He considered himself
justified
in
his mutilation of the side notes on the ground that they were not
from the hand of Jonson.
his mutilation of the side notes on the ground that they were not
from the hand of Jonson.
Ben Jonson - The Devil's Association
The latter he considered as of 'the
most trite and trifling nature', and 'a worthless incumbrance'. He
accordingly cut or omitted with the utmost freedom, introducing new
and elaborate stage directions of his own. He reduced the number of
scenes from thirty-six to seventeen. In this, as Hathaway points out,
he followed the regular English usage, dividing the scenes according
to actual changes of place. Jonson adhered to classical tradition,
and looked upon a scene as a situation. Gifford made his alterations
by combining whole scenes, except in the case of Act 2. 3, which
begins at Folio Act 2. 7. 23 (middle of line); of Act 3. 2, which
begins at Folio Act 3. 5. 65 and of Act 3. 3, which begins at Folio
Act 3. 5. 78 (middle of line).
He considered himself justified in
his mutilation of the side notes on the ground that they were not
from the hand of Jonson. Evidence has already been adduced to show
that they were at any rate printed with his sanction. I am, however,
inclined to believe with Gifford that they were written by another
hand. Gifford's criticism of them is to a large extent just. The note
on '_Niaise_', 1. 6. 18, is of especially doubtful value (see note).
1875. 'Cunningham's reissue, 1875, reprints Gifford's text without
change. Cunningham, however, frequently expresses his disapproval of
Gifford's licence in changing the text' (Winter).
[1] The first volume of this folio appeared in 1616. A reprint of
this volume in 1640 is sometimes called the Second Folio. It should
not be confused with the 1631-41 Edition of the second volume.
[2] Note prefixed to _Bartholomew Fair_.
[3] _Eng. Drama_, p.
most trite and trifling nature', and 'a worthless incumbrance'. He
accordingly cut or omitted with the utmost freedom, introducing new
and elaborate stage directions of his own. He reduced the number of
scenes from thirty-six to seventeen. In this, as Hathaway points out,
he followed the regular English usage, dividing the scenes according
to actual changes of place. Jonson adhered to classical tradition,
and looked upon a scene as a situation. Gifford made his alterations
by combining whole scenes, except in the case of Act 2. 3, which
begins at Folio Act 2. 7. 23 (middle of line); of Act 3. 2, which
begins at Folio Act 3. 5. 65 and of Act 3. 3, which begins at Folio
Act 3. 5. 78 (middle of line).
He considered himself justified in
his mutilation of the side notes on the ground that they were not
from the hand of Jonson. Evidence has already been adduced to show
that they were at any rate printed with his sanction. I am, however,
inclined to believe with Gifford that they were written by another
hand. Gifford's criticism of them is to a large extent just. The note
on '_Niaise_', 1. 6. 18, is of especially doubtful value (see note).
1875. 'Cunningham's reissue, 1875, reprints Gifford's text without
change. Cunningham, however, frequently expresses his disapproval of
Gifford's licence in changing the text' (Winter).
[1] The first volume of this folio appeared in 1616. A reprint of
this volume in 1640 is sometimes called the Second Folio. It should
not be confused with the 1631-41 Edition of the second volume.
[2] Note prefixed to _Bartholomew Fair_.
[3] _Eng. Drama_, p.
