« AnteriorContinuar »
ceptio Viert 20.16);
There are two positive allegations advanced by Dr. Wordsworth; and I have no hesitation in admitting, that if either of these can be substantiated, there is an end of the case: Gauden was an impostor: Clarendon and Bristol were deceived: and the evidence of Morley, whatever werę its purport, (Query, any ?) was not of the slightest importance. The first of these statements is, that a manuscript containing the rudiments of the Icôn Basilike, the same papers in point of substance, though, perhaps, not finally revised or arranged, was taken by the rebels at the battle of Naseby, and some time afterwards restored to the King. The second is, that during the King's confinement in the Isle of Wight, he was employed in copying and completing the work, at a period preceding the arrival of the commissioners for the treaty; and, consequently, before Gauden's manuscript, transmitted as he describes, could have been received by the royal prisoner. If either of these assertions can be made out in evidence, there is, I repeat, an end of the case.—Pp. 14, 15.
These two “positive allegations,” therefore, we are ready and disposed to sift with Mr. Broughton: and so importantly does he put these two points, that our attention will be confined mainly to them; reserving space for a very few words respecting his parallelisms, and somewhat more for the ethics with which he concludes.
On Mr. B.'s first point,- that of the Naseby copy,-he opens with rather an unpromising symptom of want of perspicuity in his conception. Mr. B. speaks of the account that appears in Dugdale's short View of the Troubles of England, as the one “subsequently published” (p. 16); whereas, in fact, the last written was the first published: Dugdale's own history appearing in 1681, and the other not seeing the light till the year 1702. Now the priority of publication of these two documents is important for two reasons ; because the first published was the only one that reached the public from Dugdale himself, and because the second was made public after his death, without any knowledge or consent of his own: whereas, for ought we know, he might have been able, in his life-time, to speak positively as to the innaccurate phraseology of his first memorandum, and give reasons for publishing only the one he did. At any rate, the account Dugdale published, at the same time that he had another in his own handwriting, in his own port-folio, we must consider to be in his mind the true and accurate one; unless, indeed, we are prepared to go along with Mr. Broughton in his insinuation, if not direct charge, of "intentional deceit” (p. 19); a point we will return to presently. Neither do we see any reason why the hypothesis of Dr. Wordsworth (Who wrote, &c. p. 80)* may not be accepted ; that either “after the lapse of nearly five-and-thirty years, some confusion had arisen in the memory of the Major (Huntington), or that Dugdale had discovered that the former statement was not correct, from his having blended together particulars relating to two manuscripts of two quite distinct sorts,
"ched the outsons ; becan publication
+ To unite brevity with clearness, it may be well to remark that when we quote Dr. Wordsworth's book now before us, and not his former ones, we shall do it without repeating its name.
belonging to the King." The nature of these two manuscripts we will now proceed to unravel,- First, we will take Sir Edward Walker's.
Of this piece Sir Edward himself tells us,—"About the middle of April, 1645, I finished it, and presented it to his Majesty, who graciously accepted it, and read it over to his satisfaction. From him it came into the hands of the Lord Digby, who, designing to polish it, carried it with him ; so it was taken at the battle of Naseby, and fell into the hands of the then Lieutenant General Cromwell. Two years after this, when his Majesty was at Hampton Court, I informed him where it was; so his Majesty, by the means of an officer in the army, got it, and put it into my hands to be copied; which I caused to be done, and delivered the copy to his Majesty."—Who wrote, &c. p. 81.
Now, without fatiguing our readers with any detailed argument on this point; we admit that this book was unquestionably a part of the one referred to in Dugdale's earliest memorandums, viz. that “ bound up in a white vellum cover.” But then we must not part with another expression, from the same memorandum, of "the prayers being all written with the King's own hand :” and if the charge of “ deceit" can be rebutted, which we shall attempt presently, and we hope not without success, we must in justice endeavour to reconcile Dugdale's published with his unpublished account, as far as our knowledge of the truth justifies. Now the first wrilten of these two papers distinctly calls the manuscript recovered by Major Huntington by the name of the Icôn Basilikè; and speaks of "prayers” which clearly formed no part of Sir Edward Walker's "piece:”—whilst the second speaks of the Icôn under the name of “ Meditations," as being restored by the same person, and through the same channel. In order to bring these two accounts together, we must advance to the second of the “two manuscripts” referred to by Dr. Wordsworth. That there was a second, (though possibly, and we think not at all improbably, when it was returned, contained in one " white vellum cover,” together with the others,) we entertain not a moment's doubt. And why should there not be a second? Because Sir Edward Walker's Memoirs were restored, what is there in this to negative the possibility or even probability of others being restored also ? What is there to compel assent to Mr. Broughton's peremptory language? (p. 23.) “I say a book, one single book; no more than one." Why, as Dr. Wordsworth says, (p. 103) “only” a single book? What can Mr. B. produce to contradict the return of papers also ? Papers “ of no less consequence" than Sir Edward Walker's, it appears from Ludlow, (quoted by Dr. W. p. 99) were “suppressed, as he was credibly informed :" why not the Icôn Basilikè amongst them, since we are told that it actually was “ restored ?" It will be remembered that we are here meeting an allegation of impossibility. “I say a book, one single book; no more than one." We reply—“Mr. Broughton, you have no sufficient ground.
positiveness of affirmation.” Other books or other papers, besides the “vellum" book, or in the “vellum” book, there might have been. And that there was one collection of papers either besides, or in the vellum book " restored,” viz. the Icôn, Dr. Wordsworth has in his former book produced nine witnesses, besides Major Huntington, on only two of whom Mr. B. spends a word of gainsaying, viz. Dr. Gorge, on the ground of "predisposition;" and the Earl of Manchester, through Dr. Eales, on the ground of its being an “afterdinner conversation.” The remaining seven of Dr. Wordsworth's witnesses (See Who wrote, &c. pp. 69–96,) are left untouched by Mr. B., and, except in vague general terms, unimpeached. Dr. W. therefore, is still in undisturbed possession of them. With regard to the single testimony of Huntington, as conveyed through Dugdale, we have suffered it to occupy a larger share of our article than we feel was due to it, on any other score than that of labouring for Mr. Broughton's conviction. For ourselves, we say with a sincerity that we hope will not be questioned, especially as the evidence on which it is founded is both extensive, and in substance unimpeached, that the result of this closer investigation has been any thing rather than a diminished conviction of the existence of a Naseby copy; and that we are more strongly disposed than ever to persuade ourselves that we may have had a share with Dr. Wordsworth's more lengthened and elaborate, and, therefore, still more irrefragable arguments, in removing the doubts of Mr. Broughton.
Before we quit this, however, we will just say two or three words on the insinuations, if not charges, against Dugdale, of “ intentional deceit." What assignable motive (Dr. W. seasonably asks, p. 101) was there for such “ deceit,” even were the disposition ready? A Naseby copy is an important, a most important, link in the chain of evidence now; but did it appear any thing like so much so then? And again, (Dr. W. farther asks, p. 102) if “ deceit” were intended, why should the first written manuscript not only remain“ undestroyed," but be bequeathed by himself, as it has been, to the University of Oxford, “ the materials of his shame?" We rely on this as no slight ground of conviction to Mr. B. viz. that the basis of his argument here is, the supposed (yes, without evidence supposed) “ deceit" of such an historian as Dugdale.
We pass to the second of Mr. B.'s two cardinal points, which hangs, according to Mr. B., on how long before Sept. 5, 1647, Gauden's manuseript (supposing his story to be true) reached the King; which he states might have been a day after the 22d of August; or, as he puts it in another place, (p. 32) " a fortnight before the removal from Carisbrook.” According to Mr. B.'s perspicuous way of putting this matter in the abstract, (the details will require closer inspection,) either the interval between Lord Hertford's arrival at the Isle of Wight,
VOL. XI. NO. II.
What ash. deceit,” e most importa
script ding to Me second orian as Duves, w
after the 22d of August, and before the 6th of September, must be such as to give time for the several occurrences about the Icôn detailed by the witnesses at this point of time, or the Gauden story must be false. Let us try this issue. First, what were these occurrences? They are thus comprehensively described by Dr. Wordsworth (pp. 85, 86:)
There is the entire book to be perused;—and would it not require to be considered and revised ? and then it is to be transcribed once, or more; and there are to be loose sheets to spare, which may fall into the hands of Hammond. There are verses to be marked in a Bible, especially in the book of Psalms. One witness is to see the book, repeatedly, while the King is at meals; another, when he is taking his exercise in the garden; and this witness is to be converted by his often reading in it; one while the King is to dictate to his attendant, whose soul is to be thrilled at the periods which fall from his Sovereign's lips : at other times he is to be observed writing early and late, and curiosity is to be excited; and is to be satisfied, by finding the sheets of the book pinned up behind the tapestry.
So much as to what was to be done by the King, with others, in the Icôn matter alone; to which we must not forget to add the demands on the King's time in preparing for the approaching treaty, “ where everything was to be at stake for himself and his kingdoms.” (Wordsworth, p. 85.) Now what time was there for all this? In other words, what time before the 5th of September did (not could or might, but did) the Marquis of Hertford actually arrive (not at Newport, but) at Carisbrook, before the departure of the King from thence? First, Mr. B. (as Dr. W. observes, p. 87) gives no proof that the vote of September 4, for Charles's access to his friends, referred to by him, “ was not designed to give the right of personal access for the first time.” Next, his respondent, Dr. W. does give proof that it was, though somewhat, we fear, at the expense of Mr. B.'s candour; viz. first, by reminding us that it was at “ Newport" this vote was to begin to operate; and next, by nothing less than a citation from Mr. Broughton's own authority, Whitelocke-(whom Mr. B. appears to have partially quoted, we use the word in the most charitable sense the facts will allow)—“On the 4th of September, Colonel Hammond's Instructions for safe keeping his Majesty in Carisbrook Castle repealed.” Is not this extraordinary, readers ? There is nothing hidden which shall not be revealed. Walker tells us, (according to Dr. W.) “ the orders reached the island on the 24th.” “ Every single day" here, to borrow Mr. B.'s own remark, (p. 28)“ is of the utmost importance.” Mr. B.'s mode of citing these orders of the 22d is, “ the King was to be in the same condition and freedom as at Hampton Court.” But what are the words of this order, according to Whitelock, Mr. B.'s own authority? “Be in the same condition there (i. e. at Newport, not Carisbrook) as at Hampton Court." It is with pain we affirm it next to impossible Mr. B. could
have overlooked the important word “ there" in this citation. As Dr. W. argues, “ if this be an affair of dates, (Mr. B.'s own words) an affair of chronology, it is an affair, at least as much of geography also." And had Mr. B. not confined himself to Whitelocke, but consulted other authorities also, he would have found (Dr. Wordsworth tells us) –
That the King had no freedom till he got to Newport; that the Marquis of Hertford, and Bishop Duppa, and the rest, had no liberty to go to the Isle of Wight till September; that Sir Edward Walker, who was one of the first who reached the Island, had not been admitted (according to Rushworth) till about the 5th; that not till the 12th or 14th had most of the Lords, &c. arrived ; in short, that one of the days of the fortnight is gone; that many of them are gone: that none of them remain; that the King has much to do, and no time to do it in; that the whole of this confident speculation about the fortnight before the King's going to Newport turns out to be a mere delusion, without all evidence. and against a superabundance of evidence.-pp. 90, 91.
Thus we have examined Mr. B.'s premises, at the same time that we have replied to our correspondent Synergus,* and we claim of him his conclusion in his own words :
There is an end of the case; Gauden was an impostor; Clarendon and Bristol were deceived; and the evidence of Morley and Duppa, whatever were its purport, was not of the slightest importance.-Broughton, pp. 14, 15.
We proceed to treat, as briefly as possible, Mr. B.'s remarks on the internal evidence; and in opening on this branch of our subject, a remark of Dr. W.'s (p. 108) must be inserted. “Of all the citations adduced by Mr. Broughton, there is not one that is not posterior in its date to the Icôn, by several years." Hence, although we think Mr. Broughton has, in many instances, exceeded Mr. Todd in the value of his parallelisms, it is manifest that he is below him in point of date. In fact, his arguments ought, on this ground, to be at once transferred to the other side; viz. for, not against, the genuineness of the Icôn. .
On the parallelisms in “sentiment and expression,” (Broughton, p. 59, &c.) twenty-four in number, our limits forbid us to dwell. We will give, therefore, very shortly, Dr. W.'s account of them, on which, we believe, our readers may safely rely. Dr. W. dismisses eight, as · “ possessing a very small portion of value.” Of the remaining sixteen citations from the Icôn, four appear remarkably parallel, in word or sentiment, or both, with the contents of one single sentence of Gauden's, where he speaks of the king as “one of the wisest of mortals ;” and seems to refer to the Icôn as the king's work; or, as Dr. W. ingeniously, and we think not too strongly, puts it, has “ virtually quoted the Icôn: and if so, (manifestly) as the work of the king.” (p. 113.) Besides the eight rejected by Dr. W., he
• Vol. VIII. p. 416.