The first quarto of the tragedy of Gorboduc, written by Thomas
Norton and Thomas Sackville, appeared on September 22, 1565, from the
press of William Griffith. Its title, The Tragedie of
Gorboduc,
has been usually adopted by later editors. The second quarto, which
appeared in 1570 with the imprint of John Day, bears the title The
Tragidie of Ferrex and Porrex, a form that editors have often
adopted
as a subtitle.[1] Despite the difference
in the title, both are the same play, performed by the Gentlemen of the
Inner Temple before the Queen on January 18, 1561. The first quarto, it is
evident, comes from an unauthorized source; the second quarto probably
appeared because the authors were dissatisfied with the corruptions of the
first.
In an address to the reader in Q2, Day arraigns the first quarto and
its printer. After declaring that the authors never intended for the play to
be published, he continues:
yet one W.G. getting a copie therof at some yongmans hand that
lacked a litle money and much discretion, in the last great plage . . . put it
forth excedingly corrupted: euen as if by meanes of a broker for hire, he
should haue entised into his house a faire maide and done her villanie, and
after all to bescratched her face, torne her appareil, berayed and disfigured
her, and then thrust her out of doores dishonested. In such plight after long
wandring she came at length home . . . to her frendes . . . . They, the
authors I meane, . . . haue for common honestie and shamefastnesse new
apparelled, trimmed, and attired her in such forme as she was
before.
Such hyperbole is only in part justified. Although some one hundred and
fifty substantive changes are made in Q1 readings, Q2 retains at least five
errors of Q1 and introduces some nine manifest errors of its own. Finally,
an eight-line passage is omitted in Q2, perhaps for political reasons.
Moreover, despite these divergencies and despite Day's harsh
judgment of Griffith's work, Q1 was not so dishonested that it could not be
corrected to serve as copy-text for Q2. It is evident that Day did not print
from manuscript:
certain bibliographical features are present that show that Q1, heavily
corrected, was used as the copy-text for Q2.
[2]
The most obvious bibliographical detail that shows this dependence
of Q2 on Q1 is a unique "white-space" that occurs in the same place in both
quartos. In both texts, when a new sentence begins in mid-line it follows
closely on the full stop of the preceding sentence. In Q2 there are
twenty-four such mid-line sentence beginnings following a full stop or a
question mark. But in Q1, at D1.26, a large white-space appears,
measuring eleven millimetres. In Q2 at F2v.21 (IV.ii.142)[3] a similar large white-space appears
in the
identical place, this time measuring four millimetres. When the invariable
practice of both quartos is to have no such white-space between sentences
in mid-line, it is quite conclusive that in this single instance, and at the
same place in the text, both quartos agree in such a space.
Other details confirm the evidence indicated by this unique
white-space. For example, in both texts in the "domme shew" before the
first act, Gorboduc is referred to as "Duke Gorboduc"; he is listed in the
names of the speakers as "King of great Brittaine" in both, and in the dumb
show before the fourth act he is called "King." Again, at I.ii.60, the Q1
reading, "The Realme deuided into two sondrie partes," is retained in Q2
despite its extrametrical and redundant effect.[4] At I.ii.233 in both texts,
Philander,
addressing the King, uses "My lordes," although his words clearly indicate
that he is not speaking to the assembled nobles. At IV.i.68, in the line "Nor
neuer bode I painefull throwes for thee," bode is surely a
mistake for bore. At III.i.103 final punctuation for the last
line
of Gorboduc's speech is omitted in both quartos. And at IV.i.23-26 the
incorrect punctuation of Q1, along with a possible incorrect repetition, is
retained in Q2:
O my swete childe,
My deare Ferrex, my Joye, my lyues delyght.
Is my welbeloued sonne, is my swete childe,
My deare Ferrex, my Joye, my lyues delight
Murdered with cruell death?
The full stop after "delyght" is unnecessary, and the strangely repeated line
perhaps shows us how the line should be punctuated — either with
no
punctuation at all or with nothing more than a light mark.
The dependence of Q2 upon Q1 is seen again in the use of
parentheses.
In both quartos they are most often used in terms of address, and the
correlation between the use and non-use of parentheses with these terms of
address is so extremely high that Q2's dependence upon Q1 is evident. In
the sixty-seven terms of address, parentheses are used in both quartos to
enclose the same twenty-five of these phrases; forty-two of these terms of
address do not have parentheses. There is thus complete unanimity in the
agreement between the two quartos in the use or non-use of parentheses.
Only the most fortuitous and unbelievable set of circumstances could have
brought about complete agreement if Q2 had not been set from Q1.
Moreover, in addition to these terms of address, certain other
expressions, either appositive or interjectional, show almost such a high
degree of correlation. There are twenty-one examples of such appositive
and interjectional expressions; there are only two divergencies in the two
quartos in their use or non-use of parentheses, but nineteen
agreements.[5]
From the evidence of the unique white-space, the common errors, and
the high correlation in the use of parentheses, we may be sure that Q2 was
set from a corrected copy of Q1. The new apparel with which Day clothed
the text did not quite cover the "dishonested" body beneath.[6]
