Preliminary Summary
The collation of all the above data needs some care. Table 1 is itself
by
no means definitive, for several reasons. It gives no indication of the spatial
distribution of variants, which are sometimes tightly clustered and
elsewhere
completely absent. It has wide indeterminate areas between some of the
areas of relative correction and uncorrection. And it contains several
random
elements: fortuitous unauthoritative correction, isolated correction, light
annotation, and oversight. A mechanism needs to be introduced to handle
the elements of randomness. To achieve this, quite simply, a run of two or
more indications of correction may be regarded as an area of correction.
Such an area may be allowed to extend over single indications of
non-annotation, but ends when two such opposing items occur
consecutively. The same rules therefore apply for the uncorrected areas.
(The terms 'corrected' and 'uncorrected' remain relative, for there may
actually be any number of interim degrees.) This
procedure may sound, if anything, conducive to chaos, for the number that
defines a group could literally not be smaller. In fact, the exercise confirms
and only minimally redefines the situation in Table 1. When the new data
is
included, only 17 areas of correction are established. These are as follows:
- 29-65
- 144-260
- 320-398
- 414-557
- 585-730
- 747-836
- 858-942
- 968-1004
- 1053-1055
- 1210-1229
- 1388-1415
- 1470-1615
- 1734-1798
- 1974-2017
- 2307-2368
- 2446-2517
- 2574-2716
The areas so defined give a working basis for describing the
fluctuation
within the process of annotation. But the approach remains explorative, and
its limitations should be obvious enough. Most crucially, the guideline areas
of correction fail to distinguish between the various degrees of consistency
of annotation. Table 2, which gives the aggregated data, also gives a ready
indication of the variation and of those areas of the text which remain
indeterminate. For example, the passage from 1800 to 2100 might best be
described as lightly annotated rather than corrected or uncorrected; this area
alone accounts for over half the Q1-F agreements against Q3 that occur in
passages defined as relatively uncorrected. The corollary is that elsewhere
the distinction is sharper than the averaged-out statistics will suggest.
Corrected areas account for 51% of the available text.[27] This nicely medial figure may be
compared
with the proportions of the various categories of data to fall within these
corrected areas.
|
{Major cuts |
5/5 |
100% |
|
{A, P and R readings from F |
18/20 |
90% |
|
{Manuscript misreadings |
6/7 |
86% |
| Evidence of consultation |
{F restorations of Q1 |
64/76 |
84% |
|
{Significant relineation (positive) |
5/6 |
83% |
|
{Emended profanity |
22/27 |
81% |
|
{Compounded error |
2/9 |
22% |
|
{Shared error |
2/10 |
20% |
| Evidence of failure to consult |
{Q1 God(s) retained in F |
6/32 |
19% |
|
{Uncorrected Q3 error |
11/75 |
14% |
|
{Significant relineation (negative) |
0/3 |
0% |
Individually the above figures demonstrate little. The bridging mechanism
designed to compensate for randomness can enhance small groups whilst
detracting from large groups where the individual items involved are of less
statistical significance. But this criticism cannot apply to the comparison of
corrected and uncorrected areas for the accumulated evidence for and
against annotation, whereby each item is of equal value:
| Positive data in corrected areas |
120/141 |
85% |
| Negative data in corrected areas |
21/129 |
16% |
Nor is the initial information from Table 1 unduly distorting the picture.
Without it, the results are:
| Positive data in corrected areas |
55/65 |
85% |
| Negative data in corrected areas |
10/54 |
19% |
Nevertheless Table 1 provided a remarkably useful starting point. The rest
of
the evidence confirms and refines what it suggested. The only way the
demonstrated correlations make any sense is to suppose that the vast
majority of the listed changes in F were made during a single process of
annotation carried out with reference to the promptbook. Most important of
all for the editor of
Richard II is the irresistible association
between
(a) the most plausible emendations of Q1 in F and (b) other indications of
annotation.
