CHAPTER IV. MORE DIRECT PROOFS. "Most true; if ever truth were pregnant by circumstance; that, which you hear, you'll swear you see, there is such unity in the proofs: creature in resemblance of the mother."-- Winter's Tale. § 1. THE RICHARD II. the majesty of the THE statements and allusions contained in Bacon's "Apology" or defence against certain imputations concerning his conduct towards the Earl of Essex, which was addressed to the Earl of Devonshire, and published soon after the death of Essex in 1601, made in relation to an answer which he gave the Queen, towards the close of the year 1599, as he tells us, in "a matter which had some affinity" with Essex's cause, and which was a certain "seditious prelude" then lately dedicated to the factious Earl, being Dr. Hayward's story of the "First Yeare of King Henry IV.," at which the Queen, thinking there was treason in it, was "mightily incensed," when interpreted by the light of the accompanying history and the personal relations of the parties, will be seen to amount to nothing less than a virtually implied admission out of his own mouth that he was himself the author of the play of Richard II.; for it will be made quite certain, that this tragedy was precisely the "matter" alluded to, and no other. It will further appear to be highly probable, that the Queen herself at least strongly suspected, and that even the Lords of the Privy Council had some inkling, that such was the fact. If this be shown to be so, it will be equivalent of itself to a final settlement of the question in hand, and it will require some attention. That exquisite disgrace which the Queen had been constrained to put upon him, in 1595, had been comfortably solaced in the consideration that her Majesty did but reserve and not reject him, in the princely entertainment and masque at Essex's house, near the close of that year, and in the munificent grant of Twickenham Park immediately following. The tragedy of Richard II. was most probably written after this date, and during the year 1596. There is no mention on record of its existence before it was entered and printed in 1597. Malone and some others have supposed it might have been written as early as 1593–4, and, proceeding upon the assumption that the mention made by Camden and by Bacon of the tragedy of Richard II., in their accounts of the trials of Essex and his co-conspirators, as being an "out-dated" and an "old" play, must have referred to some older play by another author, they were also led to infer, both that some such old play existed, and that it was that older play, and not this of Shakespeare, which was there alluded to. But all this is evidently a mistake; for the Attorney-General, Coke, in his speech on the trial of Merrick, expressly says, that "forty shillings were given to Phillips the player" to play this tragedy before Essex's men. This was no other than Augustine Phillips of Shakespeare's company, and the manager at the Globe and Blackfriars; and it is altogether improbable that any other play of that name would be in use by that company, at that time, and none such is known to have existed. During the year 1595, Daniel published a first and second edition of his "Civil Wars," a poem on the same subject. Mr. White observes some incidents in this second edition, which lead him to infer that Daniel may have used the play to correct his piece; but the inference of Mr. Knight, that the resemblances are due to the fact that the writer of the play had read Daniel's poem, in the course of his preparations for his work, and so, that the play was written after the poem, would seem to be more probable; or both writers may have drawn from the same historical sources, independently of each other; and this view would limit the production of the play to the year 1596. In that year, Essex is burning the Spanish fleet at Cadiz, and the Pope issues his Bull authorizing Queen Elizabeth's subjects to depose her; but it is not until about 1598, that the Irish kernes under Tyrone and O'Neil begin to be troublesome, and wars arise, to which there might seem to be some allusion in the play, as in these lines : : "K. Rich. Now for our Irish wars: We must supplant these rough rug-headed kernes "; but there were just such rebels and wars in Ireland, in the time of Richard II., and to these, as recorded in Holinshed, it is much more probable, if not quite certain, the allusions in the play were intended to refer: nor is there any ground on which it can safely be concluded that the play was written before 1596. But, in 1594, machinations were on foot among the Jesuits, having for their object the dethronement of Elizabeth, and looking to Essex as in the interest of some successor; for, in that year, a certain book was dedicated to the Earl of Essex, under the sham-name of Doleman (a Jesuit priest); but Parsons, Allen, and Inglefield were the true authors of it. This book set up the title of the Infanta of Spain, and perhaps also gave encouragement to some supposed right of Essex, derived from Thomas of Woodstock, son of Edward III.; and the pretensions of Essex were already a subject of speculation in the public mind. When Essex visited Bacon, at Twickenham Park, in October 1595, and made him the gift of land in requital of his services, he answered by telling the story of the Duke of Guise, who "had turned all his estate into obligations," and said: "My Lord, I see I must be your homager and hold land of your gift; but do you know the 1 Camden's Ann. of Eliz.; Kennett's Eng. II. 576. manner of doing homage in law? Always it is with a saving of his faith to the king and his other lords; and therefore, my lord, I can be no more yours than I was, and it must be with the ancient savings." There is no certain evidence that the play was produced long before it was printed, in 1597, and the appearance of such a play, on the stage, at this time, could not fail to attract the public attention. Its bearing upon the incipient projects of Essex (though not intended so to refer) could not fail to be perceived; and it is certain that the play received the countenance of Essex, and excited the jealousy of the Queen. When first printed, no name of the author appeared on the title-page, and the entire scene of deposing King Richard, containing one hundred and fifty-four lines (says Malone), was omitted. Malone attributes the omission to fear of the Queen's displeasure, no doubt correctly; but he falls into the mistake of supposing that Dr. Hayward's book was the cause of that fear; whereas that book was not published until the year 1599. Moreover, these lines would very probably be interdicted by the Master of the Revels as censor of the press. In November 1595, the Queen had taken occasion to show to Essex a certain book (probably that of Doleman) in such manner as greatly to alarm him; but somehow all was made fair again, with the help of a splendid entertainment and the dramatic genius of Bacon. And, in 1596, after the return of Essex from Cadiz, Bacon wrote him an urgent letter of advice "to divert her Majesty from this impression of a martial greatness," for the reason that there could not be "a more dangerous image than this represented to any monarch living, much more to a lady, and of her Majesty's apprehension." In the latter part of 1597, Essex's discontent about the matter of the Earl of Nottingham had been appeased with the office of Earl Marshal of England, and in the next year, the question of sending a general against the Irish rebels came up. The Queen wished to appoint Sir William Knollys. Essex urged Sir George Carew, and plainly wanted to go himself. In the discussion which arose he was offended, and turned his back on the Queen. Her Majesty marched up and boxed his ears. He was exceedingly wroth, laid his hand on his sword, and, swearing he would not have endured so much from Henry VIII. himself, left the presence in high dudgeon. This eclipse continued from July to October 1598, when the affair was apparently reconciled, and he received the chief command for Ireland, and was commissioned Lord Lieutenant on the 12th of March 1598-9, the Queen reluctantly yielding. Whereupon, Bacon writes him a letter of congratulation in which he says: "That your Lordship is in statu quo prius, no man taketh greater gladness than I do; the rather, because I assure myself that of your eclipses, as this has been the longest, it shall be the last. As the comical poet saith, Neque illam tu satis noveras, neque te illa; hoc ubi fit, ibi non vivitur." And in conclusion, he takes care to express himself as bearing unto his Lordship, "after her Majesty, of all public persons the second duty." 1 Her disposition towards Essex had been kindly and forgiving, but she was doubtful of him, and kept a watchful eye upon his courses. As afterwards it became evident enough, all his movements had reference to a scheme already formed in his mind to depose the Queen by the help of the Catholic party and the Irish rebels. He goes to Ireland in March, 1599, and after various doubtful proceedings and a treasonable truce with Tyrone, he suddenly returns to London in October following, with a select body of friends, without the command, and to the great surprise and indignation of the Queen; and, a few days afterwards, finds himself under arrest, and a quasi-prisoner in the house of the Lord-Keeper. During this year, Dr. Hayward's pamphlet appeared: it was nothing more than a 1 Letters and Life by Spedding, II. 104. |