II. ix. 49 l. 4. reason] season Drayton (teste Collier). Collier professed to have a copy of the 1611 folio that had belonged to Drayton and had corrections in his hand. On questions of this nature no weight can be attached to Collier’s unverified statements, and I am not aware that this statement has been verified. The corrections with which he credits Drayton are often ingenious, but not more ingenious than those which he puts forward as his own.
II. ix. 52 l. 9. the house] th’house 1609. See note on I. i. 15 l. 6.
II. x. 6 l. 6. safeties sake] safety 1590. 7 l. 7. liued then] liueden 1590. Either of these corrections might be editorial; but by their proximity they support each other.
II. x. 15 l. 9. munifience] munificence 1590, 1609. Spenser certainly means ‘fortification’, and has either coined a noun from munify + ence, or applied ‘munificence’ in this unexampled sense. The reading ‘munifience’ is found only in 1596.
II. x. 24 l. 9. F. E. shows that Seuith was printed in some copies of 1590. Church, Upton, and Todd all had copies in which the missing words were supplied.
II. x. 34 l. 1. Riuallo] Riuall’ 1590. See note on I. i. 15 l. 6.
II. x. 43 l. 1. Sisillus] Sifillus 1590 &c. We should perhaps read Sisilius with Geoffrey of Monmouth (Historia Britonum, Lib. III, § 13: in § 14 he spells it Sisillius).
II. x. 67 l. 2. Ambrose] Ambrise 1596, 1609. Geoffrey of Monmouth (Historia Britonum, Lib. VI) supports 1590.
II. x. 49 1. 8. defrayd] did defray 1596, 1609. Here at least the printer of 1596 is seen to have assumed the editor. He betrays himself by losing the rhyme-scheme, rhyming line 8 with lines 2, 4, 5, 7 instead of 6, 9. See note on II. viii. 40 l. 4.