Werstine on Wilson
Tom Reedy
arguments of Pollard, Thompson and Greg with nothing
more than sarcasm, accusations of dishonesty and
assertions supported by nothing more than the caution
of a few scholars, Werstine next turns his attention to
J. Dover Wilson and his essay of the bibliographical
links between Hand D and the "good" quartos.
Before getting into what Wilson says, it helps to know
how the New Bibliographers divided the quartos of
Shakespeare plays into "good" and "bad" quartos.
Pollard hypothesized that the reasons for the textual
differences in the printed plays was because the "bad"
quartos-those whose text read differently from the
"good" quartos and the Folio-came about as a result of
"memorial reconstructions." According to his theory,
printers would hire stenographers to go to the
playhouse and, either through written notes or
memory-later reconstruct to play for bootleg
publication. He also suggested that actors from the
play would also write down their roles along with what
they could remember of the other actors' lines, from
which compositors would set a pirated edition.
Another tenet of the New Bibliographers was a linear
theory of textual transmission. They tried to bring
scientific and mathematical precision to literary
criticism, and so postulated discrete categories of the
process of the creation of play manuscripts.
Fist, they said, came the author's "foul papers, the
original manuscript in the author's own hand. From what
I can gather, the Greg, Pollard, et al, believed that
foul papers were the original first working draft of a
play, with mark outs, interlineations, mistakes,
variant speech headings, etc.
From the "foul papers," a "promptbook" was made, an
edited copy of the foul papers with speech headings
regularized, stage directions, etc. From this copies
were made of the different parts for the use of the
actors.
The third category, according to the New
Bibliographers, was that of "fair copies," or "scribal
copies." These were professionally written copies made
from the foul papers or a promptbook.
Paul Werstine himself has spent many years discrediting
this sharply-categorized notion of play texts, and most
critics today believe there was a continuum from first
draft to playhouse copy because none of the surviving
manuscripts can be neatly classified within this
system.
Now back to Werstine and Wilson.
In *More*, Wilson claims that the copy used to set up
the "good" quartos was either the author's foul papers
or a transcript of the original, and so many of the
"abnormal" spellings of the quartos were Shakespeare's.
Also he says that the misprints of the good quartos-
'game' for 'gain,' 'pardons' for 'panders,' etc.-came
about as the result of the compositor misreading
Shakespeare's handwriting, and so an idea of what his
hand writing looked like could be gleaned from the
nature of the misprints.
Wilson then furnishes a list of misprints and spellings
that he claims are the result of Shakespeare's
handwriting, and then he notes the presence of the same
type of words whose spelling and handwriting would lead
to the types of "abnormal" spellings and misprints in
the "good" quartos. In an appendix, he lists spellings
of words from Hand D along with parallels from the
quartos.
Werstine chooses not to answer Wilson's 1923 *More*
essay, but instead discusses the same type of evidence
published four years earlier in an article TLS under
Pollard's byline. Here's what he has to say:
BEGIN WERSTINE QUOTE
There [in the May 8, 1919 TLS] the two argued that
unusual spellings from the Hand D portion of More were
occasionally to be found in early printed copies of
Shakespeare's canonical plays. . . . Sometimes, as
well, according to Wilson and Pollard, it must have
been the "unusual" spellings found in Hand D of More
that led the type-setters of the quartos into what
were, for Wilson and Pollard, otherwise inexplicable
errors. Thus, according to Pollard and Wilson, the
type-setter of the second quarto of Hamlet mistakenly
spelled self-slaughter as "seals slaughter" because
Shakespeare - Hand-D spelled self as "self." (This
argument presumes, of course, that whatever spelling
seemed "unusual" to Wilson and Pollard would also have
seemed unusual to an early modern type-setter.) From
such data Wilson and Pollard drew two conclusions: the
early quartos were likely to have been printed from
Shakespeare's own papers (because they had spellings
common to Hand D), {NOTE: Remember Werstine says this.
TR] Hand D was probably Shakespeare because spellings
in Hand D were also to be found in the early quartos.
As one might anticipate, readers of TLS made short work
of that kind of circular argument. Here is a sample
from the reply by M.A. Bayfield published in the next
week's TLS:
"Let us, for the sake of argument, grant that the
faults and spellings [printed in the quartos] were
found in the manuscripts [from which they were
printed]; even so, the premisses do not warrant the
conclusion drawn, unless it is first shown that all the
manuscripts from which the Quartos were set up were in
Shakespeare's handwriting. If some were and some were
not, the argument cuts its own throat. "
Pollard, of course, could not refute Bayfield's reply.
(133-34)
END WERSTINE QUOTE
It is hard to know where to begin to point out the
weaknesses of Werstine's argument, there are so many.
One couple of minor items before I begin: If the
spellings "seemed unusual to an early modern
compositor," why wouldn't he have corrected the
spelling? Werstine is throwing irrelevant dust here.
I also find ridiculous his idea that Pollard and Wilson
could be unfamiliar with Elizabethan spellings, as
Werstine intimates.
Werstine doesn't directly attack the Wilson section on
bibliographical evidence in *More*. Instead, he harkens
back to an article printed under only Pollard's byline.
Why he does this, I don't know. Pollard may have used a
circular argument in the TLS article; I don't know (the
university library is closed this weekend). But I do
know there is no such argument in *More*. Instead,
Wilson posits that the "good" quartos were set from a
copy in Shakespeare's autograph because of the nature
of the misprints and the unusual spellings. Then he
says those very same peculiarities are found in the
More fragment.
But unless the TLS article is substantially different
than the *More* article, Werstine is being dishonest
when he says, "From such data Wilson and Pollard drew
two conclusions: the early quartos were likely to have
been printed from Shakespeare's own papers (because
they had spellings common to Hand D) . . ."
Go back and read the excerpt and see what Werstine is
referring to when he says, "such data." The data is the
information gathered from the quartos, not the More
fragment, so Werstine is guilty of, if not dishonesty,
at least very sloppy thinking or deliberate mirroring
of antiStratfordian logic.
Bayfield's criticism is also without merit. For one
thing, he doesn't say HOW "the argument cuts its own
throat." One can only surmise that he stumbled on a
clever phrase and wanted to use it at the first
opportunity.
Wilson, in *More*, refutes Bayfield's assertion that
the quartos HAD to be set from Shakespeare's manuscript
for the data to be useful.
Here's what Wilson says:
BEGIN WILSON QUOTE
At the best, the first edition of one of Shakespeare's
plays was printed direct from his autograph . . . . At
the worst, it was printed from a transcript of the
original. Yet even if this worst were found to account
for most of the quarto productions, such a situation
would not lead us to despair. It is exceedingly
unlikely that a copyist would obliterate all traces of
Shakespeare's
penmanship in making his transcript; and the presence
of a copyist simply means that two men stood between
the printed text and the original instead of one, viz,
the compositor (113).
END WILSON QUOTE
It seems that Bayfield forgets that EVERY subsequent
copy made of a Shakespeare play was based upon the
author's original "foul" papers in some fashion.
After explaining several scenarios on how Shakespeare's
unusual spelling leaked into print, Wilson makes the
point that, "In any event, when in dealing with the
fifteen Good Quarto texts, produced by some nine or ten
different printing-houses over a space of twenty-nine
years, we find the same types of misprint and the same
peculiarities of spelling recurring throughout, it is
safe to attribute them to the one constant factor
behind them all-the pen of William Shakespeare"
(115).
Werstine earlier in his paper quotes Thompson to show
that he did not agree with Wilson and Pollard's
contention that the "good" quartos were set from
Shakespeare's autograph copy:
BEGIN WERSTINE QUOTING THOMPSON
Curiosity naturally arises regarding the extent to
which the obscurities and errors in the texts of
[Shakespeare's] plays that have been transmitted to us
from the earliest printed collection may be due to
misreading of his autograph MSS. Although the editors
of the First Folio of 1623 announced in their preface,
with perhaps intentional vagueness, that they had
"scarce received from him a blot in his papers," and
thereby may have intended to lead their readers to
believe that they had access to Shakespeare's originals
(would that they had!), we may be extremely doubtful
whether they had a single shred of the poet's own MSS.
before diem. The autographs of the plays would have
ceased to have any practical value after they had been
transcribed for the acting copies, and were probably
thrown aside. (Shakespeare's England 29 8)
(129)
END WERSTINE QUOTING THOMPSON
Why Werstine quotes Thompson on his opinion about what
the Folio plays were set from to prove something about
the quarto plays is a mystery to me, but anybody who
has tried to follow Dooley's arguments is familiar with
the "bait and switch" tactic. At the very least it
shows carelessness that puts his argument under heavy
suspicion; at the worst it shows dishonest use of
evidence.
In any case, Werstine has done enough debunking of New
Bibliographical tenets to know better than to quote
Thompson saying something like, "The autographs of the
plays would have ceased to have any practical value
after they had been transcribed for the acting copies,
and were probably thrown aside." The statement is
ridiculous on its face.
Werstine doesn't directly dispute Wilson; he leaves
that to Bayfield. For Werstine, it seems that one
letter written a week after the publication of the
early bibliographical work is enough to discredit
Pollard and Wilson and the Hand D attribution.
One other point: In the notes, Werstine says, "While,
before scholars became very familiar with early modern
spelling, the form 'scilens' was thought to be most
unusual, even unique to Hand (D) and to 2 Henry IV, and
therefore strong evidence for Shakespeare as Hand (D)
nowadays it is recognised that the spelling is hardly
so uncommon. Most of the spellings of silence recorded
in OED for this period either begin "sci-" or end
"lens." The spelling has also been found in two non-
Shakespearean plays (Metz 21). In 2 Henry IV, the
slightly more common spelling of Justice Silence's name
is "Silens," which is not a Hand-D spelling."
Werstine neglects to mention exactly how not "uncommon"
the spelling is in plays of the time, which is what we
are discussing here, after all; how many times it
appears in court papers or wills or letters is
irrelevant.
There are exactly 20 such spellings in plays of the
era: 18 in 1H4, and one each in *The Puritan* (printed
in 1607 as being by W.S.) and John Mason's *The Turk*.
TR
Tom Reedy
and missing words, none of which change the meaning,
the first quote from Werstine contains a mistake that
puzzles the reader. It should read, "Thus, according to
Pollard and Wilson, the type-setter of the second
quarto of Hamlet mistakenly spelled self-slaughter as
self as "sealfe."
KQKnave
Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> writes:
Noted.
See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html
The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
Bob Grumman
Good. That was the one place I got confused at.
This is news not worth posting, but I want to get into the habit of posting
to the group, so am doing so now, while for some reason I have it in my mind
that I ought to.
Oh, and keep up the good work against Werstine, Tom. You're demolishing him
so far.
--Bob G.
Tom Reedy
message news:ajqg8...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > In addition to the usual typos, errors in
punctuation
> > and missing words, none of which change the
meaning,
> > the first quote from Werstine contains a mistake
that
> > puzzles the reader. It should read, "Thus,
according to
> > Pollard and Wilson, the type-setter of the second
> > quarto of Hamlet mistakenly spelled self-slaughter
as
> > "seale slaughter" because Shakespeare-Hand D
spelled
> > self as "sealfe."
> >
>
> Good. That was the one place I got confused at.
You can blame spel-chek for that one.
> This is news not worth posting, but I want to get
into the habit of posting
> to the group, so am doing so now, while for some
reason I have it in my mind
> that I ought to.
Bob, are getting enough rest? Perhaps retirement from
teaching is not all that far away.
> Oh, and keep up the good work against Werstine, Tom.
You're demolishing him
> so far.
I'm disappointed that the only rebuttals I've gotten so
far have been nothing but assertions from Toby. Pat is
too busy at the moment to respond, and I'm hoping he
doesn't let it fall by the wayside, but I know what a
low priority old unanswered posts become.
Werstine spends hardly any time refuting the
scholarship supporting the Hand D attribution. Instead
he just quotes two or three dissenting opinions about
each type of evidence and says that's enough to
discredit the consensus. It's laughable, especially
when he quotes Bayfield's hastily-written response
against the painstaking list of bibliographical links
between the quartos and the three pages.
His ostensible purpose is to take editors to task for
making editorial decisions based on Hand D. Can you
guess which scholar he uses as an example? Honigmann.
His choice tells you something.
But I think his real purpose is to just pad his resume
by publishing another paper, one that would burnish his
reputation as a maverick. I can't think of any other
reason why anyone would such an illogical and poorly
argued paper, unless, as I wrote earlier, he's having
us on by parodying antiStratfordianism.
TR
> --Bob G.
>
>
>
KQKnave
Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>I'm disappointed that the only rebuttals I've gotten so
>far have been nothing but assertions from Toby. Pat is
>too busy at the moment to respond, and I'm hoping he
>doesn't let it fall by the wayside, but I know what a
>low priority old unanswered posts become.
>
That's usually the case. I didn't see any rebuttals to
my Monsarrat series other than Petzold's shrieking
and couple of lame ones from R Kennedy. If you've
got a good argument there isn't much to rebut. Anyway,
I don't have Werstine's paper here so I couldn't argue
if I wanted to.
Bob Grumman
> into the habit of posting
> > to the group, so am doing so now, while for some
> reason I have it in my mind
> > that I ought to.
>
> Bob, are getting enough rest? Perhaps retirement from
> teaching is not all that far away.
Not getting enuf rest but the above isn't as nutso as it sounds if you've
been following my misadventures with my new way of posting. When I said, "
I want to get into the habit of posting to the group," I meant into the
habit of posting by clicking "Reply Group" (i.e., posting to the group)
rather than by clicking "Reply"--as I see I just did for THIS POST. Aaargh!
** Just transferred message. It should now go to HLAS.
>I'm disappointed that the only rebuttals I've gotten so
> far have been nothing but assertions from Toby. Pat is
> too busy at the moment to respond, and I'm hoping he
> doesn't let it fall by the wayside, but I know what a
> low priority old unanswered posts become.
He'll just tell you to read so-and-so, and throw in a few red herrings. But
if he brings up CPLE, which Shakespeare is COMPLETELY lacking in, he'll be
worth reading. I always learn from him when he does that.
--Bob G.