The latest edition of Every Man in His Humor appeared in 1913, in Gayley's Representative English Comedies (Vol. 2). An introductory critical essay, prepared by Herford, precedes the text. The preparation of the text, textual notes, and a bibliography of previous editions, is the work of Smithson (for convenience in nomenclature, the text will be labelled Ga in this edition). Smithson thus describes the process employed in the preparation of the text: 'The present text is printed directly from an imprint of it belonging to Professor Gayley. The forms of the letters j, s, u, v, have been modernized, a few obvious mistakes of the printer corrected, and stage-directions in square brackets added.' [Changes from Gifford are indicated in the variants: 4. 6; 4. 7.]} The punctuation and spelling have been altered only when the original reading would render the meaning obscure. There are a few variations, however, which are unaccounted for by this explanation. There are considerably fewer words italicized here than in the first folio. The principle of italicization is more consistent and intelligible in Ga than in the original, but its application here prevents the text from appearing exactly as it did at first. The following are typical instances of change: 1. 5. 92 christendome; 2. 1. 60 Mart; 3. 5. 20 emphasis; 3. 6. 36 Bride-well (these words appear in italics in 1616). The following additional variations from the originals used for the present text are to be noted: 1. 5. 126 gentlemens vse 1616, gentlemen use Ga; 3. 1. 105 Bobadill 1616, B badill Ga; 4. 7. 135 your consort 1616, you consort Ga. This text is the most critical and satisfactory which has yet appeared.

Relatively few textual variants have been recorded

1 While this present edition has been in press Percy Simpson's edition of Every Man in His Humor has appeared (Oxford University Press, 1919).

as footnotes to the text in this edition. As A. C. Judson pointed out in his edition of Cynthia's Revels (pp. xx, xxi), the situation is rather unusual here. The folio of 1616 was published under the supervision of Jonson himself, he being thus his own editor. With few exceptions, later editors have rather uniformly utilized, not the original folio, but the edition immediately preceding their own, as a basis for the text. Furness, in justifying his exact reproduction of the folio of 1623 as the text for his variorum edition of Shakespeare, says: 'Let the ailment, therefore, appear in all its severity in the text, and let the remedies be exhibited in the notes.'1 Judson, in commenting upon the passage, remarks (p. xxi) : 'A reproduction of all variations, however, in the case of our play, would exactly reverse the process; it would be exhibiting the ailments of subsequent editions in the notes, the remedy for which appears in the original text.' It has been the policy of the present edition to characterize and evaluate, in the Introduction, so far as possible, the work of the various editors, relegating to this place, also, changes uniform in a given edition, and those due to general linguistic changes. Stagedirections from later editions, and textual variants which may be regarded as emendations, have been recorded in the footnotes to the text.

IV. COMPARISON OF QUARTO AND FIRST FOLIO2 Jonson, so often cited as the great example of the 'conscious artist,' in his revision of the quarto is caught at his very processes of reflection. Seldom is so good an opportunity afforded to study an author's method of

1 Othello, p. vi.

2 Grabau appended to his reprint of the quarto a discussion of its relation to the folio of 1616. He considers general and specific differences, and divides the first class into differences in the form, language, and content of the play. The consideration of form naturally concerns

composition, and his attitude toward his own work. The years which elapsed between the writing of the two versions of Every Man in His Humor witnessed a change in Jonson's temperament, and in his theory of literary art. When the Italian version appeared, his rugged personality had not yet forced him to draw himself so far aloof from his companion-aspirants to literary honors. Though the conception of 'humor-comedy' was present, in far more than inchoate form, in the earlier play, Jonson did allow himself to fall into a common convention of his day in casting his play in an Italian mould.

itself principally with the act- and scene-division. The schemes employed in the quarto (Q), folio (F), and modern editions (ME), respectively, are graphically represented in the following useful table:

Grabau observes that the act- and scene-division in F is better, in that the long first act of Q is shortened. A desire for symmetry, however, could not have been the poet's motive, since acts III and IV are very long, and V very short. The content of the comedy must have been the determining principle, and the fifth act is reserved for the unraveling of all the knots which have been tied in the course of

The play was popular, and attracted the attention of the public. Jonson's determination, meanwhile, toʻstrip the ragged follies of the time,' had crystallized into a well-ordered program. What more natural than that the first embodiment of his humor-idea should be freed from its false dress, and fully assimilated to the English life of which it was to become the exponent and teacher ? The gratifying result of this revision is to be seen by a comparison of the two texts.

The types of changes made can, perhaps, best be realized by arranging characteristic examples under selected categories. This method involves certain inevitable disadvantages. A category is never large enough com

the play. But this does not make clear the plan followed in the other acts e. g., the division of Act I in Q seems more appropriate, since it contains the exposition of the whole piece, with the introduction of all the characters and 'humors,' while in F a part of this is carried over into Act II. Acts IV and V have no scene-division in Q; these can readily be inserted, however, since the exits and entrances are more carefully indicated than in F, which, on the other hand, divides into scenes. In the first three acts of Q, with one exception (III, 1 and 2), a new scene is counted only when a change in the scene of action occurs. F makes a division at the entrance of a new person. Q and

F are both very sparing in stage-directions, and these have been added by modern editors. The scene of action is never told in either Q or F, but must be deduced from the matter in the scene (see note on Cash, 3. 5. 63).

Modern editions following the text of F adhere to it only in actdivision, going back, in general, to Q for scene-division.

II. Language.

Grabau discusses this point under the following categories, citing two or three illustrative passages for each point:

1. Shortening by the omission of words.

2. Introduction of more familiar forms of words and easier sentence-structure.

3. Improvement of diction by more acute thinking and sharper discrimination.

4. Substitution of concrete for abstract expressions.

pletely to describe every aspect of the units which compose it. So a difference of opinion may arise among those who seek to assign reasons for Jonson's alterations. This method does make it possible, however, to classify the material, and to render it easily accessible for readers to criticize individually. The lists could not be made quite mutually exclusive, and do not aim at completeness, since certain differences could be discussed more fully and appropriately in the notes. It is hoped, then, that by means of the parallel texts, this introductory discussion, and the comments in the notes, the relation between the two versions will be made clearer than ever before. The categories discussed are as follows: (1) localization of scene in England; (2) condensation; (3) expansion; (4) change of abstract expressions to concrete; (5) more direct and simple expressions; (6) less simple expressions; (7) more vigorous or forceful expressions; (8) insertion of words of more specific reference to persons; (9) insertion of qualifying adjectives or ad

5. Introduction of figures of speech, and improvement of those already found in Q.

6. Completion or better expression given to poet's thoughts by additions.

7. General change in oaths and imprecations.

III. Content.

Grabau mentions and illustrates the change of scene from Italy to England at this point. An article by Buff is cited in commenting upon certain passages in Q which help to explain F (see epitome of Buff's theory on pp. 430-1). Comments are made upon examples of deepened motivation in F (Q 1. 1. 148 ff., F 1. 2. 80 ff.; Q 2. 2. 1 ff., F 2. 5. 1 ff.; Q 3. 2. 51-54, F 3. 3. 132-134, 3. 5. 55-57). The characterization is briefly analyzed, and the article closes with a consideration of the passages entirely altered in F, and of the condensation of the fifth act in the latter. Grabau's opinions on these different matters can best be cited, where necessary, in the places where the same topics are discussed in the present edition.