VI. xii. 41 l. 3. clearest 1596, 1609: cleanest Hughes. Hughes’s conjecture, though not supported by any of the old copies examined, is nevertheless very probably right; for the stanza is carelessly printed in 1596, 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] wealth Hughes &c. The plural may be defended as = different kinds of wealth; but the misprint is easy.
VII. vii. 9 l. 7. kindes] kinde Morris after Upton; and so Chaucer calls it in the Parlement of Foules 316.
VII. vii. 10 l. 4. mores] more Hughes. Upton defends ‘mores’, as = roots, plants; and most editions, and the N. E. D., accept this. Nor did ‘mores’ offend the editor of 16(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. did om. 16(11)-12-13.
VII. viii. 1 l. 7. to cast] and cast 16(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’ in 1609, 16(11)-12-13.
Of the Letter to Raleigh, Commendatory Verses, and Dedicatory Sonnets, only the verses by W. R. and Hobynoll are found in 1596 Bodl., or in Mr. Cannan’s 1609, where they are printed in their original position at the end of Book III. The rest of this additional matter is here reproduced from 1590 Bodl., with which C. 12. h. 17 of B. M. agrees. It was evidently thrown together in some haste; there are several dislocations and omissions in the other B. M. copy of 1590. The Bodleian folios omit the last two sonnets; the verses by W. R. and Hobynoll they print twice over.
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS, OXFORD
BY VIVIAN RIDLER
PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY