Dedication. In 1590 the Dedication runs simply:—‘To the most mightie and magnificent empresse Elizabeth, by the grace of God Queene of England, France and Ireland Defender of the Faith &c. Her most humble Seruant: Ed. Spenser.’ The words ‘and of Virginia’ and ‘to liue with the eternitie of her fame’, added in 1596, give evidence of the growing importance of the colony and of the increased self-confidence of the poet.
I. i. Arg. 3. entrappe] entrape 1596. In the matter of double letters I attach little weight to the evidence of either quarto. I cannot believe (e.g.) that a scholar like Spenser could have written ‘oportunitie’ (I. ii. 41 l. 7); so with ‘entrape’ here, and ‘mishapen’ at I. vi. 8 l. 7.
I. i. 2 l. 1. But] And 1590. The reading of 1596 brings out finely the contrast between the ‘jolly’ appearance of the Knight and his dedicated purpose.
I. i. 5 l. 1. So pure an innocent] and innocent 1590: an Innocent 1609. 1596 makes ‘innocent’ substantive: and so 1609 took it, as the capital shows.
I. i. 9 l. 6. sweete bleeding] sweet, bleeding 1609. But Morris is probably right in regarding ‘sweete’ as an adverb to ‘bleeding’.
I. i. 15 l. 6. poisonous] poisnous 1590. 1596 is less shy of trisyllabic feet than 1590, and both than F. E.; and the second part of F. Q. than the first. Other trisyllabic feet left full in 1596 but elided or contracted in 1590 will be found at I. iv. 37 l. 6; II. ix. 17 l. 4; II. x. 34 l. 1; III. viii. 46 l. 9; cf. also III. ix. 48 l. 6. (Per contra III. viii. 49 l. 1; III. xi. 28 l. 8.) Elisions are proposed by F. E. but ignored by 1596 at I. xii. 32 l. 5, II. vii. 54 l. 8.
1609 elides vowels left open in the quartos, e.g. at II. ix. 52 l. 9; III. v. 50 l. 8; III. vii. 5 l. I. Cf. also II. viii. 3 l. 8; II. xii. 27 l. 4, for its avoidance of trisyllabic feet.
I. i. 15 l. 7. shapes] Morris reports ‘shape 1596’: not so in Bodl. or B. M. copies. But ‘shape,’ in 1609.
I. i. 20 l. 4. vildly] vilely 1609. The omission of ‘d’ marks the seventeenth-century editor.
I. i. 21 l. 5. spring] ebbe 1590 &c.: corr. F. E. to auale] t’auale 1590: corr. F. E. A good example of the relation of 1596 to F. E. The first correction is ignored, the second accepted. But the second correction is obvious, being required by the metre; it must have been made independently. And this is generally the case when 1596 and F. E. agree. For the significance of this ignoring of F. E. see Introduction, p. xvii. Excluding ambiguous instances, I have noted forty-eight places in which 1596 thus ignores F. E.; fifty-four in which they agree. But of these fifty-four only six at most are significant, the rest being obvious corrections. These are I. vi. 26 l. 5; I. vii. 37 l. 8; I. vii. 43 l. 5; I. vii. 47 l. 3; I. ix. Arg. 2; I. ix. 9 l. 5. Whatever be the explanation in these instances—and it will be noted that they all come close together—they do not invalidate the conclusion maintained in the Introduction, p. xvii, which is based on the negative instances.