3777 In . . . Rapiers] Anon. (1789, 19-21): <p. 19>“. . . and in the struggle with Laertes, he is not deficient in a proper degree of fire and spirit. It hath been remarked by some critics, that Mr. Kemble’s performance of the last scene is too mechanical and artificial, particularly the attitude in which he places himself, to parry off the weapon of his antagonist; but I must beg leave to remind these gentlemen of the great difference between the situation of a man who is under the necessity of defending his life, and of him who </p. 19> <p. 20> only handles his weapon as a trial of skill: Laertes, it is true, intended to destroy Hamlet, but Hamlet was unsuspicious of the snare; he had forgiven his adversary’s attack upon him at the burial, and thought only of gaining the superiority over him at a fencing match. Now does not he, in such a situation, act more agreeably to the rules laid down in the fencing academy, who puts himself upon his guard in a cool, unimpassioned manner, than he who, falling into a horrible passion, frets and blusters at his adversary as if he was fightint in good earnest? Passion can only be allowed where it is natural; but in this case it must be esteemed unnatural, as there is nothing to excite it. The peculiar grace with which Mr. Kemble makes his first pass at laertes shews excellent skill in the art of fencing, though it might, with great propriety, be esteemed artificial and stiff; was he en- </p. 20> <p. 21>gaged with Richmond in Bosworth field, we might then suppose passion to take the lead of reason.” </p. 21>

[Ed. HLA:This is the anonymous Short Criticsm of the performance of Hamlet by Kemble]

3777 In . . . Rapiers] Seymour (1805, 2:204) : <p. 204> “This exchange of weapons, as we see it exhibited on the stage, is, indeed, a very clumsy device; but there is no need of such absurd improbability: it is is common in the exercise of the sword for one combatant to disarm the other, by throwing with a thrust and strong parry the foil out of his hand; and Hamlet, having done this, might, agreeably with the urbanity of his nature, have presented his foil to Laertes, while he stooped to take up that of his adversary, and Laertes, who was only half a villain, could not have hesitated to accept the perilous accommodation, and indeed had not time allowed him to avoid it.” </p. 204>

3777 In . . . Rapiers] Pye (1807, pp. 328-9) : <p. 328> “I insert with great pleasure this very judicious observation of Mr. Seymour on the fatal conflict between Hamlet and Laertes. Instead of the clumsy and indistinct method by which the weapons are changed, for it generally escapes the most attentive eye, he proposes the mode which at once would be probable and obvious. ‘It is common,’ he says, ‘in the exercise of the sword for one combatant to disarm the other, by throwing with a thrust and strong parry the foil out of his hand; </p. 328> <p. 329>and Hamlet, having done this, might, agreeably with the urbanity of his nature, have presented his foil to Laertes, while he stooped to take up that of his adversary, and Laertes, who was only half a villain, could not have hesitated to accept the perilous accommodation, and indeed had not time allowed him to avoid it.” </p. 329>

3777 In . . . Rapiers] Caldecott (ed. 1819) ; “With respect to the probability of this part of the plot, Mr. Steevens has justly observed, that he does not easily conceive that rapiers can be changed in a scuffle without knowing it at the time.”

3777 In . . . Rapiers]

3776 Haue at you now] Delius (ed. 1854) : “‘es gilt jetzt,’ oder: ‘aufgepasst.’ Vgl. über diese elliptische Wendung Anm. 24, [1.4.? (677)].” [“‘it comes now[?]” or “look out”. See for this elliptical turn, note 24, [1.4.? (677)]”].

[Ed. HLA: note 24 for 677 has to do with have after , which Delius sees as analogous to have with you or ‘hinterdrein! mit!’, analogous German expressions for ‘move along with you’. He wonders if these are meant to be imperative or indicative, with which I or we might be supplied.]

3777 In . . . Rapiers] Delius (ed. 1854) : “Die Bühnenweisung in dieser Fassung rührt von Rowe her. Von den alten Ausgaben hat Q.A [Q1] die ausführlichste: They catch one another’s rapier and both are wounded. Laertes falls down, the Queen falls down and dies;d.h. jeder der beiden Fechtenden ergreift zur Fortsetzung des Gefechtes des Andern Stossdegen, nachdem beide Stossdegen ihnen im Gefecht aus den Händen gekommen waren. Dass diese Erklärung die richtige ist, ergiebt sich aus der, allein betrachtet, undeutlichen Bühnenweisung der Fol.: In scuffling they change rapiers, die erst durch die Verbindung mit der obigen ihr gehöriges Licht empfängt.” [ “The stage direction in this collection are drawn from Rowe. From the old editions, Q.A.[Q1] has the detailed: They catch one another’s rapier and both are wounded. Laertes falls down, the Queen falls down and dies; that is, each of the two duelists seizes in the pursuit of the duel the others sword, after which both swords came out of their hands in the duel. That this clarification is correct, yields itself from this, considered alone, the plain stage directions of the Fol: in scuffling they change rapiers , which first through the combination with the aforesaid received its proper light.”]

3777 In . . . Rapiers] Elze (ed. 1857, 260): <p. 260>"Diese Fassung der Bühnenweisung rührt von Rowe her; wir behalten sie bei, weil wir die der QB und FA nicht kennen. In QA heisst es: They catch anothers Rapiers , and both are wounded, Leartes falles downe, the Queene falles down and dies. StR hat an dieser Stelle gar keine Bühnenweisung.—Meistens, meint Tieck, werde dieser Zweikampf ganz falsch verstanden. Er denkt sich die Rappiere liegen. Die Kämpfenden ergreifen dieselben, machen einen Gang und legen sie dann wieder auf den Tisch, während die Pausen des Kampfes durch Gespräche gefüllt werden. Hier lässt der König durch Osrick oder irgend einen andern Höfling die Rappiere unbemerkt vertauschen, sodass nun das vergiftete auf Hamlets Seite zu liegen kommt und von diesem ergriffen wird. Denn der König, der sich überall als Mann von Consequenz zeigt, kann auch laertes nicht leben lassen, der soeben noch an der Spitze eines Rebellenhaufens stand und ausserdem ja den ganzen Plan kennt, der gegen Hamlet angelegt ist. S. Ludwig Tieck von Rud. Köpke ((Leipzig, 1855), II, 220. Allein von alle dem findet sich im Stücke keine Spur; überdies würde der König dadurch den Mitwisser des Geheimnisses keineswegs beseitigen, sondern nur an die Stelle des Laertes den die Rappiere vertauschenden Höfling setzen. Laerts wird vielmehr durch die herausfordernde Bemerkung Hamlets, dass er nur mit ihm spiele, aufs äusserste gereizt. Beide gerathen in Hitze ((part them! They are incensed)); im Handgemenge entfallen ihnen die Rappiere, die sie beim Wiederaufnehmen verwechseln. Laertes ist zu sehr erhitzt, und Hamlet viel zu arglos, als dass sie die Verwechslung bemerken sollten. Das ist die durch den Test selbst an die Hand gegebene Art und Weise, in der wir uns den Vorgang zu denken haben." [The setting for the stage directions originates in ROWE; we retain it because we do not know the setting of Q2 and F1. In Q1, it follows: ’ They catch anothers Rapiers , and both are wounded, Leartes falles downe, the Queene falles down and dies.’ StR does not even have a stage direction for this passage—Most, Tieck believes, comprehend the duel completely wrong. He thinks the matter thus. In the background stands a table, upon which the rapiers lie. The contenders grab these, make a pass, and lay them again on the table, while the interval of the duel is filled will conversation. Here the King allows the rapier, either through Osrick or some other courtier, to become poisoned unnoticed so that now the poisoned one comes to lie on Hamlet’s side and is seized by him. Because the King, who represents himself as one of consequence, cannot allow even Laertes to live, who just now still stood at the point of a rebellious crowd and moreoever knows the entire plan indeed which is laid against Hamlet. See Ludwig Tieck von Rud. Köpke ((Leipzig, 1855)), II, 220. However, one finds in this piece no trace of all of this; besides the King by no means would remove in this fashion his confidant in this secret, on the contrary only in the courtly agency of Laertes to place the exchange of the rapier. Laertes becomes extremely irritated often through the provocative remarks of Hamlet that he only plays with him. Both become enraged ((part them! They are incensed)); in the scuffle, the rapiers fall from them, which confuses them in picking them up. Laertes is so very enraged and Hamlet so very unsuspecting that they should notice the confusion. That is in the text the given fashion and manner in which we think this event occurred.]

3776 Tschischwitz (ed. 1869): “Dieser elliptische Ausdruck ist in der älteren Sprache besonders Personen aus den untern Ständern in den Mund gelegt. Have at thy tabard (taberda, Gewand). Town. Myst. p. 149. M.II. p. 387.” [“This elliptical expression is placed especially in the language of an older person from the lower class. Have at thy tabard (taberda, Gewand). Town. Myst. p. 149. M.II. p. 387.”]

3777 Miles (1870, p. 83): <p. 83>“Laertes wounds Hamlet; then in scuffling, they change rapiers, and Hamlet wounds Laertes. No accidental exchange, for Laertes would only have surrendered his unbated foil to the sternest compulsion of superior force; nor could Hamlet well have been unaware of that venomed stuck and the warm blood that followed it.” </p. 83>

3776 Haue at you now] note 24 for 677 has to do with have after , which Delius sees as analogous to have with you or ‘hinterdrein! mit!’, analogous German expressions for ‘move along with you’. He wonders if these are meant to be imperative or indicative, with which I or we might be supplied.

3777 In . . . Rapiers]

3777 In . . . Rapiers] Clark & Wright (ed. 1872): “The stage direction of the folios is ‘In scuffling they change Rapiers;’ but in the quarto of 1603 it is more elaborate: ‘They catch one anothers Rapiers, and both are wounded, Laertes falles downe, the Queene falles downe and dies.’ The other quartos have nothing.”

3777 In . . . Rapiers] Hudson (ed. 1872): “This exchanging of weapons, as commonly managed on the stage, has always seemed to me a very strained and awkward piece of business. The awkwardness is fairly removed in Mr. Edwin Booth’s ordering of the matter. Hamlet there strikes the foil out of Laertes’s hand, picks it up, and throws down his own, which is presently picked up by Laertes. I think this might well be given in the stage-direction; nevertheless, I keep to the received form.”

3777 In . . . Rapiers] Marshall (1875, 200): <p. 200>“ How this change of foils is brought about is not quite certain. Salvini delighted and surprised the audience, at the first representation he gave of Hamlet, by the graceful manner in which he managed this exchange. After Laertes had hit him, he put his hand up to his side, as if he felt the prick of the unbated weapon; then just as Laertes was about to take up his foil, which had been knocked out of his hand in the encounter, Signor Salvini placed his foot upon it, and bowing gracefully, presented his antagonist with his own foil. Graceful as this undeniably is, I do not think it can be justified on a careful consideration of the scene; the action is too deliberate; it is manifest that Hamlet does not stop when he is hit, but that he continues his attack furiously till the point of each foil getting caught in the hilt of the other, both are disarmed; but they do not stop, Hamlet being too eager to hit Lartes; each snatched at the first weapon that comes to his hand, and they continue the struggle, in which Hamlet wounds Laertes. In answer to the objection that Laertes, though struck with the venomed point after Hamlet, when the virulence of the poison might be supposed to have diminished, yet dies the first—it may be observed that Hamlet’s wound was probably much the slighter of the two, for the excited state in which he evidently was, and not knowing he had an unbated weapon in his hand, he would probably strike Laertes much harder than laertes, knowing the deadly power of the poison, had struck him. Hamlet’s words after the scuffle—’Nay, come again—’ could hardly have been spoken had he detected Laertes’ treachery, or had he been conscious that he was wounded. His mind is, I believe, entirely wrapped up in the trial of skill, for the time being, and his excitement arises from his eagerness to win the match.’” </p. 200>

3777 In . . . Rapiers] M.C. (apud Furness, ed. 1877): “After Ham. is hurt in the next round Laer. should master his foil. Ham. thus on the point of being disarmed, should by a vigorous effort seize the sword of Laer. Thus both parties would hold weapons, and in separating each would retain that of which he had a better hold. By these means an exchange might easily take place. It is quite unnecessary that the parties should be ignorant of the circumstance. Ham. is not aware of its importance; but Laer. sees his imminent peril. Horror, remorse, and shame would make him parry imperfectly in the next round, wherein he receives his mortal wound.”

3777 In . . . Rapiers] Furness (ed. 1877): “Tieck (Ludwig Tieck von Rud. Köpke, Leipzig, 1855, ii, 220, cited by ELZE) thus explains the rapiers: [‘] At the back of the stage there is a table, on which lie the rapiers. The combatants take them up, fight a round, and replace them on a table, and covnersation occupies the pause between the rounds. The King then lets Osric, or some other courtier, change the rapiers unobserved, so that the poisoned one falls to Ham. and is taken up by him. For the King, whose character is always consistent, cannot permit Laer. to survive, who had just headed a rebellion, and was moreover privy to the whole plot against Ham.[‘] [See Tieck, Appendix, Vol. II].”

[Ed. HLA:See Furness’s appendix for the citation to Tieck’s German original.’]

3777 In . . . Rapiers] Furness (ed. 1877) : “Elze thinks that in scuffling the rapiers are dropped, and are accidentally changed in picking them up, and that Laer is too excited and Ham. too unsuspicious to notice the change. Heussi attaches but little importance to the whole matter,—actors have more adroitness in managing such things than scholars at their desks, anywhow; the spectators need not see so very exactly that there has been an actual exchange. It is enough that the combatants become violently incensed, and that a spectator at a distance could not rightly say what was done in the scuffle. The issue makes it clear enough. [No aid, that I can find, is to be tained from Vincentio Salviolo his Practise, 1595. In sig. H3, directions are given for ‘fastning your left hand on the hiltes of your enemies swoord.’—Ed] The following stage-directions are given in Tom Taylor’s Acting Edition of Hamlet, 1873: ‘[Laertes wounds Hamlet; who in return disarms him, and catches his foil.]’ In A Study of Hamlet, by e.B.H. (London, 1875), the passage is thus given:—’[Laertes wounds Hamlet, who in return disarms him—Laertes then, to prevent himself being struck by Hamlet, rushes on him and clutches his foil—they struggle.] King. Part them! they are incens’d. [Hamlet leaves his foil in Laertes’s grasp and picks up the poinsoned one.] Ham. Nay, come again. [and rushing furiously on Laertes, wounds him and he falls.’ [See also Vol. II: Edwin Booth; Marquard; Flathe; Doering; Von Friesen, ED.]

[Ed. HLA:These references are to these works from which FURNESS cites other passages in volume 2, his appendix.]

3777 In . . . Rapiers]Marquard (apud Furness, ed. 1877): “The notorious ehxnage of rapiers, by which Hamlet is forced, just before his death, to fulfil his word, appears to be the work of spirits; the punishing and, at the same time, guiding hand is thrust in to bring on the end, as in the planetaryh system the force of physical law rules with an iron necessity, although the event is accomplished, apparently, by accident.”

3777 In . . . Rapiers] Flathe (apud Furness, ed. 1877): “Before the Queen dies, Laertes had thrust the poisoned sword-point into Hamlet’s breast. But the evil deed made his hand tremble, and he had to let his sword drop. Hamlet let his sword fall, also, as he received his deathblow. . . . Hatily seizing at the fallen swords, Hamlet caught hold not of his own, but of the poisoned one, and Laertes received from hamlet’s hand the deadly blow in his booby (büblishce) breast.”

3777 In . . . Rapiers] Doering (apud Furness , ed 1877): “The change of rapiers is to be thus explained. the same thrust with which Laerts give Hamlet hi smortal wound also disamred him,—that is, jerks Hamlet’s weapon out of his hand. the courtesy of a contest merely for exercise, or as a trial of skill, obliges him who disarmes his opponent to pick up the fallen weapon, and then offer both weapons to his antagonist to take which he pleased. Through this accident, on which Laertes had not counted, he was caught in his own springe, for the semblance of a trial of skill to be kept up. Hamlet chooses the envenomed rapier, and in the following fourth bout Nemesis overtakes Laertes.”

3777 In . . . Rapiers] Friesen (apud Furness, ed. 1877): “There is only way, I conceive of solving this problem on the stage [of exchanging weapons], and that is by reference to the Rules of the Fencing -school, and the lesson that relates to ‘Disarming with the Left Hand.’ The French translator possibly knew this lesson, as he paraphrases the stage-direction (‘They catch one antoher’s rapiers, and both are wounded’) with the following words, ‘Laerte blesse Hamlet, et dans la chaleur de l’assault ils se désarment et changent de fleuret, et Hamlet blesse Laerte.’ The lesson upon disarming, if I may depend on the memory of my schooldays, is somewhat this: As soon as your opponent has made a pass, and is about to return to his guard, you strike the most powerful battute possible (i.e. a blow descending along the blade of your opponent), in order to throw your opponent’s blade out its position, if possible, with its point downwards, at the same instant you advance the left foot close to the outer side of the right foot of your opponent, seize with the left hand the guard of your opponent’s rapier, and endeavour to wrest theweapon from his fist by a powerful pressure downwards; if this menœuvre succeeds, you put the point of your dagger to the breast of your opponent, and compel him to confess himself vanquished. When your opponent does not succeed in withstanding the battute, which makes it impossible for him to keep back his assailant with the point of his dagger, there is nothing for him to do but to meet the attack with the same manœuvre, and get his assailant’s weapon in his hand in the same wway. With persons of equal skill this is the ususal result, whereby they change places, and the combat is continued without delay. It is obvious that in the execution of this manœuvre on the stage, the greatest skill is required, that the whole thing may not prove a mere scuffle, as Tieck says he has seen it in English theatres.”

3777 In . . . Rapiers] Furness (ed. 1877): “In the fencing-scene, the wounding of Laertes with his own weapon is thus skilfully managed by Mr. Booth: Hamlet secures Laertes’s foil by a powerful parry of his thrust in carte, by which Hamlet disarmes him; catching his foil as it leaves his grasp with the left hand, Hamlet uses it as a dagger, being too close to him for a free use of his own weapon. Should a stickler for the ‘code’ object to this ‘pass of practice,’ it may be urged that the men are ‘incensed,’ and excitement must excuse it, and Laertes is estopped from demanding fair play, since his own has been foul from the start.”

3777 In . . . Rapiers] Hudson (ed. 1881): “Up to this moment Hamlet has not put forth his strength; he has been merely playing; now, on being unexpectedly pierced, he is instantly stung into fiery action; and he is a terrible man with the sword, when his blood is up.—The exchanging of foils takes place well in Mr. Edwin Booth’s ordering of the matter on the stage. There Hamlet, in a rapture of energy and adroitness, strikes the foil out of Laertes’s hand, picks it up, and throws down his own, which is presently picked up by Laertes.”

3777 In . . . Rapiers] Elze (ed. 1882): ‘Compare von Friesen in the Jahrbuch der Deutschen Shakespeare-Gesellshaft, IV, 374-77. R.G. Latham in The Athenæum, 1875, I, 170. Dr. Latham compares the respective stage-direction in the Bestrafte Brudermord.”

3776 MacDonald (ed. 1885): “He makes a sudden attack, without warning of the fourth bout.”

3777 MacDonald (ed. 1885): “The 1st Q. directs:—They catch one anothers Rapiers, and both are wounded, &c.

“The thing, as I understand it, goes thus: With the words ‘Have at you now!’ Laertes stabs Hamlet; Hamlet, apprised thus of his treachery, lays hold of his rapier, wrenches it from him, and stabs him with it in return.”

3777 In . . . Rapiers] Symons (in Irving & Marshall, ed. 1890): “This stage-direction is Rowe’s; the Qq. give none, the Ff. have [ gives Ff. SD]. ‘How this change of foils is brought about,’ says Marshall, Study of Hamlet, p. 200, ‘is not quite certain. Salvini delighted and surprised the audience, at the first representation he gave of Hamlet, by the graceful manner in which he managed this exchange. After Laertes had hit him, he put his hand up to his side, as if he felt the prick of the unbated weapon; then just as Laertes was about to take up his foil, which had been knocked out of his hand in the encounter, Signor Salvini placed his foot upon it, and bowing gracefully, presented his antagonist with his own foil. Graceful as this undeniably is, I do not think it can be justified on a careful consideration of the scene; the action is too deliberate; it is manifest that Hamlet does not stop when he is hit, but that he continues his attack furiously till the point of each foil getting caught in the hilt of the other, both are disarmed; but they do not stop, Hamlet being too eager to hit Lartes; each snatched at the firs weapon that comes to his hand, and they continue the struggle, in which Hamlet wounds Laertes. In answer to the objection that Laertes, though struck with the venomed point after Hamlet, when the virulence of the poison might be supposed to have diminished, yet dies the first—it may be observed that Hamlet’s wound was probably much the slighter of the two, for the excited state in which he evidently was, and not knowing he had an unbated weapon in his hand, he would probably strike Laertes much harder than laertes, knowing the deadly power of the poison, had struck him. Hamlet’s words after the scuffle—’Nay, come again—’ could hardly have beens poken had he detected Laertes’ treachery, or had he been conscious that he was wounded. His mind is, I believe, entirely wrapped up in the trial of skill, for the time being, and his excitement arises from his eagerness to win the match.’

3777 In . . . Rapiers] There is only way, I conceive of solving this problem on the stage [of exchanging weapons], and that is by reference to the Rules of the Fencing -school, and the lesson that relates to ‘Disarming with the Left Hand.’ The French translator possibly knew this lesson, as he paraphrases the stage-direction (‘They catch one antoher’s rapiers, and both are wounded’) with the following words, ‘Laerte blesse Hamlet, et dans la chaleur de l’assault ils se désarment et changent de fleuret, et Hamlet blesse Laerte.’ The lesson upon disarming, if I may depend on the memory of m¥ schooldays, is somewhat this: As soon as your opponent has made a pass, and is about to return to his guard, you strike the most powerful battute possible (i.e. a blow descending along the blade of your opponent), in order to throw your opponent’s blade out its position, if possible, with its point downwards, at the same instant you advance the left foot close to the outer side of the right foot of your opponent, seize with the left hand the guard of your opponent’s rapier, and endeavour to wrest theweapon from his fist by a powerful pressure downwards; if this menœuvre succeeds, you put the point of your dagger to the breast of your opponent, and compel him to confess himself vanquished. When your opponent does not succeed in withstanding the battute, which makes it impossible for him to keep back his assailant with the point of his dagger, there is nothing for him to do but to meet the attack with the same manœuvre, and get his assailant’s weapon in his hand in the same wway. With persons of equal skill this is the ususal result, whereby they change places, and the combat is continued without delay. It is obvious that in the execution of this manœuvre on the stage, the greatest skill is required, that the whole thing may not prove a mere scuffle, as Tieck says he has seen it in English theatres. The opponent meets the attack with the same manœuvre, and gets his assailant’s weapon in his hand in the same way.’ The combatants change places, and continue to fight.”

3777 Craig (ed. 1931): “Occurs in F and indicates that at the Globe Theatre the exchange was played as a chance occurrence and was not, as Friesen suggests, a part of the regular tactics of fence. Actors have adopted various methods of exchanging rapiers. Sir Johnston Forbes-Robertson’s way was very convincing. He got scratched, grew suspicious, disarmed Laertes, and forced the exchange.”

3776 Ridley (ed. 1934): “This stage direction is Rowe’s, a combination of Q1 (They catch one another’s rapiers, and both are wounded) and F (In scuffling they change rapiers). Q2 unhelpfully gives no S.D. at all. There has been much long and technical arguments as to the method of the change. The one point which is perfectly clear is that they must actually change, since there is only one unbated and envenomed foil. that Laertes, after wounding Hamlet, is disarmed, and Hamlet gives his own foil to Laertes and picks up his, is as simple as any.”

3776 Wilson (ed. 1934): “At the end of the bout, one of the judges, as was the custom, extends a rapier or staff between the fencers, to show that they must break off. Ham. does so; but Laer.—so I understand Sh.’s intention—seizes the opportunity for a treacherous attack, shouting ‘Have at you now!’ as he lunges. Thus, I am told by fencers who remember Irving’s performance at the Lyceum in 1878, the scene was played under the direction of Alfred Hutton, the well-known and learned fencer. The line, however, is omitted in his acting version.”

3777 Wilson (ed. 1934): “The Q1 S.D., as often, tells us more than the other texts, though here not enough DiGrassi (True Arte, sign. Bb. 1 verso) describes how in rapier-and-dagger play one may jerk the sword out of an opponent’s hand by using one’s own sword as a lever and striking his sword sharply with the dagger in the left hand. This, I at first thought, was how Ham. forced the poisoned weapon from Laer.’s grasp to the ground; and Burbadge’s execution of such a trick would prob. win applause. Laer., I supposed, then replied by seizing Ham.’s sword with his empty right hand wresting it from him, while parrying his dagger-thrust with the dagger in his left. Whereupon Ham. in his turn pounced upon the sword on the floor; and so the exchange was effected. Cf. Silver (Introd. pp. xvi-xx).

“Mr. Evan John, however, in T.L.S. Jan. 25, 1934, offers a better, because more dramatic, alternative, viz. that Ham. enraged at the wound throws down his own sword and closing with Laer. seizes the ‘sharp’ with his empty right hand and wrests it from him, whereupon he allows him in ironical politeness to pick up the discarded ‘blunt’ from the ground. One merit of this explanation is that it tallies with the Q1 S.D. ‘They catch one anothers Rapiers.’”

3777 Kittredge (ed. 1939): “Just how this trick of exchange was managed on the Elizabethan stage is uncertain. In fencing with rapiers only (i.e. without daggers), there was a recognized series of plays in which each fencer seized the other’s sword at the hilt and the result was such an exchange. The movements are shown in a series of cuts in Sainct-Didier’s Traicté (1573), reproduced by Egerton Castle (Schoosl and Masters of Fence, 1885, pp. 59, 60, figs. 30-33). Perhaps Hamlet and Laertes drop their daggers and fence with foils only, thus carrying out the aforesaid series of manœuvers.”

3777 harrison (ed. 1937) provides a choreography of the movements that is standard: each combatant grabs the rapier of the other, driving it backwards, dropping their daggers in the process. He concludes: "The Elizabethan duel was far less dignified and formal than a modern fencing-match: it was quite within the rules to hamstring one’s opponent with the edge, or to cut him in the forehead so that he was blinded with his own blood."

3776 Spencer (ed. 1980): “This is usually interpreted as indicating that Laertes suddenly thrusts at Hamlet, without warning, and wounds him, thus apprising him of the treachery.”

3777 Spencer (ed. 1980): “Q2 has no stage direction for the exchange of rapiers. F has [cites F1]. The compiler of Q1 remembered the situation as [cites Q1]. Probably Burbage dispalyed a virtuoso piece of swordsmanship as Hamlet. When in a tight corner a swordsman would throw down his own weapon and seize the blade of his opponent’s, securing enough leverage to wrench it away. The opponent then had no alternative but to pick up the other weapon, by which time his opponent would have recovered himself.”

3777 Jenkins (ed. 1982, Longer Notes, 569-71): <p. 569>“Among many discussions of the stage-business are the following: H. von Friesen, Sh. Jahr., IV, 374-7 ((quoted Furness, ii.338)); W.H. Pollock, The Theatre, 1897, ii. 162-3; G. Dubois, L’Assant du Vème Acte d’Hamlet, 1932, pp. 27-9; Evan John, TLS, 1934, p. 60; J.L. Jackson, MLN, LVII, 50-6. An exchange of weapons as a result of disarming was not uncommon in Elizabethan fencing. With sword and gauntlet a recognized manœuvre was for the gloved hand to seize the opponent’s rapier; and comparable though more rarely, in sword and dagger fight, the dagger in the left hand could be used to twist the opponent’s rapier from his grasp. The proper counter to such </p. 569> <p.570>a move was not resistance but immediate retaliation in kind, the left hand dispossessing the opponent’s right. The result is a double disarming and a consequent exchange. That some such method was used in some performances of Hamlet appears from the S.D. in the reported text ((‘They catch one anothers Rapiers’)). It is not quite what is suggested by F’s scuffling, but scuffling might well result from the natural reluctance of Laertes to exchange the unbated sword.

“The precise manner in which the exchange is effected is a matter for the producer. The important question for the critic is whether it is to be regarded as intentional on Hamlet’s side or, as the wording of the S.D. ((in F)) would suggest, haphazard. The absence of any Q2 or indubitably Shakespearean direction lets us infer what we can from the dialogue. It is obvious that Hamlet must be wounded before the exchange takes place and hence immediately after Laertes’s Have at you now. This cry, in contrast to the regular Come ((on)) (([3741-2, 3753, 3770, 3774])) suggests an attack without warning, which may well precipitate a scuffle. On the matter of whether Hamlet yet knows of the unbated sword commentators ((and actors)) divide. It is clear from [3802] ((‘The point envenom’d too’)) that he discovers it before being told, but it must be supposed obvious to him at least by [3781] ((‘They bleed’)). The most natural supposition would have him grasp the truth the moment he is hit, and this gtives addes plausibility to the fury of the scuffle, which must justify the word incensed (([3778])). Yet it does not follow that there is a deliberate attempt by Hamlet to wrest his opponent’s weapon from him. It is true that such a feat has often been made the basis of effective stage-action. Salvini as Hamlet, having carefully registered awareness of his wound, forced his antagonist to drop his rapier and then, placing his foot on it, with what is variously described as a graceful bow and a fierceness of command proffered his own in exchange ((Marshall, p. 200; Punch, 1875, p. 255; Sprague, Shakespeare and the Actors, pp. 179-80)). Any regular theatre-goer is likely to have seen some variation on this rendering; it lies behind the incident as envisaged by Dover Wilson ((WHH, p. 286)) and performed in the Olivier film. Yet the imperious gesture is the reverse of what is called for by scuffling and incensed. Nor is there anything in the confession of Laertes (([3793-3801])) to imply that Hamlet has deliberately sought to punish his ‘foul practise’. What kills Laertes is not Hamlet’s will but his ‘own treachery’ ((3785])) when it has ‘turn’d itself’ (([3799])) against him, and fallen on the inventor’s head (([3880])). To see in the exchange of weapons a human </p. 570> <p. 571>rather than a providential design goes against both the text and the spirit of the play. A distinction between the hero’s treatment of the man on whom he must exact revenge and the man from whom he must suffer it is consistently maintained.”</p. 571>

3776 Edwards (ed. 1985): “There is no indication in Q2, and therefore presumably no indication in Shakespeare’s MS, how he wanted the crisis of the play to be managed. The exchange of rapiers, given in F’s stage direction, is confirmed by Q1, ‘They catch one anothers Rapiers.’ The usual stage practice is that the beginning of the fourth bout, Laertes lunges at Hamlet before he is ready, and wounds him slightly with the unbated and poisoned foil. Realising that there is some malpractice, Hamlet fights violently with Laertes, disarms him, picks up the deadly rapier and sees its unbated point. Sometimes he grimly offers Laertes his own practice-foil. The fight resumes until Hamlet succeeds in wounding Laertes.”

3776 Hibbard (ed. 1987): “Although these words are usually interpreted as the prelude to an unexpected and treacherous attack on a Hamlet who is off his guard, their normal purpose in Shakespeare is to serve as a warning to an opponent that he is about to be attacked. See, for instance, [Tro. 5.4.21; 5.6.11; and 5.6.13. They could, therefore, be a sign that Laertes is being affected by his conscience.”

3777 Mowat & Werstine (ed. 1992): “This stage direction, in Q1, reads ‘they catch one anothers’ rapiers,’ which suggests that Hamlet forces the exchange through a contemporary method of disarm called the ‘left-hand seizure’ ((see woodcut)).”

3777 scuffling Dessen & Thomson(1999): a scuffle is Òa confused fight in which something unexpected and usually fatal occurs, as in Folio Hamlet [quotes 3777] and Laertes is poisoned by his own weapon . . . . Ó