Shakespeare's Family Part 11

The book published by Cooke records only _cures_. We are inclined to echo, "Where are they that were drowned?" Doubtless Hall had attended his father-in-law in his last illness, but his skill and affection were not sufficient to save him. And because of this failure, we do not know the symptoms shown by the poet after the traditional "merrymaking with Ben Jonson and Drayton," when later gossips say he "drank too much." The earliest _dated_ cure is 1617. But is it too much to imagine that the undated illness of Drayton, recorded in "Obs. XXII.," occurred at the same time as the death of the poet? Was he at any later time ill in Warwicks.h.i.+re, and likely to be attended by Dr. John Hall? "Mr. Drayton, an excellent poet, labouring of a Tertian, was cured by the following treatment." Let us suppose it was April, 1616, and it may account for the poet's illness, otherwise than by over-drinking.

In "Obs. XIX." Hall mentions without date an illness of his wife, Mrs.

Hall. "Obs. x.x.xVI." concerns his only daughter, and supports my opinion of a const.i.tutional delicacy of Anne Hathaway and her family. It is not insignificant that her grandchild should suffer from "tortura oris," or convulsions of the mouth, and ophthalmia. She was cured of one attack on January 5, 1624. In the beginning of April she went to London, and on returning on the 22nd of the same month, she took cold, and fell into the same distemper, which affected the other side of her face. This second time, "By the blessing of G.o.d, she was cured in sixteen days."

But on May 24 of the same year she was struck down with an erratic fever. Sometimes she was hot, by-and-by sweating, again cold, all in the s.p.a.ce of half an hour. Her father's treatment again healed her; "the symptoms remitted daily till she was well, thus was she delivered from death and deadly diseases, and was well for many years." Many other familiar names occur in this volume--"Mrs. Queeny," Mrs. Smith, Mr.

Wilson, Mrs. Throgmorton, Mrs. Sheldon, Mrs. Greene, John Nason, the Underhills, Mrs. Baker, Dr. Thornbery, Bishop of Worcester (aged eighty-six on February 1, 1633), Mrs. Combe, Katherine Sturley, "Mrs.

Grace Court, wife to my apothecary." In "Obs. LXIV." he speaks of treating "the only son of Mr. Holyoake, which framed the dictionary."

"Obs. Lx.x.xII.," Book II., records the restoration from the gates of death of Mr. John Trapp, minister; and Obs. "LX.," Book II., gives an account of Hall's own dangerous illness in 1632, when his anxious wife sent for two physicians, who pulled him through; and he records his prayer to G.o.d on the occasion. We must not forget that this was the date of his quarrel with the Corporation.

The death of the young Quineys in 1638-39 affected the details of the poet's will; for it may be remembered the property was settled on Susanna Hall and her heirs male, failing whom, on the heirs male of Elizabeth Hall, failing whom, on the heirs male of Judith, in default of such heirs male, on the right heirs of William Shakespeare for ever. The failure in the heirs male of Judith therefore ent.i.tled Elizabeth Nash to the full inheritance as heir-general, and within a few weeks after the unexpected death of her cousins, Susanna Hall, widow, joined with Mr.

and Mrs. Nash, May 27, 1639, in making a new settlement of Shakespeare's entails on Mrs. Hall for life, after whom on Mr. and Mrs. Nash, and _the longer liver of them_, after them, to the heirs of their body, and in default of such, to the heirs of the said Elizabeth. Should she die first without heirs, the property was secured to the _heirs and a.s.signes of the said Thomas Nash_, a reversion certainly not fair to Joan Hart, the poet's sister, and her children. Still, it all seemed too far off to consider. To this doc.u.ment Mrs. Hall appended her signature and her seal, with the arms of Shakespeare impaled with those of Hall.

Thomas Nash seemed to have believed this fully settled everything on himself, and that he was likely to outlive his mother-in-law and his wife, for on August 20, 1642, he executed, without his wife's sanction or knowledge, a mysterious will, that afterwards led to trouble.

The importance of New Place, the largest house in the town, and the liberality and loyalty of its owners, were curiously signalized in the following year. Queen Henrietta Maria, in July, 1643, marched from Newark to Kineton by way of Stratford, where she was reinforced by Prince Rupert and 2,000 men. She held her court for three days[198] in Shakespeare's house, probably accompanied by only her immediate personal attendants. On July 13, the Queen and Prince Rupert moved off to meet the King in the vale of Kineton near Edgehill.[199]

Thomas Nash died on April 4, 1647, and was buried in the chancel beside Shakespeare. "Heere resteth ye body of Thomas Nashe Esq. He mar.

Elizabeth, the daug. and Heire of John Halle, gent. He died Aprill 4, A.

1647. Aged 53.

"Fata manent omnes, hunc non virtute carentem ut neque divitiis, abstulit atra dies Abstulit at referet lux ultima; siste, viator, si peritura paras per male parta peris."

The coat of arms was double quarterly of four, First, 1 and 4 argent on a chevron between three ravens' heads erased azure, a pellet between 4 cross-crosslets sable, for Nash; 2 and 3 sable a buck's head caboshed argent attired or, between his horns a cross patee, and across his mouth an arrow, Bulstrode. Second, 1 and 4, for Hall, 2 and 3 Shakespeare.

When the notable will was opened, and proved in the following June, the widow declined to follow out its provisions as concerned her own property, which Thomas Nash had treated as if entirely his own. "Item, I give, dispose and bequeath, unto my Kinsman Edward Nash, and to his heires and a.s.signes for ever, one messuage or tenement with the appurtenances comonly called or knowne by the name of The New Place ...

together with all and singular howses, outhowses, barnes, stables, orchards, gardens, etc, esteemed or enjoyed as thereto belonging ...

also fower yards of arable land meadowe and pasture ... in old Stratford, and also one other tenement with the appurtenances in the parish of ---- London; called or known by the name of the Wardropp, and now in the tenure of one ---- d.i.c.kes."

Mrs. Nash had soldiers quartered on her at New Place during the very month of her husband's death, one of whom was implicated in the robbery of deer from the park of Sir Greville Verney on April 30, 1647. But she did not fail in legal knowledge of what she ought to do under the unexpected provisions of her husband's will, of which she was left sole executrix and residuary legatee. She and her mother combined in levying a fine on the property,[200] and reconveying it to the sole use of her mother and herself, and their heirs for ever. She was not yet thirty-nine years of age, and did not feel inclined even then to take it for granted she would not marry again, even if Edward Nash agreed, as he could be made to agree, that his inheritance could only come to him on her decease without issue.

But Edward Nash did not like her proceedings, and filed a Bill in Chancery on February, 1647-48, against Elizabeth Nash, and other legatees, to compel them to produce his uncle's will in court, and execute its provisions. Mrs. Nash admitted its contents, but averred the testator had no power to demise property which had belonged to her grandfather, and had been left to herself. She explained that her mother was still living, and that in conjunction they had levied the fine. She only disputed that part of her husband's will concerning her own property, and mentioned her deeds and evidences. Her answer was taken by commission, at Stratford, in April, 1648, and in June it was ordered that the defendants should bring into court the will and other evidences, and the writ was personally served on Mrs. Nash.

The will of Thomas Nash was produced before the Examiners in Chancery in November, but Mrs. Nash defied all orders concerning the other "evidences," as may be seen from the affidavit filed at the Six Clerks'

Office in December, 1649. She was brave in her determination that her own rights and her mother's should not be a.s.sailed, and she was perhaps prudent in her opinion that the fewer papers that were produced the shorter time would the suit last. No replication or decree is recorded.

The litigation apparently terminated in a compromise, doubtless hastened by Mrs. Nash's second marriage. Perhaps Edward Nash by this time realized the injustice or the impracticability of his claim. The only further allusion to it occurs in Lady Barnard's will.[201] She directs her trustees to dispose of New Place with the proviso "that my loving cousin, Edward Nash, Esq., shall have the first offer or refusal thereof, according to _my promise formerly made to him_."

Elizabeth Nash married Mr. John Barnard, of Abington, Northamptons.h.i.+re, at Billesley, a village four miles from Stratford, June 5, 1649, where the Trussels resided. Why did she go there to be married? A puzzling question indeed, which cannot be answered by the register, as it is lost. Whether her marriage weakened her mother's health, or whether the state of her mother's health had hastened her marriage, we know not; but a month later, on July 11, 1649, Mrs. Hall died, and, being buried beside her husband on the 16th, _made his tomb complete_. The Latin scholars of the family were all gone, and it is not too much to suppose that Elizabeth herself, Shakespeare's grandchild, composed her mother's epitaph:

"Here lyeth the body of Susanna, wife of John Hall, gent., the daughter of William Shakespeare, gent. She deceased the 11 day of July, Anno 1649, aged 66.

"Witty above her s.e.x, 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 blisse.

Then, pa.s.senger, hast nere a tear To weep with her that wept with all That wept, yet set herself to chere Them up with comforts cordiall?

Her love shall live, her mercy spread When thou hast nere a tear to shed."

A lozenge bore the arms of Hall and Shakespeare impaled. In the early part of last century these verses were erased to make s.p.a.ce for the record of the death of one Richard Watts, who owned some of the t.i.thes and had the right to be buried in the chancel. But they, fortunately, had been preserved by Dugdale;[202] and in 1844 the Watts record was erased and Mrs. Hall's verses restored.

Her death limited Shakespeare's descendants to two--Judith Quiney, daughter, and Elizabeth Barnard, granddaughter. A fine was levied on New Place in 1650, in which John Barnard and Henry Smith were made trustees to the settlement of 1647, instead of Richard Lane and William Smith. In 1652 a new settlement was made, devising it to the use of John Barnard and his wife, and the longer liver of them, to the heirs of the body of Elizabeth, failing whom to any persons she might name. In default of such nomination, the property was to go to the right heirs of the survivor. A fine was again levied on this settlement. Mr. John Barnard was knighted by Charles II. in 1661. The Stratford Register of 1661-62 records the death of Elizabeth's aunt, Judith, "uxor Thomas Quiney, gent., Feb. 9th, 1661-2." The use of the word "uxor" is no certain proof that he was alive at the time.

Judith's death, at the age of seventy-seven, left Lady Elizabeth Barnard the poet's sole survivor. She had no children by her second marriage, about which we have no other detail. It has been surmised that it was not a happy one. Sir John Barnard was a widower, and had already a family. There is no mention of this family in Lady Barnard's will, and a limitation to the barest law and justice towards her husband, whom she did not leave her executor. The will was drawn up on January 29, 1669-70, and she died at Abington in February. "Madam Elizabeth Bernard, wife of Sir John Bernard, Knight, was buried 17th Feb., 1669-70."[203]

No sepulchral monument was raised in memory of the granddaughter and heir of Shakespeare, but she probably lay in the same tomb as her husband, who died in 1674. A memorial slab still remains to his memory in Abington Church, but the place of his burial is unknown, and the vault below this stone is used by another family.

By his death his wife's will[204] came into force, written while she was still "in perfect memory--blessed be G.o.d!--and mindful of mortality."

She recounted the settlement of April 18, 1653, to which the trustees were Henry Smith, of Stratford, gent., and Job Dighton, of the Middle Temple, London, Esquire. Henry Smith, her surviving trustee, or his heirs, six months after the death of her husband, Sir John Barnard, was to sell New Place, giving the first offer to her loving cousin, Edward Nash, and the money was to be used in legacies. Her cousin, Thomas Welles, of Carleton, in county Bedford, was to have 50 if he be alive, and if he be dead, her kinsman, Edward Bagley, citizen of London, was to receive the amount. How she was connected with these men I have been unable to find out. "Judith Hathaway, one of the daughters of my kinsman, Thomas Hathaway, late of Stratford," 5 a year or 40 in hand.

Unto Joane, the wife of Edward Kent, another daughter of the said Thomas Hathaway, 50, failing whom to her heir, _Edward Kent the younger_, at his coming of age. To this same Edward Kent she left 30 for his apprentices.h.i.+p. To Rose, Elizabeth, and Susanna, three other "daughters of my kinsman, Thomas Hathaway, 40 a piece." Henry Smith was to have 5 for his pains, and Edward Bagley to be residuary legatee. "To my kinsman, Thomas Hart, the son of Thomas Hart, late of Stratford, all that my other messuage or Inne commonly called the Maydenhead, with the next house thereto adjoining, with the barne belonging to the same, now in the occupation of Michael Johnson; to Thomas Hart and his heirs, failing whom to his brother George Hart and his heirs," failing whom to her own right heirs for ever. She made her "loving kinsman Edward Bagley" executor, "in witness of which I set my hand and seal." It may be seen that she retained absolute power of the poet's purchases, but justly left his inheritance from his father John to his sister's descendants. But she did no more than justice.

It is not clear how the connection is traced between her and her other legatees, but it is very noticeable her preference for the Hathaway connections to those of the Shakespeare side.

Ere she died the poet's Blackfriars tenement had been reduced to ashes in the Great Fire of 1666. What right in it or its site remained, accrued to Edward Bagley, "citizen of London," her executor and residuary legatee, who proved her will, March 4, 1669, though it is stated to have been sold in Shakespeare's Biography in the Dictionary.

Edward Nash did not buy New Place, after all. It was bought by Sir Edward Walker, at one time Secretary of War to Charles I., and then Garter King-at-Arms. Halliwell-Phillipps states[205] it was sold by the "surviving trustee," but Sir Edward Walker's own will[206] puts it a little differently. He left to his dear daughter Barbara, wife of Sir John Clopton, various bequests, among which appear "A yarde land in Stratford field I bought of _Mr. Hall_, of the value of 12 10s. by year ... fyftly Land I bought of Sir John Clopton in the mannor of Clopton, of the yearely value of 10. Sixtly 4 yard land lying in Stratford and Bishopton fields which I bought of _Mr. Bagley_, and a house called the New Place, situated in the Towne of Stratford upon Avon, of the yearely value about fyfty fyve pounds ... my deare daughter and her husband Sir John Clopton, sole executors, 30th June, 1676." He died early the following year, and his will was proved March 10, 1676-77.

Thus, the property Shakespeare had put together became dispersed shortly after his family became extinct, and New Place came back to the heirs of the Cloptons, from whom it was purchased. I had hoped we might find something from the will of Edward Bagley, but he died intestate,[207]

and the administration mentions nothing of interest to Shakespeare.

It is therefore quite clear that the whole period covered by Shakespeare's life and that of his descendants was 105 years, _i.e._, from 1564 to 1669, and that _no lineal descendants can survive_. Yet, as if in ill.u.s.tration of the methods of fabrication of tradition, when it is desired, I have heard of many of the name who boast a _lineal descent from the poet_; and of one even who boasts of having inherited not only _the Shakespeare's_ dinner-service, but his _teapot_! Yet that the presence of the name is a certain bar to the descent, as above shown, no such claimants seem to have taken the trouble to find out, as they easily might do. I am told that in Verona, by the tomb of Romeo and Juliet, a modern visitor has described himself as "Shakespeare, _descendant_ of the poet who wrote the play." William Shakespeare's poems alone are his posterity.

Even under another name they are not to be accepted.[208] In the _Cambridge Chronicle_ obituary, January 1, 1842, appears: "Died on the 28th ult. at Exning, Suffolk, aged 87, Mrs. Hammond, mother of Mr. Wm.

Hammond, of No. 8, Scots Yard, Cannon Street, London, Indigo Merchant.

The deceased was one of the few remaining descendants of Shakespeare."

So lately as June, 1857, there was recorded the death of William Hammond, Esq., of London, "one of the last lineal descendants of Shakespeare."

Dr. Bigsby says that Colonel Gardner, descendant of the Barnards, had some Shakespeare letters, and claimed descent from Lady Elizabeth Barnard.[209]

A correspondent remembered to have seen when a boy the Shakespear Inn, Lower Northgate Street, Gloucester, kept by an old gentleman named Smith. Outside the pa.s.sage to the inn was a signboard, "The Shakespear Inn, by William Smith, descendant from and next of kin to that immortal bard."[210]

JOHN SHAKESPEARE'S FAMILY.

Richard Shakespeare, = wife uncertain, farmer, of Snitterfield, held land from Robert Arden, Mary Arden's father. ------------------------------------------------- Thomas. John, = Mary Arden. Henry.

eldest son John b. March 10, 1581-2 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Two Gilbert Joan, = William Anne, Richard, Edmund, daus., b. 1566; b. 1569; Hart. b. 1571; b. 1573; b. 1580; d. d. 1611. d. 1646. d. 1579. d. 1612. d. 1607.

infants. William, = Anne the poet. Hathaway.

-------------------------------------------- Susanna, = John Hamnet, Judith, = Thomas b.1583; Hall. b.1585; b.1585; twin Quiney.

d.1649. d.1596. with Hamnet, d.1662 Elizabeth, m. 1st, Thomas Nash; --------------------------- 2nd, Sir John Barnard, b.1607-8; d. _s.p._ 1669. Shakespeare, Richard, Thomas, b.1616; b.1617; b.1619-20; d.1617. d.1638-9. d.1638-9.

_s.p._ _s.p._

FOOTNOTES:

[178] Gwillim's "Display of Heraldry," p. 315.

[179] _Ibid._, pp. 378, 420.

[180] Hathaway is also a name in the Beverston Registers (_Notes and Queries_, Fifth Series, xii., 101).

[181] French, "Shakespeareana Genealogicae," p. 376.

[182] Will dated August 26, 1642, proved April 4, 1647. He also left rings to his uncle Nash and his aunt, his cousin Sadler and his wife, _his cousin_ Richard Quiney and his wife _his cousin_ Thomas Quiney and his wife.

[183] Stratford Burial Registers.