June 29. 1850.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



73 



Abbey : or respecting his son, Sir Reginald Aubrey, 

 who aided Bernard de Newmarch in the conquest 

 of the Marches of Wales, and any of his descend- 

 ants ? PwccA. 



Ogden Family. — Tlie writer is very desirous of 

 information as to the past history of a family of 

 the name of Ogden. Dr. Samuel Ogden, the 

 author of a volume of sermons, published in 1760, 

 was a member of it. A branch of the family 

 emigrated to America about 1700, and still exists 

 there. They yet bear in their crest allusion to a 

 tradition, that one of their family hid Charles II. 

 in an oak, when pursued by his enemies. What 

 authority is there for this story ? I shall be grate- 

 ful for any indications of sources of information 

 that may seem likely to aid my researches. 



TWTFORD. 



SIR GEOKGE BUC. 



It has often been noticed, that when a writer 

 wishes to support some favourite hypothesis, he 

 quite overlooks many important particulars that 

 militate against his own view of the case. The 

 Rev. Mr. Corser, in his valuable communication 

 respecting Sir George Buc (Vol. ii., p. 38.), is not 

 exempt from this accusatiim. He has omitted the 

 statement of JMalone, that " Sir George Buc died on 

 the 28th of September, 1623." (Boswell's Shah- 

 speare, iii. 59.) We know positively, that in May 

 1622, Sir George, "by reason of sickness and in- 

 disposition of body, wherewith it hath pleased God 

 to visit him, was become disabled and insufficient 

 to undergo and perform " the duties of IMaster of 

 the Revels ; and it is equally positive that Malone 

 would not so circumstantially have said, " Sir 

 George Buc died on the 28th of September, 1623," 

 without some good authority for so doing. It is 

 only to be regretted that the learned commentator 

 neglected to give that authority. 



Mr. Corser wishes to show that Sir George Buc's 

 days "were further prolonged till 1660;" but I 

 thmk he is in error as to his conclusions, and that 

 another George Buc must enter the field and divide 

 the honours with his knightly namesake. 



It is perfectly clear that a George Buc was living 

 long after the date assigned as that of the death of 

 Sir George, by Malone. This George Buck, for so 

 he invariably spells his name, contributed a copy 

 of verses to Yorke's Union of Honour, 1640; to 

 Shirley's Poems, 1646; and to the folio edition of 

 Beaumont and Fletcher's Plays, 1647. Ritson, 

 then, when speaking of Sir George Buc's Great 

 Plantageuct, as publislied in 163.'5, was rather hasty 

 in pronouncing it as the work of " some fellow who 

 assumed his name," because here is evidence that 

 a person of the same name (if not Sir George liini- 

 self, as Mr. Corser thinks) was living at the period. 



The name, if assumed in the case of the Great 

 Plantagenet, would hardly have been kept up in 

 the publications just alluded to. 



In the British Museum, among the Cotton MSS. 

 {Tiberius, E. X.), is preserved a MS. called "The 

 history of King Richard the Third, comprised in 

 five books, gathered and written by Sir G. Buc, 

 Knight, Master of the King's Office of the Revels, 

 and one of the gentlemen of his Majesty's Privy 

 Chamber." This MS., which appears to have been 

 the author's rough draft, is corrected by inter- 

 lineations and erasements in every page. It is 

 much injured by fire, but a part of the dedication 

 to Sir Thomas Howard, the Earl of Arundel, &c., 

 still remains, together with "an advertisement to 

 the reader," which is dated "from the King's 

 Office of the Revels, St. Peter's Hill, 1619." This 

 history was first published in 1646, by George 

 Buck, Esquire, who says, in his dedication to 

 Philip, the Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery, 

 " that he had collected these papers out of their 

 dust." Here is evidence that the work was not 

 published by the original compiler ; besides, how 

 can Mr. Corser reconcile his author's knighthood 

 with the designations on the respective title-pages 

 of The Great Plantagenet, and The History of 

 Richard the Third? In the former the writer is 

 styled " George Buck, Es-pdre," and in the latter, 

 " George Buck, Gentleman." It is difficult to ac- 

 count for Mr. Corser's omission of these facts, be- 

 cause I am well assured, that, with his extensive 

 knowledge of our earlier poets, my information is 

 not new to him. 



That there were two George Bucs in the seven- 

 teenth century, and both of them poets, cannot, I 

 think, be doubted. Perhaps they were not even 

 relations ; at any rate, Mr. Corser's account of the 

 parentage oione differs from mine entirely. 



" He [Sir George Buc] was born at Ely, the eldest 

 son of Robert Bucke, and Elizabeth, the daughter of 

 Peter Lee of Brandon Ferry ; the grandson of Robert 

 Bucke, and Jane, the daughter of Clement Higham ; 

 the great-grandson of Sir John Bucke, who, having 

 helped Richard to a horse on Bosworth Field, was 

 attainted for his zeal." — Chalmers' Apology, p. 488. 



The MS. now in Mr. Corser's possession occurs 

 in the Bibliotheca Heheriana, Part xi. No. 98., and 

 I observe, by referring to that volume, that the 

 compiler has the following note : — 



" This MS. is entirely in the handu-riting of Sir 

 George Buck, Master of the Revels in the reign of 

 .James I., as prepared by him for publication. The 

 initials G. B. correspond with tliose of his name, and 

 the handwriting is similar to a MS. Dedication of his 

 poem to Lord Chancellor Egerton, wluch is preserved 

 at Bridgewater House." 



The authorship of The Fumnns History of St. 

 George, tlieu, rests solely upon the initials " G. B.," 

 and the similarity of the handwriting to that of 



