It has often been noticed, that when a writer wishes to support some
favourite hypothesis, he quite overlooks many important particulars that
militate against his own view of the case. The Rev. Mr. Corser, in his
valuable communication respecting Sir George Buc (Vol. ii., p. 38.), is not
exempt from this accusation. He has omitted the statement of Malone, that
"Sir George Buc died on the 28th of September, 1623." (Boswell's
_Shakspeare_, iii. 59.) We know _positively_ that in May 1622, Sir George,
"by reason of sickness and indisposition of body, wherewith it hath pleased
God to visit him, was become disabled and insufficient to undergo and
perform" the duties of Master of the Revels; and it is equally _positive_
that Malone would not so circumstantially have said, "Sir George Buc _died_
on the 28th of September, 1623," without some good authority for so doing.
It is only to be regretted that the learned commentator neglected to give
that authority.
Mr. Corser wishes to show that Sir George Buc's days "were further
prolonged till 1660;" but I think he is in error as to his conclusions, and
that _another_ George Buc must enter the field and divide the honours with
his knightly namesake.
It is perfectly clear that a George Buc was living long after the date
assigned as that of the death of Sir George, by Malone. This George _Buck_,
for so he invariably spells his name, contributed a copy of verses to
Yorke's _Union of Honour_, 1640; to Shirley's _Poems_, 1646; and to the
folio edition of Beaumont and Fletcher's _Plays_, 1647. Ritson, then, when
speaking of Sir George Buc's _Great Plantagenet_, as published in 1635, was
rather hasty in pronouncing it as the work of "some fellow who assumed his
name," because here is evidence that a person of the same name (if not Sir
George himself, as Mr. Corser thinks) was living at the period. The name,
if _assumed_ in the case of the _Great Plantagenet_, would hardly have been
kept up in the publications just alluded to.
In the British Museum, among the Cotton MSS. (_Tiberius_, E. X.), is
preserved a MS. called "The history of King Richard the Third, comprised in
five books, gathered and written by Sir G. Buc, Knight, Master of the
King's Office of the Revels, and one of the gentlemen of his Majesty's
Privy Chamber." This MS., which appears to have been the author's rough
draft, is corrected by interlineations and erasements in every page. It is
much injured by fire, but a part of the dedication to Sir Thomas Howard,
the Earl of Arundel, &c., still remains, together with "an advertisement to
the reader," which is dated "from the King's Office of the Revels, St.
Peter's Hill, 1619." This _history_ was first published in 1646, by George
Buck, _Esquire_, who says, in his dedication to Philip, the Earl of
Pembroke and Montgomery, "that he had _collected these papers out of their
dust_." Here is evidence that the work was not _published_ by the original
compiler; besides, how can Mr. Corser reconcile his author's knighthood
with the designations on the respective title-pages of _The Great
Plantagenet_, and _The History of Richard the Third_? In the former the
writer is styled "George Buck, _Esquire_," and in the latter, "George Buck,
_Gentleman_." It is difficult to account for Mr. Corser's omission of these
facts, because I am well assured, that, with his extensive knowledge of our
earlier poets, my information is not new to him.
That there were _two_ George Bucs in the seventeenth century, and both of
them poets, cannot, I think, be doubted. Perhaps they were not even
relations; at any rate, Mr. Corser's account of the parentage of _one_
differs from mine entirely.
"He [Sir George Buc] was born at Ely, the eldest son of Robert Bucke,
and Elizabeth, the daughter of Peter Lee of Brandon Ferry; the grandson
of Robert Bucke, and Jane, the daughter of Clement Higham; the
great-grandson of Sir John Bucke, who, having helped Richard to a horse
on Bosworth Field, was attainted for his zeal."--Chalmers' _Apology_,
p. 488.
The MS. now in Mr. Corser's possession occurs in the _Bibliotheca
Heberiana_, Part xi. No. 98., and I observe, by referring to that volume,
that the compiler has the following note:--
"This MS. is entirely in the handwriting of Sir George Buck, Master of
the Revels in the reign of James I., as prepared by him for
publication. The initials G. B. correspond with those of his name, and
the handwriting is similar to a MS. Dedication of his poem to Lord
Chancellor Egerton, which is preserved at Bridgewater House."
The authorship of _The Famous History of St. George_, then, rests solely
upon the initials "G. B.," and the similarity of the handwriting to that of
{74} Sir George Buc. Now it must be remembered that the MS. dedication was
written in 1605, and the _history_ after 1660! Surely an interval of
_fifty-five_ years must have made some difference in the penmanship of the
worthy Master of the Revels. I think we must receive the _comparison_ of
handwritings with considerable caution; and, unless some of your readers
can produce "new evidence" in favour of one or other of the claimants, I
much fear that your reverend correspondent will have to exclaim with Master
Ford in the play,--
"_Buck._ I would I could wash myself of the _Buck_!"