University of Virginia Library

III

Before proceeding to investigate Mac Flecknoe further, it should be said that we possess none of Dryden's working manuscripts. We do not even have a holograph fair copy of any of his poems) except for the verses sent in a letter to his cousin Honor. We do have manuscript versions of several of his poems written before or about the time of Mac Flecknoe which indicate that the printed texts are only the -final polishing of works that were in private circulation earlier, and in the case of prologues and epilogues perhaps even in public circulation. But for none of these do we have more than three texts in radiational relationship to their common ancestor, and so it is impossible to reason about Dryden's methods of revision beyond the obvious likelihood, amounting normally to certainty, that he did make simple changes of the pattern ab. We have no record of the amount of polishing to which Dryden subjected his work before he sent it to the press. We can have, then, no preconceptions as to Dryden's methods of composition.

Following is a tabulation of the variants significant to this investigation:

These factors are entered below in the appropriate places and marked with an 'f.'

The group occurring most often is L C, and no other texts are to be added to it. The next most frequently occurring group is 82 M, and to this group B may be added. The next most frequent grouping is 84 I, and to this group F may be added, and H added next. Arranging the groups

according to the principles given above results in the alternatives 82 M B L C H F I 84, M 82 B H 84 I (or I 84) F L C, and C L M 82 B H 1 84. The total of decisions required in the first arrangement is 167, in the second 160, in the third 159. The first of the alternatives, requiring 5% more decisions than either of the others, may with some confidence be rejected. This is the limit, in the present instance, to which distributive study will take us.

The direction of revision in the remaining alternate arrangements of the texts is from left to right, as the positions of the editions of 1682 and 1684 make clear. The second arrangement would indicate that Dryden had continued with considerable revisions of the poem, and yet had not felt it worth while to have them inserted in the reprints issued by his publisher. The third arrangement is therefore the more likely on external grounds. It is also the more attractive on internal or literary grounds, for the more obvious errors appear more regularly in contiguous texts, and the apparently later readings are in general more attractive. The following remarks, the assume that the progress of Dryden's revisions is most accurately shown when the texts are in the order C L M 82 B H F I 84, without arguing the case in detail.

Simple revisions (pattern ab) occur in 112, 332, 422, 552, 79, 1172, 140, 141, 1503, 159, 1782, 1812, 189, 190, 204, 207, and 2092. Other variations treated in the distributional analysis as involving only a single decision are seen, once the arrangement of the texts is established, to be part of larger patterns of revision, and will therefore be discussed below. They occur in 333, 1443, 176, 1781, and 1852. In the following quotations accidentals have been normalized.

Several of the simple revisions appeal at once as genuine corrections or improvements. The substitution of 'sense' for 'verse' (552) seems pretty certainly a correction, since the phrase 'in numbers as in verse' is tautological The substitution of 'altars' for 'trophies' (207) results in a more accurate description of the verse-forms upon which Dryden is animadverting. The substitution of 'one' for 'each' (190) corrects a quotation from Shadwell. It is true that 'thy mind' is a less accurate quotation of Shadwell than 'the mind' (189, cf. Evans, p. 51), but here the unaltered quotation is awkward in the sentence Dryden has constructed. At the same time, he was apparently content to let the full quotation stand for some time.

Less certain are a number of shifts from singular to plural. Since Shadwell can compose, sing and play the lute, perhaps these are better described as 'talents' than lumped together as a 'talent' (2092). The substitution of 'arts' for 'art' may similarly sharpen the idea of Shadwell's ignorance (1782). It is perhaps better to speak of Fletcher in 'buskins' instead of

'buskin' (79), especially if Jonson is to appear in 'socks' just below. Metaphors are difficult of analysis, but it might be argued that 'mild anagram,' instead of 'kind anagram' (204), implies a lack of control of one's medium consistent with the idea of Shadwell's dullness. It is also, perhaps, a completer antithesis to 'keen iambic' in the same line. Professor Evans remarks on the attractiveness of 'soil' rather than 'toil' in another metaphor (1503, cf. Evans, p. 50), and it would indeed appear that Dryden did not abandon his earlier reading until a fairly late stage of revision.

Dryden's ear may have suggested to him that 'blankets tossed' was preferable to 'blanket tossed' (422), but such an argument is not very forceful, for if he avoided a hiatus by preferring 'to future' over 'to after' (159, cf. Evans, p. 46), he introduced another by changing 'mine' to 'my' (1812), and as may be seen from some of the more complex revisions, he apparently hesitated fairly often over matters of this kind. Matters of grammar are similarly inconclusive, for if Dryden substituted 'nor' for 'or' after 'Ne'er' (1172), he abandoned the subjunctive 'were' for 'was' after 'pond'ring' (112), and the more complex revisions show that this inconsistency is characteristic. The reasons for changing 'clothed' to 'clad' (332), 'fair' to 'far' (140, cf. Evans, p. 50), and 'dominions' to 'dominion' (141) are not beyond all conjecture, but they suggest nothing that would be likely to carry wide conviction.

Reversed revisions (pattern aba) occur in 37, 53, 58, 822, 97, 981, 1512, 1572, 1573, 1622, 1672, 1682, 180, 1831, 1871, 2133, and 217. Two others, 46 and 562, are part of larger patterns of revision. No reason suggests itself for most of these, but it is of some interest to observe the different shades of meaning or possible misunderstanding resulting in three of them, those in 97, 1622, and 1871. The decision between 'bore' and 'wore' (58) would seem to have depended on whether 'lute' or 'sword' was felt to govern the verb. The indecision over 'St. Andre's' and 'St. Andrew's' (53) is paralleled in even greater indecisions over 'Vilerius' and 'Valeri(o)us' (592, pattern abab) and 'Nicander's' and 'Alcander's' (1792, pattern ababa, cf. Evans, p. 53). Apparently Dryden's memory was uncertain of these names, but he took the trouble to get them right for the edition of 1684.

Three of these readings are not strictly the result of two decisions on the author's part, for the readings of 'varnished' for 'vanished' (822, cf. Evans, p. 45, n. 19), 'durst' for 'dust' (180) and 'declining' for 'declaiming' (2133, cf. Evans, p. 53) make nonsense, or at best an unsatisfactory sense, of the passages. As they all occur in at least two contiguous texts, they seem to indicate that the ancestor had become illegible at these places for a time, or that they are slips of Dryden's pen as he copied his original which he over-looked as he made successive copies. Another passage that

may have become difficult to decipher is 1653, where for 'cull' H reads 'smell' and F reads 'pull.'

The four other variations of this pattern are associated in pairs. Two, 1572 and 1573, combine to produce three alternate readings, 'by thy own,' 'of thy own,' and 'by thine own,' the first being returned to after the second and again after the third. No reason appears for the changes, nor for the more striking series of changes in 1672 and 1682. Ignoring the other substantive variations, the lines appear to have been altered as follows:

       

But write thy best and top, and in each line Sir Formal's oratory will be thine.	C L
But write thy best and top, and in each line Sir Formal's oratory wit be thine.	M 82
But write thy best and top in every line, Sir Formal's oratory wit be thine	B H
But write thy best, and top,(;) and in each line, Sir Formal's oratory will be thine.	F I 84

So that we find Dryden returning to his original form after a wide excursion.

Combinations of simple and reverse revision in the pattern abab occur in 12, 14, 292, 391, 442, 541, 592, 65, 923, 962, 111, 115, 1241, 1361, 1382, 1431, 1601, 1772, and 1851. The pattern ababa is found in 503, 71, 107, 1752, 1792, 1962, 203 and 208, and the pattern ababab occurs in 1833. Those in 592 and 1792 (Vilerius, Nicander) have been discussed above. Those in 503, 962, 1361, and 1772 are better discussed in company with other variations as examples of continued revision. And many of the others defy analysis, either as to the reason for the original revision or as to why there was any question about it once made. It should perhaps be emphasized that there is nothing in this situation to make it an unlikely one, as a glance again at Blake's revisions of 'The Tiger' will make clear.

One of the variations, the substitution of 'the' for 'thee' (203, cf. Evans p. 45, n. 20) in 82 and H, is almost certainly the result of chance coincidence in error. It is also tempting, but not strictly necessary, so to interpret the apparent constant wavering between 'Fletcher's' and 'Fletcher' (183 3), where either will apparently make equally good sense.

On occasion it is possible to assess the attractions for one or other of the alternate readings. Thus, in 12, an 'immortal war' may be an endless one, while 'immortal wars' can only be ever-memorable. In 14, the decision for 'who' over 'that,' or the reverse, seems to reflect varying attitudes toward the logic of gender, similar to the indecision in 923 as to whether the man

('he') or the instrument ('it') is more strongly felt in the words 'his pen' in the line above. Professor Evans has remarked on the attractiveness of the metaphor 'well-tuned oars' (391, cf. Evans, p. 51), and it is not perhaps surprising to find Dryden hesitating before abandoning it for 'well-timed oars.' The eventual decision for 'Kingdom' over 'kingdoms' (1431, cf. Evans, p. 53) shows Dryden abandoning a sly allusion with some regret. His apparently greater indecision between 'throne' and 'state' (107) may possibly reflect a fear on the one hand that the former might be taken in its slang sense, under the influence of line 101 just above, and on the other a dislike of using the latter when it was to be the rhyme word two lines below.

Line 185 has, besides the complex revision 'transfuse': transfused,' a simple change from 'oils' to 'oil.' Professor Evans remarks that the passage 'has always caused difficulties,' and proposes to emend the standard text at the latter, if not both places (pp. 46-47). It is more likely that the earlier editors were not emending the text here so much as handing on a corruption introduced in 1716, and while Christie and Sargeaunt certainly made difficulties, Noyes, easily the best of Dryden's more recent editors, found plain sailing. It seems quite possible that 'transfuse' was considered for a time because of 'transfuse' in the line above, which is the reason it appeals to Professor Evans, and reasonably certain that 'oil' was adopted because of the singular verbs in the line below.[7]

We may turn finally to those variations which show Dryden continuing to improve his poem through several revisions. In four instances, 333, 562 (when taken with 545, 551 and 553), 88, and 1443 (taken with 1441), the revisions proceed without interruption, but in the others, 46, 503 (taken with 502), 962 (taken with 961, 1361 (taken with 1362), 1753 and 176, 1772 and 1781, and 1962, there is an admixture of reverse revision. In the following quotations, only those variants which are pertinent to the discussion at hand are reproduced, the rest of the text being normalized.

In 333, Crusty drugget' (L) gives place to 'drugget russet' (M 82), which in turn becomes 'rustic drugget' (B F, taking His 'Russell drugget' as a corruption), supplanted in its turn by the 'Norwich drugget' of 84. The final version) of course, adds a further dig at Shadwell, who was born near Norwich. Lines 54-56 (cf. Evans, pp. 51-52) offer a complicated array of punctuational variations that may be summarized as follows: M and H have no punctuation; C, L, and 82, having uniformly heavier terminal punctuation in lines 54 and 56 than in line 55, connect the two latter; F, having no punctuation in line 54, line 55 in parens, and a semi-colon

at the end of line 56, connects the first and third; and 84, having a colon at the end of line 54, a semi-colon at the end of line 55, and a comma at the end of line 56, gives line 55 something of the feeling of an interjection, as in F, but connects line 56 to line 57. Apparently dissatisfaction with the shifted tense in line 55 (forced by the rhyme) had something to do with the change. In F the difficulty is resolved by making line 55 parenthetical. In 84, it is resolved by making 'they' in line 56 refer to 'papers' in line 52 instead of 'feet' in line 54. The second solution also makes natural use of the fact that line 56 begins 'So' and line 57 'That,' a circumstance always likely to cause confusion when line 56 as well as lines 53-55 interrupted the connection between lines 52 and 57.

In 88, 'place' (L C) gives way to 'isle' (M 82 H), which gives way to 'pile' (F 84). 'Isle' seems to be the least satisfactory reading, and if one does not wish to credit Dryden with having failed consistently to improve his work, it may be argued that he changed 'place' to the more vivid 'pile' by crossing out only 'lace' and writing 'ile' above 'ile' (a normal variant spelling of 'isle') being taken by a series of copyists as a revision of tile whole word. Finally, line 144 shows a consistent evolution in vividness of expression:

     

He said, and all the people said, Amen.	C
He paus'd, and all the people said, Amen.	L
He paus'd, and all the people cry'd, Amen.	the rest

In 46 (cf. Evans, p. 49) the lack of punctuation in L and M (normal for M) leaves the meaning ambiguous, 82 provides one alternative, 'the treble squeaks for fear, the basses roar,' B, H and F the other, 'the treble squeaks, for fear the basses roar,' and 84 returns to the reading of 82. No reason appears for the alternation between the last two readings. Line 50 (cf. Evans, p. 51) shows the following development:

     

As at the morning tide that floats along	C
As at the morning, toast that floats along,	L, B H, 84
As at the morning toast that wafts along	M, F

The reading in 82, 'And gently waft the over all along,' would appear to be simply a corruption of the third version of the line. The alternation between 'floats' anti 'wafts' (M and 82 falling between L and B, F between H and 84) may have resulted from dissatisfaction with the echo introduced by the substitution of 'toast' for 'tide.'

Line 96 shows the following development, best explained in context with the two preceding lines:

     

Now Empress Fame had published the renown Of Shadwell's coronation through the town. Roused by report o' th' pomp, the nations meet	C
Roused by report of Pomp, the nations meet	L M 82, F
Roused by report of Fame, the nations meet	H,84

Changing 'o' th'' to 'of' resulted in the personification of 'Pomp,' and so introduced an inconsistency into the lines. Perhaps Dryden's apparent hesitancy in substituting 'Fame' for 'Pomp' (F falling between H and 84) indicates that he felt some awkwardness in using the name twice in such quick succession.

Line 136 (cf. Evans, pp. 49-50) must be discussed in relation to the lines immediately above and below:

             

And from his brows damps of oblivion shed, Full of the filial dullness long he stood, Repelling from his breast the raging god.	C
... shed; [a blank ] dullness long he stood Repelling...	L
... shed Full on the filial dullness long he stood Repelling...	M
... shed: Full of the filial dullness long he stood, Repelling...	82
... shed Full of the filial dullness long he stood- Repelling...	H
...shed, Full on the filial dullness long he stood Repelling...	F
... shed Full on the filial dullness: long he stood, Repelling...	84

The punctuation in H is simply inconsistent. It is normal for M to have no punctuation, so its variant tells us nothing. The state of L suggests that Dryden had improved the punctuation to fit the reading 'of' and then changed 'of' to 'on,' without repointing the lines, so that the copyist, unlike the copyist of F, was stumbled by the inconsistency. A similar delay on Dryden's part in making his punctuation fit his other revisions appears to have occurred in line 175.

The punctuation in line 175 is connected with a simple revision in line 176. There appear to be four versions of the couplet that should be distinguished:

       

Thou art my blood, where Jonson has no part For what have we in nature or in art?	C L
Thou art my blood, where Jonson has no part, What share have we in nature or in art?	M 82 B H
Thou art my blood, where Jonson has no part What share have we in nature or in art?	F
Thou art my blood, where Jonson has no part; What share have we in nature or in art?	I 84

M and H are grouped with 82 and B because, having no punctuation at all in line 175 (normal for them), their reading is like that of the other two texts ambiguous. On the whole it seems more likely that the punctuation in F is the transcriber's, indicating that the punctuation of the ancestor was still ambiguous, than that Dryden experimented with alternate readings. What probably happened was that he changed line 176 without at once seeing that he would have to supply emphatic punctuation at the end of the line above to preserve his original meaning clear.

Two other variants, 1772 and 1781, combine as follows (cf. Evans, pp.50-51)

       

Where did his wit or learning fix a brand? Or rail at arts he did not understand?	C L M 82, H F
Where did his wit on learning fix a brand? Or rail at arts he did not understand?	B
Where did his wit or learning fix a brand, And rail at arts he did not understand?	I
Where did his wit on learning fix a brand, And rail at arts he did not understand?	84

Here it seems possible that Dryden was dissatisfied with the repetition of 'or'; changed the first 'or' to 'on' (B); but decided against it (H F); then changed the second to 'And'; and then keeping the second change, went back to the other also. Finally, in 1962, we may see Dryden wavering between 'sure thou art' (C L, 82 B H) and 'thou art but' ( M, F), and resolving his difficulties by combining his alternates into 'sure thou'rt but' (I 84).

The foregoing series of developing revisions offers convincing evidence that the order of texts chosen is indeed the most nearly correct one that reasoning will enable us to discover. It raises in addition the question of whether the type-1 variations in 84 may not also be the result of revision. In the usual textual relationships, it might reasonably be contended, with Greg, that the possibility of compositor's errors should be considered, and that indifferent or inexplicable, as well as manifestly inferior or uncharacteristic readings should be rejected ('Rationale,' p. 32). But we have seen that Dryden was revising his poem to the very last-even, in details, subsequent to the state of the text found in l and a large proportion of these revisions are apparently inexplicable or indifferent. We must insist, therefore, that the type-I variations in 84 be manifestly inferior or uncharacteristic before we reject them. In the list with which we began, there are six of these readings, 545, 642, 1262, 1362, 139, and 145, and Professor Evans (p. 48) calls attention also to a spelling variant in line 108. As we have seen, two variants, 545 and 1362, are improvements; 642, 1262, 139, and 145 are indifferent. Professor Evans (ib.) urges that line 145 be emended, but the opening words of the line, if they are taken as part of Flecknoe's speech, may be interpreted either as a further adjuration to the 'heavens,' or, better, as pointing Shadwell to the methods of advancement retailed in the succeeding couplets. The reading of 'sat' for 'sate' in line 108, on the other hand, is both inferior (it rhymes with 'fate') and uncharacteristic (Dryden prefers perfect to imperfect rhymes), and therefore, as Professor Evans notes, should be altered by a careful editor.

There is an additional possibility. If the type for 84 was set from a copy of 82 that had been corrected by the author, we might expect to find that certain readings had been left uncorrected. The process is mechanically the reverse of conflation, but the results are the same. Only those readings which do not appear in any texts intermediate between 82 and 84 may be considered, for all the rest were clearly still under consideration at a period subsequent to the state of the text represented by 82. There are three of these variations, 46, 592, and 1382, but the reading of 82 and 84 in 592 is right, and those in 46 and 1382 apparently indifferent. There is no evidence for conflation of any of the other texts.

The very considerable importance of Professor Evans's collations would seem to lie, then, not so much in their possible use in emending the text of 1684 as in their indication for the first time of Dryden's methods of composition. Until Professor Evans had published his essay, materials for such a study were almost totally lacking, nor was there even any collected account

of the manuscripts which he has assembled. The present investigation has sought to determine how far the standard methods of textual criticism might by suitable modifications be fitted to deal with this new and at first glance intractable body of data. It is to be hoped that inasmuch as two new scholarly editions of Dryden are now in progress, the whole subject may be canvassed to the full.