Shakespeare's family
Peritissimus." By a nuncupative will, he left a house in London to his
wife, a house in Acton and a meadow to his daughter Elizabeth, and his
study of books to his son-in-law Thomas Nash. The manuscripts he would
have given to Mr. Boles had he been present, but Nash was to keep them
and use them as he pleased. It is probable that Mr. Boles was Richard
Boles, Rector of Whitnash, not far from Stratford--an eccentric person,
a writer of epitaphs, who had set up his own in his church while he yet
lived.[196]
On the monumental slab of Dr. Hall is a shield of arms: "Sable, three
talbots' heads erased or" for Hall, impaling Shakespeare or on a bend
"sable, a spear of the first, the point steeled." "Here lyeth ye Body of
John Hall, gent: Hee marr: Susanna ye daughter and coheire of Will:
Shakespeare, gent., Hee deceased Nov^r 25, Anno 1635, aged 60.
"Hallius sic situs est, medica celeberrimus arte
Expectans regni Gaudia laeta Dei;
Dignus erat meritis qui nestora vinceret annis,
In terris omnes, sed capit aequa dies;
Ne tumulo quid desit adest fidessima conjux
Est vitae comitem nunc quoq. mortis habet."[197]
It has been thought that this proves the epitaph was not written until
after Mrs. Hall's death. She may have wished the words set up, to
determine her resting-place; or Mr. Boles may have helped Thomas Nash
with the Latin.
After his death his son-in-law, Thomas Nash, came to reside at New
Place, and took the position of head of the family. Indeed, in one of
his letters he speaks of "Mrs. Hall, my mother-in-law, who lives with
me." But the house and everything in it, saving the study of books,
belonged to Mrs. Hall, of course.
We know nothing of the nature or the fate of the bulk of these
manuscripts, though many have longed to trace them. Possibly among them,
though it is not likely (being in bound volumes) were two notebooks of
Dr. John Hall's observations, from which James Cooke, a physician
introduced later to Mrs. Hall, translated the materials for a little
book entitled, "Select Observations on English Bodies; or, Cures both
Empericall and Historicall Performed on very Eminent Persons in
Desperate Diseases, first written in Latine by Mr. John Hall, Physician
living at Stratford-on-Avon in Warwickshire where he was very famous, as
also in the counties adjacent, as appears by these observations, drawn
out of severall hundreds of his as choycest, now put into English for
common benefit by James Cooke, practitioner in Physick and Surgery,
1657." Cooke, in the introduction, relates the strange manner in which
he became possessed of them, Mrs. Hall not knowing they were in her
husband's handwriting, and, believing they were part of a poor scholar's
mortgage, transferred them to him with other books. Cooke used the books
as guides in his own practice, and then expanded the contractions,
translated and published them, "being acquainted with his apothecary."
It is no slight compliment to a physician to have his cures published
twenty-two years after his death, and to have them run through more than
one edition. Cooke mentions: "Mr. John Hall had the happiness to lead
the way to that practice almost generally used now by the most knowing
of mixing scorbutics to most remedies." It is to Cooke we owe
information concerning Hall's education abroad; concerning the
physician, his relative, on terms of intimacy with Mrs. Hall, who
introduced him to New Place; and concerning the "other book" of Dr. John
Hall, also prepared for the press. We wonder what it contained.
The book published by Cooke records only _cures_. We are inclined to
echo, "Where are they that were drowned?" Doubtless Hall had attended
his father-in-law in his last illness, but his skill and affection were
not sufficient to save him. And because of this failure, we do not know
the symptoms shown by the poet after the traditional "merrymaking with
Ben Jonson and Drayton," when later gossips say he "drank too much." The
earliest _dated_ cure is 1617. But is it too much to imagine that the
undated illness of Drayton, recorded in "Obs. XXII.," occurred at the
same time as the death of the poet? Was he at any later time ill in
Warwickshire, and likely to be attended by Dr. John Hall? "Mr. Drayton,
an excellent poet, labouring of a Tertian, was cured by the following
treatment." Let us suppose it was April, 1616, and it may account for
the poet's illness, otherwise than by over-drinking.
In "Obs. XIX." Hall mentions without date an illness of his wife, Mrs.
Hall. "Obs. XXXVI." concerns his only daughter, and supports my opinion
of a constitutional delicacy of Anne Hathaway and her family. It is not
insignificant that her grandchild should suffer from "tortura oris," or
convulsions of the mouth, and ophthalmia. She was cured of one attack on
January 5, 1624. In the beginning of April she went to London, and on
returning on the 22nd of the same month, she took cold, and fell into
the same distemper, which affected the other side of her face. This
second time, "By the blessing of God, she was cured in sixteen days."
But on May 24 of the same year she was struck down with an erratic
fever. Sometimes she was hot, by-and-by sweating, again cold, all in the
space of half an hour. Her father's treatment again healed her; "the
symptoms remitted daily till she was well, thus was she delivered from
death and deadly diseases, and was well for many years." Many other
familiar names occur in this volume--"Mrs. Queeny," Mrs. Smith, Mr.
Wilson, Mrs. Throgmorton, Mrs. Sheldon, Mrs. Greene, John Nason, the
Underhills, Mrs. Baker, Dr. Thornbery, Bishop of Worcester (aged
eighty-six on February 1, 1633), Mrs. Combe, Katherine Sturley, "Mrs.
Grace Court, wife to my apothecary." In "Obs. LXIV." he speaks of
treating "the only son of Mr. Holyoake, which framed the dictionary."
"Obs. LXXXII.," Book II., records the restoration from the gates of
death of Mr. John Trapp, minister; and Obs. "LX.," Book II., gives an
account of Hall's own dangerous illness in 1632, when his anxious wife
sent for two physicians, who pulled him through; and he records his
prayer to God on the occasion. We must not forget that this was the date
of his quarrel with the Corporation.
The death of the young Quineys in 1638-39 affected the details of the
poet's will; for it may be remembered the property was settled on
Susanna Hall and her heirs male, failing whom, on the heirs male of
Elizabeth Hall, failing whom, on the heirs male of Judith, in default of
such heirs male, on the right heirs of William Shakespeare for ever. The
failure in the heirs male of Judith therefore entitled Elizabeth Nash to
the full inheritance as heir-general, and within a few weeks after the
unexpected death of her cousins, Susanna Hall, widow, joined with Mr.
and Mrs. Nash, May 27, 1639, in making a new settlement of Shakespeare's
entails on Mrs. Hall for life, after whom on Mr. and Mrs. Nash, and _the
longer liver of them_, after them, to the heirs of their body, and in
default of such, to the heirs of the said Elizabeth. Should she die
first without heirs, the property was secured to the _heirs and assignes
of the said Thomas Nash_, a reversion certainly not fair to Joan Hart,
the poet's sister, and her children. Still, it all seemed too far off to
consider. To this document Mrs. Hall appended her signature and her
seal, with the arms of Shakespeare impaled with those of Hall.
Thomas Nash seemed to have believed this fully settled everything on
himself, and that he was likely to outlive his mother-in-law and his
wife, for on August 20, 1642, he executed, without his wife's sanction
or knowledge, a mysterious will, that afterwards led to trouble.
The importance of New Place, the largest house in the town, and the
liberality and loyalty of its owners, were curiously signalized in the
following year. Queen Henrietta Maria, in July, 1643, marched from
Newark to Kineton by way of Stratford, where she was reinforced by
Prince Rupert and 2,000 men. She held her court for three days[198] in
Shakespeare's house, probably accompanied by only her immediate personal
attendants. On July 13, the Queen and Prince Rupert moved off to meet
the King in the vale of Kineton near Edgehill.[199]
Thomas Nash died on April 4, 1647, and was buried in the chancel beside
Shakespeare. "Heere resteth ye body of Thomas Nashe Esq. He mar.
Elizabeth, the daug. and Heire of John Halle, gent. He died Aprill 4, A.
1647. Aged 53.
"Fata manent omnes, hunc non virtute carentem
ut neque divitiis, abstulit atra dies
Abstulit at referet lux ultima; siste, viator,
si peritura paras per male parta peris."
The coat of arms was double quarterly of four, First, 1 and 4 argent on
a chevron between three ravens' heads erased azure, a pellet between 4
cross-crosslets sable, for Nash; 2 and 3 sable a buck's head caboshed
argent attired or, between his horns a cross patee, and across his mouth
an arrow, Bulstrode. Second, 1 and 4, for Hall, 2 and 3 Shakespeare.
When the notable will was opened, and proved in the following June, the
widow declined to follow out its provisions as concerned her own
property, which Thomas Nash had treated as if entirely his own. "Item, I
give, dispose and bequeath, unto my Kinsman Edward Nash, and to his
heires and assignes for ever, one messuage or tenement with the
appurtenances comonly called or knowne by the name of The New Place ...
together with all and singular howses, outhowses, barnes, stables,
orchards, gardens, etc, esteemed or enjoyed as thereto belonging ...
also fower yards of arable land meadowe and pasture ... in old
Stratford, and also one other tenement with the appurtenances in the
parish of ---- London; called or known by the name of the Wardropp, and
now in the tenure of one ---- Dickes."
Mrs. Nash had soldiers quartered on her at New Place during the very
month of her husband's death, one of whom was implicated in the robbery
of deer from the park of Sir Greville Verney on April 30, 1647. But she
did not fail in legal knowledge of what she ought to do under the
unexpected provisions of her husband's will, of which she was left sole
executrix and residuary legatee. She and her mother combined in levying
a fine on the property,[200] and reconveying it to the sole use of her
mother and herself, and their heirs for ever. She was not yet
thirty-nine years of age, and did not feel inclined even then to take it
for granted she would not marry again, even if Edward Nash agreed, as he
could be made to agree, that his inheritance could only come to him on
her decease without issue.
But Edward Nash did not like her proceedings, and filed a Bill in
Chancery on February, 1647-48, against Elizabeth Nash, and other
legatees, to compel them to produce his uncle's will in court, and
execute its provisions. Mrs. Nash admitted its contents, but averred the
testator had no power to demise property which had belonged to her
grandfather, and had been left to herself. She explained that her mother
was still living, and that in conjunction they had levied the fine. She
only disputed that part of her husband's will concerning her own
property, and mentioned her deeds and evidences. Her answer was taken by
commission, at Stratford, in April, 1648, and in June it was ordered
that the defendants should bring into court the will and other
evidences, and the writ was personally served on Mrs. Nash.
The will of Thomas Nash was produced before the Examiners in Chancery in
November, but Mrs. Nash defied all orders concerning the other
"evidences," as may be seen from the affidavit filed at the Six Clerks'
Office in December, 1649. She was brave in her determination that her
own rights and her mother's should not be assailed, and she was perhaps