general, and the poet’s family in particular, makes it the more
important to record any facts which tend to weaken that belief. A case
came up more than once before the burgh court concerning some property
claimed by two women as inheritance from their grandmother. “The
names of the jurors in the cause of Margaret Younge _v._ Jone Perat,
20th July, 37 Elizabeth,” are given in the Miscellaneous Documents,
Stratford-on-Avon, VII, 245 and 246, Apparently Jone Perat had already
disposed of some of the property she held, which chiefly seemed to
consist of articles of women’s clothing. But there were other articles
also, and there were at least four books. At the foot of the statement
is the note:
Mʳ Shaxpere, one book; Mʳ Barber, a coverlett, two daggers, the
three bokes; Ursula Fylld, the apparell and the bedding clothes at
Whitsontyde was twellmonth. Backe debts due to the partie defendant.
It is to be supposed that at this date it must have been John, and
not William, who was designated “Mr. Shaxpere.” Imagination is left
to play vainly round the nature of the book; but it is clear from
these rough notes that he had coveted one special book in Jone Perat’s
possession, that he had secured it, but that he had not yet paid for
it. Mr. Barber also, it may be noted, held three books on the same
doubtful tenure, between plaintiff and defendant. But at least four
books were in the market in Stratford at that date which had been in
the possession of the old grandmother.
_“Athenæum,” 23rd January 1909._
VII
JOHN SHAKESPEARE, OF INGON, AND GILBERT, OF ST. BRIDGETS
When a long chain of arguments depend upon one fact, and that
fact is disproved, the dependent arguments become invalid. It
would be invidious to correct formally two trifling errors in
Halliwell-Phillipps’s monumental work, if it had not happened that they
were the support of other errors.
1. He states authoritatively in his “Outlines” (ii, 253) that the
John Shakespeare of Ingon could not be the John of Henley Street,
because the former was buried in 1589, and the latter in 1601. “Joannes
Shakespeare of Yngon was buried the xxvth of September, 1589,” in the
parish of Hampton-Lucy. Yet a careful consideration of the register
shows that the entry was not “Joannes,” but “Jeames.” This Mr. Richard
Savage is clear about. The “Jeames” may have been some elder untraced
connection, but it is much more than likely he was the “Jeames, son of
Henry Shakespeare, of Ingon,” whose baptism is recorded in the same
register, 1585, as there is no further entry concerning this cousin
of the poet’s. This error being cleared away, there is no fundamental
objection to the opinion that John Shakespeare of Henley Street
might be the same as John of Ingon, mentioned in the measurement of
a neighbouring farm, 23 Elizabeth, “Ingon ... then or late in the
tenure of John Shaxpere or his assignes.” The relation John held to his
brother Henry makes it very likely indeed that Ingon was in his nominal
tenure, and that Henry farmed it as his “assigne.”
If John of Henley Street may be considered the same as John of
Ingon, he must also be considered the same as the John, Agricola,
of Snitterfield, who, in conjunction with Nicols, was granted
administration of his father Richard’s goods in 1561, under a bond for
£100. Some have considered this uncertain, but they cannot have gone
to authorities. The administration in Worcester Probate Registry, 10th
February 1560-1, definitely states John of Snitterfield was the son of
Richard. He had probably been born in Snitterfield, had some interest
in the land there, was probably resident there at the time of his
father’s illness and death, to look after affairs, and very probably
described himself at the Registrar’s Office as having come direct from
Snitterfield to wind up the affairs of his father’s farm, complicated
by the lease granted by Mrs. Arden, to her brother Alexander Webbe.
Though it might not be absolutely certain that John of Snitterfield was
John of Stratford, it seems settled in 1581, when the Mayowes contested
the claims of the Ardens, and Adam Palmer, the surviving feoffee, and
John and Henry Shakespeare, his brother, were summoned as witnesses for
the Ardens before the Commission appointed at Stratford.
2. The second is a more important error, for it seems to substantiate
a hazy tradition that Shakespeare’s brother lived to a great age,
and retailed to greedy ears gossip concerning the poet’s acting.
Halliwell-Phillipps, “Outlines,” i, 35, states that “Gilbert entered
into business in London as a Haberdasher, returning in the early part
of the following century to his native town.” Among the notes there
is given an indefinite entry to support this, without the term, the
case, or the names of the parties being given (ii, 289): “In the Coram
Rege Rolls, 1597, Gilbert Shackspere, who appears as one of the bail
in the amount of £19 for a clockmaker of Stratford, is described as a
Haberdasher of the Parish of St. Bridget.” He further considers the
Stratford burial of 1612 to have been that of Gilbert’s son.
I had always thought it extremely improbable that at the time of John
Shakespeare’s financial difficulties in Stratford-on-Avon he would have
found himself able to place his second son as an apprentice in London
to any member of that wealthy company. But lately I determined to test
the truth of the statement. Through the courtesy of the Worshipful
Company of Haberdashers I was allowed to go through their books at
leisure. I found that not only was there an entire absence of the name
of Shakespeare from the list of apprentices or freemen, but that during
the whole of the sixteenth century there was only one “Gilbert,” and
he was “Gilbert Shepheard,” who took up his freedom in 1579, when the
poet’s brother would be thirteen years of age.
Through the kindness of the Vicar of St. Bridgets, or St. Brides, I was
also allowed promptly to go through the registers, which commence only
in 1587--early enough, however, for Gilbert Shakespeare. But there is
no mention of the name, either among marriages, births, or deaths. Of
course, this does not prove that he did not reside in the parish.
The subsidy rolls are also silent as to his residence there. But in
both places occur the name of Gilbert Shepheard, Haberdasher. The
discovery of Halliwell-Phillipps’s want of thoroughness in regard to
this statement discouraged me in attempting to wade through the six
volumes of closely-written contracted Latin cases that make up the
Coram Rege Roll of 1597. I felt nearly certain that I would only find
Gilbert Shepheard there also. For I have been driven to the conclusion
that Halliwell-Phillipps misread “Shepheard” as “Shakespeare.”
It sends us, therefore, back to the more likely neighbourhood of
Stratford-on-Avon for further reference to the poet’s brother. He was
known to be there in 1602, taking seisin of land in his brother’s name.
The burial entry of 1611-12 is peculiarly worded, I confess, and gives
some reason to suppose that he had a son born elsewhere, here buried
as “Gilbertus Shakespeare, Adolescens.” But when we remember there is
no other record of marriage or of birth, no other entry of a Gilbert’s
death save this, it makes us reconsider the situation. We know that
the poet’s brother Edmund died in 1607 in Southwark, and his brother
Richard in 1612-13 in Stratford-on-Avon. In the poet’s will, written
about four years later, there is no allusion to a brother or any of
his connections or descendants. This brother would certainly have been
mentioned in some of the wills of the Shakespeares had he been alive.
We are aware that parish clerks were not always perfectly correct, and
that, at the time, there was a general tendency to use pompous words,
of which the meaning was not fully understood. Shakespeare’s plays show
this. Dogberry would have borne out the clerk of Stratford-on-Avon in
any rendering he chose to give. He would have been no worse than a Mrs.
Malaprop if he intended “adolescens” to represent “deeply regretted,”
and in the absence of further proof this need not be accepted as clear
evidence that Gilbert Shakespeare lived to a great age. (See Note VII.)
_“Athenæum,” 29th December 1900._
VIII
HENRY SHAKESPEARE’S DEATH
We know little of any of the poet’s relatives, but from what we do
know, none of them touches our imagination so keenly as does his uncle
Henry Shakespeare of Snitterfield. We can read between the lines of
the bald notices preserved, and picture him warm-hearted, hot-headed,
high-spirited, imprudent rather than improvident, unlucky himself, and
bringing bad luck to all connected with him. I have discovered some
papers which show that misfortunes pursued him even to the bitter end.
He was probably born in the house his father Richard rented from Robert
Arden, which abutted on the High Street of Snitterfield, and seems to
have been the youngest son. It was John who “administered” his father’s
goods; it was more likely John who found the farm in Ingon, whither
Henry had to remove when Agnes Arden leased the Snitterfield property
to her brother Alexander Webbe. There Henry dwelt from 1561 till 1596,
seemingly industrious, but rarely able, even with his brother’s help,
to make two ends meet.
Alexander Webbe made his will 15th April 1573, to which Henry
Shakespeare was one of the witnesses, and John, being brother-in-law,
was an overseer.
On 12th October 1574, Henry Shakespeare had a free fight with Edward
Cornwell. Both were fined, the latter 2_s._, Henry 3_s._ 4_d._, because
“he drew blood to the injury of Edward Cornwell, and against the peace
of the Queen.” It must not be forgotten that this Edward Cornwell
stepped into Webbe’s shoes by marrying his widow Margaret (_née_
Arden). It may therefore have been some matter of jealousy, or some
exasperating airs of superiority, which made Henry Shakespeare take the
law into his own hands, and give Cornwell a good drubbing. Yet “Hary
Shaxsper” was among the witnesses subpœnaed by the Commission appointed
to hear the appeal of Thomas Mayowe against Edward Cornwell and the
Ardens in 1580.
He had serious trouble in a tithe case about that time, in which the
proceedings show the farm was of considerable size. He refused to
pay, because he said he had compounded; he was summoned before the
Ecclesiastical Court,[14] refused to submit to the decision, was
pronounced contumacious, and was finally excommunicated, 5th November
1581.
In 1583 he was fined for refusing to wear cloth caps on Sunday, as by
statute was ordained for men of his degree; and he was often fined for
default of suit of Court.
Lettyce, daughter of Henry Shakespeare of Ingon, was baptized 4th June
1583; and “Jeames, son of Henry Shakespeare of Ingon, was baptized
October 15th, 1585.” See Register of Bishop Hampton.
On 4th September 1586 Henry stood godfather to Henry Townsend in
Snitterfield along with William Maydes and Elizabeth Perkes.
On 2nd November of that year, when Christopher Smith, _alias_ Court,
of Stratford-on-Avon, yeoman, drew up his will, he entered among his
assets “Henry Shaxspere of Snitterfield oweth me 5_l._ 9_s._”
Other debts Henry was unable to pay--one especially to Nicholas Lane,
for which his brother John had become security. Nicholas Lane sued
John Shakespeare to recover in the Court of Records on 1st February
29 Eliz., 1586-7, for the debt of “Henricus Shakesper frater dicti
Johannis” (a statement clear enough to silence the quibblers who
assert there is no proof of relationship between the men). Doubtless
this was a crushing blow to John amid his own troubles.
In 1591 Henry Shakespeare was arrested for debt by Richard Ainge, and,
seeming to have found no bail, remained in prison some time.
The last recorded incident in his life is of the same nature. John
Tomlyns had him attached for debt on 29th September 1596. Henry Wilson
bailed him (see Misc. Doc. vii, 225; also Court of Records, 3 papers),
13th October 1596, continuation of the action of John Tomlyns against
Henry Shaxspere; and on 27th October 1596, John Tomlyns pled against
Henry Shaxspere in a plea of debt. This entry has been scratched
out. He had lost his children, worldly success had eluded him, and
the broken-spirited man sickened and died.[15] He was buried at
Snitterfield on 29th December 1596.
My new papers come to darken the circumstances into tragic intensity
(Uncal. Court of Requests, Elizabeth, B. III). There are two
complaints, both by John Blythe of Allesley, co. Warwick, against
William Meades, who, it may be remembered, stood sponsor with Henry
Shakespeare for John Townsend’s child. The first complaint, presented
30th June 40 Eliz., 1598, narrates that about three years previously
John Blythe had become, along with William Meades of Coleshall, surety
for a debt of John Cowper of Coleshall to an unnamed creditor. Cowper
did not pay, neither did Meades, and the creditor recovered from
John Blythe alone, and he appealed for protection. This complaint is
scratched out, though it is pinned together with the other papers.
The second complaint is to the effect that, about three years before,
John Blythe of Allesley had sold and “delivered to Henry _Shakespeare_
of Snitfield,” two oxen for the sum of £6 13_s._ 4_d._, and the
purchaser became bound in a bill obligatory to pay at a date specified,
now past, and had not paid. The reason was that
Shakespeare falling extremely sicke, about such time as the money was
due, died about the time whereon the money ought to have been paid,
having it provided in his house against the day of payment.... Now,
soe it is ... that Shakespeare living alone, without any companie
in his house, and dying without either friends or neighbours with
him or about him, one William Meades, dwelling near unto him, having
understanding of his death, presently entered into the house of the
said Shakespeare after that he was dead, and, pretending that the said
Shakespeare was indebted to him, ransacked his house, broke open his
coffers, and took away divers sums of money and other things;
went into the stable, and led away a mare;
carried away the corn and hay out of the barn, amounting to a
great value, being all the proper goods and chattells of the said
Shakespeare while he lived; and not contented therewith, in the night
time, no one being present but his servants and such as he sent
for that purpose, he caused to be conveyed away all the goods and
household stuff belonging to the said Shakespeare, which money and
goods were of a great value ... and converted them to his own proper
use.
John Blythe cannot speak with certainty upon the subject, as no
witnesses were present but those brought by Meades, and it was worked
in secret, so that he cannot proceed by the course of the Common Law.
He had frequently asked Meades to pay the £6 13_s._ 4_d._ due to him
for Henry Shakespeare’s oxen, from the goods he had taken. Blythe
did not think it fair that Meades should satisfy himself without
considering the other creditors, and thought that if there was not
enough to pay all, they should share in proportion, and prayed that
William Meades be summoned before the Court to make personal answer.
A Privy Seal for a Commission to inquire into the truth was granted,
dated 30th October 40 Eliz., 1598, on which is written “The execution
in another schedule attached” (now lost).
The answer of William Meades, dated 13th January 41 Eliz., 1598-9,
lightens the horror a little. He does not acknowledge anything in
Blythe’s complaint to be true, but is willing to declare all he knows.
Henry Shakespeare, late of Snitterfield, having a wife living in the
house with him named Margaret, died at Snitterfield about two years
ago. He, William Meades, understanding of his death, went to the house
about two hours after his decease, being accompanied by Thomas Baxter,
Christopher Horn, Richard Taylor, and others, neighbours, hoping that
Shakespeare had taken order with his wife to satisfy him of the sum
of £4 6_s._ 8_d._, due by Shakespeare to him, William Meades. But the
said Margaret said there was no order taken by her late husband for
the payment of any debt to him or any other creditor, and he departed
quietly, without any ransacking of the house or taking away any money
or goods which were Henry Shakespeare’s while he lived, as most untruly
and slanderously hath been alleged against him. But he hath been
credibly informed, and verily believeth, that
one William Rownde of Allesley, co. Warr., husbandman, standing bound
to John Blythe jointly with Henry Shakespeare in the said sum of
6_l._ 13_s._ 4_d._ for the said oxen, and understanding that Henry
Shakespeare was under arest at Stratford-upon-Avon, and there detayned
in pryson for debt, and fearing lest he, the said William Rownde,
should be compelled to paie the sum of 6_l._ 13_s._ 4_d._ to the said
John Blythe for the debt of Henry Shakespeare, he, the said Rownde,
did fetch the said two oxen from the said Henry Shakespeare and
delivered them to the said John Blythe of Allesley in discharge of the
same debt.
Meades denied that he had gone in the night time and taken away Henry
Shakespeare’s goods, that he had detained anything to his own use, or
that John Blythe had asked him to pay the £6 13_s._ 4_d._ as surety.
This is signed by Bartholomew Hales, William Jeffreys, William Cookes,
and Ambrose Cowper, the Commissioners, the first being lord of the
manor.
The replication of John Blythe to William Meades, 23rd June 41 Eliz.,
1599, upholds his former complaint, which he is willing to prove. But
the name of Henry Shakespeare does not appear in it. There is no trace
of further action, or of any decision. But we have the tragic picture
of Henry Shakespeare’s haunted death-bed. John Shakespeare, only four
miles off, must have felt inclined, when he heard of it, to say what
Macduff did: “And I must be from hence!”
Even more touching is the picture of the widow of two hours being
worried about her husband’s debts. Bereaved and childless, she was left
alone in the dismantled house, where the wheels of life stood still,
for a short time (only six weeks), and then in Snitterfield “Margaret
Sakspere, being tymes the wyff of Henry Sakspere, was buried, ix Feb.,
1596/7.”
_“Athenæum,” 21st May 1910._
FOOTNOTES:
[14] Act Book IX, Diocesan Registry, Worcester.
[15] The “Dictionary of National Biography” describes him as “a
prosperous farmer.”
IX
“MRS. SHAXSPERE” IN THE LAW COURTS
It is well known that William Shakespeare, his family, and his friends
were frequently connected with lawsuits in Stratford-on-Avon; but it
has not yet been noted that his mother also appeared, in one case at
least, under conditions not quite clear.
Among the Miscellaneous Documents, Stratford-on-Avon, Vol. VI, is a
narrow strip of paper numbered 168. It begins:
Jurie between Robert Reed, plaintiff, and John Sadler, defendant, in a
pley of trespas committed.
List of Jury: Phyllyp Grene; Ralph Lourd; Valentyne Taunt, Jur.;
Robert Byddell, Jur.; Rychard Dyxson; William Wyat, Jur.; Rychard
Boyse; Hough Piggon, Jur.; Edmund Watt; Rychard Taylor, Jur.; Nycholas
James, Jur.; George Perey; Thomas Sharpe, Jur.; Humphrey Wheeler;
Thomas Brydges; Jullyan Shawe, Jur.; Robert Wylson; John Knyght;
William Tetherton; Rychard Pinck; George Mase, Jur.; Wylliam Slater,
Jur.; George Rose, Jur.; Thomas More, Jur.
This seems to be the case described in the same volume of Miscellaneous
Documents, VI, No. 176. Robert Reade was a surgeon. John Gibbes was
dangerously wounded 10th June 37 Eliz. John Sadler, his intimate friend
and neighbour, summoned Robert Reade, and promised him £10 if he should
cure Gibbes. This sum Sadler refused to pay after the cure had been
effected.
At the foot of the page, apparently unconnected with the above, is
another entry:
Capiat Rychard Jumpe at the suit of Johne Coocke in assumpsione for
cecurytie for iiiˡⁱ viˢ viiiᵈ to paye at Stratford fayre next.
Endorsed upside down, and hence on the back of the later entry, appears
Maria Shaxspere, Jur.
Jone Reade.
Jane Baker, Jur.
Now can it be taken that these women were also on the jury, or were
they only sworn witnesses? One of these they must have been. Of the
three women’s names, one was apparently ruled out, Jone Reade, probably
related to Robert Reed, plaintiff. The case is undated, and one gathers
no clues from the calendar. I have looked up the dates of all the names
mentioned in the Stratford Registers, and find that it cannot have been
heard later than 1597, as Robert Bydell was buried 28th December 1597.
Of the others, Thomas Sharpe was buried 18th August 1608, and “Marye
Shaxspere, Wydowe,” on 9th September: “Jane, daughter of Richard Baker,
Shoemaker, 23rd Sept., 1613,” though the entry might really refer to
Jone, wife of Daniel Baker, who was buried 16th May 1600.
It seems almost certain that this Maria was the wife of John
Shakespeare and the mother of William. There is not another of the
name in the Stratford Register; and had she been one of the Rowington
Shakespeares, her place of residence would naturally have been
mentioned as a distinction. It is therefore possible that the poet
learnt some of his knowledge of law terms even from the experience of
his mother.
_“Athenæum,” 13th May 1909._
X
“HONORIFICABILITUDINITATIBUS” IN WARWICKSHIRE
PILLERTON REGISTERS
Through the kindness of the Rev. Neville Hill I have been allowed to
see the Pillerton Hersey registers, which date from 1539. They have not
been very badly preserved, that is, they are not mouldy nor worm-eaten,
nor much frayed. But the earliest volume, at least, is the most
carelessly _kept_ that I have ever seen, in the sense of having entries
(now undecipherable) scribbled all over the covers, outside and inside;
in having long gaps without any records; and in having those of later
date wedged into spaces among the earlier ones, so that, for instance,
eighteenth-century entries in some places immediately follow those of
1579.
On the inner sides of the covers are various scribblings that can only
be roughly dated by the study of the handwriting. A superficial set of
marks shows the scribbles of a child. Yet the first scribe left his
work exceptionally well done. He was evidently proud of his beautiful
penmanship, and took great care in producing his records, especially in
his earlier years. What relation he bore to the parish is uncertain.
Dugdale says that the sixteenth-century incumbents were “Ric. Moore,
Cler., Nov. 11th, 1562; and v.p.m. Ric. Moore,[16] Rob. Hall,[17] Feb.
23rd, 1590.” Of the first I can find no further record; of the second
we may premise that he was the Robert Hale who matriculated 1580, 28th
April, Glouc. pleb. f., 17 Broadgates H. (see Boase, Reg. Univ. Oxford,
vol. II, ii).
But the person who wrote the earlier pages leaves us in no doubt as to
his name being William Palmer. I can find no reference to him in Boase,
unless he appears in the list of students: “Mr. William Palmer, 1565,
Christ Church, Student.” There were many Palmers in the neighbourhood,
some even in the parish. He may have been an incumbent between the two
known vicars; he may have been a scribe employed to do the work; he may
have been a gentleman doing it for pleasure. But the work he did was
to transcribe the earlier paper registers into parchment, as required
by Act of Parliament. He did it well and clearly, on several occasions
stating that there had been no entries during a certain number of
years, or that they had been put out of chronological order. It is not
quite clear when he reached contemporary dates; but the last trace of
his handwriting is in 1598, when a sprawling script commences, and “Ro:
Hale” signs the pages for a long period, down, at least, till 1653.
When William Palmer commenced the little volume (about folio size from
top to bottom, little more than half in breadth) he wrote in the inside
of the upper cover two lines:
Hac jacet in Tumba Rosamundi non Rosamunda
Non redolet, sed olet, quæ redolere solet.
A translation is given below by a later writer, but Palmer in a more
careless hand (yet evidently his own) states further
An easie good brings easie gaines,
But thinges of price are bought with paines.