II
Some years ago Professor J. Dover Wilson edited the New
Cambridge MND on the theory that an original of 1592 was
revised in 1594 and again in 1598, perhaps then for the marriage of the
Earl of Southampton to Elizabeth Vernon.[12] The copy for Q1, he believed, was
the
prompt book, which was written in Shakespeare's autograph and which
contained manuscript pages from all three periods of composition.
Wilson's theory has not won acceptance in its entirety; Sir Walter Greg, for
example, found difficulty with Wilson's notion of multi-level revisions in
which there are perceptible (and dateable) stylistic differences and suggested
that the Q1 copy was probably foul papers.
[13] If so, however, there could easily
have
been revised passages present, even though they may not have been
composed in accordance with Wilson's scheme. As Greg said,
A brilliant contribution was [Wilson's] demonstration of revision at
the beginning of Act V. Here in the first 84 lines there are eight passages
of varying length in which the line-division is disturbed. Omit these
passages and a perfectly consecutive text remains. There is no escaping the
conclusion that in this we have the original writing supplemented by fresh
lines crowded into the margin so that their metrical structure was
obscured.
[14]
Greg does not comment on Wilson's contention that other parts of the text
were also revised or added to, but if the copy was foul papers with
occasional marginal additions, we could explain the compositor's difficulties
as resulting from his being slowed down by patches of difficult material. If
the quarto is in part mislined, there is reason to think that the copy may
have been similarly mislined, and an important part of Wilson's argument
for revision is based on inference from quarto back to MS mislineation.
Yet, as the quarto was almost completely set by formes, the compositor
may sometimes have tampered with the MS lineation, deliberately
compressing or expanding the text in order to make it conform with the
space limits established by casting-off. Since we have some idea of how
each sheet was set, however, we should be able to tell to what extent the
compositor was likely to alter MS lineation as he dealt with mechanical
problems created by his method of composing.
In B(o), the first forme composed, there are two minor instances of
mislineation. The first occurs in the first eight lines of the fairy's speech
(B3,14-17;II.i.2-9), which appear in the quarto as follows (correct verse
line endings are indicated by a stroke):
Fa.
Ouer hill, ouer dale,/ thorough bush, thorough brier,/
Ouer parke, ouer pale,/ thorough flood, thorough fire:/
I do wander euery where; swifter than the Moons sphere:/
And I serue the Fairy Queene,/ to dew her orbs vpon the
(greene./
The second is found on the last page of the forme
(B4
v,20-21;
II.i.115-116):
And this same progeny of euils,
Comes / from our debate, from our dissention:
About the first of these one cannot be positive, but it looks as though
the lines probably stood in the MS as they do in the quarto, the quatrain
being lined as a couplet and the couplets as single lines of verse. If this is
true, the couplets of which the rest of the speech is composed, so lined in
the quarto, probably were written in single lines in the MS, but were
divided by the compositor who, having had to turn over the last word of
B3,17, decided that the MS lines were going to be too long for his
measure. The compositor could, of course, do about as he chose with this
material since he was working on the first forme of the sheet. In the second
case, the mislineation may have resulted from the compositor's
carelessness; but later in the play (at F3,26; G1,22;
G3v,10; and
G3v,18) we find other examples of very much the same
thing, which
just possibly suggests that the MS rather than the workman was at
fault.
When B(o) was completed, the limits of B1v,2 and
B3v,4
had been established; thus we have more reason to think that the compositor
might juggle the text of the inner forme to make it get in these limits.
Almost certainly he was doing just this when he set a short speech of
Bottom's and one of Peter Quince's in a single line of type at the foot of B2
(B2,33; I.ii.52-53). But it appears that Bottom's Ercles speech (B2,15-18;
I.ii.27-34) which is printed as prose was probably written as prose in the
copy, since no provision was made in the casting-off for it to be set as
verse. One further mislineation occurs in B(i): in the middle of
B3v (l.
16; II.i.42-43), we find the beginning of one of Puck's couplet speeches in
this arrangement:
Rob.
Thou speakest aright;/ I am that merry wanderer of
(the night,
As the speech goes on for fifteen correct lines, the compositor must have
planned to set it in couplets and allowed space for them when he established
the place in the text at which to begin B4
v even though,
by analogy
with the fairy's speech on B3, the couplets were written in single lines in
the MS. In this instance, however, he apparently thought that he could
squeeze the first complete verse line into the same line of type with the
half-line of verse which begins the speech, a calculation which, as the
turn-over shows, was none too accurate.
Since, as we have seen, the compositor seems to have had to adjust
the MS lineation in sheet B, we can better understand his decision to shift
to seriatim setting in sheet C even though in doing so he
penalized himself in his time relationship with the press.
C4v was set
out of seriatim order, but no serious problems seem to have
arisen. The only instance of mislineation is found at
C1v,12
(II.i.175-176) where the compositor chose to set a line and a half of verse
in one line of type. It is in this part of the text, however, that Wilson thinks
heavy revision to have been made—II.i.1-147 belonging to one level
of
composition, ll. 148-187 to a second, ll. 188-246 to a third, and ll. 247-268
(end of scene) and II.ii.1-42 to the second again. As C1 begins at II.i.130
and C3 ends at II.ii.38, the seriatim setting of the first five
pages of the sheet may indeed suggest that the workman was confronted
here with a particularly nightmarish piece of composite
copy.
In D(o) we find two more minor instances of mislining—a
prose
speech of Peter Quince's at D2v,8-9 (III.i.93-94) set in
part as verse,
doubtless under the influence of Thisbe's immediately preceding verse
speech, and at D4v,17 (III.ii.48-49) a line and a half of
verse set in one
line of type. The textual material included in this sheet runs as follows:
D1 |
II.ii.141-III.i.11 |
D1v
|
III.i.11-III.i.47 |
D2v
|
III.i.85-III.i.120 |
D2 |
III.i.48-III.i.84 |
D3 |
III.i.121-III.i.153 |
D3v
|
III.i.154-III.i.190 |
D4v
|
III.ii.33-III.ii.67 |
D4 |
III.i.191-III.ii.32 |
It is interesting that all the material in D(i), the later forme, is perfectly
lined, although it is set solid and includes on D1
v and D2
much more
prose than verse. According to Wilson, all of III.i and the first forty lines
of III.ii belong to the same stratum of composition and underwent small, if
any, revision.
[15] The exact fitting of
the material in the quarto suggests that the manuscript at this point was
regular enough to permit quite accurate casting-off. Wilson also believes the
half-line at D4
v,17 to mark an abridgement, but this is a
matter upon
which our analysis provides no additional information.
However, the piecemeal distribution of E(i), beginning with
E1v
after the setting of F2 or part of F3v, suggests that work
on F(o) and
the first two pages of F(i) went slowly; and this is another part of the
text (III.ii, ending near the foot of F2
v) which Wilson
thinks to have
been considerably worked over. He sees the irregular lining at E1,13-14
(III.ii.80-81), a shift from couplets to blank verse at
E1
v,27
(III.ii.127), and a short line at E3
v,19 (III.ii.256) as
indications of
abridgement, addition, and cancellation. The first is the only mislined
passage in the sheet, and, since it occurs on the first page of the forme and
does not affect the total number of lines in the page, it seems virtually
impossible for the passage to have been deliberately mislined for mechanical
reasons. Nor does there seem to be any likelihood that the two subsequent
aberrations in the text, even though they are found in the inner forme, arose
from the compositor's tampering. At F1
v,31-32
(III.ii.396-399) we find
Puck's four-line speech set in two lines of type, an indication, according to
Wilson (pp. 125,130) that they were squeezed in at the foot of a page of
revised MS. As two lines only
must have been allowed for this speech in the casting-off, the rest of
F1
v and F2 being set solid, they were doubtless written in
two lines in
the manuscript, but it seems much less certain that they were written so as
to crowd them on an MS page when we remember that the fairy's speech
on B3, which is in the same meter, seems to have been similarly lined in
the MS.
IV.i begins near the bottom of F2v and ends seven
lines down on
G2. About this scene Wilson says in part:
Probably most of the scene was composed in 1594 though certain
parts look like first draft material recopied, e.g. the prose lining of
Titania's speeches 11. 27, 34-35 . . . .
[16]
The first of these speeches is at F3, 18-19; it appears as follows:
Tita.
What, wilt thou heare some musique, my sweete
loue?
The second is at F3, 26-27:
(hoord,
Ty.
I haue a venturous Fairy, that shall seeke the Squirils
And fetch thee newe nuts.
Because he did not turn "loue" over, his usual practice when a verse line
was too long for the measure, the compositor probably thought the first of
these speeches to be prose. We have seen him at D2
v,8-9
line prose as
verse, and it does not seem unlikely that here, under the
influence of Bottom's immediately preceding prose speech, he would have
mistaken verse for prose, especially since the line was probably written in
one line in the MS. In the second case, however, the turning-over of
"hoord" and the capitalization of "And" make it clear that the compositor
knew he was dealing with verse, although he handled it incorrectly. We
have here a case very like that previously observed at
B4
v,20, only in
this instance I think it would have been very difficult for the compositor to
have lined in this manner as the result of carelessness. The lines probably
stood in the MS as they do in the quarto, but neither this mislineation nor
that at F3,18 provides much evidence for the recopying of an earlier draft.
However, the material in F3
v and F4 (IV.i.44-IV.i.110),
all verse, is
perfectly lined and set solid, an indication that the MS, recopied or not, was
regular enough for an accurate line count.
Sheet G includes the following textual material:
G1 |
IV.i.144-IV.i.177 |
G1v
|
IV.i.178-IV.i.212 |
G2v
|
IV.ii.22-V.i.15 |
G2 |
IV.i.212-IV.ii.22 |
G3 |
V.i.15-V.i.48 |
G3v
|
V.i.49-V.i.83 |
G4v
|
V.i.118-V.i.150 |
G4 |
V.i.84-V.i.117 |
In this section of the text the most serious mislining occurs, and, as we
have noted earlier, on this evidence Wilson argues most strongly for
revision in the copy which underlay the quarto. From the point of view of
printing mechanics, the sheet has another feature (in addition to the
mislining) which is distinctly odd: the number of lines of type per page,
earlier a consistent thirty-five, was reduced to thirty-four on G1,
G1
v,
and G2
v and to thirty-two on G2. Because the mislining
is present on
G3
v (which contains thirty-five lines of type), it is clear
that there is
no absolute relationship between the incorrect lineation and the reduction
of the number of lines of type per page in the first four pages of the
sheet—that is, the lines of type per page were not reduced simply
because
the compositor compressed material that would have occupied more space
if it had been lined correctly.
Let us look more closely at the passages in question. At G1,21-23
(IV.i.164-166) we find:
(But by some power it is) my loue,
To Hermia / (melted as the snowe)
Seemes to me now / as the remembrance of an idle gaude,/
Here, as at B4
v,20 and F3,26, the compositor had nothing
to gain by
altering the lineation since his version occupies just the same number of
lines as the correct version, nor does it seem very likely that his error
resulted from a failure of memory after he had seen correct lineation in the
MS. Wilson suggests (p. 135) that the lines were written in the margin of
the manuscript "to take the place of a longer cancelled passage." Certainly
the indications are that the quarto lining reflects the lining of the
copy.
On G2v and G3, where there are two lengthier
mislined passages,
the effect of the mislining is different. The first is found at
G2v,26-G3,3 (V.i.5-18); asterisks indicate lines which
Wilson (pp.
80-81) thinks to have belonged to the earlier layer of composition:
*Louers, and mad men haue such seething braines,/ [l. 25]
Such shaping phantasies, that apprehend/more,
Then coole reason euer comprehends./The lunatick,
The louer, and the Poet / are of imagination all compact./
*One sees more diuels, then vast hell can holde:/
*That is the mad man. The louer, all as frantick,/
*Sees Helens beauty in a brow of
Ægypt./
The Poets eye, in a fine frenzy, rolling,/ doth glance
From heauen to earth, from earth to heauen./ And as
Imagination bodies forth / the formes of things [G3]
Vnknowne: the Poets penne / turnes them to shapes,
And giues to ayery nothing,/ a locall habitation,
And a name./*Such trickes hath strong imagination,/
That if it would but apprehend some ioy . . . . [l. 4]
The second is at G3,16-24 (V.i.29-38):
Ioy, gentle friends, ioy and fresh daies
Of loue / accompany your hearts.
Lys.
More then to vs,/ waite in your royall walkes, your boorde, your
bedde./
(haue,/
The.
Come now: what maskes, what daunces shall wee
To weare away this long age of three hours,/ betweene
Or after supper, & bed-time?/ Where is our usuall manager
Of mirth?/ What Reuels are in hand? Is there no play,/
To ease the anguish of a torturing hower?/ Call
Philostrate./
In both instances the text is compressed, a total of twenty-five lines of verse
(according to the quarto's standard of lineation) being set in twenty-one
lines of type. Neverthless, as was true on G1, there seems to be no
mechanical reason here for the mislineation, since the compositor was
setting the first forme. Once more it seems likely that the lineation of the
quarto reflects the lineation of the copy: there is no mechanical reason why
the lines should not have been, as Wilson believes (p. 85), "written on the
margin of the MS, in such space as could be found."
In G(i) there are further instances of mislineation. At
G1v,7
(IV.i. 184-185) a short verse line is set in the same line of type with a
complete verse line, in just the way we have seen earlier at
B3v,16 and
C1v,12. There is no evidence to tell us positively whether
the copy
stood this way—the compositor may either have been setting what he
saw
or hedging against faulty casting off—but the occurrence of the same
kind
of mislineation on C1v, which was set
seriatim, creates a
presumption that the copy was so lined. Similarly, we find at
G1v,22-23 (IV.i.197-198) that there are two lines of verse
set as prose
(cf. F3,18-19), probably under the influence of Bottom's immediately
following prose speech; no space is saved by the mislineation.
G3v
contains four mislined passages, the first at G3v,10-12
(V.i.58-60):
Merry, and tragicall? Tedious, and brief?/ That is hot Ise,
And wõdrous strange snow./ How shall we find the
cõcord
Of this discord?
the second at G3
v,18-22 (V.i.66-70):
And tragicall, my noble Lord, it is. For Pyramus,
Therein, doth kill himselfe./ Which when I saw
Rehearst, I must confesse,/ made mine eyes water:
But more merry teares/ the passion of loud laughter
Neuer shed.
the third at G3
v,29-30 (V.i.76-78):
Phi.
No, my noble Lord,/ it is not for you. I haue heard It ouer,/ and it is
nothing, nothing in the world;
and the fourth at G3
v,34-35 (V.i.81-83):
The.
I will heare that play./ For neuer any thing Can be amisse,/ when
simplenesse and duety tender it.
Since we have seen this sort of mislining in the outer forme, we are
probably safe in thinking that here too the mislineation arose from the copy
and not from the compositor's efforts to compress his material into a fixed
space. Had the workman been making adjustments for purely mechanical
reasons, he probably would have done so on G4 as well as
G3
v, but the
text on G4 is correctly lined.
Although detailed reconstruction of a compositor's procedures must
be in part speculative, I believe we can see about what happened if we try
to follow our man step-by-step through his work on the sheet. We know
that he set G(o) first and that he was probably having to work as quickly
as he could to keep up with the press. Before beginning G1 he
must have cast off the whole sheet, counting out thirty-five lines for each
page and marking page-endings in the copy. Had he been under less
pressure, he probably could have worked out the correct lineation of the
mislined passages (we saw him making correct adjustments in the lineation
of his copy in sheet B) which, as Wilson has noticed, were probably
marginal additions; but as it was he counted them as they were lined in the
MS. If this was his procedure, however, he evidently counted in some
material that he later did not set, and it does not seem unlikely, if he was
working hastily, that he may have failed to notice that some lines here and
there were supposed to be cancelled. Wilson detects abridgements in the
text at G1, 22-23 (IV.i.165-166) in the outer forme and at
G1
v,22-23
(IV.i.197-198) in the inner. It seems quite possible, then, that the
compositor discovered during the course of setting G1 that he had in his
casting-off included a cancelled line. He thus reduced
the number of lines of type on that page by one, preferring to set the page
short than to readjust the subsequent pageendings already marked. I take it
that the lack of one line of type on G2
v arises from similar
causes,
although there the miscalculation probably sprang from a failure to count
out the marginal material correctly; and that on G1
v a
cancelled
passage of about four lines was provided for in the estimate of space but
was not set up, thus requiring the omission of one line of type on
G1
v
and the opening up of the material on G2. An incomplete prose line at the
foot of G2 (l. 31) indicates that the workman had to strain a little to marry
that page with G2
v, which had already been
composed.
The instances of mislineation in sheets H and A (with one exception)
are so like those we have already examined that we may summarize them:
- H1,33-H1v,1 (V.i.182-185): Prose mistaken for
verse.
- H1v,7 (V.i.193): Two lines of verse in one line
of type;
probably MS lineation.
- H2,35 (V.i.262): Two lines of verse in one line of type; probably
compositor's lineation (cf. B2,33).
- H4,7 (V.i.394): Couplet set in one line of type; probably MS
lineation.
- A2v,33) (I.i.53): Two short lines in one line of
type;
responsibility doubtful.
At A2
v,2 and 5 (I.i.24 and 26)
Stand forth
Demetrius and
Stand forth Lisander are centered rather than printed as part
of
the text as meter requires. Since he set the proper names in italics rather
than in roman, the compositor evidently did not take these phrases as stage
directions, but lined them about as they were lined in the copy. Wilson (p.
105) notes that "they were probably written as separate half-lines in the
original MS, to denote deliberate utterance . . ." or, we may add, to cue
obvious stage business.
We have seen that the quarto was set largely by formes under adverse
conditions probably caused by sections of difficult copy. In only two places
(B2,33 and H2,35) does there seem to be any likelihood that the compositor
juggled the lineation of the text in order to fit copy to a predetermined
space.[17] The bibliographical evidence
seems to me to point toward the kind of heavily revised manuscript
described by Professor Wilson as copy for the quarto, although it does not,
of course, in itself lend any support to his distinction of different levels of
style in the revisions. There is, as Sir Walter Greg has noted, no indication
that the manuscript ever served as a prompt book, and the presence of
revision may lead one to think of late-stage foul papers as copy.