SHAKESPEARE'S DESCENDANTS
William Shakespeare married Anne Hathaway, of a respectable family,
supposed to be of Shottery. He had three children: Susanna, and Hamnet
and Judith, twins. The boy died young, in 1596, _before_ the grant of
arms was completed. Anne Hathaway is described as of Stratford in the
marriage bond, but so were Fulk Sandells and John Richardson, the
bondsmen, known to be of Shottery. Indeed, the village lay within the
parish of Stratford.
Gwillim mentions arms,[178] "Sable, a bugle, or hunter's horn, garnished
and furnished argent. This coat-armour is of very ancient erection in
the church of Rewardine, in the Forest of Dean in Gloucestershire, and
pertained to the family of Hatheway of the same place." Again he says,
"Paleways of six, Argent and sable, on a bend Or, three pheons[179] of
the second, by the name of Hatheway."[180]
The Hathaways from whom Anne Shakespeare descended have not been proved
to be of the Gloucestershire stock, nor is it absolutely certain to
which of the three Shottery families she belonged. In the Warwickshire
Survey (Philip and Mary) it is stated that John Hathaway held part of a
property at Shottery, called Hewlands, by copy of Court Roll dated April
20, 1542. He was possibly the same as the archer of that name, mentioned
in the Muster Roll 28 Henry VIII., and was probably father of the
Richard befriended by John Shakespeare in 1566. The Stratford registers
record the birth of Thomas, son of Richard Hathaway, April 12, 1569;
John, February 3, 1574, and William, November 30, 1578. Anne Hathaway,
we know, from the words on her tombstone, must have been born before the
register commenced (1558). There is not another Agnes, or Anne, recorded
that could represent the legatee of Richard Hathaway's will of
September, 1581. To his eldest son, Bartholomew, he left the farm,[181]
to be carried on with his mother; to his second and third sons, Thomas
and John, he left £6 13s. 4d. each; to his fourth son, William, £10; to
his daughters, Agnes (or Anne) and Catherine, £6 13s. 4d., to be paid on
the day of their marriage; and to his youngest daughter, Margaret, £6
13s. 4d. when she was seventeen. Witnessed by Sir William Gilbert, clerk
and curate of Stratford.
The farm was not a freehold; Bartholomew did not become its owner until
1610, when he purchased it from William Whitmore and John Randall.
Richard Hathaway mentions in his will his "shepherd, Thomas Whittington
of Shottery." This man died in 1601, and by his will bequeathed to the
poor "Forty shillings that is in the hand of Anne Shaxspere, wife unto
Mr. Wyllyam Shaxspere, and is debt due to me." It was a common custom of
the days before savings-banks, for poor earners to deposit their savings
in the charge of rich and trustworthy friends, and this little link
seems to associate Anne Shakespeare doubly with that particular family
of Hathaways.
[Illustration: ANNE HATHAWAY'S COTTAGE.
_To face p. 88._]
Shakespeare does not mention any of his wife's relatives in his will,
but that does not necessarily imply coldness of feeling. Dr. John Hall,
his son-in-law, was made overseer of Bartholomew Hathaway's will in
1621, and in 1625 he was one of the trustees at the marriage of Isabel,
his granddaughter, the daughter of Richard Hathaway of Bridge Street. A
Richard is mentioned in the registers as being baptized in 1559 (but it
is not clear that he was the son of this Richard or of Bartholomew), who
became a baker in Bridge Street, an important member of the Town
Council, and Constable in 1605. He was elected High Bailiff of Stratford
in 1526, and was styled "gent." Many of the name are buried in Trinity
Church, Stratford.
In the rather remarkable testament of Thomas Nash,[182] first husband of
Shakespeare's only granddaughter, Elizabeth, he left £50 to Elizabeth
Hathaway, £50 to Thomas Hathaway, and £10 to Judith Hathaway. His wife
also remembered them, as will be afterwards shown. William Hathaway, of
Weston-upon-Avon, in the county of Gloucester, yeoman, and Thomas
Hathaway, of Stratford-upon-Avon, joiner, were parties to the New Place
settlement of 1647.
All this shows that the Shakespeares were not ashamed of their mother's
relatives. We do not know anything about Anne Shakespeare after her
husband's death until we reach the record of her own, "August 8th, 1623,
Mrs. Shakespeare."[183]
Tradition says that she earnestly desired to be buried in her husband's
grave. The survivors were not able to secure this, but they buried her
as near him as they could. Her daughter Susanna's grief is recorded in
touching lines, probably Latinized by Dr. Hall, placed on her tombstone:
[Illustration]
"Thou, my mother, gave me life, thy breast and milk; alas!
for such great bounty to me I shall give thee a tomb. How
much rather I would entreat the good angel to move the
stone, so that thy figure might come forth, as did the body
of Christ; but my prayers avail nothing. Come quickly, O
Christ; so that my mother, closed in the tomb, may rise
again and seek the stars."[184]
Of Anne Shakespeare's children we have already spoken. Susannah was born
May 26, 1583, Hamnet and Judith, February 2, 1584-85. Hamnet--surely the
model of Shakespeare's sweet boys--had died on August 11, 1596. So the
name Shakespeare had glorified was doomed to die with himself, and was
not to be borne by lesser men. His property the poet could and did
devise.
Much discussion has taken place concerning the poet's views of his
younger daughter and her marriage. I do not think these views at all
supported by his will. Three hundred pounds was a very large portion
indeed at the time. It was demised to her doubtless before her marriage,
but it was not altered in relation to her after her marriage. It would
be hard indeed to believe that such a ceremony, even without a license,
could be performed in the gossipy town of Stratford without the news of
it somehow reaching the father's ears, if there had been any attempt
really to deceive. There is no reason to imagine Shakespeare disapproved
of the alliance. The young man came of an old Stratford family. It is
possible, however, that the poet foresaw a certain degree of instability
of character in the youth, and therefore wished to make his will act as
a marriage settlement that would secure his daughter from starvation.
The second half of his bequest might only be touched by her husband, if
he had settled on her land of equal value. This Thomas Quiney does not
seem to have done.
Richard Quiney had died 1601-2, and his widow Elizabeth kept a tavern,
in which she was probably at one time assisted by her younger son
Thomas. In December, 1611, she conveyed a house to William Mountford for
£131, and Judith Shakespeare was a subscribing witness. But neither she
nor her future mother-in-law signed their names, nor even the customary
cross, but a strangely-penned device of their own. Thomas Quiney lived
in a small house in the High Street until after his marriage. It was
probably his wife's money that enabled him to lease the larger house on
the other side, called "The Cage," and to start therein business as a
vintner.
At first he was successful. He was made a burgess in 1617, and was
Chamberlain from 1621 to 1623. His accounts for the latter year are
headed by a French proverb, as to the happiness of those who become wise
through the experience of others, that might have had an opposite
meaning to his contemporaries. It shows us that he could not only read
and write English, but at least a little French. By 1630 he was involved
in lawsuits, left the town council, and tried to dispose of the lease of
his house. In 1633 Dr. Hall and Thomas Nash acted as trustees for his
estate. His fortunes seemed to have become worse and worse. In 1652 he
went to the Metropolis, where his elder brother Richard was a thriving
grocer in Bucklersbury, in company with Roger Sadler. Richard, in
August, 1655,[185] made a will, in which he left, besides handsome
provision for his children--Richard, Adrian, Thomas, William and
Sarah--his brother Thomas £12 a year for life, and £5 for the expenses
of his funeral, out of his messuages at Shottery. The Quiney coat of
arms is entered among those of the London burgesses at Guildhall,[186]
"Mr. Quiney of ye Red Lyon in Bucklersbury."
The family of Thomas Quiney and his wife Judith was not a large one. In
the year that the poet died they christened their eldest son, "Shaksper,
filius Thomas Quyny gent.," November 23, 1616. But the child died in a
few months. On May 8, 1617, was buried "Shakespere, filius Thomas Quyny,
gent."
On February 9, 1617-18, "Richard filius Thomas Quinee" was baptized, and
on January 23, 1619-20, "Thomas, filius Thomas Queeny." These lads may
have followed to the grave their grandmother, Mrs. Shakespeare, and
their uncle, Dr. Hall; and they may have been present at the marriage of
their cousin, Mrs. Elizabeth Hall, to Mr. Thomas Nash. But they died
within a month of each other, probably of some infectious fever, the
younger first--"Thomas filius Thomæ Quiney, Jan. 28th, 1638-9";
"Richardus filius Tho. Quiney, Feb. 26th, 1638-9." There were no other
children, and no prospect of more, and these early deaths affected the
devolution of the poet's property, as may hereafter be seen.
Unfortunately, we know nothing concerning Dr. John Hall before his
marriage to the poet's elder daughter Susanna on June 5, 1607, he being
then thirty-two and she twenty-five. He cannot have been the son of Dr.
John Hall, of Maidstone, Kent, whose translation of Lanfranc's
"Chirurgerie," with portrait of the translator, appeared in 1565. He
would have been an eminently suitable father, distinguished alike in his
art and his character, author of "The Court of Virtue," and many
metrical Bible translations; but he died in 1566, and the Stratford Dr.
John Hall was born in 1575. Halliwell-Phillipps[187] suggests that he
may have been connected with the Halls of Acton, Middlesex, because he
left his only daughter his "house and meadow at Acton." A John Hall was
married in that parish, it is true, on September 19, 1574,[188] to
Margaret Archer. But he had a daughter Elizabeth christened on June 5,
1575, about the very date at which the Stratford "John" must have been
born. Any connection, therefore, must have been further off than filial,
and the name is too common to be easily followed.
There were Halls in Worcester,[189] in Rowington, and in Coventry, and
it may be remembered that a John Hall supplanted Richard Shakespeare as
Bailiff of the Priory of Wroxall during the last year of its existence.
There was a Richard Hall of Stratford in the list of the gentry 12 Henry
VI., 1433. There was also a Richard Hall, gentleman,[190] of Idlicote,
in the sixteenth century, who seems to have moved about a good deal, as
there is a record of "Elizabeth, daughter of Richard Hall, Generosus,
bapt. February 14th, 1560," at Idlicote, and of "Maria filia Richardi
Hall, Generosus, March 17th, 1561," in Stratford. I have not traced any
of the name of John christened in Idlicote or elsewhere at the date.
The Idlicote Halls were suspected recusants, as may be proved by the
search made in their house when Edward Arden was dragged away from Park
Hall in 1583.[191] There was a "Mr. Hall" Alderman of Stratford 1558,
and in 1575 Edmund Hall and Emma his wife sold two messuages to John
Shakespeare. Were they contemplating going abroad at the time? They are
not further referred to in Stratford records. In a manuscript of the
British Museum a table is sketched of the Halls of Henwick in Hallow.
John Hall of Henwick had a son Thomas, who married, first, Anne,
daughter of William Staple, and, second, a daughter of Hardwick. He had
at least two sons, John, who married Margaret, daughter of William
Grovelight, of London, and Edmund, who married Emma, daughter of
----(?). John had Edward, Anne, Elizabeth, and Emma, and the descendants
of Edmund are not entered.[192] Catholicism might have been a reason for
realizing their property and going abroad.
Now, John Hall expressly calls himself a Master of Arts, though his name
is not recorded in the Books of the English Universities. He would not
have done so had he not taken his degree. It possibly might have been in
Paris, and he might have followed it up with foreign study. This would
quite accord with his appearance in Stratford after the death of
Elizabeth. A Warwickshire gentle origin[193] may somewhat account for
the degree of intimacy he seems to have had with the county families,
both Puritan and Catholic. His fame as a physician rapidly spread. He
resided in a house in Old Town, on the way from the church to the
chapel. His only daughter, Elizabeth, was baptized at Stratford on
February 21, 1607-8,[194] during her grandfather's (William
Shakespeare's) life. His name occurs in the town records in 1611,[195]
among the supporters to a Highway Bill, and he leased from the
Corporation a small stretch of wooded land on the outskirts of the town
in 1612. He must have remained on friendly terms with his father-in-law,
as he and his wife Susanna were left residuary legatees and executors of
Shakespeare's will, which he proved in June of that year, in the
Archbishop of Canterbury's Registry at London.
He shortly afterwards moved to New Place, beside his mother-in-law,
where the vestry notes of February 3, 1617-1618, record him as resident.
He was elected a Burgess of Stratford in 1617, and again in 1623, but
was excused from taking office on account of his professional
engagements. On April 22, 1626, Mr. Thomas Nash married his daughter,
Mrs. Elizabeth Hall. Hall gave the church a costly new pulpit, and in
1628 was appointed a borough churchwarden, in 1629 a sidesman, and in
1632 was compelled to become a burgess, and was soon after fined for
non-attendance at the council meetings.
In 1633 he was made the Vicar's churchwarden, and in that year the
Vicar, Thomas Wilson, induced him to join in a Chancery action against
the town. He was already in trouble with his fellow councillors, who in
October of that year expelled him for his "breach of orders, sundry
other misdemeanours, and for his continual disturbance at our Halles."
Evidently Dr. John had opinions of his own, and had the courage to
express them. He was a deeply religious man, and, though he has been
supposed to have shown Puritan tendencies in later life, it was a
Puritanism that did not eschew Catholicism. His was a religion of
constant reference to the Unseen. He was always a helper of those in
trouble for conscience' sake; and probably this was the reason he
supported the unpopular Vicar.
Shortly after, in 1635, there was a petition sent up from the
Corporation of Stratford for their wives to have the pew in Stratford
Church occupied by Dr. Hall, his wife, and his son-in-law and his wife.
Each family had a pew at each side of the church, while there was not
room for the burgesses' wives to sit or kneel in. It was true that the
said Mr. Hall had been a great benefactor to the church, and the Bishop
of the diocese had appointed him his pew; but his family were asked to
choose which of their large pews they preferred to keep, along with Mrs.
Woodward and Mrs. Lane, so that they might allow the aldermen's wives to
have the other.
John Hall died on November 25, 1635, and was buried next day in the
chancel of the parish church, though he had already disposed of the
lease of the tithes purchased by his father-in-law.
The burial register of the next day describes him as "Medicus
Peritissimus." By a nuncupative will, he left a house in London to his
wife, a house in Acton and a meadow to his daughter Elizabeth, and his
study of books to his son-in-law Thomas Nash. The manuscripts he would
have given to Mr. Boles had he been present, but Nash was to keep them
and use them as he pleased. It is probable that Mr. Boles was Richard
Boles, Rector of Whitnash, not far from Stratford--an eccentric person,
a writer of epitaphs, who had set up his own in his church while he yet
lived.[196]
On the monumental slab of Dr. Hall is a shield of arms: "Sable, three
talbots' heads erased or" for Hall, impaling Shakespeare or on a bend
"sable, a spear of the first, the point steeled." "Here lyeth ye Body of
John Hall, gent: Hee marr: Susanna ye daughter and coheire of Will:
Shakespeare, gent., Hee deceased Nov^r 25, Anno 1635, aged 60.
"Hallius sic situs est, medica celeberrimus arte
Expectans regni Gaudia læta Dei;
Dignus erat meritis qui nestora vinceret annis,
In terris omnes, sed capit æqua dies;
Ne tumulo quid desit adest fidessima conjux
Est vitæ comitem nunc quoq. mortis habet."[197]
It has been thought that this proves the epitaph was not written until
after Mrs. Hall's death. She may have wished the words set up, to
determine her resting-place; or Mr. Boles may have helped Thomas Nash
with the Latin.
After his death his son-in-law, Thomas Nash, came to reside at New
Place, and took the position of head of the family. Indeed, in one of
his letters he speaks of "Mrs. Hall, my mother-in-law, who lives with
me." But the house and everything in it, saving the study of books,
belonged to Mrs. Hall, of course.
We know nothing of the nature or the fate of the bulk of these
manuscripts, though many have longed to trace them. Possibly among them,
though it is not likely (being in bound volumes) were two notebooks of
Dr. John Hall's observations, from which James Cooke, a physician
introduced later to Mrs. Hall, translated the materials for a little
book entitled, "Select Observations on English Bodies; or, Cures both
Empericall and Historicall Performed on very Eminent Persons in
Desperate Diseases, first written in Latine by Mr. John Hall, Physician
living at Stratford-on-Avon in Warwickshire where he was very famous, as
also in the counties adjacent, as appears by these observations, drawn
out of severall hundreds of his as choycest, now put into English for
common benefit by James Cooke, practitioner in Physick and Surgery,
1657." Cooke, in the introduction, relates the strange manner in which
he became possessed of them, Mrs. Hall not knowing they were in her
husband's handwriting, and, believing they were part of a poor scholar's
mortgage, transferred them to him with other books. Cooke used the books
as guides in his own practice, and then expanded the contractions,
translated and published them, "being acquainted with his apothecary."
It is no slight compliment to a physician to have his cures published
twenty-two years after his death, and to have them run through more than
one edition. Cooke mentions: "Mr. John Hall had the happiness to lead
the way to that practice almost generally used now by the most knowing
of mixing scorbutics to most remedies." It is to Cooke we owe
information concerning Hall's education abroad; concerning the
physician, his relative, on terms of intimacy with Mrs. Hall, who
introduced him to New Place; and concerning the "other book" of Dr. John
Hall, also prepared for the press. We wonder what it contained.
The book published by Cooke records only _cures_. We are inclined to
echo, "Where are they that were drowned?" Doubtless Hall had attended
his father-in-law in his last illness, but his skill and affection were
not sufficient to save him. And because of this failure, we do not know
the symptoms shown by the poet after the traditional "merrymaking with
Ben Jonson and Drayton," when later gossips say he "drank too much." The
earliest _dated_ cure is 1617. But is it too much to imagine that the
undated illness of Drayton, recorded in "Obs. XXII.," occurred at the
same time as the death of the poet? Was he at any later time ill in
Warwickshire, and likely to be attended by Dr. John Hall? "Mr. Drayton,
an excellent poet, labouring of a Tertian, was cured by the following
treatment." Let us suppose it was April, 1616, and it may account for
the poet's illness, otherwise than by over-drinking.
In "Obs. XIX." Hall mentions without date an illness of his wife, Mrs.
Hall. "Obs. XXXVI." concerns his only daughter, and supports my opinion
of a constitutional delicacy of Anne Hathaway and her family. It is not
insignificant that her grandchild should suffer from "tortura oris," or
convulsions of the mouth, and ophthalmia. She was cured of one attack on
January 5, 1624. In the beginning of April she went to London, and on
returning on the 22nd of the same month, she took cold, and fell into
the same distemper, which affected the other side of her face. This
second time, "By the blessing of God, she was cured in sixteen days."
But on May 24 of the same year she was struck down with an erratic
fever. Sometimes she was hot, by-and-by sweating, again cold, all in the
space of half an hour. Her father's treatment again healed her; "the
symptoms remitted daily till she was well, thus was she delivered from
death and deadly diseases, and was well for many years." Many other
familiar names occur in this volume--"Mrs. Queeny," Mrs. Smith, Mr.
Wilson, Mrs. Throgmorton, Mrs. Sheldon, Mrs. Greene, John Nason, the
Underhills, Mrs. Baker, Dr. Thornbery, Bishop of Worcester (aged
eighty-six on February 1, 1633), Mrs. Combe, Katherine Sturley, "Mrs.
Grace Court, wife to my apothecary." In "Obs. LXIV." he speaks of
treating "the only son of Mr. Holyoake, which framed the dictionary."
"Obs. LXXXII.," Book II., records the restoration from the gates of
death of Mr. John Trapp, minister; and Obs. "LX.," Book II., gives an
account of Hall's own dangerous illness in 1632, when his anxious wife
sent for two physicians, who pulled him through; and he records his
prayer to God on the occasion. We must not forget that this was the date
of his quarrel with the Corporation.
The death of the young Quineys in 1638-39 affected the details of the
poet's will; for it may be remembered the property was settled on
Susanna Hall and her heirs male, failing whom, on the heirs male of
Elizabeth Hall, failing whom, on the heirs male of Judith, in default of
such heirs male, on the right heirs of William Shakespeare for ever. The
failure in the heirs male of Judith therefore entitled Elizabeth Nash to
the full inheritance as heir-general, and within a few weeks after the
unexpected death of her cousins, Susanna Hall, widow, joined with Mr.
and Mrs. Nash, May 27, 1639, in making a new settlement of Shakespeare's
entails on Mrs. Hall for life, after whom on Mr. and Mrs. Nash, and _the
longer liver of them_, after them, to the heirs of their body, and in
default of such, to the heirs of the said Elizabeth. Should she die
first without heirs, the property was secured to the _heirs and assignes
of the said Thomas Nash_, a reversion certainly not fair to Joan Hart,
the poet's sister, and her children. Still, it all seemed too far off to
consider. To this document Mrs. Hall appended her signature and her
seal, with the arms of Shakespeare impaled with those of Hall.
Thomas Nash seemed to have believed this fully settled everything on
himself, and that he was likely to outlive his mother-in-law and his
wife, for on August 20, 1642, he executed, without his wife's sanction
or knowledge, a mysterious will, that afterwards led to trouble.
The importance of New Place, the largest house in the town, and the
liberality and loyalty of its owners, were curiously signalized in the
following year. Queen Henrietta Maria, in July, 1643, marched from
Newark to Kineton by way of Stratford, where she was reinforced by
Prince Rupert and 2,000 men. She held her court for three days[198] in
Shakespeare's house, probably accompanied by only her immediate personal
attendants. On July 13, the Queen and Prince Rupert moved off to meet
the King in the vale of Kineton near Edgehill.[199]
Thomas Nash died on April 4, 1647, and was buried in the chancel beside
Shakespeare. "Heere resteth ye body of Thomas Nashe Esq. He mar.
Elizabeth, the daug. and Heire of John Halle, gent. He died Aprill 4, A.
1647. Aged 53.
"Fata manent omnes, hunc non virtute carentem
ut neque divitiis, abstulit atra dies
Abstulit at referet lux ultima; siste, viator,
si peritura paras per male parta peris."
The coat of arms was double quarterly of four, First, 1 and 4 argent on
a chevron between three ravens' heads erased azure, a pellet between 4
cross-crosslets sable, for Nash; 2 and 3 sable a buck's head caboshed
argent attired or, between his horns a cross patée, and across his mouth
an arrow, Bulstrode. Second, 1 and 4, for Hall, 2 and 3 Shakespeare.
When the notable will was opened, and proved in the following June, the
widow declined to follow out its provisions as concerned her own
property, which Thomas Nash had treated as if entirely his own. "Item, I
give, dispose and bequeath, unto my Kinsman Edward Nash, and to his
heires and assignes for ever, one messuage or tenement with the
appurtenances comonly called or knowne by the name of The New Place ...
together with all and singular howses, outhowses, barnes, stables,
orchards, gardens, etc, esteemed or enjoyed as thereto belonging ...
also fower yards of arable land meadowe and pasture ... in old
Stratford, and also one other tenement with the appurtenances in the
parish of ---- London; called or known by the name of the Wardropp, and
now in the tenure of one ---- Dickes."
Mrs. Nash had soldiers quartered on her at New Place during the very
month of her husband's death, one of whom was implicated in the robbery
of deer from the park of Sir Greville Verney on April 30, 1647. But she
did not fail in legal knowledge of what she ought to do under the
unexpected provisions of her husband's will, of which she was left sole
executrix and residuary legatee. She and her mother combined in levying
a fine on the property,[200] and reconveying it to the sole use of her
mother and herself, and their heirs for ever. She was not yet
thirty-nine years of age, and did not feel inclined even then to take it
for granted she would not marry again, even if Edward Nash agreed, as he
could be made to agree, that his inheritance could only come to him on
her decease without issue.
But Edward Nash did not like her proceedings, and filed a Bill in
Chancery on February, 1647-48, against Elizabeth Nash, and other
legatees, to compel them to produce his uncle's will in court, and
execute its provisions. Mrs. Nash admitted its contents, but averred the
testator had no power to demise property which had belonged to her
grandfather, and had been left to herself. She explained that her mother
was still living, and that in conjunction they had levied the fine. She
only disputed that part of her husband's will concerning her own
property, and mentioned her deeds and evidences. Her answer was taken by
commission, at Stratford, in April, 1648, and in June it was ordered
that the defendants should bring into court the will and other
evidences, and the writ was personally served on Mrs. Nash.
The will of Thomas Nash was produced before the Examiners in Chancery in
November, but Mrs. Nash defied all orders concerning the other
"evidences," as may be seen from the affidavit filed at the Six Clerks'
Office in December, 1649. She was brave in her determination that her
own rights and her mother's should not be assailed, and she was perhaps
prudent in her opinion that the fewer papers that were produced the
shorter time would the suit last. No replication or decree is recorded.
The litigation apparently terminated in a compromise, doubtless hastened
by Mrs. Nash's second marriage. Perhaps Edward Nash by this time
realized the injustice or the impracticability of his claim. The only
further allusion to it occurs in Lady Barnard's will.[201] She directs
her trustees to dispose of New Place with the proviso "that my loving
cousin, Edward Nash, Esq., shall have the first offer or refusal
thereof, according to _my promise formerly made to him_."
Elizabeth Nash married Mr. John Barnard, of Abington, Northamptonshire,
at Billesley, a village four miles from Stratford, June 5, 1649, where
the Trussels resided. Why did she go there to be married? A puzzling
question indeed, which cannot be answered by the register, as it is
lost. Whether her marriage weakened her mother's health, or whether the
state of her mother's health had hastened her marriage, we know not; but
a month later, on July 11, 1649, Mrs. Hall died, and, being buried
beside her husband on the 16th, _made his tomb complete_. The Latin
scholars of the family were all gone, and it is not too much to suppose
that Elizabeth herself, Shakespeare's grandchild, composed her mother's
epitaph:
"Here lyeth the body of Susanna, wife of John Hall, gent., the daughter
of William Shakespeare, gent. She deceased the 11 day of July, Anno
1649, aged 66.
"Witty above her sex, but that's not all,
Wise to Salvation was good Mistress Hall,
Something of Shakespeare was in that, but this
Wholly of him with whom she's now in blisse.
Then, passenger, hast nere a tear
To weep with her that wept with all
That wept, yet set herself to chere
Them up with comforts cordiall?
Her love shall live, her mercy spread
When thou hast nere a tear to shed."
A lozenge bore the arms of Hall and Shakespeare impaled. In the early
part of last century these verses were erased to make space for the
record of the death of one Richard Watts, who owned some of the tithes
and had the right to be buried in the chancel. But they, fortunately,
had been preserved by Dugdale;[202] and in 1844 the Watts record was
erased and Mrs. Hall's verses restored.
Her death limited Shakespeare's descendants to two--Judith Quiney,
daughter, and Elizabeth Barnard, granddaughter. A fine was levied on New
Place in 1650, in which John Barnard and Henry Smith were made trustees
to the settlement of 1647, instead of Richard Lane and William Smith. In
1652 a new settlement was made, devising it to the use of John Barnard
and his wife, and the longer liver of them, to the heirs of the body of
Elizabeth, failing whom to any persons she might name. In default of
such nomination, the property was to go to the right heirs of the
survivor. A fine was again levied on this settlement. Mr. John Barnard
was knighted by Charles II. in 1661. The Stratford Register of 1661-62
records the death of Elizabeth's aunt, Judith, "uxor Thomas Quiney,
gent., Feb. 9th, 1661-2." The use of the word "uxor" is no certain proof
that he was alive at the time.
Judith's death, at the age of seventy-seven, left Lady Elizabeth Barnard
the poet's sole survivor. She had no children by her second marriage,
about which we have no other detail. It has been surmised that it was
not a happy one. Sir John Barnard was a widower, and had already a
family. There is no mention of this family in Lady Barnard's will, and a
limitation to the barest law and justice towards her husband, whom she
did not leave her executor. The will was drawn up on January 29,
1669-70, and she died at Abington in February. "Madam Elizabeth Bernard,
wife of Sir John Bernard, Knight, was buried 17th Feb., 1669-70."[203]
No sepulchral monument was raised in memory of the granddaughter and
heir of Shakespeare, but she probably lay in the same tomb as her
husband, who died in 1674. A memorial slab still remains to his memory
in Abington Church, but the place of his burial is unknown, and the
vault below this stone is used by another family.
By his death his wife's will[204] came into force, written while she was
still "in perfect memory--blessed be God!--and mindful of mortality."
She recounted the settlement of April 18, 1653, to which the trustees
were Henry Smith, of Stratford, gent., and Job Dighton, of the Middle
Temple, London, Esquire. Henry Smith, her surviving trustee, or his
heirs, six months after the death of her husband, Sir John Barnard, was
to sell New Place, giving the first offer to her loving cousin, Edward
Nash, and the money was to be used in legacies. Her cousin, Thomas
Welles, of Carleton, in county Bedford, was to have £50 if he be alive,
and if he be dead, her kinsman, Edward Bagley, citizen of London, was to
receive the amount. How she was connected with these men I have been
unable to find out. "Judith Hathaway, one of the daughters of my
kinsman, Thomas Hathaway, late of Stratford," £5 a year or £40 in hand.
Unto Joane, the wife of Edward Kent, another daughter of the said Thomas
Hathaway, £50, failing whom to her heir, _Edward Kent the younger_, at
his coming of age. To this same Edward Kent she left £30 for his
apprenticeship. To Rose, Elizabeth, and Susanna, three other "daughters
of my kinsman, Thomas Hathaway, £40 a piece." Henry Smith was to have £5
for his pains, and Edward Bagley to be residuary legatee. "To my
kinsman, Thomas Hart, the son of Thomas Hart, late of Stratford, all
that my other messuage or Inne commonly called the Maydenhead, with the
next house thereto adjoining, with the barne belonging to the same, now
in the occupation of Michael Johnson; to Thomas Hart and his heirs,
failing whom to his brother George Hart and his heirs," failing whom to
her own right heirs for ever. She made her "loving kinsman Edward
Bagley" executor, "in witness of which I set my hand and seal." It may
be seen that she retained absolute power of the poet's purchases, but
justly left his inheritance from his father John to his sister's
descendants. But she did no more than justice.
It is not clear how the connection is traced between her and her other
legatees, but it is very noticeable her preference for the Hathaway
connections to those of the Shakespeare side.
Ere she died the poet's Blackfriars tenement had been reduced to ashes
in the Great Fire of 1666. What right in it or its site remained,
accrued to Edward Bagley, "citizen of London," her executor and
residuary legatee, who proved her will, March 4, 1669, though it is
stated to have been sold in Shakespeare's Biography in the Dictionary.
Edward Nash did not buy New Place, after all. It was bought by Sir
Edward Walker, at one time Secretary of War to Charles I., and then
Garter King-at-Arms. Halliwell-Phillipps states[205] it was sold by the
"surviving trustee," but Sir Edward Walker's own will[206] puts it a
little differently. He left to his dear daughter Barbara, wife of Sir
John Clopton, various bequests, among which appear "A yarde land in
Stratford field I bought of _Mr. Hall_, of the value of £12 10s. by year
... fyftly Land I bought of Sir John Clopton in the mannor of Clopton,
of the yearely value of £10. Sixtly 4 yard land lying in Stratford and
Bishopton fields which I bought of _Mr. Bagley_, and a house called the
New Place, situated in the Towne of Stratford upon Avon, of the yearely
value about fyfty fyve pounds ... my deare daughter and her husband Sir
John Clopton, sole executors, 30th June, 1676." He died early the
following year, and his will was proved March 10, 1676-77.
Thus, the property Shakespeare had put together became dispersed shortly
after his family became extinct, and New Place came back to the heirs of
the Cloptons, from whom it was purchased. I had hoped we might find
something from the will of Edward Bagley, but he died intestate,[207]
and the administration mentions nothing of interest to Shakespeare.
It is therefore quite clear that the whole period covered by
Shakespeare's life and that of his descendants was 105 years, _i.e._,
from 1564 to 1669, and that _no lineal descendants can survive_. Yet, as
if in illustration of the methods of fabrication of tradition, when it
is desired, I have heard of many of the name who boast a _lineal descent
from the poet_; and of one even who boasts of having inherited not only
_the Shakespeare's_ dinner-service, but his _teapot_! Yet that the
presence of the name is a certain bar to the descent, as above shown, no
such claimants seem to have taken the trouble to find out, as they
easily might do. I am told that in Verona, by the tomb of Romeo and
Juliet, a modern visitor has described himself as "Shakespeare,
_descendant_ of the poet who wrote the play." William Shakespeare's
poems alone are his posterity.
Even under another name they are not to be accepted.[208] In the
_Cambridge Chronicle_ obituary, January 1, 1842, appears: "Died on the
28th ult. at Exning, Suffolk, aged 87, Mrs. Hammond, mother of Mr. Wm.
Hammond, of No. 8, Scots Yard, Cannon Street, London, Indigo Merchant.
The deceased was one of the few remaining descendants of Shakespeare."
So lately as June, 1857, there was recorded the death of William
Hammond, Esq., of London, "one of the last lineal descendants of
Shakespeare."
Dr. Bigsby says that Colonel Gardner, descendant of the Barnards, had
some Shakespeare letters, and claimed descent from Lady Elizabeth
Barnard.[209]
A correspondent remembered to have seen when a boy the Shakespear Inn,
Lower Northgate Street, Gloucester, kept by an old gentleman named
Smith. Outside the passage to the inn was a signboard, "The Shakespear
Inn, by William Smith, descendant from and next of kin to that immortal
bard."[210]
* * * * *
JOHN SHAKESPEARE'S FAMILY.
Richard Shakespeare, = wife uncertain,
farmer, of Snitterfield, held land from |
Robert Arden, Mary Arden's father. |
|
-------------------------------------------------
| | |
Thomas. John, = Mary Arden. Henry.
| eldest son |
John |
b. March 10, 1581-2 |
|
------------------------------------------------------------------
| | | | | | |
Two | Gilbert Joan, = William Anne, Richard, Edmund,
daus., | b. 1566; b. 1569; Hart. b. 1571; b. 1573; b. 1580;
d. | d. 1611. d. 1646. d. 1579. d. 1612. d. 1607.
infants. |
|
William, = Anne
the poet.| Hathaway.
|
--------------------------------------------
| | |
Susanna, = John Hamnet, Judith, = Thomas
b.1583; | Hall. b.1585; b.1585; twin | Quiney.
d.1649. | d.1596. with Hamnet, |
| d.1662 |
| |
Elizabeth, m. 1st, Thomas Nash; ---------------------------
2nd, Sir John Barnard, b.1607-8; | | |
d. _s.p._ 1669. | | |
Shakespeare, Richard, Thomas,
b.1616; b.1617; b.1619-20;
d.1617. d.1638-9. d.1638-9.
_s.p._ _s.p._
FOOTNOTES:
[178] Gwillim's "Display of Heraldry," p. 315.
[179] _Ibid._, pp. 378, 420.
[180] Hathaway is also a name in the Beverston Registers (_Notes and
Queries_, Fifth Series, xii., 101).
[181] French, "Shakespeareana Genealogicæ," p. 376.
[182] Will dated August 26, 1642, proved April 4, 1647. He also left
rings to his uncle Nash and his aunt, his cousin Sadler and his wife,
_his cousin_ Richard Quiney and his wife _his cousin_ Thomas Quiney and
his wife.
[183] Stratford Burial Registers.
[184] The inscription would imply that she was born in 1556; but, as in
her husband's case, it may be she was reckoned as sixty-seven very
shortly after completing her sixty-sixth year, or even before she
completed it, as was done in the case of Lady Joyce Lucy. We may note,
at least, that Shakespeare, fifty-three in 1616, is only seven years
younger than one reckoned sixty-seven in 1623.
[185] Henry Waters, "Genealogical Gleanings."
[186] See coats of arms of the burgesses, Guildhall MS. 491.
[187] "Outlines," i. 219.
[188] Acton Registers.
[189] See Worcester Wills and Marriage Licenses.
[190] See List of Noblemen and Gentlemen of Warwick, 1577, by Henry
Ferrers; Nichols's "Coll. Top. et Gen.," vii., p. 298, and State Papers,
Dom. Ser., Eliz., 137 (38).
[191] State Papers, Dom. Ser., Eliz., lxiii. 55.
[192] The arms of these Halls were three talbots' heads erased sable,
between nine cross-crosslets azure. Shakespeare's son-in-law bore the
talbots' heads only, which may merely have been a mark of cadency. A
suit in Chancery in the time of Elizabeth was brought by Giles Fletcher,
LL.D., Joan his wife, and Phineas his eldest son, against John Hall (not
the physician) concerning the site of the manor of Henwick and the land
of Hallow. In the chapel is a mural monument to Edward Hall, Esq., who
married Anna, eldest daughter of Sir Paul Tracey, having by her four
sons and seven daughters. He died September, 1616, aged fifty-four.
Addit. MSS., Brit. Mus., 19,816.
[193] It has been suggested by Mr. A. Hall that he might have been son
of the John Hall who married Elizabeth Carew, niece to Sir Nicholas
Throckmorton. He had a son of the name.
[194] Stratford Registers.
[195] Miscellaneous Documents and Corporation Records,
Stratford-on-Avon.
[196] _Notes and Queries_, Fifth Series, vii. 287.
[197] Dugdale's "Warwickshire Antiquities," ed. 1656, p. 518. This may
be translated thus: "Here is the dust of Hall, most famous in medical
art, awaiting the glorious joys of the Kingdom of God. Worthy was he to
have surpassed Nestor in well-earned years, in every land, but impartial
Time has snatched him away. Lest anything be wanting to the tomb, his
most faithful spouse is there, and he has the companion of life now also
in death."
[198] Sir Hugh Clopton to Theobald.
[199] Halliwell-Phillipps, "Outlines," ii. 108.
[200] Easter Term, 23 Car. I.
[201] Somerset House, 96, Alchin, also in Juxon.
[202] "Warwickshire Antiquities," ed. 1656, p. 518.
[203] Abington Parish Registers.
[204] Somerset House, 96, Alchin, also in Juxon.
[205] Halliwell-Phillipps, "Outlines," ii. 119.
[206] Somerset House, 36 Hale.
[207] Admin., October, 1686; Somerset House.
[208] _Morning Herald_--Obituary.
[209] _Notes and Queries_, Fifth Series, VII. 287. But she had no
children, as proved both by the registers and the wills. She was Sir
John Barnard's second wife.
[210] _Ibid._, 519. Smith really descended from the Harts.