Carriage is a funny word to have lasted all these years. It seems to have begun as a sort of cart – like – anything as wheels. And then anything that carries something else, as in this case, with the sword belts carrying swords and now we use it similarly for train cars, for baby carriers, for the fancy horse driven conveyances that people take through Central Park.
But it sounds as though carriage here is a not common usage.
It might be Osric prettying up “sword holders.”
Three of the Carriages, in faith, are very dear to fancy, very Responsive to the hilts, most delicate carriages, And of very liberal conceit.
This is a rather rapturous response to some sword paraphernalia. And this does rather suggest that Osric has had the opportunity to peruse them all. That suggests they have been on display, more or less. Perhaps having the swords out and touched and admired adds the opportunity for plausible deniability. The plan is, after all, to cut Hamlet with a poisoned sharp sword and if the swords have been lying around in front of just everyone – their carriages fondled considerably by men like Osric, then men like Osric will be the most likely to be fingered in the crime once it has happened. Clever really. If it had gone off as planned – Claudius might have had Osric arrested for Hamlet’s murder.
Against the which he has imponed, as I take It, six French rapiers and poniards, with their Assigns, as girdle, hangers, and so:
So this is what Laertes is staking in this bet?
The pronouns don’t make this whole situation especially clear.
But also – it is a very odd amount of specificity.
Like – why does Osric know about all the accessories of these swords?
Has Laertes made a display of his swords? Has he brought them out and paraded them around?
Is Claudius doing the same with his six Barbary horses?
Are the horses walking around a track with Laertes’ swords on their backs?
I think this section is often cut in most productions so I’ve not really paid it much attention before but it is wholly bizarre.
And the fact that Laertes and Claudius are doing it all for show so they can kill Hamlet without discovery is even more bizarre.
The king, sir, hath wagered with him six Barbary Horses:
The use of “with” here makes me wonder what the conditions and rules of this duel actually are.
The king has wagered with Laertes.
Does this mean he has bet Laertes? That is – if Laertes wins, he’ll give him six Barbary horses? Is that the deal? And then this whole swords with their carriages is what Laertes will give Claudius if he loses?
Is that right?
It’s not just a simple “Let’s see who wins” situation. There are stakes. But not for Hamlet – at least not in the public set up. It’s odd to frame it that way. The conditions are sort of needlessly complex. But maybe that needless complexity is on purpose – to distract from the murdering they’re planning on doing. If everyone is busy thinking about Barbary horses and carriages of swords, then they might not notice the murdering.
That’s two of his weapons: but well.
Classic joke. Just. Classic.
I feel like I want to do a study where I ask comedians to analyze and breakdown the jokes in Hamlet. (And possibly some other plays as well.) Like – what would we call this? Does this type of joke have a name? I’ve written a couple of jokes into my novel for young people and they’re not quite this style but they have a style similar to each other and I wonder if those jokes have a category.
Is there a book of lazzi for the modern age? A book of verbal zingers – a collection and/or taxonomy of language based jokes?
Rapier and dagger.
I’m curious about what this choice of weapons says about Laertes.
Does it reveal something about his character?
A quick google shows me that rapier and dagger was considered something that only a master fencer would use. My research on this matter is one academic style blog on the internet so it’s not extensive – but if it were so…it would suggest that simply by choice of weapon, Laertes is a skilled swordsman. It’s like – if you hear that someone is a doctor and then hear what kind, and he’s a neurosurgeon and also you were invited to have a doctoring contest with him.
What’s his weapon?
I want to know if this is a genuine question. Is Hamlet asking because he really wants to know or is he just switching tactics for setting Osric up?
It’s funny to think of people as having a weapon. Like – in Dungeons and Dragons, it’s perfectly logical for everyone to have a weapon. But for human beings to specialize in different weapons? It’s a little funny. And also not at all funny.
I mean – what’s my weapon? I’ve taken some stage combat – what was my favorite way to hurt someone?
Oh, my feet, for sure. I love a good kick. Followed only by a punch.
But also I like a weapon that’s not usually a weapon – a pen, for example – both to write something devastating but also to poke in an eye.
But in the imputation Laid on him by them, in his meed he’s unfellowed.
Uh…who’s “them” here? Which “them” laid all this imputation on Laertes? Also – I feel that “meed” here is not accidentally sitting here sounding just like “mead” when Laertes has had a little experience with the drinking establishments in France. I mean – it’s a joke just sitting there waiting for Hamlet to make – and then he doesn’t. He goes right to an actually practical and non-joke question.
He lets that mead/meed confusion just rest there on the table.
I mean, sir, for his weapon.
It is interesting how “weapon” can so easily become a euphemism for penis. Osric surely doesn’t mean it that way but any group of actors is very likely to make this joke between shows or in rehearsal. Penis as a weapon is one of those long standing jokes – sword, dagger, rapier, etc.
And it’s funny, it’s funny, It’s so funny.
But there have been quite a few men who have, historically, used their penises as weapons. Rape is basically the weaponization of the penis.
I don’t understand how anyone would enjoy part of his body inflicting pain and trauma on another person. If I “lost control” of my knee sometimes and just “couldn’t help myself” and couldn’t stop kneeing dudes in the balls, I feel like I’d develop a sort of complicated relationship with my knee. Like, I’d need the knee to walk and to dance and what not but also, there it is – just, compulsively forcing itself into men’s crotches.
I feel like I would take precautions. I would find ways to mitigate my knee’s dark impulses. Maybe wrap it in bubble wrap? Hang signs from it that said, “Men beware, this knee wants to kick you. Maintain a distance of four feet at all times.”
If my knee were a weapon, I’d hope I would find ways to keep it sheathed. And for the men who don’t see their penises as weapons, those men seem like can just enjoy a part of their bodies and women’s bodies as well. It doesn’t really seem like it’s that difficult to just have a body with different parts and treat all other bodies with respect.
But to know a man well, were to know himself.
Certainly the better I know others, the better I know myself. When I see others clearly, I see myself in counterpoint or in affinity. I recognize that a trait that I hadn’t even noticed in myself is not universal, that it IS a trait. When I see others behaving in ways I can’t imagine, I can see some of the ways I diverge from them and could never imagine making their choices.
As a highly empathetic person I have often been unable to distinguish between myself and others. I used to not be sure which desires were mine and which belonged to others, so fused with them I felt myself to be.
But the more specific one gets about people, the more our beautiful diversity and divergence comes forward.
The Hamlet Project 