 | |  |
Spelling
The use of -t and 'd (-ed to indicate unvoiced weak past-participial endings was arbitrary between 1590 and 1623, but the tendency to favour 'd was progressive. One would therefore expect and allow for a certain degree of "modernisation" in F as compared with Q. As Dr. Alice Walker pointed out in the case of quartos that were certainly used as copy for F (op. cit., pp. 154-5), one would expect the pattern of modernisation to be a random one, if the two texts, Q and F, were entirely independent of each other. When one finds, therefore, that the pattern of F follows that of Q in its irregularity, one can only conclude that Q influenced F. In Henry V, there is an almost complete coincidence of such irregularity in these variants where they appear in both texts. The following complete list shows that Q and F agree in 13 -t endings (14 counting Q3 only), 7 -d, -ed, or 'd endings (9 counting Q3 only), while 5 are modernised (Q -t, F '-d, -ed). There are only two exceptions; one of them is Fluellen's (Q digd; F digt), and was presumably intended to emphasize his Welsh pronunciation; the other is fac't out, III.vii.80, and, since the words occur at the end of a prose line in F, the form might be due to an attempt to justify the line.
|
|
|
Peculiar, and often unique, spellings are also encountered throughout both texts, e.g. I.ii.164, Owse (all other Shakespearean plays ooze); II.iv.132, Louer (=Louvre); IV.iii.105, crasing (=grazing); V.i.8 sault (all other plays salt).
| | |