 |
 |
This is fascinating. I've become puzzled, though, since learning that book-sellers sometimes sold unbound works. So one might go home and bind two favourite works together?? To connect Daphnaida and Complaints as a continuous work (as intended by the author) wouldn't you need evidence of continuous pagination or some such thing? As with Lovers Complaint and Shakespeare's Sonnets. Can anyone diffuse my puzzlement? What is/was 'a book'? Penny On 15 May 2012, at 15:06, David Roy wrote: > That's brilliant! Thank you! I will follow up with this and see where it takes me! The crux of it really is if contemporary readers ever saw Daphnaïda as any more than a 'coda' to Complaints. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 14 May 2012, at 10:50, "Colin Burrow" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Watermark Evidence and Inference: New Style Dates of Edmund Spenser's "Complaints and Daphnaida"Author(s): Adrian Weiss, Studies in Bibliography, Vol. 52 (1999), pp. 129-154 says that the copy in the Huntington has Daphnaida bound in to Complaints. From the catalogue I can't see that this is so, and I haven't looked at the book(s) myself; but the two separate entries in the catalogue have contiguous call numbers (69576 and 69577) and the same provenance, so it's quite possible they are bound together. I imagine others will know of this or other examples. >> >> Colin Burrow, >> Senior Research Fellow, >> All Souls College, >> Oxford >> OX1 4AL >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sidney-Spenser Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Roy >> Sent: 14 May 2012 10:02 >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Daphnaida >> >> Does anyone know where to find the 1591 edition of Daphnaïda that is attached to the Complaints volume? I have some questions about the binding.