Numbers in bold brackets [] indicate original page numbers.
III
THE EARL OF OXFORD IN THE WARS OF THE ROSES
When the Wars of the Roses broke out, John de Vere, Twelfth Earl of Oxford, became, as we have already seen, a staunch supporter of the Lancastrian cause. In the early part, of Edward IV's reign, whilst matters were still unsettled between the two parties, he was executed along with his eldest son, Aubrey de Vere, for corresponding with the defeated Queen Margaret. The title then passed to his second son, John, the Thirteenth Earl, who took part in the temporary restoration of Henry VI. For this he was attainted in 1474, but restored to his family honours on the defeat of the Yorkists and the accession of Henry Tudor.
In relating these particulars to the plays of Shakespeare a strictly chronological parallel between the historical events and the plays is not possible. If, however, we take the four plays which deal specially with these wars, the three parts of "Henry VI," and the play of "Richard III," we may say that "Henry VI," part 1, deals mainly with the years prior to the outbreak of civil war, during which England was losing power in France through the heroism of Joan d'Arc, whilst the first rumblings of the coming storm in England were distinctly heard. In "Henry VI," part 2, the tension becomes acute, and the opening phase of the conflict, that in which the Twelfth Earl of Oxford was prominent, forms the subject matter of part of the play. "Henry V1," part 3, is concerned mainly with the short period of Henry's temporary restoration during the reign of Edward IV, ending in the overthrow of the Lancastrians and the murder of Henry VI. The play of "Richard III" is presented as the final triumph of the red rose over the white.
Now of these plays, "Henry VI," part 1, we are [186] assured, is probably not from Shakespeare's hand at all. The same remark applies to "Henry VI," part 2, and to a considerable portion even of Henry VI," part 3. The most Shakespearean work in this trilogy is to be found, however, in the latter half of "Henry VI," part 3. "Richard III" is wholly Shakespearean. Turning then to "Henry VI," parts 1 and 2, the non-Shakespearean plays, we find there is no mention made whatever of the 12th Earl of Oxford; whilst, on coming to "Henry V1," part 3, we find a very prominent and honoured place given to John, the 13th Earl of Oxford, along with the striking fact that he does not make his appearance on the stage until Act III, Scene 3. That is to say, he is not brought into these plays at all until he is brought in by "Shakespeare"; and then, which makes it still more striking, we have very particular mention made of the father and brother who had laid down their lives in the Lancastrian cause, but who are completely ignored in the other two plays. In a word, the non-Shakespearean work ignores the Earls of Oxford, whilst the Shakespearean work gives them a leading and distinguished position.
Oxford speaks:
"Call him my King, by whose injurious doom
My elder brother, the Lord Aubrey de Vere,
Was done to death? And more than so, my father,
Even in the downfall of his mellow'd years,
When nature brought him to the door of death?
No, Warwick, no, while life upholds this arm,
This arm upholds the house of Lancaster."Having been thus introduced into the play he is hardly mentioned except to be praised:
"And thou, brave Oxford, wondrous well beloved."
"Sweet Oxford."
"Where is the post that came from valiant Oxford?"
"O cheerful colours! see where Oxford comes."
"Oxford, Oxford, for Lancaster."
"O! welcome Oxford, for we want thy help."
"Why, is not Oxford here another anchor?"[187] Then towards the close of the play, when King Henry VI blesses Henry of Richmond and names him as successor to the throne, it is Oxford who, along with Somerset, arranges to send him to Brittany for safety, until "the storms be passed of civil enmity." And, in the last act, even such a detail as his place of imprisonment is remembered and named:
"Away with Oxford to Hames Castle straight."
Finally, we have the concentration of Shakespeare's matured powers in the great tragic drama of "Richard III," which sets forth the overthrow of the house of York, and the triumph of Henry of Richmond, as representative of the House of Lancaster. In this play King Edward remembers, in his distress over the death of Clarence, that it was he who saved him "in the field of Tewkesbury, when Oxford had me down." In the last act of all, when the Yorkists are overthrown and Henry Tudor appears, it is with Oxford by his side; and it is Oxford who, as premier nobleman, replies first to the king's address to his followers. Whether, therefore, Shakespeare was an actual representative of the family of the De Veres or not, we are quite entitled to claim that he shows a marked partiality for the family, a careful regard for its honour, and a precise acquaintance with details pertaining to its several members.
Such a fact would not have given a justification for the selection of Edward de Vere in the first instance; for the family might have had intense admirers outside the circle of its own members. When, however, the selection has been made on quite other grounds, and supported by other lines of argument, the discovery that "Shakespeare" displays this special partiality has immense value, and hardly leaves room for doubt as to the soundness of the choice. The poet and dramatist who wrote the passages we have quoted from "Henry VI," part 3, could hardly fail to have been interested also in the[188] particular representative of the family who at that time bore the title, and who happened, moreover, to be a poet and dramatist quite in "Shakespeare's" line. Yet this particular nobleman's name is never once met with in connection with the "Shakespeare" dramas, although he was living at the time in Hackney, then a London suburb immediately adjacent to Shoreditch, where Burbage had his theatre, and the Shakespeare dramas were being staged. All this is more than suggestive of a wish not to be seen in it.
It is worth remarking, too, that Shakespeare's expression of partiality is more guarded in "Richard III" than in "Henry VI," part 3. The former play is a later and more matured work, belonging to the time when the Shakespeare mask had been adopted. Great publicity was given to it, and it passed through several editions in the lifetime of Edward de Vere. The play of "Henry VI," part 3, evidently an earlier work, in which he betrays his Oxford partialities more freely, was not printed in its present form until it appeared in the Folio edition of 1623. That is to say, it is really a posthumous publication of a youthful production, never having been published with Shakespeare's imprimatur, and may, indeed, never have been staged during the later years of "Shakespeare's" fame.
Of the earls who succeeded to the domains and titles between John the 13th Earl, who stood by the side of Henry VII, and Edward the 17th Earl, little need be said. After the death of the 14th Earl the direct male line came to an end, and the 15th Earl, the grandfather of the poet, succeeded by right of descent from Richard de Vere, the 11th Earl of Oxford.
Before leaving the matter of Edward de Vere's ancestry, it is necessary to offer a few observations on the office of Lord Great Chamberlain, which had been hereditary in his family for centuries, and to which he succeeded, along with the other dignities, on the death of his father. This office must not be confused with that of Lord Chamberlain, rendered familiar to Shakespeare students by its association with the [189] performance and publication of many of Shakespeare's plays. "The Merchant of Venice," for example, was published "as it hath beene diverse times acted by the Lord Chamberlain, his servants." Amongst the functions of the Lord Chamberlain are the arrangements relating to royal patronage of the drama and the licensing of plays and theatres. It was the company of actors under the special patronage of the Lord Chamberlain which in Queen Elizabeth's day performed many of "Shakespeare's" plays, and has in consequence been erroneously styled "Shakespeare's Company." The disappearance of the Lord Chamberlain's books for the "Shakespeare" period is dealt with in another chapter.
The position of the Lord Great Chamberlain, though of higher social dignity, appears to have been less onerous and its functions more intermittent. These had more to do with state functions and the royal person, near whom this official was placed on such great occasions as coronations and royal funerals.
It is necessary to point out the distinction, otherwise the unwary might be misled into supposing that Edward de Vere, by virtue of his office, had something to do with the direct management of the company with which William Shakspere was connected. The Lord Chamberlain during part of the "Shakespeare" period was Lord Hunsdon; and though Edward de Vere might possibly have something to do with the matter indirectly, through his fellow official, directly as Lord Great Chamberlain, it would not come within his province.
As Lord Great Chamberlain he officiated near the person of James I at his coronation, just as, doubtless, when a boy, he had witnessed his father officiating at the coronation of Queen Elizabeth. Although his officiating at Elizabeth's funeral is not mentioned so explicitly as the part he took at the coronation of James, it is natural to assume that he would be there.
It is just possible that this ceremony is directly referred to in sonnet 125:
[190] "Were't aught to me I bore the canopy,
With my extern the outward honouring,
Or laid great bases for eternity,
Which prove more short than waste or ruining?
* * *
No, let me be obsequious in thy heart,
And take thou my oblation, poor but free."If this can be shown to have any direct connection with the functions of Lord Great Chamberlain, it will be a very valuable direct proof of our thesis. The particular sonnet from which we have quoted comes at the extreme end of the series to which it belongs; and, as we are assured that the whole series, was brought to a close shortly after the death of Queen Elizabeth, sonnet 125 must have been written about the time of that event. It is difficult to imagine in what impressive ceremony William Shakspere of Stratford could have participated about the same time, necessitating his bearing the canopy and laying great bases for eternity. On the other hand, the reference to "dwellers on form and favour losing all by paying too much rent" is strongly suggestive of an allusion to royalty, and is exactly descriptive of what Oxford represents Elizabeth's treatment of himself to have been: that she had encouraged his lavish expenditure with promises of favour that had not been fulfilled. His application, in her later years, for the presidency of Wales had met with fair words and disappointment. Altogether the suggestion of an allusion in the sonnet to the hereditary office of the Lord Great Chamberlain seems very strong.