 | |  |
Notes
A shortened form of Section II of this article was read before the Southeastern Renaissance Meeting at the University of South Carolina, April 21, 1956.
Richard Hosley, ed. Romeo and Juliet (Yale Shakespeare, rev. ed., 1954); J. D. Wilson assisted by G. I. Duthie, ed. Romeo and Juliet (New Cambridge Shakespeare, 1955). Hosley, "The Corrupting Influence of the Bad Quarto on the Received Text of Romeo and Juliet," Shakespeare Quarterly, IV (1953), 11-33; "The 'Good Night, Good Night' Sequence in Romeo and Juliet," SQ, V (1954), 96-98; Duthie, "The Text of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet," SB, IV (1951-1952), 3-29. Wilson, "The New Way with Shakespeare's Texts. II. Recent Work on the Text of Romeo and Juliet," Shakespeare Survey, VIII (1955), 81-99.
This example occurs in the passage of Q2 that admittedly was printed from Q1 (see below, Section II). The Q1 proper name is in italic; the Q2 change to roman is deliberate and significant. The same change is noted in the direction "Enter Iuliet" a few lines below in Q2. The compositor's forgetfulness accounts for the two extensions of his practice to other than proper names on G1 and K4, but these slips would seem to confirm the existence of the practice.
Pages having proper names in stage directions in roman type and therefore distinct from those with proper names in italic type are: A3, A4(3), B1, B2v, B3, B4(2), C1, C2v, D1(2), D4, E1, E2, E2v, E4v, F1v, F2, F2v(2), F3, F3v, F4(2), F4v(2), G1, G3v, H2, H2v, H4v, I2, I2v, I4(2), I4v, K1v, K4(2), L1, L1v, L2.
We have included in these computations speech prefixes that are used as catchwords and have treated them here and in the last section without any distinction.
On signatures D4v, E1(3), E1v(4), E2 (2), F1v, F2(3), G3v(5), G4(3+c.w), G4v (5), H1, H2, I2(2), I2v(4), I3, I3v, I4, K2v (1+c.w.), K3(2).
Parallel to this pattern are the numbered forms for the second and third musicians on K3v: 2 M, 2 M, 3 M; on K4 the form is reversed: M 2. (Elsewhere the practice varies: A4 M Wife 2; C3 1 or 2 Capu [5 times]; but cf. L4 3 Watch.) Mr. Hosley observes in correspondence that "the 'Minst' as catchword on K3v argues copy homogeneous throughout the first line of K4, and therefore the 'Min' is definitely Compositor A's preference. This seems to me to be a pretty nice point, for here you can see the two compositors working each his own will on the same speech heading in the copy."
On signatures A3, B1, C2v, C3, C4v, D2v, E2v, E3, E4, F4, G1v, G2, G4, G4v, H1v, H3, H3v, I3v, I4v, K2, K2v, L1.
For the words "die" and "lie" atypical treatment is observed: Compositor A has a marked (but not exclusive) preference for the -ie form; Compositor B is indifferent. Die: B2v, B3v, D1, F2, G1, G1v, G3, H1v, H2, H2v, I2, I3, K1, K2, K2v, L1, L2v, L3(2), M1v Dye: B3, I1v, L4(2) Lie: A3v, B1v, C2(2), C2v(2), D1, D1v, G1, G1v, I3v(3), K1, K4v, L3, L3v, M2 Lye: E1 (spelling rhyme), L4, M1v.
All these aberrants occur on pages that are assigned to Compositor A for typographical or orthographical reasons. For example: "watry" on C2 is balanced by four -ie forms and two -ie spellings of the short verb "lie."
That Compositor A is responsible for these spellings is indicated by the presence of others of his characteristics immediately before and after them.
Compositor A uses "young" throughout, but on E3v and E4 he adopts the shorter form, "yong", to justify in obviously tight lines. His preferred spelling occurs within three lines of both aberrants. The implications of this word are interesting. The form "young trees" on L1v is set by Compositor A and the form "yong trees" on L3v by Compositor B for what is evidently their misreading of the manuscript "yeug trees." On the first appearance Q1 has the correct "Ew tree" and is therefore not serving as copy at that point.
The need of distinguishing and contrasting the work of two compositors has perforce limited the description of the two men here. It is evident that characteristics shared by both compositors are not apparent in such a study; on the other hand exclusive characteristics of one compositor may be equally invisible if there is no opportunity for the second compositor to exhibit his variant preference (this is particularly true when the stint of the second compositor is brief). A compositorial analysis is being made of the dramatic quartos from Creede's shop in the period 1593-1605, in the hope of identifying additional work of the compositors of Romeo and Juliet in prints from manuscript and in reprints.
These observations are based on examinations of the Kemble-Devonshire and the Gott exemplars at the Folger Shakespeare Library.
The space described is that within the page-opening in the skeleton. The count of lines or spaces includes the text, direction lines, signature or catchword, and all medial blank lines but excludes the running title.
The disagreement concerns the earlier limit of the passage. See Mr. Hosley's article in this volume for a complete discussion. His reasons for advancing line 52 as the beginning of the reprinted passage appear to us as sound, and we accordingly accept that line as our starting point.
Dr. Philip Williams used this kind of evidence to demonstrate the dependence of the folio text of Troilus and Gressida on the quarto ("Shakespeare's Troilus and Cressida: The Relationship of Quarto and Folio," SB, III [1950], 137-140). Both copy and original were available for his study, but, though we must posit an original now lost, the principles of the investigation are not dissimilar.
Lest it be thought that because of its having been set from the quarto (or for any reason) this passage has any peculiar pattern of prefixes that would invalidate conclusions drawn from it, we submit the list of prefixes from I.iv. 1-53. The pattern is astonishingly similar, mutatis mutandis.
As before we have included catchwords in our computations. All catchwords follow the compositor's regular practices.
The situation is complicated by the possibility that the compositor, having set "Nurse" in the reprinted passage, would continue to do so for a page or two. There is also the problem of the use of italic or roman type for the Nurse's speeches and the contrasting type for her prefixes. But cf. footnote 31.
We admit the vexing possibility that Q1 "Nurse" may have influenced Q2 "Nurs" in I.v. 114, but we cannot believe that it is responsible also for the four succeeding uses.
It is possible that the Q2 compositor took his indifference to the use of Ro/Rom from the pattern established by the compositors of sheets A-D of Q1. Cf. H. R. Hoppe, The Bad Quarto of Romeo and Juliet (Cornell Studies in English, XXXVI, 1948), pp. 46-47. The correlation in the use of Ro/Rom prefixes before comparable speeches in the two quartos varies significantly:
| Scene | Comparable Speeches | Correlation |
| Ii | 13 | 46% |
| (I.ii | 11 | 91%) |
| I.iv | 11 | 27% |
| I.v | 8 | 25% |
| II.i | 1 | 100% |
| II.ii | 22 | 73% |
| II.iii | 6 | 50% |
| - | ||
| Average per scene | 58.8% |
| Scene | Comparable Speeches | Correlation |
| II.iii | 2 | 0% |
| II.iv | 22 | 14% |
| II.vi | 0 | - |
| III.i | 9 | 22% |
| III.iii | 15 | 7% |
| III.v | 6 | 67% |
| V.i | 7 | 28% |
| V.iii | 6 | 33% |
| - | ||
| Average per scene | 21.3% |
The 91% of the reprinted passage is well above percentiles of the other scenes (excepting the 100% of II.i that is computed on only one instance). The difference between the average correlations in sheets A-D and in sheets E-K of Q1 is explained by the indifference to Ro/ Rom of the first set of compositors in Q1 and by the virtually exclusive preference for "Rom" exhibited by the second set in Q1. The Q2 Ro/Rom ratio is consistent at 22% through the play; it does not reflect this marked change in Q1 at sheet E. The fact that the Q2 compositor is not swayed by the preference in Q1 E-K is a good indication that he is not using Q1 as copy.
The prefix "M" intruded into Juliet's speech on F1 (II.v.15) has no original in Q1 and must derive from a manuscript source. (Query: Is it a misreading of the letter "N." written at that line by a prompter or a scribe to warn of the approaching entrance of the Nurse?)
It is conceivable that the compositor derived the spelling from a glance at the first usage in Q1 (Benuo #c), but how then explain his failure to follow Q1 when he reached that point? The stage direction in Q1, "Enter Beneuolio", offers a spelling nowhere used in Q2 (I.i.64).
The presence of a manuscript at I.i.166 which is indicated by Q2 "Benuol" confirms our suggestion that the two spelled-out "Romeo" prefixes (ll. 166, 167) are from manuscript and not from Q1.
The use of "M" for "Mer (III.i. 80) is surely a sign of justification and ought have no weight given it as an indication of any source. Though "Horatio's" speech is generally assigned to Mercutio in modern texts there is no reason why Horatio should not be the name of one of the "fiue or sixe other Maskers." The prefix plainly shows a manuscript source, for it is not in Q1 (I.iv.23).
Mr. Thomas has observed this already: "Bibliographical Links between the First Two Quartos of Romeo and Juliet," RES, XXV (1949), 114 fn. 1.
Mr. Hosley has communicated to us privately the following textual evidence for assigning to signature B4v a manuscript source: "The Q2 reading 'houre' at line 66 cannot be a compositor's error for the printed Q1 form 'honor', for the same error is repeated in the following line, and the coincidence of two such misprints in two lines is virtually impossible. Thus the Q2 error would in each case seem to result from the compositor's misreading of the form 'honor' written out in secretary hand."
Though this discussion has been confined to the reactions of Compositor A only, the following generic changes in the stint of Compositor B seem to parallel those already mentioned:
| Q1 | Q2 |
| Ser | Peter K3v (9) |
| Moth | Wife L4v |
The problem of the prefixes for the Capulets is extremely puzzling. McKerrow noted ("A Suggestion Regarding Shakespeare's Manuscripts," RES, XI [1935], 462 n) that in Q1 Capulet was indicated by prefixes of some form of that name, and in Q2 in the same manner except when he became "Father" when "he is engaged in talk with Juliet." Actually he is engaged in talk with Juliet only four times in the play. In III.v he addresses Juliet twice. In the first speech (1. 150) his prefix is "Ca"; in the second (1. 161) it is "Fa." His other speeches in this scene are prefixed "Ca" (up to 1. 160) and "Fa" (after 1. 160); they are addressed to the Nurse and to his Wife. In IV.ii he addresses Juliet twice. The speeches (11. 16, 28) are prefixed "Ca" and "Cap." His other speeches in this scene are prefixed by some form of "Cap" (up to 1. 36) and by "Fa" (after 1. 36); they are addressed to a Servant, the Nurse, and his Wife. In IV.v Juliet is thought to be dead, and Capulet's speeches prefixed "Fa" or "Fat" are addressed to the Nurse, his Wife, and the Friar. Of the twelve parental "Fa" prefixes in the play, only one precedes a speech to the daughter. The situation is worse for Capulet's Wife. In Q1 in sheet B she is "Wife", a form that reappears in the reprinted passage in Q2, but in sheets E-K she is called by some form of Mother in her prefixes. We offer the suggestion that the change may be traceable to the change in the printing of the quarto at the beginning of sheet E. In Q2 no order can be observed. The changes of prefix form within I.iii (Wife, Old Lady, Mother) and III.v (Lady, Mother, Lady, Wife, Mother) cannot reasonably be explained textually, editorially, scribally, or compositorially. An examination of the dialogue reveals that when Capulet's Wife is talking to her daughter she appears under the prefixes Wife (1), Mother (9), (Old)Lady (12); to her husband under Wife (2), Lady (3), Mother (2); to the Nurse under Wife (3), (Old) Lady (3), and Mother (2); to Paris and the Prince as Lady (1) or Wife (2); and to her Servant under Mother (1). No conversational, personal, or associational relationships discoverable from the text can account for the inconsistencies of this array. It is not reasonable to suppose that an editor would have introduced these irregularities if he had been annotating Q1 for the copy-text; at the same time it is difficult to believe that confronted with the welter in Q1, such an editor would not have levelled the forms to a consistent pattern. We certainly are not disposed to believe that the compositor voluntarily introduced this confusion. We suggest again that these variant forms are evidence of an independent manuscript.
| | |