nimimiiJJii 
 
 THE YOUTH OF 
 
 SHAKESPEARE 
 
 WILLIAM HENTY 
 
 1882 
 
 tmmmmmmmma'ammmmmmmmmmm 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tliis bool< is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924013150499 
 
PHOTOGRAPHED BV 
 
 C.W SMARTT 
 
Theaatolypetiiken by Mr. C. W. Smai tt of f.camhigton 
 and Stratford'on-Avon is <i reduced facsimile f the 
 original portrviit of Shtikespeare now in his birthplace at 
 Stralford-on-Avun. The photographer could not obtain 
 permission to remove the glass from the picture ; and this 
 circumslame, coupled with the fact that the photograph 
 was taken under exceptionally unfavourable conditions 
 as to light and position, has prodiut'd a result not quite so 
 perfect as would othenoin have been the case. 
 
SHAKESPEARE 
 
 WITH SOME NOTES 
 
 EARLY BIOGRAPHY 
 
 IDENTIFICATION OF THE CHARACTERS OF 
 WILLIAM FENTON AND ANN PAGE 
 
 WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE AND ANNE HATHAWAY 
 
 WILLIAM HENTY 
 
 jfior Private Circulation 
 
 LONDON 
 
 1882 
 2 
 
/\. (^ ij^JiaJi^ 
 
 nAU-ANTVNE, HAN5)0N AND Cn., EDINDt'linil 
 CHANDOS STRUET, LONDON 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 -* — 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Memoir 5 
 
 Notes on Shakespeare's Early Bio- 
 graphy II 
 
 The Deer Adventure .15 
 
 Autobiography of Shakespeare in " The 
 Merry Wives of Windsor" . . .22 
 
 Youth of Shakespeare 34 
 
MEMOIR. 
 
 [|rJcrj| |R. WILLIAM HENTY, the author 
 |c^^ B °^ *^^ following ingenious specula- 
 r-T^i" tions on the early personal career of 
 Shakespeare, was one of a family that will ever 
 be memorable in the history of Australian 
 colonization. Half a century ago three of 
 his brothers, under direction of their father, 
 Thomas Henty, quitted a valuable homestead 
 at Tarring, in Sussex, for the settlement of 
 Swan River, in Western Australia. Allured 
 by the splendid grant of well-nigh 80,000 
 acres of land, they took with them, in patri- 
 archal fashion, oxen and sheep, "pure merinos 
 from the flocks of George III. ; blood horses 
 from Lord Egremont's stud ; dogs and poultry 
 of the purest breed," accompanied by serving 
 men, with implements of agriculture of various 
 kinds and value. The venture was a bold 
 one, but was not fortunate. As is well known 
 the Swan River Settlement proved a failure. 
 Mr. Henty's cattle died, and finding them- 
 selves losers of some ten thousand pounds, 
 his sons quitted the unlucky region and mi- 
 grated to Launceston, in Van Diemen's Land. 
 There they were joined by their father from 
 
England The story of three of the sons of 
 Thomas Henty — namely, of Stephen, Edward, 
 and John ; of their explorations and dis- 
 coveries in the Gambier country, is told in 
 Labillike's Early History of Victoria, where 
 it is recorded that Stephen Henty was the first 
 white man known to have stood on the shore 
 of the Blue Lake. It was Edward who, with 
 great propriety, was chosen in 1869 as the 
 earliest setder in the colony then living, to 
 present an address to the Duke of Edinburgh, 
 on his first landing at Melbourne. The plough 
 with which Edward turned the first sod at 
 Portland, Victoria, in 1834, is preserved in 
 Melbourne, as an historical implement and 
 valuable relic. The portrait of this gentleman 
 is in the possession of the Colonial Institute 
 of London. 
 
 Mr. William Henty did not follow his 
 relatives till seven years after their departure 
 for Australia. He sailed in August, 1836, in 
 the ship which had on board the celebrated 
 Sir John Franklin, going out as Governor 
 of Van Diemen's Land. A fnendship was 
 then formed between the two gentlemen 
 which proved to be of lifelong duration. In 
 a letter dated Government House, Van 
 Diemen's Land, December 6, 1842, intro- 
 ducing Mr. Henty to Sir George Gipps, 
 Governor of New South Wales, Franklin 
 writes : — " Mr. W. Henty having been a 
 fellow passenger of mine from England by 
 the Fairlie, I had the opportunity of forming 
 a knowledge of him, and of entertaining a 
 
regard for his character, which I have ever 
 since preserved. I know not a more highly 
 respected person than he is.'' la January, 
 1837, he reached Launceston, and began to 
 practise his profession as a solicitor, giving 
 his whole attention to it for a period of 
 twenty years. His ability, integrity, and 
 geniality of disposition having acquired for 
 him the esteem and confidence of his fellow 
 citizens, he was, in 1857, when the colony 
 received its new and free constitution, 
 elected Member of the Upper Chamber for 
 Tamar district, and shortly afterwards was 
 appointed Secretary of State for the Colony. 
 For six years he discharged the responsible 
 duties of this office, giving special and 
 characteristic attention to the subject of edu- 
 cation. He zealously supported the founda- 
 tion by the State of Tasmanian scholarships, 
 an endowment of ;^200 a year tenable for 
 four years, which is bestowed upon the pupil 
 of any school in the colony who may gain 
 the first place in a test examination which 
 takes place every year, he having previously 
 obtained the degree of Associate of Arts. 
 The successful student is thus enabled to 
 pursue his studies in one of the Universities 
 in England. 
 
 A glimpse of the Tasmanian politics of 
 the period is to be caught in Mr. Hent/s 
 speech to his constituents on his re-election, 
 after accepting office (May 5, 1857). The 
 business of the legislature was greatly in 
 arrear, and retrenchment of the public ex- 
 
penditure was sorely needed. The question 
 of waste lands, of police, and of the electric 
 telegraph, all had to be settled. Especially 
 the predominance in influence of the people 
 of Hobart Town had to be met by the for- 
 mation of a country party, and by a proposal 
 even to remove the scat of government from 
 Hobart Town to Launceston or Campbell 
 Town. Here was work enough cut out for 
 the new secretary. How he performed his 
 task during his six years of office is written 
 in the annals of the colony. On a question 
 of capital importance to the well-being of 
 the colony, that of transportation of criminals 
 from the mother country, Mr. Henty had 
 taken a prominent position as an anti-trans- 
 portationist. 
 
 On the reconstruction of the Colonial 
 Cabinet in November, 1862, Mr. Henty 
 seized the opportunity of announcing his 
 intention to withdraw from office and from 
 the Council, as he was desirous of revisiting 
 Europe with his family. His farewell address 
 to his constituents, the electors of the district 
 of Tamar, contains allusions to the improve- 
 ment brought about in the political condition 
 of the colonists by the introduction of free 
 institutions among them, at the outset of his 
 ministerial career. "A thorough knowledge," 
 he says, " of the principles of free govern- 
 ment is now infinitely more extended through 
 the community than could have been the 
 case if an Imperial rule and system had con- 
 
9 
 
 tinued among us." Awise adaptation of the 
 principle of local self-government both to 
 the towns and to the country districts had 
 been brought into operation throughout 
 nearly the whole country, Post offices, 
 hospitals, asylums, had been built to meet 
 the public necessities. To use the words of 
 a writer in the Tasmanian press on the 
 occasion of his departure for England, Mr. 
 Henty had " won the highest respect of the 
 public for his honour and integrity of charac- 
 ter, and of the house of which he was leader, 
 for the moderation and courtesy he uniformly 
 displayed in conducting the business of the 
 Government, and in dealing with an oppo- 
 sition not always of the most temperate 
 character." In the Legislative Council 
 speeches were made by members of both 
 parties on the occasion of Mr. Henty's fare- 
 well, expressing the cordial feelings of respect 
 and kindness entertained for him by all 
 members of the Legislature. 
 
 After travelling ,about Europe and in his 
 native country for three or four years, Mr. 
 Henty, in 1867, made Brighton his perma- 
 nent home. Here he busied himself in good 
 works, contributing aid to all genuine charities, 
 assisting them by his labours as well as with 
 his purse. His active mind was continually 
 at work on schemes of benevolence and 
 enlightened philanthropy. He testified his 
 interest in matters ecclesiastical by serving 
 for two years as churchwarden in the parish 
 
 B 
 
10 
 
 of Hove. He was an extensive reader, and 
 it was his love and reverence for Shakespeare 
 that made him inwardly protest against the 
 charges of wild dissoluteness brought against 
 the poet. He felt convinced, on the contrary, 
 that influences of an elevating natiu-e must 
 have surrounded Shakespeare in his youth, 
 and that they helped to form those exalted 
 conceptions of human character, and espe- 
 cially of womanly character, which dignify the 
 plays of our great dramatist. Hence the 
 inquiries made at Stratford and elsewhere, 
 which resulted in the following essays — essays 
 that would no doubt have been more fully 
 developed and illustrated had the writer's 
 life been a little longer spared. Mr. Henty 
 died on Monday, July nth, 1881, at his 
 house in West Brighton, in his 73rd year. 
 He left an only child, Mary, bom in Tas- 
 mania, who is married to the Rev. Edgar 
 Summers, Head Master of Abingdon School, 
 Berks. 
 
 Rob. Harrison. 
 
 London Library, 
 
 March 25, 1882. 
 
Sbaftespeare, 
 
 WITH SOME NOTES ON HIS EARLY BIOGRAPHY. 
 
 ilHILST SO much attention of late 
 has been directed to detect in- 
 dications of real characters in 
 Shakespeare's works, especially all 
 allusions to his own personal experiences, 
 and, amongst others, of references to his 
 own son, I believe there is a much larger 
 field than has been yet traced for such dis- 
 coveries. It seems strange how those I am 
 about to indicate have been overlooked, so 
 plain as they appear, and of such direct 
 bearing and importance in the elucidation of 
 Shakespeare's early career, and so of his 
 whole life and character.. 
 
 Dyce, who ought to have been the 
 guardian of his fame, gives a contemptuous 
 summary of his career, speaks in discourteous 
 terms of his wife, and shows no love for his 
 family. Had he looked back into the re- 
 cords of his mother's family in the Heralds' 
 Office, he would have found undoubted 
 testimonials of a family of worship in- the 
 stock from which Shakespeare sprung. 
 
 Students of Shakespeare's life are sur- 
 rounded by so many shapeless rumours that 
 they find it difficult to conceive anything 
 
like a consistent biography. When they 
 hear of his mixing with tiie shopkeeping 
 class of Stratford, of his being even a leader 
 amongst the low classes there, their interest 
 is not raised above the level of tradesmen 
 and their surroundings. Even Rowe, who 
 tried to gain him a position by styling his 
 father a woolbroker, rather lowered it than 
 otherwise by dwelling so much upon that 
 good man's debts and short payments. 
 Shakespeare's father must have been a man 
 immersed in commerce, maintaining a high 
 position among the councillors and officials 
 of the town. Amongst these we find no 
 notice of Shakespeare. His pursuits lay 
 amongst the students and schoolfellows of 
 the College and the companions which his 
 mother, and her well-bom relations, brought 
 around him. He would be engaged with 
 the delightful farm pursuits which her own 
 estate found for him, and he would be a 
 sportsman on his own ground, with the free- 
 dom of a proprietor. Such a life would 
 separate him from the more vulgar associa- 
 tions of the town. Marrying at eighteen, 
 the career of himself and his wife, hitherto 
 misunderstood, would be opened altogether 
 to new and higher influences, the moment 
 his marriage placed him in a new world. 
 Books and his associates in college would 
 also break open, as it were, the great store- 
 house of his original mind. 
 
13 
 
 SbaFicspeare'9 "'Beet 
 Hbvcnture." 
 
 j)HAT Shakespeare was a leader in 
 the town of Stratford during his 
 youth in all the great sports and 
 festivities we can readily believe. 
 But the biographers, especially Oldys and 
 Rowe, who came so late as 1709 into the field, 
 found his name attached by report to the 
 old squabble and riots that had taken place 
 between the Stratford people and the Lucys. 
 It was, therefore, not unnatural that when a 
 dispute occurred about a stray deer which 
 Shakespeare had shot on the adjoining estate 
 of Fulbrooke (though he did not succeed in 
 recovering his game), the event was, from 
 these mixed reports, converted into a charge 
 of stealbg deer out of Sir Thomas Lucy's 
 Park of Charlcote. Then it was magnified 
 into an alleged habit or frequent practice of 
 deer stealing, for which he was stated to 
 have been prosecuted by that knight, and so 
 severely that he was obliged to leave his 
 family and take shelter in London. 
 
 Happily the facts, as now explained, 
 enable us to eliminate tolerably well the 
 whole of the falsehood from these worse 
 than exaggerations. 
 
 Before Shakespeare's birth the Stratford 
 
14 
 
 people had resorted to the estate of Ful- 
 brooke as a sort of " no man's land," which 
 had been sequestered to the Queen on for- 
 feiture by Sir Thomas Englefield on the 
 Queen's accession in 1558. 
 
 In the year 1564, on a document happily 
 traced by Mr. Halliwell Phillipps in the State 
 Paper Office, we find it recorded that thirty- 
 five Stra^ord people had been charged by 
 Thomas "Lucy, Esguier" for a riot in 
 hunting, &c. ; but as Shakespeare was only 
 born in that year his name could not appear. 
 The year is proved by the fact that Lucy 
 was an Esguier, therefore not then knighted, 
 an event which took place in 1565. 
 
 Here then is proof of an astounding 
 exaggeration, from lapse of time, which 
 requires to be duly analyzed. First as to 
 the estate, the locus in quo, it was not Charl- 
 cote Park, for it cannot be proved that 
 Shakespeare ever even visited the Park. 
 
 The incident occurred on the estate of 
 Fulbrooke, adjoining Charlcote, where deer 
 from thence might naturally escape and take 
 refuge, there being to this day many outlying 
 deer in the neighbourhood as in other parts 
 of England. 
 
 Fulbrooke was of course a neglected place 
 from having been in the hands of the Crown 
 for nearly thirty years. It was probably all 
 the more beautiful. At a much earlier time, 
 when it had been also under forfeiture, it was, 
 says Dugdale, the haunt of idle vagabonds,, 
 robbers, and murderers. It was, of course, 
 open to passing visitors, and one may imagine 
 it a famous resort for poachers, wood-stealers, 
 and sportsmen, in search of hawks' nests, 
 rabbits, and stray fawns, or even deer. 
 
15 
 
 The number of wandering persons about 
 England, called " broken men," at this time 
 was remarkable, many of them, it is stated, 
 former recipients at the abbeys and monas- 
 teries, who had not then become part of the 
 settled population. So much trouble did they 
 give, that on one occasion the magistrates of 
 Somersetshire captured a gang of loo at a 
 stroke, and hanged fifty on the spot, and the 
 remainder at the next assizes. (See Green's 
 •England, vol. ii. p. 384.) 
 
 Shakespeare himself confirms the general 
 account : 
 
 The country gives me proof and precedent 
 Of Bedlam beggars, who, with roaring voices, 
 Strike in their numb'd and mortified bare arms 
 Pins, wooden pricks, nails, sprigs of rosemary. 
 And with this horrible object, from low farms 
 
 Enforce their charity. 
 
 King Lear, act ii. sc. 3. 
 
 This trouble was only finally subdued by 
 the masterly and efficient machinery of 
 Elizabeth's Poor-law (43 Elizabeth). Un- 
 happily Ireland was left without such a law, 
 and has been a sufiferer ever since. 
 
 The estate of Fulbrooke was given to Sir 
 Francis Englefield in 4 & 5 Philip and 
 Mary, but next year, on the accession of 
 Elizalseth, was sequestered by her on his 
 refusing to swear allegiance. It was not 
 regranted, after being seized, till 1607, Eliza- 
 beth probably having hopes that Englefield 
 would acknowledge her as Queen. Instead 
 of doing this, he consorted and plotted with 
 recusants both in Belgium and in Spain. In 
 1576, firom some attempts apparently to 
 obtain authority over his property, he was 
 
i6 
 
 formally attainted and convicted of high 
 treason. And in 1592 the verdict was con- 
 firmed by an Act of Parliament 
 
 It seems possible that this conviction for 
 treason and attainder gave to Shakespeare 
 the feeling that, in the absence of authority 
 expressly deputed by the Crown, the estate 
 was more than ever free for sport to all 
 comers. It appears that Lucy assumed charge 
 or rangership over the estate, but no State 
 authority for his doing so can be found. It 
 was clearly his interest to have some such 
 charge, if only for protecting his own stray 
 deer. He might have done this without 
 authority, by virtue merely of his magisterial 
 office, and as one of the quorum, for the 
 powers of a justice were then very great. 
 
 The property did not come into the Lucy 
 family till it was purchased by the grandson, 
 in the year 1615. Lucy, in addition to 
 taking possession, had erected a hut, which 
 he called a lodge. I speak from testimony 
 on the spot, in saying it was a very slender 
 aflfair. It was known as " Daisy Hill," and 
 was used as a residence for his keeper. It 
 has been recently rebuilt and converted into 
 a handsome farm-house. 
 
 This estate, then a most beautiful spot 
 of wood, and hill, and dale, was the at- 
 traction for such lovers of Nature as Shake- 
 speare, " a desert place" (meaning deserted), 
 as he styled it. Being part of the great 
 Ardennes Forest, it strongly bears out our 
 belief in the rumour which assigns this as the 
 site of the play, As You Like Jt. 
 
 That great forest extended so far that 
 towns for a distance of many miles took their 
 names from being included within its pre- 
 
I? 
 
 cincts, such as " Henley in Arden," " Hamp- 
 ton m Arden," "Weston in Arden," &c. 
 Perhaps a proud feeling, that his own 
 mother's early home was also within its 
 borders, would give significance to the ex- 
 pression put by him into the mouth of 
 Touchstone, " Now am I in Arden." 
 
 Here then, was the inducement for him, 
 as a true lover of sport, to ride through the 
 covert alone, or with friends, and, having 
 found a deer, what should prevent him from 
 exercising his right of killing it with his cross- 
 bow ? No longer in a park, it was no longer 
 known to the law nor to be styled game, but 
 open to any one to make it a prize who could 
 secvu-e it. A deer in a legal, that is, in a pro- 
 perly enclosed, park was protected by Act of 
 Parliament, but, escaped from its enclosure, 
 it returned to its condition of " fera natura," 
 a fact that no doubt Shakespeare and all 
 sporting friends knew quite well. 
 
 Then all we have to account for is the 
 assault on the lodge with which Shakespeare 
 was charged, and which he openly admitted. 
 The keepers, it seems natural to suppose, 
 seized his game and secured it in the lodge. 
 There Shakespeare would come with his 
 friends, and with force try to overcome those 
 in charge to regain his own, as he might 
 think he had a right to do ; but in the con- 
 test would be overpowered and lose the prize. 
 
 It is not necessary to accept the statement, ; 
 current on the spot to this day, that Shake- 
 speare was not only overpowered but strapped 1/ 
 to the bedpost, and yet, as he had the satis- 
 faction of breaking poor Blender's head, there 
 must have been a sharp conflict. (Merry 
 Wives of Windsor, i. i.) 
 
iS 
 
 The bedstead is so far a reality that good 
 Mr. Cook, the tenant-farmer, received it from 
 " Daisy Hill," within a short distance of his 
 own residence ; he being one of a family of 
 farmers of that name who have occupied 
 farms immediately on the spot for many 
 generations. The bedstead is now con- 
 verted into a handsome sideboard, and has 
 carved on it the year 1606, a date, as will 
 be seen, at least twenty years later than the 
 incident ; but a Stratford antiquary assures 
 me that such a date is no guide, as it was a 
 usual thing for an owner to have the date 
 of the year inscribed on any such furniture 
 when he himself became possessed of it. 
 
 As Shakespeare openly admits his part in 
 breaking open the lodge, we are bound to 
 accept the remaining part of the statement, 
 that the offence charged was that of killing 
 only, so that he never got the deer. 
 
 Shallow. Knight, you have beaten my men, 
 killed my deer, and broke open my lodge. 
 Falstaff. I have done all this. 
 
 But Lucy himself obtained it, as is evi- 
 dently implied by the conversation between 
 the latter and Page to the effect that the 
 venison of which they were about to partake 
 was a gift from Lucy, and that it was the 
 very deer in question, as he pointedly 
 remarks it had been " ill-killed." 
 
 This, then, disposes of any supposed 
 intention on the part of Lucy to arraign 
 Shakespeare for stealing. As to stealing, 
 indeed, the deer was Shakespeare's own 
 property rather than Lucy's, and was doubt- 
 less so regarded by him. No doubt 
 the knight fumed and threatened, and as 
 regards the breaking open the lodge, deemed 
 
19 
 
 it a mighty offence against his position and 
 dignity. 
 
 The authority of magistrates being so great 
 and despotic, he would doubtless bring for- 
 ward the words " riot and council," as having 
 been running in his thoughts from the time 
 of the previous disturbance by the Stratford 
 tradesmen twenty odd years before ; but 
 Shakespeare's bringing up these terms before 
 the Queen's Court itself shows how slightly, if 
 not contemptuously, he regarded them. As 
 a magistrate, Lucy was a person of much 
 self-importance, a magnate in Stratford town, 
 where his services were often engaged as a 
 justice to dispose of frequently occurring 
 cases. The aldermen eagerly sought his at- 
 tendance, and, according to the town records 
 (still in existence, from which the following 
 is an extract), rewarded him often for his 
 services, and doubtless others also, by dinners 
 and wine. For instance, " Paid at the Swaime 
 for a quart of sack and a quartern of sugar 
 burned for Sir Thomas Lucie," &c. &c. Sack 
 was always drunk with sugar, and sugar was 
 an expensive article — ^viz., i6d,, equal now to 
 1 3 J. 4d. per lb. 
 
 Naturally some feeling of disgust would 
 arise in Shakespeare's mind against such a 
 justice, and he may have had him in his eye 
 when he pictured the justice 
 
 In fair round belly with good capon lined, 
 With eyes severe, &c. 
 
 Shakespeare could well afford to ridicule 
 his talk about the Council and Riots. It 
 should be borne in mind throughout that 
 Shakespeare's play was not an after-produc- 
 tion. The Knight was alive, and did not 
 die till 1600, so that Shakespeare's boldness 
 
20 
 
 of assertion was open to criticism. Being 
 performed at Windsor, it is quite within 
 belief that the story of the fat Knight and 
 his deer conflict with Shallow would be 
 carried about the country and become 
 public talk. 
 
 Shakespeare could hardly have found any 
 medium of showing up the story and his own 
 adventures equal to the introduction of it in 
 connection with " Fat Jack," whose history 
 and doings everybody connected with the 
 Court probably knew and followed. 
 
 Sir Thomas Lucy, dying in 1600, was 
 buried with all pomp on the 7 th of August. 
 The illustrious Camden, then Clarencieux 
 King at Arms, whose written account is 
 here followed, came from the Heralds' 
 Office, to uphold the coat of arms at the 
 funeral. Four other gentlemen and heralds 
 carried in the procession the standard, the 
 pennon, the helm, and crest, &c This was 
 followed by the erection of recumbent 
 statues and effigies, from which we are able 
 now to observe the figures of the Knight and 
 others of his family in the Church at 
 Charlcote. 
 
 One other conclusion we must draw from 
 the informiation now available — ^viz., that the 
 dispute of Shakespeare with the Lucys arose 
 solely from this one instance, for when Sir 
 Walter Scott visited at Charlcote in 1828, 
 as recorded by him, the then owner (Mr. 
 Lucy) assured him it was not on that estate, 
 but at Fulbrooke, that " the buck" was stolen. 
 The vivid impressions still alive at Fulbrooke 
 confirm this, and make one wonder how the 
 squabbles and paper squibs which had been 
 floating around for a whole generation be- 
 
tween the people of Stratford and the Lucy 
 family should have settled upon the name 
 and fame of one individual — that of Shake- 
 speare alone. 
 
 Not only does the transaction, as now 
 ascertained, free Shakespeare from participa- 
 tion in previous disputes (it may be for 
 twenty, nay thirty years), and so reduce his 
 share to the limits of one upstanding contest 
 for the deer which he shot and claimed as 
 his own, but it has, by the discovery of the 
 twenty or thirty year old disputes of the 
 Stratford people with the owners of Charl- 
 cote, virtually shown that the verses, the 
 satirical odes, and what else they may be 
 termed, would naturally begin their career at 
 the same early period ; and that if all those 
 which had their probable origin before 
 Shakespeare was bom, and during the follow- 
 ing twenty years, should be dismissed from 
 all connection with him, there are no 
 grounds (and certainly no proof whatever) 
 for imputing a connection of any one with 
 his name. 
 
 We may therefore hope that in future 
 biographies they will be left out, and his 
 name be freed from all such injurious and 
 worthless associations. 
 
Sbaftespeare'fl Hutobioorapbi? 
 
 in "Zbc flDerr^ Mivcs of 
 
 TKIlinbsor." 
 
 i 
 
 [T is held by some critics that the 
 first rough sketch of this play was 
 made as early as 1592. If so it 
 seems inconsistent with the report 
 of its being prepared under the direction of 
 Queen Elizabeth, and of its being then finished 
 in a few weeks. May this be reconciled by 
 the supposition that the autobiographical 
 part was prepared at the above early period 
 and then afterwards made use of with the 
 addition as ordered by the Queen and fitted 
 together in its full shape ? 
 
 The play of The Merry Wives of Windsor 
 was written, it is said, in the year 1599, when 
 the author would be thirty-five years old, 
 . seventeen years after his marriage. In this 
 he has introduced more of the colour of 
 Stratford life than in any other play. The 
 beginning of it concerns his own personal 
 biography, as a party in the deer adventure. 
 The locality is evidently Stratford, though 
 disguised as Windsor, with the addition of 
 some of its surroundings. The characters, 
 or at least their names, maybe assumed to be 
 all from Stratford. Shallow and his cousin 
 
23 
 
 Slender are at once identified, as real person- 
 ages, with the events connected with Shake- 
 speare in which they took a part hitherto 
 little understood, but which it is believed will 
 now be made plain. 
 
 Dr. Caius (the apothecary, doubtless of 
 Stratford) and Dr. Evans, the Master of the 
 College are readily distinguished. It is evi- 
 dently intended by Shakespeare that we should 
 find his own early life in this play. Mistress 
 Anne is brought in, and our interest is raised 
 by her beauty, her fortune, and her simplicity 
 of manners. Then Fenton, her lover, narrates 
 his courtship, which is carried through and 
 completed. As all these circumstances ex- 
 emplify and tally with Shakespeare's character 
 in his own early career, there seemed to be little 
 wanting except some partially concealed key 
 by means of which we were to perceive that 
 William Fenton and sweet Anne Page were 
 designed to be the representatives of William 
 Shakespeare and Anne Hathaway. From 
 that discovery it followed that the plot in 
 which they are made to take part is almost 
 wholly autobiographical. The proofs are 
 both direct and circumstantial The direct 
 proof is that Shakespeare put palpably his 
 own statement, and I suppose we may call 
 it his defence, into the mouth of Falstafi" 
 respecting the deer story. In this he shows 
 no compunction or concealment, in replying 
 to Shallow, but exhibits perfect freedom in 
 style of address consistent as that is with 
 his part in the affair as now fully known, 
 and has already been detailed at length. 
 The introduction of the scene of the lad 
 William, when put under examination by his 
 Stratford schoolmaster, the name of Page 
 
24 
 
 being of course imaginary, points directly to 
 the identification of himself to bring him in 
 propria persona before the reader. The 
 episode is beside the action of the play and 
 can have no other object but this; 
 
 One main suggestion of the identification 
 of the characters came of course from the 
 identity of the Christian names William and 
 Anne. Then the mention of Anne's fortune, 
 a suggestion which I remembered was made 
 by Theobald, seemed to be an allusion to 
 a special bequest from her grandfather, 
 and the thought arose that that would prove 
 a clue on the chance of finding such a 
 will, but the search has unfortunately not 
 proved successful, as the name of the maternal 
 grandfather cannot be ascertained. The 
 date of such a will, if it exists, would be 
 somewhere afler the year 1556, the year of 
 Anne's birth. The next great point was the 
 particularity with which the wart on the eye 
 was dwelt on as indicating some special 
 purpose. 
 
 Quickly. — Troth, sir, all is in his hands above : 
 but, notwithstanding. Master Fenton, I'll be swore 
 on a book she loves you — have not your worship a 
 wart above your eye? 
 
 Fenton. — Yes, many, have I ; what of that ? 
 
 Quickly. — Well, thereby hangs a tale, — good faith 
 it is such another Nan ; but I detest an honest maid 
 as ever broke bread : We had an hour's talk of that 
 wart. I shall never laugh but in that maid's com- 
 pany. But indeed she is given too much to allicholy 
 and musing. . . . 
 
 Fenton. — . . . Hold, there's money for thee — let me 
 have thy voice in my behalf— if thou seest her before 
 me, commend me. 
 
 QuicUy.—'^KW I ? i' faith, that we will, and I will 
 tell your worship more of the wart the next time we 
 have confidence, and of other wooers. 
 
25 
 
 Resorting, as my'best resource, to a photo- 
 graph of the Chandos portrait by the Stereo- 
 scopic Company, I found it led to a disap- 
 pointment, inasmuch as, though there was a 
 mark on the right eye, it did not indicate 
 sufficiently a wart On consulting an artist 
 photographer, he decided that this mark on 
 the right eye was a defect of the photograph, 
 resulting from a speck of dirt, or other 
 matter, on the negative. This point would 
 perhaps be hardly .worth notice here, except 
 to prevent disappointment and prejudice to 
 others, as the reader might think that a pho- 
 tograph must necessarily be a correct repre- 
 sentation of the original. 
 
 Having then learnt that the picture itself 
 was in the National Portrait Gallery, I was 
 confirmed on examining it in the opinion 
 given that there was nothing to warrant the 
 projection shown in the photograph on the 
 right eye, but that on the left eye there was 
 a perceptible mark or wart, although from the 
 unfinished work of the painter — a fact first 
 pointed out by Sir Joshua Reynolds — it was 
 not very distinct. I leave this to speak for 
 itself, as many critics will of course be sure 
 to make their observations. It then came to 
 the great correcting test — the portrait in the 
 Stratford Museum (which I had not then 
 seen), which may be regarded as a recent 
 proof from the comparatively short time it 
 has been placed before the world as an 
 authentic work. Its history is most curious. 
 , It came from the family of the late Mr. 
 Hunt, the well-known solicitor and antiquary 
 of Stratford, whose ancestors were doubtless 
 contemporaneous with the friends of Shake- 
 speare's family. Mr. Hunt could personally 
 c 
 
26 
 
 trace or prove its possession in his ancestor's 
 family for above one hundred years. When 
 brought to light amongst a large collection 
 of old pictures and lumber in Mr. Hunt's 
 house in the year i860, it was found to have 
 been painted over and evidently disguised at 
 some early period, a circumstance recalling 
 the dark times of Stratford, when plays were 
 absolutely prohibited, and practices of ex- 
 treme severity against the profession pre- 
 vailed, during a time in which so many 
 memorials of Shakespeare's life, perhaps his 
 own manuscripts and correspondence, in all 
 probability disappeared. The portrait was 
 cleaned and restored, and has since been in 
 the custody of the Stratford authorities, a 
 most liberal present from Mr. Hunt. It 
 bears every mark of authenticity — its dress 
 the same as that of the monumental bust and 
 the contour of the face resembling it, as if, 
 as I cannot but believe, it was used by 
 Johnson, the sculptor, to help in the prepara- 
 tion of the bust as we now see it. Forbearing 
 further detail, I now ask attention to the 
 great test of its faithfulness — viz., the wart 
 on the eye. It is not a case of accident or 
 probability — it is a coincidence of the most 
 decided character. It could not have been 
 fabricated, and it is reasonable to think that 
 its position could only have been pointed to 
 and enforced on the painter's notice by the 
 poet as a memento to prove the biographical 
 allusions in the play. 
 
 Of the identification of Shakespeare and 
 his wife with William Fenton and Anne Page 
 other proofs suggest themselves. The Strat- 
 ford names Heme and Brome (the latter the 
 assumed name of Ford in the first folio) ; 
 
27 
 
 Page (he lived in Henley Street), Ford, Dr. 
 Caius, Bardolph, the Grammar School, and 
 Sir Hugh Evans (the master). Fenton's 
 practice also as a versifier, mentioned by mine 
 Host of the Garter, his assertion of righteous, 
 or as we should now say, honourable, inten- 
 tions towards his bride to repel insinuations, 
 which doubtless had been thrown out by 
 some — the consent of the mother, but not 
 of the father, who had died before their 
 marriage — his asserted gentle manners — 
 the statement put, too, into the mouth of 
 Anne, "gentle master Fenton," all confirm 
 the impression which gathers strength till it 
 becomes irresistible. 
 
 It would be hardly right to pass over the 
 mention of this newly-discovered portrait 
 without further reference to its history, which 
 is of a peculiar and romantic character. It 
 has been by the critics both praised and con- 
 demned, and been the subject of much surmise 
 as to its origin, its character, and value. The 
 description of it, when first discovered, and 
 put under examination by the picttwe dealer, 
 Mr. Gollins, of Bond Street, in i860, states 
 that " the face was then covered widi hair, 
 having a large beard, and being otherwise - 
 disfigured," but Mr. ColUns strongly suspected 
 that underneath the surface paint there was 
 another picture. He therefore removed the 
 covering part in the presence of many wit- 
 nesses, Mr. Hunt himself, the vicar of Stratford 
 and others, and discovered beneath "an 
 admirable portrait of Shakespeare." It was 
 afterwards by request publicly exhibited by 
 Mr. Collins, in London, with the following 
 announcement : — 
 
 Portrait of Shakespeare.—" A portrait of 
 c 2 
 
28 
 
 Shakespeare, painted on canvas, three- 
 quarter life-size, which has been in the 
 family of W. O. Hunt, Esq., town clerk of 
 Stratford-upon-Avon, for a century, has re- 
 cently been put into tlie hands of Mr. Simon 
 Collins, of Somerset Street, Portman Square, 
 London, who, after removing the dirt, damp, 
 and re-paint, by which it was obscured, has 
 brought to light what he pronounces to be a 
 'genuine porttait of the immortal bard.'" 
 
 The picture bears a remarkable resem- 
 blance to the bust in the chancel of Stratford 
 Church, according to the ' description of it 
 before it was painted white, at the request of 
 Malone, in 1793 — viz., the eyes being of a 
 light hazel, and the head and beard auburn ; 
 the dress consisted of a scarlet doublet, over 
 which was a loose black gown without 
 sleeves. This dress calls to mind the remark 
 made by Mr. Wheler, in his History of 
 Stratford-upotirAvon, of the probability of a 
 picture being in existence from which the 
 monumental bust was taken, which suggestion 
 Mr. Wivell quotes and appears to adopt. 
 This picture came into the hands of its 
 late owner, W. O. Hunt, Esq., through his 
 father from his grandfather, William Hunt, 
 Esq., to whom it probably passed with some 
 other old paintings in the purchase of his 
 house from the Clopton family in 1758. The 
 house had then been uninhabited for several 
 years, after the death of its former owner and 
 occupier, Edward Clopton, Esq. (nephew of 
 Sir Hugh Clopton), which took place in 
 1753. The following is a description of the 
 house by another hand : — 
 
 " A large house somewhat modernized on 
 the outside, but containing within numerous 
 
29 
 
 rooms that not only retain their ancient cha- 
 racter, but some in the upper stories filled 
 with what has been supposed to be lumber, 
 untouched for considerably more than a cen- 
 tury. This house is the residence of W. O. 
 Hunt, Esq., whose family have possessed it 
 for nearly a century and a half, having ori- 
 ginally purchased it from the Cloptons' lineal 
 descendants, some of whom were contem- 
 poraneous with Shakespeare.'* 
 
 This writer, however, disputes the authen- 
 ticity of thi^ portrait — ^which was one found 
 amongst the supposed lumber above de- 
 scribed — and inthevaguestmanner " hazards 
 the conjecture" that it was a painting made 
 " in some way or other" for the procession in 
 1769. 
 
 Another cntic (whose name I will not men- 
 tion) adds as follows : — " The picture, as I 
 think, has no merit of any kind, not even that 
 of age. It is a modern daub — possibly a 
 tavern sign — a 'Shakespeare's head,' pro- 
 bably made up for a freak or some purpose 
 connected with the Jubilee." In opposition 
 to these objectors, I will begin by quoting the 
 remarks of a favourable character. In this 
 respect some have exalted and some depre- 
 ciated its merits as a painting ; but its artistic 
 merit or want of merit adds little to the 
 proof of its authenticity, except we adopt 
 the suggestion made by some that it might 
 have been painted by Richard Burbage, 
 Shakespeare's greatest friend, who it is known 
 painted portraits of other actors, one of 
 which is now at Dulwich. One writer ob- 
 serves, that "the artist has succeeded in 
 making the most pleasing portrait of Shake- 
 speare extant." Another says " it is a very 
 
30 
 
 good suggestion of the face of Shakespeare, 
 save for the want of power or indeed its 
 vacuity." 
 
 What this critic refers to is probably the 
 steady ahnost drooping eyelids, but in that 
 , respect it might be compared to the Chandos 
 portrait, or rather to the steady fixed gaze in 
 other contemporary portraits now in the 
 National Gallery, such as Raleigh, &c But 
 beside these criticisms, the testimony of 
 Mr. Collins, the professional picture restorer, 
 should weigh much in its favour, who, on 
 discovering the under painting, exclaimed in 
 the words before mentioned that it was " a 
 genuine portrait of the immortal bard." 
 
 The other objections which it is necessary 
 to dispose of are, first — 
 
 " That it is a copy made from the bust" 
 I have already mentioned the anticipation of 
 Messrs. Wheler and Wivell, that there would 
 be found another picture which Gerald John- 
 son would stand in need of, to enable him to 
 complete his bust, made seven years after 
 death. 
 
 Presuming, as I do, that he had before him 
 a cast of the poet's face, and, as I have else- 
 where mentioned, taken so long after death 
 as almost to amount to disfigurement, the 
 colours of the features, the beard, the hair, 
 and the dress, which he endeavoiured to 
 imitate, must still be supplied from another 
 source, and a portrait would be the best 
 means. The scarlet colour of the dress of the 
 portrait was till then without precedent, and 
 Johnson adopted it, but did not surely invent 
 it. If the painter did really make out his pic- 
 ture by taking the bust as his model he must 
 have been a person of no mean talent, not- 
 
31 
 
 withstanding what some of the critics have 
 thought The mouth, , instead of being open 
 as in the bust, is well formed, with a pleasing 
 expression, the eyes are mild and gentle, not, 
 as in the bust, open and staring ; and (in the 
 language of another critic), " In the face lies 
 the main evidence. Shakespeare has in the 
 portrait a nose in good harmony with the 
 rest of the face, not short and insignificant as 
 in the bust." The next imaginary objection 
 made is, that it was painted for some perform- 
 ance or figure in the great Jubilee of 1769. 
 The statement of the late Mr. Hunt was 
 that it had been in his family's possession 
 for above a century, which would take back 
 the ownership beyond the Jubilee. Of course 
 the disguised covering of paint must have 
 been done (if these critics are correct) after, 
 and not before, that event, says the critic, 
 for a "freak." But what possible reason 
 could there be for hiding an "admirable 
 portrait of Shakespeare," or an admirable 
 portrait of any one. If acquired by Mr. 
 Hunt in that state it would have been known 
 to him as Shakespeare's portrait, and the 
 name could not well be lost, and yet he 
 stated that his family had so disregarded the 
 subject of the painting that it had been used 
 as a target by the juveniles of the family. 
 Surely, then, we may disregard such futile 
 inventions. I hold, as I have already said, 
 that it was painted from the life. That after 
 the poet's death, and after Gerald Johnson 
 had finished his bust, it was disguised in the 
 manner indicated to avoid remarks on the 
 part of Stratford friends, who were opposed 
 to the drama and its adjuncts. But I think 
 I have added the most striking affirmative 
 
32 
 
 proof of its genuineness in the existence of 
 the wart on the eye, a most happy dis- 
 covery, which will surely dispose of all 
 adverse criticism. 
 
 It is a rather singular incident that, after 
 my paper was written out, I found on look- 
 ing over an anonymous work styled, Foot- 
 sies of Shakespeare, a detection of the 
 identity of Fenton and Anne Page with 
 Shakespeare and Anne Hathaway. But the 
 writer passes it over briefly, whilst hurrying 
 on to his argument to show by a multitude 
 of proofs that Shakespeare was put apprentice 
 to a doctor. His opinion, therefore, would 
 not be likely to attract attention. He had, 
 of course, not noticed the allusions to the 
 wart in the eye, without the discovery of which 
 I should certainly not have prosecuted my 
 inquiries. 
 
 It is a disappointment to myself, as well as 
 to my readers, that I am unable to insert or 
 refer to a photograph of the Stratford painting. 
 The one known as Bedford's, which circu- 
 lates largely at Stratford, could not well have 
 been correctly taken. It is erroneous in two 
 respects ; it omits the wart on the eye, and 
 the folding of the hair is different. I hope 
 he may give us a renewed one. My own 
 difficulties have been great in my efforts to 
 obtain a good photograph; but I need not 
 allude further to them.* I will here sum- 
 marize the important incidents which the dis- 
 covery appears to denote and authenticate : — 
 
 I St. The prominent position in neighbour- 
 ing society held by Anne Hathaway and her 
 family. 
 
 *An autotype of the portrait is given with this 
 pamphlet. 
 
33 
 
 2nd. Her attractiveness, from her beauty, 
 and her sweet voice and character. 
 
 3rd. Her fortune and property, asserted by 
 her father (Page), and confirmed by Anne 
 and Fenton (Shakespeare), with explicitness 
 and candour. 
 
 4th. Shakespeare's own high position by 
 his birth (" as I am a gentleman ") advanced 
 impliedly as superior to that of Anne. 
 
 Sth. His gay life and spirits up to his 
 eighteenth year. 
 
 6th. His impecuniosity at the time of his 
 courtship (" a man of no having.") 
 
 7th. His talents for verse-making. 
 
 8th. His righteous suit — i.e., their betrothal 
 and subsequent marriage. 
 
 9th. An express consent given by the 
 mother to the engagement. 
 
 loth. The happy life of the pair after their 
 marriage. 
 
 There may be noticed an argument against 
 the assumption that Shakespeare was lame, 
 implied by some critics, since he is credited 
 here with the accomplishments of " capering" 
 and " dancing." 
 
34 
 
 l^outb of Sbahespeare. 
 
 [The following is a condensation of Mr. 
 H amy's discursive treatise on the still ob- 
 scure question of Shakespeare's early life. 
 It is the result of much painstaking research, 
 and brings into prominence various interest- 
 ing points, to wit : — 
 
 The distinction of his birth and lineage ; 
 
 The refined and cultivated influences mid 
 which his youth was passed ; 
 
 His training and instruction, and his con- 
 nection with the Grammar School and 
 College ; 
 
 His honourable marriage into the family 
 of Hathaway, and his married life at 
 Shottery ; 
 
 His friendship with the Burbages; his 
 departure for London; and the love of 
 home and its associations, which brought 
 him back to Stratford, and led him to the 
 purchase of " New Place." 
 
 All this is illustrated and enforced by the 
 theory that the Merry Wives of Windsor is a 
 piece of autobiography. — EditorJ] 
 
 The circumstance that most strikes the 
 attention on considering Shakespeare's early 
 life is that almost all ordinary biographers 
 have written of him as the son of a trades- 
 man, brought up in the ranks of tradesmen 
 
35 
 
 or husbandmen. I could not but believe 
 that as on the mother's side he was im- 
 mediately descended from ancestors of 
 gentle blood, being styled at the Heralds' 
 OflSce " a family of worship," he was entitled 
 to be, and really was, regarded by those 
 amongst whom he resided as belonging to 
 the ranks of the gentry, and that his mother, 
 being also an heiress, jealously guarded this 
 position and imbued her son with the same 
 feeling. 
 
 The biographers, from Aubrey and Rowe 
 downwards, have alluded only to Stratford 
 anecdotes from hints and stories circulating 
 amongst the townsfolk, who would know 
 him but slightly. His large circle of relatives, 
 apparently but little known to Knight, lived 
 not in Stratford, but in the neighbouring 
 parishes, and as they — at least those six on 
 the female side, the sisters of his mother — 
 would offer to him not less than as many 
 homes where the high tone and breeding 
 were probably the same as that of his own 
 mother, his opportunities of an elevated tone 
 of society would be unusually great, giving 
 him means of witnessing in their company 
 that refined and noble character and manners 
 by which he abundantly profited, and which 
 he afterwards exalted and immortalized in 
 his dramas. 
 
 His mother was Mary, the seventh daughter 
 of Robert Arden of Wilmcote, in the parish 
 of Aston Cantlowe, about two miles from 
 Stratford. Robert Arden's grandfather was 
 groom of the bedchamber to Henry VII., and 
 his uncle had been squire of the body to that 
 monarch. The history of this family, as it ap- 
 pears in Dugdale, spreads over not less than six 
 
36 
 
 centuries, and its earliest named member had 
 been the possessor of forty-seven manors. 
 There were wealthy cousins of the name in 
 Shakespeare's time in the country around. 
 The chief or head of the house was Edward 
 Arden, then recently High SheriflF of Warwick, 
 who died innocently on the scaflFold, falsely 
 condemned as a traitor in 1584, when 
 Shakespeare was twenty years old. He was 
 prosecuted at the mstance of the noted Earl 
 of Leicester and his perjured witness, Hall, 
 a Jesuit, owing to information supposed to 
 have been given by Edward Arden to the 
 Queen respecting Leicester's connection with 
 the Countess of Essex. 
 
 Robert Arden of Wilmcote was the grand- 
 son and a lineal descendant of the Walter 
 Arden who married Eleanor Hampden, 
 daughter of John Hampden of Bucks, 
 and died at the beginning of the century 
 (August 1502), which Walter Arden was the 
 heir and the lineal descendant of the family 
 from the time of Edward the Confessor. 
 This is now so satisfactorily established by 
 Mr. French, in his most laborious work, 
 Shakespeareana Genealogica, page 430, that 
 I think it sufficient to quote his authorit)'. 
 
 I adopt also Mr. French's description of 
 the furniture left in Robert Arden's house at 
 his death. The eleven painted cloths or 
 tapestries — ^the hall, the parlour — the kitchen 
 — as a sufficient indication that the style in 
 which he lived was that of a country gentle- 
 man. 
 
 Who was Robert Arden's first wife, and the 
 mother of his seven daughters, is not known. 
 His second wife, Agnes Hill, «i« Webbe, bore 
 him no issue. It is believed she did not 
 
37 
 
 maintain any friendly intimacy with her step- 
 daughters after her husband's death. 
 
 Robert Arden, having no son, made, prior 
 to his second marriage, a settlement of lands 
 on each of his seven daughters. 
 
 By his will, dated •24th Nov. 1556, he be- 
 queathed to his youngest daughter Mary all 
 his " land in Wilmcote called Asbyes," and 
 the crop upon the ground, sown and tilled 
 as it was. And £fi 13^. 4/f. of money to be 
 "paid o'er ere my goods be divided." 
 
 His executors were Alice and Mary, the 
 only daughters then unmarried. It is believed 
 by some that Mary Arden had resided on 
 this property called Asbies with her grand- 
 father, Thomas Arden, who had died nine 
 years before. 
 
 It is noticeable that in the Inventory 
 attached to his will the name of the testator 
 is spelt Robert " Ardennes." And in the 
 inventory of his widow's goods the same 
 spelling appears (omitting the final s). 
 
 The estate of Asbies, with considerable 
 rights of common and some other property at 
 Snitterfield gave to Mary Arden the title of an 
 heiress. 
 
 The house of " Asbies" at Wilmcote now 
 stands precisely as of yore, and deeply in- 
 teresting as it is as the property and residence 
 of Mary Arden before she gave her hand to 
 John Shakespeare, it has greater claims to 
 notice as being, doubtless, with its farm, the 
 very spot (and not Charlcote, as too often 
 supposed) where Shakespeare planned liis 
 holiday excursions, drew his observations of 
 country life and jpastimes, and made his 
 loved companionship with Nature during 
 at least the first fourteen years of his life, 
 
38 
 
 whilst the estate was cultivated by his 
 father. 
 
 A portion of Robert Arden's Snitterfield 
 estate (adjoining Wilmcote) was tenanted by 
 Richard Shakespeare, a husbandman, who 
 also had property of his own. He had two 
 sons, Henry and John, the latter of whom 
 married Mary Arden, and was the father of 
 our poet. The farming operations of two 
 adjoining estates will always be likely to in- 
 duce an intimacy between such neighbours, 
 so that John Shakespeare and Mary Arden 
 might presumably have ample opportunities 
 of social meetings in the occupation of rural 
 life. The result was that, Robert Arden 
 having died in December, 1556, Mary be- 
 came the wife of John Shakespeare a few 
 months later, though the exact date is want- 
 ing. 
 
 John Shakespeare was a tradesman in 
 Stratford,carryingon a manufacturing business 
 and wholesale trade as a glover, woolstapler, 
 and wool merchant, in Henley Street. At 
 the time of his marriage, he removed to 
 the spot, and, we may believe, to the very 
 house in which the poet was bom. Here 
 he passed the remainder of his days, though 
 the date of his earliest occupation is not 
 quite certain, for the freehold of the pro- 
 perty was not purchased by him until the year 
 1575. 
 
 The house, or rather houses, indicate a 
 large business. The front has a length of 
 not less than 62 ft 4 in. On the first floor 
 the large back room goes (traditionally) by 
 the name of the " wool store," and the one 
 adjoining, semi-divided from it, as " the comb- 
 ing room." It is very probable that the 
 
39 
 
 subsequent depression of this manufacture 
 or trade had much to do with the decline 
 in prosperity which overtook the town, 
 and in which John Shakespeare was in- 
 volved. That he was a person of high 
 standing there cannot be doubted. He was 
 first appointed to the office of Ale-taster 
 under the Municipality in the year 1557, 
 gradually rose to be Constable, Chamberlain, 
 and Alderman, and attained the highest 
 Office of High Bailiff in 1576, which gave 
 to him the title of " magistrate " or " master." 
 During this year he made application to the 
 Herald Office for the Shakespeare Coat of 
 Arms, which was duly granted. 
 
 During a period of twenty-one years John 
 Shakespeare, as has been mentioned, cultivated 
 the farm of Asbies, but in the year 1578 he was 
 under the necessity of raising money on loan, 
 and mortgaged it to E. Lambert for ^40 = 
 ;^4oo. In two years afterwards he "tendered 
 payment of the sum, but on Lambert's 
 demanding at the same time payment of 
 another debt of ^5, which was denied, the 
 matter remained in abeyance for some years. 
 
 During this the middle part of his life 
 John Shakespeare fulfilled the duties of 
 Alderman and Magistrate, paying the various 
 rates levied for the poor .... till his 
 position had evidently in a pecuniary sense 
 declined. His amount of rating was then 
 lowered, and difficulty was experienced in 
 getting payment of his dues; and the fact 
 must be considered established that at one 
 time in the year 1587 he was placed in the 
 custody of the SheriflF, though for a brief 
 period. 
 
 He, however, was still occupied in trade 
 
40 
 
 of various kinds, and was often engaged in 
 suits in the Courts of Requests, sometimes 
 as plaintiff, but oflener, we may regret to 
 see, as defendant. It is rather remarkable 
 that more than once he was sued for a debt 
 on account of his brother, Henry Shakes- 
 peare — a circumstance hardly yet accounted 
 for. - 
 
 To what extent his fortimes suffered is by 
 no means clear. There appears nothing to 
 justify the implication which some have sug- 
 gested of real poverty. Mr. Knight argues 
 that the family were possessed of good and 
 sufficient property tlurough life. He con- 
 tinued to live on the property he had pur- 
 chased in 1575 up to his death, and his 
 descendants owned it till the year 1800, when 
 it was sold by John Hart's widow. He had also 
 certainly some other possession, for in 1597 
 he sold a piece of land (part of the Henley 
 Street property). His larger house — that in 
 which the poet was bom — descended by 
 heirship, as he made no will, to his eldest 
 son, the poet, though the fact of making no 
 will almost implies that his widow and other 
 children would be willingly confided to the 
 charge of his eldest son. The widow would 
 have a legal claim to dower. He died in 
 1601, and was buried the 8th of September 
 in that year. 
 
 The family which his father left comprised 
 eight in all. Two died in infancy ; Gilbert 
 lived till 161 2 ; Anne died early. The poefs 
 baptism is thus entered in the parish register, 
 " 1564 : April 26, Gulielmus, filius Johannes 
 Shakspere." After him came Joan, bom 
 1569, who married William Hart, a hatter of 
 Stratford in 1599; then followed Richard, 
 
41 
 
 bora 1573, who died 161 3; and Edmund, 
 bora 1580, who died 1607. 
 
 I have already given an outline of the 
 position of the family at the time of marriage. 
 There can be little doubt that they regarded 
 themselves as a family of some distinction 
 from the connections of the mother and the 
 amount of her landed property. An estate 
 in land, with a substantial residence, will 
 amongst a city population add much to the 
 position of its owner, especially at a time 
 when the landowners were the real ralers of 
 affairs national and provincial. 
 
 This claim to high birth is indicated by 
 the words which Shakespeare puts into the 
 mouth of his representative in the play of 
 The Merry Wives. And it seems quite 
 natural A mother with such claims would 
 aim to preserve the high position she in- 
 herited. The circle of her family was large 
 enough to afford scope for society, and she 
 would probably eschew any free intermixture 
 of her children with those of the town. No 
 countty gentleman's name would be more 
 familiar in the mouths of Stratford people 
 than that of Arden. The son would naturally 
 inherit or imbibe the mother's feeling, and 
 this, though it had its good side, may in great 
 likelihood have led him to some expensive 
 habits and gaieties which are plainly avowed 
 in his confessions, if it did not even go Ijpyond 
 and bring on expensive habits in the house- 
 hold of the parents themselves. 
 
 The tragic event which overtook the 
 eldest branch of the Ardens in the punish- 
 ment for imputed treason at the instance of 
 the powerful Earl of Leicester, the first 
 favourite of the Queen, would create an 
 
 D 
 
42 
 
 excitement and exalt the pride in every one 
 who bore his name and could claim a family 
 connection. 
 
 The accounts of Shakespeare's education 
 have been derived from very vague sources. 
 It is believed that he went at about seven 
 years of age to the Collegiate Grammar School 
 at Stratford, but stayed there only till his 
 fourteenth or fifteenth year, after which time 
 his father required his services in his affairs 
 at home. 
 
 Aubrey reports that he had been at some 
 time of his youth engaged as a schoolmaster 
 in the country. This, if it meant that 
 Shakespeare had been an assistant at the 
 grammar school, would be not inconsistent 
 with Rowe's account of giving assistance to 
 his father, if interpreted as helping to econo- 
 mise his father's home expenditure. 
 
 Whether Shakespeare made no more than an 
 ordinary school acquaintance with Latin and 
 less with Greek, as Ben Jonson said, I shall 
 not stay to argue. Translations of nearly all 
 the Latin classics were abundant at the time. 
 Cicero and Ovid were well thumbed in the 
 original in most grammar schools. Plutarch 
 had been translated in the reign even of 
 Henry VIII. The enthusiasm for the " new 
 learning " was immense, and Roger Ascham's 
 works were influential everywhere. 
 
 From which parent the talent of the poet 
 descended cannot be discussed now. Pro- 
 bably both had mental capacity of the highest 
 order. It is of more consequence to learn 
 to whom he was indebted for the early culti- 
 vation of his faculty of observation and the 
 development of his mental and moral nature, 
 and it appears most probable that the largest 
 
43 
 
 / 
 
 share of this fostering care must be attributed 
 to his mother. 
 
 From whom but the mother could Shake- 
 speare have derived his insight and apprecia- 
 tion of those refined and exalted qualities of 
 the female character which he has portrayed 
 in his works ? They must have been 
 implanted in early life, and have come fi-om a 
 mother's society and training, supported too, 
 as she happily was,by a large circle of females, 
 her own sisters — all descended alike from the 
 same stock of gentle blood, to whom high 
 and even ' courtly manners had doubtless 
 descended, and by them were transmitted to 
 the gentle Shakespeare and her other children. 
 
 No allusion has been made to this circum- 
 stance by the biographers, doubtless from the 
 fact that her having so many sisters has only 
 recently become known. Knight even 
 surmised that Shakespeare had no elevated 
 society amongst females in his youth nor 
 became acquainted with any such until after 
 his residence in London. The imagination 
 now can trace his happy and spirited youth 
 passed in the home circle where amidst the 
 hilarity of his father's sports and humour he 
 witnessed at the fireside the teaching of a 
 discriminating gentlewoman, and the manners 
 and delicacy of the most refined life. To 
 give indulgence to this thought we may 
 picture to ourselves his mother (afterwards 
 portrayed by him, as I think in his noble 
 character of Volumnia), surrounded by and 
 presiding over a varied family that represented 
 to him in spirit, though in outline only, such 
 after-creations as Miranda, Beatrice, Juliet, 
 Isabella, and others. 
 
 Such associations would teach him to 
 
44 
 
 know the manners of a Court, and how to 
 play well his part when he had to present 
 himself amidst the members of Queen 
 Elizabeth's Household, and to become, as we 
 are told, a favourite there as well for his wit 
 and humour as for his gende manners. 
 
 I have mentioned the idea that the character 
 of Volumnia was intended for his own mother. 
 I have founded this surmise on the know- 
 ledge that (as it is thought) she had just died 
 before or at the time of his writing his play 
 of Coriolanus, when he had returned to Strat- 
 ford to find rest in the society of his family 
 and widowed mother and the home of his 
 early youth. 
 
 It was his acquaintance with the style and 
 manner of Court life that first suggested to me 
 the germ of my inquiry, how he could have 
 been in a position to attain that experience, 
 until I traced its origin to his connection with 
 the stream of noble and courtly blood that 
 flowed to him in direct descent through the 
 veins of the ancient family of Arden. 
 
 It is thought, I believe, by some, that the 
 character of Menenius in the play of Corio- 
 lanus was designed to represent his father, 
 and I well believe it. The ardent friend 
 of the Roman General, with his strong judg- 
 ment, his gay and buoyant humour and 
 elastic spirits, is a fair image of the man who 
 might be supposed to have accompanied his 
 son in his out-door life, and to have initiated 
 him into all the characteristic pursuits so 
 elaborately defined by Roger Ascham, in his 
 Guide for the Country Gentleman. Ascham's 
 Schoolmaster, be it remembered, was published 
 in 1571, when Shakespeare was seven years 
 old. 
 
45 
 
 In referring now to the misunderstood sub- 
 ject of Shakespeare's marriage, we have to 
 wade through much ill-natured criticism and 
 darkness. Shakespeare, at the age of eighteen 
 years and six months, was married to Anne 
 Hathaway, the daughter of Richard and Joan 
 Hathaway, residing at Shottery in the parish 
 of Stratford, about a miledistant from the town. 
 Her age exceeded his own by eight years and 
 some months. Her father had died about a 
 year previously (September, 1581). He was a 
 man of property, a substantial yeoman. His 
 house, still standing, generally styled a cot- 
 tage, is certainly deserving a much higher 
 designation, for it is now divided into three 
 residences, and in point of size and capacity 
 may be compared to the house of Asbies, the 
 property of Shakespeare's mother, though 
 there is nothing in it characteristic of a grade 
 so high as that of a country gentleman's 
 house like that of Robert Arden. Hatha- 
 way had a family of four sons and five 
 daughters, Anne being the eldest daughter. 
 The eldest son was Bartholomew, upon 
 whom the family estate was entailed by 
 settlement, made (apparently) at the time of 
 the father's marriage, and which also in- 
 cluded a jointure for the wife. Bartholomew 
 became subsequently High Bailiff of the 
 town of Stratford, denoting that the family 
 held a good position. In great probability 
 he was a pupil at the college with Shake- 
 speare ; but I think Knight's remark, that the 
 two families were of eVjual degree, is mislead- 
 ing. In Anne Page's interview with Fenton, 
 the latter alludes to his birth (meaning his 
 higher birth) as a probable obstruction to 
 their marriage in the mind of her . father. 
 
46 
 
 There is, nevertheless, proof that Richard 
 Hathav/ay and John Shakespeare were on 
 intimate terras, having business and family 
 transactions with each other. 
 
 Tradition, in the mouth of the present 
 family, says that Anne was very beautiful, 
 and " Oldys" reports the same ; and though 
 in the Merry Wives of Windsor there is no 
 ostentatious description of such a fact, the 
 allusions where she is twice called " pretty," 
 are sufficiently in its favour. 
 
 It is remarked that in her father's will her 
 name does not appear — a fact for which it 
 seemed difficult to account, although another 
 sister was also omitted ; but Theobald made a 
 guess that She had independent property, 
 and by the identification of her character 
 with Anne Page, the fact is fully disclosed. 
 In the play her property is mentioned as 
 being derived under the will of a grandfather ; 
 but no will, from either paternal or mater- 
 nal grandfather, has been found. That, how- 
 ever, is not necessary, seeing that the fact is 
 mentioned personally by Shakespeare, and 
 so pointedly stated and charged against him 
 as the foundation of his suit, that he admits 
 it as being the origin of his attachment, but 
 the origin only for that his discovery of her 
 qualities of mind and disposition had in- 
 spired him with feelings of regard and devo- 
 tion of a more exalted character. 
 
 The marriage took place in November, 
 1582, the Bishop of Worcester's license being 
 dated in that month, which had been granted 
 with the special permission to be performed 
 after only one publication of banns. For 
 this license a bond was entered into, with 
 sureties, for its legal and due performance, the 
 
47 
 
 bondsmen being two of the respectable 
 neighbours of Shottery, and one of them, 
 Fulke Sandells, an executor under the will of 
 Richard Hathaway, the father, whose seal 
 was made use of on the occasion. Many 
 other licenses and bonds of similar character 
 are found amongst the archives of the 
 Bishop's registry. On the 2 6th of May follow- 
 ing .... a daughter was born of the marriage, 
 christened Susanna, though no family rela- 
 tionship has been found for adopting that 
 name. According to a tradition existing 
 there, the marriage is believed to have been 
 performed at Luddington, an adjoining vil- 
 lage to Shottery, by the curate, the Rev. Mr. 
 Hunt, who had been a master for many years 
 at the Collegiate School, and was, no doubt, 
 an old friend of Shakespeare's. Unfortu- 
 nately, the parochial registers of Luddington 
 have been destroyed by fire. The circum- 
 stances of Shakespeare's marriage at so early 
 an age, and the birth of a daughter so soon 
 after marriage, have formed the subject of 
 much conjectural and unfavourable criticism. 
 For a long period it was not known that this 
 marriage was preceded by a formal betrothal* 
 — a fact first brought forward by C. Knight, 
 
 * Fenton. Hear the truth of it. 
 You would have married her most shamefully. 
 Where there was no proportion held in love. 
 The truth is, she and I, long since contracted. 
 Are now so sure, that nothing can dissolve us. 
 The offence is holy that she hath committed ; 
 And this deceit loses the name of craft, 
 Of disobedience, or imduteous title ; 
 Since therein she doth evitate and shun 
 A thousand irreligious cursed hours 
 Which forced marriage would have brought upon 
 her. 
 
 Merry Wives of Windsor, Act iv. Sc. i. 
 
48 
 
 and now sufficiently established. The prac- 
 tice, overlooked amidst the darkness of our 
 acquaintance with the social life of the six- 
 teenth century, was a not uncommon one. 
 Shakespeare has himself pointed out in one 
 of his plays the form and proceedings of the 
 attending ceremony.* The disparity of age 
 in this celebrated wedded pair has sometimes 
 been made a subject of reproach. Let it be 
 remembered that the mind of Shakespeare at 
 eighteen must have been more matured than 
 the minds of most men at thirty, and that 
 his wife Anne at twenty-six would, in all pro- 
 bability, appreciate more truly his intellectual 
 and moral qualities, and have a deeper sym- 
 pathy with him, than a woman of his own 
 years. Look at young Byron and Mary 
 Chaworth. 
 
 The married life of the happy pair has not 
 been spared by the critics. Because the wife 
 was no penwoman, she has been styled igno- 
 rant, and has further been charged with bemg 
 a Puritan of a morose type. Because Shake- 
 speare left Stratford to join the great world of 
 mind in London, he is charged with volun- 
 tary desertion, either from supposed poverty, 
 
 * Shepherd. Take hands, a "bargain ; 
 And friends unknown, you shall bear witness to 't. 
 I give my daughter to him, and will make 
 Her portion equal his. 
 
 Florizel. O, that must be 
 I' the virtue of your daughter : one being dead, 
 I shall have more than you can dream of yet. 
 But, come on, 
 Contract us 'fore these witnesses. 
 
 Shepherd. Come, your hand ; 
 And, daughter, yours. 
 
 Winter's Tale. 
 Witnesses were absolutely necessary, but a priest 
 was not. 
 
49 
 
 or to escape a prosecution respecting the 
 deer. All things seem to have been per- 
 verted ; and, to crown all, his married life is 
 imputed to him as a disappointed and un- 
 happy life, uncheered by home or domestic 
 affection. The latter portion of this accusa- 
 tion is, however, disregarded by the best of 
 our writers, except Mr. Dyce. At least, 
 Messrs. Knight and Halliwell Phillips think 
 the allusions to this subject too vague to be 
 listened to against the whole tenour of Shake- 
 speare's life, exhibited by his periodical visits 
 to his native home, his building up there a 
 property for retirement in the time of age, 
 with the steady persistence and ultimate 
 success of a most careful provider. But the 
 evidence already existing as to his wife's 
 virtues should have restrained such un- 
 generous thoughts. She spent her whole 
 life in the company and tutelage of her 
 daughters and young son ; and the testimony 
 of affection inscribed on her memorial stone 
 by her daughter Susanna and her husband, 
 Dr. Hall (a man of high standing and culture), 
 should have hushed all envious tongues. 
 Seldom, indeed, do we meet with more touch- 
 ing, devout expressions of filial regard than 
 in this inscription : — 
 
 Ubera tu mater, tu lac, vitamq : dedisti : 
 Vas mihi : pro tanto muiiere Saxa dabo ! 
 
 Quatn mallem amoveat lapidem bonus Angelus ore 
 Exeat ut Christi Corpus, imago tua. 
 
 Sed nil vota valent ; venias cito Christe, resurget 
 Clausa licet tumulo mater, et astra petet. 
 
 (Translation.) 
 Thou, dear mother, gavest me from thy breast the 
 
 milk and nourishment of life : 
 Woe's me ! for such a gift I return only a monument 
 
 of stone. 
 
so 
 
 I low I could wish some good angel's breath might 
 roll away this marble, 
 
 That the body of Christ might come forth in thy re- 
 newed and heavenly form ! 
 
 But our prayers and offerings avail naught. 
 
 Thou, O Christ, wilt soon come ; my mother will 
 rise again ; 
 
 Then will she leave her closed tomb, 
 
 And seek her heavenly home. 
 
 At the death of the daughter Susanna, in 
 1649, t^he tablet erected to her own worth 
 and memory affords an additional proof of 
 the training she had herself received : — 
 
 Witty above her sex, but that's not all : 
 Wise to salvation was good Mistress Hall. 
 Something of Shakespeare was in that ; but this 
 Wholly of Him with whom she's now in bliss. 
 Then, passenger, hast ne'er a tear 
 To weep with her that wept with all ? 
 That wept, yet set herself to cheer 
 Them up with comforts cordial. 
 Her love shall live, her mercy spread. 
 When thou hast ne'er a tear to shed. 
 
 The Christian tone of these monuments 
 indicated clearly that mother and daughter 
 were both exemplars of a pure and exalted 
 character, which might put to shame all 
 cold-hearted inferences and detraction. 
 
 What better test of character can any of 
 us point to than to be judged by the training 
 of our children, and strong instead of super- 
 ficial evidence must there be to countervail 
 those indications of desert and maternal 
 care. The tradition also, that " both mother 
 and daughters did both desire earnestly to 
 be buried with him in his grave," helps 
 deeply the impression of the feeling and 
 affection for the poet's memory. 
 
 It was the injunction yet standing above 
 his tomb, not " to disturb his bones," that 
 forbade this solemn request. 
 
SI 
 
 The disclosures which we now find pre- 
 sented by the poet in his Merry Wives of 
 Windsor, light up the domestic life of Shake- 
 speare and his wife with a vivid and brilliant 
 picture. There was evidently a design in this 
 step : doubtless the early marriage had been 
 the subject of remark. He rebuts the impu- 
 tation with the affirmation that his addresses 
 were "righteously " offered, and we are plainly 
 told their union was sanctioned by the mother. 
 
 This play being written seventeen years 
 after their marriage (though it might pro- 
 bably have been drafted earlier), was therefore 
 indicted in the very middle of their married 
 life and nothing can be more characteristic of 
 his joyous nature. With what zest would he 
 read this over to his wife, who styled him 
 " her gentle master Fenton," and to his 
 daughters, the lively Susanna being then in 
 her sixteenth year. No wonder need be felt 
 at bis character of Juliet's love or Rosalind's 
 gaiety of heart. He found their elasticity of 
 spirit at home, with his own fireside circle. 
 And, doubtless, his mother and his sister 
 Joan, for whom he afterwards made such 
 liberal provision, would be sharers in it. All 
 allusions of doubt or apprehension as to his 
 wedded life must now disappear, and with 
 this clear elucidation of his cheerful tempera- 
 ment, and the undoubting testimony to his 
 wife's amiable and elevated character, we 
 may realize the home of Shakespeare at 
 Stratford as one of solid domestic happiness. 
 ' Before parting with this narrative of his 
 married home, we are naturally led to con- 
 template for a moment the effect which such 
 a state of rest and quiet, in the company of a 
 partner so estimable, would have upon the 
 
52 
 
 poet's mind : how far it might indeed im- 
 part a share of its temper and tone to the 
 characters which might then be passing 
 through his fruitful imagination, and so leave 
 to her the just credit of having been a tacit, 
 even though unconscious, helper in some 
 of his female delineations ! 
 
 To revert now to the poet's career after 
 entering on his married state. Hitherto 
 there has been a blank in his life, from the 
 time of the birth of his three children until 
 he reappears in the world of London as an 
 actor and dramatic writer. Susanna, his 
 eldest child, was bom, as we have stated, on 
 the 26th May, 1583, and on the 2nd day of 
 February, 1585, his wife gave birth to twins, 
 christened Hamnet and Judith. Where 
 Shakespeare resided at this time has been 
 hitherto as much unknown as his occupation. 
 The grand escapade of the deer adventure 
 has been dealt with separately in a previous 
 page. As to his residence and his pursuits 
 the facts divulged by this play offer sugges- 
 tions that are highly satisfactory. There 
 can, I think, be little doubt that after his 
 marriage he and his wife took up their 
 residence at Shottery with Anne's widowed 
 mother. 
 
 Tradition, in the mouth of Mrs. Baker, who 
 is the last resident and descendant of the 
 Hathaways in the Shottery cottage, confirms 
 this, and no evidence has ever appeared of 
 his residing elsewhere. The widow had the 
 estate on her hands ; both her daughter and 
 son-in-law were likely to be of much use in 
 its mans^ement ; and, as we have great rea- 
 son to accept the statement that the daughter 
 had property of her own, no more suitable 
 
53 
 
 arrangement could be made than that the 
 large family (nine in all) should have a 
 united home. There is a singular confirma- 
 tion of this idea in the circumstance of a 
 former shepherd of Richard Hathaway, 
 Thomas Whittington (to whom, in his will of 
 1 581, he mentions himself as being indebted 
 in a sum of;£4 6s. 8(/.)> having been, to all ap- 
 pearance, still engaged in the family in 1601, 
 or at least residing at Shottery. The shep- 
 herd makes his will at that date, with the 
 following bequest : — 
 
 I give and bequeath unto the poor people of 
 Stratford forty shillings, that is in the hands of 
 Anne Shakespeare, wife of William Shakespeare, 
 and is debt due unto me, being paid to mine executor 
 by the said William Shakespeare. 
 
 The presumption therefore is, that Anne 
 Shakespeare had continued for some time a 
 resident with her mother at Shottery. 
 
 How Shakespeare filled up this interval 
 of his life — whether by assisting his father in 
 his aiFairs, or as an assistant at the College, 
 where books and cultured society would be 
 available — is not known. The time would 
 be favourable for supplying his mind with 
 mental food, both from books and from 
 Nature, of which no man ever tasted more 
 freely or more profitably. This Hfe lasted 
 till 1587 or ij8g. No certain date can be 
 arrived at as to the time of his departure for 
 the Metropolis. It is the great difficulty of 
 his biographers how to determine it with 
 something like precision. 
 
 The idea is strong in many minds that 
 he had, prior to that event, cultivated his 
 poetical talents, and had written his poem 
 Venus and Adonis, which he would take with 
 
54 
 
 him as a means of his introduction into the 
 literary world. 
 
 It cannot be supposed that Shakespeare, 
 with his large experience of life and the 
 world, and his knowledge of his own powers, 
 had no desire (ambition some may call it) 
 to see and mix in the society which could 
 alone afford him complete companionship 
 and a field for developing his genius. In 
 his almost earliest play, the Two Gentlemen of 
 Verona, he has plainly expressed this : — 
 
 Home-keeping youth have ever homely vrits. 
 * » • • * 
 
 I rather would entreat thy company 
 To see the wonders of the world abroad, 
 Than, living dully sluggardis'd at home, 
 Wear out thy youth with shapeless idleness. 
 
 Act i. sc. 1. 
 
 Living in the remote district of Stratford, 
 what condition could there be more likely to 
 awaken his powers than the opening of the 
 Guildhall for the exhibition of plays, and the 
 arrival of a band of performers from the 
 metropolis to startle into vivid life the tastes 
 of the town. Shakespeare's father, when 
 High Bailiff, was the first, in the year 1571, 
 to admit and welcome their performance, 
 the boy Shakespeare being then seven 
 years old. They came frequently. By the 
 time of Shakespeare's twenty-third year the 
 town had been visited by not less than twenty 
 companies. James Burbage, the manager 
 of one of the cpmpanies, was, if not a native, 
 yet intimately connected with Stratford, and 
 no doubt well acquainted with the Shake- 
 speare family. A namesake, John Burbage, 
 whom we may suppose to have been some 
 relation, had, in 1556, held the position of 
 
55 
 
 High Bailiff. One fellow-townsman at least, 
 Thomas Green, probably a relative, was 
 amongst the performers. In their company 
 came in the course of time young Richard 
 Burbage, the son of James. He became the 
 lifelong friend of William Shakespeare, who 
 remembered him in his Will. As the perfor- 
 mer of all the leading parts in our dramatist's 
 greatest plays he displayed a genius that 
 placed him in the highest rank of Enghsh 
 actors. Such a man would kindle the spirit 
 of Shakespeare, which was only waiting for 
 opportunity and a sympathetic friend. 
 
 As to the exact year of his leaving Strat- 
 ford, as I have said, there is no guide. Till 
 the year 1593, when he became fully engaged, 
 there is nothing occurring in London that 
 indicates his presence there. Some critics 
 place his first visit as happening in 1586, 
 but as his twin children were only born in 
 the year preceding, I cannot agree to place it 
 so early. Some dwell ill-naturedly on the 
 deer affair and its great publicity, and the 
 supposed threats of prosecution, as being the 
 turning-point to induce his departure, but as 
 I have shown motives quite adequate and 
 more natural for taking the step, I cannot 
 allow Shakespeare, with his independent 
 spirit and his sense of right in that dispute, 
 to have been influenced by other motives. 
 A better reason, one perfectly natural and 
 in accordance with all concurrent circum- 
 stances is, I submit, to be found in the visit 
 and departure of the players about the 
 year 1587, when Richard Burbage was at 
 Stratford — a view which Mr. Dyce vaguely 
 supports. And as to the loose reports of his 
 being compelled to accept an inferior position, 
 
56 
 
 it is impossible to doubt that from his 
 intimacy with the Burbages, father and son, 
 and his great talents, they would offer 
 encouragement and an adequate engagement 
 on his joining them. 
 
 It -is not within my design to go farther 
 with this biographical sketch. His life in 
 London was so much a public life, I could 
 not embrace it in this summary. 
 
 I have narrated the birth of his three child- 
 ren. Hamnet,theson,unhappilydiedin 1596, 
 at the age of eleven, to the deep sorrow, we 
 may be sure, of his parents. Susanna mar- 
 ried Dr. Hall, before alluded to, a physician 
 of undoubted position and high culture, and 
 had one child, a daughter, Elizabeth, who 
 married, firstly, Thomas Nash, and secondly. 
 Sir Thomas Bernard, but left no issue. 
 Judith, the second daughter, married Thomas 
 Quiney (pronounced Queeny), a vintner, 
 of Stratford, but her children died early. 
 Three brothers of Shakespeare — Gilbert, 
 Richard, and Edward — died with but little 
 notice. His sister Joan, to whom he made 
 a liberal bequest, and whom we may justly 
 regard as a favourite sister, married William 
 Hart, and their descendants lived in, or at 
 least owned, the family dwelling where 
 Shakespeare was bom, till it was sold, as has 
 been stated, in the year 1800. 
 
 The poet acquired large property, his 
 greatest acquisition being the purchase of 
 the mansion in Stratford called "New 
 Place," in which he died 23rd of April, 16 16, 
 at the age of fifty-three. 
 
 His acquired property I estimate, in 
 modem vUlxxe, at little if anything under 
 ;^3,ooo per annum. 
 
57 
 
 By his will he entailed his property strictly 
 on his two daughters in succession, but that 
 has all been dispersed. 
 
 It has been a subject of remark that in 
 his Will he makes no express provision for 
 his widow, except giving her his second best 
 bed. 
 
 Mr. Knight was the first to draw attention 
 to the fact that she would be well provided 
 for by her right of dower, and this is plain ; 
 for instance, she had unquestionably such 
 right in the mansion in New Place. This 
 property descended (subject to such right) 
 to her daughter Mrs. Hall, and the natural 
 arrangement followed — ^viz., that the Halls 
 dwelt there, and there is every probabiUty 
 that the widow lived with them. 
 
 The bequest of the second best bed was a 
 gift of special regard, being no doubt their 
 own bed ; the spare, or superior bed would 
 be for strangers. The bed of the master 
 and mistress was in those days held always 
 to be the best piece of furniture in the 
 house. 
 
 The monument in Stratford Church, as we 
 see it, was erected about 1623. The sculptor 
 was Gerard Johnson. It has the appearance 
 of being made from a cast taken after death, 
 and taken not until the face had sunk by 
 gravitation to the left side. The mouth, too, 
 had then become more open, and the nose 
 shrunk, as always happens shortly after death. 
 
 The dress to all appearance was adopted 
 from the design of the Stratford Portrait, 
 which it perfectly resembles. 
 
 There is a cast of the face, taken from the 
 monument, in the National Portrait Gallery, 
 where also the Chandos Portrait now is. 
 
S8 
 
 Beneath the monument appear the well- 
 known lines — 
 
 Good friend, for Jesus' sake, forbear 
 To dig the dust enclosed here ; 
 Blest be the man that spares these stones, 
 And curst be he that moves my bones. 
 
 This sentiment, perhaps, had its origin 
 from the practice which had at times obtained 
 of removing many of the remains into the 
 charnel-house which was close to that end 
 of the church. 
 
 His widow died on the 6th day of August, 
 1623, at the age of sixty-seven years, and his 
 daughter Susanna Hall, on the nth of July, 
 1649, aged sixty-six. The two epitaphs 
 before mentioned were then inscribed on 
 their tombstones. 
 
 Judith was buried at Stratford, the pth of 
 February, 1661-2. 
 
 Elizabeth Hall, the grand-daughter, died 
 without issue. 
 
 THE BALUANTYNE PRESS, CHANDOS STREET, W.C. 
 
JJLXJU^LIJLJLIJLXIJLI^^I 1 1 I I 
 
 mmmmmii 
 
 rrrrmi M 1 1 ii ii 1 1 1 1