John Gauden - Authorship Question

Authorship Question

The evidence in favor of Gauden's authorship rests chiefly on his own assertions and those of his wife (who after his death sent to her son John a narrative of the claim), and on the fact that it was admitted by Clarendon, who should have had means of being acquainted with the truth. Gauden's letters on the subject are printed in the appendix to vol. iii. of the Clarendon Papers.

The argument is that Gauden had prepared the book to inspire sympathy with the king by a representation of his pious and forgiving disposition, and so to rouse public opinion against his execution. In 1693 further correspondence between Gauden, Clarendon, the duke of York, and Sir Edward Nicholas was published by Arthur North, who had found them among the papers of his sister-in-law, a daughter-in-law of Bishop Gauden; but doubt has been thrown on the authenticity of these papers. Gauden stated that he had begun the book in 1647 and was entirely responsible for it. But it is contended that the work was in existence at Naseby, and testimony to Charles's authorship is brought forward from various witnesses who had seen Charles himself occupied with it at various times during his imprisonment.

It is stated that the MS. was delivered by one of the king's agents to Edward Symmons, rector of Raine, near Bocking, and that it was in the handwriting of Oudart, Sir Edward Nicholas's secretary. The internal evidence has, as is usual in such cases, been brought forward as a conclusive argument in favor of both contentions.

Doubt was thrown on Charles's authorship in John Milton's Eikonoklastes (1649), which was followed almost immediately by a royalist answer, The Princely Pelican. Royall Resolves Extracted from his Majestys Divine Meditations, with satisfactory reasons that his Sacred Person was the only Author of them (1649). The history of the whole controversy, which has been several times renewed, was dealt with in Christopher Wordsworth's tracts in a most exhaustive way. He eloquently advocated Charles's authorship. Since he wrote in 1829, some further evidence has been forthcoming in favor of the Naseby copy.

A correspondence relating to the French translation of the work has also come to light among the papers of Sir Edward Nicholas. None of the letters show any doubt that King Charles was the author. S. R. Gardiner (Hist. of the Great Civil War, iv, 325) regards Charles Doble's articles as finally disposing of Charles's claim to the authorship, but this is by no means the attitude of other writers.

If Gauden was the author, he may have incorporated papers, &c., by Charles, who may have corrected the work and thus been joint-author. This theory would reconcile the conflicting evidence, that of those who saw Charles writing parts and read the MS. before publication, and the deliberate statements of Gauden.