ment, and had him sworn her servant in ordinary." "Nosce Teipsum" was not his "first essay" so that perchance the meaning is that its verse-dedication was his "first essay" in addressing the Queen-his second being the Hymns to Astræa. The "Hymns to Astræa” appeared in quick succession to "Nosce Teipsum" in the same year 1599. They are dainty trifles; but from all we know of Elizabeth would be received as "sweet incense." If they seem to us to-day flattering not to say adulatory, it must be remembered that such was the mode. Much later, Epistles-dedicatory from Bacon and others of the mighties, and not to Elizabeth but to James-are infinitely fulsome compared with the ideal praises of an ideal Elizabeth-that Elizabeth who had stirred the nation's pulses through her great patriotic words when "The Armada" threatened-in the most superlative of these "Hymnes." Their workmanship is as of diamond-facets. The "bright light" of olden promise was now "lining" the dark cloud. The discipline of his retirement to Oxford did him life-long good. Speedily outward events dove-tailed with the deepened ethical experience and resultant character.

For despair and disgrace there came hope and help. For a career that seemed arrested, a higher, and wider, and nobler opened out in inspiriting perspective. In

1599-1600 he was in all men's mouths as a Poet. The "Poetical Rhapsody" of Davison of these years would have been rendered incomplete without contributions from "I. D. ;" and so there went to it those Minor Poems, that are read still with pleasure. So early as 1595 George Chapman had printed his "Ovid's Banquet of Sence," with lines from "I. D." More important still, "Secretary Cecil" became his friend and patron. "By desire" he prepared certain dialogues and scenes for entertainments to the Queen. Three of these remain. The first is "A Dialogue between a Gentleman Usher and a Poet."9 The second is "A Contention betwixt a Wife, a Widdow, and a Maide."1 The third is "A Lottery: presented (as the heading states) before the late Queene's Maiesty at the Lord Chancelor's House, 1601.”2 These indicate that the recluse of Oxford was once more restored to society, and that the supremest. The favour of the aged Queen was capricious; but the "Lottery that formed part of the entertainment at the Lord Chancellor's marked the turning of the tide, in flood not ebb. Through Elles

"In Memorial-Introduction to Poems, as before, pp. 15-21. 1 See Vol. II., pp. 72-86.

2 Ibid, pp. 87-95. See on this in second division of this Memorial-Introduction: Postscript.

66

mere steps were taken to cancel the "expulsion" and disbarring." He addressed a respectful and manly Petition to "his Society." It was considered at a "Parliament of the Society, held on the 30th October 1601." He had "presented" it in Trinity Term ; but it was adjourned until now. In the interval he had attended" the Commons" and in November after making the admission and satisfaction required by four Benches, it was unanimously agreed that he should be "restored to his position at the bar and his seniority." He publicly pronounced his "repentance" in due form on the feast of All Saints. This was done in the Hall in the presence of Chief Iustice Popham, Chief Baron Periam, Judge Fenner, Baron Savil, Sergeant Harris, Sergeant Williams, and the Masters of the Bench." The legal or ceremonial part being completed, and the Apology read in English, Davies turned to "Mr. Martin," then present, and as he could offer no sufficient satisfaction to him, entreated his forgiveness, promising sincere love and affection in all good offices towards him for the future." "Mr. Martin" accepted the tender thus made, and the re-instatement was completed. That the reconciliation between Davies and

3 See Lord Stowell's Paper, in Archælogia, Vol. XXI., pp. 107J12, and our fuller Life, as before.

i

But

Martin was formal rather than real has been too hastily assumed. True, that when in 1622 Davies collected his Poems, the Sonnet to Martin was withdrawn and a hiatus left towards the close of " Orchestra." both these things are otherwise explainable. Both Elizabeth and Martin were now dead-the latter in 1618. Besides, it was only natural that the living friend should be willing to remove all memory of the quarrel. The name should only have revived it. This, and not a many-yeared carrying of an unclosed wound is my judgment in charity. The restored 'Barrister' never forgot his indebtedness to the Lord Chancellor. His dedication of his great "Reports" of Irish Law Cases and their correspondence remain to attest this-remain too to attest the reciprocal admiration, if a tenderer word were not fitter, of Ellesmere.4 His words in the 'Reports' dedication are more than respectful.

It would appear from the MS. dedication of a corrected MS. of "Nosce Teipsum" to "the right noble, valorous, and learned Prince Henry, Earle of Northumberland" that he must have joined in the intercession for restoration, e.g.

"Then to what spirit shall I these noates commend, But unto that which doth them best expresse;

4 See Prose Works, as before, Vol. II. With reference to the Lines to the Lord Chancellor on the death of his "second wife "" (Vol. I.

Who will to them more kind protection lend,
Than Hee which did protect me in distresse."'5

Contemporaneous with his full Restoration to his privileges at the Bar, the student-lawyer-through influence that has not come down to us-found his way into Parliament as M.P. for Corfe Castle. The House 'sat' for "barely two months "-October 27th to

pp. 112-3) it may be noted that he married (1) Elizabeth, d. of Thomas Ravenscroft of Bretton, co. Flint, Esq., (2) Elizabeth, sister of Sir George More of Loseley co. Surrey, Kt., and widow of Sir John Wolley of Pirford, Surrey, Kt., and before him of Richard Polsted, Esq., of Aldbury, co. Surrey. Her second husband Sir John Wolley (sometimes spelled Wooley) died in February or March 1595-6 and was buried in St. Paul's Cathedral. She appears to have remarried (viz. the Lord Chancellor) in the same year: so that she did not live long thereafter; for she died on 20th January 1599-1600 and was buried with her second husband. The Lord Chancellor was in profound grief (as the Lines of Davies confirm); but he got over it sufficiently to marry (3) Alice, d. of Sir John Spencer of Althorpe co. Northampton, Kt., and widow of Ferdinando, 5th Earl of Derby, on 21st October of the same year (1599-1600) exactly nine months after the death of his (lamented) second wife. She survived the Lord Chancellor until 26th January 1636-7 and was buried at Harefield, co. Middlesex. Of Ellesmere himself these data may be given: Sir Thomas Egerton was created Lord Ellesmere 21 July 1603, upon his appointment as Lord High Chancellor of England. He was further created Viscount Brackley 7th Nov. 1616, and was about being made Earl of Bridgewater when he died 15th March 1616-7. His son John was so created 27th May 1617.

5 Vol. I., pp. 12-13.