« PreviousContinue »
ast window at all. The only stained glass consisted in he Royal Arms in the west window. This came out when King Charles paid his visit to the place, in 1642, and, having heard much scandal as to stained glass and crosses, asked to see them and found none; a lively exchange of witty remarks at the expense of the scandalmongers ensued among the Royal party. However, this is not copying, but the reverse.
We will compare a short portion of Lenton's letter, quoted by both Peckard and Jebb, and grievously misused, by the way, by Carlyle, and put it side by side with the text of "John Inglesant.' Lenton was a fair-minded Puritan lawyer, who visited the place to see things for himself.
Inglesant told the ladies 'I first told them, what what fame reported of the I had heard of the nuns of
of Gidding, of two Gidding. Of two, watching watching and praying all and praying all night. Of night, of their canonical hours, their canonical hours. Of of their crosses on the outside their crosses on the outside and the inside of their Chapel,
and inside of their chapel. of altar there richly
Of an altar there, richly decked with plate, tapestry, decked with plate, tapestry, and tapers, of their adora- and tapers. Of their adorations and genuflexions at tions and geniculations at their entering' (J. I.,' pp. 53, their entering therein' (Len54)
ton, quoted by Peckard). Lenton also mentions that all the women were in black, 'save one of the daughter's daughters, who was in a friar's grey gown.' This is but one of the numberless touches from life, reproduced in John Inglesant’; the whole account should be compared with the 'Lives' by Peckard, Jebb, and by John Ferrar.
"Hobbes is better drawn than More.' Such, as we noticed, was the verdict of Lord Acton, as he reviewed the supposed conversations of Inglesant with both philosophers. The great critic's judgment was right in just this one particular, that Shorthouse reveals, here and there, a curious dislike of Henry More, which he does not extend to Hobbes. In other respects the verdict is strangely at fault. For although the description of Hobbes' person is taken in detail from Aubrey, and none is given of More's, yet Hobbes, while hinting a good
deal of the doctrines of The Leviathan,' gives Inglesant, after all, only eleven lines verbatim from that work, which, as yet unwritten, he apparently knew by heart, whereas nearly the whole of More's talk, extending to two pages of the Romance, is taken word for word from Ward's Life.'
We will quote Aubrey and The Leviathan,' and allow the reader to make his own comparisons with pp. 64-68 of John Inglesant.' In Brief Lives' (1, 341 and passim) we read : 'Mr Hobbes' person etc;-hazel, quick eie . . . he was a tall
his head was of a mallet-forme . . ample forehead, whiskers yellowish reddish, which natually turned up. Below, he was shaved close, except a little tip under his lip. He had a good eie, and that of a hazell colour, which was full of life and spirit. ... When he was earnest in discourse, there shone (as it were) a bright live coal within it. . When he laught, was witty, and in a merry humour, one could scarce see his eies; by and by, when he was serious and positive, he opened his eies round. ... He went very erect. . . . In cold weather, he commonly wore a black velvet coat, lined with fur, but all the year round, he wore a kind of bootes of Spanish leather, laced or tyed along the sides with black ribbons.'
And Hobbes talks thus with Inglesant, but what he says can be easily found in ch. xliii of the Leviathan':
Christian sovereigns are therefore the supreme pastors and the only persons whom Christians now hear speak from God'; and again, Faith is the gift of God ... and, because He giveth it by the means of teachers, the immediate cause of faith is hearing. In a school, where many are taught, and some profit, others profit not, the cause of learning in them that profit is the master; yet it cannot be thence inferred that learning is not the gift of God. All good things proceed from God; yet cannot all that have them say they are inspired, for that implies a gift supernatural, and the immediate hand of God, which he that pretends to, pretends to be a prophet.' Three or four lines are taken also from a previous paragraph in the same chapter, and it is wonderful how all this is slipped into the talk with Inglesant.
Of the conversation with Henry More, his unflattering opinions of Van Helmont and George Fox, space forbids to say more than that nearly all of pp. 188-190 of John Inglesant'is taken, word for word, from Ward's account of the doctor's own sayings or of the circumstances of his life. But, inasmuch as these circumstances have a connexion with Inglesant's doings at Oxford during the Civil War, they possess an interest of their own. For they illustrate Shorthouse's methods in very vivid fashion.
The description of the last happy days of the University City while Charles held his Court there is prefaced by eleven lines bearing something more than a resemblance to a paragraph of Burton's. We will place the passages side by side.
. It was really no inapt
a new company of hyperbole of the classic wits vizards, whiflers, which compared this motley maskers, mummers, phantastic
to the marriage of shadows, guls, monsters Jupiter and Juno of old, for, when Jupiter and Juno's when all the gods were in- wedding was solemnized of vited to the feast, and many old, the gods were all invited noble personages besides, but to the feast and many noble to which also came a motley men besides ; amongst the company of mummers, mas- rest came Chrysalus, a Persian kers, fantastic phantoms, prince, bravely attended, rich whifflers ... gulls, wizards, in golden attires and gay and monsters, and among robes, with a majestic prethe rest Chrysalus, a Persian sence, but otherwise an asse. Prince, bravely attended, clad The gods, seeing him como in rich and gay attire, and of in such pomp ... rose up to majestic presence, but other- give him place; but Jupiter, wise an ass; whom the Gods perceiving what he was at first, seeing him enter in turned him and his . .. folsuch pomp, rose and saluted lorers into butterflies; and
and whom Jupiter, per- so they continue still ceiving what he was, turned roving about in pied coats, with his retinue into butter- and are called Chrysalides ilies, who continued in pied by the wiser sort of men coats roving about ... among (Burton, 16th ed., pp. 25, 26). the wiser sort of men' (John Inglesant,' p. 96). And now for some very ingenious playing with facts and names. Aubrey and the Diary of Lady Fanshawe Vol. 245.—No. 485.
shall be our authorities. For that Lady · Fentham' and Lady Fanshawe are one and the same person there can be as little doubt as that Lady Cardiff 'and Lady Conway are identical. In each case Shorthouse does an injustice. Lady Conway's life and character are fully described by Ward; she was distinguished alike by her piety, her intellectual attainments, and her physical sufferings. She was not, however, a peeress in her own right,' but the wife of Viscount Conway. Nor did she marry twice. Her large house at Ragley, in Warwickshire-not at Oulton, in Dorsetsbire, there being no such place—did afford its hospitality to More, Van Helmont, and many physicians and scientists of the day, as Shorthouse relates. Some of these were summoned to try to effect a cure of Lady Conway's ailments; some, like the Quakers, she wished to have about her because of their quietude of manner. Van Helmont used to 'frequent'the Quaker meetings, and More's very caustic comments both on him and on Fox are quite authentic, though Shorthouse makes one of his unaccountable slips in transcribing More's report to Inglesant of his interview with Fox. As given ("J. I.,' p. 189) the sentence is nonsensical, the word 'mine' taking the place of the mind.' In the Oxford period, in spite of all this close identification, poor Lady Cardiff' suffers badly. She was the last person in the world to have played so base a trick on Lady Fentham' at the inn at Nuneham as Shorthouse, throwing prudence to the winds, describes. Nor would Anne · Fentham' have fallen into the snare. For Anne Fentham,' wife of Sir Richard Fentham, Secretary of the Prince's Council, can be none other, from the open quotations from her own Diary, and confirmation from Aubrey, than Lady Fanshawe. The latest editor of Lady Fanshawe's Diary, a descendant of hers, is fully cognisant of the fact, and taxes Shorthouse with taking an unpardonable liberty, though he pursued his inquiries no further. Though there is a blank or a change in a name here and there, other historical details are given without any reserve. We cannot mistake them. The Queen did reside at Merton College; the wits named the Grove at Trinity • Daphne'; the Lady Isabella Thynne was a real person, whose praises the poet Waller sang; she was beautiful and charitable,' and ' affected the garb and manner of an
ngel,' attending College chapel in this inadequate guise vith her friend, Anne Fentham (Brief Lives,' ii, 24). But here Shorthouse slips; this Anne Fentham,' or ather Fanshawe, was not the wife of Sir Richard, but a ela tive. Shorthouse intends them to be the same, how. ver; for in Lady Fanshawe's Diary we read how her ather, Sir John Harrison (not Harris'), commanded bem to come to him at Oxford, where they lived in pen ury but high spirits in a garret over a baker's shop, bow she was married to Fanshawe in Wolvercot church, in the presence of Mr Hyde, and Geoffrey Palmer, the King's Attorney, how her husband became Secretary of the Prince's Council, and how efforts were made, eventually unsuccessful, by other ladies to obtain State secrets from her. The accuracy of these details in • Inglesant' makes the scene at Nuneham, however necessary to the story, rather a reckless piece of work.
When Inglesant is brought to the scaffold at Charing Cross, there occurs one of the most sustained pieces of transcription (pp. 160-1) in the book. The source is
England's Black Tribunal,' a contemporary record of the sufferings of the King and of his chief followers. Here all Shorthouse's skill is brought into play, but whether to put the reader off the scent one really cannot tell. Anyhow, there actually were three Royalist Colonels, Poyer, Powell (whose name is given), and Langhorne, condemned to execution by the Parliament. Lots were drawn, and one of them, Poyer—not Powellwas cast for death. He was shot, not beheaded, at Covent Garden, not Charing Cross. In the story Powell precedes Inglesant's own appearance on the scaffold, and is attended by a certain Dr S— who puts him through
· -,' a long interrogatory as to his faith. Now the interesting fact is this. Another Colonel, Eusebius Andrewes, was beheaded on Tower Hill, and was attended by a Dr Swadling, whose questions and exhortations, and the Colonel's answers, are all to be found word for word in *John Inglesant.' The occasion and the sufferer were different; maybe 'Swadling' and 'Eusebius' displeased Shorthouse's taste as
names; yet why retain the • Dr S'?
-? Most of the English incidents are now, though the reader is assured very inadequately, disposed of. And