Back to the
Hamlet (Regained) HOME page

Go to the
Playtext Scenes page

Specific Folio Differences in comparison to the Second Quarto.

Following are some comments about differences that exist between the version of Hamlet printed in the Second Quarto of 1604-1605, and the version printed in the First Folio of 1623. In the comments, "Q2" means the Second Quarto version of Hamlet. The abbreviations "F" or "F1" or the word "Folio" mean the version of Hamlet that was printed in the First Folio. Also, "Q1" means the First Quarto Hamlet printed in 1603. Additional information is at right.

Scene 1 (Act 1 scene 1)

EH 19: I thinke I heare them, {stand ho, who is} [Stand: who's] there?

stand ho, who is

Stand: who's

The Q2 phrasing is necessary to make the line iambic pentameter. Hamlet is not written in strict iambic pentameter, so it's conceivable the author decided to change the line. However, judging by the published appearance, it's more likely the Folio editor changed the line to fit it within the Folio's restrictive two-column layout. That being the case, the F1 difference lacks credibility as an authorial change.

{The Folio editor apparently changed the line to fit in the available printing space.}

(The changed wording makes no difference to action in performance.)

EH 23: O, farwell honest {souldiers} [Soldier], who hath relieu'd you?

soldiers

soldier

The Folio properly corrects a simple misprint in Q2, although the Folio capitalization is not appropriate. (Capitalization throughout the Folio is eccentric, with many common words within sentences capitalized. The reason is unclear. It might have been done simply to provide a kind of text decoration.)

EH 30: {Hora.} [Mar.] What, ha's this thing appeard againe to night?

Hora.

Mar.

The Q2 speech prefix is authorial. This is supported, in that Horatio is the one who has the good reason to ask right away. If the Ghost has already appeared, Horatio can leave immediately, and go back to bed or to a warm fire indoors. Character motivation is firm for Horatio to have the line. Also, Marcellus knows from experience that the Ghost has been appearing later, which makes it much less likely Marcellus would ask now. If the author ever had Marcellus speak the line, he probably later changed that, as Q2 shows, to be more in keeping with character knowledge and motivation.

{The Folio editor apparently used Q1, when he shouldn't have.}

(In performance, Horatio speaks the line.)

EH 43: What we {haue two nights} [two Nights haue] seene.

have two nights

two nights have

The word "night" puns with "knight." The Folio difference allows Barnardo's phrase, via the pun, to have self reference to him and Marcellus, who are two military men. Barnardo can be heard inadvertently calling himself and Marcellus "two knights." Accidental self reference is a continual feature of the play, sometimes through punning, sometimes not. The F1 change is credible as an authorial refinement, since it well suits the style of the play.

{The Folio editor probably found the change and correctly used it.}

(In performance, Barnardo can show the first two fingers of his hand for the count of "two," and then make a vague gesture to leave it unclear whether he's referring to the nighttime, or to Marcellus and himself.)

EH 55: Lookes {a} [it] not like the King? ...

a (he)

it

Both are probably authorial, in the respective printings. Except for this one word "he" in Q2, the Ghost is otherwise called it in the passage. It's plausible Shakespeare changed the word, after the Q2 printing, for consistency. However, it's also possible that 'he', in this instance, was the author's preferred form, as a mark of Barnardo's psychology; while speaking of the King, Barnardo says "he." Both interpretations seem reasonable, and I find no clear way to decide this difference. I can only suggest that it gives the option in performance: a production could use it for consistency, or have Barnardo say he as a subtle indication of Barnardo's psychology.

{The Folio editor may have found an authorial refinement and correctly used it.}

(In performance, Barnardo is pointing as he speaks the line.)

EH 56: Most like, it {horrowes} [harrowes] me with feare and wonder.

horrows

harrows

Q2 horrows should probably be used in the playtext, because it may be an authorial coinage, combining the meanings of "horrors" and "harrows." The possibility does exist that the Q2 word is only a spelling variant of "harrows," but the alternative, that the Q2 word could be a true Shakespeare coinage, must give one pause. This is probably best handled by using the Q2 word, and then noting the possibilities in commentary. One would definitely not like to overlook a true Shakespeare coinage, if that's what the Q2 word is. The meanings of both "horrors" and "harrows" can readily apply for the utterance, and the author may have combined them.

{The Folio change may be a spelling correction, or it may be obliviousness to an authorial coinage.}

(In performance, the words are similarly actable, with Horatio making the motion of raking his fingers across his chest. The action can symbolize the soul being harrowed, and is also a classic gesture of horror.)

EH 58: {Speake to} [Question] it Horatio.

Speak to

Question

The Q2 phrasing is easily more credibly authorial, since the emphasis throughout the passage is on Horatio speaking to the Ghost. Marcellus is insistently repeating himself. Q2 is correctly followed.

{The Folio editor apparently mistakenly followed Q1, which shows "Question," probably in anticipation of Horatio's questions that ensue; but Marcellus, at the time he speaks, doesn't know how Horatio will proceed to address the Ghost, whether with questions or declarations, so it indicates the Q1 reporter got ahead of himself, based on his knowledge of the ensuing questions in the dialogue.}

(In performance, it's necessary for Marcellus to be insistent.)

EH 79: He smot the {sleaded pollax} [sledded Pollax] on the ice.

sleaded pollax

sledded Pollax

The phrase has a double meaning, and an additional allusion as well, so both Q2 and F1 are right in a way. Shakespeare ingeniously included a number of words and phrases in the play that have a double meaning, and sometimes more than two meanings.

First, observe that "poll" means "head." Then, in the English pronunciation of Elizabethan times, the word sleaded, if drawled slightly, sounded like "slay dead." So, a sleaded pollax is a "slay dead head axe." Horatio means that King Hamlet, during the battle, swung his Danish battle axe like an executioner swinging a "slay dead head axe," i.e. an executioner's axe. It's a reference to what a fearsome warrior King Hamlet was. That's the first meaning.

Then, sleaded is indeed intended to suggest "sledded," as F1 shows, and pollax is phonetic for "Polacks," the people of Poland. Thus, the phrase refers to the Polish forces, who were using sledges for transport on the ice. That's the second meaning.

Sorting out and assembling the two meanings, Horatio's lines EH 78-9 say that King Hamlet fought an angry battle against the Poles in icy conditions, where the Poles were using sledges for transport, and that King Hamlet swung his Danish battle axe like an executioner with a "slay dead head axe." "Smote" in line EH 79 means King Hamlet and his Danish forces annihilated the enemy.

Beyond that, the phrase carries a very subtle advance allusion to Hamlet "smiting" Polonius, the "Pol-" character, in the Closet Scene when Polonius is hidden behind the sleided silk arras.

{The Folio editor changed the spelling of sleaded, and by doing so he revealed more of the full meaning of the phrase, so his act can't truly be called an error.}

(In performance, Horatio could frown and make a gesture of striking something.)

EH 81: Thus twice before, and {iump} [iust] at this dead houre,

jump

just

Jump in Q2 is authorial, it means "precisely." Marcellus says that the Ghost appeared at precisely the same time on the earlier nights. The word conforms with the use of jump in line EH 3870. The word choice has a suggestive undertone of the Ghost frightening the men, making them jump. (Q1 also shows "jump.")

The F1 word "just" is not credible as an authorial improvement, because it does not conform with the other uses in the play of "just," or a form of it. Elsewhere, the author used "just," or a form of it, to refer to justice.

{The F1 word is apparently entirely editorial, a mistake in the Folio.}

(In performance, Marcellus could make an abrupt gesture of emphasis. He might even do a little hop, if that doesn't seem too "mad.")

EH 89: And {with} [why] such dayly {cost} [Cast] of brazon Cannon

with

why

Both words make sense and can be considered authorial in the respective publications. The F1 change makes Marcellus's speech consist of a question every two lines, after his first line. It lends additional rhythm to his speech. On that basis, it can be viewed as an authorial fine tuning. (Q1 also shows "why.")

{The Folio editor was probably correct in using why.}

(In performance, Marcellus will be making the usual gestures that go along with questioning, as he speaks.)

EH 89: And why such dayly {cost} [Cast] of brazon Cannon

cost

cast

Q2 cost is the authorial word, because the word must go along with "foreign mart," in the next line, to which "cast" can't apply. The sense of the utterance requires cost. (Q1 also shows cost.)

{The Folio editor may have changed it to "cast" simply thinking that would go better with "brazen cannon," and without taking "foreign mart" into account. It is easily possible Shakespeare intended to pun with "cast" strictly in connection with "brazen cannon," while having cost as the playtext word; thus the Folio may, intentionally or unintentionally, reveal an intended authorial pun.}

(In performance, cost can be acted by rubbing the thumb against the first and second fingers of the hand, in the classic "money" gesture of rubbing a coin. As far as I can tell, "cast" doesn't seem actable in the context. A throwing gesture would be absurd, since it would make Marcellus look like an idiot, who imagines he could toss a cannon, and a pouring gesture would only make Marcellus look like he wants a drink. Perhaps he does, but that has nothing to do with cannons and what they're talking about. The easy actability of cost compared to "cast" is further evidence in favor of cost as the author's word.)

EH 104: Well ratified by lawe and {heraldy} [Heraldrie,]

heraldy

heraldry

The Q2 spelling is considered a mere variant of the F1 word, and so it is, for literal reading. However, the exact Q2 spelling goes somewhat better with the question of whether the Ghost is an omen, a herald, of events to come. On that basis, the Q2 form seems more likely to be the author's exact own.

{The Folio editor probably just used the contemporary spelling in his day.}

(In performance, Horatio could do action as if reading from a large scroll.)

EH 105: Did forfait (with his life) all {these} [those] his lands

these

those

Q2 these is authorial, and is mandatory for the point that Elsinore Castle is on the land King Hamlet won from Fortinbrasse Sr.

{The Folio probably took the word "those" from Q1.}

(In performance, Horatio's action can be an outward sweep of the arm, or better yet, of both arms.)

EH 106: Which he stood seaz'd {of} [on], to the conquerour.

of

on

Q2 of is authorial, but F1 "on" is not. "Seized of" is an exact legal phrase, a technical phrase in law, that is, which Shakespeare obviously knew. Horatio, a university scholar, is speaking legalistically about the land wager, so he uses legal phrasing. The Folio editor lacked the author's legal knowledge, and didn't realize it was exact legal phrasing, so he likely changed the word to "on" from thinking that should be the preposition to go with "stood."

{The Folio editor probably changed the word.}

(In performance, Horatio probably best delivers his entire speech "teacher style," pacing a bit, and gesturing, as if lecturing classroom students. Horatio has been a university student, so he's well familiar with teachers and how they lecture. Here, he acts the "professor" for Marcellus and Barnardo. Not to imply Horatio intends being "the teacher" to them, rather, it's the style he will naturally adopt, from his university experience.)

EH 108: Was gaged by our King, which had {returne} [return'd]

return

returned

Judgment depends on how one reads the line. It may be understood as:
1. "(the land) would have had its return," or
2. "(the land) would have returned.
The first is more poetic, so I view Q2 return as more likely authorial. F1 probably does not have an authorial fine tuning here. Q2 return might also be a legalistic usage, although that is not clear.

By the way, this line is often misunderstood. At this point, Horatio is not talking about Fortinbrasse getting his own land back, but rather, the land King Hamlet wagered being conveyed to Fortinbrasse. Return is used with reference to conveying, or turning over, or remitting, the land to Fortinbrasse.

{The Folio editor probably made the change to past tense.}

(In performance, Horatio has been holding out his hands to indicate the land, so for return he draws in his hands.)

EH 110: Had he bin vanquisher; as by the same {comart,} [Cou'nant]

comart

covenant

Q2 comart is authorial, and is a Shakespeare coinage. The word is formed from the prefix "co-" meaning "mutual," and the root "mart" meaning bargain/agreement.

The question becomes whether the Folio word was so persuasive, for some reason, as to cause the author to surrender his own coinage. The Folio word has Biblical significance in relation to the Death theme, a major theme of Hamlet. Isaiah 28, 15-18: "We have made a covenant with death ... then shall ye be trod down by it." (Geneva wording.) It's known the author had good familiarity with the Bible. It's credible the author made the change because of the word, and passage, in Isaiah, which allegorically encompasses the play, from the initial agreement for a battle to the death between Hamlet Sr and Fortinbrasse Sr, to the ultimate result that, by the end of the play, nearly all the major characters are "trod down."

{The Folio editor probably found the author's change to covenant and properly used it.}

(In performance, either word could be acted by clasping the hands together, simulating a handshake.)

EH 115: Sharkt vp a list of {lawelesse} [Landlesse] resolutes

lawless

landless

The Q2 word is authorial. Horatio has no way of knowing how many of Fortinbrasse's recruits are landless, since he has not done a real estate census of them, but following from what he just said, he knows that aggression would be lawless. Also, as we see later in the play, the Captain disavows any particular personal interest in land, saying he wouldn't give five ducats for their objective. Lawless makes good sense for Horatio to say, in the context, while landless is not so good for immediate meaning.

Be that as it may, a subtlety of the play makes landless worth pondering. Fortinbrasse has no land, since his father lost the family land, which means in turn that Fortinbrasse has no wealth. In those days, land was money, at least for the aristocratic class. Without land, Fortinbrasse, personally, cannot have the financial resources to raise an army by himself. He is raising the army, against Denmark, with secret financial support from old King Norway, who is practicing deception by pretending to be deathly ill and out of touch. The author might have changed to landless in connection with this subtlety of that play, that Fortinbrasse himself is landless, and he therefore must have funding from elsewhere. I can't offer a firm conclusion, but the F1 word has that plausiblity as an authorial change.

{The Q2 word is authorial, at least for the Q2 printing, but the Folio editor conceivably found landless as a later authorial fine tuning, intended to point to the circumstances of Fortinbrasse, himself.}

(In performance, landless is easily actable, in the general way, by gesturing outward to indicate the surrounding land. It would be best done with the palm downwards, to combine a "no" gesture. I don't know of any easy action for lawless. The actability of landless gives support to it being a true authorial change.)

EH 120: And tearmes {compulsatory} [Compulsatiue], those foresaid lands

compulsatory

compulsative

The words mean the same, both make sense, and probably both are authorial in their respective publications. The only significant difference is the number of syllables. F1 compulsative is probably a change made by the author because it can be spoken more easily in the poetic rhythm.

{The Folio editor probably found an authorial refinement and correctly used it.}

(In performance, Horatio can act the word with a raised fist, since compulsion is force.)

EH 124+1 to 124+18: (Multiple lines, not quoted here)

[18 lines]

[none]

These 18 lines occur only in Q2, not in the Folio. Various theories have been offered to explain the F1 omission. The theory most frequently advanced seems to be that F1 honored markings made for the purpose of playhouse abridgement. I do not find that particular theory persuasive, simply because there is no good reason why a publication for general readers would be abridged to suit staging requirements. The F1 editor had to know that the Folio was not going to be a playhouse book for actors, for internal use at the theater. So, he ought to have simply ignored any playhouse abridgement markings, if he found any. Such markings would have meant nothing to a printing for the public, obviously.

The omission of the lines would be more understandable if it were the other way around, that is, if the lines were in F1 but not Q2. The reason is, the passage can be read to contain an allusion to Queen Elizabeth I being in bad health, (the moon sick almost to doomsday,) which would have been a touchy subject around 1602, but not in 1623. Queen Elizabeth, in written praise by various authors, was poetically associated with Diana, the moon goddess. One can see the Elizabethan censor disapproving the passage for publication near the time James Roberts registered Hamlet, in 1602, because of the possible interpretation too personal to the Queen. Elizabethan writings had to be approved by a censor before they could be published. Queen Elizabeth I died on March 24, 1603. In 1623, when F1 was published, Queen Elizabeth I's health was a non-issue. So, if the lines had been left out of Q2, and then restored in F1, it would make more sense.

My theory is that the lines were marked for deletion from publication around the time Hamlet was registered for publication, in 1602. The reason being, the censor found an unacceptable interpretation in reference to the Queen's health. By the time Q2 was published, the Queen had died, so the earlier censorship marking was ignored. Being "sick almost to doomsday" could no longer be read to apply to her. However, the Folio editor found the "not for publication" marking on the manuscript. Not knowing why the "don't publish" marking was there, he honored it, and left out the lines, although there was no longer a reason to do so.

In outline, my theory is:
1. The Hamlet manuscript was reviewed by the censor, after Roberts registered to print the play in July of 1602;
2. The censor disapproved the lines that could be read as a possible reference to the Queen's health;
3. The Hamlet manuscript was marked to not publish the two speeches since that was the easiest printing solution;
4. By the time the Q2 printing began, in 1604, the lines could no longer be interpreted as referring to the Queen's health, since she had died;
5. The Q2 compositor knew why the earlier "don't print" marking was there, and he properly ignored it, since it no longer applied;
6. The F1 editor, in 1623, found the "don't publish" marking, or note, on the old manuscript, and not knowing why it was there, and that it no longer applied, he honored it.
:: Thus, we find the lines in Q2, but not in F1.

The lines are authorial, regardless of any theory about them, so they should be included in any respectable Hamlet publication, and should be spoken in performance whenever the time allotted for the play allows.

{The Folio editor probably mistakenly honored an old "don't publish" marking or note.}

(The lines should be included in performance when possible.)

EH 124+5: A moth it is to trouble the mindes eye:

moth

[none]

The Q2 word is authorial, exactly as shown. It is not "mote," which is the word that appears in the average modern printing.

Horatio is using moth as a figure of speech, to mean "an unpredictable thing." In practical experience, it's unpredictable where a moth will go, when it flutters around at night. Horatio means that he can't foresee how things will turn out, based on the Ghost. He doesn't know where the Ghost moth will "land," so to speak.

There is probably an intended pun on "mote" in connection with "eye." The "mote" pun has almost universally been used as the playtext word in printings of Hamlet. However, "mote" does not carry an idea of unpredictability. Moth does. "Mote" is only a pun, strictly in connection with the word "eye," and is not supposed to be the word in the playtext.

The moth figure of speech is additionally an advance allusion to what the Ghost will tell Hamlet later. Although the fluttering of a moth is generally unpredictable, it's known that moths are attracted to light, such as firelight. Later, the Ghost will say that it renders itself up to sulfurous and tormenting flames. So, the Ghost moth landed in flames, figuratively speaking. There is, of course, a well-known expression: "like a moth to a flame."

Further, when the men try to stop the Ghost, later in the Scene, it will flutter from one place to another, then disappear from sight. That's moth behavior.

Even further, there is, in England, a herald moth, Scoliopteryx libatrix. It is found throughout Europe, including Denmark, and beyond. Herald moth caterpillars feed on willow (consider that Ophelia will fall from a willow.) In context, the men are wondering what the Ghost may portend, or herald; i.e., one can view them as wondering, is the Ghost literally a "herald moth?"

Performance considerations also firmly support moth as the word Horatio speaks. Imagine you're watching a moth that's fluttering around, back and forth, at some distance from you. As you watch the imaginary moth, you'll move your head back and forth to follow it. You'll do a slow shake of the head. That is exactly the action that goes along with uncertainty, which is what Horatio is expressing.

So, the word moth withstands scrutiny from every relevant angle, and is conclusively the word from Shakespeare's hand. Hamlet playtexts that print the word "mote" are wrong.

{The passage containing this word is not found in the Folio.}

(In performance, Horatio must say moth as he slowly shakes his head.)

EH 135: For which they say {your} [you] spirits oft walke in death.

your

you

Q2 your is authorial, but F1 "you" is probably not. Horatio's line is aside, concerning a theoretical reason why a Ghost might appear. For that, the word your is required. The Folio change is probably from a mistaken idea of Horatio talking to the Ghost.

{The Folio editor probably mistakenly changed the word, himself.}

(In performance, Horatio should speak the line as an aside, or at least aside from the Ghost. He can speak it aside to Marcellus and Barnardo, instead of entirely aside to the audience.)

EH 137: Shall I strike [at] it with my partizan?

[none]

at

The F1 addition regularizes the meter, and makes sense, which leaves little to say against it. At is probably authorial.

Attempting to argue for Q2: metricality is not so important for this line, since Marcellus, as he exclaims, should probably emphasize "strike" in any event. So it's possible the author departed from meter intentionally. I do not find that argument against F1 persuasive, because it doesn't rule out the appearance of iambic pentameter in print. It seems more likely that either the Q2 compositor simply missed at, or the author added it later, to regularize the meter.

{The Folio editor probably found at in Shakespeare's writing, and properly used it.}

(In performance, Marcellus will be holding up his partisan, ready to strike, when he speaks the line.)

EH 149: The Cock that is the trumpet to the {morne} [day],

morn

day

Q2 morn is authorial, F1 "day" is not. I find no argument that could sustain this F1 difference. In comparison with Q2 it fails all the tests (style, poetry, theme, allusion, etc.) and is only comparable just for literal meaning in the line. The Folio has an error.

{The Folio editor may have looked ahead two lines, to where the word "day" properly appears, and accidentally printed it here.}

(In performance, Horatio can gesture toward the horizon, where the sky is starting to lighten.)

EH 159: {This} [The] bird of dawning singeth all night long,

This

The

Q2 this is authorial, the F1 difference is not. Or, it's hypothetically possible the F1 editor worked from an early manuscript, not the author's final in which Shakespeare fine tuned the phrasing.

{The Folio editor may have used a source not the author's final, otherwise he just erred.}

(In performance, Marcellus gestures in the direction of the cock they heard.)

EH 160: And then they say no spirit {dare sturre} [can walke] abraode

dare stir

can walk

The Q2 phrase is authorial. Stir follows from Francisco's mention of not a mouse stirring. It can also be seen to precede Laertes, in Scene 18 (A4s7,) asking Claudius why he was stirred up.

{The Folio editor apparently mistakenly used Q1, so the Folio phrasing is probably not authorial, but rather a Q1 reporter's memory error.}

(The Q2 wording is actable by making a rotary motion of the hand, as if stirring something. Stirring is a "wheel" motion, thus linking to the Wheel concept in the play, and the Wheel of Fortune idea. This consideration strongly supports the word stir, and its associated stirring action, as authorial. I don't know of a simple, appropriate gesture for "walk" while standing still, in this context. It would be inappropriately farcical for Marcellus to actually walk back and forth, and the childlike gesture of "walking" a hand with the index and middle fingers is also inappropriate.)

EH 162: No fairy {takes} [talkes], nor witch hath power to charme

takes

talks

Q2 takes is authorial, but the F1 word is probably not. Since the context concerns spells and magic, the F1 difference does not make good sense. Also, the "take" idea is repeated in the play, in reference to casting a spell, and is quite significant to events, which firmly supports the Q2 word.

{The Folio probably has an ordinary misprint.}

(In performance, Marcellus can do a "magician" type of hand gesture.)

EH 163: ... and so gratious is {that} [the] time.

that

the

Q2 that is credibly authorial, the F1 difference is less so.

{Similar to EH 159, it may be the Folio editor erred, or that he used some manuscript or source not yet refined by the author.}

(In performance, this word is not an actable one in particular.)

EH 166: Walkes ore the dewe of yon high {Eastward} [Easterne] hill

eastward

eastern

Q2 eastward is authorial, supported in that the "-ward" suffix is from a root meaning of "watch," which carries subtle allusion to the sentinel's watch. The word is entirely credible with respect to the setting and concept of the scene.

However, the F1 change may be authorial, in allusion to what the "hill" is. The "hill" in question might be the large, hill-like tomb of King Hamlet. It might be understood that the "hill" pointed out by Horatio is not a natural geographic feature, but rather the late king's tomb, his "urn." In that case, eastern would be a word of significance via the sound "east-urn." The playtext words are written to be spoken aloud, of course. With that understanding, the change to eastern becomes credible as an authorial fine tuning. Certainly it would make sense that Horatio might indicate the hill-like tomb of King Hamlet, in the distance in the graveyard, after they've seen the Ghost that looks like King Hamlet. Taking it that the sun is rising over the tomb of King Hamlet would be a nice touch, and definitely not beyond Shakespeare. There has been some remark, in the historical Hamlet commentary, that Denmark has no high hills in the area of Kronborg Castle, but a natural hill may not be the intended object.

Further, F1 has a later change, at EH 634, from "interred" to "enurned." That change may correlate with this change, to again invoke the "urn" concept, here raised by the sound of "east-ern."

{It's plausible that the Folio editor found an authorial change and properly used it.}

(In performance, if a backdrop showing a large tomb is available, Horatio should point to that tomb when he says eastern, and the tomb would be the correct location for lighting to indicate the sunrise.)

EH 174: Where we shall find him most {conuenient} [conueniently]

convenient

conveniently

Both can be read to make sense, and both are metrical, depending on how the F1 word is pronounced. Social status favors the F1 difference. That is, Hamlet is the Prince, and Marcellus is much lower in status. Thus, it isn't strictly suitable for him to speak of Hamlet as "convenient." It isn't entirely proper for an inferior to speak of a superior as being "convenient." Shakespeare was quite careful about social status in the play, even on fine points, since he made extensive use of social status for effect, and as a major factor in the flow of events. It's credible the author changed the word to be sure of it connecting as an adverb to "find," rather than as an adjective to "him."

{The Folio editor probably found an authorial fine tuning and correctly used it.}

(In performance, there is probably no special action intended for this line as the men proceed to do an ordinary exit.)

---

Scene 2 (Act 1 scene 2)

EH 217: Of these {delated} [dilated] articles allowe:

delated

dilated

Both words are right, oddly enough. Delated is what Claudius says, but dilated is how the ambassadors take it, as proven by their conduct when they return. For explanation, too long to include here, see the Notes that accompany the Hamlet (Regained) playtext.

(In performance, an "expansive" gesture of the hands or arms would be appropriate as Claudius says the word, in connection with him accidentally misleading the ambassadors about what he means.)

EH 231: {My dread} [Dread my] Lord,

My dread

Dread my

Both phrasings make sense, and both may be authorial in their respective publications. Since Claudius has just asked Laertes what he wants, the F1 phrasing, taken in isolation, makes possible a reading that Laertes is asking Claudius for dread. The facetious possibility of that reading makes the F1 difference credible as an authorial fine tuning. It lends a kind of double meaning to the line, harmonious with the multiple meanings that proliferate in Hamlet. And indeed, Laertes ought to have dread where Claudius is concerned, since involvement with Claudius will ultimately get Laertes killed.

{The Folio editor probably found an authorial change and correctly used it.}

(In performance Laertes will bow when he speaks the line.)

EH 236: My thoughts and wishes bend againe {toward} [towards] Fraunce

toward

towards

The difference is virtually trivial, but not quite, because of the Watch motif of the play. The word "ward" comes from a root meaning of "watch." With that understanding, the exact Q2 wording can be seen to give Laertes saying: 'My thoughts ... bend again "to see" France.' The F1 addition of the '-s' on toward interferes with the application of the Watch motif, so it does not qualify as an authorial change.

{The Folio editor probably changed the word himself.}

(In performance, Laertes will gesture in the direction supposed to be that of France, but the true compass direction does not matter.)

EH 240: [Pol.] {Polo.} [He] Hath my Lord ...

[none] (and the speech prefix "Polo.")

He (and the speech prefix "Pol.")

John Dover Wilson, in a 1934 publication, is probably correct about this. It is plausibly a mistake by the Q2 compositor. The author may have written "he" as an 'a' and the compositor may have mistakenly attached it as an 'o' to the speech prefix.

{The Folio editor properly added the word, which the Q2 compositor had misprinted.}

(Polonius can gesture toward Laertes to play the word, although it does not require action.)

EH 240-240+2: (Multiple lines, not quoted here.)

wrung ... consent

[none]

F1 left out two and one half lines of Polonius's speech, but the lines are certainly authorial, and should be included in any good presentation of Hamlet, especially because they go with a "mad" action by Polonius.

There are two copies of the letter to Norway: one for the ambassadors to take to Norway, and the other for the Danish government records, as the official copy of what Claudius wrote. When Claudius handed the Norwegian copy to the ambassadors, he also handed the Danish copy to Polonius, his top aide, to file for the Danish government. Polonius takes the letter, rolls it neatly, and holds it in his hand.

Here, when Polonius says "wrung from me my slow leave," he unthinkingly wrings the letter he's holding. He tears it completely in two. At "sealed my hard consent," he brings his fist down on the crumpled and torn remains of the letter. He destroys the official Danish government copy of the letter to Norway. It's predictable that when he eventually notices what he's done, he'll fuss with what's left of the letter, trying to fix it and straighten it out, but he'll only succeed in trashing it totally beyond redemption. While Hamlet and Claudius are talking, Polonius will be trying to fix the letter, with no luck, until he crams the mangled residue into a pocket. Claudius sees that Polonius is damaging something in his hands, as Polonius speaks the lines, but Claudius turned away to talk more to the ambassadors, then to Laertes, and he doesn't realize that Polonius is still holding, and "madly" destroying, his letter.

{The reason for the Folio omission is unclear. It conceivably reflects excessive reliance on Q1.}

(Action in performance as described.)

EH 248: Good Hamlet cast thy {nighted} [nightly] colour off

nighted

nightly

Both words make sense, so there is not likely a misprint. Both refer to Hamlet's mourning clothes, black like night. There is a night-knight pun: Hamlet is cast, in undertone, as a "black knight." A knight is both knighted and knightly. However, Hamlet is not literally "knighted" (apparently) so nightly works better for the "knight" pun. Nightly also works better for the idea of "after nightfall" which is when Hamlet will see the Ghost. The Folio word nightly is probably an authorial fine tuning, for better allusion and to drop an irrelevant literalness.

{The Folio editor probably found the change to nightly and correctly used it.}

(In performance, a simple hand gesture, by Gertrude toward Hamlet, is appropriate to either word.)

EH 258: Tis not alone my incky cloake {coold} [good] mother

cooled

good

Q2 cooled is the author's word. Hamlet is engaging in subtle wordplay, that a mother without a "sun" (son) would be cooler. Gertrude is "cooled" by having less "son." Hamlet is expressing his feeling of alienation from his mother.

In Elizabethan days, the words "good" and "god" were closer in usage than they are now. We see this explicitly in Hamlet, at EH 2809-10 for example, where Ophelia says "god night" at her exit; we would now say "good night" of course. The interchangeability of 'god' and 'good' makes the Folio word at least worth a look. For the Folio word, Hamlet might be viewed as implying "god mother." That is, he could be seen as insinuating that she is lording it over him, playing god, so to speak. This analysis makes it remotely conceivable that the author, himself, might possibly have changed the word. Strongly against that possibility, is the fact that "good" is such a common term of address in the play, so that any subtlety intended in the word would almost certainly go by unnoticed, and the author had to be aware it would. So, this attempt at crediting the F1 word is probably much too generous, and the apparent significance can follow from what may be only a conventionalization by the Folio editor. I judge it most likely that the Folio editor did not see why cooled had been printed, and he conventionalized the phrase. I do not think Shakespeare would have given up the fine figurativeness of cooled in exchange for a conventional phrase which inevitably goes by unnoticed.

{The Folio editor was unaware of the wordplay in cooled, thought it was an error, and he mistakenly changed the phrasing to a conventional expression.}

(Both words are playable. In performance, Hamlet can bow when he says either word. For cooled, the bow is done looking down at the floor, to briefly hide the "face of the son (sun)" from Gertrude. Hiding "the face of the sun" would indeed make the world cooler. An alternative gesture, for cooled, would be for Hamlet to briefly lift his black cloak to hide his face, instead of bowing, thus hiding the face of the son/sun as if it's the darkness of night. Use of the cloak could appear to be an odd, or "mad," action by Hamlet; however, any "mad" sort of action by Hamlet at this point in the play should be done with restraint, since Hamlet is not supposed to be really "mad" until after he encounters the Ghost. If the Hamlet actor chooses to use the F1 word "good" he can still play the line. He should probably continue to look at Gertrude as he bows. Conceptually, one does not glance aside from that which is good, and also the action, of Hamlet continuing to look at Gertrude, would probably be more pointed. If using the "god/good" notion, the Hamlet actor should bring his hands together, as if in prayer, as he bows.)

EH 263: Together with all formes, moodes, {chapes} [shewes] of griefe

chapes

shows

Q2 chapes is authorial, and is nicely chosen. Chapes has a root meaning referring to a cloak, and has a definition which relates to protecting the point of a sword. Both those ideas - cloak, and protection of a sword point - are pertinent to the play. Also, chapes, in reference to Hamlet's cloak, is dramatically playable directly, through the use of the cloak. It might be objected that chapes is not an "action," as Hamlet goes on to say, but he mentions several things in the passage which are not actions, so it's clear he isn't being strict about exactly what "actions" are. (On a further note, since the word chapes works to make two good connections to the play overall, there is no reason to suppose it's a misprint of "shapes.")

The Folio word is an obvious instance on the Putting On A Show theme, and has some credibility on that basis alone. However, I judge it unlikely the author would have given up the quality of the word chapes only to get a simple instance on a theme so well supported elsewhere - and which is, in fact, overtly supported in the passage with the use of "show" only three lines later. The Folio word, because of its relative simplicity, is more likely a first thought, rather than an authorial refinement over chapes.

{The Folio editor perhaps relied on some source earlier than the author's final.}

(In performance, for chapes, the actor uses his cloak, by grasping it, or by waving it in more dramatic fashion. If the actor wishes to speak F1 "shows," he could spread his arms in a "showman" gesture; this still admits of using the cloak, if desired, although the cloak is not directly indicated.)

EH 264: That can {deuote} [denote] me truely, these indeede seeme,

devote

denote

Both words can easily be read to make sense, so I reject the possibility of misprint. Q2 devote is authorial. Hamlet is making reference to his devotion to his father. Devote is further supported in that it carries the undertone, from one of its archaic definitions, of "doom," which is ironic anticipation of Hamlet's fate, that Hamlet does not know as he speaks.

F1's denote also carries irony, in advance allusion to Hamlet later using his tablet to make a 'note' about Claudius and villainy. From that time forward, Hamlet will have villainous thoughts of murdering Claudius, and a villain, in addition to a mourner, is stereotypically signified by black clothing, in our western culture. So denoted gives irony in anticipation of what Hamlet will plan after speaking to the Ghost. Rather than being simply a mourner in black, Hamlet will get the notion of being a "villain" in black, as well, and his mourning clothes will become both sincere, as he mourns his father, and also a kind of camouflage, while he "villainously" plans to kill Claudius.

I find choice between the words difficult. Dealing with only the words on paper, I cannot confidently judge whether the author would have preferred the ironic "doom" subtlety of devote, or the ironic "villain" subtlety of denote. Both concepts span the play, and have thematic significance.

The performance analysis tends to favor denote as probably the more interesting word in performance. It allows an unusual action, and one which is ironic in advance allusion to Hamlet's later "note" about villainy. Shakespeare might have switched words to get more interesting action, in performance, in relation to the play overall.

{The Folio editor may have found an author's change and correctly used it.}

(Both words are playable. For devote the actor can simply place his hand over his heart, symbolizing devotion. For denote the actor can point his index finger to the palm of his other hand, as if using a pen on a tablet.)

EH 278: A hart vnfortified, {or} [a] minde impatient

or

a

The Folio difference makes the line more compatible with the adjacent lines, which use the mere article, and is probably an authorial refinement.

{The Folio editor probably found an author's fine tuning and properly used it.}

(The article is not the playable word in the line.)

EH 313: O that this too too {sallied} [solid] flesh would melt,

sallied

solid

Sallied is the author's word. It's from "sally": to rush forth, as in making an attack. Hamlet is complaining about the sudden rush of unhappy events in his life, which makes him feel the world is attacking him.

I cannot view F1's word "solid" as an authorial improvement, simply because it's too plainly literal. I don't think the Poet Shakespeare would have surrended the figurativeness of sallied in favor of mere literalness. Also, the performance analysis, below, favors sallied in relation to other events.

{"Solid" is probably an intended pun, in simple connection with "melt," but the Folio editor mistakenly made it the playtext word.}

(In performance, for F1 "solid," the actor can simply strike his midsection with his fist. For Q2 sallied Hamlet can simulate a swordfight, battling foes who have sallied forth against him, perhaps even briefly drawing his sword, and waving it around; the action can be seen as an ironic advance allusion to the fencing match in the last Scene, which Hamlet knows nothing about at this time.)

EH 316: His cannon gainst {seale} [Selfe-]slaughter, ...

seale (seal)

self

Oddly enough, these are the same word. By the pattern of abbreviating "over" as "ore," which occurs more than thirty times in the play, the Q2 word originally spelled "seale" can be read as an abbreviation for "selve," i.e. "self." The technique is to drop the 'v', or the 'v' sound from a word, use an 'e' at the end, then provide vowels internally as needed for pronunciation. The special way of spelling, in this instance, was apparently used in order to connect to the Seal concept in the play, such as the agreement between King Hamlet and Fortinbrasse Sr being sealed, and Hamlet sealing his forged order to have R & G killed, both of which are a kind of "seal slaughter," that is, killing involving the use of a seal.

The lack of standardization in Elizabethan spelling allowed the author to be creative with his spellings on occasion, to achieve a desired effect. There are numerous instances in Hamlet where he used a special spelling to achieve conceptual depth, to interlink concepts, and to produce intentional ambiguity.

{The Folio editor made the correct change for literal meaning, but by doing so he abandoned Shakespeare's subtlety.}

(In performance, contrary to expectation, Hamlet should point toward where Claudius exited, not toward himself.)

EH 317: How {wary} [weary], stale, flat, and vnprofitable

wary

weary

Q2 wary is the authorial word, to be understood as "ware-y," the adjective form of "ware." Hamlet is saying he sees the world as being for sale, like wares in a shop. The obsolete meaning of "spent" might also be intentionally implied. Wary leads directly to "unprofitable." Hamlet sees the world as for sale, like a "ware," but he thinks the sale "unprofitable." There is further the concept, from the word itself, that one must be wary of certain persons and events in the world. Wary also allows a clearer gesture in performance.

The Folio word gains some interest in that "weary" goes back, indirectly, in root meaning to a sense of "drunk." But it is not a direct word derivation, and the appearance of an undertone relevant to Claudius could be only coincidental in a miscorrection error.

{The Folio editor apparently presumed a Q2 misspelling which did not really exist.}

(In performance, both words are playable. Q2 wary implies money, to give the typical gesture of rubbing a coin: the thumb rubbing the first two fingers of the hand. For F1 "weary" the actor would sag slightly and bend, as if carrying a heavy burden.)

EH 321: Possesse it {meerely that} [meerely. That] it should come {thus} [to this:]

merely that ... thus

merely. That ... to this

The line as printed in Q2 is metrical and sensible, while the F1 difference is neither. The F1 change must be editorial error, or at least, it does not qualify as authorial improvement.

By the way, the Q2 line means, modernized: "(things rank and gross in nature) Possess it, only, that it should (be)come so." In the original line, the word "merely" has a primary meaning of "solely," or "only." That's established in subsequent dialogue. The word is typically glossed wrong in publications of Hamlet.

{More than one F1 error appears to have happened. The Folio editor mispunctuated the line, and also, apparently, accidentally looked ahead two lines and got "to this" as the ending phrase by mistake.}

(In performance, for merely Hamlet makes a downward hand gesture of depreciation, and for thus he can wave his hand to indicate the empty Throne Room.)

EH 327: Must I remember, why she {should} [would] hang on him

should

would

Q2 should is the authorial word. It's the past tense of "shall." Hamlet is saying that Gertrude was compelled to hang on Hamlet Sr, i.e. to show physical affection for him. The line is intentionally ambiguous, also applying to Gertrude's behavior toward Claudius. The ambiguity comes from different understandings of "him." In re Claudius, Hamlet has observed that Gertrude is not physically affectionate to Claudius, as far as he's seen, and he thinks that since she married Claudius she must love him, so she should display affection physically the same as she did with King Hamlet. It puzzles Hamlet. (Stage performances that have Gertrude displaying physical affection for Claudius are not correct to Shakespeare's Hamlet. We know this from what Hamlet says.)

{The Folio editor apparently mistakenly followed Q1 or the Q1 source.}

(In performance, probably neither word is intended to be the actable word in the line.)

EH 333: Like Niobe all teares, why she [euen she.]

[none]

even she

The additional phrase in F1 makes the line iambic pentameter, which leaves nothing to say against it. Also, it makes the word "why" ambiguous, and ambiguity is a constant authorial feature throughout the play. The Folio phrase is either an authorial refinement, or the Q2 printing simply missed it.

{The Folio editor found the addition and properly used it.}

(In performance, Hamlet, himself, can shed a tear at this line.)

EH 339: Had left the flushing {in} [of] her gauled eyes

in

of

The Q2 word is more ambiguous, thus more likely authorial preference. The F1 difference is not credible as an authorial fine tuning.

{The Folio editor may have taken it upon himself to standardize the phrasing, unwisely so.}

(In performance, Hamlet can wipe tears from his eyes, or briefly put his fists to his eyes, during this line.)

EH 358: I would not {heare} [haue] your enimie say so,

hear

have

Hear is the authorial word, and an instance on the Ear motif. It's also obviously more playable. A strong point against the F1 word is its nullity for pertinent action.

{The Folio editor might have missed the thematic significance and simply (mis-)"corrected" it to common phrasing.}

(In performance, hear is playable by a gesture to the ear, of course.)

EH 359: Nor shall you doe {my} [mine] eare that violence

my

mine

Since Q2 was printed during the author's lifetime, and probably not long after the play was in performance by the Lord Chamberlain's Men, Q2 is more likely to reveal the author's personal preference for my versus "mine." F1 has many 'my-mine' changes like this, (and at least two changes in the reverse.) I do not find it credible that the author's personal preference would have changed abruptly soon after he wrote the Q2 manuscript, to motivate him to go through the manuscript and make all the 'my/mine' changes that F1 shows. If Shakespeare, himself, decided to change my to "mine," here and elsewhere, it would have to be for some reason realated to the play. I am not able to identify such a reason. According to what I've been able to discover, the word "mine" would have been the preferred usage at the time the Folio was printed. Most likely, the Folio editor did the job of touching up the word usage, according to the standards of his time.

{The Folio editor probably made the change himself, here and in several places throughout the play.}

(In performance, the phrase "my ear" is acted by Hamlet pointing to his ear, of course.)

EH 363: Weele teach you {for} to drinke [deepe,] ere you depart.

for

deep

Both phrasings make sense, neither is likely a misprint for the other, and both can be considered authorial in their respective publications. The line is metrical with either phrasing.

In favor of the Q2 phrasing, as author preference, is that the phrase, drinke ere can be read via pun as "drink air." It's compatible with Hamlet later saying, before the 'Mousetrap' play, that he "eats the air." The Q2 phrasing provides a subtle connection, via pun, with the later line. (The concept of "eating the air"/"drinking the air" has reference to theatrical performance. As players onstage declaim, they fill the air with words, which the audience "consumes" using their ears. The "eating" or "drinking" of words in the air is done with the ears.)

The F1 change interrupts the "consuming the air" implication. However, it is superior in performance. The F1 change allows the stage action of Hamlet deepening his voice when he says deep. This would produce a smile from Horatio, his best friend. I find the change credibly authorial, to provide that touch of friendly humor. It suits the characterizations exactly, that Hamlet would make a little joke to his best friend. Also, deep appears four times in the play, so its use here connects to a repeated concept.

Speculatively, it's conceivable this might be an intentional stage/page difference. Q2 might be viewed as preferable for literature, with its subtle "consume the air" concept via pun, and while the F1 phrasing interrupts that concept, it gives better stage action. However, it's ultimately unknowable whether Shakespeare intended a stage/page difference in this case.

{The Folio editor may have found an authorial refinement and correctly used it, or, hypothetically, he might have used a "stage" phrasing.}

(The Q2 word is not acted. F1 deep calls for Hamlet to artificially, and humorously, deepen his voice when he says it, producing a smile from Horatio. The line, overall, is actable with either phrasing, by Hamlet doing a drinking motion.)

EH 366: I thinke it was to [see] my mothers wedding.

[none]

see

There is a way to interpret Q2's omission of see as intentional by Shakespeare, in connection with the characterization of Horatio. Essentially, it involves Horatio being a large, strong fellow, reminiscent of Hamlet's father, and Gertrude was first married to King Hamlet, as we know. Which wedding, is not specified in this line. King Hamlet "was to my mother's wedding" the first time. Thus, with the omission of see, it can be read as comparing Horatio to King Hamlet, at Gertrude's first wedding.

However, the meter, and literal meaning, firmly favor see. It's possible the apparent characterization of Horatio could arise accidentally, from a printing oversight. Altogether, it seems more likely Q2 just missed the word.

{The Folio editor probably found see and correctly used it.}

(In performance, at "think" Hamlet can tap his temple, and continue to hold his finger there, near his eye, through the word see. Since see goes with action on stage, that further favors it as a word the author desired.)

EH 371: {Or euer I had} [Ere I had euer] seene that day Horatio,

Or ever I had

Ere I had ever

Ere puns with "air," as mentioned for line EH 363. The pun apparently adds little if any meaning in this case. Albeit, the exact F1 phrasing suggests "always seeing air," which is an interesting notion, and could be viewed in relation to the Ghost. Be that as it may, the F1 change, from Or to Ere, has some authorial plausibility, simply in keeping with the ambiguous, and punning, style of the play dialogue.

The Folio repositioning of "ever" is not credibly authorial. Compare Hamlet's famous "time out of joint" couplet:

The time is out of joint, O cursed spite
That ever I was born to set it right.

Also, at the 'Mousetrap Play' the queen character says: "If once I be a widow, ever I..."

The Q2 phrasing "ever I" matches those other phrasings, but F1 does not. That's enough to conclude against F1 for its relocation of ever.

{The Folio editor may have found the change to ere and properly used it, but he apparently repositioned the word ever himself.}

(In performance, it appears that any action for this line should be subdued, because of the larger action for the line that follows. An upward gaze, "seeing the day," is probably intended; an upward gaze goes along with expressions of dislike, of course.)

EH 373: [Oh] Where my Lord?

[none]

Oh

The F1 addition is entirely in keeping with Horatio's surprise at Hamlet's statement. It also improves the meter, if one takes it that the meter is supposed to continue across speeches. That leaves nothing to say against it.

{The Folio editor probably found an authorial addition and correctly used it.}

(In performance, Horatio shows surprise, of course.)

EH 391: Armed at {poynt,} [all points] exactly Capapea

point

all points

The Folio editor added "all" because he didn't know the phrase "at point," so he thought a word was missing.

{The Folio editor changed the phrasing himself.}

(In performance, Horatio is gesturing from head to foot. In the previous line, Horatio gestured toward Hamlet (at "your father") so it might be best here if Horatio gestures "head-to-foot" toward himself.)

EH 395: Within his tronchions length, whil'st they {distil'd} [bestil'd]

distilled

bestilled

Q2 distilled is authorial. (Q1 also shows distilled, for what that's worth.) The making of jelly does involve a kind of distillation: the substance is heated so that moisture evaporates (to rise like dew.)

The F1 word has some plausibility in that the men were literally "bestilled," in two different ways: they were "still" in the sense of not speaking to the Ghost, and they stood still. However, performance analysis, below, rules out the F1 difference as an authorial refinement, and raises doubt that Shakespeare ever used the F1 word in this location.

{The Folio editor apparently changed the word himself, perhaps, hypothetically, due to difficulty reading old manuscript.}

(In performance, for Q2 distilled, the Horatio actor can spread his arms, and raise his hands to minic steam rising from a distilling apparatus. It gives a spreading of the arms, as when Horatio "crossed" the Ghost, and the Ghost "crossed" him back. It gives the irony of Horatio incidentally repeating the posture he used when confronting the Ghost, without really intending to show Hamlet that. Horatio "crossed" the Ghost intentionally, and now shows Hamlet that action, accidentally. The F1 word offers no action to compare.)

EH 405: My Lord vppon the platforme where we {watch} [watcht],

watch

watched

The Q2 present tense is mandatory on the point that the watch is still being kept. The F1 past tense implies the sentinel watch is discontinued, which is wrong, as we know. F1 can't be authorial.

{The F1 editor apparently accidentally changed the tense himself.}

(In performance, Marcellus can make a simple gesture toward his eyes, indicating vision.)

EH 418: {Indeede} [Indeed[, indeed] Sirs but this troubles me,

Indeed

Indeed, indeed

The repetition of indeed in F1 goes along with Hamlet pondering what he's been told. The F1 change departs from pentameter across speeches, but that's of little account in this passage, with all its short speeches. The F1 difference is plausibly authorial, on the point of Hamlet being pensive.

{The Folio editor may have found an authorial refinement and properly used it.}

(In performance, a simple nod will do.)

EH 420: {All} [Both]. We doe my Lord.

All

Both

Q2 all is authorial. Horatio speaks along with the military men, Marcellus and Barnardo. Hamlet's question, EH 419, is directed at Marcellus, with a glance at Barnardo. However, Horatio speaks up, too. Horatio means, "you're not leaving me out!" Horatio has "joined the army," so to speak, at least when it comes to watching for the Ghost. Hamlet, Marcellus, and Barnardo will all smile at Horatio for answering.

{The Folio editor got too fussy, and changed it, when he supposed that only the military men would respond about the watch.}

(In performance, Horatio speaks along with the sentinels, and the others smile at him.)

EH 435: Very like, [very like:] stayd it long?

[none]

very like

As with "indeed" in line EH 418, the repetition of very like can be read on the point of Hamlet being pensive, and is therefore plausibly authorial.

{The Folio editor may have found an authorial refinement and properly used it.}

(In performance, a simple nod.)

EH 436: While one with moderate hast might tell a {hundreth} [hundred].

hundredth

hundred

Q2 hundredth is authorial, and reveals that Shakespeare had a good technical understanding of arithmetic. In general counting, to 100, one stops when one has counted the hundredth item. Horatio is saying that the Ghost was present long enough that he could have counted the hundredth second that went by.

{The Folio editor was not as technically good at arithmetic as the author, and mistakenly changed it.}

(In performance, the actor can do the gesture of counting on his fingers. He will not actually count to 100, of course, but do just enough action to show counting.)

EH 437: {Both} [All]. Longer, longer.

Both

All

The F1 speech prefix makes no sense - not even 'mad' sense - and cannot be right.

{The Folio editor apparently got a bit carried away with changing the group speech prefixes.}

(In performance, Marcellus and Barnardo speak the line.)

EH 441+1: I will watch to {nigh} [Night;]

nigh

night

At first glance, Q2 nigh appears to be a simple misprint, but it may not be. The word nigh has a definition of "close" or "near." It's possible to read the phrase "to nigh" as "too near." The exact Q2 phrasing can be seen as a hint of Hamlet getting too near the Ghost. Shakespeare probably had Hamlet drop the "-t" to get that subtle implication.

{The Folio editor probably corrected a spelling which was not meant to be standard.}

(In performance, Hamlet can tap his temple near his eye, or he can widen his eyes. The latter, accompanied by a smile at Horatio, will earn a smile in return, suitable to the characterization of best friends.)

EH 442: Perchaunce twill {walke} [wake] againe.

walk

wake

The Q2 word is credibly authorial, conforming with the several mentions of the Ghost walking: EH 135, 160, 393, 610, 695. However, Hamlet, himself, does not otherwise refer to the Ghost walking. The other lines are all from other characters. In conversation with Polonius, Hamlet does mention not walking in the sun, and he replies to a line about walking out of the air. (Q1 shows walk, as well.)

F1 wake has authorial credibility, as well, in advance of Hamlet's line, EH 612: "The King doth wake tonight..." Hamlet is intending reference to Claudius when he speaks that later line, but the Ghost in the shape of King Hamlet also "wakes," as Hamlet soon sees; the ambiguity of "king" lends irony to Hamlet's later remark, and well suits the style of the play. So, Hamlet's later use of wake supports its use here. Also, the word walk is not actable at this point in the play, at least not easily, but the word wake is.

Both words have significant connection to other lines in the play. Walk has many more uses in reference to the Ghost, but the single salient connection for wake is quite strong, in advance of Hamlet's later line, and then, wake is actable here. I find it credible that F1 contains an authorial refinement that occurred after the Q2 manuscript was printed, with the most telling point being the associated stage action.

{The Folio editor probably found an author's refinement and properly used it.}

(In performance, Hamlet can act wake by opening his eyes very wide, in a friendly, amusing stare at Horatio. This well suits the characterizations, of best friends, newly remet, enjoying each other's company. In contrast, there seems no way for Hamlet to act walk here that is not farcical or moronic, which would be inappropriate at this point; Hamlet does not become "mad" until after he encounters the Ghost.)

EH 443: I {warn't} [warrant you] it will.

warrant

warrant you

The F1 addition of "you" is not credibly authorial. Horatio calls Hamlet "my lord" throughout the passage; he never says "you."

{The Folio editor, not noticing the style of address throughout the passage, probably mistakenly added "you" when he expanded the spelling of warrant.}

(In performance, since Horatio is pledging, he places a hand to his heart. He could also raise the other hand.)

EH 448: Let it be {tenable} [treble] in your silence still,

tenable

treble

Q2 tenable is authorial. Hamlet is telling the men to "hold" the secret in their silence. A tenancy is a "holding." Gloss is simply "held." In further support of the Q2 word, tenable, the idea of "holding" has long been used with respect to a military position, concerning whether a position can be held. Marcellus and Barnardo are military men, the watch duty is military, and Elsinore Castle, itself, is a military fortification. Hamlet can be understood to be telling Marcellus and Barnardo, the military men, in particular, to "hold" the secret the way they'd "hold the fort." Then, the question of Denmark "holding" Elsinore Castle is directly pertinent to the play, which makes tenable a strong word in relation to the play, overall.

I have not found a conclusive way to view the Folio word "treble" as an authorial improvement. Of course the word can be read simply to mean all three of the men. The musical definition of "treble" is intriguing, in light of the references to music found here and there in the play. It is possible to read "treble" figuratively as meaning "high." Musically, "treble" is "high." Hamlet would be telling the men to hold the issue "high in their silence" (for all three of you.) "Treble" could convey a double meaning, within itself, of both "high" and "triple" - the concept of "high" implying "highly important." Intentional double meanings, from time to time, are a feature of Hamlet. I'm not confident enough of this double-meaning "treble" interpretation to conclude F1 has an authorial refinement, however.

{The Folio may be in error, or, it's possible the Folio editor may have used the author's earlier work, not his final.}

(In performance, for Q2 tenable the Hamlet actor can clasp his hands to symbolize "holding." Clasping the hands in front of the chest goes along with asking somebody to do something, so the action suits the context well. If the actor should choose to say "treble" he could either point to the men, or hold his hands high; I cannot see that F1 improves the stage action, rather, it seems distinctly inferior.)

EH 452: Vppon the platforme twixt {a leauen} [eleuen] and twelfe

a leaven

eleven

The Q2 phrase means "eleven," but Shakespeare used the Q2 spelling in advance of Hamlet saying "ore-leavens" in line EH 621+13. The Folio editor properly corrected the spelling, as far as mere spelling goes, but as a side effect he lost the dialogue connection the author had crafted, by taking the liberty which nonstandardized Elizabethan spelling provided. I include this note, not to point out the Folio is wrong, which it actually is not as far as spelling is concerned, but rather for the purpose of providing an example of how observant and meticulous the author was in writing Hamlet. He obviously saw he could use spelling to connect the "leven" in "eleven" here with Hamlet's later use of "leaven," and he did so. The reader who is studying Hamlet may benefit from being aware of the superb, detailed craftsmanship with which the play was written, a subject which most publications on Hamlet sadly neglect.

EH 455: Your {loues} [loue], as mine to you, farwell.

loves

love

The plural in Q2 is the authorial form. Hamlet is acknowledging the men severally, not lumping them together indiscriminately.

{The Folio editor mistakenly used the singular.}

(In performance, a hand to the heart.)

EH 458: Till then sit still my soule, {fonde} [foule] deedes will rise

fond

foul

Q2 fond is the author's word. It carries a double meaning, both that Hamlet hopes the Ghost can tell him of something foolish Claudius has done, that Hamlet can use against Claudius, and it also expresses Hamlet's hope that the spirit of his father has appeared out of fondness for him. The double meaning is powerful in favor of fond being Shakespeare's word.

F1 "foul" offers adequate literal meaning, but it otherwise has no discernible authorial characteristics, in this line.

{The Folio has a misprint following "foul" in the preceding line, or immediately following "soul" in this same line.}

(In performance, fond implies placing the hand over the heart, and the gesture to the heart works extremely well immediately after saying "soul" - combining words and action, it communicates "heart and soul." F1 "foul" implies, perhaps, grasping one's nose - the implied immediate repetition of a gesture for foulness, in consecutive lines, is further strong argument against the F1 word. The F1 wording is no good in performance, especially in comparison with the nice "heart and soul" action which the Q2 wording provides.)

---

Scene 3 (Act 1 scene 3)

EH 464: And {conuay, in} [Conuoy is] assistant doe not sleepe

convey, in

convoy is

The Q2 wording is correct to the author, but is extremely concise. Laertes is telling Ophelia to act as assistant to him, and to help convey him, figuratively speaking, the way the winds convey his ship. The F1 difference is probably entirely editorial.

{The Folio editor apparently couldn't follow it, and tried a change of wording, himself.}

(In performance, the actor can use a sweep of the hand to indicate being conveyed from one location to another.)

EH 467: For Hamlet, and the trifling of his {fauour} [fauours],

favor

favors

There's no difference for plain reading. F1 favors has credibility as an authorial fine tuning because it's ambiguous, in a relevant way. The F1 word can mean "likings" - which is what Laertes is saying - or it can mean "gifts," which gives undertone in advance of the remembrances which Ophelia returns to Hamlet later.

{The Folio editor probably correctly used the plural.}

(In performance, Laertes can gesture as if giving something to Ophelia.)

EH 471: The {perfume and} suppliance of a minute

perfume and

[none]

The F1 mistake is easily found in this case. Q2 perfume is required in the play, in advance of EH 1754.

{The Folio simply missed the phrase.}

(In performance, Laertes can sniff, exaggeratedly.)

EH 475: In thewes and {bulkes,} [Bulke:] but as ...

bulks

bulk

Performance considerations prove decisively that the Q2 plural is correct, and the F1 singular is wrong.

{The Folio editor mistakenly used the singular.}

(In performance, Laertes holds both hands in front of his chest. He is "madly" making a common gesture, that men use in reference to a well-endowed woman, as he speaks to his own sister. It's the kind of gesture that one man would make to another, with a leer, as they look at a woman some distance away, and certainly not something a fellow would do while talking to his sister. The "mad" impropriety of it assures us that the word bulks must be plural, implying the use of both hands. Shakespeare gave Laertes a "mad" moment.)

On a side note, it's unfortunate that Hamlet has been so dominated by "ham" leading actors over the years, who have gradually hoarded all the "madness" to themselves as they've played the Hamlet character, leaving the other characters of too little interest. When the play is done correctly, the way Shakespeare actually wrote it, it's more diverse and balanced, with all the characters having their occasional "mad" actions, such as this one while Laertes lectures Ophelia.

EH 475: ... but as {this} [his] temple waxes

this

his

The Folio is in error, since Laertes is speaking of female nature. Additionally, later in the play, when he again speaks of female nature, at EH 3180, he uses the word "her." Laertes is gesturing toward Ophelia when he says this. Further, the "crescent" idea in the preceding line is taken from the moon, which is classically "female." Laertes is not talking about Hamlet quite yet. F1 "his" here cannot be right.

{The Folio word is a misprint, or an editorial misunderstanding.}

(In performance, Laertes does the classical "hourglass" motion of his hands, toward Ophelia - still 'madly' inappropriate.)

EH 481: [For hee himselfe is subiect to his Birth:]

[none]

[the entire line]

This line appears only in the Folio. It suits the play well, and contains a subtle allusion that's relevant, so there is no question of it being authorial. Apparently, the Q2 printing simply missed it. The idea, of Hamlet being "subject to his birth," alludes to Hamlet being "subject" to King Hamlet, his father. The concept of Hamlet being "subject to his father," and therefore obligated to try to get revenge for his father's death, is the driving force of the play. Since the line implicitly alludes to Hamlet being obligated to seek revenge, when the Ghost calls upon him, no further justification is required, to conclude that the line is authorial and is properly included. Further, Laertes and Fortinbrasse are each "subject to his birth," and therefore bound by the same family tie as Hamlet is. Laertes doesn't realize the self-reference in his remark as he speaks it.

{The Folio editor correctly added the line.}

(In performance, Laertes is speaking in a pompous style.)

EH 484: The {safty} [sanctity] and health of ...

safety

sanctity

Both words make sense, and there is no misprint. Safety is reasonably authorial in Q2. However, sanctity is probably an authorial change, to connect what Laertes says here with what Polonius will say later. The purpose would be characterization, to show how Polonius has taught Laertes to imitate his speech. The point, of Laertes imitating Polonius's speech, is prominent as this Scene continues.

{The Folio editor probably found the change to sanctity and correctly used it.}

(In performance, the acting of Q2 safety is not apparent; an arm spread to indicate "this whole state" is probably the actable part of the line. However, the F1 word sanctity can be acted easily by bringing the hands together in an attitude of prayer; better playability could be a factor in Shakespeare changing the word.)

EH 484: ... and health of {this whole} [the weole] state,

this

the

The F1 word "weole" [sic] is a misprint of "whole," so the actual word difference is only that listed. Q2 this admits directly of action in performance, which the mere F1 article does not. That rules out the F1 difference as an authorial improvement.

{The Folio editor mistakenly used the article.}

(In performance, Laertes can act "this whole state" with an arm spread.)

EH 489: As he in his {particuler act and place} [peculiar Sect and force]

particular act and place

peculiar sect and force

The Q2 wording is credibly authorial, since it's clearly on the Putting On A Show theme, where act can be read, in undertone, as reference to a division of a play, and place can be taken, again in undertone, as reference to a role in a play. The thematic significance is obvious, behind the plain reading of the character's speech.

However, the Folio phrase is at least equally credibly authorial, albeit in a more subtle and difficult way. Laertes will later recruit a peculiar sect (faction, or following) from the town, that is, a mob which wants him to be king. Then, Laertes will force his way into the Castle. However, Laertes will find himself going no "further" than Claudius, "the main voice of Denmark," permits (a phrase Laertes uses two lines later in this passage.) Thus, Laertes's speech, in the Folio passage, carries an allusion to significant later play events involving himself, while Laertes intends to speak of Hamlet. Such irony is easily in the style of Hamlet, as the Laertes character accidentally says something pertinent to himself, courtesy of Shakespeare, while Laertes is intending to speak of Hamlet. Further, Shakespeare elsewhere, in Othello A1s3, expressly used sect to mean "scion." Then, the phrase "peculiar sect" can be read as allusion to Hamlet being the "peculiar scion," or offspring, of his father. (Laertes, himself, is not intending to say that Hamlet is a "peculiar offspring," it arises from the exact wording Shakespeare gave his Laertes character. The author typically used his dialogue, in Hamlet, to tell us more than what the character, himself, intends to say.)

The author probably decided to dispense with a rather obvious instance of his Putting On A Show theme, in favor of the subtle irony of Laertes accidentally referring to his own future conduct without knowing it.

By the way, in previous commentary on Hamlet, one can find much mention of supposed misreading to account for the F1 difference here. There is obviously no such thing, however. Shakespeare used both phrases, at different times.

{The Folio phrase is probably an authorial improvement which the Folio editor found and correctly used.}

(In performance, the actor may speak either phrase while showing his index finger to mean "one." Both particular and peculiar can mean "singular," which is basically "one.")

EH 494: Or {loose} [lose] your hart, ...

loose

lose

The words are effectively the same. One cannot lose one's heart without "loosing" it, i.e. loosening it, figuratively speaking. The "tether" idea, soon to appear in the play, tends to support Q2 loose by contrast; a horse not tethered is loose, for example. Either word can be played with a hand to the heart. The expression "lose one's heart" is so commonplace that it's hard to find any merit at all in the F1 change that might support it as an authorial improvement. Q2 seems more likely authorial.

{The Folio editor probably conventionalized the phrase.}

(In performance, Laertes can place a hand to his heart, and perhaps pull at his shirt to imply loosening it.)

EH 497: And keepe {you in} [within] the reare of your affection

you in

within

Both phrasings make sense, and misprint or misreading is not likely. F1 within is well worth examination because it's a theatrical term of Shakespeare's time. Both Q2 and F1 have the word within in stage directions. Actors were said to be "without" or within according to whether they were on stage, or not. In that usage, within means "not out on stage." So, the F1 difference adds the implication of Ophelia not putting her feelings on display. That subtle meaning which F1 adds, particularly in relation to theater, supports the F1 difference as an authorial refinement.

{The Folio editor probably found the change and correctly used it.}

(In performance, Laertes gestures to indicate the area behind Ophelia.)

EH 503: Too oft before {their} [the] buttons be disclos'd,

their

the

The substitution of the mere article in F1 can't be an authorial improvement unless there's some problem with Q2 their, but no such problem exists.

{The Folio editor mistakenly used the mere article.}

(In performance, although he means flower buds, Laertes can gesture toward buttons on Ophelia's garment, using body language to confirm he said the word "buttons.")

EH 509: As {watchman} [watchmen] to my hart, but good my brother

watchman

watchmen

The plural in F1 has performance implications. Mention of the heart indicates a gesture to the heart, and the F1 plural implies both hands. Placing both hands to the heart would be a suitable gesture by Ophelia, so it's conceivable the author made the change to plural to imply the use of both hands, as the desired action.

{The Folio editor may have found an authorial fine tuning and properly used it.}

(In performance, whichever word is spoken, the Ophelia actress probably best places both hands to her heart.)

EH 512: {Whiles} [Whilst like] a puft, and reckles libertine

Whiles

Whilst like

Both wordings are probably wrong, as follows.

The F1 difference makes the line metrical, as iambic pentameter, so it has some credibility, merely on that basis. However, the word "himself" begins the next line, and the phrasing "he ... himself" would be the natural form in English. Neither Q2 nor F1, as they stand, provides a "he" to go with "himself" that follows.

My view is that the Q2 error, which caused the line to depart from meter in Q2, is the omission of the word "he." In Q2, the word "he" is often represented by the word 'a'. "He" was abbreviated as 'a' without an apostrophe, where we would now use the form 'e to print "he" without the "h-." So, in Hamlet, the word 'a' can mean "he," on occasion. The use of 'a' for "he" presumably followed Shakespeare's writing in manuscript. It isn't reasonable the printer would have taken it upon himself to print 'a' where "he" was meant, since to the printer, himself, it would have been seen as printing the wrong word. It follows that the instances of 'a' for "he" must be Shakespeare's own, and would have appeared in the manuscript.

It implies the Q2 compositor might have seen two words 'a' in a row in the manuscript, presumed a writing error, and treated the first one as a detached "s," instead of the "he" that was intended. That would give what is printed in Q2, and it would amount to the accidental omission of the word "he." My view is that the line is properly, modernized: "While he, a puffed and reckless libertine," which would naturally be followed by the word "Himself" that begins the next line.

Thus, I guess - and it can be only a calculated guess - that the original manuscript line was written: "While a a puft, and reckles libertine" (original spelling.) I'm guessing - guessing - that the author's written line showed two consecutive words 'a'. Then, the Q2 compositor didn't realize the first 'a' was intended to be "he," and, attempting to do something about the situation, attached the first 'a' to "whiles" as an "s."

Trying to "read" a nonexistent manuscript is a hazardous activity at any time, and if overindulged it is certainly a fool's game, but in this case I boldly risk giving the impression of such "madness," in a good cause, doing the best I can to account for the Q2 deficiency. If I saw two words 'a' in a row in some writing, I'd be inclined to think the writing had one too many, and something should be done about it. It seems to me that anybody would think so.

My suggested wording for this line, While he..., is based on:
1. The "he ... himself" style being intrinsic to English;
2. The frequent use of the word 'a' to represent "he" in Q2;
3. The likelihood, that if a typesetter saw two consecutive words 'a' in the manuscript, he would probably think he should do something other than simply print that; and,
4. The word "he," if added, works simply and directly for action in performance. (Since it's a playscript, performance aspects cannot be neglected, even where a related action is simple.)

{The Folio editor properly corrected the meter, but probably chose the wrong way to do it.}

(In performance, Ophelia would gesture toward Laertes at he.)

Historically, Warburton, 1747, suggested the phrasing "whilst he," but I believe he did not think his idea through far enough.

EH 522: ... blessing with {thee,} [you;]

thee

you

Q2 thee obviously goes better with "blessing." I find no reason to suppose the author would have preferred F1 "you" instead, in this line.

{The Folio editor probably mistakenly conventionalized the phrasing.}

(In performance, this particular word makes no difference.)

EH 524: {Looke} [See] thou character, giue thy thoughts no tongue,

Look

See

Q2 Look is authorial. It's sensible in the line, and it gives a double meaning to Polonius's utterance. "Look thou character" means "Look to it that you take note of this," but it can also be read as "Look like what you are," or "Look to what you are."

F1's See also allows a double meaning, in a rather nicer way. The plain reading is essentially the same as what the Q2 word provides: "See that you take note of this." The second reading, that the F1 word provides, is: "See what you are," or "See to what you are." Because Polonius himself is habitually oblivious to how others see him, the F1 word is especially ironic as he speaks the line to Laertes. The better self reference, unintentional and highly ironic by Polonius, makes the F1 word credible as an authorial fine tuning.

{The Folio editor probably found an authorial change and correctly used it.}

(In performance, either word could be done by tapping the head at the temple, close to the eye.)

EH 527: {Those} [The] friends thou hast, ...

Those

The

As with several other instances in the play dialogue, where F1 substitutes the article, the F1 difference is not credible as authorial refinement unless there's some problem with the Q2 word. No such problem exists here.

{Apparently the Folio editor, himself, preferred the article "the" in such phrasings, and imposed his own style several times in the play.}

(In performance, for the phrase "those friends," Polonius can do a low arm spread, palms up, to indicate being surrounded by friends.)

EH 530: Of each {new hatcht} [vnhatch't,] vnfledgd ...

new hatched

unhatched

The Q2 phrase is unquestionably correct, with no doubt at all. We know that because of Polonius's unintentional reference to the Ghost when he says "courage." (The Polonius character, himself, does not intend reference to the Ghost, but Shakespeare gave the character phrasing which does so. It's another of the many cases where the author used the dialogue to say more than the character intends to say.) The Ghost is new hatched in the sense that it has only recently left the "shell" of its mortal body - or at least so it tells Hamlet. The F1 difference cannot possibly be authorial. If the Ghost were "unhatched" it would still be within its mortal shell, i.e. King Hamlet would still be alive. That's just wrong.

{The Folio editor blundered by changing the word himself, perhaps only to match up with "unfledged." Alternatively, the F1 printer erred by anticipating "un-." There is no other reasonable explanation, for the F1 word, than editorial error, or printing error, in this case.}

(In performance, Polonius could make a "hatching" motion by clutching his hands together, then "breaking" them apart.)

EH 530: ... vnfledgd {courage,} [Comrade.] beware

courage

comrade

Q2 courage is certainly Shakespeare's word, without doubt. In this context, a "courage" is a "man of spirit," and there is indeed a "man of spirit" in the play - the Ghost! While Polonius lectures Laertes, he accidentally makes an allusion to the Ghost, which Polonius knows nothing about. It's extremely ingenious word selection by Shakespeare, and it's mandatory that publications honor it.

{The Folio editor didn't understand the use of the word courage and substituted a conventional word, to try to make sense of the line as he saw it.}

(In performance, this isn't the playable word in the line, in the sense of being the exact word where action occurs. The preceding word, "unfledged," is the playable one. The word "unfledged" has reference to a bird, and Polonius will spread his arms, like a bird's wings, when he says it. He will then be standing with his arms spread when he says "courage," so Polonius's posture will be reminiscent of the Ghost spreading its arms when Horatio "crossed" it. Thus, when Polonius makes the accidental and unknowing allusion with the word courage, he is also unknowingly assuming the same posture that the Ghost did, purely by coincidence. His coincidental action relates to the Wheel Of Fortune theme in the play, in that it happens by chance, as far as the characters know. It's no accident from the author. It is not just the words in Hamlet that can be thematic, but the actions as well.)

EH 539: {Or} [Are] of a most select and {generous, chiefe} [generous cheff] in that:

Or

Are

Q2 or is credibly authorial, but the line requires sorting out.

Taking the entire line, from Q2: "Or of a most select and generous, chief in that":

The word "that" refers to the subject Polonius is talking about, which is apparel. A "chief" is one who leads. Shakespeare, with his typical creativity, used "chief" as a verb, meaning "to lead." The author was cavalier in using nouns as verbs, or vice versa, as the occasion might require. In this case, "to chief" is to be the chief, i.e. to lead. So, Polonius's phrase "chief in that" means "lead in apparel." Polonius says that France leads in clothing styles.

In the first part of the line, before the comma, Polonius is elaborating on what he meant by "best" in line EH 538. He's going on to say that by "best," he meant "most select and generous."

In Q2, modernized and clarified, Polonius is saying in his lines EH 537-9:

"For the apparel oft' proclaims the man,
And they in France of the best rank and station,
Or of a most select and generous rank and station, lead in that" (apparel.)

So although it takes some unraveling, Polonius's lines make good sense as they stand in Q2, which sustains or as an authorial word.

However, the F1 difference also produces good grammar. The meaning changes, as follows:

"For the apparel oft' proclaims the man,
And they in France of the best rank and station,
Are of a most select and generous lead in that" (apparel.)

In F1, the phrase "select and generous" applies to the lead the French have in apparel. It is not as sensible a literal meaning as Q2 has.

Since both words can be read to make sense, further examination is necessary to try to sort out which may be author preference. The punctuation is essentially correct in both sources for the respective meanings. The word "select" does not appear elsewhere in the play, and the author used it only one other time in his surviving writings. The word "generous" does appear elsewhere, but not in a way that links clearly enough to this to be helpful, and the same is true of "chief." Judgment comes down to simply which appears to be more reasonable. The phrase "most select and generous" goes better with "best rank and station." In particular, "select" matches up extremely well with "best." That supports Q2.

{The Folio editor may have unwisely turned to Q1, which offers a phrasing somewhat similar to F1.}

(This word does not appear to be particularly the playable word in the line, except for the typical "on the other hand" gesture that goes along with saying or.)

EH 540: Neither a borrower nor a lender {boy,} [be;]

boy

be

Q2 boy has some authorial credibility. Boy is ironic, since it comes from a root meaning of "commoner." In the passage, Polonius tells Laertes not to be common ("vulgar,") but then subtly calls him common, here. The cleverness, and irony, are Shakespearean.

The F1 word be puns with "bee." Polonius, himself, is a "busy bee," as he's always getting involved in everything (which eventually gets him killed.) Through the "bee" pun, the F1 word gains strength in interpretation. The author credibly changed the word, to go from the relatively weak "commoner" irony for Laertes, to the "busy bee" concept for Polonius, which connects much better to the play overall. In the Scene where the Players arrive, we do see Hamlet say "buzz, buzz" to Polonius. Through the pun here, Polonius tells Laertes, basically, to be a "bee" who attends his own business, which is something Polonius himself never does.

{The Folio editor probably found an authorial fine tuning and correctly used it.}

(To perform Q2 boy, Polonius can pat Laertes on the shoulder; but, since the line has become so well known, few actors would bother with boy. For the Folio word be, Polonius can flap his arms from his sides a little, like a bee testing its wings. Also, in later appearances, Polonius, the busy bee, should occasionally flap his arms some, to hint of a bee trying its wings.)

EH 541: For {loue} [lone] oft looses both it selfe, and friend,

love

loan

Q2 love is authorial. This is established by Polonius's characterization. Polonius is excessively fond of sayings, and when he begins speaking of money to Laertes, he inevitably thinks of the well-known Biblical saying, "the love of money is the root of all evil." With that saying on his mind, Polonius makes a slip of the tongue, and says love. The slip gives his line a tragically and painfully ironic undertone in advance of the love between Hamlet and Ophelia being "lost" in the later Nunnery Scene.

{The Folio editor missed the slip of the tongue in relation to Polonius's characterization, and changed the word to what would ordinarily be expected.}

(In performance, the Polonius actor can hold his hand to his chest, over his heart, followed by a "dropping" or "throwing away" gesture as the line continues.)

EH 548: The time {inuests you} [inuites you,] goe, your seruants tend.

invests

invites

Q2 invests is authorial. It's used in the sense of "ordains" or "empowers." Polonius means that Time, personified, has empowered Laertes to go.

However, the Folio word invites can also be reasonably viewed as authorial, when "invite" is seen in the sense of "tempt." Polonius will later express to Reynaldo that he fears Laertes being "tempted" by the immoral attractions of Paris. This can credibly be seen as an authorial fine tuning, on the point of Polonius's fear about Laertes being "tempted" into sin. The F1 word gives a good plain reading, then also, through the additional implication of the word, connects well to further events.

{The Folio editor probably found the change and correctly used it.}

(In performance, Q2invests might be played by Polonius grasping the front of his coat with both hands, like the modern gesture of grasping the lapels in a dignified way. The Folio word invites could be played with a paradoxical gesture of Polonius pointing toward the ship with one arm, and waving toward himself with the other; it lends "madness" to Polonius's action, as he gestures "go there" with one arm, and "come here" with the other.)

EH 571: Marry {I will} [Ile] teach you, ...

I will

I'll

The uncontracted form is better in action, and the line is obviously not supposed to be exactly metrical if "marry" and "baby" are pronounced as two syllables. Slurring of both "marry" and "baby" gives: "May I will teach you, think yourself a babe" - which is excellent iambic pentameter, as printed in Q2.

{The Folio editor used the contraction, himself, to try to improve the meter, when he didn't read the line correctly.}

(In performance, Polonius places both hands to his chest when he stresses the word I.)

EH 572: That you haue tane {these} [his] tenders for true pay

these

his

Q2 is more credibly authorial, to avoid the exact repetition of the phrase in EH 569. Good characterization requires variation in speech. Further, Q2 these is strongly indicated by the action.

{The Folio editor apparently changed the phrasing himself, from a misguided notion that exact repetition was wanted.}

(In performance, Polonius is doing a money action - the standard action as if rubbing a coin - and he extends his hand toward Ophelia as he says these.)

EH 573: Which are not {sterling,} [starling.] tender your selfe ...

sterling

starling

There is no difference in the words for literal meaning. Starling is an obsolete spelling variant of sterling.

However, starling is also the name of a bird, which makes it suitable in connection with the various mentions of birds in the play. Shakespeare probably used the spelling variant starling to be compatible with the 'bird' concept. Additionally, the common European starling has an alternate name of "stare," and for a person, a stare is an action. Thus, the F1 spelling is probably the author's own.

{The Folio editor probably found starling and correctly used it.}

(In performance, Polonius can open his eyes wide, doing a stare, as he says starling.)

EH 575: {Wrong} [Roaming] it thus) you'l tender me a foole.

Wrong

Roaming

Q2 Wrong is plausibly authorial, proven by the meaning of the utterance.

However, Roaming offers a "Rome" pun, as seen earlier in the play with Q2 "Romeage," which can be read as implicit reference to Roman Catholicism, and its concept of Purgatory. Polonius can be viewed as making another unknowing allusion to the Ghost, in very subtle undertone, via pun. With the Roam-Rome pun in mind, Roaming gains acceptability as an authorial fine tuning, since it goes beyond mere literal meaning in relation to the play.

{The Folio editor probably found the change to Roaming and correctly used it.}

(Q2 wrong can be played with a negative gesture, a crossing of the hands, palms downward. F1 roaming is playable by Polonius briefly waving his arms in random directions, which is a "madder" action.)

EH 580: My Lord, with {almost} all the {holy} vowes of heauen.

Both almost and holy

[none]

The words from Q2 are mandatory in the play, for meaning. The F1 difference flatly cannot be right. It may be that the omission was an unwise editorial attempt to correct the meter, however, the address "my lord" should not be included in the syllable count for this line.

{The Folio editor probably blundered while trying to correct the meter, and without realizing the importance of the exact phrasing.}

(In performance, the standard "praise the lord" action by Ophelia would be appropriate to this line: an upward gaze with hands uplifted shoulder high, palms upward.)

EH 583: {Lends} [Giues] the tongue vowes, these blazes daughter

Lends

Gives

Q2 lends is the authorial word, consonant with Polonius's other "money talk" in the Scene. (Q1 also shows lends in this passage, for what that's worth.)

(By the way, in earlier commentary on Hamlet, e.g. Malone, 1790, it has sometimes been taken that line EH 583 is missing a word, but that is not necessarily the case. The line as printed is not pentameter, but a change of lineation can correct that. The "missing" syllables can be had from Polonius's first line of his speech. I mention the "missing word" theory here since these comments concern exact wording of the play lines.)

{The Folio editor may have looked ahead to the word "giving" which starts the next line.}

(Either word could be played by moving the hand from the heart area ("soul") toward the mouth ("tongue.") However, there is a "madder" way for Polonius to play the line, should the actor so desire, by sticking his tongue out and flapping it, reminiscent of a dog lapping water. Polonius has a few uses of "dog" terminology in the play, although not particularly in this passage, so a "dog" action when Polonius says "tongue" would conform with the play overall. Of course it's very well known how dogs lap water. When the play is correctly performed, Hamlet doesn't get all the "madness" to himself, Shakespeare spread it around.)

EH 586: You must not take for fire, {from} [For] this time [Daughter,]

from

Both For and daughter

The F1 change gives appearance of being editorial, an attempt to correct meter. The word "for" does not make sense in replacement of from, and the ending word "daughter" appears only three lines earlier, EH 583. The F1 difference is probably nonauthorial.

The line as printed in Q2 is metrical if "fire" is drawn out to two syllables, so that is probably what the author intended.

{The Folio editor probably changed the line, himself, in a misguided attempt to perfect the meter.}

(For performance, none of the words involved in the F1 difference is particularly the playable one; that would be "fire.")

EH 587: Be {something} [somewhat] scanter of your maiden presence

something

somewhat

The Q2 word is authorial, consonant with the other "thing" talk in the play. The F1 difference has the appearance of being entirely editorial.

{The Folio editor apparently changed Shakespeare's word to produce ordinary phrasing, oblivious to the play's recurrent "thing" concept.}

(In performance, Polonius could do the same "thing" gesture Hamlet does later, a circle of the thumb and forefinger. A "scant" thing, not to be found, is a "zero," figuratively speaking.)

EH 594: Not of {that die} [the eye] which their inuestments showe

that die

the eye

Both phrases are probably authorial in their respective publications. The Q2 phrase needs dye for modern spelling, but it's a homophone of "die," a sound of clear significance in connection with the Death theme of the play.

The F1 usage of eye is poetic, it essentially means "appearance." Writings of the time, including some of Shakespeare's own, use eye particularly in relation to color perception. On that basis, dye and eye have a fundamental similarity of meaning: a reference to color. The phrases mean the same thing. The F1 phrase also has thematic significance, from the Watch motif.

There's an obvious performance difference, since the F1 phrase directly allows a gesture toward the eye, or a wide opening of the eyes. The Q2 phrase is not so directly actable. Even though Hamlet is a "mad" play, it's doubtful that Polonius is supposed to fall down here and appear to be dead when he says dye. Action favors the F1 phrase, and makes it credible as an authorial refinement.

{The Folio editor probably found an authorial refinement and properly used it.}

(In performance, as mentioned, when Polonius says eye he can make a gesture toward his eye, or open his eyes wide. The play has much use of the eyes by the actors, and much reference to the eyes.)

EH 595: But meere {imploratotors} [implorators] of vnholy suites

imploratotors

implorators

The Q2 word is apparently too long for the syllable count, and is most likely a misprint which F1 corrects.

{The Folio editor probably used the right word.}

(In performance, the word is played with a "begging" action.)

EH 597: The better to {beguide:} [beguile.] this is for all,

beguide

beguile

The Folio corrects a Q2 misprint.

(In performance, Polonius could do a "magician" type of gesture.)

---

Scene 4 (Act 1 scene 4)

EH 604: The ayre bites {shroudly, it is} [shrewdly: is it] very colde{.}[?]

shroudly

shrewdly

Q2 shroudly is certainly authorial. It means "like a shroud of death," and is a superlative word to begin the Scene where Hamlet sees the Ghost. Shroudly is also eminently playable in a highly relevant and ominous way, which is further evidence of it being Shakespeare's word.

In an attempt to credit the Folio, it can be observed that "shrewd" has a definition referring to evil cunning or evil mischief. Hamlet would be saying the air seems evil and malicious. It would be a proper sentiment for the scene. However, it makes only a vague statement compared to what shroudly offers. Also, "shrewdly" does not seem playable in a satisfactory way (tapping the head while talking about the weather would only be farcical, which does not suit the scene.) It's more reasonable that if the author ever did use the Folio word, he changed it to his more apt and playable coinage, as shown in Q2.

{The Folio editor may have mistakenly consulted Q1, which shows "shrewd" in the passage.}

(In performance, Q2 shroudly is acted by Hamlet drawing his cloak close around himself, with his arms crossed over his chest - the action hints of a dead, shrouded body, prepared for burial, with the forearms crossed.)

EH 604: The ayre bites {shroudly, it is} [shrewdly: is it] very colde{.}[?]

it is

is it

The Q2 phrasing is credibly authorial, simply in that there is nothing to say against it. Hamlet is speaking of what he feels.

One might suppose Hamlet should be able to tell for himself whether it's very cold or not, so the F1 change, to a question, can appear nonsensical at first glance. However, the line, overall, can be interpreted as Hamlet first saying the night feels deathly cold to him, and then asking Horatio if the air feels so cold to him, also. Hamlet is asking Horatio for verification, because he knows his perception might be influenced while he looks forward to perhaps seeing the spirit of his father. Hamlet knows he's shivery just from the idea he might see the ghost of his dead father, so he wonders if his state of mind makes him feel colder than he should. Anybody would feel shivery, even in warm weather, if he thought that at any moment he might see the ghost of his dead father.

We see in the course of events that Hamlet relies on Horatio for verification, most notably at the 'Mousetrap Play' in the matter of Claudius's reaction. Thus, it's compatible with the characterizations for Hamlet to seek verification from Horatio here. Further, a question from Hamlet motivates an immediate reply from Horatio, as we see in the dialogue, so the question contributes to dialogue flow. I judge the F1 difference as credibly an authorial refinement for those reasons: it's entirely compatible with the characterizations, and with the psychology of the situation, and it contributes to dialogue flow.

{The Folio editor probably found an authorial refinement and properly used it.}

(In performance, the actor's behavior and manner of speaking must of course conform to whichever wording he decides to use, the Q2 declaration or the F1 question.)

EH 621+20: {From that particuler fault: the dram of eale}

eale [ = evil]

[none]

This line is not in the Folio, so there is no F1 difference to discuss. I include this comment to illuminate the Q2 word, because it has been a matter of some controversy in the historical Hamlet commentary, and the validity of evil as the authorial word might need to be addressed.

The word evil is spelled "eale" in the original printing of Q2. That spelling is the special abbreviation - if "abbreviation" is the right term - seen elsewhere in the original Q2 printing. It's done on the pattern of abbreviating "over" as "ore." The abbreviation, or modification, involves dropping the 'v' from a word, adding an 'e' at the end as necessary, then filling out the interior of the word with vowels for pronunciation. Other examples from the original Q2 are "seale" (selve/self,) "deale" (devil,) and "hate" (have it.)

In Shakespeare's time, during the Great Vowel Shift, a word spelled "eale" would have been pronounced like the modern word "ail." So, with knowledge of how the word would be spoken, "eale" provides a double meaning: both evil and "ail," a reference to sickness. The reference to sickness provides an instance on the Disease motif in the play. Evil is effectively equated to illness, as seen elsewhere, such as in Hamlet's line, EH 2261, where Hamlet speaks of hell's breath as "contagion." Shakespeare apparently applied his special word abbreviation/modification method in this case to get the "ail" pronunciation, and give the word "evil" a double meaning, of both "evil" and "ail" (the latter appearing when the word was spoken.)

So, the word evil (in modern standard spelling) is authorial, conclusively, and in terms of Q2 the original spelling of "eale" is correct. Modern reprints of Hamlet should take note.

EH 627: Be thy {intents} [euents] wicked, or charitable,

intents

events

Q2 intents, apparently used in the sense of "intentions," is credibly authorial. It makes sense, and the word "intent" is used another time in the play, by Claudius. There are numerous "tent" words in the play: attent, extent, "tent" itself, potent, content, etc. There's no reason to doubt the word.

F1 events does not look very sensible according to its modern definition. However, "event" has a root meaning of "come out," or "out come." (The derivation is from Latin: prefix e- 'out' + venire 'come.') Knowledge of the root meaning gives good sense to the word usage, and also lends meaningful ambiguity to Hamlet's question, the ambiguity following from whether "come out" or "outcome" is considered. (Relevant ambiguity is an authorial feature of the play dialogue.)

When F1 events is understood as mentioned, using its root meaning, Hamlet can be heard as asking, "are your 'comings out' wicked things...?" and then also, "are the outcomes, of seeing you, going to be wicked things...?" In other words, Hamlet can be heard as asking whether the Ghost's manifestation, itself, is wicked (or charitable,) and also whether the Ghost is an omen of wickedness (or good) in the future. The question of the future "outcome" relates directly to the question the sentinels and Horatio pondered in the first Scene, about whether the Ghost is an omen.

In light of root meaning, the F1 change is not only acceptable as an authorial refinement, but compelling. It has distinct authorial characteristics, and relates directly to other play dialogue. (As best I can find, reference to the Latin derivation of "event" was first suggested by Nichols, 1861.)

{The Folio editor probably found events as an authorial refinement and properly used it.}

(The Q2 word appears not to be particularly playable. F1 events, understood in the sense of "come out," might be played by Hamlet, as he speaks, making a "come out" action toward the Ghost, i.e. a beckoning; this would be ironic action in advance of the Ghost soon beckoning Hamlet. The possibility of such additional stage action could have contributed to Shakespeare changing the word.)

EH 634: Wherein we saw thee quietly {interr'd} [enurn'd,]

interred

enurned

Q2 interred is authorial. The body of Hamlet Sr was placed in a stone tomb. Stone is of the earth, so a body in a stone tomb is "in terra." No objection to interred is apparent.

However, in addition to this difference, F1 also shows a change to "eastern," as noted earlier. This change to enurned can be read to coordinate with that earlier change. It gives credible support to enurned as an authorial refinement.

{The Folio editor probably found an authorial change and correctly used it.}

(In performance, for either word, Hamlet can point in the direction of his father's tomb.)

EH 648: It {waues} [wafts] you to a more remooued ground,

waves

wafts

The words are probably both authorial in their respective publications, with no misprint or misreading. Both make sense, and for plain reading of the dialogue they have the same meaning, that the Ghost is waving its arm to beckon Hamlet. The Q2 and F1 words have rather different definitions, and connotations, in general. Particularly, wafts can mean "sweeps," so it can be read to describe exactly how the Ghost is beckoning Hamlet: with a sweep of the arm. From that understanding, Marcellus's speech, EH 647 & 648, includes embedded stage directions, to describe how the Ghost is doing its beckoning. The Ghost is doing a slight bow ("courteous") and is sweeping its arm. It's a non-threatening type of action, as Hamlet sees it, which encourages him to follow the Ghost. (Hamlet's outburst is against the men trying to hold him back, he doesn't see the Ghost as threatening to him.)

There is also the point for characterization that different people often use different words for the same thing. That would be entirely normal. Hamlet goes on to say "waves" in EH 657, which is reason enough for Marcellus not to say waves here. Characterization, of different individuals, calls for some variety in their speech. Even for the same character, a certain amount of variation in his speeches is desirable. The F1 difference is better at indicating the particular type of beckoning gesture, and it offers more speech variety for characterization, so it's credible as an authorial improvement.

{The Folio editor probably found wafts as an authorial improvement, and correctly used it.}

(In performance, Marcellus can sweep his own arm to imitate the Ghosts's beckoning action.)

EH 651: It will not speake, then {I will} [will I] followe it.

I will

will I

Both the declaration form in Q2, and the question form in F1, are credibly authorial, probably from different stages of the author's writing. Both can be read to make sense. The question form in F1 is superior at this point in the dialogue, where Hamlet is still talking himself into following the Ghost. We know he's still talking himself into it, since he goes on to consider the value of his life, and the threat to his soul. Hamlet makes the firm decision to follow in EH 657. The Folio wording is probably an authorial fine tuning to indicate Hamlet still being in some doubt at this point.

{The Folio editor probably found the change and properly used it.}

(In performance, Hamlet probably best uses the F1 wording, with a questioning attitude. His will I is spoken more to himself than to the others, as he thinks about the situation.)

EH 659: Or to the dreadfull {somnet} [Sonnet] of the ...

somnet (?)

sonnet

It's unclear what the Q2 word is supposed to be. It's misprinted, somehow. It's typically taken as "summit." However, it might easily be intended as sonnet, the word in F1.

The word sonnet derives from a meaning of "song." Certainly Shakespeare, of all people, knew that a sonnet is a "song." That understanding gives Horatio referring to the "song of the cliff," which in turn can be understood as the "siren song of the cliff." Allusion would be to the siren's song from Greek mythology, which tempted men to disaster. So, the F1 line can be read to make good sense, with sonnet exactly as printed. Horatio can be interpreted as warning Hamlet against the "song of the cliff," it being a siren song, which might lure Hamlet to disaster, as Horatio goes on to describe. Further, the "song" idea goes along with the occasional references to music in the play, and the actual songs in the play, making sonnet nicely compatible with the play, overall.

Since the exact F1 word can be interpreted to give a sensible and relevant meaning, I judge it authorial, as printed. There is no reason to suppose it should be "summit." Indeed, "summit" would be a much weaker word in relation to the play, (and far weaker in relation to the author, an author famous for sonnets.)

{The Folio editor probably found sonnet and properly used it.}

(In performance, Horatio's attention must be on Hamlet, rather than on acting the particular words in this line. Horatio could stretch out an arm in front of Hamlet, while he points in the general direction of the cliff with his other arm.)

EH 666: Hold of your {hands} [hand].

hands

hand

The difference relates directly to action in performance: how many hands are holding Hamlet? By F1, only Marcellus is holding Hamlet, and with one hand. By the Q2 plural, either Marcellus is holding Hamlet with both hands, or both Marcellus and Horatio are holding Hamlet. There is no way to judge the F1 difference based on the language, it depends on exactly what the actors are doing.

EH 675: He waxes desperate with {imagion} [imagination].

imagion

imagination

Q2 imagion is Shakespeare's word, which he apparently coined, since no earlier use is known. Imagion is formed from a base of "image," and a suffix of -ion, which means "the result of." Horatio is declaring that Hamlet has grown desperate as a result of the image of his father. Thus, Hamlet's desperation is an "image result."

Imagion = image result.

{The Folio editor did not recognize imagion and mistakenly substituted an ordinary word.}

(In performance, for either word, Horatio could make the gesture of placing the fingertips to the side of the head, then moving the hand away, to indicate a thought being produced by the mind.)

---

Scene 5 (Act 1 scene 5)

EH 682: {Whether} [Where] wilt thou leade me, speake, Ile goe no further.

Whether

Where

Q2 whether is an obsolete word for "where," so there is no difference in literal meaning. However, whether was also used to mean "which" of two possibilities. Because of that additonal meaning of whether, it's a better word for performance. The word whether goes nicely with Hamlet spreading his arms to indicate, with his body language, "which direction?" F1 "where" does not directly indicate an appropriate action, so it doesn't meet the test of being an authorial refinement.

{The Folio editor probably just modernized the word, but lost some of Shakespeare's intended implication for action by doing so.}

(In performance, as mentioned, a spread of the arms by Hamlet.)

EH 703: Thy {knotted} [knotty] and combined locks to part,

knotted

knotty

There's no difference in meaning, and indeed, Shakespeare used both these words in speaking of oaks, in other writings which share an identical context: knotted/knotty oaks in a strong wind.

Troilus and Cressida: "...the splitting wind | Makes flexible the knees of knotted oaks ..." (1609 quarto, no change in F1)

Julius Caesar: "...the scolding winds | Have rived the knotty oaks ..." (F1 only)

On the basis of meaning, it leaves no choice between the words, nor do I find one form of the word somehow more relevant to the play. The words have different connotations in general usage, but since Shakespeare made identical use of them, an editorial judgment based on connotation is probably not appropriate.

The words sound different, which can never be neglected, since the play was written to be spoken, of course. Knotty can be heard to pun with "naughty," a word which does not appear in the play, but Ophelia uses the word "naught" at the 'Mousetrap' play, when Hamlet is being "naughty." Considering the amount of wordplay in Hamlet, and attempting to credit F1, it's possible the author gave up the matching '-ed' suffixes of knotted and "combined," in Q2, in order to get a "naughty" pun. That makes it plausible that F1 shows an authorial fine tuning.

{The Folio editor may have found a change to knotty and correctly used it.}

(In performance, when the Ghost speaks of Hamlet's hair, he runs his hand over it, i.e. the Ghost touches Hamlet's head.)

EH 705: Like quils vpon the {fearefull} [fretfull] Porpentine,

fearful

fretful

The Q2 word fearful is confidently authorial. It makes good sense, and no objection to it is apparent.

However, fretful is credibly an authorial change. The word "fret" comes from a root meaning of "to eat," which provides an instance on the Feast motif of the play. When root meaning is considered, the word fretful is thematic for Hamlet, in that subtle way. Also, "fret" is a term used later in the play, in different senses. The author probably changed to fretful here to create more verbal connections and wordplay, running the gamut of what "fret" can mean. Fretful is glossed as "vexed" or "annoyed," for plain reading.

{The Folio editor probably found the change to fretful, and correctly used it.}

(In acting either word, the Ghost can make the classic "fear" gesture: a defensive posture with the hands in front of the chest. With fingers spread and slightly curled, the posture also implies a "magician" gesture, the kind of action used when casting a spell.)

EH 707: To eares of flesh and blood, {list, list} [list Hamlet], ô list:

list, list

list Hamlet

Both are probably authorial in the respective publications. There's a reason for the Ghost to speak Hamlet's name at this point, which makes the F1 change credible as an authorial refinement. The reason takes a while to explain, but essentially, it's to awaken Hamlet from being entranced. The Ghost can cast spells.

{The Folio editor probably found the change and correctly used it.}

(In performance, the Ghost should enunciate Hamlet's name loudly and clearly, as if awakening someone from sleep.)

EH 720: That {rootes} [rots] it selfe in ease on Lethe wharffe,

roots

rots

Both have authorial credibility. Q2 roots carries the idea of being rooted in place, doing nothing, which makes good sense. It has some thematic connection, on the Gardening motif.

F1 rots gains interest in advance of the Graveyard Scene, where Hamlet will speak of rot. Rots is a more strongly thematic word, on the Death theme. Then, rot can be caused by disease, so the F1 word has some linkage to the Disease motif. Also, rots is the more ominous word. It gives not quite so easy reading as the Q2 word, in literal meaning, but can still be read to make good sense. The various points in favor of F1 rots make it credible as an authorial fine tuning, to connect the word usage better to the play, overall. Neither word seems dramatically better, in action.

{The Folio editor probably found an authorial refinement and properly used it.}

(In performance, either word could be played with a downward sweep of the hands.)

EH 730: With witchcraft of his wits, {with} [hath] trayterous gifts,

with

hath

The F1 difference cannot be an authorial improvement, since it doesn't make sense in the passage.

{The Folio has a mistake, for whatever reason.}

(The word is not particularly the actable one in performance.)

EH 741: So {but} [Lust,] though to a radiant Angle linckt,

but

lust

The Q2 version, of the speech in which this line appears, reads perfectly well, and is fully grammatical (despite remarks one might find in some older Hamlet commentary) which makes the Q2 wording credible as the author's own. The only question is whether the F1 difference is an improvement, either of the passage or in relation to the play, and might therefore be considered an authorial refinement.

The F1 change, as it stands, can't be viewed as an improvement because of the plain fact that it lacks fundamental grammar. In F1 the passage EH 739-741 has two subjects but only one verb. Shakespeare was casual about some aspects of grammar, but not to that extent. He didn't write outright gibberish. Not only is the F1 difference not an authorial refinement, it is not authorial at all. Specifically, Q2 but is required for the subject "virtue" in EH 739 to have a verb.

What happened, to account for the F1 wording, is apparently that the F1 editor had some difficulty with the passage, and turned to Q1. He might have had trouble finding the Q2 verb for "virtue" (as many others have) since it occurs three lines after. (Virtue - will sort.) The F1 wording, in the passage, is extremely close to that of Q1. But it is well established now, that Q1 is a highly corrupted reconstruction and abridgement of the play, with untrustworthy wording. One never automatically accepts the wording of Q1 as authorial.

Having said that, there is a simple way, the change of only one letter, to make the F1 difference good, grammatically. One merely changes "So" at the start of this line, to "To." That change produces the following meaning in lines EH 739-741.

... but virtue, as it never will be moved ... To lust ...

The result is fully sensible, and it is normal English to speak of something moving "to" something else. Attempting to credit F1 as much as possible, I offer that the F1 difference may not have gone far enough, and there was supposed to be a further change of Q2 So to "To," but that detail was missed. There can be no proof, of the author's intention, and I offer this conjecture for what it's worth. Ultimately, all one can say is that F1/Q1 "lust" may be authorial. There's more about the passage in the comment for EH 742, below.

{The Folio editor probably turned to Q1 when he couldn't follow Q2, but where Q1 got its exact wording is an open question.}

(In performance, Q2 but is not particularly playable, except with the ordinary kind of gesture made while speaking. The playability of "lust" I leave to the imagination. I'll only add, the Ghost is probably not supposed to be played stiff and dull, the way a performance typically does it nowadays.)

EH 742: Will {sort} [sate] it selfe in a celestiall bed

sort

sate

For the speech overall, EH 739-742, the above comments for EH 741 continue to apply.

This F1 difference is even more problematic than that in EH 741, because the F1 wording is so close to that of Q1. Q1 shows "fate" instead of "sate," thus, there are three words to consider. If the Folio editor got his phrasing from Q1, as it appears he might have, there is the additional possibility of a misreading, of "f-" as long-s. Q1 "fate" could have become F1 "sate" merely due to a misreading. All three words can work in the line, since "in" can be understood as "into."

Q2 sort has authorial credibility following the word "sort" in Barnardo's question about the Ghost, line EH 124+2. Barnardo was theorizing the Ghost might be an omen, and was asking how the future might sort out. Here, in Q2, the use of sort does give the "ominous" Ghost a statement, explicitly, of how something will sort out. The word usage connects so well that it's unlikely to be accidental, from a misprint or misreading. Further evidence for Q2 comes from the Ghost's later statement, EH 771, "leave her to heaven," which is another statement from the Ghost about how things will sort. Then, sort is a playable word: decline the hands slowly while wiggling the fingers slowly, to connote something "sifting" down. The question becomes whether the F1 difference, or possibly Q1 "fate," is credible as an authorial change.

The word "sate" occurs one other time, but there, EH 3193-4, it is a non-standard spelling of "sat," perhaps for wordplay, and not directly helpful for this. "Sate" has interest in relation to the Feast/Eating motif, and the general idea of appetite that appears in the play. It's sensible to speak of virtue being sated, understood as "satisfied," or "fulfilled." Although the explicit use of sort is abandoned in F1, the Ghost is still making a statement of how something will sort out. The F1 difference has at least that much plausibility as authorial. Also, "sate" is directly playable, by patting the stomach.

For Q1 fate the entire change shown in the Q1 line must be taken into account. Q1 speaks of lust fating itself away from a celestial bed (a resting place in heaven.) That's sensible, that Lust personified would not go to heaven, and again there is an "ominious" prediction by the Ghost. The idea of "fate" is strong in the play. In relation to the play overall, the Q1 wording, including fate, is more plausible than that in F1, because of Q1 "from." However, fate does not seem directly playable. Since fate concerns the soul, one might place hands to the chest.

To resolve all this, the speech, EH 739-742, must be read in relation to the play, overall. Since the Ghost is supposed to be an omen, or is suspected of being one, it's required to look at how the Ghost's speech relates to future events in the play. A full exposition would take a long essay, not suitable among these comments, but the conclusion is as follows, for the F1/Q1 wording.

Take Gertrude as "virtue." Take Claudius as both "lewdness" and "lust." The F1/Q1 version then allows the following interpretation.

1. Gertrude will never be moved to lust, although Claudius may court her while appearing to be heaven-sent. (It follows that we get the Ghost's remark, "leave her to heaven.") And....

2. Claudius will sort (or fate) himself away from a resting place in heaven (when his murder scheme kills Hamlet, murder being a mortal sin.) Claudius will also "pray on garbage." (Pray for his own soul in the Prayer Scene, but then throw his soul away like garbage when he proceeds with his murder plot.)

Thus, the F1/Q1 phrasing connects extremely well to the play overall, as an "omen," and it particularly accomodates the Prayer Scene. However, this indicates that either Q1 fate or Q2 sort is right, rather than F1 "sate," also, that the Folio should have used Q1 "from" rather than Q2 "in," in this line. Claudius, in the Prayer Scene and after, sorts/fates himself away from heaven, not into heaven.

So, I conjecture that the Folio difference, in all, ought to be:

... but virtue, as it never will be moved -
Though lewdness court it in a shape of heaven -
To lust, (which) though to a radiant angel linked,
Will sort/fate itself from a celestial bed,
And pray on garbage.

The word "which" is understood after "lust," I do not mean it should be printed in the playtext in parentheses. The wording shown can only be conjecture, and it does not decide between Q2 sort and Q1 fate. The merit of the conjecture, about the wording overall, is that it does accomodate the F1 difference, at least as far as "lust" in EH 741 goes, and it permits an "ominous" interpretation that fits the play well. It further indicates that the Q1 language, for this speech, likely has an authorial basis. It supports F1 as plausibly incorporating an authorial refinement, to some extent, but apparently not faultlessly.

After all that, there's still the question between Q2 sort, and Q1 fate. They mean essentially the same in the speech. Sort is stronger in the dialogue connection, going back to what Barnardo said. Sort is more obviously playable. "Fate" is a strong idea in the play, prominently mentioned. Fate is the more ominous word, as the Ghost speaks. Both words are strong in some way, which impedes choice between the words, themselves. However, since Q1 "lust" appears to be good, probably Q1 should continue to be followed, for this word. It implies fate as an authorial refinement.

{The Folio editor apparently misread "fate" in Q1, while not using "from" in Q1, which he should have, when he made the change to the passage.}

(In performance, for Q2 sort the actor can do a sifting action. For fate he could put his hands to his chest, implying the soul. F1 "sate" should probably not be spoken in performance, since it appears to be only a misreading of Q1 fate, however, "sate" would be easy enough to act, by patting the stomach.)

EH 747: With iuyce of cursed {Hebona} [Hebenon] in a viall,

Hebona

Hebenon

These are only different forms of the same word. The F1 word does not "speak" as well, because of the following "in;" it gives two 'n' sounds running together. One cannot see that as an improvement from the Poet author.

{The Folio editor apparently changed the word himself, for no apparent reason.}

(This word is not the playable one in the line.)

EH 748: And in the porches of {my} [mine] eares did poure

my

mine

{The Folio editor changed the word.}

(No performance note applies.)

EH 753: And with a sodaine vigour it doth {possesse} [posset]

possess

posset

Q2 possess is a reasonable word, meaning to take possession of, or to seize, figuratively speaking. Possess follows well from "sudden vigor." The word possess makes sense in context, and raises no objection.

However, the F1 word posset goes well with "curd," and is in the author's style of frequently pairing synonyms, or near-synonyms. A posset of a kind was a favorite holiday drink, particularly at Christmastime, which goes along with Marcellus speaking of Christmastime. Further, possets were used as medicine, providing irony that a word ordinarily applied to medicine would be used to describe disease. Such irony, and contrary usage of words, is in the author's style. The F1 word posset is credibly viewed as an authorial fine tuning.

{The Folio editor probably found an authorial improvement, and correctly used it.}

(In performance, Q2 possess could be played with a gesture to indicate gripping or seizing. The Folio word posset doesn't appear directly actable, however, the line is still actable, through the phrase "sudden vigor," which can be done using a "strength" move with the arms.)

EH 756: And a most instant tetter {barckt} [bak'd] about

barked

baked

The Q2 word is credibly authorial, simply from the meaning. A leprous appearance of the skin can be compared to tree bark. The word works well in context, since the Ghost is speaking of events that happened in an orchard, where there will be trees. It gives a subtle instance on the Garden/Plant motif.

The F1 difference with "baked" makes adequate sense, and links with the play, in advance of the description of Pyrrhus being "baked and empasted" with blood, when he sought Priam. The Ghost goes on to speak of "crust," in EH 757, and baking suggests crust. However, the F1 word "baked" in connection with "crust" does not really improve the speech, since tree bark can be viewed as a kind of "crust," figuratively speaking. The more figurative, less literal, interpretations must always get their due attention when reading Shakespeare. Then, there is a subtle reason, which appears in the course of the play, why the Ghost would more likely say barked here. I cannot view the F1 difference as an authorial refinement. Q2 barked is more likely to be the improved, final version.

{The F1 difference might be an editorial notion that the following word "crust" required "baked" here, or the Folio editor might have used an earlier version of the author's work, not his final.}

(In performance, the Ghost could run his hands down the front of his torso, for either word.)

EH 760: Of life, of Crowne, {of} [and] Queene at once dispatcht,

of

and

{The Folio editor foolishly tried to correct Shakespeare's grammar.}

(No performance note applies to this word in particular.)

EH 762: Vnhuzled, disappointed, {vnanueld} [vnnaneld],

unanviled

unannealed

The Q2 word spelled "vnanueld" in the original printing is unanviled in modern standard spelling. It is credibly the word from Shakespeare's hand, for Q2 at least. The Ghost means he was not "beaten into proper shape" for entry directly into Heaven. He's referring to the concept of using an anvil to shape metal. The term unanviled links to the play, as in Hamlet speaking of "Vulcan's stithy," line EH 1935. It's a strong word on the important question of whether the Ghost is a "forgery." An anvil obviously implies metal, and the concept of metal/mettle appears four times in the play. ("Metal" and "mettle" were, at an earlier time in the history of English, the same word.) Additionally, anvils are used to make swords, and the relevance of swords to the play need not be explained. The connection to the Fire motif is also obvious, since everyone knows that blacksmiths, who use an anvil, also use fire. Furthermore, unanviled is a nicely playable word, with the action of swinging a hammer.

It has been supposed, in historical commentary on Hamlet, that all the terms in the line must be references to religious practices. That is not necessarily so. As best I can find, scholars have just ignored the actual Q2 spelling, which is essentially correct according to the practices of the time, and despite the spelling, have assumed that unanviled must somehow be a different word. In any event, unanviled is certainly credible as Shakespeare's word. The only remaining question is whether he decided to change it after Q2.

F1 "unannealed" (or "unaneled," a different spelling of the same archaic word,) has little discernible significance in relation to the play, overall. It lacks the imagery and playability of the "anvil" idea. I do not find "unannealed" credible as an authorial fine tuning. If Shakespeare ever used the word, as F1 may indicate, it's more likely his unimproved version. Speculating, one might guess that at one time the author made all the terms religious ones, but then changed the last word to go better with his play, on the question of whether the Ghost might not be Hamlet's father, but instead a diabolical "forgery."

{The Folio editor erred, for whatever reason, either on his own, or perhaps from reliance on something other than the author's final.}

(In performance, unanviled is playable as mentioned, through the action of using a hammer.)

EH 780: But beare me {swiftly} [stiffely] vp; remember thee,

swiftly

stiffly

Both words make sense in the passage. Q2 swiftly follows Hamlet's phrase "wings as swift as meditation." It offers irony, in that Hamlet will not immediately attack Claudius, as it turns out. Swiftly also has a root meaning akin to "swoop," which follows well from Hamlet's phrase "sweep to my revenge." Swiftly is credibly authorial.

F1 stiffly works well for plain reading, and is elsewhere in the Shakespeare writings used in reference to the body, and also in reference to age, both of which suit the immediate utterance. The author also used "stiff" in reference to death, obviously something which demands consideration when interpreting Hamlet.

At the conclusion of the play, Fortinbrasse will order Hamlet's body to be "borne" (to the stage.) Hamlet will then be "borne stiffly," i.e. in the sense of bearing a dead body. Hamlet's line here, "bear me stiffly up," can be viewed as advance allusion to how Hamlet will, indeed, ultimately be borne at the orders of Fortinbrasse, an event of which Hamlet knows nothing as he speaks (although of course Shakespeare, who wrote the dialogue, knew.) Although the connection in the play is far-reaching, the tragic irony is eminently suitable in Hamlet. Shakespeare probably made the change to incorporate the connection, and the wicked irony.

{The Folio editor probably found an authorial change and correctly used it.}

(In performance, Q2 swiftly can be acted by Hamlet abruptly standing tall and spreading his arms - like the swift wings he mentioned in EH 714-5. F1 stiffly can be acted by Hamlet standing stiff and still, briefly, in the posture of a corpse. Since both the Q2 and F1 words are probably authentic, from different stages of the author's work, it gives the actor his choice of actions, either of which is genuine Shakespeare.)

EH 803: Hillo, ho, ho, boy come, {and} [bird,] come.

and

bird

The F1 difference has full credibility as an authorial improvement, because it's so playable, while the Q2 word is not.

{The Folio editor found bird and properly used it.}

(In performance, when Hamlet says bird he "madly" spreads his arms and flaps them some, like a bird flapping its wings.)

EH 829: Yes by Saint Patrick but there is {Horatio} [my Lord],

Horatio

my Lord

Superficially, the F1 difference which has Hamlet say my Lord to Horatio appears to be an obvious Folio misprint, but it is probably not. For one thing, Hamlet is supposed to appear to be mad following his encounter with the Ghost. Also, up to that point, Horatio has called Hamlet "my Lord" six times in the Scene. Additionally, Hamlet has just said that he will go pray. So, several things are happening, to justify the F1 wording.

Hamlet can be saying my Lord with his hands together as if in prayer, following his declaration that he will go pray. He has not gone, but he can still do the action of prayer. The phrase my Lord is then relevant to his action. Hamlet can also be expressing mild irritation at Horatio calling him "my Lord" so incessantly, by tossing the phrase back at Horatio - which contributes to Hamlet seeming mad. So, the F1 phrase gains validity. I judge it an authorial refinement for those reasons: stage action, of prayer, and Hamlet expressing a bit of irritation at Horatio. It will sound "mad" to Horatio for Hamlet to call him my Lord, but that's the whole point, at this time, for the play. The Hamlet character needs to look and sound mad after encountering the Ghost.

{The Folio editor probably found an authorial change and properly used it.}

(In performance, F1 my Lord can be played by Hamlet holding his hands together as if in prayer, while first looking pointedly at Horatio, then gazing upward. There's also a 'madder' way to play it, by having Hamlet kneel to Horatio.)

EH 859: Well sayd olde Mole, can'st worke it'h {earth} [ground] so fast,

earth

ground

Both words are sensible, and both are used several times in the play, generally in usages that make the words synonymous. Since "ground" offers no improvement, it is not credible as an authorial fine tuning. In the flow of the dialogue, earth leads directly to Hamlet's phrase "heaven and earth" that quickly follows. The Q2 word earth is more credibly authorial, in this location, because of the dialogue flow. Earth, here, leads directly to "earth" in EH 863.

{The Folio difference may proceed simply from the author's essentially synonymous use of the words, and the word "ground" appearing only six lines earlier. The Folio editor may have made an error for those reasons.}

(The word earth does not appear intended as the actable word in the line, except for Hamlet to be looking downward. The actable word is "work," where Hamlet can do a "mad" action of digging, not by pretending to have a shovel, but by clawing with his hand, imitating the way a mole digs, since he just said "mole." Hamlet probably best does the clawing/digging action, not toward the ground, but toward himself, paradoxically. Clawing at oneself is classically an action that displays extreme mental upset - "madness." In support, in his writing the author used "earth" in reference to the human body, from the religious concept of the body being "dust" raised from the earth. That concept appears in the play, when Hamlet later speaks of man as a "quintessence of dust." So, for this line, as Hamlet speaks of the Ghost "mole" working in the earth, he can claw "madly" at his own body. It displays how the Ghost has "gotten into" Hamlet, to influence his mind.)

EH 864: Then are dream't of in {your} [our] philosophie, but come

your

our

Q2 your is credibly authorial. Hamlet is speaking of philosophy as a "given." He means, "your subject of philosophy, that they teach students in school." Hamlet isn't intending reference to Horatio personally, although the line does have that undertone.

The F1 difference is worth considering because both Hamlet and Horatio have been university students, thus academic philosophy is a subject they have in common. We take it that they've both studied the subject. The word our makes sense, understood as: "our subject of philosophy, that they taught us in school." The change from your to our is appropriate for a subject they share. The author probably changed the word in connection with them both being university students, who have studied philosophy.

{The Folio editor probably found an authorial refinement and correctly used it.}

(In performance, for Q2 your Hamlet would gesture toward Horatio; for F1 our he would gesture back and forth between Horatio and himself. Also, when saying our, Hamlet could hug Horatio.)

EH 869: That you at such {times} [time] seeing me, neuer shall

times

time

The singular in F1 seems more likely authorial preference. The Poet's ear would notice that the terminal '-s' of "times," and the initial 's-' of "seeing" run together when spoken, making the '-s' of "times" redundant. One keeps in mind the writing was intended to be spoken.

{The Folio editor probably found the singular and correctly used it.}

(This word appears not intended to be the playable one in the line.)

EH 870: With armes incombred thus, or {this} [thus,] head shake,

this

thus,

We know what head shake Hamlet means: it's the slow side-to-side shake that goes along with amazement or disapproval. When Hamlet says this he begins shaking his head in that manner. The F1 phrasing of the line does not make sense, it leaves "head shake" sitting there in isolation.

{The Folio has an error.}

(In performance, as above.)

EH 873: Or if we list to speake, or there be and if {they} [there] might,

they

there

Hamlet's speech, which contains this line, is supposed to be ambiguous, uncertain, and it's supposed to be impossible for Horatio and Marcellus to pin down exactly what he means. Shakespeare intentionally wrote the speech that way, for characterization. Hamlet is "mad" here, after his encounter with the Ghost, and a mad person will say things that others can't follow. However, that does not mean the speech is utter babble. Shakespeare's point was to have Hamlet's speech unclear to Horatio and Marcellus, at the time Hamlet says it, but the author may not have meant to leave it permanently in doubt for everyone. Horatio and Marcellus are just hearing this go by as Hamlet says it; they don't have the opportunity to examine Hamlet's speech carefully. But we do. So, despite the "madness" of Hamlet's speech, especially as Horatio and Marcellus hear it, a judgment of the Q2-F1 difference in this line should still be possible.

The clause that contains this difference probably means, more or less: "there are (some people who know more about Hamlet - that being us, Horatio and Marcellus,) and if they might, (they could tell you that Hamlet encountered a Ghost.)" Hamlet is asking the men not to say such things to anybody.

The suggested interpretation is only that, however. Hamlet's speech is (intentionally from the author) so concise and vague it's impossible to be sure exactly what it's supposed to mean. However, we can be certain of one thing: Hamlet is concerned about what Horatio and Marcellus might do, which is to reveal he encountered the Ghost. It dictates that the word before "might" in the line needs to be a "person" word. Hamlet's concern is what persons might do. And that supports Q2.

While examination of the language, alone, supports Q2, there's more to consider. A playscript has associated actions. One looks at whether F1 somehow offers better action. It does appear to do so. Hamlet can point when he says there. The repetition of the word there can be acted by Hamlet "madly" pointing in different directions at the same time. When Hamlet says the first there, he points to the left, say, with his left arm, and leaves his arm extended. When he says the second there he points to the right, with his right arm. It gives Hamlet standing with his arms spread, like a bird's wings, and "madly" pointing in opposite directions at the same time. Since the F1 word allows for better "mad" action, I take it to be an authorial improvement. F1 is perhaps not quite so good for language, but the stage action looks decisive here.

{The Folio editor probably found the change and correctly used it.}

(In performance, as described. The F1 phrasing is used. Hamlet points when he says there, each time, and ends up with his arms spread, madly pointing in opposite directions at the same time. Horatio and Marcellus look, each time Hamlet points, and they see nothing in particular either way, so it makes Hamlet look mad to them. That's what's supposed to be happening, of course: Hamlet looking mad to the audience, and to the other play characters, after his encounter with the Ghost.)

EH 875: That you knowe ought of me, this {doe sweare,} [not to doe:]

do swear

not to do

The F1 phrase would make far more sense as an addition than as the replacement it is. The line is not metrical, as iambic pentameter, but neither is the entire speech exactly metrical.

{The Folio editor probably found an intended addition but mistakenly treated it as a replacement.}

(In performance, the Folio phrase should be added to the spoken line.)

---

Scene 6 (Act 2 scene 1)

EH 890: Giue him {this} [his] money, and these notes Reynaldo.

this

his

The F1 difference has credibility as an authorial fine tuning because the money is literally "his money," or is intended to be. Polonius is sending Laertes some money for his living expenses in Paris. The Q2 word misses that exact point. Literalness is enough to consider in this case; there's no figurative undertone to examine for these ordinary "grammar" words. However, his still offers irony, that Polonius probably views the money as his own, since it's coming out of his pocket. Although Polonius says his (Laertes's,) Polonius doesn't really feel that way. When Polonius says his, he's still thinking "mine." The added irony that the F1 change provides, in relation to Polonius's characterization, could have contributed to the author making the change. (By the way, the money is probably especially for clothing, since Polonius told Laertes to buy different clothes. Also, the "notes" probably express more advice that Polonius wants to give Laertes. It well suits Polonius's characterization that he would think of more advice for Laertes, beyond what he said to Laertes when he left.)

{The Folio editor probably found his and correctly used it.}

(In performance, Polonius can handle the money in different ways, in the process of giving it to Reynaldo. It's in keeping with Polonius's character, and his suspicions about Laertes, that he'd be reluctant to let go of it. So, Polonius will hand the notes to Reynaldo immediately, but show reluctance to part with the money.)

EH 893: Before you visite him, to make {inquire} [inquiry]

inquire

inquiry

{The Folio editor changed the word to what would be expected in ordinary speech.}

(In performance, the actor should say inquire.)

EH 920: Fayth [no,] as you may season it in the charge.

[none]

no

The F1 addition is credibly authorial, especially since it's playable. Polonius is deprecating Reynaldo's objection. (The word "as" means "since" or "because," by the way.)

{The Folio editor found no and correctly used it.}

(In performance, Polonius emphatically shakes his head when he says no.)

EH 931: And I belieue it is a fetch of {wit,} [warrant:]

wit

warrant

The correctness of Q2 wit is established easily, by the irony. Polonius's "fetch of wit" is actually a shockingly stupid idea. It's mad. Wit is the author's word.

{"Warrant" was wrongly substituted twice in the Folio, here and at EH 2382. The Folio editor may have editorialized, indeed, in what he read as improper behavior that ought to have some "warrant," so he changed the word to try to provide justification, which was exactly the wrong thing to do.}

(In performance, wit is done by Polonius tapping his head in a "wise" way.)

EH 932: You laying these slight {sallies} [sulleyes] on my sonne

sallies

sullies

Either word can be read to make sense. Q2 sallies follows better from "lay," and also follows from Hamlet's phrase "too too sallied." "Sullies" offers no improvement, and is not credibly an authorial fine tuning. Then, action strongly supports sallies.

{The Folio editor may have mistakenly thought a misspelling had occurred.}

(In performance, Q2 sallies can be played by Polonius briefly pretending to sword fight. That's especially appropriate since "fencing" has just been mentioned. We're told in the play that Polonius "played at the university," and that he was "accounted a good actor." We may thus take it, as a character note, that Polonius is demonstrative when he speaks. His "sword fight" action is highly ironic in anticipation of his own later death by the sword, also anticipates the fencing match, and is wickedly ironic in advance of Reynaldo's fate at the hands of Laertes. The irony of sallies, in action, firmly supports it as Shakespeare's word. F1 sullies might be played by rubbing the hands together, as if brushing dirt from the hands, an action which has no value in comparison with what the Q2 word offers.)

EH 939: According to the phrase, {or} [and] the addistion

or

and

The difference in conjunction is trivial, as far as the language goes. Either word could be considered authorial. The word or appears three times in the previous line.

The word "phrase" means the person's title, such as "sir" or "lord." The word "addition" refers to something added after a name, such as "esquire" or "Ph.D." For example, in the name "Mister Sam Sawbones M.D.," the "Mister" is the 'phrase' and the "M.D." is the 'addition.' Thus, a name can have both a phrase/title, and an addition. That tends to support the Folio change to and. It's conceivable the author did just a touch of fine tuning, taking into account that a name can have both title and addition.

The words are played differently. Or implies moving the hands apart, while and implies bringing them together. The effect of or on hand motion is very commonly seen: when a person says "or this, or that," he will gesture with his hands, alternately, and move them apart. The three words "or" in the previous line will have Polonius with his hands apart. The change to and here goes along with Polonius bringing his hands back together. Shakespeare might have made the change here in order to change Polonius's hand motion.

In conformance with the exact wording, of F1, Polonius will bring his hands back together when he says and. That action can be seen as having significance to the dialogue. Bringing the hands together can be seen, in body language, as signifying completion of a thought. The body language misleads Reynaldo that Polonius has concluded his point, so Reynaldo speaks. However, Polonius isn't done yet, his body language has misled Reynaldo.

This analysis may seem excessive, for a mere change in the dialogue from or to and. However, it's a fact that if people are moving their hands as they talk, they move differently for or as compared to and. An or gesture is different from an and gesture. Shakespeare certainly had to know that, since every observant person knows it, and Hamlet is a playscript, fully intended to have actions that suit the dialogue.

I conclude that the change in F1 is authorial, fully intentional, to give Polonius a certain hand motion, to go along with the dialogue.

{The Folio editor found a change and properly used it.}

(In performance, as described, for the hand motions. F1 is used. Polonius brings his hands together when he says and, and the action makes Reynaldo think that Polonius has concluded his point, so Reynaldo speaks - however, the body language misled Reynaldo, and it turns out he interrupted, which we see as the dialogue continues.)

EH 946: [At friend, or so, and Gentleman.]

[none]

[the entire line]

The F1 line is probably authorial to show Polonius needing a little more prompting, and to bring the prompt closer to where he did break off.

{Either Q2 simply missed the line, or it's an authorial addition the Folio editor found and correctly used.}

(The line should be included in performance whenever playing time permits.)

EH 973: My Lord, as I was sowing in my {closset} [Chamber],

closet

chamber

Both words are credibly authorial. We see from the later, very prominent, mention of Gertrude's closet that a lady's private apartment is called closet. There's no reason to doubt the word in Q2.

The F1 difference has authorial credibility in advance of Hamlet's line in the Graveyard Scene, in the Yorick speech, when he says, "get you to my lady's chamber" in reference to the grave. Also, Ophelia uses the word chamber later in a 'mad' song. It's plausible the author changed the word to create dialogue connections pertaining to, and focused more on, Ophelia, herself, in advance of her fate.

{The Folio editor probably found the change and correctly used it.}

(The word difference makes no difference in performance.)

EH 992: {As} [That] it did seeme to shatter all his bulke,

As

That

The F1 difference is credible as an authorial change simply because it reads better and "speaks" better in the speech.

{The Folio editor probably found an authorial fine tuning and properly used it.}

(In performance, this is not particularly the playable word.)

EH 998: {Come,} goe with mee, I will goe seeke the King,

Come

[none]

The Q2 word is mandatory on the point of Polonius sounding 'mad' on occasion. Here he 'madly' says both come and "go" while actually meaning the same thing. When the play is done correctly, all the characters get some share in the 'madness,' not just Hamlet. F1 should not have omitted the word.

{The Folio missed the word, for whatever reason.}

(In peformance, Polonius should both point away and wave toward himself at the same time.)

EH 1009: I am sorry, that with better {heede} [speed] and iudgement

heed

speed

F1 speed is more compatible with the following greyhound jargon of "coted," and is more ironic for Polonius to say, since he's a slow, elderly man. For those reasons it qualifies as a probable authorial fine tuning.

{The Folio editor probably found the change and correctly used it.}

(In performance, for F1 speed, Polonius can do the ironic action of moving his arms as if sprinting, although he can no longer sprint. Q2 heed can be played by tapping the temple, which is a less interesting action.)

EH 1010: I had not {coted} [quoted] him, I fear'd he did but trifle

coted

quoted

Both words can be read to make sense. Q2 coted comes from the jargon of greyhound running, referring to a certain kind of pass when one dog gets ahead of another. Here, the word is used figuratively, of course, and in a general way. It means "gotten ahead of" or "anticipated." Polonius is wishing he had gotten ahead of Hamlet, in the sense of anticipating what Hamlet would do. Also, "cote" puns with "coat," so coted, in undertone, can be read with advance allusion to the notable "coat" at the 'Mousetrap Play,' which is Polonius's sable coat. As Polonius speaks, the Q2 word hints, via pun, of "suit of sables" in the later dialogue.

The word quoted could formerly be spelled "coted," so the Q2 and Folio words are essentially the same, when the Q2 word is in the playtext. The understanding does not work in reverse, however. Coted has never routinely been spelled "quoted."

F1 quoted can be read in the sense of "credited." To quote someone, with proper attribution, is to give the person credit. The word can further be read in ironic advance allusion to Polonius "quoting" Hamlet's letter when he later reads it aloud to Claudius. In immediate meaning, Polonius is saying he wishes he had given Hamlet credit for sincere feelings about Ophelia. Polonius has high regard for quoting, since his many sayings, of which he is so fond, are quotes, more or less. Also, turning to root meaning, "quote" comes from Latin 'quotus' which refers to number. The F1 word thus connects to the various mentions of, and allusions to, number in the play, including Hamlet's remark to Horatio, before the fencing match, that he'll "count" Laertes's favors. In the "number" sense, Polonius is saying he should have "counted" more on Hamlet, that is, he should have viewed Hamlet more as someone he could "count" on. The "credit" and "count" ideas are entirely compatible: one gives credit to those he can count on.

Misprint is not likely. No misprint could be expected to work so well as both these words do. Coted appears one other time in the play, at EH 1363, and "quoth," a form of "quote," also appears, at EH 2800, so there is no reason to doubt the mere presence of either word.

Coted offers the amusement of old, slow Polonius describing himself in terms of a greyhound. Quoted offers the irony that quotes are Polonius's favorite form of speech. Both words are cleverly characteristic, in their respective ways.

I find no choice between them. I conclude that wordplay must be intended. On that basis, coted is the word for the playtext, as Q2 shows, and it is intended to suggest quoted, as well. Coted can suggest quoted, especially from being an earlier spelling of the latter word, however, the reverse is impossible: quoted cannot reasonably be expected to suggest coted. It is probable this is a case where the Folio reveals wordplay the Q2 word was intended to suggest.

{The Folio change may have happened simply from the Folio editor recognizing coted as an earlier spelling of quoted, and without awareness of the greyhound jargon. Then, whether by such accident, or by design, the Folio editor put the pun in the playtext, instead of the author's intended word, but in doing so, helped to reveal the full meaning the author wished to convey.}

A good modern treatment of Hamlet should always used coted, probably best glossed as "anticipated" where simple gloss is used, but with an adequate note about quoted as well.

(In performance, Polonius could simply move his hands to show one hand getting ahead of the other, to symbolize getting ahead of something.)

EH 1017: {Come. Exeunt.}

Come

[none]

The omission of the word is an error in F1. Ophelia thinks Polonius just said Hamlet now hates her, and she is so dismayed by that, she would only stand there if Polonius didn't tell her to come along. Also, the word has action. The author often ended a Scene with a rhymed couplet, but this is an exception where the couplet is not the final word.

{The Folio editor may have dropped the word in order to end the Scene with the rhymed couplet. If so, he shouldn't have done that.}

(It's played with a beckoning gesture, of course, reminiscent of the Ghost beckoning Hamlet.)

---

Scene 7 (Act 2 scene 2)

EH 1026: {Sith nor} [Since not] th'exterior, nor the inward man

Sith

Since

The Q2 word is highly credible as authorial, because of the "serpent" hiss it produces when spoken. This follows the Ghost telling Hamlet about Claudius being the "serpent in the garden," so to speak. Thus, Shakespeare made Claudius sound a little serpent-ish. The author made hardly any use of "sith" in his plays overall, according to the published playtexts, but did so here for effect, as Claudius speaks. The use of "sith" which soon follows, in EH 1032, is evidently for the same reason. The word "sith" appears four times in the play, three by Claudius, and once by Hamlet. Hamlet's use of the word occurs, EH 2743+39, after he's killed Polonius, and may be intended to make Hamlet sound just a bit serpent-ish, himself, at that moment.

{The Folio editor mistakenly modernized the word.}

(In performance, it's the pronunciation that matters, and sith should be used.)

EH 1030: I cannot {dreame} [deeme] of: I entreate you both

dream

deem

F1 has a misprint, or an editorial misunderstanding. Q2 dream is mandatory, both for meaning and as an instance on the Sleep/Dream motif of the play: "To sleep, perchance to dream."

{The Folio editor erred, for whatever reason.}

(In performance, Claudius can touch his fingertips to his head, and then gaze upward, as though seeing a vision, the way one does in a dream.)

EH 1032: And sith so nabored to his youth and {hauior} [humour],

'havior

humor

Both words make sense in the utterance; neither is a misprint. 'Havior is not significantly thematic, but humor has thematic significance. The words are probably both authorial, with humor being a fine tuning.

{The Folio editor probably found the change to humor and properly used it.}

(In performance, this word is probably not acted. The actable word in the line is "neighbored," which can be done by bringing the hands together, either clasping them, or doing a prayer pose.)

EH 1036+1: {Whether ought to vs vnknowne afflicts him thus,}

[the entire line]

[none]

The line, found in Q2 only, is necessary for meaning.

{The Folio simply missed this line.}

(The line should be included in performance.)

EH 1069: Both to my God, {and} [one] to my gracious King;

and

one

The F1 difference is unquestionably an error, certainly an editorial blunder, since it undermines the reason Hamlet later calls Polonius "Jephthah." There is no chance the F1 word could be right. Shakespeare could not possibly have made this change.

{The Folio editor changed the word himself to try to make the speech more "religiously correct," which was exactly the wrong thing to do.}

(In performance, although Polonius says "God" in the line, he must indicate obeisance only to Claudius; an upward gesture toward Heaven would not be appropriate to the line, because of what it means for the play.)

EH 1081: His fathers death, and our [o're-]hastie marriage.

[none]

o'er

The F1 addition both corrects the meter, and adds necessary sense. Gertrude is very subtly implying, in a - dare I say it - highly feminine way, that perhaps her decision to marry Claudius was unwise. She doesn't like it for people, including Claudius, to say there's something wrong with her son, although she knows people have that idea. Gertrude conveys her displeasure to Claudius by hinting that if she had had more time to think about it, she might not have married him, if he's a man who talks like that. The Q2 typesetter apparently simply missed o'er.

{The Folio editor found the word and properly used it.}

(In performance, Gertrude best speaks the entire line very flatly, while stressing this word slightly, and with a serious look at Claudius.)

EH 1098: Giues him {threescore} [three] thousand crownes in anuall fee,

threescore

three

The number in Q2 is correct, and the Folio is wrong. Threescore thousand crowns was a very large amount of money in those days, equivalent to the annual income of a sizeable duchy, which is indeed exactly what it is. Sneaky old King Norway has promised Fortinbrasse the annual revenue at Elsinore Castle, presuming Fortinbrasse can take it. King Norway knew the number because Elsinore Castle used to be part of Norway, before Fortinbrasse Sr lost it. The Danish ambassadors don't know the significance of the number, nor does Claudius, who hasn't been king for a year yet, so he's unacquainted with the annual finances.

{The Folio editor didn't know the importance of the number, and probably took his phrasing from the "bad" Q1, since the Q2 number seemed too large.}

(In performance, threescore must be spoken, and Voltemand should put some stress on the number since it's such an impressive amount.)

EH 1103: Through your dominions for {this} [his] enterprise

this

his

The F1 change is authorial, relating to exactly whose enterprise it is. When Voltemand's speech is read very carefully, the pronoun his, here, connects back to King Norway (not Fortinbrasse.) It's a subtle hint of whose enterprise the military operation really is - King Norway's. Voltemand doesn't know that as he speaks. He thinks that only Fortinbrasse's personal troops are involved. The Voltemand character, himself, is trying to refer to Fortinbrasse. But Shakespeare wrote the line in a way that tells us the fact, that it's actually King's Norway's enterprise, and it's the Army of Norway that's coming into Denmark. Sly old King Norway has set things up so that he can get the Norwegian Army into Denmark, with no opposition initially, and the Danish ambassadors and Claudius have fallen for it. The word change to his, subtly connecting back to King Norway, is exactly on point, and is highly credible as an authorial refinement.

{The Folio editor found the authorial change and correctly used it.}

(No performance note applies to this word in particular.)

EH 1139-40: beautified is a vile phrase, but you shall heare: {thus} [these] in

thus

these

The Q2 word is authorial, the F1 word is not. Stage action tells us. Polonius is acting out how Ophelia had the letter, which he confiscated.

{Either F1 has an ordinary misprint, or the Folio editor erred.}

(In performance, Polonius holds the letter to his chest when he says thus. He means Ophelia had the letter in her clothing, over her heart. At the following "etc." in the next line, Polonius mimics how he claims Ophelia willingly handed the letter to him.)

EH 1154: And more {about} [aboue] hath his solicitings,

about

above

I do not find a way to make adequate sense of the F1 word above, based only on the language. Q2 about reads well, however.

Turning to consideration of the action, F1 above looks much better. One may take it that Polonius is holding the letters high, above his head, to display them. Polonius says above because he's holding the letters "above" - high, above his head, that is. The implied stage action is improved over what the Q2 word offers, so the difference, with the F1 word, qualifies as an authorial fine tuning, for more and better action onstage.

{The Folio editor probably found the change and correctly used it.}

(In performance, as mentioned: Polonius says above as he holds the letters high.)

EH 1166: Or giuen my hart a {working} [winking] mute and dumbe,

working

winking

Both words are sensible. Q2 working is credibly authorial, established by Polonius's characterization. It means "job of being." Polonius is the epitome of the unromantic, who views the emotions of the heart as a "job" the heart does, and who even believes that the heart can be ordered to do a certain emotional job.

Winking gives an instance on the Watch motif, with respect to the use of the eyes, and also offers a connotation of "sleep," a relevant concept. The "sleep" concept, as it appears in Hamlet, would anticipate Polonius's death. Winking has credibility as an authorial refinement to provide another Watch instance, and to introduce a subtle irony of Polonius accidentally, and unknowingly, anticipating his own "sleep of death," in which he, a verbose character, will become "mute and dumb."

{Winking is probably an authorial fine tuning that was found and properly used by the Folio editor.}

(In performance, both words are playable. For Q2 working, Polonius could imitate digging, which is a relevant kind of work in Hamlet. It can hint of Polonius "digging his own grave," so to speak. For F1 winking, Polonius could close his eyes, and then stand stiffly and silently, with his arms crossed over his chest, as if dead. Since both words are probably authorial, only from different stages of the author's writing, it gives an actor's option: the actor could say the word which goes with the action he wants to do, and do genuine Shakespeare either way.)

EH 1171: This must not be: and then I {prescripts} [Precepts] gaue her

prescripts

precepts

Both words are sensible. Prescripts offers an allusion, in undertone, to whether actors are working from a script, or improvising. The undertone provides an instance of the Putting On A Show theme. Some plays are "pre-scripted," and some are improvised.

Precepts is highly consistent with the character of Polonius, who deals in maxims. It cannot be doubted that Polonius did give Ophelia precepts, since he speaks maxims, epigrams, and various sayings to everybody. Characterization, and irony, support precepts.

I judge it, the author dropped prescripts as a minor instance on his Putting On A Show theme, in favor of further ironic characterization of Polonius and his irrepressible habit of sayings. Both words are probably "good Shakespeare," however.

{Precepts is probably an authorial fine tuning which the Folio editor properly used.}

(In performance, this word is apparently not the playable word in the line. The playable word is the verb "gave." However, either word could be accompanied by a shake of the index finger, as if insisting that someone pay attention; Polonius does that a lot.)

EH 1172: That she should locke her selfe from {her} [his] resort,

her

his

In this line, Polonius is, unintentionally, revealing why Ophelia is not there. He has left her locked in her room. Polonius doesn't intend to let that be known, but it slips out in the phrasing he uses. Thus Polonius's implication of Ophelia being "locked in;" it's true. The reason he did that was to be sure Ophelia does not go to Hamlet, and tell Hamlet that Polonius has taken Hamlet's personal love letters. The letters Polonius is waving around are not only Ophelia's, they are Hamlet's, and Polonius obviously has no permission from Hamlet to be reading his personal letters in public, or reading them at all. Polonius wants to be certain Hamlet doesn't find out what he's doing.

Judgment of the Q2-F1 difference in this case comes down to assessing which wording better suits what Polonius is not intending to reveal, that he left Ophelia locked in her room, to prevent her going to Hamlet. The Q2 word works better: "...lock herself from her resort (to Hamlet, to tell Hamlet I've got his letters.)" F1 "his" might be forced to work for the same idea, or nearly the same idea, but not easily. F1 is not credible as showing an authorial refinement, it's more likely "unimproved" language, or only an error.

{The Folio editor may have used some earlier version of the author's work, not his final, or simply erred.}

(The word appears to make no difference to performance. The playable words are "lock" and "resort.")

EH 1175: And he {repell'd,} [repulsed.] a short tale to make,

repelled

repulsed

Both words are sensible. They're essentially synonymous, and are even closely related at root. Repelled doesn't appear to offer anything in the way of allusion or undertone, that's peculiar to itself, and that doesn't also apply to repulsed.

Repulsed contains "pulse," a word relevant to the heart. Since Polonius is intending to speak of the state of Hamlet's heart, on the matter of Hamlet's love for Ophelia, the "pulse" idea gains significance. Repulsed can be seen as an authorial fine tuning, on the general heart/love concept. It incorporates "repelled," in plain meaning, and then adds more by allusion, simply by containing "pulse."

{The Folio editor probably found repulsed and correctly used it.}

(Either word could be played with a "repulsion" gesture, of moving the hands away from the body, palms outward.)

EH 1180: And all we {mourne} [waile] for.

mourn

wail

Both words are sensible. Mourn has strong support for being authorial, in connection with Hamlet mourning his father. There is the irony of Polonius saying they are all mourning for Hamlet's mourning.

Wail gains interest by punning with "whale," a word later used by Hamlet to Polonius. Wail is also a variant spelling of "wale," with the (obsolete) definition of "woo" or "court," and Polonius has spoken on the subject of Hamlet wooing his daughter, with the letters. Wail offers adequate immediate meaning, contextual significance, and also subtle wordplay. Although wail is somewhat the weaker word, at the moment it's used, and is less obviously ironic, it can still be viewed as an authorial improvement. The "whale" pun does give an amusing twist to Polonius's line, from the facts we know about whales: "And all we 'blubber' for."

{Wail can be credibly interpreted as an authorial fine tuning which the Folio editor found and correctly used.}

(In performance, an action of lamentation can be used with either word. When saying wail Polonius can act "blubbering.")

EH 1234-5: Slaunders sir; for the satericall {rogue} [slaue] sayes heere,

rogue

slave

In context, the words effectively mean the same thing: an unruly, lower-class type of person who is not expected to be law-abiding. Hamlet essentially equates the two words later in this Scene, EH 1590: "O what a rogue and peasant slave am I." As far as the language itself goes, there's no choice between the words, to judge whether F1 correctly shows the author's ultimate preference. There's no reason to doubt either word as authorial, in its respective publication, obviously, since Hamlet uses them in the same line. The question is whether F1 shows authorial refinement after Q2, that is, is there a reason to suppose Shakespeare changed the word, himself?

Turning to considerations other than the language, itself: Horace, the ancient Roman writer, was the son of a slave who had been freed. (Horace, himself, was apparently never a slave.) The Satires of Horace deal with, and mention, many of the concepts which appear in Hamlet. The third Satire of the second book of Horace's writings is especially worth mention, since it deals specifically with madness, and it also explicitly includes the word "fishmonger" (actually the Latin equivalent, of course, in the original.) Also, the names "Horace" and "Horatio" have the same origin, the Roman gens, Horatius.

Although it's tenuous and speculative, the F1 change to slave, following the word "satirical" - considering that "Horace" is a variant of "Horatio," and that Horace's Book 2 Satire 3 has conceptual resemblances to Hamlet - makes it conceivable that the F1 difference is authorial, to point to the writings of Horace. On the matter of Horace's father being a slave, not Horace himself, one can consider the 'mad' way in which Hamlet is compared to, and identified with, his father, making father-son confusion appropriate (even if Shakespeare knew it was not Horace, but his father, who was the slave.)

An early English translation - although not the first - of Horace's "Ars Poetica" was done by Queen Elizabeth I in about 1590. That fact alone, of the Queen translating some Horace, would have stimulated interest in his writings in Shakespeare's time. The first English translation of Horace's Satires was by Thomas Drant, and published in 1566, so Horace was obviously available to Shakespeare, in some translation or other. Ben Jonson also translated the writings of Horace, and used "Horace" as a character in his play "The Poetaster," which was first staged in 1601 by the Children of the Queen's Chapel. It leaves no reasonable doubt of the author's access to the writings of Horace, and it makes his interest in the writings of Horace likely enough.

What Hamlet goes on to say does not resemble exact statements from Horace, (it looks more like Aristophanes,) but that's of no matter, in respect to the possibility of a simple nod to Horace. The idea of Horace is fully compatible with characterization, since Hamlet is supposed to be a university scholar, who would read such books.

So, while I find no way to judge the F1 difference based solely on the language, there is a way to read the phrase "satirical slave" as possibly offering a simple gesture toward Horace, especially following the word "fishmonger" in the passage. To that extent, the F1 difference gains plausibility as an authorial fine tuning. I am not aware of any dramatic difference in acting the two words.

{The Folio editor may have found an authorial refinement and properly used it.}

(In performance, "satirical," rather than the word at issue here, is probably intended as the actable word in the line. Hamlet can do "satirical" by doing "satyr," which is to place his fists with extended index fingers to his temples, to show horns. Satyrs have horns, like devil's horns. It's the same as the "devil's horns" action which Hamlet does a few times in the play. It's easy enough to do "devil's horns" with both hands while still holding a book of ordinary size.)

EH 1251-3: and {sanctity} [Sanitie] could not so prosperously ...

sanctity

sanity

Both words can be read to make sense, and misprint is not reasonable. Q2 sanctity is credibly authorial; conventional religious wisdom views rationality as a sanctified state, i.e. rationality is a blessing for man from God, to elevate man above the beasts. Hamlet comments on that point during the play. It also enhances the characterization of Laertes that he earlier used the same word as Polonius does here, indicating how Laertes "apes" his father.

The Folio word "sanity" is obviously on the Madness theme, but conveys nothing beyond that. Its credibility as the author's word is diminished in that it's so overt and simple, by comparison with sanctity. Also, the lines that follow, from EH 1253 to 1257, are an egregious editorial insertion in the Folio, which must raise suspicion of any Folio difference in this immediate area.

{The Folio change may be editorial, or could reflect use of something other than the author's final.}

(In performance, Q2 sanctity can be accompanied by a gesture of prayer. F1 sanity could have the action of a gesture to the head. Performance clearly supports Q2, since the word "madness" appears in the previous line. Following the Folio would give the same gesture to the head in two consecutive lines, which is not good.)

EH 1253-57: (Multiple lines, not quoted here.)

[none]

[the entire passage]

These lines added in F1 are obviously not authorial, they are entirely editorial. The Folio editor did not understand that Polonius is supposed to sound 'mad' here, when he speaks as if Ophelia is present when she isn't. It's intentionally a 'mad' moment for Polonius, from Shakespeare, and Q2 has the correct authorial wording. As already mentioned in these comments, the author gave all the characters a share in the 'madness', which is why Q2 has the exact wording it has, for Polonius.

{The Folio editor didn't understand the purpose of the exact Q2 wording, and added lines to try to make sense of it to himself.}

(The F1 lines must not be spoken in performance. They are not Shakespeare's writing.)

EH 1258: You cannot [Sir] take from mee any thing

[none]

sir

{The Folio editor added the word himself, the same as he did a few other times in the play.}

(The "sir" must not be spoken in performance, it is not Shakespeare's writing.)

EH 1267: {My} [Mine] honor'd Lord.

My

Mine

{The Folio editor, himself, changed the author's my to "mine." Again.}

(In performance, Guildenstern is extending his hand for a handshake.)

EH 1269-70: My {extent} [excellent] good friends, ...

extent

excellent

Q2 extent is authorial. It means "valued," a definition that comes from legal terminology. (The author used the word the same way in As You Like It.) In action, it goes along with Hamlet extending his hand for a handshake. The F1 difference is distinctly inferior in every relevant way, and cannot be an authorial refinement.

{The Folio editor probably didn't recognize extent in such a usage, thought it was an error, and substituted the F1 word, himself.}

(In performance, the action for extent is to extend the hand for a handshake.)

EH 1273-1274: (Multiple lines, not quoted here.)

lap

cap

Q2 lap is credibly authorial. Guildenstern is referring to the coddled children of Dame Fortune, whom she holds on her lap, as an affectionate mother would. Further, in the flow of the dialogue, lap is necessary, conceptually, to lead to "waist" and then "privates."

The Folio change to "cap" is apparently in anticipation of Hamlet's next line, about the soles of Fortune's shoes. The Folio editor apparently mistook it that bodily extremes were being referenced, from top to toe, but that isn't what G meant. Dame Fortune does not carry her favored children on top of her head, she holds them on her lap. While "cap" makes sense superficially, it doesn't work well in the exchange of remarks.

{The Folio difference is probably due to editorial misunderstanding.}

(In performance, Q2 lap would be accompanied by a gesture to the lap area, and perhaps a clasping of both hands, since R and G are two persons, of course. Folio cap would be performed by placing both hands on top of the head; the implied action works against the Folio, since it's hard to see such a gesture as suitable in the context. G isn't supposed to be more "mad" than Hamlet, although all of the characters do have their 'mad' moments.)

EH 1285-1316: (Multiple lines, not quoted here.)

[none]

[the entire passage]

These F1 lines are authorial, but were probably censored out of Q2 because of the reference to Denmark being a prison, which was not politically acceptable. Anne, the wife of King James I, was from Denmark.

The passage contains no errant insertions of "sir," nor any "my-mine" changes, nor other symptoms of editorial fussing, so it is probably Shakespeare's own wording, throughout, or at least very close. The possibility of editorial change to some word always remains, but I find no word or phrase of the passage discordant with the play.

{The Folio editor properly included the previously censored passage.}

(The entire passage should be spoken in performance whenever playing time permits. Hamlet's "nutshell" speech is mandatory in any acceptable performance, because it includes the important mention of "bad dreams.")

EH 1343-4: ...and indeede it goes so {heauily} [heauenly] with

heavily

heavenly

Both words are sensible, neither is a misprint. Q2 heavily is credibly authorial, on Hamlet's notion that, instead of being "heavy" and solid, he'd rather be a "dew" which is light, and would rise (according to the popular understanding of dew.)

Folio heavenly is credibly an authorial fine tuning, on the heaven vs earth idea, since Hamlet goes on to mention earth. When Hamlet says his disposition is heavenly, he means heaven is on his mind. Heavenly is the more subtle and allusive word.

{The Folio word is probably an authorial change that the editor found and correctly used.}

(In performance, Hamlet could act Q2 heavily by sagging, as if he's bearing a heavy weight. He can act F1 heavenly by gazing upward, either with a prayer gesture of his hands, or with a hand on his heart. The F1 action flows extremely well with the dialogue, as Hamlet goes on to tell R & G to look at the sky, two lines later.)

EH 1348-9: ... with golden fire, why it {appeareth nothing} [appeares no other thing] to me...

appeareth nothing

appears no other thing

The phrasings are essentially synonymous, in literal meaning. Barnardo began the use of the word nothing in the first Scene. The use of other in reference to the appearance of something also began in the first Scene, by Horatio. The line must be read with the Ghost in mind.

For plain reading, Hamlet is speaking of the sun, which is the "golden fire" in the sky. His line expresses his feelings about the sun. There is implicit sun/son wordplay, since Hamlet is the "son." Thus, his line also figuratively expresses feelings about himself, in relation to his father. The F1 phrasing works better, i.e. "... no other thing (compared) to me..." Via implicit wordplay, sun/son, Hamlet expresses his feeling that he's some other thing than his father's son. F1 is credible as an authorial refinement to express that subtlety.

{The Folio editor probably found the changed phrasing and correctly used it.}

(In performance, Hamlet is pointing at the sun. Incidentally, Kronborg Castle, Denmark, on which Elsinore Castle is based, has large, tall windows. The sun could be seen, while fairly high in the sky, if standing near one of those windows. So there is nothing 'mad' in the mere fact of pointing to the sun even though they're indoors. We take it that Elsinore Castle has tall windows, and it's the middle of the afternoon, more or less, with the sun low enough to be seen.)

EH 1348-9: ... to me {but} [then] a foule

but

than

Since the F1 change just above is credible, this one follows, too.

{The Folio editor probably found the change and correctly used it.}

(In performance, Hamlet can move his hand from pointing at the sky, to make a gesture toward R & G, as he continues speaking, since he is displeased with them at this point.)

EH 1355-6: ... nor {women} [Woman] neither, ...

women

woman

The Q2 word is authorial, the F1 singular is not. There are two women of relevance to Hamlet: Ophelia and Gertrude, of course. Thus the Q2 plural.

{The Folio editor mistakenly used the singular.}

(In performance, Hamlet is doing a simple "on the other hand" gesture after mentioning men.)

EH 1369-71: [the Clowne shall make those laugh whose lungs are tickled a'th'sere:]

[none]

[the entire line]

This line which is added in F1 is certainly authorial. In addition to immediate meaning, it has allusion to Hamlet's own behavior at the 'Mousetrap' play, and to the clown in the Gravedigger Scene. Q1 has a line corresponding to this, and there is no reason for Q2 to have left out the line. It's absence from Q2 is apparently an ordinary printing oversight. ("Sere" means "dry" by the way - the clown will make people laugh if they're tickled by dry humor. There's also a secondary meaning of "insensitive" - the clown will make people laugh if they're the insensitive type. A third meaning of being "tickled by the flames" is also available, via a more subtle interpretation, the flames being those of Purgatory or Hell.) The exact phrasing of "a'th'sere" is probably editorial.

{The Folio editor correctly added the line.}

(In performance, Hamlet acts like he's tickling his own ribs, and laughing.)

EH 1372-3: {black} [blanke] verse shall hault for't.

black

blank

Q2 black is authorial; F1 "blank" is not. Hamlet is saying the verse will be "grievous" if the lady can't speak freely. Hamlet is saying this as he stands there in his black mourning clothes.

{The Folio editor didn't understand the meaning, and changed it to the ordinary phrase that would be expected when merely talking about poetry.}

(In performance, at black Hamlet indicates his own clothing. This is very pointed, since R & G have said nothing about the death of Hamlet's father.)

EH 1384-1408: (Multiple lines, not quoted here.)

[none]

[the entire passage]

The passage is credibly authorial, since it contains several ingenious allusions to play events, and nobody but the author would have written those. It was probably censored from Q2 because of the word "tyrannically." There was a famous company of child actors in the time period when Hamlet was registered for publication, that company being the "Children of Queen Elizabeth's Chapel." The censor probably ruled against the passage because it could be interpreted as calling the Queen a "tyrant." One was not allowed to imply such a thing in publication.

{The Folio editor probably found a previously censored passage and correctly restored it.}

(The passage should be included in performance whenever playing time permits. It is not vital to the play, the connections are subtle. The "children" are R & G; "throwing about of brains" is allusion to the Graveyard Scene; "money bid for argument" is allusion to the wager at the Fencing Match; and a few more allusions can be found.)

EH 1384: [How comes it? doe they grow rusty?]

[none]

rusty

Q1 has this line, but it shows the word "resty" at the end, and that is probably right, versus F1 "rusty." Rosencrantz's word "pace" in his reply, EH 1386, indicates that Hamlet has asked about a lack of speed or energy in performance. "Resty" fits that meaning directly, but "rusty" does not. The word "resty" appears twice in other Shakespeare writings, Cymbeline and Sonnet 100. Judging by those usages, "resty" conveys the general notion of slow/lazy/sleepy/forgetful/idle. With Q1 "resty" Hamlet is asking whether the players have lost their audience because they've become lazy and forgetful. This pertains to Hamlet's own situation, where he's slow in getting revenge against Claudius. It isn't that Hamlet is "rusty" at revenge, rather, the problem is that he's slow at it.

{The Folio editor probably misread or misunderstood Q1 "resty" and changed the word to "rusty."}

(In performance, Hamlet can act "resty" with a yawn, an action that well expresses his concern about the players - are they making the audience yawn?)

EH 1386: [pace; But there is Sir an ayrie of Children, little]

[none]

Sir

This line is only in the Folio, so there is no Q2-F1 difference to consider. The line is credibly authorial, but the word "sir" is not, it is a blatant insertion by the Folio editor. Shakespeare did not use the word "sir" like that in Hamlet.

EH 1389: [fashion, and so be-ratled the common Stages ...]

[none]

berattled

The present tense is obviously required since R just said "now." An implicit "have" might be understood in the line, but it's better to change a single letter than to presume an entire word which is not factually there.

{The Folio editor mistakenly used the past tense.}

(In performance, R can act "berattle" by wagging his head, with the implication, inadvertent by R, that his head rattles. When the play is done right, all the characters have their 'mad' moments.)

EH 1396: [it is like most if their meanes are no better) ...]

[none]

like most

This is probably supposed to be one word. "Likemost" = most likely.

{The Folio has a slight misprint, one word printed as two.}

(In performance, "likemost" can be played by bringing the hands together, the way Horatio did when talking about the Ghost being like Hamlet's father: "these hands are not more like.")

EH 1410-1: those that would make {mouths} [mowes] at him ...

mouths

mowes

Q2 mouths is the authorial word. That can be stated with confidence because it provides a clear instance on the Mouth/Bite motif of the play. "Mowes" offers nothing significant beyond immediate meaning.

{The Folio "mowes" is an editorial change to be more correct to the "make faces" idea, (as it was commonly expressed at the time,) when the Folio editor missed the thematic importance of using the exact word mouths.}

(Either word is playable with a sneer.)

EH 1419-20: ... {let me} | [lest my] extent to the players,

let me

lest my

{The Folio corrects a Q2 misprint.}

(In performance, Hamlet is holding his hand out toward the players.)

EH 1446-7: [Tragicall-Historicall: Tragicall-Comicall-Historicall-Pastorall: Scene]

[none]

[the entire line]

This line, found only in F1, is credibly authorial on the point of Polonius being a verbose character. Q2 may have simply missed it, or Shakespeare may have added it after Q2, on the point of Polonius being garrulous.

{The Folio editor properly included the line.}

(The line should be spoken in performance when time allows. When Polonius says "tragical" he frowns deeply; he smiles broadly at "comical;" at "historical" he can grasp his lapels like an orator; at "pastoral" he does a prayer gesture. Pastors pray. That is not what "pastoral" means, a pastoral play is one involving shepherds, in a rural setting. However, Polonius is not supposed to be making good sense here, it's another of his 'mad' moments. He frowns intensely, smiles widely, grasps his lapels, and does a prayer move, all in quick succession, and he looks rather mad.)

EH 1463-4: ...the first rowe of the {pious chanson} | [Pons Chanson] will

pious

pons

Pious is credibly authorial in Q2. The phrase refers to a religious song. By the way, the sound of "chance" in chanson is intentional, to connect to the Wheel Of Fortune motif.

However, F1 pons is also credibly authorial, although a difficult reading. It alludes to the Latin phrase 'pons asinorum' which means "bridge of asses." A 'pons asinorum' is an elementary thing, for a beginner. The "bridge of asses" idea follows from Hamlet's earlier line to Polonius, "Then came each actor on his ass," in combination with the subsequent word "abridgement." Combining "ass" with the suggestion of "bridge" implies "bridge of asses." The author probably used pons for that reason. The song to which Hamlet refers Polonius is a "pons (asinorum)" song, suitable for Polonius as a "beginner." Hamlet casts Polonius as a beginner after calling Polonius a baby, and after Rosencrantz remarked on Polonius being in his second childhood. Careful consideration of the context indicates that pons is not likely a misprint.

I use the word pious in my playtext because I judge pons too difficult a reading for general consumption, even though it is probably authorial preference as his final choice.

{The Folio editor probably found "pons" and correctly used it.}

(In performance, Q2 pious goes with a prayer gesture. F1 pons can be acted by Hamlet "walking" the first two fingers of his hand toward the bridge of Polonius's nose. This provision for stage action, toward the bridge of Polonius's nose, further supports pons as authorial. Pons literally means "bridge," and there is in fact a "bridge" present for Hamlet to see and 'madly' gesture towards: the bridge of Polonius's nose. If the Hamlet actor wishes to do the gesture of "walking the bridge" toward Polonius's nose in performance, he should say the F1 word pons.)

EH 1475: weele ento't like {friendly Fankners} [French Faulconers],

friendly

French

Q2 friendly is authorial. It's used in the sense of "overly-friendly," i.e. unselective, indiscriminate, or promiscuous. It connects directly to the Players being Hamlet's friends, and then the "fly at anything" phrase that immediately follows. (The word "Fankners" in Q2 is a simple misprint for "faukners" = falconers; the printer got an 'n' among his letters 'u', or he got a 'u' inverted.)

The F1 word "French" may have been a jingoistic word expressly for the English stage, intended to play on the notion of the French being sexually promiscuous ("fly at anything,") and therefore the word used by the Folio editor, who may have known it from stage performance. "French" would, then, be correct for stage performance of Hamlet, in England, if one wishes to include a facetious dig at the French for patriotic reasons. However, friendly should probably always be used in literature, where one cannot take it for granted that the reader is going to be a patriotic Englishman.

There's the possibility that the author might have intended "French" in literature, for an undertone of allusion to Laertes returning from France, irate and ready to "fly at anything" after the death of Polonius, but I find that notion too tenuous and inconclusive to decide in favor of "French" in print, as the author's final. It would connect to the play, however, so the possibility of that as the author's final decision does exist, in favor of F1.

{The Folio difference probably reflects "stage" versus "page."}

(In performance, Q2 friendly is played with a smile and the action of spreading the arms for an embrace. I don't know of any direct way to act F1 "French," but the same smile and spread of the arms, suggesting a bird's wings, can still be done in connection with falconers.)

EH 1503: To their {Lords murther} [vilde Murthers], rosted in wrath and fire,

lord's murder

vilde murders

The Q2 phrase does not make sense for plain reading. King Priam, the lord of the people, has not been killed yet. However, this is after the Ghost has told Hamlet that his father was murdered. That makes sense of Hamlet speaking of a "lord's murder," and makes the Q2 wording credibly authorial. It can be understood as literary license in the recital, combined with allusion to Hamlet's personal situation as he speaks.

The F1 difference is more literally correct, but gives up the personal significance for Hamlet in the immediate phrase. However, the passage does mention "fathers," so allusion to King Hamlet isn't entirely lost from the speech.

Also, the F1 phrase has the word "vilde," an odd spelling which is substituted for "vile" five times in F1. The word "vilde" deserves separate, special consideration, but the theoretical possibility exists that it may be an authorial coinage to combine "vile" and "wild," (evil, and mad,) in the same word. That would be decisive in favor of F1, if the phrase includes an authorial coinage that he wanted in the play.

All things considered, F1 probably shows an authorial change.

{The Folio editor probably found the change and correctly used it.}

(In performance, Hamlet can act swinging a sword, either pretending to hold a sword, or actually drawing his. It's probably best if he does draw his sword - while the others keep a safe distance! - since theater is a visual display.)

EH 1515: Th'vnnerued father fals: [Then senselesse Illium,]

[none]

Then senseless Ilium

{The Folio editor correctly included this phrase that Q2 had simply missed.}

(In performance, Hamlet should grasp his head for this phrase. Hamlet is supposed to be 'mad' (senseless) himself, now, making his action nicely ironic.)

EH 1516: Seeming to feele {this} [his] blowe, ...

this

his

The ambiguity of Q2 this is required for meaning, since the falling of the king is also a "blow" to the city. There are two blows: the swing of the sword, and the fall of the king. F1 "his" only accomodates the former, and can't be authorial, or at least, it can't be an authorial improvement.

{The Folio editor changed the word, or F1 just misprinted it.}

(The word is not particularly the playable one in performance, that would be "blow.")

EH 1520: Of {reuerent} [Reuerend] Priam, seem'd i'th ayre to stick,

reverent

reverend

Q2 reverent is required in modern printing, on the point of Priam being on his knees, in a prayer posture. There's an undertone of allusion to Claudius in the Prayer Scene. F1 is not in error, however, because the words were formerly interchangeable. Modern use has become strict in distinguishing the words. In the context of the times, F1 merely has a spelling variant. However, it can also be interpreted that F1 put the intended pun into the playtext instead of the proper word. The primary meaning is reverent, the secondary meaning, either by pun or alternate definition, is "venerable."

{Despite the spelling difference, the Folio has no real word change.}

(Performance action is optional, according to whether the actor is being Pyrrhus or Priam. The scene can be played either way. If Priam, the actor kneels as if at prayer.)

EH 1535: Breake all the spokes, and {follies} [Fallies] from her wheele,

follies

fallies

This word is typically printed "fellies" in modern publications of Hamlet, but that is not correct. The word "fellies" is a suggested pun, not the playtext word. Shakespeare was not writing an engineering study of carriage wheels. The correct playtext word can only be either follies or fallies, as the original sources show. "Fellies" is just a pun that an informed reader, or audience member, is supposed to discern on his own.

Q2 follies is credibly authorial. It refers to the folly that afflicts men because of random chance (spins of Fortune's Wheel.) Particularly, the word "folly" appears later, EH 3184, in connection with Ophelia's death. The word "folly" comes from Old French 'folie' which means "madness." That word origin makes follies very strong as the author's likely preference.

F1 "fallies" can be seen merely as a spelling variant. However, there is a continual "fall" idea in the play. Falling gets at least sixteen mentions. Notably, in the Prayer Scene, R speaks of the fall of majesty, in terms of a wheel. In this passage, the fall of Priam and the fall of Pyrrhus's sword have just been mentioned. It all gives significance to the exact F1 spelling. Also, the concept of falling is directly actable, by abruptly declining the hands.

Since Elizabethan spelling was not standardized, it afforded the author the opportunity of spelling "follies" as "fallies." My conclusion is that he probably did so. The reason being, to incorporate the "fall" concept into "follies," covering both concepts with one word. F1 is probably correct.

{The Folio editor probably used the author's exact spelling.}

(In performance, the actor can already be holding his hands high, and abruptly decline them when speaking this word.)

EH 1542: But who, a woe, had seene the {mobled} [inobled] Queene,

mobled

enobled

We know that Q2 mobled has a meaning of "good," at least. The way we know that is, Polonius explicitly tells us, when he immediately says "That's good." (That is, Shakespeare used Polonius to tell us.) It's very clever dialogue. Polonius has no idea what the word means, but when he commends it, he accidentally says a meaning of the word. His reply is a Wheel of Fortune incident. Polonius says what the word means, or close to it, by luck.

The word "moble" is an old term for goods, or for a good, of the movable kind, i.e. personal property. (Chaucer used the word "moble" more than once, most pertinently in 'Troilus and Criseyde.') The suffix '-ed' makes it a "moved good." Thus, mobled means that Hecuba is a "moved good queen." That is, she is a "good queen" who is moved, both physically and emotionally. In this examination of F1 differences, that's enough to consider, although there's more to the word, in relation to play events.

The F1 difference can't be right. It's only the editor's guess when he didn't understand mobled. There's nothing "enobled" about Hecuba in the circumstances described. The F1 word is not some clever subtlety, it's flatly wrong.

{The Folio editor didn't know mobled, took it for an error, and guessed at a replacement.}

(This word is probably not intended to be the acted word in the line.)

EH 1545-6: ... downe, threatning the {flames} [flame]

flames

flame

Q2 is right; F1 is wrong. The plural is mandatory in this case. Full explanation would take excessive space in these comments. Essentially, Hamlet sees what the actor does, and it affects Hamlet's behavior later.

{The Folio editor mistakenly used the singular.}

(In performance, the actor must use both hands to perform flames.)

EH 1547: With Bison rehume, a clout {vppon} [about] that head

upon

about

Both words make sense, there is no misprint or misreading. The Q2 word has the problem that the idea of a "clout upon" the head can be misunderstood to mean a physical blow to the head. I judge that Shakespeare probably changed the wording to help avoid the implication of a rap upon the head, which is not the intended meaning. Especially, one would not want the actor, in performance, to rap himself on the head when he recites the line, attempting to "suit the action to the word." The Folio phrase, clout about, has less danger of such serious misunderstanding.

{The Folio editor probably found the change to about and correctly used it.}

(In performance, the main thing is what not to do: the actor must not hit himself upon the head. Both hands, on either side of the head, could be done.)

EH 1564-5: ... for they are the {abstract} [Abstracts] and breefe

abstract

abstracts

The following word "chronicles" is plural, which indicates the plural here as well. F1 is probably correct.

{The Folio editor probably correctly used the plural.}

(In performance, abstracts can be acted with a "drawing" motion, since the word comes from a Latin root meaning "drawn away." The action of pulling a rope hand over hand is one possibility.)

EH 1571-2: ... who {shall} [should] scape whipping, ...

shall

should

F1 is better for expressing the sentiment, and there are no undertones or allusions to consider for these auxiliary verbs; literal meaning is enough.

{The Folio editor may have found an authorial refinement and properly used it.}

(In performance, this is not the actable word. That's "whipping.")

EH 1581-2: a speech of some dosen {lines,} or sixteene lines,

lines

[none]

The speech containing this line is metrical, although the lineation is not correct to the meter. The word lines is needed for the meter; Q2 is correct.

{The Folio editor either neglected the word, or simply missed it.}

(In performance, the Hamlet actor could do a "line" gesture with his finger in the air, if he wishes.)

EH 1593: Could force his soule so to his {owne} [whole] conceit

own

whole

Q2 own provides subtle allusion to other play events, concerning a conceit of Hamlet's own, which F1 "whole" gives up, with no compensatory gain.

{Either F1 has an ordinary error, or the Folio editor was working from something other than the author's final.}

(In performance, Hamlet indicates his own conceit by a gesture to his head.)

EH 1594: That from her working all {the} [his] visage ...

the

his

Action is important to judging this difference. If Hamlet is indicating his own face, when he says "visage," then the word his - referring to the player - does not work, literally. As Hamlet speaks, his own face is "my" face, of course, and not "his." The word the works for any visage.

Having said that, literalness does not always rule human communication. Hamlet can touch his own face, while saying his, and it will still be perceived that he actually means the player's face. The audience will understand. However, it does work better for Hamlet's "madness" if he indicates his own face while saying his. For that reason, I judge the F1 difference plausible as an authorial touchup. It allows contradiction between Hamlet's word and his gesture, if he touches his own face while saying his. The apparent contradiction, between word and action, goes along with looking "mad."

{The Folio editor probably found an authorial fine tuning and properly used it.}

(In performance, the line is probably best played as mentioned. Hamlet touches his own face while saying his, for a subtle moment of "mad" contradiction between word and action.)

EH 1594: That from her working all his visage {wand,} [warm'd;]

wanned

warmed

Q2 wanned is authorial, tied directly to "tears" in the next line, on the "pale" idea in the play. ("Pale, or red?") Hamlet means the actor's face became pale. The original Q2 spelling is "wand," which could also be read as "waned," but if so, it gives the same concept, the player's face becoming pale, as the blood waned from it.

The Folio warmed, indicating red, could have occurred with a change in sentiment in the line. Although "Hecuba" is the only proper name he uses in the speech, Hamlet might be referring to Pyrrhus with the word warmed, then moving on to Hecuba with the mention of "tears" in the next line. That possibility makes warmed worth consideration as an authorial change. It would produce, again, the "pale or red" idea, between the two lines, EH 1594-95. The F1 word is therefore respectable; I cannot conclude that the Folio editor misread.

{The Folio may reveal an author's change.}

(In performance, Q2 wanned (or "waned") implies an expression of grief, or fear, while F1 warmed implies an expression of anger. It might be best left to the actor, as to which expression he wishes to use as he speaks, and whether he wishes to do an abrupt change from anger to sorrow as he recites the two lines. The abrupt change of expression would look "madder.")

EH 1599: What's Hecuba to him, or he to {her} [Hecuba],

her

Hecuba

Q2 her is authorial. As Hamlet speaks, he is transferring his thoughts to his mother, Gertrude, so the word "Hecuba" is not appropriate in this location. There is intentional ambiguity in the pronoun, between Hecuba and Gertrude. Further, the F1 change is not metrical.

{The Folio editor apparently did not see Hamlet's concern for his mother, that underlies Hamlet's remarks, and made it "Hecuba" in a mistaken attempt to clarify; otherwise, it could be a purely accidental repetition of the name.}

(This word, itself, is not played in performance, rather, the entire line is played, as Hamlet gestures toward himself, then away.)

EH 1601: Had he the {motiue, and that} [Motiue and the Cue] for passion

motive, and that

motive and the cue

The F1 difference matches the author's style of pairing synonyms and near-synonyms. F1 probably corrects a misprint in Q2.

{The Folio editor probably found the authorial phrasing and correctly used it.}

(In performance, cue can be played with a beckoning gesture, as when the Ghost beckoned Hamlet.)

EH 1622: [Oh Vengeance!]

[none]

[The entire line.]

The Player used the word, vengeance, which makes it appropriate for Hamlet to say, during his speech following the Player's recital. Functionally, the line provides an exclamatory break in a long speech, which is probably desirable. It's credibly authorial.

{The Folio editor probably found the line and correctly added it.}

(In performance, Hamlet can draw his sword and wave it.)

EH 1623: Why what an Asse am I, [I sure,] this is most braue,

[none]

aye sure

The F1 addition is immediately questionable because it is not metrical. It adds no meaning, and serves no apparent purpose. It has no credibility as an authorial refinement.

{The Folio editor added the phrase for some unknown reason.}

(The phrase should be left out in performance.)

EH 1627-8: And fall a cursing like a very drabbe; a {stallyon,} [Scullion] ...

stallion

scullion

Q2 stallion is authorial. Following "drab," Hamlet is correcting that he's male, not female. Further, stallion is on the Horse motif, one of the subthemes of the play ("hobby horse" / "while the grass grows..." / "fetters" / the horses in the wager at the fencing match.)

For F1's scullion it's hard to find any thematic significance, either in plain meaning or at root, nor does it offer any other clear feature in relation to the play. It would be a stretch to place scullion on the Feast motif merely because a scullion is one who does dirty work in a kitchen. In "cooking up" the 'Mousetrap Play' for Claudius, Hamlet is not a scullion, he's the chef.

However, regardless of the above deficiencies, the semi-pun with "skull" is intriguing, in the Folio word. In line EH 3361-2, "skull" is spelled "scull." By comparison with imagion earlier, and given the "skull" pun, and the "scull" spelling, it is possible to read "scullion" as "skull result." Then, with great irony, Hamlet could be unintentionally calling himself a "skull result," in purely innocent and accidental anticipation of his own fate. Under this consideration, the F1 change becomes plausible, to make a good connection to the play, overall.

{The Folio editor may have found an authorial change, and properly used it.}

(In performance, Q2 stallion is readily playable, through the action of riding a horse. F1 scullion is playable by Hamlet putting his hands to his cranium, which leads very nicely to his phrase "about my brains" in the next line; this observation about continuity of action is further evidence in favor of scullion.)

EH 1639: May be {a deale} [the Diuell], and the {deale} [Diuel] hath power

deale

devil

The Q2 spelling, deale, is the special kind of spelling Shakespeare used several times in the play. It's a spelling concept taken from abbreviating "over" as "ore." Basically, the 'v' or 'v' sound is dropped, an 'e' is added at the end, and if necessary the center of the word is filled out for pronunciation. (In the original Q2 printing, "over" is abbreviated as "ore" about thirty times.) So, the Q2 word deale is actually an abbreviation, so to speak, for the word "devil." The author used the special spelling method to combine two words into one. Here, deale does mean "devil," but it also means what it looks like: "deal." The idea of "deal" adds a metaphor from card playing. In this line, Hamlet is wondering if he's been dealt the Devil Card, so to speak. It confirms the Q2 spelling as probably - almost certainly - exactly what the author intended. The F1 difference is correct for the literal meaning, "devil," but it loses the "deal" metaphor.

{The Folio editor corrected the spelling for literal meaning, but lost the "deal" metaphor in the process.}

(In performance, Hamlet can act "devil" by doing devil horns: fists held up to the temples with index fingers extended.)

---

Scene 8 (Act 3 scene 1)

EH 1648: An can you by no drift of {conference} [circumstance]

conference

circumstance

Both words are sensible, and are probably authorial in their respective publications. The question is whether the Folio word is reasonably an authorial change, relative to Q2, and therefore author's preference in this case. Both words are used elsewhere in the dialogue.

"Conference" is more directly a reference to talking, which is what R & G did with Hamlet. However, circumstance can be read in the sense of "circumlocution," a reading supported by Hamlet's earlier use of the word, which goes along well with R & G "talking around" things in conversation with Hamlet.

"Conference" does have a religious sense, of a religious meeting, compatible with R & G speaking of "confession" in the passage, but I do not find that Shakespeare elsewhere used the term in a particularly religious way, in his other writings. Where Hamlet later alludes to a religious meeting, he says "convocation." The word "conference" does tend to jar with "confusion," the last word in the next line, as pointed out by Edwards, writing in "The New Cambridge Shakespeare" edition of Hamlet, but I don't see that as enough, by itself, to account for an authorial change.

Circumstance has the advantage, in the flow of events, that it follows directly from Polonius's earlier boast, that he could, if "circumstances" led him, find the truth: EH 1188. Claudius's use of circumstance here can be read as Claudius asking R & G if they've been able to do as Polonius earlier boasted he could. It relates well to the bureaucratic competition between Polonius and R & G, as Claudius's servants. I find circumstance credible as an authorial fine tuning, to connect what Polonius said earlier, to what Claudius says here. It works to make a pertinent dialogue connection.

{The Folio editor probably found an authorial change, and correctly used it.}

(In performance, either word is playable with a rounded outspread of the arms.)

EH 1678: Sweet Gertrard, leaue vs {two} [too],

two

too

Both words are correct to what is supposed to be understood. It's a pun.

In print, the Q2 word must be preferred, because it implies Claudius obnoxiously ignoring Ophelia, who is standing right there. Q2 provides that additional effect, in print, while F1 does not. It means two is probably the author's preferred form, for literature, as Q2 shows.

{The Folio editor, intentionally or unintentionally, helped make the pun explicit.}

(In performance, the actor has a choice. If Claudius shows two fingers, it will illustrate the fact of him rudely ignoring Ophelia.)

EH 1680: That he as t'were by accedent, may {heere} [there]

here

there

Claudius has stated that he has summoned Hamlet hither, so Q2 here is the word that would normally be expected. The intended encounter is to happen "here," approximately where Claudius is standing as he speaks. F1 there is not very sensible. However, that may be exactly the intended effect, because of the Madness theme of the play. It gives Claudius a small "mad" moment to have him speak of here as there. Shakespeare may have changed the word to achieve here/there confusion, and that "mad" effect.

{The Folio editor may have found an authorial fine tuning, and correctly used it.}

(In performance, to get the "mad" effect, Claudius can say there as he points straight down toward the floor where he's standing, a location that a "sane" person would call here.)

EH 1681: Affront Ophelia; her father and my selfe,[(lawful espials)]

[none]

lawful espials

The parenthetical phrase is an addition in the Folio, it does not appear in Q2. It's immediately doubtful, since it is not metrical. It's likely an unwise attempt, by the Folio editor, to try to defend unethical spying by the King. There's some confirmation, that the added phrase is editorial, in the substitutions of "warrant" that occur elsewhere in the F1 text. The Folio editor was working under legal restrictions, imposed by a statute of the times, which controlled what could be published. Adequate discussion of that would go beyond what this brief note permits. But the Folio editor may have gone a bit too far with his "cleaning up" of the text, and made small changes, himself, now and then, to try to morally justify dubious activity that Shakespeare intentionally included in the play.

{The Folio editor probably added the phrase himself.}

(The phrase should not be spoken in performance.)

EH 1697: Your {lowlines;} [lonelinesse.] we are oft too blame in this,

lowliness

loneliness

Both words can be read to make sense. Both are probably authorial in their respective publications, with no misprint. The Q2 word lowliness is firmly authorial. Polonius is telling Ophelia to be "lowly" in the sense of being approachable, by Hamlet. There is the undertone that Polonius views his daughter as a lowly person, of little importance; this is part of Polonius's characterization. Further, the dialogue flow well supports lowliness, as Polonius continues with religious references. Piety and devotion are "lowly" (humble) characteristics, but not necessarily "lonely" ones. The dialogue flow, by itself, is enough reason to doubt the Folio word, as the author's ultimate choice. The Folio word doesn't "flow" well, in the dialogue.

As already demonstrated in the play, Polonius has no perception of, or concern for, Ophelia's feelings, and the idea of her being lonely would not occur to him, to speak the word seriously. "Lone" does pun with "loan," which would make it reasonable for Polonius to say the Folio word in some context, but the context here is not very apt for that - although it's possible to view Ophelia, in this situation, as being "on loan" by Polonius. The "loan" pun, and also the appearance of Ophelia being alone, could have led the author to use the F1 word at some point.

The Q2 word accords with Polonius's characterization, as he speaks to Ophelia, while the Folio word does not accord so well in this context. The Q2 word flows with the dialogue, while the Folio word does not. More could be said, but I do not find a sound way to support the Folio word as an authorial improvement. If the author did use the Folio word, at some time, it doesn't appear reasonable as his final choice, against the Q2 word.

{The Folio may reflect reliance on a version earlier than the author's final.}

(In performance, Q2 lowliness is playable with a bow. F1 loneliness could be accompanied by an "instructional" gesture of pointing the index finger, which can also be seen to symbolize "one." There's also a 'madder' way for Polonius to play lowliness: he can wiggle his hips to mimic what he views as the behavior of bawds, who are "lowly" women. "Bawd" will be mentioned as the Scene continues, and Claudius says "harlots" in the succeeding speech. The better stage action for Q2 lowliness further tends to support it as the authorial word.)

EH 1699: And pious action, we doe {sugar} [surge] ore

sugar

surge

Q2 sugar basically means "tempt." Sweetness is a "tempting" thing. Certainly the Q2 word is credibly authorial.

F1 "surge" is worth considering, because a surge can be an uprise. The devil is conventionally pictured as down in hell, thus, to appear on earth the devil would "uprise," or "rise up," so to speak. Further, a person who is genuinely pious would "uprise"/"rise up" above the devil, first on earth, and then in heaven. It makes "surge" in the general sense of "rise up" worth pondering. There is an "uprising" in the play, when Laertes leads the townspeople to storm the castle. Because of the "uprise"/"rise up" possibility for interpretation, "surge" could, conceivably, even be the author's intended final. At this time, I am not confident enough of the interpretation to conclude the F1 difference is an authorial refinement, but "surge" can't be casually dismissed as a misprint. Also, "surge" is easily actable: Polonius can simply raise his hands.

{The Folio editor may have used an authorial word; it's unclear whether he correctly chose the author's final.}

(In performance, the Q2 phrase "sugar over" is actable by Polonius doing a 'beckoning' sweep of his arm, ending with his fingertips to his lips, as though eating sugar. He could even 'madly' make kissing noises as he holds his fingertips to his lips. F1 surge could be played directly by raising the hands, an action which is weak in comparison; this argues against "surge" as the author's final, even if he may have used it at some point.)

EH 1707: I heare him comming, [let's] with-draw my Lord.

[none]

let's

Polonius is a bossy character, even when speaking to the King. The F1 change, which makes his line more of a suggestion, works against his characterization, as Shakespeare drew him. Further, the Folio change is not metrical. (Meter does cross speeches here, and Polonius's concluding "my Lord" is not counted.) The F1 difference is probably not authorial. The F1 editor may have thought Polonius sounded too bossy, speaking to the King, however, that's exactly how he's supposed to sound. Alternatively, the F1 editor may not have noticed that the meter crossed speeches, and added "let's" to make the line metrical by itself, which he should not have done.

{The Folio editor probably added the word.}

(The word "let's" should not be spoken in performance.)

EH 1725: Th'oppressors wrong, the {proude} [poore] mans contumely,

proud

poor

Both words can be read to make sense; there is no misreading or misprint. Q2 proud expresses what one would expect, to give an ordinary statement, and is credibly authorial, especially since the author made frequent use of proud in his writings. Hamlet goes on to speak of himself as proud, EH 1779-80.

The Folio word poor carries the ironic undertone that Hamlet, who has cast himself as a "beggar," a poor man, is about to subject Ophelia to insults and humiliation. Hamlet is, unintentionally and unknowingly, predicting his own "poor" behavior that will follow, towards Ophelia. The tragic irony, in Hamlet's accidental prediction about himself, supports the Folio. For plain reading, Hamlet is understood to be saying, "the contumely that the poor man suffers." In undertone, it's read as "the contumely that the 'poor man,' Hamlet, inflicts." The ambiguity is an instance of the double and multiple meanings intentionally written into the play by Shakespeare, who composed the dialogue so that subtle meanings can be found, which go beyond what the character is trying to say.

{The Folio word is an authorial improvement that the Folio editor found and properly used.}

(In performance, Q2 proud could be played by Hamlet standing very upright, as a proud man. F1 poor could be played by slouching, or perhaps by a gesture of empty pockets.)

EH 1726: The pangs of {despiz'd} [dispriz'd] loue, ...

despised

disprized

Both words give sensible meanings, and misprint or misreading is probably not in question. Despised comes from a root meaning of "look," which gives an instance on the Watch motif. The Q2 word gives the undertone of Claudius "looking down on" Hamlet's love for his father. Despised is credibly authorial in Q2, offering good plain meaning, relevant undertone, and thematic significance.

The word "prize" comes from a root meaning of "take," which makes the Folio word well worth careful consideration. The "take" concept is quite significant in the play. The issue is whether the author decided to switch words here, as his final decision. The main factor in favor of disprized is that Ophelia, Hamlet's most prized love, is about to be "taken" from him, as the Scene continues. Hamlet doesn't know that as he speaks. The author may have decided to dispense with another instance on the Watch motif, which is already prominent enough, in favor of an ominous, unintentional, and unknowing prediction by Hamlet of what's about to occur for him with Ophelia.

{The Folio editor probably found disprized as an authorial change, and correctly used it.}

(In performance, the actor might choose, according to what he wishes to do. Since despised relates to not seeing, the actor could lower his head and cover his eyes. For disprized he could clench his hand at his heart, since Ophelia is the "prize" of Hamlet's heart, and then move his hand away.)

EH 1737: Thus conscience dooes make cowards [of vs all],

[none]

of us all

The line as printed in F1, including the phrase, has become a famous quote. That makes it pointless, as a practical matter, to argue the phrase. No amount of rational argument will cause people to forget a quote they've memorized. However, I find no argument against F1. The F1 addition makes the line metrical, in a speech which is nicely metrical overall. Q2 probably simply missed the phrase.

{The Folio editor probably correctly added the phrase.}

(In performance, the Q2 line, without the phrase, does permit the actor to pause, distinctly and dramatically, after saying "cowards" with emphasis, and leaving out the phrase, if he just wishes to do something different.)

EH 1739: Is {sickled} [sicklied] ore with the pale cast of thought,

sickled

sicklied

Q2 sickled is authorial. Reference is to the sickle of Death. It's an instance on the Death theme. For the Q2 word, "pale" in the line is not a reference to sickness, but rather fear, following "cowards" just above in EH 1737.

The Folio word also has authorial credibility, since Hamlet is "thought-sick." His determination is "overcast" by the illness of his thinking process, so to speak. His plan against Claudius, which he believes ought to be blood red, is made pale as he thinks. It's the same "pale vs red" idea that occurs elsewhere. This analysis tends to support the Folio difference, as plausibly an authorial refinement.

{The Folio editor may have found an authorial change and properly used it.}

(In performance, the decision on this word might best be left to the actor, as to which gesture he would prefer to do. Sickled calls for a bold sweep of the arm, as if cutting down tall weeds with a sickle, linking to Hamlet's earlier expression about a garden in need of weeding. Sicklied calls for the actor to grasp his head, which is Hamlet's "sickly part.")

EH 1740: And enterprises of great {pitch} [pith] and moment,

pitch

pith

Q2 pitch is supported as authorial in that, for one thing, it's a music term, which connects with other music references in the play. (The word "moment" comes from "momentum," which has a use in music, also.) The phrase "great pitch" figuratively means events being at a high pitch. The Q2 word is entirely credible, through both plain meaning, of height or elevation, and the music term undertone.

Folio "pith" is less credible as authorial. Although it can be read sensibly for plain meaning, it offers little significant allusion or undertone, certainly not beyond what pitch provides. Albeit, the "pith" of the body can be understood as the heart, or the soul, which are significant ideas in the play. The word "pith" does appear twice elsewhere in the play, while pitch appears only here. It's hypothetically possible the word was changed simply to make a verbal connection to the other uses of "pith." I don't find these considerations strong enough to conclude the author made the change. Particularly, "pith" doesn't match up well with "moment," the way pitch does.

{The Folio is most likely in error, maybe through a simple misprint.}

(Q2 pitch could be played by holding one or both arms high, then sweeping down at the word "moment;" this would be fully compatible with Hamlet's other "flying" or "flapping" actions, elsewhere in the play. F1 "pith" could be played with a hand over the heart.)

EH 1741: With this regard theyr currents turne {awry} [away],

awry

away

The Q2 word awry is authorial. Hamlet is saying that his idea of killing Claudius, when Claudius shows up alone, has gone amiss, because Hamlet will not kill Claudius with Ophelia there. I cannot find that the author would have replaced the Q2 word with the Folio one. The F1 difference expresses the identical idea, but in an inferior way.

{The Folio is in error, perhaps from a simple misreading or misprint.}

(In performance, Hamlet turns, or is beginning to turn, toward Ophelia.)

EH 1747: I humbly thanke you [: well, well,] well.

[none]

well, well

F1 gives Hamlet three words well, Q2 only one. The F1 addition is credible on the point of Hamlet wondering about the situation. In F1, the first well is in reply to Ophelia's question, and then well, well reveals that he's wondering what's going on. It makes the F1 addition reasonable as an authorial refinement.

{The Folio editor probably found an authorial fine tuning and properly used it.}

(In performance, the actor should probably say the first well in reply to Ophelia, then the next two in the way of a person talking to himself.)

EH 1752: My honor'd Lord, {you} [I] know right well you did,

you

I

Both words can be read to make sense, there is no misprint or misreading. Q2 is credibly authorial, as Ophelia insists to Hamlet that the gifts were from him. However, Ophelia's insistence is out of keeping with her characterization at this point in the play. In the first part of the play, Ophelia is docile and submissive. She will not become "importunate" until after her madness begins, as the Gentleman will state at that time.

The Folio change is probably an authorial improvement, to be more in keeping with Ophelia's characterization at this time in the play. She submissively takes Hamlet at his word, that he doesn't remember, but affirms that she does, even if he doesn't.

{The Folio change is an authorial fine tuning for characterization, that the editor found and correctly used.}

(The difference in performance is whether Ophelia gestures toward Hamlet, or toward herself - best if she says I and places her hand to her heart.)

EH 1754: As made these things more rich, their perfume {lost,} [left:]

lost

left

There is no misreading or misprint. Lost is sensible in the passage, and is credibly authorial for Q2.

However, left is also sensible, and adds relevant ambiguity, as well. In her use of left, for plain reading, Ophelia means the perfume is gone, but in undertone she's saying the perfume remains, that she still values the gifts. The ambiguity of left fits exactly among the intentional ambiguity throughout Hamlet, and is probably an authorial fine tuning.

{The Folio editor found the change to left and correctly used it.}

(In performance, Q2 lost could be acted by moving the opposite hand away from the one holding the small parcel. F1 left might be best played by moving the other hand toward the parcel. With either word, the line could be played by Ophelia sniffing the parcel, on the principle that it contains a small pomander, a small bar of scented soap, or an actual bottle of perfume among the items that Hamlet gave Ophelia.)

EH 1762-3: That if you be honest & faire, {you} [your Honesty] should admit

you

your honesty

Both make sense, so simple misprint is probably not in question. Hamlet, the scholar, is attempting a logical proof, and you works better, logically. The Q2 word is authorial. To clinch it, the Q2 phrasing gives iambic pentameter.

The Folio phrase can't be viewed as an authorial improvement, simply because it doesn't work as well for meaning. Also, it is not metrical.

{The Folio editor probably obtained the Folio phrasing by correcting the "bad" Q1 line, when he should have followed Q2, instead.}

(In performance, you goes with a simple hand gesture.)

EH 1773-4: {euocutat} [innocculate] our old stock, but we shall relish of it, ...

evocutate

inoculate

Q2 evocutate is authorial. It is an antonym for "inoculate" and is a Shakespeare coinage. Hamlet means that virtue cannot be taken from men, like taking a bud from a donor plant. The author needed an antonym for "inoculate," but finding none, he coined one. Evocutate can further be read as encompassing both "inoculate" and its opposite, to convey a double meaning, in keeping with the intentional ambiguity throughout Hamlet.

{The Folio editor did not recognize the neologism, and mistakenly changed it to a known word.}

(Q2 evocutate could be played by Hamlet gesturing back and forth, in the direction between his heart and Ophelia's heart.)

EH 1798-9: I haue heard of your {paintings} [pratlings too] well enough,

paintings

pratlings

Q2 paintings is manifestly authorial. Its correctness is shown both by plain meaning in context, and as an instance on the Painted Face motif. (Q1 also shows "paintings," for what that's worth.)

The Folio difference is odd, and must be a misreading or misunderstanding, since it doesn't make sense in the passage.

{The Folio editor apparently misunderstood Hamlet's meaning, misled, perhaps, by Hamlet's use of "heard."}

(In performance, when Hamlet says paintings he could either brush his own face with his fingertips, or make a brushing gesture toward Ophelia. A brushing gesture toward Ophelia would incorporate ambiguity, by looking also like a "goodbye" wave.)

EH 1799-1800: ... you one {face} [pace], and you make your ...

face

pace

Painted Face motif; Q2 face is right, to the author's hand. There is a way to make sense of F1 "pace," but that more likely misled the Folio editor, than motivated the author to make a change.

{The Folio editor perhaps mistakenly tried to connect to "amble."}

(In performance, Hamlet plays it by making a sad or ugly face at Ophelia, followed by an abrupt change to a pleasant face at the word "another." The two faces of laughter and tears are a classic emblem of theater, so Q2 face is very strong in action, which is further argument against the F1 difference.)

EH 1808: {Th'expectation,} [Th'expectansie] and Rose of the faire state,

expectation

expectancy

Both words make sense, and are probably authorial in their respective publications, with no misprint. F1 expectancy is superior for sound, since when spoken it ends with the syllable "see." That sound leads nicely to the last clause ("see what I see.") It's credible that the author changed the word to get the "see" sound.

{The Folio editor probably found an authorial refinement and properly used it.}

(In performance, Ophelia can grasp her midsection, subtly suggesting pregnancy - which, however, is not true of her. "Expecting" is a word used for pregnancy. The play is quite intentionally written to involve the audience, by raising questions and doubts in their minds. That would make the misleading action by Ophelia appropriate, as the audience sees it, and wonders.)

EH 1814: Like sweet bells iangled out of {time} [tune], and harsh,

time

tune

Q2 time is correct, shown by both meaning and allusion. Musical bells are played by ringing a certain bell at a certain time. There is the undertone of allusion to the wedding bells Ophelia was hearing in her imagination; she learns the wedding is not to be, so she was hearing wedding bells at the wrong time. Further, Hamlet's line, "the time is out of joint," can be read in very subtle and tragically ironic connection to this: in the play, various things are "out of time."

{The Folio editor may have changed it merely because he thought there was a simple reference to a tune being played.}

(It appears that "jangled," not this word, is the playable word in the line.)

EH 1815: That vnmatcht forme, and {stature} [Feature] of blowne youth

stature

feature

Q2 stature is the authorial word, to a certainty. There is a way to establish that. The explanation is not possible in these brief comments.

{The cause of the Folio error is immaterial, but could reveal difficulty reading the 20-year old source papers, since the words end with the same five letters and are quite similar overall. Otherwise, the Folio editor might have changed the word intentionally, from knowing what it implies.}

(In performance, Ophelia could briefly stand tall at stature, then sag sorrowfully again. She could also hold a forearm upright.)

EH 1833-4: But yet doe I belieue the origin and comencement of {his} [this] greefe,

his

this

Both words are probably authorial in their respective publications. F1 this is likely an authorial fine tuning, because it's ambiguous in a relevant way. It can be heard to apply to the grief Ophelia is feeling now.

{The Folio editor probably found an authorial refinement and correctly used it.}

(In performance, while saying this, Polonius can do a hand gesture in Ophelia's direction, without looking at her, and without intending to point to her.)

EH 1846: Madnes in great ones must not {vnmatcht} [vnwatch'd] goe.

unmatched

unwatched

Both words make sense. The Q2 word is very strong in the "accidental prediction" department, as Claudius accidentally predicts that he will "match" Hamlet's madness, at the fencing match in the last Scene. Claudius doesn't know that as he speaks; it's an extra in the dialogue from Shakespeare. There is also the tragic irony that Hamlet was unmatched with Ophelia in the Scene, and Ophelia has just used the word. (Claudius didn't hear Ophelia, his usage is merely an accidental coincidence, as far as the play characters know.) For plain meaning, unmatched is read as "unmet."

The Folio word provides an obvious instance on the Watch motif. The idea of watching also goes along with the Putting On A Show theme. There is also the irony that Claudius, behind the arras, could not see Hamlet and was not "watching" him in this Scene.

When the possibility of editorial misunderstanding is taken into account, an editorial change - nonauthorial - is more likely to produce the Folio word than vice versa, because the Folio word is easily the more conventional in the context. It's unlikely an editorial error would cause unmatched to be printed in this location.

Since the F1 word makes sense, one must attempt to judge whether the Folio expresses the author's final preference. There are numerous other instances of the Watch motif, enough to be more than adequate to establish the motif, so it seems unlikely the author would drop the subtle irony of unmatched to get another Watch instance. On that basis, I judge that the Folio word is probably not an authorial fine tuning. It gives up too much, for too little in return. But since the Folio word appears good in several respects, the author may have used it at some earlier time. Alternatively, the Folio editor may have misunderstood unmatched, and changed it to the word which would more easily be expected - if the latter happened, the apparent connection to the Watch motif is accidental, not authorial.

{The Folio is probably in error, for whichever reason.}

(In performance, the playable word in the line is "madness," at which Claudius will tap his own temple, unintentionally implying that he's the "great one" who's mad.)

---

Scene 9 (Act 3 scene 2)

EH 1884-5: I hope we haue reform'd that indifferently with vs [, Sir].

[none]

Sir

The Folio word is not authorial, it is a blatant insertion by the Folio editor. Shakespeare did not use the word "sir" like that in Hamlet.

EH 1913: Where thrift may follow {fauning;} [faining] ...

fawning

feigning

Both words are probably authorial, in their respective publications. Q2 fawning makes good sense in context, and connects with the 'hart' (heart) and 'doe' (do) wordplay that follows. Shakespeare did some "deer" wordplay in this speech, the same as he did occasionally in other writings, and here and there elsewhere in Hamlet.

F1 feigning has credibility as an authorial change, however, because feigning is what actors do. Acting is the dominant concept of this 'Mousetrap Play' Scene. The author probably changed the word to connect to the Putting On A Show theme that's primary at this time in the play.

{The Folio editor probably found an authorial refinement and correctly used it.}

(In performance, I know of no way to act fawning directly, although a "rock the baby" action might be used. Feigning could be acted by striking a pose in classic dramatic style, such as by putting the back of the wrist to the forehead.)

EH 1920: Whose blood and iudgement are so well {comedled} [co-mingled],

comedlied (?)

comingled

I take it that the Q2 word, spelled "comedled" in the original, is probably supposed to be "comedlied" (in modern spelling,) based on the word "medley." It would mean "harmonious," and lead to Hamlet's immediate mention of playing a pipe, in addition to the sensible plain meaning of "mixed." I use the question mark after the listed word to indicate my assumption about the spelling. Certainly, the word may instead be intended as "comeddled."

The author did use "mingle" in Antony and Cleopatra (Act 4 scene 8) in reference to musical sounds (of trumpets and tambourines, in that case.) Therefore, the Folio word comingle becomes credible in context, both to provide plain meaning, and to carry allusion to musical sounds, according to the author's use of "mingle" elsewhere.

{Whatever the Q2 word may have been intended to be, the Folio editor probably found an authorial change to comingled and correctly used it.}

(In performance, either word could be played by interlacing the fingers of both hands.)

EH 1930: Euen with the very comment of {thy} [my] soule

thy

my

Q2 is authorial. Hamlet is telling Horatio to use the intuition of his soul in addition to the judgment of his mind.

F1 my gains interest in that "comment" is from a root meaing of "devise." Hamlet has "devised" the 'Mousetrap Play' to catch Claudius. Thus, the play "devise" is Hamlet's, which would support his use of my. It could be taken that Hamlet is not talking about Horatio's soul, but rather, Hamlet has "put his soul into" the change he made to the play, so to speak. By that interpretation, F1 my has some plausibility. It indicates there should be a comma after "soul," but F1 doesn't have the comma. However, while there is a way to make sense of F1, and relate the change to the play, I don't find the interpretation strong enough to call it an authorial change. The main problem is that F1 gives up too much in the plain reading. More likely, F1 is in error, and the interpretation that could make sense of it is a phantom. Still, since "comment" is from "devise" the F1 difference would always be worth a note.

{The Folio editor most likely erred in interpretation and changed the word, or, F1 has an ordinary misprint.}

(In performance, for thy, Hamlet can put his hand to Horatio's chest, while patting him on the back in a friendly way.)

EH 1941: And scape {detected} [detecting], I will pay the theft.

detected

detecting

Q2 detected is authorial. Horatio is talking about Claudius getting away with hiding his guilt, undetected. The "aught" that Claudius would "steal" in that event would be his life. Essentially, Horatio means Claudius will be detected if he displays his guilt, and he won't get away with it.

Horatio's speech in F1, with detecting, has a different meaning. F1 has Horatio speaking of Claudius getting away with it, going undetected. It makes no sense. If Horatio doesn't see signs of guilt from Claudius, there's no proof Claudius is guilty, so what's to pay? The F1 difference is not credible.

{The Folio editor changed the word.}

(In performance, since "detect" comes from a root meaning of "uncover," Horatio can do an "uncovering" action with his hands.)

EH 1962: Ros. I my Lord, they stay vpon your patience.

Ros.

Ros.

The speech prefix is wrong in both Q2 and the Folio. It should be "Pol." Explanation is too long to give here. Although there is no difference in wording, I include this brief note to try to increase awareness of the Q2 printing error that the Folio perpetuated.

{The Folio editor mistakenly added R & G to the stage direction instead of changing the erroneous speech prefix.}

(No performance note applies, except to be sure the correct character speaks, which is Polonius.)

EH 1963: Come hether my {deere} [good] Hamlet, sit by me.

dear

good

Q2 dear is easily credible as authorial, in connection with the "deer" wordplay the author occasionally used, both in Hamlet and elsewhere. It especially applies in this instance, since Hamlet will sit with Ophelia, whom he believes, wrongly, has not been faithful to him.

F1 "good" merits examination, since as the Scene continues we'll see that Hamlet will not "be good." He'll misbehave. Also, "god/good" wordplay is possible, based on Elizabethan usage where the words were more interchangeable. The weakness of F1 is that since "good" is a common term of address, subtleties associated with it will too easily go by unnoticed. The author had to know that. Then, the apparent interpretation of "good" that lends it plausibility may be only a false appearance due to over-interpreting conventional phrasing. So, while the F1 difference has some plausibility, it can't be identified as an authorial refinement.

{The Folio editor probably conventionalized the phrasing, perhaps based on some pre-Q2 version of the author's writing.}

(In performance, Gertrude can place a hand to her heart when she says dear. If the actress chooses to say "good" she can place her hands together in a prayer position.)

EH 1968-9: (Multiple lines, not quoted here.)

[none]

[The two lines.]

Adequate discussion of this F1 difference would take considerable time and space, too much for these comments. The conclusion is that the change is not authorial.

{The Folio editor added the two lines, himself.}

(The two lines should be omitted in performance, and when the play is done as Shakespeare wrote it, Hamlet does not lounge in Ophelia's lap, radical as that may sound. Hamlet sits in a vacant chair beside Ophelia.)

EH 1992-3: [She kneeles, and makes shew of Protestation vnto him.]

[none]

[The added line.]

The line is credible as an authorial addition, because we know of a reason why the queen would do that. The queen doesn't want to leave the king alone, because he's sick, as will be explicitly stated in the 'Mousetrap Play' dialogue.

{The Folio editor found the addition and properly used it.}

(In performance, the queen's action of kneeling should be included in the Dumb Show. By the way, the subsequent "takes her up" doesn't mean the king lifts the queen from a kneeling position, although that can be done, it means he lifts her off her feet when he nuzzles her neck.)

EH 1998-9: ... poysner with some {three or foure come} [two or three Mutes comes] in againe, ...

three or four come

two or three mutes comes

The F1 change is patently idiotic. It's a Dumb Show, so of course they are "mutes." Everybody in the Dumb Show is mute. The F1 difference can't be authorial.

{The Folio editor did some rewrite, himself, probably just to reduce the cast requirement, and in the process demonstrated that he was not Shakespeare.}

(In performance, it's simply an entry, best done with four persons - one for each corner of the stretcher/bier on which the king is carried away. The author's "three or four" means that three extras are needed if the Poisoner assists in carrying away the king's body, otherwise, four extras are required. It can be done either way.)

EH 2001-2: with gifts, shee seemes {harsh} [loath and vnwilling] ...

harsh

loath and unwilling

The F1 difference is a reasonable elaboration of the Q2 word, and is in the author's style of pairing near-synonyms. It's an authorial change.

{The Folio editor found the change and properly used it.}

(In performance, the queen acts as stated, of course.)

EH 2004-5: Marry this {munching Mallico} [is Miching Malicho], {it} [that] meanes mischiefe.

munching malhecho (?)

is miching malhecho (?)

The second word is probably Spanish 'malhecho,' from 'malhechor' = evil doer. The proper English equivalent, for this usage, is "malefactor" = bad acter/actor. That meaning is dictated by the setting, a play performance. Hamlet is calling Claudius a "bad actor," in the sense of "evil doer," using a Spanish word, to be sure Claudius won't understand. Hamlet is intending to speak of his antagonist, although Shakespeare's wording can be seen from different points of view, a subject that goes beyond these comments.

The original word "Mallico/Malicho" may be intended as 'malhechor,' apostrophized, with the final 'r' left off. Printing in Shakespeare's day did not always use apostrophes to mark missing letters. Further in support of 'malhechor' being the intended word: if the exact Q2 spelling were "mallicor" it could be seen as "mal-licor" = "bad liquor," thus connecting to Claudius's drinking, the mention of liquor in the Graveyard Scene, and the wine at the fencing match. Particularly, at the fencing match there will be poisoned wine, "bad liquor," which will certainly "mean mischief." The Elizabethans used "liquor" for any alcoholic beverage, including wine. I surmise that the Q2 word mallico may be Shakespeare's own spelling, with the final '-r' apostrophized, but the apostrophe not printed. The F1 spelling looks like an editorial attempt to be more true to the Spanish.

Mallico/Malicho is italicized and capitalized in the original printings, probably because it has reference to a named character, Claudius. That further indicates a terminal '-r' may have dropped, since a vowel name ending is more typically feminine, in English, although many exceptions exist. In Spanish, the '-o' ending is typically masculine, but that, too, may have led to apostrophization of a terminal '-r.'

Turning to the first word of the phrase, Q2 munching has full authorial credibility, since it provides an instance on the Feast motif, which especially applies in this context of watching a play. Hamlet already established the idea of a play being a "feast for the eyes and ears," when he spoke to the Players at their arrival, using the words, "caviary, well digested, salad, savory," and further, the words "fares, dish, eat, feed, capon" have been used in this Scene. It makes munching quite strong in this case. The word is certainly no misprint. It is easily actable.

F1 miching means skulking, or lurking. It entirely gives up the Feast motif, which weakens it severely in this context. It's also weak for literal meaning, since Claudius is not lurking, he's there front and center. It could be taken that Claudius is "lurking" as a criminal, figuratively speaking. Thematic connection for miching is vague, although there is, of course, the general idea of wrongdoing that runs through the play. However, since lurking implies watching, it is no great stretch to place miching as an instance on the Watch motif, which buttresses the word, thematically. Lurking or skulking, and watching, are virtually inseparable concepts. Q1 shows "myching," a different spelling of the F1 word. However, rather than supporting F1, it may only be that the Folio editor turned to Q1 when he didn't understand Q2 munching. F1 "that," after this word, is also found in Q1, as is the preceding "is." But the Q1 line looks like an imperfect memorial reconstruction, so the apparent use of Q1 diminishes the credibility of F1. Miching is certainly actable.

In sum, I am not able to conclude that F1 shows an authorial refinement. Q2 munching is too thematically strong to be overcome by what miching offers, in this setting where they're enjoying the "feast" of watching a play. Miching seems more likely the author's "unimproved" dialolgue, presuming he did use the word at some time.

{The Folio editor apparently turned to Q1, but it's questionable he should have.}

(In performance, Q2 munching goes along with a vigorous "eating" action of the jaw. However, in a quality production, the nobility are being served snacks during the play, so Hamlet can, indeed, be munching something as he speaks the line. This would be ironic because he's intending to speak of Claudius. F1 miching goes along with Hamlet raising his cloak and peeking over the edge of it. Because both words are found in legitimate sources, the actor has his choice of which action he wishes to do.)

Concerning "is" and "that," since they apparently come from Q1, the Q2 phrasing should be used, instead. F1/Q1 may be more metrical for this line, depending on exactly how it's read, but strict meter is not in use for these short speeches after the Dumb Show.

EH 2008: We shall know by {this fellow} [these Fellowes:]

this fellow

these fellows

Q2 is correct, the Prologue is only one person. The Folio may have been misled by the Prologue's use of plural pronouns, however, the Prologue speaks for the entire company, thus his use of "royal" pronouns in his speech.

{The Folio editor apparently misunderstood the Prologue's plural pronouns.}

(In performance, Hamlet uses the singular, and the Prologue is one person.)

EH 2008-9: The Players cannot keepe [counsell], they'le tell all.

[none]

counsel

The word counsel is not necessary to meaning in the line, since "keep" can be understood as "observe." For a play, the players "tell" and the audience "observes." Q2 has authorial plausibility without the word.

However, the addition of counsel has relevance to later events. After Hamlet kills Polonius, he'll try to hide the body, to "keep counsel," but won't be able to. In those later events, Hamlet, the "player," cannot "keep counsel," Polonius. Since the F1 difference has a readily identifiable connection to significant play events, it's credibly authorial. Either Q2 missed it, or the author added it later.

{The Folio editor probably found the word and properly added it.}

(In performance, the ironic action would be for Hamlet to look at Polonius, or gesture toward him, while totally unaware he won't be able to "keep" Polonius later.)

EH 2020: Is this a Prologue, or the {posie} [Poesie] of a ring?

posy

poesy

For literal meaning, the words are the same. "Poesy" means 'poetry,' and as used here, it refers to a snippet of poetry that could be inscribed in a ring. Snippets of poetry were also called "posies," probably as wordplay on the idea of a nice little poem being like a flower, figuratively speaking. The line is not pentameter, but the meter indicates posy as the necessary pronunciation, for either word. Thus, posy is probably the Poet Shakespeare's word, and "poesy" is probably the Folio editor's change, from knowing what it meant. Also, posy goes with action.

{The Folio editor probably changed the word, but without any real reason to do so.}

(In performance, when Hamlet says posy he can hold his hand under his nose as if sniffing a flower.)

EH 2025: Neptunes salt wash, and Tellus {orb'd the} [Orbed] ground,

orbed the

orbed

The meanings are essentially the same, but the F1 difference works better for literal reading, with orbed used as an adjective instead of a verb. There's no difference in undertone or allusion to look for, since orbed is the word in either case, so only literal meaning has to be examined here.

{The Folio editor probably found an authorial touchup, and correctly used it.}

(In performance, orbed can be played with a circular motion of the hand and forearm - a "wheel," connecting to the Wheel concept in the play.)

EH 2033: So farre from cheere, and from {our former} [your forme] state,

our former

your form [sic]

F1 obviously has an error, the only question being the extent of it. Q2 our is better for meaning, with the queen speaking of their former state of happiness, together. F1 "your" is probably an editorial interpretation, following the word "you" in the previous line.

{The Folio editor probably changed the phrase himself, with a misprint of former as well.}

(In performance, at our, the queen can place a hand to her heart and reach toward the king with her other hand at the same time.)

EH 2035+1: {For women feare too much, euen as they loue,}

[The entire line.]

[none]

This line is not in F1. It's a divider line, or separator, to preserve the stanza structure in the rhymed poetry. It makes the queen's speech two sestets, with this divider between. It preserves stanza, even though a change of voice does not occur. It is therefore mandatory, and F1 erred by leaving it out. The F1 version of this speech has another serious omission, and smaller errors, which may indicate reliance on something other than the author's final.

{The Folio editor mistakenly left out the line, perhaps due to relying on some manuscript which was not Shakespeare's final work for this speech.}

(In performance, the line should be spoken.)

EH 2037: {Eyther none,} in neither ought, or in extremitie,

Either none

[none]

The phrase is not found in F1. The phrase is redundant, since "in neither aught" means the same thing. Also, the phrase is extrametrical. The phrase "in neither aught" was probably intended to replace this phrase, but Q2 mistakenly treated it as an addition.

{The Folio editor probably handled the line correctly.}

(The phrase should be omitted in performance.)

EH 2038: Now what my {Lord} [loue] is proofe hath made you know,

Lord

love

Both words can be read to make sense, simple misprint is not at issue. The Folio version of the play queen's speech, in which this word occurs, is much in error. The Folio omits the necessary "divider line," EH 2035+1, and also omits the final couplet which is necessary to make the queen's speech total thirteen lines (two sestets with a divider between.) A full explanation of the structure of the queen's speech is beyond this comment. But it's obvious that what the Folio printed, in this speech, is not the author's completed writing. Whether the problem extends to this word is a separate question, however.

The Folio word doesn't really make sense. It makes the queen appear to be saying that she's proven her love is fear, but that isn't what she means. She is intending to say, she's proven that her lord (the king) is her love (since she fears for him.) For the intended meaning, the Q2 word is required.

{The Folio editor apparently relied on some unfinished version of the author's work for this speech.}

(In performance, the play queen should curtsy to the play king while she holds her hands to her heart.)

EH 2039+1 and 2039+2: (Two lines, not quoted here.)

{Both lines]

[none]

These two lines, not found in F1, are mandatory to make the queen's speech total eight lines, a departure from the sestets of the underlying play. The poetical excess, and the relative simplicity of the lines mark that Hamlet added them to the "Gonzago" play. Shakespeare knew that his Hamlet character is not supposed to be Shakespeare.

{The Folio editor mistakenly left out the lines, apparently because of reliance on something not the author's final.}

(The lines should be included in performance.)

EH 2058: Which now {the} [like] fruite vnripe sticks on the tree,

the

like

In the couplet as printed in Q2, the word order needs to be switched for prose sense. The prose subject of this line is "the fruit." The F1 change is an error.

{The Folio editor apparently changed the word to try to get prose sense from the exact wording of the poetry, which was a mistake.}

(Q2 the should be spoken in performance.)

EH 2065: Their owne {ennactures} [ennactors] with themselues destroy,

enactures

enactors

The Q2 word is authorial. It goes back to Hamlet asking Polonius, "What did you enact?" A thing enacted is an "enacture." There is an undertone of allusion in the passage to Hamlet soon causing his 'Mousetrap Play' to be interrupted, which Hamlet is having "enacted" for Claudius.

The Folio word is poetically superior in casting grief or joy as forces which can destroy those who violently act them out. Persons who act out grief or joy are enactors of those emotions. This consideration, plus the thematic importance of "actor," supports the F1 word as an authorial fine tuning.

A pun either way, between enactures and enactors, is probably intended.

{The Folio editor probably found an authorial refinement and properly used it.}

(In performance, the more playable word in the line appears to be "destroy," not this word - "destroy" can be played with a "casting down" action.)

EH 2067: Greefe {ioy} [ioyes], ioy griefes, on slender accedent,

joy

joys

{The Folio corrects a simple misprint in Q2.}

EH 2085+1 and 2085+2: (Two lines, not quoted here.)

[Both lines.]

[none]

The lines are authorial, and must be included to make the queen's speech an octet, departing from the sestets of the "Gonzago" play. These are, again, lines Hamlet added to the play. F1 erred in leaving them out.

{As earlier, it appears the Folio editor was relying on something not the author's final.}

(The lines should be included in performance.)

EH 2089: If once {I be} a widdow, euer I be {a} wife.

I be ... a

[none]

The Q2 line is not pentameter, but that is intentional from the author. This is a line Hamlet added to the play, and the lack of pentameter is to mark his inexperience as a poet. Shakespeare knew his Hamlet character is not supposed to be Shakespeare, so he gave Hamlet an error in syllable count, a typical novice mistake. Also observe the repetition of be in the Q2 line - it echoes Hamlet's "to be or not to be," which further points to Hamlet.

{The Folio editor either changed the line himself, mistakenly, or once again relied on something that was not the author's final.}

(In performance, the line must be spoken exactly as Q2 shows.)

EH 2113: You are {as good as a} [a good] Chorus my Lord.

as good as a

a good

The F1 change is obviously wrong. It ruins the joke.

{The Folio editor changed the line himself; apparently he had forgotten the joke, or never knew it.}

(The exact Q2 wording must be spoken in performance.)

EH 2126: {Considerat} [Confederate] season els no creature seeing,

Considerate

Confederate

Q2 Considerate is firmly authorial, since it gives sensible plain meaning, and comes from a root meaning of "star." The "star" idea goes along with the phrase "midnight weeds," and also the fact of the 'Moustrap Play' being performed at night. The word "season" in the speech is figurative, as it typically is in the play, reference being to the "season" of darkness, the "season" of night. Considerate further carries a "look" meaning at root, which goes along with the play performance which the audience is watching. Considerate, with its root meaning of "look" in mind, gives nice irony as the line goes on to mention nobody "seeing."

The only thing I find for "Confederate" is the idea of the season "going along with" the villain, which is feeble by comparison. "Confederate" works for plain reading, but that's virtually all. It does contain "-fed-" which could charitably be interpreted as an instance on the Feast motif, but that feature of the word too easily goes by unnoticed. I don't find the F1 word credible as an authorial refinement.

{The Folio difference is apparently an error, conceivably caused by a misreading of long-S on 20-year old papers.}

(In performance, considerate implies an upward gaze, while "confederate" implies looking around horizontally, but looking around in general, in a sneaky way, can be done with either word.)

EH 2128: VVith Hecats ban thrice blasted, thrice {inuected} [infected],

invected

infected

Both words can be read to make sense, and there is probably no misprint. The Q2 word is credibly authorial, with a sense of "cursed" (related to the word "invective.") The weeds are cursed with the evil magic to make them even more poisonous.

The Folio word also has some credibility, in that it would be an instance on the Disease motif of the play. The problem is to decide whether the Folio word is an authorial improvement, which must be accepted as his final decision.

The word invected can suggest "infected," to a thoughtful ear, but the reverse is not true. If the author switched to "infected," he would give up invected completely. My judgment is that Q2 invected is the authorial word, and the Folio is, either intentionally or unintentionally, revealing a pun that the Q2 word was intended to suggest.

{The Folio editor probably did not recognize invected and took it as "infected" based on the phonetic, thereby accidentally putting the pun in the playtext, instead of the author's intended word.}

(In performance, either word could be acted with an "evil magician" hand gesture toward the poison, repeated three times.)

EH 2137: [What, frighted with false fire.]

[none]

[The entire line.]

This line has very subtle, ingenious connection to a significant later event. Fortinbrasse arrives just after the fencing match, which means he and his army were nearby at the beginning of the match. Fortinbrasse doesn't know about the match. Claudius, at the beginning of the match, ordered that the cannons be fired for a salute. A salute is "false fire" not intended to be hostile. But what will the reaction of Fortinbrasse and his army be when all the cannons on the Castle battlements suddenly fire, unexpectedly?

Since Q2 does not include the line it's possible the author decided to drop it, however, the line is entirely credible as authorial, and most likely, the Q2 printing simply missed it. It does appear in Q1.

{The Folio editor properly included the line.}

(In performance, Hamlet can do two actions: first, a mock fright reaction, and second, when he says fire, extend his arms and raise his hands to portray flames leaping up.)

EH 2146-7: {Thus} [So] runnes the world away.

Thus

So

This use of "so" in F1 does not appear to accord well with the other uses of "so" in the play. I find it doubtful as an authorial change.

{The Folio editor apparently changed the word.}

(In performance, Hamlet can gesture toward where Claudius fled.)

EH 2180: And {stare} [start] not so wildly from my affaire.

stare

start

Q2 stare is authorial. It's an embedded stage direction. Hamlet has given Guildenstern a "wild" bug-eyed stare to tease him (probably best done when Hamlet says "purgation.") Hamlet continues to stare at Guildenstern as the passage continues, even when Rosencrantz speaks -- Hamlet finally looks at Rosencrantz at EH 2206. R & G see Hamlet's stare as him being "wild-eyed," which must be a symptom of his madness, they suppose.

{The Folio editor perhaps didn't follow the action of the passage, and mistakenly changed the word, merely to get the immediate meaning he thought it needed.}

(In performance, the action is Hamlet's, as he stares at G. G can look back in wide-eyed wonder, also.)

EH 2208-9: ... you do {surely} [freely] barre the doore ...

surely

freely

Both words can be read to make sense, and misprint need not be considered. F1 freely is probably an authorial fine tuning, for wordplay, to give the paradoxical idea of "freely losing liberty."

{The Folio editor probably found the change to freely and correctly used it.}

(In performance, the Rosencrantz actor, saying freely, can spread his arms wide.)

EH 2230: most {eloquent} [excellent] musique, ...

eloquent

excellent

Q2 eloquent is the authorial word, proven by the Speech motif of the passage.

{The Folio editor apparently missed the Speech motif, or the role which eloquent plays in that motif, and changed it simply to get immediate sense.}

(This word does not appear to be the playable word in the line, in particular. Hamlet is demonstrating use of the recorder, throughout his speech.)

EH 2241-2: ... you wil, though you [can] fret me {not}, you cannot play vpon me.

not

can

The F1 difference is an editorial error, from failure to discern that "though" means "but." The Folio editor apparently mistook "though" to mean "although."

{The Folio editor changed the wording.}

(In performance, the Q2 wording should be spoken, and Hamlet can shake his head at not.)

EH 2258: {Leaue me friends.}

[The entire line.]

[none]

F1 relocates this line, to a later position in the dialogue. The F1 change is not credible, because it confuses the various exits, discussion of which goes beyond these comments.

{The Folio editor misplaced this line, himself.}

(In performance, the Q2 sequence of statements should be spoken.)

EH 2260: When Churchyards yawne, and hell it selfe {breakes} [breaths] out

breaks

breathes

Both words make sense, neither is a misprint for the other, and both are probably authorial in their respective printings. Breathes is probably an authorial fine tuning for another instance on the Mouth motif, perhaps too late for the Q2 printing, or missed there. The change is entirely fitting, since it goes along with yawning, just mentioned in the line; it's midnight, and Hamlet is sleepy.

{The Folio editor probably found and correctly used the change to breathes.}

(In performance, the Q2 word is done with a gesture of breaking. The F1 phrase, breathes out, is followed by a large sigh, as if concluding a yawn - perfectly appropriate to midnight.)

2262: And doe such [bitter] busines as the {bitter} day

bitter day

bitter business

The Q2 phrasing is credibly authorial, as a poetic personification of "day." The Folio phrasing is utterly conventional, and cannot be viewed as an authorial improvement.

{The Folio editor mistakenly changed the line to produce conventional phrasing.}

(In performance, the Q2 phrase could be followed by an action of spitting, as if spitting out something bitter. The F1 phrase does not directly imply a particular action. For either phrase, Hamlet could pat his sword when he says "business.")

2267: I will speake {dagger} [Daggers] to her, but vse none,

dagger

daggers

The Q2 singular is the authorial form. Stage action tells us that. Hamlet carries a sword and a dagger, and as he says this line he pats his dagger. It's one dagger. Hamlet is saying he will use only his voice to "attack" Gertrude, not his (one) dagger. "Speak daggers," with the plural, is the common way of expressing it, which probably led the Folio editor to use the plural, when he didn't take the exact stage action into account.

{The Folio editor mistakenly used the plural as expected in common phrasing.}

(In performance, as mentioned, Hamlet pats his dagger while speaking the line.)

---

Scene 10 (Act 3 scene 3)

EH 2277: Hazerd so {neer's} [dangerous] as doth hourely grow

near us

dangerous

The Q2 phrase is confidently authorial, proven by the irony. In Q2, Hamlet is hiding within Claudius's room. When Claudius says near us, Hamlet is standing, hidden, with his sword, only a few feet from Claudius, and Claudius has no idea of that. The irony is sublimely Shakespearean in Hamlet.

The Folio word cannot be viewed as an authorial improvement, since it loses the wonderful irony, only to give a mundane expression.

{The Folio word is an error, for some reason, perhaps a difficulty in reading the 20-year old source papers, which forced the editor to guess.}

The issue of different versions of the play might arise. The Folio editor could, hypothetically, have been working from a simplified version in which Hamlet is not hiding in the room. Were that so, the F1 word could be authorial for that simplified version of the play, whatever it was, if it existed.

(In performance, near us provides the amusing opportunity for Claudius to gesture in the direction Hamlet is hiding, without knowing Hamlet is there.)

EH 2278: Out of his {browes} [Lunacies].

brows

lunacies

Both words make sense, there is no misprint or misreading. Both are probably authorial. Brows connects to Hamlet speaking of forehead and brow when he lectures Gertrude in her Closet, in the next Scene, and also to Claudius using "forehead" later in this Scene. That connection gives brows credibility as authorial. The word both makes sense, and provides allusion beyond the immediate context, with an instance on the minor Brow motif. Action also supports brows as authorial, since Claudius can place his fists to his forehead, and, with his index fingers extended, inadvertently do "devil horns." (It would be inadvertent by the Claudius character, but intentional action from Shakespeare, that is. The plural for brows suits "devil horns.")

The Folio word is obviously an instance on the Madness theme, one of the major themes. It accords well with Claudius's characterization, since Claudius has been slandering Hamlet as mad for continuing to mourn his father. In theme and characterization, the Folio word appears stronger than the Q2 word, as far as the writing, alone, goes. Both the Q2 and Folio words are metrical enough. (People make too much of supposing meter always must continue across changes in speaker; there are many exceptions to that in Hamlet.)

In assessing whether the Folio word is an intended improvement, and must be accepted, the question is whether the author favored a major Madness instance, and characterization, or another instance to better establish a minor motif. Either is possible; such a judgment is not easy. I judge characterization of overriding importance, on the point that Hamlet's alleged "madness," or the perception thereof among the people, proceeds so much from Claudius's slander of Hamlet. I therefore favor the Folio word, as probably being an authorial improvement to enhance the point about Claudius. Also, Claudius earlier used "lunacy" while speaking to R & G, which helps to support lunacies here, as he speaks to them again. Repetition of words and concepts, in one way and another, is a significant aspect of the play. Indeed, the author could have changed to lunacies here entirely because of the earlier usage, to get a repetition. Also, it is possible to read the phrase "his lunacies" with reference to R & G themselves; the idea is amusing, of Claudius accidentally calling R & G "his lunacies." As to the metrical result, Hamlet is clearly not Venus and Adonis. The word lunacies does admit of appropriate stage action: Claudius twirls his index fingers beside his head, near the ears, using both hands.

{The Folio editor may have found lunacies as an authorial change and correctly used it.}

(In performance, as mentioned, devil horns for Q2 brows, or twirling fingers for F1 lunacies. Alternatively, when Claudius says lunacies he could gesture rather absently toward R & G.)

EH 2292: To whose {hough} [huge] spokes, tenne thousand lesser things

hough

huge

Q2 hough is correct to the author's hand. It's an old word that refers to a leg joint. It leads directly to Rosencrantz saying "mortised and adjoined." For plain meaning, the phrase "hough spokes" means "joint spokes," i.e. spokes that have joints, or spokes that offer joints to attach things. The word hough is still present in modern English, but is now spelled and spoken "hock."

{The Folio editor probably didn't recognize hough, took it to be a misspelling, and (mis)corrected it.}

(In performance, for the line overall, R can extend his arms at "spokes," then flex the various joints of his arms and hands while he continues speaking. Done properly, it will make R himself look mad - which is the intended idea - as he flaps his arms and wiggles his fingers. The traditional discussion of Hamlet focuses excessively on the "madness" of the Hamlet character. When the play is properly performed, the audience will see all the major characters as at least a bit "mad," and sometimes more than a bit.)

EH 2295: Attends the boystrous {raine,} [Ruine.] neuer alone

rain

ruin

Rain in Q2 is the authorial word, having the sense of "downfall," and punning with "reign." The pun establishes it. The pun "boisterous reign" alludes in undertone to Claudius's behavior with the cannons. "Ruin" offers no improvement, quite the contrary. Then, stage action strongly favors rain.

In striving to find some credit for the Folio, "ruin" could conceivably suggest "ruing" in the sense of "regretting" or "sorrowing," i.e. "rue-ing." F1 "ruin" might, conceivably, be read in allusion to the "rue" Ophelia gives Laertes, and the "boisterous rue-ing" of both Laertes and Hamlet at Ophelia's grave. I consider that too much of a stretch, although such subtleties are not impossible in Hamlet. Since English is so abundant, a simple editorial error can produce a false appearance of relevance. The main voice against F1 is that it surrenders the nice pun, and it also gives up the allusion to Claudius's behavior, as R speaks to Claudius - and it has no action.

{The Folio editor missed the author's pun and misread the word.}

(In performance, Q2 rain can be done by extending the arms, and letting them descend while wiggling the fingers, to imitate rainfall; this action is continuous with "hough," i.e. R already has his arms extended and is wiggling his fingers, so he need only lower his arms at rain. F1 "ruin" doesn't look directly actable at all, and certainly doesn't give the nice continuity of action that rain provides.)

EH 2297: Arme you I pray you to this speedy {viage,} [Voyage;]

viage

voyage

Q2 viage is the Middle English root word of "voyage." Viage has a somewhat different meaning, however. In addition to the usual definition of "travel by ship," viage was sometimes used figuratively to mean a journey through life to heaven. Chaucer, for one, used the word that way. Claudius's use of viage carries the undertone that he thinks he's sending Hamlet to heaven, i.e. death. Viage is quite strong for being authorial here, since the word "voyage" does appear later in the play, in Q2, used by Claudius again, after he learns that Hamlet has not died. The difference between viage here, and "voyage" later in Q2, relates directly to the sequence of events, with Claudius using viage when he expects Hamlet to die, and then using "voyage" after he has learned Hamlet has not died. There is additionally the irony that Claudius says it to R and G, the ones who will actually end up "going to heaven" on the viage. The Folio word is probably a simple modernization of the author's word.

{The Folio editor modernized the word when he didn't realize the author's intended "going to heaven" undertone, which requires the exact word viage.}

(In performance, viage implies an upward gaze, toward heaven.)

EH 2298: For we will fetters put {about} [vpon] this feare

about

upon

Both words make sense, no question of misprint or misreading arises. Since the words are prepositions, it is probably not productive to assess them for allusions or wordplay. Such an attempt finds "bout" used at the fencing match, and a form of "pawn" used later, but a choice between the Q2 and F1 words on that basis is not at all clear.

With respect to the intentional ambiguity in Hamlet, both phrases "put about" and "put upon" offer relevant ambiguity, potentially, but significance is, again, not clear.

A search of modernized texts finds no other instance of the phrase "put about" in the Shakespeare plays. There are some eight other instances of the phrase "put upon." The words "fear" and "about" occur in the same speech, or stanza, some 20 times in the author's writings. The same search for "fear" and "upon" gives some 89 results. A search for "about this" gives 5 results. A search for "upon this" gives some 75 results. "About" appears elsewhere in the play 18 times. "Upon" appears 51 times. Folio "upon" is a clear favorite, statistically. I do not, however, fully trust statistics to decide individual cases, nor should anybody.

I cannot find that the Poet might have preferred one word to the other, based on sound in the line. The statistics tend to indicate he favored the sound of "upon," in the general way, unless the statistical preponderance of "upon" is only a result of how he used the words.

In the Player's recital, the part about Hecuba's panic, EH 1547, the same word difference occurs in reverse: there, the Q2 word is "upon," and the Folio word is "about." As noted for that earlier difference, the change in that case was probably to help avoid incorrect action. Action must be taken into account here, as well.

Claudius's fear, stated in the line, is in his head. His fear is running unrestrained, so to speak, in his own mind. The Q2 word about implies that Claudius puts his hands to the sides of his head. F1 upon implies that he puts his hands atop his head. The difference in actions is visually quite obvious.

In Elizabethan times, beheading was a standard punishment for a crime against the monarch committed by an aristocrat. Claudius is worried about being apprehended for the murder of his brother, who was the King. He could be beheaded.

The action of Claudius putting his hands on top of his head, as F1 upon implies, signifies Claudius's worry about "losing his head," both figuratively and literally. It gives the picture of Claudius, with his hands on top of his head, manually holding his head to his body, as Claudius tries to "keep his head." Q2 about is not as good, visually, for him "trying not to lose his head," as the saying goes. Shakespeare probably changed the word for a better stage posture by the Claudius character, to convey the idea of "keep your head."

{The Folio editor probably found an authorial refinement and properly used it.}

(In performance, the difference is as mentioned; best if Claudius says upon and puts his hands atop his head.)

EH 2334: Offences guilded hand may {showe} [shoue] by iustice,

show

shove

Q2 show is authorial, used in the quasi-legal context as in the phrase "to show cause." It can be read in the approximate sense of "plead." The "legal plea," in what Claudius is talking about, would be a bribe for the judge. Show is also a clear instance on the Putting On A Show theme. There is no reason to doubt the word's authenticity.

F1 "shove" makes sense in the line. It also allows a strong gesture in stage action. It is not thematic, as is the Q2 word. "Shove" does not appear elsewhere in the play (although it's related to the word "shuffle," which appears twice, as "shuffled" and "shuffling.") The only point in favor of the F1 word is that it does allow strong action, while the action of Q2 show is more restrained.

In judging between the words, it comes down to the question of whether the author would have changed the word merely to provide a stronger action in performance, since "shove" offers no other benefit, in comparison to the Q2 word. I can't say that he would, especially since what Claudius is taking about is a show of gold to buy off justice. In changing the word, Shakespeare would have sacrificed sense and theme, for only a single move onstage, and the one move, however vigorous at the moment, is only trivial in the course of the play. The F1 word is probably editorial, perhaps from the Folio editor not recognizing the author's legalistic use of show.

{The F1 editor may have changed the word himself, from not recognizing show in that context, and presuming a misprint.}

(In performance, show dictates a show of the hand, or of both hands, while "shove" dictates a shoving action.)

EH 2350: Now might I doe it {, but} [pat,] now a is a praying,

but

pat

The Q2 wording is conclusively authorial, because it produces a blank verse couplet for lines EH 2350 and 2351. The Folio error is easily found, since it ruins Shakespeare's poetry.

{The Folio editor might not have been able to read the line on his two-decade old source papers, and filled in the best he could.}

(The conjunction but goes with an ordinary sort of hand gesture, in performance.)

EH 2354: I his {sole} [foule] sonne, doe this same villaine send

sole

foul

The F1 word is nonsense. However, it probably means that Shakespeare intended sole to be spelled "soul," for wordplay. Hamlet is his father's sole (only) son, and also the son of his father's "soul."

{The Folio editor probably misread an authorial spelling of "soule," intended for wordplay.}

(In performance, soul can be played with a gesture to the heart.)

EH 2355: Why, this is {base and silly} [hyre and Sallery], not reuendge,

base and silly

hire and salary

Both phrases make sense, there is likely no misprint or misreading. Neither is likely to be an editorial fabrication. The phrases are probably both authorial, from different stages of the author's work. The difficulty is to determine which is the final stage.

Folio phrasing, where it differs from Q2, produces a constant dilemma. The source papers were two decades older when the Folio was done, which raises a doubt about how well the papers could be read at that later time, to the detriment of the Folio. However, since the Folio was done so much later, it is also more likely to reveal the author's final version. Circumstances both diminish, and enhance, the Folio's credibility, at the same time.

While base and silly works well in immediate context, I do not find that it connects very strongly with the broader concepts of the play. Read with reference to both characters, it gives Hamlet saying Claudius is a base person, while Hamlet is feeling silly. "This is base and silly" = Claudius is base, and I feel silly. That's quite good, but it lacks thematic linkage, or further significance.

Hire and salary conveys a money idea, which is a frequent concept in the play, and could even be called a Money motif. Polonius speaks of money, Hamlet calls himself a "beggar," Claudius has just referred to "gilded hand," and so on. The Folio phrasing not only works well in immediate context, it offers respectable relevance to the play, overall. Also, the concept offers indirect allusion to the Bible, 1 Timothy 5:18: "The laborer is worthy of his wages," (Geneva wording) where "wages" frequently becomes "hire" in common saying. The author's familiarity with the Bible is well established, and his familiarity with sayings is apparent throughout Hamlet. The F1 phrasing gives Hamlet saying it's as if Claudius has hired and paid him to send Claudius to heaven. In sum, the Folio phrase is credible as an authorial change.

{The Folio editor probably found the change to hire and salary and correctly used it.}

(In performance, for Q2 base and silly, Hamlet gestures from Claudius to himself. For F1 hire and salary, he makes the gesture of receiving a coin from Claudius: the standard "money" action, of rubbing the thumb against the fingers as if handling a coin. F1 offers the more distinct stage action, which further supports it.)

EH 2357: Withall his crimes braod blowne, as {flush} [fresh] as May,

flush

fresh

Q2 flush is conclusively the authorial word, because "flush as May" has an undertone of allusion back to the blush on the cheek of Ophelia, the Rose of May, at the 'Mousetrap Play,' when Hamlet was saying indecent things to her. The author would not have discarded that allusion. The Folio word is conventional, and cannot be an authorial improvement.

{The Folio editor made a mistake, for whatever reason; perhaps he was simply misled, accidentally, by his knowledge of common phrases, or he may have relied on something other than the author's final work.}

(In performance, the actor should say flush, and probably the line overall should be played with an expansive gesture. Hamlet could bring his hand back to his cheek at flush.)

EH 2366: At {game a} [gaming,] swearing, or about some act

game a

gaming,

The F1 change in which gaming stands alone has credibility in advance of the "game" of the fencing match, also, it follows well from the mentions of gaming by Polonius and Reynaldo in Scene 6 (Act 2 scene 1.) Hamlet will, indeed, ultimately dispose of Claudius at the fencing match, which involves a wager (and does not particularly involve swearing.) In the speeches of Reynaldo and Polonius, EH 916 & 917, "gaming," "drinking," "fencing" and "swearing" are all stated separately, so the F1 change brings Hamlet's line here more into the overall style of the play, for mention of such things.

{The Folio editor probably found the change and properly used it.}

(In performance, Hamlet does not necessarily sheath his sword when he says "Up sword." His phrase can be literal, so that he raises the point of the sword, no longer pointing it at Claudius. He can then sheath the sword at any time, including after his exit. If he has the sword in hand at gaming, he can wave it as if fencing, which would be ironic in advance of the fencing match. Or, if Hamlet does sheath his sword when he says "Up sword," he can still make a play gesture of fencing, only pretending to hold his sword; this latter sequence could be construed as "madder," with Hamlet still acting as if he's holding his sword, after he's sheathed it.)

---

Scene 11 (Act 3 scene 4)

EH 2381: [Mother, mother, mother.]

[none]

[The entire line.]

The line is not supposed to be in literature, Q2 is correct. It's a stage warning to insure Polonius will be hidden when Hamlet enters. The theater audience mustn't see Polonius still standing there in plain sight when Hamlet enters. The line shouldn't be used in the main playtext of Hamlet publications - but should always be footnoted or otherwise commented.

{The Folio editor mixed up "stage" and "page."}

(In performance, the line should not be necessary in modern production, and should be omitted.)

EH 2382: {Ger.} [Qu.] Ile wait you, feare me not,

Ger

Qu

Q2 Ger is the authorial speech prefix, from Shakespeare's hand. In this Scene, Gertrude is having a private, personal meeting with Hamlet, as his mother, not his sovereign. Her personal name applies here. The Folio editor apparently did not appreciate that point.

{The Folio editor used the wrong speech prefix.}

(No performance note applies to the printed speech prefix, itself. The actors should keep in mind a certain change of manners, as Hamlet is speaking to his mother in this Scene - not to his "sovereign Queen," as would be the case for a scene set in the Throne Room. For example, Hamlet doesn't bow to his mother when he enters here. However, if he approached her in the Throne Room, he would bow, since she's "the Queen" there.)

EH 2382: Ger. Ile {wait} [warrant] you, feare me not,

wait

warrant

Q2 wait is authorial. It's used in the sense of "attend" (like a waiter,) and carries the irony of Gertrude "waiting on" Polonius while he's so bossy, although the actual social status is very much the opposite.

Folio "warrant" offers no improvement I can find. Nor is "warrant" a misreading or misprint. It gives the appearance of being entirely editorial, perhaps the Folio editor supposing some warrant was needed for Polonius's conduct. Such editing would go along with the cleaning up of language in the Folio, under an English law which applied at the time. This is the second improper substitution of "warrant" into the playtext by the Folio editor (the other being at EH 931.)

{The Folio editor took it upon himself to change the word.}

(In performance, Gertrude's line, overall, is played with a "don't worry" gesture.)

EH 2433: With {heated} [tristfull] visage, as against the doome

heated

tristful

There is no misprint or misreading, and a difference due simply to editorial misunderstanding is probably out of the question. Both words are probably authorial, reflecting different stages of the author's work. The difficulty is to ascertain his ultimate preference. The difference in meaning is essentially between "angry" and "sad."

Q2 heated works well in context, since "heaven's face" (the sun) is hot, and Hamlet is glowering over Gertrude as he speaks. There is an implicit sun/son pun in the utterance, in Q2. Since the sun is hot, the utterance gives analogy to Hamlet, the "son," glowering over Gertrude, as he speaks angrily to her.

However, there is another "heaven's face" to which allusion can be made, and that is the moon. Interpretation of "heaven's face" as the face of the moon must also be considered, especially since the Scene is set at night. Heated does not work well in reference to the moon, although the moon does "glow," but tristful works well, poetically, in allusion to a sad face of the moon.

In his other writings, the author used "tristful" once, in Henry IV part 1, a speech by Falstaff, so the word is adequately established in the Shakespeare writings, with an independent usage. There is no need to doubt the mere presence of tristful in this case.

The author probably began, as shown in Q2, with the "angry son" concept, while Hamlet lectures Gertrude, but then switched to the idea of a "sad moon," as the Folio shows it, to go better with the basic fact of the Scene being at night. Sadness also works for Hamlet, so the change is still appropriate to his character. It indicates a change in how the Scene is played by Hamlet, from displaying anger, to displaying sorrow, as he looks at Gertrude. That should be no problem in performance. The F1 difference is fully credible as an authorial refinement, better suited to the nighttime setting.

{The Folio editor probably found an authorial change to tristful and correctly used it.}

(In performance, the actor should say tristful and put on a very exaggerated sad expression.)

EH 2435-6: {Ham.} That roares so low'd, and thunders in the Index,

Ham. (speech prefix)

[none]

F1 gives the line to Gertrude, Q2, to Hamlet. It would take more space to explain than this comment allows, but Q2 is unquestionably correct. There is a reason related to staging why Gertrude cannot speak this line.

{The Folio editor erred in giving the line to Gertrude.}

(In performance, Hamlet must speak the line.)

EH 2439: See what a grace was seated on {this} [his] browe,

this

his

Q2 this is authorial, but F1 "his" is not. The required "madness" tells us. The word this is ambiguous, it can be used to mean either "this," or "that." Hamlet intends to refer to his father's brow, but he "madly" misleads Gertrude to think he means his own brow. The ambiguity of this is required, to confuse Gertrude, and make Hamlet look "mad." Shakespeare probably never used the word "his" in this line, because its clarity discards the "madness" element of Hamlet's speech.

{The Folio editor apparently made the change, himself, for literal meaning, but erred.}

(In performance, Hamlet paradoxically puts a hand to his own brow, as he attempts to speak of his father's, which confuses Gertrude.)

EH 2443: New lighted on a {heaue, a kissing} [heauen-kissing] hill,

heave, a kissing

heaven-kissing

The Q2 phrasing is unquestionably correct to the author's hand, with no doubt at all. The author was impishly providing a peculiar definition of heave in advance of Claudius using the word "heaves" later.

{The Folio editor didn't realize the author's intent, and (mis)corrected it to the conventional phrasing.}

(In performance, the Hamlet actor gazes absently at Gertrude's bosom while saying a kissing hill.)

EH 2449: Blasting his wholsome {brother,} [breath.] ...

brother

breath

Superficially, it would seem the Q2 word must be right, and the Folio word must be in error, as Hamlet speaks of his uncle and father, who are brothers. It is not that simple, however. Hamlet's behavior must also be taken into account, to decide this case. What is Hamlet doing?

Hamlet is pointing back and forth between the pictures. The phrase "his wholesome breath" can be read as reference to Hamlet Sr, whose breath was healthy until Claudius poisoned him. If the line in question is read with stress on "his," the Folio word suddenly becomes much more reasonable, "his" becoming a reference to Hamlet Sr (not Claudius.) Hamlet means Claudius blasted his father's wholesome breath ("healthy life.")

{The Folio editor probably found an authorial change to breath and correctly used it.}

(In performance, Hamlet sweeps his sword to point from the picture of Claudius to the one of King Hamlet - the pictures are large, not miniatures, and Hamlet is using his sword to point to them.)

EH 2455 to 2456+4: (Multiple lines, not quoted here.)

[Nine lines.]

[none]

F1 left out some authorial lines in Hamlet's speech.

{The Folio editor was apparently working from something which was not Shakespeare's complete work for publication.}

(In performance, the lines should be spoken - and acted! - unless time constraints are unusually severe.)

EH 2463: And reason {pardons} [panders] will.

pardons

panders

Q2 pardons is authorial, which is established in that it connects back to Claudius speaking of "pardon" as he was trying to talk himself into prayer. Claudius's "will" and "pardon" ideas in the earlier Scene are repeated here, by Hamlet.

The F1 word cannot possibly be Shakespeare's ultimate choice, and it must be called into question whether he ever used the word at all in this location. The associated stage action is conclusive in this case.

{The Folio editor apparently changed the word, himself, for some reason.}

(In performance, Hamlet bows when he says pardons. Shakespeare gives Hamlet a bow for his "show" to Gertrude.)

EH 2465: Thou turnst {my very} [mine] eyes into my [very] soule,

very

very (relocated)

The change from my to "mine" is editorial, again, as in several other cases.

Q2 very means "true." Gertrude is speaking of seeing with her "true eyes," i.e. that she's seeing truly. The F1 difference gives only conventional phrasing, and can't be an authorial improvement. F1 probably shows editorial rephrasing.

{The Folio editor changed the phrasing, when he didn't recognize that use of very.}

(This is not the action word in performance; that would be "eyes" or "soul" or both.)

EH 2466: And there I see such blacke and {greeued} [grained] spots

grieved

grained

Q2 grieved is confidently authorial, supported by the powerful association between black and grief in the play. Gertrude is speaking of blackness in her grieving soul, as Hamlet, still grieving for his father, stands before her cloaked in black. The phrase "black and grieved" is decidedly in the author's style.

At first glance, F1 grained is much weaker than the Q2 word because it lacks expression of the "black grief" concept which is so significant in the play. But there are subtle factors to consider, as always in Hamlet.

The play has a Garden/Plant motif, for which the idea of "grain" works. Also, grained can be understood as "implanted," further connecting to the Garden/Plant motif. Queen Gertrude is implicitly associated with St Gertrude of Nivelles, a patron of gardeners, among other things, and it's Queen Gertrude who speaks the word. Further, according to the word usage in Shakespeare's time, grained can be understood as "dyed," which gives an implicit "died" pun. Because of those factors, the F1 word grained is well worth consideration. It has adequate plain meaning, provides an instance on a minor motif, offers implicit wordplay, and has a subtle relation to the character who speaks it.

However, in the dialogue flow, Gertrude's use of grieved constitutes an expression that she feels grief, which makes it strongly relevant to the scene action, overall. That's exactly what Hamlet is trying to do: get some kind of statement from Gertrude that she cares about his father's death. Q2 grieved accomplishes that, expressly, but the Folio word does not. It makes the Folio word weaker in the dialogue flow. Be that as it may, Gertrude's line and her speech, overall, still respond to what Hamlet is hoping to hear, even without her expressly referring to grief. She doesn't have to outright use the word.

The question becomes whether Shakespeare, as his final decision here, would have surrendered the overt and powerful "black grief" concept, which Q2 shows, in favor of the more subtle factors mentioned. It's iffy. Subtlety is the trademark of the language in Hamlet, and that fact tips the scales toward F1 grained, probably. In sum, I find it plausible, at least, that the author made the change as his final version, although the conclusion is not as strong as one would like.

{The Folio editor may have found the change and correctly used it.}

(In performance, for either word, Gertrude will be placing her hands to her heart as she speaks of her soul.)

EH 2467: As will [not] leaue {there} their tin'ct.

there

not

The Q2 phrasing has an exquisite subtlety of Gertrude saying "there, there" to her son. The F1 phrasing has interesting ambiguity, between whether the spots will be left, or not. Also, not provides more action. Since such ambiguity is so intrinsic to the style of Hamlet, F1 probably shows an authorial change.

{The Folio editor probably found the change and properly used it.}

(In performance, Gertrude can shake her head at not.)

EH 2476: A slaue that is not twentith part the {kyth} [tythe]

kith

tithe

Q2 kith makes good sense, and connects well with the "kind" concept in the play. It's credibly authorial.

The Folio word makes less sense, and it lacks significance for the play, judging by the language alone. However, the F1 difference is directly actable for a 'mad' effect. Hamlet can act the numbers he says, by opening his hands. Using both hands, when he says "twentieth" he shows ten fingers twice, and then, after only a brief pause, he shows ten fingers again when he says tithe. Done quickly, the hand action is hard to follow, as to what it might mean, and it looks odd. Also, opening the hands like that, toward someone, is a "magician" type of action, used in casting a spell. The potential for action makes the F1 difference credible as an authorial refinement.

{The Folio editor probably found the change and properly used it.}

(In performance, for tithe, as mentioned. For Q2 kith, the actor could spread his arms wide, since "kith" originally meant "country;" that's an inferior move to what tithe offers.)

EH 2522: Ecstasy?

[none]

Ecstasy

The F1 addition is credibly authorial as an expression of Hamlet's surprise at Gertrude's statement. Hamlet is certain of the Ghost, since others saw it as well, so he thinks Gertrude's inability to see it is something to do with her. Ironically, he's right, without understanding it.

{The Folio editor was probably correct to include the word.}

(In performance, Hamlet expresses surprise, and can include a 'mad' action such as twirling his finger by his head.)

EH 2534: And doe not spread the compost {on} [or] the weedes

on

or

Both words may be authorial in their respective publications. Q2 on is sensible. F1 or also makes sense well enough. One might spread either compost or weeds. In favor of F1 is that or puns with "o'er." Wordplay is an innate authorial feature of Hamlet.

Both words, and indeed all three words - on, or, and "o'er" - imply the same action: an extension of the arms, and wiggling of the fingers, to indicate something being sprinkled around.

The ambiguity of or, because of the pun with "o'er," is in keeping with the overall style of the play. Such ambiguity is also well compatible with the Scene, where Hamlet is supposed to appear "mad" to Gertrude. The inability to identify exactly what one says goes along with one appearing "mad." Since the F1 difference is compatible with the style of the play, and with the requirements of the Scene, it's credible as an authorial touchup.

{The Folio probably reflects an authorial refinement.}

(In performance, Hamlet can extend his arms and move his fingers to show sprinkling.)

EH 2542: And {leaue} [liue] the purer with the other halfe,

leave

live

Both words make sense. Q2 leave is authorial, proven by the ambiguity it lends to the utterance, which is decidedly Shakespearean in Hamlet. The Folio word cannot be viewed as an authorial improvement, since it produces only a conventional phrase.

However, leave was spelled "live" at one time, in Middle English. The author was not writing Middle English, but may have relied on knowledge of Middle English for a subtle pun. It may have been intended that leave should suggest "live." In that case, the Folio is not completely mistaken, but is revealing a desired additional meaning.

{This may be another instance where the Folio put the pun in the playtext, either accidentally or intentionally.}

(In performance, for Q2 leave Hamlet could make a gesture of casting something aside. For F1 live he could gaze upward, toward heaven, or use a prayer gesture.)

EH 2544+1 to 2546: (Multiple lines, not quoted here.)

[Eight full lines]

[none]

The lines F1 skipped are certainly authorial. It's unclear why F1 does not include them.

{The Folio editor may have been working from something other than the author's complete version for publication.}

(The lines should be included in performance whenever time allows.)

EH 2546+2: {And either - ? - the deuill, or throwe him out}

[A missing word.]

[none]

A word is missing between "either" and "the" in this line, and the line is found only in Q2. F1 is of no help. So, one can only guess what the missing word might be.

I surmise that the word was "fetch." My reasons are as follows.

1. "Fetch" works for plain reading.
2. "Fetch" is metrical.
3. "Fetch" is a word that appears more than 100 times in the Shakespeare writings, and it's reasonable to play the odds, when there's no alternative.
4. "Fetch" is an established word in the play, with two uses, at EH 931 and 3249-50.
5. "Fetch" when used as a noun refers to an apparition, a concept of obvious interest because of the Ghost's appearance in this Scene. (The modern noun "fetch" refers to an apparition of a living person, but nevertheless, any meaning of "apparition" is highly suggestive in this scene where the Ghost appears.)
6. "Fetching" means "charming," a concept connecting to general notions of witchcraft, magic, etc.
7. Polonius used the phrase "fetch of wit" at EH 931, and it was an accidental "fetch of wit" by Polonius, in this Scene, that summoned the Ghost.
8. "Fetch" can be acted in a meaningful and relevant way.

Therefore, I offer "fetch" as my guess at the missing word. It must be understood, however, that Shakespeare's own word is forever unknown - and the missing word could even be a word of his own coinage - so that any editorial suggestion is necessarily only a guess, and is acceptable only if it's reasonably credible and meaningful. However good any editorial suggestion might look, it could still be wrong.

{No Folio note applies.}

(In performance, "fetch" can be acted with a beckoning gesture, like the Ghost used to beckon Hamlet.)

EH 2555: {This} [Thus] bad beginnes, and worse remaines behind.

This

Thus

The Q2 word is authorial, as shown by the poetry. The Q2 line means, "This begins bad, ..." The Folio editor apparently didn't realize the poetic word order needs to be switched for prose sense, and changed the first word to try to make prose sense of the line as it stands.

{The Folio is in error due to editorial misunderstanding of the poetry.}

(Hamlet points toward Polonius when acting either word.)

EH 2555+1: {One word more good Lady.}

[The entire line.]

[none]

The line, found only in Q2, has authorial credibility, because there's reason for Hamlet to say it, beyond what's explicit in the text.

{The Folio just missed the line.}

(In performance, Hamlet shows an index finger for one.)

EH 2558: Let the {blowt} [blunt] King temp't you againe to bed,

bloat

blunt

Both words make sense, misprint is not likely. The words are probably both authorial in their respective publications. Q2 bloat insults Claudius as both fat, and swelled with pride. Folio blunt insults Claudius as stupid and insensitive, and further adds an instance on the Edge motif. Of special note, blunt is an obsolete term for a blunted sword used for fencing, so the word provides a subtle advance allusion, in undertone, to the fencing match.

{The Folio editor probably found an author's change to blunt and correctly used it.}

(In performance, for Q2 bloat the actor would hold his arms out from his sides to imitate being extremely fat. For F1 blunt the identical action can be done, since blunt can be understood as "rounded," and a person who is "rounded" is fat.)

EH 2577+1 to 2577+9: (Multiple lines, not quoted here.)

[Nine lines.]

[none]

These lines, all in one speech by Hamlet, are found only in Q2. They're credibly authorial, in every respect. Their omission in F1 is an editorial decision. Shakespeare certainly did not wish his own carefully-crafted lines to be left out of a publication; that notion, raised in some old Hamlet commentary, is patently foolish.

{The Folio editor skipped these authorial lines, perhaps just because he didn't understand how Hamlet could know what he says. The explanation for Hamlet's knowledge is not difficult, however.}

(The lines should be included in performance whenever time allows.)

---

Scene 12 (Act 4 scene 1)

EH 2586 - 2586+1: Eenter King {, and Queene, with Rosencraus and Guyldensterne}.

Enter King, and Queen, with (R & G)

Enter King

The Q2 entry is not only authorial, it is mandatory. Gertrude is entering to Claudius's room, where she finds Claudius in conference with R & G, who have returned from packing for the trip. The presence of R & G is indispensible, to stop Hamlet from killing Claudius. The Scene change requires extended discussion, far beyond this brief comment. There is no chance whatsoever that F1 can be right, because the omission of R & G would kill Claudius.

{The Folio editor blundered badly: he killed Claudius here, eight Scenes too early.}

(Performance requires entries, into Claudius's room, as the Q2 stage direction says.)

It is not proper to have an act division at this Scene, since the lapse of time is only one or two minutes after the preceding Scene. The action is not fully continuous, with the change of room, but nearly so.

EH 2590+1: {Bestow this place on vs a little while.}

[The entire line.]

[none]

The Folio editor cut this authorial line, himself, because he incompetently removed R & G from the stage direction.

{The Folio editor blundered.}

(The line must be included in performance, since R & G will be there when the play is correctly done.)

EH 2591: Ah {mine owne} [my good] Lord, what haue I seene to night?

mine own

my good

Q2 is authorial, proven by the double meaning. Gertrude is both speaking to Claudius, and also saying "my lord" as an exclamation. The F1 word "good" pins it down as a reference to Claudius, according to conventional address, and thereby ruins the intended ambiguity.

{The Folio editor obliviously conventionalized the phrase.}

(In performance, Gertrude should gaze upward as she speaks the phrase.)

EH 2596: {Whyps out his Rapier,} [He whips his Rapier out, and] cryes a Rat, a Rat,

Whips . . . rapier

He whips . . . and

The Q2 phrasing is authorial. Gertrude is assigning blame for use of the rapier to "lawless fit," as she tries to defend Hamlet. She's saying the fit is to blame for the rapier, not Hamlet, personally, as his normal self. The Folio phrasing ruins Gertrude's meaning, and cannot be an authorial improvement.

{The Folio editor tried to fix the phrasing for better plain reading, inappropriately so.}

(In performance, Gertrude imitates drawing a sword.)

EH 2597: And in {this} [his] brainish apprehension kills

this

his

Q2 this is authorial, F1 "his" is not. Gertrude is overwrought here, and is having a 'mad' moment, so the ambiguity of this is required. It has unintentional self reference.

{The Folio editor changed the word.}

(In performance, Gertrude grasps her own head.)

EH 2617: But we will ship him hence, and this {vile} [vilde] deede

vile

vilde

This is another of the instances where the author may have combined "vile" and "wild" in one word, as printed five times in F1. The difference is ponderable as an authorial refinement, and his own coinage, although it may be only a spelling variant.

{The Folio editor may have found the change and correctly used it.}

(In performance, Claudius could shake his head and wave his arms.)

EH 2618 to 2620: (Multiple lines, not quoted here.)

Enter (R & G) at 2618

Enter (R & G) at 2619

The Q2 entry placement is authorial, and required. R & G must be onstage when Claudius says "countenance and excuse," because the phrase has an undertone relevant to them; thus, the audience must see them when Claudius speaks the phrase.

{The Folio editor erred in moving the entry.}

(In performance, the entry timing must be as Q2 shows.)

EH 2628+1 to 2628+4: (Multiple lines, not quoted here.)

[Four lines.]

[none]

The lines are certainly authorial, and needed for the play, since they provide advance allusion to Laertes hearing the "whispers" in the town when he returns. Claudius's fear about people talking will come true. The lines have other nice undertones, as well.

{The Folio editor was apparently working from something not the author's complete version for publication.}

(The lines should be included in performance whenever possible.)

---

Scene 13 (Act 4 scene 2)

EH 2630 to 2634: (Multiple lines, not quoted here.)

[none]

[Two full lines] and the R & G entry moved to 2634.

The way the Q2 entries were done requires a separate discussion. However, the conclusion from examining the Q2 entries, throughout the play, is that the F1 change in this case is probably editorial, with EH 2632 an editorial addition. The main mark against F1 is that it has Hamlet saying he sees R & G before they enter, which is not possible in literature, and not really possible on the open stage, either.

{The changes to these lines were probably done by the Folio editor.}

(In performance, F1 might be followed if desired, provided that the entries are suitably interpreted, but with the entries suitably interpreted, the F1 sequence is not necessary.)

EH 2647-8: keepes them like an {apple} [Ape] in the corner of his iaw,

apple

ape

Q2 apple is an authorial word, proven by the implicit reference to colors. There are two common types of apples, red and yellow, the latter often called "gold." Hamlet is speaking to Rosencrantz, as Guildenstern stands nearby, and the names of R & G also have implicit reference to the colors red and gold. Hamlet is allusively, and implicitly, comparing R & G to red and gold apples.

The F1 word ape is also credibly authorial, particularly since it works better for performance than the Q2 word. Although ape loses the nice immediacy to R & G, it does carry an insult to Claudius, and also offers an actor allusion (since actors were often called "apes" in those days.) The main point is probably that ape goes with Hamlet acting apish, for more "mad" stage action.

{The Folio editor probably found an authorial change for more stage action, and properly used it.}

(In performance, it's probably better for Hamlet to say ape and act apish. I don't know of direct action for apple, but Hamlet can stick his tongue prominently in his cheek for the line overall.)

EH 2659-60: Of nothing, bring me to him. [hide Fox, and all after.]

[none]

hide fox, and all after

The F1 addition must be judged in terms of action. It may be authorial, but perhaps intended for stage only, since it's discordant in literature. The Q2 line, ending as it does, reads better.

The F1 addition has reference to a fox hunt, so, Hamlet can "gallop" off, as if riding a horse. Everyone else then "gallops" after him, as though they are also riding horses. Hamlet's 'madness' is contagious. Hamlet mentioned "contagion" earlier.

{The Folio editor probably found the addition and properly used it, in the sense that it's plausibly authorial for 'mad' stage action.}

(In performance, as mentioned.)

---

Scene 14 (Act 4 scene 3)

EH 2690+1 to 2690+3: (Multiple lines, not quoted here.)

[Three lines.]

[none]

The lines are credibly authorial, and adequately 'mad.'

{The Folio omission is probably an ordinary mistake.}

(The lines should be included in performance, unless time restrictions are especially severe.)

EH 2704: [With fierie Quicknesse.] Therefore prepare thy selfe,

[none]

With fiery quickness.

The added phrase is metrical, thematic on the Fire motif, and actable, which leaves nothing to say against it. It can even provide a bit of a 'mad' moment for Claudius.

{The Folio editor found the phrase and properly included it.}

(In performance, Claudius can spread his arms and wave his hands up and down to portray flames leaping up. Best if he does it rather like a bird flapping its wings.)

EH 2729: By Letters {congruing} [coniuring] to that effect

congruing

conjuring

Both words make sense, there is likely no misprint or misreading. Both words are probably authorial, in their respective publications. Q2 congruing is related to "congruent" and can be understood as "fitting." Claudius means letters that "fit" his purpose. There is a "fit" concept that runs through the play, often ambiguous to allude to a fit of madness as well as the more usual meaning, so congruing has support in that way. It subtly expresses a concept on the Madness theme.

Folio conjuring corresponds to Hamlet's later use of "conjuration," EH 3540, in reference to a king's order. This supports the Folio word, since the author often used repetition to make dialogue connections. The main support for conjuring comes from the undertone of magic. The idea of magic is especially associated with poison and death, as seen with the villain at the 'Mousetrap,' intended to be analogous to Claudius, using magic to enhance the poison of the plants. Here, Claudius's use of conjuring has the undertone that his order to England is his "black magic" to kill Hamlet. Conjuring is credible as an authorial fine tuning, to make a dialogue connection, and also to add the "black magic" idea to Claudius's line.

{The Folio editor probably found an authorial refinement and correctly used it.}

(In performance, for Q2 congruing Claudius can interlace the fingers of his hands to show "fitting." For F1 conjuring he can make a magician type of gesture.)

EH 2733: How ere my haps, my ioyes {will nere begin} [were ne're begun].

will ne'er begin

were ne'er begun

Both make sense, there is probably no misprint. Both are plausibly authorial in their respective publications. Decision between them rests significantly on whether the author ultimately decided to end the Scene with a rhyme. Sometimes he did, sometimes he didn't, in Hamlet. The iambic pentameter is imperfect in the last two lines, because of the semicolon in EH 2732. The imperfect rhythm tends to work against a rhyme, and support Q2, since an exact couplet is impossible with unequal rhythm.

It is not only a metrical question, because the meanings are notably different. The Q2 phrase is not very logical, unless one takes it that Claudius had no joy in becoming king, which is contrary to the dialogue in his first appearance, where he seemed quite pleased to be king. One does not expect too much logic in figurative speech, but still, it's weak, that the literal wording is dubious.

The Folio phrase avoids that problem of illogic in literal wording, through the change from prospect to retrospect. In F1, Claudius is saying, poetically, it's as though his joys were never begun. As retrospect, the line becomes entirely figurative, with no literalness to bother about. In addition to the rhyme, there's a gain in sense. The Folio phrase is credibly an authorial improvement, in which he both improved the sense, and added the rhyme.

{The Folio editor probably found an author's change and correctly used it.}

(In performance, since the phrase immediately precedes an exit there is probably no large action intended for it. Claudius can shake his head and look sad.)

---

Scene 15 (Act 4 scene 4)

EH 2737:

Craves

Claims

The Q2 word craves is the author's word. "Crave" has root meanings of both "strength" and "craft," the former going right along with Fortinbrasse's name, and the latter going along with his "craft" in getting into Denmark. The undertones of the word are strongly relevant to Fortinbrasse. Craves is also more literally correct for Fortinbrasse, here. Additionally, the action in performance is decisively in favor of craves.

The Folio word offers little to compare, and cannot be viewed as an authorial improvement. It does go along with Fortinbrasse's later expressed "claim" to Elsinore, but that's weak in comparison to what craves offers, especially considering the action. In light of the stage action, it's questionable that Shakespeare ever used "claims" here, although he might have at some point.

{The Folio word might conceivably be an editorial guess at an unreadable word on some 20-year old manuscript; alternatively, perhaps the Folio editor relied on some earlier version of the author's writing, not his final.}

(In performance, Fortinbrasse pats his stomach when he says craves. Recall Horatio mentioning that Fortinbrasse's enterprise had a "stomach" in it.)

EH 2743: Goe {softly} [safely] on.

softly

safely

Q2 softly is credibly authorial, while F1 "safely" is much less so. Softly means "quietly," so as not to arouse any suspicion of aggressive intent. F1 "safely" has nothing to compensate for the loss of that implication. Also, softly is directly actable.

{The Folio is in error, for whatever reason, perhaps difficulty reading old manuscript.}

(In performance, Fortinbrasse can place a finger to his lips when he says softly.)

EH 2743+1 to 2743+60: (Multiple lines, not quoted here.)

[The entire passage.]

[none]

The passage is certainly authorial.

{The Folio editor apparently used something other than the author's complete work for publication.}

(The lines should be included in performance whenever playing time allows.)

---

Scene 16 (Act 4 scene 5)

EH 2754: The hearers to collection, they {yawne} [ayme] at it,

yawn

aim

Q2 yawn is confidently authorial, on the Mouth motif. It offers both good plain meaning, ("gape,") and clear thematic significance. Yawn also suggests sleep, which links to the sleep-as-death concept, and gives another thematic connection.

I am not able to find a way to view the Folio word as an authorial fine tuning. It might be seen to weakly connect to Claudius later speaking of missing his aim, EH 3032, but that's inadequate to support the word.

{The Folio editor perhaps used some of the author's earlier work, pre-Q2, before he thought of yawn; otherwise it's merely an error, for whatever reason.}

(In performance, both words are playable. Q2 yawn suggests an open-mouthed gape, and F1 aim suggests aiming a bow and arrow, or just pointing a finger. The gape is obviously better for the meaning of the speech.)

EH 2770: By his cockle hat and staffe, and his {Sendall} [Sandal] shoone.

sendal

sandal

Q2 sendal is authorial, it means "silk." Ophelia is singing of silk slippers. In performance, the first syllable is pronounced "sin." The meaning is, she is picturing Hamlet as silk slippers in a world of sandals. The phrase "sendal shoon" means "silk slippers."

The F1 difference is not authorial. The word sendal is, indeed, supposed to suggest "sandal," but that's wordplay.

{The Folio editor put the pun in the playtext.}

(In performance, Ophelia is dancing during this 'mad' appearance. At sendal she pronounces the first syllable as "sin" and does devil horns, as she high steps in the manner of a satyr. Ophelia, herself, is wearing silk dancing slippers.)

EH 2781: Which beweept to the {ground} [graue] did not go

ground

grave

Both words are probably authorial in their respective publications, and there is no misprint. Q2 ground raises a small problem in the undertone of self-reference in Ophelia's line. She will not fall to the ground, but rather into water. With ground her line is literally true, for her fall, however, that is not the point of her line, it is not supposed to concern an irrelevant, literal truth of ground versus water. The intended purpose of the line is different. Folio grave works better for the undertone of allusion to Ophelia, herself, by avoiding an irrelevant literalness. Then there is the simple point of grave being more explicit for the Death theme.

{The Folio editor probably found the change to grave and correctly used it.}

(In performance, either word implies a downward gesture.)

EH 2806-7: ... to thinke they {would} [should] lay him i'th cold ground, ...

would

should

The F1 difference is credible on the point of Ophelia thinking Polonius should have been buried. She is not grieving.

{The Folio editor probably found the change and properly used it.}

(In performance, Ophelia can nod when she says should.)

EH 2808-10: ... God night Ladies, ... Sweet Ladyes god night, ...

Ladies . . . Ladyes

Ladies . . . Ladyes (no change)

Although there is no difference in wording, I include this comment because there appears to be a Q2 error which the Folio perpetuated. The second word, oddly spelled "Ladyes" in both original printings, is probably supposed to be singular. Ophelia is probably calling Gertrude "sweet Lady." The first word, ladies, would be for Gertrude's ladies in waiting. Ophelia says good night to the ladies in waiting first, then wishes Gertrude good night in conclusion. (Ophelia is "madly" imagining herself leaving a fairy tale ball, saying good night to all the ladies who are jealous of her, because the Prince loves her, and she concludes with a good night to the "fairy tale" Queen.)

Alternatively, the "-es" on the end of "Ladyes" may be another instance of Ophelia's lisp. In that case, the odd spelling is intentional. The word is actually "Lady," but spoken with a lisp. I suggest that a modern playtext should use the word "Lady" (capitalized, since it refers to Queen Gertrude.) If the text is annotated, a note should be included pointing out the original spelling, and Ophelia's lisp as a possible explanation for it. A nonstandard spelling in a modern text, with no note, would not be appropriate, and would certainly not be enough, by itself, to inform a reader of the lisp possibility.

{The alternatives are that the special spelling indicates Ophelia's lisp, or that the Folio simply repeated a Q2 printing error.}

(In performance, Ophelia is waving goodnight as she leaves, and she may lisp the word Lady, if the actress and the production so desire.)

EH 2814: death, {and now behold,} ô Gertrard, Gertrard,

and now behold

[none]

This phrase, found only in Q2, is instantly credible as authorial, since it provides a clear instance of the Putting On A Show theme, one of the major themes of the play. Claudius has just been "audience" to Ophelia's "show" of madness.

{The Folio apparently simply missed the phrase.}

(In performance, Claudius can do a stock behold action, such as the hands near the temples, then sweeping outward.)

EH 2835: [Alacke, what noyse is this?]

[none]

[The entire line.]

The line added in F1 has full credibility, because Gertrude has motivation to exclaim. She thinks, at first, it's Fortinbrasse attacking the Castle. King Norway and Fortinbrasse fooled Claudius, but they didn't fool her. Apparently Q2 skipped the line by accident, since an equivalent is found in Q1.

{The Folio editor found the line and correctly included it.}

(In performance, the line is recited in an exclamatory way, obviously. Gertrude should bring her hands up near her ears, for a visual indication of the Ear motif.)

EH 2857-8: ... keepe the doore, ô thou {vile} [vilde] King,

vile

vilde

This is another case where F1 may show a post-Q2 authorial coinage to combine "vile" and "wild."

{The Folio editor may have found the change and properly used it.}

(In performance, Laertes should act rather wild and vile, himself.)

EH 2860-1: That drop of blood {thats calme} [that calmes] proclames

that's calm

that calms

Both may be authorial in their respective publications. F1 calms is more compatible with the subsequent "proclaims," "Cries," and "brands," and is likely an authorial touchup.

{The Folio editor probably found the change and correctly used it.}

(In performance, Laertes can elevate an index finger for one - one drop of blood.)

EH 2890: Of your deere {Father, i'st} [Fathers death, if] writ in your reuenge,

father, i'st

father's death, if

The Q2 phrasing is authorial; the F1 phrasing is not. There is a joke. Laertes has spoken of being a "bastard," EH 2860-1. In the Q2 phrasing, Claudius speaks of Laertes being certain of his father. The implication, in the exact Q2 phrasing, is of a search for Laertes's father, i.e. who his father is. It's a "bastard" joke, but an extremely subtle one, since it spans 30 lines. The F1 phrasing certainly cannot be authorial, because it ruins Shakespeare's joke.

By the way, notice the word "dear" in the line. It's the same dear/deer pun that appears in several of the Shakespeare writings, in connection with the concept of deer being sexually promiscuous.

{The Folio editor blundered by changing the phrasing himself.}

(In performance, Claudius can simply place his hands to his heart.)

EH 2896: And like the kind life-rendring {Pelican} [Politician],

pelican

politician

At first impression, the Folio change appears bizarre, and one is inclined to jump to the conclusion it must only be an odd printing error. But perhaps things are not so simple.

After Hamlet had been in performance for a while, the audience would have become familiar with the pelican idea that underlies Laertes's speech. They would have known the concept. The audience could then have accepted the word change, for political satire, without losing comprehension of the speech. There is a reasonable chance the Folio difference reveals a stage change, for satire, after the audience was already familiar enough with the "pelican" idea to appreciate the change. The Q2 word pelican should probably always be used in a Hamlet playtext printing, but a good presentation of the play should probably always include a note for "politician," mentioning how a knowing audience could appreciate the satire. This is not to conclude that "politician" is necessarily authorial, it might be an actor's wit that has been preserved.

{The Folio difference probably reveals stage evolution, for satire: a pelican evolved into a politician, on stage.}

(Modern performance should probably avoid the Folio satire, which relies on the audience already being well familiar with the play, in detail. When Laertes says pelican he has his arms spread, like a bird's wings, as his speech explicitly states.)

EH 2901: And am most {sencibly} [sensible] in griefe for it,

sensibly

sensible

Both words are probably authorial in their respective publications. The F1 difference has Claudius implying that Laertes should "be sensible," which is an improvement.

{The Folio editor probably found an authorial refinement and properly used it.}

(In performance, Claudius can tap his head.)

EH 2902: It shall as leuell to your iudgement {peare} [pierce]

'pear

pierce

There is likely no misprint. The Q2 word, short for "appear," is credibly authorial, and is obviously an instance on the Watch motif, with respect to use of the eyes. It also puns with "peer," which is significant following "level." A "peer" is a person on the same "level."

Claudius's utterance means: 'it will be "plain as day" to your judgment that my claim of innocence is "on the level."' The use of either word at issue makes no real difference to the meaning, for plain reading.

Even though the Q2 word has aspects that connect well to the play, it's weak. The "peer" pun, after "level," is nice enough, but of no great importance, although it does connect back to the "peer" concept in EH 2839. As a Watch instance, the Q2 word is superfluous, because of "eye" in the next line. The author could have changed the Q2 word without regret.

The Folio word gains interest in relation to both Claudius and Laertes being wounded at the fencing match, pierced by the poisoned foil. Also, Claudius will soon speak his wish that his "arrows" could pierce Hamlet, although Claudius does not expressly use the word. This use of the word pierce is unique in the Hamlet playtexts, and is only in F1, but the word is common enough in the author's writings to avoid suspicion of its appearance here.

The question is whether the author would have given up a "peer" pun following "level," and a slight Watch instance, in order to get a "pierce" meaning, through a unique use of pierce. "Level" is used only once elsewhere, at EH 2628+2, which is in Claudius's lines about shooting poisoned shot. Through that dialogue connection, via "level," the use of pierce does carry a subtle suggestion of Claudius "piercing" Laertes's judgment, to "poison" him against Hamlet, which is exactly what Claudius will proceed to do in the play. The undertone of pierce is faint, but relevant, and predictive. I find it plausible that the author made the change, although I find no firm conclusion.

{The Folio editor may have found the change to pierce and correctly used it.}

(In performance, Claudius can be pointing his index finger to his temple following the word "judgment," or following the previous line. For pierce in particular, Claudius can point his finger at Laertes, and even give him a gentle jab; Claudius can do that while still pointing the index finger of his other hand to his head.)

EH 2904: Let her come in.

[The line is given to Laertes.]

[The line is given to Claudius.]

F1 cannot be right, because Laertes's followers control the door, as was expressly stated in line EH 2857. Having said that, it's possible to play this particular line in a 'mad' way, as a double-character line, with Laertes and Claudius speaking it simultaneously. However, exactly as printed, F1 is simply wrong. As a solo line, it must go to Laertes, as Q2 shows, or there'll be no entry; the followers of Laertes won't obey Claudius.

{The Folio is either simply in error, or it subtly reveals that the line can be played double-character, with both Laertes and Claudius speaking it in unison.}

(In performance, either Laertes speaks the line, or if a production wishes, it can 'madly' be played double, as mentioned. The latter is fully compatible with confusion over who is now in charge.)

EH 2913: Should be as mortall as {a poore} [an old] mans life.

a poor

an old

There is no misprint or misreading. Q2's poor has an undertone of allusion to Hamlet, the "beggar," which is ironic as Laertes speaks, since he'll be directly responsible for the end of Hamlet's life. While intending to speak of his father, Laertes unknowingly makes relevant allusion to Hamlet, the "poor beggar" Laertes will go on to kill.

The Folio word makes better sense for plain reading. It goes well, literally, with the preceding line. But the author was so masterful throughout Hamlet at using words for allusion, wordplay, etc, it's difficult to see him making a change only to get literal antithesis. That's wouldn't be typical of Shakespeare, in Hamlet.

However, recall the "young-old" wordplay that Hamlet used while talking to Polonius, EH 1241. Although he was teasing, Hamlet cast himself as the old one, compared to Polonius. Following that, the Folio change looks soundly authorial. Carrying that old mixup concept forward to here, the Folio change still gives an undertone of allusion to Hamlet, in addition to a better literal application to Polonius, and also the good literal antithesis, and a nice epigram form to Laertes's speech. With old understood as mentioned, the change is highly credible as an authorial improvement.

{The Folio editor found the author's refinement and correctly used it.}

(In performance, the line overall goes along with Laertes placing both hands to his chest over his heart, and when he says old he can hunch over, like an old man with a bent back.)

EH 2914 - 2916: (Multiple lines, not quoted here.)

[none]

[Three lines.]

In these three lines Laertes is trying to explain Ophelia's condition to himself. He's trying to say that the end of Polonius's life was also the end of Ophelia's mind, since she loved her father so much. He's quite wrong, at least about why. Laertes expresses himself the way he imagines his father would explain it to him. The F1 addition has full authorial credibility, to provide more on Laertes's characterization.

{The F1 editor found the added lines and properly included them.}

(The lines should be included in performance, unless playing time is short, and spoken in a pompous way, as of Laertes trying to imitate his father.)

EH 2918: [Hey non nony, nony, hey nony:]

[none]

[The entire line.]

The line is suitable for Ophelia's 'madness.' It is credibly authorial on that basis. Also, it has associated action. However, since it is a line used in refrains of songs, it could be better placed after line 2919. There is a distinct chance that the line was inserted incorrectly in F1. "Madness" or no, a refrain line belongs after the verse.

{The Folio editor probably correctly included the line, but apparently placed it incorrectly.}

(In performance, since the line is a refrain, or "wheel," Ophelia spins as she sings it.)

EH 2934-5: you {may} [must] weare your Rewe ...

may

must

The Folio word cannot be an authorial improvement. Ophelia, the Rose of May, says may when she's handling flowers.

{The Folio erred, for whatever reason.}

(In performance, Ophelia will be shaking her finger at Laertes in an "instructional" or admonitory way, just as Polonius used to do.)

EH 2939: Thought and {afflictions} [Affliction], passion, ...

afflictions

affliction

Laertes's phrase "Thought and affliction," with the singular, means approximately "grief and torment." The singular is better for the sentiment.

{The Folio either corrects a slight misprint in Q2, or it includes an authorial touchup.}

(In performance, Laertes could tear at his hair, or do similar 'mad' action, ironically looking more 'mad,' for a moment, than Ophelia is.)

EH 2964: His meanes of death, his obscure {funerall,} [buriall;]

funeral

burial

Both words are likely authorial in their respective publications. The problem is to decide whether the Folio word is an authorial improvement. "Obscure burial" can be seen, in subtle undertone, to give ironic allusion to Hamlet's hiding of Polonius under the stairs, when Hamlet "compounded the body with the dust." Laertes knows nothing of that, but alludes to it accidentally. Thus, the difference is probably an authorial refinement, since it adds the subtle link to other events.

{The Folio editor found an authorial change and correctly used it.}

(Either word could be acted by doing a prayer gesture, or any action that goes along with funeral or burial.)

---

Scene 17 (Act 4 scene 6)

EH 2974: {Sea-faring men} [Saylors] sir, they say they ...

Sea-faring men

Sailors

The F1 difference is not authorial. Particularly, the "fare" idea, in Q2, links to the play. EH 1948, 2138. The author would not simply have dropped a "fare" word in exchange for nothing.

{The Folio editor changed the line, himself, to print only one line in the Folio's two-column layout.}

(In performance, the Gentleman will bow to Horatio, and can do the type of bow where he brings his hands to his mouth.)

EH 2993-5: ... doe a [good] turne for them, ...

[none]

good

The F1 addition of "good" lacks credibility. Detailed discussion of why, would take more time and space than the word merits. We know what the pirates want, of course.

{The Folio editor added the word, himself.}

(The word should not be spoken in performance.)

EH 2996-8: ... much too light for the {bord} [bore] of the matter, ...

bord

bore

Q2 bord has some authorial credibility, exactly as it stands, since that exact spelling is the Old French word for the side of a ship. That's precisely the figure of speech Hamlet is using, that the "cannon" of his words is not powerful enough to penetrate the "side boards" of the "enemy vessel." However, the word "board" is spelled bord elsewhere in the play, so the Q2 word may be intended as "board," still expressing the same idea, the side boards of a ship. In either event, the word bord/"board" is authorial.

F1 "bore" makes no sense in the utterance, and can't be authorial.

{The Folio editor either misread, or the Folio has an ordinary misprint.}

(In performance, Horatio is reading the letter.)

EH 3001-2: {So} [He] that thou knowest thine

So

He

The Q2 word is authorial, proven by the purpose of the line. Hamlet's closing means, "So that you'll know it's me (is why I've written this line.)" It's a reassurance to Horatio. Hamlet added the closing, worded in that special way, because he knew Horatio would be suspicious of the letter under the circumstances. The Folio word is wrong.

{The Folio editor changed the word, to make it a better closing according to standard form, which was the wrong thing to do.}

(The word is not played. Horatio should nod as he reads the line.)

EH 3003: Come I will [giue] you way for these your letters,

[none]

give

The word "give" is editorial in F1. To be under way is to be under sail. Horatio is saying, 'I will "sail" you...' Way is used as a verb in Horatio's line. It's nautical metaphor.

{The Folio editor didn't understand the phrasing and added the word, himself.}

(The word "give" should not be spoken in performance.)

---

Scene 18 (Act 4 scene 7)

EH 3014: So {criminall} [crimefull,] and so capitall in nature,

criminal

crimeful

Both words are likely authorial. Q2 criminal is conventional, and goes well with "capital."

This appearance of crimeful is apparently a unique use in the author's writings, but there are many "-ful" words in Hamlet, (fretful, needful, fruitful, dreadful, shameful, etc.,) so the "-ful" form of nearly any word, where it can make sense, would be plausible in the play. The "full" idea has conceptual significance, such as in Hamlet speaking of his father being killed while "grossly full of bread." Sin can be viewed as crime, religious crime, so Hamlet's phrase, alone, is enough to lend some support to crimeful here. Crimeful is credible as an authorial fine tuning.

{The Folio editor found the change and correctly used it.}

(This word is apparently not the playable one in the line. That would be "capital," with the action of grabbing the head.)

EH 3015: As by your safetie, {greatnes,} wisdome, all things els

greatness

[none]

Q2 greatness is authorial, and F1 should not have dropped it. Laertes has gone extra-metrical to recite a short list. Polonius had a tendency to do lists, and Laertes is a chip off the old block. Further, the word is nicely playable. The word goes back, ironically, to EH 480, and also links to Hamlet's "mole of nature" speech.

{The Folio editor erred.}

(In performance, Laertes should include greatness in the line, and hold his arms out from his body, unintentionally, with his body language, insulting Claudius as fat.)

EH 3022: She is so {concliue} [coniunctiue] to my life and soule,

conclive

conjunctive

The Q2 word is probably "concleave" in modern spelling. The old spelling of "clive" for "cleave" is found several times in Ovid's Metamorphoses, A.D.1567, the translation credited to Golding, and is also found elsewhere. The old spelling, clive, was used for both of the basic definitions of the word, (either "stuck together" or "split apart") just as "cleave" is now.

The Bible, Matthew 19:5 says "...a man ... cleave unto his wife, and they which were two shall be one flesh." (Geneva wording, modernized.) The Biblical "cleave, one flesh" idea is what Hamlet is referring to in EH 2716.

Q2 conclive is probably the author's coinage to get a single word meaning "cleave with" or "cleave together," as Claudius speaks of Gertrude. It makes good sense, and is credibly authorial. The disadvantage of conclive/concleave is only that it's unfamiliar. For meaning and allusion, it's excellent.

The problem is to decide whether the author would have surrendered his coinage in favor of the Folio term, instead.

Conjunctive works immediately for a meaning of "join together" since that's the literal definition of the word. The only superiority "concleave" has, with respect to the "join together" idea, is the explicit "-cleave" to connect directly to the Bible quotation. For the concept, the F1 and Q2 words are equal.

Conjunctive also refers to a grammatical conjunction, which has direct relevance to Claudius's line: the "and" in his phrase "life and soul" is a conjunction. Read with ruthless literalness, Claudius can be understood to say that Gertrude is the "and" between his life "and" soul. Without that "and," his soul would be separated from his life, i.e. he would be dead. This grammatically literal reading, which the Folio word allows, gives high irony in anticipation of the fencing match. When Gertrude dies, Claudius loses the "and" between his life "and" soul, and he consequently dies.

Then, the Folio word provides a strong suggestion of the astrological term "conjunction," and gives dialogue flow to the next line.

The Folio word covers what the Q2 word means, well enough, and then adds more, of relevance to the play. It is credibly an authorial improvement.

{The Folio editor found the change and correctly used it.}

(In performance, Claudius would be holding both his hands, together, over his heart.)

By the way, it might seem that greater emphasis in argument should be given to "conclive/concleave" probably being a Shakespeare coinage. A modern scholar places high value on every Shakespeare coinage, but it's likely the author regarded his coinages more casually, as having value only when they best expressed what he wanted.

EH 3028: {Worke} [Would] like the spring that turneth wood to stone,

Work

Would

The Q2 word is authorial, proven by the meaning of the utterance. The Folio word appears, superficially, to make sense, but fails upon closer inspection.

{The Folio error could be misprint in anticipation of EH 3031.}

(In performance, Claudius can do a "magic" gesture when he says work, on the idea that turning wood to stone is like working magic.)

EH 3030: Too slightly tymberd for so {loued Arm'd} [loud a Winde],

loved, armed

loud a wind

The Q2 phrase is authorial, proven by the meaning. It's concise, but the Q2 line means, "... for (one who is) so loved, (and so) armored." The idea is that Hamlet's "armor of love" will cause Claudius's "arrow" to ricochet back at himself. The affection Claudius mentions, and the effect of the spring, produce one who is loved, and armored. Additionally, the idea of one who is loved, and armored, has an undertone of allusion to the Ghost, the image of Hamlet's beloved father, in armor.

The F1 phrase cannot be an authorial improvement, or authorial at all. It loses the whole point of mentioning affection and the spring; Shakespeare's analogy is destroyed in the Folio. The F1 wording must be an editorial mistake.

{The Folio editor changed the wording himself, for some reason.}

(In performance, the Claudius actor can do the ironic action of first holding his hands to his chest, over his heart, at the word loved, then spreading his arms wide at the word armed, thereby inadvertently imitating the Ghost's posture of spreading its arms when Horatio "crossed" it.)

EH 3032: But not where I {haue aym'd} [had arm'd] them.

have aimed

had armed

The Q2 wording is authorial. The present tense is required, because Claudius is alluding to where he "has aimed," that being England, where he expects Hamlet to die. Since Claudius found Hamlet too "armored" in Denmark, he has aimed for England. The Folio word "armed" need not even be considered; the Folio past tense is wrong.

{The Folio editor either misread or misunderstood.}

(In performance, Claudius could imitate using a bow to shoot an arrow toward England. The real compass direction to England is immaterial. The F1 phrase should not be used.)

EH 3035: {Whose worth,} [Who was] if prayses may goe backe againe

Whose worth

Who was

The Q2 phrase is authorial. Laertes is applying the "value" idea to Ophelia, although not in as offensive a way as Polonius did earlier. The Folio phrase can't be an authorial improvement, because it loses meaning and gains nothing.

{The Folio change might have involved the use of something other than the author's final work, or it's an ordinary misprint.}

(In performance, Laertes could do a "coin rubbing" gesture to signify value. The gesture would be vulgar in the context, but that's paradoxically appropriate for Laertes, since as we saw when he left for France, and lectured Ophelia, his words and actions tend to be inappropriate toward her.)

EH 3046: [How now? What Newes?]

[none]

How now, what news?

This line is only in F1. The Folio addition has credibility as an expression of Claudius's eagerness to hear news of Hamlet being dead. There is nothing to say against the line. It's either an authorial addition, or the Q2 printing simply missed it.

{The Folio editor found the line and correctly added it.}

(In performance, Claudius displays eagerness to receive the letters the messenger carries.)

EH 3047-8: {Messen. These} [Mes. Letters my Lord from Hamlet. This] to your

These

Letters . . . This

The expanded line of F1 has authorial credibility, essentially simply because it makes more sense. Particularly, the messenger's mention of Hamlet justifies Claudius's immediate repetition of the name in the dialogue flow. Claudius could look down and see the name on the letters, and then say "from Hamlet," but events flow more smoothly if Claudius replies at once to the messenger saying the letters are from Hamlet.

{The Folio editor probably found an authorial improvement, and properly used it.}

(In performance, the messenger of course holds out the letters and gives them to Claudius.)

EH 3051+1: {Of him that brought them}

[The entire line.]

[none]

The line is authorial in Q2, and necessary to answer Claudius's question. F1 should not have dropped it.

{Either the Folio editor made a poor decision, or the Folio simply missed the line.}

(The line should be included in performance.)

EH 3056-7: asking {you} [your] pardon, there-vnto ...

you

your

Q2 you is authorial. The phrase "you pardon" means "pardon of you," or "pardon from you."

{The Folio editor probably simply conventionalized the phrasing.}

(The word does not appear intended to be playable. The action is that Claudius is reading the letter aloud.)

EH 3057: [and more strange] returne.

[none]

and more strange

The F1 addition has authorial credibility in that it connects back to Hamlet saying to Horatio, EH 862, "as a stranger give it welcome." Claudius knows nothing of that, but Hamlet is implicitly and sarcastically saying that Claudius should welcome him back to Denmark, as he would welcome a stranger. There is the literal meaning of Hamlet's return being odd, which it is.

{The Folio editor found the phrase and correctly added it.}

(In performance, Claudius could be scratching his head by this point in his reading.)

EH 3063: Can you {deuise} [aduise] me?

devise

advise

There is no misprint. The Q2 word is authorial. It's irony, in connection with the "devices" in the play being "overthrown," as the Player king said at the 'Mousetrap' play: That our deuises still are ouerthrowne, [original spelling] where "still" means "always." Here, Claudius discovers that his "device" against Hamlet has been "overthrown."

Since "devices" are always overthrown, there is an equation between "device/devise" and "overthrow." It gives the amusing undertone, to Claudius's question to Laertes, of: "can you overthrow me?" We know the answer, it's 'no.' Laertes tried, and failed. Laertes's own "device," of trying to overthrow Claudius, was overthrown. But there is even some irony beyond that. In a way, Laertes will "overthrow" Claudius when Laertes reveals the truth at the fencing match. So yes, Laertes can, indeed, "overthrow" Claudius, in a way.

Laertes replies, EH 3064, by saying he's lost in trying to answer the question. No wonder. He both can, and can't, "overthrow" Claudius, in different ways. For plain reading, Laertes simply means that he doesn't understand.

For gloss, devise takes its root meaning of "direct." The Claudius character, himself, is asking Laertes for "directions."

The Folio word is wrong, or at least it is certainly not an authorial refinement. It produces only ordinary phrasing, of no real significance.

{The Folio editor, not perceiving the author's intent, probably mistakenly substituted the ordinary word expected in a conventional utterance.}

(In performance, since Claudius is asking for "directions" it would be fitting for him to point in different directions, and even spreading his arms to point in opposite directions at the same time. That gives a "mad" arm spread for Claudius, like a bird's wings, repeating the action Laertes made to him, when Laertes said "pelican" earlier.)

EH 3070: {I my Lord, so you will} [If so you'l] not ore-rule me to a peace.

Aye, my Lord, so you will

If so you'll

The Q2 phrasing can be seen as premature, in light of what follows. It's better if Laertes is not so affirmative here. F1 probably shows an authorial refinement, for that reason.

{The Folio editor probably found a post-Q2 authorial improvement, and correctly used it.}

(The Folio phrasing should be used in performance.)

EH 3072: As {the King} [checking] at his voyage, and that he meanes

the King

checking

The Folio word is obviously wrong, since it loses intentional, relevant ambiguity, in exchange for nothing. Read EH 3071-72 without pause. Claudius says, "if he be now returned As the King."

The intentional ambiguity anticipates Hamlet proclaiming himself "the Dane" at the graveyard, and is further an accidental and unknowing allusion by Claudius to Hamlet forging a new King's order for England. Hamlet is indeed returning "as the King," in an ironic sense.

This is why there is no punctuation mark at the end of EH 3071 in the original Q2 printing: so that the lines can flow together, to give the intentional ambiguity, facetiously identifying Hamlet "As the King." There is no chance the Folio change could be right.

{The Folio editor couldn't read the phrase on the old source papers, had to guess, and guessed wrong.}

(In performance, Claudius can point to his crown when he says the King.)

EH 3078+1 to 3078+16: (Multiple lines, not quoted here.)

[The entire passage.]

[none]

The passage is obviously authorial.

{The Folio editor apparently used something other than the author's complete version for publication.}

(The lines should be included in performance whenever playing time permits.)

EH 3081: And they {can} [ran] well on horsebacke, but this gallant

can

ran

Both words may be authorial, in their respective ways. The Folio word makes possible a reading, of the line, that the French retreated well on horseback. It could be a little something for the stage, for performance in front of a patriotic, and jingoistic, English crowd, implying the French in retreat.

Since ran can be understood to mean "moved swiftly" the change works for plain reading, as well. The F1 word is credible as an authorial improvement, adequate for plain reading, and adding the tongue-in-cheek undertone of retreating French. The word can also be seen, in additional relevant undertone, as revealing Claudius's thought that perhaps he should flee on a fast horse, and not be there when Hamlet returns. (Better for Claudius if he had run, as things turn out.)

{The Folio editor found ran and correctly used it.}

(In performance, Claudius could imitate riding a horse, for the line overall. A man pretending to ride a horse goes along with the hobby horse idea Hamlet mentioned at the 'Mousetrap' play.)

EH 3085: With the braue beast, so farre he {topt me} [past my] thought,

topped me

past my

The Q2 phrase lends itself rather easily to double meaning in the line, which makes it credibly authorial.

F1 past suggests "pass," a significant idea in the play, especially in advance of the fencing match, which will be played in passes. Hamlet will go past Claudius's thoughts here, when Hamlet makes a "pass" at Claudius, and wounds him with the poisoned foil. Claudius's ideas "come short" of foreseeing Hamlet will do that. The F1 change to past has support as an authorial fine tuning, since it has undertone in advance of the "passes" at the fencing match, and with Claudius accidentally making allusion to Hamlet's future behavior while Claudius intends to speak of something else.

{The Folio editor probably found the change and correctly used it.}

(In performance, for Q2 topped me, Claudius can put one or both hands atop his head; the action is perhaps not so good in performance since we've already seen Claudius do that when he was trying not to "lose his head." For F1 past my, he can point to his head, (preferably toward the ear,) then move his hand to the front, to signify something getting ahead of the thoughts in his brain. Since both words are probably authorial, it gives the actor an option.)

EH 3090: Vppon my life {Lamord} [Lamound].

Lamord

Lamound

The name in Q2 form may derive from Latin 'mordere' meaning "bite," with the La- prefix used to cast the name in French style. It would be a clear instance on the Mouth/Bite motif, through the Latin root. Additionally, "morder" is an obsolete spelling of "murder," a concept of obvious significance. Derivatives of Latin 'mordere' also mean "sting," connecting to what the Ghost said about the false story of the serpent's sting, as the cause of King Hamlet's death. Thus, derivation of the name from 'mordere' has plausibility, providing suggestions of "bite," "murder," and a poisonous "sting," which are all relevant ideas. Also perhaps of interest, the music term 'mordent' refers to a kind of shake, in the music sense, something intriguing to observe in association with writing by Shakespeare.

There is additionally, perhaps, a chance that the Q2 "-mord" spelling may hint of Mordred, in the King Arthur legend. Hamlet, and the legend of Arthur, share some incidental details. A quick example is that Arthur sent Mordred away in a boat, intending him to die, but Mordred returned. The Arthur legend is worth a look, in relation to Hamlet.

The name Lamord may not derive from a single source, but may instead represent the sum of several influences, primarily going back to Latin 'mordere.'

I do not find a way to view the Folio change as credibly an authorial improvement. The spelling change gives up all of the above considerations, in exchange for little or nothing of thematic or allusive significance that I can find. "-Mound" suggests "mount" as in riding a horse, and subtly connecting to other uses of "mount" in the play, but that's relatively weak, compared to what the Q2 form of the name offers. "Lamound" suggesting "mount" would more likely be the primitive, original form of the name, rather than the sophisticated form. Albeit, the "mount" interpretation would connect directly to what Claudius said about the character's horsemanship.

{The Folio could conceivably reflect reliance on an earlier version of the author's work, before he incorporated a thematic "-mord" undertone into the name.}

(In performance, Laertes could do any of various gestures of exclamation while saying the line. Particularly, he could place a hand over his heart and do an exaggerated "shocked" pose, as if he'd had a heart attack. There is a definite reason why that action would be appropriate; the explanation is too long for this comment.)

EH 3093: And Iem of all {the} [our] Nation.

the

our

There is no misprint or misreading. Both words are probably authorial. Folio our appears, at first glance, not to make sense, because Lamord is French, but Laertes is a Dane. However, our can be understood as a slip of the tongue by Laertes, revealing his feelings. He's spent so much time in France, and likes it so well, he now thinks of himself as French. So, he thinks of things French as "our," despite the fact he has Danish citizenship. The difference is probably authorial, to tell us how Laertes sees himself: more French than Danish. (Claudius ignores it, or doesn't notice.)

{The Folio editor probably found the change and correctly used it.}

(In performance, Laertes says our and points to himself, even though he isn't French.)

EH 3099 to 3099+2: (Multiple lines, not quoted here.)

[Two full lines.]

[none]

The lines are certainly authorial. They're also needed for Claudius's flattery of Laertes. They are also actable.

{The Folio editor was apparently working from something other than the author's complete version for publication.}

(The lines should be included in performance.)

EH 3102: Your sodaine comming ore to play with {you.} [him;]

you

him

There is probably no misprint or misreading. Both words are probably authorial. Either can be read to make sense.

The Folio word is credibly an authorial fine tuning, for allusion, in undertone, to events at the fencing match. At the match, Laertes, after being wounded, will "come over" to him (Hamlet) instead of continuing to "play along" with Claudius. It's subtle, but that's typical of Hamlet. The change also makes somewhat better literal sense, following the subject "he" in the EH 3101-3102 couplet.

{The Folio editor probably found the change and correctly used it.}

(In performance, when Claudius says him, he can do the action of pointing, "madly," at somebody who isn't there - i.e., pointing as if he sees Hamlet standing there, athough he isn't.)

EH 3104: {What} [Why] out of this my Lord?

What

Why

The meaning changes. The Q2 line means, "what follows from this?" It's a sensible question.

The change in F1 allows the line to be understood as Laertes asking, "Why don't you keep flattering me?" It subtly indicates that Laertes likes flattery, and can be led astray by it. The F1 difference is credibly authorial, with respect to the characterization of Laertes.

{The Folio editor probably found the change and correctly used it.}

(No special performance note applies. Laertes does a typical questioning action in either case.)

EH 3112+1 to 3112+10: (Multiple lines, not quoted here.)

{Ten lines.}

[none]

There's no reason to doubt the lines are authorial, and F1 should have included them. Nothing in the lines would cause them to be censored.

{Either the Folio just missed the lines, or the Folio editor was working from something other than the author's complete version for publication.}

(The lines should be included in performance whenever playing time permits.)

EH 3114: To showe your selfe {indeede} your fathers sonne [indeed,]

(yourself) indeed

(son) indeed

The repositioning of the word indeed appears authorial, as it makes this line lead better to the following one.

{The Folio editor probably found the change and correctly used it.}

(In performance, Claudius can make a jabbing gesture, as if with a sword.)

EH 3124: And wager {ore} [on] your heads; he being remisse,

ore [o'er]

on

The Q2 word is authorial. Ore / o'er intentionally suggests "or" (the heraldry term for "gold") giving a usage compatible with the great value of the wager, for Claudius.

{The Folio editor mistakenly changed the word simply to get the usual phrasing.}

(In performance, Claudius can hold out his hands as if holding his hands over the heads of Hamlet and Laertes.)

EH 3128: A sword {vnbated} [vnbaited], and in a ...

unbated

unbaited

This is probably another case where F1 put the desired pun in the playtext. The word "bait" is on the "fishing" concept that occurs in the play, e.g. Hamlet's line EH 3570: "Throwne out his Angle for my proper life."

{Either intentionally or unintentionally, the Folio editor put the pun in the playtext. If intentional, he used the author's exact spelling.}

(In performance, Claudius could jab with his index finger at the palm of his other hand.)

EH 3128: ... and in a {pace} [passe] of practise

pace

pass

Q2 makes better sense for plain reading. Pace of practice = step of treachery. F1 pass gives good advance allusion to the fencing match, which will be played in passes. Pass is a near pun on pace, so this may be another case where F1 put an intended pun in the playtext, but in this instance it's plausible the change was by the author.

{The Folio editor may have found an authorial fine tuning and properly used it.}

(In performance, the words are equally playable, by Claudius taking a step and imitating a lunge with a sword.)

EH 3146: If this {did} [should] blast in proofe; ...

did

should

Morally, a murder scheme should not work as intended, so the F1 difference is credibly authorial, to incorporate that subtlety. Claudius doesn't mean to say his scheme ought to go awry, but he says so accidentally, in F1.

{The Folio editor probably found the change and correctly used it.}

(In performance, Claudius can stress the word should slightly.)

EH 3148: I {hate,} [ha't:] when in your motion ...

hate

ha't (have it)

Q2 hate is the author's special spelling to combine "hate" and "have it." The F1 difference, a mere abbreviation of "have it," can't be authorial.

{The Folio editor made the change, himself.}

(Normally, when a person says "I've got it!" he has a wide-eyed expression. In performance for this, however, Claudius should squint and scowl, an abnormal expression.)

EH 3150: And that he calls for drinke, Ile haue {prefard} [prepar'd] him

prefared

prepared

The Q2 word is authorial. It's "pre-fared," i.e. the word "fare" with a prefix of pre-. It goes back to Claudius asking Hamlet, before the 'Mousetrap' play, "How fares our cousin Hamlet?" Claudius means here that he's going to pre-arrange how Hamlet will "fare" at the fencing match - fatally. Claudius's "pre-fare" for Hamlet will be a prearranged "farewell" to him. The original Q2 spelling of "prefard" is correct, according to the style of that publication.

{The Folio editor overlooked Shakespeare's coinage and conventionalized the word.}

(In performance, Claudius can make the gesture of setting a cup on a table, or of drinking from a cup.)

EH 3153: ... may hold there; {but stay, what noyse?} [how sweet Queene.]

but stay, what noise?

how, sweet Queen.

The Q2 phrase is an embedded stage direction, indicating sounds of crying and excitement, just beyond the door, before Gertrude enters. The Folio change that drops the stage direction is dubious at best. It's unlikely the author wished to eliminate the "stage business" associated with her entry. It's difficult to view the loss of the stage business as an authorial improvement, since Q2 shows well enough Shakespeare wanted it at that time.

However, it's entirely appropriate for Claudius to speak to Gertrude when she enters, as the Folio shows. If the Folio line were added, instead of replacing the Q2 line, it would be highly credible. The sensible view is that of Edwards, writing in "The New Cambridge Shakespeare" edition of Hamlet, 2003, that the original texts should be conflated in this case. That's certainly reasonable, and it ensures against losing a genuine authorial line for the play.

{The Folio editor probably found an intended authorial addition, but mistakenly treated it as a replacement.}

(In performance, Claudius holds up a hand at Laertes when speaking the Q2 phrase, then looks questioningly at Gertrude during the F1 phrase.)

EH 3156: So fast {they} [they'l] follow; your Sisters drownd Laertes.

they

they'll

The F1 difference makes Gertrude's line ominously predictive, an irony the Gertrude character, herself, does not intend. It is credibly an authorial refinement.

{The Folio editor probably found the change and correctly used it.}

(In performance, Gertrude can bring her hands together quickly, ending in a prayer position.)

EH 3160: Therewith fantastique garlands did she {make} [come,]

make

come

The Q2 word is authorial. The poem word order has to be changed for prose meaning: "Therewith, she did make fantastic garlands." It means Ophelia was using the long, supple twigs of the willow tree to make circular frames for her garlands of flowers.

{The Folio editor mistakenly changed the wording to try to get prose sense out of the poem word order as it stands.}

(In performance, Gertrude can do the action of bending a willow twig into a circle. A circle is a "wheel," connecting to the Wheel motif of the play.)

EH 3163: But our {cull-cold} [cold] maydes doe dead mens fingers call them.

cull-cold

cold

The Q2 term is authorial. The shape and sound are intended to suggest "cuckold." The word cull means to sort, or to chose, or a form of those words. The idea of "sorted to be cold," in undertone of allusion to Ophelia, means "chosen for death." In plain reading reference to the maids, cull-cold means that the maids are the "insensitive sort."

{The Folio editor couldn't see why cull had been written and mistakenly omitted it.}

(In performance, Gertrude can hold her arms close with her forearms crossed over her chest. She can also play it more "madly," by doing a clawing, grasping action toward Claudius, as if "dead men's fingers" are trying to seize him.)

EH 3169: Which time she chaunted snatches of old {laudes} [tunes],

lauds

tunes

The Q2 word is authorial. Lauds are morning songs, in religious services. Thus there is an implicit "morning/mourning" pun. The "mourning" pun signifies the sadness of Ophelia's death. Lauds are traditionally sung at dawn, which signifies that it's a "new dawn" for Ophelia as her soul rises to heaven. (The "dawn" idea is figurative, it is not literally dawn in the play.)

The F1 change cannot be an authorial refinement. It gives up the nice implicit "mourning/morning" wordplay for nothing but literal meaning.

{The Folio editor might have changed the word himself, based on his knowledge that it was not actually dawn in the play; alternatively, he may have relied on something other than the author's final version.}

(In performance, Gertrude can do a "praise the Lord" action during the line, i.e. the arms half spread with palms upward, and an upward gaze.)

EH 3176: Alas, then {she is} [is she] drownd.

she is

is she

There is probably no misprint. Both phrasings work, and are credibly authorial in their respective publications. The Q2 form has Laertes more easily convinced, while the Folio form has him still in some doubt after Gertrude's speech. It's credible the author made the change for characterization, to show Laertes a little slower to accept the bad news. Also, the question form from Laertes leads better to Gertrude's repetition in her reply.

{The Folio editor probably found the change and correctly used it.}

(The difference in performance is in whether Laertes affirms or questions; rightly, he will still question.)

EH 3183: I haue a speech {a} [of] fire that faine would blase,

a

of

There's no real difference in meaning, for plain reading. Q2 is better, on the point that the speech was already "kindled," leading better to the mention of it being doused. The F1 difference is probably not an authorial change, but an editorial conventionalization.

{The Folio editor probably conventionalized the phrasing.}

(In performance, Laertes can extend his arms and raise his hands, two or three times, to imitate flames leaping up.)

EH 3184: But that this folly {drownes} [doubts] it.

drowns

douts

Both words are likely authorial in their respective publications, without misprint. The Folio word adds subtlety, a meaningful pun, and relevant ambiguity, and is probably an authorial improvement. The original F1 spelling, "doubt," adds further support for the change being authorial, since it contributes ambiguity and additional meaning.

{The Folio editor probably found the change and correctly used it.}

(In performance, the action is that Laertes is weeping as he exits.)

---

Scene 19 (Act 5 scene 1)

EH 3190-1: Is shee to be buried in Christian buriall, {when she} [that] wilfully

when she

that

The F1 difference makes the Clown's utterance less personal, so it leads better to his "mad" attempt to discuss Ophelia's death in his excuse for objective terms. The F1 difference therefore has plausibility as an authorial fine tuning.

{The F1 editor may have found the change and properly used it.}

(This word, or phrase, is not particularly the playable part of the speech.)

EH 3198-9: It must be {so offended} [Se offendendo], it cannot be els, ...

so offended

se offendendo

Both phrases may be authorial in their respective printings, with no misprint. The author may have used "so offended" initially, in a printing for the public, expecting that the Folio phrase would only puzzle a general audience. If so, he would have been quite right about that. The Folio phrase needs specialist knowledge to decipher. But it's credible the author would also have noted the actual phrase he had in mind.

{The Folio editor probably found the change and correctly used it, although it's debatable that the Q2 phrase might still be preferable for the general public.}

(In performance, this phrase may have no particular associated action; the Sexton Clown will be posturing and gesticulating during his entire speech, as he "preaches.")

EH 3200-1: three branches, it is to act, to doe, to performe, {or all;} [argall] she ...

or all

argal

The Q2 phrase or all is correct, and is authorial. The Folio change cannot be an authorial improvement, because it fails to conform to the meaning of the speech. It's part of the characterization of the Clown that after saying "three" he goes on to cite four things: the three specifics and the all inclusive. His "three" turns out 'madly' to be four things.

{The Folio editor erred, either interpretively or logically.}

(In performance, when the Clown says or all, it would be appropriate for him to quickly and "madly" repeat all the gestures he made while stating the three specifics, thus making himself look like a frantic lunatic.)

EH 3217: more then theyr euen {Christen:} [Christian.] ...

Christen

Christian

Q2 Christen is assuredly the author's word, because of the idea of immersion in connection with Ophelia's death. Christen means baptise, which is done in, or with, water. The sexton is trying to say "Christian," but slurs it and says christen.

{The Folio editor mistakenly conventionalized the word.}

(In performance, the Sexton Clown can make a religious gesture when saying this, such as crossing himself.)

EH 3223 to 3226: (Multiple lines, not quoted here.)

[none]

]Four lines.]

Q2 simply missed these lines, probably because of the repetition of the word "arms" in the passage.

{The Folio editor properly included the lines.}

(The lines should be included in performance.)

EH 3232-3: The gallowes maker, for that [Frame] out-liues a thousand tenants.

[none]

frame

Earlier, at EH 2180, Guildenstern asked Hamlet to put his discourse into some frame. Had Hamlet told Guildenstern what was on his mind, the killing of Claudius, Hamlet would have risked the gallows, for plotting to kill the King. Also, at EH 198, Claudius used frame in a line in which he referred to himself, just after mentioning his brother's death, and Claudius would be at risk of the gallows if it were known he killed his brother. So, the use of frame here, in reference to the gallows, connects back to earlier dialogue, and is therefore credibly authorial.

{Frame may have been missed in Q2, or it may be a post-Q2 addition to provide another link in the dialogue. Or, Q2 printing practicalities might apply; see Elze, 1882. In any event, the Folio editor was probably correct to add it.}

(In performance, the Coroner's Bailiff can mimic a man being hanged when he says the line.)

EH 3249-50: Goe get thee {in, and} [to Yaughan,] fetch ...

in, and

to Yaughan

The Folio word "Yaughan" is apparently phonetic for "Johan," which is a variant of "John." It was added in the Folio as a subtle mark that the sexton Clown is a lampoon of Ben Jonson.

(Jonson, in his play Every Man out of His Humor, used the name Yohan in the dialogue: "CAR. O, if you like not that, sir, get me somewhat a less dog, ... here's a slave about the town here, a Jew, one Yohan ..." Or, even if "Yaughan" is intended to be "Vaughan," it still points to Ben Jonson, via Thomas Dekker's Satiromastix, but that is a point which gets too "scholarly" for these comments.)

The change in the Folio could not have been made by Shakespeare, because it ruins a joke, described just below in the comments for EH 3250. The joke requires leaving open the possibility of the Bailiff going into the church. It isn't credible that Shakespeare would have spoiled one of his own jokes.

{The Folio editor made the change himself - or somebody else did, other than the author - from knowledge that the sexton Clown was a lampoon of Jonson.}

(In performance, the Sexton Clown must gesture vaguely in a direction that includes the church. The F1 phrase should not be spoken in performance because, as mentioned, it ruins the joke by Shakespeare.)

EH 3249-50: ... fetch mee a {soope} [stoupe] of liquer.

soup

stoup

Q2 probably has a simple misprint. The word stoup can mean a basin of holy water in a church. From that knowledge, it gives the impish idea of the sexton ordering the bailiff to go into the church, dump the holy water out of the basin, then bring the basin to the sexton filled with liquor, instead. The Clown, himself, doesn't mean that, it's a joke from the exact words Shakespeare gave him. It can be seen as the author telling us that liquor is this sexton Clown's "holy water."

{The Folio editor found the misprint and was right to correct it.}

(In performance, the Clown can make a motion of drinking.)

EH 3256-7: ... no feeling of his busines? a sings {in} [at] graue-making.

in

at

The Q2 word is easily more credibly authorial, because of the fact that the Clown is, indeed, in the grave as he's digging it. The fact of him being in it is vital to the subsequent conversation between Hamlet and the Clown.

{The Folio editor perhaps thoughtlessly conventionalized the phrasing.}

(In performance, Hamlet can simply point to the Clown in the grave.)

EH 3260-1: ... the hand of little imploiment hath the {dintier} [daintier] sence

dintier

daintier

Q2 dintier can be understood to mean, more easily dented. "Dint" is an earlier form of "dent." Thus, a dintier sense is one which is more sensitive, like wax taking an impression more easily than steel does. A dintier sense is more easily "impressed," so to speak. Dintier is supported by the way "dint" is used in 'Julius Caesar' and 'Venus and Adonis,' particularly 'JC', which uses the phrase "The dint of pity."

F1 "daintier" works well enough for plain reading, but it offers no improvement in meaning, and indeed its meaning in context is inferior.

{The Folio editor probably presumed a misspelling and changed the author's word.}

(In performance, Hamlet can jab at his palm with the index finger of his other hand.)

EH 3264: hath {clawed} [caught] me in his clutch,

clawed

caught

The Q2 word connects back, in subtle undertone, to Hamlet speaking of the Hyrcanian beast (Caspian tiger) in EH 1493. The Folio word is weaker in every way, as a word on paper. Further, the poem as originally written by Vaux used clawed. (The Clown's song is based on a poem by Thomas Lord Vaux, first printed in 1557. "Lord" was his middle name, by the way, not a title, although he was a baron.)

"Caught" is used twice elsewhere in the dialogue, including by Laertes later in this Scene, EH 3443. It goes along with Hamlet's idea of using the 'Mousetrap Play' to catch Claudius's conscience. However, I'm not able to find enough of significance in the word, in this location, to consider it an authorial refinement, based solely on the language.

Turning to the action, action in performance could immediately make the F1 word persuasive, if the Clown briefly plays catch with a skull, tossing it in the air and catching it. Thus, "caught," if he has actually tossed a skull, and caught it. Such action would fit the Clown character's attitude, and the scene.

{The Folio printing could be in error for whatever reason such an error could occur. Alternatively, the Folio may show a valid authorial change, to go along with action in performance.}

(In performance, if the Clown actor plays catch with a skull he should say caught, otherwise clawed should be spoken.)

EH 3265: And hath shipped me {into} [intill] the land,

into

intill

Either word is sensible, if intill is understood as dialect, in which case it literally means "into." The "-till" in F1's word suggests tillage, as in gardening. Thematic wordplay makes the change credible. Intill is probably an authorial fine tuning, to provide another instance on the Gardening motif, through the "till" part of the word. The "till" idea also goes well simply with the sexton digging, as he sings.

{The Folio editor found the change to intill and correctly used it.}

(In performance, the Clown is digging as he sings the word.)

EH 3270-1: ... which this ass {now} {ore-reaches;} [o're Of-fices:] one that ...

o'er reaches

o'er offices

The Q2 phrase is credibly authorial in connection with Hamlet supposing, at this time, that the grave could be for Polonius. (Hamlet does not know Polonius was buried so promptly under Claudius's orders.) The word "politician" in the speech supports this undertone. Earlier, Polonius spoke of his own "reach," i.e. being able to "reach" to Paris, EH 956.

As Hamlet speaks, his phrase "this ass" can be seen as unintentional self-reference, ironically intended by the author. However, both the Q2 and Folio phrasings work for that. Hamlet does, now, "over-reach" Polonius, and Hamlet, the Prince, always "over-officed" Polonius. The F1 difference has no essential effect for the ironic self-reference that exists in undertone.

Hamlet spoke of the "insolence of office," EH 1727. His use of "office" in the Folio phrase thus implies insolence. Based on that line by Hamlet, the Folio phrase gains strength for characterization. The sexton is insolent, and certainly moreso than Polonius now that Polonius is dead. For Hamlet's unintentional self-reference, the idea of insolence applied to him predicts his own behavior later in this Scene, when he will proclaim himself "the Dane" in front of Claudius; that's insolent. Although it's subtle, the idea taken from Hamlet's earlier line supports the Folio change here, giving ironic allusion to Hamlet's own behavior, entirely unintentional and unknowing by Hamlet as he speaks. Further, the word "office" has a religious definition. The F1 idea of "office" suits the purpose of the speech, the occasion, and Hamlet's intended reference to the Sexton Clown, a church official. So, the Folio difference has good credibility as an authorial fine tuning. In comparison to the Q2 phrase, F1 gives up some, but gains more.

However, none of the above affects the word now, which appears only in Q2. The lack of now in F1 may be an accidental omission, but the speech does work fine without now, so the author may have decided to drop it. I find no way to decide that.

{For the difference at issue, the Folio editor probably found an author's change and correctly used it; whether he also correctly dropped now is not clear.}

(In performance, for the Q2 phrase Hamlet can stretch out an arm. For the F1 phrase he can make a religious gesture, such as holding his hands in a prayer position, or crossing himself, or making the sign of the cross at the Clown; it might, or might not, be considered excessive for Hamlet to do the arm spread "cross" posture the Ghost and Horatio did.)

EH 3274-5: how doost thou {sweet} [good] lord? ...

sweet

good

Q2 sweet follows directly in the flow of the sentence, as Hamlet mockingly repeats "sweet lord." F1's "good" is apparently just an error. Hamlet is not exclaiming "good lord!" - the question mark, which the Folio retains, prevents that interpretation.

{The Folio error may arise simply from "good lord" being such a frequent phrase in the play, or, perhaps, from an editorial notion that variety was wanted, where it actually is not.}

(In performance, Hamlet can say sweet with a mocking, saccharine smile.)

EH 3275-6: ... horse when {a went} [he meant] to beg it, ...

went

meant

Both make sense, and both are probably authorial. In allusive undertone, it can be taken that Ophelia is the "horse" ("hobby horse") that Hamlet, the "beggar," was "begging" at the 'Mousetrap Play.' The Folio word works better for that undertone.

{The Folio editor probably found the change and correctly used it.}

(In performance, the Q2 word has no apparent associated action - obviously, Hamlet can't leave! For the F1 word, since meaning is of the mind, Hamlet can touch his index finger to his temple. Thus, action supports F1.)

EH 3278-9: ... now my Lady wormes {Choples} [Chaplesse], & knockt

chopless

chapless

The words are spelling variants. The exact spelling of F1 chapless is interesting in connection with "chap" meaning "fellow," but the "fellow" meaning of "chap" is not known to go back so far in English. However, it is certainly true that the skull now has no "fellow" associated with it, so perhaps the history of the word "chap" merits further investigation.

{The Folio has a spelling variant, but perhaps also indicates usage of the word "chap" to mean "fellow" at an earlier date than is now accepted.}

(Hamlet could briefly do a large chewing motion, indicating his own "chops," his jaws.)

EH 3279: about the {massene} [Mazard] with a Sextens ...

massen

mazard

The Q2 word is authorial, and is an anglicization of French 'maison' which means "house." Hamlet is saying the sexton is knocking the skull about the "house," where the "house" is the grave, the deceased's new "home." The concept is that of the French phrase 'maison mortuaire' which means "house of the dead." Recall that in line EH 3248-9 the Clown called graves "houses." Also, the "mass-" part of the Q2 word gives a semi-pun with religious mass, appropriate to the church graveyard setting.

The Folio word offers nothing to compare, and cannot be an authorial improvement.

{The Folio editor didn't recognize the author's word, and made the change himself, it appears.}

(Only the Q2 word massen should be spoken in performance, pronounced like an English speaker saying French "maison." Hamlet can gesture at the grave excavation and wave his hand back and forth to indicate the Clown knocking skulls around in the hole.)

EH 3291-2: ... he suffer this {madde} [rude] knaue now to knocke ...

mad

rude

Both words make sense. Misprint of one for the other is not in question. Q2 mad is obviously thematic, and offers the irony that Hamlet is the one supposedly mad. Mad is confidently authorial, for Q2, supported by theme and irony.

Folio rude has wordplay with "rood," which means the Christian cross. Rude thereby offers undertone, in regard to the sexton being a "cross" fellow, who is an official of the Church, of which the cross is a symbol. Since madness is already well emphasized in the play, with numerous instances, the author may have decided, in this case, to dispense with another, rather trivial, instance on the Madness theme, and instead bring in the "cross" idea for the sexton, via pun. The pun with "rood" gives Hamlet calling the sexton a "cross" knave, in more than one way. Folio rude is probably an authorial fine tuning.

{The Folio editor probably found the change to rude and correctly used it.}

(In performance, the Q2 word indicates Hamlet doing a "mad" gesture, twirling finger, toward his own head. The F1 word rude implies him making a religious "cross" gesture at the Clown, with his fingers, followed by a shake of the finger.)

EH 3296-7 to 3298-9: [Is this the fine of his Fines, and the recouery of his Recoueries,]

[none]

[The entire line]

The line is necessary for sense. Q2 apparently accidentally skipped it, probably because of the repetition of the word "recoveries" in the speech.

{The Folio editor rightly included the line.}

(The line should be spoken in performance.)

EH 3301-3: Lands will {scarcely} | [hardly] lye in this box, ...

scarcely

hardly

Both words make sense, and misprint is not in question. The words are essentially synonymous here. Q2 scarcely conforms with other uses of "scarce" in the play, but "hardly," in this usage, does not conform with other uses of "hard." "Scarcely lie" is supported by "scarce ... laying" that follows in this passage. The Q2 phrase "scarcely lie" also goes along with Hamlet sarcastically thinking that lies are not scarce around that Clown. Folio "hardly" is likely editorial, or conceivably from something other than the author's final.

{The Folio editor erred, for whatever reason, by not following Q2.}

(In performance, Hamlet can hold his hands close together to indicate a small space, which nearly duplicates a prayer position of the hands.)

EH 3308-9: ... Whose graue's this {sirra} [Sir]?

sirrah

sir

F1 "sir" is blatantly editorial, like some other occurrences of "sir" in the Folio. Q2 is correct. The Folio editor did not realize Shakespeare's very careful use of titles of address throughout the play.

EH 3310-1: Mine sir, {or} [O] a pit of clay for to be made.

or

O

The Q2 word is authorial, at least for Q2. In Q2, the Sexton Clown is not singing, he is talking to Hamlet, but with the song still on his mind.

The F1 change, where the Clown sings again in lines EH 3310-12, provides an ironic allusion, unintended by the Clown, to Hamlet being "such a guest," for a grave. Such an accidental allusion goes along well with the many instances of the same kind of thing throughout the play. Further, the Clown himself will eventually be "such a guest" for a grave, which is ironic as the Clown occupies the grave excavation while he digs it. So, the Folio change adds accidental allusion, pertinent ambiguity, and irony, all of which are characteristic in Hamlet. The F1 change is credibly authorial.

{The Folio editor found an authorial refinement and properly used it.}

(In performance, the Clown best sing as F1 shows.)

EH 3312: [for such a Guest is meete.]

[none]

[The entire line.]

This line is found only in F1, and the Clown is singing it. The Folio addition is probably part of the authorial change discussed just above.

{The Folio editor was probably correct to add the additional line.}

(The line should be included in performance, and sung.)

EH 3329-30: ... By the Lord Horatio, {this} [these] three yeeres I

this

these

Throughout the play, this is used consistently with a singular object. Both are probably authorial, with these a correction by the author. It's doubtful the Folio editor reviewed the entire play to assess the author's use of this, motivating the editor to make such a change.

{The Folio editor probably found the change and properly used it.}

(In performance, Hamlet can make a gesture of emphasis.)

EH 3351-2: Why heere in Denmarke: I haue been {Sexten} [sixeteene] heere ...

Sexten

sixeteene

Sexten in Q2 is so spelled to suggest "sixteen," which the Folio then makes explicit. The sexon's lines, EH 3351-2, mean:

"I have been sixteen years here, (as sexton,) and have been alive, as man and boy, for thirty years." The Q2 word Sexten is a double-duty word, intended to convey both "sexton" and "sixteen" at the same time. The Clown is being clever.

This informs us that the Hamlet character is 16. That's undoubtedly why the Folio editor changed the spelling to "sixeteene," in an attempt to clarify Hamlet's age.

However, the Clown's lines can also be read: "I have been sexton here, as both a man and a boy, for thirty years."

Hamlet hears the second meaning, and immediately answers with a "lie" line, EH 3353, since he knows he's not 30, which is what the second interpretation implies. Further, Hamlet knows the Clown could not have been the church sexton when he was only a boy. Hamlet takes it that the sexton Clown is speaking a foolish lie.

{The F1 word is a clarification of the Q2 word, in connection with the first interpretation shown above, to try to help establish that the first reading is most significant, correctly stating the Hamlet character to be 16 years old. The F1 change was probably done by the Folio editor himself, since the F1 spelling obscures the "sexton" meaning entirely, which the author is not likely to have done. The Folio editor probably thought help was needed for what the line was supposed to imply, with respect to Hamlet's age.}

(In performance, the Clown can thump himself on the chest.)

On a scholarly sidenote, when James Roberts registered Hamlet for publication in 1602, Ben Jonson, who is lampooned as the gravedigging sexton Clown, was 30 years old. The line thus contains a contemporary reference.

EH 3355-6: ... corses [now adaies], that will scarce hold ...

[none]

nowadays

There's nothing to say against the F1 addition. It's even metrical.

{The Folio editor probably found the addition and properly used it.}

(In performance, the Clown can 'madly' wave his arm upward to indicate the daytime.)

EH 3361-2: ... heer's a scull {now hath lyen you} [now: this Scul, has laine] i'th earth 23. yeeres.

now hath lyin' you

now: this skull, has lain

The Q2 phrase is conclusively authorial. Rearrange the word order, as when dealing with couplets to get prose sense.

now hath lyin' you = now you have lying

Shakespeare used poetic phrasing, typically the kind of thing found in couplets, to tell us what the sexton Clown is doing when he says "23." He's lying, "in the earth." The Clown is only making it up, about the skull. He doesn't really know whose skull it is, or how long it's been there, but he's trying to impress Hamlet by pretending that he knows. The Folio editor must have changed the phrasing himself, and erred by doing so.

{The Folio editor didn't understand the phrasing, and changed it.}

(In performance, the line must be recited as Q2 shows.)

EH 3372-3: [Let me see.] Alas poore Yoricke,

[none]

Let me see.

The sentence is added in F1, it does not appear in Q2. Since it clarifies the stage action, there is nothing to say against it. It is probably an authorial addition to ensure the correct stage action is performed. Without the F1 change, one might suppose Hamlet does not take the skull, and only talks about it as the Clown continues to hold it. (The words "here" and "this" in Hamlet's speech are not enough to dictate that he holds the skull, since those words are ambiguous, and indeed, Shakespeare intentionally used those words in ambiguous ways in the play, sometimes.) Of course see is fully thematic.

{The Folio editor probably found an authorial addition and correctly used it.}

(In performance, Hamlet takes the skull, naturally.)

EH 3379-80: now to mocke your owne {grinning,} [Ieering?] ...

grinning

jeering

Both words make sense, and are credibly authorial in their respective publications. Grinning conveys the idea of the teeth showing, which is appropriate for the skull.

Folio jeering is credibly an authorial improvement, because it carries an idea of mockery. It's wickedly ironic for Hamlet to describe the skull as mocking, since Hamlet, himself, will soon be in the same predicament as Yorick, as events proceed, and Hamlet doesn't know that. The mockery idea in jeering is distinctly superior to what the Q2 word provides. Jeering also has thematic significance because imitation/mockery is what actors do, so jeering gives a subtle instance of the Putting On A Show theme.

F1 printed "jeering" with a capital 'I', and it's possible that might be authorial to suggest "leering" as well, since it's well known a capital 'I' resembles a lower-case 'L'. This suggestion can't be proven, but is worth mentioning, since "leer" is a related idea.

{The Folio editor probably found an author's change and correctly used it.}

(In performance, the Q2 word implies Hamlet grinning, of course. To play F1 jeering he can stick his tongue out at the skull.)

EH 3380-2: to my Ladies {table} [Chamber], & tell her, ...

table

chamber

F1 chamber is authorial. After the mention of "table" just preceding, in line EH 3379, the word "table," if used here, makes it sound as if the lady is painting her face at the dinner table, which is not correct. The lady paints her face in her chamber. Plain sense of the passage firmly favors chamber. Also, there is the undertone of allusion to the chamber of the grave. Additionally, lady's chamber indicates Closet, a significant idea in the play. Even further, Hamlet's phrase "my lady's chamber" is an accidental, tragic allusion to the grave being Ophelia's "chamber" for her eternal rest, and Hamlet doesn't yet know that.

Q2's "table" is very weak by comparison, and might be an authorial first thought that he later changed. It could otherwise be an accidental repetition.

{The Folio editor correctly used the word chamber, whether he found it as a Q2 printing error or as an authorial refinement.}

(In performance, when Hamlet says the phrase "get you to my lady's chamber," he drops the skull into the grave excavation.)

EH 3395-6: and likelyhood to leade it [as thus].

[none]

as thus:

The F1 phrase means "as follows," and there is nothing to say against it. The style suits Hamlet, the university student, as he becomes jocosely pedantic. The Folio used a period after the phrase; modern printing calls for a colon.

{The Folio editor probably found the added phrase and correctly used it.}

(In performance, this phrase and the subsequent logic about Alexander are probably best done "classroom" style, but in the mocking way of a student imitating a teacher.)

EH 3400: {Imperious} [Imperiall] Cæsar dead, and turn'd to Clay,

Imperious

Imperial

The words are synonymous for plain reading. In support of F1 imperial, the word appears in line EH 187. The word imperious does not otherwise appear in the play. The author might have changed the word for consistency within the play.

{The Folio editor may have found an authorial fine tuning and properly used it.}

(The word change makes no difference in performance.)

EH 3403: Should patch a wall t'expell the {waters} [winters] flaw.

water's

winter's

The Q2 word is authorial. It goes back to the sexton Clown speaking of water being a "sore decayer." Hamlet means that if Caesar's clay patched the wall of a grave, to help keep water out, it would preserve the anonymous tenant of the grave for a while longer. There is additionally the point of water causing Ophelia's death.

The Folio word goes along with "winter" being the season of death, poetically speaking. That suits the grave, and the graveyard setting. However, winter's does not connect with the dialogue, and the events of the play, the way water's does. Judging by the printed page, alone, the F1 word is doubtful.

But Hamlet is a playscript, written to be acted. The F1 word allows action by Hamlet: wrapping his cloak tightly around himself, as though he's feeling the chill of winter (which would, poetically, be the chill of death.) Taking action into account, the F1 word gains substantial force. It's credible Shakespeare made the word change to give Hamlet the ominous action of wrapping himself in his cloak, as if he feels the chill of winter, the chill of death.

{The Folio editor probably found the change, made to give Hamlet the stage action mentioned, and correctly used it.}

(The Q2 word doesn't appear to be particularly playable. The F1 word should be played as mentioned, by Hamlet wrapping his cloak tightly as if feeling the "winter" chill of death.)

EH 3404: But soft, but soft {awhile,} [aside;]

awhile

aside

Both words are likely authorial, with no misprint. The Folio change is credible as an authorial improvement because it acts as an embedded stage direction, for Hamlet and Horatio to move aside, some distance away.

{The Folio editor found the change and correctly used it.}

(In performance, F1 aside should be spoken, as Hamlet and Horatio move toward the side of the stage, to conceal themselves, when the funeral procession enters to take center stage.)

EH 3415: {Doct.} [Priest.] Her obsequies haue been as farre inlarg'd

Doct.

Priest.

The Q2 speech prefix is authorial, the F1 speech prefix is not. F1 may have been misled by Laertes using the word "priest" in the dialogue, but the dialogue word, priest, means "church elder," and further, Laertes has been living in France. This Danish cleric is Protestant.

{The Folio editor erred in changing the speech prefix.}

(The change makes no difference to performance, except to be sure the cleric is in Protestant garb.)

EH 3420: [Shardes,] Flints and peebles should be throwne on her:

[none]

Shards

The added Folio word is dubious as a proper correction or an authorial improvement since it does not conform to the author's style of pairing synonyms, or pairing near-synonyms. Flints and pebbles is nicely stylistic, for which the addition of "shards" is jarring. However, "shards" is helpful toward making the line iambic pentameter, although not perfect in that regard.

As best I can discover from a search of modernized texts, the author's only other use of "shard," "shards," or "sharded," in his entire canon, were one use each, always in reference to the elytron of a beetle. Although the word "beetles" appears in the play, the use is not a direct reference to the insect, nor would "shards" make any sense here, if it were.

I do not find "shards" credible. Shakespeare simply never used the word "shard" like that. One might contend he did so just this once, but that would be empty speculation. Factually, it is not his style, either for the word usage, itself, or for the phrasing of the line.

If Q2 missed a word, it was more likely "sharp," which would go well with flint, and which would provide an instance on the Edge motif. "Sharp" could easily be seen as either a proper correction if Q2 missed a word, or as an authorial fine tuning.

{The Folio editor correctly added a word that Q2 had accidentally skipped, but mistook what the word should be.}

(This word is probably not the playable word in the line; "thrown" is obviously an action word.)

EH 3421: Yet heere she is allow'd her virgin {Crants} [Rites],

crants

rites

Q2's crants is credibly authorial. It's unreasonable to suppose that it could have come from anyone other than the author. It provides a good plain meaning in reference to Ophelia's flowers. Crants has the ordinary definition of "garlands." It's the last syllable of Rosencrantz, which may account for its use in Q2. While crants does mean "garlands," in relation to the name Rosencrantz it can be taken to mean "crown." The name Rosencrantz = rose crown/crown of roses. The cleric's line can then be "translated" to say, in Q2, "here, she is allowed her virgin crown." Queen Elizabeth I, the great monarch of Shakespeare's England, was "the Virgin Queen," who, it follows, wore a "virgin crown." It all comes together to identify Ophelia, in death, as a "virgin queen." Ophelia did not have the good fortune, in life, to become a queen, so in death, by using the word crants, and by the exact phrasing of the cleric's line, Shakespeare made Ophelia a "virgin queen." That's marvelous, although difficult to discern.

F1 rites is a plainer, commoner word, and it gives up the fantastic allusion for Ophelia. Rites connects very well to other lines in the play. The word "rights" must also be considered in this analysis, since it sounds the same, and the author sometimes treated the two words as interchangeable. Dialogue examples are several - "Hamlet: ...by the rights of our fellowship..." Also - "Claudius: ...I must commune with your grief, or you deny me right..." Also - "Laetes: ...No noble rite..." Also, an example that is particularly notable - "Fortinbrasse: ...I have some right of memory..." Also - "Fortinbrasse: ...The soldier's music and the rites of war..." The instances of 'right/rite' are numerous enough that the concept could be considered a motif of the play, having to do with what is right, and what are proper rites.

Both words are highly credible as authorial, for the reasons above. In attempting to judge the author's final preference, it's a choice between the thematic connection of rites to the play overall, or the splendid and amazing identification of Ophelia as a "virgin queen" in death. The scales tip toward Ophelia, especially considering how Elizabeth I, the Virgin Queen, must have dominated English consciousness in those days.

{The F1 editor probably used an earlier version of the author's work for this word, not his final.}

(In performance, the cleric gestures to the things provided for Ophelia's funeral.)

EH 3427: To sing {a} [sage] Requiem and such rest to her

a

sage

There is no misprint. Both words make sense, and are credible in their respective publications.

F1's sage is likely an authorial fine tuning, to add, in undertone, another instance on the Garden motif. The meaning of sage for plain reading is "grave," (which adds implicit wordplay,) but the word sage also has a definition referring to a decorative garden plant.

{The Folio editor probably found the change to sage and correctly used it.}

(The Q2 word has no action; albeit, since "a" is singular, it's possible the cleric could be showing an index finger, but that's trivial at best. F1 sage allows the action of the cleric tapping his head; that action suits the scene well, because of Laertes's emphatic doubt about the cleric's judgment. The provision for added action supports the F1 change as authorial, in addition to the textual considerations.)

EH 3439: O {treble woe} [terrible woer,]

treble woe

terrible woer

The Q2 phrase makes sense, and must be preferred as authorial merely on that basis, against the Folio. The Folio phrase makes no sense unless it is read in an excessively generous way.

In particular, Laertes intends the use of poison, which implicitly associates him with Lucianus, the poisoner at the 'Mousetrap Play.' Lucianus said "thrice blasted," so the concept of treble is notable in association with Laertes later becoming a poisoner. Poison "thrice blasted" is a treble woe, matching what Laertes says here, in Q2. Since treble gains strong support from the "thrice" idea earlier associated with deadly poison, the Q2 phrase is definitely the more credibly authorial wording, and not only because it makes sense for plain reading.

{The Folio editor could, hypothetically, have misread treble as "terble," thought it was supposed to be "terrible," and adjusted the phrase accordingly.}

(In performance, Laertes, saying treble, could make an emphatic "curse" gesture, three times.)

EH 3440: Fall tenne times {double} [trebble,] on that cursed head,

double

treble

Q2's double is easily more credibly authorial in Laertes's speech at this point. See his earlier remark, EH 518: "A double blessing . . . double grace." Also, in Claudius's remarks to Laertes at EH 3122: "set a double varnish." Further, earlier in this Scene are found: "double vouchers," and "doubles." The Folio is in error.

The Q2 mix of "treble" and double, for Laertes's lines EH 3439 and 3440, matches the author's style well. For example, in Henry IV 2: "England shall double gild his treble guilt." Also, Merchant of Venice: "Double six thousand, and then treble that." Also, Measure for Measure: "Double and treble admonition," and again: "Twice treble shame on Angelo." Macbeth contains a similar mix: "two-fold balls and treble scepters carry." The Bard often combined ideas of treble and double in the same utterance, which makes it reasonable he did so here in Hamlet for Laertes.

The mix of "treble" and double in Laertes's speech can be interpreted as the "thrice" concept in association with poison, then the "double" idea in association with Laertes, himself, and continuing the "double" ideas in this Scene (and the "double" concept in the play overall.) The Q2 phrasing for EH 3439 and 3440 withstands scrutiny quite well, and is probably the authorial phrasing.

{I can only guess that perhaps the Folio editor had difficulty reading old manuscript in this area, and filled in the best he could.}

(In performance, Laertes could act his outburst by slapping himself twice on top of the head at double, or, better yet, slapping his hands to the sides of his head, incidentally covering his ears.)

EH 3457: {For} [Sir] though I am not spleenatiue and rash,

For

Sir

The F1 "Sir" is another blatant insertion of the word by the Folio editor, who apparently thought "sir" didn't appear enough in the play, and added a few, himself.

EH 3457: For though I am not spleenatiue [and] rash,

[none]

and

The conjunction of "splenative" and "rash" is easily within the author's style. He frequently paired synonyms, or near-synonyms. Apparently the Q2 typesetter simply missed it.

{The Folio editor correctly inserted and.}

(In performance, the word serves merely to connect any gestures Hamlet makes for "splentative" and "rash.")

EH 3459: Which let thy {wisedome} [wisenesse] feare;

wisdom

wiseness

Both words are probably authorial in their respective publications. The word wisdom is not so good for Laertes's characterization, so the author probably changed it. Hamlet doesn't think Laertes is very wise (and Hamlet is right.)

{The Folio editor probably found an authorial refinement and correctly used it.}

(The change makes no difference in performance.)

EH 3474: Ile doo't, doost [thou] come heere to whine?

[none]

thou

Although the line is not pentameter, the word thou makes it nicely iambic, when read with stress on thou, "here," and "whine." I.e., modernized: "Do YOU come HERE to WHINE? Elaborated: Do YOU (her brother) come HERE (to her funeral) to WHINE (for yourself, like a child)!? The word thou adds significant iambic strength, and is probably authorial. It improves both the sentiment and the strong poetic rhythm that the emotion requires. The Folio word is credibly either a correction, or an authorial fine tuning.

{The Folio editor properly included the change.}

(In performance, Hamlet would point at Laertes when saying thou.)

EH 3482: {Quee.} [Kin.] This is meere madnesse,

Quee.

Kin.

The Folio speech prefix is an error. The entire speech, EH 3482 to 3486, is Gertrude's. The word "madness" in EH 3482 means "anger." Gertrude is retorting to Claudius's line EH 3469, but her word usage is unfortunately ambiguous as she does so. She's trying to defend her son by saying Hamlet is only angry, not crazy. Claudius's "mad" meant "crazy," but Gertrude's "madness," in this line, means "anger." The word choice, for Gertrude's line, is part of the ambiguity intentionally written into the play by the author.

{The Folio erred, for any reason such an error might occur. Excessive reliance on Q1 is a possibility.}

(In performance, Gertrude speaks EH 3482.)

EH 3483: And {this} [thus] a while the fit will worke on him,

this

thus

Q2 probably has an ordinary misprint, and F1 properly corrects it.

EH 3497: An houre of quiet {thereby} [shortly] shall we see

thereby

shortly

The Q2 word is conclusively authorial, which is proven in that it provides important information. Shakespeare used Claudius to tell us, via wordplay, where Hamlet's grave will be. Hamlet's grave will be "there, by" Ophelia's grave. Without Q2's word thereby we would not know this.

{The Folio editor perhaps couldn't read the word on the old papers, and guessed at it, or for some other reason changed it, very mistakenly so. The use of something other than the author's final papers is a hypothetical possibility.}

(In performance, it's mandatory for Claudius to gesture toward Ophelia's grave when he says thereby. The Folio word should not be spoken.)

---

Scene 20 (Act 5 scene 2)

EH 3500: So much for this sir, now {shall you} [let me] see the other,

shall you

let me

The F1 wording makes little if any sense. The word "other" in the line refers to the other side of the story. We recall Claudius telling Hamlet he was sending Hamlet to England for his "especial safety." Hamlet is telling Horatio he's going to show him that the truth was otherwise. Hamlet means, 'now you'll see the other side of the story.' Further, Horatio indeed "shall see" when he reads Claudius's commission that Hamlet saved and will give to Horatio in the course of this passage.

The F1 phrase could possibly be read as Hamlet pausing, and saying 'let me see,' but that's feeble at best, and doesn't really work in the dialogue. I find no way to conclude the change could represent author preference.

{The Folio difference is an editorial mistake, for whatever reason.}

(In performance, shall you goes along with a simple hand gesture of questioning.)

EH 3505: Worse then the mutines in the {bilbo} [Bilboes], rashly,

bilbo

bilboes

The Q2 word is correct to the author's hand. A bilbo is a bar with shackles attached to it. There are several shackles, but only one bar. The Folio word can't be a correction, or an authorial fine tuning, because it's wrong, while Q2 is right. The singular, in Q2, is authorial.

{The Folio editor was unfamiliar with the term, and mistakenly thought it should be plural.}

(In performance, although a bilbo is used to shackle the feet, Hamlet could make a gesture of his hands being bound. Crossing his hands over his chest, in mimicry of a corpse, would be appropriate.)

EH 3507: Our indiscretion {sometime} [sometimes] serues vs well

sometime

sometimes

The Q2 word is authorial. This is proven by the initial "s" of "serves," that follows. The Folio word makes the line too sibilant. One bears in mind the writing is by a great poet.

{The Folio editor lacked the Poet's ear, and miscorrected it.}

(This is apparently not the playable word in the line.)

EH 3508: When our {deepe} [deare] plots doe {fall} [paule],

deep . . . fall

dear . . . pall

Both phrasings make sense, and might be considered authorial in their respective publications, as a starting point for analysis. The so-called "uncorrected" copies of Q2 show "pall" and the "corrected" ones show fall. Strangely, it is sometimes asserted, in some publications, that the corrected copies of Q2 have the misprint, which obviously does not make sense. Reasonably, it's the word fall which is correct to the author's hand in Q2.

The difference between the several copies of Q2 raises the question of whether the Folio editor may have gotten "pall" simply from an uncorrected Q2. That possibility, alone, raises a certain amount of doubt about the Folio word "pall."

It's probably best to deal with the two verbal differences separately.

Dear from F1, and fall from Q2, are the more easily actable words. Dear can be acted by a gesture to the heart, and fall by declining the hands. Ease of acting cannot be overlooked in a playscript, of course. The words "deep" and "pall," from Q2 and F1 respectively, do not appear very easily actable in any direct, clear way.

"Plot" can refer to a grave plot, so a "dear plot" is allusively the grave of a loved one. In this Scene immediately following the funeral of Ophelia, that undertone is of obvious pertinence. The phrase "deep plot" offers mainly literal meaning, although it could be heard to imply some anonymous deep grave, which is a weak notion by comparison. Likewise, the word fall applies to Ophelia's cause of death. "Pall" can be read as a death allusion, from its definition of "a funeral cloth," but that's again anonymous in respect to whose death. I find credibility for dear as an authorial fine tuning, but not "pall."

{The Folio editor probably found the change to dear and correctly used it, but he missed the corrected-Q2 fall which he should also have used.}

(In performance, the words dear and fall can be played as mentioned, first gesturing to the heart, then quickly declining the hands.)

EH 3517: My feares forgetting manners to {vnfold} [vnseale]

unfold

unseal

The Q2 word is authorial. It connects back to the second dialogue line of the play, EH 5. Hamlet means he revealed what the commission said, as he goes on to describe. The Q2 word flows well with the dialogue.

The phrasing of EH 3516-17 links back to "if my duty be too bold, my love is too unmannerly," which G spoke to Hamlet after the 'Mousetrap' play, EH 2219-20. The 'duty/love' ideas get replaced by "fear." Hamlet forgets manners (proper, civilized behavior) not because of love or duty, in this case, but rather worry.

The Folio word gives an instance on the "seal" concept. The word "seals" appears in the last line of the 'Mousetrap Play' Scene, and the word "them" is ambiguous there, alluding to R & G in ironic undertone. Also, Hamlet earlier spoke of his sealed friendship with Horatio, EH 1916, making F1's unseal idea pertinent here to R & G no longer being his friends.

By the method of abbreviation sometimes used in the original printing ("ore" for 'over,' "eale" for 'evil,' "deale" for 'devil') the word unseal can be read as 'unselve' i.e. "unself." Hamlet "unselfing" the grand commission would mean making it not apply to himself, which is exactly what he did.

There is also the point that the Poet may have decided he didn't want the rhyme, between EH 3516 & 17, since there is not a natural pause after "unfold."

The Folio change gives up the "reveal" idea, in plain expression. In exchange, however, it provides the "unsealed" friendship idea for R & G, the subtle allusion to Hamlet "unselfing" the commission, and it removes a rhyme which is only distracting. The Folio change is credibly authorial.

{The Folio editor probably found the change and correctly used it.}

(In performance, either word could be acted by using the hand gesture of opening a book.)

EH 3528: But wilt thou heare {now} [me] how I did proceed.

now

me

The Q2 word is authorial, and refers to listening more to Hamlet, now, instead of immediately reading the commission. The F1 change is credible, as a sign of Hamlet knowing he's been talking a lot. With me, Hamlet is asking Horatio if he's willing to hear Hamlet talk more. It's courtesy to Horatio, essentially Hamlet asking, "can you stand to hear me keep talking?"

{The Folio editor probably found the change and properly used it.}

(In performance, this word is not the actable one in the line; that would be "hear," with a gesture toward the ear.)

EH 3531: {Or} [Ere] I could make a prologue to my braines,

Or

Ere

The Q2 word Or is authorial. It provides an ambiguity in the lines that the Folio word loses. Ambiguity is an intentional, and essential, authorial facet of the play. Lines EH 3530 to EH 3532 have intentional double meaning.

{The Folio editor may have simply conventionalized the word.}

(This word is not the actable one, except with a simple hand gesture in the usual way to accompany speaking.)

EH 3538: {Th'effect} [The effects] of what I wrote?

effect

effects

A nice subtlety supports the F1 difference, since R & G are two people, of course. Thus, the plural is better for what Hamlet goes on to say.

{The Folio editor probably found the plural and correctly used it.}

(In performance, Hamlet makes a questioning gesture, using both hands. The use of both hands, in action, further supports the plural form.)

EH 3542: As loue betweene them {like} [as] the palme ...

like

as

The F1 change to as is probably an authorial fine tuning to provide another as in the lines.

(In performance, Hamlet will be applying some stress to the several uses of as while he speaks.)

EH 3542: ... the palme {might} [should] florish,

might

should

F1 should is probably an authorial fine tuning. Should is a form of "shall," and Psalm 92 says "shall flourish like a palm." A form of "shall" goes better with "palm," based on the Bible, with which the author had good familiarity.

{The Folio editor probably found the change and correctly used it.}

(In performance, this word is not particularly actable, except for the usual gestures a person makes while speaking.)

EH 3545: And many such like, {as sir} [Assis] of great charge,

as sir

as'es [ ? - or ] assize

Both forms are probably authorial in their respective printings. In the Q2 phrase, modern printing would put a comma after "as" and also after "sir," thus isolating "as" for emphasis. The address "sir" becomes a mere interpolation, and effectively drops out of the utterance, allowing a little additional stress on "of great charge." It works, pretty well. In Q2 it's a singular "ass" of great charge (jackass with a heavy burden.) However, a plural is better for allusion to R & G.

The Folio change handles the intended allusion better, (allusion to 'jackasses of great charge.') It's credibly an authorial touchup. The Folio word, originally spelled "assis," provides a near pun on "assize," a word which refers to a legal process. I include the question mark above, after the F1 term, to indicate the assumption made in modernizing the F1 spelling - it remains possible the author intended "assize," perhaps pronounced "ass-eyes."

{The Folio editor probably found the change and correctly used it.}

(In performance, Hamlet will be continuing to emphasize as when he says it. If the Hamlet actor wishes to say "assize," he can open his own eyes wide.)

EH 3548: He should {those} [the] bearers put to suddaine death,

those

the

The Q2 word is certainly authorial. The Q2 phrase "those bearers" refers back to "asses of great charge," which alludes to R & G. Hamlet is, indirectly, calling R & G "those asses." The Q2 word those is needed for the allusion.

{The Folio editor may have simply missed the author's word usage, and thought the mere article was required.}

(In performance, Hamlet can dramatically pretend to be the King of England, pointing at R & G as he orders them executed. Q2 those works better for this action.)

EH 3557: Was our Sea fight, and what to this was {sequent} [sement,]

sequent

sement (cement)

The Folio word, "sement" in the original, is probably supposed to be cement in modern spelling. A phonetic variant in spelling, in the original, is likely. The author did use "cement" elsewhere in his various writings, 4 times. Here it's used figuratively in the sense of "appended (as if with cement.)" The idea is of a later thing being "cemented" to an earlier one.

The plain meaning is essentially the same for the two words: the Q2 word is read as "subsequent," and the Folio word is read as "appended."

The Q2 word makes good sense, but is ordinary, with no broader application to the play, that I can find, except in the basic notion of a play being a sequence of events.

Cement, in reference to attachment, or something being "stuck on," does have broader connections. Gertrude speaks of Hamlet "adhering" to R & G, EH 1040. Claudius speaks of birdlime, EH 2344. The concept of "stuck on" is occasional in the play.

The original spelling could even be purposeful, to show the word "semen" within. The root of "semen" is "seed," which would link to the Gardening motif, although quite subtly.

Although the plain reading is not as easy with the Folio word, it can be read to make sense, with relevance to the attachment concept in the play, and then perhaps with a thematic semi-pun. It's credible as an authorial fine tuning.

{The Folio editor probably found the change and correctly used it.}

(In performance, for the F1 word cement Hamlet can bring his hands together as if sticking them together, inadvertently doing a prayer gesture.)

EH 3560: [Why man, they did make loue to this imployment]

[none]

[The entire line.]

The added F1 line is discordant. The word man is an abrupt change in Hamlet's style of address to Horatio. The line is crude in comparison to the next two lines. The line is not a reasonable reply to Horatio's mild, factual observation about R & G.

Having said that, however, the line can be read as characterization, that although Hamlet goes on to say R & G are not on his conscience, in fact, they are. His abrupt little outburst reveals an attack of conscience. His actual feelings are contrary to what he claims. According to that understanding, the line is credibly an authorial improvement.

{The Folio editor probably found the addition, and correctly used it.}

(In performance, Hamlet should enunciate the line more emotionally than a reasonable reply to Horatio would require. He's revealing his conscience, not in words, but in emotion.)

EH 3572-3585: (Multiple lines, not quoted here.)

[none]

[Fourteen lines.]

Q2 left out these authorial lines, and the question mark at the end of EH 3571 indicates the omission was known. Perhaps such a lengthy printing error did not permit of correction, except to add the question mark. The passage does not appear to contain anything which would have led to censorship.

{The Folio editor properly included the lines.}

(The lines should be included in performance.)

EH 3586: Enter {a Courtier} [young Osricke].

Courtier

Osricke

The Q2 stage direction is authorial, because there's a reason Ostrick doesn't have his name yet in this passage, in literature. F1 should not have used the "Osr" speech prefix in this passage.

{The Folio editor didn't know the play well enough, in print form, to get the stage direction right for literature.}

(In performance, the change makes no difference.)

EH 3588: I {humble} [humbly] thanke you sir.

humble

humbly

The Q2 word is authorial. Hamlet is "humble-thanking" the courtier, i.e. giving him only a humble thanks, not much.

{The Folio editor didn't perceive the humor, and mistakenly conventionalized the phrasing.}

(In performance, Hamlet does a small mock bow.)

EH 3603-4: {But yet} me thinkes it is ...

But yet

[none]

F1 dropped the Q2 phrase But yet. It's probably authorial, in Q2. However, it does not quite suit the action, since it might be read to imply that Ostrick has not "yet" donned his hat, when in fact he has. The author probably dropped the phrase, himself.

{The Folio editor probably found an author's change, and properly used it.}

(In performance, the phrase should not be spoken.)

EH 3603-4: ... very {sully} [soultry] and hot, ...

sully

soultry

The F1 spelling difference is probably authorial, to add "soul" within the printed word. Going along with the expression of "hot" in the line, a "hot soul" would be one in Purgatory, or in Hell. The Hamlet character is not intending to say all that; the exact spelling gives the association of concepts, from Shakespeare.

{The Folio editor probably found the change, and used the author's exact spelling, in this case.}

(Hamlet can put a hand to his chest, over his heart/soul, in performance.)

EH 3603-4: ... very soultry and hot, {or} [for] my complec-tion.

or

for

The Q2 word is conclusively authorial, which is shown without doubt by the meaning of Hamlet's phrase. Hamlet means, in modern vernacular: "or is it just me?" The word has to be or.

{The Folio editor didn't discern the intended meaning, and mistakenly changed it himself.}

(This is not the especially playable word in the line, except that Hamlet can be moving his hand from his heart to his face.)

EH 3610+1 to 3612+4: (Multiple lines, not quoted here.)

[Twenty nine lines.]

[none]

{The Folio editor either left out the lines as his own decision, or he was working from something other than the author's complete version for publication. The latter is more likely.}

(The lines should be included in performance whenever time permits.)

EH 3611: [Sir,] You are not ignorant of

[none]

Sir

The Folio word is not authorial, it is an insertion by the Folio editor.

EH 3611-2: ... what excellence Laertes is [at his weapon].

[none]

at his weapon

The F1 difference is almost certainly an authorial addition, or a phrase that was missed in the Q2 printing. It provides a comic moment, as Hamlet pretends to misunderstand which "weapon" the courtier means. When Hamlet goes on to say "compare with him in excellence" he makes the action of having a large penis. Hamlet is mocking the courtier, by pretending that the courtier knows Laertes has a large penis, and the courtier is speaking of its "excellence."

{The F1 editor found the addition and correctly included it.}

(In performance, it's important that the courtier make no particular gesture when he says the phrase, he must leave open the chance for comic confusion.)

EH 3622+1 and 3622+2: (Multiple lines, not quoted here.)

[The two lines.]

[none]

{The Folio editor took it upon himself to cheat Horatio out of two lines.}

(The lines should be included in performance.)

EH 3628-9: the Danish, why is this {all} [impon'd as] you call it?

all

impawned, as

Both Q2 and F1 may be authorial. Hamlet is asking the courtier why he's talking to Hamlet about the wager, and both Q2 and F1 communicate that point. The F1 change has some plausibility as an authorial refinement, when Hamlet says the courtier's own word back at him in an attempt to achieve communication. However, it does not appear that the Q2 word all should have been deleted, since the modern phrasing for Q2's this all would be "all this."

In favor of the exact Q2 phrasing, however, is the intentional ambiguity the author included in Hamlet. The F1 addition, which clarifies, runs contrary to that feature of the play. Q2 allows a facetious second reading equivalent to, "why don't you have more to say about it?" after the courtier has babbled almost interminably. (I.e. the idea of, "why, is this all you have to say about it?!) Also, the question, of why the courtier doesn't have more to say, is not just sarcastic, it's pertinent to the play, because it's odd the courtier has no offer to extend to Hamlet, to reward him for his participation in the match. The loss of the entertaining and pertinent secondary meaning, that Q2 provides, argues against F1 expressing the ultimate authorial preference.

{The Folio editor may have altered the phrasing himself, or he may have taken his phrasing from something other than the author's final.}

(In performance, Hamlet can do the hand gesture of turning the palms upward.)

EH 3643: Shall I {deliuer} [redeliuer] you [ee'n] so?

deliver

redeliver also even

The additional verbiage in the Folio is easily compatible with the courtier's characterization, and is probably an authorial refinement. The original Q2 line is a bit direct and sparse for this courtier, and it's reasonable to think Shakespeare, in review, may have added a couple touches to it.

{The Folio editor probably found an authorial fine tuning and correctly used it.}

(In performance, the courtier may wave his arm toward where Claudius is, and bow extravagantly to Hamlet; his actions should be overdone.)

EH 3647-8: Yours [, yours; hee] doo's well to commend it himselfe, ...

[none]

he

The word he was simply missed in Q2. (F1 also adds another yours to the line, which is plausibly an authorial addition to have Hamlet mocking the courtier's verbosity, saying more than is actually necessary.)

{The Folio editor correctly added he.}

(In performance, Hamlet can do a big mock bow toward the courtier.)

EH 3651-2: He did {so sir} [Complie] with his dugge before he suckt it,

so sir

comply

The Q2 phrasing is unquestionably authorial, for Q2, because of a joke in the line. As we know, jokes often require specific wording. The F1 change, exactly as printed, cannot be an authorial refinement, or authorial at all, since it ruins the joke, in which the word so is mandatory. However, the joke would have remained intact if F1 comply had replaced only the word "sir," leaving the word so in place. It could be that the Folio editor accidentally deleted so in the process of replacing "sir" with comply. It's credible that the desired authorial phrase is so comply.

The joke is, essentially, Hamlet remarking that the courtier didn't take his hat off to his own mother when he suckled. Or more generally, Hamlet can be understood to mean the courtier "sucks with his hat on."

{The Folio editor probably accidentally replaced the word so as well as "sir" when he properly added the word comply.}

(In performance, Hamlet should say so comply, and put his hat on his head, probably with a sucking or kissing action in addition.)

EH 3652-3: ... more of the same {breede} [Beauy] ...

breed

bevy

Both words make sense, and are probably authorial in the respective publications, with no misprint. Bevy is a word used for birds, which goes along with the occasional bird references in the play, including the name "Ostrick" after Hamlet has just spoken to him. Also, bevy comes from a root meaning of "drinking bout," which connects in undertone with Claudius's habitual rousing. Claudius and drinking, of wine, are unquestionably relevant in the Scene, overall. Bevy is probably an authorial fine tuning, too late for the Q2 printing, to provide additional undertone and allusion.

{The Folio editor probably found the change to bevy and correctly used it.}

(In performance, Hamlet can do a brief action of flapping his arms like a bird's wings, when he says bevy.)

EH 3654-5: ... kind of {histy} [yesty] colection, which ...

histy

yeasty

The Q2 word can be understood to come from Greek 'histos,' which means a web. (See the derivation of words like "histography.") Hamlet is saying that Ostrick has only caught a few manners by chance, like a spider "collecting" the occasional insect in its web. The idea of chance is on the Wheel of Fortune motif; the "web" concept works nicely for that, since spider webs are typically in a "wheel" shape. The web idea can also be understood as reference to a net; this word usage occurs after Hamlet has spoken of being "benetted 'round with villains," EH 3530. So, the Q2 word has good credibility as authorial.

F1's word yeasty works well enough for plain meaning. It also links back to Hamlet's lines EH 621+13 and 621+14:
"...some habit, that too much o'er-leavens
The form of plausive manners"
....since yeast is used as leavening. Thus, the word yeasty can be read to have relevance to manners, within the vocabulary of Hamlet, following those earlier lines in the play. There is also the significance of Hamlet speaking of his father being taken while "grossly full of bread," line EH 2356. Yeast is used to make bread, of course. The F1 word does connect to a play concept, of bread and leavening. There is also a subtle connection to the idea of "fatness" in the play, since yeast bread is "fat" compared to unleavened bread. Thus, the F1 word also has authorial credibility.

The question is whether the author would have ultimately preferred the unique word histy, and the "web/net" concept, or the more recognizable word yeasty and the concepts with which it's associated. Histy appears better in performance. However, the use of more familiar words, in a play written for the public, is a point to ponder. I cannot reach a firm conclusion about the F1 difference. I suggest the choice, in performance, might be left to the actor, according to the action he wishes to do. In print publication, I suggest Q2 histy should probably be used, since it was the word printed during Shakespeare's lifetime; it has that historical claim. An explanatory note will always be needed, in literature.

{The Folio editor may have found the change and properly used it, or, not recognizing histy, he may have gone back to the earlier authorial word.}

(In performance, if Hamlet says "histy collection," he should make the action, using his cloak, of catching things in a net. Hamlet can even "catch" Horatio in the "web" of his cloak, and give him a hug, which would be a good, friendly gesture, between best friends. If Hamlet says yeasty, he can hold his arms out from his sides to mimic being swelled up or fat.)

EH 3656: ... the most {prophane and trennowed} [fond and winnowed] opinions, ...

profane

fond

The Q2 phrase is authorial, and means essentially "ignorant and windy." Hamlet is saying that popular praise of the courtier is only chaff on the wind, of ignorant voices. (The exact Q2 spelling of "trennowed" is apparently a misprint due to a difficulty reading handwriting of the kind used in those days.)

The Folio change is credibly an authorial improvement, because fond is an ambiguous word. Notice "habit of encounter" in EH 3654; it provides an undertone of allusion to Hamlet's "encounter" with the Ghost, "in his habit as he lived," in the Closet Scene. The speech by Hamlet, following "habit of encounter," can be read with a double meaning, referring both to Hamlet's encounter with the courtier, and his encounter with the Ghost, in Gertrude's Closet. Fond works well for that. The "foolish" meaning of fond applies to the courtier, and the "affectionate" meaning of fond applies to Hamlet's love for his father. The change to fond from "profane" significantly improves the speech, by the terms of Hamlet, by giving a relevant double meaning, and is therefore credibly an authorial refinement. Further, the change with fond lends relevant ambiguity to winnowed, as to whether grain or chaff is meant. For the courtier, it's chaff, for Hamlet's father, it's grain, in Hamlet's implication.

{The Folio editor found the author's change to fond and correctly used it.}

(In performance, Hamlet can make a gesture toward his head at fond, or alternatively, toward his heart, and then can wiggle his fingers at winnowed. Also, since Hamlet has two hands, the word fond allows simultaneous gestures to the head and heart.)

EH 3657+1 to 3657+13: (Multiple lines, not quoted here.)

[Thirteen lines.]

[none]

The authorial credibility of the Q2 lines is not in doubt.

{The Folio editor either made an unwise decision to omit the lines himself, or he was working from something other than the author's complete version for publication.}

(The lines should be included in performance whenever time permits.)

EH 3658: You will loose [this wager,] my Lord.

[none]

this wager,

The F1 addition clarifies Horatio's question, which, instead of validating the addition, raises suspicion about it. Ambiguity, where it serves a purpose, is an authorial facet of the play. Horatio's "my Lord" is Hamlet, so the exact Q2 phrasing of the line allows this second reading: "You will lose Hamlet." Horatio's line in Q2 can be read, facetiously, as a caution to Hamlet that he will lose himself. That is indeed what will end up happening, when Hamlet dies. The F1 difference takes away that compelling ambiguity, so it lacks confirmation as an authorial refinement.

{The Folio editor may have unwisely attempted to clarify.}

(In performance, Horatio can do a cautionary shake of the index finger.)

EH 3664-5: ... it is such a kinde of {gamgiuing,} [gain-giuing] as

gamegiving

gaingiving

Q2 gamegiving clearly goes along with the fencing match being a nefarious kind of "game" or gamesmanship by Claudius and Laertes. It also follows the mentions of "gaming" and "fencing" by Reynaldo and Polonius in consecutive lines in Scene 6 (Act 2 scene 1,) EH 916 & 917. It additionally follows Hamlet saying, in the Prayer Scene, that he would later kill Claudius "at gaming." Thus, the Q2 word connects to two earlier dialogue statements of significance: first, a close proximity of "gaming" and "fencing," and second, Hamlet's vow to kill Claudius while he might be engaged in various things including "gaming." Q2 gamegiving is certainly credibly authorial.

F1 gaingiving follows ironically from Hamlet's remark, EH 3641-2, that he'd "gain nothing but my shame and the odd hits." The "gain" he's given at the match turns out to be tragically and fatally more than he expected. Both words have strength in relation to the play. The word gaingiving is conventional, if rare, so the apparent significance of "gain" might be accidental in a Folio miscorrection error, but that cannot be sure.

It leaves the choice difficult. Both words have good authorial features - they make sense, and link well to the play. I turn to the ultimate "gain" for Hamlet: going to Heaven. Of course our hero, Hamlet, goes to Heaven! F1 gaingiving provides that allusion, of Hamlet being "given" the ultimate "gain." It's iffy, between the words, but the scale tips toward F1.

{It's credible that the Folio editor found an authorial change, and properly used it.}

(In performance, Hamlet points up, intending emphasis, but inadvertently toward Heaven. This consideration of action supports the F1 difference.)

EH 3669-70: the fall of a Sparrowe, if it be [now], tis not ...

[none]

now

The F1 addition has plausibility ahead of the two other uses of now in the speech. Against it, is that the exact Q2 phrasing allows the possibility of a reading, "if it be special providence." The F1 change inteferes with Hamlet's line referring back to "providence." Also, the F1 change makes Hamlet's sentiments unduly redundant. F1 is probably in error.

{The Folio editor, mistaking the sentiment, may have added the word himself.}

(In performance, the word should probably be skipped.)

EH 3670-1: ... be not now, yet it {well} [will] come, the readines ...

well

will

Q2 well is probably authorial. In combination with the word "come" that follows, it gives "well come." That's reminiscent of Hamlet's line to Horatio, after Hamlet saw the Ghost: "And therefore as a stranger give it welcome." Here, Hamlet can be understood to say, "if it be not now, yet it's welcome (when it does come.)"

The Elizabethans had not yet standardized the word "it," which appears in this line. In those days, it could mean "its," or "it's." Hamlet's speech, in Q2, can be read as, modernized:

...if it be now, 'tis not to come,
if it be not to come, it will be now,
if it be not now, yet it's well come (when it arrives)...

Taking the vagaries of Elizabethan it into account, the speech makes good sense as it was printed in Q2.

{The Folio editor probably missed the author's rather special use of well.}

(In performance, since Hamlet is speaking of calmly accepting death, whenever it happens, the actor should recite the lines in a calm manner. The idea of "welcome" implies drawing the hands toward the body.)

EH 3671-3: since no man {of} [ha's] ought [of what] he leaues, {knowes} what ist ...

of ... knows

has ... of what

The word "of" in Q2 is probably a misprint for if. That simple change, only one letter, makes good sense of the Q2 line, especially in its context. The conclusion, of printing error, follows directly from the repetitions of "if" that Hamlet has already used in the speech. He is probably saying if again. The phrase if ought does appear in the play, in a later speech by Horatio, EH 3856. A change to if ought, here, would have Horatio following on Hamlet's phrase, when Horatio later says his line.

The change to if gives Hamlet saying:

...the readiness is all,
since no man, if aught he leaves, knows what is't to leave betimes,
let be.

Hamlet means that if a man is leaving nothing, i.e. that he has nothing to live for, he can't leave life too early. His statement makes a subtle allusion to the death of Ophelia. Without Ophelia on earth, Hamlet feels he's leaving nothing behind him if he dies.

The F1 change in wording causes a substantial change in meaning. It gives a trite "you can't take it with you" sentiment. It is not credible for Hamlet to say that; he's called himself a "beggar," and what would a beggar supposedly take with him? Hamlet's regret is not that he "can't take it with him," but rather, he feels there's nothing of value on earth for him. The F1 difference lacks believability as an authorial improvement. Most likely, the Folio editor didn't realize that a simple change from "of" to if would do the job, and he tried a small rewrite.

{The Folio editor probably did not notice a simple Q2 misprint, and changed the wording himself, to try to make sense of it.}

(In performance, Hamlet is subdued during the speech. He can briefly make a "nothing" gesture, followed by a fillip, which would be tragically ironic after his "nothing" gesture to Ophelia at the 'Mousetrap' play.)

EH 3673+1: {let be.}

let be

[none]

There's certainly no reason to doubt Hamlet saying a phrase that includes "be." F1 should have included the phrase.

{The Folio editor just missed it.}

(The phrase is to be spoken in performance.)

EH 3692: [Sir, in this Audience,]

[none]

[The entire line.]

The line appears only in F1. The F1 addition has high credibility for being authorial, since the word audience provides a clear instance of the 'Putting On A Show' theme, which is a major theme of the play. Beyond the word audience, itself, audience followed by "declaiming" (orating) supports this line, thematically. The line also offers relevant ambiguity, as it can be read with either the preceding, or the following, line.

{The Q2 printing probably simply missed this line, and the Folio editor correctly added it; otherwise, it's an authorial improvement, post-Q2.}

(The F1 line should be included in performance; Hamlet can sweep his arm to indicate the people present.)

EH 3696: And hurt my {brother} [Mother].

brother

mother

The F1 difference could possibly, somehow, be read to connect back to the anonymous Lord's mention to Hamlet that Gertrude wished him to extend gentle entertainment to Laertes. Hamlet might conceivably be saying the word with a nod to his mother. However, despite that hypothetical possibility, the F1 change is more likely an ordinary error. Further, the anonymous lord does not appear in F1, which makes a followup to him impossible in F1 as it was printed.

{The Folio probably just has an ordinary error.}

(Nevertheless, in stage performance, Hamlet could say "mother" and bow to Gertrude, and it should all be clear enough, if a production wished to do that.)

EH 3703: but {all} [till] that time

all

till

Both words are probably authorial, in their respective publications. Both make sense. The F1 change to till gives another slight instance of the Gardening motif, through the mere use of the word, which has a definition of working the earth, in addition to its plain reading of "until" that applies in the line. On that basis the F1 word is credible as an authorial fine tuning, against the ordinary word all, which lacks thematic linkage.

{The Folio editor probably found the change and properly used it.}

(In performance, the word may not be associated with any particular action. With either word, Laertes can be waving his arm.)

EH 3708: Giue vs the foiles. [Come on.]

[none]

Come on.

The F1 change to this speech makes the language of EH 3708-9 mimic the language in EH 3741 - 2, when they make the first pass of the match. It can be read to convey the subtlety that the choice of foils, itself, is the "first pass." On that basis, the F1 difference is credible as an authorial refinement. The Q2 printing has an unnecessary "line feed" before this line, but that probably marks the change of addressee, rather than being any indication of omission of this phrase from Q2.

{The Folio editor probably found an authorial addition and properly used it.}

(In performance, the phrase is spoken as Hamlet takes a foil in hand.)

EH 3721: But since he is {better} [better'd], we haue therefore ods.

better

bettered

Q2 better is authorial. It puns with "bettor," obviously connecting to the wager on the fencing match.

Folio "bettered" offers the same pun, but in a worse way. The question must be considered if it's still better, and worse, and can be an authorial improvement. Not only is it no improvement, no sensible meaning can be had from it.

What has happened here, is that the Folio editor lost track of whom Claudius was answering, and thought he was speaking to Laertes, probably based on the fact of Laertes's speech immediately following. "Bettered" does make sense if spoken to Laertes. However, Claudius is not answering Laertes.

{The Folio editor lost track of the dialogue, and mistakenly changed the word to conform to his misunderstanding. Maybe. But, read on.}

Despite the above, it is indeed possible to take it that Claudius's "bettered" is spoken to Laertes. The passage could be played that way. Hamlet says his line to Claudius, then turns away, toward Ostrick. At the mention of "odds" Laertes raises an eyebrow and looks at Claudius. Claudius then says his "odds" line to Laertes, to explain. That action would signify that Claudius has not fully discussed the setup with Laertes, so that Laertes didn't know about the handicap Claudius had allowed Hamlet. It would provide subtle characterization of Claudius as a poor leader, not in good communication with his agent, Laertes, at this vitally important time for them both. Laertes would simply nod and shrug; it makes no difference to him, since the match result he intends has nothing to do with any handicap. Doing the dialogue and action like that could work, and could be an intended sophistication by the author. I am not currently prepared to conclude that the F1 difference reveals such authorial sophistication, to go with the more complicated action theorized, but if so, it would favor the F1 word. Certainly, the Q2 word, and its associated action, of Claudius continuing to speak to Hamlet, offers a clear and direct interpretation, while F1 does not.

(In performance, if Claudius says better, he says it to Hamlet. If the Claudius actor wishes to say bettered, he speaks the line to Laertes.)

EH 3732: And in the cup an {Onixe} [vnion] shall he throwe,

onyx

union

Both words are correct to the author's hand. Onyx is the word for literature, and union is the word for stage performance of the play. Explanation is beyond these comments.

EH 3742: Come {my Lord} [on sir].

my Lord

on sir

The Q2 phrase is authorial, but the F1 phrase is obviously not. The F1 difference is purely editorial. Shakespeare never used the word "sir" in this line. It's another one of the several instances where the word "sir" appears inappropriately in the Folio.

{Either the Folio has a simple misprint, repeating the previous line, or the Folio editor changed the phrasing himself and erred by doing so.}

(In performance, Laertes says my Lord to Hamlet.)

EH 3754: [A touch, a touch,] I doe ...

[none]

A touch, a touch

The Folio addition of touch is entirely compatible with the other uses of the word in the play, and easily makes sense in the context. There is nothing to say against it. In strong support, the touch idea connects back to Claudius saying to Laertes, in Scene 16, that if he's "touched" he'll give up his life and all - and so it shall be, as the "touches" continue. Shakespeare probably added the F1 phrase as an ironic reminder of what Claudius said.

{The Folio editor probably found the addition and correctly used it.}

(The F1 wording should be included in performance.)

EH 3757: {Heere Hamlet take my} [Heere's a] napkin rub thy browes,

Here, Hamlet, take my

Here's a

The Q2 phrasing makes good sense, with no reason to question it.

The F1 phrasing, in context, allows an ironic ambiguity, following from the "He" in line 3756. If that "he" were taken to be Claudius, it would have Gertrude saying, to Hamlet, that Claudius is "fat and scant of breath," and then, with the change to this line, Gertrude handing Claudius the napkin for his sweaty face. No literal meaning of Claudius is intended, it's a humorous possibility in the wording. Such ambiguity could occur by accident, so F1 can't be confirmed as an authorial change, but the possibility requires mention. Another possibility, since F1 shows occasional signs of editorial imposition, is that the Folio editor redid the line to avoid repetition of the name Hamlet in the same speech. It's unlikely the author would have redone the line merely for that reason.

{Either the Folio editor, himself, rewrote the line to avoid repetition of "Hamlet" in the same speech, or the author redid the line to allow a humorous ambiguity.}

(In performance, Gertrude holds out the napkin to Hamlet. The ambiguous possibility of Claudius would be only in the language of F1, not something for performance.)

EH 3773: I am {sure} [affear'd] you make a wanton of me.

sure

afeared

The Q2 word has the advantage that it's ironic for Hamlet to speak of being sure what Laertes is doing, when in fact Hamlet doesn't know of the plot against him.

The Folio word also has irony, that although Hamlet is not saying it seriously, he ought to fear Laertes. The Folio word further connects to the "fear" concept in the play. Then, the Folio change improves the meter. Additionally, the F1 word is directly playable. Folio afeared is credibly an authorial fine tuning.

I'll add, the concept of fear is connected with paleness, and we know Laertes has "red in his eyes" for revenge, so to speak. Even though Hamlet uses afeared nonseriously in F1, the idea of "pale" fear associated with him, and "red" anger associated with Laertes, brings up the "pale, or red" concept again, between Hamlet and Laertes, in a subtle way. This further strengthens support for the F1 difference.

{The Folio editor probably found the change and correctly used it.}

(In performance, when Hamlet says F1 afeared, he could make a mock gesture of fear, in a playful way, ironic because of the serious danger. Particularly, Hamlet should widen his eyes.)

EH 3797: The treacherous instrument is in {my} [thy] hand

my

thy

The Q2 word is authorial. Hamlet dropped the foil he was holding, in response to events. Laertes has picked up the poisoned foil, from the floor, and he now holds it up for Hamlet to inspect, as evidence. Laertes picked up the poisoned foil at EH 3793 when he said "It is here."

{The Folio editor understood the foil switch during the fencing match, but not that Hamlet cast the foil aside upon seeing Gertrude in distress.}

(In performance, Laertes says my, and the foil is handled as described.)

EH 3807-8: {Heare} [Heere] thou incestious ...

Hear

Here

Q2 Hear is easily the more credibly authorial word, because of the Ear motif.

{Apparently the Folio editor missed the relevance of the Ear motif, misunderstood the phrasing, and (mis)corrected the spelling.}

(In performance, it's appropriate for Hamlet to grasp Claudius by the ear.)

EH 3807-8: Heare thou incestious [murdrous,] damned Dane,

[none]

murderous

The absence of the word in Q2 is probably a printing oversight. It appears necessary for both sense and meter.

{The Folio editor correctly added the word.}

(In performance, this word takes no particular action; Hamlet already has his hands full, with the cup and Claudius's ear.)

EH 3809: ... is {the Onixe} [thy Vnion] heere?

the onyx

thy union

Both phrases are authorial, in their respective publications. Onyx is the word for literature, and union is the word for stage performance of Hamlet. Explanation is too long to include in these comments. See the Hamlet (Regained) Notes.

(In performance, Hamlet doesn't, and mustn't, stick his fingers in the cup. If he did, he'd be surprised. He's still holding Claudius's ear, and has no hand free.)

EH 3828-9: Giue me the cup, let goe, by heauen Ile {hate,} [haue't.]

hate

have it

The Q2 word and the F1 phrase are actually the same, as far as have it is concerned. Q2 hate reflects, once again, a special spelling of "have it," used to incorporate the additional meaning of "hate." Hamlet means both that he'll have it, the cup, from Horatio, and that he'll hate it if Horatio drinks the poison and dies.

{The Folio editor properly used conventional spelling, as far as that alone goes, but he lost Shakespeare's second meaning.}

(In performance, Hamlet is taking the cup from Horatio.)

EH 3857: This quarry cries on hauock, ô {prou'd} [proud] death

proved

proud

The Q2 word spelled "prou'd" in the original printing is proved in modern standard spelling. Its use here links back to line EH 38 in the first Scene, when Marcellus said of Horatio: "He may approve our eyes..." Fortinbrasse is saying that the death he's been told of is proved, now, by the evidence of his own eyes.

This word proved in Q2, undoubtedly from Shakespeare, seems to have been entirely overlooked by scholars. It isn't even footnoted in recent major publications of Hamlet. Apparently the apostrophe in the original has been thought a misprint, or something incidental, but it is not. Proved is entirely credible as Shakespeare's word at this point in the play; it follows directly on the "seeing is proving" concept. The Folio editor must have misread it. The word proved should be used in future publications, and performances, of the play, because it's what Shakespeare wrote.

{The Folio editor probably simply misread the Q2 word.}

(In performance, Fortinbrasse says proved, and can do a "behold" action.)

EH 3878: Of deaths put on by cunning, and {for no} [forc'd] cause

for no

forced

Both may be authorial in their respective publications. The F1 difference is credibly an authorial refinement, because the word "force" derives from the Latin for 'fortis', which means "strong," so the word usage connects directly to the name "Fortinbrasse," while Horatio is speaking to Fortinbrasse.

{The Folio editor probably found the change and correctly used it.}

(In performance, Horatio can gesture toward Fortinbrasse, incidentally and inadvertently associating "force" with him.)

EH 3889: And from his mouth, whose voyce will drawe {no} [on] more,

no

on

In Q2, Horatio means that Hamlet's voice will draw no more breath, to speak. Q2 no is authorial, on the "breath is life" concept in the play.

The F1 change implies Horatio acting as Fortinbrasse's political advisor. It's doubtful, for a number of reasons. First, Fortinbrasse already has control of Elsinore Castle, as Horatio knows, and as Horatio just heard Fortinbrasse express. It's explicit that Fortinbrasse's victory is a fait accompli, not in need of more voices. Second, Horatio must know that Hamlet's influence is not what it should be, for his voice to draw political support. Hamlet was reputed mad, as even the lowly sexton Clown knew, he was never cleared of suspicion of murder in the death of Polonius, and he was publicly accused of driving his girlfriend insane, which according to vicious rumor resulted in her killing herself. Hamlet's political endorsement is not the kind that candidates usually welcome. Horatio is a sensible enough fellow he'd have to recognize that. Essentially, a view that Horatio is attempting to act as Fortinbrasse's "Polonius" is not reasonable.

Horatio is talking about his best friend being dead.

{The Folio has a misprint.}

(In performance, Horatio shakes his head - "no.")

---

=-= end =-=

(Regained)

About the List

The words or phrases at issue are discussed, at left, using a list format. Each list item is preceded by an "EH" number, which is then followed by the relevant line as it was originally printed in the Second Quarto [Q2], and the Folio, in the original spelling. The EH number references the line numbers used for the Enfolded Hamlet on the Hamlet Works website. (The Enfolded Hamlet is copyrighted by Bernice Kliman.) The use of the EH line numbers provides an independent reference that the more serious student of Hamlet can use to find historical commentary, and other information, about the play.

Here's a link to "Hamlet Works" (new window):

Hamlet Works website

Here's a direct link to the Enfolded Hamlet (new window):

Bernice W. Kliman's Enfolded Hamlet

In quoting the original playtext lines, as they were printed in Q2 and the Folio, respectively, I use {braces} to mark the Q2 wording, and [brackets] to mark the Folio wording. This technique allows both the Q2 and Folio wordings to be conveniently combined into one line. It avoids having to print the Q2 and Folio lines both, separately. Showing the lines separately would only waste space, since they often differ by just one word. (I've borrowed this concept, of a way to combine lines, from Kliman's Enfolded Hamlet, which uses a similar technique, so see the Enfolded Hamlet, linked above, for additional information.) To know the Folio wording of a line, simply leave out the words within braces. Or, to know the Q2 wording of the line, leave out the words within brackets. I omit the speech prefixes of lines that have one, except where the speech prefix is the issue.

Spelling was not standardized in Shakespeare's time, which means that Q2 and the Folio have many differences in the spellings of the same words. As a quick example for illustration, from line EH 452, the word "Upon" is spelled "Vppon" in Q2, and "Vpon" in F1. The repetition of the letter "p" there is trivial, from the days when spellings were mostly just left up to the printer. (They typically used "v" at that time, where we now use "u.") The Q2 printer thought that "upon" was better with two "p's", but the Folio printer thought that one "p" was enough. This discussion concerns differences in wording, not differences in spelling, so no attention is paid to trivial spelling differences between Q2 and F1. In a few cases, the author intentionally used a special spelling technique, for example, "seale/Selfe" in line EH 316, which are, suprisingly, the same word - in that line, "seale" is a special spelling of the word "self," something Shakespeare did to achieve a certain effect. I do discuss cases where the author used a special spelling, intentionally. So, for the list items, not every difference between Q2 and F1 is marked in the lines that are quoted; only the relevant words are shown in {braces} or [brackets]. In most cases, the quoted line is basically the line as it appears in Q2. I sometimes shorten the quoted line, and use an ellipsis to mark that.

As a matter of policy in interpretation, I generally try to resist the temptation to attribute differences between the Second Quarto and the First Folio versions of Hamlet to compositor errors. I occasionally do engage in such speculation, since it's irresistible in some cases, but those cases are knowing exceptions to my rule. It seems to have become fashionable among Hamlet editors and commentators to blame the original compositors, readily and easily, for any number of things, but such practice is intellectually lazy, and fundamentally irresponsible, since it is not factually knowable what any of the original Shakespeare manuscripts said. None of the author's manuscripts has survived. There is, in fact, no sure way of knowing how much, or where, the compositors may have departed from their manuscript sources. I have identified specific instances where commentators, in various publications, have asserted compositor error where none actually seems to exist in the original Hamlet Second Quarto printing, and I have, I hope, learned from what I have seen. I have also identified instances where the fantasy of being able to read a nonexistent manuscript has led editors astray as to which wording is right (authorial) between Q2 and F1.

I'll offer a further remark on the issue of compositor error. In my readings of various publications, it seems that editors of Hamlet, when they suspect compositor error, will typically assume the fault must lie in Q2. However, it is a known historical fact that the original manuscripts were some twenty years older when F1 was printed. It is a practical impossibility that the original manuscripts were stored in a way best designed to preserve them, for two decades. That is, in those days, it is not possible the author's manuscripts were hermetically sealed, protected from contact with human hands, carefully shielded from ultraviolet light, and so on. At the time the Folio was printed, the manuscripts would have been subject to twenty years of aging, casual storage, and casual handling, beyond what the Q2 compositor saw. The Folio compositor's job would have been harder than the Q2 compositor's job. So, in those cases where the issue of compositor error might legitimately be raised, the Folio compositor must always be the prime suspect, so to speak. The Folio compositor was more likely to be in error, by twenty years' worth of degradation of his source papers. The author's original papers may have been quite difficult to read at the time the Folio was printed. There is also the elementary point that Shakespeare was alive when Q2 was printed, but not when F1 was printed. The Q2 compositor had potential recourse to the author, but the F1 compositor did not.

An additional point which requires mention is that the person, or persons, who assembled the Folio version of Hamlet must have had a large body of material to consult. The Second Quarto compositor probably worked from one manuscript. When the Folio was done, the available materials probably included:

A copy of Q1,
A copy of Q2,
The Q2 manuscript,
The playhouse "book" for Hamlet,
The actor's parts, individually,
and anything further the author had done for the play.

So, whoever put together the F1 version of the play probably had three earlier versions to consult, the two published versions and the stage book, and more papers, besides. It would have been difficult, deciding what to turn to, at any particular point. Some of the passages omitted in F1, but found in Q2, may have been left out simply because something other than Q2 was being consulted at the time, and there are only so many hours in the working day. The Q2 compositor's job should have been quite straightforward by comparison.

The measures I use, to judge between Second Quarto and Folio expressions, are, in no particular order:

• plain sense in context,
• thematic significance,
• root meanings,
• wordplay,
• relevant ambiguity,
• allusion,
• undertone,
• style,
• characterization,
• irony,
• immediacy to the passage,
• the flow of the dialogue,
• the flow of events,
• overall word usage in the play, and
• the fact that theater is a visual performance, so that all of the speeches imply action.

If all else fails, I look to the author's general usage of words, throughout his writings, and to the fact that he was a great poet. Such a range of tests will generally supply an answer as to which wording is more credibly authorial. I take it as given that the author was cognizant of his own themes, characterizations, etc., and that he was more than competent to handle both the plain meanings and root meanings of the words he used.

In the list of differences, I usually speculate on the reason for a difference between Q2 and F1, in which case I enclose my comment in curly braces: {for example.} It must be understood that such comments are decidedly only speculative, and fundamentally cannot be relied upon as a final word. Judging a difference, and explaining why it happened, are starkly two different things. I make no claim I can explain why all the differences happened, even where I propose a reason. However I might word my judgment on the reason for a difference, I only mean to make a suggestion.

As to my arguments, themselves, on the differences between Q2 and F1, they're worth whatever rational value they have with respect to the facts of what Q2 and F1 actually say.

My general approach, in arguing between the Q2 and F1 wordings, is to assess whether the F1 wording can credibly be viewed as an authorial improvement, intentionally done by the author, after he wrote the Q2 version that was printed. Simple history makes such an approach reasonable, because of the plain fact that F1 was printed later. If the author desired a change, after Q2, F1 is the place to look for that. Although my approach does not directly address misprints or misreadings, it does accomodate those possibilites, since it's obviously unreasonable to think the author would have desired a misprint or misreading. In other words, misprints and misreadings should be ruled out along the way, in a search for author preference, even though one is not directly looking for them.

In the list of words and phrases, the Second Quarto phrasing is shown first, the Folio second. The words and phrases at issue are in bold. I modernize the spelling, for the word or phrase at issue, except where the original spelling appears to have significance for meaning. I usually disregard the eccentric capitalizations that occur within sentences in the Folio. Where a word or phrase is an addition in one source, the entry "[none]" is used for the other source. The list is fairly comprehensive, but does not include all the wording differences between Q2 and F1.

I may occasionally refer to earlier publications about Hamlet, using the author's name followed by the date of publication. For example, "Steevens, 1793" would mean the author named Steevens, in a publication of A.D. 1793.

Also, in discussing the list items, I use the phrase "Folio editor." I use that phrase merely as a convenient catchall term for whoever decided what wording would be printed in the Folio. In modern terms, the decision of exactly what to print in a book would be called an "editorial" decision. However, printing in the era of Hamlet was likely conducted in a way different from modern organization. In some cases, what I here call "editor" may have been nobody other than the typesetter. The exact organization, for printing of the Folio, is unknown. Thus, it is not known, as historical fact, that the Folio had an actual editor, in the modern sense, and I have no intent to suggest so.

A style note: In the discussions of the list items, I use italics for the expressions I think are most likely authorial, in either Q2 or F1. I also occasionally use italics in the ordinary way, for emphasis of certain words. I use "quotation marks" for expressions that I think are not authorial, in either Q2 or F1. I also occasionally use quotation marks in the ordinary way.

Then, since Hamlet is a playtext, of course, I usually offer a comment, in parentheses, about acting the various words. It's vital that Hamlet be actable, and Shakespeare undoubtedly wrote it with playability as the highest priority. This fundamental point is often overlooked by academic scholars, unfortunately, who tend to approach the play as if it were merely an essay, and who sometimes find themselves puzzled by things that could be answered if they properly took the action into account. Consideration of the actions that are reasonably associated with the various playtext words is an aspect that can't be neglected in any good examination of Hamlet. The associated gesture for a word in the playtext can sometimes be a powerful indicator of which wording is correct to the author, between the Second Quarto and the First Folio. After all, Shakespeare himself wrote, using his Hamlet character: "suit the action to the word, the word to the action."

Back to the
Hamlet (Regained) HOME page

(Regained)

Go to the
Playtext Scenes page