Editions by W. Scott (1810, A. B. D. ii) and W. A. Neilson (1911, C. E. D.); and with Works of Webster (q.v.).—Dissertation: E. E. Stoll, John Webster (1905), 55, and Shakspere, Marston, and the Malcontent Type (1906, M. P. iii. 281).
The induction, in which parts are taken by Sly, Sinklo, Burbadge, Condell, and Lowin, explains the genesis of the enlarged edition.
Sly. ... I would know how you came by this play?
Condell. Faith, sir, the book was lost; and because ’twas pity so good a play should be lost, we found it and play it.
Sly. I wonder you would play it, another company having interest in it.
Condell. Why not Malevole in folio with us, as Jeronimo in decimosexto with them? They taught us a name for our play; we call it One for Another.
Sly. What are your additions?
Burbadge. Sooth, not greatly needful; only as your salad to your great feast, to entertain a little more time, and to abridge the not-received custom of music in our theatre.
Stoll, 57, rightly argues that Small, 115, is not justified in ignoring the evidence of the title-page and assigning the insertions, as well as the induction, to Webster rather than Marston. On the other hand, I think he himself ignores the evidence of Burbadge’s speech in the induction, when he takes the undramatic quality of the insertions as proof that Marston did not write them first in 1604, but revived them from his original text, which the boy actors had shortened. He puts this original text in 1600, because of the allusion in one of the insertions (I. iii. 20) to a ‘horn growing in the woman’s forehead twelve years since’. This horn was described in a pamphlet of 1588. I do not share his view that ‘twelve’ must be a precise and not a round number. Sly says in the induction:
‘This play hath beaten all your gallants out of the feathers: Blackfriars hath almost spoiled Blackfriars for feathers.’