Eikōn basilikē : the portraiture of His Majesty King Charles I

Front matter

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the publisher to a library and finally to you.

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

Preface

" Bfadshaw bee convinced that the. saide booke was his Majestie's own, replyed, ' Who could think that so wicked a man could writ so good a booke * ? "*

This was the opinion of the president of the regicide tribunal; and, to make the evidence on that side complete, we have on record Cromwell's own statement concerning the book. " Madam," he said to Lady Winwood, taking up the Icon Basilikl^ which lay on her table, " I see you have Charles Stuart's book.'' She replied, " My Lord, do you believe the late King to be the author of it ?" To which he answered, ''^Yes, most certainly, for he was the greatest hypocrite in the world'."

We find the corroboration of this opinion in the Orders in Council issued at this time : —

** 165 1, May 20, — Ordered — That Mr. Dury do proceed in the translating of Mr. Milton's Book, written in answer to the late King^s Booky and that it be left to Mr. Frost to give him such reward for his pains as he shall think fit. "

"1652, Nffvemberi^, — Ordered—That it be referred to Mr. Thurloe to consider of a fit reward to be given to Mr. Dury for his pains in translating into French the book written by Mr. Milton in answer to that of the lateKing^ entitled 'His Meditations'.'"

Milton followed the new lead, and in two pamphlets

* This autograph letter has been placed in the hands of the writer of this essay. The MS. is endorsed, " Mr. Richard Royston's relation to mee for y« printing K. C his book, Nov. 18, 1684," and is now in the possession of Col. Richard Levett, of Milford Hall, Stafford, a linea descendant of the King's page.

• Wagstaffe's " Vindication of the Royal Martjrr," p. loi. ' "Tracts on the Icon Basiiikit* pp. 199, 200.

PREFACE.

— ( i) Pro Populo Anglicano Defensio, (2) "A Ready and Easy Way to Establish a Commonwealth" — ^published at this time, refers to the Icon BasUikl as the King's work, and quotes a passage from it in italics as the last charge of Charles to his son. The leading members of the Council were Cromwell, Bradshaw, Whitelocke, Vane, Harrington, Mildmay ; they came to the conclusion that it was the King's work, and have themselves placed this on record, after the failure of their efforts either to convict the volume of forgery or to arrest its sale.

Such, then, was the result of the first controversy respecting the Icon Basilik^, We have the deliberate opinion of the King's enemies that the book was written by the " late King," and that opinion is expressed on several occasions within a few months of the first publication of the work. Their endeavour to deprive the King of the credit of the composition had only served to bring to light convincing proofs in favour of the royal authorship, and had thus strengthened, instead of weakening, the hold which the book had already obtained over the popular mind. They found themselves compelled to change their tactics ; and, taking refuge in the exact opposite of their former position, they now brought their charge against the King because he had written a " book which shewed his theatrical piety and high dissimulation, a * Black Book,' writ on purpose to abuse the people into credulity and favour of his actions, and to poison them after his death."

The controversy was not revived during the remain-

PREFACE.

der of Cromweirs Protectorate. He died in 1659. The first year of the Restoration is marked by the issue of the royal letters patent of King Charles II. granting to Richard Royston the sole privilege of printing the works of King Charles I., "as a reward for his fidelity in publishing many messages and papers of our said blessed father, especially those most excellent discourses and soliloquies by the name of Icon Basilikly^ &c.y &c. Nov. 29, 1660.

Yet, although not generally known till some time afterwards, at the very period of the issue of these letters patent by Charles II. his father's claim to the authorship of the book was again being called in question — not openly, but secretly, not by the late King's enemies, but by his pretended friend. The nature of this attack is at once so audacious and so subtle that more than one historian has yielded to its force, and has in turn made use of the same weapon to weaken, if not altogether to destroy, the confidence of posterity in the royal autobiography. But Dr. Wordsworth » was not so easily overcome. He grappled with the difficulty in an exhaustive collection of tracts on the subject ; he stated with candour every circumstance which may be urged in favour of the rival claim, compared the evidence, and drew his own conclusion. We will not trespass on the patience of the reader by following the indefatigable writer through the maze of contemporary controversy, but will endeavour to give a brief summary of those points upon which the real issue of the question may be said to depend.

f Sec Tracts on the Icon Basiliki, by Dr. Wordsworth.

PREFACE.

The restoration of the episcopate, the best means of supplying the gaps which had occurred since the abolition of the order by the Parliament of 1646, was the first and anxious care of Sir Edward Hyde, even before the return of Charles IL to England. Among the divines selected to fill the vacant sees was Dr. Gauden, Dean and Rector of Bocking, consecrated Bishop of Exeter on December 2, 1660, enthroned in his cathedral on the nth of that month. Dissatisfied with the poverty of his see, ten days have scarcely elapsed since his enthronement when the Bishop makes a series of complaints to his patron, and first in vague hints, afterwards in distinct language, presses upon the notice of the Lord Chancellor his special claim to a richer and better preferment. That special claim he avers to be the authorship of the Icon Bastlikl. The documents in which the evidence of this startling statement is to be found are derived from three sources. They consist of Gauden's letters to the Lord Chancellor in the Clarendon Papers at Oxford •*, of the letters of the same person and his widow to the Earl of Bristol, from the Gibson Papers (formerly Archbishop Tennison's) in the archiepiscopal library at Lambeth, and lastly of the letters and other papers of Gauden, Mrs. Gauden, the Lord Chancellor, Sir Edward Nicholas, &c., now the property of Mr. Cornthwaite *. First, with regard to Gauden's own letters. Dr. Wordsworth, in one of the careful notes with

*» Vol. iii.. Appendix, pp. xxvi.-vii.

• Documentary Supplement to ** Tracts on the Icon Basiliki,*' PP- 3. 4.

which his book is enriched, gives us the exact description of them.

** Of these letters the Rev. Dr. Bandinel, in a letter dated 'Bodleian Library, May 9, 1825,' informs me, *I have them all (six in number) now before me. They are all originals. All are directed to the Lord High Chancellor. All have been sealed — the five first with wax — and the impression a private, not the episcopal seal. All were undoubtedly received by Clarendon, as the first five are endorsed by himself. The last, sealed with a wafer, is endorsed by Lord Combury. The endorsements on the respective letters are:— (i) Bpp. of Exitter, Dec. 21; (2) ibid., Dec. 26; (3) ibid., Jan. 21 ; (4) ibid., Feb. 25 (it should be Jan.); (5) ibid., Feb. 20 (these five by Lord Clarendon); (6) ibid., Mar. 6, 1660 (by Lord Combury). On the back of the first letter some person who was concerned in editing the State Papers (for I trace the handwriting, and I think it to be Scrope) has written, "This bishop was the author of Eikon Basilikh" after which some other person has written in stronger characters, **N0.'* After the dates of the endorsements on the first five there ^£s written by a later hand, certainly not Lord Clarendon's, ' " 1660." The last is full-dated by Lord ComburyK' "

Letter L, Dec. 21, 1660, complains bitterly of the disadvantages of his new preferment, the poverty of the see, its distance from his friends ; he *' refuses to beare with patience such a mine after the service he has done the Royal Family, and his wife is too conscious of this service to bear with any temper the streights to which she sees herself and her children exposed.**

k Documentary Supplement to "Tracts on the Icon Basiiikij*' p. 8."

XIV

PREFACE*

Letter II., Dec. 26, 1660, renews these laments, describes how yesterday he spent the saddest Christmas Day " that ever I did keep in my life ; that am come to an high rack and empty manger," again hints at the signal service he has done the Royal Family, and is signed, " The sad Bishop of Exeter."

Letter III. is a reply to one from the Lord Chancellor, in which the Lord Chancellor protests his ignorance of any extraordinary or secret service. Gauden in this letter drops all hints, and states plainly in what his great ''arcanum," as he calls it, consists.

** Nor doe I doubt but I shall, by your Lordship's favour, find the fruits as to something extraordinary, since the service was soc ; not as to what was known to the world under my name, in order to vindicate the Crown and Church, but what goes under the late blessed King's name, the tlicioy or portraiture of hys Majesty in his solitude and sufferings. This booke and figure was wholly and only my invention, makng, and designe, in order to vindicate the King's wisdome, honor, and piety. My wife, indeed, was conscious to it, and had a hand in disguising the letters of that copy which I sent to the King in the Isle of Wight, by favour of the late Marquise of Hartford, which was delivered to the King by the now Bishop of Winchester. Hys Majesty graciously accepted, owned, and adopted it as his sense and genius, not only with great approbation, but admiration ; hee kept it by him ; and though his cruel murtherers went on to perfect hys martyrdome,'yet God preserved and prospered this book, to revive hys honour and redeeme hys Majesty's name from that grave of contempt, abhorrence, and infamy in which they aymed to bury him, &c. &c. . . • I did lately present my fayth in it [the book] to the Duke

PREFACE.

of York, and by him to the King. Both of them were pleased to give me credit and owne it as a rare service in those horrors of times. True I played this best card in my hand something too late, else I might have sped as well as Dr. Reynolds and some others; but I did not lay it as a ground of ambition, nor use it as a ladder. Thinking myself secure in the just value of Dr. Morley, who I was sure knew it, and told mee your Lordship did so too," &c.

We must note, in passing, that in this letter Gauden says he has already acquainted the King and the Duke of York with his secret ; and here, by a comparison of dates, we find that this conmiunication was made to the King between Nov. 3 and 7, 1660. This matter about the date has -an important bearing on the question of the credence given by the King to Gauden's claim, for before the month was out — i.e. on the 29th — royal letters patent were granted to Richard Royston for the sole printing of the late King's works, ^cciA particularly the Icon Basiliki.

Letters IV, Qan. 25), V. (Feb. 20), VL (Mar. 6), follow the letter which contained the vital secret, without any answer being vouchsafed to the importunate Bishop, who renews in each of them his complaints and lamentations over the poverty of his see. At length, on March 13, two months having elapsed, the Lord Chancellor breaks silence. He begins by assuring his correspondent that all his letters make a deep impression upon him, and ends with these lines : —

"The particular which you often renewed I doe confesse was imparted to me under secresy, and of which I did not

PREFACE.

take myself to be at liberty to take notice ; and truly when it ceases to be a secret I know nobody will be glad of it but Mr. Milton. I have very often wished that I had never been trusted with it. My Lord, I have nothing to inlarge, all I have to say being fitter for a conference than a letter, and I hope shortly to see you^."

At the latter end of the month Gauden comes to London, There is no evidence to shew whether or not he had the promised conference with Clarendon ; but in the following December he resumes his correspondence. The Bishop of Winchester is ill, and Gauden, with an eye to succeeding him, again urges his claim ; but there is no answer to this letter from the Lord Chancellor. Then we have letters of the same kind to the Duke of York (Jan. 17, 1662) and to the King ; — letters Containing a distinct falsehood, for he says to the King, " I doe not need, soe I cannot well have any other intercessor than your own royal favour, and his Highness the Duke of York, to whose breast only have I communicated so important a secret" — whereas Letter II L shews that he had also confided it to Lord Clarendon. There is no answer to this letter extant among the papers.

Next in order come Gauden's letters to the Earl of Bristol. They are seven in number, bearing dates March 20, 26, 27, 31, May i, July 9, July 9, 1662. They are characterised by a marked servility, coupled with innuendoes against his former patron, then on the verge of his disgrace at Court, and of whom Lord Bristol was known to be the bitter antagonist. Gauden ac-

PREFACE. XVll

cidentally discovers that his new correspondent is acquainted with his "arcanum," and from that moment, in the hope of obtaining the see of Winchester, he ceases not to beset him with the same importunities with which he had pestered Lord Clarendon. More especially when the Bishop of Winchester (Dr. Duppa) leaves "all humane affairs" then Gauden's letters pour in ; but although he does not obtain the see he desires, he is still his Lordship's " humble, thankful servant." On May 23 Gauden is appointed to Worcester, vacated by Morle/s promotion to Winchester. In the last three letters, May I and two of July 9 (1662), there is only one allusion to the "arcanum." On September 20 Gauden died, aged 57, having only occupied his new see four months.

This is Gauden's own story, and at first sight it is startling enough. The next piece of direct evidence is that of Gauden's wife. Shortly after the death of her husband she addresses a letter to Lord Bristol, explaining how her husband, when he was dying, tried to write to him, but was unable to do so. She then enters upon the same subject, " the secret of which his Lordship was aware ; her confidence in his compassion, that he will exert himself to assist her," &c., in obtaining for her the remission of certain claims in respect of her late husband's tenure of the See of Worcester. No answer is to be found to this letter, and we know that the boon sought was not granted. In 1 67 1 Mrs. Gauden also died. She has left behind her a narrativ i in two parts, which we have before us. It is comprised in a paper written shortly after the death b

XVIU PREFACE.

of her husband in 1662. It was not publicly known till 1693, when an abstract was given of it in a pamphlet bearing title "Truth Brought to Light," &c., which gives the account of the papers from which it was taken — "A Summary Account of some Papers relating to the Icon Basilikl, or Portraictur of King Charles I.," now in the hands of Mr. Arthur North, living at Tower Hill, London — and in 1699 i^ was published by Mr. Toland in his " Amyntor."

Mr. North and Mr. C. Gauden, son of the Bishop, married two sisters. At the death of Mr. C. Gauden these papers were bequeathed to his wife. Mr. North, the brother-in-law, having occasion to search among them, found those relating to the Icon Basilikl carefully tied up together. The papers are as follows : — (i) Letter from Sir Edward Nicholas, Secretary of State, Jan. 1660, to Dr. Gauden, Bishop of Exeter, to acquaint him that his Majesty had received his letter, that he had him in his thoughts, and that he should not long have cause to complain of his removal from Bocking. (2) A copy of the letter of the Bishop to Lord Chancellor Hyde, Dec. 28, 1661 (al. ready quoted). (3) Copy of the Bishop's letter to the Duke of York, Jan. 17, 1661. (4) An original letter from the Lord Chancellor Hyde to the Bishop of Exeter (the letter from which a portion has been quoted). (5) Mrs. Gauden's letter, after the death of her husband, to her son John, speaking of the book commonly called the King's. She calls it the "Jewel," and says her husband hoped to make a fortune by it. (6) A long narrative in Mrs. Gauden's handwriting,

PREFACE.

shewing that her husband wrote the book. This narrative by Mrs. Gauden sets forth the motive of her husband in writing this book — namely, that he understood that Cromwell and others in the army had obtained the esteem of the people by their great parts and piety, that it was their main design to eclipse his Majesty and give a false representation of him to the world, that he (Dr. Gauden), to do his Majesty right, did pen that book by name the King's book, intending to call it Suspiria Regalia, and the design of the book was to give such a character of his Majesty to the world as his just worth, extreme merit, and admirable endowments deserved. It was shewn to Lord Capel, who highly approved of it, but thought it not fit to publish it without his Majesty's approbation ; and it was at that time impossible to speak to his Majesty, because of the strict guard which they kept about him. The Newport Treaty took place immediately after this. My Lord Marquis Hertford was appointed to attend upon the King there. Dr. Gauden went to him, gave the MS. into his hand, of which he said he was the author, to be delivered by him to the King in the Isle of Wight. Upon the return of Lord Hertford from the Isle of Wight, Dr. Gauden went to him to ask the fate of his MS. Lord Hertford replied that his Majesty had had some of those essays read to him by Bishop Duppa, that he did exceedingly approve of them, and asked whether they could not be put out in some other name. The Bishop replied that the design was that the world should take the

XX PREFACE,

book to be his Majesty's ; whereupon his Majesty desired time to consider of it.

"This," says my Lord, "is all the account I can give of it. What is become of the MS. I know not, and what will become of his Majesty God knows." Dr. Gauden consulted with Lord Hertford what was best to be done, and, says Mrs. Gauden, " my Lord bade my husband do what he would, in regard the case was desperate." Dr. Gauden resolved to print it with all speed, having a duplicate copy of the one he had sent to King Charles. The narrative continues : —

"Now, the instrument which my husband employed to get it printed was one M. Symmonds, a divine and a great sufferer for his Majesty, and he got one Mr. Royston to print it, which Royston never knew anything but that it was his Majesty's own penning. My husband did then alter the title of it, and called it Icon Basilikh,^*

This is the substance of Mrs. Gauden's narrative. Although curious and circumstantial, it does not add in reality to the importance of Dr. Gauden's own statement, with the exception of two considerable names, those of Lord Capel and Archbishop Sheldon, persons whom Mrs. Gauden declares to have been privy to the forgery of the book. Sheldon, she affirms, "was not ignorant that her husband was the only author of the Icon,^' But this assertion rests on her bare statement ; not one word can be produced on the part of the Archbishop to confirm it. To judge by his conduct as represented by Mrs. Gauden, it does not appear that he either believed in Gauden's

PREFACE. xxi

claim, or feared the consequences of its being made public. "Whatever I pleaded to my Lord" (Archbishop Sheldon), " it was to no purpose, his Lordship being resolved not to do it for me." This alone is suggestive ; but when we go one step higher and ask what was the opinion of Archbishop Juxon, Sheldon's inmiediate predecessor, we arrive at definite evidence, which goes far to reduce the whole question to a balance between the personal veracity of the saintly Archbishop and Dr. Gauden. It is contained in the following autograph of the Earl of Winchelsea : —

** Winchelsea, August 12, 1722. — I do afi&rm that in the year 1688 Mrs. Mompesson, wife of Thomas Mompesson, Esq., of Brouham, in Somersetshire, told me and my wife that Archbishop Juxon assured her that, to his certain know-* ledge, the Icon Basilikh was all composed and written by King Charles the First.''

As to Lord Capel, by her own shewing it is impossible that he could have been consulted at the time she indicates concerning the manuscript. " Immediately after this ," (i.e. immediately after consulting him) " was the Treaty of Newport," &c. Now, at that time Lord Capel was a close prisoner at Windsor, having been captured three months previously, at the surrender of Colchester. Lastly, both these witnesses were dead at the time of the publication of the narrative, and in neither case does their supposed testimony rest on anything but Mrs. Gauden's statement.

We must also notice the last paper contained in the roll of articles to which Mrs. Gauden's narrative

Xxii PREFACE.

belongs. This paper bears on one side the list of the documents ; on the reverse side we find a very significant memorandum. We do not know by whom or when this memorandum was made, but we gather from it that it must have been subsequent to Mr. Wagstaffe's earliest publications on the subject of the Icon Basilikl in 1693-4.

"The whole document," says Dr. Wordsworth, ** denotes a person standing in close relation to the property of the discovered papers, and I am inclined to think that the writer might be Charles Gauden's widow, who was known to be living when the papers were found by Mr. North at the latter end of 1692; for it seems to contain nothing short of a virtual confession that there were members of the Bishop's own family who did not believe in his claim to the authorship of the Icon BasilikV*

The following is a copy of the memorandum, word for word'': —

* * I set this down for a memorandum to ask Doctor Gibbons who it was y* told him in a coffe house y* my mother sold y* papers concerning the Kinge book, 3^* I may, when I can, have an opertunity to clear ourselves. If Mr. Wagstaf ever writes again abought it he may give y* world an account y* we desire they might know y* it was don holy without our knowledge or consent, and an particular a coimt how they com to be exposed, & ; or if it be nessesery to find out some other way to let the world know, &, y* it is my opinion y* y« Bish'*P had y« perusing & the digesting of y" into y* order & pes" [piecing] or y« correcting of them. "

The complaint as to the " exposure " of the papers

^ Documentary Supplement to " Tracts on the Icon BasiiiM,'* No. xxiii. p. 49.

PREFACE. XXiii

refers, doubtless, to the publication of Mrs. Gauden's narrative. This gave rise to the second controversy concerning the Icon Basilikl^ a controversy which raged fiercely from 1690 to 171 1, fruitful in evidence to prove the royal authorship of the book. But on Dr. Gauden's side only one more piece of direct evidence was forthcoming. This was supplied by Dr. Anthony Walker, a tutor and inmate of Dr. Gauden's family, and his curate at Bocking. His statement is contained in the tract entitled "True Account of the Author of a Book entitled Icon Basilike^^ &c., published in 1692. It is an elaborate paper, occupying several chapters of a folio volume divided into three sections. The writer classes his testimony under three heads-7(i) the means by which he knew what he professed to know ; (2) the reasons upon which he grounds his belief; (3) the probable arguments which might be produced to support his statement. The pith of his argument lies in the second section of the paper. Here he tells us that Dr. Gauden shewed him the heads of divers chapters of the Icon Basilik^y and acquainted him with his design of passing it upon the world as the King's book. Walker remonstrates. Gauden points to the title and says, "No man draws his own portraicture." He also shews him the second chapter of the book, upon the death of Lord Strafford, and explains to him that the person who counselled the King "not to vote against his conscience^" was Bishop Juxon, a fact of which Walker was ignorant. On one occasion Gau-

* Ic<m Basiltkii p. 8.

xxiv PREFACE.

den took Walker to call on Dr. Duppa^ to fetch a portion of the book then in the Bishop's care, Bishop Duppa having undertaken to write two chapters of the book, which offer Gauden accepted. Walker asked Gauden if the King had ever seen the book when it was sent to him in the Isle of Wight. Gauden replied that he did not know, though he had done his best to make him acquainted with it. Did King Charles II. know that Gauden was the author of the Icon Basilikl'i Gauden could not for certain say, because the King never mentioned it to him ; but the Duke of York did, acknowledging it to be a seasonable service. Mrs. Gauden and Mr. Gifford transcribed the copy which was sent to the Isle of Wight, believing it to be Dr. Gauden's composition. Walker was employed by Gauden to transmit the manuscript to Royston, which he did by a third hand, " one Peacock" (the brother of Dr. Gauden's steward), who in his turn was instructed .by what hands he should transmit it to Mr. Royston. These two narratives contain the strength of the evidence on Gauden's side ; we shall find, on examining them, several discrepancies between them, discrepancies which are the less surprising, though not the less damaging to the evidence, when we remember that Dr. Walker did not produce his testimony till nearly forty-five years after the publication of the Icon BasilikL He does not tell us at what time the Icon Basilikl was first begun, but we know from other sources that Gauden fixes no time earlier than 1647 for the commencement of his work. And that would seem to be precisely the

PREFACE. XXV

time at which Walker quitted Booking for the service of the Earl of Warwick ; so that during the supposed composition of the book by Gauden, Walker can hardly have been privy to it.

In Walker's narrative, Gauden is made to say that "he did not know whether the King had ever seen his book, though he had done his best to make him acquainted with it." How does this agree with Mrs. Gauden's statement that the King had had some of the essays read to him by Bishop Duppa, and did exceedingly approve of them ? If, as Dr. Walker says Bishop Duppa did contribute two chapters to the book, how does this agree with Gauden's positive assertion, ** The book and figure was wholly and only my invention, making, and designe ?" There is one point, however, in which all three statements — Gauden's letter and the two narratives — are quite consistent. Not one can produce a word of thanks from the King to Dr. Gauden for these extraordinary efforts on his behalf. This is no small circumstance, when we remember that the King never allowed the slightest service towards him to go unacknowledged, and the services tendered to him in the Isle of Wight, during his long captivity at Carisbrook, were cherished in his thoughts, as abundant evidence will testify, with feelings of special gratitude ■.