Edmund Spenser - The Faerie Queene

We have retained u, v, and i where modern orthography would print v, u, and j respectively, but we have substituted the modem ifor the old for italic f, W for VV, and have expanded all contractions of norm represented by a tilde above the preceding vowel (e.g. from for fr). It is our belief that the orthography and punctuation of Spensers poem are so integral to the meaning that we are not willing to submit them to the regularities of modern usage. We have extended this principle by retaining rhyme words that do not fit the rhyme scheme but make sense (II.2.7.7; 2.42.6; 3.28.7; 8.29.7; 12.54.7; III.6.40.6; 7.34.2; IV.7.32.7; 11.17.6;V. Proem. 11.2; 11.61.7; VI.2.3.3; 12.41.3). In three instances we have emended (II.9.9.1; VI.8.47.3; 10.32.6).

We have also retained the eight-line stanzas of 1.10.20 and III.6.45. All these readings are cited in the explanatory notes with suggested readings of other editions. Nevertheless, in such a long poem, printed in so many editions, we have found it necessary to make some changes in the text. We have made all the corrections directed by the erratum page of the 1590 edition, Faults Escaped. We have made editorial conjectures in the case of manifest errors (VL3.28.6: soft footing for softing foot) and narrative errors (IV.4.2.4: Blandamour for Scudamour, who does not appear in the canto). We have occasionally chosen readings from die 1590 or 1609 texts when the 1596 reading did not seem suitable.

All these changes are noted in the textual appendix that follows on p. 1057. The composite text we present will necessarily be disappointing in some readings to some readers. These textual notes are intended not as a definitive solution to the problems of Spensers text but a factual declaration of the sources of our differences from the copy texts. If we had a clearer knowledge of Spensers manuscripts or of who was re sponsible for the Faults Escaped or of who edited the 1609 and 1611 editions, we might be in a better position to justify our dependence on one text rather than another. However, in the present situation, in which such decisions cannot be made with any certainty, we have thought it best to make a composite text, giving priority to the 1596 copy text, in full awareness of the fact that reliance on one copy of a text is insufficient proof.