Numbers in bold brackets [] indicate original page numbers.
EDWARD DE VERE As LYRIC POET
[121] IN proceeding from an examination of Shakespeare's work to search for the man himself we made lyric poetry the starting point, and the crucial consideration in attempting to establish his identity. Similarly, in reversing the process, that is to say in proceeding a priori from Edward de Vere to the work of Shakespeare, which must be the longest and most decisive section of the argument, we again begin with lyric poetry. We take the lyric poetry of Edward de Vere and see how far it justifies the theory of his being the real "Shakespeare."
Up to the present we have had before us the single poem and a few odd lines of Oxford's supported by the testimony of the Dictionary of National Biography. It becomes necessary first of all to obtain further testimony as to his poetic powers and characteristics, and then to see to what extent others of his poems warrant his being chosen as the writer of Shakespeare's work.
In the "Cambridge History of English Literature" (vol. iv, p. 116) — the section being written by Harold H. Child, sometime scholar of Brasenose, Oxford — there occurs the following reference to a collection of poems called "The Phoenix' Nest." "The Earl of Oxford has a charming lyric." Most of the other contributors are simply enumerated. Oxford, however, it will be noticed, is singled out for a special compliment.
Again, we would draw special attention to the following excerpts from the "History of English Poetry" (vol. ii, pp. 312-313) by W. J. Courthope, C.B., [122] M.A., D.Litt. (Professor of Poetry at the University of Oxford:
"Edward de Vere, Seventeenth Earl of Oxford, . . . a great patron of literature. . . . His own verses are distinguished for their wit . . . and terse ingenuity. . . . His studied concinnity of style is remarkable. . . . He was not only witty himself but the cause of wit in others. . . . Doubtless he was proud of his illustrious ancestry. . . . He was careful in verse at any rate to conform to the external requirements of chivalry, but in later years his turn for epigram seems to have prevailed over his chivalrous sentiments." It is interesting to notice in passing that he is described in words that Shakespeare puts into the mouth of Falstaff, "'I am not only witty in myself but the cause that wit is in others" (II Henry IV, i, 2).
In another passage in the same work we are told that the court littorateurs were divided into two parties, one headed by Philip Sidney, and the other by the Earl of Oxford, "a great favourer of the Euphuists and himself a poet of some merit in the courtly Italian vein." This rivalry between Philip Sydney and the Earl of Oxford touches our problem somewhat closely and will have to be referred to later. It is important at present as affording testimony to Oxford's recognized poetic eminence and to his Italian affinities. It also comes as a reminder that it was to Oxford that Lyly dedicated his "Euphues and his England," and affords a sufficient explanation of that familiarity with Euphuism which is noticed in Shakespeare, if we credit Oxford with being Shakespeare, but is very difficult to account for in William Shakspere of Stratford.
There remains one other striking fact connected with these references to the Earl of Oxford in Professor Courthope's work. It will be remembered that we took the form of the stanza in "Venus and Adonis" as our first guide in the search. Now Professor Courthope quotes three separate stanzas of Oxford's work and all these are identical with that of Shakespeare's "Venus" and Oxford's on [123] "Women," which gave us our first point of contact. The poem on which we had alighted was therefore no isolated effort in that particular form of versification. It was a familiar and practised form in which he evidently excelled, just as had been noticed in the case of Shakespeare.
In collecting corroboration of De Vere's poetic eminence it is specially fitting that the testimony of so eminent a poet as Edmund Spenser, second only to Shakespeare in that poetic age, should be added. In the series of sonnets with which he prefaces the "Fairie Queen," there is one addressed to the Earl of Oxford, wherein occurs the following passage:
"The antique glory of thine ancestry,
* * * * *
And eke thine own long living memory
Succeeding them in true nobility,
And also, for the love which thou dost bear,
To the 'Heliconion imps',* and they to thee.
They unto thee, and thou to them most dear."Valuable as is the testimony which we have adduced it cannot absolve us from the necessity of knowing the poems themselves and of subjecting them to a very careful examination, for this must form the crux of a very great deal of future investigation. It is greatly to be regretted, therefore, that these poems have not been readily accessible to every one. For the most part they have been scattered amongst various anthologies; a mode of publishing poetry characteristic of the Elizabethan age. Dr. Grosart, however, in 1872 gathered together all the extant recognized poems of the Earl of Oxford and published them in the "Fuller Worthies' Library." Some of these poems had appeared in old anthologies, others had only existed in manuscript, and were published for the first time by Dr. Grosart. It is desirable, therefore, that all who are interested in English literature [124] may before long be in possession of the entire collection. There are, in all only twenty-two short poems (Dr. Grosart numbers them up to twenty-three, but number eight is omitted) and the biographical introduction is possibly the shortest with which any similar collection was ever presented to the world. It explains its own brevity, however, and is of great significance from the point of view of this enquiry. "An unlifted shadow," he remarks, "lies across his memory. Park in his edition of 'Royal and Noble Authors' has done his utmost, but that utmost is meagre." "Our collection of his poems," he concludes, "will prove a pleasant surprise, it is believed, to most of our readers. They are not without touches of the true Singer and there is an atmosphere of graciousness and culture about them that is grateful."
We have already, in the chapter in which we described the search, had to mention the contemporary testimonies of Meres, Puttenham, and Webbe, and also a modern authority — Sir Sidney Lee. Meres and Puttenham deal specially with his dramatic preeminence, mentioning him as amongst the "best for comedy." Therefore, leaving this on one side and confining ourselves to his lyric credentials, we may sum up the matter thus:
Contemporary:
1. Edmund Spenser.
One most dear to the Muses.2. Webbe.
Best of the courtier poets. In the rare devices of poetry the most excellent amongst the rest.Modern:
1. Sir Sidney Lee.
Corroborates Webbe's statement — much lyric beauty. [125]2. Professor W. J. Courthope, C.B., M.A., D.Litt.
Concinnous, terse, ingenious, epigrammatic — leader of a party of poets.3. "Cambridge History of English Literature" (Harold H. Child).
Charming.4. Dr. Grosart.
Gracious, cultured, true singer.Looking over the notes appended to the separate poems of Dr. Grosart's collection we find that these poems fulfil one very important condition which, at the outset, we imagined would belong to the lyric work which Shakespeare might have published in his own name. Notwithstanding the rare ability they show, and several true Shakespearean characteristics, they are for the most part early poems. Many of them are proved to have been in existence when the writer was about twenty-six years of age. How long before that time they were in existence, or how many others which are not so attested may also have existed then, we cannot say. The most of these others, and it is only a small collection to begin with, bear unmistakable internal evidence of belonging to the same early period. Moreover, De Vere is spoken of as "the best of the courtier poets of the early part of Queen Elizabeth's reign." As, however, he lived right on to the end of the reign, and into the reign of James 1, it is evident that the poetry for which he is celebrated is regarded as belonging to his early life. Direct corroboration of this theory is found in the following passage from Arthur Collins's "Historical Collections of Noble Families," published in 1752. "He (Edward de Vere) was in his younger days an excellent poet and comedian, as several of his compositions, which were made public, showed; which I presume are now lost or worn out."
Now the assumption with which we set out was, that if [126] we found writings under the true name of the author of Shakespeare's works, it would be mainly his early works, issued prior to his assuming a disguise. As we examine this early poetry of De Vere it becomes impossible to believe that a writer possessed of the genius that these verses manifest could possibly have stopped producing early in his manhood, unless, of course, he had suddenly dropped his literary interests and directed his energies into another channel. With De Vere, however, the continuance, or rather the intensification of his literary interests in later years is amply proved. He was sharing the Bohemian life of literary men he was, running his own company of play-actors; some of the plays which they were staging were quite understood to be from his own pen; and although he is spoken of as the best in comedy" we are also told that "none of his plays have survived": that they have become "lost or worn out."
The actual amount of poetry which is recognized as his is such as one with such a faculty might have written within a single twelvemonth, although his contemporary says that "in the rare devices of poetry he may be considered the most excellent amongst the rest." It is evident, therefore, that in Edward de Vere we have a writer of both drama and lyric poetry who published under his own name only a small part of what he produced, however he may have disposed of the remainder. This point will receive further corroboration when we come to deal with the relationship of the poet Spenser to our problem. Everything points to his having, after the first period of poetic output, deliberately thrown a veil over his subsequent work, whilst in "Shakespeare" we have a writer who we are justified in supposing assumed anonymity in his maturity, leading off with an elaborate and highly finished poem of about two hundred stanzas. These two facts alone, in work of such exceptional character, if not simply the counterparts one [127] of the other, constitute alone one of the most remarkable coincidences in the history of literature. When to this we add the fact that the dates in the respective cases are such as to fit in exactly with the theory of one work being but the continuation of the other, Oxford being, as has been remarked, about forty when the Shakespearean dramas began to appear, and having filled in the interim with just the kind of experiences necessary to enable him to produce the dramas, it is difficult to resist the conviction, on this ground alone, that it is indeed but one writer with whom we are dealing.
And, so far as that mysteriousness is concerned which we attributed to Shakespeare, it must be admitted that the sudden non-appearance of work from such a pen as that of De Vere's is as mysterious as the subsequent appearance of the "Shakespeare" poems and dramas.
Now although the authority we have quoted for Edward de Vere's poetic eminence may appear ample there is nevertheless a special caution to be observed in regard to it. Assuming that he is the author of Shakespeare's plays it will still be necessary to distinguish between his work as Edward de Vere and his work as "Shakespeare." The former belonging mainly to his early manhood, and the latter to his maturity, we must expect to find a corresponding difference in the work. How vast may be the difference between a man's early and his later literary style can be seen by contrasting Carlyle's first literary essays with "Sartor" or his "French Revolution." We must not, therefore, expect to find Oxford ranked spontaneously with Shakespeare; especially as the Shakespearean work is primarily dramatic, whereas we have not a scrap of dramatic work published under the name of Oxford. All that we are entitled to expect is some marked correspondence in the domain of lyric poetry, and a reasonable promise of the Shakespearean work in general. Of these we have at least some evidence, in the verses already [128] quoted, and in the testimony that experts have offered as to the distinctive qualities of his poetry.
There is, however, another very important fact to be taken into consideration. Between the time when Edward de Vere produced his earliest poems and the period of the production of the Shakespearean dramas (roughly the interval between 1580 and 1590), a very marked change had come over the character of English literature as a whole. The nature of this change can best be gathered from the following passage from Dean Church's "Life of Spenser": "The ten years from 1580 to 1590 present . . . a picture of English poetry of which, though there are gleams of a better hope . . . the general character is feebleness, fantastic absurdity, affectation and bad taste. Who could suppose what was preparing under it all? But the dawn was at hand." During the next ten years, 1590-1600, "there burst forth suddenly a new poetry, which with its reality, depth, sweetness, and nobleness took the world captive. The poetical aspirations of the Englishmen of the time had found at last adequate interpreters, and their own national and unrivalled expression."
This vital change, then, was preparing in England between the time when Edward de Vere produced his early poetry and the time when the Shakespearean dramas appeared. Such a change in the national literature we must naturally expect to find reflected in some degree in his writings. The roots of the matter may, however, be even deeper than this. In making the contrast between the two periods Dean Church cites Philip Sidney's "Defense of Poesie" as representing the earlier and feebler period, and the "rude play houses, with their troops of actors, most of them profligate and disreputable" as being the source of the later and more virile movement.
Now the ten years mentioned by Dean Church [129] corresponds generally to what we shall speak of as the middle period of the life of Edward de Vere as a writer. It is the period immediately following upon his first poetic output, and it was during these years that he was in active and habitual association with these very troupes of play-actors, whilst the third period of his life synchronizes exactly with the sudden outburst of the great Shakespearean dramas. In his first literary period he is the recognized chief of a party of court poets, and the rival of Philip Sidney. As to who his fellows were, there is very little information to be had. If, however, we compare his poetry with the work of Sidney we can only account for Sidney's being considered in any sense a rival by the fact that the feeble affected style of Sidney was in vogue at the time. What distinguishes Oxford's work from contemporary verse is its strength, reality, and true refinement. When Philip Sidney learnt to "look into his heart and write," he only showed that he had at last learnt a lesson that his rival had been teaching him. The reader may or may not be able to agree with the ideas and sentiments expressed by Oxford, but he will be unable to deny that every line written by the poet is a direct and real expression of himself in terms at once forceful and choice and no mere reflection of some fashionable pose. Even in these early years he was the pioneer of realism in English poetry. In his middle period he was a leading force in those dramatic circles from which was to emerge that realist literature so aptly characterized by Dean Church; so that, whoever the real author of Shakespeare's work may have been, that work represents the triumph of the De Vere spirit in poetry over the movement which claimed Sidney as its head. It will also be the triumph of his matured conceptions over his youthful compliance with conventional standards, in so far as he may have complied with them; some measure of such compliance being almost inevitable in youth.
We have already had to remark his, restiveness under [130] all kinds of restraints imposed by the artificiality of court life and his strong bent towards that Bohemian society within which were stirring the energetic forces making for reality, mingled with much evil in life and literature. Having been preeminent amongst the lyric poets in his early years, and prominent in the dramatic movement of his middle period, he is the natural representative and probably even the personal embodiment and original source of the transition by which the lyric poetry of the early days of Queen Elizabeth was merged in the drama of Elizabeth's, and his own later years; and before he died he witnessed the beginning of the decline of that great dramatic and literary efflorescence. These matters we believe to have a profound significance in relation to the problem before us.
When the necessary matter is readily accessible to the public it ought to be possible to read these verses of De Vere's alongside such contemporary poems as appear in Dr. Grosart's volumes. Then their distinctive qualities will be more than ever apparent. Poems by Sir Edward Dyer, Lord Vaux, The Earl of Essex and others, such as may be found in the "Fuller Worthies' Library," though by no means mediocre or negligible, lack the distinctiveness of De Vere's poetry and fail to grip and hold the mind in the same way as do these early productions of the Earl of Oxford. That terse epigrammatic style, on which all readers comment, is the index of a mind that sees things in sharply defined outline and fastens itself firmly on to realities, this being further assisted by a complete mastery over the resources of the language employed, so that ideas do not have to force themselves through clouds of words.
If to these qualities we add an intense sensibility to all kinds of external impressions, and a faculty of passionate response, brought to the service of clear, intellectual perceptions we shall have seized hold of the outstanding features of De Vere's mentality. The result is, the production [131] of poems which impress the mind with a sense of their unity. The ideas cohere, following one another in a natural sequence, and leave in the reader's mind a sense of completeness and artistic finish.
That this concinnity is characteristic of Shakespeare's mind and work needs no insisting on at the present day. It is one of the distinctive marks of the individual sonnets of Shakespeare and we fear a much rarer feature of reflective poems than it ought to be; the lack of it being responsible for that distressing feeling of "jumpiness" so frequently experienced in reading works of this order. In this matter of cohesion and unity we have certainly met with no similar correspondence between Shakespeare and any other of the many Elizabethan poets whose work we have been constrained to read in the course of this enquiry, nor any other poet with the same vast range of sentiment between charming love lyric and violently passionate verses.
Again, as there are no hazy atmospheres about the images which such a mind employs and no words are wasted in struggling to define, we get quite a wealth of images presented to the mind in rapid succession. In reading the poems of De Vere, as in reading the works of Shakespeare, one lives in a world of similes and metaphors. In both cases there is a wealth of appropriate classical allusions; but this is mingled harmoniously with an equal wealth of illustration drawn from the common experiences and what appear like the personal pursuits of life.
Allied possibly to these mental qualities is the colour consciousness which is observable in both groups of writings. There is also the attendant sensibility to flowers, the favourite flowers in both cases being the lily, the rose, and the violet.
Turning from these mental indications to the matter of moral dispositions, we find in the poems the impress of a character quite above what one would gather either from the biography in the Dictionary of National Biography, or from the scattered references to him in other [132] works. There is, moreover, in addition to the poems in Dr. Grosart's collection, a letter written by the Earl of Oxford and attached to one of the poems, which gives us a. glimpse into the nature of the man himself as he was in these early years. Whatever may have, been the pose he thought fit to adopt in dealing with some of the men about Elizabeth's court, this letter bears ample testimony to the generosity and largeness of his disposition, the clearness and sobriety of his judgment, and the essential manliness of his actions and bearing towards literary men whom he considered worthy of encouragement. His poems may in a measure reflect the mannerisms of his day, but in the letter we get a glimpse of the man himself; and if he comes to be acclaimed as Shakespeare this letter will be an invaluable treasure as the first, and it may prove the only, Shakespearean letter bearing upon literary matters and cast in literary form, if we except the dedications of his poems to Southampton. The fragments we get of Oxford's letters in the Calendered State Papers and other contemporary manuscripts are generally in a formal business cast with only occasional poetic or literary flashes.
As a letter it is, of course, prose; but it is the prose of a genuine poet: its "terse ingenuity," wealth of figurative speech, and even its musical quality being almost as marked as they are in his verse. We subjoin a few passages, asking the reader to consider that the writer was but twenty-six years old when the letter was published. It has reference to a translation that had been submitted to him, though apparently not intended for publication, but which was published by his orders — presumably, therefore, at his expense."After I had perused your letters, good Master Bedingfield, finding in them your request far differing from the desert of your labour, I could not choose but greatly doubt, whether it were better for me to yield to your desire or execute mine own [133] intention towards the publishing of your book. . . .
"At length I determined it were better to deny your unlawful request, than to grant or condescend to the concealment of so worthy a work. Whereby, as you have been profitted in the translating, so many may reap knowledge by the reading of the same. . . . What doth it avail a mass of gold to be continually imprisoned in your bags and never to be employed to your use: I do not doubt even you so think of your studies and delightful Muses. What do they avail if you do not participate them to others? . . . What doth avail the vine unless another delighteth in the grape? What doth avail the rose unless another took pleasure in the smell?
"Why should this man be esteemed more than another but for his virtue, through which every man desireth to be accounted of? . . .
"And in mine opinion as it beautifyeth a fair woman to be decked with pearls and precious stones, so much more it ornifyeth a gentleman to be furnished in mind with glittering virtues.
"Wherefore considering the small harm I do to you, the great good I do to others I prefer mine own intention to discover your volume before your request to secret the same. Wherein I may seem to you to play the part of the cunning and expert mediciner. . . . So you being sick of so much doubt in your own proceedings, through which infirmity you are desirous to bury your work in the grave of oblivion, yet I am nothing dainty to deny your request. . . . I shall erect you such a monument that in your lifetime you shall see how noble a shadow of your virtuous life shall remain when you are dead and gone. . . . Thus earnestly desiring you not to repugn the setting forth of your own proper studies.
"From your loving and assured friend,
"E. OXENFORDE."[134] We ask our readers to familiarize themselves thoroughly with the diction of this letter, and then to read the dedication of "Venus and Adonis." So similar is the style that it is hardly necessary to make any allowance for the seventeen intervening years.
Whilst, then, we find him paying high compliments to a literary man, from whom he could expect no return, at the time when others were penning extravagant eulogies to the Queen, we have not a single line of poetry from the pen of Oxford, ministering to the royal vanity, and this notwithstanding the high place he undoubtedly held in the queen's regards and her indulgence of what seemed to others like a provocative wilfulness in him. This absence of compliments to royalty is also characteristic of the Shakespeare work, and has been the occasion for much surprised comment.
Reviewing the present chapter as a whole it will be recognized that to the remarkable set of resemblances with which we dealt in the last chapter, must now be added an equally remarkable set of correspondences in the general literary situation and in the leading characteristics of Shakespeare's and De Vere's writings. And when the value of the authorities cited is duly weighed it will be readily conceded that, whatever may be said for the rest of the argument, it cannot be urged that in dealing with the question of Shakespearean honours, we are inviting the public to consider the claims of one who can be lightly brushed aside, as in any way "out of the running."
* The Muses. back