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.

1858 col3

col3

3614 Rapier and dagger] Collier (ed. 1858) : “The weapons of the time. See a passage in R. Greene’s ‘James the Fourth,’ (Edit. Dyce, ii.128) where the learned editor has been sorely puzzled by the repetition of ‘rapier and dagger’ in the speeches of Slipper and the Cutler, from not understanding that what the first asked for was ‘a reaper /and digger,’ and that what the last wished to sell was “a rapier and dagger.’ The dialogue was, doubtless, made up from short-hand notes taken in the theatre, and the transcriber blundered, because in short hand the same letters spell reaper and digger and ‘rapier and dagger.’ In another passage, higher on the same page, the Rev. Mr. Dyce has printed ‘lakus skins” instead of ‘jackass skins,’ and ‘clark’ instead of calf ,; not seeing that the Clown was referring to the different kinds of leather of which slippers might be made. Such oversights, even by careful editors, ought to make us charitable.”

1870 Von Friesen

Von Friesen

3614 Rapier and dagger] Von Friesen (1870, pp. 365-6): <p. 365>"Die von mir gelenglich ausgesprochene Vermuthung, dass Osrick’s Antwort: ’Rapier and dagger’ ((eine Zusammenstellung, die übrigens in mehreren alten englischen Stücken vorkommt)) auf die Frage Hamlet’s: "What’s his weapon?’ auf eine, damals übliche, später aber völlig ausser Gerauch gekommene, Form des Fechtens Bezug haben möge, hat sich durch einige Forschungen in alten Fechtbüchern vollständig bestätigt. Cam. Apgrippa, Trattato di sienza d’armi, Venetia 1563 scheint zwar die Gestalt und Art der bei der Fechkunst üblichen Waffen als allbekannt vorauszusetzen und giebt keine besondere Beschreibung davon. In den, diesem Buche beigefügten, Abbildungen ist aber jeder Fechter mit einem Degen in der rechten undd einem Dolch in der liken Hand dargestellt, und aus dem Text—soweit ich denselben durchgesehen habe—geht hervor, dass der dolch in der linken hand nicht zum Angriff, sondern zur Abwehr der Stösse des Gegners bestimmt war. Wenigstens wird, wenn auch ohne Nennung des Dolches, wiederholt darauf eine Anweisung gegeben, wie mit der linken hand die Klinge des Gegners abzuhalten, oder wie zum Schutz gegen einen zu erwartenden Stoss die linke Hand zu halten sei. Wäre diese nicht mit einen Dolche" </p. 365><p. 366>"bewaffnet, so würde dieses Beginnen misslich, wenn nicht fruchtlos sein. In einem andern Buche: Ach. Marozzo, Arte del’armi, Venetia 1568. 4. Kommt der Dolch nur ausnahmsweise vor, wogegen häufiger ein kleiner Schild ((brochiero)) oder ein Mantel zum Auffangen und Abwehren der Stösse des Gegners dient. Es finden sich indessen in diesem umfangreichen Buche Scenen abgebildet, wo beide fechter nur mit einem Dolche bewaffnet sind, dieser also als beiderseitige Angriffswaffe gebraucht wird. Ich sollte glauben, dass,, bei der Vorliebe, mit welcher in England zu Shakespeare’s Zeiten die Fechtkunst betgrieben wurde, diese Angaben genügend sind, um sich versichert zu halten, in damaligen Zeiten habe sowohl mit dem Stossdegen ((rapier)) als auch mit dem Dolche ((dagger)) in gleich kunstgerechter Weise umzugehen verstanden habe.

"Uebrigens bestätigen die angeführten Bücher auch meine, im vorjährigen Jahrbuche gegebene, Anweisung zur Vertauschung der Rapiere in der Fechtscene. Dennn die beiden Bücher geben zur Versinnlichung der Art und Weise, wie die Waffe des Gegners eventuell zu ergriefin sei, bildliche Darstellungen, welche in Bezug auf die Handgriffe und die Stellungen meinen Angaben entsprechen. H. Frih. V. Friesen." ["My occasionally expressed assumption which I chose to make that Osrick’s answer, "Rapier and dagger," (a combination which by the way appears in older English dramas) to Hamlet’s question, "What’s his weapon," derived from a then customary but later utterly disused style of fighting, is verified by some thorough research into old fighting manuals. Cam. Agrippa, Trattato di sienza d’armi, Venetia 1563. 4. seems indeed to assume as well-known the form and shape of the typical weapons of fencing and gives no special account thereof. In the figures, added to this book, each fighter is presented with a sword in the right and a dagger in the left hand, and from this text--so far as I have examined it--the dagger in the left hand was not used for attack, but on the contrary to deflect the thrust of the opponent. At least, it was presented, if also without the mention of the dagger, through repeated instructions how one may deflect the blade of the opponent with the left hand, or how one may hold the left hand for protection against the expected thrust. Were this hand not armed with a dagger, so would this undertaking be awkward if not ineffective. In another book (Ach. Marozzo, Arte dell’armi, Venitia 1568.4, the dagger appears only exceptionally, whereby more frequently a small shield ((brochiero)) or a mantle serves for the catching and deflecting of the opponent’s thrust. It appears meanwhile scenes represented in these extensive books, where both fencers are armed only with a dagger, this also was used mutually as an assault weapon. I should hope that I have understood to have produced certainty with respect to the preference with which the art of fencing was practiced in Sh’s England, these instructions are sufficient to have affirmed a fencer could imperfectly evade if he could not avoid a thrust as well with a rapier as with a dagger in a similarly artful manner.

"In passing, the cited books confirm as well my representation of the exchange of rapiers in the dueling scene, given in previous Jahrbuchs. If both of these books give the art and manner how one may grasp the weapon of the opponent, which in the case of the handgrip and the position to meet my instructions."]

1882 elze2

elze2

3614 Rapier and dagger] Elze (ed. 1882): “Whilst the rapier was used as an aggressive weapon by the ‘rapier and dagger men’, the dagger was held in the left hand and served to ward off the blows of the antagonist, for which purpose it seems sometimes to have been provided with an inordinately large hilt, a hilt, says Ithamore in Marlowe’s Jew of Malta (Works, ed. Dyce, in 1 vol. p. 169a) ‘like a warming pan’. No less frequently than of ‘rapier and dagger men’ mention is made in Elizabethan literature, of ‘sword and bucker men’ who employed a buckler instead of a dagger; see Rowley, When you see me, you know me, ed. Elze, p. 29. Compare von Friesen in the Jahrbuch der Deutschen Shakespeare-Gesellschaft, V, 365 seq. Of course I do not mean to deny that the dagger was also used as an aggressive weapon as well as the rapier and without the support of the latter.”

1929 trav

trav

3614 Rapier and dagger] Travers (ed. 1929): “Nimble as the rapier was, in comparison with its more sturdy English predecessors, it was still too heavy for quick parries; and these, in consequence, were made with a dagger, held in the left hand. Rapier and dagger were thus associated as sword and buckler had been.”

1934 cam3

cam3

3614 Rapier and dagger] Wilson (ed. 1934): “Despite Ham.’s jest Osric’s reply is in correct form, since ‘What’s his weapon?’ means ‘What style of fence does he follow?’ (cf. note 5.2.222 [3674-76] S.D.). At l. 152 [3618] ‘poniards’=daggers.”

1939 kit2

kit2 ≈ elze2

3614 Rapier and dagger]

1982 ard2

ard2 : WHH

3614 Rapier and dagger] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “The fashionable mode c. 1600, displacing sword and buckler but itself presently to be superseded ((cf. [3674-5]S.D. n.)). See Porter, Two Angry Women of Abington, MSR, ll. 1339-42, ‘sword and buckler fight, begins to grow out, . . . this poking fight of rapier and dagger will come up’. With the dagger ((or poniard, as [3618] in the left had, one warded off the opponent’s rapier while thrusting with one’s own. Cf. [Rom. 3.1.158-60 (1610)] and WHH, pp. 279-80].”

1992 fol2

fol2≈ standard

3614 Rapier and dagger]