1 
 
BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME 
 FROM THE 
 
 SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND 
 
 THE GIFT OF 
 
 Henrs W. Sage 
 
 1S91 
 
 hrX'MtlJ 3)tmlw 
 
 3777 
 
Cornell University Library 
 PR 2894.Y41 
 
 The gentle Shakspere: a vindication. 
 
 3 1924 013 148 840 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tiiis book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924013148840 
 
THE 
 
 GENTLE SHAKSPERE: 
 
 A VINDICATION. 
 
 BY 
 
 John Pym Y eatman, 
 
 OF LINCOLN'S INN, BAmilSTER-AT-LAW, 
 FORMERLY OF EMMANUEL COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE. 
 
 F.R.H.S., Etc. 
 
 " Catholicism gave us Shakspere." — Thomas Carlyle. 
 
 London : 
 The Roxburghe Press, 3, Victoria Street, Westminster. 
 
 Birmingham : 
 John B. Collings, 168, Edmund Street. 
 
 E.V. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Preface 
 
 Chapter I. — Introduction 
 
 II.— Youthful Indiscretions 
 III. — Scholarship 
 IV. — Campion, Jesuit and Martyr 
 v.— The Play of King Henry VIII 
 VI. — The Early History of the Family 
 
 VII. — Haseley 
 
 VIII.— Snitterfield 
 
 IX . — STR ATFORD-ON i^VON . . . 
 
 X.— The Purchase of Tithes 
 
 XL— The Will 
 
 XII. — The Arden Family ... 
 XIII. — ^The Blunts of Kidderminster ., 
 
 XIV. — The Griffin Pedigree 
 
 XV. — The Griffins of Long Ichington 
 XVI. — Ryce Griffin, of Bickmarsh 
 
 XVII. — Some Doubtful Points 
 
 XVIII. — John Jordan 
 
 XIX.— The Sonnets 
 
 XX.— Conclusion 
 
 Page. 
 
 to xi. 
 
 I 
 
 22 
 40 
 
 55 
 64 
 12& 
 i6j 
 171 
 180. 
 207 
 2ia 
 221 
 330 
 
 26s 
 
 281 
 289 
 
 295 
 302 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 I HAVE written this book with but very little preparation, 
 and with only a previous very general knowledge of the 
 works of Shakspere. 
 
 I had been for some time collecting material for the 
 pedigree of the Griffin family for my " History of Derbyshire " 
 when, accidentally, I found that Alys Griffin — one of the family 
 of Braybrook, in Northamptonshire — ^living tempe Henry 
 VIII. — had married a Shakspere, 
 
 I did not at first think much of it, for I had some time 
 previously found that a William Shakspere (in 1558) had prised 
 the goods imdet the will of Edmund Griffin of Long Ichington, 
 in Warwickshire, but knowing little of him, and supposing that 
 he was a member of the family of Griffin of Wichnore whose 
 connection with Braybrook was then unknown, I still took no 
 notice of it for I had already met with several Shaksperes in 
 
iv. PREFACE. 
 
 various places— among them poor William Shakspere, who was 
 drowned in the Avon in the time of Queen Elizabeth — and the 
 several entries relating to John Shakspere and Robert Arden in 
 the Court Rolls of the Guild of the Blessed Virgin Mary of 
 Warwick. It was not until, in the beginning of last month, I 
 met with Mr. Bickly's magnificent edition of the Register of the 
 Guild of Knowle, in which I found most valuable information 
 relative to the Griffin family, which enabled me to complete that 
 pedigree, that I found an Alys Shakspere. And very curiously 
 with one execption this is the only record in which I have, as 
 yet, discovered one of her name. 
 
 To Mr. Bickly's book, therefore, the world is most deeply 
 indebted for this most remarkable and purely accidental 
 discovery, a discovery which, it is perhaps not too much to say 
 of it, utterly confounds the traducers of our great poet, and 
 helps the proof of his relation to other people and places very 
 different from those so cheerfully assigned to him by his 
 modern admirers in the cesspools and amongst the bogs of 
 Warwickshire. 
 
 This is another, from very many testimonials, of the great 
 value to the historian of the honest patient labour of those who 
 spend their time and money in preparing careful editions of the 
 works of antiquity. 
 
 Mr. Bickly's edition is magnificently attired — ^that is, 
 printed and mounted— but it has two faults, which give the 
 searcher much trouble and which may, perhaps, be amended : 
 the want of a full index, and a little over editing. It is much 
 better to print an ancient MS. exactly as it is, or rather in the 
 very order of its pages, and without additions or extensions. 
 
PREFACE. V. 
 
 Many of the too clever editors extend the contracted words — to 
 their own satisfaction but to the bewilderment of their readers, 
 many of the letters being similar — and if the liberty to extend 
 is given, it is not difficult to arrive at several, and in some cases 
 many readings. Mr. Bickly has not erred in this, but in 
 correcting the order of the entries ; so that although he has 
 given the pages of the original in each of his own, yet by 
 inverting the order, to give his book a correct chronological 
 arrangement, he has made it impossible for the scholar, at least 
 without great labour, to compare the original with it or to 
 judge by the context of the date of any particular passage ; and 
 his index is defective in giving neither dates, nor Christian 
 names, nor the number of times each name appears in the same 
 page — this last a very serious fault. Perhaps the book might 
 be re-bound in the proper order of its pages, and certainly a 
 new index should be given; so that this valuable register should 
 be made fully accessible. But in spite of these minor defects, 
 Mr. Bickly is to be congratulated upon his success, and the 
 great aid his work will be to the Warwickshire historian. 
 Unfortunately, Dugdale's truly magnificent work, the history of 
 this county, is not readily accessible ; besides, Dugdale does 
 not come near enough to our own day, and he has neglected to 
 use those very valuable sources of information, the Subsidy 
 •Rolls and the Fines relating to the sale of lands, with many 
 other rolls which are now accessible, and without a fair abstract 
 of which no county history can be perfect, since it omits an 
 account of the subdivision of lands so necessary to the 
 ^genealogist. 
 
 Having found Alys Shakspere through Mr. Bickly's book, 
 I looked into some of the most popular of the great writers, 
 
vi. PREFACE. 
 
 Halliwell, Hunter, Malone, French, and others, who have 
 written upon Shakspere, and, with the exception of the last, I 
 met with nothing but disappointment. In some of them,, 
 indeed, very valuable records appear ; but generall)' these 
 works are badlj' written, without arrangement, childish and 
 erroneous in their reflections, if not utterly repellant. I don't 
 refer to French's work, which has none of these faults, but it is 
 chiefly valuable for the Arden family history. In all the others 
 there is little and very partial original research. The most 
 important records have not been looked at ; and these great 
 writers have chiefly contented themselves with self-laudation 
 and abuse of each other, though they have, naturally, copied 
 from each other, without acknowledgment, nearly all the facts 
 that have yet been published. I venture to suggest that there 
 is yet ample scope for serious labour, in order to properly 
 illustrate the history of the Shakspere family. In the course of 
 a single month's work I have only been able to skim the more 
 important records, but with the results, which these papers shew,, 
 of exhibiting how little has hitherto been known, notwithstanding 
 the labours of the numerous and able men who have been 
 employed to search for information. How they have missed 
 these rolls, especially those of the all-important Court of 
 Wroxall, is more than I can understand, unless it is that they 
 have been misdirected in making their search, and took it, toa 
 readily, for granted that proper searches had been made. My 
 experience, after many years of genealogical and historical 
 work, is that no one is to be trusted implicitly, because 
 searchers work with special and different objects in view ; and 
 if I wish to be specially accurate, I don't trust my own work, if 
 it has been done for another object. It is impossible to collect 
 
PREFACE. VU, 
 
 all the little fragments which occur, and one of them omitted 
 may prevent the proof wanted from being attained. 
 
 This book has taken me just three weeks to write. In it 
 I have somewhat boldly attempted to correct the errors of 
 others, with an unsparing hand, but only with a view to the 
 elucidation of the truth. If others will take the trouble to take 
 the rod in hand, and correct mine, I shall not repine. I am not 
 ashamed to confess that reading Mr. Donelly's book I accepted 
 much of its conclusions ; although by testing his " cryptogram " 
 I soon found it be nonsense, and now, through this investiga- 
 tion, I have discovered the absurd blunders upon which his 
 arguments are based, I entirely reject his teaching, and can only 
 wonder that I could have been misled by it. It is with great 
 satisfaction that I bring these facts to light, and assist in some 
 measure to sweep away the rubbish that has been heaped upon 
 the grave of William Shakspere, not bj^ Donelly only, but by 
 man)^ who have rashly ventured to write about him. 
 
 I was much struck with the following observations, which 
 I found in Joseph Hunter's MSS. in the British Museum, 
 although it is not quite clear who wrote them. These words 
 are weighty, and well worth preservation, and I write this book 
 with a full sense of the censure they may possiblj'- contain upon 
 my own efforts : — 
 
 Somebody, possibly a Dr. Symmons, wrote in 1785 : — " It 
 -does not appear to me that the Commentators are at all 
 aware of the importance of the office they had undertaken. 
 Shakspere is a great national treasure, he sustains the dignity of 
 England, and gives it a superiority in the literary world, he has 
 
vm. PREFACE. 
 
 given stability and form to our language, and has perhaps 
 rendered it immortal, and transferred to America may render it 
 universal, and with these advantages are connected wealth, 
 power, and honour. It is fitting, however, great as he is, that 
 he should be commented and criticised, and then he will be the 
 more purified and manifested, and of the greater use ; yet there 
 ought to be some proportion preserved between the critic, and 
 the poet, and the mere labourers of the press, floating on the 
 credit of black, or Roman, or Greek letters, and debarred by 
 public disapprobation from shedding their impurities in his 
 superior name," 
 
 " It is, I presume, no injury to these gentlemen to say they 
 are but as vermin, to whom the whole frame and proportion of 
 him, they feed on, is unknown ; and yet Dr. Johnson, in 
 particular, who seems the least able to comprehend him, 
 assumes often (strange to say) the tone of an equal, nay some- 
 times of a superior man, but though I would not prohibit even 
 Mr, Hurdman or Mr. Davies from now and then wallowing in 
 an idle note, yet I think the public should demand due 
 reverence from all, and I perceive that those who are most 
 competent in their different ways, as Dr. W. and Dr. Farmer, 
 are most impressed with reverence and care. For myself I take 
 the hberty, which I allow to all, but which I hope in no 
 instance to abuse ; and should be very glad, I must confess, if 
 the name of Shakspere and Dr. Johnson could be placed far as 
 the poles asunder."— Hunter MSS., vol. vii. p. 500. 
 
 In the same spirit Coleridge wrote, at a much later date, in 
 one of his lectures. He asserts : — 
 
PREFACE. ix. 
 
 " It is humiliating to reflect that, as it were, because heaven 
 has given us the greatest poet, it has inflicted upon that poet 
 the most incompetent critics. None of them seem to 
 understand his language, much less the principles upon which 
 he wrote and the peculiarities which distinguish him from all 
 rivals. 
 
 "The state in which his text has come down to us is 
 evidently very imperfect ; in many places his sense has been 
 perverted, in others if not entirely obscured so blunderingly 
 represented as to afford us only a glimpse of what he meant. 
 Modern inquiry and speculative ingenuity has done nothing to 
 retrieve the genuine language of the poet. His critics have 
 neither understood or appreciated him." And these words 
 apply with redoubled force at the present day. 
 
 We thank Mr. Dyce for this fine bit of word painting : — 
 " Shakspere is not only immeasurably superior to the dramatists 
 of his time in creative power, in insight into the human heart, 
 and in profound thought ; but he is, moreover, utterly unlike 
 them in almost every respect — unhke them in his method of 
 developing character, in his diction, in his versification." 
 
 This book was written before I saw the work of Charles 
 Knight, which, happily, is free from the faults so common 
 to the others, and I have been able only to slip in between 
 my lines, here and there, a few of his. He writes in an 
 admirable spirit, although he, too, in some instances has given 
 way too much to the prejudiced views of others. 
 
 I have great pleasure in acknowledging the ready help I 
 have received from Mr. Richard Savage, the librarian of 
 
X, PREFACE. 
 
 Shakespere's Birthplace, who generously laid open to me all the 
 stores of knowledge which, through years of patient industry, he 
 has acquired, not, as this shewed, for himself, but for the benefit 
 of all. Mr. Savage is a true antiquary, keen-sighted, patient^ 
 and labourious, and very ready and able to grasp a valuable 
 fact when it comes before him. In his own book, " Shakspearea* 
 Extracts from Edward Pudsey's Book," he has at page 81-3 
 given extracts from the Augmentation Book, vol. 404, as well as 
 from the Court Rolls of Snytterfield, which indicate the bent of 
 his mind towards the course I have taken in ascertaining the 
 history of the family. Hunter was of the same opinion ; but, 
 with this light before him. Hunter, imfortunately like so many 
 others, never followed it out. I am very greatly indebted to 
 of Mr. Richard Savage for giving me full access to his 
 collection of MSS., including his notes of a very large number of 
 registers of parishes in the County of Warwick, a great and 
 unusual act of kindness. I have to thank many correspondents 
 who wrote congratulating me on my success, some of whom 
 promised to enlighten me further from their own stores, which, 
 from their letters, I judge to be richer than and superior to my 
 own. But up to date these contributions have not come to 
 hand. Perhaps I write and print more rapidly than suits their 
 leisure. 
 
 I have to acknowledge with gratitude the generous and 
 valuable help of George Marshall, Esq., Rouge Croix, through 
 whose kind aid I was able to search for myself properly some 
 of the invaluable records of his College. 
 
 I have also to acknowledge the aid I have received from 
 Miss Ethel Stokes in transcribing various records for the Griffin 
 
PREFACE. Xi, 
 
 pedigree, some of which, especially the Inquisitions post mortem, 
 were in a very bad condition, the crabbed Latin being almost 
 indecipherable and requiring great skill and knowledge of the 
 language to give an accurate and satisfactory idea of the 
 contents. 
 
 Also for friendly help from J. A. C. Vincent, of 6i, Lincoln's 
 Inn Fields, and W. F. Noble, of 88, Rosendale Road, West 
 Dulwich, genealogists. 
 
 LiGHTwooDs Cottage, 
 
 Beech Lanes, Birmingham. 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 INTRODUCTION, 
 
 " A sort of naughty persons lewdly bent." — 
 
 Henry VII., 2nd pt., Act ii., sc, i. 
 
 ONE of the objects of this book is to place before the 
 reader a true account of a great poet — the greatest, 
 perhaps, that the world ever saw — and, if possible, to 
 relieve his memory from the mass of misrepresentation, 
 calumny, and even unreasoning adulation which has been piled 
 upon it. 
 
 As most certainly na one man ever brought together so 
 many beautiful and noble ideas, or expressed them so worthily, 
 or so naturally, no one has ever yet excited so much comment 
 and inquiry, or has caused such a multitude of books to be 
 written about himself and his works, it might be thought that 
 it is superfluous and unnecessary to add another to the pile, 
 that the limit of the great library which has been created to his 
 honoiu' has been reached ; and that the wise gentlemen who 
 
2 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 have assumed to themselves the power of controlling thought 
 and of defining theories respecting William Shakspere — in other 
 words of settling controversies and stifling honest discussion — 
 should be respected in their office, and troubled no more with 
 " vague possibilities and wild conjectures " ; but in truth the 
 true limit of discussion has not been closed, nay it has hardly 
 been reached, for the simple reason that as yet, despite the 
 multitude of accounts we possess, there are none based upon 
 truth ; the premises upon which they are built have been 
 wrongly assumed. We know almost as little of the true man 
 as if he had been a myth. Indeed, some of the shrieking schools 
 declare, that as an author he had no existence, that there was 
 such a man as Will Shakspere is not absolutely denied ; but that 
 he ever wrote a line of the magnificent lyrics called his, or of 
 the marvellous plays which have been published under his name, 
 they utterly deny. There was, indeed, it may be conceded, a 
 common, indeed, a very common and improper person, called 
 William Shakspere, in the time of Queen Elizabeth, a low 
 drinking, pot-house fellow, he may have been an actor (but if 
 so only a poor one), he was an intelligent rustic who lived in 
 pot-houses and usually slept under hedges after his carousals, and 
 they point with satisfaction, and in proof, to a certain crab- 
 apple tree (in Warwickshire) still called after his name, and, sad 
 to say, loved by the common people because it is said that the 
 dmnken lout once slept under it. 
 
 This common creature, they report, was a butcher by 
 trade, and being, it is said, very fond of small theatricals, as 
 butchers sometimes are, would spout orations of a kind when- 
 ever he killed a calf ; being also a wicked poacher, often, we 
 hope, and probably, it is believed, put in the stocks. After a 
 disreputable marriage, which not liking, or the frequent sitting 
 in the stocks, it is not quite clear which, he deserted his wife. 
 She was nearly double his age when the bad boy married her, 
 and he ran away to London, where (as Mr. Halliwell Phillips 
 writes) being "an active and intelligent rustic," he gained a 
 precarious living by holding horses, and so forth. He was no 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 3 
 
 • 
 
 actor, though it is thought that he was once allowed to play 
 the ghost in Hamlet, but somehow — of course by disreputable 
 means — ^like the proverbial tradesman who swept out the shop, 
 married his master's daughter, and ended by securing the 
 business for himself — ^though he could not marry the daughter 
 — this drunken cad got hold of the management of the theatre, 
 and made money by it. And after his death — which, by the 
 way, was caused by a drunken carousal — some ignorant people 
 published the plays which had been acted in his theatre, and 
 w^hich had been written by the great Lord Bacon, by the Earl 
 of Derby, by the Earl of Southampton, by the Earl of 
 Pembroke, or by one or other of them, or by somebody else, it 
 doesn't matter by whom, as the works of this William 
 Sh^spere. This is a fair summary of the views of one school, 
 /jfis 1 poor Yorick. 
 
 Another school — especially prominent in America — scarcely 
 less objectionable than that of the embodiment of vulgar abuse 
 just summarised, would give his works a transcendent meaning ; 
 his writings they call "hermetic." E. A. Hitchcock, a great 
 chief of this school, writes of his sonnets " as a performance of 
 art " they are " far beyond the ordinary judgments of man," for 
 most people they must remain " like mountain tops, as Mount 
 Sinai, Horeb, and Calvary — as most inaccessible, where never- 
 theless the atmosphere is always serene, like, a beatified soul in 
 the presence of God." " The question," he writes, " has been 
 asked, ' to whom were they addressed ? ' but no one seems to 
 reflect that they cannot be explained, or understood, from any 
 merely literal point of view." At page sixty -six of his book 
 Hitchcock writes, "in the fifty-second sonnet the poet feels 
 that he is in possession of a certain key, which opens to him a 
 sweet uplocked treasure. This is the secret key of the spirit, 
 the very secret of the Lord, which, though disclosed or 
 revealed in the Scriptures, is only disclosed, or made known, 
 under certain conditions." Prodigious — we had almost pro- 
 fanely written, bosh ; once get this idea into foolish people's 
 heads and they will listen to any silly explanation that an 
 
4 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 audacious quack may choose to palm upon them. Once people 
 begin to regard Mahomet as God's prophet, they eagerly 
 swallow any nostrum he chooses to offer to them. 
 
 The hermetic school is pernicious and wicked — it is mere 
 quackery, liable to gross abuse. That of the Honourable 
 Ignatius Donelly is harmless, compared to it. No one possessed 
 of ordinary common sense can listen to Donelly's theory for a 
 moment, for he has given so much of his " great cryptogram " 
 to the public that anyone who chooses can prove its absurdity 
 for himself. It matters not that Mr. Donelly pretends or thinks 
 that he hides in his own breast the key which uplocks his secret. 
 It is no longer a secret, because the data he has given shews 
 that several readings, in different senses, can be taken from the 
 same set of words, when they are placed apart. If, as is the 
 fact, one set of words in one place produces a different meaning 
 from that which the same set of words gives when used in 
 another, the whole idea of a cryptogram vanishes. A system 
 of cypher which is so loose that a variety of meanings can be 
 extracted from it, at will, is no cypher, and is of no use to any- 
 one ; for the person who receives it could learn nothing positive 
 or certain from it, and this is the fatal blot of poor Donelly's 
 "cryptogram." It is hard, perhaps, to write of him that he is 
 an impostor, and probably untrue, and no doubt should be cast 
 upon his honour ; but he can only escape this condemnation on 
 the plea of insanity, and his great work, so far as his discovery 
 is concerned, may safely be regarded as harmless. He has, 
 however, collected much curious learning regarding Shakspere 
 which, possibly, is of some value ; and this, despite his mono- 
 mania, should, if possible, be utilised, although it is so inter- 
 mixed with gross exaggeration, vain assumptions, and ludicrous 
 blundering that the greatest care and discrimination must be 
 employed in using it. 
 
 Perhaps more objectionable than the shrieking school, be- 
 cause more misleading, are the orthodox writings of the sages — 
 the self-constituted " authorities on Shakspere " — of whom 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 5 
 
 Ka'iiwell-Phillips is a mighty chieftain. They write with 
 authority j they have in their breasts all that can possibly be 
 known concerning the man. No one can, or shall, go a step 
 further in the search of truth concerning him. But alas, 
 reading these great authorities does not bring either conviction 
 or peace to the mind. Hunter, far the best of this school, as 
 his MSS. now in the British Museum shew, when he pubhshed 
 his book had not gone very deeply in the way of original 
 research. He had done little more than read and unsparingly 
 condemn the writings of the others as shallow, unreasoning, 
 and even insincere, especially Malone, for whom he had an 
 utter contempt, and for Halliwell-PhiUips, of whom his opinion 
 was something worse. His MSS., as well as his book, prove 
 that there was no finality about his work, very little original 
 work, and that every point he treats upon was open to revision 
 and alteration, even by himself. And reading Halliwell-Philhps 
 one is struck at once with the shallow and partial nature of his 
 labours. Certainly he has collected valuable facts from certain 
 places, and did he but know how to arrange and utilise them he 
 might have proved something. He no doubt employed able 
 men to search for him, and they did their work well, doubtless, 
 as they were directed ; but they were mis-directed, and did not 
 search in the right places. They have missed the most 
 important facts, because they did not look for them. They 
 -searched the rolls very near the spot where something might 
 be found, but not far enough, and of course they found nothing. 
 They omitted to search the rolls for the adjoining parishes of 
 of Wroxall and Baddesley Clinton, where, as this book will 
 prove, they might have found much. They blundered shame- 
 fully even where they did look, as, for instance, in the Probate 
 •Office in Worcester — the very first place to be examined. They 
 actually failed to find the administration bond for Richard 
 Shakspere, of Snitterfield (Shakspere's grandfather), which 
 proves that John, his father, was son of Richard. Someone 
 made a present of this fact to Mr. Halliwell-Phillips, but he 
 failed to see its value, though of course he pi-inted one of his 
 
6 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 small tracts about it, which, however, he did not publish. Had 
 Halliwell honestly used this fact he must have re-written the 
 greater part of his work, for it is based upon assumptions 
 contrary to it, and to avoid doing this seems to have been his 
 object in so dishonestly strangling it. Even Joseph Hunter, 
 careful antiquary that he was, who had these wills abstracted, 
 omitted to examine the administrations. The author, in 
 publishing, on the 14th October last, a short statement in the 
 Times, was assailed by several persons, by letter and verbally, 
 with the question : " Where do you find proof of that fact ? 
 Halliwell does not give it in his very last edition, nor do any 
 of the commentators mention it." Very likely not. If they 
 did not look in the proper place, how should they know it ? 
 But as a fact, Halliwell was secretly possessed of it, but 
 suppressed it for his own reasons. 
 
 But it is not in important matters of fact and of proof that 
 Halliwell's work is defective only, it is in his comments upon 
 the facts which he possessed that he is most objectionable. He 
 applies his knowledge of the state of society in those daj'S, which 
 is perverse and shallow to other times, and knowing nothing 
 about Shakspere's describes the habits of the time of his own 
 grandmother ; nothing can be more untrue and objectionable, for 
 instance, than his account of the household and surroundings of 
 Mary Arden, the poet's mother ; it is flat, dull, and unprofitable, 
 as vulgar and common place, and probably as untrue as that of 
 the shrieking school of vulgarians who would make the poet to 
 be a low sot. Indeed, coming from one who ought to know 
 better, it is if anything more disgusting. He takes the 
 inventory of the will of Robert Arden (Marj^'s father), and 
 being unacquainted with the meaning of these documents and 
 their usual contents, argues from what he does not find there 
 that they (the Ardens) were something very different from 
 what they were. Robert Arden, he tells us, was a large farmer 
 (he was, in fact, as will be presently shown, a gentleman of 
 very ancient lineage, of the highest connections, and of 
 considerable property). " The family lived after the manner of 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 7 
 
 • 
 
 pigs rather than like human beings — they possessed no table 
 knives, no forks, no crocker)-— the food was manipulated" 
 {what can he mean) " on flat pieces of stout wood " (too 
 worthless, he adds, to be put into the inventory), " they had no 
 towels, and did not possess a single wash-hand basin amongst 
 them, they neither washed their hands nor combed their hair." 
 The unclean people. No wonder that the youthful William, if 
 his mother never washed or combed him, became the dirty low 
 person he is represented to have been — it was merely a question 
 of heredit}'- and daily custom. Yet this is a fair summary of Mr. 
 Halliwell's great work. Is it worth reading ? Is it worthy of 
 finality ? Defective in facts, it is simply ridiculous, a very 
 caricature when it pretends to be a complete description. 
 
 Nor are the stories respecting Shakspere's father, John, 
 
 more worthy of credit. About the time of his marriage it is 
 
 said that he settled in Henley Street, in Stratford-on-Avon, and 
 
 he probably remained there to the day of his death, in a 
 
 substantial and comfortable mansion fit for any gentleman's 
 
 family, not at that date merely, but one not to be despised in 
 
 our own. The unfortunate Queen (Henrietta Maria) resided in 
 
 it for three weeks, at the time of the Great Rebellion, though 
 
 possibly this may have been the house called the " New Place." 
 
 From his earliest days to his death John Shakspere possessed 
 
 lands assessed, by the Heralds (nearly at the close of his life) at 
 
 the sum of ^^500, quite a large estate at that date. He early filled 
 
 the Municipal offices in the town, rising to the very highest, and 
 
 then, probably for certain reasons, he chose to live a retired life. 
 
 Yet because there was a shoemaker of the same name (quite a 
 
 common one in Warwickshire, and possibly there were several 
 
 of the name in Stratford), and little uncertain facts creep out in 
 
 the musty records, bearing upon the poverty and shortcomings 
 
 of one or another of them, these are all assigned b)"^ unskilful 
 
 antiquaries to the retired gentleman, and sagacious observations 
 
 — after the manner of Halliwell-Phillips — are made concerning 
 
 them. The only answer to these captious critics is that they do 
 
 not prove their case. Once grant the fact that two or more 
 
8 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 men of the same name existed contemporaneously, and this- 
 cannot be denied, and you cannot attribute these facts to either 
 positively, but can only appropriate them to the most likely, 
 and that amounts only to a mere guess after all. 
 
 Hunter discovered a John Shakespeare living at Clifford 
 Chambers, in 1579, and there was certainly a shoemaker at 
 Stratford-on-Avon of the name. There are, doubtless, some 
 perplexing facts with regard to the alleged poverty of the poet's 
 father, but they are all explainable when it is taken in account 
 that he was a Papist, and he is fined (in 1592) as a recusant for 
 not coming to church, as were several other persons, like him- 
 self, secret Catholics. His name stood third in a list of nine, 
 who, it was added in a note, " come not to church for fear of 
 process for debt." This was a very common pretence, and as 
 the Town Clerk and many other leading officials of Stratford- 
 on-Avon were also secret Catholics, it is very possible that a 
 pious fraud was carried on. That some friendly creditor not 
 only had a small judgment against him but pretended to wish 
 to arrest him, and to give this colour his friends on the 
 Corporation may have pretended that he was poor and excused 
 him his quota of taxation. But we know, as a fact, that he 
 had very considerable landed property (which he never lost),^ 
 and which would have been seized for his debts, by process of 
 elegit, if he did not pay them, for they were his own freeholds, 
 and remained in his hands till his death. 
 
 Mr. Collier suggests that he could not have been arrested 
 on a Sunday, certainly he could not in these days, but it must 
 be recollected that as a Papist he would be treated illegally,, 
 without having any means of redress. No doubt, that malignant 
 Protestant — Sir Thomas Lucy — maltreated the poet because he 
 could not retaliate, and John Shakspere's first cousin (Lambert) 
 kept part of his property from him for the same reason. It is 
 possible that these infamous penal laws caused him to be robbed,, 
 so that he M^as really poor, though it seems more likely that his. 
 poverty was assumed as a pretence to excuse him from attending 
 
THE GElsfl"LE SHAKSPERE. 9 
 
 at the hated services of the Estabhshed Church. It was a 
 curious fact the poet's son-in-law (Dr. Hall), who was also a 
 Papist, actually held the office of churchwarden. Probably he 
 followed the practice of that eminent surgeon, Bob Sawyer (late 
 Knockem-off), and was called out of church to see his patients 
 pretty frequently. 
 
 In a very able and interesting review in the Quarterly of 
 April, 1864, the writer remarked, "How few of all who read 
 Shakspere's works have any conception of the man, he who of 
 all poets comes nearest home to us, with his myriad touches of 
 nature, is the most remote in his own personality," and he adds, 
 " the sonnets of Shakspere afford us, if we can but understand 
 them aright, the most certain means whereby we can get at the 
 man. Our difficulty is to get the right interpretation of the 
 sonnets, and know where Shakspere is really speaking in his 
 own person." 
 
 There is an almost insuperable barrier to this mode 
 of measuring their author. We have not a perfect copy of 
 his poems, nor have we an undiluted copy of his plays ; 
 unhappily Shakspere did not publish either in his lifetime; 
 nor, so far as we know, did he leave any manuscript 
 prepared or intended for publication behind him; we do not 
 even know, positively, whether he ever contemplated publica- 
 tion. He died, alas, when only middle-aged, and he might 
 have hoped for many years of life. He must have known that 
 ■spurious copies of his works were in circulation, yet, apparently, 
 he took no steps to stop the publication, nor even to disavow 
 them. The Passionate Pilgrim was published by a pirate about 
 1593 under his name, and it included some poems, and very 
 beautiful ones — not his own. One of the most beautiful (though 
 the least decent) was the work of Bartholomew Griffin — a 
 Catholic poet— and his own cousin, yet neither of them took 
 any step to put the pubhc right. It would not appear at first 
 sight to arise from any inherent objection to sue in the Courts, 
 -since John Shakspere, his father, was a litigant in 1597 in the 
 
10 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 Court of Charxery against one Lambert — his first cousin — 
 concerning his wife's property in Wilnecote, in which suit 
 WiUiam Shakspere, as his heir-at-law, is mentioned ; but except 
 in this suit and in one other instance, although engaged in large 
 transactions buying and selling important properties, William 
 Shakspere himself was never a litigant in our Courts. There 
 can be but little doubt that the reason that Shakspere did not 
 publish his own writings, and that he submitted to the piracy of 
 some of them, was because (like his father) he was a Catholic, 
 Of course, his parents had brought him up in their own faith 
 secretly, although John Shakspere must have outwardly con- 
 formed at a very early period, or he could not have held 
 municipal offices at Stratford, if, indeed, he was that person, 
 John, the shoemaker, was in his turn Master of his Guild, and 
 he may have been the office holder. It is more than probable, 
 if the poet's father actually held municipal offices, that his early 
 retirement from public life was occasioned by the remorse he 
 felt in deceitfully professing Protestantism, and it is absolutely 
 clear that both William Shakspere and Bartholomew Griffin 
 were compelled to permit the pirate publishers to rob them in 
 publishing their poems and plays, because, as Papists, they were 
 debarred from suing in the Courts, for neither in the Courts of 
 Law, nor in the Court of Chancery, could a Papist proceed ta 
 prevent himself from being plundered by anyone base enough 
 to cheat him. The only way, therefore, to keep his plays for 
 himself was not to publish them. It is, in all probability, ta 
 the infamous laws against Catholics that we owe it that we 
 have no authentic copy of the works of our greatest poet. It 
 may be objected that William Shakspere could not be a 
 Cathohc because he bought and held land, and that, of course, 
 no Catholic could do ; but the answer to this is that these laws 
 were frequently and openly evaded. Warwickshire was full of 
 secret Catholics, like many other parts of England, and the 
 Executive was practically in the hands of Catholics, who, of 
 course, would protect their brethren as far as they were able, 
 and even the highest authorities were compelled to wink at 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE, II 
 
 their recusancy. This is shown in the family history of the 
 Griffins — generally a Catholic family — when, as will be shown 
 presently, Lord Burleigh, himself a virulent Protestant, made 
 overtures to them. 
 
 Shakspere was tolerated, though a Catholic, because of his 
 ininaitable wit and lively humour, which pleased even the proud 
 Protestant Queen, and curiously several of the players, some of 
 his own relations, and associated with him, were Catholics like 
 him and were driven to this life probably from the fact that no 
 other was open to them. In it they were tolerated on account 
 of their cleverness, for although some of them were members of 
 the University the)^ could not practice at the Bar, or in the 
 other learned professions. We shall see presently how Shaks- 
 pere hated Queen Elizabeth in spite of her toleration and her 
 patronage to himself, with the hate of one of a proscribed sect. 
 
 It could not be because printing a book was not a light 
 thing in those days that he failed to issue his works, it would 
 be a matter of some moment doubtless, and there cannot be a 
 doubt either but that even in that debased period, when 
 through the destruction of religion, learning and science were 
 becoming displaced by ignorance and lust, the works of the 
 great master would have been eagerly read, or why should 
 they pirate them ? and, of course, a great profit would accrue 
 to him by their publication. 
 
 In the book of sonnets, as we have them, there is internal 
 evidence that publication was intended at some distant (hoped 
 for) period, for he writes of their becoming immortal, and why, 
 if he were not a Cathohc, should he not have published them 
 as he had already published his smaller poems, Ve?ttts and 
 Adonis and Lncrece, if indeed he published those works ? We 
 have'< the testimony of Meres, writing before 1598, that some 
 sonnets were then in existence, circulating among friends, but 
 we cannot tell certainly (especially with the knowledge of the 
 truth concerning the Passionate Pilgrim) which of them in the 
 
12 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERB. 
 
 pirated edition, which was published in his lifetime, are 
 genuine and which spurious; they are most unequal and as 
 badly mated as the fifth act of Henry VIII., which is clearly an 
 addition of some pious Protestant writer — ^made to tickle the 
 Protestant palate, or perhaps, done to make it endure the 
 Catholic truths of the first four acts. No one with any 
 judgment can suppose that the last act came from Shakspere, or 
 doubt the authenticity of much of the earlier acts. Just as in 
 King Henry VIII., there are two minds at work. In the com- 
 position of the sonnets there are several authors, portions of 
 them are most beautiful, most pure, and refined, whilst others 
 are bad enough almost to justify the foolish remark of Hallam, 
 " that he wished Shakspere had never written them." As a fact 
 he did not write many of them. 
 
 It is certainly unfortunate that pirate publishers have mixed 
 bad work with the true, but even that is better than not to 
 have had it preserved for us. It should be the aim of a 
 competent editor, if one could be found, to separate and cleanse 
 the true from all impurities. 
 
 In order to give positive proof, from the eternal evidence of 
 his writings, that Shakspere was a Catholic, and at the same 
 time to show how his work has been tampered with, the follow- 
 ing instance is given : — 
 
 Coleridge writes, " King Richard II. contains the most 
 magnificent and at the same time truest eulogium of our native 
 country that the English language can boast, or which can be 
 produced from any other tongue, not excepting the proud 
 claims of Greece and Rome." In the eighteenth line there are 
 the weak words— "this dear, dear land," preceded and 
 succeeded by the same word " dear," which is not only absolute 
 nonsense, destructive of the sense of the passage, but ungram- 
 matical. It is suggested that the words printed in caps, " Our 
 Mother's Dowry," or some equivalent, should be substituted. 
 There then would be some meaning in the line, and the highest 
 possible meaning given to the words, " dear for her reputation 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 1 3 
 
 • 
 
 through the world." " Her " refers to the Blessed Virgin ; 
 "it," as Shakspere has- written itjin the eighth line, would be the 
 proper reading if England were the subject ; and it is the 
 Blessed Virgin's and not England's reputation that makes this 
 country dear to all other nations ; if England were the predicate 
 the proper word would be "feared" not " endeared." 
 
 " This royal throne of Kings, this scepter'd isle, 
 This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, 
 This other Eden, demi paradise ; 
 This fortress, built by nature for herself, 
 Against infection and the hand of war ; 
 This happy breed of men, this little world ; 
 This precious stone set in the silver sea, 
 Which serves it in the office of a wall, 
 Or as a moat defensive to a house, 
 Against the envy of less happier lands. 
 This blessed spot, this earth, this realm, this England, 
 This nurse, this teeming womb of royal Kings, 
 Fear'd by their breed, and famous by their birth. 
 Renowned for their deeds as far from home 
 (For Christian service, and true chivalry,) 
 As is the sepulchre in stubborn Jewry 
 Of the world's ransom, blessed Mary's son : 
 This land of such dear souls, OUR MOTHER'S DOWRY,* 
 Dear for her reputation through the world, 
 Is now leased out (I die pronouncing it) 
 Like to a tenement or pelting farm : 
 England, boimd in with the triumphant sea. 
 Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege 
 Of watery Neptune, is now bound in with shame. 
 With inky blots, and rotten parchment bonds." 
 
 Richard II., Act ii., Scene i. 
 
 * The words printed in capitals are printed in substitution of those 
 usually printed, which Shakspere could not have written, not only 
 because those words are nonsense, but they obscure and destroy the 
 meaning of the passage. 
 
14 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 It has been objected that England was not dedicated to the 
 Blessed Virgin until recently (by Pope Leo XIII.), but this is a 
 mistake, just as the doctrine of the immaculate conception is 
 supposed to be a new doctrine because it recently has been 
 promulgated afresh. England has always been celebrated as the 
 land of Mary's dowry, and as Shakspere writes in this panegyric 
 England had always been beloved throughout the world for 
 this high cause. A special devotion in Mar}''s honour is 
 shewn in one of the earliest English prayers extant— found in 
 the book of Ceme, which belonged to Ethelwald, Bishop of 
 Sherborne, A.D. 760. It is in these words : — "Holy Mother of 
 God, Virgin ever blest, O Mary Immaculate, pray for us, 
 intercede for us, disdain not to help us. For we are confident 
 and know for certain that thou canst obtain all thou wiliest 
 from thy son, our Lord Jesus Christ, God Almighty, the King 
 of Ages, who liveth with the Father and the Holy Ghost, for 
 ever and ever. Amen." Curiously, this praj^er also proves the 
 antiquity of the doctrine of the immaculate conception. 
 
 Thomas Arundell, Archbishop of Canterbury, writing long 
 after (in 1399), "To the Bishop of London and to the rest 
 of the Clergy, his suffragan Bishops, that the contemplation of 
 the great mystery of the incarnation in which the Eternal 
 Word chose the holy and immaculate Virgin, that from her 
 whom he should clothe himself with flesh has drawn all 
 Christian nations to venerate her, from whom come the first 
 beginnings of our redemption ; but that we English, being 
 the servants of her special inheritance and her own DOWRY, 
 as we are commonly called, ought to surpass others in the 
 fervour of our praises and devotions." He then describes how 
 the power of England had increased, and ascribed its successes 
 and prosperity to the intercession of the blessed Virgin. 
 (Wilkins' Concilia Tom iii., p. 246.) [The author is indebted to 
 the Rev. Father Robin, of the French Church, Leicester Place, 
 London, for these proofs of antiquity.] 
 
 This devotion to the immaculate Virgin, though almost 
 forgotten in the bloody reign of the Tudors, would be well 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 1 5 
 
 known and cherished in the little household of the poet's 
 birthplace, and the poet himself must have frequently, though 
 secretly, repeated these prayers with his good father and sweet 
 Mary Arden. In his later years, at all events, John Shakspere 
 returned to the Catholic faith (if he ever renounced it), and most 
 certainl}'^ would the young poet be reared in it, and after his 
 marriage would not his father and mother urge him to return 
 to it, if he had deserted it? In 1592, when his father was 
 " convicted " as a recusant, the poet would be twenty-eight 
 years old. Surely in that terrible period of English history, 
 and during those twenty-eight years, many masses must have 
 been offered up in secret in the Birthplace, probably in that 
 cellar or Priest's hiding-place still existing. 
 
 Coleridge has remarked upon "the different manner in 
 which Shakspere has treated the priestly character as compared 
 with other writers. In Beaumont and Fletcher the priests are 
 represented as a vulgar mockery, and, as in others of these 
 dramatic personages, the errors of the few are mistaken for the 
 demeanour of the many ; but in Shakspere they always carry 
 with them our love and respect. He made no injurious 
 abstracts, he took no copies from the worst parts of our nature ;. 
 and, like the rest, his character of priests are truly drawn 
 from the general body." 
 
 Why was this, but because in his heart of hearts he knew 
 and loved them ; because he was one with them in spirit,, 
 however much circumstances compelled him to conform to th& 
 spirit of the time ! It is only a low, a little mind that can see 
 no good in men who sacrifice their lives and themselves for the 
 welfare of others. Boucicault, in his beautiful play of the 
 Colleen Bawn, followed Shakspere in this characteristic, and 
 some of the most beautiful pictures of his creation are the 
 better for it. -Ji- 
 
 lt is marvellous how, in spite of the evidence of the first 
 folio, persons can be found who say that Shakspere w^as not the 
 author of his plays. • We have in the preface of Heminge and 
 
1 6 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 Condell the clearest proofs that they came from the theatre of 
 the poet himself, and were known to his followers as the poet's 
 own work. They were not published for eight years after his 
 death, and no doubt many of his friends were anxious to possess 
 them. Leonard Digges, of University College, Oxford (he died 
 1635), writes thus approvingly of their appearance : — 
 
 " Shakspere, at length thy pious fellows give 
 
 The world thy works ; thy works by which outlive 
 
 Thy tomb thy name must ; 
 
 This book, when brass and marble fade, shall 
 
 Make thee look fresh to all ages. 
 
 Be sure our Shakspere thou canst never die ; 
 
 But crowned with laurel live eternally." 
 
 This may not be very good poetry — not quite so smooth 
 and good as Shakspere's but it is very excellent good sense, and 
 the very strongest evidence of the fact that Shakspere wrote his 
 own plays. It is a curious thing that some of the plays 
 attributed to Shakespere, which certainly are not his, as 
 Richard III., Henry VI., and King John, have the peculiar 
 ring of Digges' Verse, a great stress always laid upon the last 
 syllable, whilst Shakspere's verse sails majestically and smoothly 
 through the lines as if written in the mind, without aid or 
 reference to the printer's art. Heminge and Condell, too, give 
 the clearest evidence on the point. They write : " It had been a 
 thing, we confesse, worthy to have been wished, that the author 
 himself had lived to set forth and overseer his own writings ; 
 but since it hath been ordained otherwise, and he by deathe 
 departed from that right, we pray you don't envie his friends the 
 office of their care and paine to have collected and published 
 them . . absolute in their numbers as he conceived them," 
 And they write also : " We have but collected them and done 
 an office to the dead . . . without ambition either of selfe 
 profit or fame, only to keep the memory of so worthy a friend 
 and fellow as was our worthy Shakspere." And they give some 
 little evidence of his mode of writing, which confirms that of the 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 17 
 
 belligerent and envious Ben J^nson. They describe him " as a 
 happie imitator of nature, but a most gentle expressor of it. His 
 mind and hand went together, and what he thought he uttered 
 with easiness that we have scarce received from him a blot in 
 his papers." 
 
 This is proof that they worked from his autographs, and, 
 therefore, that very much of what we have is his own work and 
 in his own words. Of course this must not be taken too literally, 
 it does not and cannot mean that every passage and every word 
 was in his hand-writing ; but the fair construction of it is that 
 when they found his original writing it was as fairly and easily 
 written as they describe. 
 
 In the face of this evidence, how is it possible to affirm 
 that they were the works of Bacon, or of any other of the 
 suggested authors ? Some of them were alive at this period ; 
 all had friends. Would Heminge and Condell have been 
 allowed to, or would they have desired to, palm them off as 
 the works of the deceased author, if they had not truly been 
 his ? Why should Bacon and some of the others have been 
 ashamed of such works ? There was nothing disreputable in 
 writing, for it was the pastime and delight of many of the great 
 men of that period, and Bacon has left an immense quantity of 
 his works behind him. Why should he not acknowledge some 
 of the plays, if they had been his ? Bacon was a great scholar, 
 and nothing would have gratified him so much as to leave 
 behind him works which he would know would compare 
 favourably with the greatest works of antiquity. There is a 
 very interesting letter in the Notes and Queries of the 30th 
 November, 1895, copied from the Birmingham Post, giving 
 details respecting the history of these worthy fellows, Heminge 
 and Condell, from which it seems that they had been partners 
 with Shakspere in the Globe Theatre for thirty-five years. 
 Surely they were the best judges of what was then thought to 
 be his work, and it is a first step in proof of the fact that his 
 contemporaries believed them to be his. 
 
1 8 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 It seems doubtful whether even Venus and Adonis and 
 Lucrece were really published by Shakspere. They may have 
 been published b)' pirates, or eA^en by friends, and the dedica- 
 tions -sATitten for him, or he ma)' have written the dedications 
 himself, and the pirates may have stolen them both together. 
 It is strange if he published them that he stopped and did not 
 publish some others. It is quite possible that Lucrece and Vetius 
 and Adonis were printed by the great nobleman to whom they 
 were dedicated. 
 
 The great Shemetic writer, Schlegel, makes a curious 
 mistake with regard to the printing of the sonnets. He writes 
 that " Meres was personally acquainted with the poet, and so 
 very intimately that the latter read over to him his sonnets 
 before they were printed," and he adds, " I cannot conceive 
 that all the critical sceptics in the world could ever be able to 
 get over such a testimony." 
 
 Now Francis Meres died 1598, and the pirates did not 
 publish the sonnets till 1609. We cannot, therefore, identify any 
 poem on the testimony of Meres, but we can rely upon the 
 fact that Shakspere wrote lyrics and lent them to his friends. 
 His testimony is very short and clear, he writing before 1598, 
 " As the soul of Euphorbus was thought to live in Pythagoras, so 
 the sweet witty soul of Ovid lived in mellefluous and honey- 
 tongued Shakspere, witness his Venus and Adonis his Lucrece, 
 and his sugared-sonnets amongst his private friends." 
 
 Not one word about printing can be found in them, and it is 
 clear that they were never printed by the author for the reasons 
 before stated. So, too, with regard to his plays, we do not even 
 know the number of them. We owe it to Meres that we know 
 the names of twelve of them then already written, and although 
 the additions made to them by the scribblers of his age, some 
 of whom were very clever, cannot be lopped off so easily 
 and satisfactorily as the fifth act of Henry VIII. , yet there are 
 unquestionably very many and grievious additions to some of 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE; 19 
 
 * 
 
 them, which ought to be excised without remorse ; and certainly 
 the gross indecencies which intrude (whether Shakspere's or not, 
 and they are not his) ought never to be reprinted. To anyone, 
 Yt'ho has imbibed the true spirit of the man, who can measure 
 him in his own mind, and see him as he really is, the task is not 
 impossible. No purer soul, no brighter intellect, no loftier mind 
 ever lived in human being than in the gentle Shakspere. If 
 there is anything in his works, and as they have come down to 
 us, there is much which is impure, or stupid, or mean, be very 
 sure it is not his writing, but is the work of some creeping 
 parasite added to please the corrupt taste of the age. And why 
 should plays which are obviously not his compositions be 
 published as liis works, compare King John with Heny IV. or 
 Henry V., a child can see that they are not the work of the 
 same man. Such plays as those of Henry VI., though they 
 possibly contain passages written by Shakspere, could not have 
 been conceived by him, or written as a whole, and if printed 
 with it should be notified as not his work. 
 
 If this be so, and it is impossible to do more than conjecture 
 what work is his, for what purpose is it that we should trouble 
 ourselves to ascertain the truth about his family, his position, 
 and his relations ? Only this and no more, that every little fact 
 that can be learnt respecting him, were it only the colour of his 
 coat, or the cut of it, is of interest, if only it helps us to know 
 and love the man. We have his works, they are imperishable, 
 can we not also know and cherish some of the persons and 
 things which he loved ? We have his house and his gardens, 
 why not learn something more about his life ? Not whether 
 he brushed his hair, or washed himself at the pump — perhaps 
 he had not a pump, but that may be assumed— or whether he 
 manipulated his food with his fingers, or used bits of bread. But 
 let us learn who were his friends and relations and his 
 companions, whether washed or not ; and learning who were 
 his kin, we shall the better imagine the kind of man he was, 
 and understand the more readily how he was educated, and 
 what was the probable course of his studies and of his life. 
 
20 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 This is something, and it is hoped that the following pages will 
 4o something to carry out this aim. 
 
 When we remember that he was a Catholic, and that his 
 mother and her family were strict Catholics, that his father's 
 family must have been intensely Catholic from the fact — which 
 will be shown presently — that they were closely connected 
 with a monastic institution, and that they lost their income, 
 their homes, and their position through the " Reformation," 
 we cannot doubt as to the mode of his bringing up ; and it must 
 be remembered that, although in principle a Catholic, yet mixing 
 as he did in the world he might have been a Protestant in his 
 practices. 
 
 Tradition still declares that he was a frequent visitor at the 
 house of his great uncle, John Shakspere, at Rowington, which 
 is still adorned with his monogram of J. S. Can it be doubted 
 that he was also a frequent visitor to his grandfather's house at 
 Hazeley, where the venerable Prioress of Wroxall (a member 
 of his own family) resided till her death in 1570 ; where other 
 members of his family resided much later. The Hatton 
 registers, presently to be cited, show that his near relative, 
 WiUiam Shakspere (gentleman), was living there in 1599, when 
 Barbara his wife was buried. We do not find when this William 
 Shakspere died, but the burial of Nicholas (his brother) is 
 recorded in 1607. Nicholas was an honoured name in this 
 Catholic family, perhaps because of their presumed relationship 
 to the great Englishman Pope Adrian IV., called Nicholas 
 Breakspear, whose arms the Shaksperes were proud to bear — a 
 broken spear. It will be noted presently that the name Adrian 
 was used by the Shaksperes. It was not an uncommon name 
 in Warwickshire, though some 400 years had elapsed since his 
 death, the great and only English Pope would be respected in 
 Warwickshire, the home of the Shaksperes. 
 
 Surely it is a great thing to know certainly that the poet 
 came of an ancient and honoured race, and that if the story of 
 his youthful indiscretions have not been highly coloured because 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 21 
 
 • 
 
 of his renown — little people are so fond of sticking their own 
 weaknesses upon the characters of the great — that at all events 
 they were not hereditary or family faults, but the outcome of 
 an exuberant temperament, unhappily unchecked by proper 
 control, and let us hope that these bad habits were thrown off 
 — if ever they existed — as quickly as they were assumed. Let 
 us get at the fact that our poet was a gentleman by birth and 
 education, and decent peop.e will only too gladly throw a veil 
 over his youth and regard him as the pure and honourable man 
 that he was when he came to years of discretion, and utterly 
 disregard and repudiate the slanders and detractions of his 
 enemies and pretended friends. Well might he exclaim, in 
 reference to so many of his late admirers, " Oh, save me from 
 my friends," 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 SHAKSPERE'S YOUTHFUL INDISCRETIONS. 
 
 No might nor greatness in morality 
 Can censure 'scape ; back wounding calumny 
 The whitest virtue strikes ; what king so strong 
 Can tie the gall up in a sland'rous tongue ? 
 
 TO estimate properly the value of the traditions respect- 
 ing the youthful sins of the poet, one must first of all 
 realise his position and surroundings, but were it not 
 for the serious and altogether unworthy use which the 
 shrieking school of Shaksperian scholars have made of the few 
 facts of the private life of the poet (which have come down to 
 ns), in disparagement of the authorship of the works, not one 
 word would have been wasted over this unpleasant subject. 
 What have we, at this date, to do with the sins of his youth ? 
 It is interesting, no doubt, to learn all we can about the man, 
 and even about the boy, as it is certainly of interest to learn 
 what we can of his race and parentage ; but what have we to 
 do with his boyish offences — of which, let us hope, that if he 
 were guilty of them^ as most men have been, he repented of 
 them fully at the time. Even Mawworm must admit that the 
 youth of many good men, and the manhood, also, of many 
 more, have been stained by private vices. Some besotted 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 23 
 
 -people think it is an advantage, and in these times the cry is, 
 " The greater the sinner the greater the saint," and with some 
 pious sects is a favourite axiom, and they think it edifying to 
 -proclaim and detail all the vile sins they have been guilty of, or 
 "which they can remember, or peihaps invent, for some of these 
 religious people are not entirely to be depended upon even in 
 cataloguing their offences. They are fond of citing St. Paul as 
 an instance of youthful depravity, as if St. Paul were the better 
 for it. But it is, surely, wiser and more charitable to draw a 
 veil even over the sins of the greatest taint, and certainly few 
 ■classical scholars have devoted their .abilities, as modern 
 Shaksperian scholars have done, to endeavour to rake 
 up from ancient cesspools long forgotten occurrences, which 
 ought not to be re-called, and to publish the names of 
 the partners of the sinners. Writers like Mr. Tyler can, 
 if they choose, very easily prove the want of virtue in scores 
 of the Court ladies of the time of Queen Elizabeth, and of 
 other times and in ladies, too, not so courtly ; raid even in the 
 time of Charles the Second many women and girls, it is recorded, 
 were of light conduct, and some people have not even spared 
 the character of the head of the Church of that date. It shocked 
 "the morality of the Spanish Ambassador (or, it is said that he 
 -said it did) to see the head of the Church, good Queen Bess, 
 4ancing, but poor Charles's conduct was certainly less edifying 
 in some respects, though infinitely more lovable than hers. In 
 those days people had lost the practises of their religion, through 
 the great reformation, and each one having became a director 
 and guide for himself, did as he liked best, or as his passions 
 urged him. It was not until the advent of the House of 
 Hanover that the practise of virtue became, not desirable 
 perhaps (for even then it was felt to be a kind of nuisance), but 
 as a thing to be respected — when it could be found — and an 
 outward veil, in those respectable times, was drawn when people 
 went raking, and the rake, " on the loose," would wear a pair 
 of green spectacles, and this was considered as a fair disguise, 
 and a sufficient sacrifice to appease the respectabilities and to 
 
24 
 
 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 justify the wearer in visiting improper places without being- 
 recognised by his friends, if he happened to meet them in these 
 places, which it would seem was a likely contingency. 
 
 The Irish as a race have many terrible faults ; but they are 
 to be congratulated upon the purity of their women, at least 
 where the practise of the Confession had been preserved. Poor 
 Voltaire, who did so much to destroy the Catholic faith in 
 France, admitted the value of the Confessional in restraining the 
 vices of the people, and wished he could invent a mode of 
 retaining it, without the encumbrance of religion, simply for 
 state protection. 
 
 William Shakspere lived in an age when vice was every- 
 where triumphant, when the will of God was supplanted by the 
 lust of man , he was spared, indeed, being an actual witness of 
 the horrors excited by the conduct of the greatest tyrant the 
 world had ever seen, the first supreme head of the Church of 
 England, who tempered the blessings of matrimony with 
 murder, when he felt disposed to try a new wife. Why the- 
 wretch did not abolish matrimony altogether when he was about 
 it is one of the problems of his history ; it would have been 
 so much more sentimental, but brave King Hal had no 
 sentiment. The unparalleled brutality of his conduct was not 
 greatly lessened in many respects under that bright occidental 
 star — his remarkable daughter. Henry had freely opened the: 
 flood gates of lust, of murder, and rapine to any villain when 
 a poor Christian despising his gospel would not conform to it. 
 These seem strong words, but they are true, and we need not 
 produce any proof, though there is no difficulty in doing so ; we 
 have only to search his statute book to proclaim it. 
 
 The following passages are taken from a little book by the 
 author entitled, "On Highgate Hill" (third edition, 1889) 
 slightly altered, or rather, adapted to this argument. They 
 were written in derision of the Dissenters sentimental 
 grievances, which are as nothing compared to the treatment of 
 poor Catholics : — If an unfortunate Catholic were wilfully to 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 25 
 
 hear mass, he forfeited 100 marks (£66 13s. 4d.) ; for saying 
 mass a priest forfeited double the amount, with the addition, in 
 "both cases, of a year's imprisonment ; and unless they 
 renounced Popery and swore allegiance to the Head of the 
 Church — a deadly sin upon the conscience of a Catholic— they 
 were disabled from inheriting, purchasing, or otherwise 
 acquiring lands. Of course these laws were being continually 
 evaded, but the punishments were only too often, and very 
 often, inflicted. They could not keep or teach schools, imder 
 , pain of perpetual imprisonment (unquestionably the great poet 
 infringed this law, for tradition has assigned to him the desk of 
 the second master of the grammar school). Of course they 
 could not hold any public office, yet it is said that the poet's 
 father had held them in his younger days, but in his later years 
 he grew ashamed of it, and stayed away so often when sum- 
 moned that he was finally — ^probably to his full content — ^put 
 out of the Council. 
 
 Poor Catholics could not keep firearms or weapons of 
 defence, even though the coimtry was swarming with sturdy 
 beggars. They were continually increasing, notwithstanding 
 the merciful King Henry had them strung up by the dozen 
 by the road-side, without trial, and for no other offence than 
 for that of asking for charity, perhaps asked in God's name. 
 The King had robbed all the houses of charity, to which 
 formerly the pious had given alms to help to feed the poor. 
 There were then no poor-houses, and it was thought merciful 
 to put the poor creatures out of their misery. Yet still, in 
 spite of this kindness, the number continually increased. To a 
 merciful man this state of things must have been, as doubtless 
 it was to William Shakspere, simply intolerable. 
 
 A Cathohc could not go within ten miles of London or 
 travel five miles from home without a licence. This law, 
 again, the poet unquestionably defied ; in fact he was made a 
 law-breaker by the constitution of his country, and naturally 
 would fall into other sin-breaking more easily. 
 
26 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 He could not bring any action at law or suit in equity, so 
 that any one who chose might plunder a Catholic with impunity, 
 for he had no redress and could not be heard in the courts to 
 complain of wrong. To this infamous law do we owe it that 
 we have no correct edition of the great poet's works ; and that 
 for three centuries the minds of our children and people have 
 been poisoned by the impurities which the robbers of that period 
 have fixed upon them, and the grovelling pedants of this have 
 ignorantly preserved. 
 
 The punishment against contravention of all these silly 
 enactments (as we should now regard them) was grave and 
 even terrible — severe fines, forfeitures, and loss of hberty^ — and 
 some of the severer penalities were so horrible that it would 
 pollute the page simply to record them. To say that they were 
 inhuman would be a mild reproach. The authors of the new 
 religion found it absolutely necessary to protect its infancy by 
 acts which were ferocious and atrocious. They were retained 
 with all their ferocity during the short reign of the boy-murderer. 
 King Edward VI., who put to death his own relations upon 
 unfounded denunciations, or allowed it to be done. Queen 
 Mary, of course, repealed these horrible laws immediately she 
 came to the throne ; but she, unhappily, pursued some of the 
 severities introduced by her father, though only, as she supposed, 
 for the spiritual welfare of her subjects, and in cases (in her eyes) 
 of actual and corrupting sins. Through this conduct her 
 memory is loaded with reproaches which it is difficult to meet 
 or to dispose of. This unhappily, gave Queen Elizabeth and her 
 advisers an opportunity (which her wicked counsellors only 
 desired) of re-enacting, in all their horrors, the bloody laws of 
 her impious father. By the first statute of her reign she 
 repealed her sister's merciful acts and re-enacted and revived 
 her father's horrible crimes, and some of these acts exist at this 
 day. All the statutes, articles, and provisions made against the 
 See Apostolic of Rome since the 20th Henry VHL, including 
 the 26th and 36th of the King, by which the sovereign oi 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 27 
 
 England was declared to be (and this is still law) the supreme 
 head of the Church, were then revived. 
 
 By the ist of Elizabeth, chap. 2 (still unrepealed), anyone 
 writing or speaking in derogation of the Prayer Book in any 
 interludes, plays, songs, or rhymes, or by other open words (this 
 would seem to catch or curb Shakspere, and probably stopped 
 the appearance of his Henry VIII. during his lifetime), for the 
 first offence they were fined 100 marks ; for the second, 400 ; 
 and for the third offence they were to inciur the penalties of 
 prcemunire under the statute of 16th Richard II., and this 
 penalty was enforced for many other simply religious acts on the 
 part of Catholics, and even poor Queen Catherine incurred this 
 penalty of prcemunire for her contumacy in refusing to plead 
 before Henry's special Divorce Court. Shakspere in his Henry 
 VIII. records the King's judgment upon his wife, one of the 
 most infamous deeds even of the Bluff King Hal, The putting 
 out of the King's protection was the most ferocious part of this 
 sentence, for that placed them in the category of wild beasts, 
 and like wild beasts anyone might hunt them to death, aye, and 
 put them to death if he liked ; and to this terror the supreme 
 head of the Church subjected his good wife. 
 
 The 5th of Elizabeth was passed for the preservation of 
 the Queen's dignity (her own) from dangers from the followers 
 of the usurped power of the see of Rome. " As these have 
 grown into marvellous outrage and hcentious boldness, and now 
 require more sharp restraint and corrections of law than hitherto 
 in time of the Queen's most mild and merciful reign " — this 
 from her preamble, no one else probably but herself thought 
 her reign either mild or merciful. What had happened to justify 
 these words ? and to render greater severity necessary ? 
 Absolutely nothing. The truth is ihat the eyes of the people 
 were beginning to be opened to the terrible state of tyranny 
 imder which they lived. There was no fear for the personal 
 safety of this wretched woman, because the religion of her 
 enemies taught them to respect her person ; but there was 
 
28 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 grave fear that the Protestant religion was growing into 
 contempt. She, the most shameless libertine that ever disgraced 
 the position of Queen, a woman whose unbridled lust was the 
 derision of her subjects, who now began openly to dispise her 
 authority as God's vice-regent upon earth, and to proclaim the 
 assumption on her part of such power as ridiculous and worse. 
 She dreaded, too, far more, a discussion as to her own legitimacy, 
 and she felt compelled to make the prosecution of all offenders, 
 who dare open their mouths, more speedy and certain. She did 
 her best to destroy, and went a long way towards destroying, 
 the manhood of the nation. It is wonderful how much she 
 accomphshed by twenty years' resolute government. It must 
 be admitted that [this tyrannical statute, whilst it increased the 
 terror of a prosecution by the State, did put, at least apparently, 
 some slight limit to the power of the subject to set the law 
 (that is the act of killing and slajong) in motion when they 
 pleased, and it was enacted that in future it should not be lawful 
 — as it had been — for anyone to kill and destroy another imless, 
 indeed, that other one should be found executing a summons or 
 sentence of the Court of Rome. For these terrible offences, or 
 even the suspicion of them, anyone might still disembowel or 
 destroy a fellow-creature with impimity as if he were a dog, and 
 do it, too, of his own sweet will and divine judgment, without 
 the trouble of trial or impeachment. 
 
 This amiable statute being found to be too merciful and 
 benevolent, in the exercise of her divine mission of Pope, Queen 
 Elizabeth, in the 13th of her reign, inflicted the penalty of 
 death for granting absolution, even by writing ; all aiders and 
 abettors to be merely subject to praemunire ; all those who did 
 not disclose these offences to be subject to the penalties of high 
 treason, which are too horrible and brutal to detail in writing. 
 Good Queen Bess I How easily she earned that title. 
 
 William Shakspere was only seven years old when this 
 statute was passed ; but it was used constantly during his Hfe, 
 and he must have suffered horribly under its tortures. He, a 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 29 
 
 m 
 member of a Catholic family — although his own father is 
 said to have been a renegade must have had many friends 
 and relations, for whose safety he would be in perpetual 
 terror. Those whom he loved, those too, perhaps, whom 
 he loved the dearest of all, were in the greatest danger. 
 He must have seen and known the poor old prioress of 
 Wroxall, his own relation, the Lady Jane Shakspere, who 
 was still alive, and who died at the old house of his grandfather 
 at Hazely in 1570. What a youth he must have had ! We 
 who live in the peace and quiet of to-day cannot conceive the 
 misery and degradation of those who lived whilst the Church 
 of England, as by law established, was in swaddling clothes. 
 The horrors of that time were hardly exceeded by those of the 
 French Revolution, ■ nay, they were worse in some respects, for 
 the sword fell upon those who were most to be respected, upon 
 the just and the righteous, and the meek in spirit. A poor creature 
 brought up as a Cathohc having, perhaps, become a Protestant, 
 and who had lived, possibly, a life of sin and luxury, or, it may be, 
 one who was guilty only before God, of a denial of his faith, at 
 the close of his life, with the judgments of the next world 
 before him, would with wild terror long for the relief of absolu-. 
 tion and the consolations of his faith. Who had a right to 
 come between him and his God ? Were his wife or his mother 
 to aid him in carrying out his desire they, too, became amenable 
 to the most terrible punishment, and not merely to deprivation of 
 goods and imprisonment for hfe, but they were tortured on the 
 rack, tmtil their bones burst from the sockets, till they con- 
 fessed and published the names of those (most dear to them) 
 who had participated in religious rites, and who also would 
 forthwith be submitted to the same tortiure and punishments 
 which were actually destroying them on the rack and depriving 
 them of the self-control and reticence necessary for the safety 
 of others. If this is doubted let anyone read the correspon- 
 dence of the Cecils, Queen Elizabeth's strongest ministers. 
 
 The mind of man, so strangely is it constituted, can 
 assimilate itself to any condition of things — ^if it is known to be 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 inevitable and almost without repining, though not without 
 suffering. Do we love those who cause all this suffering ? Can 
 we regard them without absolute horror ? If we think of the 
 utter selfishness which underlies their actions and causes them 
 to trample on their fellow creatures we cannot but detest the 
 conduct of the chief actors of that time. To one hke William 
 Shakspere, who possessed the keenest sympathy for others, 
 whose soul was filled with inexpressible tenderness and com- 
 passion for the sorrows and sufferings of those around him, this 
 must have been terrible, and the youth and manhood of 
 William Shakspere must to him have been well-nigh intolerable. 
 No wonder if it had a deadly and benumbing effect on his 
 sensitiveness, and for the time hardened him. He submitted to 
 it in pain doubtless, but still as an inevitable evil ; he, perhaps, 
 for a time lost all hope and all belief in God's goodness, and 
 then he may have done what many have done before, and will 
 do again. He may have adopted the old heathen idea of 
 enjoying the day, and the enjoyments came to him, perhaps, in 
 a grosser form, it will do so to the young and buoyant, even 
 without much wickedness and desire. Who shall blame the 
 lad, under the circumstances of his youth, if he grew reckless. It 
 is said he mixed with topers, if he mixed with the world at all 
 he could not well escape it. Drinking was common and almost 
 universal. Sir Nicholas Lestrange writing of this period — ^the 
 times of James and Charles I. — ^refers to the low ribaldry, 
 obscenity, and profaneness of the people with whom Shakspere 
 must have passed most of his time. How thankful should we 
 be that the reformed Church of England has so purified the 
 nation that we find things very different. Nowadays one can 
 go anywhere without any fear of hearing such things, there is 
 no bad language in public-houses, or theatres, or chapels, or in 
 the streets. Nowadays no one need go wrong, we English 
 Protestants set an example of holy walking to the whole world. 
 Yet, after all, there are some of the young men of our own 
 time, with all these valuable Protestant lights and without the 
 horrors of Shakspere's life, who still " sow their wild oats," as 
 it is mildly designated, and no one thinks the worst of them 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 3I 
 
 • 
 
 when they tire and settle down respectably, and no one ever 
 thinks of raking up the dirt through which they have waded to 
 a decent life. We thank God if our boys see the folly of their 
 wicked ways in time, and come to live a pure and decent life. 
 Why should we pry into the poet's early days ? It is said, and 
 it may be true, that yoving as he was, he had loved some 
 beautiful girl of his own rank in life, perhaps higher in rank, in 
 vain, and that disappointed in his love, as many beside him have 
 done, he wickedly and foohshly gave himself up to strange 
 women, and his forced marriage with a girl, or rather matured 
 woman, when he was but a mere boy is cited in proof of his 
 wickedness. 
 
 Curious people have tried to pry into the history of poor 
 Ann Hathaway, but they have failed, probably because she had 
 none. She may have belonged to Shottery, and she may have 
 lived in the cottage usually called hers, although there is not a 
 shadow of proof of it. There was a respectable yeoman family 
 of her name at Shottery, who, doubtless, at one time, occupied 
 that house ; but there were also some very indifferent people 
 also resident there, whose immorality only too common at the 
 period is recorded in the Baptismal Registers. She may have 
 been one of them. The only thing positively known about her 
 is the evidence of her marriage bond (which does not give the 
 name of her father), the bondsmen, however, seem to have 
 been Shottery people ; but she is described as a resident of 
 Stratford, and surely if she had lived in Shottery she would 
 not have been so described. Very curiously, but no doubt for a 
 purpose, the license was taken out in a false name-=-Anna 
 Whately, of Temple Grafton. This was done, no doubt, to 
 deceive the boy bridegrooms relations ; the bond, of course, 
 would give the true name, but the marriage would take place 
 in the false. This disposes of Charles Knight's amiable sug- 
 gestions regarding the proceedings at the wedding, which he 
 seems to think was carried out with the approbation of the 
 parents. That Ann Hathaway had some relatives, poor people 
 one a joiner, is tolerably clear from Lady Barnard's will. One 
 
32 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 of them, probably through her aid, long afterwards came to 
 reside at Stratford ; another was a resident in Gloucestershire. 
 This is, however, admitted on all hands that there is no 
 tradition indicating her birthplace ; and, in 1750, the master of 
 the Grammar School at Stratford (the Rev. Joseph Green) 
 probable a Shakspere himself, asserted that she was supposed 
 to have been bom at Luddington, a village not far off. 
 
 Certainly the facts of this marriage are not respectable. 
 It seems clearly proven, and there does not seem to be much 
 difference, even if we accept the defence foolishly offered by 
 some enthusiastic admirers that a sort of espousals was used, 
 like those adopted in the East by the Jews, which was a family 
 arrangement prior to, and which ended in a regular marriage in 
 due course^ It is needless to write that such a state of things, 
 though tolerated, was never respected or respectable in this 
 country. Our marriage laws were always very loose, and it is, 
 unhappily, too common in practice to marry under the circum- 
 stances of the poet's marriage ; and such a marriage is 
 undoubtedly good in law — in Wales it is much practised still 
 under the name of Bundling. But such a practice is unques- 
 tionably bad and immoral, and inexcusable^ and such a pretence 
 does not mend matters. But what is that to us ? Did not the 
 poor boy atone for it by a life-long penance ? Surely he was 
 punished enough for his vices, for he married her. And she, 
 poor woman, in securing such a husband, if she had any refine- 
 ment of feeling (which is not improbable), she, too, must have 
 endured a life of misery, if she loved him, in seeing this man 
 she had married tied to her who was not worthy of him. 
 
 The answer to this fulsome nonsense is given by Shakspere 
 himself in a most unlikely play to find it, The Tetnpest, by the 
 mouth of Prospero, who, in betrothing his daughter to 
 Ferdinand, thus addressed him : — 
 
 " There, as my gift, and thine own acquisition 
 Worthily purchased, take my daughter : but 
 If thou do'st break her virgin knot before 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 33 
 
 All sanctimonious ceremonies may 
 With full and holy right be minister' d, 
 No sweet aspersion shall the heavens let fall 
 To make the contract grow ; but barren hate, 
 SouT-ey'd disdain, and discord, shall bestrew 
 The union of your bed with weeds so loathly, 
 That you shall hate it both : therefore, take heed. 
 As Hymen's lamps shall light you." 
 
 And how did Ferdinand answer : — 
 
 " As I hope 
 For quiet days, fair issue, and long life, 
 With such love as 'tis now, the murkiest den, 
 The most opporttme place, the strong'st suggestion 
 Oiu: worser genius can, shall never melt 
 Mine honour into lust, to take away 
 The edge of that day's celebration. 
 When I shall think, or Phoebus' steed are founder'd 
 Or night kept chained below." 
 
 And Prospero replied : — 
 
 " Fairly spoke ; 
 Sit there, and talk with her, she is thine own." 
 
 This is a clear account of Shakspere's idea of a betrothal, 
 its effects and rights, and as clear a condemnation of its abuses. 
 Alas ! Alas ! Did the poor poet write these sad words from 
 memory of his own bitter lot ? His only boy had died ere he 
 wrote it, one daughter had an only daughter, and aiwther was 
 unmarried, so that his hopes of children supplying his place 
 were gone. He had possibly few quiet days, and no hope of 
 long life in view, for he had his sins ever before him ; and his 
 view of happiness was in a great measure exemplified in his 
 father's example, who had a long life, and probably with quiet 
 and true happiness. It is a curious thing that Shakspere should 
 have applied the Catholic doctrine of the sanctity of marriage 
 
34 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 m this play to people whose religion, judging from the main 
 incidents of the play, and especially from the blessing of 
 Gonsalo upon the young couple, must have been Platonic rather 
 than that of the Catholic faith. Although Prospero, in the 
 epilogue, breathes the true spirit of the Christian religion almost 
 in its own form when he speaks of his ending being despair, 
 " unless I be relieved by prayer ; which pierces so, that it 
 assaults mercy itself, and frees all faults." Surely this is the 
 true Catholic doctrine. 
 
 Poor Ann Hathaway ! Has not her memory suffered long 
 enough ? Let her be forgotten ; or, if we give her a thought, 
 let us remember the love and devotion of the poet's best- 
 beloved daughter to her poor, common-place mother. There 
 can be no doubt of her father's great love to his daughter, so 
 there can be none of the daughter's pure and precious love for 
 her mother. Foolish people talk of the poet's indifference to 
 his wife, as evinced by the fact that he forgot to mention her in 
 his will, and that he left everything to his daughter. Yes, and 
 if we look at the circumstances under which that will was 
 made, can we wonder at it ? 
 
 Good Mistress Hall ! She lost her husband and father by 
 the hand of death almost together, and she gave her whole life, 
 with the most beautiful devotion, to her sorrowing mother. It 
 is a picture worth studying — ^the beautiful love for each other of 
 these two widowed women ; better far than looking for scandals 
 which should be forgotten. What is more admirable than the 
 tender love for a mother, not, perhaps, because she had 
 anything lovable about her, but because with her she grieved 
 with infinite tenderness for the loss of the noble soul who had 
 gone before her. Who, with this picture before him, can doubt 
 that the poet was good and kind to this poor creature ? Of 
 course he was ; he could not be otherwise. His was too noble 
 a nature to stoop to cruelty or neglect of anyone. 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 35 
 
 This good woman, Susannah Hall, died the i ith of July, 
 1649, and this is the record of her which her friends placed over 
 her tomb : — 
 
 " Witty above her sexe, but that's not all. 
 Wise to salvation was good Mistress Hall ; 
 Something of Shakspere was in that, but this 
 Wholy of him with whom she's now in blisse. 
 Then passenger, hast ne're a teare 
 To weep with her that wept with all ? 
 That wept, yet set herself to cheer 
 Them up with comfort's cordial ; 
 Her love shall live, her mercy spread. 
 When thou hast ne're a teare to shed." 
 
 This wretched doggerel was, deservedlj'- perhaps, effaced to 
 make room for another monument, but it has been preserved 
 by Dugdale. It is a valuable testimony to the tender love of 
 the poet's daughter. The unworthy sneer at William Shakspere's 
 impiety can be disregarded when it is remembered that this was 
 written by narrow-minded bigots who could see no religion in a 
 Papist, and were doubtless glad to record their hatred of the 
 Catholic faith ; perhaps, too, they credited too readily the 
 stories which the gossipping old vicar of that day relates of the 
 cause of the poet's death. 
 
 And what is to be said for the youthful excesses, for the 
 foolish drinking bouts in which the poor boy was said to have 
 indulged ; it seems that the greatest sin was in the fact that he 
 drank strong ale, so he did — and very good it no doubt was — 
 and so did many others of higher rank in life, and many do so 
 still with great enjoyment — although in these degenerate days 
 men have neither the strong ale to drink nor the strong heads 
 to bear it ; there is nothing very terrible or novel in this 
 practice. Less than a hundred years ago it was a custom for 
 people of good position, for the parson or any other country 
 gentlemen, to brew a great hogshead (some fifty gallons, or 
 perhaps it was a hundred) of real strong October ale, and when 
 
^6 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 it was fit to drink the parson and the countr)'^ gentlemen by turns 
 called their brother parsons and friends together to drink this 
 grand brew of old October ; and they would gather and would 
 not part for several days, till every drop of that cask was 
 consumed, and most of them were probably very drunk the 
 whole time. What would people say of this now ? Yet it 
 certainly occurred and was a common practice under the 
 Geoiges, and this was not a hundred years ago ; and the same 
 set of people, or perhaps a better class, would invite their 
 friends to a week's whist. They would not go to bed, but would 
 sit at the card-table the whole week ; and it was their, pride not 
 to use the same pack of cards twice, and to throw them round 
 them as they sat at play, as they sat up day and night at the table 
 (having their meals handed round, and eating them at the card- 
 table) it is said that towards the end of the week the waste 
 cards around them would be knee deep. This actually occured 
 in the good old days, when George the Third was King, right 
 down to the battle of Waterloo, when French manners and a 
 greater refinement prevailed ; or if we want more recent speci- 
 mens of excesses, we have only to go to our own Universities, 
 or to those of the great German people, and we shall find, 
 probably to-day, a vast number of German students who are 
 only seasoned casks, fit to drink unlimited quantities of beer. 
 They can't very well get drunk, it is so poor in quality, but 
 they do manage to make beasts of themselves, and that it is 
 very certain William Shakspere did not do. No doubt he got 
 drunk like any other gentleman of his day — the good old time 
 It is a dreadful thing, but a common thing to say that a man • 
 got drunk like a gentleman, but it is the best that can be said 
 under the circumstances. What was William Shakspere's sleep' 
 under the crab-apple tree compared to the semi-refinement, 
 semi-barbarism of a week's " drunk " under George the Third ? 
 Considering this state of things was so near us, and the crab- 
 apple business so very far from us, why trouble ourselves about 
 it ? There is no reason to suppose that his companions were 
 not generally young gentlemen like himself, or that there was 
 anything except fun and frolic in the transaction, though after 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 37 
 
 • 
 
 all — this is a poor excuse — ^he only did what was commonly 
 practiced at the time. Of the charge of deer-stealing, nothing 
 more can be said of it than that it is very probably true, and 
 that anyone who had the health and strength, and opportunity 
 which William Shakspere had, would not, or could not, or 
 perhaps should not resist it. It is, doubtless, very shocking 
 that common people, who have no property of their own, and 
 .perhaps no knowledge of sport, should kill your game by 
 ignoble means — snaring and other unfair ways of pot-hunting — 
 it is very vexing and, of course very improper, but William 
 Shakspere did none of these things. He did nothing mean or 
 •beneath a gentleman, he did a boyish and a plucky thing, he 
 not only poached but thrashed the keepers, and no doubt these 
 boys were very angry with Sir Thomas Lucy, who seems to 
 have been a fool, and of course young Shakspere hated fools, 
 as all men of sense should, and probably he broke the law. 
 But when Sir Thomas Lucy ordered Shakspere and his com- 
 panions to be whipped like low-born poachers, he did a brutal 
 and a cowardly act. One can hardly conceive an5rthing more 
 galling than his conduct in treating a gallant lad in this way, 
 and the more galling because as Papists they had no redress. 
 Wilham Shakspere was a true descendant of archers, he had a 
 keen love of sport and a good knowledge of the science, as his 
 poems and plays demonstrate. No doubt, as a boy, he had 
 visited his uncles in the forest and hunted with them, and 
 it was an infamous indignity to treat him as a poacher, 
 and to whip him like a dog; a cowardly brutal excess of 
 power, for which the old idiot fully deserved to be lampooned 
 and held up to ridicule, and even at this day it is impossible 
 not to sympathise with the young poet^ and take his part 
 against his persecutors. A fine thing, indeed, for the Donellys 
 and the old women (who could not hunt if they tried) 
 to howl over the lad on this account, he did nothing but what 
 any schoolboy of the present day would be proud to do. And 
 because he was degraded most shamefully by his own cousin, 
 and was besides utterly miserable — probably through his unhappy 
 marriage, for it must have been a terrible blow to his father and 
 
38 
 
 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 mother, -whom doubtless he loved — tied down to a woman much 
 older than himself— possibly of a domineering temper and 
 jealous nature — and especially when it is said, and probably with 
 truth, he had loved deeply one more fitted to him, is it to be 
 wondered at that he ran away to seek his fortune, if indeed he 
 did run about it. He perhaps had a longing for the actor's life 
 and felt that he could succeed in it ; he was probably pressed to^ 
 take this step by his own cousin, the Greenes, who were 
 successful actors. We do not know what he had to bear, what 
 his temptations were, or his hopes. It certainly looks like 
 deserting the wife — he had apparently been compelled to marry 
 — but it is quite possible that he left her comfortably with her 
 parents, if she had any, at her own wish, in order to make a 
 home for her. She had unwisely married a boy who had no 
 means of his own, and, of course, no home. She may have, 
 very sensibly, induced him to leave her as his only chance of 
 making her a home independent of their families, or it may be 
 that she went with him, and lived with him in London from the 
 very first, or as soon as he could get lodgings for her. We know 
 absolutely nothing of the circumstances, and it is unlikely that 
 we ever shall do so. Most probably the early days of his^ 
 marriage were unhappy, such imprudent marriages generally 
 are, for they bring straitened circumstances with them, and this 
 being so the poet himself was naturally silent about them, and 
 we cannot now learn any of the particulars, even if it were 
 desirable that we should do so, indeed it is quite immaterial 
 whether we ever should do so or not. What we do know i& 
 very certain and very much to his honour, that when he was 
 able to keep his wife she lived with him, though probably 
 she was no honour to him and he could not take her among 
 his fine friends ; but even this we do not know positively,, 
 she ma}' have been clever and presentable in society. 
 The tradition is that he lived very quietly, but that he 
 associated with all the best people in town and country, in 
 fact, that he lived as he was born, as a gentleman, and that 
 is quite sufficient for us to know. His religion would compel 
 him to live much apart from his neighbours — did not his tastes 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 39 
 
 make him do so ? It is said that he was fond of good living, 
 of good wine, and good wits — who is witty and wise that 
 is not so ? Why should he not enjoy, to the utmost, the 
 good things of this life ; He who in his youth had suffered so 
 much from so many evils, and probably from poverty among 
 them, would be right to enjoy them. Good old Chaucer had a 
 miserable youth, but in old age he lived to enjoy himself, and 
 who grudges him the better change from his early miseries ? 
 Why should we grudge the poet his few enjoyments ? 
 
 These captious critics have two things to do, either to prove 
 their case against him, and that is impossible — for where are 
 the witnesses ? — or to hold their tongues, and this seems to be 
 equally difficult. 'Tis a pity that it is so. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 SHAKSPERE'S SCHOLARSHIP. 
 
 To justify this worthy nobleman, 
 So vulgarly and perso7ially accused." 
 
 Measure for Measure. 
 
 A GREAT deal of nonsense has been written about 
 Shakspere's learning and his ignorance, but, fairly- 
 considered, one set of critics annihilates the other, 
 and leaves the matter pretty nearly where it was — in 
 obscurity. If we take the fair measure of his contemporaries, 
 we shall, perhaps, get nearest to the truth, and that is, that 
 whilst he was not a great scholar, as these great creatures who 
 style themselves scholars would have it, yet that he had quite 
 sufficient scholarship for his purpose. That he could translate a 
 minor classic fairly is admitted by Camden. Shakspere did not 
 require his learning to enable him to teach Latin and Greek to 
 little boys — though, by the way, that is probably what he did 
 do, and how he acquired what he possessed — but he used it to 
 get at great truths which he wished to utiHse in his teaching ; 
 and it cannot be denied that the stage was his pulpit, from 
 which he preached far better sermons than most of the 
 orthodox clergy of every denomination. 
 
THE GENTI^ SHAKSPERE. 41 
 
 The Donelly school are especiallj' strong on this point, 
 and, indeed, if this stool slips from under them their arguments 
 lose their only foundation. Donelly draws an absurd distinc- 
 tion between the man and his works. The name of the works 
 he spells, as if it were a person, " Shakespeare," in accordance 
 with the modern mode of spelling ; but the name of the " Man 
 of Stratford," as he calls him, he spells as he spelt it himself — 
 Shakspere. This is very fine, but it is also very superficial and 
 utterly erroneous when he thinks that the "works Shake- 
 speare " spell Bacon. This is his account of the works. He 
 writes : " The man who wrote the plays was one of the most 
 learned men in the world ; not only in that learning which 
 comes from observation and reflection, but in book lore ancient 
 and modern, and in the knowledge of many languages. He 
 was a profound scholar, and a most laborious student ; he had 
 read, in their own tongue, all the great, and some of the obscure 
 writers of antiquity ; he was familiar with the languages of the 
 principal nations of Europe ; his mind had compassed all the 
 learning of his time and of preceding ages ; he had pored 
 over the pages of French and Italian novelists ; he had read 
 the philosophical utterances of the great thinkers of Greek and 
 Rome." 
 
 This to begin with is not a fair description of the works, 
 but it is probably intended to be a portrait of Lord Bacon, and 
 although it is exaggerated, yet upon the whole it may fairly 
 pass. For he was undoubtedly very learned in all these 
 particulars ; but how does it fit the works of Shakspere ? In 
 Bacon's own works you may undoubtedly find very much 
 learning, modern and ancient ; but can the same be said 
 generally of the poet's works ? Fairl)^ tested, there will be very 
 few passages found which were unknown to the general student 
 of the tiniie, and perhaps these, had been obtained from the 
 gi-eat Lord Bacon himself. Mr. Donelly's arguments are based 
 upon the assumption that there was an intimate and con- 
 fidential relationship between the two men ; if he denies that 
 his whole argument falls to the gi-ound, for unquestionably 
 
42 
 
 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 Shakspere used most of these plays in his theatre, and certainly 
 without disclosing the name of the author ; probably they were 
 all acted at some period as Shakspere's. Now there is nothing 
 more likely than the fact that such an intimacy existed : if it did, 
 and Lord Bacon condescended to associate with the low-born 
 player (like the three Earls presently to be mentioned), what is 
 more likely than that Lord Bacon opened to him the stores of 
 learning which he possessed, and gave him those very facts or 
 thoughts which have so puzzled enquirers, and demented Mr. 
 Donelly. It will presently be shown that Shakspere was cer- 
 tainly closely allied to Lord Bacon by marriage, if not by 
 blood. Once assume the fact of an intimate acquaintanceship 
 between the poet and the philosopher and the whole puzzle is 
 solved. Some of Mr. Donelly's scraps are, doubtless, genuine 
 bits of Bacon, but very possibly they were not stolen but 
 given by Bacon himself to the great poet, to be 
 worked up in his own wonderful manner, just as he worked up 
 Campion's noble oration — to be mentioned presently. But 
 there is one fact which entirely disposes of the idea that Bacon 
 was Shakspere, and this seems to have been overlooked by Mr. 
 Donelly. Setting aside these curious bits of learning, does the 
 scope and tendency of Bacons' works agree with that of the 
 plays ? Is their teaching, in fact, that which Bacon would care 
 to enforce ? The answer must be in the negative. Bacon's 
 views and opinions were not in the least in accord with 
 Shakspere or with his works, certainly not with the man 
 depicted by Donelly and his friends. When was Lord Bacon 
 ever known to be desirous of upsetting the philosophical 
 infidelity of the Established Church, which he practiced himself, 
 and restoring the thraldom (as it would be to him) of the 
 Catholic religion ? Did he, in fact, care a straw about religion, 
 except as a philosophical conundrum ? But the writer of the 
 works (called Shakespeare) was a true Catholic, a humble 
 earnest soul, who thought no honour so great as that of fearing 
 God. This is a fatal blot on the notion that Bacon was the 
 author of Shakspere's works. 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 43 
 
 • 
 
 But putting that aside, what is there in the works, or out of 
 them, which can disprove the fact that WilHam Shakspere 
 wrote them ? Certainly not the opinion of his contemporaries, 
 for Meres records that he was esteemed their author, and he 
 (dying long before Shakspere) gave the names of twelve of his 
 most important plays. If it be once admitted that he wrote 
 these or any of them there is an end of the argument. 
 
 Now there is another class of detractors who, whilst they 
 
 have maliciously endeavoured to destroy Shakspere's character 
 
 for scholarship, have done him good service in disposing of the 
 
 exaggerated arguments of the Donelly school. These men 
 
 have grubbed below the service, and they assure us that whilst 
 
 Lilley's Latin Grammar is responsible for some of the bits of 
 
 "profound learning" which is to be found in them, there is 
 
 nothing very deep in the rest, and that the whole of them 
 
 may have been procurable (chiefly from translations) and 
 
 partly by one who had a little learning and could translate "a 
 
 little for himself, or had friends to help him. They omit to 
 
 state, perhaps they did not know it, that many of the poet's 
 
 friends had considerable learning, and may have helped him. 
 
 Indeed, it is fact that many of the actors associated with 
 
 Shakspere in his theatre were University men, who from being 
 
 Cathohcs could not follow either of the learned professions. 
 
 Might not these men assist their chief, and furnish him with 
 
 curious bits of learning to adorn his plays ? These tit-bits of 
 
 learning are seldom very profound, and not always of much 
 
 service to the actors of the pieces, or are they sometimes much 
 
 to the point. Indeed, some of them almost remind one of the 
 
 American orator who, on concluding his speech, by request of 
 
 the audience tipped them a little Latin, and gave them " multutn 
 
 ijiparvum," " tu quoqiie," " semper idem" and " vox popidorum." 
 
 The French in the Merry Wives of Windsor, _ or the Twelfth 
 
 Night, might be taken from any grammar or conversation 
 
 book, and is not always correctly taken. The Latin in Julius 
 
 Ccesar is the most trifling ; so it is in Henry VIII. Many of 
 
 his scraps of Latin are Idgal terms, which he may well have 
 
44 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 learned when a boy. But there is a tradition which may 
 account for his possessing a considerable amount of classical 
 learning, and this tradition is supported by a fact. He is said 
 to have been second master of the Grammar School, and a desk 
 (this is the fact), the desk of the second master and always 
 occupied by that functionary, has always been known in the 
 school as Shakspere's ; indeed, so strong and clear was the 
 tradition that the Corporation presented it to the Shakspere 
 Birthplace, and it is there to this day. Aubrey, who lived not 
 very long after him, related that a Mr. Beers informed him that 
 Shakspere understood Latin pretty well, because he had been 
 in his younger days a schoolmaster in the country — evidence 
 which very greatly strengthens the tradition. When actually 
 nothing is known of the life of the poet as a boy, when the 
 story that his father took him away from school at_a very early 
 age (twelve or fourteen) in order to assist him in his trade, is 
 disposed of, by the fact that he was a man of good private 
 means and never engaged in any kind of trade, it is rather diffi- 
 cult to dispose of this tradition as wholly illusory, and it 
 probably is actually true : many schoolboy traditions are 
 accurate. A second master in a school may very probably 
 qualify himself to translate a classical author for his own pur- 
 poses. Lord Campbell suggests that there is no list of second 
 masters at this school ; possibly not, but that omission does not 
 dispose of the fact that there were such individuals, which is 
 distinctly proved. It has been suggested that from the use of 
 scraps of Latin, chiefly law terms, Shakspere had once been an 
 attorney's clerk. Very likely, and except for his imprudent 
 marriage and his religion he might have become an attorney. 
 Certainly the little we have of his writing confirms this idea ; it 
 is of the legal kind, and unhke the ordinary handwriting of the 
 period. Though, for what we know, this court hand may have 
 been taught in the schools. There is a further fact which the 
 grovelling school of detractors insist upon, and which Mr. 
 Donelly insists upon also. He writes : " His family were illi- 
 terate ; his grandfathers and grandmothers all signed their 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 45 
 
 names with crosses." And he gives this dehghtful picture of his- 
 position, every statement of which is either distinctly untrue or 
 without a shadow of proof and utterly improbable. " His 
 father was a bankrupt when he went to London ; his wife had 
 just been delivered of twins ; his home was dirty, bookless, and 
 miserable, his companions degraded, his pursuits low ; he had 
 been whipped and imprisoned." 
 
 To take these statements seriatim, the fact that his grand- 
 mothers and grandfathers signed by crosses is no proof at all 
 that they could not write, the fashion of signing deeds had not 
 then come in, and many great scholars and Church dignitaries,, 
 nobles, and kings, on this idea could be proved to be illiterate ;. 
 but is it true that his grandparents signed with a mark ? As a 
 fact only one of the four can be proved to have executed any 
 deeds at all. Agnes Arden was not Mary Arden's mother. So 
 that Mr. Donelly is here plainly convicted of publishing a gi'oss 
 untruth, for which he had no justification whatever, a mere 
 impudent assumption, utterly false. The bankrupt father was 
 no bankrupt, but a substantial landowner, whose estates were 
 worth ;^500. The dirty, bookless, and miserable home is an idle 
 fiction, or a libel ; for he had none of his own, and it is utterly 
 absurd to call his father's home dirty, or bookless, or miserable. 
 This is done solely on the strength of a statement that in 1552 
 he had been fined isd. for a nuisance in Henley Street. It is 
 extremely doubtful whether John Shakspere lived in Stratford 
 before his marriage, which probably did not take place till long 
 after the date usually assigned to it, and the John Shakspere^ 
 who was fined for a nuisance, may or may not have been a 
 relation. That he was bookless is equally absurd, as it is done 
 in the present time, to avoid death duties, goods and chattels 
 were frequently given away before death, when they came 
 imder a well-known class, that of a donatio causa mortis, but 
 as a fact the will or administration of John Shakspere has not 
 yet been found, so that it is impossible to say whether he had 
 books or not. This is another gross assumption, and indeed, a 
 misstatement of Mr. Donelly's. There is a jury panel, of the 
 
4<5 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 date of 1596, at Stratford, on which is written— "Mr. Shakspere, 
 one book." Mr. Dyce — of course, to square the fact with his 
 theories — asserts that this was the poet. It is far more likely 
 to refer to his father, but in either case it proves very little. 
 The twins was a fact, and the only fact of this tirade, and 
 possibly not an unpleasant one. Some people have been found 
 to endure even twins and to love them, and therefore the 
 misery does not certainly come in here. We know nothing 
 whatever of any companions of the poet, except one — the poor 
 child. Griffin Roberts — who could hardly be old enough at his 
 death to be very depraved, indeed tradition speaks favourably 
 of him, and this companionship is an honour to Shakspere, for 
 it shows the goodness of his heart. As to the whipping and 
 imprisonments, these traditions seem to be too strong to be dis- 
 credited. Is it not mean and contemptible always to be harping 
 upon it ? What schoolboy is there who has entirely escaped 
 flogging when at school ? And how many, even of the sons of 
 the nobility, have been guilty of criminality of this kind, and 
 of worse kinds. A great nobleman recently deceased, was 
 convicted, when a boy at school, of stealing money. The poor 
 hen-pecked Earl of Shrewsbury wrote to the famous Bess 
 Hardwick (when his countess) of a poaching scrape one of his 
 sons had fallen into, and if the old Forest Rolls are examined 
 it will be found that this sin of deer-stalking was not confined to 
 mere youths, but was common to many mature persons — even 
 bishops and the higher order of the clergy were convicted and 
 fined for it. The only thing to be deplored is that the foolish 
 knight. Sir Thomas Lucy, should have degraded his own 
 relation by having him whipped, even were he guilty of such 
 an offence. It is said, indeed, that the girl whom the poet 
 loved was a daughter of Sir Thomas Lucy, and that this and 
 not the poaching was the true cause of the whipping. The 
 Shaksperes, though tolerably well to do, had fallen in position 
 owing to the Reformation, and Sir Thomas had been one of the 
 chosen instruments in the persecution of the Catholics, so that 
 a matrimonial alliance would have been extremely distasteful 
 to him. 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 47 
 
 It is difl&cult to get at the truth of these matters so long 
 after the event, but it seems that this poaching did not occur in 
 Charlcot Park, but in an adjoining one, which was that of an 
 outlaw, and before inquest and seizure by the Queen anyone 
 had a right to sport on it. Sir Thomas Lucy, it is said, wished 
 to annex it to his own grounds ; but the Queen, from tenderness 
 to the culprit owner, refused to seize it, and the vindictive 
 knight assumed a power to protect it, which he did not 
 possess, and which the Stratford lads, who loved deer-stalking, 
 naturally resented by thrashing his keepers — no doubt high 
 sport for them. Not many years ago the lads at the Univer- 
 sities thought it right to fight the bargees, without any 
 provocation and merely for the fun of the thing ; and no doubt 
 many a dignitary of the Church of England, and probably some 
 living now, have amused themselves in this manner. Very sad, 
 no doubt, but nobody thinks a penny the worse of them, and 
 young Shakspere was rather to be applauded for his pluck and 
 energy than to be seriously blamed ; to libel him at this time 
 for it is not only absurd, it is wicked and mean. 
 
 Some of the grubbers who would deny Shakspere's scholar- 
 ships have been delighted to find that occasionally he made a 
 false quantity, and on this account they would condemn him as 
 a dullard ; but this is absurd, some of the cleverest men who 
 ever lived could not write Latin verses to save their lives, and 
 many have been capable of making any number of false 
 -quantities. The power to do these things is like playing the 
 fiddle, it must be acquired in very early life, or not at all, and 
 ■kept up, too, for it is a power soon lost with most men, and it is 
 not, perhaps, a very wonderful thing when acquired. These 
 ^reat scholars sadly mistake the real nature of scholarship. The 
 learning of Latin or Greek, or even of mathematics, is chiefly 
 valuable as a mode of training the mind, and very frequently it 
 fails in its purpose ; although a vast quantity of facts may have 
 been acquired, or crammed, the recipient may not be able to 
 utilise them, or he may not have obtained the advantage which 
 ■which such a training generally gives. Such scholarship is often 
 
48 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 a mere matter of memory, just as the acquirement of some 
 kinds of mathematics, as geometry may be obtained by memory 
 without compelling the acquirer to exercise the power of 
 reasoning, or even to understand what he learns. Granted that 
 Shakspere was not a great scholar in the sense of having a 
 correct knowledge of classics, had he not a great knowledge of 
 men, of their motives and feelings, and could he not play upon 
 men as if they were machines by the power of his language ? 
 How could he be greater ? Hunter has a sensible note on this 
 matter, he writes. Add. 24,494, folio 29 : — 
 
 "It is no proof of his want of learning that he read 
 Plutarch in North's translation. Again the false quantities 
 mentioned in Farmer's notes on Hamlet are no decisive proof 
 that he never read 'the authors in whom these proper names 
 occur, he might forget the quantity, or he might not think it 
 worth regarding, or he might submit to the necessities of his 
 verse. That he quotes from Lilley's grammar is no proof that 
 he had never gone beyond it ; the passages he found there were 
 more familiar to him than any others, as they are to most 
 scholars, and besides, they were more familiar to his audience. 
 It does not do to quote them to prove his learning ; but neither 
 does the quoting of them show that he could not, if he would^ 
 have quoted other authors." 
 
 Verily, these critics annihilate each other — here is good old 
 Hunter holding up the cudgels to prove that the poet might 
 not be an absolute dullard ; and poor Donelly and his school, 
 with little Latin and less Greek, were so much impressed with 
 Shakspere's display of learning, collected from Lilley's grammar, 
 that they thought the writer of the plays must be the most 
 wonderful scholar upon earth, so probably his knowledge of 
 Latin was compared to that of the whole of them — poor 
 Donelly, he draws inspiration from his own ignorance of the 
 classics, and then swallows without question the twaddling 
 scandal of the old Parish Clerk of Stratford-on-Avon, who in 
 1689 (when he was nearly a hundred years old, or thought he 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 49 
 
 • 
 
 was) fancied that he remembered that the poet was apprenticed 
 to a butcher, and afterwards became a servitor at a London 
 theatre. The poor old fellow might know the term butcher, 
 hut the "servitor" has surely been put into his mouth by the 
 enemy who invented or related this story. 
 
 And if he had not great scholarship, he had the more 
 important art of seizing upon that which is worthy, and of using 
 it for good purposes ; and more than this, he not only could 
 pick out great and noble thoughts and put them into good 
 language, but he could translate them into poetry. Many men 
 are possessed of common sense, but how few can translate 
 common language into heroics ? Shakspere could feather his 
 words, or as the Greeks said, wing them. What is there in any 
 writing so admirable as the power with which he clothed his 
 words ? He made them felt, and at this date, though times 
 have changed and the world has greatly altered, yet they still 
 make people weep or laugh as much as they did in his day ; and 
 for beauty of expression did any poet but him ever write the 
 like ? There are no rules by which you can tie down a true 
 poet, he will soar above all conventionality and defy every rule 
 of the schoolmaster, as was said of old, /oeto nascitur, non fit. 
 It matters not whether he was tutored or not. These 
 wonderful scholars have taught many youths since his time — 
 have they ever produced one like him ? or are they equal to 
 him themselves ? A thousand times, " No ! " Even Donelly 
 would admit this, could he bring himself to beli&ve that 
 .Shakspere wrote Shakespeare, 
 
 The author is indebted to one of his sons for the following 
 statistics. He has examined thirty-seven of the plays, and he 
 finds that, instead of containing quotations from all the 
 languages of Europe, ancient and modern, they are directly 
 drawn only from the Latin, French, Italian, and Spanish 
 languages, with the exception of one word of Greek 
 .(tnisanthropos) in Timon of Athens — this is not an extravagant 
 -display of the language of that country. Eight of the plays 
 
50 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 only, out of the whole number, contain more than a dozen 
 words of Latin, not counting repetitions of the same word. 
 There are only forty-nine Latin quotations of more than one 
 word in the whole of the plays, of which fifteen have two 
 words, eight have three, and twenty-six have more than three. 
 The majority of the longer quotations, as well as those of one^ 
 two, and three in number, contain words the great majority of 
 which would probably be found in Lilley's Grammar, or any 
 primer, or would be met with in ordinary conversation ; and 
 especially would they be used by the Catholic priests of the 
 period. Generally they were used colloquially, and, with very 
 few exceptions, the youngest usher in any school, set to teach 
 the smallest boj-s their rudiments, might produce them off-hand. 
 Some of it is dog Latin, and much of it incorrect ; but this may 
 be attributed to the ignorant people who copied them for the 
 pirate publishers. 
 
 The French is equally trivial, and confined to sixteen plays 
 only. Most of it is colloquial and purposely incorrect; and, 
 moreover, was pronounced by the speaker in an English fashion, 
 or the puns could not have been hung upon it. 
 
 In the whole of the plays there are eight Spanish words, in 
 no case more than two words at once. 
 
 There are only three passages from the Italian containing 
 more than three words, and these are of little moment. 
 
 To take particular plays — Romeo and Juliet naturally has 
 much foreign tongue in it, and can boast of three languages. 
 There is the Latin, Act ii., Sc. 3, " Benedicite " and " Jesu 
 Maria"; the French, Act ii., Sc. 4, "Bon Jour"; with this 
 profound piece of Italian, " Alia stoccato," Act iii., Sc. r. 
 
 Really one might fairly conclude from this display of 
 learning that Shakspere knew nothing of Itahan. 
 
 In two of the plays there is not a single foreign word. 
 
 In The Tempest we have the word " sans." 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 5 1 
 
 • 
 In Othello no less than five foreign words, mercifully 
 divided between four speakers : " Sans," " certes," " facile," 
 " almain," " exsufilicate." One can understand how he got 
 that word " facile," but not " exsufilicate." What an enormous 
 number of books he must have read, modem and ancient, to 
 have picked it up. 
 
 King Richard II. has " habitabile " and " pardonnez-moy." 
 
 King Richard III. has three simple words ; King Lear the 
 same number, but divided amongst two speakers ; Ki7ig John 
 three single words. 
 
 Twelfth Night is really a very learned play. The Clown 
 in one place says : " Cucullus non facit monachum," and 
 " primo, secundo, tertio, triplex," all in a breath. 
 
 Sir Andrew : " Dieu vous garde, monsieur." 
 
 Viola : " Et vous aussi votre serviteur." 
 
 Measure for Measure has " Benedicite," and the wise saw 
 about the cowl repeated. 
 
 As You Like It, " Bon jour, Monsieur le Beau." 
 
 Midsummer Night's Dream, " Videlicet." 
 
 Cymbelvne, " Mollis " and " Muher." 
 
 Much Ado About Nothing (a motto suitable to Mr.. 
 Donelly) has one word, " Palabras." 
 
 The Comedy of Errors has three words, " Ergo," and 
 " Respice finem," which must conclude this analysis. 
 
 The whole of the serious bits of Latin are very trifling, 
 only thirty-six, and are here given. They occur in thirteen 
 plays : — 
 
 King Henry VIII., Act iii., Sc. i. — Wolsey : "Tantaest 
 erga te mentis integritas, regina serenissima." 
 
 " Ego et rex. mens." 
 
 Twelfth Night, Act i., Sc. 5. — Clown : " Cucullus non 
 facit monachum." 
 
 Measure for Measure, Act v., Sc. i. — Luc. : The same. 
 
X^ THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 Titus Adronicus, Act ii., Sc. i. — Dem. : "Sit fas aut 
 nefas," " per Styga per manes vehor." 
 
 Act iv., Sc. I. — Tit : " Magne Dominator poli. 
 
 Tam lentus audis, scelera ? 
 Tam lentus vides ? " 
 
 Act iv., Sc. 2. — Dem, : " Inter vitas, scelerisque 
 purus. Non eget Mauri jaculis, neque arcu." 
 
 Act iv., Sc. 3. — Tit. : " Terras Astrsea reliquit." 
 
 Pericles of Tyre, Act i., Sc. i . — Gower : " Et quo antiquius 
 eo melius." 
 
 Act. ii., Sc. 2. — Thai : " Lux tua vita mihi." 
 
 „ „ „ " Me pompae provexit apex." 
 
 „ „ „ "Quodmealit,meextinguit." 
 
 „ „ „ " Sic spectanda fides." 
 
 „ „ „ " In hac spe vivo." 
 
 Julius Cccsar, Act iii., Sc. i. — Cass. : " Et tu Brute." 
 King Henry VI., Part II., Act i., Sc. 4. — York : " Aio te, 
 iEacida, Romanos vincere posse." 
 
 Act ii., Sc. I. — Glo. : "Tantsene animis caslestibus 
 
 ir^." 
 Act ii., Sc. I. — Car. : " Medice teipsum." 
 
 Part III., Act i., Sc. 3.— Rut. : " Dii faciant, laudis 
 summa sit isto tuse." 
 
 Kifig Henry IV., Part II., Act v., Sc. 5. — Pist. : " Semper 
 
 idem." " Absque hoc nihil est." 
 
 Act v., Sc. 5. — Pist.: "Si fortuna me tormenta 
 spero me contenta." 
 King Kenry V., Act i., Sc. 2. — K. Hen. : " In terram 
 
 Salicam mulieres ne succedant." 
 Merry Wives of Windsor, Kctiy., Sc. i. — Eva: "Lapis, 
 
 Singulariter nominativo hie haec hoc, genetivo 
 
 hujus." 
 Taming of the Shrew, Act i., Sc. i. — Tra. : " Redime te 
 
 captum quam queas minirao." 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 53 
 
 Act iii., Sc. I. — Luc: "Hac ibat Simois, hie est 
 Sigeia tellus." " Hie steterat Priami regia 
 celsa senis." 
 
 Act iv., Se. 4. — Bion. : " Cum privilegio ad impri- 
 mendum solum." 
 
 Love's Labour Lost, Act iv., Se. 2. — Hoi. : " Vir sapit qui 
 pauca loquitur." 
 
 Act iv., Sc. 2.— Hoi. : " Fauste, precor, gelida, 
 quando pecus omne sub umbra." 
 
 Act v., Sc. I. — Hoi. : " Satis quod sufficit." 
 
 „ „ „ " Novi hominem tanquam te." 
 
 „ " Ne intelligis domine." 
 Nath. : " Laus Deo bene intelligo." 
 
 „ " Videsne quis venit." 
 Cost. : " Honorificabilitudinitatibus." 
 
 » 
 » 
 
 Surely any clever schoolboy could have collected these 
 little pieces without much trouble or reading. Mr. Doneily 
 may perhaps reply that he was not referring to what was given 
 in the original, but to that which was translated ; the rejoinder 
 to which is that the man who gave these quotations, in doing so 
 has given hostages against himself that he was incapable of 
 deeper research. The display of learning shows his depth. He 
 had no pretensions to great scholarship, and made none. That 
 was not his art, perhaps not his forte ; and he is not to be 
 judged, and his works are not to be gauged by such a measure. 
 If Shakspere has given utterance to great thoughts found in 
 other writers, he obtained them indirectly or gave utterance to 
 similar thoughts himself. 
 
 Allied to the question of his scholarship, is that of his 
 generosity as a critic. Gifford, in proof of his "envious and 
 malignant disposition," wrote — " If silence be a proof of envy, 
 what becomes of Shakspere ? With a single exception I cannot 
 discover that he ever mentioned one of his contemporaries with 
 commendation, or bestowed a line of praise on any publication 
 
54 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE, 
 
 of his time," What can be more unfair than this ? Shakspere 
 has literally published nothing himself, but where has he 
 condemned any one of his competitors ? A man is not bound 
 to criticise even if he does not admire, nor is he bound to give 
 his opinion if he does. Very few writers ever attacked him and 
 these few he did not care to answer. Shakspere was essentially 
 a retired and dififident man, he might have an opinion upon the 
 value of his own work, and he must have loved it, who could 
 write as he did without feeling pleasure in his work ? He who 
 did so would be more than human. He was cut off from the 
 majority of mankind by his religion, he was in the world, but 
 not of it, and he cared little for its sentiments. Who will blame 
 a deaf mute for not joining in coversation ? 
 
 Well we cannot all agree on these points, but who will not 
 agree with Dryden, who was a great poet, a true-hearted man, 
 and no mean judge, that learned or not " there was no subject 
 of which any poet can write, but he would produce it much 
 better done in Shakspere," and the learned Hales (writes 
 Rowe) " says, and was wont to assert, that since the time of 
 Orpheus and the older poets, no common place had been 
 touched upon when Shakspere had not performed as well." 
 
 Sir John Suckling (1658, p. 14) wrote: — "Our gentle 
 Shakpere's easier strain, ' comparing him to Ben Johnson, who 
 was envious of him, and whose ' malignity,' which he does not 
 deny, but endeavours to excuse, proves better than praise how 
 superior Shakspere was to his competitors.' " How is it that, 
 except in the libraries of the curious, we see and hear nothing 
 of his competitors ? Why are Shakspere's works read and 
 admired, whilst theirs are utterly forgotten and neglected, 
 except that his are so much better. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 CAMPION, JESUIT AND MARTYR. 
 
 AVERY important personage in the life of Shakspere 
 was Edmund Campion. Few people know even 
 the name of this great scholar and eminent 
 priest ; some, indeed, may know that he 
 died the death of a traitor in the reign of Queen 
 Elizabeth, and the readers of Hallam may remember 
 his famous trial at Westminster Hall, on the 14th November, 
 1 58 1 (almost forgotten), when he was condemned. This 
 trial was described by Hallam "as unfairly conducted, and 
 supported by as slender evidence as any, perhaps, that can be 
 found in our books." The Chief Justice (Wray) who presided 
 v/as a Cathohc at heart, and this " shameless travesty of justice, 
 in which he took an part, is said to have shortened his days." 
 Francis Goldie, S.J., " Life of Campion," is cited for this strange 
 statement, because otherwise it might not be believed that any 
 judge could have possessed so much feeling, much less a Chief 
 Justice. But if the man is forgotten, his words will live as long 
 as the English language exists. He it was who wrote the famous 
 speech in defence of Cardinal Wolsey, which Shakspere adapted 
 and put into the mouth of Griffith, or Griffin (Shakspere's 
 actual cousin), who was gentleman usher of Queen Catherine of 
 Aragon. 
 
56 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 Shakspere knew Campion and his fellows, and loved them 
 because they were friends of his familj', and frequently, when 
 coming on their visits, must he have trembled for their safety,, 
 though Campion himself was protected, as far as anyone could, 
 be protected, from the hell-hounds of Burleigh and Queen 
 Elizabeth by two great personages in their day — by the famous- 
 Earl of Leicester and Lady Stonor, the widow of Sir Edward 
 Griffin, the Queen's late Attorney-General (Shakspere's cousin).. 
 The poet was only fifteen years old when Campion was. 
 murdered, but he must have met him frequently, not only at 
 Kenilworth, but in his father's house ; for Campion was one of 
 those dangerous persons who, at the risk of his life, went about 
 secretly administering the sacraments of his Church to the living 
 and dying, and especially to the poor souls who for worldly 
 gain and to save their estates for their families had, to the 
 danger of their souls, pretended to conform to the new doc- 
 trines, which had now been tinkered up afresh, and had been 
 made to look as much like the true article as possible, so that 
 the unwary might be deceived by them. 
 
 But Campion was more than this, he was the author of the- 
 famous "Ten Reasons," a book which made a tremendous sen- 
 sation at the time — an audacious publication — which, through 
 its European fame and extraordinary renown, only added heat 
 to the fury with which Burleigh and Cecil were now persecuting, 
 the Catholics. This book was secretly printed at Stonor, from 
 a press which the Lady Stonor (Sir Edward Griffin's widow) 
 had, at great risk, permitted to be erected there. 
 
 Campion, in his Oxford life, has earned a great reputation^, 
 especially for eloquence. We know from his writings how great 
 ■was his intellectual vigour. He is said to have been even more 
 powerful as a speaker, and when Queen Elizabeth visited the 
 University, Campion — who was appointed Proctor and Public 
 Orator before even he took his degree of doctor — delivered the 
 orations in her honour. It was said of him that he was " the 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 57 
 
 star of all the gay pageants, and learned discussions, by which 
 Oxford entertained the Queen on her visit to the University." 
 The young men of his day endeavoured to imitate his style of 
 writing, and his speech, his very dress and mannerisms, and 
 prided themselves upon being called Campionists. 
 
 Cecil, the Prime Minister (during his visit to Oxford), was so 
 much struck by his ability that he promised him his patronage 
 and support. 
 
 Campion wrote much, but it has chiefly perished, his little 
 took — on the History of Ireland — serves now to represent his 
 works, though it is known that he wrote several tragedies in 
 Latin, when living in Prague, but these unhappily are lost. 
 
 The complaisant University elected Queen Elizabeth's 
 favourite Dudly, Earl of Leicester, as the Chancellor ; and 
 Campion, as the Public Orator, was called upon to deliver a 
 funeral oration over the body of his murdered wife — poor Amy 
 Robsart — got rid of, doubtless, to gratify Elizabeth's lust for her 
 husband, and in the hope, probably, that the Queen would 
 marry him ; but Elizabeth preferred the pleasures of matrimony 
 without its inconveniences. Warned, probably, by the horror 
 excited by her father's conduct, she dare not play with the axe 
 as an instrument of divorce, and, perhaps, she did not possess 
 so nice a conscience as his — one which made him stick at 
 adultery, though he revelled in murder — as, indeed, did his 
 daughter when she dared. 
 
 The Earl of Leicester greatly admired Campion, and to 
 him he dedicated his work on the history of Ireland. 
 
 Poor Campion, who was a Catholic at heart, like so many 
 others in the University, was driven at last to leave it, or to 
 make a clear profession of the new faith at St. Paul's Cross in 
 London, This mandate came from the Grocers' Company — a 
 
58 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 body of men particularly capable of distinguishing the niceties of 
 religion — from whom he held his fellowship, and for conscience 
 sake he sacrificed the grocers' sixpences and his brilliant 
 prospects, and became that poor despised creature, the hunted 
 priest. It was in one of the priests' holes, when he was in 
 hiding at the peril of his life, that he wrote his sketch of 
 Ireland, and it was in the priests' hole at the house of Mr. 
 Yates, of Lydford Grange, Berkshire, that he was at last 
 captured. Poor Mr. Yates was then himself a prisoner in 
 London, on account of his own religion, and he had begged 
 Campion to call to comfort his wife and some poor Catholic 
 women who had assembled there. He had been tracked to the 
 house, and a hundred men surrounded it and with hammers 
 tested the walls to discover the priests' hole. They broke down 
 the barriers before them until they discovered Campion, with 
 two other priests. They were placed backwards on their 
 horses, their elbows pinioned behind them, their hands tied in 
 front, and their feet fastened beneath their horses' bellies ; 
 whilst to Campion's hat was attached — the fashion with 
 perjurers in those rough days — a paper on which was written in 
 large letters, " Campion, the seditious Jesuit," so was he led to 
 the Tower. Four days afterwards he went, by the water side, 
 to the house of his patron, the Earl of Leicester, and there, for 
 the first time since the festivities at Woodstock, found himself 
 face to face with the royal favourite and his royal mistress, 
 who were accompanied by the privy councillors. They told him 
 that they found no fault with him save that he was a Papist, 
 and to that he answered : " This is my greatest glory." The 
 Queen " offered him life, liberty, riches, honour, anything he 
 might ask," if he would give up his religion ; but he refused. 
 Unfortunately for himself, he treated the offer with such scorn ; 
 it was resolved to have recourse to torture ; and he was 
 racked on the 31st July, 1581. Mind, this great scholar had 
 done no wrong of any kind, unless in standing up for and in 
 practising the rites of his religion ; but this was the method 
 employed by "good" Queen Bess to teach the new religion to 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 her people. Some of Campion's companions, up.fler the awful 
 torture of strained muscles and dislocated limbs, had told some 
 secrets, but Campion remained firm. Lord Burleigh was 
 obliged to own, in a confidential letter to Lord Shrewsbury, 
 that from Campion they could extort nothing of moment. It 
 was given out, however, by the wily Cecil, a trick he often 
 played to mislead the pubhc, that Campion had confessed ; but 
 he on being appealed to stated that although in his agony he 
 had confessed to some of the houses at which he had stayed, 
 which were well known, yet he had discovered nothing ot 
 secret, nor would he, " come rack, come rope." He admitted 
 that the rack was more bitter than death ; yet when the gaoler, 
 after he had been racked again, asked how he felt his hands 
 and feet, he answered : " Not ill, because not at all." When 
 called upon to plead, at his trial, one of his fellow-prisoners had 
 to lift his arm, which was made helpless through the tortures of 
 the rack. 
 
 Cecil and Burleigh failing in their brutality, next en- 
 deavoured to damage his reputation as a scholar, and the 
 Bishop of London was ordered to prepare a series of public 
 discussions. In the Chapel of the Tower, without a book to 
 aid them, and without even a chair back to rest upon, after the 
 torture of the rack. Campion and his fellow prisoner were 
 brought face to face with the Deans of St. Paul and Windsor, 
 and other Protestant disputants, who were seated at a table and 
 supplied with any number of works of reference. A Catholic 
 present states, that Father Campion looked ill and weary, his 
 memory nearly gone, his force of mind nearly extinguished, yet 
 he won admiration from all by his ready answers, and by his 
 patience under the coarse abuse and ill-timed je;;: /• his well- 
 fed and well-prepared adversaries. They jeered i .i u, and tried 
 to confound him, threatening him with furth'! vorture and 
 death ; yet in spite of all he had the best o r: argument. 
 There were four discussions, and each proved mc j ail to the 
 Protestant cause, and this being discovered they were at length 
 stopped. The following doggerel rhymes were saug in the 
 
6o THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 Streets in honour of Campion's victory, for he carried the people 
 with him : — 
 
 Let reason rule and racking cease, 
 
 Or else for ever hold your peace ; 
 
 You can't withstand God's power and grace, 
 
 No, not with t' Tower, and racking place. 
 
 After the shameful trial Campion was tied upon a hurdle, 
 •which was fastened to the tail of a horse, and he was dragged 
 through the mud and stones to the gallows, and there hung, 
 and this horrible deed happened, and all these scenes were 
 passing, when the young boy, William Shakspere, was but 
 fifteen years of age. It seems wonderful that he who passed 
 his youth under such a fire could retain the faculty of humour, 
 or the power of laughter and of creating laughter ; yet we can 
 read in his works, in the tender compassion and infinite charity 
 they display, how deeply these scenes had entered his soul. 
 There is a sadness even about his mirth, which is never entirely 
 obscured, and which breaks out in almost every line of some of 
 them. The sadness and submission to his lot so remarkable in 
 the play of Romeo and Juliet is but the outcome of these 
 deplorable events, which were everywhere passing about him. 
 Horrible as they are, men got used to such scenes. The Cecils, 
 with their racks, were too strong for them, but no one can love 
 those who are responsible for them. It was a necessity inse- 
 parable from his public career that he should play before the 
 tyrant Elizabeth, whose immorality had caused the death of 
 poor Amy Robsart, and whose fate would be well known to 
 every Warwickshire peasant, and to Shakspere with them, and 
 accordingly the poet did not love her, and therefore was it that 
 upon her death he refused to write a line in her honour. These 
 facts are to be commended to the consideration of those who 
 really desire to study the life of the poet, and they will help 
 to understand it far more readily than the imaginary sketches 
 of those who only desire to detract from his memory, but the 
 reason for drawing attention to the life of Campion is that he is 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 6l 
 
 responsible for much of the matter and for some of the very words 
 of the play of King Henry VIII. The following is the passage 
 from Campion which Shakspere may have copied from old 
 Hollinshed, who had seized upon it for his work, and pub- 
 lished it in 1587, but it is more likely that it was only a portion 
 of the matter supplied by this great writer, who, very possibly, 
 inspired the play, and perhaps wrote much of it, his style being 
 singularly like that of William Shakspere. The following is 
 clearly Campion's : — 
 
 " They all hated the Cardinal. A man undoubtedly born to honour, 
 I think, some Prince's — no butcher's sonne, exceeding wise, faire 
 spoken, high-minded, full of revenge, vicious of his body, lofty to his 
 enemies were they never so bigge, to those that accepted and sought his 
 friendship, wonderful courteous, a ripe scholar, thrall to affections, 
 brought abed with flattery, insatiable to get and more princelike in 
 bestowing, as appeareth by his two collegdes at Ipswich and at Oxford, 
 th' one suppressed with his fall, th" other unfinished, and yet as it lieth 
 an house of students (considering all appurtenances) incomparable 
 through Christendom, whereof Henry the VIII. is now called founder 
 because he let it stand.'' " A great preferrer of his servants, advauncer 
 of learning, stout in every quarrel, never happy till his overthrow, 
 therein he showed such moderation and ended so patiently, that the 
 hour of his death did him more honour than all the pomp of life 
 passed." 
 
 This is the speech which Shakspere put into the mouth of 
 of his kinsman Griffith : — 
 
 This cardinal 
 Though from an humble stock, undoubtedly, 
 Was fashioned to much honour. From his cradle 
 He was a scholar, and a ripe and good one ; 
 Exceedingly wise, fair spoken, and persuading : 
 Lofty, and sour, to them that loved him not ; 
 But to those men that sought him sweet as summer. 
 And though he were unsatisfied in getting 
 (Which was a sin), yet in bestowing, madam, 
 He was most princely ; ever witness for him 
 
62 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 Those twins of learning, that he raised in you — 
 
 Ipswich and Oxford ! — one of which fell with him, 
 
 Unwilling to outlive the good that did it ; 
 
 The other, though unfinished, yet so famous. 
 
 So excellent in art and still so rising. 
 
 That Christendom shall ever speak his virtue. 
 
 His overthrow heaped happinness upon him ; 
 
 For then, and not till then, he felt him: elf, 
 
 And found the blessedness of being little ; 
 
 And, to add greater honours to his age 
 
 Than man could give him, he died fearing God. 
 
 Mr. Simpson thus writes of Campion : " He possessed an 
 eloquence that succeeded beyond that of all contemporary- 
 rivals in transfusing the vigour and polish of Cicero into a 
 language that was only struggling into form." Father O'Carrol, 
 of Clongowes Wood, S.J., writes : " The panegyric on Cardinal 
 Wolsey is certainly one of the peculiarly great passages in the 
 works of the English dramatist." The whole dialogue in which 
 it occurs is declared by Dr. Johnson " to be above any other 
 part of Shakspere's tragedies — perhaps above any scene of any 
 poet." Poor Dr. Johnson. He had not studied under Aldis 
 Wright, who declares that there is no talent in this play, but 
 only sentiment ; and again, Father O' Carroll writes: " Shakspere 
 makes this difficult and hazardous speech successful ; he makes 
 it so from the eloquence that is in it, from its power of raising 
 pure, and generous, and noble feeling, or, to use his own words, 
 put into the mouth of Catherine, ' with thy religious truth and 
 modesty.' " 
 
 Shakspere makes this speech play the great part in the 
 dialogue ; he makes it suddenly win over to a fallen foe admira- 
 tion and forgiveness, on the part of an embittered and injured 
 sovereign, in the hour of the last agony of death ; he shows us 
 that there is no improbability in supposing its eloquence to be 
 sufficient to produce this extraordinary change. Shakspere's 
 critics find the development of Queen Catherine's last thoughts 
 most pathetic and sublime, and, above all, gentle and natural. 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPE'^E. 63 
 
 • 
 
 Dr. Johnson -WTites : " This great scene is tender and 
 pathetic, without gods or furies, or poisons or precipices, and 
 without the help of romantic circumstances." Had he hved to 
 this day he might even had added, " and without the assistance 
 of Worth's gowns," for now-a-days a play owes more to the 
 assistance of the milliner and of Sir Augustus Harris than to the 
 poor author. The great actress, Mrs. Siddons, thought the 
 character of Queen Catherine the most natural of all 
 Shakspere's female characters. O'Carrol observes : " What 
 is in Griffiths' speech with regard to Wolsey's character 
 is almost all from Campion, in words no less than senti- 
 ment, touched, indeed, anew by the great master ; but 
 surely, delicately, and sparingly touched. Shakspere seems 
 here to have been almost afraid of painting the lily,' ' his 
 changes are very slight, but at the same time they are subtle 
 and testify by their very delicacy to deep and accurate thought, 
 he has made a radical change in the order of presenting the 
 ideas, in order to adapt the passage to his work ; he has toned 
 down something that in Campion was very brilliant, and 
 gloriously illustrated a portion that was more subdued.' " 
 " Instead of Campion's ' moderation ' Shakspere has ' the 
 blessedness of being little ' ; instead of ' did him more honour 
 than all the pomp of life passed,' Shakspere ends magnificently, 
 ' And, to add greater honours to his age than man could give 
 him he died fearing God.' " 
 
 This single passage from his works is of more value, in 
 giving us a fair estimate of the man, than hundreds of pages of 
 absurd panegj'ric or abuse ; it shows him at work, it exhibits 
 his methods, and enables us to measure his oo-vers. Would, or 
 could. Lord Bacon have written in this wa'/, he might, indeed, 
 have had the intellectual power, for he v.^ a gr. at man ; but, 
 had he the will : no one but a sincere Cathol: .iixi a good man 
 could poss'bly have written this play. It nii.st go down to 
 posterity as the joint production of Edinuiui Campion and 
 William Shakspere ; no one can safely separate their parts in 
 it, or assign any part positively to either writer. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 "KING HENRY VHI." 
 
 THE first four Acts of this magnificent play are here 
 printed, nearly in extenso, not because they are more 
 beautiful than some of his other works ; indeed, they 
 are fitter more for the cabinet than for the stage ; but 
 in this play may be read more of Shakspere than in all his 
 other works put together. Shakspere, as the play proves, was 
 a Catholic, not a very pronounced one perhaps, in practice, but 
 unlike his father, he sought no office, and never conformed to 
 the Protestant religion. There were thousands like him at the 
 time, and the Court was compelled to wink at their wickedness, 
 or they must have put half the nation into prison or to death, 
 
 Shakspere knew and felt bitterly, no doubt, the misery of 
 his position, and he determined to make an effort to leave 
 behind him one play which, after his time, should bring home 
 to people the truth respecting the changes in religion and the 
 true causes of those changes. Did he not do this with the hope 
 of doing good ? To suppose that this play was written for 
 publication in his lifetime is absurd ; that Queen Elizabeth would 
 pennit the infamy of her mother to be ^Dlaced upon the stage 
 for the common people to gaze at, is ridiculous. The man who 
 dare write such a play, even without publication, would 
 assuredly loose his head ; or, at least, the Tower would be his 
 only resting-place, and the rack his daily portion till he died. 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 65 
 
 Nor could Shakspere ever dream of its being played 
 before King James. That modern Solomon could not have 
 tolerated it on account of its exposure of the true motives of the 
 Reformation in England, in which he had participated, for 
 thereby he himself would be held up to ridicule. It would be 
 extremely interesting to know when it was first plaj^ed. There 
 is no proof whatever that it was played when the Globe 
 Theatre was burnt to the ground, as it has been asserted ; and 
 it would seem impossible that it was ever played until after the 
 Restoration. Then, indeed, balanced by the absurd anti-climax 
 of the fifth Act, it might be tolerated, but only because it was 
 Shakspere 's. It could not possibly have been played in his life- 
 time, although, when the man was gone, then, indeed, it might 
 have been tolerated in honour of his memory, for any work of 
 the great master would naturally excite interest and enthusiasm, 
 and this work must have long been talked about — long before 
 it could be produced. Did Shakspere write it in this hope ? It 
 is needless to say that the fifth Act is not Shakspere's. The 
 play ends beautifull)'', and most pathetically, with the death of 
 Catherine of Aragon, and there can be little doubt that, as the 
 play was originally written, Katherine died upon the stage, and 
 the entrance of Capucas was another interpolation to make her 
 exit and the termination of the play less sad, and the anti- 
 climax of the fifth Act less palpable. Shakspere had written up 
 to the great death scene, and no doubt Catherine's last words 
 are spoilt by these additions, this little scene of Capucas itself 
 forming a minor anti-climax. Who, after seeing her die, would 
 care what became of Anne Boleyn ? and who, knowing how 
 worthless she was, would care to hear about the baptism of 
 Anne's child ? Had the piece ended with the execution of Miss 
 Bulleyn it had been more natural, and in that case there might 
 have been a fifth Act ; but the whole motive of the Act, as we 
 have it, is out of place, and Shakspere himself would never have 
 been guilty of chronicling such utterly repulsive festivities. 
 The critics, indeed, have blamed Shakspere for causing Queen 
 Catherine to die before the death of Queen Elizabeth. He was 
 
65 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 guilty of no such anachronism ; that was clearly the work of his 
 adapter. Those who would learn the true life of William 
 Shakspere can here read it in most beautiful thoughts, far better 
 than in his sugared sonnets, which were but the work of his 
 lighter moments, and which, though beautiful indeed, are but as 
 the snow-white cloudlets chnging to the mountain tops of this 
 grand structure. Had Shakspere written nothing beside this 
 play he would stand out far above any other poet, for this 
 work, as he intended it, is truly sublime. In it he has poured 
 out the heart-griefs of his hfe, and he has left it, as he intended, 
 as his chiefest labour and his best monument. 
 
 THE PROLOGUE. 
 
 I come no more to make you laugh : things now, 
 
 That bear a weighty and a serious brow, 
 
 Sad, high, and working, full of state and woe, 
 
 Such noble scenes as draw the eye to flow, 
 
 We now present. Those that can pity, here 
 
 May, if they think it well, let fall a tear ; 
 
 The subject will deserve it. Such as give 
 
 Their money out of hope they may believe, 
 
 May here find truth too. Those that come to see 
 
 Only a show or two, and so agree 
 
 The play may pass, if they be still and willing, 
 
 I'll undertake may see away their shilling 
 
 Richly in two short hours. Only they 
 
 That come to hear a merry noisy play, 
 
 A noise of targets, or to see a fellow 
 
 In a long motley coat guarded with yellow, 
 
 Will be deceived ; for, gentle hearers, know, 
 
 To rank our chosen truth with such a show 
 
 As fool and fight is, beside forfeiting 
 
 Our own brains, and the opinion that we bring, 
 
 To make that only true we now intend, 
 
 Will leave us never an understanding friend. 
 
 Therefore, for goodness' sake, and as you are known 
 
 The first and happiest hearers of the town, 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 6"] 
 
 Be sad, as we would make ye : think ye see 
 The very persons of our noble story 
 As they were living ! think you see them great, 
 And follow'd with the general throng and sweat 
 Of thousand friends ; then in a moment, see 
 How soon this mightiness meets misery : 
 And, if you can be merry then, I'll say 
 A man may weep upon his wedding-day. 
 
 ACT I. 
 
 Scene I. London. An ante-chamber in the palace. 
 
 Enter the DuKE of Norfolk at one door; at the 
 other, the Duke of Buckingham and the Lord 
 Abergavenny. 
 
 Buck. Good morrow, and well met. How have ye done 
 Since last we saw in France ? 
 
 Nor. I thank your grace, 
 
 Healthful ; and ever since a fresh admirer 
 Of what I saw there. 
 
 Buck. An untimely ague 
 
 Stay'd me a prisoner in my chamber when 
 Those suns of glory, those two lights of men, 
 Met in the vale of Andren. 
 
 iVoy. 'Twixt Guynes and Arde ; 
 
 I was then present, saw them salute on horseback ; 
 Beheld them, when they lighted, how they clung 
 In their embracement, as they grew together ; 
 Which had they, what four throned ones could have weigh'd 
 Such a compounded one ? 
 
 Buck. All the whole time 
 
 I was my chamber's prisoner. 
 
 iV«y. Then you lost 
 
 The view of earthly glory : men might say. 
 Till this time pomp was single, but now married 
 To one above itself. Each following day 
 Became the next day's master, till the last 
 Made former wonders its. To-day the French, 
 All chnquant, all in gold, like heathen gods. 
 Shone down the English ; and, to-morrow, they 
 Made Britain India: every man that stood 
 
68 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 Show'd like a mine. Their dwarfish pages were 
 
 As cherubins, all gilt : the madams too, 
 
 Not used to toil, did almost sweat to bear 
 
 The pride upon them, that their very labour 
 
 Was to them as a painting : now this masque 
 
 Was cried incomparable ; and the ensuing night 
 
 Made it a fool and beggar. The two kings, 
 
 Equal in lustre, were now best, now worst, 
 
 As presence did present them ; him in eye, 
 
 Still him in praise : and, being present both, 
 
 'Twas said they saw but one ; and no discerner 
 
 Durst wag his tongue in censure. When these suns — 
 
 For so they phrase 'em — by their heralds challenged 
 
 The noble spirits to arms, they did perform 
 
 Beyond thought's compass ; that former fabulous story, 
 
 Being now seen possible enough, got credit, 
 
 That Bevis was believed. 
 
 £uch. O, you go far. 
 
 Nor. As I belong to worship, and affect 
 In honour honesty, the tract of every thing 
 Would by a good discourser lose some life, 
 Which action's self was tongue to. All was royal ; 
 To the disposing of it nought rebell'd, 
 Order gave each thing view ; the office did 
 Distinctly his full function. 
 
 Buck. Who did guide, 
 
 I mean, who set the body and the limbs. 
 Of this great sport together, as you guess ? 
 
 Nor. One, certes, that promises no element 
 In such a business. 
 
 Buck. I pray you, who, my lord ? 
 
 Nor. All this was order'd by the good discretion 
 Of the right reverend Cardinal of York. 
 
 Buck. The devil speed him ! no man's pie is freed 
 From his ambitious finger. What had he 
 To do in these fierce vanities ? I wonder 
 That such a keech can with his very bulk 
 Take up the rays o' the beneficial sun 
 And keep it from the earth. 
 
 Nor. Surely, sir. 
 
 There's in him stuff that puts him to these ends ; 
 For, being not propp'd by ancestry, whose grace 
 Chalks successors their way, nor call'd upon 
 For high feats done to the crown ; neither allied 
 To eminent assistants ; but, spider-like. 
 Out of his self-drawing web, he gives us note. 
 The force of his own merit makes his way ; 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 69 
 
 A gift that heaven gives for him, which buys 
 A place next to the king. 
 
 Abey. I cannot tell 
 
 What heaven hath given him, — let some graver eye 
 Pierce into that ; but I can see his pride 
 Peep through each part of him : whence has he that, 
 If not from hell ? the devil is a niggard, 
 Or has given all before, and he begins 
 A new hell in himself. 
 
 £uck. Why the devil, 
 
 Upon this French going out, took he upon him, 
 Without the privity o' the king, to appoint 
 Who should attend on him ? He makes up the file 
 Of all the gentry ; for the most part such 
 To whom as great a charge as little honour 
 He meant to lay upon : and his own letter. 
 The honourable board of council out. 
 Must fetch him in the papers. 
 
 Aber. I do know 
 
 Kinsmen of mine, three at the least, that have 
 By this so sicken'd their estates, that never 
 They shall abound as formerly. 
 
 Buck. O, many 
 
 Have broke their backs with laying manors on 'em 
 For this great journey. What did this vanity 
 But minister communication of 
 A most poor issue ? 
 
 Nor. Grievingly, I think. 
 
 The peace between the French and us not values 
 The cost that did conclude it. 
 
 Buck. Every man, 
 
 After the hideous storm that follow'd, was 
 A thing inspired ; and, not consulting, broke 
 Into a general prophecy ; That this tempest, 
 Dashing the garment of this peace, aboded 
 The sudden breach on't. 
 
 Nor. Which is budded out : 
 
 For France hath flaw'd the league, and hath attach'd 
 Our merchants' goods at Bourdeaux. 
 
 Aber. Is it therefore 
 
 The ambassador is silenced ? 
 
 Nor. Marry, is't. 
 
 Aber. A proper title of a peace ; and purchased 
 At a superfluous rate ! 
 
 Buck. Why, all this business 
 
 -Our reverend cardinal carried. 
 
70 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 Nor. Like it your grace, 
 
 The state takes notice of the private difference 
 Betwixt you and the cardinal. I advise you — 
 And take it from a heart that wishes towardr, you 
 Honour and plenteous safety — that you read 
 The cardinal's malice and his potency 
 Together ; to consider further that 
 What his high hatred would effect wants not 
 A minister in his power. You know his nature, 
 That he's revengeful, and I know his sword 
 Hath a sharp edge : it's long and, 't may be said, 
 It reaches far, and where 'twill not extend. 
 Thither he darts it. Bosom up my counsel, 
 You'll find it wholesome. Lo, where comes that rock 
 That I advise your shunning. 
 
 £n/er Cardinal Wolsey, /he purse borne before him,, 
 certain of the Guard, and trvo Secretaries with papers. 
 The Cardinal in his passage fixeth his eye on 
 Buckingham, and Buckingham on him, both f till of 
 disdain. 
 
 Wol. The Duke of Buckingham's surveyor, ha ? 
 Where's his examination ? 
 
 First Sec. Here, so please you. 
 
 Wol. Is he in person ready ? 
 
 First Sec. Ay, please your grace. 
 
 Wol. Well, we shall then knov/ more ; and Buckingham. 
 Shall lessen this big look. [Exeunt Wolsey and his Train. 
 
 Bttch. This butcher's cur is venom-mouth'd, and I 
 Have not the power to muzzle him ; therefore best 
 Not wake him in his slumber. A beggar's book 
 Outworths a noble's blood. 
 
 Nor. What, are you chafed ? 
 
 Ask God for temperance ; that's the appliance only 
 Which your disease requires. 
 
 Buck. I read in 's looks 
 
 Matter against me ; and his eye reviled 
 Me, as his abject oljject : at this instant 
 He bores me with some trick : he's gone to the king ;, 
 I'll follow and outstare him. 
 
 Nor. Stay, my lord, 
 
 And let your reason with your choler question 
 What 'tis j'ou go about : to climb steep hills 
 Requires slow pace at first : anger is like 
 A full-hot horse, who being allow'd his way, 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. ft 
 
 Self-mettle tires him. Not a man in England 
 Can advise me like you ; be to yourself 
 As you would to your friend. 
 
 Buck. I'll to the king ; 
 
 And from a mouth of honour quite cry down 
 This Ipswich fellow's insolence ; or proclaim 
 There's difference in no persons. 
 
 Nor. Be advised ; 
 
 Heat not a furnace for your foe so hot 
 That it do singe yourself: we may outrun, 
 By violent swiftness, that which we run at, 
 And lose by over-running. Know you not, 
 The fire that mounts the liquor till 't run o'er, ~- 
 
 In seeming to augment it, wastes it ? Be advised : 
 I say again, there is no English soul ^ 
 
 More stronger to direct you than yourself. 
 If with the sap of reason you would quench, 
 Or but allay, the fire of passion. 
 
 Buck. Sir, 
 
 I am thankful to you ; and I'll go along 
 By your prescription : but this top-proud fellow, 
 Whom from the flow of gall I name not, but 
 From sincere motions, by intelligence. 
 And proofs as clear as fountains in July, when 
 We see each grain of gravel, I do know 
 To be corrupt and treasonous. 
 
 Nor. Say not ' treasonous.' 
 
 Buck. To the king I'll say't ; and make my vouch as 
 strong 
 As shore of rock. Attend. This holy fox. 
 Or wolf, or both — for he is equal ravenous 
 As he is subtle, and as prone to mischief 
 As able to perform 't ; his mind and place 
 Infecting one another, yea, reciprocally — 
 Only to show his pomp as well in France 
 As here at home, suggests the king our master 
 To this last costly treaty, the interview, 
 That swallow'd so much treasure, and like a glass 
 Did break i' the rinsing. 
 
 Nor. Faith, and so it did. 
 
 Buck. Pray, give me favour, sir. This cunning cardinal 
 The articles o' the combination drew 
 As himself pleased ; and they were ratified 
 As he cried ' Thus let be ' ; to as much end 
 As give a crutch to the dead : but our count-cardinal 
 Has done this, and 'tis well ; for worthy Wolsey, 
 Who cannot err, he did it. Now this follows, — 
 Which, as I take it, is a kind of puppy 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 To the old dam, treason, — Charles, the emperor, 
 Under pretence to see the queen his aunt, — , 
 For 'twas indeed his colour, but he came 
 To whisper Wolse)', — here makes visitation : 
 His fears were, that the interview betwixt 
 England and France might, through their amity, 
 Breed him some prejudice : for from this league 
 Peep'd harms that menaced him : he privily 
 Deals with our cardinal ; and, as I trow, — 
 Which I do well, for I am sure the emperor 
 Paid ere he promised ; whereby his suit was granted 
 Ere it was ask'd — but when the way was made, 
 And paved with gold, the emperor thus desired, 
 That he would please to alter the king's course, 
 And break the foresaid peace. Let the king know, 
 As soon he shall by me, that thus the cardinal 
 Does buy and sell his honour as he pleases, 
 And for his own advantage. 
 
 Nor. I am sorry 
 
 To hear this of him ; and could wish he v/ere 
 Something mistaken in 't. 
 
 £iuk. No, not a syllable : 
 
 I do pronounce him in that very shape. 
 He shall appear in proof. 
 
 Enter Brandon, a Sergeant-at-arms, before him, 
 and two or three of the Guard. 
 
 Bran. Your office, sergeant ; execute it. 
 
 Serg. Sir, 
 
 My lord the Duke of Buckingham, and Earl 
 Of Hereford, Stafford, and Northampton, I 
 Arrest thee of high treason, in the name 
 Of our most sovereign king. 
 
 Buck. Lo you, my lord, 
 
 The net has fall'n upon me I I shall perish 
 Under device and practice. 
 
 Bran. I am sorry 
 
 To see you ta'en from liberty, to look on 
 The business present : 'tis his highness' pleasure 
 You shall to the Tower. 
 
 Buck. It will help me nothing 
 
 To plead mine innocence ; for that dye is on me 
 Which makes my whitest part black. The will of heaven 
 Be done in this and all things 1 I obey. 
 O my Lord Abergavenny, fare you well ! 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 73 
 
 Bran. Nay, he muse bear you company. The king 
 
 \To Abergavenny. 
 Is pleased you shall to the Tower, till you know 
 How he determines further. 
 
 Aler. As the duke said, 
 
 The will of heaven be done, and the king's pleasure 
 By me obey'd ! 
 
 Bran. Here is a warrant from 
 
 The king to attach Lord Montacute ; and the bodies 
 Of the duke's confessor, John de la Car, 
 One Gilbert Peck, his chancellor, — 
 
 Buck. So, so ; 
 
 These are the limbs o' the plot : no more, I hope. 
 
 Bran. A monk o' the Chartreux. 
 
 Buck. O, Nicholas Hopkins ? 
 
 Bran. He. 
 
 Buck. My surveyor is false ; the o'er-great cardinal 
 Hath showed him gold ; my life is spann'd already ; 
 I am the shadow of poor Buckingham, 
 Whose figure even this instant cloud puts on, 
 By darkening my clear sun. My lord, farewell. \Exeunt. 
 
 Scene II. The same. The council chamber. 
 
 Cornets. Eider the King, leaning on the Cardinal's 
 shoulder, the Nobles, and Sir TiiOMAS LOVELL ; the 
 Cardinal places himself under the King's feet on his 
 right side. 
 
 King. My life itself, and the best heart of it, 
 Thanks you for this great care : I stood i' the level 
 Of a full-charged confederacy, and give thanks 
 To you that choked it. Let be call d before us 
 That gentleman of Bucking] lam's ; in person 
 I'll hear him his confessions justify ; 
 And point by point the treasons of his master 
 He shall again relate. 
 
 A noise within, crying ' Room fpr the Queen ! ' Enter 
 Queen Katiiauine, ushered by ^'//e Duke of Nor- 
 
74 '("HE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 FOLK and the DuKE OF Suffolk : she kneels. The 
 King riseth from his state, takes her up, kisses, and 
 placeth her by him. 
 
 Q. Kath. Nay, we must longer kneel : I am a suitor. 
 
 King. Arise, and take place by us : half your suit 
 Never name to us ; you have half our power : 
 The other moiety, ere you ask, is given ; 
 Repeat your will and take it. 
 
 Q. Kaih. Thank your majesty. 
 
 That you would love yourself, and in that love 
 Not unconsider'd leave your honour, nor 
 The dignity of your office, is the point 
 Of my petition. 
 
 King. Lady mine, proceed. 
 
 Q. Kath. I am solicited, not by a few. 
 And those of true condition, that your subjects 
 Are in great grievance : there have been commissions 
 Sent down among 'em, which hath flaw'd the heart 
 Of all their loyalties : wherein, although. 
 My good lord cardinal, they vent reproaches 
 Most bitterly on you, as putter on 
 Of these exactions, yet the king our master — 
 Whose honour heaven shield from soil ! — even he escapes not 
 Language unmannerly, yea, such which breaks 
 The sides of loyalty, and almost appears 
 In loud rebellion. 
 
 Nor, Not almost appears. 
 
 It doth appear : for, upon these taxations, 
 The clothiers all, not able to maintain 
 The many to them longing, have put off 
 The spinsters, carders, fullers, weavers, who, 
 Unfit for other life, compell'd by hunger 
 And lack of other means, in desperate manner 
 Daring the event to the teeth, are all in uproar, 
 And danger serves among them. 
 
 King, Taxation ! 
 
 Wherein ? and what taxation ? My lord cardinal, 
 You that are blamed for it alike with us, 
 Know you of this taxation ? 
 
 Wot. Please you, sir, 
 
 I know but of a single part, in aught 
 Pertains to the state ; and front but in that file 
 Where others tell steps with me. 
 
 Q. Kath. No, my lord. 
 
 You know no more than others ; but you frame 
 Things that are known alike ; which are not wholesome 
 
THE GENTI.E SHAKSPERE. 75 
 
 To those which would not know them, and yet must 
 Perforce be their acquaintance. These exactions, 
 Whereof my sovereign would have note, they are 
 Most pestilent to the hearing ; and, to bear 'em, 
 The back is sacrifice to the load. They say 
 They are devised by you ; or else you suffer 
 Too hard an exclamation. 
 
 King. Still exaction ! 
 
 The nature of it ? in what kind, let's know, 
 Is this exaction ? 
 
 Q. Kath. I am much too venturous 
 
 In tempting of your patience ; but am bolden'd 
 Under your promised pardon. The subjects' grief 
 Comes through commissions, which compel from each 
 The sixth part of his substance, to be levied 
 Without delay ; and the pretence for this 
 Is named, your wars in France : this makes bold moutlis : 
 Tongues spit their duties out, and cold hearts freeze 
 Allegiance in them ; their curses now 
 Live where their prayers did : and it's come to pass. 
 This tractable obedience is a slave 
 To each incensed will. I would your highness 
 Would give it quick consideration, for 
 There is no primer business. 
 
 King. By my life, 
 
 This is against our pleasure. 
 
 Wol. And for me, 
 
 I have no further gone in this than by 
 A single voice ; and that not passed me, but 
 By learned approbation of the judges. If I am 
 Traduced by ignorant tongues, which neither knov/ 
 My faculties nor person, yet will be 
 The chronicles of my doing, let me say 
 'Tis but the fate of place, and the rough brake 
 That virtue must go through. We must not stint 
 Our necessary actions, in the fear 
 To cope malicious censurers ; which ever. 
 As ravenous fishes, do a vessel follow 
 That is new-trimm'd, but benefit no further 
 Than vainly longing. What we oft do best. 
 By sick interpreters, once weak ones, is 
 Not ours, or not allow'd ; what worst, as oft. 
 Hitting a grosser quality, is cried up 
 For our best act. If we shall stand still, 
 In fear our motion will be mock'd or carp'd at, 
 We should take root here where we sit, or sit 
 State-statues only. 
 
 King. Things done well, 
 
 And with a care, exempt themselves from fear ; 
 
76 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 Things done without example, in their issue 
 Are to be fear'd. Have you a precedent 
 Of this commission ? I believe, not any. 
 We must not rend our subjects from our laws. 
 And stick them in our will. Sixth part of each ? 
 A trembling contribution ! Why, we take 
 From every tree, lop, bark, and part o' the timber ; 
 And, though we leave it with a root, thus hack'd, , 
 The air will drink the sap. To every county 
 Where this is question'd send our letters, with 
 Free pardon to each man that has denied 
 The force of this commission : pray, look to 't : 
 I put it to your care. 
 
 IVol. A word with you. [To the Secretary. 
 
 Let there be letters writ to every shire. 
 Of the king's grace and pardon. The grieved commons 
 Hardly conceive of me ; let it be noised 
 That through our intercession this revokement 
 And pardon comes : I shall anon advise you 
 Further in the proceeding. [Exit Secretary. 
 
 Enter Surveyor. 
 
 Q. Kath. I am sorry that the Duke of Buckingham 
 Is run in your displeasure. 
 
 King. It grieves many : 
 
 The gentleman is learn'd, and a most rare speaker ; 
 To nature none more bound ; his training such, 
 That he may furnish and instruct great teachers, 
 And never seek for aid out of himself. Yet see, 
 When these so noble benefits shall prove 
 Not well disposed, the mind growing once corrupt, 
 They turn to vicious forms, ten times more ugly 
 Than ever they were fair. This man so complete, 
 Who was enroll'd 'mongst wonders, and when we, 
 Almost with ravish'd listening, could not find 
 His hour of speech a minute ; he, my lady. 
 Hath into monstrous habits put the graces 
 That once were his, and is become as black 
 As if besmear'd in hell. Sit by us ; you shall hear— 
 This was his gentleman in trust— of him, 
 Things to strike honour sad. Bid him recount 
 The fore-recited practices ; whereof 
 We cannot feel too little, hear too much. 
 
 Wol. Stand forth, and with bold spirit relate what you, 
 Most like a careful subject, have collected 
 Out of the Duke of Buckingham. 
 
 Kivir. speak freely. 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 77 
 
 Surv. First, it was usual with him, every day 
 It would infect his speech, that if the king 
 Should without issue die, he'll carry it so 
 To make the sceptre his : these very words 
 I've heard him utter to his son-in-law, 
 Lord Abergavenny ; to whom by oath he menaced 
 Revenge upon the cardinal. 
 
 tVol. Please your highness, note 
 
 This dangerous conception in this point. 
 Not friended by his wish to your high person 
 His will is most malignant ; and it stretches 
 Beyond you, to your friends. 
 
 Q. Kath. My learn'd lord cardinal, 
 
 Deliver all with charity., 
 
 Kiiig. Speak on : 
 
 How grounded he his title to the crown. 
 Upon our fail ? to this point hast thou heard him 
 At any -time speak aught ? 
 
 Surv. He was brought to this 
 
 By a vain prophecy of Nicholas Hopkins. 
 
 King. What was that Hopkins ? 
 
 BvTv. A Chartreux friar, 
 
 His confessor ; who fed him every minute 
 With words of sovereignty. 
 
 King. How know'st thou this ? 
 
 Surv. Not long before your highness sped to France, 
 The duke being at the Rose, within the parish 
 Saint Lawrence Poultney, did of me demand 
 What was the speech among the Londoners 
 Concerning the French journey : I replied. 
 Men fear'd the French would prove perfidious, 
 To the king's danger. Presently the duke 
 Said, 'twas the fear, indeed ; and that he doubted 
 'Twould prove the verity of certain words 
 Spoke by a holy monk ; ' that oft,' says he, 
 * Hath sent to me, wishing me to permit 
 John de la Car, my chaplain, a choice hour 
 To hear from him a matter of some moment : 
 Whom after under the confession's seal 
 He solemnly had sworn, that what he spoke 
 My chaplain to no creature living, but 
 To me, should utter, with demure confidence 
 This pausingly ensued : Neither the king nor 's heirs. 
 Tell you the duke, shall prosper : bid him strive 
 To gain the love o' the commonalty ; the duke 
 Shall govern England.' 
 
78 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 Q. Kath. If I know you well, 
 
 You were the duke's surveyor, and lost your oflBce 
 On the complaint o' the tenants : take good heed 
 You charge not in your spleen a noble person. 
 And spoil your nobler soul : I say, take heed ; 
 Yes, heartily beseech you. 
 
 Xing. Let him on. 
 
 Go forward. 
 
 Surv. On my soul, I'll speak but truth. 
 
 I told my lord the duke, by the devil's illusions 
 The monk might be deceived ; and that 'twas dangerous for him 
 To ruminate on this so far, until 
 It forged him some design, which, being believed, 
 It was much like to do : he answer'd, ' Tush, 
 It can do me no damage ' ; adding further. 
 That, had the king in his last sickness fail'd, 
 The cardinal's and Sir Thomas Lovell's heads 
 Should have gone off. 
 
 King. Ha ! what, so rank ? Ah hal 
 
 There's mischief in this man : canst thou say further ? 
 
 Surv. I can, my liege. 
 
 King. Proceed. 
 
 Burv. Being at Greenwich, 
 
 After your highness had reproved the duke 
 About Sir William Bulmer, — 
 
 King. I remember 
 
 Of such a time : being my sworn servant, 
 The duke retain'd him his. But on ; what hence ? 
 
 Sitrv. ' If,' quoth he, ' I for this had been committed, 
 As, to the Tower, I thought, I would have play'd 
 The part my father meant to act upon 
 The usurper Richard ; who, being at Salisbury, 
 Made suit to come in 's presence ; which if granted. 
 As he made semblance of his duty, would 
 Have put his knife into him.' 
 
 King. A giant traitor ! 
 
 Wol. Now, madam, may his highness live in freedom, 
 And this man out of prison ? 
 
 Q. Kath. God mend all I 
 
 King. There's something more would out of thee ; what 
 say'st ? 
 
 Surv. After ' the duke his father,' with ' the knife,' 
 He stretched him, and, with one hand on his dagger. 
 Another spread on 's breast, mounting his eyes, 
 He did discharge a horrible oath ; whose tenour 
 Was, — were he evil used, he would outgo 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 79 
 
 His father by as much as a performance 
 Does an irresohite purpose. 
 
 King. There's his period, 
 
 To sheath his knife in us. He is attach'd ; 
 Call him to present trial : if he may 
 Find mercy in the law, 'tis his ; if none, 
 Let him not seek 't of us : by day and night, 
 He's traitor to the height. [Exeunt. 
 
 Sci.Ni'; III. An ante-chamber in the palace. 
 
 Ejiier the LORD CHAMBERLAIN and LORD SANDS. 
 
 Cham. Is 't possible the spells of France should juggle 
 Men into such strange mysteries ? 
 
 Sands. New customs. 
 
 Though they be never so ridiculous, 
 Naj', let 'em be unmanly, yet are follow'd. 
 
 diam. As far as I see, all the good our English 
 Have got by the late voyage is but merely 
 A fit or two o' the face ; but they are shrewd ones ; 
 For when they hold 'em, you would swear directly 
 Their very noses had been counsellors 
 To Pepin or Clotharius, they keep state so. 
 
 Sands. They have all new legs, and lame ones : onie 
 would take it, 
 That never saw 'em pace before, the spavin 
 Or springhalt reigned among 'em. 
 
 Cham. Death I my lord. 
 
 Their clothes are after such a pagan cut too, 
 That, sure, they've worn out Christendom. 
 
 Enter Sir Thomas Lovell. 
 
 How now. 
 What news. Sir Thomas Lovell ? 
 
 Lov. Faith, my lord, 
 
 I hear of none, but the new proclamation 
 That's clapp'd upon the court gate. 
 
 Cham. What is 't for ? 
 
 Lov. The reformation of our travell'd gallants, 
 That fill the court with quarrels, talk, and tailors. 
 
 Cham. I'm glad 'tis there : now I would pray our 
 monsieurs 
 To think an English courtier may be wise 
 And never see the Louvre. 
 
8o THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 Lov. They must either, 
 
 For so run the conditions, leave those remnants 
 Of fool and feather that they got in France, 
 With all their honourable points of ignorance 
 Pertaining thereunto, as fights and fireworks, 
 Abusing better men than they can be, 
 Out of a foreign wisdom, renouncing clean 
 The faith they have in tennis, and tall stockings, 
 Short blister'd breeches, and those types of travel. 
 And understand again like honest men ; 
 Or back to their old playfellows : there, I take it. 
 They may, cum privilegio, wear away 
 The lag end of their lewdness and be laugh'd at. 
 
 Satids. 'Tis time to give 'em physic, their diseases 
 Are grown so catching. 
 
 Cham. What a loss our ladies 
 
 Will have of these trim vanities ! 
 
 Lov. Ay, marry, 
 
 A French song and a fiddle has no fellow. 
 
 Sands. The devil fiddle 'em ! I am glad they are going, 
 For, sure, there's no converting of 'em : now 
 An honest country lord, as I am, beaten 
 A long time out of play, may bring his plain-song 
 And have an hour of hearing ; and, by'r lad}', 
 Held current music too. 
 
 Cham. Sir Tiiomas, 
 
 Whither were you a-going? 
 
 Lov. To the cardinal's : 
 
 Your lordship is a guest too. 
 
 Cham. O, 'tis true : 
 
 This night he makes a supper, and a great one, 
 To many lords and ladies ; there will be 
 The beauty of the kingdom, I'll assure yon. 
 
 Lov. That churchman bears a bounteous mind indeed, 
 A hand as fruitful as the land that feeds us ; 
 His dews fall everywhere. 
 
 Cham. No doubt he's noble ; 
 
 He had a black mouth that said other of him. 
 
 Sands. He may, my lord ; has wherewithal : in him 
 Sparing would show a worse sin than ill doctrine : 
 Men of his way should be most liberal ; 
 They are set here for examples. 
 
 Cham. True, tlicy are so ; 
 
 But few now give so gre.it ones. My barge stays ; 
 Your lordship shall along. Come, good Sir Thomas, 
 We shall be late else ; which I would not be. 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 8 1 
 
 For I was spoke to, with Sir Henry Guildford 
 This night to be comptrollers. 
 
 Sands. I am your lordship's. 
 
 [Exeunf. 
 
 Scene IV. A Hall in York Place. 
 
 Hautboys. A small table under a state for the Cardinal, 
 a longer table for the guests. Then enter Anne 
 BuLLEN and divers other Ladies and Gentlemen as 
 Guests, at one door ; at another door, enter Sir Henry 
 Guildford. 
 
 Guild. Ladies, a general welcome from his grace 
 Salutes ye all ; this night he dedicates 
 To fair content and you : none here, he hopes, 
 In all this noble bevy, has brought with her 
 One care abroad ; he would have all as merry 
 As, first, good company, good wine, good welcome, 
 ■Can make good people. O, my lord, you're tardy : 
 
 Enter LORD Chamberlain, Lord Sands, and 
 Sir Thomas Lovell. 
 
 The very thought of this fair company 
 •Clapp'd wings to me. 
 
 Cham. You areyoung, Sir Harry Guildford. 
 
 Sands. Sir Thomas Lovell, had the cardinal 
 But half my lay thoughts in him, some of these 
 Should find a running banquet ere they 'rested, 
 I think would better please 'em : by my life. 
 They are a sweet society of fair ones. 
 
 Lov. O, that your lordship were but now confessor 
 To one or two of these ! 
 
 Sands. I would I were ; 
 
 They should find easy penance. 
 
 Cham. Sweet ladies, will it please you sit ? Sir Harry, 
 Place you that side ; I'll take the charge of this : 
 His grace is entering. Nay, you must not freeze ; 
 Two women placed together makes cold weather : 
 My Lord Sands, you are one will keep 'em waking ; 
 Pray, sit between the ladies. 
 
82 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 Sands. By my faith, 
 
 And thank your lordship. By your leave, sweet ladies : 
 If I chance to talk a little wild, forgive me ; 
 1 had it from my father. 
 
 Anne. Was he mad, sir ? 
 
 Sands. O, very mad, exceeding mad, in love too ; 
 But he would bite none ; just as I do now, 
 He would kiss you twenty with a breath. [Kisses her. 
 
 Cham. Well said, my lord. 
 
 So, now you're fairly seated. Gentlemen, 
 The penance lies on you, if these fair ladies 
 Pass away frowning. 
 
 Sands. For my little cure, 
 
 Let me alone. 
 
 Hmithoys. Enter CARDINAL WOLSEY, and takes his state, 
 
 Wol. You're welcome, my fair guests : that noble lady, 
 Or gentleman, that is not freely merry, 
 Is not my friend : this, to confirm my welcome ; 
 And to you all good health. [Drinhs. 
 
 Sands, Your grace is noble ; 
 
 Let me have such a bowl may hold my thanks, 
 And save me so much talking. 
 
 JVol. My Lord Sands, 
 
 I am beholding to you : cheer your neighbours. 
 Ladies, you are not merry : gentlemen, 
 Whose fault is this ? 
 
 Sands. The red wine first must rise 
 
 In their fair cheeks, my lord ; then we shall have 'em 
 Talk us to silence. 
 
 Anne. You are a merry gamester. 
 
 My Lord Sands. 
 
 Sands. Yes, if I make my play. 
 
 Here's to your ladyship : and pledge it, madam, 
 For 'tis to such a thing, — 
 
 Anne. You cannot show me. 
 
 Sands. I told your grace they would talk anon. 
 
 \_Drum and trumpet, chambers discharged,. 
 
 Wol. What's that ? 
 
 Cham. Look out there, some of ye. [Exit Servant. 
 
 Wol. What warlike voice. 
 
 And to what end, is this ? Nay, ladies, fear not ; 
 By all the laws of war you're privileged. 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. Sj 
 
 Re-enter Servant. 
 
 Cham. How now ! what is't ? 
 
 Sen. A noble troop of strangers ; 
 
 For so they seem : they've left their barge and landed ; 
 And hither make as great ambassadors 
 From foreign princes. 
 
 Wol. Good lord chamberlain, 
 
 Go, give 'em welcome ; you can speak the French tongue ; 
 And, pray, receive 'em nobly, and conduct 'em 
 Into our presence, where this heaven of beauty 
 Shall shine at full upon them. Some attend him. 
 
 [£xti Chamberlain, attended. All rise, and fables removed.^ 
 
 You have now a broken banquet ; but we'll mend it. 
 A good digestion to you all : and once more 
 I shower a welcome on ye ; welcome all. 
 
 [Hautboys. Enter the King and others, as masquers, 
 habited like shepherds, ushered by the Lord Chamber- 
 lain. They pass directly before the CARDINAL, anS 
 gracefully salute him. 
 
 A noble company ! what are their pleasures ? 
 
 Cham. Because they speak no English, thus they pray'd. 
 To tell your grace, that, having heard by fame 
 Of this so noble and so fair assembly 
 This night to meet here, they could do no less, 
 Out of the great respect they bear to beauty, 
 But leave their flocks ; and, under your fair conduct. 
 Crave leave to view these ladies and entreat 
 An hour of revels with 'em. 
 
 Wol. Say, lord chamberlain. 
 
 They have done my poor house grace ; for which 1 pay 'em 
 A thousand thanks, and pray 'em take their pleasures. 
 
 [They choose ladies for the dance. The king chooses Anne 
 Bullen. 
 
 King. The fairest hand I ever touch'd ! O beauty, 
 Till now I never knew thee ! [Music. Dance. 
 
 Wol. My lord ! 
 
 Ch.ir,:. Your grace ? 
 
 Wol. Pray, tell 'em thus much from me r 
 
 There should be one amongst 'em, by his person, 
 More worthy this place than myself ; to whom. 
 
§4 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 If I but knew him, with my love and duty 
 I would surrender it. 
 
 Cham. I will, my lord. 
 
 [ Whispers the Masquers. 
 
 Wol. What say they ? 
 
 Cham. Such a one, they all confess, 
 
 There is indeed ; which they would have your grace 
 Find out, and he will take it. 
 
 Wol. Let me see, then. 
 
 By all your good leaves, gentlemen ; here I'll make 
 My royal choice. 
 
 King, Ye have found him, cardinal : 
 
 [^C/nmasking, 
 You hold a fair assembly ; you do well, lord : 
 You are a churchman, or, I'll tell you, cardinal, 
 I should judge now unhappily. 
 
 Wol. I am glad 
 
 Your grace is grown so pleasant. 
 
 King. My lord chamberlain, 
 
 Prithee, come hither : what fair lady's that ? 
 
 Cham. An't please your grace, Sir Thomas Bullen's 
 daughter, — 
 The Viscount Rochford, — one of her highness' women. 
 
 King. By heaven, she is a dainty one. Sweetheart, 
 I were unmannerly, to take you out, 
 And not to kiss you. A health, gentlemen ! 
 Let it go round. 
 
 Wol. Sir Thomas Lovell, is the banquet ready 
 r the privy chamber ? 
 
 Lov. Yes, my lord. 
 
 Wol. Your grace, 
 
 I fear, with dancing is a little heated. 
 
 King. I fear, too much. 
 
 Wol. There's fresher air, my lord, 
 
 In the next chamber. 
 
 King. Lead in your ladies, every one : sweet partner, 
 I must not yet forsake you : let's be merry. 
 Good my lord cardinal : I have half a dozen healths 
 To drink to these fair ladies, and a measure 
 To lead 'em once again ; and then let's dream 
 "Who's best in favour. Let the music knock it. 
 
 yjExeunt ztitih trumpets. 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 85 
 
 ACT II. 
 
 Scene I. Westminster. A street. 
 Enter two Gentlemen, meetijjg. 
 
 First Gent. Whither away so fast ? 
 
 Sec. Gent. O, God save ye ! 
 
 Even to the hall, to hear -what shall become 
 Of the great Duke of Buckingham. 
 
 First Gent. I'll save you 
 
 That labour, sir. All's now done, but the ceremony 
 Of bringing back the prisoner. 
 
 Sec. Gent. Were you there ? 
 
 First Gent. Yes, indeed, was I. 
 
 Sec. Gent. Pray, speak what has happen'd. 
 
 First Gent. You may guess quickly what. 
 
 Sec. Gent. Is he found guilty ? 
 
 First Gent. Yes, truly is he, and condemn'd upon 't. 
 
 Sec. Gent. I am sorry for 't. 
 
 First Gent. So are a number more. 
 
 Sec. Gent. But, pray, how[^pass'd it ? 
 
 First Gent. I'll tell you in a little. The great duke 
 •Came to the bar ; where to his accusations 
 He pleaded still not guilty, and alleged 
 Many sharp reasons to defeat the law. 
 The king's attorney on the contrary 
 Urged on the examinations, proofs, confessions 
 -Of divers witnesses ; which tlie duke desired 
 To have brought vivd voce to his face : 
 At which appear'd against him his surveyor ; 
 -Sir Gilbert Peck his chancellor ; and John Car, 
 Confessor to him ; with that devil-monk, 
 Hopkins, that made this mischief. 
 
 Sec. Gent. That was he 
 
 'That fed him with his prophecies? 
 
 First Gent. " The same._ 
 
 All these accused him strongly ; which he fain 
 Would have flung from him, but, indeed, he could not : 
 And so his peers, upon this evidence, 
 Have found him guilty of high treason. Much 
 He spoke, and learnedly, for life ; but all 
 'Was either pitied in him or forgotten. 
 
 Sec. Gent. After all this, how did he bear himself? 
 
86 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 First Gent. When he was brought again to the bar 
 to hear 
 His knell rung out, his judgment, he was stirr'd 
 With such an agony, he sweat extremely, 
 And something spoke in clioler, ill, and hasty ; 
 But he fell to himself again, and sweetly 
 In all the rest show'd a most noble patience. 
 
 Sec. Gent. I do not think he fears death. 
 
 First Gent. Sure, he does not ; 
 
 He never was so womanish ; the cause 
 He may a little grieve at. 
 
 Sec. Gent, Certainly 
 
 The cardinal is the end of this. 
 
 First Gent. 'Tis likely, 
 
 By all conjectures : first, Kildare's attainder, 
 Then deputy of Ireland ; who removed, 
 Earl Surrey was sent thither, and in haste too, 
 Lest he should help his father. 
 
 Sec. Gen. That trick of state 
 
 Was a deep envious one. 
 
 First Gent. At his return 
 
 No doubt he will requite it. This is noted, 
 And generally, whoever the king favours, 
 The cardinal instantly will find employment, 
 And far enough from court too. 
 
 Sec. Gent. All the commons 
 
 Hate him perniciously, and, o' my conscience. 
 Wish him ten fathom deep ; this duke as much 
 They love and dote on ; call him bounteous Buckingham, 
 The mirror of all courtesy. 
 
 First Gent. Stay there, sir, 
 
 And see the noble ruin'd man you speak of. 
 
 Enter Buckingham from his arraignment ; tip-staves 
 before him; the axe with the edge towards him) 
 halberds on each side : accompanied with Sir Thomas 
 LovELL, Sir Nicholas Vaux, Sir William 
 Sands, and common people. 
 
 Sec. Gent. Let's stand close, and behold him. 
 
 Buch. All good people,. 
 
 You that thus far have come to pity me. 
 Hear what I say, and then go home and lose me. 
 I have this day received a traitor's judgment, 
 And by that name must die : yet, heaven bear witness,. 
 And if I have a conscience, let it sink me, 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 87 
 
 • 
 
 Even as the axe falls, if I be not faithful I 
 
 The law I bear no malice for my death ; 
 
 'T has done, upon the premises, but justice : 
 
 But those that sought it I could wish more christians : 
 
 Be what they will, I heartily forgive 'em. 
 
 Yet let 'em look they glory not in mischief. 
 
 Nor build their evils on the graves of great men ; 
 
 For then my guiltless blood must cry against 'em. 
 
 For further life in this world I ne'er hope, 
 
 Nor will I sue, although the king have mercies 
 
 More than I dare make faults. You few that loved me, 
 
 And dare be bold to weep for Buckingham, 
 
 His noble friends and fellows, whom to leave 
 
 Is only bitter to him, only dying. 
 
 Go with me, like good angels, to my end ; 
 
 And as the long divorce of steel falls on me, 
 
 Make of your prayers one sweet sacrifice. 
 
 And lift my soul to heaven. Lead on, o' God's name. 
 
 Lov. I do beseech your grace, for charity, 
 If ever any malice in your heart , 
 
 Were hid against me, now to forgive me frankly. 
 
 Buck. Sir Thomas Lovell, I as free forgive you 
 As I would be forgiven : I forgive all ; 
 There cannot be those numberless offences 
 'Gainst me, that I cannot take peace with : no black envy 
 Shall mark my grave. Commend me to his grace ; 
 And, if he speak of Buckingham, pray, tell him 
 You met him half in heaven : my vows and prayers 
 Yet are the king's ; and, till my soul forsake, 
 Shall cry for blessings on him : may he live 
 Longer than I have time to tell his years I 
 Ever beloved and loving may his rule be ! 
 And when old time shall lead him to his end, 
 Goodness and he fiU up one monument ! ; 
 
 Lov. To the water side I must conduct your grace; 
 Then give my charge up to Sir Nicholas Vaux, 
 Who undertakes you to your end. 
 
 Vaux. Prepare there. 
 
 The duke is coming : see the barge be ready ; 
 And fit it with such furniture as suits 
 The greatness of his person. 
 
 Buck. Nay, Sir Nicholas, 
 
 Let it alone ;' my state now will but mock me. 
 When I came hither, I was lord high constable 
 And Duke of Buckingham ; now, poor Edward Bohun : 
 Yet I am richer than my base accusers, 
 That never knew what truth meant : I now seal it ; 
 And with that blood will make 'em one day groan for 't ; 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 My noble father, Henr}' of Buckingham, 
 
 Who first raised head against usurping Richard, 
 
 Flying for succour to his servant Banister, 
 
 Being distress'd, was by that wretch betray'd, 
 
 And without trial fell ; God's peace be with him 1 
 
 Henry the Seventh succeeding, truly pitying 
 
 My father's loss, like a most royal prince. 
 
 Restored me to my honours, and out of ruins. 
 
 Made my name once more noble. Now his son, 
 
 Henry the Eighth, life, honour, name, and all 
 
 That made me happy, at one stroke has taken 
 
 For ever from the world. I had my trial, 
 
 And, must needs say, a noble one ; which makes me 
 
 A little happier than my wretched father : 
 
 Yet thus far we are one in fortunes : both 
 
 Fell by our servants, by those men we loved most, 
 
 A most unnatural and faithless service ! 
 
 Heaven has an end in all : yet, you that hear me, 
 
 This from a dying man receive as certain : 
 
 Where you are liberal of your loves and counsels 
 
 Be sure you be not loose ; for those you make friends 
 
 And give your hearts to, when they once perceive 
 
 The least rub in your fortunes, fall away 
 
 Like water from ye, never found again 
 
 But where they mean to sink ye. All good people, 
 
 Pray for me ! I must now forsake ye : the last hour 
 
 Of my long weary life is come upon me. 
 
 Farewell : 
 
 And when you would say something that is sad, 
 
 Speak how I fell. I have done ; and God forgive me ! 
 
 \Exeunt Duke and Train. 
 
 First Gent. O, this is full of pity I Sir, it calls, 
 I fear, too many curses on their heads 
 That were the authors. 
 
 Sec. Gent. If the duke be guiltless, 
 
 'Tis full of woe : yet I can give you inkling 
 Of an ensuing evil, if it fall. 
 Greater than this. 
 
 First Gent. Good angels keep it from us 1 
 What may it be ? You do not doubt my faith, sir ? 
 
 Sec. Gent. This secret is so weighty, 'twill require 
 A strong faith to conceal it. 
 
 First Gent. Let me have it ; 
 
 I do not talk much. 
 
 Sec. Gent. I am confident ; 
 
 You shall, sir : did you not of late days hear 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 89 
 
 A buzzing of a separation 
 Between the king and Katharine ? 
 
 First Ge?i1. Yes, but it held not : 
 
 For when the king once heard it, out of anger 
 He sent command to the lord mayor straight 
 To stop the rumour, and allay those tongues 
 That durst disperse it. 
 
 Stc. Gent. But that slander, sir, 
 
 Is found a truth now : for it grows again 
 Fresher than e'er it was ; and held for certain 
 The king will venture at it. Either the cardinal, 
 Or some about him near, have, out of malice 
 To the good queen, possess'd him with a scruple 
 That will undo her : to confirm this too, 
 Cardinal Campeius is arrived, and lately ; 
 As all think, for this business. 
 
 First Gent. 'Tis the cardinal ; 
 
 And merely to revenge him on the emperor 
 For not bestowing on him, at his asking, 
 The archbishopric of Toledo, this is purposed. 
 
 Sec. Gent. I think you have hit the mark : but is 't not 
 cruel 
 That she should feel the smart of this ? The cardinal 
 Will have his will, and she must fall. 
 
 First Gent. 'Tis woful. 
 
 We are too open here to argue this ; 
 Let's think in private more. [Exeunt. 
 
 Scene II. An ante-chamber in the palace. 
 
 Enter the Lord Chamberlain, reading a letter. 
 
 Cham. " My lord, the horses your lordship sent for, with 
 all the care I had, I saw well chosen, ridden, and furnished. 
 They were young and handsome, and of the best breed in the- 
 north. When they were ready to set out for London, a man 
 of my lord cardinal's, by commission and main power, took 
 'em from me ; with this reason : His master would be served 
 before a subject, if not before the king ; which stopped our 
 mouths, sir." 
 
 I fear he will indeed : well, let him have them : 
 He will have all, I think. 
 
 Enter, to the Lord Chamberlain, the Dukes of 
 Norfolk and Suffolk. 
 
90 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 Nor. Well met, my lord chamberlain. 
 
 Cham. Good day to both your graces. 
 
 S%j. How is the king employ'd ? 
 
 Cham. I left him private, 
 
 Full of sad thoughts and troubles. 
 
 Nor. What's the cause ? 
 
 Cham. It seems the marriage with his brother's wife 
 Has crept too near his conscience. 
 
 Suf. No, his conscience 
 
 Has crept too near another lady. 
 
 Nor. 'Tis so : 
 
 This is the cardinal's doing, the king-cardinal : 
 That blind priest, like the eldest son of fortune. 
 Turns what he list. The king will know him one day. 
 
 Suj. Pray God he do ! he'll never know himself else. 
 
 "Sor. How holily he works in all his business ! 
 And with what zeal ! for, now he has crack'd the league 
 Between us and the emperor, the queen's great nephew, 
 He dives into the king's sou), and there scatters 
 Dangers, doubts, wringing of the conscience. 
 Fears, and despairs ; and all these for his marriage ; 
 And out of all these to restore the king, 
 He counsels a divorce ; a loss of her 
 That, like a jewel, has hung twenty years 
 About his neck, yet never lost her lustre ; 
 Of her that loves him with that excellence 
 That angels love good men with ; even of her 
 That, when the greatest stroke of fortune falls. 
 Will bless the king : and is not this course pious ? 
 
 Cham. Heaven keep me from such counsel ! 'Tis most 
 true 
 These news are everywhere ; every tongue speaks 'em, 
 And every true heart weeps for 't : all that dare 
 Look into these affairs see this main end. 
 The French king's sister. Heaven will one day open 
 The king's eyes, that so long have slept upon 
 This bold bad man. 
 
 Smj. And free us from his slavery. 
 
 l^or. We had need pray. 
 And heartily, for our deliverance ; 
 Or this imperious man will work us all 
 From princes into pages : all m.en's honours 
 Lie like one lump before him, to be fashion'd 
 Into what pitch he please. 
 
 Suf. For me, my lords, 
 
 I love him not, nor fear him ; there's my creed : 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 91 
 
 • 
 As I am made without him, so I'll stand, 
 If the king please ; his curses and his blessings 
 Touch me alike, they're breath I not believe in. 
 I knew him, and 1 know him ; so I leave him 
 To him that made him proud, the pope. 
 
 Nor. Let's in ; 
 
 And with some other business put the king 
 From these sad thoughts, that work too much upon him : 
 My lord, you'll bear us company. 
 
 Cham. Excuse me ; 
 
 The king has sent me otherwhere : besides, 
 You'll find a most unfit time to disturb him : 
 Health to your lordships. 
 
 Nor. Thanks, my good lord chamberlain. 
 
 \Exii Lord Chamberlain ; and the King draws the cur- 
 tain, and sits reading pe?isively. 
 
 Suf. How sad he looks ! sure, he is much afflicted. 
 
 King. Who's there, ha ? 
 
 Nor. Pray God he be rot angry. 
 
 King. Who's there, I say ? How dare you thrust your- 
 selves 
 Into my private meditations ? 
 Who am I ? ha ? • 
 
 Nor. A gracious king that pardons all offences 
 Malice ne'er meant : our breach of duty this way 
 Is business of estate ; in which we come 
 To know your royal pleasure. 
 
 Xing. Ye are too bold : 
 
 Go to ; I'll make ye know your times of business : 
 Is this an hour for temporal affairs, ha ? 
 
 Enter Wolsey a.nd Campeius, "with a commission. 
 
 Who's there ? my good lord cardinal ? O my Wolsey, 
 
 The quiet of my wounded conscience ; 
 
 Thou art a cure fit for a king. \To Camp.l You're welcome, 
 
 Most learned reverend sir, into our kingdom : 
 
 Use us and it. [To IVol.] My good lord, have great care 
 
 I be not found a talker. 
 
 Wol. Sir, you cannot. 
 
 I -would your grace would give us but an hour 
 Of private conference. 
 
 King. [To Nor. and Suf.] We are busy ; go. 
 
 Nor. [Aside to Suf.] This priest has no pride in him. 
 
92 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 Suf. {Aside to Nor. 1 Not to speak of : 
 
 I would not be so sick though, for his place : 
 But this cannot continue. 
 
 Nor. [Aside to Suf.] If it do, 
 I'll venture one have-at-him. 
 
 Suf. [Aside to NorP[ I another. 
 
 [Exeunt Norfolk and Suffolk. 
 
 Wol. Your grace has given a precedent of wisdom 
 Above all princes, in committing freely 
 Your scruple to the voice of Christendom-: 
 Who can be angry now ? what envy reach you ? 
 The Spaniard, tied by blood and favour to her, 
 Must now confess, if they have any goodness, 
 The trial just and noble. All the clerks, 
 I mean the learned ones, in Christian kingdoms 
 Have their free voices : Rome, the nurse of judgment, 
 Invited by your noble self, hath sent 
 One general tongue unto us, this good man. 
 This just and learned priest, Cardinal Campeius ; 
 Whom once more I present unto your highness. 
 
 King. And once more in mine arms I bid him welcome, 
 And thank the holy conclave for their loves : 
 They have sent me such a man I would have wish'd for. 
 
 Cam. Your grace must needs deserve all strangers' loves, 
 You are so noble. To your highness' hand 
 I tender my commission ; by whose virtue, 
 The court of Rome commanding, you, my lord 
 Cardinal of York, are join'd v/ith me their servant 
 In the unpartial judging of this business. 
 
 King. Two equal men. The queen shall be acquainted 
 Forthwith for what you come. Where's Gardiner ? 
 
 Wol. I know your majesty has always loved her 
 So dear in heart, not to deny her that 
 A woman of less place might ask by law : 
 Scholars allow'd freely to argue for her. 
 
 King. Ay, and the best she shall have ; and my favour 
 To him that does best : God forbid else. Cardinal, 
 Prithee, call Gardiner to me, my new secretary : 
 I find him a fit fellow. [Exit Wolsey. 
 
 Re-enter Wolsey, iviih Gardiner. 
 
 Wol. [Aside to Card.] Give me your hand : much joy 
 and favour to you ; 
 You are the king's now. 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 93 
 
 Gard. [Aside to Wol.] But to be commanded 
 For ever by your grace, whose hand has raised me. 
 
 J^ing. Come hither, Gardiner. [ Walks and whispers. 
 
 Cam. My Lord of York, was not one Doctor Pace 
 In this man's place before him ? 
 
 Wol. Yes, he was. 
 
 Cam. Was he not held a learned man ? 
 
 Wol. Yes, surely.- 
 
 Cam. Believe me, there's an ill opinion spread then 
 even of yourself, lord cardinal, 
 
 Wol. How ! of me ? 
 
 Cam. They will not stick to say you envied him, 
 And fearing he would rise, he was so virtuous. 
 Kept him a foreign man still ; which so grieved him. 
 That he ran mad and died. 
 
 Wol. Heaven's peace be with him ! 
 
 That's Christian care enough : for living murmurers 
 There's places of rebuke. He was a fool ; 
 For he would needs be virtuous : that good fellow. 
 If I command him, follows my appointment : 
 I will have none so near else. Learn this, brother, 
 We live not to be griped by meaner persons. 
 
 King. Deliver this with modesty to the queen. 
 
 \Exit Gardiner. 
 
 The most convenient place that I can think of 
 
 For such receipt of learning is Blackfriars ; 
 
 There ye shall meet about this weighty business. 
 
 My Wolsey, see it furnish'd. O, my lord, 
 
 Would it not grieve an able man to leave 
 
 So sweet a bedfellow ? But, conscience, conscience ! 
 
 O, 'tis a tender place ; and I must leave her. \Exeunt. 
 
 Scene III. An ante-chamber of the Queen's 
 apartments. 
 
 Enter Anne Bullen and an Old Lady. 
 
 Anne. Not for that neither : here's the pang that pinches : 
 His highness having lived so long with her, and she 
 So good a lady that no tongue could ever 
 Pronounce dishonour of her ; by my life. 
 She never knew harm-doing : O, now, after 
 So many courses of the sun enthroned, 
 Still growing in a majesty and pomp, the which 
 To leave a thousand-fold more bitter than 
 
94 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 'Tis sweet at first to acquire, — after this process, 
 To give her the avaunt ! it is a pity 
 Would move a monster. 
 
 Old L. Hearts of most hard temper 
 
 Melt and lament for her. 
 
 Anne. O, God's will ! much better 
 
 She ne'er had known pomp : though 't be temporal, 
 Yet, if that quarrel, fortune, do divorce 
 It from the bearer, 'tis a sufferance panging 
 As soul and body's severing. 
 
 Old L. Alas, poor lady ! 
 
 She's a stranger now again. 
 
 Amte. So much the more 
 
 Must pity drop upon her. Verily, 
 I swear, 'tis better to be lowly born, 
 And range with humble livers in content. 
 Than to be perk'd up in a glistering grief, 
 And wear a golden sorrow. 
 
 Old L. Our content 
 
 Is our best having. 
 
 Anne. By my troth, 
 
 I would not be a queen. 
 
 Old L. Beshrew me, I would, 
 
 And so would you. 
 For all this spice of your hypocrisy : 
 You, that have so fair parts of woman on you, 
 Have too a woman's heart ; which ever yet 
 Affected eminence, wealth, sovereignty ; 
 Which, to say sooth, are blessings ; and which gifts. 
 Saving your mincing, the capacity 
 Of your soft cheveril conscience would receive. 
 If you might please to stretch it. 
 
 Anne. Nay, good troth. 
 
 Old L. Yes, troth, and troth ; you would not be a queen ? 
 
 Anne. No, not for all the riches under heaven. 
 
 Old L. 'Tis strange : a three-pence bow'd would hire me, 
 Old as I am, to queen it : but, I pray you, 
 What think you of a duchess ? have you limbs 
 To bear that load of title ? 
 
 Anne. No, in truth. 
 
 I swear again, I would not be a queen 
 For all the world. 
 
 Old L. In faith, for little England 
 You 'Id venture an emballing : I myself 
 Would for Carnarvonshire, although there 'long'd 
 No more to the crown but that. Lo, who comes here ? 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 95 
 
 Enter the Lord Chamberlain. 
 
 Ckam. Good morrow, ladies. What were 'i: worth to know 
 The secret of your conference? 
 
 Anne. My good lord, 
 
 Not your demand ; it values not your asking : 
 Our mistress' sorrows we were pitying. 
 
 Cham. It was a gentle business, and becoming 
 The action of good women ; there is hope 
 All will be well. 
 
 Anne. Now, I pray God, amen 1 
 
 Cham. You bear a gentle mind, and heavenly blessings 
 Follow such creatures. That you may, fair lady. 
 Perceive I speak sincerely, and high note's 
 Ta'en of your many virtues, the king's majesty 
 Commends his good opinion of you, and 
 Does purpose honour to you no less flowing 
 Than Marchioness of Pembroke ; to which title 
 A thousand pound a year, annual support, 
 Out of his grace he adds. 
 
 Anne. 1 do not know 
 
 What kind of my obedience I should tender ; 
 More than my all is nothing : nor my prayers 
 Are not words duly hallowed, nor my wishes 
 More worth than empty vanities ; yet praj'ers and wishes 
 Are all I can return. Beseech your lordship. 
 Vouchsafe to speak my thanks and my obedience, 
 As from a blushing handmaid, to his highness ; 
 Whose health and royalty I pray for. 
 
 Cham. Lady, 
 
 I shall not fail to approve the fair conceit 
 The king hath of you. [Aside] I have perused her well : 
 Beauty and honour in her are so mingled 
 That they have caught the king : and who knows yet 
 But from this lady may proceed a gem 
 To lighten all this isle ? I'll to the king. 
 And say I spoke with you. [Exit Lord Chamberlain. 
 
 Anne. My honour'd lord. 
 
 Old L. Why this it is ; see ! see ! 
 I have been begging sixteen years in court, 
 (Am yet a courtier beggarly) nor could 
 Come pat betwixt too early and too late, 
 For any suit of pounds : and you (O fate !) 
 A very fresh-fish here, (fye, fye upon 
 This compell'd fortune 1) have your mouth fill'd up. 
 Before you open it. 
 
 Anne. This is strange to me. 
 
96 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 Old L, How tastes it ? is it bitter ? forty pence, no. 
 There was a lady once, ('tis an old story) 
 That would not be a queen, that would she not, 
 For all the mud in Egypt : — Have you heard it ? 
 
 Anne. Come, you are pleasant. 
 
 Old L. With your theme, I could 
 
 O'ermount the lark. The Marchioness of Pembroke ! 
 A thousand pounds a year 1 for pure respect ; 
 No other obligation : By my life, 
 That promises more thousands : Honour's train 
 Is longer than his foreskirt. By this time, 
 I know, your back will bear a duchess ; — Say, 
 Are you not stronger than you were ? 
 
 Anne. Good lady, 
 
 Make yourself mirth with your particular fancy. 
 And leave me out on't. 'Would I had no being, 
 If this salute my blood a jot ; it faints me. 
 To think what follows. 
 The queen is comfortless, and we forgetful 
 In our long absence : Pray, do not deliver 
 What here you've heard, to her. 
 
 Old L . What do you think me ? 
 
 \Exeunt. 
 
 Scene IV. — A Hall in Blackfriars. 
 
 Trumpets, sennet, and cornets. Enter two Vergers, with 
 short silver wands ; next them, two Scribes, in the habits 
 of Doctors ; after them, the Archbishop (t/" CANTERBURY 
 alone; after him, the Bishops of LINCOLN, Ely, 
 Rochester, and Saint Asaph : next them, with 
 tome small distatice, follmvs a Gentleman bearing the 
 Purse, with the great Seal, and a Cardinal's Hat : then 
 iwo Priests, bearing each a silver cross; then a Gentleman- 
 Usher bareheaded, accompanied with a Sergeant-at-Arms, 
 bearing a Silver Mace; then two Gentlemen bearing two 
 ^reat Silver Pillars : after them, side by side, the two 
 Cardinals Wolsey and Campeius. Two Noblemen 
 with the Sword and Mace. Then enter the King and 
 Queen, ajid their Trains. The King takes place under 
 the Cloth of State ; the two Cardinals sit tinder him as 
 Judges. The Queen takes place at sojne distance from 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 97 
 
 the King. The Bishops place themselves o?i each side the 
 Court, iti manner of a Consistory; below them, the Scribes, 
 The Lords sit next the Bishops. The Crier and the rest 
 of the Attendants stand in convenient order about the Stage. 
 
 Wol. Whilst our Commission from Rome is read, 
 Let silence be commanded. 
 
 K. Hen. What 's the need ? 
 
 It hath already publicly been read, 
 And on all sides the authority allowed ; 
 You may then spare that time. 
 
 Wol. Be 't so.— Proceed. 
 
 Scribe. Say, Henry King of England, come into the court. 
 
 Crier. Henry King of England, &c. 
 
 K. Hen. Here. 
 
 Scribe.. Say, Katharine Queen of England, come into 
 court. 
 
 Crier. Katharine Queen of England, &c. 
 
 [The Queen viakes no answer, rises out of her chair, 
 goes about the court, comes to the KiNG, and kneels 
 at his feet; then speaks. 
 
 Q. Kath. Sir, I desire you do me right and justice, 
 And to bestow your pity on me ; for 
 I am a most poor woman, and a stranger, 
 Born out of your dominions ; having here 
 No judge indifferent, nor no more assurance 
 Of equal friendship and proceeding. Alas, sir. 
 In what have I offended you ? what cause 
 Hath my behaviour given to your displeasure. 
 That thus you should proceed to put me off, 
 And take your good grace from me ? Heaven witness, 
 I have been to you a true and humble wife, 
 At all times to your will conformable : 
 Ever in fear to kindle your dislike. 
 Yea, subject to your countenance, glad, or sorry, 
 As I saw it inclined. When was the hour 
 I ever contradicted your desire, 
 Or made it not mine too ? Or which of your friends 
 Have I not strove to love, although I knew 
 He were mine enemy ? What friend of mine, 
 That had to him derived your anger, did I 
 Continue in my liking ? nay, gave notice- 
 He was from thence discharged. Sir, call to mind 
 That I have been your wife, in this obedience, 
 
98 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 Upward of twenty years, and have been blest 
 
 With many children by you. If, in the course 
 
 And process of this time, you can report, 
 
 And prove it too, against mine honour aught, 
 
 My bond to wedlock, or my love and duty 
 
 Against your sacred person, in God's name 
 
 Turn me away ; and let the foul'st contempt 
 
 Shut door upon me, and so give me up 
 
 To the sharpest kind of justice. Please you, sir, 
 
 The king, your father, was reputed for 
 
 A prince most prudent, of an excellent 
 
 And unmatched wit and judgment : Ferdinand, 
 
 My father, King of Spain, was reckoned one 
 
 The wisest prince that there had reigned by many 
 
 A year before ; it is not to be questioned 
 
 That they had gathered a wise council to them 
 
 Of every realm, that did debate this business, 
 
 Who deemed our marriage lawful. Wherefore I humbly 
 
 Beseech you, sir, to spare me, till I may 
 
 Be by my friends in Spain advised, whose counsel 
 
 I will implore. If not, i' the name of God, 
 
 Your pleasure be fulfilled. 
 
 Wol. You have here, lady, — 
 
 And of your choice — these reverend fathers ; men 
 Of singular integrity and learning, 
 Yea, the elect of the land, who are assembled 
 To plead your cause. It shall be therefore bootless, 
 That longer you desire the Court, as well 
 For your own quiet, as to rectify 
 What is unsettled in the King. 
 
 Cam. His grace 
 
 Hath spoken well, and justly : therefore, madam, 
 It's fit this Royal Session do proceed, 
 And that, without delay, their arguments 
 Be now produced and heard. 
 
 Q. Kath. Lord Cardinal, 
 
 To you I speak. 
 
 Wol. Your pleasure, madam ? 
 
 Q. Kaih. Sir, 
 
 I am about to weep ; but, thinking that 
 We are a Queen (or long have dreamed so), certain, 
 The daughter of a King, my drops of tears 
 I'll turn to sparks of fire. 
 
 Wol. Be patient yet. 
 
 Q. Kaih. I will, when you are humble ; nay, before^ 
 
 Or God will punish me. I do believe. 
 Induced by potent circumstances, that 
 You are mine enemy ; and make my challenge. 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 99. 
 
 You shall not be my judge. For it is you 
 
 Have blown this coal betwixt my lord and me, 
 
 Which God's dew quench. — Therefore, I say again, 
 
 I utterly abhor, yea, from my soul, 
 
 Refuse you for my judge, whom, yet once more, 
 
 I hold my most malicious foe, and think not 
 
 At all a friend to truth. 
 
 Wol. I do profess 
 
 You speak not like yourself ; who ever yet 
 Have stood to charity, and displayed the effects 
 Of disposition gentle, and of wisdom 
 O'ertopping woman's power. Madam, you do me wrong. 
 I have no spleen against you ; nor injustice 
 For you, or any : how far I have proceeded, 
 Or how far further shall, is warranted 
 By a Commission from the Consistory, 
 Yea, the whole Consistory of Rome. You charge me, 
 That I have blown this coal : I do deny it. 
 The King is present : if it be known to him, 
 That I gainsay my deed, how may he wound, 
 And worthily, my falsehood ; yea, as much 
 As you have done my truth. But if he know 
 That I am free of your report, he knows 
 I am not of your wrong. Therefore in him 
 It lies to cure me ; and the cure is, to 
 Remove these thoughts from you : the which before 
 His highness shall speak in, I do beseech 
 You, gracious madam, to unthink your speaking, 
 And to say so no more. 
 
 Q. Kaih. My lord, my lord, 
 
 I am a simple woman, much too weak 
 To oppose your cunning. You are meek, and humble- 
 mouthed ; 
 You sign your place and calling, in full seeming, 
 With meekness and humility; but your heart 
 Is crammed with arrogancy, spleen, and pride. 
 You have, by fortune and his highness' favours. 
 Gone slightly o'er low steps, and now are mounted 
 Where powers are your retainers ; and your words. 
 Domestics to you, serve your will, as 't please, 
 Yourself pronounce their office. I must tell you, 
 You tender more your person's honour than 
 Your high profession spiritual : that again 
 I do refuse you for my judge, and here, 
 Before you all, appeal unto the Pope, 
 To bring my whole cause 'fore his Holiness, 
 And to be judged by him. 
 
 [She curtsies to the King, and offers to departs 
 
100 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 Cam. The Queen is obstinate, 
 
 Stubborn to justice, apt to accuse it, and 
 Disdainful to be tried by 't : 't is not well. 
 She's going away. 
 
 K. Hen. Call her again. 
 
 Crier. Katharine Queen of England, come into the court. 
 
 Griffith. Madam, you are called back. 
 
 Q. Katli. What need you note it? pray you keep your way: 
 When you are called, return. — Now the Lord help, 
 They vex me past my patience ! Pray you pass on : 
 I will not tarry ; no, nor evermore 
 Upon this business my appearance make 
 In any of their courts. 
 
 [Exeunt Queen, Griffith, and her other Attendants. 
 
 K. Hen. Go thy ways, Kate : 
 
 That man i' the world who shall report he has 
 A better wife, let him in naught be trusted 
 For speaking false in that. Thou art, alone. 
 If thy rare qualities, sweet gentleness, 
 (Thy meekness saint-like, wife-like government. 
 Obeying in commanding, and thy parts 
 Sovereign and pious else, could speak thee out) 
 The queen of earthly queens. She's noble born ; 
 And like her true nobility she has 
 Carried herself towards me. 
 
 Wol. Most gracious sir, 
 
 In humblest manner I require j'our highness. 
 That it shall please you to declare, in hearing 
 Of all these ears, — for where I am robbed and bound, 
 There must I be unloosed, although not there 
 At once and fully satisfied, — whether ever I 
 Did broach this business to your highness, or 
 Laid any scruple in your way, which might 
 Induce you to. the question on't ? or ever 
 Have to you, but with thanks to God for such 
 A royal lady, spake one the least word, might 
 Be to the prejudice of her present state. 
 Or touch of her good person ? 
 
 K. Hen. My Lord Cardinal, 
 
 I do excuse you ; yea, upon mine honour, 
 I free you from 't. You are not to be taught 
 That you have many enemies, that know not 
 Why they are so, but, like to village curs. 
 Bark when their fellows do ; by some of these 
 The queen is put in anger. You are excused : 
 But will you be more justified ? you ever 
 Have wished the sleeping of this business ; never 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. lOI 
 
 Desired it to be stirred ; but oft have hindered, oft, 
 The passages made toward it. — On my honour, 
 I speak, my good Lord Cardinal, to this point. 
 And thus far clear him. Now, what moved me to't : 
 I will be bold with time, and your attention : — 
 " Then, mark the inducement. Thus it came ; — give heed to't. 
 My conscience first received a tenderness, 
 Scruple, and prick, on certain speeches utter'd 
 By the Bishop of Bayonne, then French ambassador, 
 Who had been hither sent on the debating 
 A marriage 'twixt the Duke of Orleans and 
 Our daughter Mary. I' the progress of this business. 
 Ere a determinate resolution, he — 
 I mean, the bishop — did require a respite, 
 Wherein he might the king his lord advertise 
 Whether our daughter were legitimate. 
 Respecting this our marriage with the dowager, 
 Sometimes our brother's wife. This respite shook 
 The bosom of my conscience, enter'd me. 
 Yea, with a splitting power, and made to tremble 
 The region of my breast ; which forced such way, 
 That many mazed considerings did throng. 
 
 And press'd in with this caution. First, methought, 
 
 I stood not in the smile of heaven, who had 
 
 Commanded nature, that my lady's womb. 
 
 If it conceived a male child by me, should 
 
 Do no more offices of life to 't than 
 
 The grave does to the dead, for her male issue 
 
 Or died where they were made, or shortly after 
 
 This world had aired them. Hence I took a thought 
 
 This was a judgment on me, that my kingdom. 
 
 Well worthy the best heir o' the world, should not 
 
 Be gladded in't by me. Then follows, that 
 
 I weighed the danger which my realms stood in 
 
 By this my issue's fail ; and that gave to me 
 
 Many a groaning throe. Thus hulling in 
 
 The wild sea of my conscience, I did steer 
 
 Toward this remedy whereupon we are 
 
 Now present here together ; that's to say, 
 
 I meant to rectify my conscience, — which 
 
 I then did feel full sick, and yet not well, — 
 
 By all the reverend fathers of the land, 
 And doctors learn'd. First, I began in private 
 With you, my lord of Lincoln ; you remember 
 How under my oppression I did reek, 
 When I first moved you. 
 
 Lin. Very well, my liege. 
 
 K. Hen. I have spoke long ; be pleased yourself to say 
 How far you satisfied me. 
 
102 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 Lin. So please your highness^ 
 
 The question did at first so stagger me, — 
 Bearing a state of mighty moment in't, 
 And consequence of dread, — that I committed 
 The daring'st counsel which I had, to doubt, 
 And did entreat your highness to this course, 
 Which you are running here. 
 
 K. Hen. I then moved you, 
 
 My lord of Canterbury, and got your leave 
 To make this present summons. — Unsolicited 
 I left no reverend person in this court ; 
 But by particular consent proceeded, 
 Under your hands and seals : therefore, go on ; 
 For no dislike i' the world against the person 
 Of the good queen, but the sharp thorny points 
 Of mj' alleged reasons drive this forward. 
 Prove but our marriage lawful, by my life 
 And kingly dignity, we are contented 
 To wear our mortal state to come with her, 
 Katharine our queen, before the primest creature 
 That's paragoned o' the world. 
 
 Gam. So please your highness, 
 
 The queen being absent, 't is a needful fitness 
 That we adjourn this court till further day : 
 Meanwhile must be an earnest motion 
 Made to the queen, to call back her appeal 
 She intends unto his Holiness, 
 
 [They rise to depart. 
 
 K. Hen. [Aside.] I may perceive, 
 
 These Cardinals trifle with me : I abhor 
 This dilatory sloth, and tricks of Rome. 
 My learned and well-beloved servant, Cranmer, 
 Pr'ythee return : with thy approach, I know. 
 My comfort comes along. — Break up the court : 
 I say, set on. [Exeunt, in manner as they entered.] 
 
 ACT III. 
 
 Scene I. — Palace at Bridewell. 
 
 A Room in the Queen's Apartment. 
 
 The Queen, atid some of her Women, at Work. 
 
 Q. Kath. Take thy lute, wench : my soul grows sad with. 
 troubles ; 
 Sing, and disperse 'em, if thou canst. Leave working. 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 103 
 
 Song. 
 
 Orpheus with his lute made trees, 
 And the mountain-tops that freeze, 
 
 Bow themselves, when he did sing : 
 To his music, plants and flowers 
 Ever sprung ; as sun and showers 
 
 There had made a lasting spring. 
 
 Everything that heard him play, 
 Even the billows of the sea, 
 
 Hung their heads and then lay by, 
 In sweet music is such art; 
 Killing care and grief of heart 
 Fall asleep, or, hearing, die, 
 
 [Enter a Gentleman. 
 
 Q. Kath. How now ? 
 
 Gent. An't please your grace, the two great Cardinals 
 Wait in the presence. 
 
 Q. Kath. Would they speak with me ? 
 
 Gent. They willed me say so, madam. 
 
 Q. Kath. Pray their graces 
 
 To come near. \Exit Gentleman.] What can be their business 
 With me, a poor weak woman, fall'n from favour ? 
 I do not like their coming, now I think on 't. 
 They should be good men ; their affairs as righteous : 
 But all hoods make not monks. 
 
 Enter Wolsey and Campeius. 
 
 Wol. Peace to your highness 1 
 
 Q. Kath. Your graces find me here part of a housewife : 
 I would be all, against the worse may happen. 
 What are your pleasures with me, reverend lords ? 
 
 Wol. May it please you, noble madam, to withdraw 
 Into your private chamber, we shall give you 
 The full cause of our coming. 
 
 Q. Kath. Speak it here. 
 
 There's nothing I have done yet, o' my conscience, 
 Deserves a corner : 'would all other women 
 Could speak this with as free a soul as I do ! 
 My lords, I care not, — so much I am happy 
 Above a number, — if my actions 
 Were tried by every tongue, every eye saw them, 
 Envy and base opinion set against 'em, 
 I know my life so even. If your business 
 
104 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 Seek me out, and that way I am wife in, 
 Out with it boldly : Truth loves open dealing. 
 
 Wol. Tanta est erga te mentis iniegritis, regina 
 serenissima, — 
 
 Q. Kath. O, good my lord, no Latin ; 
 I am not such a truant since my coming, 
 As not to know the language I have lived in : 
 A strange tongue makes my cause more strange, suspicious ; 
 Pray, speak in English. Here are some will thank you, 
 If you speak truth, for their poor mistress' sake : 
 Believe me, she has had much wrong. Lord Cardinal, 
 The willing'st sin I ever yet committed 
 May be absolved in English, 
 
 Wol. Noble lady, 
 
 I am sorry my integrity should breed — 
 And service to his Majesty and you — 
 So deep suspicion where all faith was meant. 
 We come not by the way of accusation, 
 To taint that honour every good tongue blesses, 
 Nor to betray you any way to sorrow ; 
 You have too much, good lady ; but to know 
 How you stand minded in the weighty difference 
 Between the king and you, and to deliver 
 Like free and honest men, our just opinions. 
 And comforts to your cause. 
 
 Cam. Most honoured madam. 
 
 My lord of York, — out of his noble nature. 
 Zeal and obedience he still bore your grace, 
 Forgetting, like a good man, your late censure 
 Both of his truth and him, which was too far, — 
 Offers, as I do, in a sign of peace, 
 His service and his counsel, 
 
 Q. Kath. \^Asid,e\ To betray me. — 
 
 My lords, I thank you both for your good wills, 
 Ye speak like honest men, — pray God, ye prove so! 
 But how to make ye suddenly an answer. 
 In such a point of weight, so near mine honour, — 
 More near my life, I fear, — with my weak wit, 
 And to such men of gravity and learning. 
 In truth, I know not. I was set at work 
 Among my maids ; full little, God knows, looking 
 Either for such men, or such business. 
 For her sake that I have been, for I feel 
 The last fit of my greatness, good your graces. 
 Let me have time and counsel for my cause, 
 Alas, I am a woman, friendless, hopeless. 
 
 Wol. Madam, you wrong the king's love with these fears : 
 Your hopes and friends are infinite. 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 105 
 
 • 
 
 Q. Kalh. In England 
 
 But little for mj' profit. Can you think, lords, 
 That any Englishman dare give me counsel ? 
 Or be a known friend, 'gainst his highness' pleasure, — 
 Though he be grown so desperate to be honest, — 
 And live a subject ? Nay, forsooth ; my friends, 
 They that must weigh out my afflictions, 
 They that my trust must grow to, live not here : 
 They are, as all my other comforts, far hence, 
 In mine own country, lords. 
 
 Gam. I would, your grace 
 
 Would leave your griefs, and take my counsel. 
 
 0. Kath. How, sir ? 
 
 Gam. Put your main cause into the king's protection ; 
 He 's loving, and most gracious ; 't will be much 
 Both for your honour better, and your cause : 
 For if the trial of the law o'ertake ye, 
 You '11 part away disgraced. 
 
 Wol. He tells you rightly. 
 
 Q. Kath. Ye tell me what ye wish for both, — my ruin. 
 Is this your Christian counsel ? out upon ye ! 
 Heaven is above all yet ; there sits a Judge 
 That no king can corrupt. 
 
 Gam. Your rage mistakes us. 
 
 Q. Kath. The more shame for ye ! "holy men I thought yC} 
 Upon my soul, two reverend cardinal virtues ; 
 But cardinal sins, and hollow hearts, I fear ye. 
 Mend 'em, for shame, my lords. Is this 50ur comfort ? 
 The cordial that ye bring a wretched lady ? 
 A woman lost among ye, laughed at, scorned ? 
 I will not wish ye half my miseries, 
 I have more charity ; but say, I warned ye : 
 Take heed, for Heaven's sake, take heed, lest at once 
 The burden of my sorrows fall upon ye. 
 
 Wol. Madam, this is a mere distraction ; 
 You turn the good we offer into envy. 
 
 Q. Kath. Ye turn me into nothing. Woe up>on ye. 
 And all such false professors ! Would you have me — 
 If you have any justice, any pity, 
 If ye be anything but church;nen's habits — 
 Put my sick cause into his hands that hates me ? 
 Alas, has banish'd me his bed already ; 
 His love, too long ago : I am old, my lords, 
 And all the fellowship I hold now with him 
 Is only my obedience. What can happen 
 To me, above this wretchedness ? all your studies 
 Make me a curse, like this. 
 
I06 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 Cam. Your fears are worse. 
 
 Q. Kath. Have I lived thus long — let me speak myself 
 Since virtue finds no friends — a wife, a true one ? 
 A woman — I dare say, without vain glory — 
 Never yet branded with suspicion ? 
 Have I with all my full affections 
 
 Still met the king ? loved him next heaven ? obeyed him ? 
 Been, out of fondness, superstitious to him ? 
 Almost forgot my prayers, to content him ? 
 And am I thus rewarded ? 't is not well, lords. 
 Bring me a constant woman to her husband. 
 One that ne'er dreamed a joy beyond his pleasure. 
 And to that woman, when she has done most, 
 Yet will I add an honour, — a great patience. 
 
 Wol. Madam, you wander from the good we aim at. 
 
 Q. Kath. My lord, I dare not make myself so guilty. 
 To give up willingly that noble title 
 Your master wed me to : nothing but death 
 Shall e'er divorce my dignities. 
 
 Wol. 'Pray, hear me. 
 
 Q. Kath. 'Would I had never trod this English earth. 
 Or felt the flatteries that grow upon it ! 
 Ye have angels' faces, but Heaven knows your hearts. 
 What will become of me now, wretched lady ! 
 I am the most unhappy woman living. — 
 \To her Women.] Alas ! poor wenches, where are now your 
 
 fortunes ? 
 Shipwrecked upon a kingdom where no pity, 
 No friends, no hope, no kindred weep for me, 
 Almost no grave allowed me. — Like the lily. 
 That once was mistress of the field and flourished, 
 I'll hang my head, and perish. 
 
 Wol. If your grace 
 
 Could but be brought to know our ends are honest. 
 You'd feel more comfort. Why should we, good lady, 
 Upon what cause, wrong you ? alas, our places, 
 The way of our profession is against it : 
 We are to cure such sorrows, not to sow 'em. 
 For goodness' sake, consider what you do ; 
 How you may hurt yourself, ay, utterly 
 Grow from the king's acquaintance by this carriage. 
 The hearts of princes kiss obedience, 
 So much they love it ; but to stubborn spirits 
 They swell and grow as terrible as storms. 
 I know you have a gentle, noble temper. 
 A soul as even as a calm ; pray, think us 
 Those we profess, peace-makers, friends, and servants. 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 107 
 
 • 
 
 Cam^ Madam, you'll find it so. You wrong your virtues 
 With these weak women's fears : a noble spirit, 
 As yours was put into you, ever casts 
 Such doubts, as false coin, from it. The king loves you ; 
 Beware, you lose it not : for us, if you please 
 To trust us in your business, we are ready 
 To use our utmost studies in your service. 
 
 Q. Kath. Do what ye will, my lords ', and, pray forgive me. 
 If I have used myself unmannerly. 
 You know, I am a woman, lacking wit 
 To make a seemly answer to such persons. 
 Pray, do my service to his majesty : 
 He has my heart yet, and shall have my prayers, 
 While I shall have my life. Come reverend fathers, 
 Bestow your counsels on me ; she now begs. 
 That little thought, when she set footing here, 
 She should have bought her dignities so dear. 
 
 \Excunt, 
 
 Scene II. — Ante-chamber to the King's Apartment. 
 
 Enter the Duke of Norfolk, the Duke of Suffolk, the 
 Earl of Surrey, and the Lord Chamberlain; 
 
 Nor. If you will now unite in your complaints, 
 And force them with a constancy, the cardinal 
 Cannot stand under them : if you omit 
 The offer of this time, I cannot promise 
 But that you shall sustain mo'e new disgraces, 
 With these you bear already. 
 
 Su,r. I am joyful 
 
 To meet the least occasion that may give me 
 Remembrance of my father-in-law, the Duke, 
 To be revenged on him. 
 
 Suj. Which of the peers 
 
 Have uncontemned gone by him, or at least 
 Strangely neglected ? when did he regard 
 The stamp of nobleness in any person, 
 Out of himself? 
 
 Cham. My lords, you speak your pleasures. 
 What he deserves of you and me, I know ; 
 What we can do to him, — though now the time 
 Gives way to us, — I much fear. If you cannot 
 Bar his access to the king, never attempt 
 Anything on him, for he hath a witchcraft 
 Over the king in 's tongue. 
 
Io8 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 Nor. O fear him not ; 
 
 His spell in that is out : the king hath found 
 Matter against him that for ever mars 
 The honey of his language. No, he's settled, 
 Not to come off, in his displeasure. 
 
 Sur. Sir, 
 
 I should be glad to hear such news as this 
 Once every hour. 
 
 Nor. Believe it, this is true. 
 
 In the divorce, his contrary proceedings 
 Are all unfolded ; wherein he appears 
 As I would wish mine enemy. 
 
 
 Sur. 
 
 
 
 
 How came 
 
 
 
 His 
 
 practices 
 Suf. 
 
 Sur. 
 
 to 
 
 light? 
 
 Most 
 
 strangely. 
 
 0, 
 
 how? 
 
 how? 
 
 Suf. The cardinal's letter to the pope miscarriedt 
 And came to the eye o' the king ; wherein was read, 
 How that the cardinal did entreat his holiness 
 To stay the judgment o' the divorce ; for if 
 It did take place, ' I do,' quoth he, ' perceive, 
 My king is tangled in affection to 
 A creature of the queen's, Lady Anne BuUen.' 
 
 Sur. Has the king this ? 
 
 Suf. Believe it. 
 
 Sur. Will this work ? 
 
 C/tam. The king in this perceives him, how he coasts, 
 And hedges his own way. But in this point 
 All his tricks founder, and he brings his physic 
 After his patient's death : the king already 
 Hath married the fair lady. 
 
 Sur But, will the king 
 
 Digest this letter of the cardinal's ? 
 The Lord forbid ! 
 
 2^or. Marry, amen ! 
 
 Suf. No, no : 
 
 There be mo'e wasps that buzz about his nose, 
 "Will make this sting the sooner. Cardinal Campeius 
 Is stol'n away to Rome ; hath ta'en no leave ; 
 Has left the cause o' the king unhandled, and 
 Is posted, as the agent of our cardinal, 
 To second all his plot. I do assure you, 
 The king cried, ' Ha !' at this. 
 
 Cham. Now, God incense him, 
 
 And let him cry, ' Ha !' louder ! 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. IOJ> 
 
 Noy. But, my lord, 
 
 When returns Cranmer'? 
 
 Suf. He is returned, in his opinions, which 
 Have satisfied the king for his divorce, 
 Together with all famous colleges 
 Almost in Christendom Shortly, I believe, 
 His second marriage shall be published, and 
 Her coronation. Katharine no more 
 Shall be called queen, but Princess Dowager, 
 And widow to Prince Arthur. 
 
 Nor. This same Cranmer's 
 
 A worthy fellow, and hath ta'en much pain 
 In the King's business. 
 
 Suf. He has ; and we shall see him 
 
 For it an Archbishop. 
 
 Nor. So I hear. 
 
 Suf. 'Tis so. 
 
 The Cardinal— 
 
 Enter Wolsey and Cromwell. 
 
 Nor. Observe, observe ; he's moody. 
 
 Wol. The packet, Cromwell, 
 Gave 't you the king ? 
 
 Croni. To his own hand, in 's bedchamber. 
 
 Wol. Looked he o' th' inside of the paper ? 
 
 Crom. Presently 
 
 He did unseal them, and the first he viewed, 
 He did it with a serious mind ; a heed 
 Was in his countenance. You he bade 
 Attend him here this morning. 
 
 Wol. Is he ready 
 
 To come abroad ? 
 
 Crom. I think, by this he is. 
 
 Wol. Leave me awhile. — 
 
 [Exit Cromwell. 
 It shall be to the Duchess of Alencon, 
 The French King's sister : he shall marry her. — 
 Anne BuUen ? No ; I'll no Anne BuUens for him : 
 There 's more in 't than fair visage. — Bullen ! 
 No, we'll no Bullens. — Speedily I wish 
 To hear from Rome. — The Marchioness of Pembroke ! — 
 
 Nor. He's discontented. 
 
 Suf. May be, he hears the king 
 
 Does whet his anger lo him. 
 
110 THE GENTLE SHAKSPEKE. 
 
 Sur. Sharp enougli, 
 
 Lord, for thy justice ! — 
 
 Wol. The late queen's gentlewoman, a knight's daughter, 
 To be her mistress' mistress ! the queen's queen ! — 
 This candle burns not clear : 't is I must snuif it ; 
 Then, out it goes. — What though I know her virtuous, 
 And well deserving? yet I know her for 
 A spleeny Lutheran ; and not wholesome to 
 Our cause, that she should lie i' the bosom of 
 Our hard-ruled king. Again, there is sprung up 
 An heretic, an arch one, Cranmer ; one 
 Hath crawled into the favour of the king, 
 And is his oracle. 
 
 Nor. He 's vexed at something. 
 
 Suf. I would, 't were something that would fret the string, 
 The master-cord of his heart ! 
 
 Enter the King, reading a schedule; and Lovell. 
 
 Sur. The king, the king ! 
 
 K. Hen. What piles of wealth hath he accumulated 
 To his own portion ! and what expense by the hour 
 Seems to flow from him ! How, i' the name of thrift. 
 Does he rake this together ? — Now, my lords, 
 Saw you the Cardinal ? 
 
 Nor. My lord, we have 
 
 Stood here observing him. Some strange commotion 
 Is in his brain : he bites his lip, and starts ; 
 Stops on a sudden, looks upon the ground. 
 Then lays his finger on his temple ; straight. 
 Springs out into fast gait ; then stops again, 
 Strikes his breast hard ; and anon, he casts 
 Plis eye against the moon : in most strange postures 
 We have seen him set himself. 
 
 K. Hen. It may well be : 
 
 There is a mutiny in 's mind. This morning 
 Papers of state he sent me to peruse, 
 As I required ; and wot you what I found 
 There, on my conscience, put unwittingly ? 
 Forsooth an inventory, thus importing, — 
 The several parcels of his plate, his treasure. 
 Rich stuffs, and ornaments of household, which 
 I find at such proud rate, that it outspeaks 
 Possession of a subject. 
 
 Nor. Its Heaven's will: 
 
 Some spirit put this paper in the packet. 
 To bless your eye withal. 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE, III 
 
 K. Hen. If we did think 
 
 His contemplation were above the earth, 
 And fixed on spiritual object, he should still 
 Dwell in his musings : but, I am afraid. 
 His thinkings are below the moon, not worth 
 His serious considering. 
 
 [He takes his seat, and whispers Lovell, who goes to Wolsey] . 
 
 Wol. Heaven forgive me ! — 
 
 Ever God bless your highness ! 
 
 K. Hen. Good my lord, 
 
 You are full of heavenly stuff, and bear the inventory 
 Of your best graces in your mind ; the which 
 You are now running o'er : you have scarce time 
 To steal from spiritual leisure a brief span 
 To keep your earthly audit. Sure, in that 
 I deem you an ill husband, and am glad 
 To have you therein my companion. 
 
 Wol. Sir, 
 
 For holy offices I have a time ; a time 
 To think upon the part of business, which 
 I bear i' the state ; and nature does require 
 Her times of preservation, which, perforce, 
 I, her frail son, amongst my brethren mortal, 
 Must give my tendence to. 
 
 K. Hen. You have said well. 
 
 Wol. And ever may your highness yoke together, 
 As I will lend you cause, my doing well 
 With my well-saying ! 
 
 K. Hen. 'Tis well said again ; 
 
 And 't is a kind of good deed, to say well : 
 And yet words are no deeds. My father loved you; 
 He said he did, and with his deed did crown 
 His word upon you. Since I had my office, 
 I have kept you next my heart ; have not alone 
 Employed you where high profits might come home. 
 But pared my present havings, to bestow 
 My bounties upon you. 
 
 Wol. What should this mean ? 
 
 Stiy. {Aside.l The Lord increase this business ! 
 
 King. Have I not made you 
 
 The prime man of the state ? I pray you, tell me, 
 If what I now pronounce you have found true : 
 And, if you may confess it, say withal. 
 If you are bound to us or no. What say you ? 
 
112 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 Wol. My sovereign, I confess your royal graces, 
 Shower'd on me daily, have been more than could 
 My studied purposes requite ; which went 
 Beyond all man's endeavours : my endeavours 
 Have ever come too short of my desires, 
 Yet fil'd with my abilities : mine own ends 
 Have been mine so that evermore they pointed 
 To the good of your most sacred person and 
 The profit of the state. For your great graces 
 Heap'd upon me, poor undeserver, I 
 Can nothing render but allegiant thanks, 
 My prayers to heaven for you, my loyalty, 
 Which ever has and ever shall be growing, 
 Till death, that winter, kill it. 
 
 J^tng. Fairly answer'd, 
 
 A loyal and obedient subject is 
 Therein illustrated : the honour of it 
 Does pay the act of it ; as, i' the contrary, 
 ' The foulness is the punishment. I presume 
 That, as my hand has open'd bounty to you, 
 My heart dropp'd love, my power rain'd honour, more 
 On you than any ; so your hand and heart, 
 Your brain, and every function of your power. 
 Should, notwithstanding that your bond of duty, 
 As 'twere in love's particular, be more 
 To me, your friend, than any. 
 
 Wol. I do profess 
 
 That for your highness' good I ever labour'd 
 Tilore than mine own ; that am, have, and will be — • 
 Though all the world should crack their duty to you, 
 And throw it from their soul ; though perils did 
 Abound, as thick as thought could make 'em, and 
 Appear in forms more horrid, — yet my duty. 
 As doth a rock against the chiding flood, 
 Should the approach of this wild river break, 
 And stand unshaken yours, 
 
 King. 'Tis nobly spoken : 
 
 Take notice, lords, he has a loyal breast. 
 For you have seen him open 't. Read o'er this ; 
 
 \_Gtving him papers. 
 And after, this : and then to breakfast with 
 What appetite you have. 
 
 \Exit King, frmvning upon Cardinal Wolsey : the 
 Nobles throng after him, smiling and whispering. 
 
 Wol. What should this mean ? 
 
 What sudden anger's this ? how have I reap'd it ? 
 He parted frowning from me, as if ruin 
 Leap'd from his eyes : so looks the chafed lion 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPKRE. II3 
 
 Upon the daring huntsman that hasgall'd him ; 
 
 Then makes him nothing. I must read this paper ; 
 
 I fear, the story of his anger. 'Tis so ; 
 
 This paper has undone me ; 'tis the account 
 
 Of all that world of wealth I have drawn together 
 
 For mine own ends ; indeed, to gain the popedom, 
 
 And fee my friends in Rome. O negligence ! 
 
 Fit for a fool to fall by : what cross devil 
 
 Made me put this main secret in the packet 
 
 I sent the king ? Is there no way to cure this ? 
 
 No new device to beat this from his brains ? 
 
 I know 'twill stir him strongly ; yet I know 
 
 A way, if it take right, in spite of fortune, 
 
 Will bring me off again. What's this ? ' To the Pope ! ' 
 
 The letter, as I live, with all the business 
 
 I writ to 's holiness. Nay then, farewell ! 
 
 I have touch'd the highest point of all my greatness ; 
 
 And, from that full meridian of my glory, 
 
 I haste now to my setting : I shall fall 
 
 Like a bright exhalation in the evening, 
 
 And no man see me more. 
 
 Re-enter to Wolsey, the Dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk, 
 the Earl of Surrey, and the Lord Chamberlain. 
 
 Hor. Hear the king's pleasure, cardinal : who commands 
 you 
 To render up the great seal presently 
 Into our hands ; and to confine yourself 
 To Asher House, my lord of Winchester's, 
 Till you hear further from his highness. 
 
 Wol. Stay: 
 
 Where's your commission, lords ? words cannot carry 
 Authority so weighty. 
 
 Suff. Who dare cross 'em, 
 
 Bearing the king's will from his mouth expressly ? 
 
 Wol. Till I find more than will or words to do it, 
 I mean your malice, know, officious lords, 
 I dare and must deny it. Now I feel 
 Of what coarse metal ye are moulded, envy : 
 How eagerly ye follow my disgraces. 
 As if it fed ye ! and how sleek and wanton 
 Ye appear in everything may bring my ruin ! 
 Follow your envious courses, men of malice ; 
 You have Christian warrant for 'em, and, no doubt. 
 In time will find their fit rewards. That seal. 
 You ask with such a violence, the king, 
 Mine and your master, with his own hand gave me ; 
 Bade me enjoy it, with the place and honours. 
 
114 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 During my life ; and, to confirm his goodness, 
 Tied it by letters-patent : now, who'll take it ? 
 
 Sur. The king, that gave it. 
 
 Wol. It must be himself, then.. 
 
 Sur. Thou art a proud traitor, priest. 
 
 Wol. Proud lord, thou liest :. 
 
 Within these forty hours Surrey durst better 
 Have burnt that tongue than said so. 
 
 Sur. Thy ambition, 
 
 Thou scarlet sin, robb'd this bewailing land 
 Of noble Buckingham, my father-in-law : 
 The heads of all thy brother cardinals, 
 With thee and all thy best parts bound together, 
 Weigh'd not a hair of his. Plague of your policy f 
 You sent me deputy for Ireland ; 
 Far from his succour, from the king, from all 
 That might have mercy on the fault thou gavest him ; 
 Whilst your great goodness, out of holy pity, 
 Absolved him with an axe. 
 
 m>l. This, and all else 
 
 This talking lord can lay upon my credit, 
 I answer is most false. The duke by law 
 Found his deserts : how innocent I was 
 ' From any private malice in his end. 
 His noble jury and foul cause can witness. 
 If I loved many words, lord, I should tell you, 
 You have as little honesty as honour, 
 That in the way of loyalty and truth 
 Toward the king, my ever royal master. 
 Dare mate a sounder man than Surrey can be, 
 And all that love his follies. 
 
 Sur. By my soul. 
 
 Your long coat, priest, protects you ; thou should'st feet 
 My sword i' the life-blood of thee else. My lords. 
 Can ye endure to hear this arrogance ? 
 And from this fellow ? If we live thus tamely, 
 To be thus jaded by a piece of scarlet. 
 Farewell nobility ; let his grace go forward. 
 And dare us with his cap like larks. 
 
 pyol. All goodness 
 
 Is poison to thy stomach. 
 
 Sur. Yes, that goodness 
 
 Of gleaning all the land's wealth into one. 
 Into your own hands, cardinal, by extortion ; 
 The goodness of your intercepted packets 
 You writ to the pope against the king : your goodness, . 
 Since you provoke me, shall be most notorious. 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 115 
 
 My lord of Norfolk, as you are truly noble, 
 
 As you respect the common good, the state 
 
 Of our despised nobility, our issues, 
 
 "Who, if he live, will scarce be gentlemen, 
 
 Produce the grand sum of his sins, the articles 
 
 Collected from his life. I'll startle you 
 
 Worse than the sacring bell, when the brown wench 
 
 Lay kissing in your arms, lord cardinal. 
 
 Wol. How much, methinks, I could despise this man, 
 But that I am bound in charity against it ! 
 
 Nor. Those articles, my lord, are in the king's hand : 
 But, thus much, they are foul ones. 
 
 Wol. So much fairer 
 
 And spotless shall my innocence arise, 
 When the king knows my truth. 
 
 Sur. This cannot save you : 
 
 I thank my memory, I yet remember 
 Some of these articles ; and out they shall. 
 Now, if you can blush and cry ' guilty,' cardinal. 
 You'll show a little honesty. 
 
 fVoL Speak on, sir ; 
 
 I dare your worst objections : if I blush, 
 It is to see a nobleman want manners. 
 
 Sur. I had rather want those than my head. Have at, 
 you ! 
 First, that, without the king's assent or knowledge, 
 You wrought to be a legate ; by which power 
 You maim'd the jurisdiction of all bishops. 
 
 Nor. Then, that in all you writ to Rome, or else 
 To foreign princes. Ego et Rex metis 
 Was still inscribed ; in which you brought the king 
 To be your servant. 
 
 &'«/. Then that, without the knowledge 
 
 Either of king or council, when you went 
 Ambassador to the emperor, you made bold 
 To carry into Flanders the great seal. 
 
 Sur. Item, you sent a large commission 
 To Gregory de Cassado, to conclude, 
 Without the king's will or the state's allowance, 
 A league between his highness and Ferrara. 
 
 Suf. That, out of mere ambition, you have caused 
 Your holy hat to be stamped on the king's coin. 
 
 Sur. Then that you have sent innumerable substance •■. 
 
 By what means got, I leave to your own conscience — 
 To furnish Rome, and to prepare the ways 
 You have for dignities ; to the mere undoing 
 
Il6 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 Of all the kingdom. Many more there are ; 
 Which, since they are of you, and odious, 
 I will not taint my mouth with. 
 
 Cham. O my lord, 
 
 Press not a falling man too far ! 'tis virtue : 
 His faults lie open to the laws ; let them, 
 Not you, correct him. My heart weeps to see him 
 So little of his great self. 
 
 Sur, I forgive him. 
 
 Suf. Lord cardinal, the king's further pleasure is, 
 Because all those things you have done of late, 
 By your power legatine, within this kingdom, 
 Fall into the compass of a praemunire. 
 That therefore such a writ be sued against you ; 
 To forfeit all your goods, lands, tenements. 
 Chattels, and whatsoever, and to be 
 Out of the king's protection. This is my charge. 
 
 Nor. And so we'll leave you to your meditations 
 How to live better. For your stubborn answer 
 About the giving back the great seal to us. 
 The king shall know it, and, no doubt, shall thank you. 
 So fare you well, my little good lord cardinal. 
 
 [Exeunt all hut WoUey. 
 
 Wol. So farewell to the little good you bear me. 
 Farewell 1 a long farewell to all my greatness ! 
 This is the state of man : to day he puts forth 
 The tender leaves of hopes ; to morrow blossoms. 
 And bears his blushing honours thick upon him ; 
 The third day comes a frost, a killing frost. 
 And, when he thinks, good easy man, full surely 
 His greatness is a -ripening, nips his root. 
 And then he falls, as I do. I have ventured. 
 Like little wanton boys that swim on bladders, 
 This many summers in a sea of glory, 
 But far beyond my depth : my high-blown pride 
 At length broke under me ; and now has left me, 
 Weary, and old with service, to the mercy 
 Of a rude stream, that must for ever hide me. 
 Vain pomp and glory of this world, I hate ye : 
 I feel my heart new open'd. O, how wretched 
 Is that poor man that hangs on princes' favours ! 
 There is, betwixt that smile we would aspire to. 
 That sweet aspect of princes, and their ruin, 
 More pangs and fears than wars or women have : 
 And when he falls, he falls like Lucifer, 
 Never to hope again. 
 
THE GENTLE «6HAKSPERE. 117 
 
 Enter Cromwell, and stands amazed. 
 
 Why, how now, Cromwell ? 
 
 Crotn. I have no power to speak, sir. 
 
 WoL What, amazed 
 
 At my misfortunes ? can thy spirit wonder 
 A great man should decline ? Nay, an you weep, 
 I am fall'n indeed, 
 
 Crom. How does your grace ? 
 
 Wol. Why, well ; 
 
 Never so truly happy, my good Cromwell. 
 I know myself now ; and I feel within me 
 A peace above all earthly dignities, 
 A still and quiet conscience. The king has cured me, 
 I humbly thank his grace ; and from these shoulders. 
 These ruin'd pillars, out of pity, taken 
 A load would sink a navy, too much honour : 
 O, 'tis a burden, Cromwell, 'tis a burden 
 Too heavy for a man that hopes for heaven ! 
 
 Crom. I am glad your grace has made that right use of it. 
 
 PFo/. I hope I have : I am able now, methinks, 
 Out of a fortitude of soul I feel. 
 To endure more miseries and greater far 
 Than my weak-hearted enemies dare offer. 
 What news abroad ? 
 
 Crom. The heaviest and the worst 
 
 Is your displeasure with the king. 
 
 Wol. God bless him ! 
 
 Crom. The next is, that Sir Thomas More is chosen 
 Lord chancellor in your place. 
 
 Wol. That's somewhat sudden : 
 
 But he's a learned man. May he continue 
 Long in his highness' favour, and do justice 
 For truth's sake and his conscience ; that his bones, 
 When he has run his course and sleeps in blessings, 
 May have a tomb of orphans' tears wept on 'em ! 
 What more ? 
 
 Crom. That Cranmer is return'd with welcome, 
 Install'd lord archbishop of Canterbury. 
 
 IVbL That's news indeed. 
 
 Crom. Last, that the Lady Anne, 
 
 Whom the king hath in secrecy long married, 
 This day was view'd in open as his queen, 
 Going to chapel ; and the voice is now 
 Only about her coronation. 
 
Il8 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 Wol. There was the weight that puU'd me down. O 
 Cromwell, 
 The king has gone beyond me : all my glories 
 In that one woman I have lost for ever : 
 No sun shall ever usher forth mine honours, 
 Or gild again the noble troops that waited 
 Upon my smiles. Go, get thee from me, Crom well ; 
 I am a poor fall'n man, unworthy now 
 To be thy lord and master : seek the king ; 
 That sun, I pray, may never set ! I have told him 
 What and how true thou art ; he will advance thee ; 
 Some little memory of me will stir him — 
 I know his noble nature — not to let 
 Thy hopeful service perish too : good Cromwell, 
 Neglect him not ; make use now, and provide 
 For thine own future safety. 
 
 Crom. O my lord. 
 
 Must I, then, leave you ? must I needs forego 
 So good, so noble, and so true a master ? 
 Bear witness, all that have not hearts of iron. 
 With what a sorrow Cromwell leaves his lord. 
 The king shall have my service ; but my prayers 
 For ever and for ever shall be yours. 
 
 IVdl. Cromwell, I did not think to shed a tear 
 In all my miseries : but thou hast forced me, 
 Out of thy honest truth, to play the woman. 
 Let's dry our eyes : and thus far hear me, Cromwell i 
 And, when I am forgotten, as I shall be. 
 And sleep in dull cold marble, where no mention 
 Of me more must be heard of, say, I taught thee, 
 Say, Wolsey, that once trod the ways of glory, 
 And sounded all the depths and shoals of honour, 
 Found thee a way, out of his wreck, to rise in ; 
 A sure and safe one, though thy master miss'd it. 
 Mark but my fall, and that that ruin'd me. 
 Cromwell, I charge thee, fling away ambition : 
 By that sin fell the angels ; how can man, then, 
 The image of his maker, hope to win by it ? 
 Love thyself last : cherish those hearts that hate thee : 
 Corruption wins not more than honesty. 
 Still in thy right hand carry gentle peace. 
 To silence envious tongues. Be just, and fear not : 
 Let all the ends thou aim'st at be thy country's, 
 Thy God's, and truth's ; then if thou fall'st, O CromwelU 
 Thou fall'st a blessed martyr I Serve the king ; 
 And — prithee, lead me in : 
 There take an inventory of all I have, 
 To the last penny ; 'tis the king's ; my robe, 
 And my integrity to heaven, is all 
 
THE GENTLl SHAKSPERE. 119 
 
 I dare now call mine own. O Cromwell, Cromwell ! 
 Had I but served my God with half the zeal 
 I served my king, he would not in mine age 
 Have left me naked to mine enemies. 
 
 Grom, Good sir, have patience. 
 
 Wol. . So I have. Farewell 
 
 The hopes of court ! my hopes in heaven do dwell. 
 
 [Exeunt. 
 
 ACT IV. 
 
 Scene I. A street in Westminster. 
 
 Enter two Gentlemen, meeting one another. 
 
 First Gent. You're well met once again. 
 
 Sec. Gent. So are you. 
 
 First Gent. You come to take your stand here, and behold 
 The Lady Anne pass from her coronation ? 
 
 Sec. Gent. 'Tis all my business. At our last encounter, 
 The Duke of Buckingham came from his trial. 
 
 First Gent. 'Tis very true : but that time ofFer'd sorrow; 
 This, general joy. 
 
 Sec. Gent. I beseech you, what's become of Katharine, 
 The princess dowager ? How goes her business ? 
 
 First Gent. That I can tell you too. The archbishop 
 Of Canterbury, accompanied with other 
 Learned and reverend fathers of his order. 
 Held a late court at Dunstable, six miles off 
 From Ampthill, where the princess lay ; to which 
 She was often cited by them, but appear'd not : 
 And, to be short, for not appearance and 
 The king's late scruple, by the main assent 
 Of all these learned men she was divorced, 
 And the late marriage made of none effect : 
 Since which she was removed to Kimbolton, 
 Where she remains now sick. 
 
 Sec. Gent. Alas, good lady ! 
 
 [^Tru?npets. 
 
 The trumpets sound : stand close, the queen is coming. 
 
 [/Iautb<^s. 
 Scene II. Kimbolton. 
 
 Enter Katharine, Dowager, sick; led between Griffith, 
 her gentleman usher, and Patience, her woman. 
 Grij. How does your grace ? 
 
120 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 Kath. O Griffith, sick to death I 
 
 My legs, like loaden branches, bow to the earth, 
 Willing to leave their burthen. Reach a chair : 
 So ; now, methinks, I feel a little ease. 
 Didst thou not tell me, Griffith, as thou led'st me, 
 That the great child of honour. Cardinal Wolsey, 
 Was dead ? 
 
 Grij. Yes, madam ; but I think your grace, 
 Out of the pain you suffisr'd, gave no ear to 't. 
 
 Kafh. Prithee, good Griffith, tell me how he died : 
 If well, he stepp'd before me, happily, 
 For my example. 
 
 Grif. Well, the voice goes, madam : 
 
 For after the stout Earl Northumberland 
 Arrested him at York, and brought him forward. 
 As a man, sorely tainted, to his answer, 
 He fell sick suddenly, and grew so ill 
 He could not sit his mule. 
 
 Kath. Alas, poor man ! 
 
 Grif. At last, with easy roads, he came to Leicester, 
 Lodged in the abbey ; where the reverend abbot. 
 With all his convent, honourably received him ; 
 To whom he gave these words, " O, father abbot. 
 An old man, broken with the storms of state, 
 Is come to lay his weary bones among ye ; 
 Give him a little earth for charity ! " 
 So went to bed ; where eagerly his sickness 
 Pursued him still : and, three nights after this. 
 About the hour of eight, which he himself 
 Foretold should be his last, full of repentance, 
 Continual meditations, tears, and sorrows, 
 He gave his honours to the world again. 
 His blessed part to heaven, and slept in peace. 
 
 Kath. So may he rest ; his faults lie gently on him ! 
 Yet thus far, Griffith, give me leave to speak him, 
 And yet with charity. He was a man 
 Of an unbounded stomach, ever ranking 
 Himself with princes ; one that, by suggestion, 
 Tied all the kingdom : simony was fair-play ; 
 His own opinion was his law : i' the presence 
 He would say untruths ; and be ever double 
 Both in his words and meaning : he was never. 
 But where he meant to ruin, pitiful : 
 His promises were, as he then was, mighty ; 
 But his performance, as he is now, nothing : 
 Of his own body he was ill, and gave 
 The clergy ill example. 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 121 
 
 Grif. Noble madam. 
 
 Men's evil manners live in brass ; their virtues 
 We write in water. May it please your highness 
 To hear me speak his good now ? 
 
 Kath. Yes, good Griffith ; 
 
 I were malicious else. 
 
 Grif. This cardinal, 
 
 Though from an humble stock, undoubtedly 
 Was fashioned to much honour from his cradle. 
 He was a scholar, and a ripe and good one ; 
 Exceeding wise, fair-spoken, and persuading : 
 Lofty and sour to them that loved him not ; 
 But to those men that sought him, sweet as summer. 
 And though he were unsatisfied in getting. 
 Which was a sin, yet in bestowing, madam. 
 He was most princely : ever witness for him 
 Those twins of learning that he raised in you, 
 Ipswich and Oxford ! one of which fell with him, 
 Unwilling to outlive the good that did it ; 
 The other, though unfinish'd, yet so famous. 
 So excellent in art, and still so rising. 
 That Christendom shall ever speak his virtue. 
 His overthrow heap'd happiness upon him ; 
 For then, and not till then, he felt himself, 
 And found the blessedness of being little : 
 And, to add greater honours to his age 
 Than man could give him, he died fearing God. 
 
 Kath. After my death I wish no other herald. 
 No other speaker of my living actions. 
 To keep mine honour from corruption. 
 But such an honest chronicler as Griffith. 
 Whom I most hated living, thou hast made me. 
 With thy religious truth and modesty, 
 Now in his ashes honour : peace be with him ! 
 Patience, be near me still ; and set me lower : 
 I have not long to trouble thee. Good Griffith, 
 Cause the musicians play me that sad note. 
 I named my knell, whilst I sat meditating 
 On that celestial harmony I go to. 
 
 \Sad and solemn music, 
 
 Grif. She is asleep : good wench, let's sit down quiet, 
 For fear we wake her : softly, gentle Patience. 
 
 The vision. Enter, solemnly tripping one after another, six 
 personages, clad in white robes, wearing on their heads 
 garlands of hays, and golden vizards on their faces ; 
 branches of hays or palm in their hands. They first 
 
122 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 congee unto her, then dance; and, at certain changes, the 
 first two hold a spare garland over her head; at which 
 the other four make reverent curtsies; then the two that 
 held the garland deliver the same to the other next two, 
 who observe the same order in their changes, and holding 
 the garland over her head: which done, they deliver the 
 same garland to the last two, who likewise observe the 
 same order: at which, as it were by inspiration, she 
 makes in her sleep signs of rejoicing, and holdeth up her 
 hands to heaven : and so in thei'^ dancing vanish, carrying 
 the garland with them. The music continues, 
 
 Kath. Spirits of peace, where are ye ? are ye all gone, 
 And leave me here in wretchedness behind ye ? 
 
 Grif, Madam, we are here. 
 
 Kath. It is not you I call for : 
 
 Saw ye none enter since I slept ? 
 
 Grif, None, madam. 
 
 Kath. No ? Saw you not, even now, a blessed troop 
 Invite me to a banquet ; whose bright faces 
 Cast thousand beams upon me, like the sun ? 
 They promised me eternal happiness ; 
 And brought me garlands, Griffith, which I feel 
 I am not worthy yet to wear : I shall, assuredly. 
 
 Grif. I am most joyful, madam, such good dreams 
 Possess your fancy. 
 
 Kath. Bid the music leave. 
 
 They are harsh and heavy to me. [Music ceases. 
 
 Pat. Do you note 
 
 How much her grace is alter'd on the sudden ? 
 How long her face is drawn I how pale she looks. 
 And of an earthy cold ! Mark her eyes ! 
 
 Gfif. She is going, wench : pray, pray. 
 
 Pat, Heaven comfort her I 
 
 J^ath. Comfort comes too late ; 
 
 'Tis like a pardon after execution : 
 That gentle physic, given in time, had cured me ; 
 But now I am past all comforts here, but prayers. 
 I pray the king may ever flourish, 
 When I shall dwell with worms, and my poor name 
 Banished the kingdom. I have commended to his goodness 
 The model of our chaste loves, his young daughter ; 
 The dews of heaven fall thick in blessings on her ! 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 123 
 
 Beseeching him to give her virtuous breeding, 
 
 She is young, and of a noble modest nature, 
 
 I hope she will deserve well, — and a little 
 
 To love her for her mother's sake, that loved him, 
 
 Heaven knows how dearly. 
 
 Tell the king his long trouble now is passing 
 
 Out of this world ; tell him, in death I bless'd him. 
 
 For so I will. Mine eyes grow dim. Farewell. 
 
 Griffith, farewell. Nay, Patience, 
 
 You must not leave me yet ; 
 
 Call in more women. When I am dead, good wench. 
 
 Let me be used with honour : strew me over 
 
 With maiden flowers, that all the world may know 
 
 I was a chaste wife to my grave ; embalm me, 
 
 Then lay me forth : although unqueened, yet like 
 
 A queen, and daughter to a king, inter me. 
 
 I can no more. 
 
 There is an amusing and pretentious article upon this play 
 in the Athenceum of 1893, in which the writer (of course he is 
 infallible) lays it down ex cathedra, that William Shakspere 
 did not write a line of it. The rash and faulty judgment of W. 
 Aldis Wright has no doubt inspired this article. It is to be 
 feared also that Mr. Fumival has joined in this foolish crusade. 
 It is one that it is imperatively necessary to put down, and 
 which can be disposed of, better than by a bushel of argument, by 
 the publication of the play itself ; no one with any knowledge 
 of poetry, who reads it, can doubt as to its authenticity. Of 
 course the evidence of the first folio is summarily put aside 
 "because modern criticism has shaken its foundation," and this 
 fact is used as if it were conclusive upon the issue : as if any 
 sane person had ever considered the evidence of the folio itself 
 infallible, and as if indeed the question of its fallibility can 
 seriously effect the matter. It may well be, and it is 
 undoubtedly a fact, that Heming and Condell were no critics in 
 the sense being able to distinguish the actual work of the poet, 
 and they have, improperly, admitted several plays into their 
 work which were merely acted in the theatre, and for which 
 Shakspere was not responsible. What then ? Does this 
 admission permit any critic to discard what play he pleases, or 
 to include any others, without reasons or facts to support him, 
 
124 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 assuredly not. The fact that a place is found in the first folio 
 is p7-ima facie — good evidence that Shakspere wrote most of it, 
 but as respects individual plays it is only evidence that may be 
 rejected as worthless, if stronger reasons can be found for 
 such rejection. Now the only reasons that can justify any 
 judgment is, either that it can be proved that the play 
 was written by someone else, or, failing this, that from its con- 
 struction, its sentiments, objects, and conception, it is incongrous 
 with what is known of the poet's work, and even this judgment 
 must be tempered by the knowledge that Shakspere was once 
 3'oung and in his youth may have varied considerably in his 
 style. 
 
 W. Aldis Wright, who appears to have some regard for 
 Shakspere, yet can find nothing beautiful or worthy of a true 
 poet in this play, asserts that the ideas are not great, but 
 are simply sentimental. Well this is strong, but it is only Mr. 
 Wrights opinion, and that happily can be tested, and must be at 
 once condemned by an appeal to the work itself. 
 
 Mr. Wright is indeed a critic of feeble power and perverse 
 judgment. Is it that he has no soul for music ? or does he lack 
 power to appreciate poetry ? or is his judgment so warped by 
 a narrow spirit of sectarianism that he can see no good in a 
 religion which can only base its support upon faith, and has not 
 the sure foundation of an Act of Parliament to confirm it ? 
 
 Let anyone read the magnificent defence of Queen Mary. 
 It is bold and defiant, yet feminine and delicate. It has a subtle 
 power which no amount of strong epithets could produce. Its 
 effect, though apparently uttered in weakness, has an absolutely 
 withering power. In no case throughout his works has 
 Shakspere displayed gi'eater power than in this beautiful and 
 natural response to the wily arguments of the prelate. It is 
 full of poetry, and acute judgment as well. Probably in this 
 scene the mind of Campion was expended, and Shakspere only 
 embellished it with his art. 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 125 
 
 These critics build there arguments upon each other's works. 
 One boldly lays down some tremendous proposition, and the 
 next (or perhaps the same man in another paper) assumes its 
 truth, and propounds some still further nonsense upon it. 
 Henry VIII is not Shakspere's, because some critic (or the same) 
 has annihilated the folio. What then ? the two propositions 
 have nothing in common. Because the folio may have work in 
 it that is not Shakspere's, it does not follow that none of it is 
 his. It is one thing to demolish Heming and Condell ; it is 
 quite another to destroy Shakspere. What has modem 
 criticism done that it has to be cited as infallible ? It has 
 established to its satisfaction that Pericles was the work of 
 Shakspere. Heming and Condell knew better, and though the 
 work was plaj'ed in their theatre and called his, they rejected it. 
 The work itself has only to be referred to to confound modern 
 criticism and to prove it foolish. Shakspere may have written 
 some of it, and it was certainly played at his theatre and called 
 his ; but it was most certainly not his composition or design, 
 and modern criticism is put out of court by the evidence of the 
 play itself. 
 
 Mr. Aldis Wright most unfairly argues against the authen- 
 ticity of this play, upon the assumption that the fifth act was 
 Shakspere's, of which he himself writes, quoting Spedding, — 
 " The greater part in which the interest ought to be gathering 
 to a head " (had he any power of criticism he would have seen 
 that the interest closed with the death of Catharine) "is 
 occupied with matters in which we have not been prepared to 
 take any interest by what went before and on which no interest 
 is reflected by what comes after.'' Surely a more complete 
 condemnation of this act could not have been penned, and how 
 a writer, with any pretension to fairness or knowledge, after 
 seeing this could have used this fifth Act as an argument that 
 Shakspere did not write the whole is simply incomprehensible. 
 This is not criticism — ^it is calumny. 
 
 Spedding also wrote this : " The singularity of Henry 
 VIII. is that while four-fifths of the play (and he referred to 
 
126 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 the Prologue, which proclaims the purpose) are occupied in 
 matters which are to make us incapable of mirth, the remaining 
 fifth is devoted to joy and triumph, and ends with universal 
 festivity." And Spedding writes truly : " I know of no other 
 play in Shakspere which is chargeable with a fault like this j 
 none in which the moral sympathy of the spectator is not 
 carried along the main current of action to the end." 
 
 Mr. Wright pursues the same unfair method when he deals 
 with the chronology of the play. Of course, if you assume that 
 the fifth Act was Shakspere's, you cannot condemn it too 
 severely ; but apart from this, the errors as to dates are prac- 
 tically unimportant, and such as a poet might be fairly excused 
 in making in order to improve the action. In the first Scene 
 there is a reference to the seizure of the English merchant's 
 goods at Bordeaux, which occurred in 1522, and the arrest of 
 Buckingham, which took place in April, 1 521, is recorded after- 
 wards. Mr. Wright thinks that from this reference the 
 chronology of this Scene is " hopelessly entangled." The man 
 who can make much out of such a point can have little poetry 
 in his soul. What did it matter ? The poet wished to give the 
 full meaning to the worthlessness of the interview of the Field 
 of the Cloth of Gold, and simply anticipated one of its effects. 
 Mr. Wright probably never heard of a poetical licence. Here is 
 a fair instance of one. 
 
 The writer in the Athenceum (no doubt with Aldis Wright's 
 efforts before him) agrees that the metrical tests vigorously 
 applied are not infallible ; and yet he practically follows Mr. 
 Wright's conclusions, and condemns the play on these grounds, 
 and following him he writes : " Not a line does it contain that 
 bear the stamp of Shakspere's greatness, or that might have 
 been written by any of a dozen of his fellow dramatists." Here 
 is criticism gone mad. A more ridiculous remark was never 
 penned, and one more utterly opposed to truth, and yet it 
 fairly represents the voice of modern criticism. This monstrous 
 piece of criticism is sufficient to annihilate modern criticism of 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE, 127 
 
 Shakspere, and renders it essential to publish the whole of this 
 grand play in order to refute it. 
 
 It must not be taken that the author would suggest that 
 the whole of that which is here published was written by 
 Shakspere. It may well be that much of scenes three and four 
 (act one), which Spedding assigned bodily to Fletcher, and 
 some other portions have been interpolated ; yet it is idle to 
 reject them wholly (as the fifth act can fairly be rejected), 
 because much of the motives and action of the play depend 
 upon these parts, and much of it must have been present in the 
 poet's mind when he wrote his work. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE SHAKSPERE FAMILY. 
 
 Whose footsteps yet are found 
 In her rough woodlands more than any other ground, 
 That mighty Arden, held even in her height of pride, 
 Her one hand touching Trent, the other Severn's side. 
 
 Drayton. 
 
 Go one of yotifind out the Forester, 
 
 My love shall hear the music of my hounds. 
 
 " My hounds are bred out of the Spartan kind, so flew'd, so 
 sanded; and their heads are hung with ears that sweep away the 
 morning dew, crook-knee'd, and dew-lap'd, like Thessalian bulls, slow in 
 pursuit, but matched in mouth like bells each under each." — Midsummer 
 Night's Dream, Act iv., Sc. I. 
 
 NOTWITHSTANDING the large number of searchers 
 who have attempted to trace the early history of 
 this family, but little has hitherto been pubhshed of 
 a reliable character, and absolutely nothing of an 
 early date, no one having attempted to trace higher up than 
 the poet's grandfather, and yet materials for proving the descent 
 of a Warwickshire family of this name lay open to every one, 
 and certainly it is a little remarkable that so little has hitherto 
 been brought to light. The author discovered by an accident, 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 129 
 
 from examining the Griffin wills at Northampton, that the great 
 family of Griffin (of Braybrook) had given a wife to one of the 
 Shakspere's, in the time of King Henry the VIII. ; a very little 
 research led to the discovery of the Wroxall Court Rolls, which 
 supply a fragmentary pedigree from the time of King Henry 
 v., of a family holding property in that Manor under the 
 Prioress, though it was probable that they did not reside there, 
 because they never appeared upon the homage. The editor of 
 the Daily Gazette (of Birmingham) seeing the importance of the 
 author's discovery, not only inserted a long letter upon the 
 subject but most courteously furnished the author with a 
 number of reprints, which enabled him to communicate the 
 discovery to his friends and fellow-workers in this field of 
 literature. Subsequently the editor of the Times condescended 
 to admit two letters — one recapitulating the evidence already 
 published in the Birmingham Gazette, and another giving the 
 results of a search in the Court Rolls of Wroxall. The effect 
 of these letters was truly surprising ; manj^ prominent papers 
 throughout the kingdom reproduced them, or gave leading 
 articles upon them, several copying the letters verbatim. No 
 less a learned paper than Notes and Queries was so generous as 
 to do this, and much valuable information might have been 
 ehcited had not this remarkable success apparently excited the 
 envy of a supporter of the Halliwell-Phillips school, who 
 wrote, in utter ignorance of the subject, misquoting records 
 which he could not understand, and affecting to " break links," 
 and otherwise behaving himself in a very imfair and ridiculous 
 maimer, and his ill-natured attack — which he did not confine to 
 one paper — unfortunately caused the editor of the Times to 
 close his columns to further correspondence ; and to shut out 
 a very valuable letter from the Rev. Mr. Norris, which, how- 
 ever, subsequently, happily, appeared in Notes and Queries, and 
 which supplements the evidence given by the Wroxall Rolls 
 and enables the pedigree of the family to be traced from an 
 earher period than could be deduced from the Wroxall Court 
 Rolls alone. 
 
130 
 
 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 The following pedigree can be deduced from the letter ia 
 Notes and Queries : — 
 
 Adam de Olditch... 
 
 Adam Shakspere = Alice, 
 
 sonand heir 24 Nov. , 1389, held 
 lands in Baddesley Clinton, of 
 John de Fowke and Johanna 
 his wife, dau. and heir of 
 Thomas de Clinton, by mili- 
 tary service, died 1414. 
 
 living 1414. 
 
 John Shakspere, = 
 
 son and heir, an infant, 1414, 
 mentioned 1425 and 1442. 
 
 Ralf Shakspere = Johanna = Isabella 
 
 of Woldich, held lands 
 in Baddesley Clinton, 
 called Chedwins, ad. 
 joining Wroxall, 1466. 
 1464 member of the 
 Guild of Knowle. 
 
 first wife, 
 dead 1464. 
 
 living Z464. 
 Member of 
 the Guild of 
 Knowle. 
 
 Richard Shakspere = Alice, 
 of Wroxall. Guild - " " 
 of Knowle, 1460 
 and 1464, 
 
 Guild of 
 
 Knowle, 
 
 1460. 
 
 = Margery> 
 
 Guild of 
 
 Knowle, 
 
 1464 (?) 
 
 Elizabeth ux, Isolda ux, 
 
 Robt. Huddespit, dau. Robt. 
 
 and co-heir, 14 Dec, Kakley, 
 
 1506, then a widow ; dau. and 
 
 held the lands which heir, 1497. 
 Adam Shakspere held 
 in 1389, 
 
 There can be but little doubt but that the records from 
 which the Rev. Mr. Norris gives his information must once 
 have been the property of Henry Ferrars, Lord of Baddesley 
 Clinton, himself a great antiquary, and therefore, necessarily, a 
 lover of truth, who would have been only anxious to give the 
 best information respecting England's greatest bard, and the 
 more so that Ferrars himself was a noble Catholic, who suffered 
 greatly through the vile tyranny of the Virgin Queen, and he 
 would have been glad to aid in the proof that the poet and his 
 family were also members of the true Church, e The author 
 attempted in vain to get further information from Baddesley. 
 But it is useless to repine ; one can only regret that unfor- 
 
THE GENTL^ SHAKSPERE. 
 
 131 
 
 tunate illiberality has closed this avenue to knowledge. It may 
 perhaps be permitted to ask why have these interesting facts 
 been so long concealed from the public, and why are they only 
 half published now ? 
 
 The following pedigree can be deduced from the Wroxall 
 Court Rolls :— 
 
 John Shakspere, = Alice, 
 
 of Rowenton, 1460, 
 member of the Guild 
 of Knowle. 
 
 living 1460. 
 
 John Shakspere, = Elenor Cockes, 
 
 of Rowington, 23 tly. VII., 
 had a grant of land in 
 Wroxall from the Lady Isa- 
 bella Shakspere, the Prioress. 
 + a 22 Henry VHI. 
 
 living 23 Hy. VH., 
 a widow, 22 Hen. 
 
 vni. 
 
 Anthony, 
 living 22 Hen. VHI. 
 
 John Shakspere = Agnes 
 Guild of Knowle. 18 18 Hen. VIII. 
 Hen. VIII. ; had 
 land at Wroxall. 
 
 This pedigree can be shown from Wills and Parish 
 Registers :— 
 
 William = Barbara Nicolas John of Agnes xa. 
 daii. of of Stiif. m. of Wroxall. Richard 
 
 Edward Hazeley. 1589. Hazeley. Will 
 GrifEn, of 1574. 
 
 Braybrook 
 and Berks- 
 well. She 
 was living 
 IS74 (?) , 
 
 RichaFd Shakspere =Alys, 
 Bailiff of Wroxall, 
 l4Hen.Vin.,had 
 land at Haseley and 
 Snytterfield. + At 
 Snytterfield 1560-1. 
 
 Woodams 
 
 or 
 
 Wooham. 
 
 John Shakspere=Mary, dau. and 
 
 of Snytterfield, 
 1560, and of 
 Stratford - on - 
 Avon. + 1601. 
 
 co-heir of 
 Robert Arden, 
 of Wilmecote. 
 t 1608. 
 
 Henry 
 
 Thomas 
 
 WILLIAM SHAKSPERE, 
 the poet. 
 
 In the absence of further proof, which can doubtless be 
 obtained from Baddesley Clinton and from a proper search at 
 
132 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 the Worcester Probate Registry, it would be unsafe to complete 
 this pedigree. 
 
 It must be admitted that its details are most unsatisfactory, 
 and the author appealed to the Rev. Mr. Norris to give him an 
 opportunity to inspect the records upon which he founded his 
 letter to Notes and Queries, from which in all probability, if 
 properly and fully abstracted, a clear pedigree might be 
 deduced ; but that gentleman replied stating that he did not 
 feel at liberty to make any further communications ; so for the 
 present this pedigree must remain disjointed. But taken in 
 connection with the entries from the Court Rolls of Wroxall, 
 presently given, and the notices of the Guild of Knowle, there 
 cannot be a doubt that this is the true pedigree of the poet ; 
 and that, in all probability, it was for distinguished bra-\-ery in 
 the wars of King Edward III., or of Kings Henry IV. and V., 
 and possibly at Cressy and Agincourt, that Adam (son of Adam 
 de Oldich) acquired for himself the grant of lands in Baddesley 
 Clinton, held by military service, which so long remained in 
 the hands of his descendants, and to which the Heralds refer 
 obscurely in their account of the poet's ancestors. At present 
 all that can be positively stated is that, for several centuries 
 before the time of the poet, his family had resided in the Forest 
 of Arden, holding their property under the Clintons and the 
 Ferrars, and also under the Priory of Wroxall. We fail, un- 
 fortunately, to find any early account of them in the Records of 
 Wroxall Priory, for the Cartulary appears to have been lost. 
 Sii William Dugdale, at the time of writing his Monasticon, 
 had no trace of it. The earliest record we ha-\'e of the family 
 in the Court Rolls of Wroxall is in one dated 5th Henry V. — it is 
 a grant of land by one Elizabeth Shakspere to John Lone and 
 William Prins of a messuage with three crofts of land. (In 
 the 22 Henry VIII., in the same rolls, is a surrender from Alice 
 Lone of a messuage and five crofts to William Shakspere and 
 Agnes his wife, which probably relates to the same property). 
 The next notice of the family is that of the Lady Isabella 
 Shakspere, who was Prioress of Wroxall in the reign of 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 133 
 
 Edward IV., and who apparently continued in that office till 
 the 23 Henry VII., when she granted land there to John 
 Shakspere. There appears to be a still earher, but only a 
 fragmentary, mention of a Thomas Shakspere at Coventry, only 
 some eight or ten miles distant. 
 
 Joseph Hunter, in the 1st Volume of his Shakspere Notes 
 in the British Museum, (Additional M.S. 24,494, article 246), 
 gives a note without date or reference, except that it is from 
 the Exchequer, to the effect that it contains the names of 41 
 persons of Coventry indicted of felony, who had fled, and their 
 goods were forfeited, Thomas Shepeye and Henry Wilcock 
 being bailiffs. The particular entry as to Thomas Shakspere 
 is that he being a merchant, being indicted of felony, had fled 
 and forfeited his goods. It does not follow that there was any 
 disgrace in the matter ; a felon at that date might be 
 merely a political offender, or perhaps he was involved in 
 some rebelhon. Hunter could give no date for this roll, 
 and of course he fails to give the proper reference or descrip- 
 tion of it. A search at the Record Office for the indictment 
 has failed to produce any evidence whatever, but a printed 
 list of the Bailifife of Coventry gives the names of Thomas 
 Shepeye and Henry Dilcock as bailiffs in 1359, and this is 
 probably the date of the record, for Wilcock is a very likely 
 error for the less common name of Dilcock. 
 
 This is the earliest notice of the name of Shakspere yet 
 found in Warwickshire. 
 
 We find in the records of the Guild of Knowle the name of 
 a Thomas Shakspere and Christian, his wife, at Rowenton, as 
 early as 1476, and again a Thomas was living at Balsal, and 
 with Alice, his wife, was a member of the same Guild in i486 ; 
 and in 28 Henry VIII. we find the names of Thomas and 
 Richard Shakspere amongst the Archers of King Henry the VIU. 
 All these places — Rowenton, Woldich, Balsal, Berkswell, and 
 'Wroxall, are close together, and Baddesley Clinton is in the 
 
134 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 midst of them, leaving but little doubt that the cradle of the 
 family was at the latter place. 
 
 There is a remarkably fine collection of Court Rolls for 
 Wroxall, now in the P.R.O., which, fortunately for posterity, 
 were seized at the date of the dissolution of the Monastery, by 
 that pious monarch, King Henry VIII. No doubt the tender 
 conscience of the King was disturbed lest the good Nuns should, 
 have their minds diverted from the exercise of their rehgion: 
 by such sublunary attractions as lands and tenements. 
 
 We find in the Valor Ecclesiasticus evidence of the position 
 of Richard Shakspere, who held the office of bailiff and 
 collector for them, together with an account of these dangerous 
 temptations to the sin of covetousness. The date of this record 
 is not quite clear from the printed account ; it no doubt took 
 some time to absorb the lands and goods of so many religious 
 foundations, and the nearest date for the spoilation of this part 
 of the country was the writ for Hereford, which was dated the 
 30th June, 26 Henry VIII., and the return was enrolled Hilary 
 Term 29 Henry VIII. There is a date of a commission for 
 Worcester and Warwick of the i8th October 33 Henry VIII,, 
 and this date may be that of this act of vandahsm, though it is 
 probably too late for it. 
 
 This return shows that Sir Edward Ferrars, Capital 
 Senescal of the the Priory, for his fee held lands valued at 
 26s. 8d. ; and that Richard Shakspere, bailiff and collector of 
 rents of the said Priory, held a fee valued at 40s. per annum. 
 He, however, seems to have been displaced in his coUectorship 
 before this period, for John Hall was appointed collector of 
 rents by letter patent, dated 4th January, 26 Henry VIII. The 
 Priory amongst other places held rents in Hatton, Haseley,, 
 Balsal, and 24s. in Cheping Warden. 
 
 Notwithstanding the connection of the Shaksperes with. 
 Wroxall Priory, it would hardly seem that they resided in that 
 parish until about King Henry the VIII.'s reign ; for, though. 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 135 
 
 considerable landowners, they are not foimd as jurors at the 
 Courts. The earliest rolls contain no mention of the name, 
 nor is any to be found until the 5th year of Henry V. ; yet 
 there were many earlier rolls. 
 
 The first (No. 93, Portfolio 207) is dated St. Martin's, 
 
 14th ; the name of the King is gone ; and by the Record 
 
 authorities it is assumed to be from the handwriting (a very 
 deceptive guide) " probably of the date of King Edward I." 
 The next roll, however (No. 94), is clearly dated the 17th 
 Edward III. ; whilst No. 95 is 46 Edward III. So that 
 probably the first is of the early part of the reign of 
 Edward III. The handwriting of the latter part of the reign 
 of Edward I. and the beginning of Edward III. being very 
 similar. The first roll gives no Shakspere, but there is a notice 
 of one Adam, son of William of the Nash, as well as Roger 
 and Philip Nash of that place — probably the cradle of the 
 family of Nash — so closely connected afterwards with the poet ; 
 and it may be that this Adam of the Nash was identical 
 with Adam de Woldich, and this would give his pedigree for 
 one degree higher. 
 
 In Roll No. 96 of the same series we find two names also 
 closely connected with the poet's family — those of John 
 Coombe and John Taylor — tmder date 8 Richard II. The 
 occurrence of these three names in the cradle of the Shakspere 
 family is certainly remarkable, and would rather tend to the 
 conclusion, were there nothing else remaining to prove it, that 
 they all came from the same spot. 
 
 The first entry of the family at Wroxall is at a Court held 
 at the Feast of St. Philip and St. James, 5 Henry V., where the 
 following entry occurs : — 
 
 Ball'us D'ne pres' q'd Elizabeth Shakspere que tenuit de D'na unu' 
 mesuag' cu' trib's croftis t're cu' pertin' ad volunt' D'ne sc'dum cons' 
 man'ii' fecit inde demissione Joh'i Lone et WiU'o Pryns extra cur' contr' 
 cons' manii' qui quide' Joh'es et Will'us fecerunt inde alia demissione 
 cuid' Ric'o Peny extr' cur' et sine licentia. 
 
136 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 From this record it can only be gathered that one Elizabeth 
 Shakspere — whether maid, wife, or widow does not appear — 
 demised a messuage and three crofts of land, which she held at 
 will, to John Lone and William Pryns, who again leased it to 
 Richard Peny. It does not show where this Elizabeth 
 Shakspere lived either at the date of the lease or that of the 
 Court. The name Prince or Prins is to be found in the Rolls as 
 early as 17 Edward III., and the family of Lone appear again, 
 holding property in connection with the Shaksperes in the 22nd 
 year of King Henry VIII., about which time they changed their 
 name to Lane ; and we find them afterwards in the Heralds' 
 Visitations clearly related to the Coombs, Nashes, and Shak- 
 speres, of Stratford-on-Avon — another link connecting that 
 family with the Shaksperes of Wroxall. It may perhaps be best 
 here to give the names of the Shakspere family ^^'ho enrolled 
 themselves, or their relatives, in the Guild of Knowle. They 
 are to be found there from the earliest period of this Register to 
 its close — ^that is, from about 1450 to the i8th Henry VIII : — 
 
 C. 1457. — Richard Shakspere, and Alice his wife, of Woldich 
 (probably Oldditch adjoining Wroxhall). 
 
 1460. — John Shakspere, and Alice his wife, of Rowenton. 
 
 1464. — Johanna Shakspere. 
 
 Ralf Shakspere, Johanna his first wife, and Isabella his 
 
 second. 
 Richard Shakspere, and Margeria his wife, of Wroxall. 
 1476. — Thomas Shakspere, and Christian his wife, of Rowenton. 
 
 Rich. Sch'pere of Warwick. (This name is given as 
 
 iichaw by the Editor). 
 
 i486. — Prayers for the soul of Thomas Shakspeare. Thomas 
 Shakspere, and Alice his wife, of Balsal. Alice 
 Shakspere for the soul of Thomas Shakspere. 
 Christopher Shakspere, and Isabella, of Packwood. 
 
 19 Henry VII. — For the soul of the Lady Isabella Shakspere, 
 formerly Prioress of Wroxall. (This lady was living in 
 the 23rd of Henry VII. ; and possibly these prayers 
 were given for her soul whilst she was alive, — a com- 
 mon practice in those days). Or it may be that the 
 record date of the 23rd Henry VII. is incorrect. 
 
 1526. — The Lady Jane Shakspere, formerly Prioress of Wroxall. 
 (She died at Haseley, 1570). 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 137 
 
 18 Henry VIII. — Richard Shakspere and Alice his wife. 
 William Shakspere and Agnes his wife. 
 John Shakspere and Johanna his wife. 
 Richard Woodham and Agnes his wife. 
 
 These five last entries may have been made after the 
 dissolution of Wroxall, or it may mean that they were the living" 
 members of the family at that period. A muster-roll, said to be 
 of the date 28 Henry VIII., gives the names of Thomas and 
 Richard Shakspere, archers of Rowington ; William, Shakspere, 
 an archer of Wroxall ; and Richard, a bilraan of that place. 
 
 The Minister's Accounts of 24th April, 28 Henry VIII., 
 give valuable information relative to Wroxall Priory, then lately 
 dissolved. 
 
 George Throckmorton was then Capital Steward. 
 
 John Hall, of Hatton, and Thomas Hawes, Collectors. 
 
 Amongst the tenants were William Lane, John Rabon, 
 Richard Wodham. 
 
 Richard Shakspere paid 7s. pd. rent of a cottage with its 
 appurtenances, held bj^ copy of Court Roll and a heriot. 
 
 William Shakspere paid los. for a messuage, etc., held by 
 cop3^ etc. 
 
 There was also a rent of 6s. 8d. for a messuage or tenement 
 in Wroxall, with an orchard and five crofts of land, late in 
 the tenure of John Shakspere deceased, demised to Ahce 
 Taylor, of Hanwell, in the County of Oxford, by Indenture 
 dated 20th March, 24 Henry VIIL, for 60 years ; and the said 
 Alice did suit of Court to the said Manor of Wroxall or Hatton, 
 and paid Heriot, and it was not lawftil for her to cut trees 
 without license, but she had sufficient firebote and haybote, etc. 
 
 William Lucy paid rent for lands in Hatton. 
 Walter Gryff}'n, Kt., paid 24s. rent for the Prioress's lands, 
 etc., in Chypping warden. 
 
138 THE GEhfTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 There was a rent of 8s. payable for a farm of three crofts 
 and one grove in Haseley, demised to Richard Wodham and 
 Richard Shakspere by Indenture dated 5th June, 15 Henry VIII. 
 
 This account is partly added to in the Augmentation Books 
 in the P.R.O. 
 
 The following entry is a sequel to these Minister's 
 Accounts : — Patent Roll, dated i6th June, 34 Henry VIII.,— 
 being a grant of lands in Wroxall, late belonging to the 
 Monastery, made to Richard Andrews and Leonard Chamber- 
 lain, in the several tenures of Joan Thompson, widow, Alice 
 Washford .... Roo, Thomas Bryan and wife, Richard 
 Ball, John Little, William Lane, John Rabon, William Rogers, 
 Richard Wodham, John Ede, John Eton, John Hoggins, 
 Richard Shakspere, Isabella Lewis, widow, William Shakspere, 
 Richard Mason, Edward Bally, John Byrde, Richard Nade and 
 wife, and Richard Wherritt. 
 
 Also a messuage and tenement in Wroxall, also late belong- 
 ing to the said Monastery, with one orchard and five acres of 
 land, late in the tenure of John Shakspere, and afterwards in the 
 tenure of Alice Taillour. 
 
 Leonard Chamberlain and Richard Andrews, after the 
 manner of the times, did not keep this property ; but it was 
 immediately sold by them to the Burgoynes, who long resided 
 at Wroxall Priory. Chamberlain and his companion were 
 probably nominees or trustees for some great personage who did 
 not care to have his name published in connection with the 
 transaction, it might be indeed that they were the nominees of 
 the Burgoyne family. 
 
 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE. 
 (Pursuant to Statute i and 2 Vict., c. 94.) 
 Court Rolls (General Series), Portfolio 207, No. 99. 
 [Extracts.] 
 Wroxale ss Ad cur' d'ne Isabella Shakspere Priorisse tent' ibin 
 die m'cur in crastino aiar* anno rr Henrici vij xxiij*^" 
 
THE GENTLj: SHAKSPERE. 139 
 
 venit Joh'es Shakspere et cepit de diet' dna unu' 
 Hiesuagiu' iiij" croft' ac una' grovam cu' (? in) Crosse Fild 
 cu' suis p'tin in Wroxale hend' sibi Elene ux' sue ac 
 Antonio filio eor'de' Joh'is et Elene tenend' eis' scd'm 
 consuetudine' manii' ib'm Reddend' inde annuatim diet' 
 d'ne et successor' suis xvij. s. ij. d. (is this 17s. gdf) 
 dando eeia' ad quemlib't eor' deeessu' sive reeessu' unu' 
 h'iett sed'm consuet' manii' p'dci. Et dat dno de fine 
 ad ingress' duos capones. Et admis' est tenens. Et 
 fecit fidelitate. 
 
 Indorso Shakspere. (This parchment is sown to the following 
 Roll) :— 
 
 Wroxale ss Visus Franc' pleg' cu' parva cur' d'ne Agnetis Lyttyll 
 priorisse ib'm tent' ib'm die martis videlit' xj die 
 Octobris anno regni Regis Henr' octavi xxij"*' tempore. 
 
 Edwardi Ferrers Milit' Senescall' ib'm. 
 
 (Richard Shakspere was on the jury.) 
 
 Modo de parva cur'. 
 
 Ad banc cur" vener' Elena Cockes vidua nup' uxor Johis Shak- 
 spere et Antonius Shakspere fil . . . . et Johis 
 Et sursu' reddider' in man' dee' d'ne unu' (surs redd 
 herriett x. s.) mesuagiu quatuor crofta ac unam grovam 
 , . . . cu suis ptin' in Wraxale unde accidit d'ne 
 herriett una vacca eoloris rubii app'ciat ad (Cap'co ter'r) 
 X. s. rem — et sup hoc ad eande' cur venit Johes Rabon 
 et cepit de diet' d'na p'dem mes' iiij" croft' unam grova'. 
 . . . Fylde cu suis p'tin cui d'na p sen*" suu con- 
 cessit inde seisina' hend' p'dem mes' crofl et cet'a 
 
 p'missa Johi et Agneti uxori ejus ac 
 
 Richardo filio eoru'de' Johis et Agnete tenend' eis* p 
 
 t'mio vite eor' viventi sed'm eonsuetud' 
 
 raan'ii ib'm reddend' inde d'ee d'ne et successor' suis 
 an" ad tmio's ib'm usu. . . et alia' s'vic inde p'us 
 debit' et de jur' consuef Dando eciam ad quemlit' 
 deeessu' sive reeessu' de . . . herriett se'd'm cons' 
 man'ii p'dci Et dat (Fin. iiij. li.) d'ne de fine ingressu' iiij. 
 li. Et fecit fidelita tenens, Et ad banc' cur 
 
140 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 p'sentat' est p' homag' q'd Alicia Lone exl^ cur' sursu' 
 
 reddid quinq' croft' cu' 
 
 ptin' in Wroxale unde accidit d'ne de herriett (xij. 
 
 s. heriett) una vacca nigri coloris 
 
 custod ball' d'ne. Et sup hoc ad eande' 
 
 cur' venit (capco terr) Willms Shakespere et cepit de d'. 
 
 croft cu p'tin'cui d'na p' sen" suu'' 
 
 concessit inde seisina h'end sibi et Agnet 
 
 Willi et Agnetis tenend eis p' tmio' vite 
 
 eor' et eor' diucius viventi d'ce d'ne 
 
 et successor' suis an" x. s. ad tmios ibm usual. . . 
 
 eciam ad queml'it decessu' sive 
 
 recessu' success'. (Fin. liij. s. iij. d.) ad ingrm (liij. s. 
 iiij. d.) 
 
 Et fecit d'ne fidelit' Et admiss' est tenens. 
 
 Hatton et Wroxale ss. Visus Franc' pleg' cu' pva' cur' d'ne 
 Agnetis Littyll p'iorisse de Wroxale tent' ib'm die Martis 
 videlit' xxj""" die Aprilis anno re'gni' Reg Henrici octavi 
 vicesimo quinto. 
 
 xiici. Jurat ss. Johes Tybott '\ TRicus Wodham '\ TRicus Sh; kespere") 
 
 p' d'no Rege Ricus Wherett M Johes Kde M Thomas Eborall I 
 
 Ricus Tompson j | Johes Byrde j j Willms Rogers f 
 
 Johes Littyll j Vjohes Uabon j l,JohesEton. ) 
 
 Jur. Qui jural et on'at. 
 
 Joh'es Rabon elect' est Decenar de Wroxale loco 
 Ellec'co Will Lone. 
 
 Offic' I Ricus Shakespere elect' est Gustat' s'vis de Wroxale. 
 y Ricus Wherrett elect' est Gustat' s'vis in Hatton. 
 Et sunt Jurat'. 
 
 Ss Homag ibm videlit' Jur s'up^dci p'sent qd. 
 Obit ten ss. Et qd Johes Shakespere qui de dna tenuit sed'm 
 cons' man'ii unu' mes cu' gardino et iiij°' croft terr' cu' 
 p'tin in Wroxale obiit cit" ult' cur' unde ac'cit d'ne de 
 heriett una juvencula . coloris nigri (h'ett ix. s.) app'ciat' 
 ad ix. s. et rem in custod' d'ne Et qd diet' mes' et ceta' 
 p'missa cu' pt'in rev'ti debent dne p' defectu' tenent' etc 
 I certify that the foregoing are true and authentic extracts. 
 R. DOUGLAS TRIMMER, 
 
 Assistant Keeper of the Public Records. 
 21 October 1895. 
 
THE GENTLg SHAKSPERE. 141 
 
 If the learned reader will observe that the premises, the- 
 subject of the Rolls of the 23rd Henry VII. ; the nth October,. 
 22 Henry VIII. ; and of the 2ist April, 25 Henry VIIL, in each 
 case, consist of a messuage, 4 crofts and a grove or garden (in 
 the two first documents it is called a grove, and in the last a 
 garden), it will be tolerably apparent that they all relate to 
 the same property ; it is quite clear that the two first Rolls do,^ 
 since, curiously, they are sewn together upon the Rolls, The 
 question arises whether the John and Agnes of the Roll of 
 22 Henry VIIL were Rabons or Shaksperes ; if not the latter 
 how came John Shakspere to die possessed of this property in 
 25 Henry VIIL ? This Roll of 22 Henry VIIL has suffered 
 greatly, as this transcript shows, and an important portion at 
 the end of each line has actually perished, so that it is 
 dangerous wholly to trust to it. Possibly the solution is that 
 John Rabon was only an attorney to receive seizin on the part 
 of John Shakspere, and that this is either omitted from the 
 statement or it has perished ; or it may be, of course, that there 
 were two John Shaksperes holding property in Wroxhall at 
 this period. It is also conceivable that the name Rabon is a 
 mistake for Shakspere. However, it should be noted that there 
 certainly was a John Rabon living at Wroxall at the time, and 
 as certainly no John Shakspere was, or had been, resident there 
 who was rich enough to be assessed in the subsidies. In no 
 single Court Roll of Wroxall do we find a John Shakspere on 
 the homage. A Richard Shakspere was upon the homage at 
 this very period, and was appointed ale-taster in 25 Henry VIIL 
 This was probably the weaver, and not the bailiff of the 
 Manor, who was probably the Archer for Rowenton. 
 
 Curiously it may again be observed that the Subsidy Rolls 
 — ^those invaluable records for showing the actual residence of 
 people— do not show a John resident at Wroxall at any date \ 
 but in 14, 15, and 16 Henry VIIL, John Senior and lolra. Junior 
 v.'ere resident contemporaneously in the adjoining village of 
 Rowington, and in 34 and 37 Henry VIIL one John Shakspere 
 was there. 
 
142 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 The Subsidy Rolls show a Richard Shakspere resident at 
 Hampton Corley, who was probably the bailiff of Wroxall of 
 14 Henry VIII., and who resided upon the property belonging 
 to the Priory in that parish, but who does not appear to be 
 assessed again there ; and two years later a Richard is resident 
 at Wroxall, who was not there in 14 Henry VIII. ; in 34-37 
 Henry VIIL, when only the name of William is to be found at 
 Wroxhall, a Richard is assessed at Rowenton. 
 
 The evidence given by the Subsidy Rolls may here con- 
 veniently be taken : — 
 
 192 (128). — 14 and 15 Henry VIII. 
 
 Rowington. John Shaxspere Senior ... ;^7 
 
 192 (127). — 16 Henry VIII. 
 
 Hampton Corley. Richard Shakyspere. 
 Rowington. John Shakesper. Goods .,.;^6 
 
 John Shakesper, junior, do. . . . 40s. 
 Wroxall. Richard Shakspere. do. ...40s. 
 
 192 (165).— 34-5 Henry VIII. 
 
 . Rowington. John Shakspere. ... ... 3d. 
 
 Thomas „ ... ... lad. 
 
 Richard ,, ... ... lod. 
 
 Laurans ,, ... ... 3d. 
 
 Wroxall. WilHam „ i2d. 
 
 William ,, ... ... 3d. 
 
 William ,, ... ... 3d. 
 
 192 (171). — 37 Henry VIII. 
 
 Rowington. John „ ^9 
 
 Wroxall. William „ ;^6 
 
 193(235)-— 35 Elizabeth. 
 
 Rowington. Thomas Shaxspere Goods ...;^3 
 
 193 (247). — 39 Elizabeth do. do. 
 
 William Shakspere, of Wroxhall, 34-7 Henry VIIL, is 
 probably William, husband of Agnes, who obtained a portion of 
 John Shakspere's land there in 22 Henry VIIL, and who was 
 enrolled at Knowle 18 Henry VIIL, together with John, 
 (probably his brother), and Joan, his wife, of Rowenton ; and 
 Richard (probably the Bailiff of Wroxall), and Ahce, his wife, 
 jue Gryfiyne. 
 
THE GENTLE^ SHAKSPERE. 143 
 
 There were certainly three Johns in succession at 
 Rowington, tempe Henry VIII. ; two were assessed 14-16 
 Henry VIII., one died at or before 22 Henry VIII., a second 
 25 Henry VIII., and a third was hving 34-7 Henry VIII. 
 
 The second (or was it the third ?) John Shakspere 
 appears to have demised his lands in 24 Henry VIII. for sixty 
 years to Alice Taylor, of Hanweil, in the County of Oxford, as 
 appears by the Minister's account of Henry VIII. already 
 mentioned. 
 
 Joseph Hunter, in his collections made after the publication 
 of his "Illustrations," (Additional M.S. 24,500. B.M.), gives 
 a rental of Rowenton, 2 Edward VI. Of course he does not 
 state from whence he takes it. Amongst the free tenants at 
 Lowston End was John Shakspere, paying los. lod. ; at 
 Rowington End, John Shakspere (possibly the same or possibly 
 another person) had land for which he paid 6s. lod. ; another 
 rent payable by John Shakspere of 2S. for other land. At 
 Molsowe End, Johanna Shaksper, widow, paid 3s. 8d. rent; 
 a William Shaxper paid 2d. rent, and a Richard Shakspere is 
 also mentioned. John Prickett at this date held part of the 
 Stratford-on-Avon lands belonging to Rowenton. It would 
 appear that Johanna Shakspere died 1557, for her will is 
 recorded at Worcester, but unfcrtunately is lost. In 3 Elizabeth, 
 Thomas Shaxsper held a messuage and one virgate of land in 
 Lowston, late Thomas Cryer's, paying los. lod. a year, being 
 one of the fraternity ; this was probably the land held by 
 Johanna Shakspere in 2 Edward VI. and by John and Joan 
 18 Henry VIII. In Rowington End at the same date John 
 Shakspere held a cottage and croft called the Twycroft, in 
 Mond, late William Goodwin's, 2s. rent; and Richard 
 Shakspere held a messuage, half a virgate of land and two 
 parcels of mead, in Church End ; rent 14s. It is curious that 
 two Richard Shakspere's died this year 1 560-1, Richard, of 
 Snytterfield, the poet's grandfather, and Richard, the weaver, 
 of Wroxall. The Roll following this if it could be found might 
 give very valuable testimony. 
 
144 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 The first-named John Shakspere, according to the Court Rolls^^ 
 of 23 Henry VII. and 22 Henry VIII., had a wife named Elenor j, 
 and there is a puzzhng statement in the roll which apparently 
 represents the Court next after the death of her husband, for a 
 heriot is recorded to have been paid (though this is not certain,, 
 for a heriot was payable on surrender also) viz., the statement 
 that she was named Cockes. She is described as a widow, late 
 wife of John Shakspere. Had she married a Mr Cockes between 
 the date of John's death and of the surrender, who had also died,, 
 or was Mr. Cockes possibly then living ? She may have been 
 the daughter of one Cockes. Now in 5 Henry VII. — onlj^ 
 eighteen years before the grant from the Lady Isabella Shaks- 
 pere of the Wroxall land— one Richard Cockes was bailiff of 
 Knowle (Court Rolls, P.R.O., Portfolio 207, No. 47) ; and we 
 find at a later date that George Nash, of Old Stratford, married 
 Maria, daughter of Edward Cox, of London ; and whilst his 
 nephew, Thomas Nash, of Lincoln's Inn, married the Poet's 
 granddaughter, Ann Nash, his sister, married William, son of 
 Edward Cox, and Francisca Nash, a sister of George, married 
 John Lane, of Stratford — another link between the Poet and 
 Wroxall. 
 
 The second John Shakspere, of Rowentor, had a wife 
 Johanna, and they were members of the Guild of Knowle in 18 
 Henry VIII. He appears to have been dead in 2 Edward VI.,. 
 for Johanna Shaxsper, widow, paid 3s. 8d. rent for land in 
 Molsowe ; and the third John Shaxsper then paid a rent of 
 los. lod. for land at Lowston End. He appears to have died 
 before 3 Elizabeth, for that year Thomas Shaxsper held the land 
 at Lowston, paying los. rod., the same rent. This is doubtless 
 the Thomas Shakspere of the Subsidies of 35-9 Elizabeth, and 
 probably the same person mentioned in the V\''roxa!l Court 
 Rolls. 
 
 In Court Roll No. 37, Portfolio 207, for Edward VI. (no 
 year given) Richard Shakspere was on the jury for Hatton — a 
 Court which apparently is in the Manor of Wroxall— and he 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 145 
 
 again appears on the jury in a Court held 12th April, 5 Edward 
 VI. Presumably this is Richard, the bailiff, who afterwards 
 resided at Snytterfield. We first hear of him there. 
 
 In No. 64 of the same series is a Court Roll for Rowington 
 undated, but dated approximately by the authorities at the 
 P.R.O., as 5 Elizabeth, " because it was found with papers of 
 that date." It is, however, very clearly of the year 1557, 
 Taecause Thomas fil Roger Oldnal paid the heriot due upon his 
 father's death, and Roger Oldnal'swill is proved in the year 1557. 
 
 Juliana Lee was sued for not delivering a grant of a fishery 
 to Thomas Atwood. This Thomas Atwood was the son of 
 the son-in-law of Thomas Gryffyn, of Fenny Compton, 
 who died in 1539, and whose sister married Richard Shakspere, 
 ■of Wroxall ; which Thomas Atwood apparently died at Stratford 
 in 1543, bequeathing four oxen to Richard Shakspere, then in 
 his keeping at Haseley. 
 
 Richard Saunders, Anthony Ludford, and Richard Brook 
 are mentioned, also Laurence Shakespere and John Byrde, 
 senior. 
 
 The only previous notice we have of Laurence Shakespere 
 IS in a Rowenton Subsidy Roll of 34 Henry VIIL, and he is 
 mentioned as a cousin in John Shakspere's will, 1574. John 
 Byrde is mentioned in a Wroxall Subsidy Roll for 34 Henry 
 ■\^III. ; Nicholas Byrde was tenant of Wroxall Priory for the 
 lands of the foundation in Rowington. 
 
 Robert Shakspere and Robert Bucke are presented for 
 non-suit ; the former was probably then living in Tackbrook. 
 
 John Shakspere paid heriot for a messuage in Mowsley end 
 of William Byrde j this John Shakspere was probably the 
 second of the name, who died 22 Henry VIIL, for we find in the 
 time of Edward VI., Johanna Shakespere, widow, held land in 
 Mowsley end, and 18 Henry VIIL, John Shakspere and Johanna 
 his wife, were members of the Guild of Knowle. 
 
146 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 Henry Medley, son and heir-apparent of George Medley;- 
 deceased, paid his heriot for land in Rowenton — a family of 
 great interest to this enquiry, since the Griffins afterwards inter- 
 married with them. This death also helps to date this Roll as 
 1557. George Medley dying that year. 
 
 William Hill was Deputy Senescal ; he was probably half- 
 brother of Mary Arden. 
 
 In No. 65 of the same series is a Court Roll, 1632, for 
 Rowington, in which Thomas Shakespere is presented. 
 
 In 1635 are the admissions of several tenants to the lands 
 held of the Manor in Stratford-on-Avon. 
 
 1647, at a Court of the Queen's Majesty, (Henrietta Maria, 
 Queen of King Charles I., who subsequently resided in William 
 Shakspere's house in Stratford whilst the Civil War was raging), 
 Thomas Shakspere pays a fine of 6s. 8d. for admission to lands 
 surrendered by himself to himself and others. 
 
 1648 is a license to Margaret Shakspere to demise lands for 
 21 years. 
 
 Tempe John Pickering, Lord Keeper, Thomas Shakspere,. 
 of Rowington, and Maria, his wife, daughter and heir of William 
 Mathews deceased, filed his bill in Chancery. John Mathews,, 
 father of William, was seized of a messuage in Rowington and 
 Clendon, and of tenements in Hatton, Shrawley, Rowington, 
 and Pinley. He was also styled alias Smith in some of the 
 wills. 
 
 Hil. 16 Elizabeth. Hugo Walford, Quer, and Thomas 
 Shakspere, and Maria, his wife, defendants, of a cottage and five 
 acres of land in Norton Curlew. Easter, 20 James I. Thomas 
 Shakspere, Quer, and John Hall, and Joyce, his wife,, 
 defendants, of twelve acres of land in Rowington, which were 
 sold to the said Thomas Shakspere in 41 Elizabeth. 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 147 
 
 « 
 
 Amongst the M.SS. in the Free Library of Birmingham is 
 a fine, dated 7, Charles I., between Adrien Shakspere, Quer,, 
 and Thomas Green, and Anna, his wife, defendants, of four 
 acres of meadow and twenty-six acres of pasture in Old 
 Fillongley ; and there is a bond for £/[o of Adrien Shakspere,. 
 of Meridon, yeoman, made to John Waring, of Bourton, which 
 possibly has reference to the same transaction. There is 
 another fine dated Easter, 26 Charles II., between Thomas 
 Brearly, gentleman, and Thomas Shakspere, gentleman, Quer,. 
 and Martin Brearly, and Sarah, his wife, Ballard Townend and 
 Maria, his wife, defendants, of a cottage and water-mill and 
 nine acres of pasture in Fillongley and Arley. 
 
 No connection has as yet been traced between these 
 members of the family ; but it is curious that we should here 
 find the name of the great Englishman, Nicholas Breakspere,_ 
 Pope Adrian IV., adopted as a Christian name by this family, 
 and still more curious that the arms of the Pope are said to- 
 have been identical with those afterwards borne by the Poet., 
 
 Exchr. Q.R. Searches to pass beyond seas. No. 17 P.R.O.,. 
 13th Jime, 1632. Thomas Shakspere, set 23 to pass to the low 
 countries to serve as a soldier ; and 25th August, 1631, the same 
 had license to go to Rotterdam, to serve as a soldier, aet 24. 
 There is some error in the date or age, but the document does 
 not explain it. 
 
 (The author is indebted for these two extracts to thfr 
 courtesy of Mr. Noble, Record Agent). 
 
 It appears from the poet's will that he held land in Strat- 
 ford, which was parcel of the Manor of Rowington ; and also,, 
 it appears, that he purchased some land there, also held of the 
 same Manor, but it by no means follows that this is the same 
 land. This purchase may merely have been of some additional 
 land, the poet seemed fond of making additions to his purchases, 
 and the other land may have been inherited by him from his 
 grandfather, Richard of Haseley. 
 
^4^ THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 He does not appear by his will to make any disposition 
 of this land, as he probably would do, if it were only that 
 which he had acquired by purchase ; but he leaves to his 
 .dauglrter Judith an additional legacy of ;^so, upon condition of 
 her surrendering her right in a copyhold tenement in Stratford, 
 held of the Manor of Rowington ; so that this property, what- 
 ever it was, evidently descended to her at his death as one of 
 coheir without any act of his disposition. The author was 
 informed in answer to his inquir}^, that the Coiut Rolls of 
 Rowington, formerly preserved at Warwick, were burnt ; 
 if, however, they should be in existence, they would assuredly 
 give valuable evidence upon this interesting point. 
 
 Everything connected with Wroxall must be of the deepest 
 interest to the Shakesperian student, seeing that here is the 
 very cradle and home of the family for over two hundred years 
 prior to the birth of the poet, whose father was doubtless 
 baptised in this place, but unfortunately the Registers are lost 
 for the period. 
 
 We know, too, that in 5 Edward IV., Richard Shakspere, 
 the first of the name of whom we have record, resided here, 
 and held lands in connection with Ralf, his brother, in 
 Baddesley Clinton. Probably he was father, or perhaps 
 brother of the Lady Isabella Shakspere, the first Prioress of 
 Wroxall of this family, and he was probably grandsire of the 
 last Prioress, the Lady Jane Shakspere, who died at Haseley in 
 1570. His brother Ralf seems only to have left two daughters 
 and co-heirs, who both married — although, of course, if he had 
 a daughter Isabella she may have renoimced her inheritance 
 upon becoming Prioress. Ralf had a second wife named 
 Isabella, but she could hardly be the Prioress, for he died as 
 late as 1496. The Lady Isabella was Prioress long before the 
 death of Ralf Shakspere. 
 
 Unfortunately the Wroxall Registers only begin in 1586, 
 and there is a terrible gap from 1604 to 1641, a rather unusual 
 period for loss, from which it may be hoped that it may yet be 
 
THE GENTLE^SHAKSPERE, 149 
 
 found hidden away, perhaps in the lumber-room of some old 
 farmhouse or other in the parish itself. For so precious a 
 record now that it is clear that the poet's family came from this 
 place, it is to be hoped that a strict search may be made in the 
 neighbourhood, and that, if possible, it may be recovered. It 
 w^ould be gratifying indeed to find a history of the family 
 iefore they were exiled, and driven to take a settlement in 
 Haseley. 
 
 There is a curious confusion of parishes. It would seem 
 that Wroxall originally must have been in the parish, and 
 Honour of Hatton, for the earliest legends of Wroxall speak 
 (perhaps erroneously) of a Castle of that name having been 
 founded by Hugh de Hatton. In the early Court Rolls of the 
 Prioress, as well as in the Minister's Accounts, it is described 
 as that of " Wroxhall or Hatton," and lands are held of it in 
 Hampden Curlew, and Budbrook, The Parish Registers of 
 Haseley are mixed up with those of Hatton, as if Hatton were 
 the mother church ; yet in a document to be mentioned 
 presently, the town of Hatton is said to be in the parish of 
 Budbrook, The Subsidy Rolls make no assessment for Hatton, 
 but only for Budbrook, Haseley, and Wroxall separately. 
 
 WROXHALL PARISH REGISTERS BEGIN 1586 
 WITH :— 
 
 1586. June 5. Elenadau. of. and Elizabeth 
 
 Lane, baptd. 
 
 Luke son of Richard and Elenor Rogers, 
 baptd. 
 
 Feb. 2. Wm. Andrews and Marie Phinnes, m. 
 
 1587. April 9. Nathaniel, son of James Woodams and 
 
 Margaret his wife, baptd. 
 John, son of William Tomes and Alice his 
 wife, baptd, 
 
 1588. Nathaniel, son of Richard and Anna Bird, 
 
 baptd. 
 
 Dec, 9. Fraunces Shaxper ed was buried. 
 
 jegg. July 16. William Wherrett and Marie Webb, m. 
 J590. June 28. Marie, their daughter baptised. 
 
I^O 
 
 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 
 Aug. 30. 
 
 
 Sep. 8. 
 
 
 Feb. 9. 
 
 1591- 
 
 Aug. 
 
 1592. 
 
 Sep. 17. 
 
 
 May 29. 
 
 
 June II. 
 
 1593- 
 
 Mar. 25. 
 
 
 Nov. 28, 
 
 1594. Nov. 17. 
 
 1595- 
 
 Sept. 17. 
 
 1596. 
 
 Mar. 6. 
 
 
 Sep. 10. 
 
 
 Feb. 24. 
 
 
 Sep. 29. 
 
 1597- 
 
 Jan. 27. 
 
 
 June 19. 
 
 1598. 
 
 June 3. 
 
 
 Oct. 9. 
 
 1599- 
 
 Feb. 3. 
 
 
 Sep. 4. 
 
 
 Nov. 20. 
 
 1600. 
 
 June 15. 
 
 I60I. 
 1602. 
 
 Aug. 30. 
 April 9. 
 
 July 19. 
 Oct. 10. 
 
 1603. June 15. 
 
 William Wharton and loane Lane, m. 
 
 Edward Temple and Elizabeth Burgoyne, m. 
 
 William Stubbing and Margaret Woodham. 
 
 James Woodham, buried. 
 
 Thomas Green, churchwarden. 
 
 William, fil Alexr. Bird of Haseley, baptised 
 at Wroxall. 
 
 Nicolas Shaxper and Alice Edmunds, m. 
 
 Edward Darmer and Isabel Lane, m. 
 
 Peter, fil Nicolas and Alice Shaxper, baptised 
 
 Clement Throckmorton, of Haseley, and 
 Elizabeth Ludford, of Wetherley, Gentm.,. 
 m. at Wroxall. 
 
 Susannah, dau. of Nicolas and Alice Shaxper, 
 baptised. 
 
 Elizabeth ux. William Shaxper, buried. 
 
 Thomas, son of Thomas Green and Judith 
 his wife, baptised. 
 
 Cornelius, fil Nic. and Alice Shaxper, 
 baptised. 
 
 Thomas Green and Judith Holm, married. 
 
 Philip Griffin and Katherine Wilkinson, m. 
 at Wroxall. 
 
 Elizabeth Hart, buried. 
 
 Richard Bird, buried. 
 
 William White and Sarah Webb, married. 
 
 Ralf Little, buried. 
 
 Annah, dau. of Nic. and Alice Shaxper, 
 
 baptised. 
 John Burgoyne and Barbara Ludford, m. 
 John Hill and Joyce Woodall, m. at Wroxall. 
 Mary, dau. of John Burgoyne of Rowington 
 
 and of Barbara his wife, baptised. 
 Anthony, fil Thomas Percival, baptised. 
 Annah, dau. of Nic. and Alice Shaxper,. 
 
 bap. and bu, 
 John, fil John Hill of Rowington, baptised. 
 Susannah, dau. of Clement Hoolyhock and 
 
 Hannah his wife, baptised. 
 Hester, dau. of Nic. and Alice Shaxper, 
 
 baptised. 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. iqi 
 
 (No Registers from 1604 to 1641.) 
 
 1641. Peter Shakspeare, buried. 
 
 Mathew, fil Mathew Woodam and his wife, 
 baptised. 
 
 1642. Elizabeth, dau. of John Roe and Ann his 
 
 wife, baptised. 
 
 May 17. WilHam Smith and Catherine Shakspere, 
 married. 
 
 Nicolas Shakspere, buried. 
 Mary, dau. of John and Mary Cook, baptised. 
 Ralf Stokes and Margaret Shakspeare, m. 
 Cathe, dau. of Ralf Stokes of Hatton, 
 deceased, and Margaret his wife, baptised. 
 Eleanor Queeny of Beaushall, buried. 
 Robert Shakespeare and Ann Averne, m. 
 
 Jane, dau. of Robert Shakspeare the elder, 
 buried. 
 
 Robert, fil Richard Shakespeare and his wife, 
 baptised. 
 
 Clement Throckmorton of Hazeley and Mrs. 
 Elizabeth Lucy of this parish, married. 
 
 Ann, ux. Robert Shakespeare, buried. 
 
 Robert Shakespeare, buried. 
 
 Mathew Wise, Esq., of the Priory, Warwick, 
 and Finetta Holbeach of Warwick. 
 
 1779. The widow of Thomas Hales of Knowie 
 
 Hall, buried. 
 
 The follcfwing Inventory is of great interest, from the number 
 of persons named in it who were connected with the Poet. 
 
 1557. Nov. 26. The goods of Hugh Porter of Snytterfield, 
 prised by Thomas Robyns, Henry CoUe, 
 William Parkes. 
 There was certain stuff of Hugh Porter's in 
 the house of Richard Mayde. 
 ■ The debts that be owing to and from Hugh 
 Porter : — Thomas Burbury of Chipping 
 Dorset and Walter Feckington, £,^0. 
 William Hychenen, ;£,\o. Richard Shak- 
 spere of Snytterfield oweth unto Hugh 
 Porter of Snytterfield ye sum of 40s. Item 
 the executors of Robert Arden of Wilnecote 
 and Thomas Stringer of Barely, Daniel 
 Hall of Warwick, Edward AUway of Grove 
 
 1645. 
 
 Sep. 25. 
 
 1648. 
 
 Dec. 8. 
 
 1665. 
 
 May 16. 
 
 1667. 
 
 May II. 
 
 I6S9. 
 
 June 25. 
 
 1670. 
 
 Jan. 26. 
 
 1678. 
 
 Oct. 4. 
 
 I68I. 
 
 Mar. 29. 
 
 1704. 
 
 June 8. 
 
 I7I4. 
 
 May 30. 
 
 I7I9. 
 
 l-'ay 13. 
 
 1748. 
 
 
152 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 Park. William Bott, £io. for the which 
 he hath in mortgage of the land of the said 
 Hugh Porter in the town of Hatton in the 
 parish of Budbrook. Richard Shevelock 
 of Priors Hardwick, /14. Bond by Robert 
 Nicolls of Snytterfield and John Porter of 
 Wychbold. Nearly all these persons and 
 places are connected with the Shakspere 
 famil3^ 
 
 1561. June 28. William Reve of Rowington by his Will gave 
 a "chyle" sheep to Margaret Shaxspere 
 (the first legacy bequeath). 
 
 He had 2 brothers, John and William Reve. 
 
 Katherine, his wife, and Thomas, his son, 
 Exors. 
 
 Overseers: — His brother John Reve, John 
 Reve son of Alys Reve, and William 
 Saunders the younger. 
 
 1561. June 15. Richard Shakysspeare of Rowenton, Weyver, 
 
 Sons, William, Richard (under 23). 
 Mentions John and William Reve, his 
 
 brothers-in-law. 
 T. Richard Hatch, Richard Shakespere. 
 
 Proved 30th June, 1561. 
 Goods prised by John Shaxsper and Richard 
 
 Saunders. 
 
 1565. Mar. 19. Will proved of Robert Shakspere of Wroxall. 
 Son Nicolas. Various legacies; amongst 
 them he mentions silver spoons. Jone, wife. 
 Daughters, Frances and Margaret. His 
 brother Lone and brother Eichard Yeman 
 to be his Trustees. Debts owing by 
 Nicolas Shakspere and Robert Lythe. 
 Goods prised by Nicholas Edwards, William 
 Shaxspere, Edward Lone, Richard (son?), 
 John Bird. 
 
 1557. Robert Shakspere held land in Rowenton, 
 
 The place of this Robert Shakspere in the pedigree is 
 exceedingly puzzling, from his date, and his mention of his 
 brother Lone we naturally recur to the surrender of Alice Lone 
 to William Shakspere of land in Wroxall in 22 Henry VIII. 
 Possibly she was the widow of a Shakspere who married a 
 Lone before or afterwards, so that Shakspere and Lone were 
 of the half-blood. This relationship, recorded in the will, must 
 have been of a later date, and, in that case, probably Robert 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 153 
 
 Shakspere was a son of William and Agnes who obtained the 
 Wroxall property from Alice Lone ; the relationship, however, 
 can only be guessed at. 
 
 1565. Feb. 10. Elizabeth. Bond upon the administration 
 of the goods of Richard Shakspere of 
 Snytterfield, in ^100, made by John 
 Shakspere of Snytterfield, Agricola, and 
 Thomas NicoUs of Snytterfield, Agricola, 
 John Shakspere being the administrator of 
 the said Bichard Shakspere. 
 
 1569. Dec. 25. John Pardu of Snytterfield. Sons: William, 
 
 Thomas, and Harry. Mychel Gudryde, 
 Mr. William Cokes, and Wylliam Shax- 
 pere, overseers in the Will ; the names of 
 Cokes and William Shaxpere are included 
 at Snitterfield just as they both appear 
 together on the Wroxall Court Rolls of 
 22 Henry VIII. 
 
 1570. William Weyle of Haseley. Alice, eldest 
 
 daughter, wife of Nicholas Raybon. Isabel, 
 wife ; children : Kenelm, Bartholomew 
 and Clemeiit, Joan and Elizabeth. Clement 
 Throckmorton, John Deteritch, parson of 
 Haseley. William AvereU and my brother 
 John Weyle, overseers. 
 
 1571. April 30. Thomas Yeton of Rowenton. John, his 
 
 son ; eldest daughters : Mary, Alice, and 
 Jane, 40 merks each. My wife's three 
 sisters, Margery, Annis, and Mary. 
 Thomas, my son, to have my free land in 
 Hatton and Bewsall, which I bought of 
 William Atwood of Tamworth.and Dorothy, 
 his wife. Lease to John Reve the younger, 
 then to remain to Anne, my daughter. 
 Anthony Byrde, my sister Mary Crane, 
 and Humphrey Crane of Warwick, with 
 my wife Isabel, executors. Thomas 
 Atwood and John Bennett, overseers. 
 T. — Thomas Atwood, Thomas Ley, and 
 George How. Goods prised by John 
 Sadler, John Collett, and William Saunders. 
 Proved 24th May, 1571. 
 
 Most of these persons are relatives and connections of the 
 Shakspere family, and are merdioned in their wills or in 
 their records. 
 
 1574. Dec. 15. John Shaxper of Wroxall, laborer, leaves 
 his goods between Edward, his son, and 
 
^54 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 his wife, they to take his land if his land- 
 lord permits. Mentions his sister Ales, 
 and a coffer belonging to his late father. 
 His brother Woodam's children, 13s. 4d. 
 each, in the hands of Thomas Rogers of 
 Netherwood. His cousin Laurence Shax- 
 per of Balsall; his brothers William 
 Shaxper and Nicolas; daughter, Alice 
 Windmiles, Godson, Thomas Mortiboys; 
 George Tyler and James Woodham, 
 executors. William Shaw, clerk, who 
 attested his will, to have 2s. for his 
 pains. 
 
 The goods were prised by George Tyler, James Woodhams, 
 Edward Lane, John Birde, and Richard UnderhiH, at the sum 
 of £30 3s, 2d. This will has been overlooked probably because 
 the Testator is described as a laborer; but this term merely 
 meant that he was a tenant-farmer (Agricold), and had no land 
 of his own. At the suppression of the Priory, the Manor and 
 lands of Wroxhall passed to the Burgoynes, who seem to have 
 been good landlords to the old tenants. In 34 Henry VIII. 
 (about 30 years previously), we find amongst the Priory tenants 
 then passing under the Burgoyne lordship, Richard and William 
 Shakspere, William Lane, Richard Woodham, and Richard 
 Underbill, John Birde and John Rogers,— six out of seven of 
 these names are mentioned in John Shaxper's will, — proof that 
 the Burgoynes were merciful landlords. The Underbills we 
 afterwards find selling land to the Poet himself. 
 
 The inventory did not display anything like wealth ; but 
 the painted cloths, stated to be in the hall, shewed a refinement 
 which one could not expect to find in a mere laborer's cottage, 
 but which very naturally remained with a despoiled tenant 
 of the Reformation. Of live stock, there is recorded 4 keine, 
 2 heifers, 3 young beasts, one bay mare, 9 sheep, 2 store pigs, 
 and 3 geese. In the Hall was a tableboard with forms and 
 benches, 2 cheres, 2 stools, one coperor, and 2 painted cloths, 
 priced at los. ; brass and pewter, 32s. ; one flock bed, 
 2 mattresses, one bed hitting on blankets, 3 twithes, 5 peyre of 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. I55 
 
 sheets, with the rest of the hnen cloths, 20s. ; 2 bolsters, 
 with painted cloths, 3 bedsteads, 7 cofers, with other things. 
 
 Iron ware, one broch, one cohered, one gridiron, a potte 
 hanging, and a fringe paine. 
 
 The admirers of Halliwell Phillips may observe that there 
 were evidently towels and table-cloths, although not 
 specifically mentioned, and doubtless in Robert Arden's 
 inventory these things were taken in the lump in the same 
 manner. 
 
 This will estabhshes the following pedigree, and the sister 
 Alice may well have been the widow of Richard, the Bailiff of 
 Wroxhall : — 
 
 John Shaxper= William Nicholas. Ales. 
 
 of Wroxall. 
 Will, 1574. 
 
 Edward Alice ux 
 
 Windmilts. 
 
 In the same year, John Shaxper, of Rowington, made his will 
 He was not so wealthy as his cousin of Wroxall, for his goods 
 were only prised at ;^8 : 6 : 8 ; but he was better off in some 
 respects, for he possessed lands at Shrawley called Madywattons, 
 which he entailed upon George, his son, with remainder to his 
 -daughter Annis, to whom also he gave 20 marks upon her 
 marriage. He bequeathed ^"20 to Thomas, his son. 
 
 Eleanor was his wife ; Nicholas and Thomas, his brothers. 
 He mentions his Aunt Ley, the midwife, to whom he gave a 
 bushel of com. Perhaps the term aunt is not intended to 
 designate relationship. He left legacies to Elizabeth, Cley, and 
 Catherine Coop. His goods were prised by Richard and Thomas 
 Saunders, Thomas and Richard Shaxper, William Cooper and 
 •George Gunold. Included in his goods were bees and painted 
 cloths. John Shaxper, of Wroxhall (i574)> 'lad a cousin 
 
156 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERK. 
 
 Laurence Shaxper, of Balsall. The only Lawrence known to 
 the author is in the Rowington Court Roll of 1557 before 
 mentioned, in which John Shakspere paid for a heriot on 
 William Bird's property in Mowsley End. This Balsall is 
 probably a mistake for Busall, where some of the Haseley 
 family lived and had property, Nicolas Shakespere dying there 
 in 1609. This will is interesting from another fact — it is the 
 only instance of an Alice Shakespere having been found in 
 Warwickshire at or about this period, this sister Ahce possibly 
 being Alys Griffin. It is valuable in showing that Agnes 
 Woodhams was his sister-in-law, which identifies her again as 
 wife of the Richard, who, 15 Henrj'- VIIL, had a lease with 
 Richard Shakspere of land in Haseley, three years before she 
 became a member of the Guild of Knowle. 
 
 The relationship with Lawrence, again, shows the connec- 
 tion of the Haseley branch with Rowington. 
 
 Richard Shakspere, of Rowington, the Elder. Will dated 6th 
 September, 1591. Sister Turner. Sons — John (who had a son 
 Thomas), Roger, Thomas, William; and daughter Dorothy, wife of 
 Jenks. (Thomas Green, of Little Abie, will 1580, mentions his sister 
 Emma Jenks and her son Edward ) 
 
 Richard Shakspere, of Rowington. Will dated 13th November,, 
 1613. Wife Elizabeth. Sons— ist, Richard (who had issue— Thomas, 
 William, Richard, and John); 2nd, John; 3rd, William (who had 
 issue — John) ; and 4th, Thomas. 
 
 Thomas Shakspere, of Mowsley and Rowington. Will, i3tb 
 October, 1613. Wife Annis, sister of John Scott. Had issue— ist, 
 John (who had issue— William, died 1690, and John, died 1710); 2nd, 
 Thomas ; 3rd, Richard ; and daughters - Elenor, Joan and Annis. 
 
 William Shakspere, of Wroxall, husbandman. Will dated 17th 
 November, 1609. Left brothers and sisters not named. 
 
 loth May, 1590. Will of Richard Saunders, of Wroxall, mentions 
 John Anelie, his daughter's son ; Elizabeth, his wife ; brother, William 
 Saunders; Margaret, daughter of his sister Dorothy. Overseers- John 
 Bird and his brother, Peter Saunders. 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 157 
 
 • 
 
 These few wills are given, but it is not pretended that the 
 author has had time or opportunity to make an exhaustive 
 search, the records of the Probate Court of Worcester being in 
 terrible disorder. There is, indeed, a Calendar of the Wills which 
 is fairly accurate, but it gives, with few exceptions, no places. 
 There is no Calendar of Administrations or Inventories, so that 
 much genealogical information is lost and the labour of getting 
 at the wills is immense. The late Sir Thomas Phillipps has left 
 a Calendar of the Wills, now in the Probate Office, which he 
 must have made from the wills themselves, for in many cases 
 the residences of the testators are given. But nothing can 
 exceed the barbarous treatment of the records. They are 
 generally in fair condition except on the outside edge of some 
 of them, which is eaten away as if by damp ; and as a very 
 large number of the inventories have only the name on the top 
 or outside, and it has been worn away, they are absolutely 
 worthless in the majority of cases. The whole documents for a 
 year are filed on a strong cord — ^to the utter destruction of a 
 number of them — wills, inventories, and bonds. Genealogists 
 will be delighted to learn that scores and hundreds of marriage 
 bonds are included in these bundles, all written on parchment 
 and generally in an excellent condition, for the reign of 
 Queen Elizabeth, and possibly much earher, it is extremely rare 
 to find them. The only drawback as regards these bonds is the 
 difficulty to pick them out; and this difficulty probably 
 accounts for the failure of Shaksperian students to give anything 
 like a fair account of this family, or to find the administration 
 bond of the poet's grandfather, Richard Shakspere of Snytterfield. 
 
 These records give a fair account of the locality of the 
 Shakespere family in the 15th century, and as all their places 
 were within the ancient bounds of the Forest of Arden, and so 
 many of them being archers, it may be fairly concluded that 
 they came of an old forest family. The first entry given in the 
 Regisister of the Guild of Knowle is in fact undated, and that 
 Register is very irregularly transcribed, the Transcriber appar- 
 ently having made the entries as certain rolls (some dated and 
 
158 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE, 
 
 some not) were handed to him. It is, moreover, unreliable 
 even where it is dated ; for instance, the Lady Isabella 
 Shakspere has prayers offered for her soul as if she were dead 
 (though this is not absolutely conclusive, for at times prayers 
 were offered for the souls of the living), in the 17th Henry VII., 
 and she was very clearly alive in the 23rd of this king ; because 
 the Rolls (if they are free from error) prove that she held her 
 Court in that year. The entry of Edward and Joys Griffin, of 
 Berkswell, in 1500, is twice repeated, and its testimony therefore 
 cannot very strictly be relied on, for the spelling of Joyce and 
 of their residence is varied. And there is another difficulty in 
 this enquiry — the name of Woldich is unknown. Dugdale 
 apparently did not know it, but he gives one very similar — 
 Oldich, which probably is the same place. In describing the 
 Lordship of Balsall, the second place in point of date where 
 Shaksperes are to be found, in i486 and i Henry VII., he 
 states : — "From Oldich Corner Westward by Wroxall and 
 Honely Lordships on the South and South-East Corners, the 
 Lordship of Berkswell East and North-East, Lordships of 
 Hampton-in-Arden and Knowle, North North-West and West, 
 Badesley and Wroxall South-West and South-East unto said 
 Corner of Oldich." The Shakesperes, therefore, after they left 
 Baddesley Clinton, settled apparently in the 'Wroxall Corner of 
 Balsall, which again is very near to Rowenton. 
 
 This, almost the oldest abode of the family, is of great 
 interest, not only for the Shakspere, but the Griffyn family first 
 settled here. Balsall originally belonged to the Knights 
 Hospitallers, and though, of course, seized by the rapacious 
 King Henry VIII., was by him given with Rowington in dower 
 to Katherine Parr ; who, poor lady, enjoyed it but a short time, 
 though she just escaped murder at the hands of her august 
 husband, yet probably she died from the shock of the honour of 
 his alliance. Queen Mary was about to restore it to the 
 Hospitallers when she, too, died. 
 
 Rowington also was held by the Church, having been given 
 very early to the Abbey of Reading in Berkshire. It is situated 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 159 
 
 • 
 
 on the western side of the brook that comes from Wroxall Park, 
 and on the eastern side of one which comes from Kingswood> 
 rising in Baddesley Chnton in the Ferrars' Park, one of them 
 flowing eventually into the Humber, and the other into the 
 Severn. This land, therefore, being upon the very backbone of 
 England, and the climate being pure and bright, is well cal- 
 culated to produce the highest state of health and intellect. 
 
 Rowington itself has a very commanding position overlook- 
 ing, as it were, the whole district of the Forest. The church is 
 remarkably fine, built in the cruciform shape, and more like a 
 smaller cathedral than a village church in the midst of a forest. 
 One is tempted to doubt whether Sir William Dugdale has 
 ■collected its true history, so very remarkable and beautiful is its 
 site and position. There is a very curious well in the church- 
 yard, no doubt in old times a Holy Well, and the offerings of 
 the pious for graces received may possibly account for the 
 grandeur of the church. It is needless to say that, in these good 
 Protestant and scientific days, pilgrims do not drink at this well ; 
 but it is at least gratifying to be able to relate that it is not 
 wholly useless, the water being of service in cleansing the 
 Rector's carriage-wheels. Perhaps when the great American 
 people come here in crowds to view the cradle of the Shake- 
 spere race, they, being a polite people, may turn it to better 
 and more fitting piuposes. It is curious to find a well at the 
 very summit of a hill j possibly it is an ancient artesian well. 
 
 In 5 Elizabeth, William Skinner and Alice, his wife, with 
 Anthony, their son, had a grant of land in the Manor. The 
 Lordship formerly was very extensive, including Wigston, in 
 Leicestershsre, and many adjacent places. 
 
 John Hill, Bailiff of Rowenton, who is recorded to have 
 been good to the poor, was buried here ; but the date on his 
 tomb is gone. He was possibly Agnes Arden's first husband. 
 
 John Beaufitz farmed the Manor of Balsall under the 
 Knights Hospitallars. He died 2^ Henry VII., possessed of it. 
 
l60 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 There were families of Shakspere seated, apparently, at 
 Berkswell, Barson, and Balsall, which were all close together in 
 the Forest of Arden. 
 
 The Knowle Register mentions a Thomas and Alice, of 
 BalsaH, in i Henry VII ; and Alice, and for the soul of Thomas, 
 3 Henry VIII. Subsidy Roll, 192 (134), 16 Henry VIII., gives 
 Ralf Shakspere, of Barkswell. 
 
 193 (154). 35 Henry VIII. John Shakeshaffte, 46., for Balsall. 
 193 (179). 38 Henry VIII. Ralf Shakspere, for Barson and 
 Escot. 
 
 Court Roll, Portf. 207, No. 10. Rad Shakspere on jury for 
 Berkswell, 11 Nov., 4 Edward VI., and 23 April, 5 Edward VI.; 
 and (No. 9), i Edward VI., Ralf Shakspere was on the jury for 
 Barson, and obtained seizin of two parcels of land, one lying in 
 Lupton Meadows and the other in Barston Broadmeadow, 
 called Strongdale, of the grant of Clement Fisher, deceased, his 
 son Thomas consenting. At the same Court, Ralf Shakspere, 
 and Bridget, his wife, and Elizabeth BuUery, daughter of 
 Bridget, surrendered land in Barston called Stocking, lying 
 between Morcott Wood and Bradnock Mersh, to the use of 
 Thomas Mersh» 
 
 2 Edward VI., John Shakeshaft was on the jury for Balsal. 
 Subsidy Roll, 193 (109), 13 Elizabeth Berkswell. Ralf Shake- 
 spere, 20s. land. 
 
 John Shakspere of Wroxall, by will dated 1574, mentions 
 his cousin Laurence Shakspere of Balsall ; the subsidy of 34 
 Henry viii mentions a Laurence Shakspere at Rowington, who 
 is probably the same person as the Laurence mentioned in 
 Court Roll No. 64, Portfolio 207 as of that place. 
 
 Thomas Shaxsper, Shoemaker of Warwick, will dated 
 1577, had land held of the Manor of Balsall. Left issue 
 William, Thomas, John, and Joan ux Francis Ley, perhaps 
 related to the Aunt Ley of John Shakspere's will. 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. i6l 
 
 A William Shakespere, who was drowned in the Avon, 6th 
 June, 1579, was probably the son of this Thomas, since he was 
 buried at St. Nicholas, Warwick. 
 
 1593, Thomas Shakespere, and Florence, his wife, with 
 Alice Grace, her sister, sued Thomas Grace and John Harding 
 for certain lands, place not mentioned, settled by Thomas 
 Grace, their father, deceased. 1597, Thomas Shakespere fined 
 with Henry Ferrars for 2 messuages, i orchard, i loft, 4 gardens 
 and 4 acres of pasture in Warwick, for £80. 
 
 Another family of Shakespere resided at Packwood. 
 
 The Knowle Guild records Christopher Shakespere, and 
 Isabella, his wife, of Packwood, 3 Henry VIII. 
 
 Subsidy Roll, 193 (183), 3 Edward VI., shews the same 
 Christopher assessed for goods at Packwood to the amoimt of 
 j^io ; and the same is repeated in 193 (190), 2 Edward VI, 
 
 At Lichfield there are several Shakspere Wills, one a Will 
 of Christopher Shakspere, of Packwood, dated 31st August, 
 1 55 1, and proved 15th August, 1558, in which he mentions his 
 wife, Isabel, his sons. Rich, William, (who was to have a copy- 
 hold house called Hancoxe), Roger, Christopher and John, and 
 daughters Alice and Agnes, William Featherstone, his son-in- 
 law. 
 
 1558, Elizabeth Shakspere, of St. Werbergs, Derby, men- 
 tions her sister Grace, and her cousins, Alice Shepherd and Jane 
 Firebrace. 
 
 1605, August 2nd, Roger Shakspere, Tachbrook, mentions 
 in his Will his son John and his wife Alice. 
 
 1605-6, March i8th, WiUiam Shakspere, of Coventry, 
 shoemaker, mentions his wife. 
 
 1610, April 26th, Thomas Shakspere, of Packington Parva, 
 mentions his wife, Philip, son George, to have his lands at 
 
1 62 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 Coalshill, sons, Thomas and Andrew, daughter, Alice, wife of 
 Thomas Croft. 
 
 There was a settlement of Shaksperes at Hagley and Old- 
 swinford, Worcestershire, probably because a branch of the 
 Griffins, of Long Ichington, settled there. John Shakspere 
 married, at Hagley, Sarah, daughter of Francis Greaves, of 
 Great Whitley, and had issue Sarah and Elizabeth, both bap- 
 tised at Oldswinford. Edward Shakspere married Bridget 
 Hatton there 1695. She died 1699 ; ^^d Ann Shakspere 
 married John Padget there in 1697. 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 HASELEY. 
 
 IT is very difHcult to ascertain where Richard Shakspere, 
 who was Baihff of Wroxall, resided before, as well as 
 immediately after, he was ejected from that office. It 
 is rather a curious fact, although it may be a mere 
 coincidence, that he was superseded by one John Hall, who was 
 appointed i6 Henry VIII. to the office. The origin of Dr» 
 Hall, who married the poet's favourite daughter, has never been 
 ascertained. It would be strange, indeed, if it should turn out 
 that he was descended from this gentleman. The recipient of 
 the office was pretty sure to be a Catholic at that date, for the 
 new religion was hardly promulgated, and the peculiar and 
 novel doctrines of the King had not yet been defined; that 
 arch-heretic Cranmer, as Shakspere calls him, had not yet 
 poisoned the old faith with his heresies. Indeed, for some time 
 after King Henry had obtained his divorce through the insidious 
 counsels of Cranmer, not finding such perfect bliss in his new 
 marriage as he had fondly anticipated (unpleasant rumours of 
 Miss Bullen's prenuptial amours with grooms and others having 
 shocked the good King's modesty), he seemed inclined to go 
 back to the old faith ; and would have done so, doubtless, could 
 
164 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 he have restored to the Church and the poor the property he 
 had stolen from them. It was touching to see the anxious, but 
 still conscientious monarch, burning a couple of heretics at the 
 same stake and in the same fire — the one for denying, and the 
 other for affirming the truth of the new doctrines. There is 
 nothing ridiculous in this, for the King was in doubt himself, 
 and Henry could hardly be expected to defer the burning till he 
 had settled his doctrines, though one of the poor creatures 
 might have been saved, if indeed that would have been of any 
 importance to him. 
 
 It is well known that Dr. Hall v.'as a sincere Catholic, 
 though, courtier-like, he affected the fashionable religion ; but 
 he was deeply trusted by the Warwickshire Catholics for all 
 that, and was the physician of most of the best Catholic 
 families in that county. 
 
 It is very probable that, originally, Richard Shakspere, the 
 Baihfif, resided at Hampton Curlew, where the Priory of 
 Wroxall had property, and in which Hatton is said to have been 
 situated. We find a Richard Shakspere assessed there for a 
 considerable sum in 16 Henry VIII., — ^the very year his 
 successor was appointed to his office. His name does not 
 appear for that place in the previous assessment of 14 and 15 
 Henry VIII, nor does it afterwards, although for a short time 
 we find Antonio Shakspere there (?the son of John and Eleanor 
 of 23 Henry VII.). In 34 Henry VIIL, there is a Richard 
 Shakspere assessed at Rowenton for a substantial sura, but no 
 Richard at Wroxhall at this period. When the old monastic 
 lands were sold to Richard Andrews and Leonard Chamberlain, 
 a Richard Shakspere was tenant, and not in the position of 
 Bailiff. He appears to have held a messuage and divers crofts 
 by copy of Court Roll and payment of a heriot, and a rent of 
 7s.9d. William Shakspere held a messuage, &c., paying los. 
 and a heriot, probably that which was passed on the surrender 
 of Elenor Cocks and Antonio Shakspere, in 22 Henry VIIL, 
 which it will be seen was at a rental of los. Unfortunately the 
 
THE GEhfTLE SHAKSPERE. 165 
 
 rental of the land surrendered to John Rabon is illegible, or it 
 might be seen whether he was the son of John and Agnes. At 
 this date, Richard Shakspere held the bailiff's fee, value 40s., 
 and Alice Taylor, of Hanwell, held the farm, which had been 
 John Shakspere's in 25 Henry VIII., by virture of an indenture 
 dated just previously. But in this same roll there is a note that 
 at Haseley, Richard Wodham and Richard Shakspere had at 
 farm, under Indenture dated 5th June 15 Henry VIII., three 
 crofts and a grove at 8s. rental. In all probability this free 
 tenant was the bailiff. 
 
 Fortunately, the Haseley Registers begin very early (1538), 
 though not early enough for the baptism of Richard Shakspere's 
 children (supposing them to have been born there). They, 
 however, contain some very interesting information relative to 
 the Wroxall Shakspere's, which shews an intimate connection 
 with them. A branch of the Throckmorton family were settled 
 at Haseley ; they were closely connected by marriage with the 
 Gryfifyns — Margaret Throckmorton, of Coughton, having married 
 Ryce Gryffyn, of Bickmarsh, son of Sir Edward, the Attorney 
 General, and her sister Elizabeth was the wife of Sir Henry 
 Griffith, of Wigmore — distant cousins (see pedigree hereafter), 
 but both in the male line in direct descent from the ancient 
 Kings of Wales. Ryce Gryffjm, as it will be shown presently, 
 had purchased much property from the Throckmortons, the 
 Cloptons, Coombs, and other relations of the Shaksperes, and 
 some of it he had disposed of to the Cookes, their relatives. 
 Both families of Gryffyn and Throckmorton (the latter are to 
 this day) were strong Catholics, and very naturally they would 
 afford protection to the inmates of the Priory of Wroxall, which 
 was the nearest religious house to their residence at Haseley, 
 not being, in fact, more than a couple of miles from it. 
 
 There is a very beautiful Altar Tomb in Hasely Church, 
 erected to the good Clement Throckmorton and his wife, who 
 was a Neville of the Earl of Warwick's family. Some of the 
 brasses are still preserved, and the present Vicar of the 
 
1 66 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 parish has most carerully restored them. The church itself is 
 very curious, and the crypt or chapel in which the Throck- 
 morton monument is placed seems hardly to have been a 
 portion of it, but has the appearance of a private house added 
 to it, possibly the Throckmortons who were strict Catholics 
 managed in some way to screen off their chapel from the body 
 of the church and there held the Catholic services. The 
 excellent Vicar of Bray winking at the proceeding and 
 making up for this neglect of his services, and his own loss of 
 dignity by an excellent dinner at the Manor House. Probably 
 many of the so called Protestant clergy at that period were 
 secret Catholics, and only took office for the sake of the 
 emoluments. It was of course at the Throckmorton Chapel that 
 the poor old Prioress of Wroxall would say her prayers and tell 
 her beads. The Vicar seems to be of opinion that the present 
 vicarage was the old Shakspere residence. Curiously, although 
 he was unaware of the connection of the Shaksperes with his 
 parish, he has some very remarkable relics of the family. One, 
 an embossed portrait of the Poet, beaten out in brass which he 
 purchased of one of the old Shakspere families in the forest. 
 There were descendents of the Shaksperes living in Haseley 
 until quite recently, of poor condition in life, but by no means 
 common personages. Probably many rehcs of the family may 
 still be fouud in the old farmhouses about, and as this ground 
 has never been suspected to be connected with the Poet's 
 family and our American cousins are sure to flock here, and at 
 Rowington there may be a good opening for an intelligent relic 
 manufacturer. 
 
 It is very interesting to read in the Registry under date 
 2ist October, 1571, " Mortua et sepulta erat Domina Jane (Jane 
 Shakspeare) aliquando una monicaru' Wroxall ; " living here as 
 near as she could to her beloved Priory. William Shakspere, 
 the Poet, was only seven years old when she died, but probably 
 she saw and blessed him. Here, too, under this roof (Richard 
 Shakspere's) peacefully passed the remainder of his days, the 
 poor monk, Roger Shackspere, of the Monastery of Bordesley, 
 
THE GENffLE SHAKSPERE. 167 
 
 who, upon being expelled by King Henry VIII., received the 
 munificent sum of loos. He seems to have been appointed (?) 
 in May, 1547, just after the tyrant Henry had breathed his last, 
 in the Rectory of Flavell Flyford. A Robert (in the calendars 
 tailed Richard) Gryffyn died there in 1538 ; so, possibly, it was 
 through the influence of that family that he obtained a refuge 
 there ; but he was, probably, too old to bear up under 
 his altered circumstances, and like so many of his brethren 
 he coxild not endure the sight of the misery around him ; 
 and here, in Haseley, he retmned to the home, or very 
 near it, of his family. Here, let us hope, protected by kind friends 
 and relations he breathed his last. Poor Queen Mary died 
 this year ; perhaps this blow to Catholic hopes finally killed 
 him. The poet was unborn then, and he never knew his 
 grandfather, but surely his father or sweet Mary Arden would 
 relate all these sad histories to him, and although they seem to 
 have failed to affect his spirits when he was young, in his later 
 years they helped him to produce that noble play based on 
 those troublous events — King Henry VIII. Surely, too, this 
 helps to account for his deep-rooted hatred of Queen Elizabeth ; 
 so deeply seated was it, and so bitter, that even the great souled 
 poet was unable to forget it after she was dead ; and perhaps in 
 that marvellous defence of Wolsey put into the mouth of his 
 kinsman Griffin, he was unconsciously, or very likely consciously, 
 •condemning himself for his want of true charity, trying to do 
 good to those who had done such wrong to his kindred, and to 
 all around him, and to the religion in which, spite of the head 
 of the Church, he had been reared so faithfully. 
 
 The Registers of Haseley contain the following entries, 
 which are taken from a transcript made by Mr. Richard Savage, 
 the Librarian of Shakespere's birthplace. He has examined the 
 legisters of some 90 "Warwickshire parishes, to which, with the 
 greatest liberality, he gave the author full access. He is indeed 
 one of the few true scholars who have laboured in this field of 
 literature, no one else having done a tithe of the solid work 
 4ione by Mr. Savage. 
 
1 68 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 FROM THE HATTON REGISTER. 
 
 This register consists of a few leaves bound up irregularly 
 as to date, and it certainly includes the registers for the adjoining 
 parish of Haseley, in which the Shaksperes resided, and in 
 which Richard Shakspere, the Bailiff of Wroxhall, obtained a 
 lease, in conjunction with Richard Woodham and Agnes his 
 wife, probably his daughter and son-in-law, in 15 Henry VIII. 
 
 1543. Jan. 30. — Elizabeth Queeny buried. 
 
 1588. April 29. — Alexander and Margeria Pearkes married. 
 Feb. 16. — Elizabeth, dau. of Job and Dorothie Throck- 
 morton baptised. 
 
 1589. Jan. 6. — Wm. Shakespere and Barbara Stiffe married. 
 1591. Dec. 12. — Thomas Holiocke and Ann Woodham married. 
 
 1593. Dec. 4. — Nich. Woodham and Mary Knight married. 
 Mar. 25. — Peter, son of Nicolas and Alice Shakspere, 
 
 baptised. 
 Oct. 21. — A son of Wm. Shakspere born dead. 
 
 1594. June 16.— Job, son of Job and Dorothie Throckmortoni- 
 
 baptised. 
 1596. March 14. — Susannah, dau. of Wm. Shakspere, gentle- 
 man, and Barbara, baptised ; and buried 6 March, 
 
 1597- 
 
 1598. July 23. — Katherine, dau. of Wm. and Barbara Shak- 
 spere, baptised. 
 Oct. 22. — Josiah, son of William Webb, of Hatton, bap. 
 (As this entry refers to Hatton as a strange parish, the 
 Register up to this date is probably that of Haseley. 
 The Throckmortons were certainly of Haseley parish, 
 and so were several of the families enumerated in this 
 Register. 
 
 1 6 10. Feb. — Barbara, wife of Mr. William Shakspere, buried. 
 
 1 600. Feb. 12. — Job Throckmorton buried. 
 
 1607. — William PagettandCatherineThrockmorton married. 
 March 3. — Fisher, son of Sir Clement Throckmorton,, 
 baptised. 
 
 1558. — Roger Shakspere buried. 
 
 (This is probably the old Priest of Bordesley.) 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 169 "" 
 
 1570. April 4.~Isabel uxor Thomas Shakspere, formerly wife 
 
 of John Tybotes, buried. 
 Nov. s- — Katherine Shakspere, filia Nicolas Shakspere, 
 baptised. 
 
 1571. Oct. 21. — Mortua et sepulta erat Domina Jana (Jane 
 
 Shakspeare) aliquando una monicaru' Wraxall. 
 (This was doubtless the Prioress of that house.) 
 
 1607. Dec. 26. — Nicholas Shaksper, of Busall, buried. 
 Jan. 26. — Elizabeth Shaxper, of Busall, buried. 
 
 (i^usall is in the parish of Hatton). 
 Feb. 4. — Nicholas Cook, of Shrowley, buried. 
 
 1608. Aug. 27. — John Wherrit, of Busall, buried. 
 1606. Sep. 21. — Thomas Shaxper, buried. 
 
 1539. July 6. — John, son of Richard Cookes, baptised. 
 Jan. 27. — John, son of William Cookes, baptised. 
 
 1540. May 25. — Edward, son of William Queeney, baptised. 
 1555. Oct. 3. — Johanna, dau. of Thomas Webb, baptised. 
 1593. Sep. S.-^-Thomas, son of Nich. and Elizabeth Shak- 
 spere, baptised. 
 
 1579. Jan. 6. — Elizabeth, dau. of same, baptised. ' 
 
 1608. Aug. 28. — Marie, dau, of Thomas Shaxsper, baptised. 
 
 i6ro. April 24. — Francis Cookes and Katherine Townend 
 
 married. 
 1612. Jan. 20. — John Hastings and Susanna Shaxper married- 
 1638. May 29. — Henry Knibb and Anna Philips, both of 
 
 Busall, married. 
 
 It is to be hoped that some one capable will take an 
 interest in the Hatton Registers, out of respect for the poet's 
 family ; they ought to be properly edited. There can be no doubt 
 that either these Registers for the two parishes of Hasely and 
 Hatton have been improperly intermixed, or that one of them 
 is dependent upon the other, and, in all probabihty, it is 
 Hasely that is the mother Church, and they properly belorfg to 
 that parish. This is the most likely, seeing that Hasely was 
 the capital of the Throckmortons lesser Barony. 
 
 Although it is impossible and idle to follow and poiait 
 out all the errors and fallacies of the great Shaksperian 
 
170 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE, 
 
 authorities (Mr. French has done this gently and ahnost 
 pleasantly), yet there is one pernicious error which, left un- 
 noticed, might cause great confusion. It has been roundly 
 stated, and even Mr. French repeats the error (though he 
 vouches Mr. Hunter for his authority), that John Shakspere,- 
 who was dead before 34 Henry VHI., held the Haseley property 
 which had been granted to Richard Woodams and Richard Shak- 
 spere in 15 Henry VHI., just after the subsidy of 14th and 15th 
 of that King, and which they allege had been held prior to 
 34 Henry VHI. by John Shakspere, who was then described as 
 the late tenant, and was very probably dead. This, from the 
 note taken by the author, is a mistake. The property referred 
 to as that late of John Shakspere was certainly that of the 
 John who died 25 Henry VHI,, but no reference whatever is 
 made to the Haseley land as having been in his tenure. And 
 in a terrier of the 28th of Henry VHI., made after the 
 decease of this John, Richard Shakspere was certainly 
 then living at Haseley, and he continued to be tenant in 
 conjunction with Richard Woodham, and from that place, 
 probably he at the some time held land in Snitterfield. 
 
 The following Haseley fines are of interest ; — . 
 
 M. 38 Henry VIII. —Nicolas Byrde sold land to Thomas Ride, 
 in Haseley, Bewsal and Rowenton. 
 
 Hil. 1 2 Elizabeth. — Clement Throckmorton fined, with Thomas 
 Gryfiyn, for land in Cotton, Warwick. 
 
 M. 12 and 13 Elizabeth. — Humphrey Crane fined, with Thoma? 
 Lucy, for land in Haseley. The Cranes were a 
 Kidderminster family, closely allied by marriage to the 
 Griffins of that place. Humphrey himself resided at 
 Warwick. See Thos. Yeton's will, 1571, whose sister 
 he married. 
 
 Pasc. 44 Elizabeth. — Clement Throckmorton sold land lo^ 
 Clement Fisher, m Haseley, Hatton and Slielersly. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 SNITTERFIELD. 
 
 HAVING brought out as many facts as possible relative 
 to the histpry of the families of Wroxall and Row- 
 ihgton, and of Hazeley, we now come to the parish 
 of Snitterfield, in which, unquestionably, the poet's 
 father and grandfather held property. It is, however, probable 
 that neither of them resided there, at least for any length of 
 time ; though it is certain that Richard Shakspere (the bailiff of 
 Wroxall) settled there for a time when he was ejected from 
 Wroxall, and he certainly died there in 1561. 
 
 The connection of the Shaksperes with Snitterfield began 
 at a very early period. Richard Shakspere was tenant 
 (probably of the Arden family) for land there, as is proved by 
 the Warwick Court Rolls to be presently memtioned, at some 
 date between the 17th and the 20th Henry VIII., at the exact 
 period when Richard Shakspere lost the position of bailiif to 
 the Priory of Wroxall ; but it would hardly seem that he 
 resided there at that time, though it it quite possible that he 
 did so. 
 
172 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 The first charter of interest is a grant of two parts of six 
 parts of certain lands there to Thomas Arden and Robert his 
 son. 
 
 (No. ... Stratford on- Avon Corporation Charters). 
 
 Henry VII. John Mayow, of Snitterfield, granted to Robert 
 Throckmorton, Esq. ; Thomas Trussel, of Bittesley ; Roger Reynolds, 
 of Henley-in-Arden ; William Wood, of Woodham ; Thomas Arden, 
 of Wilmecote ; and Robert Arden, his son ; certain land at Snitter- 
 field. Thomas Clopton, of Snitterfield, and John Porter, of the same, 
 being his attornies to deliver seizin. 
 
 We are indebted to the Court Rolls in the P.R.O. for an 
 account of the rents, etc., of the spoliated College of the 
 Blessed Mary the Virgin, at Warwick, from the years 7 to 30 
 Henry VIII., a sufficient time, fortunately, to cover the period 
 and to give the necessary information relative to the Shakspere 
 and Arden families. 
 
 (Portfolio 207, No. 88). In 17 Henry VIII. Thomas Arden is 
 presented for owing suit of Court. The next Court was held upon 
 Hokday (that is rent day), 20 Henry VIII., when Richard Shakspere is 
 first mentioned on the Rolls, being presented for not doing suit of Court, 
 whicli probably arose from his residence being elsewhere. This 
 occurred again in the 22nd Henry VIII. In the 2Sth year, Richard 
 ShakstafTe and Robert Arden were presented for the same cause of 
 non-suit, and the latter for some trouble about fencing property against 
 John Palmer's land. No doubt this Richard Sliakstaffe, was in fact, 
 Richard Shakspere. Hokday, 30 Henry VIII. Robert Arden and 
 Richard Shakspere were again presented for non-suit of Court, and the 
 latter also for some trouble about his fences between the lands of 
 Thomas Palmer and himself. 
 
 This was not the only property of the Ardens in Snitterfield, 
 as the following charter proves : — 
 
 (No. 428, Corporation of Stratford Charters.) 
 
 ist October, 21 Henry VIII. John Palmer of Snitterfield, son 
 and heir of Jiohn Palmer and Elizabeth, his wife, daughter of Thomas 
 Hervye, granted to Robert Arden a tenement, etc., in Snitterfield, next 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 173 
 
 • 
 
 a tenement of Robert Harding's. T — Richard Hawe, of Warwick, 
 gentleman ; Richard Fisher, sub-bailifF of Warwick ; William Holbache ; 
 John Parker, of Grove Park ; Walter Nicolson ; John Townend ; and 
 Richard Maydes, 
 
 The next deed is the first evidence of Richard Shakspere's 
 residence at Snitterfield, if, indeed, it really proves it. He may- 
 only have farmed land there. 
 
 No. 430. 17 th July, 4 Edward VI. Robert Arden grant to Adam 
 Palmer, of Aston Cantlowe, and Hugh Porter, of Snytterfield, lands 
 there, in the tenure of Richard Shakespere, in trust for himself and 
 Agnes, his then wife, for their lives and the life of the longer liver ; with 
 remainder as to one third part to his daughter Agnes, then the wife of 
 Thomas Stringer, late wife of John Hewyns, formerly of Berely, 
 deceased j one third to his daughter Johanna, wife of Edward Lambert^ 
 of Burton-super-le-Heath ; and the third part to his daughter Catherine, 
 wife of Thomas Etkins, of Wilmington. 
 
 Hil. I and 2 Philip and Mary. Thomas Arden fined with John 
 Roper for land in Tonworth, Langley, Berwood, and Stratford-on-Avon ; 
 and Trin. 4 and 5 Philip and Mary, Richard Smith fined with him for 
 land in Sutton and Water Orton. 
 
 24th November, 1556. Robert Arden made his will, which was 
 proved 17 th December following, by his daughters Alice and Mary. 
 He left his lands, called " Asbies," to his daughter Mary, to his wife 
 Agnes a sum additional to her jointure in Snitterfield. 
 
 26th November, 1557. Richard Shakespeare is returned as indebted 
 to the late Hugh Porter, of Snitterfield, in the sum of 40s. ; and the 
 executors of Robert Arden and Thomas Stringer, of Bereby, are also 
 found indebted to the same. 
 
 31st August, 1558. Richard Shakspere attested the will of Henry 
 .... of Snitterfield. 
 
 15th September following, he prised goods of Richard Maydes, of 
 Snitterfield, and ist June, 1560, he prised goods of Henry Cole of that 
 place. He died 1560-1 (date unknown, but either in January, or prior 
 to the nth February, 1561), his goods were administered by John, his 
 son ; Thomas Nicols being joined with him in the bond of that date. 
 
174 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 John Shakspere is then described as of Snytterfield, Agricola. It may 
 be noted that Mr. Nicolls was overseer of the will of Thomas GrifEn, of 
 Fenny Compton. 
 
 1569. Wylliam Shakspere, with Mychel Gudrydge and Mr_ 
 William Cokes prised the goods of John Pardu, of Snytterfield. It is 
 worth noting that there is a tradition, recorded by Jordan, that the 
 poet's great grandfather was named William. 
 
 (No. 429, Stratford Deeds.) 
 
 2ist May, 3 Elizabeth. Lease from Agnes Arden, of Wilmcote,, 
 widow, to Alexander Webb of 2 messuages, with a cottage and a yard- 
 and-ahalf of land, in Snitterfield, in the occupation of Richard 
 Shakespere, John Henly, and John Ilargreave for 40 years, at a yearly 
 rent of 40s. 
 
 Metnorandum of assignment by Robert Webb, of same 
 premises to William Cookes, of Snitterfield, yeoman. This 
 name Cookes, or Cokes, is suggestive of that of Cockes, by 
 which the wife of John Shakspere, of Rowington, called herself 
 in 18, Henry VIII, Possibly this William Cookes was her 
 second busband, or her son. 
 
 No. 430. 1576. Assignment by Edward Cornwall, of 
 Snitterfield, and Mary, his wife, to Robert Webb> of Snitterfield^ 
 of their interest in the same lands. 
 
 1579. John Shakspere and Mary, his wife, conveyed their interest 
 in Snitterfield to Robert Webbe ; and by fine, Pasc. 22 Elizabeth, 
 between Robert Wetb, Quer. and John Shakspere and Maria, his wife,, 
 defts. of one sixth of two parts of 2 messuages and 2 e;ardens, 2 orchards^ 
 60 acres land, 10 acres mead, and 30 acres heath in Snitterfield, which- 
 Agnes Arden held in dower of the inheritance of the said Mary 
 Shakspere. 
 
 There cannot be a doubt that this curious fraction, ^ of z 
 parts is the portion of Mary Arden, as one of the 6 daughters 
 and co-heirs of Robert Arden ; of two parts of the land conveyed 
 by John Mayow to Thomas Arden and Robert, his son, (Mary's 
 father), in the time of Henry VII. 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 175 
 
 Pasc. 21 Elizabeth. Thomas Stringer, John Stringer, Ardistran 
 Stringer, Edward Cornwall and Margaret, his wife, conveyed their 
 interest in Snitterfield to Robert Webb. 
 
 1581, March, Agnes Arden, widow of Robert Arden, made 
 her will. She was the daughter of Thomas, and sister of 
 Alexander Webb, and at the time of her marriage was the 
 widow of John Hill, of Bearly ; but she was not the mother of 
 Marj'', the Poet's mother. 
 
 1581. John, fil Thomas Shakspere, was baptised at 
 Snitterfield. 
 
 1587. Henry Shakspere was buriedthere. 
 
 1 59 1, May 15. John Shakspere's house in Henley Street is 
 mentioned in a deed of George Badger's, as being next to his 
 own ; and he also mentions lands lying between those of 
 Thomas Coombe and Thomas Reynolds. 
 
 1596. Henry Shakspere, and Margaret, wife of Thomas 
 Shakspere, were buried at Snitterfield. 
 
 14th November, 20 Elizabeth. John Shakspere and Mary, his wife, 
 conveyed to Edward Lambert a messuage and i virgate of land, and 4 
 acres of arable land in Wilnecote, conditional upon repayment of ;^4o 
 in 1588. Fine, Pasc, 21 Elizabeth. Edmund Lambert, Quer., and 
 John ShaV.spere and Maria, his wife, Defts., of 2 messuages, 2 gardens, 
 50 acres land, 2 acres pasture, and 4 acres meadow in Awston Cantlowe. 
 
 ist March, 29 Elizabeth. Edmund Lambert died at Barton 
 Henmarsh. His wife was Joan, sister of Mary Shakspere. Joha, his 
 son and heir. 
 
 24th March, 1597. John Shakspere, of Stratford-on-Avon, 
 on behalf of Mary, his wife, and William, their son and heir, 
 jgled a bill in Chancery against John, son and heir of Edmimd 
 Lambert, to redeem the said premises in Wilnecote. 
 
 24th November, I £599. John Lambert filed his answer. It 
 is alleged that no further proceedings in this suit can be dis- 
 
176 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 covered. It must either have been stopped by a settlement, 
 or more probably from the exposure by the Defendant (who 
 was basely trafficking upon the fact that the Shaksperes were 
 Catholics) of the fact that John Shakspere had been convicted 
 and fined for recusancy a ver>' short time before the institution 
 of this suit. 
 
 It may be noted that neither Mary (Arden) nor William 
 Shakspere, the poet, were parties to this suit, as they ought to 
 have been according to the invariable practice of the Courts. 
 The only reason why they were not made parties is that they 
 were both Catholics and incapable of suing in the Courts. The 
 probability is that it will be found, if search be made, that this 
 suit failed for this cause ; and this cause it was, doubtless, which 
 enabled the Defendant to defraud his sister-in-law. This suit, 
 therefore, constitutes the best evidence that the poet and his 
 mother were not only Catholics, but avowed ones ; and this 
 fully confirms the statement of Archdeacon Davis with respect 
 to the poet. Nothing, indeed, can be stronger confirmation of 
 it than this fact, that William Shakspere never was a litigant in 
 the superior Courts ; it may, indeed, be doubted whether he 
 was the William Shakspere who was a party to the petty suits 
 for malt at Stratford, and it is far more likely that they were 
 instituted by one of the several other William Shaksperes of 
 this period ; but even if he did sue, the fact does not 
 militate against the theory that he was a Catholic and therefore 
 could not sue ; for the action was only tried in the local Court, 
 and seeing that nearly all the leading inhabitants, including the 
 Town Clerk, of Stratford were of the proscribed faith, and that, 
 as is well-known, the majority of the people who had any care 
 for religion were also Papists, this precedent goes for nothing ; 
 and in the case of the tithes the Plaintiff, William Shakspere — 
 whoever he was— was not alone, but merely one of several 
 persons who were suing. Certainly Thomas Green (his cousin) 
 the Town Clerk, who sued with this William Shakspere, was a 
 Catholic. It is not quite clear, but probably a suit would not 
 
THE GEN-SLE SHAKSPERE. 177 
 
 be stopped if some o.f the complainants belonged to the 
 established religion, or pretended to do so. 
 
 We do not know when John Shakspere left Snitterfield and 
 went to Stratford to take up his residence there, and we have 
 no knowledge where he was born. The assumption of Halli- 
 well, that he left his father's home in Snitterfield about 1551, is 
 the most patent guess, based simply upon the fact that a John 
 Shakspere was fined for a nuisance in Henley Street in 1552. 
 There is not a shadow of evidence that this is the Poet's 
 father, and the probabilities are that it was not. 
 
 Henley Street is of considerable length, and the proba- 
 bilities are, as there were two distinct purchases of houses in 
 that street, that this was one of the other John Shaksperes ; 
 the Poet's father did not buy his house till long after, though 
 possibly he resided there. So, too, Halliwell's account of his 
 marriage with Mary Arden, a few weeks after her father's 
 death, is purely a fabrication. There is no proof of any date 
 for this marriage, and it may not have taken place for some 
 time afterwards. Equally groundless is his remark that she 
 ■was his fondly-loved daughter ; he provided for her by his will 
 and left her a considerable property, but possibly only an equal 
 amount with that which he had previously settled by deed 
 upon her sisters. It is rather curious, if he were so greatly 
 attached to her, that he should have given her step-mother a 
 life interest in her share of his estate. 
 
 French, in his Genealogia (which appears to be the only 
 work on Shakspere's family in any way reliable), mentions that 
 Richard, of Snitterfield, had three sons — John, Thomas, and 
 Henry. He evidently never heard of William, of Snitterfield, 
 although probably he was a brother of Richard. Very certainly 
 John, of Stratford-on-Avon, had a brother Henry, for they were 
 both summoned in a suit between the descendants of Mayowe 
 and Robert Webb in 1582. Robert Webb was first cousin to the 
 poet, his father, Alexander, having married Margaret, sister of 
 Mary Arden, and Robert Webb's aunt Agnes, widow of John 
 
178 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 Hill, having married Robert Arden — in itself a strong clue 
 connecting John, the poet's father, with Snitterfield. 
 
 By the fine in Pasc, 22 Elizabeth, made two years prior to 
 this suit, John Shakspere and Mary, his wife, as we have seen, 
 had assigned their interest in one sixth of two parts of this 
 property, the one sixth being, doubtless, Mary's share of it and 
 the two parts being the two sixths granted by the Indenture 
 of Henry VH. It is, therefore, easy to see why John Shakspere 
 should be called as a witness ; and it is more difficult to see 
 why his brother Henry, who had no interest whatever in the 
 matter, should also be called, unless it was because he had been 
 the tenant of his brother John for this property. 
 
 We know but little of the history of Henry Shakspere. 
 He probably, as tenant of John — and as John himself — lived 
 partly in Snitterfield and partly in Stratford ; and it is quite 
 possible that he it was who resided in Hampton Lucy in 1581, 
 the year after his brother sold the Snitterfield property to 
 Robert Webb, who at once assigned to William Cookes, a 
 relative, who twenty years later bought a large estate at Ingon 
 and Hampton Lucy from Rice GrifFyn and Margaret Throck- 
 morton, his wife. It is probable, however, that Henry returned 
 to be buried, for we find one Henry buried there in 1596, and 
 there also Margaret, wife of Thomas Shakspere, was buried. 
 Probably Richard, the father, had been buried there also, but 
 the Registers do not go so far back. 
 
 There is very little known of Thomas Shakspere. He had 
 a son John baptised at Snitterfield in 1581, after John Shakspere 
 had sold his property ; but that might have been because his 
 wife was a native of that place, and having no home of his own, 
 he might for a time have resided with her family. He does not 
 appear to have been buried there, but his wife was buried there 
 in 1596 ; and this makes it more likely that he was identical 
 with Thomas Green, alias Shakspere, who, as we have seen, 
 Avas buried at Stratford in 1590. However, these points are 
 
THE GENT4,E SHAKSPERE. 179 
 
 mere probabilities, which may be wholly rejected without 
 depreciating the argument of this book. 
 
 There is a Thomas Shakspere to be accounted for, who in 
 Mich. 39 Elizabeth had a grant of property ; 2 messuages, an 
 orchard, i toft, 4 gardens, and 4 acres of pasture in Warwick, 
 from Henry Ferrars the Antiquary. If he were the Poet's 
 imcle, this disposes of the idea that he was Thomas Shakespere 
 ^lias Green ; but he may well have been a son of that man, 
 who made a commencement of a family at Siaitterfield, or 
 jjossibly of the Warwick shoemaker. 
 
 Nothing is known of William Shakspere, of Snitterfield, 
 except that he prised the goods of a resident there. We find 
 a William Shakspere acting in a similar capacity for Edward 
 Griffin, of Long Ichington, in 1557, of whom also nothing is 
 known, unless from the will of John Shakspere, of Wroxall, 
 {1574), from which it appears that he had a brother William, 
 and like Edward Griffin, a brother-in-law, Richard Woodams ; 
 in all probability this William Shakspere, of Snitterfield, was 
 the same person. 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE SHAKSPERES, OF STRATFORD-ON-AVON. 
 
 THE first point to be considered is, when did the Shak- 
 speres first come to Stratford ? A careful inspection 
 of the Subsidy Rolls fails to give an account of the 
 family ; and the Town Records, although very early 
 and in good preservation generally, gives the most unsatisfactory 
 account of them. It would almost seem as if the Shaksperes 
 lived away from Stratford and were taxed elsewhere ; but there 
 is no proof of any such taxation, and the puzzle is intensified by 
 the fact that John Shakspere, the father, actually possessed a 
 large house in Stratford, which must have been of considerable 
 value. How did this escape from being assessed ? There 
 seems to be considerable misrepresentation about this property, 
 but it is quite clear that, whether he had previously lived in it 
 as a tenant or not, it was only purchased 17 Elizabeth (1575). 
 The Fine records that John Shakspere was querent, and 
 Edmund Hall, and Emma, his wife, deforciants, of two mes- 
 suages, two gardens, and two orchards. There can be no 
 rational doubt that these two tenements represented the two 
 houses called the Birthplace, Avhich the poet mentions in his 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. l8l 
 
 ■will, and which Lady Barnard devised to Thomas Hart, grand- 
 son of the poet's sister Joan. 
 
 The tenement in Henley Street, presently to be mentioned, 
 conveyed in 3 and 4 Philip and Mary to a John Shakespere, 
 was probably the residence of the shoemaker, or of some other 
 John Shakspere. This first Henley Street house has been the 
 subject of much discussion by Shakesperian writers. It is need- 
 less to say that it was not the residence of the poet's father. 
 
 Knight remarks upon the singular fact (he calls it mar- 
 vellous) that Malone, writing with the records of the Court 
 Leet of Stratford before him, should have referred to John 
 Shakspere taking a "lease" of the houses in Greenhill and 
 Henley Street. There is nothing remarkable in this — at least, 
 not unusual with him, for although Malone was a barrister by 
 profession, he was — ^like so many of the craft — ^very inaccurate, 
 and profoundly ignorant of the rudiments of law. But Charles 
 Knight himself has translated these records very curiously, and 
 (to the writer it appears) inaccurately. The entries are found 
 in a view of Frankpledge, with the Court and Sessions of the 
 Peace for the Borough of Stratford, held there the 2nd day of 
 October, in the 3rd and 4th year of Philip and Mary, and the 
 following is the (very properly unextended) record given by 
 Knight :— 
 
 It pre' quod Georgius Tumor alienavit Joh'e Shakespere et 
 hered' suis unum tent' cum gardin' et croft cum pertinent' in 
 Grenehill Stret tent' de Dno lib'e p'r cart' p'r redd inde d'no p'r 
 annu' vi d. et sect' cur' et id'e Johes pd (this surely means present 
 in court, and should be written pi) in cur' fecit d'no fidelitatem 
 pr' eisdem. 
 
 Which Knight translates : — 
 
 They present that George Turner has alienated to John 
 Shakspere and his heirs one tenement, with a garden and croft 
 with their appurtenances, in Greenhill Street held of the Lord 
 xmd delivered according to the roll for the rent from thence to 
 
182 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 the Lord of sixpence per annum and suit of Court, and the said 
 John in the aforesaid Court did fealty to the Lord for the same» 
 
 The translation — " and delivered according to the Roll " — 
 reads apparently like nonsense. Surely the meaning is that the 
 land was held free (liberfe) of the lord " by charter." This is 
 shown by the tenant doing fealty, and gives to him a higher 
 status than if the land were held by copy of Court Roll ; and 
 this is apparently the same tenure by which this same John 
 Shakspere held the other land granted at the same Court. 
 Knight calls the tenant a copyholder, forgetting that doing 
 fealty was evidence of freehold tenure. 
 
 It' quod Edward West alienavit p'd eo (something wrong 
 here) Joh'e Shakspere unu' tent' cum gardin' adjacen' in Henley 
 Street pr' redd' inde D'no p'r ann' vi d. et sect' cur' et id' Joh'es p'd. 
 (? present) in cur' fecit fidelitatem. 
 
 It is verj' doubtful whether this was the Poet's father, 
 since three years after this date he was described as of 
 Snytterfield, (in the bond on his father's death), and had he 
 been the owner of freehold property in Stratford he would 
 surely have been so described, especially as his father was only 
 a tenant of the Ardens. If it should be the same John, it 
 disposes of the theory that he owed his fortune to his wife, for 
 Mary Arden was certainly single at this period. But it seems 
 most probable that it was neither the Poet's father, nor was the 
 house referred to in this grant the birthplace ; but that it was 
 John the shoemaker, obtaining his residence in Henley Street, 
 before which he formed the sterquilinium so pleasantly 
 alluded to by Halliwell-Phillips, and the American admirers of 
 the Poet. 
 
 There is another small point in this entry, which may be 
 relied upon to shew that a freehold and not a copyhold interest 
 passed ; the land was conveyed, that is granted, or bargained 
 " alienavit ' ; now a copyholder could not alienate his land. A 
 copyholder could not convey or transfer his copyhold estate to- 
 
THE GENTL| SHAKSPERE, 183 
 
 another otherwise than by surrender to the Lord and by 
 request, to him to do so ; and this entry mentions neither 
 surrender nor admittance, but expressly refers to alienation by 
 charter. Knight has based an ingenious argument with respect 
 to the Poet's actual birthplace on the assumption that this first 
 purchase was in 1556, and was of a copyhold property ; whereas 
 that transaction was very clearly of a freehold estate and quite 
 a different property, and therefore the whole argument falls to 
 the ground. 
 
 The records relating to the Poet and his father have been 
 so often printed and are so well known that they are not 
 reprinted here, whilst other documents of more remote interest 
 perhaps, are included, just because they are not so well known, 
 and will be the more welcome to those who are well acquainted 
 with what is generally known of the Poet's history. This book 
 does not profess to be a history of the Poet ; it is intended to 
 supply some facts which have hitherto been unknown, and to 
 refute and dispose of, if possible, some of the numerous 
 calumnies which have been heaped upon his memory; 
 but above and beyond all other facts to give the key to the 
 Poet's sad and solitary life, to account for the strange neglect of 
 his own works and reputation of which he was guilty, by 
 insisting strongly upon the fact — which was well-known to 
 many — that he was a Catholic, a fact which even those who 
 knew it failed to appreciate at its true importance j but which, 
 fairly and fully considered, supplies the key to his extraordinary 
 conduct. Only b6ar it in mind, and it will be seen at once why 
 he did not, like other workers, obtain the full measure of profit 
 to be gained from his works. That he did not is quite clear ; 
 and it is equally clear that, if he had printed his books, it would 
 not have paid him the expense ; because the pirates of his day 
 would then have printed and published correct copies of his 
 work, and would have been able to sell them at a lower price 
 than he could; and he could not stop them or obtain any 
 redress for this piracy, because, being a Papist, he could not sue 
 in the Courts. The infamy of Ehzabeth's conduct in thus 
 
1^4 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 persecuting her own people, for no cause but that they would 
 otherwise perforce look upon her own birth as illegitimate, is 
 simply scandalous ; but it was only in accord with her own 
 course of conduct, for this bright occidental star, to gratify her 
 brutal lusts, stopped at nothing and trampled upon the home 
 happiness and even the lives of others ; her carelessness of life 
 was as reckless and cruel when following her vile amours as it 
 was when engaged in stamping out, by her twenty years of 
 resolute government, the religion in which she had been reared, 
 and to which— if she believed anything— she adhered to the 
 day of her death. 
 
 As previously stated, we have no knowledge of the date of 
 the marriage of John Shakspere with Mary Arden, the daughter 
 of his father's late landlord. It was not celebrated in her 
 father's lifetime, for she was then a mere child, though her exact 
 age is also unknown; nor is the date of his settlement in 
 Stratford-on-Avon known. Probably the sons of Richard 
 Shakspere remained with him and helped to farm his land. We 
 have the fact from the bond given upon the administration of 
 his goods that his eldest son, John (probably the elder, because 
 he was the administrator), remained at Snitterfield in February 
 1 56 1. It is not probable that he was married before this date, 
 but possibly a year or two afterwards. It has been asserted 
 that Joan, the daughter of John Shakspere, who was baptised 
 at Stratford-on Avon in 1558, and who died early, was his 
 daughter ; but how is it proved that she was identical with the 
 poet's sister ? Joan is a very common name, and there were 
 several John Shaksperes about. We know of one who was 
 fined for a nuisance several years earlier, and he may have been 
 the father of Joan, and certainly Joan Hart, the poet's sister, 
 was bom afterwards. 
 
 It is said that from 1561 to 1586 John Shakspere remained 
 a member of the Corporation, which a Catholic could not regard 
 as an honour ; and the Corporation records shew that he did 
 not so regard it, for he neglected to attend their repeated 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 1 85 
 
 summons, and consequently, and no doubt with his full 
 approbation, they appointed someone in his place. He seems 
 to have lived, if not from the first, at least the greater part of 
 his life, in his comfortable mansion with his pleasant garden in 
 Henley Street — ^in his day, doubtless, abutting upon the 
 meadows surrounding it. And here the poet spent his early 
 days, tripping daily to the Grammar School, as he has so aptly 
 described in his Seven Ages of Man. His was probably a 
 bright and happy childhood until he became old enough to 
 share with his parents the deadly terrors caused by Queen 
 Elizabeth in order to protect her birthright. Then, indeed, 
 would he experience the sickening misery of that fearful period 
 of our history ; and, as he was a highly sensitive, s5Tnpathetic 
 lad, from that time he must have suffered much unquiet. But 
 doubtless his joys were frequent in passing over to Wroxall, 
 Rowington and Hazeley and Snitterfield, visiting his relations 
 at those places, and learning from them the pleasures of the 
 chase. We know nothing for certain ; but how easy it is to 
 imagine the wonder and delight of the boy in seeing the noble 
 deer shot down by the well-aimed arrow, or caught in pursuit 
 by the noble hoimds. That this life accorded with his views of 
 happiness is as apparent from his writings as it is from the 
 traditions of his enemies. 
 
 And his life was not without intellectual pleasures, even in 
 Stratford. At the College there would be several grave seniors 
 who would aid his enquiring mind in the studies of antiquities ; 
 amongst them, probably, were men who would delight in his 
 intellectual powers and aid him to cultivate them, and, under 
 the shady trees of the old churchyard, they may have assisted 
 him to translate even generally imknown classics, whilst at the 
 Theatre — which was probably held at the Town Hall or in the 
 Schoolroom below it — he would behold those plays of which 
 his father was evidently fond, since they were performed whilst 
 he was chief magistrate. And probably he often sat by his 
 father whilst those other scenes from real hfe occurred which 
 passed before him as he sat administering law as a Justice of the 
 
l86 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 Peace. In these performances he would study not only scenic 
 effects but real life, and gain an insight into the characters and 
 habits of men. What his father's accomplishments were 
 we do not know, but because he followed the practice 
 of the age, and appended his mark or cross to deeds 
 signed by him, it does not follow that he was illiterate j 
 and from his having for so many years acted as a Justice of the 
 Peace it seems impossible to believe that he was absolutely 
 unlettered ; for what we know, he may have been a profound 
 scholar, and he may have occupied his leisure with grave 
 studies. It is a pity that the inventory of his books has not 
 been preserved, but it cannot be helped. It is absurd, because 
 it cannot be found, to charge him with ignorance or with 
 keeping his home dirty or bookless. 
 
 Mary Arden, too, the Poet's mother, why involve her in 
 these unpleasant charges ? She may have been (and she 
 probably was, from the appearance of her bright, beautiful boy) 
 as beautiful and of as classical a form as himself. Some of his 
 beauty is preserved even in that terrible mask taken from his 
 dead face, which speaks too plainly of the ravages of death ; but 
 looked at carefully, bits of great beauty of one side of his face 
 can even yet be distinguished, though the greater part of it is 
 swollen and disfigured by disease and corruption. And why should 
 not Mary Arden have been as clever and intellectual as other 
 girls of that period ? Although they had not the advantages, 
 which Halliwell deplores, of the three-pronged fork or the 
 modern table-napkin, it does not follow that she used a pitch- 
 fork at her meals, or " manipulated " her food with bits of wood 
 too worthless to be inventoried. The girls of her period were, 
 like many girls of our own, trained in convents, taught music 
 and languages, illumination of manuscripts and embroidery, and 
 all the pretty accomplishments of civilised life, including, of 
 course, dancing and deportment, which the modern misses enjoy 
 and which the new woman despises. If, as Halliwell asserts, 
 she was the best-beloved of Robert Arden's many daughters, 
 why should he deprive her of the benefits of the best education ? 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 187 
 
 Doubtless Mary Arden was trained at Wroxall Priory, near the 
 home of the Shaksperes ; and in all probability it was under 
 the roof of Richard Shakspere, of Hazeley, where the poor 
 evicted prioress, the Lady Jane Shakspere, resided (who had 
 probably been her own superior), that she met and loved her 
 future husband, the poet's father. Would not the young 
 mother take her beautiful boy to be seen, and caressed, and 
 blessed by the dear old dame, as was the custom in those good 
 old Catholic days ? The Prioress survived till the year 1570; 
 and she must have been of a very great age at her death, for she 
 held office in the Priory early in the reign of King Henry VIII. 
 Here too, possibly, the young girl saw poor Katherine Parr, the 
 Royal Bluebeard's last Queen, who gobbled up all the lands of 
 the Priory and of all the religious houses about as a portion of 
 her dower. How the country people of those parts, who knew 
 and loved the old foundations, must have loathed the very 
 name of Royalty. 
 
 Hunter has discovered that a John Shakspere lived at 
 Chfiford in 1579, he_being described in a will of 1583 as 
 indebted to the estate of John Ashwell, of Stratford. Knight 
 very acutely had concluded that the Poet's father lived out of 
 the borough, because he was excused payment of certain taxes 
 together with a Mr. Bratford, who certainly lived out, (the 
 subsidy roll shews that he was taxed elsewhere), so John 
 Shakspere may have lived elsewhere, although he was not taxed 
 for any other place as far as has yet been discovered. Still, his 
 inability to pay a trifling debt, so long as he had his freehold 
 house in Henley Street to pay, is incomprehensible, and whjr 
 was he not assessed for that house ? What difficulty was there 
 in his creditors issuing an eligit and so seizing it ? He may 
 have had no goods to seize in the Borough because he lived out 
 of it ; but he possessed real estate within it. 
 
 The family of Shakspere at Clifford Chambers, adjoining 
 Stratford, judging by the similarity of Christian names, were 
 probably related to the Poet. 
 
1 88 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 John Shakspere, of Clifford, sued William Smith, of 
 Stratford, 1572. 
 
 The Clifford Chambers registers contain the following 
 entries : — 
 
 1546, October 26th. Jarram fil Jarram Cookes. 
 1560, October isth. John Shaksper and Julian Hobbyns, m. 
 1579. Charles Malary and Alice Shakespere, m. 
 1581, May 28th. Jerome fil William Griffine, baptised. 
 1583, June 1 8th. Henry, son of Antonio Shakspere, buried. 
 1587. Katherine Moris, servant to John Shakspere, buried. 
 1608, July 22. Julian Shakespeare buried. 
 16 10, October 20. John Shakespere buried. 
 
 This place is only two miles from Stratford, and it may 
 well be that this is the John Shakespere who has puzzled 
 Halliwell and others, causing them to make ridiculous blunders 
 about the habits and the poverty of the Poet's father, and his 
 inability to pay small debts. It is clear this man was suing in 
 the Stratford Court, since in one case he is described as of 
 Clifford ; but, supposing he had a shop or business in the 
 Borough, this private residence would not be described, for the 
 former alone would give him a standing in the Court. 
 
 The absurdity of these stories is apparent when it is known 
 that John Shakspere, the Poet's father, lived diuring the whole 
 period of his residence in Stratford in an excellent house ; a 
 mansion even in these days, and left this house untouched to 
 his son ; and that, when he applied to the College of Arms, 
 the value of his real estate is declared to have been fully ;^5oo. 
 What was to prevent any creditor, for the paltry sums alleged 
 to be owing by him, from seizing and selling this landed 
 property, and of so paying themselves ? 
 
 As a Papist, and his name appears in one recusant roll, he 
 would receive no favour in the Court. One of these ridiculous 
 figments was that he kept away from Church to avoid arrest. 
 It is very probable that he kept away firom Church very 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 189 
 
 fi?equently, as often as he could indeed : simply because he was 
 a Papist, and could not recognise the bright occidental star as a 
 divine teacher, though by law she was firmly established 
 Supreme Head of the Catholic Church on earth, very earthy ; 
 and no doubt any excuse was good enough and would pass 
 muster, when all the leading people of Stratford were of the 
 same way of thinking. The fact that about 1580, John 
 Shakspere had ceased to obey the summons to attend the Town 
 Council meetings, and that he ceased to be a member of the 
 Corporation on that account strongly confirm this theory. We 
 know that except for these paltry debts, there were no 
 judgments in his name, for the rolls of all the Courts have 
 been searched in vain, which is a complete answer to these 
 reflections upon his solvency. Nor are we driven to conclude 
 that the Poet's father was the purchaser of all the little 
 properties in Stratford made in the name of John Shakspere- 
 There was, as we have seen, at least one other John Shakspere 
 in the town ; John the Shoemaker, a respectable man, for he 
 obtained a lease from the Corporation, and was Master of the 
 Shoemakers' Guild in 1580, who may have shared in these 
 small transactions. And besides him, there was a Thomas 
 Shakspere, who was sued in 23 Elizabeth, for a few poxmds for 
 malted barley, who was very possibly the Poet's uncle. From 
 the number of transactions recorded, it is probable that he was 
 a publican or maltster, and possibly the William Shakspere who 
 also sued for malt was connected with him. We find a 
 William Shakspere, who has been rashly assumed to be the 
 Poet, though without a tittle of evidence, suing for some malt 
 in 1597. Thomas Shakespere was probably the person buried 
 at Stratford under the name of Thomas Green alias Shakespere, 
 1 6th May, 1590; and he was possibly the father of Thomas 
 Green the Town Clerk, whose origin has never been discovered, 
 but who called himself a cousin of the Poet, and who joined in 
 the purchase of the tithes. Richard Green lived at Bridgetown, 
 close to Snytterfield, and his son Edward married a daughter of 
 Thomas Coombe, whilst his niece married John Green, of 
 Stratford-on-Avon. 
 
190 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 Again we find other Shaksperes living at Hampton Lucy, 
 also close to Stratford. Henry Shakespere had a daughter 
 Lattice baptised there, loth June, 1581 ; and a son James, i6th 
 October, 1585. And there was another James Shakspere living 
 at Ingon, also close by, who was buried at Hampton Lucy, 25th 
 September, 1589. Alcester is not very far distant, where a 
 William Shakspere, an infant, was baptised in 1536, who was 
 discovered in the grand old mare's nest found in that place. In 
 fact there were plenty of Shakesperes about to account for all 
 the petty debts sued for in Stratford Courts, without troubhng 
 either the poet or his father. Some of these Shaksperes were 
 very likely cousins of the Poet , he had undoubtedly many 
 relations about Rowenton and Wroxall, who would be driven 
 from their homes when they were seized through the rapacity 
 of the Supreme Head of the Church ; and they might be 
 expected to settle down in their dear old Warwickshire County, 
 as near as they could to their home of centuries. It is curious 
 how we get tempting bits ©f pedigree all round. A John 
 Shakspere, of Rowington, who held land at Wroxall in 22 
 Henry VHI, had a son, Antonio, We find an Antonio 
 Shakspere marrying at Budbrook (the parish of Hampton 
 Curlew of Richard Shakspere), 14th November, 1573, to one 
 Joane Whitrefe. The first Antonio's mother was called Elena 
 Cockes. We find in 1576 (June 17th), John Cox, of Rowington, 
 married at Budbrook to one Joane Tomlinson; and ist 
 December, 1585, Thomas Webb married Margaret Cockes there. 
 A little earher, 8th November, 1564, John Coombe had a son 
 William baptised there ; the godfathers and godmother were 
 John Somerfield, Edward Graunt, and Katherine Korpson A 
 little later, 24th March, 1575, Henrie, son of (Antonio) 
 Shakespere and Joane, his wife, was baptised there, and then 
 we lose all traces of the Shaksperes at that place until 1642, 
 when a John Shakespere was buried ; and 1655, a Nicolas. 
 
 It is easy to account for so many Wroxall names, Cockes, 
 Coombe, Webb, and Shakespere, in the place, because the 
 Convent possessed lands there ; and Richard Shakspere, their 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 19 1 
 
 steward, probably lived there in 16 Henry VIII, and this 
 almost certainly identifies them with the Poet's family. The 
 Stratford Registers give further evidence, which seems to 
 identify this family with those of Clifford Chambers. The first 
 entry in the Clifford Registers is the burial of Henry, son of 
 Antonio Shakspere, on the loth of June, 1583. Was he the son 
 of Antonio, of Budbrook, born only 8 years previously ? 
 Probably, because the Stratford Registers of only 4 months 
 earlier shew that one Antonio Shakespere, of Hampton, had a 
 daughter Elizabeth baptised there. This Hampton has been 
 rashly assumed to be Hampton Episcopus or Lucy ; but it is 
 probably Hampton Curlew in Budbrook. Jordan thought it 
 was Hampton-in-Arden. Curiously, too, poor despised Jordan, 
 whom the Malones and Halliwells do nothing but abuse, knew 
 something which they only partially adopted, although Malone 
 could use him to search Registers and to invent plausible 
 pictures of residences. He, poor man, relates that John 
 Shakspere, (the Poet's father), had an uncle Anthony, who in 
 probability was this very man of Budbrook, and perhaps also 
 the son of Elenor Cockes, who, at the age of 70 or, at any rate, 
 when he was much too old for the purpose, chose to marry 
 Joane Whitrefe at Budbrook, and by her became the father of 
 the sickly child who died at ChfFord Chambers, and the little 
 girl baptised at Stratford-on-Avon. This is admittedly a series 
 of guesses, but there is so much probabihty in them that they 
 may be excused ; but, whether true or not, it matters little to 
 the arguments of this book ; if true, they add something to the 
 numberless probabilities on which the argument is founded, 
 though perhaps not very greatly. 
 
 A Thomas Shakspere lived at Alcester who, from his will 
 dated 1 2th September, 1538, proved nth April, 1539, appears 
 to be the son of a Richard and Margaret Shakspere ; but he was 
 a person of small means, and little or nothing can be learnt 
 respecting him. He had a wife (who was the mother of 
 Alexander Fox), and a son named WiUiam, who was then an 
 infant. 
 
192 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 The subsidy Rolls for 14 Henry VIII. shew a Thomas 
 Shakspere assessed 40s. for goods at Alcester. The Muster 
 Rolls for 28 Henry VIII. give him as a Billman, spelling the 
 name Sikestaffe. In 35 Elizabeth no Shakspere was assessed at 
 Alcester, and the family was probably extinct or too poor to be 
 taxed. 
 
 Joseph Hunter, in his Illustrations, unfortunately made a 
 rash guess that this Richard, the father, was the bailiff of 
 Wroxall, he being unaware at that time of the number of 
 persons of this name. It is enough to state that there is not a 
 shadow of proof known at present connecting this Richard or 
 any member of his family with any place except that of 
 Alcester itself. 
 
 The name of John Shakspere, of Stratford-on-Avon, is to 
 be found in a Recusant Roll of 1592, and in a list of Popish 
 Recusants of the i6th Car. I. are to be found under Old 
 Stratford, William and Thomas Coombe, Thomas Clopton, 
 Thomas Green, and John Hathaway ; and for Budbrook, 
 Nicolas Shakspere. 
 
 In an undated Roll of the Hundred of Barlichway, including 
 Wroxhall and Rowenton (probably of the date of Queen 
 Elizabeth), are to be found the names of Mary Shakspere, 
 Richard and Thomas, his son. 
 
 Roger Shaxsper had a pension of loos. given him on being 
 expelled from Bordesley, 2 and 3 Philip and Mary. (Cardinal 
 Pole's Book.) 
 
 Hunter writes :— " Dr. Hall, Shakespeare's son-in-law, was 
 said to be a Catholic ; he was the medical attendant of the 
 Shrewsbury family." Hall was a Churchwarden, but what did 
 that mean ? Nothing, except that he was afraid to avow his 
 religion. 
 
 In a M.S. of the Capuchin Irish Friars it is stated that 
 many of the players were Catholics. 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 193 
 
 The will of John Shakspere is taken from Jordan's work, 
 edited by Halliwell-Phillips, with the following note. 
 
 "The following is a true and perfect copy of a spiritual will, 
 testament, protestation, profession, and confession of faith, of 
 John Shakespeare, found under the tiling in the house where he 
 resided and where his children were born, on the 29th day of 
 April, 1757, by Joseph Mosly, a bricklayer, of Stratford, who 
 was then repairing the house for Thomas Hart." 
 
 I. 
 In the name of God the Father, Sonne, and Holy Ghost, 
 the most holy and blessed Virgin Mary, mother of God, the 
 holy host of archangels, angels, patriarchs, prophets, evan- 
 gelists, apostles, saints, martyrs, and all the celestial court 
 and company of Heaven. Amen. I, John Shakespere, an 
 unworthy member of the Holy Catholick religion, being at 
 this my present writing in perfect health of body and sound 
 mind, memory, and understanding ; but calling to mind the 
 uncertainty of life and the certainty of death, and that I may 
 be possibly cut off in the blossome of my sins, and called to 
 render an account of all my transgressions, externally and 
 internally, and that I may be unprepared for the dreadful trial, 
 either by sacrament, pennance, fasting, or prayer, or any 
 other purgation whatever, do in the holy presence above 
 specified, of my own free and voluntary accord, make, and 
 ordaine this my last spiritual will, testament, confession, pro- 
 testation, and profession of faith ; hoping hereby to receive 
 pardon for all my sinnes and offences ; and thereby to be made 
 partaker of life everlasting, through the only merits of Jesus 
 Christ my Saviour and Redeemer, who took upon himself the 
 likeness of man, suffered death, and was crucified upon the 
 cross for the redemption of sinners. 
 
 II. 
 
 Item. — I, John Shakespere, do by this present protest, freely 
 acknowledge and confess that in my past life I have been a 
 most abominable and grievous sinner, and therefore unworthy 
 to be forgiven without a true and sincere repentance for the 
 same. But trusting in the manifold mercies of my blessed 
 Saviour and Redeemer, I am encouraged by relying on His 
 sacred word to hope for salvation, and be made a partaker of 
 His heavenly kingdom, as a member of the celestial company 
 of angels, saints, and martyrs, there to reside for ever and ever 
 in the court of my God. 
 
 III. 
 
 Item. — I, John Shakespere, doe by this present protest, 
 declare that I am certain I must passe out of this transitory 
 
194 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 life into another that will last to eternity, I do hereby 
 most hunnbly implore and intreat my good and guardian 
 angel to instruct me in this my solemn preparation, protesta- 
 tion, and confession of faith, at least spiritually, in will 
 adoring and most humbly beseeching my Saviour that He 
 will be pleased to assist me in so dangerous a voyage, to 
 defend me from the snares and deceites of my infernall 
 enemies, and to conduct me to the secure haven of His 
 eternall blisse. 
 
 IV. 
 
 Item. — I, John Shakespere, doe protest that I will also 
 passe out of this life armed with the last sacrament of extreme 
 unction : the which, if through any let or hinderance, I should 
 not be able* to have, I doe now also for that time demand and 
 crave the same, beseeching His Divine Majesty that He will be 
 pleased to anoint my senses, both internall and externall, with 
 the sacred oyle of His infinite mercy, and to pardon me all my 
 sinsf by feeling, speaking, feeling|, smelling, hearing, touching,, 
 or by any other way whatsoever. 
 
 Item. — I, John Shakespere, do by this my§ present 
 protest, that I will || not through any temptation whatsoever 
 despair of the Divine goodness for the multitude and greatnesse 
 of ray sins, for which, although I confesse I have deserved 
 hell, yet will I steadfastly hope in God's infinite mercy, know- 
 inge that He hathe heretofore pardoned as many and as great 
 sinners as myself, whereof I have good warrant, sealed with 
 His 11 mouth in Holy Writ, whereby He pronounceth that He 
 is not come to call the just but sinners. 
 
 VI. 
 
 Item. — I, John Shakespere, doe protest that I do not 
 know that I have ever done any good worke meritorious of life 
 everlasting, and if I have done any I do acknowledge that I 
 have done it with a greate deal of negligence and imperfection ; 
 neither should I have been able to have done the least without 
 the assistance of His divine grace. Wherefore let the divell 
 remain confounded ; for I doe in no wise presume to merit 
 heaven by such good workes alone, but through the merits and 
 blond of my Lord and Saviour Jesus shed upon the Crosse for 
 me, most miserable sinner. 
 
 VII. 
 
 Item.— I, John Shakespere, do protest, by this present 
 \vritin"-, that I will patiently endure and suffer all kmds of 
 
 * Another copy 
 
 ,py introduces the word " then " here, t The same introduces committed here. 
 
 t Another copy introduces the word " feehng instead of tassting. 
 
 emitted in the other coDV. II '• Never instead of not in the other copy. 
 
 ' My " omitted in the other copy. 
 
 K " Sacred introduced here. 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 195 
 
 • 
 
 infirmity, sickness, yea, and the paine of deathe itself, wherein 
 if it should happen [which God forbid] that through violence 
 of pain and agony, or by subtilety of the devill, I should fall into 
 any impatience or temptation of blasphemy or murmuration 
 against God or Catholick faith, or give any sign of bad example, 
 I doe henceforth and for the present repent me, and am most 
 heartily sorry for the same, and I do renounce all the evill 
 whatsoever.** I might have then done or said, beseeching the 
 divine clemency that He will not forsake me in that grievous 
 and painful agony. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 Item. — I, John Shakespere, by virtue of this present 
 testament, I doe pardon all the injuries and offences that any 
 one hath ever done unto me, either in myt reputation, goods.J 
 or any other way whatsoever, beseeching sweet Jesus to pardon 
 them for the same, and I do desire that they will doe the same* 
 by me whom I have oifended or injured in any sort howsoever. 
 
 IX. 
 Item. — I, John Shakespere, doe heere protest that I doe 
 render infinite thanks to His Divine Majesty, for all the 
 benefitts that I have received as well secret as manifest, and 
 in particular for the benefitt of my creation, redemption, 
 sanctification, conservation and vocation to the holy knowledge 
 of Him and His true Catholicke faith, but above all for His 
 soe great expectations of me to penance, where He might most 
 justly have taken me out of this life when I least thought of it. 
 yea even then when I was plunged in the dirty tt puddle of my 
 sinnes. Blessed be therefore and praised for ever His infinite 
 patience and charity. 
 
 X. 
 
 Item. — I, John Shakespere, doe protest that I am willing, 
 yea I do infinitely desire and humbly crave that of this my 
 last will and testament the glorious and ever blessed Virgin 
 Mary, mother of God, refuge and advocate of sinners (whom 
 I honour specially above all other saints) my be the chief 
 executresse, together with those other saints and patrons 
 (St. Winifrida) all whom I invoke and beseech to be present 
 at the hour of my death, that she and they may comfort me 
 with their desired presence, and crave sweet Jesus that He 
 will receive my soul into peace. 
 
 XI. 
 
 Item. — In virtue of this present writing, I, John Shake- 
 spere, doe likewise most willingly, and with all humility^ 
 
 •♦ " Which " in another copy. 
 + " My " omitted in other copy. % "Life" occurs here in other copy. 
 
 • " Like " occurs in another copy for " same." ft " Durty " in another copy. 
 
196 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 constitute and ordaine my good angell for defender and 
 protector of my soul in the dreadful day of judgement, when 
 the finall sentence of eternall life and death shall be discussed 
 and given, beseeching Him that as my soule was appointed to 
 His custody and protection when I lived, even soe He will 
 vouchsafe to defend the same in that hour, and conduct it to 
 eternal blisse. 
 
 xn. 
 
 Item. — I, John Shakespere, doe in like manner praye and 
 beseech all my dear friends, parents, and kinsfolkes, by the 
 bowels of our Saviour Jesus Christ, that, since it is uncertain 
 what lot will befall me, for fear notwithstanding least by reason 
 of my sinnes I be to passe and stay a long while in purgatory, 
 they will vouchsafe to assist and favour** me with their holy 
 prayers and satisfactory workes, especially with the holy 
 sacrifice of the masse, as being the most effectual meanes to 
 deliver soules from their torments and paines, from the which, 
 if I shall with God's gracious goodness and by their vertuous 
 workes be deUvered, I doe promise that I will not be ungrate- 
 ful for so great a benefitt. 
 
 xni. 
 
 Item. — I, John Shakespere, doe by this my last will 
 and testament, bequeath my soule, as soon as it shall be 
 delivered and loosened from the prison of my body, to be 
 entombed in the sweet and amorous coffin of the side of Jesus 
 Christ, and that in this lyfe havingej sepulchre it may rest, and 
 live perpetually enclosed in that eternall habitation of repose, 
 there to blesse for ever and ever that direful iron of the launce, 
 which, like a "sharp-cutting* razor, formed" so sweet and 
 pleasant a monument within the sacred breast of my Lord and 
 Saviour. 
 
 XIV. 
 
 Item.— Lastly, I, John Shakespere, doe protest that I 
 will willingly accept of death in what manner soever it may 
 befall me, confirming^ my will unto the will of God, accepting 
 of the same in satisfaction of my sinnes, and giving thanks 
 unto His Divine Majesty for the like^ He hath bestowed upon 
 
 and if it please Him to prolong or shorten the same, 
 
 blessed be He also a thousand thousand times, into whose 
 most holy handes I commend my soule and bodye, my life and 
 death and beseech Him above all things that He never permit 
 any change to be made by me, John Shakespeare, of this my 
 last§ will and testament. |1 
 
 •* " Succour " instead of " favour in another copy. 
 + " Giving " instead of " having " in another copy. 
 • •' Charee in a catisare formes' in another copy. 
 
 J "Conforming "instead of "confirming. n a jj ■.»„.. 1. 
 
 ' Life "instead of " iSie." % " Aforesaid " instead of last. || Add Amen. 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE, 197 
 
 • 
 
 I, John Shakespere, have made this present writing of 
 protestation, confession and charter, in presence of the blessed 
 Virgin Mary, my angel guardian, and all the celestial court as 
 witnesses hereunto, the which my meaning is that it be of 
 full value now, presently, and for ever with the force and 
 virtue of testament, codicill, and donation, in cause* of death 
 comfirminge it a new beinge in perfect health of soule and 
 bodye, and signed with my** owne hand, carryinge also the 
 same about me ; and for the better declaration thereof, 
 my will and intention is that it be finally buried with me after 
 my death. Pater noster, Ave Maria, credo Jesu [line ends] 
 Son of David have mercy on me Amen. [2nd line ends.] 
 
 It would not appear from the terms of the will of John 
 Shakspere that there is any reason why it should not be 
 genuine. The supposition that he could not write is without 
 evidence to support it. He may have been a very good scholar ; 
 he was a man of ample means and leisure, and was probably a 
 studious man. If it is not his will, where is his true will to be 
 found ? None has ever been produced except this one, which, 
 of course, did not require proof; indeed he proposed that it 
 should be buried with him. Malone believed in it at one time, 
 though he afterwards disavowed it ; his opinion, either way, is 
 of very small consequence, but his acceptance only shows that 
 the way it was produced to him was consistent with its 
 validity. Chalmers supposes that it was drawn up by the family 
 priest ; and this is quite likely, though it is just as likely that it 
 is the work of the testator himself. It is, as Hunter (a 
 Dissenter) writes, of a high Catholic spirit, " full of the Virgin, 
 guardian angels," etc., and so forth — ^things so very distasteful 
 to Protestants that they are glad to believe it spurious ; but in 
 truth it is written in such an admirable spirit of true piety, in 
 such a meek and contrite spirit, as if the writer felt the wicked- 
 ness and weakness of his conduct in suppressing his true 
 sentiments, and in preferring the honours of this world to that 
 which the Poet himself has declared, in a true Catholic spirit, 
 is higher than all — the fear of God. It fits so exactly the case 
 of the good but weak old man, that it is difficult not to accept 
 it as true. The key-note of the whole document is the fear 
 
 * " Course " instead of "cause." '** " Mine " instead of " my." 
 
198 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 that the writer might die without receiving the consolations of 
 his faith, this was the dread of all poor earnest souls at the 
 time, and to save them from it was the reason why so many- 
 Catholic priests incurred the terrible danger of discovery which 
 so often ended with death. It is evidently the outpouring of a 
 wounded spirit, the wailing of a miserable man, dissatisfied with 
 himself, and longing that he had had time over again that he 
 might have acted differently ; for he almost prays that perse- 
 cution may come down upon him even then that his wickedness 
 might be washed out in his life-time and that he might die 
 without the stain of moral cowardice, without the sin of having 
 denied his Lord, upon his soul. Perhaps, but this admission 
 would seem to play into the hands of the Donellyites (if so it 
 cannot be helped, for it is most probable) the misery which, 
 it is apparent, was in the mind of the writer was partly the- 
 anguish of soul which he naturally felt on seeing his bright and 
 beautiful boy running astray. Would he not feel that his 
 cowardice and dissimulation had deadened and destroyed the 
 seeds of rehgion in his boy's heart, and the force of example to 
 sustain him was wanting through his fault ; how could his boy 
 respect a religion which his father would put aside when 
 inconvenient ? What was it worth if it could be so treated ? 
 All this and much more must have passed through his mind, as 
 tales of his son's wildness were brought before him. And 
 what a blow to him must have been his poor boy's marriage, 
 not merely on account of the inferior position of her parents, if 
 she had any, but because of the cause of it. No doubt tha 
 good old man might even hasten the wedding, though from the- 
 false name given at the Register it would seem to be unknown, 
 to him ; but it would be a bitter trouble to him, and one which 
 might easily cause him to set down his sorrows as he had done- 
 We must not, however, blame John Shakspere too severely, 
 though he may have blamed himself. The miseries of Catholics- 
 were not sentimental ; and, as Hunter very justly observes, he- 
 shared his dissimulation with myriads of his countrymen, and it 
 is unfair to place an enforced with a spontaneous insincerity. 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE, 199 
 
 • 
 
 Still, on the other hand, it may be said that with a little more 
 firmness on the part of Catholics, Burleigh, even with twenty- 
 years of resolute government, had not succeeded in rooting out, 
 as he did for a long time, the Christian religion. 
 
 The whole life of William Shakspere seems to tally with 
 the sentiments of this will ; he felt for others — for the struggling 
 and helpless — an infinite pity ; his great heart went out to the 
 bruised and womided, and he embraced those whom the world 
 in its harshness had cast aside. His eye was ever beaming with 
 love and sympathy for all ; he discerns goodness in the worst of 
 men ; he can even feel for those whose acts would seem 
 to have cut them off from all sympathy. He sought to excite 
 pity for the wretched Lady Macbeth when, in her madness, she 
 pities herself for the blood which she cannot wash from off her 
 "little hands." Who but Shakspere could have thought of 
 exciting s3Tnpathy for such a woman in her situation ? The 
 exquisite tenderness which he excites for Juliet might have been 
 expected, for she was altogether sweet and loveable ; but Lady 
 Macbeth, who except Shakspere can do otherwise than hate 
 and condemn her ? 
 
 The Rev. Richard Davies, Archdeacon of Lichfield and 
 Rector of Sapperton, who died 1708, added some notes to a 
 biography of the Poet, to the effect that he was oft whipped 
 and sometimes imprisoned by Sir Thomas Lucy ; and he added 
 that he, too, died a Papist. This testimony is the more 
 valuable that it comes from one who can least be expected to 
 have any sympathy with the fact, who, indeed, would deplore 
 it, if he did not harshly condemn it. This slight accoimt of his 
 last moments, even from a Protestant clergyman, gives one hope 
 that, however carelessly the Poet may have lived, yet at last 
 he did not die without the consolations of his religion. R.LP. 
 
 Knight, of course, rejects the religious testament of John 
 Shakspere as spurious, and indulges in a good deal of froth, and 
 fiime, and rash assertion in disparagement of it. His words are 
 in sad confusion. He repeats the same things three times (page 
 
200 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 38 of the 3rd edition, 1865), as if repetition would add strength 
 to his argument, which after all amounts to this, that John 
 Shakspere must at one time have taken the oath of supremacy 
 when he became chief magistrate ; and yet in his will he calls 
 upon his family to abtain for him the consolations of his 
 religion at the hour of his death. There was nothing uncommon 
 in this prayer ; indeed, it was the common experience of 
 thousands who, like him, were Catholics at heart, and who yet 
 preferred the emoluments of office ; or perhaps, indeed, he only 
 accepted them in order to avoid the terrible consequences of 
 openly admitting his rehgion. Did not Mr. Knight know that 
 the priests of the Catholic Church did not cease during 
 Elizabeth's reign, and long afterwards, to travel through the 
 country, to render those consolations to the dying and the living 
 in secret ? It was a common practice with secret Catholics, 
 even in later times, to have the burial service of their own 
 Church sung in private and afterwards to be buried with the 
 Protestant service. But there is another argument. It is said that 
 the Poet could not have been a Catholic, because in King John 
 there is a denunciationof a false priest, and in King Henry VIII. 
 Mr. Knight would make the Poet responsible for the ridiculous 
 prophecy of the glory and happiness (save the mark !) of the 
 reign of the tyrant Elizabeth. If Shaikspere would not write 
 a line in her honour immediately after her death, was it likely 
 that he would introduce this fustian into his play of He^iry the 
 VIII., which certainly did not see the light in her day ; and 
 probably that of King John, though attributed to Shakspere, 
 was not his work ; at all events, so many hands are apparent in 
 that play that the passage in question may not be that written 
 by Shakspere. It smacks too much of a later date. King John 
 no doubt defied the Pope, but from very devilry, and not on 
 religious grounds. It was reserved to Henry VIII. to disavow 
 and destroy the Catholic religion upon purely religious 
 principles. Bluff King Hal might have some little private 
 motives in the matrimonial line (he had not then taken to the 
 use of the axe to loosen the marriage bonds), but it cannot be 
 denied that he had a tender conscience. 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 201 
 
 Knight writes (page 58) : — " The 13th item of this strange 
 production appears to us in common with many other passages, 
 to be conceived in that spirit of exaggeration, which would mark 
 the work of an imitator of the language of the sixteenth 
 century, rather than the production of one habitually employing 
 it. Surely this is not the language of a plain man in earnest." 
 Why not ? If you can only conceive that the man beheved in 
 the religion he had suppressed and disavowed, the whole will is 
 most natural. Knight speculates as to the monster who 
 invented it, but he acquits John Jordon of having done so, and 
 he is quite safe in that respect, for the composition of such a 
 work was far beyond Jordan's capacity. He seems to point at 
 Dr. Ireland as the probable culprit, but he has yet to show how 
 it could possibly advance his views — or anyone's views. 
 Besides, it was discovered long before Dr. Ireland's time. 
 Nobody can doubt that John Shakspere was a Catholic. Mr. 
 Lemon's discovery that he was returned as a recusant in 1592 
 sets that point at rest. No one pretended to be a Catholic for 
 the mere love of ruination and persecution ; and it must be 
 remembered that this will was produced in 1756 — years before 
 Ireland flourished, or Lemon discovered the State Paper, 
 which, probably, at the former period was unknown. Besides, 
 what was to be gained by the fact ? A man who was old 
 enough to be married, perhaps in Queen Mary's time, was, of 
 course, a Catholic by birth and education ; and nothing is more 
 natural than that he should return to his faith in his old age. 
 And, as a matter of course, sweet Mary Arden was brought up 
 as a Catholic, and would have nurtured her beautiful boy in 
 her own faith. 
 
 As already stated, we really know nothing of the history 
 of John Shakspere, the Poet's father. There is no other will 
 than that which is called the religious testament, and there was 
 no administration to his goods. The probability is that he had 
 disposed of them in his life-time to his son William. That he 
 had property near to the close of his life is clear from the terms 
 of the application for coat armour (so well-known that it is 
 
202 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 useless to rajDcat it) ; and it is not likely that his son, who was 
 then rich, would have left him in want. The probability is that 
 his son lived with him until he bought the new place, which 
 was, it appears from the Fine, in Pasc. 39 Elizabeth. It was 
 made between the Poet and William Underbill, and confirmed 
 a few years later by Hercules Underbill, his son. Probably the 
 Halls lived with the Poet in the new place, whilst his father, 
 and his mother during her hfe, resided in the old, for he 
 evidently kept both places and died possessed of them both. 
 Probably he had intended to leave his old house to his daughter 
 Judith, had she not misconducted herself. 
 
 It has been frequently asserted by the school of Halliwell 
 that John Shakspere could not write, and possibly it was the 
 custom of the Town Clerk to write the names of those present ; 
 but certainly the signature, John Shacksper, to the Roll on the 
 29th September, 1565, upon the appointment of John Wfaeler 
 to the office of baihfif, appears to be an original one. The 
 point has, probably, been too hastily assumed, and a proper 
 examination of the original Rolls would possibly bring the 
 truth to light ; not that the fact that they were written by the 
 Clerk would determine the question in the negative, for there is 
 frequent evidence of people who could write well havmg 
 allowed the scribe to write for them, or having used their mark 
 — the mark being, in fact, a solemn act— the mark of the Cross. 
 
 Again, the stories of John Shakspere having been in trade 
 are simply baseless. The acts of other persons of his name in 
 trade have been attributed to him. That which has passed 
 current most frequently is that he was a wool stapler in a large 
 way ; but this depends entirely on the fact that the arms of the 
 wool staplers are to be found in a window of the birthplace. 
 This house was probably an ancient one in his day, and some 
 wool stapler (if any resided in the town) may have lived there. 
 But these arms were, in fact, those of the Cloptons, and were 
 very likely removed from the New Place when it was pulled 
 down, or possibly transferred by the Poet himself, who may 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 203 
 
 have loved his old home better than his new, and might find it 
 more quiet and full of peace. But the Cloptons were a rich and 
 numerous family, and very possibly one of them resided in this 
 house before the Shaksperes bought it. It may be safely 
 assumed that there is no evidence whatever that the Poet's 
 father was engaged in any trade. 
 
 Unquestionably the oldest biography of the Poet extant is 
 that contained in the diary of John Ward, Vicar of Stratford- 
 upon-Avon, 1648-79. He, no doubt, records in his diary not 
 only the gossip of the place, but something of the actual truth. 
 Shakspere had only been dead about thirty years when Ward 
 came there, so that no doubt he must have conversed with 
 many persons who remembered him and with some who 
 actually knew him. This was a momentous period of our 
 history, when men's minds were distracted by more serious 
 things than the reputation of a mere poet. The natural result 
 of the great reformation had followed its due course, and, the 
 Church having first of all been subverted, the whole fabric of 
 society was broken up and a terrible state of confusion had 
 ensued. The old vicar was probably a very mild or a very 
 cunning old man, or he would not have lived through both the 
 revolution and the restoration and yet have retained his office. 
 He must have taken good care not to make himself obnoxious 
 to the Dissenters, who now, through the aid of the revolution, 
 ruled the land with fire and sword, forcing down their crude 
 doctrines at the point of the bayonet, and caring as little for hfei 
 — that is, the life of others — as the bloody King Hal himself or 
 good Queen Bess had done in their days. The Dissenters had a 
 fine time of it under Cromwell, and had it not been that he was 
 a man of firmness and kept them back, the scenes of the worst 
 days recorded in Biblical history would have been enacted over 
 again, the Dissenters of course taking the part of the destroyers. 
 They were delighted when Cromwell gave them an excuse to 
 use arms to crush their enemies — that is, those who happened 
 conscientiously to differ from them in religion, and who were 
 better informed and better mannered than themselves. The 
 
204 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 tyranny of a religious fanatic is worse than the rage of the 
 heathen. The poor old Vicar of Stratford, in keeping his head 
 above water, had had no time to read Shakespere, and 
 determined to do so lest he be thought ignorant ; clearly 
 showing that as things were settling down under Charles II. men 
 began to give the Poet some thought, and shewing also that he 
 must have had great admirers, or the vicar would not have been 
 afraid of being considered ignorant on account of his want of 
 knowledge of his works. His doubt whether Dr. Heyling was 
 right in omitting Shakspere's name amongst those of the 
 dramatic poets famous in England would amuse even Mr.. 
 Donelly. It only shews how literature had sunk in those days, 
 and how little critical judgment its chief writers possessed. No 
 one now doubts as to the beauty of Shakspere's work, the only 
 question is an absurd and unwarrantable attempt to deprive him 
 of the authorship. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Ward also gives very valuable evidence in 
 favour of Shakspere being the author of his plays. He telb 
 us that he supphed the stage with two plays every year, and 
 for it had an allowance so large that he spent at the rate of 
 ;^i,ooo a year. Now that sum was a very large and noble 
 income, for he is speaking of the reign of King James I., and no 
 doubt he was referring to Shakspere's later years, when it was 
 always supposed he had retired from the stage and was living at 
 Stratford. This is just what we should suppose an author of 
 such works would receive ; but could he have earned so great 
 an income so easily, for only a couple of plays a year, unless it 
 was known that he was a great author and wrote them himself. 
 Had he been a mere hack, however clever, he would not have 
 received such payment, or anything like it. This fact is as 
 good a proof of his position, amongst playwrights, as the fee- 
 book of a barrister, or physician, at the present day showing 
 earnings to the amount of ;^20,ooo a year is absolute proof of 
 the devotion and approbation of solicitors, and of clients and 
 patients. 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE, 205 
 
 In truth Shakspere was master of the situation. It was 
 known, no doubt, that he cogged his plots sometimes, and 
 sometimes his speeches, sometimes whole stories and scenes ; 
 5^et he was known also to possess the power of selecting only 
 that which was good, and of putting such good work upon it 
 that its author could hardly recognise it. Is it any reproach 
 to the silversmith that he must take his ingot of silver upon 
 which to make his beautiful work ? Shakspere could invent 
 both his plots and his words when he pleased, and it is said 
 that it cost him even more labour when he availed himself of 
 the ideas of others ; but be this as it may, no one could turn 
 out such work as he could, and certainly no one, at his date, 
 could so easily obtain such enormous fees. Unfortunately no 
 contract for any of his works has ever turned up, and probably 
 none were made. The great master could work or not, as he 
 pleased ; and as he could not sue upon any contract, probably 
 he would make none. But at all events we have in the old 
 vicar's diary ample evidence to prove that he was regarded in 
 his life-time as the author of his own works, and that he was so 
 highly appreciated that he could obtain an enormous price 
 for them. 
 
 The following documents are probably but little known. 
 The author is indebted to Mrs. Stopes for the following entry 
 from the Lord Chamberlain's Rolls, 1594 : — 
 
 To William Kempe, William Shakspere, and Richard Burbage, 
 servants of the Lord Chamberlain upon the Council, were dated at 
 Whitehall 15th March, 1594, for two several comedies or interludes 
 showed by them before Her Majesty at Christmas time last past, viz., 
 upon St. Stephen's Day and Innocents' Day, j^i^ 6s. 8d. ; and by way 
 of Her Majesty's reward, ;£6 13s 4d. 
 
 In 1596 " a petition was presented to the Council by Lady Russel, 
 Lord Hunsdon, and others, complaining of the nuisance of Burbage's 
 new play-house," when the following memorial was presented by the 
 players : " Thomas Pope, Richard Burbage, John Hemmings, Augustine 
 Phillip, William Shakespere, William Kempe, William Sly, Nicolas 
 
206 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 Tooley, and others, owners and players of the Blackfriars Theatre, to 
 the Council for permission to finish the reparations and alterations at 
 that Theatre begun at their own expense, the same being objected to by 
 certain inhabitants of Blackfriars who wish the Theatre to be closed 
 should be ruined if they could not use Blackfriars for their winter 
 performances, as they can only use their new-built house on the bank- 
 side called the Globe in the summer season, would then be unable to 
 practise themselves in plays when called on to perform for the recreation 
 and solace of Her Majesty, and her honourable Court, as they have 
 been hitherto accustomed." 
 
 There is really nothing remarkable in this memorial. It 
 is not signed, or in any manner distinguished as a separate act 
 of Shakspere's, yet appended to it is a paper in this doleful and 
 remarkable form : — 
 
 " Sir F. Palgrave, Sir Frederick Madden, I. S. Brewer, Thomas 
 Hardy, and N. E. S. A. Hamilton, declared this to be a forgery." 
 
 The Master of the Rolls (Sir John Romilly), 3rd February, 
 i860, solemnly recorded their united opinions. But these 
 learned men very curiously have made a remarkable blunder. 
 Robert Lemon, one of the deputy keepers, found the document 
 next to be cited, which is unquestionably authentic and which, 
 with the petition of the inhabitants (which is also of undeniable 
 validy), proves its authenticity ; and Lemon appended to it a 
 counter document that in his opinion it was genuine. 
 
 One would have thought that the best thing to be done 
 was to cover up the mare's nest which had been discovered by 
 these great men, by suppressing or pulping their erroneous 
 judgment. (Pulping is the mode by which the national records 
 are got rid of.) But no, a further note was appended by the 
 Master of the Rolls, which was thought so important that the 
 whole series is actually printed in the "Domestic Papers," 
 although usually that series is not given to recording jokes. 
 " The Master of the Rolls was not aware of Mr. Lemon's 
 addition till the 4th of April, 1868." What happened upon the 
 4th (or was it the ist ?) of April is not known. Probably poor 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 207 
 
 Mr. Lemon (with all the rest of the valuables in the office at 
 that date) was pulped. 
 
 The order of the Council is almost as amusing as the 
 Master of the Rolls' solemn decisions. The London County- 
 Council may learn something from it. 
 
 " 22nd June, 1600. Complaints have been made of many houses 
 erected in the city for common stage plays, and lately of a like house 
 building (in Golden Lane), by Edward Allen, a servant of the Lord 
 Admiral. The use of plays not being ill in jtself may with good order 
 be suffered, and Her Majesty being pleased at some time to take delight 
 and recreation in the sight and hearing of them, order is fit to be taken 
 for allowance of such persons as are thought meetest to yield Her 
 Majesty recreation and delight. It is ordered that there shall be about 
 the city two houses and no more — one in Surrey on the bank side, and 
 another in Middlesex. And the Lords being informed by Edward 
 Tilney, Master of the Revels, that the house to be built by Edward 
 Allen is instead of the Curtain, it is ordered that Allen's house shall be 
 the house allowed in Middlesex ; for the house in Surrey the company 
 of players being the servants of the Lord Chamberlain, made choice of 
 the Globe, which was accordingly allowed." 
 
CHAPTER X. 
 
 "Nothing extemtate, nor aught set down in malice" 
 
 THERE is one act in the life of William Shakspere which 
 a candid historian cannot pass over in silence, 
 especially one who firmly believes, and would as 
 strongly maintain, that he was a Catholic bred and 
 born, and, as his works attest, a true believer in the sublime 
 doctrines of the Church ; and that is that he on one occasion 
 trafficked with church plunder. It seems clear that the Poet 
 made a large investment in the great tithes of Stratford. 
 
 Now it is quite clear that in doing so he only did that 
 which almost all the great Catholic families did. Very few of 
 them can escape the contamination of and condemnation for 
 such conduct ; and even in Queen Mary's reign the Pope was 
 prevailed upon to give a sort of sanction to the holders of this 
 property, who had possession of it by purchase or otherwise, 
 to continue in occupation, upon certain obligations to perform 
 equivalent works of charity. Queen Mary, it is said, herself 
 used some of the few spoils from the churches and their shrines 
 which still remained in the treasury. The institutions were 
 gone, and they could not be restored, and the great nobles and 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 209 
 
 nearly all the leading commonality who had been bribed with 
 these possessions to uphold the newly invented religion were 
 allowed to retain them upon doing what was clearly an 
 equivalent charity in some other direction. In fact, it was 
 generally left to the conscience of each individual, and when 
 that is done, and the temptation is great, conscience can, alas, 
 become very elastic. 
 
 We do not know the motives, or the intentions, with which 
 the Poet entered into this bargain. We do know, as a fact, that 
 the miserable endings of so many of the Church robbers, had 
 greatly depreciated the market value of Church plunder. Only a 
 hundred years after the great spoliation this had become very 
 apparent, few of them having thriven, and most of them having 
 died miserably and their offepring, too, having perished 
 prematurely ; and if the families still remained, we know that 
 generally the then representatives were descendants of innocent 
 members, whose fingers had not been soiled in the foul traffic ; and 
 we know that in consequence of this terrible scourging there was 
 a disinclination to hold such property, and that the price of it 
 was therefore low and the investment in it a good one 
 financially. This, of course, would make the temptation to a 
 godless and reckless man to acquire it the greater. But surely 
 William Shakspere was not one of them, nor were the men 
 engaged with him in this venture of that description. They, 
 too, were Catholics. It is quite possible, and highly probable, 
 that the object of all of them was to restore this property to 
 the Church, if happily that could be effected, and it was only 
 the untimely death of the Poet which prevented him from 
 explaining and fulfilling his intentions. The property was in 
 the hands of Cathohcs when he purchased it, and as to restore 
 it in the then state of the established Church would only be to 
 aid that Church in the propojation of infidelity, it was obvious 
 that the time for carrying out any intention, which would be 
 consistent with the desires of a Catholic, had not arrived ; and 
 no one can doubt, reading the will of the Poet, as we have it, 
 that it was made when he was not in possession of his full 
 
210 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 faculties ; though it was written a month before it was executed, 
 It was signed in hot haste, for the numerous corrections made it 
 imperative to have it fair copied; but this was not done- 
 evidence that the mind of the testator had been inactive during 
 that period, and its contents prove but too clearly that the poor 
 maker of it had not the mental power to dispose of his property 
 as he would have wished, or even to recognise his dearest 
 friends. One idea alone dominated it— the punishment and 
 disgrace of one of his daughters. It might be, indeed, that this 
 was not the primary intention of the testator, but was only an 
 unforeseen consequence of his determination, and that the poor 
 testator only proposed to punish the man who had seduced his 
 child from her allegiance to him. 
 
 Whichever way we look at it, it is a sad and miserable 
 event. It may be of course that, seduced by the temptations 
 of riches — so many men can steer blamelessly through poverty 
 who sink when they come into a rich harbour — he had been led 
 away from the grand truths and sublime doctrines which he had 
 inculcated and practised all his life-time, and he had himself 
 become the foul thing he had always upheld to scorn. But 
 who can believe it ? If there were a good and true man at that 
 debased period of our history, surely William Shakspere was 
 the man. It seems impossible to suppose it to be otherwise, 
 and therefore we ought to regard the one act inconsistent with 
 his habits and principles with a broad charity, and to believe 
 that it was done with a good intention, which was only 
 frustrated by a melancholy catastrophe. It is quite possible 
 that Dr. Hall, his son-in-law, and his daughter Susannah were 
 fully aware of his intentions with regard to these tithes, and aa 
 fully determined to carry them out ; and in this, doubtless, tha 
 testator could properly trust them. 
 
CHAPTER XI. 
 
 SHAKEPERE'S WILL. 
 
 " QU off even in the blossoms of my sin, 
 Unhousel'd, disappointed, unanel'd." 
 
 — Hamlet. 
 
 THE alterations to which this instrument was subjected 
 previously to its execution render it difficult to give a 
 complete idea of the original through the medium of 
 typography ; but if the reader will carefully bear in 
 mind that in the following transcript all the italics represent 
 interlineations, he will be able to obtain a tolerably clear 
 impression of this valuable record. 
 
 WILL OF WILLIAM SHAKSPEARE, of Stratford-on- 
 Avon, 1616. 
 
 Vicesimo quinto die (Januarii crossed out) Martii, anno 
 regni domini nostri Jacobi, nunc regis Anglie, &c., decimo 
 quarto, et Scotie xlix° anno que Domini 1616. 
 
 I, Wm. Shackspeare — In the name of God, amen ! 
 
 I, William Shackspeare of Stratford-upon-Avon, in the 
 countie of Warr., gent., in perfect health and memorie, God 
 be praysed, doe make and ordayne this my last will and 
 
212 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 testament in manner and forme following, that ys to saye : — 
 First, I comend my soule into the handes of God my Creator, 
 hoping and assuredhe believing, through thonelie merittes of 
 Jesus Christe my Saviour to be made partaker of lyfe 
 everlastinge, and my bodye to the earth whereof yt ys made. 
 Item — I gyve and bequeath unto my ("sonne" crossed out) 
 daughter Judyth one hundred and fyftie poundes of lawful! 
 English money, to be paied unto her in manner and forme 
 foUoweing, that ys to saye, one hundred poundes, in discharge of 
 Iter marriage porcion, within one yeare after my deceas, with 
 consideracion after the rate of twoe shillinges in the pound for 
 soe long tyme as the same shal be unpaied unto her after my 
 deceas, and the fyftie poundes residewe thereof upon her 
 surrendring of, or gyving of such sufficient securitie as the 
 overseers of this my will shall like of to surrender or graunte, 
 all her estate and right that shall discend or come unto her 
 after my deceas, or that shee nowe hath, of, in or to, one copie- 
 hold tenemente with th'appurtenaunces lyeing and being in 
 Stratford-upon-Avon aforesaied in the saied countie of Warr., 
 being parcell or holden of the mannour of Rowington, unto to 
 my daughter Susanna Hall and her heires for ever. Item — I 
 gyve and bequeath unto my saied daughter Judith one hundred 
 and fyftie poundes more, if shee or anie issue of her bodie be 
 lyvinge att thend of three yeares next ensueing the daie of the 
 date of this my will, during which tyme my executours to paie 
 her consideracion from my deceas according to the rate 
 aforesaied ; and if she dye within the saied terme without 
 issue of her bodye, then my will ys, and I doe gyve and 
 bequeath one hundred poundes thereof to my neece Elizabeth 
 Hall, and the fyftie poundes to be sett fourth by my executours 
 during the lief of my sister Johane Harte, and the use and 
 profitt thereof cominge shal be payed to my saied Sister 
 Jone, and after her deceas the saied L"- shall remaine amongst 
 the children of my saied sister equallie to be devided 
 amongst them; but if my saied daughter Judith be 
 lyving att th'end of the saied three yeares, or anie yssue of her 
 bodye, then my will ys and soe I devise and bequeath the saied 
 hundred and fyftie poundes to be sett out by my executours 
 and overseers, for the best benefitt of her and her issue, and 
 the stock not io be paied unto her soe long as she shal be 
 marryed covert baron ("by my executours and overseers" 
 crossed out) ; but my will ys that she shall have the considera- 
 cion yearelie paied unto her during her lief, and after her 
 deceas, the saied stock and consideracion to bee paied to her 
 children if she have anie, and if not, to her executours or 
 assignes, she lyving the said terme after my deceas. Provided 
 that if such husbond as she sail att thend of the saied three 
 yeares be marryed unto, or att anie after, doe sufKcientle 
 assure unto her and thissue of her bodie landes awnswereable 
 to the porcion by this my will gyven unto her, and to be 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 21 « 
 
 ♦ •' 
 
 adjudged soe by my executours and overseers, then my will ys 
 that the saied CL'- shal be paied to such husbond as shall 
 make such assurance, to his owne use. Item — I gyve and 
 bequeath unto my saied sister Jone XX^ and all my wearing 
 apparrell, to be paied and delivered within one yeare after my 
 deceas; and I doe will and devise unto her the house with 
 thappurtenaunces in Stratford wherein she dwelleth, for her 
 naturall lief, under the yearlie rent of xij*- Item — I gyve and 
 
 bequeath unto her three sonns, William Harte Harte, 
 
 and Michaell Harte, fyve poundes a peece, to be payed within 
 one yeare after my deceas (" to be set out for her within one 
 yeare after my deceas by my executours with thadvise and 
 direccions of my overseers, for her best profBtt until her 
 marriage, and then the same with the increase thereof to be paied 
 unto her" crossed out). Item — I gyve and bequeath unto 
 ("her" crossed out) the said Elizabeth Hall all my plate, except 
 my brod silver and gilt bole, that I now have att the date of this 
 my will. Item — I gyve and bequeath unto the poore of 
 Stratford aforesaied tenn poundes ; to Mr. Thomas Combe 
 my sword ; to Thomas Russell, esquier, fyve poundes ; and to 
 Francis Collins, of the borough of Warr., in the countie of 
 Warr., gent., thirteene poundes, sixe shillinges, and eightpence, 
 to be paied within one yeare after my decease. Item — I give 
 and bequeath to (" Mr. Richard Tyler thelder " crossed out) 
 Hamlett Sadler xxvj'- viij*- to buy him a ringe ; io William 
 Raynoldes, gent., xxvf- viij^- to buy him a ringe; to my god- 
 son, William Walker, xx'- in gold; to Anthonye Nashe, 
 gent., xxvj"- viij"- ; and to Mr. John Nashe, xxvj'- viij* 
 (" in gold " crossed out) ; and to my fellowes, /ohn Hemyngs, 
 Richatd Burbage, and Henry Cundell, xxvj'- viij^ a peice to 
 buy them ringes. Item — I gyve, will, bequeath, and devise 
 unto my daughter, Susanna Hall, for better enabling of her 
 to perjorme this my will, and towards the performans thereof, 
 all that capitall messuage or tenemente, with thappurtenaunces, 
 in Stratford aforesaied, called the Newe place, wherein I nowe 
 dwell, and two messuages or tenementes with thappurten- 
 aunces, scituat, lyeing, and being in Henley streete, within the 
 borough of Stratford aforesaied ; and all my barnes, stables, 
 ochardes, gardens, landes, tenementes, and hereditamentes 
 whatsoever, scituat, lyeing, and being, or to be had, 
 receyved, perceyved, or taken, within the townes, hamlettes, 
 villages, fieldes, and groundes of Stratford-upon-Avon, Old- 
 stratford, Bushopton, and Welcombe, or in anie of them in 
 the saied Countie of Warr. And alsoe all that messiiage 
 or tenemente with thappurtenaunces wherein one John 
 Robinson dwelleth, scituat, lyeing, and being in the Blackfriers 
 in London nere the Wardrobe; and all other my landes, 
 tenementes, and hereditamentes whatsoever. To have and to 
 hold all and singuler the saied premisses with tlieir appurten- 
 aunces unto the saied Susanna Hall for and during the term© 
 
214 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 of her naturall lief, and after her deceas to the first soniie of 
 
 her bodie lawfullie yssueinge, and to the heires males of the 
 
 bodie of the saied first sonne lawfullie yssueinge, and for defalt 
 
 of such issue, to the second sonne of her bodie lawfullie 
 
 issueinge, and ("of" crossed out) to the heires males of the 
 
 bodie of the saied second sonne lawfullie yssueinge, and for 
 
 defalt of such heires, to the third sonne of the bodie of the saied 
 
 Susanna lawfullie yssueinge, and of the heires males of the 
 
 bodie of the saied third sonne lawfullie yssueinge, and for 
 
 defalt of such issue, the same soe to be and remaine to the 
 
 fourth (" Sonne " crossed out), fyfth, sixte, and seaventh sonnes of 
 
 her bodie lawfullie issueing one after another, and to the heires 
 
 males of the bodies of the saied fourth, fyfth, sixte and seaventh 
 
 sonnes lawfullie issueing in such manner as yt ys before lymitted 
 
 to be and remaine to the first, second and third sonns of her 
 
 bodie, and to their heires males, and for defalt of such issue 
 
 the saied p'miss's to be and remaine to my sayed Neece Hall 
 
 and the heires males of her bodye lawfullie yssuing, and for 
 
 defalt of such issue to my daughter Judith, and the heires males 
 
 of her bodie lawfullie issueinge, and for defalt of such issue, to 
 
 the right heires of me the saied William Shackspeare for ever. 
 
 jtcm — I gyve unto my wife my second best bed with the furniture. 
 
 Item — I gyve and bequeath to my saied daughter Judith my 
 
 broad silver gilt bole. All the rest of my goodes, chattels, 
 
 leases, plate, jewels, and household stuffe whatsoever, after 
 
 my dettes and legasjes paied, and my funerall expences 
 
 discharged, I gyve, devise, and bequeath to my sonne-in-lawe, 
 
 John Hall, gent., and my daughter Susanna, his wief, 
 
 whom I ordaine and make executours of this my last will and 
 
 testament. And 1 doe iutreat and appoint the saide Thomas 
 
 Russell, esquier, and Frauncis Collins, gent., to be overseers 
 
 hereof, and doe revoke all former wills and publishe this to be 
 
 my last will and testament. 
 
 In witness whereof I have hereunto put my ("seale" 
 crossed out) hand the daie and yeare first above written. 
 By me, William Shakspere. 
 Witnes to the publishing hereof, 
 
 Fra. Collyns ; Julius Shawe ; John Robinson ; 
 Hamnet Sadler ; Robert Whattcott. 
 
 There is a melancholy interest in his will. It is not William 
 Shakspere's, probably, either in the sense that it represents his 
 mind or that his hand wrote it. 
 
 It is a terrible will ; it is the act of a man in a passion, who 
 knew not what he did. It has cruelty and vindictiveness 
 stamped upon it, generosity and forgiveness are wholly 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 215 
 
 • 
 
 wanting. It is unlike every sentiment and every act of the 
 great Poet's life. What coiild have moved him to mark his 
 anger so terribly ? and to die without altering and without 
 revoking it ? It could not have been the work of anyone else— 
 that is a forged will. The persons benefited by it would be the 
 last to make it, and there was no one else who would have 
 wished him to make it. It must have been his own act. Yet, 
 if he had power to consider what effect it would have he would 
 have seen that it could have none, that it was incapable of 
 being carried out. He only deputed to his daughter Susannah 
 to do what he would naturally do himself. By it, if his will 
 could be carried out, he puts out of her happy (probably 
 luxurious) life one of his two daughters, and leaves her to a state 
 of penury, to a wretched pittance — the interest upon a sum of 
 j^i50 — she who in her father's lifetime had shared in an income 
 of at least ;^i,ooo a 3-ear. 
 
 It cannot be William Shakspere's will, and yet it was 
 proved by his own daughter and her husband, and so it must 
 have been his. That a man, who through life had acted as the 
 soul of charity and generosity, should brand his own memory 
 by an act which has anger and almost ferocity stamped upon 
 it, is proof that some great affliction had fallen upon him, or 
 that some terrible illness had supervened, which had partially 
 obscured his intellect, and that in truth he was partly bereft of 
 reason. The will was drawn upon the 25th of January, and 
 dated ; but it was not signed on that day. but a month later, 
 and redated, and he survived a month after its execution. 
 
 This will, it is apparent on the face of it, is written under 
 circumstances of distress and trouble ; that distress and trouble 
 evidently being caused by the person who is so cxrriously dealt 
 with in the first part of it, and so little to her advantage — the 
 Poet's younger daughter Judith. Here is a man of large 
 property, possessing several valuable houses, including two of 
 the best in Stratford itself, and much land, and probably a very 
 considerable personal estate, actually pauperising one of his 
 children. There must have been some grave cause for this. 
 
21 6 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 It has been pointed out that his wife's right to dower 
 would amply provide for her, and she is not mentioned except 
 in the paltry bequest of a second-best bed ; but this is the gist 
 of it : — Everything that the testator could dispose of— lands, 
 goods, and even plate — ^are left away from his wife and second 
 daughter, except a trifling provision of ^£'300 for that daughter, 
 and one piece of silver plate — a broad silver-gilt bole. 
 Everything else, amounting in value to several thousand pounds, 
 is given to the eldest daughter (Mrs. Hall), except the rest of 
 the plate, which probably she did not want, and that is given 
 to her daughter, called in the will his " niece " (Elizabeth Hall), 
 who is also interposed between the testator's two daughters in 
 the entail of his estates, should Susannah Hall die without 
 male issue. There is a small piece of land, copyhold of the 
 Manor of Rowington, the position of which in Stratford is not 
 positively known, and to half of which Judith Shakspere would 
 be entitled as co-heir, and to deprive her of this she is offered a 
 sum of ;^5o. , _ . .... 
 
 It has often been rashly asserted, on the authority of the- 
 old Vicar of Stratford, that the Poet died from the effects of a 
 merry-making with his friends, Ben Jpnson, Drayton, and 
 others, on the happy occasion of the marriage of his daughter 
 Judith. This will proves this slander to be absolutely without 
 foundation, for there could be no happiness or merry-making 
 upon a marriage, which evidently had caused her father to cut 
 her off with a poor pittance for her livelihood, and of which 
 marriage it is clear, from the will itself, he was unaware a 
 fortnight before it had occurred. This fact is most curious— a 
 fortnight after the will was prepared, i.e., the loth February, 
 16 1 6, Judith Shakspere married Thomas Quyneye, who is said 
 to have been an innkeeper. Yet no notice of this marriage 
 appears in* the will, and it is executed as if she were still 
 unmarried ; and the paltry bequest of / 150 is the first gift in 
 the will. The words "sonne and" appear to have been 
 inserted, but are crossed out, so that it is not absolutely clear 
 that the testator was ever aware of her marriage. But there 
 
THE GENTtE SHAKSPERE. 217 
 
 cannot be a shadow of doubt that her projected marriage was 
 the cause of the making of the will, and that so far from being the 
 occasion of any merriment, the very terms of it show it was a 
 thing of shame and disgrace. If not, why should everything be 
 left to her elder sister, and the plate and the remainder of the 
 leal property, in case of that sister's death, be left to the 
 testator's " niece," Elizabeth Hall, Judith only to come in for 
 the reversion of the reality in the event of Elizabeth Hall dying 
 without issue, 
 
 Judith Quyneye had a child baptised in the month of 
 November following. This is no proof of that child's age, and 
 it is sadly suggestive that her conduct was the cause of a 
 terrible grief to her father, which probably gave him so great a 
 shock that his mind was unhinged ; and this it was, and no 
 merry-making, which caused his illness and eventual de^th. 
 Evidently his loss of memory occurred at least a fortnight 
 before the marriage, and probably in his terrible agony in learning 
 that his child had followed his own and her mother's example, 
 he had a fit of paralysis, or possibly of apoplexy, from 
 the effects of which he never really recovered. It is not likely 
 that his daughter would have married whilst he was in this 
 state, had not there been urgent necessity for it. Unhappily it 
 is but too apparent that some such misconduct was the true 
 motive for making this will. If this be so, it is not to be 
 wondered at that he wholly omitted to mention his wife, who 
 in all probability had connived at the conduct of his daughter 
 and helped to bring about the catastrophe. 
 
 That his mind was utterly unhinged on the 25th of 
 January, when the will is made, is apparent from the omission 
 of the names of so many persons who were most dear to him, 
 and whom he would certainly have referred to. Why were 
 not Ben Jonson and Drayton mentioned ? ; and even the names 
 of Hem3Tige and Condell, and Burbage, the partners of his life, 
 who had helped him to fortune, were only inserted by an after- 
 thought and for the slightest mention of them. Had he been 
 
2lS THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE, 
 
 himself, would he have confined his expression of his love and 
 regard to the bequest of morning rings ? This last act of the 
 Poet's hfe is the saddest of all, and gives rise to feelings of 
 regret and bitterness which cannot be suppressed. 
 
 The fact that he styled his grand-daughter — a term well- 
 known — his " niece," is an indication that his will was not made 
 by one well acquainted with his family. Another curious proof 
 occurs on the face of the will itself, which would seem to 
 indicate that the draftsman as well as the testator was non 
 compos mentis. After specifically bequeathing all his plate, 
 except his silver and gilt bole, otherwise disposed of, the plate 
 is again disposed of to another legatee, although this was 
 possibly intended to operate in the event of the death of his 
 grand-daughter, but the regular form of such a bequest should 
 have been " of the plate not otherwise disposed of." 
 
 ' It is curious that he should give a single piece of plate to 
 his dishonoured and degraded daughter Judith; but this 
 probably was done in pursuance of some promise made to her 
 in earlier times ; it was hardly consistent with the pittance he 
 left her by his will, which reduced her to a condition of life in 
 which silver-plate would be out of place ; and it would seem 
 that he scarcely expected her husband would be worth so much, 
 for her legacy was to be paid to him if he could settle lands 
 upon her of an equal value. There is a singular provision- 
 that if she survived him three years the sum of ;f 150 so left 
 her was to be doubled. This might mean that she was in 
 delicate health, perhaps consumptive, and not likely to live, and 
 the fact that all her children died in infancy seems to make this 
 probable ; or it might mean that her proposed husband should 
 not marry her for her money, but that she should still have a 
 little more comfort if she lived— she was then thirty-two 
 years old. 
 
 Good Charles Knight has observed upon the opening 
 phrases of the will, which he supposes are expressed "with far 
 more than usual solemnity," and writes, referring to the slander 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 219 
 
 of the Vicar of Stratford, " whatever was the immediate cause 
 of his last illness, we may well believe that the closing scene 
 was one of tranquillity and hope ;" and that he who had sought 
 perhaps more than any man to look beyond the material and 
 finite things of the world should rest at last "in the peace 
 which passeth all understanding." 
 
 This pious wish is here reproduced, because all must share 
 in it, but our confidence is not increased by the knowledge that 
 these words, " of more than usual solemnity," were common 
 form, and are to be 5 found in thousands of wills of the period. 
 They come down a legacy from the old Catholic formula, which 
 always included an invocation to the blessed Virgin and the 
 whole company of Heaven to pray for the soul of the dying 
 Testator, and to intercede with our blessed Lord on his behalf. 
 Of like weight are the words which precede this invocation, 
 that he was " in perfect health and memory (God be praised)." 
 No will was made without that declaration, and, in fact, it 
 would be invalid if it were otherwise, and it would be inserted 
 
 as a matter of course. 1 
 
 i 
 
 A truer and surer hope in the poor Poet's eternal rest is to 
 be found in the fact that his writings evince that throughout 
 his life he had endeavoured to promote the true spirit of 
 Christianity, the broadest charity, and the profoundest wisdom ; 
 and that when he had been compelled to deal with the worst 
 side of our poor human nature he never made vice amiable or 
 attractive, but clearly pointed out its repellent and repulsive 
 characteristics, retaining his brightest colours for the exaltation 
 of honour and virtue. 
 
 No one can read his works, following their true spirit (and 
 rejecting the corruptions added to them), without being the 
 better for it. That he was pure of heart is absolutely certain ; 
 and this must be the best justification for our hopes for his 
 everlasting rest. Who shall judge, or who can understand 
 God's ways with man ? That he died with his intellect obscured 
 (and that his last act was harsh is only proof of it), is no proof 
 
220 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE, 
 
 of his real disposition ; that he remained in this terrible state 
 of mind for two whole months is no proof that he had this 
 determination to disinherit his daughter always before him. 
 Had he been himself, his generous soul would have forgiven 
 her, especially after her marriage, if, indeed, he knew of it. 
 But it is evident and clear proof that the shock to his system 
 had been too great for his strength, and that he never really 
 understood the gravity of his conduct. Probably a little 
 flickering of life caused him to remember the will, and so it was 
 executed in hot haste. 
 
 In that, probably, divided household, where " barren hate, 
 sour-eyed disdain and discord, had bestrewed the union of his 
 bed with weeds so loathly, that it was only hateful," what is more 
 likely than the wife whom he could not love had obtained 
 an ascendancy over the mind of her youngest child, and possibly 
 had helped her in making this union which so distressed him. 
 There was evidently a great difference in mind between the 
 two sisters. There is proof — ^which Halliwell-Phillips foolishly 
 uses to show the ignorance of the whole family^that Judith 
 Shakspere was illiterate, which makes it more likely that she 
 sided with and adhered to her more commonplace mother in all 
 things. 
 
 One would have fondly hoped that the last acts of this 
 great man's hfe had been its crowning honour, but because he 
 died under circumstances of obscurity and gloom there is no 
 necessity to despair. His death is only typical of so many at 
 the time ; the fiendish conduct of the Tudors and their parasites 
 is really responsible for it, A curse lay upon the land, the 
 world was out of joint, and there is nothing remarkable in the 
 fact that the best man of the time was the greatest sufferer 
 from the consequences. Even the great rebeUion, as it is called, 
 which was then looming in the distance, was not without its 
 benefits. Like a thunder-storm, it was designed to clear the 
 atmosphere. But let everyone remember what it must have 
 been to live in the time of good Queen Bess and of her successor 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 221 
 
 • 
 
 — ^tlie falsehood, the hypocrisy, the licentiousness of the many — 
 and he will only wonder that so pure a flower could have 
 blossomed in their midst. This may fairly be said of the Poet, 
 that throughout a comparatively long life there is not recorded 
 on sound foundation a single fact of a dishonourable character ; 
 and that this last act, if it were apparently harsh and unkind, 
 may have been both just and proper, and he may have intended 
 to leave his erring daughter to the charity and discretion of her 
 sister, upon which he could absolutely depend. 
 
 We know comparatively nothing of his last illness, except 
 from this will, but there is reason to hope from the statement of 
 the Archdeacon of Gloucester that he did not die without the 
 consolations of his religion. Good priests were still hovering 
 about, though so many had lost their lives in trying to soothe 
 the last hours of their unfortunate brethren ; and it is unlikely 
 that Dr. Hall, who was on terms of close and friendly intimacy 
 with the Catholic nobility of the district — the Shrewsburys, 
 the Ferrars, and the Throckmortons — would have allowed his 
 wife's father to die unhousled and unaneled, though it is evident 
 from the terms of his will that he never recovered himself 
 suflficiently to imderstand or alter it; but perhaps this was 
 regarded as immaterial, since he had left it in the power of Mrs. 
 Hall practically to annul it. It may be noted that the Halls 
 were not witnesses, as they might have been in those days, and 
 took no part in the making of it ; nor was it made by his 
 relative, the Town Clerk. 
 
 The reference in the will to a copyhold property at 
 Rowenton is curious. No doubt Rowenton Manor was a very 
 extensive one, and property of it was held in many places, some 
 as far off as at Wigston, in Leicestershire j and it may well be 
 that the Poet may have acquired some small property there by 
 descent from his ancestors. This tenement was situated in 
 Stratford, and there is clear evidence of some small purchase by 
 the Poet himself of some such property in Stratford ; but with 
 the difficulties before our eyes respecting the Henley Street 
 
222 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE, 
 
 property it is perhaps rash to assume that this was the only- 
 property held by the Poet of that Manor, and it would be more 
 satisfactory if the Court Rolls for the Manor for the year 1616 
 could be found. There are both earlier and later Rolls for this 
 Manor at the P.R.O,, but none for this year. It is said that 
 some of them are in private hands. If earlier Rolls exist they 
 may throw a strong hght upon the history of the Shakesperes, 
 although we know positively that the Poet's branch of the 
 family were settled at Wroxall as early as the reign of King 
 Edward IV., and there remained till the dissolution of the 
 Priory. 
 
CHAPTER XII. 
 
 THE ARDEN FAMILY. 
 
 The softer with the shrill (some hid among the leaves, 
 Some in the taller trees, some on the lower greaves), 
 Thus sing away the morn, until the mounting sun 
 Through thick exhaled fogs his golden head doth run ; 
 And through the twisted tops of our close covert creeps 
 To kiss the gentle shade, this while that sweetly sleeps. 
 
 Drayton. 
 
 IF the Heralds, through their blundering, have made 
 confusion in the Shakspere pedigree, they have been 
 equally at fault, and with less excuse, in drawing up the 
 pedigree of the Arden family. In the first draft of the 
 petition by John Shakspere to the College, Robert Arden (the 
 Poet's maternal grandfather) is properly described as of the 
 ancient and worshipful family of Arden, of Warwickshire, and 
 their arms are assigned to him. But before the second grant was 
 made, the frauds of Dethic had been discovered, and he in terror, 
 having probably invented a pedigree for him, assigned Robert 
 Arden to a position in the pedigree of the Cheshire family, to 
 which he had not the slightest claim ; and it was this reason, 
 
224 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 doubtless, which prevented the Poet from ever quartering the 
 Arden arms, as he had a clear right to do ; of course, he would 
 not avail himself of the blundering of the Heralds to use arms 
 to which he had no lawful claim. The difficulty lay in proving 
 the descent from Thomas, the brother of Sir John Arden, of 
 Parkhall, who died 1525 — no less than six descents having come 
 from him in less than one hundred years. If the Heralds are 
 correct, the visitation of 1621 shows that Robert Arden, of 
 Parkhall, was then living ; his son having died previously, in 
 16 16; and his grandson, Robert, being then eight years old. 
 He was first cousin five times removed from the Poet's 
 grandfather. 
 
 It scarcely enters into the scope of this work to give the 
 full pedigree of the Arden family, and besides, sufficient for 
 ordinary readers, is well-known, and it must here be briefly 
 summarised. 
 
 In Harleian MS. 11 67, fo. 57-9, in the British Museum, 
 there is a fine pedigree of the family, beginning with Turchil, of 
 Warwick, son of Alwynus, Sheriff of Warwick before the 
 conquest. The following quaint note to their pedigree may be 
 read with interest : — 
 
 " The House of Arden is merely English, of the ancient blood of 
 the Saxons, and they were befoie the conquest Lords of Warwick, and 
 of the most pait of Warwickshire ; and although they found some 
 extraordinary favour to enjoy their lands, yet were they continually 
 vexed by the Normans, until they were forced to forego a great part to 
 the Earls of Warwick, and to hold the rest of them by Knight service; 
 from which time they lived in good accord with the Earls and in quiet 
 with the rest." 
 
 The account is hardly accurate, and much of it is poetical, 
 for there are no records of suits from the time of the conquest 
 until King Richard I. This was written at a time when the 
 history of England was even less understood that it is at 
 present. This Turchil, of Warwick, certainly was a great man 
 amongst the Angles, prior to the conquest, and he married the 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 225 
 
 • 
 
 widow of Geoffrey II., Earl of Perch, and their daughter 
 married Henry Beaumont, Earl of Warwick, and it was 
 probably through this marriage that the Beaumonts succeded 
 to the Earldom of Warwick, and not by right of conquest, or 
 by spoliation. 
 
 This lady, the heiress of Turchil, had a half-brother 
 Siward, of whom little is known, from whom the Ardens of 
 Warwickshire descend. He appears to have been a Knight in 
 the Retinue of the Earls of Warwick, for he attested several of 
 their charters ; but in all probability a little research would 
 show that this pre-Norman House of Warwick was not 
 "merely" English, but was itself of Norman origin. Turchil 
 is not an uncommon name amongst the Danes, and it is most 
 probable that the family settled here under the famous Queen 
 Emma, wife successively of the great Canute and of Ethelred of 
 England, and from the great importance of the possessions of 
 Turchil, to say nothing of his marriage, he was most probably a 
 member of the Ducal House of Normandy, 
 
 The issue of Siward appear to have remained Lords of 
 Rotely, in Warwickshire, and in the reign of Edward I., Sir 
 Thomas Arden, then of Rotely, in the ninth year of that King, 
 gave his manors and lands to Sir Thomas Arden, of Hanwell 
 (according to their pedigree), a distant cousin, ninth in descent 
 from their common ancestor— Henry, the son of Siward, 
 this Sir Thomas of Rotely, would appear from the pedigree 
 to have been the son of a bastard issue of Sir Thomas Arden, of 
 Rotely, and not the true heir of the family, for his grandfather 
 had a legitimate son, the ancestor of the Ardens, of Hampton- 
 in-Arden, whose issue seems to have been passed over in 
 favour of his distant cousin. Sir Thomas of Hanwell, so that the 
 early portion of the pedigree would appear to require a little 
 confirmation, and it would be curious to ascertain the author of 
 it and the purpose for which it was contrived. It is not 
 impossible that this is the very pedigree prepared for the Poet 
 by Dethic the Herald, subsequently suppressed. There is an 
 
226 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 air of poetry about it which requires a little explanation. 
 There is, however, but little doubt that the pedigree is correct 
 from the time of Thomas Arden, of Hanwell ; that is upon the 
 assumption that the charters cited are genuine, which is not 
 always the case with Dethic's charters. It is clear, however, 
 that Robert of Parkhall, te^npe Henry VI., was then the head of the 
 Warwickshire family. He was executed in the reign of Henry 
 VI. for taking part with Richard, Duke of York. His son 
 Walter was restored in blood by Edward IV. ; he had five sons 
 —Sir John (just mentioned), Martin, Thomas, Robert, and 
 Henry — the three first of whom were mentioned in his will ; 
 .and Sir John Arden also mentions his brother, Thomas, in his 
 will dated 1525. 
 
 Now the Subsidy Rolls for that year, 14th and 15th 
 Henry VIII. (jg) show that Thomas Arden was assessed on 
 £\2, and Robert Arden on £'?>, both for Aston Cantlowe ; and 
 the Subsidy Rolls for 38 Henry VIII. (;«^) show that Thomas 
 Arden " squire " was assessed on £Zq, and a Simon Arden for 
 £Z. This Simon was, probably, hving in 3 Edward VI., and 
 was a great nephew of Thomas, but his history is immaterial 
 except in raising a presumption of relationship with the Park 
 Hall family, to whom he clearly belonged ; for the descent of 
 the Poet's grandfather as son of this "squire " Thomas is quite 
 ■clear, and consequently he had a right to bear arms. 
 
 This is absolutely proved by a record which must, it would 
 seem, have passed through the hands of Halliwell-Phillips, for 
 it is still amongst the Corporation Records of Stratford-on- 
 Avon, and it is included in the folio calendar published by 
 himself; but, hke most of Halliwell-Phillips' work, it is slurred 
 over ; and consequently Hunter and others were thrown off the 
 scent. Malone actually invented a father for Robert in another 
 Robert, in order to prove the connection — a purely gratuitious 
 invention, for such a person never existed — and this gentleman 
 Hunter summarily extinguished. The deed containing the 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 227 
 
 following words ; those printed in italics are actually omitted 
 in Halliwell-Phillips' wonderful calendar : — 
 
 Records of the Corporation of S.-upon-A. 
 
 Miscellaneous Documents, Vol. 2, No. 83. A grant by John 
 Mayowe, of Snytterfeld, to Robert Throckmorton, Armiger, Thomas 
 Trussell, of Bilksky, Roger Reynolds, of Henky-in-Arden, William 
 Wodde, of Woodhouse, Thomas Arderne, of Wilmecote, and Robert 
 Arderne \sonof the /■ Thomas\ of an estate at Snitterfield, 16 Hen., vii. 
 
 WITJ\'ESSES.—John VPagstaffe, 0/ Aston Canntelowe ; 
 Robert Porter, of Snytterfeld; Richard 
 Russheby, of same; RiM- Atkyns, of 
 Wylmecote ; John Alcokkes, 0/ Newenham ; 
 et alijs. 
 
 (The author is indebted to Mr. Richard Savage for this 
 abstract.) 
 
 French asserts (page 406) that Thomas Arden was seated 
 at Aston Cantlow in 1 501, but without giving his proof. He does 
 indeed refer to his "Appendix C, Aston Cantlowe," but that, 
 unfortunately, does not give the authority, unless it is to be 
 foimd in an account of the charity lands there referred to 
 Here there is about as clear a pedigree as it is possible to 
 deduce when descent is traced through a younger brother who 
 never came to the paternal inheritance ; and this gives a 
 splendid pedigree for the Poet on his mother's side. Mary 
 Arden was a descendant of one of the most ancient and worthy 
 famihes to be found in England. A true Gael, or "Angle," 
 noble in rank before the Conquest, or one whom our ignorant 
 schoolmen would call an Anglo-Saxon ; and it will be seen, too, 
 that the mother of Thomas Arden came from a race of a sturdy 
 English family of whom Enghshmen were once proud, though 
 in these days of corruption and subserviency his name had 
 better not be mentioned — John Hamden, the patriot, who was 
 thus near akin to the great Poet, and his contemporary ; possibly 
 it was from a study of the works of Shakspere that Hamden 
 schooled himself in the paths of honour and independence. 
 
22ii THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE, 
 
 This deed is very clearly that of the Poet's ancestors, for it 
 is a conveyance to Robert Arden and to Thomas, his father, of 
 the two sixth parts of Mayowes land in Snitterfield ; and Mary 
 Arden, the Poet's mother, became entitled to one-seventh of these 
 two-sixths as one of the seven daughters and co-heirs of her 
 father ; and the Poet's father and his uncle, Henry Shakspere^ 
 in 1597, were called as witnesses in a law suit brought by the 
 Mayowes about this very property. Yet the Rev. Mr. Dyce, 
 in his life of the Poet, without the shghtest warrant, asserts 
 that there was no evidence that Robert Arden ever held 
 a status in society higher than that of an ordinary husbandman. 
 Here is the clearest proof that his father held the rank 
 of Squire, and was assessed at the very large sum of ;^8o, 
 showing him to be a man of great wealth at the period. To 
 show his status by comparison, John Littleton, the ancestor of 
 Lord Cobham, was only assessed upon the sum of £52, and 
 at the same period the Blunts, of Soddington, were taxed 
 upon £^0, and the family of Astley at £26. 
 
 In a Court Roll of Barston, i Edward VI., Robert Arden 
 held a tenement at Balsall, and in the following year John 
 Shakeshaft was on the jury there. 
 
 There is also some evidence to be gathered from the Court 
 Rolls of the College of the Blessed Mary the Virgin of 
 Warwick ; in 17 Henry VIII., Thomas Arden was fined for 
 want of suit of Court, and in 25 Henry VIII. and the following 
 Courts, Richard Shakspere and Robert Arden were both fined. 
 Probably Thomas had disposed of his Snitterfield property to 
 Richard Shakspere, for he was alive in 38 Henry VIII., unless, 
 as is sometimes done, his name was retained as tenant for an 
 assessment, although his son had come into possession as 
 his heir. 
 
 Halliwell-Phillips, of course, has some absurd remarks upon 
 the matter. He writes : " Robert Arden was a farmer and 
 nothing more ; a worthy fellow, whose main anxiety centred in 
 the welfare of his family, and who had no desire to emulate^ 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 229 
 
 however remotely, the position of a country gentleman." And 
 he adds confidently : " Mary occasionally assisted in the more 
 robust occupations of the field. Their existence was rather 
 after the manner of pigs than that of human beings." 
 
 And this magnificent pig-driver, Halliwell-Phillips, assumes 
 to himself the control of all thought upon the matter. Forbid 
 it, ye Gods ! Such a groveller is not worthy to write about a 
 beautiful girl of a noble family, the beloved mother of the finest 
 poet who ever lived in the world. 
 
CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 THE BLUNTS OF KIDDERMINSTER. 
 
 " Welcome, Sir Walter Blunt ; and would to God 
 You were of our determmation ! 
 Some of us love you well ; and even those some 
 Envy your great deservings atid good name, 
 Because you are not of our quality 
 But stand against us like an enemy." 
 
 — King Henry IV., Part I., S. IV., j. 
 
 THE ancient family of Blunt of Soddington, several of 
 whom Shakspere mentions in his plays, with their 
 wide-spreading branches in Worcestershire and 
 Herefordshire, were closely connected with the 
 Shaksperes and Griffins, and with several families aUied to 
 them. This will be seen at a glance from the following 
 pedigree. 
 
 From a very early period they intermarried with the 
 Griffiths, of Wichnore. Sir Thomas Griffith, in the time of 
 Richard II., married, as some accounts state, Elizabeth, daughter 
 of Sir Humphrey Blunt. This probably should be Ann, the 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 231 
 
 Walter Blunt, = Sanchia, 
 
 of Sodington or 
 Sillington Co. Wore. 
 
 Will, 1415. 
 
 I 
 
 ist 
 ■wife 
 
 John Blunt = Isabel, dau. (2)James=Joan, d. (3)Thomas (i) Constance ux 
 
 of Soding- 
 ton 
 
 of Sir Brian 
 Cornwall of 
 Kinlet, 2d, 
 wife 
 
 John Blunt 
 of Kinlet. 
 + 1442. 
 
 Alicia, d. 
 of Kyard 
 de la Bcre 
 
 Thomas = 
 a quo the I 
 Blunts of 1 
 Burton. /^ 
 
 of Lining- a quo the Lord Dudley 
 hall Lords 
 
 Monjoie (2) Agnes ux 
 (4) Peter. Sir Thomas 
 
 j Griffith of 
 
 Roger of = Eleanor, dau. Wichnore. 
 
 Bromyard 
 living 7 Ed. 
 IV. 
 
 Sir Robert 
 Whitney. 
 
 I 
 
 Sir Humphrey: 
 of Kinlet. + 17 
 Ed. IV. Sir 
 JohnGriffithof 
 Wichnor was 
 his Trustee. 
 
 Elizabeth 
 Winnington. 
 Will 1502. 
 
 Sir Thomas Blunt, Citizen and=Agnes, dau. and 
 
 Mercer of London, 1483. Bond 
 with Humphrey Blunt and 
 Thomas Fisher of London. 23 
 Henry VII. sold his land to 
 John Littleton of Frankley. 14 
 Henry VIII. had lease of the 
 Rectory of Kidderminster. 
 
 heir of Richard 
 Bridges, Kt. 
 
 Sir Thomas of = Ann, dau of 
 
 Kinlet a qtio 
 theChilds and 
 Lacons 
 
 Sir Richard 
 Croft. 
 
 Walter 
 of 
 
 Gren- 
 don. 
 
 Parnel, dau, 
 of Barton 
 of Weobly, 
 Co. Hereford. 
 
 Edward 
 Blunt of 
 Kidder- 
 minster. 
 Will 1557 
 
 d. and h. 
 of Carew 
 ofMaiden 
 Bradley, 
 
 Wilts. 
 
 Thomas = Maria, d. Walter=Eliz'th = Isabel.Thomas = 
 
 of Here- 
 ford, a 
 .Captain 
 at 
 Tournay 
 
 of David of Astley 
 Lloyd of + 1 561. 
 Mont- Will at 
 gomery. Worces- 
 ter. 
 
 d. of 
 John 
 Acton of 
 Ribbes- 
 ford. 
 I St wife. 
 
 2nd w. of 
 living Kidder- 
 1561. minster. 
 Will 
 1558. 
 
 Roger of=Maria, (i) Robert = (i) Joyce ux Hugh 
 
 'Grendon 
 
 d. of ' ' of Astley^ 
 William (2) Richard= 
 Byryng- A 
 
 ton of (3) Francis = 
 Winster of Hagley.A 
 
 Reynolds of 
 Stratford - on - 
 Avon, and 
 secondly Hall 
 of same place. 
 
 under whom (2) Isabel ux John 
 the Griffins Fisher, 
 of Hagley (3) Elizabeth ux 
 held their Richard Wyii- 
 
 lands, ford of Sapy. 
 
 (4) Margery ux 
 Stanford. 
 
 Miles of Bordesley Park, 1636, = Ann. 
 
 and Orleton, father of Thomas A Will 1669. 
 
 Blunt, the antiquary, whose 
 
 daughter and heir m. Richard 
 
 Griffin of Bickraarsh. 
 
 Margaret, (2)Jhn. of Wrk. 
 
 d&hof (3) Gilbert. 
 
 William (4) Christopher 
 
 Poly, of of Ireland. 
 
 Box, (1) Catherine 
 
 ux Walter 
 Griffith of 
 Wichnore. 
 (2) Elizabeth 
 ux Sir 
 James 
 Croft. 
 (3) Joyce ux 
 John 
 
 Coombs of 
 Stratford. 
 on-Avon. 
 
 Sir Edward Blunt=Mary 
 of Kidderminster, d. of 
 Will 1629, left Ne- 
 legacy to William ville 
 Griffiths als. 
 Griffin. 
 
233 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 daughter of Sir Walter Blunt, of Sodington ; but that pedigree, 
 notwithstanding the fine book written about it by Croke, is in a 
 truly deplorable condition, and nearly every portion of it is in 
 confusion. Sir John Griffith, of Wichnore, tempe Henry IV., 
 was a Trustee upon the marriage of Sir Humphrey Blunt, of 
 Kinlet. He was not his son-in-law, but his second cousin. The 
 most important connection with the families under discussion is 
 with a branch of the family settled at Kidderminster, and 
 descended from Sir Thomas Blunt, Knight, also a second cousin 
 of Sir Humphrey, who sold his Worcestershire estates to the 
 Littletons, of Frankley, about Henry VH. 
 
 Through the kindness of the Lord Viscount Cobham, of 
 Hagley, the author is enabled to give a note of a charter of 
 2nd December, 2^ Henry VIL, from Thomas Blunt, Citizen and 
 Mercer, of London, to John Littleton, of Frankly, of lands in^ 
 Arley and Kinvar. (No. 73 is the list made by Mr. Amphlet,. 
 of Clent) ; and No. 74 in the same list is a deed from John St. 
 Leger, of Hagley, to Francis Blunt, then of Hartlebury, being a 
 settlement of disputes between them respecting a lease of 
 Hagley, granted by Ann St. Leger, widow of Sir George, to 
 Francis Blunt, for 53 years. 
 
 This Francis Blunt was son of Walter Blunt, of Astley, and 
 he seems to have resided at Hartlebury, and to have lived at 
 Hagley afterwards. He was buried there in 1563 ; and the 
 registers of Hagley show that Mary Blunt married Walter 
 Harper there, whose family migrated to Derbyshire ; and one of 
 whose descendants was the second wife of the first Lord Griffin 
 of Dingley. The widow of Francis Blunt was buried at Hagley 
 in 1589. 
 
 Sir Thomas Blunt, by Agnes, daughter of Sir Richard 
 Bridges, had two sons (with other issue)— Walter, of Grendon ; 
 and Edward, of Kidderminster. The first had issue, Thomas 
 of Hereford, whose great grandson was the famous lawyer- 
 Thomas Blunt— one of the greatest antiquaries England has 
 ever produced. He adhered, as so many of his family have 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 233 
 
 • 
 
 done and still do, to the old religion, and his career at the Bar 
 was spoilt ; and he was left only to study and produce valuable 
 "books (which nobody reads), and which are now nearly 
 forgotten. He left behind him, in MS., a history of Hereford- 
 shire, one volume of which only can now be found ; the other 
 was lost or mislaid (lent, it is said, to one of the Cornwall 
 family) and cannot be discovered ; it is much wanted for the 
 purpose of a history of the County now in preparation. 
 Thomas Blunt seems to have been a timid man, and he died 
 from the terror and anxieties of the Catholic persecutions, 
 which, in his day, culminated in the plots of Titus Gates. His 
 only daughter and heiress married Richard Griffin, of 
 Bickmarsh, but they left no issue. Another of the sons of 
 Thomas Blimt was Walter, of Astley, who married Elizabeth, 
 -daughter of John Acton, of Ribbesford (see his pedigree 
 hereafter), who, with his wife, died 1561 ; and his son Robert, 
 of Astley, by his will, directed one tomb to be erected in 
 honour of his father and mother, and another for himself and 
 his wife ; these tombs still exist in Astley Church, and are very 
 line specimens of the work of that period. Walter Blunt, of 
 Astley, had four daughters, two of them of interest to this 
 work : — ^Joyce, who married first Hugh Reynolds, of Stratford- 
 on-Avon ; and secondly, one Hall, of the same place (probably 
 an ancestor of Dr. Hall, the Poet's son-in-law, and the vendor 
 of the Poet's birthplace) ; a second daughter married John 
 Fisher ; others were Margery Stanford and Elizabeth Wynford. 
 There was a marriage at Hagley, in 185 1, between William 
 Gryffyn and Alse Reynolds, which probably is another 
 connection between Stratford-on-Avon and that place, and with 
 the families of Gryffyn and the relations of Shakspere, but his 
 place in the Griffin pedigree has not been found. 
 
 The younger son of Sir Thomas Blunt, the mercer, settled 
 in Kidderminster, and died there in 1557, leaving a numerous 
 family — Thomas, of Kidderminster, who succeeded him ; John, 
 of Warwick ; Gilbert ; Christopher, who married the widow of 
 Lord Brabazon, and left issue several sons, settled in Ireland ; 
 
234 
 
 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 and Fulk, who was slain in London by Sir Thomas Wise, the 
 Lord Mayor, 
 
 Thomas, of Kidderminster, married Margaret, daughter and 
 heir of WiUiam Foley, of Box, in Suffolk, and left a numerous 
 family ; Sir Edward, of Kidderminster, the eldest son of 
 Thomas Blunt, married first Mary Neville, and secondly Maria 
 Wigmore. Clement Throckmorton, of Haseley, the patron and 
 friend of the Shaksperes, married Catherine daughter of 
 Edward Neville ; whilst John, their son, married Dorothy 
 Vernon. 
 
 It will be seen from the following pedigree of Coombe how 
 closely the Blxmts and the COombes were connected with the 
 Shaksperes and the Griffins, and their connections. 
 
 John Coombe, = 
 of Astley. I 
 
 John Coombe, = 
 
 = Jocosa, dau. of = 
 
 of Stratford-on- 
 
 Edward Blunt, 
 
 Avon. 36 Eliz- 
 
 Kt., of Kidder- 
 
 abeth, fined 
 
 minster. (First 
 
 •with Ryce 
 
 wife.) 
 
 Griffin. 
 
 
 Rosa, dau. of William 
 Clopton, of Strat- 
 ford-on-Avon, by 
 Ann, dau. of Sir 
 George Grif&th, 
 of Wichnore. 
 M. 1561. 
 
 Thomas Coombe = Maria 
 
 of Stratford, to 
 whom the Poet 
 left his sword. 
 26 Elizth., fined 
 with Thomas 
 Reynolds. 
 
 fil 
 Savage, 
 
 of 
 Elmeley, 
 
 John=Johana, 
 
 dau, of 
 
 Wm. 
 
 Murcott, 
 
 of Cub- 
 
 bington. 
 
 Edward 
 Coombe, 
 of Wasper- 
 ton,32Eliz- 
 abeth.fined 
 with John 
 Blunt. 
 (4) George 
 
 = Anna fil. 
 Stephen 
 Hales, of 
 Newland 
 in Coven- 
 try. 
 
 John 
 
 I 
 
 (i) William = Katherine 
 ofOldStrat- I fil Edward 
 ford, aet 31. | Houghton. 
 1619. A 
 
 Wra., bapt. at Cubbington, 1608, Apr. 6. 
 John 1609. 
 
 Coombe, 
 
 of 
 Warwick, 
 
 (i) Jocosa 
 ux Francis 
 Cornwall of 
 Burford. 
 
 (2) Elizabeth. 
 
 (3) Ann ux 
 
 Robert Decons 
 of Wasperton, 
 C. 1604. 
 
 The Coombe family appear to have come immediately from 
 Astley, the seat of the Blunts, which may account for the 
 frequent marriages between them, but in all probability they 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 235 
 
 were descended from the Coombes, of Wroxall. The following 
 pedigree pf the Acton family will show how many of the 
 Stratford-on-Avon families were connected with each other, 
 and with the connections of the Shaksperes. It is offered 
 tentatively, especially with respect to John Acton, of Ribsford> 
 who was very possibly the brother and not the son of Richard 
 Acton, of Sutton. 
 
 Richard Acton =:Izod, dau. 
 
 
 23 Hy, 8 settled 
 
 his 
 
 of Humphrey 
 
 
 
 estates on his sons. 
 
 Salwey, of 
 
 made his will, 37 
 
 Stanford. 
 
 Hen. 8, of Sutton, in 
 
 
 Tembury. Thomas 
 
 
 Blunt, of Sillington, 
 
 
 his Trustee. 
 
 
 = Joyce, 
 
 Sir = Mary, = Bridget Thomas = Mary, dau. = Vernon, John = 
 
 Robert 
 
 dau. and Harvel Acton, 
 
 of Thomas 
 
 second Acton of 
 
 dau. of 
 
 Acton, of 
 
 heir of of 
 
 Lacon, of 
 
 husband Ribsford. 
 
 Edward 
 
 Ribsford. 
 
 Nicholas Sutton. 
 
 WiUey, 
 
 
 Blunt, 
 
 
 Mayowe. 
 
 whose 
 brother m. 
 Agnes, 
 sister of 
 Sir George 
 Blount, of 
 
 
 of 
 Kidder- 
 minster 
 
 
 
 Kinlet,and 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 ultimately 
 
 Elizabeth ux 
 
 
 
 obtained 
 
 Walter Blunt, 
 
 
 
 thatestate. 
 
 of Astley. 
 
 Henry = Constance, dau, Joyce, = S 
 
 ir Thos. John Vernon = 
 
 Acton, of 
 
 of Sir Val. dau. 
 
 Lucy, son of Hodnel. 
 
 
 Ribsford. 
 
 Knightley, by and 
 
 of William 
 
 
 
 Ann, dau. of heir. A Lucy, of 
 
 ' 
 
 
 Henry Ferrars, Charlcot, 
 
 
 
 of Baddesley the 
 
 
 
 Clinton, whose persecutor 
 
 
 
 family were the of the Poet. 
 Lords of the 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 Shakesperes. Elizabeth = The Earl of 
 
 
 Vernon, Southampton. 
 
 1 the Patron of 
 
 Valentine Ae Poet, 
 
 ICnightley. William 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 bnaksi 
 
 jere. 
 
 Hazeley Court Rolls. (P.R.O.) Portf. 207. 
 No. 94 (17 Edward III.). Richard le Smyth, of Hazeley. 
 
2S6 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 No. 97 (8 Henry V.). Richard Smyth, of Hazeley, John 
 Coombe, and Alice Coombe. 
 
 No. 97 (8 Henry V.). Edward fit Richard Smyth, of Hazeley, 
 took a place called Crossfield in reversion after the death 
 of Katherine, his mother, with remainder to his brother 
 Henry. (The Shaksperes, of Wroxall, held land in 
 Crossfields.) 
 
 Inq. p.m. lath October, 3 Elizabeth. Dame Agnes Smyth, of 
 Wootton Wawen, widow of Sir John Smyth, one of the 
 Barons of the Exchequer, one of the sisters and heirs 
 of Thomas Harvell, son and heir of John Harvell, of 
 Shottery, esq. Her sisters were : Elizabeth, wife of 
 Thomas Stede; Ann, wife of James Clifford; and 
 Bridget, wife of Thomas Acton. Her daughter was 
 wife of Sir Edward Griffin, A.G. 
 
 ijth February, 1560, by her will, Dame Agnes Smyth, 
 leaves a legacy to Ann Griffin, daughter of her daughter Bridget, 
 wife of Edward Griffin, whom she requests to be good to her 
 children. 
 
 Bridget Sm3rth (2nd), wife of Sir Edward Griffin, A.G., was 
 the widow of one Levison, and her marriage settlements were 
 dated 5 Edward VI. She left only one child, Ann Griffin, who 
 was living at her father's death, in 1576. (Funeral Certificate* 
 College of Arms). 
 
 Pasc. 7 Elizabeth. John Sadler fined with John Coombe 
 and Rose, his wife, for a messuage in Stratford-on-Avon ; and 
 12 Elizabeth, with Johanna, his wife, with Thomas Taylor for 
 3 messuages in the same. 
 
 Pasc. 12 Elizabeth. John Coombe and Ellis, his wife, fined 
 with Lewis Greville and Thomasina, his wife, for land in Ryen 
 CliffiDrd. 
 
 Trin. 26 Elizabeth. Thomas Coombe fined with Thomas 
 Reynolds for land in old Stratford. 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 237 
 
 Pasc. 32 Elizabeth. John Bkint fined with Edward 
 Coombe for the Manors of Crowle and Hoddington, Worcester, 
 and Ryen Chfiford, Warwick. 
 
 Pasc. 35 Elizabeth. William Coombe fined with Ryce 
 Griffyn for land in Old Stratford. 
 
 Trin. 35 Elizabeth. William Coombe fined with Ryce 
 Gryffyn and Margaret, his wife, for 107 acres of land and 20 
 acres pasture in Old Stratford, with warranty against Edward 
 Griffin, brother of Richard, and heirs of Edward Griffin, his 
 father, deceased. 
 
 Pasc. 36 Elizabeth. John Coombe fined with Ryce Griffin 
 and Margaret, his wife, for 20 acres mead and 40 acres pasture, 
 in Old Stratford, ^tratford-on-Avon, and Bishops Hampton; 
 with warranty against Edward Griffin. 
 
 1597. Edward Coombe died, 20th June. Joyce, wife of 
 John Garner, Ann and Elizabeth Coombe, his daughters and 
 coheurs, sold his land to Thomas Coombe, their uncle, for ;^i5. 
 
 Hil. 45 EHzabeth. John Coombe bought land from 
 William Clopton, in Ingon and Bishops Hampton. 
 
 Hil. I James I. John Coombe bought land in Tyddington 
 and Alveston, or Alston, from WiUiam Tayler and Richard 
 Lorde and Anna, his wife. 
 
 34 Henry VIH. Sir Edward Knightly died, and was 
 succeeded by Sir Valentine Knightly, his son, in 4 and 5 Philip 
 and Mary, he had license to alienate the Manors of Hardwick 
 Priors and Marston to Sir John Spencer and Sir Edward GriflSn, 
 A.G., which, tempe Elizabeth, they granted to Ralf Blunt, a 
 servant of Sir Valentine's. From this Ralf Blunt it is suggested 
 that Edward Blunt, the pubhsher of the Shakspere folio, 
 descended. Some time previously, namely in Mich. 5 and 6 
 Philip and Mary. Ralf Blunt had fined with Valentine 
 Knightley for the Manor of Cranboro' (Grenburg ?) 
 
238 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 Trin. 5 Elizabeth. Thomas Nicols fined with Ralf Blunt 
 and Jocosa, his wife, for land in Carsley, in Coventry, and 
 elsewhere, Warwick. 
 
 Mich. 12 and 13 Elizabeth. Edmund Knightly fined with 
 Ralf Blunt and Johanna, his wife, for the Manor of Orenburg. 
 
 It must be mentioned that this Ralf Blunt cannot be 
 affiliated to the Blunts of Worcestershire, and these extracts are 
 given because they not only aid in building up the pedigree of 
 the Warwickshire Blunts, of which little is known, but they 
 may tend to identify the publisher of some of Shakspere'& 
 works, who bore the same Christian and surname. 
 
 This Edward Blunt, publisher and printer, of the Black Bear, 
 St. Paul's Churchyard, was a bookseller of respectability, and in- 
 some respects a man of letters. He was the son of Ralf Blunt,, 
 merchant tailor, of London, who was apprenticed to William 
 Ponsonby in 1578, and made free in 1588. Many well-written 
 dedications and prefaces bear his name. Robert Allot obtained 
 his copyrights. In 1632 he printed the second folio, and then 
 was of the Black Bear, formerly Blunt's premises. Probably 
 his father, Ralf Blunt, was a son of that Ralf Blunt who- 
 purchased Hardwick Priors and Marston from Sir Edward 
 Griffin, A.G., and Sir John Spencer. From his Warwickshire 
 connections he would be able to treat with Burbage, also a 
 Warwickshire man, and with Hemyng and Condell ; in fact, the 
 Poet's company included many Warwickshire men, and they 
 would be glad to co-operate with their fellow-countrymen in 
 so worthy an undertaking. 
 
CHAPTER Xl% 
 
 THE GRIFFIN PEDIGREE, 
 
 " He sends you this most memorable line, 
 In every branch truly demonstrated, 
 Willing you overlook this pedigree." 
 
 — King Henry V., II,, i. 
 
 IT may interest some readers to learn how the discovery of 
 the close connection between the families of Shakspere 
 and Griffin was made ; it was the result of a pure 
 accident. The author was searching at Northampton 
 Probate Registry for material to illustrate the history of the 
 Griffin family of that county, and the first will he came to (see 
 the calendar of Northampton wills published by the Record 
 Society) was that of one Francis Griffin, of Braybrook, dated 
 26th February, 37 Henry VIII., in which he refers to his sister, 
 Alys Shakspere ; and curiously this was the only will of the 
 family which emanated from that place ; nearly all the Griffin 
 will are to be found in London Registers. 
 
 In the name of God, Amen. The xxvith day of February 
 in the xxxviith yre of ye regne of o' Soverene Henry the eyght 
 bye ye g" of God Kyng of England Fraunceand Ireland defender 
 
240 THE'^cTENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 of the faythe and of ye C^urche of Eyngland and allso Ireland the 
 supreme hede I Francis GryfFyn of Brabroke in the Countye of 
 Northampton Gentylig^ beying vere seke in body yit under 
 the iette ot God and pfyl remembras thanks be to God. Revok- 
 ymg all other former wyjs make and ordaine thys my last wyll and 
 testamet In man-- and fAme folowying thatt his to say fyrst I 
 geye and bequeth my feuie to almyghtie God to o' blyssyd 
 lady and to all the holylcompanye of heven my bodye to be 
 buryd wythm the pysh*;hurche of Cotyngam and I geve and 
 bequeth to ye sayd pjije Churche of Cottyngh'" ye summe 
 vi" vni" sterlymg— Itenli ggye and bequeth to mye ij systers 
 Annys Crosmore and li^iys Shakespere the sume of xx'- 
 sterlyngn this to saye t*other of them x'- sterlyng and the same 
 summe of xx'- to be Myd to them be myne executors before 
 ye fest of ye nativit^f Seynt John ye baptist next insuying 
 the dayt hereof— ItJ^geve and bequeth to Edward Greffyn 
 Esqwyer mye gr^yi^^-ilying nagg rounyng or upon the lawnde 
 of benefyll — IteniJ|||^ve and bequeth to Rye Greffyng Esqwyer 
 .^.J^blacke trqtjyiiggeldyng — Item I geve and bequeth to Edmond 
 BaconTKj'"^y trottyrig geldyng^ — Item I geve and bequeth to 
 ' Rye Pyrwyche mye soryll amlying geldyn — Item I geve and 
 bequeth to Robert Lenton my heckfordsett and the calfF of the 
 same heeford I geve and bequeth to Thomas Bradshawe — Item 
 I geve and bequeth to Margret Wakynby Waklyn my bryndyll 
 cow — Item I geve and bequeth to Alys Luffe mye blacke cow 
 wyth a curtail tayll — I geve and bequeth to Wyllm Howest the 
 summe of xl"- sterlyn — Item I geve and bequeth to Thomas 
 Hunt mye last lendron colt — Item I geve and bequeth to 
 Edward Goodman the sume of xl'- sterlyng — Item I geve and 
 bequeth to Thomas Byrgeman ye summe of xl"- sterlyng — Item 
 I geve and bequeth to Thomas Colman the summe of xl°- 
 sterlyng — Item I geve and bequeth to Ric Holcott ye summe 
 of xl'- sterlynge^Item I geve to Syr Rye Huddeston Chaplene 
 the sume of xl'- sterlyn — Item I geve and bequeth to John 
 Rouse ye sume of xl"- sterlyn — Item I geve and bequeth to 
 Brynenng Underwood ye sume of xl'- sterlyng — Item I geve 
 and bequeth to Wyllm Webster ye Cooke ye sume of xl"- 
 sterlyn. The resydue of all my goods and catells unbequethed 
 I geve and bequeth to myne Executors whome I ordene and 
 make Thomas Wodwar J gentyllman to be myne Executor of 
 this my wyll and tescament and he to pforme and paye all my 
 legacys gyfts and bequests and also to paye all my detts unto 
 soche psono as I ame indetts and I ordene and make John 
 Pratte ye overseer of this my last wyll and testament and he to 
 see the same and all thyngs therein contayned to be well and 
 truly pformyd and fulfyllyed In wytnes whereof I have hereunto 
 sett mye syne manuall the daye and yere above wrytton In the 
 presence of Rycd Greffyng Esqwyer Wyllm Page of Brabrooke 
 Sy Rye Hudeston Edmund Bacon with other men. 
 Proved xxvith die March An. Dom. 1551. 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 24 1 
 
 • 
 
 It would not appear from this will that Francis Griffin had 
 any other connection with the County of Warwick, although he 
 refers to his cousins, Sir Edward Griffin (afterwards Queen 
 Mary's Attorney General), who was closely connected with the 
 County ; and he also refers to Edmund Bacon, of a family with 
 whom the Griffins were connected by marriage. Edmund 
 Bacon was a trustee for Sir Edward Griffin in the reign of 
 Edward VI., on the occasion of his second marriage. In 29 
 Elizabeth, Sir Robert Bacon was guardian for the children of 
 Richard Griffin, of Warwick, who probably settled there through 
 the marriage of Sir Edward Griffin with the daughter of Sir 
 John Smyth, one of the Barons of the Exchequer— also a 
 Warwickshire man, and allied by marriage to the great Lord 
 Burleigh. There can be but little doubt that Sir Edward 
 Griffin mainly owed his advancement to that great man. Sir 
 Nicholas Bacon, who held the Great Seal at this period, and 
 under whom he held his office ; and therefore there must have 
 been a close connection between the Griffins and their 
 connections, the Shaksperes, even with Francis Bacon (Lord 
 Verulam), his son, as well as with the Cecils. In all probabihty 
 this connection, if worked out, will lead to the discovery that 
 Alys Griffin (grandmother of the Poet) was akin to the great 
 Lord Bacon. What an agonising discovery for the school of 
 Donelly. Shakspere, their sot, "the intelligent rustic" of 
 Halliwell-Phillips, was not only a gentleman by descent from 
 his mother, Mary Arden, but through Alys Griffin, his grand- 
 mother (herself a descendant of Kings) was a connection of the 
 Burleighs and Bacons, who, it may be whispered, were but 
 comparatively of plebian stock. And but for the fact that he 
 was a Cathohc, and was opposed to them in religion and could- 
 not hold office or practice in one of the learned professions, he 
 might himself, like his connections, have risen to the Bench or 
 to high offices in the State. And doubtless he would have 
 done so, in spite of his religion if possible, but' for the- 
 hereditary policy of the Cecils, who, though they were 
 men of a certain talent themselves, could never tolerate 
 any really briUiant man who became too popular or toO' 
 
242 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 remarkable ; dull and plodding themselves, they could not 
 brook the presence of superior men, and there is not 
 the slightest doubt that Lord Bacon owed his fall to their 
 malignity, solely on account of his superior ability. Beside him 
 the Cecils were commonplace, indeed ; they were men of blood 
 and iron, and their chief successes were achieved by the rack 
 and torture-chamber. Their great successor of the present day, 
 who has studied his ancestors' methods, knows full well the 
 value of twenty years of resolute government. Hence 
 Shakspere, who would scorn to act as the tool of such men (or 
 of any man who used their methods), though possibly tolerated 
 by his great cousins and permitted to enjoy their society, yet 
 was never of them ; and, of course, he would be bitterly 
 opposed to those of his cousins, the Griffins, who, like so many 
 so-called Catholics, dabbled in Church plunder. The earliest 
 verse attributed to him was the lampoon upon Sir Thomas Lucy 
 (the first verse of which is probably genuine) ; and the other 
 doggerel, which is still printed on Warwickshire beer-mugs, is, 
 in fact, a lampoon upon his cousin Ryce Griffin, Lord of 
 Bidford, Broom, and other Manors included in it. Ryce Griffin 
 and Sir Thomas Lucy (who was a trustee of the Griffin family 
 for the Manor of Chipping Warden) would both become the 
 butts of the Poet's wit, if for nothing else, because of their 
 anti-Cathohc proceedings. As Thomas Carlyle admits, we owe 
 Shakspere to Catholicism, so the grand inheritance of his works 
 which he has bequeathed to us we owe to the malignity of his 
 fellow-countrymen, and this must reconcile us to the fact that 
 he was not successful in official life, but, happily for mankind, 
 reserved his energies for work which will never perish. 
 
 The family of Gryffyn, of Braybrook, is an extremely 
 ancient and honourable one, and it is necessary to search in the 
 dim light of antiquity for the first accounts of them,. The 
 Shaksperes, with whom they were allied through the marriage 
 of Alice Gryffyn, of Braybrook, might justly be proud of her 
 descent — it was noble, and even royal. 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 243 
 
 The Visitation of Cheshire, by Philpot (in the College of 
 Arms), preserves their descent in the male line from the ancient 
 kings of North and South Wales, and from the great King 
 Kadwalider, who died in the time of William Rufus, King of 
 England. Those who require an earlier account can search for 
 themselves the veracious and peculiar histories of the great 
 Cymric nation ; if they have a fault it is that they go rather too 
 deeply into unknown ages, unfortunately when there are no 
 •other records to check or explain them. The details generally 
 given are not sufficiently varied, but are rather monotonous, 
 consisting chiefly of long strings of names ; to hear these strings 
 ■of high-sounding names in the Welsh accent, sung by ancient 
 bards, accompanied by that lovely instrument the harp, is too 
 delicious to think of, and the learned reader must be content 
 to leave the harps and the legends and the ancient genealogies 
 of this great people to another time and place ; here can only 
 be presented Philpot's more prosaic account, which, however, 
 ds sufficiently regal to satisfy the most fastidious of searchers. 
 His account is indeed most valuable, since it shows the point of 
 •division and connection of the two great branches of the family 
 (about the time of King John), one of which settled at 
 Braybrook, in Northamptonshire, and the other at Wichnore, 
 in Staffordshire. The Braybrook branch produced the 
 Warwickshire families, and they almost invariably adopted the 
 form of Gryfiyn as their name, although they sometimes wrote 
 the Cambrian form ; whilst the younger branch, which settled 
 in Staffordshire, ultimately at Wichnore, possibly because being 
 nearer their native mountains, still retained and almost 
 invariably used the more ancient form of Griffith. May it be 
 humbly suggested to Welsh genealogists, who are always too 
 proud to explain anything, that the first is the Normanised 
 .form of the name ? It is believed that the true spelling of the 
 name is Gry-ei-fydde, which, it is said, meant, in the poetical 
 language of the Cymbri, " Strong in the faith." Poor William 
 Shakspere must have felt that this particular element had 
 hardly come with the blood of the Griffins into the veins of his 
 
244 
 
 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 Griffith, King of South Wales 
 son of Rise ap Tudor, King of 
 South Wales, heir of King 
 Kadwalider, who died tempe 
 William Rufus, King of 
 England. 
 
 Rees, King of South Wales = 
 + 1198 ; buried at St. David's 
 
 Edinet Vichan, Lord Steward 
 of I^lewellen, Prince of Wales, 
 his Chief Justice and Coun- 
 sellor, held divers manors in 
 Carnarvon and Anglesea. 
 
 Gwenlian, daughter of 
 
 Griffith ap Kymme, King 
 of North Wales, 
 
 daughter of Madock ap 
 Meredith, Prince of Powis, 
 by Susannah, daughter of 
 Griffith ap Kimme, King of 
 North Wales. 
 
 Gwenlian, daughter of Ryse, 
 Lord of South Wales, by 
 Gwenlian, daughter of Ma- 
 dock, 
 
 Griffith, Lord of =Wenlian, dau. SirTudor= Gweno = 
 
 Lanesdone; bore 1 of HoU, Lord I I 
 
 a Griffin on his of Brecknoc. | | 
 
 shield. I /^ /^ 
 
 John Griffin, of = Alice, sister of Howell = Tanguest, dau. of 
 
 Gumley, 1220. Richard de David Goz, of 
 
 Weston. Holl. 
 
 i ^1 I 
 
 Ralph Griffin, = Julian Hugo, Griffith ap =: Nesta, dau. of 
 of Weston, de Lega. Griffith. Guernund ap 
 
 Gwethen. 
 
 R'lchard Griffin :== Matilda, dau. of Thomas. 
 
 of Weston, 1261. 
 
 Ralf Golafre, of 
 Norton. 
 
 Ryce ap Griffith 
 of Wichnore 
 Jure ttxoris + 10 
 May 30 Edward 
 III. 
 
 :Joan, dau. & 
 heir of Sir 
 Henry Somer- 
 ville, of Wich- 
 nore (county 
 Stafford), and 
 Stockton (CO.. 
 Warwick) + 
 1376- 
 
 Sir John Griffin,= Elizabeth, sister 
 
 Hving 16 
 ward II. 
 
 Ed 
 
 and heir of 
 William Favell, 
 living 16 Ed- 
 ward II. 
 
 Ryce ap Ryce,= Margaret 
 living 38 
 Henry VI., a 
 Knight of 
 Humphrey, 
 Duke of Buck- 
 ingham^ 
 
 Henry, 
 dau. of ist son, 
 Nicholas -)- sp. 
 Zouch, m. 
 
 of Codnor. 
 
 Sir Thomas Griffin,: 
 of Weston Favell. 
 -I- 33 Edward III., 
 living 40 Edward 
 IIL 
 
 Elizabeth, sister 
 and heir of Sir 
 Thomas Latimer 
 of Bray brook, 
 who died 2Henry 
 IV. ; heiress also 
 of Chipping 
 Warden. 
 
 Thomas ap Ryce =: Agnes, dau. of 
 proof of age Sir Walter 
 22 Richard II. Blunt, of 
 + 1431. Sodington, 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 245 
 
 h I b 
 
 Richard Griffin: 
 + 38 Henry VI. 
 Inq. p.m. of 
 Weston Favell. 
 
 Ann, dau of Hugh 
 Richard Thomas 
 
 Chamberlain, 
 of Cotes. 
 
 Sir John Grififine=Catherine, dau. 
 
 + 20, June II, 
 Edward IV. 
 
 of Sir Thomas 
 Tyrwhit ; 
 marriage settle- 
 ment, 1422, 
 
 John Grifiin= Elizabeth 
 of Braybrook. 
 + 22 Henry VI. s.p. 
 
 Nicholas,=Catherine, 
 
 + 15 dau. of 
 Henry VI. Sir John 
 
 Pilkington. 
 
 I 
 
 Walter:=Agnes, dau. 
 
 ofWichnore 
 and Long 
 Ichington. 
 + 21 Edward 
 IV. 
 
 of ,Sir 
 
 Robert 
 
 Cornwall. 
 
 Nicholas Griffin: 
 of Braybrook, 
 proof of age, 
 25 Henry VI. 
 + 22 Edward 
 IV. 
 
 Catherine 
 dau. of 
 Ralf 
 Curzon, 
 ist wife. 
 
 I 
 Richard. 
 Henry 
 Thomas. 
 
 Walter Griffith=Joa:i, 
 
 of Wichnore, 
 b. 1473. 
 + 25 Henry 
 VIII. 
 
 John I 
 
 Griffin: 
 
 of 
 
 Braybrook. 
 + 4 Henry 
 VII. 
 
 Emmota, d. 
 of Sir 
 Richard 
 Wheathill, 
 of Calais. 
 X 13 Henry 
 VIII. 
 
 Edward Griffin; 
 of Berswell. 
 1500. Joined 
 the Guild of 
 Knowle. 
 
 :Joyce, Richard, 
 dau. of Rector of 
 Robert Chipping 
 Leigh, of Warden. 
 Bucks. 15 10. 
 1500. 
 
 I 
 
 Henry=Eliza- Thomas=Agnes. Francis ALYS UX 
 -•'---- - RICHARD 
 
 SHAKSPERE 
 BAILII'-F OF 
 WkOXALL, 
 14 Henry 
 VIIL (see 
 pedigree, 
 ants, page 
 ). 
 
 beth. of Fenny 14 
 
 Comp- Henry 
 ton. VIII. 
 
 (Pedi- 
 greepost, gveepost, 
 
 page .) page .) 
 
 of Long 
 Iching- 
 ton. 
 (Pedi- A 
 
 of 
 Bray- 
 brook. 
 Will;37 1 
 Henry 
 VIII. 
 
 dau. of 
 Sir John 
 Ferrars, 
 of Tam- 
 worth. 
 
 Sir 
 
 Nicholas 
 K.B., of 
 Bray- 
 Brook. 
 + 1509. 
 
 = Alice, dau. 
 of John 
 Thornberg 
 of Hants. 
 
 George Griffin,= 
 Rector of 
 Rockingham, 
 living, 6 
 Elizabeth. 
 Warned after 
 the Reforma- 
 tion. 
 
 Sir George, 
 sold his 
 Warwick- 
 shire 
 estates to 
 Sir George 
 Smyth. 
 + 2 
 Elizabeth. 
 
 II III 
 
 Ralf,= Bartholomew,= Richard, David. Mary 
 
 Dean of I the Poet, of I Rector of ux 
 
 Lincoln. | Coventry. | Chipping Brock. 
 
 J\ + 1602. /\ Warden. 
 
 Elizabeth, 
 dau. of 
 Sir Peter 
 Skeviijg- 
 
 ton. 
 
 <? J ,1 
 
246 
 
 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 d\ i 
 
 Sir 
 
 Thomas 
 of Bray- 
 Brook. 
 
 Bridget =Eliza- 
 d. of Sir beth 
 John Palmer 
 
 Smythe istwife. 
 Baron A + 5 
 
 of the 
 Excheq- 
 uer, 2nd 
 wife, m. 
 6 Ed. VI. 
 
 P.&.M. 
 
 Ryce =Thomas 
 (will, I -I- s.p. 
 
 ^555)- I 
 -l-s.p.m./\ 
 
 Sir 
 
 Edward 
 Griffin, 
 A.G.of 
 Queen's 
 Mary 
 and 
 Eliza- 
 beth. 
 Inq. p.m. 
 II Eliza- 
 beth. 
 
 I 
 
 Sir Edward : 
 Griffin, of 
 Dingley, aqtw 
 the Lords 
 Griffin, born 
 1550- 
 
 = Elizabeth, 
 dau. of 
 Geoffry 
 Chambers, 
 widow of 
 Sir Walter 
 Stonor, of 
 Stonor, 3rd 
 wife ; she 
 re-married 
 Lord St. 
 John, m. 
 post,2 Nov. 
 2Elizabeth 
 
 Sir 
 
 Walter 
 Griffith, 
 of Wich- 
 nore, Co. 
 Stafford, 
 set. 24. 
 2 Eliza- 
 beth. 
 Inq p.m. 
 16 Eliza- 
 beth. 
 
 Lucy, dau. of 
 Reginald 
 Conyers, m. 
 26 Sept. 1570. 
 
 I 
 Sir Ryce, of; 
 Bickmarsh, 
 Co. Warwick, 
 born 1570. , 
 
 Sir 
 
 Thomas 
 Throck- 
 morton, of 
 Coughton, 
 
 Co. 
 Warwick. 
 
 I 
 Margaret 
 Throck- 
 morton. 
 
 + 16 I4> 
 Kt. 81. 
 
 =Cathe 
 
 Ann ux 
 
 dau. 
 
 Wm. 
 
 of Sir 
 
 Clopton 
 
 Edward of 
 
 Blunt, 
 
 .Stratford- 
 
 of 
 
 on- 
 
 Kidder- 
 
 Avon, 
 
 minster. 
 
 whose 
 
 
 dau. 
 
 Rose m, 
 John 
 Coombs. 
 
 Elizabeth = Sir Henry 
 
 Throck. 
 raorton, 
 m. 1589. 
 
 Griffith, of. 
 Wigmore, 
 A Co. Here- 
 Ford, aet. 
 16, i6th 
 Elizabeth. 
 
 father, though it perhaps helped him to stand out more- 
 manfully in support of his rehgion in his later years. 
 
 Visitation of Cheshire, 1556. 
 Arms). 
 
 Philpot 9, p. 56 (College of 
 
 A glance at this pedigree will show how curiously these- 
 two branches of the family became united, about the Poet's 
 time, through the marriages of Sir Richard Gryff^'-n, of 
 Bickmarsh, and Sir Henry Griffith, of Wigmore, County 
 Hereford, with Margaret and Elizabeth, the daughters of Sir 
 Thomas Throckmorton, of Coughton. Although these scions, 
 of the House of Griffin were as far divided as by ten degrees, 
 yet both of them were closely associated with Warwickshire, 
 and each of them must have known the Shakesperes and their 
 relations. The Griffiths, of Wichnore, held several Manors ia 
 
THE ge;jitle shakspere. 247 
 
 the County of Warwick — at Stockton, the head of their small 
 barony ; Long Ichington, where afterwards a member of the 
 Braybrook family settled, Napton and Shuckborough ; whilst 
 the Braybrook family kept up a direct connection with Wroxall 
 through the grants made by their ancestors (the Westons and 
 the Latimers, to whose estates they had succeeded), out of their 
 Manor of Chipping Warden, not far from the confines of 
 Warwickshire, 
 
 Unhappily the Reformation, whilst it brought great riches 
 to this distinguished family from the spoils of the Church, 
 brought with it also terrible trials, and those who enjoyed these 
 spoils, although some of them flourished for a time, soon died 
 away and their families ceased to occupy their former homes. 
 The issue of Sir Thomas Griffin, of Braybrook, failed in the male 
 line almost in his life-time. His eldest son, Piers, died issueless, 
 slain at Norwich. Ryce, his second son, died in his father's life- 
 time, having by his will devised all his estates to his male heir-at- 
 law, subject to the payment of 800 marks " to his poor daughter 
 Mary." Why he so styled her in his will does not appear. 
 She was probably a lunatic like his brother (Sir Thomas' last 
 son) who was so found by Inquisition. 
 
 And thits passed away the old house of Braybrook, for Sir 
 Edward, the next heir and brother of Sir Thomas, who had 
 already seated himself at Dingley had ere this, probably, pulled 
 down Braybrook Castle, he chose to reside in the old religious 
 house of Dingley, part of his share of Church plunder. Sir 
 Edward was the Catholic Attorney General of Queen Mary, 
 and he continued in office under her successor. 
 
 Unfortunately, he was not averse to the terrible vice of the 
 times — that of absorbing the property of the poor and of the 
 Church under the pretence of reform in religion — and in this 
 manner he had picked up many stray pieces of property, and 
 even some manors in Warwickshire, much of which was Church 
 plunder ; and by these means he became very rich in lands and 
 goods. But although, like so many other families, notwith- 
 
248 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 Standing this conduct, they remained Cathohc, yet they did not 
 flourish, and in a few generations they became extincf Nearly 
 every descendant of Sir Edward Griffin can be traced, and can 
 be shown to have eventually died childless ; and the fourth in 
 descent from him, in the person of Lord Edward Griffin, 
 perished miserably, a prisoner in the Tower. He left but two 
 sons, one of whom died childless and the other had but one son, 
 who failed to add to the lustre of his name, and who, after 
 wasting the family property and much more which he inherited 
 through his grandmother, Lady Essex Howard, of the Walden 
 family, died without legitimate issue, the last of the chief branch 
 of this great family, and the title became extinct. And so passed 
 away entirely from the County of Northampton a family who 
 had added to its lustre during a period of at least five centuries. 
 The younger branches still remained in "Warwickshire, and many 
 of their descendants exist at the present day. 
 
 Sir Edward Griffin's widow (the Lady Stonor) at the close 
 of Queen Elizabeth's reign nobly atoned for her husband's 
 traffic in Church property, and at great personal risk allowed a 
 printing press to be established at Stonor, from which issued 
 some of the most stirring literature of the period, but all in 
 vain. Religion had well nigh perished, and the English Reign of 
 Terror, now called the Great RebeUion, was about to burst upon 
 the land. Much of Father Campion's work, and especially his 
 great work, " The Ten Reasons," was secretly printed at Stonor, 
 
 Sir Edward Griffin obtained in Warwickshire the Manor of 
 Bickmarsh, which he entailed upon his infant son, Ryce, who 
 was the issue of his third marriage with the Lady Stonor. She 
 was the daughter of Geoffirey Chambers, of Stanmore, a 
 Receiver, and she had survived two husbands — Reginald Conyers 
 (by whom, with other children, she had Lucy, who married the 
 eldest son of Sir Edward Griffin) and Sir Walter Stonor, 
 Lieutenant of the Tower of London and Sheriff of Berks (^26 
 Henry VHL) — afterwards she married the Lord St. John, of 
 - Bletsoe, In conjunction with Sir John Spencer, of Wormleighton, 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 249 
 
 « 
 
 Sir Edward Griffin purchased the Manors of Fenny Compton, 
 Hardwick Priors, and Priors Marston, which were all 
 formerly Church property, and whereon had already been 
 settled various members of his own family, who had obtained 
 their holdings in the good old Catholic times from the sons of 
 the Church, who were the best landlords the farmers of 
 England ever had. For many centuries the good nuns of 
 Wroxall had enjoyed rents out of the Griffin Manor of Chipping 
 Warden, and after the marriage of Alys Gryffin with Richard 
 Shakspere (the steward, or baihff, of the Priory and collector of 
 their rents), the lands of Chipping Warden, in which the Priory 
 of Wroxall was interested, were by Richard Shakspere demised 
 to one of the Gryffin family — ^to Sir Walter Gryffin, probably 
 a soldier of fortune (or, as we should say, of no fortune). It 
 is not quite clear who this knight was. He may have been Sir 
 Walter Griffin, of Wichnore, who married a Warwickshire lady, 
 daughter of Sir John Ferrars, of Tamworth. He is probably 
 identical with Sir Walter Griffin, Baneret, created by Thomas 
 Earl of Surrey, the King's Lieutenant, 13 Henry VH., whose 
 history is lost. It is. quite possible that Sir Walter Griffith, or 
 Griffin, was only a distant cousin of the Braybrook family, since 
 Catherine, youngest daughter of the Earl of Surrey, married Sir 
 Rliys ap Griffith, grandson of Sir Rhys ap Thomas, K.G., of 
 Dinevor, the ancestor of James Griffith, gentleman-usher of 
 Queen Catherine of Arragon, into whose mouth, as we have 
 seen, Shakspere, in his play of Kiiig Henry VIII., has placed 
 some of his finest poetry. It would be singular, indeed, were it to 
 turn out that the settlement in Warwickshire of this branch of the 
 Gryffins arose from this connection with the Shaksperes, who were 
 archers, and who may well have served under the old knight. 
 Sir Walter Griffin, and very possibly John Shakspere, Richard's 
 father, may have been one of them, and possibly did receive the 
 reward for his valour from the King, though the record of it is 
 lost and the grant is attributed to a later King. It is a pity 
 wholly to discredit so pleasing a tradition, and unnecesary to do 
 so, for we know positively that the Shakesperes held land by 
 
250 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 military service, the most honourable tenure by which land 
 could be holden. 
 
 The following wills of the Griffins, of Braybrook and 
 Dingley, give a complete history of their property and 
 possessions down to the time of William Shakspere : — • 
 
 WILL OF RYCE GRIFFITH OF BRAYBROOK. 
 
 P.C.C. 15 August, 3 Edward VI. Ryce Griffithe of 
 Braybrook (no doubt the legatee of Francis Griffin), appoints 
 his father, Sir Thomas Griffyn, executor ; and leaves all his 
 lands to his brother, Thomas Griffith, with remainder to his 
 uncle, Edward Griffith of Dingley, reversion to his uncle George 
 Griffiths, and to the heirs male. To my poor daughter to have of 
 him who is heir after my father 800 marcs, when 17. He leaves 
 legacies : — to his mother a bracelet ; to his father his best colt ; 
 to his wife, and his sisters Ann and Elizabeth ; to Mr. Martin 
 Hully, Edward Goodwin, Henry Winstoun, and to his uncle Sir 
 Edward Griffith. (Proved 17th October, 1549.) 
 
 It will be seen how curiously R3'ce Griffith spelt his own 
 name ; only in the single instance where he names his father 
 does he spell it Gryffyn. We next have the will of his mother, 
 who survived him several years : — 
 
 (P.C.C. Melleish 14). WILL OF DAME JANE GRIFFIN 
 OF BRAYBROOK. 
 
 20 April, 4 and 5 Philip and Mary. (1558.) I, 
 Dame Jane Gryffin, wife to Sir Thomas Griffin of 
 Brabrooke, Northt., Knight, by the sufferance and consent of 
 my husband, wish to be buried in the Parish Church of 
 Brabrook ; various bequests to the poor of Rowell, Desborowe, 
 Ardingworthe and Oxton, of Bramton, Dyngley and Little 
 Bowden, of Harborowe, Pardon and Lubnam. To my nephew 
 Edward Griffyn ; my god-daughter Jane Griffyn; to Thomas, 
 Edward, and Marie Hasellrige; to Peter, Thomas, Mawde, 
 and Isabell Lane; to Bridget Smith and her sister Frauncis 
 Smyth ; to Jane Smith ; to my sons William Lane and Roger 
 Smith; to my daughters Smith and Lane. I appoint my 
 husband, Sir Thomas Griffyn, sole executor, and make my son 
 Roger Smith and Sir William Dryver supervisors of my will ; 
 my husband to have the use of all my bequests during his life. 
 
 Memd"' that I, Sir Thomas Griffyn, have condes- 
 cended to give the sum of 300 marks for the performance of 
 the above will. Witnesses : Wm. Lane, R. Smyth, Wm. Driver. 
 (Proved 14 February, 1559-60, by William Walker for Sir 
 T. Griffin.) 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 25 1 
 
 • 
 
 (P.R.O. Wards and Liveries. XIL, fol. 62.) 
 
 WILL OF SIR THOMAS GRIFFIN OF BRAYBROOK. 
 
 In the name of God, Amen, and in the fyue and twentith 
 day of Aprill, and in the eight yere of the Raigne of our sou'aigne 
 ladie Ehzabeth, by the grace of god quene of England [etc.] 
 and in the yere of our lord god a thousande fyue hundred sixti 
 and sixe I sir Thomas Griffin of Brayebrooke in the countie of 
 North' Knight being of good and pfitte Remembraunce thank be 
 to almightie god and consideringe with my selfe the frailtie and 
 unctentie of this transitorie lyffe and that deathe and the tyme 
 thereof is to all men unc'ten doe therefore hereby reuoke All 
 former Wills and testaments by me in any wyse made and dothe 
 hereby' constitute ordeyn make and declare this onely to be my 
 verie last Will and testament and none other in manner and 
 forme followinge. That is to saye first as concning the dispocon 
 of my [manors] lands tent' and other ray hereditaments my fre 
 will mynde and intente is in manner and forme following. That 
 is to saye I will that myne executors shall with the issues and 
 pfittes of my manners of Braybrooke Westonfavell and Thorp- 
 lubbenham in the Countie of North'- and of the mannor of 
 [Gomeley] in the Countie of leicester and withe the issues and 
 pfittes of all other my lands tent' and hereditaments in 
 Braebroke Westonfavell Thorplubbenham and GcSmeley afore- 
 said to be taken leuied and preyued by myne executors during 
 the lyffe of my sonne Thomas Griffin pform my late Wyffes 
 [last will] in all thinges according to the true meaninge of the 
 same, and that they in any wise content and paye all and 
 singular suche legacies and bequests whiche nowe remayne 
 unpaid as in anywise was by her gyuen or bequeathed to my 
 Sonne Roger Smithes daughters, and to my daughter [Brigetts] 
 children by her first husband Miles hasselrige and to her 
 children by her husband that nowe is William Lane, Esquier, 
 further [I will that] myne executors with thissues and pfittes of 
 my said manners, lands, tent'' hereditaments, and other they [sic] 
 pmissis shall forsee that my sonne Thomas Griffin and my 
 daughter Anne Griffin be well and honestlie founde and kept 
 during their lyues accordinge to theire vocac""- And further I 
 will and [? bequeathe unto] my daughter Brigitte lane toward 
 the keping and finding of my daughter Anne Griffin twentie 
 poundes a yere during her lyffe to be paid yerely by myne 
 executors of thissue and pfittes of the pmissis, and yf my said 
 daughter lane doe die lyvmge her sister Anne, then I will [that 
 myne' executors shall haue the kepinge of my said daughter 
 Anne in soche manner and forme as if my said daughter lane 
 had byne alyue, and further I will that my executors shall see 
 my house of Braybroke during my saide sonne Thomas Griffines 
 liefF with thissue and [pfittes] of the pmissis well and honestlie 
 repayred and kept up and other they buildinges and house;; 
 belonginge to the same And shall foresee also the Chapel! thereof 
 
252 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 well repayred and the hall thereof well pauid and seelid and 
 towardes the further pformaunce of [this my] last will and 
 testament. 
 
 WILL OF SIR EDWARD GRIFFIN OF DINGLEY. 
 
 (P.C.C. Holney, 32.) 11 August, 1569. I, Edward 
 GrifFyn, of dignley, Co. North'- make the following disposition 
 of sundry of my manors amounting near to the clear yearly 
 value of two parts of the same. For two years after my death, 
 in order to carry out my bequests, &c., my exors. to hold my 
 manors of Dyngley, Little Oxendon, Corbye, Thorpbyllett, and 
 Newbottell, in the psh of Harrington, Co. North'- and all my 
 manor of Sawley als Sallowe, Co. Derby, .... and also 
 my manors of Appulbye the greate, Little Appulbye, Meysham, 
 Dannesthorpe, Shele, Overshele, Northhershell, Okelthorpe, 
 and Lynton, in Cos. Leicester and Derby, and also the 
 patronage and advowson of the churches of Fardon, Great 
 Oxendon, Ashley, and Corby, Co. North'- and of Langton, Co. 
 Leicester ; . . . also my lands in Braybrocke, Co. North'- 
 lately belonging to the dissolved monastery of Pipwell, bought 
 from the Queen, together with the reversion after the Lady 
 Stonor's decease (my wifej of all manors, &Ct, appointed for her 
 jointure, viz., my manor of Stocke Albeney, Wilberston, great 
 Oxendon, also all my lands and tent' in Herboroughe and 
 great Bowden, Co. Leicester, and such as are of her jointure in 
 Stocke Albeney and Wylberston and Great Oxendon. My 
 exors. shall also have for two years after my death all my 
 purchased lands in Stoke Albeney, Wilberston, Great Oxendon, 
 Harburghe, and great Bouden, bought since I married Lady 
 Stonor. After the two j'ears specified, my son Edward and his 
 heirs male shall have all the abovementioned lands, &c., with 
 the reversion of my wife's jointure. In default of issue from 
 him, reversion to my son Rice Griffyn and his heirs male, and 
 in default again to the heirs of my body and then to my right 
 heirs. If Edward Griffyn die before his heir is 21, Rice 
 Griffyn and my other exors. shall enjoy all the inheritance until 
 that time, and in default of such issue, then until my son Rice 
 shall be 21. My wife, Lady Stonnor, to have my dwelling and 
 chief mansion house in Dingley for the bringing up of my younger 
 children, and other lands in Dingley during the nonage of my 
 son Edward according to the indenture of marriage between us. 
 Provided always that in case of death of the said Edward 
 GryfTyn without heirs male, or death of the latter without male 
 issue, or any attempt by them to alienate any of the thus entailed 
 
 lands, except by lease or for jointure of their wives, all title 
 
 and estate shall pass away from said Edward and his heirs ; 
 and all land thus alienated, &c., shall remain to my son Rice, 
 
 &c., with further remainders as above I bequea<the to my 
 
 son Rice Griffin ^£'5,000 for the purchase of lands, &c., to be 
 administered by my exors during his nonage (with rem'- to 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 253 
 
 Edward Giiffin and his heirs male, and then as above). After 
 my wife's death my exors. shall receive the yearly profits of my 
 manor of Dudcot Co. Berks, for the performance of this my last 
 will, until my son Rice be 21 ; and out of this and other lands 
 appointed to them, they shall pay ray daughter Margaret, " on 
 any marriage by way of preferment that shall take effecte," ^300 
 to my daughter Mary, ^500 if she be married to a gentleman 
 with £ 200 a year, with consent of my said exors. ; and to my 
 daughter Anne, ;^5oo if married with the advice of my exors. 
 If they die unmarried, or without the consent of my exors, the 
 said legacies to be spent in the purchase of lands for son Rice 
 (with restrictions as above as to alienations). I will that John 
 Barnard be presented to whichever of the livings of Langton 
 (Leic.) Braybrocke, Wardon or Ashele}' shall fall vacant first 
 after my death ; and that Rockwood, my lady Boroughes' son, 
 sometime parson of Odyll, be presented to the next vacancy. 
 And I will that the residue of all my manors, &c., &c., amounting 
 to the clear yearly value of one-third of all my lands, &c., all 
 the estate of which I am seized of inheritance to me and my 
 heirs male of and in the manors of Asheley, Weston next 
 Wolland, Sutton Basset, and of and in the manors, closes and 
 pastures of Thorpbillett and Duston, and one close in Elkington 
 parish called Cockhilles, Co. North*- and the manor of 
 
 Bigmershe, Co. Warwick and the manor of Sawley, Co. 
 
 Derby, and lands, &c. in Desboroughe, Co. North'- and the manor 
 of Braybrocke, Wardon and Watford, Co. North'- and the manors 
 of Gomonley Langton, Smeton, Smeton and Foxton, Co. Leic, 
 bought of Mris. Fryswide Strylley, and of one house in Holborne 
 in the parish of St. Andrew's, shall descend to my son and heir, 
 to the intent that the Queen or her heirs may take the same 
 during the nonage of my son, or the primer season thereof. 
 
 Witnesses: — Edwd Montague, John Bavand, Wm. Yoman, 
 Fraunc. Rawson, Fraunc. Harryson, Augustyn 
 Christian, Wm. Haburley, Fernando Watson, Abel 
 Makepeace. 
 
 The second part of the Will, relative to personal estate, 
 directs (inter alia) that the testator shall be buried in the 
 parish church of Dingley. 
 
 The Lady Stonnor, my wife, to have to her own use all the 
 stock, &c., at Wakerley, Co. North*- and at Edithweston, Co, 
 Rutland, which was hers before I married her ; also the lease of 
 Wakerley and Wakerley Wood, upon condition that Sir Walter 
 Myldmay, Sir Thomas Nevell, Person Chamber, my wife's 
 brother, Thomas Lete, nor my exors, shall not trouble my heirs, 
 "regarding the performance of anything in our marriage 
 contracts, which I know are fully satisfied, and also on condition 
 
254 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE, 
 
 that my wife pays ;^ioo to Mary Conyers towards her marriage 
 and for her legacy by her father. The reversion after my wife's 
 death, of the manor of Dudcott, bought by me of Sir Francis 
 Stonnors, for my Hfe and 21 years after my death, for my son 
 
 Rice's finding To my son Edward or such of my heirs male 
 
 as shall be 21, and shall first serve livery out of the Queen's 
 hands, the charges of his livery." Bequests follow to the 
 testator's daughters and household ; to Sir Walter Mildemay, 
 and Sir William Cordell, " now Master of the Rolls " ; to the 
 Countess of Pembroke; Wm. Roper; lady White, sometime 
 wife to Sir Rauffe Warren ; his nephew Roger Smyth ; his sons 
 Norwich and Keble ; his nephew Thos. Hassellrigg, and godson 
 Edward Hasselrigg ; to his cousins, Thomas and Edward Roos, 
 and his friend John Bavand. Exors., Edward and Rice Griffin, 
 assisted by the Lady Stonor. Proved, 14 July, 1571, by 
 William Babham, for Edward Griffin, exor. 
 
 Inquisition Post Mortem upon the death of Sir Edward Griffin 
 is dated 22nd Sept. 12 Elizabeth (P. R. O. Wards and Liveries 
 Vol. xii fo. 61). After giving a full account of all the lands and 
 Manors. The Jury return that Sir Edward Griffin died on the 
 1 6th Dec. preceding, and that Edward Griffin, Esq., was his 
 next son and heir, by Elizabeth his first wife, and was 20 years 
 5 months and 13 days old at his father's death. Thomas 
 Griffin, son of Sir Thomas Griffin, deceased (a lunatic) was then 
 living at Braybrook ; and that on 26th September preceding 
 Sir Edward's decease, Edward his son married Lucy, daughter 
 of Reginald Conyers, Esq., deceased, and Lady Elizabeth 
 Stonor, his then wife. 
 
 In the State Papers, Domestic, Queen Elizabeth (Record 
 Office Publication) A° 1596, September 26th, there is a very 
 curious letter from Queen Elizabeth to Mr. Griffin of Dingley, 
 which shows the careful and maternal interest of the Queen 
 for the souls (and property) of her well-to-do subjects. 
 
 The Queen to Mr. Griffin of Dingley. — Sir Thomas Gorges, 
 gentleman of the robes, proposes a marriage between your son 
 and his daughter. We know that others may offer more money 
 with their daughters than he can do, and do not usually interfere 
 in our servants' domestic affairs, but considering his long service, 
 and that of the Marchioness his wife, a lady of the Privy 
 Chamber well favoured by us, we remind you that in settling a 
 child there are things to be more considered than money; 
 as the gentleman's birth, nearness to those in our service, and 
 favour borne him by us. We hope therefore that you will 
 consider these things; we do not wish to use authority, but 
 will take your compliance as a mark of respect. You may 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 255 
 
 consider our writing to you strange, considering that we were 
 estranged from you on account of your proceedings in matters 
 of religion, but we have lately had a good report of your loyalty 
 and conformity, and think this alliance would confirm you in 
 the course you have begun, (i^ pages, Draft, corrected by 
 Cecil.) 
 
 In Cecil's own papers is another document which perhaps 
 explains this singular letter : — 
 
 (State Papers, Queen Elizabeth, A° 1593, vol. 246, fo. 99), 
 there are several pedigrees in the curious handwriting of Lord 
 Burleigh, who used to employ his leisure in genealogical 
 pursuits, apparently in order to acquire power over property ; 
 some are wholly in his handwriting, others are only noted by 
 him ; the following is entirely his. Lord Burleigh's interest in 
 the family arose from the fact that his sister Margaret married 
 Erasmus Smyth of Bosworth, whose brother Roger married 
 Francis, daughter of Sir Thomas Griffin of Dingley. It is 
 impossible to give, without a copy in facsimile, any idea of the 
 peculiar mode used by Lord Burleigh in drafting his pedigrees. 
 
 Sir Thomas GriiSSn = Edward = filia 
 
 of Bray brook 
 
 of Dingley 
 
 Chambers a 
 Receiver. 
 
 II 11 
 
 I. Pyers 2. Rice = filia ux =: Edward r= filia Conyers. 
 
 Griffin, dead. Thomas Hazelrigge I 
 
 slayn at Brudnel. | 
 Norwich. 
 
 3. Thomas, brother and 
 
 heir of Pyers Griffin. j 
 
 uxor Nichols. 
 
 Lord Burleigh, probably to avoid giving evidence of his 
 interest in this jobbery, has omitted from the paper his niece 
 (by marriage), as well as her sister Ann. What was the object 
 of this State Paper ? A knowledge of the facts make it 
 tolerably clear ; Thomas Griffin of Braybrook was a lunatic, 
 and had been so proved by Inquisition, and the whole of the 
 Braybrook estates, being strictly entailed in the male line, 
 
256 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 would (if they had not already) descend to his cousin, Edward 
 Griffin of Dingley, who was therefore a very rich man, he 
 having a very large property besides from his father, the 
 Attorney-General. Lord Burleigh, therefore, for some reason 
 had an eye upon it, and Queen Elizabeth's letter was no doubt 
 written at his dictation, with the benevolent purpose of some- 
 how getting hold of it. 
 
 The subsequent history of the family does not fall within 
 the scope of this book, but the following facts relating to their 
 descendants cannot be read without interest. 
 
 The law suit which follows shews the family happiness 
 which their great wealth brought them, — quarrels, recrimina- 
 tions, charges of fraud, and dissentions of every kind ; it is to 
 be feared that Queen Elizabeth approved of Edward Griffin's 
 conduct in this suit, for two years after, when asking for 
 his daughter's marriage, she refers to his Protestant 
 proclivities. 
 
 (Misc. Chancery Proceedings. B. and A. Series 2. Bundle 
 240). 1594) April 26. Edward GryfFyn of Dyngley, Co. 
 Northampton, Esq., and Lucy, his wife, sister and heir of 
 Francis Conyers, Esq. deceased, son and heir of Reginald 
 Conyers, late of Wakerley, Co. Northampton, Esq., dec"".. 
 Complain that said Reginald Conyers was in his life-time 
 lawfully seised, etc., of several grounds, etc., called Wakerley 
 Parke, containing 200 acres of wood in Wakerley aforesaid, 
 parcel of the Manor of Wakerley, and being so seised the said 
 Reginald Conyers, by his Indentures dated 2 February, 4 and 5 
 Philip and Mary, for the advancement and preferment of Francis 
 Conyers, his son, and Lucy Conyers, his daughter, the Oratrix, 
 did demise to Edward Chambers, Clerke, and Simon Dygbye, 
 gent., the aforesaid Park, etc., for 26 years, at the yearly rent of 
 2*20, although it was worth £60 a year, but was made at /'20, 
 and was only intended for the use of the said Francis and Lucy, 
 and not for the lessees. About the 14th year of Elizabeth, the 
 said Francis Conyers died, upon whose death the said Park 
 devolved upon the Oratrix Lucy. Yet now, so it is that 
 Elizabeth, Lady St. John, widow, late wife of Olyver, Lord St. 
 John of Bletsoe, dec*., and sometime wife of the said Reginald 
 Conyers, without right or lawful title so to do, did enter into the 
 said Parke immediately after the death of the said Reginald, 
 who died about the first year of Elizabeth, the said Francis and 
 Lucy being then infants of tender age, the eldest of them not 
 
THE GENTI^ SHAKSPERE. 257 
 
 above seven years. That the said Lady Elizabeth has received 
 all rents, etc., paying only to the Oratrix £1^ yearly, withholding 
 from Oratrix not only the premises demised to her, but also the 
 third part of the estate she should have received at her father's 
 death. That the said Lady St. John also possessed herself of 
 certain household goods, etc., of the said Francis, which should 
 have come to Oratrix on his decease. That the said Reginald 
 Conyers purchased in his lifetime, to him and his heirs, of the 
 Rt. Hon. William Parr, Kt., deed., then Marquis of Northamp- 
 ton, the Manor of Edith Weston, Co. Rutland ; that he was also 
 seized of the Manor of Ketton, Co. Rutland, both which Manors 
 were left by his will to his son Francis, and consequently to 
 Oratrix, Lucy, his only heir. That the said Lady St. John 
 seized upon the Manor of Edith Weston and refused to give it 
 up to the Oratrix, until the Orator, Edward Gryffyn, in con- 
 sideration thereof had assured unto Ryce Gryffyn, son of the 
 said Lady St. John, the Manor of Bigmarsh, Co. Warwick, 
 being of much greater value than the Manor of Edith Weston. 
 And after, Edward Gryffyn being forced to sell away the said 
 Manor of Edith Weston, the Lady of St. John, seeing to her 
 own gain, had to her own use for which the Manor of Edith 
 Weston was sold ;^300 in ready money, and an annuity of /'60 
 for 10 years after paid to her out of the lands of said Orator, 
 Edward Gryffyn, and £^0 being the yearly rent of the said 
 Manor of Bigmarshe. That the Lady St. John caused the will 
 of the said Reginald Conyers to be altered as follows : " I give 
 beside to the Lady Elizabeth Stonard, my wife " (which is now 
 the Lady St. John) " all my lands in Ketton that I die siezed of 
 which were Mr. Greenham's." The supposed witnesses to this 
 alteration, being called, deny signing same. That the said 
 Olyver, Lord St. John of Blettsoe, in his life-time pretended to 
 hold as in right of the said Lady St. John, his then wife, the 
 said Manor of Wakerley, and they cut down wood growing 
 thereon to the value of ;^iooo at least. And further, whereas 
 the said Lady St. John being married to Edward Gryffyn, Esq., 
 the Orator's father, and pretending to have a dowry in the 
 Manor of Stoke and Wilberston, Co. Northampton, the said 
 Lady St. John, in consideration of a marriage between the 
 Orator, Edward Gryffyn, son of Edward Gryffyn her then 
 husband, and Lucy, the Oratrix, promised to yield up her claim 
 to the Manor of Stoke and Wilberston on the death of Edward 
 Gryffyn, senr. That since the marriage of the Orator and 
 the death of Edward Gryffyn, senior, the said • Orator 
 has asked the Lady St. John for the said Manor, but she 
 refuses to give it up, and has also received large sums of 
 rent, &c. And whereas the said Orator, Edward Gryffyn, 
 further saith his father, Edward Gryffyn, was possessed of 
 certain gold, in a certain casket, standing within the Castle of 
 Brabrooke, Co. North'- to the value of ^ig,ooo or more, and 
 being so possessed made his last will and testament, and 
 
258 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 appointed the said Orator and Rice Gryffyn, his brother, being 
 then about 9 or 10 years old, his exors., and devised all his goods 
 and chattels to the said Edward his son, while Edward GryiFyn 
 sen''- lay on his death-bed, the said Lady St. John got the 
 casket, broke it open, and took the gold, and took the casket 
 broken open to her husband Mr. Gryffyn, and told him it was 
 found so. That her husband also laid up in a chest bound with 
 iron ;^5,ooo for the said Rice Gryffyn his son, with which he 
 intended to purchase lands for the said Rice, that he ordered 
 all keys to be delivered to the Orator, Edward Gryffyn, and 
 afterwards died. That Lady St. John took the chest, which 
 stood in a closet at Brabrooke, and detained the keys in her 
 possession, and took the greater part of the ;^5,ooo. That the 
 Orator bought land to the value of /'200 a year for his brother 
 Rice. The Orators prays that the said Lady St. John be 
 supoena'd to answer all these charges. Her answer is dated 29. 
 January, 1594. 
 
 CHANCERY B. & A. Series H. --i5. 
 
 16 
 
 A nswer of EUzth., Lady St. John ofBlettishe, Widow., to Bill of Complaint 
 
 29 Jan.,) of Edward Griffin of Dyugley, Esq., and Lucye his wieff. 
 
 1599- / 
 
 The Bill of Complaint contains so many and diverse 
 charges that it is only devised as a " Crosse Bill, to give a 
 shew and countenaunce of wronges done." As touching 
 Wakerley Park, Ketton, Edithweston, Stouk, and Wilberston,. 
 she says that she held them as the widow of Reginald Conyers, 
 Esq. ; she in Nov. 2, 3 Ehz., married Edward GrifHn, Esq. 
 (complainant's father), who died, having made his will in Dec., 
 
 12 Eliz., appointing Edward, the Complainant, one of his 
 executors. The Defendant married Oliver, Ld. St. John of 
 Blettishe, in or about Feb., 13 Eliz. He died April, 23 Ehz., 
 and Defendant was neither his executor nor administrator. 
 Meanwhile the Complainant alone had proved and executed 
 his father's will. 
 
 Touching the treasure supposed to be taken out of a casket,, 
 the story of Edward Griffin is absolutely false. 
 
 To give a more detailed answer, she says that about the 
 date of the Bill of Complaint, Wakerley Park was demised to 
 Edwd. Chamber, Clerk, and Symon Digbye, Gent., to the use 
 of the person or persons thereto appointed under Reginald 
 Conyers' will, i.e., the Defendant, and Complainant assigned all 
 his interest therein, as executor to his father, to said Defendant, 
 
 13 Eliz. 
 
 Amongst other reasons alleged to prove that the Manors 
 of Kelton, &c., were left by Reginald Conyers at the disposi- 
 tion of Defendant, a letter is quoted from Edward Chamber, 
 uncle of Lucy Conyers, dated 3rd Jan., 1575, regarding the- 
 
THE GEN'^LE SHAKSPERE. 259 
 
 sale of part of Wakerley Park, which has been done under the 
 trusteeship of himself and Simon Digby, to the uses appointed 
 by her father. 
 
 Touching the service of old gold supposed to be in a 
 caskett at Braibrooke, the Defendant says that not long after 
 the decease of her said husband, she received advertisements 
 that the said Complainant, Edward G., did sometymes in his 
 unadvised moods or termes give out that said Defendant should 
 have some gold of his father's in a caskett at charge, and said 
 Complainant denied the speaking of such words. Afterwards 
 Ld. St. John likewise was told that Edward Griffin " in his 
 fitts " made use of such expressions, which Edward Griffin 
 again denied. Defendant denies that she ever had any such 
 casket with gold in it. And touching the chest mentioned in. 
 the legacy to Ryce Griffin, Defendant says that it never was to 
 her remembrance in her custody, but was certain hours after 
 the decease of Sir E. Griffin taken away by his servants, in the 
 presence of Complainant, from Braybrook to Dingley, and was 
 placed in Edward Griffin (the Complainant's) chamber there ; 
 and shortly after it was opened in the sight of Edward Griffin, 
 the Complainant, the Defendant, and Sir Edwd. Mountague 
 sitting with this Defendant a certeine space distant from him, 
 at which time the Complainant secretly and privily (as he 
 thought) did convey out of said chest some thinges which said 
 Sir Edw. Mountague, being somewhat distant from him as 
 aforesaid, did perceave to be parte of the golde or treasure con- 
 tained in the said chest, at which said Edwd. M. said to 
 Defendant that said Edward Griffin was robbing himself, " for 
 he shall pay the legacy to Ryce Griffin every penny." 
 
 Defendant denies giving any gold or silver out of the 
 chest, &c., &c., &c. 
 
 There is a replication by Edward and Lucy GryfFyn, to 
 which the Lady St. John made rejoinder on the 27th 
 November, 1594. 
 
 Passing from these wretched disputes we next have, on the 
 nth of July, 1755, the Bill of Complaint of the Right Hon, 
 Ehzabeth, Lady Griffin, Baroness of Braybrook, widow, against 
 the executrix of Richard Harper, of Littleover, her ladyship's 
 brother, and John Harper, then of Littleover, his nephew and 
 heir, concerning a small sum of money lent to the said Richard 
 Harper. 
 
 Mr. Cockayne (Lancaster Herald) in his New Peerage states^ 
 that Elizabeth Harper, who (he supposed) claimed to be widow 
 
26o THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 of the last Lord Edward Griffin, who died 1742, was not 
 allowed to have that rank, there being another Dowager Lady- 
 Griffin then living ; but upon its being pointed out that this 
 lady never claimed to be the widow of the last Lord Griffin, 
 but of his grandfather, who died in 17 10, Mr. Cockayne most 
 courteously vuidertook to correct his mistake in his next edition, 
 and no doubt he will do so. 
 
 But for this Chancery suit and several others, in which this 
 lady was involved with members of her own family (the 
 Harpers, of Littleover), her existence, and certainly the fact of 
 her marriage, would not have been known. When her 
 husband, Lord Edward Griffin, adhered to King James IL at 
 the revolution of 1688, and followed him into exile, he had a 
 wife, the Lady Essex Howard, of Walden ; and the burial of 
 this lady has not been discovered. She was certainly not 
 buried in the family vault at Saffi-on Walden, nor yet at Dingley, 
 although a small brass is placed in that church to her memory 
 by a late rector of that parish, who was descended from an 
 illegitimate son of the last lord, It is probable that Lady Essex 
 Griffin died abroad and was buried there, whilst her husband 
 Tvas still in exile, and it is certain that he must have married 
 Elizabeth Harper also during his exile, for he never was free in 
 England after his capture. As she survived him fully sixty 
 years, she must have been very young at the time of her 
 marriage. Lord Edward was captured in the Frith of Forth 
 when on board a French warship, which had once formed a 
 portion of the English navy. He was placed immediately in 
 the Tower, tried for high treason, and condemned to death. 
 The merciful Queen Anne would not, however, put him to 
 death but tortured him by respiting him month after month, 
 till the anxiety broke his heart, and he died, miserably, in the 
 Tower. A broadsheet was published, purporting to be his 
 confession, but of course it may have been the work of a foe, or 
 possibly of a friend anxious to save his life ; but whether his or 
 not it had no effect in his favour, and he died a prisoner. 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 26 1 
 
 Tlie Lord Griffin's narrative, or his humble thanks to Her 
 Majesty for her gracious reprieve, which was brought to the 
 Tower about two of the clock this morning, June the i6th, 
 1708 :— 
 
 As I am sentenced by due course of law, so I am sensible of the 
 •weight of my offence against Her Majesty and the Government, for 
 which I had, amongst other sins, asked pardon of Heaven, and hope I 
 vi-as (and am still) in a fair way of obtaining that great and desirable 
 end — I mean my salvation. Those who have attended me under the 
 circumstances of death can witness for me with what humble 
 condescension I received and submitted to the news of my sudden 
 execution, believing in my conscience that justice of the laws, as well 
 as the reasons of the State, did require the same, which were not to be 
 balanced with so poor and trivial a thing as my unhappy life, of which 
 so much already has been spent in trouble and misfortune that the 
 rest was hardly worth even ray own care or consideration. 
 
 It was my unlucky fate, indeed, to leave my country, and now to 
 be taken, under the circumstances of rebellion against it, ; but, as I 
 declared on my trial (that is the exhibiting of my outlawry), I was 
 neither in arms nor in council with the enemy, but went on that unlucky 
 expedition merely against the force of my inclinations, being ordered, or 
 rather commanded, thereto by the French Court, from whence I had 
 my bread, and as it became my place, being the bed-chamber to the 
 Pretender, I never had any opinion of that design ; but what rendered 
 it rash, dangerous, and likely to be attended with miscarriage, I was 
 sent for in the morning from St. Germains by his Majesty the King of 
 France, and was told that I must prepare myself for three in the 
 afternoon to go to Dunkirk, which orders I obeyed, and found the fleet 
 ready to sail, on board of which I embarked, though with a very 
 unwilling mind ; and, indeed, my prophetic thoughts answered every 
 accident of that undertaking, more especially it gave me reason to reflect 
 on my unwillingness when I saw myself inevitably in danger of being 
 taken, then I recriminated on myself that a fresh exasperation of my 
 former disgrace in this kingdom must needs lay me under utter 
 displeasure of the Government. As I was sensible of this from the first 
 (and expected little else but death), so I prepared myself to meet it with 
 a constancy and resolution befitting a Christian and suitable to the 
 
262 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 religion I profess, which is of the Church of England, from which 
 neither the fair promises nor the eloquent persuasions I met with abroad 
 could ever draw me. I kept my religion pure and entire, though I was 
 unhappily seduced in other matters, and as I expected in a very few 
 hours to be thrown into the arms of death, so the gracious reprieve I 
 received became more surprising to me, and I am not ashamed to 
 confess, notwithstanding my readiness to die, that the news was very 
 endearing and welcome to my heart, though it shall not expunge from 
 thence the happy and agreeable prospect it had entertained of another 
 world not the sense (and danger) of my offence, though at present my 
 breast is loaded with a grateful acknowledgment of her Majesty's 
 goodness, whom (whether in life or death) I will comprehend in my 
 future prayers that by her clemency has obliged me to own her the best 
 and most merciful of princes, and nothing but the highest ingratitude 
 can ever alter me in a just opinion of her benign goodness. 
 
 London : Printed for W. Raynor, near Charing Cross, 1708. 
 
 A copy of this broadsheet still remains in the Guildhall 
 Library, London. It is obviously an appeal to the Protestant 
 prejudices of Queen Anne ; most probably it was not the 
 writing of Lord Griffin, and he was too honourable to make 
 any false pretences, even to save his life 
 
CHAPTER XV. 
 
 THE GRIFFINS OF LONG ICHINGTON. 
 
 WE now turn to the history of the junior members 
 of the Griffin family, whose position in life at the 
 time of the Reformation, and indeed long before 
 it, was poorer in this world's goods, but far 
 happier, for they were removed from the terrible temptation 
 of robbing the Church and the poor; and they have indeed 
 increased and flourished in the land, and many of their 
 descendants are still living in and about Warwickshire and in 
 Staffordshire. They held their property by lease and not in 
 -chief, so that no inquisitions are recorded, and they do not 
 appear in public record as the holders of land ; yet we kno.v 
 ■(chiefly from ecclesiastical records) that they were resident in 
 the County at an early period, and we learn something about 
 their holdings. 
 
 The, Guild of Knowle gives their names, and generally in 
 <;ompany with the Shaksperes. The first notice is of a William 
 Griffin and Agnes, his wife, in the year 1469. He was probably 
 jof Castle Bromwych — a branch of the family whose connection 
 
264 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 (if any) vrith either of the families before mentioned is unknown.. 
 But in the year 1500 Edward Griffin is twice mentioned in the 
 same Roll— once as " Edwardus GryfiEyn et Joys uxor ejus de- 
 Barkyswcll," and again as " Edwardus Gryffyn et Jocosa uxor 
 ejus de Berswell." This is either. Berkswell or Balsall, both 
 places situated in the old forest of Arden and not very far from 
 Wroxall, and at both places we find traces of the Shakspere 
 family. In 1504 Henry Griffith and Elizabeth, his wife, are 
 mentioned in tlie Knowle Roll ; no place is given, because 
 probably he still resided with his father. In 1514 Thomas Griffin 
 and Agnes, his wife, of Fenny Compton, are given, as well as 
 John Griffin and Parnel, his wife, of Hardwick Priors ; and in 
 1523 John Griffin, a single man, of Fenny Compton, is 
 mentioned, together with Thomas a Wood, of Coventry, and 
 Elizabetli, his v/ife. It has been stated already that Thomas a 
 Wood married the daughter of Thomas Griffin, of Fenny 
 Compton, and that he was closely allied to the Shalcsperes,. 
 leaving a legacy to the Poet's grandfather. Here, then, we 
 have notice of Edward Griffin and two of his sons, Henry and 
 Thonias. John Griffin, of Hard\yick Priors, was probably the 
 third son. Tlie Heralds are silent about him, although they 
 mention Francis Griffin, who seems to have remained in the old 
 holding at Bra}'broo]-:, and whose will proves their connection 
 w'ith the Shaksperes. 
 
 Hardwick Priors was a Manor held by the Spencers of 
 
 Northampton — a family closely associated with the Griffins of 
 
 Bra}-brook — the head of which, Sir John Spencer, was 
 
 afterwards much involved in the purchase of property with Sir 
 
 Edward Griffin. This place, as well as Fenny Compton, is 
 
 is situated close to the Manor of Chipping Warden, and in 1510 
 
 Sir Thomas Griffin, of Braybrook, appointed his great uncle 
 
 Richard Griffin (who was then his own rector) to the Rectory 
 
 of Chipping Warden. He took his B.A. at Oxford, 
 
 29th March, 1506 ; he was probably a younger son of Sir 
 
 Nicolas Griffin, by his second wife, and only half-brother of 
 
 Edward of Bersall. Sir Nicolas had three wives, and the Heralds 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 2(^\ 
 
 •give but little information concerning his younger childroa ; 
 very possibly Sir Walter, who held Chipping Warden of tli i 
 Priory of Wroxall, was another brother. Whether tli3 
 settlement of Edward Griffin, at Berswell, was occasioned by 
 the aid of the Rector of Chipping Warden is not clear ; but 
 seeing his close connection with the Priory, and that the 
 Steward had married his niece, it is not difficult to account for 
 the settlement of her brothers at Hardwick Priors, Funny 
 •Compton, and Long Ichington, at all of which places the Priory 
 held lands and rents. 
 
 Except from their wills, mentioned presently, we know bi.t 
 little of the Long Ichington branch. The Heralds' visitations 
 are silent about them ; we only learn that Henry Griffin was 
 the eldest son of Edward, the third son of Sir Nicolas Griffin 
 of Bra}^brook ; and, although only a husbandman, that is a 
 tenant of Abbey lands, his posterity became, on the extinction 
 of the male lines of the Houses of Dingley and Bickmarsh, the 
 representative of this branch of the Princes of Powis, and tlic}'^ 
 are now represented by Marten Harcourt Griffin, Esq., of Tell 
 Wall, Staffordshire, whose seat is very curiously situated in the 
 hundred of Piry, the first residence in England of his anccsloia 
 these Welsh Princes. 
 
 The first we learn of Henry Griffin is that he obtained, at 
 the feast of St. Michael the Archangel, in the third year of 
 King Henry VIH., from the Priory of Wroxall, of which the 
 Lady Isabella Shakspere was then Prioress, a lease for forty 
 years, doing suit of Court at Maxstoke. His holding consisted 
 of a messuage, a curtilage, and five virgates of land — not an 
 inconsiderable property — at the very small rental of thirty-four 
 shilhngs, besides the slight burden of doing suit at Court. When 
 the Church robbers seized this property, this lease was recorded 
 in the Ministers' Accounts (taken the twenty-eighth )xar of 
 Heniy VIIL), unlike poor Richard Shakspere, bailiff of 
 Wroxall, who was summarily ejected from his office and lands ; 
 perhaps in trying to save the ladies of the Priory he might Lave 
 
266 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 treated the miscreants sent to invade the premises with scant 
 courtesy, or possibly this descendant of archers gave them some 
 of his skill and cmining in that art. However that may be^ 
 Henry Griffin, of Long Itchington, possibly through the 
 influence of his cousin, Sir Edward Griffin, kept his farm, and,, 
 as the series of wills of this family show, they increased in 
 wealth and acres. The Subsidy Rolls are a fair test of wealth,, 
 and they show that in 14 Henry VIII. he was assessed at £6— 
 a fair amount at that period ; that in 38 Henry VIIL, Edmund,- 
 his son, had increased the assessment to £10 ; and in 
 2 Edward VI., Edward, his grandson, was assessed at /18 — a 
 very considerable amount at that period; and, as his will 
 shows, he had spread out and amassed land in several parishes. 
 
 We know but little of Edward, father of Henry Griffin, but 
 it is tolerably certain that in his house at Berkswell the Poet'S' 
 grandfather won and wed his daughter Alys. Long Ichington,. 
 in 3 Henry VIIL, was still the property of the Griffins, of 
 Wichnore, but Henry Griffin did not hold under them. The 
 lease was only for forty years, but it must have been renewed, 
 for we find Edmund Griffin, his son, dying possessed of it in 
 1558 ; and Edward Griffin, probably his son, was of that place 
 at the time of his death (1582). He left numerous descendants 
 living at Long Ichington in the time of James II., from whom, 
 possibly, many of the existing families are descended. From 
 the intermarriages between these families and those of Faulkner 
 and Croft, it is tolerably certain that they were also allied to 
 the Blunt family. 
 
 Henry Griffin, the first settler at Long Ichington, by his 
 will, dated 21st August, 1553, and proved the 9th April, 1554, 
 leaves legacies to his daughters, Alyse Wythed and Johann 
 Griffin, and appointed Edmund, his son, sole executor. It was 
 attested by Henry Halkett, Johan Bayley, and Robert Kerby, 
 and his goods were prised by Richard Stonley, John Bayle, and 
 Robert Mere. 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 267 
 
 Pedigree of Griffin of Long Ichiitgton. 
 (See pedigree of Griffin of Braybrook, ante page) 
 
 Edward Griffin = 
 
 : Joyce, dau. of Robert 
 
 of Berswell ; 3rd son 
 
 Leigh of Bucks. 
 
 of Nicholas Griffin 
 
 1500, a member of the 
 
 of Braybrook. 
 
 Guild of Knowle. 
 
 Ao. 1500 a member 
 
 
 of the Guild of 
 
 
 Knowle. 
 
 
 Henry 
 of Long 
 Ichington, 
 1304, Guild 
 of Kiiowle. 
 3 Henry 
 VIIL had 
 lease from 
 Prioress of 
 Wroxall of 
 S virgates 
 of land 
 there; will, 
 1553. 
 
 Elizabeth, 
 1504. 
 
 Thomas : 
 
 of Fenny 
 
 Compton 
 
 I 
 : Agnes. John. 
 
 A 
 
 Francis 
 of Bray- 
 brook. 
 Will 37 
 Henry VIII, 
 
 Alys =: Richard 
 
 Shakspere, 
 " •'•"■ of 
 
 Bailiff 
 Wroxall + 
 1560-1 at 
 Snytterfield 
 
 Richard 
 Woodham of 
 Haseley ; 
 held lease of 
 land at Hase- 
 ley with 
 Richard 
 Shakspere, 
 
 = Agnes 
 Shakspere, 
 
 John=Mary. 
 Shakspere 
 of Snytter- 
 field and 
 Stratford- 
 on-Avon, 
 -f 1601. 
 
 I 
 
 Edmund Griffin ^= Emma 
 of Long Iching- | Woodham. 
 ton. Will, 1558. I 
 Goods prised by | 
 William Shak- 
 spere. I 
 
 William Shakspere. 
 the poet. 
 
 Edward =: Alice, widow John Griffin=Elizabeth, dau. 
 
 Griffin of of Palmer of Kiddermins- of Humphrey 
 
 Long of Snitter- ter,buried 1571. Mydlope, of 
 
 Ichington, field. Kidderminster, 
 
 from whom a widow, buried 
 
 the Griffins 2nd July, 1597. 
 
 of Long - 
 Ichington, 
 
 A 
 
 Humphrey 
 Griffin, of Kid- 
 derminster, 
 Will 1631. 
 
 = Margaret, dau. of 
 Wm, Oldnal, of 
 Waunton, m. at 
 Kidderminster, 
 30 July, 1579. 
 
 John Griffin, bap. 
 at Kidderminster, 
 II Feb., 1 58 1, from 
 whom the Griffins 
 of Pell Wall, 
 county Stafford, 
 
268 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 Edmund, his son, by will dated 7th September, 1557, and 
 proved i6tli April, 1558, mentions John, his son; Eme, his 
 wife ; Ann, Elizabeth, and Margery, his daughters. William 
 Odyngselles, gentleman, and his brother-in-law, Richard 
 Wodams, overseers ; attested by John Heycock and Thomas 
 Stonley ; and his goods were prised John Baily, William 
 Shakespear, Jo, Wodam, and John Heycock. 
 
 There can be little doubt that the William Shakespear here 
 mentioned was also the brother-in-law of Richard Wodams, 
 and the brother or son (probably the latter) of Richard 
 Shakespere, then of Snitterfield, and Alys Griffin, his wife. 
 This Richard Woodham was co-lessee with Richard Shakspere, 
 in 28 Henry VHI., of land in Hazeley. 
 
 It is interesting to see how the presence of both V/odhams 
 and Shaksperes in these wills, and the A. Woods, of Hazeley, 
 identifies the family into which Alys Griffin had married with 
 that of the poet Shakspere. 
 
 A very interesting branch of the Griffin family, which has 
 come down to modern times, and which has still many 
 representatives in Warwickshire, Oxfordshire, Northampton, 
 Bucks, and nearer London, is that of Thomas, younger brother 
 of Henry Griffin, of Long Ichington, who settled at Fenny 
 Compton (see pedigree of Griffin, of this place, hereafter). We 
 have no proof of the actual settlement of this family, but there 
 is proof from the Subsidy Rolls that they were resident there in 
 14 and 15 Henry VHL In the first of the great series of Subsidy 
 Rolls of that King's reign, Thomas Griffin (the first of the 
 name there) held the honourable post of sub-collector, and was 
 himself assessed at the very large sum (at that date) of £20 ; 
 but, as we have seen, there is a still earlier reference to him in 
 the Guild of Knowle, where so many of his family (including 
 his father and brother) are recorded. In 15 14 he and Agnes, 
 his wife, as well as John Griffin, of the adjoining parish of 
 Hardwick Priors, and Pamel his wife, and John Griffin, of 
 Fenny Compton, a single man, are recorded upon the Roll. In 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 269 
 
 1523 is recorded the entry of Elizabeth his daughter, and 
 Thomas a Wood, her husband — the same Thomas, doubtless, 
 who, in 1543, left a yoke of four oxen then in his keeping to his 
 -wife's uncle, Richard Shakspere, of Haseley, who afterwards 
 lemoved to Snitterfield, and whose son was the Poet. 
 
 # 
 
 The descendants of this Thomas Griffin are still to be 
 found in the pleasant country round Fenny Compton, who with 
 royal blood in their veins are no disgrace, but an honour, to 
 the yeomanry of England. 
 
 The following pedigree is partly taken from the Heralds' 
 Visitation, who start with the second Thomas, and call him " a 
 j'ounger son -of Dingley," we have the slenderest evidence to 
 connect him with Thomas, of 14th Henry VUI. — only a 
 statement in the Act-book at Lichfield, that the will of William 
 Griffin, dated 1546, was proved by Thomas his son j but, 
 coupled with the will of the first Thomas, which is fairly 
 elaborate, and the evidence of the Subsidy Rolls, it is sufficient 
 for the purpose. Unfortunately the Court Rolls for the Manor 
 of Fenny Compton, as well as the Parish Registers, appear to 
 be lost. The Manor was subsequently held by the family of 
 Holbech, of Farnborough Hall, who still retain some of the 
 earlier Rolls ; and they prove that George Griffin, of Fenny 
 Compton, in 1625, resided at Tamworth, the seat of the Ferrars 
 family, under whom a branch of the Shakspere family were so 
 long tenants at Baddesley Clinton. 
 
 Pedigree of Thomas Griffin, of Fenny Compton, one of the 
 brothers of Alis Shakspere (see pedigree of Griffin, of Bray- 
 brook). 
 
 The marriage of Richard Griffin, of Fenny Compton, with 
 the widow of William Cokayne, of Cokayne Hatley, although 
 much later in date, assists in proving the identity of this family 
 with that of Braybrook. Francis Cokayne married Ann, 
 daughter of Valentine Knightley, of Fawsley, in Northampton- 
 shire (who in 3 Ehzabeth fined with Sir John Spencer and Sir 
 
270 
 
 THE GENTLE SHAICSPERE. 
 
 Pedigree B. 
 
 Thomas Griffin, - 
 of Fenny Compton. 
 1514 a member of 
 the Guild of Knowle. 
 Will. 1535. 
 
 William Griffin = 
 of Fenny Comp- 
 ton. Will, 1546 
 (lost), proved by 
 Thomas, his son. 
 
 : Agnes Griffin, 
 a member of 
 the Guild of 
 Knowle, 1514. 
 
 I 
 Thomas = Agnes. 
 of Butlers 
 Marston, 
 and of 
 Warwick. 
 
 Richard 
 of AUesley. 
 Will, 1585. 
 
 Elizabeth ux. 
 Thomas, A 
 Wood of 
 Awsley, 
 member of 
 the Guild of 
 Knowle, 151,4 
 
 Thomas Griffin ; 
 of Fenny Comp- 
 ton ; 1634 called 
 by the Heralds 
 a younger son of 
 Dingley ; living 
 13 Eliz. 
 
 George Griffin = 
 of Fenny Comp- 
 ton, living 40 
 Elizabeth, then 
 residing at Tam- 
 ■worth. 
 
 Elizabeth, 
 dan. of 
 Bland of 
 Northamp- 
 ton. 
 
 Alice, davi, 
 of Robert 
 Hervy of 
 Cheverel, 
 Wilts. 
 
 Thomas 
 of Saint 
 Nicholas, 
 Warwick. 
 Will, 
 
 : N.N. : 
 
 : Elizabeth, 
 second 
 wife. 
 
 I 
 Thomas. 
 William. 
 John, 
 Alice, ux Revd. 
 
 Thos, Pilkington 
 Ann. 
 
 Elizabeth. 
 Catherine. 
 
 Thomas = 
 of Warwick, I 
 
 John Griffin, = Anna. Thomas, George, 
 
 of Fenny Comp- living livjny 
 
 ton (see Heralds 1634. 1034. 
 
 Visn. 1634). 
 Will, 1656. 
 
 Richard of = Widow of 
 
 John Griffin 
 of Fenny 
 Compton, 
 Will, 1640. 
 
 James. Martha. 
 
 Cokayne 
 Hatley. 1634 
 altuwed the 
 Dingley arms 
 by the 
 Heralds. 
 
 N.N. ux 
 Knibb of 
 
 Fenny 
 Compton. 
 
 William 
 Cokayne of 
 Cokayne 
 Hatley. 
 
 Richard, 
 living 1634, 
 set. 1 year. 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 271 
 
 Edward Griffin, Attorney General, for Hardwick Priors), and 
 Valentine Knightley himself married Ann, daughter of Henry 
 Ferrars, of Baddesley Clinton, we shall see presently that at 
 one time (35 Elizabeth) Henry Ferrar's estates were held by 
 Ryce Griffin, of Bickmarsh. Constance, daughter of Sir 
 Valentine Knightley, married Henry, son of Sir Robert Acton, 
 of Ribbesford, brother of Thomas Acton, of Sutton, one of 
 whose daughters married Sir Thomas Lucy, of Charlecot, the 
 bigoted persecutor of the Catholics, and the tyrant who 
 maltreated the Poet Shakspere. The niece of this lady married 
 the Earl of Southampton, who behaved as nobly to his 
 kinsman, Shakspere, as Sir Thomas had behaved badly. 
 
 Another branch of the Griffin family settled at Warwick,, 
 in the Parish of St. Nicholas, where they acquired considerable 
 property through the influence, and by the grant of, Clement 
 Throckmorton, of Hazeley, son of Sir George Thockmorton, of 
 Coughton, a great uncle of the wives of Sir Ryce Griffin and Sir 
 Henry Griffith. This noble man, Clement Throckmorton,, 
 seems not only to have sheltered the members of the Shakspere 
 family, when ruined through the rapacity of Henry VIH.^ 
 but he assisted their relatives (and his own), the poorer 
 members of the Grifiin family. 
 
 The most interesting member of this family wa& 
 Bartholomew Griffin, the poet, who was the son of George 
 Griffin, who in the good old Catholic times was Rector of 
 Rockingham, and who must have been a very old man when he 
 married — when that glorious liberty was given him at the great 
 reformation — ^for he is mentioned in the will of his brother. Sir 
 Nicolas, in 1509, as then holding the Rectory, and in 1570 (sixty 
 years afterwards) his nephew. Sir Edward Griffin, A.G., entailed 
 his estates upon him and his children in default of his own 
 issue— a devise which did not benefit him or his posterity, for 
 Sir Edward's issue did not fail immmediately. Bartholomew 
 Griffin, curiously, though the son of a Catholic priest, himself 
 adhered to the old faith. We hear of him at Bidford, in 1582 
 
2T2 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 obtaining a license to eat meat in Lent, and he was buried at 
 Coventry, 15th December, 1602, at the Church of the Holy 
 Trinity. His will was proved in London the 13th of May, 
 1603, by Catherine, his widow, and his son, Ryce. He 
 bequeathed to his son £(iQ out of the arrears of the annuity 
 given to him by Mr. Edward Griffin, of Dingley (son of the 
 Attorney General), who was then living. He mentions his 
 sister, Mary Fisher, and his brother, Thomas Pursloe. 
 
 Ralf Griffin, the elder brother of Bartholomew, the Poet 
 was Rector of Chipping Warden, and subsequently became Dean 
 ■of Lincoln. He had probably been Rector of Bromyard, 
 under the patronage of the Blmits. He had a son Silvanus 
 baptised there in 1564, whe is probably identical with Silvanus 
 GriiEn, Dean of Hereford ; and certainly Bartholomew, another 
 son, who subsequently became Rector of Fenny Bentley, in 
 Derbyshire, where his descendants remained long afterwards. 
 
 There can be but little doubt that the two poets, William 
 Shakspere and Bartholomew Griffin, kept up their kinship in 
 blood and in letters, both in Warwickshire and amongst the 
 wits of London, since their poems became so intermixed that 
 the true authorship was not properly known. Griffin wrote 
 some exquisite poetry, but he had not the refinement and purity 
 of morals, nor, indeed, the grand genius, of his greater cousin. 
 ■Curiously, he wrote his sonnets much in the same style as those 
 of William Shakspere, and the pirate publishers may almost be 
 •excused for confounding them. In the Passionate Pilgrim, 
 published under the name of W. Shakspere, are to be found 
 some very lovely sonnets of Bartholmew Griffin, who, of course, 
 being also a Cathohc, was, like Shakspere, unable to sue the 
 pirate or to put a stop to their publications. Unfortimately, 
 for this reason but little of his poetry has come down to us. 
 He appears to have been a member of one of the Inns of Court, 
 "but owing to his religion he was unable to distinguish himself at 
 the Bar or even to practise at it. 
 
CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 RYCE GRIFFIN OF BICKMARSH. 
 
 AVERY important member of the Griffin family, whof 
 must have been well known to the Poet, being only- 
 three or four years his senior in age, was Sin 
 Ryce Griffin, Kt., Lord of the Manors of Bickmarsh, 
 Exal, Bidford, and Burnels Broom, and the owner of much land 
 in Warwickshire. By the will of his father (Sir Edward Griffin>, 
 A.G., see page 252 ante) in case his brother Edward should die 
 without heirs (he did not) all the estates of the family were to^ 
 come to him. As this was not probable, his father left him a- 
 legacy of ;^5,ooo (a prodigious sum in those days) for the 
 purchase of land during his nonage, which were to be strictly- 
 settled upon him and his brother Edward successively in tail, 
 with remainder to the right heirs of Sir Edward Griffin, who- 
 already possessed Bickmarsh, The Executors duly proceeded to 
 purchase lands for him, and the first moneys seem to have been 
 invested in the purchase of the Manors of Preston Bagot, 
 Wootton Wawen, Bidford and Broom, Burton, Marcle,_ 
 Kingsham and Exall, with fisheries in the rivers Avon and 
 Arrow. How some of these names recall the clever doggerel. 
 
2/4 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 which those who believed in the anecdotes about the Poet's beer- 
 drinking so fondly cherished. These were purchased from Clement 
 Throckmorton and Lewis Greville, and in the following Trinity- 
 term 840* of land and houses were bought of William Clopton 
 and Ann, his wife, in Stratford-on-Avon, Ingon, Old Stratford, 
 and Clopton, including, probably, some of the very lands which 
 the Poet died seized of. These purchases were made and the 
 fines levied when Ryce was a mere boj' of nine or ten, and 
 when he could not, properly, be cognizee of a fine, although 
 they were confirmed in 22 Elizabeth. It has always been 
 assumed that Ryce Griffin was the son of Sir Edward by Lady 
 :Stonor, his third wife, and this would make him only nine or 
 ten years old at the period of these fines; and that fact is 
 -established by the Chancery suit already mentioned. 
 
 A glance at the fines next given will show that Ryce Griffin 
 was dealing with many of the Poet's relations — with John 
 Coombe, W. Ewyas, Thomas Hill, and William Cookes — which 
 is at least highly suggestive of an intimate connection with them, 
 which would be quite natural, though as a much richer man he 
 might not be on very friendly terms with the poet himself. 
 
 The fact that Ryce Griffin was assessed in 35 Elizabeth for 
 £20 of land in Baddesley Clinton, the same value at which his 
 other Manors and lands were assessed, is a puzzle which the 
 few fines found relating to this place — which was clearly a 
 Ferrars' Manor — do not explain. Fortunately a history of 
 Baddesley Clinton has been written, and it is hoped that it will 
 be shortly issued, which will doubtless explain how it happened 
 that Ryce Griffin was assessed for Henry Ferrars' land. Henry 
 Ferrars was the famous antiquary of that name, and a strict 
 Catholic ; possibly Ryce Griffin, after the fashion of Protestant 
 relatives, obtained possession of his land improperly on account 
 of Ferrars' recusancy. This was a common practice at this 
 period, and one of the worst and most deplorable consequences 
 of the new religion. Children were tempted to betray their 
 parents, and even to denounce them as Catholics, and then to 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 275 
 
 get a grant of their estates for themselves. Many famihes were 
 torn assunder by these disgraceful intrigues, many an elder 
 brother ejected — a worthy man, probably, who preferred his 
 conscience to his estates, and a worthless relatiA^e, without 
 <;onduct or conscience, ousted him and obtained possession of 
 Ihe estates for himself. This will account, probably, for the 
 •conduct of Sir Thomas Throckmorton, an upright and honourable 
 man, who, if Henry Ferrars were thus treated — as it seems most 
 probable — must have looked with disgust upon his son-in-law, 
 :Sir Ryce Griffin, and he would do everything in his power to 
 -punish and degrade him. It is amusing to see how the old 
 Papist degraded Ryce Griffin's Protestant Church by his 
 -exposure — a thing he would have little difficulty in doing, so 
 degiaded had the clergy become after the establishment of the 
 great Reformation. Instead of reforming the manners of the 
 <;lerg3', and improving their morality, it, in fact, degraded them 
 beloAv the level of domestic servants. 
 
 Star Chamber Proceeding, G. i, 11 (circa. 38 Elizabeth). 
 
 Rice Gryffin, of Burnels Broom, County of Warwick, Esq., complains 
 that he is seized in the Manor of Bidford, County of Warwick, in his 
 -demesne as of fee, and is lawfully seized of like estate of 200 acres of 
 .arable lands, meadow, and pasture, at and being in Ecclesall in the said 
 County of Warwick, adjoining to the said Manor, part of which land in 
 Ecclesall is parcel of your subjects demesne of the Manor of Bidford. 
 There is also in Ecclesall a certain heath ground containing about 200 
 acres, which was formerly arable land, and in the said heath, and in 
 other land adjoining your said subject and his tenants of the said lands 
 jn Ecclesall have had from time immemorial common of pasture for all 
 manner of cattle to gaine and manure the said land. And, whereas, 
 -Sir Thomas Throckmorton, of Coughton, County of Warwick, Esq., 
 hath also certain lands in Ecclesall, which he pretendeth to be holden 
 of him as of his Manor of Oversley, in the said County of Warwick, 
 and as he also pretendeth hath the hke title for himself and his tenants 
 ;to entercomon in the said waste accordingly. And, likewise, one Francis 
 Burnel, gentleman, is also seized of certain lands in Ecclesall. And 
 -Sir Fulke Greville, Knight, and others are likewise seized in divers lands 
 in Ecclesall by reason of which they have had entercomon with their 
 
2-](, THE GEN'TLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 cattle in said waste in Ecclesall, and so your subject and they have 
 always used and enjoyed the said common and heath ground with their 
 cattle. But Thomas Throckmorton, bearing some displeasure against 
 your subject, pretended said waste ground belonged to his Manor of 
 Oversley, and about 28th of April 38 Elizabeth, accompanied by 
 Morrice Walsingham, Thomas Chapman, Thomas Kempson, and 
 various others, to the number of thirty, all armed, assembled at 
 Oversley Park, when Throckmorton sent for your subject, having 
 married one of the daughters of the said Thomas Throckmorton, to 
 come to him, and not suspecting any harm, but unaccompanied and 
 unarmed, at which time said Throckmorton maliciously picked open 
 quarrel with your subject prohibiting and commanding him and his 
 tenants and farmers of his land in Ecclesall aforesaid not to use or 
 enjoy any common of pasture for their cattle on the heath or common 
 ground in Ecclesall aforesaid. Your subject not removing his cattle 
 from the pasture about the 9th May 38 of your Majesty's reign, sent 
 his servants to the Parish Church of Ecclesall, and to Withlattford 
 Chappel, to one Robert Barker, dark, incumbent in said Church, 
 commanding him to make open proclamation in your Majesty's name 
 at the time of service to command all the tenants, etc., of Throck- 
 morton to meet him, Throckmorton, on the heath at Ecclesall ; on 20thf 
 July, 38 Elizabeth, Throckmorton met his tenants and servants, and 
 advised one of his servants — Raphael Butler — to murder your subject 
 and make a deed of gift of his goods to Throckmorton, and he prays- 
 for writs of subpoena. 
 
 Answer of the said Thomas Throckmorton, dated 15th June,. 
 39 Elizabeth, denying the said allegations mentioned by Ryce GrifSn. 
 himself. That the lands were formerly arable shows that his claim was 
 groundless ; in accordance with the new manners the labourers who 
 tilled it had doubtless been strung up as sturdy beggars, and the land 
 turned into a sheep walk ; but this would give Ryce no right of 
 common. Interrogatories, 9, 42, 28. 
 
 In a suit in the Court of Requests, No. 491, Gr. Gibson, 3' 
 June 41 Elizabeth, Rice Griffin, of Burnels Broom, refers to the 
 Lady Elizabeth St. John as his mother. 
 
 Very little is known of the Bickmarsh family ; like that of 
 Craybrook and Dingley, they lasted for three generations and. 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 2TJ 
 
 then disappeared ; a few broken and displaced tombs in 
 Wixford Church alone remain to attest their ancient wealth and 
 power in the County. 
 
 Edward Griffin, son of Sir Ryce, married Elizabeth, daughter 
 •of Sir Philip Draycott, but his only son who left issue was 
 Edward, his second son, who married Ann, daughter of Richard 
 Vaughan, of Courtfield — a fine old Catholic family which 
 remained staunch to the true faith, and which is now represented 
 by no less a personage than his eminence Cardinal Vaughan, 
 Archbishop of Westminster. Whether they, too, were extrava- 
 gant, like the Dingley family, is unknown ; but their great 
 wealth — so much of it made out of the spoils of the Church — 
 had vanished, and poor Ann Vaughan had a pitiable tale to tell 
 ■Cromwell's commissioners in 1653. This was reported as her 
 condition : " Ann Griffin widow, of Brickmarsh, a recusant, has 
 to maintain old Mr. Griffin and his wife, both seventy years old, 
 his brother (no doubt Nicolas), four sons and two daughters, a 
 widow and three children, besides herself and children." 
 
 Of her own ten children little is known. Richard, the 
 eldest, must have remained in the old faith, for he married the 
 daughter and heir of that good man and great scholar, Thomas 
 Blunt, the historian, but he left no issue. Nicholas, his brother, 
 succeeded, but he, too, died childless, and Joseph, a London 
 tobacconist, a man of wealth, next inherited Bickmarsh. He 
 died childless, the last of the race, except two ancient ladies, 
 his maiden sisters, Teresa and Winifred. Bickmarsh had 
 evidently long ceased to be a property of value, for there was a 
 mortgage of ^"3,000 (a large sum at that period) upon it, and 
 probably was so indebted when it came to Joseph. Thus 
 passed away the last male of the issue of the great Attorney 
 General of Queens Mary and Elizabeth, the representative of 
 Kings and of Princes without number. 
 
 This race, unlike the Long Ichington and Fenny Compton 
 tranches, had none of the blood of the Shaksperes in their 
 
 -veins. 
 
278 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 Hil. 3 Elizabeth. Sir Edward Griffin fined with Rowland 
 Heyward, George Basford, and Francis Bowyer for the Manor 
 of Bickmarsh als Bi.ginersh for £280 ; and Pasc, in the same 
 5'3ar Valentine Knightley fined with John Spenser, Knight, 
 Edward Griffin, A.G. of the Queen, Richard Newport, and 
 William Gent, for the Manor of Hardwick Priors and Merston, 
 after the death of Ursula Knightly. 
 
 Mich. 12 and 13 Elizabeth. Ryce Griffin fined with. 
 Clement Throckmorton and Catherine, his wife, for Preston 
 Bagot, and 20 messuages, 600 acres of land, 200 acres of mead,, 
 and 40' arable land in Wootton Wawen ; and with Lewis 
 Greville, for Bidford, Broom Burnel, Barston, Marcle,. 
 Kingsham, and Exall, and for fisheries in the Avon and Arowe. 
 Confirmed, 22 Elizabeth, to same uses as the fine of William 
 Clopton. 
 
 Trin. 13 Elizabeth. Ryce Griffin, Esq., fined with Wilham 
 Clopton, and Ann, his wife, for 2 messuages, 500' land, 
 70 mead, 70' pasture, 200' wood, in Stratford, Ingon, Old 
 Stratford, and Clopton, to him in tail, remainder to Edward his 
 brother in tail, reversion to the right heirs of Edward Griffyn,, 
 his father. 
 
 Mich. 26 and 27 Elizabeth. Ryce Gryffyn and Margaret,. 
 his wife, and Thomas Throckmorton fined for land at Exall, 
 Wyxford, Burnels Broom, Bydford, and Haselor, with warranty 
 against George Skinner. 
 
 Pasc. 32 Elizabeth. Rice Griffin fined with Thomas 
 Badger, jun., for 2 messuages, 4" land, 6" meadow, and 8" pasture 
 in Bydford and Marcliffe ; and another fine between the same 
 parties concerning the same property was levied in Mich. 32 and 
 33 Elizabeth. 
 
 Mich. 34 and 35 Elizabeth. Richard Griffin fined witb 
 Edward Kemson for land in Broom and Bidford. 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 279 
 
 Hil. 35 Elizabeth. Rice Griffin fined with Robert Calcott 
 and George Venables for land in Preston Bagot. 
 
 Pasc. 35 Elizabeth, Rice Griffin fined with Bartholomew 
 Kighley for land in Bidford, he was also fined with Edward 
 Greville for land in Haseley, and with William Coombe for land 
 at Old Stratford. 
 
 Trin. 35 Elizabeth. Edward Greville fined with Ryce 
 Gryffyn and Margaret, his wife, for i6' pasture and 50* wood in 
 Haselor, with warranty against Thomas Throckmorton and 
 Margaret, his wife, George and Anthony Skinner. 
 
 Mich. 35 and 36 Ehzabeth. Thomas Spencer fined with 
 Rice Griffin for land at Preston Bagot and Wootton Wawen. 
 
 Pasc. 36 Elizabeth. Rice Griffin fined with Bartholomew 
 Kighley and Philip Kighley for 100' land in Bidford. 
 
 Pasc. 36 Elizabeth. John Coombe fined with Ryce Griffin 
 for land at Stratford-on-Avon ; and Thomas Throckmorton fined 
 with the same for land at Burnels Broom ; and the same term, 
 Edward Griffin, of Dingley, fined with Thomas Badger for land 
 at Bidford. 
 
 Pur. B.V.M. 40 Elizabeth. Ryce Griffin and Margaret, his 
 wife, granted 30^ land, 30* mead, 60" pasture, 10* wood, and 
 30' heath, together 160", for /200, in Ingon and Bishops 
 Hampton, to William Cookes, gentleman. 
 
 East. 36 Elizabeth. Edward Gryffyn and Thomas Hill fined 
 with Thomas Badger and Johanna, his wife, for a messuage and 
 garden, 8° land, 2= mead, and 2* pasture, in Bidford, Burnels 
 Broom, and Marcliffe ; and Thomas Throckmorton fined with 
 Ryce Gryffyn and Margaret, his wife, for one water mill, 
 20' meadow, 20" pasture, 3' wood, and 12" water enclosed in 
 Bamels Broom, King's Broom, and Blachford, alias Wychford, 
 and a free fishery in the Arrow, with warranty against Leonard 
 Dannett and Lewis Greville. 
 
28o THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 Trin. 42 Elizabeth. William Ewyns bought land from 
 Richard Griffin in Marcliffe and Bidford, 3 cottages, 3 gardens, 
 3 orchards, loo* land, 4' meadow, 4' pasture, ;^ioo. 
 
 23rd April, 1607, C.P. (B. and A.), ante 1714, Milford L, 
 part I, No. 29. Ryce Griffin, of Biurnel Broom, County- 
 Warwick, Kt., complains against Cecil Hill, of Grantham, in the 
 County of Lincoln, Esq., whose father-in-law was brother to 
 your orator and lived at Dingley, concerning the sale of a horsco 
 From this suit it would appear that although the marriage of 
 Sir Edward Griffin's son with the daughter of Sir Thomas 
 Gorges, as proposed by Lord Burleigh, had not taken place yet, 
 that a marriage had been contracted between a daughter of Sir 
 Edward's and a gentleman whose Christian name was Cecil. 
 
CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 SOME DOUBTFUL POINTS. 
 
 THERE are several families, and amongst them the 
 family of Spencer of Wormleighton, whose histories, 
 properly investigated, would throw much light upon 
 the history of the Shaksperes. The family of Spencer 
 which now enjoys the Dukedom of Marlbrough, as well as the 
 Earldom of Spencer, was closely connected with the group of 
 famihes represented by the Griffins, the Morcotts, Willes, and 
 Shaksperes. 
 
 The Spencers claim descent from Hugh le Dispencer, 
 Justiciary of England, in the time of Henry III., but it is 
 needless to point out that this is merely a poetical fancy of 
 some ingenious Herald. Spencer or Dispencer is a very 
 common name all over the country, being simply another form 
 of the name of Steward or Senescal, and it is eminently absurd 
 to use this name for the purposes of identity if there be no 
 other evidence. 
 
 The first of whom anything positive is known was Sir 
 John Spencer, of Wormleighton, who purchased that estate 
 
282 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 from the Copes, in 1503 ; he married Isabel, daughter and 
 co-heir of Walter Grant, of Snjrtterfield, whose sister married 
 Richard Willes, of Prior Marston, neai Wormleighton. Sir 
 John Spencer died 1522, and his son — Sir William — died soon 
 after, in 1532, having married the daughter of Sir Richard 
 Knightly, of Fawsley, County Northampton, and his son — Sir 
 John — succeeded him. It was probably through his connection 
 with the Knightly family that he became associated with Sir 
 Edward GrifBn, A.G., in the purchase of Warwickshire 
 property ; amongst other estates, bought by them together, 
 was the Manor of Fenny Compton, in which, as previously 
 mentioned, when part of the possessions of Wroxall Abbey, 
 Thomas Griffin, brother of Alys Shakspere, had been settled for 
 some time. 
 
 It was Thomas Howard (Earl of Arundel) who, in a debate 
 upon the Royal prerogative, in 162 1, twitted Baron Spencer with 
 his humble origin. "My lord," said Howard, "when these 
 things were doing your ancestors were keeping sheep." " Yes," 
 said Spencer, " and yours were plotting treason." A combat of 
 wit, which, in those days of freedom, ended with the Earl of 
 Arundel being committed to the Tower, as the first aggressor ; 
 upon which he was only released after making a proper 
 apology. 
 
 This sheep breeding was curiously a consequence of the 
 great Reformation, the nobles and greedy gentry who obtained 
 the lands of the Church did not take kindly to the biffdens 
 upon it, and they declined to support the old Abbey tenants 
 and labourers who had been maintained upon them, and in 
 order to make the most for themselves they turned their small 
 holdings into sheep walks. The period of the prosperity of 
 the religious foundations was that happy epoch, so often sighed 
 for, when every rood of land maintained its man ; but, as before 
 noticed, Henry VIII. did his best to promote the comfort of 
 the new landlords — who preferred the roods to the men— by 
 hanging as many of these "sturdy beggars," as the poor 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 283 
 
 • 
 
 labourers were called, by the roadside, as his myrmidons could 
 capture. 
 
 Sir John Spencer seems to have been good to his wife's 
 kindred, for he settled a branch of the Willes family at Fenny 
 Compton, and several of the Griffins obtained holdings under 
 him. 
 
 There are traces amongst the early Lichfield wills of a 
 Parnel Griffin and a John Griffin, of Hardwick Priors, who both 
 died in 1546, but whose wills are imfortunately lost ; and there 
 is a will remaining, dated 1557, of William Griffin, of 
 Wormleighton, who describes himself as shepherd to Sir John 
 Spencer, who left a wife (Anys) and children. 
 
 It was probably through the descent of his mother, Susan, 
 daughter of Sir Richard Knightly, that Sir John Spencer became 
 more closely connected with the Shaksperes, her mother being 
 a daughter of Sir Edward Ferrars, of Baddesley Clinton, and the 
 Knightlys being also allied by marriage to the Throckmortons, 
 of Coughton and Haseley. And it is quite possible that 
 the marriage between Richard Shakspere and Alys Griffin 
 resulted from this connection, although the settlement of 
 Edward Griffin at Berswell preceded the settlement of the 
 Spencers at Wormleighton by several years. There is another 
 family who were seated at Baddesley Clinton, whose connection 
 is also of interest to this inquiry, the Metley oi: Medleys. 
 Nicholas Metley, whose will is still in the possession of the 
 Ferrars family at Baddesley, was buried in the Temple Church, 
 Londcm, 16 Henry VI., holding Baddesley Chnton and Wolston ; 
 and his daughter and co-heir (Margaret, wife of Thomas 
 Hugford) sold lands to her cousin, William Medley, son of 
 Benedict Medley, of Warwick, who (i Richard III.) bought 
 Whitnash. He bore sable two barres gemelle argent upon 
 a chief of the second, three mullets of the first, Benedict 
 Medley was a clerk of the signet, and he died 13th October, 
 Henry VII., and the Inq. P.M. shows that he held much land 
 
284 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 under the priory of Wroxall at Bewsall and Haseley. He also- 
 held land in Warwick, Bishampton, Cornbrook, Kington, Myton 
 and Cotton, Tachbrook Malory, Bushwood, Preston Bagot, 
 Lap-worth, Berkswell, Shrawley, and Hatton, all places of 
 interest to this inquiry. 
 
 There are sepulchral brasses to Benedict Medley and his. 
 wife at Whitnash, absurdly plastered on one side wall of the 
 chancel ; but the legend is missing. Rubbings are preserved in 
 the British Museum. Add 32,489 H.H. 3 and 32490 Y.Y. 15. 
 
 Unfortunately, the early Registers of Whitnash are lost. 
 William Medley, son of Benedict, was twenty-three years old at 
 the time of the Inquisition P.M. In his will, preserved in the 
 Probate Office, London (dated 2nd September, 1508), he is 
 described as "oon of the clerks," he mentions his uncle, 
 Gerard Dennett. He married Margaret, daughter of Sir Robert 
 Wotton, who subsequently married Thomas second Marquis of 
 Dorset, grandson of Elizabeth Widville, Queen of Edward IV. 
 
 His son, George Medley, appears to have left Warwickshire 
 for a richer property (that of Titley Abbey), and to have sold 
 much of his property in Warwickshire to William Morcott, who 
 had purchased Leamington Priory, and whose daughter married 
 Richard Willes, of Newbold Comyn, related to Richard Willes, 
 who with Sir John Spencer married a co-heir of Grant, of 
 Snitterfield. 
 
 George Medley died 1557, and his will was proved loth 
 May, 1 Elizabeth. He mentions his uncle. Dr. Wotton, Dean of 
 Canterbury', and he was still holding lands at Rowington, 
 formerly the possession of Wroxall Priory. A further interest 
 in the family is that John Gryffyn, of Long Ichington (see 
 pedigree, page 267), married a daughter of Humphrey Midlope, 
 of Kidderminster, whose will (Worcester Registry) is dated 9th 
 August, 1 56 1, and who leaves a legacy to his grandson and 
 godson, Humphrey Griffin, of that place. There can be but 
 little doubt that the ancient name of the Medleys was 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 285 
 
 • 
 
 Medleyhope, or Midhope, in Shropshire, an ancient and 
 knightly family, who disappear from that county about the time 
 that we find them settling in Warwickshire. They appear to 
 have been tenants, in Salop, of the Griffins, or, as they were 
 called, the Griffiths, of Wichnore, so that theirs was an old 
 family connection. 
 
 Robert Medley, of Whitnash, by his will dated 1547, 
 mentions his brother, Humphrey, who was probably the Kidder- 
 minister man. Humphrey Griffin, son of John Griffin, of 
 Kidderminister and Long Ichington, married, 30th January, 1579, 
 Margery, daughter of William Oldenal, of Waunton, who died 
 1 603, who was a member of another Rowington family, and one of 
 great interest, irrespective of their connection with the Shaksperes, 
 although it is useful in its illustration. The first we learn of 
 this family is from the will of Thomas Forester Parcur, of 
 Duclent, the property of Sir Edward Neville, Lord Baver- 
 genny, whose daughter married Clement Throckmorton, of 
 Haselej', under whom he was also steward of a small Manor in 
 Kidderminster. There is a beautiful brass to him in Chaddesley 
 Corbet Church, from which it would seem that besides his wife, 
 Margery, he left five sons and seven daughters ; there are two 
 coats of anus on the brass, one to the left, two arrows crossed, 
 and the other a hunting horn, evidently the insignia of his 
 office. He makes no mention of his family except that he left to 
 his daughter, Jane, the land which he held of the Abbot of 
 Bordesley, with remainder to his daughter, Elleanor. He left 
 many legacies to churches, to Chaddesley, to the high altar of 
 Stone, to our Lady of Kidderminster, near the Trinity, to our 
 Lady of Hartlebury, and to our Lady's service at Stone, twenty 
 sheep of those that were in the keeping of Thomas Parkes, and 
 all his beys (oxen) which shall be with John Oldnal, his houses 
 at Lye and Stone to the the warden of our Lady's Chapel of 
 Stone for foimding a priests' house ; 3s. 4d. to buy a crysmatory 
 for Hagley Church. John Goldsmith (probably John Littleton, 
 of Frankley) and Thomas A. War-pur, overseers. 
 
286 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 This mention of Lye and Hagley is interesting, since it 
 probably accounts for members of the Shakspere and Griffin 
 families having settled at Hagley and Old Swinford, where also 
 the Parkes family settled. Several of the Oldnals married at 
 Hagley and Churchill. WilHam Oldnal and Alice Smith, 
 probably the parents of Humphrey Griffin's wife, married at 
 Hagley in 1562, and John Oldnal and Margery Parkes married 
 there in 1587. 
 
 Probably the Parkes family are of the male issue of Thomas 
 Forester, the names being synonymous, and in all probability 
 John Oldnal was another son, Oldnal possibly being Thomas 
 Forester's family name. 
 
 There is a will at Worcester of Agnes Oldnal, of Stone 
 (probably the widow of this John, of Stone, of 151 1), dated 
 1541, who mentions John, Thomas, Richard, Nicholas, and Ann 
 Oldnal (without mentioning their relationship), as well as 
 Richard Oldnal, her son ; Margaret Oldnal, her daughter ; and 
 Richard Tomys, her son-in-law. 
 
 We get the best information respecting these brethren from 
 the will of Thomas Oldnal, of St. Pulcras, London, and 
 Haversham, Bucks, dated 9th April, 37 Henry VUL He was 
 a very rich merchant, who disposes of much gold and silver 
 plate, diamonds, sapphire, and emeralds. He refers to two 
 brothers, John and Roger, and his nephew, William (son of his 
 eldest brother, not named) and he leaves a legacy to the Church 
 of Rowenton. 
 
 John Oldnal, of Rowington, who was bailiff or steward of 
 the Manor, died nth August, 1558, aged seventy-six. By his 
 will, which gives much information, he left lands in Warwick, 
 Haseley, Bewsall, Preston Bagot, Rowington, Wallford, and 
 Wigston. John Oldnal mentions his sons, John and William, 
 and his daughters, Alice ux John Jennett, Dorothy, Elizabeth 
 ux William Hancoxe, Catherine ux Thomas Hunt, Jane ux John 
 Jeffre}', Margaret ux John Wandel, and Emma ux Nicholas 
 Colle. 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 287 
 
 Roger Oldnal, his brother, of the same place, by his will, 
 dated 1556, amongst other property devised certain copyhold 
 lands in Rowington, called The Hills, to Marye, his wife (which 
 were formerly the lands of Jone Shakspere, deceased). This 
 Jone Shakspere was probably the widow of John Shakspere, 
 and an ancestor of either John Oldnall or his wife. He left 
 issue, John and Thomas and a daughter, Dennis Smith. 
 
 As before observed, the Medleys seem to have sold their 
 Tachbrook property to the Morcotts, and under one or other of 
 them Robert Shakspere, a weaver, settled there, and in 1559 he 
 married Ann Sheward, of Haseley. There is but little doubt 
 that this Robert was of the family of Richard Shakspere, 
 weaver, of Haseley, in the time of King Henry VHI., whose 
 will has been already given. There is the will of a Jone GrifEn 
 proved at Stratford-on-Avon, 1598-9, in which she refers to her 
 daughter Bennett, wife of Richard Sheward, of Inkborough. It 
 appears, also, that she bad another daughter, Agnes, wife of 
 Thomas Bucke„ This family were tenants of the Manor of 
 Rowington. 
 
 Robert Shakspere had a family — (i) Roger, who married 
 successively Isabella Parkins and Alice Higgins (of a Hagley 
 family), and by the last wife he had issue, John, who seems to 
 have had further issue, Roger who was also a weaver died 
 1605; his will is at Lichfield; (2) John; (3) (probably) 
 Thomas and three daughters — Isabella ux. Thos. Turner, Alice 
 ux. Thomas Hawkes, and Joan ux. Lawrence Savage, 
 
 We also find at Tachbrook, the marriage of Thomas (son 
 of Roger) Oldnal, before mentioned, of Rowington, and 
 Prudence, daughter of Richard Warner, of Ratcliff, 14th March, 
 1580. This lady was repeatedly fined as a recusant in 2 
 Elizabeth's reign, and the same year (1580), Anna, daughter of 
 Edward and Ann Coombe, was baptised there. 
 
 This last entry arose from the fact that John Coombe, of 
 Warwick, son of John Coombe, (by Rosa Clopton), of Stratford- 
 
288 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 on-Avon, married Johanna, daughter of William Morcott, of 
 Cubbington, son of Henry Morcott, of Tachbrook, and WiUiam 
 and John Coombe, their children, were baptised at Cubbington 
 in 1608 and 1609. 
 
 Edward Coombe appears to have resided at Wasperton, 
 he was the eldest son of John Coombe just mentioned, by 
 Jocosa, daughter of Sir Edward Blunt, of Kidderminster, 
 therefore half brother of the 2nd John. He married Anna, 
 daughter of Stephen Hales, of Newland, brother of Bartholomew 
 Hales, of Snitterfield, (the Shakespere's friend), and brother also 
 of Christopher Hales, who married a daughter of Sir Thos. 
 Lucy, of Charlcot, Edward Coombe had two daughters — ^Anna, 
 baptised 1580 at Tachbrook, she married Robert Decon, of 
 Wasperton ; and Jocosa, her sister, married Francis Cornwall, 
 of Burford, whose sister married Gilbert Littleton, of Hagley. 
 
 In the year 1550 there is the baptism at Tachbrook, of 
 William, son of John Campion ; it is not a common name, and 
 possibly it may have no connection with Edward Campion, the 
 Jesuit, who was bom in 1540, within the sound of Bow Bells, 
 London ; but very possibly he was a relative, and very certainly 
 both the Poet and the Jesuit must have met at Kenilworth 
 very frequently, which is not far from Tachbrook, as well as 
 the home of the Shaksperes. 
 
CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 JOHN JORDON, THE STRATFORD POET. 
 
 ALTHOUGH traditionary evidence is not to be accepted 
 too hastily, it cannot, with safety, be summarily 
 rejected, and the candid enquirer will anxiously turn 
 to the works of Jordon, the Stratford Poet, as he has 
 been called by way of joke, who has embodied in his works, 
 probably, a fair summary of all the traditions which were 
 extant in his day, and which, after making allowance for error, 
 cannot but be of value in this. His work is brought down to 
 the year 1790, so that the testimony which he gives, coming 
 after so long a period from the Poet's death, must be received 
 with caution. Even with the best intentioned witnesses, 
 errors will creep in after so long a date. 
 
 It was, with great disappointment, that the author found, 
 on leferring to Jordon's M.SS, some of which are now in the 
 Free Library at Birmingham, that they have been tampered with, 
 and probably altered in parts ; by whom, or when, could not be 
 explained by the librarian, who thought that probably the 
 mutilations had not been noticed before. 
 
290 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 The traditionary evidence can, however, be fairly made 
 out from the context ; the forger has blundered in one place, 
 and has left sufficient evidence behind him, to show the name 
 he was trying to hide. Who was it that desired to set up 
 another theory ? or to sniash Jordans ? 
 
 It was upon the important question of the name of the 
 first ancestor of the Poet, known to his contemporaries, that of 
 his great grandfather, of which the Heralds would appear to 
 have been ignoiant. 
 
 This name is clearly given by Jordan as John, no place 
 is given, and he is not certain whether there were three or four 
 degrees between this John and the Poet ; and, it is tolerably 
 clear that this correction or obliteration of the name was not 
 made by Jordan, because in a later MS. he again gives the name 
 of John as that of the first known of the Poets ancestors, and 
 this MS. has been printed by Halliwell-Phillips intact. Jordan 
 also points out very clearly that the Shaksperes came from the 
 Arden district, a hint which, had Halliwell-Phillips fairly 
 followed out, would have led him direct to Wroxall, The 
 author discovered the truth by following out the Griffin clue, 
 through Chipping Warden ; but Jordan's route was just as 
 obvious, and would have led to the same spot. 
 
 The substance of Jordans traditions agrees, mainly, with 
 the evidence of the Wroxall Rolls, and leads probably to the 
 conclusion that John Shakspere, to whom the Lady Isabella 
 Shakspere granted land, in 21 Henry VII., was father of 
 Richard Shakspere, the bailiff, and son, probably, of Richard 
 Shakspere, of Wroxall, of the time of Edward IV. It is, 
 however, unsafe without fmther evidence and research to rely 
 too much upon this conclusion, although it is unquestionably 
 the most obvious and probable. 
 
 Jordon was ignorant of the Snitterfield bond of 1561, which 
 proves that John Shakspere, the Poet's father, was son of 
 Richard the bailiff; for he writes that the Poet's grandfather 
 
THE GEgrXLE SHAKSPERE. 29 1 
 
 was named William, or possibly he meant his great grandfather. 
 Jordan had not the advantage of studying the evidence of the 
 Subsidy Rolls, nor of the wills at Lichfield and Worcester, and 
 he centainly never saw the Wroxall Court Rolls, and, of course, 
 he was ignorant that there was a William Shakspere at 
 Snitterfield, who was probably brother, but who might have 
 been father to the Poet's grandfather ; or this last fact might 
 have accounted for his theory, but it is quite evident that he 
 gave the tradition as he received it, simply as ■ a tradition 
 without facts to support it, and therefore it is one that cannot 
 be lightly disregarded. 
 
 It would appear that the Birmingham transcript of Jordan's 
 MSS (which is probably the original) was not that from which 
 Halliwell-Phillips printed his edition in 1865, he seems to have 
 transcribed it from Malone's cop)', which had passed into 
 Boswell's hands ; but curiously it agrees with it in these 
 mutilations, so that probably the same person got at both of 
 them. One would have thought that a conscientious editor 
 would have restored the original word (which plainly appears 
 in one place, and is an imperfect erasure), or at least that he 
 would have explained why the omission was made, and in some 
 way have accounted for the erasure. Halliwell-Phillips was 
 trying by every means to get at the fact, and could not have 
 regarded it as unimportant. The question arises whether 
 Jordan's tradition was of any value, or was its value destroyed 
 by his want of character ? Both Malone and Halliwell-Phillips 
 seem to have had a bitter spite against the poor man. 
 Halliwell-Phillips treated him most unmercifully, charging him 
 with being a forger on the authority of some person unknown, 
 to whom, he alleges, Jordan confessed his forgeries. It is a 
 pity that if such a shameful charge should have been made, that 
 it was not made a little more definite in terms, and supported 
 by some kind of evidence. And it would seem as if Halliwell- 
 Phillips himself did not doubt his honour, for he writes that 
 "Jordan's works are not to be despised, there being many 
 circumstances in them not to be found elsewhere/' " Jordan 
 
292 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 often gives useful hints for researches, and there is very little 
 amongst his papers that does not deserve a careful perusal/' 
 and besides he took the trouble to edit his papers. What ! 
 do and write this of a man whom in the same breath he 
 denounces as a forger I It is simply monstrous. 
 
 It is a pity that Halliwell-Phillips should have endeavoured 
 to destroy Jordan's credit by bringing charges against his character 
 in which he did not believe ; and it is very reprehensible to 
 publish after he is dead a number of his private letters to 
 Malone, which, if they were worth publication, should first 
 have been weeded of all personal matters. But it would appear 
 that Halliwell-Phillips only published them because they 
 exposed, as they certainly did, the ignorance of Malone, who 
 with great pretensions was a mere quack. It is amusing to read 
 in Hunter's MSS. with what contempt he regarded both these 
 men — stupid, ignorant, dishonest, disingenuous were some of his 
 notes on reading their works, so that their strictures upon poor 
 Jordan are much diluted and discounted, and one may 
 charitably hope that they were strangely mistaken in their 
 estimate of his honesty. Curiously, notwithstanding their 
 contempt and abuse, both Malone and Halliwell-Phillips 
 borrowed largely from him, and Malone employed him to make 
 searches for him, Charles Knight (third edition, p. 498) has 
 commented perhaps, too severely, upon Malone's dishonesty in 
 concocting forged records. He cites a letter, 15th April, 1780. 
 " Mr. Malone would be glad to have Shakspere's house on the 
 same scale as that of Sir Hugh Clopton's. He thinks the arms 
 of Shakspere a very proper ornament over the door, and very 
 likely to have been there ; and neat wooden pahngs may be 
 placed with propriety before the house." 
 
 This, in all probability, is the ground of the charges 
 against poor Jordan. Certainly it tells equally against Malone ; 
 but this little matter was, after all, not very serious or deserving 
 the character assigned to it. Every artist, probably, is 
 guilty of some exaggeration, in the details of his subject, and 
 especially does he " improve " the foreground of his paintings. 
 
THE GEKfLE SHAKSPERE. 293 
 
 Jordan gives unmistakeable evidence in favour of John 
 Shakspere having been a Roman Catholic, but he does not hint 
 that he has any evidence as to the religion of the Poet, though 
 he suggests that he must have been a Protestant, because 
 otherwise that excellent person Queen Elizabeth would not 
 iiave been so fond of him^ and so kind as to patronise him, a bad 
 jreason for the wicked woman would have tolerated and 
 entertained the devil himself had he appeared in an amusing 
 character. Elizabeth, if she had any religion, was a Catholic, 
 but she dare not avow her belief, since she would thereby 
 proclaim her own illegitimacy — for poor Queen Catherine long 
 svurvived Miss Bullen's pretended marriage. 
 
 Jordan writes sad nonsense about his hero — unquestionably 
 he worshipped the Poet — he speaks of him as " the libertine 
 sportive young Shakspere," " the leader of a loose rabble in a 
 country town, oppressed probably with debt, and encumbered 
 prematurely with a family." All this is pure invention, not to 
 say unmitigated nonsense ; how could the boy get seriously 
 into debt when he was under age, and most certainly he could 
 not be encumbered by it, for he would not be made responsible 
 for it, and if we credit the glorious traditions of the crab-apple 
 tree, so far from showing a habit, it rather established the 
 reverse, for it shows that the youth had miscalculated his 
 powers. And where is the evidence of the rabble ? and the 
 leadership ? Aubrey, who made minute inquiries, only 
 .discovered his partiality for the bright little lad, several years 
 his junior, who was, probably, his pupil at the Grammar 
 :School, the son of Griffin ap Roberts, the butcher — ^probably 
 his own cousin. Surely this child was not a rabble, and where 
 is the evidence or tradition of any other libertine proceedings 
 except with the woman he married. As for his "sportive 
 proceedings," which is probably intended to refer to his love of 
 sport, that may be admitted; and it was natural and proper 
 that the descendants of archers should love the bow and the 
 ^een wood, and follow their sport on every possible occasion. 
 
294 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE, 
 
 Jordan had preserved another tradition which, curiously, 
 strengthens the theory that he was descended from John of 
 Wroxall, for he records that the Poet had a great uncle named 
 A.nthony ; and it is quite possible that the Anthony Shakspere 
 he refers to as the Poets great uncle, was the son of John of 
 Rowenton. Malone calls Anthony Shakspere, of Hampton 
 (who had a daughter baptised at vStratford-on-Avon, in 1583), 
 the Poets great uncle. 
 
 Jordan who had no knowledge of the Subsidy Rolls, which 
 clear up the fact, thought that this Hampton was in Arden ; 
 but it was, of course, Hampton Curlew, in Budbrook, when we, 
 find Richard Shakspere living, in 1525 ; and subsequently 
 Anthony, probably his elder son, Wroxall Priory, having land 
 in that parish. 
 
 Jordan has, usefully, given evidence which disposes of the 
 idea that John Shakspere was a wool stapler, he shows that 
 this rests solely upon the fact that the wool staplers (or the 
 Clopton) arms are to be found in a window of the birthplace ; 
 md most probably they had been placed there by the Poet 
 liimself, when he made his alterations in the new place — the, 
 old home of the Cloptons, whose arms he would find there. 
 
 Yes, Halliwell-Phillips is right for once, Jordans evidence, 
 is not to be despised. 
 
CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 THE SONNETS. 
 
 HUNTER writes : " The sonnets relate to real events, 
 so the Fidesse of Bartholomew Griffln, 1596, is a 
 series of sonnets, which appear to relate to a real 
 passion and the accidents of it ; so also the Diana of 
 H. Constable — I think also of Spenser." Yes, the works of 
 these authors were well known to be written by them, but we 
 do not know which of the sonnets are Shakspere's, and assuredly 
 all of them are not his. Some of these lyrics are so exquisitely 
 beautiful in themselves, so clearly the work of a great master, 
 that it seems to matter little whether he wrote all of them or 
 who wrote the others. That some are not written by the same 
 hand may be easily shown by their coarsness and impurity, and 
 utter incongruity — witness the sonnets numbered 127 to 154, 
 which are obviously addressed to an abandoned woman. The 
 .edition of 1609 stops at the close of 126, without even finishing 
 it. Some portions of it are addressed to a lovely boy, 
 presumably he to whom most of the verses up to this point are 
 addressed. 127 is addressed to a woman who apparently was a 
 great performer upon the organ of the period. It cannot be 
 
296 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 denied that the language of some of these later sonnets is very- 
 beautiful, but they are more like Bartholomews Griffin's work 
 than Shakspere's, and exactly in accordance with his tastes. 
 Compare them with some of Griffin's lovely verses, published as 
 Shakspere's in the Passionate Pilgrim. Some of them are even 
 more lovely, and just as sensual as these. Whoever wrote them 
 did not write the 126 earlier sonnets — ^not that all these can be 
 positively assigned to the same writer. They, again, are very- 
 unequal in power ; sonnets 40 and 41 seem interposed. They 
 are written in much the same spirit as the later sonnets, and 
 seem a part of them ; indeed, it would almost seem as if some 
 writer had followed the author, and here and there interposed a 
 verse of his own, spite of the difference of sense and meaning. 
 Possibly more than one writer has helped to produce the work 
 as it was given to the world. Perhaps there was a malicious 
 design, in order to create a sensation to cause it to be believed 
 that the purest writer of the age could, if he chose, be the most 
 sensual. Surely this fact is apparent, and may easily be shown 
 by the utter incongruity of some of these sonnets. Certainly 
 it is very curious to find them intermixed, but how they got 
 together is not so difficult to imagine. Once remember the fact 
 that they were not published by Shakspere himself, or even 
 acknowledged by him to be his work, and the wonder ceases. As 
 we learn from Meres, some twenty years previously, Shakspere's 
 sonnets were kept in manuscript, and handed about amongst his 
 friends. Someone more unscrupulous evidently took a copy, 
 and his copy was, of course, badly taken, or he copied from an 
 impure source from some collection of lyrics of several authors. 
 Versification had been the common accomplishment of gentlemen, 
 and though in King James' time, when these sonnets were first 
 published, all learning and refinement was fast disappearing in 
 spite of that modern Solomon himself, yet in Catholic circles, 
 and there were still thousands of Catholics amongst those who 
 affected to conform to the new religion, some traces of tho, oJ4 
 state of things would remain. ; and although the *common 
 ruck of men— including Catholics, for they were cleverly 
 deprived of their teachers —were fast hastening to that frightful 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 297 
 
 state of lust and irreligion which culminated in the great 
 rebellion, and later to that worse evil, if possible — ^the rise of 
 the Puritans. Yet many still (where they could) were educated 
 in the old way, and there would be many poets capable of 
 writing even beautiful poetry. Queen Elizabeth's reign has 
 been called the " Golden Age of English Literature," but in fact 
 it was a time of decay, although perhaps the light, from the 
 blackness of night which followed, seemed to shine more 
 brightly just as it was expiring. 
 
 It would not be difficult, therefore, to mix with Shaksperes 
 sonnets those written by his friends, and very possibly the 
 three Earls — Derby, Southampton, and Pembroke — with 
 Bartholomew Griffin, and probably Henry Ferrars, may have 
 each essayed in this direction ; and the thief who stole these 
 and thought to secure only Shakspere's sonnets probably took 
 away in the scrap-book from which he copied theni a general 
 collection of several authors and, perhaps ignorantly, or possibly, 
 designedly, palmed it all off as the work of the great Poet. 
 Such a creature would probably be paid by the quantity, and 
 would not certainly be very particular as to its quality, nor 
 would the pirate publisher probably be able to detect it. If 
 this be so, it becomes idle, and it is beneath the dignity of 
 literature, to endeavour to trace out the persons to whom these 
 sonnets are addressed, for we can learn nothing by the 
 discovery. Yet we see learned writers, men whose intellects 
 should be more profitably employed, vying with each other in 
 endeavouring to fasten the peccadilloes of a past age upon 
 particular sinners. Surely if a poor girl, be she maid of honour 
 or not, fell away from the paths of virtue, it can do us no good 
 after 300 years' oblivion to bring her faults and name to light — 
 to hold her up to reprobation, and possibly to expose her 
 descendants now living to shame, for who would care to have 
 the characters of members of his family — disparaged, although 
 they had lived in a past age, when such impurity was the rule 
 rather than the exception. What do we gain, even if we are 
 able to fasten a particular fault upon a particular person, assume 
 
298 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 that sonnet any number is addressed to a particular lady — dark 
 or fair — what then ? That does not show that Shakspere wrote 
 it, or that he ever saw it or the person to whom it was 
 addressed. Mr. Thomas Tyler, M.A., only the other day, 
 indecently brought to light, alas 1 very cogent evidence of the 
 sins of a poor girl, and, having paraded her name and family 
 and grievous faults, asked, is it likely that she would have 
 formed a liason with a person in the low social rank of an 
 actor ? as if his status in society altered her disgrace or 
 rendered her sin the less possible ; nor does the fact that the 
 sonnet referred to this poor girl prove that Shakspere wrote it. 
 Unfortunately for Mr. Tyler's argument the facts here brought 
 to light show that he was wrong in his estimate of Shakspere's 
 social condition, so that his argument against the improbability 
 of the offence is destroyed, and such a connection, according to 
 him, is apparently made probable. But Mr. Tyler should know 
 enough of human nature to be conscious that, if a woman 
 stoops from the paths of virtue, she is not very particular in the 
 selection of the partner of her shame, and that as likely as not 
 her fault, like that of poor Ann Boleyn, has been committed 
 with a groom or some person her inferior. But by applying a 
 little common sense to the question we shall see that nothing 
 can be gained by an exposure — even if it can be proved — that 
 some of these sonnets have an improper meaning, for it only 
 proves the fact that they are not Shaksperes ; what matters it 
 then who wrote them ? 
 
 A great deal has been written about W. H., to whom they 
 are dedicated, and innumerable are the guesses made upon this 
 important subject, as if it mattered, since it is obvious that the 
 sonnets are not addressed to the same person ; but as a fact this 
 dedication is the work of the pirate printer, T. T., and not of 
 Shakspere ; and besides it is sheer nonsense, ungrammatical and 
 bad English, and it is most certainly not Shakspere's writing. 
 W. H., " the person to whom the sonnets are supposed to be 
 addressed," is their only begetter. This would appear to be 
 hermetic writing, since, according to the ordinary meaning of 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 299 
 
 • 
 
 "words, the begetter of verses would be the poet who composed 
 them, and not the person who was the object of them, so that 
 T. T. had made Shakspere dedicate W. H.'s immortal poems to 
 himself. This is clearly a case for Mr. Hitchcock to solve 
 for us. 
 
 Curiously this suggestion as to the personality of W. H. 
 fits with the conclusion arrived at by a German critic, who 
 (with that profundity and accuracy in criticism, which 
 distinguishes the great German people), declares that W. H. 
 simply means " William Hisself." This solution at once disposes 
 of the hermetic difficulty, which had well-nigh overwhelmed us, 
 
 Shakspere himself has said " one touch of nature makes 
 the whole world kin." This, indeed, is the one touch, and 
 hereafter it will be wrong to scoff at the alleged relationship of 
 the British and the great Teutonic people, although, as a fact, 
 it is nonsense, for not a word can be found of true English 
 speech in any village or hamlet of the continent, nor any word 
 in any way akin to any word of the British or English language ; 
 but no matter, this great discovery proves our near relationship. 
 
 After this we can only smile, though otherwise we had 
 bailed with satisfaction the discovery by a mere Englishman 
 that W. H. in some way stood for Elizabeth Regina. Queen 
 EUzabeth must have been about sixty years old at the time 
 they were written, and it would have been flattering, indeed, 
 and no doubt highly pleasing to her, if her beloved Shakspere 
 had addressed her as " my chubby boy." In the language of 
 Paul Bedford, another player (in his day thought very witty), 
 one can only add, " I believe you, my boy." 
 
 The several champions of the causes of the three Earls may 
 be severally congratulated and assured that each one is right — 
 only in this way, that beyond all doubt many of the sonnets 
 were addressed to each of them in tmrn. To the Earl of 
 Southampton, Shakspere, it is said, had dedicated his poems 
 Venus and Adonis and Lncrece (if, indeed, they had not been 
 
300 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 dedicated for him by some other pirate), and the Earl still 
 continued his friendship and companionship with the Poet. 
 The late Mr. Greenstreet, who wrote a very clever and interesting 
 paper in proof that the Earl of Derby was the author (the 
 actual begetter) of Shakspere's plays, was like Mr. Tyler in one 
 respect, he thought it very unlikely that the Earl of Southampton 
 would be on familiar terms with " a low-born player ; " but 
 curiously, this argument, like Mr. Tjder's, falls to the ground 
 when it is shown that in point of family Shakspere was the 
 equal of the best of them, and was, in fact, a cousin of Elizabeth 
 Vernon, whom the Earl of Southampton married, to whom very 
 probably some of these sonnets were addressed— for just as 
 there were several gentlemen addressed, in all probability there 
 were several ladies, besides the poor girl so pitilessly exposed 
 by Mr. Tyler whom he so cleverly identifies as the dark lady, 
 though he fails to prove that she was addressed by Shakspere, 
 
 This subdivision of authors into begetters and persons male 
 and female is the only mode by which a rational meaning can 
 be given to the poems, and fortunately, it disarms those who 
 would rake up unpleasant scandals. Once admit this and the 
 beautiful poems can be read with pleasure, whilst the interlopers 
 can be passed over. It is a pity that they are not separated in 
 print — Shakspere's beautiful sonnets collected together, and Mr. 
 Tyler's favourites forming a separate volume. The latter would, 
 no doubt, be greatly valued, and meet with a ready sale in 
 Holliwell Street. 
 
 It is perhaps vain to speculate upon the subject of these 
 sonnets, and yet some of them are well worthy of deep study. 
 Nothing in English poetry, or perhaps in that of any language, 
 is so beautiful as some of them. As a single work they read 
 oddly and show much repetition ; they may perhaps be read in 
 groups, though Professor Dowden's plan of testing the 
 authorship by counting the terminations seems rather childish. 
 Some few are written continuously, but generally they are 
 separate works and should be framed separately, for they are 
 exquisite pictures, each one -a perfect gem in itself. Many of 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 301 
 
 the sorrows, and much of the life of the Poet may be traced in 
 them ; in one he perhaps referred to the love of his youth, to 
 her whom he loved so hopelessly that, having lost her, his 
 marriage with a peasant-girl was a matter of indifference to 
 him ; in another he, doubtless, weeps over the loss of his boy — 
 one of the twins whom Mr. Donelly thinks constituted the dirt 
 and unhappine^s of his home. We know what a deep fervent 
 soul the man had, and we know, therefore, how deeply he must 
 have felt the loss ; perhaps — as is the lot of some men — hiS' 
 children were his only joy, and in loving them alone he obtained 
 some satisfaction for his yearning soul. 
 
 The Donellyites will say stuff and nonsense ! the man 
 had no feeling, he was a mere sot. Yes, that is upon the 
 assumption that all the twaddle about his drinking is true, and 
 the false conclusion, built upon the false premises, that the 
 works of Shakspere are not those of the man of Stratford. 
 But, having got rid of these premises, having shown their utter 
 untruth, what if some of these sonnets were really his ? — ^then 
 they become of the greatest interest and value, and enable us 
 to see what manner of man he was. But who will solve for us 
 the problem as to the authorship of any of them ? who will 
 help us to enjoy them. 
 
 Wordsworth, a man of pure heart, saw much beauty and 
 good in these sonnets ; not but that he too was perplexed and 
 troubled, yet he acknowledged that in them the Poet had 
 unlocked his heart, and he wrote :--'•' There is not a part of the 
 writings of this Poet, where is found in an equal compass, a 
 greater number of exquisite feelings, felicitously expressed." 
 Did he not see the evil in them also ? Assuredly ; yet he 
 would dwell only on the good, the rest he would ignore or put 
 entirely out of sight, and rejoice only in those which were true 
 and beautiful. How much it is to be regretted that he did not 
 take these precious gems, and separate them from the dirt 
 which encrusted them ; but who is bold enough, or capable 
 enough, to determine absolutely the work of the great master ? 
 
CHAPTER XX. 
 
 CONCLUSION, IN WHICH NOTHING IS CONCLUDED. 
 
 IT is one of the most pernicious errors of the Donelly school 
 that Shakspere was condemned, or ignored, by his 
 co-temporaries, and nothing can be more unfair than tliis 
 mode of argument, for we have but little record of 
 co-temporary opinion, Shakspere's was not an age of criticism, 
 or of newspapers, nor were there any reviews ; all that we can 
 get is from a stray opinion expressed here and there in the works 
 of the day, in which he is not, certainly, always mentioned, but is 
 most probably referred to. Shakspere has been most unfairly 
 criticised himself, and unjust deductions drawn from the fact 
 that he never spoke well of a co-temporary, but of whom did 
 he speak or write ill ? The absence of critical or friendly 
 remarks by the Poet is no proof of his envy or jealousy — it is 
 simply in accordance with the order of his day. There is, 
 however, one attack upon Shakspere by a playwright — poor 
 unfortunate Greene — who was, probably, one of the Shakspere 
 family himself, who had assumed the name, and, but for 
 Greene's envious remarks of the Poet, his own writings and his 
 own reputation had probably been forgotten. Charles Knight 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 303 
 
 "has very justly remarked that Greene's bitteniess is a tribute to 
 Shakspere's power and popularity, and the same may be said of 
 Ben Jonson. There can be but little doubt that Jonson had 
 spoken, and perhaps had written, many bitter things of his 
 friend and patron, to whom he owed so much. As the French 
 have it, his excuses prove it ; nor can there be any doubt that 
 he was thoroughly ashamed of his littleness, and in those 
 ■turgid and dull commendatory verses, published with the first 
 folio, he not only gives the best evidence that Shakspere was 
 the author of his own plays, but the best and clearest evidence 
 possible that he was also a great actor, Although one may 
 scan Ben Jonson's praise warily, there is no reason to suppose 
 that it is intended in the spirit which he refers to in his 
 impleasant allusion to a virtuous matron. He takes care, of 
 course, to vaant his ov;n superior learning, and to remind the 
 reader that his deceased friend knew ".little Latin and less 
 Greek" ; yet he does draw a comparsion in his favour, with the 
 authors of antiquity — of Greece and Rome— and unquestionably 
 he places him above his co-temporaries. Nay, he admits the 
 decline of the stage since his departure and its only hope of 
 revival through Shakspere's works ; and how does he 
 apostrophise him, " Soul of the age I the applause I delight ! 
 the wonder of the stage 1 " And again in the well-remembered 
 line, "He was not of an age, but for all timel" Can any 
 words testify more clearly to the measure of his popularity ? 
 
 John Milton's lines are too well-known to require 
 reprinting, and Spencer's. Can there be any doubt that Spencer, 
 in 1591, referred to him as "the man whom nature self had 
 made to mock himself, and truth to indtate ? " and again when 
 he wrote ''that sweet gentle spirit from whose pen large 
 streams of honey and sweet nectar flow." A curious simile, but 
 to whom did he apply ? or who can answer to his description 
 so aptly as our gentle Will. 
 
 In 1598 we have the recorded opinion of Francis Meres, 
 Master of Arts, a competent and great scholar, and a man of 
 
304 THE GENTLE SHAKSFERE. 
 
 sound judgement, whose opinion was not disputed even by his 
 contemporaries, some of whom are included in it and who were 
 put aside by it, nor was it in any way controverted. He 
 writes that " Shakspere was most excellent above all con- 
 temporaries and predecessors of his own country, not only as a 
 comedian but as a writer of tragedy." And he caps his eulogy 
 by placing him as a Poet upon the highest pedestal, as superior 
 to all the Poets of the whole world, " As Epices Stolo said 
 that the Muses would speak with Plautus tongue if they would 
 speak Latin, so I say the Muses would speak with Shakspere's 
 fine-filed phrase if they would speak English," And this was 
 written of him when he was alive and in the zenith of his 
 fame. 
 
 And how does the pirate publisher who stole his sonnets 
 and published them, in 1609, in his absurd dedication refer 
 to Shakspere but as " our ever living Poet." Good Barabbas we 
 thank thee for this dedication ; you not only acknowledge your 
 robbery, but you show that the Poet had no hand in it, not even 
 a tacit consent— for assuredly William Shakspere would not 
 have allowed himself to be so referred to. 
 
 And did not the common people love Shakspere ? Leonard 
 Digges has told us the effect of his works upon the stage even 
 whilst he was alive, and their infinite superiority in the public 
 estimation to those of Jonson and others. He writes : — 
 
 " So have I seen where Caesar would appear. 
 And on the stage at half-sword parley were 
 Brutus and Cassius, O, how the audience 
 Were ravished I With what wonder they went thence ! 
 When, some new day, they would not brook a line 
 Of tedious, though well-laboured Catiline. 
 Sejanus, too, was irksome ; they prised more 
 Honest lago, or the jealous Moor, 
 And though the Fox and subtle Alchymist 
 Long intermitted could not long be miss'd — 
 Though these have sham'd all th' ancients, and might raise 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 305 
 
 Their author's merit with a crown of bays — 
 
 Yet these sometimes, even at a friend's desire 
 
 Acted, have scarce defrayed the sea-coal fire 
 
 And door keepers. When let but Falstaff come, 
 
 Hal, Poins, the rest — ^you scarce shall have a room, 
 
 All is so pestered. Let but Beatrice 
 
 And Benedict be seen, lo ! in a trice 
 
 The cockpit, galleries, boxes, all are ftiU 
 
 To hear Malvolio, that cross-gartered gull. 
 
 Brief, there is nothing in his wit-fraught book 
 
 Whose sounds we would not hear, on whose worth look, 
 
 Like old-coined gold, whose lines in every page 
 
 Shall pass true current to succeeding age." 
 
 These lines were written with reference to the publication 
 of the first folio ; but surely any reasonable person can require 
 no better evidence than that of public opinion, and the opinion 
 of the scholars of the time was absolutely in favom: of 
 Shakspere's authorship. And it must not be forgotten that 
 although no authentic copy of these plays had previously been 
 published, that many spurious copies had been issued, so that 
 they were well known as his. Heminge and Condall write that 
 *' the public had been abused with divers stolen and surreptitious 
 copies of his works, maimed and deformed by the frauds and 
 stealths of Injurious imposters that exposed them." 
 
 The piracy shows the great popularity of the plays. Nor 
 must it be forgotten that a great break in the literary history of 
 England occurred not many years after the publication of the 
 iirst folio of Shakspere. The natural effects of the destruction 
 of religion by King Henry VIH., and of the twenty years' 
 resolute government of Lord Burleigh, under Queen Elizabeth, 
 culminated in what is called by our schoolmasters the great 
 rebellion.' Learning had nearly become extinct, the infidelity 
 and rubbish of the so-called philosophers, alternated with the 
 crudities and puerile inventions of well-meant, but ignorant 
 Puritans, and the result was chaos — rudis indigestaqiie moles. 
 
306 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 There could be no religion except it came through one of th& 
 sects, no virtue or purity, no beauty or philosophy, unless 
 delivered by one of the elect (that is the self-elected, who could 
 do no wrong once having been in grace), and all truth must be 
 declared to the profane by one of the body — singing through 
 the nose. Of course the theatre was abolished, and all 
 independent thought. The " Saints " had their way for a time,. 
 and a sad time it must have been for the sinners. Happily it 
 soon came to an end — ^the saints were too good for this world — 
 and when they were put down, or rather swept away with the 
 rubbish of the period, the world having no true religion to 
 guide it, fell into a poor way, and got on as well as it could 
 without any ; and a horrible reign of obscenity and impiet}' 
 succeeded. The eighteenth century was, perhaps, the most 
 degraded of our national history, nor was it till the French 
 Revolution somewhat cleared the atmosphere, and by scattering- 
 broadcast over the land her exiles, who were generally her 
 best patriots and brightest intellects, and her miriad clergy, that 
 the grossness of English life disappeared, and we gradually 
 obtained our present enlightenment and refinement. Few are 
 really aware how much England is indebted for our present 
 happiness to the miseries and horrors of the French Revolution 
 (which were scarcely exceeded by those of our own great 
 Reformation). It is idle to look for any testimony to the value 
 of Shakspere during the reign of Cromwell, when everything 
 beautiful and true was sacrificed for the elevation of the 
 religious inventions of poor purblind John Bunyan and his 
 fellow tinkers. 
 
 The Donelly school do not deny this popularity, nor do 
 they dispute the justice of the early judgment upon the works. 
 of Shakspere. To do them justice they confirm it, but they 
 have the impudence and folly to deny that "the man of 
 Stratford " was entitled to this praise. Here are positive facts,, 
 the strongest evidence of the opinions of his contemporaries,. 
 and what do they bring against them ? Absolutely nothing, 
 but some ridiculous scandal which they dishonestly attempt to 
 
THE GSNTLE SHAKSPERE. 307- 
 
 fasten upon his memory, and then argue from it that the man 
 guilty of such misconduct could not have written " the works 
 Shakespeare." 
 
 In concluding these observations, which the author is vain., 
 enough to hope will be of some help to the admirers of our 
 great bard, and also may create some opposition in the minds of 
 those who have so kindly taken possession of l\ini — thq great, 
 authorities on Shakspere — ^he begs to state that he makes no 
 pretension to criticise the works of Shakspere ; but only to 
 point out and seize upon, and so expose some of the worst 
 errors which have been engrafted upon them ; and, although, 
 he pleads guilty to the impertinence of altering one passage 
 and of dismembering one play, and disavows another or two, 
 he has done so with fear and trembling, and he would not have- 
 done this did he not feel that it was right,, and did not the 
 important question of the Poet's religious faith rest upon it ; 
 but apart from this issue there is reason for this course. The 
 magnificent eulogy of England, in Richard II., is ruined by the. 
 substitution of words for those which obviously have been 
 written by the Poet, and the sense and meaning of the passage 
 is obscured and lost. With the words suggested or those 
 equivalent it is simply perfect, and gives the fullest meaning of 
 the Poet establishing his faith, and at the same time doing the 
 greatest honour to his beloved country. And with regard to- 
 the author's impertinence in hacking the play of Henry VIII., 
 he has boldly done so because this play, as Aldis Wright and' 
 others have published it, is incongruous and absurd, and it 
 requires this treatment to restore it to sense and reason. The 
 parts lopped off contain nothing worthy of preservation. 
 Indeed, both Aldis Wright and Mr. E. I. Furnival aflSrm this of 
 the whole of it, for they declare that not a single hue in the whole 
 play is Shakspere's and that none of it is better than mere 
 sentiment ; and they do so, no doubt, chiefly from a 
 consideration of the faulty construction of it. But if these 
 faults are removed, if the ridiculous anticlimax and the more 
 stupid prophecy concerning Queen Elizabeth is disposed of, let. 
 
308 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 them apply their minds to a reconsideration of the remainder ; 
 and although it may not be, perhaps, quite so beautiful and 
 brilliant as some of the earlier plays, yet most undoubtedly it 
 contains some very noble and some even magnificent passages, 
 which perhaps it is not too much to say are superior to the 
 work of an)'^ poet, ancient or modern, except of Shakspere 
 himself, and possibly some of the passages are amongst the 
 finest which even Shakspere ever wrote. 
 
 It is impossible, perhaps, without much further mutilation, 
 to make this grand work into a play. It is not written 
 according to rule as a play ; but it is written as no doubt the 
 other of Shakspere's historical plays were written, as a dramatic 
 history^ — a series of striking pictures — with the intention, 
 .doubtless, to teach the great lessons of history. And the one 
 lesson to be taught by this play was Shakspere's view of the 
 motives and conduct of the authors of the great Reformation, 
 the very opposite to the conclusion which has been drawn 
 from it. 
 
 The beatification and glorification of Queen Elizabeth 
 utterly destroys the lesson the great teacher mtended to enforce. 
 Surely, had Shakspere wished to honour her, there were topics 
 enough occurring in the history of her reign which might have 
 afforded the motive for a touching and exciting drama- 
 Elizabeth, with all her faults, was a great Queen, and some of 
 her acts redound to her glory ; but had the Poet touched upon 
 some of them, had he made the misfortimes of Mary Queen of 
 Scots, of Amy Robsart, of the Earls of Essex and Leicester, of 
 Sir Walter Raleigh, and of many of the victims of her passions 
 the subject of his pen, would it have been possible for her weak 
 successor to have maintained his throne ? Poor Charles Stuart 
 — an honourable man — ^lost his throne and his head because he 
 would not stoop to tell a lie and could not trust the self-seeking 
 hypocrites who hungered for his life, thirsting for his blood. 
 Had Shakspere written the undiluted truth, this catastrophe 
 had occurred much earlier : but he could not and dare not. 
 
THE gENTLE SHAKSPERE. 3O9 
 
 Yet, as his was not the pen of one who would prostitute it for 
 gold, he was silent, and no reward could induce him to sing the 
 glories of the bright occidental star as they are impiously 
 prefixed to King James' edition of the Bible. 
 
 Great stress has been laid, by those who claim that 
 Shakspere was a Protestant, upon the historical glory of King 
 John, which they allege to be written in a Protestant spirit, but 
 this is again a mistake. The teaching of this play is, no doubt, 
 anti-Papal, and it is very clearly anti-Christian, if the views of 
 the King are taken into account ; but it would be a curious sect 
 which could adopt them as its own, for John's creed, if we take 
 his action as its teaching, involved the upholding of the 
 practices of murder and theft, and every crime under heaven. 
 No doubt. King John was a strong Protestant against the Pope, 
 and against everything that was good ; but it is too much to 
 say that the tendency of the play was of that character — it was 
 rather written to uphold the power of the Papacy, which it 
 shows triumphant over all — over John himself, and over Louis, 
 of France ; but it is idle to discuss the meaning of the writer, 
 whoever he was, for he was not William Shakspere. Wherever 
 did he uphold evil and especially throw ridicule upon the 
 sanctity of marriage, and the leading character, the Bastard, 
 who is the fool of the piece (and such a fool, did ever Shakspere 
 create one like him), establishes himself prime favourite with 
 the audience by glorifying his shame. The whole play is 
 imlike Shakspere — it is weak and unnatural. Dr. Johnson, 
 whilst admitting that the play was not written with the utmost 
 power of Shakspere, thought that the lady's grief was very 
 affecting, rather is it very silly, not to say disgusting — ^too much 
 talk, and that very foolish. Her apostrophe to death is simply 
 comical, especially when she asks death to grin on her, and 
 she promises to buss the old gentlemen ; it is something like, 
 though very far behind, the weird scene when Juliet takes the 
 potion in the chamber of death — and when did Shakspere ever 
 copy from himself. What can be more unnatural than the 
 dialogue between Hubert de Burgh and Prince Arthur and_ the 
 
310 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 want of art displayed, after this successful appeal by the youth, 
 in the manner of his death. Though the play may have been 
 acted in Shakspere's theatre, and possibly he may have added 
 some lines to it, it was not of his composition, and should not 
 be published as his. There is a sing-song about it of which he 
 was never guilty, faulty in construction, foolish in ideas, and bad 
 in morals, it cannot be the work of the Poet, and is probably 
 the very play written by Rowley, which some pirate printed as 
 Shakspere's, in 1611. Meres, no doubt, calls it Shakspere's, and 
 seems to think highly of it ; if it were from his pen it must have 
 been a very boyish performance. 
 
 It is solely with the view to enforce the lesson intended to 
 be taught by Shakspere himself, in King Henry VIIL, that the 
 author, despising the scorn which will certainly be awarded to 
 him for his temerity, has ventured, in some measure, to play the 
 part of critic and censor, and the more so that this play as it 
 stands has been used to give colour to the notion that Shakspere 
 was not a Catholic. Even Carlyle, though he has honestly 
 given the truth, has attempted to discount it. He writes (French 
 Revoulution) : " Naj'', thus too, if Catholic with and against 
 Feudalism (but not against nature and her bounty) gave us 
 English a Shakspere and an era of Shakspere, and so produced 
 a blossom of Catholicism, it was not till after Catholicism itself, 
 so far as law could abolish it, had been abolished here." 
 
 As if it mattered one straw what the law affected to do ! 
 The law pretended to make the vile King Henry VUI. supreme 
 head of the Church, its Pope in fact, just as the Czars of Russia 
 are Popes of the Greek Scismatics. But every Christian knows 
 that the gates of hell cannot prevail against Christ's Church ; 
 every Protestant of the Church of England, and the thousand 
 sects into which it has split, is forced to admit this ; for it is 
 written too plainly in the Bible, which they affect to adopt, for 
 it to be possible to gainsay it. And this impious and wretched 
 law making the King the head of the Church still digraces the 
 English Statute Book, and it must remain so long as the State 
 
THE (JENTLE SHAKSPERE. 31I 
 
 remains allied to it. But what do the laity and what do the 
 clergy themselves say ? Is there a member of the National 
 Church who dare affirm the truth of their own Acts of 
 Parliament ? On the contrary, they deny that the Catholic 
 Church has been abolished ; they rashly declare that their 
 own Church is Catholic ; and they wink at and ignore the fact 
 of their Reformation and of their own Acts of Parliament, and 
 falsify the oaths which their bishops take on appointment by 
 the Crown. And poor, hard-headed, logical Cariyle is also 
 ignored, and his preaching is utterly denied. 
 
 This illogical and contradictory teaching of the Church of 
 England — infinitely more difficult to comprehend than the most 
 transcendant dogmas of the Catholic faith — is yet simplicity 
 itself to the views which the German Lutherans build upon it. 
 Their incomprehensible jargon of words and confusion of ideas 
 has been fully elaborated by their so-called philosophers, and 
 especially by Ulrici, in connection with the works of Shakspere ; 
 and they are all based upon the assumption that Shakspere was 
 a Protestant, because of these plays of King Henry VIII. and 
 King John, It is with the amiable view of shattering the 
 foundation of these philosophers that this play, as Shakspere 
 wrote it, is given in full, and the other is scoffed at. 
 
 Some good Protestants aver that the Kings of England are 
 only supreme heads of the Church upon earth, as if it were 
 necessary to enact by Act of Parfiament that these holy men 
 were supreme in heaven. 
 
 It will, of course, be denied that Shakspere's work has 
 been tampered with, and some critics will be shocked at the 
 audacity of anyone daring to dismember a play of the 
 importance of Henry VIII,, in order (it will be said) to support 
 a preconceived theory ; but numberless instances can be shown 
 where this has been done, and sometimes as, in the first 
 eulogium of England in King Richard II., already noticed, to 
 the destruction of the sense of the passage. The alterations 
 
312 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE, 
 
 made in this play by Act v. actually nullify and destroy its sole 
 motive, and make nonsense of its moral. 
 
 The Protestants of the time of James I. were not able to 
 hear the word Mass (which Henry VIII. had endeavoured to 
 stamp out, and which they called a blasphemous fable) 
 pronounced even in an oath ; and when Shakspere made lago 
 say, " By the Mass, 'tis morning," the Master of the Revels 
 changed it into " In troth, 'tis morning." 
 
 Some critics, who certainly were not biased by any 
 consideration of the object lesson Shakspere intended to exhibit 
 by this play, and probably in indifference to it, have actually 
 lopped off other Acts besides the fifth, and they have given 
 Ihem to other poets. Mr. Spedding, whilst admitting that much 
 of the play is truly Shaksperes, attributes to Fletcher- — Scenes 
 3 and 4 of Act i., i and 2 of Act ii., i and 3 of Acts iii., and 
 ^Vcts iv. and v. — probably only as to the last act is he correct. 
 Mr. Samuel Hickson is practically in accord with Spedding ; so 
 much so that Aldis Wright, who, apparently, would agree with 
 anyone who would get rid of this terrible reproach to his 
 religion, thinks this concord " a remarkable coincidence." The 
 only remarkable thing to be noted is that Hickson, having read 
 and agreed with Spedding, was unable to explain upon what 
 principle the two authors worked in order to contrive this play, 
 and he even doubted whether Spedding was quite satisfied with 
 the explanation he himself suggested. This, of course, was one of 
 those infallible tests which these great schoolmen adopt. Some 
 ridiculous nonsense about the disproportionate number of lines 
 which ended in a redundant syllable. 
 
 It must be conceded that there is a vast difference in the 
 tone and spirit between the parts rejected by Spedding and 
 those admitted by him to be the genuine work of the great 
 Poet. Nothing can be more dignified and noble than the words 
 put into the mouth of Buckingham and Catherine of Aragon ; 
 and there can be nothing meaner or more contemptible than in 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 313 
 
 the language of some of the speakers in the acts he attributes 
 to Fletcher ; but, still, some of it is very fine and fully worthy 
 of the great Poet. These critics leave out of consideration the 
 motive of the play. Shakspere intended to degrade 
 Henry VIII., and Anne Boleyne especially, and to show the 
 worthlessness of their characters. There is the bitterest satire 
 in the last words of Ann, in Scene 3 of Act ii., " Pray do not 
 deliver what here you've heard to her." And yet, according to 
 the Lord Chamberlain, "Heavenly blessings follow such 
 creatures." Did not the old lady betra}^ what sort of a 
 creature she was in her last words, " what do you think me ? " 
 
 These acts, coarse and unpleasant as they are, are yet 
 essential to convej' the full meaning of the writer ; he wanted 
 to show how completely these vile creatures understood each 
 other. Henry VIII. evinced his self-consciousness by his sneer at 
 the Cardinal's levity in collecting these girls around him, which 
 was no compliment to his guests and his own partner, as well as a 
 severe condemnation of his own conduct in joining them 
 dressed up as a tom-fool ; and the King's kissing and flattering 
 the girl — a perfect stranger to him, as well as Lord Sand's 
 previous osculations, are portrayed, not because there is anj^thing 
 pleasant or worthy of notice in such things, but in order to 
 exhibit Henry's levity and unseemly conduct, and to give the 
 true motive for his " Reformation." This was the man who 
 dared to tamper with the the Cathohc religion, and to 
 constitute himself and his successors to the Crown God's 
 Vice-Regents upon earth ; to make himself in fact, an Anti-Pope, 
 in order to destroy and get rid of its inconvenient dogmas, and 
 more especially that which enforced the sanctity and the 
 inviolability of the marriage bond. 
 
 Since this book was written the author has had the pleasure 
 of perusing Dr. Upton's work " Critical Observations of 
 Shakspere " (1746), which Coleridge could scarcely have had in 
 his memory when he so unsparingly condemned Shakspere's 
 critics. The writer is not only a great classic, but unlike so 
 
314 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 many schoolmen, takes a broad and comprehensive view of 
 things, and he has 'courage, too, to reject as spurious some of the 
 plays which have been published as Shakspere's, as — Titus 
 Androniais, Love's Labour Lost, and The Two Gentlemen of 
 Verona, and he rejects them on the question of manner and 
 style, from which he asserts a true critic can form as unerring a 
 judgment as a painter can distinguish a copy from an original. 
 It is a curious thing that adopting Dr. Upton's views the three 
 plays he considers to be certainly spurious contain no less 
 than twenty out of the thirty-six pieces of Latin of more 
 tlian three words which are to be found in the whole of 
 Shakspere's plays, and Henry VL contains four, so that there are 
 only ten pieces left to be distributed amongst them, showing 
 that Shakspere himself very rarely quoted foreign languages. 
 
 He had a profound admiration for the Poet and a great 
 appreciation of his work, though he did not hesitate to 
 condenni him when he thought he was in fault, and curiously 
 his severest condemnation arose from a consideration of this 
 play of King Henry VIH. 
 
 Though fully alive to the fact that his text, as we possess 
 it, is full of errors, indeed, he writes, page 186 : — " But are there 
 no errors at all crept into the copies of Shakspere ? Perhaps 
 more than into any one book published since the invention of 
 printing." And also sensible that whole plays have been 
 attributed to the Poet which were not of his composition, he 
 seems to forget to apply his rules to cases where only partial 
 alterations have been made, and he bases a very serious charge 
 upon this very play, which a little reflection would have 
 satisfied him was groundless. At page 134 he writes : — 
 " One could wish that Shakspere was as free from flattery 
 as Sophocles and Euripides." "To omit some of his rant 
 about Kings, M'hich borders on blasphemy, how abruptly has he 
 introduced in his Macbeth a physician giving Malcolm an 
 account of Edward's touching for the King's evil, and this 
 to pay a servile homage to King James, who highly valued 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 315 
 
 himself for a miraculous power (as he and his credulous subjects 
 really believed) of curing a kind of scrofulous humours, which 
 frequently are known to go away of themselves, in either sex 
 when they arrived at a certain age. In his King Henry VIII. 
 a story which should have ended at the marriage of Anne 
 Boleyne is lengthened out on purpose to make a christening of 
 Elizabeth and to introduce, by way of prophecy, a compliment 
 to her Royal person and dignity ; and what is still worse when 
 the play was some time after acted before King James another 
 prophetical patch of flattery was tacked to it." 
 
 There cannot be a doubt that this double charge of flattery 
 is baseless in each case. It has already been shown that 
 Shakspere refused even to write upon the death of Ehzabeth,. 
 and the idea that he would countenance these Protestant 
 superstitions, of touching for the King's evil, is simply ridiculous. 
 The more serious part of the charges, that " his rant about 
 Kings bordered on blasphemy," may be refuted by production 
 of the instance given by Dr. Upton. It is taken from Macbeth. 
 Macduff says : — 
 
 " Most sacrilegious murder hath broke ope' 
 The Lord's annointed temple, and stole thence 
 The life o' th' building," 
 
 This is not sacrilegious or blasphemous, but simply the 
 Catholic doctrine — to the full belief in which both Henry VIII_ 
 and Elizabeth owed their lives and personal security. 
 
 The Nonconformists, disputing it, put King Charles to 
 death ; but that fearful murder would scarcely be justified in 
 these days, even by the most rabid of the numerous sects into 
 which the Dissenters have split up, or if they have such 
 murderous feelings in their breasts, they take good care to hide 
 and disavow them. There can be little doubt that the universal 
 horror inspired by this atrocious act, brought about the 
 Restoration much more quickly than otherwise would have 
 happened, The breath was scarcely out of the body of the vile 
 
3l6 THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 
 
 murderer, Cromwell, than his whole policy and work was 
 swept aside, and the doctrine of murder, under the pretence of 
 religion, was disposed of for ever. 
 
 Dr, Upton gives valuable testimony to the religious fervour 
 of the Poet. At page 212 he writes : "Shakspere was a great 
 reader of the Scriptures, and from the bold figures and 
 metaphors he found there enriched his own elsewhere unmatched 
 ideas." 
 
 No doubt the Puritans often quoted Scripture to defend 
 murder (the devil himself follows this practice), and especially 
 is it common, in these days, amongst the wildest and crudest of 
 the latest crazes in religion (so called) ; but when did 
 Shakspere even quote the Bible, or assimilate its phrases in his 
 own work, except to teach and illustrate the sublime truths of 
 Christianity. He never used it to cover the designs of the 
 murderer or the covetous man, to flatter the Pharisee or to gild 
 the blasphemies of the latest discoveries in religion. He used 
 it frequently, but always to enforce the question of virtue, of 
 humility, and of charity ; and his frequent allusions to the 
 authority, and the doctrines of the Scriptures, prove, more 
 conclusively than anything else, that his faith and doctrines 
 were Catholic ; and unlike so many of our unfortunate 
 countrymen at that period, he was unable to turn about and 
 jiunp about with King Henry VHI. or with Elizabeth and King 
 James, or to accept their novel creeds. King Charles I. was 
 too good and simple a man to pretend to invent any doctrine of 
 his own, and from his death till the time of Catholic 
 emancipation, although each King affected to be invested with 
 supernatural powers, and down to the time of the exemplary 
 and excellent King George IV., regularly touched for the King's 
 evil ; they ruled more by statecraft, than by appeal to what was 
 right, and troubled themselves and their subjects very little 
 about religious affairs. 
 
 ■Cj' 
 
 Now that the Catholic religion — spite of the Statue Book — 
 is once more recognised by the State, which even contributes to 
 
THE GENTLE SHAKSPERE. 317 
 
 its support in various ways, and especially in providing funds 
 for the education of the poor in that religion, it becomes of 
 importance to state the truth about the great Poet, and also 
 naturally, a subject of pride and gratification, to all Catholics, to 
 be able to claim him as one of their own faith and teaching. Is 
 the State injured by this ? On the contrary, his teaching is to 
 uphold the State, and to respect its rulers — in the words of 
 Scripture, " to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, to 
 ■God the things that be God's." 
 
 THE END. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Of persons, PLACES, AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 ABSOLUTION, death the punishment 
 
 for obtaining it — 28 
 Acton, Pedigree — 235 
 Bridget— 236 
 Elizabeth— 231-3 
 John— 231-3 
 Sir llobert- 271 
 Thomas— 236 
 ADRIAN IV., The Pope, same arms as 
 those ^borne by the Poet's 
 family— 20, 147 
 Alcetter, famous mare's nest recently 
 
 found there— 190 
 Alcokkes, John— 227 
 Allen, Edward -207 
 AUway. Edward— 207 
 Allot, Robert— 238 
 Alwynus, The Sheriff- 224 
 AMBRiOA>i Views of Shakspere — 3 
 Amphlet, Mr. John— 232 
 Andrews, Richard— 138, 168 
 William— 163 
 Dorothy — 
 Anelie, John— 156 
 Appleby — 252 
 
 ARDEN, MARY, the Poet's Mother— 
 6, 15, 45, 146, 167, 173-4, 
 186 
 Agnes— 45, 159, 173-7 
 Ann— 173 
 Henry— 226 
 Sir John— 224 
 Margaret — 177 
 Martin— 226 
 Robert- 6, 131, 151, 172 (4), 
 
 173 (3), 174, 223-8 
 Robert, of Parkhall— 224-8 
 Simon— 226 
 Siward^225 
 Thomas— 1'72 (3), 173 (2), 174, 
 
 225-6 
 of Roteley— 228 
 of Hanwell— 229 
 
 Areley—UI, 232 
 
 AuMonB Coat of Shakspere — 147 ; of 
 
 Pope Adrian IV.— 20 
 ARUNDELL, Thomas, Archbishop, 
 upon England being 
 the Dowry of our 
 Blessed Lady — 14 
 Earl of— 282 
 Arroio River— 273 
 A ron River — 273 
 Ashwell, John— 187 
 Aston Gantlowe — 227 
 Ashley— 252 
 Athen^um, Article on Henry VIII.— 
 
 123-6 
 Atwood, Thomas — 145, 153 
 William— 153 
 Dorothy— 153 
 Atkins, Richard— 227 
 Aubrey— 44 
 Averne, Ann — 151 
 Averill, William— 153 
 
 Bacon, Lord— 3, 17, 40, 63, 241 
 
 Sir Robert— 221 
 
 Edmund— 240 
 Baddesley, Clinton— 5, 130-3, 158-9, 274 
 BARNARD, LADY, the Poef s grand- 
 daughter— 31, 181 
 John— 253 
 Barson — 160 
 Balsall— 133-4, 158, 160 
 Badger, George— 175 
 
 Thomas— 278-9 
 Barton, Parnel— 231 
 Basford, George— 278 
 Bavand, John- 273 
 Babham, William— 254 
 Bayley, John— 266-7 
 Bailey, Edward— 138 
 Beaumont, Henry, Earl of Warwick— * 
 
 225 - 
 
INDEX- 
 
 Bere, de la Kyard— 231 
 Beaumont and Fletcher— 15 
 Betrothal— 33 
 
 Beer Drinking under the Georges — 36 
 Beers, Mr. — 45 
 Beaufitz, John — 153 
 Bewsall— 153, 170 
 Bordeaux — 126 
 Bennett, John — 153 
 Berkswell— 133, 160 
 Berwood — 17? 
 Bickmarsh— 253-6, 273-8 
 BicKLEY, Mr., Knowle Register — Preface 
 Birthplace, The — 15 
 Birmingham Post, 1895 — 17 
 Birmingham Gazette — 129 
 Bird — see Byrde 
 Bidford— 213 
 
 Blunts, of Sodington — 228. Pedgree— 
 231 
 
 Walter -232, 244 
 
 Ann— 237 
 
 Agnes — 244 
 
 Catherine— 246 
 
 Christopher— 233 
 
 Elizabeth— 230 
 
 Edward— 288, 233-7, 246 
 
 Fulk-234 
 
 Francis— 232 
 
 Gilber^-233 
 
 Humphrey— 230 
 
 Jocosa - 238 
 
 John— 237 
 
 Ralf-'i37 
 
 Thomas— 232, 277 
 
 of Astley— 228 
 Bland, Elizabeth- 270 
 Bowden — 252 
 Bower, Francis— 278 
 Boucicault's Plays — 15 
 Boughton, Edward— 234 
 Bourton — 147 
 Bott, William— 152 
 
 BREAKSPEAR, Pojm Nicholas— 20, 
 147. The name is still common 
 in Warwickshire, and the same 
 as Shakspere 
 Bryan, Thomas — 138 
 Bradnock Marsh — 160 
 Brook, Richard — 145 
 Bridges, Sir Richard— 231-2 
 Brabazon, Lord — 233 
 Braybrook Castle— 247, 251 
 Brudenel, Sir Thomas — 255 
 Broom— 273 
 Brearley, Martin — 147 
 
 Sarah — 
 Bratford, Mr.— 187 
 Brewer, Rev. J. S.— 206 
 Brecknoc, HoU— 244 
 Brock, May — 245 
 Bradshaw, Thomas— 240 
 ^TTRLEiGH, Lord— 11, 29, 56, 241-2, 255, 
 280 
 
 Bundling— 32 
 
 Bullery, Elizabeth— 100 
 
 Bull, Richard- 138 
 
 Burgoyne — 138 
 
 Elizabeth— 150 
 John— 150 (2) 
 Mary — 150 
 Barbara — 150 
 
 Bm-torv— 213 
 
 Bucke, Robert — 145 
 
 Burbary, Thomas — 151 
 
 Budhroohe~\52, 191 
 
 BuRBAGS, Richard — 205, (2), 238 
 
 Bushopton — 213 
 
 Butler, Raphael— 276 
 
 Burroughes, Rookly — 253 
 
 Burnels, Broom — 27S 
 
 Byrde, Anthony — 153 
 
 John- 138-9, 145, 152-4-6 
 Nat fil Richard— 150-6 
 Nicholas— 145, 170 
 William— 145 
 
 Byrgeman, Thomas— 240 
 
 Byrington, William — 231 
 
 Garshy—231 
 Carew— 231 
 Calcot, Robert— 279 
 
 Catholics, John Shakspere, a Catholic, 
 1592-98. His Will— 193. The 
 Poet died a Catholic, teste 
 Archdeacon Davies — 176, 199. 
 The Persecution of Catholic 
 Passim. 
 CAMPION, the Jesuit and Murtyr— .55, 
 124, 248 
 
 John— 288 
 William— 288 
 Caklyle, Thomas — Title Page, 242 
 Card Playing under George III. — 36 
 Camden — 40 
 Campbell, Lord — 44 
 Capuchin (Irish) Friars — 192 
 Cecil, Elizabeth's Prime Minister — 56-7 
 Christian, Augustine —253 
 Chadcer — 39 
 Charlcot Park — 47 , 
 Oheping If ardcre— 134-7, 242, 247-9, 253, 
 
 264-5 
 Chamberlain, Leon — 138, 164 
 Richard— 245 
 Ann— 245 
 Chalmers, Dr.— 197 
 Chapman, Thomas — 276 
 Chambers, Geoffrey — 248 
 
 Edward— 253-6 
 Clopton, Thomas - 172, 192 
 
 William— 274-8, 234-7, 246 
 Ann— 287, 246 
 Rose— 287, 234-7 
 Cley, Elizabeth— 155 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Clintons— 132 
 
 ClifiFord, Ann ux James - 236 
 Clifford, Eym -231 
 Cobham, ttfe Viscount— 228, 232 
 Coleridge, S. T., viii. — 12, 15 
 Collier, William— 8 
 
 CoNDELL, Henry— 15, 123, 213, 217, 238 
 Cooper, Cotherine — 155 
 William— 155 
 CoUett, John— 153 
 Cokes, William— 153 
 Cookes, WiUiam— 169, 174 (2), 178, 274-9 
 Richard- 169 
 Francis -169 
 Jarram — 188 
 Cookes, Eleanor— 131-9, 144, 104, 190 
 Richard— 144 
 Margaret — 190 
 Cooke, John — 151 
 Mary — 151 
 Nicholiis— 16U 
 Cox Edward— 144 
 Maria — 144 
 John— 190 
 Pedigree— 234 
 CooMBB, John— 136, 190, 231-6, 246, 
 274-9, 287 
 Thomas— 175, 189, 192, 213, 
 
 236-7 
 William— 190, 237, 279 
 Edward— 237 (2), 287-8 
 Alice-236 
 Rose— 246 
 Ann— 287-8 
 Corporation of Stratford — 185 
 Cokayne (Lancaster Herald)— 259 
 WilUam— 269 
 Francis— 270 
 Cotton— no 
 Cole, Henry— 173 
 CoUe, Henry— 151 
 
 Nicholas — 250 
 Cornwall, Edward — 174-3 
 Mary— 174 
 Sir Brian— 231 
 Sir Robert— 24') 
 Agnes — 245 
 Collins, Francis— 213 
 Colman, Thomas— 240 
 Cottingham, Francis — 234 
 Conyers, Reginald— 246-8, 254-6 
 Lucy— 246, 254-6 
 Mary — 254 
 Francis — 256 
 C»r52/e— 252 
 Cockhilles— 253 
 
 Cordell, Sir William, M.R.— 2.54 
 CroBsmore, Annys— 240 
 Cbtptogram, Donelly's — 4 
 Crane, Humphrey — 153, 170 
 
 Mary— 153 
 Croft, Thomas— 162 
 Alice— 162 
 
 Croft, Richard— 231 
 
 James — 231 
 Cranmbr (the Arch Heretic)— 163 
 CRITICISM OF SHAKSPERE'S 
 
 WORKS. Coleridge's Views— 
 
 ix. Dr. Symmon's — vii. Dr. 
 
 Upton- 313. Modern Criticism 
 
 run mad — 123- 1 
 Cromwell, the Murderer of King Charles 
 
 —315 
 Crowle— 237 
 
 Cundell, see Henry Condell 
 Curzon, Ralph— 243 
 
 Catherine — 245 
 
 Dannesthorpe — 252 
 
 Dannett, Leonard — 279 
 
 Davies, Archdeacon- 176, 199, 221 
 
 Davies, Mr. — viii. 
 
 Darmer, Edward — 150 
 
 Derby, Earl — 3 
 
 Deer Stealing — 37, 46 
 
 Deans of St. Paul's and Windsor — 59 
 
 Deteritcb, J.— 153 
 
 Dethic, the Herald— 223-5 
 
 Decons, Robert— 234-288 
 
 Desborough — 253 
 
 DiGGES, Leonard — 16, 304 
 
 DrvoKCE of Queen Catherine — 27 
 
 Dilcocks, Henry — 133 
 
 Dissenters Love of the^Sword — ^203 
 
 IHngly—2i1, 252 
 
 Digby, Simon — 257 
 
 Dorset, Marquis — 284 
 
 Dowden, Professor — 300 
 
 DoNELLY, Ignatius, his false estimate of 
 
 the Poet's learning — vii., 4, 37, 
 
 401-4-8, 53, 204, 307 
 DOWRY, OUR LADY'S- 12, 13 
 Draycot. Sir Philip— 277 
 Driver, William— 252 
 Drinking, under George III. — 30 
 Drayton— 128, 217 
 Dryden — 64 
 Dudley, Lord— 231 
 
 Constance — 231 
 DuGDALE, Sir William— 3o,'132, 159 
 Z)«rfco<— 253 
 Diiston— 253 
 Dyce, the Rev.— 228 
 
 Eboral, Thomas— 139 
 
 Ecclesall— 275 
 
 Ede, John— 138-9 
 
 Edwards, Nick.— 152 
 
 Edmunds, Alice — 150 
 
 Edith Wenton— 253-6 
 
 Ethelwald, Bishop of Sherborne— 14 
 
 Eton, John— 138-9 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Etkins, Thomas — 173. 
 
 Catherine — 173 
 EuLoaiuM OF England — 12 
 Euphorbus — 1 S 
 Ewyas, William— 274, 280 
 Bxall— 273 
 
 Eardon— 6, 253 
 Favell, Elizabeth— 24-1 
 Farmer, Richard -viii., 48 
 Ferdinand— 33 
 
 Febears, Uknky— 130, 161, 179, 274 
 Sir Bdwakd— 134-9, 283 
 Sir John— 245, 219 
 Feckington, Thomas -151 
 Fetherstone, William — 1 61 
 Fenny Complon~~2'i9, 268 
 Fisher, Clement - 160, 170 
 
 Richard- 173 
 
 Mary — 271 
 
 Thomas— 231 
 
 John— 233 
 Fillomjly — 147 
 Eirebrace, Jane — 161 
 Flavd Flyford—\&1 
 Fletcher— 15, 126 
 Fox, Alexander— 191 
 Forester, Thomas -28.5 
 FOLIO THE FIRST- 124 
 Foxlon—2o^ 
 
 French, Mr.— vi., 170-7, 227 
 French Language, the Poet's knowledge 
 
 of 43 
 Furnival, E. J.— 123, 307 
 
 Garner (.Joyce, wife" , John — 237 
 
 GifTord- r,.3 
 
 Glohe Theafn—n 
 
 Goodwyn, William -143 
 
 Gornely — 2r)7 
 
 Gorges, Sir Thomas-- 254 
 
 Golafre, Ralf— 244 
 
 Goz, David— 244 
 
 Goodman, Edmund — 240 
 
 Goodwin, Edward — 250 
 
 Goldie, Francis S. J, —55 
 
 Greek, only one word of, used by Shak- 
 
 spere — 49 
 Grace, Thomas and Alice -101 
 Greon, the Player— 302 
 
 Rev. Joseph — 32, also Shakspere 
 
 Thomas— 147, 176, 192, 178, 87 
 
 Anna— 1 50 
 
 Judith— 150 
 
 Richard— 189 
 
 Edward— 189 
 Greaihill Strcef^lSl 
 Greenstreet, Mr. —300 
 
 Greville, Fulk— 275 
 
 Lewis 273-8, 23(1 
 Edward- 279 
 Thomasina— 236 
 ("Iraunt, Edward -190 
 Walter— 282 
 Greaves, Sarah — 162 
 
 Francos — 162 
 (fROCBEs' Company — ."w 
 Crissold, (jeorge— 155 
 Griffin Pedigree— 239, 244-6, 267, 270 
 Agnes— 263, 268 
 Alys-13!. 1.54-6 
 Anna- 230, 250-1-2, 277 
 Bartholomew, the Poet — 9, 271. 
 Bri^igct- 250-1 
 Catherine — 150 
 Edmund- -268 
 
 Edwnrd, Long Itchington (1558), 
 
 179, 266; Berkf.woll, 1.30, 264 
 
 Sir Edward (A.G.), 56, 165,240, 
 
 248, 250 ; Will, 252, 271 
 .Sir Edward Dino-ley- 236 
 Lord Edward— 49,' 2.32-6-7, 247, 
 
 259, 260 
 Edward, of Bickmai-sh- 277 
 Elizabeth -251, 264 
 Francis, of Brayljiook — 239 
 Frances, of Bray brook — 255 
 George, 234, 269. 271 
 Hum))hrey, of Kidderminster — 
 
 284 
 James (Queen Catherine's Gentle- 
 
 m.an Ushpr) - rc,-(>} , 249 
 Dame Jane — 250 
 .loyce, BerksT\eU -131, 264 
 John— 204, 232 
 John, Long Itchington — 284 
 •Tohann - 266 
 .Toseph — 277 
 
 Henry, of Wigmore — 246 
 Henry, Long Itchington — 264 
 Lucy, 256 
 Marten Hareouit, of Pell Wall— 
 
 265-7 
 Mary— 297, 252 
 Margaret — 252, 278 
 Sir Nicholas - 204 
 Nicholas — 277 
 Parnel— 264, 283 
 Philip— 150 
 Piers- 247 
 
 Ralf, Dean of LiiKoln — 276 
 Ryce, of Braybrook 240, 250 
 Ryce, of Bi'ckmarsh— 165, 178, 
 
 233-7, 242, 252, 273 
 Ryco, of Fenny Cnmjrton— 269 
 Richard (1547), 167, 280 
 Richard, of Warwick — 241 
 Roberts, the Boy— 46 
 Richard, Rector of Chippine 
 
 Warden -264 
 Silvanus, Dean of Hereford — 271 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Oriffin, Teresa— 277 
 
 Thomas, Fenny Compton — 145, 
 
 174, 264, 268 
 Sir Thomas, Braybrook — 231, 
 
 247, 250 ; Will, 251 
 Thomas, Warwick — 174 
 Sir Walter— 137, 231, 249, 265 
 William, 233 (1459), 268 
 William, Wormleighton— 283 
 Winifred-277 
 
 Gudridge, Michael— 153, 174 
 
 Hamden, John, the Patriot — 227 
 Hallbwbll-Phillips, or Halliwell vi., 
 
 2, 155, 177, 182, 226-8, 291 
 Hanover, House of, gross immorality 
 
 under— 23-4 
 Hales, Dr. — 54 
 
 Stephen -288 
 Thomas— 157 
 Hall, Dr.- 9, 134, 137, 146, 164, 194 
 221, 233 
 Good Mistress — 34 
 Joyce — 146 
 Thomas— 274-9 
 Edmund— 180 
 Emma -180 
 Susannah — 21 1 
 Elizabeth— 211 
 Daniel — 151 
 Hallamonthe Sonnets — 12; on Campion's 
 
 HATHAWAY, Ann— 21 ; married in 
 false name — 34 
 John— 192 
 Hardwick, Bess — 46 
 Hardwick Priors— 249, 264, 278 
 Hampton Bishop — 237 
 Hawkes, Thomas — 287 
 Hatch, Richard — 152 
 Hatton, Hujjh de-149, 170 
 Hatton, Bridget — 162 
 Hatton— lU-T, 146, 152-3 
 Hasely—lU-8, 163, 170 
 Hawes, Thomas — 137 
 Hawe, Rioh.ard — 173 
 Hart, Eliz.-150 
 
 Joan- 184, 212 
 William Michael 
 Thomas— 181 
 Hargreave, John — 174 
 Hasih-idge, Thomas— 250, 254 
 Edward— 250, 254 
 Mary 
 Julia— 251 
 Hartlebury— 232 
 Harper, Walter— 232 
 Richard— 259 
 Elizabeth 
 Harvell, Bridget— 235 
 Thomas— 236 
 
 Harvell, John 
 Haversham — 286 
 Hagley—2Sii 
 Haselor— 278 
 Harrington — 252 
 Harrison, Francis— 253 
 Haburly, William— 253 
 Halkett, Henry— 266 
 Hastings, John - 169 
 Harding, Robert— 173 
 Hamilton, N. E. S. A.— 206 
 Hardy, Sir Thomas— 206 
 Hampton Lucy — 178, 191 
 
 GurleiD—191 
 Hermetic Writings — 3 
 Henly, St.— 7, 45, 181-7 
 llenly, John— 174 
 
 Hbminge— 15, 123, 20.5, 213, 217, 238 
 Hervye, Thomas— 172 
 
 Elizabeth— 172 
 
 Alis- 270 
 
 Roberl^ 270 
 Hewyns, John — 173 
 Heyling, Dr.— 204 
 Heycock, John — tiU7 
 Herborough — 252 
 Heyward, Pvowland, 278 
 Ilickson, Sam — 311 
 HlTCiicocif, E. A. — 3 
 Hill, William- -146 
 John— 1,50-9 
 John fil John— 175 
 Haddington — 237 
 Howest, William— 240 
 Holborn — i.'io 
 
 Holbech, of Farnborough Hall— 269 
 Holcott, Richard -240 
 Howard, Lady Essex -248, 260 
 Hobbyns, John -188 
 How, George — 15 
 Holbeach, Finetfca— 157 
 William— 173 
 Hoggins, .John — 138 
 Holm, Judith- 150 
 Hoolyock, Clement — 150 
 Hannah — 150 
 Susannah — 150 
 Thomas— 168 
 Huddesdon, Richard— 240 
 Hully, Martin- 250 
 Hunt, Thomas- 240, 286 
 Hulls, Stephen -234 
 Hunsdon, Lord — 205 
 Huddespit, Robert— 130 
 Hunter, Joseph -vi., x., 5, 48, 133, 
 
 143, 192-7, 226 
 Hurdman, Mr. — viii. 
 Hychenen, William — 151 
 
 IMMACULATE CONCEPTIO-V. 
 doctrine affirmed prior to a.d. 
 760—14 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Ingon—ns, 274 
 Ireland, Dr.— 201 
 Ireland, Campion's history of — 57 
 Irish Women, Virtue of — 24 
 Italian, Shakspere's knowledge of — 40-4 
 50 
 
 Jefirjr, John— 286 
 
 Jenks, Dorothy — 156 
 
 Jordan, the Poet— 174, 191, 201, 288 
 
 Johnson, Dr. — viii., 62 
 
 JoNSON. Ben- 17, 54, 217, 303 
 
 Jennett, John — 286 
 
 Kakley, Robert— 130 
 Isolda- 130 
 Kempe, William— 20r) 
 Kebel, William— 254 
 Ketton— 256 
 Kirby, Robert— 266 
 Kempson, Thomas — 276 
 Edwhrd— 278 
 KING John, astrons; Protestant— 200, 
 309; the Play spurious— 19 
 Canute — 225 
 Charles I.— 30, 146, 308 
 Charles II.— 23 
 James I. — 30, 65 
 James IV.— 226 
 Edward VI.— 226 
 Ethelred— 225 
 Henry VI. , Play spurious 
 Henry VIII.— 12, 19, 24, 66-123, 
 
 200 
 Richard II.— 12 
 Kingshaw— 273 
 Kighley, Bartholomew— 279 
 
 Philip— 279 
 Kinvar— 252 
 
 Knightley, Valentine— 269, 270, 235-7 
 Richard— 282 
 Urusla— 278 
 Sir Edward— 237 
 Edmund— 238 
 Knight, Charles— ix., 31, 181, 199, 218, 
 
 291 
 Knight, Mary— 168 
 Knight Hospitallars held Rowington — 
 
 159 
 Knibb, Henry— 169, 270 
 Knowli, Guild of — Preface, 158 
 Korpson, Katherine — 190 
 
 Langton — 253 
 Latimer, Sir Thomas — 244 
 Lambert, Edmund — 8, 10, 175 
 Elizabeth— 244 
 
 Lambert, John — 175 
 
 * Johanna ux Edmund— 175,(2) 
 Latin, Shakspere's knowledge of-^; 
 he made only sixteen quotations 
 (above three word.sl — 50, 314 
 LangUy — 183 
 
 Lane, or Lone, Alice— 132-9, 153 
 Edward— 152-4 
 John— 132-5, 144 
 William-137-8, 154, 251 
 Thomas— 250 
 Joane — 150 
 Elizabeth— 149 
 Eleanor- 149 
 Isabell— 150, 250 
 Peter— 250 
 Lacon, Thomas — 235 
 Lenton, Robert — 246 
 Lega, Julia — 244 
 Lestrange, Sir Nichol — 30 
 Leicester, Earl — 56-7 
 Lewes, Isabel — 138 
 Lee, Julian — 145 
 Leigh, Robert— 245, 267 
 
 Joyce— 245, 267 
 Ley, Thomas — 153 
 Aunt— 155 
 
 Joan ux Francis — 160 
 Lete, Thomas— 253 
 
 Lemon, Mr. — 201 ; exploded the mare'g 
 nest found in the Record Office, 
 206, pulped 
 Lillinghall, Joan — 231 
 Lilly's Latin Grammar — 43-8 
 Little, John— 131, 191 
 Agnes— 139 
 Ralf— 150 
 Littleton, John— 228, 231-2, 285 
 
 Gilbert— 288 
 Lloyd, David— 231 
 Lord, William- 237 
 
 Lucy, Sir Thomas— 8,37, 46, 170, 19», 
 242, 271, 288 
 Sir William— 137 
 Elizabeth— 151 
 LuORECB, Poem — 11, 18 
 Ludford, Anthony— -145 
 Elizabeth— 150 
 Barbara — 150 
 Luffe, Alys— 240 
 Lythe, Robert— 152 
 Lynton — 252 
 Lye— 29,5 
 
 Mare's Nest found in the Record OfiSoe, 
 206 ; one found at Alcester in 
 1895—190 
 Malone— vi., 5, 181, 226, 291 
 Marshall, George, Rouge Croix — x 
 Master at the Grammar School -44 
 Mason, Richard— 1.38 
 Makepeace, Abel — 253 
 Maxstoke— 265 
 Marcle -273-8 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Matthew, alias Smith, John fil William 
 
 —146 
 Maydes, Richard— 151, 173 (2) 
 Mayow, John— 172, 228 
 
 Nicholas— 235 
 Malary, Charles— 188 
 Madden, Sir Frederick— 206 
 Madook, Gwenlian — 244 
 Meysham— 252 
 
 Mbbes, Francis— 11, 18, 43, 303 
 Mere, Robert — 266 
 Meriden — 147 
 Mersten — 278 
 Metley, Nicholas— 283 
 Medley, Benedict— 283 
 
 William— 283 
 
 Henry, fil George — 146 
 
 George— 284 
 
 Thomas- 285 
 Medleyhope f am.— 285 
 Medlope, Humphrey— 267, 284 
 Milton, John— 303 
 Mildmay, Sir Walter— 253 
 Moris, Katherine— 188 
 Mortiboys, Thomas— 154 
 Morcott Wood—l&a 
 Morcott, Henry— 287 
 
 William— 234, 284-7 
 
 John— 234 
 Montague, Sir Edward— 253-9 
 
 Napton — 247 
 Nade, Richaj-d- 138 
 Nabh, Wilijam— 13,) 
 
 Adam— 135 
 
 Philip— 144 
 
 George — 144 
 
 Thomas— 144 
 
 Ann— 144 
 
 Francisca — 144 
 
 Anthony- 213 
 
 John— 213 
 Ne.whottell—'^2 
 Newport, Richard — 278 
 Neville- 165 
 
 Mary- 231-4 
 
 Sir Thomas — 253 
 
 Edward— 285 
 Nicolson, Walter— 173 
 Nicols, Thomas— 173, 153, 237 
 Mr.— 174 
 Robert— 152 
 Normandy, Duke of— 225 
 North's Plutarch— 48 
 Noble, W. F.-xi. 
 Norton, Cecilia— 146 
 Norwich, Mr.— 254 
 
 O'Carrol, F.— 52 
 Odyll— 253 
 
 Odynselles, William— 268 
 
 Orator, Public— 57 
 
 Ovid— 18 
 
 Oldich, Adam— 132 
 
 Oldnal, Thomas fil Richard— 145 
 
 Agnes— 286 
 
 John— 286 
 
 Margaret— 267 
 
 Roger— 286 
 
 Thomas— 286 
 Oates, Titus— 233 
 Ohdthorpe— 252 
 Oi'ersly — 275 
 Oxendon~252 
 
 Page, William— 240 
 PASSIONATE PILGRIM— 9, 11, 272 
 Parish Clerk— 49 
 Pardu, John— 153, 174 
 
 William— 153, 174 
 Thomas— 153, 174 
 Henry— 153, 174 
 Parkes, William — 151 
 Pearkes, Alexandre — 168 
 Margeria— 168 
 Palgrave, Sir Francis — 206 
 Parker, John— 173 
 Padget, John— 162 
 Paget, William— 168 
 Palmer, John— 172 
 Alice— 267 
 Elizabeth— 172, 245 
 Adam— 172 
 Pembroke, Eari- — 3 
 Perch, Earl— 225 
 Pericles a Spurious Play— 125 
 Peny, Richard — 135 
 Pembroke, Countess — 254 
 Phinnes, Marie— 149 
 Phillip, Augustine— 205 
 Phillips, Sir Thomas, his Calendar of 
 Wills at Worcester — 157 
 Ann— 169 
 Pilkington, Sir John— 265 
 Catherine— 270 
 Thomas— 270 
 Ann— 270 
 FitUey—UG 
 
 Pipwell Monastery — 252 
 Piry Hundred — 265 
 Pickering, Lord Keeper — 146 - ' 
 Player'sMaky Catholics amongst — 192 
 Plutarch— 48 
 
 Porter, Hugh— 151-2, 172 (2) 
 John— 152, 172 
 Robert— 227 
 POPE Adrian IV.— 29, 147 
 Leo XIIL— 14 
 Thomas— 205 
 Poly, Sir William— 231 
 Margaret— 231 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Ponsonby, William— 237 
 Priors Marston— 242 
 Priors JSardwick — 152 
 Preston Bagot— 273-9 
 Prospero — 38 
 PECEMUNIRE— 27 
 Purslow, Thomas— 271 
 Pyrwych, Richard— 240 
 Pkiests' Hiding Place in the Birth- 
 place — 15, 58 
 Prins, William— 132-5 
 Prikel, John— 143 
 Pudsey, Edward — a.. 
 Pythagoras — 1 8 
 
 QUEEN Catherine of Aragon— 27, 55, 
 62-3-5 
 Catherine Parr — 187, 158 
 Aune Boleyne -25, 163 
 Ann— 260 
 ElizabetIx-11, 23, 28, 57, 64, 
 
 151, 254 
 Emma of Normandy — 225 
 Henrietta Maria— 7, 146 
 Mary— 16, 124, 156, 167 
 Qtiarterly Review, 1864 — 9 
 Queeny, Elizabeth — 151 
 Judith— 210, 216 
 Thomas— 216 
 
 Raleigh, Sir Walter— 308 
 Rawson, Francis 253 
 Rabon, John— 137-8-9, 140, 165 
 Recusants- 98 
 Reve, William— 152 
 
 John 
 
 Catherine 
 
 Thomas 
 
 Alys 
 Reading Aubey — 158 
 Reynolds, Roger — 172, 227 
 Thomas— 175, 236 
 William— 213 
 Hugh— 233 
 Joyce- 233 
 Alse— 233 
 Ride, Thomas — 170 
 Rouse, John — 240 
 Roose, Thomas— 254 
 
 Edward— 254 
 Roo— 138 
 
 Roe, Elizabeth, fil John--151 
 Robin, the Rev. Father— 14 
 Robyns, Thomas — 151 
 RoBSABT, Amy- 57, 308 
 Romilly, Sir John— 206 
 Roper, .John- 173 
 
 William— 254 
 Rowley— 310 
 
 Rogers, William— 138-9 
 
 Thomas — 154 
 
 John— 154 
 
 Luke fil Richard— 149 
 SoweiUon— 133, 146, 152 9, 170, 216, 221, 
 
 286 
 Russell, Lady— 205 
 
 Thomas— 213 
 Russheby, Richard — 227 
 
 St. Leger, John— 232 
 St. John of Bletsoe, Lord— 245-8 
 Savage, Richard, the Librarian of Strat- 
 ford— ix., 167, 227 
 Laurence — 287 
 Maria— 234 
 Salwey, Humphrey — 235 
 Saunders, Richard— 145. 152-5-6 
 William- 152-3-6 
 Thomas — 165 
 Elizabeth— 156 
 Margaret — 156 
 Peter— 156 
 Sadler, John— 153, 236 
 
 Hamlett— 161 
 Sawlej/— 252 
 Schlegel — 18 
 
 ScHOLARSHir, Shakspere's — 40 
 Scott, John— 156 
 Ann— 156 
 SHAKSPERE— 
 
 Pope Adrian IV. (Breakspeare) — 
 
 147 
 Adrian (16.32) -147 
 Agnes— 1,32, (1527) 137-9 
 
 PackM-ood (1558)— 161 
 (1476) 133, (14.'-)7) 136,(1460, 
 1486, ].';27) 137, 142, 
 (1593) 161 
 Alys, Braybrook(37 Henry VIll.) 
 —239, 242, 245, 249, 267 
 Rowington — 156 
 Balsall(148G)-160 
 Wroxall (1592)— 150, (1574) 
 
 154 
 Clifford (1579)— 188 
 Packington (1610)— 162 
 Andrew, Packington (1610)— 162 
 Ann, Old Swinford (1697)— 162 
 Annis, Uowington (1574)— 155, 
 
 (1613) 156 (2) 
 Annah (1.598)— 150 
 Antonio, Wroxall (1531)— 139 
 
 Hampton Curlew — 164, 
 
 191 
 Clifford (1583)— 188, 191 
 Stratford-on-Avon — 190 
 Barbara, Hatton (1589)— 168, 20 
 Bridget, Barson (1,548)— 160 
 
 Old Swinford (1695)— 162 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Shakspbre — 
 
 Catherine, Wvoxall (1570-98) — 
 
 168, (1642) 161 
 Christopher. Packwood ( 1486) — 
 136, (1512) 161, (1549) 165 (4) 
 Christian- 126 
 Dorothy (1591)— 156 
 Edward, Wroxall (1574)— 153 
 
 Old Swinford ( 1 695)— 162 
 Eleanor, Wroxall— (23 Henry 
 VII.), 139, 164, 
 (1574) 155, (1613) 
 156 
 Elizabeth, Wroxall (5 Henry 
 v.), 13-2-5 
 Hii.saU 1607)— 169 
 Derby (1558)— 161 
 Hagley (1706)— 160 
 Stratford- 190 
 Florence (1593)— 161 
 Frances, Wroxall (1588)— 149, 
 
 (156'5) 152 
 George, Rowington (1574) — 155 
 Packington (1610)— 161 
 Grace, Derby (1558)— 161 
 Henry, Cliflford (1583)— 188, 191 
 
 Hampton Lucy (1581) — 
 
 190 
 Snitterfield, (1587)— 175- 
 7-8, (1597) 227 
 Hester (1662)— 150 
 The Lady Jane, Wroxall (1526)— 
 136, 148, (1570) 20, 
 29, 166-7-9 
 The Lady Isabella, Wroxall — 
 
 1.32 6-8, 144-8, 265 
 Jane, Hasely (1678)— 151 
 Isabell, Packwood (1558) — 161, 
 
 (1486) 136 (2) 
 James,Hampton Lucy (1585) — 190 
 
 Ingon (15851-190 
 John (the Poet's father)— 5,9, 15, 
 45, 153, 170-4, J80-1, 
 192-3-9, 227, 290 
 (the shoemaker, of Stratford) 
 
 —7, 10, 177, 181-9 
 Clifford (1579-1610)- 8,187-8 
 Hagley (1704)— 102 
 Haseley (1543)— 170 
 Packwood (1558)— 161 
 Rowington— 20, 132, (1460) 
 136,(1524)142,(1543)138, 
 (1548) 143, (15571 145(3), 
 (1561) 152, (1613) 156 (4), 
 (1718) 156 
 Tachbrook(1605)-14 
 Warwick (1557)— 160 
 Wroxall (23 Henry VII.)— 
 139,(1525)142,(1537)137, 
 (1565) 152, (1574) 1.33-5 
 (2), (1591)290 
 Johanna-(1469) 136, (1548) 143, 
 (1557) 145 
 
 Shakspbre — 
 
 Johanna, Warwick (1577) — 160 
 
 Joane-184, 287 
 
 Judith, the Poet's daughter — 
 
 212-7 
 Julian, Clifford (1608)— 188 
 Laurence, Ri)wiii,u;toii — (1564) 142, 
 (1557)144,(1574), 154 
 Balsal— 156, 160 
 Mary, the Poet's motlior (1580) — 
 175 
 Rowingtuu — 102 
 Marie, Wroxnll (1608)— 169 
 Margaret (1596)— 175 
 
 Alcester (15.38)- 191 
 Margerie- (1464) 136, (1648) 146 
 Wroxhll— (1665) 151, 
 (1565) 158 
 Nicholas, Budbrook, a recusant 
 ]92 
 
 BiisaI-(]r)9;]-7) 168-9, 
 
 (1609) 156 
 Hatton (1667)- 20 
 Rowington -(1561) 152, 
 
 (1574) 155 
 Wvoxall— (1574) 154, 
 (1592) 150, (1.545) 
 151 
 Peter, Busal (].-i93)— 168 
 
 Wroxall (1G41) 151 
 Philip, Packington (1610)— 161 
 Ralf, Barkswcll (1464) 136, 148, 
 (1525) 160, (1531) 139, 
 (1544) M-2 (4), (1543) 154, 
 (1550) 160 (Hs (1571) 160, 
 (1.574) l.">4-5 
 Barfon--(l.-)47) 160(3), (1609) 
 156 
 Richard, the I'oct's grandfather— 
 (l.'Ai) 134-7, (1537) 
 
 137, 1.5311 139,(1543) 
 
 138, 145, 154, 148, 
 (1.561) 5, 151, 153, 
 171-3 (misprinted 
 1565) 228, 249, 267 
 
 Hampton Corley— (1526) 
 
 142 
 Hasely— (l.i24) 138,(1548) 
 145,156,163-4-5-6,170 
 Woldidi— (1457) 1.36 
 Alcester— (1538) 191 
 Packwood- (1558) 161 
 Rowenton — 192, (1561) 
 1.52 (2), (1574) 155, 
 (1591) 156, (1613) 
 156 (4) 
 Robert— (1,557) 145. (1561) 151, 
 (1670) 151 
 Rowington - (1561) 152 
 Roger, the Monk of Bordesley — 
 166-8, 192 
 Packwood-(1558) 161 
 Rowington— (1591) 15G 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Shakspbre — 
 
 Roger, Taohbrook— (1605) 161 
 Sarah, Hagley— (1704-6) 162 (6) 
 Susannah, Wroxall— (1576) 168-9 
 Thomas, Alcester-(1538) 191 
 
 Balsal— (1486) 136, 160(2) 
 Coventry— (1359) 133 
 Knowle-(1486) 136) 
 Packington (1610) 161 (2) 
 Rowenton— (1476) 133-6, 
 (1537) 133-7, (1548) 
 143,(1661)152,(1574) 
 146, 155 (2), (1591) 
 156,(1593)142,(1613) 
 156 (3), (1632) 146-7, 
 192, a recusant 
 Snitterfield— (1581) 175, 
 
 177-8 
 Alias Green Stratford — 
 
 (1581-90) 189 
 WroxaU— (1570) 169 (2) 
 Warwick— (1577) 160 (2) 
 (1579) 160, (1597) 
 161-79 
 WILLIAM, THE POET— Passim 
 Abuseof him — 2. Heirof John 
 —10. A Catholic— 20. His 
 misery as a child — 28. Beer 
 Drinkinp; — 36. His kindness 
 to his poor wife — 34. Scholar- 
 ship— 40. A Master at the 
 Grammar School — 44. His 
 Intellectual Powers — 49. 
 False Charge of his Malignity 
 —53. His Life and Suf- 
 erings portrayed in the 
 play of King Henry VIII. — 
 66. Held Land of Rowington 
 Manor — 148. Came from 
 Snitterfield— 175. Great sums 
 paid for his Plays— 204. His 
 Petition to the Council (1596) 
 —205. His Purchase of Tithes 
 —176, 208. His Will— 211. 
 His Friendship with Bar- 
 tholomew Griffin— 272. The 
 Sonnets, not all genuine— 
 296. Dr. Upton's testimony 
 to the Poet's religion ; his 
 attack upon him for flattery 
 — S14 
 Aloester (1538)— 190 
 Coventry (1605)-161 
 Hatton (1599)-20, (1589) 168 
 Longlchington (1657)— 179, 268 
 Rowington (1551)— 152, (1591) 
 
 156, (1613, 1690) 154 
 Snitterfield (1569)— 153, 174, 
 
 291, (1531) 164 
 Warwick (1577) 160, (1579) 161 
 Wroxall— (1531) 164, (1537) 136, 
 137, (1543) 138 
 Shakeshaft, John, Balsall (1644-5)— 160 
 
 Shakeshaft, Richard, Snitterfield (1524) 
 —172 
 Thomas, Alcester (1537)— 
 192 
 Waggestaffe, Snitterfield (16 Henry 
 
 VIL)227 
 Shrewsbury, Earl — 41 
 Shepherd, Alice— 161 
 Shottery—3\ 
 Shepeye, Thomas — 1 
 Shrawley — 146 
 Shevelock, Richard — 157 
 ShucJcbroragh — 247 
 Shele -252 
 Shaw, William— 154 
 Shellarsley — 172 
 Simpson, Thomas — 62 
 Skevington, Sir Peter — 245 
 Elizabeth— 245 
 Skinner, William — 159 
 George— 278 
 Anthony— 279 
 Alice— 159 
 Sly, WiUiam-205 
 Smythe, Erasmus— 258 
 
 Dame Agnes— 221 
 Sir John— 241 
 Bridget— 246 
 William— 157, 188 
 Richard- 250 
 Roger— 282 
 SNITTERFIELD -171 
 Smeton—25S 
 
 Somerville, Sir Henry — 244 
 Somerfield, John— 190 
 Southampton, Eabi^— 3, 235, 271 
 Sonnets — 9 
 Spedding- 125, 312 
 Spanish, only eight words in Shakspere's 
 
 works — 51 
 Spencer, Sir John— 237, 248, 264-9, 270, 
 281 
 Thomas— 279 
 Spenser, the Poet —303 
 Stanford, Margery— 233 
 Stede, Elizabeth, ux Thomas— 236 
 Stoke— U, 251 
 Stokes, Miss Ethel- xi. 
 Stokes, Ralf— 151 
 
 Catherine — 151 
 Stoke Albeney-252 
 Stocks, the — 37 
 Stonely, Richard— 266 
 Thomas— 267 
 StoTie—'iSo 
 
 STONOR, LADY— 57, 248, 252-3-6-7, 
 274, 281 
 Sir Walter— 245 
 Sir Francis — 254 
 Stiff, Barbara— 131, 168 
 Stringer, Thomas— 151, 173 (2), 175 
 Agnes— 173 
 Ardistran — 175 
 
INDEX. 
 
 STRATFORD - ON - AVON— 173, 180, 
 
 274 
 Stratford, Oldr—ilZ 
 Stopes, Mrs.— 205 
 Sterquilinium — 182 
 Strilly, Frlswide— 253 
 Suckling, Sir John — 54 
 Sultmi—VIZ 
 Sutton Basset — 253 
 Surrey, Thomas, Earl — 249 
 Symmons, Dr. , criticises the Critics — vii. 
 
 Taylor, John— 135-7-8, 143 
 Alice— 135-7-8, 165 
 William~287 
 TacKln-ook—\i5 
 Templb Grafton, Ann Hathaway's 
 
 assumed residence — 31 
 Temple, Edward— 150 
 Throckmorton, Clement — 150 - 1 - 3, 
 165-8, 170, 234, 
 271-4 8, 285 
 Elizabeth— 246 
 tieorge— 137 
 .Job— 168 (2) 
 Dorothy— 168 (2) 
 Catherine— 161, 278 
 Fisher, 168 
 Robert-172, 227 
 Margaret — 165, 178, 
 
 246 
 Elizabeth— 165 
 Thomas— 246, 274-9 
 TlKyrpbyUell— 252 
 Thorpe, Labbenham — 251 
 Thornbury, John — 245 
 BBEA Alice— 245 
 
 Tilney, Edward— 207 
 Tomson, Richard — 139 
 Townend, Ballard -147 
 
 Catherine— 169 
 John— 173 
 Tomes, John, fil William— 149 
 Tooley, Nicholas — 205 
 Tonworth—na 
 Tomlinson, Joan — 190 
 Trimmer. Douglas — 130 
 Trussel, Thomas— 172, 227 
 Turehil, of Warwick— 224 
 Tamer, George— 181, 156 
 
 Thomas— 287 
 Tybott, John— 139, 169 
 
 Isabel— 169 
 Tyler, Mr.— 23, 298 
 George — 164 
 Richard- 213 
 Tyrwhit, Catherine— 245| 
 Thomas— 245 
 
 JJnderhill, Hercules — 202 
 
 Underbill, Richard— 159 
 William— 202 
 Underwood, Bryning — 240 
 Ulrici— 311 
 Upton, Dr.— 313 
 
 Valor EccLiasiASTicu.s — 134 
 VAU6HAN, his Eminence the Cardinal 
 —277 
 Richard— 277 
 Ann— 277 
 Vernon, Dorothy — 234 
 Eliz.— 235 
 John— 235 
 Venus and Adonis — 11, 18 
 Vincent, J. A. C. — xi. 
 Voltaire on the Confessional — 24 
 
 Wandel, John— 281 
 Watson, Ferdinand — 253 
 Walford— 253 
 Warner, Richard— 287 
 Wardoii—2SS 
 
 Wakenby, Margaret — 240 
 Wakerly— 253-6 
 Warren. Sir Ralf— 254 
 Walsingham, Morrice — 276 
 Warwick Earls— 224 
 
 College of— 228 
 Washford, Alice— 138 
 Waring, John — 147 
 Water Orton—i73 
 Ward, John, Vicar of Stratford -on- 
 
 Avon— 203-4, 218 
 Walker, William— 213, 260 
 Wardrobe, The Blackfriars — 213 
 Walford, Hugo— 156 
 Wagstaffe, John— 227 (? Shakestaff or 
 
 Shakespere) 
 Webb, Maria— 149 
 S.arah— loO 
 William— 168 
 Joseph— 168 
 Alexander — 1 74 
 Robert— 174 (4), 176-7 
 Joane — 168 
 Thomas— 169 
 Henry— ,190 
 Webster, William— 240 
 Weston, Favell— 251 
 Weston next WoUand — 253 
 Weston, Alice— 240 
 Ruth— 240 
 West, Edward— 182 
 Welcomb—2n 
 Weyle, William— 153 
 Alice— 153 
 Isabel— 153 
 John— 153 
 Kenelm— 153 
 Bartholomew — 153 
 Clement— 153 
 
INDEX 
 
 WhcUely, Ann, Ann Hatha way's assumed 
 
 name— 31 
 Wherritt, Richard— 136-9 
 William— 149 
 John— 169 
 Wharton, William— 150 
 Whitrefe, Joan— 191 
 Wheler, John— 202 
 Whitney, Sir Robert— 231 
 Winnington, Elizabeth — 231 
 Wheathill, Richard— 245 
 Emmota— 245 
 White, William— 150 
 White, Lady— 254 
 Wythed, Alice— 266 
 Wilmecote — 10 
 
 Winged Words, Shakspere's— 49 
 Windmiles, Alice — 154 
 Wilberston— 252-7 
 Wilcocks, See Dilcocks Henry — 133 
 Wilkinson, Catherine — 150 
 Wise, Mathew — 151 
 Will, John Shakspere's— 193 
 
 The Poet's— 211 
 Wigmore, Maria— 234 
 Wise, Sir Thomas— 234 
 Winslowe, Henry — 250 
 Willes, Richard— 281-4 
 WoLSBY, Cardinal- 55, 62-3, 167 
 Woodstock— 5S 
 
 Woodhams, Richard— 131-7, 138 (3) 9, 
 154-6, 165, 170-9 
 
 Agnes — 131 
 
 Ann— 168 
 
 Nicholas— 163 
 
 Woldich, Ad.— 136 
 Woldich— 133, 158 
 Woodall, Joyce — 150 
 Wood, William— 172 
 
 Thomas— 204 8, 270 
 Woodham, Richard- 267-8 
 
 Emma— 267 
 Wootton Wawen— 273-8 
 Wordsworth, the Poet— 301 
 WooLSTAPLKR, John Shakspere not on» 
 
 —202 
 Woodward, Thomas — 240 
 Wotton, Sir Thomas — 
 Wray, Lord C. J. —53 
 Wright, Aldis— 62, 123-5, 307, 311 
 WROXALL— 5, 20 
 
 Court Rolls— 129, 133-4 
 Wychford— 279 
 Wynford, Elizabeth— 233 
 Wyx/ord—ilS i 
 
 Yates of Lydford Grange — 58 
 Yoman, William— 253 
 Yeman, Richard — 152 
 Yeton, Thomas— 173 
 
 John— 173 
 York, Richard, Duke of— 226 
 
 Zouch, Nicholas — 244 
 Margaret — 244 
 
BlRMINbHAM : 
 
 Printed by John B. Collings, i68, Edmund Street;