1816. William Gifford’s edition is more carefully printed than that of Whalley, whom he criticizes freely. In many indefensible changes, however, he follows his predecessor, even to the insertion of words in 1. 1. 48 and 4. 7. 38, 39 (see above). He makes further morphological changes, even when involving a change of metre: e.g., 1. 1. 11 Totnam] Tottenham; 1. 4. 88 phantsie] phantasie; makes new elisions: e. g., 1. 6. 226 I ha’] I’ve; changes in wording: e. g., 2. 1. 97 O’] O!; and in assignment of speeches: e. g., 4. 4. 17. He usually omits parentheses, and the following changes in contracted words occur, only exceptions being noted in the variants: fro’] from; gi’] give; h’] he; ha’] have; ’hem] them (but often ’em); i’] in; o’] on, of; t’] to; th’] the; upo’] upon; wi’] with, will; yo’] you. Gifford’s greatest changes are in the stage directions and side notes of the 1631 edition. 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. 78. [4] _Eng. Drama_ 2. 296. [5] _N. & Q._ 4th Ser. 5. 573. [6] _Bibliog. Col._, 2d Ser. p. 320. [7] _Bibliog. Col._, p. 320. For a more detailed description of this volume see Winter, pp. xii-xiii. [8] For a collation of this edition, see Mallory, pp. xv-xvii. B. DATE AND PRESENTATION We learn from the title-page that this comedy was acted in 1616 by the King’s Majesty’s Servants. This is further confirmed by a passage in 1. 1. 80-81: