hold this paradox, that the English were never more idle, never more
ignorant in manual arts, never more factious in following the parties
of princes or their landlords, never more base (as I may say) trencher
slaves, than in that age, wherein great men kept open houses for all
comers and goers: and that in our age, wherein we have better learned
each man to live of his own, and great men keep not such troops of idle
servants, not only the English are become very industrious and skilful
in manual arts, but also the tyranny of lords and gentlemen is abated,
whereby they nourished private dissensions and civil wars, with the
destruction of the common people.” FYNES MORYSON’S _Itinerary_, Part
III. Ch. v.
[68] Dr. ARBUTHNOT, too, has his authority. A famous politician of the
last century expresseth himself to much the same purpose, after his
manner: “Henceforth, says he, [that is, after the statutes against
retainers in HEN. VII’S reign] the country lives, and _great tables_
of the nobility, which no longer nourished veins that would bleed
for them, were fruitless and loathsome till they changed the air,
and of princes became _courtiers_; where their revenues, never to
have been exhausted by beef and mutton, were found _narrow_; whence
followed racking of rents, and, at length, sale of lands.” SIR JAMES
HARRINGTON’S OCEANA, p. 40. _Lond._ 1656.
[69] True it is, that this divertisement of _bear-baiting_ was not
altogether unknown in the age of ELIZABETH, and, as it seemeth, not
much misliked of master STOW himself, who hath very graphically
described it. He is speaking of the _Danish_ embassador’s reception and
entertainment at _Greenwich_ in 1586. “As the better sort, saith he,
had their convenient disports, so were not the ordinary people excluded
from competent pleasure. For, upon a green, very spacious and large,
where thousands might stand and behold with good contentment, their
BEAR-BAITING and bull-baiting (tempered with other merry disports) were
exhibited; whereat it cannot be spoken of what pleasure the people took.
For it was a sport alone, of these beasts, continueth the historian,
to see the bear with his pink-eyes leering after his enemies; the
nimbleness and wait of the dog to take his advantage; and the force and
experience of the bear again to avoid the assaults; if he were bitten
in one place, how he would pinch in another to get free; and if he were
once taken, then what shift with biting, clawing, roaring, tugging,
grasping, tumbling, and tossing, he would work to wind himself away;
and, when he was loose, to shake his ears with the blood and slaver
about his phisnomy, was a pittance of good relief. The like pastime
also of the bull.—And now the day being far spent, and the sun in
his declination, the embassador withdrew to his lodging by barge to
CROSBY’S place; where, no doubt, THIS DAY’S SOLEMNITY WAS THOUGHT UPON
AND TALKED OF.”—p. 1562.
[70] See the _Anarcharsis_ of LUCIAN.
[71] If the reader be complaisant enough to admit the fact, it may be
accounted for, on the ideas of chivalry, in the following manner. The
knight forfeited all pretensions to the favour of the ladies, if he
failed, in any degree, in the point of valour. And, reciprocally, the
claim which the ladies had to protection and courtesy from the order
of knights, was founded singly in the reputation of chastity, which
was the female point of honour. “Ce droit que les dames avoient sur la
chevalerie (says M. DE LA CURNE DE STE PALAYE) devoit étre conditionel;
il supposoit que leur conduite et leur reputation ne les rendoient
point indignes de l’espece d’association qui les unissoit à cet ordre
uniquement fondé sur l’honneur.
Par celle voye (says an old _French_ writer, the chevalier DE LA TOUR,
about the year 1371) les bonnes se craignoient et se tenoient plus
fermes de faire chose dont elles peussent perdre leur honneur et leur
etat. _Si vouldroye que celûi temps fust revenu, car je pense qu’il
n’en seroit pas tant de blasmées comme il est à present.”_
[72] Sir PHILIP SYDNEY.
[73] What is hinted, here, of the _reality_ of these representations,
hath been lately shewn at large in a learned memoir on this subject,
which the reader will find in the XX^{th} Tom. of HIST. DE L’ACAD. DES
INSCRIPTIONS ET BELLES LETTRES.
[74] This representation of things in the ages of chivalry agrees
with what we are told by the author of the memoir just quoted: “Les
premières leçons,” (says he, speaking of the manner in which the youth
were educated in the houses of the Great, which were properly the
schools of those times) “qu’on leur donnoit, regardoient principalement
_l’amour de Dieu, et des dames_, c’est-à-dire, la religion, et la
galanterie. Mais autant la dévotion qu’on leur inspiroit étoit
accompagnée de puerilités et de superstitions, autant l’amour des
dames, qu’on leur recommandoit, étoit il rempli de RAFFINEMENT et
de FANATISME. Il semble qu’on ne pouvoit, dans ces siécles ignorans
et grossiers, présenter aux hommes la religion sous une forme assez
materielle pour la mettre à leur portée; ni leur donner, en même tems,
une idée de l’amour assez pure, assez metaphysique, pour prevenir les
desordres et les excès, dont etoit capable une nation qui conservoit
par-tout le caractere impetueux qu’elle montroit à la guerre.” Tom. xx.
p. 600.
One sees then the origin of that furious gallantry which runs through
the old romances. And so long as the _refinement and fanaticism_,
which the writer speaks of, were kept in full vigour by the force of
institution and the fashion of the times, the morals of these enamoured
knights might, for any thing I know, be as pure as their apologist
represents them. At the same time it must be confessed that this
discipline was of a nature very likely to relax itself under another
state of things, and certainly to be misconstrued by those who should
come to look upon these pictures of a _refined and spiritual passion_,
as incredible and fantastic. And hence, no doubt, we are to account
for that censure which a famous writer, and one of the ornaments
of ELIZABETH’S own age, passeth on the old books of chivalry. His
expression is downright, and somewhat coarse. “In our fathers time
nothing was read but books of chivalry, wherein a man by reading should
be led to none other end, but only to _manslaughter_ and _baudrye_.
If any man suppose they were good enough to pass the time withall, he
is deceived. For surely vain words do work no small thing in vain,
ignorant, and young minds, especially if they be given any thing
thereunto of their own nature.” He adds, like a good Protestant, “These
books, as I have heard say, were made the most part in abbayes and
monasteries; a very likely and fit fruit of such an idle and blind kind
of living.” _Præf._ to ASCHAM’S TOXOPHILUS, 1571.
I thought it but just to set down this censure of Mr.
ASCHAM over-against the candid representation of the French
memorialist.—However, what is said of the influence, which this
ancient institution had on the character of his countrymen, is not
to be disputed. “Les preceptes d’amour repandoient dans le commerce
des dames ces considerations et ces egards respectueux, qui, n’ayant
jamais été effacés de l’esprit des François, ont toujours fait un des
caractères distinctifs de nôtre nation.”
[75] Of SCRIBLERUS. See the VI^{th} chapter of that learned work, _On
the ancient Gymnastics_.
[76] MASQUES, p. 181. WHALEY’S edition.
[77] This romantic spirit of the Queen may be seen as well in her
_amours_, as military achievements. “Ambiri, coli ob formam, et
AMORIBUS, etiam inclinatâ jam ætate, videri voluit; de FABULOSIS
INSULIS per illam relaxationem renovatâ quasi memoriâ in quibus EQUITES
AC STRENUI HOMINES ERRABANT, et AMORES, fœditate omni prohibitâ,
generosè per VIRTUTEM exercebant.”
THUANI Hist. tom. vi. p. 172.
The observation of the great historian is confirmed by FRANCIS OSBORNE,
Esq., who, speaking of a contrivance of the Cecilian party to ruin
the earl of ESSEX, by giving him a rival in the good graces of the
queen, observes—“But the whole result concluding in a duel, did rather
inflame than abate the former account she made of him: the opinion
of a CHAMPION being more splendid (in the weak and romantic sense of
women, that admit of nothing fit to be made the object of a quarrel
but themselves) and far above that of a captain or general. So as Sir
EDMUND CARY, brother to the Lord HUNSDON, then chamberlain and near
kinsman to the Queen, told me, that though she chid them both, nothing
pleased her better than a conceit she had, that her _beauty_ was the
subject of this quarrel, when, God knows, it grew from the stock of
honour, of which then they were very tender.”—MEM. OF Q. ELIZABETH, p.
456.
But nothing shews the romantic disposition of the Queen, and indeed
of her times, more evidently than the TRIUMPH, as it was called;
devised and performed with great solemnity, in honour of the _French_
commissioners in 1581. The contrivance was for four of her principal
courtiers, under the quaint appellation of “four foster-children of
DESIRE,” to besiege and carry, by dint of arms, “THE FORTRESS OF
BEAUTY;” intending, by this courtly ænigma, nothing less than the
queen’s majesty’s own person.—The actors in this famous triumph were,
the Earl of ARUNDEL, the Lord WINDSOR, Master PHILIP SIDNEY, and Master
FULK GREVIL. And the whole was conducted so entirely in the spirit
and language of knight errantry, that nothing in the Arcadia itself
is more romantic. See the account at large in STOW’S continuation of
HOLINSHED’S Chronicles, p. 1316-1321.
To see the drift and propriety of this triumph, it is to be observed
that the business which brought the _French_ commissioners into
_England_ was, the great affair of the queen’s marriage with the duke
of ALANÇON.
[78] Speeches at Prince HENRY’S barriers.
[79] There was an instance of this kind, and perhaps the latest upon
record in our history, in the 13th year of the queen, when “a combat
was appointed to have been fought for a certain manor, and demain
lands belonging thereto, in _Kent_.” The matter was compromised in
the end. But not till after the usual forms had been observed, by the
two parties: of which we have a curious and circumstantial detail in
_Holinshed’s_ Chronicles, p. 1225.
[80] Alluding to a tract, so called, by GASCOIGNE, an attendant on the
court, and poet of that time, who hath given us a narrative of the
entertainments that passed on this occasion at _Kenelworth_.
[81] Hence then it is that a celebrated dramatic writer of those
days represents the entertainment of MASKS and SHOWS, as the highest
indulgence that could be provided for a luxurious and happy monarch.
His words are these;
“Music and poetry are his delight.
Therefore I’ll have _Italian_ masques by night,
Sweet speeches, comedies, and pleasing shows;
And in the day, when he shall walk abroad,
Like SYLVAN NYMPHS, my pages shall be clad:
My men, like SATYRS, grazing on the lawns,
Shall, with their goat-feet dance the antic hay:
Sometimes a lovely boy in DIAN’S shape,
With hair, that gilds the water as it glides,
Crownets of pearls about his naked arms,
And in his sportful hands an olive-tree,
Shall bathe him in a spring, and there hard-by
One like ACTÆON, peeping through the grove,
Shall by the angry Goddess be transform’d—
Such things as these best please his Majesty.”
MARLOW’S Edward II.
And how exactly this dramatist painted the humour of the times, we may
see from the entertainment provided, not many years after, for the
reception of King JAMES at _Althorp_ in _Northamptonshire_; where this
very design of _Sylvan Nymphs_, _Satyrs_, and ACTÆON, was executed in a
masque by B. JONSON.
[82] Whom his friend Mr. SELDEN characterizeth in this manner,
“Omnia carmina doctus
Et calles mythων plasmata et historiam.”
TIT. OF HON. p. 466.
[83] _Sacrifices_, says PLUTARCH, _without chorusses and without music,
we have known: but for poetry, without fable and without fiction, we
know of no such thing_. Θυσίας μὲν ἀχόρους καὶ ἀναύλους ἴσμεν· οὐκ
ἴσμεν δὲ ἄμυθον οὐδὲ ἀψευδῆ ϖοίησιν. De aud. poët. vol. i. p. 16.
[84] This will be admitted, if a calculation said to have been made by
themselves of their number at that time may be relied on—“They make
reasoning (saith Sir EDWIN SANDYS in his _Speculum Europæ_, written
in 1699) forty hundred sure catholics in _England_, with four hundred
_English Roman_ priests to maintain that militia,” p. 157.
[85] Mr. CAMDEN owns that the _Irish_ rebellion, which in the end
became so dangerous, had been “encouraged by a slighting of it, and
a gripple-handedness of _England_.” [_Hist. of_ ELIZ. B. iv.]—To
the same purpose another eminent writer of that time—“Before the
transmitting of the last great army, the forces sent over by Q.
ELIZABETH were NOT of sufficient power to break and subdue all the
_Irishry_.” At last, however, “The extreme peril of losing the kingdom;
the dishonour and danger that might thereby grow to the crown of
_England_; together with a just disdain conceived by that great-minded
queen, that so wicked and ungrateful a rebel should prevail against
her, who had ever been victorious against all her enemies; did move and
almost ENFORCE her to send over that mighty army.” [Sir. J. DAVIES,
_Discovery of the State of Ireland_, p. 97. _Lond._ 1613.]
[86] Sir ROBERT NAUNTON tells us, “The queen was never profuse in
delivering out of her treasure; but paid her servants part in money,
and the rest with GRACE; which, as the case stood, was then taken for
good payment.” [FRAGM. REG. p. 89.] And NAT. BACON to the same purpose.
“A wise man, that was an eye-witness of HER actions, and those that
succeeded to her, many times hath said, That a courtier might make a
better meal of one good LOOK from her, than of a gift from some other.”
[DISC. P. ii. p. 266. _Lond._ 1651.]
[87] This _reverence of authority_, one of the characteristics of that
time, and which Mr. ADDISON presently accounts for, a great writer
celebrates in these words—“It was an ingenuous uninquisitive time,
when all the passions and affections of the people were lapped up in
such an innocent and humble obedience, that there was never the least
contestation nor capitulation with the queen, nor (though she very
frequently consulted with her subjects) _any further reasons urged of
her actions than_ HER OWN WILL.” See a tract intitled THE DISPARITY, in
Sir H. WOTTON’S Remains, p. 46, supposed to have been written by the
earl of CLARENDON.
[88] PAULUS HENTZNERUS, a learned _German_, who was in _England_
in 1598, goes still further in his encomium on the queen’s skill
in languages. He tells us, that, “præterquam quòd Græcè et Latinè
eleganter est docta, tenet, ultra jam memorata idiomata, etiam
Hispanicum, Scoticum, et Belgicum.” See his ITINERARIUM.
But this was the general character of the great in that reign: at
least, if we may credit Master WILLIAM HARRISON, who discourseth on the
subject before us in the following manner: “This further is not to be
omitted, to the singular commendation of both sorts and sexes of our
courtiers here in _England_, that there are very few of them, which
have not the use and skill of sundry speeches, beside an excellent vein
of writing, before time not regarded. Truly it is a rare thing with us
now, to hear of a courtier which hath but his own language. And to say
how many gentlewomen and ladies there are, that, beside sound knowledge
of the _Greek_ and _Latin_ tongues, are thereto no less skilful in the
_Spanish_, _Italian_, and _French_, or in some one of them, it resteth
not in me; sith I am persuaded, that as the noblemen and gentlemen do
surmount in this behalf, so these come very little or nothing behind
them for their parts; which industry God continue, and accomplish that
which otherwise is wanting.” DESCRIPT. of ENGLAND, p. 196.
[89] One of these _ties_ was the _prejudice of education_; and some
uncommon methods used to bind it fast on the minds of the people.—A
book, called ΕΙΡΗΝΑΡΧΙΑ, sive ELIZABETH, was written in _Latin_ verse
by one OCKLAND, containing the highest panegyrics on the queen’s
character and government, and setting forth the transcendant virtues of
her ministers. This book was enjoined by authority to be taught, as a
classic author, in Grammar-schools, and was of course to be gotten by
heart by the young scholars throughout the kingdom.
This was a matchless contrivance to imprint a sense of loyalty on the
minds of the people. And, though it flowed, as we are to suppose,
from a tender regard, in the advisers of it, for the interests of
Protestantism in that reign; yet its uses are so apparent in any reign,
and under any administration, that nothing but the moderation of her
successors, and the reasonable assurance of their ministers that their
own acknowledged virtues were a sufficient support to them, could have
hindered the expedient from being followed.
But, though the stamp of public authority was wanting, private men
have attempted, in several ways, to supply this defect. To instance
only in one. The Protestant queen was to pass for a mirror of _good
government_: hence the Εἰρηνάρχια. Her successor would needs be thought
a mirror of _eloquence_: and hence the noble enterprise I am about to
celebrate. “Mr. GEORGE HERBERT (I give it in the grave historian’s own
words) being prelector in the rhetorique school in _Cambridge_, in
1618, passed by those fluent orators, that domineered in the pulpits of
_Athens_ and _Rome_, and insisted to read upon an oration of K. JAMES,
which he analysed; shewed the concinnity of the parts; the propriety
of the phrase; the height and power of it to move the affections; the
style, UTTERLY UNKNOWN TO THE ANCIENTS, who could not conceive what
kingly eloquence was, in respect of which those noted demigogi were
but hirelings and tribolary rhetoricians.” Bishop HACKET’S Life of
Archbishop WILLIAMS, p. 175.
[90] A learned foreigner gives this character of the _English_ at that
time: “Angli, ut ADDICTE SERVIUNT, ità evecti ad dignitates priorem
humilitatem INSOLENTIA rependunt.” H. GROTII ANN. L. v. p. 95. _Amst._
1657. Hence the propriety of those complaints, in our great poet, of,
“The whips and scorns of th’ time,
Th’ oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely,
THE INSOLENCE OF OFFICE;”—
_complaints_ so frequent, and so forcibly expressed by him, that we may
believe he painted from his own observation, and perhaps experience, of
this insolent misuse of authority. MEASURE FOR MEASURE, A. II. S. vii.
[91] Yet it may seem probable, from this poet’s conduct in _Ireland_,
and his _View of the state of that country_, that his talents for
_business_ (such as CECIL himself must have approved) were no less
considerable than for poetry. But he had served a disgraced man; and
had drawn upon himself the admiration of the generous earl of _Essex_.
So that, as the historian expresseth it, “by a fate which still follows
poets, he always wrestled with poverty, though he had been secretary
to the lord GRAY, lord deputy of _Ireland_.” All that remained for
him was, “to be interred at _Westminster_, near to CHAUCER, at the
charge of the earl of _Essex_; his hearse being attended by poets, and
mournful elegies and poems, with the pens that wrote them, thrown into
his grave.” CAMDEN, lib. iv.
[92] As to Sir FRANCIS BACON, the queen herself gave a very plausible
reason, and doubtless much approved by the grave lawyers and other
judicious persons of that time, for her neglect of this gentleman.
“She did acknowledge (says the earl of _Essex_ in a letter to Mr.
FRANCIS BACON) you had a great wit, and an excellent gift of speech,
and much other good learning. But in LAW, she rather thought you could
make shew, to the utmost of your knowledge, than, that you were deep.”
MEM. OF Q. ELIZABETH by Dr. BIRCH; to whom the public is exceedingly
indebted for abundance of curious information concerning the history of
those times.
If it be asked, how the queen came to form this conclusion, the answer
is plain. It was from Mr. BACON’S having a GREAT WIT, an excellent GIFT
OF SPEECH, and much other GOOD LEARNING.
It is true, Sir FRANCIS BACON himself gives another account of this
matter. In a letter of advice to Sir. GEORGE VILLIERS, he says, “In
this dedication of yourself to the public, I recommend unto you
principally that which I think was never done since I was born—that
you countenance and encourage and advance ABLE MEN, in all kinds,
degrees, and professions. For in the time of the CECILS, father and
son, ABLE MEN WERE BY DESIGN AND OF PURPOSE SUPPRESSED.” CABALA, p. 57,
ed. 1691.—But either way, indeed, the queen’s character is equally
saved.
[93] The lord MOUNTJOY [then Sir CHARLES BLOUNT], being of a military
turn, had stolen over into _France_, without the queen’s knowledge,
in order to serve in _Bretagne_, under one of her generals. Upon his
return, which was hastened too by her express command, “Serve me so
again, said the queen, once more, and I will lay you fast enough for
running. You will never leave, till you are knocked o’ the head, as
that inconsiderate fellow SIDNEY was. You shall go when I send you. In
the mean time see that you lodge in the Court, where you may FOLLOW
YOUR BOOKS, HEAD, AND DISCOURSE OF THE WARS.” Sir ROBERT NAUNTON’S FR.
REG. in L. BURLEIGH.
[94] So good a judge of military matters, as Sir WALTER RALEIGH, was of
this opinion with regard to the conduct of the _Spanish_ war. “If the
late queen would have believed her men of war, as she did her scribes,
we had, in her time, beaten that great empire in pieces, and made their
kings, kings of figs and oranges, as in old times. But _her majesty
did all by halves_, and, by petty invasions, taught the _Spaniard_
how to defend himself, and to see his own weakness; which, till our
attempts taught him, was hardly known to himself.” See his Works, vol.
i. 273.—RALEIGH, it may be said, was of the CECIL faction. But the men
of war, of the ESSEX faction, talked exactly in the same strain; which
shews that this might probably be the truth.
[95] See Sir HENRY WOTTON’S _Parallel of the earl of Essex and duke
of Buckingham_. The words are these: “He [the earl of _Essex_] was to
wrestle with a queen’s declining, or rather with her very setting age,
as we may term it; which, besides other respects, is commonly even
of itself the more umbratious and apprehensive; as for the most part
all horizons are charged with certain vapours towards their evening.”
REMAINS, p. 11.
[96] THE DISPARITY, p. 43
[97] This account of her policy is confirmed by what we read in the
DISPARITY, before cited. “That trick of countenancing and protecting
factions (as that queen, almost her whole reign, did with singular and
equal demonstration of grace look upon several persons of most distant
wishes one towards another) was not the least ground of much of her
quiet and success. And she never doubted but that men, that were never
so opposite in their good-will each to other, or never so dishonest in
their projectments for each other’s confusion, might yet be reconciled
in their allegiance towards her. Insomuch that, during her whole
reign, she never endeavoured to reconcile any personal differences in
the court, though the unlawful emulations of persons of nearest trust
about her, were ever like to overthrow some of her chiefest designs:
_A policy, seldom entertained by princes, especially if they have
issues to survive them_,” p. 46. Her own historian, it is true, seems
a little shy of acknowledging this conduct of the queen, with regard
to her nobility and ministers. But he owns, “She now and then took a
pleasure (and not unprofitably) in the emulation and privy grudges of
her women.” CAMDEN’S ELIZABETH, p. 79. fol. _Lond._ 1688.
[98] We find an intimation to this purpose, in a writer of credit, at
least with respect to the _Dutch_ and _Ireland_—“Jam et _divulsam_
Hiberniam, et in Batavis Angli militis _seditiones_, velut JUSSAS,
erant qui exprobrarent.” GROTII ANNAL. l. xii. p. 432.