« AnteriorContinuar »
able fact respecting the execution of Archbishop Laud, which took place on the roth of January 1645 : “ About this time the Bishop of Canterbury having been by an unknown law condemned to die, and the execution suspended for some days, many citizens, fearing time and cool thoughts might procure his pardon, became so maliciously impudent as to shut up their shops, professing not to open them till justice was executed. This malice and madness is scarcely credible, but I saw it.” 2
This statement proves that Walton was in London in January ,1645; and it is certain, from the following circumstance, that he - was also in the metropolis in December 1647. The House of
Commons having ordered that all professors, heads of houses, and others in the University of Oxford, should take the covenant, negative oath, and the ordinance for Church discipline and worship, or be expelled, the University requested to be allowed to state its reasons for non-compliance. A committee was appointed to hear the arguments of the persons deputed for the purpose ; and on the 2d of December 1647, Dr George Morley, a particular friend of Walton's, who was then canon of Christ Church, pleaded the right of the University to be heard by counsel with great effect,3 One of the members of the committee, whom Walton describes as “ a powerful man in the Parliament,” wishing to protect Morley from expulsion by the visitors who were soon afterwards despatched to Oxford to enforce the ordinance, sent for Walton, and, he says, “ told me that he had such a love for Dr Morley, that knowing he would not take the oaths, and must therefore be ejected his college, and leave Oxford; he desired I would therefore write to him to ride out of Oxford when the visitors came into it, and not return till they left it, and he should be sure then to return in safety; and that by so doing he should, without taking any oath, or other molestation, enjoy his canon's place in the college. I did receive this intended kindness with a sudden gladness, because I was sure the party had a power to do what he professed, and as sure he meant to perform it, and did therefore write the doctor word; to which his answer was, that I must not fail to return my friend (who still lives) his humble and undissembled thanks, though he could not accept of his intended kindness; for when Dr Fell (then the dean), Dr Gardner, Dr Paine, Dr Hammond, Dr Sanderson, and all the rest of the college were turned out, except Dr Wall, he should take it to be,
2 Walton's Lives, ed. Zouch, II. 224.
if not a sin, yet a shame, to be left behind with him only. Dr Wall I knew, and will speak nothing of him, for he is dead.” 4
Walton does not mention the name of the member of the committee to whom he alludes, but the conjecture that it was Mr Swinfen, who was one of his friends, has been confirmed by a manuscript note in the copy of the Life of Bishop Sanderson which he presented to that gentleman, where some one, and probably his granddaughter, has written, opposite to the preceding paragraph, “my grandfather Swinfen.” 5
Two very interesting anecdotes of Charles the First, whom Walton elsewhere calls “the knowing and conscientious Kirg,'' and “ the martyr for the Church," occur in the Memoir of Sanderson, who attended his Majesty in the Isle of Wight, and had many private conferences with him on the affairs of the Church. “Let me here,” says Walton, “ take occasion to tell the reader this truth, very fit, but not commonly known; that in one of these conferences this conscientious King was told by a faithful and private intelligencer, that if he assented not to the parliament's proposals, the treaty 'twixt him and them would break imme. diately, and his life would then be in danger; he was sure he knew it.' To which his answer was, “I have done what I can to bring my conscience to a compliance with their proposals, and cannot; and I will not lose my conscience to save my life.' And within a very short time after, he told Dr Sanderson and Dr Morley, or one of them that then waited with him, that 'the remembrance of two errors did much afflict him, which were, his assent to the Earl of Strafford's death, and the abolishing of - Episcopacy in Scotland; and that if God ever restored him to be
in peaceable possession of his crown, he would demonstrate his repentance by a public confession and voluntary penance (I think barefoot) from the Tower of London or Whitehall to St Paul's Church, and desire the people to intercede with God for his pardon. I am sure one of them, that told it me, lives still, and will witness it. And,” he adds, “it ought also to be observed that Dr Sanderson's Lectures de Juramento 'were so approved and valued by the King, that in this time of his imprisonment and solitude he translated them into exact English, desiring Dr Juxon (then Bishop of London), Dr Hammond, and Sir Thomas
4 Walton's Lives, ed. Zouch, II. 221, 222.
5 This copy of the “Life of Sanderson" was formerly in the possession of Mr Picker ing, the publisher of the first edition of this work. The note was probably written by Mrs Jervis, the only child of John Swinfen, Esq., and granddaughter of the Mr Swinsen mentioned in the text. Mrs Jervis was the grandmother of the late Earl of St Vincent.
Herbert (who then attended him in his restraint), to compare them with the original. The last still lives, and has declared it, with some other of that King's excellencies, in a letter under his own hand, which was lately showed me by Sir William Dugdale, king-at-arms. The translation was designed to be put into the King's library at St James's; but, I doubt, not now to be found there." 6
There is some difficulty in deciding whether the King made this communication to Dr Sanderson or to Dr Morley; but it is obvious that Walton heard of it from the latter, because Sanderson was dead when Walton wrote his memoir, and he expressly says that his informant was then living.
In 1646, Francis Quarles's “Shepherds' Eclogues” were printed by John and Richard Marriott, with an Address to the Reader dated on the 25th of November 1645, and signed “John Marriott;” but no one who is acquainted with Walton's style, and especially with “ The Complete Angler," can doubt that this Address proceeded from his pen. As Quarles had been secretary to Walton's friend Archbishop Usher, and as he was a zealous Royalist, and apparently an angler, he was perhaps personally known to Walton. It is however certain that Walton was then well acquainted with the Marriotts, and nothing is more probable than that they should have requested him to write the prefatory matter to a posthumous work,' which was to appear upon their responsibility. The internal evidence that the Address was written by Walton is so strong that it will be inserted without the slightest fear of its not being attributed to the real author:
“TO THE READER,—Though the author had some years before his lamented death, composed, reviewed, and corrected these Eclogues ; yet, he left no epistle to the reader, but only a title, and a blank leaf for that purpose. Whether he meant some allegorical exposition of the Shepherds' names, or their Eclogues, is doubtsul : but 'tis certain, that as they are, they appear a perfect pattern of the author : whose person, and mind, were both lovely, and his conversation such as distilled pleasure, knowledge, and virtue, into his friends and acquaintance. 'Tis confessed these Eclogues are not so wholly divine as many of his published Meditations, which speak ‘his affections to be set upon things that are above,' and yet even such men have their intermitted hours, and (as their company gives
6 Walton's Lives, ed. Zouch, II. 214, 217.
9 It is said in the Biographia Britannica that Ouarles died on the 8th September 1644: but according to the following statement in Smith's Obituary, Additional MS. 886, in the British Museum, he dicd on the 19th of that month : “Mr Francis Quarles, a famous poet, died 19th September 1644."
occasion) commixtures of heavenly and earthly thoughts. You are there. fore requested to fancy him cast by fortune into the company of some yet unknown shepherds, and you have a liberty to believe 'twas by this following accident.
“He in a summer's morning (about that hour when the great eye of heaven first opens itself to give light to us mortals), walking a gentle pace towards a brook (whose spring-head was not far distant from his peaceful habitation), fitted with angle, lines, and flies; flies proper for that season (being the fruitful month of May), intending all diligence to beguile the timorous trout (with which the watery element abounded), observed a more than common concourse of Shepherds, all bending their unwearied steps towards a pleasant meadow within his present prospect, and had his eyes made more happy to behold the two fair Shepherdesses, Amaryllis and Aminta, strewing the footpaths with lilies and ladysmocks, so newly gathered by their fair hands, that they yet smelt more sweet than the morning, and immediately met (attended with Clora, Clorinda, and many other wood-nymphs) the fair and virtuous Parthenia ; who, after a courteous salutation and inquiry of his intended journey, told him the neighbour Shepherds of that part of Arcadia had dedicated that day to be kept holy to the honour of their god Pan; and that they had designed her mistress of a love-feast, which was to be kept that present day, in an arbour built that morning for that purpose. She told him also that Orpheus would be there and bring his barp, Pan his pipe, and Tityrus his oaten reed, to make music at this feast; she therefore persuaded him, not to lose, but change that day's pleasure ; before he could return an answer, they were unawares entered into a living moving lane, made of Shepherds and Pilgrims, who had that morning measured many miles to be the eye. witnesses of that day's pleasure. This lane led them into a large arbour, whose walls were made of the yielding willow and smooth beech boughs, and covered over with sycamore leaves and honeysuckles. I might now tell in what manner (after her first entrance into this arbour) Philoclea (Philoclea, the fair Arcadian Shepherdess) crowned her temples with a garland, with what flowers, and by whom it was made; I might tell what guests (besides Astrea and Adonis) were at this seast; and who (besides Mercury) waited at the table, this I might tell : but may not, cannot express what music the Gods and Wood-Nymphs made within ; and the linnets, larks, and nightingales about this arbour during this holy day; which began in harmless mirth, and (for Bacchus and his gang were absent) ended in love and peace, which Pan (for he only can do it) continue
in Arcadia, and restore to the disturbed island of Britannia, and grant that ( each honest Shepherd may again sit under his own vine and fig-tree, and
feed his own flock, and with love enjoy the fruits of peace, and be more thankful.
“Reader, at this time and place, the author contracted a friendship with certain single-hearted Shepherds, with whom (as he returned from his river recreations) he often rested himself; and, whilst in the calm evening their flocks fed about them, heard their discourse, which (with the Shepherds' names) is presented in these Eclogues.
“A friend of the author's wished me to tell thee so; this 23d of November 1645.
Jo: MARRIOT.” About the year 1646 Walton again married. His second wife
was Anne, the daughter of Thomas Ken, an attorney in the Court of Common Pleas, by (his first wife) Jane, daughter of Rowland Hughes, of Essenden, in Hertfordshire, but the exact date of his marriage has not been discovered. The family of Ken 2 is of considerable antiquity in Somersetshire, and has attained celebrity by having produced Thomas Ken, Bishop of Bath and Wells, a prelate distinguished for his learning, piety, and virtues.
Anne Ken could not have been less than five-and-thirty when she gave her hand to Izaak Walton, who was seventeen years her senior, he having then attained the mature age of about fifty-three. Of her personal attractions nothing is known, but her talents and acquirements were of a very superior order. She was eminently prudent, possessed very extensive information, and was of " the primitive piety,” merits which, her husband states, were “ adorned with true humility and much Christian meekness.” Walton's marriage tended materially to increase his happiness, and the fifteen or sixteen years of their union seem to have been passed in the enjoyment of every comfort,
According to Anthony Wood,who was well acquainted with
1 The record of the licence for their marriage cannot be found, and the registers of Crippiegate and of St Andrew's, Holborn, having been searched without success, there is no clue to the place where it was celebrated.
2 By his first wife, above named, Thomas Ken had three children, viz., Anne, who was born about 1610; Jane, who married John Symons; and Thomas, who is called “eldest son by the first wife" in the pedigree which his father entered in the Herald's Visitation of London in 1634, and who was buried at Cripplegate in February 1636. Mr Ken married, secondly, Martha, daughter of Jon Chalkhill, of Kingsbury, in Middlesex, by whom (who died in March 1641) he had John Ken, born in June 1627, who died unmarried in 1651; Jon, born in July 1632, became treasurer to the East India Company, married Rose, sister of Sir Thomas Vernon of Coleman Street, and was living in 1683: Martha, born in June 1628; Mary, born in February 1630, who appears to have died before 1638 ; Margaret, born in March 1631; Elizabeth, born in April 1635; another Mary, born in August 1638, and died in December 1639; Martin, born in March 1641 ; and Thomas, born at Berkhamstead in July 1637, who became Bishop of Bath. Of Margaret, Elizabeth, and Martin Ken, nothing more has been discovered. So particular an account of the children of Thomas Ken is rendered necessary for the purpose of correcting an error which Mr Bowles, the latest biographer of Bishop Ken, has cornmitted by stating that he was the issue of his father's first wife, and consequently that he was brother of the whole blood to Mrs Walton. This mistake is the more remarkable, because Mr Bowles professes to correct the statement of Hawkins, the grand-nephew and executor of the bishop, who says in his memoir of the prelate, printed only two years after his death, that he was "the youngest son of Thomas Ken, of Furnival's Inn, by Martha, his wife." A more experienced genealogist than Mr Bowles might, however, bave been misled by finding that in the pedigree registered by his father in 1634, a Thomas Ken is expressly stated to have been his "eldest son by the first wife," but a comparison of dates at once shows that the bishop was a different person. The birth of Bishop Ken is proved by the certificate of his admission to Winchester College in January 1651, when he was thirteen years old, to have taken place about 1637, whereas if he had been the Thomas who is mentioned in the Herald's Visitation of 1634, he must in 1651 have been at least twenty-five, because John Ken, his half-brother, and the issue of his father's sccond marriage, was baptized on the 7th of January 1627. The certificate of the burial in February 1636, of the Thomas Ken who was living in 1634 (which has only lately been obtained), places the point beyond dispute.
3 Athen. Oxon. by Bliss, I. 698.