University of Virginia Library

IV

The data confirm the accepted view that Q2, Q3, and F1 are based upon Q1. In 2583 readings (Table II) Q2 departs from Q1 592 times (2583 minus 1991), whereas F1 departs from Q1 500 times and Q3 departs from Q1 434 times. The larger number of variants in Q2 may be accounted for as the work of Jaggard's Compositor B, who, as D. F. McKenzie has shown, seems to have been responsible for the quarto.[19] In major variants (Table III) Q2 introduces differences in only 101 of the 457 passages where the full textual history of the play shows editorial disagreement (457 minus 356), whereas F1 has variants in only 92 such passages. Since there are 17 unique agreements in major readings between Q2 and F1,[20] it follows that F1 adds 75 new major disagreements to the 101 originated by Q2: 176, then, of the 457 major variant passages originated in the second and third editions of the play, whereas 281 were added by later editors. According to Table III every edition before Ridley (except F1 and Q3) departed from Q1 more often in major variants than did Q2.

A few words might be said for Q3, which was published in 1637 by the son of the man who had published Q1, Laurence Hayes. Furness

called Q3 "merely a careless reprint of a careless book,"[21] and other editors have had little to say about it. Although Q3 does have a number of typographical errors and some lines seem to have shifted and some letters to have dropped out, Furness' judgment needs qualification. From Table III it appears that Q3 is a more faithful reprint of Q1 than either Q2 or F1 — especially in major variants, where Q3 departs from Q1 40 times, in contrast with Q2's 101 and F1's 92 departures. Although Q3 originated fewer new readings than Q2, F1, or F4 (Table I) and although Evans and Alexander retain only 41 and 49 (respectively) readings that originated in Q3, editors have frequently come into agreement with Q3. Thus, Rowe I has 29 unique agreements with Q3, Rowe III has 6, Theobald I 10, Theobald II and III 2 each,[22] Hanmer I 3, Ridley 4, and New Yale 3. Sixteen other editions, have unique agreements with Q3 that are not listed in Table II, including F3 (6), F4 (24), Pope I (8), Capell (6), and New Cambridge (3). Perhaps editors have actually borrowed from Q3 on occasion; but the agreements are more likely to be accidental, and the large number of unique agreements probably results from Q3's being outside the main stream of development (from Q1 through the Folios to Rowe, etc.), so that revival of a Q3 reading is possible when an editor makes a fresh departure from Q1. Although Q3 has no authority, it is still an early reprint that should be of interest to editors.[23]

In general, the data given above confirm the conclusions of M. W. Black and M. A. Shaaber in their study of Ff2-4.[24] In F2 there are 119

new readings, 58 of which (49 percent) are verbal; in F3 there are 81 new readings, 32 of which (40 percent) are verbal; and in F4 there are more new readings (225) without a corresponding increase in verbal changes (37; 16 percent), whereas there are many more punctuation variants (162; 72 percent). According to Table II, F2 departs from F1 only 171 times (2583 minus 2412), F3 from F2 only 169 times, and F4 from F3 342 times. The very large proportion of verbal changes in F2 and F3, which otherwise follow their base texts closely, suggests deliberate editorial attention as found by Black and Shaaber; but the small total number of changes (compare Q2's 592 and F1's 500 departures from Q1 and Rowe I's 462 departures from F4) indicates that the editorial attention was on a limited scale. Black and Shaaber found fewer verbal and more punctuation variants in F4 than in F2 and F3, although not as many of the latter as my data suggest. The emphasis on metrical changes that Black and Shaaber found in F2 is not reflected in my data, largely because I counted as verbal a number of alterations that they considered metrical.[25]

Since 1700, Rowe and Capell have contributed most to the text of The Merchant. As the first critical editor, Rowe had the opportunity and made good use of it; Capell, coming after the material had been reworked several times, created his own opportunity and made even better use of it.[26] Next after these two in contributions come Pope, Theobald, and Johnson. As the reasonable possibilities have been tried out, the opportunity to find acceptable new readings has shrunk, but in the nineteenth century the Old Cambridge editors made some additions to the text, seconded by Collier and Dyce and then by Knight and Keightley. More eclecticism, originality, and respect for early seventeenth-century readings are characteristic of twentieth-century editors. The first two flower in John Dover Wilson's New Cambridge edition and all three in John Russell Brown's New Arden edition. Neilson, Ridley, Kittredge, Sisson, and A. D. Richardson III's New

Yale edition show some of these characteristics to a lesser degree. Alexander and Evans are moderately conservative texts for their age, and London is extremely conservative, its second-highest number of agreements being with the Old Cambridge edition.

General conclusions based upon the data for only one play are tentative. However, many of the relationships among folios and among critical editions pointed out above must apply to other plays as well. One might speculate that where there are considerable differences among early texts of a play with a large number of important alternative readings, a study such as this might set off much more sharply one editor's dependence on another for minor variants and at the same time show a greater cross-fertilization among editors in major variants. Thus, many of the same characteristics might appear, but in exaggerated form. Chief among the factors that seem likely to influence the data for other plays are the existence of two or more independent or partially independent early editions; the nature and quality of the authoritative text(s); and the presence of special problems (such as the "Sallies" in The Merchant). The data for individual editions seem likely to vary significantly from one play to another as a result of these conditions or such others as different editors for different plays (e.g., New Arden), different base texts for different plays (e.g., Johnson), an editor's bestowing more care upon one play than upon another (e.g., F3 and F4),[27] or his publishing his plays over a long period of time (e.g., New Cambridge).