SIR GEORGE BUC.
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
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!"
Edward F. Rimbault.
I am not quite certain that I can satisfactorily answer Mr. Corser's query; but at least I am able to show that a Sir George Buck, seised in fee of lands in Lincolnshire, did die in or about 1623. In the Report Office of the Court of Chancery is a Report made to Lord Keeper Williams by Sir Wm. Jones, who had been Lord Chief Justice in Ireland, dated the 10th Nov. 1623, respecting a suit referred to him by the Lord Keeper, in which Stephen Buck was plaintiff and Robert Buck defendant. In this report is contained a copy of the will of Sir George Buck, whom I supposed to be the Sir George Buck, the master of the Revels; and the will containing a singular clause, disinheriting his brother Robert because he was alleged to be a Jesuit, and it having been supposed that Sir George Buck died intestate, I published an extract from it in my Acta Cancellariæ (Benning, 1847). On further examination of the whole of the document in question, I find it distinctly stated, and of course that statement was made on evidence adduced, that Sir George Buck was seised in fee of certain lands and tenements in Boston and Skydbrooke, both of which places, I need scarcely say, are in Lincolnshire. It is therefore, at least, not improbable that the testator was a native of Lincolnshire. It also appears that the proceedings in Chancery were instituted previously to June, 1623; and, inasmuch as Sir George Buck's will is recited in those proceedings, he must have died before they were commenced, and not in September, 1623, as I once supposed. It may, perhaps, aid Mr. Corser's researches to know that the will (which is not to be found at Doctors' Commons) mentions, besides the brother Robert, a sister, Cecilia Buck, who had a son, Stephen, who had a son, George Buck, whom his great uncle, Sir George, made ultimate heir to his lands in Lincolnshire.
Cecil Monro.
Registrars' Office, Court of Chancery.