tiniano's disguise as a hag; and his and Mayberry's jealousy. Other kinds of evidence she does not consider. In Westward Ho she finds signs of incomplete collaboration and change of plan in construction. Still following Fleay she thinks Webster wrote most of Acts I., II., and III., and some of IV.; Dekker, the rest. Northward Ho is more homogeneous. Dekker is given the Chapman-ragging and the Doll scenes; Webster the rest. Dekker probably went over the whole.

Her proofs and judgments are very superficial, and almost valueless. It is, perhaps, probable that Webster had more share in the planning of the plots and incidents than he has been allowed. Her assignments in general are based on a feeling that these two plays are "gross," "offensive," and "sinning against the light," that her protégé Dekker, being a pure-minded man, can have had little to do with them, and that Webster "who dealt with lust" must be held guilty. Her sex, or her nationality, or both, have caused in her a curious agitation of mind whenever she approaches these plays. This prejudice destroys what little value her very cursory investigation of the problems of their authorship might otherwise have had.

APPENDIX E.-"THE MALCONTENT”

The Malcontent was published in 1604, in two editions. The title-page of the first reads:

THE

MALCONTENT.

BY JOHN MARSTON.

The title-page of the second reads:

THE

MALCONTENT.

AUGMENTED BY MARSTON.

WITH THE ADDITIONS PLAYED BY THE KINGS
MAJESTIES SERVANTS.

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 1 Pp. 55-60.

Induction; and Professor Vaughan has called attention to a final piece of evidence that the Induction itself practically says that this is the case.

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

1 Shakespearian Punctuation. See also Professor Grierson's remarks on Elizabethan punctuation, The Poems of John Donne, vol. ii., pp. cxxi.-cxxiv.

the Induction; that Marston wrote 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.

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 license1 and the absence of phrases and adaptations from the Arcadia, which are present in all Webster's later work.2

There are various clues, of more or less relevance, to its date:

3

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.

'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. 'Modern Language Review: January 1907.