Hamlet as we now have it, in every detail, probably dates from 1605. The reason for assigning that date is that some of the differences in the First Folio (F1) version, as compared to the Second Quarto (Q2), are credibly authorial refinements which postdate the publication of Q2. The Q2 printing was near the end of 1604 and continued into 1605, a conclusion that follows directly from the dates on surviving copies of Q2, some of which are dated 1604, and others 1605.

It's possible that Shakespeare made the changes, revealed in F1, to a copy of the Q2 manuscript he retained, without providing those changes to the printer. In that event, he could have made the changes at some time significantly before 1604. However, this alternative does raise the question of why his desired version, in all its details, was not the one printed in Q2. If he wanted some changes in detail, and there was time to make those changes to the manuscript before it was printed, why does Q2 not include the changes? Shakespeare would have known the printer did not have his final and most refined version. Various possibilities could answer the question, so perhaps there is no great mystery implied if this is the case. However, it does seem more reasonable that the printer was supplied with the latest version available at the time, in all its detail, when Q2 was published. Why would the printer have something less?

The most straightforward explanation, for authorial differences between Q2 and F1, is that Shakespeare obtained a published copy of Q2, and upon reviewing it, noted certain details he would wish changed. It does seem entirely reasonable that he would have obtained and read a publication of his own play. Then, if he saw refinements he could make, he would have noted them. When F1 was printed, his notes were found and incorporated into that publication. There's no certainty that this straightforward explanation is right, but it accounts easily for the F1 differences, and it follows from what would normally be expected of an author reviewing his published work. This tends to place the final Hamlet, as we now have it in every detail, in 1605, following shortly after the Q2 press run, presuming Shakespeare promptly obtained and reviewed a copy, as an author should be inclined to do.

There were two known reprintings of Q2. These are called Q3, printed in 1611, and Q4, which is undated, but appears to date from 1621 or 1622. The Q3 and Q4 reprintings do show some minor variations from Q2, but they appear to be essentially mere reprints, without the authorial differences found in F1. Apparently the publisher of the reprints did not have Shakespeare's refinements in hand.

I'll list here some of the differences in F1 that appear to be credibly authorial and to postdate Q2. The Folio Differences page on this web site offers explanation of why each of these F1 differences appears to be authorial. Each of the items listed is arguable in some way, but the total of the differences which are credibly authorial points toward authorial refinement reflected in F1. The "EH" line numbers refer to the numbering used in the "Enfolded Hamlet" by Bernice Kliman (see the Links page.) The Q2 word or phrase is given first.

There are some 80 items in that list which can be argued as credibly being authorial changes from Q2 to F1. This does not count certain brief additions to the playtext that are found in F1. It gives the distinct appearance of authorial refinement after Q2 was printed. Thus, Hamlet as we currently have it, in every detail, probably dates from 1605. An even later date is possible for a few details of exact wording, if the author continued to fuss with the play on occasion, as long as he was active.

(Regained)

The words and phrases listed on this page, that are credibly authorial refinements between the time of Q2, and that of F1, are discussed in detail here:

Folio Differences

Back to the
Hamlet (Regained) HOME page

(Regained)

Go to the
Playtext Scenes page