I. xi. 37 l. 2. yelded] yelled 1609. Though I have hesitated to change the reading of the quartos, it is probably a misprint. Spenser elsewhere has ‘yell’. The nearest parallel to ‘yeld’ is ‘befeld’ = befallen, IV. iii. 50 l. 3. The true reading may, after all, be ‘yelped’.
I. xi. 41 l. 4. Nor 1609: For 1590, 1596. I am no longer sure that Spenser did not write ‘For’. There is a very similar confusion in V. vi. 26 ll. 5 and 6.
I. xi. 51 ll. 7 and 8. The original punctuation makes l. 8 refer to the lark.
I. xii. 7 l. 3. sung] song 1590. Here 1596 forgoes the eye-rhyme to avoid ambiguity.
I. xii. 17 l. 1. that] the 1596, 1609. The change may be Spenser’s, but cf. 21 l. 7 where ‘the’ of 1596 is probably wrong and occurs in the same line with a word in which 1596 is certainly wrong.
I. xii. 17 l. 4. note] no’te 1609, 1611. Morris reports ‘no’te 1596’: not so in Bodl. or B. M. copies.
I. xii. 28 l. 7. her] his 1596, 1609. The change may be Spenser’s. Having personified truth as Una, he may have felt an objection to personifying it here. But the misprint is not uncommon: cf. 40 l. 9.
I. xii. 34 l. 3. improuided] vnprouided Todd &c.: not so in any of the copies examined.
I. xii. 38 l. 3. frankincense] frankencense 1596, 1609. The spelling ‘encens’ was not yet quite extinct, and I now incline to think that the more archaic form was deliberately introduced in 1596. Cf. note on ‘vpsidowne’ at II. vii. 4 l. 8.