SHAKESPEARE’S ENVIRONMENT
SHAKESPEARE’S
ENVIRONMENT
BY
MRS. C. C. STOPES
DIPL. EDIN. UNIV., HON. F.R.S.L.
AUTHOR OF “SHAKESPEARE’S FAMILY,” “SHAKESPEARE’S WARWICKSHIRE
CONTEMPORARIES,” “THE BACON SHAKESPEARE QUESTION ANSWERED,”
“WILLIAM HUNNIS AND THE REVELS OF THE CHAPEL ROYAL,”
“BURBAGE AND SHAKESPEARE’S STAGE,” “BRITISH
FREEWOMAN,” ETC., EDITOR OF SHAKESPEARE’S
SONNETS, ETC.
LONDON
G. BELL AND SONS, LTD.
1914
CHISWICK PRESS: CHARLES WHITTINGHAM AND CO.
TOOKS COURT, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON.
ERRATA
P. viii, line 6, _for_ “of” _read_ “to.”
P. 206, lines 21 and 22, _for_ “Royal Academy” _read_ “National
Gallery.”
P. 332, line 3, _for_ “White Tanners” _read_ “white tawers.”
PREFACE
In this volume I have collected a few of my old papers which all
contained something _new_ at the date at which they appeared. They
are all more or less connected with Shakespeare, and bear at least
on my studies to try to understand the influences which affected his
immediate predecessors and teachers, those which helped to mould his
own thought and character, and those which showed something of his
influence on his contemporaries and immediate successors. My period
therefore extended from the accession of Henry VIII in 1509, to the
national crisis in 1640. Little as each item of itself may seem to
tell, every one helps to fill in, as with a touch of the brush, the
colours in the background, which throw out more clearly the outlines
of the central figure. For Shakespeare knew all about the training of
the boys at school, all about the legal troubles of his relatives and
friends and partners, he knew the contemporary history and literature
of his time, and above all, its _character_. If perhaps I have made too
prominent the story of his monument in Stratford, of which he could not
know, it was to draw attention to the contemporary estimate of himself
and his genius as recorded on that tomb; and to collect every scrap I
could find to throw light on its subsequent history, the last touch of
which was provided me by the kindness of Mr. Dugdale of Merivale.
I included the Introductory Chapter, which had never been printed, in
remembrance of a special occasion, fully to be understood only by the
members of the Shakespeare Societies. On a day of storm, snow, and
sleet, in Stratford-on-Avon, the 23rd of April 1908, I had thought it
my duty to travel to London to be present at the Commemoration Dinner
at which Dr. F. J. Furnivall was to preside, and the guests of honour
were to be Mr. Austin, then Poet Laureate, and Sir John Hare. They were
each to deliver an address. When I was comfortably seated at dinner,
Dr. Furnivall sent Mr. Hunt, then Hon. Secretary, to say that Sir John
Hare had brought a written address which he now thought unsuitable to
deliver on the occasion, and our President asked me to oblige him by
filling the gap, as well as I could. Mr. Austin read an interesting
paper on “What we can learn of Shakespeare from his plays.” I could
only speak from my own heart, which was very full of Shakespeare that
day. Mr. Austin came up to me afterwards and said: “If it is anything
to you to know it, I would like to tell you that I agreed with every
word you said.” Our dear old President was pleased that the possible
hitch had been averted, and as my remarks had been taken down, he
wished them preserved. So, though there is nothing new in it, I thought
I might at the same time preserve a memory of that special day, and
secure a good general introduction to the results of my work.
I thought that it was wiser to print these papers _as they first
appeared_, with very trifling occasional alterations in construction,
for the sake of clearness. What I have learned since on the subjects, I
have put in the postscripts.
I had not calculated sufficiently for the expansion of magazine type
when it takes book form, and I have had to withdraw a good many
papers which I had hoped might have appeared. Therefore the links of
connection between some of the later papers have occasionally had to
be broken, and I have had to postpone republishing my special literary
and critical Shakespearean articles, and to choose a title which fairly
covers the bulk of those now produced.
My articles were formerly printed in circumstances which prevented
my giving due thanks to many helpful friends. I cannot even now
give expression to all the gratitude I felt and feel to many, but I
must acknowledge some of it. A large share is due for their helpful
kindness, especially to the officials of the Public Record Office,
of the British Museum, of the Bodleian Library; to Dr. Reginald
Sharpe, Keeper of the Guildhall Records; to Mr. Richard Savage and
Mr. Wellstood, curators of the Records at Stratford-on-Avon; to the
late Mr. Kingdon, formerly master of the Grocers’ Company; to the
Haberdashers’ Company; to Dr. Kitto and his son for giving me access
to the general papers of St. Martin-in-the-Fields; to the Clergy and
Churchwardens of St. Margaret’s, Westminster; and to Mr. Smith who did
so much for research students there. I must also thank many clergymen
for allowing me to see their registers, and Capt. C. W. Cottrell Dormer
for admission to his private manuscripts. I owe much gratitude to
Mr. Joseph Gray for photographing and enlarging Dugdale’s engraving
of Shakespeare’s tomb, and latest, not least, I must acknowledge the
kindness of Mr. W. F. S. Dugdale of Merivale, in allowing me to see the
sketch-book of his illustrious ancestor, which contains the drawings
which he made from Warwickshire Tombs.
I have to thank, in another respect, for having given me permission
to republish the articles previously inserted in their journals, the
Editors of the “Fortnightly Review,” the “Field,” the “Yorkshire
Post,” the “Stratford-upon-Avon Herald,” the “Pall Mall Gazette,” and
the Editors of the German “Jahr Buch” and “Archiv.” I have also to
thank Mr. Murray the proprietor of the “Monthly Review,” Mr. Sinnet
the proprietor of “Broad Views,” and especially Mr. J. E. Francis the
proprietor of the “Athenæum,” from which review the greatest number of
my papers have been borrowed. I have further to thank the Secretary of
the Royal Society of Literature, for permission to reprint two of my
Lectures from their Proceedings. And I thank cordially all those kind
friends who encouraged me to work, and to write, and to publish, though
that was long before any of us knew what terrors this fair month would
bring. In Shakespeare’s environment, there was also the _crisis_ of his
century, and from his own experience he could write the brave words
that give us hope, “If England to herself will but be true.”
CHARLOTTE CARMICHAEL STOPES.
HAMPSTEAD,
_August 1914_.
CONTENTS
PAGE
I. INTRODUCTORY: THE FORTUNES OF SHAKESPEARE 1
II. SHAKESPEARE’S AUNTS AND THE SNITTERFIELD PROPERTY 11
III. SHAKESPEARE AND ASBIES: A New Detail in John’s Life 37
IV. MARY ARDEN’S ARMS 47
V. STRATFORD’S “BOOKLESS NEIGHBOURHOOD” 55
VI. “MR. SHAXPERE, ONE BOOK,” 1595 61
VII. JOHN SHAKESPEARE, OF INGON, AND GILBERT, OF ST. BRIDGETS 62
VIII. HENRY SHAKESPEARE’S DEATH 66
IX. “MRS. SHAXSPERE” IN THE LAW COURTS 72
X. “HONORIFICABILITUDINITATIBUS” IN WARWICKSHIRE:
Pillerton Registers 74
XI. SHAKESPEARE AND THE WELCOMBE ENCLOSURES:
A New Detail in His Life 81
XII. OTHER WILLIAM SHAKESPEARES 91
XIII. THE TRUE STORY OF THE STRATFORD BUST 104
XIV. SIXTEENTH CENTURY LOCKS AND WEIRS ON THE THAMES 123
XV. THE FRIENDS IN SHAKESPEARE’S SONNETS 135
XVI. WILLIAM HUNNIS, GENTLEMAN OF THE CHAPEL ROYAL 161
XVII. BURBAGE’S “THEATRE” 176
XVIII. THE TRANSPORTATION OF BURBAGE’S “THEATRE” 193
XIX. EARLY PICCADILLY 205
XX. LITERARY EXPENSES IN ST. MARGARET’S, WESTMINSTER, 1530-1610 215
XXI. OLD WORKINGS AT TINTERN ABBEY 225
XXII. “MR. SHAKSPEARE ABOUT MY LORDE’S IMPRESO” 229
XXIII. “THE QUEEN’S PLAYERS” IN 1536 235
XXIV. MARY’S CHAPEL ROYAL AND HER CORONATION PLAY 238
XXV. SIR ANDREW DUDLEY AND LADY MARGARET CLIFFORD, 1553 247
XXVI. JANE, THE QUEEN’S FOOL 258
XXVII. ELIZABETH’S FOOLS AND DWARFS 269
XXVIII. THE ROLL OF COVENTRY: The Arrest of Prince Henry 275
XXIX. THE STRATFORD POET 285
XXX. SIXTEENTH CENTURY WOMEN STUDENTS 295
NOTES TERMINAL:
To Art. III 331
Art. VII 332
Art. XI (1) 336
Art. XI (2) 343
Art. XIII 346
INDEX 355
Shakespeare’s Environment
I
INTRODUCTORY
THE FORTUNES OF SHAKESPEARE
IN REMEMBRANCE OF 23RD APRIL 1564-1616
It is so much the fashion to write and speak of Shakespeare’s
misfortunes, his disabilities, disadvantages, and lack of preparedness
for becoming great, that perhaps I may best fit my opportunity by
touching upon what I believe to be his _good fortunes_. It is all very
true to say, that “poets are born, not made,” but there is a converse
possibility, too finely expressed in Gray’s elegy to need repeating.
Shakespeare might have been born a poet, and he might have been drowned
in the Avon, as his contemporary of the same name was drowned in 1575;
or he might have been carried by compelling currents of his life, away
from the fruition of the high possibilities of his genius, instead of
directly towards them. The whole truth is, that great poets are _both
born and made_, and it is worth pausing to dwell on some of the steps
in the making of this “Maker.” In no life is it more clear than in his
that
There’s a divinity doth shape our ends,
Rough hew them as we will.
Shakespeare was _fortunate_ in the place of his birth. Warwickshire was
in the very heart of England. The whole shire was haunted by legends
and stories of a romantic past from the time when it was the Mercia of
the Saxons down to the desolating Wars of the Roses. His birthplace
was but seven miles from the castled city of Warwick, glorified by
traditions of Cymbeline, Guiderius, Ethelfleda, Phillis, and Guy, one
of the seven champions of Christendom. Stratford was not far from the
tragic Vale of Evesham, from the holiday making of the Cotswolds, and
it lay amid gently swelling hills and dales, the richly cultivated
Feldon to east and south, the stretches of woodland to north and west,
sufficient to satisfy an artist, a dreamer, or a poet. It was of much
more relative importance in the sixteenth century than it is to-day.
It stood at the crossing of the two great thoroughfares of the whole
country, its Avon was another highway, for water transit was much more
used in olden days than now. The river was spanned at Stratford by a
noble bridge, safe even in floods (thanks to Sir Hugh Clopton); it had
important markets, a prosperous trade in wool, manufactures of cloth
and leather and other things, and was rich in agricultural commodities.
It was a spirited and independent little town, and many important
families lived in its neighbourhood. The house in Henley Street in
which the poet was born (three houses combined), made a roomy and
comfortable home for his youth.
He was fortunate in the date of his birth, on or about 23rd April,
1564. I say on or about, as it might have been a day or two earlier
or later. He was baptized on the 26th, and it was then usual enough
to baptize infants on the third day after birth. Tradition has always
given us the 23rd as the birthday, St. George’s day. In those days,
before the reformation of the Calendar, the 23rd of April fell later in
the season than it does to-day. There were twelve more days of sunshine
to open the May blossoms, and to encourage the nightingales to sing in
welcome of another sweet singer. The poet always loved the spring; he
was a May-blossom himself.
He was _fortunate_ also in the period in which he arrived. England’s
heart was heaving. Great spiritual movements had stirred men’s souls to
their depths, and given them inspiration to think for themselves amid
diverse creeds; the literary renaissance had brought their intellects
in touch with the great minds of other times, and diverse countries;
learning had become a _hunger_ as well as a fashion; students
translated, imitated, emulated the philosophers and poets of Greece,
Italy, and France. England was in the high tide of fervour through its
emancipation from the Pope’s authority, its new sense of independence,
its command of the sea, and its ever-widening geographical horizons;
the romance of a maiden Queen, fortunate since her accession, made a
new development in the spirit of patriotism. Poets born in the previous
reigns shed their glories on Elizabeth’s. The very atmosphere was
charged with negative poetical electricity, which only waited for a
positive stimulus to flash forth in light.
He was _fortunate_ in his parents. We know only too little of them,
but we do know something. John Shakespeare had sprung from an honest
yeoman family, which evidently had seen better days. It had contributed
a Prioress and a Sub-Prioress to the venerated Priory of Wroxall, and
it had its family legends concerning royal service and royal grants,
not necessarily unfounded, but frustrated somehow, perhaps by an Empson
or a Dudley. There is a possibility that he had had a Welsh mother, and
inherited blue blood from a Cymric past. He evidently had some special
charm in person, manner, or wit, because all his life he seems to have
been popular among his fellows, and he managed to win the heart and
the hand of the youngest daughter of a “gentleman of worship” in the
neighbourhood, who was the ground landlord of his father’s farm in
Snitterfield. The only definite notice we have of him is “that he was
a merry-cheeked old man who said ‘Will was a good honest fellow; but
he darest have crakt a jesst with him at any time’” (Dr. Andrew Clark,
from the Plume MS. at Maldon). John had risen through all the grades
of honour in the town, had shown his predilection for the drama by his
payments to players, a predilection not shared by the majority of his
townsmen, and we may take it he could tell a story and be good company.
The mothers of men are more important to their youth than their fathers
are. Mary Arden had descended from the Ardens of Park Hall, a storied
Saxon line, counting amidst its ancestors no less a hero than King
Alfred. She evidently had the Saxon virtues, was prudent and capable,
or her father would not have left her executrix at his death. She is
said to have been beautiful; we may believe it, if we realize the
verbal descriptions, not the painted portraits of her son. A strong
woman, whom we see reflected in the poet’s noble women’s characters,
and yet romantic enough to marry where she loved, though doubtless many
men of better position and of greater wealth in the country, would
have been glad enough of such a well-dowered _gentle_ bride. Hers was
evidently a happy marriage, and she ensured her son the benefits of a
happy home.
He was _fortunate_ in his school. Stratford had once had a College of
Priests with its Collegiate Church, an honourable Guild of the Holy
Cross, and a notable grammar school; but all had vanished before the
exterminating Henry. John Shakespeare and many of his contemporaries
had suffered through the suppression, and had grown up weak in English,
lacking in Latin, and unable to write, for their sovereign’s sins.
But the school had been restored by King Edward VI, and was in good
working order by the time John’s eldest son was ready for it. The post
of the master of the Stratford Grammar School was one of the plums of
the profession, as he had twice the salary of the Master of Eton.
We are sure from the Chamberlain’s accounts, that the best men to be
had, graduates in a university, were selected by the town councillors.
The grammar school was free to all the sons of burgesses, so that no
consideration of expense could have kept back William Shakespeare from
its advantages, even at the time of his father’s difficulties. He would
meet there not only the boys of the town about his own age, but the
sons of the neighbouring gentry. We know from several sources the books
then in use for each form of a grammar school, and we may reckon what
training would be offered young Shakespeare in classic literature to
form his English style. A little better than the average, we should
presume it to have been. Becon, some years before, had proclaimed
Warwickshire to be the most intellectual of the English Counties, and
there is some witness to show it still could hold its own.
He was _fortunate_ in his seeming misfortunes. It was all very well to
be born in the little town, with its sweet country surroundings, but
Shakespeare would never have been the world-poet had he spent his life
in Stratford. The place was not big enough for his expansion. But the
cloth manufacturers of Stratford suffered heavily from the importation
of foreign manufactured goods, and the great farmers and engrossers
did what they could to kill its trade in wool. John Shakespeare lost
heavily, he sold Snitterfield, probably meant as the portion of his
younger children, he mortgaged and lost Asbies, destined by him as the
inheritance and future living of his eldest son. And young Shakespeare
was thus saved from being a little country farmer, and _forced_ to go
to seek his fortunes in London, where he developed into what was in him
to be. In London was literary culture from books and men. In London
also he was faced with difficulties. He had hoped for so many things;
nothing happened to him which he expected or desired; no door was
opened to him except that of the stage. Though he pitifully cries:
O, for my sake do you with fortune chide,
That doth not better for my life provide
Than public means, which public manners breed;
yet that led him to the very line of life in which he was best fitted
to excel, through which he became what he was.
He was _fortunate_ even in his marriage. I know that an opposite
view is generally accepted, but I do not believe it. The only reason
suggested is that Anne Hathaway was seven years older than himself.
Did any one ever meet a bold, masterful, well-grown lad of eighteen
whose first love was not a woman older than himself? Many happy
marriages have been made with this difference of age, and I do not
think Shakespeare’s an exception. I believe she was a timid, delicate,
fair-haired girl, type of the submissive wives he paints. There is
reason to believe that he took his family with him to London as soon
as he found a home. When fortune came he bought them the best house in
Stratford, and came to dwell beside them, as soon as he could give up
the acting part of his work. There he died among them, away from the
world of business, envy, and of strife. There is nothing to warrant the
blot on his good name and that of his wife so much insisted on by those
who have not studied the question. Mr. J. S. Gray, in “Shakespeare’s
Marriage,” is the only writer who has put it straight, and he speaks
with authority.
There is nothing derogatory in the legacy of the second-best bed;
it was evidently her own last request. She was sure of her widow’s
_third_; she was sure of her daughters’ love and care, but she wanted
the bed she had been accustomed to, before the grandeur at New Place
came to her.
He was _fortunate_ in the family she brought him, though unfortunately,
his only son was a twin, apparently delicate like his mother, and
he died young. For his sake Shakespeare called all boys _sweet_. His
daughters lived a longer life, the elder is recorded as “witty above
her sex,” because she was like her father, a devoted daughter, a loving
wife, a public benefactor. She brought him for his son-in-law the
physician Dr. John Hall, great not only in his own county, who first
used anti-scorbutics. He must have been a congenial companion to his
father-in-law. Then the little granddaughter came, who must have been
his joy.
He was _fortunate_ in his friends. London was then but a little city,
after all; it could easily be crossed and compassed on foot; its
inhabitants did not reach the sum total of 300,000. On arrival he
would _study_ London and Westminster, twin-cities, so great and so
story-laden, the clear shining Thames, its haunted Bridge, its Tower,
its Churches, and the Northern and Southern heights, where he could
revel in Nature, as he did at home. He may have gone to London with
high hopes, and many introductions. We do not know of those who mocked
him, of those who gave him no direct help. We do not know what he aimed
at, but we know he failed. Perhaps he hoped to be made a Yeoman of
the Privy Chamber, like Roger Shakespeare and Robert Arden, a Royal
Messenger like Thomas Shakespeare, a Royal Letter Carrier, like Edmund
Spenser. Possibly he meant to volunteer his help against the Spaniard,
but they did without him. Possibly his ambitions sank to a share in the
grocery business of Sadler and Quiney at Bucklersbury. Long waiting
at the doors of negligent patrons seems to have been his share. But
through all he had _one friend_ at least, during his period of toil
and preparation. We know that he knew his townsman, Richard Field (his
senior by three years), who had been at Stratford Grammar School, and
entered life on the solid lines of an apprentice to Thomas Vautrollier,
the great French printer, and became his son-in-law and successor.
Doubtless Shakespeare went at first to reside with him; certainly he
was much with him. His shop was the poet’s university, where he read
for his degree, by the inclusions and exclusions of the bookshelves.
The firm was licensed to keep foreign journeymen printers, and had many
monopolies of classical works. From these alone did Shakespeare quote,
and Field’s publications account for the most of his learning. There
he was inspired by “Plutarch’s Lives Englished by North,” trained by
“Puttenham’s Art of English Poesie,” in the canons of literature and
a taste for blank verse. There he found books on music, philosophy,
science, travels, medicine, language, and literature, which we _know_
he read. It was Richard Field who printed and published Shakespeare’s
two poems, the only works which we are sure he published and corrected
himself. By this publication, the friend of his everyday life became
associated with the friend of his higher dreams, who patronized,
criticised, inspired, glorified Shakespeare, and helped to shape his
genius. It is something to hear from his contemporary Webster, the
praise of Shakespeare’s “right happy and copious _industry_.” For
he must have been hard at work, in his early days in the metropolis
to have been able to publish a poem by 1593, which put him at once
among the highest group of contemporary poets over which Spenser
reigned supreme. That took the sting out of the dying Greene’s scorn
the year before concerning the upstart playwright who “thought he
could bumbast out a blank verse as well as the best of us.” The young
Earl of Southampton had supplied the one thing hitherto wanting in
the culture of the Stratford stranger. He was the ideal man of rank,
young, learned, refined, untrammelled, wealthy, impulsive, susceptible
to genius, critical in judgement. Next year, ere he came of age,
Shakespeare had written for him the “Rape of Lucrece,” and dedicated it
to him as the “Lord of his Love.” Through the same time he was writing
the sonnets, the witnesses of the thoughts, hopes, feelings, fears,
joys, he had passed through with his special friend.
He was _fortunate_, too, in his “fellows.” He had found no doors open
to him but those of James Burbage and his theatre. Play-acting was
repugnant alike to his taste and his pride: we can learn that from the
Sonnets.
But having been received into the company, having been trained in the
“_quality_,” he did his best to conquer. He was singularly fitted for
the stage, as John Davies says, “Wit, courage, good shape, good parts,
and all good.” From a performer he went on to be a writer of plays.
His company always stood as the best in the metropolis, the members
were attached to each other, trusting each other through life, leaving
each other legacies at death. How much did he owe to the expression and
inspiration of his fellows, especially of Richard Burbage?
It is not too much to believe that without Richard to translate him, he
would not have thought of putting on paper his great tragic characters,
Othello, Hamlet, Richard III.
He was _fortunate_, too, in his theatres. The best of their time,
they were worth writing for. Unhampered by much stage mechanism, and
with no scene shifting, he made his audience co-operate with him
through their imagination, and create for themselves the scenery
from his suggestions. No interruptions, no intervals for irrelevant
conversation drifted men away from the developments of the central
and side plots which animated the stage continuously. The progress of
a play necessitated one continued process of attention; and through
educating his hearers to his level, he came to reign supreme, playing
upon their heart strings, and moving them to mirth, woe, sympathy,
wonder, repulsion, or admiration as he pleased, in a way that we do not
understand to-day.
In another, laudable but more prosaic, aspect, Shakespeare was
_fortunate_, in making money. Trained by the pinch of early poverty,
by the humiliations of his father’s debts, by the constant demands of
a young family, to estimate its value as a means to any end, he seems
to have lost no chance of earning money, and by a self-denying life,
to have economized his gains. Thereby he was able to rehabilitate his
parents in their old position, to secure them a grant of arms, to
place his own family out of the reach of the deprivations he must have
suffered himself, and to have lived and died in dignity and honour.
_Fortunate_ in the decline of his life, when his warfare was over and
his conquest won, he came back to dwell in the place of his birth,
beside the wife of his youth, his daughters, and his wide circle of
friends. And when the end came, it was fortunate too. He had been
allowed to finish his task, and yet he had not overlived his powers.
He did not live _too long_, as Bacon did. His fellow townsmen did not
approve of plays any more than did the Corporation of London, but they
saw the playwriter reverently laid to rest in the chancel of their
parish church as owner of their tithes. The inartistic monument, and
the artistic epitaph were raised by loving hearts to “Shakespeare, with
whome Quick nature dide.”
Need more be said as to Shakespeare’s fortunes? It is not given to
all great men to fit the time and to find the chance to prove what is
in them, and to win success. It is not the fortune of every genius
even, however associated with great deeds, to reveal the spirit of his
country, and to be the voice of his age, which he helped to make what
it was. Yet that was Shakespeare’s fortune and our inheritance, and for
this the whole world honours him to-day.
* * * * *
_Impromptu speech at the dinner of the “Shakespeare Commemoration
League,” 23rd April, 1908._
II
SHAKESPEARE’S AUNTS AND THE SNITTERFIELD PROPERTY
Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps did much for the general reading public in
bringing to their attention so many of the estate records which help
to clear the position and the relations of the Arden and Shakespeare
families. Having done so much, it were well that he had done more.
Though he devoted his life and means to collecting information, he
published many of his discoveries in little books of limited issue,
accessible only to few, and he did not always carry them over to his
“Life of Shakespeare,” or to his much more exhaustive “Outlines of the
Life of Shakespeare.” Even in the last edition of that great work we
suffer somewhat from the method of arrangement, from a very imperfect
and unsatisfactory Index, from an absence of definite references,
and even, it must be confessed, from occasional carelessness and
incompleteness in his research among, and analyses of, the documents.
He had the great good fortune to have early access to the Stratford
records. Some of these were then in loose bundles, others bound in
books, without any attention to order or date. He made a Calendar
of these, but only in the order he found them, and did not provide
an index of any kind, beyond, as I found later, a separate private
booklet, limited to “ten copies,” so that any student who wishes to
know what has been preserved must read through the whole bulky folio
volume. Probably on account of these difficulties, or through blind
faith in his work, none of his successors--not even the industrious G.
R. French--has followed him to his originals or checked his inferences
by facts.
It seemed therefore worth while to go back to the manuscripts
themselves, and to work through them collectively and chronologically,
separating the results apart from the mere verbiage of legal documents.
Something has been gained thereby, not only in exactitude, and in the
recognition of the bearing of one fact upon another, but also several
new papers have been unearthed and a few facts have been gleaned, even
at this late day, and in this well-worked field.
The earliest record of the Snitterfield property which concerns the
Ardens, is, as Halliwell-Phillipps states (“Outlines,” 9th edit., ii,
207), Mayowe’s transfer of land in Snitterfield, May, 16 Hen. VII,
_i.e._ 1501. This is not given _in extenso_ in the “Outlines,” and I
made a translation of it for “The Genealogical Magazine,” 1899, p. 401,
reproduced in my “Shakespeare’s Family,” p. 29. I afterwards found that
it had appeared in “A New Boke about Shakespeare, J. O. Halliwell,
1850.” But its importance was not explained. A messuage with all its
appurtenances, situated between the land of John Palmer on one side,
and a lane called Merellane on the other, and extending from the king’s
highway to the rivulet, had been handed over by John Mayowe, through
his attorneys, Thomas Clopton of Snitterfield, gent., and John Porter
of Ardern, to six men, named in full. The witnesses were John Wagstaff
of Aston Cantlowe, Robert Porter of Snitterfield, Richard Rushby of
Snitterfield, Richard Atkyns of Wilmecote, John Alcokkes of Newnham,
and others. The names of the six feoffees were Robert Throckmorton,
arm. (knighted that same year); Thomas Trussell of Billesley, arm.;
Roger Reynolds of Henley-in-Arden; William Wood or Woodhouse; Thomas
Arden of Wilmecote, and Robert Arden, his son. After events make it
seem probable that this was a purchase desired by Thomas Arden for his
son, who may then have been under age and required trustees. No one has
noted fully that the others must have been the most trusted friends
of Thomas Arden, if not relatives or connections by marriage. Indeed,
if we might read into this the ordinary meaning of such arrangements,
it might be supposed that the unknown wife of Thomas Arden was a
Throckmorton, and the unknown first wife of Robert Arden a Trussell.
This same Robert Throckmorton was, about the same time, made trustee
for his children, by Sir John Arden of Park Hall (see my “Shakespeare’s
Family,” p. 184). Thomas Trussell was of a distinguished old family,
and the other two feoffees were gentlemen; so when Halliwell-Phillipps
scorned the notion of the Ardens of Wilmecote being associated with
gentility, he showed that he had missed the full import of this deed,
Misc. Doc., ii, 83.
The meaning of two other deeds was not revealed to him at all, because
each bore an error on its brow. The first is among the Birthplace
Deeds, in duplicate 424 and 425, and dated “19 Hen. VI.,” rendered in
pencil 1440. Therefore it has been neglected. It seemed of too old date
to concern the Ardens. But it can be proved that the date should have
been entered rather as 19 Hen. VII, a mistake having been made somehow.
It is the grant from William Mayowe to John Mayowe of Snitterfield,
son and heir of Richard Mayowe, of a messuage with appurtenances lying
between Marye Lane on the one hand, and the land of John Palmer on
the other. The witnesses were William Wylmecote of the Wold, William
Ketall, “Richard Parson of Heyth,” Thomas Palmer of Snitterfield, and
William Wormbarn; dated Snitterfield, Tuesday after Christmas, 27th
December, 19 Hen. VII, _i.e._ 1503. As this is _later_ than the deed
by which John Mayowe transferred this property to the feoffees, it
would seem to imply that John Mayowe was under age in 1501, or that
some doubt as to his title had arisen. This opinion is supported by the
next deed, which Halliwell-Phillipps must have glanced at, as he has
calendared it, but cannot have read, because he describes it without
comment as “Grant from John Mayhow of Snitterfield to _Thomas Arthur_,”
Misc. Doc., ii, 4. This has been referred to by no one else. But it
is evidently the real sale, the final concord. The property is the
same. Here are no trustees, no attorneys; it is the definite deed of
man to man. John Mayowe, probably surrendering William Mayowe’s grant
to himself made six months before, confirmed to _Thomas Arthurn_ (not
Arthur) of Wilmecote and his heirs the messuage, with eighty acres of
land in Snitterfield, with the same boundaries as before, the only
variation being between “the land held by _William_ Palmer on the one
hand, and the lane called _Mary’s Lane_ on the other.” John Mayowe
set his seal to this before the witnesses, Thomas Clopton, gent. (who
had been his attorney in 1501), Robert Porter, Thomas Nicholson, Hugh
Townsend, John Scoryer, John Palmer, jun., John Pardy, and many others,
6th July 19 Hen. VII (_i.e._ 1504). The spelling of the name need
perplex no one who understands the loose orthography of the time, and
knows that “Arden” was frequently spelt “Arderne.”
This was evidently the most important purchase made by Thomas Arden.
It was the property let, at some unascertained date between this and
1529, to Richard Shakespeare, and concerning which, nigh eighty years
afterwards, John and Henry Shakespeare, sons of Richard, were summoned
to give evidence in the Chancery suit brought by Thomas Mayowe against
the Ardens.
The next purchase was by Robert Arden, though we know from the
Subsidies and the Court Rolls that his father was yet alive. Richard
Rushby and his wife Agnes, daughter and heiress of William Harvey,
yielded to Robert Arden a tenement and lands between the tenement
of Richard Hardyng on the one side, and the land of the Lord of the
manor upon the other. The witnesses were Richard Grant, gent.; “Rogero
Palmer, chapelin”; John Pardy, and many others. Dated at Snitterfield
14th December 11 Hen. VIII, _i.e._, 1519 (Misc. Doc., ii, 9). Another
copy of the same date is preserved as Misc. Doc., ii, 59; and still
another among the Wheler MSS. at the Birthplace, i, 23 (S. 172),
dated 21st December 11 Hen. VIII. Two years later Richard Rushby of
Snitterfield handed over to Robert Arden of Wylmecote a general release
of this same property, dated at Wilmecote 29th December 13 Hen. VIII,
_i.e._ 1521 (Misc. Doc., ii, 81).
There is no suggestion of the third and fourth boundaries of this
purchase, except through the description of the next. Birthplace Deed
428 is a release from John Palmer of Snitterfield, son and heir of
John Palmer and Elizabeth his wife, daughter of John Harvey, formerly
of Snitterfield, to Robert Ardern, of one tenement and divers lands
and pastures between the tenement of Richard Hardyng on the one side,
and the land of the Lord on the other--the third and fourth boundaries
being again omitted. Witnesses, Richard Hawe of Warwick, gent.; Richard
Fyssher, Under-Bailiff of Warwick; Will Holbache, John Parker of Grove
Park, Walter Nicholson, John Townsend, and Richard Maydes, 1st October
21 Hen. VIII, _i.e._ 1529. This land was the fourth boundary of the
purchase from Mayowe, and probably united it with the Rushby purchase,
coming also through the Harveys. Both properties lay between the
tenement of Harding and the land of the Lord of the manor, and seem
to have been side by side. The addition must have greatly improved
the value of the Mayowe inheritance. Fragments of information come
to us from the Subsidy Rolls (192/128) and the Court Rolls of the
College of St. Mary in Warwick, Portfolio 207, 88. Richard Rushby and
William Mayowe seem to have stayed on in the village. John Palmer was
generally “tithing-man.” In 17 Hen. VIII Thomas Arden was presented for
owing suit of court, and William Mayowe because he should cut Eight
Leas Hedge. We do not know how much sooner he had come to reside in
Snitterfield, but we find that Richard Shackspere was presented by
John Palmer in 20 Hen. VIII, for owing suit of court. He was again
presented for the same neglect, 22 Hen. VIII, excused 23 Hen. VIII,
and John Palmer reported that “all was well” till 28 Hen. VIII. Then
Thomas Palmer presented “William Mayhew and Rich. Shakspere for default
of suit of court.” Again in 30 Hen. VIII, “Robine Ardern, Richard
Shackspere, and William Mayhew owe suit of court, and are amerced;
and Richard Shakespeare must mend the hedge between him and Thomas
Palmer under a penalty of 40 pence.” In 33 Hen. VIII, “William Mayhewe,
Richard _Shakeschafte_, and Roben Ardern owe suit of court, and are
amerced; and Roben Ardern must mend his hedge between him and John
Palmer under a penalty of 20 pence.”
Meanwhile Robert Arden had married, and was bringing up a large family
of daughters, and his wife died while some of them were yet young. The
next thing I have learnt of him is through the Court Rolls of Katharine
the Queen at Balsale, Portfolio 207 (9), the View of Frankpledge, 21st
April 2 Ed. VI (1548): “To this court came Agnes Hill, widow, and
prayed licence to marry one Robert Ardern, which was granted in the
name of the Lady the Queen, by her seneschal,” on the payment of a fee
of five shillings. Her husband John Hill of Bearley had died in 1545,
leaving her executrix. Her marriage probably took place very soon after
the licence was granted.
Robert Arden may have made other arrangements before this, but nothing
is preserved earlier than the settlement of 17th July 4 Ed. VI (1550).
He then enfeoffed Adam Palmer of Aston Cantlow and Hugh Porter of
Snitterfield in the tenement and land now in the occupation of Richard
Shakespeare, in trust for himself and his wife Agnes for life, with the
remainder of a third part to his daughter Agnes Stringer,[1] now wife
of Thomas Stringer, formerly wife of John Hewins, defunct, of Bearley;
another third part to his daughter Joan, the wife of Edmund Lambert,
Barton-on-the-Heath; and another third to his daughter Katharine, wife
of Thomas Edkins of Wylmecote (Misc. Doc., ii, 21; see also Misc. Doc.,
ii, 79). These three elder daughters evidently had the best part of
their father’s property, bordering on the high road, a stream, and a
lane,--all conveniences; its size about 80 acres.
On the same day, 17th July 1550, there was drawn up a tripartite
indenture by Robert Arden, confirming Adam Palmer and Hugh Porter in
the possession of a messuage and three “quatrones terre,” etc., now
in the tenure of Richard Henley, to the use of Robert Arden himself
and his wife Agnes for their lives, and after that a third part to
go to his daughter Margaret Webbe, the wife of Alexander Webbe of
Bearley; another third to his daughter Joyce; and another third to his
daughter Alice (Misc. Doc., ii, 77). Another copy is preserved in the
same series, ii, 79. A similar deed in Misc. Doc., ii, 73, is dated
six months later (17th December, 4 Ed. VI, 1550). This seems to have
been the property Robert had bought from the Rushbys, but whether it
included that formerly owned by the Palmers is not quite clear. The
boundary line and the number of acres are not defined, and sometimes
there were three tenants, and sometimes two, in the combined property.
Robert Arden made his will 24th November 1556, and died before 17th
December following. He left his wife Agnes, as we have seen, a life
interest in the shares of all his daughters at Snitterfield, and
a place of residence in the copyhold of Wilmecote, to be shared
“peaceably” with his daughter Alice, under a penalty. Mary was to
inherit Asbies, an independent farm of over 60 acres in Wilmecote,
and she and Alice were to be joint executors of their father’s will.
This shows that they were both grown up, though still unmarried, and
suggests that Arden had had some disappointment in his second marriage,
thus to pass over his wife to leave things in charge of his daughters.
John Shakespeare must shortly after have married Mary Arden, though no
record of the marriage has as yet been found.[2] Hugh Porter, one of
the feoffees, died in 1557, leaving Adam Palmer alone as trustee.
On 21st May 2 Eliz. (1560), Agnes Arden granted to her brother
Alexander Webbe of Bearley, husband of her stepdaughter Margaret,
a lease[3] for forty years, at 40_s._ a year, of the Snitterfield
estate, two messuages, a cottage, and a yard and a half of arable land,
etc., “in the occupation of Richard Shakespeare, John Henley, and
John Hargreave,” in presence of John Somerville and other witnesses
(Birthplace Deeds, 429).
No one has noted how seriously this may have affected Richard
Shakespeare. He may have been an aged man, ready to resign his
life-work, or he may not. It is not likely that Webbe’s removal from
Bearley to Snitterfield could have taken place before November of
that year; possibly another year’s grace was granted. But we do know
that either in December 1560 or January 1560-1 Richard Shackspere of
Snytterfield died, and his goods were administered by his son John,
then called “Agricola” 10th February 1560-1 (see Worcester Probate
Registry, “Testamenta”).
There is proof that Alexander Webbe did leave Bearley and settle down
on his lease farm at Snitterfield, a share of which would revert to
himself, through his wife Margaret, on the death of his sister Agnes.
He strengthened his position when, on 12th February 11 Eliz. (1568-9),
Thomas Stringer of Stocton in the county of Salop, yeoman, let to
Alexander Webbe of Snitterfield, husbandman, and Margaret his wife,
the third part of one messuage, etc., with a yard of land, etc. now
in the occupation of the said Alexander, with all the interest he has
in another tenement and half yardland now in the occupation of John
Henley, to hold, after the decease of Agnes Arden, for the term of
twenty-one years. Webbe was to pay to Thomas Stringer and his heirs
6_s._ 8_d._ at the two terms of the year. If Alexander Webbe failed to
pay, the Stringers might eject him. “Witnesses, John Shakespere, Henry
Russell, Richard Boyse, and James Hilman, this writer” (Misc. Doc.,
ii, 15, not signed by the Stringers). A bond is also drawn up between
them that if Thomas Stringer does not fulfil his agreement, he should
forfeit £7; same date, with same witnesses (Misc. Doc., ii, 78).
Alexander Webbe was buried at Snitterfield 17th April 1573, and “John
Shackspere” was the overseer of his will. His widow Margaret shortly
afterwards married Edward Cornwell. The first reference I have found
to him is in a deed of exchange (Misc. Doc., vii, 41), which has not
been noted, between Bartholomew Hales, Lord of the Manor, and certain
freeholders in Snitterfield, _i.e._, “Sir John Spencer; Thomas Feryman,
‘clarke,’ Vicar of the Parish Church; Edward Graunt, gent.; John Pardy;
Robert Maydes; John Tombes and Elizabeth his wife; John Walker; Edward
Cornewell and Margaret his wife; Thomas Stringer; Thomas Palmer;
William Perckes and Marjory his wife, Thomas Harding, and Edward
Watersonne, freeholders of and within the said manor, 23rd January 17
Eliz. (1575).”
There had been certain exchanges of the common lands between the
farmers and the manor, but they were unsure in law. By this indenture
it is covenanted that Bartholomew Hales and Mary his wife and their
heirs shall grant to the freeholders and their heirs, by way of
exchange, all the lands, meadows, commons, pastures, and feeding
commodities now in the tenure of Edward Grant in Rowley Field; and the
“four yarde land,” late in the occupation of Bartholomew Hales, lying
in Gallow Hill Field, Rowley Field, and Brookfield (except as reserved
for certain tenants in beast pasture and three-horse pasture during
their several terms); and all the lands in the common called Griswold
or Bushe Field, and all the meadow ground with the “hades” in Aston
Meadow and Errymarsh Meadow. And the Lord agreed that after the hay is
mown and carried away from the common meadow called Broad Meadow, the
customary tenants, without let, shall enjoy the aftermath of the said
parcel of meadows for ever: And as there are so many conies in Rowley
Field, to the annoyance of the tenants, they shall be allowed to kill
and destroy or take the said conies wherever their corn shall grow. He
further grants that one “hade land” (10 ridges) being in Coplowes next
Parsons, otherwise called Burges Hedge there, and shooting down into
the way after Luscombe Hedge, shall be for ever a common way to bring,
lead, or carry hay out of Aston Meadow with horse, cart, or “wayne.”
The freeholders grant in exchange certain ground called Common Fields
or Wallfields, one close called the Parkepitt, one field called the
New Lessowe or Brunthill, a pasture called Coplow and a meadow, a
parcel of ground called Hollowe Meadowe, and one Lammas Close near the
house of Margery Lynsycombe; also the Common Leys lying between Hollow
Meadow and Ingon Gate, shooting up by Stratford Way Pit to the ground
of William Cookes, containing by estimation 200 acres; and certain
ground lying in the Hillfield where the windmill standeth, and the
parish meadow, and all other commons, woods, furzes, etc., of the said
freeholders. If either party break the agreement, the other may enter
into the possession of the old lands so exchanged.
A long series of deeds follow this, most of which were known to
Halliwell-Phillipps. On 12th October 18 Eliz. (1576), Edward Cornwell
of Snitterfield, husbandman, and Margaret his wife, assigned to Robert
Webbe, husbandman, their interest in two messuages with a cottage, and
the lease granted by Agnes Arden to his father (see Birthplace Deeds,
429). The witnesses were Gualterus Roche, Nicholas Knolles, clerk, and
Thomas Nycolls (Birthplace Deeds, 430).
On 16th October 18 Eliz. (1576), Thomas Stringer of Stockton, co.
Salop, and his sons John and Arden Stringer, bargained and sold to
Edward Cornwell and Margaret his wife all the reversion which was the
inheritance of Agnes, late wife of Thomas Stringer, and daughter of
Robert Arden, deceased. A curious complexity comes in here, for they
also sell, as if they had bought it, “the residue of the said tenements
which late were the inheritance of Thomas Edkyne and Katharine his
wife, in the right of the said Katharine.” The Stringers sell this
double share for £68, to be paid beforehand, and they agree that at
Christmas term next they shall sue out a fine of the parcel of the
premises of the said Thomas Edkins and his wife Katharine, “if the said
Katherine do so long live.” They have full power to sell all, except
the life interest of Agnes Arden. They set their hands and seals to
this, in the presence of the same witnesses as last deed (Misc. Doc.,
ii, 10).
Another important step was taken on 20th November 21 Eliz. (1578), when
Edward Cornwell of Snitterfield, yeoman, and Margaret his wife, sold to
Robert Webbe their moiety of three messuages in Snitterfield for £100.
This seems to refer back to the last two agreements. Witnesses, John
Dafferne, Nicholas Knolles, Thomas Chamberlayne, Hastings Aston, Will
Cookes, Henry Talbot, and Thomas Nicholson (Birthplace Deeds, 431). The
bond from Edward Cornwell to ensure the performance of the covenant was
signed the same day, before the same witnesses (Wheler Papers, i, 34).
Another deed was drawn up on 23rd December 21 Eliz. (1578), in which
Thomas, John, and Arden Stringer, and Thomas Edkins, gave up in
perpetuity all their rights in the third part of these messuages and
lands to Robert Webbe, the son of Margaret Cornwell. The signs of
Thomas and Arden Stringer with seals, and the _signature_ of John
Stringer, follow this, but no allusion to Edkins (Misc. Doc., ii, 20).
There was a fine made between Robert Webbe and Thomas Stringer the
following Easter (Public Record Office, Feet of Fines, Warr. Pasche,
15th June 21 Eliz., 1579). The Stringers received £40 thereby; perhaps
this was only for their own share. There was no allusion to the Edkins,
so perhaps Katharine “did not so long live.” An abstract of this fine
is preserved in Misc. Doc., i, 92.