to the last page, laid the volume at right angles, and wrote, in his
best and earliest style, near the margin, “Honorificabilitudinitatibus,
Constantinopolis.”
This fact might hardly have been thought worth recording, but that some
peculiar people, who base arguments upon half-truths, have founded
an oft-repeated argument on the assertion that the only known use in
literature of this long word is in “Love’s Labour’s Lost” and “The
Northumberland Manuscript.” The fact has already been recorded in
“Notes and Queries” (9 S. ix, 494) that the first known use in this
country was in “The Complaint of Scotland,” published in St. Andrews,
1548-9, where the author (Sir John Inglis or Robert Wedderburn) classes
it among the “_long-tailed_ words” which had been used in other books.
It is shown that Nash used it in his “Lenten Stuff” in 1599, but this
might have been quoted from “Love’s Labour’s Lost,” and there are many
later examples (“Notes and Queries,” 9 S. ix, 371).
Here, however, is a case of its use in Warwickshire, under exactly the
same conditions as those of the Northumberland MS. at a date earlier
than that on which it had been scribbled there, and in a locality where
the book and the writer were quite accessible to Shakespeare.
At the top of the same page on which the long-tailed word was
inscribed, there is recorded
Collected at Pillerton Hersey towards the reliefe of Marlborough the
some of eight shillinges and two pence, Aug. the 24th, 1653. Ro: Hale,
Minister. Allyn Smith, John Reeve, Churchwardens.
In another handwriting below this is written:
William Cunninghame is my name
And for to wryt I thinke no shame.
He may or may not have introduced some lines irregularly written below
this:
Earth upon earth bould house and bowrs,
Earth upon earth sayes all is ours.
Earth upon earth when all is wroght,
Earth upon earth sayes all is for nought.
In a somewhat similar hand, at the foot of this page, written in prose
order, and with few capitals, run the lines
I hade both money and a frend
as nether thoght nor store
I lent my money to my frend
and tooke his word therefore.
I aste my money from my frend
and noght but words I gott
I lost my money and my frend
for sheu him I colde not.
At lenth with money came my frend
which plest me wondrous welle.
I got my money, bot my frend
Away quite from me fell.
Had I my money and my frend
as I have had before
I wolde kepe my money from my frend
and playe the foole no more.
A few more scribbles are sufficient to cover the long narrow page.
As no one has transcribed, or even read, this register, I may select a
few entries, though of little direct Shakspearean interest:
_Baptisms_
1561. Marie, daughter of John Palmer, was baptized 14th August.
1566. John, son of John Palmer, was baptized 7th Maye.
1567. Anker, the sonne of Anker Brent, was baptized 19th day of June.
John, the son of John Elton, baptized by the midwife; died the 29th
day of April, 1568.
1568. Mercall, the daughter of John Franklin, was baptized 15th day of
Maye.
1568. Anker, the son of John Reeve, was baptized the 20th daye of Maye.
1570. Alice, daughter of John Palmer, was baptized 1st September.
1575. Marke, the son of Richard Graunt, was baptized 24th April.
1584. John, son of Thomas Palmer, was baptized 13th October.
1585. Katharine, the daughter of Mrs. Hill, was baptized 12th November.
1599. Eme Hemmings, daughter of John Hemmings,[18] was baptized 17th
December.
1600. Israell, the daughter of Rowland Robins, was baptized 4th Maye.
1603. Katharine, the daughter of John Heywood, was baptized 14th
January.
---- Israell, the daughter of Gabriell Gillet, was baptized 20th
January.
1607. Cornelius, daughter of John Smith, junior, and Anne his wife,
was baptized the 14th daye of Maye.
1612. Penelope, the daughter of Allan Smith, gent., and Frances his
wiefe, was borne the 13th Apperill, and baptized the 19th daye of the
said Apperill, the witnesses Robert Hale mynister, Margaret Palmer,
Marie Reeve.
Further on, stuck in at the side of the register, appears:
Hester, ye daugh: of Humanities Jackson, nat: fuere primo die Augusti,
1655.
Among the marriages are:
1553. Richard Manners was married to Margerie Rawlins the 23rd day of
October.
1611. Thomas Davis and Israel Reeve were married 22nd Oct.
1622. John Parlbe, of St. Leonards in Shoreditch, and Christian
Stickly were married together the 8 day of July.
1626. William Pargiter, of Sulgrave in the countie of Northampton,
gent., and Frances Smith, gent., were married together the 30 day of
Januarie.
1642. Humanitas Jacson, of Asherne, and Anne Smith, of Pillarton
Hersey, were married together the 21 day of June.
Among the burials are:
1552. Margerie Quittles, buried the 28th day of May.
1596. Mary Horsekeeper was buried the 27 of November.
Many deaths took place among the Jacksons closely together:
1681. Anne, ye daughter of Humanitas Jackson, junior, was buried
August 9th.
1682. Humanitas Jackson, junior, was buried Jan. 10th.
1682. William Jackson, buried Feb. 2.
1682. Mary, ye daughter of Humanitas Jackson, was buried Dec. 31.
1683. Humanitas Jackson, senior, buried Oct. 4th.
It is recorded shortly after this
“Anno Salvatoris 1703/4, Annæque Angliæ Reginæ Beatissimæ Regni
Secundo. Collected to a Breef for the relief of our persecuted
Protestant Brethren of the principality of Orange the sum of five and
thirty shillings and eight pence.”
Among family names in this early book are Wing, Jude, Prophet,
Makepeace, Nason, Sambache, Vinsen, Leah, Fredwell.
In the same box is now preserved the earliest register of what was
formerly a separate parish, Pillerton Priors. It lacks its outer cover,
and apparently the earlier slip has vanished. It begins abruptly with
“Criseninges, 1604,” though on later pages there are marriages and
burials from 1594. Both parishes seem to have been in the same cure at
this date. “Ro: Hale” signs both registers at the foot of each page. A
few entries are of some philological or genealogical interest:
1609. Athalia, the daughter of William Smith and Luci his wife, was
baptized the 25th day of March.
1610. Edythe, the daughter of Richard Griffyn and Jane his wief, was
baptized the 22nd June.
1621. Moses, the son of Abraham Neale, baptized 11th Nov.
1630. Athalia, ye daughter of William Symkins and Susanna his wife,
was baptized the 12th day of Dec.
1631. Harma, the daughter of Abraham Neale, baptized 13th Nov.
1633. Alva, the daughter of William Reading, baptized 19th May.
1639. Lucie, the sonn of William Sambache, gentleman, and Dorethie his
wiefe, was baptized the 30 day of July, Anno Dni. 1639, Witnesses Sir
Thomas Lucie, Knight, Sir Edward Underhill, Knight, and Piers Hobdy.
_Burials_
1599. Edward Clifford buried 19th November.
1600, George Clifford buried 7th April.
1600. Franciscus Underhill, Gent., was buried the 19th of May.
1611. Edward Underhill, Esquier, departed his lieff the 13th daye of
June, 1611, before sonne rising in the morning, and was caried to
Nether Ettington and buried the 14th day of the said month, early in
the morning.
_Marriages_
1594. Symon Smith and Angell Palmer were married the 11th November.
1608. Thomas Horniold, gent., and Elizabeth Underhill, gent., were
married the three and twentieth day of August.
On the last page is the entry, “Collected at Pillerton Priors towards
the relief of Marlborough the somme of eight shillings and seven
pence. Ro: Hale Minister 1653,” a curious parallel to the entry in
Pillerton Hersey, and further witness to the long incumbency of Robert
Hale. At the end is the inventory of the church goods. I thought the
free use of names generally denoting the other sex was worth recording,
as well as the few entries of well-known families.
I went to Nether Ettington to seek the tomb of Edward Underhill. This
property has belonged to the Shirleys for a thousand years; but it was
let to the Underhills for a long lease of ninety-nine years, and many
of their tombs remain there still, among which is the reproduction
of the tablet to the memory of Anthony Underhill with the notable
verses. I could not find the tomb of this special Edward carried from
Pillerton. But there is one “to the memory of Thomas Underhill of
this town, Esq., and Elizabeth his wife, who lived married together
in perfect amity above 65 years, ... and died in 1603.” As they had
thirteen sons and seven daughters, it is not remarkable that their
family should have spread to many neighbouring parishes.
_“Athenæum,” 19th September 1908._
FOOTNOTES:
[16] See Heath, f. 37 a.
[17] Reg. 32 and 62 b, Fletcher.
[18] I was told by the Vicar that the family of Hemmings claims to have
been Parish Clerks for 500 years. The last one died in 1885.
XI
SHAKESPEARE AND THE WELCOMBE ENCLOSURES
A NEW DETAIL IN HIS LIFE
Among the many direct references to Shakespeare contained in the
records of Stratford-on-Avon, perhaps none has been discussed more
frequently than his relation to the enclosures which his high-handed
neighbour William Combe wished to make at Welcombe. But the discussion
has not always led to a study of all the papers concerning it. Those
who try to belittle Shakespeare assert that he secured himself from
loss by making conditions with Mainwaring and Replingham (who were
acting for Combe), and then let the poor of Stratford bear the loss of
their ancient common as they might. But there are a great many facts to
be known concerning these enclosures which are not reckoned with by the
general readers of Shakespeare’s so-called “Lives.” A few of these must
now be noted to lead up to the point I wish to record.
On 7th September, 1544, Anthony Barker, steward of the dissolved
College of Stratford-on-Avon, granted to William Barker, gent., certain
messuages, lands, and tithes of Stratford, hitherto belonging to the
College, for a period of ninety-two years. This may or may not have
been legal, but the transfer has never been questioned. In time this
grant was inherited by John Barker, who in 22 Eliz. sold the bulk of
his estate to Sir John Huband, reserving to himself a yearly rent of
£27 13_s._ 4_d._, with the condition that if any part of that rent were
left unpaid for forty days, he could enter and retake possession of all
until the end of his term.
The charter granted by Edward VI to the Corporation of
Stratford-on-Avon settled on it the tithes for the support of the
refounded school and almshouses, and I have not at present time to
discuss the complex relations between the town and Barker’s lease. Dr.
Ingleby is entirely wrong in his account of the tithes, which were not
owned only by Shakespeare and Greene. They were sold by Sir John Huband
in 1605, either directly or indirectly, to a large number of holders,
among whom was Shakespeare, who was said to hold a “moietie”; but this
by no means represented a half, as we might be inclined to read it,
even of the tithes, and the “property” consisted, beyond the tithes,
of houses, cottages, and fields. It may help the consideration of the
question to note the chief holders.
Richard Lane had a proportion worth £80 a year in the tithes of Old
Stratford; Shakespeare’s share was worth £60 a year; Thomas Greene’s,
£3, and 20 marks in the tithes of Drayton; Sir Edward Greville’s,
40_s._; Sir Edward Conway’s, £30; Mary Combe, widow, an estate for
six years to come, worth £10; John Lane, £8; Anthony Nash and William
Combe, £5; Daniel Baker, £20; John Smith, £8; Francis Smith, £12;
William Walford, 40_s._; William Court, £3; John Brown, £4; Thomas
Jakeman, £10; Richard Kempson and Stephen Burman, £15; Thomas Burman,
£3; “Thomas Horneby, an estate of the messuage in which he now
dwelleth, of the yearely value of £3”; and eighteen others had similar
shares, most of the smaller holdings being in land or houses, and the
larger in tithes.
Shortly after the poet’s purchase, he discovered that, though he was
careful to pay his share of Barker’s reserved rent of £27 13_s._ 4_d._
to Henry Barker, then lessee, many of the other tenants were not
paying theirs, and he ran the risk of losing his property through the
fault of others. So he co-operated with Richard Lane and his lawyer
cousin Thomas Greene to file a complaint in Chancery against those
other tenants who did not pay their due share of the reserved rent.
The complainants acknowledged that some of the tenants were willing
to pay, but refused for fear of the others; some made light of the
claim; and the complainants, for the preservation of their estates from
forfeiture, have had much loss and trouble. They prayed that subpœnas
be sent to the chief defaulters to appear and make answer. The case
was entered as “Lane, Greene, Shakespeare, and others, con. W. Combe
and others.” See Misc. Doc., ii, 2. The suit appears to have been
successful, or at least some settlement was come to, for the possession
of the tithes was not lost by Shakespeare or his family. (Their shares
were sold later by Dr. Hall.)[19] That is the story of the tithes.
The enclosures began in 1614, about the time of “the Great Fire.” There
died in July that year John Combe the moneylender, who had bought the
old College in 1596, and he left much of his property between his
nephews William and Thomas Combe. William apparently went to live at
the College, and shortly after took it into his head to enclose, not
“the Common,” but the “Common Fields” of Welcombe, _i.e._, arable
land, liable to tithes. His agents inquired who were likely to be most
concerned. Probably for them Thomas Greene had drawn up the list of
“Auncient freeholders in Old Stratford and Welcombe.” The poet heads
the list:
Mr. Shakspeare, 4 yard land, noe common nor ground beyond Gospel Bush,
noe ground in Sandfield, nor none in Slow Hillfield beyond Bishopton,
nor none in the enclosure beyond Bishopton. Sept. 5th, 1614.
William Combe was well aware of the purchase made by Shakespeare,
from his uncle and himself, of 107 acres of arable land and 20 acres
of pasture, not long before, recorded in the Feet of Fines, P.R.O. It
would only be through the tithes that Shakespeare might suffer, so he
sent to him Mr. Mainwaring, steward of Lord Chancellor Ellesmere, and
Mr. Replingham, who seem to have been acting both for Ellesmere and
Combe, to guarantee that no one should lose by the enclosures, as he
was willing to make up all losses, and was willing to make a deed in
that respect, to protect Shakespeare and his heirs. The poet seems to
have allowed them to do this, and one touch of his personal affection
for Thomas Greene incidentally appears in his insisting that the
security should include his cousin Greene. These “articles” were drawn
up between William Shakespeare and William Replingham on 28 October
1614. It is one thing to allow any one to make an agreement that he
should not lose by an arrangement if it should be settled, and quite
another thing to approve of it, or to help it forward.
Thomas Greene, feeling that the question was now becoming important,
commenced a series of “Mems. about the Inclosure,” still preserved at
Stratford-on-Avon, which throw light on Shakespeare’s position. He took
it easily, because he did not think anything would be done. Greene says:
Jovis 17 Nov. [1614.] My cosen Shakspeare commyng yesterday to towne,
I went to see him howe he did; he told me that they assured him they
ment to enclose noe further then to gospell bushe, and so upp straight
(leavyng out part of the dyngles to the field) to the gate in Clopton
Hedge and take in Salisbury’s peece; and that they meane in Aprill to
servey the Land, and then to gyve satisfaction and not before, and he
and Mr. Hall say they think there will be nothyng done at all.
This is one of the very rare examples of Shakespeare’s conversation
having been preserved, even indirectly.
The next entry is also interesting. Greene, the Town Clerk, records:
23rd Dec., 1614. A Hall. Letters wrytten, one to Mr. Manneryng,
another to Mr. Shakspeare, with almost all the Companyes hands to
either: I alsoe wrytte of myself to my Cosen Shakespeare the coppyes
of all our oathes made then, also a note of the inconveniences wold
grow by the Inclosure.
Both of the letters to Shakespeare have disappeared; that to Mainwaring
has been preserved.
For the corporation did not take the proposal easily. Even in the
present they would lose, and in the future, when Barker’s lease fell
in, they would lose very much more, for the composition made with the
leaseholders was personal, and would not descend to them. In the midst
of the heavy losses caused by the recent fires, the danger assumed
large proportions in the eyes of those who had sworn to do their best
in trust for the town. They resisted it determinedly, and were finally
successful. Thomas Greene, their clerk, proved a faithful and energetic
official, yet he too was tempted. He did not seem to have been told at
the time, but he records in his Diary:
9 Ja: [1614.] Mr. Replyngham 28th October, articled with Mr.
Shakspeare, and then I was put in by T. Lucas,
who drew up the articles.
On Wednesday, being the 11th day [January.] At night Mr. Replingham
supped with me, and Mr. W. Barnes was to beare him company, where he
assured me before Mr. Barnes that I should be well dealt withall,
confessyng former promisses by himself, Mr. Manyryng, and his
agreement for me with my Cosen Shakspeare.
Yet during the whole of the struggle Thomas Greene honestly threw
himself into the duties of defending the rights of the town which had
reposed trust in him, “and was much excepted to for his opposition”
by the other side. It is probable that Shakespeare was in the same
position.
Now we come to the last entry of his name. It is known to all
Shakespeareans that Dr. C. M. Ingleby was so interested in this that he
had a photographic facsimile made of Greene’s Diary; had it transcribed
by Dr. Edward Scott, wrote an Introduction and Appendix himself, and
published these in a thin folio.
I referred to the copy at the British Museum to save going down to
Stratford to check my former notes made at the Record Office there.
After a great deal of time spent through an unexpected confusion I
found in it, I was forced to make a careful comparison, line by line,
between the facsimile and the transcript. At first this did not clear
up my difficulty; but, on my going through a second time, referring to
the dates alone, the cause of the confusion flashed on me: _one of the
pages of Greene’s Diary had been placed out of order in the facsimile_,
and Dr. Scott, who was supposed to have worked from the original, must
have followed the facsimile. I went down to check the original last
month, and to see if there was anything to account for the mistake. But
there was nothing. The four leaves are written down one side and up
another, making in all eight pages. It could only be the photographer’s
blunder by misnumbering the pages. Page seven should be read as page
six, and the dates then read consecutively. My difficulty had lain in
the fact that the year 1615 was made to have had _two springs_. My
re-arrangement, which has been noted and initialed by Mr. Barwick in
the Museum copy, restores order. But this late correction does not
put right the blunder based on it by Dr. Ingleby, who says (p. vi,
Introduction) that this entry “records, five months after the death of
Shakespeare, the statement of Shakespeare himself.” Now this statement
was not recorded five months _after_, but seven months _before_, the
poet’s death.
Two other important points must be noted concerning this entry: first,
that though it was somewhat crowded in, it was intended to be read
straight on; and second, that the memorandum of a man’s death was
associated with it, and has some relation to it. As it is written, it
should be read:
14 Aug. 1615. Mr. Barker [?] died.
Sept. W. Shakspeares tellyng J. Greene that I was not able to beare
the encloseinge of Welcombe.
5 Sept. his sendyng James for the executours of Mr. Barker [?] to
agree as ys said with them for Mr. Barker’s [?] interest.
The subject of the old and only discussion about this was, Did the “I”
refer to Shakespeare or to Greene? It is unlike the other letters of
the first person generally used by Greene, but he does occasionally
use that form as a capital. It could not be a mistake for “he” in
writing; but it might be so in thought and word, as Greene’s style is
very elliptical and careless in the Diary. The argument put forward by
Dr. Ingleby was, Why should Shakespeare tell one brother what another
said, as he was likely to know it, and why think this fact important
enough to be recorded, unless it was a report that Shakespeare could
not bear the enclosing of Welcombe? This is perfectly reasonable, but
it may have been that gossip had said that Thomas Greene served the
corporation when he gave them advice and wrote their letters, but that
he naturally was friendly with the enclosers, and likely to benefit by
the enclosure. It might be but a note of pleased surprise of Thomas
Greene’s to find that the poet had read his honest heart better than
his more worldly-minded brother had done.
But the new point I wish to add is that on 14th August there is the
record of the death of an inhabitant, and the note for 5th September
clearly carries on Shakespeare as the subject, and shows that he it was
who sent for the executors to agree with them for the interest of the
defunct. I wish I could accept Dr. Scott’s rendering, and read it as
“Mr. Barker,” for the meaning would then be straight and clear--that,
seeing Shakespeare had had so much trouble over that reserved rent
of Mr. Barker for £27 13_s._ 4_d._ on the lease of the tithes, etc.,
he was about to buy this up and set his estate free from any future
danger. But alas! on referring to the Stratford Burial Register I find
the entry on the day after, 15 August 1615: “Burial. Mr. Thomas Barbor,
gent.” I have had the entry tested by an expert, who assures me there
can be no mistake _there_.
I referred to the baptisms, and found there were two children born
to “Thomas Barbor, gent., of Shottery,” within a year or two before;
and that five days before the burial of Thomas Barbor was entered the
“Burial of Joane, wife of Thomas Barbor, gent.” So I am driven back to
the earlier pages of original, and there I find, on
7th April, 1615, being Goodfryday, Mr. Barber commyng to Colledge to
Mr. T. Combe about a debt he stood surety for Mris Quyney, W. Combe
willed his brother to shew Mr. Barber noe favour, and threatned him
that he should be served upp to London within a fortnight (and so yt
fell out).
This is also rendered in the transcript as “Barker,” but is clearly
“Barber” in the original, and it seems to me that the action here
recorded broke Mr. Barber’s fortunes and health, his wife died, and
he followed, and that William Shakespeare, still willing to invest
in “an odd yard land at Shottery,” sent for the executors, to do
what he could for the deceased and his children as well as for Mrs.
Quyney, whose unlucky debt was the cause of Mr. Barber’s distress and
ruin. Coming back from the registers and miscellaneous documents of
Stratford-on-Avon, we must therefore read the name as “Barber,” and not
as “Barker,” however like it may be. Mr. Barber had done some important
work for the corporation previously, and may have been an attorney.[20]
It had always been a matter of surprise to me that Thomas Greene,
who mentioned the death of Mr. Barber, did not mention the death of
Shakespeare. Perhaps there was no need for him to make a memorandum of
an event so important to the town and himself. He goes on in his dates
regularly till he comes to the spring of 1616. Then he notes:
At Warwick Assises in Lent 1615-1616 my Lord Chief Justice willed him
[_i.e._, W. Combe] to sett his heart at rest he should neyther enclose
nor lay downe any earrable, nor plowe any auncient greensward.
And the last words which fell on Shakespeare’s ears were the news that
his judgment was right, and “that nothing should be done.”