Edward May appears under the year 1643 on the St Paulinus rector board. This was the year that Dr Thomas Vane fled to Paris after his conversion to Catholicism. May had acted as curate to Vane for some years, so their outlook on religion and politics must have been very similar. Evidence for May’s outlook and later advocacy of the Royalist cause in the Second Civil War comes from his book, ‘Epigrams, Divine and Moral,’ which was published in 1633.
Edward May: Dr Vane’s Curate Poet
Edward May graduated with a B.A. from Trinity College, Oxford, in 1610 and followed this up with his M.A. in 1613. At some point between Dr Vane’s arrival in Crayford in 1627 and May’s appointment as Crayford’s rector in 1643, he had taken the post of curate at St Paulinus.
May was an aspiring epigrammatist. An epigram is a brief, interesting, memorable, or satirical form of poetry. The word is derived from the Greek ἐπίγραμμα epígramma “inscription” from ἐπιγράφειν epigráphein “to write on, to inscribe.” Epigrams have been employed for over two millennia and are often witty, or sarcastic. They were particularly popular in the 16th century and could often be scandalous in nature.
Edward May’s ‘Epigrams Divine and Morall’ 1633
It is almost certain that Crayford’s Edward May was the author of Epigram’s Divine and Moral, published in 1633 when he would have been in his late thirties. It was licensed by the Master of Revels, Sir Henry Herbert with the Stationers’ Company register, held in the City of London, on 12th January 1633. This was how the Stuart monarchy censored what was far from being a free press. The title ‘Epigrams Divine and Moral’, is slightly misleading and may have been chosen to provide some cover for its more scandalous content, which might have embarrassed a man of the cloth. “Divine and Morall” in May’s title represents an appeal to the taste of the purchasers he hoped to attract to his book rather than a description of its contents. Not more than half of the two hundred and one poems qualify as either divine or moral.
May did not have the aristocratic links that Dr Thomas Vane had to his relatives, the Earls of Westmoreland. Family patronage/nepotism was a vital requirement for an aspiring curate to get on in the Anglican church. In aristocratic families only the eldest son would inherit an estate, so the younger sons often had to find a role elsewhere. In later years this would be through a commission in the army or navy, but in the 16th century, the secure route to an adequate income would be to find a place as a country rector. May titles himself “Gent.” on his title-page, but includes no
dedication from an aristocratic patron, which would have confirmed this status. He was obviously an inspiring writer, an Oxford-educated man of letters, who before university must have undergone the usual Grammar school exercises in epigram writing. Writing was obviously a passion of his, as otherwise, he would not have pursued the publication of a book.
Pulling the Wool Over the Eyes of the Official Censor
A group of epigrams at the beginning of his book are certainly on a religious theme and hint at his ‘high church’ inclinations. This would fit being the curate to the future Catholic convert, Dr Vane. They have titles such as, “On Christ, and the Virgin Mary,” “On Christ,” “Of Abraham,” and others, which may properly be called “divine”; a much larger number of scattered pieces with such titles as “On Almes Deeds,” “To Dissimulation,” “On Death,” “On Sinne,” and so on, which could be considered truly moral. Other epigrams that follow are highly critical of Catholic teaching. Perhaps May put his moral epigrams at the start thinking that Sir Henry Herbert would not take the time to read the whole of his book and allow him to get past censorship of his ‘less moral’ work.
Censorship questioned by William Prynne’s Histrio Mastix
In 1632, just a year before May published his book, Royal censorship came to the fore with William Prynne’s book, ‘Histrio Mastix: The Player’s Scourge, or Actor’s Tragedy.’ This was a condemnation of professional theatre and actors, and seemed not only to criticise Charles I’s actress wife Henrietta-Maria, but also to challenge the King’s ‘Book of Sports’, which defended popular leisure time activities like visiting the theatre. May seemed to be aware that he had to tread carefully with the censor to ensure publication was approved by Sir Henry Herbert, Master of the Revels.’ He certainly did not want to run foul of the influential Bishop of London, William Laud, who was also involved in censoring works published in London. Laud’s ‘high church’ Arminian beliefs were close to those of King Charles I and would lead him to become the Archbishop of Canterbury, to the anger of England’s Puritans.
May was very aware of the immortality that appearing in print could provide. He sets this out clearly in one of his epigrams, ‘Englished‘:
Englished. Although the speaking Word have life, The written word bee dead: The written Word shall last and bee, When the spoken Word is fled.
May was very well aware of his own mortality and had the desire to see his words live on for posterity:
On Mortality. Those dayes we had are past and gone, Of those to come, we are not sure, Our present time we thinke not on, How can so fine a thread endure? Happie art thou that rest, In that short minute on thy Christ.
May realised that our lives flicker momentarily before ending up being trodden underfoot like a burnt-out candle:
A Candle A Candle is most like a Hypocrite,
That unto others gives a glorious light,
But wastes himself unto the sockets snout,
There stinkes, is smelt, and so is trodden out.
May’s Royalist Views and the Great Chain of Being
May’s epigram, ‘On a Toad’ (1633) gives quite an insight into his core beliefs and explains why he was so committed to the Royalist side during the 1648, Kentish Royalist, revolt. His poem coincides with a belief that humans had been created in God’s image and led to a feeling of contempt for creatures below us, in what was known as the Great Chain of Being. This was a belief in a hierarchical structure of all matter and life, which had been entrenched in medieval Catholic, Christianity. The chain begins with God and descends through angels, the monarchy, humans, animals and plants to minerals, and the soil itself. The Catholic Church’s narrative of the Great Chain of Being kept the peace in Europe for centuries. The very concept of rebellion simply lay outside the reality within which most people lived. To defy the King was to defy nature and God himself. May’s obvious contempt for the ugliness of the toad in this epigram was because he thought it obvious that it sat beneath human beings in the Great Chain of Being. Looking down on such creatures was something that could not be questioned. Just as May felt we should not question that King Charles I was above other more mortals. May was convinced by ‘his morals’, that Englishmen could not question the ‘Divine right of King’s’ to rule. You can see clearly from this poem that May could never be anything other than a Royalist. As curate to Dr Thomas Vane, he also could never have been anything else.
On a Toad One that was walking in a sunshine day, Seeing an ugly Toad lie in the way, Fell passionately aweeping; his friend by Inquired the cause, he sadly made reply: How that the sight of that loathsome thing Did to his conscience bring Of his gratitude to God; that he Had never given thanks for the excellency Of his creation, being made and framed Like his own image, by his breath enflamed When being in the potter’s hands as clay Within his power inscrutable it lay To fashion and bestow on him the feature Of that same Toad, e’en the most deformedst creature Thus basest things heav’n makes instrument To humble those willing to repent
Edward May fought to Defend the Divine Right of Kings
King James I himself wrote:
The state of monarchy is the most supreme thing upon earth: for kings are not only God’s Lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God’s throne, but even by God himself they are called Gods.
James I had passed on this belief to his son King Charles I. In the 16th century, Puritans began to question the hierarchy of the Anglican church and its dependence on bishops. James I had famously said,
‘No bishops, No King.’
The monarchy was at the head of the Church of England. To question the King was to question the whole way society was organised. Edward May’s poetry shows he could never be anything other than a Royalist. His support for the Kentish rebellion in 1648 was a defence of the Anglican church. His opposition to ‘those intruded by Parliament’ in Crayford, the Presbyterian Thomas Thorowgood and the Congregationalist David Clarkson was because both men threatened the traditional church. To reject the King and to reject bishops was to undermine the Chain of Being and God himself. May would have believed that to organise the Anglican church on their lines would be the first step towards the Levelling ideas of John Lilburne and Dartford’s vicar Vavasour Powell.
The Civil War finally broke this ‘Chain of Being’ supposed divine plan that had been in place throughout the Middle Ages. May’s desperate attempts to take back the rector ship by force from David Clarkson in 1655, and to steal back his tithe hops was the last desperate attempt of a social conservative to uphold his traditional view of the world. May’s work certainly shows he believed in Carpe Diem, or lived for/seized the day. His actions show that he had this Cavalier outlook on life!
The Civil War challenged May’s feudal hierarchy, and would eventually bring about secular governmental structures that vested power into the hands of ordinary citizens, rather than in those of divinely ordained monarchs.
No Comments
Add a comment about this page