seen them both onstage to me.

Sports are also a thing people go see. It is a spectator experience. It’s not entirely impossible that Claudius could have watched both these guys compete.

However.

When?

When have either Laertes or Hamlet had time to participate in sparring? Hamlet’s been to “England” and Laertes has been in France. Previously, it was funeral and wedding time at Elsinore. Were there games as part of those celebrations?

When exactly has Claudius seen them both?

I do not fear it.

I wonder if murderers, on the whole, are not particularly fearful people. Like, has there been a comprehensive study of the personalities of murderers? I would think they probably aren’t ruled by fear – because fear would surely prevent them from doing something as risky as murder. Like, a fearful person may really want to murder his brother but he’d be afraid of being caught, or going to hell, or failing at it, or or or. Maybe murderers are an odd kind of optimist – the kind that assumes their actions will have no unwanted consequences.

Your grace hath laid the odds o’ the weaker side.

It is curious that Shakespeare takes such pains to tell us that Laertes is a better fighter. Osric tells us. Horatio tells us. Hamlet tells us here. The king is about to tell us in this next bit and has told us in the way he’s built the wager. The numbers of ways we are told that Hamlet is bound to lose this fight are MANY – and from Hamlet himself, too – though he has made it clear that he thinks he has a shot due to his continual practice since Laertes went to France.

But…it is interesting that Shakespeare has taken so many pains to make sure we know who is favored to win this duel. I suspect it’s so that it’s clear that the hit that Hamlet gets is a surprise to all of them. And it makes Hamlet the underdog in the fight, which always makes people root for him even harder than they might anyway. It’s an early sports movie motif, I guess. With more exciting language.

Very well, my lord.

How does he know the wager very well?

Because Osric told him.

Is this an opportunity for Hamlet to mess with Osric some more? He’s clearly present – the king has just told him to give them the foils. I’m guessing that this line would have to reference Osric somehow – either Hamlet delivers part of it TO Osric or nods at Osric or touches him as he receives a foil. Something.