Dear Anne and list,
Thanks for the respect for my judgment, but it wasn't my choice. Abe
Stoll chose to append the Letter, along with his Life of Spenser, to
EVERY volume.That being said, I would agree to that decision, with the
caveat that the Letter should not be taken as Spenser's last word on any
topic.
Carol
anne prescott wrote:
> This thread on originality and the Bible has been so thrilling and
> important that I hate to intrude with something minor and practical, but
> I have a question. I'm editing the Letter to Ralegh, or at least
> revising an edited version, for Broadview Press and the Renaissance
> volume that Joe Black and I helped with. The press wants to know if we
> should put the Letter before our selections of the FQ or afterward (I
> have the same issue with the much-delayed Norton Spenser). Originally,
> of course, it came at the end of the 1590 edition, but after vanishing
> from the 1596 edition it returned and was often placed right in front,
> as a sort of preface (see Upton, e.g.). Hamilton puts it afterward, as
> does Kaske. I told Broadview that putting the Letter after our hunks of
> the FQ might make us seem aware of the original presentation and give us
> street cred, and my note does explain how it first appeared, but is that
> pedantic? I also told Broadview that Hamilton and Kaske are superb
> scholars and that if afterward is good enough for them it should be good
> enough for us, but I thought I'd ask the list if anyone has any strong
> thoughts on the matter. Yes, to be really, really pedantic we should put
> it after Book III, but we don't have the whole FQ.
> Advice? Anne.
|