CHAPTER IV

.

THE COLLECTOR OF THE ARUNDELIAN MSS.

‘The English nobles are high-spirited, active, educated men, born to wealth and power, who have run through every country and have kept, in every country, the best company; have seen every secret of art and nature; and—when men of any ability or ambition—have been consulted in the conduct of every important action. You cannot wield great agencies without lending yourself to them. When it happens that the spirit of the Earl meets his rank and his duties, we have the best examples.... These are the men who make England that strong-box and Museum it is; who gather and protect works of art, dragged from amidst burning cities and revolutionary countries, and brought hither, out of all the world.... When I saw that, besides deer and pheasants, these men have preserved ARUNDEL MARBLES, TOWNLEY GALLERIES, HOWARD and SPENCER LIBRARIES, WARWICK AND PORTLAND VASES, SAXON MANUSCRIPTS, MONASTIC ARCHITECTURES, AND MILLENIAL TREES, I pardoned their high park-fences.’—

R. W. EMERSON, (_English Traits_, § xi).

_Political Exile and Foreign Travel under Elizabeth, and under James.—Life of Thomas_ HOWARD, _Earl of Arundel_.—_The Consolations of Connoisseurship.—Vicissitudes of the Arundel Museum.—The gifts of Henry_ HOWARD _to the Royal Society_.

[Sidenote: BOOK 1, Chap. IV. THE COLLECTOR OF THE ARUNDELIAN MSS.]

The Collector of the Arundel Marbles and Founder of the Arundel Library was the great-grandson of that twenty-first Earl of ARUNDEL (Henry FITZALAN) by whom had been collected the choicest portion of the library which passed, in 1609, from the possession of John, Lord LUMLEY, to that of HENRY, Prince of Wales. [Sidenote: chap. iii, p. 162] That Earl had profited by the opportunities which the dissolution of the monasteries presented so abundantly to collectors at home. The new Earl profited, in his turn, by larger and far more varied opportunities, offered to him during a long course of travel abroad. For himself, his travels ripened and expanded a somewhat crude and irregular education. He attained, at length, and in a much greater degree (as it seems) than any of his contemporaries, to that liberal culture which enabled him to appreciate, and to teach his countrymen to appreciate, the arts from which Greece and Italy had derived so much of their glory; whilst in England those arts had, as yet, done very little either to enhance the enjoyments and consolations of human life, or to call into action powers and aptitudes which had long lain dormant. It is not claiming too much for the Earl of ARUNDEL to say that of whatever, upon a fair estimate, England may be thought to owe to its successful cultivation of the Arts of Design, he was the first conspicuous promoter. Nor is his rank as a pioneer in the encouragement of the systematic study of archæology—a study so fruitful of far-reaching result—less eminent.

[Sidenote: FOREIGN TRAVEL, UNDER TUDORS AND STUARTS.]

He may also be regarded as setting, by the course he took with his own children, the fashion of foreign travel, as a necessary complement of the education of men of rank and social position. The example became very influential, and in a sphere far broader than the artistic one. Under ELIZABETH, the Englishmen best known on the Continent had been political exiles. Most of them were men self-banished. Many of them passed their lives in defaming and plotting against the country they had left. The jealous restrictions upon the liberty of travel imposed by the Government rarely kept at home the men of mischief, but were probably much more successful in confining men whose free movements would have been fruitful in good alike to the countries they visited and to their own. The altered circumstances which ensued upon the accession of JAMES notoriously gave facilities to wider Continental intercourse; and it was by men who followed very much in Lord ARUNDEL’S track that some of the best social results of that intercourse were won.

Thomas HOWARD, Earl of Arundel, Surrey, and Norfolk, was twentieth in lineal descent from that William de ALBINI who, in the year 1139, had acquired the Castle and Earldom of Arundel by virtue of his marriage with the widow of King HENRY THE FIRST. He was born at Finchingfield, in Essex, in 1585,—a date which nearly marks the period of lowest depression in the strangely varied fortunes of an illustrious family. [Sidenote: Thomas, D. of Norfolk to his son Philip, &c., MS. Harl., 787.] Philip, Earl of ARUNDEL, the father of Earl Thomas, was already in the Tower, and was experiencing, in great bitterness, the truth of words written to him by his own father, when in like circumstances:—‘Look into all Chronicles, and you shall find that, in the end, high degree brings heaps of cares, toils in the State, and most commonly (in the end) utter overthrow.’ Before Thomas HOWARD had reached his fifth year his mother—co-heiress of the ‘DACRES of the North’—had to write to the Lord Treasury BURGHLEY: ‘Extremytye inforceth me to crave succour,’ and to illustrate her assertion by a detail of miseries.

The hopes with which the STUART accession was naturally anticipated by all the HOWARDS, were by some of them more than realized, but the heir of Arundel was not of that number. He was, indeed, restored in blood to such honours as his father, Earl Philip, had enjoyed, and also to the baronies forfeited by his grandfather, Thomas, Duke of NORFOLK, in 1572. But the dignities were restored without the lands. His nearest relations profited by their influence at Court to obtain grants of his chief ancestral estates. The Earls of NOTTINGHAM, NORTHAMPTON,[30] and SUFFOLK had each of them a share in the spoil;—salving their consciences, probably, by the reflection that, despite his poverty, their young kinsman had made a great marriage. For his alliance, in 1606, with Lady Aletheia TALBOT, daughter and co-heir of Gilbert, Earl of SHREWSBURY, had already brought to him considerable means in hand, and a vast estate in prospect. The marriage, in higher respects, was also a happy one. But a natural and eager desire to recover what his father had forfeited cast much anxiety over years otherwise felicitous. He could not regain even Arundel House in London, until he had paid £4000 for it to the Earl of NOTTINGHAM.

[Sidenote: ARUNDEL AT COURT.]

Lord ARUNDEL made his first appearance at Court in 1605. In May, 1611, he was created a Knight of the Garter. Thirteen years of JAMES’ reign had passed before the Earl was admitted to the Privy Council. This honour was conferred upon him in July, 1616. Five years more were to pass before his restoration to his hereditary office of Earl Marshal of England, although he had been made one of six Commissioners for the discharge of its duties in October, 1616. The baton was at length (29th August, 1621) delivered to him at THEOBALDS. [Sidenote: _Domestic Corresp._, James I, 1621, 21 July. (R. H.)] ‘The King,’ wrote John CHAMBERLAIN to Sir Dudley CARLETON, when communicating the news, ‘would have given him £2000 a year pension withal, but—whatsoever the reason was—he would accept but the ordinary fee, which is twenty pounds per annum.’ It is plain, however, that this assertion was an error. According to the ancient constitution of the Earl Marshal’s office there were certain fees accruing from it which were now, under new regulations, to cease. The question arose, Shall the Earl Marshal be compensated by pension, or (according to a pernicious fashion of the age) by the grant, or lease, of a customs duty upon some largely vended commodity? [Sidenote: Minutes of Correspondence in Sec. Conway’s Letter Book; (R. H.) and Council Books (C. O.).] The ‘impost of currants’ was eventually fixed upon. But the Earl had subsequent occasion to adduce evidence before a Committee of the Privy Council, that the rent paid to the King sometimes exceeded the aggregate duty collected from the merchants.[31]

There is some uncertainty as to the date of the earliest of Lord ARUNDEL’S many visits to the Continent. According to Sir Edward WALKER, he was in Italy in 1609. But that statement is open to doubt. There is proof that in 1612 he passed some time in Florence and in Siena. With Siena, as a place of residence, he was especially delighted. Of the foundation of his collections—to which his Italian journeys largely contributed—there are no distinct records until the following year.

[Sidenote: Arundel to Rochester, MS. Cott. Titus, B. vii, f. 463.]

The tour of 1613, followed immediately upon the marriage of the Princess ELIZABETH with FREDERICK, Count Palatine of the Rhine. The royal pair were escorted into Germany by both Lord and Lady ARUNDEL, who soon left the Rhine country on a new visit to Italy, and remained there until nearly the close of 1614. [Sidenote: BEGINNINGS OF THE ARUNDELIAN COLLECTIONS.] During that long residence the Earl established a wide intercourse with the most distinguished artists and archæologists of Italy, and made extensive purchases. The fame of his princely tastes was spread abroad. It soon became notorious that by this open-handed collector marbles, vases, coins, gems, manuscripts, pictures, were received with equal welcome. And from this time onwards many passages occur in his correspondence which indicate the keen and minute interest he took in the researches of the agents who, in various parts of the Continent, were busy on his behalf. The pursuit did not lack the special zest of home rivalry, as will be seen hereafter.

Not the least singular incident in the early part of Lord ARUNDEL’S life was his commitment to the Tower, at a moment when his favour with King JAMES was at its height.

[Sidenote: 1621, May.]

[Sidenote: THE QUARREL BETWEEN LORDS ARUNDEL AND SPENCER.]

In one of the many impassioned parliamentary debates which occurred during the session of 1621 an allusion was made by Lord SPENCER to the unhappy fate of two famous ancestors of the Earl of ARUNDEL, and it was made in a way which induced the Earl to utter an unwise and unjust retort. The matter immediately under discussion was a very small one, but it had grown out of the exciting question of monopolies, and it was mixed up with the yet more exciting question of the overweening powers entrusted by the King to BUCKINGHAM. In the course of an examination at the bar of the House of Lords about the grant of a patent for licensing inns, Sir Henry YELVERTON had made a furious attack upon the Duke. The attack was still more an insult to the House, than to the King’s favourite, and it had been repeated. It was proposed, on a subsequent day, to call YELVERTON to the bar for the third time, in order to see if he would then offer the apology which before he had refused. ARUNDEL opposed the motion. ‘We have his words; we need hear no more,’ he said. Lord SPENCER rose to answer: ‘I remember that two of the Earl’s ancestors—the Earl of SURREY, and the Duke of NORFOLK, were unjustly condemned to death, without being heard.’ The implied parallel was a silly one, but its weakness and irrelevancy did not restrain ARUNDEL’S anger. ‘My Lords,’ said he, ‘I do acknowledge that my ancestors have suffered. It may be for doing the king and the country good service; and at such time, perhaps, as when the ancestors of the Lord that spake last kept sheep.’ The speaker failed to see that by using such words he had committed exactly the same offence as that for which he had, but a moment before, censured the late Attorney-General, and had moved the House to punish him. On all sides, he was advised to apologise. He resisted all entreaty. When committed to the Tower, he still refused submission. Both the King and the Prince of Wales had to intercede for him with the House before he could regain his liberty.

With rare exception, the public incidents of LORD ARUNDEL’S life during the remainder of the reign of JAMES are such as offer little interest, save as illustrations of character. In that respect, many of them testify to the failing which appears so strikingly in the story of the quarrel with Lord SPENCER. Some noble qualities lost part of their real lustre when pride was so plainly seen in their company. All that was best in Lord ARUNDEL revolted at the grossness of the Stuart court. He often increased his own disgust by contrasting what he saw at Whitehall with the memories of his youth. His office of Earl Marshal precluded him from very long absences. Sometimes, when forced to mingle with courtiers for whose society he had little liking, he rebuked their want of dignity by exaggerating his own dignity into haughtiness. Against failings of this kind we have to set many merits, and amongst them a merit eminently rare in that age. ARUNDEL was free from covetousness—save in that special sense in which covetousness, it may be feared, cleaves to all ‘collectorship.’

[Sidenote: ADVENTURE OF LADY ARUNDEL AT VENICE.]

In 1622 some anxiety was occasioned to Lord ARUNDEL by a singular adventure which befell his wife during her residence in the Venetian territory, whither (in the course of a long Italian tour) she had gone to watch over the education of their sons; little anticipating, it may well be supposed, that her name and that of Lord ARUNDEL, would be made to figure in Venetian records in connection with the strange story of the conspirator Antonio FOSCARINI.

After making some stay in Venice, Lady ARUNDEL had taken a villa on the Brenta, about ten miles from the City.

In April, 1622, she was on her way from this villa to the Mocenigo Palace, her residence in Venice, when she was met by the Secretary of Sir Henry WOTTON, English ambassador to the Republic. The secretary said that he was sent by the ambassador to inform her that the Venetian Senate had resolved to command her ladyship to leave their city and territory within a few days, on the ground of a discovery that FOSCARINI had carried on some of his traitorous intrigues with foreign ministers—and more especially with those of the Pope and Emperor—at her house. [Sidenote: 1622, April.] To this the messenger added, that it was Sir Henry WOTTON’S most earnest advice that Lady ARUNDEL should not return to Venice, but should remain at Dolo, until she heard from him again. Having listened to this strange communication in private, she desired the secretary to repeat it in the presence of some of the persons who attended her. Then she hastened to the ambassador’s house at Venice. Her interview with WOTTON is thus, in substance, narrated by Lord ARUNDEL, when telling the story to his friend the Earl of CARLISLE, then ambassador to the Court of France.

‘Lady ARUNDEL went immediately to my Lord Ambassador [WOTTON], telling him she came to hear from his own mouth what she had heard from his servant’s.’ When Sir Henry had repeated the statement of his secretary, the Lady asked him how long the accusation and the resolution of the Senate had been known to him. He replied that reports of the alleged intercourse with FOSCARINI had reached him some fifteen days before, or more; but that of the resolution of the Senate he had heard only on that morning. ‘She asked him why he did never let her understand of the report all that time? He said because she spake not to him of it.’ To Lady ARUNDEL’S pithy rejoinder that it would have been hard for her to speak of a matter of which she had never heard the least rumour until that day, and to her further protestation that she had not even seen FOSCARINI since the time of his visit to England, some years earlier, Sir Henry replied, ‘I believe there was no such matter;’ but he refused to disclose the name of the person who had first spoken to him of the accusation. To his renewed advice that her ladyship should not stir farther in the matter, she declined to accede. [Sidenote: MS. ADDIT., 4176, § 156. (B. M.)] It concerned her honour, and her husband’s honour, she said, to have public conference with the Doge and Council without delay. From carrying out this resolve the ambassador found it impossible to dissuade her.

That conference took place on the following day with the remarkable result of a public declaration by the Doge that no mention had ever been made of Lady ARUNDEL’S name, or of the name of any person nearly or remotely connected with her, either at any stage of the proceedings against FOSCARINI, or in any of the discussions which had arisen out of his conspiracy.

When the audience given to Lady ARUNDEL by the Doge had been made the subject of a communication to the Senate, that body instructed the Venetian Ambassador in England to confer with Lord ARUNDEL. [Sidenote: _Deliberations of the Senate of Venice_; printed by Hardy, in _Report on Venetian Archives_, pp. 78–84 (1866).] ‘You are,’ said they, ‘to speak to the Earl Marshal in such strong and earnest language that he may retain no doubt of the invalidity of the report, and may remain perfectly convinced of the esteem and cordial affection entertained towards him by the Republic; augmented as such feelings are by the open and dignified mode of life led here by the Countess, and in which she hastens the education of her sons in the sciences to make them—as they will become—faithful imitators of their meritorious father and their ancestors.’

Sir Henry WOTTON’S motive in the strange part taken by him in this incident is nowhere disclosed. He had to listen to several indirect reproofs, both from the Doge and from the Senate, which were none the less incisive on account of the courtly language in which they were couched.

Two years afterwards, the Earl was himself hastily summoned to the Continent to attend the death-bed of his eldest son, James, Lord MALTRAVERS, who is described by a contemporary writer as a ‘gentleman of rare wit and extraordinary expectation.’ [Sidenote: DEATH OF ARUNDEL’S ELDEST SON.] The Countess and her two elder sons, James and Henry, were then returning from Italy to England. [Sidenote: _Royal license to travel_, July, 1624.] They passed through Belgium in order to visit the Queen of BOHEMIA. Whilst at Ghent, upon the journey, Lord MALTRAVERS was seized with the smallpox. He died in that city in July, 1624. The affliction was acutely felt. [Sidenote: _Domestic Corresp._ James I, vol. cxlix, § 67; vol. clii, § 55.] ‘My sorrow makes me incapable of this world’s affairs,’ wrote the Earl to one of his political correspondents, in the autumn of the year. To the outer world, reserved manners and a stately demeanour often gave a very false impression of the man himself. Throughout his life, ARUNDEL’S affectionate nature was so evinced in his deeds, and in his domestic intercourse, as to stand in little need of illustration from his words. Mainly, as it seems, to this characteristic quality he was soon to owe a second imprisonment in the Tower of London.

[Sidenote: THE STUART MARRIAGE AND ITS RESULTS.]

The new Lord MALTRAVERS shortly after his return to England fell in love with the Lady Elizabeth STUART, daughter of Esme, Duke of LENNOX. ARUNDEL had formed other wishes and plans for the son who was now his heir, and there is evidence that he was reluctant to give his consent to the prosecution of the suit. Nor did the kinship of the prospective bride with King CHARLES appear to him, it seems, at all an inviting circumstance in the matter. So long as BUCKINGHAM stood at the helm of affairs ARUNDEL was likely to have a very small share in the new king’s affections, so that pride and policy as well as inclination stood in the way of his approval. He knew also that it was CHARLES’ eager wish that his kinswoman should marry Lord LORNE, the eldest son of the Earl of ARGYLE. But the young lover was ardent, and his entreaties unintermitting. At length, we are told, he not only wrung from the Earl the words ‘You may try your fortune with the lady that you seem to love so well,’ but prevailed upon him to confer paternally on the subject with the lady’s aunt and guardian, the Duchess of RICHMOND. MALTRAVERS, meanwhile, had resolved to incur no risk of defeat by waiting for a royal assent to his marriage. He had long before won his cause with the lady, but had kept the secret. Two passionate lovers[32] went gravely through the ceremony of a formal introduction to each other.

MALTRAVERS then induced her to consent to a private marriage. When Lord ARUNDEL was informed of the fact he immediately disclosed his knowledge to the King, and besought pardon for the culprits. But CHARLES’ wrath was unbounded. He placed the new-married pair under restraint in London. He committed ARUNDEL himself to the Tower. He commanded Lady ARUNDEL to remain at Horsley, in Surrey, a seat belonging to the Dowager Countess, her mother-in-law.

When Lord ARUNDEL was thus imprisoned Parliament was sitting. The Lords declared his arrest to be an infringement of their privileges. The King replied that ‘the Earl of ARUNDEL is restrained for a misdemeanour which is personal to the King’s Majesty, and has no relation to matters of Parliament.’ The Lords still insisted that it was the Earl’s unquestionable right ‘to be admitted to come, sit, and serve in Parliament.’ CHARLES released ARUNDEL from the Tower, and then confined him to Horsley. Royal evasion did but provoke increased earnestness and firmness from the Peers. At length they resolved that they would suspend public business until the Earl presented himself in his place. [Sidenote: _Secretary Conway’s Letter Book_, pp. 251 seqq. (R. H.)] Nearly three months had been spent in debate and altercation before Secretary CONWAY was directed to write to ARUNDEL in these terms: ‘It is the King’s pleasure that you come to the Parliament, but not to the Court.’

[Sidenote: _Lords’ Journals_, vol. iii, p. 653, &c.]

The sequel of the story, as it tells itself in the State Papers, affords an early and eminent illustration of the qualities in CHARLES THE FIRST which, as they ripened, brought about his ruin. The King resolved that his concession should as far as was possible be retracted. Directly the sitting of Parliament was suspended, the King commanded CONWAY to apprise the Earl that his restraint to Horsley was renewed, ‘as before the Earl’s leave to come to Parliament.’ [Sidenote: _Domestic Corresp._, Charles I, vol. xxxv, p. 16 (R. H.).] ARUNDEL on his part made courtly and even lavish declarations of submission. ‘I desire to implore the King’s grace by the humblest and best ways I can.’ This was written in September, 1626. Whenever it was indispensable that he should obtain leave to visit the capital a petition had to be prepared. In March, 1627, he writes: ‘The King has limited my stay in London until the 12th of March. I will obey, but I beg you to represent to His Majesty that I have necessary business to transact ... and that I have so carried myself as to shew my desire to give His Majesty no distastes. If now, after a year has passed, the King will dissolve this cloud, and leave me to my own liberty, I will hold myself to be most free when living in such place and manner as may be most to His Majesty’s liking.’ It was all in vain. Another whole year passes. ARUNDEL has still to write: ‘I beseech the King to give life to my just desires, and after two years of heavy disfavour to grant me the happiness to kiss his hands and to attend him in my place.’ To this humble representation and entreaty it was replied by Secretary CONWAY: ‘His Majesty’s answer is that the Earl has not so far appeased the exceptions which the King has taken against unkindness conceived, as yet to take off his disfavour. [Sidenote: _Ibid._, vol. lvi, p. 86; vol. xcv, pp. 51, 85, &c. _Conway’s Letter Book_, pp. 295, &c. (R. H.)] As for the Earl’s proffered duty and carriage in the King’s service, the King will judge of that as he shall find occasion.’

He found occasion ere long; but not until after BUCKINGHAM’S death. ARUNDEL rendered useful service, on some conspicuous occasions, both at home and abroad. If his successive diplomatic missions to Holland in 1632, and to Ratisbon in 1638, on the affairs of the Palatinate, failed of their main object, it was from no miscarriage of the ambassador. In the unostentatious labours of the Council Board he took during a long series of years a very honourable share. And it is much to his honour that by the men to whom the chief scandals of a disastrous reign are mainly ascribable, ARUNDEL was, almost uniformly, both disliked and feared.

[Sidenote: ARUNDEL AND STRAFFORD.]

[Sidenote: 1641. March and April.]

As Lord High Steward of England, ARUNDEL had to preside at the trial of the Earl of STRAFFORD. He acquitted himself of an arduous task with eminent ability, and with an impartiality which won respect, alike from the managers of the impeachment and from the friends of the doomed statesman. The only person who expressed dissatisfaction with ARUNDEL’S conduct on that critical occasion was the King. The historians who have most deeply and acutely scanned the details of that most memorable of all our State Trials are agreed that in order to have satisfied CHARLES, the Earl of ARUNDEL must have betrayed the duty of his high office.

Shortly after the trial of STRAFFORD, it became ARUNDEL’S duty as Earl Marshal to attend the mother of the queen (MARY of Medicis), on her return to Holland; and he received the King’s license to remain beyond the seas during his pleasure. [Sidenote: LATEST EMPLOYMENTS.] He returned however to England in October of the same year. [Sidenote: Rushworth, vol. iv, pp. 317, 318.] In the following February, a similar ceremonial mission was his last official employment. He then conducted Queen HENRIETTA MARIA on her journey into France, and took his own last farewell of England. [Sidenote: 1642. February.] It was an unconscious farewell. [Sidenote: Sir E. Walker, in MS. Harl., as before.] Nor does his departure appear to have been dictated by any desire to shrink from sacrifices on behalf of the cause with which—whether rightly or wrongly—all his personal sympathies, as well as the political views of his whole life, were bound up. At the hands of the first STUART he had met with capricious favour, and with enduring injustice. By the second, during several years, he was treated with marked and causeless indignity; and then, during several other years, rewarded grudgingly for zealous service. In exile, his contributions in support of the royal cause were upon a scale which impoverished both himself and his family.[33]

Such a fact is a conclusive proof of magnanimity of spirit, whatever may be thought of its bearings in regard to political insight. [Sidenote: COLONIZING EFFORTS OF LORD ARUNDEL.] Opinion is less likely to differ with respect to exertions of quite another order which occasionally occupied Lord ARUNDEL’S mind and energies during at least twenty years of his political life.

One of the best known incidents in his varied career is also one of its most honourable incidents. His friendship for RALEGH grew out of a deep interest in colonization. And the calamitous issue of that famous voyage to Guiana in 1617 which ARUNDEL had promoted was very far from inducing him to abandon the earnest advocacy of a resumption, in subsequent years, of the enterprise which RALEGH had had so much at heart. His efforts were more than once repeated, but the same influences which ruined RALEGH foiled the exertions of ARUNDEL and of those who worked with him.

[Sidenote: _Grant Book_, James I, pp. 307, seqq. _Domest. Corresp._, James I, vol. cviii, § 85.]

He then turned his attention towards the wide field of colonial enterprise which presented itself in New England. From the autumn of 1620 until the summer of 1635 he, from time to time, actively supported the endeavours of the ‘Council for the Planting of New England.’ [Sidenote: _Proclamation Book_, May 15, 1620. (R. H.)] The Minute in which that Council summed up the causes which induced it, at the date last-named, to resign its charter is an instructive one. [Sidenote: SURRENDER OF THE NEW ENGLAND CHARTER.] It expresses, in few words, the views of Lord ARUNDEL and of his ablest fellows at the board:—‘We have found,’ say the Councillors, in their final Minute, ‘that our endeavours to advance the plantation of New England have been attended with frequent troubles and great disappointments. We have been deprived of near friends and faithful servants employed in that work. We have been assaulted with sharp litigious questions before the Privy Council by the Virginia Company, who had complained to Parliament that our Plantation was a grievance.’ They proceed to say that a promising settlement which had been established, under the governorship of Captain GORGES in Massachusetts Bay, had been violently broken up by a body of speculative intruders who, without the knowledge of the Council of New England, had found means to obtain a royal ‘grant of some three thousand miles of the sea-coast.’ Finding it by far too great a task, for their means, to restore what had thus been brought to ruin, ARUNDEL, and his fellow-councillors were constrained to resign their charter.

[Sidenote: _Colonial Papers_, vol. viii, § 58. (R. H.)]

Four years later the Earl formed an elaborate plan for the colonization of Madagascar. But the events of 1639–40 soon made its effectual prosecution hopeless.

The latest notice we have of the Earl of ARUNDEL, from the hand of any eminent contemporary, occurs in the Diary of John EVELYN, and is dated six months before the Earl’s death. [Sidenote: DEATH AT PADUA, 1646.] In June of the preceding year (1645) EVELYN had paid a visit to Lord ARUNDEL at his house in Padua, and had then accompanied him to a famous garden in that city known as the ‘Garden of Mantua.’ [Sidenote: Evelyn, _Diary_, vol. 1, p. 212.] They had also explored together some ancient ruins lying near the Palace of Foscari all’ Arena. When EVELYN renewed his visit in March, 1646, the Earl was no longer able to leave the house. [Sidenote: _Ibid._, pp. 218, 219.] ‘I took my leave of him,’ says the diarist, ‘in his bed, where I left that great and excellent man in tears, on some private discourse of crosses that had befallen his family, particularly the undutifulness of his grandson, Philip, turning Dominican friar; and the misery of his country, now embroiled in civil war. He caused his gentleman to give me directions, written with his own hand, what curiosities I should inquire after in my journey; and so—enjoyning me to write sometimes to him—I departed.’ The Earl died at Padua on the 24th September, 1646, having entered into the sixty-second year of his age. In compliance with the directions of his Will his remains were brought to England and buried at Arundel.

It remains only to add a few particulars of the character and sources of the splendid collections which the Earl of ARUNDEL, by the persistent labours and the lavish expenditure of more than thirty years, had amassed. The surviving materials for such an account are, however, very fragmentary. [Sidenote: NOTICES OF THE ARUNDELIAN COLLECTIONS.] Those which are of chief interest occur in the correspondence which passed between the Earl and Sir Thomas ROE during the embassy of that eminent diplomatist to the Ottoman Porte in the years 1626–1628.

The Earl’s zeal as a collector, and the public attention which his personal successes in that character during his Italian travels had soon attracted, naturally excited a like ambition on the part of several of his contemporaries. Conspicuous in this respect were his brother-in-law the Earl of PEMBROKE, and his political rival and enemy the Duke of BUCKINGHAM. ARUNDEL’S success in amassing many fine pictures had, in like manner, already attracted the attention of Prince CHARLES to that peculiarly fascinating branch of collectorship.

[Sidenote: CORRESPONDENCE WITH SIR THOMAS ROE.]

When Sir Thomas ROE set out for Constantinople he was charged with commissions to search for antiquities on BUCKINGHAM’S behalf, as well as on Lord ARUNDEL’S. He was himself a novice in such inquiries. He had to encounter excessive difficulties from the jealousy, and sometimes the dishonesty, of the Turkish and other agents whom he was obliged to employ. Most of them were stubborn in their belief that a search for old marbles did but mask the pursuit of buried treasure of greater currency. And to difficulties of this sort was added a standing fear that every service rendered to the Earl Marshal might be esteemed an offence to the powerful favourite at Whitehall.

To an urgent letter which he had received from ARUNDEL just as he was embarking, Sir Thomas replied, from Constantinople, in January, 1622. ‘I moved our Consul, Richard MILWARD, at Scio, whom I found prepared and ready,’ he reports. ‘We conferred about “the Maid of Smirna” which he cannot yet obteyne, without an especiall command [from the Porte]. I brought with mee from Messina the Bishop of Andre, one of the islands of the Arches, a man of good learning and great experience in these parts. Hee assured mee that the search after old and good authors was utterly vaine.... The last French ambassador had the last gleanings. Only of some few he gave mee notice as of an old Tertullian, and a piece of Chrisostome ... which may be procured to be copied, but not the originall.... Concerning antiquities in marbles, there are many in divers parts, but especially at Delphos, unesteemed here, and, I doubt not, easy to be procured for the charge of digging and fetching, which must be purposely undertaken. It is supposed that many statues are buried to secure them from the envy of the Turks, and that, leave obteyned, [they] would come to light, which I will endeavour as soon as I am warm here.’ After mentioning that he had already procured some coins, he adds, with amusing naïveté, ‘I have also a stone, taken out of the old pallace of Priam in Troy, cutt in horned shape, but because I neither can tell of what it is, nor hath it any other bewty but only the antiquity and truth of being a peece of that ruined and famous building, I will not presume to send it you. [Sidenote: Sir T. Roe to Lord Arundel, 27 Jan., 1621 [O. S.]; _Negotiations_, p. 16.] Yet I have delivered it to the same messenger, that your Lordship may see it and throw it away.’

Two years afterwards the ambassador has to tell Lord ARUNDEL a mingled story of failure and success: ‘The command you required for the Greeke to be sent into Morea I have sollicitted [of] two viziers, one after the other, butt they both rejected mee and gave answere, that it was no tyme to graunt such priviledges. Neare to the port they have not so great doubt and therefore I have prevailed with another, and [have] sent Mr. MARKHAM, assisted with a letter from the Caplen Bassa, whose jurisdiction extends to all the islands and sea-ports.... On Asia side, about Troy, Zizicum, and all the way to Aleppo, are innumerable pillars, statues, and tombstones of marble, with inscriptions in Greeke. [Sidenote: _Ibid._, 10 May, 1623, _Negotiations_, p. 154.] These may be fetcht at charge, and secrettly; butt yf wee ask leave it cannot be obteyned; therefore Mr. MARKHAM will use discretion rather then power, and so the Turks will bring them for their proffitt.’

ROE’S report encouraged Lord ARUNDEL to send an agent, named PETTY, on a special exploring mission into various parts of the Ottoman Empire. The agent thus selected was eminently fitted for his task, and showed himself to be a man of untiring industry. Very soon after PETTY’S arrival at Constantinople, Sir Thomas ROE wrote to the Duke of BUCKINGHAM an account of his successful researches, and he prefaced it with an acknowledgement that ‘by conference with Mr. PETTY, sent hither by my Lord of ARUNDELL, I have somewhat bettered my sckill in such figures. We have searched all this cyttye,’ he proceeds to say, ‘and found nothing but upon one gate, called anciently _Porta Aurea_, built by CONSTANTINE, bewtifyed with two mighty pillars, and upon the sides and over it, twelve tables of fine marble cutt into historyes,—some of a very great relevo, sett into the wall with small pillars as supporters. Most of the figures are equall; some above the life some less. [Sidenote: Roe to the Duke of Buckingham, 11 May, 1625, _Negotiations_, pp. 386–7.] They are—in my eye—extremely decayed, but Mr. PETTY doth so prayse them, as that he hath not seene much better in the great and costly collections of Italye.... The fower to which I have most affection ... are both brave and sweete.... The relevo so high that they are almost statues, and doe but seeme to sticke to the ground.’

In October of the same year Sir THOMAS sent an elaborate account to the Earl of ARUNDEL of the progress made by PETTY, and of his own exertions to provide him with every possible facility. [Sidenote: THE PROPOSED

## PARTITION OF ANCIENT MARBLES BETWEEN ARUNDEL AND BUCKINGHAM.] He told

the Earl of the difficulty of his own position towards the Duke of BUCKINGHAM, and besought him to admit of an arrangement by which the product of the joint exertions of ambassador and agent should be divided between the competitors. PETTY, he reports, ‘hath visited Pergamo, Samos, Ephesus, and some other places, where he hath made your Lordship great provisions.... I have given him forceable commands, and letters of recommendation from the Patriarch. I have bene free and open to him in whatsoever I knewe, and so I will continue for your Lordship’s command. But your Lordship knowing that I have received the like from the Duke of BUCKINGHAM, and engaged my word to doe him service hee might judge it want of witt, or will, or creditt, if Mr. PETTY, who could doe nothing but by mee, should take all things before or from mee. Therefore to avoid all emulation, and that I might stand clear before two so great and honourable patrons, I thought I had made agreement with him for all our advantages. Therefore we resolved to take down those sixe mentioned relevos on _Porta Aurea_, and I proceeded so far as I offered 600 dollars for four of them, to bee divided between his Grace and your Lordship by lotts. And if your Lordship liked not the price, Mr. PETTY had his choice to forsake them. But now, I perceave, he hath entitled your Lordship to them all by some right that, if I could gett them, it were an injury to divide them.... But I am sorry wee strive for the shadowe. Your Lordship may beleeve an honest man, and your servant, I have tried the bassa,—the capteyne of the Castle,—the overseer of the Grand Signor’s works,—the soldiours that make that watch,—and none of them dare meddle. They [the sculptures] stand between two mighty pillars of marble, on other tables of marble supported with less pillars, uppon the cheife port of the Citty, the entrance by the Castle called “The Seaven Towres,” which was never opened since the Greeke Emperour lost it, but a counterscarfe and another wall built before it.... There is butt one way left in the world, which I will practice.... [Sidenote: Roe to Arundel, 30 Oct, 1625; _Negotiations_, pp. 444–446.] If I gett them not, I will pronounce [that] no man, no ambassadour, shall ever bee able to doe it;—except, also, the Grand Signor, for want, will sell the Castle.’

Just before the date of this letter PETTY had suffered shipwreck on the coast of Asia, when returning from Samos. Together with his papers and personal baggage, he lost the fruits of long and successful researches. But his inexhaustible energies enabled him to recover what, to the men about him, seemed to have hopelessly perished. He found means to raise the buried marbles from the wreck. [Sidenote: _Ibid._, 7 April, 1626, p. 495.] ‘There was never man,’ wrote Sir Thomas ROE, with the frank admiration of a congenial spirit, ‘so fitted to an employment; that encounters all accidents with so unwearied patience; eates with Greekes on their worst dayes; lyes with fishermen on plancks, at the best; is all thinges to all men, that he may obteyne his ends, which are your Lordship’s service.’

To Dr. GOADE, one of the chaplains of Archbishop ABBOT, Sir Thomas ROE continued the narrative of PETTY’S zealous researches, and of the success which attended them. ‘By my means,’ he wrote, ‘Mr. PETTY had admittance into the best library known of Greece, where are loades of old manuscripts, and hee used so fine arte, with the helpe of some of my servants, that hee conveyed away twenty two. I thought I should have had my share, but hee was for himselfe. Hee is a good chooser; saw all, or most, and tooke, I thincke, those that were and wilbe of greate esteeme. Hee speaketh sparingly of such a bootye, but could not conteyne sometyme to discover with joy his treasure.... I meant to have a review of that librarye, but hee gave it such a blow under my trust that, since, it hath been locked up under two keys, whereof one kept by the townsmen that have interest or oversight of the monastery, so that I could do no good.... [Sidenote: _Ib._, p. 500.] My hope is to deale with the Patriarch, and not to trust to myselfe, and to chances.’

In November, 1626, Sir Thomas further informed the Duke of BUCKINGHAM that ‘Mr. PETTY hath raked together two hundred peices [of sculpture], all broken, or few [of them] entyre.... Hee had this advantage, that hee went himselfe into all the islands, and tooke all he saw, and is now gon to Athens.’ [Sidenote: _Ib._, p. 570; comp. pp. 619; 647; 692, and 764.] In subsequent letters and despatches the diplomatist returns often to this unofficial branch of his duties, and makes it very apparent that PETTY’S zeal had, for a time, spoiled the market of the agents who followed in his track.

[Sidenote: LORD ARUNDEL’S RESEARCHES IN ITALY.]

Lord ARUNDEL was not less ably served by the factors and representatives whom he employed in Italy, in Germany, and in the Netherlands. But the story is far too long to be told in detail. [Sidenote: MSS. at Norfolk House; printed, in Tierney’s _Arundel_, p. 489.] Their success in collecting choice pictures and other works of art was so conspicuous that when one of them had an interview with RUBENS at Antwerp, to give a commission from Lord ARUNDEL, the great painter—himself, it will be remembered, an eminent collector also—said to him: ‘I regard the Earl in the light of an evangelist to the world of art, and as the great supporter of our profession.’ In these artistic commissions and researches William TRUMBULL, Edward NORGATE, Sir John BOROUGH, and Sir Isaac WAKE, especially distinguished themselves. Their correspondence with Lord ARUNDEL is spread over a long series of years, and it abounds with curious illustrations of ‘the world of art,’ as it lived and moved in the earlier part of the seventeenth century.

Among those entire collections which the Earl purchased in bulk, two are more particularly notable—the museum, namely, of Daniel NICE, and the library of the family of PIRCKHEIMER of Nuremberg.

NICE’S Museum was especially rich in medals and gems. [Sidenote: Evelyn to Pepys; _Diary and Corresp._, vol. iii, p. 300.] If EVELYN’S information about the circumstances of that acquisition was accurate, it cost the Earl the sum—enormous, at that date—of ten thousand pounds. I cannot, however, but suspect that into that statement some error of figures has crept.

The acquisition of the PIRCKHEIMER Library was made by the Earl himself, during his diplomatic mission into Germany on the affairs of the Palatinate. In this collection some of the choicest of the Arundelian MSS. which now enrich the British Museum were comprised. Its foundation had been laid more than a hundred and thirty years before the date of the Earl’s purchase. But part of the library of the first founder had passed into the possession of the City of Nuremberg. The collection which Lord ARUNDEL acquired was rich both in classical manuscripts and in the materials of mediæval history.

The liberality with which these varied treasures, as they successively arrived in London, were made accessible to scholars was in harmony with the open-handedness by means of which they had been amassed. For a few years Arundel House was itself an anticipatory ‘British Museum.’ Then came the civil war. But the injury which the ARUNDEL collections sustained from the insecurity and commotions of a turbulent time is very insignificant, in comparison with that sustained, after the Restoration, through the ignorance and the indolence of an unworthy inheritor.

[Sidenote: THE SUCCESSORS OF LORD ARUNDEL.]

The immediate heir and successor of Earl Thomas survived his father less than six years. He died at Arundel House in April, 1652, leaving several sons, of whom the two eldest, Thomas and Henry, became successively Earls of Arundel and Dukes of Norfolk. The first of these was restored to the dukedom in 1660. But the whole of his life, after attaining manhood, was passed in Italy and under the heavy affliction of impaired mental faculties, following upon an attack of brain-fever which had seized him at Padua, in 1645. He never recovered, but died in the city in which the disease had stricken him, lingering until the year 1677. It was in consequence of this calamity that the inheritance of a large portion of the Arundelian collections, and also the possession of Arundel House in London, passed from Earl Henry-Frederick to his second son, Henry.

We learn from many passages both in the Diary and in the Letters of John EVELYN that, under the new owner, Arundel House and its contents were so neglected as, at times, to lie at the mercy of a crowd of rapacious parasites. In one place he speaks of the mansion as being infested by ‘painters, panders, and misses.’ In another he describes the library as suffering by repeated depredations. He remonstrated with the owner, and at length obtained from him a gift of the library for the newly-founded Royal Society, and a gift of part of the marbles for the University of Oxford. In his Diary he thus narrates the circumstances under which these benefactions were made:—

[Sidenote: GIFT OF THE ARUNDEL LIBRARY TO THE ROYAL SOCIETY;]

Having mentioned that on the destruction of the meeting-place of the Royal Society, its members ‘were invited by Mr. HOWARD to sit at Arundel House in the Strand,’ he proceeds to say that Mr. HOWARD, ‘at my instigation, likewise bestowed on the Society that noble library which his grandfather especially, and his ancestors, had collected. This gentleman had so little inclination to books that it was the preservation of them from embezzlement.’ [Sidenote: Evelyn, _Diary, &c._, vol. ii, p. 20.] Elsewhere he says that not a few books had actually been lost before, by his interference, the bulk of the collection was thus saved. The gift to the Royal Society was made at the close of the year 1666.

[Sidenote: AND THAT OF THE MARBLES TO THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD.]

In September of the following year this entry occurs in the same Diary:—‘[I went] to London, on the 19th, with Mr. Henry HOWARD of Norfolk, of whom I obtained the gift of his Arundelian Marbles,—those celebrated and famous inscriptions, Greek and Latin, gathered with so much cost and industry from Greece by his illustrious grandfather the magnificent Earl of ARUNDEL.... When I saw these precious monuments miserably neglected, and scattered up and down about the garden and other parts of Arundel House, and how exceedingly the corrosive air of London impaired them, I procured him to bestow them on the University of Oxford. This he was pleased to grant me, and now gave me the key of the gallery, with leave to mark all those stones, urns, altars, &c., and whatever I found had inscriptions on them, that were not statues. This I did, and getting them removed and piled together, with those which were encrusted in the garden-walls, I sent immediately letters to the Vice-Chancellor of what I had procured.’ [Sidenote: _Ib._, p. 29. (edit. 1850.)] On the 8th of October he records a visit from the President of Trinity, ‘to thank me, in the name of the Vice-Chancellor and the whole University, and to receive my directions what was to be done to show their gratitude to Mr. HOWARD.’

Ten months later, EVELYN records that he was called to London to wait upon the Duke of NORFOLK. The Duke, he says, ‘having, at my sole request, bestowed the Arundelian Library on the Royal Society, sent to me to take charge of the books and remove them.... Many of these books had been presented by Popes, Cardinals, and great persons, to the Earls of ARUNDEL and Dukes of NORFOLK; and the late magnificent Earl of ARUNDEL bought a noble library in Germany which is in this collection. [Sidenote: _Ib._, pp. 122, 123.] I should not, for the honour I bear the family, have persuaded the Duke to part with these, had I not seen how negligent he was of them; suffering the priests and everybody to carry away and dispose of what they pleased, so that abundance of rare things are irrecoverably gone.’

A curious narrative communicated, almost a century afterwards, to the Society of Antiquaries, by James THEOBALD, proves that in this respect the gallery of antiquities—notwithstanding the noble benefaction to Oxford—was even more unfortunate than the library of books. At the time when these gifts were obtained for Oxford and for the Royal Society, another extensive portion of the original collections had already passed into the possession of William HOWARD, Viscount Stafford, and had been removed to Stafford House. Lord STAFFORD was a younger son of the collector, and appears to have received the choice artistic treasures which long adorned his town residence by the gift of his mother. [Sidenote: DISPERSION OF PART OF THE ARUNDEL MARBLES.] According to EVELYN, Lady ARUNDEL also ‘scattered and squandered away innumerable other rarities, ... whilst my Lord was in Italy.’ But in this instance he appears to speak by hearsay, rather than from personal knowledge. TIERNEY, the able and painstaking historian of the family, asserts that its records contain no proof whatever of the justice of the charge. [Sidenote: _History of Arundel_, p. 509.] And he traces the origin of EVELYN’S statement to a passage in one of the letters of Francis JUNIUS, in which it is said of Lady ARUNDEL that she ‘carried over a vast treasure of rarities, and convaighed them away out of England.’ Even to JUNIUS, notwithstanding his connection with the family, the charge may have come but as a rumour.

Be that as it may, the subsequent dispersion of many treasures of art which the Earl had collected with such unwearied pains and lavish expenditure is unquestionable.

Lord Henry HOWARD, it has been shown, excepted the ‘statues’ from his gift to the University. They remained at Arundel House, but so little care was bestowed upon their preservation that when the same owner afterwards obtained an Act of Parliament empowering him to build streets on part of the site of Arundel House and Gardens, many of these statues were broken by the throwing upon or near them of heaps of rubbish from the excavations made, in the years 1678 and 1679, for the new buildings. These broken statues and fragments retained beauty enough to attract from time to time the admiration of educated eyes when such eyes chanced to fall upon them. Those which long adorned the seat of the Earls of POMFRET, at Easton Neston, in Oxfordshire, were purchased by Sir William FERMOR, and were given to the University of Oxford by one of his descendants. Others which are, or were, at Fawley Court, near Henley, were purchased by Mr. FREEMAN. Others, again, were bought by Edmund WALLER, the poet, for the decoration of Beaconsfield.

Still more strange was the fate which befell certain other marbles which Lord Henry (by that time Duke of NORFOLK) caused to be removed from Arundel House to a piece of waste ground belonging to the manor of Kennington. These the owner seems to have regarded as little better than lumber. It is therefore the less surprising that his servants took so little care of them as to suffer them to be buried, in their turn, beneath rubbish which had been brought to Kennington from St. Paul’s, during the rebuilding of that cathedral. By-and-bye, precious marbles, excavated amidst so many difficulties arising from Turkish barbarism in Asia Minor, had to be re-excavated in England. Many years after their second burial, some rumour of the circumstance came to the knowledge of the Earl of BURLINGTON, and by his efforts and care something was recovered. But the researches then made were, in some way, interrupted. They were afterwards resumed by Lord PETRE. [Sidenote: Narrative by Theobald; printed in ANECDOTES OF HOWARD FAMILY, pp. 101–120.] ‘After six days’ of excavation and search, says an eye-witness, ‘just as the workmen were going to give over, they fell upon something which gave them hopes. Upon further opening the ground they discovered six statues, ... some of a colossal size, the drapery of which was thought to be exceeding fine.’ These went eventually to Worksop.

Some Arundelian marbles were, it is said, converted into rollers for bowling-greens. The fragments of others lie in or beneath the foundations of the houses in Norfolk Street and the streets adjacent.

The Stafford-House portion of the collections—which included pictures, drawings, vases, medals, and many miscellaneous antiquities of great curiosity—was sold by auction in 1720. At the prices of that day the sale produced no less a sum than £8852.

The Arundelian cabinet of cameos and intaglios, now so famous under the name of ‘The Marlborough Gems,’ was offered to the Trustees of the British Museum for sale, at an early period in the history of the institution. The price asked by the then possessor, the Duchess Dowager of NORFOLK, was £10,000. But at that time the funds of the nascent institution were inadequate to the purchase.

It affords conspicuous proof of the marvellous success which had attended Lord ARUNDEL’S researches to find that the remnants, so to speak, of his collections retain an almost inestimable value, after so many losses and loppings. They are virtually priceless, even if we leave out of view all that is now private property.

When the Arundelian MSS. were transferred, in the years 1831 and 1832, to the British Museum, their money value—for the purposes of the exchange as between the Royal Society and the Museum Trustees—was estimated (according to the historian of the Royal Society) at the sum of £3559. [Sidenote: Weld, _History of the Royal Society_, vol. ii, pp. 448, 449.] This sum was given by the Trustees, partly in money, and

## partly in printed books of which the Museum possessed two or more than

two copies. The whole of the money received by the Royal Society was expended by its Council in the purchase of other printed books. So that both Libraries were benefited by the exchange.

It may deserve remark that a somewhat similar transfer had been contemplated and discussed during the lifetime of the original donor. The project, at that period, was to make an exchange between the Royal Society and the University of Oxford. The University induced EVELYN to recommend Lord Henry HOWARD to sanction an exchange of such MSS. ‘as concern the civil law, theology, and other scholastic learning, for mathematical, philosophical, and such other books as may prove most useful to the design and institution of the Society.’ [Sidenote: Evelyn to Howard; 14 March, 1669.] But at that time, after much conference, it was otherwise determined.

The heraldical and genealogical books belonging to the original ARUNDEL Library were given, at the date of the first transfer of the bulk of the collection to the Royal Society, to the Heralds’ College. They still form an important part of the College Library, and they include valuable materials for the history of the family of HOWARD.

##