^{page 535 note 1} Harvey's Works, ed. Grosart, i, pp. 6 ff.

^{page 536 note 1} P. 7.

^{page 536 note 2} P. 17.

^{page 537 note 1} P. 16. Spenser also (p. 7) advises Harvey to look out for preferment for himself: “And indeede for your self to, it sitteth with you now, to call your wits and senses togither … when occasion is so fairely offered of Estimation and Preferment. For, whiles the yron is hote, it is good striking, and minds of Nobles varie, as their Estates.” Harvey's reply, dated Oct. 23, chaffs Spenser on this business-like manner and wagers all the books in his study that Spenser will not go over sea by next week or the week after. Harvey was evidently skeptical of his friend's enthusiasm.

^{page 538 note 1} Harvey, Works, i, pp. 29 ff. The second letter is by Harvey.

^{page 539 note 1} Nares, Memoir of Burghley, iii, p. 114.

^{page 539 note 2} Hume, Courtships of Queen Elisabeth, pp. 207, 208.

^{page 540 note 1} This letter was written in January, 1580. Sidney was excluded from the royal presence for a time, as a punishment.

^{page 541 note 1} Burghley's famous letter to the Queen, under date of 28 Jan., 1580, is in Hatfield House Records, ii, pp. 308–310. In it he states that he had favored the marriage as one that would make for her honor and safety and enable her to “rule the Sternes of the shippes of Europe with more fame than ever came to any Quene of the Wordell.” Now that the negotiations are off, it is his duty to point out the dangers of Elizabeth's position with reference to the Powers, and to suggest ways and means. He then gives an alarming list of dangers, proposing some measures which, he confesses, are but “shews of remedies,” “whereas her marriage, if she had liked it, myght have provided her more surety with less peril.” If we take all this literally, it reveals that Burghley actually favored the marriage. But the man was as crafty as Elizabeth herself, and we cannot be sure that this is not mere rhetoric, delivered after he felt that the real danger was past. That the court, however, believed Burghley to favor the match, I think there is not the smallest doubt.

^{page 542 note 1} In a letter of 29 Jan., 1580, Simier begs Elizabeth to protect him from the fury of the bear: “qu'il vous playse le conserver de la pate de l'ours” (Hatfield House, ii, p. 311). This seems to refer to the quarrel with Leicester.

^{page 543 note 1} The complete code is in Hatfield House, ii, p. 448.

^{page 543 note 2} 29 January, 1579–80 (Hatfield House, ii, p. 311, no. 813).

^{page 543 note 3} 25 February, 1579–80 (ibid., p. 314, no. 822).

^{page 544 note 1} Hatfield House, ii, p. 318 (no. 833).

^{page 544 note 2} Ibid., ii, p. 283, no. 783 (Dec. 29, 1579).

^{page 544 note 3} E. g., Hatfield House, ii, p. 30 (no. 89).

^{page 544 note 4} Hatfield House, ii, p. 355.

^{page 544 note 5} Hatfield House, ii, pp. 349–352 (no. 902).

^{page 545 note 1} See, for example, Grosart, i, p. 82, where Bacon is mentioned as another example of a “forward youth” whom Burghley “as was his mode” wished to “keep down.” Grosart refers the passage about Leicester's quarrel with the Queen to her discovery of his marriage, but quotes Camden, not noting that Elizabeth got her knowledge from Simier (p. 83). But this, as will appear presently, is not without significance.

^{page 548 note 1} On the relations of M. H. T. to the Renard cycle, see my discussion in Modern Philology, January, 1905.

^{page 549 note 1} Mendoza wrote, 8 April, 1579, that Burghley was not so much opposed to the match as formerly, but that he suspects the reason lies in the desire of Burghley and Sussex to bring about the fall of Leicester (cited by Hume, The Great Lord Burghley, p. 330, n. 1). In the following March, Leicester, out of favor, told Mendoza that his enemies were plotting the marriage only to spite him (ib., p. 340).

^{page 549 note 2} It is said that Stubbs was well acquainted with Spenser. Moreover, Spenser and Sidney were much in each other's company, and at Leicester House, during this time.

^{page 550 note 1} References to the Plague are numerous at this time. Sir William Fleetwood, Recorder of London, writes to Burghley in October, 1578, that he has been in Buckinghamshire since Michaelmas because he was troubled every day with such as came having plague sores about them, or being sent by the Lords to places where he found dead corpses under the tables, which surely did greatly amaze him (Hatfield House, ii, p. 222, no. 660). Letters from Paris in 1579–80 report that all study has ceased and friends from England are advised not to travel; importations of certain goods from France to England were forbidden (Cal. State Papers, Eliz. Domestic, i, p. 683). Other letters appeal for aid, since the dearth of all things, due to the Plague, renders the need extreme (State Papers, Eliz., i, p. 635). Additional instances might be cited.

^{page 551 note 1} Nares, iii, p. 164 and note. This is closely parallel to a passage in M. H. T. describing the arts of the false courtier. Ample illustrations might be drawn, if necesary, from the extraordinary letters to and from the Queen.

^{page 551 note 2} Nares, iii, p. 183.

^{page 551 note 3} Topcliff to the Earl of Shrewsbury; cited by Nares, iii, pp. 109, 113, 114.

^{page 552 note 1} See Hume, The Great Lord Burghley, pp. 444–450, with the notes.

^{page 552 note 3} Cited by Hume, p. 456.

^{page 552 note 4} Nares, iii, pp. 372–3.

^{page 554 note 1} There are eleven copies of this circular in State Papers, cxxxii (abstract in Calendar, p. 634, nos. 26–36). Some of these are fully signed, some partially, some not signed at all.

^{page 554 note 2} Cf. Fox Bourne, p. 185.

^{page 554 note 3} See the details in Fulke Greville's Life of Sidney (1652), Clarendon Press repr. 1907, pp. 63 ff.

^{page 555 note 1} See the letter, and the fiery reply of Sussex in Hatfield House, ii, p. 329.

^{page 555 note 2} Cal. State Papers, ii, p. 22.

^{page 556 note 1} These two letters are in State Papers, Domestic, 1580 (Cal. i, pp. 666 and 672).

^{page 556 note 2} Hatfield House, ii, p. 355 (no. 909).

^{page 556 note 3} Calendar, State Papers, i, 677. But that Hatton was insincere is shown by the fact that when, early in 1582, Leicester was forced to accompany Alençon to Brabant, the “sheep” promptly reported a chance remark of the Queen's, with the result that Leicester came post-haste to England, to be called a knave and a traitor for his pains.

^{page 556 note 4} Calendar, ii, p. 3.

^{page 557 note 1} For additional indication of how Leicester was looked upon by the Puritans as their one hope, see the letter to him from Sir Francis Knollys, June, 1580, objecting fiercely to the proposed triumph of Catholicism, plotted out by the serpentine subtlety of the Queen Mother's head (Calendar, i, p. 658).

^{page 558 note 1} I hardly dare go so far as to suggest that even the snake recalls the name by which Catherine was known: “Mad. la Serpente”; yet it seems not impossible. Of course Spenser is following the pseudo-Virgilian Culex.

^{page 560 note 1} F. Q. iii, v, 50.

^{page 560 note 2} F. Q. iv, vii, 35–47; viii, 1 ff.