The Date of Cavendish's Advice to Charles II

The Date of Cavendish's Advice to Charles II Conal Condren Some time during the Interregnum, William Cavendish, Earl, later Duke of Newcastle, wrote a long letter of advice to his ex-tutee Charles II. It is an important source of evidence for political attitudes and perceptions in Stuart court circles, and an unduly neglected one. Nevertheless, having survived in two manuscripts, it n o w exists in three printed editions, two of which suggest very different dates of composition. The original 'Welbeck' m s was transcribed by Arthur Strong in what is n o w a rare work.1 The 'Fair' copy which Cavendish presented to Charles w a s transcribed by Thomas Slaughter.2 Slaughter claims that '[the] fair copy of the letter itself clearly states that it w a s written and presented to Charles before his Restoration in 1660' and both copies m a k e some pre1660 date certain.3 His implication seems to be that the work was written close to the Restoration (he does not differentiate between copies) 1 Arthur Strong (ed.), A Catalogue of The Letters and Other Historical Document Exhibited in the Library at Welbeck (London, 1903), Appendix I, pp. 173-236. 2 Clarendon M S 109; see Thomas P. Slaughter, Ideology and Politics on the Eve the Restoration: Newcastle's Advice to Charles II (Philadephia: The Americ Philosophical Society, 1984). 3 Slaughter, Ideology and Politics, p. xi, n4. 148 Conal Condren probably in 1658. A letter from Cavendish to Secretary Nicholas, 18th April, 1659, requesting permission to present Charles with a long letter is the circumstantial evidence cited to support this guess. Gloria Anzilotti has produced a third version of the letter of advice in modern English, collating both the 'Welbeck' and 'Fair' copies. In cataloguing minor differences between the manuscripts and between both and Slaughter's distinctly erratic transcription, she also challenges the dating. Anzilotti claims that one difference between the manuscripts, apparently unnoticed by Slaughter, puts the 'Welbeck' version before the death of Thomas Sackville, Earl of Dorset in 1652. For, where the 'Welbeck' manuscript refers to the Earl, the 'Fair' copy refers to the late Earl, 'late' being an interlinear insertion. O n a previous occasion I have dismissed Anzilotti's dating without argument. It m a y be helpful to provide m y reasoning as one reviewer, taking m y case to depend upon inferences from what could be copying errors within the original corpus of manuscripts, was unconvinced by my unadorned assertions. In fact, such scepticism would have been better directed to Anzilotti's argument. It is her inference from an interlinear insertion which is hardly conclusive. In making the reference to the death of the Earl, Cavendish could have been making a belated correction to both manuscripts and there are other interlinear insertions in the 'Fair' copy. Further, Anzilotti's early dating would seem politically unlikely for a work which in both copies assumes an almost immediate return to power; but equally royalist fortunes were no more rosy in 1658 than in 4 Slaughter, Ideology and Politics, p. xi. 5 Gloria Italiano Anzilotti, An English Prince: Newcastle's Machiavellian P Guide to Charles 11, Biblioteca di Letteratura e Arte, 3 (Pisa: Giardini, 1988). 6 An English Prince, pp. 89ff lists some 44 errors which more or less affect th sense. As Anzilotti is modernising she does not list the additional spelling transcription errors which occur on nearly every page. 7 An English Prince, pp. 2-13; p. 126, nl07. 8 'Casuistry to Newcastle: "The Prince' in the world of the book', in Politica Discourse in Early-Modern Britain, ed. Nicholas Phillipson and Quentin Ski (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), p. 173. 9 Sybil Jack, in Parergon, N S 11.2 (1993), p. 155. 10 Anzilotti, An English Prince, p. 131 where the interlinear insertion ' . . . a te to all your great neighbours [abode]...' is noted. The Date of Cavendish's Advice to Charles II 149 1652. It is internal evidence, mistranscribed by Anzilotti that makes her dating impossible, and, if anything, suggests a date of composition even later than Slaughter indicates. In the context of insisting on the importance of a strong navy, Cavendish reminds...