 | |  |
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 |
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
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
The other collaborative evidence is the varying frequency of colons and
| 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.
| | |