Editing Hamlet (section)

==Texts==

Three early editions of the text, each different, have survived, making attempts to establish a single "authentic" text problematic.{{sfn|Hattaway|1987|pp=13–20}}{{sfn|Chambers|1923b|pp=486–487}}{{sfn|Halliday|1964|pp=204–205}}
* [[Hamlet Q1|First Quarto]] ('''Q1'''): In 1603 the booksellers [[Nicholas Ling]] and John Trundell published, and [[Valentine Simmes]] printed, the so-called "[[Bad quarto|bad]]" first quarto, under the name ''The Tragicall Historie of Hamlet Prince of Denmarke''. Q1 contains just over half of the text of the later second quarto.
* Second Quarto ('''Q2'''): In 1604 Nicholas Ling published, and James Roberts printed, the second quarto, under the same name as the first. Some copies are dated 1605, which may indicate a second impression; consequently, Q2 is often dated "1604/5". Q2 is the longest early edition, although it omits about 77 lines found in F1{{sfn|Thompson|Taylor|2006a|p=465}} (most likely to avoid offending [[James I of England|James I's]] queen, [[Anne of Denmark]]).{{sfn|Halliday|1964|p=204}}
* [[First Folio]] ('''F1'''): In 1623 [[Edward Blount]] and [[William Jaggard|William and Isaac Jaggard]] published ''The Tragedie of Hamlet, Prince of Denmarke'' in the First Folio, the first edition of Shakespeare's ''Complete Works''.{{sfn|Thompson|Taylor|2006a|p=78}}

This list does not include three additional early texts, [[John Smethwick]]'s Q3, Q4, and Q5 (1611–37), which are regarded as reprints of Q2 with some alterations.{{sfn|Thompson|Taylor|2006a|p=78}}

[[File:Hamlet.jpg|thumb|upright|left|[[Title page]] of the 1605 printing (Q2) of ''Hamlet'']]
[[File:First-page-first-folio-Hamlet.jpg|thumb|The first page of the [[First Folio]] printing of ''Hamlet'', 1623]]
Early [[Shakespeare's editors|editors of Shakespeare's works]], beginning with [[Nicholas Rowe (writer)|Nicholas Rowe]] (1709) and [[Lewis Theobald]] (1733), combined material from the two earliest sources of ''Hamlet'' available at the time, Q2 and F1. Each text contains material that the other lacks, with many minor differences in wording: scarcely 200 lines are identical in the two. Editors have combined them in an effort to create one "inclusive" text that reflects an imagined "ideal" of Shakespeare's original. Theobald's version became standard for a long time,{{sfn|Hibbard|1987|pp=22–23}} and his "full text" approach continues to influence editorial practice to the present day. Some contemporary scholarship, however, discounts this approach, instead considering "an authentic ''Hamlet'' an unrealisable ideal. ... there are ''texts'' of this play but no ''text''".{{sfn|Hattaway|1987|p=16}} The 2006 publication by Arden Shakespeare of different ''Hamlet'' texts in different volumes is perhaps evidence of this shifting focus and emphasis.{{efn|The [[Arden Shakespeare]] third series published Q2, with appendices, in their first volume,{{sfn|Thompson|Taylor|2006a}} and the F1 and Q1 texts in their second volume.{{sfn|Thompson|Taylor|2006b}} The [[RSC Shakespeare]] is the F1 text with additional Q2 passages in an appendix.{{sfn|Bate|Rasmussen|2007|p=1923}} The [[New Cambridge Shakespeare]] series has begun to publish separate volumes for the separate quarto versions that exist of Shakespeare's plays.{{sfn|Irace|1998}}}} Other editors have continued to argue the need for well-edited editions taking material from all versions of the play. Colin Burrow has argued that <blockquote>most of us should read a text that is made up by conflating all three versions ... it's about as likely that Shakespeare wrote: "To be or not to be, ay, there's the point" [in Q1], as that he wrote the works of [[Francis Bacon]]. I suspect most people just won't want to read a three-text play ... [multi-text editions are] a version of the play that is out of touch with the needs of a wider public.{{sfn|Burrow|2002}}</blockquote>

Traditionally, editors of Shakespeare's plays have divided them into five acts. None of the early texts of ''Hamlet'', however, were arranged this way, and the play's division into acts and scenes derives from a 1676 quarto. Modern editors generally follow this traditional division but consider it unsatisfactory; for example, after Hamlet drags Polonius's body out of Gertrude's bedchamber, there is an act-break{{refn|''Hamlet'' ''Hamlet'' 3.4 and 4.1.}} after which the action appears to continue uninterrupted.{{sfn|Thompson|Taylor|2006a|pp=543–552}}

[[File:Bad quarto, good quarto, first folio.png|thumb|Comparison of the 'To be, or not to be' soliloquy in the first three editions of Hamlet, showing the varying quality of the text in the [[Bad Quarto]], the Good Quarto and the [[First Folio]]]]

Q1 was discovered in 1823. Only two copies are extant. According to Jenkins, "The unauthorized nature of this quarto is matched by the corruption of its text."{{sfn|Jenkins|1982|p=14}} Yet Q1 has value: it contains stage directions (such as Ophelia entering with a lute and her hair down) that reveal actual stage practices in a way that Q2 and F1 do not; it contains an entire scene (usually labelled 4.6){{refn|''Hamlet Q1'' 14.}} that does not appear in either Q2 or F1; and it is useful for comparison with the later editions. The major deficiency of Q1 is in the language: particularly noticeable in the opening lines of the famous "[[To be, or not to be]]" soliloquy: "To be, or not to be, aye there's the point. / To die, to sleep, is that all? Aye all: / No, to sleep, to dream, aye marry there it goes." However, the scene order is more coherent, without the problems of Q2 and F1 of Hamlet seeming to resolve something in one scene and enter the next drowning in indecision. New Cambridge editor Kathleen Irace has noted that "Q1's more linear plot design is certainly easier [...] to follow [...] but the simplicity of the Q1 plot arrangement eliminates the alternating plot elements that correspond to Hamlet's shifts in mood."{{sfn|Irace|1998|pp=1–34}}

Q1 is considerably shorter than Q2 or F1 and may be a [[memorial reconstruction]] of the play as Shakespeare's company performed it, by an actor who played a minor role (most likely Marcellus).{{sfn|Jackson|1986|p=171}} Scholars disagree whether the reconstruction was pirated or authorised. It is suggested by Irace that Q1 is an abridged version intended especially for travelling productions, thus the question of length may be considered as separate from issues of poor textual quality.{{sfn|Irace|1998}}{{sfn|Thompson|Taylor|2006a|pp=85–86}} Editing Q1 thus poses problems in whether or not to "correct" differences from Q2 and F. Irace, in her introduction to Q1, wrote that "I have avoided as many other alterations as possible, because the differences...are especially intriguing...I have recorded a selection of Q2/F readings in the collation." The idea that Q1 is not riddled with error but is instead eminently fit for the stage has led to at least 28 different Q1 productions since 1881.{{sfn|Thompson|Taylor|2006b|pp=36–39}} Other productions have used the Q2 and Folio texts, but used Q1's running order, in particular moving the ''to be or not to be'' soliloquy earlier.{{sfn|Thompson|Taylor|2006a|pp=18–19}} Developing this, some editors such as [[Jonathan Bate]] have argued that Q2 may represent "a 'reading' text as opposed to a 'performance' one" of ''Hamlet'': an edition containing all of Shakespeare's material for the play for the pleasure of readers, so not representing the play as it would have been staged.{{sfn|Bate|Rasmussen|2008|p=11}}{{sfn|Crowl|2014|pp=5–6}}