Shakespeare's Family Part 8

3. His share as a player of the money taken at the doors.

4. His share as a partner in the house of the money taken in the galleries, etc.

5. His share of royal largesse in performances before the Queen, or similar gifts from n.o.blemen.[155]

6. His share of performances in various performing tours.

And thence he acquired money enough to buy New Place; to appeal to the heralds for his father's coat of arms, and to pay the costs; to contest the Lamberts' claim through successive applications for Asbies; and to buy land and t.i.the leases. The death of his only son Hamnet did not deter him in his earnest efforts to regain social position, and to restore the fortunes of his family. An almost exact parallel may be found in the efforts and aims of Sir Walter Scott. But Shakespeare, having borne the yoke in youth, had acquired the experience and prudence necessary to steer himself past the dangers of speculation and the rashness of exceeding his a.s.sured income, which proved fatal to the less severely-trained novelist.

In May, 1602, he purchased from the Combes for 320 about 107 acres of land near Stratford-on-Avon, of which, as he was not in the town, seisin was granted to his brother Gilbert. On September 28, 1602, Walter Getley transferred to him a cottage and garden situated in Chapel Lane, opposite the lower gardens of New Place, quite possibly intended for the use of his brothers. It appears from the roll that he did not appear at the Manorial Court in person,[156] then held at Rowington, there being a stipulation that the estate should remain in the hands of the lady of the manor, the Countess of Warwick, until he appeared to complete the transaction with the usual formalities. On completing these, he surrendered the property to his own use for life, with remainder to his two daughters, a settlement rearranged afterwards in his will. It is mentioned as in his possession in a subsequent subsidy roll of the town.[157]

The only time in which he touched politics and State affairs he was unfortunate. There is no doubt he must have trembled at the time of the Ess.e.x Conspiracy, not only for his friend Southampton's life, but even for his own; for Philips, the manager of his company, was called before the Privy Council to account for the performances of the obnoxious play of "Richard II."

The danger pa.s.sed. Probably the Privy Council thought it futile to attack the "Puppets." Nevertheless, after fulfilling their engagements they hastened from the Metropolis.[158] Some of his company went to play in Scotland, as far north as Aberdeen.[159] I am inclined to think Shakespeare went with them. The scenery in "Macbeth"[160] suggests vivid visual impressions, and the favour of James VI. must have been secured _before_ his accession to the throne of England, for almost the first act the King did on his arrival at the Metropolis, May 7, 1603, was to execute a series of Acts that practically gave his company a monopoly.

"Pat. I., Jac. I., p. 2, m. 4. Pro Laurentio Fletcher et Willielmo Shakespeare et aliis.[161]

"James by the grace of G.o.d, etc., to all Justices, Maiors, Sheriffs, Constables, Hedboroughs, and other our Officers and lovinge Subjects, Greetinge. Knowe ye that wee, of our Speciall Grace, _certeine knowledge_ and mere motion, have licensed and authorized, and by these presentes doe license and authorize theise our Servaunts, Laurence Fletcher, William Shakespeare, Richard Burbage, Augustyne Philippes, John Hemings, Henrie Condell, William Sly, Robert Armyn, Richard Cowly, and the rest of their a.s.sociates Freely to use and exercise the Arte and Facultie of playing Comedies, Tragedies, Histories, Enterludes, Morals, Pastoralls, Stage-plaies, and such others like as theie have alreadie studied or hereafter shall use or studie, as well for the Recreation of our loveinge Subjects as for our Solace and Pleasure, when wee shall thincke good to see them, during our pleasure; and the said Commedies, Tragedies, Histories, Enterludes, Moralls, Pastoralls, Stage-playes, and suchelike, to shewe and exercise publiquely to their best Commoditie, when the Infection of the Plague shall decrease, as well within theire nowe usuall House called the Globe within our Countie of Surrey, as also within anie Toune Halls or Moute Halls, or other convenient Places within the Liberties and Freedom of anie other Cittie, Universitie, Toune or Boroughe whatsoever, within our said Realmes and Dominions.

"Willing and commanding you and everie of you, as you tender our Pleasure, not onelie to permit and suffer them herein, without anie your Letts, Hindrances, or Molestations, during our said Pleasure, but also to be aiding and a.s.sistinge to them if anie Wrong be to them offered, and to allow them such former Curtesies as hath been given to men of their Place and Qualitie; and also what further Favour you shall shewe to theise our Servaunts for our sake, Wee shall take Kindlie at your Handes. In witnesse whereof, etc.

"Witnesse our selfe at Westminster the nynetenth Daye of Maye.

"PER BREVE DE PRIVATO SIGILLO."

[The privy seal for this issued on May 17.]

As James made more stringent the laws concerning "vagabonds," as he took from the n.o.bles the power of patronage of players, reserving it only for the Royal Family, this pa.s.sport gave enormous power to the players, favoured by the King in Scotland.

Shakespeare's early patron, the Earl of Southampton, had been released from the Tower on April 10, and had gone to meet his new Sovereign, doubtless speaking a good word for the company of players. His later patron, the Earl of Pembroke, was recalled to Court favour. The King visited him in his royal progress August 30 and 31, 1603, and held his Court at Wilton, Winchester,[162] and Basing during most of October, November,[163] and December, during which time the players were summoned on December 2. "To John Hemyngs on 3rd December, for a play before the King, by the King's men at Wilton, and for coming from Mortlake in Surrey, 30."[164]

On March 15, 1603-1604, the King's players were summoned to the Triumphant Royal Procession, received robes for the occasion, and took rank at Court[165] with the Grooms of the Chamber. Henceforth Shakespeare's genius revelled in the opportunities fortune had made for him, and in the taste he had himself educated. The world appreciated his work the better "that so did take Eliza and our James."[166] The snarls of envy witnessed his success; the eulogiums of admirers perpetuated his appreciation. On May 4, 1605, Augustine Phillips died, leaving by will "to my fellow William Shakespeare a thirty-s.h.i.+lling piece in gold." In July of that year (July 24, 1605) Shakespeare completed his largest purchase, in buying for 440 the unexpired term of the moiety of the t.i.the-lease of Stratford, Old Stratford, Bishopton, and Welcombe.

In that year John Davenant took out the lease of the Crown Inn at Oxford, where the following year his son William was born. Gossip, supported, if not originated, by himself, suggests that William Davenant was the son rather than the G.o.dson of Shakespeare, an unfounded slander disposed of by Halliwell-Phillipps.

On June 5, 1607, Susanna Shakespeare married Dr. Hall. Elizabeth, their only child, and the only grandchild Shakespeare saw, was born in February, 1607-1608, and in September of that year John Shakespeare's widow--Shakespeare's mother--died.

It is probable Shakespeare returned home to his mother's funeral, as he was chief G.o.dfather on October 16 to the William Walker of Stratford to whom he bequeathed 20s. in gold in 1616. In 1608 and 1609 Shakespeare inst.i.tuted a process for debt against John Addenbroke and his security Hornebie. His attorney was his cousin, Thomas Greene, then residing, under unknown conditions, at New Place. In the latter year he inst.i.tuted more important proceedings concerning the t.i.thes. The papers of the complaint by Lane, Green, and Shakespeare to Lord Ellesmere in 1612, concerning other lessees, give details of the income he derived therefrom.[167]

In 1610 he purchased 20 acres of pasture-land from the Combes to add to his freeholds. The concord of the fine is dated April 13, 1610, and, as it was acknowledged before the Commissioners, he is believed to have been in Stratford at the time. In a subscription list drawn up at Stratford September 11, 1611, his name is the only one entered on the margin, as if it were a later insertion, "towards the charge of prosecuting the Bill in Parliament for the better repair of Highways." A Parliament was then expected to meet, but it was not summoned till long afterwards. In 1612 Lane, Green, and Shakespeare filed a new bill of complaint concerning the t.i.thes before Lord Ellesmere.

In March, 1613, he made a curious purchase of a tenement and yard, one or two hundred yards to the east of the Blackfriars Theatre. The lower part had long been in use as a haberdasher's shop. The vendor was Henry Walker, a musician, who had paid 100 for it in 1604, and who asked then the price of 140. Shakespeare, however, at this raised price secured it, leaving 60 of it on mortgage. The date of the conveyance deed is March 10, 1613,[168] probably signed on the 11th, on which day it was enrolled in the Court of Chancery. Besides the witnesses to this doc.u.ment, there was present Henry Lawrence, the scrivener who had drawn it up, who unfortunately lent his seal to the poet, which still exists, bearing the initials "H. L."

Shakespeare is believed to have written two plays a year while he was a shareholder. On June 29, 1613, the Globe Theatre was destroyed by fire while the history of Henry VIII. was being enacted. Burbage, Hemings, Condell, and the Fool were so long in leaving the theatre that the spectators feared for their safety. It is not known whether this fire would prove a loss to him. In June of that year a malicious piece of gossip was circulating in Stratford against the good name of Shakespeare's daughter, Susanna Hall. The rumour was traced to a man called Lane, who was summoned to appear before the Ecclesiastical Court at Worcester on July 15, 1613. He did not venture to appear, and he was duly excommunicated for perjury.

It was the custom for the Corporation then to make complimentary offerings of wine to those whom they wished to honour, and thus they honoured an itinerant preacher, quartered at New Place, in the spring of 1614, with a quart of sack and another of claret, and this has been supposed to prove that the poet had turned Puritan. John Combe, one of the chief men of the neighbourhood, died in July, 1614, leaving Shakespeare 5. Shakespeare would probably never receive it. The will, dated January 28, 1612-13, was not proved till November, 1616. It is clear, however, that these men were friendly at that time, and that the mock elegy, attributed to Shakespeare, could not then have been written, or, if written, was only laughed at. The Globe Theatre was rebuilt at great cost that year. Chamberlain, writing to a lady in Venice, said: "I hear much speech of this new playhouse, which is sayde to be the fayrest that ever was in England" (June 30, 1614).

In the same year, William Combe, the new Squire of Welcombe, attempted enclosure of some of the common fields, a design resisted by the Corporation. This scheme materially affected Shakespeare through his t.i.thes, and much discussion has been waged over the true meaning of the entries of his cousin, Thomas Green, the Town Clerk of Stratford-on-Avon, and his attorney. Unfortunately, these are badly written, and the composition is dubious; but to my mind it seems clear that Green meant to say that Mr. Shakespeare could not bear the enclosing of Welcombe.[169]

In the opening of 1615-16 Shakespeare found himself "in perfect healthe and memorie--G.o.d be praised"; and yet, for some reason, he wished to make a new will, "revoking all other wills," and his solicitor, Francis Collins of Warwick, drew up a draft. Halliwell-Phillipps thinks this was done in January, and that it was intended to have been signed on the 25th of that month. I own that the date, erased to be replaced by "March," looks to me more like "February." An important difference it would be, because in January he might not have known that his daughter, Judith Shakespeare, aged 32, had made up her mind to marry Thomas Quiney, aged 28. By February 25 she had already done it. On February 10, 1616, Thomas Quiney was married, at Stratford-on-Avon, to Judith Shakespeare without a license, an irregularity for which both the parties were summoned to appear[170] before the Ecclesiastical Courts some weeks afterwards, and threatened with excommunication, but probably the fact of Shakespeare's illness and death would act as an excuse in high quarters.

Though it seems to me that the will must have been drawn up before Judith's marriage, the possibility of such a change of state is clearly considered. There is no sign of indignation at the later date of the signing of the will, and 300 was a large portion; and there are no alterations in his bequests to her, except a curious one. The first bequest was originally intended to have been in favour of "_my sonne and_ daughter Judith," but the "sonne" was erased. Of course, this possibly arose from the scrivener intending to start with the Halls. But the less important bequests came first. One hundred and fifty pounds was to be paid to Judith within a year, in two instalments, the 100 in discharge of her marriage portion, and the 50 on her surrendering her share in the copyhold tenement in Stratford-on-Avon (once Getley's) to her sister, Susanna Hall. Another 150[171] was to be paid Judith, or any of her heirs alive at the date of three years after the testator's death. If she had died without issue at that date, 100 thereof was to go to Elizabeth Hall, and 50 to his sister Joan and her children. If Judith were alive, the stock was to be invested by the executors, and only the interest paid her as long as she was married, unless her husband had "a.s.sured her in lands answerable to her portion."

Sister Joan was to have 20, the testator's wearing apparel, and a life-rent in the Henley Street house, under the yearly payment of one s.h.i.+lling. Five pounds a piece were left to her sons. Elizabeth Hall was to have all the plate, except his broad silver-gilt bowl, which he left to Judith. Ten pounds he left to the poor, his sword to Mr. Thomas Combe, 5 to Thomas Russell, 13 6s. 8d. to Francis Collins. Rings of the value of 26s. 8d. each were left to Hamnet Sadler, William Reynolds, gent., Antony Marsh, gent., Mr. John Marsh; and in interpolation "to my fellows, John Heming, Richard Burbage, and Henry Condell," and to William Walker, his G.o.dson, 20s. in gold.

To enable his daughter Susanna to perform all this, she received "the Capital Messuage called New Place, wherein I now dwell, two messuages in Henley Street, and all my Barns, Stables, Orchards, Gardens, Lands, Tenements and hereditaments whatsoever lying in Stratford-upon-Avon, Old Stratford, Bishopton, and Welcombe, in the County of Warwick"; and "that Messuage in Blackfriars in London near the Wardrobe wherein one John Robinson now dwelleth."

The descent was to be to her sons if she had any, failing whom to the sons of his grand-daughter Elizabeth, failing whom to the sons of his daughter Judith, failing whom "to the right heires of me William Shakespeare for ever."

Item interpolated: "I give unto my wife my second-best bed, with the furniture."

Everything else to his "sonne-in-law John Hall, gent., and to his daughter Susanna, his wife," whom he made executors.

Thomas Russell, Esq., and Francis Collins, gent., were to be overseers.

There were several witnesses. It was proved June 22, 1616, by John Hall, at Westminster, but the inventory is unfortunately lost.

Much discussion has taken place over Shakespeare's legacy to his wife.

It may very simply and naturally have arisen from some conversation in which a reference had been made to giving her "the best bed." But that was the visitor's couch. "The second-best" would have been her own, that which she had used through the years, and he wished her to feel that that was not included in the "residue." That was to be her very own. As to any provision for her, it must have taken the form of a settlement, a jointure, or a dower. There is no trace of the first or second. But the English law then a.s.sured a widow in a third of her husband's property for life and the use of the capital messuage, if another was not provided her. The absence of all special provision for Mrs. Shakespeare seems to have arisen from her husband's knowledge of this and his trust in the honour of Mr. John Hall, and the love of his daughters for their mother. It also supports my opinion of her extreme delicacy of const.i.tution. She was not to be overweighted by mournful responsibilities.

The indefiniteness of the residuary inheritance leaves room for surmise.

A curious reference, not, it seems to me, hitherto sufficiently noted, occurs in the Burbage Case of 1635. Cuthbert, Winifred, the widow of Richard, and William his son, recite facts concerning their father James, who was the first builder of playhouses. "And to ourselves we joined those deserving men, _Shakspere_, Hemings, Condell, Phillips, and others, _partners[172] in the profittes of that they call the House_; but _makeing the leases for twenty-one yeares hath been the destruction of ourselves and others_, for _they dying at the expiration of three or four yeares of their lease, the subsequent yeeres became dissolved to strangers, as by marrying with their widdowes and the like by their children_."

If Shakespeare's "lease" had not then expired, which seems to me implied, it would have been "dissolved to a stranger" in the person of Dr. Hall.

Some ready money would be required for the carrying out of the will.

Three hundred pounds left to Judith, and 73 13s. 4d. in smaller bequests, would certainly run up to 400 by the payment of debts and funeral expenses. The eagerness to leave all land to his own children is another proof of Shakespeare's earnest desire to found a family.

Shakespeare did not immediately die after the signing of his will.

Probably the devoted care of his wife and daughters and the skill of his son-in-law soothed his dying moments. But one cannot but have a lurking suspicion of maltreatment through the crude medical notions of the time: of bleeding when there should have been feeding; of vile medicines when Nature should have been supported and not undermined by art. At all events, Dr. John Hall had not the happiness and honour to record the name of his ill.u.s.trious father-in-law in his book of "Cures."[173] This was the one great failure of his life.

[Ill.u.s.tration: THE CHANCEL, TRINITY CHURCH.

_To face p. 83._]

The April 23 on which Shakespeare closed his eyes completed his cycle of fifty-two years, according to ordinary reckoning. But strangely enough there is entered on his tombstone "aetatis 53," and this suggests that he had been born on April 22. No records of his funeral have come down to us, but it must have made a stir in his native place. He was a native of the town, known to all in his youth, and loved by many. Yet, on the other hand, he had offended all the traditions of the borough. He had descended from the safe levels of trade to the vagabond life of a "common player," especially detested in Stratford-on-Avon (see notes); he had made money somehow in the city, and had returned to spend it in his native town, but he had never taken office, and had never been "one of them." And at the end he was to be buried in the Chancel, the select spot for n.o.bles and prelates and "great men." Verily the tongues of the gossips of Stratford would wag on April 25, 1616. The authors.h.i.+p of the doggerel lines on his tomb has been attributed to various people.

Probably they were a part of the stock-in-trade of the stone-cutter, that satisfied Shakespeare's widow as expressing a known wish of her "dear departed." Rude as they are, they have fulfilled their end:

"Good Frend, for Jesus' sake forbeare To digg the dust encloased here; Bleste be the man that spares thes stones, And curst be he that moves my bones."

Meanwhile Shakespeare's friends had been planning a monument to be placed on the northern wall of the Chancel. The bust is said to have been prepared from a death-mask, and to have been sculptured by one Gerard Johnson, son and successor of the Amsterdam tomb-maker, whose place of business lay between St. Saviour's Church and the Globe Theatre. He may be presumed to have frequently seen Shakespeare in his lifetime. The exact date of its erection is not known, but it would seem to have been some time before 1623, as Leonard Digges refers to it in his poem prefixed to the First Folio, "To the Memorie of the deceased Authour, Maister W. Shakespeare":

"Shakespeare, at length thy pious fellowes give The World thy Workes--thy Workes, by which outlive Thy touche thy name must; when that stone is rent, And Time dissolves thy Stratford monument, Here we alive shall view thee still."

Crude and inartistic as it is, the bust must have had some likeness in its earlier days to have satisfied critical eyes; but it has pa.s.sed through so many vicissitudes, and suffered so much restoration, that the likeness may have entirely vanished by this time. Nevertheless, it remains a witness to the affection of the surviving, and a witness, Puritans though they were, that it was on account of the power of _his pen_ that he deserved special remembrance.

Upon a mural tablet are other verses, which would seem not to have been composed by his own friends, as they speak of Shakespeare's lying "within this monument." Whoever wrote them, the family accepted them, and the world has endorsed them:

[Ill.u.s.tration]