| ||
II. The Nature of the Copy
Perhaps the most important question to be solved in any textual study of Romeo and Juliet is that of the contamination of the second quarto by the first quarto. Though the first quarto is an inferior text — generally thought to be a memorial reconstruction — in at least one passage it served as copy for the second quarto. Critics differ on the precise limits of this reprinted passage, but roughly it extends from I.ii.52 to I.iii.35, some ninety lines.[17] There are also indications of further contamination elsewhere in the quarto, but these sections are in even greater dispute. The precise textual inter-relationship of the two quartos and of the authoritative manuscript behind Q2 has never been explained thoroughly and convincingly. One sort of evidence that has received only cursory attention is that derived from speech prefixes, yet such evidence offers additional information of some value that bears on the question.[18]
We are fortunate in having in Romeo and Juliet the reprinted
Q1 | Q2 (variants only) | Q1 | Q2 |
1. Romeo | 18. Ser | ||
2. Ben | 19. Ben | ||
3.Romeo | 20. Ro | ||
4. Ben | 21. Ben | ||
5. Rom | 22. Rom | Ro | |
6. Ser | 23. VVife | ||
7. Rom | 24. Nurce | Nurse | |
8. Ser | 25. Iuliet | ||
9. Rom | 26. Nurce | Nur | |
10. Seru | Ser | 27. Iul | Iuli |
11.Rom | 28. VV | Wife | |
12. Ser | 29. Nurce | Nurse | |
13. Ro | 30. VVife | ||
14. Ser | 31. Nnrce | Nurse | |
15. Ro | 32. VVife | ||
16. Ser | 33. Nurce | Nurse | |
17. Ro |
Prefix #10. In the reprinted passage the prefix for the Servant appears seven times. On six occasions the Q2 compositor follows his copy in the spelling "Ser." On the seventh occasion (#10) when Q1 has "Seru", the Q2 compositor changes the spelling to "Ser", thus following his copy faithfully and consistently but not slavishly. The
We may now apply the principle of consistency in the speech-prefix pattern for the Servant to the rest of the quarto. Outside of the reprinted passage the prefix for the Servant occurs eight times. On seven occasions the Q2 spelling is "Ser"; the single variant occurs on page B3 immediately before the reprinted passage and is spelled "Seru." It thus appears that Compositor A's consistent spelling "Ser" in the reprinted passage is also his preferred spelling. To secure this spelling he has even altered his copy spelling on one occasion (#10). Fourteen times in the play out of fifteen "Ser" is used; the single aberrant form "Seru" may then reasonably require some explanation.
There are four possible explanations for this single variant spelling on B3. The first is that this is a fortuitous spelling; yet we have not found that this compositor indulges in random setting of this prefix; on the contrary, he sets it in a strictly consistent form. The second is that this "Seru" is so set because it is the first appearance of this speaker; but this theory seems weak considering the commonness of the character and the fact that "Seru" is little better than "Ser" in representing "Seruant" (Compositor A is by no means consistent in spelling out speakers' names on their first entrances). The third possibility is that "Seru" is taken from the stage direction; but here the direction has "Clowne", and this possibility is ruled out. The fourth possibility is that "Seru", "Serua", or "Seruant" stood in the copy and that the compositor is following such a spelling. This possibility we believe most readily explains the variant. But the form in Q1 at this point is "Ser", and it does not seem likely from the compositor's observed practice that he would change his preferred spelling when he finds it in his copy to an unpreferred spelling. We conclude then that the copy at this point was not Q1. This hypothesis is confirmed by the fact that the speech of the Servant is too much altered to have been taken from Q1 and must have been set from some sort of manuscript source. We infer that the prefix was set from the same copy (I.ii.38).
The example of the prefix for the Servant is a slight one, but it illustrates the principles of the investigation. To repeat: the change Q1 Seru / Q2 Ser (#10) in the reprinted passage is a non-significant change because it represents only the normalization to the preferred practice of Compositor A; the usage "Seru" on B3 is a significant usage because it represents a variant from the discovered practice. The
Prefix #28. The case of the prefixes for the Wife is similar. The compositor's preferred practice in the reprinted passage is the spelling "Wife." Accordingly he normalizes the Q1 "VV" to this consistent form. In the rest of the play the prefix occurs four times (we exclude for the moment all other titles to this part): twice set by Compositor A, and twice set by Compositor B on L4v (the latter settings do not concern us here). Compositor A's settings are on signatures A4 where the form is "Wife" and on I1 where the form is "Wi." The question is then raised, of six settings by Compositor A why is one irregular? We conclude as before that the Q2 compositor is following his copy, since we have not found that this compositor introduces innovations in speech-prefix form. As the first quarto has the prefix "Mo" at this point, we believe that the copy was not Q1 (III.v.176), for it seems unlikely that an editor or annotator of that quarto would have introduced the aberrant form into that text (which has some form of Mother in this scene) when preparing copy for the press. Furthermore, at this point in the text the two quartos are sufficiently near to have made the insertion of a transcribed slip unnecessary.
Prefix #26. Of the five prefixes for the Nurse in the reprinted passage, this one is uniquely abbreviated to "Nur." It is therefore in the passage an aberrant, but in the entire book this form of the prefix ("Nur" or "Nur") is overwhelmingly favored by the compositor (in 78 out of 93 uses).[20] This change is therefore non-significant; but variations from this norm should then be distinctive. Of the fifteen aberrant forms in the 93 occurrences of the prefix, ten are "Nurse" or "Nurse" and five are "Nurs." Of the ten prefixes spelled out "Nurse", four are in the reprinted passage (#24, 29, 31, and 33) and six in the section immediately following (sigs. B4v and C1). Since there are as many as ten of these spelled-out forms we can not positively say that they constitute an aberrant spelling, but we believe that they do represent an unpreferred spelling found in the original.[21] They seem to be, if not preferred, at least acceptable to the compositor. The five other spellings, "Nurs", that occur on signatures C4v and D1, do constitute
Q1 | Q2 |
a. Nurse | Nur |
b. Nurse | Nurs |
c. Nur | Nurs |
d. Nur | Nur |
e. Nur | Nur |
f. Nur | Nurs |
g. Nurse | Nurs |
h. Nurse | Nurs |
Prefix #22. Of the 170 prefixes for the part of Romeo, the form "Ro" is used 130 times; the form "Rom" is used 29 times[23] and the spelled-out "Romeo" 11 times. Since the two short forms are both common, we hesitate to draw any conclusions from them, but we must observe that there appears to be little correlation between the quartos in their use.[24] The use of the spelled-out form, however, seems to be
Prefix #27. The case for Juliet is very similar. There are 116 prefixes for her part in the section of the quarto set by Compositor A (three more — "Iuli" — in the stint of Compositor B). Of these 116 the preferred form "Iu" is used 95 times; the form "Iuli" is used 19 times and the spelled-out form "Iuliet" is used twice. The change (#27) from "Iul" to "Iuli" is non-significant; the prefix "Iul" is never used in Q2. The spelled-out form is a significant usage because it is an aberrant form. It appears first in the reprinted passage (#25) and again on B4v. Since it is copied in its first appearance we conclude that it is copied also in its second, but as Q1 has here "Iul" the copy at this point cannot have been the first quarto (I.iii. 66).[25]
From this examination of the practice of Compositor A in the reprinted passage the following observations seem valid:
- 1. Whereas Compositor A has his personal preferences in the spelling of speech prefixes, he is greatly influenced by his copy and follows it exactly 28 times out of 33 (discounting the minor c/s shift in the prefixes for the Nurse).
- 2. When Compositor A does vary from his copy he does so in order to normalize the Q1 form to his own preference.
- 3. Compositor A in these lines never introduces an innovation in the speech prefixes. And on the basis of these observations the following extensions to the rest of the play seem valid also:
- 4. When a speech-prefix spelling preferred by Compositor A
occurs in Q1 and also in Q2, no conclusions can be drawn as to the nature of the copy, since there is not necessarily a relationship.122
- 5. When an unpreferred speech-prefix spelling occurs in Q2 and the preferred or acceptable spelling is found in Q1, then the Q2 spelling must reflect a source other than Q1, since it cannot be accepted that Compositor A would change a preferred Q1 prefix to an unpreferred innovation.
- 6. When an unpreferred spelling occurs in Q2 and that spelling is found also in Q1, the presumption is that Q2 was following Q1 copy. This occurs so rarely, however, that it appears to be purely coincidental, and instead of confirming the assumption of Q1 copy rather weakens it.
Since the speech-prefix patterns of Q1 and Q2 vary independently (except in the reprinted passage) throughout the whole of the quarto to a comparable degree, we are constrained to accept the theory of an independent authoritative manuscript as copy for the second quarto with, as Dr. Hosley has termed it, "compositor's consultation" of the first quarto. Our confidence in this theory is strengthened when we consider that nowhere in Q2 save in the reprinted passage is there a sequence of speech prefixes of any considerable length that has any significant correlation with the corresponding passage in Q1. Furthermore, we believe that Compositor A by his intelligent fidelity and consistency reveals himself as a reasonable craftsman by no means so stupid or slovenly as some of his critics would have him.
These principles may be applied to the prefixes for the other characters of the play. Those for Benvolio offer interesting evidence. Of the 62 occurrences of this speaker, the form "Ben" is used 54 times; the aberrant forms "Benu", "Benuo", and "Benuol" are used respectively four, three, and one times. As most of these aberrants occur in the early speeches of the part, it may be argued that these variants indicate the compositor's attempts to find the form that suits him. But "Ben" is still used five times before signature B1v, as many times as the other forms put together and is therefore from the beginning the preferred spelling. The sequence of Benvolio's first prefixes is as follows:
Q1 | Q2 | |
a. [Omit] | Benuo | A3v |
b. [Omit] | Benuo | A4 |
c. Benuo | Ben | A4v |
d. Ben | Benuo | |
e. Ben | Ben | B1 |
Q1 | Q2 | |
f. [Omit] | Ben | B1 |
g. Ben | Benu | |
h. Benuo | Benuol | |
i.Ben | Ben | |
j. Ben | Ben |
Mercutio speaks 64 times. Of these occurrences the form "Mer" is used 59 times;[28] the aberrant form "Mercu" is used three times, and the aberrants "Horatio" and "M" once apiece. The three aberrant forms "Mercu" do not appear in the first quarto which has at these points the preferred spelling "Mer"; we conclude therefore that these three lines were set from manuscript (I.iv.13; II.iv.13; III.i.45). "Horatio" and "M" would seem to be special cases.[29]
Paris speaks 23 times. Of the prefixes, thirteen occur in the preferred form "Par"; aberrant forms also used are "Pa" (7 times), "Paris" (2), and "Pari" (1). None of these variants appears at the corresponding point in Q1. We conclude therefore that these forms were found in a manuscript (I.ii.12; III.iv.8, 19, 29; IV.i.19, 21, 24, 32, 35; V.iii.49). The five settings of "Pa" on signature I2v (IV.i) are singularly impressive, because Q1 has consistently here the preferred spelling "Par."
The name of the Friar in Q1 is spelled "Laurence" throughout the text, and in the brief scene with Friar John the prefix is abbreviated "Laur." In Q2 the name is spelled "Lawrence" in the text, and the
Of Compositor A's five settings for Peter, four are abbreviated "Pet"; one is spelled out. The aberrant spelled-out form occurs on the first entrance of the speaker. It is omitted in Q1 and therefore must derive from manuscript (II.iv.111) (cf. note 33).
Prefixes as seldom used as those for Mountague, Mountague's Wife, and for other less important characters can tell us nothing, unless as in the case of Sampson and Gregorie they indicate of necessity a source other than the first quarto. The prefixes for the Prince have no distinctive variants.
Capulet's Wife has 44 speeches assigned to her in Compositor A's share of the quarto by this variety of prefixes: Capu. Wi (1), Ca. Wi (1), Wife (5), Wi (1), Old La (6), La (14), Mo (12), M (4). In the face of such diversity it would be rash to choose one spelling as a preferred spelling. What does appear from this haphazard diversity is that the compositor is following his copy with the same faithfulness that has been observed in the reprinted passage, for judging from his observed practices it is impossible to conceive of him as introducing these inconsistencies on his own initiative. Of the 32 times the various Q2 prefixes have possible sources in Q1, only four times is there demonstrable influence (in the reprinted passage) and twelve times is there only arguable influence where Q1 has "Moth" and Q2 "M" (H4 (2), H4v, K2) or "Mo" (H4, I1v, I4v (4), K2 (2)). but sixteen times the possibility of influence is eliminated by a generic change in the prefix:
Q1 | Q2 | |
Wife | Old La | B4v(3), C1 |
Moth | La | H3v(5), H4, H4v, K1v(2) |
Mo | Wi | I1 |
Mo | Ca. Wi | G1 |
M | Capu. Wi | F4v |
On the basis of this evidence we can now assign a page of some importance, B4v, immediately following the reprinted passage, as having been set from manuscript throughout. On this page there are five prefixes for Capulet's Wife, five for the Nurse, and two for Juliet. Of the five prefixes for the Wife, all spelled "Old La", three diverge from
The character of Capulet has the same sort of variety in speech prefixes: Capu (11), Cap (5), Ca (16), 1. Capu (3), Capel (1), Fat (1), Fa (11). Again it is risky to pick a preferred spelling, but as before certain generic changes are conspicuous:
Q1 | Q2 | |
Cap | Fa | I1 (4), K2 (2), K2v |
Capo | Fa | I4v(2) |
Other equally valid though less clearly defined generic changes exist in the prefixes for the attendants in the play. There is no certain policy in setting these prefixes; in addition to "Ser" there are "Man", "Boy", "Pa[ge]", "Clowne", "Peter," and "Balt[hasar]" in unpredictable disorder. No system is apparent, but the following generic changes seem
Q1 | Q2 | ||
Boy | Pa | L1v | |
Clowne | Ser | C1 | |
Balt | Man | K4(2) | |
Ser | Fel | K1v(2) | |
and | Apo | Poti | L1(2) |
Thus far in this paper we have examined the speech prefixes in the second quarto in order to determine the preferred spelling of Compositor A and to explain the variants from that preferred usage. No variant can be attributed to a source in the first quarto, and no positive links between the two quartos in speech prefixes outside of the reprinted passage have been found. The only possible exception to this situation exists in the case of Tybalt. The prefixes for Tybalt occur seventeen times in seven different forms. It seems to us unwise to attempt to draw any conclusions from such disparate evidence, yet if our method is applied to this character, we find the following variants from the preferred "Tib" (7 times) that do have corresponding forms in Q1:
Q1 | Q2 | |
Ti | Ti | C4 |
Tyb | Tyb | F3(4) |
Q1 | Q2 | |
Balth | Balth | M1v |
Boy | Boy | M1v |
Though there are doubtless exceptions to the theory of speechprefix practice here advanced, the principle involved seems to be sound. It seems furthermore to point quite clearly to an independent manuscript as copy for the second quarto. At least the validity of this proposition is sustained by the overwhelming number of variants that do not originate in Q1 when compared with that almost negligible number that may derive from it. On the basis of the evidence already presented, and on the observation of Compositor A's fidelity to known copy, we argue for the theory of the independent manuscript, for we doubt that an editor or an annotator of the first quarto engaged with any reasonable or consistent attention to his editing would have made such unimportant changes in the speech prefixes. It is not credible to us that an annotator would make the useless change of one form of a printed speech prefix to another form of the same prefix, or, in the case of the generic changes, that he would alter the Q1 consistent use of some form of Capulet to the Q2 Father, the Q1 consistent use of some form of Mother or Wife to the Q2 Old Lady, Lady, or Capulet's Wife.[34] Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that outside of the reprinted
| ||