APPENDIX E.-" THE MALCONTENT" The Malcontent was published in 1604, in two editions. The title-page of the first reads: THE BY JOHN MARSTON. The title-page of the second reads: THE AUGMENTED BY MARSTON. WITH THE ADDITIONS PLAYED BY THE KINGS WRITTEN BY JOHN WEBSTER. The second edition differs from the first in having an Induction, and the insertion of twelve passages in the play. Much fuss has been made about the amount of the play that Webster wrote. Dr Stoll1 has conclusively shown that all we can deduce to be Webster's is the Induction; and Professor Vaughan has called attention to a final piece of evidence that the Induction itself practically says that this is the case. 66 The matter is quite clear. The full-stop after "Servants" on the second title-page is what Dr Stoll calls "purely inscriptional." That the whole theory of Elizabethan punctuation rests on a psychological, not, as now, on a logical basis, has recently been shown with great force by Mr Simpson.1 The whole look of the page makes it obvious that the intention was to connect Webster with the Additions," and only with the additions, and to make Marston responsible for the augmentations as well as the bulk of the play. An æsthetic judgment of the play declares that the extra passages are all Marston's and that the Induction is probably not by Marston and probably is by Webster. And Burbadge, in the Induction, describing how the play fell into the hands of the King's Servants (from the Children of the Queen's Revels) and being asked “What are your additions?" makes answer, Sooth, not greatly needful; only as your salad to your great feast, to entertain a little more time, and to abridge the not-received custom of music in our theatre." That probably, though not quite necessarily, identifies the "additions" with the Induction. There are three possible theories; that Marston wrote The Malcontent (first edition) and the extra passages, and Webster the Induction; that Marston wrote 66 1 Shakespearian Punctuation. See also Professor Grierson's remarks on Elizabethan punctuation, The Poems of John Donne, vol. ii., pp. cxxi.-cxxiv. The Malcontent (first edition) and Webster the extra passages, and probably the Induction; or that originally Marston and Webster wrote the play together, and that for some reason only Marston's name appeared on the title-page. I think there is no reason to believe the third, every reason not to believe the second, and several reasons to believe the first. I do not think the arguments for The Malcontent dating from 1600, and for the "augmentations" being really restorations by Marston of cut pieces of his play in its first state, are decisive. But I think the case stands without these conclusions.1 Date. As the first edition appeared without the Induction during 1604, and the second with it in the same year, and as it was obviously written for a special piratical revival by the King's Majesty's Servants, who claim the second edition, it is fair to suppose that the Induction was written during 1604. 1 On the date of The Malcontent Dr Stoll goes off pursuing the wildest of geese through the undergrowth of a footnote. He "proves "a phrase to be in the "Ur-Hamlet" by taking it for granted that a play printed in 1604 is exactly as it was when it was written in 1600. The old assumption of the integrity of plays. Date. APPENDIX F.-" THE WHITE DEVIL." The White Devil was printed in 1612. It obviously belongs to the same period as The Duchess of Malfi. That it is the earlier of the two is probable on general grounds, and proved by the advance of metrical license and the absence of phrases and adaptations from the Arcadia, which are present in all Webster's later work.2 1 There are various clues, of more or less relevance, to its date: Mr Percy Simpson has pointed out that the puzzling and much emended passage about Perseus (p. 21; last line) is an allusion to Jonson's Masque of Queens (1609); a work Webster knew, for he borrows in A Monumental Column from the dedication to it. P. 23. MONTICELSO. Away with her! Take her hence ! VITTORIA. A rape! a rape! MONTICELSO. How? VITTORIA. Yes, you have ravished Justice; Forced her to do your pleasure. 1 V. Stoll, p. 190, metrical table. 2 V. Crawford, Collectanea i., 20-46. It is very noticeable, and only to be explained by Webster having filled his notebook from the Arcadia after The White Devil and before The Duchess of Malfi, A Monumental Column, and The Devil's Law-case. 3 Modern Language Review: January 1907. Dr Stoll suggests that Vittoria's cry, in its suddenness as well as in the words, is very like Sebastian's in Tourneur's The Atheist's Tragedy, I. 4. But any connection between the two is doubtful; if there is any, Tourneur may have imitated Webster; and anyhow the date of The Atheist's Tragedy is still quite uncertain-1607-1611 is the most definite limit one can venture, and even that rather depends on accepting the anonymous Revenger's Tragedy as Tourneur's. This passage is more likely to be connected with The Tragedy of Chabot, V. 11, 122, unto this he added a most prodigious and fearful rape, a rape even upon Justice itself. Professor Parrott thinks Chapman may have written this (it is in his part of the play) about 1612. And Webster admired and imitated Chapman. But the whole thing is too cloudy for the resemblance to be more than interesting. 66 The number of references to Ireland in the play is remarkable.1 Either Webster had been in Ireland, or he had been hearing about it; or he had been reading a book on it. If it was a book, Barnaby Rich's A New Description of Ireland, 1610, has been suggested. It is very probable; for the book mentions the various subjects of Webster's references. But as there is no verbal connection, and as they are all things one could easily pick up by hearsay, the proof is not conclusive. No doubt, too, there were other books on Ireland at the time which might 1 See p. 6. Irish gamesters: p. 16, no snakes in Ireland: p. 28, Irish rebels selling heads: p. 29 "like the wild Irish. .." : p. 31, Irish funerals. |