| ||
Dryden's Indian Emperour: The Early
Editions and
their Relation to the Text
by
James S. Steck
HUGH MACDONALD IN HIS DRYDEN Bibliography listed ten editions of Dryden's play, The Indian Emperour, appearing between 1667 and 1696.[1] However, since the publication of Macdonald's bibliography, it has been discovered that two other editions of the play were printed and issued, one in 1670 and the other in 1696. The existence of the latter edition was reported by E. N. Hooker, who found it in the William A. Clark Library.[2] More recently, Fredson Bowers has discovered another edition of the play bearing the date 1670.[3]
Macdonald did not attempt to establish a genealogical order for the texts of the play or to demonstrate the exemplum from which each edition after the second was printed, being content merely to list the plays according to the dates which appeared on their title-pages. The present study attempts to supply this previously unrecorded textual history of the play.
The following table of the first thirteen editions of The Indian Emperour shows the numbering adopted by Macdonald
Edition | Date | Macdonald | Woodward and McManaway |
A | 1667 | 69a | 414 |
B | 1668 | 69b | 415-416 |
C | 1670 | [69c1-Bowers] | [417a-Bowers][4] |
D | 1670 | 69c | 417 |
E | 1670 | 69d | 418 |
F | 1681 | 69e | 419 |
G | 1686 | 69f | 420 |
H | 1692 | 69g | 421 |
I | 1694 | 69h | 422 |
J | 1696 | 69k | 425 |
K | 1696 | [69j-Osborn] | 424 |
L | 1696 | 69i | 423 |
Folio | 1701 | 107ai | --- |
After the first edition of The Indian Emperour was published in 1667, Dryden wrote "A Defence of an Essay of Dramatique Poesie," which appeared for the first and only time in some copies of the second edition of the play, although cancelled in most. The introductory words of the essay indicate that Dryden himself carefully edited the 1668 edition which it prefaced:
However, Dryden made few major changes in edition B (1668). Except for the deletion of one couplet which appears as lines 26-27 on G1v of edition A (p. 314, ll. 26-27),[6]
Each several part must join t'effect the cure.
She slumbers deep, deep in her silent Tomb,
Let her possess in Peace that narrow Room.
Let her possess in Peace that narrow Room.
At least this Weapon both our Blood shall joyn.
This Weapons point shall mix that blood with mine!
Edition B is a page-for-page reprint of edition A with but one exception. In edition A, sig. C3 ends with line 38 (288: 18),
He has commanded you with me to go.
He has commanded you with me to go.
Cyd.
Has he not sent to bring the stranger too?
This same change in the number of lines on sig. C3 of edition B is useful in determining that the three 1670 editions C, D, and E derive from edition B rather than from edition A, since at this point all three editions are like B in including line 39 on C3. Likewise the three 1670 editions follow B in omitting the couplet appearing in A on G1v, ll. 26-27 (314: 26-27), and the three lines in the prologue. C, D, and E retain the improved readings of the couplets on D4 and H2. The stage-direction on D2, l. 19 (293: 16) of edition B, 'Enter Pizarro', is not present in edition A, but is to be found in C, D, and E, as is a line of the text first added in edition B on I4v, l. 30 (333:40),
When that is forc'd there yet remain two more.
Even though as a group C, D, and E are alike and are demonstrably based ultimately upon B as a copy-text, there are enough differences in the three editions to indicate their respective derivations and their order. It is possible first to separate editions D and E as a group distinct from edition C. In editions B and C on B4v, 1. 6 (283:11), the line,
It is likewise possible to distinguish edition E from edition D. In many places where D agrees with C, edition E shows a deterioration of the text. The opening words of l. 23 on sig. D3 (293:21) of editions C, D, and the preceding texts are, 'Men can', but in E these are changed to 'Man can'. On D4, l. 34 (295:27), 'from your', of C, D, and earlier editions becomes 'from our', in edition E. On F1, l. 1 (306:1), editions A-C read, 'SCENE III. Mexico'. Edition D has 'SCENE III, Mexico'; but edition E has only 'SCENE III.' The stage-direction on G3v, l. 19 (317:34), reading 'Souldiers shout, A Guyomar.' in editions A-D becomes in edition E, 'Souldiers shout, Guyomar.' It is thus evident that edition E is last in the series of editions C, D, and E. If all other proof were lacking that this is so, one circumstance alone would be sufficient evidence to indicate strongly the posteriority of edition E. Editions C and D follow the preceding editions in ending sig. K1v with line 38 (334:5), but edition E has 39 lines on that page, drawing the extra line from the top of the next page, K2. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that edition E should have come first or in an intermediate position in the series of 1670 editions.
Nor could editions D or E have been derived from B independently of C. There are too many cases in which major changes in the text of the play are to be found initially in C, changes which are repeated by editions D and E. In fact, edition C presents much evidence of extensive re-editing. Although edition C contains no statement like that in edition B concerning
A few examples will suffice to indicate the nature of the changes made in the text by the editor of edition C. In editions A and B lines 2-3 on B2v (279:26-27), reading,
Whom his hard heart not only love deny'd,
To whom not only he his love deny'd.
And one true Deity with him adore.
And one true Deity with pray'rs implore.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I could not do it on my Honours score,
For Love would now oblige me to do more,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
That reason which inclin'd my will before
Would urge it now, for Love has fir'd it more.
Many such revisions of the text are to be found in edition C. If, therefore, the almost inevitable hypothesis that Dryden was the editor of C is correct, then C would seem to be the edition which best represents the state in which the author wished the play to appear in print, and which constitutes the best rendering of the text, for there is no evidence that Dryden corrected any later edition.[7] It is therefore my opinion that edition C presents the best text of the play and that its variants must be considered to be authoritative in constructing the text for a modern edition of The Indian Emperour.
Edition F of the play is dated 1681. F omits the extensive revisions of editions C, D, and E and returns to the readings found in B, of which it is a page-for-page reprint.[8] In every case where editions A and B differ, F follows the reading and arrangement
Edition G, dated 1686, in turn uses edition F as a copy-text. Although G for the first time breaks the series of paginal reprints by printing more lines on each page, the edition offers few problems in tracing its textual origin. The correspondence between F and G can be demonstrated clearly in the cases where F introduces new variants. On B4v, l. 30 (283:36), in edition F the name 'Taxcallan' of the earlier editions is spelled 'Traxallan' and appears thus in edition G. In the same line of the text both editions F and G omit the stage-direction, 'Another Enters.' given in editions A-E. On C2, l. 12 (286: 4), 'This Soveraign Lord' of editions A-E is changed in F and G to 'The Soveraign Lord'. Edition F also rewords the line appearing on C3, l. 19 (287:42) in editions A-E as 'storms within my breast' to 'torments in my breast'. Edition G gives the second reading.
Edition G was the copy-text for edition H, dated 1692. Most obvious as proof of this is the fact that H is a page-for-page reprint of G. Likewise, variants introduced for the first time by G are repeated by H. In the Latin motto of the title-page, 'Me quoque,' of editions A-F appears as 'Me quoq;' in editions G and H. The speech-heading 'High Pr.' in editions A-F on C4, l. 32 (290:1) and again on C4v, ll. 17 and 28 (290:23 and 34), is in editions G and H printed 'H. Priest.'[11]
Edition I, 1694, again introduces a compressed makeup in the series of editions, further reducing the number of pages needed to print the play. However, I presents a much more intricate problem regarding its immediate source. In certain details it is very similar to edition H, which normally would be expected as the copy-text, but in other particulars edition I returns to the earlier readings of edition G not shared by H. Unless a lost edition intervenes (an unlikely contingency), the most probable explanation of the variants in edition I is that I was printed from both G and H, with two compositors setting copy simultaneously or consecutively, one using G as copy-text, the other H.[12] A remote possibility that I was printed from either G or H with press-corrections being made from the alternate copy is not demonstrable. In any case, if setting were simultaneous, the fact that H is a paginal reprint of G would materially aid the accurate casting off of copy in order that omissions or overlappings of texts might not occur and the amount of copy allotted to each compositor should exactly fill the space for which it was intended.[13] Exactly what conditions prevailed concerning the double copy-text for edition I may not be stated categorically beyond the fact that the edition does reflect both G and H.[14]
Three editions of the play, J, K, and L, are dated 1696, and
Nor were K and L derived from I independently of edition J. There are too many minor, but significant, variants which appear for the first time in edition J and are repeated in turn by editions K and L to admit this possibility. Of these but one is necessary to show the relative order of editions J, K, and L. Actually the passage in question contains several interdependent variants arising from an error of interpretation by the compositor of edition J. The variants are to be found on F2, ll. 15, 17, and 21 (315:21, 23, and 27). The first of these lines in edition A is assigned two lines above to Alibech and reads,
I come to tell you pleasing News,
Although editions K and L are in most instances identical, there are enough differences in the two editions to indicate their order. On B3v, ll. 17-18 (282: 42-43) of edition J appears the couplet,
Odm.
Then judge my future service by my past.
Odm.
Then judge my future services by my past.
The First Folio of Dryden's plays was published by Jacob Tonson in 1701. Apparently the copy-text for the Folio was J, one of the 1696 editions. Although the number of variants common only to J and the Folio is small, there are enough to establish a direct relationship between the two editions. On sig. Q1, l. 38 (290:4) the Folio repeats a misprint made only in edition J where the couplet,
Set all the Good to show, and hid the Ill:
Nevertheless the case for J as the copy-text of the Folio is not entirely indisputable. There are certain points where the Folio rejects the readings of edition J for those of an earlier edition. One such case is to be seen on sig. Q2v, l. 42 (295: 2), where the Folio reads,
the trusty Slave with you retain,
the trusty Slave which you retain,
Notes
John Dryden, A Bibliography of Early Editions and of Drydeniana (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1939), pp. 93-95.
J. M. Osborn, "Macdonald's Bibliography of Dryden: An Annotated Check List of Selected American Libraries," Modern Philology, XXXIX (1941), 80-81. Recorded in G. L. Wood-ward and J. G. McManaway, A Check List of English Plays, 1641-1700 (Chicago: The Newberry Library, 1945), as no. 424.
"Variants in Early Editions of Dryden's Plays," Harvard Library Bulletin, III, no. 2 (1949), 278.
Bracketed numbers are those assigned to the newly-discovered editions by Hooker-Osborn and Bowers.
The page and line references in parentheses are to the edition of Montague Summers. Summers did not number lines within scenes and acts. Signature and line references are those of the editions under discussion.
Edition C was overlooked by Scott-Saintsbury and by Summers as contributing authoritative variants to the text of the play. Owing to the subsequent history of the text, the variants in C, although they are repeated in D and E, did not appear in later editions, all of which stem from F (1681), which in turn goes back to B.
Why F used B as a copy-text rather than the vastly superior edition C is a matter for conjecture. Normally we should expect the more recent edition to furnish copy for a new one. Since this was not done, the question arises whether a copy of C, D, or E was available to the printer, or if one were at hand, why Herringman preferred the text of B. As Dr. Bowers has suggested to me, the explanation may probably lie in the fact that edition B contained "A Defence" and that therefore B might have been preserved for the purpose of furnishing a text in case it were ever considered expedient to reprint the essay in later editions.
There are several instances in which F follows readings appearing in C, D, and E but which are not present in some copies of B. But in every case press-corrected copies of B contain these variants and are thus the source not only for the variants in C, D, and E, but also for those in F as well.
One minor, but very significant detail in the printing of F shows its neglect of CDE as copy-texts. Edition B, like A, prints the epilogue of the play on two pages, sigs. K3 and K3v; but CDE on sig. K4 only. F again uses K3 and K3v, with the last seven lines of the epilogue, as in A and B, on K3v.
There are two major differences between editions G and H. G prints the epilogue at the end of the play; H on the verso of the page bearing the prologue. In G, as in the earlier editions, the dedication is in italic type; in H this appears in roman.
It was conventional for two compositors to work in relay, each following his own counted-off copy-text. For a demonstration of this method, see Philip Williams, "The Compositor of the Pied-Bull Lear," Papers of the Bibliographical Society, University of Virginia, I (1948-49), 59ff.
If I was set from both G and H the question may be raised why each compositor was not given one half of the text to set while the other was at work upon the second half. As has been noted, the collation of I differs considerably from that of editions G and H, necessitating an extremely accurate casting off of copy, a task not impossible, but one which would have resulted in delaying the printing process. However, if only one press were employed, the compositors would need to set in relay.
According to the appearance in edition I of variants which can with certainty be traced to the earlier editions, sigs. B1, C1, C4v, D3, D3v, D4, D4v, F1, F2v, F3v, G2, G4v, H2v, H3, I1, and I1v, of edition G were used as copy-text for edition I. The dedication, the epilogue, and sigs. B2, D2, E2, E3, and E3v of edition H were used for the corresponding passages of edition I. Because of the mixed condition of the text of edition I elsewhere, it is impossible to point definitely to either one or the other edition as copy-text for I for other pages.
There is one exception to this general statement. The Folio spells the name 'Traxalla' thus on Q1v, l. 1 (290: 32), as do all editions but J and K, which misprint it 'Taxalla'. However, the spelling of this name is not a good test in the Folio, since it regularly has 'Traxalla' no matter what the other editions read.
The edition made by Summers also has the superfluous 'with', and this, together with many other instances in which his text and that of the Folio are in accord to the neglect of more authoritative readings, indicates that the Folio was probably the copy-text for his modern edition in spite of his misleading claims for early authority.
| ||