University of Virginia Library

The Printing of John Webster's Plays (I)
by
John Russell Brown

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

Othello, and therefore knowledge about his compositors will possibly add to our knowledge of these Shakespeare texts. I hope to show that The Duchess of Malfi was printed from a transcript by Ralph Crane: the evidence for this may influence similar hypotheses about plays in the 1623 Shakespeare folio. Certain press corrections in The Duchess also relate to this problem.[2]

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

Heywood's The Golden Age, published in 1611 after entry in the Stationers' Register on 14 October, is excused as "comming accidentally to the Presse', the author only afterwards 'hauing notice thereof'. Dekker's If it be not Good, the Devil is in It was published in 1612 and dedicated to 'my louing, and loued friends and fellowes, the Queenes Maiesties seruants.' Greene's Tu Quoque, which was probably written in 1611,[6] was published in 1614 following the death of the actor Thomas Greene; this is marked by the inclusion of an elegy by 'W.R.' and a brief character by Thomas Heywood.

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:

This independent attitude and Webster's desire to justify his play, do not suggest publication by common consent like the other Queen's Servants' plays; it is more like the independence of Jonson's epistles and dedications,[7] or Fletcher's justification of The Faithfull Shepherdess. This gives the first clue to the nature of the copy used by the printer; it was more likely to come from the author than from the players' company.

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

Whatever the verdict about this particular entry, the 'several other' entries which may be premature must be considered. Not counting grouped entries like those at the beginning of new scenes, there are some 50 entries in the play; and in 19 of these, characters are directed to enter before they are due to speak or be spoken to.

The examination of manuscript prompt-books has given surer grounds for the analysis of this kind of evidence. It seems that the

In this way, a prompt-book copy could bring about occasional premature entries in a printed text; but so could several other kinds of copy. First, as Lucas suggested, the dramatist might have a reason for marking the entries early; plausible reasons could be suggested for all such entries in The White Devil. Secondly, a scribe could be responsible although he was not preparing a prompt-book; the Lansdowne manuscript of Middleton's A Game at Chess which is in the hand of Ralph Crane and based ultimately on Middleton's own papers, has an entry two lines before the Trinity manuscript which is in the author's autograph (I.i.212).[10] Again Crane's transcript of Demetrius and Enanthe gives directions a line or two earlier than the Folio version of 1647,[11] and yet the "evidence seems to suggest that the folio text represents the theatrical version of the play, and that Crane's transcript was made from the author's draft—probably the foul papers."[12] Thirdly, premature entries can be due to the carelessness of a compositor or writer of the copy, even when the latter is the author. The misplacing of the directions 'he writes' (IV.i.128; G2v) and 'Exit Flamineo' (V.iii.216; K3v) in the present play, where both seem to be a line or two late, could hardly derive from prompt-book copy. In the first example, there is plenty of room to the right of the text at the correct point, so the error was not dictated by the compositor's convenience. Because of the variety of ways in which they could arise, premature entries cannot indicate the type of copy used by the printers.

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

The White Devil has the following variations in speech directions:

• 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.

These variations are repeated in the character names found in stage directions, entries, and exits. Lodovico is sometimes referred to as Carlo, Gasparo as Pedro, Vittoria as Corombona, Zanche as the Moor, Francisco as Florence, and the Doctor as Julio:

• 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).

---

122




• 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.

Dr. P. Williams has shown that two compositors set the text of The White Devil, [15] but the character names vary inside the work of a single compositor; for instance 'A' was responsible for a change from Vittoria to Corombona (E1 and H4), and for that from Doctor to Julio (D2v and 4v). In neither case could the change have been suggested by the occurrence of the new form in the dialogue. It is probable that the copy was responsible for these variations and, if so, it is unlikely to have been a manuscript used as a prompt-book.

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

V.i.60; I1). The compositor might be responsible for the omissions, but the misplacings are probably due to the copy and suggest that it was not a theatrical one: With such markings, a theatrical manuscript should be clear about the beginning of each speech. On the other hand, Addition 'D' of Sir Thomas More, the only considerable foul paper extant, shows the omission both of a speech rule and of a speech direction.[19] It would seem, therefore, that the copy for The White Devil was nearer in these respects to the foul paper addition of Sir Thomas More than to any surviving prompt-book. The inclusion of a redundant speech direction for 'VIT' (toria) (III.ii.273; F2) is most credibly accounted for in the same way.

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

clearly indicated. If so, he had only to prepare this personal copy when he wished to justify his play by publication. Alternatively, the play might have been given to the players in this unprepared form and the bookkeeper then made another copy for use as a prompt-book. There are two arguments against this second theory; first, the circumstances of printing make it unlikely that the copy was the property of the players, and secondly, there are further errors in the stage directions which imply that the copy was originally less adapted to the stage than the printed text suggests.

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.

These can hardly be considered as duplications made by a prompter because the redundant entry in 1. is part of a correctly timed group entry and in 3. it is later than the correct one. They are more likely to be due to foul papers or else they are signs of a hurried correction of the copy for the press. Such corrections might be necessary in a copy which had not been prepared for use in the theatre; the interest of the author in publication suggests that, in this case, he would be his own corrector.

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

consequence of that murder; it is therefore hard to imagine how Webster could include Isabella among the entrants in his original draft. The entry might have been added, however, during a hurried revision without reference to the prompt-book; if the author undertook this, one must suppose that it was some time after the initial composition. Only the errors of such a revision will be evident in the printed text and all the true corrections will pass unnoticed; this means that the copy must have been less fair than the quarto suggests. It is less likely to have been the copy given by the author to the players, and some kind of foul papers in the author's possession is a more probable source.

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).

Among the plays known to be printed by Nicholas Okes before 1616, there are four with similar marginal directions, and in each case they are much fewer in number. In Jonson's The Case is Altered (1609) there are two: 'Exit Oni' (sig. A4) during prose speeches where there is no room in the text space, and Exunt' (D2) more inexplicably, at the end of a scene. In the 'Pied Bull' quarto of Lear (1608), there are three marginal entries, two during prose speeches and one where the verse runs to the full extent of the text space (C2v, D3v, and F3). Daborne's A Christian Turned Turk (1612) has only one descriptive direction in the margin (H3) where there is no room in the text space. In Marston's The Insatiate Countess, of which Okes printed only the second edition in 1616, three descriptive directions are repeated in the margin, as in the first edition of 1613 (B1, D3, and E2). These last two plays have other long descriptive directions in the text space, so that Okes's printing house seems to have relegated directions to the margin only when there was no room to the right of the text. None of these four plays can parallel the marginal directions in The White Devil, and in The Duchess of Malfi and The Devil's Law Case the margins are not used at all.

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

placed some directions in the text space; at first only compositor 'B' used the margins, but in the last sheet but one, 'A' also adopted this arrangement. Except for two entries during prose speeches and the short direction 'Reades the letter.' (3), all the marginal directions occur after sig. G. This means that they were used more frequently towards the end of the play, and after a stage direction had been added during proof-correction (viz. 'presents Fran. with a booke' IV.i.46-7; G1v).[23] They were not a product of this proof-correction, for both formes of sig. K have variant readings and yet the marginal directions are present in all states; two of them show minor corrections.

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

the year 1612. Out of 33 non-academic plays first published between the end of 1609 and 1616, only five recently performed plays have no trace of either act or scene division.[25] An interpretation of this peculiarity comes from Sir Walter Greg's analysis of eighteen manuscript prompt-books: Because The White Devil is without any division it is probable, though on negative evidence, that its copy did not originate from a prompt-book. The second point is that no stage direction relates solely to the preparation of stage properties: such a direction would imply a theatrical origin for the copy.

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

the textual authority which have no justification at all. Although quartos 6 and 7 boast that they are 'Revised and Corrected exactly by the Original', they are really reproduced from quarto 3, as quartos 4 and 5 had been before.[27] If the claim for an 'original' or 'true' copy seems justified on any one occasion, the exact interpretation of the words often remains difficult. For example, the 1604/5 quarto of Hamlet claims to be 'according to the true and perfect Coppie', and in this case there is a 'high probability that the copy . . . . was Shakespeare's own manuscript.'[28] Another interpretation is required for The Elder Brother (1637) which claimed to be 'Printed according to the true Copie'; this text derives from 'a transcript of the original MS. corrected for the press by Massinger'.[29] Another variety of meaning is shown in the title-page of the Beaumont and Fletcher folio of 1647, which stated that the plays were 'now published by the Authours Originall Copies'. Here other evidence shows that in the majority of cases it was 'the licensed prompt-books from which performances had been given' that were sent to the printers.[30] It is clear that even if The Duchess of Malfi's 'perfect and exact Coppy' seems justified in a general sense, no precise meaning can be given to the words.

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

drawn from the dedication (A3-3v) to George Harding, Baron Berkeley of Berkeley Castle. Webster here presents his excuse why, '(being a stranger to your Lordshippe) I offer this Poem to your Patronage'. Presumably he selected this unknown patron because of his family connection with the Lords Hunsdon, previous patrons of the King's Men.[33] The players might well have been those persons 'of worth, who both in contemplation, and practice' owed George Harding service, and who directed Webster to this likely patron.

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

a stage direction at the head of V.iii (M3v): 'Antonio, Delio, Eccho, (from the Dutchesse Graue.)' This is most readily explained as an author's direction, for a prompter would hardly use these words to remind himself that the actor who played the Duchess would also speak the Echo; yet, if it could not derive directly from the prompter, it might be the transcriber's interpretation of his direction.

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

Brooke suggested that this might 'point to a combination of two versions', and from the context he implied that these versions were due to a revision of the original play.[37] But such irregularities could be due to unpolished writing and derive from the author's fould papers rather than a prompt-book.

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

This is supported by another brief note at III.v.37(H3); Bosola has entered (l.28) with a letter which he hands to the Duchess, and, before she reads it, the text has the words 'A Letter.'. These are printed in ordinary type as if beginning a new line of verse, except that they are inset a little from the margin; the inset supports Lucas' contention that the words are a stage direction rather than part of the Duchess' speech.[44] As before, a prompter's note would have been placed before Bosola's entry; he would want to be sure that the actor entered with the letter.

Textual errors cannot give any clear indication of the copy used; the

only possibility is the omission of a speech by Bosola (II.iii.54; E2) which might be due to a cut being marked in the acting version in a way that rendered the passage undecipherable. But the error could also derive from foul papers or the accidental omission of the passage by a scribe or compositor.

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.

In trying to discover who made the transcript which served as copy, the evidence is more informative.

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

are represented in The Duchess of Malfi; compared with The White Devil, which has approximately the same number of lines,[51] capitals, brackets, and colons are all more frequent. Not counting those used at the beginning of lines and sentences, and for proper names, titles, and words of address, there are about 900 capitals in The Duchess and about 550 in The White Devil. [52] For colons and semi-colons the proportion is 984 to 476, and for brackets, 210 to 5. Hyphens are used excessively in Crane's manuscript of The Witch and although this was not a constant habit in Crane, nor one peculiar to him, it may be significant that there are 258 hyphens in The Duchess and only 172 in the earlier play. Some usages are restricted to The Duchess: for instance, 'pray-thee' (four times; III.ii.62; F4, IV.i.23; I1, IV.ii.207; K2, and V.ii.5; L2), 'cas'de-vp' (twice; II. iii.84; E2, misprinted 'caside-vp', and III.ii.162; G1), and 'to-much' (I.i.35; B1v), 'Tilt-often' (I.i.122; B3), and 'throttle-her' (IV.ii.262; K3).

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;

I1). One significant clue is in Crane's habit of adding the loop to an 'l' after the word in which it occurs has been completed.[55] When carelessly made it may easily be mistaken for an apostrophe, and this could well be responsible for the curious form 'Rall'y' in The Duchess (V.v.65; N2v).

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:

But one textual correction must be considered in conjunction with the whole play. If two surgeons were reduced to one in performance, the dialogue in III.ii would have to be entirely recast, much of it as soliloquy, and stage directions throughout the play would have to be changed. Before one deduced that the copy was a prompt-book, it would have to be shown how such a far reaching change left so few marks in the text, and none in the stage directions. A more satisfactory explanation would be that the singulars are survivals from foul papers; the need for two surgeons may not have been apparent until the play was partly written, and a few casual allusions might escape Webster's attention in the subsequent rewriting. However the singulars may not be copy errors; the third occurrence is possibly a misprint for Surgeon (cf. 'they', l.241), and, for the others, the element of gullery allows some latitude in the false description of Contarino's supposed death. In soliloquy between these passages, Romelio refers precisely to 'my two Surgeons' (l.225; F4v). There is clearly no firm evidence for the copy, either way.

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.

Four of these misplacements could hardly derive from a prompt-book (1, 2, 4, and 5) and the simplest explanation which covers all these and Contarino's entry in III.ii, is that either the copy did not indicate the correct positions carefully or else the compositor was not accurate in reproducing them. In no. 5 there is plenty of room to the right of the text at the appropriate place, so the direction was not displaced to make the type setting easier.

A direction in V.ii has some interest; it reads:

R. B. McKerrow noted that a At first sight, 'Enter Ercole with a letter, . . .' seems to conform to this type, for the letter is not mentioned in dialogue until 17 lines later. But this is not certain evidence. Ercole has to be on the stage while Contarino is speaking an aside of 4½ lines, and, although at line 30 Ercole speaks of having just received the letter, he already knows its contents. It may be that Ercole opens and reads the letter as soon as he appears on the stage. There is a parallel to this in The Duchess of Malfi, where the Cardinal enters 'with a Booke' (V.v. Entry; N2) and it is clear from the text that he is reading it. If this business is correct for The Devil's Law Case, the direction no longer conforms to McKerrow's description. Two other factors support this. First, the letter needed earlier in the play (I.i.223; B2) is not mentioned in any direction. Secondly, the reference to the Bathanites suggests that the rest of the direction is purely literary in origin; if so the first part is likely to be as well, for it all reads as one. In passing, it may be noticed that other directions are literary in tone: the reference to Romelio as Leonora's son (V.iv. 128; L1v), 'Enter Romelio very melancholly, . . .' (V.iv.43; K4v), and 'Enter Contilupo a spruce Lawyer.' (IV. i.83; G4v).

One more direction needs special attention;

This corresponds to a general feature of prompt-books: "If an author mentions properties it is as a rule only incidentally; the prompter is precise and peremptory."[60] However, further factors must be taken into account before the identification is made: (1) the precise injunction is only part of a descriptive direction in a form not specifically characteristic of prompt-books, (2) in The White Devil Webster has given specific instructions regarding properties in a form unlike that of a prompter (I.ii.193-5; B4v), so that he was obviously thoughtful about such matters, and, (3) the properties are not essential to the action. The occasion for the tapers, death's head, and book is clear from Romelio's first words, 'Why do you grieue thus?'; they are all tokens of Jolenta's grief which is not fully explicit in dialogue, and they have only this representational purpose. Concern for such a matter seems more characteristic of an author than a prompter, and so is the carelessness which did not mention the stools on which Jolenta and Romelio were to sit. If the direction were a prompter's, one would expect the list of properties to be complete.

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

carelessness in the compositor, but also they may be due to the copy; if the latter, the copy could hardly be the prompt-book which should be complete in such matters.

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.

Notes