| ||
Anyone wishing to make a close study of the plays of John Webster will soon find himself involved in textual and bibliographical investigations.[1] For instance, F. L. Lucas' edition of 1927 deals with questions of textual authority, but since Lucas wrote, critical bibliography and the study of dramatic manuscripts have so developed that his answers can no longer be trusted. These studies have posed new questions as well as developing new techniques for answering old ones; so, while Lucas was content to follow Dyce in noting a few variants in copies of the first quartos, a present-day student will require a complete survey of the known copies and will wish to analyse them rigorously.
This paper, and one which should follow shortly, attempt to bring the study of Webster's text a little more up-to-date. They will deal with The White Devil, The Duchess of Malfi, and The Devil's Law Case, the three plays which Webster authenticated by his interest in publication. Each play exists in a single authoritative text and the first task must concern the nature of the copy which lies behind these texts. Such enquiries are not strictly bibliographical, but they are necessary preliminaries and illustrate the fact that, as an applied science, Bibliography must often work in conjunction with other skills, less scientific in their method and less certain in their conclusions. Since bibliographical problems are seldom self-contained, these studies will often be hampered by the lack of knowledge about related texts; on the other hand, they may help forward other work. Nicholas Okes, the printer of The White Devil and The Duchess of Malfi, also printed the 'Pied Bull' quarto of King Lear and the 1622 quarto of
The known facts about the publication of The White Devil can be briefly summarized. The title-page records that the play was 'Acted by the Queenes Maiesties Seruants' and 'Written by Iohn Webster'. The imprint is 'LONDON, / Printed by N.O. for Thomas Archer, and are to be sold / at his Shop in Popes head Pallace, neere the / Royall Exchange. 1612.' Following the title-page is a preface 'To the Reader' written by the author who also added a short note at the end of the text. The date of composition was probably early 1612 or the winter of 1612-13.[3] At this date there was nothing unusual in early publication or in the author providing prefatory material; apparently a custom had developed which permitted playwrights to have a 'double sale of their labours, first to the Stage, and after to the presse'.[4] Shakespeare and Beaumont and Fletcher seem to be exceptional in not taking advantage of this custom; The Faithfull Shepherdess was, however, quickly published with an epistle and three dedicatory verses by the author, after its failure on the stage in 1608 or 1609.[5] It follows that the early publication of The White Devil with an author's preface proves very little by itself; it must be considered together with other plays performed by the same company of players at the same time.
There are only five other plays printed between 1608 and 1616 whose title-pages assert that they were acted by the Queen's Majesty's Servants. One of these, Heywood's The Four Prentices of London, was an old play when published in 1615. The other four were more or less recent, and, for each of them, prefatory matter explains something of how they came to be published. The earliest, Heywood's The Rape of Lucrece, was published in 1608 after it had been duly entered in the Stationers' Register on 3 June. The author, in a preface 'To the Reader', excuses the publication of his play on the grounds that
From these four plays, it would seem that about the year 1612 the publication of a new play as from the repertory of the Queen's Majesty's Servants needed some sort of excuse, apology, or special dedication. Yet The White Devil's preface shows an independent attitude, critical of the theatre in which this company was habitually acting:
But the real argument must be based on the bibliographical and textual peculiarities of the printed play. Lucas made deductions from one such detail; in a note on 'Enter Senate' (I.i.59-60; B2) he suggested that, 'like several others in the play', this entry may be premature and due to the text having been 'set up from a prompt-copy.' But then he pointed out that this is not certain
The examination of manuscript prompt-books has given surer grounds for the analysis of this kind of evidence. It seems that the
More positive evidence comes from the suggestion that 'a copy intended for use in the theatre would surely, of necessity, be accurate and unambiguous in the matter of the character-names.' If this be so, it follows that
- 1. Lodovico is signified by 'LOD.' or 'LODO.' and also by 'CAR.' which represents the name Carlo which he assumes in disguise: LODO I.i.2; B1, CAR V.i.61; I1, LOD V.i.66; I1, CAR V.ii.31; I3v, and LOD V.iii.68; K1v.[14]
- 2. Gasparo likewise, is usually signified by 'GAS.' or 'GASP.', but changes to 'PED.' for Pedro. Later the disguise names of the two conspirators become confused, and he seems to be signified by 'CON.' and 'CAR.', the former probably being a misreading of the copy's Car.: GAS I.i.9; B1, PED V.i.63; I1, GAS V.iii.137; K2v, CON V.vi.172; M1, GAS V.vi.184; M1, and CAR V.vi.228; M1v.
- 3. Zanche, usually 'ZAN.', changes to 'MOO.' or 'MOORE.': ZAN I.ii.204; B4v, MOO V.iii.224; K3v, ZAN V.vi.23; L3, MOO V.vi.100; L4, and ZAN V.vi.123; L4.
- 4. Francisco, usually 'FRA.' or 'FRAN.', changes to 'FLO.' and also by error to 'FLAN.': FRAN II.i.1; C2v, FLAN II.i.87; C4, FRAN II.i.113; C4, FLO V.iii.183; K3, FRA V.iii.215; K3v, FLO V.iii. 223; K3v, and FRA V.iii.231; K3v.
- Count Lodouico I.i.Entry; B1, Lodouico IV.iii.Entry; H2, Car, V.ii.21; 13v, Lodouico V.ii.75; I4v, Lod V.vi.167; L4v, and Carlo V.vi.167; L4v.
- Gasparo I.i.Entry; B1, Gasper IV.iii.Entry; H2, Gaspar V.i.40; I1, Pedro V.ii.22; I3v, Gasparo V.iii.125; K2 (margin), Gasp V.iv.Entry; K4v, and Pedro V.vi.167; L4v.
- Vittoria Corombona I.ii.Entry; B2, Corombona I.ii.112; B3v(margin), Victoria I.ii.294; C2, Vittoria II.ii.2nd Dumb Show; E1, Corombona V.i.Entry; H4, and Vittoria V.iii.81; K1v.
- Zanche I.ii.193; B4v, the Moore V.iii.218; K3v, Moore V.iii.274; K4, and Zanke V.vi.4; L2v (margin).
- Francisco de Medicis II.i.Entry; C2v, Fr II.i.147; C4v, Francisco II.i.227; D1v. Fran IV.i.47; G1v, Francisco IV.iii.Entry; H2, the Duke of Florence IV.iii.Entry; H2, Fran IV.iii.81; H3(corrected state), Francisco IV.iii.134; H4, Florence disguised like Mulinassar V.i.40; I1, Francisco the Duke of Florence V.i.206-7; I3, Francisco V.iii.41; K1, Florence V.iv.43; L1, and Francisco V.iv.109; L2.
- Doctor II.i.287; D2v, and Julio II.ii.1st Dumb Show; D4v.
More evidence comes from some character names which have no significance in the text of the play and yet are found in stage directions and entries; they are 'little Iaques the Moore' (II.i.Entry; C2v), Christophero and Guid-antonio (II.ii. Ist Dumb Show; D4v), and Farnese (V.i.40; I1). These names might be accounted for in two ways: either the copy was derived from foul papers which retained undeveloped ideas or traces of an unknown source, or else it represented a theatrical abridgement of the original play. The former seems more likely as neither Iaques nor Farnese has any part in the action of the play and their presence among the entries would be an unnecessary complication which a prompter would hardly permit when a stroke of the pen could set the matter right.[16] These 'ghost' characters may, therefore, support the theory that the copy derived from a non-theatrical source, which was related to the author's foul papers.
Errors in the printed text can also indicate the type of copy used. As far as the spoken word is concerned, the copy for The White Devil must have been very good, for there are only two minor points where the sense is in doubt,[17] and there is no essential correction that cannot be explained as a graphic or compositor's error. It is only in the stage directions etc. that the errors must derive from the copy itself. In the speech directions, for instance, the confusion of the disguise names has already been noticed and there are also omissions and misplacings: 'GIO' (vanni) and 'MONT' (icelso) are once given a line late (III.ii.339; F3, and IV.iii.93; H3v), and 'LAW' (yer) and perhaps 'BRAC' (hiano) are omitted (III.ii.11; E2v, and
The omission of entries such as Isabella's at II.i.147 (C4v), Gasparo's at III.iii.79(F4), Francisco's at V.ii.44(I4), and the torch bearers' at the beginning of I.ii (B2), could be compositors' errors, but Addition 'D' of Sir Thomas More also shows this kind of fault (F. 8a,l.139). When an entry is marked for 'others' in a context which requires specific characters, the copy is more surely at fault. This occurs at the beginning of V.iii(I4v) where 'others' must include Francisco, Lodovico, Gasparo, Vittoria, and Giovanni, and at line 81 of the same scene (K1v) where Gasparo is specifically required. These omissions could scarcely be due to a theatrical manuscript, so once more there is evidence of foul papers behind the printed text.[20]
The restriction of these 'copy errors' to the stage directions etc. implies the use of a copy which was fair with regard to the spoken word, but foul with regard to its adaptation for use in a theatre. Such a copy might be in the possession of the author. Webster in 'To the Reader' confesses he 'was a long time in finishing this Tragedy', and he was obviously a careful and detailed worker; he might well have made a fair copy of the text of his play before the final copy was made for the players with stage movements
Among these further errors are five duplicate entries:
- 1. 'Enter . . . Camillo.' (II.i.227; D1v) which occurs later, and correctly, at line 280 (D2v).
- 2. 'Enter Francisco, . . . . At another dore the Duke of Florence.' (IV.iii.Entry; H2).
- 3. 'Enter Monticelso.' (IV.iii.86-7; H3v) which is made redundant by a proof correction of the text earlier (IV.iii.82; H3).
- 4. 'Enter Duke Brachiano.' (V.i.30; H4v) which occurs later, and probably correctly, at line 40 (I1).
- 5. 'Enter Lod. Gasp. Pedro, Carlo.' (V.vi.167; L4v); here the conspirators are given both their real and assumed names.
Isabella's entry at the beginning of III.ii (E2) is another error which implies a revision of the copy. More than fifty years ago, Sir Walter Greg considered this was due to a prompt-book copy; pointing out that Isabella is killed in the first dumb show of II.ii, he thought that "Zanche was intended, one actor playing the two parts, and the direction finding its way in from the stage copy."[21] But this explanation will not fit all the facts. In the first place, there is a similar confusion in the exit at the end of IV.i (G2v) where 'Mon.' is printed for 'Fran.'—two parts which could not possibly be doubled. Secondly, if Zanche and Isabella were doubled, it would require four changes of the black make-up. If a prompt-book is not able to explain Isabella's entry, neither can foul papers if they merely represented an original draft of the play. In the scene which follows the entry, Vittoria is tried for the murder of Isabella, and the whole trial is a direct
The revision of the copy receives additional support from the presence of stage directions in the outside margins of the printed text:
- 1. 'Enter Corombona.' (I.ii.112-3; B3v).[22]
- 2. 'Enter English Embassador.' (III.iii.26-8; F3v).
- 3. 'Reades the letter.' (IV.ii.26-7; G3).
- 4. 'The Conspirators here imbrace.' (V.i.61-3; I1).
- 5. 'These speches are seuerall kinds of distractions and in the action should appeare so.' (V.iii.84-90; K1v).
- 6. 'Brachiano seemes heare neare his end. Lodouico & Gasparo in the habit of Capuchins present him in his bed with a Crucifix and hallowed candle.' (V.iii. 121-32; K2).
- 7. (a.) 'By the Crucifix.' (b.) 'By the Hollowed taper.' (V.iii.136-9; K2v).
- 8. 'In his leather Cassocke & breeches, bootes, a coole, a pot of lilly-flowers with a scull int.' (V.iv.118-24; L2).
- 9. 'The Ghost throwes earth upon him and shewes him the scull.' (V.iv.128-32; L2).
- 10. 'Exit Ghost.' (V.iv.35; L2).
- 11. 'Enter Vittoria with a booke in her hand. Zanke, Flamineo, following them.' (V.vi.1-7; L2v).
- 12. 'Shee writes.' (V.vi.13; L2v).
- 13. 'He enters with two case of pistols.' (V.vi.24-6; L3).
- 14. 'Shewing the pistols.' (V.vi.106-7; L4).
- 15. 'They shoot and run to him & tread upon him.' (V.vi.119-22; L4).
The departure from normal practice in The White Devil would mean extra trouble for the printer; directions would have to be composed separately from the main text, and added while the type for one complete forme was being fitted into its skeleton. The frisket would need to be specially cut for each forme with marginal directions. Subsequent editions of the play show how printers usually avoided such extra trouble. In the quarto of 1631, which is reproduced, with corrections, page for page from the first, four of the marginal directions are omitted altogether (1, 2, 3, and 5) and six are fitted into the text space (4, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 13). In the quarto of 1665, which again corresponds page for page with its predecessors, four more are fitted into the text space (11, 12, 14, and 15). The position of the remaining one (7, a and b) is regularized in the larger quarto pages of the 1672 edition. There must have been some special reason for placing directions in the margin of the first quarto.
It was not simply a question of convenience, for six of the marginal directions could easily fit into the text space (3, 9, 10, 12, 14, and 15). Nor was the practice adopted completely for a few selected formes; with one exception (F, inner) all those which have marginal directions have normally placed ones as well. The directions themselves give no clue, for no distinction in kind seems to dictate where they are placed; for instance the marginal 'Brachiano seemes heare neare his end. . . .' (6) is paralleled in the equally descriptive and normally placed 'Francisco speakes this as in scorne.' (III.ii.49-50; E3). Again, the marginal 'These speches are seuerall kinds of distractions . . . . .' (5) is paralleled in 'Cornelia doth this in seuerall formes of distraction.' (V.iv.90-3; L1v). The marginal directions cannot be considered as merely descriptive, for one includes an entry which marks the beginning of a new scene (11).
All these factors mean that certain directions were placed in the outer margins of the printed page for reasons other than that of space or subject matter. Their position in the book can elucidate this. Both compositors
The explanation which most readily offers itself is the one already brought forward to account for other peculiarities of the text—that a copy of the play which had not been prepared for use in a theatre was hurriedly corrected for the press in this respect. Possibly the corrector marked some of the additions in a distinctive way, so that after one of them had been omitted by error of the compositor (i.e. on G1v), the others could be easily distinguished for addition to the type when each forme was ready for imposition. They may have been written in the left hand margin, or else marked off in rules by the corrector. The nature and extent of these directions suggest that the corrector was the author himself and that he aimed at preparing the text for a reader. Numbers 5 and 6 especially bear this out: 'Brachiano seemes heare neare his end.' is clearly not a prompter's direction and is unlike an author's direction to the actors; it sounds precisely like a description of action for the benefit of a reader and is perhaps the strongest argument for the revision of the copy before going to press.
It has already been implied that the marginal directions do not represent the full extent of the revision and this is borne out by the form of some normally placed directions. As well as those quoted above, one on K2v appears to have been written expressly for a reader: 'Heare the rest being departed Lodouico and Gasparo discouer themselues.' (V.iii.148-51). Some literary directions are found copied into manuscript prompt-books,[24] and normally their presence in a printed text is no positive evidence for the nature of the copy, but in this case, the large number of directions and the special form of some of them do suggest that an attempt was made to present the action clearly to a reader.
In conclusion there are two less positive indications of the type of copy used; first, the absence of act and scene divisions. In this The White Devil is different from most of the other plays performed and printed about
As a whole, the evidence leads to the conclusion that The White Devil was printed from a non-theatrical manuscript which was probably in the author's possession. This manuscript was fair with regard to the spoken word, but among the stage directions and speech directions there were marks of an author's foul papers. Before publication the copy had to be revised in these respects, and this was probably undertaken by the author in a hurried and incomplete manner. The copy for The White Devil was therefore authoritative and represented the play as the author wrote it rather than as it was performed on the stage. As a kind of foul paper, it may have been in the author's own handwriting.
Most of the direct evidence about the publication of The Duchess of Malfi is contained in the preliminary matter of the first quarto. The title-page reads:
Although similar notes are comparatively rare, the reference to the 'perfect and exact Coppy' cannot carry much weight by itself. For instance, on the title-pages of two quartos of The Maid's Tragedy there are notes on
Nor can any clear information come from the claim that the text includes 'diuerse things Printed, that the length of the Play would not beare in the Presentment'; passages omitted in performance could be found in the prompt-book as well as in the original papers of the author. Omissions were seldom marked so that the text was undecipherable; often a vertical line in the left margin appears to have been sufficient.[31]
On sig. A2v, following the title-page, there is an incomplete list of dramatis personœ and of the actors who took the parts mentioned. There are earlier lists of principal actors in plays by Beaumont and Fletcher and by Jonson, but The Duchess of Malfi was the first play from the repertory of the King's Men to be published with a list assigning parts to individual actors. Unfortunately there are no manuscript casts extant and "we are left to speculate as to the origin of the Casts printed in a few late quartos."[32] The Duchess of Malfi's cast can therefore give no clue to the copy beyond the general inference that the actors were interested in the publication or were perhaps consulted about it. A similar inference may be
The general authority of the text and the author's interest in publication are also attested by the commendatory poems (A4-4v) and the note 'The Author disclaimes this Ditty to be his' (III.iv.11-4; H2).[34] We may therefore sum up the evidence so far considered as implying that the author and players agreed to publish a worthy text of The Duchess of Malfi, a play which had been in their repertory since 1613-14.[35] Cuts had been made in the text, but they let it be known that the printed play would aim at a complete text rather than an acting version. Textual, bibliographical, and typographical evidence must further elucidate the nature of the copy which was sent to the printers.
Undoubtedly it was not a prompt-book or the author's foul papers, though it could have been based on either of these: the entries massed at the beginning of each scene make this much clear, and show that the copy was intended for readers and not for use in a theatre. It has been thought that texts with massed entries were assembled from players' parts by the help of the 'plot', but this theory has not been substantiated and massed entries are more probably due to the idiosyncrasy of a scribe.[36] It remains to investigate who made the transcript and from what sources.
Evidence on the latter point is likely to be obscured by the editing of the transcriber. For instance, irregularities in nomenclature in the speech directions and stage directions can give clues to the nature of the copy; in this text they are regular and unambiguous. The abbreviated forms of Cariola and the Cardinal might cause confusion but this is carefully avoided: when both characters are on the stage together, or soon after each other, Cariola is given in full (e.g., I.i.215; B4, and I.i.393 & 400; C2v). Such care is in contrast to the practice in The White Devil but no inference can be drawn, since the scribe who prepared the copy or the book-keeper in the theatre might equally be responsible. There is a similar doubt about
Several textual details have been adduced as signs of a prompt-book origin for the copy, but in each case the facts can bear another interpretation. For instance, Rupert Brooke drew attention to I.i.187(B3v); here
Two other possible clues may be as briefly dismissed. One is the account of a play by an Italian, Orazio Busino, written 7 Feb. 1618; this may refer to The Duchess of Malfi but if so, "there must have been a good deal in the performance he saw which is not in the play as we have it—even allowing for his misinterpretation."[38]
If the identification is allowed, there is nothing to show whether the play as this contemporary saw it, was the original or the revision; only if it were the original would the printed text be likely to derive from the prompt-book. The other clue was a supposed allusion (I.i.6-23; B1-1v) to the murder, on 24 April 1617, of Concino Concini, Maréchal d'Ancre; but now the allusion cannot be considered proved and it is no longer evidence for a revised text.[39]
Professor R. C. Bald saw further evidence of a prompt-book, pointing out that the
To say that there is 'no new scene' after 1.83 is to contradict the printed text which marks 'SCENA II' at this point. Certainly there is no Exeunt at the close of 'Scena Prima', but this proves nothing, for there is no Exit when Bosola leaves the stage at the end of II.iii; Antonio and Delio might well make their exits and re-enter in the Duke's train at the beginning of 'SCENA II'. Something of the same sort is found in The Winter's Tale, which also has massed entries. Again I.ii is a 'presence' scene and it is preceded by a dialogue between two lords, Camillo and Archidamus. 'Exeunt' is marked at the end of the preliminary scene, but Camillo is in attendance on the royal parties in Scene ii. He does not speak until l.210, but editors agree that he has been present from the beginning. There is no suggestion here that the first scene was cut in performance.
Professor Bald does, however, reject the evidence of the stage direction 'A Coffin, Cords, and a Bell.' (IV.ii.164-6; K1v) which looks at first like a prompter's direction. It has the brevity, but is probably
Textual errors cannot give any clear indication of the copy used; the
One further peculiarity should be mentioned though it too is ambiguous. In the list of actors, N. Towley is given as playing the part of Forobosco, but in the play this character occurs only when he is spoken of as keeping 'the key o'th'Parke-gate' (II.ii.31-3; D4-4v): he is not mentioned in the stage directions nor has he any lines to say; he need never appear on the stage. Possibly a passage which was in an acting version of c. 1620[45] is missing from the printed text; this passage might have been in Webster's text as he sent it to the players, or it might have been added afterwards. If it was original, the 'diuerse things Printed, that the length of the Play would not beare in the Presentment' cannot be inclusive of all such omissions. If it was a new addition, the reference to Forobosco which remains in the text must be so too. In either case, the ultimate source of the copy was probably the prompt-book, which would have recorded these changes.
There is, however, an alternative explanation. In contrast to the care taken with the nomenclature in speech directions and stage directions, there are several irregularities among the dramatis personœ (A2v); 'The Marquesse of Pescara' is found rather than 'Pescara' as elsewhere, and, more significant, 'The Cardinals Mis.' instead of 'Julia'. Rodorigo, Grisolan, Castruchio, and the Old Lady are omitted. These irregularities would not be remarkable were it not for the careful work of the scribe; in view of this, it is possible that the dramatis personœ and actor list were compiled from memory by someone other than the scribe, perhaps the author. Perhaps Webster originally intended Forobosco to play some part in the action of the play—the 'ghost' characters in The White Devil suggest similar changes of intention—and then, when compiling the dramatis personœ, he remembered the idea and the name. The compositor, through accident or misreading, could have placed 'N. Towley' opposite Forobosco instead of Malateste who is allotted to no actor. It is even possible that Webster thought Towley played the part and was therefore unable to remember who had played Malateste. In any case, the Forobosco irregularity cannot definitely indicate a prompt-book origin for the copy.
In summing up, it must be said that the copy had been so edited that there is no clear evidence of its origin, but whatever its ultimate source, the quality of the text reinforces the belief that the quarto was fully authoritative.
Several factors suggest that the scribe was Ralph Crane: he worked for the King's Men from before 1621,[46] he was certainly the scribe of A Game at Chess (Bodleian, Mal. MS.25), the only extant manuscript play which completely reproduces the massed entries of The Duchess of Malfi, and, as an example of more minute evidence, the peculiar direction 'A Letter' which has already been noticed above, is reproduced in Crane's transcript of Middleton's The Witch (M.S.R., 1.646). Crane's habits of spelling and punctuation have been fairly often studied,[47] and many of them are found in the printed text of Webster's play.
There are difficulties in assessing evidence for this. In the first place, compositors often changed the accidentals of their copy. However, this difficulty is not insurmountable; none of the four plays which were also printed for the first time by Nicholas Okes between 1617 and 1627 can provide detailed similarities to Crane's characteristics which are in any way comparable with those found in The Duchess of Malfi. For example, there are some 210 pairs of brackets in Webster's play, but in The Maid's Tragedy (1619) there are 14, in Philaster (1620) 1, in Thierry and Theodoret (1621) 31 and in Othello (1622) 7.[48] Secondly, Crane's manuscripts show that he was not constant in all his habits; for instance, he temporarily showed a greater pedantry when he was transcribing the two manuscripts of A Game at Chess.[49] Thirdly, there is no known example of Webster's handwriting; it is just conceivable that he had similar characteristics to Crane's. As the only available check on this, a comparison will be made with the printed text of The White Devil which, as we have suggested, was possibly based on an autograph copy.
All Crane's manuscripts show a fondness for parentheses and colons, and in his transcripts of A Game at Chess he used 'emphasis capitals more frequently and more consistently' than the autograph copy.[50] These characteristics
Crane's use of the apostrophe has many peculiarities, some of which are reproduced in The Duchess of Malfi. The abbreviation 'neu'r' is found eight times and 'you'll'd', for you would, is found once together with 'I'll'd' (five times), 'they'll'd' (once), and the variants, 'I'ld', 'I'l'd', and 'Youl'd' (once each). 'Neu'r' is not found in The White Devil and the closest to 'you'll'd' etc. is 'you'ld', 'Yee'ld', and 'You'd' (once each).[53] Occasionally Crane used the form '-'de' for the past tense ending, as in 'tyr'de' (Demetrius and Enanthe, l.183), or 'liu'de' (The Witch, l.262); this form occurs seven or eight times in The Duchess of Malfi, [54] but not once in The White Devil. The 'Jonsonian' elision, which is so marked in The Witch, is only found once in The Duchess of Malfi where the metre seems to require the elision of 'here'it' (II.v.20; E4). This provides no distinction between the two plays, for The White Devil also has 'You'are' (V.i.41;
Some of Crane's characteristic spellings are found in The Duchess: 'noyce' (seven times), 'Whether' for whither (three times), and 'sencible', 'sencibly, 'doong', 'beutifie', and 'hether' (once each). His use of 'o' for u as in 'droms', 'nomber', etc. may be seen in 'somme', and 'dombe'.[56] None of these spellings is found in The White Devil, but the following Crane spellings, though found in The Duchess, can be paralleled in the earlier play: 'falce', 'Cursses', and 'wincke', 'rancke', 'Incke', 'starcke', etc.[57]
This survey shows that many, but not all, of Crane's characteristics are found in The Duchess of Malfi. Normal spellings are found side by side with special ones, but, if the copy were in Crane's hand, this is what we would expect to find—especially as it is special forms of common words which are most notably lacking. Compositors might be expected to regularize 'theis', 'nobely', 'thinck', etc. The evidence for the copy being in Crane's hand is sufficient to amount to probability. To summarize, (1) he was working for the King's Men near the time of publication, (2) the only extant manuscript play with massed entries is in his hand, (3) a peculiar stage direction is paralleled in a Crane transcript, (4) the play has a large number of capitals, brackets, colons, and hyphens and this reflects Crane's usage, (5) characteristic uses of hyphens and apostrophes, and several characteristic spellings are found, (6) in these respects The Duchess differs from The White Devil, which was possibly in Webster's autograph, and none of the four plays printed for the first time by Okes between 1617 and 1627 can compare in all these details, and finally (7) the form 'Rall'y' may be a misreading due to Crane's manner of writing an 'l'.
We may conclude that the copy for The Duchess of Malfi was a transcript, probably in the hand of Ralph Crane, and that the text had been so prepared that no clear sign of foul papers or prompt-book has survived. It is also probable that the author was responsible for the publication, which was undertaken with the consent of the players.
The evidence for the copy of The Devil's Law Case, printed by A[ugustine] M[athewes] and dated 1623, is slight and inconclusive. The publication was undertaken with the author's help as is shown by his dedication (A2) and epistle (A2v) and the fact that the 'vnbeg'd Commendatory Verses' of his friends were offered for the edition ('To the Iuditious Reader'; A2v). According to the title-page, the text was 'The true and perfect Copie from the Originall. As it was approouedly well Acted by her Maiesties Seruants.' All this can only imply that the publication was authoritative, and the careful text bears this out; apart from some false Latin and French, there are no apparent errors in the text which need imply a fault in the copy itself.
Rupert Brooke thought there was one error that implied a promptbook origin:
One entry looks like the kind of anticipated direction that would derive from a prompt-book. Unlike the premature entries of The White Devil, the entry of 'Contarino in a bed' (III.ii.69; E4) seems to be marked earlier than dramatic propriety demands. If the direction were followed, Contarino would appear before the bargain was settled between Romelio and the surgeons. However there are other directions which are misplaced in the play:
- 1. 'Enter Contarino.' (I.ii.236;C1)—a line too late.
- 2. 'Enter Rom. Julio, Ariosto, Baptista' (II.i.95-6;C3v)—a line too late.
- 3. 'Enter Contarino, . . .' (IV.ii.4-5; H1)—2 lines too early.
- 4. 'Con. speaks aside.' (V.ii.15-6; K3)—a line too late.
- 5. 'to his mother' (V.iv.151-2; L2)—4 lines too early.
A direction in V.ii has some interest; it reads:
One more direction needs special attention;
Having discussed, and seen reason to dismiss, some evidence for a prompt-book copy,[61] we may examine a few details of contrary evidence. First is a variation in a character name; in the list of dramatis personae (A1v) and in her first entry and speech directions (I.ii.190; B4v et seq.), Winifred appears as 'A wayting Woman', and only in III.iii. does she become 'Winifrid' (l.378; G2v) whereafter the earlier forms do not occur. These are very slight variations compared with those in The White Devil, and there is no fluctuation as between 'Francisco' and 'Florence'; a theory of a foul-paper copy cannot be constructed on this evidence alone.
The next point concerns entries; an entry for the Capuchin and Ercole is omitted altogether (III.iii.309; G1v) and Sanitonella is omitted from the list of characters entering for the final scene. Either of these could be mere
The 'ghost' character, Baptista, is one more shred of evidence pointing in the same direction. Like Forobosco in The Duchess of Malfi, his name occurs in dialogue (I.i.19; A3), but, like the 'ghost' characters in The White Devil, it is also found in the stage directions (II.i.96; C3v, and II.ii.35; D3v). In The White Devil these character names were taken as evidence against the copy coming from the theatre where the prompter would probably eradicate such needless complications; on slighter grounds, the same may hold here.
This seems to be the limit of evidence bearing on the nature of the copy of The Devil's Law Case; in view of the literary directions, the one variation in nomenclature, the omitted entries and the 'ghost' character, we may say that if the copy had any distinctive merits, they were those of a literary rather than a theatrical manuscript. But this must be a hesitant answer.
| ||