Characters from 17th Century Histories and Chronicles | Page 3

England had had all other honours,
but only wanted a history.
But the most valuable statement on the conditions of English history at
this time and the obstacles that hindered its progress was made by Sir
John Hayward at the beginning of his _Lives of the III Normans, Kings
of England_, published in 1613. Leaving aside the methods of the
chroniclers, he had taken the classical historians as his model in his
First Part of the Life and raigne of King Henrie the IIII. The interest of
this work to the modern reader lies in its structure, its attempt at artistic
unity, its recognition that English history must be written on a different
plan, rather than in its historical matter. But it was no sooner published
than Hayward was committed to the Tower because the account of the
deposition of Richard II was held to be treasonable, the offence being
aggravated by the dedication, in perfectly innocent terms, to the Earl of
Essex. His work was thus checked till he met with encouragement from
Henry, Prince of Wales, a patron of literature, of whom, though a mere
youth, such men as Jonson, Chapman, and Raleigh, spoke with an
enthusiasm that cannot be mistaken for flattery. Prince Henry saw the
need of a worthy history of England. He therefore sent for Hayward to
discuss the reasons with him:
Prince Henry ... sent for mee, a few monethes before his death. And at
my second comming to his presence, among some other speeches, hee
complained much of our Histories of England; and that the English
Nation, which is inferiour to none in Honourable actions, should be
surpassed by all, in leauing the memorie of them to posteritie....
I answered, that I conceiued these causes hereof; One, that men of
sufficiencie were otherwise employed; either in publicke affaires, or in
wrestling with the world, for maintenance or encrease of their private
estates. Another is, for that men might safely write of others in maner
of a tale, but in maner of a History, safely they could not: because,
albeit they should write of men long since dead, and whose posteritie is
cleane worne out; yet some aliue, finding themselues foule in those
vices, which they see obserued, reproued, condemned in others; their
guiltinesse maketh them apt to conceiue, that whatsoeuer the words are,

the finger pointeth onely at them. The last is, for that the Argument of
our English historie hath been so foiled heretofore by some unworthie
writers, that men of qualitie may esteeme themselues discredited by
dealing in it....
Then he questioned, whether I had wrote any part of our English
Historie, other then that which had been published; which at that time
he had in his hands. I answered, that I had wrote of certaine of our
English Kings, by way of a briefe description of their liues: but for
historie, I did principally bend, and binde my selfe to the times wherein
I should liue; in which my owne obseruations might somewhat direct
me: but as well in the one as in the other I had at that time perfected
nothing.
The result of the interview was that Hayward proceeded to 'perfect
somewhat of both sorts'. The brief description of the lives of the three
Norman kings was in due course ordered to be published, and would
have been dedicated to its real patron but for his untimely death; in
dedicating it instead to Prince Charles, Hayward fortunately took the
opportunity to relate his conversation with Prince Henry. How far he
carried the other work is not certain; it survives in the fragment called
_The Beginning of the Raigne of Queene Elizabeth_,[4] published after
his death with The Life and Raigne of King Edward the Sixt. He might
have brought it down to the reign of James. Had he been at liberty to
follow his own wishes, he would have been the first Englishman to
write a 'History of his own time'. But when an author incurred
imprisonment for writing about the deposition of a sovereign, and when
modern applications were read into accounts of what had happened
long ago, the complexity of his own time was a dangerous if not a
forbidden subject.
There is a passage to the same effect in the preface to The Historie of
the World by Sir Walter Raleigh, who, unlike Hayward, willingly chose
to be silent on what he knew best:
I know that it will bee said by many, That I might have beene more
pleasing to the Reader, if I had written the Story of mine owne times;
having been permitted to draw water as neare the Well-head as another.
To this I answer, that who-so-ever in writing a moderne Historie, shall
follow truth too neare the heeles, it may happily