Problems in the Printing of the Two 1609 Quartos of Shakespeare's 'Pericles'

Abstract

In this study evidence is brought forward to suggest that these conclusions about the 1609 Pericles quartos are correct: The quartos are dated from the title-pages (which are identical for [Q1] and [Q2]), and bibliographical, textual, and orthographical links suggest that [Q1] is a page-for-page reprint of [Q2]. For [Q2], a manuscript copy-text is indicated by certain textual variants but although there is a large group of possible Shakespearean copy-spellings, no conclusive evidence suggests that the copy-text was written out by Shakespeare. Pericles appears to be a memorial reconstruction of a play in which Shakespeare wrote at least the last three acts. Although bibliographical evidence suggests compositor-division at two points, study of the spellings shows that there was only one compositor; printing proceeded in alphabetical order of sheets. It seems that a break in printing occurred at the end of sheet D; this corresponds to the division of copy into Shakespearean and non-Shakespearean portions, and lineation similarly suggests that the copy of the two portions was different in layout. [Q1] was set up by two compositors, and probably printed in two printing-houses. From the division of the copy-text, the distribution of headlines, and the printing of sheet B after sheet I, [Q1] is a reprint.