Page 211 - King Lear: The Cambridge Dover Wilson Shakespeare

I 36 T H E COPY FOR

if they were prose, and Some sixty lines of prose printed
as if they were verse. 1 Greg suggested that the Q i verse-
lining was compositorial, and envisaged two composi-
tors, one more effective in this matter than the other.
But I cannot think that the task of verse line-division
would be added to the burdens of Jacobean compositors;
and, in any case, Williams has shown that Q I Lear was
set up by a single compositor.*

If a modern editor regards Q i as giving nothing more
than a reported text, he will naturally put more trust in
folio than in quarto. He must still consider each Q/F
variant on its own merits, since it is always possible that
in a given case the reporter has recalled an authentic
reading which has been corrupted at some stage in the
transmission of F. But in cases of £)/F variants between
which there is nothing to choose on literary grounds, he
must abide by F—unless he sees good reason to emend.
And, in view of the nature of the copy for F, he must be
prepared to consider emending readings which F shares
with Q I (and/or Q 2)—for the person responsible for
producing the F copy may at any point have failed to
make a necessary correction. I followed this line (apart
from the involvement of Q 2) in my 1949 edition—
though not, perhaps, to a sufficient extent: for on the
appearance of that edition both Greg and Kirschbaum
3
felt that, still, too many £) 1 readings were admitted;
1
See Edward Hubler, in The Parrott Presentation
Volume, ed. Hardin Craig (1935), p. 427.
3
See 'The Compositor of the "Pied Bull" "Lear"', in
Papers of the Bibliographical Society, University of Virginia, I
(1948-9), 61 ff.
'
3 See Greg: M.L.R. XLIV (1949), 399, I cannot help
feeling that he has somewhat underrated the authority of
F, where it differs from Q'; The Editorial Problem, 2nd ed.
(1951), p. [e], 'My own opinion is that Duthie still accepts