Q1 R&J


The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0476  Monday, 26 November 2012


From:        Gerald E. Downs  <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         November 25, 2012 8:52:04 PM EST

Subject:     Q1 R&J


On 11/6 Steven Urkowitz had a suggestion for me about Q1 Romeo & Juliet:


> For R&J, he claims that “Q1 is the record of a performance,

> as a comparison of the prologues shows” . . . . Gerald can

> SAY . . . but in order for standers-by to believe him he really

> should do the showing. (I always told my writing students,

> “If you want someone to believe what you believe, show them

> what you saw that made you believe it yourself.”) Maybe Q1

> R&J indeed was performed as it appears in the printed text.


I will show some of what helped me to reach my conclusion and I’m willing to discuss all the evidence. I’ll also show how not to go about the evidence.


> Or a performance with quite different words and actions

> may have been badly transcribed and the transcriber

> accidentally and creatively came up with what we read in Q1.


Though it’s the only alternative to memory, transcription (accidental or creative), isn’t a promising explanation of a Q1 that’s manifestly corrupt, as is other early stolen Shakespeare. The bad quartos should never be wholly isolated; similar evidence added to the pile isn’t so easy to deny. Neither should the evidence I discuss be taken as the only evidence in Q1 R&J. Hoppe’s book is good, though it is flawed by his determination to fit the evidence to “memorial reconstruction” rather than to shorthand reporting. (The categories have a lot in common but are not mutually exclusive and I shouldn’t reject MR too hastily. I believe MR happened before shorthand reporting in a number of cases, such as Q1 Hamlet and A Shrew.)


Van Dam called Q1 R&J shorthand reporting (in an early article worth reading). Most editors acknowledge the memorial character of the text. Yet the authority most students consult in lieu of historical scholarship is probably Laurie Maguire’s Suspect Texts, wherein she pronounces Q1 “Not MR.” Among the criteria she lists is “External echoes: No” (301-2). Hoppe, however, cites quite a number of “Borrowings,” many of which I find convincing. Who’s right? How might one judge ‘echoes’ as evidence of reporting?


Maguire faults Hoppe’s examples as inconsequential. More important, she excludes (from consideration as evidence) possible authorial ‘self-echoes’, possible ‘non-self-echoes’ (authorial borrowings from other authors), common phrases, general resemblances, echoes of one line or less, and plain vocabulary. She recognizes the limits of her “suspect” analogy, where text is tried much as a lucky or rich criminal defendant, by excluding evidence: “Strictness . . . does not enable us to identify all plays reconstructed from memory” (165). Strictly speaking, all evidence should remain in play, “textual human rights” notwithstanding. The more text properly identified as memorial, the more reason to presume other “guilty” plays.


Maguire has been justly criticized (but not enough) for excluding “good” editions of the bad quartos as evidence. Q2 is indispensable for judging Q1 R&J; taking it off the table is not strictness, but tunnel-vision laxity. I propose a hard look at the ‘borrowing’ by analyzing Hoppe’s suggested instances together with the Q2 evidence. External echoes? Yes.


Maguire on Hoppe’s method: “the alleged borrowings frequently appear only in Q1 R&J; when they feature in both Q1 and Q2, the Q1 phrasing tends to be closer to that of the putative source [another Shakespeare text] than to Q2. However, variance and/or partial agreement may stem from causes other than memorial reconstruction” (161).


Maguire doesn’t take Q2 into account in forming her own opinion of Q1 (alternative texts are purposely ignored by her methodology), nor does she cite from Hoppe any Q2 counterparts to Q1 echoes of other plays (which aren’t themselves alleged borrowings). It’s not enough that there “may be other causes” than borrowing; the investigator’s responsibility is to rate causes (in general, since proposed instances vary in value).


From Hoppe's 161-5.


TA 3.1.156

And that shall be the ransom for their fault.


R&J 1.1.90

Q1 Your lives shall pay the ransom of your fault.

Q2 Your lives shall pay the forfeit of the peace.


Q2 does not echo TA. If Q1 is an early version with an authorial self-borrowing, why should this be revised? Why any of the others? The evidence is not merely in the echo, but in the suggestiveness of a Q2 line that could induce the echo from the actor’s stock-in-trade memory, simply by the ‘cue’ of the first half of the line. Multiple instances add up to conviction that Hoppe is right and exclusion of evidence is mistaken. The echo is short but meaningful; why toss it out? Because we insist on an alternative, a priori explanation?


By itself this instance isn’t proof of memorial transmission. It possibly has another cause, as Gabriel Egan might point out (if memory serves). Is that a reason to ignore evidence? Exclusion allows other exclusions and allows the treatment of corroborative evidence in isolation.


2 Gents, 1.2.60   And how stand you affected to his wish?


Q1  how stand you affected to be married?

Q2  How stands your dispositions to be married?


2 Gents  5.4.26   How like a dream is this I see and hear.


Q1  All this is but a dream I hear and see,

Q2  Being in night, all this is but a dream,


2 Gents   . . . a ladder quaintly made of cords.


Q1  I must provide a ladder made of cords.

Q2  To fetch a ladder by the which your love


2 Gents  How he her chamber-window will ascend


Q1  Ascend her chamber-window, hence and comfort her

Q2  Ascend her chamber, hence and comfort her


Q1 mis-remembers, with a little help from 2 Gents. Though Q2 doesn't borrow, a word or two is enough to direct the player to another line in his memory. He wouldn't skip a beat, but notice that 'chamber-window' adds a couple, which in iambic pentameter is corruption.


R3  Peace, peace, for shame, if not for charity.


Q1  O peace for shame, if not for charity.

Q2  Peace ho, for shame, confusion's care lives not


Again Q1 is led astray. The essence of the pattern is not that words in common show up in Q2 and elsewhere, which is going to happen in any dialogue, but that they shake out other dialogue from the memory tree. The examples of borrowing that haven’t counterparts in Q2 (suspected echoes added to a parent text) are corroborated by the Q2-reinforced instances. A last interesting echo:


R3 1.4.16-18:  As we paced along (Q2-8 passed)

Upon the giddy footing of the latches

Methought that Gloucester stumbled.


R&J 5.3.77 & 126:


Q1  Did not regard him as we passed along

       . . .

      Stumbled at graves as I did pass along


Q2  Did not attend him as we rode? I think

       . . . 

       Have my old feet stumbled at graves. Who's there?


The first line in each quarto is Romeo’s, the second the Friar’s. An MR reporter might be responsible for passing along ‘pass along,’ but each player in performance could make the same error. Yet a scribe is not being creative here, nor would he have reason to be. This is memory, one way or the other; the coincidence of ‘stumble’ in R3 and R&J is of no account until memory associates the word with ‘pass along.’ In the first instance Gloucester stumbles aboard-ship (in a dream), whereas the Friar is remarking the bad omen of stumbling over graves.


Q2 proves the Q1 borrowings. Anyone disposed to deny them must also deny the evidence of memory in other categories. For example, Hoppe lists numerous transpositions (he counts 85):


Q1  thou resemblest a sea, a bark, a storm.

Q2  Thou counte[r]feits a bark, a sea, a wind.


Though a scribe or compositor might occasionally transpose words or phrases, that can’t explain Q1 numbers. Maguire’s take: “transposition is of no value in diagnosing memorial reconstruction” (194). That is a mistake, given all the evidence—and all the other evidence. Consider R&J 1.4.9 & 33, 24 lines apart:


Q1  A torch for me, I am not for this ambling

       . . .

      Give me a torch; let the wantons light of heart


Q2  Give me a torch, I am not for this ambling

       . . .

       A torch for me; let wantons light of heart


A scribe or compositor could not transpose the requests for a torch. But the actor portraying Romeo could, and probably did. Transposition at a distance is as telling as “anticipation,” which itself abounds in Q1:


2.5.5-6 and 5.1.67-68


Q1  And run more swift than hasty powder fired

      Doth hurry from the fearful cannon's mouth.

      . . .

      As suddenly as powder being fired

      From forth a cannon's mouth.


Q2  Which ten times faster glides than the sun's beams

       Driving back shadows over lowering hills.

       . . .

       As violently as hasty powder fired

       Doth hurry from the fatal cannon's womb.


It is of course possible that Shakespeare used the same image twice in an early version, but that argument would have to be repeated for each of the numerous anticipations.


1.5.131-133 and 3.4.6-7, 34


Q1  I promise you, but for your company,

       I would have been abed an hour ago.

       Light my chamber, ho.


Q2  More torches here; come on, then; let's to bed.

       Ah, sirrah, by my fay it waxes late;

       I'll to my rest.

       . . .

       I promise you, but for your company,

       I would have been abed an hour ago.

       . . .

       Farewell my lord. Light my chamber, ho.


Hoppe notes, “Because it is the most substantial . . . anticipation in Q1 this variant has caught the attention of scholars, and because Capulet is the speaker, it has led some to identify the actor as a reporter. In so doing, they have failed to perceive that it is merely the most distinctive member of a large family.” In a shorthand report every player “reports” his own role. That causes problems for the MR mind-set, but Hoppe is right about one thing here; anticipation is a convincingly large category in Q1. The alternative (compositors and scribes eliminated) is that our author went through an early play (Q1, somehow a travesty of his later Q2 version) swapping phrases by the kilo (anticipations, recollections, transpositions, and repetitions) for no apparent reason. We can’t blame Shakespeare where it suits us and creative compositors where it don’t.


I wouldn’t characterize these examples as a berg-tip since the corrupt Q1 is wholly visible and described elsewhere. The memorial evidence is overwhelming in every category. I’m even impressed by the probable Chettle-meddling in Q1 because he and his print-pals were instrumental in the publication of sermons taken by shorthand. He also was in on the theft by shorthand of John of Bordeaux.


Now if the shorthand cats are let out of the bag there’s no getting them back in; therefore—to textualize the Matthau logic—don’t let them out. Is that really better than coming to grips with the evidence? I will go about R&J in a different way next time, but the results will be the same.


Gerald E. Downs

Blood Question


The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0475  Monday, 26 November 2012


From:        David Frankel <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         November 24, 2012 10:43:42 PM EST

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Blood?


I’m definitely no expert on Elizabethan stage blood (I’m not sure, for example, what a “sheep’s gather” is), but I wonder if “3 viols of blood” might leave the word “stage” understood. In greeting ready for my spring production of Hamlet, my designer and I have talked about the need for blood. Both of us know we’re talking about stage blood, so there’s no need to state.  So, I’m not sure that the use of the word (even connected to sheep’s gather—is that a container for the blood?) means that the animal’s blood was used. It might, but I suspect not. 


C. David Frankel

You Can’t Read My Handwritings


The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0474  Monday, 26 November 2012


From:        Bud Thompson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         November 24, 2012 8:00:50 PM EST

Subject:     You Can’t Read My Handwritings


I must be quite out of touch . . . but I didn’t know students are not being taught to read and write cursive. Many can’t read their parents writing. Will these students ever decide to study the life and notes of a writer if they have to learn to read handwriting first? 


I will be offering myself in the “Antiques” section on eBay as soon as I learn to register with PayPal.


Louis W. Thompson




Some States Buck The Trend and Preserve Penmanship

Christina Hoag, Associated Press

Is cursive a waste of time? California schools don’t think so.

November 24. 2012 -


LOS ANGELES (AP) — The pen may not be as mighty as the keyboard these days, but California and a handful of states are not giving up on handwriting entirely.


Bucking a growing trend of eliminating cursive from elementary school curriculums or making it optional, California is among the states keeping longhand as a third-grade staple.


The state’s posture on penmanship is not likely to undercut its place at the leading edge of technology, but it has teachers and students divided over the value of learning flowing script and looping signatures in an age of touchpads and mobile devices.


Some see it as a waste of time, an anachronism in a digitized society where even signatures are electronic, but others see it as necessary so kids can hone fine motor skills, reinforce literacy and develop their own unique stamp of identity.


The debate comes as 45 states move toward adopting national curriculum guidelines in 2014 for English and math that don’t include cursive handwriting, but require proficiency in computer keyboarding by the time pupils exit elementary school.


Several states, including California, Georgia and Massachusetts, have added a cursive requirement to the national standards, while most others, such as Indiana, Illinois and Hawaii have left it as optional for school districts. Some states, like Utah, are still studying the issue.


Whether it’s required or not, cursive is fast becoming a lost art as schools increasingly replace pen and paper with classroom computers and instruction is increasingly geared to academic subjects that are tested on standardized exams. Even the standardized tests are on track to be administered via computer within three years.


Experts say manuscript, or printing, may be sufficient when it comes to handwriting in the future.


“Do you really need to learn two different scripts?” said Steve Graham, education professor at Arizona State University who has studied handwriting instruction. “There will be plenty of kids who don’t learn cursive. The more important skill now is typing.”


Cursive still has many proponents who say it benefits youngsters’ brains, coordination and motor skills, as well as connects them to the past, whether to handwritten historical documents like the Constitution or to their parents’ and grandparents’ letters.


Longhand is also a symbol of personality, even more so in an era of uniform emails and texting, they say.


“I think it’s part of your identity and part of your self-esteem,” said Eldra Avery, who teaches language and composition at San Luis Obispo High School. “There’s something really special and personal about a cursive letter.”


Avery also has a practical reason for pushing cursive — speed. She makes her 11th grade students relearn longhand simply so they’ll be able to complete their advancement placement exams. Most students print.


“They have to write three essays in two hours. They need that speed,” she said. “Most of them learned cursive in second grade and forgot about it. Their penmanship is deplorable.”


For many elementary school teachers, having children spend hours copying flowing letters just isn’t practical in an era of high-stakes standardized testing.


[ . . . ]


It also depends on the teacher. Many younger teachers aren’t prepared to teach cursive or manuscript, said Kathleen S. Wright, national handwriting product manager for Zaner-Bloser Publishing, which develops instructional tools.


To remedy that, the company has developed a computer program that shows kids how to form letters.


[ . . . ]


For kids, the only practical purpose for learning cursive is to sign their names.


“They should teach it just for that purpose,” said student Baerg. “Everybody wants a cool signature with all the fancy loops.”

David Bevington’s As You Like It, Broadview Press/Internet Shakespeare Editions Collaboration


The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0473  Monday, 26 November 2012


From:        Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         Monday, November 26, 2012

Subject:     David Bevington’s As You Like It, Broadview Press/Internet Shakespeare Editions Collaboration


I just received my copy of the first publication in the Broadview Press/Internet Shakespeare Editions collaboration: David Bevington’s edition of As You Like It.


The edition is available at many sellers, including Amazon.


The Broadview Press web site information can be found here: http://www.broadviewpress.com/product.php?productid=1086&cat=50&page=1


The following is the publisher’s description:


Both a witty satire of literary cliché and a tender meditation on the varieties of love, As You Like It continues to be one of Shakespeare’s most beloved and widely performed comedies. In the introduction to this new edition, David Bevington traces the complex relationships between the characters in the play, and explores the history of its criticism from Samuel Johnson to the twenty-first century.


As part of the newly launched Broadview Press / Internet Shakespeare Editions series, this edition features a variety of interleaved materials—from facsimile pages, diagrams, and musical scores to illustrations and extended discussions of myth and folklore—that provide a context for the social and cultural allusions in the play. Appendices offer excerpts from Shakespeare’s key sources and influences, including Thomas Lodge’s Rosalind and Ben Jonson’s Every Man in His Humor.


A collaboration between Broadview Press and the Internet Shakespeare Editions project at the University of Victoria, the editions developed for this series have been comprehensively annotated and draw on the authoritative texts newly edited for the ISE. This innovative series allows readers to access extensive and reliable online resources linked to the print edition.


As You Like It

A Broadview Internet Shakespeare Edition

Written by: William Shakespeare

Edited by: David Bevington

Publication Date: July 13, 2012


ISBN: 9781554810529 / 1554810523

CDN & US $12.95


The print edition is intended for the college classroom and should be viewed in coordination with The Internet Shakespeare Editions, which can be found here: 


The ISE’s site contains a wealth of supplementary materials, including facsimiles and performances: http://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Foyer/plays/AYL.html


Editor’s introduction

  • As You Like It: Introduction
  • As You Like It: Critical Reception
  • As You Like It: Performance History
  • As You Like It: Textual Introduction
  • As You Like It: Chronology
  • As You Like It: Bibliography


Texts of this edition

  • As You Like It: List of Characters
  • As You Like It (Modern)
  • As You Like It (Folio 1, 1623)


Supplementary and related materials

  • Everyman In His Humor (Modern), Ben Jonson
  • Galathea (Modern), John Lyly
  • Rosalind: Euphues' Golden Legacy, Thomas Lodge
  • Euphues (A Selection), John Lyly
  • The Tale of Gamelyn, Anonymous
  • Robin Hood and the Beggar, Anonymous
  • The Marriage Service, Thomas Cranmer
  • Myths in As You Like It, David Bevington


Statistics about the text 
Explore the character scrolls as used by Shakespeare's actors, find out which actors appear in each scene, and more.



  • First Folio (1623) from State Library of New South Wales
  • First Folio (1623) from Brandeis University Library
  • Second Folio (1632) from State Library of New South Wales
  • Third Folio (1664) from State Library of New South Wales
  • Fourth Folio (1685) from State Library of New South Wales



  • As You Like It (2012, Atlanta Shakespeare Company, USA)
  • Philaster, or Love Lies a-Bleeding (2012, American Shakespeare Center, USA)
  • As You Like It (2011, Shakespeare Festival im Globe Neuss, Germany)
  • As You Like It (2011, Muse of Fire Theatre Company, USA)
  • Ahogy Tetszik Wie Es Euch Gefallt (2010, Shakespeare Festival im Globe Neuss, Germany)
  • As You Like It (2010, American Shakespeare Center, USA)
  • As You Like It (2009, Blue Bridge Repertory Theatre, Canada)
  • As You Like It (2008, St. Lawrence Shakespeare Festival, Canada)
  • As You Like It (2008, The Bell Shakespeare Company, Australia)
  • As You Like It (2008, Oxford Triptych Theatre, UK)
  • As You Like It (2007, Oregon Shakespeare Festival, USA)
  • As You Like It (2007, British Shakespeare Company, International)
  • As You Like It (2007, Shakespeare by the Sea - Sydney, Australia)
  • Revelers Showcase (2007, St. Lawrence Shakespeare Festival, Canada)
  • As You Like It (2006, Pennsylvania Shakespeare Festival, USA)
  • As You Like It (2006, Shakespeare Santa Cruz, USA)
  • As You Like It (2006, Kenneth Branagh, International)
  • As You Like It (2006, Colorado Shakespeare Festival, USA)
  • Wie es euch gefällt (2006, Shakespeare Festival im Globe Neuss, Germany)
  • As You Like It (2005, Bard on the Beach, Canada)
  • 116 more performances…


Performance materials

  • audio artifacts (5 artifacts)
  • costume design artifacts (1 collection, 1 artifact)
  • flyer artifacts (4 artifacts)
  • graphic artifacts (1 artifact)
  • illustration artifacts (3 artifacts)
  • magazine artifacts (7 collections)
  • newsletter artifacts (2 collections)
  • page artifacts (1 artifact)
  • pamphlet artifacts (10 collections, 7 artifacts)
  • photograph artifacts (17 artifacts)
  • playbill artifacts (2 artifacts)
  • postcard artifacts (3 collections, 1 artifact)
  • poster artifacts (11 artifacts)
  • press clipping artifacts (2 artifacts)
  • press release artifacts (5 collections, 2 artifacts)
  • production notes artifacts (1 collection, 1 artifact)
  • production still artifacts (206 artifacts)
  • program artifacts (32 collections)
  • prompt book artifacts (1 collection)
  • review artifacts (10 collections, 34 artifacts)
  • script artifacts (1 artifact)


[Editor’s Note: I am both a member of the Editorial Board and an editor of the Internet Shakespeare Editions. –Hardy M. Cook]

Shakespeare and Japan


The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0472  Monday, 26 November 2012


From:        Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         November 26, 2012 9:44:33 AM EST

Subject:     Shakespeare and Japan 


“Shakespeare and Japan” at De Montfort University (Leicester, England) on Tuesday 26 February, 2013


This one-day event offers scholars an opportunity to contribute to the international journal Shakespeare’s special issue on Shakespeare and Japan, edited by Professor Dominic Shellard.


Papers are invited on all aspects of Shakespeare and Japan, ranging from performances, film adaptations, and translations to accounts of the plays’ critical reception in Japan.


Abstracts (100-200 words) should be sent to:


Professor Deborah Cartmell This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.




Professor Gabriel Egan This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.


by 6 December 2012


Gabriel Egan

Subscribe to Our Feeds


Make a Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.