The readings of W at this point have been compared with the second and better copy of the original edition of 1601, owned by Mr. White. With three exceptions, the two copies agree. These are stockada (1. 3. 227), Phoebus (1. 3. 237), wound (3. 2. 84); in White's second copy the readings are 'stockado', 'Phœbus', and 'wound'. These variations are of interest, since Bang writes that the copies of the original quarto which he consulted agreed absolutely, and since Bang's reprints have acquired the reputation of such accuracy as to justify their use in place of an original, where this was inaccessible. In these disputed readings, G agrees with B in 'stockado,' 'Phœbus,' and 'wound'; with W in all the others.

In 1910, Schelling placed the quarto-text at the head of the list of Jonson's plays published in the Everyman Library. It is not stated from what source his reprint was made. The punctuation and spelling are modernized, the mistakes of the original corrected, and some abbreviations ex

1 The original is here difficult to decipher. Approximately in the position of Bang's quotation-mark, there is found something resembling a small star or asterisk, which appears not to be due to an imperfection in the paper.

2 The paper is worn at this point, and an original comma may have disappeared.

panded. The following additional variations have been noted:

The characteristics of the quarto will be further discussed in the section on the comparison between it and the first folio.

II. THE FOLIO OF 1616

In the preparation of the present text, a copy owned by Yale Library (Y), another owned by Professor William Lyon Phelps of Yale University (P), and Bang's reprint in Vol. 7, Erster Teil, of the Materialien zur Kunde des älteren englischen Dramas, were employed. Surprisingly few variations between the copies were discovered. Bang prints a list of variants from a copy in the Hague to accompany the volume in which his reprint of Every Man in His Humor occurs, but none are recorded for this play. The discrepancies observed in the present study are as follows:

in-kind

Ded. Mr Cambden, Claren- Mr. Cambden Mr. Cambden, Clarentiaux tiaux

1. 2. 109 then t'haue tane t'haue tane

1. 2. 127 in kind

4. 2. 128 grey-hound,

grey-hound; grey-hound,

then t'haue tane

in kind

III. SUBSEQUENT EDITIONS

The folio of 1640 makes some emendations upon the text of 1616. Some of these are clearly corrections or improvements; others are of more questionable value, and appear to follow the personal predilection of the editor. The following may fairly be counted as improved readings: I. I. 6 be' at 1616, be at 1640; 1. 1. 29 doe 1616, does 1640; 1. 2. 85 owue 1616, owne 1640; 1. 3 Scene II. 1616, Scene III. 1640; 1. 3. 13 Blayne-worme 1616, Brayne-worme 1640; 1. 3. 65 be-gelt 1616, Be gelt 1640; 1. 3. 73 Il efurnish 1616, I'll furnish 1640; 1. 3. 85, 1. 3. 88 Serv. 1616, Step. 1640; 2. 3. 2. I faith 1616, ifaith 1640; 2. 3. 15 I'st like 1616, Is't like 1640; 2. 3. 21 bluod 1616, bloud 1640; 2. 3. 54 harme in, troth 1616, harme, in troth 1640; 2. 3. 58 Dow. 1616, Dame 1640; 2. 5. 24 mother' 1616, mother 1640; 2. 5. 41 affiction 1616, affection 1640; 3. 1. 83 indeed. 1616, indeed, 1640; 3. 2. 47 field's 1616, fields 1640; 3. 3. 20 To the taste fruit 1616, To taste the fruit 1640; 3. 5. 39 sir, 1616, sir. 1640; 4. 5. 2 for-euer, 1616, for-euer. 1640; 4. 6. 32 thy 1616, they 1640; 5. 3. 38 heseech 1616, beseech 1640. A glance at changes similar to these in later editions shows that this revision was not a thoroughgoing or consistent one. The list of changes which impair, rather than improve,

the purity of the original text are as follows: 1. 2. 38 I pray you, sir 1616, I pray sir. 1640; 2. 1. 4 i'the 1616, ithe 1640; 2. 1. 6 th'pieces 1616, the pieces 1640; 2. 1. 8 Mr. Lvcar 1616, master Lucar 1640; 2. 1. 92 you authoritie 1616, your authoritie 1640; 2. 1. 120 They' are 1616, They're 1640; 2. 2. 34 so he shall drinke 1616, so shall he drinke 1640; 2. 3. 72 miserie' 1616, mis'rie 1640; 3. 3. 53 'imaginations 1616, 'maginations 1640 (had the editor been consistent, he would have omitted the false apostrophe, without contracting the words). Cf. change of mother' to mother, 2. 5. 24, and field's to fields, 3. 2. 47); 2. 5. 37 states 1616, state 1640; 2. 5. 53 sauces 1616, sauce 1640; 3. 2. 52 house here 1616, house 1640; 3.3.83 ware 1616, 'ware 1640; 3. I. 120 & 1616, and 1640; 3. 4.56 & 1616, an 1640 (in the majority of cases, however, the & remains unchanged); 3. 5. 58 i'vniversitie 1616, i'the Vniversitie 1640; 3.5. 131 he swears admirably 1616, he swears most admirably 1640; 3. 7. 21 e're 1616, ever 1640; 4. 2. 72 curse the starres 1616, course the stars 1640 ; 4. 6. 6 peace be 1616, peace by 1640; 4. 7. 155 tane vp 1616, tane't vp 1640. A few obvious new mistakes are made. The following certainly belong in this category, and possibly some of the previous list: 3. 1. 67 pray 1616, 'pray 1640; 3. 7. 67 better 1616, beter 1640; 4. 6. 49 preyes 1616, presy 1640; 4. 7. 68 vnder seale 1616, under-seale 1640; 4. II. 32 a comes 1616, acomes 1640; 4. 6. 50 Kno. 1616, E. Kn. 1640; 5. I. 47 with 1616, wirh 1640. Certain changes are uniform in this edition: 'Ifaith' is regularly printed 'ifaith'; with one exception (3. 1. 92), 'then' is always changed to 'than'; 'and', in the sense of 'if', is consistently printed as 'an". There is a tendency shown here to contract words: 1. 1. 80 brauerie 1616, brav'rie 1640; 2. I. 120 They 'are 1616, They're 1640; 2. 3. 72 miserie 1616, mis'rie 1640; 3. 3. 53 'imaginations 1616, 'maginations 1640; 3. 5. 132 of Caesar 1616, o' Caesar

1640 (cf., however, 2. 1. 6 th' pieces 1616, the pieces 1640). Nouns are frequently, though not uniformly, capitalized: 3.7.70 princes 1616, Princes 1640; ibid. nobles 1616, Nobles 1640; ibid. bowers 1616, Bowers 1640; 3. 7. 71 ladies 1616, Ladies 1640; ibid. cabbins 1616, Cabbins 1640; ibid. souldiers 1616, Souldiers 1640, etc. There is a tendency to hyphenate more words in 1640: 1. 2. 37 kinsmans 1616, kins-mans 1640; 2. I. 77 citie pounds 1616, City-pounds 1640; 2. 3. 36 Sweet heart 1616, Sweet-heart 1640. Besides these specific changes, there is a considerable, though not consistent, change toward more modern spelling: 1. 2. 89 hether 1616, hither 1640; 1. 2. 101 guifts 1616, gifts 1640; 1. 2. 110 geering 1616, jeering 1640; 2. 5. 22 dearling 1616, darling 1640; 3. 1. 8 reguard 1616, regard 1640; 3. 5. 23 Lieutenant-Coronell 1616, Lieutenant-Collonel 1640; 4. 6. 33 flue 1616, flew, 1640; 4.7. 145 strooke 1616, struck 1640, etc. The chief value of this edition is that it reveals the source of many changes which have crept into modern editions.

The folio of 1692 is a fairly accurate reproduction of the folio of 1640. All the emendations of the latter appear, which shows that this, and not the 1616 folio, was the basis of the text. Certain new changes are made. Those which appear to improve the text are listed below: I. 2. 2 we do'not 1616, we do not 1692; 1. 3. 42 Brayne-worme, 1616, Brain-worm. 1692; 1. 3. 49 well, 1616, well. 1692; 1. 4. 27 I sir 1616, Ay, sir 1692; 1. 2. 129 ne're 1616, n'er 1692; 2. 5. I10 e're 1616, e'er 1692. The uniform change of 'ha's' to 'has' corrects the misleading appearance of the word in the first folio. The following changes, however, interfere with the transmission of the text as Jonson wrote it: 1. 2. 73 inhabit there, yet? If thou dost 1616, inhabit there. Yet if thou dost 1692; 1. 4. 26 herring Cob 1616, herring, Cob 1692; 2. 4. 34 mistris Mary 1616, Mrs Mary