Notes to the Introduction

NOTE 1 Walter R. Davis, Thomas Campion (Boston, 1987) 38. A contemporary wag quoted by Vivian (op. cit. infra xl) put it in a more amusing way: How now Doctor Campion, musicks and poesies stout Champion, / will you nere leave prating?

NOTE 2 Cf. the chapter on posthumous reputation in Davis (1987), pp. 54 - 66.

NOTE 3 Percival Vivian, Campion’s Works (Oxford, 1909, repr. 1966). Campion’s works had previously been edited by A. H. Bullen, The Works of Dr. Thomas Campion (The Chiswick Press, privately printed, 1889).

NOTE 4 David Lindley and Robin Sowerby, Thomas Campion: de Pulverea Coniuratione (Leeds Texts and Monographs 10, Leeds, 1956).

NOTE 5 Walter R. Davis, The Works of Thomas Campion (New York, 1987 pp. 40f.).

NOTE 6 Admittedly, save for his serious misunderstanding of ad Thamesin, the discussion by Leicester Bradner, Musae Anglicanae, A History of Anglo-Latin Poetry 1500 - 1925(New York, 1940, repr. New York, 1966) pp. 52 - 4, is more enthusiastic than most.

NOTE 7 Edward Lowbury, Timothy Slater, and Alison Young, Thomas Campion, Poet, Composer, Physician (New York, 1970) p. 13. In accordance with this view, some evidence is taken from the Latin poetry in a biographical chapter (2), but no attention is paid to the body of work in its own right.

NOTE 8 J. W. Binns, “The Latin Poetry of Thomas Campion,” in J. W. Binns (ed.), The Latin Poetry of English Poets (London, 1974) p. 16. Binns, as we shall see, had a higher opinion of the elegies.

NOTE 9 See the accolades collected by Vivian, op. cit. pp. xxxvif., Lowbury, Slater, and Young, op. cit. pp. 1-3, and Davis, op. cit. (1974) pp. 154 - 6.

NOTE 10 Lowbury, Slater, and Young, ib. p. 1, aptly compare his art to that of the great miniaturist painter Nicholas Hilliard.

NOTE 11 Davis (1987), pp. 23 - 6. In addition, in the Commentary notes a number of Vivian’s observations of close parallels between individual Latin and vernacular poems are recorded. The student of poetry will be interested to see that almost invariably the Latin version is considerably more economical than its English equivalent.

NOTE 12 Davis (1987), pp. 40f. Subsequently Davis shows how the literary fashions described here impinge on Campion’s English poetry.

NOTE 13 To be sure, epigrams had been written earlier, notably by the prolific but untalented John Heywood. Cf. The Proverbs, Epigrams, and Miscellanies of John Heywood (ed. John S. Farmer, London, 1906). To the epigrammatists cited by Davis in the above quote should be added Sir John Harington, whose efforts were unprinted but circulated widely in manuscript and seem to have been largely responsible for this new literary fad as manifested in both languages. They have been published in The Letters and Epigrams of Sir John Harington (ed. Sir Norman E. McClure, Philadelphia, 1930).

NOTE 14 He offered a memorable remark in the preface of The Fourth Booke of Ayres (1617?), “But if any squeamish stomackes shall checke at two or three vaine Ditties in the end of this Booke, let them powre off the clearest, and leave those as dregs in the bottome. Howsoever, if they be but conferred with the Canterbury Tales of that venerable Poet Chaucer, they will then appeare toothsome enough.” It is striking testimony about Campion’s personal taste and patriotism that he offers an English rather than a classical precedent; his admiration for Chaucer (or at least for what he understood to be Chaucer) is also memorialized in Elegy XIV.

NOTE 15 This partially justifies the claim for innovation, as well as greater elevation, in the 1619 edition made in Epigram II.2. More precisely, Campion was the first to introduce the erotic element into the English epigram. But he had at least one Continental predecessor, Estienne Forcadel [Stephanus Forcatulus, 1534 - 79], with whose work he may have become familiar while studying medicine in France.

NOTE 16 Perhaps related to his dislike of greedy lawyers was a prejudice against moneylenders and usury (cf. I.14, I.70, I.160, II.194, II.200) linked to notion of the corruptive effect of money in general, eloquently attested in elegy V. This latter attitude also surfaces in some of the longer poems. In ad Thamesin the Spaniards are lured to their doom by a lust of gold which results from a spell cast over them by Satan (cf. particularly 55f.). At de Pulverea Coniuratione I.99 false Hope is described as lusca sed ex caecis auri est emissa fodinis.

NOTE 17 Indeed, a striking allusion to choler adust at ad Thamesin 123 testifies to a medical interest long before Campion undertook professional training in the subject. Likewise displayed an interest in drugs at Umbra 53ff., and in the physical symptoms of pregnancy at ib. 107ff.

NOTE 18 “Attic” and Baroque Prose Style: Essays by Morris W. Croll (edd. J. Max Patrick and Robert O. Evans, Princeton, 1966) p. 199.

NOTE 19 Binns, pp. 2 - 12.

NOTE 20 Praise, incidentally, that managed to ignore the strongly Ovidian character of Thomas Watson’s popular Amyntas (1587) and even more its sequel Amintae Gaudia (1592), although these admittedly were not elegies.

NOTE 21 It will be observed that all but one of the examples cited come from elegies printed only in 1595. Did Campion make it his policy to eliminate such anachronisms for the 1619 cycle?

NOTE 22 Binns, p. 7. The reader may care to compare his analysis, summarized in this paragraph, with the observations about the arrangement of vernacular poems within Campion’s four books of ayres made by David Lindley, Thomas Campion (Leiden, 1986) pp. 3ff.

NOTE 23 Davis (1967) 359f. For a similar criticism, cf. Bradner, pp. 53f. (I shall return below to the important issue of Tasso’s influence on both ad Thamesin and de Pulverea Coniuratione).

NOTE 24 John Roe, The Poems: Venus and Adonis, The Rape of Lucrece, The Phoenix and the Turtle, The Passionate Pilgrim, A Lover’s Complaint (in the New Cambridge Shakespeare series, Cambridge, U. K., 1992) 15.

NOTE 25 A History of Greek Literature (translated by James Willis and Cornelis de Heer, London - New York, 1966) 715f.

NOTE 26 Footnote retired from service

NOTE 27 Cf. D. F. Sutton, “Milton’s In Quintum Novembris, Anno Aetatis 17 (1626): Choices and Intentions,” in Gareth L. Schmeling (ed.) Qui Miscuit Utile Dulcis (Festschrift for Paul Lachlan MacKendrick on his 85th birthday, Chicago, 1997) pp. 349-375.

NOTE 28 See the commentary notes on ad Thamesin 7 and 60. The case for Milton’s familiarity with this work is admittedly not so strong as that for his awareness of de Pulverea Coniuratione, discussed in a later context.

NOTE 29 This last was observed by Davis (1967 p. 369. Two of Campion’s three sidenotes, Avaritiae domus and Fons Invidiae sacer , look as if they are meant to highlight the features of the poem that are most Spenserian.

NOTE 30 The attribution to Peele was first argued by C. F. Tucker Brooke, “A Latin Poem by George Peele (?),Huntington Library Quarterly 3 (1939 - 49) pp. 48f.

NOTE 31 If Peele was indeed the author of Pareus, it is especially probable that he was familiar with the relevant portion of Book IV of Gerusalemme Liberata thanks to the Latin translation published at London in 1584 by Scipio Gentili under the title Plutonis Concilium. Peele had strong associations with the Oxford literary circle centered at Christ Church to which belonged Scipio’s brother Alberico.

NOTE 32 M. R. James, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge (Cambridge, 1895)p. 42. Cf. also Peter Beal, An Index of English Literary Manuscripts (London- New York, 1980) I.i p.167.

NOTE 33 The story of this scandal, and of Campion’s part in it, is told by Vivian, pp. xlii - xlvi.

NOTE 34 He styled himself “Thomas Campion Doctor of Phisicke” on the title page of The Discription of a Maske, Presented before the Kinges Maiestie…in honour of the Lord Hayes and his Bride (1607), perhaps because here too he was hoping that the visibility conferred by this work written for the edification of royalty and nobility would help his advancement.

NOTE 35 The Plot has generated a fairly large literature, which unfortunately appears to be dominated by amateurs, apologists, conspiracy theorists, and cranks. One recent work free of such faults can be recommended: Mark Nichols, Investigating the Gunpowder Plot (Manchester - New York, 1991). But the best general survey remains Donald Carswell, The Trial of Guy Fawkes and Others in the Notable British Trials Series (London, 1934).

NOTE 36 A true and perfect relation of the proceedings at the severall arraignments of the late most barbarous Traitors, printed at London by R. Barker, 1606; identified in commentary notes here as Relation. The Gunpowder-treasion with a discourse on the maner of the discouery of this late Intended Treason, published together with His majesties speach in this last sesssion of Parliament etc., (printed by R. Barker, London, 1605); identified in commentary notes here as Discourse.

JNOTE 37 Michael Wallace (Latinized as Valesius), In Serenissimi Regis Iacobi Britanniae Magnae, Galliarum, Hiberniae etc. Monarchae ab Immanissima Papanae Factionis Hominum Coniuratione Liberationem Faelicissimam Carmen Epicharktikon (1606), edited by Estelle Haan, “Milton’s In Quintum Novembris and the Anglo-Latin Gunpowder Epic, Part II, Humanistica Lovaniensia 42 (1993) 368 - 40; identified in commentary notes here as Wallace.

NOTE 38 Francis Herring, Pietas Pontifica (1606), edited by Estelle Haan, “Milton’s In Quintum Novembris and the Anglo-Latin Gunpowder EpicHumanistica Lovaniensia 41 (1992) 221 - 95; identified in commentary notes here as Herring.

NOTE 39 Pietas Pontifica was reprinted in this expanded version, printed with some anti-Jesuit epigrams, in 1609, and also received the compliment of a pirate printing two years later. In addition, it was twice translated into English verse, by “A. P.” in 1610 and, in a “very much dilated” version, by John Vicars in 1617. This latter translation was reprinted as late as 1641. I omit here any mention of another very similar Gunpowder Plot poem, Phineas Fletcher’s Locustae. Although it was not printed until 1627, earlier versions circulated in manuscript. But, although Campion may have had the opportunity of reading it, there is no reason for thinking that he did so.

NOTE 40 One consideration appears to suggest the priority of Wallace’s work. He Latinizes Guy Fawkes’ surname as Fauxius, while Herring employs the form Falsus. The direct transformation of Fawkes into Falsus is neither natural nor self-evident, and only makes sense if a pun on the French faux is involved So it would appear that Wallace employed this initial pun and that Herring’s Falsus is a secondary elaboration.

NOTE 41 Edited by Michael O’Connor, The ‘Elisaeis’ of William Alabaster,”Studies in Philology monograph 76 (1979). In the course of my article on Milton’s in Quintum Novembris I have elaborated on O’Connor’s rather casually advanced the suggestion that Milton knew and learnt from this work.

NOTE 42 See further the note on the passage.