 | |  |
IV
It is time to return to the question which led to the examination of these books printed by Roberts: what evidence is there for saying that the copies for Q2 Hamlet (1604/5) and The Merchant of Venice were in the same handwriting? One answer is fairly straightforward. It has been shown from Roberts' reprint of Titus Andronicus and from other books first printed by him, that the two compositors whose work has been identified sometimes retained uncharacteristic forms from their copy. Since Hamlet and The Merchant share a larger number of significant spellings than any other two books which have been examined-and this in spite of a gap of some four years-it follows that the spellings of their copies were much alike. In particular, it appears from Titus Andronicus that if the copy contained only -ow and -ew forms, very few -owe or -ewe forms would be found in the printed book. This view is supported by Harsnet's Declaration and The Poore Man's Passions. Now in both Hamlet and The Merchant the longer spellings occur not only in pages set by X but also in those set by Y. It therefore seems highly probable that the copy for both plays had a considerable number of -owe and -ewe forms. It is worth
Similarly, it appears from Titus Andronicus that Compositor X did not always change farewell to farwell, and this is borne out by A Poor Man's Passions. Smith's Four Sermons suggests that he did not often change deere to deare, and also, with Harsnet's Declaration and Estie's Exposition, that he did not often change said to sayd. Titus Andronicus shows that Compositor Y did not often change houre to howre, and this is borne out by A Declaration. These spellings were significantly varied in Hamlet and The Merchant, and it therefore seems likely that the copy for both plays contained a preponderance of farwell, deare, sayd, and howre forms.
A complete check of the spellings in the two plays and other books by Roberts would be a very long task, and beyond the scope of this paper. It would be especially complicated by the possible illegibility of the copy for Hamlet. Nevertheless, it is possible to check a few unusual forms, as, for instance, 'how so mere' in The Merchant (G2v) and 'howsomeuer' in Hamlet (D3v). Both were set by Compositor X and we might expect that he was responsible for the 'm' spellings; but there is more evidence in signature Q of Estie's Exposition where the same man, in all probability, set the usual form 'howsoeuer'. Until a complete check is made, such details are of little value,[13] and the recurrence of -owe, -ewe, farwell, deare, sayd, and howre forms is, at this stage, the strongest evidence that the two copies were in the same handwriting.
Most of the spelling checks I have made have proved of little use in showing that the two copies were in a single hand, but they have shown that many unusual spellings in Hamlet which were listed by Professor Wilson as possible evidence of Shakespearian orthography,[14] are in fact often found in other work by the two compositors responsible for Hamlet. Hether is a clear example: it was set several times in Q2 Titus Andronicus where Q1 reads hither; X set it in The Poor Man's Passions (F4), and Y in Harsnet's Declaration (B2v); it occurs also in England's Helicon and Smith's Four Sermons. Similarly, doost was set several times in Titus where Q1 reads dost (e.g., D3v,4, & E1v). The evidence for the compositors'
| | |