proved. Sometimes a word undergoes a considerable morphological change: e. g., 1.5.54 venters ] ventures. Several changes are uniform throughout the edition, and have been followed by all later editors. Chief among these are: ha's] has: I'le] I'll. A number of changes for the worse were made, which were followed by at least one of the subsequent editors: 2.4. 24. unknow] unknown; 2. 6. 106 detrect] detract; 4.1.14 Ban] Bar; 4.4. 160 choose ] chuse ; 5.2.55 whêr] where; 5. 2.73 let't] let's; Ep. 1. 23 Shriffes] Sheriffs. Some changes of even more importance had a following among later editors: 2.2.9 Ho Ser Anone] om. 1692 f.; 2.4.25 only to call in] only to call in still 1692 f.; 2.5.106 great] broken 1692 f. It 1716. The edition of 1716 is a bookseller's reprint of 1692, and is the most unsatisfactory of the editions of this play, its careless misprints being numerous. follows 1692 in the capitalization of nouns, and usually in punctuation. But independent editing is quite evident: the number of lines broken to indicate a change of speaker is greatly increased; new elisions are met with e. g., 2.5. 103 tane] ta'en, A. 7 though] tho'; words undergo a considerable change: e. g., 1.5.68 Lætice] Lætitia, 3.2.182 giving] given; changes of wording are made: e. g., 2.5.76 why] with, 2.6.152 few] a few, 3.2. 136 the] them; changes are made through omissions: e. g., 1. 6. 140 like the Howres] 'the' om., 3. 2. 161 mindes is firme ] mind's firm. Some obvious mistakes in preceding editions are corrected: e. g., 2. 4. 21 wear's] wears; but far greater is the number of misspellings, which gave the next succeeding editor who used this text as his basis grounds for debate: 1.3.74 ply] play; 2.6.66 inginous] ingenious; 2. 6. 255 monument] moment; 4. 3. 51 say] lay; 5.2.6 caparison] comparison. Beginning with the title-page, it follows 1692 blindly in many of its indefensible changes: e. g., 5. 2. 55 whêr] where; Ep. 1. 23 Shriffes] Sheriffs. 1756. An examination of the title-page of this play as given in the edition of Peter Whalley, 1756, shows at once what value is to be attached to this edition: The date 1629 is placed as in the original, and 'fastidia' is given correctly; but when one observes 'judg'd of' and the transposition of 'Hor.' he is at once aware that, although it may have been collated with all the former editions, and corrected,' there is no ground for assuming the text to be a critical one. It is difficult to understand the inconsistencies in Whalley until his mode of procedure is made clear. Johnson has already noted Whalley's method in his edition of The Devil is an Ass, but in our play it is particularly conspicuous: he took 1716 as his authority, and only made some reference to the 1631 edition after his notes were completed. In 1.3.74, 1716 reads 'play' for 'ply,' which calls forth this note from him: 'For play, which does by no means suit what follows, we must read I presume ply the vaulting house;' and after ten or a dozen notes of this kind scattered through his pages, in the second scene of the last act, having suggested' caparison' for the 'comparison' of 1716, he adds: 'Since the writing of these notes, I was favoured with the edition of this play, in 8vo. of 1631; and in that I had the satisfaction of finding the conjectural emendations I have made confirmed; and in particular caparison is here the reading of that edition.' To quote Johnson, 'This reverence for the 1716 text is inexplicable.' In some respects, however, Whalley departs from his model to a considerable extent. The practice of breaking the lines for a change of speaker is uniformly carried out; capitaliza tion is in accord with modern standards; change is made in the arrangement of the text for metrical reasons, 3. 1.93; emendations are ventured upon; e. g., A. 167 bedlem] bedlamite; changes are made in contractions: e. g., 2.2.7 she'ld] she'll; even words are changed: e. g., 1. 6. 59 it] I; 3. 1. 202 disiune] dejeune; morphological changes occur: e. g., 4.3.51 say] 'say; 5. 2. 13 wiues] wife's; words are contracted: e. g., 4. 4. 106 valour is ] valour's; metrical changes are made by insertions: e. g., 3. 2. 175 'my'; a change is made in the arrangement of the text in the court-scene, 3.2.15 ff. 1816. William Gifford, although very free in his criticism of Whalley, 'whose copy of this play is full of errors,' follows the latter closely in his edition of 1816, even to the extent of accepting many of the indefensible changes made in 1756: e. g., A. 167, 1.6. 59, 2.2.7, 3. 1. 202 (see above). Gifford's edition is, however, much more carefully printed than that of Whalley. In addition to following his predecessors in many of their changes from the original, Gifford makes a number of his own: change in a verb-ending: e. g., 2.2. 23 acknowledgeth] acknowledges; change in contractions: e. g., 2. 3. 10 you'ld] you'd; contractions abandoned: e. g., 2. 3. 16 you'l] you will, 2. 6. 101 Th'] Thou; abbreviations abandoned: e. g., 4. 3. 42 mas] master; changes of wording: e. g., 4. 4. 239; in the order of words: e. g., 5. 2. 69 Lord Beaufort married is] lord Beaufort's married; metrical changes by insertions: e. g., 5. 4. 15 is your brain [too] lately married? Parentheses are usually omitted. The following changes in contracted words occur: 't] it; do's] does; th'] the; fro'] from; gi'] give; h'] he; ha'] have; 'hem] them (sometimes 'em); i'] in; o'] of, on; t'] to; upo'] upon; wi'] with; yo'] you. A number of lines are rearranged to show the verse-structure: e. g., 3. 1. 54, 3. 1. 76, 3. 1. 93, 3. 1. 169. Gifford's greatest innovation is in the matter of stage-directions and side-notes. In the original edition the play is divided into twenty-three scenes, in accordance with Jonson's practice of considering a scene a situation, as was the tradition of the classical drama; and there are but two or three side-notes. Gifford follows the regular English usage, dividing the play into nine scenes, according to actual changes of place. He greatly elaborates the stage - directions already in existence, and makes numerous additions in the form of sidenotes. He differs from both the original and Whalley in his arrangement of the text in the court-scene, 3.2.15 ff. The notes of Whalley and Gifford are very incomplete, but those which point out Jonson's debt to Greek and Latin writers are invaluable to the editor of the present day. 1875. As former editors have noted, Cunningham's reissue, 1875, is a reprint of Gifford's text without change. Cunningham adds some notes of his own, many of which condemn Gifford's freedom in tampering with the text. DATE The New Inn was acted by the King's Majesty's Servants at the Blackfriars Theatre on January 19th, 1628-9. The authority for this statement is Malone, in whose Essay on Shakespeare, Ford, and Jonson we find the following: 'Ford's play [The Lover's Melancholy] was exhibited at the Blackfriars on the 24th of November, 1628, when it was licensed for the stage, as appears from the office-book of Sir Henry Herbert, Master of the Revels to King Charles the First, a manuscript now before me; and Jonson's New Inn on the 19th of January in the following year, 1628-9.'1 The only thing to make one doubt the year as Malone gives it is the fact that the title-page bears the date 1629. Gifford, in his Memoirs,2 gives the year as 1629-30, but contradicts himself when he speaks of the 'publication of The New Inn, two years after its condemnation," for the play was entered in the Stationers' Registers on April 17th, 1631, and two years before that must have been 1628-9. Malone evidently made no mistake, for he is correct in regard to Ford's play : 'The lovers Melanchollye by JOHN FFORD gent' is entered in the Stationers' Registers on June 2nd, 1629. The only explanation of the 1629 in the title-page of The New Inn is that Jonson remembered that, roughly speaking, it was two years since the presentation, and so assigned it to that year without any special concern as to the exact date. This was the next play after The Staple of News, 1626. 'It appears from a letter of Jonson's to the Earl of Newcastle, 1631-2, that he had a second paralytic Vstroke early in 1628. There is nothing that can be positively assigned to this interval of sickness, 1626-8. But in 1628, Sept. 2, he must have recovered, for he was admitted City Chronologer in place of T. Middleton, deceased, with a salary of 100 nobles per annum. He did not, however, write any pageants; Dekker did that in 1628 and 1629, as he had done in 1627." Two masques, Love's Triumph Through Callipolis and Chloridia, were published in 1631. The Magnetic Lady, his next play, was licensed in 1632. 1 Ed. of Shakespeare, 1790, 1.403. 2 Wks. I. cxxvi. Introd. to New Inn (Wks. 5. 296). |