An Edition Of The Rover Essay, Research Paper

An Edition of The Rover

This project grew out of an exercise designed primarily to give

graduate students practical experience in the processes of textual

bibliography. It was continued and completed based on two beliefs:

first, that the errors found amoung extant editions are significant

enough to warrant further revision, and second, that the existence of a

text with format and language accessible to modern readers is essential

to the survival of this important work. With these aims in mind, we

have worked to produce an edition of The Rover that respects not only

the believed intentions of the author and the integrity of the earliest

texts, but also the needs and concerns of contemporary students,

teachers, actors, directors, and audiences of all sorts.

The version of the play chosen as the copy text for this edition

was the second issue of the first edition, printed in 1677. The first

comparison text was an issue of the second edition that was printed in

1697. The second comparison text was a 1915 volume edited by Montague

Summers. Summers text was chosen because it is based primarily upon a

1724 collection of Behn s dramatic pieces–a collection that, according

to Summers, is by far the best and most reliable edition of the

collected theater.

Most of the changes documented in the textual notes stem from

substantive discrepancies between these three texts. Often these

discrepancies are the result of words or phrases being inverted from one

edition to another. Note 44, for instance, concerns the stage

directions in a scene where Florinda hugs Belvile and his vizard falls

off. In the earliest edition, the hugging precedes the unmasquing, but

in the 1697 edition, the masque falls off before the embrace. The order

in which these actions are performed have significant consequence for

the audience s understanding of Florinda s motivations: is she hugging

Belvile because she thinks he is Belvile, or because she thinks he is

someone else? Other noted discrepancies are cases where words were

omitted in one or more of the editions. In the 1677 and 1915 versions,

for example, Philipo delivers the line in Act III, Blame me not,

Lucetta ; yet in the 1697 version, the line reads Blame not Lucetta

(note 32). Again, the difference is substantial; is Philipo attempting

to shift culpability from himself or from Lucetta? In these cases,

unless the context of the action suggests that the changes of the later

texts were logically sound (see note 61), the copy text was taken as the

authoritative version.

In some instances, accidental changes were also cited in the

textual notes (see notes 28, 58, and 65, for example). Most of these

noted changes highlight differences in punctuation. Although, as will

be discussed below, many changes in punctuation have not been noted,

those where the alteration would affect the inflection and delivery (if

not the very meaning) of a line have been cited.

This text contains many instances of editorial regularization that

are not specifically indicated in the notes following the text.

Capitalization, except in those cases where nouns are personified in

direct address ( Honour or Fortune, for instance), has been

standardized for the ease of the modern reader. Excessive commas have

been deleted, and periods have been added at the end of some lines.

Names of characters were regularized where there were inconsistencies

even within a single text (e. g. Angelica with one and two l s ).

Spelling has been similarly regularized. For the most part, for

example, past-tense verbs ending in t in the early editions have been

changed to ed. The expression whe is consistently replaced with

why. My self and your self have been combined into the modern

compound words throughout. More substantive spelling changes were made

in cases where it seemed outdated orthography could significantly slow

or distract a modern audience. For example, perswasive becomes

persuasive and jealousie becomes jealousy. Similarly, the final

k has been dropped from words such as rhetorick and antick, and

wou d and cou d have been spelled in full. The -our endings of

words such as honour and vigour, however, have been left intact –

for though the abbreviated -or endings have widely replaced them in

America, the -our spellings are still used in contemporary English

discourse.

After considerable debate among the editors, it was decided that

Behn s frequent use of contractions ( e en, tis, and to t, to name

a few) was one aspect of the text that would not be regularized

according to modern standards. Because Behn often mixes poetry into this

primarily prosaic text, it was decided that significantly altering

syllables could disturb an intentional metric or rhythmic design.

Likewise, the archaic pronouns thee and thou have been preserved so

as not to damage the aural and tonal effects of the original. Finally,

the metrical divisions of the early texts have been preserved in this

edition, as they were in the 1915 edition.

A final change not included in the textual notes concerns the

numbering of scenes. In both the 1677 and 1697 editions, individual

scenes usually cease to be numbered mid-act; that is, usually the first

(and sometimes the second) scene of each act is marked by number, but

later scenes lack the numeric designation. The 1915 edition, however,

continues to number scenes throughout each act. For ease of reference

(for teachers or directors, for example), we have chosen to follow the

1915 version.

Of course, we recognize the irony in regularizing the text of a

play about irregularities, opening up a text built around covering up.

But in the process of creating this edition, we have also frequently

shared with Behn s masquers the pleasurable experience of revealing a

state that was once concealed. It is our hope that the text that

follows succeeds in straightening out Behn s wonderful world of tangles

and confusions, so that other readers may continue to participate in the

play of this play, as well.