1. Bernard E. C. Davis, ‘The Text of Spenser’s “Complaints”’, MLR 20 (1925), 18–24, at 22; Plant, English Book Trade, pp. 144–5. Davis suggests that the whole volume was suppressed, as ‘no expurgated quarto has come to light’. See also Stein, Studies in Spenser’s Complaints, pp. 13–14.
2. The whole volume is copied out in BL MS Harley 6910, along with other poems by Chapman, Drayton, Sidney, Southwell, Sylvester, and others, as well as an extract from Colin Clout and the greater part of the Hymne in Honour of Beautie and the Hymne of Heauenly Beautie copied from the printed texts. For comment, see Katherine K. Gottschalk, ‘Discoveries Concerning British Library Harley 6910’, MP 77 (1979), 121–31; Ernest H. Strathmann, ‘A Manuscript Copy of Spenser’s Hymnes’, MLN 48 (1933), 217–21. Selections from Complaints are also found in BL Add. MS 34064; and BL Add. MS 68942, copied out in the early 17th century, contains most of Mother Hubberds Tale (1,362 lines of 1,388). Bodleian Library, Douce MS 280, John Ramsey’s Commonplace Book, contains complete texts of Mother Hubberds Tale, Teares of the Muses, and Visions of Petrarch, showing that he wanted copies of these proscribed poems.
3. Woudhuysen, Sidney, pp. 175–6.
4. Stationers, ii. 268.
5. Edmund Spenser, Complaints (London, 1591), BL 239 i I; Peterson, ‘Laurel Crown and Ape’s Tail’, p. 10; Harold Stein, Studies in Spenser’s Complaints (New York: Oxford University Press, 1934), p. 10. On Henry Cocke, see Duncan-Jones, Sidney, p. 227.
6. Berry and Timings, ‘Spenser’s Pension’, p. 255; Peterson, ‘Laurel Crown and Ape’s Tail’, p. 12.
7. Richard Verstegan, A Declaration of the True Causes of the Great Troubles, presupposed to be intended against the realme of England (Antwerp, 1592), p. 68. Subsequent references in parentheses in the text.
8. On Verstegan (Rowland), see ODNB entry by Paul Arblaster. On the importance of Verstegan and Catholic perceptions of Burghley, see Christopher Highley, Catholics Writing the Nation in Early Modern Britain and Ireland (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), passim; Morey, Catholic Subjects, passim.
9. Alford, Burghley, p. 316.
10. Thomas Lodge, Catharos: Diogenes in his Singularitie (London, 1591); Eliane Cuvelier, ‘Renaissance Catholicism in the Work of Thomas Lodge’, in Charles C. Whitney (ed.), Thomas Lodge (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2011), pp. 502–17.
11. On the Treshams, see Finch, Wealth of Five Northamptonshire Families, ch. 4; Pritchard, Catholic Loyalism, pp. 49–57.
12. ‘The Tresham Papers belonging to T. B. Clarke-Thornhill Esq., of Rushton Hall, Northants’, in Report on Manuscripts in Various Collections, 8 vols. (London: HMC, 1901–13), iii. 1–154, at pp. 136–7.
13. See W. D. Sweeting, Architectural Description of the Triangular Lodge at Rushton (Northampton: Taylor and Son, 1881); J. Alfred Gotch et al., Rushton and Its Owners (Northampton: Taylor and Son, 1896), pp. 17–24; Gerard Kilroy, ‘Sir Thomas Tresham: His Emblem’, Emblematica 17 (2009), 149–79. Tresham’s building was perhaps inspired by Pythagorean and Neoplatonic ideas, as well as Catholicism: Healy, Shakespeare, Alchemy, pp. 77–88.
14. Transcribed in Peterson, ‘Laurel Crown and Ape’s Tail’, pp. 22–3.
15. MHT, lines 1381–2. See Kent T. Van Den Berg, ‘“The Counterfeit in Personation”: Spenser’s Prosopopoia, or Mother Hubberds Tale’, in Louis L. Martz and Aubrey Williams (eds.), The Author in His Work: Essays on a Problem in Criticism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978), pp. 85–102, at pp. 97–8.
16. Transcribed in Peterson, ‘Laurel Crown and Ape’s Tail’, p. 23.
17. Spenser, Shorter Poems, p. 190.
18. Harvey, Foure Letters, p. 15.
19. John Weever, Epigrammes in the Oldest Cut, and Newest Fashion (London, 1599), sig. G3r. On Weever (1575/6–1632), see the ODNB entry by David Kathman.
20. Hoyt H. Hudson, ‘John Hepworth’s Spenserian Satire upon Buckingham: With Some Jacobean Analogies’, Huntington Library Bulletin 6 (1934), 39–71.
21. One reader who was not offended by the poem and who did not notice anything satirical about it was Henry Gurney (1549–1616): see Steven W. May, ‘Henry Gurney, A Norfolk Farmer, Reads Spenser and Others’, Sp. St. 20 (2005), 183–223, at 192–3.
22. Josephine Waters Bennett, ‘A Bibliographical Note on Mother Hubberds Tale’, ELH 4 (1937), 60–1.
23. For comment, see Einar Bjorvand, ‘Complaints: Prospopoia, or Mother Hubberds Tale’, Sp. Enc., pp. 184–5; Kenneth John Atchity, ‘Spenser’s Mother Hubberds Tale: Three Themes of Order’, PQ 52 (1973), 161–72.
24. Jill Mann, Chaucer and Medieval Estates Satire: The Literature of Social Classes and the ‘General Prologue’ to The Canterbury Tales (London: Cambridge University Press, 1973); Shinn, ‘Spenser and Popular Print Culture’, ch. 3; John Desmond Peter, Complaint and Satire in Early English Literature (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956).
25. Richard A. McCabe, ‘Elizabethan Satire and the Bishops’ Ban of 1599’, YES 11 (1981), 188–93; Richard A. McCabe, ‘“Right Puisante and Terrible Priests”: The Role of the Anglican Church in Elizabethan State Censorship’, in Andrew Hadfield (ed.), Literature and Censorship in Renaissance England (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 200), pp. 75–94. Spenser’s place in the vogue for satire in the 1590s is often only perfunctorily acknowledged, especially as Spenser adopted the persona of John Skelton: see e.g. Ejner J. Jensen, ‘Verse Satire in the English Renaissance’, in Ruben Quintero (ed.), A Companion to Satire (Oxford: Blackwell, 2007), pp. 101–17, at pp. 108–9.
26. Richards, Rhetoric and Courtliness, pp. 115–20; Neil Rhodes, Elizabethan Grotesque (London: Routledge, 1980), pt. 1.
27. See p. 468 n. 39. For comment, see Capp, Astrology and the Popular Press, pp. 141, 143, 166, passim.
28. John Harvey, A Discoursiue Probleme Concerning Prophesies (London, 1588), pp. 80–1.
29. Harvey–Spenser Letters, pp. 37–40; Richards, Rhetoric and Courtliness, pp. 121, 131, 134, 137; Stern, Harvey, p. 108; Harvey, Pierces Supererogation, sigs. E2r, Gg1r.
30. First argued in J. E. Neale, The Elizabethan Political Scene (London: J. Cumberlege, 1949).
31. Natalie Mears, ‘Regnum Cecilianum? A Cecilian Perspective of the Court’, in Guy (ed.), Reign of Elizabeth I, pp. 46–64, at p. 46; McCabe, ‘Rhyme and Reason’, p. 35.
32. Rebecca Bushnell, Tragedies of Tyrants: Political Thought and Theater in the English Renaissance (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990), introd.
33. Bruce Harris, ‘The Ape in “Mother Hubberds Tale”’, HLQ 4 (1941), 191–203; Mears, ‘Regnum Cecilianum?’; Adams, Leicester and the Court, passim.
34. Davis, ‘Text of Spenser’s “Complaints”’, pp. 23–4.
35. Edmund Spenser, The Faerie Queene, The Shepheardes Calender, together with the other works of Edmund Spenser (London, 1611), Cambridge University Library, shelfmark, Keynes S.6.9. The title page, the headnote devices for the first two books of The Faerie Queene, and the woodcuts in the Calender have all been coloured in by the owner in the 17th or 18th century.
36. Edmund Spenser, The Faerie Queene, The Shepheardes Calender, together with the other works of Edmund Spenser (London, 1611), Cambridge University Library, shelfmark, O*.9.27 (C). See also Johnson, Critical Bibliography, pp. 33–4.
37. Richard Niccols, The Begger’s Ape (London, 1627); Harris, ‘The Ape in “Mother Hubberds Tale”’, p. 201. Niccols (1583/4–1616), who re-edited A Mirror for Magistrates in 1610, makes use of Spenser’s work elsewhere and acknowledges his importance for a later generation of poets: see the ODNB entry by Andrew Hadfield.
38. Spenser also attacks Burghley for his extravagant building projects, especially Theobalds, for which he was well known: see Frederick Hard, ‘Spenser and Burghley’, SP 28 (1931), 219–34.
39. Harris, ‘The Ape in “Mother Hubberds Tale”’, pp. 198–200.
40. Judson, Life, pp. 153–5.
41. Spenser, Shorter Poems, p. 165.
42. See, pp. 93–5.
43. Spenser, Shorter Poems, p. 581. For an alternative view, see Brink, ‘Who Fashioned Edmund Spenser?’.
44. Spenser, Shorter Poems, p. 166. The fact that one of the scribes of BL Add. MS 34064 copied out ‘only those portions of the Ruins of Time … which have to do with the Dudley family’ only strengthens this suspicion: Buck, ‘Add. MS. 34064’, p. 43.
45. Battiscombe, Spencers of Althorp, pp. 11–12.
46. Greenlaw, ‘Spenser and the Earl of Leicester’; John Kerrigan (ed.), Motives of Woe: Shakespeare & ‘Female Complaint’: A Critical Anthology (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), pp. 139–40; Satterthwaite, Spenser, Ronsard, and Du Bellay, ch. 5.
47. In England authors and publishers were expected to cooperate on producing the text: see Elizabeth Evenden and Thomas S. Freeman, Religion and the Book in Early Modern England: The Making of John Foxe’s ‘Book of Martyrs’ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), p. 24.
48. Edmund Spenser, Complaints (London, 1591), Cambridge University Library, Syn. 7.59.77.
49. Amanda Rogers Jones, ‘Orderly Disorder: Rhetoric and Imitation in Spenser’s Three Beast Poems from the Complaints volume’, unpublished MA thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 2001, p. 3.
50. See p. 127.
51. The most thorough examination of the possible reasons for Spenser’s animus against Burghley is Bruce Danner, Furious Muse: Edmund Spenser’s War on Lord Burghley (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2011).
52. See p. 33.
53. Although Scudamore would appear to refer to a real courtier: see p. 506 n. 194.
54. The Ruines of Time in Spenser, Shorter Poems, lines 253–9; A. Leigh Deneef, Spenser and the Motives of Metaphor (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1982), p. 31.
55. Alford, Burghley, pp. 243–4, 260–5, passim; Read, Lord Burghley, pp. 314–17.
56. Camden, Britannia, p. 51.
57. Hannibal Hamlin, Psalm Culture in Early Modern English Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 225.
58. Weiner, ‘The Beleaguered Isle’.
59. See pp. 91–4.
60. Curtis Perry, Literature and Favortism in Early Modern England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), ch. 2.
61. Nashe, Works, i. 221–6; Nicholl, Cup of News, pp. 112–14, 118–19.
62. Rogers, Leicester’s Ghost, ed. Williams, lines 1–7. On Rogers see above, p. 94.
63. Williams, ‘Leicester’s Ghost’, p. 277.
64. Wernham, After the Armada, ch. 1. See also Knapp, An Empire Nowhere, chs. 1–3.
65. For comment, see Anne Lake Prescott, ‘Spenser (Re)Reading Du Bellay’, in Anderson et al. (eds.), Spenser’s Life and the Subject of Biography, pp. 131–45, at pp. 135–40.
66. Fowler, Spenser and the Numbers of Time; Alexander Dunlop, ‘Number symbolism, modern studies in’, Sp. Enc., pp. 512–13.
67. Michael Questier, Conversion, Politics and Religion in England, 1580–1625 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 204.
68. See Richard Danson Brown, ‘The New Poet’: Novelty and Tradition in Spenser’s Complaints (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1999), ch. 4.
69. William A. Oram, ‘Spenser’s Audiences, 1589–91’, SP 100 (2003), 514–33, at 524–5.
70. On Wolsey, see Walker, Skelton, chs. 5–6.
71. On Spenser’s calculated rudeness, see Bruce Danner, ‘Retrospective Fiction-Making and the “Secrete” of the 1591 Virgils Gnat’, Sp. St. 25 (2010), 215–45, at 224.
72. ODNB entry on Conway; see p. 106.
73. For another reading, see Rambuss, Spenser’s Secret Career, pp. 19–21.
74. Danner, ‘Retrospective Fiction-Making’, p. 238.
75. Henry G. Lotspeich, ‘Spenser’s Virgils Gnat and its Latin Original’, ELH 2 (1935), 235–41; Oliver Farrar Emerson, ‘Spenser’s Virgils Gnat’, JEGP 17 (1918), 94–118.
76. Gordon Braden, ‘Non-Dramatic Verse’, pp. 185–6; William Weaver, ‘Paraphrase and Patronage in Virgils Gnat’, Sp. St. 25 (2010), 247–61, at 250.
77. Gordon Braden, ‘Complaints: Virgils Gnat’, Sp. Enc., pp. 183–4.
78. Readings of the poem relate Spenser’s complaint to his attack on Lettice Knollys (Mounts, ‘Spenser and the Countess of Leicester’); or to his warning the court against the Alençon match (Greenlaw, ‘Spenser and the Earl of Leicester’; Rosenberg, Leicester, pp. 338–40; Doris Adler, ‘Imaginary Toads in Real Gardens’, ELR 11 (1981), 235–60, at 257–8).
79. See Hadfield, ‘Michael Drayton’s Brilliant Career’.
80. For comment on these, see Helgerson, Du Bellay, introd., pp. 34–6; Lawrence Manley, ‘Spenser and the City: The Minor Poems’, MLQ 43 (1982), 203–27; Scodel, ‘Non-Dramatic Verse’, pp. 239–40.
81. Bellay, Regrets, trans. Helgerson, pp. 324–34.
82. A. E. B. Coldiron, ‘How Spenser Excavates Du Bellay’s Antiquitez: Or, The Role of the Poet, Lyric Historiography, and the English Sonnet’, JEGP 101 (2002), 41–67.
83. Spenser, Shorter Poems, p. 275. The original is in Du Bellay, Regrets, trans. Helgerson, p. 255.
84. See McCabe, Pillars of Eternity, pp. 62–4.
85. Herron, Spenser’s Irish Work, pt. 2.
86. See the ODNB entry on Elizabeth Carey by Eliane V. Beilin; Strathmann, ‘Lady Carey and Spenser’; Judson, Life, pp. 4, 142, passim.
87. Comment on the poem has been relatively substantial: for an overview see Judith Dundas, ‘Complaints: Muiopotmos, or The Fate of the Butterflie’, Sp. Enc., pp. 186–7. On the Minerva–Arachne contest, see Robert A. Brinkley, ‘Spenser’s Muiopotmos and the Politics of Metamorphosis’, ELH 48 (1981), 668–76. See also William Wells, ‘“To Make a Milde Construction”: The Significance of the Opening Stanzas of Muiopotmos’, SP 42 (1945), 544–54.
88. Don Cameron Allen, ‘On Spenser’s “Muiopotmos”’, SP 53 (1956), 141–58; Franklin E. Court, ‘The Theme and Structure of Spenser’s Muiopotmos’, SEL 10 (1970), 1–15.
89. Allegorical readings have often been forced and not been widely accepted: see e.g. Brice Harris, ‘The Butterfly in Spenser’s Muiopotmos’, JEGP 43 (1944), 302–16. For comment on the process of reading the poem allegorically, see Andrew D. Weiner, ‘Spenser’s Muiopotmos and the Fates of Butterflies and Men’, JEGP 84 (1985), 203–20.
90. For comment on the ekphrasis in the poem, see Bender, Spenser and Literary Pictorialism, pp. 162–8; Judith Dundas, ‘“Muiopotmos”: A World of Art’, YES 5 (1975), 30–8.
91. For a different reading, see Cheney, Spenser’s Famous Flight, p. 3, where he argues that the Complaints and Colin Clouts come home againe ‘do not belong to the generic progression organizing the fiction of the New Poet’s career’.
92. On this last point, see Spenser, Shorter Poems, p. 592.
93. On Stubbes, see pp. 127–8; G. P. V. Akrigg, Shakespeare and the Earl of Southampton (London: Hamilton, 1968).
94. Edmund Spenser, The Yale Edition of the Shorter Poems of Edmund Spenser, ed. William A. Oram, Einar Bjorvand, Ronald Bond, Thomas H. Cain, Alexander Dunlop, and Richard Schell (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), pp. 487–91; William A. Oram, ‘Daphnaïda and Spenser’s Later Poetry’, Sp. St. 4 (1983), 33–47.
95. See e.g. Jonathan Gibson, ‘The Legal Context of Spenser’s Daphnaïda’, RES 55 (2004), 24–44, at 27–8.
96. Gibson, ‘Legal Context of Daphnaïda’, p. 28 (my discussion is significantly indebted to Gibson’s excellent article). See also see the ODNB entry by Colin Burrow, and The Poems of Sir Arthur Gorges, ed. Helen Estabrook Sandison (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953), introd., pp. xiii–xxvii; Bajetta, Ralegh, passim.
97. Pienaar, ‘Spenser and Jonker van der Noot’, p. 67. On Parr, see ODNB entry by Susan E. James. On Helena Snakenborg, see ODNB entry by Paul Harrington; Charles Angell Bradford, Helena, Marchioness of Northampton (London: Allen & Unwin, 1936); Gunnar Sjören, ‘Helena, Marchioness of Northampton: A Swedish lady at the Court of Elizabeth I’, History Today 28 (1978), 597–604; Tracy Borman, Elizabeth’s Women: The Hidden Story of the Virgin Queen (London: Cape, 2009), pp. 277–82, passim.
98. On Thomas Gorges, see ODNB entry by Paul Harrington.
99. See p. 479 n. 70.
100. It is also worth noting that the Wraxall, Nailsea, and Tynte deeds held in the Somerset Archives provide details of a number of land deals between the Tynte and Gorges family branches in the West Country: see TNA PRO DD\S\WH/47, 48, 96. Elizabeth Boyle’s third husband was Robert Tynte, whom she married in 1612, providing further evidence of the links between the families, especially if, as Judson suggests, the marriages were arranged by Robert Boyle (Judson, Life, p. 168). For (not very convincing) speculations of a Howard link through Spenser’s grandfather, see Welply, ‘Some Spenser Problems’, pp. 58–9. The subsequent exchange shows how difficult it is to establish any clear link to branches of the Spenser family with any certainty, but does provide a great deal of information about the Spensers in Northamptonshire and Warwickshire: J. B. Whitmore, ‘Reader’s Reply’, N&Q 180 (1941), 120; Hamer, ‘Some Spenser Problems: John and Giles Spenser’, pp. 165–7.
101. Gorges’ poems are collected in fair copy in BL Egerton 3165; Gorges, Poems, ed. Sandison, introd., passim.
102. Helen E. Sandison, ‘Arthur Gorges, Spenser’s Alcyon and Raleigh’s Friend’, PMLA 43 (1928), 645–74; Helen E. Sandison, ‘Spenser’s Manilla’, TLS, 8 Sept. 1927, p. 608; Kathrine Koller, ‘Identifications in Colin Clouts come home againe’, MLN 50 (1935), 155–8, at 156.
103. Gibson, ‘Legal Context of Daphnaïda’, p. 26.
104. Ibid. 27; ODNB entry; Sandison, ‘Arthur Gorges’, pp. 647–55.
105. See G. W. Pigman III, Grief and the English Elegy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), pp. 75–81; Oram, ‘Daphnaïda and Spenser’s Later Poetry’; Deneef, Spenser and the Motives of Metaphor, pp. 41–50. For the latter reading see Patrick Cheney, ‘Dido to Daphne: Early Modern Death in Spenser’s Shorter Poems’, Sp. St. 18 (2003), 143–63.
106. Norman Berlin, ‘Chaucer’s The Book of the Duchess and Spenser’s Daphnaïda: A Contrast’, Studia Neophilologica 38 (1966), 282–9; Dennis Kay, Melodious Tears: The English Funeral Elegy from Spenser to Milton (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), pp. 51–2. For a more general context for Chaucer’s poem, see James Simpson, Reform and Cultural Revolution: The Oxford English Literary History, ii. 1350–1547 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), pp. 162–4.
107. Ardis Butterfield, ‘Chaucer’s French Inheritance’, in Piero Boitani and Jill Mann (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Chaucer (2nd edn., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 20–35, at p. 28.
108. Gibson, ‘Legal Context of Daphnaïda’, p. 31; Kerrigan (ed.), Motives of Woe, pp. 139–63; Susan Wiseman and Alison Thorne (eds.), The Rhetoric of Complaint: Ovid’s Heroides in the Renaissance and Restoration, RS, special issue, 22/3 (June 2008).
109. Gibson, ‘Legal Context of Daphnaïda’, p. 35.
110. Zurcher, Spenser’s Legal Language, pp. 130–8; James Lydon, ‘The Expansion and Consolidation of the Colony, 1215–54’, in Moody et al. (eds.), New History of Ireland, ii. 156–78, at p. 173.
111. Jonathan Gibson, ‘Sir Arthur Gorges (1557–1625) and the Patronage System’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of London, 1998, p. 187.
112. Gibson, ‘Gorges’, pp. 146, 187–99.
113. Ibid. 80–2.
114. A brass rubbing of Gorges with his second wife, Lady Elizabeth Clinton, with their eleven children, seven of whom survived into adulthood, is preserved in BL Add. MS 32486, fos. 11–12.
1. CSPI, 1592–6, p. 58.
2. See p. 297.
3. CSPI 1592–6, pp. 56–7.
4. Ibid. 60.
5. Judson, ‘Two Spenser Leases’. See p. 202.
6. It is possible that earlier versions of some of the Amoretti existed: see L. Cummings, ‘Spenser’s Amoretti VIII: New Manuscript Versions’, SEL 4 (1964), 125–35.
7. Klingelhofer, Castles and Colonists, ch. 5.
8. Frederick Hard, ‘Princelie Pallaces: Spenser and Elizabethan Architecture’, Sewanee Review 42 (1934), 293–310. More generally, see James J. Yoch, ‘Architecture as Virtue: The Luminous Palace from Homeric Dream to Stuart Propaganda’, SP 75 (1978), 403–29.
9. Roche’s petition to Loftus would support Thomas Herron’s claim that Spenser saw Loftus as a personal enemy: ‘Reforming the Fox’.
10. Curtis to Robert Cecil, Feb. 1598/9, CSPI, 1598–9, pp. 484–5. See also John Norris to Burghley, 11 Oct. 1597, CSPI, 1596–7, p. 415.
11. Welply, ‘Spenser: Some New Discoveries’, p. 150.
12. The document, destroyed in the fire of 1922, is cited in James Hardiman, Irish Minstrelsy, or Bardic Remains of Ireland; with English Poetical Translations, 2 vols. (London, 1831), i. 320. Also cited in Chronology, p. 60. See also Carpenter, Reference Guide, p. 22; Judson, Life, p. 160.
13. Chronology, p. 60; MacCarthy-Morrogh, Munster Plantation, chs. 1–3. The Roches did fight a number of legal battles with other Irish families, such as their local rivals, the Condons: McCormack, Earldom of Desmond, p. 165.
14. Cited in Carpenter, Reference Guide, p. 34.
15. Craig Muldrew, ‘The Culture of Reconciliation: Community and the Settlement of Economic Disputes in Early Modern England’, HJ 39/4 (1996), 915–42.
16. Franklin B. Williams, Jr, ‘Commendatory Verses: The Rise of the Art of Puffing’, SB 19 (1966), 1–14, at 1; id., ‘Commendatory sonnets’, Sp. Enc., p. 177.
17. Giovanni Battista Nenna, Nennio, or A Treatise of Nobility, trans. William Jones (Jerusalem: Israel Universities Press, 1967), p. 11, lines 1–2, 13–14.
18. Justus Lipsius, Sixe Bookes of Politickes or Ciuil Doctrine, written in Latine by Iustus Lipsius: which doe especially concerne principalitie; Done into English by William Iones Gentleman (London, 1594).
19. See the ODNB article by Christopher W. Brooks.
20. On Lipsius, see Kraye, ‘Moral Philosophy’, pp. 370–3. On Spenser and Lipsius, see Merritt Y. Hughes, ‘Spenser’s Palmer’, ELH 2 (1935), 151–64, at 159.
21. The Historie of George Castriot, surnamed Scanderbeg, King of Albanie Containing his famous actes, his noble deedes of armes, and memorable victories against the Turkes, for the faith of Christ. Comprised in twelue bookes: by Iaques de Lauardin, Lord of Plessis Bourrot, a nobleman of France. Newly translated out of French into English by Z. I. Gentleman (London, 1596). For comment, see Vine, In Defiance of Time, pp. 127–8.
22. Franklin B. Williams, Jr, ‘Spenser, Shakespeare, and Zachary Jones’, Shakespeare Quarterly 19 (1968), 205–12.
23. Lauardin, Scanderbeg, sig. ¶7r. On Spenser’s representation of Saracens, see Robinson, Islam and Early Modern English Literature, ch. 1.
24. John H. Astington, ‘Sir John Astley and Court Culture’, Sh. Stud. 30 (2002), 106–10.
25. For analysis, see Hadfield, ‘Was Spenser a Republican?’, pp. 171–2; John Gillies, Shakespeare and the Geography of Difference (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 123–4.
26. Gaspar Contarini, The Commonwealth and Gouernment of Venice, trans. Lewis Lewkenor (London, 1599), sig. ¶3v.
27. For details of Lewkenor’s life, see Marco Nievergelt’s Early English Books Online (EEBO) introd. to The Resolved Gentleman; Questier, Catholicism and Community, pp. 58–9.
28. Lewis Lewkenor, A Discourse of the Usage of the English Fugitiues, by the Spaniard (London, 1595), later expanded as The Estate of English Fugitiues under the King of Spaine and his Ministers (London, 1596); Williams, ‘Commendatory sonnets’. Both works were immediately reprinted. For comment, see Andrew Hadfield, Literature, Travel, and Colonial Writing in the English Renaissance, 1545–1625 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), p. 48.
29. Lewis Lewkenor, The Resolved Gentleman (London, 1594), fo. 45; Spenser Allusions, p. 36.
30. ODNB entry on Kyffin by Glanmor Williams.
31. Andria the First Comoedie of Terence, in English. A furtherance for the attainment vnto the right knowledge, & true proprietie, of the Latin tong. And also a commodious meane of help, to such as haue forgotten Latin, for their speedy recouering of habilitie, to vnderstand, write, and speake the same. Carefully translated out of Latin, by Maurice Kyffin (London, 1588).
32. Maurice Kyffin, The Blessednes of Brytaine (London, 1588); Lewkenor, Resolved Gentleman, sig. A2r.
33. Gabriel Harvey, Pierces Supererogation (London, 1593), p. 191; Frederick Hard, ‘Notes on John Eliot and His Ortho-epia Gallica’, HLQ 1 (1938), 169–87, at 170–4.
34. Hard, ‘Notes on John Eliot’.
35. See also the entry on Kyffin in John Edward Lloyd and R. T. Jenkins (eds.), The Dictionary of Welsh Bibliography Down to 1940 (London: Honourable Society of Cymmrodorian, 1959) p. 538.
36. Rudolf B. Gottfried, ‘Spenser and The Historie of Cambria’, MLN 72 (1957), 9–13; Donald Williams Bruce, ‘Spenser’s Welsh’, N&Q 32 (1985), 465–7.
37. For comment on the quarrel, see Nashe, Works, v. 65–110; Hadfield, ‘ “Not without Mustard”’.
38. Nashe, Works, i. 282, 299; ii. 108, 323, passim.
39. The last recoded work is The Trimming of Thomas Nashe (London, 1597), once attributed to Harvey, but now known to be the work of Richard Lichfield: see Griffin, ‘Nashe’s Dedicatees’.
40. The Marprelate quarrel (1588–9) saw the publication of scurrilous anti-episcopal tracts on a secret portable press, answered by writers—including Lyly and Nashe—who defended the ecclesiology of the established church. In their quarrel, Nashe associated Harvey with the Marprelates.
41. Joseph L. Black (ed.), The Martin Marprelate Tracts: A Modernized and Annotated Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), introd., p. lxxiii.
42. Hadfield, ‘ “Not without Mustard”’, p. 74.
43. Welply, ‘Spenser: Recent Researches’, p. 165.
44. See pp. 407–8.
45. Mary Anne Hutchinson, ‘Boyle family’, Sp. Enc., p. 109; Townshend, Earl of Cork, pp. 32–3, 206–9.
46. Welply, ‘More Notes on Spenser’, p. 111.
47. Philip G. Lee, ‘The Ruined Monuments of Sir Robert Tynte and Sir Edward Harris in Kilcredan Church, Balycrenane, near Ladysbridge’, JCHAS, 2nd ser. 31 (1926), 86–7, at 86. The quotation is from W. N. Brady, who saw the monument before it was mutilated.
48. Amy Louise Harris, ‘The Tynte Monument, Kilcredan, Co. Cork: A Reappraisal’, JCHAS 104 (1999), 137–44, at 139.
49. Judson, ‘Notes on the Life of Spenser’, p. 28.
50. Ralph A. Houlbrooke, The English Family, 1450–1700 (London: Longman, 1984), p. 39.
51. Heffner, ‘Spenser’s Family’, p. 82.
52. Richard Boyle, ‘Memoir’, BL Add. MS 19832, 23 June 1632.
53. ODNB entry on Fenton by Andrew Hadfield.
54. An opposite explanation is given by Ray Heffner who assumes that Spenser met Elizabeth in England and that her family moved to Ireland because of him.
55. Dorothea Townshend, The Life and Letters of the Great Earl of Cork (London: Duckworth, 1904), p. 8; Welply, ‘Spenser: Recent Researches’, p. 166.
56. Welply, ‘Spenser: Some New Discoveries’, pp. 446–7; Welply, ‘More Notes on Spenser’, p. 116.
57. On Kilcoran, see Samuel Hayman, Memorials of Youghal, Ecclesiastical and Civil (Youghal: John Lindsay, 1879), p. 29.
58. Richard Boyle, The Lismore Papers: Autobiographical Notes, Remembrances, and Diaries, ed. Alexander B. Grosart, 2nd ser., 5 vols. (London: privately printed, 1886), vol. i, introd., p. xv.
59. Houlbrooke, English Family, p. 19; Robert Day, ‘Notes on Youghal’, JRSAI, 5th ser. 33 (1903), 319–25, at 325.
60. Welply, ‘Spenser’s Brother-in-law, John Travers’.
61. Townshend, Earl of Cork, p. 38; Dickson, Old World Colony, p. 10.
62. Caulfield, Council Book of Youghal, p. xxv; Flavin and Jones (eds.), Bristol’s Trade with Ireland and the Continent, passim.
63. Camden, Britannia (Ireland), p. 78.
64. Dickson, Old World Colony, ch. 4; Mark McCarthy, ‘Geographical Change in an Early Modern Town: Urban Growth and Cultural Politics in Cork, 1600–41’, JCHAS 106 (2001), 53–78; MacCarthy-Morrogh, ‘English Presence in Munster’, p 175; Andy Halpin and Conor Newman, Ireland: An Oxford Archaeological Guide (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 536–9.
65. Dickson, Old World Colony, pp. 8, 18–19, 22; Berry, ‘English Settlement in Mallow’, p. 17. A study of a particular Youghal family which bears out this analysis, is found in Henry F. Berry, ‘The Old Youghal Family of Stout’, JCHAS 23 (1917), 19–29. Youghal was by no means exclusively Protestant, however, and maintained a Jesuit School: see Jeffries, Irish Church, p. 166.
66. McCormack, Earldom of Desmond, pp. 146–8.
67. Niall O’Brien, ‘Bristol Apprentices from Youghal, 1532–1565’, JCHAS 115 (2010), 109–14.
68. Welply, ‘More Notes on Spenser’, p. 114.
69. Chronology, p. 85.
70. Welply, ‘Spenser: Some New Discoveries’, p. 446.
71. TNA PROB 11/64.
72. Boyle, Lismore Papers, 2nd ser., vol. i, introd., pp. xv–xvi; Hamer, ‘Spenser’s Marriage’, p. 276.
73. Chatsworth House, 1st earl of Cork’s Journals, 3 Mar. 1612, Cork MSS, vol. 25, fo. 11; transcribed in Boyle, Lismore Papers, 2nd ser., vol. i, introd., p. xvi; Hamer, ‘Spenser: Some Further Notes’, p. 383. See also J. Coleman, ‘The Poet Spenser’s Wife’, JCHAS, 2nd ser. 1 (1895), 131–3. ‘Kinswoman’ probably meant cousin, a flexible and rather vague term in this period: Houlbrooke, English Family, p. 40.
74. Hamer, ‘Spenser’s Marriage’, p. 276.
75. Horace T. Fleming, ‘Some Notes on the Tynte Family’, JCHAS 9 (1903), 156–7; Caulfield, Council Book of Youghal, pp. 162, 219–20.
76. M. J. C. Buckley, ‘The Burgh or “Ville” of Youghal’, JRSAI, 5th ser. 33 (1903), 326–32, at 328–9; Caulfield, Council Book of Youghal, pp. 131, 300.
77. See David Cressy, Literacy and the Social Order: Reading and Writing in Tudor and Stuart England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), pp. 144–5. We do not know whether Machabyas was literate.
78. Chatsworth House, Cork MSS, vol. 6, no. 132; transcribed in Boyle, Lismore Papers, 2nd ser. ii. 12–13; Berry, ‘Sheriffs of the County Cork’, pp. 42, 51–2.
79. Chatsworth House, Cork MSS, vol. 7, no. 184; transcribed in Boyle, Lismore Papers, 2nd ser. ii. 60. On Richard Seckerstone, see the correspondence between H. W. Garrod and W. H. Welply, ‘Spenser and Elizabeth Boyle’, TLS, 24 May 1923. Garrod raises the possibility that Elizabeth was a widow when she met Spenser but is refuted by Welply. On the children of Robert and Elizabeth Tynte, see Hamer, ‘Spenser: Some Further Notes’, p. 383; Douglas Hamer, ‘Robert Tynte’s Sons’, N&Q 162 (1932), 62–3. Hamer argues that they had only one child, not seven as was often claimed. On the Tynte family, see also Welply, ‘More Notes on Spenser’, pp. 111–16; W. H. Welply, ‘Spenser–Tynte Genealogy’, N&Q 187 (1944), 128–9.
80. Welply, ‘Spenser: Recent Researches’, p. 183.
81. For England, see Wrightson, English Society, ch. 3.
82. On Freckleton, see Douglas Hamer, ‘Captain Sir Ferdinando Freckleton’, N&Q 162 (1932), 209–10, 231, although Hamer is sceptical that this is the right Freckleton. See also R. Bingham Adams, ‘Ferdinando Freckleton’, N&Q 162 (1932), 88, 265–6; Ernest H. Strathmann, ‘Ferdinando Freckleton and the Spenser Circle’, MLN 58 (1943), 542–4.
83. Welply, ‘Spenser’s Brother-in-Law, John Travers’; Judson, Life, pp. 130–1. On Spenser’s family, see also Welply, ‘Family and Descendants of Spenser’.
84. Hamer, ‘Spenser: Some Further Notes’, p. 383.
85. Hamer, ‘Spenser’s Marriage’, p. 280.
86. Maley, Salvaging Spenser, ch. 3.
87. ODNB entry on Boyle by Toby Barnard. The link to the Cliffords suggests a further network to which Spenser belonged: see pp. 352–3.
88. Herron, ‘Reforming the Fox’; Barnard, ODNB entry; Canny, Upstart Earl, ch. 2.
89. Welply, ‘Spenser: Some New Discoveries’, p. 169; Hamer, ‘Spenser’s Marriage’, pp. 274, 280. See pp. 408–9.
90. Muldrew, ‘Culture of Reconciliation’, pp. 922–3. On the other Boyle disputes, see pp. 343–8.
91. Spenser, Shorter Poems, p. 670.
92. Welply, ‘Spenser: Recent Researches’, p. 184.
93. Spenser, Shorter Poems, p. 386.
94. Rudolf Gottfried, ‘The “G. W. Senior” and “G. W. I.” of Spenser’s Amoretti’, MLQ 3 (1942), 543–6, at 545; Welply, ‘Spenser: Recent Researches’, p. 184. Frederick Ives Carpenter suggests that George Wilkins and his son are the most likely authors: ‘G. W. Senior and G. W. I.’, MP 22 (1924), 67–8.
95. Other—less likely—candidates are the playwrights George Wilkins, senior and junior: see Anthony Parr, ‘Wilkins, George (d. 1618)’, ODNB.
96. See the ODNB entry on Geoffrey Whitney by Andrew King.
97. See the ODNB entry on Isabella Whitney by Betty S. Travitsky; Beilin, Redeeming Eve, pp. 88–101.
98. Paul Salzman, Reading Early Modern Women’s Writing (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 45. See also Lorna Hutson, ‘The “Double Voice” of Renaissance Equity and the Literary Voices of Women’, in Danielle Clarke and Elizabeth Clarke (eds.), ‘This Double Voice’: Gendered Writing in Early Modern England (Basingstoke, Palgrave, 2000), pp. 142–63.
99. Geoffrey Whitney, A Choice of Emblemes, and other Deuises, for the moste parte gathered out of sundrie writers, Englished and moralized (Leiden, 1586), pp. 86–7, 194–5; Gottfried, ‘ “G. W. Senior” ’, p. 544.
100. John Manning, ‘Emblems’, Sp. Enc., pp. 247–8; R. J. Manning, ‘ “Deuicefull Sights”: Spenser’s Emblematic Practice in The Faerie Queene, V, 1–3’, Sp. St. 5 (1984), 65–89.
101. ‘G. W. Senior, to the Author’, lines 1–4.
102. Maurice Evans (ed.), Elizabethan Sonnets (London: Dent, 1977); J. W. Lever, The Elizabethan Love Sonnet (London: Methuen, 1956), ch. 5; Reed Way Dasenbrock, ‘The Petrachan Context of Spenser’s Amoretti’, PMLA 100 (1985), 38–50.
103. Michael R. G. Spiller, The Development of the Sonnet: An Introduction (London: Routledge, 1992), p. 143. On Spenser’s sources, see L. E. Kastner, ‘Spenser’s “Amoretti” and Desportes’, MLR 4 (1908), 65–9; Janet C. Scott, ‘The Sources of Spenser’s “Amoretti” ’, MLR 22 (1927), 189–95.
104. See Robert S. Miola, ‘Spenser’s Anacreontics: A Mythological Metaphor’, SP 77 (1980), 50–66; Carol V. Kaske, ‘Spenser’s Amoretti and Epithalamion of 1595: Structure, Genre, and Numerology’, ELR 8 (1978), 271–95; Anne Lake Prescott, ‘Spenser and French Literature’, Sp. Handbook, pp. 620–34, at p. 628.
105. Thomas M. Greene, ‘Spenser and the Epithalamic Convention’, CL 9 (1957), 215–28, at 222. See also Enid Welsford, Spenser: Fowre Hymnes, Epithalamion: A Study of Edmund Spenser’s Doctrine of Love (Oxford: Blackwell, 1967), p. 70.
106. On Spenser’s stanza see A. C. Partridge, The Language of Renaissance Poetry (London: Andre Deutsch, 1971), p. 86; for classical precedents, see Claudian, ii. 242–67; Statius, ‘Epithalamion in Honour of Stella and Violentilla’, Silvae, Bk. 1, no. 2, in Statius, ed. and trans. D. R. Shackleton Bailey, 2 vols. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003), i. 14-37; Germaine Warkentin, ‘Amoretti, Epithalamion’, Sp. Enc., pp. 30–8, at p. 35.
107. Edmund Spenser’s Amoretti and Epithalamion: A Critical Edition, ed. Kenneth J. Larsen (Tempe, AZ: MRTS, 1997), introd., p. 3. See also Dunlop, ‘Calendar Symbolism in the Amoretti’, 24–6; William C. Johnson, ‘Spenser’s Amoretti and the Art of the Liturgy’, SEL 14 (1974), 47–61.
108. Spenser, Shorter Poems, p. 394; Jones, Spenser Handbook, p. 338.
109. Sir Philip Sidney, Astrophil and Stella, sonnet 9 (Evans (ed.), Elizabethan Sonnets, p. 5).
110. Christopher Warley, Sonnet Sequences and Social Distinction in Renaissance England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 110–12.
111. Knapp, Empire Nowhere, ch. 1. Nashe had a similar view: see Andrew Hadfield, ‘Lenten Stuff: Thomas Nashe and the Fiction of Travel’, YES 41 (2011), 68–83.
112. For a related argument, see Herron, ‘Ralegh’s Gold’.
113. On the blazon, see Nancy Vickers, ‘Diana Described: Scattered Woman and Scattered Rhyme’, Critical Inquiry 8 (1981), 265–79.
114. Spenser, Shorter Poems, p. 419. On the relationship between Spenser’s sequence and the Song of Songs, see Amoretti and Epithalamion, ed. Larsen, pp. 194–5; Noam Flinker, The Song of Songs in English Renaissance Literature: Kisses of Their Mouths (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2000), pp. 76–9; Isabel Baroway, ‘The Imagery of Spenser and the Song of Songs’, JEGP 33 (1934), 23–44, at 39–40. Baroway argues that Spenser has effectively translated the biblical text in scattered fragments throughout his poems (pp. 24, 44).
115. Flinker, Song of Songs, pp. 12–19.
116. See e.g. A. R. Cirillo, ‘Spenser’s Epithalamion: The Harmonious Universe of Love’, SEL 8 (1968), 19–34, at 32.
117. Yates, Astrea, p. 72; Helen Hackett, Virgin Mother, Maiden Queen: Elizabeth I and the Cult of the Virgin Mary (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1995), pp. 174–80.
118. As Donne’s poem is about the poet-narrator and his wife in bed, he may have been influenced by reading Spenser’s poem, especially as he did later write an epithalamion based on Spenser’s poem, and they had connections in common, notably through Alice Stanley, countess of Derby, to whom Spenser dedicated The Teares of the Muses: Bald, John Donne, p. 77; Stubbs, Donne, p. 127.
119. For a splendid reading of the complex politics of the poem, see Warley, Sonnet Sequences, pp. 116–22.
120. McLane, Spenser’s Shepheardes Calender, ch. 2.
121. Silberman, Transforming Desire, ch. 3.
122. Van Es, Spenser’s Forms of History, pp. 37–48.
123. Bednarz, ‘Ralegh in Spenser’s Historical Allegory’; Borman, Elizabeth’s Women, ch. 15.
124. Julia M. Walker, ‘Bones of Contention: Posthumous Images of Elizabeth and Stuart Politics’, in Walker (ed.), Dissing Elizabeth, pp. 252–76.
125. On the precise nature of the numerology, see Hieatt, Short Time’s Endless Monument; J. C. Eade, ‘The Pattern in the Astronomy of Spenser’s Epithalamion’, RES 23 (1972), 173–8. On the Epithalamion as an expression of harmony, see e.g. Welsford, Spenser: Fowre Hymnes, Epithalamion, pp. 83–91; Alastair Fowler, Time’s Purpled Masquers: Stars and the Afterlife in Renaissance English Literature (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), pp. 59–61.
126. On the anxieties in the Amoretti and Epithalamion, see also Scott Wilson, Cultural Materialism: Theory and Practice (Oxford: Blackwell, 1995), pp. 64–82.
127. Sidney, Astrophil and Stella, sonnets 30, 24. For further links between the sequences, see Jacqueline T. Miller, ‘ “Love Doth Hold My Hand”: Writing and Wooing in the Sonnets of Sidney and Spenser’, ELH 46 (1979), 541–58.
128. Marotti, Manuscript, Print, and the English Renaissance Lyric, p. 229.
129. For comment, see Ted Brown, ‘Metapoetry in Edmund Spenser’s Amoretti’, PQ 82 (2003), 401–17, at 412–13. See p. 179.
130. Robert G. Benson, ‘Elizabeth as Beatrice: A Reading of Spenser’s “Amoretti” ’, South Central Bulletin 32 (1972), 184–8.
131. For the first point, see Myron Turner, ‘The Imagery of Spenser’s Amoretti’, Neophilologus 72 (1988), 284–99, at 295; for the second, William C. Johnson, ‘Gender Fashioning and the Dynamics of Mutuality in Spenser’s Amoretti’, ES 74 (1993), 503–19.
132. On spring love poems, see e.g. Theodore Silverstein (ed.), Medieval English Lyrics (London: Arnold, 1971), pp. 85–8.
133. Amoretti and Epithalamion, ed. Larsen, p. 233.
134. Hamer, ‘Spenser’s Marriage’, p. 271. The story that Spenser was married in Cork is often repeated, even though no evidence supports it and it is implausible that the marriage party would have travelled into Cork: see e.g. Michael Shine, ‘Spenser and Kilcolman’, MFCJ 22 (2004), 139–54, at 146.
135. M. J. C. Buckley, ‘Notes on St. Mary’s Church, Youghal’, JRSAI, 5th ser. 33 (1903), 333–44; Raymond Gillespie, ‘An Age of Modernization, 1598–1690’, in Crawford and Gillespie (eds.), St. Patrick’s Cathedral, pp. 174–96, at pp. 183–4; Halpin and Newman, Ireland, p. 538.
136. On Baxter, see ODNB entry by Andrew Hadfield; Eccles, ‘Brief Lives’, pp. 11–12.
137. Halpin and Newman, Ireland, p. 539.
138. Carpenter, Reference Guide, p. 84, citing Edith Rickert.
139. Georgics, I, lines 373–8. Spenser has the forlorn Belge fear that her lot might ‘Yeeld [her] an hostry [dwelling] mongst the croking frogs’ (FQ V.x.23, line 8), indicating that he found them a nuisance in Ireland. See also Joseph Loewenstein, ‘Echo’s Ring: Orpheus and Spenser’s Career’, ELR 16 (1986), 287–302, at 296–8.
140. On Elizabeth as a reader of the poems, see Brown, ‘Metapoetry in Spenser’s Amoretti’, p. 402; Cheney, Spenser’s Famous Flight, p. 148.
141. Cited in Gollancz, ‘Spenseriana’, p. 100. Gollancz is the only scholar to have seen this copy and to have written about it. Its current whereabouts are not known, but it exists in a private collection.
142. Although, see Cummings, ‘Spenser’s Amoretti VIII: New Manuscript Versions’.
143. See also Cain, Praise in The Faerie Queene, chs. 6–7.
144. See Gollancz, ‘Spenseriana’, p. 101, who makes a similar point.
145. The Booke of common prayer and administration of the sacraments, and other rites and ceremonies in the Church of England (London, 1580), ‘The forme of the solemnization of Matromonie’. See also Cressy, Birth, Marriage & Death, ch. 15.
146. Raymond Jenkins, ‘Rosalind in Colin Clouts come home againe’, MLN 67 (1952), 1–5.
147. On the poem’s relation to Spenser’s own life, see David R. Shore, ‘Colin Clouts come home againe’, Sp. Enc., pp. 173–7; Meyer, Colin Clout, ch. 6.
148. On the Graces in the poem, see Stella P. Revard, ‘Graces’, Sp. Enc., pp. 338–9; Gerald Snare, ‘Spenser’s Fourth Grace’, JWCI 34 (1971), 350–5.
149. Edwin Greenlaw, ‘Spenser’s Fairy Mythology’, SP 15 (1918), 105–22, at 108–9.
150. For details, see Johnson, Critical Bibliography, pp. 30–1; Patrick Cheney, ‘Colin Clouts come home againe, Astrophel, and The Doleful Lay of Clorinda (1595)’, Sp. Handbook, pp. 237–55.
151. ODNB entry on Essex by Paul E. J. Hammer.
152. Spenser, Shorter Poems, p. 166.
153. Raphael Falco, ‘Spenser’s “Astrophel” and the Formation of Elizabethan Literary Genealogy’, MP 91 (1993), 1–25, at 4–5.
154. This might explain the unusual dedicatory letter to the Fowre Hymnes.
155. Edmund Spenser, Colin Clouts come home againe (London, 1595), sigs. E3r–K4r. On Roydon, see the ODNB entry by B. J. Sokol. On the order of the poems see Danielle Clarke, ‘ “In Sort As She It Sung”: Spenser’s “Doleful Lay” and the Construction of Female Authorship’, Criticism 42 (2000), 451–68, at 451.
156. Cheney, ‘Colin Clouts come home againe’, Sp. Handbook, p. 239.
157. Marotti, Manuscript, Print, and the English Renaissance Lyric, pp. 234–5.
158. R. S. (ed.), The Phoenix Nest (London, 1595), pp. 1–11; Nicholl, Cup of News, p. 120. On the poems in the volume, by Raleigh, Breton, and others, see Michael Rudick, ‘The “Ralegh Group” in The Phoenix Nest’, SB 24 (1971), 131–7. Other contributors may have been William Herbert, the Munster planter who held lands to the west of Spenser in Kerry and Thomas Watson, another likely acquaintance: The Phoenix Nest, 1593, ed. Hyder Edward Rollins (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931), introd., pp. xviii–ix.
159. Charles Whitworth, ‘Thomas Lodge’, in Charles C. Whitney (ed.), Thomas Lodge (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2011), pp. 23–36, at p. 32.
160. Collected Works of Mary Sidney Herbert, i. 123–4; Frederic B. Tromly, ‘Lodowick Bryskett’s Elegies on Sidney in Spenser’s Astrophel Volume’, RES 147 (1986), 384–8, assumes that Bryskett wrote the elegy alone but provides evidence of his collaboration with Spenser.
161. Michael Brennan, Literary Patronage in The English Renaissance: The Pembroke Family (London: Routledge, 1988), p. 86.
162. Katherine Duncan-Jones, ‘Astrophel’, Sp. Enc., pp. 74–6, at p. 74.
163. Cheney, ‘Colin Clouts come home againe’, Sp. Handbook, p. 252.
164. L. B., ‘A Pastorall Aeglogue Vpon the Death of Sir Philip Sidney Knight’, Colin Clout, sig. H2v.
165. Danielle Clarke, ‘ “Signifying, but not sounding”: Gender and Paratext in the Complaint Genre’, in Smith and Wilson (eds.), Renaissance Paratexts, pp. 133–50, at p. 145.
166. Appropriately enough, the poem can now be found in both the works of Mary Sidney and Spenser; Spenser, Shorter Poems, pp. 380–4; Spenser, Shorter Poems, ed. Oram et al., pp. 578–81; Variorum, vii. 186–8; Collected Works of Mary Sidney Herbert, i. 119–35. The poem does appear as ‘disputed work’ in Sidney, but not in Spenser. For arguments for Mary Sidney’s authorship, see Beilin, Redeeming Eve, pp. 137–9; Kay, Melodious Tears, pp. 58–61; Jonathan Goldberg, ‘Between Men: Literary History and the Work of Mourning’, in Karen Weisman (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Elegy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 498–517, at p. 514; Patricia Pender, ‘The Ghost and the Machine in the Sidney Family Corpus’, SEL 51 (2011), 65–85, at 77.
167. Diane Watt, Medieval Women’s Writing: Works by and for Women in England, 1100–1500 (Cambridge: Polity, 2007), p. 14, passim; Elizabeth D. Harvey, Ventriloquized Voices: Feminist Theory and English Renaissance Texts (London: Routledge, 1992), ch. 3; Pender, ‘Ghost and the Machine’, pp. 65–6.
168. William W. Barker, ‘Erasmus, Desiderius’, Sp. Enc., pp. 251–2; Sidney, Apology, p. 101. On the tradition of male appropriation of the female voice, see Harvey, Ventriloquized Voices, ch. 2.
169. Wall, Imprint of Gender, pp. 260–3; Roy Tommy Eriksen, ‘Gascoigne, George’, Sp. Enc., p. 325; Louis S. Friedland, ‘A Source of Spenser’s “The Oak and the Briar” ’, PQ 33 (1954), 222–4 (but see the sceptical assessment of the evidence in Waldo F. McNeir, ‘Ariosto’s Sospetto, Gascoigne’s Suspicion, and Spenser’s Malbecco’, in Horst Oppel (ed.), Festschrift Für Walther Fischer (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1959), pp. 34–48).
170. Nelson, Poetry of Edmund Spenser, pp. 75, 325; Roy T. Erikson, ‘Two into One: The Unity of George Gascoigne’s Companion Poems’, SP 81 (1984), 275–98.
171. The Works in Verse and Prose of Nicholas Breton, ed. Alexander B. Grosart, 2 vols. (1879; New York: AMS Press, 1966), i. 21–8, 2–15; Beilin, Redeeming Eve, p. 127; Jean Robertson, ‘Nicholas Breton’s Authorship of “Marie Magdalens Loue” and “The Passion of a Discontented Minde”’, MLR 36 (1941), 449–59.
172. Jean Robertson, ‘The Passions of the Spirit (1599) and Nicholas Breton’, HLQ 3 (1939), 69–75; Michael G. Brennan, ‘Nicholas Breton’s The Passions of the Spirit and the Countess of Pembroke’, RES 38 (1987), 221–5.
173. Herbert David Rix, ‘Spenser’s Rhetoric and the “Doleful Lay” ’, MLN 53 (1938), 261–5; Percy W. Long, ‘Spenseriana: The Lay of Clorinda’, MLN 31 (1916), 79–82; Charles G. Osgood, ‘The “Doleful Lay of Clorinda” ’, MLN 35 (1920), 90–6.
174. Pamela Coren, ‘Edmund Spenser, Mary Sidney, and the Doleful Lay’, SEL 42 (2002), 25–41, at 39. For a claim that the two writers did cooperate, see Gary F. Waller, Mary Sidney, Countess of Pembroke: A Critical Study of Her Writings and Literary Milieu (Salzburg: Salzburg University Press, 1979), p. 92.
175. L. B., ‘The Mourning Muse of Thestylis’, Colin Clout, sig. H1r.
176. Clarke, ‘ “In Sort As She It Sung” ’, p. 451.
177. Collected Works of Mary Sidney Herbert, i. 125. On Mary Sidney’s role in publishing her brother’s works, see Duncan-Jones, Sidney, pp. 277–8; Marion Wynne-Davies, ‘ “For Worth, Not Weakness, Makes in Use but One”: Literary Dialogues in an English Renaissance Family’, in Clarke and Clarke (eds.), ‘This Double Voice’, pp. 164–84.
178. Anne Lake Prescott, ‘The Countess of Pembroke’s Ruins of Rome’, SJ 23 (2005), 1–17; Beilin, Redeeming Eve, p. 141.
179. Kerrigan (ed.), Motives of Woe.
180. Clarke, ‘ “In Sort As She It Sung” ’, p. 461.
181. Marotti, Manuscript, Print, and the English Renaissance Lyric, pp. 312–13; Germaine Warkentin, ‘Patrons and Profiteers: Thomas Newman and the “Violent Enlargement” of Astrophil and Stella’, Book Collector 34 (1985), 461–87, at 464–5.
182. Kay, Melodious Tears, p. 54.
183. Cheney, ‘Colin Clouts come home againe’, Sp. Handbook, p. 248.
184. Quintilian, The Orator’s Education, trans. Donald A. Russell, 4 vols. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001), IV.i.63, at i.41; Jonathan Culler, ‘Apostrophe’, in The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature, Deconstruction (London: Routledge, 1981), pp. 135–54, at p. 135.
185. Brian Vickers, In Defence of Rhetoric (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), p. 493.
186. Montrose, ‘Spenser and the Elizabethan Political Imaginary’.
187. On Sidney’s reputation, see Falco, ‘Spenser’s “Astrophel” ’; Raphael Falco, ‘Instant Artefacts: Vernacular Elegies for Philip Sidney’, SP 89 (1992), 1–19. More generally, see Jan Van Dorsten, Domini Baker-Smith, and Arthur F. Kinney (eds.), Sir Philip Sidney: 1586 and the Creation of a Legend (Leiden: Brill, 1986); Alexander, Writing After Sidney.
188. Clarke, ‘ “In Sort As She It Sung” ’, p. 460.
189. Falco, ‘Instant Artefacts’, p. 1.
190. On the poem’s ambivalent assessment of Sidney’s achievements, see Lisa M. Klein, ‘Spenser’s Astrophel and the Sidney Legend’, SJ 12/2 (1993), 42–55; Theodore L. Steinberg, ‘Spenser, Sidney, and the Myth of Astrophel’, Sp. St. 18 (1990, pub. 1994), 187–201. On Spenser’s use of Adonis, see Alexander, Writing After Sidney, p. 70.
191. For evidence of specific responses to each other’s work, see Patrick Cheney, ‘Perdita, Pastorella, and the Romance of Literary Form: Shakespeare’s Counter-Spenserian Authorship’, in J. B. Lethbridge (ed.), Shakespeare and Spenser: Attractive Opposites (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2008), pp. 121–42; Hadfield, ‘Spenser’s Rosalind’.
192. On the concept of ‘waste’, see pp. 202–3.
193. See Hadfield, Spenser’s Irish Experience, ch. 5.
194. R. B. Wernham, Before the Armada: The Growth of English Foreign Policy, 1485–1588 (London: Cape, 1966), p. 193; Manning, Apprenticeship in Arms, p. 35.
195. Anne Lake Prescott, ‘Belge’, Sp. Enc., pp. 82–3.
196. In contrast to the representation of Sidney as a martial hero in Roydon’s poem: Spenser, Colin Clout, I4v; Falco, ‘Instant Artefacts’, pp. 17–18.
197. Falco, ‘Spenser’s “Astrophel” ’, p. 12.
198. On Spenser’s later reputation and identity, see, in particular, Michelle O’Callaghan, The ‘Shepheardes Nation’: Jacobean Spenserians and Early Stuart Political Culture, 1612–1625 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000).
199. On Penelope Devereux, see the ODNB entry by Alison Wall; Freedman, Poor Penelope, chs. 9–15.
200. Walter G. Friedrich, ‘The Stella of Astrophel’, ELH 3 (1936), 114–39.
201. Kerrigan (ed.), Motives of Woe, chs. 5–7.
202. Falco, ‘Spenser’s “Astrophel” ’, p. 20.