“PhOEnix” Of The Renaissance

LORD OXFORD:

“PHoeNIX” OF THE RENAISSANCE

©by E. Le Roy Miller, Easter, 2016

                                       Φ ο ί ν ι ξ
                                             Œ

                       From one immortal horizon to another,

                        The tips of your glorious-spread wings,

                        Spell your nameless, magical, wonder,

                        Something beyond mer-mortal beings,

                        It certainly doeth seem—incredible!

                                                                        E. Le Roy Miller

Lord Oxford Described  As A Phoenix  Of A Man

At The Age Of 25:

Clermont d’Ambois:

“I overtook, coming from Italy,

In Germany, a great and famous Earl

Of England, the most goodly fashioned man

I ever saw, from head to foot in form

Rare and most absolute, he had a face

Like one of the most honor’d  Romans,

From whence his noblest family was deriv’d,

He was besides of spirit passing great,

Valiant and learn’d, and liberal as the sun,

Spoke and writ sweetly, or of learned subjects,

Or of the discipline, of public weal;

And ‘twas the Earl of Oxford.”

             (W.P.Fowler, Shakespeare Revealed, p. 18;

                 Ward p., 112)

A Myth In His OwnE Time

W.P. Fowler in his comments on the above passage notes that the above dialogue, was copied out of “the mouth of Clermont d’Ambois” by George Chapman, in his history-play, the Revenge of d’ Boise. Consulting B.M. Ward (i.e., Fowler’s source), we find it further revealed that the above words were written in a kind of narrative dialogic verse. The play The Revenge of d’Bois (at least the section we deal with, recounted then current history (1575) which is related in his play by George Chapman. Among the events of the times described by Chapman, in the section we deal with, is a conversation of Clermont d’Ambois and his friend, Ren., concerning Lord Oxford.

From Chapman’s remarks, and many other sources as well, already in 1575, Lord Oxford was showing his feathers as a great “Phoenix of His Times”—not only in Italy but elsewhere throughout Europe. Though d’Ambois is not reported to have used the word “Phoenix” to describe Lord Oxford, he calls him every name in the Phoenix-book, excepting the name itself.

As we shall see Edward de’ Vere is quoted at length at this time, in 1575, by an Italian contemporary, Clermont d’Ambois—who met, we are told, Lord Oxford as he was coming out of Germany—as reported by Chapman in his historical-narrative-verse-play. 

This is important as Chapman was one of the featured writers with Ignoto, Shakespeare, Jonson, and Marston, in the famous section on the Phoenix which contained Shakespeare’s highly praised, “The Phoenix and the Turtle.” The point being, one can be sure that when Chapman wrote the words above (1575?), and certainly, when he published them (1613), he well knew he was describing Lord Oxford as a “PhOEnix”!

Lord Oxford As Phoenix of the Times

The description, in the above verse of d’Ambois, is that of a “Phoenix,” the unique descriptors, in fact, of that Rare Bird. The terms that are applied to Lord Oxford, then, at twenty five, d’Ambois, apply uniquely to the Phoenix—at a time when the world-view of Europe was seeing itself in a new “cosmic” light, so to speak (a matter only briefly touched on at the end).

Words (below) in the passage of Chapman’s play (above) featuring descriptions of Lord Oxford, from a European nobleman, d’Ambois, in 1575, indicating Lord Oxford was a PhOEnix:

            “Rare”

            “Absolute”

            “Noblest of the Noble”

            “Liberal as the Sun”

            “Spoke & Writ Sweetly”

            “Great”

            “Famous”

            “Valiant”

            “Learned”

But, what is being talked about—what is the bigger story, not just the above snatch of verse dialog above; what’s the content of the dialog? Let’s look to it

From Chapman’s Revenge of d’Boise.

Clermont d’Ambois is speaking, we are picking up the dialog somewhat into his speech—just enough to make our point. The discussion is really about “world-views”—the essence of man’s relation to the world (notice: the first line below, refers to “place” in life, culture, etc.).  A philosophical conversation is going on between two people, Clermont, himself a nobleman, but of more lowly status, and his friend about the times, their struggles, and troubles:

Cler. Hee that, unpleas'd to hold his place, will range,

Can in no other be contain'd that's fit,

And so resisting th'All is crusht with it:                                     

But he that knowing how divine a frame

The whole world is, and of it all can name

(Without selfe-flatterie) no part so divine

As hee himselfe; and therefore will confine

Freely his whole powers in his proper part

Goes on most God-like. Hee that strives t'invert

The Universals course with his poore way,

Not onely dust-like shivers with the sway,

But crossing God in his great worke, all earth

Beares not so cursed and so damn'd a birth.

[His friend, Ren., scoffs at his pessimism. Only in passing, I must note the theme of “self-love” is so dominant here, I wonder over it—perhaps the subject itself was part of the Renaissance World-View, not only in England but abroad? Could it be that Shakespeare, in his Sonnets, also deals with his owne self-love, and that he, too, was speaking to a common “cultural consciousness”—also shared, as we see, in this example, with an Italian nobleman?] 

            Ren. Goe on; Ile take no care what comes of you;

Heaven will not see it ill, how ere it show.

But the pretext to see these battailes rang'd

Is much your honour.

[Apparently a military review is prepared for Clermont, as an honor to him. The “pretext” is meant, I think, to mean the “reason” why he was being so honored. We can assume, I believe, the same logic applies to “the famous Earle of England.”]

Cler. As the world esteemes it.

But to decide that, you make me remember                      

An accident of high and noble note,

And fits the subject of my late discourse

Of holding on our free and proper way.

[Here, note, it is said he remembers an “accident of high and noble note” touching on their thoughts concerning a proper free man’s way, and such; and, please reader note, he remembers Lord Oxford, in this regard! In the regard, it would appear, from what is said below, about both being given a great honor of a military review and also the fact of having a common weltanschauung, as he described his own feelings about life, and Lord Oxford expressing to him, his own intimate thoughts on the subject of one’s “place” in life, society, and the world. It is in the original text, as spelled]

I over-tooke, comming from Italie,

In Germanie a great and famous Earle                            

Of England, the most goodly fashion'd man

I ever saw; from head to foote in forme

Rare and most absolute; hee had a face

Like one of the most ancient honour'd Romanes

From whence his noblest familie was deriv'd;                 

He was beside of spirit passing great,

Valiant, and learn'd, and liberall as the sunne,

Spoke and writ sweetly, or of learned subjects,

Or of the discipline of publike weales;

And t'was the Earle of Oxford: and being offer'd            

At that time, by Duke Cassimere, the view

Of his right royall armie then in field,

Refus'd it, and no foote was mov'd to stirre

Out of his owne free fore-determin'd course.

I, wondring at it, askt for it his reason,                            

It being an offer so much for his honour.

Hee, all acknowledging, said t'was not fit

To take those honours that one cannot quit.

[Neither Ward nor Fowler provide the additional text given at the above dialog beginning: “At that time. . .” which continues and tells a truly amazing story! Of course with a comma, the phrase could be “. . .goodly fashion’d man,/I E. Ver saw.” But, since the man gives Oxford’s name, what need for it? In any case, the story tells us that a review to the Duke’s “right royall armie” was offered to honor Lord Oxford, which he refused, with, appropriately, a Shakespearean couplet that “t’was not fit/to take those hounours that one cannot quit.” As we see the response from d’Ambois companion sees in the the words themselves, apparently, the presence of the man d’Ambois describes, “a man who spoke and wrote sweetly”]

Ren. Twas answer'd like the man you have describ'd.

[The response, “not fit/To take those honours that one cannot quit!” also contains the word “one” which is again Oxford’s OnE code—whether it was meant to be so here, or not can’t be certain. We shall, however, show again below, that Lord Oxford is also called “the one” again, as the dialog continues. It is a due diligence material fact, and so both instances of the use of “one” to name Lord Oxford here noted. Most to the point here, is that Chapman almost certainly knew, in 1613, when his play Revenge of d’Ambois was published that Lord Oxford was “Shakespere.”

Cler. And yet he [L. Oxford] cast it onely in the way,
To stay and serve the world. Nor did it fit

His owne true estimate how much it waigh'd;

For hee despis'd it, and esteem'd it freer

To keepe his owne way straight, and swore that hee

Had rather make away his whole estate

In things that crost the vulgar then he would

Be frozen up stiffe (like a Sir John Smith,

His countrey-man) in common Nobles fashions;

Affecting, as't the end of noblesse were,

Those servile observations.

[Continuing. . . the entire section is amazing. Lord Oxford is being described as one who behaves as he does, showing deference to all, and all to the purpose “to stay and serve the world.” How many people, heroes or not, does the reader know who’s announced high purpose was—complete service to the world?

Moreover, in the above comments, we are informed that Lord Oxford told our informant that he "despis'd" the life of a servile “frozen up stiff” nobleman (the prototypical “Sir John Smith”) who’d “perform all kinds of vulgar acts for vulgar preferment—in the “common Nobles fashions”—as was common among Nobles in England, he suggests! Lord Oxford told d’Ambois, that he would rather “make away his whole estate” than for “noblesse,” (i.e., “nobility”) to end in him!

Lord Oxford’s swipe against the very “nobility” of the common English noble, in this one statement, was enough cause not to publish it until Lord Oxford was long dead! And perhaps “risky” for Chapman even then, i.e., 1613.]

Ren. It was strange.

Cler. O tis a vexing sight to see a man,

Out of his way, stalke proud as hee were in;

Out of his way, to be officious,

Observant, wary, serious, and grave,

Fearefull, and passionate, insulting, raging,   

Labour with iron flailes to thresh downe feathers

Flitting in ayre.

[Imagine it. It is a “vexing sight to see” a man who is “out of his way”, stalke proud. . .” What is meant here? I found myself puzzled, and not quite sure of the meaning of “out of the way” at first I thought it meant how, by going out-of-his-way, accommodating in all things, he was, at the same time, “stalking” etc., as “proud” as if he were in the inner camp!

Consulting Onions Shakespeare Glossary I find, however, for:

 “out of” 3. Beyond VEN 567 Things out of hope, LLL 4.1.30, IH4.1. 135: outside the limits of H8 3.2.13 When did he regard The stamp of nobleness in any person Out of himself? (i.e., except himself).

I take it now to mean that Clermont is expressing Lord Oxford’s sentiments and the phrase “out of his way” refers to one of those, who, while in noble positions, is really “beyond his limits.” So, what follows, then, are descriptions of the pretenses of the English nobility! And it is this that makes Lord Oxford sick.

Proof of the pudding of this interpretation appears, in the final clause, which really should begin with two extra words, i.e., “And who.” These two words, or much like it, should precede the word “labours: As in the phrase in the verse,

            “Labours with iron flailes to thresh downe  feathers

            Flitting in ayre.”

The phrase “Out of his way” or its equivalent, “Beyond his limits” applies to each line except the last two, above—these two lines obviously are saying that anyone who is “beyond his limits of being”—that is to say—of being truly “proud,” “officious,” “observant,” wary,” “serious,” “grave,” “fearful,” “passionate,” “insulting,” even “raging,”—all apparently characteristics of a true nobleman—is “beyond the limits” of the present nobility is the point!

Indeed, they, the “noble ones” in England now, are but Don Quixote-like type characters, who absurdly, “Labour with iron flailes to thresh downe feathers/Flitting in ayre.”]  

Ren. What one considers this,

Of all that are thus out? or once endevours,

Erring, to enter on mans right-hand path?

[If we consider “one” to refer to Lord Oxford, as I think it does, and, if so, the question then is (in general language),:

            Ren. What does Oxford think of this

            Of all those so limited, or who once endeavored

            (i.e.,to be Honorable) But erred to do so,

            or get on the right path?

           

 “What does Lord Oxford, think of that situation? Clermont replies, as if he were Lord Oxford. One can see below, i.e. “(says one)” definitely refers to Lord Oxford, which is his code name, “OnE.”]

Cler. These are too grave for brave wits; give them toyes; 

Labour bestow'd on these is harsh and thriftlesse.

If you would Consull be (sayes one) of Rome,

You must be watching, starting out of sleepes;

Every way whisking; gloryfying Plebeians;

Kissing Patricians hands, rot at their dores;         

Speake and doe basely; every day bestow

Gifts and observance upon one or other:

And what's th'event of all? Twelve rods before thee;

Three or foure times sit for the whole tribunall;

Exhibite Circean games; make publike feasts:

And for these idle outward things (sayes he)

Would'st thou lay on such cost, toile, spend thy spirits?

And to be voide of perturbation,

For constancie, sleepe when thou would'st have sleepe,

Wake when thou would'st wake, feare 
nought, vexe for nought,

No. . .[and it goes on]

So much from Chapman. Again, it needs underlining that Chapman knew already, when the dialog was published in 1613, that Lord Oxford was the PhOEnix, as he himself was one of the five who participated in that publication featuring the famous “Shakespeare’s”poem, “The Phoenix and the Turtle” in 1601.

World-Wide Fame From All Quarters

During Lord Oxford’s European tour, which is referred to and discussed above, what is provided above is particularly important. It is from Chapman, it was told directly to Chapman by an Italian nobleman/soldier who was on the field with Lord Oxford at the time. A contemporaneous “recordation”, if you please—if it is so! Perhaps, of course, Chapman made it all up and it never happened—none of it. Nonetheless, stories, legends even, about Lord Oxford’s 1575 tour of Europe are well documented in the historical record. Even, as we see below, from a highly respected military officer.

Ward (p.112), for example, records the words of a Sr. Officer in Sicilian Army, who soberly reported that the:

“Right Honorable the Earl of Oxford, a famous man of Chivalry, at the time he traveled into foreign countries. . . made a challenge against all manner of person, whatsoever, and at all manner of weapons as Tournaments, Barriers with horse and armour, to fight a combat whatsoever in the defense of his Prince and Country. . . and that all Italy over he is acknowledged the only Chevalier and Nobleman of England. This title they give unto him as worthily deserved.”

A sober report, so it seems to me, written at the time and published in 1590! 

And there are claims that Lord Oxford himself claimed that some 80,000 troops were turned over to him to settle conflicts between different states. These remarks too are backed by historical records, i.e., the interrogatories of Lord Oxford’s accusers in a criminal charges case. Again, there is enough abundant historical evidence for Lord Oxford’s travel. At to the 80,000 solider put under his generalship, I do not know, but, so far as I know, Oxford may very well have been telling the truth. One way or the other, the point here is to focus on his “Phoenix “ Nature,” and his Final Mythic Identification.

Another Example, 10 years later

Ward remarks: “While on the subject of astrology, it may be worth mentioning that Lord Oxford certainly practiced this ancient science. “ And he cites a poem written in 1584, by Joohn Sootheern, and dedicated to Lord Oxford:

For who marketeth better than he

The seven turning flames of the sky?

Or hath read more of the antique;

Hath greater knowledge of the tongues?

Or understandeth sooner the sounds

Of the learner to love’ music.

(Ward, p. 50; Ward remarks that the “seven turning flames” are, of course, the planets).

But we have far more than a knowledge of astrology being mentioned—for who knows more, the poet asks, about antiquity, ancient languages or music? “Who knows more?”—invites comparison with the highest status of “knowing,” as its author obviously intends. The poet of the above verse, by the way, was living at Lord Oxford’s estate in the very year his book was published, 1584.

Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane:

The nature of Religion

“Valiant, and learn'd, and liberall as the sunne,”

--said to be true of Lord Oxford, 1575

“In some cultures the luminous epiphanies of solar gods become the sign of intelligence. In the end sun and Intelligence will be assimilated to such a degree that the solar and syncretistic theologies of the end of antiquity become rationalistic philosophies’ the sun is proclaimed to be the intelligence of the world, and Microbus sees in the sun all the gods of the Graeco-oriental world, from Apollo and Jupiter to Osiris, Horus, and Adonis. . .

That the whole of cosmic life can still be felt as a cipher of divinity is shown. . .  (Saturnalia, ch. 17-23) , P. 158

I am delighted here to find, Eliade, recognizing the poet’s importance in these matters. Indeed, in our particular case, herein described, our PhOEnix is of course OnE and part of the whole “mythic play” of Lord Oxford’s life, which involved his being the myth, with all his spirit and might of art born of phenomenal faith. He is Adonis, which, of course, spelled in the language of its origin, as Lord Oxford well knew, and the entire literate class of England knew, was AdOnE.

AdOnE and the PhOEnix are OnE. That we must lOOk to see.

It seems to me, Eliade, however perceptive and insightful, did not see as precisely as could be—for want of Thomas Mann’s revelation of “Mythic Identification.” Here, for our purposes, Eliade speaks of the “consciousness of an age”—and of the transmogrification, we may say, from the ancient view of religious ego-identification with a Deity (as he says Apollo, or Adonis (Adone) to the modern consciousness—for which he says we need the poets views and culture. {see end notes by Eliade]

I am here making the point, that Eliade is right in what he says, and if we take Mann’s step into “mythic consciousness” we are then on the ground of a new cultural revolution, a new “ground of being” in a new world of the “sun and intelligence”—as Eliade described it above. Going OnE step further, we are at a new era, a revolution of the PhOEnix, the Genius of World-Consciousness! Via the pOEtry d’EO=IO=OE!

Concluding Thoughts For Reflection:

Thoughts to reflect on: Eliade’s remarks from The Sacred and Profane, 1959, Harvest Book , N.Y. below:

If we should attempt to summarize the result of the description that have been presented in this chapter, we could say that the experience of sacred space makes possible the “founding of the world”: where the sacred manifests itself in space, the real unveils itself, the world comes into existence. But the irruption of the sacred does not only project a fixed point into the formless fluidity of profane space, a center into chaos; it also effects a break in plane, that is, it opens communication between the cosmic planes (between earth and heaven) and makes possible ontological passage from one mode of being to another.” (pg. 63)

But the important thing for our purpose is to bring out the specific characteristics of the religious experience, rather to show it numerous variation and the differences caused by history. It is somewhat as if, in order to obtain a better grasp of the poetic phenomenon, we should have recourse to a mass of heterogeneous examples, and, side by side with Homer, and Dante, quote Hindu, Chinese, and Mexican poems: that is, should take into consideration not only poetics processing a historical common denominator (Homer, Vergil, Dante) but also creations that are dependent upon other esthetics. From the point of view of literary history, such juxtapositions are to be viewed with suspicion; but they are valid if our object is to describe the poetic phenomenon as such, if we propose to show the essential difference between poetic language and the utilitarian language of everyday life.” P. 16