Legend of Constancie’. Although that virtue is Shepheardes Calender was thoroughly glossed by named only once before, to describe Guyon and his E.K., and his Dreames, as he told Harvey with some Palmer as they prepare to enter the Bower of Bliss (II pride, had ‘growen by means of the Glosse, (running xii 38.9), it is implicit in each virtue. Its importance continually in maner of a Paraphrase) full as great as is indicated in Elyot’s Gouernour 3.19: ‘that man my Calendar’ (Spenser 1912:612). In glossing The which in childehode is brought up in sondry vertues, Faerie Queene, I have taken E.K. as my guide, shar-if eyther by nature, or els by custome, he be nat ing his apprehension that without glosses ‘many induced to be all way constant and stable, so that he excellent and proper devises both in wordes and meue nat for any affection, griefe, or displeasure, all matter would passe in the speedy course of reading, his vertues will shortely decaye’. It seems inevitable either as unknown, or as not marked’ (Epistle). (For also that this legend, appropriately foreshortened, the historical practice that informs his glossing, see should be the seventh and final book, for that num-Tribble 1993:12–17, 72–87, and Snare 1995.) I ber heralds the poet’s day of rest to round out his six limit my annotations chiefly to words that need to be days of labour. On seven as the number of constancy explicated for readers today, selecting their meanings and mutability, see A. Fowler 1964:58. Such tradi-from the entirely indispensable OED, though I tional number symbolism would seem to determine believe that, finally, most may be clarified by their the numbering of the cantos: vi for the days of cre-immediate context and by their use elsewhere in the ation evident in Mutabilitie’s reign; vii for Nature’s poem. For several reasons, I have avoided interpreta-orderly control over that reign; and viii for regenera-tion as much as possible. First, limitations of space tion and resurrection; see I viii Arg. 1–2n, Bieman do not give me any choice. Second, I agree with 1988:233–38, and headnote to VII viii. Hanna 1991:180 that the annotator who resorts to The fragmentary nature of the cantos, and their interpretation will ‘impose his being, in a double differences in form from the previous books, pre-attack, on the reader and on the text’. Third, I agree clude any understanding of their place in a poem that also with Krier 1994:72 that an annotator’s inter-fashions the virtues. One may only speculate that they pretation is ‘premature and deracinated, especially provide a recapitulation or coda to certain themes for pedagogical purposes’. Fourth, I believe that any in the previous books, such as mutability; or ‘a interpretation of the poem – including my own – is detached retrospective commentary on the poem as Procrustean: a matter of finding several points com-a whole’ (Blissett 1964:26); or the allegorical ‘core’ mon to the poem and some other discourse, and of a book on constancy (Lewis 1936:353). Or that then aligning them, using whatever force is needed they constitute ‘one of the great philosophical poems to spin one’s own tale. All ‘readings’ of the poem of the language’ (Kermode 1965:225) that may be without exception are misreadings, at best partial read as an eschatology (Zitner 1968:11), or as a readings, if only because they are translations. At the theodicy (Oram 1997:290–300), or as an Ovidian same time I recognize that I am interpreting the brief epic (Holahan 1976, C. Burrow 1988:117–19) poem in drawing the reader’s attention to the mean-that treats the dialectical relationship of Nature and ings of its words, and adding such commentary as I Mutabilitie (Nohrnberg 1976:741–44), or the think represents a consensus on how the poem may nature of time itself (Waller 1994:181–85). be understood today. Yet I ask only that readers appreciate Spenser’s art in using words. Although his Annotations