“Arcadia,” and of whom he had no advantage but what he received from
the partial benevolence of Fortune in making him a man.
Meres compares her to Octavia, Augustus’ sister and Virgil’s patroness;
and describes her as being not only liberal to poets but a most
delicate poet, worthy of the complimentary lines which Antipholus
Sidonius addressed to Sappho.
Thomas Churchyard writes:
Pembroke a Pearl that orient is of kind,
A Sidney right shall not in silence sit,
A gem more worth than all the gold of Ind,
For she enjoys the wise Minerva’s wit,
And sets to school our poets everywhere
That do pretende the laurel crown to wear.
The muses nine and eke the graces three
In Pembroke’s books and verses you may see.
She died in 1621, and her family raised no monument to her, but Ben
Jonson wrote the famous epitaph:
Underneath this sable hearse
Lies the subject of all Verse:
Sidney’s sister, Pembroke’s mother,
Death, ere thou hast slain another
Fair and wise and good as she,
Time shall throw a dart at thee![109]
Arabella Stewart, born 1577, the daughter of Charles Stewart Lennox,
the youngest brother of Lord Darnley, was a very highly cultured
woman, and was appointed by her cousin, James I, to be governess to
his daughter the Princess Elizabeth, who loved her dearly. She wrote
histories and had a great facility for poetical composition.
Two other names I would like to mention of ladies born in the sixteenth
century, who carried into the next its culture with a difference,
as the new spirit of science and mathematics, history, and political
economy absorbed some of the time hitherto devoted to classics.
Elizabeth Stewart, mentioned above, was born in 1596, at Falkland
Palace. When her father came to England she was sent to the charge of
Lord Harington at Coombe Abbey, Warwickshire. That nobleman followed
the plan of Sir David Lindsay, of the Mount, surrounded her by
cultured companions, explained to her the meaning of everything, and
taught her the foundations of the Christian religion. Mr. Beauchamp
was her writing master, and the famous Dr. Bull, the composer, her
teacher in music. Lord Harington himself taught her much in history,
literature, and geography. She was very fond of animals and of natural
history, and she had a little corner of the park, with a lake in it,
to preserve her treasures. She built a little cottage for a widow and
her children to attend to her animals, and designed it herself. Near
it was her fairy farm, with the smallest kind of cattle that could be
bought. She studied the changes of insects through the microscope,
then newly invented. When ten years old a portrait was painted of her,
inexplicable without knowing all this. She has a monkey and a dog at
her feet, a love-bird in her hand, a macaw on one shoulder and a parrot
on the other. She was familiar also with the use of the telescope, and
studied mathematics and astronomy. Her home at Coombe Abbey suggested
to Dr. Johnson “The Happy Valley of Rasselas.” She was devoted to her
brother Henry, and inconsolable at his death, in 1612. In the following
year she married the Count Palatine, and great festivities took place
in London. The poets Donne and Daniel call her “the pearl of Britain,”
and Sir Henry Wotton wrote verses in her praise:
Tell me, if she were not designed
Th’ Eclipse and glory of her kind.
Her chief fault was extravagance, which increased her pecuniary
troubles with her unfortunate husband. But they were happy together and
had many children, one of whom was that Elizabeth who became the pupil
and friend of the philosophic Descartes.[110]
Anne Clifford, born 1589, daughter and heir of the Earl of Cumberland,
had been forbidden by her father to learn Latin, much to her chagrin.
She made up for it by studying all that she could find to read in
English, and by that time through translations she found a good deal.
Her diary still remains at the British Museum. She gives a beautiful
description of her mother’s character, and of her moral virtues,
prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance. She was not a linguist,
but a reader, a thinker, and a _chemist_, and possessed “many excellent
knowledges, human and divine.”
Her tutor was Samuel Daniel, “that religious and honest poet who
composed the Civil Wars of England in verse,” and he led her to the
study of history, old archives, armorial bearings, and the laws
regarding inheritance, whereby she was able to sustain the noble fight
against her King and her husband concerning the right of heiresses to
transmit property undiverted to their heirs. What she had received
from her father she wished to leave to her daughters. In this _she_
succeeded, though the laws drifted after her date to the exclusions and
disabilities from which modern women have so much suffered.
She was capable in land estate management and architecture, in which
Cromwell gave her practical lessons by demolishing her castles for her
fidelity to the King. Each time he destroyed them she rebuilt them
stronger, until, fired with admiration at her courage, he bade his
officers desist from further molestation.
Her funeral sermon, preached by Bishop Rainbow, was an eloquent
oration, in which he said that the life of this great, good woman was
fitter for a history than a sermon. He alluded to her studies and her
conversation with admiration. “She could speak well on anything, from
predestination to slea-silk.”
Thus, I think the women of the sixteenth century proved to their
successors that they were fit, in the words of the little Marie Stuart,
to study anything, if so be they were granted opportunity.
The lives of these illustrative individuals, who became illustrious
because they _excelled_ many others, suggest the probability of a much
more general culture, and that of a higher standard, than has been
hitherto realized. It is to be hoped that more research may yield
more information, and account for the tidal backdraw in the position
of women between these times and our own. Men grow great, and poets
become inspired in proportion to the influence of the other sex, and
it is only reasonable to add to the causes of the special glory of the
sixteenth century, the greatness of its women.
_Lecture delivered before the Royal Society of Literature,
1904. See Proceedings R.S.L., vol. xxv._
FOOTNOTES:
[106] Hall’s “Chronicle,” p. 730.
[107] A MS. Brit. Mus. (MS. Reg. 2, A. xviii A) gives a calendar of
special events, and under 29th October 1537 it is stated: “This day
dysseasyd Elizabethe Lukar, dowghter of Paul Withypoll.” A note to
this adds that a Sarum Missal, in possession of Mr. Douce, contained
that and other entries, _e.g._ “XII Kl. Feb., 1509. This day was Pol
Withypol, married to me Anne Cursonne his wife.” The above-mentioned
Elizabeth was born in 1510, her brother Edward in 1512 (Brit. Mus.
5524, f. 94).
[108] Buchanan had been at one time her tutor and dedicated to her his
Latin Psalms, though he turned against her afterwards.
[109] These lines are sometimes supposed to be written by Browne, on
the strength of an inferior second verse by him.
[110] In the Preface to his works he said he had met some who
understood the mathematical side of his philosophy, and others who
understood the metaphysical side; but he had met but _one_ who
understood both sides, and that was she whose intellect he therefore
reckoned _the incomparable_.
NOTES TERMINAL
NOTE TO ARTICLE III
ANOTHER DEBT OF JOHN SHAKESPEARE
Since my article on “Shakespeare and Asbies” appeared (“Athenæum,” 14th
and 21st March) I have had two communications about the Shakespeares.
The later, from Mr. Young, seems to suggest another mysterious debt of
some John Shakespeare.
Henry Higford, gent., of Solihull, Warwickshire, in his own person
appeared on the fourth day against John Shakysper, formerly of
Stratford-upon-Avon in county Warwick, “whyttawer,” and against John
Musshen, formerly of Walton Dobell in said county, on the plea that
each of them should pay him £30 which they owed him; and against John
Wheler, formerly of Stratford-on-Avon in said county, yeoman, on the
plea that he should pay him 80_s._ which he owed him, and unjustly
detained. And if they did not come and pay, that the Sheriff should
bring their bodies here on Easter Day in five weeks (Common Pleas, Roll
1313, membrane 399, Easter 15 Eliz., 1573).
Now this was a “whyttawer nuper de Stratford.” Could this mean a
leather-dresser for making _gloves_? Or could it mean a leather-dresser
for making shoes? Was it the John Shakespeare who went to live in
Clifford Chambers, and was confused with _our John_ by earlier writers?
Or could he be the John Shakespeare who ran his race in Stratford as
“corvizer” from 1580 till 1592?
All these questions might be asked, as well as the more important one:
Is there any reason to believe that the language _at that date_ could
fit John, William Shakespeare’s father? I should be glad to know.
_“Athenæum,” 25th April 1914._
PS. Some correspondence followed on as to the meaning of “Whittawer,”
and Mr. Arthur Betts sent me his pamphlet on the white tawers, or
tanners of white leather. They were held in some discredit owing to
their frequently receiving the skins of poached game, and they were
forbidden to dwell near a royal forest. I had been puzzled by the use
of “nuper” in the citation, but I find it was used only in one of three
descriptions, to prevent evasion. I therefore think it must refer to
our John Shakespeare.
NOTE TO ARTICLE VII
“ADOLESCENS” AND “ADOLOCENTULA”
IN STRATFORD-ON-AVON REGISTER; IN RELATION TO GILBERT SHAKESPEARE
The application of the term “Adolescens” to “Gilbert Shakespeare,” in
the Burial Register of Stratford-on-Avon, and the information it has
been supposed to give concerning the poet’s family, make an examination
of the context incumbent upon Shakespearean students. There are,
indeed, some noteworthy peculiarities concerning the Stratford use of
terms, which I have not seen in any other of the Registers which I have
studied.
The Registers of Stratford are, however, like many others, a mixture of
English and Latin entries. Sometimes Latin prevails for a page or two,
and then English runs on for a like period, sometimes the entries are
almost time about in each language, sometimes both languages are used
in the same entry, as “Jane uxor John Davis als Keliam, she was Kild
with a tinker on the Bridge, July 2ⁿᵈ 1599,” or “John filius William
Walford Draper.” The commonest Latin terms are of course _filius_,
_filia_, _uxor_, _Vidua_, _clericus_, _generosus_, but the writers were
rarely careful with their genitives. There were occasional notes of a
man’s trade, sometimes in Latin, much more frequently in English.
But there was one period during which Latin gained the upper hand, and
that was the period after Mr. Bifield had finished his transcript of
the early registers, and had given up signing its pages. The signature
of “William Gilbard alias Higges minister” was a new one to the
Register in 1603, though he had been known as assistant Schoolmaster
and then as Curate, since 1563 at least. It is not clear whether there
was a new Parish Clerk at the time, or whether the Curate wrote the
notices himself, or if he gave any directions to aid the intelligence
of the clerk. But coincident with this change of signature, there is a
great increase in Latin phrases, many more qualifying adjectives are
added, and attention is generally paid to the Latin _cases_. “Almsman”
becomes “Elemosynarius,” or “Eliēmo;” “Bastard” becomes “Nothus” or
“Notha”; trades are translated into Latin, as “Scissor,” “Lanio,”
“Fab. lig.,” “Calcearius,” “Pistor.” Never before had there been any
reference to age, or to condition, other than “Uxor,” “Vidua.” Now
there is _one_ case of “Margaret Urlle, _Cælebs_, 8ᵗʰ April 1609” who
does not seem to have been born in the town. Early in the period which
we may suppose Sir William Gilbard alias Higges to have controlled
the entries, occurs the first use of “_adolescens_” in the Registers,
and the _only one_, excepting that of Gilbert Shakespeare. “Anna Yat,
adolescens, Jan. 8ᵗʰ 1602,” (Burials), On referring back, I find that
one Anne Yate, daughter of John Yate, was baptized on 20th September
1573, and that another of the same name, daughter of Richard Yate, was
baptized on 29th September 1589. It might be assumed that it was the
younger of these two who was buried at thirteen years of age, though
why, among all the other young girls buried there, she alone should be
singled out to be described as “adolescens,” baffles explanation. Her
father was still alive, and absence of any reference to him is also
strange. If it were applied to the elder Anne, who was twenty-nine
years old, it would be less surprising to find her father unnoticed,
but “adolescens,” in its ordinary sense, could hardly have been applied
to her. The only other contemporary of the name was a wife, married as
_Annys_, buried as _Anne_ Yate.
But if there are only two entries of “adolescens,” the first applied
to a female, and the second to a male, there are many of a resembling
word, “adolocentulus,” which should mean a very young man, but it is
very difficult to guess what it really did mean in Stratford Latin.
“Isabella Rodes, Adolocentula” was buried 12th May 1604. She does
not seem to have been born in the parish. There is no other mention
of her name, so her age cannot be estimated, but as an “Annys Rodes,
widow” had been buried a fortnight before, she might have been an
orphan daughter. “Nicholas Lane, Adolocentulus, buried 16ᵗʰ Nov. 1604.”
There was one Nicholas Lane, son of John Lane baptized in 1569, and
another in 1584; the elder would have been thirty-five, the younger
twenty. John Lane himself had been buried in 1600, so this entry would
seem to fit the younger man. But on the other hand, “Richard Clarke,
_adolocentulus_,” buried 10th June 1605, was the son of Henry Clarke,
and had been baptized 11th March 1572, so that he would be in his
thirty-third year. “Margaret Clarke, adolocentula,” buried 2nd June
1611, had been baptized in 1581 and was thus thirty years old. (She had
an illegitimate son Thomas in 1605.) “Henry Ainge adolocentulus,” 24th
December 1605, had been baptized on 5th February 1581 and was therefore
twenty-four years old.
“Jone Hadon, Adolocentula” does not seem to have been born in the
parish. “Ales Brage, Adolocentula,” 8th January 1610, had been baptized
in July 1576, and was therefore about thirty-four. “Susanna Daniel,
Adolocentula,” 17th November 1608, had been baptized on 24th May 1593,
and would be fifteen. Her father had died in 1596, and she might
be alone. The only other “adolocentula” does not seem to have been
baptized in the parish.
The result of studying “adolocentula,” therefore, is as unsatisfactory
as that of studying “adolescens.”
William Gilbard alias Higges signed the Register pages till July 1610,
and he _may_ have superintended them till May 1611, when the page was
signed once by John Rogers, Vicar. In that year the curate, William
Gilbert alias Higgs, died, and, strange to say, was buried the _very
day before Gilbert Shakespeare_, _i.e._, on 2nd February 1611-2.
Does this imply that the clerk was left to his own classic inspirations
or memories in writing the register, or that his superintendence was
taken over by the succeeding assistant minister, Edward Woolmer? Under
him the language of the text gradually simplified, until it took on a
new varnish of Latin under Mr. Richard Watts.
But the fact remains, that “adolescens,” which had only _once_
appeared before, _never_ appears again, and it is difficult to gauge
the extent of its meaning and use. It has been held by all writers to
support Halliwell-Phillipps’ statement that the poet’s brother went to
settle as a haberdasher in St. Bride’s, London, and lived to a great
age. I have definitely proved that Halliwell-Phillips was mistaken
in saying that Gilbert was a London haberdasher (see my article in
the “Athenæum,” 29th December 1900, “John Shakespeare of Ingon, and
Gilbert of St. Brides”), p. 62. The whole arguments of the family-wills
tell against the notion of the survival of the poet’s brother, and
my careful study in registers helps to convince me that the word
“adolescens” is not here used in its normal and natural sense.
That should be “a youth” or “junior.” In either case if this is
accepted as true of some unknown nephew of the poet, it would
imply that Gilbert Shakespeare married _somewhere_, baptized this
child _somewhere_, and died _somewhere_, and that the mother died
_somewhere_, none of these facts having yet been proved. If it had its
ordinary meaning, it would suggest that the father and mother were
already dead, and the “youth” stood alone in the world. But if so,
where was Gilbert buried? The name of Shakespeare would have been sure
to have been noticed, either in London or in country registers.
The difficulties seem to me so great,[111] that the alternative seems
a trifling one in comparison, that the word, for some inexplicable
reason, has been unintelligently applied to the poet’s brother Gilbert.
In this opinion I have taken much counsel from students of registers,
and they agree that it is the most natural explanation of the puzzle.
And therefore I believe firmly that Gilbert Shakespeare, the poet’s
brother, died and was buried at the date recorded in the register (Feb.
3, 1611-2), which accounts for his not being mentioned in the poet’s
will.
“_Sonderabdruck aus dem Archiv für das Studium der Neueren Sprachen
und Literaturen_,” _Band cxxiii, Heft 1-2, 1909_.
NOTE TO ARTICLE XI (1)
WILLIAM COMBE AND THE PROPOSED WELCOMBE ENCLOSURES, 1614-19
The story of the attempted enclosures at Welcombe at the beginning of
the seventeenth century has always been considered chiefly of interest
because Shakespeare’s name was associated with it. But the incidents
are of great importance in the history of Stratford-on-Avon and its
relation to William Combe, entirely apart from the interest Shakespeare
gives to the proceedings, The facts are worth recalling in relation
to the great fires, which I discussed in this paper lately under the
title of “Fires and Thatch at Stratford-on-Avon.” Just about the time
of the disastrous fire of 9th July 1614, John Combe, the money-lender,
died. After various charitable bequests, in his will dated 28th January
1612-13, he desires to be buried in the church near his mother, and a
convenient tomb to be set over him of the value of threescore pounds.
He leaves his brother George Combe the land “called Parson’s Close,
or Shakespeare’s Close” in Hampton; to his brother John Combe his
property in Warwick; residuary legatees were William and Thomas Combe
his nephews (proved 10th November 1616). Hardly had they inherited
(before even they had proved their uncle’s will), William took it
into his head to enclose the Common Fields of Welcombe, over most of
which he was chief landlord. We can find a good many details of the
proceedings, preserved in the crabbed characters in which Thomas Greene
made his memoranda, in a few leaves which have been called “His Diary,”
now among the Stratford Records. This shows that Shakespeare went up
to London on 16th November, and next day Thomas Greene, then staying
in London, “went to see him how he did.” They were both full of “the
enclosures,” and Shakespeare told Greene the latest news of the plan
and the schemes, adding that “he thought nothing would be done.” That
very night, however, Greene drew up the petition of the town, and
“gave it to Edmund to write fair, so that Greene and Mr. Wyatt might
see it before it was wrytten to be presented to the Lordes,” that is,
the Lords of the Privy Council. On the 22nd Greene records that he
heard that Lord Carew meant to oppose the enclosing all he might, and
Mr. Mainwaring said if he did not do it _well_ he cared not to do it
at all. This “Lord Carew” is he who married Joyce Clopton, and whose
tomb is in the church at Stratford. Thomas Greene was Town Clerk, and
he notes on 5th December that six of the company (himself among them)
were to “go to Mr. Combe, and present their loves, and desire he would
be pleased to forbeare the enclosing.” They went on the 9th, and were
not satisfied with the results. William Combe said he would be glad
of their loves, but the enclosure would not be hurtful to the town;
indeed, there would be some profit in it. Thomas Combe said “they were
all curres,” and spoke of “spitting one of the dogs.”