Speech Prefixes
No explanation of the anomalous distribution of stage-direction
annotation can be offered without first considering the speech-prefix
variation. The most striking instance of the latter is the reorganization of
prefixes for Richard and Bolingbroke. For Richard, Q1 invariably has
'King' except for (a) the first prefix in 5.1, and (b)
throughout 5.5, the
prison scene. For the latter, he is unkinged 'Rich.'. Still in
Q1,
Bolingbroke's prefixes change from 'Bull.' or
'Bul.' (once
'Bulling.') to 'King H.' or 'King'
for 5.3 and 5.6. F
leaves 1.1 unchanged, but thereafter systematically (without exception)
changes Richard's 'King' prefixes to 'Rich.'
(occasionally
'Ric.' or 'Ri.').[28]
Bolingbroke's 'King (H.)' prefixes all become
'Bul.' in
F. These changes go far beyond anything that could be expected by way of
regularization. They clearly must echo the pattern
found in the promptbook; there is no other reason why the trouble should
have been taken to effect such a detailed change when the prefixes
in Q1 were perfectly logical according to their own system.
[29]
Most of the 'King' / 'Ri(c)(h).' variants
are in corrected
areas, and many of those that are not do occur in indeterminate or
bordering
areas. This correspondence is probably not between the categories of variant
themselves, but between areas of annotated text and scenes in which
Richard
is on stage. (There is no comparable patterning of 'King
(H.)'
/ 'Bul.' variants.) At first sight this correspondence might
appear to be
explained by the coincidence of heavy annotation in the first 900 lines and
the exceptional number of scenes in which Richard is present in the same
part of the play. After 870 (2.1.222) Richard does not appear for almost
700
lines, and after 994 (2.1.295) there are only very brief snatches of
correction
until Richard returns to the stage. Such a situation may in itself be no
coincidence. But even within the first 900 lines, the parts of the text with
Richard present are more consistently annotated than the others. The same
also holds true after 1000, when both Richard's appearances and the signs
of
annotation are scantier. The dramatic falling-off of annotation around 1000
may be a (belated) response to Richard's long absence. The presence of the
play's principal character seems to have been one factor which influenced
the
annotator's fluctuations.
Other significant F alterations of Q speech prefixes are limited and
localised. Some, such as 'Herald' / 'I Har.'
(401), 'Herald
2' / '2 Har.' (407) and 'H. Per.' /
'Percie' (1130,
etc.) suggest but do not demonstrate annotation. More definite are two
altered character assignations, 'King' / 'North.'
(2346) and
'yorke' / 'Bul.' (2612); a moved prefix
('Bag.', 1100-1);
and the distinctive changes 'Welch' / 'Capt.'
(1285, 1291) and
'Man' / 'Ser.' (1850, 1865, 2657, 2660). Of
the changes more
definitely associated with promptbook annotation, only those at 2346, 2612,
2657 and 2660 fall within corrected areas. Stage directions whose
rewording
may be connected with the speech-prefix variants are 'a Welch
captaine' / 'a Captaine' (1284),
'Gardeners' / 'a
Gardiner, and two Seruants' (1833), and '&c.'
/ 'and
Seruants' (2651). However, the
reassignations at 2346 and 2612 are not particularly near changed stage
directions. There are some signs that the annotated speech prefixes resulted
from quite careful collation; there is no reason to associate it with
annotation
of the dialogue, and little evidence for an association with the annotated
stage directions—though if (as appears to be the case) both speech
prefixes and stage directions were collated thoroughly and systematically,
such an association
could exist, without being detectable. If the collator caught
all
of the
speech-prefix and stage-direction variants, then coincidence of annotation
in
the two categories would result only from coincidence of variation between
Q3 and the manuscript. The lack of a discernible association between
stage-direction and speech-prefix annotation therefore demonstrates nothing;
but the lack of association between speech-prefix and dialogue annotation
is
significant.
