Ma3 
 
 as 
 
 
 z 
 
 uj 
 
 8 
 
 I 
 
 H 
 U 
 
 8 
 
 
 C/5 
 
"iluK Igmnijnot toitfr lis aolji malse iijijitn, 
 
 THE 
 
 SHAKESPERE MARRIAGE 
 PICTURE: 
 
 Critical ©bserbatians, llEflecttons, 
 
 ^^igtotical iKemorantra, ©ottespontence, Eiterarg iSotices, 
 
 *c., ${(., S(c., 
 
 By JOHN MALAM, Esq. 
 
 EDITED By 
 
 J. C. HODGSON, 
 
 AUTHOK OF "JtODEUX SCIKSt'Ji AND TUiC liOOiC OF UKSESXS," 
 "OBICIN 01' THK ZIXC'ALI," " KU'J'H," 
 'HEXAX'S IXCOXSISTKXCIES," "MODERN POETHY," "CAPITAL PCKISHMESil',' 
 - ETC., ETC., ETC. 
 
 LONDON : 
 SIMPKIN, MAESHALL & Co., STATIONEES' HALL GOUET. 
 
 .S. W. THEAKSTON, PBINTBB, SCAEBOBOUGH 
 1S73. 
 

•' dSHarrisjjt of ^nit gall&stoasf fcitfr Willism »is,iispm.' 
 
 THE 
 
 SHAKESPEEE MAEEIAGE 
 PICTUEE: 
 
 ^ttttcal ®i6txbatian&, Befiecttons, 
 
 ?^t'0tarical iWemorantia, Cotteapontimce, SLt'terarg i^otices, 
 
 &t., &c., ^c, 
 
 By JOHN MALAM, Esq. 
 
 EDITED BY 
 
 J. C. HODGSON, 
 
 AOTHOH OF "MODERN SCIENCE AND THE BOOK. OP GENESIS," 
 
 "OBIGIN OF THE ZINCALI," "RUTH," 
 
 "KENAN'S INCONSISTENCIES," "MODERN POETRY," "CAPITAL PUNISHMENT,' 
 
 ETC., ETC., ETC. 
 
 LONDON : 
 SIMPKIN, MAESHALL & Co., STATIONEES' HALL COUET. 
 
 S. W. THBAKSTON, PRINTBH, SCAEBOEOUGH, 
 1873. 
 
 A 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tliis book is in 
 tlie Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924013152214 
 
PEEPACE. 
 
 In tte production of the accompanyiag little work, the Editor 
 has been greatly indebted to Mr. Malam, the proprietor of the 
 picture of the " Shakespere Marriage," for a variety of notes, 
 memoranda, suggestions, and other memorials bearing on the 
 subject under review. 
 
 Mr. Malam has been all over London collecting together 
 a store of Shakesperiana, in the shape of pictures, old engravings, 
 books, and other archaeological curiosities, •which have shed an 
 amount of light on the subject that cannot fail to make its 
 impression on the intelligent reader. 
 
 Everything that has been discovered with reference to this 
 question, has tended to confirm the view the Editor and his 
 friends have taken of the matter. Stratford itself has been 
 visited, and the result has only tended to deepen their conviction 
 that there is nothing anachronistic about the picture, that it is 
 genuine, and the production of the Elizabethan age. If this 
 view be the correct one, the picture wiU turn out to be the most 
 valuable archseological discovery of this century, Ulustrating 
 as it does, that most interesting and curious ceremony, the 
 espousals of Shakespere with Ann Hathaway, which, according 
 to HaUiweU, are said to have taken place La the " summer of 
 1582." 
 
 When the Church marriage was performed does not appear ; 
 but from the wording of the bond, it seems to have been deferred 
 long enough to compel the contracting parties to consent to a 
 semewhat hasty consummation, viz., after " one asking of the 
 banns." The critical world has, hitherto, treated the subject 
 superficially, and imported a considerable amount of ipse dixit 
 prejudice into the discussion. Granted a fair spirit of investi- 
 gation, and a fair and impartial verdict may be guaranteed, and 
 any unfair attempt to put down the picture as worthless, will 
 
redound on the heads of its promoters. Many eminent indi- 
 viduals, critics, connoisseurs, yirtuosi, and gentlemen, have 
 given their adhesion to the views held forth in this little work. 
 
 Let our readers read, and judge as wise men ; and, though 
 the heavens fall, let justice be done, and Trath have her 
 reward. 
 
 We may here add, that our mode of spelling the name of 
 Shakespere is intentional, and m.ore in accordance with ancient 
 usage than the ordinary orthography of the present day. 
 
 August 4th, 1873. 
 
TEE MAEEIAGE OF SHAKESPEEE. 
 
 SHAKESPEKE has rendered his name a household 
 word throughout the world. He has been looked upon 
 as a sort of universal genius, distributing the golden treasures 
 of his mind, like so much largess, among his multitudinous 
 admirers, and thereby winning " golden opinions and troops 
 of friends." Few works have passed through more editions 
 than the works of Shakespere; few writers have been so 
 much written about, and few about whom there has been 
 such an unanimity of sentiment : all, by common consent, 
 have agreed to place Shakespere on the loftiest pinnacle 
 of human glory, and enshrine him among the chiefest 
 worthies in the Pantheon of Fame. 
 
 As a poet, a dramatist, a story-teller, a philosopher, a 
 literary kaleidoscope, and a wit, he has been pronounced 
 inimitable, and unrivalled. He seems to have deciphered 
 the most mysterious hieroglyphics in which human nature 
 has been charactered. Its infinite complexity has presented 
 no impediment to his "intuitional consciousness." Whether 
 the characters have been cunieform. Runic, or cabalistic, he 
 seems to have apprehended their import at a glance, and 
 stamped them with ineiFaceable intelhgibility. He has been 
 a mine of wisdom to many generations of men, like the 
 
 A 
 
Athenians of old, ever seeking some new thing for the 
 gratification of their curiosity, their self-love, their vanity, 
 their love of knowledge, or their boundless ambition in the 
 realm of imagination and fact. Shakespere has dealt with 
 the minute and the mighty, the insignificant and the infinite, 
 the mean and the majestic, the beautiful and the base, the 
 simple and the sublime, the trifling and the important, the 
 wisdom and the folly, the joy and the sorrow, the love and 
 the hate, the jealousy and the malevolence, the extravagant 
 and the matter-of-fact, the fantastic and the horrible, the 
 ideal and the real, behind the curtain that conceals the 
 arcana of this wonderful world of man — a " mighty maze 
 but not without a plan." 
 
 What marvel it such a man — not one but all the world's 
 epitome — hive been talked about, written about, speculated 
 about, and turned about, more than the generality of his 
 cotemporaries, and successors ? And anything new that 
 can be said, or brought to light, concerning the life of 
 Shakespere, will ever be hailed with enthusiasm, and hope, 
 and received with a sincere and affectionate desire that what 
 may be considered new may also be accounted true. If we 
 can do anything to people this enchanted land with realities, 
 to add to the charms of Shakesperian landscapery a vivid 
 outline of the bard himself, and some of his intimate friends, 
 we shall not have laboured in vain in the work of rehabili- 
 tation. 
 
BIOGEAPHICAL SKETCH OF OUE POET'S 
 LIFE. 
 
 William Shakespere was the son of John and Mary 
 Arden Shakespere, and was born in Henley Street, Strat- 
 ford-on-Avon, on April 23, 1564, and was baptised on the 
 26th of that month, as entered in Latin in the vellum leayes 
 of the old Parish Eegister. 
 
 His father, at this period, was a man of some importance 
 in the town, and has been variously denominated a farmer, 
 a butcher, a wool-stapler, and a glover, in all of^which 
 professions he seems to have been mixed up. In SS he 
 was chosen as " ale taster," an officer " appointed in every 
 Court Leet, and sworn to look to the assize and goodness 
 of bread, ale, or beer, within the precincts of that Lord- 
 ship." He was allowed to be a " wise and discreet person." 
 In the same year he married Mary Arden, the youngest 
 daughter of Eobert Arden, Esq., of Wilmecot, Warwick- 
 shire. She brought to him, as her marriage-portion, the 
 estate of Ashbies, containing " fifty acres of arable land, six 
 of meadow, and a right of commonage " — a goodly heritage 
 in those days. During his prosperous days he was con- 
 stituted one of the fourteen aldermen who presided over the 
 local affairs of Stratford; and was subsequently elected to 
 the position of bailiff, and thus became a magistrate. He 
 continued to prosper till about the year 1577, when instead 
 of adding to his prosperity, he was reduced to the necessity 
 of diminishing it, and ultimately became so poor as to be 
 
 a2 
 
excused the poor-rate. Shakespere was then fourteen years 
 of age ; and was withdrawn from school to assist his father 
 in his agricultural and other pursuits. While at school Ben 
 Jonson gives him credit for learning " small Latinne and 
 lesse Greeke." 
 
 Various opinions have been held concerning the youthful 
 occupations of Shakespere. In 1693 the Parish Clerk of 
 Stratford, who was then eighty years of age, said that he 
 was " apprenticed to a butcher," and Aubrey coniirms this 
 statement by a concurrent opinion, and says that when the 
 embryo poet " killed a calfe, he would do it in a high style, 
 and make a speech ! " The same gossip also says that he 
 was a country schoolmaster ; while Malone, with some reason, 
 pronounces him an " attorney's clerk." 
 
 Modern writers have given him a more Protean reputation 
 still, among the trades and professions of life, into which his 
 works prove him to have had a marvellous insight. In his 
 hot youth he seems to have acquired a taste for play-acting 
 and play-writing (derived probably from his father, who was 
 an ardent patron of the stage) which grew with his growth, 
 and strengthened with his strength; and from this pro- 
 pensity we may ascribe the development of his talent as a 
 dramatist and an actor. His whole after life was mixed 
 up with histrionic matters, and few reliable incidents of his 
 career have survived the vicissitudes of time and chance. 
 He acquired an amazing popularity among his cotempo- 
 raries. The geniality of his nature as a wit, and a conver- 
 sationist, and the versatility of his many-sided intellect, the 
 honied sweetness and copiousness of his rhythmic and poetic 
 flow, and the many other excellences of his character, 
 endeared him to his numerous friends and associates, and 
 
all who came within the sphere of his influence, which 
 increased till the day of his death, and subsequently spread, 
 -in an accelerated ratio, through the length and breadth of 
 the land. 
 
 As the marriage of Shakespere with Ann Hathaway, the 
 fair maid of Shottery, is the subject of this pamphlet, we 
 will at once begin to unfold our scroll of information on this 
 important theme ; filrst premising it with a few historic facts 
 thereanent. 
 
 It has been allowed by all that the marriage of Shake- 
 spere took place soon after November 28, 1582, the date of 
 the Latin bond, which, in recent times, was discoTered 
 in the Worcester Registry. The bond was signed by 
 " Fulkes Sandells and John Eichardson," and stampt with 
 the initial seal of Richard Hathaway. To this was ap- 
 pended a statement, in English, declaring that William 
 Shakespere and Ann Hathaway may " lawfully solemnize 
 matrimony together," and, under certain conditions, be en- 
 titled to marry after " one asking of the banns," three 
 being the ecclesiastical number ; but it has never been 
 ascertained when, or where the marriage herein set forth, 
 was consummated.* No entry of the marriage has been 
 
 * The following is a translation of ttie Latin Bond : — 
 
 *■ Know all men, by th^e presents, that we, Fulke Sandells, of Stratford, in the 
 County of Warwick, husbandman, and John Eichardson, of the same place, hns- 
 Ijandman, are held and firmly bound to Richard Cosin, gentleman, and Bobert 
 ■\^*armstry, public notary, to pay forty pounds of good and lawful English money 
 to the same Richard Oosin and Robert Warmstry, their heirs, executors and assigns ; 
 that the payment be well and faithfully made, we bind ourselves, and each one of 
 us, and our heirs, executors, and assigns, for the whole and entire sum by these 
 presents, having set our seals thereto. 
 
 "Given this 28th day of November [1582], in the 25th year of the reign of our 
 Lady Elizabeth, by the grace of G-od, Queen of England, France, and Ireland, 
 defender of the faith." 
 
 This bond must have been drawn up in Hathaway*s lifetime, for his seal is attached 
 to it ; the marriage-license was afterwards appended, and dated as in the text, nearly 
 
6 
 
 discovered in tlie Stratford register, it has been therefore 
 conjectured that he was married elsewhere, in the diocese 
 of Worcester. Malone thinks it may have taken place at 
 Luddington, the curate of that place, the Kev. Thos. Hunt,. 
 having been the master of th^ Grammar School in Shake- 
 pere's school-days, and a likely person to have pronounced 
 the marriage blessing. Unfortunately the church was de- 
 stroyed by fire, and the register perished at the same time. 
 We have therefore no means of determining the accuracy 
 or inaccuracy of Malone's supposition ; and the true date of 
 Shakespere's marriage may be looked upon as irrecoverable ; 
 but that it happened soon after the bond was executed may 
 be considered certain. Mr. Malam thinks the authoriza- 
 tion attached to the Latin Bond to be the real and only 
 marriage license. This is all that history and ourselves 
 
 five months after Hathaway's death. Hence we must look upon the Bond and the- 
 Licence as two distinct documents, in the latter of which William Shakespere is 
 required at his own risk and expense, to hold the Bishop of Worcester " harmless" 
 in marrying the betrothed pair. 
 
 Fulke Sandells and John Richardson seem to have been acting on behalf of some 
 one ; but we are not informed whether the £40 of the bond was for the benefit of 
 the notary and the gentleman for sei'vices rendered, or was trust-money for a pur- 
 pose not determinable now, and yet connected with the impending marriage. 
 
 The English addendum to this certifira that William Shakesper^ and Ann- 
 Hathaway may lawfully solemnise matrimony together after one asking of the 
 banns, &c., &c. 
 
 May we not reasonably presume that the picture represents the betrothal of the 
 pair during the lifetime of Hathaway ; the notary, and the witness, being the same 
 Robert Warmstry, and Bichard Cosin (both of whom were subsequently mixed up 
 with the marriage settlement)jthe man counting the dowry Richard.Hathaway, and 
 the woman his wife. The evidence is of the kind to warrant such an interpretation i 
 but whoever may be the subordinate actors in the two scenes represented, the principal 
 character is sufficiently recognisable to entitle us to regard the picture as a genuine- 
 antiquarian treasure, and the only one in which a portrait of Ann Hathaway may 
 be said to be extant. 
 
 It will be seen that the name of Shakespere is not mentioned in the preliminary 
 Latin bond, though both he and his betrothed are named in the words, in Tilnglish, 
 that follow, holding the Bishop of Worcester exempt from ,any ill consequences that 
 may arise from the celebration of the marriage, which seems to have been deferred 
 so long as to render the curtailment of the customary banns indispensable. 
 
know about the matter, to which we append the fact that 
 Shakespere was 19 years of age, and his bride 26-7, a 
 disparity of seven or eight years. About six months after 
 the drawing up of the marriage-bond, their first child was 
 born, viz., on May 26, 1583, as inscribed in the register at 
 Stratford. But, as it was customary in those days, to 
 precede the regular marriage ceremony by a form of hand- 
 fasting, or espousals, by means of a double, or gemmal ring — 
 a ring ingeniously constructed to enclose the fingers of the 
 betrothed pair — the birth of the child at this early stage 
 after the legal marriage, may be assumed as perfectly en regie, 
 and in harmony with the rules of legitimacy. J. 0. Halli- 
 well, one of the best of Shakesperian editors, states that 
 the espousals of the lovers were celebrated in the suntmer 
 of 1582, at which period Richard Hathaway was living, and 
 a probable witness of the troth plight. The parish register 
 of Stratford will shew that it was usual for co-habitation to 
 take place before actual marriage, and as Shakespere's first 
 child was bom six months after the legal marriage, we may 
 naturally presume that this interesting circumstance was 
 the result of the preliminary contract by espousals. That 
 there was no impropriety attached to the fact is unques- 
 tionable ; for it was customary, in all doubtful cases, to 
 affix a mark of obloquy to the registered name, and as no 
 such stigma is found there, we may dismiss the suspicion of 
 illegitimacy from our minds altogether. 
 
 Bearing on this matter, we extract from Charles Knight's 
 Life of Shakespere, Vol. i. p. 71, the following : — " In a 
 work published in 1543, on the Christian State of Matrimony, 
 we find this passage : — ' Yet in this thing also, must I warn 
 every reasonable and honest person to beware that in the 
 
8 
 
 contracting of marriage, he dissemble not, nor set forth any 
 lie. Every man likewise must esteem the person to whom 
 he is hand-fasted, none otherwise than for his own spouse; 
 though as yet it be not done in the Church, nor in the street. 
 After the hand-fasting, and making of the contract, the 
 church-going and wedding should not be deferred too long.' 
 The author then goes on to rebuke a custom ' that at the 
 handfasting there ^ is made a great feast and superfluous 
 banquet;' and he adds words which imply that the Epithala- 
 mium [or nuptial song] was at this feast sung, without a 
 doubt as to its propriety, before going to church, where ' all 
 sanctimonious ceremonies may with full and holy pride be 
 ministered.' " In the Encyclopmdia Brittanica, vol. xx. p. 89, 
 we read thus: — "With respect to Shakespere's marriage- 
 bond, which has been considered to indicate haste and secresy, 
 unfavourable to the reputation of Ann Hathaway, it appears 
 that betrothment, generally preceded ac- 
 tual marriage, and was to be held sacred and binding." The 
 article further says that, in illegitimate cases, the fact was 
 " always carefully noted in the register." 
 
 In " Measure for Measure," Act iv. Scene 1, Shakespere 
 makes the Duke say to Mariana, in reference to the action 
 of the plot : — 
 
 *' Nor, gentle daughter, fear you not at all. 
 He is your husband on a ■pre-contract : 
 To bring you thus together^ 'tis no sin" 
 
 Again, in " Twelfth Night,'' Act v., Olivia says to the 
 Priest : — 
 
 •' Father, I charge thee, by thy reverence, 
 
 Here to unfold what thou dost know 
 
 Hath newly passed between this youth and me." 
 
 Priest. " A contract of eternal bond of love, 
 Confirm'd by mutual joinder of your hands, 
 Attested by the holy close of lips, 
 Strengthen'd by interchangement of your rings ; 
 And all the ceremony of this compact 
 Seal'd in my function, by my testimony.'* 
 
In '' Winter's Tale,'' Act i., Leontes indicates that troth- 
 plight should precede co-habitation to prevent illegitimacy in 
 the issue. 
 
 See also " The Tempest," Act iv. Scene 1. 
 
 The gemmal ring was used by the Anglo-Saxons. E. J. 
 Wood, in his " Wedding Day in all Ages and Countries," 
 says that this ring was " at first a mere love token, but was 
 afterwards converted into a ring of serious affiance." It was 
 variously formed, and sometimes appeared in the beautiful 
 symbol of " clasped hands." At the time of betrothal the 
 man put his finger through one of the hoops of the ring, and 
 the woman hers through the other . . . . " this mode 
 of betrothal was frequently performed in a solemn manner on 
 the Bible, and in the presence of a witness." 
 
 Scott says that the custom of hand-fasting originated in 
 Scotland at an early period, and was practised by the ancient 
 Danes. By conforming to this custom a betrothed pair were 
 permitted to live together as man and wife, till the rites of the 
 church perfected the mutual agreement between the pair. It 
 is clear, from all the evidence we have gathered, that the 
 espousals of Shakespere and Ann Hathaway preceded actual 
 marriage at church nearly five months, without bringing any 
 stigma on either. 
 
 We shall now direct our attention to the picture of 
 Shakespere's marriage, discovered in January, 1872, by Mr. 
 H. W. Holder, of Scarborough, who has had thirty years' 
 experience as a restorer of paintings, having gone through 
 portions of the collections of the Duke of Leeds, Lord 
 Cathcart, Lord Hawke, Lord Bolton, Sir C. Dodsworth, 
 Sir Clifford Constable, Sir William Lawson, Sir Marma- 
 duke Wyvill, and numerous other gentlemen, for whom he 
 
10 
 
 has restored upwards of 3,000 paintings ; and is now engaged 
 in restoring the valuable collection (one of the finest in 
 England) at Cave Castle, the property of C. E. Barnard, Esq. 
 Mr. Holder, being in London at this time, purchased 
 of Mr. Albert, Museum-street, a group of four pictures, 
 among which was a common-looking, dingy, neglected old 
 picture, representing an ordinary marriage ceremony in the 
 oratory of a private dwelling. Mr. Holder did not consider 
 the work of any value, and would not have purchased it 
 if the owner would have separated it from the lot, among 
 which was an excellent landscape by Verboom, which 
 attracted Mr. Holder's attention and tempted him to 
 become a purchaser. A few weeks after he rubbed the 
 unvalued picture over with a sponge, and was so pleased 
 with the effect produced that he resolved to line, clean, and 
 restore the picture. During the process of cleaning he 
 discovered in the top corner on the left hand the following 
 Elizabethan inscription : — 
 
 " Rare lymnynge with ts dothe make appere, 
 "Marriage of Aon Hathaway with William Shakespere. 
 
 " 15—." 
 
 This discovery enhanced Mr. Holder's interest in the picture, 
 and he thought he had dropped on an antiquarian treasure 
 exhibiting genuine portraits of the bard and his bride, and 
 other cotemporary worthies, to whose identity, however, 
 we have no direct clue. The picture had been lined, cleaned, 
 and repaired apparently many years ago ; but this had been 
 done with great care, as no part of the picture had been 
 re-painted or altered, nor has Mr. Holder done anything 
 to the picture to render it other than it was when he pur- 
 chased it. This does away with the unwarrantable statement 
 of the editor, of the Athenceum (Sep. 21, 1872), to the effect 
 
11 
 
 that it " seems doubtful whether the marriage group tormea 
 a portion of the original work ; and even if it did whether 
 the figures have not been altered. They certainly seem to 
 have been considerably touched." An affirmation dogmatic 
 enough, but destitute of any particle of evidence, and con- 
 tradicted by Mr. Holder's solemn asseveration published in 
 the columns of the same journal, Oct. 5, 1872. To this the 
 editor appended an opinion, as gratuitous as it was unfounded, 
 that the picture had no reference to Shakespere ; attaching 
 thereby no value to the inscription, or the strong likeness 
 the principal figure bears, not to the iStratford Bust, but to 
 the cast of Shakespere's face said to be in the possesion of 
 Professor Owen. The rest of the editor's remarks are purely 
 conjectural, and more incredible than the facts he ventures 
 to call in question. The Guardian for Oct. 2, 1872, makes 
 the following observations : — " The male figure has the high 
 cranium and blonde complexion traditionally assigned to 
 Shakespere. The lady is in the late Elizabethan or early 
 Stuart costume. The inscription, which is of the most im- 
 portance, has been pronounced genuine, as far as antiquity 
 is concerned, by several distinguished judges." The Graphic, 
 Oct. 5, 1872, wrote thus : — " It appears to be the work of a 
 third-rate Dutch artist, and is in very gopd preservation." 
 
 We may here observe that the editor of Wotes and Queries 
 seemed in the first instance to be favourably impressed by 
 the evidence brought forward concerning the picture ; but as 
 soon as the Athenceum turned recreant and pooh-poohed the 
 picture, he also followed suit after publishing one or two 
 letters from Mr. Holder ; but he withheld from publication 
 another letter of his which satisfactorily answered the objec- 
 tions and queries that had been made. We think such 
 
12 
 
 conduct both disingenuous and unfair, and the criticiBm 
 offered in those journals anything but critical. The ex-editor 
 of Notes and Queries went so far as to impeach the good 
 faith and veracity of Mr. Holder's statement with regard to 
 the original condition of the picture, and he further expresses 
 a dogmatic opinion against it, at the same time admitting 
 that he did not " claim to be a judge of old paintings !" — 
 Notes and Queries, 4th Sec, October 19, 1872. 
 
 In a letter, withheld by the Athenseum, he (Mr. Holder) 
 also wrote : — " The picture is neither a copy, nor the pro- 
 duction of a Dutch artist ... I believe it to be fully 
 two centuries old." He would not say that it was painted at 
 the time the espousals were contracted ; but he was of 
 opinion that it represented them. 
 
 After this all further correspondence was interdicted, and 
 the public was largessed by a shower of editorial dust that 
 prevented them observing what became of the picture, or how 
 it at last disappeared. The translation of Paris was nothing 
 to this. 
 
 A really critical judgment has not been passed on the 
 picture, though every opportunity has been afforded the 
 learned to do so. By its enemies it has been treated as the 
 Duke of Gloucester is said to have treated the two infant 
 Princes in the Tower ! A mode of action more in harmony 
 with the proceedings of a Council of Ten than with a judicial 
 literary or Pine Art tribunal where impartiality ought to 
 be the rule and not the exception. 
 
13 
 
 DESCEIPTION OP THE PICTUEE. 
 
 (Adapted from Mr. iHoldei''s letter in the Bcarhorough Gazette, Oct. 28, 1872.) 
 
 In tte foreground, seated in a high-backed chair, a cap 
 on his head, a collar of white fur round his neck, a short 
 jacket, breeches reaching nearly to the knees, beneath which 
 are brown stocldngs, the garters tied in a bow with pendent 
 ends, and shoes on his feet, is an elderly gentleman with a 
 long grey beard. He is holding a pair of scales in his hand, 
 and is in the act of weighing money. 
 
 An old lady is seated opposite, dressed in a white cap, a 
 frilled collar, a short jacket with a girdle, a dark green dress, 
 and shoes similar to her partner's. She is seated on an old 
 carved stool, holding up her right hand, and pointing with 
 her finger, as indicating that the ainount of gold, or silver, 
 weighed, is signalled by the dropping of a link from the long 
 chain she holds in her other hand. To this chain is affixed a 
 bunch of ancient keys of the later Roman period. It may 
 be noteworthy to remark that the scales are similar in shape 
 to those in the " Misers," at Windsor Castle, painted by 
 Quintin Matsys. Between this quaint-looking couple is a 
 table, covered with rich green cloth, bordered with an amber 
 fringe, and on the table are scattered gold and silver coins. 
 There are also two piles of silver coins, and a casket. 
 
 Behind the man is an antique cabinet, on the top of 
 which are two casts, one a recumbent male figure, like 
 Achilles ; the other a lion sitting up, holding a shield, the 
 form of which may be traced back to the period of Edward 
 
14 
 
 the Second, or King John. Oyer this cabinet, and hanging 
 on the wall, is a picture of " Tobit and the Angel." On the 
 left corner, at the top, is the tablet with the inscription, to 
 which we have drawn attention, and which is the clue to 
 the real character of the picture. Between this tablet, 
 and the picture of Tobit, is another picture, the subject 
 of which is the vision and miraculous " Conversion of St. 
 Paul." Beneath this is a doorway, with the door thrown 
 wide open, concealing one of the door-posts ; the opposite 
 one however is visible, and is fluted, and has a carved 
 capital. The flooring is tesselated. Through this doorway 
 appears the marriage group, which consists of a notary, a 
 witness of the ceremonial, and the bride and bridegroom. 
 The costume of all is decidedly Elizabethan. The lady, who 
 appears several years older ihan her betrothed — and this 
 agrees with the real historic fact — wears a high cap, a frill, 
 a dress fitting tight to her person, and cuffs on her wrists ; 
 while in one hand she holds a handkerchief. The bridegroom 
 bears the traditionary form of Shakespere ; he is dressed in 
 black, and over his coat is thrown a short cloak. He wears . 
 a frill, and the usual pointed beard. 
 
 Between the pair is the priest, or rather notary, who 
 wears a black clerical cap, and a black coat, with a broad 
 sable collar. He is in the act of handfasting the pair. Behind 
 the bridegroom is a male figure, who is witnessing the cere- 
 mony. His dress is similar to Shakespere's. 
 
 Prom this description it will appear that the tout ensemble 
 is essentially Elizabethan, and clearly represents what the 
 inscription designates the " Marriage of Shakespere with 
 Ann Hathaway." It is certainly not the puhlio marriage, 
 for it is being celebrated in a private room, or oratory, the 
 officiating mediator being a notary. 
 
15 
 
 What have we before us then but the espousals, or hand- 
 fasting, which took place privately in the summer of 1582 ? 
 at which period the dowry, according to the picture, seems to 
 have been weighed out and given by the parents of the bride, 
 Shakespere's father, as will be seen, not being in a position to 
 give a dowry. It has been intimated that there is a discrepancy 
 between the apparent ages of the figures in the picture, repre- 
 senting the bride and bridegroom, and their real ages at the 
 time of their marriage, or espousals. That Shakespere, at 
 nineteen, might have a dignified demeanour, and even a pointed 
 beard, is within the bounds of probability. Such precocious 
 manifestations of hirsute adornment may be within the recol- 
 lection of some of our readers, as having come under their 
 observation. The style of dress worn by the lady gives a more 
 staid and formal appearance to her, and makes her look older 
 than such a lady would appear in more modern habiliments. 
 The same argument will apply to the gentleman's dress. We 
 see the same effect produced on the stage by the arrangement 
 of costume. But as we do not positively af&rm the picture 
 to have been painted at the time of the espousals, (though 
 it may have been painted soon after,) the artist, painting the 
 marriage at a subsequent period, might prefer to depict them 
 as they would appear to himself. If so we have a more faithful 
 portraiture than the imagination might have drawn from the 
 past. There is such an air of extreme reality about the whole 
 picture that we can scarce doubt we are looking on a faithful 
 reproduction of the marriage group. With regard to the 
 elderly couple counting and weighing the marriage dowry, 
 we have, for various reasons, (adduced below,) arrived at the 
 conclusion that they, in all probability, represent Richard 
 Hathaway and his wife; for though the former was dead 
 
16 
 
 when the more formal marriage ceremony was solemnized, we 
 have no proof that he was dead when the espousals took 
 place. Hathaway was a yeoman in good circumstances, a 
 man of suhstance, and in a position to give a reasonable 
 dowry to his daughter, though we are unable to identify the 
 house described in the picture, where the little nuptial episode 
 is being enacted. But Shakespere's father had been reduced 
 to a state bordering on indigence, and at the time of the 
 espousals, was a poor man, and utterly incapable of giving a 
 marriage portion. We have therefore no alternative but to 
 relegate this duty to the more afftuent Hathaway, who, seeing 
 the affection subsisting between young Shakespere and his 
 daughter, would naturally wish to see them solemnly affianced 
 before his death, and be disposed to grant the usual dowry 
 himself in consideration of the elder Shakespere's impecuni- 
 osity. But our object is not to establish the identity of the 
 secondary figures in the picture ; but the actuality of the 
 scene depicted, and the genuineness of the likenesses of the 
 principle characters in the tableau. The phraseology of the 
 quaint inscription is quite in harmony with Elizabethan and 
 early Stuart literature. The words themselves, the spelling, 
 and even the caligraphy are old fashioned, and were in 
 constant use in those days. In the first word of the verse. 
 Rare, the form of the capital letter is traced in the 
 Elizabethan fashion, the tail being drawn below the line. 
 T,ymninge is used by Shakespere himself in the 49th stanza of 
 "Venus and Adonis," and literally means portrait-painting; 
 and this word, in conjunction with the term rare, would imply 
 that the subject of the artist's pencil was of an unusual 
 character — a domestic scene with portraits of living persons 
 attached. These were rare subjects in the sixteenth century, 
 
17 
 
 when paintingjwas an almost unknown art in England, and 
 Flemisli artists and portrait painters were alone encouraged 
 by the rich and the noble-born. It has been asserted 
 that the term " limning " never had any reference to 
 painting ia oil colours — a dogmatic assertion unsupported by 
 an atom of proof. In the 49th stanza of " Venus and 
 Adonis" we read : — 
 
 "Look when a painter would surpass the life, 
 In limning out a fair proportioned steed, 
 His art with Katare*s workmanship ab strife. 
 As if the dead the living should exceed." 
 
 This would be, as our picture is said to be, a " rare limning," 
 and refers as much to painting in oils as in water colors, if 
 not more so. 
 
 In fact the above quotation is so much in apposition with 
 the words of the inscription, that one might reasonably ima- 
 gine that Shakespere himself had concocted them for the 
 painter. 
 
 In the " Universal Magazine," published in 1748, is an 
 engraving entitled " The Art of Linming," in which painting 
 in oils is represented in a variety of portraits J* 
 
 The style of the inscription, the costume and the furniture, 
 would favour the idea that the picture was the work of 
 
 ♦We append the subjoined definitions of limner and limn : 
 
 LiMNE — or paint with colours. 
 
 Limner — or one that painteth with colours. — Minsheu's Guide to 
 the Tongues, folio, 1627. 10s. 6d. 
 
 LiMK. — To draw aiter the life, and paint in proper colours, either 
 in oil or crayons. 
 
 LiMNEB. — An artist that paints or draw things in their natural 
 colours or proportions. — Dyche and Pardon's Dictionary, eighth 
 edition, Svo., 1754. 2s. 6d. 
 
 LiMNEB. — A painter, a picture maker. 
 
 Limn. — To draw, to paint anything.— Pern/'s Synopsis of Johnson's 
 Dictionary, Svo., 1805. 4s. 
 
18 
 
 an Englishman, and not of a Dutch artist as has been 
 suggested — to shoot, at a venture, why may it not have been 
 painted by Joseph Taylor, or Eichard Burbage, both artists 
 and intimate friends of Shakespere : the former was a favourite 
 pupil of the bard, and the latter was " devotedly attached to 
 Shakespere." The remainder of the spelling in the sentence 
 is of a similar character : we have vs for us, dothe for doth, 
 appere for appear, and Shakespere for Shakespeare, quaint 
 words which also appear in the marriage-bond. The name of 
 Shakespere has been variously spelled in the Warwickshire 
 records— it has been written Shaxpere, Shagspere, Shakes- 
 peare, Shakespiere, &c. • but Sir Frederick Madden, in his 
 letter to the Society of (Vntiquaries, affirms that the Poet's 
 signature was Shakespere, as it is spelt in our picture-tablet, 
 and as it was spelt in the ancestry of the Poet. Burbage, in 
 1588, wrote of him thus : — 
 
 " And Shakespere, thou whose honey-flowing veine, 
 (Pleasing the world) thy praises dofch obbaine, &c." 
 
 Weever, in 1599, calls him " honie-tongued Shahspere." 
 Antony Scoloker, in 1604, speaks of '' friendly Shakespere's 
 tragedies." Thomas Freeman, in 1614, apostrophises him 
 thus : — 
 
 " Shakespere ! thou nimble Mercury, thy braine. 
 Lulls many hundred Argus-eyes asleepe ; 
 So fit for all thou fashionesb thy veine." 
 
 The witness of the above cotemporary writers is of more 
 value than all the conjectural evidence that can be brought 
 forward, for they evidently give the most commonly accepted 
 spelling of the name. Moreover, the autograph of Shakespere, 
 on the fly-leaf of a book of his, — Montaigne's Essays, 1603,— 
 is spelt so ; but in the will it is written Shakespeare. Re- 
 verting to the abbreviated date 15 , it may be note- 
 
19 
 
 worthy to observe that the figure 5 nearly corresponds 
 with the facsimile of the same figure in the date that 
 appears in the parish register, at the page where Shakespere's 
 birth is recorded. And again, in the date of Shakespere's 
 burial, Apr. 25, 1616, the register exhibits the same form 
 of 5 : it may also be seen on the facsimile of Admiral 
 Howard's seal; on Holbein's picture of the Earl of 
 Surrey, the engraving; of which is in the British Museum ; 
 and on a picture of Queen Elizabeth's Porter, by Zucchero, 
 at Hampton Court. Such undesigned coincidences and sim- 
 plicity of arrangement, have an air of authority, which no 
 picture got up for an ignoble purpose can possibly present, 
 and tend to support us in our endeavour to accord the 
 work our most respectful consideration. The picture looks 
 old enough for a sixteenth century picture — as for its 
 remaining so long in 'obscurity, like many other things it 
 has verified the adage " out of sight out of mind ; " till, 
 by another turn of Fortune's wheel, it may " wake up 
 and find itself famous," in the noontide glare of popularity. 
 As we observed before, the sixteenth century, in England,, 
 was not favourable to art in the direction of our picture, 
 and if some obscure artiSt vwere privileged to depict the 
 marriage of Shakespere from the life, what marvel if his 
 labour of love should have shared the artist's obscurity, and 
 escaped the observation of the " gatherer of unconsidered 
 trifles," the antiquarian, and the " expert ?" Eecurring to the 
 house where the marriage is being performed, we may remark 
 that Bacon, in his Essay on Building, describing the house- 
 hold side of a mansion, says : — " I wish it divided at the first 
 into a hall and a chappell, with a partition betweene." The 
 picture represents a hall and a paitition, and the room where 
 
 b2 
 
20 
 
 the marriage ceremony is depicted may be the chapel or 
 oratory. Bishop Hall, in his poem " A Deserted Hall," 
 mentions the marble pavement ; and in this picture the hall 
 floor is tesselated in black and white marble. 
 
 Harrison, an old author, says of gentlemen of the period, 
 that they were in the habit of wearing a gown, coat, or cloak, 
 of " brown, blue, or puke, with some pretty furniture of 
 velvet or furre." This answers to the picture : the figure we 
 call Hathaway wears a brown coat trimmed with fur, and 
 there is velvet on his belt. The velvet cap, the shoes, the 
 garters tied round the knee, are indicative of the costume of 
 the Elizabethan age ; it was also customary for ladies to 
 carry a bunch of keys attached to a chain ; so there is nothing 
 anachronistic about the picture, either in fact or appearance, 
 for the paint is singularly hard and unfriable ; it is, as Mr. 
 Holder remarked in one of his letters, as " hard as ivory," 
 and bears every mark of antiquity. 
 
21 
 
 POETEAITS AND BUSTS OF SHAKE SPEEE. 
 
 Several portraits and busts of our hero have been exe- 
 cuted ; some of them are supposed to have been taken while 
 Shakespere was alive, and convey a tolerably accurate and 
 more or less artistic idea of the great dramatist. The most 
 trustworthy of these productions are considered by some to be 
 the Jansen and the Droeshout Portraits — the latter appeared 
 on the title-page of the first folio edition of his works, pub- 
 lished in 1623. 
 
 Ben Jonson, who knew Shakespere well, bears poetic 
 testimony to the accuracy of the engraving, and the fidelity 
 of the engraver. The Stratford Bust, said (probably on in- 
 sufficient grounds) to have been executed from a cast taken 
 after death, is considered to have a great resemblance to the 
 Droeshout Poftrait. But while the latter is distinguished by 
 a smooth brow and flowing hair, the former exhibits a dinted 
 brow and a bald head. Again, the bust is adorned with a 
 turned up moustache and imperial, while in the print they are 
 but faintly shadowed forth. The bust was formerly coloured 
 to reserhble life. " The eyes were painted a light hazel, th« 
 hair and beard auburn, and the hands and face flesh-color ; 
 the doublet or coat was scarlet, and covered with a loose 
 black gown without sleeves. The upper part of the cushion 
 was green, the under part crimson, and the tassels gilt." 
 This is thought to be an authentic description of the Bard's 
 personal appearance. But we are inclined to dispute this 
 
22 
 
 opinion, and agree with Mr. E. T. Craig, author of " Shakes- 
 pere and Art," that the bust is not a faithful representation 
 of Shakespere. Mr. Craig says: — "The face of the bust 
 belongs to the true Warwickshire type .... It is 
 broad, and the cheek-bones are low ; the jaw heavy, and 
 rather massive; the cheeks round, full, fleshy and flaccid. 
 The upper lip is very long, and the moustache is coarsely 
 cut ; the tuft on the chin rather thick, and rudely indicated. 
 . . . . The face has a cheerful, jovial, life-like look in 
 the expression ; but the features are not indicative of sensi- 
 bility or refinement." Hain Friswell says: — "The skull is 
 a mere block ... it has no more individuality than a 
 boy's marble ! " The cast (supposed to have been taken trom 
 Shakespere's face after death, and formerly in the possession of 
 Professor Owen, at the British Museum,) was discovered about 
 twenty years ago, and has a greater claim than the bust to be 
 considered authentic. Hain Friswell says : — " The cast bears 
 some resemblance to the more refined portraits of the Poet." 
 On the back of the cast is the date, a.d. 1616. Our portrait 
 is more like the cast than the bust, to which it bears small 
 resemblance. There is an engraving of the Shakespere bust 
 in a book by Itowe, dated 1709, which exhibits a remarkable 
 difference between it and what now passes for the bust, and 
 proves how much the latter has been altered both in feature 
 and attitude ; and also in the accessories. 
 
 Eowe's engraving more resembles our picture than the 
 bust as it now appears. Professor Owen, and other eminent 
 men, recognised Shakespere in Sarony's photograph of the 
 picture at a glance, and the former sent Mr. Malam a photo- 
 graph of the cast, to which our picture bears a remarkable 
 resemblance. 
 
23 
 
 About fifty years ago a, silver ring was found at Stratford 
 among the rubbish of an old house. It was sold for a few 
 shillings, and is now in the possession of Mr. Starr, of Hull, 
 who showed it to Mr. Malam. The ring is in good preservation, 
 and on the inner side are engraved the words " Shakespeare 
 to his deare woman,"' and on the outer side the bust of 
 Shakespere, which our picture also strongly resembles. The 
 lettering is of a mixed character, partly old English and 
 German text. There is no date on the ring, but it was 
 evidently coeval with the time of Shakespere. 
 
 Upwards of a hundred years ago it was a disputed point 
 whether the bust of that period had any resemblance to 
 Shakespere. The monument in Westminster Abbey may be 
 ■of an ideal character, and yet may be more like the real 
 Shakespere than the bust at Stratford. 
 
 The Chandos, the Lumley, the Jansen, the Felton, and 
 the Stratford Portraits assume to have been painted during, 
 or soon after, the Poet's life-time; and probably were, but with 
 different degrees of accuracy, according to the skill of the 
 artist. Of these portraits, the one by Cornelius Jansen is 
 esteemed the most faithful. It is also like the cast. In the 
 right-hand corner are inscribed the age of the poet and the 
 date of the picture thus :— " MT. 46, 1610." 
 
 Mr. Craig says of this portrait:—" It is a valuable work 
 of art, and is regarded as a genuine portrait of Shakespere." 
 But "as Jansen did not arrive in England till 1618, two 
 years after the poet's death," he says, "it is impossible to 
 avoid the conclusion that the best of the Jansen portraits has 
 been painted either from the mask or one marvellously like 
 it." In an old paintmg at Stratford, from " The Taming of 
 the Shrew," said to have been painted by Thomas Hart, a 
 
24 
 
 nephew of Shakespere, " is the figure of Shakespere himself. 
 In this old picture he has the physical proportions and 
 physiognomy indicated by both the mask and the Jansen 
 portraits." Mr. Craig says that these portraits pass the 
 phrenological ordeal " well and satisfactorily, while all the 
 others fail in some essential feature or combination." 
 
 Thus has art been busy with Shakespere's personal 
 appearance, and in the various portraits and busts of 
 Shakespere, we trace the traditional re'^emblance sufficiently 
 marked to establish their mutual identification; and the 
 figure of Shakespere in our picUne is distinguished by the 
 same family likeness. 
 
 The following are Ben Jonson's lines on the " Droeshout 
 Portrait:"— 
 
 " This figure that thou here seest put, 
 It was for gentle Shakespere cut ; 
 Wherein the graver had a strife 
 "With nature to outdo the life : 
 O, could he but have drawn his wit 
 As well in brasse as he hath hit 
 His face : the print would then surpass 
 All that was ever writ in brasse. 
 But since he cannot. Header, looke 
 Not on his picture, but his booke." 
 
 Droeshout was a London engraver and a contemporary 
 worthy. Cinder the portrait are the words: — ^^ Martin 
 Droeshoutj Sculpsit^ London. 
 
 Eeferring to the Stratford bust, Leonard Digges, in the 
 folio edition of Shakespere's works for 1623, thus writes : — 
 
 " Shakespere at length thy fellowes give 
 The world thy works ; thy works by which out-live 
 Thy tomb, thy name must ; when that stone is rent, 
 And time dissolves thy Stratford Moniment, 
 Here we alive shall view thee still." 
 
 His works are here considered his best monument — a- 
 faithful reflection of his many-sided character. 
 
25 
 
 We will now refer to an exceptional portrait, " The Dun- 
 ford Portrait." Notes and Queries, for Oct. 26, 1872, 4th 
 Sec. X 143, 214, 278, 320, in a note appended to Mr. 
 Holder's, recommended the public, before judging our picture, 
 to read " Wivell's Inquiry into the History, Authority, and 
 Characteristics of the Shakespere Portraits." 
 
 This leads us to refer to the Dunford Portrait, and its 
 history (for to this the editor most probably alluded). This 
 portrait was professedly a newly discovered picture in the 
 possession of " James Dunford, Printseller, Great Newport- 
 street, London, Feb. 1, 1815." It was to be "engraved in 
 mezzotinto" by Charles Turner." It was subsequently 
 engraved by Sharp, R.A. To the advertisement and pros- 
 pectus was added a description of the portrait, which 
 concluded as follows : — " Of its authenticity the proprietor 
 need only say that in addition to its close resemblance to the 
 statue at Stratford, and the print in the first folio edition 
 of his plays, upwards of five hundred persons of competent 
 judgment have concurred in opinion that it is a genuine 
 portrait from the life." 
 
 Now this portrait was not a genuine one, and the 
 proprietor knew it was not, for it was painted by E. Holder, 
 the present H. W. Holder's late father, but with no inten- 
 tion of palming it on the world as an original production 
 from the life. He sold the picture (framed in a new gilt 
 frame) to Mr. Dunford, and told him it was one of his own 
 manufacture ; but when Mr. Dunford saw so many eminent 
 judges running wild about the supposed authenticity of the 
 work, he suppressed what he knew about it, and favoured 
 the imposture. 
 
 We insert a copy of a memorandum found in the 
 
26 
 
 paint-case of E. Holder, senr., after his death, and now in 
 Mr. H. W. Holder's possession. " This portrait of Shakes- 
 pere I made by alterations on an old portrait of a French 
 priest (never intending to ask much for it). I sold it, with 
 a new frame, to Mr. Dunford, for £4 10s. He called 
 on me, about a week after, and said he wished me to step 
 down to his house, as he had got a great bargain in it 
 (the picture), and would not take a thousand pounds for it. 
 I told him the truth about it, and all and everything but 
 how I made the alterations. He said he would defy me to 
 deceive him in that way, much more the artists who had 
 pronounced it genuine. He had it engraved twice, and 
 charged a guinea for each print. He sold the picture, and 
 the late Mr. Smith, Printseller, told me that he knew he 
 realised more than a thousand pounds by it. E. H." 
 
 This information is derived from original documents. 
 As Mr. Dunford had defied Mr. Holder, senr. to deceive him, 
 he painted out of an old portrait an " Andrew Marvell," and 
 sold it to a dealer who managed to pass it to Dunford, who 
 sent for Mr. Holder, saying he had found an antiquarian 
 treasure. Mr. Holder requested to see it, and as soon as it 
 was brought before him he exclaimed, " Why, I altered that 
 Tery picture out of an old painting;" and to prove his words 
 he, with spirits of wine, removed a portion of the paint, 
 and showed what was underneath, after having first named 
 the article. When Dunford was convinced, he desired Mr. 
 Holder not to say anything about it. 
 
 The history of our picture is quite of another character. 
 The editor of Notes and Queries, in referring the public to 
 " Wivell's History," where the history of the Dunford portrait 
 is found, probably wished the public to observe how Mr. 
 
27 
 
 Holder's father was mixed up with this spurious old portrait ; 
 but as we have shown, with no fraudulent intention of making 
 ■capital out of it; and that Mr. Holder, jun., might be 
 attempting to get up a similar deception. This would be 
 visiting the 'sins of the father on the son with a vengeance ! 
 But the editor (if he meant this) will find the two oases not 
 at all parallel; for we h^ve adduced the testimony of the 
 original proprietors, showing that Mr. Malam's picture, while 
 in their possession, was always known in the family as the 
 " Shakespere Marriage," and that Mr. Holder dropped on it, 
 as it were, by a mere accident, and did not know what it 
 represented till, in cleaning it, he discovered the inscription, 
 which, next day, was deciphered by a friend (Mr. Delamere 
 •of Scarboro,') who happened to enter Mr. Holder's studio. 
 
 In the course of this pamphlet we have proved that Mr. 
 Holder has neither added to nor taken away from the picture ; 
 as it was in the beginning so is it now. 
 
 The editor also said that we had not given " the opinions 
 of competent judges who saw the picture when in London." 
 We reply that we have given the opinions of all who have 
 oared or dared to give an opinion ; we cannot give what we 
 have not received. 
 
 The picture, like the Bible, is still in existence, to bear 
 the brunt of the minutest investigation, and cannot be put 
 down by mere sciolists ; and we challenge the " expert " to 
 present his analysis and give his opinion. 
 
 The " Marriage of Shakespere" has this advantage over 
 every other picture of Shakespere, it contains the only por- 
 trait extant of Ann Hathaway, and probably of Eichard 
 Hathaway and his wife, not to mention the notary and the 
 witness, who must necessarily be left under the veil of 
 
28 
 
 anonymity, unless we adopt the suggestion made in a pre- 
 vious page that Eobert Warmstry and Eichard Cosin may 
 be the parties represented. We summarise our obseryations 
 concerning the picture, thus : — We believe it represents 
 the espousals, which are designated under the generic 
 term marriage, as written in the inscription ; that the 
 portraits are genuine likenesses of real persons ; that 
 two of those individuals are William Shakespere and 
 Ann Hathaway ; that the elderly couple counting the 
 money, are, prima facie, Richard Hathaway and his 
 wife, the parents of the bride ; for it is but reasonable to 
 believe that Shakespere would be troth-plighted in Hatha- 
 way's, or, (as in the picture,) probably in some more honored 
 dwelling, with a tesselated floor, rather than in his own 
 father's, and not put the onus of visiting him on the bride — 
 that the writing is as old as the picture, and characteristic of 
 the period in which it is assumed to have been written ; that 
 it is the work of an English, and not of a Flemish artist; that 
 it is homogeneous in its parts, and contains no interpolations ; 
 that there is every probability of its having been painted 
 during the lifetime of Shakespere, — the quaintness of the 
 costume, the attitude of the figures, the air of reality cast 
 over the whole, the counting of the dowry, the troth-plight, 
 and the privacy of the ceremony, together with every other 
 accessory, all tend to carry conviction to the beholder that 
 he is looking on a fair representation of the interesting 
 ceremony of hand-fasting, that bound together, for life till 
 death, the fortunes of the Shakespere and Hathaway 
 families, in the summer of 1582.* 
 
 *It has been suggested that the espousals may have been enacted in the house 
 of Miss Mowbray, who was a great friend of Ann Hatbaway's. The tesselated 
 pavement; and the other accessories of the picture would seem to indicate that 
 the espousals tools place in the mansion of a lady or gentleman of her class in 
 life. 
 
29 
 
 The custom of giving a marriage dowry (which may be 
 traced to a very early period) on the day of espousals, is 
 alluded to, in numerous instances, in many of Shakespere's 
 Plays. In the " Two Gentlemen of Verona," Act iii. Scene 1, 
 the Duke says : — 
 
 " Then, let her beauty be her wedding-dower ; 
 For me and my possesaions fehe esteems not," 
 
 In the " Taming of the Shrew," Act iv. Scene 4, Baptista 
 says to the Pedant : — 
 
 " Right true it is, your son Lncentio here 
 Dobll love my daughter, and she loveth him ; 
 And therefore, if you say no more than this, 
 That like a father you will deal with him, 
 And pass my daughter a suflBcient dower. 
 The match is made, and all is done." 
 
 In " All's Well that Ends "Well," Act ii. Scene 3, the 
 King exclaims : — 
 
 " What should be said ? 
 If thou canst like this creature as a maid, 
 I can create the rest ; virtue and she 
 Are her own dower ; honour and wealth from me." 
 
 And, at the end of the play, he says : — 
 
 *' Choose thou thy husband, and I'll pay thy dower." 
 
 Among the Athenians the " wife's dowry was settled at the 
 espousals." It is not necessary to quote more on this head ; 
 the practice of troth-plighting, and the giving a wedding 
 dowry to the bride was universal in England, where men even 
 swore " by their troth." 
 
 Reverting to the casket on the table, in the Shakespere 
 marriage picture, we are reminded of the casket in Portia's 
 house, in the " Merchant of Venice." Portia says : — 
 
 " Gro, draw aside the curtains, and discover 
 The several caskets to this noble prince. — 
 Now make your choice." 
 
 The Prince proceeds : — 
 
 " The first, of gold, which this inscription bears, — 
 
 * Who chooseth me shall gain what many men desire '; 
 The second, silver, which this promise carries, — 
 
 * Who chooseth me shall get as much as he deserves '; 
 The third, dull lead, with warning all as blunt, — 
 
 ' Who chooseth me must give and hazard all he hath.' — 
 How shall I know if I do choose the risht ?" 
 
 Portia.—" The one of them contains my picture, prince ; 
 If you choose that, then I am yours withal." 
 
30 
 
 As miglit be expected, the ill-favoured looking casket was- 
 despised by the aspiring and ostentatious prince, and he laid 
 his hand on the golden casket ; but, as is too often the case, 
 it was full of dead men's bones. The Prince of Arragon is 
 the next aspirant to Portia's favour, and, in his assumption 
 of personal merit, he selects the silver casket, and a terrible 
 rebuke humbles his pride and vanity — he is greeted by the 
 "portrait of a blinking idiot." 
 
 Bassanio is the next suitor. He loves Portia and she 
 loves him, and he is eager to make his choice. He pauses at 
 the casket of gold, and moralising on the deceit, masked by a 
 fair appearance, says: — "The world is still deceived with 
 ornament, in law, in religion, in battle, and in woman." For 
 these reasons Bassanio turns from the golden casket, and 
 rejecting the silver one, which he terms a " pale and common 
 drudge 'tween man and man," elects the 
 
 " Meagre lead, 
 Whicli rather threatens than doth promise aught, 
 Thy plainness moves me more than eloquence." 
 
 Bassanio wins the prize, and he and Portia are betrothed 
 there and then. 
 Portia says : — 
 
 " My gentle spirit 
 Commits itself to yours to be directed. 
 As from her lord, her governor, her king. 
 Myself and -what is mine, to you and yours 
 Are now converted : but now, I was the lord 
 Of this fair mansion, master of my servants. 
 Queen o'er myself : and even now, but now. 
 This house, these servants, and this same myself. 
 Are yours, my lord : I give them with this ring." 
 
 Again, in " Timon of Athens," Act i. Scene 2, Timon says : - 
 
 " The little casket bring me hither ! " 
 
 See also the 15th Stanza of the " Eape of Lucrece." 
 
 Old Time may have concealed, in the marriage picture, an 
 archaeological treasure, as valuable as the portrait in the 
 leaden casket was to Bassanio ! 
 
31 
 
 It has been said that green was a favourite colour in the 
 sixteenth century. Shakespere, in the " Eape of Lucrece," 
 57th stanza writes : — 
 
 " Without the bed her other fair hand was. 
 On the green coTerlet, whose perfect white 
 Show'd like an April daisy on the grass." 
 
 It has also been suggested that when Falstaff was in 
 articulo mortis, the sight of the green corerlet may hare 
 moved him to " babble o' green iields." Collier's " old 
 corrector" says that Palstaff's green fields should be read 
 green frieze. A c[uotation from Shakespere reads thus : — 
 
 '.' His nose was as sharp as a pen on a table of greenfrieze" 
 
 We have somewhat minutely traced the archseology of our 
 picture, and found nothing anachronistic in it, but everything 
 that might have been expected in an original picture of the 
 sixteenth century. If we had actually seen the picture 
 painted at the time insisted on, the details could not have 
 presented a more faithful reproduction of an interior (similar 
 to the one we have quoted from Bacon) of an Elizabethan 
 mansion, with pictures on the walls, its characteristic furni- 
 ture, &c. ; of the formularies incidental to sixteenth century 
 sponsalia, and of the costume of cotemporary worthies 
 taking; part in the espousals. 
 
 In Ann Hathaway's cottage, at the present day, is an 
 antique chair, the exact counterpart of the chair occupied by 
 the dignified money-counter of our picture, but minus the 
 arms, which utterly refutes the opinion of a London anti- 
 quarian that the furniture of the picture is not of the right 
 date, implying thereby that the abbreviated date, 15 — , on 
 the picture is of no value as a guide to its age. We may 
 here observe that in a picture fof Sir Thos. Remington and 
 
32 
 
 family) dated 1647 — which Mr. Holder is engaged in 
 restoring — is a girl sitting in a chair exactly like the one in 
 our picture. The hall pavement is also the same, as well as 
 the material on which it is painted. In Henry the Seventh's 
 chapel, in Westminster Abbey, is a lion holding a shield 
 (as in the picture), a fact which, in some degree, strengthens 
 the view we have taken of the antiquity of the picture. It is 
 singular that in High Street, one of the oldest streets in the 
 town of Stratford, with much wood carving about, and the 
 quaint letters T. R., and A. E., there should be the date on it, 
 1596, the year the Coat of Arms was granted from Her 
 Majesty's College of Arms to John Shakespere ; and on the 
 left hand side of the lower window is a lion standing up, in 
 the act of holding a shield, or something, which is, however, 
 cut off by the frame-work of the window. 
 
 We shall now proceed to lay before our readers a few 
 extracts from letters received from various gentlemen, whose 
 attention has been arrested by the subject. In a memo- 
 randum of Mr. Albert's, who sold the picture to Mr. Holder, 
 he states that the subject of the picture was unknown to 
 him, as was also the fact of an inscription being on the 
 picture at all. Messrs. Silver & Son, of Reading, in a 
 letter, dated September 25th, 1872, state that they sent 
 the picture to Mr. Albert ; that, previous to this, it belonged 
 to W. J. Clarke, Esq., Elm Lodge, Oxford Road, Reading, 
 and that it had been the property of the late Mr. Williams, 
 of Chauntry House, near Maidenhead, whose daughter was 
 married to Mr. Clarke. Mr. C. Williams stated in a letter 
 from Carton, Attleborough, Norfolk, dated September 30th, 
 1872, that the picture (which had been in the possession of 
 the family forty years) probably came to his late father from 
 
33 
 
 a relative of his, named Nncella, who had a small collection 
 of picture^!, and died at Hamburg. 
 
 In two subsequent letters Mr. Williams wrote : — 
 
 Carton, Attelboro', 25th October, 1872. 
 Dear Sib, 
 
 I regret I can obtain no farther Information respecting the 
 picture. I can well remember that the picture, when in my father's possession, 
 was always called the •• Shaltespere Marriage," though I feel sure no one was aware 
 of its age. Tours respectfully, 
 
 J. Malam, Esq. C. WILLIAMS. 
 
 And again, November, 10th, 1872, he writes to say that no 
 member of his family was aware of the existence of an 
 inscription on the Shakespere picture. We need not marvel 
 at this, when, from Mr. Holder's testimony, we know that the 
 picture was densely overlaid with the dirt, and smoke, and 
 varnish of years. The lettering, by very close inspection, 
 was only faintly discernible to the eye ; and was designedly 
 left untouched by the restorer. At an earlier period a 
 similar incrustation may have caused the picture to escape 
 recognition as more than an ordinary " domestic scene," which 
 would attract no particular attention, and would account for 
 the neglect it seems to have experienced in the past. 
 
 The followmg letter from G. M. E. Campbelly, of Ply- 
 mouth, may be interesting : — 
 
 26th October, 1872. 
 Sir, 
 
 Having written the subjoined with an intention of sending it to " Notes 
 and Queries," I have considered it might possibly be more useful in its purpos-i 
 if sent direct to you. 
 
 JVotet and Queries, s. i, x.x., p. 334. " The Picture of Shakespere's Marriage." 
 It has been said [in the Atliemeum for October, 1872] that no picture of a domestic 
 scene was ever painted before the Restoration. In rejSly to this statement, we have 
 the group of three children playing with oranges and cherries, exhibited by Her 
 Majesty in the first special Exhibition of National Portraits, at the South 
 Kensington Museum ; and in the revised edition of the Catalogue of April, 1866, 
 numbered 58, and assigned to Jan-de-Mabeuse ; No. 654, the family of Robert 
 Dormer, first earl of Caernarvon (dated 1643). There is a decided action represented 
 in this group. To these may be added the remarkable picture existing at Longleat 
 House, representing a family party at table in dress of'not later than the 16th 
 century. If so many pictures, representing family scenes, were exhibited in a 
 collection professedly of portraits only, it is clear that there is some mistake in the 
 foregoing assertion, 
 
 I am, Sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 H. W. Holder, Esq., Scarborough. G. M. B. CAMPBELLT. 
 
34 
 
 Sir John Gilbert, R.A., &c., of time-honoured artistic 
 renown, wrote thus to G. L. Craike, Esq. : — 
 
 BANEUKY PAEK, BLACKHEATH, 
 
 26th Oct., 1872. 
 My Deab Sib, 
 
 Yesterday I by chance came upon Bomething whicli ruay possibly throw some 
 light upon the mysterious picture of the Marriage of Shakespere. 
 
 I find in vol. 2, p. 219, of Haydon's Autobiography an account of his visit to 
 Sbratford-on-Avon ; he goes to Charlcote, and obtains admission to the house. He 
 says : — " The hall is nearly the same as when Shakespere was brought to it. I saw 
 the old staircase, and a collection of pictures with a good one or two among 
 them ; — one a genuine Teniers of his marriage." Of whose marriage ? Shakespere 
 or Teniers ? Here, probably, is something to commence enquiries upon. It would 
 not be very diflBoult to get a sight of the picture here mentioned by Haydon. I 
 cannot make it out. Surely, if there was at Charlcote a picture of Shakespere's 
 marriage, we should all have heard about it long ago ; it would be copied and 
 engraved over and over again. 
 
 Tery truly yours, 
 
 JOHN GILBERT. 
 
 To clear up the mystery of Haydon's observation, Mr. 
 Holder has been to Stratford, and has ascertained from the 
 proprietor of Charlcote Hall (who courteously shewed him 
 his whole collection of pictures, busts, &c.) that the marriage 
 referred to in Sir John Gilbert's quotation is that of 
 Teniers, and not of- Shakespere. 
 
 A letter was addressed to the eminent publisher, Mr. Mac- 
 millan, of London, from the Eoyal Archaeological Institute 
 for Great Bri+ain and Ireland, soliciting an inspection of the 
 picture, and offering to bring it before the society for investi- 
 gation. Mr. Malam gladly acceded to the request made to 
 Mr. Macmillan, and the picture was duly forwarded to the 
 Institute; but, for some unexplained reason, the Institute 
 ultimately declined to carry out its original intention, and the 
 picture was returned. This was considered by Mr. Malam 
 and his friends to be both unfair and discourteous — in fact an 
 insult. To put Mr. Malam to the trouble of forwarding the 
 picture to the Society, and then summarily to return it 
 without assigning any reason, or tendering any apology, was 
 scarcely in accordance with the recognised usages of polite 
 
35 
 
 society. It is not for us, however, to offer to elucidate, by 
 conjecture, a form of action so inexplicable, and we leave the 
 matter as it stands. 
 
 We publish the society's letter, it runs thus : — 
 
 koyal aboh^oloqioaii institute op great britain and ireland. 
 16, New Burlington St., ioth October, 1872. 
 Sir, 
 
 I have been informed thai yoa are in charge of the very onrions picture, 
 which is supposed to represent Shakespere's Marriage, and which has been lately 
 acquired by Mr. Malam. 
 
 The picture is of the greatest possible interest to Archaeologists, and as the 
 session of this Institute commences on Friday, the 1st of November, I am desired 
 by the council to beg the favour of having the opportunity to discuss the merits 
 ' of the picture on that occasion. 
 
 Should you kindly assent, the picture ml^ht be forwarded, at your convenience, 
 to the rooms where the monthly meetings are held, and every possible care shall 
 be taken of it. 
 
 I remain, faithfully yours, 
 A. Maomillan, Esq. JOSEPH BURTT, Hon. Sec. 
 
 After this episode, in the history of the picture, Mr. 
 George Scharfe, who had seen the work, was applied to by 
 Mr. Malam, who inquired his terms for passing a judgment 
 on it. Mr. Scharfe, in reply, said he was not then prepared 
 to hazard an opinion. 
 
 A connoisseur of old pictures, in London, whose name we, 
 by request, withhold, has expressed a guarded opinion of the 
 picture, admitting that it appeared to be quite old enough for 
 the period assigned to it ; but observed that Shakespere 
 appeared much older than he was at the period of the 
 espousals or marriage, and that the writing in the comer 
 did not seem to be coeval with the rest of the work. He 
 concluded with the remark that " should the figures turn 
 out to be genuine portraits, the picture will be of great 
 interest and value." Concerning this disparity of age, we 
 have accounted for it in a previous page, and maintain our 
 opinion that the inscription is contemporaneous with the 
 picture. 
 
 c2 
 
36 
 
 A FEW EEMAEKS ON ENGLISH AET IN THE 
 SIXTEENTH CENTUEY. 
 
 English art was a thing almost unknown in this century, 
 as well as in preceding centuries, posterior to the Saxon 
 period, when the English illuminator was pre-eminent ; when 
 church walls, religious shrines, and ipissal books exhibited 
 the gorgeous colours of the art-devotee and decorator. This 
 barrenness in the field of English art, arising from a variety 
 of causes, such as the " "Wars of the Roses," the " Suppres- 
 sion of the Convent Schools," and the " Institution of 
 Grammar Schools," and other revolutionary characteristics 
 of the times, unfavourable to the cultivation and develop- 
 ment of " high art," afforded scope for the instruction and 
 encouragement of the Flemish Bchool of painters, who in 
 the sixteenth century, sought the patronage of the rich and 
 powerful, and reigned without a rival till the Eesto ration I 
 The works of English artists— if there were any — lingered 
 in the shade of obscurity where they were executed ; for the 
 wealth of the high and mighty was poured into the hands 
 of strangers, who filled the land with their fame as artists 
 and portrait painters. We may date the dawn of English art 
 from the rise of Hogarth, who has been termed the first 
 English painter par excellence; not that there were not 
 native artists before him, though none had stamped the indi- 
 viduality of his genius on the school of art as Hogarth did. 
 
37 
 
 It is only within the past 100 or 150 years that English 
 artists have achieved such wondrous results, and made Eng- 
 land as great in the world of art as she is in political power, 
 science, philosophy, and literature. Before this brilUant 
 period the land was a barren wilderness from Dan even to 
 Beersheba, and the realm of art a terra incognita, with here 
 «nd there a stray explorer timidly striving to penetrate the 
 darkness and plant a miniature oasis in the universal waste. 
 Under such circumstances, a painting of Shakespere's mar- 
 riage by an English artist might very easily escape notice, 
 and remain a hidden treasure to an undiscerning and unap- 
 preaiative age ; and ultimately be lost to all recognition under 
 the smoke, the dust, and the smut of all-obliterating time. 
 
 It has now been exhumed in the presence of an age made 
 •sceptical by repeated imposture ; but as all that has hitherto 
 been brought to light concerning the dilapidated stranger is 
 of a bona fide character, we have reason to hope that confi- 
 dence will be restored, and a calmer spirit of investigation 
 take up the matter, and endeavour to arrive at an unprejudiced 
 verdict. 
 
38 
 
 SHAKE SPEEE APTEB HIS MAEEIAGE. 
 
 Shakespere's first visit to London seems to have arisen 
 from the law proceedings of Sir Thos. Lucy, of Charlecote, 
 who had got to hear of the poet's skill as a deer stealer; for 
 this assumed fact we have the authority of Davies, Rowe, and 
 Oldys ; but it is not mentioned by Aubrey, the first historian 
 of Shakespere's life. So we must give our dramatist the 
 benefit of the doubt, whether or not he ever took part in a 
 deer-raid in Sir T. Lucy's park. Shakespere's father was, at 
 this time, involved in law entanglements', resulting in a 
 chancery suit, and was imprisoned ; these facts seem to have 
 inspired young Shakespere with a desire to better his fortunes- 
 by an exodus to the great metropolis. His father's poverty 
 and distress must have been very painful to his son, and 
 would naturally induce him to try to devise some means of 
 extrication. The following account (of a traditionaiy char- 
 acter) of his visit to London was originated by Sir "William 
 Davenant, a cotemporary of Shakespere: — "When he came 
 to London he was without money and friends, and, being a 
 stranger he knew not what to do, or how to support himself. 
 Coaches not being in use, in those days, and as gentlemen 
 were accustomed to ride to the playhouse, Shakespere, driven 
 to the last necessity, went to the playhouse door, and earned 
 a little money by taking care of the gentlemen's horses. His 
 diligence and skill in this occupation attracted notice, and his 
 business increased in such a degree that he had to hirs boys- 
 to assist him, and they were called for a long time after 
 
39 
 
 ' Shakegpere's Boys.' " Some of the players were so charmed 
 by his acuteness and conversation, that a connection was 
 struck up, and he soon distinguished himself, if not as an 
 extraordinary actor, at least as a 'fine writer.'" Such was 
 the alleged commencement of Shakespere's career in London, 
 and the beginning of a reputation that never flagged to the 
 day of his death, and continues unabated to the present hour. 
 His income is supposed to have rapidly increased, and he soon 
 became a shareholder in the Globe and Blackfriars theatres. 
 In 1596 his father seems to have recovered from his pecuniary 
 embarrassments and applied to the Herald's College for a 
 grant of arms which were assigned to him, and all things 
 went prosperously with the Shakespere family. The death of 
 the poet's first-born son this year was a great blow to them, 
 the coat of- arms is thought to have been solicited and ob- 
 tained on his account ; most probably in consideration of 
 services rendered, by Shakespere's ancestors, to Henry VII. 
 
 In 1597 Shakespere purchased the '' Great House," — the 
 best house in Stratford, — and changed its name to " New 
 P.lace ;" and in the same year he assisted his father to recover 
 the Ashbies estate, Mary-Arden's dower. So the prosperity 
 of the poet increased from year to year. At thirty-four he 
 thus writes of his wife, who was forty-two : — 
 
 "To me, fair friend, you never can be old ; 
 For as you were when first your eye I eyed, 
 Such seems your beauty still." 
 
 And in the 109th Sonnet, alluding to his absence from her 
 in London, he writes : — 
 
 " -never say that I was false of heart, 
 Tbough absence seem'd my flame to qualify, 
 As easy might I from myself depart, 
 As from my soul, which in thy breast doth lie ; 
 That is my home of love : if I have rang'd, 
 Like him that travels, I return again, 
 
40 
 
 Just to the time, not with the time exchang'd. 
 
 So that myself bring water for my stain. 
 
 Never believe, though in my nature reign'd 
 
 All frailties that besiege all kinds of blood, 
 
 That it could so preposterously be stain'd, 
 
 To leave for nothing all thy sum of good ; 
 For nothing this wide universe I call. 
 Save thou, my rose; in it thou art my all." 
 
 Shakespere's visits to London contioued from time to 
 time, and lie is said to have furnished two plays yearly for 
 the theatres. His friendship with Ben Jonson commenced in 
 1598. It appears that Jonson's play, " Every Man in his 
 Humour," was refused by the players of Blackfriars, but 
 being submitted to Shakespere he praised it so heartily that 
 they revoked their decision and accepte'd it, and Jonson and 
 Shakespere were fast friends ever after. 
 
 On account of the sauvity of his manners amd his genial 
 temperament, he acquired many pet names and diminutives. 
 Jehnson says : — " I loved the man on this side of idolatry." 
 He was called by his friends " Gentle Shakespere," " Sweet 
 Will," " Swan of Avon," " Gentle Willie," and others. And 
 so his life passed quietly and prosperously to its termination, 
 but before this, death had been busy with his relations ; for 
 he had lost both his parents and his three brothers ; and 
 by the death of his only son in childhood, he had no male 
 inheritor of his property. His daughters married well. A 
 short time before his death, his daughter Judith was married 
 to Thomas Quyney, vintner and wine merchant, he being 
 five years younger than herself — thus she trod in her father's 
 footsteps. 
 
 Shakespere prepared his will on the 25th of January, 
 1616— the year in which he died. He was then, he says, in 
 " perfect health and memory, God be praised." His death 
 followed hard upon the festivities attendant on his daughter's 
 
41 
 
 wedding— whether it was occasioned or hastened by over 
 indulgence on this convivial occasion, as has been hinted, 
 must be left to conjecture ; but, slightly altering a couplet in 
 Lara — 
 
 " Charity upon the hope wonld dwell, 
 That 'twas not by snoh means our Shakespere tell." 
 
 He died April 23rd, 1616. 
 
 On his tombstone may be traced the subjoined inscription, 
 which has been the means of guarding his remains from 
 sacrilegious touch, or friendly meddling : — 
 
 *' G-ood friend, for Jesu's sake forbear 
 To dig the dust encloased heare: 
 Bleste be ye man yt spares these stones, 
 And curst be ye yt moves my bones." 
 
 These lines are supposed to have been " made by himself a 
 little before his death." His name does not appear on the 
 stone, but that it covers his last resting place there can be 
 no reasonable doubt. 
 
 A person of the name of Dowdall, alluding, in 1693, in 
 a letter to Mr. Edward Southwell, to the above inscription, 
 says : — " The dark that showed me this church is above 80 
 years old, he says that not one for feare of the curse above 
 said dare touch his gravestone, though his wife and daughter 
 did earnestly desire to be laid in the same grave with him." 
 
 It has Iieen thought remarkable that while Shakespere 
 left the bulk of his property to his daughters, relations, and 
 dependants, he should only have left to his wife his '• second- 
 best bed, and the furniture." This fact has given' rise to the 
 idea that Shakespere and his wife were an ill-assorted pair, 
 and that he did not render her due honour. This notion has 
 been combatted on intelligible grounds ; for it has been urged 
 that as Mrs. Shakespere was amply provided for by dower 
 
42 
 
 (which he may have added to), it was not. necessary to aug- 
 ment her worldly possessions ; and that as a special mark of 
 his tender regard, he left her the bequest named in the will. 
 In those days such a legacy was considered a mark of peculiar 
 esteem, and often distinguished the wills of the period. More- 
 over she would not have been so desirous of being interred in 
 the same grave, if their union had been an unhappy, or ill- 
 assorted one. 
 
 Eecurring to the will of Eichard Hathaway, the father of 
 Shakespere's wife, he is said to have left his daughter Ann 
 only £6 13s. 4d., the customari/ price of a play! This fact 
 leads us to presume that he had given her an ample dowry, 
 as her '• marriage portion," at the preliminary espousals of the 
 enamoured pair, and further confirms our assumption in 
 reference to the identity of the elderly couple in the picture. 
 £6 13s. 4d. was also left by Eobert Arden, in his will, to 
 his daughter, John Shakespere's wife. 
 
43 
 
 THE PILGEIMAGE TO STEATFOED. 
 
 Shakespere's birthplace has been transformed into a sort 
 of Mecca, to which innumerable pilgrims haye directed, and 
 still direct their Jiegira. All sorts and conditions of men 
 have engaged in this marvellous pilgrimage, and cut their 
 names on the walls, ceiling, and beams of the poet's dwelling. 
 Princes and nobles, men distinguished in science, literature, 
 and art, foreigners, Americans, and English, have not dis- 
 dained the aid of the knife, the stylus, or the pen, to com- 
 memorate their transient visit to the shrine of England's most 
 notable worthy and highly honoured poet and dramatist. 
 Numerous relics connected with the name of Shakespere are 
 preserved in the Stratford Museum, among which is the 
 supposed signet ring of the poet. 
 
 Many commemorative verses on Shakespere were written 
 after his death, showing the esteem and affection of his 
 friends and admirers. "We shall content ourselves by quoting 
 the Unes penned by our national religious poet, John 
 Milton: — 
 
 " What need my Shakespere for his honored bones 
 The labour of an age in pildd stones, 
 Or that his hallowed reliques should be hid 
 Under a star-y-pointing pyramid ? 
 Dear Sonne of memory, great heire of fame. 
 What need thou such dull witness of thy name ? 
 Thou in our wonder and astonishment, 
 Hast built thyselfe a lasting monument : 
 For whilst to th' shame of slow endeavouring art 
 Thy easie numbers flow, and that each heart 
 Hath from the leaves of thy unvalued booke, 
 Those Delphicke lines with deep imiiression tooke ; 
 Then thou, our fancy of herself bereaving. 
 Dost make us marble with too much conceiving ; 
 And so seplilchred in such pompe dost lie, 
 That kings for such a tombe would wish to die." 
 
 1654. 
 
44 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 James the First, who loved the stage, accorded high 
 honour to Shakespere, and it is written that the King was 
 " pleased, with his own hand, to write an amicable letter to 
 him ; " the letter however is not extant. Among his friends 
 we find the names of Henry Wriothesley, Earl of South- 
 ampton ; Philip, Earl of Pembroke ; the Earl of Mont- 
 gomery ; and the Lords Essex and Hunsdon. Ben Johnson 
 thus writes of him : — " He was indeed most honest, and of an 
 open and free nature ; had an excellent fantasy, brave notions 
 and gentle expressions, wherein he flowed with that facility 
 that sometimes it was necessary that he should be be stopped." 
 Fuller, in his " "Worthies," gives a poetico-prose description 
 of the friendly pair in the following quaint excerpt : — " Many 
 were the wit-combates between him and Ben Jonson, which 
 two I beheld like a great Spanish galleon and an English 
 man-of-war ; Master Jonson (like the former) was built for 
 higher learning, solid but slow in his performances ; Shakes- 
 pere, like the EngUsh man-of-war, lesser in bulk but lighter 
 in sailing, could turn with all tides, tack about and take 
 advantage of all winds by the quickness of his wit." In the 
 Diary of the Eev. John Ward, Vicar of Stratford-on-Avon, 
 who wrote in 1661-3, we find the subjoined paragraph : — "I 
 have heard that Mr. Shakespere was a natural witt, without 
 any art at all ; he frequented the plays all his younger days, 
 but in his elder days lived at Stratford, and supplied the 
 
45 
 
 stage with two plays every year, and for it he had an al- 
 lowance so large that he spent at the rate of a thousand a 
 year a* / have heard. Shakespere, Drayton, and Jonson 
 had a merry meeting, and it seems drank too hard, for 
 Shakespere died of a feavour there contracted." As here is 
 so much of the " I have heard say," after the manner of the 
 old gossipy chroniclers, we must receive this testimony cum 
 grano, and pass on our way, 
 
 Shakespere's wife survived him seven years, and died on 
 August 6, 1623, aged 67 years. The following is a free 
 translation of the inscription in Latin, composed by Dr. John 
 Hall (the husband of the poet's daughter Susanna"), inscribed 
 on his tombstone : — 
 
 " Thou, mother, gayest me the breast, 
 
 Thou gayest milk aud life ; 
 
 Alas ! for such great gifts, I, in return. 
 
 Give unto thee a sepulchre I 
 
 O, that some good angel would move 
 
 Away the stone from its mouth. 
 
 That thy form might come forth, even 
 
 As did the body of Christ ! 
 
 But wishes are of no avail ! Come 
 
 Quickly, o Christ! 
 
 My mother, though shut up in the tomb. 
 
 Shall rise again and seek the stars." 
 
46 
 
 Our labours mil be aptly concluded by the subjoined 
 ACEOSTIO. 
 
 jg tiakespere I not Proteus could more shapes assume 1 
 
 H ow bright thy genius shines above thy tomb 1 
 
 A 11-wondrous searcher of the mind and heart I 
 
 K ing o'er the wide domain of mental art, 
 
 E 'en monarchs bow, and do thee homage here, 
 
 S upreme they hold thee in thy own true sphere I 
 
 F rinces and judges, nobles, peasants, all, 
 
 £ nchanted 'neath thy magic influence fall I 
 
 E are source of Wisdom's golden treasures I lo ! 
 
 E nUghtened nations cry,—" What doth not Shakespere know I 
 
 FINIS. 
 
*^ 
 
 ^1 
 
 
 Wj