The apostrophe is often a metrical device, and indicates
the blending of two words without actual elision of either.
the blending of two words without actual elision of either.
Ben Jonson - The Devil's Association
_ 4955),
quoted in Gifford's memoir, sufficiently disproves this supposition,
at least so far as _Bartholomew Fair_ and _The Devil is an Ass_
are concerned. In this letter, written according to Gifford about 1632,
Jonson says: 'It is the lewd printer's fault that I can send your
lordship no more of my book. I sent you one piece before, The Fair,
. . . and now I send you this other morsel, The fine gentleman that
walks the town, The Fiend; but before he will perfect the rest I fear
he will come himself to be a part under the title of The Absolute
Knave, which he hath played with me'. In 1870 Brinsley Nicholson
quoted this letter in _Notes and Queries_ (4th S. 5. 574), and
pointed out that the jocular allusions are evidently to _Bartholomew
Fair_ and _The Devil is an Ass_.
Although Gifford is to some extent justified in his contempt for the
edition, it is on the whole fairly correct.
The misprints are not numerous. The play is overpunctuated.
Thus the words 'now' and 'again' are usually marked off by
commas. Occasionally the punctuation is misleading. The mark of
interrogation is generally, but not invariably, used for that of
exclamation.
The apostrophe is often a metrical device, and indicates
the blending of two words without actual elision of either. The most
serious defect is perhaps the wrong assignment of speeches, though
later emendations are to be accepted only with caution. The present
text aims to be an exact reproduction of that of the 1631 edition.
1641. The pamphlet quarto of 1641 is merely a poor reprint of the
1631 edition. It abounds in printer's errors. Few if any intentional
changes, even of spelling and punctuation, are introduced. Little
intelligence is shown by the printer, as in the change 5. I. 34 SN.
(references are to act, scene, and line) He flags] He stags. It is
however of some slight importance, inasmuch as it seems to have been
followed in some instances by succeeding editions (cf. the omission
of the side notes 2. I. 20, 22, 33, followed by 1692, 1716, and W;
also 2. I.
quoted in Gifford's memoir, sufficiently disproves this supposition,
at least so far as _Bartholomew Fair_ and _The Devil is an Ass_
are concerned. In this letter, written according to Gifford about 1632,
Jonson says: 'It is the lewd printer's fault that I can send your
lordship no more of my book. I sent you one piece before, The Fair,
. . . and now I send you this other morsel, The fine gentleman that
walks the town, The Fiend; but before he will perfect the rest I fear
he will come himself to be a part under the title of The Absolute
Knave, which he hath played with me'. In 1870 Brinsley Nicholson
quoted this letter in _Notes and Queries_ (4th S. 5. 574), and
pointed out that the jocular allusions are evidently to _Bartholomew
Fair_ and _The Devil is an Ass_.
Although Gifford is to some extent justified in his contempt for the
edition, it is on the whole fairly correct.
The misprints are not numerous. The play is overpunctuated.
Thus the words 'now' and 'again' are usually marked off by
commas. Occasionally the punctuation is misleading. The mark of
interrogation is generally, but not invariably, used for that of
exclamation.
The apostrophe is often a metrical device, and indicates
the blending of two words without actual elision of either. The most
serious defect is perhaps the wrong assignment of speeches, though
later emendations are to be accepted only with caution. The present
text aims to be an exact reproduction of that of the 1631 edition.
1641. The pamphlet quarto of 1641 is merely a poor reprint of the
1631 edition. It abounds in printer's errors. Few if any intentional
changes, even of spelling and punctuation, are introduced. Little
intelligence is shown by the printer, as in the change 5. I. 34 SN.
(references are to act, scene, and line) He flags] He stags. It is
however of some slight importance, inasmuch as it seems to have been
followed in some instances by succeeding editions (cf. the omission
of the side notes 2. I. 20, 22, 33, followed by 1692, 1716, and W;
also 2. I.
