FORTY-ONE

17th-century manuscript entitled ‘A Short Character of Charles the Second King of England’.

[SHEFFIELD, John Duke of Buckingham (1647-1721)]

[Circa 1690]. Folio (323 mm x 208). Page dimensions: 293 mm x 193 mm. Text to 5 leaves, plus 1 blank. Watermark: Horn with letters AJ beneath. Similar to Haewood 2686-90 (which he dates, 1680-93) but none of these have AJ beneath. According to Haewood, AJ is probably Abraham Janssen. See Haewood: 409, 453, 2718, which he dates 1680-90. The binding is a 20th-century remboitage. It is bound in early 18th-century blind-panelled calf, with gilt-blocked royal arms of King George I on each side. It has been recently rebacked, with a new spine label and endpapers added. The paper was originally folded and a near contemporary paper spine titled in manuscript. It is mostly hidden in the fold but appears to read “A Character his Mai of”.

¶ Scandal and controversy were bywords for King Charles II’s reign, and this manuscript, which would have been handed around like a little morsel of gossip, does nothing to restore his reputation. Perhaps the most solemn moment comes at the beginning which “according to custom” states “his Religion, which since his death hath made so much noise in the world, I yett dare Confidently affirme it, to have beene onley that which is vulgarly tho’ unjustly counted none att all, I mean, Deism”. Here, the scribe addresses rumours of King Charles II’s Catholic sympathies. But rather than infer any strong faith, he says the King’s beliefs were arrived at languidly, through a “carelesness of his Temper then either Reading or much Consideracon”, and although he ascribes to him a “quickness of apprehension”, it was “his natural lazyness” which guided his opinions, lest “he should be troubled with examining which was best ~”.

In an amusing conceit, the writer draws an analogy between himself as Raphael and the King as the sitter, hoping that any compositional flaws “be recompensd in the agreeableness of the subject, which is sometimes enough to recommend a Picture, tho’ ill drawne, and make a face ^one likes, oftner looked on, then the best piece of Raphaell”.

Our ‘Raphael’ presents a mixed and sometimes unflattering picture of his sitter in an easy, familiar tone. We learn that the King was “Full of disimulacon and very adroit, at it, yet no man easier to be imposed upon”. He was also “Easy and good natured to all people in tiffles, but in great affaires sever and inflexible”. The scribe frequently alights upon the King’s dilettantism (“His understanding was quick and lively in little ^things and sometimes would soar high enough in greate ones, but u^nable to keepe it up with any Long attention or Applycation”) and lingers on his sexual proclivities (“there was as much of Laziness as of Love in all those houres he passed among his Mistresses, who, after all, only serve to fill up his Seraglio”); but, in a bid for even-handedness, we are told of his “setting his whole heart on the faire sex, yet neither angrey with Rivals”.

Before its publication in 1696, this text circulated in manuscript, or as the introduction to the first edition says, “many Coppies” of it were “handed about”. Only with its 1725 reprinting was it revealed as “Written by John Duke of Buckingham, Lord President of Her late Majesty’s PrivyCouncil”.

John Sheffield, first duke of Buckingham and Normanby, was a statesman, poet, essayist and patron to Dryden and Pope. He is perhaps best remembered for his Essay on Poetry (1682). The ODNB says he was “probably the author of the Essay on satire which circulated in manuscript in 1679 and attacked prominent figures at court including the king and Rochester; Dryden was blamed and physically assaulted, but the friendship between patron and poet survived.” It is not clear whether he deliberately suppressed his authorship of the Short Character… in his lifetime.

Manuscript copies in library collections:

National Library of Scotland:

‘A Short Character of Charles the Second &c’: I have pitch’d upon the Character of King Charles the second … tho’ he found his Error in this, but I confess, of little of the latest. Unsigned; [?late seventeenth century]. ff. 238-9.

Cambridge University:

A short character of Charles the Second King of England by someone who knew or served him 17th cent (Add 9322).

One is also recorded in an old bookseller’s catalogue: ‘A Second catalogue of Manuscripts. John Cochran. 1837.’: 436 Charles II. The Earl of Mulgrave's Short Character of Charles the Second in the year 1688. Manuscript, neatly written. Quarto, 10s. 60 .

Printed editions:

First published anonymously as: The character of Charles II. King of England. London: by Richard Baldwin. 1696. [Wing, B5336].

ESTC records three reprintings under the new title, A short character of Charles II. King of England. Two reprints in 1725, recorded as the sixth and seventh editions; a 1729 without edition statement.

Eliding the introductory material, the most notable difference in the publications is the addition of a final paragraph in the later editions. This is also in our manuscript; but rather than indicating ours was copied from the printed editions, we suggest the reverse to be the case. The 18th-century editions claim to have been “Printed from the Original Copy” – a phrase probably intended to imply that the reprint is more authoritative than its predecessor. But several “originals” existed, as the 1696 edition attests, and our manuscript appears to be one of these.

The physical features also point towards this being one of the pre-publication circulated manuscripts. It has been folded for posting, or, as the 1696 edition puts it, “handed about”, and the final sheet (part of which has been wrapped around to “bind” the text together) contains the now partially obscured inscription “A Character his Mai of”.

Unfortunately, the manuscript has been “pimped” by a modern owner. They have used two early 18th-century blind -panelled calf boards, with gilt-blocked royal arms of King George I on each side, which they have rebacked in calf. Although this creates an impressive-looking artefact, the binding does not match the size or the date of the manuscript, resulting in a misleading remboîtage which, although it diverts our attention from the way the manuscript would originally have been circulated, is itself a fact of book ownership and the long history of books.

£1,000 Ref: 7957