I forgot to reply. Those sonnets? You're joking, right? Right. At least we don't modernize Spenser, so they'll have the fun of learning a whole lot of new words such as "hight" and "ydrad." Anne.
On May 21, 2010, at 5:55 PM, Joel Davis wrote:
> I see it more or less as Tom does. You could redact the letter pretty significantly if you liked, too. While Peter's idea is valid & I agree in principle, I would want to have at least the important parts of Spenser's letter included in a teaching edition. So, er, what are you going to do with the appended sonnets?
> Joel
>
> Joel B Davis
> Associate Professor
> Coordinator, MA Program in English
> Stetson University
> 421 N Woodland Blvd Unit 8300
> DeLand FL 32723
> 386.822.7724
> ________________________________________
> From: Sidney-Spenser Discussion List [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Herron, Thomas [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 5:04 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Editing question
>
> Hi — since you’re excerpting passages in the first place, you’ve broken any semblance of fidelity to an original edition, so I don’t see why one couldn’t place the Letter wherever one wants, provided its original placement in 1590 (in the “posterior” back matter) was noted and provided your new placement were justified as useful to the reader of that edition (in a way that, say, scrambling the narrative order of cantos or stanzas could not be). On a practical level, the beginning student w/o instructional directive, or a browser in a library, might be more inclined to read the Letter, for example, if he/she sees it preceding the text, rather than appearing as an appendix might.
>
> And who among us does not introduce discussion/study of FQ in the classroom by announcing various principles garnered from the Letter to Raleigh, including fashioning virtuous gentlemen, before any student has finished all of Books I-III or even read a word of the poem? (I’m sure a few people out there could jump cold into the tex, but I can’t).
>
> For more discussion on the original placement of the back matter, see Wayne Erickson’s special issue of SLI.
>
> Sincerely, Thomas
>
>
>
> On 5/21/10 4:47 PM, "anne prescott" <[log in to unmask]> 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.
|