University of Virginia Library

For Parts I and II of this series, see Studies in Bibliography, vols. VIII and IX.

Bibliographical Studies in the Beaumont and Fletcher Folio of 1647, pp. 61 ff.

The 4 occurrences of ye in the first act of the manuscript text are troublesome. The scene is unmistakably Massinger's, and there is no reason to suppose the ye's to have entered it through revision by either Beaumont or Fletcher. Since the ye's do not occur in the corresponding passages of the folio, and in view of Massinger's known tendency to avoid the form, it is tempting to consider the scribe responsible for their introduction into the manuscript. But if this is so, one is faced with the possibility that the scribe is responsible as well for the 11 ye's (beyond the folio's one) that the manuscript exhibits in the Beaumont scenes of Act V, or the 13 ye's that Act IV of the manuscript demonstrates beyond the folio's 60. The obvious fact that emerges is simply that, on the evidence available, it is not possible to state whether the scribe has introduced into his manuscript ye's that were not in his copy, or whether the folio compositor has ignored ye's that did stand in his.

Cf., for instance, the entry for 16 August 1634: "An ould play, with some new scenes, Doctor Lambe and the Witches, to Salisbury Court, . . .,—one pound" (Herbert, p. 36); or that for 12 May 1636: "Received of ould Cartwright for allowing the [Fortune] company to add scenes to an ould play, and to give it out for a new one, . . .,—one pound" (Herbert, p. 37).

Cf. SB, IX (1957), 154.

Cf. SB, VIII (1956), 143.

Cf. SB, VIII (1956), 144-45.

SB, VIII (1956), 142.

Spelled o'the.

The form appears once as 'am.

The form appears as 'am.

The form appears twice as 'm.

The form appears as 'am.

The form appears as a'the.

The form appears as 'am.