William Shakespeare. The Tragicall Historie of Hamlet, Prince of Denmarke: The First (‘Bad’) Quarto. London: N.L. & John Trundell, 1603. Project Gutenberg. Oct. 2005. Kindle E-book. [References are Kindle locations, not pages. Spelling has been modernized for the blog.]

Like many English teachers, I have known about various editions of Shakespeare’s plays, but I never really looked into them. It is generally recognized that the most reliable versions of his plays are those in the First or Second Folios, collections of the plays edited by men who were members of Shakespeare’s company and likely had access to the scripts as the plays were produced. The First Folio was published in 1623, seven years after Shakespeare died.

A number of plays are extant in earlier editions, all but one in Quarto form that were inexpensive printed play scripts. Some of these were likely pirated editions done by scribes attending the plays and taking notes or shorthand, the sixteenth century equivalent of people who sneak video cameras into movie theaters and then sell their videos in subway stations. The Hamlet First Quarto notes that the play was produced in London “as also in the two Universities of Cambridge and Oxford, and elsewhere.” (20)

According to an article in Wikipedia, this First or “Bad” quarto has 1600 fewer lines than the more standard Second Quarto or First Folio editions. That is significant (about 3800 to 2200). It also may make for a more practical theater production of some two to two and a half hours rather than the four-plus hours a complete Hamlet would run.

A Second Quarto was published in 1604 that is very close to the Folio Hamlet. Since there were so many differences—traditionally ascribed to scribal errors—the First Quarto is often called the Bad Quarto. It has nothing to do with any “superfluity of naughtiness” (James 1:21 KJV) in the text but simply the editorial quality.

Taken as an early version or touring version of Hamlet, the First Quarto is worth reading. One caution here: The Project Gutenberg edition here has the original and somewhat idiosyncratic spelling as noted even by some of the words in the title above. That could slow the reading down for anyone not comfortable with such orthography. Cambridge publishes an edition that has modern spelling.

Although the opening scenes in both versions are similar, the opening lines are not. One of the clever and subtle points of the revised or finished later versions including the Second Quarto is that the first speaker who says “Who’s there?” is the man coming on watch. This, of course, reverses the way things should be done and is the first sign that things are rotten in Denmark.

In the First Quarto the unnamed “Centinel” who opens by saying, “Stand: Who is that?” is the man on watch. Right away we see the play streamlined for quicker action. That indeed is the main strength of this version even if some subtlety is lost.

Besides the obvious number of lines cut, all the principals in the play are still present. Many productions will cut references to Fortinbras, for example, or have Rosencrantz without Guildenstern or Horatio without Marcello. While the names may be changed or spelled differently, all the characters are here. In many cases, though, we note the differences and realize that Hamlet was a work in progress. There is perhaps one significant plot change but many other subtle changes that give the “good” versions a sense of having more polished poetry.

Hamlet’s first soliloquy, “Oh that this too, too solid flesh would melt,” is not quite as poetic but still suggests his melancholia:

O that this too much grieved and sallied flesh
Would melt to nothing, or that the universal
Globe of heaven would turn all to a Chaos!(83)

One potential cliché has been dropped. When Hamlet asks Horatio and Marcellus to promise not to reveal what they have seen of the ghost and him, he says:

And now kind friends, as you are friends,
Scholars and gentlemen…(198)

The whole scene is a little more rapidly paced and Hamlet outwardly appears less desperate, but its last solo lines are the same that “the time is out of joint” and he was “born to set things right.”

Hamlet delivers his “To be or not to be” soliloquy earlier, and there are differences which make the First Folio’s considerably shorter but likely less poetic. Here is part of it:

To be or not to be, aye there’s the point,
To die, to sleep, is that all? Aye, all:
No, to sleep, to dream, Aye, Marry, there it goes,
For in that dream of death, when we awake
And borne before an everlasting Judge,
From whence no passenger ever returned,
The undiscovered country, at whose sight
The happy smile, and the accursed damned.
But for this, the joyful hope of this,
Who’d bear the scorns and flattery of the world,
Scorned by the right rich, the rich cursed of the poor? (267)

Hamlet’s “Hecuba” soliloquy which in the later versions begins “Oh, what a rogue and peasant slave I am” in this version begins, “Why, what a dunghill idiot slave am I?” That is interesting because it suggests the story of the Prodigal Son when he was reduced to slavery after he had spent all his money, as if Hamlet is suggesting that he has misused his inheritance like the Prodigal. We know Shakespeare knew that story well as he refers to it in As You Like It and numerous times in Henry IV, Part 1.

When the King and his Court are introduced in the second scene, there is no long introduction by the king reminding everyone of his legitimacy. That scene begins almost immediately with “Leartes'” request to go to France. His father, Corambis (not Polonius), assents.

One theory notes that one of the founders of Oxford was a scholar named Polenius. Shakespeare may have chosen the name Polonius to suggest a pedant, but since the First Folio version had played at Oxford, the company changed the name in order not to offend. It is also possible that while playing at Oxford they learned about the school’s origins and Shakespeare took the name of Polonius afterwards. Oxford students might have gotten a kick out of it.

When the actors put on their much shorter version of The Mousetrap, Hamlet asks his mother how she likes the play. She simply says, “The lady protests too much.”

Perhaps the biggest difference in the two plays is the way Gertrude responds to Hamlet when he is in her closet. Corambis dies the same way Polonius does, but in this version the Queen appears convinced Hamlet is telling the truth about Claudius. She still worries when Hamlet sees the ghost and she does not, but she vows in the name of God that

I will conceal, consent, and do my best
What stratagem soe’er thou shalt devise. (499)

In this version Horatio tells the queen the story of Hamlet’s return to Denmark and how the king had given the orders to kill Hamlet. She is even more repelled by the king then:

Then I perceive there’s treason in his looks
That seemed to sugar o’er his villainy. (564)

When Horatio then tells her that “Gilderstone” and “Rossencraft” were to be executed instead, she replies, “Thanks be to heaven…With thousand mother’s blessings to my son.” (572)

The king still gets “Leartes” to go along with his plan to kill Hamlet in the fencing match, but in this version the king supplies all the poison, both the poison for the sword and the poison for the cup.

The Osric character has fewer lines but still acts as the referee in the fencing match. He has no name in this version but is called “Braggart Gentleman.” That is apt both for the part and for confirming the idea when a Polonius sycophant dies or loses his office, there is always another to take his place.

When Hamlet and “Leartes” confront each other at “Ofelia’s” burial, Hamlet says, “I loved Ofelia as dear as twenty brothers could.” (637) That is not only fewer words, but a much smaller factor than the “Forty thousand brothers” who “Could not with all their quantity of love make up my sum” in the later versions. (5.1.285-287)

Hamlet may sound a little more Augustinian (he did, after all, attend Wittenberg) or Calvinist when he tells Horatio, “There’s a predestinate providence in the fall of a sparrow.” (660)

And I am not sure that David Foster Wallace would have embraced the First Quarto’s description of “poor Yorick” as a “fellow of infinite mirth” (621), though otherwise the description is about the same.

The First Quarto is quicker. It does focus on action more and may not emphasize Hamlet’ melancholy as much. For a production it should work out pretty well. A local theater is putting on the Bad Quarto next week. I guess we will find out how it works.

P.S. One week later. Alas, I was sick, so I did not get to see the show this week. Maybe some other time.