All marginal notes are omitted in this Quarto.

The next appearance of the play was in the Folio of 1616. There are several mutually independent impressions of this,1 of which I have seen two-the one in the Yale Library (F1), and the one in possession of the Yale Elizabethan Club (F2). F1 reads: LONDON | Printed by William | Stansby. | Ano D. 1616. F2 reads: LONDON Printed by W: | Stansby. and are to be sould by Rich Meighen | Ano D. 1616. Although Aurelia Henry2 mentions a copy in the British Museum reading similarly to F2, which varies in 'a few instances of punctuation, spelling, and typography' from F1, I can discover no differences in Catiline. A collation of the two texts reveals an absolute identity: title-page, verso blank; dedication recto, catalogue verso, etc.3 Even the misprint in Catiline, where page 713 is headed 317, is repeated. FI has been chosen as the text of the present edition, because it exhibits the most consistency, and contains the fewest apparent errors. Although it varies in numerous particulars from the text of Q1, the fact that its variations have been pretty generally incorporated in the later printings indicates that it was from the first regarded as authoritative.

Following Catiline's appearance in the 1616 Folio came the Quarto of 1635 (Q2), reading, CATILINE | HIS | CONSPIRACY | WRITTEN | BY | BEN: IONSON And now Acted by his MAIESTIES Servants with great Applause, | LONDON: | Printed by N. OKES, for I. S. | 1635. It is very carelessly printed, as its many

1 See W. W. Greg, Mod. Lang. Quart., Apr. 1904, pp. 26-29. 2 Epicoene (Yale Studies 31) xiii.

3 For collation, see Poetaster, ed. H. S. Mallory (Yale Studies 27), xii. A separate collation after the method proposed by Judson (ed. Cynthia's Revels, Yale Studies 44, xiv ff.) yields the same result with respect to Catiline in F1 and F2.

mistakes show. Its text follows in the main Q1, as omission of the marginal directions indicates. The collation is as follows: title-page, one leaf (verso blank); addresses to the reader, one leaf recto; commendatory verses, one leaf verso, one leaf recto; catalogue, one leaf verso; text B-L4 in fours (bottom margins cut into).

In 1640 appeared the second Folio of Jonson's complete works (1640)—a slovenly piece of printing, containing many errors, such as a part for apart in 1. 340; our for out in 1. 357; the omission of the second you in 2.78; vpon for vnto in 3. 196; Porter for potter in 3. 542; Of for Or in 4. 550; SEN. for SER. in 1. 572, etc. Aside from its errors, it differs little from F1, although it would seem, upon the evidence offered by Aurelia Henry, not to be a reprint of that, but of another copy of the 1616 Folio in the British Museum. The title-page reads: LONDON, | Printed by | Richard Bishop, and are to be sold by | Andrew Crooke, | in St. Paules, Church-yard. | Ano D. 1640.

In 1674 appeared the third Quarto (Q3) of Catiline. The title reads: CATILINE | HIS | CONSPIRACY | A Tragoedie. As it is now Acted by His | MAJESTIE'S | Servants; | at the Theatre ROYAL. | The Author B. J. LONDON, Printed for A. C. and are to be sold by William | Cademan at the Pope's Head | in the Lower walk of the New Exchange, 1674. This edition has but little value, being merely brought out because the play had been recently popular in a stage-revival. It omits the dedication, but is in other respects a reprint of the 1616 Folio, with minor changes in spelling and punctuation. There are some careless mistakes, such as yearly for early in 1. 210; the omission of the rest in 1. 353; thy for they in 1. 539; ever for euery in 2. 347; spy

1 Epicoene, ed. Henry (Yale Studies 31) xv.

all for spiall in 4. 233, etc., showing the hasty nature of the work. Following the title-page comes a prologue, and at the end of the volume is an epilogue. These are given in the Appendix, pp. 218-19.

Catiline next appeared in the third Folio, 1692. This edition is a reprint of that of 1640, and follows most of its errors. Spelling is modernized, so that do's becomes does, 'hem becomes 'em, etc. The punctuation is much changed, especially in the reduction of redundant commas, and the enlarged use of the colon.1 In 1716 there appeared a booksellers' reprint of this Folio, in seven octavo volumes. It is of slight importance, although its changes in the text I have thought best to incorporate in my footnotes.

In 1756 appeared Peter Whalley's edition of the works. (W). Whalley modernizes spellings, adopts an independent punctuation, divides into scenes at the entrance of new characters, encloses all verse in quotation-marks, and runs in Jonson's marginal directions between the lines, or as footnotes. His text in the main follows that of 1716, although it is not quite so faulty. Whalley's edition was reprinted by John Stockdale, London, 1811. In 1816 William Gifford produced his edition of Jonson Gifford approached his task in a scholarly manner, choosing the Folio of 1616 as the standard of his text, but also considering the readings of the Quartos. Although not entirely thorough, his edition is much superior to Whalley's, both in text and notes. He very amusingly loses patience many times with Whalley's somewhat puerile emendations, and takes him to task in rather caustic and mordant terms: notwithstanding which, he is himself free in making emendations, usually without com

(G).

1 For collations of the three Folios see Poetaster, ed. Mallory (Yale Studies 27).

ment. Gifford is the first to divide the acts into scenes according to place instead of according to speaker, and gives the setting of each scene. All entrances and exits of characters are noted by him in stage-directions or sidenotes. These changes make a play such as Catiline much more intelligible to the general reader. Gifford's text is available in his two editions, those of 1816 and 1846, and in the reprint with 'perfunctory improvements' (the phrase is Dr. Herford's) by Lieut.-Col. Cunningham in 1875, which is still the standard for Jonson's complete works. His alterations of the text are mainly modernizations ay for the interjection I; them or 'em for 'hem; have for ha'; the for th', etc. All important variants will be found in the footnotes to the text.1

So far as I have been able to learn, there are no translations of Catiline.

B. DATE AND STAGE-HISTORY

The date of the first acting of Catiline, according to the title-pages of F1, F2, and Q1, was 1611. As all dates were then reckoned in old style, however, this may well have been 1612; and the absence of a record in the Stationers' Registers leaves us without any definite data.

The title-page of Q2 informs us that the play was at that time (1635) 'acted by his MAIESTIES Servants with great Applause,' but I am unable to discover any contemporary notes of its appearance.

It was early revived at the Restoration, and was, on the whole, well received. Under date of December II, 1667, Pepys says, 'I met... Harris, the player, and there

1 For collations of 1716, W, G, and C-G, see The Alchemist, ed. Hathaway (Yale Studies 17).

we talked... particularly of Catiline, which is to be suddenly acted at the King's house; and there all agree that it cannot be well done at that house, there not being good actors enow and Burt acts Cicero, which they all conclude he will not be able to do well. The King gives them £ 500 for robes, there being, as they say, to be sixteen scarlett robes.' On December 18, 1668, the play was produced, evidently somewhat later than had been at first planned, with Hart as Catiline, Mohun as Cethegus, Burt as Cicero, and Mrs. Corey as Sempronia. On the next afternoon Pepys saw it, but was not greatly impressed, as his words testify: ... Saw Catiline's Conspiracy, yesterday being the first day: a play of much good sense and words to read, but that do appear the worst upon the stage, I mean, the least diverting, that ever I saw any, though the most fine in clothes; and a fine scene of the Senate, and of a fight, that ever I saw in my life. But the play is only to be read.'

The play was still being revived in 1674, as the titlepage of Q3 shows: 'As it is now Acted by his MAJESTIE'S Servants.' John Downes in his Roscius Anglicanus mentions Catiline as one of the stock plays commonly produced in his day, all of which, he states, ́proved very satisfactory to the town.' Gerard Langbaine the younger in his Account of the English Dramatic Poets (Oxford, 1601),1 says that Catiline continued 'still in vogue on the stage (in his time), and was always presented with success.' However, there is no reason to believe that the play survived on the stage longer than the opening years of the eighteenth century. In the main, Pepys' contention that Catiline is 'only to be read' is right; although one could hardly imagine it a total failure on the stage, it is to-day primarily a 'closet-drama.'

1 Quoted by Gifford. I have not a copy at hand.