Shakespeare Study: The Three Versions Of Hamlet

Recently, the Independent Shakespeare Company’s Iambic Lab focused on Hamlet, this year’s theme being “Hamlet, The Undiscovered Country.” One evening was dedicated to the First Quarto version, the so-called “Bad Quarto.” That got me even more interested in the different versions of the plays, so I made a few purchases. Here is what I’ve been reading this week.

Hamlet: The Texts of 1603 And 1623 by William Shakespeare – This is a volume in The Arden Shakespeare Third Series, and was edited by Ann Thompson and Neil Taylor. It contains edited texts of the Q1 and Folio versions of the play. It is offered as a companion to The Arden Shakespeare Hamlet volume that contains Q2, and the editors assume readers of this book also have that one. Regarding differences in punctuation, the editors write, “Anthony Graham-White has observed that F adopts more complex punctuation than the quartos, not only because of its wish to be ‘literary’ but because punctuation had become more sophisticated by 1623 – particularly in relation to the intermediate marks, the colon and the semicolon” (p. 8). This volume attempts to limit emendations as much as possible. Regarding performing Q1, the editors write: “It is not hard to see why Q1 should be attractive to performers. It is fast, plot-driven and far less ruminative than the other texts. Its emotions are raw rather than mediated and it is more of an ensemble piece, not a showcase for a single star performer” (p. 16). Notes are contained at the bottom of each page, and there is a full page of notes regarding the character list. The note on the character of Hamlet in Q1 reads: “The hero is apparently a younger character in Q1 than in Q2/F, since in Scene 16 the Gravedigger tells us that Yorick’s skull has been in the ground ‘this dozen year’ (86) rather than ‘three and twenty years’ and omits the reference to Hamlet having been born 30 years ago; the implication is that he is now about 18. In addition to the stress on his youth in scenes 3 and 5, in the closet scene (Scene 11) Corambis refers to him as ‘young Hamlet’ (1) and the Queen addresses him as ‘boy’ (10)” (p. 43). A note regarding the second scene reads: “The King is more dominant questioning Hamlet in Q1; the Queen plays a larger part in Q2/F” (p. 55). The note regarding the King’s use of the world “adulterous” in the scene where he prays reads: “In Q2/F the King does not refer specifically to adultery; he concentrates on the murder, though he mentions the Queen as one of the ‘effects for which I did the murther’” (p. 127). This, to me, hints that their relationship began before the murder. The note regarding Hamlet’s line “but first we’ll make all safe” to his mother reads: “i.e. make sure we are not interrupted or overheard. In a piece of staging unique to Q1, Hamlet presumably makes some gesture towards checking or locking the door” (p. 129). Another note regarding the Hamlet/Gertrude scene reads: “This suggestion – that the Queen can compensate for her fault in marrying her murdered husband’s brother by helping her son to kill the murderer – is also unique to Q1” (p, 135). There are somewhat fewer notes to the Folio version contained in this volume. Regarding Hamlet’s line “Hold off your hand,” a note reads: “F’s singular hand perhaps implies that Hamlet is struggling with one of his companions while the other looks on, while Q2’s plural implies they are both trying to restrain him” (p. 208). The F reading is “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,/Than are dreamt of in our philosophy.” I only came across “our” recently, and thought it might be a misprint, because every version I’d read and seen previously used the word “your” there. A note on that line reads: “Norton notes that Hamlet is ‘still trying to reconcile his own understanding with the supernatural revelations’. Edwards prefers Q1/2’s ‘your’, which he argues is a general term (as in ‘your whoreson dead body’ at 5.1.169-70) rather than a specific reference to Horatio’s skepticism” (p. 218). A note regarding Hamlet’s line “That I have shot mine arrow o’er the house/And hurt my mother” reads: “Oxf and Hibbard prefer Q2’s ‘brother’ which is supported by brothers’ wager at 200 and of course by the context more generally. Dowden, who prints ‘brother’, suggests tentatively that mother may nevertheless be ‘an afterthought of Shakespeare’ referring to the fact that the Queen requested Hamlet to make this apology – and he is perhaps apologizing for its less than candid quality; some gesture towards the Queen would be needed to indicate this in performance. This request, however, occurs only in Q2. Mother could also be taken within the metaphor ‘I have injured someone close to me’” (p. 351). This edition was first published in 2006. My copy is from the 2023 reprint.

Hamlet The First Quarto by William Shakespeare – This volume is A Scolar Press Facsimile, reproduced in the original size with permission of the Trustees of the British Museum. It is a facsimile of the British Museum copy of Q1, with the title page from the Huntington Library copy. There are no notes on the text. This volume was first printed in 1969, and reprinted in 1972.

Hamlet The Second Quarto by William Shakespeare – This volume is also A Scolar Press Facsimile, reproduced in the original size with permission of the Trustees of the British Museum. It is a facsimile of the British Museum copy of Q2, dated 1605. (Three of the surviving copies of Q2 are dated 1604, the others 1605.) The final leaf, missing from the British Museum copy, is a facsimile from the Capell copy in Trinity College. The book contains no notes on the text. This book was first printed in 1969, and reprinted in 1972.

Cardenio; Or Double Falsehood (Shakespeare By The Sea’s 2024 Production) Theatre Review

Shakespeare By The Sea is currently on the road, presenting two plays in parks all over Los Angeles and Orange County. This season is something special, for one of the plays they’ve chosen to present is an adaptation of Cardenio; Or Double Falsehood, part of the apocrypha. There is an intriguing story behind this play. Cervantes and Shakespeare were contemporaries (both died in April 1616), though there is no evidence that they ever met. Cardenio is a character in Cervantes’ Don Quixote, and also the name of a lost play that the King’s Men performed in 1613, based on the 1612 English translation of Cervantes’ work. As of 1653, The History Of Cardenio was attributed to William Shakespeare and John Fletcher, but there are no copies of the play. In 1727, Lewis Theobold claimed that his play Double Falsehood (published in 1728) was based on manuscripts he had of the lost play. Was he telling the truth? Theobold was known to imitate Shakespeare, so there is plenty of reason for doubt. What happened to those manuscripts? They were not found among Theobold’s possessions after his death. And even if he did own them, as he claimed, they might not have been copies of the original play, but of an adaptation by Thomas Betterton, making Double Falsehood an adaptation of an adaptation of a work possibly co-written by Shakespeare. This production put on by Shakespeare By The Sea is an adaptation by Jonathan Fisher and Anna Miles, and directed by Jonathan Fisher. So it is an adaptation of an adaptation of a possible adaptation of a work that was perhaps co-written by Shakespeare, itself adapted from the work of Cervantes. Got that? Of course, none of that really matters as long as the performance is enjoyable. And that it most certainly is.

The company does something rather ingenious with the play, which is to have William Shakespeare and John Fletcher appear as characters. So the performance is both the play itself, and a depiction of how it was possibly written, which is brilliant considering the play’s questionable origins. It also makes for some great comedy. And speaking of adaptations, the music playing as the crowd arrives is a collection of instrumental adaptations of pop songs from the 1980s done with one foot in the 1600s, songs like “Take On Me” and “Come On Eileen,” a playful touch to help establish the tone even before the performance begins. Then, as the performance begins, two actors stand upon the stage facing the audience, delivering lines out to them. After a moment, they stop and comment on the very lines they’d just been speaking, and we learn that the two are William Shakespeare (Ryon Thomas) and John Fletcher (Megan Ruble). Fletcher looks to Shakespeare as a mentor and an inspiration. Shakespeare responds, ”You’re feeling inspired by the garbage you just read?” He himself is not inspired, but doing this play in order to fulfill a contractual obligation before retiring. Fletcher, on the other hand, is young and eager to contribute to a changing theatre. Fletcher also questions the believability of a woman disguising herself as a boy, something that gets a big laugh, as Fletcher himself is played by a woman (and that bit will see another layer added to it before long). It is after that that Roderick (Will Mueller) delivers the first lines from Act I of Double Falsehood. And so we in the audience see it as a work in progress.

Shakespeare and Fletcher remain on stage, seated upstage right, ready to step in if anything goes awry or if a scene needs tweaking. DeMarcus Brooks is delightful as Duke Angelo in this first scene, helping to set a bright tone. Modern references are introduced early in the performance, with a boom box brought on, and we hear “Every Breath You Take,” the Police’s famous song about stalking, fitting for a scene in which Henriquez (Roberto Williams) tries to woo Violante (Savannah Moffat), a woman whom he is soon to violate. There are also metatheatrical references to the company itself, with Shakespeare telling Fletcher that of course this is a comedy, it is running in repertory with Henry IV (the other play Shakespeare By The Sea is performing this season), and later someone says to Fletcher, “It’s Shakespeare By The Sea, not Fletcher By The Sea.” And there is a running gag about Shakespeare coining many words and phrases, something that was also present in the British series Upstart Crow. All of this works to create a sort of flexible time, with the present becoming a mixture of the modern and the historical, placing the audience in both simultaneously, which gives the performance a certain exciting quality. It also frees the actors up to make some bold choices without the normal fear of going over the top.

Shakespeare and Fletcher do stop the action from time to time, as when they try to figure out what happened with Henriquez and Violante. It is Fletcher who wants to try new strategies, to take risks, and suggests that Violante is defiled by Henriquez. It is in that scene that a more serious reference to John Fletcher’s gender and experience is introduced. There are also funny references to Titus Andronicus in this scene. Henriquez’s speech about having enjoyed Violante is delivered to the audience, rather than to Lopez, who is cut from this production. Roberto Williams is excellent in this scene as he navigates the great changes within the speech, from regretting his action to justifying it. And as he directly addresses the audience, he attempts to gain our sympathy with this speech, pleading his case to us as well as to himself. It is fascinating and a bit unnerving at times. Violante then gets a chance to speak directly to us as well. “What will’t avail me/To say I was not willing.” She is compelling here, and in all of her scenes, Savannah Moffat delivering one of the production’s absolute best performances. When Geraldo (Chris Fine) enters, she instinctively recoils from him, which feels exactly right.

Leonora (Amanda Godoy) is having troubles of her own, as her father, Don Bernardo (Caleb Fietsam), has chosen a match for her with Henriquez, though it is Julio that she loves. Leonora reminds Henriquez of his friendship to Julio in an effort to get him to back off. Interestingly, there is a moment when Don Bernardo is so harsh to Leonora that even Henriquez leaps to her defense. It’s a nice moment which keeps Henriquez from being solely a villain. And if all this seems much too serious for a comedy, Shakespeare steps in with a promise of some “good old-fashioned comedy.” Enter Camillo (Alec Yamartino) with his cane, which he soon means to use as a weapon. He is particularly funny in the way he delivers the word “neighbor,” with a bitterness and disdain. The word, perhaps more than his cane, becomes his weapon. But to Shakespeare’s dismay, Fletcher contributes more and more to this play, which works well with what some scholars have believed, that Cardenio is more Fletcher’s work than Shakespeare’s. Shakespeare and Fletcher argue with the way in which a particular scene should play out, the characters having to do the scene multiple times as a result. With no resolution, Shakespeare walks off, leaving Fletcher with all the characters on stage, those characters seeking some direction, with shades of Pirandello.

The solution that Fletcher comes up with is to shift the play to a more pastoral setting, where Violante is now disguised as a shepherd boy. We’ve seen women disguised as boys before in Shakespeare’s work, and we’ve heard Fletcher say that it’s not believable. What’s unusual here is that Violante’s disguise doesn’t work, just as Fletcher predicted. First Julio (Mario Silva) and then the Master of the Flocks (Chris Fine) see through her disguise and identify her as female. And just as it seems Violante might be attacked again, Roderick enters. What’s interesting here is that as before when things were threatening to become too serious, we get a particularly funny scene, though while last time it was Shakespeare who ushered in the comedy, this time it is Fletcher. And Fletcher watches the scene with as much enjoyment as does the audience. The entire cast is strong, but Megan Ruble delivers one of the evening’s best performances. Fletcher still has trouble finding the play’s conclusion, and Shakespeare re-enters to help, though telling Fletcher, “This play is all yours.” Is it? Perhaps those missing manuscripts will turn up one of these days, and we’ll have an answer. But for now, we can enjoy this incredibly delightful and clever adaptation.

This production of Cardenio; Or Double Falsehood is directed by Jonathan Fisher, and continues through August 2nd. There is one fifteen-minute intermission. Visit the Shakespeare By The Sea website for the complete schedule.

Henry IV: Falstaff & The Boy Who Would Be King (Shakespeare By The Sea’s 2024 Production) Theatre Review

Every summer, Shakespeare By The Sea takes two of Shakespeare’s works on the road, performing them at various parks all over Los Angeles and Orange County. The company’s current stop is Garfield Park in South Pasadena, where last night the group performed a special combination of both parts of King Henry The Fourth, adapted and directed by Stephanie Coltrin, who last year gave us that extraordinary production of Hamlet. The two parts of King Henry The Fourth are not produced as often as they deserve to be. The First Part Of King Henry The Fourth is one of the funniest of Shakespeare’s plays, mainly because of the character of Falstaff, and the two parts done together create a moving experience, for the audience gets a chance to see the entire arc of the relationship of Prince Hal and the rotund knight, who acts as a sort of father figure for him, as well as the arc of Hal’s relationship with his actual father. This production features some outstanding performances, including those by Cylan Brown, who is perfect as Falstaff, Jane Macfie, who does a remarkable job as Henry IV, Jonathan Fisher, who is a delight as Hotspur, and Trevor Guyton, who is wonderful as Prince Hal.

The stage has a few different levels, and the area in front of the stage is reserved for the action as well, adding yet another level, and the company makes great use of it from the performance’s opening moments, as Falstaff and his companions enter. Interestingly, as they enter, they sing Feste’s song from the end of Twelfth Night, all of them joining in on the line “For the rain it raineth every day.” Falstaff takes center stage, the others naturally gathering around him. It’s an interesting way of beginning the play, and as they quiet down on the lower levels, Henry IV enters and takes center stage above them, and we hear lines from Richard The Second that clearly still haunt him, including “God save the King! Will no man say ‘amen’?” and “tell sad stories of the death of kings.” It is a striking opening, and what follows is actually a scene from Act IV of The Second Part Of King Henry The Fourth, in which the king is assured that his son Prince Hal is but studying his companions and when the time is right will cast off his followers. We then go to the second scene of The First Part Of King Henry The Fourth, with Prince Hal waking and then waking the snoring Falstaff. There is a nice moment when Mistress Quickly (Megan Ruble) puts out her hand for payment, and Falstaff gently pushes her open hand toward Hal. This production’s Mistress Quickly is younger than usual, but also wise, and she is immediately likeable. When Falstaff says “I must give over this life,” he delivers the line with a sincere tone, which is interesting and gives us a brief glimpse of his future.

When Hotspur and the others enter to speak with Henry IV, Hotspur sits while everyone else remains standing, a choice that sets him apart. Is his aim to show disrespect or just to keep his cool? He then rises on his first line, “My liege, I did deny no prisoners.” Jonathan Fisher is excellent here, and after Henry IV exits and Hotspur feels freer to rant, he is even more fun to watch. It’s impossible to dislike him as he goes on about teaching a starling to say nothing but “Mortimer” to torment the king. And speaking of characters that would be impossible to dislike, the action then returns to Falstaff and company. And though Falstaff is their leader, the others still have fun at his expense. Early in the scene, when he calls out to Poins (Peter Green), Bardolph (Caleb Fietsam) and Peto (Melissa Ortiz), each responds with a little noise from his hiding spot, a humorous bit of business that conveys a sense of joviality among the group. The robbery of the travelers is done quickly and is funny, as you’d expect. When the group next enters, they playfully engage with an audience member in the front, urging him to drink with them and cheering him when he obliges. Falstaff is such a delightful storyteller, weaving a great tale of how he fought off a large group of thieves. And it seems no one takes as much delight in his story as does Prince Hal himself, and we feel that this is the very reason why Poins and Prince Hal played the trick on him in the first place. Falstaff’s reaction when he learns the truth is wonderful. Trevor Guyton is also excellent in this scene. When Falstaff asks him if he’s not afraid to have Hotspur and Glendower as enemies, Hal’s pause before answering “Not a whit” shows that he knows just how serious the situation is. We can see his thoughts before he answers, for within that pause there is a moment where Prince Hal considers answering honestly and thus perhaps putting an end to their good fun, and decides against it. In that pause, we see that these companions are not as close to him as they might believe. And in that pause we catch an image of the future. It’s a fantastic moment. There is another wonderful moment when Falstaff, acting as Henry IV, with a cushion as a crown, begins to describe himself in somewhat glowing terms. When he finally says “his name is Falstaff,” the others all shout out “Falstaff” with him, playfully joining the game while also poking fun at him. Prince Hal allows himself another meaningful pause before delivering the portentous line, “I do, I will.”

As you might expect from an adaptation that contains two plays, there is a bit of reordering of scenes and moments. For example, Henry IV’s “How many thousand of my poorest subjects” speech from the third act of Henry IV Part 2 occurs just before Act II Scene iv of Henry IV Part 1. During that speech, Henry IV removes his crown, and then puts it on again just before that speech’s great final line, “Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.” Where Jane Macfie especially shines as Henry IV are the scenes between the king and Prince Hal, the father-and-son scenes. The audience truly feels for him in those moments, particularly in the scene where Henry IV expresses concern that Hal is not following the example set by him. It is not anger, but concern for his son when it is his time to ascend the throne, that drives his speech, and that makes all the difference. We see a father there, not a king. And we see the understanding in Hal’s expression. That scene is particularly moving in this production. As Hal’s relationship with his father grows stronger, that with Falstaff weakens. And the line that stands out as being Falstaff’s undoing is his “Dost thou think I’ll fear thee as I fear thy father?” It is especially striking coming so soon after the conversation between Hal and Henry IV, when Hal is thinking seriously about casting aside his youthful indiscretions. We see Prince Hal’s changing attitude again in his reaction to Poins’ “I would think thee a most princely hypocrite.” His expression shows understanding, and some determination. Peter Green is also excellent in this scene as Poins, and is particularly touching when saying, “those two things I confess I cannot help.” For a production that packs two plays into two hours, it does not in any way sacrifice the human relationships contained within them, and somehow manages to heighten them.

The main relationships in this production, as mentioned, are the two father-and-son relationships that Hal experiences, but there is another relationship that stands out, and that is between Hotspur and his wife Kate (Savannah Moffat). It is from Kate that we get a better idea of Hotspur’s character. She brings out a different side of him, and we witness true affection and companionship. Their scenes together are excellent, and it is through Kate’s eyes that we come to like Hotspur more. Another moment when we can’t help but love Hotspur is when he replies to the ridiculous bragging of Glendowar, who has just claimed he can call spirits. Hotspur says, “Why so can I, or so can any man/But will they come when you do call for them?” It is then that it occurs to us that were the circumstances different, Hotspur and Prince Hal could have been great friends. This production has Kate present in the aftermath of the battle and Hotspur’s death, allowing for a touching moment when Prince Hal hands her Hotspur’s handkerchief, showing the respect he had for Hotspur and the compassion he has for her.

When Prince Hal looks out at the audience and asks Falstaff about the identity of the people he sees, Falstaff tells them they are his men. Hal describes them (and so us) as “pitiful rascals.” It is a funny moment, but also true, for we do feel ourselves to be aligned with Falstaff, to be his men. And so at the end when Hal, now crowned Henry V, rebukes Falstaff, our hearts go out to the knight. His ache is ours. We in the audience end up feeling strongly for both of Hal’s father figures. There is a great moment when the speech of Worcester (DeMarcus Brooks) angers Henry IV, who puts his hand on his sword as if to draw it. Prince Hal goes to his father’s side to calm him, to keep him from acting rashly. We see the changing relationship clearly in that moment. At the end of that scene, Prince Hal and Falstaff embrace, and by Hal’s expression we fear it might be their last such embrace. There is another touching moment when Prince Hal believes Falstaff to be dead. It is interesting that Shakespeare also provides a scene when Hal believes his father to be dead. In that speech, several lines are cut, so that “My gracious lord! my father!” directly follows “majesty!” and thus reminds us of Hamlet’s words to the Ghost of his own father when trying to conjure a response: “I’ll call thee Hamlet/King, father.” It’s also interesting because these two scenes give Hal a chance to see how his life might be without his two father figures. Henry IV takes back his crown on “Up, vanity!” So then on Prince Hal’s “There is your crown,” he points to it. Jane Macfie is phenomenal in this scene. The look Henry IV gives Prince Hal as Hal helps him away is so tender that it is nearly heartbreaking.

The final scene to feature Mistress Quickly, Falstaff and the others begins as did the opening scene, with them singing. While the feeling among those characters might be the same as it was then, it has a different feel for those of us in the audience, who sense what is coming. Falstaff is so joyful and excited in this scene that the audience might wish to leave right then and not witness his subsequent decline. For we have come to love Falstaff as much as Falstaff has come to love Hal. This is a fantastic production, driven by marvelous performances.

This production of Henry IV: Falstaff & The Boy Who Would Be King runs through August 3rd. There is one twenty-minute intermission, coming at the end of Act III scene iii of The First Part Of King Henry The Fourth. Tonight at the same park in South Pasadena, Shakespeare By The Sea will be performing Cardenio; Or Double Falsehood, a rarity and a special treat.