Introduction

Notes

Introduction

1. RT 454–5. 2. The issue of whether the unsold copies of the Complaints were in fact ‘called in’ by Elizabeth’s government has a long, vexed history. See Hugh Maclean ‘Complaints’, 177–81, 178 and Einar Bjorvand, ‘Complaints: Prosopopia, or Mother Hubberds Tale’, 184–5 in Spenser Encyclopedia, for the traditional arguments on this subject. Richard S. Peterson in ‘Laurel Crown and Ape’s Tail: New Light on Spenser’s Career from Sir Thomas Tresham’, Spenser Studies 12 (1991): 1–35, has revealed a contemporary account of Mother Hubberds Tale by English recusant Sir Thomas Tresham that speaks of its being ‘called in’, or impounded, by government authorities, confirming later accounts of the Complaints volume as having been called in. Nev- ertheless, no official record confirms such action. On balance, Tresham’s account, corroborated as it is by later accounts and the censoring of Mother Hubberds Tale and parts of The Ruines of Time from the first edition of Spenser’s folio Works, presents convincing evidence of the volume’s confiscation. 3. Traditional accounts of Spenser’s engagement with Burghley follow Edwin A. Greenlaw, ‘The Sources of “Mother Hubberd’s Tale”’, Modern Philology 2 (1905): 411–32. Greenlaw’s theory was vigorously challenged by Percy Long, ‘Spenser and the Bishop of Rochester’, PMLA 31 (1916): 713–35 and later by Harold Stein, Studies in Spenser’s Complaints (New York: Oxford University Press, 1934), 58, 60–2, but has not been dislodged from general acceptance. For a fascinating account of Spenser’s animus against Burghley before Greenlaw’s argument, see Alexander Grosart’s late nineteenth-century edition of Spenser, Edmund Spenser, The Complete Works in Verse and Prose of Edmund Spenser, Alexander B. Grosart, ed. (London and Aylesbury: Private circulation only, 100 copies, 1882–84), vol. 1, 89–90. 4. The most vigorous defender of the Complaints texts as expressions of Spenser’s early career is W. L. Renwick in his early twentieth-century edition of the volume, Edmund Spenser, Complaints,W.L.Renwick,ed.(London: Scholar Press, 1928), 180–5. At times polemical in tone, Renwick works to separate much of the Complaints from Spenser’s career in 1591. 5. On the influence of Greenlaw on Spenser studies, see David Hill Radcliffe, Edmund Spenser: A Reception History (Columbia, SC: Camden House, 1996), 163–7. 6. Greenlaw’s original 1905 article was reprinted in Edwin Greenlaw, Studies in Spenser’s Historical Allegory (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1932), 104–32. Subsequent citations from this work come from this later version of the essay. 7. Greenlaw 119–20.

223 224 Notes

8. Greenlaw 128–9. 9. ‘[Spenser] was in the service of Leicester, and at the very time of the crisis, in early October, was expecting to be sent on a mission for him. His patron, therefore, who had everything to lose by this marriage, since Burghley and not Leicester would rule the French favorites, should be warned of the danger; perhaps the Queen herself should be warned. So Spenser takes his imitation of Chaucer, written perhaps not long before, applies the beast- allegory to the crisis among Elizabeth’s beasts, and with a daring not less great than Sidney’s own, speaks his mind. Here we have reason for the traditional enmity of Burghley; we have also reason for Spenser’s being shipped to Ireland the following summer; we have the grounds on which the poem was “called in”’ (Greenlaw 120). 10. Greenlaw 115–16. 11. One such argument contends that since the Fox and Ape variously interact with humans and animals in differing episodes, Spenser is either nodding or his episodes were composed at differing times. For this argument, see Robert A. Bryan, ‘Poets, Poetry, and Mercury in Spenser’s Prosopopoia: Mother Hubberds Tale’, Costerus 5 (1972): 27–33, 30. Kent van den Berg disagrees, arguing that such inconsistencies are ‘probably deliberate and need not be regarded as [defects]’, Kent T. van den Berg, ‘The Counterfeit in Personation: Spenser’s Prosopopoia’, in The Author in his Work: Essays on a Problem in Crit- icism, Louis Martz and Aubrey Williams, eds. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978), 85–102, 91. 12. The argument that Spenser was forced to undergo a rustication to Ireland as Lord Grey’s secretary has been refuted by Jean R. Brink, ‘ “All his minde on honour ﬁxed”: The Preferment of Edmund Spenser’, in Spenser’s Life 45–64 and Vincent P. Carey and Clare L. Carroll, ‘Factions and Fictions: Spenser’s Reﬂections of and on Elizabethan Politics’, in Spenser’s Life 31–44. 13. On the applicability of Mother Hubberds Tale to conditions at court in 1590, see Charles E. Mounts, ‘The Ralegh-Essex Rivalry and Mother Hubberds Tale’, Modern Language Notes 65 (1950): 509–13. The ‘late chayne’ (MHT 628), possibly referring to the marriage of Leicester in 1579 or Essex in 1590, is treated as inconclusive by Oram (YESP 355) and McCabe (Shorter Poems 616). For a theoretical discussion of the function of Mother Hubberds Tale from the perspectives of 1579 and 1591, see Jonathan Crewe, Hidden Designs: The Crit- ical Profession and Renaissance Literature (New York and London: Methuen, 1986), 55–6. 14. For a persuasive account of the unreliable nature of the Spenser–Harvey correspondence, see Brink 59–62. 15. Stanza 35 of Book 2, canto 4 of The Faerie Queene was quoted in Abraham Fraunce, The Arcadian Rhetorike: Or the Praecepts of Rhetorike made plaine by examples, Greeke, Latin, English, French, Spanish (1588), see Spenser Allusions 10. For the text and history of a commendatory poem written for The Faerie Queene before its publication, see Joseph Black, ‘ “Pan is Hee”: Commending The Faerie Queene’, Spenser Studies 15 (2001): 121–34. 16. On the published reception to Mother Hubberds Tale, see Stein 78–86. 17. See Peterson 12. Notes 225

18. Peterson 1; 7–8. 19. Peterson 8. 20. The Complaints volume was entered in the Stationers’ Register on 29 Decem- ber 1590 (YESP 223). 21. Peterson 35, n. 33. 22. Greenlaw 115. 23. Greenlaw 116. 24. For a discussion of Spenser’s allusive topicality, see Michael O’Connell, ‘Allegory, Historical’ in Spenser Encyclopedia 23–4. 25. For a discussion of contemporary annotations connecting the Fox to Burghley, see Chapter 5, 161–5. 26. Peterson 14. 27. While fully apprised of Tresham’s account of Spenser’s disgrace in 1591, McCabe continues to echo Greenlaw’s argument without qualification: ‘It would therefore appear that a poem originally composed during the crisis of the French match was cleverly revised for publication in 1591’ (Shorter Poems 610). Not only does McCabe assert the existence of Mother Hubberds Tale in 1579, he claims that it was a different text than the version published in the Complaints. This is an extraordinary position, given that we possess no such text, no contemporary reference to it, and no indication in 1591 that it was revised. If McCabe utilizes the 1579 theory to compliment Spenser’s ‘cleverly revised’ work, he nevertheless offers no explanation for how such a corrosive poem could have exposed the corruptions underlying the Elizabethan regime not just once, but twice. Nor do the allusions that McCabe identifies about Burghley relate specifically to 1579 – ‘the fox’s accu- mulation of “treasure” (1171–2; 1306), the illegal enrichment of his “cubs” (1151–8) and the formulation of devious “pollicie” (1036)’ (Shorter Poems 609–10). 28. Andrew Hadfield, ‘Spenser, Edmund (1552?–1599)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept 2004; online edn., Jan. 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/26145, accessed 6 June 2009]. 29. For the view that the poem’s supposed digressions are evidence of the poet’s revision, see van den Berg 86–7, 101 n. 5. 30. Spenser revised his blank verse translations of DuBellay in A Theatre for Worldlings into 14 line sonnets and numerous douxaines of his translation of Petrarch (Rime 323) into sonnets for the Complaints volume (YESP 452; 461; Shorter Poems 639–42). By dating Colin Clouts Come Home Againe ‘the 27. of December. 1591’ (YESP 526), he either revised or backdated it, since he noted the death of ‘Amyntas’, or Ferninando Stanley, Lord Strange, 5th Earl of Derby, who died on 16 April 1594 (CCCHA 434–41, YESP 542). Most significantly, he canceled and rewrote the ending to Book 3 of The Faerie Queene. 31. See van den Berg 91. 32. For further arguments defending the 1579 theory, see Thomas Herron, ‘Reforming the Fox: Spenser’s “Mother Hubberds Tale,” the Beast Fables of Barnabe Riche, and Adam Loftus, Archbishop of Dublin’, Studies in Philology 105 (2008): 336–87, 360 n. 77. 33. Stein 97. 226 Notes

34. On the awarding and collection of Spenser’s pension, see Herbert Berry, ‘Spenser’s Pension’, Review of English Studies 43 (1960): 254–9. 35. Richard Rambuss, Spenser’s Secret Career (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 84. 36. Rambuss 85; 85–7. 37. Rambuss 84; 94; 95. In the context of Spenser’s chronicle of the death of the Earl of Leicester (RT 190–3; 211; 218), Rambuss comments, ‘It is difficult to name the sentiment underwriting these insistent, unflattering declarations. Is it a feeling of loss, coupled with an attempt to awaken militant action among the “survivors” in the Leicester party? Or is it something approach- ing satisfaction?’ (94). See also Rambuss’s inconclusive account of the poet’s antipathy to Burghley in ‘Spenser’s Life and Career’, in The Cambridge Com- panion to Spenser, Andrew Hadfield, ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 13–36, 32. 38. Rambuss 91. 39. On the allusions to Burghley in Mother Hubberds Tale,seeChapter5,esp. 161–5; 178–9. For an instance of a contemporary reader who fails to recognize any topical satire in the poem, see Steven W. May, ‘Henry Gurney, a Norfolk Farmer, Reads Spenser and Others’, Spenser Studies 20 (2005): 183–223. Gurney’s remarks, significantly, identify him as a Burghley partisan. 40. Crewe 50–69, esp. 56–8. 41. Richard Danson Brown, ‘The New Poet’: Novelty and Tradition in Spenser’s Complaints (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1999), 123–4. 42. Brown 171. 43. Annabel M. Patterson, Censorship and Interpretation: The Conditions of Writing and Reading in Early Modern England (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1984). 44. Herron 337. 45. Herron 364. For Herron’s arguments rejecting Burghley as the ‘Fox’ in Mother Hubberds Tale, see 359–62. 46. Peterson 23. Herron’s response to Tresham’s reference to Ireland counters by way of rhetorical question rather than straightforward explanation: ‘Might one also infer that Spenser’s subject matter touches on Ireland as well and that with his satire he wished to reform the place he was eventually headed to in any case? According to this scenario, Spenser is not a fool (or “Lorrell” as Tresham calls him) but rather a timely opportunist: “Abroad where change is, good may gotten bee,” according to the Ape (MHT, 101)’ (359). For an argument with precious few links between the poem and its supposed Irish context, such rhetoric is unpersuasively deflective. 47. Space prohibits a complete analysis of Herron’s lengthy and detailed topical readings of Mother Hubberds Tale, yet we can immediately note that his assertions are not offered as definitive: ‘A consistent identification of the Fox as Loftus throughout the poem is plausible, although his companion Ape ... appears to shift in identity’ (379); ‘[I]n the second episode, the Fox and Ape ... could satirize Archbishop Loftus and Thomas Jones, Bishop of Meath’ (363); ‘[I]t [the first episode] appears to allegorize the replacement of Lord Deputy Grey (the Husbandman) with Loftus (the Fox) and military veteran Wallop (the Ape)’ (363). In regard to Herron’s argument that the Fox represents Loftus, and not Burghley, we can note the following: Notes 227

(1) Herron questions, but does not formally refute Burghley’s function as a target of Spenser’s satire, arguing that Burghley is an associative presence in the poem: ‘Burghley is therefore the outermost nesting-doll, the Fox, wherein Loftus and others lurk not far below the surface’ (364). The logic of this dual presence is never precisely explained. Herron never accounts for how readers would look past the more significant senior counselor to the figure of Loftus, nor does he document a single instance where anyone did so. In fact Herron never assigns a topical role for Burghley in his proposal of a programmatic satire of Irish events in episodes 1, 2, and 4 of the poem, contradicting his initial claim of Burghley as an ‘outermost nesting-doll’. (2) Herron’s stance is further undermined by his failure to account for the consistent attributions of the Fox as Burghley in contemporary annotation and commentary. He reports on the attributions of the Catholic pamphlet Declaration of the True Causes and Ben Jonson’s annotation of the 1617 folio, but without analysis or refutation (359, n.73). He questions Elizabeth Throckmorton’s attribution of the Fox as ‘Burly’, but cannot refute it, only concluding that she ‘may have been wrong’ (361, n.78). Herron also glosses over other named references of Burghley as Spenser’s target, such as the Letters and Despatches of Richard Verstegan, which compares Nashe’s supposed attack on Burghley in Pierce Pennilesse to that of Mother Hubberd (see Richard Verstegan, The Letters and Despatches of Richard Verstegan [c. 1550–1640], Anthony G. Petti, ed. [London: Catholic Record Society, 1959], 115). Herron also neglects seventeenth-century historian Robert Johnston, who asserts that Mother Hubberds Tale was an attack on Burghley (Robert Johnston, Historia Rerum Britannicarum ... ab Anno 1572, ad Annum 1628 [Amerstdam, 1655], 249 [Lib. VIII], quoted in R. M. Cummings, ed., Spenser: The Critical Heritage [New York: Barnes and Noble, 1971], 319). Nor does Herron address Thomas Wilson’s direct quotation of The Ruines of Time in regard to Burghley’s management of power (Thomas Wilson, The State of England, Anno Dom. 1600, F. J. Fisher, ed. [Camd. Soc., 3rd Ser., lii, 1936], 42–3). While this last attribution is not directly related to Mother Hubberds Tale, it does establish Spenser’s focus on Burghley elsewhere in the Complaints for issues related to the same concerns as those expressed in Mother Hubberd, his hatred of learned men and soldiers (see RT 440–8 and MHT 1189–91). (3) Herron establishes no definitive link between the poem’s characters and events and the context of Ireland, apart from the single reference to ‘Fiaunt’ (MHT 1144) (367). While a significant point, and worthy of scrutiny, this lone reference is not in itself determina- tive, and is not accompanied by further identifications of an Irish context. (4) No contemporary annotator or commentator read the poem as apply- ing to Loftus or Ireland, even as numerous commentators applied it to Burghley. (5) Other significant historical facts fail to support the applicability of Loftus to episode 4 of Mother Hubberds Tale, while they do support Burghley’s: 228 Notes

(a) The Fox in episode 4 is identified as a ‘peer’ of recent pedigree (MHT 1177–9). Loftus did not hold a peerage, while Burghley did. (b) Loftus died in 1605, but Herron does not explain why Mother Hubberds Tale was censored until after the death of Robert Cecil (1612), after which imprints of the poem were immediately added to Spenser’s folio Works. (c) Herron’s rationale that the poem’s pejorative references to the Fox’s misuse of ‘treasure’ are a comparison between Loftus and the Lord Deputy of Ireland (369) pales against the fact that Burghley was Elizabeth’s Lord Treasurer, an identifier that Spenser employs to sardonic effect at the end of The Faerie Queene, Book 6. (d) Herron notes that Loftus advanced his many sons’ interests in Ireland, but these efforts were far less significant than Burghley’s advancement of Robert Cecil, who in 1591 was effectively installed as his father’s political heir, as privy counselor, as de facto secretary, and the future possessor of Theobalds. In this Burghley was manag- ing a ministerial succession from father to son, an unprecedented achievement in Tudor politics with immense implications for the coming transfer of power. While he led a frivolous youth, elder son Thomas Cecil was also beginning to advance impressively in the 1580s and 90s, enough to draw the attention of Burghley’s critics. Loftus’s sons cannot command a comparable importance. (e) Herron argues that the reference to ‘loftie towers’ (MHT 1173) applies punningly to Loftus’s castle of Rathfarnham (369–71). Such a building, however, was insignificant next to the grandeur of Theobalds, which was the model of Elizabethan architecture and visited by Elizabeth frequently, more than any other residence of her reign. Only a prodigy house like Theobalds could claim comparison with (and superiority to) ‘Princes palaces’ (MHT 1175).

In sum, Herron fails to refute the abundance of evidence connecting Burghley to episode 4 of Mother Hubberds Tale, and does not offer any external evidence that the work applies to anyone else. To be sure, the poem’s formal inconsistencies preclude an assignment of Burghley to the entire work, but this fact does not discount the many details connecting him to the part of the Fox in episode 4. 48. Jean R. Brink, ‘Who Fashioned Edmund Spenser? The Textual History of Complaints’, Studies in Philology 87 (1991): 153–68. 49. Brink, ‘Who Fashioned Edmund Spenser?’ 159. 50. Brink, ‘Who Fashioned Edmund Spenser?’ 158. 51. Brink, ‘Who Fashioned Edmund Spenser?’ 159–60. Persuasive objections to Brink’s conclusions are asserted in Rambuss 144–5 n.48. 52. Peterson 23. 53. Brink, ‘ “All his minde on honour ﬁxed”: The Preferment of Edmund Spenser’, 45–64, 63. 54. Brink, ‘ “All his minde on honour ﬁxed”: The Preferment of Edmund Spenser’, 47. 55. While the issue of immoral poetic representations of love in Foure Hymnes might also relate to Spenser’s stated concerns, here, there is no evidence to Notes 229

suggest that this work appeared in time to provoke the views that Spenser attributes to Burghley. It is much more likely that this late quartet represents Spenser’s meditation on his disfavor after the fact rather than a work which provoked the conflict itself. 56. For confirmation of Mother Hubberds Tale as a censored text claiming an unusually high price (Tresham’s reported crown, or 5 shillings) in 1596, see Josephine Waters Bennett, ‘A Bibliographical Note on Mother Hubberds Tale’, ELH 4 (1937): 60–1. 57. For arguments that the allusion refers to Mother Hubberds Tale, see Hamilton’s notes to the stanza (FQ 689) and Hadfield. 58. See, however, the unargued assumptions of Alistair Fox, ‘The Complaint of Poetry for the Death of Liberality: The Decline of Literary Patronage in the 1590s’, in The Reign of Elizabeth I, John Guy, ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1995), 229–57, 238, who assumes that Burghley disapproves of the Amoretti volume. 59. Spenser’s references to chastity as ‘love’ include: ‘Most sacred fyre, that burnest mightily / In liuing brests, ykindled first aboue ... which men call Loue’ (FQ 3.3.1.1–2,4); ‘Wonder it is to see, in diuerse mindes, / How diuersly loue doth his pageaunts play’ (FQ 3.5.1.1–2); ‘This Belphebe fayre, / To whom in perfect love, and spotlesse fame / Of chastitie, none liuing may compayre’ (FQ 3.5.54.2–4). 60. Hamilton’s note on Burghley’s disapproval of Spenser addresses the potential offense of the first edition’s original ending: ‘Anyone in [Burghley’s] official capacity may well have been offended by the erotic ending of Book III, enough for Spenser to cancel it’ (FQ 409). Maureen Quilligan in Milton’s Spenser: The Politics of Reading (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983) asserts that ‘[t]he argument of the [Book 4] proem suggests that Book III was the cause of the negative response that the first installment received; only there is lovers’ dear debate magnified’ (201). See also Thomas H. Cain, Praise in The Faerie Queene (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1978), 104. 61. For a brief assessment of Oxford in Spenser’s poetry, see Steven May, ‘Oxford, Edward de Vere, Seventeenth Earl of’, in Spenser Encyclopedia 524.

1 Lord Burghley and the Oxford Marriage

1. Alexander C. Judson, The Life of Edmund Spenser (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1945), 154. 2. For a discussion of the debated elements of the Scudamour and Amoret reunion, see Lauren Silberman, ‘Hermaphrodite’, Spenser Encyclopedia 357–8, 357. 3. See Thomas P. Roche, Jr., ‘Amoret’, Spenser Encyclopedia 29–30, 30 and the comments of Hamilton’s edition of the poem on FQ 4.9.38. 4. Anne K. Tuell, ‘The Original End of Faerie Queene, Book III’, Modern Language Notes 36 (1921): 309–11. 5. Rare commentators on Burghley’s role in the cancellation of the Book 3 stanzas include Maureen Quilligan, Milton’s Spenser: The Politics of Reading (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983), 199–201, and Thomas 230 Notes

H. Cain, Praise in The Faerie Queene (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1978), 104. 6. On Burghley’s intellectual interests and reading habits, see Mark Eccles, ‘Burghley, William Cecil, Lord’, in Spenser Encyclopedia, 121–2, and B. W. Beckingsale, Burghley: Tudor Statesman, 1520–1598 (London: Macmillan, 1967), 245–60. 7. See Cyndia Susan Clegg, Press Censorship in Elizabethan England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997) and Janet Clare, Art Made Tongue-Tied by Authority: Elizabethan and Jacobean Censorship, 2nd edn. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999). Both Clegg and Clare reject the notion that Elizabethan and Jacobean censorship practices were broadly ‘repres- sive’ (Clegg 222–3), arguing that press restrictions and censorship were implemented for specific state purposes. 8. See F. J. Levy, ‘Spenser and Court Humanism’, in Spenser’s Life 65–80, 76–7. 9. Some anti-Stratfordian scholarship has noted the potential connection between Oxford and Scudamour. For example, see ‘A Note on “L’Escu d’Amour” and “Scudamore” in Spenser’s Faerie Queen’ in George Gascoigne, A hundred sundrie flowers, Ruth Lloyd Miller, ed. (Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press, 1975), no pagination, in two leaves inserted between 34 and 35. 10. Wallace T. MacCaffrey, ‘Cecil, William, first Baron Burghley (1520/21–1598)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/4983, accessed 6 Feb. 2010]. For the next several paragraphs William Cecil is referred to as ‘Cecil’, covering the time before his elevation to the peerage in 1571. 11. Mr. Secretary 27–8. 12. MacCaffrey. 13. Mr. Secretary 214. 14. Mr. Secretary 436–7. 15. Adversary 72. Subsequent references to Adversary are cited parenthetically in the text. 16. In a memorandum from 1576, Burghley remembered de Vere as the prime mover of the marriage, complaining about his ‘in humanitie towards his wiff whim he first sought’ (Adversary 152). 17. See Adversary 72. 18. Lawrence Stone, The Crisis of the Aristocracy, 1558–1641 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965), 638. 19. On Southampton’s reluctance to follow Burghley’s wishes in marriage, seeG.P.V.Akrigg,Shakespeare and the Earl of Southampton (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968), 31–40. Burghley’s penalty for Southampton’s refusal was extraordinary: ‘5000li of present payment’ (39), that is, to be paid immediately, not in installments. 20. On Burghley’s relationship to and management of his wards, see Joel Hurstfield, The Queen’s Wards: Wardship and Marriage under Elizabeth I (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1958). 21. The phrase was Cecil’s later reference to Brincknell as he recalled the events (Adversary 152). 22. See Steven W. May, ‘The Countess of Oxford’s Sonnets: A Caveat’, English Language Notes 29 (1992): 9–19, 18–19. Notes 231

23. Lord Burghley 135. 24. D. C. Peck, ed., Leicester’s Commonwealth: The Copy of a Letter Written by a Master of Art of Cambridge (1584) and Related Documents (Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 1985), 19–20, and J. A. Bossy, ‘English Catholics and the French Marriage 1577–1581’, Recusant History 5 (1959): 2–16, 8. 25. For a survey of court amours and their effect upon the Elizabethan court, see Paul E. J. Hammer, ‘Sex and the Virgin Queen: Aristocratic Concupiscence and the Court of Elizabeth I’, The Sixteenth Century Journal 31 (2000): 77–97. 26. Josephine Waters Bennett, ‘Oxford and Endimion’, PMLA 57 (1942): 354–69, 355. 27. Bennett 355–6. 28. The ‘Anonymous life’ of William Cecil, Lord Burghley, Alan Gordon Rae Smith, ed. (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1990): ‘[H]is kindess most expressed to his children, to whom there was never man more loving nor tender hearted ... and, which is ever a note of good nature, if he could get his table set round with his young, little children, he was then in his king- dome. It was exceeding pleasure to hear what sport he would make with them and how aptly and merrily he would talk with them, with such pretty questions, and witty allurements, as much delighted himself, the children, and the hearers’ (119). 29. Each of them would survive to prominent, but equally disastrous mar- riages. See Helen Payne, ‘The Cecil Women at Court’, in Pauline Croft, ed., Patronage, Culture and Power: The Early Cecils, 1558–1612 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 265–81. Susan remains the most notable of these figures for literary critics as the eponymous Countess of Montgomery memorialized in Lady Mary Wroth’s prose romance, Urania. 30. J. Hurstfield, ‘Lord Burghley as Master of the Court of Wards, 1561–98’, Trans- actions of the Royal Historical Society, 4th Series 31 (1949): 95–114, esp. 106–7: ‘Thus to a limited degree Burghley, in his capacity of master of the wards, was able to punish his son-in-law for a whole series of humiliations inflicted upon the Cecil family’ (106–7). See also Adversary 307.

2 The Faerie Queene Dedicatory Sonnets and the Poetics of Misreading

1. Gabriel Harvey and Edmund Spenser, THREE PROPER, and wittie, familiar Letters: lately passed betweene two Universitie men: touching the Earthquake in Aprill last, and our English refourmed Versifying (1580), 36. On Thomas Nashe’s charge that Harvey wrote ‘Speculum Tuscanismi’ about Oxford, see Adver- sary 225–8. It should be noted, however, that while the target of ‘Speculum Tuscanismi’ is anonymous, Harvey actually praised Oxford in 1578 during a series of orations composed for the queen’s visit to Audley End. See Gabriel Harvey, Gratulationum Valdinensium Libri Quatuor (1578). 2. Edmund Spenser, The Poetical Works of Edmund Spenser, J. C. Smith and E. de Selincourt, eds. (London: Oxford University Press, 1935), 625, italics omitted. 3. For Harvey’s denial of Oxford as a target of ‘Speculum Tuscanismi’, see Gabriel Harvey, Foure Letters (1592), 21. For Nashe’s rebuttal, see Thomas 232 Notes

Nashe, Strange Newes, of the Intercepting of Certain Letters (1592), G4. On Lyly’s possible involvement in the controversy, see Adversary 227. 4. For a close examination of the timeline of events from Spenser’s Cambridge years to his appointment as secretary to Lord Grey, see Jean R. Brink, ‘ “All his minde on honour fixed”: The Preferment of Edmund Spenser’, in Spenser’s Life 45–64, esp. 61. 5. Paul E. McLane, Spenser’s Shepheardes Calender: A Study in Elizabethan Alle- gory (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1961), 61–76. On the doubtful nature of this theory, see Steven W. May, ‘Oxford, Edward de Vere, seventeenth Earl of’, in Spenser Encyclopedia 524. 6. See J. A. Bossy, ‘English Catholics and the French Marriage 1577–1581’, Recusant History 5 (1959): 2–16, 8, for the theory that Oxford was influenced by Leicester. For Leicester’s subsequent involvement in the investigation of Oxford’s former friends, see Adversary 250–1. 7. Bernard M. Ward, The seventeenth Earl of Oxford, 1550–1604, from contemporary documents (London: J. Murray, 1928), 206–7. For the theory that Oxford betrayed his friends in order to secure his own protection see Adversary 251. 8. On Oxford’s contemporary reputation as a writer, see Edward de Vere, Seven- teenth Earl of Oxford and Robert Devereux, Second Earl of Essex, ‘The Poems of Edward de Vere, Seventeenth Earl of Oxford and of Robert Devereux, Sec- ond Earl of Essex’, Steven W. May, ed., Studies in Philology 77 (1980): 1–128, 8–9; 12–13. On Oxford’s patronage of poetry, see Adversary 236–9; 380–4. On his patronage of the theatre, see Adversary 239–48; 391–3. 9. Joseph Black, ‘ “Pan is Hee”: Commending The Faerie Queene’, Spenser Stud- ies 15 (2001): 121–34, merely suggests Thomas Watson as the likely author, while D. Allen Carroll, ‘Thomas Watson and the 1588 MS Commenda- tion of The Faerie Queene: Reading the Rebuses’, Spenser Studies 16 (2002): 105–23 reads the designs of the manuscript in ways that identify Watson’s authorship more specifically. 10. In Meliboeus Watson refrains from praising the queen in favor of Spenser, ‘Whose neverstoping quill can be best set forth / such things of state, as passe my muse, and me. / Thou Spenser art the alderliefest swaine, / or haply if that word be all to base, / Thou art Apollo whose sweet hunnie vaine / amongst the Muses hath a chiefest place’. Thomas Watson, An Eglogue Vpon the death of the Right Honorable Sir Francis Walsingham (1590), C3v–C4. Also quoted in Spenser Allusions 20–1. 11. Thomas Watson, The Hekatompathia [in Greek] or Passionate Centurie of Love (1582), A3–A3v. 12. Girolomo Cardomo, Cardanus Comforte, Thomas Bedingfield, trans. (1573). 13. See May’s edition of Oxford’s poetry in note 8 on Oxford’s contemporary reputation as a poet. 14. For a discussion of the dedicatory sonnets under the topos of the corpus mys- ticum, see David Lee Miller, The Poem’s Two Bodies: The Poetics of the 1590 Faerie Queene (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), 49–62. 15. Indeed, in one instance these rivalries clashed within the covers of the 1590 imprint, itself. Sir Walter Ralegh’s second commendatory poem to The Faerie Queene (‘Theprayseofmeanerwits...’) appears to be an attack upon the Earl of Essex and an attempt to dislodge Spenser from Essex’s favor and sphere of influence. In his own poem Essex recalls Ralegh’s imagery and responds with complaint and insult in return. See Edward de Vere, Notes 233

Seventeenth Earl of Oxford and Robert Devereux, Second Earl of Essex, 43–4; 85–8 and Steven W. May, The Elizabethan Courtier Poets: The Poems and Their Contexts (Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, 1991), 124. 16. Although Shakespeare’s obeisance to the young Earl of Southampton was unique in execution, it was quite typical of its time in placing foundational powers before the noble patron: ‘The love I dedicate to Your Lordship is without end; whereof this pamphlet without beginning is but a superflu- ous moiety .... What I have done is yours; what I have to do is yours; being part in all I have, devoted yours’. William Shakespeare, The Complete Works of Shakespeare, David Bevington, ed. (New York: Pearson/Longman, 2003), 1674. 17. See also the dedicatory sonnet to Charles Lord Howard: ‘And ye, braue Lord, whose goodly personage, /And noble deeds each other garnishing ... In this same Pageaent have a worthy place’ (FQ 730). 18. For discussions of Spenser’s attitude toward his aristocratic dedicatees, see Miller 52 and Wayne Erickson, ‘The Poet’s Power and the Rhetoric of Humil- ity in Spenser’s Dedicatory Sonnets’, SLI: Studies in the Literary Imagination 38:2 (2005): 91–118, 107. 19. On the order of the sonnets and their relation to heraldic rules of precedence, see Carol Stillman, ‘Politics, Precedence, and the Order of the Dedicatory Sonnets in The Faerie Queene’, Spenser Studies 5 (1985): 143–8. By contrast, Jean Brink in ‘Precedence and Patronage: The Ordering of Spenser’s Dedicatory Sonnets’, SLI: Studies in the Literary Imagination 38:2 (2005): 51–72, argues that ‘social convention influenced but did not deter- mine either the selection of dedication or the ordering of dedications’ in either incarnation of Spenser’s dedicatory sonnets (65). Studies that exam- ine the role of patronage in the dedicatory sonnets include Miller, Joseph Lowenstein, ‘Spenser’s Retrography: Two Episodes in Post-Petrarchan Bib- liography’, in Spenser’s Life 99–130, Judith Owens, Enabling Engagements: Edmund Spenser and the Poetics of Patronage (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Uni- versity Press, 2002), Wayne Erickson, ed. The 1590 Faerie Queene: Paratexts and Publishing,inSLI: Studies in the Literary Imagination 38:2 (2005). 20. Lowenstein, ‘Spenser’s Retrography: Two Episodes in Post-Petrarchan Bib- liography’, in Spenser’s Life 99–130, 103–13. Lowenstein’s diagram (106) illustrates our best understanding of how the first and second versions of the dedicatory material were intended to be placed: Pp1r–Pp3r ‘Letter to Ralegh’ Pp3v–Pp5v Commendatory Poems First State Second State Pp6r Hatton, Essex Qq1r Hatton, Burleigh Pp6v Oxford, Northumberland Qq1v Oxford, Northumberland Pp7r Ormond/Ossory, Howard Qq2r Cumberland, Essex Pp7v Grey, Ralegh Qq2v Ormond/Ossory, Howard Qq3r Hunsdon, Grey Qq3v Buckhurst, Walsingham Qq4r Norris, Ralegh Qq4v Countess of Pembroke Pp8r Lady Carew, Ladies Pp8v Errata 234 Notes

21. See Lowenstein 105. 22. Thomas Nashe, Pierce Penilesse His Supplication of the Diuell (1592), 39–40. See also my comments on Nashe’s response to Spenser’s dedicatory sonnets in Chapter 3, 107–10. 23. Oxford’s relationship with Essex was never to be very cordial. See Adver- sary 397; 483 n.8, which quotes a letter of Oxford’s from 20 October 1595: ‘Burghley urged cooperation [between Essex and Oxford], but for Oxford that was ‘A thinge I cannot do in honor, sythe I have alreadie receyved diuerse ini- uries and wronges from him, which bare [=bar] me of all such basse [=base] courses’ (Adversary 483, n.8). 24. Miller has noted the self-castrative quality of the Burghley sonnet, and its implicit opposition between the arts of poetry and governance that preemptively cuts off the prospects of the nobleman’s acceptance, 57–8. 25. Burghley’s fondness for precepts led him to compose formal adages to his son Robert in the early 1580s. See Louis B. Wright, ed., Advice to a Son: Pre- cepts of Lord Burghley, Sir Walter Raleigh, and Francis Osborne (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1962), 9–13. The poet’s criticism of Burghley in the Book 4 proem further alludes to this preference for sententious wisdom over narrative (FQ 4.Pr.1). 26. Miller 61. 27. Lowenstein 102–6. 28. For a less pessimistic argument for the cancellation of the poem’s back- matter, see Ty Buckman, ‘Forcing the Poet into Prose: “Gealous Opinions and Misconstructions” and Spenser’s Letter to Ralegh’, Studies in the Literary Imagination 38 (2005): 17–34, 29. 29. While some speculation has connected Scudamour and Amoret to John Scudamore and Mary Shelton, kinswoman to Queen Elizabeth, such arguments apply to the narrative of Book 4, not Book 3. As we shall see, Spenser’s vision of the couple transformed significantly from 1590 to 1596. See Linda R. Galyon, ‘Scudamore family’, in Spenser Encyclopedia 634. 30. Jean R. Brink, ‘Dating Spenser’s “Letter to Ralegh”’, The Library 6th ser. 16 (1994): 219–24, argues that Spenser’s date for the ‘Letter to Ralegh’ is New Style, and therefore pre-dates The Faerie Queene in its finished form. Such a condition would account for inconsistencies between Spenser’s summary of the text as opposed to the poem’s completed version. 31. Robert Weimann, ‘Mimesis in Hamlet’, in Shakespeare and the Question of The- ory, Geoffrey Hartman and Patricia Parker, eds. (New York: Methuen, 1985), 275–91, 278. 32. For information on extant copies of The Faerie Queene, see Anonymous, ‘MS Notes to Spenser’s “Faerie Queene”’, Notes and Queries (1957): 509–15 and Alastair Fowler, ‘Oxford and London Marginalia to “The Faerie Queene”’, Notes and Queries (1961): 416–19. Fowler reports on the scant details in most surviving copies of Spenser’s epic, 417. 33. Graham Hough, The First Commentary on ‘The Faerie Queene’ (Privately published, 1964), 2–8. 34. Hough 8: ‘Dixon interprets the dragon fight less as the eternal conflict between Christ and Satan than as the specific struggle between English Protestantism and Rome. Whether Q ma: here refers to Mary Tudor or Mary Queen of Scots is not clear. Both appear among Dixon’s enemies of the true Notes 235

church.’ ‘Q ma:’ is very likely Mary Tudor, if we interpret Dixon’s subsequent gloss to the betrothal of Redcrosse and Una in Book 1, canto 12 as an allusion to Mary’s six-year reign in England. 35. Joshua McClennen, On the Meaning and Function of Allegory in the English Renaissance (Norwood, PA: Norwood Editions, 1969), 21. 36. Jonson himself annotated Spenser’s 1617 folio with significant, and some- times topical, commentary. See James A. Riddell and Stanley Stewart, Jonson’s Spenser: Evidence and Historical Criticism (Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1995). 37. Walter Oakeshott, ‘Carew Ralegh’s Copy of Spenser’, The Library,5thser.26 (1971): 1–21. 38. Oakeshott 10; 21. 39. On the possible roles of Ralegh in Book 6 of The Faerie Queene,see James P. Bednarz, ‘Ralegh in Spenser’s Historical Allegory’, Spenser Studies 4 (1984): 49–70. 40. See Oakeshott 9–10. 41. The relationship between Timias and Serena is one bound by the common plight of scandalized reputation. As is often noted in discussions of this subject, Serena’s actual paramour in Book 6 is the often absent Calepine. 42. Oakeshott 4–6. 43. Adversary 286. 44. ‘MS Notes to Spenser’s “Faerie Queene”’ 512. One anonymous reader labeled the witness against Duessa in Book 5, canto 9, ‘a sage old Syre, that had to name / The Kingdomes Care, with a white silver hed’ (5.9.43.7–8) as ‘Burgley. Lo trea=’. Burghley had served as one of the commissioners at her trial. Another annotator in the same volume possibly referenced Burghley as the old Hermit in Book 6, canto 6. See ‘MS Notes to Spenser’s “Faerie Queene”’ 515. Beside lines from 6.6.4 ‘weary of this worlds uquiet waies / He took him selfe unto this Hermitage, / In which he liv’d alone, like careless bird in cage’, an annotator writes ‘An 1590 aetat / 72’. While Burghley was born in 1520, not 1518, his growing retirement from court life, his own fictional presenta- tion as a hermit in his entertainments to the queen in 1591 and 1594, and his ability to ease the fortunes of the defamed may have prompted such a note. On the differing handwriting of this annotation from the majority of the written comments in the volume, see 514–15. 45. For an overview of the lives of the Vere daughters, Elizabeth, Susan, and Bridget, see Helen Payne, ‘The Cecil Women at Court’, in Pauline Croft, ed., Patronage, Culture and Power: The Early Cecils, 1558–1612 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), 265–81, 269. 46. G. P. V. Akrigg, Shakespeare and the Earl of Southampton (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968), 31–2. 47. Akrigg 32. 48. Akrigg 31. After his imprisonment for his conduct in the Essex uprising, Southampton was restored to liberty and financial solvency by King James. See Park Honan, ‘Wriothesley, Henry, third earl of Southampton (1573– 1624)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept. 2004; online edn., Oct. 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/ 30073, accessed 15 April 2010]. 236 Notes

49. On the georgic implications of this passage, see Andrew Wallace, ‘ “Noursled up in life and manners wilde”: Spenser’s Georgic Educations’, Spenser Studies 19 (2004): 65–92, esp. 66–72. 50. On Burghley’s published poetry, see Jan van Dorsten, ‘Literary Patrons in Elizabethan England’, in Patronage in the Renaissance, Guy Fitch Lytle and Stephen Orgel, eds. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981), 196. 51. Mr. Secretary 353–4, citing B. M. Lansdowne MSS., civ, f. 193. 52. See Wright, ed., 9–13. 53. If Burghley was stingy with praise, he could be generous with criticism, as his remarks about his eldest son Thomas attest. In an 8 May 1561 letter to Sir Nicholas Throckmorton, he laments Thomas’s lack of promise at length, and then apologizes for the tedium imposed upon his addressee: ‘Blame me not though I be long herein, for indeed to this hour I never showed any fatherly fancy to him but in teaching and correcting. Yet would I fain now towardsmyagereceivesomecomfortofhiswellbeing’(Mr. Secretary 212). Upon Thomas’s subsequent trip to France that Summer, Burghley wrote to his son extended advice about his conduct, concluding ‘And for ending this matter I commend you to the tuition of Almighty God, having in this behalf discharged myself of the care committed to me by God ...If you shall please Him and serve Him in fear I shall take comfort of you. Otherwise I shall take you as no blessing of God but a burden of grief and decay of my age’ (Mr. Secretary 214). 54. The Anonymous Life of William Cecil, Lord Burghley, Alan G. G. Smith, ed. (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press), 119. 55. Burghley’s 23 April 1576 letter to the queen, describing Anne as ‘sotted in love’ (Adversary 144) with Oxford, may or may not have been true, but came after a period of long estrangement between the two, and in the face of Oxford’s outright rejection. Subsequent citations to Adversary are made parenthetically in the text. 56. The letter’s phrase, ‘evill usadg’, recalls his nearly contemporaneous letter 1582 letter to Hatton in which he complains of Oxford’s ‘unkind usage’. 57. On the Copy of a Letter ... to Don Bernadino Mendoza, see B. W. Beckingsale, Burghley: Tudor Statesman, 1520–1598 (London: Macmillan, 1967), 225–6. 58. John Soowthern, Pandora Reproduced from the Original Edition 1584, George B. Parks, ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1938), C3v– C4v. 59. On the work’s translations from Desportes, see Rosalind Smith, ‘The Sonnets of the Countess of Oxford and Elizabeth I: Translations from Desportes’, Notes and Queries [New Series, Vol. 41] 239:4 (1994): 446–50, expanded in her Sonnets and the English Woman Writer, 1560–1621: The Politics of Absence (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), 61–87. Soowthern’s translated passages interested the author of the Arte of English Poesie, who thought it noteworthy as plagiarism. This work defines the figure of ‘Soraismus,&we may call the [mingle mangle] as when we make our speach or writings of sundry languages using some Italian word, or French, or Spanish, or Dutch, or Scottish, not for the nonce or for any purpose (which were in part excus- able) but ignorantly and affectedly’ (252). Elaborating on this definition, Puttenham uses Soowthern’s volume as his example of the abuse: ‘Another of reasonable good facilitie in translation finding certaine of the hymnes of Pyndarus and of Anacreons odes, and other Lirickes among the Greekes very Notes 237

well translated by Rounsard the French Poet, & applied to the honour of a great Prince in France, comes our minion and translates the same out of French into English, and applieth them to the honour of a great noble man in England (wherein I commend his reuerent minde and duetie) but doth so impudently robbe the French Poet both of his prayse and also of his French termes, that I cannot so much pitie him as be angry with him for his injuri- ous dealing, our sayd maker not being ashamed to vse these French wordes freddon, egar, superbous, ﬁlanding, celest, calabrois, thebanois and a number of others, for English wordes, which have no conformitie with our language either by custome or derivation which may make them tolerable ...this man deserves to be endited of pety larceny for pilfering other mens devises from them & converting them to his owne use, for in deede as I would with euery inventor which is the very Poet to receave the praises of his invention, so would I not have a translatour be ashamed to be acknowen of his translation’ (252–3, spelling silently modernized). George Puttenham, The Arte of English Poesie, Gladys Doidge Willcock and Alice Walker, eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1936), 252. For an annotated commentary and modernized text of the passage, see George Puttenham, The Art of English Poesy: A Critical Edition, Frank Whigham and Wayne A. Rebhorn, eds. (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2007), 338–9. 60. For an edited text of the poems, along with an argument in favor of Anne Cecil’s authorship, see Ellen Moody, ‘Six Elegiac Poems, Possibly by Anne Cecil de Vere, Countess of Oxford’, English Literary Renaissance 19 (1989): 152–70. Defenders of Anne Cecil’s authorship of the poems include Lousie Schleiner, Tudor and Stuart Women Writers (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994), 85–93; Marion Wynne-Davies, Women Poets of the Renaissance (London: J. M. Dent, 1998), 343–54, and Patricia Phillippy, Women, Death and Literature in Post-Reformation England (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2002), 165–8. For skeptics of the claim, see Smith, ‘The Sonnets of the Countess of Oxford and Elizabeth I: Translations from Desportes’ and Steven W. May, ‘The Countess of Oxford’s Sonnets: A Caveat’, English Language Notes 29 (1992): 9–19. Patricia Phillippy, pivoting from her earlier attribution of the poems as Anne’s, asserts that Smith’s discovery of about one-third of the ‘Four Epytaphes’ as translated from the work of Philippe Desportes ‘strongly [supports] Soowthern’s authorship’. Patricia Phillippy, ‘Procreation, Child-loss and the Gendering of the Sonnet’, in Kate Chedgzoy, Susanne Greenhalgh, and Robert Shaughnessy, eds., Shakespeare and Childhood (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 96–113, 111 n.11. 61. Soowthern, C4–C4v. 62. At the time of the Lord Bulbeck’s death, Anne was 26 years old. May rightly questions, ‘how could [Soowthern] have been so impudent as to represent ... a noblewoman, the wife of the book’s dedicatee, in the very private occu- pation of writing verse, were the verses not in fact [hers]? The matter was sensitive ... with respect to the Countess, who is represented in mourning for the death of her infant son and heir to the earldom’ (14). His explanation that the poems are Soowthern’s polite attempts at ‘prosopopoeia’, or impersonations of the Countess’s voice, overstates the scope of prosopopeia as a trope that entailed the verisimilar impersonation of real persons, a 238 Notes

function that is in no way so systematically applied in period rhetorical handbooks. Even in his own example of the ﬁgure in a remark by Thomas Nashe (16), May understates Nashe’s irony and self-defensive motives. Rather than impersonations of real individuals, English Renaissance conceptions of prosopopeia are understood as feigned acts of impersonation, typically of non-human subjects, as the Nashe example and Spenser’s own Mother Hubberds Tale illustrate. 63. Paul E. J. Hammer, ‘Upstaging the Queen: the Earl of Essex, Francis Bacon and the Accession Day Celebrations of 1595’, in The Politics of the Stuart Court Masque, David Bevington and Peter Holbrook, eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 41–66, esp. 44–5. 64. The source from Desportes’ Cartels et Masquarades, Épitaphes reads:

La femme d’Amphion, justement afﬂigée, Par son dueil excessif en rocher fut changée, Qui ses enfans meurtris semble encore pleurer. Que je serois heureuse ayant telle advanture! Car je pourrois servir d’aimable sepulture A celuy dont la mort ne me peut separer.

Philippe Desportes, Cartels et Masquarades, Épitaphes, Alfred Michiels, ed. (Geneva and Paris, 1958), 90. See Smith, ‘The Sonnets of the Countess of Oxford and Elizabeth I: Translations from Desportes’, 448. 65. Soowthern, D1. 66. For a pointed and polemical discussion of the Countess of Pembroke’s authorship of ‘The Doleful Lay of Chlorinda’, see Jonathan Goldberg, Sodometries: Renaissance Texts, Modern Sexualities (Stanford: Stanford Univer- sity Press, 1992), 84–101.

3 The Ruines of Time and the Rhetoric of Contestation

1. Desmond O’Connor, ‘Florio, John (1553–1625)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept. 2004; online edn., Jan. 2008 [http:// www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/9758, accessed 27 July 2008]. 2. John Florio, Florios Second Frutes (1591), A2–A2v. 3. Frances Yates, John Florio: The Life of an Italian in Shakespeare’s England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1934), 127–9. 4. See Yates 147–51. 5. On the role of Camden’s Britannia in the poem’s opening, see YESP 232 and Rosamund Tuve, Essays by Rosamund Tuve: Spenser, Herbert, Milton, Thomas P. Roche, Jr., ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970), 148–9, n.12. Herendeen’s description of the Britannia hints at the common purpose it possessed with works like Spenser’s The Faerie Queene:‘Notahistory, the Britannia attempts (in the words of Gibson’s translation of Camden’s preface) “to restore Britain to Antiquity, and Antiquity to Britain” – the charge that Camden says was given to him by the “great Restorer of old Geography”, Ortelius himself. It does so by attempting to document the Notes 239

ancient pre-Roman British past using every kind of primary historical evidence imaginable, whether written records, inscriptions, literary remains, material both historical and mythological, or testimony drawn from the physical landscape. In his use of non-literary evidence Camden was a leading figure in his generation ... The Britannia, the investigations of the Society of Antiquaries, and the work of others among Camden’s contemporaries helped to transform historical thinking and writing by moving away from a providential view of events toward a more scientific methodology and an interest in material and cultural history.’ Wyman H. Herendeen, ‘Camden, William (1551–1623)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford Uni- versity Press, Sept. 2004; online edn., Jan. 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/ view/article/4431, accessed 26 June 2009]. 6. On the calling-in of the Complaints, see Richard S. Peterson, ‘Laurel Crown and Ape’s Tail: New Light on Spenser’s Career from Sir Thomas Tresham’, Spenser Studies 12 (1991 [1998]): 1–36, 7. On the awarding of Spenser’s pension, see Herbert Berry, ‘Spenser’s Pension’, Review of English Studies 43 (1960): 254–9, 254. 7. See John Florio, FLORIO His firste Fruites (1578), ∗.ii–∗.ivv. 8. Florio, Florios Second Frutes A3–A3v. See also Spenser Allusions 21–2. 9. Note, also, the allusion to Hector in RR 191–4. 10. Cummings incorrectly speculates that Florio’s allusion points to Virgil’s elegiac portrait of Augustus’s nephew Marcellus (from Aeneid 6.875–7) in R. Cummings, ed., Spenser: The Critical Heritage (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1971), 72. In fact the line is a translation of Aeneas’s opening words to Hector in Book 2. 11. Virgil, Eclogues Georgics Aeneid I–VI, H. Rushton Fairclough and G. P. Goold, trans. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), 334. English translation is from Virgil, The Aeneid, David West, trans. (London: Penguin, 1991), 38. 12. West’s translation of Virgil, 38. 13. Philip Sidney, Sir Philip Sidney: Selected Prose and Poetry (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1983), 132. 14. Leicester’s Commonwealth, D. C. Peck, ed. (Athens, OH: University of Ohio Press, 1985), 8, citing John Harington, A Tract on the Succession to the Crown (A.D. 1602), Clements R. Markham, ed. (London: Roxburghe Club, 1880), 44. 15. Lord Burghley, 581 n.104, citing Cal. S. P. Spanish, 1587–1603, 431. 16. Lord Burghley, 581 n.104, citing P. R. O., E 123/17, dated 23 October, 32 Eliz. [1590]. Elizabeth’s desire to wreak lasting harm upon her kinswoman, Lettice Knollys, Leicester’s surviving wife and executrix of his will, was doubtless a prime motive in her actions after Leicester’s death. 17. Eleanor Rosenberg, Leicester, Patron of Letters (New York: Columbia University Press, 1955), 350, n.53. 18. See Peterson. 19. See Thomas Watson, Meliboeus Thomae Watsoni, siue Ecloga in Obitum F. Walsinghami (1590). See also Spenser Allusions 20–1. 20. The Geneva Bible: A Facsimile of the 1560 Edition, with an introduction by Lloyd E. Barry (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1957), 872. 21. Shorter Poems, 587, citing Stephen Bateman, Batman upon Bartholome, his Booke De Propretatibus Rerum (London, 1582), ‘The fox doth fight with the 240 Notes

Brocke [badger] for dens, and deﬁleth the Brockes den with his urine and with his dirte’, 385. See also FQ 1.8.48.3–4: ‘at her rompe she growing had behind / A foxes taile, with dong all fowly dight’. 22. The memorable phrase ‘sparkes of displeasure’ is from Thomas Nashe, Strange Newes, Of the intercepting certaine Letters, and a Conuoy of Verses, as they were going Pruilie to victual the Low Countries (1592), E1. See also Spenser Allusions 27. 23. John Florio, A/WORLDE/of Wordes/Or Most copious and exact/Dictionarie in Italian and/English (1598), 88. 24. See Nashe, E1–E1v: ‘A pure sanguine sot art thou [Harvey], that in vaine- glory to have Spencer known for thy friend, and that thou has some interest in him, censerest him worse than his deadliest enemie would do. If any man were undeservedly toucht in it, thou hast revived his disgrace that was so toucht in it, by renaming it, when it was worn out of al mens mouths and minds.’ The dating of this passage is uncertain, but it had appeared by the end of 1592. Quoted in Spenser Allusions 27. 25. John Weever, ‘In Obitum Ed. Spencer Potae presantiss’. Epigrammes in the oldest cut, and newest fashion (1599), G3, reprinted in Spenser Allusions 69. 26. Spenser Allusions 183. 27. On the surviving manuscript copies of the Ruines in particular and the Complaints in general, see Index of English Literary Manuscripts: Vol. I, 1450– 1625, Part 2 Douglas–Wyatt, Peter Beal, ed. (London and New York: Mansell Publishing, 1980), 527–9. 28. Phineas Fletcher, The Purple Island, or The Isle of Man: together with Piscatorie Eclogs and other Poetical Miscellanies (Cambridge, 1633), 6, reprinted in Spenser Allusions 190–1. Fletcher feels the lack of monetary support of Spenser most keenly, even though this was the least of Spenser’s stated concerns. 29. For William Camden’s biographical sketch of Spenser (Annales Rerum Anglicarum, et Hibernicarum, Regnante Elizabetha, 2 vols. 1615, 1627, 2: 171–2), see Spenser Allusions 139–40 and 178–9. 30. On the invective against Robert Cecil, see Pauline Croft, ‘The Reputation of Robert Cecil: Libels, Political Opinion and Popular Awareness in the Early Seventeenth Century’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society,6thSer., Vol. 1 (1991): 43–69. On Niccols’s The Beggar’s Ape and its debts to Mother Hubberds Tale, see Hoyt H. Hudson, ‘John Hepwith’s Spenserian Satire upon Buckingham: With Some Jacobean Analogues’, Huntington Library Quarterly 6 (1934): 39–71, 66–9. 31. For these references to The Ruines of Time, see the index to Spenser Allu- sions 338. 32. Carl J. Rasmussen, ‘ “How Weak Be the Passions of Woefulness”: Spenser’s Ruines of Time’, Spenser Studies 2 (1980): 159. See also James Norhnberg, The Analogy of the Faerie Queene (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976), 237–8; Andrew Fichter, ‘And nought of Rome in Rome perciu’st at all’, Spenser Studies 2 (1981): 183–92; and A. Leigh DeNeef, Spenser and the Motives of Metaphor (Durham, Duke University Press, 1982), 28–40. 33. Shorter Poems 582–3. 34. Rasmussen 159. See also Rasmussen’s abstract to his essay in the editorial front matter, viii. Notes 241

35. Rasmussen, viii. Other critics who recognize the poem’s multiple per- sonae are W. L. Renwick in Edmund Spenser, Complaints,W.L.Renwick, ed. (London: Scholar Press, 1928), 189; A. Leigh DeNeef, Spenser and the Motives of Metaphor (Durham: Duke University Press, 1982), 30; and William A. Oram, Edmund Spenser (New York: Twayne, 1997), 132–6. 36. While the first, second, and final sonnets of the second sequence directly address the memorial power of poetry, sonnets 5 (in the figure of Pegasus) and 6 (in the figure of Mercurie) address the subject more equivo- cally. On the symbolic meaning of Pegasus in the Ruines, see Tuve 151, n. 15. 37. For a recent account supporting the sincerity of Alcyon and the use of Daphnaïda to bolster Gorges’s reputation, see Jonathan Gibson, ‘The Legal Context of Spenser’s Daphnaïda’, Review of English Studies, New Series 55 (2004): 24–44, who builds upon the work of Helen Estabrook Sandison, ‘Arthur Gorges, Spenser’s Alcyon and Ralegh’s Friend’, PMLA 43 (1928): 645–74. For critiques of Alcyon as an excessive mourner, see Gibson’s survey of criticism on 25, n.5, but especially William Oram, ‘Daphnaïda and Spenser’s Later Poetry’, Spenser Studies 2 (1981): 141–58; YESP 487; DeNeef 42. McCabe is cautious in his criticism of Alcyon, urging ‘that Daphnaïda demands a guarded response from its readers’ (Shorter Poems 643). 38. See the critics in note 32. 39. In his edition of the Complaints, Renwick finds Spenser’s funereal catalog (RT 239–80) ‘disjointed’, ‘lamentably bad, repetitive, and spasmodic’, and finds the compliment to Camden ‘irrelevant’ (189). For other readings of the text as fragmentary, see Richard Danson Brown, ‘The New Poet’: Novelty and Tradition in Spenser’s Complaints (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1999), 101 n.4. 40. YESP 226–7. 41. Brown 125–31. 42. C. S. Lewis, English Literature in the Sixteenth Century Excluding Drama (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1954): ‘This is one of the weightiest, the most chastened, and the most sonorous of Spenser’s minor poems ... The nine stanzas on Sidney are the best elegiac poetry he ever wrote’ (369). 43. Tuve 148–9. 44. On the context of the poem in regard to the Russell family in particular, see Tuve 143–8. 45. For a discussion of Spenser’s attacks on Burghley as a mistake in judgment, see F. J. Levy, ‘Spenser and Court Humanism’, in Spenser’s Life 65–80, 76–7. On the view that the Complaints was compiled by publisher William Ponsonby without Spenser’s cooperation, see Jean R. Brink, ‘Who Fashioned Edmund Spenser? The Textual History of Complaints’, Studies in Philology 87 (1991): 153–68. 46. On the practice of courtier poetry in England, see Steven W. May, The Elizabethan Courtier Poets: The Poems and their Contexts (Columbia, MO: Uni- versity of Missouri Press, 1991). For a discussion of the divisions between elite patrons and professional writers, see Robert C. Evans, ‘Frozen Maneu- vers: Ben Jonson’s Epigrams to Robert Cecil’, Texas Studies in Literature and Language 29 (1987): 115–40. 242 Notes

47. For a discussion of the alternative spheres of cultural inﬂuence during the early reign of James, see David Norbrook, Poetry and Politics in the English Renaissance, rev. edn. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 173–98. 48. For an assessment of the censorship of George Gascoigne’s The Posies (1575) according to these principles, see Cyndia Susan Clegg, Press Censorship in Elizabethan England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 112–18. 49. For an account which frames Nashe as much more critical of Spenser, see Andrew Zurcher, ‘Getting it Back to Front in 1590: Spenser’s Dedications, Nashe’s Insinuations, and Ralegh’s Equivocations’, Studies in the Literary Imagination 38 (2005): 173–98, 179–84. 50. Thomas Nashe, Pierce Penilesse His Supplication to the Diuell (1592), 39–40, quoted in Spenser Allusions 26. 51. On the parodic quality of Nashe’s comments, see Jean R. Brink, ‘Materialist History of the Publication of Spenser’s Faerie Queene’, Review of English Studies 54 (2003): 1–26, 15–17, esp. 17. By contrast, see Zurcher 187–9, who overstates the implications of Nashe’s sonnet to ‘Amyntas’, presumably, but not conclusively Ferdinando Stanley, Earl of Derby. Such a sonnet represented no honor to a nobleman, but was in fact an overt parody of Spenser’s dedicatory sonnets from The Faerie Queene. 52. Spenser Allusions 26. 53. Susan Frye, Elizabeth I: The Competition for Representation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 56–96. For annotations of The Faerie Queene that compare Arthur with Leicester, see Anonymous, ‘MS Notes to Spenser’s “Faerie Queene”’, Notes and Queries (1957): 509–15 and Alastair Fowler, ‘Oxford and London Marginalia to “The Faerie Queene”’, Notes and Queries (1961): 416–19. 54. See, by contrast, Thomas Herron, ‘Reforming the Fox: Spenser’s “Mother Hubberds Tale,” the Beast Fables of Barnabe Riche, and Adam Loftus, Archbishop of Dublin’, Studies in Philology 105 (2008): 336–87, 381–2, who attempts to detach Leicester from this allusion by reference to Leicester’s crest of the bear with a ragged staff. The passage’s immediate context, nevertheless, makes the connection between Leicester and the ‘hole, the which the Badger swept’ perfectly straightforward. 55. See Levy 76–7. 56. Lord Burghley 478. 57. On the Renaissance tradition of allegory and beast fable as tropes of political dissent, see Annabel Patterson, Fables of Power: Aesopian Writing and Political History (Durham: Duke University Press, 1991). 58. On Burghley’s applicability to these passages, see Shorter Poems 589–90; YESP 251; Renwick’s edition of the Complaints 200. 59. Edmund Spenser, Complaints (1591), C4v. 60. Edmund Spenser, The Faerie Queen: The Shepheards Calendar: Together With The Other Works of England’s Arch-Poët, Edm. Spenser: Collected into One Volume, and carefully corrected (1611), H2. 61. Spenser, Complaints,C4v. 62. Spenser, The Faerie Queen: The Shepheards Calendar: Together With The Other Works of England’s Arch-Poët, Edm. Spenser: Collected into One Volume, and carefully corrected,H2. Notes 243

63. See Bernard E. C. Davis, ‘The Text of Spenser’s Complaints’, Modern Language Review 20 (1925): 21–4, 24, and Francis R. Johnson, A Critical Bibliography of the Works of Edmund Spenser Printed Before 1700 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1933). 64. T. Wilson, The State of England, Anno Dom. 1600, ed. F. J. Fisher (London: Camden Society, 1936), 42. See also Joel Hurstﬁeld, Freedom, Corruption and Government in Elizabethan England (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), 106. 65. John Nichols, The Progresses and Public Processions of Queen Elizabeth, 3 vols. (London: J. Nichols & Son, 1823) 3: 174. 66. On the emergent nationalist tradition that bound Spenser and Camden, see Wyman H. Herendeen, William Camden: A Life in Context (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press, 2007), 208–20. 67. Charles G. Osgood, ‘Spenser’s English Rivers’, Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 23 (1920): 65–108, 97–8, summarized in Variorum 8: 286–92. 68. See Osgood 96–7, quoted in Variorum 8: 290–1. 69. See Variorum 8: 291–2. 70. On the circumstances of Camden’s elegy to Sidney, see Herendeen, William Camden: A Life in Context, 187–90. 71. George Burke Johnston and William Camden, ‘Poems by William Camden: With Notes and Translations from the Latin Author(s)’, Studies in Philology 72 (1975): iii–xii;1–143; 64–5. 72. William Camden, The History of The Most Renowned and Victorious Princess Elizabeth Late Queen of England: Selected Chapters, Wallace T. MacCaffrey, ed. (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1970), xxxviii. For further assessment of Camden’s negative portrait of Leicester, see Wyman H. Herendeen, ‘Camden, William (1551–1623)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept. 2004; online edn., Jan. 2008 [http:// www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/4431, accessed 24 Sept. 2008]. 73. Camden 330. 74. On Leicester’s inﬂuence as chancellor of Oxford University, see Herendeen, William Camden: A Life in Context, 59–66. As Herendeen explains, religious moderates at Oxford during Camden’s period of study became ‘ground between the two forces of Puritan and Catholic opposition’ (77). 75. Herendeen, William Camden: A Life in Context 76–9, esp. 79.

4 Retrospective Fiction-Making and the ‘secrete’ of the 1591 Virgils Gnat

1. G. P. Goold, recent editor of the Culex for the Loeb Classical Library, emphat- ically denies Virgil’s authorship of the poem: ‘Although among the poems of the Appendix the external evidence for Virgilian authorship is strongest in the case of the Culex, there can be little doubt that it is a fake. Chronology forbids the claim of the composer’s intimacy with Octavius in their stu- dent days, at a time when he was apparently able to echo passages from the Eclogues, Georgics,andAeneid.’ Virgil, Aeneid VII–XII Appendix Vergiliana, H. Rushton Fairclough and G. P. Goold, trans. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard 244 Notes

University Press, 2000), 374. Earlier arguments denying Virgil’s authorship of the Culex include Eduard Fraenkel, ‘The Culex’, Journal of Roman Studies 42 (1952): 1–9; W. F. Jackson Knight, Roman Virgil (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1966); A. E. Housman, ‘Remarks on the Culex’, Classical Review 16 (1902): 339–46; A. E. Housman, ‘The Apparatus Criticus of the Culex’, Transactions of the Cambridge Philological Society 6 (1908): 3–22. On the possible roots of the Culex in Greek epyllion, see Fraenkel 4. For a contrarian view of the Culex as Virgilian, see William Berg, Early Virgil (London: Althone Press, 1974), 94–102. 2. See Harold Stein, Studies in Spenser’s Complaints (New York: Oxford Uni- versity Press, 1934), 77: ‘There must have been a thousand and one ways in which Spenser’s well-meant officiousness could have infuriated Leicester, and to try to reconstruct the particular one is a forlorn hope, indeed, especially when it is realized that a situation of supreme importance to Spenser may have been of not the slightest consequence to history. Spenser fell from grace in the years 1579–80. Let us be satisfied with that.’ 3. On the sixteenth-century context of the Culex, see the introduction to the poem in YESP 293–6. On the Roman consensus that the Culex was Virgilian, see Fraenkel 8–9. 4. While his remarks about Virgils Gnat are strictly fanciful, William Lisle’s 1628 comments on the poem from his own translation of Virgil have been accorded significant authority due to the scarcity of contemporary comments on the work: ‘Master Spencer long since translated the Gnat, (a little fragment of Virgil’s excellences), giving the world peradventure to conceive, that hee would at one time or other have gone though the rest of this poet’s works’, R. M. Cummings, ed., Spenser: The Critical Heritage (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1971), 146–7. For a recent assessment of Virgils Gnat as a work dating from 1579–80, see Richard Danson Brown, ‘The New Poet’: Novelty and Tradition in Spenser’s Complaints (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1999), 39–62. 5. Foundational studies of Spenser’s poem in regard to its Latin source include O. F. Emerson, ‘Spenser’s Virgil’s Gnat’, JEGP 17 (1918): 94–118, and H. G. Lotspeich, ‘Spenser’s Virgils Gnat and Its Latin Original’, ELH 2 (1935): 235–41. 6. See Edwin Greenlaw, Studies in Spenser’s Historical Allegory (1932, rpt. New York: Octagon, 1967), 104–32; Percy W. Long, ‘Spenser and the Bishop of Rochester’, PMLA 31 (1916): 713–35; Harold Stein, Studies in Spenser’s Complaints (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1934), 75–7. In an important argument on the poem, C. E. Mounts proposes his view of Virgils Gnat as a modification, not an alternative, to Greenlaw’s argument in ‘Spenser and the Countess of Leicester’, ELH 19 (1952): 191–202. 7. See Variorum 8: 559–95. 8. Recent studies that contradict Greenlaw’s arguments include Jean R. Brink, ‘ “All his minde on honour fixed”: The Preferment of Edmund Spenser’, in Spenser’s Life 45–64, esp. 63–4; Vincent P. Carey and Clare L. Carroll, ‘Factions and Fictions: Spenser’s Reflections of and on Elizabethan Politics’, in Spenser’s Life 31–44. 9. For a detailed counter-argument to Greenlaw’s position, see the Introduction, 2–8. Notes 245

10. Recent biographical studies that continue to support Greenlaw’s theory that Mother Hubberds Tale was released in manuscript and caused trouble for Spenser in 1579–80 (but without acknowledgment of the role of Virgils Gnat in forming this view) include Andrew Hadﬁeld, ‘Spenser, Edmund (1552?– 1599)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept. 2004; online edn., Jan. 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/ 26145, accessed 13 July 2008]; Gary F. Waller, Edmund Spenser: A Literary Life (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994), esp. 82–4. 11. David Lee Miller, The Poem’s Two Bodies: The Poetics of the 1590 Faerie Queene (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), 66. 12. Miller 62; 66–7. 13. Richard Rambuss, Spenser’s Secret Career (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 1–4; 19–24. 14. Rambuss 20–1, ‘What is remarkable about these lines, in fact, is Spenser’s implicit assumption that the “secrete of this riddle rare” can be known – is actually “easily knowen” ... as he says several lines later; but also that the inevitable penetration of his secret must not, paradoxically, interfere with the business of keeping the secret a secret. In this way, Spenser fashions a privileged interpretive community around himself and his secret, all of which is predicated upon a logic of secrecy which recognizes that you do not have a secret if no one else knows you have it.’ 15. On Spenser’s role in Leicester House, see Brink 55–6. 16. Rambuss 21; 22. 17. Jonathan Crewe, Hidden Designs (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986), 55. 18. While controversy continues to hover over the authorship and provenance of the Spenser–Harvey correspondence, no convincing argument exists to question the authorship of Spenser’s letters. Indeed, as the correspondence on both sides is projective and self-promotional, Spenser’s comments to Harvey fashion the same form of public intimacy that informs the Virgils Gnat dedicatory sonnet. 19. While the Complaints volume was entered in the Stationers’ Register on 29 December 1590 and probably completed sometime in February 1591 (Stein 10–12), by 19 March 1591 it was causing scandalous gossip about Mother Hubberds Tale, and rumored to have been called in. See Richard S. Petersen, ‘Laurel Crown and Ape’s Tail’, Spenser Studies 12 (1991): 1–35. 20. Gabriel Harvey, Foure Letters, and certaine Sonnets (1592), 6–7. 21. Colin Clout notes the death of ‘Amyntas’, Ferdinando Stanley, Lord Strange, 5th Earl of Derby, who died on 16 April 1594 (CCCHA 434–41; YESP 542). See Steven May’s intriguing speculations on how CCCHA reﬂects Sir Walter Ralegh’s own poetry to the queen in The Elizabethan Courtier Poets: The Poems and Their Contexts (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1991), 127–9. 22. On Ralegh’s relationship with Elizabeth Throckmorton, see Anna Beer, My Just Desire: The Life of Bess Raleigh, Wife to Sir Walter (New York: Ballantine Books, 2003). 23. The lines in CCCHA that refer to Cynthia’s displeasure against the Shepherd of the Ocean (lines 164–6) appear to be backdated as well. While Ralegh continued to languish under the queen’s displeasure during the poem’s 246 Notes

publication in 1595, his journey to Ireland in 1589 was accompanied by no such stigma. See May 128. 24. Edmund Spenser, The Poetical Works of Edmund Spenser,J.C.SmithandE.de Selincourt, eds. (London: Oxford University Press, 1912), 638, hereafter cited as Poetical Works. 25. Brink offers a persuasive rationale for Harvey’s urgent need for self- promotion at this time, 58–9. 26. Poetical Works 635. 27. See Spenser’s allusion to Leicester in Prothalamion:

Next whereunto [the Inner Temple] there stands a stately place [Leicester House/Essex House] Where oft I gayned giftes and goodly grace Of that great Lord, which therein wont to dwell, Whose want too well, now feeles my friendles case (Proth 137–40)

28. SC, October, 37–48. 29. Poetical Works 638 30. Poetical Works 638; 635. 31. Steven W. May and William A. Ringler, Jr., eds., Elizabethan Poetry: A Bibli- ography and First-line Index of English Verse, 1559–1603, 3 vols. (New York: Continuum, 2004). 32. Harvey 75. 33. On the early history of Spenser’s Amoretti 8, written in traditional English form, see L. Cummings, ‘Spenser’s Amoretti VIII: New Manuscript Versions’, Studies in English Literature 4 (1964): 125–35. The origins of Spenser’s sonnet to Harvey are an intriguing subject for both writer and recipient. Based on evidence from elsewhere in Harvey’s Foure Letters, Stern posits that the sonnet was written earlier, but attached to a new salutation to commemo- rate Harvey’s attainment of a Civil Law Degree. Such a theory, while possible, is unproven, as it is far more likely that Harvey is the source of inconsistency, not Spenser himself. No deﬁnitive evidence exists to counter the text’s date of 18 July 1586. See Virginia F. Stern, Gabriel Harvey: His Life, Marginalia and Library (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), 77 and n.97. 34. Edmund Spenser, Complaints,W.L.Renwick,ed.(London:Scholar Press, 1928), 218. 35. Miller 66. 36. Brown 55. 37. Brown 55. 38. Carey and Carroll 42. 39. For the introduction of Ralegh as the ‘shepherd of the Ocean’, see CCCHA 60–7. For Leicester as ‘Lobbin’ in the same poem, see lines 735–8. On the role of pastoral in Spenser, see John D. Bernard, Ceremonies of Innocence: Pastoralism in the Poetry of Edmund Spenser (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989). 40. On the reference to Bury St. Edmonds, see the accompanying note to line 418 in YESP 250. Notes 247

41. On the pivotal role of Pembroke College, Cambridge in Spenser’s subsequent career and its deep connections to Leicester, see Brink 51–6. 42. On Burghley’s gout, see Lord Burghley, speciﬁcally 475 and 504. 43. On the issue of patronage and the status of poetry in late Elizabethan culture, see Simon Adams, ‘The Patronage of the Crown in Elizabethan Politics: The 1590s in Perspective’, in The Reign of Elizabeth I: Court and Culture in the Last Decade, John Guy, ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 20–45, and John Huntington, Ambition, Rank, and Poetry in 1590s England (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2001). 44. William A. Oram has recently explored Spenser’s criticism of court culture in ‘Spenser’s Audiences, 1589–91’, Studies in Philology 100 (2003): 514–33 and ‘Spenser in Search of an Audience: The Kathleen Williams Lecture for 2004’, Spenser Studies 20 (2005): 23–47. 45. Spenser’s attitude toward his pension, and his willingness to risk losing it, may be somewhat revealed in Book 6, canto 9, where the pastoral shepherd Meliboe represents himself as a failed courtier, criticizes the ‘vainenesse’ of the court (st. 24, l. 9), and who accordingly refuses the monetary offer of Calidore, the Knight of Courtesy:

But the good man, nought tempted with the offer Of his rich mould [‘dirt’, but referring to gold], did thrust it farre away, And thus bespake; Sir knight, your bounteous proffer Be farre fro me, to whom ye ill display That mucky masse, the cause of mens decay, That mote empaire my peace with daungers dread. (FQ 6.9.33.1–6)

46. On the uneven career of Sir Thomas Smith, see Mary Dewar, Sir Thomas Smith: A Tudor Intellectual in Ofﬁce (London: Athlone Press, 1964). 47. I follow Miller in preferring the 1596 reading of ‘BON FONS’. David Lee Miller, ‘The Earl of Cork’s Lute’, in Spenser’s Life 146–71, 168 and 198 n.22. 48. On the political views of Spenser’s poetry and that of his Jacobean followers, see David Norbrook, Poetry and Politics in the English Renaissance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 97–139; 173–98.

5 Mother Hubberds Tale and the Ambivalent Withdrawal from Power

1. Materializing Space 97. 2. Materializing Space 99. Erroneous conceptions that Robert Cecil performed the role of the hermit stem from the speculation of the notorious John Payne Collier, and are contradicted by the text itself (see John Payne Collier, The History of English Dramatic Poetry, 3 vols. [London: John Murray,1831], 1: 285–8). Collier’s error is repeated in Alan Young, Tudor and Jacobean Tournaments (London: Sheridan House, 1987), 174–5 and Lisa Jardine and 248 Notes

Alan Stewart, Hostage to Fortune: The Troubled Life of Francis Bacon (New York: Hill and Wang, 1999), 179–80. 3. While the hermit’s address identifies only one Vere daughter as present, Sutton believes that all of the Vere sisters ‘were unquestionably at hand’ (Materializing Space 99). 4. On the history of Elizabeth’s visits to Theobalds, see Materializing Space 88–9 and E. K. Chambers, The Elizabethan Stage, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923), 4: 81–8. 5. The Complaints were entered in the Stationers’ Register on 29 December 1590 (YESP 223), while Mother Hubberds Tale was ‘by Superior awthoritie called in’, according to Sir Thomas Tresham, on 19 March 1591. See Richard S. Peterson in ‘Laurel Crown and Ape’s Tail: New Light on Spenser’s Career from Sir Thomas Tresham’, Spenser Studies 12 (1991): 1–35, 7, 1. 6. For Richard III’s pretended reluctance to assume the throne, see William Shakespeare, Richard III (New York: Signet, 1998), Act 3, scene 7. 7. On the classical principles of otium and negotium, see John D. Bernard, Cer- emonies of Innocence: Pastoralism in the Poetry of Edmund Spenser (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 16–24. 8. George Peele, ‘Speeches to Queen Elizabeth at Theobald’s’, The Works of George Peele, A. H. Bullen, ed., 2 vols. (London: John C. Nimmo, 1888), 2: 305–6, hereafter cited parenthetically in the text as ‘Theobald’s’ by line number. The original document is located in the British Library (British Library, Egerton MS. 2623). The correction of ‘3 furlonnges’ on line 9 is taken from W. W. Greg, ‘A Collier Mystification’, Review of English Studies 1 (1925): 452–4, 454. The attributions of the work to George Peele are due to claims made by John Payne Collier, the notorious forger, and therefore cannot be regarded as authentic. The authenticity of the document as a whole has been questioned by Marion Colthorpe, ‘The Theobalds Entertainment for Queen Elizabeth I, with a Transcript of the Gardener’s Speech’, Records of Early English Drama Newsletter 12:1 (1987): 2–9, but her arguments have been addressed thoroughly by Curtis C. Breight, ‘Entertainments of Elizabeth at Theobalds in the Early 1590s’, Records of Early English Drama Newsletter 12:2 (1987): 2–9. For all of his egregious faults, Collier was also a legitimate scholar. Indeed, he discovered a version of the speeches of the gardener and the molecatcher for the 1591 entertainment that has since been authenti- cated. On these texts, see Colthorpe 3–4, 7–9. The surviving mock charter created as a response to the hermit’s speech (see note 14) verifies the general drift and many points of detail in the hermit’s speech. Collier scholars Freeman and Freeman agree with Breight that the limit of Collier’s tampering of the manuscript was the spurious attribution to George Peele. See Arthur Freeman and Janet Ing Freeman, John Payne Collier: Scholarship and Forgery in the Nineteenth Century, 2 vols. (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2004), 2: 1093–4. 9. Materializing Space 91. 10. The hermit’s misguided fixation upon holy works would also mark his inadequacy. To Elizabeth’s Protestant audience it would matter less where he prayed than how. Nevertheless, the hermit’s suspiciously Catholic tendencies might be one reason why the queen’s final commandment turns Notes 249

more negatively upon him than the immediate situation would seem to require. 11. On the charged political context that surrounded Robert Cecil’s appointment to the secretaryship, see Paul E. J. Hammer, The Polarisation of Elizabethan Politics: The Political Career of Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex, 1585–1597 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 319–20 and Materializing Space 119–20. 12. Robert Cecil’s opportunity to distinguish himself during the queen’s visit would occur in a separate entertainment, in which a gardener and molecatcher present a jewel to Elizabeth, promoting Robert and his nearby estate of Pymmes. See Bullen’s edition of Peele, 309–14. For an additional scribal copy of this entertainment, see Colthorpe 7–9. 13. On Elizabeth’s disapproval of and resistance to court entertainments, see Susan Frye, Elizabeth I: The Competition for Representation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 38, 70, 136; Louis Adrian Montrose, ‘Celebration and Insinuation: Sir Philip Sidney and the Motives of Elizabethan Courtship’, Renaissance Drama 8 (1977): 3–35, 19; Paul E. J. Hammer, ‘Upstaging the Queen: The Earl of Essex, Francis Bacon, and the Accession Day Celebra- tions of 1595’, in The Politics of the Stuart Court Masque, David Bevington and Peter Holbrook, eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 41–66. 14. The original document, now in the possession of the Elizabethan Club of Yale University and housed in the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library at Yale, is also discussed in James Sutton’s ‘The Retiring Patron: William Cecil and the Cultivation of Retirement, 1590–98’, in Patronage, Cul- ture and Power: The Early Cecils, Pauline Croft, ed. (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2002), 159–79, 169, ﬁg. 68. 15. G. B. Harrison, ed., The Letters of Queen Elizabeth I (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1981), 207–8. 16. Harrison, ed. 208. 17. Sutton believes that ‘the author of Theobalds must have been at hand, although perhaps he stood behind his sons and grandchildren, unquestionably present yet in the shadows’ (Materializing Space 99). 18. Materializing Space 107–9; Breight 3–4. For the origins of this misreading, see Collier, 1: 285–8. 19. ‘Theobalds is out of joint, and the hermit begs of Elizabeth a restoration of harmony. The hermit assumes Elizabeth’s will to do so, not only because she cares for the estate and the family dwelling there, but too because this disruption has dire repercussions for her and for England. She needs Lord Burghley in the big house, where “his writing and his word” – statecraft, policy-making, legislations – matter’ (Materializing Space 102). 20. On the 1594 Theobalds entertainment, see Materializing Space 120–5. 21. On these speeches and their connection to Robert Cecil, see note 12 and Materializing Space 109–19. 22. On the complex interplay between the poem’s ‘recreative’ and ‘satirical’ modes, in which animal and human behavior are conﬂated, see Kent T. van den Berg, ‘The Counterfeit in Personation: Spenser’s Prosopopoia’, in The Author in his Work: Essays on a Problem in Criticism, Louis Martz and Aubrey Williams, eds. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978), 85–102, esp. 91–3. 250 Notes

23. Richard Verstegan, A Declaration of the True Causes 1592 (London: Scholar Press, 1977), 68. 24. Verstegan 68. 25. Richard Verstegan, The Letters and Despatches of Richard Verstegan (c. 1550– 1640), Anthony G. Petti, ed. (London: Catholic Record Society, 1959), 115. On the topicality of Nashe’s beast fable, see Henry Chettle and Robert Greene, Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit: Bought with a Million of Repentance (1592), D. Allen Carroll, ed. (Binghamton, NY: Medieval and Renaissance Texts & Studies, 1994), 107–13. For Nashe’s self-defense against charges of his fable’s topicality (made by Gabriel Harvey) in Strange Newes (1592), see Chettle and Greene 113 and Spenser Allusions 26–9. 26. On criticism of Burghley’s office, see Harold Stein, Studies in Spenser’s Com- plaints (New York: Oxford University Press, 1934), 88–91; T. Wilson, The State of England, Anno Dom. 1600, ed. F. J. Fisher (London: Camden Society, 1936), 42; Joel Hurstfield, Freedom, Corruption and Government in Elizabethan England (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), 106. 27. While W. L. Renwick is unwilling to assign too much of the poem’s topicality to Burghley, he admits that lines 942–end present ‘the most direct attack on Burghley’. Edmund Spenser, Complaints,W.L.Renwick,ed.(London:Scholar Press, 1928), 229–30, 231. See also Andrew Hadfield, ‘Spenser, Edmund (1552?–1599)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept. 2004; online edn., Jan. 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/ article/26145, accessed 17 Jan. 2010]. 28. James A. Riddell and Stanley Stewart, Jonson’s Spenser: Evidence and Historical Criticism (Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1995), 53. 29. Pauline Croft, ‘Cecil, Robert, first earl of Salisbury (1563–1612)’, Oxford Dic- tionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept. 2004; online edn., Oct. 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/4980, accessed 18 Nov. 2009]. 30. On the enduring role of Robert Cecil personified as an ape in the Jacobean period, see Richard Niccols, The Beggers Ape (1627); Brice Harris, ‘The Ape in Mother Hubberds Tale’, Huntington Library Quarterly 13 (1941): 191–203, 201–3; and Hoyt H. Hudson, ‘John Hepwith’s Spenserian Satire upon Buckingham: With Some Jacobean Analogues’, Huntington Library Quarterly 6 (1934): 39–71, 66–9. 31. See Walter Oakeshott, ‘Carew Ralegh’s Copy of Spenser’, The Library 5th Series 26 (1971): 1–21, 6. On the instability of Spenser’s folio Works,see Steven K. Galbraith, ‘Spenser’s First Folio: The Build-It-Yourself Edition’, Spenser Studies 21 (2006): 21–49. 32. R. M. Cummings, ed., Spenser: The Critical Heritage (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1971), 319, quoting Robert Johnston, Historia Rerum Britannicarum ... ab Anno 1572, ad Annum 1628 (Amerstdam, 1655), 249 (Lib. VIII). Also reprinted in Frederick Ives Carpenter, A Reference Guide to Edmund Spenser (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1923), 61. 33. For the influence of Theobalds on major contemporary buildings like Holdenby and Audley End, see Malcolm Airs, ‘ “Pomp or Glory”: The Influence of Theobalds’, in Patronage, Culture, and Power: The Early Cecils 1558–1612 (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2002), 3–19. Notes 251

34. Frederick Hard, ‘Spenser and Burghley’, Studies in Philology 28 (1931): 219–34, 234. 35. On the multivalent nature of Elizabethan entertainment, see Frye 3–21. 36. On Tresham’s comments, see Peterson 8. 37. On the origins of the ‘prodigy house’ as an academic term, see John Summerson, Architecture in Britain, 1530–1830 (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1953; rpt. 1983), 63. See also Materializing Space 2. 38. On contemporary accounts of Theobalds, see Materializing Space 31, n.4. 39. Airs notes that Ben Jonson’s reference to being served a different (and inferior) meal from that of his host occurred at Theobalds, 16, 19 n.45. 40. On the mutual inﬂuence of (and competition between) Burghley’s and Hatton’s palaces, see Airs 7–9, and Materializing Space 15–23. 41. Lord Burghley 466. 42. For a brief overview of the institution of land tenure as understood in the Tudor period, see Susan Brigden, New Worlds, Lost Worlds: The Rule of the Tudors, 1485–1603 (New York: Penguin, 2000), 28. 43. Materializing Space 40, 42, 48, 72–3. 44. On the function of ‘spatial poetics’ in the design of Theobalds generally, see Materializing Space 12–14. On the imaginary relation of Theobalds to Robert Cecil in particular, see Materializing Space 55–74. 45. Mr. Secretary 214. 46. On the function of the Green Gallery as a memory theatre, see Materializing Space 60. 47. ‘Diary of the Journey of Philip Julius, Duke of Stettin-Pomerania, Through England in the Year 1602’, ed. G. von Bullow, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, new series 6 (1892): 30. 48. G. W. Groos, trans. and ed., The Diary of Baron Waldstein: A Traveller in Elizabethan England (London: Thames & Hudson, 1981), 87. 49. On the conceptual similarities between the Green Gallery and the Ditchley portrait, see Airs 12. 50. Materializing Space 59–60. 51. Materializing Space 61. 52. On Burghley’s role in Saxton’s career, see Materializing Space 58 n.79 and n.80. 53. On the Great Gallery, see Materializing Space 61–8. 54. Summerson, ‘The Building of Theobalds’, 120, quoted in Materializing Space 69–70. 55. On Burghley’s obsession with his own genealogy, see Airs 10. 56. Materializing Space 27. 57. Materializing Space 7. 58. When King James visited Theobalds in the year of his coronation, he occupied the new staterooms immediately (Materializing Space 156–7). 59. William Benchley Rye, England as Seen by Foreigners in the Days of Elizabeth and James the First. Comprising Translations of the Journals of the two Dukes of Wirtemberg in 1592 and 1610; both illustrative of Shakespeare ... (London: J. R. Smith, 1865), 44. 60. Philip Sidney, Sir Philip Sidney: Selected Prose and Poetry, Robert Kimbrough, ed. (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1983), 108. 61. On Burghley’s correspondence with Herle, see Lord Burghley 315–21. 252 Notes

62. Stein 89. I have amended Stein’s speculation about ‘R. [Queen?]’ to ‘R. [Realm]’, following Lord Burghley 319. 63. In response to Burghley’s later complaints about his discretion with his personal letters, Herle replied that ‘I had your Lordship’s own authority in answering slanders I heard and for conferring with my friends touching them’ (Lord Burghley 321). 64. J. A. Strype, The Annals of the Reformation and Establishment of Religion and Other Various Occurrences in the Church of England During Queen Elizabeth’s Happy Reign: Together with An Appendix of Original Papers of State, Records, and Letters (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1824), Vol. 3, part 2, 380–1. The translation of Psalm 140:3 is from Lord Burghley 319. 65. Strype 381. 66. Strype 381. 67. Strype 381. 68. Strype 381. 69. A. G. R. Smith, ed., The ‘Anonymous Life’ of William Cecil, Lord Burghley (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1990), 93–4. On Hickes as the probable author of the ‘Anonymous Life’, see Smith, ed. 5–10. 70. On the composition and publication dates of the ‘Anonymous Life’, see Smith, ed. 3–4. 71. Croft. 72. Historical Manuscripts Commission, Calendar of the Manuscripts of the Most Honourable The Marquess of Salisbury ... Preserved at Hatﬁeld House (London: His Majesty’s Stationery Ofﬁce, 1890–1970), 12: 188. See also Materializing Space 74. 73. Historical Manuscripts Commission, 12: 188. 74. Ludovico Ariosto, Orlando Furioso in English Heroical Verse,SirJohn Harington, trans. (1591), 356. 75. Charles Grosvenor Osgood, A Concordance to the Poems of Edmund Spenser (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1963), 158–9. Not common in the poem are the terms ‘courtesy’ (twice) and ‘courteous’ (never), concepts that Spenser does not readily connect to the court, as seen in Book 6 of The Faerie Queene. 76. On Spenser’s whereabouts in 1590, see Willy Maley, A Spenser Chronology (Lanham, MD: Barnes and Noble, 1994), 54–5, esp. 54. 77. On Spenser’s transformation from the perspective of his projected literary audiences, see William Oram, ‘Spenser’s Audiences, 1589–91’, Studies in Philology 100 (2003): 514–33. 78. On the passage as a characterization of Spenser’s narrator ‘in the act of losing self-control’, see van den Berg 93–4. On the passage’s topicality in regard to Burghley, see Renwick’s edition of the Complaints, 229. 79. On Churchyard’s pension, see Raphael Lyne, ‘Churchyard, Thomas (1523?– 1604)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept. 2004; online edn., May 2006 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/5407, accessed 18 Jan. 2010]; Roger A. Geimer, ‘Spenser’s Rhyme or Churchyard’s Reason: Evidence of Churchyard’s First Pension’, Review of English Studies, N.S. 20 (1969): 306–9. 80. Peterson 8. 81. van den Berg 95. 82. Airs 15. Notes 253

83. Materializing Space 140. 84. Airs 10. 85. Materializing Space 10, n.21. 86. Galbraith 40–1. 87. On the ﬁgure of the Ape as interpreted as Robert Cecil in the Jacobean period, see Harris 201–3. On Spenser’s inﬂuence on Donne, and Donne’s upon Marvell, see M. van Wyk Smith, ‘John Donne’s Metempsychosis’, Review of English Studies, N.S. 24 (1973): 141–52, 142 n.3. 88. See Hudson. 89. John Dryden, The Works of John Dryden: Poems 1685–1692 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1969), 161.

6 The Legacy of the Complaints and the Question of Slander

1. Edwin Greenlaw, Studies in Spenser’s Historical Allegory (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1932), 104–32. 2. Harold Stein, Studies in Spenser’s Complaints (New York: Oxford University Press, 1934), 92–5. 3. Brice Harris, ‘The Ape in Mother Hubberds Tale’, Huntington Library Quarterly 13 (1941): 191–203, 201–3. 4. On the enduring role of Robert Cecil personiﬁed as an ape in the Jacobean period, see Richard Niccols’s The Beggers Ape (1627), along with the contex- tual arguments of Harris and Hoyt H. Hudson, ‘John Hepwith’s Spenserian Satire upon Buckingham: With Some Jacobean Analogues’, Huntington Library Quarterly 6 (1934): 39–71, 66–9. See also Elizabeth Throckmorton’s annotation of the Ape as ‘R S or Sal’, completed in another hand as ‘Salsber’, in a copy of the Spenser folio Works in Walter Oakeshott, ‘Carew Ralegh’s Copy of Spenser’, The Library, 5th Series 26 (1971): 1–21; 6. 5. Thomas Herron, ‘Reforming the Fox: Spenser’s “Mother Hubberds Tale,” the Beast Fables of Barnabe Riche, and Adam Loftus, Archbishop of Dublin’, Studies in Philology 105 (2008): 336–87; 364. 6. For an analysis of the beast fable as a covert form of political commentary in sixteenth-century England, see Annabel Patterson, Fables of Power: Aesopian Writing and Political History (Durham: Duke University Press, 1991), 45–80. 7. Such an allusive mode is typical of much of Spenser’s historical allegory in The Faerie Queene. See Michael O’Connell, ‘Allegory, historical’ in Spenser Encyclopedia 23–4. 8. M. Lindsay Kaplan, The Culture of Slander in Early Modern England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). 9. On the easy reversibility of slanderous accusation, see Kaplan 16–17. 10. For an overview of Harvey’s entry into his print controversy with Nashe, see Jason Scott-Warren, ‘Harvey, Gabriel (1552/3–1631)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, online edn., Oxford University Press, Sept. 2004 [http:// www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/12517, accessed 22 July 2010]. 11. Gabriel Harvey, Foure Letters, and certaine Sonnets (1592), 6–7. 12. Harvey 7. 254 Notes

13. Harvey 13. 14. See ‘canicular’ A. 1., Oxford English Dictionary online, 2nd edn. 1989 [http:// dictionary.oed.com/]. 15. On Spenser’s intellectual debts to Horace in Mother Hubberds Tale, see Richard S. Peterson, ‘Laurel Crown and Ape’s Tail: New Light on Spenser’s Career from Sir Thomas Tresham’, Spenser Studies 12 (1991 [1998]): 1–36, 16–17. 16. For a discussion of the context and implications of Nashe’s beast fable, see Henry Chettle and Robert Greene, Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit: Bought with a Million of Repentance (1592), D. Allen Carroll, ed. (Binghamton, NY: Medieval and Renaissance Texts & Studies, 1994), 107–13. 17. Thomas Nashe, Strange Newes, Of the intercepting certaine Letters, and a Conuoy of Verses, as they were going to victual the Low Countries (1592), E–Ev. 18. Peterson 8. 19. Richard Verstegan, The Letters and Despatches of Richard Verstegan (c. 1550– 1640), Anthony G. Petti, ed. (London: Catholic Record Society, 1959), 115. 20. Nashe, K3v. 21. For an assessment of Nashe’s hostility to Spenser, see Andrew Zurcher, ‘Get- ting it Back to Front in 1590: Spenser’s Dedications, Nashe’s Insinuations, and Ralegh’s Equivocations’, Studies in the Literary Imagination 38 (2005): 173–98, 179–84. 22. For a recent assessment of the 1599 bishops’ ban, see Cyndia Susan Clegg, Press Censorship in Elizabethan England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 198–217. 23. On the complexity of slander as construed by early modern English legal institutions, see Kaplan 12–19. Other examinations of legal conceptions of slander in the work of Spenser include Anne Lake Prescott, ‘Sclaunder, slander’, in Spenser Encyclopedia 632–3, and Kenneth Gross, ‘Reflections on the Blattant Beast’, Spenser Studies 13 (1999): 101–24. 24. For a confident assessment of the remark on ‘former writs’ as an allusion to Mother Hubberds Tale, see Andrew Hadfield, ‘Spenser, Edmund (1552?– 1599)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept. 2004; online edn., Jan. 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/ 26145, accessed 6 June 2009]. 25. Richard Lanham, A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms, 2nd edn. (Berkeley: Univer- sity of California Press, 1991), 99. The Latinate term of ‘transumptio’ derives from Quintilian, The Institutio Oratoria of Quintilian,vol.3,trans.H.E.Butler (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963), 3.6.37–9. For an index of English Renaissance treatments of metalepsis, see Warren Taylor, Tudor Figures of Rhetoric (Whitewater, WI: Language Press, 1972), 109. 26. For the most thorough survey of the term, see John Hollander, The Figure of Echo: A Mode of Allusion in Milton and After (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981), 133–49. Susanne Lindgren Wofford defines the trope as a dual function of ‘ellipsis and ... temporal inversion’ in The Choice of Achilles: The Ideology of Figure in the Epic (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992), 267. David Lee Miller offers an elaborate analysis of the rhetoric of sublimation in Book 1 of The Faerie Queene through metaleptic inversion in The Poem’s Two Bodies: The Poetics of the 1590 Faerie Queene, 76–81, and esp. 107–9. On metalepsis applied to Emerson’s notion of the sublime, see Eric Wilson, Emerson’s Sublime Science (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999), 115–27. See Notes 255

also Angus Fletcher, Allegory: The Theory of a Symbolic Mode (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1964), 240–3. 27. In addition to an ellipsis of causal sequences, metalepsis may also refer to an elision in the chain of association between words themselves. As Quintilian describes: ‘It is the nature of metalepsis to form a kind of intermediate step between the term transferred and the thing to which it is transferred, having no meaning in itself, but merely providing a transition ... The common- est example is the following: cano [“sing”] is a synonym for canto [“recite”] and canto for dico [“to write”], therefore cano is a synonym for dico, the intermediate step being provided by canto’ (3.6.37–9). 28. Harmon and Holman further define metalepsis as the compression of two tropes: ‘Definitions vary and even diverge, but the point of metalepsis seems to be the adding of one trope or figure to another, along with such extreme compression that the literal sense of the statement is eclipsed or reduced to anomaly or nonsense. The figure crops up in rhetorical situations of maxi- mal drama and interest. We can say discursively, for example, that the sisters Helen and Clytemnestra had much to do with the causing of the Trojan War and certain events in its aftermath, such as the murder of Agamemnon. The many parts and steps of this complex process are transumed in the very powerful metaleptic figure in Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus: “Was this the face that launched a thousand ships /And burnt the topless towers of Ilium?” In two lines, Marlowe compounds a dozen figures, including question, metonymy, metaphor, hyperbole, and paradox (fortified by an elementary reference to water and fire, a deletion of all fully human elements, and emphatic alliteration and megaphonic IAMBS with very short syllables and very long long ones).’ William Harmon and C. Hugh Holman, AHand- book to Literature, 7th edn. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1996), 314–15. 29. Madhavi Menon analyzes metalepsis in Romeo and Juliet and All’s Well that Ends Well in a theatrical context as the transumption of an absent scene of sexuality presumed to occur offstage. In the context of Romeo and Juliet, she argues, ‘Sexuality is ... placed in the position of the metaleptic term in the play as the lovers try to push their way into a socially significant space. The text, however, rejects this process of transumption, the plot banishes its hero, and rhetoric insists that the tropes of sexuality and meaning cannot be bridged unless simplified, and cannot be simplified unless destroyed.’ Wanton Words: Rhetoric and Sexuality in English Renaissance Drama (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004), 84. 30. On the relation of metalepsis to a theory of ideology, see Wofford 21–2. On the trope’s applicability to Harold Bloom’s theory of the ‘anxiety of influence’, see Harold Bloom, Poetry and Repression: Revisionism from Blake to Stevens (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973), 20. 31. Edmund Spenser, Selected Letters and Other Papers, Christopher Burlinson and Andrew Zurcher, eds. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 148–9, hereafter cited as Spenser, Selected Letters and Other Papers. 32. Edmund Spenser, A View of the Present State of Ireland,W.L.Renwick,ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970), 106. 33. Spenser, Selected Letters and Other Papers 149. 34. Spenser, Selected Letters and Other Papers 147. 256 Notes

Afterword

1. On the influence of Spenser on Yeats’s juvenilia, see Wayne K. Chapman, Yeats and English Renaissance Literature (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1991), 69–78. 2. Chapman 79. On the Spenserian character of The Island of Statues,see Chapman 79–87. 3. On the influence of Fowre Hymnes upon Yeats, see Chapman 87–91. 4. Poems of Spenser: Selected and with an Introduction by W. B. Yeats (Edinburgh: T. C. and E. C. Jack, 1906). For a brief account of the circumstances of Yeats’s essay on Spenser, see W. B. Yeats, Early Essays, George Bornstein and Richard J. Finneran eds. (New York: Scribner, 2007), 467, hereafter cited as Early Essays. For a detailed breakdown of Yeats’s selections of Spenser’s poetry, see Chapman 235–6, n.46, though Chapman errs in setting forth Yeats’s selection of the Ruines as ‘ll. 27–32’, when these are in fact stanzas 27–32 of the poem (ll. 183–224). 5. Early Essays 266. For studies on Yeats’s personal investment in his criticism of Spenser, see George Bornstein, ‘The Making of Yeats’s Spenser’, Yeats Annual 2 (1984): 21–9, 21; Enoch Brater, ‘W. B. Yeats: The Poet as Critic’, Journal of Modern Literature 4 (1975): 651–77, 662; Balachandra Rajan, ‘Yeats and the Renaissance’, Mosaic 5 (1972): 109–18; David Gardiner, ‘Befitting Emblems of Adversity’: A Modern Irish View of Edmund Spenser from W. B. Yeats to the Present (Omaha, NB: Creighton University Press, 2001), 86–109. 6. An anonymous reviewer of Yeats’s edition notes the poet’s political bias in his judgment of Spenser: ‘these are strange places a man gets into when he judges English poetry by Irish political prejudice’. Anonymous, ‘Review of Yeats’s Poems of Spenser’, Times Literary Supplement, 2 Nov. 1906, quoted in Gardiner 87. 7. Early Essays 266, 268. 8. Early Essays 266. 9. Early Essays 259. 10. Stephen Greenblatt, Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), 174. Greenblatt recuperates the readings of ‘romantic’ critics like Yeats and Hazlitt against the scholarly arguments of C. S. Lewis (170–1). His most overt debt to Yeats, however, occurs in the context of remarks on Spenser’s investment in the English state and its imperial ambitions in Ireland (185–6). For a discussion that relates Yeats’s argument to Greeenblatt’s, see Jay Farness, ‘Disenchanted Elves: Biography in the Text of Faerie Queene V’, in Spenser’s Life 18–30, 23–4. 11. Greenblatt 222. 12. Greenblatt 190. 13. Greenblatt 9. Louis Adrian Montrose, ‘The Elizabethan Subject and the Spenserian Text’, in Literary Theory / Renaissance Texts, Patricia Parker and David Quint, eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986), 303–40, 339, n.47. 14. Greenblatt 166. Greenblatt’s exemplary figure of Elizabethan subjectivity is Sir Robert Carey, who in 1597 finessed his rash arrival at court for payment for his service as Warden of the East Marches by requesting only to kiss the queen’s hand. See Greenblatt 165–6. Notes 257

15. Montrose 310–12; 330. 16. On Robert Bowes’s 12 November 1596 letter to Lord Burghley describing King James’s displeasure, see Spenser Allusions 45. 17. On the effect of the 1937 constitution on Yeats, see Gardiner 110–12 and Brenda Maddox, Yeats’s Ghosts: The Secret Life of W. B. Yeats (New York: HarperCollins, 1999), 343–4. 18. Maddox 343. 19. Maddox 343–4 and Gardiner 110. 20. John Unterecher, A Reader’s Guide to William Butler Yeats (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1959), 274. 21. W. B. Yeats, Yeats’s Poetry, Drama, and Prose, James Pethica, ed. (New York and London: Norton, 2000), 119–21, 120, ll. 27–32. 22. Yeats’s Poetry, Drama, and Prose 120– 21, ll. 34–40. 23. William Butler Yeats, Essays and Introductions (New York: Macmillan Press, 1961), 259–60. ‘Poetry and Tradition’ quoted in Gardiner 114, my emphasis. 24. Yeats’s Poetry, Drama, and Prose 121, ll. 50–5. 25. Edwin Greenlaw, Studies in Spenser’s Historical Allegory (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1932), 116–17. 26. In his comments about the Martin Marprelate controversy, Francis Bacon was revealing about Elizabethan codes of satire in general that ‘indirect or direct glances or levels at men’s persons’ were ‘ever in these cases dis- allowed’. The Martin Marprelate Tracts: A Modernized and Annotated Edition, Joseph Black, ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), xxvii, citing Advertisement Touching the Controversies of the Church of England (c. 1589–90) in Francis Bacon, Francis Bacon: A Critical Edition of the Major Works, Brian Vickers, ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 19. 27. On the 1590 Faerie Queene as ‘an act of poetic overreaching’, see Ty Buckman, ‘Forcing the Poet into Prose: ‘Gealous Opinions and Misconstructions’ and Spenser’s Letter to Ralegh’, Studies in the Literary Imagination 38 (2005): 17–34, 23. 28. Greenblatt 222. 29. Richard Verstegan, A Declaration of the True Causes 1592 (London: Scholar Press, 1977), 68. Index

Achilles, 89 Cary, Henry, Lord Hunsdon, Adicia, 65, 75 151 Admiral of France, 170 see also, The Faerie Queene (1590): Alcyon, 100 Dedicatory Sonnets Alençon, François de Valois, Duc d’ Cary, Robert, 151 (later Duc d’Anjou), 2, 52 Cecil, Anne, Countess of Oxford, see also, Complaints (1591): 22–3, 34–5, 49, 71, 154 Prosopopoia, or Mother Hubberds accused by de Vere of adultery, Tale; Elizabeth, Queen of 38–43 England as author of ‘Foure Epytaphes’, Amoret, 19, 33, 67, 72–5 78–82, 237 n60, 237–8 n62 Archimago, 190, 221 betrothal and marriage to de Vere, Ariosto, Lodovico 174–5 36–8 Artegall, 202–6 death and memorial, 47–8 Arthur, 68, 69, 110 reconciles with de Vere, 43–5 Arundel, Charles, 43, 44 Ate, 65, 75 relationship with William Cecil, 75–8 Augustus, Caesar, 121, 123 see also, de Vere, Edward, Earl of Bedingﬁeld, Thomas, 53–4 Oxford; The Faerie Queene Belphoebe, 68, 70, 75, 110 (1590): Book 3 Bible (Old Testament), 93 Cecil, Jane (mother of William Cecil), Blattant Beast, 65, 69, 75, 198, 199, 154 202, 205 Cecil, Mildred (wife of William Cecil), see also, The Faerie Queene (1596): 154 Book 5 Cecil, Robert, 25–6, 34, 36, 38, 45, 71, Blount, Sir Charles, 151 76, 81, 92, 102, 151, 155–6, 160, Bossy, J. A., 43 162, 165, 184, 218, 219, 221 Breight, Curtis, 160 see also, Complaints (1591): The Brincknell, Thomas 37, 76 Ruines of Time; Complaints Brink, Jean, 5, 14–17 (1591): Prosopopoia, or Mother Britomart, 68, 73 Hubberds Tale;Theobalds Brooke, Elizabeth, 151 Cecil, Thomas, 36, 151, 156, 168, 173, Brown, Richard Danson, 13, 101, 221, 236 n53 Burghley, Lord, see Cecil, William Cecil, William, Baron Burghley, 25–6, Busirane, 73–4 56, 60–1, 70–1, 81–2, 119–20, Butler, Charles, 97 183, 214 Butler, Thomas, Earl of Ormonde, absence of reception to Spenser’s 92, 151 work, 20, 33–4, 219 arranges the marriage of Anne Cecil Calidore, 69–70, 198 to Edward de Vere, 36–8 Camden, William, 86, 97, 98, 99, 100, defends Anne Cecil’s chastity, 116–20, 238–9 n5 38–43

258 Index 259

engineers reconciliation between Desportes, Philippe, 78–9, 80–1, 238 Anne Cecil and Edward de Vere, n64 43–5 Detraction 75, 202, 203–6 fails to arrange the marriage of de Valéra, Eamon, 212, 214 Elizabeth Vere to Henry de Vere, Anne, Countess of Oxford, see Wriothesley, 71–2 Cecil, Anne hosts Elizabeth I’s visit to de Vere, Edward, Earl of Oxford, 22–3, Theobalds, 151–60 34–5, 49–50, 71, 76, 77–8, 80, punishes Edward de Vere via the 81–2 Court of the Wards, 47 accuses Anne Cecil of adultery, purported displeasure with Spenser, 38–43 31–5 defames Anne Cecil for his relationship with Anne Cecil, 75–8, discontent with Burghley, 39, 231 n28 42–3 see also, Envy (from The Faerie literary patronage, 52–4 Queene, Book 1); Envy (from The marriage to Anne Cecil and early Faerie Queene, Book 5); relationship, 36–8 Theobalds; Complaints (1591): political mistakes and The Ruines of Time; Complaints consequences, 43–4 (1591): Prosopopoia, or Mother possible connection to Edmund Hubberds Tale; Complaints Spenser, 50–4 (1591): Virgils Gnat, The Faerie reconciliation with Anne Cecil, Queene (1590): Dedicatory 44–7 Sonnets; The Faerie Queene see also, The Faerie Queene (1590): (1590): Book 3; The Faerie Dedicatory Sonnets, The Faerie Queene (1596): Book 4; The Queene (1590): Book 3 Faerie Queene (1596): Book 5; de Vere, Elizabeth, see Vere, The Faerie Queene (1596): Book 6 Elizabeth Cecil, William (son of Robert Cecil), Devereux, Robert, Earl of Essex, 55, 151 70, 80, 97, 116, 151, 232–3 n15 Charles I, King of England, 184 see also, The Faerie Queene (1590): Chandos, Lady, 151 Dedicatory Sonnets Cheke, John, 36 Dixon, John, 69 Cheke, Mary, 35–6, 76, 168 Don John of Austria, 170 Chettle, Henry, 97 Donne, John, 184 Drayton, Michael, 97, 184 Churchyard, Thomas, 180 Drummond, William, 69 Cicero, 193 Dryden, John, 185 Clare, Janet, 34 Dudley, Ambrose, Earl of Warwick, 92, Clegg, Cyndia Susan, 34 99 Clifford, George, Earl of Dudley, Robert, Earl of Leicester, 3, 12, Cumberland, 69 24, 44, 52, 69, 91–2, 118–20, Cobham, Lord, 151 208–9, 213–14, 217 Colin Clout, 69, 105–6, 107, 139–40, see also, The Faerie Queene (1590): 176–7 Letter to Ralegh; Complaints Cooke, Mildred, 36, 38 (1591): The Ruines of Time; Crewe, Jonathan, 13, 126 Complaints (1591): Virgils Gnat Culex, 24, 80, 121–3, 149, 243–4 n1 Duessa, 69 260 Index

Elderton, William, 193 Harvey, Gabriel, 26–7, 50–1, 95, 127, Eliot, John, 86 129–30, 131, 246 n33 Elizabeth I, Queen of England, 39–42, analysis of Prosopopoia, or Mother 58, 69, 92, 166–7, 170–1, 203 Hubberds Tale by, 191–4, 195–6 and proposed marriage to the Duc Hatﬁeld palace, 166 d’Alençon, 2 Hatton, Sir Christopher, 70, 151, visit to Theobalds in 1591, 151–60 166–7 see also, The Faerie Queene (1590): Hector, 89, 90–1 Dedicatory Sonnets; Complaints Heneage, Sir Thomas, 151 (1591): Prosopopoia, or Mother Henry IV, King of France, 211 Hubberds Tale Hepwith, John, 184 Envy, from The Faerie Queene (1590): Herle, William 171–3, Book 1, 203 Herron, Thomas, 13–14, 190–1, 226–8 association with Burghley, 64–5, n47 Envy, from The Faerie Queene (1596): Hickes, Michael, 72, 174 Book 5, 75, 202 Holinshed, Raphael, 117 possible allusion to Burghley, 203–6 Homer, 89 Horace, 193–4 Fletcher, Phineas, 96–7 Howard, Charles, 151, 156 Florio, John, 85–92, 94–5, 102, 106–7 Howard, Henry, 43, 44 Howard, Henry, Earl of Surrey, 80 Gerard, John, 167 Howard, Lady, 151 Gloriana, 64, 68, 110 Hughes, John, 115 Goddard, William, 184 Gorges, Arthur, 100 Ireland, 13–14 Grantorto, 203 Greenblatt, Stephen James VI of Scotland and I of England, assessment of Spenser’s career by, 166, 184, 190, 211 209–10, 221 Johnston, Robert, 163, 218 assessment of Spenser’s career Jonson, Ben, 69, 163, 166, 218 refuted, 210–12 Judson, Alexander, 31–2 Greene, Robert, 86, 192, 193 Greenlaw, Edwin, 2–6, 7–10, 123–4, Kaplan, M. Lindsay, 191–2, 196, 190 197 Gregory, Lady Augusta, 212–13 Knyvet, Sir Henry, 44 Grey, Arthur, Baron of Wilton, 55, 202–6, 211 Lake, Thomas, 113 Grey, Sir Henry, 151 Leicester, Earl of, see Dudley, Robert Levy, F. J., 112 Hadﬁeld, Andrew, 9 Lewis, Baron Mordaunt, 6 Hamilton, A. C., 33 Lewis, C. S., 101 Hammer, Paul, 80 Loftus, Adam, Archbishop of Dublin Hard, Frederick, 165 and Armagh, 13–14, 191, 226–8 Hardwick, Elizabeth of, 151 n47 Harington, Sir John, 91–2, Long, Percy, 124 174–5 Lownes, Matthew, 115, 163, 184 Harris, Brice, 190 Lucifera, 64 Harrison, William, 117 Lyly, John, 51, 86 Index 261

MacCaffrey, Wallace, 119 Ralegh, Sir Walter, 44, 55, 69–70, 128, Malbecco, 180 151, 176, 178, 211, 218, 232–3 Malfont, 75 n15, 245–6 n23 Marlowe, Christopher, 53 Rambuss, Richard, 11–13, 16, 124–5 Marprelate controversy, 86, 113, 192, Rasmussen, Carl J., 97–101 218 Read, Conyers, 42 Marvell, Andrew, 184 Redcrosse Knight, 69 Mary I, Queen of England, 69 Renwick, W. L., 101, 131 Mary, Queen of Scots, 211 Ronsard, Pierre de, 78 Mauvissière, Michel de Castelnau, Russell, Anne, Countess of Warwick, Sieur de la, 85 99, 151 McCabe, Richard, 9, 94, 98 McLane, Paul, 51 Samonde, Wilfred, 47–8 Meliboe, 10–11 Saunder, Nicholas, 85 metalepsis, 27, 199–206 Saxton, Christopher, 169 applied to The Faerie Queene (1596): Schell, Richard, 98, 101 Book 5, 202–6 Sclaunder, 65, 75 applied to The Faerie Queene (1596): Scroop, Lady, 151 Book 6, 198–200, 201–2 Scudamour, 19, 33, 67, 72–5 deﬁned, 200–1, 254–5 nn25–9 Serena, 70, 199–200 Miller, David Lee, 124–5, 137 Shakespeare, William, 91, 133–4, 152, Montrose, Louis, 210 221 Munday, Anthony, 86 Shefﬁeld, Lady, 151 Sidney, Sir Henry, 36 Nashe, Thomas, 26–7, 51, 56, 86, 95, Sidney, Sir Philip, 12, 24, 36, 52, 107–9, 162 99–100, 106, 117–18 analysis of Prosopopoia, or Mother Sidney Herbert, Mary, Countess of Hubberds Tale by, 191–2, 194–7 Pembroke, 55, 56, 98, 100, 113 Neville, Dorothy, 151 Sidney, Sir Robert (later Earl of new historicism, 27, 209–12 Leicester), 113, 115, 116 Niccols, Richard, 97, 184 Simier, Jean de, Baron de Saint-Marc, 8 Niobe, 80–1 see also, Complaints (1591): Prosopopoia, or Mother Hubberds Osgood, Charles G., 117 Tale Oxford, Earl of, see de Vere, Edward Soowthern, John, 78–81 Southampton, Earl of, see Wriothesley, Parma, Duke of, 170 Henry patronage culture, Elizabethan, 16, 87, Southwell, Francis, 43, 44 220–1 Spenser, Edmund see also, Complaints (1591): Virgils appointment to Ireland (1580), 5 Gnat; Complaints (1591): The composes The Faerie Queene,6 Ruines of Time departs for Ireland (1591), 6 Patterson, Annabel, 13 disconnection from Elizabethan Peacham, Henry, 97 patronage culture, 146–7 Peck, D. C., 43 independence from Elizabethan Penshurst, 166 state ideology 210–12 Peterson, Richard S., 9 motives for attacking Burghley, Ponsonby, William, 15 10–17, 215–16 262 Index

Spenser, Edmund – continued Vere, Elizabeth, 23, 34, 35, 38–40, 47, possible connection to Edward de 71–2, 77, 151, 219 Vere, 50–4 Vere, Susan, 47, 151 receives royal pension (1591), Verstegan, Richard, 161–2, 196, 218 10–11, 16, 180 Virgil, see also, Culex, 90–1, 121–3, 149 see also, Works of Edmund Spenser Stafford, Lady, 151 Walsingham, Sir Francis, 12, 44, 46, Stanhope, John, 151 52–3, 55, 56, 85, 113–14, 125, Stanley, Ferdinando, Lord Strange, 151 203, 204–5, 218 Stanley, Henry, Earl of Derby, 151 see also, Complaints (1591): The Stein, Harold, 10, 124, 190 Ruines of Time Stone, Lawrence, 36 Ward, Bernard, 52 Strange, Lady, 151 Watson, Thomas, 52–4, 93, 113, 218 Sutton, James, 160, 169 Weever, John, 95–6, 97, 107 Weimann, Robert, 68 Talbot, Gilbert, 37 Wilson, Thomas, 115–16, 218 Tresham, Sir Thomas, 6–9, 166, 180, Woodhouse, Peter, 184 196 Wriothesley, Henry, Earl of Theobalds, 25–6, 116, 166–75, 184 Southampton, 23, 35, 37, 71–2, as a focal point for Spenser’s 77, 219 hostility to Burghley in Wyatt, Sir Thomas, 80 Prosopopoia, or Mother Hubberds Wylkes, Sir Thomas, 116 Tale, 164–6 as a symbol of Burghley’s Yates, Frances, 86 connection to Queen Elizabeth, Yeats, William Butler, 27 166–8 analysis of Spenser’s career by, as a legacy for Robert Cecil, 168–70, 207–10 171–5 inﬂuence of Spenser’s career on, Burghley’s ambition represented in, 207–8 168–75 reception to The Ruines of Time by, Burghley’s defense of, 171–5 212–15 Theobalds Entertainment of Queen Elizabeth (1591), 25–6, 116, Works of Edmund Spenser 151–60, 248 n8 Theobalds Entertainment of Queen A Theatre for Worldlings (1569), 217 Elizabeth (1594), 160 The Shepheardes Calender (1579), 110, Throckmorton, Elizabeth, 69–70, 71, 129–30, 210–11 128, 163, 218 Spenser–Harvey Correspondence Timias, 70, 199–200 (Three Proper, and Wittie, Familiar Tuell, Anne K., 33 Letters, etc., 1580), 5, 50–1, Tuve, Rosamund, 101 129–30, 245 n18 The Faerie Queene (1590) Una, 69 public reception of, 15 role of topical allegory in, 34–5, 50, van den Berg, Kent T., 9, 183 68–71 Vavasor, Anne, 34, 43–44 Spenser’s ambition represented in, Verlame, see Complaints (1591): The 175–6 Ruines of Time The Faerie Queene (1590): Book 1, see Vere, Brigit, 47, 151 also, Envy, 64–5 Index 263

The Faerie Queene (1590): Book 2, 58, thematic coherence and ‘unity’ of, 146 217, 219–20 The Faerie Queene (1590): Book 3, 19, Complaints (1591): The Ruines of Time, 52, 180 11, 12, 17, 24, 25, 32, 53, 85–120, as offensive to Burghley, 17–21, 144–5, 145, 179, 212, 219 218–19 allusions to Burghley in 1, 92–4, possible reception of by the Cecil 111–12, 113–16, 132, 218 family, 67–8, 70–5, 81–2 allusions to Leicester in, 89–90, representation of Spenser in, 74–5 104–6, 111–12 theory of the canceled stanzas as allusion to Walsingham in, 92–3, censored, 21–2, 32–5, 49, 229 113–16 n60 allusion to Spenser (as Colin Clout) topical relevance to the marriage of in, 105–7 Edward de Vere and Anne Cecil as subversive to state authority, 15, in, 34–5, 67–8, 72–5, 218–19 95–7; 113–16 The Faerie Queene (1590): Dedication crisis of patronage represented in, to Elizabeth, 54 60–1, 65, 87, 102–7, 112–13 revised dedication of 1596, 67 criticism of Burghley in, 87, 92–5, The Faerie Queene (1590): Dedicatory 221 Sonnets, 68 defense of Leicester in, 88–92, 94, failed bid for patronage and 98–9, 104–6, 107, 110–11 cancellation of in 1596, 66, generic inconsistency of, 87; 101–2, 109–10 103–4 multiple versions of, 55–6, 107–8, implicit or attributed criticism of 233 n20 Robert Cecil in, 97, 116 potential controversy of, 54–5, interrelation between Spenser’s 107–10, 220 praise of Leicester faction to his role of Queen Elizabeth in, 54 criticism of Burghley in, 94, sonnet to Burghley, 10, 11, 61–5 111–12, 113–16, 220 sonnet to Essex, 56–9 sonnet to Hunsdon, 54 role of Verlame in, 61, 86, 97–102, sonnet to Oxford, 34, 56–64 107 topical role of Oxford suggested in, sixteenth- and seventeenth-century 63–4 reception to, 88–9, 95–7 The Faerie Queene (1590): Letter to Spenser’s ethos of contestation in, Ralegh, 20, 27, 31, 61, 63, 68, 70 24, 87–8, 102–16, 132–4, 220 possible connection between Arthur twentieth-century reception to, and the Earl of Leicester in, 110 97–8, 101–2, 207, 208–9, Complaints (1591), see under speciﬁc 212–15 titles, below see also, Complaints (1591): Virgils as a work of 1591, 2 Gnat see also, Complaints (1591): Virgils Complaints (1591): Teares of the Muses, Gnat; Complaints (1591): 11, 219, 221 Prosopopoia, or Mother Complaints (1591): Virgils Gnat, 24–5, Hubberds Tale 121–50, 219 impounded or ‘called in’ by state allusion to Burghley as ‘Oedipus’, authority in 1591, 6–7, 223 n2, 25, 144–6 theorized as work of the 1570s and as a work of 1591, 24–5, 122–3, 124, 80s, 2–6, 217 125–31, 133, 149–50, 216–17 264 Index

Complaints (1591): Virgils sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Gnat – continued reception to, 6–7, 26–7, 161–3, as backdated to a time before 184–5, 191–7 Leicester’s death (1588), 126–31 subversive to state authority, 6–7, dedicatory sonnet of, 3–4, 122, 14–15, 26–7, 184–5, 191–7, 221 126–31, 143–9 supposed allusions to Duc interrelation with The Ruines of d’Alençon and Simier as ‘Ape’, Time, 131–7, 140–3, 219 8, 190 role of patronage culture in, 125, theory of origins in 1579, 2–6, 7–10, 146–7 123–4, 225 n27 Spenser’s contestatory relation to theory of revision in 1591, 9 Leicester in, 121–3, 128–30, Complaints (1591): The Visions of 131–4 Bellay, 217 theory of Leicester as the ‘Shepherd’ Complaints (1591): The Visions of and Spenser as ‘Gnat’, 4, 134–5 Petrarch; formerly translated, 217 theory of origins in the early 1580s, Daphnaïda (1591), 100 3–4, 123–6 Amoretti and Epithalamion (1595), theory of Spenser as the ‘Shepherd’ 18–19 and Leicester as ‘Gnat’, 134–43 Colin Clouts Come Home Againe (1595), Complaints (1591): Prosopopoia, or 70, 71, 103, 128, 139, 176–7, 211 Mother Hubberds Tale, see also, The Faerie Queene (1596), see also, The Theobalds, 8, 12, 17, 32, 92–3, 94, Faerie Queene (1590): Dedication 127, 134, 149, 151–85, 189–91, to Elizabeth, 16, 179, 211 211–12, 220 The Faerie Queene (1596): Book 4, 16, allusionstoBurghleyas‘Foxe’in,1, 18, 67 12, 161–5, 189–91, 218 allusion to Burghley in, 18, 31–3, allusions to Elizabeth in, 161, 66, 94, 110, 145, 198, 216, 218 178–9, 185, 212, 221 allusions to Robert Cecil as one of The Faerie Queene (1596): Book 5, see the Foxe’s ‘cubs’, 1, 162–3 also, Envy; metalepsis, 110, 148 allusion to Burghley as a hostile connection of Burghley with Envy peer, 178–9 and the Blattant Beast in, 202–6 as a work of 1591, 5–6, 6–10, 152, The Faerie Queene (1596): Book 6, 247 216–17 n45 see also, metalepsis, 10–11, attributed allusions to Robert Cecil 69–70 as ‘Ape’, 163, 190, 253 n4 allusion to Burghley, 12, 18–19, 31, criticism of court culture 65, 66, 189, 218 represented in, 176–81 deﬂection of Burghley’s displeasure dedication of, 6 in, 197–202 ethos of virtuous withdrawal Fowre Hymnes (1596), 207, 228–9 n55 represented in, 152–3, 181–3 Prothalamion (1596), 23, 103, 130, formal complexity/inconsistency of, 143, 176, 211, 246 n27 8, 161, 179, 189–90, 191, 224 A Vewe of the Present State of Ireland n11 (entered in the Stationers’ inﬂuence on seventeenth-century Register, 1598, published 1633), and Restoration satire, 184–5, 203, 208, 211 221–2 Folio Works (1611, Prosopopoia, or representation of the ‘braue Mother Hubberds Tale, inserted Courtier’ in, 152, 181–4, 220–1 1613), 1, 17