were often withheld many years from the press. It was first published in the 1631-41 folio, and, like the other parts of that volume, does not exhibit the nice workmanship of the earlier folio. It is improbable that Jonson revised it; but that it was brought out surreptitiously, as Gifford conjectured, is proved untrue by Jonson's letter regarding the printing of the play.1

In the text which I submit as the basis of my study, I have painstakingly followed in spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, the folio of 1631-41. This was suggested by the example of Dr. Horace H. Furness in the Variorum Shakespeare, who, after carefully constructing a text for each of his earlier volumes, at length decided to reproduce the text of the first Shakespeare folio. The reasons which he adduced in support of his later method2 apply with equal force to Bartholomew Fair. And it is hoped that by reproducing the original text of this play, even with all the 'barbarities', as Gifford termed them, the student may be aided in forming a more independent judgment, as well as in coming nearer to Jonson.

2.

THE ANNUAL BARTHOLOMEW FAIR.

Jonson's play is a realistic portrayal of the Fair held at Smithfield, London; and one of the greatest helps to a knowledge of either the Fair or the play, is an acquaintance with the other. For completeness, then, the present work should include a history of the Fair from its founding in the twelfth century to its decay and final dissolution, seven hundred and thirty years later. But such a history has been written by Henry Morley, who had the great advantage of immediate access to manuscripts, tracts, bills, etc., some of which were published expressly for the Fair, and of course are invaluable for their record of its varied and 1 See Note on I. B. of the Title-page.

2 See Preface to Othello (Var. Ed.), pp. V, VI.

eventful life. So that, alluring though the Fair is, with its traditions of northern clothiers, horse-traders, roast pig, and rough and hearty amusements (many of which are commented on in the Notes), it seems sufficient at this point merely to name the work which will be found a rich storehouse of information, Morley's Memoirs of Bartholomew Fair.

Another useful book, though confessedly based on the Memoirs in the chapters relating to the London Fair, is Walford's Fairs, Past and Present. Magazine articles have also appeared from time to time, but they are of no value.

As a suggestion of the long and varied history of Bartholomew Fair, I append the following dates:

1102 Founding of the Priory of Bartholomew. 1120 Bartholomew Fair established by Rayer. 1133 First Charter, granted by Henry I.

1500

1539 Severed from the Church.

1546 Priory rights secured by Lord Rich.

1593 Suspended because of the plague.

1596 Composition of tolls, betwen Lord Rich and the City of

London.

1598 Described by a German tutor, Paul Hentzner.

1603 Suspended because of the plague.

1614 Smithfield paved.

The third Lord Rich, Lord of the Fair.

Depicted by Ben Jonson at the Hope Theatre.

1625 Suspended because of the plague.

1630 Suspended because of the plague.

1647+ Many political tracts issued at it.

1661 Becomes a fourteen-day fair.

1678 First question of suppression raised by civic authorities. 1685 The tolls leased by the City to a sword-bearer for £100 a year.

Its decay as a place of trade.

1694 Reduced to a three-day fair as formerly.

1697 Vicious plays suppressed by the Lord Mayor.

Puppet-shows still flourish.

1728 Henry Fielding has a theatrical booth at which he acts.

1736

1750+ Roast pig loses its popularity; beef sausage comes into vogue. 1762 More restrictions upon its liberties.

1769 Plays, puppet-shows, and gambling suppressed.

1792 Performances by political puppets.

1798 Its abolition again discussed by the Corporation of London.

1827 The Lord of the Fair's rights bought by the Corporation of

London.

1839 Measures for suppression.

1855 Its last year.

3. JONSON'S BARTHOLOMEW FAIR: ITS GENERAL FEATURES.

While all of Jonson's early comedies had been at least moderately successful, and several much more than that, his later and more ambitious effort, Catiline, embodying long cherished and carefully elaborated theories, was an unmistakable failure. Jonson was keenly disappointed at its reception. Being much too positive and self-confident to distrust his art, he quickly changed his estimate of the public. With a feeling not untouched with cynicism, he suddenly becomes aware of the 'jig-given times' in which he is living, where is 'so thick and dark an ignorance, as now almost covers the age.'

In Catiline he had worked on the assumption that like himself the public was deeply interested in classical archæ

ology; he had conceived the masses to be hearers and readers 'extraordinary', whereas they proved themselves, beyond a question, very 'ordinary'. It is thus not strange that, oppressed with a sense of the futility of his labor, he produced nothing for the next two years. Then followed Bartholomew Fair, 'made to delight all and offend none.' It was thus a compromise, in which, recognizing that the Elizabethans were not scholars but fun-loving boys, he laid aside, as it were, the schoolman's gown, and presented 'a new sufficient play, . merry, and as full of noise as sport.' That he might not again write above the heads of his audience, he constructed this drama, he tells them with playful sarcasm in the Induction, according to 'the scale of the grounded judgments', just to their 'meridian' in wit.

Bartholomew Fair was as popular as Catiline had been unpopular. And though we should undoubtedly incur the scorn of the author were he to hear three centuries later this admission of human weakness, our judgment agrees with that of the people. For lightly as Jonson regarded his task, Bartholomew Fair is a play of surpassing power. Ward is not blinded by enthusiasm when he characterizes it as 'of its kind . . . without a rival in our dramatic literature."1 On the other hand, it does not aid in a true appreciation of this play to disregard its structural defects or to palliate its frequent coarseness. Leigh Hunt condemned it as 'full of the absolutest, and loathsomest, trash',2 a criticism which shows how strongly he was offended rather than how penetrating was his insight. Much more discerning is Swinburne's judgment: 'It must be confessed that some of the meat is too high and some of the sauces are too rank for any but a very strong digestion. But those who turn away from the table in sheer disgust at the coarseness of the fare will lose the enjoyment of some of the richest and strongest humor, some of the most brilliant and varied realism, that ever claimed the attention or excited the admiration of the study or the stage."

1 Eng. Dram. Lit. 2. 371.

2 Hunt, Men, Women, and Books, 2. 13. 'Swinburne, Study of Ben Jonson, 60.

V

Bartholomew Fair is the most farcical of Jonson's plays. There is, to be sure, an element of seriousness in the keen satire of the Puritan, which prevents it from being entirely a farce, but for the most part the play is given over to natural, rollicking fun. This varies all the way from the rough horse-play of Waspe's beating the Justice and the tragical destruction of Mrs. Overdo's French hood, to the highly respectable wooing of Grace Wellborn. The scenes are typical of London life, compressed and heightened as it naturally would be in the annual merry-making of Bartholomew Fair. The satire is less delicate, and th humorous situations less elaborate, than in Epicoene; bu the fun is even more spontaneous and varied.

The plot is noticeably slight. The interest is chiefl concerned with the picture of the old Fair, into whic all the curious incidents that might happen among the hearty, pleasure-loving Londoners on Bartholomew Day ar crowded. There is great diversity in the picture; yet since each scene is so closely connected with the Fair, the latter gives it a certain unity.

Notwithstanding the looseness of structure, which ma be somewhat easily pardoned in so light a piece, there are to be noted evidences of careful workmanship. The unities of time and place are strictly observed. The action i included in one short day, beginning with the middle of the morning and ending in time for an invitation to supper. Aside from Act 1, which is introductory, the scene is laid entirely in the outer portion of the Fair, where were the eating-booths, the puppet-shows, and the 'monsters'; Ac I is placed at Littlewit's home, within a few minutes' walk of the Fair.

There are, further, certain threads of interest to be fo lowed throughout the play. At the very beginning th attention is directed to the project devised by Winwife ar Quarlous of making a wealthy match, in pursuit of whi they are friendly rivals for the hand of Dame Purecraft well as that of Grace Wellborn. A second interest is in t