H A M L E T (Regained) :: Folio Differences

Back to the
Hamlet (Regained) HOME 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 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, althought 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 much 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 is plausibly authorial, simply in keeping with the ambiguous style of the play dialogue.; {The Folio editor may have found the change and properly used it.}; (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 world 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 suggest 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