Agreed. I find it useful to begin by having my students read the
letter--telling them that we're doing so precisely because it does _not_
agree with the poem as it developed. That gives us the opportunity to see
Spenser's text from the start as an evolving phenomenon, so that the
students are on the lookout for Spenser's own changing conception of his
project. I make sure they see that this change doesn't occur in a nice,
neat straight line. That way, they're prepared to evaluate the end ("end"?
"ends"?) of the poem in sophisticated ways.
Dot
-----Original Message-----
From: Sidney-Spenser Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Carol Kaske
Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2010 1:25 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Editing question
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.
