Read here

Spenser's Faerie Queene, Vol. 1 (of 2)

Spenser, Edmund · Public domain text

156,914 words · about 10 h 59 min to read

About this edition

The text of Spenser's Faerie Queene, Vol. 1 (of 2) comes from Project Gutenberg e-text #70717. It is public domain in the United States. Edited by J. C. Smith. Project Gutenberg’s header and license text are removed, and RedLectern sets the text out for reading on screen; no words of the book are rewritten or summarized. More formats (EPUB, Kindle) · How RedLectern is built

This text-only edition leaves out 42 illustrations. See the illustrated edition at Project Gutenberg.

This book is long enough to be split into 3 parts, so each one loads quickly on its own.

About this book

Author
Edmund Spenser (1551–1599)
Language
English
Subjects
English poetry › Early modern, 1500-1700, Knights and knighthood › Poetry, Virtues › Poetry
Length
156,914 words · about 10 h 59 min
Sections
7 reader sections · Table of contents
Contents (7)
  1. Opening under 1 min
  2. Introduction about 24 min
  3. Book I under 1 min
  4. Book II under 1 min
  5. Book III under 1 min
  6. Appendix about 6 h 28 min
  7. Spenser's Faerie Queene, Vol. 1 (of 2) (part 3 of 3) about 4 h 6 min

The opening of Introduction

I.

In these volumes I seek to present a true text of the Faerie Queene, founded upon a fresh collation of the Quartos of 1590 and 1596 and the Folio of 1609. I shall call these editions by their dates for short.

The fragmentary Seventh Book appeared first in 1609: for the rest the text is based on 1596. Some typographical peculiarities--long s, &, ô, and superscribed m and n (e.g. frõ, whẽ)--have not been reproduced, but noted only where they first occur. With these exceptions, the readings of 1596 if not adopted in the text are recorded in the notes; so that text and notes together amount, in effect, to a complete reprint of 1596. No such completeness has been attempted in recording variants from 1590 and 1609. But all verbal differences are recorded, and all differences of punctuation that imply a different view of the meaning. Mere changes of spelling that answer to no change of pronunciation are, as a rule, ignored; but I have recorded such differences of spelling as seemed likely to interest students of Elizabethan phonology, grammar, and usage. The evidence of these variants must be used with caution in view of Spenser’s deliberate archaism.

Read on in Part 1 →