No description available.

Tesis

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

The importance of manuscript sources for certain types of poetry in the 1580s and 1590s has only slowly become apparent. The subject of this thesis is a group of manuscript poetic miscellanies from this period, which preserve an important collection of poems. Although most of these poems were never published, they circulated in manuscript among minor courtiers and students at the Universities and Inns of Court. Six of these miscellanies share a number of poems in common and have texts which are sometimes related; they provide the main focus of these studies. They are MSS Rawl.Poet.85 (in the Bodleian Library), Harl.7392 (in the British Museum), and certain sections of MSS Dd.5-75 (in the University Library, Cambridge), Z3.5.21 (in Archbishop Marsh's Library, Dublin), V.a.89 (in the Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington) and the Harington MS at Arundel Castle. These six miscellanies (and others that impinge on them from time to time) have been considered from a number of points of view. The importance of manuscript circulation in the literature of the period is discussed, and problems of dealing with manuscript material are examined. The six miscellanies are described in some detail, the compilers being identified where possible and suggestions made about the dates when the poems were copied. The miscellanies preserve a fairly coherent body of Elizabethan lyrics. These have been indexed by first line, attributed where possible and the whereabouts of other texts noted. Some of these poems present complex problems of text, authorship and literary or social history. One of the most complicated textually is "The French Primero", preserved in four versions of varying length and numerous textual differences, which has been taken as a test case for discussing methods of editing a poem preserved only or mainly in manuscript texts. Another poem, "My mind to me a kingdom is", (perhaps by Sir Edward Dyer) has been examined as an illustration of the effects of popularity on the text of a poem. The bulk of the poems which are ascribed in the miscellanies are the works of courtier poets who had no interest in publication. Eight of these writers are examined in some detail for the light the miscellanies throw on problems of text and canon. These manuscripts are the most important sources of texts and ascriptions of poems by Sir Edward Dyer and Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford. The canons of both these poets have been re-examined, and edited texts of their poems presented. Certain lyrics which appear in the miscellanies by the Queen, Sir Philip Sidney, Sir Walter Ralegh and Sir Arthur Gorges (all well edited in recent editions) are examined for the information they yield about how courtly lyrics circulated in manuscript. Poems from the miscellanies by Nicholas Breton (better known as a professional writer than a courtly lyrist) and Ferdinando Stanley, Earl of Derby (hitherto barely known as a poet) are presented and discussed. Three of the miscellanies (MSS Cambridge Dd.5.75, Rawl Poet.85 and Harl.7392) preserve a number of poems written by their compilers and their friends or charges, and these imitate current poetic fashions of the court, and provide interesting evidence of poems in English being written by young Elizabethans at various stages of their education. These little-known poems have been transcribed and discussed, and the social backgrounds of their authors examined. In brief, the object of these studies has been to describe the six miscellanies, to examine and compare their contents, and to discuss their textual problems. The texts by courtiers and courtly imitators which they preserve are studied, and the poetry placed in its proper social context. Some conclusions have been reached about Elizabethan taste and popularity, which may suggest the significance of these manuscripts in contributing to a better knowledge of the state of English poetry towards the end of the sixteenth century.

There is no abstract available for this thesis.

This thesis traces the various vievs of Horace held in the seventeenth century and examines translation and imitation in the period. The main focus is on the influence of Horace's Od.es on lyric poetry. For the period 1600-1660, four authors are discussed in detail, Ben Jonson, Herrick, Marvell and Covley. Other authors treated include Drayton, Samuel Daniel, Donne, Campion, Chapman, Wotton, Carev, Randolph, Cartvr4ght, Habington, Vaughan, Lovelace, Fanshave, Mildmay Fane, George Daniel of Besvick, Milton, Oven Felltham, Izaak Walton, Denham, Waller and Alexander Brome. In the period from 1660, authors discussed include Dryden, Rochester, Sedley, Dorset, Mulgrave, Otvay, Etherep;e, Wycherley, Oldham, Prior, Ambrose Philips, Katherine Philips, John Norris, Cotton, Lady Mary Chudleigh, Anne Finch, Countess of Winchilsea, John Ranrlet, John Tutchin, Temple and Evelyn. The introduction argues briefly that although Horace is normally associated vith the eighteenth century, in fact his Odes were more Influential in the earlier part of the seventeenth century, and points to some misconceptions about the nature of Horace's poetry that have helped to obscure this. It notes that the interest in the Odes in the period is a change from the Mediaeval and sixteenth-century approach to Horace, and points out that the study of hov a period responds to a particular poet throve light on its general character. Chapter I provides some background information. It outlines the place of Horace in the school curricula and shove that the twin emphases in the school reading of HOrace were on his morals and his style, the latter being studied vith the practical aim of imitation. School textbooks are described. An account of editions of Horace in the period follows. It is pointed out that the text of Horace was more corrupt than it is today* and argued that some of the translators of Horace used the school edition of John Bond. The twin emphases of commentary on Horace are again shown to be on his morals and his style: Parthenio's commentary is examined in some detail. Next, some ideas about Horace's life disseminated by the lives included in editions are mentioned. Finally, the influence of quotation books and emblem books is considered. It is argued that though they contained many of the poet*s favourite Horatian passages, this does not mean that writers did not read Horace directly. It is shown that they present a moral Horace and that they sometimes cause distortion through excerpting passages out of context. Chapter II deals with the volumes of translations of Horace by Thomas Drant, John Ashmore, Thomas Hawkins, Henry Rider, John Smith, 'Unknown Mase', and Richard Panshawe. A brief sketch is given of the development of translation in the century, and it is pointed out that there are some examples of the 'imitation* before Cowley. The books of translations are then examined against this background, and it is argued that Fanshawe should not be viewed as heralding the mid-century revolution in translation but as fitting into his own period. The twin interests of the translators are analysed as being content, primarily moral, and lyric style. Fanshawe is seen as of particular interest as trying to embody Horatian moral ideals in his life and as being most successful in conveying Horace's lyricism. Chapterin discusses various ways in trhich the formal aspects of Horace's Odes influenced seventeenth-century lyric. It is pointed out that this influence has been obscured because English writers do not produce pastiches but recreate Horace in modern modes and because of generic differences between the Odes and seventeenth-century lyric. Some differences in structure and style between the two are then considered, Cowley's translation of C.111.i and Carew's The Spring being used to illustrate the differences of structure. Some exceptions are noted in the poetry of Milton, Jonson, Herrick, etc. Next, the similarities and areas of influence are discussed - blends in tone, methods of making lyric personal and various poetic poses.

No description available.

No description available.