University of Virginia Library

Some Problems of Attribution in the Canon of Sir William Killigrew's Works
by
J. P. Vander Motten

Half a century ago, W. J. Lawrence found it necessary to introduce an article on "Sir William Killigrew's The Siege of Urbin" with the remark that "the works of the three brothers Killigrew are apt to be confused" and that "no clear idea exists concerning Killigrew bibliography".[1] Since then, such reference works as Falconer Madan's Oxford Books. Volume III [2] and Donald Wing's Short-Title Catalogue 1641-1700, II, 296-297 (STC), have contributed a great deal to a better knowledge of Killigrew bibliography. But neither W. J. Lawrence in 1928 nor Donald Wing, more recently, seem to have taken any notice of what remains the most complete source of bio-bibliographical information on the eldest Killigrew brother, Sir William (1606-1695), namely Boase and Courtney's Bibliotheca Cornubiensis.[3] This is unfortunate for, apart from historical and literary references to Killigrew, both in printed and manuscript sources, the Bibliotheca provides a list of this author's printed works which is a useful complement to that given in the STC. For instance, what was presumably Killigrew's first literary product,

a poem entitled Ad Regem & Principem se mutuo amplexantes, has been ignored in Wing's list. Signed "Guilielmus Killigrew, Equitis aurat. fil. nat. max. Ioannensis", this poem appeared in Carolus Redux (Oxford, 1623), a collection of Latin verse written by Oxford professors and students on the occasion of Prince Charles' return from Spain, after his wooing of the Infanta. But even on the combined authority of Boase and Courtney, on the one hand, and Wing, on the other, it remains a hazardous undertaking to try to establish the canon of Killigrew's works, as a close analysis of various items attributed to him in both lists will reveal. I therefore propose to examine to what extent the hitherto accepted "canon" stands in need of completion and/or correction. I have taken the STC, rather than the Bibliotheca Cornubiensis as the basis for this investigation, Wing's work being more widely available and easier to refer to than its obscure predecessor. References after each of Killigrew's works will be to the entry-number in the STC (from K453 to K472 or, if necessary, to some other number), but the abbreviation BC will be added whenever the work concerned is also (or only) listed by Boase and Courtney. The absence of either reference, then, means that the work in question is here for the first time assigned to Killigrew.

Of the six anonymous items listed as Killigrew's in the STC (and generally accepted as his), i.e. K459, K460, K463, K464, K468, and K471, three can be shown to be by the dramatist indeed, mainly on the basis of internal evidence, and therefore need not detain us very long. The authorship of The Imperial Tragedy (1669; K460—BC), a play sometimes ascribed to Killigrew in eighteenth-century biographical dictionaries,[4] has only recently been established: Sir William's signature on the title-page of that tragedy, included in a copy of his Four New Playes (1666; K458-BC) now preserved in the collection of the Rosenbach Foundation at Philadelphia, unmistakably argues his authorship.[5] Nor can there be any question about his authorship of Midnight Thoughts (1681; K463), a collection of pious meditations later on reissued in an expanded form and entitled The Artless Midnight Thoughts of a Gentleman at Court (1684; K455-BC): though a bibliographical puzzle, this "Second Edition with Additions" has a dedication to King James II, signed "William Killigrew". And the anonymous 1664 issue of the comedy Pandora (K464) does not pose any problem: the play also appeared in Three Playes (1664/5; K470-BC), the title-page of which leaves no doubt as to the identity of its author.[6]

Sir William is also credited with a number of pamphlets on economic and financial matters, the authorship of which, as opposed to that of his

dramatic and "devotional" works, is nothing short of problematic. Nevertheless, it can be shown, not only that some of these pamphlets have been erroneously ascribed to him, but also that some other items which we may confidently assume to be his (or partly his), have never received the place they deserve in the canon of his works. A good example of the former mistake is Boase and Courtney's indiscriminate attribution to Killigrew of three pamphlets, two of which are not by him and the third of which is only partly his. Of Certaine Papers concerning the Earle of Lindsey his Fennes (London, 1649), an eight-page long pamphlet, the first two or three pages are not by Killigrew: they contain a request of the "Committee for the Fens" to "agree the Differences" between drainers and commoners, as well as a paper sent by one William Howett to Killigrew, informing him of the commoners' viewpoint. And even a superficial glance at the self-explanatory titles of the other two pamphlets, A Reply to Sir William Killigrews dispersed Papers, by the Owners and Commoners in Lincolnshire (n. p., 1651?) and Reasons proposed against the passing of the Bill for setling of 24,000 acres of Land . . . upon George Bampfield Esq., in Trust for Sir William Killigrew, Sir Henry Heron, etc. (n. p., 1660?), will suffice to exclude them, once and for all, from the Killigrew canon.

Similarly, two items listed by Wing as Sir William's are obviously not by him. The first, which begins A Breviate of the Cause depending and proofes made before the Committee of the late Parliament for the Fens (K456-BC), is tentatively dated 1651 under Killigrew's name but 1655 elsewhere in the STC (B4412). This is another of the innumerable pamphlets in the fen controversy in which Killigrew for nearly half a century actively participated, both as a drainer investing huge amounts of money in the project and as a prolific pamphleteer. A Breviate of the Cause, however, was not drafted by Killigrew but by the "Inhabitants between Borne and Kime Eae, in the County of Lincolne", and was meant to expose the "evil design" of the Earl of Lindsey, Sir William, and other "undertakers". Moreover, its date, instead of 1651, may indeed be 1655, occurring as it does towards the end of a volume of chronologically arranged documents in the Thomason Tracts, the last of which is dated June 1655. Wing's caution with respect to the authorship and the dating of the second item, beginning A Short Answer to a Paper, Intituled, Reasons (K468-S3560) is unwarranted: the author was the dramatist's son, of the same name, who not only signed the pamphlet, styling himself the "Sole Executor of Sir William Killigrew, deceased" but also accurately dated it "May 6, 1698".[7] The younger William[8] appears to have inherited

his father's interests in the fens, for a decade after the latter's death he was still trying to obtain an enactment of the drainers' rights in the "Lindsey Level", a draining project in Lincolnshire started around 1629. This is evident from the historical account of the works of draining which he published as The Property of all English-Men Asserted, in the History of Lindsey Levell . . . In behalf of Himself, and the rest of the Dreiners and Participants of Lindsey Levell in Lincolnshire (London, 1705). In view of his petitions addressed to Parliament (in 1701, for instance),[9] and his continuing preoccupation with the drainages, it can cause little wonder that, as early as May 1698, with A Short Answer to a Paper, he drew the Commons' attention to "a Bill brought in by Sir Robert Killigrew [his brother], and Others, Undertakers and Participants for the pretended Draining of Lindsey-Level, in Lincolnshire".

Apart from some introductory matters, A Short Answer is largely a word for word repetition of two almost identical pamphlets of much earlier date, both undoubtedly by Sir William. The first of these, dated 5 September 1654, begins The Earle of Lindsey his Title, by which himselfe, and his Participants (K457); the second, with a somewhat more extensive caption title, beginning The late Earle of Lindsey . . . (BC), is co-signed by Sir Henry Heron (another relentless "claimer") and dated 1 July 1661. Wing (II, 179) lists the latter pamphlet as Heron's only, without so much as a reference to Sir William's share in the authorship. Nor does he mention two other pamphlets for which both men or, at least, Heron and a William Killigrew were responsible: To shew the Countreys Consent for the drayning of Lindesey Levell (London, 16 March 1670/71; British Library) and The Dreining of Lindsey Level justified against the Aspersions of their Adversaries (London, April 1678; Public Record Office, London, State Papers 29-403). To establish the identity of the "William Killigrew" who collaborated on either pamphlet is a difficult task. Nevertheless, if internal evidence can be relied on at all to provide a clue in this respect, it would seem that the ascription to Sir William of the former pamphlet, provided in a list of Wing addenda,[10] is correct. Heron and Killigrew, indeed, conclude To shew the Countreys consent in a very confident note: "And thus we conceive that we have shewed a general unanimous consent of all the Commissioners, and also of all the Countrey, in those days, when those who now oppose were very young" (my italics). Only undertakers who had been involved in the business of draining for over forty years—as Sir William and Sir Henry Heron had been in 1671—would be expected to speak of their adversaries in those terms. On the other hand, the very phraseology of some passages in The Dreining of Lindsey Level justified may suggest that the younger William was its co-author. Reminding their readers of the riots which occurred in the fens in the early 1640s, the authors observe that "Sir William Killigrew's great House was pulled down",

thus striking a matter-of-fact note which is markedly different from that in Sir William's account of the same events in, for instance, His Answer to the Fenne-Mens Objections (London, 1649; K453—BC): ". . . we have also proved, that our houses were pulled downe, our Corne burned, our Draynes spoiled, our Tenants thrown out, and our possession taken from us by violence, while we made no resistance. For while my house was pulled downe, the Sheriff and a Justice of peace looked on . . ." (my italics). Unless the double authorship accounts for the impersonal tone in The Dreining of Lindsey Level, I am inclined to believe that the younger William Killigrew was responsible for part of this pamphlet, published in 1678.

On the other hand, it is fairly safe to credit his father with the authorship of a third (anonymous) pamphlet, not listed in either the STC or the Bibliotheca: A Short State of the Case for the Earle of Lindsey's Fenns. Not only do its argumentation and very phraseology closely echo earlier and succeeding pamphlets but the copy of it preserved in the British Library (Add. MSS 21,427, f° 139v-14or) is autographed and dated "29 March 1652" by Sir William.

Three other items—pamphlets on banking experiments—present problems of dating and authorship which cannot be as easily resolved. The uncertainty in this respect is reflected in the STC (as well as in various library catalogues): An humble proposal showing how . . . (K459) is listed as anonymous and dated 1663; A proposal, shewing how this nation may be vast gainers . . . (K466-BC) is listed as Killigrew's and tentatively dated 1663;[11] and To the King and Queen . . . An humble proposal (K471) is also given as anonymous, but tentatively assigned to 1690. Why the first item should be listed as a separate work is not clear, for it is identical to the third, the full caption titles of both being To the King and Queens Most Excellent Majesties; the Lords Spiritual and Temporal; and to the Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses assembled in Parliament. An humble Proposal shewing how this Nation may be vast Gainers by all Sums of Mony given to the Crown, with-out lessening the Prerogative. Wing's dating 1663, though not his listing it as anonymous, corresponds with that of the copy in the Cambridge University Library, for instance, which has the hand-written addition "by Will. Killigrew 1663". On the other hand, a copy of it, preserved in the Kress Library, of the Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration, has been marked "Sir William Killigrew c. 1690" (the date assigned by Wing to K471).

The second pamphlet, with a very similar caption title, A Proposal, Shewing How this Nation may be vast Gainers . . . Humbly Offer'd to the King's Most Excellent Majesty; the Lords Spiritual . . .—and with the author's name printed on the first page—has the hand-written date "1696" in the Kress Library copy as well as in one of the three copies in the British Library (the other two being undated). This pamphlet is a reissue of To the King and Queens . . . An humble Proposal, brought out at the request of one Sir

James Shaen [Sheene] whose letter inviting Killigrew to reprint his Proposal, together with the latter's reply, introduce the pamphlet (pp. 1-4).[12] It is clear, then, that it would be wrong to ascribe to Killigrew three different pamphlets, seeing that two are identical—but have been differently dated in different libraries—and that a third one is only a reissue (with some materials added) of the first.

This being established, it will be interesting to try to determine not only the approximate dates of publication of both documents but also what these dates reveal about the authorship. That neither could possibly have been published in 1663 is certain: the author states that he "put this Design in Writing, at the Request of several considerable Members of both Houses of Parliament, in the Reign of King Charles II when a War was voted against France; but a Peace being concluded, no Money was given. . . ."[13] The wording here suggests that his Humble Proposal—and obviously also its reissue—were published after 1685, the end of Charles' reign. Moreover, whereas the Humble Proposal is dedicated to both "the King and Queens Most Excellent Majesties", the Proposal, Shewing How is "humbly Offer'd to the King's Most Excellent Majesty" only. This implies that the Humble Proposal was either dedicated to James II and Mary of Modena—and therefore published between 1685 and 1688—or to William III and Mary II—and therefore published between 1689 and 1694. As the reference to "the Reign of King Charles II" seems to suggest a publication date not immediately following upon 1685, a date between 1689 and 1694 may be the likelier guess. At any rate, the Proposal, Shewing How should be dated after 28 December 1694, the date of Queen Mary's decease. The best indication, however, as to the actual publication date of this pamphlet is Killigrew's bracketed addition to Sir James Shaen's above-mentioned letter, "writ by himself Three Weeks before his Death": as Shaen, Irish Farmer of the Revenue and Commissioner of the Excise, died on 13 December 1695,[14] the Proposal, Shewing How should be assigned to the final days of 1695, at the earliest, or, what is more likely, to 1696. In view of this combined internal evidence, the "later" (Harvard) dating of both the Humble Proposal and its reissue, the Proposal, Shewing How, namely "c. 1690" and "1696", respectively, is very acceptable, and presumably correct.[15] The latter date also confirms beyond any doubt that the

dramatist Sir William could not possibly have been the author of either pamphlet, for he died in October 1695,[16] two months earlier than Shaen. His son William, therefore, who was also responsible for the fen pamphlets discussed above, is the only one to qualify for the authorship of the banking schemes contained in the various proposals usually assigned to the elder Killigrew.

When all of the foregoing evidence is considered, it becomes clear that the list of Sir William Killigrew's printed works, as it appears in Wing's STC, stands in urgent need of thorough revision. Four items must be added to it, for two of which Sir William seems to have been partly responsible. Five other items must be removed from it, three of which are by the younger Killigrew who, in view of this, deserves a place in the STC 1641-1700, being the author of at least four different pamphlets in all. For clearness' sake, both canons will be listed here. They are chronologically arranged and, in the case of Sir William, also include those works which are not mentioned in the present article but the authorship of which is no matter for dispute. The reference to the entry-numbers in the STC and to Boase and Courtney has been preserved, wherever possible.

Sir WILLIAM KILLIGREW (1606-1695):

• —Ad Regem & Principem se mutuo amplexantes, in Carolus Redux (Oxford, 1623). BC.
• —An Answer to Such Objections as were made by some Commoners of Lincolnshire . . . Set forth by Will: Killigrew, Knt. (London, 1647, 16 pp.). K454-BC.
• —Sir William Killigrew His Answer to the Fenne Mens Objections (London, 1649, 14 pp.). K453-BC.
• —Certaine Papers concerning the Earle of Lindsey his Fennes (n. p., 1649, 8pp.). BC. Partly Killigrew's, i.e. pp. 3-8.

---

168




• —Whereas it hath been often said at the Committee for the Earle of Lindsey's Fenns (n. p., 1650?; s.sh.fol.). K472.
• —A Paper delivered and dispersed by Sir William Killigrew (n. p., 1 June 1651, s.sh.fol.). K465-BC.
• —A Short State of the Case for the Earle of Lindsey's Fenns (n. p., 29 March 1652, s.sh.fol.).
• —Beauty Paramont [a Song], in Henry Lawes. Ayres and Dialogues, For One, Two, and Three Voyces. The First Booke (London, 1653), pp. 28-29. BC.
• —The Earle of Lindsey his Title, by which himselfe, and his Participants, doe claime 24,000 Acres of Lands in the Fennes in Lincolneshire (n. p., 5 Sept. 1654, brs.). K457.
• —The Rioters in Lindsey Levell, and their Abettors . . . (n. p., 18 Jan. 1654/55, s.sh.fol.). K467-BC.
• —The late Earle of Lindsey his Title, by which himselfe . . . (n. p., 1 July 1661, s.sh.fol.). BC. Also signed by H. Heron.
• —Three Playes (London, 1664/65, 8°). K470 (see also K464)-BC.
• —Four New Playes (Oxford, 1666, f°). K458-BC.
• —The Imperial Tragedy (London, 1669, f°). K460-BC.
• —To shew the Countreys Consent for the drayning of Lindesey Levell (n. p., 16 March 1670/71, s.sh.fol.). Also signed by H. Heron.
• —Three New Playes (London, 1674, 8°). K469-BC.
• —Mid-night Thoughts (London, 1681, 8°). K463. The Newberry Library, Chicago, possesses a copy of this collection with a different title-page, dated 1682.
• —The Artless Midnight Thoughts of a Gentleman at Court (London, 1684, 8°). K455-BC.
• —Mid-night and Daily Thoughts (London, 1694, 8°). K461-462-BC.

WILLIAM KILLIGREW, the younger:

• —The Dreining of Lindsey Level justified against the Aspersions of their Adversaries (n. p., April 1678, 3 pp.). Also signed by H. Heron.
• —To the King and Queens Most Excellent Majesties . . . An humble Proposal showing how . . . (n. p., c. 1690, 15 pp.). K459-471.
• —A Proposal, Shewing How this Nation may be vast Gainers . . . (n. p., 1696, 16 pp.). K466-BC.
• —The Property of all English-Men Asserted, in the History of Lindsey Levell, in Lincolnshire (London, 1705, 24 pp.).

Notes