Notes on the Text of Thierry and
Theodoret Q1
by
Robert K. Turner, Jr
[*]
In 1621 The Tragedy of Thierry King of France, and his
Brother Theodoret was first printed by Nicholas Okes in an
anonymous quarto edition for Thomas Walkley.[1] The authors' names, omitted from
the Q1
title-page, were partially supplied by Q2 (1648), the first issue of which
attributed the play to Fletcher and the second to Beaumont and Fletcher.
Massinger's hand has also been detected in the work, and Cyrus
Hoy,[2] the most recent investigator
of the authorship of the Beaumont and Fletcher plays, divides
Thierry
and Theodoret between the three dramatists in the following way:
- Beaumont: III; V,i
- Fletcher: I,i; II,ii-iii; IV,i; V,ii
- Massinger: I,ii; II,i,iv; IV,ii.
From a purely literary point of view, the play is distinctly inferior to
the great Beaumont and Fletcher collaborations, but Q1 is interesting to the
textual critic because it apparently is a member of the rather mysterious
cluster of King's Men properties, including Philaster, The Maid's
Tragedy, A King and No King, and Othello, which
appeared in the four-year period from 1619 through 1622. Thierry
and
Theodoret is the only one of these plays whose first edition was not
succeeded within a few years by a second
edition containing a corrected or even a materially different text. Hence Q1
is of particular importance and is worthy of close scrutiny. In what follows
I shall discuss some bibliographical features of the book which permit an
insight into its printing and then attempt to make some inferences about the
kind of copy from which it was set up. Let us first consider the following
categories of bibliographical evidence:
Running-titles
Q1 collates A2 B-K4. The
running-titles are The
Tragedy of / Thierry and Theodoret. (Theodoret and
Thierry. on D3 and D4). Two skeleton formes, I and II, were used
to machine the early sheets: I imposed B(i), C(o), and both formes of D
and was thereupon abandoned; II imposed B(o), C(i), both formes of E, and
all of the remaining formes. The running-title The Tragedy of
appears undamaged on B1v, C4v, and
D4v, but on D3v
and in subsequent printings the "f" is broken off at the
top.[3] Thus, D(o) is established as
the first forme of that sheet to go through the press.
Spelling
A spelling test indicates that the book was set up by two compositors,
A and B; the former preferred the spellings honour, doe, lye, onely,
Bawd. or Baw. (in speech prefixes of the character
Bawdber), and either terminal -ie or
-y.
The latter preferred honor, do, lie, only, Bawdb., and
terminal
-y. A composed sigs. B1-B4 and B sigs.
C1-K4v. B4v
contains few significant spellings but probably it was also part of A's stint.
In the differentiation of the work of the two compositors, it may be
significant that A fairly consistently indented speech prefixes with quads of
uniform size, whereas B used quads of varying sizes.
Type shortages
Both Compositors A and B seem to have preferred roman capital "W"
to "VV", but in sheets B, C, and D an apparent shortage of W's forced the
workmen to substitute VV when W was needed. The occurrence of W and
VV in these three sheets is as follows:
|
B |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D |
|
1 |
1v
|
2 |
2v
|
3 |
3v
|
4 |
4v
|
1 |
1v
|
2 |
2v
|
3 |
3v
|
4 |
4v
|
1 |
1v
|
2 |
2v
|
3 |
3v
|
4 |
4v
|
W |
1 |
5 |
- |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
5 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
- |
3 |
- |
6 |
3 |
- |
- |
3 |
3 |
3 |
VV |
- |
1 |
5 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
3 |
2 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
5 |
3 |
- |
- |
1 |
On B1
v the VV is found in the catchword; on
C3
v the W's occur
in lines 3, 8, and 22 and the VV's in lines 23, 34, and 37; and on
D4
v
the VV appears in line 2 and is followed by the three W's. From this
pattern we can infer that sheet D at least was composed by formes rather
than seriatim, and since D(o) is known by the broken type in the
D3
v
running-title to have preceded D(i) through the press, the order of
composition was probably as follows:
|
D(o) |
|
|
|
D(i) |
|
1 |
2v
|
3 |
4v
|
1v
|
2 |
3v
|
4 |
W |
- |
- |
- |
3 |
6 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
VV |
- |
5 |
3 |
1 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
It appears, therefore, that Compositor B began setting sheet D with no W's
in his case. After the composition of line 2 of D4
v and
before the
composition of line 10 (where the first W is found) a supply of W's was
secured, doubtless from the distribution of wrought-off type.
Broken and deformed types
Certain of the types used in the composition of Thierry and
Theodoret Q1 are so broken or deformed that they are individually
recognizable, and their reappearances in various parts of the book give
valuable clues to the order and speed of composition. As we should expect,
the first types to reappear are those which had been used in the composition
of sheet B. On C1v we find in "by" (l. 13) the "b" of "be"
from B3 (l.
18), in "the" (l. 3) the "h" of "thy" from B3 (l. 20), in "last" (l. 12) the "l"
of "least" from B4v (l. 3); on C2 we find the act head
which had
previously been used on B1 (with the numeral of "Act 1" appropriately
changed to "2") as well as in "Which" (l. 23) the "h" of "this" from B4 (l.
32). I can locate no sheet B types on C2v. On C3 the "b"
of "booke"
(l. 25) appears to be printed from the same type as that used in "but" (B2,
l. 13) and the "d" of "and" (l. 22) that used in "debt" (B4, l. 22). On
C3v the "n" of "and" (l. 1) appears identical
with the "n" of "not" (B2, l. 23). Types from both formes of B appear on
C4, but C4v seems to contain types from B(o) only
—
e.g., the "o" of "owne" (l. 8) from "To"
(B4v l. 25), the
"W" of "With" (l. 17) from "With" (B3, l. 4), and the "y" of "yet" (l. 29)
from "my" (B2v, l. 25). From this evidence we can draw
at least one
conclusion immediately: there must have been a delay between the printing
of sheets B and C since both formes of B were distributed before the setting
of either forme of C could have been completed. Since, as we shall see,
some type from a source other than the early formes of
Thierry
probably was introduced into the cases during the composition of sheet D,
we may surmise that some other work was done between the machining of
sheets B and C. Moreover, it seems quite likely that the delay in the
presswork on Thierry was somehow related to Compositor
A's
replacement by Compositor B. It may also be significant that no B type is
found
on C1 and C2v.
Similarly, type which had been used in sheet C reappears in sheet D,
but this time the source of the recurring types seems to have been only the
outer forme of the old sheet. The last "e" of "Beleeue"
(C4v, l. 14) is
found again in "Were" (D1v, l. 3 — first "e"), the
"m" of "my"
(C2v, l. 29) in "comfort" (D1v, l. 37),
the "o" of "owne"
(C4v, l. 8) in "almost" (D1v, l. 12), and,
in addition, other C(o)
types reappear on D3v and D4. C(i) types do not show up
before
E1v: on that page in "of" (l. 16) the "f" seems to be the
same type
which previously appeared in "proofe" (C3v, l. 11) and in
"liude" (l.
4) the "d" that of "aimde" (C3v, l. 21).
Evidence from recurring types must, I believe, be treated with
reasonable caution: countless variations in the printing process
(e.g., differences in inking, in pressure, in paper shrinkage)
conspired to affect the impressions of the individual types and occasionally
different types sustained nearly identical injuries, perhaps because of
weaknesses inherent in the design of the letter or because of defects in the
punches or the matrices.[4] Moreover,
the location of a recurring type on a particular page does not mean that the
forme which previously contained that type was distributed at
the time the page on which the type reappears was set but by
the time it was set. However, either by itself or, preferably, in conjunction
with evidence from other sources, information furnished by the
reappearance of types can tell a great deal about the method of printing a
book.
In the case of Thierry, the evidence of the
running-titles,
type shortages, and type recurrences suggests that sheet C, as well as sheet
D, was composed by formes. Had C been set seriatim, we would expect to
find some type either from B(i) or B(o) on C2v since the
former was
distributed by the setting of B1v and the latter by the
setting of B2. In
addition, we would have to suppose that after running out of W's on
C3v and using VV's in the composition of the rest of that
page and all
of C4, the workman distributed enough type to obtain the three W's which
appear on C4v and then ran out of the letter again, for he
apparently
had no W's when he began to set D(o). It seems more reasonable to think
that C(o) was first composed, B(i) being distributed after the setting of C2v
but before the completion of C3 and B(o) being distributed after C3 but
before the completion of C4v. Thus C(o), in skeleton I,
could have
been sent to the press either before or during
the composition of C(i), which was imposed in skeleton II. From type
reappearance, we know that C(o) was off the press and distributed at least
by the time D1v was composed; however, we should recall
that during
the setting of D4v the supply of W's, which had been
exhausted at
C3v and which had remained so during the composition
of C4, D1,
D2v, and D3, was replenished. We may assume, then, that
C(o), which
contained fifteen W's, was distributed during the setting of
D4v, thus
freeing skeleton I for use in imposing D(o). But D(i) was also imposed in
skeleton I; hence, by the time the composition of D(i) was completed D(o)
was off the press
and skeleton I was again freed for use. It may be possible that type which
had not previously been used in
Thierry was also distributed
during the setting of D(i); eighteen W's were used in the setting of
C4
v
and D(i) but C(o) had contained only fifteen pieces of this type. Since there
is no sign of the distribution of C(i) before sheet E and no further indication
of type shortage in the remaining sheets of the book, it may be that the
additional W's were secured from standing type which had been set for
another job.
After the perfecting of sheet D, skeleton I was abandoned and
skeleton II was used to impose both formes of all subsequent sheets. D(o)
must have come from the press at about the time the composition of D(i)
was completed because its skeleton was used to impose D(i). D(o) type
begins to appear at E1; C(i) type, however, does not begin to show up
before E1v. Hence, it seems probable that sheet E was
also composed
by formes, outer first, and that C(i) was kept standing until after the
composition of E4v, at which time skeleton II was freed
and placed
around the type pages of E(o). Type reappearances show that D(i) was
distributed before the setting of E3v was completed, thus
freeing
skeleton I, but E(o) was off the press in time for skeleton II to be used in
preference to I for E(i). From this point on, the picture seems fairly clear.
Composition so lagged behind presswork that the re-use of skeleton I (or
the construction of a new skeleton) was never advantageous; in all
cases the wrought-off forme seems to have come from the press before, or
perhaps just as, a new forme was ready for imposition. There seems every
reason to believe that composition continued by formes. In order to change
to seriatim setting, Compositor B would have had to set three more
type-pages in any given sheet to get the first forme of that sheet ready for
the press than would have been required had he continued to set by formes.
Moreover, had he been able to gain enough time with respect to the pace
of his press to accomplish this additional work, the setting of only one more
type-page would have made the second forme of the sheet ready for
imposition. Under these circumstances, he would almost certainly have
reintroduced his abandoned skeleton, for by doing so he could have avoided
all of the inefficiencies of the one-skeleton process.[5]
From 1615 to 1626 Okes is known to have printed fifteen dramatic
quartos, excluding eight triumphs (which are less than four sheets
long).[6] With the sole exception of
Lingua Q3 (1617), these were all multiple-skeleton
books; hence, we may take it as a general rule that for dramatic quartos
two-skeleton procedure was standard in Okes's shop during this period. The
reversion to one-skeleton printing in
Thierry, therefore, may
be
regarded as distinctly unusual. Possibly an analogous situation is found in
Philaster Q1, printed by Okes in 1620, where there is a
temporary change from two- to one-skeleton procedure and where the
general condition of the text justifies the inference that bad copy caused the
composition to lag behind presswork.
[6a] But, as I will attempt to show
below,
the manuscript from which
Thierry was printed, while
perhaps
not ideal copy, was probably no worse than average; it certainly was far
superior to the copy of
Philaster Q1. Hence, we should look
elsewhere for an explanation of the lag in composition, and I suggest, on
grounds that must remain speculative until further investigation has been
completed, that the
difficulty lay with the compositor rather than the manuscript. The preferred
spellings of Compositor B, the workman who set sheets C through K,
compare reasonably closely with the preferences of the workman who set
most of sheet G of
The Maid's Tragedy Q1: the two agree
in
favoring
blood, deare, eye, honor, and
yeare
to
alternative spellings.
[7] If my
identification is correct, we have some reason to think that this workman
was not a regular compositor but a person who had other duties in Okes's
establishment. His part in
The Maid's Tragedy was clearly
that
of a relief compositor: he set only seven pages of one sheet. His
replacement of Compositor A in
Thierry after a delay in the
printing suggests that there too he stepped in to complete a job which one
of the regular compositors for some reason could not finish. Perhaps, then,
we should not be surprised to find that his work was rather more deliberate
than
that of an ordinary compositor, nor would it be unlikely that the material
he set was proofread with more than ordinary care.
[8]
Until all extant copies have been collated, we cannot say a great deal
about the proofing of Thierry. However, the copy now part
of
the Thomas Pennant Barton Collection of the Boston Public Library has an
extra leaf C1 inserted, the verso of which bears proof-reader's corrections
(see plate).[9]
Like the proofsheet of Tichborne's
A Triple Antidote, a book
printed by Okes in 1609, this one shows a concern primarily for purely
mechanical matters.
[10] In line 10 the
word "traine" is to be deleted, since it had been duplicated erroneously in
the turnover (one wonders why the turnover was not deleted instead); in
line 26 the compositor is evidently directed to replace or drive down a type
whose shoulder was inking; in line 28 a letter (obliterated -- perhaps an "r")
wrongly set between the "u" and the "ft" of "Mufter" is to be removed; and
in line 37 a comma is to be inserted after the nominative of address
"
Martell." I think that the mark at line 37 which was
cancelled
and encircled was a period intended to replace the comma after
"
Vitry"; the proof-reader, realizing that the sentence was not
concluded there but on C2, scratched it. Comparison of this page with a
page in the corrected state shows that all indicated
errors were repaired.
It is clear that the corrector was not meticulously concerned with the
sense of what he was reading. "Mothers" in line 6 is a pretty obvious error
for "mothes," and in line 10, the very line in which the first correction was
made, the egregious omission of "her" before "vertuous" went unnoticed.
There is no indication, of course, that the proofreader consulted copy.
Although a collation might turn up other variants which could change our
opinion, we are probably safe in thinking that even if Thierry
was set by a relief compositor, it was proofed primarily for mechanical
rather than literary errors.
Corruption in a text for which no control exists is often difficult to
isolate because many of the sophistications of compositors and proofreaders
must necessarily go undetected. However, in these cases an examination of
the manifest errors can provide some insight into the nature of the
manuscript which underlay the print. Of particular interest are errors which
were apparently caused by misreading; if they abound we are probably
justified in assuming illegible copy, although this assumption must be
tempered by whatever knowledge we have of the compositor's performance
in other books. The care with which the book under study was proofed is
also relevant since we know that readers, in addition to correcting
mechanical errors, would also tamper with parts of the text which seemed
to them defective. I have based what follows on an examination of the
Folger Shakespeare Library's copy of
Thierry Q1, which may
contain one or more uncorrected sheets. A complete collation of the extant
copies of
Thierry would doubtless reveal some variants of
which
we are now unaware, but on the evidence of the Boston proof I doubt that
they would affect the results of my analysis substantially.
Compositor A's one-sheet stint is too short to give us a fair sample
of his work, yet in his eight pages twelve errors which can probably be
attributed to him are detectable. Of these at least seven pretty clearly spring
from the misreading of terminal flourishes or superscripts:
B1 |
13 |
Actions followes ] Actions follow |
B2 |
25 |
Lyes ] Lye |
B2v
|
16 |
watch ] watched or watcht |
B2v
|
24 |
weeper ] weeper's |
B3v
|
36 |
you ] you'r or you're |
B4 |
10 |
you ] your |
B4v
|
26 |
you ] your |
One of the remaining errors (B3
v 33 on ] of) is probably
either a
misreading or a foul case error; the others (at B1
v 25, B2
14, B2
v
4, and B2
v 23) are mechanical errors — foul case,
transposition, and
turned letters.
In the rest of the book, all Compositor B's work, we can observe the
same tendency toward minor misreading errors that we have seen in little
in the first sheet. I count eighteen errors which can reasonably be placed in
this category:
C1v
|
6 |
mothers ] mothes |
C2 |
14 |
neere ] neerer |
C2v
|
2 |
doner ] owner |
C3v
|
4 |
care and hidden acts ] rare and hidden arts[11]
|
D1v
|
37 |
mothers ] mothes |
E1v
|
18 |
him, which ] him with, |
F1 |
32 |
We are ] N'ere[12]
|
F3v
|
8 |
son's ] sum's |
F4 |
23 |
I do ] I'd |
G3 |
1-2 |
wishes/Outrunnes ] wishes/Outrunne |
G3 |
13 |
Giue ] Giues |
G4v
|
16 |
hard ] heard |
H1 |
15 |
they'r ] thou'rt |
H2 |
14 |
worthies ] worthes |
I3v
|
11 |
good ] God |
I4 |
12 |
preferre ] preuent |
K2 |
24 |
prayers ] prayer |
K3v
|
3 |
are ] haue |
There are other errors which are probably attributable to misreading, foul
case, or the careless substitution of one letter for another:
D1 |
8 |
texde ] texte |
D4v
|
3 |
man ] men |
E2v
|
14 |
stags falls ] stags falle |
F2 |
6 |
not ] nor |
F2v
|
23 |
Forts ] Forte |
F3 |
31 |
matcht ] marcht |
G1 |
31 |
Bequeathe ] Bequeathd |
I3 |
24 |
tones ] tongs |
And others which most likely proceeded either from misreading or
memorial failure:
C4 |
5 |
your ] you |
E1 |
7 |
you ] your |
E4 |
28 |
worke ] worde |
F3 |
21 |
to ] do |
K3v
|
31 |
thine ] then |
I cannot pretend that these lists are exhaustive; indeed, I have
deliberately excluded errors of which misreading does not seem to have
been a possible cause. Some of these are errors, primarily of omission,
which seem to result from eyeskip or memorial failure; careless spelling;
and such mechanical mistakes as transpositions of words and letters, turned
letters, incorrect spacings, and obvious foul cases errors which result in
nonsense words. In addition, the entire book contains a number of
punctuation errors which indicate that the compositors misunderstood the
sense of the material which they were setting. I have found some fifty
errors of these kinds in B's stint, excluding mistakes in punctuation.
Furthermore, other errors are certain to have been omitted which are
concealed by the looseness of Elizabethan grammar and sentence structure
or the sophistications of the compositors. That Compositor B made at least
some textual changes in the light of his own judgement is
suggested by a reading found at I4 32. The correct version, "Come there
a band of em, i'le charge single," is rendered as "Come, there are a band
of em, i'le charge single," a statement contradicted by the facts of the
plot.
Although the handwriting created some minor difficulties, the copy
was far more legible than some that Okes's compositors were asked to cope
with. Nowhere do we find, as we do in Philaster Q1, such
gibberish as "sight song" for "sigh'd, wept, sung" or "number without
Probatum" for "nunne
without probation." Nor do we get such corruptions as "resterine" for
"re-stem" or "Loue lines" for "loueliness" as we do in
Othello
Q1, a book which Miss Walker believes to have been printed from a
reasonably legible manuscript.
[13]
Thierry does, however, preserve certain characteristics
which indicate that it is descended from a non-theatrical manuscript. I
regard none of these features as conclusive in itself, but their cumulative
effect is to point away from underlying prompt copy. Let us first look at the
stage directions. Five are clearly permissive:
- C2v
Enter Protaldie, with
souldiers.
- F3v
Enter Protaldy, a Lady, and
Reuellers.
- H3v
Enter Thierry, and
Courtiers.
- K2 Enter Thierry, on a bed, with Doctors and
attendants.
- K2v
Enter Martell, Brunhalt, Deuitry,
souldiers.
In addition, there are three directions, all at the beginnings of scenes, which
use the formula "&c." apparently to indicate that the scene commences
with the characters named but that others enter later in the scene:
- B4 Enter Theodoret, Martell. &c.
- C2 Enter Thierry, Brunhalt, Bawdber, Lecure.
&c.
- E1 Enter T[h]ierry, Ordella,
Brunhalt, Theodoret, Lecure, Bawdber. &c.
Such a notation suggests the author's rather than the book-keeper's hand,
and it may be significant that a similar direction is found in Crane's
transcript of
Demetrius and Enanthe which is thought to have
been copied from Fletcher's foul papers.
[14] Stage directions do not furnish an
altogether reliable means for distinguishing between theatrical and
non-theatrical copy because the book-keepers often let authorial directions
stand in prompt copies.
[15] However,
their presence combined with a complete absence of "professional"
directions provides some ammunition for argument against prompt
copy.
Minor confusion in the designation of characters also argues against
prompt. A stage direction on D3v calls for the entry of
two huntsmen,
but the text and subsequent stage directions refer to them as keepers; the
honest soldier is referred to variously in the text, stage directions, and
speech prefixes as "Vitry" or "Devitry"; the astrologer who is impersonated
by Lecure is known as both "Forte" and "Leforte." It is doubtful that all of
these variations could have occurred in transmission, and they probably
would have been undesirable from the book-keeper's point of view. Hence,
they provide another indication that the manuscript underlying
Thierry was non-theatrical.
What evidence there is suggests that the Thierry
manuscript consisted of the authors' papers, and the general freedom from
confusion and serious misreading indicates that these were in the form of
fair copy. Of particular interest is the frequent use of parentheses in
Massinger's scenes chiefly to punctuate nominatives of address and
non-restrictive modifiers. No parentheses whatever appear in the rest of the
play except in one of Fletcher's scenes (III,iii) where they are used to mark
several asides occurring within a longer speech (E2). Since parentheses
abound in the early editions of Massinger's unaided works and are used
profusely in the autograph manuscript of Believe as you List,
we are justified in considering them as a distinctive Massinger
characteristic.[16] Thus, we have
reason to believe that the Massinger scenes of Thierry were
set
up either from fair copy made by the dramatist himself or from an
unsophisticated
scribal transcript of his papers, probably the former.
Similarly, the Fletcher and Beaumont scenes were probably printed
from holograph manuscripts. Dr. Hoy points out that the linguistic divisions
between the different shares are distinct: Fletcher's scenes, for example,
contain twenty-one of the twenty-two ye's found in the
play.[17] It is also interesting (and
somewhat puzzling) that the contraction um is found only in
the
Fletcherian parts; the form occurs in certain of Fletcher's unaided works,
yet in Philaster and A King and No King it also
turns up in Beaumont's scenes. Therefore, um cannot be
considered distinctly Fletcherian, and, as far as we know now, there is no
reason to think that it is either scribal or compositorial. Nevertheless, Dr.
Hoy suggests that the exclusive occurrence of the form in Fletcher's scenes
of Thierry constitutes, for that play at least, a valid
distinction
between the work of the two dramatists,[18]
and the fact that the distinction has been preserved in the print argues
against the intervention of a scribe. Furthermore, the number of misreading
errors is, I believe, about what we should expect if the compositors were
working from author's fair copy; it is too high to reflect the very legible
copy that would have been produced by a professional scribe and at the
same time too low to reflect the illegibility of early working papers. A
misassigned speech in Fletcher's share tends to support this view. The
speech occurs at H1v 20 in the midst of dialogue between
Ordella and
Martell; it properly belongs to Martell but is prefixed Deui.
It
seems nearly impossible that this error could have been made by a
compositor
or scribe, since the single incorrect prefix is found some ten quarto pages
after Devitry's last speech and some ten before his next. The only
reasonable way to account for the error is to regard it as an authorial slip,
probably made during transcription.
If it is true that Beaumont's scenes as well as Fletcher's were printed
from holograph, we must account for several serious errors which are found
in them. The first of these is the incorrect reading in V,i (I4), which, as I
have indicated above, could very easily be a compositorial sophistication.
The second is two misassigned speeches in III,i (F3). Lecure enters to
Brunhalt at F2v 31: in the short colloquy which follows,
the two
discuss the several evil plans which the Queen has set in motion. The
interview concludes with the following speech by Brunhalt:
A sore that must be plasterde [a reference to Protaldye's loss of
reputation], in whose would/ Others shall find their graues, thinke
themselues sound,/ Your eare, and quickest apprehension.
Exeunt:
There is no way to interpret the action here but that Brunhalt and Lecure
leave the stage talking to one another. However, immediately after, we
find:
Enter Bawdber, and a seruant.
Bawdb.
This man of war will aduance.
Lecure.
His houres vpon the stroake.
Bawdb.
Wind him backe as you fauor my eares,
I loue no noyse in my head, my braines haue hitherto Bin imployde
in silent businesses.
Enter Deuitry.
Lecure.
The gentleman is within your reach Sir. Exit.
It is clear, as Dyce indicated, that the two speeches here assigned to Lecure
must have been intended for the servant, who is brought on the stage solely
for the purpose of delivering them.[19]
The misassignments are undoubtedly transmission errors, probably resulting
from memorial failure induced by the "Lecure" speech prefixes at the foot
of F2v and the top of F3. The compositor may have been
responsible,
but it is not impossible that Beaumont himself made the mistake in
transcribing his drafts into fair copy.
The last of these errors, a misplaced stage direction, is not so easy
to explain away. At F3v 14 Protaldye and a Lady correctly
enter to
Bawdber and Devitry, but the stage direction — Enter
Protaldy, a
Lady, and Reuellers — also brings on revellers who are not
required for some forty lines. The text is quite explicit on this point: at F4
23 Thierry, who has since entered, states, "Command the Reuellers in." At
C2v 8 a direction that was evidently in the margin of the
manuscript
was placed by the compositor
one line late, but it is difficult to see how he could have been guilty of
placing a direction forty lines early. Similarly, it is very unlikely that
Beaumont, whose mind must have been on the working out of the comic
discomfiture of Protaldye, would have introduced the revellers in the wrong
place. I think, therefore, that this stage direction and possibly others in
Beaumont's scenes were touched up by someone else, perhaps Fletcher. On
the face of it, we should expect at least one of the collaborators to look
over the whole manuscript to make minor revisions and to expunge glaring
inconsistencies. In this connection it may be significant that in both
Beaumont's and Fletcher's parts we find stage directions in similar
phraseology,
i.e., Exeunt all, but Brunhalt, Protal. Lecure,
Bawdber. in II,iii (E3
v), a Fletcher scene, and
Exit all but
Thierry. Brunhalt. in III,i (F2), a Beaumont scene. Massinger's
corresponding form is
Exeunt omnes, praeter Brun. Bawdber
[
etc.] (D1
v).
[20]
Moreover, in the entire play there are only three stage directions in roman
rather than italic type ("Reades" D1
v 9, "aside"
E1
v 16, and
"aside" E1
v 26), a fact which suggests that in the copy
they were
written in the secretary rather than the Italian hand and therefore may have
been added later than the original writing. The first of these occurs in a
Massinger scene; the other two in a Fletcher scene.
To summarize, the evidence suggests that Thierry Q1
was
set by a compositor whose speed was deliberate enough to cause him to
adopt one-skeleton procedure, although there is nothing to suggest that his
copy slowed him down very much. He may have been an apprentice or a
relief compositor. The characteristics of the print indicate that he was
setting from a composite fair copy written in the hands of the three
collaborators which may have been reviewed and slightly revised by
Fletcher. There is nothing to suggest that this manuscript had served as
prompt or that it had been annotated for transcription into prompt. The print
conveys the general impression of a clean job, marred by only a few
accidents of transmission.
Notes
[*]
The research on which this note is based was
completed while the writer held a grant-in-aid from the American Council
of Learned Societies. Additional assistance was received from the V.M.I.
Foundation, Inc.
[1]
The printer, who is unnamed, is identified by
means of the device used on the title-page. See W. W. Greg, A
Bibliography of the English Printed Drama to the Restoration, II
(1951), 519.
[2]
"The Shares of Fletcher and his Collaborators in
the Beaumont and Fletcher Canon (III)," Studies in
Bibliography, XI (1958), 97.
[3]
I examined the copy of Q1 in the Folger
Shakespeare Library. The librarians of the following collections were kind
enough to examine the D3v and D4v
running-titles in their copies:
Bodleian Library, Oxford (two copies — Malone 243 (1) and 4°
P2(5) Art.BS.); Boston Public Library; British Museum (three copies,
including the Wise copy); Chapin Library, Williams College; The
Elizabethan Club of Yale University; Henry E. Huntington Library; The
Library of Congress; Trinity College Library, Cambridge; University of
Texas Library; Victoria and Albert Museum. All report the
"f"
unbroken on D4v but broken on
D3v.
[4]
Cf. Ronald B. McKerrow,
An
Introduction to Bibliography for Literary Students (1928), pp.
182-183.
[5]
See Fredson Bowers, "Elizabethan Proofing,"
Joseph Quincy Adams Memorial Studies (1948), p.
574.
[6]
The plays are the following:
Albumazar Q1 (1615), Albumazar Q2 (1615),
The Four Prentices of London Q1 (1615),
Mucedorus Q6 (1615), The Honest Whore Q4
(1615-1616), The Insatiate Countess Q2 (1616),
Lingua Q3 (1617), The Maid's Tragedy Q1
(1619),
Philaster Q1 (1620), Thierry Q1 (1621),
Othello Q1 (1622), Philaster Q2 (1622),
Lingua Q4 (1622), The Duchess of Malfi Q1
(1623), and The Conspiracy and Tragedy of Charles, Duke of
Byron Q2 (1625). The last is two plays printed together.
[6a]
See Turner, "The Printing of
Philaster Q1 and Q2," The Library, xv (1960),
26
ff.
[7]
See Turner, "The Printing of The Maid's
Tragedy Q1," Studies in Bibliography, XIII (1960),
199
ff., where the workman is designated Compositor T.
[8]
I have been unable to find evidence of this man's
work in Okes's dramatic quartos published before 1619, the date of
The Maid's Tragedy Q1. John Okes, who gained his freedom
in 1627, should have begun his apprenticeship about this time, and, to
compound speculation, he might have assisted the regular compositors
during the early part of his training. Possibly he was Compositor B of
Thierry.
[9]
All indications are that the markings are
contemporaneous with the leaf, the existence of which was called to my
attention by Mr. John Alden of the Boston Public Library. Mr. Alden
furnishes the following information regarding it: "The leaf is definitely an
insert and disjunct: removed, no doubt, from an imperfect copy. It contains
on the inner margin a watermark, that of a vase made up of crescent
designs, found elsewhere in the complete copy. As to where the leaf came
from, I suspect that it was inserted by Thomas Rodd, but this will have to
remain a conjecture. The book itself was purchased for Thomas Pennant
Barton by John Russell Smith for 17/ at the Sotheby-Wilkinson auction of
23 May 1856 and is described in the Catalogue of a Very Valuable
and Important Collection of Shakesperian and Dramatic Literature
as
item no. 150. In referring to this sale, both Russell Smith and the British
Museum's catalogue of English book auctions identify the books as
coming from the possession of Halliwell-Phillipps. On one of the blank
fly-leaves, provided by the early 19th-century binder, there appears a
manuscript annotation, as follows. 'The duplicate title at the end [pasted
down inside the back cover] is added on account of a ms. note showing the
original price of the book ["d 1-2"?]; & the duplicate leaf, sig. C.,
because it has some contemporary corrections of the text.' If I am not
mistaken, this annotation is in the hand of the dealer Thomas Rodd. I
suspect he inserted the leaf and title page in the volume, had it bound, and
sold it to Halliwell-Phillipps." I am much indebted not only to Mr. Alden
but also to the Trustees of the Boston Public Library, who gave permission
to reproduce the leaf.
[10]
See John Russell Brown, "A Proof-Sheet from
Nicholas Okes' Printing-Shop," Studies in Bibliography, XI
(1958), 228-231.
[11]
So emended by Dyce, following Seward; see
The Works of Beaumont and Fletcher (1843), I, 123. Darley
emends to "care and hidden arts"; see The Works of Beaumont and
Fletcher (1859), II, 409.
[12]
See Dyce, op. cit., p.
146.
[13]
See Alice Walker and John Dover Wilson (eds.),
Othello (1957), pp. 123-124.
[14]
See F. P. Wilson and Margaret McLaren Cook
(eds.), Demetrius and Enanthe, Malone Society Reprint (1950
[1951]), p. 121 and W. W. Greg, The Shakespeare First
Folio
(1955), p. 154.
[15]
See W. W. Greg, Shakespeare First
Folio, pp. 132-133.
[16]
Massinger himself inserted parentheses in the
printed copies of The Bondman, The Renegado, The Emperor of the
East, The Roman Actor, and The Picture. See W. W. Greg, "More
Massinger Corrections," The Library, Fourth Series, V
(1925),
64-71.
[20]
This expression apparently was a standard
Massinger formula. We find it in The Bondman (1624) K4.
The City - Madam (1659) C2, The Roman
Actor
(1629) B1v, and The Picture (1630)
E1v. A similar
expression, Exeunt omnes, manent . . . , occurs in a
Massinger
scene of The Virgin Martyr; see Fredson Bowers (ed.),
The Dramatic Works of Thomas Dekker, III (1958),
391.