Sunday, October 13, 2024

The christening of Prince Edward, the most dearest son of King Henry the VIIIth. October 15, 1537.

The following is the account in the State Papers Office of the christening of the future King Edward VI. It is collated from at least three anonymous authors. Quotation marks are used inconsistently and I've removed a number. They were meant to highlight the fact that part of the account comes from instructions composed before the event and part from actual description composed after the event.


The christening of Prince Edward, the most dearest son of King Henry the VIIIth of yt name.

"By the provision of God, Our Lady S. Mary, and the glorious martyr S. George, on the 12 day of October, the feast of St. Wilfrid, the vigil of St, Edward, which was on the Friday, about two o'clock in the morning, was born at Hampton Court Edward son to King Henry the VIIIth," year 1537, Dominical letter G., 29 Henry VIII., "which was not christened till the Monday next following."

Incontinent [unable to contain their joy] after the birth Te Deum was sung in Paul's and other churches of the city, and great fires [were made] in every street, and goodly banquetting and triumphing cheer with shooting of guns all day and night, and messengers were sent to all the estates and cities of the realm, to whom were given great gifts.

The preparations ordained for the said christening at Hampton Court.

Describing minutely the course of the procession and the decorations of the chapel, with the positions occupied by the officers of the household (Sir John Russell, Sir Fras. Bryan, Sir Nic. Carew, and Sir Ant. Browne in aprons and towels were to take charge of the font until discharged by the lord Steward, or, in his absence, the Treasurer of the Household).

The order of going to the christening was: First, certain gentlemen two and two bearing torches not lighted until the prince be Christened. Then the children and ministers of the King's chapel, with the dean, " not singing going outward." Gentlemen esquires and knights two and two. Chaplains of dignity two and two. Abbots and bishops. The King's councillors. Lords two and two. The comptroller and treasurer of the Household. The ambassadors. The three lords chamberlains and the lord Chamberlain of England in the midst. The lord Cromwell, being lord Privy Seal, and the lord Chancellor. The duke of Norfolk and abp. of Canterbury. A pair of covered basins borne by the earl of Sussex, supported by the lord Montague. A " taper of virgin wax borne by the earl of Wiltshire in a towel about his neck."A salt of gold similarly borne by the earl of Essex." Then the crysome richly garnished borne by the lady Elizabeth, the King's daughter: the same lady for her tender age was borne by the viscount Beauchamp with the assistance of the lord. "Then the Prince borne under the canopy by the lady marquis of Exeter, assisted by the duke of Suffolk and the marquis her husband. The lady mistress went between the prince and the supporter. The train of the Prince's robe borne by the earl of Arundel and sustained by the lord William Howard." The nurse to go equally with the supporter of the train, and with her the midwife. The canopy over the Prince borne by Sir Edw. Nevyll, Sir John Wallop, Ric. Long, Thomas Semere, Henry Knyvet, and Mr. Ratclif, of the Privy Chamber. The "tortayes" of virgin wax borne about the canopy by Sir Humph. Foster, Robt. Turwytt, George Harper, and Ric. Sowthwell. Next after the canopy my lady Mary, being lady godmother, her train borne by lady Kingston. All the other ladies of honour in their degrees.

When the Prince was christened all the torches were lighted and Garter King at Arms proclaimed his name (proclamation verbatim, titles duke of Cornwall and earl of Chester).

This done, this service following was in time the Prince was making ready in his traverse, and Te Deum sung:—

First, to the lady Mary the lord William to give the towel and the lord Fytzwater to bear covered basins, and the lord Montagew; to uncover. Item, to the bishop that doth administer, the lord Butler to bear the towel, the lord Bray to bear the basins and the lord Delaware to uncover. To the duke of Norfolk and abp. of Canterbury, godfathers, the lordSturton to bear the towel and the lord Wentworth to give the water. To serve the ladies Mary and Elizabeth with spices, wafers, and wine: the lord Hastings to bear the cup to lady Mary, and the lord Delaware that to lady Elizabeth; lord

Dacres of the South to bear the spice plates to both, lord Cobham the wafers, and lord Montagewf to uncover the spice plate. The bishop that doth administer, the duke of Norfolk and abp. of Canterbury, godfathers at the font, and the duke of Suffolk, godfather at the confirmation, to be likewise served by knights appointed by the lord Chamberlain. All other estates and gentles within the church were served with spice and ypocras, and all other had bread and sweet wine.

The going homeward was like the coming outward, saving that the taper, salt and basin were left and the gifts of the gossips carried, i.e. Lady Mary, a cup of gold borne by the earl of Essex; the archbishop, 3 great bowls and 2 great pots, silver and gilt, borne by the earl of Wiltshire; Norfolk, ditto, borne by the earl of Sussex; Suffolk, 2 great flagons and 2 great pots, silver and gilt, borne by Viscount Beauchamp. Lady Elizabeth went with her sister Lady Mary and Lady Herbert of Troy to bear the train. Sounding of the trumpets. Taking of " assayes." The Prince was then borne to the King and Queen and had the blessing of God, Our Lady, and St. George, and his father and mother; and the same day the King gave great largess,



Also at Virtual Grub Street:



Posted by at No comments:

The Marvelous Tale of Thomas Becket's Birth.

“The following beautiful legend has come down to us, of the loves of Gilbert and Matilda,” says J. A. Giles, in his The Life and Letters of Thomas à Becket, of the saint's parents, “and there seems no reason to doubt the facts which it relates...”. Giles having done largely yeoman's work in his two volume work, one might be tempted to take his word on the matter and his brief source citation: “The first quadrilogus.”

But the tale seems so incredible that one goes to the purported source, in volume 4 of Robertson's Materials for the History of Thomas Becket (1879), where one finds “Machildis” as the name of Thomas's mother, a copyist's error for Matilda. This would seem to be the only place in which his mother's name is said to be Matilda.

But nothing else of our tale, beside the name, is found in the Quadrilogus I. Nothing even remotely related to the tale can be found there. Giles has taken nothing from it but the alternative name of Thomas à Becket's mother. Neither is the least hint found in the biography contained in the Lambeth Manuscript, which informs us that Gilbert was not a native Englishman but rather born in Rouen and his wife "a lady of Caen".

When Gilbert was a young man, he took upon him our Lord's cross by way of penance, and set out for the Holy Land, accompanied by a single serving man, whose name was Richard. As these two were on their way with others to offer up their prayers at the holy places, they were surprised by an ambuscade, made prisoners, and given in chains to be the slaves of a certain Amurath, and chief of the Pagans. Here they remained some time, earning a scanty subsistence by the daily labour of their hands. A year and half passed away in this Sclavonian bondage, and Gilbert began to attract more notice and respect than the others, particularly in the eyes of Amurath, with whom he got into such favour, that he often, though still in chains, waited on him at table, and conversed with him and his guests on the customs and manners of different countries. For his sake, also, much favour was extended to his fellow captives, principally by the mediation of Amurath's only daughter, a beautiful and courtly damsel, who, as will be shown presently, was smitten with love for the captive Gilbert.1


This, of course, is so much in the style of a medieval prose romance that it is clear in a moment that it is not legitimate biography. Nothing more is known of the actual Gilbert Becket except for his name. Thomas did say that he was “not among the lowest”.2

Farther along we will learn that Gilbert escapes and returns to England. Matilda undertakes the dangerous journey to join him there.


Night and day were given up to deliberation, until at length, one night, when all were buried in sleep, she arose by herself, and concealing her design from every one, she took a small quantity of provisions with her, that she might not be encumbered, and committed herself to all the dangers of such a stealthy flight, forgetful in the excitement of her anticipated escape, of all the wealth of her father, which would, after his death, have come to her. Wonderful indeed was the courage of this woman, and the depth of her love which emboldened her to execute so difficult and dangerous a deed! Noble as she was, and the heiress to a rich estate, she cast aside the parental tie, and though frail and delicate, she braved all the terrors of poverty, all the dangers of a long extent of country and of a stormy sea, alone and unaided, for the love of one man so far away from her, so utterly a stranger to her; though it was uncertain whether she ever should find him, or even if he was yet alive, still less certain whether he would marry her, even when he should be found!

Of course, Matilda finds her way to London and Gilbert. There she is baptized by six bishops at St. Paul's.


A day was then fixed, namely the morrow, on which she was conducted into the presence of the afore said bishops in the Church of St. Paul, where was a baptistery prepared in which she should be baptized.


She and Gilbert are married, immediately thereafter, and little Thomas conceived in short order.

But whence came this tale? It is nowhere in the standard materials relating to the life of the saint. Thanks to the Internet it only took a couple of hours to find a discussion of the matter on a site called the Literature Stack Exchange.3

With that for a start, I would soon find that numerous versions of the tale began to appear c. 1300, with and without Gilbert Becket for protagonist, and would continue until at least the 19th century.

One such tale, entitled “Ici poez oyer coment seint Thomas de Kaunterbures nasqui” ["Here you can hear how Saint Thomas of Canterbury was Born"] is available via Early English Books Online.4


Gilbert Becket was his name: the book tells me

Also his Mother was of heatheness


[Gilbert Bekat was is name : þe bok tellez me.

Ake is Moder was of heþenesse]


All of a number of versions published in manuscript form around the 14th century seem to have been in Middle English. At least one, which will have to await a better time, is written in Middle English salted with Latin and Old French.

What in the world possessed Giles to declare the tale genuine biography and to point to the Quadrilogus I, I can only guess. These things happen to prolific writers such as himself. Anyway, I link to the full tale in Giles's modern English translation here [link].


1Giles, John Allen The Life and Letters of Thomas à Becket (1846). 14ff.

2Froude, James Anthony. Life and Times of Thomas Becket (1885). 16n2. “Nec omnino infimi”. It was reported in a contemporary biography of Thomas that Gilbert had served as sheriff of London but no confirming evidence would seem to be available.

4“Ici poez oyer coment seint Thomas de Kaunterbures nasqui.” https://quod.lib.umich.edu/c/cme/AHA2708.0001.001/1:3.18?rgn=div2;view=fulltext




Also at Virtual Grub Street:


Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, October 06, 2024

An Italian riding tale out of Bartello.

In my Shakespeare in 1573: Aprenticeship and Scandal I present various details relating to the volume An Hundreth Sundrie Flowers first published in that year. The opening flowers were the works of George Gascoigne, a squire's son seeking position in the Court through his pen. Explanatory material introducing the second half of the first edition, states that the Flowers that followed were an anthology of the works of certain outstanding young court poets.

13. The anthology section begins with the publication of explanatory letters by the editor, G.T., and the friend who he consulted. H.W.’s letter leads the way.

IN August last passed my familiar friend Master G. T. bestowed vppon me ye reading of a written Booke, wherin he had collected diuers discourses & verses, inuented vppon sundrie occasions, by sundrie gentlemen (in mine opinion) right commendable for their capacitie1

The poems are a collection from talented gentlemen poets of their acquaintance. It is unspoken that, being socially connected members of the gentle classes, such a favor might be returned upon the correspondents to considerable benefit in the future.2

Appeals for approval from the public, such as commercial publication, were frowned upon by the English nobility. A courtier was expected to be a supremely gifted amateur, their social milieu their readers. The Court was intended to be a place shared by a select few in all regards including poetry.

The advent of the printing press was changing that, though. More of the general public and upper-class women were learning how to read. Such manuscript anthologies as H.W. speaks of were occasionally finding their way into print. Some of the contents were anonymous. Others featured initials or monikers. All tended to be among the more popular works of poetry.

Among the reasons for anonymity was that the poems contained private information. Poems of young courtiers necessarily included private details of the Royal Court. Human nature being what it is, anthologies of courtier poems, then, were particular best sellers.

The anthology section of An Hundreth Sundrie Flowers, composed largely of love poems, did indeed cause an uproar. In particular, by virtue of a poetry and prose narrative “A discourse of the adventures passed by Master F.I.” in which a young man has an affair with the Elinor, Mistress of a castle. The love poems — many of them in the forms we now call the “Shakespearean sonnet” and “Venus and Adonis stanza” — would surely have been recognized by the real-life model for this mistress. Also the details of the affair.

Gascoigne had been a mercenary in the Netherlands, at the time the volume appeared, trying to replenish the funds he'd thrown away in a first attempt to appear impressive at the Court. The fact, he hoped, would allow him to personally side-step the fury of the queen and her advisors. But how to save the reputation of the young courtiers from having unadvisedly allowed a manuscript to be made of their poems which was later published?

Upon returning to England, Gascoigne, the main author of probably the most talked about book throughout the educated classes — particularly the ladies — executed a bold gambit. He would publish a corrected edition in order to disguise the offensive material. Very little would be removed. First, he re-titled the most offensive “adventures”:

I understande that sundrie well disposed mindes have taken offence at certaine wanton wordes and sentences passed in the fable of Ferdinando Jeronimi, and the Ladie Elinora de Falasco, the which in the first edition was termed The adventures of master F. J.3

The new title would be:

The pleasant Fable of Ferdinando Jeron[i]mi and Leonora de Valasco translated out of the Italian riding tales of Bartello.4

In this way, the young courtier who had written under the moniker Si Fortunatus Infoelix (F.I.), in the rest of the anthology, was instantly removed as the romantic protagonist of the tale. The Elinor, who he liberally compared to the goddess Cynthia, and referred to as his queen, became the Spanish Leonora a name that did not in the least begin with the letters “E-l”. No one cared then, or cares now (except for historians of literature), that no evidence of such a tale by Bartello exists.

After defending the titillating material of the anthology as something intended as a morality tale for young courtiers Gascoigne declares that it was actually he who wrote all of the poems. There had been no manuscript anthology.

I thought good to advertise thee, that the most part of them were written for other men. And out of all doubt, if ever I wrote lyne for my selfe in causes of love, I have written tenne for other men in layes of lust.... For when I did compile any thing at the request of other men, if I had subscribed the same with mine owne usuall mot or devise, it might have bewrayed the same to have beene of my doing. And I was ever curious in that behalfe, as one that was lothe to bewray the follies of other men. And yet (as you see) I am not verie daungerous to lay my selfe wide open in view of the worlde. I have also sundrie tymes chaunged mine owne worde or devise.

The poems had numerous monikers because he needed to pretend that he was many different poets in his role as ghost-writer and in order to people his subsequent morality tale.

Through all of this we learn a great deal. Literary hangers-on more at the periphery of the Court befriended the young courtiers, in the process partaking in the popular practice of passing around poems. The affair of the Flowers, then, expands, by just one among many examples, our understanding of such references as Shakespeare's “sugared sonnets among his private friends.”5

As early as 1566, Richard Edwards, Master of the Children of the Royal Chapel, had collected a now famous manuscript anthology from the most talented of his charges. Now, some 7 years later, in 1573, GT had collected another featuring at least two of the same promising young poets. GT's was published in the 1573 collection.

GT's attempt to ingratiate himself with the young men of the Court caused such a furor that it had to be apologized for, edited... and reissued. For even a Queen could only be enormously flattered so long as outsiders would think the tale was not about her — not about her chivalric love affair — but someone else like her.

26. A second edition in just over a year implies that the first had been a smashing success (by the measure of the day). A second edition announcing a cloud of scandal around the work was likely to make it even more attractive. With some high drama, lots of fast talk and a few tweaks all could be put right, the Queen flattered to be portrayed in less personally identifiable terms as a goddess on earth, and Gascoigne’s attempt to attract noble patronage would prove to have worked far better than he might have imagined. He clearly was not among the faint of heart.6

Edwards' manuscript anthology was published, in 1576, as A Paradise of Dainty Devices. There were no apparent signs of Court scandal. It, too, contains many details of the social milieu surrounding the Court and the practice of passing around poetry but they are much quieter.

George Gascoigne was pressed into service by Robert Dudley, the Earl of Leicester, to write a considerable portion of the entertainments for the famous visit of Elizabeth to the earl's seat at Kenilworth castle, in July of 1575, and soon after received a position at Court. He died just over a year later, at the age of 52, from what was apparently an extremely painful cancer. History remembers him for being a major influence on the works of Shakespeare.




1 Gascoigne, George. A Hundreth sundrie Flowres (1573), 201.

2 Purdy, Gilbert Wesley. Shakespeare in 1573: Aprenticeship and Scandal (2021). 13. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B096GSQV14

3 Cunliffe, John W. The Compete Works of George Gascoigne (1907). I.7.

4 Ibid.

5 Meres, Francis. Paladis Tamia (1598).

6 Purdy, 26.



Also at Virtual Grub Street:


Posted by at No comments:

Saturday, September 21, 2024

The King's License to Eat Meat.

Upon the accession of the nine year old King Edward VI, his counselors sent out royal officers to do visitations to all of the major institutions of church and state. Each carried with it an itemized list of the topics to be addressed. The instructions began with:

Imprimis, In consideration that above and before all things such ways and means are to be sought for, whereby the people may learn to know their duties to God, their Sovereign Lord, and to one another;... 1

This general preface was followed by dozens of other specific instructions, one of which was the following:

Item, Whether they have declared, and to their wits and powers have persuaded the people, that the manner and kind of fasting in Lent, and other days in the year, is but a mere positive law. And that therefore all persons, having just cause of sickness or necessity, or being licensed by the King's Majesty, may temperately eat all kinds of meat, without grudge or scruple of conscience.2

Edward's father, Henry VIII, had left most of the rituals of the Catholic church intact. In essence, he kept all of the Catholicity of the English church except for obedience to the Pope. Edward's Protectorate was dedicated to making the church Protestant.

It could only be a matter of time, however, before parliament would have to be called in order to set the country's budget in order. In exchange for revenues, the Protector, the Duke of Somerset, would have to consult the Commons about the decisions that had been made and disseminated as part of the visitations.

Somerset called Edward's first parliament on November 4, 1447.3 Henry VIII and prior parliaments had not been overwhelmingly protestant. That was about to change but only inasmuch as the circumstance would allow. The call in the King's name to put aside dietary rules during Lent and fasting days was not well received.

Nor would meatless days be dropped — regardless of Protestant protests — for centuries to come. England was an island nation. Many of its subjects made their living from fishing. The trade would be decimated if meat were allowed. Not only that, but England drafted fishing boats and crews into service in time of war. At this point in English history, its naval fleet was far too small to meet active wartime needs of the country without drafting all sea-worthy boats and hands into service.

Laws around meatless days were strengthened, instead:

[Lent and fasting days] were ordered to be observed in the usual manner, under penalties for each offence of a fine of ten shillings and ten days' imprisonment.4

Not that this was the end of the matter. The crown took to itself the prerogative to issue the following licenses.


Pro Carnibus edendis, de Licentia.

License to Eat Meat

REX omnibus ad quos, &c. Salutem.

Sciatis quod Nos,

De Gratia nostra speciali, ac ex certa Scientia & mero Motu nostris, necnon de avisamento & consensu Consiliariorum nostrorum,


Licentiam dedimus & concessimus, ac per Praesentes Licentiam damus & concedimus, praedilecto & fideli Consiliario nostro. Johanni Comiti Warwici Magno Admirallo nostro Angliae, & Dominae Johanni Uxori suae, ac totae ipsius Familiae, ac omnibus (quotquot sunt) ad eundem Comitem vel dictam Uxorem suam accedentibus, quod ipsi, & totae ejusdem Comitis Familiae ubicumque fuerint, ac omnes alii ad eundem Comitem aut dictam Uxorem suam forsan accedentes, deinceps, durante Vita naturali ipsius Comitis, temporibus Quadragesimalibus & aliis Diebus Jejunalibus quibuscumque, Carnibus & Lacticiniis vesci libere & impune valeant & possint, aliquo Statuto Actu sive Proclamatione Constitutionibus aut Ordinationibus quibuscumque, in contrarium factis aut editis, seu imposterum fiendis vel edendis, in aliquo non obstantibus;


Eo quod expressa mentio de certitudine Praemissorum, Actuque sive Statuto de Abstinentia a Carnibus, in Parliamento nostro apud Westm. Anno Regni nostri secundo tento, aliquove vel alio Actu sive Statuto nostro qualitercumque edito vel edendo, aut aliqua alia Re Causa vel Materia quacumque in aliquo modo nonobstantibus.

In cujus rei , &c.


Teste Rege apud Westmonasterium, decimo octavo Die Februarii.

Per ipsum Regem.5

KING to all whom, &c. Greetings.

Know that we

From our special Grace, and from our sure Knowledge and mere Motion, as well as from the advice and consent of our Councillors,

We have given and granted license, and by those present we give and grant license, to our chosen and faithful counsellor. John Earl of Warwick to our Grand Admiral of England, and Lady Joanne his Wife, and all his Family, and all (as many as there are) who are in the household of the same Earl or his said Wife, that they, and all the Family of the same Earl wherever they may be, and all others to the same Earl or his said Wife, perhaps those in her own household [should she keep one], thereafter, during the natural life of the Earl himself, during the times of Lent and other Fasting Days, may freely and with impunity eat meat and dairy products, and be able to, regardless of any Statutory Act or Proclamation Constitutions or Ordinances of any kind, made or issued to the contrary, or falsehoods made or issued, notwithstanding any of them;

Because of the express mention of the certainty of the Premises, and the Act or Statute of Abstinence from Meat, in our Parliament at Westm. In the second year of our Reign, by any or other Act or Statute of ours published or issued in any way whatsoever, or any other Cause or Matter in any way whatsoever
notwithstanding
In whose matter, &c.


Given by the King at Westminster, the eighteenth day of February [1550].


By the King himself.

Individual favorites of the King — via the Protector and council — were henceforth issued licenses to ignore the parliament's dietary statutes and to eat meat without penalty on what were meatless days for others. A few dozens of exceptions would make no meaningful difference for the fishing industry while it would more closely bind important allies to the crown.

Ironically, the bishops of Canterbury and of Ely received nearly identical licenses. Theirs did not include wives (Uxorem suam), however, which was likely a political hint. All did include all the licensee's “family wherever they might be” (toti ejus Familiae ubicumque fuerint).


1 Strype, John. Ecclesiastical Memorials (1822). II.i.74.

2 Strype, II.i.79.

3 Strype, II.i.72.

4 Froude, J. A. History of England from the Fall of Wolsey (1893). IV. 383-4. Citing, 2 and 3 Edward VI. cap. 19.

5 Rymer, Thomas. Foedera... Acta Publica (1741). VI.ii.181.



Also at Virtual Grub Street:



Posted by at No comments:

Invention in a Noted Weed: the Poetry of William Shakespeare.

The first Shakespeare Authorship study I published, in 2013, was the short biography Edward de Vere was Shakespeare: at long last the proof. It was expressly intended to reveal a number of findings (new to the world, not to myself) while it served as the introduction to a Complete Poems of William Shakespeare.

The plan was that I would scour Tudor publications and manuscripts for further poems attributed to Vere / Shakespeare as part of further research on authorship topics with which I had become familiar over the years. To these attributed poems I would expect to add a number of other Vere / Shakespeare poems anonymously published or misattributed. To the poems I would add critical materials.

It soon became clear that the research undertaken in order to fill out the necessary detail for the completed poems was yielding material that demanded a number of book-length studies on individual sub-topics. Otherwise, the material would be overwhelming.

Was Shakespeare Gay? What do the sonnets really say?

In 2015, then, I published Was Shakespeare Gay? What Do the Sonnets Really Say? In which I point out that at least some of Shakespeare's procreation sonnets were written, circa 1580, as part of the well-known attempts of courtiers at that time to convince Queen Elizabeth to marry and produce an heir.

Be not self-willed for thou art much too fair,

To be death's conquest and make worms thine heir.1

Also that the evidence resoundingly points to Elizabeth being the subject of Shakespeare's Monument Sonnets, rather than the Earl of Southampton.

Once these facts are accepted, a great many of the mysteries of the sonnets are mysteries no longer. Sonnet 74 is written shortly after the serious wound Edward de Vere suffered in a duel with Thomas Knyvet in 1583.

My spirit is thine the better part of me,

So then thou hast but lost the dregs of life,

The pray of wormes, my body being dead,

The coward conquest of a wretches knife,

We can then see that the Dark Lady sonnets are written to/about Vere's mistress, Anne Vavasour. At least two were written to his wife, Anne Cecil; one to his son who died shortly after birth; at least one to his second wife, Elizabeth Trentham; one to the son that outlived him.

Edmund Spenser becomes the infamous Rival Poet of the sonnets upon the publication of the first part of his epic poem The Fairy Queen in 1591.

My saucy bark, inferior far to his

*

Or, being wreck’d, I am a worthless boat,

He of tall building, and of goodly pride;2

Compared to Spenser's ship “of tall building” celebrating Elizabeth, Vere had to admit that his Monument of mere sonnets was but a “saucy bark”.

Several months later, in 2015, I published Discovered: A New Shakespeare Sonnet (or three, actually), the record of my research into three Shakespeare sonnets pirated and published in an anthology of courtier poets in 1591. In 2021 I published Shakespeare in 1573: Apprenticeship and Scandal the results of my years of research into the anthology of courtier poetry, An Hundreth Sundrie Flowers, first published in 1573, in which dozens of poems by Edward de Vere — many of them sonnets in the form history has come to call “Shakepearean” — appeared under the moniker Si fortunatus infoelix.

These were not by any means the entirety of my studies of the poetry of Vere / Shakespeare. In fact, those studies had necessarily to include in depth studies of the authors, publishers and works of Vere's literary community at any given time — his context.

And the poetry will not be limited to 14-line sonnets. Edward de Vere wrote poetry in many meters and forms in least two languages, translated from at least four languages. He did so under his own name, one moniker, one pen name and anonymously, over at least 38 years. Those forms and the language that fills them each require individual attention.

The topic is enormous. I have further trickled out findings in my Virtual Grub Street blog family, over the years, and linked to them from my Facebook groups and pages. Readers may have noticed that the rate of posting about Shakespeare's poetry has been increasing. The project needs to move forward with greater speed.

Toward this end, I have begun a hyperlinked topic page: the Virtual Grub StreetOxfordian Shakespeare Poetry Page [link]. It joins Virtual Grub Street hyperlinked pages to posts on the following topics:

I will periodically be updating the Poetry Page, as I do all my topic pages, with links to new posts.

The individual posts relating to the poetry of Shakespeare will be intended to be various-stage draft pages of the Complete Poetry of William Shakespeare that I promised when I published Edward de Vere was Shakespeare: at long last the proof. There is a vast amount of information to be sorted through, selected and arranged. Revision will undoubtedly be necessary as the work proceeds. This is the only way to move the project forward while continuing to research and write my other studies of the plays and life of Edward de Vere / William Shakespeare.

Hopefully, final drafts of the poetry pages published in the Virtual Grub Street blog will soon be gathered together into a Complete Poems of William Shakespeare.



1 Sonnet 6.

2 Sonnet 80.


Also at Virtual Grub Street:


Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)