Come, Hamlet, come, and take this hand from me.

I've never understood what's in their heads as they face each other before that duel begins.

Claudius: How the hell did you escape my plot to have you killed? If you're here, and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern aren't, then something's radically wrong. What do you know?

Hamlet: Why are you smiling at me? You know that I know what you know: you tried to have me killed. (I bet you're wondering where your accomplices are.) And I still know damn well you killed my father. I don't know what you're up to here, but I've already thought about dying.

With a subtext like that, the fact that those two would choose a public event for their first meeting after Hamlet's departure for England baffles me. Hamlet maybe -- he's got the upper hand. But Claudius? Is he riding on the crazy hope that Hamlet somehow escaped R&G without discovering his own murder plot? Why didn't he simply show Laertes the way to Hamlet's chamber?

The reason why Claudius goes through the whole England plot, when he could rightfully have Hamlet killed for killing Polonius, was because Hamlet was too loved by the people, and Claudius not enough. If people suspect Claudius of killing Hamlet they would turn on him. Then there's Laertes: he came back with a small following of people trying to proclaim him as king. Claudius needs Laertes but views him as a threat as well. Claudius knows that with the use of poison the outcome of the duel is set. Hamlet will die and Laertes will be held accountable, leaving Claudius as the good guy. If only that Gertrude hadn't messed things up, right? :)

Yes, all that is rational, but I am really wondering if I got their attitudes right when they shake hands before that duel. With two people engaged in a game like that, I imagine their meeting as being an electric moment. Their eyes lock; they shake hands in a death-like grip; the double-entrendres fly, every time one of them moves the other looks over his shoulder, each of them knows that with all these weapons lying around someone is bound to die, if they both leave the place alive then they're going to have one hell of a conversation later, they're surrounded by innocent bystanders who have no idea there's a murder plot afoot -- but I've never seen this in any production and I haven't read such a description of the scene anywhere (although I haven't read a lot of Hamlet scholarship). I keep feeling that I'm missing something when I read and watch that scene.

All I can make of it is that Claudius thinks Hamlet isn't fully aware that he has foiled his own murder plot due to some mysterious screw-up of R&G.

Thanks for the reply. I have tons of more questions. Here's another one: Why does Hamlet hide Polonius's body?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Plum

I am really wondering if I got their attitudes right when they shake hands before that duel.

---

That's probably how I would play it if I were acting as Claudius. As an outsider however, I say that Claudius does not the forethought to have think it through completely. He lives in the moment. "What, Hamlet is back? Alright, next plan, here we go."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Plum

Thanks for the reply. I have tons of more questions. Here's another one: Why does Hamlet hide Polonius's body?

---

what else is he going to do with him :)

The way Hamlet treats Polonius' body (both by dragging him to the closet and by the way he talks about him in 4.3) is really interesting, and in my view speaks to Hamlet's revised view of death. Consumed with it until 3.4, he suddenly realizes the meaningless of it after killing Polonius. The views he expresses in 5.1 are not the same views of death he has at the start of the play, so something had to change within him: the death of Polonius is that change. So since Polonius' death (like all death) is meaningless, and the body is just a piece of garbage now, why not chuck it in the closet?

The whole of Act V takes a strange turn to me. The extended comedy relief with the gravediggers is a radical shift in tone, then we have the lighthearted scene with Osric where they're just screwing with him, then the duel which has the problems you mentioned. It's a very strange situation. Have you by any chance read "Hamlet Z" yet? In that revision, Hamlet attends the duel actually hoping to take a stab at the King, figuring it's the only chance he'll get in proximity to the King armed now that hostilities are plain. "Hamlet Z" actually clarifies a lot of the motivations and strange plot twists in a really brilliant way (Though I suppose you don't know what "Hamlet Z" is cause it just got published, but that's a whole other topic...hmm, maybe I'll start a new thread...)

Hey, Arcadian

The comedy doesn't seem too radical a shift to me, especially since I watched David Tennant as Hamlet and saw that the play is potentially steeped in antic (and death). The Osric situation was always a bit painful to me, but entirely in keeping with Hamlet's quibbling, persecuting way of "conversation," right from "A little more than kin and less than kind."

I'm off to check out Hamlet Z, however. I'm always up for Shakespeare fanfic, especially when it addresses some of the great cruxes. I enjoyed John Updike's Claudius and Gertrude.

According to John Heminge and Henry Condell in their 'To the great variety of readers' in the 1623 Folio, 'Works of Shakespeare', the text was perfect.
(See attatched clip from Folio).

Surely those guys were not lying do you suppose? Surely, knowing the Author personally, they are credible witnesses?

So why do editors change stuff, even remove stuff, that they cannot grasp?

They're booksellers trying to sell a book;of course they say it's perfect. That being said, very few written editions will stray from the folio.