An Edition of The RoverAn Edition of The Rover This project grew out of an exercise designed primarily to givegraduate students practical experience in the processes of textualbibliography. It was continued and completed based on two beliefs: first, that the errors found amoung extant editions are significantenough to warrant further revision, and second, that the existence of atext with format and language accessible to modern readers is essentialto the survival of this important work. With these aims in mind, wehave worked to produce an edition of The Rover that respects not onlythe believed intentions of the author and the integrity of the earliesttexts, 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 editionwas the second issue of the first edition, printed in 1677. The firstcomparison text was an issue of the second edition that was printed in1697. The second comparison text was a 1915 volume edited by MontagueSummers.
Summers text was chosen because it is based primarily upon a1724 collection of Behns dramatic pieces–a collection that, accordingto Summers, is “by far the best and most reliable edition of thecollected theater. “Most of the changes documented in the textual notes stem fromsubstantive discrepancies between these three texts. Often thesediscrepancies are the result of words or phrases being inverted from oneedition to another. Note 44, for instance, concerns the stagedirections in a scene where Florinda hugs Belvile and his vizard fallsoff.
In the earliest edition, the hugging precedes the unmasquing, butin the 1697 edition, the masque falls off before the embrace. The orderin which these actions are performed have significant consequence forthe audiences understanding of Florindas motivations:is she huggingBelvile because she thinks he is Belvile, or because she thinks he issomeone else?Other noted discrepancies are cases where words wereomitted 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 attemptingto shift culpability from himself or from Lucetta?In these cases,unless the context of the action suggests that the changes of the latertexts were logically sound (see note 61), the copy text was taken as theauthoritative version.
In some instances, accidental changes were also cited in thetextual notes (see notes 28, 58, and 65, for example). Most of thesenoted changes highlight differences in punctuation. Although, as willbe discussed below, many changes in punctuation have not been noted,those where the alteration would affect the inflection and delivery (ifnot the very meaning) of a line have been cited. This text contains many instances of editorial regularization thatare not specifically indicated in the notes following the text. Capitalization, except in those cases where nouns are personified indirect address (&.
. . . .
quot;Honour” or “Fortune,” for instance), has beenstandardized for the ease of the modern reader. Excessive commas havebeen deleted, and periods have been added at the end of some lines. Names of characters were regularized where there were inconsistencieseven within a single text (e. g.
“Angelica” with one and two “ls”). Spelling has been similarly regularized. For the most part, forexample, past-tense verbs ending in “t” in the early editions have beenchanged to “ed. “The expression “whe” is consistently replaced with”why. “”My self” and “your self” have been combined into the moderncompound words throughout.
More substantive spelling changes were madein cases where it seemed outdated orthography could significantly slowor 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”woud” and “coud” have been spelled in full. The “-our” endings ofwords such as “honour” and “vigour,” however, have been left intact –for though the abbreviated “-or” endings have widely replaced them inAmerica, the “-our” spellings are still used in contemporary Englishdiscourse. After considerable debate among the editors, it was decided thatBehns frequent use of contractions (“een,” “tis,” and “tot,”to namea few) was one aspect of the text that would not be regularizedaccording to modern standards.
Because Behn often mixes poetry into thisprimarily prosaic text, it was decided that significantly alteringsyllables could disturb an intentional metric or rhythmic design. Likewise, the archaic pronouns “thee” and “thou” have been preserved soas not to damage the aural and tonal effects of the original. Finally,the metrical divisions of the early texts have been preserved in thisedition, as they were in the 1915 edition. A final change not included in the textual notes concerns thenumbering of scenes. In both the 1677 and 1697 editions, individualscenes usually cease to be numbered mid-act;that is, usually the first(and sometimes the second) scene of each act is marked by number, butlater 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 the1915 version. Of course, we recognize the irony in regularizing the text of aplay about irregularities, “opening up” a text built around covering up. But in the process of creating this edition, we have also frequentlyshared with Behns masquers the pleasurable experience of revealing astate that was once concealed.
It is our hope that the text thatfollows succeeds in straightening out Behns wonderful world of tanglesand confusions, so that other readers may continue to participate in theplay of this play, as well.
