The last time I weighed in on this topic, a hugely important scholar bit my
head off. But since I never learn from my mistakes, I'm going to return to
the fray and offer something heretical: don't put in the letter at all. Or
place it the appendix.
Yes, it seems to offer something extraordinarily rare: an early modern
author telling us what his work is supposed to mean. But the letter shows up
in the back of the 1590 edition, and Spenser dropped it altogether from the
1596 edition, which we can presume had Spenser's input. Spenser himself
implicitly rejected the letter, perhaps on the grounds that the letter just
did not describe the poem he wrote, although it may have described the poem
he thought he was going to write. The Letter to Ralegh, in other words,
represents less a guide to interpreting the FQ than evidence of an earlier
draft of the FQ.
Peter C. Herman
On 5/21/10 1:47 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.
|