University of Virginia Library

Search this document 


  

collapse section 
  
  
  
  
expand section 
  
expand section 
  
  
  
expand section 
  
expand section 
  
  
expand section 

  
  
  
  
  

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]


153

Page 153
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

154

Page 154
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.