Brief Lives by John Aubrey

First published: 1813

Type of work: Biographies

Critical Evaluation:

John Aubrey was interested in the biographical rather than the historical elements of great events. He found out all he could about the people of his time; some of it is gossip, some of it actual historical fact. At Oxford he came under the influence of antiquaries, and he began to do research on biography of a more sophisticated and indeed scientific kind than had previously been practiced. He worked from local records, birth and death registers, letters, legal documents, and even from tombstones in order to acquire information for his great series of BRIEF LIVES. He evaluated this material as well as he could and wrote frequently of the need to possess accurate information of the past lest it become simply a myth. For his scientific spirit of inquiry he was honored by the Royal Society, becoming one of the original founding members.

The people described in the BRIEF LIVES, first published as LIVES OF EMINENT MEN in 1813, are the great men and women of the seventeenth century. There is very little in this biographical work that reflects on those who are not notable, who have not, by birth or accomplishment, become the leaders of their time, among them John Florio, George Herbert, John Milton, William Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, Sir Walter Raleigh. Aubrey’s method of dealing with his subjects is both factual and interpretative. In his life of Milton he begins, for example, with a short account of the verifiable facts of the poet’s birth and ancestry. Next he presents an account of the subject’s family. Aubrey then devotes sections to education, travel, and accomplishments. The latter are treated with much care, and his account of things done and written is an important repository for our own historical inquiries. Aubrey is particular to add other information about the men and women in his work; of great interest is his recounting of their appearance and taste. He frequently concludes his biographical sketch with a brief evaluation of the work or character of the subject.

One of the great constants of BRIEF LIVES is its emphasis on what may be called the human element. Aubrey, like most men of his age, was fascinated not so much by facts of a statistical kind as he was by the human personality itself. In this respect his book is a landmark of interpretative biography. For example, we find that John Milton had an “ingeniose Soul” in “a beautifull and well proportioned body.” Aubrey then remarks that he and Milton were approximately of the same size and build. The comparison is not intended to be invidious; Aubrey is simply interested in the most obvious and actual things about the subject. He adds other information that would seem superfluous if it did not reveal matter of interest both about the subject and the man describing him, pointing out that Milton was generally a healthy man, and that he seldom “tooke any physique.”

Aubrey is able to write about things that a historian would give a great deal to have witnessed. When he writes about General Monk, the man responsible for the restoration of Charles II, he goes to his own memory of the events of 1660 and describes his personal impressions of the event. He mentions not only the day but the very hour, noting that Monk arrived in London at mid-day and went shortly thereafter directly to the House of Parliament. Aubrey adds that Monk refused, in modesty, to sit down while in the house, that he went to dinner with certain of the members, and that he was instrumental in causing the Parliament to vote for the return of Charles Stuart. In the midst of these recollections, some trivial and some vital, Aubrey delivers himself of obiter dicta: his own opinion of certain members of Parliament and their actions.

Often the matter of the biography seems apocryphal. The life of Sir Thomas More repeats the ancient story of the encounter of More with a madman on the gate-house of his manor. More, who was then old and feeble, was surprised to find a lunatic approach him and tell him that he was going to be thrown over the battlements. More, supposedly, or so the biography (or legend) states, picked up a little dog that was with him and proposed that they first throw the dog over to see how it was done. After this he rid himself of the madman by sending him down to get the dog and try it again. It is matter like this which reveals, if not the actual nature of what happened, the idea of what would happen if a philosopher were to find himself in such a spot. The most famous of these fictional facts is of course in the life of William Shakespeare. Aubrey repeats the ancient tale of Shakespeare as a butcher’s apprentice; whenever he killed a calf “he would doe it in a high style, and make a Speech.” Aubrey adds many other items which have since become part of the Shakespeare legend: the good looks of the playwright; his wit; his acting ability. Yet there are many things which we know are facts, among them Ben Jonson’s opinions of Shakespeare as a writer.

Probably the best known of the lives, and certainly the most detailed, is that of Thomas Hobbes. This life offers no such difficulties as that of More or Shakespeare, for Hobbes lived in the lifetime of his biographer, and the facts were more easily garnered. Aubrey has many valuable things to say about the writing habits of Hobbes; he remarks that he has often heard Hobbes himself say things that revealed his inner thoughts. We find that Hobbes tried many kinds of writing and indulged in a good deal of reading, but that he was most taken with scientific and quasi-scientific affairs. There is the famous account of Hobbes and his frequent walks, having always in his pocket a notebook, and having in his hand a cane the head of which was a pen set in a bottle of ink. In this way Hobbes was able to capture every stray thought, “or else he should perhaps have lost it.” Aubrey reveals that Hobbes’ LEVIATHAN was not written for personal advantage, as has often been suspected. At least Hobbes informed Aubrey himself that the spirit of inquiry alone sustained the volume. If this is true, Aubrey’s information is invaluable; if false, it reveals the danger of consulting the man whose life is to be reconstructed. Biography is perhaps less liable to distortion than autobiography, but Aubrey’s method does allow for exaggeration or misinformation, even while it permits far greater involvement of the subject and revelation of his motives.

Invaluable to historians is Aubrey’s account of the relationships, public and private, of the figures in his studies. He reveals, for example, that the Earl of Danby was a model estate manager; that his mother was a superb politician and practical economist; that Danvers had advised the Earl of Essex to discuss his position with Queen Elizabeth but that he failed to do so, and consequently was executed for treason. We find that Robert Hooke, Curator of Experiments at the Royal Society, made his fortune by speculation after the fire that destroyed London in 1666 by being appointed one of the surveyors of the ruins. Perhaps most interesting in these biographies is Aubrey’s account of the conditions at the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. His work, although principally focused on the famous men who taught and did research at those universities, offers a wealth of information on the student body, the curriculum, the fees and costs of education, even the amusements of the students. In short, although Aubrey is principally concerned with the events of individual lives, he has an enormous amount of peripheral information on the institutions of the day.

Characteristic of the work as a whole is Aubrey’s wide interest in matters of geography, architecture, literature, and other Renaissance studies and arts. The biographies are full of quotations from the literature of the day, and Aubrey often alludes to the various fields of study to which his subjects applied themselves. Aubrey delivers himself of opinions on the nature of a well-run household, a good education, a pleasing poem, an attractive painting. He is never better than when he is bringing these opinions to bear on his subjects, for he enriches the facts of biography in a thoroughly characteristic Renaissance manner. His leisurely observation on such matters is, at least in part, responsible for our knowing exactly what it was that Milton read as a young man (Hesiod, Afer, Oppian, and others) and whether this reading was worth anything (Aubrey thought very highly of these authors). Aubrey brings to our attention other things as well: his opinion of the accuracy of other books; his opinion, and that of others, of the poetry of Cowley, Denham, and other poets; his reflections on the causes and nature of the Civil War. In all, the BRIEF LIVES is far from a brief book, but the information and opinion it offers, in addition to the simple facts of birth, accomplishment, and death, give us an admirable sense of the total quality of life in the seventeenth century.