I wish myself that Yale would do a new edition (and, yes, do a better
job of binding). I find both Yale and McCabe admirable. As for the
Norton, Hugh and I simply dropped the Fowre Hymnes, rightly or
wrongly, and of course the matter in the notes had to go too. In the
much-delayed new Norton Andrew Hadfield and I are adding the Ruines
of Rome not as supergreat poetry but as feeding a current interest in
empire etc. Nice and short, too. Suggestions for what needs glossing
are welcome. Yes, we are now three years late. Stuff happened. Anne.
On Oct 2, 2009, at 12:26 PM, JD Fleming wrote:
> Thanks to all! JD Fleming
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: [log in to unmask]
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2009 9:59:31 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada
> Pacific
> Subject: Re: McCabe / Oram
>
>
>
> Carol Kaske gives good reasons for preferring McCabe's Penguin
> edition. I haven't used either across the whole extent of the
> shorter poems, but it's my impression that McCabe's apparatus of
> introductions and notes is somewhat superior. Working recently on
> the Fowre Hymnes , however, and consulting both editions, in the
> Yale edition I found things of value in Einar Bjorvand's notes that
> supplemented McCabe's. (And in Hugh Maclean's original Norton
> Critical Ed. of 1968, there is matter in the notes that hasn't been
> retained in either of the later editions.)
>
>
> Cheers, Jon Quitslund
>
> -------------- Original message from JD Fleming <[log in to unmask]>:
> --------------
>
> To all those who know: how does the Penguin edition of Spenser's
> Shorter Poems,
>> ed. McCabe, compare with the Yale, ed. Oram et al.?
>>
>> --
>> James Dougal Fleming
>> Associate Professor
>> Department of English
>> Simon Fraser University
>>
>> "to see what is questionable"
>
> --
> James Dougal Fleming
> Associate Professor
> Department of English
> Simon Fraser University
>
> "to see what is questionable"
|