FOOTNOTES:
I.
In these volumes I seek to present a true text of
the Faerie Queene, founded upon a fresh collation of the
Quartos of 1590 and 1596 and the Folio of 1609.
I shall call these editions by their dates for short.
The fragmentary Seventh Book appeared first in 1609:
for the rest the text is based on 1596. Some typographical
peculiarities—long s, &, ô, and superscribed m and n
(e.g. frõ, whẽ)—have not been reproduced, but noted only
where they first occur. With these exceptions, the readings
of 1596 if not adopted in the text are recorded in the
notes; so that text and notes together amount, in effect, to
a complete reprint of 1596. No such completeness has
been attempted in recording variants from 1590 and 1609.
But all verbal differences are recorded, and all differences of
punctuation that imply a different view of the meaning.
Mere changes of spelling that answer to no change of
pronunciation are, as a rule, ignored; but I have recorded
such differences of spelling as seemed likely to interest
students of Elizabethan phonology, grammar, and usage.
The evidence of these variants must be used with caution
in view of Spenser’s deliberate archaism. Yet I believe that
they have some value. I give one instance in each kind:—
1. A fluid e-sound is indicated by the variants
‘seeldome’ 1590, ‘seldome’ 1596, ‘sildom’ 1609, at I. iv.
23, l. 5.
2. Syllabic -es in possessives and plurals, which still
lingered in the early fifteen-nineties, has grown quite strange
to the editor of 1609. To this point I shall return.
3. The conjunctions ‘since’ and ‘sith’ are used indifferently
in 1590 and 1596, choice of one or other form
being determined by euphony alone. But 1609 makes
a deliberate, though not quite consistent, attempt to appropriate
‘since’ to the temporal, ‘sith’ to the causal sense.
The attempt unfortunately did not avail to save the more
primitive form.
I have departed from the punctuation of 1596 only where
it seemed likely to puzzle or mislead a modern reader.
These departures, which are all recorded, are not very
numerous. Spenser’s punctuation, though by no means
sacrosanct, is less arbitrary than might at first appear; but,
as Mr. Gregory Smith says of the punctuation of Addison,
it has a rhetorical rather than a logical value. We feel its
force best when we read the poem aloud. Two peculiarities
are so common that the reader may be warned of them here.
One is the absence of punctuation with vocatives: the other
is the single comma after qualifying phrases. With this
warning I leave these peculiarities, as a rule, unchanged.
In the treatment of capitals and in the distribution of
roman and italic type I have followed the same principle of
adhering, wherever possible, to the original text.
I have regularized the spelling of proper names wherever
the variation seemed to be due to the printer rather than the
poet. And this is generally the case with double letters.
But for many variations in proper names Spenser was
himself responsible. He varied them sometimes for the
sake of the metre, as Serena, Serene; or of the rhyme, as
Florimell, Florimele. In two instances he seems actually to
have wavered or changed his mind. Braggadocchio’s name is
generally spelt thus in Book II; in Books III and IV it
varies; in V. iii it is regularly Braggadochio. So we generally
find Arthegall in Book III, but Artegall regularly in Book V;
1609, however, returns to Arthegall.
II.
Aiming not at a reprint but a true text, I have not
hesitated to depart from 1596 wherever I believed it to be in
error and the error the printer’s. But it is no part of an
editor’s duty to correct, though he may indicate, mistakes
made by the author himself. There are many such in the
Faerie Queene.
(1) There are mistakes of fact, of literary allusion, of
quantity in classical names, hardly to be avoided by a poet
writing far from libraries.
(2) There are confusions of personages, or of names
of personages, within the poem itself. Sir Guyon is confused
with the Redcrosse Knight in III. ii. 4, and with Prince Arthur
in II. viii. 48 (but not in 1609); Æmylia with Pœana in IV.
ix. Arg.; Calepine with Calidore in VI. vi. 17; while over
Serena Spenser’s confusion becomes comical—he calls her
Crispina in VI. iii. 23,[1] and Matilda in VI. v. Arg.
(3) Some lines are hypermetrical; some are short by
a foot; and there are two or three broken lines. One of
these last (III. iv. 39, l. 7) is certainly intentional, and all
may be so; the supposed example of Virgil may have
influenced Spenser in this.
(4) Imperfect rhymes and concords are numerous,
especially in Books IV, V, and VI.
(5) There is one form of imperfect rhyme so singular
as to deserve a fuller discussion. Its nature will be best
seen in an example:—
‘Like two faire marble pillours they were seene,
Which doe the temple of the Gods support, (2)
Whom all the people decke with girlands greene,
And honour in their festiuall resort; (4)
Those same with stately grace, and princely port (5)
She taught to tread, when she her selfe would grace,
But with the wooddie Nymphes when she did play, (7)
Or when the flying Libbard she did chace,
She could them nimbly moue, and after fly apace.’
(II. iii. 28.)
Here ‘play’ in l. 7 is rhymed to ‘support’, ‘resort’,
‘port’: ‘sport’ is the obvious correction. There are, in
all, nine instances of this singularity in the Faerie Queene.
I subjoin them all, citing the rhyme-words only: the
number following each word shows the line that it ends:—
- day (2), dismay (4), way (5), chace (7) (II. ii. 7)
- make (6), bold (8), told (9) (II. ii. 42)
- support (2), resort (4), port (5), play (7) (II. iii. 28)
- leaue (2), cleaue (4), bereaue (5), vpreare (7) (II. viii. 29)
- spyde (6), law (8), draw (9) (III. vi. 40)
- enclose (2), plaine (4), Maine (5), complaine (7) (III. vii. 34)
- times (6), equipage (8), parentage (9) (IV. xi. 17)
- place (2), aread (4), dread (5), read (7) (V. Proem 11)
- desyre (2), entyre (4), yre (5), meed (7) (V. xi. 61)
In every case the correction is obvious: ‘chace’ should be
‘pray’ (i.e. prey); ‘make’, ‘hold’; ‘play’, ‘sport’; ‘vpreare’,
‘vpheaue’; ‘spyde’, ‘saw’; ‘enclose’, ‘containe’; ‘times’,
‘age’; ‘place’, ‘stead’ (as in 1609); ‘meed’, ‘hyre’. The
phenomenon may now be described in general terms: in
these nine places Spenser substitutes for a rhyming word
a metrically equivalent synonym which does not rhyme.
Our analysis shows further that, the rhyme-scheme of the
Spenserian stanza being ababbcbcc, this substitution occurs
only in the first or last of the b-group, or in the first of the
c-group. It seems as if, borne along on the swell of his
metre and the easy flow of his imagination, two words
identical in sense and metre but different in sound rose to
the poet’s mind almost simultaneously; and the one which
he meant to reject slipped nevertheless from his pen, having
been (we infer) the first to occur. This explains why this
phenomenon always occurs either in the first word of a
rhyme-group, where the rhyme is still undetermined; or, if
in the last, then only in the last of the b-group, where the
ear has already been satisfied with as many as three rhymes;
and why it never occurs in the a-group, where two rhymeless
endings would at once have alarmed the ear. I have
dwelt on this phenomenon at some length because it is, so far
as I know, peculiar to Spenser.[2]
(6) I must glance at another, though a rare, source of
error. Our sage and serious Spenser was a thoughtful,
even a philosophic writer; but his thought is large, simple,
contemplative, not acute and analytic. When he has to deal
with a subtle or complex situation he sometimes involves
himself inextricably. If any lover of Spenser resent this
judgement, let him apply his devotion to explain or emend
II. v. 12, ll. 8 and 9; V. vi. 5, ll. 6 and 7; V. vi. 26,
ll. 5 and 6: to me these passages appear incorrigible.
III.
The first mention of the Faerie Queene occurs in a letter
of Spenser’s to Gabriel Harvey, dated Quarto Nonas Aprilis
1580. ‘I wil in hande forthwith,’ he writes, ‘with my
Faery Queene, whyche I praye you hartily send me with al
expedition: and your frendly Letters, and long expected
Judgement wythal.’ ‘I haue nowe sent hir home at the
laste,’ writes Harvey in reply. These phrases show that
the parcel of the Faerie Queene had been in Harvey’s hands
for some considerable time. The poem must therefore have
been begun not later than 1579. Now in 1579 Spenser
was an inmate of Leicester House, and the constant associate
of Sir Philip Sidney. There is therefore no reason to
doubt the assertion of W. L. in his commendatory verses
that by Sidney the poem was originally inspired.
Harvey’s long-expected judgement, when it came, was
far from favourable. But the poet was not discouraged,
and doubtless took the manuscript with him when he went
to Ireland with Lord Grey in August, 1580. Though he
afterwards spoke of the poem as ‘wilde fruit which salvage
soyl hath bred’, there is some reason to think that he had
actually written as much as a book and a half before he left
England. For though allusions to Ireland are not rare in
the Faerie Queene, the first of them occurs in II. ix. 16.[3]
Moreover, the industry of commentators has discovered in
Book I only one imitation of Tasso’s Gierusalemme Liberata,
and that doubtful[4] (I. vii. 31); undoubted imitations begin
to appear in II. v, vi, vii, viii, and II. xii blazes with spoils
from the Garden of Armida. Now the Gierusalemme Liberata
was published in 1581; an imperfect edition had been issued
surreptitiously in 1580.
Our next glimpse of the Faerie Queene we owe to
Lodovick Bryskett, whose Discourse of Civill Life, though not
published till 1606, purports to record a conversation held
in his cottage near Dublin as early, it would seem, as the
spring of 1583. Spenser is one of the interlocutors. He
is made to say that he has already undertaken a work ‘which
is in heroical verse under the title of a Faerie Queene’; which
work he has ‘already well entered into’. The company
express an ‘extreme longing’ after this Faerie Queene,
‘whereof some parcels had been by some of them seene’.
Parcels of the Faerie Queene had been seen, it appears, not
only by Spenser’s friends in Dublin, but by his literary
contemporaries in London. I. v. 2 is imitated in Peele’s
David and Bethsabe (date unknown, but probably before
1590). I. vii. 32 and I. viii. 11 are imitated in Act IV,
Sc. 4 and Act IV, Sc. 3 respectively of the second part of
Marlowe’s Tamburlaine (published 1590, but acted some years
earlier). Finally, Abraham Fraunce in his Arcadian Rhetorike
(1588) quotes Spenser ‘in his Fairie Queene, 2 booke,
cant. 4’. Fraunce’s quotation is the more interesting inasmuch
as it shows that by 1588[5] the F. Q. had not only
been composed, but disposed into its present arrangement of
books and cantos so far at least as II. iv. It is worth
remarking that all these imitations of and quotations from
F. Q. before it was published are from that part of the
poem which we have seen some reason to think was written
before Spenser left England. Allusions in the poem shed
no certain light on the progress of its composition.
There is no reason to suppose that Spenser composed
the whole of the F. Q. in the order in which he gave
it to the world. It is more likely that he worked up
many incidents and episodes as they occurred to him, and
afterwards placed them in the poem. We know that the
Wedding of Thames and Medway, which now forms IV. xi, is
a redaction of an Epithalamium Thamesis which he originally
undertook as an experiment in quantitative metre before
April, 1580. And it seems probable that the Legendes and
Court of Cupid mentioned by E. K. in his preface to the
Shepheards Calender, as well as the Pageaunts[6] mentioned in
the Glosse on June, were similarly worked over and incorporated
in the F. Q.
Combining these pieces of evidence, we receive the
impression that for some time after he came to Ireland
Spenser worked but intermittently on the F. Q., resuming
the regular composition and arrangement of the poem about
the time when he ceased to reside in Dublin.[7] By 1588—the
date of Fraunce’s quotation—he may have already been
settled at Kilcolman. There, at least, Raleigh found him
in 1589, and was shown the poem; with the result that in
the autumn of that year Spenser accompanied Raleigh to
London, and set about the publication of Books I-III.
The volume was licensed to William Ponsonbye on Dec. 1,
1589. Spenser’s explanatory letter to Raleigh bears date
Jan. 23, 1589 (i. e. 1590 N. S.). In the course of 1590, but
not before March 25, the volume was published. The
printing shows some signs of haste; there is a long list of
errata or ‘Faults Escaped in the Print’. This list, though
not itself faultless, is of paramount authority in determining
the text of Books I-III; it is cited in the notes as F. E.
In 1591 Spenser returned to Ireland, a disappointed man.
I fear that Burleigh had taken occasion of the Milesian tone
of certain episodes in Book III to stir the ashes of an old
resentment: the second part of F. Q. begins and ends with
complaints of misconstruction by that ‘mighty Pere’. But
once back at Kilcolman he resumed his task. At first
the stream of poetry flows languidly. The fable rambles,
dispersing its force in many channels, like a river choked with
sand; the verse flags; the play of alliteration is fitful; and
Spenser essays a new, but to my ear an unhappy, variation in
the form of a feminine ending.[8] But presently he gathers
strength again under some new influence, which one would
fain associate with his courtship of Elizabeth Boyle. The
treatment of Britomart in Book V has strong, dramatic touches
beyond anything in the earlier books; and in the lovely
pastoral episodes of Book VI the poet lives once more in Arcadia.
But positive indications of date are very rare. Book V
Canto xi must be later than July 25, 1593, when Henri IV
heard that mass which was the price of Paris: the singular
dislocation of the Argument to Canto xii—half of which
refers to the incidents of Canto xi—suggests that this Burbon
episode was an afterthought; that it was inserted after Book V
had been disposed into Cantos; and that Spenser meant it
to form part of Canto xii. On the ordinary interpretation
of the Amoretti,[9] all these books were finished before, but not
long before, his wedding on June 11, 1594 (v. Sonnet 80);
and on any interpretation they must have been finished by
1595, when Sir Robert Needham brought the manuscript of
the Amoretti to London. Yet Spenser may have added and
retouched up to the date of publication. For, in spite of
Sonnet 80, I have fancied that when he wrote certain descriptions
in Books V and VI Spenser was not only a husband
but a father. See especially V. v. 53 (simile of the nurse
and infant); V. vi. 14 (the child crying in the night); VI. iv.
18, 23, 24 (Calepine’s treatment of the foundling, which should
be compared with Guyon’s behaviour in a similar situation, II.
ii. 1); also VI. iv. 37, particularly line 8. Now Spenser’s
eldest child was born in 1595. This may be fanciful. What
is certain is that towards the close of 1595 Spenser followed
Needham to London with the manuscript of the second part
of F. Q. It was licensed to Ponsonbye on Jan. 20, 1596, and
published by autumn of that year. James VI took offence at
the treatment of Duessa, and had to be appeased by the English
Ambassador, whose letter detailing the incident is dated
Nov. 12, 1596. The new edition was in two volumes, the
first being a reprint, with alterations, of 1590.
Late in 1596, or early in 1597, Spenser returned to
Ireland. In 1598 Tyrone’s rebellion broke out. In
October the rebels attacked and burned Kilcolman Castle.
Spenser fled to Cork, whence in December he made his way
to London; and there, on Jan. 16, 1599, he died. Ten
years after his death a folio edition of F. Q. was published
by Mathew Lownes, which added to the six books already
published two Cantos of Mutabilitie, ‘which, both for Forme
and Matter, appeare to be parcell of some following Booke of
the Faerie Queene, vnder the Legend of Constancie.’ These
two cantos, with two stanzas of a third, are all that remain
of the third part of F. Q. Whether Spenser wrote more is
unknown. But the fact that the two cantos are numbered
vi and vii makes it fairly certain that he had at least
sketched the whole Seventh Book. I cannot accept the
view that these two cantos are an independent poem, in the
sense that they were not designed to form part of F. Q.
The lines (VII. vi. 37)—
‘And, were it not ill fitting for this file,
To sing of hilles and woods, mongst warres and Knights’—
show clearly that they were so designed. That they
may have been written independently, in the sense in
which the Wedding of Thames and Medway was written
independently, I am not concerned to deny. The view
that these cantos are spurious is unworthy of serious
discussion. If they are spurious, there must have been
living in 1609 an unknown poet who could write the
Spenserian style and stanza as well as Spenser at his best.
For there is nothing of its kind in F. Q. superior to the
pageant[10] of the months and seasons; and no one who really
knows Spenser can doubt that the two stanzas which alone
remain of the ‘vnperfite’ eighth canto came from his heart.
IV.
The chief critical problem that confronts an editor of F. Q.
concerns the text of Books I-III. Should the text of these
books be based on 1590 or on 1596? I have chosen the
latter. And I have done so, in the main, for a quite general
reason. 1596 was produced under Spenser’s eye and by his
authority. That authority must be held to cover both
volumes, not the second only. Behind this we cannot go.
The case is quite different with the later quartos of the
Shepheards Calender, which were produced in Spenser’s absence.
This general position is confirmed by a minute comparison
of 1590 and 1596. To take the more massive changes
first: in 1 596 Spenser completely remodelled the conclusion
of Book III. Instead of bringing Scudamour and Amoret
together, as in 1590, he left them still parted, hoping thus
to prolong the interest of their story into Book IV, and so to
form a link between the two volumes, which he desired to
be read as one continuous poem. For this he sacrificed five
glorious stanzas, one of them the most rapturous that he
ever wrote. The three stanzas which he substituted are far
inferior, as he must have known; but they served his
purpose. He also added a new stanza at I. xi. 3. He
rewrote single lines, in the interests of sound or sense; he
altered single words or phrases; and he made—what is even
more significant—several minute changes of order designed
to improve the rhythm. Let me add that most of these
changes are more happily inspired than the second-thoughts
of poets have sometimes been.
I hasten to make two admissions. The first volume of
1596 was not reset afresh from Spenser’s manuscript. It
was printed from a copy of 1590. In the nature of the case,
while it escapes some of the blunders of its original, it
reproduces others, and perpetrates some new. Nor did
Spenser do more than glance at the proof. The 1596
volumes, as we have seen, were printed rapidly; the poet
was busy,[11] and such time as he had for proof-reading was
given to the new books. I infer that the alterations which
he made in 1590 were made not on the proof, but on the
copy. In no other way can we account for that combination
of author’s corrections with printer’s errors which marks the
first volume of 1596. And this conclusion is strengthened
by another consideration. It is one of the worst faults of
1596 that it so often ignores F. E. But the significance of
the fault has been overlooked. Making corrections on the
copy, Spenser did not trouble himself about errors that he
had already noted in F. E.; had he made his corrections on
the proof, they could not have escaped him.
I believe this to be a true account of the relations of these
two texts. But when all is said there remain many places
where we cannot pronounce on mere inspection whether an
alteration is the author’s or the printer’s, but must be
guided by a calculation of probabilities, inclining (e. g.) to
the author where there is clear evidence of his hand in the
neighbourhood of the vexed passage, to the printer where the
ductus litterarum in both readings is suspiciously alike. The
most important of these places are discussed in the Critical
Appendix to Vol. III.
Has 1609 any independent authority? In the main a
reprint of 1596, it is certainly a respectable piece of work,
in punctuation especially far more logical and consistent than
either of the quartos: the editor seldom fails to show exactly
how he understands his text. Our respect for 1609 would
be enhanced if we could believe that the editor was Gabriel
Harvey, as Todd at one time fancied. But that notion is
untenable, and Todd himself abandoned it. We may go
further: the editor of 1609 did not belong to the generation
of Harvey and Spenser. For this conclusion I will adduce
only one piece of evidence, but it is decisive. In the last
decade of the sixteenth century syllabic -es in possessives
and plurals still lingered even in verse not deliberately
archaic. But it was strange to the editor of 1609. Sometimes
he remarks it, and signalizes his discovery by printing
it -ez, as ‘woundez’, ‘beastez’, ‘clothez’. Sometimes he fails
to remark it, and fills up the syllable by conjecture: thus
‘Nightes children’ becomes ‘Nights drad children’ (I. v. 23);
‘th’Earthes gloomy shade’ becomes ‘the Earthes gloomy
shade’ (III. x. 46). He seems, moreover, to have made
little or no use of 1590. When, as sometimes happens,
a word has been dropped in 1596, he emends by conjecture:
thus at I. ii. 29:—
‘For the coole shade him thither hastly got’ 1590;
‘For the coole shade thither hastly got’ 1596;
‘For the coole shadow thither hast’ly got’ 1609.
Cf. also III. ix. 13, l. 9, III. xi. 26, l. 7, &c. The few
instances in which 1590 and 1609 agree as against 1596
may fairly be set down to coincidence.
Yet I am disposed to assign some independent authority
to 1609.[12] The grounds for this view are slight, and may be
stated in full:—
(1) At I. x. 20, l. 5, 1609 adds the missing line, ‘Dry-shod
to passe, she parts the flouds in tway.’
(2) At II. viii. 48, l. 8, it corrects ‘Sir Guyon’ to ‘Prince
Arthur’.
(3) At III. iii. 50, l. 9, it completes the imperfect
Alexandrine by adding ‘as earst’.
(4) At III. vi. 45, l. 4, it adds a broken line, ‘And
dearest loue,’ to an eight-line stanza.
(5) At IV. xii. 13, ll. 1, 2, 1596 reads:—
‘Thus whilst his stony heart with tender ruth
Was toucht, and mighty courage mollifide’;
1609 reads:—
‘Thus whilst his stony heart was toucht with tender ruth,
And mighty courage something mollifide.’
(6) At V. Proem 11, l. 2, it reads ‘stead’ for the non-rhyming
‘place’.
Of these changes, (2) and (3) are not beyond the capacity
of an ordinary editor; yet it is worth noting that 1609 does
not correct other confusions of names almost as obvious as
(2). Even the missing line (1), Spenserian as it sounds,
might conceivably be editorial. But to add a broken line,
like (4), seems to me a touch beyond an editor. And (5) is
most easily explained by supposing that Spenser altered the
text, meaning to omit ‘tender’, but left that word standing.
(6) is an instance of a phenomenon that has already been
discussed. The significant point is that this is the only
instance of that phenomenon which is corrected in 1609.
An editor who corrected one of these mistakes might be
expected to correct others; but the author who perpetrated
these non-rhymes would more easily overlook them.
The addition of the Mutabilitie cantos in 1609 must be
allowed to create a prejudice in favour of the view for
which I argue. The editor who recovered so much of
Spenser’s manuscript may have recovered more: parcels
of F. Q., as we have seen, were handed about in London in
Spenser’s absence. Or—and the form of the variants at
IV. xii. 13 makes this the more probable hypothesis—the
editor of 1609 may have had a copy of 1596 with some
corrections by the author. Finally, it is not impossible that
these corrections were actually embodied in exemplars of
1596 which no longer survive. Elizabethan writers were in
the habit of correcting sheets as they passed through the
press: in F. Q. itself I have noted more than a score of
places in which the readings of the copies used for this
edition differ from those of other copies in the Bodleian or
the British Museum, or of copies used by previous editors;
and the notes of Church, Upton, and Todd show that they
had seen copies which differ in minute points from any now
available. As the sheets were probably bound indiscriminately,
it is possible that no two exemplars exactly correspond.
The charges of careless collation freely bandied among
Spenser’s editors are sometimes due to this cause.
It remains for me to acknowledge with gratitude the
unwearied help that I have received in preparing this
edition, first, from my wife, who read 1609 with me twice;
next, from my friend Dr. Soutar, of University College,
Dundee, who revised the difficult proofs of Books I-III;
last, from an unknown coadjutor, Mr. Ostler of the
Clarendon Press, to whose skill and vigilance above all
I owe whatever measure of accuracy has been secured. An
edition like this has little claim to any higher virtue; yet
perfect accuracy, even, is too much to hope for in the
reproduction, by ordinary typography, of the original
spelling and punctuation of a poem which runs to more than
35,000 lines. In the Critical Appendix I have called
attention to one or two places in which I have noted
what now seem to me to be errors, or on which I have
changed my mind since the sheets were printed.
I have also to thank Sir James Murray, Dr. Bradley, and
Dr. Craigie for information on points of lexicography; and
Mr. Charles Cannan for the protracted loan of his copy of
the first folio.
J. C. Smith.
St. Andrews,
September, 1909.