SHAKESPEARE’S LIFE AND SHAKESPEARE’S TOWN
The history of Stratford–on–Avon, which takes its name from the Saxon
stroete or street, in allusion to the highway on the great north road
leading from London to Birmingham and Holyhead, and the _ford_, from
the passage of the Avon, which in ancient times ran parallel with
the bridge of fourteen arches erected by Sir Hugh Clopton at his own
expense in the reign of Henry VII.
The existence of the town can be traced to a date some three centuries
prior to the Norman Conquest, but historical details of its early days
are scant, although there was in the seventh century a Saxon monastery
possessed by Æthelard, one of the subordinate kings of the Wiccians.
This foundation was, however, in all probability, dissolved a couple
of centuries later. Although doubtless the Celtic invader, the proud
legions of Rome, and the Saxon settlers who succeeded the latter, all
visited Stratford, which from time immemorial must have been a “sweet
and pleasant place of good pasturage and watering,” there exist no
records of those long–past days, when the great Forest of Arden covered
with an almost impenetrable boscage the whole country which lay between
the Avon to the south and Watling Street to the north, to whose depths
and fastnesses the original inhabitants retreated in front of the
invaders who, afflicting Britain, found their all–conquering way at
times even into the heart of England itself.
In the immediate neighbourhood of Stratford are many survivals of
Celtic origin in the nomenclature, and there are some authorities who
seek to trace some measure of Shakespeare’s poetic genius to a remote
and long–forgotten Celtic ancestry.
Anciently the town stood almost on the edge of the Wooland or Woodland
district, in contradistinction to the Feldon, which was less thickly
afforested. At even so late a period as the times of the poet Camden
speaks of the greater part of the district as thickly wooded, although
possessing tracts of pasture and land given over to corn. Probably the
immediate neighbourhood very closely resembled the more thickly–wooded
portions of the New Forest of the present day.
The first record of the existence of a place of any importance is the
entry in the Domesday Book where, in 1085, is given a valuation of the
manor; that then appears to have consisted of barely 2000 acres, which
land was in the occupation of men who were to all intents and purposes
villeins. The lord of the manor, at the time of the Survey, was the
Bishop of Worcester, to whose see the town belonged, King Ethelred of
Mercia having given the monastery in 691 to Egwin, the third bishop of
the diocese. This monastery is generally supposed to have been founded
by the river side on that exquisite site now occupied by Holy Trinity
Church.
Unhappily the history of this monastic foundation, which one may well
believe would have been of supreme interest, is almost untraceable.
But that it was not an altogether tranquil one may be inferred from
the records which state that strife between the succeeding Bishops of
Worcester and the Kings of Mercia for its possession and that of the
town was not infrequent. Both the town and the monastery undoubtedly in
those early times were interdependent, and the first houses, of which
there were apparently about two score at the time of the Conquest,
were probably near the site of the monastery and river, and were in
the neighbourhood of the thoroughfare now known as the Old Town.
The manorial mill, at which the inhabitants ground their corn, was
situated below the ford, and for this privilege they paid the usual fee
taken by the lord of the manor for such convenience. In those early
days of Stratford’s existence, before grave and scandalous monastic
abuses ate into the heart of the system of religious foundations,
the countryfolk looked to their ecclesiastical neighbours for active
assistance in their labours and lives. This was undoubtedly the case
with the old–time inhabitants of Stratford. Soon the town not only grew
within its own borders, but spread its influence into the surrounding
district, where clearings were made in the forest, or spaces already
open were put under cultivation and homesteads began to spring up.
The first event of any historical importance in connection with “the
town of Stratford by Avon,” and one destined to have a great effect
upon its ultimate growth and importance, was the granting by Richard
I., in the year 1197, of the right to hold a market each Thursday.
This privilege was obtained for the inhabitants by the then Bishop of
Worcester, who charged the townsfolk the sum of sixteen shillings per
annum for it. This market was held on the site of the present Rother
Market, and to it the drovers brought their cattle weekly from the
pastures round about or from the cleared spaces of the Forest of Arden
near by. The word itself serves to preserve a memorial of the nature of
the institution, “Rother” being Anglo–Saxon for horned cattle.
The market, however, appears to have declined in importance towards
the middle of the thirteenth century, but was reinstituted or recovered
its lost popularity in the early years of the fourteenth. In addition
to the market, which, as we have already pointed out, must have been
largely devoted to cattle, five annual fairs were held, which were
doubtless a great attraction to the townsfolk and to dwellers in
the immediate neighbourhood. Four of these were, we find, largely
patronised by drovers, and a great trade was done at them in cattle.
The reason for this circumstance is not far to seek when one takes into
consideration the fact that in the immediate vicinity of Stratford
there were considerable extents of rich pasture land which, from time
immemorial, had been used for herds and flocks. The market frequented
by dealers in other goods and by the wandering pedlars of the Middle
Ages lay around the High Cross, at the northern end of the High Street,
in the space which in those days lay between Rother Market and the
ancient timber bridge across the Avon.
To these fairs doubtless came the inhabitants from far and near; from
the scattered homesteads amid the forest glades of Arden, and from the
manor–houses which began in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries to
spring up upon the lands granted by successive kings to their vassals
for services rendered or for political reasons. Ultimately there came
to Stratford fairs merchants of East Anglia and enterprising traders
from so far afield as London. Pedlars there had always been from quite
early times.
From the fourteenth century onwards the town appears to have had
no lack of sons interested in her welfare, and amongst the earliest
benefactors were two brothers named Robert and John de Stratford,
and a nephew. The two brothers were destined to become distinguished
ornaments of the Church, the second named being in turn Archdeacon
of Lincoln in 1319, Bishop of Winchester in 1323, and Archbishop of
Canterbury in 1333. Robert being vicar of his native town, then in 1335
Chancellor of the University of Oxford, and two years later he was
consecrated Bishop of Chichester. Ralph de Stratford, the nephew, being
raised to the see of London in 1339.
In a measure these two brothers, who were not alone Churchmen but
also statesmen, holding in turn the Chancellorship of England, John
occupying that high office four times, may be said to have inherited
the spirit of benefaction for which they were to be remembered by their
native town. Some time during the reign of the first Edward their
father had founded a chapel for the famous Guild of the Holy Cross,
which in all likelihood was built upon the same site as that occupied
by the Guild Chapel now surviving at the corner of Church Street and
Chapel Lane. To this chapel Robert de Stratford was appointed the
first Master in 1269, on the sanction of Godfrey Giffard, Bishop of
Worcester. During the next year the Bishop fostered the newly–founded
religious community (which was not, however, ecclesiastical) by
granting a forty–days’ indulgence to all those who had presented gifts
to the Guild. The Register, which exists at the present day, and
contains entries from the middle of the fourteenth century, shows that
the Guild must have been wealthy, as it possessed property in almost
every street of the town.
To his brother Robert belongs the credit of local improvement of
the town. In his time the streets were little more than rough tracks
or paths connecting the different quarters where the inhabitants had
erected dwellings along the roads which led to Henley–in–Arden and
Alcester. “The ways,” we read, “were of such unevenness that all who
traversed them in rainy days came to their end muddied, and many a cart
stuck fast even within the town.” Robert de Stratford decided to amend
this state of affairs, and to enable him to pave them he, in 1332,
obtained leave to tax the produce brought into the town for sale by the
farmers and others of the immediate neighbourhood. Thereby he not only
conferred a great benefit upon his fellow–townsmen, but also upon those
who came to Stratford for business.
[Illustration: “HUNGRY” GRAFTON.]
The history of the town subsequent to this date until the reign of
Edward VI. is very obscure. Indeed, although it is more than probable
that it saw something of the Wars of the Roses, and in a measure
played its part in the history of the county at large, the records
of its progress and the doings of its inhabitants are scanty indeed.
The name of one family, however, which became indissolubly connected
with Stratford towards the close of the fifteenth century, calls for
at least a passing mention. In 1483 Sir Hugh Clopton, of the manor of
Clopton, which lies about a mile to the north of Stratford, came to
the town and built himself a fine house (as houses were so considered
in those days) on the site now occupied by New Place. It was he that,
seeing the old bridge of wood which then spanned the Avon was in a
“sorry state,” erected the stone structure which, since the days
of Henry VII. till the present day, has spanned the river with its
fourteen arches, except for a short period from 1645–52, when there was
at most a temporary passage across, owing to the destruction of the
second arch of the end farthest from the town by the Parliamentarians.
During the reign of the Virgin Queen, Stratford, which had by then
become a country town of some little importance and size, made some
progress. But in even the spacious days of Elizabeth there was still
something of mediæval ways and manners clinging to the life and
habits of towns such as Stratford. It is difficult for us, who dwell
in the twentieth century, with its almost fanatical cleanliness and
idolisation of everything which can be described as progress, to
realise the conditions prevailing in places like Stratford, which was
probably not worse governed or overseen than other towns of similar
size. In a contemporary record one reads with astonishment that a “muck
heap” was permitted in no less than six places, the removal of which
unsavoury deposits was only suffered twice a year! The streets were,
notwithstanding the official refuse heap, often almost impassable for
filth, “fine gentlemen and dames passing with difficulty without the
soiling of their garments along them.” Even a vicar of the town was
interrogated by the Council regarding a pig–stye he had erected in the
open street, to the obstruction of the common way! The Town Council
(Stratford had been granted a Charter of Incorporation in 1553 by
Edward VI.) seem to have attempted some control of the inhabitants,
but, if one may believe the evidence afforded by contemporary
documents, with but scant and qualified success. Rushes were still
strewn on the clay floors of even the best houses, and, what is of
greater importance, were not removed too frequently. And although a
mandate was issued by the Town Council in the year before Elizabeth
ascended the throne for the inhabitants in the winter to hang out a
lantern before their doors between the hours of five and eight in
the evening, this order was frequently disregarded. It is from these
fragmentary records that one is able to gain at least an approximate
picture of the ancient town of Stratford in the period just preceding
Shakespeare’s birth.
Twice during the reign of Elizabeth was the town visited by devastating
fires, each of which destroyed some two hundred houses and rendered a
large number of the townsfolk homeless and almost destitute. It was
the fate that very frequently befell ancient towns, and was repeated
again in the year 1614, when upwards of fifty houses, some of them the
handsomest in the town, were burned to the ground. Stratford is still
rich for a place of its size in architectural survivals of an age when
picturesqueness was so marked a feature of domestic buildings, but for
these devastating conflagrations what might it not have been?
The place has never played any important part in history, but
at the outset of the Civil War it took the side of the King, and
although the Royalist garrison was in 1642 driven out of the town by
a Parliamentarian force under Lord Brooke of Warwick, the townsfolk
remained faithful in heart to the cause they had espoused, and in 1643
Queen Henrietta Maria and Prince Rupert with a large body of troops
were quartered there. The Queen remained three days, and stayed at New
Place, where she was entertained by Mrs. Hall, Shakespeare’s daughter.
So far as history making goes, Stratford’s part may be said to have
ceased when the Civil War no longer caused it to be the venue of
the contending parties. And had it not been for the event which had
occurred on April 23, 1564 (old style), when the Bard of Avon entered
the world in the Henley Street house to which so many pilgrims flock
each year, the claim of the town to special notice and description
would be far less easily defined.
Obscure as many of the incidents of Shakespeare’s early life
unfortunately are, the connection of his family with Warwickshire and
with Stratford are happily traceable with some considerable degree
of certitude. Richard Shakespeare (the Christian name of whom is
traditional, it must be admitted) is popularly supposed to have been
the owner or tenant of some land and tenements at Snitterfield, a small
village about four miles north of Stratford, situated on rising ground,
which were granted to him for “his faithful and approved service to
the most prudent prince, King Henry VII. of famous memory”; what these
services were does not appear. Of his several children two at least
were sons named John and Henry. The former, afterwards to be the
father of the poet, was born about the year 1530, and was certainly
a resident in Stratford prior to 1552. About the latter year he was
following the trade of fell–monger (hide seller) and glover, possibly
also combining with these the trade of butcher, and it is ascertained
that he at times also dealt in corn and timber. All of which trades
he carried on in Henley Street. He appears to have prospered in his
business, for in the month of October 1556 he is recorded as having
purchased the copyhold of a house, garden, and some other property in
Greenhill Street, not far from Henley Street. In the following year he
was married to Mary Arden, the daughter of one Robert Arden, of Aston
Cantlow, a village some six miles north–west of Stratford, who left
her a small estate called Asbies, as well as reversionary rights in
property at Snitterfield, including the farm which he had leased to
Shakespeare’s father. In the same year John Shakespeare became a member
of the Stratford Corporation.
His house on the northern side of Henley Street was one of
considerable size, and, indeed, in those days was doubtless esteemed
a fine house. As was not inappropriate for the birthplace of one who
loved and must have often rambled in the Forest of Arden, it was from
thence that came the oak planks and beams of which the house was
built,—timbers tough and well seasoned, fit to outlast a thousand
years. It was here that to John and Mary Shakespeare was born a
daughter, Joan, in 1558 (who, it is probable, died some two years
later); another daughter, Margaret, in 1562 (who died when about four
months old); and then in 1564 a son, William, destined to be the
greatest of English poets and dramatists.
The exact date of his birth is, unfortunately, but conjectural. It is
usually accepted as being April 23. But, as was the custom with the
other children of John and Mary Shakespeare, only the dates of baptism
are recorded. That in the case of William was April 26, and the date
being old style brings it actually to May 5 in our present calendar.
But there is a well–authenticated and continuous tradition that St.
George’s Day, April 23, was the actual date of the poet’s birth; and
most authorities are agreed that in this case tradition is probably
right. It must be remembered in this connection that in those days it
was the custom to bring children to baptism as soon as possible after
birth, and two or three days after was a very common time.
Shakespeare came into the world at a period when there was a perfect
galaxy of prospective literary talent. Michael Drayton, born the
previous year, was still an infant; Walter Raleigh, Philip Sidney, and
Edmund Spenser were boys; and Francis Bacon, destined to provide so
much material for Shakespearian controversy in later times, was a tiny
child.
Indeed, the remembrance of Shakespeare’s birth year was likely to
remain in the public mind for some considerable period, for it was the
year of the Great Frost, when the Thames froze almost solidly from side
to side above London Bridge, and a fair of several weeks’ duration was
held upon it. Whilst in Stratford there was a recurrence of the plague,
which is stated to have carried off at least one in seven of the total
population. Fortunately the house of John Shakespeare escaped the
scourge.
In the following year Shakespeare’s father was made an alderman of
the borough, and in 1566 a son, Gilbert, was born to him. In 1568 the
alderman became high–bailiff of the town; in the following year a
daughter was born, who (in spite of the ill–fortune popularly supposed
to follow such a thing as giving a child the name of a previous one
who had died) was named Joan. In 1571 John Shakespeare became senior
alderman of the town, which was the most exalted civic office the place
could bestow, and entitled its possessor to the title of Magister, both
after as well as during his term of office. It is by this title that he
is at and from this date described in the Parish Registers. In the same
year was born his daughter Anne, who was baptized on September 28; and
two years afterwards a son, baptized Richard, was born.
In 1575 is recorded the purchase by John Shakespeare from one Edmund
Hall of the house in Henley Street, now known as the birthplace, for
the sum of £40. From this period the star of Shakespeare’s father,
which hitherto, except for quite trivial ups and downs of fortune,
appears to have been so distinctly in the ascendant, waned. Three years
later his embarrassment was such that he was compelled to mortgage
Asbies, which his wife had brought him, and also to sell his interest
in certain lands at Snitterfield.
He appears also to have ceased attending the meetings of the Town
Council, and even to have had his taxes remitted. In 1579 his daughter
Anne died, and in the following year his name appears in several lists
of recusants, which circumstance has been held by some to afford
evidence of his having either been a Romanist or having become one. At
this time the Roman Catholic religion was of course proscribed, and it
has been thought by some that his troubles may possibly have arisen
in part from his apostasy or belonging to the “old faith.” There is,
however, no clear evidence in support of this contention. In 1585 his
affairs seem to have gone from bad to worse, for he was deprived of his
office of alderman for non–attendance, the record reading “He doth not
come to the halles, nor hath he of long time.”
It was a few years later, however, that the crisis in his affairs
seems to have been reached, for during this period we learn that he
could not attend church for fear of “processe of debt.” In 1597, on
account of the success of his son (as some think), there was a distinct
recovery in the position of the Shakespeares. And during the year a
bill was filed by him in the Court of Chancery against John Lambert,
the son of the man to whom his estate of Asbies had been mortgaged in
1578, the object of the action being for its recovery. The argument
of John Shakespeare being that though money had been tendered for the
release of the property the Lamberts still held it, and refused to
resign possession. About the same time, too, a grant of arms was made
to him by one Dethick, Garter King–at–Arms. The motto afterwards used
by the poet was “Non sanz droict.”
In 1601 Shakespeare’s father died, the fact being recorded in the
burial register at Stratford as follows:—
1601, Sept. 8, Mr. Johanes Shakspeare.
Thus ends the record of a life which saw quite its fair share of
vicissitudes.
Of Shakespeare’s early life, unfortunately, comparatively little is
known. It appears probable, however, that about the year 1571, when he
was seven years old, he was sent to the Grammar School founded in 1481
by one Thomas Jolyffe. There is no reason for doubting that he was for
some considerable time a scholar there, and learned the “small Latin
and less Greek” which was assigned to him by Ben Jonson.
It was whilst he was still a schoolboy that Queen Elizabeth visited
the Earl of Leicester at Kenilworth; and thither many from the
districts round about flocked to gaze upon her Majesty, and to witness
with open–eyed wonder the magnificent pageants which were enacted
for her amusement. As Stratford is but thirteen miles distant from
Kenilworth by road it appears more than possible that both Shakespeare
and his father were amongst the spectators. If this were the case it is
probable that the Kenilworth festivities were the first introduction
which the future dramatist had to the stage, and that the influence of
the scenes he must have witnessed becomes easily traceable in several
of his plays.
[Illustration: ABBOTS SALFORD.]
Every life of Shakespeare, even with the benefit of the latest
discoveries and the most recent and learned reasoning and deductions,
must unhappily be largely conjectural. Not because it is possible to
believe that it was blank or useless in its earlier days, but because,
alas! the records are so scanty that the most able and painstaking
research has succeeded in eliciting from the past but a fragmentary
chain of circumstances and comparatively unimportant facts where one
would have had detailed evidence. Shakespeare’s wedding with Anne
Hathaway when he was nineteen and she seven years his senior, some
time in the early part of the month of December 1582, was followed on
May 26 of the succeeding year by the birth of his daughter Susannah.
No evidence exists to settle the question of either Shakespeare’s
employment or mode of life during the early period of his married life,
and the only indisputable fact that has come down to us relating to the
next year or two is the record of the birth of twins, a son Hamnet and
a daughter Judith, on February 2, 1585, who were baptized in Stratford
Church.
It was about this time that Shakespeare went to London, though
probably quite late in the year. The reason of his removal from his
native town is quite unknown, although some authorities appear to
favour the traditional story that it was in consequence of his poaching
exploits, and the action of Sir Thomas Lucy. Others think that he was
drawn thither by a desire to better his position, and thus provide
for his increasing family. Two years later, in 1587, he was found,
according to Mr. Fleay, a member of the Earl of Leicester’s players
either at the time of or shortly after their visit to Stratford, when
they probably gave performances in the Guild Hall. This is, however,
entirely supposition, as there is neither any very definite tradition
nor any recorded fact which proves Shakespeare to have left Stratford
under these circumstances.
For several years after this date there is nothing to connect the poet
with his native town, but in 1596 the Register at Stratford contains
an entry recording the burial of his only son Hamnet, which took place
on August 11. The following year the poet purchased from William
Underhill, gentleman, “one messuage, two barns, two gardens, and two
orchards, with appurtenances, in Stratford–on–Avon,” for the sum of
£60, the house being that erected by Sir Hugh Clopton in the reign of
Henry VII., and known then as the Great House. Shakespeare renamed it
New Place, and by this name the site (for the house has disappeared) is
known to this day.
From this time onward the poet seems to have enjoyed very material
prosperity, and became at various times the purchaser of other property
in the town and neighbourhood.
In 1607 his elder daughter Susannah married one of the leading
medical men of the town, Dr. John Hall, and in the following year a
grand–daughter was born to the poet, named Elizabeth. His younger
daughter Judith married in 1616 a vintner of Stratford named Thomas
Quiney. Of this marriage there were three children born, two of whom
survived to attain manhood, but died without issue.
These somewhat bare facts unhappily constitute almost all that is known
of Shakespeare and his family life. His death occurring on April 23,
1616, after an illness of some weeks.
Of the latter part of his life his first biographer, Rowe, writes,
it “was spent, as all men of sense may wish theirs may be, in some
retirement, and the conversation of his friends. His pleasurable wit
and good nature engaged him in the acquaintance, and entitled him to
the friendship of the gentlemen of the neighbourhood.”
But, however meagre may be the details of the poet’s life at Stratford
and elsewhere, fortunately for pilgrims to his native town and admirers
of his plays, there are still surviving the ravages of time and modern
changes, so often destructive of these things, many buildings and spots
directly or indirectly connected with him and incidents in his career.
The birthplace, situated in Henley Street, is of course the most
interesting and important building in the eyes of Shakespearian
“critics” and admirers alike. It is a half–timbered, two–storied
building with dormer windows and a wooden porch, which although largely
restored in 1857–58, may be considered to fairly represent the house as
it stood at the time of the poet’s birth, great care having been taken
at the time of restoration to follow every indication discoverable
of its former state. Both the birthplace and the wool–shop adjoining
were probably erected at the commencement of the sixteenth century,
and at that period the house would have undoubtedly held rank as one
of the better sort, and as forming a very comfortable residence for
a tradesman in a small provincial town such as Stratford then was.
But in those far–off Elizabethan days the environment of the house
was very different from what it now is. We have already referred to
the state of Stratford streets when rubbish and household refuse not
only disfigured them, but made passage through them both difficult
and unsavoury, and John Shakespeare would not seem to have been more
particular than his neighbours, for we find that in April 1552 he was
mulcted in the not then inconsiderable sum of twelve–pence for cleaning
away the rubbish which he had allowed to accumulate in front of his own
door. The roadway was probably little more than a deeply rutted track,
with a walnut tree, which was standing as late as 1765, in front of the
entrance door, and under the shade of which doubtless Shakespeare’s
father, when his business was done, used to sit and gossip with his
neighbours. Across the road was a pool of water (probably a duck pond),
and at the rear of the house a garden and outbuildings.
After John Shakespeare’s death, the dwelling probably remained in
the occupation of his widow till her death in 1608, when it came into
possession of Joan Hart, her sister. The poet himself left the house
to her by will, and she lived in it until 1646. Shakespeare’s daughter
Susannah Hall afterwards came into possession (having previously been
the owner of the wool–shop), and from her it descended to her daughter
Lady Barnard. Ultimately, after various owners and vicissitudes, the
building was converted in 1784 into an open–fronted butcher’s shop, the
windows and porch being removed to allow of a proper display of the
stock in trade. The wool–shop next door had long previously, in 1603,
become an inn, called at first “The Maidenhead,” and afterwards “The
Swan and Maidenhead.” Its front was faced with brickwork in 1808, and
some forty years later the buildings were bought for the nation, and
ten years afterwards were restored, as already mentioned.
The street entrance is directly into the chief living room of the
house, which is stone paved, and provided with an old–fashioned
recessed fireplace, as is also the kitchen. Behind the latter are
two small apartments known as the wash–house and pantry. Beneath the
kitchen is a small cellar reached by a flight of steps, and probably
remaining much in its original state.
The principal room of the upper floor, facing the street, and reached
by an oak staircase of ten steps, is the birth–room. The walls,
ceiling, and windows are covered by numberless signatures, written
and scratched upon them by “pilgrims” before the custom was strictly
prohibited. Amongst this strange collection of autographs can still be
deciphered many of interest, including those of Izaak Walton, Thomas
Carlyle, Sir Walter Scott, and other famous people. The bureau in the
room was brought from the Old College, demolished in 1799, and the
chairs were gifts. This by no means imposing chamber not only witnessed
the birth of the poet, but in all likelihood those of his brothers
and sisters, and was the death–chamber of his father, mother, and
sister Susannah, Mrs. Hart. In a room at the back of this, originally
forming two small bedrooms, is an oil painting presumed to be that
of Shakespeare. It closely resembles the bust in the church, and was
possibly copied from it. It was given to the house by Mr. W. O. Hunt,
and is supposed to have originally belonged to the Clopton family,
having been found in Edward Clopton’s house on his death. Curiously
enough, the face was formerly disguised with a beard, which a Mr.
Collins, a connoisseur of some note, discovered was painted over the
original picture. The portrait was, therefore, cleaned and repaired
(the beard being removed in the process), and was afterwards deposited
at the birthplace. The sign–boards in the room are old ones belonging
to the house.
There is none of the original furniture in the house, it having long
ago been sold, broken up, or otherwise disposed of. In Shakespeare’s
day the furniture of a house of this size and type must have been of
a very simple character. It would have consisted of little beyond a
substantial table, a press, chairs, a cupboard, and a tall clock, with
the usual table utensils in the living room; and a four–post wooden
bedstead, a chair or two, and a table or washstand in the bedrooms. The
floors were carpetless, though those of the living room and kitchen
might be strewn with rushes.
The Museum occupies the portion of the building used by John
Shakespeare as a store and shop. It contains a large number of
Shakespearian and other relics, concerning the authenticity of some of
which there must be grave doubt. Amongst the most interesting in the
lower part of the Museum is the desk which Shakespeare is traditionally
supposed to have used when a lad at the Grammar School, from whence it
was removed to the Museum some years back.
In the central case of relics are a ring with his initials, W.S.,
entwined on the setting; and a sword supposed to have belonged to him.
The glass jug from which David Garrick drank at the Jubilee in 1769,
and the inn sign of the Falcon Tavern at Bidford, are also preserved in
this part of the Museum; with a considerable number of deeds relating
to property acquired by various members of the Shakespeare family, or
bearing their signatures as witnesses thereto. Of the books none are
of particular note, although amongst them are several copies of early
editions of the poet’s plays.
The garden in the rear of the house is of considerable beauty and
interest from the fact that it is largely stocked with specimens of
the trees, fruits, and flowers mentioned by Shakespeare in his various
plays. In the centre now reposes the remains of the ancient Market
Cross of Stratford, dating from the fourteenth century.
In the angle formed by Chapel Street and Chapel Lane, beyond the
Town Hall and past the well–known Shakespeare Hotel, is a group of
houses of considerable interest situated upon the left–hand side of the
street. The first is known as Hathaway’s house, and was the residence
in 1647 of a descendant of the family of Shakespeare’s wife, named
Thomas Hathaway. Next door but one is Nash’s house, once the property
of Thomas Nash, who married Elizabeth Hall, the poet’s grand–daughter;
on her death it came again into the possession of the Nash family,
and was one of the buildings purchased with New Place in 1861. The
front of the house has been several times restored since Shakespeare’s
day, and the interior has been greatly modernised, but a part of the
back and the beams of the chimney are without doubt portions of the
original building. The house is now a Museum, containing several items
of distinct interest, amongst which are some chairs formerly at New
Place, and a fine photographic copy of the proof impression of the
Droeshout portrait of Shakespeare engraved in 1623. The house of Shaw,
an intimate friend of the poet’s, and one of the witnesses to his will,
is next door to the Museum, between it and the Hathaways’ house.
[Illustration: BIDFORD BRIDGE.]
Only the site, and garden, and a few traces of the foundations of New
Place, Shakespeare’s home in his latter years, remain. Nothing of the
mansion originally erected for Sir Hugh Clopton has been left standing.
The fact that it was probably the most imposing residence in the town
in Shakespeare’s time affords interesting evidence of the prosperity
which undoubtedly came to him from his companies of players and the
performance of his plays. On acquiring the property of New Place,
Shakespeare made considerable alterations to fit it to his requirements
and ideas; the house at this time having two gardens attached to it,
one small and one larger. It is probable that the famous mulberry tree,
which was in all likelihood one of a considerable number distributed
through the Eastern Counties and Midlands by a Frenchman of the name
of Verton or Verdon in 1609, was planted by the poet in the smaller
garden. Of the great garden Shakespeare made an orchard, and in it
there is some evidence that he passed much of his time. Prior to the
year 1609 the house was occupied by one Thomas Greene, Town Clerk of
Stratford, who claimed cousinship with the poet; and after the latter’s
death in 1616 the property descended to his married daughter, Mrs.
Hall, and here in 1643 she entertained Henrietta Maria, consort of
Charles I.
After passing through several hands the house and property came into
the possession in 1753 of the Rev. Francis Gastrell, Vicar of Frodsham,
in Cheshire. This event afterwards proved to be fraught with disastrous
consequences, for the Vicar, cursed with a violent and selfish
disposition, soon began a work of destruction upon the Shakespearian
relics, which unhappily for posterity he had acquired. Angered by the
frequency with which travellers, admirers of the poet, and antiquarian
students applied to him for permission to view the celebrated mulberry
tree, in the shade of which Sir Hugh Clopton in 1742 is by tradition
stated to have entertained David Garrick, Dr. Delany, and Macklin,
he proceeded to cut it down. This was in itself an act of vandalism
which would have earned for him an unenviable notoriety for all time;
but far worse was to follow. It appears that during a portion of each
year Gastrell was obliged to be absent, ministering to his flock at
Frodsham. The Stratford local authorities were (from his point of
view) unreasonable enough to expect him to pay his rates all the same.
Resenting their action and to show his anger he promptly had New Place
demolished, and the materials of which it was constructed sold! Thus
vanished for ever, in the act of a maniacal priest, a building only
second in interest and archæological value to the birthplace itself,
leaving but the site and a few traces of the foundations remaining.
In addition to the Shakespearian dwellings we have described, there
are a considerable number of domestic buildings and fragments in
Stratford of interest as architectural survivals, but with which there
is no space to deal here. The curious and the serious student of
Shakespeare’s town will have little difficulty and much pleasure in
discovering them.
Exactly opposite New Place, on the other side of Chapel Lane, are
the old Guild Hall and Guild Chapel. The latter anciently the Chapel
of the Guild of the Holy Cross. This organisation, like some of
those of Coventry and other places, was partly religious and partly
secular in character. Although it was certainly in existence in the
reign of Edward I. the actual date of its foundation is unknown. The
ancient governing body of the Guild consisted of two aldermen and six
Councillors, who were fined fourpence if they failed to attend its
meetings. The annual subscription in 1389 was sixpence, and admission
to the Guild was made upon payment of an entrance fee, which varied in
amount according to whether the applicant was married or single. There
were social feasts at various times during the year, more especially
at Easter–tide, and the existing records of these form a valuable
contribution to our knowledge of the habits and manners of those far
distant times.
That Stratford could not in those early days have been a place of great
resource or importance is made clear by the fact that it was necessary
to obtain supplies for these Guild festivities from outside, and keep
the live stock, pigs, fowls, sheep, goats, etc. alive in charge of the
Guild until required.
By the middle of the thirteenth century the Guild had prospered to
such a degree that in 1269 it obtained a license from the then Bishop
of Worcester to build a chapel and hospital. The present Guild Chapel
is the one erected during the earlier part of the fifteenth century,
on the site of the original building. The nave was rebuilt in 1292, in
Henry VII.’s reign, by Sir Hugh Clopton. On the exterior of the porch
are four shields bearing the arms of Sir Hugh Clopton, those of the
city of London (of which he was Lord Mayor), those of the merchants of
the Woolstaple, and the remaining shield bearing what are thought to
be the original arms of Stratford. Early in the nineteenth century a
series of frescoes were discovered in the chapel, which were promptly
whitewashed over or otherwise destroyed; fortunately, however, not
before one Thomas Fisher had made a series of drawings, which in some
measure permits us to realise the character of the pictures; the
subjects were “The Doom,” “The History of the Holy Cross,” “The Combat
between St. George and the Dragon,” and “The Martyrdom of St. Thomas
of Canterbury.” A fragment of a fresco (a figure with mutilated legs
bearing a shield) is discernible on the west of the arch of the inner
door.
With this building Shakespeare must have been well acquainted when
a boy, and also as a man. Whilst resident at New Place he, in all
probability, attended it, as there was a pew attached to the property.
Not only is this small building interesting as a survival of a bygone
age, but as intimately connected with at least two portions of
Shakespeare’s life—boyhood, and his later years of residence in the
town of his birth.
Another building of great and enduring interest is the Guild Hall,
an ancient, half–timbered structure standing on the south side of the
chapel, and built in 1296 by Robert de Stratford, but greatly altered
during the fifteenth century. It was erected for the use of the members
of the Guild, and after the dissolution of that body it was granted by
Edward VI. in 1553 to the principal inhabitants, and was later on used
for the purposes of a Town Hall, until the present one was erected in
1768 on the site of a previous building. In 1890, at the south end,
underneath the wainscot, some traces of frescoes were discovered in
the plaster panels. The centre one contains a representation of the
Crucifixion, with the Virgin on one side and a figure (probably St.
John) on the other. In the other panels are coats of arms. It was in
this hall that Shakespeare most probably first became acquainted with
“stage plays” and players, and not, as some suppose, at Kenilworth,
for it was here that travelling companies, invited by the bailiff and
aldermen of the town, used to give performances. The first of these
of which a record exists visited the town in 1569; subsequently the
companies of the Earls of Leicester, Worcester, and Warwick all gave
performances at Stratford; that of the first named in 1587, the year in
which Shakespeare is supposed to have gone to London in their company.
The windows looking out into the street are comparatively modern,
those originally lighting the room being on the opposite side, and at
the south end, which latter window is now blocked up. In the lower
part of the wall are holes, in which the beams supporting the dais or
stage on which the plays were performed were placed. The Armoury, or
“greeting–room,” which is reached from the hall, has good panelling of
the Jacobean period, and the Royal arms over the fireplace were set
up in 1660 as a memento of the public rejoicing which followed the
Restoration. The Muniment Room, reached by a winding staircase, is a
small chamber, in which a large number of interesting documents of the
sixteenth century were discovered some years ago. Above the armoury
is the Council Chamber, an interesting room now used as the school
library. In it is a massive oak table dating from Jacobean times.
The famous Grammar School, founded in Henry VI.’s reign by Thomas
Jolyffe, a priest who was a native of Stratford, is above the Guild
Hall. As was the case with so many other institutions of a like
character, the dissolution of the Monasteries and Foundations saw
its funds “appropriated” by the Crown, and this remained the case
until the accession of Edward VI., who in 1553 granted a Charter of
Incorporation to the principal inhabitants, and with it restored the
property formerly belonging to the Guild. The mathematical room and
the Latin room are both immediately above the Guild Hall, and in both
there are high open–timbered roofs, with remarkably stout tie–beams. It
was at the lower end of the Latin room that Shakespeare’s traditional
desk used to stand, which was formerly the second master’s desk. Aubrey
states that the poet was for a short period a schoolmaster in the
country, and, if this is correct, it is, of course, quite possible that
he filled the office of junior master at the Grammar School, and used
the desk associated by tradition with him.
The almshouses, which were formerly for twenty–four poor members of
the Guild, and nowadays have twelve male and twelve female inmates,
adjoin the school—a row of picturesque half–timbered houses.
Close to the river and not far from the Memorial Theatre stands
Stratford Church of the Holy Trinity, ideally situated, almost
embosomed in trees, and approached on the north side by a beautiful
avenue of limes. The building, which was a Collegiate Church from
the reign of Edward III. to the Dissolution, is a cruciform edifice
consisting of a nave with aisles, a chancel, transepts, and a central
tower with an elegant octagonal spire, which seems to dominate the
whole town when viewed from a little distance. The building is of
mixed styles of architecture, the oldest portions of which are the
Early English tower (the present spire was erected in 1764, replacing
the ancient wooden one); nave of the same period, though possessing a
Decorated clerestory; and the north aisle, built about the beginning
of the thirteenth century. The transepts, which were very considerably
restored in the reign of Henry VII. by the executors of Sir Hugh
Clopton, probably date from the beginning of the thirteenth century.
The Decorated south aisle was erected in 1332 by John de Stratford,
Archbishop of Canterbury, and he it was who founded at its east end a
chapel dedicated to Sir Thomas of Canterbury.
The chancel is Perpendicular, and was built by Dr. Thomas Balshall at
the end of the fifteenth century. The north porch is Perpendicular, and
the clerestory of the nave was erected late in the fifteenth century,
replacing an earlier one of about the same period as the arcade.
The north aisle had a chapel at its eastern end, called formerly the
Chapel of Our Lady the Virgin, but now commonly known as the Clopton
Chapel, on account of the number of tombs belonging to that family
which it contains.
The great point of interest, of course, is the monument of Shakespeare,
which is on the north wall of the chancel, and consists of a bust of
the poet under an arch, on either side of which are two Corinthian
columns of black marble supporting an entablature bearing his arms,
with a seated cherub on either side, and a skull crowning the top. On a
panel beneath the bust, which was made by Gerard Johnson, a tomb–maker,
who lived near the church now known as St. Saviour’s, Southwark, and
was erected prior to 1623, are the following inscriptions:—
Judicio Pylium, Genio Socratem, Arte Maronem,
Terra Tegit, Populus Moeret, Olympus Habet.
Stay, passenger, why goest thou so fast?
Read, if thou canst, whom envious Death hath plast
Within this monument; Shakespeare, with whome
Quicke Natur dide; whose name doth deck ys tombe,
Far more than cost; sith all yt he hath writt,
Leaves living art, but page to serve his witt.
Obit Ano Doi 1616.
Aetatis 53 Die 23 A.P.
Originally the bust was coloured, but at the end of the eighteenth
century it was given a coat of white paint, which remained on for
nearly seventy years, when on its removal in 1861 sufficient traces of
the original colouring were discovered to permit of restoration.
[Illustration: CHARLECOTE.]
It is generally assumed that the face of this bust was modelled from
a death mask, possibly even from the cast which is now at Darmstadt;
and although either the execution was originally poor or the likeness
has been spoiled by restoration, the monument is, of course, of the
greatest interest to all admirers of the poet, and to those who are
students of his life and works. It is believed that the memorial was
provided by Dr. Hall and his wife, and at all events there seems little
doubt that they superintended its erection.
Close beneath the monument and within the altar rails is the poet’s
grave, with the well–known lines:—
GOOD FREND FOR JESUS SAKE FORBEARE
TO DIGG THE DUST ENCLOASED HEARE;
e t
BLESTE BE Y MAN Y SPARES THES STONES;
e s
AND CVRST BE HE Y MOVES MY BONES.
It is supposed that these lines were written by Shakespeare himself,
fearful lest his remains might be disturbed; for anciently, on the
north side of the chancel, was a charnel–house in which were a large
collection of human bones. This was done away with in 1800.
Next to the north wall, on the left of the poet’s grave, is that of
his wife, who died on August 6, 1623; a Latin inscription on a small
brass plate marking the spot. Close by are also buried Thomas Nash,
the first husband of Elizabeth Hall, Shakespeare’s grand–daughter,
who died in 1647; Dr. John Hall, who died in 1635; and Susannah Hall,
Shakespeare’s daughter, who died in 1649. The original lines on the
grave of the latter were obliterated some time at the beginning of the
eighteenth century, and an inscription to some one else put in their
place. The lines were, however, restored in 1836.
Witty above her sexe, but that’s not all,
Wise to salvation was good Mistris Hall.
Something of Shakespeare was not that but this
Wholy of him with whom she’s now in blisse.
Then, passenger, ha’st ne’re a teare
To weepe with her that wept with all?
That wept, yet set her selfe to chere
Them up with comforts cordiall.
Her love shall live, her mercy spread,
When thou ha’st ne’re a teare to shed.
The stained glass in the east window dates from 1895. The “American”
window, presented in 1885, is situated on the north side of the
chancel, the subject of which is “The Seven Ages of Man.” The choir
stalls are very handsomely carved, and contain grotesques on their
misereres. The fine stained–glass window unveiled in 1896 by Mr.
Bayard, the then American ambassador to this country, is another gift
of admirers of the poet in the United States. The chancel screen, which
now occupies a position across the chancel archway, was originally in
the nave, and the former screen is placed in the north transept and
forms the vestry.
In the Clopton Chapel are to be found a number of excellent memorials
of the family, one of the finest being one against the wall of George
Carew, Earl of Totnes, and Baron Clopton and Joyce his wife. The
effigies of the Earl and Countess, which are of coloured alabaster, lie
under an arch supported by Corinthian columns. The Earl is in armour,
and the weapons and other warlike objects represented on the tomb
commemorate the fact that he was the Master of Ordnance of James I. The
High Tomb, which is without effigy or inscription, has numerous panels
formerly adorned with “latten” shields. It was thought that this tomb
was intended for Sir Hugh Clopton, Lord Mayor of London in 1492, from
the fact that he left directions that if he died at Stratford he was to
be buried there. He was, however, buried in St. Margaret’s, Lothbury.
Another interesting memorial placed against the north wall is that
of William Clopton and his wife Ann. The recumbent effigies are
respectively in armour and in a low–bodiced robe. William Clopton has
his head resting upon his helmet, whilst on the head of his wife is
a close–fitting hood with a peaked front. The tomb also has upon it
effigies of their children, some of whom are depicted as in swaddling
bands, indicating that they must have died in infancy.
Amongst the other objects of universal interest in this fine church
are the old font, in which Shakespeare is supposed to have been
baptized; and the ancient register of the church, wisely protected by a
glass case placed at the western end of the north aisle, containing the
entries of Shakespeare’s baptism and burial, and many other records of
interest.
The Shakespeare Memorial buildings, which stand adjoining the Bancroft
Gardens at the foot of Chapel Lane by the river, form an imposing and
fairly picturesque pile in the Elizabethan style of architecture; but
which, frankly, to most people must in its newness appear somewhat out
of character with the general atmosphere of the old town. The buildings
contain a Library; Theatre, capable of seating nearly 900 persons; a
Picture Gallery; and Central Tower. The idea of a national memorial
to the nation’s poet had been several times brought forward prior to
the autumn of 1874, when Mr. Charles E. Flower presented the fine
site on which the Memorial stands, and the sum of £1000, coupled with
the suggestion that the Memorial should take the form of a Theatre. A
committee was formed, and the first stone was laid on Shakespeare’s
Day, April 23, 1877. The Theatre portion was opened on the same day
two years later, and the whole building was completed in 1883. Many
years before, David Garrick had made the suggestion that a “school for
actors” should be founded at Stratford, but this idea—with several
others mooted at various times—was never proceeded with.
In the Library, which is on the ground floor, are more than 10,000
volumes relating to Shakespeare, his works and times; a collection
alike valuable to the student of the poet and to those who would seek
to know what were the modes of life and manners of the Elizabethan
age. The Picture Gallery contains some interesting portraits of famous
actors and actresses, a copy of the Davenant bust of the poet, and
a portrait of Shakespeare, from which some authorities claim that
the Droeshout engraving was made. Whether this latter supposition is
correct or not is still in dispute; and, indeed, around the whole
question of its authenticity has raged a fierce battle, in which many
artists and antiquarians of note have at various times taken part. The
portrait is on an elm panel, and bears date 1609. The most interesting
point is what became of the portrait from which Droeshout engraved
his? For many years it had been untraceable, but some few years ago
the picture in question was presented to the Memorial by Mrs. Flower.
Such well–known authorities as Mr. Sidney Lee and Mr. Salt Brassington
are inclined, for reasons into which it is impossible to enter here,
to accept the portrait as that from which Droeshout engraved his,
with which Shakespeare’s friend Ben Jonson would appear to have been
satisfied as being a good representation of his dead friend. If
authentic, it is unnecessary to add that it forms the most important
relic of Shakespeare we have.
Of the many other pictures in the Gallery, the several portraits of
Garrick by Reynolds, Pine, and others; the one of John Kemble by Sir
Thomas Lawrence; Bell’s fine picture of Miss Ada Rehan as Katharina in
“The Taming of the Shrew,” and subject pictures by Reynolds, Nomney,
Opie, Smirke, and others claim especial notice.
In the Theatre, the drop curtain of which—an interesting one by
Beverley—illustrates Queen Elizabeth going in state to the opening
of the Globe Theatre, are given annually during the week in which
Shakespeare’s birthday comes representations of various of his plays.
The building is also occasionally used by travelling dramatic companies.
In the Bancroft Gardens stands the statue and monument sculptured by
Lord Ronald Gower, and presented by him, around the base of which are
excellent figures of Prince Henry, Hamlet, Falstaff, and Lady Macbeth.
Linking the past with the present age of letters is the fact that in
the fine old house in Church Street, called Mason’s Croft, resides
Miss Marie Corelli, the writer and novelist, whose interest in the
preservation of old buildings in Stratford and Shakespearian survivals
is well known.
After the birthplace and perhaps Holy Trinity Church, there is
no spot connected with Shakespeare so visited as Anne Hathaway’s
traditional home at Shottery, distant about a mile from Stratford,
just off the Alcester Road. Unhappily there is no satisfactory proof
that the house was ever tenanted by Anne Hathaway’s parents, or that
Anne herself was at Shottery at all. All that is certain is that the
picturesque, half–timbered, and thatched dwelling to which so many
pilgrims yearly journey was, about Shakespeare’s time, tenanted by one
Richard Hathaway, who was the head of one of the three families of
the same surname resident in the district. On his death his property
was divided, and in bequeathing certain sums of money to his children
he mentioned three daughters by name, of whom an Agnes was one. This
name was at that period often the equivalent of Anne. In his will
one Thomas Whittington, a shepherd of Stratford, is mentioned as a
creditor, and later on in Whittington’s will appears a bequest to the
poor of the town of Stratford of eleven shillings lying “in the hand
of Anne Shaxpere, wyfe unto Mr. Wyllyam Shaxpere, and is due debt unto
me.” The witnesses of the poet’s marriage bond also appear in Richard
Hathaway’s will, one as witness and the other as supervisor. These
facts, although, it must be admitted, by no means proving that Anne
Hathaway was the daughter of the occupier of the cottage, formerly a
considerable farmhouse, are certainly evidence of some weight in favour
of the tradition. The property was acquired by the trustees of the
birthplace in 1892, and this fact has, of course, conferred a certain
imprimatur of authenticity upon the building.
Much more of interest might be written of this fascinating town
which, although the resort of so many thousands from all parts of the
world almost the year through, yet seems without effort to preserve an
atmosphere even in these modern times not altogether out of keeping
with the bygone age in which its most famous son lived. To whatever
cause, whether commercial or otherwise, this lingering savour of
romance and of past times is due, those who value antiquities, and who
revel in memorials of the days gone by, may be unfeignedly grateful.