^{page 134 note 1} Spenser's Lost Poems, Publ. Mod. Lang. Assoc., March, 1908.

^{page 134 note 2} The theory of the incorporation of the missing works in later productions has been put forward by Craik. Child, Church, Hales, and others: several of the proposed identifications of separate poems call for mention of earlier expressions of similar views; notably in the case of the Epithalamion Thamesis, as discussed by Craik (Spenser and his Poetry, ch. i, pp. 28–9); Child (Memoir of Spenser, prefaced to the 1855 edition of Spenser, pp. xviii-xix); Towry (A Note on Spenser's Twenty Lost Works. The Bibliographer, vol. i, April, 1882, p. 129); Hales (Globe Edition, p. xxvii), etc.

^{page 135 note 1} Inaccurate statement of fact: cf. the assertion (p. 92) that “all of the other poems in the Complaints” (i. e. except the series of Visions) “are formally dedicated to ladies,” which is easily disproved by a reference to Virgil's Gnat and Ruines of Rome; cf. also the inadequate summary (p. 87) of F. Q., vi, vii, 32, by which citation he undoubtedly means to include stanzas 32–37. Cf. below.

Inaccurate citation: cf. the citation (p. 87) of Professor Cook's opinion, discussed below.

Inaccurate quotation: this consists in omissions or alterations of unimportant words, and a lack of uniformity in the adoption of archaic spellings; cf. for example the quotations from Harvey (p. 96) with the texts of this letter in the works of Spenser, Globe Edition, p. 710, Cambridge Edition, p. 773, and The Works of Gabriel Harvey, ed. Grosart, Huth Library, vol. i, p. 95.

^{page 135 note 2} Cf. the expressions “as I heard” and “these fewe parcels”; the latter implies a considerable number of poems still “disperst abroad,” of which he proceeds to enumerate a few.

^{page 136 note 1} P. 88.

^{page 136 note 2} Cf. below.

^{page 136 note 3} P. 81.

^{page 136 note 4} As suggested by Courthope, The Cambridge History of English Literature, vol. iii, ch. xi, The Poetry of Spenser, p. 259.

^{page 137 note 1} Cambridge Edition, p. 57.

^{page 137 note 2} Ibid., p. xiv.

^{page 137 note 3} Noted in this connection by Courthope, l. c., p. 259.

^{page 137 note 4} Harvey, l. c., pp. 67–68.

^{page 137 note 5} Cf. pp. 82–86. The somewhat vague examples of mistaken zeal cited (p. 86) from the Faerie Queene are hardly convincing.

^{page 137 note 6} Notably in the Epithalamion Thamesis and the Court of Cupid.

^{page 138 note 1} P. 81; cf. also p. 82. If Mr. Buck intends to limit the application of these statements to “most of the poems,” he has not made that fact clear.

^{page 138 note 2} The conservative student will, however, do well to “rest pleased with his owne insight,” as Spenser himself bids, “always remembering that the poem is not an invention based upon the circumstances, but a mere paraphrase of the pseudo-Virgilian Culex” (R. E. N. Dodge, Cambridge Edition, p. 79).

^{page 138 note 3} Cf. Dodge, Publ. Mod. Lang. Assoc., xii, p. 154; also Cambridge Edition, p. xiv.

^{page 139 note 1} Cf. The Works of Nicholas Breton, Chertsey Worthies' Library, 1879. (Daffodils and Primroses, p. 12 ff.). Grosart prints the sonnets as Breton's because they occur in the Cosens ms. (Add. ms. 34064) which contains, in the same hand as our sonnets, Breton's Amoris Lachrimae and his Divinitie and other poems undoubtedly by Breton. Though this ms. is a miscellany, containing some selections from Spenser (from The Ruins of Time and Mother Hubberd's Tale), yet the sonnets, from the standpoint of style, are far more likely to be Breton's than Spenser's; they are accepted as Breton's in the Catalogue of Addit. Mss., and are said by Mr. Sidney Lee (Dict. Nat. Biog. under Breton) to be “fairly attributable” to Breton. On the other hand, Mr. Buck's only justification for his supposition is that the ms. has a few selections from Spenser (which argument is inconclusive) and that Spenser is said to have written a sonnet referring to the dying swan, and a work on the Dying Pelican; both subjects are, however, literary commonplaces of the period. For the swan, cf.: Du Bellay, L'Olive, Sonnet 8; Desportes, Diane, Livre I, Sonnet 34, and the same sonnet translated by Lodge, Phillis, Sonnet 38; Lodge, ibid., Sonnet 10; Sir Philip Sidney (Lee, Elizabethan Sonnets, vol. i, p. 113); Barnes, Canzon 3, Stanza 6 (Lee, l. c., vol. i, p. 296); W. Smith, Chloris, Sonnet 14. As for the pelican, which I am confident is likewise conventional, I am unable to recall definite instances of its occurrence in this exact period, though it is found frequently enough in Middle English poetry. I note, however, in the catalogue of Sloane MSS. under Ms. 796, Art. 11, the following title of a poem, occurring in what is apparently a small collection of Spanish verse of the sixteenth century: Pelicano & autres. One may note in passing the similarity in style and in certain details between our two sonnets and Surrey's sonnet on Spring (Tottel's Miscellany, p. 4).

^{page 139 note 2} Add to the contemporary references to the Dying Pelican, the following from Harvey's letter to Spenser, dated April 7, 1580: “… and tell thy dying Pellicane, and thy Dreames from me, I wil nowe leaue dreaming any longer of them, til with these eyes I see them forth indeede.” (Harvey, l. c., vol. i, p. 67.)

^{page 140 note 1} From the article on Add. MS. 34064, by Mr. Buck, Mod. Lang. Notes, February, 1907. The two sonnets here are treated as separate pieces; apparently, however, they constitute a single poem, the second serving as a second stanza and applying to the poet's experience the symbolism of the first. Grosart evidently takes them as forming one poem.

^{page 140 note 2} The Defense of Poesy, Ed. Cook, p. xxxviii.

^{page 140 note 3} It is noteworthy that so reliable a critic as Mr. Dodge considers them as actual dramas, of which we now know nothing: Publ. Mod. Lang. Assoc., xii, pp. 166–177; Cambridge Edition, p. xiv.

^{page 141 note 1} “And then againe, I imagine your Magnificenza, will holde vs in suspense as long for your nine Englishe Commoedies, and your Latine Stemmata Dudleiana.” Harvey, l. c., p. 67. (Here the assumption that Magnificenza is an equivalent of the Faerie Queene is in all probability justified.)

“If so be the Faerye Queene be fairer in your eie than the Nine Muses.” Ibid., p. 95.

“I am voyde of al iudgement if your Nine Comoedies, … come not neerer Ariostoes Comoedies, eyther for the finenesse of plausible Elocution, or the rarenesse of Poetical Inuention, then that Eluish Queene doth to his Orlando Furioso.” Ibid., p. 95.

^{page 141 note 2} Harvey, l. c., p. 125. In the letter “to his very unfrendly frende” (Spenser), dated in the summer of 1579, Harvey writes as follows: “And canst thou tell me nowe … what a wonderfull and exceeding displeasure thou and thy prynter have wroughte me, … in thrustinge me thus on the stage to make tryall of my extemporall faculty, and to play Wylsons or Tarletons parte. I suppose thou wilt go nighe hande shortelye to sende my lorde ‘of Lycsters, or my lorde of Warwickes,‘ Vawsis, or my lord Ritches players, or sum other freshe starteupp comedanties unto me for sum newe devised interlude, or sum mallconceivid comed ye fist for the Theater, or sum other paintid stage whereat thou and thy lively copesmates in London maye lawghe ther mouthes and bellyes full for pence or twoepence apeece? By cause peradventure thou imaginest Unico Aretino and the pleasurable Cardinall Bibiena, that way esspecially attraynid to be so singularly famous.”

^{page 142 note 1} It is of course conceivable that Harvey knew of comedies by Bembo, which are not known today, especially since Bembo lived at courts which were devoted to the production of comedies.

^{page 142 note 2} Harvey, l. c., p. 95.

^{page 142 note 3} Two other purely conjectural cases, which Mr. Buck himself puts forward with hesitation, may be added: (a) the incorporation of material from the Stemmata Dudleiana in Sidney's defence of Leicester, cf. p. 95; (b) the possible identification of Dreams with A View of Vanity, anonymous, licensed in 1582; this is added (p. 94) as a mere curiosity.

^{page 142 note 4} Add to the contemporary references to Dreams that already quoted from Harvey's letter, dated April 7, 1580.

^{page 143 note 1} Cf. pp. 92–94. Mr. Buck here mentions (p. 93) as Visions of Bellay the four Revelation sonnets of the Theatre, which are by Van der Noot himself; cf. Dodge, Cambridge Edition, p. 764; Hales, Globe Edition, pp. 699–701.

^{page 143 note 2} Cf. The Ruins of Time, ll. 398–399, which might possibly be the very lines to which E. K. refers, if we accept the possibility that the poem is a revision of earlier work, and consider these lines as relating to the death of muses' favorites in general. Cf. also: Amoretti, Sonnet 39; An Hymne in Honour of Love, ll. 25–26; ibid, l. 282; An Hymne in Honour of Beautie, l. 249; F. Q., iv, xi, 46, etc.

^{page 143 note 3} In the discussion of Dreams (cf. p. 91) as elsewhere (cf. p. 97, note, and p. 87, on the Court of Cupid) Mr. Buck does not represent with absolute fairness the views of Mr. Towry, from whom he differs.

^{page 144 note 1} Cambridge Edition, p. 57.

^{page 144 note 2} Though the plural, Lovers, as antecedent of his, offers an obvious difficulty, allowance must be made for the apparently off-hand character of this list, as well as for the habitual inaccuracy of the Elizabethans in their quotations of titles. Mr. Dodge, however (Cambridge Edition, p. xiv), mentions Purgatory as a separate title; likewise Mr. Towry and also Mr. Lee and Mr. Hales (Dict. Nat. Biog., under Spenser).

^{page 144 note 3} Cf. F. Q., ii, iii, 25: “Upon her eyelids many Graces sate.”

^{page 144 note 4} Cf. Amoretti, Sonnet 40. I note that Mr. Towry refers (l. c., p. 129) in this connection to this sonnet, as also to the Hymn of Beauty, 223, which reference I believe should read: An Hymne in Honour of Beautie, ll. 253–256. For occurrences of the idea in other writers of the period, cf. Drayton's Idea, Sonnet 4; Barnes, Parthenophil and Parthenophe, Sonnet 71; Desportes, Cleonice, Sonnet 3. Mr. Towry adds that the idea is borrowed by Giles Fletcher.

^{page 144 note 5} L. 490.

^{page 145 note 1} Arber, An English Garner, vol. v, p. 438; Sidney Lee, Elizabethan Sonnets, vol. i, p. 268, and Introd., pp. lxxvi and lxxviii; A. H. Upham, French Influence in English Literature, p. 134.

^{page 145 note 2} The Masque of Cupid, F. Q., iii, xi–xii; the Temple of Venus, F. Q., iv, x; the Court of Cupid, F. Q., vi, vii, 32–37. Mr. Dodge (Cambridge Edition, p. xiv) says that the title Court of Cupid suggests F. Q., vi, viii, 19 ff.; this passage however contains merely a second and comparatively indefinite allusion to the court scene already explicitly depicted in vi, vii, 32–37. One suspects that Mr. Buck's inaccurate summary of the passage in canto vii arises from his confusion of it with this one in canto viii, which was evidently in Mr. Towry's mind, though his citation reads F. Q., vi, vii, 22.

^{page 146 note 1} Cf. stanza 42.

^{page 146 note 2} W. A. Neilson, The Origins and Sources of the Court of Love, pp. 7–8.

^{page 146 note 3} We cannot assume that this particular canto was not written until the date of the completion of the whole six books, or that this date was definitely 1594, as Mr. Buck asserts confidently (p. 87) on the authority of sonnet 80, Amoretti. This sonnet, which seems to have been written in 1594 (cf. Hales, Globe Edition, p. xlix; Dodge, Cambridge Edition, p. 716), undoubtedly implies that the Faerie Queene was but recently finished; the poet, however, looking back over the fourteen years or more of labor on his great epic, might well feel that an interval of a full twelvemonth, or even more, was yet short enough to leave him gasping for breath, “halfe foredone.” There is, then, no sufficient basis for the unqualified assertion (p. 87) that “we know that this canto was not written until 1594.”

^{page 146 note 4} Cf. p. 86.

^{page 146 note 5} Neilson, l. c., p. 263.

^{page 147 note 1} Several interesting adaptations of the form to quite different themes may be noted:—(1) The House of Pride (i, iv, 2–38); the salient features of the description mark this as of the Court of Love type, with Pride substituted for Love, proud Lucifera for the Queen of Love, the personified sins for Love's allegorical attendants. A noteworthy feature is the dragon under Lucifera's feet, which, in my somewhat cursory examination of the Court of Love material, I have not found paralleled; it seems certainly, however, to have been a convention of the type as Spenser knew or developed it, for it appears in the Masque of Cupid, and is closely paralleled in the Temple of Venus, Mercilla's Court, and the Temple of Isis. (2) Mercilla's Court (v, ix, 21–50). This seems nothing else than a description of Elizabeth's court in the Court of Love manner. The typical features are present, and notably the huge lion beneath Mercilla's feet; detail and expression show close similarity to those of the various passages already mentioned. The. legal function of the Court of Love is emphasized, and the presence of Pity among the allegorical figures is possibly of special significance (cf. Neilson, l. c., pp. 4 and 230–231), though in the contest of Justice and Pity we may have a reminiscence of another favorite mediæval allegory, The Four Daughters of God. (3) Note also among others the Temple of Isis (v, vii, 3 ff.) especially for its description of the Idol with a crocodile beneath its feet; the House of Ate (iv, i, 20 ff.) with the spoils of Discord on the walls; the House of Holiness (i, x, 3 ff.) and the House of Temperanee (ii, ix, 10 ff.).

^{page 148 note 1} Add to the contemporary references to this poem the following from Harvey's letter of April 23, 1580, in which he speaks of a literary attempt by his young brother: “I am nigh halfe perswaded, that in tyme … for length, bredth, and depth, it will not come far behinde your Epithalamion Thamesis: the rather, hauing so fayre a president, and patterne before his Eyes, as I warrant him, and he presumeth to haue of that: both Master Collinshead, and M. Hollishead too, being togither therein” (Harvey, l. c., pp. 91–92).

^{page 148 note 2} F. Q., iv, xi, 8 ff.

^{page 148 note 3} Such emphasis it receives in the dissertation, soon to be published by Miss C. A. Harper on the Sources of the British Chronicle History in Spenser's Faerie Queene. Cf. Chapter ii.

^{page 148 note 4} Harvey, l. c., p. 37. Letter from Spenser to Harvey dated “Quarto Nonas Aprilis, 1580.” It would seem that this date should read, in English, April 2, though Mr. Buck (p. 97) as Mr. Hales (Globe Edition, p. xxvii) cites the letter as written on April 10.

^{page 149 note 1} Add to Miss Harper's argument (Ch. ii) in support of the theory that the poem was actually written, the remark of Harvey last quoted from the letter of April 23, 1580, which certainly may be interpreted as meaning that to four different persons the poem was more or less thoroughly known; though there is, of course, the bare possibility that Harvey's present tense (having and to have) is loosely used for the future, as might be suggested by his use of the verbs warrant and presumeth. It must be noted that Mr. Dodge, with characteristic conservatism, describes the Epithalamion Thamesis as a “work projected, but probably cut off by the departure, within a brief space, for Ireland” (Cambridge Edition, p. xiv). One wonders that he does not mention the Faerie Queene passage in this connection.

^{page 149 note 2} Cf. p. 148, note 3. The material here referred to is found in the Appendix.

^{page 149 note 3} To Miss Harper's citations in proof of this point, we may add that such careful emendation was in accord with Harvey's advice (cf. his suggestion, quoted above, p. 137) which Spenser always profoundly respected, and also with Harvey's practice; cf. his letter to Spenser, dated April 7, 1580, in which he speaks of his Anticosmopolita, which has stood in statu quo for a full year: “But the Birde that will not sing in Aprili, nor in May, maye peraduenture sing in September; and yet me thinkes, Sat cito, si sat bene, if I coulde steale but one poore fortnight, to peruse him ouer afreshe, and coppy him out anewe” (Harvey, l. c., p. 68).

^{page 150 note 1} F. Q., ii, x, and iii, iii.