University of Virginia Library

The Printing of John Webster's Plays (II)
by
John Russell Brown [*]

Alexander Dyce was the first to notice variant readings in copies of the first quartos of Webster's plays, but his list, which was accepted by F. L. Lucas for his edition of 1927, is by no means complete. I have now collated all the copies of The White Devil (1612), The Duchess of Malfi (1623), and The Devil's Law Case (1623) which are known to me, and this article lists all the press-variants I have found. The very minor variants due to deterioration of the type during printing are excluded from my lists. Normally, changes in the spacing of the type are also excluded.

My work has been greatly facilitated by the use of microfilm copies supplied through the kind permission and co-operation of libraries in the United States. To many of their librarians I am also indebted for answers to queries arising from the scrutiny of these films.

I Press-Variants in The White Devil (1623)

Copies: BM1 (British Museum 840.c.37, wants sig. A), BM2 (British Museum C.34.e.18), BM3 (British Museum Ashley 2205), D1 (Victoria and Albert Museum Dyce 10491), D2 (Victoria and Albert Museum Dyce 10491(2), wants A1), E (Eton College), F (Victoria and Albert Museum Forster 9334), O (Bodleian Library Mal.216(6)); Fl (Folger Shakespeare Library), H (Harvard University), Hn1 (Henry E. Huntington Library 79606), Hn2 (Henry E. Huntington Library 136106), I (University of Illinois, cropped), T (University of Texas), Y (Yale University).

Sheet A, inner forme.

   

A2.	line 11	Rhonoas	Rhoncos
	17	critticcall	critticall

Sheet B, inner forme.

         

B1v.	I.i.45	sweet	such
B2.	I.ii.14	Zawche	Zanche
	I.ii.22	sotiety	satiety
B3v.	I.ii.138	couer	couerd
	I.ii.139	your	yon

Sheet D, outer forme.

                       

D1.	II.i.164	come	am
	II.i.176-7	complaine vnto	complaine / Vnto
D2v.	II.i.279	speake,	speake.
	II.i.296	FLAM.	FLAM.
	II.i.305	and	&
	II.i.305-6	le- / than	loth- / some
D3.	II.i.308	the	thee
	II.i.310	[omit]	DOC. Sir I shall.
	II.i.311	Camillo,	Camillo?
D4v.	II.ii.SD.	spectacles, which couers / their eyes and noses, of glasse,	spectacles of glasse, / which couer their eyes and noses,
	II.ii.SD.	lighs	with lights
	II.ii.SD.	expresse	exprest

Sheet F, inner forme.

           

F1v.	III.ii.247	monthes,	monthes
	III.ii.256	repetion	repetition
F2.	III.ii.273	baud	baud.
	III.ii.276	couertites	conuertites
F4.	III.iii.86	grine rouge	gue
	III.iii.91	liues	liues.

Sheet G, inner forme.

                       

G1v.	IV.i.41	I'le	I will
	IV.i.46-7	[omit]	presents / Fran. with a booke
G2.	IV.i.82	and	one
	IV.i.93	life	list
	IV.i.96	so	so in
	IV.i.97	be	lye
	IV.i.104	Looke	Call
	IV.i.106	---d'foot	---ha'te
G3v.	IV.ii.46	What?	That?
	IV.ii.49	of	off
	IV.ii.51	No	In
	IV.ii.70	Sir	O Sir

       

G4.	IV.ii.86	thought on	louely
	IV.ii.94	Well	Wee'l
	IV.ii.97	ee'ld	Yee'ld
	IV.ii.108	ten	tow

Sheet H, outer forme.

               

H1.	IV.ii.158	could	would
H2v.	IV.iii.18-9	Lodowicke? / LOD.	Lodowicke? LOD.
	Catchword	OMNES.	SER.[1]
H3.	IV.iii.62-3	[omit]	MON. Concedimus vobis Apostolicam benedictionem & remissionem / (peccatorem
	IV.iii.64	MON. My	My
	IV.iii.67	state	seate
	IV.iii.81-2	[omit]	Exit Fran. Enter / Monticelso.
	IV.iii.83	Why	MON. Why

Sheet I, outer forme.

 

I3.

V.i.200

10

two

Sheet K, outer forme.

             

K2v.	V.iii.150	Brachiano. douico	Brachiano. | douico
	V.iii.150	Gasparao or	Gasparo
K3.	V.iii.170	cursed	cursed,[2]
	V.iii.190	as	has
K4v.	V.iv.5	dottrles	dottrels
	V.iv.24	chullice	cullice
	V.iv.31	thuy	they

Sheet K, inner forme.

         

K1v.	V.iii.80	preseuted	presented
	Margin	apeare.	ap- / peare so.
K2.	Margin[3]	Gasparoe	Gasparo
K3v.	V.iii.241	to it	to't
K4.	V.iii.274	Euter	Enter

Sheet L, outer forme.

 

L3.

V.vi.32

theee

thee

Sheet M, inner forme.

 

M1v.

V.vi.224

treue

treu

true

THE STATE OF THE COPIES[4]

                       

	BM1	BM2	BM3	D1	D2	E	F	O	Fl	H	Hn1	Hn2	I	T	Y
A inner.	-	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	1
B inner.	1	2	2	1	1	2	1	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	1
D outer.	2	2	1	2	1	1	1	2	1	2	1	1	2	2	1
F inner.	1	1	2	2	2	1	1	2	2	1	2	1	2	2	2
G inner.	2	1	1	2	2	2	2	2	1	1	2	1	2	2	2
H outer.	1	2	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	2	1	2	1	1	1
I outer.	2	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	2	1	1	2	2
K outer.	1	1	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	1	2	2	2	1	2
K inner.	2	1	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	2	1	2
L outer.	1	1	2	1	2	2	2	1	2	1	1	1	1	1	2
M inner.	1	3	3	2	1	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	1	1

The order in which I have placed some of these states may be questioned. For the outer forme of sheet H, it is conceivable that the Latin benediction was cut out by a printing-house 'editor', that 'state' was substituted for the technically correct, but little known, 'seate', and that the entry for Monticelso was omitted on the mistaken notion that this character remained on the stage after his speech ending line 73. The fact that only three out of fifteen copies are in the state which I believe to be the corrected one must also raise a doubt about the order I have given. But the arrangement of the type on H2v and 3 clarifies the issue. First, the speech prefix for the benediction is indented considerably less than the others on H3, which are all equidistant from the left of the body of the type even when there is a run-on for line 51. Secondly, if the benediction had been removed, the space on the page could easily have been filled up by re-arranging line 50 or line 51 as two lines, or, more simply still, by allowing a line space before the centralized direction 'Enter Monticelso in state'; there would have been no need to move line 48 to H2v and alter the catchword. On the other hand, if the benediction was added, as I believe, then line 48 would have to be moved to make room, for no two consecutive lines on H3 are short enough to be re-arranged as one. It therefore seems preferable to consider the states in the order I have given, and to presume that either the surviving copies of the quarto give a false impression of the proportion of corrected to uncorrected copies, or else that the changes were made very late in the printing of this forme.

The second state of the outer forme of sheet I survives in only four of the copies I have collated, but 'two' seems more suitable than '10' because Webster alludes in this passage to the story of Eteocles and Polynices whose

bodies when burnt gave a flame which parted in two directions.[5] Moreover my order is supported by a correction of 'ten' to 'tow' (for 'two') on G4, the order of the states of the inner forme of this sheet being indicated by the correction of 'life' to 'list', 'Well' to 'Wee'l', and, possibly, 'Sir' to 'O Sir'.

The order in which I have arranged the states of the inner forme of sheet M is dictated by the consideration that if 'true' had first been printed as 'treu', the corrector would not have taken another 'e' from the case to put matters right but would merely have transposed the 'e' and 'u'. It seems more probable that finding the erroneous 'treue' he at first removed the wrong 'e' and then, discovering his error, transposed.

Most of the press-variants in The White Devil can be readily explained as the simple correction of graphic or compositor's errors, but a considerable number of the errors could not have been detected by reading the proofsheets alone. For the correction of the outer forme of sheet D, the inner of G, the outer of H, and the inner of K either the copy or the author himself must have been consulted. The variants suggesting that Webster may have visited the press are confined to G inner and H outer: they are the change of 'Looke' to 'Call' (G2), of 'thought on' to 'louely' (G4), the addition of the Latin benediction (H3), and the addition of an entry for Monticelso with a consequent change of speech direction (H3). The large proportion of uncorrected copies for H outer and I outer suggests that normal proofing was interrupted at this point. The evidence is not, perhaps, considerable enough to make it certain that Webster visited the press, but it will be seen that such a visit would correspond to his probable practice for the other two plays.

The running-titles in this quarto are so similar to each other that it is very difficult to trace the press-work in detail. It is, however, reasonably certain that two skeleton-formes were used.

II Press-Variants in The Duchess of Malfi (1623)

Copies: BM1 (British Museum 644.f.72), BM2 (British Museum Ashley 2207), D (Victoria and Albert Museum Dyce 10494), E (Eton College), F (Victoria and Albert Museum Forster 9333), O (Bodleian Library Mal.220(1), wants N4); Cha (Chapin Collection of Williams College, a made-up copy), Cl (Clark Library, University of California), Co (Library of Congress), H1 (Harvard University A copy), H2 (Harvard University B copy), Hn1 (Henry E. Huntington Library 61885), Hn2 (Henry E. Huntington Library K-D 178), NY1 (New York Public Library, copy 1), NY2 (New York Public Library, copy 2), T1 (University of Texas I), T2 (University of Texas II), Y (Yale University).

Sheet A, outer forme.

 

A3.

line 4

Bathe:

Bathe

Sheet B, inner forme.

   

B2.	I.i.58	did	died
	I.i.59	pleadon	pardon

Sheet C, inner forme.

     

C1v.	I.i.312	Prouisosr-	Prouisors-
C2.	I.i.353	Eeues	Eues
	I.i.363	plealures[6]	pleasures

Sheet E. outer forme.

 

E1.

Signature

F

E

Sheet E, inner forme.

 

E4.

II.v.1

dig

dig'd

Sheet F, inner forme.

           

F3v.	III.ii.33	Sirina	Siriux
	III.ii.34	Anaxorate	Anaxarate
	III.ii.48	approbation	apprehention
F4.	III.ii.54	wai-ting	waieting
	III.ii.58	the dwelling	his dwelling
	III.ii.79-80	[omit]	Ferdinand giues / her a ponyard.

Sheet G, outer forme.

                         

G1.	III.ii.131	ta'ne	taine	taine
	III.ii.146	ltwas	it was	it was
	III.ii.157	shooked	shooked	shooke
G2v.	III.ii.239	A-loth	A-loth	As loth
	III.ii.241	confifcate	confiscate	confiscate
	III.ii.259	(those	(those	those
	III.ii.260	money)	money)	money
	III.ii.273	and Intelligencers	and Intelligencers	Intelligencers
	III.ii.275	Liuory	Liuory	Liuery
G3.	III.ii.278	doombe	doombe	doome
	III.ii.307	Bermoothes	Bermoothes	Bermootha's
	III.ii.308	Politisians	Politisians	Polititians
G4v.	III.iii.25	Pewterers	Pewterers	Painters

Sheet H, inner forme.

     

H1v.	III.iii.87	compters	coumpters
	III.iv.SD.	order	habit
	III.iv.SD.	Banishment	Banishment in dumbe-shew,

                         

	III.iv.SD.	Hymne	Ditty
H2.	Title, before III.iv.9	The Hymne.	[omit]
	III.iv.11-4	[omit]	The Au- / thor dis- / claimes / this Ditty / to be his.[7]
	III.iv.32	state	state sir
	III.iv.34	Had	Hath
H3v.	III.v.89	Man	"Man
	III.v.91	tyrannny	tyranny
H4.	III.v.109	what	what a
	III.v.110	[omit]	Enter Bosola with a Guard.
	III.v.113	more	moue
	III.v.117	Is	Bos. Is
	III.v.121	Ant.	Duch.
	III.v.130	such	such a

Sheet I, inner forme.

 

I2.

IV.i.87

remembre

remember

Sheet M, inner forme.

 

M4.

V.iii.35

too

go

THE STATE OF THE COPIES[8]

                     

	BM1	BM2	D	E	F	O	Cha	Cl	Co	H1	H2	Hn1	Hn2	NY1	NY2	T1	T2	Y
A inner.	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
B inner.	1	1	1	2	1	1	1	2	2	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
C inner.	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	1	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
E outer.	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	2	1	2	1	2	1	2	1	1	2	2
E inner.	2	1	1	1	2	1	1	2	2	2	1	2	2	2	1	1	1	2
F inner.	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	2	1	2
G outer.	1	3	3	2	1	3	3	3	3	3	3	2	3	3	3	3	3	3
H inner.	2	1	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	2	1	2	1	2	2	2
I inner.	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	2	2	1
M inner.	2	2	2	1	2	1	1	2	2	2	1	2	1	2	2	1	1	1

There is little to remark upon with the majority of sheets which show variant readings; the corrections are simple and the need for them self-evident. The variants are restricted to single formes and are so few in number that they probably represent a second stage of proof-correction.

The first irregularity is the correction of the signature on E1; the inner forme also shows a minor correction and the fact that only five out of seventeen copies are in state ii suggests that the erroneous signature was discovered by accident late in the printing of the outer forme. The correction of proper names on F3v and the addition of an explanatory stage direction

on F4 are the first suggestions that the corrector may have consulted his copy or some other authority. Such consultations are certainly implied by the variants in the outer forme of sheet G and, more particularly, in the inner forme of H.

The change of "Pewterers' to 'Painters' on G4v is not the correction of an obvious error in the proof-sheets, for both readings make good sense; nor is it likely to have been made through reference to the copy, for it is hard to see how, if 'Painters' was in the copy, 'Pewterers' was set in its place. The change was almost certainly due to the personal whim of a corrector or to the second thoughts of the author himself. The greater number of corrections in this forme and the fact that it is in three states also suggest that a new method of proof-correction was adopted at this point. For the first time, too, spelling changes are included among the variants.

Corrections in the inner forme of sheet H make it all but certain that it was the author who was helping with the proof-correcting at this stage: they are the change of 'order' to 'habit', and 'Hymne' to 'Ditty', and the addition of 'in dumbe-shew' on H1v, and the excision of the heading 'The Hymne' and the addition of the note 'The Author disclaimes this Ditty to be his' on H2. The addition of a stage direction on H4 and of 'sir' and 'a' (twice) on H2 and H4 may be accounted for in the same way.

That the normal course of work in the printing house was interrupted around sheets G and H is also implied by the arrangement of the running-titles. The evidence may be tabulated:

• I B2v-C1v-D1v-E1v-F1v-G1v-H2v-I2v-K 2v-L2 v-M1v-N2v
• II C2 -D2 -E2 -F2 -G2 -H1 -I1 -K1 -L1 -M2 -N1
• III B4v-C3v-D3v-E3v-F3v-G3v-H4v-I4v-K 4v-L4 v-M3v
• IV B3 -C4 -D4 -E4 -F4 -G4 -H3 -I3 -K3 -L3 -M4 -N3
• V B2 -C1 -D1 -E1 -F1 -G1 -H2 -I2 -K2 -L2 -M1 -N2
• VI B1v-C2v-D2v-E2v-F2v-G2v-H1v-I1v-K 1v-L1 v-M2v-N1v
• VII B4 -C3 -D3 -E3 -F3 -G3 -H4 -I4 -K4 -L4 -M3 -N4
• VIII B3v-C4v-D4v-E4v-F4v-G4v-H3v-I3v-K 3v-L3 v-M4v-N3v

From sheets C to G the two skeleton-formes alternate regularly with the inner and outer formes, but at sheet H the skeleton-forme hitherto used for the outer forme appears for the inner; the order of printing may have been disturbed in order to allow the author to introduce his own corrections. Similar change-overs occurred between sheets B and C, L and M, and M and N.

III Press-Variants in The Devil's Law Case (1623)

Copies: BM1 (British Museum 644.f.71), BM2 (British Museum 82.c.26(2), wants A2 and 3, D2 and 3, F1 and 4, K1, and L2 and 3), BM3 (British Museum Ashley 2206,

a made-up copy), C (Cambridge University Library Syn. 7.62.16), D (Victoria and Albert Museum Dyce 10493), E (Eton College), O (Bodleian Library Mal.199(7)); B (Boston Public Library), Cha (Chapin Collection of Williams College), Chi (University of Chicago), Co (Library of Congress), Fl (Folger Shakespeare Library), H (Harvard University), Hn (Henry E. Huntington Library), NY1 (New York Public Library, copy 1), NY2 (New York Public Library, copy 2), PM (Pierpont Morgan Library), T (University of Texas, a made-up copy), W (University of Wisconsin), Y (Yale University).

Sheet A, inner forme.

   

A1v.	line 15(Q)	A wayting Woman.	A wayting Woman.[9]
		[the first two words are to the left of the preceding column.]	[in line with the rest of the column.]

Sheet B, outer forme.

     

B1.	I.i.165	withall	withall
B4v.	I.ii.196	and Man-oons	& Man-toons
	I.ii.198	Cornecutting	Corne-cutting

Sheet C, outer forme.

   

C1.	I.ii.240	thee	three
C3.	II.i.57	Gleeke	Gleeke,

Sheet G, outer forme.

 

G4v.

IV.i.77

breds

bred

Sheet G, inner forme.

                               

G1v.	III.iii.290	his	this
	III.iii.307	countenance.	conuayance,
	III.iii.308	Let	Exprest him stubbornehearted./Let
	III.iii.319	not	was
	III.iii.320	Reserued	Restored
	Catchword	When	Your[10]
G2.	III.iii.327	ore / Leon.	ore. Leon.
G3v.	III.iii.444	Aduocates	Aduocats
	III.iii.444	a	one
	IV.i.17	ith Margent sheet	i'th Margent
G4.	IV.i.30	Diuerses	Diuorces
	IV.i.32	pursuits	pursnets
	IV.i.37	thee	them
	IV.i.38	Ignorance	Ignoramus
	IV.i.41	It is	But tis
	IV.i.44	with't	in't

Sheet K, outer forme.

       

K1.	IV.ii.595	sure	sure from
K2v.	V.i.46	salt	rough
	V.ii.2	resolned	resolued
K3.	V.ii.31	Letter>	Letter?

Sheet L, inner forme.

 

L4.

V.v.90

Romelto

Romelio

THE STATE OF THE COPIES[11]

               

	BM1	BM2	BM3	C	D	E	O	B	Cha	Chi	Co	Fl	H	Hn	NY1	NY2	PM	T	W	Y
A inner.	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	1	2	2	2	2	2	1	1	2	2
B outer.	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	2
C outer.	1	1	2	2	2	1	2	2	1	2	2	1	2	2	2	2	2	1	2	2
G outer.	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
G inner.	2	2	x	1	2	1	2	2	1	1	2	1	1	2	1	1	1	x	2	2
K outer.	2	2	x	2	2	1	1	2	1	1	2	1	2	2	2	2	2	x	2	2
L inner.	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	2	2	2	2	2

The profusion of corrections in the inner forme of sheet G and the fact that it alone shows variants in both formes suggest that here, as for sheets G and H of The Duchess of Malfi, the normal method of proof-correcting for this book was modified. For this forme the corrector must, at least, have consulted his copy, for several of the errors are not self-evident. The correction of IV.i.17 suggests that Webster himself might have been responsible: it is hard to see how 'sheet' could have been printed if it were not in the copy, and, if it were there, some other authority probably caused its excision. The change of 'salt' to 'rough' on K2v may also be authorial.

The identification of headlines is difficult in this quarto but other bibliographical details suggest that Webster visited the press after the first delivery of the manuscript and before printing was completed. On A1v the catchword 'The' is incorrect, being appropriate to A3 and not to the dedication on A2; A2 has no catchword, while A2v repeats 'The' appropriately for A3. It seems probable that sheet A was at first printed with title-page (A1), dramatis personae (A1v), and the beginning of the text (A3-4v), while A2-2v was left blank. If this were so, Webster probably brought (or sent) a dedication and preface to the printing-shop some time later; these would then have been set up separately and sheet A sent through the press two more times. This unusual procedure is further attested by the alignment

of the type. A2v and 3 are conjugate pages—none of the copies in England which I have examined leads me to think otherwise—and have similar type ornaments at their heads, but these ornaments vary between copies in their alignment with each other, that on A3 usually being a little higher than the one on A2v Similarly the alignment of the equal-sized type ornaments at the head of A1v and 2 varies between copies. Sometimes there is variation in the alignment of the running-heads and type on A3v and 4. The misalignment of the several pages in different copies does not suggest a perfectly constant spatial relationship between the type on A2 and 2v and that on the rest of sheet A, and, therefore, my hypothesis of a double printing for sheet A and of a late delivery of the prefatory matter seems the simplest explanation of the facts. Webster's allusion in his preface to unprinted 'Commendatory Verses' may, perhaps, be due to insufficient space on A2 and 2v, and not to his own modesty as he asserts.

IV The Compositors of The Duchess of Malfi (1623)

Special interest attaches to the printing of The Duchess of Malfi; not only did the 'Pied Bull' quarto of King Lear and the 1622 quarto of Othello come from the same printing-house, but it is very probable that its compositors were working from a copy in the hand of Ralph Crane.[11a] The remarkable similarity in handwriting, spelling, and punctuation in the extant dramatic manuscripts in Crane's hand means that we can watch Okes' compositors at work on a manuscript whose peculiarities can be guessed at with a more than usual confidence. Not only will this add to our knowledge of these workmen, but it may also help to evaluate the evidence for believing that certain plays in the 1623 Shakespeare Folio were set from transcripts by Ralph Crane. Certainly the identification of the work of the two compositors for The Duchess of Malfi strengthens the argument that its copy was such a transcript.

A spelling test alone might not enable this identification to be made. The clearest differences between the work of the two men are the spellings

     

Dutchesse	Duchesse
doe	do
goe	go

But these distinctions are only valid from E1 onwards and on these grounds alone one might look for a third compositor setting sheets B, C, and D. Other significantly varied spellings are infrequent and sometimes equivocal

when taken by themselves. For instance, i'th/i'th', and I'll/I'le, ile, i'll, or i'le support the more important spellings in 17 out of 18 occurrences from E1 to F4v, but thereafter i'th' and I'll are almost invariable. Three more words, litle/little, sudden/sudaine, and young/yong are only helpful occasionally. There is perhaps, a slightly greater tendency to end words in -consonant+ie rather than in -consonant+y where the Dutchesse, doe, goe spellings predominate,[12] but such 'block' spellings are not fully reliable.[13]

This evidence becomes much clearer when the spelling of Crane's dramatic manuscripts is taken into account. Barnavelt (BM. Add. MS. 18653), Demetrius and Enanthe (Brogyntyn MS.42), The Witch (Bodleian Mal.12), and two transcripts of A Game at Chess (BM.Lansdowne MS.690 and Bodleian Mal.25) all spell litle, sodaine,[14] and yong invariably, and only very occasionally depart from doe and goe. The Witch spells Duchesse invariably. Now if these forms which appear usual to Crane are discounted in the appraisal of the spellings from The Duchess of Malfi, their counterparts, implying a change from the spelling of the copy, more clearly differentiate the work of the two compositors throughout the book. The preponderance of Duchesse, doe and goe at the beginning appears to be due to both compositors getting used to Crane's hand—it is a very clear hand and their work soon became straightforward, and then, with gathering speed of reading, they each introduced some of their own spellings.

The spellings tabulated above now suggest that the work of the two compositors for The Duchess of Malfi may be divided as follows:

• Compositor A A1-4v, B3-C2v, D3-E2v, F3-G2v, H3-I2v, K3-L2v, M3-N2v
• Compositor B B1-2v, C3-D2v, E3-F2v, G3-H2v, I3-K2v, L3-M2v, N3-4

The evidence for sheet A is very slight, but, of the rest of the book, only a few pages (mostly in sheets B, C, and D) remain doubtful.

This division of the book is supported by two other kinds of evidence. The markings of scene divisions may be considered first. Two forms are used, 'SCENA.I.' and 'SCENA I.' etc. They occur on the following pages:

• SCENA. D4, E1, 2v, F3, I1, L1, 2, M3v, 4v, N2
• SCENA B2, D1, E4, F1v, G4, H1v, 2v, I3

This corresponds exactly with the suggested division of pages between the two compositors.

The other collaborative evidence is the varying frequency of colons and

semi-colons throughout the text of The Duchess of Malfi. The numbers may be given for each stint.

                     

	B	B/C	C/D	D/E	E/F	F/G	G/H	H/I	I/K	K/L	L/M	M/N	N
3		8	4	12	4	10	8	15	4	18	10	14	10
3v		14	4	13	1	13	5	18	9	15	10	9	11
4		13	9	14	5	14	3	12	9	21	10	19	2
4v		15	4	8	4	19	1	8	3	18	6	4
1	2	15	5	15	5	14	3	18	11	5	7	13
1v	11	17	9	14	5	12	2	25	6	16	7	16
2	6	16	9	23	5	21	5	12	4	9	9	12
2v	6	17	8	8	7	17	2	21	11	21	-	22
	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Total	25	115	52	107	36	120	29	129	57	123	59	109	23

The pages probably could not be divided between the compositors on these figures alone, but they are of value as supporting evidence. They may also support the assumption that the copy was a Crane transcript, for it was this assumption which clarified the evidence of the spellings; the two theories hang together.

The knowledge of the stints of the two compositors throws interesting light on the evidence for the copy being in Crane's hand which was detailed in Volume VI of Studies in Bibliography. In general the Crane characteristics are found in the work of both compositors; they used brackets and capitals with more or less equal frequency, both used the hyphen in unusual ways, and both set 'neu'r', 'you'll'd' etc., and special spellings like 'noyce', 'whether', 'wincke', etc. Only the past tense ending in '-'de' is restricted to one compositor; the final word cannot be said until more is known about these workmen in other books, but in view of the other evenly distributed forms, it seems probable that for '-'de' endings, as for colons and semi-colons, A reproduced his copy more closely than B. The question of how Crane's professional, clearly written manuscript copy would influence a compositor is of general interest; so far, it can be said that a few of the rarer pecularities which make identification of the copy possible are likely to be found throughout the book, but, with some compositors Crane's forms of some simple, commonly recurring words may disappear altogether after the first few pages.

The new knowledge about the compositors will help future editors of The Duchess of Malfi and of other texts from Okes' printing-house. For instance, in view of the paucity of stage directions in this play, it is important to notice that they are found in the work of both compositors; the copy, not the negligence of a compositor, must be blamed for the shortage. Something may also be learnt from the kind of errors to which each compositor was prone: it seems that A was more likely than B to transpose letters within a word, and to omit or confuse speech prefixes; B was apparently more likely to omit a letter from the end of a word. These tendencies need to be checked in other books set by these two compositors.

Notes