But our poet, we believe, did not stop with these ambiguous indications of her birthplace and family; he had promised her to immortalize the triumph of his passion, and to leave to all posterity a monument of the “rare wonderment” of the lady’s beauty. [13] He had gone farther; and, in three several sonnets,[14] vowed to eternize her name—­“your glorious name in golden monument”—­after his own fashion, and to the best of his abilities.  We have no right, then, to doubt that he fulfilled his promise; and if we can fix upon any distinctive appellation or epithet addressed to her, common to the several poems which professedly reveal his passion, and solvable into the name of a person whose residence and circumstances correspond with those ascribed to the lady by her worshipper, may we not most reasonably conclude that we have at length discovered the long-lost secret?

To begin with the beginning,—­the “Amoretti.”  Here she is an Angel, in all moods and tenses, the “leaves,” “lines,” and “rhymes” are taught, that, “when they behold that Angel’s blessed look,” they shall “seek her to please alone.” [15] In a subsequent sonnet, she is an: 

     “Angel come to lead frail minds to rest
  In chaste desires, on heavenly beauty bound.” [16]

Again, the poet denies that

  “The glorious portrait of that Angel’s face”

can be expressed by any art, by pen or pencil. [17]

Again, she is

  “Of the brood of Angels heavenly born.” [18]

And yet again, she is

   “Divine and born of heavenly seed.” [19]

Once more we are bid

  “Go visit her in her chaste bower of rest,
  Accompanied with Angel-like delights.” [20]

Turn we next to the “Epithalamion.”  And here the same cuckoo-note is repeated usque ad nauseam.  We are told, that, to look upon her,

          “we should ween
  Some Angel she had been.” [21]

Even her bridesmaids (her sisters, probably) are thought to be Angels, and, addressing them, the bridegroom says,

  “Sing, ye sweet Angels, Alleluya sing!” [22]

Finally, in “Colin Clout’s come home again,” the poet very dexterously evades the royal anger of Elizabeth, sure to be aroused by the preference of any beauty to her own.  To deceive the Queen,—­to whom, in gratitude for past favors, and, mayhap, with a lively appreciation of others yet to come, he is offering up homage,—­he describes her Majesty by the very same imagery he had elsewhere employed to depict his lady-love; and ostensibly applies to the royal Elizabeth the amatory terms which are covertly meant for an Elizabeth of his own,—­between whom and her royal type he either saw or affected to see a personal resemblance.  Here we find her placed by the poet: 

  “Amongst the seats of Angels heavenly wrought,
  Much like an Angel in all form and fashion.”