Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Chaucer's Reputation: an EEBO exercise

I have always been interested in the works of Geoffrey Chaucer, the poet whose genius sparked a legacy of imitation, some good and some not so good. To be recognized long after someone’s death is what some may call a legacy, however, to be considered something of good repute while you are still living is simply remarkable. Chaucer had both, though one could argue that his fame and repute grew with each passing century.

Many scholars have looked into Chaucerian reputation within a specific scope of time. One such scholar by the name of Caroline F. E. Spurgeon did just that. Her three volume work Five Hundred Years of Chaucer Criticism and Allusion 1357-1900, observed, what she calls, “the idea of collecting a body of opinion on Chaucer” (v). Her research, though a considerable collection, has been reproduced here within this essay, but with a significant limited scope of time in mind. I have taken the time period from 1540-80 regarding Chaucerian Criticism and Allusion(s). By choosing a smaller focus I hope to analyze Chaucer’s reputation, raising such questions as: Can we add to the allusions that Spurgeon found in the print record from 1540-80? Do references that we find shed new light on how Chaucer and his works were perceived in the English Renaissance of the 16th c.? By utilizing comparable research methods I was able to match some of Spurgeon’s introductory points regarding the time period that C.S. Lewis calls the “Drab Age.” This period marked many critics and writers that alluded to Chaucer. For example, Gawain Douglas, a Scottish poet, or as Spurgeon considered him, a “Scottish Chaucerian” (xv) mentions Chaucer as an enthusiast admires and aspires to be like their forbears. Spurgeon sums up the period of the Scottish Chaucerians as “one of unstinted admiration, complete comprehension of Chaucer’s writings, and hearty acknowledgment of his superiority as artist to every other English or Scott poet” (xvi). Moreover, the English poet during the 16th c. regarded Chaucer primarily as a reformer that rebuked ill and vice through his creative rhetoric. Furthermore, the early 16th c. admired Chaucer, primarily through the imitation of the Scottish poetry. The late 16th c. poet and critic held Chaucer in a more accusatory tone. Spurgeon mentions that during this late century Chaucer is accused as having “obsolete language and coarseness” (xxii). This latter accusation, although not held by the majority and excluding Spenser, who thought much of his predecessor to be “laid near the master” (xxiii) upon his death, does lead to a definitive inquiry. Again, why did 16th c. criticism on Chaucer fluctuate so dramatically from one extreme to the next? I believe the answer can be found in the “Drab Age.” This “Drab Age” is a time period where Chaucerian criticism matched the learning of the critic. In other words, many critics were beginning to allude to Chaucer rather briefly because they recognized his greatness in the difficulty of his rhetoric. Many moved away from the depth of study involving Chaucer and his language and began to experiment with their own meter and rhyme. An example of this can be seen in John Skelton’s works. However, my primary concern involves Chaucer’s reputation as discussed throughout the time frame of 1540-80. The premise here involves the idea of transition. This period, existing between the admiration for and the accusations against Chaucer, presents an evolution in Chaucer Criticism. The time period boasts Chaucerian allusions involving didactic rhetoric, and national prowess. Both of these implications from Chaucerian criticism during this time period can be seen through the works of Roger Ascham, John Bridges, and Gawin (Gavin) Douglas. The admiration for Chaucer and his genius is also present in Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey’s Songs and Sonettes as well as Thomas Howell’s The Arbor of Amitie Wherein Is Comprised Pleasant Poems and Pretie Posies. Both works present their poetry and allude to Chaucer much like an invocation to a Muse utilized in the epic form. Again, these authors alluded to Chaucer in order to perhaps strengthen their own “basic” genius. These authors and their works will be discussed throughout this essay in more detail. I hope to argue that the time period spanning 40 years of Chaucerian criticism and the selection of specific critics from this time period may elucidate my main point, namely that men wrote what they could depending on their ability. In other words this essay will argue that Chaucerian repute fluctuates inversely proportionate to the critic’s knowledge of Chaucer. Perhaps then it can be argued that the Scottish poets understood Chaucer better than the English poets during the “Drab Age,” thereby producing poetry that lacked Scottish appeal or “Golden Age” rhetoric like Spenser, Shakespeare, and even to some degree Malory. Why is this? I propose that the English and Scottish poets alike wrote what they knew, and what they did not know, though attempted in imitation, came out, as Lewis puts it, “bad poetry” or “the real mid-winter of our poetry” (127).

With an increase in technology comes a responsibility to wield and use such resources to further research study. I have therefore, in imitation, to some degree, cross-referenced some of Spurgeon’s critical allusions with that of a primary source search engine known as the Early English Books Online (EEBO). This tool in no way replaces the efforts of Spurgeon’s grand scale, but it does assist in discovering parallels and non-parallel allusions to regarding Chaucer’s reputation. Though the broad argument regarding the growth of Chaucer’s reputation is known, a more pinpoint thesis was needed to express this argument. Therefore, I argue that Chaucer’s genius, what Harold Bloom considered as, “that trait of standing both of and above its age, the ancient principle that recognizes and hallows the God within us, and the gift of breathing life into what is best in every living person,” (Genius) examines the level of genius of Chaucer in lieu of the critic’s allusion or use to the poet’s work or character. Ultimately, however a person’s work does reflect and portray their character to some degree. Roger Ascham, for example, in writing Taxophilus, presents Chaucer in light of the didactic nature of his narrative. He utilizes Chaucer’s name in order to validate his main point and fear that children in England would forget their use and need for what Melanie Ord cites as “the best model upon which to educate children in manners and morals” (202). This raises another point in Chaucerian criticism and allusion. The idea that Chaucer was beyond his age is an accepted and arguable fact, however the idea that his age was beyond him is not regularly supported. Therefore, the idea that criticism took on a more accusatory tone as the century came to a close is one in need of examination. Earlier, I mentioned that it is not within the scope of this essay to analyze the emergence of the late 16th c. but that the analysis would point in the direction of the mid-16th c. and answer the implication that Chaucer became more difficult to understand. If Chaucer became more difficult to understand, why was he mentioned in critical and creative works? This essay aims to answer this and many questions already addressed throughout this paper. The structure of the paper will take on three parts. First, the allusions that were found utilizing EEBO and the cross-reference data in Spurgeon’s work as they catalogued Chaucerian criticism and their critic. Moreover, moving beyond the overlaps encountered in Spurgeon, other significant allusions were noted on EEBO that provided suggestions to her research methods in light of my own. Second, a detailed analysis of the works themselves from EEBO and their respective authors will serve to further answer the question regarding Chaucerian fluctuation in conjunction with a critic’s understanding of Chaucer’s rhetoric. Again, this analysis answers the possible use and justification for a critic’s motive to utilize Chaucer’s name in their didactic work or poetry. Lastly, the final segment will analyze C. S. Lewis’ the “Drab Age” and the fore mentioned authors during the time period of 1540-80. One might hope to get a glimpse into the background for this age and answer why, according to Lewis, the time period faltered only in the age of poetry. Lewis warns that we must “correct a false impression of that age if we are to consider its poetry alone. Music and architecture show that it had artistic impulses, though poetry was not, […] the channel in which they flowed. It is this flow of poetry that became retarded during the “Drab Age” that will concern us, and shed light on Chaucerian repute.

I

In utilizing the primary source engine known as EEBO I was able to search along the same reference lines as Spurgeon, though without looking up books at a time. EEBO serves a powerful search tool for primary sources, most notably and for our purposes, books. By utilizing EEBO I was able to search through over 100,000 available books, digitized and full-text cited, online. Though my research project involved only a small window in Chaucerian criticism history, EEBO boasted digital page facsimiles from 1473-1700 and includes every work from England, Scotland, Ireland, and even British North America. This essay has profited from English and Scottish allusions to Chaucer searched on EEBO versus what was collected by Spurgeon. The advantage of time saved was a huge factor during this research project. In cross-referencing Spurgeon cites (in print) versus EEBO hits utilizing key word searches I noticed many parallels, but also noted allusions not utilized by Spurgeon. In her book Chaucer Criticism and Allusion, she mentions briefly that “at the end of the sixteenth century the references to Chaucer become very numerous, and as a whole they are very appreciative” (xxii). Of course, she was able to collect references regarding or alluding to Chaucer within a five hundred year span. I was able to research forty years towards the middle and beginning of the late 16th c. Not surprising, the EEBO resource itself as a primary engine was quite limited in allusions found. This was due to the digitized information available. The EEBO search engine currently searches English books that have been digitized and to their credit, depending on the citation source and keyword search, the full text. Of course, for this research project I familiarized myself with the works themselves from the time period as it appeared and availed itself online. For example, Roger Ascham’s Taxophilus appears in both Spurgeon and EEBO. However, EEBO cites Taxophilus existing in a later edition than that of Spurgeon’s reference. An example where EEBO records a significant site and Spurgeon does not involves Skelton’s Phillip Sparrow. This work by Skelton is not found in Spurgeon at all, but EEBO records it as a very late edition dated as 1545. Skelton wrote Phillip Sparrow in 1509. Further examples reflecting similarities or parallels in Spurgeon and EEBO references were found to include basic edition dates, some earlier in Spurgeon versus EEBO. For a comprehensive list of all cites found in EEBO versus Spurgeon utilizing different key word searches and their myriad, truncated spellings see Appendix I-a_xls.

By searching various and truncated key words such as Chaucer, Wyf of Bath, Troilus, and Yeoman I not only paralleled Spurgeon finds but noticed some works were not to be found in her references. For example, by truncating the various spellings on Chaucer’s name and focusing my attention from 1540-80, over fifty works on Chaucer were found. In this case Chaucer was truncated to include the following: Chaucer*, Chauser*, Chauvvcer*, and Chauwser*. Upon such a search the works of Roger Ascham, Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, and Thomas Howell were found in EEBO. Both Ascham and Howell appear in Spurgeon, but Henry Howard’s work Songs and Sonettes does not appear under the date cited in EEBO as 1557. In addition to truncating the name of Chaucer to find parallels in Spurgeon from EEBO, the word phrase Wyf of Bath was used as a keyword search. Truncated, the work of John Skelton’s Phyllyp Sparowe appears in EEBO, but not in Spurgeon. Moreover, by utilizing the truncated word makaris EEBO marked a Chaucer allusion in Robert Semphill’s work regarding “the deploration of the cruel murther of James Erle of Murray” (1570). Combined, these searches provide three keen insights into research methods which both Spurgeon and I made use of.

First, Spurgeon categorized her references to Chaucerian allusions from the primary motive that Chaucerian criticism was after all “a contribution towards the history of literary criticism” (ix). This can be reiterated by following EEBO and other secondary sources used in this essay (though in detail in section III). Her five hundred year scope in this case is as broad as her motive to include the history of literary criticism, whereas in utilizing EEBO, coupled with only 40 years to analyze would yield a similar broad motive, but quite possibly a more detailed analysis within that agenda.

Second, Spurgeon “roughly grouped and sorted” (ix) her examined references to both criticism and allusion regarding Chaucer. Some examples include “a dedicatory notice to Chaucer,” “A quotation from Chaucer’s works,” and “Notices of Chaucer in connection with language and style” (xxiii-xxx). The latter example concerns us the most in the pages that follow, but all reflect the basic motive behind Chaucerian reflection in other men’s works. Likewise, EEBO sorted Chaucerian allusions that were entered in the keyword search and then placed on note cards. Where the note cards found parallels to Spurgeon they were marked to reflect this. Where there were significant discrepancies regarding an EEBO find not mentioned in Spurgeon, a grouping of such finds was tallied and placed on a spreadsheet. I utilized the similar basic “rough” grouping and “sorting” that Spurgeon used. It proved simplest and effective method, and assisted with the organization of the materials.

Third, as Spurgeon concentrated loosely on all the important Chaucerian allusions and criticisms, she was unable to provide as much detail as she wanted. She mentions at one point that there was too much of an increase of Chaucerian criticism and that “the most important or interesting ones are selected” (v). This bias in choosing what criticism to list is not a shortcoming of Spurgeon, nor does it amount to faulty, misrepresentative research. In fact, EEBO, on many cite searches with the word “yeoman,” displayed 14 records. However, of the 14 records only two were chosen to serve the purpose of this paper. In imitation of Spurgeon the research method of relevant choice utilized to explain the whole from the part is good research. The two records were found in Spurgeon under the critic Arthur Hall (1576) and Roger Ascham (1545).

II

In an earlier segment of this essay the argument that the Scottish poet admired Chaucer because they understood Chaucer presented two implications. First, a justification for the classification of good poetry was observed. Second, an understanding of the Chaucerian meter and rhyme was directly proportional to the critic’s use or allusion toward Chaucer. Both Spurgeon and Lewis began with the Scottish poets. In section III the difference between the Scottish Chaucerian and the English poet will be addressed. What follows is a closer analysis of selected British and Scott authors and their works as they alluded to Chaucer. Some utilized Chaucer as an authority in their writing while others referenced Chaucer’s work in order to establish their own. All the same, Spurgeon though working from a wider scope listed many of the authors chosen in this section was unable to give specific analysis of each author’s work. Here, working from a more succinct time frame, the analysis of each author chosen and their respective work will be examined.

Roger Ascham (1515-68), a British author wrote numerous didactic tracts and narratives defending education and in one instance allegorized English archery for national pride. Two of his works concern us here however. Taxophilus, written in 1545, is as K.J. Wilson notes, “a book made of books” and further explains that Ascham, drawing upon an important national pastime, archery, provides “substance to his dialogue of expert knowledge envisioned the old learning, drawing upon its forms in a new imaginative style” (Renaissance Quarterly 30). In writing Taxophilus Ascham notes a deeper level of understanding the principles of shooting. The dialogue then takes on a deeper meaning, at least beyond just archery. Wilson here points to a generally accepted point when considering Taxophilus on a whole. He mentions, “It has been said that Taxophilus often seems to be not so much a treatise on shooting as on learning any skill or body of knowledge” (31). This latter position ‘on learning any skill or body of knowledge’ concerns us because it may elucidate Ascham’s motive for alluding to Chaucer in the first place. In other words there is some link between Ascham, the writer, as well as Chaucer, the writer. Ascham alludes to Chaucer’s rhetoric to substantiate his own. His allusions to Chaucer take on a tone of authoritative use, but also a quality of respect. The dialogue in Taxophilus is between two parties, Philologus and Taxophilus. Ascham begins his treatise to both ‘Gentlemen’ and ‘Yomen’ of Englande, declaring that “For this purpose I, partelye prouoked by the counsell of some gentlemen, partly moued by the loue whiche I haue alwayes borne towarde shotyng, haue wrytten this lytle treatise” (EEBO image 4). Ascham, having the opportunity to write his ‘little bok,’ in Greek or Latin relates to Prince Henry VIII, “mi commoditie should stop & hinder ani parte either of the pleasure or manie, haue vvritten this English matter in the English tongue, for English men” in hopes that it shall prove “profitable for manie to follow, conte ning a pastime, honest for the minde, holsom for the body” (EEBO image 3). Again, Ascham suggests that his treatise on gaiming, specifically archery is more than just archery. He sets up the tone for his treatise in the rhetorical form of a dialogue inserting allusions to Chaucer along the way. For example, Ascham mentions the integrity of shooting well within the boundary lines of etiquette and integrity. When one moves away from this regulated standard of morality this individual sets in motion a “Cursed sweryng, blasphemie of Christe” (Taxophilus 20a). Furthermore, Ascham respectfully mentions his shortcomings of expression and notes Chaucer to have a better handle on rhetorical expression regarding this aberrancy to shooting and morality. Ascham, on Chaucer remarks that “These halfe verses Chaucer in an other place, more at large doth well set out, and verye liuely expresse, sayinge,

Ey by goddes precious hert and his nayles
And by the blood of Christe, that is in Hales,
Seuen is my chaunce, and thine is sinke and treye,
Ey goddes armes, if thou falsly playe,
This dagger shall thorough thine herte go
This frute commeth of the [...]eched boones two[...]
Fors[...]eringe, Ire, falsnes and Homicide. &c,” (20).

On another account Ascham further alludes to Chaucer’s rhetorical style as being grisly, an adjective perhaps used by Ascham to express his disgust with an overheard conversation between two gentlemen in coarse dispute. The men dispute the difference between shooting and playing and Taxophilus replies to Philologus, “but shoting (as all good thinges) may be abused.” Moreover, Ascham in explaining the fore mentioned verses, alluding to one of Chaucer’s works, states that “Thoughe these verses be very ernestlie [...] yet they do not halfe so grisely sette out the hor[...]blenes of blasphemy, which suche gamne[...]s vse, as it is in dede, and as I haue hearde my selfe” (21b). We can begin to see the motive force behind Chaucerian allusion that Ascham is working with. He utilizes Chaucer’s repute as a “grisly” writer to link his own disgust at improper gaming. Again, it takes two men, “whose sayings be far more grisely, than Chaucers verses One,” to reiterate this point of disgust. Furthermore, Ascham mentions Chaucer’s works to reinforce a wider claim. English gaming, like archery, existing as a national pastime, much like our own day and age in American baseball, is religious. Its followers, equally zealous. Ascham states that the close link between leadership and worship and learning is closely linked. In citing Chaucer once more he declares, “In dede as for greate men, and greate mennes matters, I lyft not greatlye to meddle” (22). Though not a very convincing disclaimer, sounding much like a Chaucerian pilgrim denouncing his/her entente toward the rhetorical voice of rude words topos, Ascham’s claim is still somewhat a valid one. He further substantiates this by a return to Master Chaucer and takes on a more beseeching tone. He notes, “Yet this I woulde wyssh that all great men in Englande had red ouer diligentlye the Pardoners tale in Chaucer, and there they should perceyue and se, howe moche suche games stande with theyr worshyppe, howe great soeuer they be” (22, fii). By linking Chaucer and his tale to the urging of English learned men, Ascham strengthens his stance. His reliance on Chaucer suggests that English nationalism was in support of their poet. Ascham’s tone however in mentioning Chaucer serves a manipulative end. Recall that no where in the entire two-book volume of Taxophilus does Ascham mention Chaucerian rhyme royal or meter style, but simply Chaucerian rhetorical claims such as: Chaucer was a rebuker of ill and vice, Chaucer wrote grisly tales, Chaucer was a forerunner and appears as a lantern to be taken up by the learned and great men of England. Ascham concludes his allusion to Chaucer in Taxophilus by mentioning the act of playing, or gaming, which in turn incites potential leadership by those great men who take up the sport, but do so with regard to integrity and sportsmanship (though this term may have held variant implications during Ascham’s time). Ascham remarks:

Therfore, seing that Lordes be lanternes to leade the lyfe of meane men, by their example, eyther to goodnesse or badnesse, to whether soeuer they liste: and seinge also they haue libertie to lyste what they wiil, I pray God they haue will to list that which is good, and as for their playing, I wyll make an ende with this saying of Chaucer:

Lordes might finde them other maner of playe
Honest ynough to driue the daye awaye (22-3).

Though Ascham did not allude to Chaucer in the remainder of Taxophilus directly one need only read throughout the treatise to note that the spirit and tone of Chaucer is indeed imitated. K. J. Wilson reflectively admits that ultimately Ascham’s writing is “for a convinced audience” and that “the dialogue treats philosophical subjects beneath a didactic surface” (Renaissance Quarterly 41). This motive after all would align closely with some of Chaucer’s tales, most notably where, like Wilson notes, the “language conveys the image” (42). Imagery is clearly noted in Chaucer’s fabliau and folktale stories. I conclude by mentioning a note about, as René Wellek and Austin Warren mention, to be the “world view” (245). This world view, as in the works by Chaucer and Ascham’s Taxophilus, “emerges from the work, not the view didactically stated by the author within or without the work.” Ascham further aligns his didactic rhetoric and allusion to Chaucer in his work titled The Scholemaster. Alongside this body of work John Bridges also makes allusion to Chaucer in similar didactic fashion to further support his own work. This use of the didactic style of Chaucerian citation can be seen in Bridges’ Supremacie of Christian Princes. Bridges alludes to Chaucer to support his claim against fat monks who betray their Christian calling. He notes that “Euen Chawcer that describeth a Monke, doth giue him this prayse,

He looked not like a forepyned ghost,
A fat swanne he loued best of any rost” (366).

This allusion links Chaucer’s Monk’s Prologue and Bridges use of Chaucer’s description of a fat monk to reveal the hypocrisy of monkish fasting with regard to food. Bridges, suggestively, believes that Chaucer is also revealing the vice or practice of practice of false religion; in this case the Monk, to further claim a need for true spiritual discipline. Ascham in his Taxophilus does utilize this manipulative style to refer to Chaucer to better reinforce his premises. Ascham, like Bridges, in his Scholemaster, attempts what Melanie Ord considers “behavioral policing” (Rennaisance Quarterly 205). This rhetorical description of rigidity serves the purpose of “Ascham’s broad educational plan” (205). Recall that both Bridges and Ascham are writing for an audience who is learned, and as such alluding to Chaucer, a learned poet, would substantially link their writing to an audience which readily accepted Chaucer as their English poet proper. Agreeably, Ascham’s The Scholemaster, is as Ord puts it, “an unfinished work” (206). Unfinished though it is, The Scholemaster represents what the majority of English writers during this time period, referring to Chaucer and his works, as a means of instruction. This instruction toward a proper view of learning embraces the classical and removes the vulgar. Ord cites, “As poetry played an important part in the Italian cultural colonization of England. Acham’s attempt to reform courtly versification partakes of his wish to cultivate the court privately trough erudition” (214). This erudition then must have existed in Chaucer’s works as Ascham links Chaucer alongside classical writers. For example, Ascham notes that “some that make Chaucer in English and Petrarch in Italian, their Gods in verses and yet be not able to make trew difference, what is a fault, and what is a iust prayse, in those two worthie wittes” (Scholemaster 61). Here, Ascham mentions his inability to write like such great rhetoricians as a disclaimer to his work. Finally, Ascham, in utilizing classical authors, points to, what Melanie Ord considers, “a point of conflict […] between his humanist educative project and his national project of literary acculturation” (216). This conflict I believe justifies for Ascham and Bridges that well-schooled Englishmen “produce better imitations of classical Latinity than their continental competitors,” a view, as we shall note later in this essay, not shared by C.S. Lewis. In mentioning the subject of didactic rhetoric not all Englishmen alluded to Chaucer as reinforcement to their didactic ends. The Scottish poet Gavin (or Gawin) Douglas and the British poet Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey analyzed closely Chaucer, the writer of poetry and meter. Both wrote extensively on poetry and the sonnet form, though Douglas flattered Chaucer by imitation while Surrey, admirer of Thomas Wyatt, was, according to James Simpson, “destined for decapitation.”

Gavin Douglas, Scottish poet and bishop, is as Lewis admiringly suggests, part of that Scottish, poetic traditions of learning where, to borrow from an Aschamian archery metaphor, “become a bow with more than one string” (OHEL 79). Douglas in writing The Palis of Honour writes with the mindset to honor Chaucer. This honor exists in the tone of what Caroline F. E. Spurgeon calls a speech or “term of fervent admiration” (xv). Douglas can be categorized then as a supporter of Chaucer’s repute with regard to reverent devotion. In another work not cited here, Douglas alludes to Chaucer as “Master Chaucer” and “Reverend Chaucer.” In the same citation Douglas reminds the reader of a minor discrepancy regarding Virgil and Dido (see footnote). Chaucer then, though highly regarded by Douglas, notices this mild aberrancy and reacts with what Spurgeon notes as “great timidity, and a clear conscience of his own inferiority” (xv). Perhaps this suggests a more confident approach to Chaucerian allusion and a better understanding of rhetorical style. Where Ascham utilized Chaucer to reiterate and reinforce his didactic ends, Douglas alludes to Chaucer, the rhetorician in acknowledging his mastery as well as his possible shortcomings. C.S. Lewis, in describing Douglas, relates the Scottish Chaucerian’s ability to translate text. Lewis’ caveat however denotes that “Douglas pays for his freedom from the specific blindness of the renascentia by a specifically medieval blindness of his own” (OHEL 86). Furthermore, such ‘blindness’ in Douglas speaks to his honest disposition. Lewis again mentions that “Douglas is a very honest translator and always lets you see how he is taking the Latin” (82). This honesty, however may prove Douglas’ downfall. In alluding to Chaucer in The Palis of Honour, Douglas’ versification matches that of the Chaucerian style found in the 9-line stanza of Chaucer’s Anelida and Arcite. Again, Douglas, in recognition of Chaucer’s skill as a writer, is motivated by the highest form of respect, imitation. The Palis of Honoure exemplifies the earlier courtly tradition typical in Older Scots verse and seems to imitate Chaucer’s earlier work, The House of Fame. Again, we can note a clear shift in Chaucerian allusions depicting rhetorical advances to reiterate an instructional and didactic point (Ascham and Bridges), thereby relying more on Chaucer’s work, versus the Scottish implication of understanding Chaucerian rhetoric and following it toward an imitation of some kind. Clearly, Douglas portrays this imitation in his Palis of Honoure. In comparison to Douglas, though only with the intent alone to produce poetry and sonnets, Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, (herein noted as Surrey) like Ascham, his fellow Englishman, embraces the idea of returning to the classical past. James Simpson, remarking on Surrey’s writing, mentions the poet’s ability to “see historical thinking as ideally governed by the need to recover what has been lost from the classical past” (326). This recovery of the past is what links Surrey to Chaucer. Surrey notes Chaucer’s ability to call upon classical writers to substantiate his own, and as such follows suit. Moreover, it is in Simpson’s Ricardian and Henrician Ovidianism that we note Surrey’s writing to “exemplify a rediscovered ‘historical consciousness’” which, in conjunction with Chaucer, “offers an extremely rich variety of elegiac poetry” (329-30). This elegiac poetry is as Simpson remarks, “of a high order” (330). Surrey likens the use of the rhetorical style to Chaucer’s ability to convey his message. A message Surrey shares with both Ascham and Bridges. In mentioning Chaucer in his poetry he mentions the poet in grand form as:

Amid great stormes, whom grace assured so,
To liue vpright, and smile at fortunes choyce.
A hand, that taught, what might be said in rime:
That reft Chaucer the glory of his wit:
A mark, the which (vnparfited, for time)
Some may approch, but neuer none shal hit.
A toung, that serued in forein realmes his king:
whose courteous talke to vertue did enflame (folio 17).

In utilizing the subject of ‘fortunes choyce’ Surrey also notes the spoiling or the tearing apart of Chaucer’s wit. Chaucer himself utilized a similar point in saying, “He golden apples raft of the dragon.” In one case Surrey suggests that Chaucer’s legacy is enduring, lasting, established. In addition to this none can truly take or steal from such, as Chaucer mentions, “a dragon.” The attempt itself would prove foolish and Surrey in reverence does not doubt that Chaucer is truly Master and precursor to the English verse. To quote from James Simpson, “scholars detect the first flowerings of English ‘Renaissance’ literature in this discursive environment,[…] discursive features hailed as characteristic of ‘Renaissance’ poetic practice” (342-3). Furthermore, Simpson acknowledges that “Surrey in English, … by association understood to mark crucial stages on the way to a ‘humanist’ historical consciousness” (343). Arguably, this premise is also interconnected to Ascham’s humanistic tendencies, though more-so involving the didactic style versus the poetic verse. One author that challenged and attempted to link the two genre styles was Thomas Howell, the English poet.

Thomas Howell, in writing his Arbor of Amitie, Wherein is Comprised Pleasant Pöems and Pretie Poesies refers to the subject of friendship between the societies of individual people. Howell’s collection of poesies is nothing more than selections of poetry toward friends and admired people with undertones of didactic intentions. In his Table of Contents he cites “The vanitie of riches,” “Of Ladie Fortune,” (which carries Boethian overtones) and even “A diet prescribed to his Friend G.” Howell refers to Chaucer in a cataloguing of great classic writers. He states:

The flower of fame to you are,
For ever fresh to spring:
As fame will blow her reafless trumpe,
Your lasting name to ring.
If I had Tullies tongue,
If Chaucer’s vaine, if Honer’s skill,
If thousande helpers mo: (EEBO image 6).

Here Howell notes Chaucer’s ‘vaine’, a particular disposition, or as Shak notes, “a particular cast of genius” that can be called upon to assist in one’s writing. Again, like Bridges and more-so Douglas, and to a lesser extent Surrey, referring to Chaucer through tones of invocation reaffirms the poet’s god-like character genius. A genius that Harold Bloom remarked as possessing a “trait of standing both of and above its age” (Genius). Certainly Chaucer is that exemplary poet existing both “of and above” his age and beyond.

The lyric of both the Scott and English poet, then attempts and alludes toward a level of Chaucerian allusion. I find it then fitting that we end with Howell’s Preface to his Arbor of Amitie, as it captures, to an extent the critical spirit of the 16th c., as follows:

Who can but giue deserued praise,
And thanke his Muse I trowe,
Which sweetly springs in sugred sap,
Of every grace full meete:
Which wife Minerva hæth nurst,
And gave him suck so sweete,
Whom I doe judge, Apollos impe,
And eke our Chaucers peare:
What senselesse head of malice mad,
Will seeke such branch to teare (EEBO image 7).

The poetry, though not of the best quality, does reflect inklings of the turn of the 16th c. and at first glance may appear much like Laзamon’s Brut, but if analyzed closer and taken to heart, reminded that Howell’s Arbor of Amitie was written in 1568, we can then begin to appreciate what is to come. An appreciation Lewis describes in his Oxford History of the English Language, (OHEL) as he comments on the Middle Ages at turn of both Scott and English tradition, the “Drab Age,” (discussed in detail in section III) and of course the Golden Period of the English Renaissance. And yet, we enter the next section taking heed to the echoes of Howell’s verse as he mentions “but learned wits will further forth,” (EEBO image 7) and forward we will indeed go.

III
This section concerns itself with the link between what C.S. Lewis calls the “Drab Age” and the few critics that existed during this time period, of which Lewis is quoted as stating, “This is the real mid-winter of our poetry; all smudge, blur, and scribble without a firm line or a clear colour anywhere” (OHEL 127). Also, two questions will be addressed here: First, “Why were the Scotts better writers than their English counterparts, and how is this linked, if at all, to each of the National poet discussed already in lieu of their level of understanding of Chaucer? Is there a direct link to understanding Chaucerian verse, then imitating it? Second, can the “Drab Age” and those pots considered part of its history be seen as precursors of the “Golden Age” to come? This paper will concern itself primarily on the “Drab Age” and the poetic styles during this time period, though by looking into the structural frame of Lewis’ book one can note the logical progression toward an age of drab. This age of drab is not necessarily a time of bad poetry, but as Lewis puts it, exists as a “mid-century” and a “heavy-handed, commonplace age” (1).

The 16th c. literary history can be divided and compartmentalized to some extent. For instance, Lewis claims the possibility that such segmentation “teaches us to divide the men of that period into two camps, the conservatively superstitious and the progressive or enlightened” (5). Of course, there were some that became and existed as aberrancies to this premise of division. Most notably, demarcating a time period as what Lewis mentions in earnest as the “Englishman’s Aeneid” (15). It was during this tumultuous period that the emergence of empiricist thought surfaced and though “judged by the aims and wishes of its own time it was on the whole a record of failures and second bests” (15). Clearly, Lewis is not sparing in his criticism here. Did he favor at all during this period poetry and other discourses? Lewis as an educator himself would have appreciated the rhetoric of Ascham per se or even to some degree the didactic narrative of Bridges. He himself notes that “education had long been spreading, not down, but up, the social scale” (60). This position points in the direction of Ascham who alongside his two works covered in this essay, Taxophilus and The Scholemaster, saw and addressed this need for proper education. As Lewis notes, “in this way…new learning (for one class) meant new ignorance (for another)” (60). This balancing of new learning and exposure to cases of ignorance proved somewhat difficult to some and not so difficult for others. Again, Ascham answered call as he sensed it and utilized his basic genius and invoked the rhetoric of Chaucer to accomplish much of his instructive works. Elsewhere, Lewis further supports this claim regarding rhetoric as “the greatest barrier between us and our ancestors”. The “us” can be assumed to be the Englishman. The “ancestors” can be assumed, as it will be here, as consisting of Chaucer. Clearly, Lewis then sets up a disparity, if not a wide enough gap between the 16th c. Englishman and his earlier Master of rhetoric. Though difficult to compartmentalize timelines in any history, it is as Lewis mentions a, “mischievous conception” and “a methodological necessity” (64).

The link between Scott and English poetry is indeed brittle during the mid-16th c., especially at the close of the Middle Ages in Scotland. The Scott poet was considered far more advance in the literary art following the time of Chaucer. Lewis notes, “When they began their work Scotch poetry had already a considerable achievement behind it and was by no means a local or provincial department of English poetry”. Lewis places Scott poetry much like Spurgeon discovered through her research, remarking that “The general criticism of Chaucer in England in the early sixteenth century is, from a literary point of view, not quite so satisfactory as in Scotland” (Chaucer Criticism and Allusion xvii). Comparatively then both scholars agree that the poetic verse was stronger on the Scott side versus the English side. Gavin Douglas was a member of this brilliant Scotch poetry, specifically a member of the comic poetry. According to Lewis, “this comic poetry has often been misunderstood by English critics” suggesting perhaps a failure to understand their own poet Chaucer. The implication here is that though Chaucer is English, his works refer back to classical authors before him as well as his contemporaries (Italian and French sources alike). Chaucer, recognized by many as the Father of English poetry was himself, what Ascham mentions, a lantern (Taxophilus) or a guide for those who would come after, but notably to those who would come after with understanding in tow. Another notable demarcation in support of a strong poetic voice was the fact that aureation, according to Lewis, “was not a major characteristic in Chaucer,” but “after Chaucer it becomes a major characteristic in British … poetry” (75). Moreover, Lewis argues that much of the English poetry consisted of this aureation in an “indefinite license of coinage making such verses possible” (79). Again, as we enter into a poetic time period where the Scott poet understood his world and had a better aesthetic literary output in response to that world, the name Scottish Chaucerian is then seen clearly as a justification of terms. So much so that in citing Lewis’s acclaim on Douglas, he mentions that Dogulas’ skill exists “in bringing out the proper powers of his metre” (90). This extraction served him well in looking to Chaucer as a guide and an admirable but great poet. A poet who Lewis simply admits is “brilliant” (100). In viewing the Scott poets with immense favor Lewis showed little elation toward his own English countryman (although he is by birth considered Irish). His sentiment takes on a bit more of an aggressive tone when referring to John Skelton, a British poet. Here Lewis holds no punches as he mentions, “ As for Skelton, […] beside Dunbar, [a Scott poet in the line of Douglas] is not a writer at all. In a poem by Skelton anything may happen, and Skelton has no more notion than you what it will be. That is his charm; the charm of the amateur” (97). Here again Lewis takes a jab at the “amateur” Skelton and though he mentions a slight whitened praise of Skeltonian “charm,” it too is quickly soiled with the last word of “amateur.” The implication is clear then. Lewis is of the opinion that Scottish poetry is something to talk about while poetry prior to the English Renaissance, what Lewis called, “the unpredictable happens,” is not. This stagnant sense of poor writing on the English poet’s side as well as the lack of depth and creativity in many English verse prepare us for the “Drab Age.”

The “Drab Age” was not considered to be a time period of high poetic verse, but it’s opposite. Lewis defines the period as, “good or ill, poetry has little richness either of sound or images. The good work is neat and temperate, the bad flat and dry. There is more bad than good” (64). This notion that the poetic verse during this age exists as “more bad than good” is what marked the period for Lewis as “Drab.” Furthermore, what is true for the poetic verse during this time, Lewis suggests, does not exist in other circles of the known arts. He mentions, “Music and architecture show that it had artistic impulses, though poetry was not, for the moment, the channel in which they flowed” (128). Perhaps then his view of the arts is justified by the claim “for the moment,” suggesting a time where English verse matched its predecessors and was marked for a “Golden Age.” Lewis ends his point with, “Conversely, the acknowledged supremacy of the English poetry in some other ages has been accompanied by extreme penury in the remaining arts” (128). This sense of neediness may indeed have proved somewhat responsible for the volumes of literary Drab produced. As Lewis begins to list and catalog his “of the bad poets,” he mentions the likes of Stepehen Hawes, John Skelton, John Heywood, and More. These authors represent a formidable body of early “Drab Age” poetic and lyric verse which highlight the deficiencies of the time. In the same vein, Douglas, a Scott is praised, while John Bridges, Thomas Howell, Roger Ascham, and Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, though of the English class, are not, lending itself to “applied prose, such as never owed too much and often owed too little to conscious artistry” (273). In his critical approach toward recognizing Drab he further comments, rather tersely, that writing of this period carried with it “this effect, as of a man speaking with his mouth half full of gravel,” and to his main point “tolerated long enough” (273). Yet, these authors also receive some praise for their effort. Ascham is still read because “he is everyone’s friend” and because “he is irresistible,” and proved to maintain a considerable repute “in his own day” where “nearly everyone seems to have liked him” (279). Why perhaps? Lewis comments that Ascham carried “his delightful, temperament…into his writing,” thereby making it somewhat pleasurable to read though not highly regarded on a more critical, Lewisian level. It must be noted here that these authors appear as the greats amongst the Drab Age and are within the same bracket of genius regarding John Lyly (c. 1553-1606), an English author and somewhat successful precursor to the “Golden Age” of English Renaissance. Lyly, like Surrey and to a lesser extent Howell, though not listed earlier, is still entering the transitional phase of “genius” which “was essentially poetical and his work poesie” (317). Unfortunately, Bridges is not mentioned within this sphere and must remain in the realm of Drab. Throughout this paper I have attempted to show the variant allusions to Chaucer works if not to his person, and by so doing relayed a key implication: the existence of Chaucerian allusion is proportional to the author’s learning and understanding. The Scotts imitated and even questioned, though timidly, their admired Master Chaucer. The English acknowledged Chaucer’s greatness though could not tangibly, in poetic metre, express their reverence choosing instead to simply list references to Chaucer to substantiate their work. Again, Douglas expressed, admiringly, an imitative tone in his The Palis of Honour, highlighting the Scott’s understanding of Chaucerian metre and rhyme. In contrast, Surrey, though one of the better Drab poets listed in this essay is noted by Lewis to be at once “correctly cold and regularly low” as well as also noting “He [Surrey] does not care for refrains, and is the happiest as a lyric poet in octosyllabic stanzas” (231). These representations are not perfect, but their range does convey a presence for what was and what was to come, a day and age of literature as a commercial art. An art rendered not eulogistically, but acknowledged as “good poetry” nonetheless leading to the greatness that would mark the “Golden Age” of English verse.

No comments: