University of Virginia Library

Two of the most significant links between Q and F would be sufficient of themselves to prove the case for F dependence. The first makes it certain, also, that Q3 was the edition used at this point—II.i.39. According to the usual practice, Nim's interjection "Push." (Q) or "Pish." (F) is here given a line to itself in Q1 and Q2. In Q3 and F, however, it is printed in the same line as the last line of the previous speech—the only example of this in F.

The second link shows F dependence on either Q2 or Q3. The texts compare as follows (IV.viii.104):-

• Q1 . . . but fiue and twentie. O God thy arme was here,
• Q2,3 . . . but fiue and twenty. King. O God, thy Arme was heere,
• F But fiue and twentie. O God, thy Arme was heere:

The F indent in the second line is pointless and exceptional. It is merely a survival of the deletion, in the text of Q2 or Q3, of the erroneous speech-prefix King. This is also true of the retention of the unnecessary division of what are really two parts of the same verse line.

To these links may be added a third, of equal significance, the unique instance, at II.i.98, in which both Q3 and F diverge from their normal practice and from that of Q1 and Q2 to use the speech-prefix form Pi. instead of Pis. or Pist. or (rarely) Pistoll. No doubt the Q3 compositor shortened the prefix in order to justify the line; but Q1 and Q2 had already used a fuller form in the same space, and Q3 has other lines, just as long, with the fuller forms.

Again, the influence of Q, and of Q3 in particular, may be reasonably inferred from the following collation, from the only F passage which departs from the normal speech-prefix King.:-

               

IV.vii.80	Q1	Kin.	Q2	King.	Q3	Kin.	F	Kin.
84		Kin.		King.		Kin.		Kin.
101		Kin.		Kin.		King.		King.
112		K.		Kin.		King.		King.
116		Kin.		Ki.		Kin.		Kin.
127		K.		Ki.		Kin.		Kin.
131		Kin.		Ki.		King.		King.
139		Kin.		Kin.		King.		King.

Here F follows the quite fortuitous variations of Q3, but shows no consistent relation to Q1 or Q2.

Another significant phenomenon among the speech-prefixes is that they often change immediately after, and just as far as, Q copy ceased to be available (since the passages were wanting in Q, or too bad to be used as copy), and F had therefore to be set from the manuscript. This implies that, when the compositor switched over from one type of copy to another—from corrected quarto to manuscript—he was liable to switch, on some occasions, to the (different) speech-prefixes of that copy. This is what must have happened, for example, when the normal F prefix Flu. (Q Flew.) becomes Welch. eight times consecutively at III.ii.64-133, a passage wanting in Q; and when the normal Hostess. becomes Woman. at II.iii.33. The coincidence of the changes with the gaps in Q confirms the use of Q copy on both sides (i. e. before and after) these passages.

Some of the most striking examples of corroborative evidence may now be presented in summary form; the Q text, unless otherwise stated, being taken from Q3, though Q2 may equally well have served, in most cases, as the copy. The strokes indicate the accepted line-division.