University of Virginia Library

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

for his Dryden bibliography as emended by Osborn's article, together with the corresponding list which appears in Wood-ward and McManaway's Check List of English Plays. For convenience in referring to the various editions these are also identified alphabetically and rearranged in the true order of their printing as revealed by a bibliographical comparison of the several texts.

                           

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]

and the omission of three lines in the prologue, A4v, ll. 8-10 (274: 21-23), the changes made by Dryden serve simply to regularize the meter and to clarify the meaning of his verse. For example, in edition A three lines, D4, ll. 35-37 (297: 22-24), reading, appear in edition B as, a rendering which better conforms to the metrical pattern of the rest of the text. The couplet on H2 of A, ll. 6-7 (322: 3-4), reading, becomes in edition B, a change which one would scarcely expect from a printer unless the text had been edited authoritatively.

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),

But edition B appends the following line of the text drawn from the next page and ends, therefore,

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),

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,

is misprinted in D and E as A similar change is to be seen on G4v, l. 38 (318: 12), where C and earlier editions read, but D and E have, These are but a few of the many cases in which editions D and E depart from the text of C. Often there is a change in pronoun. Where C and earlier editions read, 'our Monarch', D and E have 'your Monarch', C3, l. 15 (286:7). 'Your' of C is changed to 'you' in D and E on C4v, l. 30 (289:10). In both instances the context shows that the readings of editions D and E are erroneous, but the errors make reasonably good sense and thus would not be subject to proof-correction except by an extremely careful editor.

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

the changes made in the text by Dryden, one is led to suspect that the author was responsible for the emendations to be seen in the 1670 editions. Dryden had stated in his introductory remarks to "A Defence" that: It is entirely possible that between 1668 and 1670, when the third edition appeared, Dryden found time to go over the play quite carefully and to make numerous corrections in the diction and meter which for the most part seem to enhance considerably the literary value of the play. That Dryden, rather than some other editor, was responsible for the emendations is probable, not only because of the nature and extent of the corrections, but also because of the early date in the history of the play itself. In 1670 Dryden was still closely associated with his publisher, Henry Herringman, and it is extremely unlikely that the latter should have sought the services of another for such a task if Dryden were readily available to him.

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,

appear in C as, On C2, ll. 3-4 (285:37-38), of editions A and B the couplet, becomes in edition C, More extensive changes may be noted in lines 26, 28-29 on C2v (287:12, 14-15), where are revised in edition C to read,

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

of B rather than that of A.[9] Particularly significant is the fact that F, like B, ends sig. C3 with line 39 instead of line 38, as does A. Nor does F print the couplet on G1v or the three lines in the prologue omitted by B. It is thus evident that B was the copy-text for F.[10]

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

again the problem of order is raised. All three editions follow the paginal arrangement of edition I, thus indicating that one or all three of the 1696 editions used I as a copy-text. However, edition J is closer textually to edition I than are editions K and L. Examples of the close relationship between I and J may be seen in instances where I and J are the same while K and L display new variants. On A2v, l. 10 (271: 32) 'farther off' in editions I and J becomes 'further off' in K and L. Again on the same page, l. 15 (272: 1), 'Wines' in I and J is changed to 'Vines' in K and L. On C3, l. 4 (290: 15) 'thy land' in editions I and J reads in editions K and L 'the land'. Similarly 'such ease' on E3v, l. 19 (310: 5) of editions I and J is changed in K and L to 'thy ease'.

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,

and editions B through H repeat the line with but one change, the insertion of a comma after 'Odmar'. In edition I, however, the comma is replaced with a period. Edition J uses the same punctuation as I. But editions K and L abbreviate 'Odmar' to 'Odm.' and print the line as if 'Odm.' were a speech-heading. That the compositor of edition J thought the 'Odmar.' of line 15 was a speech-heading is made evident by his treatment of the speech-heading which follows on line 17. In the early editions A-I, line 17 and the three following lines are assigned correctly to Odmar, but the compositor of J, mistaking 'Odmar.' in line 15 for a speech-heading and finding that this resulted in the assignment of two consecutive speeches to Odmar, substituted for the second 'Odm.' the abbreviation 'Alib.' This in turn resulted in his having two consecutive speech-headings for Alibech, the second appearing on line 21 in edition I. Therefore he omitted the 'Alib.' of line 21 in an attempt to solve his difficulties. The dependence of editions K and L upon J is shown by the fact that these two editions copied the error made by the compositor of J, and on line 17 print 'Alib.' and omit the speech-heading on line 21. It is extremely unlikely that all three compositors should have arrived at the same solution of the problem independently.

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,

The couplet is the same in edition K, but in edition L the same lines read, The transposition of the singular and plural forms of 'service' makes both lines irregular in meter. It might be argued that L may have been the copy-text for K and that the compositor of K noticing the irregularity corrected the two lines. However, on the same page, B3v, l. 37 (283: 19) edition L spells the possessive form of an Indian name 'Taxalla's'. All the earlier editions A-K spell the same name 'Traxalla's'. In line 33 above (283: 15), editions J, K, and L erroneously spell the same name 'Taxalla's', in place of the correct form, 'Traxalla's', as it appears in all the earlier editions. If K had used L as a copy-text, it would appear exceedingly strange that the compositor should have returned to the original form of the word in line 37 after having spelled it without the r in line 33. That edition L is last in the series J, K, L is also shown by the many instances where in this edition alone appear variants which do not particularly affect the meaning of the lines and which therefore would be less subject to correction. This is especially true of several lines on sig. D2. Here in lines 35, 37, and 43 (297: 35, 37, and 43) edition L has 'passion . . . bring . . . mean', whereas the corresponding words in the earlier texts of the play read, 'Passions . . . brings . . . meant'. The stage-direction on D4, l. 22 (301:40) of edition L reads, 'Guyomar returns and beats them.' This is a radical, but understandable rendition, considering the appearance of the type, of the stage-direction in editions A-K reading, 'Guyomar returns and hears them.'

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,

reads 'hide the ill' in all other editions. Similar is the repetition in the Folio on R3v, l. 13 (310:5), of a line in edition J, which all other editions render correctly as, In addition to these unique agreements there occur in the Folio variants which are found only in editions J, K, and L, and which point definitely to J as the copy-text because the Folio is like K and L only when K and L agree with J.[16] The Folio agrees with J, K, and L in printing the stage-direction 'To Montez.' following line 45 on P2 (281:5) while all other earlier editions print the same stage-direction at the end of the preceding line of text. Likewise, on Q1, l. 18 (289: 27) of the Folio 'along', a misprint for 'a long' in all other editions, is to be found only in J, K, and L. A somewhat similar error in J, K, and L is to be seen on the same page, l. 33 (289: 42) where these editions add to the line a word not in the earlier editions, making it read, Here 'with' is the superfluous word which not only makes the line hypermetrical but also obscures its meaning.[17]

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,

as do editions A-H. But editions I-L omit the word 'first'. Again on R1v, l. 22 (303: 34) the line, appears thus correctly in editions A-G, and the Folio, but reads, in editions H-L. Nor does the Folio repeat the errors made in the speech-headings which were so valuable above in establishing the relationship between editions I, J, K, and L. Instead the Folio here is like editions B-H. Unfortunately there is no sure test which can be used to point definitely to the one early edition as the source of these correct readings. However, by a process of elimination, it can be determined with a fair amount of confidence that edition G was used occasionally to make corrections in the text of J. The corrections occur so rarely and with such irregularity as to make untenable the hypothesis that G might have been used alternately with J as a copy-text. It is more likely that a hasty or sketchy attempt at editing the text may have been made at the time the Folio was printed. But even though these earlier variants are to be found in the Folio, the evidence is preponderantly upon the side of edition J as its immediate copy-text.

Notes