What is the exclamation "have at you" actually saying?

Question

I recently encountered the phrase "have at you".

I know it's generally used as an exclamation, that is shouted when someone is about to attack someone else.

Wiktionary seems to agree with me:

Interjection

have at you

(dated) An exclamation indicating that one is about to strike the person addressed, typically with a sword or other hand-held weapon.

 [quotations ]

-Dark and sinister man, have at thee. Barrie JM (1904), Peter Pan.

And it got me thinking....

What does the phrase actually mean? Who or what is being "had"?

Acccording to RegDwighт, As well as being used by J.M. Barrie, "Have at you" is also used in Shakespeare:

• "Have at you now!" — Hamlet

• "Have at you with a proverb [...] Have at you with another;" — Comedy of Errors

• "Have at you!" — Henry VIII

• "Have at you, then, affection's men at arms." — Love's Labour's Lost

• "Then have at you with my wit!" — Romeo and Juliet

• "since you have begun, / Have at you for a bitter jest or two." — Taming of the Shrew

• "Come, both you cogging Greeks; have at you both!" — Troilus and Cressida.

So where on earth did this phrase come from?

Answer 1

Webster's 3rd New Int'l Dictionary gives it as

have at
to go at or deal with, usu. hostilely <flops the morning bale of poetry upon my desk and I pull up my chair to have at them> —H. L. Mencken

This is undoubtedly derived from the following sense of have:

10a to maneuver into a position of disadvantage or cause to be at a disadvantage.

Answer 2

"Have at you" seems to be an elliptic formula from fencing comparable to French "En garde!". So I would assume that after "have" a noun is lacking, maybe "guard":

"Have guard at you!" (?)

I think in commented Shakespeare editions such a formula should be explained. Maybe that the use of the formula was extended to situations similar to fencing.

Romeo and Juliet, act 1, scene 1, line 60

TYBALT

What, drawn, and talk of peace? I hate the word,

As I hate hell, all Montagues, and thee.

Have at thee, coward!

(They fight.)

In the modern text of Sparknotes the line "Have at thee, coward!" is translated with: Let's go at it, coward!

http://nfs.sparknotes.com/romeojuliet/page_12.html

Well, that's the meaning, but no explanation of the elliptic formula. I've done some research now, but found only explanations of the meaning. "Have at thee!" is understood as Shakespearean expression for "Let's begin the fight!". So in Urban Dictionary or genius.com. Nobody seems to see that the ellipsis in Shakespeare's formula needs an explanation. I'll keep this problem in mind.

I've just found the following Melville quote:

To the last, I grapple with thee;

From Hell's heart, I stab at thee; For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee.

Herman Melville

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/hermanmelv390294.html

So it might be possible that "a stab" is lacking: Have a stab at thee. Not very convincing, though.

Or is it "Have my sword at thee"/Have the fight at thee"? Or: Here, have death looking at thee?

Here'a link to phrasefinder. They quote OED. The explanation is a bit lame. http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/57/messages/1037.html

Answer 3

Clearly this was formulaic as in the FR "en guarde", but suspect the confusion is due to an alternative meaning of "have". Could be "heft" or "heave" (no longer common) referring to the first post in a formal duel.

Answer 4

No one has mentioned "have a go at" as in "why are you having a go at me?" Possibly where the verb has been reinstated where sense seemed to be needed.

Answer 5

"Have at you" is the last and only warning you are going to get before being attacked. It means "arm yourself," in a somewhat similar sense as the term "en garde." When they say "have at you," they mean something like, "[you had better/I am warning you to] have [arms] at (i.e. with or about) you."

If the opponent says "have at you," they are giving you some chivalric advice, perhaps for only a fraction of a second, to take up or grab the nearest weapon you can to defend yourself. The implication of this warning is that a warrior will not be caught in a situation where they do not have arms (that is, some kind of weapon) at their side, and, as your enemy expects you to have that weapon, he is giving you a bare minimum warning to prepare for the imminent attack.

The original reason for this saying is thought to be for chivalric purposes, as they would want the person they are assailing to be wary of their attack (for greater honor, as they can fight their opponent more fairly even if this is a despised opponent - and perhaps also following the Golden Rule), and it is also done so that the attacker can't be (or will be less likely to be) blamed for making a surprise attack, which would/could be seen as dishonorable. If he gives you that fraction of a second to arm yourself, he has met certain expectations in that regard, this also might explain why this phrase has been shortened/compressed to three words.

It is similar to "en garde" inasmuch as it indicates to the other person that this is a combat situation and to be ready. But this saying is arguably more specific, because "en garde" maybe has a possibility of being said by an ally or bystander (such as the facilitator of a match) to alert his friend to be ready for combat, as well as by an enemy. For this other use case in English, one might instead tell their friend, in a loud voice, "to arms" in the parlance of the day.

Answer 6

It's a corruption of 'Habet!', which means 'Has it!' or 'Has had it!'

In ancient Roman gladiatorial combat, when the winning blow was struck - possibly a fatal one - the crowd would cry, 'Habet! Hoc habet!' which means 'Had it! He's had it!'

The winning gladiator could also cry 'Habet!' as a kind of 'Gotcha!' That's what's come down to us as 'Have at you!', which is supposed to be uttered when the coup de grace is delivered.

Answer 7

Sounds to me like our modern version of "Take that!".