For houres but dayes; for weekes, that passed were,She told but moneths1596,1609.
For houres but dayes; for weekes, that passed were,She told but moneths1596,1609.
For houres but dayes; for weekes, that passed were,She told but moneths1596,1609.
For houres but dayes; for weekes, that passed were,
She told but moneths1596,1609.
Church would transpose ‘houres’ and ‘dayes’, ‘weekes’ and ‘moneths’. Spenser may have meant that she reckoned in months instead of weeks to make the time look shorter;e.g.said three months instead of twelve weeks,dwelling on the numeral and wilfully ignoring the noun. But this is one of those subtleties in which we feel the difference between Spenser and Shakespeare. See Introduction, p. ix.
V. vi. 16 l. 7. That this is things compacte] thingconj. Church. Others defend ‘things’ as genitive. Church’s conjecture is preferable to that. But there is no real objection to taking ‘things’ as nom. pl.
V. vi. 19 l. 3. the euen-tide] th’euen-tide1596. See note on V. iii. 11.
V. vi. 25 l. 9. nights] Knight’sconj. Church. This conjecture, like others of Church’s, is rather plausible to common sense than convincingly Spenserian.
V. vi. 26 l. 5. Ne lesse] Sense requires ‘Ne more’; but see note on II. v. 12.
V. vi. 29 l. 2. armed] arm’d1596. See note on V. iii. 11.
V. vi. 33 l. 7. auenge] reuenge16(11)-12-13. Morris and Grosart report ‘reuenge1609’: not so in genuine copies examined.
V. vii. 6 l. 9. her] From stanza 15 it appears that ‘her’ should have been ‘his’. But the mistake may be Spenser’s.
V. vii. 13 l. 5. to robe] to be16(11)-12-13.
V. vii. 23 l. 6. See note on III. v. 53 l. 3.
V. viii. 40 l. 6. knowen] knowne1596.1596might be upheld by comparison with VI. iv. 36, where ‘vnknowne’ = ‘showen’ = ‘blowen’ = ‘sowen’. But these are at the end of lines, where the number of syllables is indifferent.
V. ix. 21 l. 1. knights] knight16(11)-12-13.
V. ix. 44 l. 1. appose] oppose1609. Mr. Chapman has pointed out to me a parallel use of ‘appose’ in Drayton (p. 44, l. 4 of the Oxford edition):—
Against these folkes that think them selues so wise,I thus appose my force of reason wholly.
Against these folkes that think them selues so wise,I thus appose my force of reason wholly.
Against these folkes that think them selues so wise,I thus appose my force of reason wholly.
Against these folkes that think them selues so wise,
I thus appose my force of reason wholly.
V. x. 3 l. 6.Armericke]Americke conj. Todd. Todd’s conjecture is highly probable. Otherwise we must takeArmericketo mean Armoric,i.e.of Brittany.
V. x. 6 l. 4. See note on I. i. 15 l. 6.
V. x. 18 l. 8. fastnesse] safenesse16(11)-12-13.
V. x. 23 l. 4. threating] threatening16(11)-12-13.
V. x. 24 l. 5. farewell open field] well fareconj. edd.needlessly: ‘farewell’ here = welcome.
V. xi. 5 l. 9. have riue] not riue16(11)-12-13.
V. xi. 40 l. 6 is a very effective tetrameter as it stands. The reading of16(11)-12-13is not, I think, authentic.
V. xi. 41 l. 6. Upton’s correction had already been made in Hughes’s second edition.
V. xi. 54 l. 9. corruptfull] corrupted16(11)-12-13. Morris and Grosart report ‘corrupted1609’: not so in genuine copies examined.
V. xi. 61 l. 7. meed] hyreconj. Church. But see Introduction, p. viii. The reading ‘meed’ in this stanza makes the rhyme-schemeababbcacc.
V. xi. 61 l. 8. froward] forward1596. The sense requires ‘froward’. For the distinction between the two words cf. II. ii. 38; and for a similar confusion between them VI. x. 24 1. 7.
V. xii. 14 l. 8. steale] steele1609. But ‘steale’ here = handle.
VI. Proem 6 l. 9. name] fameedd.See note on V. ii. 46 l. 9.
VI. i. 8 l. 7. wretched] wicked16(11)-12-13.
VI. i. 37 l. 5. pot-shares] pot-shards16(11)-12-13.
VI. i. 34 l. 2. For ‘sound’ = swound cf. III. v. Arg.
VI. ii. 3 ll. 3, 4. ‘Eyes’ and ‘eares’ ought of course to have been transposed. But there is no evidence that the error is not Spenser’s. And this must raise a doubt as to whether the printer is responsible for ‘euery act and deed, that he did say’ in l. 2.
VI. ii. 39 l. 2. implements] ornaments1609. This change looks less like a printer’s error than an editorial improvement.
VI. iii. 12 l. 7. saue] salue16(11)-12-13.
VI. iii. 21 l. 8. default] assaultconj. Collier. See note on V. ii. 46 l. 9. But Collier is very likely right here. The chance of parablepsy, always present in such cases, is here unusually strong with ‘assault’ > < ‘default’.
VI. iii. 23 l. 2.Serena]Cristina1596 Bodl.All the B. M. copies ‘Serena’. A striking instance of correction made during the printing of the sheets. See Introduction, p. xix.
VI. iii. 24 l. 5. in vaineom. 16(11)-12-13. These words, which make the line a hexameter, are not omitted in any of the genuine1609copies examined. See Bibliographical Note.
VI. iii. 35 l. 3. Which] That1596 Bodl.The four B. M. copies have the superior reading ‘Which’. The change was evidently made at press to avoid the repetition of ‘that’.
VI. iii. 37 l. 9. did for her] for her did1596 Bodl.Again the four B. M. copies have the superior reading: change made at press for euphony. Mr. Ostler points out that the corrections in stanzas 23, 35, and 37 all occur in the outer forme of signature B b, which explains the agreement of the B. M. copies. Had the corrections been on both sides of the sheet, there would probably (he thinks) have been a further dispersal of various readings.
VI. iii. 42 ll. 4, 7. The rhyme-words have been transposed in1596.
VI. iv. 4 l. 7. stroke] strokes1609should have been recorded in the footnote.
VI. iv. 16 l. 8. hurts] hurt16(11)-12-13. The latter reading is more grammatical, but is not found in any of the genuine1609copies examined.
VI. v. Arg. 1.Matilda]Serenacorr. Hughes rightly. The confusion is due to theMatildeof Canto iv; but it is Spenser’s own.
VI. v. 39 l. 3. full gladly they did take in glee] gree1609. The readingof1609is supported by V. vi. 21 l. 7. On the other hand, the alliteration favours ‘glee’; and we find ‘nor for gold nor glee’ in I. ix. 32 l. 7.
VI. vi. Arg. 3.Herefers toArthur; but no emendation is possible.
VI. vi. 4 l. 4. Of] In16(11)-12-13.
VI. vi. 16 l. 1. the] th’1596. See note on V. iii. 11.
VI. vii. 3 l. 7. armed] arm’d1596. See note on V. iii. 11.
VI. vii. 15 l. 9. yearned] earned1609. See note on II. iii. 46 l. 9.
VI. vii. 49 l. 9. Words] Swordsconj. Church. The sense, as often, favours Church’s conjecture; but the alliteration favours the text.
VI. viii. 50 l. 4. what they ought] what shee ought1609, taking ‘ought’ = owned. For the converse see note on II. viii. 40 l. 4.
VI. ix. 28 l. 6. the heauens] th’heauens1596,1609. See note on V. iii. 11.
VI. x. 2 l. 9. in] on1596. Spenser is apparently thinking of the Latin proverb ‘in portu nauigare’; yet it does not mean exactly what he desires to convey here. In Terence,Andria, i. 3. 22 ego in portu nauigo = I am out of danger: Spenser means ‘never reaching the land’. Possibly1596is right, and we have here a nautical phrase that has been lost.
VI. x. 24 l. 7. froward] forward1596,1609:corr. 16(11)-12-13. The reading ‘froward’, though not found in any of the genuine1609copies examined, is clearly right, as is shown by the Gloss onS. C.forApril, where the Graces are thus described:—‘And Boccace saith, that they be painted naked ... the one hauing her backe toward us, and her face fromwarde, as proceeding from us; the other two toward us, &c.’
VI. x. 36 l. 6. And hewing off his head, it presented1596,1609: (he) it presentededd.Though Spenser is not above this kind of bad rhyme, I do not find that he ever accents ‘présented’.
VI. x. 44. The reading and punctuation of1609(which makes a long parenthesis of ll. 3-7) are, of course, much more logical; but not therefore more Spenserian.
VI. xii. 12 l. 8. loos] praise1609. We may have here an authentic after-thought of Spenser’s. He may, on reflection, have disliked the collocation of ‘losse’ and ‘loos’. If so, this line should be added to the instances cited in the Introduction, p. xviii. But it is equally probable that the editor of1609, failing to recognize the obsolescent ‘loos’—which nevertheless occurs in Puttenham—took it for a printer’s repetition of ‘losse’, and corrected accordingly.
VI. xii. 41 l. 3. clearest1596,1609: cleanestHughes. Hughes’s conjecture, though not supported by any of the old copies examined, is nevertheless very probably right; for the stanza is carelessly printed in1596, as the variants recorded in the footnotes show. But Spenser has too many imperfect rhymes to allow us to consider the emendation certain.
VII. vi. 38 l. 2. wealths] wealthHughes &c.The plural may be defended as = different kinds of wealth; but the misprint is easy.
VII. vii. 9 l. 7.kindes]kindeMorris after Upton; and so Chaucer calls it in theParlement of Foules316.
VII. vii. 10 l. 4. mores] moreHughes. Upton defends ‘mores’, as = roots, plants; and most editions, and the N. E. D., accept this. Nor did ‘mores’ offend the editor of16(11)-12-13; so that it is probably right, though I do not find that ‘more’ elsewhere ever means anything but root, or stock.
VII. vii. 28 l. 3. didom. 16(11)-12-13.
VII. viii. 1 l. 7. to cast] and cast16(11)-12-13.
VII. viii. 2 l. 9. Church’s conjecture (made also by Upton) makes Spenser distinguish between Sabaoth = hosts and Sabbath = rest. The distinction exists in Hebrew; but it seems to spoil the point of the stanza to suppose that Spenser drew it here. No inference can be based on the varying spellings of ‘Sabaoth’ in1609,16(11)-12-13.
Of the Letter to Raleigh, Commendatory Verses, and Dedicatory Sonnets, only the verses by W. R. and Hobynoll are found in1596 Bodl., or in Mr. Cannan’s1609, where they are printed in their original position at the end of Book III. The rest of this additional matter is here reproduced from1590 Bodl., with whichC. 12. h. 17of B. M. agrees. It was evidently thrown together in some haste; there are several dislocations and omissions in the other B. M. copy of1590. The Bodleian folios omit the last two sonnets; the verses by W. R. and Hobynoll they print twice over.