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.

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 "by far the best and m

(note 32). Again, the difference is substantial; is Philipo attempting

direct address ("Honour" or "Fortune," for instance), has been

even within a single text (e. g. "Angelica" with one and two "l's").

the audience's understanding of Florinda's motivations: is she hugging

discrepancies are the result of words or phrases being inverted from one

state that was once concealed. It is our hope that the text that

Some common words found in the essay are:
Honour Fortune, Edition Rover, Blame Lucetta, Summers Summers', Belvile Belvile, textual notes, issue edition printed, 1915 edition, comparison text, blame lucetta, edition printed, issue edition, copy text, edition rover,
Approximate Word count = 934
Approximate Pages = 4 (250 words per page double spaced)