Page:Notes and Queries - Series 9 - Volume 7.djvu/264

 256

NOTES AND QUERIES. [9 th s. VIL MARCH so, 1901.

HENRY VIL (9 th S. vii. 110).- See 'Poly- dori Virgilii Historia Anglica'; HallsUnd Fabyan's chronicles ; letters and papers ot Richard III. and Henry VII. (Rolls Series) ; Cooper's 'Memorials of Margaret, Countegs of Richmond and Derby.' A. R. BAYLEY.

WHITGIFT'S HOSPITAL, CROYDON (9 th S. vi. 341, 383, 402, 423, 479. 513 ; vii. 178). I quite agree with MR. ARNOTT that it is desirable any doubt as to who was the author of the 'Admonition ' should, if possible, be removed. It will, I think, be admitted that in his attempt to do so he has unwittingly no doubt somewhat changed his position. His first note does not admit of Cartwright having written any 'Admonition.' Now he recognizes at least the fact that Cartwright wrote an 'Admonition.' MR. ARNOTT, if I may be permitted to say it, has not been very happy in this or his quotations. He surely does not wish us to ground our belief in Field and Wilcox being the authors, because " the persons that are thought [the italics are my own] to have made them were in prison."

I am afraid I have good cause to charge MR. ARNOTT with a greater breach of sound argument than even this, for does he not say, with regard to the quotation in ques- tion, " that it shows conclusively that Cart- wright did not write the 'Admonition ""? I venture to assert that it does nothing of the kind in fact, the extract does not prove any- thing but that two men were imprisoned without evidence or on very slender evidence of guilt. Against this quotation let me place ' Historia Vitse nostrse Magistra. Bodin., 1674,' on p. 237 of which will be found a list of the books written by Whitgift and Cart- wright on the subject before us, the first line being "The Admonition first and second made by Mr. Cartwright." Surely we are entitled to place more confidence in this than in MR. ARNOTT'S extracts. The writer from whom I quote would unquestionably have within his reach evidence as reliable and precise as the authorities named by MR. ARNOTT.

Is it not somewhat remarkable, following MR. ARNOTT'S premises, that Field and Wilcox should have written such a stirring article, should have sprung the 'Admonition ' upon the literary world, and as suddenly dropped the matter, leaving the subject to be followed by others ?

Who were Field and Wilcox ? Is there any record of these gentlemen's controversial or literary ability before or after the date of the 'Admonition'? But into what do

MR. ARNOTT'S supposed proofs resolve them- selves ? 1. It was thought Field and Wilcox were the writers. 2. The 'Athense' writers say such was the case. 3. Brook says the sama

The first can, I think, be put aside, for the reasons I have given. The second is not reliable, because the list of publications therein given is inaccurate or incomplete; therefore I put it away. We are thus thrown back upon Brook, who, I venture to say, is not an author of such pre-eminence or authority as to outweigh those I have named ; and as JBrook seems not to have given his authority for the assertion in question, I conclude he derived his information from sources 1 and 2, already disposed of. Readers' estimation of Brook will hardly be enhanced by MR. ARNOTT'S own valuation of him, for does it not appear that "a pre- judiced and one-sided writer " will require to be very much remodelled and recast before he would become "straightforward" 1 ?

Let me now point to several facts bearing on the subject which go to throw additional doubt, if any remained, upon MR. ARNOTT'S contention.

In the works of John Whitgift edited for the Parker Society, 1853, we are told Whit- gift was in September, 1572, engaged upon the ' Admonition ' controversy. The writers in the 'Athense ' state that Field and Wilcox were in prison about November, 1572. The Parker Society's publication states that "The 'Admonition' comprised two parts or treatises, printed without any author's name," adding, " but understood to have been written by John Field and Thomas Wilcox." Here again we have only supposititious statement. This is followed by a more extraordinary assertion, thus : " It was followed by another similar piece, entitled 'A Second Admonition to the Parliament,' written, it is supposed, by Cartwright himself." What does the last sentence mean 1 If Field and Wilcox actually were the bond fide authors of the first, why say " Cartwright is supposed to have written the second himself" (italics by myself) ?

Did Cartwright dictate or inspire the first? is perhaps a question hinted at here.

It will be noticed that in both cases the same hypothesis is used. But what is the fact 1 Why, the following : " A reply to the answer made by M. Doctor Whitgifte against the Admonition to Parliament. By T. C." If circumstantial evidence was wanting, which it is not, here we have positive proof that the ' Admonition ' referred to was written by Thomas Cartwright. Yet in the face of evidence such as this, the title-page of the