Jonathan Elias

Trifling Advice: Blood- & Desperation- “Toys” in Hamlet

            The word “toy” stands out especially in Hamlet when analyzed against the grave, tragic foil of the bulk of the play’s content. Appearing twice within Act One alone—and a third and final time in Act Four, Scene Five, which I didn’t quite read up to—the contexts, specific meanings, and scene arrangements of each use of the word seem totally unique; however, like with the prominence of the word itself, the thematic similarities between these two instances are further dramatized by their apparent distinctness.

             In Act One, Scene Four, Horatio warns Hamlet against following his father’s ghost, saying the ghost might take Hamlet to a “place [that] puts toys of desperation, / Without more motive, into every brain” that follows (75-76). In this instance the (now obsolete) applicable definition of “toy” is that of “a foolish or idle fancy; a fantastic notion (OED, 2nd ed., s.v. “toy,” 4a). Understood accordingly, Horatio is in essence advising against Hamlet’s venturing further in fear of the ethereal realm’s power to install notions of “desperation,” of a state of despair that would lead to a recklessness which in turn may spark one to commit some horrible deed.

            The value of this first interpretation of “toy” is gleaned when viewed in relation to the second. Like the aforementioned instance, Laertes’ evocation of “toy” comes within his giving of advice: “[as] For Hamlet,” Laertes warns Ophelia, “and the trifling of his favor, / Hold it a fashion and a toy in blood” (1.3.5-6). In this instance, “toy” is best understood  as “amorous sport, dallying,” in comparison to more serious and sincere forms of courtship (OED, 2nd ed, s.v. “toy,” 1). And as within her scene Ophelia never reacts definitively in accordance with or against Laertes’ recommendations, Hamlet’s almost immediate disavowal of Horatio’s cautioning and his resultant disappearance with the ghost quickly highlight his contradictory relation to the statements of many characters in Hamlet.

            Whereas the first analyzed instance presents meaning mostly in the form of action after the dialogue is spoken, the second does so when understood in relation to the other dialogue within the scene. The phrase a “toy in blood” can be seen as redundant, as the applicable definition of toy in itself already highlights the base, appetitive nature of Hamlet’s passion, which the modifier “blood” serves to do as well. This redundancy can be understood as providing an alternate interpretation of this phrase: As Polonius later mirrors almost exactly Laertes’ advice to Ophelia, the “toy in blood” indicates the corruptibility of advice, with the blood relations of these three characters turning Laertes’ and Polonius’ advice into another kind of toy, “a trifling speech or piece of writing” (OED, 2nd ed, s.v. “toy,” 3a).