Pièce 66 - Letter from J. M. Nosworthy to W. W. Greg

1 single sheet

Senior Common Room, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth.—Challenges certain theories relating to quarto editions of Hamlet and King Lear.

—————

Transcript

Senior Common Room, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth

29. I. 48.

Dear Dr Greg.

May I trespass on your time once more with one or two Hamlet queries?

On p 64 of your Editorial Problem you state that “no part of the ‘good’ quarto was set up from the ‘bad’.” I don’t quite see how you arrive at this conclusion. Dover Wilson, I note, has allowed that the Q2 printer was occasionally compelled to refer to Q1 & points to identical spellings as evidence. My own somewhat cursory comparison of the Qs leads me to the conclusion that the Q2 editor {1} was dependent on Q1 for spellings, punctuation & capitalization. Only occasionally, of course. I don’t set very much store by the punctuation, but identical specimens of capitalization [e.g. Porpentine, Serpent, (noble) Youth, Crowne, Orchard, Hebona(?), Gloworme, Mole, Pioner, Anticke (disposition), in I. 5: Rat, Ducket in III. 4: Mason, Shypwright, Carpenter, Doomesday, Doue, Cat, Dogge, in V. i.], {2} together with the spellings, seem to establish some bibliographical link between the two Qs. I suspect that Q2’s ‘Videlizet’ arose from Q1 ‘viz.’ & that its absurd S.D. ‘Enter old Polonius with his man or two’ is the printer’s attempt to make sense out of ‘Montano’, since that name would doubtless convey nothing to him.

I am led, consequently, to surmise that the Q2 printer did use Q1 to a greater extent than Wilson allows. It might, I suppose, be argued that both Qs were set up by the same compositor & that he had his own set notions about spelling, punctuation & use of capitals, but this seems, on the face of things, unlikely. I suspect that the compositor used Q1 & the MS. more or less simultaneously, relying exclusively on the MS. when he found Q1 manifestly corrupt. Q1 would thus be what I would term a pervasive influence.

If I am right, it would seem that an editor cannot be sure about the authority of Q2; that, as with Q & F of King Lear, when the two Qs agree they are less trustworthy than when they differ. The ‘solid flesh’ crux seems a pertinent example. The printer was using Q1 for this scene & reproduced its spellings: loose (for lose), obay, pre thee, tronchions, gelly etc. The MS. afforded him sollidd flesh {3} which he simply took as confirmation of Q1. ‘sallied’, probably because he did not distinguish between e & d. Clearly F. carries authority here.

I hope shortly to send Francis a paper on the Hamlet Q1 pirate. I have accepted H. D. Gray’s identification of Marcellus as the pirate & have been able considerably to expand his suggestion that the same actor played Lucianus. The implication is that the pirate was present not only in the Dumb show & the inner play, but also in those scenes in which Hamlet speaks with the players. Hence, at certain fairly well defined points. Q1. may have authority over Q2 & F. This it certainly appears to have in Lucianus’s speech & in the few lines immediately preceding it. {4}

One further query concerning stenographic reporting of King Lear. I am not quite clear whether you & other supporters of this hypothesis presuppose that the pirate produced his text from a single performance. Some such notion seems to lie behind Kirschbaum’s denunciation of the theory—my own impression is that a competent stenographer would have to witness at least two performances before he could produce such a text as the Lear Quarto of 1608. The point that Matthews, Kirschbaum & the rest seem not to have realised is that the pirate could have taken the whole play down in longhand if he had had the opportunity & the patience to attend a sufficient number of performances.

I should be interested to hear whether your edition of Dr Faustus is due for early publication. I look forward to it as a potential solvent of many problems.

Yours sincerely.
James M. Nosworthy

—————

Marked ‘p. 64’ at the head in pencil (cf. the beginning of the second paragraph).

{1} Greg has underlined this word and put a question-mark in the margin.

{2} The square brackets are in the original.

{3} 'sollidd flesh' is preceded by a superior ‘x’, perhaps to indicate that this is a conjectural MS. reading.

{4} Greg has marked this sentence with a vertical line in the margin.

Formerly inserted in Greg's copy of The Editorial Problem in Shakespeare (1942) (Adv. c. 26. 3).

This description was created by A. C. Green in 2020.