Wednesday, September 4, 2019

An Edition Of The Rover :: essays research papers fc

An Edition of The Rover   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  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.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  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 â€Å"by far the best and most reliable edition of the collected theater.†   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  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, â€Å"Blame me not, Lucetta†; yet in the 1697 version, the line reads â€Å"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.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In some instances, accidental changes were also cited in the textual notes (see notes 28, 58, and 65, for example).

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.