Much of the literary value of these poems, it should be recognized, is
historical. Like Henry Petowe's romance, =The Second Part of Hero and
Leander= (1598), they are fully as interesting as reflections of the
poetic genius of Marlowe and/or Shakespeare, mirrored in the works of
their less gifted contemporaries, as they are in themselves. Apart
from their historical significance, however, all these poems have
intrinsic interest, and several, including =Dom Diego=, =Mirrha=
and =Hiren= as well as =Philos and Licia=, have a considerable
degree of literary merit as well. Whoever the author of Philos and
Licia may have been, he was one who had thoroughly assimilated the
conventions of the minor epic, especially those employed in =Hero and
Leander=.[50] Unlike Page, whose imitation of Marlowe is for the most
part blind, this author is skillful in working many of these
conventions, and even particular words and phrases from other minor
epics, into the context of his poem, somewhat as the bards of major
epic are supposed to have done. Surprisingly, in view of this
technique of composition, the poem is well integrated, and
consistently smooth and fluent in its versification.[51]
As much as this unknown poet must have admired Marlowe's verse, he
evidently could not stomach the elder poet's conception of a hostile
universe, or his glorification of unwedded bliss. Accordingly he
constructed in =Philos and Licia= a world in which all goes well
provided one follows the rules, and where one of the key rules is that
Hymen's rites must precede love's consummation. One of Licia's chief
responsibilities, in addition to summing up all feminine perfections,
is to enforce this rule. Philos, though severely tempted to violate
it, soon yields to Licia's virtuous admonitions, for he is, let it be
known, a pliant youth, almost as devoted to Licia's will as the knight
in Chaucer's Wife of Bath's tale to the Loathly Lady's. The poem ends
happily, with the gods attending the lovers' nuptials. The result of
this too easily ordered union of souls and bodies, unhappily for this
otherwise charming poem, is an insufficiency of conflict. Aside from
the poem's un-Marlovian insistence on matrimony, its most notable
feature is its skillful and sustained use of light and dark imagery,
recalling Chapman's much less extensive treatment of such imagery in
his conclusion of Marlowe's poem and in Ovid's =Banquet of Sense=.
Gale's =Pyramus and Thisbe= begins with a moderately engaging portrayal
of the youngsters' innocent friendship; it soon falls into absurdity,
from which it never subsequently gets entirely clear. Gale seems to
have had no inkling of the ridiculous possibilities of "serious"
verse. Consequently, he is able to write of Pyramus and Thisbe
"sit[ting] on bryers,/Till they enjoyd the height of their desires,"
(Stanza 13), with no sense of the incongruity of the image employed.
With similar ill effect in its pathetic context, Thisbe's nose bleed
is introduced as an omen of disaster (Stanza 33), and Pyramus' "angry"
blood, by a ridiculously far-fetched conceit, is said to gush out "to
finde the author of the deed,/But when it none but =Pyramus= had found,/
Key cold with feare it stood upon the ground" (Stanza 30).
=Dom Diego=, though a pleasant, occasionally charming imitation of
Lodge's =Scillaes Metamorphosis=, employs fewer of the epyllionic
conventions than =Philos and Licia=, and uses them less imaginatively.
Though it never achieves a style of its own, it is quite successful in
recapturing the lachrymose artificiality that marks Lodge's poem.
Despite its oblique opening and occasionally awkward style, Barksted's
=Mirrha= is a poem of more power than =Dom Diego=. Among its more
affecting passages are a vivid portrayal of a "gloomy gallerie" lined
with portraits of Mirrha's suitors (p. 128) and an inventive account
of Hebe's spilling the nectar that rained spices on Panchaia (p. 147).
Barksted's early and unqualified recognition of Shakespeare's
greatness, and his humbly accurate assessment of his own limited
powers, compared to "neighbor" Shakespeare's, are quite disarming. One
gets the uncomfortable sense, however, that Barksted in both =Mirrha=
and =Hiren=, like H. A. in =The Scourge= after him, is a moral fence
straddler, enjoying vicariously the lasciviousness he so piously
reprehends.
=Hiren= as treated by Barksted is also deficient in imagination of a
high order, but is a more absorbing story than =Mirrha=. As signaled by
his undertaking a more intricately rhymed stanza than he attempted in
his first poem, Barksted's versification and composition in the second
poem are superior. The poet achieves his most telling effects in =Hiren=
not from invention but from the elaboration of such source materials
in Painter as permit him to capture the distinctive glittering
artifice of minor epic. His catalog of the senses (Stanzas 75-79)
serves as an example of this power of embellishment at its best.
Page's =Amos and Laura=, like Gale's =Pyramus and Thisbe=, falls into
bathos near the end when Amos, in an extended comparison, likens
Laura's refusal to cure his love wound to an avaricious doctor's
refusal to set a poor man's leg. Page's failure as a poet is not a
result of temporary lapses, as here, but of his inability to invent
significant conflict. As Amos says, with unintentional irony on page
235:
There are no Seas to separate our joy,
No future danger can our Love annoy.
This is precisely the problem. But in spite of the poem's obvious
weakness, one is drawn to the man who wrote it for his obviously
sincere, self-deprecatory references to his "weake wit" and "inferiour
stile." Fully aware of his limitations, Page, like Barksted and many
another unexceptional talent of his age, was nevertheless drawn to the
composition of poetry like a moth to the flame.
=The Scourge= is a straightforward and lively but undistinguished
redaction, in sing-song verse, of the well-worn Mirrha story. Its
chief but nevertheless dubious merit, over against the epyllionic
tradition, is its no-nonsense approach to the art of minor epic
narration. Although it expands Ovid's speeches and descriptions where
feasible and introduces a degree of invention en route, it is
singularly barren of such adornments as epithets, set descriptions,
and formal digressions. In consequence, it lacks the distinctive hard,
bejewelled brilliance of minor epic that characterizes Barksted's
poetry at its best.
In summation, then, we see that although =Pyramus and Thisbe= and =Amos
and Laura= have slight literary value, =The Scourge=, while failing to
score very high as a minor epic, yet has a certain crude, narrative
vitality. And =Dom Diego=, =Mirrha=, =Hiren=, and =Philos and Licia=, by
virtue of their charm, inventiveness, or skillful adaptation of minor
epic conventions to their expressive needs, form a hierarchy of
increasing literary value that raises them as a group well above the
level of the merely imitative.
For permission to reproduce =Philos and Licia= (for the first time),
=Mirrha=, and =Hiren=, I am much indebted to the Bodleian Library; for
permission to reproduce =Dom Diego and Ginevra= I am similarly indebted
to the Trustees of the British Museum. I am also under heavy
obligation to the Folger Library for permission to reprint =Pyramus and
Thisbe=, =Amos and Laura=, and =The Scourge of Venus= (1613), all for the
first time.
I also wish to express my thanks to The British Museum, the Bodleian
Library, the University of Michigan, and the Ohio State University
libraries for generous permission to use their collections, and to the
Board of College Education of the Lutheran Church in America for a
six-week summer study grant, which enabled me to gather research
materials for this project.
For help and encouragement in a great variety of ways I am grateful to
the following mentors and colleagues: Professor John Arthos, who first
introduced me to the beauty of minor epic, the late Professor Hereward
T. Price, and Professor Warner G. Rice, all from the University of
Michigan; Professor Helen C. White of the University of Wisconsin;
librarians Major Felie Clark, Ret., U. S. Army, of Gainesville,
Florida, and Professor Luella Eutsler of Wittenberg University; and
Dr. Katharine F. Pantzer of the Houghton Library, Harvard University,
editor of the forthcoming, revised =Short-Title Catalogue=.