IV
Finally, the conclusions reached here upon the basis of bibliographical
evidence clearly have implications in regard to Spenser's involvement in the
publication of Complaints and Daphnaida. As Johnson notes, the painstaking stop-press
corrections of errors in Complaints, especially those
kinds not normally detected in printing-house proofing, certainly suggests
that Spenser attended proof at Orwin's shop. Beyond that, Ponsonby's
prefatory “The Printer to the Gentle Reader” and
Spenser's dedication in Daphnaida suggest that
Spenser and Ponsonby worked together on the preparation of the materials for
the press. Given the fact that the dedication to Daphnaida is dated shortly after the printing of Complaints commenced, it is difficult to reject the proposition
that Spenser wrote the dedication as part of the publication process and
personally delivered Daphnaida to Ponsonby. The
latter is certainly suggested by Ponsonby's two references to Spenser as a
source of manuscript materials. In both references, Ponsonby's comments shed
light on the dynamics involved in the competitive coexistence of print and
manuscript cultures in the period.
Motivated by the recent success of The Faerie Queene,
Ponsonby notes that he has undertaken the project of collecting Spenser's
poems: “to get into my handes such smale Poemes of the same
Authors; as I heard were disperst abroad in sundry handes, and not easie to
bee come by, by himselfe....” While the manuscript dissemination
of works certainly presented an opportunity for unscrupulous publishers
(like Henry Olney) to intercept copies and publish them without authorial
permission or involvement, Ponsonby's difficulty lies in his inability (or
lack of luck) in tracking down manuscripts.[33]
Two problems are apparent. First, the implication seems
clear that, while in Ireland, Spenser had been inaccessible as a source of
manuscripts of the shorter poems. A second problem arises because of the
non-return of manuscripts lent by Spenser before he went to Ireland to
individuals wishing to take copies: “some of them having bene
diverslie embizeled and purloyned from him, since his departure over
Sea.” Ponsonby deliberately chooses particularly negative language
here, perhaps to tweak the consciences of those holding such manuscripts.
This seems the only reasonable interpretation of Ponsonby's
“indictment” since it is difficult to believe that
Spenser would lend out his sole autograph copy of a work. It seems natural
that he would have kept a personal copy of each, delivering a fair-copy to a
dedicatee or lending it to a friend. Nonetheless, Ponsonby's ultimate
objective in making the claim is clearly to flush out such materials from
their unknown whereabouts. The present collection of poems in
Complaints in fact, has been assembled from such
sources: these, Ponsonby notes, “I have by good meanes gathered
togeather” and “caused to bee imprinted altogeather, for
that they all seem to containe like matter....” His choice of the
term “good meanes” seems deliberate, verifying to
readers that the manuscripts were gathered legally and published with the
author's permission.
[34] His prior relationship
with Spenser as publisher of
The Faerie Queene would,
of course, lend legitimacy to his attempt to acquire manuscripts of
Spenser's other poems. And there is no reason to doubt that Spenser approved
since he provided
Daphnaida. The second reference to
Spenser implies as much. Ponsonby promises to publish other poems that he
has heard of, “which when I can either by himselfe, or otherwise
attaine too, I mean likewise for your favour sake to set foorth.”
Spenser here ranks as the primary source. Whether Spenser provided the
dedications at this time for the other works is unclear. An anomaly in the
dedication to
Virgil's Gnat might suggest that he
did. The other dedications are titled simply “Dedicated
to....” The former, however, contains a historical note regarding
the time when Spenser initially dedicated the work: “
Virgils Gnat.| Long since dedicated|
To the most noble and excellent Lord,| the Earle of
Leicester, late| deceased.” The note may simply be a clarification
of the fact that the dedication preceded Leicester's death in 1588, since
the remaining dedications are to living persons. But it seems highly
unlikely that a publisher, even one of Ponsonby's calibre, would care
about such a distinction-it is an author's kind of
comment. Furthermore, it is the only instance of the intrusion of an
editorial voice: otherwise the texts are presented without editorial
comment. Spenser's attention to the potential significance of dedications,
however, is well attested to elsewhere. It would not be surprising to find
that he inserted this historical note while proofing Ponsonby's manuscript,
or perhaps, when he wrote the dedication for the printing. In short, it
seems reasonable to conclude that Spenser worked along with Ponsonby on the
preparation of these materials for the press.
