#(espec cause rosen = rose and guil = guilded like the globe's roof)

[agentravensong]

three observations / thoughts from reading the editorial notes in my new physical copy of Hamlet (the pelican edition, edited by a. r. braunmuller):

1. There's this bit from Act 2 Scene 2 where Hamlet is telling Ros and Guil about how he's depressed, how all the beautiful things in the world mean nothing to him. The thing that stuck out to me on this flip-through was the highlighted line and associated footnote below:

If we go with what is "traditionally supposed" as canon, then, it makes this line one of the most direct fourth-wall breaks in the whole show (that isn't a narrative device i.e. the soliloquies), because it implies that Hamlet sees the literal ceiling of the theater the play is being performed in.

You could just say that the golden fire refers to the real stars and such, making the "roof" metaphorical... but that's less fun.

2. There are a lot of bird allusions and metaphors in this play. Not just the “special providence in the fall of a sparrow” line that seems to haunt me specifically, but a lot of times that people are compared to birds.

marcellus calling for hamlet like how a falconer would apparently call a hawk in act 1 scene 5 when he's left on the battlements after the ghost disappears ("Illo ho ho, my lord!")

woodcocks (foolish birds) caught in springs (traps) (see polonius in act 1 scene 3 (talking about hamlet or ophelia, i think?), and laertes once he starts dying)

knowing a hawk from a handsaw, a spy from a true friend (act 2 scene 2) (according to the book "handsaw" is also supposed to sound like "hernshaw", a type of heron)

"it cannot be but i am pigeon-livered" (also act 2 scene 2)

cladius' limed soul (act 3 scene 4), "limed" apparently referencing birdlime, a gluey material used to snare birds

osric, the "lapwing" who "runs away with the shell on his head", comparing him to a freshly hatched baby bird

and at least one or two more that are currently slipping my mind.

Now, I’m relatively new to analyzing Shakespeare's works in this depth, so maybe this is a trademark in all his stuff, or maybe it was just common at the time; maybe it isn’t meant to be a pattern.

But amongst all those lines, I read this (part of Hamlet talking to Horatio after the play-within-a-play, leading up to him bragging to Horatio that he could definitely get a whole share in an actors' company):

And, given how meta Hamlet is as a play (see section 1/3 of this post)… perhaps this line, as unemphasized as it is, is meant to re-contextualize the rest of those bird references as pointing out / reminding us that all the characters are actors? Both in the literal meta sense and also the thematic “every character is playing a role for others and engaging in varying levels of deceit” sense?

Again, it’s possible I’m giving this more weight than it’s due because of my lack of context, but. It’s an interesting possibility, at least.

3. Okay, this last one is just funny. Remember when Laertes and Claudius are just beginning to brainstorm how they’ll eliminate Hamlet in the last scene of Act 4, and Claudius alludes to some skill of Laertes’ (fencing) that someone else has been spreading the word about? Do you remember who that someone was?

Well, the thing about this noted excellent horse-rider is…

Obviously, the only conclusion to draw from this is that the guy talking up Laertes’ fencing prowess is the literal Grim Reaper, setting things in motion for the fated fatal duel, and neither Claudius nor Laertes had the thought that taking such inspiration from a guy named as such might lead to an unfavorable end. Good job, you two.

#hamlet #a bonus small thing that almost certainly is just a coincidence but one that appeals to me: #the two major theaters shakespeare's plays were performed in at his time were the rose (first) and (then) the globe #r and g. ros and guil. :) #(espec cause rosen = rose and guil = guilded like the globe's roof)