II
A Distributional Study of the Variants
Texts N and 61 can be eliminated from the analysis immediately as
derivative versions which reproduce readings that are peculiar to their
extant ancestors, Hn and 48 respectively. In the same fashion we can ignore
all the other descendants of 46 and 48, as mere reprints, each of which
successively introduces more corruption. And 48 itself is a derivative of 46
even though 48 contains certain new readings which cannot be the work of
a mere compositor. The corrections and alterations in 48 have come from
some other manuscript traditions, separate from the MS. behind 46.
Consequently 48 must be treated as a contaminated or mixed text, part
derivative and part substantive. Since it is not strictly a collateral text,
descending from an ancestor common to the other witnesses, we must for
the moment set it aside.
This leaves M, Ha, S, C, Hn, E, and 46 for distributional study.
Below is a table of substantive variants. The terms type 1 and
type 2 have come from Greg: type 1 is the occurrence of a
reading in one text against all the others; type 2 is the agreement of at least
two texts against at least two of the others. Among the type 2 variants I
have not tabulated elisions, minor omissions, expansions, punctuation, or
spellings of proper names, because they could easily have arisen
independently.
A Table of Variants in "The Wittis"
| Text |
type 1 |
type 2
with one |
type 2
with two |
shared with
one MS in
minority |
no. of
times in
majority |
| M |
17 |
Ha |
1 |
|
|
HnC |
1 |
Ha |
2 |
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
HaS |
1 |
S |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
SC |
1 |
C |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hn |
1 |
| Ha |
17 |
M |
1 |
S |
1 |
46E |
1 |
M |
1 |
E |
2 |
17 |
|
|
Hn |
1 |
|
|
CHn |
1 |
C |
2 |
Hn |
2 |
|
|
E |
1 |
|
|
SC |
1 |
S |
2 |
46 |
1 |
| Hn |
20 |
E |
4 |
|
|
E46 |
5 |
E |
9 |
M |
1 |
10 |
|
|
Ha |
1 |
|
|
CHa |
1 |
46 |
6 |
S |
1 |
|
|
S |
1 |
|
|
MC |
1 |
Ha |
2 |
|
|
46 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
C |
2 |
| E |
19 |
Hn |
4 |
|
|
Hn46 |
5 |
Hn |
9 |
Ha |
2 |
11 |
|
|
Ha |
1 |
|
|
Ha46 |
1 |
46 |
6 |
| 46 |
30 |
S |
1 |
|
|
HnE |
5 |
E |
6 |
Ha |
1 |
16 |
|
|
Hn |
1 |
|
|
HaE |
1 |
Hn |
6 |
S |
1 |
| S |
70 |
C |
5 |
|
|
MHa |
1 |
C |
5 |
46 |
1 |
12 |
|
|
Hn |
1 |
|
|
MC |
1 |
M |
2 |
Ha |
1 |
|
|
46 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
Hn |
1 |
| C |
29 |
S |
5 |
|
|
MS |
1 |
S |
6 |
Ha |
1 |
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
HnM |
1 |
Hn |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
HnHa |
1 |
M |
2 |
| Totals |
181 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total type |
2 |
23 |
This kind of statistical study, of course, does not offer ironclad proof,
but it is helpful as a preliminary analysis, strictly objective, pointing to
some probable conclusions. For instance, the first column of the chart
shows that all the texts are terminal, as we should expect, since the
derivative ones have been eliminated. The Sackville MS. has an unusual
number of type 1 variants, so many as to suggest that it is another version
(i.e. an early draft or later revision) or a very corrupt transcription. But an
inspection of S's type 2 variants immediately cancels out the former
hypothesis, because S is not likely to be another version in another
manuscript tradition and at the same time to have type 2 variants that
distribute along with the other six texts. How could it be closely associated
with C, apparently not another version, and still be a revision or early
draft, unless we suppose that the author wrote his revisions on an already
derivative manuscript and S is a
descendant of it? Therefore, I assume that S is collateral or virtually so with
the other texts; and if that is true, S is very corrupt. A number of individual
readings in S confirm this hypothesis (if I may depart from a rigidly
statistical analysis for this point), because they are regularly
"improvements" of an especially obvious sort: smoothing out the verse,
simplifying the grammar, and trivializing the thought.
Each man had a mind to gratifie the queene Σ[7]
That all Men desired to please the queene S (line 70)
And haveing spied him, called him out of the thronge Σ
And calling him presently out of the thronge S (91)
Was now to be given to him best deserved Σ
Was now to be given to him that deserved S (4)
For his were caled workes, where others were but plaies Σ
For his things were workes, the others but plaies S (20)
Of errors that had lasted many an age Σ
Of errors continued for many an age S (22)
in theire judgments they went lesse
That concluded of merit uppon a successe. Σ
they did much digress
From truth, that judg'd things by the success. S (51-52)
Must carie it: at which Ben turned aboute Σ
Must carie the Bayes: At which Ben turn'd about S
(27)
Modestly hop't the handsomnes of's muse Σ
Modestly hop't that his handsome muse S (42)
Consider'd he was well hee had a Cupbearers place Σ
Consider'd he was well hee had a Sewers place S (40)
The last example is indicative of S's literal adherence to historical fact.
Technically Thomas Carew was indeed Sewer to the King and not
Cupbearer,
but in the court of Apollo where a god is deciding who should wear the
crown of laurel, cup-bearer is more appropriate, for we hear of a
cup-bearer to the gods, but not a Sewer. Nor would a scribe reading
Sewers be likely to change it to
Cup-bearers.
On the
other hand such a change could have been made by the author, but since the
other readings in S appear to be sophistications rather than "original" states,
this one instance is not enough to establish S as an early version.
The type 2 variants in the chart imply that certain manuscripts are
probably related more closely than others: SC against the others, EHn
against the others, and 46EHn against the others. Neither M nor Ha is
closely identified with any single manuscript or group of manuscripts, if we
assume that four or more exclusive readings suggest a close relationship.
If this seems like a small number, we must remember that only twenty-three
type 2 variants are suitable for the analysis. The only variants considered
in this class are those that could not have easily arisen independently. Of
course some anomailes exist, readings that are common to SHn, or HaE in
one instance alone. These are to be expected, particularly with poems which
were memorized, set to music, and passed around in London society.
Consequently the lines of descent of a given manuscript may be
considerably more tangled than we suppose; however there simply is not
enough statistical evidence for a hundred line poem such
as this on which to construct a more complicated hypothesis. Therefore a
critic must make whatever distributional hypothesis is warranted by the
majority of the evidence. The formula SC: M: Ha[46(HnE)] best expresses
the groupings of type 2 variants. Diagramatically, the formula looks like
this:
Several of the complex variants confirm this formula. For instance,
these patterns occur:
- SC:MHa:46Hn:E (grouping of stanzas and location of
transitions)
- SCM:Ha46E:Hn (placing lines 93-94)
- C:SMHa:Hn46E (line 53)
These suggest that Hn46E are separate from HaM and SC, and yet Ha,
when it is separate from M, is associated with HnE46. Neither Hn nor E
ever appears alone with 46 against the other; HnE appear alone four times
and HnE46 five times.
But the formula is ambiguous, for if the texts are truly collateral the
diagrams could be any of the following:
And if the witnesses are not collateral, we can have combinations such as:
