University of Virginia Library

Quarto Copy for Q2 Romeo and Juliet
by
Richard Hosley

I

THE EDITOR OF ROMEO AND JULIET MUST CONSIDER three general questions regarding the nature and relationship of the two editions preserving collateral texts, the First Quarto of 1597 and the Second Quarto of 1599.[1] The first is the nature of the text printed in Q1. Happily this question is not an issue, for it is now generally agreed that the Q1 text represents a memorial reconstruction deriving ultimately from the promptbook version of Shakespeare's company.[2] The second is the nature of the manuscript authority behind Q2. This question is likewise not an issue, for it is also generally agreed that Q2 derives mainly from Shakespeare's "foul papers," from which the promptbook of Shakespeare's company had in turn been ultimately derived.[3] The third question is the nature and extent of Q1's influence upon the text of Q2 during the printing of that edition. In considering this "contamination" one must further distinguish between two problems. On the evidence of virtually complete agreement in text and of a number of "bibliographical links" between the two editions (such as the Q1-2 concurrence in italic type for the Nurse's speeches in I.iii and in prose turnovers at I.iii.4 and 14), critics agree that a section of Q2 on signatures B3-4 was printed with only inadvertent "substantive" alteration directly from signatures B3-4v of Q1, possibly because a leaf was missing from the foul papers.[4] The

"reprinted passage" is usually defined as extending through I.iii.35 in the Globe numbering, whereas its beginning has been variously located at I.ii.46, 54, and 58. (I shall suggest below that it probably begins at line 52.) In any case, no critic disputes the general proposition that a Q2 passage of some ninety lines was printed directly from Q1 without editorial alteration.

The second (and major) problem is posed by a number of scattered bibliographical links between Q1 and Q2 beyond the limits of the reprinted passage in I.ii-iii. This "sporadic" contamination is also granted by all critics, although they disagree on the question of how it occurred. Broadly speaking, two hypotheses have been developed. The first, implicit in Sir Walter Greg's position since 1942 and adopted by the present writer in the revised Yale edition (1954), postulates compositor's consultation of an editorially unaltered exemplar of Q1 during the process of typesetting Q2 directly from Shakespeare's foul papers.[5] The second, proposed by Miss Greta Hjort in 1926 and adopted by Professors Dover Wilson and Duthie in the New Cambridge edition (1955), postulates an editor's annotation of an exemplar of Q1 by systematic reference to the foul papers (with the addition where necessary of occasional transcribed insert slips) so as to bring the text of the quarto into substantive agreement with that of Shakespeare's manuscript; and the consequent use of such an annotated First Quarto as sole copy for Q2.[6] Clearly it is of some interest to establish which of these two hypotheses is probably correct, for the editorial implications of annotated-quarto copy are quite different from those of compositor's consultation.

For example, if the contamination of Q2 was effected by means of annotated-quarto copy, the case for a given Q2 reading (excepting both presumptive Q2 misprints of Q1 and Q2 readings that might have been derived from insert slips) would necessarily be strengthened rather than weakened by Q1 variance, for the inference would be that the Q2 editor noticed an erroneous Q1 reading, deleted it, and wrote

into the quarto copy the correct reading, which he derived from the foul papers and which was accordingly transmitted to Q2. Thus a modern editor might not logically adopt a Q1 variant in a supposedly annotated section of the Q2 text, for the fact of Q2 variance from Q1 would guarantee error in the Q1 reading. The New Cambridge editors nevertheless adopt a number of such Q1 variants.[7] On the other hand, if the contamination of Q2 was effected by compositor's consultation of Q1, an editor might logically accept any Q1 variant from Q2 that he judged to be correct. (Since Q2, if set mainly from manuscript, would presumably contain its share of handwriting errors (in addition to compositor's memorial errors), the Q1 variant to a given Q2 "graphic" error (like that to a given Q2 memorial error) would stand a chance of preserving the authoritative reading.) Correspondingly, we should expect to find perhaps fewer residual "common errors" if the contamination of Q2 was effected by compositor's consultation than if by annotated-quarto copy, although an editor would of course be equally free to emend a suspected common error in the one case as in the other. Here it should be noticed that the New Cambridge editors detect and emend only four errors common to Q1 and Q2 apart from the three occurring in the reprinted passage.[8] By way of contrast, in the New Cambridge edition of Richard III (1954), a play supposedly set in the First Folio from annotated-quarto copy, Professor Wilson emends over sixty errors common to the Folio and First Quarto texts.

To be sure, it must be initially conceded that, because of the inferential nature of most biblio-textual investigation, neither hypothesis is capable of positive demonstration.[9] However, the hypothesis of annotated-quarto copy requires the postulation of at least three improbable circumstances. According to Professor Wilson's article (full details are not given in the New Cambridge edition), the Q2 editor acted in the service of Thomas Creede, the printer of Q2, but since the foul papers were not fully available the work of annotation and transcription had to be done at the theater rather than in Creede's shop (Shakespeare Survey, pp. 90, 96). Therefore Wilson's hypothesis is based on the following propositions. (1) The Lord Chamberlain's Men sold the text of Romeo and Juliet for publication but refused to provide a manuscript for use as printer's copy, even though the withheld manuscript was Shakespeare's foul papers and therefore of no theatrical value to the company. (2) When Creede's editor arrived at the theater to prepare copy for Q2, the Chamberlain's Men forced him to work from the foul papers although the company's promptbook should have been readily available to simplify his task. And (3) the Q2 editor took the trouble to prepare annotated-quarto copy when it would have been hardly more labor to make a full transcript of the foul papers, for in addition to annotated Q1 pages and insert slips attached thereto, about 75% of the "quarto" copy for Q2 would have consisted of "insert slips" transcribed from the foul papers and inserted between the leaves of the quarto.[10] Furthermore, the hypothesis of annotated-quarto copy is clearly incompatible with the evidence of the texts in Q1 and Q2. On

the other hand, the hypothesis of compositor's consultation is simple, not improbable, and entirely compatible with that evidence.[11]

II

Let us suppose two editions, A and B, preserving collateral texts of the same play. A is known to have influenced the text of B during the course of its printing; and a lost manuscript, MS, is known to be the ultimate source of extensive variants in, and additions to, the text of B. The question enforces itself whether MS directly influenced the text of B during the course of its printing (that is to say, whether the compositor or compositors of B, in setting up type for that edition, had direct access to MS); or whether, on the other hand, MS influenced the text of B only indirectly through an editor's annotation of an exemplar of A (with the addition where necessary of transcribed insert slips) so as to bring the text of that edition into substantive agreement with the text of MS, followed by the compositor's use of such an annotated exemplar of A as sole copy for B. The direct influence of MS upon B (if it exists) can usually be demonstrated by the establishment of what I shall call a "manuscript link" between B and MS. For our special purposes this may be defined as a textual variant in B that is either erroneous or abnormal in relation to the work of the B compositor in question, the situation of variance between A and B fulfilling three conditions.[12] (1) The texts in A and B immediately before and/or after the corresponding textual readings must not vary so extensively that (in the case of printed copy for B) an insert slip transcribed from MS would have been necessary in order to bring the text of A into substantive agreement with that of MS. (2) The reading in A must be either correct or in a form normally preferred by the B compositor in question, so that it would not have invited alteration either by an editor annotating printed copy for B or by the B compositor in the process of setting type from A. And (3) the variant in B must in all

probability not be a compositor's error in the process of transmitting the unaltered reading of A. I turn now to some examples of the sporadic contamination of Q2 by Q1 Romeo and Juliet in which manuscript links occur in conjunction with bibliographical links.

One occurs at II.i.10-13, in the section of Q2 (signatures D1-1v) corresponding to Q1 signature C4v. As Pollard and Dover Wilson pointed out in 1919,[13] Q1 and Q2 here concur in the celebrated reading "Abraham: Cupid" at line 13, the erroneous punctuation clearly constituting a bibliographical link between the two editions, for the odds against the coincidence of a colon's having stood in both Q1 and the foul papers are fairly high. (Probably the punctuation is the fossil remains of a colon in some such manuscript abbreviation in the Q1 copy as "A:", "Ab:", "Abr:", or—if the correct reading is "Adam"—"Ad:".[14]) On the other hand, at line 10 occurs the erroneous Q2 variant "prouaunt", corresponding to Q1 "Pronounce". Here the texts of Q1 and Q2 do not vary so extensively that a transcribed insert slip would have been necessary in the case of annotated-quarto copy, and the Q1 reading is also unquestionably correct, so that it would not have required alteration by a Q2 editor. Moreover, the Q2 variant is evidently not a misprint of the Q1 reading but rather, as Greg pointed out in 1928,[15] a misreading of the handwritten form "pronounc" (or "pronounce"). It may be added that the Q2 compositor in question, Compositor A of the determination by Cantrell and Williams,[16] makes comparable errors in misreading "damnd" as "dimme" at III.ii.79 and "coniuration" as "commiration" at V.iii.68. The Q2 variant "prouaunt" therefore constitutes a manuscript link between that edition and the foul papers.

Another example of sporadic contamination occurs at II.iv.41-45, in the section of Q2 (signature E2v) corresponding to Q1 signature E1v. Here, as Pollard and Dover Wilson first pointed out, Q1 and Q2 concur in the use of contrasting italic type for five proper names

("Laura", "Hellen", "Hero", "Thisbie", and "Romeo", lines 41-45), and of non-contrasting roman type for three: "Petrarch" (Q2 "Petrach", 40), "Dido" (43), and "Cleopatra" (43). The concurrence in exceptional roman type clearly constitutes a bibliographical link between the two editions, for it would be a next to impossible coincidence that Q2 Compositor A, whose normal practice is to set incidental proper names in contrasting italic type, should independently of Q1's influence have failed to prefer it for these three particular names out of eight. On the other hand, at line 45 occurs the Q2 variant "Bonieur", corresponding to Q1 "bon iour". Neither an insert slip nor editorial alteration would here have been necessary in the case of annotated-quarto copy. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the Q2 variant resulted from error or deliberate alteration on the part of Q2 Compositor A in the process of transmitting the unaltered reading of Q1, for if it did we should have to defend four separate propositions regarding that compositor's work. (1) That the "e" of the Q2 reading is a misprint for "o" resulting from foul case or memorial lapse. (2) That the variation from non-contrasting roman to contrasting italic type resulted from alteration or error by Compositor A, who in the "text proper" of the reprinted passage of I.ii-iii nowhere innovates contrasting incidental type and, in one of the Nurse's speeches there set in italic type, faithfully follows Q1's non-contrasting italic type for the second word of the reading "Lammas Eue" at I.iii.17 and again at line 21. (3) That the variation from a lower- to an upper-case initial letter resulted from alteration or error by Compositor A, who in the reprinted passage innovates an emphasis capital only thrice ("Vncle" at I.ii.71, "Sun" at line 97, and "Girle" at I.iii.4). And (4) that the variation from divided to undivided form also resulted from alteration or error by Compositor A, who in the reprinted passage follows Q1's divided form of compound words in 15 out of 16 occurrences (the exception being "maidenhead" at I.iii.2). In view of Compositor A's demonstrable fidelity to his known quarto copy, this concatenation of exceptions to his normal practice (especially the variations in type and word-division) clearly argues against derivation of "Bonieur" from Q1.[17] It therefore seems probable that the Q2 reading resulted rather from an e:o misreading of the handwritten form "Boniour", although it might conceivably also have resulted from the accurate transmission of an exceptional manuscript form involving a phonetic spelling.[18] Accordingly the Q2 variant "Bonieur" constitutes a manuscript link between that edition and the foul papers.

Still another example of sporadic contamination occurs at III.v.31-36, in the section of Q2 (signature H3) corresponding to Q1 signature G3v. Here, as Pollard and Dover Wilson also point out, Q1 and Q2 concur in emphasis capitals for "Larke" (line 31), "Toad" (31), and "Huntsvp" (Q2 "Huntsup", 34). The concurrence clearly constitutes a bibliographical link, especially in view of the Q1-2 concurrence in emphasis capitals for "Larke", "Discords", "Sharpes", "Larke", and "Diuision" in the immediately preceding lines 27-29 (at the foot of signature G3 in Q1). On the other hand, at line 36 occurs the Q2 variant "Romeo", corresponding to the Q1 speech-heading "Rom". As in other instances, neither an insert slip nor editorial alteration would here have been necessary in the case of annotated-quarto copy. Furthermore, the Q1 reading is in a form that is acceptable to Q2 Compositor A, who, as Messrs. Cantrell and Williams point out, uses it in 29 out of 170 occurrences on pages typeset by him; whereas the Q2 variant is in a form that is decidedly abnormal to the work of Compositor A, who uses it in only 11 out of 170 occurrences. (In the remaining 130 cases Compositor A uses the form "Ro".) Moreover, Compositor A faithfully follows his quarto copy in setting up the abbreviated form "Rom" at I.ii.55, 60, 64, and 66 (where the unaltered lower half of Q1 signature B3 undeniably served as copy for Q2). Accordingly the Q2 variant "Romeo" constitutes a manuscript link between that edition and the foul papers.

Thus it seems clear that Q1 signatures C4v, E1v, and G3v influenced the text of Q2 at II.i.13, II.iv.40-43, and III.v.31-34. But it also seems clear that these Q1 signatures did not serve as annotated-quarto copy for Q2, for variants in Q2 at II.i.10, II.iv.45, and III.v.36 were apparently derived not from Q1 but directly from a manuscript that could not have been a transcribed insert slip. Such combined influence of quarto and manuscript copy on the text of Q2 could only have resulted from compositor's consultation of an exemplar of Q1 during the process of typesetting Q2 directly from the manuscript authority behind that edition.[19]

III

The problem remains of attempting to define the beginning of the "reprinted passage" in I.ii-iii (signatures B3-4v in Q1, B3-4 in Q2). Gericke, Thomas, and Greg have suggested that Q1 probably began serving as copy for Q2 at I.ii.46, the present writer at line 54, and Professor Duthie at line 58. In the nature of the case definitive exactitude is perhaps impossible, for in the twilight zone between the point where the compositor (Compositor A) was probably following manuscript copy and the point where he was probably following quarto copy it is difficult to distinguish with any great certainty between "consultation" of Q1 and its use "as copy." It is nevertheless possible, I believe, to narrow the limits of the beginning of the reprinted passage to within the four lines from I.ii.50 to 53a inclusive, and there is, furthermore, some basis for the supposition that the compositor began using Q1 as copy for Q2 at I.ii.52.

In the first few lines after the earliest possible beginning of the reprinted passage (I.ii.46), there are four "substantive" variants between the texts of the quartos, one in line 47 (Q1 "with", Q2 "by"), two in line 48 (Q1 "backward . . . with", Q2 "giddie . . . by"), and one in line 53a (Q2 "I pray thee", omitted from Q1).[20] Although none

constitutes a manuscript link, these Q2 variants nevertheless betray the existence of manuscript authority extending through line 53a. There being no evidence of manuscript authority after that line, we may assume that the Q2 text beginning with line 53b was probably set up directly from Q1. (If a leaf was missing from the foul papers, line 53b is accordingly the earliest part of the text that might have stood at the head of such a leaf.) Therefore we may designate the beginning of line 53b as a probable later limit of the beginning of the reprinted passage.

A probable earlier limit is suggested by variation between the quartos in such "accidental" features of the text proper as punctuation and spelling.[21] In the four lines between I.ii.46 and 49 inclusive, Q1 and Q2 vary six times in punctuation (twice in line 46, once in 47, once in 48, and twice in 49). For convenience of comparison this figure may be expressed as 150 punctuation-variants per hundred lines. On the other hand, in the eighty-two lines following line 49 (I.ii.50-I.iii.35 inclusive), the quartos vary 34 times in punctuation. This figure may be expressed as 42 punctuation-variants per hundred lines, or almost four (3.6) times less than in the four lines immediately preceding line 50. However, the drop in variation at line 50 is actually a good deal more pronounced than this figure would suggest, for in the sixteen lines following line 49 (I.ii.50-66 inclusive) the quartos vary in punctuation only four times (once each in lines 54, 55, 58-9, and 66), or 25 times per hundred lines. Accordingly, we may say that in the sixteen lines immediately following line 49 the variation in punctuation becomes six times less than in the four lines immediately preceding line 50. The compositor may well have been following the punctuation of Q1 from line 50 on; but in any case his failure to follow its punctuation before line 50 suggests the possibility that he was there working mainly from manuscript copy, either reproducing its variant punctuation or preferring his own. Therefore we may tentatively designate the beginning of line 50 as an earlier limit of the beginning of the reprinted passage.

The inference from variation in punctuation is confirmed by variation in spelling between the quartos. In the seven lines between I.ii.46 and 52 inclusive, Q1 and Q2 vary 7 times in spelling (twice in line 47, once each in 48 and 49, twice in 51, and once in 52). This figure may be expressed as 100 spelling-variants per hundred lines. On the other

hand, in the seventy-nine lines following line 52 (I.ii.53a-I.iii.35 inclusive) the quartos vary 45 times in spelling. This figure may be expressed as 57 spelling-variants per hundred lines, or about half as many as in the seven lines preceding line 53a. However, the drop in spelling-variation at line 53a is actually much greater than this figure would suggest, for in the thirteen lines following line 52 (I.ii.53a-66 inclusive) the quartos vary in spelling only once (in line 55), or almost eight times per hundred lines. Accordingly, we may say that in the thirteen lines immediately following line 52 the variation in spelling between Q1 and Q2 becomes over twelve times less than in the seven lines immediately preceding line 53a. The compositor may well have been following the spelling of Q1 from line 53a on; but in any case his failure to follow its spelling before line 53a suggests the possibility that he was there working mainly from manuscript copy, either reproducing its variant spelling or preferring his own. Because of other evidence presently to be considered I do not believe that the evidence of spelling necessarily enforces a shift of the earlier limit of the reprinted passage to the beginning of line 53a. However that may be, the evidence of spelling supports that of punctuation in suggesting manuscript copy before line 50; and accordingly we may designate the beginning of that line as a probable earlier limit of the beginning of the reprinted passage.

Within the probable earlier and later limits of the beginning of the reprinted passage (I.ii.50-53a inclusive) two further kinds of evidence require attention. One is textual variance, specifically the Q2 reading "I pray thee" (omitted from Q1) at line 53a. The other is contamination, specifically two bibliographical links between the quartos at line 52. One of these, as Professor Wilson suggests,[22] consists of the Q1-2 concurrence in the unabbreviated form of Romeo's speech-heading, this being an abnormal form for Q2 Compositor A; the other consists of the common emphasis capital of the textual reading "Planton" (Q2 "Plantan"), this being the only emphasis capital on Q2 signature B3. (These bibliographical links afford the earliest demonstrable evidence of contamination in the reprinted passage; they are followed almost immediately by a third, concurrence of the quartos in another unabbreviated speech-heading for Romeo at line 53b.) The problem, of course, is to resolve the fact of manuscript influence in line 53a with the fact of contamination in line 52. If we exclude

annotation as a logical improbability (since Shakespeare's foul papers were in the hands of the compositor), there are two ways of interpreting this rather contradictory evidence. We may suppose, first, that the compositor followed his manuscript copy through line 53a, thus deriving the textual variant at that point directly from manuscript copy and earlier deriving from Q1 the unabbreviated speech-heading and the emphasis capital of line 52. Following this line of argument we might designate I.ii.53b as the probable beginning of the reprinted passage.

Or we may suppose, alternatively, that the compositor shifted from manuscript to quarto copy at some point after line 49 but before line 52, thus deriving the bibliographical links of line 52 directly from Q1 and subsequently glancing back at his only-just-discarded manuscript copy for the textual variant of line 53a. Initially this hypothesis may appear unacceptable through its assumption that after having shifted to quarto copy the compositor would reverse his usual procedure and consult manuscript copy. However, if we think of the compositor as working mainly from "principal" copy (usually manuscript) and intermittently consulting "auxiliary" copy (usually quarto), we may also, conversely, imagine him as working for a few lines mainly from quarto copy and occasionally consulting manuscript copy. Moreover, if a leaf was missing from the foul papers, a certain amount of overlap of manuscript and quarto influence on the text of Q2 would perhaps be inevitable as the compositor approached the end of his manuscript copy and sought to ascertain the exact point in Q1 where the manuscript would leave off (it being assumed that this point had not been clearly marked in the quarto copy). In any case, a prominent characteristic of the compositor's work elsewhere in Q2 suggests the probability of the second procedure. As Messrs. Cantrell and Williams point out, it is a significant fact that except in the reprinted passage the speech-headings of Q2 are almost invariably independent of those in Q1, for Compositor A (who set all but six pages of Q2), although he intermittently consulted auxiliary copy (Q1) in the matter of "text proper," appears generally to have followed the speech-headings of his principal copy (the foul papers). Therefore it seems unlikely (although it is of course not impossible) that he would here have consulted Q1 (auxiliary copy) for a speech-heading if he had still been working mainly from manuscript (principal copy). Thus it follows that when he derived Romeo's unabbreviated speech-heading from Q1 at line 52 he had probably already substituted Q1 for the foul papers as his "principal" copy. (After I.ii.53a Q1 must have been his sole copy until the end of I.iii.35, where he apparently returned to working

mainly from the foul papers.) Accordingly, we may advance the probable later limit of the reprinted passage to the beginning of line 52.

Within the narrower limits of the two lines between I.ii.49 and 52 there are two variations in spelling between the quartos (both in line 51). Since these suggest minimal influence of manuscript copy, we may designate the beginning of line 52 (despite the single spelling-variant of that line, apparently the compositor's normalization of an aberrant copy-spelling[23]) as the probable beginning of the reprinted passage. The evidence adduced to the preceding argument is summed up in the following table, which locates the occurrences (between I.ii.46 and 66 inclusive) of each textual phenomenon discussed and gives (where appropriate) the total of occurrences in each line:

Notes