The Textual Mystery of Hamlet (Werstine, 1988)

George Washington University
The Textual Mystery of Hamlet

Author(s): Paul Werstine
Source: Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 1 (Spring, 1988), pp. 1-26
Published by: Folger Shakespeare Library in association with George Washington University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2870584 .
Accessed: 16/02/2014 16:44
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Folger Shakespeare Library and George Washington University are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Shakespeare Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Sun, 16 Feb 2014 16:44:09 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The TextualMysteryof Hamlet
PAUL WERSTINE
THE '80s HAVE SEEN A LARGENUMBEROF SHAKESPEAREANS-myselfamong

them-rise up to advocatethepossibility thatShakespearerevisedhis plays.
Some of us would like to imaginethatwe are the firstto entertainthe idea
seriously;it has been said, for example, that "editors and criticshave long
resistedtheobviousconclusion,thatShakespeareoccasionally-perhaps, ifwe
could only see it, habitually-revisedhis work."' Yet the notionof revision
had its heydayin the nineteenth centuryjust as it is havinganotherone now;
what's more,discussionof thequestionhas hardlylanguishedin thelast three
decades. FredsonBowers, whose name has become almostsynonymouswith
Shakespearebibliographyand textualcriticismsince the '50s, has repeatedly
addressedthe possibilitythatShakespearerevisedthe versionof Hamlet that
was printedin thesecondquartoof 1604/1605and thathis revisionsmayappear
amongthe variantsevidentin the Folio versionpublishedin 1623.
Far fromresistingrevisionas an explanationof variationbetweenquartoand
Folio Hamlet,Bowersdeclaredthequestionentirely openas earlyas his Sandars
Lecturesin Bibliographyof 1958. Citinga numberof single-wordquarto/Folio
variants,he said: "I hold it to be an occupationeminentlyworthwhile, war-
rantingany numberof hours,to determinewhetherShakespearewroteone, or
the other,or both. The decision, if clear-cut,mightbe crucial in the accu-
mulationof evidencewhetheron thewhole the Folio variantsfromthequarto
Hamlet are corruptions,corrections,or revisions. ... Dependingupon what
can be proved,some hundredsof readingswill be affectedif an editordecides
thatShakespearerevisedthe textafterits second quartoform;forin thatcase
therecould be an argumentforchoosingtheFolio variantsin all but the most
obvious cases of sophistication.Or he mightdecide thatin only a few cases,
wherethesecond-quartocompositorshave corruptedthetext,shouldtheFolio
readingstake precedenceover the generallyauthoritative second quarto."2 In
the 1962 article"EstablishedTextsand DefinitiveEditions," Bowersextended
the possibilityof revisionto a range of plays: "Such plays as Troilus and
Cressida,Hamlet,and Othelloexistin two authoritative textualversions,Quarto
and Folio. For Troilus thereis some reason to believe thatthe two versions
representoriginaland authorialrevision,perhapsin reverseorder;but the sit-
uationforOthelloand Hamletis complicatedby whatseems to be evidenceof
theatricalalterations,some of doubtfulauthority, perhapsmingledwithsome
authorialrevision."3Again and again he raisedthecomplexproblemof iden-
'
Gary Taylor, "General Introduction,"in WilliamShakespeare: The TextualCompanion(Ox-
ford:ClarendonPress, forthcoming), p. 14 (in proof).
2 Textualand LiteraryCriticism(Cambridge:CambridgeUniv. Press, 1959), in part,
reprinted,
as "Textual Criticismand the LiteraryCritic," in FredsonBowers,Essays in Bibliography,Text,
and Editing(Charlottesville:Univ. Press of Virginia,1975), p. 304.
3 Bibliography,Text,and Editing,p. 373; cf. pp. 524 ff.

2 SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY
tifyingauthorialrevisionamong the variantsbetweenearly printedversions

withoutclaimingto resolve it one way or the other.
Recentassertionsthatthe issue has been resolvedin favorof Shakespeare's
occasional or habitualrevisionof his plays seem to me ratherexaggerated.4
ProbablyShakespearedid revise,whetherin thecourseof originalcomposition
or at some laterdate,butwe wouldbe fortunate indeedifthevariationsbetween
extantprintedtextsof his plays representedonly authorialchanges of mind.
Thereare a greatmanyotherwaysin whichvariationcan be producedin printed
texts-scribal transcription,unauthorized playhousecutsor additions,printing-
house errors,to name only three.Can we realisticallyexpect to identifythe
sourceof everyvariantof the hundredsbetweenthe quartoand Folio textsof
such plays as Hamlet or Othello? When it is so difficultto prove or disprove
authorshipof an entireplay or even a whole canon, thereis littlechance of
conclusivelydemonstrating thatShakespeare's musthave been the hand that
originallywrotetheeightyor so lines in theFolio textof Hamletthathave no
counterparts in thesecond-quarto version.Norare we likelyeverto knowwhose
hand(s) cut the morethantwo hundredlines fromthe second-quartotextthat
do not appear in the Folio; in the verynatureof the case, thereis simplyno
evidence fordetermining the authorshipof cuts.
Ratherthancontinuethequest fortheindeterminable originsof variantsbe-
tweenthe second-quartoand Folio versionsof Hamlet,whynotexaminewhat
we have-namely, theearlyprintedtextsthemselves-witha view to assessing
theextentto whichthetwomaybe compatibleor incompatiblewitheach other?
Why not ask what consequencesflowfromyokingthe textstogether,as has
been the practiceof almosteveryeditorsince Rowe, who standsat the foun-
dation of the editorialtradition?This essay pursuesthese questions,and al-
thoughit cannotclaim to have run themto ground,tentatively suggeststhat
muchof theenduringmystery thatis Hamlet/Hamlet has been producedthrough
the editorialconstruction of Hamlet as the combinationof the second-quarto
(Q2) and Folio (F) versions.5
4 Most discussionthus far has focusedon King Lear: Michael J. Warren,"Quarto and Folio
King Lear and the Interpretation of Albany and Edgar," in Shakespeare,Patternsof Excelling
Nature,eds. David Bevingtonand JayL. Halio (Newark:Univ. of Delaware Press, 1978), pp. 95-
107; Steven Urkowitz,Shakespeare's Revision of King Lear (Princeton:PrincetonUniv. Press,
1980); Gary Taylor, "The War in King Lear," ShakespeareSurvey,33 (1980), 27-34; and the
essays by my fellowcontributors to The Division of the Kingdoms:Shakespeare's Two Versions
of King Lear, eds. GaryTaylorand Michael Warren(Oxford:ClarendonPress, 1983). While now,
as in 1983, I cannotsharethebeliefof a numberof thesewritersthatthetwoearlyprintedversions
of Lear mustbe distinctauthorialversions,I could not have approachedHamlet as I do without
thebenefitof theirworkand thatof P.W.M. Blayney,Nicholas Okes and theFirst Quarto (Cam-
bridge:CambridgeUniv. Press, 1982), Vol. I of The Textsof King Lear and theirOrigins.
5
CombiningQ2 and F is hardlyan unreasonablestrategyand is foundedon the beliefthatall
(or, forsome editors,almostall) of bothQ2 and F were writtenby Shakespearebutthatvariation
betweenthe printedversionsmay have been producedby otheragentsin the transmission of the
play into print.And so editorssince Rowe (1709) have preferredto providetheirreaderswith
whattheyregardas all of Shakespeare'sHamletratherthanonlywithwhatmayhave been chosen
by someoneelse as printer'scopy forQ2 (1604-05) or forF (1623).
Exceptionsto usual modernpracticeare StanleyWells and GaryTaylor, WilliamShakespeare,
The CompleteWorks(Oxford:ClarendonPress, 1986) and G. R. Hibbard,Hamlet, The Oxford
Shakespeare(Oxford:ClarendonPress, 1987). These editorsbase theireditionsupon F, which
theybelieve representsShakespeare'srevision,and relegatemost,but not all, Q2-onlypassages
to the end of the text.Yet theseeditorsoftenprintpassages and readingsfromQ2 in theirtexts
when Q2 agrees withthe firstquarto(1603), whichthese editorsbelieve is, like F, a witnessto
whatwas performed so widelyfromQ2 and F in length(less than
on stage. The firstquartodiffers
2200 lines), orderof scenes, namingof characters,and so on, thattheirdecision to regardsuch

THE TEXTUALMYSTERYOF HAMLET 3
To beginneartheend of Hamlet,we mightconsidertheminormystery cre-

ated by theinclusionin almostall editionssince theeighteenthcenturyof both
of the alternativemotivesprovidedin Q2 and F forthe apology thatHamlet
offersto Laertes beforethe fencingmatchin the last scene: "Give me your
pardon,sir. I have [F: I'ue] done you wrong. . ." (V.ii.224 ff.[Q2 & F]).6
Hamletis referring to thewronghe did by challengingLaertes's griefat Ophe-
lia's burial,provokingLaertes to violence: "I prithee,take thyfingersfrom
mythroat"(V.i.260 [Q2 & F]). As he exitsfromV.i, Hamletrepresents himself
as the aggrievedparty:
Hearyou,sir.
Whatis thereasonthatyouuse me thus?
I lov'd youever.Butit is no matter.
Let Herculeshimselfdo whathe may,
The cat willmew,anddog willhavehisday.
(V.i.288-92 [Q2 & F])
Yet when he next meets Laertes at the fencingmatch,it is withthe words,
"Give me yourpardon,sir."
Whatintervenesbetweenthestormyencounterof V.i and thefencingmatch
in V.ii to move Hamletto beg Laertes's pardon?Here Q2 and F differ.In Q2
theanswerto thisquestionarrivesin theformof a namelesslordwho inquires,
on behalfof Claudius, whetherHamlet will fence withLaertes. I quote this
lord's briefinterviewwithHamletin its entiretyto show how, in large part,
it merelyrepeatsthe exchangewithOsric thatoccurreda few lines earlier:
Entera Lord.
LORD My lord,hisMajestycommended himto youbyyoungOsric,whobrings
back to him thatyou attendhim in the hall. He sends to know if yourpleasure
hold to play withLaertes,or thatyou will take longertime.
HAMLET I am constantto my purposes;theyfollow the King's pleasure. If his
speaks,mineis ready;noworwhensoever,
fitness I be so ableas now.
provided
LORD The KingandQueenandall are comingdown.
HAMLET In happytime.
to Laertesbefore
LORD The Queendesiresyouto use somegentleentertainment
youfallto play.
me.
HAMLET She well instructs [ExitLord.]
(V.ii.194-206[Q2])
Since it scarcelyseems necessaryto introducethislordforthepurposeof con-
materiallydifferenttextsas witnessesto the same event(performance of Hamlet) seems to dem-

onstratethe power, in the formationof moderneditions,thattheoryabout the originsof texts
enjoys over materialevidence. Steven Urkowitzonce contended thatthe firstquarto,Q2, and F
"
all representeddistinctauthorialversionsof the play: 'Well-sayd olde Mole': BuryingThree
Hamlets in ModernEditions," ShakespeareStudyToday: The Horace Howard FurnessMemorial
Lectures[1982], ed. GeorgiannaZiegler(New York:AMS Press, 1986), pp. 37-70. In thequestion
periodfollowingdeliveryof a paperarguingthesame thesisat theSAA meetingin 1985, Urkowitz
withdrewhis assertionthatthe firstquartowas a Shakespeareanversion.
6 I quoteHamletonlyoccasionallyfromQ2/Fthemselves, moreoftenfromThe CompleteWorks
ofShakespeare,ed. David Bevington,3rded. (Glenview:Scott,ForesmanandCo., 1980). I include
F and Q2 substantiveand semi-substantive variantsin square bracketswithinquotations;when
thereare substantivepressvariantsin Q2 or F, I markthe firststateuncorr.and the second corr.

firming Hamlet's intentionto play withLaertes-Hamlet has done nothingto

raise doubtsabout his intentionin the ten lines since Osric's exit-and since
he need not be broughton to announcethe entranceof Claudius, Gertrude,
"and all," which will be evidentenough when theyappear seventeenlines
later,the primaryfunctionof the lord would seem to be to advise Hamletof
his mother'swish for a reconciliationbetweenHamlet and Laertes. George
Hibbardcalls thislord"superfluous,"butthelordis a mostnecessarycharacter
in Q2; withouthis messagefromthequeen, Q2 wouldleave us quiteunprepared
forHamlet's apology to Laertes at the fencingmatch.
In F thereis no traceof thenamelesslord and so no mentionof Gertrude's
intercessionwithHamlet. Insteadin F, butnotin Q2, Hamletexpressesregret
forhis treatment of Laertes beforeOsric ever enters:
ButI am verysorry, goodHoratio,

Thatto LaertesI forgot myself,
Forbytheimageof mycauseI see
of his. I'll court[F: count]hisfavors.
The portraiture
But,sure,thebravery of his griefdidputme
Intoa tow'ringpassion.
(V.ii.75-80 [F])
Accordingto F, then,Hamlet's laterapologyto Laertesspringsfromempathy

withhim.
What happenswhen the Q2 interviewwiththe namelesslord is combined
withFolio Hamlet's empatheticspeech in the moderntextof Hamlet? Quite
simply,themoderntextdoublesup Hamlet'smotivesfortheapologyto Laertes
beforethefencingmatchand leaves readersand theatre-goers unsureas to how
muchHamlet'sapologyarisesfromhis sympathy withLaertes,how muchfrom
a desireto satisfyGertrude.The problemis aggravatedin thecombinedQ2/F
textby thenoteon whichtheF-onlyspeechends,namelyHamlet'srecollection
of the "tow'ringpassion" intowhichLaertes's allegedlyostentatious griefhad
thrownHamlet-a self-justificatory themethatmightqualifyHamlet's resolve
to courtLaertes's favor.To readersof themoderncombinedQ2/Ftext,it could
well seem thatHamletbegan to empathize,remembered his rage, and finally
neededa pushfromGertrudeto apologize. Readersof theF textcan knowthat
Hamlet's empathyalone was sufficient to prompthis kindnessto Laertes,for
Gertrudedoes notintervenein F. Readersof Q2 mayassess Hamlet's motives
in a differentway, but withequal clarity:in Q2 Hamlet's apology is inspired
only by Gertrude'sinstruction to him, not by any spontaneousregretforhis
treatment of Laertes in V.i.7
This minormystery scarcelycalls fora revolutionin conventionaleditingof
Hamlet.But othermysteries also cloud themoderncombinedQ2/Ftextof V.ii.
In moderneditions,Hamlet's expressionof empathywithLaertesis immedi-
ately,and I thinkcontradictorily, followedby an extendedexchangewithOsric
(foundonly in Q2) in whichHamletreducesLaertes to an object of ridicule
in the course of parodyingOsric's over-mannered speech:
OSRIC Nay,goodmylord;formyease, in goodfaith.Sir,hereis newlycome
to courtLaertes-believeme, an absolutegentleman fullof
[Q2: gentlemen],
7 GaryTaylorand I each learnedin conversation

in thesummerof 1986 thatwe had independently
discoveredthis "duplication"betweenQ2 and F. Taylor informsme thathe discussesthe dupli-

most excellentdifferences,of verysoftsocietyand greatshowing.Indeed, to

speak feelingly[Q2 corr.: fellingly;uncorr.:sellingly]of him, he is the card
or calendarof gentry,for you shall findin him the continentof what part a
gentlemanwould see.
HAMLET Sir, his definement suffersno perditionin you, though,I know,to divide
him inventoriallywould dozy [Q2 corr.: dazzie] th'arithmeticof memory,and
yet but yaw [Q2 corr.: raw] neitherin respectof his quick sail. But, in the
verityof extolment,I takehimto be a soul of greatarticle,and his infusionof
such dearthand rareness,as, to make truedictionof him,his semblableis his
mirror,and who else would tracehim, his umbrage,nothingmore.
OSRIC Your lordshipspeaks mostinfallibly of him.
HAMLET The concernancy, sir?Whydo we wrapthegentlemanin ourmorerawer
breath?
OSRIC Sir?
HORATIO Is't not possible to understandin anothertongue?You will do't [Q2
uncorr.:too't], sir, really.
HAMLET Whatimportsthe nomination of thisgentleman?
OSRIC Of Laertes?
HORATIO [To Hamlet]His purseis emptyalready;all's goldenwordsare spent.
HAMLET Of him, sir.
OSRIC I knowyou are not ignorant-
HAMLET I wouldyou did, sir;yet,in faith,if you did, it wouldnotmuchapprove
me. Well, sir?
OSRIC You are not ignorantof whatexcellenceLaertesis-
HAMLET I dare not confessthat,lest I should comparewithhim in excellence;
but to know a man well were to know himself.
OSRIC I mean, sir, forhis [Q2: this]weapon; but in the imputationlaid on him
by them,in his meed he's unfellow'd.
HAMLET What'shis weapon?
(V.ii. 105-43 [Q2])
As parodiesof Osric's pretentious mode of address,Hamlet's speechescall far

moreattention to theirstylethanto theirreference to Laertes,butHamletcannot
mock Osric in speakingof LaerteswithoutswipingLaertes at the same time.
HamletattacksLaertesin a numberof different ways:sometimes Hamletachieves
a batheticeffectthroughinflatedpraiseof Laertes("to dividehiminventorially
woulddozy th'arithmetic of memory");sometimesHamletmakescompliments
collapse upon themselves in tautology("his semblableis his mirror")or he
affectsexaggerateddeferenceto Laertes ("Why do we wrapthe gentlemanin
our morerawerbreath"). The callousnesswithwhichHamletmakesLaertes's
reputationthe vehicle of extendedmimickry of Osric hardlyseems consistent
withthesympathy thatHamlethas just showntowardsLaertesin conversation
withHoratio.Instead,thetoneof Hamlet'sreferences to Laertesis in line with
thehostilitywithwhichHamletpartedfromLaertesat Ophelia's grave. In the
moderncombinedQ2/F text,then,we are requiredto followa Hamletwhose
angertowardLaertesin V.i has become empathyin theexchangewithHoratio
thatopens V.ii, onlyto findthatHamlet's newlydiscoveredregardforLaertes
is not equal to the temptation to ridiculehim in the exchangewithOsric.
Read independently of each other,bothQ2 and F plot a straighter (though
not necessarilya better)course forHamlet fromV.i throughV.ii. The long
exchangebetweenHamlet and Osric thatI have just quoted appears only in
cationin TheTextualCompanion, buthisIntroduction
andNotesin theCompanion
werenotyet
in printwhenthisarticlewas written.

6 SHAKESPEARE
QUARTERLY
Q2; in thattext,as I have alreadynoted,Hamlet's V.ii conversationwithHo-

ratiocontainsno expressionof sympathy forLaertes. So whenOsric entersin
Q2, Hamlet,as faras we can know,remainsas angrywithLaertesas he was
at theend of V.i and findsLaertes's famea fitobjectformockery.In Q2, then,
Hamlet's tone towardLaertes changesonly once-after Osric has exitedand
thenamelesslordhas givenHamletGertrude'sinstruction to "use some gentle
entertainmentto Laertes." ThenHamletacknowledges,"She well instructs me"
and treatsLaertescourteouslyas soon as the latterenters.
In F, Hamlet'stonetowardLaertesalso changesonlyonce-during thecon-
versationwithHoratiobeforeOsric enters-and it does not change again in
Hamlet's dialogue with the "water-fly."In F, the long Q2 passage I have
quoted appearsonly in this muchabbreviatedform:
Osr. Nay,in goodfaith,formineease in goodfaith:Sir,youarenotignorant
of whatexcellenceLaertes is at his weapon.
Ham. What's his weapon?
(Folio,TLN 3610-13)
Throughthe eliminationof Hamlet's ridiculeof Laertes,F presentsa Hamlet

who does notwaverin his attitudeto Laertes,once Hamlethas decidedto court
Laertes's favor.The moderntextof V.ii, whichcontainsall thatbothQ2 and
F have to offer,provides a Hamlet who sways mysteriously in his attitude
towardLaertes, but Q2 and F each presenta Hamlet whose feelingstoward
Laertes change only once and thenare constant.
Once one has sortedout the variantmotivationsof Hamlet in V.ii, one is
stillleft,if one is a readerof thecombinedQ2/Ftext,withthemystery of why
LaertesshouldwinHamlet'srespectand empathyin theF versionof thisscene,
butnotin theQ2 version.This mystery resultsfromthefactthatthecombined
Q2/Ftextcollapses a numberof otherdifferences in thepresentation of Laertes
throughout therestof theplay. If Laertes's partwereinvariantin thetwo texts
in all butV.ii, we mightwell be comfortable withwhatis only,takenby itself,
a minoremotionalfluctuation in Hamlet. But V.ii is not the exclusive site of
sizeable variantsbetweenQ2 and F in the representation of Laertes, both in
his own words and in those of othercharacters.Fromhis firstappearancein
I.ii, F offersa Laerteswho seems strongerand a bit morereflective and there-
foremoreworthy,in his own right,of therespectthathe eventuallywinsfrom
Hamletin V.ii thanthe LaertesthatQ2 depicts.
In boththeseearlyprintedversions,Laertesappearsin I.ii to beg of Claudius
"leave and favorto returnto France" (1. 51). In bothtexts,Claudius's consent
is conditionalupon the will of Polonius, whose son Claudius promisesin ad-
vanceto favorforthefather'ssake. F, however,accordsLaertestheopportunity
to plead successfullyin his own right.In contrast,Q2 has Claudius accede to
Laertes's requestonly afterPolonius elaboratelyemphasizesLaertes's depen-
dence uponpaternalauthority. In quotingthispassage, I enclose theQ2 variant
in pointedbrackets:
KING .
Whatwouldstthouhave, Laertes?
LAERTES My dread lord [F: Dread my Lord],
Yourleaveandfavorto return
to France,
Fromwhencethough I cameto Denmark
willingly

To show my dutyin yourcoronation,

Yet now I mustconfess,thatdutydone,
My thoughtsand wishesbend again towardFrance
And bow themto yourgraciousleave and pardon.
KING
leave?WhatsaysPolonius?
Have youyourfather's
POLONIUS
H'ath,[F: He hath]mylord,<wrungfromme myslowleave
By laborsome andat last
petition,
UponhiswillI seal'd myhardconsent.>
I do beseechyou,givehimleaveto go.
KING
Takethyfairhour,Laertes....
(I.ii.50-62)
Polonius's speech in Q2 emphasizesLaertes's statusas a supplicant,an ac-

knowledgeddependent;that statusis less obtrusivein the F versionof the
scene.8
LaertesappearsonstageonlythreemoretimesbetweenI.ii and his encounter
withHamletin V.i. Two of thesethreeoccasionsfollowhis returnfromFrance;
in both thereare sizeable variantsin his role betweenQ2 and F. The firstof
thesearisesin thelines givento himuponhis firstsightof thenow mad Ophelia
(this timeI enclose the F-onlypassage in pointedbrackets):
Dear maid,kindsister,sweetOphelia!
O heavens,is't possiblea youngmaid'swits
Shouldbe as mortal as an old [Q2: a poore]man'slife?
<Natureis finein love,and,where'tisfine,
It sendssomepreciousinstance of itself
After thethingit loves.>
(IV.v.160-65)
The last threelines-the ones foundin F alone-representLaertes's discourse
movingfroma particulardramaticsituationto a generalizingreflectionupon
"human nature." First,in bothQ2 and F, Laertesdraws an analogybetween
Polonius's mortality and theloss of Ophelia's wits;then,in F alone, he induces
fromthis single instancethe generalizationthat,in the wordsof Harold Jen-
kins's note, "Human nature,whenin love, is exquisitelysensitive,and being
so, it sends a preciouspartof itselfas a tokento followtheobject of its love.
Thus, thefinenessof Ophelia's love is demonstrated when,aftertheloved one
has gone, her mind goes too. . . ."9 Nowhere else in either F or Q2 does
8 Wells and
Taylor and Hibbardprintthe Q2-onlylines of Polonius in theirtextsbecause the
firstquarto has this "equivalent" to these lines: "He hath,my lord, wrungfromme a forced
graunt"(sig. B3v). But theylaterprintIV.iv in its truncatedF form,even thoughthe firstquarto
(in whichthe scene is even shorter)has a phrasefoundonly in the longerQ2 versionof IV.iv:
"Fortenbrassenephewto old Norway" (sig. G4v). See W. W. Greg,The ShakespeareFirstFolio
(Oxford:ClarendonPress, 1955), p. 317, n. 38.
9 Harold Jenkins,ed., Hamlet,The New ArdenShakespeare(London: Methuen,1982), p. 358.
Those editorswho are intentupon explainingthe differences betweenF and Q2 in termsof the
originsof the two textsand who want to representthe F textas a cut-downand linguistically
simplified passage thatdoes nothingto advance
theatricalversionfailto explainhow sucha difficult
theplot shouldhave foundits way intoF and intoF alone. Hibbardbases his theoryon theabsence
fromF of some but not all the generalizingreflectionson humannaturefoundin the Q2 roles of
Hamlet and Claudius (pp. 106-10).

8 SHAKESPEARE
QUARTERLY
Laertes indulgein such generalizingin the companyof anyonebut Ophelia

alone (I.iii). Yet here in F he is given the opportunity to generalizein the
companyof his seniors,and thusto enhancehis public stature.As a gener-
alizationof a particularsentiment,Laertes'sF-onlyspeechresemblesthepattern
of so manyof Hamlet's, whichinsistently build huge generalizationsupon in-
dividualobservations.Amongthemostevidentexamplesare the"vicious mole
of nature" speech (I.iv.17-38 [Q2]), promptedby Claudius's drunkenrevel,
or the conclusionthat"There's a divinitythatshapes our ends" drawnfrom
Hamlet'sgood fortune in detectingClaudius's plotto havehimkilledin England
(V.ii.4-11 [F & Q2]). The F Laertes's generalizationabout love thusbrings
his partin thelatterhalfof theplay intocloserrelationto Hamlet'sand perhaps
provides,fortheaudience,a further basis fortheanalogythatHamletwill later
draw betweenLaertes and himself.
Laertes nextappears, alone withClaudius, in the scene in whichtheyplot
the treacherousfencingmatch,a scene substantially abbreviatedin F in com-
parisonto Q2. Two majorpassages are affected(thelinesappearingin Q2 alone
are in pointedbrackets):
LAERTES .
It warmsthe verysicknessin my heart
That I shall [Q2: omitshall] live and tell him {Hamlet}to his teeth,
"Thus didst [F: diddest]thou."
KING If it be so, Laertes-
As how shouldit be so? How otherwise?-
Will you be rul'd by me?
LAERTES <Ay, my lord,>
So you will [F: If so you'l] not o'erruleme to a peace.
KING
To thineown peace. If he be now returned,
As checking[Q2: the King] at his voyage, and thathe means
No moreto undertakeit, I will workhim
To an exploit,now ripe in mydevice,
Underthe whichhe shall not choose but fall;
And forhis deathno wind of blame shall breathe,
But even his mothershall unchargethe practice
And call it accident.
<LAERTES My lord, I will be rul'd,
The ratherif you could devise it so
That I mightbe the organ.
KING It falls right.
You have been talk'd of since yourtravelmuch,
And thatin Hamlet's hearing,fora quality
Wherein,theysay, you shine. Your sum of parts
Did not togetherpluck such envyfromhim
As did thatone, and that,in myregard,
Of the unworthiest siege.
LAERTES
Whatpartis that,my lord?
KING
A veryribandin the cap of youth,
Yet needfultoo, foryouthno less becomes
The lightand careless liverythatit wears
Than settledage his sables and his weeds,
Importinghealthand graveness.> Two [F: Some

two] monthssince [F: hence]

Here was a gentlemanof Normandy.
(IV.vii.54-82)
Claudius then goes on to praise the gentleman, whom Laertes identifiesas La-
mord and also praises.
KING
He made confessionof you,
And gave you such a masterlyreport
For artand exercisein yourdefense,
And foryourrapiermostespecial [F: especiallye],
That he criedout, 'twouldbe a sightindeed,
If one could matchyou. <The scrimersof theirnation,
He swore,had neithermotion,guard,nor eye,
If you oppos'd them.> Sir, thisreportof his
Did Hamletso envenomwithhis envy
That he could nothingdo but wish and beg
Your suddencomingo'er, to play withyou [F: him].
Now out of this-
LAERTES What [F: Why] out of this,my lord?
KING
Laertes,was yourfatherdear to you?
Or are you like the paintingof a sorrow,
A face withouta heart?
LAERTES Why ask you this?
KING
Not thatI thinkyou did not love yourfather,
But thatI know love is begunby time,
And thatI see, in passages of proof,
Time qualifiesthe sparkand fireof it.
<There lives withinthe veryflameof love
A kindof wick or snuffthatwill abate it,
And nothingis at a like goodness still,
For goodness,growingto a plurisy,
Dies in his own too much. That we would do,
We shoulddo whenwe would; forthis "would" changes
And hathabatementsand delays as many
As thereare tongues,are hands,are accidents,
And thenthis "should" is like a spendthrift's [Q2: spend thirfts]
sigh,
That hurtsby easing. But, to the quick o' th' ulcer:>
Hamletcomes back. Whatwould you undertake
To show yourselfyourfather'sson in deed [F: indeed;Q2: indeedeyour
fatherssonne]
More thanin words?
LAERTES To cut his throati' th' church.
KING
No place, indeed, shouldmurdersanctuarize;
Revenge should have no bounds. ...
(Thereafter the two devise the mechanics of their plot.)

(IV.vii.95-128)
In the firstQ2-only passage (11. 67-81), Laertes is subjected to much double-

edged flatterythat demeans him more than it elevates him. While appearing to

praise Laertes's masteryof fencing,Claudius is carefulneverto indicatehis

own acceptanceof what is said of it ("you have been talk'd of," and "they
say"), nor is Claudius willingto grantthat,howeverattractive Laertes's mas-
terymay be to others,includingHamlet,it is in any way trulynoble or sub-
stantial:of all of Laertes's achievements(the restof whichare nevercited),
Claudius represents Laertes's fencingas the "one . . ., in myregard,/Of the
unworthiest siege," merelya "ribandin the cap of youth." Because it is "in
the cap of youth,"it may seem prominent, but it is a meredecoration,a "ri-
band," partof "the lightand careless livery" of youth,whichClaudius con-
trastswithsigns of the "graveness" of "settledage." Claudius's Q2 flattery
of Laertesappearsespeciallyhollowand demeaningin contrastwiththeking's
unqualifiedpraiseof Lamord's horsemanship (11.81-90). Then, in thelast Q2-
only passage (11. 114-23), Claudius lengthensconsiderablyhis tauntingsug-
gestionsthatLaertes's devotionto his dead fatheris transient, in a speechthat
at thesametimepostponesClaudius's disclosureofthedetailsofhisplotagainst
Hamlet,whichLaerteswantsto hear.10MeanwhileLaertes,in Q2, is reduced
to offering himselfup unconditionally as theking's tool ("My lord, I will be
rul'd") and begging to be used ("The ratherif you could devise it so / That
I mightbe the organ"); but his capitulationfails to elicit fromClaudius the
particularsof theking's schemeand, instead,forcesLaertesalmostsilentlyto
endureClaudius's lightlyveiled mockery,now thatthe king has him on the
hook.
In the F version,Laertescan hardlybe said to escape eitherdominationor
needlingby Claudius, but in F Laertes stops shortof uttercapitulationto the
king,neverwithdrawing theconditionhe places on co-operationwithClaudius
("so you'l not o'rerule me to a peace"[TLN 3070]) and neverbeggingto be
used. Simplybecause so muchof what Claudius says in Q2 is omittedfrom
F, Laertesis notforcedto waitso long forClaudius to divulgetheschemeand
is notmockedhalfso much.Withoutover-emphasizing thedifferences
between
thetwo textsproducedby theshortening of thisexchangein F, I believe it can
be said thatLaertes escapes in the F versionof this scene witha measureof
dignityand independencethatis denied him in Q2. Whicheverversionof the
scene we read, Claudius bests Laertes, but readersof F may findthe regard
thatHamletprivatelyexpressesforLaertesin the last scene of F moreappro-
priateto the Laertes thatF presentsto us (if not directlyto Hamlet) thanto
Q2's Laertes.But in Q2 Hamletdoes notprivately expressanyregardforLaertes
in V.ii. Only in the moderncombinedQ2/F textis Laertesrepresented as de-
liveringhimselfup to humiliationby Claudius as theking's tool in IV.vii and
thenas somehowwinningrespectfromHamletin V.ii. The variationsbetween
Q2 and F in IV.vii affectClaudius's role as muchas theyaffectLaertes's, and
I will returnto Claudius in a considerationof theway in whichF and Q2 vary
in theirpresentation of his relationto Hamlet.
II
When revisionisttextualcriticsbegan to advance the argumentthatShake-

spearerevisedKingLear, alteringthetextprintedin quartoto becometheFolio
version,otherswondered,withsomejustification, whyShakespearewould un-
dertakerevisionmerelyto adjust the roles of so manysecondarycharacters
10 Cf.
Jenkins,pp. 543-44; Hibbard,p. 108; PhilipEdwards,ed., Hamlet,The New Cambridge
Shakespeare(Cambridge:CambridgeUniv. Press, 1985), pp. 207-9.

THE TEXTUAL MYSTERY OF HAMLET 11
(Albanyand Edgar, Kent, Goneril,theFool) and do so little,in thecourseof

alleged revision,withthe partof Lear himself.While it is not my contention
thatShakespearemusthave been responsibleforany or all of the variations
betweenQ2 and F Hamlet,thesame objectionwould notapply. No role varies
so muchbetweenthese two textsas does Hamlet's.
PhilipEdwardshas alreadydiscussedsome of themajorvariantsin thecon-
ventionaltermsof textualcriticism-thatis, in termsof the putativeorigins
of thevariants.His accountoftheminvolvesadaptinga longstanding hypothesis
about a handfulof minorvariantsbetweenQ2 and F and applyingit to whole
passages presentin one textbutabsentfromtheother.I cannotshareEdwards's
views regardingeitherthe minoror the major variantsthathe assesses, yet
because his analysis,by the timehe completesit, representsa stronglyinno-
vative approachto the textualproblemof Hamlet, it deservesrespectand de-
tailed consideration.(Readers who have no interestin the minutiaeof textual
criticismmay wish to bypass the restof sectionII of this article.)
I beginwhereEdwardsdoes-with theminorvariants.Accordingto Edwards
(and manyothers),Q2 Hamlet,like thesecondquartoofRomeoand Julietand
thefirstquartoof Love's Labour's Lost, was set intotypefromShakespeare's
own workingpapers,in whichthe playwright failedto markdeletedpassages
in a way thatmightlatercommandthe attentionof the compositorswho set
all threequartosinto type. Consequently,accordingto the traditionthatEd-
wards follows, Q2 Hamlet, like the othertwo quartos,containsboth Shake-
speare's "firstshots" and "second thoughts."Yet in thecase of Hamletalone
we fortunately possess an F-textthatpreservesonlythe authoritative "second
thoughts,"and we can use F to correctQ2 in these cases, even though,ac-
cordingto the traditionthatEdwards follows,a greatmanyothervariantsin
F are judged to be quite unauthoritative.11
I hope thatthelast fewsentencesfairlyrepresent thehypothesis thatEdwards
states,but whenhe beginsto employit to generateexamplesfromQ2 and F,
the hypothesisapplies to only fourvariants,not all of which it can entirely
accountfor;and whenEdwardstriesto use it to generatea fifthexample,he
falls intocontradiction.In the firstof these,Shakespeare,it is said, reviseda
coupletas he wroteit, but he failedproperlyto delete his firstuse of "I be":
Q2: Bothheereandhencepursuemelastingstrife,
If onceI be a widdow,euerI be a wife.
F: Bothheere,andhence,pursueme lastingstrife,
If oncea Widdow,euerI be Wife.
(III.ii.220-21)
(Thisexplanationcompletely "a wife"forF's "Wife.")

ignoresQ2's extrametrical
In anothercase, accordingto the traditionEdwards follows,Shakespearegot
intoa muddlewiththecoupletsin thePlayerKing's speech, whichhe did not
" This longtraditionincludes,amongothers,J. Dover Wilson,TheManuscriptofShakespeare's
"Hamlet," 2 vols. (Cambridge:CambridgeUniv. Press, 1934); W. W. Greg, The Shakespeare
First Folio (Oxford:ClarendonPress, 1955), pp. 314, 332; as well as Jenkins,pp. 41-42, and
Hibbard,p. 96. On the usuallyinsuperabledifficulties thatimpedeidentification
of the character
of themanuscript underlyinga printedtext,especiallyby thetraditional
methodsof notingactors'
names and the variablenamingof charactersin stage directionsand speech prefixes,see Fredson
Bowers, "Authority, Copy, and Transmissionin Shakespeare'sTexts," in ShakespeareStudyTo-
day, pp. 24-25 and my " 'Foul Papers' and 'Promptbooks':Printer'sCopy for Shakespeare's
Comedyof Errors," forthcoming in Studies in Bibliography.

12 SHAKESPEARE
QUARTERLY
adequatelyclarifyin his papers,so thatagainQ2 printstheplaywright's

various
attemptsto resolve it:
For womenfearetoo much,euen as theyloue,
And womensfeareand loue hold quantitie,
Eythernone, in neitherought,or in extremitie.
Again, accordingto Edwards,F printsonly Shakespeare's"second thought,"

in whichthefirstof theQ2 lines, whichis onlyhalfa coupletin Q2, is deleted
and the thirdsmoothedout:
ForwomensFeareandLoue, holdsquantitie,
ought,or in extremity.
In neither
(III.ii.165-66)
(This timetherearises the improbability of Shakespeare'smanagingto write

so manyothercoupletsbeforeand afterthispassage, butgettingintotwo dif-
ficultiesherein the space of threelines.) In anothercase, Shakespeareis sup-
posed to have originallyinscribed"threescore"and thenchangedhis mindto
"threethousand,"neglectingadequatelyto erase "-score": Q2 reads "three-
score thousandcrownes" and F "threethousandCrownes" (II.ii.73). Laterin
II.ii, Q2 reads "some dosen lines, or sixteenelines" but F "some dosen or
sixteenelines," and so Shakespeare,it is asserted,originallyhitupon "dosen
lines" and thenlaterdecided on "dosen or sixteenelines" but did not com-
pletelycross out his earlier"lines" (1. 541). Even if Edwards's hypothesisis
sometimesless thanadequateforsome of theseexamples,so farhis arguments
are logicallyconsistent-in each he assertsthatby overlookingShakespeare's
(allegedly inadequate) deletion marks,the Q2 compositorsprintedboth of
Shakespeare'salternatives.
Yet in thefifthexamplethatEdwardsoffers,a Q2 compositoris said to have
fallenintoerrorpreciselybecause he did registerone of Shakespeare'sdeletion
marks(in quotingthispassage I again place thelines presentonly in Q2, not
in F, in pointedbrackets):
And[F: To] letthemknowbothwhatwe meanto do

Andwhat'suntimely done,
<Whose whisper o'er theworld'sdiameter
As levelas thecannonto hisblank,
Transportshispois'nedshot,maymissourname
Andhitthewoundless air.> 0, comeaway!
My soulis fullof discordanddismay.
(IV. i.39-45)
This timethe Q2 compositoris representedas correctlydeletingthe last half

of the second line, but incorrectly
printingthenextthreeand a halflines, and
theF textis represented as correctlyomittingall fourlines beginningwiththe
half-lineomittedfromQ2. So, by addressingthiscase, Edwardsand the tra-
ditionthathe followsare havingit bothways, explainingsome variantsas the
consequence of Shakespeare's failureto markdeletionsadequately,but this
variantas theresultof Shakespeare'sclear indicationof a deletionin themanu-
scriptfromwhichQ2 was printed.12
12 Edwardsbelievesthereare threeotherreadingsin Q2 thatresultfromthecompositor'sfailure
of the stints
identification
to note deletions:III.ii.335, IV.iii.74-76, IV.vii.8. If the preliminary

Furthermore, when Edwards draws an analogy betweenthe alleged "first

shots" and "second thoughts"in Q2 Hamletand thosein Love's Labour's Lost
and Romeo and Juliet,he assertsa continuity in Shakespeare'shabitsof com-
positionacross the threetexts-a continuity I believe to be specious. In LLL
andRom. we findnearlyidenticalversionsof fouror morelinesof verseprinted
in close successionto each other,one presumablythe "firstshot," the other
the"second thought";forexample,in thesecondquartoofRom., thefollowing
lines are firstgivento Romeo nearthe end of II.ii and thenagain to theFriar
at the beginningof II.iii (I includethe few variantsbetweenthetwo versions
in square brackets):
Thegreyeydemornesmileson thefrowning night,

[Checking]
Checkring theEasterne of light,
Cloudswithstreaks
Anddarknessefleckted likea drunkard
darknesse]
[fleckeld reeles,
Fromforthdaiespathway[path],madeby [and]Tytans[burning]
wheeles.
(sig. D4V)
In Hamlet thereare no comparableduplicatepassages-at mosta wordor two

getsrepeated(see thediscussionof "lines" or "I be" above), notfouror more
completelines. No properanalogyis evidentbetweenthe minorvariantsbe-
tweenQ2 and F Hamletquoted above and themajorduplicationsin Rom. and
LLL. Onlyby assumingthatthemanuscript fromwhichQ2 Hamletwas printed
containedduplicationssimilarto thoseevidentin theRom. and LLL quartosis
it possible to explain variantsbetweenQ2 and F Hamlet as arisingfromdu-
plication,yet the most evidentdifference betweenQ2 Hamlet and the other
quartosis thatQ2 Hamlet containsno comparableduplications.Indeed it is
surprising thatthefivecoincidencesbetweenerrorsin Q2 Hamletand omissions
of Q2 readingsand lines fromF have everbeen thoughtto need such elaborate
explanationas is providedby thetraditionthatEdwardsfollows.Editorshave
detectedhundredsof errorsin Q2, and hundredsof Q2 readingsand lines are
omittedfromF. That in a small handfulof cases a Q2 errorshould coincide
withan F omissionis hardlycause forelaboratetheorizingabouttheoriginof
thesefew variants.Only a desireto recoverthelost momentof Shakespeare's
originalcompositionof Hamlet can accountforthe arbitrary projectionof a
few selectedvariantsupon Shakespeare'shabitsof composition.
III
Nevertheless,accordingto Edwards,Q2 containsnotonlyShakespeare'sfirst

and second triesat isolatedreadings,but also long speechesthatShakespeare
experimented withbutthenrejected.Edwardsfindsevidenceof Shakespeare's
withthesespeechesin theiromissionfromF. ButEdwardswould
dissatisfaction
have it thatShakespeareremainedpleased withotherpassages thatare none-
thelessomittedfromF; these, on Edwards's theory,failed to please a hypo-
theticalbookkeeperwho, Edwards believes, made further cuts to the F text
afterShakespearehad finishedwith it. Edwards denies thateitherF or Q2
compositorsin Q2 can be accepted,thenEdwardswould have it thatbothcom-

of two different
positorsmisseddeletionsmarkedbyShakespearebutthatthecompositorwhomostoftenoverlooked
Shakespeare'sdeletionmarkswas the same one who noticedthemon a singleoccasion (IV.i.39--
45)-an improbablehypothesis.See JohnRussell Brown, "The Compositorsof Hamlet Q2 and
The Merchantof Venice," Studies in Bibliography,VII (1955), 17-40.

14 SHAKESPEARE
QUARTERLY
preservesShakespeare'sfinalintentionsforHamlet, and he denies thatcom-

binationof thesetwo earlytextscan providewhatShakespearefinallywanted.
Instead,Edwardsdemandsthatan editordeterminewhatin bothtextsfinally
pleased Shakespeare.To discoverShakespeare'spleasureat thislate date may,
I'm afraid,tax not only an editor'sscholarshipbut also his or her powersof
divination.
Edwards concentratesprimarilyon the omissionfromF of two major Q2
passages and theinclusionin F of an extraline in Hamlet's conversationwith
Horatioin V.ii. The firstomissionaffectstheconclusionof Hamlet'sinterview
withhis motherin hercloset. While in bothtexts,HamletpartsfromGertrude
by alludingto his imminent journeyto England,onlyin Q2 does Hamletvoice
his aggressivesuspicionsof Rosencrantzand Guildenstern, who are to accom-
pany him to England,and his plan to use againstthemwhateverdevice they
are to use, wittinglyor unwittingly,againsthim. Again, in quotingthe texts,
I place the lines unique to Q2 in pointedbrackets:
HAMLET
I mustto England;youknowthat?
QUEEN Alack,
I had forgot.'Tis so concludedon.
HAMLET
<There's lettersseal'd, and my two schoolfellows,
WhomI willtrust
as I willaddersfang'd,
Theybearthemandate;theymustsweepmyway,
Andmarshalmeto knavery. Let it work.
For 'tis the sportto have the enginer
Hoist withhis own petar,and 't [Q2: an't] shall go hard
But I will delve one yardbelow theirmines,
And blow themat the moon. 0, 'tis mostsweet,
When in one line two craftsdirectlymeet.>
This man shall set me packing.
I'll lug the gutsintothe neighborroom.
(III.iv.207-19)
EdwardsarguesthatShakespearehimselfdeletedthispassage forseveralrea-
sons: among them,"Hamlet has been given no means of learningthat[Ro-
sencrantzand Guildenstern]are to go withhim" and "the audience has still
to be told. .. thatClaudiusis usingthevoyageto Englandto liquidateHamlet"
(p. 15), since Claudius does not reveal this intentionuntilthreescenes later
(IV.iii.62-72). Yet theverysame objectionsapplyto Hamlet'sand thequeen's
referencesto his impendingjourneyto England,whichare not omittedfrom
F and so, accordingto Edwards's theory,were not cut by Shakespeare.Al-
thoughClaudius firstbroaches the idea of sending Hamlet to England at
III.i. 172 ff.,thekingagrees,at Polonius's request,to postponea decisionuntil
afterGertrudeinterviewsHamlet (III.iv). Upset by "The Mousetrap" play,
Claudius announceshis decisionto Rosencrantzand Guildenstern alone at the
beginning of III.iii, when is
Gertrude as
represented awaiting Hamlet in her
closet and Hamletas comingto her. Since F preservesHamlet's referenceto
thejourneyto England-somethinghe can no moreknow, accordingto Ed-
wards's criteria,thanhe can thatRosencrantzand Guildenstern are to accom-
panyhimor thatthekingis planninghis death-F is as vulnerableto Edwards's
objectionas is Q2.
But Edwards has otherreservationsabout the Q2 "engineer" speech-re-
servations thathe assumesShakespeareshared.Edwardsassumesthatthespeech

expressesHamlet's "new conviction. . .that Rosencrantzand Guildenstern

are accomplicesin a plotto destroyhim" (p. 15)-and Edwardsmeansknowing
accomplicesbecause he latercontraststhe word accompliceswith "unwitting
agents in the king's plot" (p. 16). Motivatedby this alleged "conviction,"
Hamlet,accordingto Edwards,formulates, in the"engineer"speech,a definite
plan againsthis schoolfellows;in orderto carryit out, Hamletneglects"his
main taskof revenge" againstClaudius, "in spiteof therecentre-appearance
of theGhosturging"himto it, and, instead,"accepts thejourneyto England"
(p. 15). But, Edwards goes on, the "definitenessof Hamlet's plans" in the
"engineer" speech contradictsHamlet's later account-common to both Q2
and F-of his escape fromRosencrantzand Guildenstern. In V.ii.4-25, Hamlet
describeshis "idea of enteringthecabin of Rosencrantzand Guildenstern[as]
a sudden inspiration,a wild rashness,in which he saw the hand of Provi-
dence"-an "unplannedmove" (p. 15).
Because of this alleged contradictionin Q2, Edwards concludes that the
"engineer" speech is another"firstshot" ultimatelyrejectedby Shakespeare,
who in a "second thought"added a line to Hamlet's exchangewithHoratio
in V.ii to compensateforthecut. When Hamletdescribeshow he rewrotethe
"grandcommission"to call forRosencrantzandGuildenstern's deaths,Horatio
comments,in boththe earlyprintedtexts,"So Guildenstern and Rosencrantz
go to 't," but,in F alone, thefirstline of Hamlet'sreplyis theself-justification,
"Why, man, theydid make love to this employment"(V.ii.56-57). Shake-
speare added this line, Edwards says, to etch Hamlet's "wish to exculpate
himselfin the new moralcontextforthe deathsof Rosencrantzand Guilden-
stern"(p. 16), for,in whatEdwardsregardsas Shakespeare'srevisedversion,
Hamlet has not destroyedthe two out of the conviction,allegedlyexpressed
in the Q2 "engineer" speech, thattheyare Claudius's accomplices; rather,
Hamletsendsto theirdeathsthesemenhe knowsto be "no morethanrepulsive
sneaks, royaltoadies, who are unwitting agentsin theking's plot, [and] their
grimpunishment is a more sensitive affair" (p. 16).
Finally, accordingto Edwards, the "Hoist on his own petar" speech also
producesothercontradictions withinQ2, this time with Hamlet's soliloquy,
"How all occasions do informagainstme," whichis uniqueto Q2 and which,
Edwardsbelieves, is another"firstshot" thatShakespeareultimately rejected.
The soliloquy, on Edwards's account, "looks like an alternativeto the 'en-
gineer'speech. ... As Hamletfaces beingsentto England,we are givenfirst
a demonstration of defianceand determination; thenwe are to see him in a
stateof nervelessdrifting, bafflement, indecisionand inactivity,"expressed,
forEdwards,in whathe regardsas the"core" of "How all occasionsdo inform
againstme":
Now,whether it be
Bestialoblivion,or somecravenscruple
Of thinkingtoopreciselyon th' event-
A thoughtwhich,quarter'd,hathbutone partwisdom
And ever threepartscoward-I do not know
Whyyet I live to say "This thing'sto do,"
SithI havecauseandwillandstrength
andmeans
To do't.
(IV.iv.39-46)
Edwards then goes on to denigratethis soliloquy at length:it is "a second

attempt,and a weakerattempt[thanthe "engineer"
attempt,a contradictory

speech] to providea psychologicalbridgeforthis verydifficult stage of the

plot. . . . Hamlet has become so immense in his so
mystery, unfathomable,
thatthespeech is scarcelyadequateforthespeaker" (p. 17). Since, according
to Edwards, Hamlet deliberatelypostponeshis revengeagainst Claudius by
choosingto acceptClaudius's plan to send himto England,Hamlet'sreference
hereto having"cause and will and strength and means" to undertakerevenge
makes no sense; the speech, Edwardssays, "does notknow all thathas gone
beforeit" (p. 17).
Like most recentattemptsto argue for Shakespeare's revisionof a play,
Edwards's is markedby a reductionof passages in each of the polysemous
versionsto a single"meaning" thatcan readilybe contrasted to the"meaning"
of the otherto indicatean alleged revisionbetweenthe two. Also typicalof
revisionismis Edwards's denigrationof the allegedlyearlierversion,so that
revisioncan be plausiblyrepresented as producinga substantialimprovement
in the play. Because I findneitherof these revisionistmoves persuasive,all
thatI can accept fromEdwards's case is thatHamlet's self-justificatory line
"Why, man, theydid make love to thisemployment"does, in fact,seem ap-
propriateto theF version,in whichHamlet,havingdecidedon impulseto send
Rosencrantzand Guildensternto theirdeaths, is forcedto reflectupon this
suddendecision,apparently time.I can findnothingin Q2 to support
forthefirst
Edwards's view thatthe "engineer" speech (foundin Q2 alone) revealsHam-
let's "conviction"thatRosencrantzand Guildenstern are knowingaccomplices
in Claudius's plan to have Hamlet assassinated.Hamlet can mistrustRosen-
crantzandGuildenstern "as addersfang'd" merelybecause he knowsthatClau-
dius is makinguse of them;theycan bear a mandate,sweep his way, and
marshallhim to knaverywithoutknowingthe contentsof the mandateor the
destinationtowardwhichtheyguide him; Hamlet may resolve to "hoist" or
underminethemsimplybecause theyhave agreedto act on Claudius's behalf,
whetheror not theyare privyto the king's plot. Equally difficult to accept is
Edwards's insistenceupon the "definitenessof Hamlet's plans" in the "en-
gineer" speech and therefore upon the so-called contradictionsin Q2 between
thatspeech and Hamlet's conversationwithHoratioin V.ii, in whichHamlet
representshis discoveryof the assassinationplot againsthim and his reversal
of itas spontaneousacts,nota deep plot.Indeedthelanguageofthe"engineer"
speech is so highlyfigurative thatanyoneexperiencingQ2 Hamlet diachroni-
cally would probablyfindit impossibleto put such a preciseconstruction on
thespeech as to imaginelaterthatit contradictsHamlet's wordsto Horatio.13
Thereis muchin Q2 to contradict Edwards's assertionsthatHamletchooses
to accompanyRosencrantzandGuildenstern to Englandandthereby deliberately
postponesrevengeagainst Claudius. Claudius's plotto sendHamletto England
does not depend upon any choice by Hamlet, nor is Hamlet representedas
makingany choice. Afterall, Hamlet's travel,like Laertes's, has been con-
trolledby thekingsince the beginningof the play. In I.ii when Claudius de-
clares thatHamlet's "intent/ In going back to school in Wittenberg / . . . is
most retrogradeto our desire" (11. 112-14 [F & Q2]), Hamlet muststay in
Denmark.No matterhow Hamlet and Gertrudelearn of Claudius's intention
to dispatchHamletto England, Hamlet and the queen recognizethatHamlet
has no choice: "I mustto England," Hamletsays, and Gertrudereplies," 'Tis
13
As Jenkinswrites,"Hamlet's confidencein theoutcomewill preparetheaudienceforit, but
affordsno justification
forsupposingthathe has anypreciseplan forbringingit about" (pp. 331-
32).

so concludedon" (III.iv.207-8 [F & Q2]). HamletrecognizesthatClaudius

will findin the slaughterof Polonius a pretextforHamlet's immediatedepar-
ture-"This manshall setme packing" (III.iv.218 [F & Q2])-as indeedClau-
dius does in an announcement to Hamlet, now underguard, thatbrooksno
denial: "Hamlet, this deed . . . / . . . must send thee hence. / . . . Therefore
preparethyself... /... everything is [F: at] bent/For England" (IV.iii.41-
47). Hamlet'sonlyexpressions of enthusiasm forthejourney-"Good"; "Come,
forEngland!" (11.50, 57 [Q2 & F])-are voiced to Claudius and so can hardly
be representedas expressiveratherthanrhetorically deceptive.Finally,when
Edwardsalleges a contradictionbetweenthedefianceof the"engineer" speech
and the "nervelessdrifting"in whathe calls the "core" of "How all occasions
. . . " he simplyignoresmostofthesoliloquy,whoseconclusion,forexample,
is whollydefiant:"0, fromthis timeforth,/ My thoughtsbe bloody, or be
nothingworth!" (IV.iv.65-66). The followinganalysisof variationsin Ham-
let's role betweenQ2 and F does not dependon any theoryof the originsof
these textsand thusdifferswidelyfromEdwards's.
IV
Readersof themoderncombinedQ2/Ftextmay,likeEdwards,findHamlet's
Q2 "engineer" speech problematic,since, in the combinedtext,Hamlethas
neverbeforethisspeechbeenrepresented as so suspiciousofClaudius's motives
or of Rosencrantzand Guildenstern.A readerof Q2, on theotherhand,might
perhapsbe less surprisedby the "engineer" speech and mightwell perceive
in Hamlet's facilityfor anticipatingClaudius's devices the continuationof a
patternalreadyestablishedin Q2. The firstepisode in thispatternmay occur
as early as II.ii of Q2, in whichClaudius and Gertrudeset Hamlet's school-
fellowsuponhimto gleanthecause ofhis anticdisposition.Q2 givesitsreaders
no indicationof how Hamletcan possiblyhave developed the suspicionthat
Rosencrantzand Guildenstern have been summonedto courtby the king and
as
queen (just Q2 will laterfail to provideany accountof whyHamletsuspects
Claudius of "knavery"in sendingtheprinceto England). Yet Q2 nevertheless
represents Hamletas identifying his schoolfellowsas Claudius's informersbe-
foretheyhave an opportunity to expose themselves.This firstencounterbe-
tweenHamlet and his formerschoolfellowsbegins as followsin Q2 (printed
in Bevingtonas II.ii.222-36, 271-93):
Guyl. My honor'dLord.
Ros. My mostdeereLord.
Ham. My extentgood friends,how doost thouGuyldersterne?
A Rosencraus,
goodladshowdoe youboth?
childrenof the earth.
Ros. As the indifferent
Guyl. Happy,in thatwe arenoteuerhappyon Fortunes lap. We arenotthe
verybutton.
Ham. Northesolesof hershooe.
Ros. NeithermyLord.
Ham. Thenyouliue aboutherwast,or in themiddleof herfauors.
Guyl. Faithherpriuates
we.
oh mosttrue,she is a strumpet,
Ham. In thesecretpartsof Fortune, What
newes?
Ros. NonemyLord,buttheworldsgrownehonest.
Ham. Thenis Doomesdayneere,butyournewesis nottrue;Butinthebeaten
wayof friendship,
whatmakeyouat Elsonoure?

18 QUARTERLY
SHAKESPEARE
Ros. To visityoumyLord,no otheroccasion.

Ham. BeggerthatI am,I am euerpoorein thankes, you,and
butI thanke
mythankes
suredearefriends, aretoodearea halfpeny: wereyounotsent
come,come,deale
is it a freevisitation?
for?is it yourowneinclining?
iustlywithme,come,come,nayspeake.
Guy. Whatshouldwe say my Lord?
Ham. Anything butto'thpurpose:youweresentfor,andthereis a kindof
confessionin yourlookes,whichyourmodestieshauenotcraftenoughto
cullour.I knowthegoodKingandQueenehauesentforyou.
Ros. To whatendmyLord?
Ham. Thatyoumustteachme:butletme coniureyou,bytherights of our
fellowship, bytheconsonancie of oureuer
of ouryouth,bytheobligation
preserued loue; and by whatmoredearea better can chargeyou
proposer
bee euenanddirectwithme whether
withall, youweresentforor no.
Ros. Whatsayyou.
Ham. Nay thenI haue an eye of you? if you loue me hold not of.
Guyl. My Lordwe weresentfor.
(Q2, sigs. F1v-F2r)
Hamlet is not representedhere as knowingin advance thatRosencrantzand

Guildenstern have been sentfor. Insteadhe is portrayedas being alertto the
possibilityof Claudius's settingspies upon him,and so, as soon as theformer
schoolfellowshave greetedeach otherand banteredaboutthestrumpet Fortune,
Hamletasks if his "friends"have been sentfor.Whenhe gets no answer,he
claims to "know the good King and Queene haue sentforyou," but he does
notyetknow.If he knew,he would not continueto pesterthemto admitthey
have been summoned,and he wouldnotwaituntilRosencrantzspeaks "aside"
to Guildenstern("what say you")-an obvious admissionof collusion with
Claudius-to confideto the audience in his own aside, "Nay thenI haue an
eye of you." Yet by confidently exploitinghis initiallygroundlesssuspicions
thatRosencrantzand Guildenstern are spies and by accusingthem,Hamletnot
only foils Claudius's plot to discoverHamlet's mindbut also achieves a stra-
tegic advantageover the kingby confirming his own suspicionsof the king's
intentionof spyingon him. Perhapshavingalready"hoist[ed]" the king "on
his own petar"herein II.ii of Q2, longbeforedeliveringthe"engineer"speech
in the closet scene, Hamletmay, in the laterscene, confidently predicta rep-
etitionofhis success ifhe againpursueshis suspicions-this time,thesuspicion
thatClaudius is dispatchinghim to England in orderto harmhim. Until the
Q2 Claudius devisesthefencingmatch,he is represented as quiteovermatched
by a Hamlet who is led by his almost preternaturalwariness to suspecteven
the seeminglyinnocuous.
In F's II.ii, in contrast,Rosencrantzand Guildenstern betraythemselvesto
Hamlet.Firsttheydenyhis representation of Denmarkas a "prison," and then
theyclumsilyaccuse himof ambition,a chargethatcould logicallycome only
fromsupporters of thereigningking. F interpolates thepassage (signaledhere
by pointedbrackets)betweenthejokes about strumpet Fortuneand Hamlet's
revelationof his suspicionthatRosencrantzand Guildensternare the king's
informers:
HAMLET In thesecretpartsof Fortune? 0, mosttrue;she is a strumpet. What
[F: What's the] news?
ROSENCRANTZ None, my lord, but [F: but that]the world's grownhonest.

HAMLET Then is doomsdaynear. But yournews is not true. <Let me question
morein particular.Whathave you, my good friends,deserv'd at the handsof
Fortunethatshe sends you to prisonhither?
GUILDENSTERN Prison,my lord?
HAMLET Denmark'sa prison.
ROSENCRANTZ Then is the worldone.
HAMLET A goodlyone, in whichthereare manyconfines,wards,and dungeons,
Denmarkbeing one o' th' worst.
ROSENCRANTZ We thinknot so, my lord.
HAMLET Why then'tis none to you, forthereis nothingeithergood or bad but
thinkingmakes it so. To me it is a prison.
ROSENCRANTZ Why then,yourambitionmakes it one. 'Tis too narrowforyour
mind.
HAMLET O God, I could be boundedin a nutshelland count myselfa king of
infinitespace, were it not thatI have bad dreams.
GUILDENSTERN Whichdreamsindeedare ambition,fortheverysubstanceof the
ambitiousis merelythe shadow of a dream.
HAMLET A dreamitselfis but a shadow.
ROSENCRANTZ Truly,and I hold ambitionof so airy and lighta qualitythatit
is but a shadow's shadow.
HAMLET Then are our beggarsbodies, and our monarchsand outstretch'd heroes
thebeggars' shadows. Shall we to th' court?For, by myfay,I cannotreason.
ROSENCRANTZ, GUILDENSTERN We'll wait upon you.
HAMLET No such matter.I will not sortyou withthe restof my servants,for,
to speak to you like an honestman, I am mostdreadfullyattended.> But, in
the beatenway of friendship, whatmake you at Elsinore?
(II.ii.235-71)
Because Rosencrantzand Guildenstern give away theking's game themselves,

F's Hamlet need not be and does not seem to be as suspiciousof Claudius's
plottingagainsthimas Q2's Hamlet.It would thenbe less characteristic
of F's
Hamlet,in the closet scene, immediatelyto suspectthe possible treacheryof
Claudius's plan to send him to England. Because F containsneitherthe "en-
gineer" speech nor "How all occasions . .. ." F presents a silent Hamlet de-
partingfromDenmark.In F, then,Claudius's plot may seem to have quelled
Hamlet,and thekingmayappearverymuchin control;his soliloquydivulging
the planned assassinationis uncontestedin conditioningexpectationsof the
outcomeof Hamlet's voyage.14
The differencesbetweenQ2 and F in theirrepresentation of the contestbe-
tweenHamletand Claudius become mostmarkedin thescenes concerningthe
voyage. In Q2, theadvantagethatClaudiusbelieveshe has attainedoverHamlet
in forcingthe voyage on him seems, in lightof Hamlet's speeches, merely
illusory.While Hamletcannotresistgoing,he nevertheless presentshimselfas
capable of opposing Claudius, if not directly,at least in the personsof the
king's agents,and by bestingthem,he can returnto attackClaudius himself.
Hamlet's general intentionto do so, his convictionof his success, and his
forwhateverfutureacts he mustundertakeagainsteitherClaudius
justification
or his agentsare amongthe topics of Q2's "engineer" speech and "How all
14 Editorshave speculatedthatthe "prison" passage, unique to F, was censoredin Q2 forfear

of offendingAnne of Denmarkby calling hernativeland a prison;thenthe passage was restored
in F because Anne had died by 1623. If thispassage would have offendedthe queen, how much
would she have liked the whole play's portrayalof the Danish royalfamilypreyingon each other
untiltheyhad destroyedtheirline and deliveredup the throneto a foreigner?

20 SHAKESPEARE
QUARTERLY
occasions do informagainstme," whichare not necessarilyinconsistent with

each otherin spite of Edwards's allegation.
Paradoxically,then,in Q2, Claudius's dispatchof HamletforEngland,rather
thanestablishingan advantageforthe king,insteadhardensHamlet's resolve
relentlesslyto oppose himand his agents-the resolvethatin Q2 carriesHamlet
the
through interrupted voyage to England and back to Denmarkto kill the
king. In Q2 the expressionof this resolve in the "How all occasions ..."
soliloquymakesthisspeechseemthepivotuponwhichthatversionturns.There
is muchmoreto this soliloquythanEdwards allows in arbitrarily privileging
a few lines of it as its alleged "core." The soliloquymay indeedbegin on a
note of impatientself-castigation (IV.iv.32-46 [Q2]). Yet the speech goes on
to reveal a Hamletwho discoversa basis foraction in the conceptof honor,
whichhe findssuperlatively exemplifiedin Fortinbras:
.. Examplesgrossas earthexhort
me:
Witness
thisarmyof suchmassandcharge
Led by a delicateand tenderprince,
Whosespiritwithdivineambitionpuff'd
Makesmouths at theinvisible
event,
Exposingwhatis mortaland unsure
To all thatfortune,death,and dangerdare,
Evenforan egg-shell. Rightly to be great
Is notto stirwithout greatargument,
Butgreatly to findquarrelin a straw
Whenhonor'satthestake.HowstandI then,
Thathavea father kill'd,a mother stain'd,
Excitements of myreasonandmyblood,
Andletall sleep,while,to myshame,I see
Theimminent deathoftwenty thousand men,
That,fora fantasy andtrickof fame,
Go to theirgraveslikebeds,fight fora plot
Whereon thenumbers cannottrythecause,
Whichis nottombenoughandcontinent
To hidetheslain?0, fromthistimeforth,
Mythoughts be bloody,orbe nothing worth!
(IV.iv.46-66[Q2])
Brieflyitemizinghis grievancesagainstClaudiusand contrastingthesepowerful

"excitements"againstthe "egg-shell" motivesof Fortinbras, who, "fora fan-
tasy," will send thousandsto theirdeath,Hamletrepresentshimselfas com-
pelled by honorto prosecutehis revenge."How all occasions .. ." marksthe
last timein Q2 thatHamletis givenan opportunity to determinethenecessity
of Claudius's death and the deathsof his agents,and it presentsthe secular
conceptof honoras the groundof thisdetermination.
F, on theotherhand,reservesHamlet's ultimatejustificationof his revenge
untilhis V.ii conversationwithHoratio,which,as has alreadybeen noticed,
is muchexpandedin F. This expansioninitiallytakes the formof the contin-
uationand completionof a speechby Hamletthatis interrupted bytheentrance
of Osric in Q2 (the F-onlylines are in pointedbrackets):
Does it not,thinkthee,standmenowupon-
He thathathkill'dmykingandwhor'dmymother,

Popp'din between
th'election
andmyhopes,
Thrown outhisangleformyproperlife,
Andwithsuchcoz'nage-is't notperfect
conscience
[Q2: Entera Courtier.{Osric}]
<To quithimwiththisarm?Andis't notto be damn'd
come
To letthiscankerof ournature
evil?
In further
HORATIO
knownto himfromEngland
It mustbe shortly
Whatis theissueof thebusinessthere.
HAMLET
It willbe short.The interim
is [F: interim's]
mine,
Anda man'slife'sno morethanto say "One.">
(V.ii.63-74)
In F, Hamletfinally justifieshis revengein termsof itsnecessityto his salvation
("And is't not to be damn'd. . . ?"), ratherthan,as in Q2, in termsof the
obligationsof the purelysecular conceptof honor.Howeverunintelligible to
a modernaudiencethe conceptof a sacred act of violence may be, Edwards,
who muchprefersF's alternativeto Q's, has argued,citingTyndale,thatthe
conceptwas availableto a Renaissanceaudience.AlthoughEdwardsstopsshort
of elevatingHamlet's revengeto the realmof the sacred, he suggeststhat,in
F at least,Hamletis a profoundly religiousplayin whichtheprinceis tormented
by the problematic status of revengeas possiblysacred,possiblydamnable.15
In V.ii of F, Hamletresolvesthisdebate by concludingthathis salvationde-
pends upon revenge.
This conclusionof Hamlet's maybe relatedto his representation of thevoy-
age from which he has just returned. In F, Hamlet departed for England in
silence, seeminglyvulnerableto Claudius's plot, a plot thatHamlet,so faras
we can tell, failedentirelyto anticipate.The F Hamletthenrepresents himself
as completelysurprisedby the events thathave so quickly returnedhim to
Denmark:he writesto advise Claudiusof his "suddenand morestrangereturn"
(IV.vii.46-47 [F]). This reading,unique to F, may throwconsiderablymore
emphasison Hamlet's referencein V.ii (commonto Q2 and F) to "a divinity
thatshapesourends,/Rough-hewthemhow we will" (11.10-11), whoseagency
Hamletrepresents as havingpreservedhim.If, in F, Hamletcreditshis survival
to a special providence,he may go on, laterin F's V.ii, to conclude thathe
has been preservedin orderto execute sacred vengeanceupon Claudius, into
whose kingdomhe has been so strangelyreturned.Now he thinksthathe has
recoveredthe advantageover Claudius thathe seemed to have lost whenthe
king senthim off-"The interimis mine."
In Q2, on the otherhand, Hamlet writesto Claudius only of his "sudden
return,"which need not seem "strange" because Hamlet leftDenmarksus-
picious of Claudius's "knavery" and determinedto undermineit in however
"bloody" a mannerwas necessary.Thus, whileHamletmayreferin Q2 to the
"divinitythatshapes our ends" as providinghimwiththespecificoccasion on
whichto discoverand reverseClaudius's plot,theemphasisin Q2 maynotfall
nearlyso heavilyupon providenceas an agent in Hamlet's deliverance.Nor
would it seem appropriate fortheQ2 Hamletto declare"The interimis mine,"
because he is notrepresented as ever concedingthathe has lost the advantage
'1 Philip Edwards, "Tragic Balance in Hamlet," ShakespeareSurvey,36 (1983), 43-52.

22 SHAKESPEARE
QUARTERLY
over Claudius, even whenthe king senthim to England. To enjoy at least an

imaginedascendancyover Claudius is not a new experienceforQ2's Hamlet
and would scarcelycall forremark.
What I have so fararguedto be a contrastin the representationof Hamlet
betweenQ2 and F can, of course, be construedwithequal justificationas a
contrastin therelationbetweenHamletand Claudius to each otherin the two
printedversions.Claudius seems a strongeradversaryto Hamletin F because
thekingappearsto gaintheupperhandmuchearlierin sendingoffan apparently
unsuspectingHamletto whatseems certaindeathin England.It maytherefore
seem appropriatethat,at one otherpoint,F portraysClaudius as a morecom-
petentplotterin otherways as well. Whilein theQ2 versionof IV.vii Claudius
is interruptedquite unexpectedlyas he is referringobliquely to the English
assassinationplot, in F Claudius appears muchmore cautious in anticipating
interruption,breakingoffhis conversationwithLaertesupon the approachof
the messenger.Again in quotingthe variantpassage, I place the F-onlylines
in pointedbrackets:
KING . . . You must not think

Thatwe aremadeof stuffso flatanddull
Thatwe can letourbeardbe shookwithdanger
Andthinkit pastime.You shortlyshallhearmore.
I lov'd yourfather,
andwe loveourself;
Andthat,I hope,willteachyouto imagine-
Entera MessengerwithLetters[F: omitwithLetters]
<How now?Whatnews?
MESSENGER Letters,my lord, fromHamlet:>
These[F: This]to yourMajesty,thisto theQueen.
(IV.vii.30-37)16
The alternativerepresentations of Hamletin Q2 and F may also affectother

roles, mostnotablythoseof Fortinbrasand Laertes.JenkinswritesthatShake-
speare presentsClaudius in I.ii as dealing withFortinbrasand Laertesbefore
turningto Hamletbecause later "theirsituationsare designedto reflecthis"
(p. 133). ButFortinbras loomslargeonlyin Q2 with"How all occasions. .. "
and the reflectionof Hamlet's situationin Laertes's becomes explicitonly in
F. The doublereflection of Hamletin Fortinbrasand in Laertesis thusrestricted
to the moderncombinedQ2/F text.There Hamlet,about to undertakehis en-
forcedexpeditionto England, firstcontrastshimselfwithFortinbras,finding
thathonor,whichHamletregardsas no morethana "fantasy"propellingFor-
tinbras's militaryexpedition,absolutelyrequires Hamlet's revenge against
Claudius and, perhaps,againsthis tools Rosencrantzand Guildenstern as well.
Then the combinedtextpresentsHamlet,upon his returnto Denmark,unac-
countablyignoring,butneverexplicitlyrenouncing,theclaims of honorwhen
he recastsrevengeas a sacredobligationenjoinedby providence.Then Hamlet
standsin contrastto Laertes,who has represented himselfto Claudius as caring
so littlefor the sacred thathe consigns "Conscience and grace, to the pro-
foundestpit" (IV.v.131 [Q2 & F]), promises,if necessary,to "cut [Hamlet's]
16 Harold Jenkins,in "Playhouse Interpolations

in the Folio Text of Hamlet," SB, XIII (1960),
31-47, soughtto associate this variantwitha numberof otherF-onlyreadings,manyof them
simple repetitionsto whichthis variantis not obviouslyrelated,and dismissthe lot as "actors'
interpolations."He neverdid explain satisfactorily
why "actors' gag" shouldever have been in-
scribedin a manuscript-anotherincompletefictionof origin.

throati' th' church"(IV.vii. 125 [Q2 & F]), and, in thefencingscene,overrides

theprompting of his consciencein orderto kill Hamlet:"And yetit is [F: 'tis]
almostagainst[F: 'gainst] my conscience" (V.ii.299 [Q2 & F]).
So farthecombinedQ2/Ftextprovides,in thisdoublereflection of Hamlet's
situationin bothFortinbras'sand Laertes's, a neat, if problematicantithesis.
It is neat because one reflection(Hamlet/Fortinbras) belongs entirelyto the
secular realmof honor,the other(Hamlet/Laertes) to the religiousin its em-
phasis on salvation. It is problematicbecause the contextsfor the contrasts
seem incommensurate witheach other,and so may the sides of Hamletthat
theyreveal. Yet even the neatnesshas disappearedby the end of V.ii in the
combinedQ2/Ftext,forthereLaertesis represented as beingas punctiliouson
questionsof honoras Hamlethas earlierfoundFortinbras to be. Laertesaccepts
Hamlet's apologyat thebeginningof thefencingmatchonlyupon conditions:
"But in mytermsof honor/ I standaloof, and will no reconcilement / Till by
some elder mastersof knownhonor/ I have a voice and precedentof peace /
To keep my name ungor'd [F: vngorg'd]" (V.ii.244-48 [Q2 & F]). Finally,
then, in the combinedQ2/F text,Hamlet contrastsin exactlythe same way
withFortinbrasand withLaertes,who are bothrepresented, unlikeHamlet,as
extremelyjealous of theirhonor upon the least provocation,but Hamlet also
contrastsin a second way withLaertes alone, since Hamletseeks revengeas
a matterof conscience,while Laertestakes revengein spite of conscience.
Q2 and F again each offera straightercourse. In Q2, Hamletexplicitlycon-
trastshimselfonlywithFortinbras, notwithLaertes("How all occasions. . ."),
and only in termsof honor;Hamletdismissesthe Norwegian'sconceptionof
honoras fantasticbut acceptshonoras an unavoidableimperativeforhimself;
an audience may latercontrastHamletwithLaertes in the same terms,when
Laertes'srefusalevento pretendto acceptan apologywithoutconsulting"elder
mastersof knownhonor" mayseem as nice as theissue thathas sentFortinbras
to war. In sum, thebasis forcontrastsand comparisonsamongthethreechar-
actersprovidedin Q2 is honor.In F, however,Hamletcompareshimselfonly
withLaertes, who standsout in F (whichlacks "How all occasions . . .") as
theonlyremainingexponentof thesecularvalue of honorbecause theF Hamlet
regardshis own revengeas sacred. In theF antithesis,then,Hamletlays claim
to religiousvalues, whichLaertesrejects;Laerteslays claim to honor,a matter
on whichHamlet is silent.
Accordingto the conventionsof revisionisttextualcriticism,I should now

rise in an o altitudoto invoke Shakespeareas necessarilythe source of the
divergentpatternsin Q2 and F unearthedhere: "all thatis needed is Shake-
brilliance,well withinhis observedcapacity
speare, capable of preternatural
to strikeus dumbwithamazement."17Probablythisconventionstandsin need
of reform.While, like otherrevisionists,I have been intentupon asserting
continuitieswithineach of the earlyprintedtextsand discontinuitiesbetween
them,thereare no groundsforprivilegingthe alleged integrity of each of Q2
and F to thehostof aestheticformsthatcriticshaveproducedfromtheirreading
of thecombinedQ2/Ftext.Indeed, thedivergentaestheticpatternsthatI have
17 Urkowitz,Revision,p. 149.

abstractedfromQ2 and F are radicallyunstableand threaten,at everyturn,to

collapse intothe combinationwitheach otherthatis so familiarfromthe ed-
itorialtradition.For example,as I have alreadyallowed, it seems impossible
to disentangleHamlet'sF speechrepresenting revengeas necessaryto salvation
("And is't not to be damn'd. . . ?") fromhis referenceto "a divinitythat
shapesourends," and, itcould be added,fromhis earlierconceptionof himself
as "scourge and minister"of heaven (III.iv.182), even thoughboththe latter
speeches are in both Q2 and F. Instancesquicklymultiply:the acutelysus-
picious Hamlet,whomI have triedto confineto the Q2 version,leaps up in
the nunneryscene in bothversionsto ask suspiciouslyof Ophelia, "Where's
yourfather?"(III.i.131).
The onlyimaginablegroundsforprivilegingQ2 and F withunassailablein-
tegritywould be evidence thateach is independently linkedto Shakespeare.
While thehistoricity of thevariantsdiscussedin thispaperis evidentfromthe
printeddocumentsthemselves,just as thehistoricity of theplaywright Shake-
speare is well documented,thereis no documentto link the variantsto the
playwright.As purelyaestheticpatternsthe variationsdiscussedin thispaper
theydo notexistbeyondthispaper. To claim
can have no claim to historicity;
thatsuch patternsmustoriginatewithShakespeareis to abolishthedistinction
betweenhistoryand aesthetics.18
In addition,the patternsof variationdisplayedhere are hardlycoterminous
withthevariantsbetweenthehistoricaldocumentsdesignatedQ2 and F. Many
of the Q2/F variantsare so trivialthattheydefydiscussion;butthereare also
a numberof sizeable variationsbetweenthe two textsthatresistinclusionin
any of the continuitiesproposedhere. Amongthemare Horatio's speech on
the deathof Caesar (I.i.108-25 [Q2]), Hamlet's on the "vicious mole of na-
ture" (I.iv.17-38 [Q2]), and the "littleeyases" passage (II.ii.337-62 [F]). If
an aestheticdesigndetermined theformation of each of theearlyprintedtexts
and if thatdesign transcendedhistory-necessaryassumptionsforthose who
wouldinferShakespeareanauthorship fromtheaestheticformsthey,as readers,
constitutein variantsbetweenearlyprintedtexts-it wouldbe possiblenow to
accountfor all the Q2/F variantsin termsof it. But no such design is self-
evident;withoutit, the possibilityof imaginingthatin readingF and Q2 we
are in the presenceof Shakespeare'strueart,in bothits originaland revised
forms,disappears.
Lacking evidence of revisionbetweenearly printedversionsof the plays,
revisionistcriticshave resortedto arguments fromanalogyto assignthesever-
sions to Shakespeare.In an attemptto establisha trans-historical conception
oftheauthoras tirelessreviser,E.A.J. Honigmannhas presentedthemanuscript
revisionsof poetsas farremovedfromShakespeareas Keats and Burnsto show
thattheminorverbalchangestheyhabituallyintroduced in recopyingtheirown
workoftenresemblethe variantsbetweenearlyprintedtextsof Shakespeare's
plays.19Since the capacityof scribesand typesetters to introducechangesin-
distinguishable fromthose of poets themselves was alreadywell attested,Hon-
18 Cf. Marion
Trousdale,"A Trip throughtheDivided Kingdoms,"ShakespeareQuarterly,37
(1986), 218-23. Attemptsto supportthe hypothesisof revisionby fixingdifferent dates of com-
positionuponQ2 and F merelydefertheproblemof datingtheQ2 and F versionsintounresolvable
problemsof datingthecompositionof thedocumentsthatallude to Hamletor thatmarktheevents
to whicheitherQ2 or F is alleged to allude. For an optimisticview, see E.A.J. Honigmann,"The
Date of Hamlet," ShS, 9 (1956), 24-34.
'9 The Stabilityof Shakespeare's Text(London: EdwardArnold,1965).

igmann'sresearchlefttheproblemof theoriginof suchvariantsin earlyprinted

plays unresolved.20Then JohnKerriganexamineddocumentedauthorialre-
visionsof EnglishRenaissanceplaysand comparedthevariantsin themto those
producedin thecourseoftheatricaladaptationsofplaysbynon-authorial hands.
He concludedthatauthorialrevisionsissued notonlyin majoradditions,dele-
tions,and substitutions(such as thosetreatedin thispaper)butalso in a plethora
of minorverbalalterationsthroughout theplay (of thesortdocumentedin many
of the passages commonto Q2 and F quoted in thispaper). In contrast,non-
authorialadaptationproducedonly major variants,leavingthe verbaltexture
of therestof a play untouched.2'Still theproblemof identifying theoriginof
printed textscontaining both major variants and many minorverbal differences
remainsin dispute:obviouslysuch a printedplay could preserveauthorialre-
vision,butitjust as likelycould representa non-authorial theatricaladaptation
(hence the majorvariants)thathad been copied one or moretimesby scribes
(hencethenumerousminorvariants,to whichthetypesetters wouldhave added).
Othershave preferred to redefinethe functionof the authorwithreference
to the fragmentary evidence of Shakespeare's biography.As dramaticpoet,
player, and sharer in a dramaticcompany,Shakespeare,it is asserted,would
have embracedevery stage in the productionof one of his plays. He might
writeit withoutreferenceto thetheatricalpurposeto whichit finallywould be
put: hence, the argumentgoes, the manyambiguitiesand even confusionsin
thedesignationsof charactersin someearlyprintedplays. ButthenShakespeare
would be on hand duringrehearsalsto providethe necessaryclarification and
to cooperatewithhis fellow actorsin trimming and shapinghis play forthe
stage: hence, this argumentcontinues,the manydeletionsfromF Hamlet in
comparisonwithQ2. Finally,accordingto GeorgeHibbard,Shakespearewould
even transcribethe revisedversion.Thus, on this theory,the authorabsorbs
withinhimselfthe roles of theatricaladapter(or bookkeeper)and scribe to
whomtraditional textualcritics,like Edwards,wouldconsignmuchof thevar-
iation betweenprintedtexts.Yet no matterhow muchthe conceptof Shake-
speare the authoris distended,it fails to includethe publicationof the Folio
versionsof his plays in 1623, seven years afterthe historicalShakespeare's
death. Such an attemptto forcethe Folio textto yield up the historyof its
transmission merelyreveals the persistenceof the same desireto recoverlost
originsthatproducedthemoreconventionalaccountsof thegenesisand trans-
missionof Q2 and F Hamlet thatconstituteEdwards's pointof departure.To
projectall the Q2/F variantsupon Shakespeareis to substituteone fictionof
originforanother.
Close examinationof an actualdramaticmanuscript fromShakespeare'sown
period,such as Thomasof Woodstock,indicatesthepresenceof no fewerthan
nine hands. How manyof these, if any, are authorialcan probablyneverbe
determined.22 Had theplay been printedfromthismanuscript, its printingwould
20 CharltonHinman,"ShakespeareanTextualStudies:Seven More Years," in Shakespeare1971,

Proceedingsof the WorldShakespeareCongress,ed. CliffordLeech and J.M.R. Margeson(To-
ronto:Univ. of TorontoPress, 1972), p. 40.
21 John
Kerrigan,"Revision, Adaptation,and the Fool in King Lear," in The Division of the
Kingdoms,pp. 195-245.
22 WilhelminaP. Frijlinck,ed., The First Part of the Reign of King Richard the Second or
Thomasof Woodstock,Malone SocietyReprints(Oxford:The Malone Society, 1929) and William
B. Long, " 'A bed forwoodstock':A WarningfortheUnwary,"Medievaland RenaissanceDrama
in England, II (1985), 91-118.

probablyhave erased nearlyall theevidenceof collaborativeinscription.Such

a historicaldocumentsupportsFoucault's characterization of the search for
originsas ultimatelyfutileand misleading,"an attemptto capturethe exact
essence of things,theirpurestpossibilitiesand theircarefullyprotectediden-
tities,because thissearchassumestheexistenceof immobileformsthatprecede
the externalworldof accidentand succession. This searchis directedto 'that
whichwas alreadythere',the image of a primordialtruthfullyadequate to its
nature,and it necessitatestheremovalof everymaskto ultimately disclose an
originalidentity.However, if the genealogistrefusesto extendhis faithin
metaphysics,ifhe listensto history,he findsthatthereis 'somethingaltogether
different' behindthings:not a timelessand essentialsecret,butthe secretthat
theyhave no essence or thattheiressence was fabricatedin a piecemealfashion
fromalien forms."23
On this formulation, assertionsof Shakespeare's agency alone in the pro-
ductionof firstthe Q2 and thenthe F textof Hamlet translatethese printed
versionsout of the realmof history,wherethingsare fabricatedin piecemeal
fashionfromalien formsthroughaccidentand succession, into the world of
metaphysics,wheretimelessand tirelessgeniusproducesand thenreproduces
the essence of Hamlet. The older editorialtraditionof combiningQ2 and F
Hamlet usefullyacknowledgesthe possibilityof accidentin the productionof
printedversions,but in attempting to recoverShakespeare'sfullHamlet from
thecombinationofthedisparateearlytexts,thistradition maysimplycompound
the accidentsof historyin fashioninga Hamlet piecemeal fromwhat I have
triedto showto be thealien formsof Q2 and F. The criticalenigmasofHamlet
and Hamletthathave been projectedas Shakespeare's solitarycreationmay,
at least to some extent,then,be the productof the latter-dayaccidentof an
editorialtradition.
23Michel Foucault,Language, Counter-Memory, Practice,ed. Donald F. Bouchard,trans.Bou-
chardand SherrySimon (Ithaca: CornellUniv. Press, 1977), p. 142.


The Textual Mystery of Hamlet (Werstine, 1988)

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

The Textual Mystery of Hamlet (Werstine, 1988)

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

George Washington University

The Textual Mystery of Hamlet

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Sun, 16 Feb 2014 16:44:09 PM

THE '80s HAVE SEEN A LARGENUMBEROF SHAKESPEAREANS-myselfamong

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Sun, 16 Feb 2014 16:44:09 PM

tifyingauthorialrevisionamong the variantsbetweenearly printedversions

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Sun, 16 Feb 2014 16:44:09 PM

To beginneartheend of Hamlet,we mightconsidertheminormystery cre-

Since it scarcelyseems necessaryto introducethislordforthepurposeof con-

materiallydifferenttextsas witnessesto the same event(performance of Hamlet) seems to dem-

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Sun, 16 Feb 2014 16:44:09 PM

firming Hamlet's intentionto play withLaertes-Hamlet has done nothingto

ButI am verysorry, goodHoratio,

Accordingto F, then,Hamlet's laterapologyto Laertesspringsfromempathy

7 GaryTaylorand I each learnedin conversation

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Sun, 16 Feb 2014 16:44:09 PM

most excellentdifferences,of verysoftsocietyand greatshowing.Indeed, to

As parodiesof Osric's pretentious mode of address,Hamlet's speechescall far

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Sun, 16 Feb 2014 16:44:09 PM

Q2; in thattext,as I have alreadynoted,Hamlet's V.ii conversationwithHo-

Throughthe eliminationof Hamlet's ridiculeof Laertes,F presentsa Hamlet

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Sun, 16 Feb 2014 16:44:09 PM

To show my dutyin yourcoronation,

Polonius's speech in Q2 emphasizesLaertes's statusas a supplicant,an ac-

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Sun, 16 Feb 2014 16:44:09 PM

Laertes indulgein such generalizingin the companyof anyonebut Ophelia

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Sun, 16 Feb 2014 16:44:09 PM

two] monthssince [F: hence]

(Thereafter the two devise the mechanics of their plot.)

In the firstQ2-only passage (11. 67-81), Laertes is subjected to much double-

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Sun, 16 Feb 2014 16:44:09 PM

praise Laertes's masteryof fencing,Claudius is carefulneverto indicatehis

When revisionisttextualcriticsbegan to advance the argumentthatShake-

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Sun, 16 Feb 2014 16:44:09 PM

(Albanyand Edgar, Kent, Goneril,theFool) and do so little,in thecourseof

(Thisexplanationcompletely "a wife"forF's "Wife.")

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Sun, 16 Feb 2014 16:44:09 PM

adequatelyclarifyin his papers,so thatagainQ2 printstheplaywright's

Again, accordingto Edwards,F printsonly Shakespeare's"second thought,"

(This timetherearises the improbability of Shakespeare'smanagingto write

And[F: To] letthemknowbothwhatwe meanto do

This timethe Q2 compositoris representedas correctlydeletingthe last half

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Sun, 16 Feb 2014 16:44:09 PM

Furthermore, when Edwards draws an analogy betweenthe alleged "first

Thegreyeydemornesmileson thefrowning night,

In Hamlet thereare no comparableduplicatepassages-at mosta wordor two

Nevertheless,accordingto Edwards,Q2 containsnotonlyShakespeare'sfirst

compositorsin Q2 can be accepted,thenEdwardswould have it thatbothcom-

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Sun, 16 Feb 2014 16:44:09 PM

preservesShakespeare'sfinalintentionsforHamlet, and he denies thatcom-

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Sun, 16 Feb 2014 16:44:09 PM

expressesHamlet's "new conviction. . .that Rosencrantzand Guildenstern

Edwards then goes on to denigratethis soliloquy at length:it is "a second

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Sun, 16 Feb 2014 16:44:09 PM

speech] to providea psychologicalbridgeforthis verydifficult stage of the

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Sun, 16 Feb 2014 16:44:09 PM

so concludedon" (III.iv.207-8 [F & Q2]). HamletrecognizesthatClaudius

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Sun, 16 Feb 2014 16:44:09 PM

Ros. To visityoumyLord,no otheroccasion.

Hamlet is not representedhere as knowingin advance thatRosencrantzand

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Sun, 16 Feb 2014 16:44:09 PM

Because Rosencrantzand Guildenstern give away theking's game themselves,

14 Editorshave speculatedthatthe "prison" passage, unique to F, was censoredin Q2 forfear

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Sun, 16 Feb 2014 16:44:09 PM