SOURCE: Gair, W. R. “The Politics of Scholarship: A Dramatic Comment on the Autocracy of Charles I.” In The Elizabethan Theatre III, edited by David Galloway, pp. 100-18. Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books, 1973.

[In the following essay, Gair claims that the incident involving the threatened seizure of Veterano's books in The Antiquary had a powerful effect on Marmion's audience, and he maintains that this can best be understood in terms of the history of the Elizabethan Society of Antiquaries.]

The central incident in the main plot of Shackerly Marmion's The Antiquary occurs when Veterano, the antiquarian of the title, is told that

the duke has been inform'd of your rarieties; and holding them an unfit treasure for a private man to possess, he hath sent his mandamus to take them from you.¹

This news has a traumatic effect upon Veterano:

I am struck with a sudden sickness: some good man help to keep my soul in, that is rushing from me, and will by no means be intreated to continue!²

Marmion's plays seem to be constructed around one central and sensational incident which gives meaning and purpose to the whole dramatic context. In The Antiquary this central incident probably had a powerful emotive effect upon the contemporary audience and can best be understood by us in terms of the history of the Elizabethan Society of Antiquaries.

On May 22, 1561, the Lutheran theologian and church historian, Flacius Illyricus, wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Matthew Parker, to recommend that

all manuscript books, including those which are considered to be somewhat rare, as well as those of which even the names are unknown, should be brought out of more remote and obscure places and be put into safer and better known localities.³

He was, however, preaching to the converted. Parker was a zealous bibliophile, an ardent antiquarian and a collector of ancient manuscripts, but his concern for these antiquities was not entirely disinterested. Like Cecil he was concerned that the dissolution of the monasteries had caused the dispersal of the ancient libraries of the kingdom and that no adequate provision had been made for the preservation of ancient writings.

It is true that, during the earliest phase of the Reformation in England, John Leyland was authorized by Henry VIII, in 1533,

to serche and peruse the Libraries of hys realme in monasteries, conentes, and colleges, before their utter destruccyon, whyche God then appoynted for their wyckednesses sake,⁴

but he was quite unable to prevent the wholesale dispersal of these libraries.

A great nombre of them whych purchased those superstycyous mansyons, reserved of those lybrarye bokes, some to serve theyr inkes, some to scoure theyr candelstyckes, and some to rubbe their bootes. Some they solde to the grossers and sope sellers, and some they sent over see to the bokebynders, not in small nombre, but at tymes whole shyppes full, to the wonderynge of the foren nacyons.

(sig.Bi.)

Leyland spent six years travelling throughout England to collect information, not merely about ancient manuscripts but also about the topography and geography of the land, and unless he is grossly exaggerating when he claims that

there is almost neyther cape nor baye, haven, creke or pere, ryver or confluence of ryvers, breches, washes, lakes, meres, fenny waters, mountaynes, valleys, mores, hethes, forestes, woodes, cyties, burges, castels, pryncypall manor places, monasteryes, and colleges, but I have sceane them,⁵

his intention was to compile a sixteenth-century version of Domesday, a Liber de Topographia Britannicae Primae.⁶ From this original intention, only the Prolegomena, edited with explanatory comment by John Bale in 1549, survives. In it Bale cites a letter of 1546 from an unnamed correspondent, who declares that

Maistre Leylande … is in suche a frenesy at thys present, that lytle hope I have of hys recover,⁷

and, as Bale points out, the case was hopeless, for

I muche do feare it that he … had a poetycall wytt, which I lament, for I judge it one of the chefest thynges that caused hym to fall besydes hys ryghte dyscernynges.

(sig.Biiii.)

Leyland, Bale, Parker and Cecil were conscious that if all the manuscript records of the kingdom were destroyed the task of finding precedents for political or religious decisions would be gravely imperilled, and also that if manuscripts were allowed to remain in private hands subversive doctrines might be propagated. As Bale makes clear, one of the primary reasons why Leyland collected ancient documents was so that

men myghte by them inveye agaynste the false doctryne of pappistes, corruptynge both the scriptures of God and the chronycles of thys realme, by execrable lyest fables.⁸

There was, too, a nationalistic feeling in the motivation of these early antiquaries; they sought to publish ancient English authors,

that their wytte workes myghte come to lyght and be spredde abroade to the whorthye fame of the land. For by them maye it wele apeare, the tymes alwayes consydered, that we are no Barbarouse nacyon.⁹

Similarly, Parker was involved in a scholarly form of nationalism, for he was seeking to establish that the church in England had an origin independent of Rome;¹⁰ to have any hope of establishing a case, the ancient records of the kingdom were vital.

Parker corresponded for some years with Bale, Cecil, Stow, Lambarde, Illyricus, John Wigand, Matthias Iudex and other scholars, domestic and foreign, in an effort to locate and preserve any manuscripts of which he could obtain information. Illyricus conveyed to Parker Bale's fears that his collection would be dispersed after his death and his desire that a public library should be founded where it might be deposited. Although no library was established, Parker did prevent the dispersal of these manuscripts, but found them disappointing.¹¹ To his efforts are owed the earliest editions of Aelfric, The Testimony of Antiquity (1566); Matthew of Westminster, Flores historiarum (1567); Gildae de excidio et conquestu Britanniae epistola (1567); Matthew Paris, Historia maior (1571); Asser, Aelfredi regis res gestae (1574); Thomas Walsingham, Historia brevis (1574) and the Ypodigma Neustriae (1574).

Strype, in his Life of Parker, insists that

… in all the books he put forth, he never added anything of his own, nor diminished from the copy, but expressed, to a word, everything as he found them in the originals. He feared to smooth the wrinkles and wipe off the stains of antiquity.¹²

In the next century, Parker's antiquarian successors were to attack the habit of silent editorial emendation or omission. Sir Simonds D'Ewes, in March 1647, received an angry reply from Roger Dodsworth, complaining:

I cannot indure to be told of vast omissions, when I have not left out one word that I liked, in any record, in all my life. As for transcribing Records literatim and verbatim, let them that list undertake itt; I disdayne itt.¹³

Parker, however, did offer to “restore” some corrupt parts in a manuscript which he had borrowed from Cecil; he refrained from so doing only because Cecil had a copyist equally able to supply the deficiencies.¹⁴ The Privy Council was sufficiently persuaded of the importance of Parker's work to give his efforts quasi-official recognition, and in 1563 he was authorized to require private owners of manuscripts to allow him access to their libraries:

… so as both when any need shall require resort may be made for the testimony that may be found in them, and also by conference of them, the antiquity of the state of these countries may be restored to the knowledge of the world.¹⁵

The result of Parker's research was his De Antiquitate Britannicae Ecclesiae (1572) in which he attempted to establish, from manuscript authority, that the Church in England was founded upon direct apostolic descent, distinct from the Church in Rome.

It was at about the time this treatise was in press that Parker was held to have become the first President and Patron of the Society of Antiquaries. This may, however, be a subsequent scholarly assumption based upon Parker's known antiquarian interests, his correspondence with other scholars in the field and his habit of employing antiquarians in his personal service; Jocelinus was his Latin secretary. Whether or not Parker had a formal relationship to an Antiquarian Society, he was succeeded by Whitgift, who clarified the position by accepting one. Whitgift also followed Parker to the See of Canterbury and inherited his responsibility for clarifying the ancient status of the Church in England.¹⁶ The first Society of Antiquarians was never contractually chartered by its associates; it grew gradually more formal and more systematically organized as its members and their fame increased. The original fellowship included Stow, Lambarde, Arthur Agarde, Sir William Fleetwood, Sir John Doderidge and Sir James Leigh.¹⁷ Although Whitgift may have remained for some time the official patron of the nascent society, it quickly became secular rather than theological in interest: by the mid 1580s it had established an independent existence. The most distinguished early associate of the Society was William Camden who, in these early years of his career, was at pains to record his indebtedness to the encouragement he received in his historical studies from Sir Philip Sidney;¹⁸ with him was the future translator of the Britannia, Philemon Holland. It was this group of scholars who created an organization which gradually became the nearest approximation in Elizabethan England to an academy.

The antiquaries fixed their meeting place at Darby House in the Herald's Office, because the Garter, Sir William Dethicke, was one of their associates.

The Society increased daily; many persons of great worth, as well noble as other learned, joyning themselves unto it.¹⁹

Launcelot Andrewes, Sir Henry Spelman, Sir Robert Cotton, Sir John Davies, were all accepted as members during the succeeding years and, in 1598, by Camden's introduction, Richard Carew of Anthony was elected a fellow while in London as parliamentary representative for Mitchell in Cornwall.²⁰ They met each Friday afternoon during term, subject to formal rules of procedure. They were summoned individually to attend.

SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES TO DR. STOWE.

The place appointed for a Conference upon the question followinge, ys att Dr. Garters house on Frydaye the ii of this November, being Alsoules day [Nov. 2, 1598], at ii of the clocke in thafternoone, where your opinion in wrytinge or otherwyse is expected. The question is, Of the Antiquitie, Etimologie and privileges of parishes in Englande.²¹

The “opinions” were filed in the society archives: at first a secretary, perhaps Agarde, may have summarized them: later it became the rule for the society to retain holograph copies from each individual. It was an agreed rule of procedure that “in a question which cannot be proved by authoritie probabilities and coniectures are to be used.”²² Unlike the works of other gentlemen, the reports of the antiquaries rarely circulated in manuscript outside the society's membership. Obviously the subjects were of a specialized interest, but it seems to have been a deliberate policy—probably owing to concern lest there be political repercussions—to keep discussions secret until they were printed. The antiquaries were jealous of their privileges; strangers were not admitted to their meetings.

Yt is desired, that you bringe none other with you nor geve anie notice unto anie, but such as have the like sumouns²³

was the terse instruction on the reverse of the summons to the “conference.” The Antiquaries soon gained recognition as an influential corporate body. In 1592, Nashe felt compelled to issue a denial that in Pierce Pennilesse he had had any intention of denigrating the study of antiquities; some hostile critics had, it appears, attempted to persuade the Antiquaries that Nashe's attack on Gabriel Harvey's pedantry was a slight upon historical scholarship itself.

The Antiquaries are offended without cause, thinking I goe about to detract from that excellent profession, when (God is my witnesse) I reverence it as much as any of them all, and had no manner of allusion to them that stumble at it. I hope they wil give me leave to think there be fooles of that Art as well as of al other; but to say I utterly condemne it as an unfruitfull studie or seeme to despise the excellent qualified partes of it, is a most false and iniurious surmise.²⁴

As the membership increased, so the organization grew more complex. By the end of Elizabeth's reign it was the custom to control meetings by two “moderators” chosen from among the members: in February 1601, these were Sir James Leigh and Francis Tate; in May, Tate and a Mr. Broughton.²⁵ The moderators probably served a limited term in office, one being replaced at a time to ensure continuity of procedure, and performed the duties of Chairman and Secretary. They may also have had some responsibility for maintaining correspondence with country members, one of whom seems to have been—at least in a casual way—Lord William Howard.²⁶ Living at Narworth Castle on the Scottish borders, Howard was an active antiquary and used to add to his library by exchanging books, sent from London, for such stones as he found with Latin inscriptions. He tempted Cotton—whose son, Thomas, had married one of his daughters—to visit him in August 1608, with the promise: “I have gotten and know weare to have heere about me at least 12 stones, most of them faire inscriptions that you have not yett heard of. …”²⁷ Another member of his household, Nicholas Roscarrock, shared his interests and may also have had some distant connection with the London Society. Richard Carew who, despite the dissolution of Parliament in February 1598, probably remained in London to attend an antiquaries' meeting in November to which he was summoned, contributed a paper for the November 20 meeting in the following year. This paper, “Of the Antiquity, Variety, and Etimology of Measuring Land in Cornwayl,” was, in all probability, sent to be read and not presented in person.²⁸

The existence of the Society of Antiquaries was not officially recognized by the Privy Council, but its resources were used by them for political purposes. In 1600 Cotton, perhaps acting as society spokesman, wrote, at the Queen's command, “A brief abstract of the question of precedencie between England and Spaine” in order to adjudicate a dispute which had arisen between Sir Henry Nevile, Ambassador to France, and the Spanish Ambassador, who were discussing an Anglo-Spanish treaty at Calais; he decided in favour of his fellow-countryman.²⁹ On November 25, 1602, Henry Howard, Lord Northampton, asked Cotton personally to supply a list of precedents relating to the office of the Earl Marshal.³⁰ William Lambarde was appointed Keeper of the Records in the Tower in 1602 and on August 4 he presented the Queen with a catalogue of the holdings. While reading it aloud, Elizabeth paused from time to time to ask the meaning of technical terms and, reaching the reign of Richard II, exclaimed, “I am Richard II, know ye not that?”—to which Lambarde replied,

Such a wicked imagination was determined and attempted by a most unkind Gentleman [Essex] the most adorned creature that ever your Majestie made.

Elizabeth could not resist amplifying the analogy:

He that will forget God, will also forget his benefactors; this tragedy [Shakespeare's Richard II] was played 40tie times in open streets and houses.³¹

The work of the antiquaries was by no means free from political implication and Elizabeth, although personally well-disposed towards them, was not unaware of the dangerous precedents in which they dealt, of which even the most ancient could be relevant to current constitutional crises.

It was during these last years of Elizabeth's reign that the Society of Antiquaries felt themselves so well constituted and with such distinguished membership that they submitted a request to be granted a royal charter of incorporation. The leading instigators were Cotton, Leigh and Doderidge. They suggested that Elizabeth should found, but not endow, a national deposit library under the supervision of “The Accademye for the Study of Antiquity and Historye founded by Queen Elizabethe,” which was to provide a governor and two guardians (no doubt moderators “writ large”) to be chosen annually from the academy, or rather the incorporated Society of Antiquaries.³² The Antiquaries stressed that England ought to emulate the example of continental Europe:

In foreyn countries whear most civility and learning is their is great regard had of the cherishing and encrease of this kinde of learning [i.e. the study of history and antiquities]: by publicke lectures appoynted for that purpose and their ar erected publick libraryes and accademyes in Germany Italy and ffrance to that end.

For a time it seemed possible that the scheme desired by Parker, Bale and Illyricus would succeed but, although it was pointed out that this library would create a body of national archives where not only ancient manuscripts but also official proclamations might be consulted, Elizabeth, apparently, made no response. This was not, of course, the first proposal to found a national library. In January 1556, John Dee, the scientist and astrologer, had addressed a similar petition to Queen Mary and that of the Antiquaries to her sister was based upon it. Dee suggested the appointment of a commission to determine what manuscripts existed in the kingdom, with the power to compel their owners to allow them to be copied:

Whereby your Highness shall have a most notable library, learning wonderfully be advanced, the passing excellent works of our forefathers from rot and worms preserved, and also hereafter continually the whole realm may … use and enjoy the whole incomparable treasure so preserved.³³

But neither Mary nor Elizabeth was anxious for ancient precedents to be freely available for consultation. Because Queen Mary ignored Dee's petition, he built up his own library which, by 1583, had grown to some four thousand volumes. He made his collection available to his pupils, who included Sidney and Dyer. Dee's library scheme, as well as that of the Society of Antiquaries, prefigures the foundation of the British Museum and the appointment of The Historical Manuscripts Commission. Since Dee built up his own library because a national one was not to be founded, Cotton may well have been similarly influenced: as Dee's pupils met at his library, so the antiquaries were to meet at Cotton's.³⁴

The antiquaries hoped that a new sovereign of known scholarly interests might welcome the idea of an academy, but they had to reckon with James's suspicion of any private group which could exert political influence. Ironically, the Society of Antiquaries presented for the Stuart government that danger which Parker and Cecil had been attempting to avert, the political threat represented by ancient documents remaining in private hands. One of Parker's motives in founding the Society was probably to ensure that early records were kept in responsible hands, but now in the new reign the members were themselves politically suspect. It was their most distinguished country member, Richard Carew of Anthony, who recorded their disappointment in a letter to Cotton of April 7, 1605:

Sir, I praie you geive me leave to impart unto you my greef, that my so remote dwelling depriveth mee of your sweet and respected Antiquarum society, into which your kyndenesse towards mee and grace with them made mee an Entrance, and unto which (not withstanding so long discontynuance) my longing desire layeth a Contynuall clayme.

I hearde by my Brother, that in the late Queenes tyme it was lykelie to have received an establishment and extraordynarie favour from sundrie great personages: and me thinckes that under so learned a King this plant should rather growe to his full height, then quaille in the Springe. It importes no little disgrace to our Nation, that others have so many Academyes, and wee none at all, especially seeing wee want not choice of wyttes every waye matcheable with theirs, both for number and sufficyency. Sutch a worcke is worthie of your solicitation and indevour, and you owe yt to your owne fame, and the good of your Countrey.³⁵

Carew saw the Society as an embryonic academy, but it could not attain this status without a charter of incorporation: had the proposal to Elizabeth been approved, England would have had the beginnings of a national deposit library (Bodley's, opened in 1602, was a purely private venture) and a Royal Society, some thirty years before France. One infers from Carew's letter that the failure of their attempt to achieve official status led to the gradual decline of the Society, and during the early years of the reign of James their activities as a collective body seem to have ceased; royal disapproval was a strong solvent.

In 1612, Sir Henry Spelman moved from Norfolk to London and took a house in Tuthill Street, Westminster, near to the library of his friend Cotton. Some two years later he attempted to refound the Antiquaries' Society with Cotton, Camden and most of the other surviving members of the original fellowship; they met, once again at the Herald's Office, to agree upon details of procedure. After choosing a Mr. Hackwell to be secretary and deciding “that for avoiding offence, we should neither meddle with matters of State nor of Religion,” the meeting was adjourned to consider the question, “Of the Original of Terms.”

But before our next meeting, we had notice that his Majesty took a little mislike of our Society: not being enform'd, that we had resolv'd to decline all matters of State.³⁶

This new society, which had access to a unique repository of state papers and other documents in Cotton's library, too much resembled a cabal to be tolerated by James's court. This was not, however, the last attempt to set up an antiquarian study group in England before the Interregnum, because in May 1638 Sir Edward Dering, who in 1627 had obtained permission from the Council to transcribe manuscripts dating earlier than the reign of Edward VI, signed an agreement with Sir Christopher Hatton, William Dugdale and Sir Thomas Shirley. This Antiquitas Rediviva was, however, rather a contractual obligation to assist members in each other's research than a society of the complexity of the earlier institution.³⁷ Effectively, therefore, after 1614, historical research had to be carried on with extreme discretion to avoid any suspicion of a formal corporate activity which might exert political pressure.

Since the dissolution of the old Society of Antiquaries and the failure to revive it in 1614, leading scholars, lawyers, politicians, historians and others—men as varied in their interests as Camden, Spelman, Clarendon, Coke, Jonson, Ussher, Hale and Hobbes—had been accustomed to use Sir Robert Cotton's library as a convenient meeting place, but on a casual basis; as Sir Simonds D'Ewes remarked in May 1625,

I stepped aside into Sir Robert Cotton's and transcribed what I thought good out of some of his manuscripts, or old written books in parchement.³⁸

Their most learned associate, John Selden, records his gratitude, in the Dedication to his Historie of Tithes (1618), for Cotton's assistance:

… to have borrowed your help, or used that your inestimable Library (which lives in you) assures a curious Diligence in search after the inmost, least known and most useful parts of Historicall Truth both of Past and Present ages.

The conclusion which, through the resources of Cotton's library, Selden was able to reach in his examination of tithes was that they were subject to “lex positiva” alone and not dependent upon the “Iure Divino”³⁹—a result at variance with the Stuart belief in the powers of the royal prerogative. It was in the reign of Charles that the resort to ancient precedent became too important a political weapon to remain a purely scholarly pursuit. The work of the antiquary had a direct relevance to the struggle between Parliament and Crown.

While the scholars who gathered in Cotton's house did nothing openly to antagonize the Privy Council, they constituted a threat in so far as they were a private body with access to documents of state. In politics, Cotton was personally indiscreet; in 1615 he lost favour by being involved in the Overbury murder and the Somerset divorce case.⁴⁰

For he, being highly esteemed by the Earl of Somerset … was acquainted with this murder by him, a little before it now came to light, and had advised him what he took to be the best course for his [Somerset's] safety. Sir Robert had his pardon and never came to his open trial, yet was in the Christmas holidays of this year committed to prison.⁴¹

He remained jailed for five months until James pardoned the Earl and Countess of Essex. In May of the following year, Bolton writing to Camden expressed his

sorrow that your most esteemed friend, Sir Robert Cotton, hath been so unfortunate, as that thereby the common treasure of our antiquities, and authentic monuments are barred from wonted freedom of access, so that here the fortune of our nation's history seems to have set the period of itself.⁴²

When Cotton was in disgrace, the authorities reacted by restricting access to his library, thus limiting his political influence. For a time private research and authorized inquiry cooperated harmoniously and Bishop Ussher, who had been commissioned by James to describe the antiquities of the Church in England, wrote to Cotton on December 20, 1624, to obtain his help in procuring early manuscript records through the resources of his library.⁴³ About sixteen months later, however, on April 28, 1626, it was reported to Joseph Mead that

Sir Robert Cotton's books are threatened to be taken away, because he is accused of imparting ancient precedents to the lower house.⁴⁴

The threat was not carried out. Only three years later a tract, with subversive implications, came to the notice of Lord Wentworth, who informed the Privy Council; in their turn they traced it to Cotton's library. It was a proposal “how a Prince may make himself an absolute tyrant” by abolishing parliaments and ruling by royal fiat on the model of Louis XI. Cotton was arrested, sued in the Star Chamber, and his library sealed. On July 12, 1630, a commission was appointed

to search what records or other papers of State in the custody of Sir Robert Cotton properly belong to his Majesty, and thereof to certify.⁴⁵

It is likely that Richard James, who was employed by Cotton from about 1625 to catalogue his books and manuscripts, and had, in the previous year, worked with Selden on the examination of the Arundel Marbles, was indiscreet and allowed a circulation and copying of documents from the collection more freely than prudence warranted. The tract did not originate from Cotton's house, as the Attorney General alleged, but had been composed some seventeen years earlier in Florence by Sir Robert Dudley, son to the Earl of Leicester.⁴⁶ The Privy Council did not allow this mere inaccuracy to deprive it of an opportunity of silencing a source of authoritative statement on political usage which had been found to be increasingly embarrassing. The result of the affair was, as Simonds D'Ewes rather picturesquely describes it in his Autobiography, that

he [Cotton] would tell me they had broken his heart that had locked up his library from him. I easily guessed the reason, because his honour, and esteem were much impaired by this fatall accident, and his house, that was formerly frequented by great and honourable personages, as well as by learned men of all sorts, remained now [1630] upon the matter desolate and empty.

(p. 41)

Cotton died in the following year. The last danger, foreseen by Matthew Parker, in the failure at the Reformation to provide for governmental control of ancient writings of the kingdom had been, for the present, obviated. Cotton's library, where manuscripts of dangerously liberal views could be consulted, was now under royal supervision.

Cotton's son was extremely cautious with his library inheritance. Sir Simonds D'Ewes bitterly complains that Thomas was

wholly addicted to the tenacious increasing of his worldly wealth, and altogether unworthy to be master of so inestimable a library as his father. For he promised me on Monday, the 16th. day of this month [May, 1631] in the forenoon, when I went to visit him after his father's death … that he would lend me some manuscripts I should need for the furthering of the public work I was about; yet ever when I sent to him … he put me off with so many frivolous excuses or feigned subterfuges, as I forbore further troubling any messengers.

(p. 43)

Thomas had already been compelled to petition the Privy Council to have his father's books and papers restored to him.⁴⁷ Had he been warned not to encourage “unauthorized” scholarship?

On D'Ewes' testimony, Cotton, when his library was impounded,

was so outworn within a few months with anguish and grief, as his face, which had been formerly ruddy and well-coloured … was wholly changed into a grim blackish paleness, near to the resemblance and hue of a dead visage.⁴⁸

In his play, Marmion calls Veterano the “great” antiquary but his characterization of him is essentially the same as that popularized by John Earle in Microcosmographia (1628)—a comical, unworldly eccentric whose criterion of value was simply antiquity—but Parker would have approved the assertion, “He is of our Religion, because wee say it is most ancient. …” Earle unjustly accuses the antiquaries of unreasoning prejudice: “Printed bookes he conteenes, as a novelty of this latter age; but a Manuscript he pores on everlastingly, especially if the cover be all Moth-eaten, and the dust make a Parenthesis between every Syllable”—but, no doubt, there were some who behaved like this and if nothing else, as Earle points out, they achieved a certain tranquillity—“His Grave do's not fright him, for he ha's been us'd to Sepulchers, and hee likes Death the better, because it gathers him to his Fathers.”

The theme of The Antiquary is the commonplace conflict of generations: Lionel, nephew to Veterano, plots to gull his uncle into allowing him a share of his inheritance before due time. He considers trying to sell him “some stale interludes” by representing them as “some of Terence's hundred and fifty comedies, That were lost in the Adriatic sea”;⁴⁹ but instead he plots to secure the sequestration of his uncle's antiquities. Although he is clearly a biased witness, D'Ewes blamed “Richard James, a short red-bearded, high-coloured fellow … an atheistical, profane scholar,” for the closure of Cotton's library. According to D'Ewes, this James “had so screwed himself into the good opinion of Sir Robert Cotton, as … some two or three years before his decease, he bestowed the custody of his whole library on him. James then proceeded to “let out, or lend out Sir Robert Cotton's most precious manuscripts for money.” One of his customers was a certain “Mr. Saint John of Lincoln's Inn,” who hired the pamphlet which led to the Star Chamber proceedings.⁵⁰

Marmion's play consistently allows the antiquary to state his case and to argue that his profession is one worthy of admiration.

Did not the Signiory build a state-chamber for antiquities? and 'tis the best thing that e'er they did: they are the registers, the chronicles, of the age they were made in, and speak the truth of history better than a hundred of your printed commentaries.

(p. 449)

This latter assertion suggests the beginnings of an understanding of the value of archaeology. Veterano criticizes the frivolity and triviality of the present age, declaring,

I must reverence and prefer the precedent times before these, which consumed their wits in experiments: and 'twas a virtuous emulation amongst them, that nothing which should profit posterity should perish.

(p. 452)

The play does nothing to contradict him. While the figure of the antiquary, as established by Earle, is a comical, eccentric type, what he says must be taken seriously.

In the fourth act, the threat of the mandamus to his books and other rarities is lifted, and later the Duke (in disguise) presenting Veterano to Lionel (who is, in turn, disguised as the Duke) declares:

This is the famous antiquary I told your grace of, a man worthy your grace; the Janus of our age, and treasurer of times passed: a man worthy your bounteous favour and kind notice; that as soon forget himself in the remembrance of your highness, as any subject you have.

(p. 519)

Veterano's loyalty to his sovereign and devotion to his country are not in question, and indeed the Duke hints that the antiquary may receive political advancement and become a senator.

Marmion's Holland's Leaguer, which was first performed in December 1631, is a play which is well known to have been produced while a public scandal was taking place. There was a notorious brothel which overlooked the Globe, Hope and Swan theatres, built on a mudbank in the Thames, and the authorities attempted to close it down; but when the Watch arrived the madame of the establishment, Dona Britanica,

stands upon her guard, hangs out a Flagge of defiance, and bids them enter at their peril; they which had a double Armor a good cause, and lawful authority, scorning to be outbraved, prepare for an assault, she on the other side with her man devill, and her she furies, stand to receive them, and to make her triumph more glorious, she sets ope the gate, puts downe the Bridge, and drawes up her Percullis, the enemy bravely enters, and comming on in good order, they were no sooner on the Bridge, and had fil'd it from one end to the other, but by a secret device which shee concealed downe fell the Bridge, and the Corporall and his souldiers were halfe drowned in the water.⁵¹

Marmion exploits this scandal for dramatic effect and, on the whole, sympathizes with the bawds. Similarly, in The Antiquary he is again referring to a contemporary sensation, the Cotton affair; his sympathies are with the antiquary.

Marmion appears to have been opposed to the autocratic suppression of Cotton's library and to Charles's plan to confiscate some of Cotton's state papers. Veterano is Cotton's dramatic paradigm; Veterano's loyalty is not in question. Cotton's study was sealed by November 1629; he died on May 6, 1631. The Antiquary was produced, in all likelihood, between these dates; it belongs probably to late 1629 or early 1630 and it represents an adverse comment on the autocratic behaviour of the King and Privy Council. Was it also, like Chapman's Old Joiner of Aldgate,⁵² an attempt to influence a judicial decision of the Star Chamber?

Notes

1. “The Antiquary,” Dodsley's Old Plays, ed. W. C. Hazlitt (London, 1874-76), XIII, 479.

2. Ibid.

3. Parker, Correspondence (1573-75) ed. J. Bruce (Cambridge, 1853), p. 140: “ex locis remotioribus et ignobilioribus, in certa quaedam et illustriora comportarentur, omnes libri manuscripti et qui rariores esse existimarentur, aut etiam quorum nomina plane ignorarentur.”

4. John Leylande, A Laboryous Journey, ed. J. Bale (London, 1549), sig. Bviii (unsigned)—Bale's note.

5. Ibid. sigs. Diiii/Diiii^v Leylande's own words.

6. Ibid. sig. Diiii^v.

7. Ibid., sig. Biii^v.

8. Ibid. sigs. Cvi^v/Cvii (unsigned).

9. Ibid. sig. Cvii (unsigned).

10. Parker, Correspondence, p. 327n.

11. Parker, Correspondence, p. 287.

12. Strype, Life of Parker (London, 1821), II, 501. Strype is citing Parker's Preface to his edition of Asser (1574). Parker appears to have made a distinction between supplying missing portions of incomplete manuscripts by transcription from perfect copies, which was his habitual practice (Strype, II, 511), and emending apparently corrupt readings without the authority of another copy. These principles do not, however, appear to have been applied with rigour, and speculative emendation does occur (cf. Matthew Paris, ed. Sir L. Madden, Historia Anglorum, Rolls Ser., London, 1866, I, xxxv); it is possible that Parker was deceived by his editors and printers, but he was not always aware which manuscript provided the best text.

13. Autobiography and Correspondence of Sir Simonds D'Ewes, ed. J. O. Halliwell, II (London, 1845), 312.

14. Parker, Correspondence, p. 253.

15. Ibid., p. 327n.

16. Sir William Fleetwood to Sir Thomas Heneage, c. 1580. (Master's History of the College of Corpus Christi [Cambridge, 1753], App., xxix, p. 51.)

17. cf. T. Hearne, Curious Discourses, 2nd. ed., II (London, 1771), 421ff.

18. “ad Lectorem,” appended (p. 1) to the 5th ed. of Camden's Britannia (London, 1600).

19. Reliquiae Spelmannianae, ed. E. Gibson (Oxford, 1698), p. 69. (Preface to The Original of the Four Terms of the Year).

20. Survey of Cornwall, ed. F. E. Halliday (London, 1953), p. 38. The information as to Carew's election appears on his memorial tablet.

21. Hearne, Curious Discourses. These are a transcription of the “opinions” presented to the Society, in MS. Cotton, Faust. E.V. This MS., after the break-up of the society, came into the hands of Camden who deposited it in Cotton's library. The summons to Stowe occurs in MS Ashmolean, No. lxxxvii (Hearne, I, XV).

22. MS. Cotton, Faust. E.V., f. 101. These are holographs, dating mainly 1590-1605.

23. Hearne, I, xv. The summons was addressed to Mr. Bowyer.

24. The Works of Thomas Nashe, ed. R. B. McKerrow (London, 1910), I, 154. (The Author to The Printer.)

25. Cotton, Faust. E.V., f. 108.

26. H. R. Steeves (Learned Societies and English Literary Scholarship [New York, 1913], p. 32) points out that a MS. of doubtful authenticity, the West MS. [of c. 1625], lists Henry Howard, Earl of Northampton, as a member as well as Sir Philip Sidney. It is very doubtful whether this is to be credited, but at least it reflects a contemporary opinion that Sidney was associated with academies in the European sense; perhaps it is a confusion with his own informal society, the Areopagus.

27. Selections from the Household Books of … Naworth Castle, ed. G. Ornsby, Surtees Soc. (London, 1878), 412; and cf. D. Mathew, The Age of Charles I (London, 1951), p. 299.

28. Survey, ed. Halliday, p. 39.

29. Cottoni Posthuma, ed. J. Howell (London, 1672), pp. 71-89.

30. C.S.P. Dom. (1601-03), p. 266.

31. Lambarde succeeded Heneage as Keeper of the Tower records. The audience is described by Nichols (Progresses, III, 552); Lambarde died only a fortnight after the meeting.

32. The actual petition is not extant, but the draft outline and “Reasons to move the furdrance of this Corporation” are printed by E. Flugel, Anglia, XXXII (1909), 265-8 (from MS. Cotton, Faust. E.V., ff. 89-90).

33. Autobiographical Tracts of Dr. John Dee, ed. J. Crossley, Chetham Soc. (London, 1851), p. 47.

34. cf. C. F. Smith, John Dee (1527-1608) (London, 1909) pp. 15-17.

35. Original Letters of Eminent Literary Men, ed. Sir H. Ellis, Camden Soc. (London, 1898), pp. 98-99.

36. Reliquiae Spelmannianae, ed. E. Gibson (Oxford, 1698), pp. 69-70. The “Mr. Hackewell” was perhaps George (1578-1649).

37. cf. J. Evans, A History of the Society of Antiquaries (Oxford, 1956), p. 21-2.

38. D'Ewes, Autobiography, ed. Halliwell, I, 268-9.

39. Selden, Tithes, Preface, p. xiv.

40. cf. F. S. Fussner, The Historical Revolution (London, 1962), pp. 119-127.

41. D'Ewes, Autobiography, I, 80.

42. T. Birch, The Court and Times of James I (London, 1848), I, 408.

43. Original Letters, ed. Ellis, p. 131.

44. T. Birch, The Court and Times of Charles I (London, 1848), I, 98.

45. C.S.P. Dom. (1629-31), p. 89. It is possible that this commission was appointed on the precedent of the allowance granted to Parker in 1568 to have access to private libraries.

46. D'Ewes, Autobiography, III, 42n.

47. C.S.P. Dom. (1629-31), p. 89.

48. D'Ewes, Autobiography, II, 41-42.

49. Antiquary, p. 430.

50. D'Ewes, Autobiography, II, pp. 38-43, passim.

51. Nicholas Goodman, Hollands Leaguer: or an historical discourse of the life of Dona Britanica Hollandia (London, 1632), sig. G2.

52. cf. W. R. Gair, “La Compagnie des Enfants de St. Paul (1599-1606),” Dramaturgie et Société (Paris, 1968), II, 671, and, for a full account of all the details of this incident, see C. J. Sisson, Lost Plays of Shakespeare's Age (Cambridge, 1936), pp. 12-79.