SHAKESPEARE AND CHRISTOPHE MONGOYE
Viewed in the light of the most recent critical research, what we know of a
certainty about Shakespeare amounts to very little. According to Professor
George Saintsbury,[261] "almost all the commonly received stuff of his
life-story is shreds and patches of tradition, if not positive dream work";
and he goes on to say that we know nothing either of the poet's father or
wife; that it is impossible to affirm that he ever married; that the
beginning of his career as a dramatist and the dates of the first
production of most of his plays are still shrouded in mystery. Therefore
when a scholar proclaims that he has discovered some new well-authenticated
fact about Shakespeare, he deserves at least a hearing.
This is how the most significant discovery made since the time of Malone
was hailed by a literary paper of wide circulation and undoubted influence:
"Interesting as is this new notice of Shakespeare, it has attached to it a
number of casual assumptions and a dose of sentiment which makes no appeal
to the serious student. The legal proceedings to which the signature is
appended throw little light, if any, on Shakespeare's literary
personality."[262] Those for whom the _Athenaeum_ is a guide must have come
to the conclusion that they need not worry about what seemed to amount to
little more than an idle story; the new signature excepted, which, after
all, would merely provide an engraving for some yet unwritten book, the
papers might as well have been suffered to slumber on undisturbed in their
pigeon-hole at the Record Office.
Luckily for the author of the discovery, there is a spell in Shakespeare's
name so potent that it is impossible to mention it, even coupled with Mrs.
E. W. Gallup or Mr. W. S. Booth's conjectures, without attracting some
attention.
At first the discovery was noticed in the reviews, particularly in the
_Observer_ and the _National Review_,[263] then scholars and critics turned
their attention to it, Sir Sidney Lee mentioning the Mountjoys in a
footnote to his _French Renaissance in England_ and the _Cambridge History
of English Literature_ honouring them with a line in the bibliographical
appendix. To M. Jusserand it was reserved to point out in his lecture
before the British Academy the real significance of Shakespeare's intimacy
with a French family living in London.
It was in _Harper's Magazine_ that Professor C. W. Wallace of the
University of Nebraska gave the first account of the documents that he had
just unearthed. They consist in a bundle of papers relating to a lawsuit
brought before the Court of Requests. One Christopher Mountjoy, a wig-maker
in the City of London, had given his daughter Mary in marriage to his
apprentice Stephen Bellott. A few months after, upon the wig-maker's wife
dying, her estate was claimed at once by her husband and by her son-in-law,
who, being unable to come to an agreement, brought the cause before the
Court.
Stephen Bellott, it appears, had taken lodgings with the Mountjoys as early
as 1598. A year after, at the request of his step-father Humphrey Fludd,
the youth became an apprentice, served Christopher Mountjoy six years,
then, having vainly sought to make his fortune in Spain, drifted back to
his master's house, where Mary Mountjoy was awaiting him. An amusing little
comedy now took place. As Stephen remained irresolute, Mary's mother
decided to bring matters to a pitch: duly instructed by her, a mutual
friend, then lodging with the Mountjoys, none other of course than
Shakespeare, met the too shy young man, showed him the advantages of the
match, persuaded him to accept, and in November 1604 the pair were married.
When the case came before the Court in 1612, a number of witnesses were
called upon to give evidence. The first to be examined was Joan Johnson, a
former servant, who testified to Shakespeare's part in the match; then came
Daniel Nicholas, apparently one of Shakespeare's friends and companions.
The third whose interrogatory was taken down by the clerk was Shakespeare.
"Wm. Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon in the Countye of Warwicke
gentleman of the age of forty yeres or thereabouts sworne and
examined--sayeth,
"To the first interrogatory this deponent sayeth he knowethe the partyes
plaintiff and deffendant and hathe knowne them bothe as he now remembrethe
for the space of tenne yeres or thereabouts.
"To the second interrogatory this deponent sayethe he did know the
complainant when he was servant with the deffendant and that during the
time of his the complainantes service with the said deffendant he the said
complainant to this deponentes knowledge did well and honestly behave
himselfe, but to this deponentes remembrance he hath not heard the
deffendant confesse that he had gott any great profitt and commoditye by
the service of the said complainant, but this deponent sayeth he verily
thinkethe that the said complainant was a very good and industrious servant
in the said service and more he cannott depose to the said interrogatory."
And the clerk goes on recording questions and answers in this dull
unemotional style for some time, then the witness having duly signed his
deposition--a most precious signature, that!--withdraws.
A question naturally arises while we read these depositions, Who were these
artisans thus thrust suddenly into prominence? The issue of the suit has
provided the answer. After a protracted inquiry, the Court, in accordance
with the law of England that left the Ecclesiastical Courts to decide
testamentary causes, referred the parties to the Consistory of the French
Church. Both Mountjoy and Bellott, in spite of their names being Englished,
were Huguenot refugees. There only remains to search the registers of the
French Church. Sure enough, on 14th April 1603, the name of Christophe
Mongoye appears as a witness to a christening, and so it should evidently
be spelt.
Moreover the name of Christophe Montioy occurs in the lists of aliens
resident in London in the early seventeenth century. And, finally, on 27th
May 1608, Christopher Monioy, "subject of the King of France, born in
Cressy," was naturalized English.[264] The humble wig-maker's life is thus
quite vividly outlined.
And, again, why should Shakespeare have selected Mongoye's house to lodge
in? The explanation suggested by Mr. Plomer seems acceptable. In 1579,
Richard Field, a native of Stratford-on-Avon, came to London and
apprenticed himself to Thomas Vautrollier, a printer in Blackfriars. This
Vautrollier and his wife were Huguenot refugees like the Mountjoys, "and
we may well believe that the members of the French colony within the walls
of the city at that time were more or less acquainted with each other." In
1586 or 1587, Vautrollier died and Richard Field, then a freeman of the
Stationers' Company, married the widow and became a master printer.[265]
His friendship with Shakespeare is a well-attested fact: both _Venus and
Adonis_ and _Lucrece_ were issued by Field's press, in 1593 and 1594. What
wonder then that Shakespeare should have known the Mountjoys through his
friend's wife.
How long did Shakespeare lodge with the Mountjoys? In his deposition, dated
11th May 1612, he states, as we have just seen, that he has known them for
the space of ten years or thereabouts, therefore since 1602.
Thanks to Professor C. W. Wallace, the site of the Mountjoys' house has
been identified. It stood in Aldersgate, at the corner of Silver Street and
Monkwell Street (formerly Mugwell Street). Let us add that lovers of
Shakespeare need not try to summon up visions of the past before the
commonplace building taking the place of what might have been a sacred
pile. A passing reflection, just a rapid recollection of poor Yorick, is
enough. Modern London, grey, noisy, colossal, and vulgar, ill suits the
brightness and the distinction of Elizabethan England.
Does the discovery throw any light on Shakespeare's character? M. Jusserand
thinks so. "It shows us," he says, "Shakespeare unwittingly thrown by
events into a quarrel; his efforts to minimise his role and to withdraw and
disappear are the most conspicuous trait in the new-found documents."[266]
In conclusion, the chief fact to be remembered is that Shakespeare lived
with French artisans during the most important period of his literary life.
_Macbeth_, _Othello_, _King Lear_, perhaps _Hamlet_, were most probably
written in the house at the corner of Silver Street. The mystery of the
scene in French in _Henry V._ is now cleared up: the Vautrolliers, the
Mongoyes and their circle taught Shakespeare French.
And yet there is about Professor C. W. Wallace's discovery something
unsatisfactory that will be readily understood. The voice that reaches us
over the bridge of time seems terribly disappointing: known only by the
illuminating utterances in his works, the poet lived on in our memory
surrounded with a halo of idealism; he was as an eagle soaring on high and
whose wings were never soiled by touching earth. A pity it is that, instead
of a formal deposition before a judge's clerk, chance did not bring to
light a conversation with Ben Jonson. The veil is just lifted, we draw
near, and the god we had figured dwindles into a mere man.
FOOTNOTES:
[261] _Cambridge History of English Literature_, vol. v. chap. viii.
[262] _Athenaeum_, 26th February 1910.
[263] Nor let us omit Professor Morel in _Bulletin de la Societe pour
l'etude des langues et litteratures modernes_, March 1910.
[264] W. A. Shaw, _Denizations and Naturalizations of Aliens_, 1911, p. 11.
[265] Letter to the _Athenaeum_, 26th March 1910.
[266] _What to Expect of Shakespeare_, p. 14.