University of Virginia Library

III

Table II provides insight into an edition's relationship to those of its predecessors from which it borrowed most, but only occasionally does the table suggest anything of the edition's relationship to the authoritative text (Q1) and the two principal early derivative editions (Q2 and F1). Table III, which records agreement for sixty-two editions with the three earliest texts, gives data on these relationships and, at the same time, outlines the historical development of the text of The Merchant, showing its departure from and then its return, to a limited degree, toward the early editions.

TABLE III

                         

Edition	Agree with Q1	Agree with Q2	Agree with F1
	Major	Minor	Major	Minor	Major	Minor
Total variants	457	2126	457	2126	457	2126
Q2	356	1635	--	--	--	--
F1	365	1718	303	1602	--	--
F2	331	1643	271	1574	413	1999
Q3	417	1732	348	1639	348	1699
F3	315	1609	259	1573	395	1932
F4	304	1374	255	1448	385	1684
Rowe I	278	1151	229	1259	340	1407
Rowe II	271	1139	227	1255	333	1395
Rowe III	277	1112	235	1235	342	1363
Pope I	254	998	238	1152	246	1201

                                                                                                         

Edition	Agree with Q1	Agree with Q2	Agree with F1
Pope II	251	1000	237	1152	242	1196
Theobald I	255	885	241	1048	239	1078
Theobald II	252	860	238	1021	237	1054
Hanmer I	229	928	218	1087	216	1127
Warburton	248	849	232	1014	233	1038
Theobald III	252	864	238	1025	237	1053
Johnson	259	831	251	1004	242	1009
Capell	324	875	280	1011	289	1039
Hanmer II	229	842	218	1009	213	1037
Johnson-Steevens I	283	862	267	1025	266	1036
Johnson-Steevens II	306	865	281	1017	288	1043
Rann	301	866	273	1016	283	1042
Malone	333	862	301	1009	302	1030
Steevens-Reed I	323	863	291	1009	295	1037
Steevens-Reed II	322	864	290	1012	292	1037
Eccles	306	833	275	995	280	1014
Boswell-Malone	331	862	298	1011	306	1038
Singer I	326	852	295	1004	300	1028
Knight	327	897	286	1043	325	1067
Collier I	345	883	302	1048	316	1041
Hudson I	343	878	296	1035	309	1051
Singer II	325	852	285	1014	299	1027
Halliwell	345	898	305	1035	302	1055
Dyce I	343	831	299	970	308	986
Collier II	324	892	282	1044	289	1041
Staunton	339	886	295	1031	310	1058
White I	327	900	281	1044	330	1064
Old Cambridge I	338	837	326	1002	291	982
Globe	339	842	325	1005	294	991
Keightley	322	836	282	1000	289	992
Dyce II	321	816	277	954	284	960
Rolfe I	330	909	294	1048	330	1065
Delius	343	890	299	1036	308	1039
Hudson II	317	728	275	873	282	878
White II	337	906	320	1063	294	1054
Rolfe II	338	909	305	1049	313	1054
Old Cambridge II	339	850	326	1015	294	993
Oxford	330	887	295	1039	294	1037
Rolfe III	337	908	305	1049	312	1049
Old Arden	339	921	303	1067	304	1071
Neilson	345	914	323	1074	298	1056
New Cambridge I	351	910	306	977	305	989
Ridley	371	1138	321	1200	316	1222
Kittredge	353	1010	299	1084	305	1090
Neilson-Hill	360	955	319	1079	311	1078
Alexander	360	994	309	1088	310	1093
Sisson	355	1022	320	1111	311	1103
New Arden	386	1223	321	1211	326	1229
London	353	806	312	924	304	932
New Yale	392	1354	325	1322	336	1355
New Cambridge II	354	918	305	985	306	1001
Evans	370	1109	313	1161	316	1175

The second column shows the gradual departure from Q1 in major readings through the folios and the eighteenth-century editors to Johnson, the sudden check to this trend given by Capell and by Malone (who borrowed in part from Capell), the static quality of the nineteenth century, and the efforts of some twentieth-century editors to use much from the seventeenth century — a trend most marked in Ridley, New Arden, New Yale, and Evans. The closest agreement with Q1 in the seventeenth century is in Q3 with only 40 disagreements in major readings (457 minus 417), in the eighteenth century Malone with 124 disagreements, in the nineteenth century Collier I and Halliwell with 112 disagreements, and in the twentieth century New Yale with 65 disagreements. The low marks of agreement with Q1 by century are F4 (153 disagreements), Hanmer I and II (228 disagreements and 229 agreements), Eccles (151 disagreements), and Rolfe III (120 disagreements). The third column shows that after Rowe III and with the exception of only four modern editions, no text agrees with Q1 in even half the minor variants recorded. The same may be said for Q2 from Theobald I to Rolfe III (except two editions) and for F1 from Warburton to Rolfe III (except three editions).

This table also shows that textual theory had only occasional influence upon editorial practice before the twentieth century, and that it has had some effect on both major and minor readings in modern editions. All editions since Pope have more major variant readings in common with Q1 than with Q2, despite the fact that before 1909 it was usually thought that Q2 was the earlier and the better text.[16] Even the Old Cambridge editors, with their strong support of Q2, actually used more major readings from Q1, though their respect for Q2 exceeded that of their contemporaries.[17] In recent years there has been a significant gain for Q1 over Q2 and F1, presumably because modern editors are certain that Q1 is the substantive text. In minor variants agreement with Q2 more frequently than with Q1 has been the rule since 1685, with the exceptions of only the New Arden and New Yale editions. Doubtless this situation results from the more modern accidentals in Q2 and the fact that the modernizing editor

usually is not obligated to preserve the accidentals of an early text, as he is to preserve its substantive readings. Nevertheless, New Arden and New Yale have used more from Q1 than from Q2, and most modern editors have preserved substantially more minor readings from the early editions than did their nineteenth-century predecessors. The data support Fredson Bowers' generalization that among modern editions "a steady move has been observable towards the purification of the text, less in the direction of independent emendation, or the introduction of brand-new readings, than towards the restoration of original readings wrongly emended by eighteenth-century editors and subsequently established as traditional."[18]