 | |  |
Notes
For this study, I have used a copy of 1596 (both Parts) in the Library of the College of William and Mary, with reference also to copies of both 1590 and 1596 in the Folger Library and the libraries of Haverford College and Princeton University. F. R. Johnson, A Critical Bibliography of the Works of Edmund Spenser (1933), lists accurately the pagination and other errors in headlines (including variants) of the 1590 and 1596 editions.
Roland M. Smith, "Spenser's Scholarly Script and 'Right Writing,'" Studies in Honor of T. W. Baldwin, ed. D. C. Allen (1958), pp. 66-111, examines Spenser's spellings in official letters in his hand.
A. E. M. Kirwood, "Richard Field, Printer, 1589-1624," The Library, 4th series, XII (1931), 24, states that Field's output in 1596 reached a maximum of "over 4,400 pages," more than twice his average production. Roughly one-quarter of this total would be accounted for by the Faerie Queene. He could not have let his presses and workmen stand idle waiting for copy. The Faerie Queene was completed before November 12, 1596, when King James in Edinburgh "conceaued great offence" over the "publishing in prynte" of what he deemed slanders against himself and Mary Stuart in the allegory of Book V; see F. I. Carpenter, A Reference Guide to Edmund Spenser (1923), p. 41.
The misprint "QVEEENE" in an early running-title was corrected between pages 2I5 (outer forme) and 2I6 (inner forme); the erroneous canto number on page 2R5v persisted from its correct appearance on the previous outer forme; the erroneous canto number on page 2Ff3 (outer forme), carried over from 2Dd4 (inner forme), was corrected on 2Ff4 (inner forme); and the errors on outer forme pages 2N1 and 2Hh8v (not traceable to previous uses of the skeletons) would not have been likely if inner formes had been printed first, for they show canto numbers which would have been correct on the outer formes if left unchanged. The only exception is that forme 2X I(i) was imposed before 2X I(o), for the uncorrected state of the outer forme shows an erroneous canto number on page 2X1 which persisted from the inner forme.
See E. Greenlaw et al., The Works of Edmund Spenser (1932-1949), "The Faerie Queene, Book Five," pp. 259, 262, 331. J. G. McManaway (ibid., pp. 372-373) attempted to explain the erroneous catchword but was unaware of the related bibliographic evidence. J. W. Bennett, The Evolution of the Faerie Queene (1942), pp. 201-205, cited the catchword in support of her argument that the attack on Artegal by Envy and Detraction (stanzas 28-40 of Canto 12) is a last-minute addition to the text. The catchword has no connection with this passage, nor is there any other bibliographic evidence related to its possible insertion during printing.
| | |