John Webster, James Shirley, and the Melbourne manuscript.(essay)(Critical essay)

Publication: Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England

Publication Date: 01-JAN-06

Bookmark this article Print this article Link to this article Email this article Digg It! Add to del.icio.us RSS

COPYRIGHT 2006 Associated University Presses

I

IN 1986 there was discovered in the muniments room at Melbourne Hall, Derbyshire, the manuscript fragment of a play apparently written during the early decades of the seventeenth century. A single sheet of paper, folded once, contains 144 lines of text covering its four pages. It had been wrapped around a packet of Sir John Coke's correspondence. Coke had been Charles I's secretary of state. (1)

The dialogue of the dramatic remnant involves Alessandro de' Medici, Duke of Florence (here Duke Alexander), and his favorite, Lorenzino de' Medici (here Lorenzo). After the duke has dismissed "Alphonso" and his other courtiers, he confronts his "dear cousin" with a letter in which the banished Castruccio accuses Lorenzo of being a traitor who has avowed Alexander's death "and alteration of the government." (2) Lorenzo first responds with a disingenuous admission that "Whoso'er writ this caveat had infallible intelligence," and offers the duke his own sword with which to "run quite through a traitor." He goes on to remind the duke--who is duly flummoxed by this ambiguous acknowledgment of guilt--of his many services in discovering conspiracies against the state, and claims to have been acting as a kind of double agent in the interests of Alexander's safety. The whole exchange is managed with considerable flair. The intricacies of Lorenzo's obfuscatory self-defense are matched by the duke's conflicting emotions and sheer puzzlement. The historical Alessandro de' Medici was indeed assassinated by Lorenzino. Since there are abundant signs that the Melbourne MS is not scribal but authorial, with alterations made currente calamo, the Melbourne MS evidently represents the fragmentary "foul papers" of a talented dramatist, who is likely to have written for the professional theater.

Manuscript consultant Felix Pryor compiled a lengthy sale catalog for Bloomsbury Book Auctions, in which he argued for John Webster's authorship within the period 1606-9. Webster is one of the few prominent playwrights of Shakespeare's era for whom no known sample of handwriting exists. Richard Proudfoot wrote a brief account of the "Jacobean dramatic fragment," finding Pryor's proposition "tempting" but regarding the evidence as inconclusive. In a letter to the Times Literary Supplement, where Proudfoot's piece had appeared, I. A. Shapiro next identified the Melbourne MS as "a rejected early version of the second scene of [James] Shirley's The Traitor," and in Shirley's handwriting, which can be studied in his corrections and revisions to a transcript of his The Court Secret, of which an early draft is preserved in the library of Worcester College, Oxford. (3) To Pryor's protestation that "there is virtually no similarity" between Shirley's handwriting in The Court Secret and that of the Melbourne MS, Shapiro responded that The Court Secret was composed at least ten years later than The Traitor, that Shirley was evidently "trained in writing a variety of scripts," and that examples of Shirley's hand more nearly contemporary with The Traitor--especially some notes, among the papers of Bulstrode Whitelocke at Longleat, made in connection with the masque The Triumph of Peace--put "beyond doubt" Shirley's responsibility for the Melbourne MS. (4)

The Melbourne MS was then examined by Antony Hammond and Doreen DelVecchio, who provided an invaluable transcription. (5) They surveyed the controversy, weighed up the evidence, and concluded that Shapiro was wrong. Direct examination of the manuscript of The Court Secret convinced them that "the handwriting of the secretary additions to The Court Secret is not the same as that of the Melbourne." (6) Though duly cautious, they considered it likely that Webster was the author of the newly discovered fragment and promised that it would be included, as a "possible" work, in the Cambridge Webster.

Antony Hammond died before The Works of John Webster could be completed, and I took over his role as textual editor. Since the editorial team is now engaged in preparation of the third and final volume, the question of whether the Melbourne MS belongs within it requires reinvestigation. This chapter assesses the arguments on both sides and presents some new evidence.

II

There is certainly a close relationship between the fragment and James Shirley's The Traitor, arguably his best tragedy, which was licensed by the Master of the Revels on 4 May 1631, entered in the Stationers' Register on 30 November 1634, and published by William Cooke in a quarto dated 1635. (7) In 1.2, as in the manuscript, the Duke of Florence has a letter from the exiled Castruccio informing him that his "dear cousin Lorenzo" is "the enemy of [his] life and state," and in 1.2, as in the manuscript, he is reluctant to believe the accusation, but hands the letter to Lorenzo to read, and Lorenzo defends himself against the charge, rehearsing his services in exposing treachery. The manuscript's prince and nobleman Alphonso are the duke and Alonzo in The Traitor, 1.2.

The manuscript affords only part of a scene that develops somewhat differently in The Traitor, where Alonzo and Depazzi (Lorenzo's creature) are present to comment in asides on the encounter, and the courtiers Frederico and Florio also remain onstage. In the manuscript Lorenzo, wittily satirical, jokes at the prince's sententious couplet, "And can there be an happy state / Before man meets with his last fate?" and has some long sardonic asides before he has assimilated the contents of the letter. (8) Lorenzo's self-defense is less equivocal in The Traitor, but there is close correspondence, in argument and even in some verbal detail, between the two versions in the final phases of his appeal. In The Traitor Lorenzo says:

Be yet as just and say whose art directed A countermine to check the pregnant hopes Of Salviati, who for his cardinal's cap In Rome was potent and here popular? (1.2.131-34)

Part of a parallel passage in the Melbourne MS is defective, but the same question is asked:

who did prevent The last surprise so probable By the conspiracy of Salviati? That man Of danger, for his cardinal's cap [ ] the states of Italy.

In The Traitor he asks:

Whose service was commended when the exiles (One of whose tribe accuseth me) had rais'd Commotions in our Florence? Who then rose up your safety, and crush'd all Their plots to air? (1.2.136-43)

and repudiates "talk of a new government" (1.2.88). In the Melbourne MS he asks the prince

what services of friendship Have I not done, how oft discovered Plots of the banished party, who would innovate The form of government?

and claims that he has apparently "favoured the exiles all for the safety of my prince and to discover the plots of the exiles." In The Traitor Lorenzo asserts of his undercover activities:

With my services I ha' not starv'd your treasury. The grand Captain Gonzales accounted King Ferdinand Three hundred thousand crowns for spies. What bills Have I brought in for such intelligence? (1.2.146-50)

In the Melbourne MS, too, Lorenzo boasts of his unpaid espionage on behalf of the "commonwealth" and makes the same allusion: "Some with infinite sums corrupt those who are able to inform them. Gonzales the grand Captain put in Ferdinand's reckoning a million of crowns given to spies." Hammond and DelVecchio quote Shirley specialist Richard Morton as unable to see in the scene "any clues that suggest that Shirley was writing with the MS in front of him" or "that the one is a draft--or, in a more serious way, a source--for the other." (9) But the verbal echoes strongly suggest otherwise. Moreover, another major element in the plot of The Traitor, Lorenzo's abetting of the duke's lustful pursuit of the chaste Amidea, seems implicit in the Melbourne MS, when Lorenzo, initially puzzled by the duke's agitation, declares, "I came to be / The messenger of your approaching happiness."

III

It is not surprising that competent scholars should have disagreed on whether the Melbourne MS was penned by Shirley. Handwriting identification is not an exact science. The expert cataloger and analyst of literary manuscripts Peter Beal, after summarizing the controversy over the authorship of the Melbourne MS, declared that it "remains unresolved and, in effect, sub judice." (10) In the 1920s, arguments by Edward Maunde Thompson and W. W. Greg for thinking that "Hand D's" three pages of the manuscript play Sir Thomas More were in Shakespeare's autograph, surviving elsewhere only in his signatures, were strenuously rejected by Samuel A. Tannenbaum. (11) But the paleographical evidence, while in itself inconclusive, was buttressed by J. Dover Wilson's inventory of "bibliographical links" between Hand D and the Shakespearean "good quartos," thought to have been set from "foul papers" in Shakespeare's hand, and, above all, by R. W. Chambers's demonstration that in their development of ideas through images the More pages afforded impressive parallels to several Shakespeare plays. (12) The convergence of different types of evidence upon the same conclusion was what won Hand D's contribution to More admission into the Shakespeare canon.

Likewise, it is not crucial to Shapiro's case that his identification of the handwriting of the Melbourne MS with Shirley's be incontestable, merely that it be not implausible. He is clearly right in saying that Shirley was a versatile penman, having had some training as a scrivener, and that his manuscripts contain different mixes of letter forms. The Melbourne MS is, in Beal's words, a "rough draft intended only for the writer's own eyes," whereas most extant examples of Shirley's hand are "more or less formal in nature and show him to be adept in a variety of...

Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.