 |
 |
I second the Variorum notes as the first place to go to research the idea of Sidney vs. Lyly etc. As for scholarship since then, E. A. J. Honigman, in his *Shakespeare's Lost Years* (1985; recently updated), argues his own hobbyhorse, albeit well, that Spenser's Willy is Shakespeare; that Spenser and Shakespeare met through mutual connections to Lord and Lady Strange (aka Alice Spencer, of the patronising Spencer sisters of Althorpe and Wormleighton), when Spenser was in London in 1589-90; the dead "Willy" in TM is the Bard himself, shunted off the stage (figuratively "dead") during the Marprelate controversies. Given this scenario, the passage, then, is an interesting one in that it incites Shakespeare to write more poetry. Is "Venus and Adonis" the result? There are lines that echo each other between TM and V&A, as also noted in the Variorum. Besides Honigman, Schoenbaum (*Shakespeare's Lives*) discusses Malone's 18th-cent. extensive discussion (and ultimate rejection) of the possible Willy-Shakespeare connection. Park Honan doesn't mention the poem (at least in the index) in *Shakespeare: A Life*. I'd be curious to hear of other references, in or outside of Shakespeare "biographies." Are there any other post-Variorum discussions of the issue in any depth? Best, Thomas Herron >Who is ëour pleasant Willy' who is ëdead of late: | With whom all ioy and >iolly meriment | Is also deaded, and in dolour drent'? Since Spenser does >not identify Willy, either here or in the Shepheardes Calendar, we are >free, if we wish, to identify him as Sidney, as Oram or McCabe have done. >As the Variorum editors note, other names have been suggested: Shakespeare, >Lyly, and Richard Tarlton. Each has been supported by reputable scholars. >The very formidable E.K. Chambers allows that Lyly may be the pleasant >Willy, though adds that Tarlton may be intended. Even Dryden, no fool, >concluded that Willy was Willy Shakespeare.Within reason, anyone may ride >one's favourite hobby-horse, and if your candidate is still alive when >Spenser wrote his poem, you conclude that he writes metaphorically. Since >B.M. Ward was writing a book on Oxford, for him the ëgentle spirit' is >Oxford. Since one is free to speculate, many other names have been >suggested: William Johnson, T. Wilson, William Alabaster. > >My point is that when Spenser does not even invite some external reference, >why pin him down and in doing so conclude that one is responding to his >poem. We know that Spenser often plays games with identifications, and I >believe that they should be read as games, and identifications made only >where we are invited to do so. For example, CCCHA: ëold Palemon' is praised >as one ëfree from spight, | Whose carefull pipe may make the hearer rew: | >Yet he himselfe may rewed be more quight, |That sung so long untill quite >hoarse he grew'. Here there are good and interesting reasons to identify >Palemon with Thomas Churchyard. I say that because Churchyard, that >neglected mid-Tudor laureate, is one of my hobby-horses, and Richard >McCabe, for whom he is not, allows only ëpossibly Thomas Churchyard'. Oram >has a question mark. > > > >A.C.Hamilton >[log in to unmask] >Cappon Professor Emeritus >Queen's University, Canada >Phone & Fax: 613- 544-6759 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%