Line 2267 - Commentary Note (CN) 
Commentary notes (CN):
1. SMALL CAPS Indicate editions. Notes for each commentator are divided into three parts:
In the 1st two lines of a record, when the name of the source text (the siglum) is printed in SMALL CAPS, the comment comes from an EDITION; when it is in normal font, it is derived from a book, article, ms. record or other source. We occasionally use small caps for ms. sources and for works related to editions. See bibliographies for complete information (in process).
2. How comments are related to predecessors' comments. In the second line of a record, a label "without attribution" indicates that a prior writer made the same or a similar point; such similarities do not usually indicate plagiarism because many writers do not, as a practice, indicate the sources of their glosses. We provide the designation ("standard") to indicate a gloss in common use. We use ≈ for "equivalent to" and = for "exactly alike."
3. Original comment. When the second line is blank after the writer's siglum, we are signaling that we have not seen that writer's gloss prior to that date. We welcome correction on this point.
4. Words from the play under discussion (lemmata). In the third line or lines of a record, the lemmata after the TLN (Through Line Number] are from Q2. When the difference between Q2 and the authors' lemma(ta) is significant, we include the writer's lemma(ta). When the gloss is for a whole line or lines, only the line number(s) appear. Through Line Numbers are numbers straight through a play and include stage directions. Most modern editions still use the system of starting line numbers afresh for every scene and do not assign line numbers to stage directions.
5. Bibliographic information. In the third line of the record, where we record the gloss, we provide concise bibliographic information, expanded in the bibliographies, several of which are in process.
6. References to other lines or other works. For a writer's reference to a passage elsewhere in Ham. we provide, in brackets, Through Line Numbers (TLN) from the Norton F1 (used by permission); we call these xref, i.e., cross references. We call references to Shakespearean plays other than Ham. “parallels” (//) and indicate Riverside act, scene and line number as well as TLN. We call references to non-Shakespearean works “analogues.”
7. Further information: See the Introduction for explanations of other abbreviations.
Click
here for more information about browsing the entries
and
here for more information about the special symbols
used in Hamletworks. Click the question mark icon above to remove this help message.
Notes for lines 2023-2950 ed. Frank N. Clary
| 2267 I will speake {dagger} <Daggers> to her, but vse none, | 3.2.396 |
|---|
1736 Stubbs
Stubbs: See theo1 (p. 306)
2267 Stubbs (1736, p. 32): “The Prince’s Resolution upon his going to his Mother, is beautifully express’d and suitable to his Character.”
1778 v1778
v1778: Ret. from Parn.analogue
2267 I will . . . to her] Steevens (ed. 1778): “A similar expression occurs in the Return from Parnassus: ‘They are pestilent fellows, they speak nothing but bodkins.’ It has been already observed, that a bodkin anciently signified a short dagger. Steevens.”
1791- rann
rann: Ado //
2267 speak dagger] Rann (ed. 1791-): “‘She speaks poniards.’ Ado [2.1.247 (649)].”
1803 v1803
v1803=v1793 + Plautus analogue
2267 speak dagger] Steevens (ed. 1803): “It may, however, be observed, that in the Aulularia of Plautus, Act II. sc. I. a phrase not less singular occurs: ‘Me. Quia mitri misero cerebrum excutiunt Tua dicta, foror: lapides loqueris.’ Steevens."
1815 Becket
Becket ≈ v1813 without attribution
2267 speak dagger s] Becket (1815, 1: 55): “It should be observed that in the Return from Parnassus a quibble is intended. Bodkins (daggers); and bodekins, which word was common among the petty swearers of Shakspeare’s time, and is used even now.”
1819 cald1
cald1=v1813; ≈ rann (Ado //)
2267 speak dagger] Caldecott (ed. 1819): “Benedict says of Beatrice, ‘she speaks poniards.’ Ado [2.1.247 (649)].”
1826 sing1
sing1 ≈ v1821 without attribution
2267 speak dagger] Singer (ed. 1826): “‘They are pestilent fellows, they speak nothing but bodkins.’—Return from Parnassus. In the Aulularia of Plautus a phrase not less singular occurs:—‘Me. Quia mitri miseri cerebrum excutiunt, Tua dicta soror: labides loqueris.’ 2.1.”
1845 Hunter
Hunter
2267 Hunter (1845, 2:254-5): <p.254> “To be sure not; and strange it is that the Poet should have thought it necessary to put such a remark into the mouth of Hamlet. That the thought should arise detracts from our admiration of his character as much as it precludes approbation or silent admission of the moral taste discovered in this play by its author. It is, besides, dramatically improper; for, in the first place, his mother had done nothing to </p.254><p.255> deserve it; it is not even insinuated against her that she was acquainted with the manner of her former husband’s death. Her offence was marrying again too soon, and, in addition to this, that her second husband was brother to the first. In the next place, such a deed would not only delay the execution of the high behest of the ghost, which is the main purpose of the drama, but would in all probability have entirely frustrated it; and Hamlet cannot be supposed not to have foreseen that such would be the result. Hamlet a matricide would have become instantly an object of universal odium. In fact, the truth cannot and ought not to be concealed that, popular as this play is, not in England only but all the world over, there are parts in it which seem quite at variance with the ordinary modes of thinking of its author. In the whole range of the drama there is perhaps nothing more offensive than what soon follows, when Hamlet, on his way to his mother’s chamber, overhears by chance the expression of sorrow and contrition from the mouth of the guilty King, and refrains from executing the command of the ghost, saying, ‘Now might I do it, pat . . . revenged?’ and he is made to pursue the thought through many lines farther, doting on an idea which is absolutely shocking. Besides, as an excuse for not then executing the command under the spell of which he lived, it is poor and trivial. But I have said enough on this point before.” </p.255> See also Hunter’s earlier remarks on the moral offensiveness of the play (2:206-8).
1857 fieb
fieb ≈ sing (incl. Return analogue)
2267 speake daggers] Fiebig (ed. 1857): “Speak daggers, i.e. words as sharp and piercing as daggers. Steevens quotes a similar expression witch occurs in the Return from Parnassus, 1606: They are pestilent fellows, the speak nothing but bodkins.”
1868 c&mc
c&mc
2267 Clarke & Clarke (ed. 1868, rpt. 1878): “This steadying of his thoughts from their rage of resentment in thinking of the murderous king, this recalling of gentler and tenderer emotions when preparing to encounter his mother, this discrimination of purpose and pre-arrangement of the words and conduct he will use towards her, are surely those of a man whose mind, however tossed by misery, is thoroughly untouched in intellect.”
1872 cln1
cln1: xref.: ≈ rann (Ado //); Proverbs analogue
2267 speake dagger] Clark and Wright (ed. 1872): “Compare [3.4.95 (2473)], and Ado [2.1.246-7 (649-50)]: ‘She speaks poniards and every word stabs.’ See Proverbs xii. 18.”
1875 Marshall
Marshall
2267 Marshall (1875, p. 50): See [3.4.95 (2473)].
1877 v1877
v1877=Hunter minus “In the whole . . . . the play.”
2267 I will . . .
none]
Furness (ed. 1877): “
Hunter (ii, 254): To be sure not; and strange it is that the Poet should have thought it necessary to put such a remark into the mouth of Ham. That the thought should arise detracts from our admiration of his character, as much as it precludes approbation or silent admission of the moral taste discovered in this play by its author. It is, besides, dramatically improper; for, in the first place, his mother had done nothing to deserve it; it is not even insinuated against her that she was acquainted with the manner of her former husband’s death. Her offence was marrying again too soon, and, in addition to this, that her second husband was brother to the first. In the next place, such a deed would not only delay the execution of the high behest of the Ghost, which is the main purpose of the drama, but would in all probability have entirely frustrated it; and Ham. cannot be supposed not to have foreseen that such would be the result. Ham. a matricide would have become instantly an object of universal odium. In fact, the truth cannot and ought not to be concealed that, popular as this play is, not in England only, but all the world over, there are parts in it which seem quite at variance with the ordinary modes of thinking of its author.”
1878 rlf1
rlf1 ≈ cln1; ≈ Hunter + magenta underlined
2267 speake dagger . . . vse none] Rolfe (ed. 1878): speak daggers . . . use none] “Cf. [3.4.95 (2473)]: ‘These words like daggers enter in mine ears;’ and Ado [2.1.246-7 (649-50)]: "She speakes poniards, and every word stabs." See also Prov. xii. 18 (Wr.). Hunter says: "To be sure not, and strange it is that the Poet should have thought it necessary to put such a remark into the mouth of Hamlet," etc. It is not necessary to suppose that Hamlet had seriously thought of killing his mother. He may be recalling the injunction of the Ghost: Revenge my murder, but only on your uncle, not on your mother. And yet he must speak daggers to her, although he is to use none against her.”
1882 elze
elze: Murray (Boswell’s Life of Johnson)
2267 I will speake dagger] Elze (ed. 1882): “Compare Boswell’s Life of Johnson (Murray, 1835) IV, 132 seq.: ‘Colonel Pennington said, Garrick sometimes failed in emphasis; as, for instance, in Hamlet, “I will speak daggers to her; but use none”, instead of “I will speak daggers to her; but use none”.’ The reading of Q1, however, seems to fall in with Garrick’s delivery of this line; it is as follows:—‘I will speake daggers, those sharpe wordes being spent, To doe her wrong my soule shall ne’re consent.’”
1885 macd
macd: xref.
2267 speake dagger] MacDonald (ed. 1885): “His words should be as daggers.” See [3.4.95 (2473)].
1891 dtn
dtn ≈ rann + magenta underlined
2267 speake dagger] Deighton (ed. 1891): “speak daggers] i.e. words that will stab to the heart as keenly as daggers would pierce the flesh; cp. Ado 2[2.1.246-7 (649-50)], ‘She speaks poniards, and every word stabs,’ though there used in no very serious sense.”
1903 rlf3
rlf3=rlf1 minus cln1 attribution, Hunter
1909 subb
subb: contra Hunter
2267 vse none] Subbarau (ed. 1909): “Hunter’s criticism would have been quite different had he been privileged to read the mind of Hamlet correctly and fully. The matter will be made clear in the Exposition.”
Exposition not completed beyond Chapter 3. This particular note was to have been in Chapter 28. See “Rough Plan of the Exposition, pp.385-6.
1982 ard2
ard2 ≈ cln1 minus Proverbs analogue + magenta underlined
2267 speake dagger] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “As he does. Cf. [3.4.95 (2473)]. The image is anticipated in Ado [2.1.246-7 (649-50)] ‘She speaks poniards, and every word stabs’ and 3H6 [2.1.96-9 (753-6)].”
1987 oxf4
oxf4: Dent
2267 speake dagger] Hibbard (ed. 1987): “The words became proverbial (Dent D8.I).”
1999 Dessen & Thomson
Dessen & Thomson
2267 dagger] Dessen & Thomson(1999): “widely used . . . for violence and threats of violence [in SDs].”
Transcribed by BWK, who adds: “The Q2 singular may be a synonym, metaphorically, for ‘violence.’ See also [3.4.95 (2473)], where Hamlet seems to have achieved his goal.”
1994 ShQ
Mullaney: Waad, Edwards analogues
2267 Mullaney (1994, p. 148): “Waad provides a curiously one-dimensional, even proto-Freudian interpretation of the scene. Edwards’s display of love in the form of a drawn dagger seems at least to combine sexual and other potential forms of physical aggression and violence; whatever the case, his act was in itself a violation of the queen’s presence, and one that is tempting to relate to hamlet’s audience with another queen, when he needs to remind himself to use verbal rather than physical violence in Gertrude’s chamber: ’I will speak daggers to her, but use none’ (3.2.387).”
2001 ShSt
Paster: 2265 xref
2267 Paster (2001, p. 49): “Thus Hamlet’s thirst here bespeaks his natural embeddedness in the world and an openness to the cues of time and season. He proclaims his readiness ’now’ for the heart-stimulating, anger-inducing drink of ’hot blood,’ proverbially recommended (according to Hibbard) as an incitement to homicide. Even as he promises himself not to let ’the soul of Nero enter this firm bosom,’ to ’speak [daggers]’ to his mother ’but use none’ [3.2.394, 396], we should note echoes of the earlier discourse of purgation, with words uttered in choler functioning as purgative agent for Gertrude’s imagined spiritual opening and substituting for the physical daggers that he vows not to employ.”
2004 ShQ
Danner
2267 Danner (2004, p. 29): “That Hamlet chooses to ’speak daggers . . . but use none’ (3.2.387)--and thus to rely on language when he should most act--remains the central fact of the play for many audiences. Why he should become distracted in the speaking of daggers at all, however, continues to evade scholarly consensus. Over time this and related questions have led to comparisons between Hamlet’s increased distraction from his revenge and the metadramatic elements of Shakespeare’s art that undermine the play’s pretensions to mimesis.”
2004 ShQ
Danner: 1644, 2270 xref
2267 Danner (2004, p. 32): “Hamlet thus ’speak[s] daggers’ to Claudius only by sacrificing the certain, ’[m]ore relative’ grounds for action that he so ardently craves (3.2.387; 2.2.600). But perhaps still more perilous for Hamlet is the way this instance of symbolic violence satisfies his desire to harm Claudius without requiring him to ’give [his words] seals’ (3.2.390), one of the prince’s telling paraphrases for force.”
2006 ard3q2
ard3q2: ≈ oxf4; MA; Dent
2267 daggers] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “Most editors emend Q2’s ’dagger’ on the analogy of ’She speaks poniards’ (MA 2.1.232-3); ’to speak daggers’ or ’to look daggers’ become proverbial (Dent, D8.1).”
2267