BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE.
58 lines✦
f the copies collated for this edition, three are in the Bodleian,viz.:-- (1) Malone 615, Books I-III, 1590.(2) Malone 616, Books IV-VI, 1596.(3) 4^o Art. Seld. S. 22, Books I-VI, 1596 (collated for Books I-III).For 1609 I have used (4) a copy belonging to Mr. Charles Cannan. The following copies, though not collated _verbatim_, have beenexamined for variants:-- (5) Malone 7, 1609 }(6) M. 4. 5 Art. { Books I-III, 1611 }{ Books IV-VII, 1612 } in the Bodleian.(7) Douce S. 817 { Books I-III, 1609 }{ Books IV-VII, 1613 } (8) G. 11535, 6 { Books I-III, 1590 }{ Books IV-VI, 1596 }(9) C. 12. h. 17, 18 { Books I-III, 1590 }{ Books IV-VI, 1596 }(10) 686 g. 21, 22, 1596 }(11) G. 11537, 1596 } in the British Museum.(12) C. 57. f. 6, 1609 }(13) 78 g. 13 { Books I-III, 1609 }{ Books IV-VII, 1613 }(14) 79 h. 23 { Books I-III, 1611 }{ Books IV-VII, 1613 } The bibliographical note on Spenser in the _Dictionary of NationalBiography_ appears to ignore 4^o Art. Seld. S. 22. The 1590, 1596, 1609 editions of _F. Q._ have been described already.In 1611 Lownes (the publisher of the 1609 _F. Q._) set about a completeedition of Spenser’s poems. But having on hand unsold copies of 1609,he incorporated parts of these under the new title-page.[13] This hashappened to (6), the first part of which is identical with 1609, exceptfor the title-page and dedication. The genuine 1611 edition of _F. Q._I-III is represented by the first part of (14). The second part of(6), bearing date 1612, has been reset: it is identical with the secondparts of (7), (13), (14), which bear date 1613. No 1611 edition of _F.Q._ IV-VII is known to me. But in the footnotes I have followed thecustom of citing this ‘Second Folio’ as 1611, except where readingsnot found by me in editions prior to 1612-13 have been attributed to1609 by previous editors, misled perhaps by the omission from theBritish Museum catalogue of the second title to (13). In the CriticalAppendix on Books IV-VII I cite this Second Folio (for these Books) as16(11)-12-13. * * * * * Subsequent editions of Spenser’s works:--The folios of 1617, 1679 (thelatter said to have been overseen by Dryden); ed. J. Hughes, 1715; H.J. Todd, 1805; F. J. Child, 1855; J. P. Collier, 1862; R. Morris, 1869;A. B. Grosart, 1882-4. Separate editions of _Faerie Queene_:--ed. J. Upton, 1758; R. Church,1758-9; Kate M. Warren, 1897-1900. Commentaries:--_Remarks on Spenser’s Poems_, by J. Jortin, 1734._Observations on the Faerie Queene_, by T. Warton,1754. [For the matter of this note I am largely indebted to Mr. Ostler andMr. Percy Simpson.] FOOTNOTES: [13] From a MS. note of Malone’s I learn that Ponsonbye had played thesame trick in 1596; and even of the 1617 folio Church avers that somecopies are made up with sheets of the old 1611.
✦