HORATIO Against the which a moiety competent

Was gaged by our King, which had return

To the inheritance of Fortinbras

Had he been vanquisher, as by the same co-mart

And carriage of the article design

His fell to Hamlet. (1.1.89-94)

This is complicated stuff, and in very long sentences (this is actually beginning mid sentence) as Horatio sets out the backstory of historical conflict with Norway—Fortinbras—and the rising tensions and increasing preparations for war in the present. Against the which—that is, against Fortinbras’s personal lands, which he staked as a wager in this single combat—a moiety competent, an equivalent portion, in this case of land was gaged by our King: he staked exactly the same, his own holdings of land in Denmark (not crown land as such), which had return to the inheritance of Fortinbras had he been vanquisher: if Fortinbras had won, that land would have come to him and (importantly) his heirs and successors, as by the same co-mart and carriage of the article design his fell to Hamlet. It’s a long and legally complicated way of saying that these two great kings, a generation ago, bet the family farm (as it were) on the outcome of single combat between them, the winner taking the other’s lands, lands which would otherwise have descended to their sons and heirs as a personal possession. And, as it turned out, Fortinbras’s lands, exactly as had been agreed and contracted, did come to Hamlet. There’s a contrast between the legalese, the technical-sounding drawing up of such an arrangement, and this idea of the Danish king as a fearsome warrior, but he was clearly a ruthless, canny politician as well as a great fighter—albeit one prepared to give away his son’s inheritance on a matter of honour. That’s Hamlet’s father they’re talking about. Easy to cut this speech, but it’s doing really interesting things in establishing the character of the ghost and, especially, his apparent relationship with his son—who hasn’t yet been mentioned, not a word.