Page 210 - King Lear: The Cambridge Dover Wilson Shakespeare

KING LEAR 1 6 0 8 A N D 1 6 2 3 135

theory must be made, transcription from foul papers by
dictation, the persons involved having had some
memorial knowledge of the play, seems the most con-
vincing solution. Foul papers are suggested by the
points which earlier in this Note were adduced as
indicating that Q 1 does not convey prompt-copy.
Dictation is suggested by obvious aural errors in Q 1 —
for example, 'in sight' (4. 4. 27), 'a dogge, so bade'
(4. 6. 157-8). Frequent dictation to the compositor
1
seems untenable. Consistent pre-compositorial dicta-
tion is suggested by the fact that Q 1 contains, inside
speeches, almost no punctuation-marks apart from
commas (which are sometimes misplaced), and by the
fact that the copy for Q 1 seems to have had the entire
3
dialogue set out as if it were prose. If X dictated to T
in some haste, he would no doubt read out the words in
fairly short phrases, with short pauses between them: he
would not indicate verse-lining, nor would he dictate
punctuation (the 'borrowed' foul papers would be best
returned to the theatre as soon as possible, and speed
would thus be desirable in the transcription). Under
these conditions, Twould probably write out the whole
text in prose form, and would probably punctuate by
merely dashing in a comma after each group of words
read out. It would seem that he subsequently made an
attempt at indication of verse-lining, perhaps by insert-
ing diagonal pen-strokes, for Q I prints some 1580 verse
lines with correct division; but his attempt at lining was
hasty, incomplete, and conjectural,.for Q 1 has some
650 verse lines divided incorrectly, some 500 printed as
1
See Pollard, King Richard //.• a Ne-w Quarto (1916),
p. 35; and McKerrow, Introduction to Bibliography (1927),
pp. 241-6.
1
See Greg: The Library, 4th ser. xvir (1936-7), 172 ff.j
The Editorial Problem, p. 95; The Shakespeare First Folio,
p. 387.