University of Virginia Library

II

Let us suppose two editions, A and B, preserving collateral texts of the same play. A is known to have influenced the text of B during the course of its printing; and a lost manuscript, MS, is known to be the ultimate source of extensive variants in, and additions to, the text of B. The question enforces itself whether MS directly influenced the text of B during the course of its printing (that is to say, whether the compositor or compositors of B, in setting up type for that edition, had direct access to MS); or whether, on the other hand, MS influenced the text of B only indirectly through an editor's annotation of an exemplar of A (with the addition where necessary of transcribed insert slips) so as to bring the text of that edition into substantive agreement with the text of MS, followed by the compositor's use of such an annotated exemplar of A as sole copy for B. The direct influence of MS upon B (if it exists) can usually be demonstrated by the establishment of what I shall call a "manuscript link" between B and MS. For our special purposes this may be defined as a textual variant in B that is either erroneous or abnormal in relation to the work of the B compositor in question, the situation of variance between A and B fulfilling three conditions.[12] (1) The texts in A and B immediately before and/or after the corresponding textual readings must not vary so extensively that (in the case of printed copy for B) an insert slip transcribed from MS would have been necessary in order to bring the text of A into substantive agreement with that of MS. (2) The reading in A must be either correct or in a form normally preferred by the B compositor in question, so that it would not have invited alteration either by an editor annotating printed copy for B or by the B compositor in the process of setting type from A. And (3) the variant in B must in all

probability not be a compositor's error in the process of transmitting the unaltered reading of A. I turn now to some examples of the sporadic contamination of Q2 by Q1 Romeo and Juliet in which manuscript links occur in conjunction with bibliographical links.

One occurs at II.i.10-13, in the section of Q2 (signatures D1-1v) corresponding to Q1 signature C4v. As Pollard and Dover Wilson pointed out in 1919,[13] Q1 and Q2 here concur in the celebrated reading "Abraham: Cupid" at line 13, the erroneous punctuation clearly constituting a bibliographical link between the two editions, for the odds against the coincidence of a colon's having stood in both Q1 and the foul papers are fairly high. (Probably the punctuation is the fossil remains of a colon in some such manuscript abbreviation in the Q1 copy as "A:", "Ab:", "Abr:", or—if the correct reading is "Adam"—"Ad:".[14]) On the other hand, at line 10 occurs the erroneous Q2 variant "prouaunt", corresponding to Q1 "Pronounce". Here the texts of Q1 and Q2 do not vary so extensively that a transcribed insert slip would have been necessary in the case of annotated-quarto copy, and the Q1 reading is also unquestionably correct, so that it would not have required alteration by a Q2 editor. Moreover, the Q2 variant is evidently not a misprint of the Q1 reading but rather, as Greg pointed out in 1928,[15] a misreading of the handwritten form "pronounc" (or "pronounce"). It may be added that the Q2 compositor in question, Compositor A of the determination by Cantrell and Williams,[16] makes comparable errors in misreading "damnd" as "dimme" at III.ii.79 and "coniuration" as "commiration" at V.iii.68. The Q2 variant "prouaunt" therefore constitutes a manuscript link between that edition and the foul papers.

Another example of sporadic contamination occurs at II.iv.41-45, in the section of Q2 (signature E2v) corresponding to Q1 signature E1v. Here, as Pollard and Dover Wilson first pointed out, Q1 and Q2 concur in the use of contrasting italic type for five proper names

("Laura", "Hellen", "Hero", "Thisbie", and "Romeo", lines 41-45), and of non-contrasting roman type for three: "Petrarch" (Q2 "Petrach", 40), "Dido" (43), and "Cleopatra" (43). The concurrence in exceptional roman type clearly constitutes a bibliographical link between the two editions, for it would be a next to impossible coincidence that Q2 Compositor A, whose normal practice is to set incidental proper names in contrasting italic type, should independently of Q1's influence have failed to prefer it for these three particular names out of eight. On the other hand, at line 45 occurs the Q2 variant "Bonieur", corresponding to Q1 "bon iour". Neither an insert slip nor editorial alteration would here have been necessary in the case of annotated-quarto copy. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the Q2 variant resulted from error or deliberate alteration on the part of Q2 Compositor A in the process of transmitting the unaltered reading of Q1, for if it did we should have to defend four separate propositions regarding that compositor's work. (1) That the "e" of the Q2 reading is a misprint for "o" resulting from foul case or memorial lapse. (2) That the variation from non-contrasting roman to contrasting italic type resulted from alteration or error by Compositor A, who in the "text proper" of the reprinted passage of I.ii-iii nowhere innovates contrasting incidental type and, in one of the Nurse's speeches there set in italic type, faithfully follows Q1's non-contrasting italic type for the second word of the reading "Lammas Eue" at I.iii.17 and again at line 21. (3) That the variation from a lower- to an upper-case initial letter resulted from alteration or error by Compositor A, who in the reprinted passage innovates an emphasis capital only thrice ("Vncle" at I.ii.71, "Sun" at line 97, and "Girle" at I.iii.4). And (4) that the variation from divided to undivided form also resulted from alteration or error by Compositor A, who in the reprinted passage follows Q1's divided form of compound words in 15 out of 16 occurrences (the exception being "maidenhead" at I.iii.2). In view of Compositor A's demonstrable fidelity to his known quarto copy, this concatenation of exceptions to his normal practice (especially the variations in type and word-division) clearly argues against derivation of "Bonieur" from Q1.[17] It therefore seems probable that the Q2 reading resulted rather from an e:o misreading of the handwritten form "Boniour", although it might conceivably also have resulted from the accurate transmission of an exceptional manuscript form involving a phonetic spelling.[18] Accordingly the Q2 variant "Bonieur" constitutes a manuscript link between that edition and the foul papers.

Still another example of sporadic contamination occurs at III.v.31-36, in the section of Q2 (signature H3) corresponding to Q1 signature G3v. Here, as Pollard and Dover Wilson also point out, Q1 and Q2 concur in emphasis capitals for "Larke" (line 31), "Toad" (31), and "Huntsvp" (Q2 "Huntsup", 34). The concurrence clearly constitutes a bibliographical link, especially in view of the Q1-2 concurrence in emphasis capitals for "Larke", "Discords", "Sharpes", "Larke", and "Diuision" in the immediately preceding lines 27-29 (at the foot of signature G3 in Q1). On the other hand, at line 36 occurs the Q2 variant "Romeo", corresponding to the Q1 speech-heading "Rom". As in other instances, neither an insert slip nor editorial alteration would here have been necessary in the case of annotated-quarto copy. Furthermore, the Q1 reading is in a form that is acceptable to Q2 Compositor A, who, as Messrs. Cantrell and Williams point out, uses it in 29 out of 170 occurrences on pages typeset by him; whereas the Q2 variant is in a form that is decidedly abnormal to the work of Compositor A, who uses it in only 11 out of 170 occurrences. (In the remaining 130 cases Compositor A uses the form "Ro".) Moreover, Compositor A faithfully follows his quarto copy in setting up the abbreviated form "Rom" at I.ii.55, 60, 64, and 66 (where the unaltered lower half of Q1 signature B3 undeniably served as copy for Q2). Accordingly the Q2 variant "Romeo" constitutes a manuscript link between that edition and the foul papers.

Thus it seems clear that Q1 signatures C4v, E1v, and G3v influenced the text of Q2 at II.i.13, II.iv.40-43, and III.v.31-34. But it also seems clear that these Q1 signatures did not serve as annotated-quarto copy for Q2, for variants in Q2 at II.i.10, II.iv.45, and III.v.36 were apparently derived not from Q1 but directly from a manuscript that could not have been a transcribed insert slip. Such combined influence of quarto and manuscript copy on the text of Q2 could only have resulted from compositor's consultation of an exemplar of Q1 during the process of typesetting Q2 directly from the manuscript authority behind that edition.[19]