Page 205 - King Lear: The Cambridge Dover Wilson Shakespeare

130 TH E COPY FOR

manuscript pages of prompt-copy (cf. Williams's
theory, above). The matter remains subjudice.

From what sort of copy was Q i printed ? Pollard
declared that 'save for the mistakes in the uncorrected
1
sheets the text is satisfactory', but this is by no means a
universally accepted view. Though it has been suggested
that Q I was printed from much revised and very untidy
2
foul papers, the most widespread theory probably is
that it gives a reported text. Q I is full of memorial
corruptions of various kinds; yet, though carrying most
of the marks of a report, it is not of the same order of
depravity as the undoubted 'bad quartos'. There is no
significant variation of standard between characters
which would suggest memorial reconstruction by one or
a small number of actors. Chambers thought that
'possibly it was produced by shorthand and not memori
3
zation'; and Greg formerly argued for the shorthand
4
theory, originally advanced by Schmidt in 1879.5
J. Q. Adams regarded the text as having been procured
1
Shakespeare Folios and Quartos (1909), p. 76.
* This view was taken by Miss Doran in the volume
referred to in note 2, p. 125 above. But in fairness to her it
must be noted that subsequently, in a review of Greg's
Variants (see note 1, p. 123 above), she said—'The status of
the quarto needs re-examination. My own position, stated
in 1931, that it represents Shakespeare's much-revised
autograph, now appears to me dubious' (R.E.S. XVII
(1941), 474).
3 Op. cit. r, 465.
4 See Neopkilologus, XVIII (1933), 241 ff.; The Library,
4th ser., XVII (1936-7), 172 fit.; Variants, p. 138; The
Editorial Problem in Shakespeare (1942), pp. 88 ff. But he
has subsequently disallowed the theory; see his recent book
The Shakespeare First Folio (1955), p. 380.
5 See his Zur Textkritik des 'King Lear', and Furness's
New Variorum Edition of King Lear (1880), pp. 367 ff