XI
Apart from possible repercussions on the general theory of
Shakespearean texts, which are beyond the scope of this article, it
is clear that the approach to the text of Henry V will have
to be revolutionized. All existing texts, to my knowledge, are
based on the assumption that F is independent of Q, and that
therefore, as Greg puts it (Pr. Em., p. 16), "Where the
texts differ, one possesses vastly greater authority than the
other: where they agree, we not only have direct transcriptional
witness to what the author wrote, but we know . . . that this was
actually spoken on the stage."
If the theory of Q copy, however, is correct, the opposite will in
fact be largely true: where the texts differ, we may infer that,
apart from F compositorial intervention, the corrector has been at
work, and that F is likely to be correct; where they agree, it may
well be an agreement in error owing to the failure of the corrector
to correct. This means that an editor's task will include the
detection of latent errors, the still more difficult task of
deciding between a F correction and a F error, and in general, the
reconstruction of the process of correction for the light it can
throw on the text of F. He will have the certainty that in many
cases the authentic text is lost beyond recovery; but at least he
will be able to remove a great many blemishes that have been
obvious enough, but remain secure on the supposed independent
authority of the Folio. The task, however, has yet to begin.
