Editions of the work.
And having thus adverted to the different editions, it may not be improper to add a few words on the impressions which have been issued of this curious biographical fragment. Till Dr. Wordsworth favoured the public with his “Ecclesiastical Biography,” what we had was rather an abridgement than the genuine work. But even in its mutilated form it was always popular, and the copies were marked at considerable prices in the booksellers’ catalogues.
The first edition, it is believed, is that in 4to, London, 1641, for William Sheeres, with the title “The Negotiations of Thomas Woolsey, the great Cardinall of England, &c. composed by one of his own Servants, being his Gentleman-Usher.” The second was in 12mo, London, 1667, for Dorman Newman, and is entitled “The Life and Death of Thomas Woolsey, Cardinal, &c. written by one of his own Servants, being his Gentleman-Usher.” The third is the one just mentioned in 8vo, London, 1706, for B. Bragg, and having for its title “The Memoirs of that great Favourite Cardinal Woolsey, &c.” It is supposed that it was first made public in order to provoke a comparison between Wolsey and the unpopular Archbishop Laud. These are the only editions known to the writer.
It is printed in the form of notes to Grove’s History of the Life and Times of Cardinal Wolsey[42], again in the Harleian Miscellany, and in the selection from that work. And last of all, it forms a most valuable part of the “Ecclesiastical Biography,” published by Dr. Wordsworth.
The supposed edition of 1590.
It must not however be concealed that mention has been made of a still earlier edition than any of those above described. Bishop Nicholson, in his English Historical Library[43], asserts that it was published at London in 4to, 1590; and in this he is followed by Dodd the Catholic historian. Nicholson’s authority is not very high in respect of bibliographical information; and there is great reason to believe that he has here described an edition to be found only in the Bibliotheca abscondita of Sir Thomas Brown. This however is certain, that the commentators on Shakspeare are agreed, that though the labours of Cavendish must have been known in part to our great Dramatist, he has followed them so closely in many of his scenes, it could have been only by a perusal of them in manuscript, or by the ample quotations made from them in the pages of Hollinshead and Stowe. Mr. Malone indeed expressly affirms that they were not sent to the press before 1641. The earliest edition known to the editor of the Censura Literaria, whose intimate acquaintance with early English literature every one acknowledges, and whose attention has been peculiarly drawn to this work, was of that date. The catalogues, published and unpublished, of most of our principal libraries have been consulted, and no earlier edition than that of 1641 found in any one of them. No earlier edition than that is to be found in the Royal Library at Paris. It appears, therefore, on the whole, most probable that though there are undoubtedly black-letter stores, which the diligence of modern bibliomaniacs has not brought to light, no such edition exists, as that which the author of the English Historical Library tells us was published in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and during the height of the persecutions which she authorized against the Catholics. Under this persuasion the succeeding sheets have been composed.
It is possible that Bishop Nicholson may have been misled by another work on the same subject; The Aspiring, Triumph, and Fall of Wolsey, by Thomas Storer, Student of Christ Church. This appeared in quarto, 1599.
Conclusion.
The writer now lays down his pen with something like a persuasion that it will be allowed he has proved his two points,—that Sir William Cavendish of Chatsworth could not have been the author of the Life of Wolsey, and that we owe the work to his brother George Cavendish of Glemsford. The necessary inference also is, that the foundation of the present grandeur of the house of Cavendish was not laid, as is commonly understood, in an attendance upon Cardinal Wolsey, and in certain favourable circumstances connected with that service. The inquiry, even in all its bearings, like many other literary inquiries, cannot be considered as of very high importance. The writer will not however affect to insinuate that he considers it as of no consequence. In works so universally consulted as the Biographia and the Peerages, it is desirable that no errors of any magnitude should remain undetected and unexposed. Error begets error, and truth begets truth: nor can any one say how much larger in both cases may be the offspring than the sire. I do not indeed scruple to acknowledge, that, though not without a relish for inquiries which embrace objects of far greater magnitude, and a disposition justly to appreciate their value, I should be thankful to the man who should remove my uncertainty, as to whose countenance was concealed by the Masque de Fer, or would tell me whether Richard was the hunch-backed tyrant, and Harry “the nimble-footed mad-cap” exhibited by our great dramatist; whether Charles wrote the Εικων Βασιλικη, and Lady Packington “The whole Duty of Man.” Not that I would place this humble disquisition on a level with the inquiries which have been instituted and so learnedly conducted into these several questions. In one material point, however, even this disquisition may challenge an equality with them. There is a much nearer approach made to certainty than in the discussions of any of the abovementioned so much greater questions.
There are amongst readers of books some persons whose minds being every moment occupied in the contemplation of objects of the highest importance, look down with contempt upon the naturalist at his leucophræ, the critic at his μεν and δε work, the astronomer at his nebulæ, and the toiling antiquary at every thing. One word to these gentlemen before we part. To them may be recommended the words of a writer of our own day, a man of an enlarged and highly cultivated mind:—