Chapter XXX: Sixteenth Century Women Students 295 (3)

The vicar of Stratford Church and the curate of the chapel would most likely have a selection of volumes in their possession; the attorneys would have their law books, the doctors their medical books. We _know_ from his will as well as from John Hall’s “cures” that Shakespeare’s son-in-law had a notable library, which people from a distance, even, came to see. Richard Field, the Stratford printer in London, had a very large and important list of publications, some of which were sure to have found their way down to his native town. Many Warwickshire men were London printers. There is every reason to believe that the first Sir Thomas Lucy had a library at Charlecote, which had become enriched in his son’s time, and is remembered in his will and on his tombstone. Sir Henry Rainsford, in the neighbourhood, the friend and patron of Drayton the poet, was little likely to be unprovided. Sir Fulke Greville, the Recorder of Stratford, was a reading man, and not only was a possessor, but also a creator, of books. Clement Throgmorton of Haseley, was a learned man; and his notable son Job was entangled in the Martin Marprelate controversy. Every recusant’s arrest and trial were based on his possessing “books” of a kind other than the Government approved. One can in this way almost indefinitely widen the sphere of the _general_ existence of books. But generalities have not the convincing power of specialities, and as I have found, without much searching, the _names_ of some of the books in Stratford and its immediate neighbourhood, there may yet be found many more existing to prove the rashness of Halliwell-Phillipps’s assumption.

II.--Specially.--Among the legal cases brought before the Town Council were some referring to special books. For instance, in 1604 “Valentine Palmer was attached to answer Philip Rogers, for unlawfully detaining a certain book called ‘Gailes Kyrirgery,’ valued at ten shillings and twopence.” This refers to “Certain Workes of Chirurgery,” by Gale, published in 1563, and reprinted in 1586 (see Miscellaneous Documents of Stratford-on-Avon, 2 James I, No. 23). No. 149 of the same series gives “the answer of Philip Rogers to Valentine Palmer about ‘Gailes Kyrirgery.’” The one book in itself is important enough to overthrow the sweeping assertion.

But in support of the natural opinion that the clergy would have books, we have at least one will, one inventory, and one list of prices of the books of a curate in the very parish of Stratford--that of Bishopton. There may have been more books, worn and valueless, but we are told the names of those in good enough condition to have some marketable price. The Rev. John Marshall, curate of Bishopton, died, not young, in the fourth year of James I (1607). He left by will to his kinsman Francis Jeccoxe “Babington upon Genesis”; to Richard his son “Martin Luther upon 1st and 2nd epistle of St. Peter”; to John Jeccoxe, “my godsonne, my boke called ‘The Image of God.’”

In the Inquisition of his goods taken 10th January 1606-7, by Abraham Sturley, Ralfe Lorde, Francis Ainge, William Ainge, and Thomas Cale, we find that some of these, or all of them, knew enough about books to affix a contemporary saleable value, which, though it seems small to us, must be reckoned according to the money rates of the time. As their inventory has not been printed, and as it gives a fair illustration of the class of libraries owned by the minor clergy, it seems worth giving _in extenso_. It will be seen that it contains various irregularities and contractions:

Bookes.

The Apologie of Thomas Moore, 6_d._ Palengenius Englishe, 4_d._ A Latine Grammar, 6_d._ Lʳ Evans, Dictionary, 3_d._ Mr. Latimer’s Sermons, 12_d._ D. Erasmus, Method Theologie, 3_d._ Sententiæ Pueriles, 1_d._ Mr. Latimer’s Supplication, 6_d._ The Voiage of the Wandering Knight, 2_d._ An epitome of common Prayer, 6_d._ The Testament and Psalmes, 16_d._ Evagatrium Latine, 6_d._ A newe postill, 18_d._ An Exposition of the whole booke of Psalmes, 2_s._ 6_d._ Arsatius Shafer euarnes Evangelica, 8_d._ Nich. Hemingius, postallæ Evangel, 2_s._ H. Holland, Aphorisms, 6_d._ An old Latine Grammar, 3_d._ Calvin’s Harmony, English, 4_d._ Stockwood’s Greek Grammar, 12_d._ Roger Ascham’s Schoolmaster, 10_d._ Nowell’s Catechisme, 6_d._ Letters in Englishe, 6_d._ A breife of prair by the Kinge, 2_d._ A breife of Calvin’s Institutions, 16_d._ A Latin Bible, 16_d._ Accidentia Stanbrigiana, 8_d._ Parte of H. Smith’s Sermons, 12_d._ D. Sutclife’s Chalenge, 12_d._ Aretius in evangl. Mar., 12_d._ G. Gifford on Witches, 2_d._ A Catechisme, 1_d._ Calvin’s Institutions Lat., 4_s._ J. Piscator in Epistol, 2_s._ Stockwood’s Grammar, 6_d._ B.B. Canons, 6_d._ Hyperius in Epist., 6_d._ Ovid de Tristibus, 4_d._ Aretius in Math., 2_s._ 6_d._ Enchiridion Alexd. Ariostis, 4_d._ John Dodde. Robert, Clever, Commands, 12_d._ Piscator in epistoli Petri, &c., 20_d._ Lupton’s perswasion from papistry, 16_d._ D. Westfaling’s Sermons, 12_d._ B. Babington’s Commands, 16_d._ Northbrook’s Pore man’s Garden, 12_d._ Piscator in Matheu, 12_d._ Testament Vet., 4_d._ ... ts Vocabular Vet., 6_d._ B. Babington on Genes given away by will. A booke of Statutes, 4_d._ The plaine man’s pathway to heven, 12_d._ Epitheta Jh. Rinij, 12_d._ D. Sparkes & D. Sed. Catechisme, 10_d._ D. Foulki revelation, 2_s._ The Course of Christianity, 6_d._ Common praier Lat., 16_d._ Heilbourner in Epistle ad Timoth., 6_d._ Pasquin’s Trance, 6_d._ Hemigs. ad Hæbros, 12_d._ Calvin upon St. John, 6_d._ Palengenius Lat., 8_d._ An old praier-booke with a Kalendar, 4_d._ Joh. Calfled, the cros, 12_d._ Calvin upon ye commandments, 12_d._ John Bell, Pope’s Funerall, 12_d._ Eras. Colloquiū., 10_d._ Virgill, 12_d._ Terents, 8_d._ Ed. Bulkler’s vetuste Testimento, 8_d._ Enchiridion Militis Christ., 4_d._ Robert Crowle’s discourse, 4_d._ Constitutiones, 4_d._ Terra florid., pamphlet, 1_d._ Eras. cap. Fabor, &c., 8_d._ Leonard Cutman de ægrot. consolues, 6_d._ Erasmi colloquia, old, 4_d._ B. Babington’s Lords Praier, 16_d._ Homilia de Haimonis, 8_d._ Testamentum Lat. Vetus, 6_d._ Pars erat Ciceronis, 10_d._ T. Offic. Engl., 6_d._ Besa, Testamentum Lat., 18_d._ Ursinus, Catechismus engl., 2_s._ 6_d._ Morall Philosophi Engl., 6_d._ Beuerley, English Meeter, 3_d._ Martin Luther, servū. arbitrum, 10_d._ Psalmi Lat., 6_d._ An old gramer, 4_d._ English psalms meter, 6_d._ Law precedents, 10_d._ Com. praier, Eng., 8_d._ Æsopi fabula, 3_d._ Ternts Lat., 8_d._ Castal, Dialog., 4_d._ Ciceronis Epistol. pars, 4_d._ Christian Instructions, old, Engl., 6_d._ Corderius, Colloquia, 4_d._ Precatio Dominica lat., 6_d._ Castalionis Dial. Lat., 8_d._ The anatomy of the minde, 8_d._ Lodo. Vives, 3_d._ Godlie privat praiers, &c., 8_d._ Æsop fabl., engl., old, 2_d._ Acolastus de filio et digo, 2_d._ Methods Hegindorph, 2_d._ D. Erasmus, instructio grammaticalis, 2_d._ A booke of praier specially appointed, 2_d._ Accidens and instructions, old, 2_d._ An old Dictionary or Lexicon, 1_d._ Tithes and oblations, 2_d._ A booke of religious discourses, popish,--. A pathway to reading, old, 1_d._ An old portice pars II. Testamentu. duod. patriarchr’., 2_d._ John Calvin’s sermons, 6_d._ Grammatica Hæbr., 4_d._ Joh. Leniceri grammatice Græc., 6_d._ Carvinge and Sewinge, 1_d._ B. Babington’s Sermons, 2_d._ Udall’s Hæbrew Gramer, 16_d._ Testamentu. Græc., 16_d._ A conference of the faith, and the some of religion, 3_d._ H. Smythe, benefit of contentacion, 2_d._ A solace, 2_d._ A Salve for a sicke man, 4_d._ A regiment of Health, 4_d._ Exposition of the Psalmes, 3_d._ Art of Anglinge, 2_d._ The Sacred doct. of Divinity, 2_d._ Six principles of religion, 2_d._ An a. b. c., 1_d._ John Parkins of a minister’s calling, 2_d._ Thaffinity of the faithfull, 1_d._ A schole-book, English and Latin, 1_d._ Aristotle’s problemes, English, 6_d._ Demtes Catechisme, 2_d._ Dⁿᵒ Fenner on the Lawe, 2_d._ Catechisme, Latine, 1_d._ Cæporius, Greeke Grammer, 10_d._ And. Pola. p’litiones, 8_d._ Liber Hæbreus, 8_d._ A sermon at the Tower, 1_d._ H. Smithe, Mar. Choice, 2_d._ A consolation of ye soule, 2_d._ Thenemy of Securitie, 8_d._ Canons, 1_d._ A tract of the Lord’s Supper, 2_d._ H. Smythe, prepative to marge., 1_d._ Good huswives closet, 2_d._ Epitheton tropor, 1_d._ Epistolar’ Ciceronis Libri 4to, 2_d._ Pa-t Err. Pateris, 1_d._ Stockwood’s Questions gra:, 2_d._ The Castell of Health, 6_d._ St. Peter’s Chaine, 4_d._ D. Barlow’s Sermons, 1_d._ Gramer, a pamphlet, 2_d._ A dreame of the De. and Dives, 1_d._ P’cationes Episc. Roffens., 1_d._ The sick man’s salve, 6_d._ A bible of Ralph Smythes, 5_s._ Virgill, Engl., old.... Hulett’s Dictionary, 2_s._ Marloret on Mathew, 4_s._ An English concordance, 4_s._ An old postill written on parchment.... Martin Bucer in Evangelium, 5_s._ Cap’s Dictionari, 6_s._ 8_d._ Junius, Apocalypse, 4_d._

This list--fairly long in classics, divinity, and law for a country clergyman even of to-day--suggests that the Rev. John Marshall was a teacher as well as a preacher. It suggests also that he had long been a collector of books, and that he did not altogether despise the study of lighter literature. The duplicates suggest that he might be ready to lend his books. The list may help the bibliographer in regard to old editions. Vautrollier and Field had the monopoly of Calvin’s works. This library certainly helps the Shakespearean to realize the class of clergy among whom the poet lived, and of itself redeems his birthplace from the charge, so often brought against it, of being altogether “a bookless neighbourhood.”

Curiously enough, shortly after this the Chamberlain enters in his accounts, “For the carriage of books to London, 1_s._” The town council were always very careful to have “a sufficient scholar from Oxford for the Usher’s place.” It may be well to add that one of Shakespeare’s sons-in-law was a great physician, the other a French scholar, and that the latter’s brother, George Quiney, usher and curate, was described as “of a good wit, expert in tongues, and _very_ learned.” His fellow usher, Mr. John Trapp, afterwards head-master, “for his piety and learning second to none,” by overmuch study brought on a fit of melancholy, and he was rescued “from the jaws of death.” How could all these, and more, study without _books_?

_“Athenæum,” 23rd February 1907._

VI

“MR. SHAXPERE, ONE BOOK,” 1595

The universal belief in the booklessness of Stratford-on-Avon in 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.

Apparently to try his pen and his handwriting on parchment, he turned 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.