1 t ‘— V
*3! 7 «op 94?.» ‘ ', 4
47

.4
.lu r'

J .
"33.3,
,

an "I I. ' "" a
r . .4 ,r . .fl
firm. "SI-93 ; , .,,

U
91}? f; ’r '4’
‘/ . .
‘-::Irw"-.'
;"41;::;E¢9.:

I

k l ‘ " 4"1‘. . .-
7 {£‘.'J..’ it} I; ' “A
:4 ‘gfia’g. .133". C
“I ”(-4 .Exv‘tt

:- .‘w }':. "MmJ'
, .

» L».- A
N" .. I: _ I,
t“"‘"" ' ’_ '41.’
.z. 7
§

-.3. ‘.

M3 3.00.1.7,
tr- .4- n. u :01» 1.
,9 ‘L '

3&4; , 7.2::
v .41.: ‘4 «n 'W
va-v i. ""‘m 4 m,
N‘. .41".
'31???‘
w 'IM 45.; -
u § 4.. -
J‘s-“N“qu
4. n
I

4.“:
‘.

.14
u.

- may)"
11.212},

,-;.
.,.

‘3‘? 22%,; 3‘1“...
“Wm-i “ . ,,
"’17.“

.55.:-
‘u‘r",

‘ Wffidw
j

1
<vt;pa.r~-l‘-v
.

VA'
:1’.:!" l

4 ~
m...f ~- 1;...

 

- ..\.4
m4 ”

NANNYNANA L

3 00989 7079

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

SHAKESPEARE'S ENDINGS AND EFFECTS:
A STUDY OF FINAL SCENES IN QUARTO AND FOLIO
VERSIONS OF THE MERRY WIVES‘QE NINOSOR,
HENRY y, AND HAMLET

presented by

 

Margarida Gandara Rauen

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. English

 

 

degree in

fir/f d 2%“

Major professor

Date // fli’cew‘ lax [75—7

 

MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

 

 

 

IVIESI.J RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
LJBRARJES remove this checkout from
-_ your record. FINES will

 

 

be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

 

SHAKESPEARE'S ENDINGS AND EFFECTS:
A STUDY OF FINAL SCENES IN QUARTO AND FOLIO

VERSIONS OF THE MERRY WIVES Q! WINDSOR.

 

HENRY 2. AND HAMLET

bY

Margarida Gandara Rauen

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of English

1987

Copyright by
MARGARIDA GANDARA RAUEN

1987

ABSTRACT

SHAKESPEARE'S ENDINGS AND EFFECTS:
A STUDY OF FINAL SCENES IN QUARTO AND FOLIO
VERSIONS OF THE MERRY WIVES gg WINDSOR.
HENRY 2, AND HAMLET

 

bY

Margarida Gandara Rauen

The analysis considers differences in the final scenes

of The Merry Wives of Windsor, Henry 2 and Hamlet, three of

 

the plays in the canon of William Shakespeare that exist in
quarto (Q) and folio (F1) versions. It exposes and
discusses moments different in each version that are open to
various and at times conflicting possibilities of
interpretation. These moments fit into a larger pattern:
the quarto endings of the three plays examined accentuate
plotting whereas the folio endings tend to accentuate the

thematic dimension of events. Thus. The Merry Wives of

 

Windsor more fully conveys a moral lesson in F1 than in Q.
33251 2 presents a more ironic interplay of history and
fiction in F1 than in Q, and gamlet emerges as a more fully
political play in F1 than in Q. These variations are
obscured by an editorial tradition established during the
eighteenth century that merges passages, phrases, and words
otherwise exclusive to quarto and folio.

In accord with recent scholarship, this dissertation

questions such tradition, charging that conflation

obliterates distinctive features of the original playtexts

Margarida Gandara Rauen

and suggesting that multiple-text plays must no longer be
viewed as monoliths. as if their conflated versions were the
ultimate source of truth for interpretation.

The study, useful for both Shakespearean critics and
directors. clearly confirms the current belief that each
version generates unique dramatic effects. It also indicates
that some of the problems, inconsistencies and ambiguities
commonly found by critics in these controversial plays may
in fact have been created by conflation. rather than by
Shakespeare. Two assumptions are central to the research.
First. a view of "play" as a continuum of playtext,
conceptualization. and performance. Second. an open approach
to the plays, so that "ending" emerges as dramatic effect
and differs not only from quarto to folio, but also each

time a play is experienced.

RESUMO
FINAIS SHAKESPEAREANOS E EFEITOS:
UM ESTUDO DAS ULTIMAS CENAS DE
§§ ALEGRES COMADRES pg WINDSOR. HENRIQUE y.
E HAMLET EM QUARTO E FOLIO

Margarida Gandara Rauen

0 presente trabalho considera diferencas nas cenas
finais de fig Alegres Comadres gg Windsor, Henrigge y, e
Hamlet. trés das pecas atribuidas a William Shakespeare que
existem em quartos (Q. volumes individuais) e também foram
incluidas no primeiro folio (F1, coletfinea de varies
trabalhos.) 35o expostos e discutidos momentos que n50 s6
diferem em cada versao. mas 35b abertos a varies, e as vezes
conflitantes. possibilidades de interpretacib. Tais momentos
se acomodam num padrio maior: os finais das trés pecas
examinadas em quarto die maior enfase ao desenvolvimento do
enredo. enquanto que os finais em folio tendem a acentuar a
dimenséo tematica dos eventos. Assim. Ag Comadres Alegres
gg Windsor veicula uma ligao moral mais elaborada em F1 do

que em Q. Henrigge y contém uma interacao mais ir5nica de

historia e ficcab em F1 do que em Q. e Hamlet emerge como
uma peca teatral mais politica em F1 do que Q2.

Essas variacdes tém sido obscurecidas por uma tradipao
editorial estabelecida durante o século XVIII que vem
amalgamando trechos, sentenpas. e palavras que se encontram
exclusivamente em quarto e folio.

Essa dissertacao, como estudos recentes, questiona tal

Margarida Gandara Rauen

pratica alegando que, através da fusao de textos,
grosseiramente obliteram-se as versdes originais. Pecas
teatrais existentes em multiplas versdes nab devem continuar
sendo vistas como blocos uniformes. como se edicGes
amalgamadas fossem bases fidedignas para interpretacéo. A
alternativa que temos para "retornar" a Shakespeare é' ler,
interpretar, e encenar versaes originais.

A anélise confirma a idéia, atualmente defendida per
entree intelectuais do meio shakespeariano. de que cada
versio gera efeitos dramaticos finicos. Tambem ha indicacao
de que alguns dos problemas. inconsisténcias, e ambiguidades
comumente encontrados por criticos nessas trés pecas
controversas podem ter sido criados com a conflacio de
textos, e n50 por Shakespeare. Duas suposicSés foram
centrais na pesquisa. Primeiro. que a peca teatral e' um
continuum de texto. ideologia critica. e encenacao. Segundo.
que a peca teatral deve ser tratada como um objeto aberto
(sem um significado definitive), de modo que "final" emerge
como efeito dramatico e difere n50 sd de uma versac do texto

para outra, mas cada vez que a pepa teatral é apresentada.

0 erudito Eugénio Gomes. em seu livro Shakespeare no
Brasil. claramente revela o quanto a "arte de Shakespeare
[35 teve] mfiltiplos efeitos ... sobre a sensibilidade on o
pensamento brasileiro" (p. 11). Esta dissertacao é) embora
indiretamente, um tributo a tal influéncia, sendo uma

colaboracao brasileira para o aprofundamento de estudos

shakespearianos.

Para meu psi Alfredo Rauen
e meu tio Grande, Hamlet William Tesi, dedico
in memoriam

vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

To Prof. Philip C. McGuire. Chairman of my graduate
committee, goes my deepest gratitude: for the enlightening
seminars, for his extraordinary guidance. consideration and
encouragement during the course of my studies. and perhaps
most of all for believing in me.

In addition. I wish to thank Prof. Douglas Peterson.
Prof. Randal Robinson. and Prof. Marcellette Williams for
their critical review of this manuscript, invaluable

suggestions. and for serving on my graduate committee.
Prof. Joyce Ramsay's collaboration also is appreciated.

I express my indebtedness to Prof. Howard Anderson.
Prof. Barry Gross. Lorraine Hart, Prof. Larry Landrum. Prof.
Jay Ludwig, Prof. Victor Paananen. and Prof. Teresa
Tavormina for their guidance and support on various
occasions.

To Prof. Paul Munsell and Prof. Marcellette Williams go
my special thanks for the continued encouragement.

friendship. and support.

Grateful acknowledgement is also given to the Brazilian

Federal Agency CAPES for sponsoring me. and to the
Department of English at Michigan State University for the

indispensable financial support towards the end of my

vii

studies.

To the greatly helpful staff of The Folger Shakespeare
Library, and of The Newberry Library, my many thanks.

To all Faculty and fellow Graduate Students in the
Department of English at Michigan State University.
and particularly to Craig Bernthal. to Faculty at the
Federal University of Parana. as well as to other friends
and relatives who directly or indirectly helped me. my
sincere appreciation. I also thank Frances Ann Randall, my
AFS Mom. who patiently shared with me the difficult task of
reading a first book in English eleven years ago. Prof.
Halina Marcinowska, who so many times brought me to the
“theater world” in Brazil, is remembered too.

I am especially indebted to Fernanda and Josmar
Verillo. and to my husband Carlos Firkowski, for their help
with word-processing and for their friendship. I further
acknowledge Carlos for his role in the struggle that led to
this dissertation. Lastly. I proudly acknowledge my mother.
Adyr Gandara Rauen. for the vital moral support that broke

the distance in her many calls and encouraging letters.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

CHAPTER I. Introduction ..........................

Textual Studies: an Overview ..........

Working assumptions and procedures .....
CHAPTER II. The Merry Wives g; Windsor .............
CHAPTER III. Henry 2 ................................
CHAPTER IV. Hamlet .................................
CONCLUSIONS .........................................
APPENDIX .................... . .......................
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WORKS CONSULTED .....................

ix

21

54

101

151

155

158

CHAPTER I

Introduction

The objective of my dissertation is to discuss the

final scenes of Shakespeare's Henry 1, The Merry Wives g;

 

 

Wiggsgg. and Hamlet. three of the plays in the canon of
William Shakespeare (1564?-1616) that exist in both quarto
and folio versions.1 The quartos. individual editions of
his playtexts. were published during his lifetime: the first
folio appeared in 1623, presenting a collection of his
plays. Quarto and folio versions of a given play. however.
are not exactly alike and thus present a problem: we have to
deal with multiple versions of certain plays and are unable
to tell with certainty whether Shakespeare designed them or
had a preferred version.

An editorial tradition established in the eighteenth
century solves this problem by merging the playtexts into
what are called conflated editions. But conflation has
serious dangers, especially because of the assumptions
behind the practice. First, and as Urkowitz (1980) points
out. editors have discussed the genesis of the variants
without considering their dramatic merit because they use

methods essentially designed for the study of classical and

Biblical textual problems (e.g.. including all the words

available in various versions. making choices on the basis

of errors of spelling and punctuation.) Second.
Shakespeare may not have written one single draft that was
lost, as it is commonly thought. An example of the extent
to which conflation corrupts dramatic designs can be found
in the moment below. from Othello in quarto (Q, 1622) and
folio (F1). After Iago has convinced Othello that Desdemona
and Cassio are having an affair. the typical editor does
what 6. E. Bentley does in The Complete gglican Shakegpeare

(p. 1041):

'IAGO Yetbecontent.

O T H E L L 0
0, blood, blood, blood!

IA 0 O
Patience, I say. Your mind perhaps may change.

OTHELLO

-'. Never, Iago. Like to the Pontic sea,

Whose icy current and compulsive course
Ne’er feels retiring ebb, but keeps due on
To the Propontic and the Hellespont,
Even so my bloody thoughts, with violent pace,
Shall ne’er look back, ne’er ebb to humble love,
Till that a capable and wide revenge
Swallow them up.

2-. H: kneels. Now, by yond marble heaven,
In the due reverence of a sacred vow
I here engage my words.
IA G 0 Do not rise yet.
-. Iago kneels.

Witness, you ever-burning lights above,
You elements that clip us round about,
Witness that here Iago doth give up

We find. however, that the dialogue varies from one original

playtext to another:

Q (H3 r)

3“.

[3,, leg. Pray beeonteot. gut. -‘.. 2~ bfi-EL'

. 01.6. Obldodefilru-L' fl". - 3- .... . If" ,-.:i

.ZI‘J- Patietttellayqour mbidyetl'epi. ytbll‘t.-.,'
1—5 0th. Neuet't - f. '. elf-3V. -_ $.j..'."' .'

la the due reuaenoe of a faced row, -'

lbttelnga‘e-tyworda. g; "3-5”... 2

leg. Doemtrifeyett ' . ' . ,‘ -, \

.WitnetTe you euerobutningllgl‘ea aboue,‘ ,.

You El: menu that dip va‘rctaal abettt, ., . « 15¢ QM;

Wine“? thithereJo‘o'dethgiue up , ""' ° '

F (T 326)

l 0. Yet be cement.

03. Oh blood ,blood,blood.

Iago. Patience] lay :your tainde may change.

-. Orb. Nearer-Iago. Lilte to thePontitlte Sea,

Wbofe ltie Current, and eotnpulfiue courfe,
Neu'r keep ea retyringebbe, but keeper dueen
To the Propontitlte, and the Hellefpont :
Euen {o my bloody thoughts. with violent pace
Shall neu'r looke backe, neu’r ebbe to humble LII,
Till th at a capeable, and wide Reuenge.

2 . - Swallow them vp. Now by yood MarbleHull,
in the due reuerenee of a Sacred vow,
l heere engage my worda.
—§ logo. Do not rife ye't :'
Witnell’e you wet-burning Lighta abuse.
You Elementa, that clip va round abon,
Wheelie that been lop doth giaevp

Two differences immediately strike us. First. the Q playtext
calls for both Othello and Iago to kneel at some point
(first and third arrows) whereas in F1 there are no stage
directions. Second. one of Othello's speeches is much
longer in F1 than in Q (Q. second arrow; F first arrow).
The Pelican editor conflates the two versions by including
Othello's extra lines of F1 (first arrow) and the stage
directions of Q (second and third arrows).

If we analyse each original version, however, unique

effects emerge that are totally corrupted with conflation.

Q presents a less articulate Othello. whose very reticence
accentuates the physical action of kneeling. And this is
true whether he energetically falls on his knees and
delivers the line "0 blood. Iago, blood" with resolve. or
whether his kneeling and speaking come across as expressions
of helplessness. In addition. the fact that Othello kneels
where he does in Q (third arrow) allows for Iago to briefly
contemplate him from above, so to speak, and then continue
the deceiving game and eventually kneel. too.

In F1, first of all. Othello is more articulate. The
poetic precision of his words, together with his using the
tide analogy (a certain. timed process). in effect

accentuates his determination to revenge. to "swallow them

up." Secondly, F1 does not explicitly call for either of
the characters to kneel. We know. from Iago's line "Do not
rise yet" (third arrow). that Othello is in some sort of
inferior position in F1. too. Othello's line “Now ..., in

the due reverence of a sacred vow" (second arrow) in fact
times a gesture such as kneeling. especially because of the

word "now." The words "reverence" and "sacred" also match
kneeling. but so would physical action such as looking up

and raising hands as one does in praying. In other words,

PI is open to the possibility that Iago and Othello sit at a
table. for example, while they talk. Othello might also
express his anger by hitting his fists on the table, but
physical diminution of one character before another does

not necessarily occur.

Keeping in mind the above differences of effect
generated by quarto and folio and going back to the
conflated passage. one can easily notice that by rearranging
timing (first arrow) and specifying a gesture (second and
third arrows) that is left open in F1 the Pelican version
creates not only a pseudo-verbatim version. but a
theatrically distorted one.

Unfortunately, whatever notion we have had of
multiple-text plays such as Othello is based on "Complete
Shakespeares." As Greg (1940) argued, orthodox editors
assume that if we desire to come closer to what Shakespeare
actually wrote we must somehow study and read "complete” or
comprehensive versions of his plays. which include all the
words available in hypothetically "real" playtexts that have
been passed on to us.

Recent scholarship, focused particularly on fiigg Egg;
(Warren, Urkowitz 1980. Taylor and Warren). questions
conventional editorial practices. charging that conflating
quarto and folio versions of Shakespeare's plays grossly

distorts the unique dramatic effects generated by each

playtext. Given such an increasing awareness of theatrical
possibilities in multiple-text plays, I believe my work will
be timely not only as it broadens the scope of discussion by
focusing on plays other than gigg Qggg, but also. as it

appropriates new parameters while exploring the openness of

Shakespearean drama. The plays I have chosen contain perhaps

the most obvious instances of the extent to which

differences in the playtexts shape dramatic effect. I am
concentrating on endings because they reshape the previous
action and our apprehension of it. An ending. of course. is
shaped differently if there are variations as the action
unfolds. As Greg points out (1955). each quarto play is
several hundred lines shorter than the folio version. By
discussing the two versions on the basis of both dialogue
and stage directions I hope to illustrate the significance
of the kinds of effects that emerge from both verbal and

non-verbal variations.

Textual Studies: An Overview

Variations in Shakespeare's quarto and folio playtexts
have occupied critics for centuries. In the twentieth
century four theories which attempt to explain textual
differences have emerged: piracy. scribal or compositorial
corruption. memorial reconstruction. and revision.

Lee appears to have been the first to argue that

piracy. a surreptitious process of transmission by

individuals other than the playwright. was the cause of

irregularities in all of Shakespeare's quartos. Lee's theory

was inspired by Heminge's and Condell's foreword to F1.

which remains as the strongest evidence of such kind of
plagiarism at Shakespeare's time:

[before] you were abus'd with diverse stolne.
and surreptitious copies. maimed. and deformed by
the frauds and stealthes of injurious impostors.
that expos'd them: even those, are now offer'd to
your view cur'd ... (A 3)

Lee's version of the piracy theory was in part
challenged by Pollard (1909). who distinguished "good" and
"bad" quartos. For him only the first quartos of Romeo and
Juliet. Hamlet. The Merry Wiygg 9; Windsor. Hgggy y. and
Pericles are corrupt or "bad" versions derived from a copy
that was possibly pirated through shorthand transcription.
Pollard (1920) suggests that Shakespeare started entering
his plays at the Stationer's Register to protect himself
against pirates. and points out that the “bad" quartos are
either not entered or irregularly entered. Kirschbaum
(1955) also makes a strong case for piracy. There is.
nevertheless. no evidence to support such style of piracy.
In fact. Weiner points out that the shorthand premise is
totally based on two lines in Thomas Heywood's Pleasant
Dialogues gag Dramas (1637) suggesting that his Play 9;
Queene Elizabeth was "so popular" that "Some by stenography
drew the plot: put it in print: (scarce one word trew.)"
(Qtd. in Weiner. p. 20)

Bayfield examines quarto and folio versions of several

plays and concludes that irregularities found in both verse

and prose were probably caused by the hand of scribes who
arbitrarily made abbreviations.

Willoughby attempts to identify typographical patterns
in the First Folio through an orthographic analysis. and
concludes that two or three compositors worked in its

printing. Black & Shaaber (1937) examine variants in all

seventeenth-century folios (1632. 1664, 1685) and again

indicate that various compositors and correctors distorted
the earlier playtexts beyond imagination.

Greg (1923) originated the memorial reconstruction
hypothesis. which posits that plays could have been
transmitted by memory. Hart. examining the quartos that
Pollard classified as "bad" ones. argues that they indeed
display a style that is characteristic of Shakespeare
(especially diction) and are much shorter possibly because
they originated from memorial reconstruction by actors. The
memorial reconstruction hypothesis was perhaps the most
popular for some time. but has also been challenged.
particularly by Craig (1961). who argues that textual
differences may have been the outcome of changes
deliberately made by actors and directors for convenience.

Shakespeareans gained the first truly powerful
manifesto for consideration of textual discrepancies in the
work of Greg (1942. 1955). who fully discussed editorial
problems in Shakespeare, designed rules for emendation.
distinguished between substantive and non-substantive

variants. and undertook the task of establishing the

bibliographical and textual history of the first folio.
Subsequently. Hinman (1963) carried out a similar project.
concerned with the problem of printing-house corruption of
Shakespeare's playtexts. Both Greg and Hinman greatly
influenced textual studies and editorial practice.
especially because emendation became less arbitrary and more

empirical. The new awareness they brought about is

explicit. for example. in the work of Bowers (1966). who
claims that information about bibliographical history and
the printing process is crucial in textual editing if one is
to establish an authoritative copytext.

The most recent hypothesis about Shakespeare's
multiple-text plays is that of revision. positing that
variations in quarto and folio are the outcome of revisions
made by Shakespeare himself. The idea of revision was at the
core of Wilson‘s (1934) study of Hamlet. but the true
pioneer scholars in the field are Warren and Urkowitz
(1980). whose studies are confined. for the most part. to
gigg Qggg. They claim that each of the various versions of
playtexts must be approached as unique.

The major motive of all of those who have dealt with
problems in Shakespeare's playtexts seems to be, as Stone
points out. reaching a

. conclusion about what Shakespeare's true

intentions may have been in respect of a very

large number of details which make up no

inconsiderable portion of the play. (p. vii)

Editors of course have drawn on information generated
by textual studies to "improve" Shakespeare. They still
"solve" the problem of multiple playtext versions.
nevertheless. by conflating. But a controversy in the field
is now under way. On one side we have an orthodoxy that
supports conflated versions. On the other side there are

those whom Muir calls "reformers" and who find it crucial to

consider folio and quarto as separate entities that offer

10

unique dramatic possibilities.

The orthodox position is well exemplified by
contemporary editions such as the Complete Pelican
Shakespeare, which usually make emendations on the basis of
all available versions and produce "ideal“ playtexts in the
sense that they compensate for the "faultiness" of the
quarto and folio originals. For example. Harbage's "note on
the text" for Hamlet illustrates this practice:

The present edition is based on the quarto of
1604-05 with a minimum of emendation. but. in

view of the manifest faultiness of the quarto
printing. with occasional deference to readings in
the folio. and even with an eye on the 1603

quarto. Enclosed in square brackets are all
additions to the quarto ... (Shakespeare. 1969, p.
932)

The term "faultiness" clearly means that the textus
receptus is unsatisfactory. Harbage's notes on Henry y and
Bowers' notes on The Merry Wives 9; Windsor in the same
edition (Shakespeare 1969) further confirm this notion:

The 1600 quarto of Henry y ... [is a] corrupt
version of the play. ... useful in supplying an
occasional line or reading in instances where the

folio text is clearly defective. (p. 778)

The only authoritative text of The Merry

Wives 9; Windsor is that printed in the

Shakespeare First Folio of 1623. ... in 1602 a

debased version ... had been printed in quarto
The present edition is more conservative

admitting ... borrowings from the quarto. (p. 364)

The practice of conflating greatly hinders the
possibility of perceiving the different effects
variations in quarto and folio playtexts generate at their

respective endings. In other words. should we witness two

11

performances of any multiple-text play. one based on
quarto and one on folio. we would experience two plays
different in many aspects. This question of effect already
emerges in scholarship. Although a recent study by Richman
is ultimately intended to argue that variations in the
quarto and folio of 5129 Egg; may have been the result of
revisions made to eliminate performance problems, it has
wider implications. The essay functions as a manifesto for
theatrical experimentation with original playtexts:

... editorial conflations may not provide

satisfactory foundation for productions ... . Much

can be learnd about Eggg Egg; from staging the

Quarto. (p. 374)
Richman's claim also stirs us to become more alert to the
range of dramatic possibilities in Shakespeare's multiple-
text plays.

The motivation of the reformist line is precisely to
challenge the tradition that has shaped scholarship and the
production of plays on the basis of conflated Shakespeares.
As Urkowitz (1980) points out

Modern editors assume that their own texts
more accurately approach the hypothetical lost

original ... schools follow the modern text: all
literary analysis is based on the modern text; and

practically all theatrical productions are founded

on the modern text. (p. 3)
Reformist studies build upon the revision hypothesis. Simply
put. they attempt to determine Shakespeare's intentions by
comparing quarto and folio texts that have been passed on to

us. I do not intend to undermine the underlying motivation

of textual studies (and I took great advantage of

11

performances of any multiple-text play. one based on
quarto and one on folio. we would experience two plays
different in many aspects. This question of effect already
emerges in scholarship. Although a recent study by Richman
is ultimately intended to argue that variations in the
quarto and folio of Eggg Egg; may have been the result of
revisions made to eliminate performance problems. it has
wider implications. The essay functions as a manifesto for
theatrical experimentation with original playtexts:
editorial conflations may not provide

satisfactory foundation for productions ... . Much

can be learnd about Elgg Egg; from staging the

Quarto. (p. 374)
Richman's claim also stirs us to become more alert to the
range of dramatic possibilities in Shakespeare's multiple-
text plays.

The motivation of the reformist line is precisely to
challenge the tradition that has shaped scholarship and the
production of plays on the basis of conflated Shakespeares.
As Urkowitz (1980) points out

Modern editors assume that their own texts
more accurately approach the hypothetical lost

original ... schools follow the modern text; all
literary analysis is based on the modern text; and

practically all theatrical productions are founded

on the modern text. (p. 3)
Reformist studies build upon the revision hypothesis. Simply
put. they attempt to determine Shakespeare's intentions by
comparing quarto and folio texts that have been passed on to

us. I do not intend to undermine the underlying motivation

of textual studies (and I took great advantage of

12

information in that field for this very research) but as
McGuire (1985) reminds us. determining authorial intentions
is an impossible task "... since we lack such documents as
Shakespeare's various drafts of each play or his notebooks.“
(p. xxii) We can, however. start accepting an "inherent
freedom in Shakespeare's plays" (McGuire. 1985. p. xxii).
start considering the multiple versions of his plays as rich
options.

Perhaps Shakespeare even intended for us to have
multiple versions of his plays. and perhaps both shorter and
longer versions served different purposes with different
audiences. Honigmann. for instance. suggests Shakespeare
himself may have "copied" and changed his own work. and that

variants should be seen as textual possibilities rather than

as textual corruption. Burckhardt argues that the "bad"

 

quartos of g and g Egnry XE. Romgg and Juliet. Henry 3, The

Merry Wives f Windsor. and Hamlet were not textually

a.—- _-

 

 

corrupt but deliberately shortened due to time constraints
and availability of actors for performance.

Determining Shakespeare's intentions on the basis of
published versions of his plays is further complicated by a
number of factors. In his time legal ownership of the plays

he wrote rested not with him but with the lord Chamberlain's
men (who, following James's ascent to the throne in 1603.

became King's Men). the acting company for which he worked

as an actor and as attached playwright and in which he was a

shareholder. In addition. we have no evidence that

l3

Shakespeare himself had any hand in preparing any of his
plays for publication, either in the quarto versions
published during his lifetime or in the versions published
in the folio of 1623. seven years after his death.

Printing practices in Shakespeare's time add to the
difficulties of determining his intentions. Hinman (1961).
for example. points out that in the case of the first Folio
no two copies are "textually identical throughout" because
changes were deliberately made in the text during printing
and uncorrected impressions preserved and used. In short. no
one can even begin attempting to establish Shakespeare's
intentions without carefully distinguishing between
substantive and non-substantive variants. without paying
heed to the fact at least five compasitors seem to have had
a part in the printing of the folio playtexts and that each
of them probably altered. not to say corrupted.
Shakespeare's original work (Hinman 1963.)

But in any case we must remember that. as one of the
major stockholders of the King's Men. Shakespeare was a
businessman. with an audience to please (Harbage. Beckerman
1962.) Simply. he could not afford to do his playwrighting
without considering audience demands and the accomodation of

a theater company (Bentley.) The scarce performance records

available from his time suggest. in fact. that he may at
times have had to write hastily, to meet audience demands.
For example. two new plays were entered at the Stationer's

Register and performed in 1604, gghellg and Mgggg;g fig;

14

Measure, a year when three more plays are recorded in

performance: E Midsummer Night's Dream. The Mer;y gives 9:

 

Windsor. The Comedy 9: E;rors (Wright and LaMar.) This would

 

not seem unusual were it not that only two other plays.
Richard E; and Twelfth EEgEE. were recorded during the
previous three years. Did Shakespeare suddenly find his
audience hard to please. pretty much rejecting the five
plays of 1604? Did he find himself desperately trying to
write new plays that would re-capture the public and sell
out as much as Egg;y XE, of which 16 performances are
recorded between March-June 1592 and January 1593? These
are. of course. impossible questions to answer. but they at
least help us realize that Shakespeare may have written the

so-called "bad quartos" under time and business pressure.

Since conjectures of this sort do not generate
solutions for problems of interpretation in the plays. what
I propose is that each available version of the playtexts
simply be accepted as unique. with unique effects.
Hopefully. I am embracing a paradigm that will release me,
as Taylor (1985) puts it. "from the pursuit of unknowable
and impalpable intellectual intention to the study of
discernible and definable effects." (pp. 238-239) My choice

does not. of course. preclude that every written text is the
embodiment of an intention. What it enables me to do is to

study essentially different dramatic designs. a task which

would be legitimate even if we discovered Shakespeare's

original drafts and could determine with certainty which 3h

——.—.

15

authoritative playtexts are. since we would still be left
with Various versions of the plays.

I want to consider variations in quarto and folio
versions of selected Shakespearean plays. therefore, not as
proof of Shakespeare's intentions per se. not as indicators
of the purity or "corruption" of his playtexts. but as
dramatic moments with unique vitality and effects for the
meaning of action. Exploring the potential of some of the
playtexts in his canon means to me. above all. exposing
and discussing features which can enlighten both criticism
and directorial choice. as well as illuminate our

understanding of "Shakespeare's endings." (see Appendix 1)

Working assumptions

Shakespearean criticism before the 1970's was generally
detaChed from the realm of theater. or even of dramaturgy.
for two particular reasons. First. because the plays survive

widely through the medium of print they become attractive

targets of literary study. Second. to use Brown's terms.
Shakespeare's words "are cunning and wonderful. and absorb
immediate interest. ... [his] verbal art is a trap" (p. 7).

But drama is not literature: it is meant to be performed.
Like most Shakespeareans today I am alert to the
dramaturgical potential of the plays and believe that

a play is not an artifact but a process. unique

with each performance, of ... realizing
possibilities of perception and feeling that lie
attenuated and frozen in the script. (McGuire and

Samuelson. p. xx)

16

This premise of course entails that. even though the
static. printed object, hardly yields the powerful effects
which the physical and visual elements in a production can
generate. the dynamic feature cannot be brought to life
without the set of guidelines which is the playtext. Since

bringing a play to life also entails a dominant agent (in

this century. the director) whose interpretation will
reshape it. "play" emerges as a continuum of playtext.
conceptualization. and performance. Whatever meaning we

find at the plays' end. in other words, is a variable effect
which results from the interaction of the three.

Ignoring theatrical conditions would be at the very
least unethical. to dismiss the artistic merit of actors
and directors whose energy is devoted to preserving drama.
A play is. thus. several plays. Each actor who engages into
the study of a role and interprets a character re-creates
that character with his or her communicated intentions.
Each director who takes the set of guidelines which is the
playtext transforms it into a new version with his or her
choices for cast. costume. set. blocking. and so on. A
Hamlet in tight pants and cpen shirt may. for example.
come across as more sensual than one in military garments.

The dynamics for production is further complicated when

we have several versions of the same work. as is the case

with some of Shakespeare's plays. On one hand the directors

have a wider choice. but on the other they should have to

decide which playtext to adopt. just as if they were dealing

17

with translations. since the final effect of one version may
be more preferable than that of another.

My analysis is therefore not only theatrically minded.
but also meant to influence the way both scholars and
directors view Shakespeare. My aim is not so much to
provide "answers". but to restate the fact that plays. and
works of art in general. are potential sources with
extensive power of radiating new effects each time they are
appropriated or experienced. Orthodox interpretation. in its
quest for meaning, has accomodated Shakespearean drama to
critical approaches such as formalism, structuralism.
semiotics. or even pluralism. I will not commit myself to
any of these stances because I intend to pursue the study of
how effects imbeded in the playtext shape meaning. rather
than "reading" a mindset in the playtext. Simply put. what

moves me is a compulsion to "re-create" (cf. McGuire and

Samuelson. p. xi) the three plays I am analysing in this
dissertation. In the process of doing this I will
inevitably convey my own preferences. I must say. however,

that I do not intend to foreclose other options or to defend
Egg best interpretation for any of the plays I will
consider. My work is meant to stress the fact that multiple
interpretations are possible not only from quarto to folio
playtexts. but also within quarto and folio playtexts.
Studying the endings of multiple-text plays is perhaps
the clearest way of grasping the richness of Shakespearean

drama because by doing so we are forced to see that the

18

meaning of action may be altered and/or reshaped to a great
extent by variations in both dialogue and stage directions.

I must also clarify technical details. I have generally
chosen to adopt the term playtext (cf. McGuire 1985) to
encompass both text as a printed object (meant to be read).
and of text as script (an open set of guidelines for
performance.) Whenever I use the terms "text" or "textual" I
refer to Shakespeare's words as we find them in print in the
various versions of his playtexts available, quarto and
folio ones as well as modern.

When I use the phrase "final scene" I have in mind the
last unit of dramatic action in the plays. which we now

call V.ii. in Hamlet. V.v. in The Merry Wives g; Windso;.

 

 

and V.ii. in Egg;y y. This unit begins after a massive exit
determined by a stage direction in each instance, with an
actor or group of actors re-entering a setting clear of
people. I do not. however. employ orthodox act, scene and
line numbering because they are based on conflated versions
of the plays and thus encourage methods I am rejecting.

I include photocopies of passages from actual quarto
and folio playtexts wherever extensive quotation is
necessary both to provide a clear sense of the variations in

question and to avoid the confusion that quoting on the
basis of a conflated verSion would cause.

Because photocopying from original quarto and folio

items I examined at both the Folger Shakespeare Library and

at the Newberry Library is not permitted. I have used

19

facsimiles: the Oxford and Cambridge series for quartos and
the Yale facsimile of the first folio. I chose the Yale
facsimile and the quartos per Oxford and Cambridge because
they are true and exact copies of a single folio and
quartos, and not a collection of most easily photographed
pages from various folios (such as the Norton facsimile) or
from various quartos (such as the Huntington facsimiles).
Save for the fact that I have modernized the spelling
of i/j. u/v. and s. in cases where I myself quote I will
follow the Yale Facsimile of the first folio and the quartos
per Oxford and Cambridge. My references to the playtexts
correspond to the quire numbering found at the bottom of
the pages in quarto. and to the numbers found at the top of
each page in folio. I add either an "r" (recto) or a "v"
(verso) to specify the side of the page in quarto: since the
folio page numbering is irregular I include either a "T"
(Tragedies), a "C" (Comedies), or an "H" (Histories) to
indicate the section of the volume I am dealing with.

Details of style follow The MLA Style Manual.

 

The order of the chapters is not meant as a

chronological or any other sort of statement. I simply
considered it a more rhetorically effective strategy to

discuss The Merry Wives g: Windgg; and Henry 3 first because

 

the differences in their quarto and folio versions are
numerous and for the most part obvious. Having worked

through these plays. readers should feel more comfortable

while dealing with the subtleties found in Hamlet.

20

Notes for Chapter I

1 .
The other multiple-text plays in Shakespeare's canon.

according to Wright and LaMar. are the following: g and

IQ)

Henry 2;, Richard III. Titus Andronicus, The Taming g; the

 

Shrew. Love's Labour's Lost. Richard El. Romeo and Juliet. g

 

Midsummer Night's Dream, The Merchant 9E Yenice. E and

(N

Eenry E2. Much Ado About Nothing, Troilus and Cressida.

 

 

Othello. King Lear. and Pericles.

CHAPTER II

The Mer;y Wives 9; Windsor

As a rule. the The Merry Wives 9; Windsor has not been
an attractive subject of criticism. Speaking of course on
the basis of a conflated playtext. Quiller-Couch and Wilson
actually described it as an inconsistent play with weak
verse. A traditional hypothesis that draws on eighteenth-
century sources posits that Shakespeare composed the play
upon request of Queen Elizabeth. who wanted to see Falstaff
in love for the Garter Fest in 1597. Royal command might
therefore have compelled him to write in haste and produce
an "inferior" work.

The play appears to be. nevertheless. receiving more
extensive attention in recent years. Roberts. for example.
points out that it is of particular interest as a

transitional point in the development of Shakespearean

comedy. Felheim and Traci consider it a rich blend of
social farce and realism. The Royal Shakespeare Company.
after a last venture in 1975. staged a new production of
Egg Merry Wivgg 9; Windsor in 1985.

Two versions have been passed on to us from

Shakespeare's time. the 1602 Quarto (Q) and the 1623 Folio

(F1). Despite the scarcity of specific textual scholarship.

21

22

comprehensive studies such as Lee's and Greg's (1923)
include comments on the play. Pollard (1909) argues that the
Q was a bad version. produced by pirates through shorthand
transcription of performances. Bracey. whose work stands
out as the one thorough study of the play. discards the
piracy theory altogether. He believes that Q is a
dramatically consistent. abridged version and points out
that cutting in the playtext was done systematically to
reduce performance time. However. F1 has usually been
viewed as the authoritative version.

In essence. both Q and F1 satirize the human
vulnerability to the erotic forces that operate within the
self. Features that are specific to each version. however.
generate a uniqueness of effect and allow for a multiplicity
of directorial choices. Variations in the playtexts of Egg

Merry Wives 9; Windsor are in fact so extensive that I find

 

it necessary to discuss chronologically ordered segments of
the final scene. so as to fully illustrate the range of
1
discrepancy from one version to the other.
-1-
The sharp distinction is evident from the outset of the

final scenes:

23

Q (G v-G2 r)

' 512%.:

k“ ~.- _ , ”macaw“:
:gpuxlimrfihhwsmdbaBmfihfimfiwnihhnF“;
2\ 5’41. 'Thisis thetl'tiéd timenvell ll§.chter,, ' 5.;-
lWhey faythefeis lit'dtiirold nutn'bei-s,“.:7 "
flumantfonne'd .° elfeintoabnlg,

\R? And lam here a Stag—End Ithinke the finch _ ¥-' ; -
a "Fininwméfirfortefi: well Ifland herc' , ‘, 0“ j
\i‘Foere the hunter,waiting my Does ramming.

F1 (C 58/59)

S can Quinta.

 

1
"fi-awanmqfimmmarqgumnmamumag
Aw Page, FairiequeJarLfll’tw,
Sladrrfutaufmmtflal.

Pal. The Windfor-bell bath Rroke twelae mine )6-
aute drawea-oo: Now the hoebloodied-Goda allifl me:

\ Remember loua, that: weak a Ball for thy Lose
{er ontby hornet. OpowerfullLooe, that in one re-

{ oakeaaBeaflaMamiofo-ed'ter,aManabeafl.
ouundbaqmdhmmthdmbuoflhbu)
oompmmdmaumwmandetnumdmam»

3 ionofaGoofeufaultdoeefirfiiotheforme ofa
x Ago loue, . beafily fault: ) and then another fault,
in the ambiance of a Fowle, thinke oo’t (lone) a fowle.

fault. ’ When Gods haue hor backer, what fltall poore

men do P For me, I am heere a Windfor Stagge, and the

‘ {men (1 thinke) i'tb Ferrel}. Sen; me a eoole rut-time
out) or who can blametneto ' e tn Tallow 5’ Who

5 ‘ garnet beere e my Doe? P y

The first obvious difference is in the stage direction.

Even though Falstaff receives. in both versions.
instructions to come and meet Mrs. Page and Mrs. Ford
wearing a buck's head (Q F3 r. F1 C 56). Q mandates that he
enter already wearing the costume whereas F1 does not
immediately require him to do so (first arrow in each

version). This could be dismissed as a minor detail. if it

weren't for symbolic implications. Such costuming has.

24

besides its hilarous dimension. great strategic value in
that it establishes an intense ambiguity in the moment:
Falstaff assumes a different identity. as part animal and
part man - part instinct. part reason. Even though
Falstaff's real mind remains underneath the prop. his
capacity to reason is clearly mocked because the most
distinguishing rational part of his body. his human head. is
replaced by an animal's. thus leaving the emphasis on his
human part solely to the lower portion of the body. For this
reason the moment has different effects in each version.

Q raises the parodic quality of the final scene because
Falstaff's wearing the buck's head from the outset almost
through to the and emphasizes his animal and instinctive

nature. The F1 version is open to another possibility,

since it allows for Falstaff to enter without the Buck's
head. perhaps putting it on only by the time he delivers the
line "I am hears a Windsor Stagge" (F1. fourth arrow) and
thus making the transition from rational to instinctive seem
like a rule he follows in the game of love he is playing.

Blocking also allows for different effects in each
version. In Q2 Falstaff's presence alone on stage forces
the audience to focus exclusively on him. The massive

entrance of F1. on the other hand. immediately divides our
attention and suggests that Falstaff has an audience on

stage that possibly is evesdropping and gaining access to
the feelings voiced in his opening speech. And even if a

director chooses to have the lines done as a soliloquy. we

25

will still have the theater audience's attention divided
between Falstaff and the other characters. whose presence
adds extra meaning to his lines in this segment: besides
their role in the scape-goating game. they too are humans
and may at any moment experience the same condition Falstaff
is in. becoming themselves engaged in the folly of love.

Generally speaking. the first striking difference in
the dialogue is that in Q Falstaff's speech merely describes
his experience. whereas in F1 it has a philosophical tone.

In Q (p. 23. G v-G2 r) Falstaff talks to himself about
a factual aspect of his actions: for the third time he
attempts to seduce the women (second arrow). he feels like a
fat buck (third arrow). seemingly anxious to copulate with
his "does" (fourth arrow).

In F1 (p. 23) Falstaff justifies his folly with the
myth of Love "that in some respects makes a Beast a man: in
some other. a man a beast" (second arrow). By doing so he
may also lead us to reflect upon the notion of love.

The speech in F1. moreover. and unlike Q. establishes

an explicit contrast: the contrast between the purely

instinctive side of human nature as opposed to the rational
side. The Q version merely presents a Falstaff who seeks to
satisfy his sexual instincts much like the "bull" he
characterizes himself as. He even seems to be more animal
than man. perhaps lacking the balance of a satyr we find in

Sir Hugh's characterization. according to the stage

direction "Enter Sir Hugh like a Satyre" (Q G2 r). In F1 he

26

reacts. however. by intellectualizing about his experience.
thus accentuating his rational capacity in spite of equally

referring to himself as "the fattest Stagge" (fourth arrow).

-11-
As the dialogue continues Falstaff's need for

justification is recurrent in F1 whereas it is absent in Q:

Q (C52 r)

.-. IhWmekqupymdianme
‘* Mifl’e. Sir Iobnnvherc are you? ' '
2 ‘9‘ F41. Anthou come my doc: what and thoutoo.

WelcomeLadies. :7 '-‘ .

MiJ-‘or. I 1 fr 10625112: on will not faile,
Therefoor'eyou deferuefar etterthen outloues ..
Butitgtieuesmeforyourlateeroll'es. '_

. .- Pd. Thismaltesamendsforall. 1...; -
‘ Comediuidemebetweeneyou, aehahaneh,
“ Form yhorns llebe'queath the to your husbands,

‘ Dolly elilteHemedtehunter,a ‘-‘
°‘ Hi .1’4. Godforgxuemeyhatnoxietsthtv

aka,-

’.0'.:" .::...~ .

Three: Mfifbmrsbem ......» reuse}

Fl (C 59)

Wjard. Str 105-1 Art thou there m Deere?
\ My male- Deere. > ( y )
Pal. My Doe, with the black: Seut ? Let the altie
raine Potatoes: let it thunder,t to the tune of Greene-
2\ fleeuer, hail e-kifftng Comfi: s, and {now Eringoes: Let
there come a temper .iofprouocation, I will fltelter tnee
beere.
M. Ford Miflris Page is come with me(fweet hart.)
F41. Diuide me like a brib’ J Burke, each a thumb:
4 I will keepe my {idea to my ft. fe, my {boulders for the
fellow ofthis wallte- , and my hornet lbequearh vour
husbands. Am I a Woodman, ha? Speakel like Her-e
6 s the Hunter ’ Why, now is Cupid a child of eon feienee,
he makes reihrution. A: lam a true Ipit: r u elcome.
Mfrze. Alas, what: otie?
5 M. Ford. Heauen to. .g: .:uet u: linnet.
FRI. \Vhat fnould tllla‘ be ?
Athrdu‘tu’age. Away, away.
Fa}. I think: the dtuell veil not haue me damn'd.
Leafl the 0er that’s in me lltouid fer hell on fire;
He would neuer elfe rrofl'e nte thua.

27

Falstaff's line exclusive to F1 "Why, now is Cupid a
child of conscience. he makes restitution." (p. 26.
sixth arrow) clearly emphasizes his tendency to justify his
interest in the women by drawing on the myth of Eros. But
such a justification of love is not valid if love violates
moral principles. and this is what Falstaff is forced to
learn in both versions as the final scene unfolds.

This didactic aspect of the play. however. is much more
accentuated in F1 than in Q. if we note certain variations
in the last segment included above. Both versions develop
the jest. with Falstaff pretending to be Horne the Hunter
(p. 26. fifth arrows in Q and F1). But considering the way
each version develops the animal analogy broader
implications regarding attitude towards sexuality emerge.

In Q the women never explicitly act to suggest that
they too have sexual feelings. whereas in F1 several subtle
phrases establish such context. Mrs. Page's F1 line "Art
thou there (my Deere?) My male-Deere?" (p. 26. F1. first
arrow) as opposed to the plain Q question "Sir John. where

are you?" (p. 26. Q, first arrow) suggests that she. aside

from being involved in a jest. can also view Falstaff as a
"buck". as a virile man. Furthermore. in the F1 version
Mrs. Ford accepts and uses Falstaff's cue "Who comes heere?

my Doe?“ (p. 26. F1. last arrow) assuming her role as such

when she addresses him in the same spirit, as her "male-
Deere". In Q the women simply do not employ the animal

metaphor. although they silently seem to accept a divided

28

characterization as half human and half animal. clearest in
Falstaff's line "Art thou come my ggg? What and thou too?
Welcome Ladies“ (p. 26. Q. second arrow). They are both
“does“ and "ladies“.

Clearly the deer metaphor. in addition to being a
courtly love cliche. introduces the notion of a primitive
form of sexuality in both versions. since animals mate
instinctively and seasonally only. for the sake of
reproduction. But the fact that in Q only Falstaff employs
the animal metaphor obscures the possibility that women.
like men. have a carnal drive. Obviously. the women's use of
a more sexually suggestive language in F1 may merely mean
they are going along with the game. But it also emphasizes
an instinctive disposition to sex in humans in general. and
the extent to which sexual desire dominates reason. This
automatically introduces the notion that socially acceptable
sexuality does not violate moral precepts. which again
accentuates the didactic tone of F1.

Other features stress the more intense ambiguity of F1
as opposed to Q. The Q dialogue. for example. allows for
less physical proximity and contact than F1. Falstaff's
greeting in Q "Welcome Ladies" and Mrs. Ford's use of a

formal "Sir" to address him do not convey the powerful need

for closeness that F1 does with Mrs. Ford's shift of
treatment from "Sir" to "Deere". and especially with
Falstaff's line exclusive to F1 "Let there come a tempest of

provocation. I will shelter mee heere" (p. 26. F1. second

29

arrow). For example. the directorial choice for this moment
in Bill Alexander's 1987 production (London) for the Royal
Shakespeare Company. based of course on a conflated version
of the playtext. was for Falstaff to have Mrs. Ford sitting
on one of his legs and to press his face against her
breasts. while Mrs. Page also approached to sit on the other
leg. By the time he uttered the line "my hornes I bequeath
your husbands" (common to both versions - p. 26. fourth
arrows in Q and F1) the physical contact amongst the three
was powerfully established in a very sensual way.

The above choice would be unlikely if the director were
using the Q version (p. 26). simply because it generates a
much less physically powerful moment: the verb "come“ before
the clause "divide me betweene you" (third arrow) is a
strong indication of this. It calls for the women to move
closer to Falstaff only then. whereas in F1 (third arrow) he
begins with "Divide me..." as if they already were in
possession, so to speak. of his body.

Again the effect lingers that in Q the women suppress
or delay any sensual behaviour. whereas in F1 they do not.
The closing of this second segment of the dialogue further
strengthens such a notion. Mrs. Page's Q line "God forgive
me. what noise is this?" (last arrow) has a markedly
different impact from Mrs. Ford's F1 line "Heaven' forgive
our sins" (last arrow). The Q version is a factual reference

to the noise the women knew would come as a part of the

jest. and their cue to run away. F1, rather. subtly

30

introduces implications beyond the joke. First. that Mrs.
Ford. perhaps taken by her own fantasies. "awakes" with the
noise. and acknowledges her behavior (together with
Falstaff's and Mrs. Page's) as sinful: it is as if she were
in fact engaged in sexual thoughts outside her marriage and
felt guilty about it. Second. that the women in F1 are more
complex. since they plan a jest to scorn and punish Falstaff
but seem in fact to view him with lustful desire. to fear he
jeopardizes their chastity. as the diction and physical
behaviour the F1 playtext mandates for them indicates. They
too are. in essence. half animal and half human. In other
words. even though they conform to socially established
rules they still have to control latent and instinctive
sensual drives that are not chaste. Freudian psychology
aside. the appropriation of the myth of Eros in F1 enhances

such effect.

-iii-
The above interpretation is consistent with the
continuation of the dialogue in each version. since Q goes

on to develop plotting whereas F1 elaborates on the theme of

sinful behavior:

Q (62 r/V)

\ mii't're e figtiljh ,

31

1

\ ..

£nterflr Hag}: like 54: hire, and 501:: ire/173': Ftyriu, ..

t6: flew: qua ries. lb -'
flag 4 [03346011163115 Mgfiawardfjaig . it]

’Q’!‘ YouFaynes that‘do hauntthe{e(g°dy' s
Lookeround aboutthe wood if you can er : ...“.

3 N A mortal! thatdeth haunt our tiered roun

Iffueh aoneyou an eipiqgiuehim his due}; 7" if;
And leaue no: till you pinch him blackcand 51cm:
Giue them their C arge Puck ere they attaway

‘ SirHu. Come hitheeru,goto coumrie .

5-O-

. houfes, " :.......,~s.
And when you findea {lut thatliesa fleepe
Andallherdifliesfoulcandrdoufivtifwept, ,,
3-Witb yourlong nailesyinehhcrtillmc crie,‘

And (wear: to mend herlfluttifl) hufwif'erie.

. Id.- Iwamntyou mum yourwillfi

Hu. .Whereis Pad 1’ go you at {cowhere Brokers
And Foxe-eyed Seriants with their mare, (Heep,
Goe laie the Profiorsin thefixcet,

And ginchthe lowfie Serums face. . .- .. .- ..-'- '

Spare none of thefe when they area bed,

.But fuch. whol'c nofe lookcs plew and red..
Gait. Away begon,his mind fulfill,

And look: that none of you Rand ihlL.

Some do that t11ing,fome do this,

All do fomething,none amis.

32

F 1 ( C 59 ) 1\
Ester Fairies.
Ii. Fairies blacke, gray, greene,and white,‘
You Moon: -ihin: reuellermnd ihades of night.
You Orphan heires affixed defiiny,
Attend your office, and your quality.
Crier Hob-goblyn, make the Fairy Oyes.

Prfl. Elues, lifi your names : Silence you aiery toyes.
Cricket. to Windfor-chimnies (halt thou leap: ;
Where fires thou find‘i‘l vnralt'd, and hearths vnfwept,
There pinch the Maids as blew as Bill-berry. ‘
Our radiant (Loewe. hares Sluts,and Sluttery.

FaLThey are Fairies,he that {peaks to them {hall die,
ll: winke,and couch : No man their workes mull eie.

fa. Wher's 'BdRGo you,and where you find a maid

-‘ That ere (he {leepe has thrice her prayers (aid.

Raife vp the Organs of her fantafie,
Sleep: {he as found as careleil'e infancie,
6 -‘ But thof: as fleepe. and think: not on their Ens.
Pinch them armes, legt,ba:ltes.ihoulders,lides.at (hint.
,6le About, about:
Search Windfor Caflle(Elues)within.and out.

.5 Strew good luclre (Ouphes) on euery {acted roome,

That it may Rand till the perpetuall doome,

in (late as wholfome, as in {late 'tit fir,

Worthy the Owner, and the Owner it.

The feuerall Chaires ofOrd:r,loolteyou {cowre

With iuyte of Balm: ; and euery precious flowre,

Each fair: lnfialment, C care, and feu'rall Creii,

With loyall Blazon. euermore be blefi.

And Nightlyomeadow-Fairies, look: you (in;

me to the‘GflnnCornpafl'efln a ring,

Th’eapreil'ure that it bearer : Greene let it be,

More fertile-frefh then all the Field to fee:

And, Hug Soil 10' Mayo Pace, write

In Emold-tufes, Flowrcs purple, blew,and white:
' Like Sayhire-yearle,and rich embroiderie,

Budtled below fair: Knight-hoods bending hlee;
Fairies vie Flames for their charaéierie.

Away, difperfe : But till 'tis one a clocke,

Our Dance oi'Cufiome, round about the Oh:
Omee the Hunter. let vs not forget.

First of all. the stage directions generate

fundamentally different effects. Sir Hugh's satyre costume
in Q (p. 31. first arrow) parallels Falstaff's
characterization as a deer. reinforces the analogy of man
and animal. stresses instinctive sexuality in males only.
and consequently suggests that Falstaff's "sin" is every
man's. With this Q subtly re-establishes the mimetic aspect

of the plot. But it also lingers at the level of incidents.

33

getting the sequence of events to move by having the fairies
sing around Sir Hugh (p. 31. Q. second arrow). which is
what they were supposed to do in order to delude Falstaff.
who is watching them. F1 (p. 32. first arrow). with the
fairies simply entering the scene without special business.
immediately starts moving beyond the narrative dimension.
This is so because it forces both Falstaff and the audience
to focus their attention on Mrs. Quickly. whose turn is next
in the dialogue. rather than being distracted by a visually
intense action as in Q.

Mrs. Quickly's specific Q direction for the fairies to
look for "a mortal that doth haunt our sacred ground" (p.
31. Q. third arrow) also is a more incidental feature than
her vague remark "attend your office" in F1 (p. 32. second
arrow). In other words. Q prepares us for the continuation
of the joke. whereas F1 keeps us in suspense because we do
not know what the exact nature of the fairies' "office" will
be. Q also demands that Falstaff be more self-conscious
about his stage business. since he knows the fairies are
going to look for a mortal: his silence reinforces this
notion. F1. instead. just keeps him deluded as Pistol starts
telling the fairies to go and "pinch the ... Sluts" (p. 32.
F1 third arrow) whose housekeeping is sloppy. Falstaff in
fact reacts to Pistol's lines as a mere observer in F1. even
though he proceeds to protect himself (fourth arrow):

They are Fairies. he that speakes to them
shall die. Ile winks. and couch: No man their
workes must eie.

34

In short. he implies in this F1 aside that by winking and
couching he will be reasonably safe.

But the illusion-producing dialogue of F1 has much
deeper implications. While in the Q version Sir Hugh urges
the "fairies” to pinch careless housewives in country houses
for not having cleaned their dishes and floor (p. 31. Q.
fourth arrow). Evan's speech in F1 introduces a totally
different issue: Bede must reward those who say their
prayers before going to sleep (p. 32. F1. fifth arrow). and
pinch those who "thinks not on their sins" (p. 26. F1. sixth
arrow). The allusion to sins here in F1 not only echoes M.
Ford's F1 line "Heaven forgive our sinnes" (p. 28. F1. last
arrow) but also is consistent with the fact that F1
explicitly rejects lust and moves towards a celebration of
chaste love. Even though the Wives in Q essentially punish
Falstaff for his immoral intentions. a broader context never
seems to emerge from the action; in F1. however. the theme
of lust adds a didactic tone to the play. with Falstaff
serving as an example of negative conduct through which the
artist may convey a moral lesson. namely. that wanton love
is corrupt and deserves punishment.

Overall. what are only implications in Q are made

explicit in F1. That is. Q simply focuses on getting the
"fairies" to frighten Falstaff. whereas F1 embodies a subtly

deeper philosophical concern with lust and with chaste love.
In passing, we must notice that Mrs. Quickly's lines in

Q ("Away begin ... none amis.") add little. if any, meaning

35

to the dialogue. Her F1 lines (p. 32. F1. last arrow)
however. could alone be the subject of an essay. since they
catalogue a reward system for the wholesome behavior F1
seemingly defends: good luck. blessings. and aesthetic

beauty are truly deserved by those who pray and do not sin.

...iv-

Again. the articulation of the subject matter in each
version is fully consistent with the dialogue that follows.
as may be verified in the segment below:

Q (GZ v - G3 r)

8 ‘Hisz. I-fmella man' of middle earth..
1741. God bleii'e me from thatwealch Fairic.
2 ‘ 2:92. Look: eueryoneabout thisround,
And if thatany here be found, -
For his prefumption in this place,
Spar: neithetlegge, arme, head, not Face.
‘ Sir Ho. Seel hau: {pied one by goodluclc,
His bodi: man, his head a buck. 3 :-
-‘ Pal. God [end to: good fortune now,and I (are
as. Go limigand do as I commaund, (not.
And taken Taperinyout hand
“‘> And i':tit to hisfingers codes, ... ‘
And ifyou fee it him ofl'ends,- ‘ . .. ’
And thathe fianethat the flame, :.. . ~ r.
"5 ThenishemonaJLlrnowhisname: ;-- r; -. .. .;
IfwithanF,itdothb:gin, in .-.~ " ‘ -
5“ Why then befh‘ur: heis fiilloffm-
A‘bontit then,and know the truth,;
Ofthis fame metamoiph ifed youth... . -
smile: Giueme the 713;th try
Auditrhat helouevmery» "

75.93»; 15: 1' open tab: fingers, wdéeflafl. .
"3&1er Itisrightindecd, heisfulloflcdicrics
7- .~ . -:.—'. and miquitie. .
a "b figic. A little dillant from him (land,
And may on: rake hand in hand,
And com pafle him within a ring
Eirii pinch him well ,and afterling.

36

F1 (C 59)

{ct :
EmPray you lock hand in handzyour {clues in o(rdcr
And twenty glow-warmer {hall our Lanthorncr btc
To guide our Mcal'urc round about the Tree.
1 ‘ But (lay, I fmell a man ofmiddlc earth.
F41. Hcaucm defend me from that VVellh Fairy,
Lcafl he transform: me to a peer: of Chcel'c.
h Pifl. Vildc worme. thou wail orc-look'd cucn in thy
irth.
:2. . With Triall-fire touch me his finger cad;
hp If he be chaflc, the flame will backe defccnd
And tume him to no painc : but ifhe flat,
3 5 his the flcfli of a corrupted hart.
Plfl. A triall, come.
Eu. Come: will this wood take fire?
Fol. Oh. oh, oh.
» Q". Corrupt, corrupt, and tainted in chre.
About him (Fairies) ling a fcornfull time,
And a: you trip, fiill pinch him to your timc.

Quarto (p. 35) develops the trick being played on
Falstaff. The "fairies" keep pretending, now following Mrs.
Quickly's instructions (Q, second arrow) to find the "man
of middle earth" (Q, first arrow) whom Sir Hugh smells.
Falstaff gets caught and invokes help: "God send me fortune
now" (Q, third arrow). Mrs. Quickly gives specific commands
and the torture with the tapers "to his fingers endes" (Q,
fourth arrow) begins. Sir Hugh justifies the punishment:
"... he is full of lecheries and iniquitie" (Q, seventh

arrow). Mrs. Quickly's directions immediately after Sir

Hugh's line, however (Q, last arrow), again stress the jest,
rather than its broader implications as a moral lesson.

F1 (p. 36) builds upon the theme of lust. After Evans
finds Falstaff (F1, first arrow), Mrs. Quickly's direction
to the "fairies" refers not only to the punishment with the
tapers, but also to the fact that the flame will not harm

Falstaff if he is chaste (F1, second arrow): "If he be

37

chaste, the flame will backe descend and turns him to no
paine.“ He of course screams, and Mrs. Quickly again scorns
him (F1, fourth arrow): "Corrupt, corrupt, and tainted in
desire." Clearly, F1 explores the thematic dimension of
events with its emphasis on the issue of chastity more fully
than Q, with its simple characterization of Falstaff as a
"mortal ... full of sin” (p. 35, Q, fifth and sixth

arrows). F1 narrows sin to lust.

—v-

Another indication of how F1 elaborates such thematic
concerns is its explicit rejection and condemnation of lust
and "unchaste desire" in a song that stands unaccompanied by
stage directions. Quarto, instead of a song, presents

detailed stage directions for the stealing scene.

Q (63 r) \

Here My pinch dimgndfing 46w: hive, &- Me. Dee.

'. fer some: 'one we] é-jlem’e: are} 4 be} in red. And

3.; Slender another we] I)! take: a be] ingreene : And
fentonfleales vii/lens dn'ne, firing in white. And

,. g gig/E (if/mating it made wit/7i): : and 4/1 tée Fei-

he . n'e: fill"): away . Faf/Zaflépulle: qflu’: 5nd: bead,
end nfi: 'vf. Amiemer: M. P136, M. Ford, and.
:fidfiwfimgh¢J%m&myflkngb.v £5

F1 (C 59)

The Song. /

Fie en finnefudplzuufie '. Fie en Lufl, ud'Luxierie :
x by? 8 5m 4 Hudyfire, kindled with vubafle def",
Fed pr been shefe flame: affine,
M! Ibo-36!: do He- lbem big lie? and higher.
Pine}: him (Farrel) nurualér : Pinch bimfor bu wiLmr'e.
Pierb bra, and hue bin, and tune I'm» 4691“,

Tu? Cavalier, (1' Seer-1:16;, d" Ul’leenej'mne be ear

38

The variation has several implications. Perhaps more
obviously, each version embodies different kinds of
intensity. Even though the direction in Q calls for singing
around Falstaff. we have no lyrics and consequently more
stress on the visual aspect of the action. F1, which engages
the audience both visually and verbally, demands more
concentration both from the actors and the audience.

In addition, despite the fact that Q clearly makes
Falstaff the center of the folly, the playtext has a marked
shift in focus to the Anne Page plot with the directions for
the action that will define her romantic life. The fact that
Falstaff is sitting during this part of the action (second
arrow) also obscures his role, since the other characters
will be much more visually prominent than him. F1 allows for
Falstaff to hold the center of attention much more than Q.
because the words in the song are directed exclusively to
him.

These differences pose complicated directorial choices.
First, someone following the Q version would have to decide
whether to stress Falstaff's part or the "fairies'", whether
to make the stealing episode subtle or obvious. with
blocking and physical action that occupied only part of or

the whole stage. Second, a director would either need to
have lyrics written for the moment in Q, or resolve the

problem of the absence of a song by having the actors hum a

melody: the lack of lyrics would certainly accentuate the

effect of physical action on stage, particularly that of the

39

couple matching pertaining to the Ann Page plot.

A director doing the F1 version, on the other hand.
would have to decide whether to have the stealing episode
during the song or after the song. In either case, it would
probably continue to seem secondary to the Falstaff saga. To
cite Bill Alexander's production again, his choice was to
have a dance along with the song, at the end of which the
couples simply wandered away after having matched in a
rather smooth way during the dance.

In any case, the Q preoccupation with detailed
directions for the stealing scene seems coherent with that
version's tendency systematically to present the plot at a
narrative level. The elaboration of the song in F1 not only
transports us to a more figurative dimension, but also is
perfectly coherent with the version's more explicit focus on
the lust theme, which merits further analysis.

Both close reading and concordance data (Bartlett,
Spevack) reveal that most of the references to ”lust" in
the play are found in the F1 version. Out of the five lines

that include the word "lust", only one occurs in Q and four

occur in F1. Such evidence, and the fact that the lines are
exclusive to each version, makes it plausible to state that
the lust theme is far more fully developed in F1, a
hypothesis that can be confirmed if we consider placement

carefully.

40

-vi-
The only Q line that explicitly mentions "lust" appears
in the final scene, and is indicated by the fourth arrow in

the segment below:

Q (63 r/v) 1\

F41.Homethc hunter quoth you: am Ia ghoflf.‘
Sblood th'c Fairies hath made a gholl ofmc ..
What hunting atthis tiineatnight?

I‘le lay my life the mad Prince ofWa/e:
~5- Bfiealing his fathers Deare. How now. who haue
we here,“ hat is all Wiudfir flirting?Are you there? -

2.9/14]. God faue you {it lei)» Pal/24172. . - '

.‘SirHa; God plell'e youGrIebii,God plcli'e you.

1’1. Why hovfnow firIelm,what a pair ofhorns.

.:.._-. unyourhandr' '31",- :;.

3 .0» 1?:rd. Thole horneshemeiitto placeVpoii my '
Ahd Kimmie and he ih'ould be the men: i,‘(head .
Why how now {it Iobrmvhy are you thus amazede:
We know the Fairies man that pinch‘edyduio,‘
Your throwing in the'l'hamesyour heating well,

Andwhitsto come I r Manhatmnwc tell
:MiJe. Sir Ielm ris thugyourdiQiOncfi meant}
To all ourcrcdits' into qudlion, . gum: , .. ---1~.-. :1. _
.Didmaltcvsvndertaketo ourbefl, ‘ "I: " .3 7+ ‘1'
.5 Toturneyourleaudlulltoamenyldi. '
.. Total. Idhtis well, haueI liucd to thciéycarea
beiufled now, now to ben'dden? -
6—.- why en thefe were not Ferries? '
fole. No {irIe/mbut boycs. I ~‘-'
—. if“ Bytthordeastwice orthril'ein the
were not,and ctthcgrofnefl'e (mind
0ft fop‘mcp waded me they were.
8—» Wellfant fincthsof the Courthcarethis,
Thaylcfo whip me with their kecne Icfts,
Thatthaylcmeltme outliitctallow, . _ r k":

Drophydropoutofmygreafe. Bayes! 4

But Mrs. Page's explaining to Falstaff that they turned his

"lewd lust to a merry jest“ does not come across as a

41

highlight in the action. especially because we already know
that the jest is a jest. The line seems, in short, buried in
the dialogue, and Falstaff's role during the moment in Q
does not help to accentuate any broader moral implications.
Although in Q (p. 40) Falstaff is told that his lust
inspired the jest. his response right after the pinching
episode suggests that he does not grasp anything beyond the
incidental dimension, since he jumps to conclusions about
the immediate level of his experience: "... am I a ghost?

How now who have we here ...?" (Q, first and second
arrows) Moreover, Falstaff comes across as rather naive in
Q when. after being told that he is being scorned for his
dishonesty in plotting "to place [hornes] upon (Mr. Ford's]
head" (Q. third arrow). he asks two other questions as if he
were completely surprised by what is happening (Q. fifth and
sixth arrows): "... have I lived to these yeares to be
gulled now. now to be ridden? Why then these were not
Fairies?" And Falstaff's response to the episode in Q.
consistently and simply, includes descriptions of immediate

impressions and fears: how he thought the "fairies" might

not be fairies, but was persuaded they were (seventh arrow);
how he anticipated being laughed at when his friends heard
about the jest (last arrow). In short. the theme of lust is
rather obscure in Q.

The placement of the song on lust in F1. however.

generates much more elaborate effects in the equivalent

moment. Various features stand out if we consider Falstaff's

42

response :

F1 (C 59)

an... Mgr. Nay do not flye. I thitiite we haue wateht you

now : VVill none but Hmu the Hunter {erue your
mm: P

M. Pugh! pray you come,hold 1p the iell no higher.
Now (good Sir 106') how like you Wmdfor wiuea 2
See you thefe husband {’00 not thefe faire yoakea
Become the Forrefl better then the Towne I

Ford. Now Sir, whofe a Cuckold now?
lul' Bram, £417.19}: a Knaue,a Cuekoldly knaue,
Heere are his hotnes Mailer 3"”!!! :
And Mallet 'Bruoae, he hath enioyed nothing of Farah,
but his Burk-basket, hiseudgell, and twenty pounds of
money, which-mufl be paid to M’ ‘Bnuu, his hotlh are
atreiied for it, Mt Breanne.

Mfarl. SirIobo, we haue had ill luelte : wee could
never meete : I will neuer take you for my Lotte] againe,

2 II. but lwill alwayes eount you my Deere.
III-b F41. Ido begin to pereeiue that I am made an All}.

Ford. 1, and an Ose too : both the proofea are ex-

“llt. .
4—. Ed. And thefe are not Fairies:
I was three or (cure times its-the thought they were not
Fairies, and yet the gurltinefl‘e of my minde, the fodaine
l'urptize of my powers, droue the groi'feneil'e of the {op-
pery into a reeeiu’d beleefe, in defpight of the teeth of
all time and reafou, that they were Fairier. See now
-. how wit may be made a laeke-a—Lent,when ’tia spot: in

imploytnent.

Falstaff's F1 response (p. 42) is much more complex for
various reasons. First, rather than talking immediately
after the pinching as he does in Q, he silently listens to

Page. Ford, and their wives (Fl. portion of the dialogue
between first and second arrows). His silence alone, which
McGuire (1985) would define as an open silence. makes a
crucial difference. particularly because it suggests that he

is playing a contemplative role, possibly reflecting upon
the action and therefore confirming his tendency to

intellectualize in F1. And of course we can expect Falstaff
to react to the impact of the song. which provides him with

powerful cues to trigger reasoning. Specifically. the two

43

references to lust in the song ("... Fie on lust. and
luxurie: lust is but a bloudy fire" - p. 37. F1. first and
second arrows). which clearly characterize and denounce
Falstaff's very conduct, give him enough information to know
why he is being scorned. His remaining speechless at first
allows him to be neutral and finally he interprets the
situation accurately: "I do begin to perceive that I am made
an asse“ (third arrow). Such behavior indicates a shift
from an impulsive way of reacting to a rational one and
would be even more evident if the character removed the
buck's head while listening. or before or after speaking.
This shift of behavior is a second elaborate feature in
F1, and appears to be fully consistent with the continuation
of the dialogue. In other words. Falstaff in F1. rather
than keeping the naive attitude of Q and asking whether what
he saw were really fairies ("Why, then these were not
Fairies?") simply states in F1 (fourth arrow) l"And these are
not Fairies," and goes on to acknowledge his "guiltinesse"
and ultimately to declare (last arrow): "See now how wit may

be made a Jacke-a-Lent, when 'tis upon ill imployment."

Thus. F1 allows us into Falstaff's mind. telling us that
because he felt guilty he in fact believed that he was being
punished by the fairies. Moreover. F1 conveys an insight on

the consequences of using intelligence for "ill imployment:"
Falstaff learns (and the audience with him) that there is a

limit to how far one can fool others. that even reason can

lead to folly if it violates moral principles.

44

Overall. the F1 version is more didactic because
Falstaff analyses the consequences of his experience. rather
than just describing the reactions it triggered in him as he
does in Q. The effect generated by the Q version involves a
character concerned merely with what his friends will say
and do to him. who never takes a moment to evaluate the
wider implications of his own conduct. F1 accentuates the
moral motivation of the jest, an effect which is largely

determined by the placement of a song on lust.

-vii-
A third allusion to lust in F1, the only one outside of
the final scene. confirms the notion that F1 articulates a

moral lesson more explicitly than Q:

F1 (C 44)

Mrs - Ford: - . - Howflaall lbeereuenged on him? lthinkethebefl way
were. to enrertaine him with hope , till the wicked fire
-> of lufl haue melted him in his owne greater Did you e-

uer heare the like s’

Interestingly. the reference to lust occurs precisely during
the moment Mrs. Ford discovers Falstaff's letter plot and
vows to be revenged. Such placement of the lust theme is
highly meaningful, because it shapes the women's revenge
motivation differently in F1. The uniqueness of effect is

evident if we juxtapose F1 with Q:

45

Q (B4 V)

.. Wkiflieflélioord. .
wil'Jh.I-Iow now Mifiris Page,are you reading
LoueLetterseI-Iowdoiyoutvomana -, "
mp... O womanIam-Iltno'w notwha't :-~-'1-i"1
—. In louevp to the hard cues. I wasne‘uerin iiiéh’h
cafeinm life.; ”rig- -- . -
xxii)-‘0’: ‘ In loue,now in the name oEGod'with
. , whom! . .. -
- Mi/Ihtmm'onotha'tfweates'h'elouesme,’_‘ :
2 —9 And I muftnOt chooiéb'ur‘do thelilteagaine: -

thethle loolte on that Letter. .. , . ‘ .- ‘
”#11:"; Ilematch youde’ttt‘i‘iufi with thelilte.
—> Linefot'lmgword forword.inyti_ien'ame‘, ‘
O fmilleris Pagetand-mifiei’isnfi'a’difigrees :
Do me theitindnes'td Ioolr'e vpon' this: “4'
a-ztwyfmt-‘Why thisis' right my letter... i .

--I-’

O molt notoriousvillainel - =

Whywhata bladder ofiniquitieis this!

Lets be reuenged what {0 ere we do:- Llia- .
NfFfiiR‘fl-lingcdfif'wwue Weelbe reuenged.

The variation is a complicated one particularly because
Mrs. Page's lines in the Q version are highly ambiguous. Her
suggesting that she is "in love up to the hard eares" (first
arrow) can be interpreted as irony but also as truth, since
she claims that she "must not choose but do the like againe"

(second arrow), that is. love Falstaff back. This would

imply that at least Mrs. Page feels an urge to revenge
because she feels deceived. having perhaps entertained hopes
of having an affair with Falstaff. In any case. we can
generally argue that Mrs. Page and Mrs. Ford acquire a
compulsion to revenge in Q when they realize that Falstaff

sent them both love letters that are exactly alike: "...

line for line, word for word. Only [their] name

46

disagrees" (third arrow). While such motivation in Q comes
across as rather simplistic. F1 embodies an elaborate
concept. Mrs. Ford's remark "I thinks the best way were. to

entertaine him with hope. till the wicked fire 9; lust have

 

melted him in his owne greace" (p. 43. F1. first arrow)
suggests that the primary justification for revenge in F1 is

teaching Falstaff a moral lesson.

-viii—

Mrs. Ford's reference to Falstaff's lust in F1. and not
just to his "iniquitie" as in Q. introduces a more specific
concern with lust which is fully explored in the song of
final scene and which culminates in a fifth (and last) use
of the word "lust." It comes towards the end of the final
scene, and is delivered by Falstaff himself, as the second

arrow in the following segment indicates:

47

F1 (C 60)

Pal. Haue I laid my braine in the Sun, and dri' de it,
that it wants matter to preuent lo grofle ore-teaching as
this 2 Ana 1 ridden with a Weleh Goate too: Shal Ihaue
a Coxcombe oi Prize. ’ Tia time i were choak’d with a
-. peeee oftoalied Cheele.
£1. Seel'e is not good to giue nutter: your belly is al
Putters
Eel. Seei'e, and Putter? Haue I liu'd to (land at the
taunt of one that makes Fritters of Englilh ? This is e.
2 —. nough to be the decay of lull and late~walltinv athtough
the li ealme.

Mill. Page. Why Sit lobar, do you thinke though wee
would hauethruli vertue outof our hearts by the head
and lhoulders, and haue gitien out {clues without lcru-
pie to hell, that euer the deuill could haue made you our
delight?

Feed What,a hedge-pudding ? A bag offlax. ’

Mtfl. Page. A puft man?

Iago. Old, cold. withet’d, and ofintollgnbic en-
trailes?

Ferd. And one that is as flanderous’ as, Sathan ?
Page. And as poore as lob ?

Feed. And as wiclted as his wife. ’

fun. And giuen to Fornications, slid to Tauernes,
and Suite, and WJne, and Metheglins,and to drinkitrgs
and {wearings and listings. > Pribles and prables. )

Pal. Well, lam your Theame: you haue the {tart of
me; I am deicéiedt i am not able to anlwer the Welch

_. Flannell. Ignorance is idle is a plummet ore me. sfe me
as you will.

Q2 (63 v)

1 ->- Pei. I,tis welilatn our May-pole, --
Youhaue thellarto mee, ;.-:-.:...;,
'AmInddentoowtthawealchgoate3 ” ' ' . 5
Withapeeceoftoalled chcefer “"3”“3 .. " 3" "5‘
die He. Butteris better then cheelelirlolw,
you areallbutter,butter. - ’ ‘
.Iee. ThercisafurthcrmatteryetlirIelru,
There' s impound you borrowed ofMJreeie Sir
And it muflbe paid toM. FerdSirIein. (labs,
.‘MiJ’er. Nay husband let that go to make améds,
—. Idrgiuerharfummndfoweeleallbehiends.
s—p "' :.Iee. Well hereis my handgh'sforgiuen athli.’
—> '. £41.. Ithath eoflmewell,
I haue beticwell pinched and waflied.

7.‘

Even though both Q and F1 get the sequence of events to

move with Falstaff's acceptance of the jest (Q. first arrow;

F1, first arrow). Falstaff in F1 is forced to verbally

48

acknowledge it was because 9; lgg; that he allowed himself
to be made a fool: "This is enough to be the decay of lust
...“ (p. 47. F1. second arrow). Of course, the line also
tells us that the Wives have succeeded in letting ”the
wicked fire of lust" melt him. The word "decay" captures
well the idea of the consuming power a "fire“ has. "melting"
any substance till it is shapeless or down to ashes.

But other variations in this portion of the dialogue
contribute to shape unique ending effects in each version.
Quarto (p. 47) presents a somewhat hurried ending of the
Falstaff plot: he admits he should be a "May-pole". has his
debt forgiven by "Mr.Brooke," and subtly makes a victim of
himself after he is forgiven with his line ”It hath cost me
well" (last arrow), as if the jest could in fact make up
for the amount he owed and for his dishonesty. Quarto. in
addition, gives us no insight as to whether Falstaff changes
during the course of action. and his line "I have bene well
pinched and washed" (last arrow) puts a simplistic end to
his plot because it suggests he really does not see any need
to improve himself on the basis of what he just experienced.
Worse than that, the note of forgiveness in the Fords' Q
lines "Forgive that sum. and so weele all be friends"

(second arrow) and "Well here is my hand. all's forgiven at
last" (third arrow) further obscures any moral messages and
makes Falstaff emerge as someone who pretty much gets away
with all his dishonesty to enjoy communal inclusion again.

The situation in F1 is very different.

49

In the final scene of F1 (p. 47) Falstaff engages in
self-analysis. clearly indicating that he at the very least
evolves with the action. that he learns a lesson and accepts
the fact that he must further amend his actions. if not
change his conduct all together: "Ignorance it selfe is a
plummet ore me. use me as you will" (last arrow). Thus. the
F1 Falstaff is not forgiven so easily, but will be forced to
pay his debt to the feigned Brooke: "... wee'l bring you to
Windsor to one Mr. Broome. that you have cozon'd of money“
(F1 C 60). In passing. the fact that in F1 Ford brings up
the Broome debt. which is in itself one of the fictions of
the trick. is a clever and subtle way of making the didactic
tone of the dramatist's message linger. since all the parts
of the fiction are consistent in not allowing dishonesty to
go unpunished.

Falstaff also is forgiven in F1. because he remains as
a member of the group who will laugh together "by a countrie
fire”: but this only takes place after he agrees to "pay"
for all the mistakes he is accused of. Q. on the other

hand. generates a Falstaff who simply joins those who

designed his scape-goating and leaves the stage without ever
playing an active role in understanding and interpreting his
experience on the basis of moral standards. who passively
accepts that he deserves the role of fool ("Tis well I am
your May-pole“) but does not attempt to go beyond it.

The F1 Falstaff ceases to be a fool and willingly

surpasses such a role when he admits his "ignorance" and

50

invites his friends to "use [him] as [they] will." thus
formally coming across as the vehicle for the articulation

of a moral message. And ultimately. the message resounds in

Fenton's final speech in F1:

F1 (c 60)

Fear. You do amaze her : heare the truth of it,
-‘ You would haue married her mofl lhanaefully,
Where there was no proportion held in loue:
The truth is. [he and 1 (long line: contracted)
Ate now {9 lure that nothing can difiolue vs :
2» Th'ofi'enee is holy, that {he hath remitted.
And this deceit loofes the name oferafr,
Ofdifobedienee, or enduteous title,
Since therein {he duh euitate and {bun
I—p A thoufand irreligious curled houtes
Which forced marriage would h'aue brought ep'osi her.
Ferd. Stand not amaz‘d, here is no remedie :
In Lone, the heauens themfelues do guide the (late,
Money buyes Lands,and wines are l old by fate.

The equivalent speech in Q is simply incidental and

assertive:

Q (G4 V)

“Ia. = Married to me,nay lirneuer Rome, ." 7';

-> Tis done {it nomand cannot bevndon'e.‘ , r5? 31:7;- 1,
Ford: Ifaith. M. Page neucr chaf'e your are;

She hath made her choil'e'whems her hart was Ext ‘

.-'. 2
Then tzsm vain: for you to Rome or fret. . ‘

In Q Fenton merely asserts that both he and Ann outwitted
their parents by fulfilling their wish to get married: "Tis
done Sir now. and cannot be undonne" (first arrow). What he

does in F1. on the other hand. is to deliver a moral sermon

on how imposed marriages are shameful. First. he tells Ford

that in "truth ... [he] would have married [Ann] most

51

shamefully" (first arrow). He then claims that "th'offence
is holy“ (second arrow) of marrying clandestinely. since
had Ann been forced to marry a man whom she did not love she
would spend "a thousand irreligious cursed houres" (third
arrow).

The closure of the Ann Page plot in F1. in other words.
not only conveys a rejection of lust in the process of
punishing Falstaff. but further articulates thematic
concerns with love by exposing negative social assumptions
that thrive behind "moral" institutions such as marriage.

Thus we get a full-cycle notion of assumptions
regarding subject-matter: first. love that is not chaste
must be rejected: second. marriage should be a celebration
of true love. not of relationships that serve the
convenience of only one individual (e.g.. Caius' one-sided
passion. Slender's financial interest;) third. virtue is not
just a matter of not violating moral principles or social
institutions. but also of not using them poorly.

All the features exclusive to each version powerfully
suggest. therefore. that the overall effect of The flgggy
Wiygg 9; Windsor in F1 is much different than in Q. Markedly
different endings emerge from each version, especially
because the subject matter is articulated in essentially
distinct ways. Simply put. Q presents a more purely
ludicrous view of human experience. whereas the didactic

tone which permeates the dialogue in F1 suggests that "ideal
3

and ludic modes" of comedy have been merged. as Peterson

52

would argue:

.. fictions serve the ends of recreation
either by providing a merry pastime or by figuring
forth 'perfect patterns...

Interestingly. the F1 version clearly reminds us of

Sidney's dictum in his Defence 9; Poesie that fiction should

"teach" as well as "delight."

53

Notes for Chapter II

1
Page numbering in the F1 version is inconsistent. The

final scene begins at page 58 and ends at page 60. but what
should be page 59 reads page 51.

2
Interestingly. such reflection upon love reminds us of

Astrophil's line "See what it is to love?" in Sidney's
sonnet # 107 in Astrophil and Stella. a sonnet sequence in
which the persona essentially debates with himself about the
dilemma of love anxiety.

3
I thank Prof. Douglas Peterson for letting me read

the manuscript entitled “Shakespeare's Recreations: The
Origins and Developments of His Comic Art." a new book he is

presently working on.

CHAPTER III

Henry 2

figggy 2 exists in two authoritative versions from
Shakespeare's era. a 1600 quarto. and the 1623 folio.1

Textual critics such as Pollard (1909) and Greg
(Shakespeare 1957) believe Q is a pirated. corrupt playtext.
Greg. in his edition to the Oxford facsimile. links such
corruption with length: Q "occupies no more than 1622 type-
lines ... [whereas] F1 runs to 3380" (p. vi). Price
concludes that F1 is the genuine Shakespearean playtext and
that quarto is in fact subsequent to it. Craig (1927).
nevertheless. has challenged orthodoxy that rejects quarto.
He points out that all the themes that F1 develops are
interwoven in Q. and argues that it could have been a first

sketch produced by Shakespeare himself and later revised for
the F1. But in spite of generally viewing F1 as the
preferred copytext editors conflate both versions. drawing
on Q especially to define stage directions.

Textual problems apart. ggggy y. "by far the most
controversial of histories" (Berry). has generated criticism
that can be grouped into two major poles. At one pole are
those who glorify Henry as a patriotic King: Wilson (1947)

stands out amongst many others in the first half of the

54

55

century who embraced this view under Schelling's influence.
Tillyard and Campbell developed a slightly different~ trend
by analyzing political doctrine in Shakespeare's histories
and seemingly shaped scholarship of three subsequent decades
that viewed the history plays in general as mirrors of Tudor
political thought. At the other extreme are a minority who
view the play as a satire and Henry as a Machiavel (e.g..
Goddard). Rabkin argues that such intense controversy simply
proves the ambiguity of the play. But Shakespeare's
histories in general are controversial because the genre
itself is complicated: not only does it merge conventions of
tragedy and comedy. but also fact and fiction. Critics might
seek to stand on safer ground by working on an historical
basis. but can easily be trapped and confuse. as Taylor
(Shakespeare 1982) points out. the historical and the
dramatic. Their overall tendency to dogmatism. then. is
perhaps a self-defense strategy adopted when dealing with
essentially bewildering objects.

Again, critical judgment done on the basis of conflated

editions must be approached with caution. By merging the

words available in Q and F1 these editions create
relationships and contradictions that are not found in Q and
F1 and that may not correspond to what Shakespeare
designed. What close analysis of the extensive variations
which culminate in the final scene of each version suggests

is that Henry 2 has unique endings in Q and in F1.

particularly in respect to ironic effect.

56

-1-

As Harbage says (Shakespeare 1969) "no other play in
the Lancastrian trilogy so persistently bids for laughter"
(p. 741). What both critics and producers usually explore as
comic. however. are episodes that involve characters such as
Pistol. Nym. Hostess Quickly. Fluellen. or scenes such as
Kate's English lesson and the Dauphin's praising of his
horse. The final scene is not so obviously comic in either
version. But analysing differences between Q and F1 we are
struck by the fact that F1 explores irony much more fully
than Q and. to a great extent. comes across as a play-
within-the-play. The first difference I want to consider

involves the interaction at the outset of the final scene:

Q (F4 V)

Enter it: cite Jan-2,15; K {kg-of E ii gland me In} Luis. elude:
tin erlur Jammie-“Kb; ‘of France, ,‘lfilflm‘ Katherine,t‘ve
Dflk! of Burbon.£nd «beer. ' ' '

q.z.uu..q..fl::.azi.~
“Egg. Peace to this meetingmherefb‘ttm'e in: sect.
And to' outbrorh er Irate, Faire time ofdsy."
u... Pairc health vnto our loucly conitn Kltbtfifll.
And as a branch,and member ofrhis flock:
We‘do falute you Duke of 'Burgondse. ' .
.... Freer. Brother of Eng/tndfiight ioyous are we to behold
Your fatefo are we Princes Englilh cuery one.

57

F1 (H 92)

Entree! one duet, King Henry, Exeree. Bedfeed,W.enee’eke,
ad etber Leele. At «other, the [fair],
the liq. the Duke of flangee‘nefd
other Freud.
King. Peace to this meeting, wherefotewe are mes ;
Vnto our brother France. and to out Sillet
Health and faire time ofday: by and good willie: ‘
To our mail faire and Princely Coline Katherine t
And as a branch and member ofthis Royalty,
By whom this great alTembly is tonttiu’d,
\Ve do falurc you Duke ofaxryogee,
And Princes French and Peercs health to you all.
» In. Right ioyeus are we to behold your lace.
Moll worthy brother England, fairely met. ‘
So are you Princes (Englilli) euery one.

Que. So happy-be the Illue brother Ireland
Ofthts good day, and of this rarious meeting,
As we are now glad to behol your eyes,
Your eyes which hitherto haue borne
In them ageinli the French that met them in their bent,
5 —> The fatsll Balls of murthering Bafiliskes:
The eenomc of loch Lookes we fairely hope
Harte loll their qualitie, and that this day
--> Shall change all griefes and quarrels into loue.
Eng. To cry Amen to that, thus we appease.
7—. Q". You Englilh Princes all,I doe faluteyou.

ill

The final scene in both versions begins with Henry
greeting everyone. but variations raise the question
as to who is on stage during this moment. Specifically. we
cannot tell whether Queen Isabel and the Dauphin are present
in Q. and whether the Dauphin is present in F1. If there

were a comma after the word “Queene" in Q Isabel's entrance

could be confirmed. but since there isn't one we are left
wondering whether its lack is the result of a printing
error. or whether the title Queene is perhaps meant for

Kate. who ultimately becomes Henry's Queen. As for the

Dauphin. he could be one of the "other" French. The fact
that Queen Isabel and the Dauphin are not assigned lines or

referred to in the final scene of Q further complicates the

58

problem. so that two choices are possible. namely. including
them or not including them in the scene. Of course Henry's
greeting ("Peace to this meeting. wherefore we are met") is
general enough in Q not to exclude Queen Isabel and the
Dauphin. even though he proceeds to salute the King of
France. Katherine. and the Duke personally. The stage
direction in F1 does call for Queen Isabel's entrance. but
it is also open regarding the Dauphin's participation. F1
does not assign lines to the Dauphin. either.

These differences allow for several interesting
theatrical possibilities. and choices that stretch way
beyond merely including or excluding Queen Isabel and the
Dauphin in Q. or excluding the Dauphin in F1. If a director
drawing on Q chose to include Queen Isabel and the Dauphin.
they would obviously remain as silent observers. But their
stage business could provide rather striking contexts. Their
overlooking the scene from a balcony and acting angry.
perhaps wearing bright costumes and whispering to each
other. for example. could be used to accentuate tension and
suggest that the French will not only seek revenge but
already consider it. Should the Dauphin busily offer
consolation to a crying or sad Queen dressed in black, on

the other hand. France's difficulty in accepting its 1058
could emerge. F1 does not allow for the same range of
possibilities because the Queen has lines which
automatically require her to interact more closely with

characters other than the Dauphin. But a director using F1

59

can still take advantage of kinesics in at least two ways:
by having mother and son convey their anger in non-verbal
exchanges that only the theater audience can perceive. by
having the Dauphin only observe the action and vent his
hatred. Both possibilities are appropriate. since we
historically know that the Dauphin never accepted English
rule. continued to raise armies against England after
Agincourt. recuperated territory and was crowned Charles VII
(cf. Chambers et al.)

The playtext is not so open for choices regarding
Kate because the dialogue to a great extent defines her
role. Her presence in Q (p. 56) seems to be merely
ornamental both because she is silent here and because Henry
addresses her as his "lovely cousin" (first arrow). focusing
his. and the other men's. attention on her physical
qualities. The moment. moreover. allows the actor to make a
pause before going on to salute the Duke and ironically
portray the tough "warlike Harry" caught in Kate's trapping
beauty and charm. Another possibility is that he acknowledge

Kate's presence briefly, so that she will not attract much

attention. But in either case the briefness of the dialogue
in Q suggests a certain rush. as if both England and France
were eager to get their "business" over with.

F1 (p. 57) generates different effects. First of all.
the possibility of irony here is much clearer. particularly"

because Henry's reverence towards the French stands out in

sharp contrast with his aggressive warrior personality

60

throughout the play: he salutes the French King and Queen
Isabel as "brother France" and "sister" (first arrow) and
Kate as "our most fairs and Princely Cosine" (second arrow).
On one hand. this politeness suggests he has a certain
respect for the French (Burgundy included) and acknowledges
them as "royalty" (third arrow). On the other hand it is
indeed preposterous because they are there to basically give
up a share of their royal power. The very fact that France
in both versions defines the moment as “joyous” (p. 56. 0.
second arrow: p. 57. F1. fourth arrow) is ironic. even
though he implies seeing peace as a welcome relief. Should a
director choose to have Henry address the French in a tone
of mockery. for example. the submissive nature of their
exchange (and their acceptance of it as such) would be
obvious. This possibility of mockery is a powerful one
because it would most likely make the moment come across as
play acting. And the final scene of F1 Egg be seen as the
ultimate realization of the make-believe world which the
prologue and chorus passages exclusive to F1 invite the

audience to accept: "... a Kingdom for a stage. princes to

act. and monarchs to behold the swelling scene" (F1 H 69).
Whether or not Shakespeare intended Henry to act like a

surrogate dramatist and play with the defeated French in F1.

the continuing irony clearly suggests play making.
The Queen's lines in F1 (p. 57) are a strong example of
this and nearly sound like a prologue. as she reminds all

that they came from "the fatall Balls of murthering

61

Basiliskes" (fifth arrow) but now "shall change all griefes
and quarrels into love" (sixth arrow). Director Terry
Hands (Royal Shakespeare Company. 1975) argues that the
Queen speaks "repetitively ... [and] heraldically" (Beauman.
p. 219) and simply cut all of her lines. But interestingly.
these same two qualities allow the Queen's speech to emerge
as "playing" and irony. Otherwise the above lines. for
example. nearly come across as romantic because they
indicate that the Queen naively overestimates the power of
the French and grossly distorts the nature of the meeting.
which is not exactly a negotiation between parties of equal
power but a formality that fulfills Henry's will. History
of course informs us that the Treaty of Troyes was signed in
1420. five years after Agincourt (Chambers et a1.) Thus. its
dramatization is even more representative of " Henry's
supremacy: the only alternative that the French found was
to accept Henry's terms. Should all the English laugh at the
Queen's remarks. for example. such context would be even
more accentuated. Her response "You English Princes all. I

doe salute you" (seventh arrow) would also come across as

naive she is in no position to be pompous. If she delivers
the speech with sarcasm, however. the effect conveyed can be
one of feigned acceptance. In any case, irony intensely
permeates the moment.

One might argue that the French had at this point of
the play in both versions the choice of continuing the war.

This interpretation is. however. simplistic if we consider

62

that Henry practically left the French no alternative other
than settling for peace. An obvious indication of this is
the episode of the dead count: thousands of French were
killed and only "five and twentie" English (Q F3 v - F1 H
91). But Burgundy's speech in the final scene of F1. much
more elaborate than the Q version. also’ emphasizes the

overall proportions of the calamity in France:
Q(Gr)

Du}; with pardon vnto both your mightines.
Let it not dil leafe you. ill demaund ' .
What rub orbar hath thus far hindred ) ou,
Tokeepe ) on from the gentle {peeth ofpeace. ‘

63

F1 (H 92)

Burg. My dutie to you both, on equall lone. :
Great Kings ofFrance and Englandzthatl hsuclabout'd
With all my wits. my paints.and llreng endcuots,
To bring your mull imperiall Maieflies a
Vnto this BarreIand Royall entereiew;
Your Mightintll'e on both parts bell can witnell'e.
Since then my Office hath {pfarre preuayl'd,
”- That Face to Face, and Royall Eye to Eye,
You haue congreetetl: let it not dil'grace me,
Ill demand before this Royall View,
What Rub, or what ltnpediment there is,
Why that the naked, pause, and mangled Peace. .-
Dearc Nourfe ofArts, Plentyes,and ioyiull Births,
Should not in this bell Garden of the World,
Our fertile France,put vp her louely Vlfage?
\ Alan-”nee hath from France too long been chas'd,
2 —. And all her Husbandry doth lye on heapes,
Corrupting in it owne fertilitic. -
_._ Her Vine,tlie merry cheater of the heart,
Vnprtrredfiyes : her Hedges euen pleath'd,
Like Ptiloners wildly ouer-growne with hayrt.
—> Put l'urthdifordet'd Twigs: her faEIowhcas,
The Darnell,Hemloelt,and ranlte Femetary.
Doth root vpon; while that the Culter tulls,
That flibuid deracinate luch Sauagcry:
The even Meade,that erfl brought {weetly forth
The fitthltd Cowflip.l3urnet,and greene Cluuct,
Wanting the Sythe,witliall vncorredcd,ranltes
Conceiucs by idleneiTc,and nothing rtemcs,
But listefzill Doclts. roughThillles,Ktklyes,8urrcs,
Loolim; both heauric and etilitic; ‘ .
. And all our Vineyards, Fallowes.Mcades,and Hedges,‘
_Dcit:liue in theii natures,grow to wildnech.
5 -... E'icn (is our Hnufesand our {clucs,and Children,
Harte lull ,or doc not learnt, {or want of time,
The Sciences that fliould become out Counttcy;
- But are“! like Ssuages,u Souldiers will,
That nothing doe, but meditate on Blood,
To Swearingnml lierne Lookes,dei'us'd Attyre,
And euery thing that {center ennaturall.
Which to reduce into our Former (snout,
You are ali'e'nbled: and my {perch entieats,
That I may know the Let,why gentle Peace
Should not espvll there inconucnicnces,
Antl blech es with her former qualities.

As the Q (p. 62) segment shows. Burgundy in Q simply brings
up the question of what is keeping England and France from
having peace. His objectivity quickens the pace of action
and subtly indicates that France is eager to get the meeting

over with: the meeting therefore comes across primarily as a

formality. Physical action involving restlessness.

64

discomfort. and distance. for example. would be most
appropriate during this moment which essentially portrays
the submission of one kingdom to another.

F1 (p. 63) generates different effects. especially
because France's reasons to give in to Henry are explicitly
mentioned by Burgundy. The bulk of the passage provides

vivid images of the chaos in France: France's "Husbandry

doth lye on heapes" (second arrow). "her Vine ... unpruned
dyes" (third arrow). "her Hedges ... put forth disordered
Twigs" (fourth arrow). "... our selves. and Children ...

grow like Savages. as Souldiers will. that nothing doe. but
meditate on Blood" (fifth and sixth arrows). Given the
above. their speaking of negotiating peace is nearly

preposterous: France cannot recover easily from the disaster

after Agincourt.

Even though France's position is the same in Q. the
fact that Burgundy does not lament. so to speak. as he does
in F1. helps to preserve an aura of dignity or pride in the
French that does not emerge in F1 because Burgundy fully and

verbally recapitulates their immense loss. The F1

description of the meeting between the enemy Kings "Face to
Face. and Royall Eye to Eye" (first arrow) in a seemingly
peaceful situation, moreover. increases irony because they
caused so much chaos and death during Agincourt. This
strikes me as a potentially tense moment. Yet a potentially
cruel effect could be achieved with friendly stage business.

close blocking. laughing. and perhaps drinking while a

65

screen would silently run dreadful war images upstage: this
would be possible in Q but probably seem bizarre. since the
reticence of the French in Q does not invite the fuller
engagement with the consequences of the war to them that F1

does.

-11..
Given the above relationships. the effect of Henry's

response to Burgundy also varies from Q to F1:

Q l G 1‘ )
Her. 1? Duke of Berganéqou wold haue peace,
—. You mull buy that peace, . .-
According as we haue drawn: our articles. :
F1 (H 92)

Eng. if Du lte offlurgonie,ynu would the Peace.
Whole want giues growth to th'tmreri't fltons
—’ Which you haue cited 3 you mufl buy that Peace
lVlth Full accord to all msriull demands,
\V’hufc Tenure: and particula elicc'ls
You haue enl'chediil'd briefcly in your hands.

Terry. The King hath heard them: to the which," 16
There is no Aniwet made.
fey. Well then : the Peace which you before {o trg’d.
—§ Lycs in his Anl'wer.

Henry simply remarks that France "must buy that peace"

(first arrow in each version). Semantically. the modal
auxiliary must conveys the idea of obligation in both
versions. But while the line in Q functions as a reminder

and serves as an introduction to the subject of the
agreement. in F1 it comes across as another blow against the

French. whose plea for mercy Burgundy has just delivered.

And one more blow comes with the line. also specific to F1.

66

"the peace which you before so urg'd lyes in his answer"
(second arrow). France has to face the fact that re—
establishing peace means yielding power to Henry. which he

procedes to do in both versions:

Q ( G r )
Fran. We haue but with a curfenary eye,
Oreviewd them° plt afeth your Grace;
—-> To let fame of) our Counl'ell (it with vs, -
-. \Ve {hall reward our peremptory anfwcte.
F1 (H 93)

From. I haue but with a curfelarie eye
O're-glanc't the Articles: Pleal’eth your Grace
To appoint fame of your Codocell prefently .
—'§ To fit with vs once more,with.bcttct heed
To re-('uruey them: we will fuddenly
—. Pail": our accept and peremptorie Anfwer.

The French King's answer to Henry in F1. however. has a
unique effect because of Burgundy's speech: by
recapitulating France's destruction he exposes its

helplessness. The French King's redundant F1 remark "we

 

will ... passe our accept and peremptorie answere" (second
arrow) then comes across as his recognition that this is

all he can do. In sum. the fact that the French even go
through the ordeal of discussing the articles is more ironic
in F1. where calamity is accentuated. than in Q. In other
words, the interaction between France and England in F1 has
the growing effect of a play-within-the-play where each of
the Kings assumes a pretend role: France being prompt to

accept the articles, and England simply allowing him to do

67

so. But "with better heed." to use France's words (F1. first
arrow). we can infer that there is a subtle. yet crucial.
difference at this point. In Q France requests. apparently
for the first time. for Henry to "let some of [his]
Counsell" (first arrow) have a conference about the treaty.

In F1. France requests that they "sit [together] once more"

 

(first arrow). indicating that this is not the first time
the council meets. Granting this Henry lets France extend
negotiations in F1 and therefore emerges as less

authoritarian than he does in Q.

-iii-
Henry's assertiveness in Q and his discretion in F1

grow clearer in the ensuing dialogue:

Q(Gr)

Her. Go Loids,and lit with them,
—. 'And bring vs anfwcre backe.
Yer leaue our coul'en Kubrn’nehtrc behind.
France. VVsthalloutlicarts'.

Exit King anere Lerde.M4eeer,Hrry,l-{athe -

t lllCfifld (be Genrlcaeemase.

68

F1 (H 93)

5.11.“. Brother we Orall. Goe Vnchle Erette,
And Brother Clarence, and you Brother Gleotefiee,
2 —‘ Warwick, and Hatter-greet, got with the King,
And talte with you ree power.to ratifie,
—‘ Augment,ot alter. as your Wifdomes bell
Shall {cc aduantageablc for our Dignitie,
Any thing in or out of out Demands,
And wce'le configne thereto. Will you,laire Sifier,
-‘ Cat with the Princes.or {lay here with es?
Q9" Our gracious Brother. I will goe with them:
5 —. Happily a \Vomsns Voyee may doe {ome good,
When Articles too nicely vrg‘d,be flood on.
England. Yet lesue our Couiin Katherine here with vs.
She is our capitall Dcrnand,compris'd
Wi.hin the fore-tanke of our Articles.
7 an. Qee. She hath good leaue. Excuse ewe.

—’

Manet Kitty and Katherine.

In Q (p. 67) Henry restates his supremacy by simply
ordering them to go "and bring us an answere backe" (first

arrow) and then turns to Katherine. In F1 (p. 68) he makes

several ambiguous remarks which emerge as more cautious or
diplomatic. in spite of being potentially ironic.

First. Henry respectfully addresses defeated France as
"Brother" and "King" (first and second arrows) as if he did
not expect Charles VI to formally lose authority over the

country. Second. Henry in F1 gives the English council "free
power. to ratifie. augment. or alter. as ... [they] shall
see advantageable ... anything in or out of [his] demands"

(third arrow). This is another difference which adds to the
irony in F1: Henry. who so agressively led an army and won
at Agincourt. is now relinquishing power to Exeter.
Clarence. Gloucester. Warwick. and Huntigton. At this point

the play-making opens. so to speak. to other characters in

69

F1. whereas in Q Henry (at least technically) remains in
control. He relinquishes even more control over the action
in F1 by granting Queen Isabel the right to decide whether
she wants to go and participate in the conference or stay
(fourth arrow), and by accepting her view that "a womans
voyce may doe some good. when articles too nicely urg'd be
stood on" (fifth arrow). In passing. the Queen indirectly
restates her own authority by taking Henry's imperative in
the line "lggyg our Cousin" (sixth arrow) as a request and
replying that Kate "hath good leave" to stay and talk to
him. as if he were begging for permission. Should Henry
indicate his satisfaction by nodding in agreement. he would
actually appear to be respecting the French. Of course he
could also mock the Queen and the other French non-verbally
as they left. thus indicating his disdain and allowing the
audience (but not Kate) to perceive his "acting." Overall.
however. the F1 playtext mandates a kind of attitude for
Henry that may subtly undermine his power and even bring the
audience to the verge of confusion over whether Henry has

sole control over the action: the French are as sly in

“playing" as Henry is. Clearly. for instance. Burgundy's
long speech on behalf of France can be taken as an attempt
to emotionally manipulate Henry. perhaps compelling him to
ease his demands by stirring feelings of guilt in him. These
relationships do not. in my opinion. emerge from the Q

dialogue because it is too reticent. Even imagination and

elaborate stage business could hardly undermine Henry's

70

dominance in Q. especially if we consider that it is his
voice that systematically sounds throughout that version of

the final scene. as can be easily verified in what follows.

-1v-

The growing irony and Henry's diplomatic tendency in F1
do not end as we proceed to examine the wooing episode that
immediately follows. The very first exchange between Henry
and Katherine after the English and the French leave for the

conference presents crucial differences:

Q (G. r/V)

—> Hate. Now K ate,vou have a blunt wooer here: '
Left with y.ou - . '
2—9 Ifl could win thee at leapfrog. - .
—. Or with van ring with my armour on my backe, . ‘
Into m. laddle, .. . 'l .-
lVirhout brag be it fpoken, - ~' ' ‘ '- . ° '- l .‘t'
Ide make compare with any.‘ ' ' ' 3 °'
But leaning that Kate,
Ifrliorr taltcfl me new, i
Thouflralt haue me at thew:orfl

Andinttearirigxhou lhalrhauemeberter and Better,
Thou fl‘lalt hauea face that ii not Worth fun-burning.
But dooll thou thinlte.that thou andI .
Betweene Saint Dem), .5‘. -- ...;5 .L _ .
And Saint Geerye. {hall getaboy. - - _ - '_,.'j
That fliall ooe to C enlIaeetueop/e. .
And talte the great Turlte by the beard. ha Km.
5.... Kate. Is it polliblc datme fall ...

Lone dc encmiedeI-‘rattee - .-

—.

F1 (H 93)

% Kine. Fair: Karbentee, and mail fairc,

g Will you souchtafeto teachaSnuldret teatmts,
S rch as will enter at a Lady es care.

-‘ And pleade his Loue-fuit to her gentle heart.

71

The bluntness of Q (p. 70) is obvious. Henry not only
defines himself as a "blunt wooer" (first arrow) but acts as
one by addressing the princess as Kate. wishing he could
"win [her] at leapfrog” (second arrow) or "with [his]
armour on [his] back" (third arrow). and finally by
expressing his desire to "get a boy that shall goe to
Constantinople and take the great Turke by the beard"
(fourth arrow). He views the marriage with Kate as a
practical move and does not hesitate to let her know that.

Henry's attitude in F1 (p. 70) is not so simple. His
“diplomacy" begins with his playing the irresistible type.
so to speak. He flatters her: "Faire Katherine and most
.faire" (first arrow). Then he implies a kind of helplessness
by asking her to "teach" him so that he can "pleade his
love-suit to her gentle heart" (second and third arrows).
His acting this way in F1 again suggests caution. and is
rather ironic. First. because the strongest trait of
Henry's personality from the outset of the play is being
"warlike“. as the prologue states it in F1. He is the man

who urges the army to go "cheerly to sea" to embrace war (Q

84 r. F1 H 75). Although this is true in both versions.
several moments of F1 accentuate his bellicose nature more
fully than Q. Lines conveying the idea that Henry views the
war per se as a potentially exciting event. for example.
appear exclusively in F1. Canterbury remarks Henry can

render "a fearful battle ... in music" (F1 H 69). Rather

than being anxious about the war. Henry "doubt[s] not of a

72

fair and lucky war" (F1 H 75). and is prompt to "imitate
the action of the tiger" (F1 H 77)! Finally. he indirectly
acnowledges such disposition in the final scene of F1:
"Beshrew my father's ambition! he was thinking of civil wars
when he got me" (F1 H 94). His speaking of love or
assuming the role of romantic wooer in F1 is at the very
least paradoxical and strongly clashes with his conduct
prior to the final scene. Henry may of course be seen as an
essentially good. patriotic King striving to "maintain the
peace. whose hours the peasant best advantages" as he
himself puts it in the soliloquy exclusive to F1 (H 85).
This interpretation might even explain his marked shift to
"romanticism" as a sincere manifestation of a gentle side of
his personality. But other moments common to both versions
accentuate Henry's essentially non—romantic nature:
The king is not bound to answer the particular
endings of his soldiers ... for they purpose not
their death when they purpose their services.
Besides, there is no king. be his cause never so
spotless ... can try it out with all unspotted

soldiers. Some peradventure have on them the guilt
.. [but] they have no wings to fly from God.

Henry delivers the above speech incognito (Q 04 v. F1 H 84)
during the exchange with Williams and other soldiers in the
camp: it clearly conveys his very practical beliefs as to
his responsibility regarding the war consequences. Moreover.
Henry looks forward to making the war a memorable event in

the history of England (Q E2 r, F1 H 86-87):

73

.. This day is called the Feast of Crispian. he
that outlives this day. and comes safe home.
will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbors.
This story shall the good man teach his son.

Only in F1 he restates his caring not at what cost: "If we
are marked to ... live. the fewer men. the greater share of
honor." (H 86) In light of the above passages. we can hardly
say that Henry suddenly surrenders his soul to Cupid and
begs for Kate's love in the final scene. His diplomatic
wooing in F1 is more like another war. so to speak. a war of
words whose primary goal is to win himself a breeder. And
thus he himself will be able to fulfill the prophecy of
telling a son about "The Feast of Crispian."

The second reason why the wooing episode in F1 is
potentially ironic has to do with Kate's response to Henry.
Whereas in Q she immediately questions the possibility of
her falling in love with "de enemie de France" (p. 70. Q
fifth arrow) and therefore reveals a resistance to Henry.
she either "plays" or truly gets caught by Henry's charm in

F1 and engages in small talk:

F1 (H 93)

.... Karl: Y Jur Maiellie {hall mock at me,I cannot fpealte
your England.

2 -._ King. Ofaite Katluet‘ne. if you will loue me foundly
with your French heart, I will be glad to heart you con.
fetTe it brokenly with your Englrfla Tongue. Doe you
like me, Kate?

Karb. Pard'eetne may. I cannot tell war is hire me.

—p- King. An Angell is like you Kate, and you arelike'an
Angell.
», Kat/s. Q? Jr: a"! que Iefieet [Peed/a5]: a let {Inger ?
Lad). 0a} Vfiqmet (fiufareflre Crate) atnfi in :1.
King. lfaid f0,- dcatt Kat/terrier, and lmul‘l nut blulh
to :ffirme lt. -
5 -. Karla. 0 does 23m. let larger: Jet bee-mee fine Flesh 4':

trempereet.

74

Kate worries (p. 73) about being mocked because her English
is poor (first arrow). to which Henry aptly responds with
more sweet talk: "O faire ... love me soundly" (second
arrow). And she continues to try to understand what he is
saying: "Que dit il ...?“ Kate asks (fourth arrow).
suggesting her interest in the conversation as it is. But
suddenly she responds to his emphasis on her angelical
beauty by (third arrow) by pointing out that ”les langues
des hommes sont plein de tromperies" (fifth arrow). As the

dialogue continues. Henry translates what she says:

F1 (H 93)
King. What fayes (he,faire one: that the tongues of
men are full of deceits? -
Lady. 0e},dat de tongcus of de mans is be full ofdco
teits : dat is dc Princclfe. .
—.. King. The Prineefl'e is the better Englifh-woman:
2 -' .yfsith Kate.my wooing is fit for thy enderflsnding, I am
glad rhou canfl l'pealte no better Englifls , for if thou
,could'fl, thou would’l'i finde me fuch a plaine King,that
thou wouldfl thinke,l had fold my Farmc to buy my
Crowne. I ltnow no wayes to mince it in loue,butdr-
» refily to fay. lloue you; then if you etge me farther,
then to fay,Doe you in faith? I weare‘out my furte: Clue
me your anfwer, yfaith doegand fo clap hands,and a bar-
5 » gainer how fay ymr,l..atly¢
Kat/e. Safe-flee inner-tr, me vnderfland well.

When he realizes that she is indirectly calling him a lier
he seemingly drops the acting. First of all he gives up the
formality of addressing her as Katherine. shifting to Kate
(second arrow). He then admits being a "plaine King" (third

arrow) and directly claims to love her (fourth arrow).

This is a crucial point of F1 because Kate becomes a

different person for Henry. someone who can challenge him.

besides being pretty or silent or shy. Should Henry act

startled and thoughtful. perhaps pausing for a few seconds

75

after he translates her remark about the tongues of men
being full of deceits. his own bafflement would emerge and
suggest that he may indeed begin "loving" her. precisely for
her doubting his honesty despite the language difficulty
involved. By doing so ghg traps him in her charm by allowing
him to view her no longer as a part of the deal but truly as
a "better ... woman" (first arrow): better than he expected.
perhaps. or than most English women he knew. A real
"bargains" (fifth arrow). Most important. however. is that
this moment demands a marked change in Harry's behavior. a
change that does not occur in Q because here Kate's allusion
to the problem of their being enemies is to a great extent
predictable for Henry. Her challenging his sincerity in F1.
on the other hand. has the impact of surprise and demands
that he improvise. so to speak. in order to be persuasive.
And he apparently succeeds. since now Kate even claims to
understand what he says: "Sauf vostre honeur. me understand
well." Henry then goes on to explain his intentions in a

long speech that also is exclusive to F1:

F1 (H 93)

We note. first of all.

(see p. 70)

if [he] could winne a lady at

3»

5—9

-n»
-n»

BIN»

76

Kitty. Merry, if you would put me to Verfes, otto
Dance for your l'elre,Kate,why yon endrtl me: for the one
lhane neither words norrnesfuret and for the other.l
haue no flrengrh in meafure. vet a reaforiable meafure in
flrength. If I could winne a I rely at Leape.frogge,or by
vawting into my Saddle, with my Armour on my baclre;
vnder the correflron of bragging be it fpohels. I 0100“
quickly leape intoa Wife: Or if I might buffet for my

Louegot'boundmy H'oife for her fauours, I could. lay on
like a Butcher,and fit lrlrea lack an‘Apes,nedet of. But
before God Kate, I cannot loolte greenely, not gafpe out
my eloquence, norI haue no'cunning rn protefiation;
onely downe-tight Oarhes, which I neuet ere gill erg'd,
nor neuer breake for etgiog. If thou canfl lane a fellow
of this temper,Kate,whofe face isnot worth Sunne-bot-
oing ! that neuer looltes in his Glslfe, for lone .of any
thing he fees there? let thine Eye be thy Cooke. I fpeake
torhee plaine Souldiers If thou tsnli lent me for this,
talte me? if notPto fay to thee that 1 (ball dye.is true; but
for thy loue, by the L. No: yet I loue thee too,, And
while thou liu'fl,deare Kate, talte a fellow of plaine and
vncoyned Conflancie,for he perforce mull do thee tight,
beeaufe he hath not the gift to wooe in other places a for
thcfe fellowes of infinit tongue,that can ryme themfeloes
into Ladyes ianouts. they doe alwayes teafon themfeluea
out againe. What i a fpeahet is but i prarer. aRyme is
but a Ballad; a good Legge will fall, a flrait Backe will
floope.a bleclte Beard will tut ire white, a cnrl'd Pate will
grow bald.a fa e Face will wither, a full Eye 'erI was
hollow : but agood Heart, Kate, is the Sunne and the
Moone, or rathctthe Sunne, and not the Mount; for it
{hints bright. and neuer changes,but herpes his courfe
truly. If thou wo-rld haue fuch a one, take me P and
talte me; talte a Snuldier: take a Souldier; take a King.
And what fay'fl that: then to my Lone? fpeake my faire,
and fairely.l pray thee.

Kat’s. Is it pollible dat I fould louc dc anaemic of
Fraunce P

appear here in F1 inia new context:

... with [his] armour on [his] backe ...
should quickly leape into a wife.

Another example (see p. 81. second arrow) is that

wouldn't die of love for Kate. yet he loves

Leape-frogge,

the}

her

or

O I O

(P-

that some of his remarks found in Q

Henry

76.

third and fourth arrows) and stresses that his "Constancie"

(fifth arrow) is more valuable than rhetoric:

77

these fellowes of infinit tongue. that can ryme

themselves into Ladyes favours, they doe alwayes

reason themselves out againe.
His good heart (p. 76) is like the Sun that "shines bright
and never changes" (sixth arrow) and he is. above all. a
soldier and a king (seventh arrow). The fact that these
remarks are located in the same speech in F1 generates a
different effect: even though Henry uses them. like he does
in the two separate Q speeches. to express his plain
thoughts and intentions. in F1 he manages not only to state
blunt truths but to immediately soften them up with a touch
of romanticism. therefore coming across as much more
articulate. Finally. he entreats Kate to respond to his
“love" and she raises the same issue as in Q: how can she
love an enemy of her country (eighth arrow)? Precisely
because Henry's speech in F1 is seemingly dazzling we can
here wonder what the most appropriate paraphrase for Kate's
question is. How can she £995 59 loge him? Or how can she
be in lggg with him? The playtext is open to both

possibilities. and delivery (either a stiff Kate or a mellow

Kate) will clarify which is true.

But the placement of Kate's question "Is it possible
dat I sould love de ennemie of Fraunce?" at this point in F1
has another very important effect: their being enemies
becomes secondary. By challenging Harry before this question
in F1 with her remark "les langues des hommes sont plein de

tromperies" Kate indirectly states that she views sincerity

as a prerequisite for their relationship. Only when he

78

grants her that he talks like a "plain souldier" does she
move on to the technical problem they must face. This
accentuates irony in F1 because we once again see Harry lose
control over the action: it is the French Princess who
"directs" now. putting Harry in a vulnerable position
because he has to shift strategies in order to persuade her.
Her question in §1 therefore carries both the literal
message and an extra—semantic one. that is: I believe you
love me now. but we have other problems to discuss.

These effects are not present in Q. where Harry's
bluntness does not give her a chance to quit a powerless
role. The Q playtext possibilities are nevertheless diverse.
Kate may act unfriendly and shocked. so as to reject Henry.
She may act as if she has immediately fallen in love with
the macho Englishman whose impatience to lay her and "get a
boy" is clear: either intensely sexy or romanticaly carried
away. Q. in other words. can be played both as a potentially
stiff moment or as a lighter one. The same is basically true
of F1. but the small talk here allows for much more
playfulness. Kate can giggle. for example. stimulating
Henry's play acting and then suddenly unsettling him by
implying he deceives her. F1 gives her. for a moment.
control over the situation and by doing so nearly exposes
the "warlike" King to ridicule. while his primacy in Q is

systematically protected.

79

—v—

What Harry and Kate say to each other in each -version

prior to her raising the issue of political animosity also

shapes the effect of the continuation of their exchange

differently. Let us consider the passages:

Q(62v-Gar)

2»

Harry. No Kermit vnpollible
You {hould loue the enemie of F rm: t ‘ ..

'PorKareJlouefnncefowell, . - -..',

That Ile not leauea Villaoe, ~g - ._
lleluueitalltnine: then Kuq. _ ' z . g,»
When Frrnreismine, - j . " ." ' . ; 3.}.
AndIamyourr, . .. . , ..,'
ThenI-‘rnceiryotm, .. _. . , '..,.
And you are mine. , . ‘ _

Km. leannottellwhatudab, ,. of“. ;3'. -'°l ;.

I

Hm NO K336 3"; 'a.'.. 'a.- {:..-'- :‘Q-gfl . - : ":5.

'Why Ile tell it you in French, - "

Which will hang vpon tn tongueJike a bnd e
On her new married Hut and.'. . .' -. .. in ,,
Let me fee.Saint Dem be my, fpeed. z’, . *
03am Frau ct mon. ' ( _‘ ; -.-.
Kare. Dat irmhen Prowl: yours-r r3 .9351?
H077. Et vont etter army“ . f, , ..- _, ,5
Kate. Andlam toyon. ‘ ' - it, .:....-t -
H477. Douek Frau cites a trout: ‘ . . ;
Kare. Den Frau fall beanine. . ’ . t. ;

”Hwy. EtIefuyueravoua.

" Kare, Andyouwillbetome..

Ha. Wilt beleeue me Kare? tit ealier for an . i
To conquer the hngdome! (h! to fpeakfb much
More French. - .. .o . . . .

Km. A ) ottr Maiefly ha: fall'eI-‘ranrr inough

I :I'odeceiue de bell Lady tn Fran.

Harry. No faith Kare not]. ButKae,

In plain: termemlo 3 cu loue me. ’

80

F1 (H 93)

Kay. No.it it not pofl'tble you lhould loue the Ene-
mie of France,K.ere; but in louin me, you lhould loue
1 --5 the Friend of France : for I lnue Erance fo well, that I
will not part with a Village of it 3 I will haue it all mine:
and Kare,when France is mine,aud I am youragthen yours
is France,and you are mine.
-‘ Kati. I cannot tell wat is dat.

King. No,Xare! I will tell thee in French,which I am
fure will hang spon my tongue,liltea new-married Wife
about her Husbands N.-clte, hardly to be lhoolre of; Is
quad for Ie yoflrfl'we de France, d' pad man user It pf-
[:fl’m Jr may, -, Let mee fee,what then? Saint Dana's bee
my fpeeae) Done ooflre of} France, 6' your efles pair-mar.
It It as eafre for me,K4te,to conquer the Kingdomems to
fpeslte ('0 much more French : l [hall neuer rnoue thee in
Frenchvnlcfl’e it be to laugh at me.

3 —. Kerb. Sn} m/lre benearJe Ernest's que: we. pried,”
& when que [Aux/or} (e 71:! le pale.
King. No faith is't not, Kare.- but thyfpealting of
.... my Tongue , and I thine , molt truely tall'ely , mull
needes be grattnted to be much at one. But Kandoo’fl
thou vnderfland thus much Engliflta' Canfl thou loue
mee P

Henry explains that he loves France in both versions.

and that by being his Kate will still have France (first
arrows in each segment). She claims. also in both versions.
that she does not understand: "I cannot tell wat is dat"
(second arrow). But he goes on to say the same in French. In
Q she interacts with him and translates line by line.
finally accusing him of being false when he says his French
is poor: "A your Majesty has false France inough to deceive

de best Lady in France" (third arrow). Harry simply remains
in control by pretty much ignoring the remark and asking

whether she loves him.

F1 has more complex implications. First. Harry

proceeds to deliver his sentences in French without

interacting with Kate. who merely listens. After he

appologizes for his bad French she even responds

sympatheticaly. saying that his French is better than her

81

English (third arrow). This is predictable because. as
discussed above. she had already challenged his honesty in
F1 and is more prone to trust him rather than accuse him of
being false as she does in Q where that background does not
exist. At this point we feel the irony growing in F1.
whether she responds in a tone of mockery or seriously: she
may either be entertaining his play acting or truly like her
"enemy.“ When Harry remarks that they speak each other's
language "most truly falsely" (fourth arrow). however. we
are tempted to infer that he is being cynical with her all
along. But only a very fine line marks Henry's attitude. It
is very difficult. in both versions. to determine whether he
is being honest or not. Overall. however. F1 is consistently
more ironic because of additional differences in the
dialogue. as can be observed below:

Q (63 r)
Kate. I cannot tell. ‘.
H.077. No,can any of your neighbours tell!
Ileaskethcni '_
1 —. Come Karol know you loue rue.
And foone when you are in your clolIEt,
Youle quefiion this Lad of me.- '
But I pra thee {weete mvfe rue mercifully,
—§ Becaufe loue thee cruelly.

.That I {hall dye Karena fure t .

But for thy loue,by the Lord ueuer.

What Wench, “5.; 1;: -‘

'A llraighr Backe Will growe crooked.

A round eye will growe hollowe.

A great leg will tit/axe l'mall, '

A curlcl pate proue balde :

But a good heart Kate. is the fun and the moone,

And rather the Sun and not the Mount-5' .

And therefore Kate take me,

Take a fouldientake a fouldicrg

Take a King.

Iherefhre tell me Kanwilt thou haue rue!

-‘ . Kae. Dar it as pleafe the King my father.

F1 (H 93-94)

In both Q (P.

Kate

arrows

that

1-n>

5—5

7»

s—p

82

Kath. Icannor tel .

King. Can any of your Neighbours tell, Kale? ale
aslte them. Cnmc,I ltnow thou louell me :. and at night,
when you come into your Clnfet, you'le quellion this
Gentlewoman about me; and I know.Kete, you will to
her difprayfe thofe parts in me,that you loue with your
heart : but good Kate,tuoclte me mercifully, the rather

entle Princelfebecaufe l loue thee cruelly. lfeuer thou
Etch tnine, Kare, as l haue a fauing Faith within metells
me thnuthalt; I: get thee with sltambling, and thou
mull therefore needes proue a good Souldier.breeder:
Shall not thou and l, betweene SaintDrm and Saint
George, compound a Boy, halfe Fteuch halfe Englilh.

that lhall goe to Conliantinople. and talte the Turks by
the Beard. Shall wee not ? what fay'li thou,uty faire
Flowende-‘Luce.

m. I doe not know oat.

Kirg. No:'tis hereafter to ltnow,but now to promife:
doe but now promife Kate, you will endeauour for your
French part of fuch a Bey ; and for my Englilh moytie,
take the Word of a King, and a Batcheler. How snfwet
2m. L4 plan his Katherine dit mend: ms mfclm d- drain

I (a

£1”). Your Maieflee sue faul'e Frenthe enough to
deeeiue de mofl l'age Damoileil dat is en Fraunce.

Kin . Now fye vpon my fall's Frenchzby mine Honor
in true nglith loue thee Kare; by which Honor,l dare
not fweare thou loutfi meats my blood begins to flat-
serene, that thou doo'fi; notwithfianding the poets and
“tampering effect of my Vifage. Now bellitew my
Fathers Ambition, hee seas thinking of Ciuill Warres
when hee gut use , therefore was I created with a hub-
borne out-lide,with an afpea of Iron, that when I come
to woos Ladyes,l fright them: but in faith Kare, the el-
der I wamthe better I {hall appease. My'comfort i:,r hat
Old Age, that ill layer sp’ of Beautis, can doe no more
fpoyle tpon my Face. Thou hall me,if :hou hall me, at
the worfi; and thou {halt weare me. if thou weare me,
better and bytrer: and therefore t ll me,moli faire K4-
elm-ins, will you haue me? Put off your Maiden Illufhcs,
auouch the Thoughts of your Heart with the Inches of
anEmprelfe,talce me by the Hand , and fay, Harry of
England, I am thine: which \Vnrd thou {halt no fonner
blefl'e mine Eare withall, but I will tell thee alowtl, Eng-
land ls thine, Ireland is thine, France is thine, and Henry
War-rushes is thine ; who, though I fpealte it before his
Face, if he be not Fellow with the bell King, thou (halt
finds the bell King ofGood-fellowes. Come your An-
fwer in broken Muftck ; for thy Voyce is Mulick, and
thy Englilh brolten : Therefore Qtteene ofall,x.trl:m‘u,
brealte thy minde to me in broken Englil'n; wilt thou
haue me?

Kerb. Dar is as it “tell pleafe o'e Roy more pert.

81) and F1 (p. 82). Henry tries to persuade

she loves him:

in each version). He also claims

"I know thou lovest me"

to

love

(first

her

83

exceedingly: "I love thee cruelly" (second arrows in each
version). But what happens subsequently in each version has
unique effects.

Henry in Q urges Kate to believe that he has a good
heart. and that it will not change like other physical
attributes might: "... a good heart Kate. is ... the sun"
(third arrow). These remarks seem to make a big difference
for Kate. who now indirectly accepts Henry if that pleases
"the King my father" (fourth arrow). The placement of this
argument in Q seemingly determines. therefore. the end of
Harry's "battle" with Kate. As illustrated above (p. 76.
F1. sixth arrow) he says the same words in F1 much earlier
and they serve there only to improve Kate's confidence. In
effect. then. Henry's "battle" with Kate in F1 lasts much
longer.

As we can verify in F1. Henry at this point still has
to make his most important point. that is. telling Kate she
"needes proove a good souldier-breeder" (third arrow). Her
reticence ("I doe not know dat") forces Henry to entreat
her further: "How answer you. la plus belle Katherine du
monde. mon trecher [et] devin deesse" (fifth arrow). And she
once again unsettles him by commenting on his "false French"
(sixth arrow). Henry seemingly gets irritable and cries "fye
upon my false French" (seventh arrow). plunging into a long
speech that comes across as a desperate plea for Kate to

accept him. He even goads her saying that she will be the

"Queen of all," (ninth arrow) England. Ireland. France. and

84

Henry Plantaginet (eighth arrow). By doing this. whether
honestly or not. he indicates a disposition to receive Kate
as a Queen in F1 and allow her to have a voice in political
matters just as he does with Isabel moments before. In Q he

does not seem to view her as more than a breeder (2).

-vi—
Further evidence for the argument that Henry's attitude

towards Kate differs greatly in Q and F1 versions is found

as the final scene unfolds:
Q(Gar.v)

Harry. Nay it will pleafe him :
Nay it lhall leafs him Kare. .
1 —> And rpon t at condition Kare Ile kilfe you.
K40 mon du Ie ne voudroy faire quelke cholI'e
Pour route le monde, ' ‘ . ‘
Ce ne poynt votree fachiorr en fouor.
Harry. What fairs (he Lady t
Lad). Dar it is not de falion en France,
P9! .ds wwhfeu sis be Med to

May foy ie oblyeynhat is to balliet '. . ' .-: '; j
Her. To ltis,to ltit. 0 that tis not the 9 ; I :7

Falhion in Francefor the maydes to his c .s . .

Before they are married. . .
L447. Owye l'ee Vortee grace. . : r ...

3 —. Her. Well. weelebrcake that cuflome.
-. Therefore Kare patience perforce and yceld'. 3
Before God Kare. you haue witclrct alt
—> In your ltilres: -
5.... A nd may petfwade with me Mb".

Then all the French Coutscell..- .- .. ~
Your lather is returned. "

Enter the King ofFrarit'e, (til:
the Lord“.

85

F1 (H 94)

King. Nay,tt will pleat'e him well, Kare; it {hall pleafe
hitn,Kare.
Karla- Den it fall alfo content me.
» King. Vpon that I ltifl'e your Hand, and I till you my
“‘30:.
Karla. Larfl'e meat Srrgnm, I'ait'eflar'fe, may fay .- Ie ne
em [satyre om allarfe 90/7" grandeur . en 6arfanr Ie
ruin lune neflre Salaminu'rguieferurtm exenfe any. [a
vent fitypln use» tref-pmfllsut Sergnel'.
2» Kin . Then I will kill: your LippchCate.
Kat . Let Dame: dDanmfiIr pear e/lre dag/3e deans
(our unprefi r‘l net par le ctr/larvae de France.
Kin . Madame.my Inter reter.what fayes (hee?
Lani}. Dar it is not be e falhon pourle Ladies of
Fraunee ; l'cannot tell was is buifl'e en Anglilh.
Ki" 0 To kill-C. .
1, Your Maieflee enrendre Germ qua um,
King. It is not a fafhiotr for the Maids in Fraunce to
kiffe before they are marryed,would lhe fay?
Lad}. Org veraynmrt.

_. King. 0 Kare, nice Culiomes cutie to great Kings.
Deare Kare, you and! cannot beepnfin'd within the
weake Lyll of a Countreyes falhioh : _wee are the ma-

‘ —. hers of Manners, Kare; and the libertie that followea
our Places, flapper the mouth of all finde-faults , as I
II. willdoe yours, for vpholdiug the nice falhion of your

Countrey, in denying rue a Kilfe : therefore patiently,
and yeelding. You haue Witch-craft in your Lippes,

5* Kate.- there is more eloquence in a Sugar touch of
them, then in the Tongues of the French Couneell; and
they lhould fooner petfwade Hero of England, then a
generall Petition of Monarchs. Hesse comes your
Father-

Enrrr the Pearl Paternal rbe£ngly1p
Lair.

The issue revolves around the kiss. In Q Henry tries to kiss
Kate as soon as he has the cue "Dat is as please the King my

father.“ And he insists on kissing her (first arrow). with

words that mandate a rather aggressive pursuit. since he
openly disrespects Kate in at least two ways: by wanting to
"break" a cultural custom. and by forcing her to do so ("...
perforce and yeeld" second and third arrows). This verbal
forcefulness naturally mandates an equal physical effect.
such as a struggle during which Kate pulls away from Henry

and does not allow him to kiss her. Of course Henry's remark

86

"you have witchcraft in your kisses" (Q. fourth arrow)
might suggest their lips do touch. but may also express what
he imagines her kisses would be like. Whether or not they
kiss. Henry is assertive both physically and verbally about
Kate's physical power over him: "... [she] may persuade with
[him] more. then all the French Councell" (fifth arrow).

In F1 (p. 85) Henry does not pursue this desire to kiss
Kate so roughly. Even though Henry accomplishes exactly the
same in F1. his strategy is very different. First. he is
less aggressive and begins by wanting to kiss Kate's hand.
while stressing that he views her as his Queen (first
arrow). When she protests. he teases her by threatening to
kiss her lips (second arrow). Then. he describes the custom
of not kissing as "nice" (third and fifth arrows). Finally.
he aptly argues that they. as King and Queen. "are the
makers of manners" (fourth arrow) and may therefore change
the custom. F1. simply put. allows for Henry to be sly. to
act smoothly and get closer to Kate. In fact. his comparing
the touch of her lips with sugar (sixth arrow) is an
indication that he does. "patiently". steal a kiss. But Q
seems to mandate rude. hurried acting and makes him come
across as a "humper." Moreover. Q is much less dignifying

for the French than F. especially because in Q Harry does
not explicitly attempt to treat Kate as much more than a
prospective sexual partner.

Both versions. nevertheless. allow for Henry to be

hypocritical and this is perhaps the greatest irony of all

87

in Hgggy g. which serves as a metaphor of real life: there
is a very fine line indeed between fiction and reality. We
can only choose to doubt or believe. but we can seldom trust
that whatever or whomever we believe is true. Given this
possibility. Kate's reticence while interacting with Harry
in both versions can be interpreted as a reflection of her
very bewilderment while trying to decide whether he speaks
truly or falsely. Likewise. Henry's diplomacy in F1 reflects
perhaps his own uncertainty as to whether it is he or France
who controls the action. as if he had gotten trapped in his
own scheme of fiction. In sum. Hgggy 2 F1 is much more

loaded with a meta—language than the Q version.

—vii-
As might be expected. Q does not embody further support
for the above interpretation because. with the King of
France's return. there is an abrupt shift in focus to the

political dimension:

Q (63 v)

Before God Kare. you haue witcl. Cl alt
In \ our Lilies:

A nd ma) petfnade with me more.
Then all the FrenchCouucell..-:-

'u

Yourl'atlterisreturnecl. . ... . .

Enter the King oantnctmdl.
‘ t/Je Lander.

How no or my Lords. ’
France. Brother ofErtgland, ..-
"".- \Vehaue orered the Articles, "

—9 And h ue agreed to all that we in’ fedule had.

F1 (H 94)

2”

4»

B—m

a»

10»

88

Kate .- there is more eloquence in a Sugar touch of
them. then in the Tongues of the French Counceil; and
they lhould fooner petfwade Hat-g of England, then a
generall Petition of Monarchs. Heere comes your
Father.

5nter the Freud: Parental the Englfly j.-
Lfidt '

Hug. God faue your Maieliie, my Royall Coulin ,
teach you our Princetl'e Englifh ?

King. I would haue her leame, my faire Coulin, how
perleflly l loue her,and that is good Englilh.

larg. Is [hee not apt P

King. Our Tongue is rough,Coze, and my Conditi-
on is not fmooth : fo that hauing neyther the Voyte nor
the Heart of l-latterie about me,I cannot fo eoniure rp
the Spirit of Lotte in her, that hee will appease in his true
likencll‘e.

Tn-rg. Pardon the franltneffe of my mirth,if I anfwer
you for that. If ou would eoniure in her, you mull
malteaCtrcie : izconiure sp Loue in her in his true
likenefl‘e, hee mull appeare naked, and blrnde. Can you
blame her then, being a Maid , yet read ones with the
Virgin Ctrmfon of Modeflie, iffhee deny the apparanee
of a naked hlinde Boy in her naked leeing felfe? It were
(my Lord) a hard Condition for a Maid to couligne
to. .
King. Yet they doe winlte and yeeld, as Loue is blind
and enforces.

2mg. They are then eseus'd,my Lord,when they fee
not what they doe.

King. Then good my Lord, teach your Coufm to
confeur winking.

'Bnrg. I will winke on her to ennfentnny Lotd,ifvou
will teach her to ltnow my meaning: for Maidcs well
Sttnrmer'd, and warme ltept, are like Flyes at Bartholo-
tnew- tyde, blinde, though they haue their eyes,and then
they wzll endure handlingmhich before would not 'abide
looking on.

Kit-g. This Moral! tyes me ouer to Time, and a hot
Summer; and fo Ilhall catch the Flye , your Coufin, in
the latter end.and fhec mull be blinde to.

Hang. M Loue is my Lord,before it loues.

King. Is is fat and you may, fame of you, thanlte
Loue tor nay blindnell'e, who cannot fee many a faire
French Cltie for one faire French Maid that liands in my
way.

Frrnrb Kin . Yes my Lord, you fee them perfpec-
tiuely: the éities turn'd into a Maid ; for they are
all gyrdled with Maiden Walls, that Warre hath en-
tred. -

England. Shall Kate be my ‘Vife?

France. So pleafe you. ,

England. I am content, fo the Maiden Cities you
talke of, may wait on her: fo the Maid that flood in
at)?” for my With, lhall thew me the way to my

I o
f Pratt. Wee haue confented to all tearmes of tea-n
Ono

fnglmd. Is't fo,my Lords of England?

Ire/l. The King hath graunted euery Article:

His Daughtrt firli; and in feqttele,all,
According to their firms ptopofcd natures. -‘ ‘ ‘

89

In Q (p. 87) Harry greets the Lords, and the King of
France immediately remarks that he agreed with all the
articles (second arrow). The fact that France does not
inquire about Harry's conversation with Kate makes their
marriage come across as taken for granted. and not an issue
for discussion. Such is not the case in F1.

The long exchange between Harry and Burgundy exclusive
to F1 (p. 88) not only emphasizes the courtship theme but
also tells us that Kate has so far resisted Harry's wooing.
The tense in Henry's line "I would have her learn" (first
arrow) suggests that she was not receptive to him. and
Burgundy's question "is shee not apt?" (second arrow) in
effect seeks an explanation. Henry "cannot so conjure up the
spirit of love in her" (third arrow). This is a crucial
difference because it defines to a great extent the kind of
interpretation the actress playing Kate has to build up
during her exchange with Harry in F1: unyielding and
suspicious.

Burgundy speculates as to why Kate resists: "if [you]
conjure up Love in her in his true likenesse, hee must
appeare naked. and blinde" (fourth arrow). Beyond the
literal reference to Cupid, the line has a figurative
dimension: Henry cannot make his love seem believable, does
not communicate intense, "naked and blind feelings.“ This is
a subtle suggestion in F1 that Henry has indeed been

hypocritical, and that Kate in essence cannot trust him.

Quickly, however, Burgundy plays on words and, rather than

90

scorning Henry, asks him to understand that this is "a hard
condition for a maid to consign to" (fifth arrow). But
Henry does not seem to care whether he and Kate are truly in
love: that would tie him "over to time" (seventh arrow).
He'd rather have her "wink" (sixth arrow), close her eyes
and yield to him perforce, like the "maiden walls that warre
hath entred" (eighth arrow). Consequently, the courting
episode in F1 comes across as a war of words that parallels
the battle, so to speak, because in it Henry once again
tries to subdue France, this time in the person of Kate. And
Henry's betrothal to Kate emerges as a metaphor of France's
defeat at Agincourt: Kate is like the “maiden cities [and]
shall shew [him] the way to [his] will" (ninth arrow).

Even though the same could generally apply to Q, the
ironic potential of F1 is more evident because of the very
idea of an exchange between Henry and Burgundy that is
about a private conversation of Henry's. Even though this
exchange can be played rather formally and is archly witty.
Burgundy asks about Kate as if he had great intimacy with

Henry. And by taking up the subject when Burgundy asks about

Kate. Henry indirectly invites him to make speculations
which. overall, suggest that Henry is not exactly in

control. In Q, where the subject of Kate's feelings is never
brought up, Henry emerges as truly domineering. If we
continue examining the two versions, in effect, F1
systematically undermines Henry's supremacy whereas Q

preserves it.

Q(GSV-Gdr)

F1 (H 95)

»

91

. Exe. Only he hath not fubfcribed this,
Where your maiellie demaunds“: ;. ‘. . .I! .
.That the kingofFrance hauing inyoecafion:
To write for matter ofgraunr,

Shall name your highnelle, in this former .
And with this addition in French. ' ..

Noflre rre/Lerfite, Henry Ra} D'Ang/dterre; .
Ebearede FrauenAnrl thus in Latin : ° 3 ‘.. 3'
Precinnflimusfiba no/Ier Hem-3cm, Rex Aug/res. .
Er here: Frantic; : -' ' ' ' ' ' '

.. 3‘ :...'-.. . .e . . °
From Nor this haue we l'o nicely floodypon,

0;? ‘0

2 I . But you faire brother may intreat the {asset

4—.

- Har. Why then let this among (hf-3' tell.
_ Haue his fulleourfe s And with";
Your daughter Kat/resin: in manage}

Fran. This and what ell'e,
-Your maiellie {hall craue. '

God that difpol'eth a‘l,giue you until: icy;~

Exet. Onely he hath not yet fubl'eribed this :

- Where your Maieflie demands,That the King of France

5»

bauiog any oeeaiion to write for matter of Graunr, lhall
name your Highnefl'e in thls forme, and with this additi-
on, in French : Noflre trefelxrfile. Henry Re} {Anglers-re
Hereten dc franc-e .- and thus in Latine; Free/«Wm
Filira nnfler Hearing Rex Al!!!“ 6" Here: Francis.

France. Not this I haue not Brother {0 deny'd,

'But your requell lhall make me let it pafl'e..
3—9 -

England. [pray you then,in loue and deare allyance,
Let that one Article ranlte with the tell,
And thereupon giue me your Daughter. ‘

-Eraee.Taltt het faire Sonne.anil from her blood rayl'e vp
Illile to me, that the contending liingdomes
Of France and England,whofe 'very thoaies loolte pale,
With enuy of each orhers happinell'e.
May eeafe their hatred; and this deare Coniunflion
Plant Neighbour-hood and Chriflian-like accord
ln their'fweet Bofomes: that neuer Warte aduance
His bleeding Sword 'twistt England and faire france.
Lords. Amen.
King. Now welcome Kate: and hear: me witncll'e all,
That here I kill: her as my Soueraigne (hieene.
' Flourifli.
Qty. God,the befl maker of all Marriages,
Combine your hearts in one,your Realmes in one:
As Man and Wife being two.are one in loue,
So be there 'twhtt your Kingdomes fueh a Spoul’all,
That neuer may ill Office, or fell iealoufie,

Which troubles ol't the Bed of blell'ed Marriage,
Thrufl in [shaken the Pation of thefe Kingdomes,
To make diuoree ofihei'r incorporate Lea ue:
That Englifls may as Ftench,French Engligimen,
Receiue each other. God fpealte this Amen.

AR. Amen.

92

The very idea of France's not "subscribing" to the way
Henry's title reads in the document (p. 91. first arrows in
Q and F1) and yet saying that he might change his mind to
please him (second arrows) is exceedingly ironic in both
versions. Simply, what is at stake is the crown of France.
and not just a name detail: by changing this article France
retains kingship. By accepting the change Henry settles for
less than what he originally demanded and becomes the hgig,
rather than the King of France. The irony is also augmented
in F1 by the fact that one of Henry's most powerful speeches
about wanting to take over France appears exclusively in F1:

now we are resolv'd, and ... France being ours,

wee'l bend it to our Awe, 0r breake it all to
peeces. Or there wee'l sit, (Ruling in large and

ample Emperie, Ore France, and all her (almost)
Kingly Dukedomes) ... (H 72)

What F1 presents us in the final scene is a Henry who is
quite far from sitting in the throne of France!
But Henry's unique responses also generate different

effects as to the degree of control over the situation he

actually has. The Q version, "let this among the rest"
(third arrow). is assertive because of the imperative form
of the verb. In the F1 version, "I pray you then, in love

and dear allyance. let that one article rank with the rest"

(third arrow). Henry is clearly lenient and invites the
Council to decide, as the verb "pray" linked with the first
person. and the vocative "you" linked with the verb "let"

indicate. Even though Exeter and France restate his power by

93

asking him to give the final word, Henry obscures such power
by expressing his agreement in form of a request rather than
of an order like he does in Q. In Q Henry proudly continues
to use an authoritative tone, almost as if he cannot realize
the full implications of the article change.

At this point we are compelled to argue that Kate has
a decisive influence upon Henry, especially because right
after agreeing on becoming the heir of France he once again
insists that she be given to him in marriage when he already
knows that France granted all the other articles (p. 87. Q.
second arrow - p. 88, F1, tenth arrow). On the other hand we
cannot simply say that Henry is a loser for agreeing to
become the heir of France and doing so in order to gain a
wife. Historically, we know that the French did make serious
concessions other than giving Kate away in marriage and to
a great extent yielded to England's power. In the Treaty of
Troyes (cf. Chambers et al.) Charles VI declared the Dauphin
illegitimate, named Henry V his successor and gave him
direct rule over French territory north of the Loire River.

These relationships help to remind us that Henry's triumph

is a fact in both versions. Q, however, accentuates this
triumph with Henry's authoritative tone while F1 obscures it
with his lesser assertiveness. The French King's response to
the marriage subject further confirms this notion.

In Q (p. 91) France agrees to whatever " ... [his]

majesty shall crave." (fourth arrow) The verb crave

indirectly conveys his acknowledgement that Henry remains

94

powerful. In F1 (p. 91) France's words are ironic,
especially because his capacity to accept defeat comes
across as superhuman and therefore the sincerity of his
words becomes questionable. Does he actually view Harry as a
"fair Sonne" (fourth arrow), and wish to see he and Kate
"rayse up" offspring (fifth arrow) who "may cease their
hatred" (sixth arrow)? Or does he mean that he will never
cease hating England but perhaps hopes that his
grandchildren will? Whether France "plays" or not, F1
consistently suggests that France wins control over the
situation by taking advantage of Henry's own leniency.
Additional evidence for this is the fact that in F1 it
is the French voice that dominates the action, while Henry's
major concern is kissing Kate publicly as his "Soveraigne
Queene" (eighth arrow). Interestingly, this kiss in F1
further fulfills Henry's desire to get physically close to
Kate, especially if the first kiss never occurs. Meanwhile,
Queen Isabel's final speech, which comes across as a kind of
epilogue, in effect leaves with the French the role of

bringing concord into focus in a "play" that Henry

technically began. The French King's reticence and Queen

Isabel's silence in Q (if she is present), on the other
hand, not only help emphasize Henry's dominance but imply
that the French are not as content or prone to friendly
interaction in Q as they appear to be in F1. And the
possibility of discontent can be easily justified if we

remember that France, whether by choice or not, has had to

95

name an enemy of nearly eight decades heir besides giving

him a daughter in marriage.
In light of the above, the final lines of Henry 2 in

each version also have unique effects:

Q (G4 r)

.... Her. Why then faire Kat/urine.
2 —. Currie gitte are shy hand: '
Our manage “all we prefent folcmnife,
in... And end our hatred by a bond of loue.
Then will I l'weare to Kue,and Kate to mee : ..
And may our vowes once made, rnbtoken been

FINIS.

F1 (H 95)

1 \
King. Prepare we for our Marriage : on which day.
-.. .My Lord of Burgundy wee'le take your Oath ,
And all the Peeres.for furetie of our Leagues.
3 » , Then {hall I {weare to Kare-,and you to me,
And may our Oarhes well kept and profp'rous be.
Sener. E xennt.

Enter Clients.

Thus (me with rough,and allanable Pen,
4 -. Our bending AUthor hath purl'u'd the Story,
In little roome confining mightie men,
.hlangling by flarts the full courl'e oftheir glory.
Small time: but in that {mailman greatly liued
—-’ This Starte of Englandfottune made his Swords
By which,the Worlds bell Garden he archieued:
And of it left his Sonne lmperiall Lord.
—.- He") the Sixt.in Infant Bands crown'd King
Othance and England,tlid this King fuceeed:
\Vhofe State l'o rrianyhadthemsnaging, .
7 That theyloflFrance,and madehis En land bleed:
-> \Vhich ol't our Stage hath ihowne ; an f'ortheir l‘ak‘l,‘
In your faire minds let this acceptance take.

Q does not generate very romantic action. In

particular. it does not call for Henry to kiss Kate a second

time as F1 (p. 91, eighth arrow) does. Rather. in Q he asks

95

name an enemy of nearly eight decades heir besides giving
him a daughter in marriage.
In light of the above, the final lines of Henry 2 in

each version also have unique effects:

Q (G4 1‘)

..., Her. Why then faire Kat/smite.
a -. Come gitte me thy hand: '
Out manage will we prefent folemnife,
. And end our hatred by a bond of lnue.
Then will I l'wcare to Kue,and Kate to mee : ..
And may our vowes once made, vnbroken beg.

FINIS.

F1 (H 95)

1

King. Prepare we for our Marriage : on which day,
—.. .My Lord ofBurgundy wee'le take your Oath ,
And all the PeeresJor furetie of our Leagues.
3 -. , Then [hall I lweare to Kerqarid you to me,
And may our Oarhes well kept and profp'rous be.

Sevres. Exeant.
Enter C frame.

Thus fast: with rough,and allanable Pen,
4 -. Out bending Author hath purl'u'd the Story,
In little roome confining mightie men,
.hlangling by (lasts the full courl'e oftheir glory.
Small time: but in that fmall,mo{l greatly liued
-. This Starse of Englandforrune made his Swords
By which,the Worlds bell Garden he atchieued:
And of it left his Sonne Imperiall Lord.
-.- Henry the Sixt.in Infant Bands crown'd King
Ostance and England,ilid this King (uceeed:
\Vhofe State (a rrlanyhadthemanaeing, .
7 That theylolerance,and madehis En 'and bleed:
-. \Vhich oft our Stage hath {how-he ; an fosrheir fab,’
In your faire minds let this acceptance take.

Q does not generate very romantic action. In

particular. it does not call for Henry to kiss Kate a second

time as F1 (p. 91, eighth arrow) does. Rather, in Q he asks

96

her: "Come give me thy hand" (second arrow). His use of the
verb "come" implies that she is physically far from him, and
that h: perhaps reaches out to her. The "bond of love" of Q
is thus symbolized by the holding of hands, which hardly
comes across as passionate. Relating this moment with others
in Q such as the one during which Henry wanted to kiss Kate
"perforce“ (p. 84. Q. third arrow), with the Queen's and the
Dauphin's silence or possible absence from the scene, and
with the reticence of both Burgundy and Charles VI, it is
plausible to state that Q ends with an overwhelming sense of
distance between France and Henry: France simply persists in
its reluctance to yield to the aggressive and blunt King of
England. Such distance has the effect of placing Henry into
prominence, especially if the French stand backstage while
Henry delivers the last lines or leave quickly after he
finishes.

The F1 version allows for another kind of effect. since
by the time Henry delivers the line "Prepare we for our
marriage" (p. 95, F1, first arrow) he is physically close to
Kate, whom he has just kissed, and probably to France and
Queen Isabel, whose lines have a friendly tone that nearly
demands closeness in blocking. With closeness all of the

characters come into focus, which implies that France in F1
does not allow Henry to emerge as the sole victor.

In sum, Q ends with an emphasis on Henry's union with
Kate per se while F1 also recalls the political union with

France. Another obvious indication of this is the different

97

vocatives in each version. Henry addresses his words to
"Katherine" (first arrow) in Q (p. 95.) In F1 (p. 95, second
arrow) he is primarily concerned with taking an Oath from
the Lord of Burgundy, even though he makes a shift of
address to Kate (third arrow). These features accentuate
Henry's marriage as a political bond in F1. rather than as a
"bond of love" like in Q (third arrow).

Keeping the above relationships in mind, it is
plausible to conclude that the Q ending of Hgggy 2
generally celebrates an historical king whose weaknesses are
cleverly obscured by the French reticence. The agreeableness
of the French in F1, on the other hand. emerges as part of
a mockery scheme because it re-establishes Henry's authority
as less than total. I say re-establishes because in F1 we
have earlier and explicit indication that Henry is highly
manipulable: the opening scene, which like the Chorus
passages is not in Q, clearly indicates that the Archbishop
of Canterbury stirs the war in order to defend the Church's
interests. Thus, Henry's virtue in F1 is highly

questionable. since all Canterbury had to do in order to

distract him from the bill that involved confiscation of
Church property was to take advantage of Henry's enthusiasm
for war and goad him with money. In Q we are given the
impression that Henry begins considering a claim to France's
crown on his own because the play begins with his own
questioning the Bishop about the plausibility of such claim.

even though he remarks that the Bishop will "incite" him and

98

"awake the sleeping sword of warre" (Q A2r).

Thus, and despite the fact that Henry emerges-as the
King who brought about the historical union between England
and France in the ending of both versions, F1 is
systematically more satirical than Q in regard to his power
both in the self-contained world of the play and in reality.

Further evidence for this is found in the sonnet
epilogue exclusive to F1, which invites us to engage
ourselves in the historical dimension by transporting us
from the theatrical dimension to reality, and then back to
the stage world as if the two were a continuum:

Our bending Author hath pursu'd the Story ...

[of] this Starre of England ... [who]

left his sonne ...

Henry the Sixt

Whose state so many had the managing,

That they lost Fransce. and made his England bleed:

Which our stage hath showne
As the above excerpt from the sonnet suggests, F1 undermines
Henry's triumph both as a character in the fiction and as a

mythical hero in England's history because it emphasizes the
public loss which took place when his son, Henry VI, became
King. The historical effects of Henry's war are set in a
perspective that shows that they did not last, since the son

he bred with France not only did not conquer Constantinople

but lost what his father had won.

The final scene of F1. in addition to establishing an
historical framework in connection with the Chorus passages,

makes the audience aware that drama merges to a great

99

extent reality and fiction, and that the theater remains as
a "viewing place" not only for amusement, but for the re-
creation of human experience in general.

Thus, and very interestingly, the ending of F1 comes
across as a dramatization of the words assigned to Jacques
in fig ygg 9153 it: "All the world's a stage, and all the men

and women, merely players" (F1 C 194).

100

Notes for Chapter III

1
There are two other quartos dated 1602 and 1608,

respectively, which are derivative from Q1 and are therefore
not given independant authority.

2
Interestingly, Isabel's silence and possible absence

in Q further undermines the role of women in that version.
Feminist criticism apart, Q and F1 versions of H5351 2
generally provide different views of women. Simply put, Q
is much more men-centered than F1. Q also show us, for
example. a rather powerless Kate, and possibly a silent
Queen Isabel during thefinal scene. Of course, most of the
action in both versions involves men in a world of politics
and war. But when the action moves to the Court world in
the final scenes we can see that it is men who continue
dominating the dialogue in Q, whereas in F1 Queen Isabel's
role and her various speeches allow for a substantially

different effect.

CHAPTER IV

"Hamlet is a Prince"

The three earliest playtexts of Hamlet are the first
quarto of 1603 (Q1). the second quarto of 1604-05 (Q2). and
the 1623 Folio (F1). Clearly. and as Urkowitz (1986) has
argued, conflated editions "bury three different Hamlets".
but it is on them that criticism has thrived. Hamlet may
well be everyman as Lewis argued, or perverted and evil
(e.g.. West). or noble and heroic (e.g.. Alexander. Bowers
1967), or even a Freudian case (e.g.. Jones). But we have
been too engrossed with Judeo-Christian and/or reductionist
tendencies that shape "readings" of the tragedy (more of
this in Prosser. Walker 1948) and forgotten that the
"complete" Hamlet is a product of emendation and therefore
possibly far removed from what Shakespeare created.

Standards of textual purity. that is. of what playtext

comes closer to Shakespeare's intention. have been set
particularly by the work of four scholars: A.W. Pollard.
J.D. Wilson. G.I. Duthie, and A. Walker. A general
agreement exists that Q2 is the most authoritative version
of Hgmlgt. Pollard (1909) distinguished between a good
quarto (Q2) and a bad or pirated one (Q1). Wilson (1934),

after a thorough analysis and interpretation of the variants

101

102

in available copies of Q2 and F1, concluded that Q2 was
printed from Shakespeare's original and was therefore the
purest version of Hamlet. F1, Wilson believes. originated in
the Globe promptbook. Duthie, already accepting Q2 as the
best playtext, attempts to explain the origin of Q1 by
arguing it was a memorial reconstruction. Walker (1951.
1953) establishes a relationship between Q1, Q2 and F1
drawing on errors which are common to all versions. A
process of revision underlies her theory, in which Q2 was
printed from Q1 throughout Act I. and F1 was an edited
playtext or collation of a Q2 copy throughout with the
promptbook. Factors other than textual analysis also seem
to have influenced those who view Q2 as a superior playtext.
Among these stands out. for example. the remark on the
title-page of Q2 describing it as “newly imprinted and
enlarged ... according to the true and perfect Coppie."
Three existing reprints of Q2 the so-called Q3 (1611), Q4
(n.d.). and Q5 (1637), also indicate Q2 was indeed preferred
as a copy-text during the seventeenth century.

I will focus my discussion on F1 and Q2. I do so
because Q2 is still viewed as the most reliable version. I
will systematically indicate in notes. nevertheless. what

kind of implications emerge from Q1 because I do not want
to ignore this third playtext nor simply discard it as a
"bad" version of Hamlet.

The bulk of Hamlet criticism has been absorbed with

matters such as why Hamlet "delays." One begins to wonder.

103

however, if conflation itself has not shaped playtexts which
mislead us into defining Hamlet as a procrastinator.
especially when we find that at least one person speaking
on the basis of original versions of the playtexts (probably
the first folio) did not seem to be annoyed by Hamlet's
"delaying" at all:

Hamlet is represented with the same piety
towards his father. and resolution £9 revenge his
death, as Orestes: (Rowe, 1709 - underlining mine)

My discussion will eventually address the delay problem, but
what I particularly want to illustrate is how the various
playtexts pose different endings altogether. especially in
respect to how Hamlet's actions are associated with the
State of Denmark.

Even though the "official" title of what we commonly

call Hamlet is The Tragedie 9f Hamlet. Prince 9; Denmarkg in

 

the headings of both Q2 and F1 versions. the Q2 title page
also lists the play as The Tragicall Historie 9; Hamlet.
Prince 9: Denmarke.l The words "Historie" and "Prince"
compell us to view the play as an episode in Denmark's

history as well as the tragedy of Hamlet alone.

Such details. like Polonius' statement "Hamlet is a
Prince" (Q2 E4 v, F1 T 261),2 which I chose for the title
of this chapter. might seem uninteresting to the average
critic. Of course, the fact Hamlet i§ a prince is as much
of a taken-for-granted truth as the play's title or its

criticism based on conflated playtexts. These are issues

that provoke. nevertheless. an important question: if Hamlet

104

is indeed a Prince. how is this function brought to bear in
the play? To what extent are there connections between his
actions and the State of Denmark? The answer is sharply

different if we consider the various versions of the play.

-1-

Variations in the final scenes of Hamlet in Q2 and F1
shape radically different effects. Simply put. F1 presents a
protagonist whose actions and death are more fully
associated with the political integrity of Denmark than are
those of the Q2 protagonist. A subtle detail during

Fortinbras' final speech seems to establish this contrast

3
very clearly:
02 (02 r) F1 (T 280)
i . . ', ' kirdwhfi:fiub 6h tfi
gggfgcbfild?bgfhi;€ 03ml! We. Eating; the Field. buct h:er§ (lines lunch amis.
Goabidthefouldiers llaoote. “ohd'b‘w'm “m"- .

Because in F1 Fortinbras directs that only "the body" be
"taken up." we have reason to believe that only Hamlet's
corpse is to be raised or lifted, ultimately drawing the
audience's attention solely to him. The Q2 version, in which

all the "bodies" should be raised, allows for Hamlet to be
viewed in a position of equality with the other dead

characters. F1 singles out Hamlet as the point of final
focus, while Q2 does not. Many other differences in the

playtexts shape the unique effect of the final scene in each

105

version.

The first major variation in the final scene between Q2

and F1 playtexts is found during Hamlet's conversation with

4
Horatio about his intent to kill Claudius:

Q2 (N2 r)

Hm. WhywbaeaKingisthisl
- Hon. Dooes it nonbinke thee ihndmenovapon 9'
He that hath kild as King, and whor'd mymother,
Pop'tin betweeoe 'elechon and my hopes,
Throwne out his Angléfor my pro er life,
.And with fuel: cufnage. i‘ll not p efieonfcience f
zmaeamnmt
’

F1 ('1‘ 259)

Her. Why,what a King is this i
Ham. Does it not, thiriltll thee, “and me now
He that hath kil‘d my King. 'and whor’d my Mother,
Popt in betweene th’elefhon and my hopes,
Throwne out his Angle for my proper life,
And with {uch co ozenage; is't not pesfefi conl'cieoce,
1 -‘ To quit him with this acme ? And is't not to be damn'd
.9 To let this Canker of our nature come
In further euill.
-. Her. Itmuli be firorrly knowoe to him from England
~ What is the ill'ue of the bulinell'e there.
Has. It will be (host,
The interim? mine,and a mans life’s no more
—> Then to by one: but I am very (any good Heretic,
That to Lame: I forgot my felfe;
—. For by the image of my Caul'e,l fee
The Portraiture of his ; Ile count his fauours:
Bu: {use the brauery of his griefe did put me
Into a Towring pallion.
6 —. Her. Peace,who comes heere?
Essays-g: Ofii'ek.

4

Hamlet is obssessed with his murdered father in both F1
and Q2. Several variants within the above segments.
however. shape Hamlet's motivation to revenge differently in

each version.

106

The placement of an interruption by a Courtier in Q2
and by Young Osrick in F1 is perhaps the most obvious of
them. In Q2 Hamlet's discourse is cut short and ended by
the Courtier's entrance5 as he is asking a question (p.
105. Q2. first arrow): "i'st not perfect conscience?" The
immediate effect is that the focus of action abruptly shifts
to the Courtier. This is an unsettling experience not only
for Hamlet and Horatio but also for the audience because all
are forced to break their engagement with the revenge theme
which is the focus of Hamlet's questions. We therefore don't
know what Horatio's reaction to him is. and find that
questioning both ambiguous and obscure. With the echo of
"Does it not thinke thee stand me now upon?“ and "... i'st
not perfect conscience?" in our minds we. on the one hand.
have the impression that Hamlet seeks reassurance: we almost
wait to hear Horatio encourage Hamlet to kill Claudius after
learning that, besides murdering a brother, he has plotted
against a nephew's life as well. It is as if Hamlet were not
yet certain he has enough grounds to kill Claudius and, by
"reviewing" the facts with Horatio, he once again reminds
himself of what his motives are. or should be. On the other
hand, we wonder if Shakespeare is employing the figure

"interrogatio", in which case Hamlet may be emphasizing
Claudius' crimes with no intention of eliciting a response
in Horatio. But whichever Hamlet's attitude is. all his

reasons to kill Claudius up to the moment of the Courtier's

interruption in 02 remain focused on himself: a plot to take

107

_i§ life like a naive fish's, _i§ murdered King, gig whored
mother. gig frustrated ambitions to the throne. Hamlet's
motivation to kill Claudius in Q2 thus appears to be
essentially personal.6 Projecting this on stage, we almost
expect a long speech rather than an interruption, or at
least that Hamlet's voice sound like that of the man who
systematically broods about his own losses in the
soliloquies of previous scenes. The Courtier's interruption
in Q2 thus has as violent an effect as the breaking of a
spike that causes the mountain-climber to fall back a long
way and, unsettled. to lose focus on the final goal at least
temporarily.

The interruption by young Osrick in F1 occurs only
after Hamlet has completed the question that is interrupted
in Q, asked a longer question, received a response from
Horatio, expanded on the subject of his "cause", and heard
Horatio's warning of someone approaching before young Osrick
enters (p. 105, F1, last arrow): "Peace, who comes heere?"
Such placing makes the interruption less abrupt, since the
new entrance becomes expected. But it also allows for Hamlet
to retain the audience's attention, with Shakespeare
assigning him more lines.

This second variation has much wider implications than
a mere difference in length of dialogue. Overall, Hamlet's

lines exclusive to F1 change our perspective because we are

given fuller access to his viewpoint on the revenge task.

Two features contribute to generate the unique effect of F1

108

(p. 105): the phrase "let this canker of our nature" (second
arrow) and Horatio's reply to Hamlet (third arrow). Let us
consider each of these.

Whereas Hamlet's speech in Q2 ends with the
uncompleted and ananswered question “is't not perfect
conscience?", it continues in F1 (first arrow):

"is't not perfect conscience to quit him with this
arme? And is't not to be damn'd to lg: ghig

Canker 9; our nature come in further evil.“
(underlining mine)

 

The new question, or statement if we consider the
punctuation. introduces a crucial issue: whether Hamlet
seeks Horatio's reassurance or not, he reveals a more
confident state of mind particularly in his phrase "let this
canker of our nature.“ several details of which must be
noted.

First. the verb "let” itself is a subtlety, suggesting
that Hamlet now understands he 331 or may not let Claudius
live, that he had only been allowing him to live. The notion
of "letting" or "allowing," of having the power to decide.
is further enforced as the dialogue continues by the phrase
"the interim is mine," also specific to F1. Hamlet, like a
confident Prince, realizes he gag be in control and

therefore emerges as a character who seems more conscious of
both his political role and his power than in Q2.
The effect in Q2 is that he remains at the same level

in relation to the King as Horatio and the Courtier. or any

other subordinate. are. F1. instead, places the King's life

109

in Hamlet's hands. Hamlet conveys his full awareness of this
in his response to Horatio's remark that the King would by
then know that the plot with England failed: "It will be
short, the interim's mine, and a mans life's no more then to
say one." Figuratively, what Hamlet suggests is that since
he has the choice and power to terminate Claudius' life
whenever he pleases, what the "King" does or thinks does not
matter anymore.

The fact that Hamlet characterizes Claudius as a
"Canker" is a second important feature. The word "Canker".
with the emblematic power that is characteristic of
Shakespeare, conveys the idea that Claudius, like the
disease, can act as an uncontrollable infection that spreads
in a chain reaction consuming the resources of the "body" it
possesses until it is totally destroyed. In our case.
because Claudius is the King, the body is Denmark.7 And
we of course know that it is Claudius' political identity
that is the object of Hamlet and Horatio's conversation
because in both versions they refer to him as "King" and not
as “uncle" or "Claudius". In F1 Hamlet's describing the man
he intends to kill as if he were a disease makes him come
across as more aware of the political context his "uncle" is
a part of for being King, and consequently as revealing a
kind of awareness that goes beyond the personal and familial
level.

In light of the above, the nature of Hamlet's

questioning is clearer in F1 than in 02 because F1 provides

110

Hamlet's own rational interpretation of the solution he
finally accepts as both inevitable and justified. namely.
"purging" both his family and Denmark of the "Canker".
Knowing that Hamlet is convinced that Claudius is in every
sense a pernicious individual who must not continue to
corrupt his family and his kingdom, we are nearly assured
that his questioning is rhetorical.

The "Canker" metaphor in F1 has further associations.
for it echoes other moments in the play when the idea of
national welfare is introduced.8

Marcellus' words at the outset of the play are an
obvious example: "Something is rotten in the state of
Denmark" (Q2 D2 r. F1 T 257).9 Cankers gradually destroy.
making their prey go rotten, putrid. By echoing that line in
the final scene of F1. Hamlet implies that Claudius is what
is rotten and deserves to be eliminated both because of the
personal harm he has caused as a kinsman and because in a
position of power he may harm whomever he pleases. Claudius

above all infects Denmark. The allusion to "canker" also

echoes one of Hamlet's remarks at the outset of the scene

when he gives the account of the letter he intercepted (Q2
10
N. v. F1 T 259):

I found ... an exact command,

Larded with many severall sorts of reason;
Importing Denmarks health, and Englands too,’
With hoo, such Bugges and Goblins in my life.
That on the supervize no leasure bated.

No not to stay the grinding of the Axe,
My head should be struck off. (underlining mine)

 

111

The phrase "Denmarks health" is perhaps the clearest
indication in both versions that Hamlet articulates an
episode of Denmark's political history. and not just the
tragedy of its protagonist. Otherwise. Hamlet would be
concerned only with himself and the immediate level of a
plot that might have taken his own life. What he does.
instead, is to step outside of himself and consider the
possible consequences or political ramifications of the pact
between Denmark and England: the plot against his life
jeopardized Denmark's welfare, since it surreptitiously
involved the King with England. Hamlet here reveals a
political consciousness by momentarily placing his life as
secondary to the accomplice plot between kingdoms, which he
knows makes Denmark vulnerable to pressure, blackmailing,
and consequently to more corruption.

Although Marcellus' and Hamlet's lines just considered
above are common to both versions, the Canker image and its
associations are not present in the final scene of Q2. The
placements of the Courtier's interruption in Q2 produces a

Hamlet whose reticence stresses his domestic motivation and

obscures the kind of political consciousness he briefly
revealed with his allusion to "Denmarke's health". Moreover.
Q2 also leaves Hamlet in a position of equality with
characters of much lower rank who also talked about how
anything happening to top political figures has an impact on

the whole nation. Rosencrantz. for example. says (Q2 H4 v.
11
I. r - F1 T 269):

112

... the cease of Majesty

Dies not alone, but like a gulf doth draw

What's near it with it: or 'tis a massy wheel

... which when it falls.

Each small annexment

Attends the boist'rous ruin. Never alone

Did the king sigh. but with a general groan.
By deciding to eliminate the "Canker" in F1 Hamlet reveals
that he too is aware of the idea embodied in Rosencranz's
speech. Killing Claudius also means killing the corruption
that thrives with him. disassembling each and every
"annexment" which collaborates for the system to exist.

Laertes too captures the issue of royal responsibility

well while reminding Ophelia that Hamlet is committed to

Denmark by birth. in a passage which is slightly different
1 2 ‘
in each version:

02 ( C3 v) Ii is greatnes wayd, his will is nor his owne,
file may not as vnualewed erl'ons doe. ,
t. ..irue or liiml'elfe, for on 's choii'e depends
The fatty and health ofihis whole (late.
‘gf
F1 (T 156)

His entire wel h'd, his will is not his owner
-" lice Retailinielfe isBiubiecl to his Birth:
Hes may not, as snusilued pcei'ons doe,
Cetus {or himi’sife; for, on his choyee depends
The {malty and health of the weoie State.

I

Laertes' words are a strong reminder to all of us that

Hamlet's "will is not his owne." However, the line "For he
himselfe is subject to his birth," exclusive to F1 (p. 112,
first arrow). strengthens the notion that because Hamlet is

a Prince his life is naturally influenced by the needs of

113

Denmark. In this respect, it alerts us to the full
significance of Hamlet's political role and thus foreshadows
his full blossoming as a Prince, so to speak, during the
final scene in the F1 version. Specifically. the
characterization of Claudius as a Canker in F1 accentuates
Hamlet's role as the Prince who seeks to purge the kingdom
from whatever is corrupting it. therefore accentuating the
political dimension of the play as a process of purgation of
Denmark. Even though Hamlet's political obligation is also
in Q2, the dialogue of F1 gives it much more emphasis.
Another difference that intensifies the purgation theme
in F1 is the one between the words "safty" (p. 112, Q2.
first arrow) and "sanctity" (p. 112, F1, second arrow.)
Ultimately, both words convey the notion of freedom from
danger. But "sanctity" also implies "inviolability," a much
more powerful state. (O.E.D. v.9, p. 83) This variation has
a crucial effect in that F1 systematically articulates a
purgation_ of Denmark: Hamlet's determination to eliminate
the Canker, rather than merely Claudius, his Uncle or King,
not only fulfills Laertes' expectation that the Prince be
concerned with Denmark's sanctity but also gives a fuller
significance to the Ghost's remark that the "foul crimes
done in [his] days of nature [must be] burnt and purg'd
away" (Q2 D2 v, F1 T 257). Until Denmark is purged of
Claudius it. like the Ghost, cannot achieve peace and

harmony. Ironically, Hamlet's desire to eliminate the

"Canker of our nature" in F1 can also be related to one of

114

the King's speeches (Q2 I. v—Fi T 270):

In the corrupted currants of this world.

Offence's gilded hand may shove by Justice.

And oft 'tis seene, the wicked prize it selfe

Buyes out the Law; but 'tis not so above

There is no shuffling, there the Action lies

In his true Nature,

In F1 Claudius ultimately emerges as naive for thinking that
only God may not be deceived, since Hamlet's explicit desire
to stop Claudius from coming "in further evill" (p. 105.
second arrow) is a suggestion that mortals too have the
power to recognize corruption and do justice.

Because Hamlet recognizes more clearly the public
dimension of avenging his father's death the F1 Hamlet comes
across as a more explicit process of regeneration of Denmark
than 02, which does not carry on the idea of purgation that
F1 does with the theme of sanctity and the canker emblem.

Laertes' emphasis on Hamlet's princely identity also
leads us to a third detail in the phrase under
consideration, "let this canker of our nature:" the first-

person-plural pronoun our. With a word that can convey a

royal voice the F1 ending once again accentuates Hamlet's
political identity. Although the plural pronoun is
ambiguous because it may refer to Hamlet's family and/or all

of the Danes. it is a powerful indication that Hamlet has in
mind more than himself or his private reasons to kill
Claudius. His use of the plural pronoun linked with the
word "nature," moreover, implies an overall concern with

character (0.E.D. v. 7. p. 41) that involves Hamlet's own

115

identity and Denmark's, at the very least. Such concern
fulfills another of the Ghost's remarks to Hamlet: "If thou
hast nature in thee, bear it not." (02 D3 r, F1 T 258)
Whatever the connotation of "nature” intended, Hamlet proves
to have it and to be willing to preserve it by realizing it
is a moral obligation that stands upon him. Consequently
both the Ghost's and Hamlet's uses of the word "nature,"
strongly suggest a Platonic association with virtue.
Revenging means for Hamlet, besides keeping his word and
fulfilling the Ghost's order, cultivating the virtue of
justice.

Finally Horatio's reply in F1 (p. 105, third arrow) is
an additional good reason for us to believe that Hamlet's
concern goes beyond the level of a family dispute in the
passage specific to F1. Horatio's reply clarifies the
dialogue tone: "It must be shortly known to him from England
what is the issue of the business there." He takes Hamlet
seriously and will not merely indulge him. Horatio.
furthermore, adds a political quality to the discussion by

defining the King's plot with England as a "business", a

transaction between two orders of power. With this he also
reveals an engagement in the conversation which goes beyond
the role of emphatic listener and merges with that of a
counselor who is trying to protect Hamlet by warning him of
what might be happening. Horatio confirms this role

subsequently, when he tries to persuade Hamlet not to accept

the wager.

116

The various points discussed above suggest that the
action of F1 Hamlet has fuller political associations than
does that of Q2. In other words, Hamlet's motivation to kill
Claudius in F1 appears to be more explicitly connected with
Denmark's political welfare than it is in Q2. ~This does not
preclude the fact that in all versions Hamlet has two
distinct motives to kill Claudius: a personal desire to
revenge and a public duty to restore order to Denmark. But
in F1 Hamlet actually seems to place the latter above the
former, and perhaps by doing so he gathers the necessary
determination to face his task less passionately than he
does in 02, as the continuation of his exchange with
Horatio suggests.

In this second portion of the F1 quotation13 Hamlet
recalls his encounter with Laertes at the graveyard (p. 105.
fourth arrow): "... but I am very sorry good Horatio. that
to Laertes I forgot my selfe." He reflects upon his
behavior and regrets the episode, especially because he was

influenced by Laertes' impetuosity. The F1 version thus

emphasizes the value of emotional control for Hamlet at this
stage. Hamlet in F1 seriously conveys an intent to pursue
his cause and realizes he must not allow himself to be

distracted by secondary issues, or to have his reason
overcome by passion. By doing so he again emerges as a
character in control and consequently cultivates two other

virtues. those of temperance and wisdom.

But temperance and wisdom are as difficult for Hamlet

117

to achieve as justice because he must come to terms with
conflicts of the very emotional and intellectual order. His
allusion to the graveyard scuffle with Laertes in F1 reminds
us of how he struggles with the conflict between reason and
passion. In a soliloquy (Q2 F4 v, F1 T 264),14 for example.
Hamlet rationalizes about the player's emotional involvement
while weeping for Hecuba: he reacts by characterizing
himself as a "rogue and peasant slave." Hamlet seemingly
debates with himself because he is different, he is not
"passion's slave" (Q2 G4 v. F1 T 267) like most men.15 He
is perhaps best defined as the prototype of the "new man,"
whom Montaigne (1580) empowered by advocating that knowledge
can be pursued on one's own:
We are all of us richer than we think we are:

but we are taught to borrow and to beg. and

brought up more to make use of what is another's

than of our own. ... Books have not so much served

me for instruction as exercise. ("0f Physiognomy"

- Essays III.12 - p. 503)
Hamlet perhaps wants to embrace this new epistemology and
his own reason. He must use, for example, both his visual

16
perception and his "mind's eye" (Q2 C2 r, F1 T 155): he

will do what hg ultimately thinks is right, not what
appearances or secondary sources suggest. The play-within—
the-play is one of the means he himself designs in order to
verify truth, instead of simply believing the ghost and
acting either impulsively or under the influence of passion.

He struggles, nevertheless, because he has passionate forces

in himself and constantly contemplates slaves of passion

118

such as the player and Laertes, which makes his reasoning
seem like another equally uncomfortable extreme.

By reconsidering the graveyard incident in F1 he comes
to understand that passion is not simply an ideal
alternative to reason, echoing the Player King's lines:17
"What to ourselves in passion we propose, the passion
ending, doth the purpose lose." (Q2 H2 r, F1 T 268).
Hamlet in F1 thus sees there is a need for balance between
reason and passion, rather than a need to be in either of
the extremes. He is finally able to apply to his own life
the advice given earlier to the players (Q2 63 v-G4 r, F1 T
266):18 "... in the very torrent tempest, and ... whirlwind
of your passion, you must acquire and beget a temperance ...
.” The F1 Hamlet realizes that "forgetting himself" to
Laertes was poor acting, the very kind that "offends [him]
to the soule" (02 63 v- F1 T 266.)

The player's and Laertes' moments of passionate action
in both versions are, nevertheless. exemplary to Hamlet

because they seem to strengthen his determination to revenge
his murdered father. Both the intensity of the actor and the
"bravery" of Laertes' grief are motivating forces to Hamlet
because they trigger a response in him, namely, reflecting
upon his own behavior as opposed to the two other men's in a
process of adjusting his behavior to meet his final goal.
Q2 does not provide Hamlet's viewpoint regarding the state
of his feelings in the final scene, which has the effect of

19
obscuring what his motivation is.

119

And the final goal, the killing of Claudius, besides
emerging as Hamlet's own option in F1, is justified as a
"Cause".20 The word (p. 105, F1, fifth arrow) stands out,
implying a deep and quiet sense of readiness generated by
the mental and emotional "image" that compells Hamlet to
revenge. The F1 version seems like an undeniable conclusion
to Hamlet's process of pondering whether or not he should

kill Claudius, whom he finally perceives as menacing both

to himself as a kinsman and to Denmark as a monarch.

-11-

With this F1 also raises the audience's expectation to
see the revenge accomplished fast, since it presents a
Hamlet whose motives are fully justified by himself and
whose readiness is very convincing. Q2, on the other hand.
is less promising and as the dialogue continues we find
another complex variation which shapes Hamlet's readiness
differently in each version. It occurs during the first
interaction Hamlet has with the Courtier (Q2) or Young
Osrick (F1), who comes to propose the fencing match and

21
wager on behalf of Claudius:

120

02 (N2 r-v)

... ContNay good my Lord for my cafe in good faithdir'here is newly
canto court batmbelieueme anabi‘oiuce gentlemenfitl oi'moii

excellent differences. of very {oft fociery , and great i'hotvin .- in;
deeds to fpealte fel‘lis-n‘glyofhim . heeis thecard or kalender o gen.
try : foryou than in him the continent ofwbatparr a Gentle.
manwould l'ee. . ‘ -' ‘
2 » Han. Sinhis defincmentru'fifim ition IflMs'houinI'
know to deuide him inoenroriallymou. d dazzse th’arithmaricke of
- memory. and yet but saw neitherjn reipefi of his quick faile . but
in the veritie ofercsoimenr, I take him to be a i'otsleoi great article,
Cc. his infuii on oi (itch dearth and rareneil'e, as to make true doeion
... of him,his {emblable is his mirrout. 8: who els would trace himdiis
vmbrage. nothingmore. ‘
Cover. Your Lord ihip fpeakes mil infallibly oi'him.
Ho». The concernaney lie . why doe we wrap the gentleman in
. our more rawer breath! ' '
Cesar. Sir.
Ian. Iii not pol'sibie to vnderfland in another tongue , you will
doo't Gr really. ' - '
Hon. What imports the nominaion ofchis gentleman.
Cw. OfLeertes. :
4 » Him. His urfe is empcyalready, all‘s golden words are {perm
Jfiw.CXhhnfln
(gar. I know you arenotignoeanc. _ '
8.. I would you did iir , yer'in faith if you did . it would one
mehapprooue me. well fir. . :
an. (car. You are not ignorant of what excellence Umres is.
e -’ Ha. I dare not confeire that , um I lhoold compare with
. . Iimineseeellence,but to know a man wei. were to ltnowe himi'eife.
Car. I meane lie liar this weapon. bur in the imputation laide on
him. by them in his meed. hee's rnfellowed.
' lflm.Vth3hhnmfimn?
(one. Rapier and Dagger.
Han. That‘s two ofhrs weapons. but well. '

F1 (T 280)

Ofi. Nay,in good faith, for mibe cafe in nod-faith:
II. Sir,you areoot ignorant ofwhse excellence es is at
his weapon.
-> Has. What's his weapon ?'
Ofe'. Rapier and dagger. '
° Hen. That's two or his weapons; but well.

Q2 clearly expands on the subject of Laertes and thus

creates a rather distracting effect for various reasons.

First, because the lengthy dialogue naturally delays

121

Hamlet's revenge action. Second, the issue absorbs Hamlet
for several minutes. Third, because Horatio has lines and
thus, ceasing to act as observer becomes an interlocutor who
demands extra attention both from the other characters on
stage and from the audience. which makes Hamlet lose even
more control of the whole situation. Fourth, the Courtier
invites both Hamlet and the audience to focus attention upon
the subject of Laertes (p. 120, Q, first arrow), "newly come
to Court ... ful of most excellent differences." This
mental involvement is forced further in Q2 when both the
Courtier and Hamlet expand on the subject of Laertes'
qualities, the man "... of very soft society ... the card or

kalendar of gentry," "a soule of great article ... his

semblable is his mirrour." This is dragging for the theater
audience. especially because we know of Laertes's plan to
take revenge and probably expect Hamlet to move faster.

But the very idea of hearing Hamlet praise Laertes
after what happened in the graveyard invites us to consider
the fuller implications of the moment. Overall Q2 engages

our attention in a different way than F1 because both

Hamlet's and Horatio's lines have an ironic potential. If an
actor, for example, delivers Hamlet's lines of 02 (p. 120,
second arrow) with the same irony as his earlier words
characterizing the approaching Courtier as a "waterfly", or
as the comments on temperature, the tone of mockery will
provide an extended comic release that is likely to detach

the audience even more from the serious question Hamlet

122

posed to Horatio before the interruption: "Is't not perfect
conscience?" Horatio's Q2 line (p. 120, fourth arrow) "His
purse is empty already, all's golden words are spent." which
criticizes the Courtier for his lack of eloquence, also may
be interpreted so as to accentuate mockery.

The moment can, of course, have another kind of effect
if the lines are delivered seriously. First of all. there
would be an abrupt termination of the comic moment that
precedes the subject of Laertes and during which the the
Courtier in Q and young Osrick in F1 are clearly made fools
of. Hamlet would_ sound as if he were conveying a high
opinion of Laertes, which is especially true of the line
"his semblable is his mirrour" (p. 120, 02, third arrow).
This notion is even stronger in Hamlet's reaction to the
Courtier's line exclusive to Q2 (p. 120, fifth arrow):22
"You are not ignorant of what excellence Laertes is."
Hamlet replies he "dares not confess" (p. 120, Q2, sixth
arrow), which suggests he feels inadequate in 02 while
comparing himself with Laertes. Even if Hamlet continues
mocking the Courtier his words are ambiguous, for he
seemingly judges himself inferior to Laertes either because
he lacks Laertes' "bravery" or because he still feels

insecure about his purpose.

F1. on the other hand, not only focuses the audience's
attention on Hamlet but also quickens the pace of action.
The fact that Osricke makes specific remarks (p. 120, F1.

first arrow) about Laertes' fighting skill (" ... Sir. you

123

are not ignorant of what excellence Laertes is at his
weapon") allows for Hamlet to respond and still remain in
control of the conversation, especially because he poses a
question (second arrow): "What's his weapon?" Hamlet's
ignoring the subject of Laertes in F1 is consistent. since
the politically conscious and ethically motivated F1 Hamlet
would not compare himself to Laertes: in doing so he would
be "forgetting himself" again. which he does not want to do.
Thus, instead of wasting time talking about Laertes he
focuses on the subject of the wager/duel, an attitude which
reinforces his determination to concentrate on the revenge
issue by placing Laertes on a secondary level and perhaps
the duel itself as a next step that will eventually lead him
to fulfill his goal of justice.

The F1 version also is less ambiguous than Q2 because
it assures both the tone of mockery and Hamlet's self-
confidence by establishing that Hamlet's view of Laertes is
secondary before the Courtier's remarks. In short, the very
placement of Hamlet's comparison to Laertes generates
different effects in each version. In Q2 the comparison is
triggered by the Courtier (p. 120, Q2, first arrow) who
practically forces Hamlet to direct his attention away from
himself and his private concerns. In F1 Hamlet himself
mentions Laertes earlier (p. 105, F1, fourth arrow)
realizing on his own that Laertes must not distract him from
his goal: "... but I am very sorry ... That to Laertes I

forgot my selfe ... ." If Hamlet expanded on the subject

124

of Laertes in F1 he would be repeating, in a slightly

different way, a behavior he regreted just moments before.

-iii—
The development of the scene in each version confirms
the fact that Hamlet comes across as more self-confident in
F1 than in Q2. Another variation including an interruption

which occurs exclusively in Q2 re-establishes the contrast:

02 (N3 r-v)

Bu. ThisLapwingr'nnnesa ' with theihellonhishead.
_ Has. A didfia lit with birdngge ore a fuektie,shats has heand
my moreofthe fame breede that I knowshe drolIy age doses on,
-'only got the tune oEsbetime , and cumin: habit ofineounrer. a
kind of hilly coleflion , which carriesthem through and through
the mall rophane and trennowed opiuims. and doe burbiowe
- them to their triali, the bubbles are out. . -

- Eater's Uri
»_ Lied M y lord.bis‘l\rlaie{ls'e commended him to you by young-

Ofln'clte, who brinos backe to him that you attend him in the hall,
he {ends-to knows? your pleai'ure hold to play with urea , or that
you will takelooger time t‘

2 a... 'Eon. I am conflant to my purpoi'enthey follows the Kings plea-
{ure.ii'his fishes ipeakes . mmeis ready :now or wheni'oener , pro-
uided‘I be {0 ableas now. - '

Luci TheKing, and @eene, and allare commits g downe.‘
Hem. In ha pyume. ,
Lard. The (Leena delires you to vi’e fome gentle commitment
to hates, before you Fall to play. '
» Kore. Shce well inliméb me.
Iain. You will lool'e my Lord. ,
. Hm. I dce nor thinke {0. lince he went into France, I haue bene ‘
4 —> m continuall praflife , Ilball winne at the ads ;ehou would'l'l not
I-r thigh: how ill all's heere about my base, but it is no matter.
, Hare. NaygoodrnyLord.
' ..Iian. It is borfoolery , but iris fueh a kinde ofgamgiuing , as
would perhapes trouble a woman. ,'
Hare. Ifyour minde dtihke any thing, obay it. I will {orl'lai their
repair-e heather. and Cay you are not fit.
Han. Not a whit. we defie augury,there is i'peciall prouidenceiin
6 —> thefill of: Sparrowe. if it be. tis nut to come , if it be not to come,
arwtllbe now. if it be nornow, yet it well come , the readines is all,
fine: no man ofought he leaues, ltnowes what ill to leaue betirnes,

letbe.

125

F1 (T 280)

Her. This Lapwing runs away with the lbcll on his

head. ~
Hamel-1e did Compile with his Du ge before hee

Inside is: thus had he and mine more of t e fame Beauy

that I know the droflie age dotes oo,only got the tune of
the time', and outward babite of encounter. a kinds of

yeiiy eollefiion, which carries them through at through
the mall food and wionowed opiniopgand doe but blow

them to their tryails i_ the Bubbles are out.
-'§ Her. 'de will lore this we tray Lord. .
Haw. I doe not thinke (o, ce he went intoFrante,
—f5 Thane beenein tontinoell praaiee: I Grail wine at the
—. oddrs : bet thou wouldefl not thinke bowsli hereu-
b'o'oemy' heart : built is no matter. ‘ :

Her. 'Na , ood Lord. ’
”n.1tlsifl air-y} but it ii i'ueb akinde of

galmgiuin g as would perhaps ts'ouble sweeten. .
Her. li'your minde dilltke anything,obey.l will fore.

Rail .im'. repaise hisber,’aod fay you are not fit. '
'Haw. Not e.whit,we defie Angu :rhcre's el'pe-clall
-b Prouidencein the fall or”: fpsrrovr. I it benow, tie not
to come: if it beeooc weenie, itwiii beeoow s lt'is

be not now; et it will ‘comeyili-e're'edined'e is .65»; no.
man he's oug ol'wbat be issues. What is't reissue be-
times t '

Essentially, Hamlet's carries through on his decision
to accept the wager in both versions. But the presence of an
interruption in Q2 (p. 125, first arrow) as opposed to the
absence of one in F1 (p. 126, first arrow) again has
specific effects on the pace of action. Q2 both slows down
and raises the suspense because the Lord's questioning

whether "[Hamlet's] pleasure hold to play with Laertes. or

.. will take longer time?" forces the audience to
reconsider his readiness. F1, on the other hand, forces a
focus on the wager/duel subject as Horatio immediately

voices his apprehension: "You will loose the wager my lord."

Overall. Q2 also is rather open because of Hamlet's
extra line "I am constant to my purposes ... provided I pg

§9 able gg now" (p. 125, 02. second arrow): his readiness is

 

126

on the one hand questionable and on the other certain. It is
questionable because the phrase "provided I be so able as
now" indicates that even though his readiness is a palpable
fact at the moment, no one (Hamlet included) knows he will
be "so able" by the time Laertes enters for the match. An
actor interpreting the Q2 lines this way would most likely
come across as more passive and austere, while23 influenced
by some inexorable ambivalence that urges him to fight.
Although Hamlet argues he has been "in continuall practice"
and trusts his skill at sword-fighting in both versions, he
seems slow-paced in Q2, where he is "following the King's
pleasure" (p. 124, Q, second arrow) and willing to follow
the desires of his mother, who "well instructs" him (third
arrow).

Again, he may be playing games with the Lord.
pretending he feels insecure and indifferent while simply
mocking him and knowing that he is just waiting for the

appropriate occasion to kill Claudius. The tone of mockery

in the interpretation of the lines would then make Hamlet's

readiness seem much more real.24 But one particular line
does suggest Hamlet is rather insecure in Q2: "... thou
woulds't not thinke how 1;; all's heere about my hart" (p.
124, Q, fifth arrow). The word 1;; not only conveys his

feeling of discomfort, but also suggests that the fencing
match is a difficult and objectionable task in Q2. The
uncompleted line of the F1 version, "... thou wouldest not

thinke how all heere about my heart," whether it involves a

127

compositor error or not, denotes that Hamlet is somewhat
anxious but not necessarily apprehensive.

This Q2 openness, nevertheless, has the effect of
portraying him as an essentially unpredictable character.
who may or may not carry out his revenge. Consequently, Q2
also keeps us in a more intense suspense than Fl because we
cannot rely on Hamlet's verbal clues. Whatever expectation
we develop as an audience will be almost totally defined by
the actor's interpretation of the lines rather than by the
words per se.

The F1 version generates a radically different effect
in that Hamlet shows no signs of ambiguity, conveying the
energy of a man who is truly ready to assume a challenge and
to accept what time brings, even though he is conscious of
the odds involved in accomplishing a task of political as
well as private significance. We feel that in F1 he is
determined to act, that everything is a matter of time.
Understandably, then, the second interruption exclusive to
Q2 would be pointless in F1 because here Hamlet does not

doubt his readiness, does not imply he may not be "so able

as now" (p. 124, Q, second arrow) in the next minute, having
conveyed his confidence in the exchange with Horatio at the
outset of the act (p. 105, F1): "The interim's mine." If in
his heart "there was a kind of fighting," as when he found
out about Claudius' plot to kill him (Q2 N. r, F1 T 259), it

is now over and has been replaced by a powerful sense of

mission that motivates him and keeps him in control of his

128

emotions as he waits for the right moment to kill Claudius.

These differences consistently allow for at least two
kinds of interpretation for Hamlet: melancholy, or highly
energetic and ironic. The former seems to be more likely
within the dynamics of Q2, given the ambiguities discussed
above. The latter seems more fitting in F1 in which Hamlet's
self-confidence is, for the various reasons above, more
accentuated. Perhaps the role of Hamlet in Q2 is, overall.
more psychologically involving for the actor, who must more
often determine intentions without specific cues. The line
"readiness is all," for example, can on the basis of Q2 come
across as either a sad recognition of reality or a hopeful
expression of trust. The same line on the basis of F1
seemingly narrows to a hopeful expression of trust, since
here Hamlet's explicit desire to purge his country is a
factor that boosts his self-confidence.

The question of course remains why Hamlet spends time
talking to Horatio rather than seeking Claudius and simply
killing him upon return from England, which contrasts with

his ability to plan and execute the killing of Rosencrantz

and Guildenstern. It is possible to understand this
perpetual puzzle, I believe, within the context I have been
discussing. Seeing the two versions separately, we are
able to discern two facets of Hamlet that are merged and
therefore become confusing in conflated versions. What may
seem like "delaying" in Q2, where at the final scene Hamlet

still seems unpredictable. comes across as a sense of

129

mission in what Hamlet describes as "the image of [his]
Cause" in F1 (p. 105, fifth arrow). In all versions,
nevertheless, Hamlet seems not to rush because he knows that
time itself will bring the right moment for him to pursue
his goal. One of his statements in particular embodies this
notion: " ... we defie Augury, there is a special providence
in the fall of a sparrow" (p. 124, Q2, sixth arrow - p. 125.
F1, fourth arrow).25 By trusting what "occasio"
(opportunity that comes with time) brings he can be sure
that what has to be will be: "occasio" will determine
Claudius' death in a way it will be unavoidable, just as
Rosencrantz's and Guildenstern's deaths were. The
uniqueness of F1 lies in how Hamlet's political
consciousness combines with his self-confidence to
constitute trust in both time and his readiness, since he
knows Claudius must die not only for the good of the family
but also for the good of Denmark. In Q2 the effect is
different because Hamlet's willingness to "defy augury" is
undercut to some extent by his ambiguous suggestion a few
lines earlier that even if time comes he may not "be so
able" as he is now (p. 124, Q2, second arrow). The various
differences between Q2 and F1 playtexts discussed above
establish this contrast, which cannot be grasped in a

conflated Hamlet.

130

..1v—
The fuller political consciousness underlying Hamlet's

readiness in F1 is even clearer when he utters his last
26
words to Claudius and makes him swallow the poisoned wine:

Q2 (0. r)

Han. The point inuenom d to, then venom: to thy workel
. will. Treal'on, treafon. .. -
A. King. .0 yetdefend me friends, I am but hut-:.. . °
-’ ' 'Hm. Heare thou inceiitous damned Dane,
... Drinlte of this porion,is the Unix: heere? '
follow my mother.

F1 (T 281)

Haw. The point envenom'd too,
.‘I'lien rename to thy worke,
' ”um may.
Al. Teeai'on, Tresl'on.
' Km‘. 0 yet defend me Friendsfl am but hurts
u—p - Ha. Heere thou inerfluour, mutdtdus,
Damned Dane,-
» Drink: ofthjs Potion s It thy Vnion heere ?
Follow my Mother. Kin; Dyer. '

Hamlet uses the word "union" in his F1 question (second

arrow), whereas in Q2 (second arrow) we find "Onixe."
Orthodox interpretation (e.g. Onions) usually
annotates "union" as "pearl." We cannot be sure, however.

even though the meaning involves a jewel. I say jewel
because onyx is not defined as a pearl in the Oxford English
Dictionary (O.E.D.), but as a "variety of quartz (v.7, p.
132). The word presented in the O.E.D. as a synonym for
pearl is "unio" (v. 11, p. 232). Misinterpretation of
spelling and typographic errors may also be the cause of the

difference; Greg (1928) does describe this as a "very

131

complicated variant," and believes ggigg "is the word aimed
at." (Pp.57-58) But the effect of each possibility merits
attention, especially because the ambiguity is recurrent.
Just before the duel starts Claudius also employs the word

27
"onixe" in Q2 and "union" in F1:

Q2 (N4 r)
‘ The King {hall drink e to Hus-:1"; better breath,
‘5 And in the cup an Onixe {hall he throws.
Richer then that which foure fuc'cefsiue Kings
In Denmatlzcs Crownc haue worn: : giue me the cups,
F1 (T 280)

"e The King lhal drinlr'e to Has/m bang: breath.

‘ .And in the Cup smnlun (ht! ho throw _
Richer then thstmhleh fourefueteliiuoxings
In Denmarkes Crowns haue wornG.

Claudius' language here in both versions sounds extremely
loaded, especially if by "better breath" (first arrows)
Shakespeare means Hamlet's last breath and death. Overall.
Claudius' use of "Onixe" in Q2 (second arrow) seems more
factual whereas "union" in the F1 version (second arrow)

invites us to paraphrase the whole line in a figurative

sense for several reasons. First, the word "union" did have
a political connotation at Shakespeare's time, with
reference to the state of being united to one political
body; the O.E.D. (v. 11, p. 232) points out, for example.
"union" is used in this sense in Bacon's Briefe Discourse

(1603:) "and ... leaving violent Unions [of countries] wee

will consider onelye naturall Unions." Second, "cup" could

132

mean an experience to be partaken (O.E.D. v. 2. p. 1255), as

in various Bible passages:

On the wicked he will rain coals of fire and
brimstone; a scorching wind shall be the portion
pf their cup. (Psalms 11.06)

My Father, if it be possible, let this cup
pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will. but as

thou wilt." (Matthew 26.39 - underlining mine)
Third, "throw" could mean thwart (O.E.D. v. 11. p. 377).
and the paraphrase could thus be "The King ... shall in the

duel thwart Hamlet's ambitions to the crown, [becoming]
richer then" by managing to maintain power with his
machiavellian poison plot, which also makes him feel smarter
than the four previous Kings. This possibility is in fact
ironic, since Claudius is to lose not only the crown but
also his life. Shakespeare reserves for him something that
resounds from Kipp Eggp's final moments: "All foes [shall
taste] the cup of their deservings." (F1 T 309)
Given the above possibility, Claudius in F1 might die
being told in a pun that Hamlet has outwitted him: "Heere
Drinke off this Potion: Is thy Union heere?" Hamlet's F1
question "Is thy union heere?" can be paraphrased in the
same sense: "Is this how you use your royal power, poisoning
cups?": and it allows for a much more ironic interpretation
than does the factual Q2 question "Is the Onixe heere?",
which merely draws a sharp contrast between the actual
pearl Claudius promised to throw in the cup and the onix.

a dark, non-precious stone.

133

A third meaning of "union" is of course related to
marriage, in which case Hamlet could be referring to
Claudius' union with Gertrude in death. But this possibility
is more likely in Q2, in which political associations are
not as fully articulated as they are in F1. A case could
also be argued that Hamlet is, in Oedipal fashion perhaps.
more obsessed with the domestic dimension of his revenge
(his mother's re-marriage) in Q2, especially because in this
version, as Hamlet forces Claudius to drink the poison. he
describes him only as an "incestuous (p. 130, 02, first
arrow) damned Dane." The corresponding phrase in F1 (p.
130, first arrow) is "incestuous, murdrous, Damned Dane"
and therefore reflects his rage during this crucial moment
with the crime against King Hamlet per se.

In sum, Hamlet's use of "union" in F1 could add a
political element that is consistent with other features
specific to F1 in general. Differences outside of the final
scene, for example, also accentuate Hamlet's fuller
political consciousness and self-confidence in F1 as opposed

to his greater ambiguity in Q2.

-v—
One of the most striking instances is Hamlet's
encounter with Fortinbras and his army, which simply does

not occur in the F1 version.

134

02 (K3 r-v)

[7:9 ?;'.':r:¢'°rd£r( null-v.11! Army can rule 0?;Sr.
Ferns. Goe C aptarne, from megrect the Dantl'n King,
Tell him. that l~_\' hrs lycente reflrndrar'}
C races the conueyance of a promifd match
Ouer his kingdome, you know the mdeuous,
If that his Matcflie would ought with vs,
W’e lizall exprefre our dude in his eye,
And let him know (o.
Cay. I will doo‘t my Lord.
‘ For. Goe {oftly on.
\ Em" Hakr,'1Qfm~. 6:.
Hana. Good lit whofe powers are theft?
Cap. They are omeny Gr.
Hat. How purpold [it I pray you?
Cap. Again! l (ome part of PM.
P... Who commaunds them lit! ’
(of. The Nephew to old Norma}. Fem-blfi.
an. Goes a: againfl the name otrwfit.
Or for {one fronrire i
Cap. Truly to l' peake, and with noadditioo, .
We goe to gaine a little patch of groI-d
Thar hath in it no profit but the name
To pay fiue duckera. fine I would not fartne it;
Nor will it yeeld to Non-:7 or the Fab
A ranclter tare. lhould it be fold in Fee.
Han. 'Why then the Pollack: neua will defend it.
Ca}. Yes, it is already gartfond.
Hale. Two thoul'and foulea. & twenty thoufand duclteta
VVill not debate the queflion of thitflraw, ‘
This is th'lmpollume of much wealth and peace.
' That inward breaker, and thowes no cure without
Why the man dues. I humbly thankeyou lit.
3 C9. God buy you fir.

\

' 9
. \ But greatly to find quarrcll in a “raw
\ When lionour‘s at the (lake, how [land I then

And tpur my dull teuenge. What it a man
I“!!! chiefe good and market of Int time

Be but to fleepe and fecde, a bean. no more:
Sure he that made us with fuel: large dtftoutl'e
Looking before and after, gaucvs not

That capabilttie and god-like teafon

To full in vs unufd, now whether it be
Bgfliall obliuion, or (one craucn fetuple

Of thinking too preeifily on th‘ruenr,

5 ~ A thought which quarrerd hath bu: one part wifedoul,

And cue: three parts coward.l doe not know
Why yet I liue to fay this thing‘s to dog,

. . Sitli I haue caufe. and will. and llrcngrh, and meant:

To don't 5 examples grofleas earth exhort me,
Wither this Army of {och mall'e and charge,

7‘ Led by a delicate and tender Prince,

Whole fpirit with druine ambition pul'r,
Maltes mourhes at the inedible enenr,
Empofing what is mortall, and mfure,

To all that fortune. death. and danger dare,
Esta for an E gge- (hell. Rightly to be great,
Is not to lime without great argument.

That haue a father ltild. a mother ll‘aind.
\ Excytemcnrs ol'my teafon. and my blood,
And let all flecpe. while to my lhatne I fee
The iminenr death oftwenty tltoufand men.
That For a .‘antalie and t.iclte of fame
Got to their graues ltlre beds, fight fora plot
Whereon the numbers cannot try the caufc,
Which is not tombeenough and continent .

12 To hide the flamed fromthis time forth.

Ito/Z th‘t pleafe you goe my Lord? _ .. , . . 9 .
Has. 'llc be with you flraighr, goea little before. My thought: I” hood) '0' 5‘ mn" worth. in.
How all oecafions doe informe againflme. 5m, 3",“; 6,3,”), (.4. 9mm
F 1 ( T 2 7 3 )
Enter Perri-lira with a Amie.
Far. Go Captaine, from me greet the Dania: King,
Tell him that by‘his licrnfe. fem-6n:
Claimet the eonueyance of a protnis'd March
Ouer his Kingdome. You ltnow the Rendeuous :
If that his Maiefly would ought with rs,
We l'h all «pull: out dutie in his eye,
And let him ltnow [0.
Cap. I will doo't,my Lord.
For. Go falely on. Exit,
inter firm and Horatio.
The passage of an army over the stage immediately
strikes us as a distraction, in that it does not help the
audience in either version to focus on the revenge goal. And

135

in Q2 the army distracts Hamlet, too, as he allows himself
to be absorbed by it. His curiosity is such that it urges
him to ask the Captain about its purpose as if he were a
mere passer-by, rather than a Prince watching a foreign army
approach his territory. Then, he begins to brood about the
philosophical significance of the event in relation to his
own life, finally plunging into the soliloquy that re-
establishes a focus on his "dull revenge."

F1, on the other hand, forces us to focus almost solely
on Fortinbras, especially because he has the most lines of
the dialogue. We learn about what his intentions are and,
consequently, are prepared for his presence in Denmark.
Thus Fortinbras' appearance in F1 serves the dramaturgical
purpose of reminding the audience of him and preparing for
his sudden appearance during the final moments of the play.
Q2 does the same but goes on to establish a comparison.
presenting a Hamlet who compares himself with Fortinbras.

Generally speaking, the one feature that stands out in
the soliloquy of Q2 (p. 134) is that Hamlet scorns himself

by implying that he is a "beast" (fourth arrow), "three

parts coward" (fifth arrow), and experiences shame (eleventh
arrow). He then reveals a determination to revenge: "... o
from this time forth, my thoughts be bloody, or be nothing
worth" (last arrow). As such, Hamlet's role in the Q2
version modifies our understanding of the final scene rather
drastically.

For a man who swore his thoughts would "be bloody, or

136

be nothing worth", Hamlet's readiness in Q2 by the time he
talks to Osrick should not be so ambiguous. Indeed, we are
in light of the soliloquy exclusive to Q2 compelled to say
Hamlet takes another major step-back in the final scene. The
fact that Rosencrantz appears during the army episode in Q2
(p. 134, first and third arrows) also assures us that Hamlet
killed him afterwards and therefore did act at least once
under the influence of his bloody thoughts. But he begins
the last act talking to Horatio. The soliloquy exclusive to
Q2 accentuates Hamlet's hesitancy with his wonder and
"shame" as he watches the "two thousand soules ... [that]
will not debate" (p. 134, Q2, second arrow) going "to their
graves like beds."28 Given this context, Hamlet's remarks
to the courtier in the final scene of Q2 (p. 124, second
arrow) strike us as coming from a man who is still subject
to a commander (the Ghost), like the soldiers are subject to
Fortinbras: he has decided his thoughts must be "bloody, or
be nothing worth" (Q2, p. 134, twelfth arrow) but does not
seem to have convinced himself. His Q2 line "provided I be

so able as now" (p. 124, second arrow), then, reminds us

once again that he might indeed be "three parts coward."
Hamlet during the final scene in Q2 desperately concentrates
on his goal as a private burden that stands upon him as the
son of the murdered King Hamlet. We cannot dismiss the
possibility of irony altogether, but the soliloquy exclusive
to Q2 makes Hamlet's inconsistency linger because his

resolve to act is seemingly caused by external factors: the

137

stimulus of a marching army makes him realize that he too
must pursue his goal.

The total absence in F1 of Hamlet's soliloquy
generates at least two effects.29 Firstly, because the
theater audience does not see Hamlet medidating once again
on the issue of his inability to act, his confidence at the
outset of the following act is enhanced. We once again can
infer that killing Claudius became his own decision rather
than just a task imposed by the Ghost, and that he needed no
further "examples" (p. 134, Q2, sixth arrow) to be compelled
to kill even Rosencranz and Guildenstern.

Secondly, the brief F1 appearance of Fortinbras with
his army, marching towards a goal, is a strong parallel to
Hamlet's own "march:" both are Princes, both are motivated
to action by an expedient cause.

The passage exclusive to Q2, nevertheless, shapes a
Fortinbras who is radically different for Hamlet and for
the audience than that of F1.30 Hamlet in Q2 actually sees

"young Fortinbras," whom he heard about from Claudius at the

outset of the play (Q2 83 v-F1 T 153), in action with a

whole army. Q2 thus reintroduces the contrast which is
established between the two Princes during that early moment
of the play. Both lose their fathers and see their uncles
take the throne, but each reacts in a different way: Hamlet
perseveres in "obstinate condolement" (Q2 B4 v-Fi T 154)

whereas Fortinbras claims from Claudius lands lost by his
10
father. Such a contrast might easily be forgotten.

138

especially as we learn both about Hamlet's struggle with his
mother's remarriage in the first soliloquy and about his
father's murder. Hearing Hamlet reflect upon his encounter
with Fortinbras' army, however, we are once again struck.
or even challenged to consider the wider implications of the
two opposed behaviors.

Superficially, Fortinbras appears to have determination
and self-confidence while Hamlet lacks both, but subtle
details in Hamlet's soliloquy reveal a more complex picture.
On the one hand Hamlet is impressed with Fortinbras' “spirit
of divine ambition" (p. 134, 02, seventh arrow) and the

soldiers' courage stirs feelings of shame in him (eleventh

arrow):
.. to my shame I see the iminent death of twenty
thousand men, that ... fight for a plot ... which
is not tombe enough ... to hide the slaine.

0n the other hand Hamlet implies that Fortinbras' conduct is
at the very least absurd, since he exposes the lives of
thousands of men "for an egge—shell“ (eighth arrow) and
finds "quarrell in a straw" (ninth arrow). This is a rather

negative perspective of Fortinbras, and another example of

men who lack temperance, who are unable to achieve a balance
between reason and passion.

Whether or not Fortinbras' conduct is deplorable.
Hamlet does take the experience of encountering him and the
marching army as an exhorting example. But this example is
perhaps another diminishing factor for the Prince of Denmark

in Q2: because he gives his dying voice to a man with whom

139

he is not exactly delighted; because he dies with a sense
that he never really “led" his cause, thus remaining
painfully inferior, in his own eyes, to the future King of
Denmark. I say painfully for the very reason that Hamlet.
rather than using his own potential motivation.
paradoxically realizes he needed an example from a
questionable leader before he could pursue the revenge goal.

The F1 version diminishes .neither Hamlet nor
Fortinbras, since it does not give us access to Hamlet's
self-defeating feelings or undermine Fortinbras, who merely
appears to be in control of an army. Consequently, Hamlet in
F1 gives his dying voice to a man whose image is simply
marked by a military victory in Poland (p. 140, F1, second
arrow) and not to a man whose character aggravates his

emotional struggle.

'Vi"
All of the variations discussed to this point shape the
effect of Hamlet's death differently in each version in
other ways as well, even though the moment is almost

identical in the various playtexts:

Q2 (0. r-v)

140

Inletishegryqiplausdead. . .
Tbuhuelhregonneandmyeaufeanshe

. Tothevufatised

MNaerhelieueitr .. -.
lamaeanantickeliomainethenabaoe, ;,
.Heete" a yet {one liquer left;- -. '
' “Asth’artanan 4

Gunthecuysletgoe,hyhmenllshaw;
l Ogodavewswhatawontdedm trmw (w. :=-:.. -

Thin sllatidiiigtliuaushtotrttedhiallllaasaabelmidttie!b u; .
lithoudsd‘fleuerholdneio’thyhart. twin: :43,
Ahfentthaefronfe awhile; *“ : ~..-. - . .
Andiuthishadhwod drawerhybtoathnpainen 2:4;oia'
Toullnylioty: whatwniikenod'eistltise - l fowf.

Young Fart-drajesn'th conquefl conel'rons-Poland.

Q9
. To sh 'esuhal'ladors ofb‘hdgtuesthawarlikevolly

Hal. Oldiefluu's,

The tempoyihnoieeore-crowu fur,
legalhsenheagethemwesfimw '. . . 2». i=3.
B!!! 1 d0! IRWIN ‘ .z‘f. I. v.7 t“:‘a‘§=:
on! ”Mmh‘tl; -- r . 4. i‘fii? :..-J
Seuflhnsnhah’mmandid’e -. -- fie-518:

. Whaoefol'xited', thereflisfilenee. .... ~..':.-,.' :... , I: .*

F1 ('1‘ 281)

ButletltbetHwar‘eJamdead. °
-. Thou liu'ti.reaortmeaodnyesofes right
To thenfatisfied.
Her. Neoer beleetse it.
lannorean Antike Ronaotheo aDaoe:
Reese a yet {one Liquor left.
l"for. Asth’manmgtoe metheCop.
so,» Heaaeu lle haue’ t.
Oh good Harare, whats wounded name.
(Things {landing thus vuknowne) lhall line behind at.
lfthoo did'a euer holdmein thy heart,
Abfeoe thee from felieirie awhile,
Audio this harlh world this thy breath in paioe,

"l’oeellnyStotie.
Whatwatlslte ooyfeisthia?

the. 0m.
» 01?. Y Purl-bargain eooqoefl eo'ne frd Poland
Toth' Anh ofEnglaod gitaes this warlike rally.
Hg. 0 I dye Ham's r
The potent poyt'oo quite ore. erowea my fpirit,
Ieaooot line to bare the Newes from England,
Dot 1 disprophefieth' eleaion lights
.0 ’On Patti-ha, he ha' a my dying voyce,
so tell him with the oeeorteots more and lel'e,
Which haue (elicited. The relhis Glenee. O,o,o,o. ya

.2

141

First, the effects vary because Hamlet's request to

31
Horatio is different in each version: in Q2 he mentions a
single "cause" (first arrow) whereas in F1 he mentions
"causes" (first arrow). The differences imply that whereas

in Q2 he killed and died for reasons which probably
overwhelmed him as a whole, and which he sums up as a
"father kild, a mother staind" in the soliloquy of act four
(p. 134, Q2, tenth arrow), in F1 he did so making
distinctions: between private reasons relating to his
family per se and political reasons relating to the State of
Denmark. Even though each may overlap with the other in a
dynamic continuum, Hamlet's preoccupation in Q2 strikes us
as exclusively personal because he seems less conscious of
political factors than in F1. The F1 version has, overall, a
more political tone than Q2 because Hamlet is conscious as a
Prince, as a royal figure who does not want the reputation
of his kingdom to be compromised.

Second, Hamlet's "dying voice“ (p. 140, Q2, second
arrow - F1 third arrow) to Fortinbras becomes, in F1, more

than a concern with the person who should hear the truth

about him and an acknowledgement of political succession.
Hamlet dies knowing that Denmark has at least been purged of
its "Canker" and hopefully shall meet true renewal when
Fortinbras takes over the crown. His cry "0, o, o, o,"32
exclusive to F1 (last arrow), then comes across as the

final emotional release of the protagonist who fulfilled his

wish. But it is also loaded with pain, making his death even

142

more touching in F1 not only because it lasts a little
longer but also because it forces us to hear his pain, so to

speak.

-vii-

The non-verbal possibilities generated by each version
of the final scene also contribute to an ending that
emphasizes Hamlet's death more in F1 than in Q2. One of the
most significant differences is that involving Fortinbras'

directions which I mentioned at the outset of this chaper:

Q2 (02 r) F1 (T 280)
Take the bodies, Inch 3 G be a this, ' Take vp the body ; Such a fight as this i
BecogtJVZs the field, hoaxheerelhowes much We. 23°35mesi‘flgi’xar::imm‘ m‘h "‘ "
Goe id thelbtildiers oote. ’ \ .
Ian-r. mw:»‘:4umuu:s,arunf 2
mm. °"""“?”“"

The fact that only Hamlet's body is raised in F1 forces. us
to focus attention on his own last passage across the stage,
whereas Q2 divides our attention amongst the other bodies as
well. A director using F1 may thus enhance Hamlet's
superiority as the Prince who purged his country, while Q2

does not for such a choice. But the final stage directions

32
in each version also shape unique endings because of the

blocking and sound effect.
We cannot tell, either from Q2 or F1, who exits:

whether all of the characters or only some of them. Various

143

possibilities emerge from these differences. The Q2 version
allows for all the company to exit, leaving the theater
audience to register the impact of a bare stage. F1, because
of the word "marching", may be directing only those soldiers
Fortinbras ordered to take Hamlet's body to exit: we might
then have Osrick, Horatio, and all the other Danes on stage.
physically restating a new political order brought into
being Fortinbras and others from Norway, with whom they
stand as accepting subjects. Should Fortinbras exit after
the soldiers, we would still have the sense that his rule
has begun forcefully: he may come and go as he pleases,
while his orders are fulfilled. Clearly the sound effect
that follows in F1, the noise of the ordinance firing.
enhances this possibility.34

After Fortinbras' (and Hamlet's) final lines in both Q2

and F1, Q2 simply adds a direction to "exeunt" while F1
gives a more elaborate one: "exeunt marching; after the
which a peale g; ordenance are shot off." The F1 direction

 

allows for an ending that much more strongly asserts
Fortinbras' authority, since the shooting of the cannons not

only meets his command but also suggests that his authority
as the new ruler is being established. The cannon that
moments earlier shot under Claudius' command (Q2 N4 r, F1 T
281) "...let... the cannons to the heavens...") now
ceremoniously fulfill the new King's request. The F1 version

therefore accentuates the political consequences of Hamlet's

death, forcing us to remember it was a Prince who died.

144

Individually, and in combination, the differences
between Q2 and F1 I have analyzed point towards the
existence of two distinct Hamlets and two distinct Hamlets.
In Q2 we find a protagonist who emerges as a wronged Dane.
and a tragedy that accentuates the personal and familial
dimension. F1 presents the tragedy of a more politically
conscious Prince who dies while bringing about renewal for

35
the Kingdom of Denmark.

145

Notes for Chapter IV

1
Both the title page and the page-heading of the Q1

version read The Tragicall Historie g; Hamlet Prince 9:

 

 

 

Denmarke.
2
Polonius' statement is also found in Q1 (D4 r).
3
Q1. like F1, directs that only one body be taken up
(I4 r).
4
The Q1 version (12 r):
. -&undfiwdhewfl%mahu .,
Ha. belt-cue mee, it greener mee math Honda's,
That to Looted forgot us Tell: t' . .
Indu' lafiuudmdmslahmhapdh3_,:.
Ilqui hadfihuuemmuho enummqp_
' Enamlhggdghuhmm.'
5

As can be seen just above, Hamlet does not question
the worth of Claudius' life in Q1, but also is interrupted
by the Courtier (I2 r).

6
As the passage in (4) indicates, Hamlet does not

reflect upon his motivation in Q1.

7
The "Canker" metaphor is not in Q1 (I2 r).

8
Q2 also includes such associations in spite of not

having the "Canker" metaphor. One of them occurs
exclusively in Q2 (D. r) during the moment when Hamlet

regrets the fact that the King's drinking habit has

reinforced the Danes' reputation as drunkards. Hamlet

146

attributes alcoholism to "some vicious mole of nature,"
which is an early suggestion that Claudius not only is
infected, so to speak, with some sort of corrupting disease.
but also spreads it in Denmark.

9
Q1 also includes Marcellus' remark (C3 v).

10
Apparently, there is a typographical error here in

the copy used for the Yale Facsimile of F1, since the page
that follows 278 is 259, rather than 279. The pages that
follow are numbered 280, 281, and 280 rather than 282. F1
page numbering is, overall, inconsistent. Hamlet begins at
152, with a sudden shift (probably another error) to the
200's after five pages. The sequence is 152-156, 257-278,

259, 280-281, 280.

11
Rosencranz's lines are not in Q1 (G. v)

12
Laertes' advice to Ophelia is much simpler in Q1 (C2

r) and does not include remarks on Hamlet's princely
identity.

13
Unlike Q2, Q1 does introduce Hamlet's concern with

Laertes (cf. 4)

14
The soliloquy is in Q1, though at a different point,

after orthodox III.i.209 (E4 v - F r).

15
This phrase is not in Q1 (F2 v), but Hamlet does

define himself as a "dunghill idiote slave."

147
16
Phrase also in Q1 (84 v).

17
These lines are not in Q1 (F3 v).

18
Q1 also captures the notion of "temperance" (F2 r).

19
Q1 obscures Hamlet's concern with the duality

passion X reason as well as his reflecting upon his own
behavior.

20
The word "Cause" is not present in Q1. We can verify

in the passage of note 4 that Hamlet speaks of "griefe".
rather than of a purpose. His ethical motivation is thus
obscure in Q1.

21
In Q1 (12 v) the "Braggart Gentleman" quickly

dismisses Hamlet's ironic comments on temperature and
explicitly introduces the wager subject with a line similar
to one also found much later in Q2 and F1: “The Kings,
sweete prince, hath layd a wager on your side." Hamlet
accepts the match, states his fear and seemingly allows
himself to accept fate. The effect is strange, with the
Braggart having more control over the conversation than
Hamlet.

22
The dialogue in the Q1 version does not include

remarks about Laertes' personal qualities (12 v).

23
Mills would call this a "slow—soft" (p. 6) Hamlet.

148
24
Dodsworth strongly argues for the view that Hamlet's
is "playing," and that his allusions to providence are in
effect blasphemous. Such interpretation would require rather
energetic acting and ironic delivery of lines.

25
In the Q1 version (I2 v, I3 r) Hamlet's response to

Horatio is even more matter-of-fact because the speech is

reduced:

. Her. My lordforbearc the challenge then.
Hm. No Horatio, not I. ifslanger he now, .
Why then'is is not to come,the°res a pttdelliiiare ptousdence

in thefall of a fpsnow: heete comes the King;
Enter Kimflyele, Laertesfiordu.

26
The Q1 version (13 v):

Haw. The poyl'ned lnlhument within my hand!
Then venom: to thyvenomedte damn'd villaine: . . '
Come 'drinkC. here lies thy union here. The (insider.

/

As can be verified above the Q1 version has "union", too.
The use of the verb "lies" paticularly strengthens the

notion of Claudius as a King who ultimately lies dead.

27
This moment, during which Claudius throws the

poisoned jewel in the cup, is absent in Q1. Since we are
left with a single occurrence of "union" (cf. passage in
note 19), Q1 gives more freedom for the director, who may

even choose to have someone other than Claudius poison the

149

wine, either on stage or off. If off stage, the audience
would probably be left at a loss as to who actually does the
poisoning.

28
The Q1 version does not include the "fifth"

soliloquy.

29
Fortinbras makes a brief appearance in Q1 (G4 v).

which comes across as merely strategic.

3O
Fortinbras is a stranger for Hamlet in Q1, since

Hamlet never even learns he may take Denmark's crown (13 v).

31
In Q1 Hamlet makes the same request to Horatio, but

never acknowledges Fortinbras' arrival (13 v).

flit-t Andi thee,01andeade,£retheewelL
‘ Her. No Iammoreatiantilee'lioman,rs ..: .19....2
Tiles inaneheteislb ine'yoifooléft. -. 'z-J , .I-i 3r“ -
Hail-V louelmrdieelettt goe.-. .
-(36&thwsmdidwu . .
m...“ "“ ““5? "3‘3“??? “fsmaitl.
umyn en t te o an
{notfi'om the! Only hm fihyeltes Heretic,
ioeeyeshauelollthdtfiflsgnyton ehisvl'c:
farewel Hammheaum teteitie myfo Hat. in. ‘

2'“:

As the above note and passage suggest, Hamlet's political
consciousness is even dimmer in Q1.

32
The cry "0, o, o" is not in Q1 (13 v).

33
Q1 lacks a final direction, thus being completely

open (14 r).

34
There's no sound effect in Q1 (14 r).

150
35
A third tragedy emerges from Q1, definitely more
simplistic because it does not give us access to the full

complexity of Hamlet's mind.

CONCLUSION

We do not want to talk about quarto and folio as better
or worse, but as different. This difference, on the basis
of my analysis of various versions of the endings of The
Merry Wives 9; Windsor, Hgggy y, and Hamlet, can be
generally defined as one involving both degree and kind.
The passages, lines, words, and stage-directions exclusive
to each version of the seven playtexts considered all
appeared to have a bearing on the course of action. In
addition, they seemed to be part of a wider aesthetic
pattern: whether authorial intention was a factor or not.
the quarto endings of the three plays I have examined
emerged as more practical resolutions of the plot whereas
the folio endings systematically dwelt on and elaborated

ethical themes. The clearest example of this is the

treatment of lust in each version of The Merry Wives Q;

 

Wingsgg. A more subtle example is what I have called the
purgation of Denmark in Hamlet. An indirect example is the
mutual irony between Harry and France in Henry y: while the
potential is there in Q, F1 explores it to the fullest and
suggests that Harry in fact ggsgrygs to be diminished rather

than idolized.

151

152

Note that I have used the term exclusive because I want
to emphasize the fact that each playtext I examined emerged
as unique. This is difficult to do because we are so used to
"thinking conflated" that we have a tendency to view
differences as "lacking" features and are thus tricked into
dichotomizing the versions. What my analysis suggests is

that The Merry Wives 9: Windsor, Henry y, and Hamlet have

 

each at least two facets in all the playtexts, even though
quarto and folio ultimately accentuate a particular facet.

The juxtaposition of different versions of the plays
proved to be a highly rewarding method of study, for the
following reasons.

Analysing differences in quarto and folio we are able
to identify theatrical possibilities rather than what has
often been called dramatic "inconsistencies.“ Consequently.

we can to a great extent disambiguate the playtexts. In

 

other words, a director or a critic dealing, for instance.
with nggy y Q and F1 need not struggle with the question of
whether "the" play is an epic or a satire because "it" has
elements of both. The choice of playtext will define the
dominant approach: as my discussion of the two endings of
this play has shown Q consistently emphasizes Harry's
political triumph whereas F1 allows intense irony.
Conflated versions, because they merge both possibilities.
probably force us to spend more creative energy than

necessary in deciding which view textual evidence supports

best.

153

The final scenes of the three plays I analysed in this
study are consistent with the action that precedes them.
which confirms already current arguments that we should view
with skepticism any judgments regarding the "quality" of
various versions of Shakespeare's plays. We should, at
least for the moment, avoid using orthodox terms such as
"good," "bad," "corrupt," and so on to describe the
playtexts. The hypothesis that all of the quarto and folio
versions of plays in the canon of Shakespeare are
dramatically coherent must therefore be investigated. 1
must istress, however, that this should not be a matter of
trying to determine whether quarto is superior to folio or
vice-versa.

When we consider quarto and folio as unique pieces we
are compelled to the view that controversies amongst
Shakespearean critics regarding plays that exist in multiple
versions may in effect have been exacerbated by editors of
conflated editions, rather than by Shakespeare himself. Of
course, it was not the purpose of my dissertation to prove

or disprove theory. I must nevertheless point this out

because further inquiry on the issue seems expedient.
Perhaps the best way to begin is investigating how quarto
and folio versions provide different perspectives on old
problems such as Hamlet's delaying or ~Henry V's
Christianity. What we ganggg do is continue ignoring the

fact that, despite the crucial advancements of Craig and

Hinman, conflating is in essence a conjectural practice.

154

I have thus questioned orthodox editorial practice and
sought to demonstrate that differences in three of
Shakespeare's multiple-text plays generate unique dramatic
effects because they have a bearing on the meaning of action
and on our perception of the endings. Shakespeare's endings
here stand out as being marked by openness. This does not
mean that we are faced with relativism, but that we can
commit ourselves to a particular interpretation without
having to invoke the ghost of dogmatism to protect
ourselves.

"Shakespeareans assimilate change slowly," says Howard,
but I trust my work will help reformist criticism to bring
about a truly legitimate way of approaching Shakespeare's

multiple-text plays.

 

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

For a long time closure was an issue of form.
associated with the subject of genre and classical views of
tragedy and comedy.

Interest in endings and closure of works of art has
been on the rise since the 1960's. But what stands out as
the core motivation of certain studies on the subject is a
kind of compulsion to shape an "open" theory of fiction, and
a discontent with Aristotle's dictum that a work of art must
be "complete", as Richter puts it.

.Adams, I am tempted to argue, provides the manifesto
for speculation of this sort:

... the critic who wants to do so can easily
discover an element of Openness in almost any
literary form. ... once alerted to the concept of
ambivalence ... . (p. 201)

... [we can] venture against all closed and
tightly organized critical systems, as the
artists, without ever bothering their heads about
it, have been venturing for a long, long time.

(p. 215)
Kermode, while discussing fiction, again reinforces this
feature of openness: "The golden bird will not always sing
the same song, though a primeval pattern underlies its
notes" (p. 31).

Herrnstein-Smith spurred, however, more extensive
scholarship on the concept of closure per se. which she

defines as " ... an effect that depends primarily upon the

reader's experience of the structure of the entire poem" (p.

viii). The underlying assumption, even though she does not

155

156

discuss drama, is that since the effect will vary with the
audience, the object is, always and essentially, open to
interpretation.

Beckerman's (1985) discussion of Shakespeare's closure
deserves attention. He begins with a detailed description
of the factors of closure in the theater, especially
regarding the vital role various individuals other than the
playwright play in producing closure. But he then goes on
to "identify a cluster of components that reappear in many
of [Shakespeare's] final scenes" (p. 83), such as unmasking,
reconciliation, promise that the events be reported, deaths.
elegy, continuity of action, epilogues, songs, dancing.
Unfortunately. Beckerman's best point is buried: "a play
subsides, rather than ends" (p.82). It is his best point
because it embodies the idea of openness, which seems to be
at the core of theory of closure. Beckerman wrote this essay
inspired by Herrnstein-Smith, whom he quotes at the outset,
but he does not explore the idea of Egg a play subsides.

What this suggests is that theory of closure, despite

its immature state, has obviously changed the way critics

are viewing Shakespeare's plays. Namely, it has stimulated
us to explore their theatrical possibilities. Two other
examples of this are found in the work of Craik and Kay.
Craik, without offering any access to his preconceptions.
plunges into a discussion of the theatrical effects of
moments in various plays, which he uses to illustrate the

"manner in which Shakespeare concludes a play's performance”

 

157

(p. 44). Kay's very concept of "postponed endings" (endings
which the audience ultimately imagine) also explores the
openness of the playtext.

Hult, in the introduction to an issue of gal; French
Studies devoted to the subject of closure, speculates that
such a trend is "... a symptom of a modern intellectual
climate characterized by decenteredness ... and absence of
meaning" (p. iv). Whether this is a sound assumption or not.
we generally know that philosophy always is the alternative
when " ... confident answers ... no longer seem so
convincing as they did ..." (Russell, p. xiii).

My dissertation is an attempt to better understand
Shakespeare's endings by experimenting with a new paradigm
(McGuire 1985) focused on the opennes of the playtext and

its multiple possibilities.

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WORKS CONSULTED

BIBLIOGRAPHY
OF WORKS CONSULTED

Adams, Robert M. Strains pg Discord: Studies 1p Literary
Openness. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1958.

Alexander. Peter. Hamlet Father and Son. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1955.

 

 

Bartlett, John. A Complete Concordance pp Verbal Index
£9 Words, Phrases and Passages 1p the Dramatic Work pg
Shakespeare. New York: St. Martin's, 1953.

 

 

 

Bayfield, M.A. A Study 9; Shakespeare's Versification:
with pp Inquiry into the Trustworthiness 93 the Early
Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1920.

 

 

 

Beauman. Sally, ed. The Royal Shakespeare Company's
Production pf Henry V. Oxford: Pergamon. 1976.

 

Beckerman, Bernard. Shakespeare p; the Globe. New York:
Macmillan. 1962.

 

 

-—-. "Shakespeare Closing." The Kenyon Review 3.3 (1985):
79-95.

 

Berman. Ronald, ed. Twentieth Century Interpretation pf
Henry V. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice, 1968.

 

 

Bentley, G. E. Shakespeare and his Theatre. Lincoln: U of
Nebraska P. 1964.

 

Berry. Edward. "Twentieth-century Shakespeare Criticism:
the Histories." The Cambridge Companion pp Shakespeare

Studies. Ed. Stanley Wells. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
1986. 249-256.

 

Black, M. W., and M. A. Shaaber. Shakespeare's Seventeenth-
century Editors: 1632—1685. New York: MLA, 1937.

 

Bowers, Fredson T. "Death in Victory: Shakespeare's Tragic
Reconciliations." Studies ip Honour pg DeWigp I;

Starnes. Eds. Thomas P. Harrison et. al. Austin: The
U of Texas P, 1967. 53-75.

158

159

---. 9p Editing Shakespeare and the Elizabethan
Dramatists. Charlottesville: UP of Virginia. 1966.

 

---. "The Moment of Final Suspense in Hamlet: 'We Defy
Augury'." Shakespeare: 1564-1964. Ed. Edward A.
Bloom. Providence: Brown UP, 1964. 71-87.

Bracey, William. The Merry Wives of Windsor. The History
and Transmission of Shakespeare's Text. U of Missouri
Studies 25.1. Columbia. Curators of the U of Missouri.
1952.

Brown, J. R. Shakespeare's Plays ip Performance. New York:
St. Martins, 1967.

Burckhardt, R. E. Shakespeare's ppg Quartos: Deliberate
Abridgements Designed for Pergormance py p Reduced
Cast. Studies in English Literature 101. The Hague:
Mouton. 1975.

Calderwood, James L. To Be and not to Be: Negation and

Metadrama 1p Hamlet. New York: Columbia UP, 1983.

 

Campbell, Lily Bess. Shakespeare's 'Histories': Mirrors 9:
Elizabethan Policy. San Marino: The Huntington
Library. 1947.

 

Candido, J., and C. R. Forker, comps. Henry V: pp
Annotated Bibliography. Garland Shakespeare
Bibliographies 4. New York: Garland. 1983.

Chambers, Mortimer. Raymond Grew, David Herlihy, Theodore K.
Rabb, and Isser Woloch. The Western Experience. 3rd
ed. New York: Alfred Knopf, 1983.

Champion. Larry S., comp. The Essential Shakespearey pp
Annotated Bibliography 9; Major Modern Studies.
Boston: G.K. Hall, 1986.

Craig, H. A New Look pt Shakespeare's Quartos.
Stanford: Stanford UP, 1961.

---. "The Relation of the First Quarto Version to the First
Folio Version of Shakespeare's Henry y." Philological
Quarterly 6 (1927): 225-234.

 

Craik, T. W. " 'You this way; we this way' Shakespeare's

Endings. " Mirror gp pp Shakespeare: Essays ip Honour
of G. R. Hibbard. Ed. J. C. Gray. Toronto: U of
Toronto P, 1984. 44-54.

Duthie, George I. The "Bad" Quarto p: Hamlet.
Cambridge: The UP, 1941.

 

160

Felheim. Marvin, and Philip Traci. "Realism in The Merry
Wives 9; Windsor.“ Ball State University Forum 22
(1981): 52-59.

 

Fish. Stanley E. Self-Consuming Artifacts. Berkeley:
U of California P, 1972.

 

Gilbert, Alan. "Patriotism and Satire in Henry y."
Studies ip Shakesppare. Ed. Arthur D. Matthews and
Clark M. Emery. Coral Gables: U of Miami P, 1953. 40-
64.

Goddard. Harold C. "Henry 2." The Meaning 9: Shakespeare.
Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1951. 215-268.

 

Gomes. Eugenio. Shakespeare pp Brasil. Ministerio da
Educacao e Cultura, Servico de Documentacao. 1945.

Granville-Barker, Harley Preface pp Hamlet. New York:
Hill and Wang. 1946.

Greg, Walter W. The Editorial Problem pp Shakespeare.
Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1942.

---. Principles 9; Emendation pp Shakespeare. London: H.
Milford. 1928.

 

 

 

---. The Shakespeare First Folio: Its Bibliographical and
Textual History. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955.

 

---. Two Elizabethan Stagp Abridgements: The Battle of
Alcazar p Orlando Furioso, pp Essay pp Critical
Bibliography. Oxford: Clarendon, 1923.

 

 

---. The Variants ip the First Quarto 9: King Lear. London:
Oxford UP, 1940.

 

 

Harbage, Alfred. Shakespeare and the Rival Traditions. New
York: Macmillan. 1952.

Hart, A. Stolne and Surreptitiopp Copies: p Comparative

Sgpgy pg Shakespeare's Bad Quartos. Melbourne:
Melbourne UP, 1942.

 

 

Herrnstein-Smith, Barbara. Poetic Closure. Chicago: The U
of Chicago P. 1968.

 

Hinman. Charlton. The First Folio 9: Shakespeare. New
York: W.W. Norton, 1968.

 

 

---. Tpp Printing and Proof-Reading g; the First {9119 9:
Shakespeare. Oxford: Clarendon, 1963.

 

 

 

 

 

161

---. Six Variant Readingp 1p the First Folio 9;
Shakespeare. Lawrence: U of Kansas Libraries. 1961.

 

Homan, Sidney, ed. Shakespeare's 'More than words can
witness'. London: Associated UP. 1980.

Honigmann, E. A. J. The Stability pg Shakespeare's Text.
London: Edward Arnold, 1965.

Howard, Jean E. "Scholarship, Theory, and More New
Readings: Shakespeare for the 19908." Shakespppre
Study Today. Ed. H.H. Furness & G. Ziegler. New
York: AMS P, 1986. 127-151.

 

Hult, David. An introduction on "Concepts of Closure."
Yale French Studies 67 (1984): i-vi.

 

Jones, Ernest. Hamlet and Oedipus. Garden City. N.Y.:
Doubleday. 1949.

 

Kay. Dennis. "'To hear the rest untold': Shakespeare's
Postponed Endings." Renaissance Quarterly 37 (1984):
207-227.

Kermode. Frank. The Sense pg pp Ending. New York: Oxford
UP. 1966.

 

Kirschbaum, Leo. Shakespeare and the Stationers. Columbus:
Ohio State UP, 1955.

+--. The True Text 9; King Lear. Baltimore: The
Johns Hopkins P. 1945.

 

Lee. Sidney. Shakespeare and the Modern Stagp with Other
Essays. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1906.

Levin. Harry. The Question pf Hamlet. New York: Oxford UP.
1959.

 

Lewis. Clive S. Hamlet: the Prince pp the Poem. London:
Proceedings of the British Academy. 1942.

 

McGuire. Philip C. "Seeing prpy y 'Perspectively'."
The Shakespeare Plays. Developed by University
Extension, U of California, San Diego and The Coast
Community Colleges. Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt, 1980.

 

-—-. Speechless Dialect: Shakespeare's Open Silences.
Berkeley: U of California P, 1985.

McGuire, Philip C., and David A. Samuelson. Shakespeare,
the Theatrical Dimension. New York: AMS P. 1979.

 

 

 

162
Mills, John A. Hamlet pp Stage: the Great Tradition.
Westport, Conn.: Greenwood P, 1985.

Montaigne, Michel E. The Essays. Great Books of the
Western World. Chicago: Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1952.

 

Morris, Harry. Last Thingp 1p Shakespeare. Tallahassee:
Florida State UP, 1985.

Muir. Kenneth. "The texts of Kipg Lear." Shakespeare:
Contrasts and Controversies. U of Oklahoma P. 1985.

 

Parrott. Thomas M. and Hardin Craig, eds. The Tragedy p;
Hamlet. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1938.

Pollard, A. W. 5 Census 9; Shakespeare's Plays pp Quarto.
New Haven: Yale UP, 1939.

---. The Foundation 9: Shakespeare's Text. London: Oxford
UP, 1923.

 

---. Shakespeare's Fight with the Pirates and the Problem
pf the Transmission 2; his Text. Cambridge: Cambridge
UP. 1920.

 

——-. Shakespeare's Folios and Quartos. London: Methuen &
Co. Repr. 1970, New York: Cooper Square, 1909.

Price, Hereward T. The Text 9; Henry V. Newcastle-under-
Lyme: Mandley & Unett. 1921.

Prosser, Eleanor. Hamlet and Revengp. Stanford: Stanford
UP, 1967.

 

Quiller-Couch. Arthur, and John Dover Wilson. The Merry
Wives of Windsor. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1921.

Rabkin, Norman. Shakespeare and the Problem pf Meaning.
Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1981.

 

Richman, David "Shakespeare on Stage, the 'King Lear'
Quarto in Rehearsal and Performance." Shakespeare
Quarterly 37.3 (1986): 374-382.

Richter, David G. Fable's End. Chicago: The U of Chicago

 

P. 1974.
Roberts, Jeanne Addison. "The Merry Wives: Suitably
Shallow. but Neither Simple nor Slender." Shakespeare

 

Studies 6 (1970): 109-123.

 

163

Rowe. Nicholas. 'Some Account of the Life. Ec. of Mr.
William Shakespear.’ Prefixed to Rowe's edition of The
Works 9; Mr. William Shakespear, 1709.

Robinson, Randal F., comp. Hamlet ;p the 1950's: pp
Annotated Bibliography. Garland Shakespeare
Bibliographies 7. New York: Garland. 1984.

 

 

Russell, Bertrand. A History pf Western Philosophy. New
York: Simon and Schuster, 1972.

Schelling, Felix E. The English Chronicle Play. New York:
Macmillan. 1902.

 

Shakespeare, William. Hamlet the First Quarto 1603. Ed.
Albert B. Weiner. Great Neck, N.Y.: Barron's
Educational Series. 1962.

 

---. Hamlet First Quarto. Shakespeare Quarto Facsimiles
no. 7. Ed. W. W. Greg. London: The Shakespeare
Association & Sidgwick and Jackson, 1951.

 

---. 'Hamlet' Second Quarto, 1604-5. Shakespeare Quartos
in Collotype Facsimile no. 4. Ed. W. W. Greg. London:
The Shakespeare Association & Sidgwick and Jackson,
1940.

 

---. King Henry 2. The Arden Edition of the Works of
William Shakespeare. Ed. J.H. Walter. Cambridge:
Harvard UP. 1954.

 

---. Henry the Fifth. Shakespeare Quarto Facsimiles no. 9.
Ed. W. W. Greg. Oxford: Clarendon, 1957.

 

---. Henry y. The Oxford Shakespeare. Ed. Gary Taylor.
Oxford: Clarendon, 1982.

---. The Merry Wives 9; Windsor. Shakespeare Quarto
Facsimiles no. 3. Ed. W. W. Greg. London: The
Shakespeare Association & Sidgwick and Jackson, 1939.

 

---. Mr. William Shakespeares Comedies, Histories, p
Tragedies. Published according to the true originall
copies. London, Printed by I. Iaggard, E. Blount,
1623.

 

---. William Shakespeare, the Complete prkp. The Pelican

text Revised. Gen. ed. Alfred Harbage. New York:
Penguin Books, 1969.

 

 

Smith. Gordon Ross, comp. A Classified Shakespearp
Bibliggraphy 1936-1958. University Park, Pa.: The
Pennsylvania State UP, 1963.

 

 

 

164

Spevack, Marvin. p Complete and Systematic Concordance 39
the Work pf Shakespeare. New York: Georg Olius Verlag.
1975.

Stone. P.W.K. The Textual History 9; King Lear. London:
Scolar P, 1980.

Taylor. Gary and Michael Warren. The Division 9; the
Kingdoms. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1983.

Taylor, Gary. "Readers and Seers: 'Henry V'." Moment py
Moment py Shakespeare. London: The Macmillan P, 1985.
112-161. Published in the United States of America as
19 Analyze Delight. Newark: U of Delaware P, 1985

 

Tillyard, E. M. W. Shakespeare's History Plays. London:
Chatto & Windu, 1944.

Urkowitz, Steven. Shakespeare's Revision 9; King Lear.
Princeton: Princeton UP. 1980.

---. "'Well-sayd olde Mole': Burying Three 'Hamlets' in
Modern Editions." Shakespeare Study Today. Ed.
Horace H. Furness and Georgiana Ziegler. New York: AMS
P. 1986. 37-69.

Walker. Alice. "The textual problem of 'Hamlet': a

 

 

 

reconsideration." Review pp English Studies 2 (1951):
328-38.

---. Textual Problems pf the First Folio. Cambridge: UP.
1953.

Walker. Roy. The Time ip Out pf Joint. London: A. Dakers.
1948.

Warren, Michael. "Quarto and folio 'King Lear' and the
interpretation of Edgar and Albany." Shakespeare:

 

Pattern p: Excelling Nature. Ed. David Bevington and
Jay L. Halio. Newark: U of Delaware P. 1978.

Weiner, Albert B. Hamlet the first Quarto 1603. Great Neck.
N.Y.: Barron's Educational Series, 1962.

West, Rebecca. The Court and the Castle. New Haven: Yale
UP, 1957.

 

Wilson. John Dover. The manuscript 9: Shakespeare's Hamlet
and the problem pf its transmission. Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, 1934.

 

 

 

---. gipg Hpnry y. Cambridge: UP, 1947.

 

165

Willoughby, E. E. The Printing 9; the First Folio. Oxford:
Oxford UP, 1932.

 

 

Wright. L. B.. and V. A. LaMar. The Folger Guide 39
Shakespeare. New York: Washington Square P. 1969.