purported, in much larger letters, to have been "Imprinted at London for William Ponsonby." Ponsonby, however, (as we obferved with reference to the first, second, and third books by Wolfe) was not himself a printer; but he employed Richard Field (the Stratford man, who had had the honour of being the typographer of Shakespeare's " Venus and Adonis," and "Lucrece") to perform the fame duty for the fourth, fifth, and fixth books of Spenfer's "Faerie Queene." Field's device, the anchor twined with laurel, is on the title-page, although his name is nowhere seen in connection with the volume. The entry at Stationers' Hall is in this form, noticing only Spenfer's usual publisher:

"20 die Januarii [1595]

"Mr. Ponsonby. Entred &c. The fecond
Part of the Faerie Queene cont. d.
the 4, 5 and 6 bookes

vj."

" t

This "20 die Januarii" was 1595, as the year was then calculated, but 1596 as we now reckon it. The entry follows the words and letters of the title-page; and we may be pretty fure that, when it was carried to the clerk of the company, it was ready for publication. There was no need for a fecond license for the first three books, alfo reprinted by Field, because they had been authorised in Dec. 1589, as they had come from the prefs of John Wolfe. The fourth, fifth, and fixth books have no preliminary matter: the explanatory epiftle from Spenfer to Raleigh, appended to the first three books in 1590, was altogether omitted in the reprint of 1596, although equally applicable to the three fucceeding books;

t Ponsonby entered at the fame time a work with a very attractive title, of which even that title has not been hitherto mentioned: it was called "The Paragon of Pleasant Hiftories; or this Nut was never cracked, containing a Discourse of a noble King and his three Sons." Innumerable works of this popular kind have entirely perished.

and "the fourth Booke of the Faerie Queene" begins abruptly with " the Legend of Cambel and Telamond," excepting as regards the ufual preliminary stanzas prefixed by the poet to each book.

We may feel very certain that in these two small quarto volumes we have all that Spenfer in 1596 had written fyftematically in continuation of his great original undertaking, which was to have formed the fubject for twelve books, each book of twelve cantos. That the poet wrote, or had written, more, in lefs connected portions, we can have no hesitation in believing; because when Matthew Lownes, another ftationer, in 1609 republished "The Faerie Queene," in folio, he was induced to do so, not merely by the popularity of the work, (then becoming scarce in the quartos of 1590 and 1596,) but because he had procured in manufcript, perhaps through some of the friends or relations of Spenfer, two additional cantos, and a mere fragment of a third canto. These he printed with the reft that he had carefully fuperintended, and thus headed them :-" Two Cantos of Mutabilitie: which, both for Forme and Matter, appeare to be parcell of fome following Booke of The Faerie Queene, under the Legend of Conftancie.-Never before imprinted."

Such is all the information Lownes fupplied regarding his new acquifition; but he numbered them Cantos vi. and vii. of the seventh book of "The Faerie Queene," fubjoining two stanzas only of a real or fuppofed eighth canto: we presume that, although ten years after Spenfer's death, he had authority for fo treating them, poffibly in the shape of a note or notes upon the manuscript he had in fome unexplained manner obtained. Lownes made the poet's epiftle to Raleigh and the preliminary fonnets form a fequel to the whole undertaking, which in 1609 included none of Spenfer's mifcellaneous

pieces. He added them in his two reprints of 1611 and 1617, both in folio."

With respect to the "two Cantos of Mutability," all that is very material is, that we should know them to have proceeded from Spenfer's pen. Of this fact we apprehend that no doubt has been, or can be entertained. They are admirably characteristic compofitions, and in some portions equal to anything in the fix books published during the lifetime of the poet. There was certainly no other author living, before 1609, who could have written them; and they must be, and always have been, included in every edition of Spenfer's works.

There is good reason for fuppofing that he came to London foon after his "Amoretti" had been printed in 1595; and, it is very poffible, before the publication of his "Colin Clout's come Home again" in the fame year: his presence may have been the cause of its ultimate appearance, after a delay of nearly four years. Confidering the character of this poem, it deferves remark that no entry of it for licence is to be met with in the books at Stationers' Hall. Perhaps Ponfonby did not prefent it for the purpose, nor fought to obtain the imprimatur of the Archbishop of Canterbury, of the Bishop of London, or of any other competent authority. For a small part of the volume, viz. Lodowick Bryskett's " Mourning

u The general title-page of the edit. folio 1611, runs thus :- -"The Faerie Queen: The Shepheards Calendar: Together with the other Works of England's Arch-Poët, Edm. Spenfer: Collected into one Volume, and carefully corrected. - Printed by H. L. for Mathew Lownes. Anno Dom. 1611." The dedication to Queen Elizabeth is placed on the leaf following the title-page. There are separate titlepages to the various parts of the volume: that to " Profopopoia, or Mother Hubberds Tale," is dated 1613: that to "Colin Clout's come Home again" has no date, but " 27 of December 1591" is preserved at the end of the dedication: all the reft are, like the general title-page, dated 1611. The wood-cut ornaments on the title-page to the whole volume are the fame as thofe ufed by Ponsonby, for his folio editions of Sidney's "Arcadia." The copy we have used was once Drayton's.

i

X

Mufe of Theftylis," it may be remembered (p. lv.) that a licence had been obtained as long fince as Auguft, 1587; and in the doubt whether more need be done, the publisher may have been satisfied with that. Those pieces which bear the date of 1596, including, of course, the continuation of " The Faerie Queene," we may take it for granted underwent Spenfer's fupervifion while he remained in England, and while they were going through the prefs. One of these, the "Four Hymns," is separately dated from Greenwich in Sept. 1596.

When, however, Spenfer came to London in 1595, he had business that demanded his attention quite as much as the printing and publication of his works. This was of an unpleasant legal character; for, in 1593, he had been involved in a dispute with Viscount Fermoy, refpecting lands in Shanballymore and Ballingerath, each

* Another reason for thinking a new licence unneceffary, may have been, that, two years before the appearance of "Colin Clout's come Home again," with its appendices on the death of Sidney, Roydon's Elegy," and Raleigh's "Epitaph," with "Another of the fame," had been printed in the poetical mifcellany called "The Phoenix Neft," 4to. 1593. We may here exprefs our vexation that in the reprint of "The Phoenix Neft," in "Heliconia, comprising a Selection of English Poetry of the Elizabethan Age," 4to. 1815, fuch want of common care should have been evinced that, in a poem entitled "A most rare and Excellent Dreame,” (p. 42,) no fewer than fix whole ftanzas were omitted; not in one, but in five different places. This seems incredible; but, as a fingle proof of the fact, we fubjoin a stanza, which ought to have been the last but one in the poem, as reprinted in "Heliconia," but is only found in the original edition of 1593:—

Why art thou not (O dreame) the fame you feeme,
Seeing thy vifions our contentment brings?
Or doe we of their worthines misdeeme,
To call them shadowes that are reall things,
And falflie attribute their due to wakings?
O! doe but then perpetuate thy fleight,

And I will sweare thou work'ft not by deceit."

In the reprint of Roydon's " Elegy," on Sidney, there are errors, but none very glaring; and Raleigh's "Epitaph" and its supplement are accurately given.

of them claiming three plough-lands in the two districts. It appears, from the original records in the Rolls Office, Dublin, that in 1593 Spenfer had relinquished his appointment of Secretary to the Council of Munfter to a person of the name of Nicholas Curteys; but, with a covenant that "during life he (Spenfer) fhould be free in the faid office for his causes." Viscount Fermoy alleged that, on this account, Spenfer had multiplied fuits against him upon pretended titles; one of which titles was that of Joan Ny Callaghan, a party Spenfer (whom Lord Fermoy terms "a heavy adverfary") fupported. It was affirmed in Lord Fermoy's petition, that Edmund Spenfer, of Kilcolman, gentleman, had entered into lands not belonging to him, and had done wafte there upon the timber and corn-crops to the extent of 200l. It is added that Spenser had indeed appeared in perfon, but that he had neglected to answer the charges, though feveral days had been appointed for the purpose; and that in the end, on the 12th February, 1594-5, poffeffion was decreed to Lord Fermoy.

This proceeding in equity, if it had not haftened our poet's repair to London, may have been part of the bufinefs he was bound to attend to when he arrived

there. It very poffibly preyed upon his fenfitive mind during his stay; and it may even have flavoured with bitterness fome paffages against Court and courtiers, which almost read like after-thoughts, and may have been added to "Colin Clout's come Home again" while it was in the process of printing. A decree had been pronounced against him, and especially in the abfence of Raleigh, now on his voyage to Guiana, Spenfer may have fought in vain for fupport against Viscount Fermoy. For aught that appears to the contrary, the land, as decreed, remained in the hands of his lordship, and our poet may even have been compelled to make