Shakespeare's family
freeholders of Warwickshire. But another influence began to affect his
circumstances prejudicially about this time, and that is, the evil
fortunes of his brother Henry of Snitterfield. How his biographer, in
the "Dictionary of National Biography," could call this brother "_a
prosperous farmer_," I know not.
In 1574 there had been a free fight, wherein blood was drawn, between
him and Edward Cornwall, who afterwards became the second husband of his
brother's sister-in-law, Margaret Webbe, _nee_ Arden. In the year 1580
there was an extra long series of actions against him for debt; threats
of excommunication for withholding tithes; fines for refusing to wear
the statute caps on Sunday; fines for not doing suit of court.
Altogether he seems to have been a high-spirited fellow, who brought on
himself, through lack of prudence, much of his ill-luck, and who had the
unfortunate knack of involving other people in his troubles.
In 1582 both brothers were summoned as witnesses in support of Robert
Webbe against the Mayowe appeal.
In November of that year John's eldest son William, of whom no earlier
direct mention had been preserved, added to his embarrassments by a
premature marriage, and in the following year John was made a
grandfather by the birth of Susanna Shakespeare. In 1584 the twins
Hamnet and Judith were added to his anxieties. About this time the
Stratford Records notice how a John Shakespeare was worried by suits
brought against him by John Brown, in whose favour a writ of distraint
was issued against Shakespeare in 1586. But the answer was returned that
"he had nothing whereon to distrain."
There are several reasons for believing that this John was not the
poet's father. The prefix Mr. is not used in the entries; it is certain
that he retained his freeholds in Henley Street all his life, and if he
had "no goods whereon to distrain," he could hardly have been received
as sufficient bail at Coventry, on July 19 of that year, for Michael
Price, tinker, of Stratford-on-Avon, or as security for his brother
Henry's debts. In 1586 he was removed from his office of alderman.[130]
Just in the year of the death of Edmund Lambert, when the possession of
money would have given him power to have renewed his efforts to regain
Asbies, Henry Shakespeare became a defaulter, and Nicholas Lane, by
Thomas Trussell, his attorney, sued John Shakespeare in his place, 1587.
William Court was his attorney in a weary case, which must have led both
sides into heavy costs, over the recovery of L22.[131]
On September 1, 1588, he paid a visit to John Lambert at
Barton-on-the-Heath, in the vain hope of inducing him to surrender
Asbies; instituted proceedings against those who owed him money in
Stratford, and, in 1589, against Lambert in the Queen's Bench at London,
probably acting in the latter case through William. From the inquisition
post-mortem of the Earl of Warwick, in 1590, we know Mr. John
Shakespeare still owned the two houses in Henley Street.
In 1592 Mr. John Shakespeare appraised the goods of two important
neighbours--of Ralph Shawe, wool-driver, July 23, and Henry Field,
tanner, August 21. Thomas Trussell, the attorney, drew up the inventory,
and denominated his associate as Mr. John Shaksper, _Senior_, for no
clear reason, but possibly to distinguish him from the shoemaker John.
The attestation is witnessed only by a cross. During this year Sir
Thomas Lucy and others were drawing up the lists of Warwickshire
recusants[132] that had been "heretofore presented." Among these they
included several members of the sorely-oppressed family of the Ardens of
Park Hall, and in Stratford-on-Avon "Mr. John Shackspere" and eight
others. Probably some friendly clerk, wishing to spare them fines,
added: "it is sayd that these last nine coom not to Churche for feare of
process for debte." But it is quite possible it might refer to John
Shakespeare the shoemaker, who, having been Master of the Shoemakers'
Company, _might_ have been called "Mr."[133] In the earlier undated
draught from which this was taken the Commissioners state: "wee suspect
theese nyne persons next ensuinge absent themselves for feare of
processes, Mr. John Wheeler, John his son, Mr. John Shackespeere," etc.
Away up in London in 1593 the tide was beginning to turn for the family
through the efforts of the poet and the affection of the Earl of
Southampton.
In this year Richard Tyler sued a John Shakespeare for a debt, but it is
not at all certain it was not one of the others of the name. In a case
brought by Adrian Quyney and Thomas Barker against Philip Green,
chandler, Henry Rogers, butcher, and John Shaxspere, in 1595, for a debt
of L5, the absence of a trade after Shakespeare's name has made Mr.
Halliwell-Phillipps suppose that he had retired by this date. A John
Shakespeare attested by a cross the marriage settlement of Robert
Fulwood and Elizabeth Hill in 1596, which represents probably the name
of the poet's father. In 1597 he sold, to oblige his neighbour, George
Badger, a narrow strip of land at the western side of his Henley Street
garden, 1-1/2 feet in breadth, but 86 feet in length. For this he
received L2 10s., and his ground-rent was reduced from 13d. to 12d., the
odd penny becoming Badger's responsibility. He also sold a plat, 17 feet
square, in the garden, behind the wool-shop, to oblige his neighbour on
the other side, Edward Willis.
The application made for coat-armour, initiated in 1596, ostensibly by
John Shakespeare, but really by William Shakespeare, as well as the
Lambert case, dragged on through the later years of the century.
That he had not lost credit with his fellow-townsmen may be seen by
John's latest recorded piece of work.
Early in 1601 an action was brought by Sir Edward Greville[134] against
the Corporation respecting the toll-corn; and John Shakespeare, with
Adrian Quyney and others, assisted to draw up suggestions for the use of
the counsel for the defendants. On September 8 of that year the funeral
of the old burgess took place at Stratford-on-Avon, but there is no
trace now left of any sepulchral monument or memorial of any kind. No
will or inventory, or even inquisition post-mortem, has come down to us.
It is quite possible that the Henley Street houses were entailed upon
his eldest son, or that he may have bought up all rights during his
father's lifetime to such an extent that "inheritance" could hardly be
talked of. He seems to have indeed supported all the family, as there is
no trace[135] of any of them, except Edmund the player, engaging in any
trade or profession. Whether his mother resided in Henley Street or at
New Place is not clear. There is nothing further known of her save the
register of her burial: "September 9th, 1608, Mayry Shaxspere Wydowe."
No sepulchre or memorial of her has come down to our time. We only know
that somewhere in the consecrated ground by Stratford Church lies the
dust of John Shakespeare and Mary Arden, the parents of the poet.
FOOTNOTES:
[120] Stratford-on-Avon Chamberlain's Accounts, April 29, 6 Edward VI.
[121] Stratford-on-Avon Baptismal Register.
[122] All these references are from the Chamberlain's Accounts, and
accounts of the Halls at Stratford-on-Avon. Those who have not had
access to them may refer to Halliwell-Phillipps's "Outlines," i. 29; ii.
179 _et seq._
[123] Worcester administration bonds, 1561. _Notes and Queries_, 8th
Series, xii. 413.
[124] This statement is, however, evidently erroneous.
[125] Roll for Stratford, Longridge MS.
[126] Stratford Borough Records.
[127] The first notice of municipal employment of players appears during
his year of office, the Queen's Company and that of the Earl of
Worcester having performed before the council. A case was tried at the
Warwick assizes, Easter, 11 Elizabeth, concerning the tithes of
Rowington, and John Shakespeare, of Stratford-on-Avon, was on the
jury.--Ryland's "Records of Rowington."
[128] See Chamberlain's accounts for "the expenses of Mr. Queeney in
London," also for the expenses of the dinner given to Sir Thomas Lucy
and others, at which Quiney and Shakespeare presided.
[129] In 1579 he buried his daughter Anne "with the pall and the great
bell." On May 3, 1580, his youngest child Edmund was christened.
[130] "At this halle William Smythe and Richard Court are chosen
Aldermen in the places of John Wheler and John Shaxspere, for that Mr.
Wheler doth desire to be put out of the company, and Mr. Shaxspere doth
not come to the Halles when they be warned, nor hath not done of long
tyme."--Borough Reports. It is noteworthy that he was never fined for
absenting himself as others were.
[131] Controlment Rolls, 29 Elizabeth, Stratford-on-Avon.
[132] State Papers, Domestic Series, Elizabeth. It may be noted that
there was no Mrs. Shakespeare among the recusants. Other wives were
noted, as Mrs. Wheeler.
[133] It remains a fact that John Shakespeare, shoemaker, is heard of no
more in Stratford-on-Avon, and shortly afterwards his house was tenanted
by another man.
[134] Stratford Corporation Records.
[135] Halliwell-Phillips is in error in stating that Gilbert was a
London haberdasher.
CHAPTER VIII
WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE
William Shakespeare was thirty-seven when he became head of the family
in 1601. His previous life must have been a stirring one, though we know
only too little about it. Still, certain inferences may be soundly based
on known facts. He must have been educated at the Stratford Grammar
School, free to the sons of the burgesses, a high-class school for the
time. Its head-master had a salary then double that of the Master of
Eton. A taste for learning had certainly imbued William's spirit even in
early years, but he doubtless warmly shared in the difficulties of his
father's life, and knew the anxieties of debt, the oppression of the
strong hand--the "cares of bread," as Mazzini calls it--and the
sickening weariness of the law's uncertainty and delay. Most of his
relatives were farmers, and his actions show that he would gladly have
followed the same course of life, with the relaxation of field sports,
of course, if he could have attained his desire. But the genius within
him was to be welded by fiery trials, and he was driven on a course that
seemed at discord with his nature, and yet led to its own fulfilment. In
the enthusiasm of a first love, he married early, not, it must
emphatically be noted, over-early for the custom of the period, when the
means of support were assured, but over-early, as it would then have
been considered, solely from a financial standpoint. He had no assured
means of support. His hope of securing his inheritance of Asbies was
fading. He did not marry an heiress. Many vials of wrath have been
poured on the devoted head of Anne Hathaway by those who do not consider
all sides of the question. Harrowing pictures of the relations of young
Shakespeare and "his aged wife" are drawn, even by such writers as Dr.
Furnivall. Now, it is a well-known fact that almost all very young men
fancy girls older than themselves, and it is an artistic fact that a
woman under thirty does look younger, and not older, than a man of the
same age, if she has led a natural and simple life. It is much more than
likely that the well-grown, responsible eldest son of anxious John
Shakespeare looked quite as old as Anne Hathaway, seven years his
senior, especially if she was slight and fair and _delicate_, as there
is every reason to believe she was. And the masterful spirit marks its
own age when it goes forth to woo, and determines to win the first real
fancy of his life. It must not be forgotten, in association with the