FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[36]"George Shaksper complains against Agnes Marshall that she detains two rosaries," June 18, 1533.—"Common Trained Soldiers in Nottingham," Peter Shakespear, etc., 1596-97. Stevenson's "Nottingham Records."[37]Halliwell-Phillipps' "Outlines," vol. ii., p. 252.[38]Guild of Knowle Register.[39]John Brome was Lord of the Manor of Baddesley Clinton, but was murdered in the porch of the Church of the White Friars, London, November 9, 1468, leaving a wife, Beatrice, three sons and two daughters, one of whom was Jocosa. His son Thomas succeeded, and died without heirs, and his second son Nicholas then inherited the property. Eight of his children are registered in the guild of Knowle. His son-in-law was Sir Edward Ferrers, who married Constance, to whom the property afterwards came. Their son was Henry Ferrers, the great Warwickshire antiquary, who succeeded at sixteen, and was Lord of the Manor for sixty-nine years ("Baddesley Clinton," Rev. H. Norris, p. 234).[40]Nam Licentia concessa fuit Johanne Shakespere Sub priorisse ad. eligend., 5 Sept., 1525; et 20 Nov., 1525, Agnes Little confirmata fuit Priorissa de Wroxall. Vac. per resign. Joc. Brome. Dugdale's "Monasticon," ed. 1823, vol. iv., p. 89, and "Warwickshire," ed. 1730, p. 649.[41]"Valor Ecclesiasticus," 26 Henry VIII. (1535).[42]Ministers' Accounts, April 24, 28 Henry VIII., and Augmentation Books, Public Record Office.[43]Yeatman's "Gentle Shakespeare," pp. 138-142.[44]Court Rolls, General Series, Portfolio 207, No. 99.[45]Addit. MSS., Brit. Mus. (24,500).[46]Mr. Yeatman's "Gentle Shakespeare," p. 142.[47]Court Roll, No. 10, p. 207.[48]Nash's "Worcestershire," vol. ii., account of Tardebigg. See Augmentation Books, October 14, 1539, 233, f. 8.[49]Hunter's "Prolusions," p. 9.[50]Wood's Colleges. Fasti Oxoniensis, Bliss, 1815. Wood, Antiq. Oxon., L. 2, 341. Boase, Reg. Univ. Oxon. Newcourt's "Repertorium."

[36]"George Shaksper complains against Agnes Marshall that she detains two rosaries," June 18, 1533.—"Common Trained Soldiers in Nottingham," Peter Shakespear, etc., 1596-97. Stevenson's "Nottingham Records."

[37]Halliwell-Phillipps' "Outlines," vol. ii., p. 252.

[38]Guild of Knowle Register.

[39]John Brome was Lord of the Manor of Baddesley Clinton, but was murdered in the porch of the Church of the White Friars, London, November 9, 1468, leaving a wife, Beatrice, three sons and two daughters, one of whom was Jocosa. His son Thomas succeeded, and died without heirs, and his second son Nicholas then inherited the property. Eight of his children are registered in the guild of Knowle. His son-in-law was Sir Edward Ferrers, who married Constance, to whom the property afterwards came. Their son was Henry Ferrers, the great Warwickshire antiquary, who succeeded at sixteen, and was Lord of the Manor for sixty-nine years ("Baddesley Clinton," Rev. H. Norris, p. 234).

[40]Nam Licentia concessa fuit Johanne Shakespere Sub priorisse ad. eligend., 5 Sept., 1525; et 20 Nov., 1525, Agnes Little confirmata fuit Priorissa de Wroxall. Vac. per resign. Joc. Brome. Dugdale's "Monasticon," ed. 1823, vol. iv., p. 89, and "Warwickshire," ed. 1730, p. 649.

[41]"Valor Ecclesiasticus," 26 Henry VIII. (1535).

[42]Ministers' Accounts, April 24, 28 Henry VIII., and Augmentation Books, Public Record Office.

[43]Yeatman's "Gentle Shakespeare," pp. 138-142.

[44]Court Rolls, General Series, Portfolio 207, No. 99.

[45]Addit. MSS., Brit. Mus. (24,500).

[46]Mr. Yeatman's "Gentle Shakespeare," p. 142.

[47]Court Roll, No. 10, p. 207.

[48]Nash's "Worcestershire," vol. ii., account of Tardebigg. See Augmentation Books, October 14, 1539, 233, f. 8.

[49]Hunter's "Prolusions," p. 9.

[50]Wood's Colleges. Fasti Oxoniensis, Bliss, 1815. Wood, Antiq. Oxon., L. 2, 341. Boase, Reg. Univ. Oxon. Newcourt's "Repertorium."

NON SANZ DROICT.NON SANZ DROICT.

None of the family seem to have risen above the heraldic horizon till John Shakespeare applied for his coat of arms. Into the contest over that application it is well to plunge at once, and thence work backwards and forwards. Four classes of writers wage war over the facts: the Baconians, like the late Mr. Donnelly, who deny everything; the Romanticists, who accept what is pleasant, and occasionally believe manufactured tradition to suit their inclinations; the agnostic Shakespeareans, like Halliwell-Phillipps, who really work, but believe only what they can see and touch, if it accords with their opinions; and the ingenuous workers who seek saving truth like the agnostics, but bring human influences and natural inferences to bear on dusty records. Now, Halliwell-Phillipps does not scruple to affirm that three heralds,[51]the worthy ex-bailiff of Stratford, and the noblest poet the world has ever produced, were practically liars in this matter, because they make statements that do not harmonize with the limits of his knowledge and the colour of his opinions. From his grave the poet protests—

"Good name in man or woman, dear my lord,Is the immediate jewel of their souls.Who steals my purse steals trash....But he who filches from me my good nameRobs me of that, which not enriches him,But leaves me poor indeed."Othello, Act III., Scene 3.

We must therefore at least start inquiry with the supposition that these men thought they spoke truth. There was no reason they should not have done so. Sir John Ferne[52]writes: "If any person be advancedinto an office or dignity of publique administration, be it eyther Ecclesiasticall, Martiall or Civill ... the Herealde must not refuse to devise to such a publique person, upon his instant request, and willingness to bear the same without reproche, a Coate of Armes, and thenceforth to matriculate him with his intermarriages and issues descending in the Register of the gentle and noble.... In the Civil or Political State divers Offices of dignitie and worship doe merite Coates of Armes to the possessours of the same offices, as ... Bailiffs of Cities and ancient Boroughs or incorporated townes." John Shakespeare had certainly been Bailiff of Stratford-on-Avon in 1568-9; the draft states that he then applied for arms, and that the herald, Cooke, had sent him a "pattern." Probably he did not conclude the negotiations then, thinking the fees too heavy, or he might have delayed until he found his opportunity lost, or he might have asked them for his year of office alone. No doubt John Shakespeare was deeply impressed with the dignity of his wife's relatives, and wished, even then, to make himself and his family more worthy for her sake. The tradition of this draft, or the sight of it, may have stimulated the heart of the good son to honour his parents by having them enrolled among theArmigeriof the county. John had appeared among the "gentlemen" of Warwickshire in a government list of 1580.[53]

The Warwickshire Visitations occur in 1619, after the death of the poet, without male heirs, and are no help to us here. In the first 1596 draft the claims are based on John's public office, on a grant to his antecessors by Henry VII. for special services on marriagewith the daughter and heir of a gentleman of worship (i.e., entitled to armorial bearings). Then a fuller draft was drawn out, also in 1596, correcting "antecessors" into "grandfather." Halliwell-Phillipps only mentions one at that date, but Mr. Stephen Tucker,[54]Somerset Herald, gives facsimiles of both. Halliwell-Phillipps calls these ridiculous assertions, and asserts that both parties were descended from obscure country yeomen. The heralds state they were "solicited," and "on credible report" informed of the facts. We must not forget that all the friends intimately associated either with the Ardens or the Shakespeares (with the exception of the Harts) were armigeri.

Nobody now knows anything of that earlier pattern, nor of the patents of the gifts "to the antecessors." But seeing, as I have seen, that sacks full of old parchment deeds and bonds, reaching back to the fifteenth century, get cleared out of lawyers' offices, and sold for small sums to make drumheads or book-bindings, and seeing that this process has been going on for 400 years, it does not seem to me surprising that some deeds do get lost. Generally, it is those we most wish to have that disappear. Lawyers do not, as a rule, concern themselves with historical fragments, but with the soundness of the present titles of their clients and their own modern duties. (I do think that historical and antiquarian societies should bestir themselves to have old deeds included among the "ancient monuments of the country" and entitled to some degree of protection.)

We must also consider how illiterate the inhabitants of the country were in the reign of Henry VII., how the nation was bestrid by officials of the Empson and Dudley type, and we have reason tobelieve that various accidents, intentional or otherwise, caused many an old grant to disappear at that period.

It has struck me as possible that John Shakespeare may have intended ancestors through the female line. The names of his mother and grandmother are as yet unknown, and the supposition has never been discussed. But in support of John Shakespeare's claim, and in opposition to Halliwell-Phillipps's contradiction, we can prove therewereShakespeares in direct service of the Crown, not merely as common soldiers, though in 28 Henry VIII. (1537), Thomas, Richard, William and another Richard were mentioned as among the King's forces.[55]

But one Roger Shakespeare was Yeoman of the Chamber to the King, and on June 9, 1552, shared with his fellows, Abraham Longwel and Thomas Best, a forfeit of £36 10s.[56]This post of Yeoman of the Chamber was one of great trust and dignity; it was the same as that held earlier by Robert Arden, of Yoxall, the younger brother of Sir John Arden, and the election to it suggested either inherited favour, Court interest, or signal personal services. His ancestors might have been also the missing ancestors of John Shakespeare. He himself may be the Roger who was buried in Haseley in 1558, supposed by some to have been the monk of Bordesley. He may also have been the father of Thomas Shakespeare, the Royal Messenger of 1575, noticed later.

This record proves nothing beyond the inexactitude of Halliwell-Phillipps's sweeping statements, but it gives us a hope that something else may somewhere else be found to fit into it and make a fact complete. One of the facts brought forward as a reason for the grant of arms to John Shakespeare was "that he hathmaryed Mary daughter and one of the heires of Robert Arden in the same countie, Esquire." "Gent" was originally written, and was altered to "Esquire."[57]

Some have doubted that the grant ever really took place, but Gwillim, in his "Display of Heraldrie," 1660, notes, "Or, on a bend Sable, a tilting Spear of the field, borne by the name of Shakespeare, granted by William Dethick, Garter, to William Shakespear the renowned poet." Shakespeare's crest, or cognizance, was a "Falcon, his wings displayed, Argent, standing on a wreath of his colours, supporting a speare, gold." His motto was, "Non Sans Droict."

It is said there were objections made to this pattern on the ground that it was too like the old Lord Mauley's.[58]Probably they were only notes of a discussion among the heralds, when it was decided that the spear made a "patible difference," and a résumé of the qualifications was added.

This was answered on May 10, 1602, before Henry Lord Howard, Sir Robert Sidney, and Sir Edward Dier, Chancellor of the Order of the Garter: "The answere of Garter and Clarencieux Kings of arms, to a libellous scrowle against certen arms supposed to be wrongfully given. Right Honorable, the exceptions taken in the Scrowle of Arms exhibited, doo concerne these armes granted, or the persons to whom they have been granted. In both, right honourable, we hope to satisfy your Lordships." (They mention twenty-three cases.) "Shakespere.—It may as well be said that Hareley, who beareth gould, a bend between two cotizes sables,and all other that (bear) or and argent a bend sables, usurpe the coat of the Lo. Mauley. As for the speare in bend, is a patible difference; and the person to whom it was granted hath borne magestracy, and was justice of peace at Stratford-upon-Avon. He married the daughter and heire of Arderne, and was able to maintaine that estate" ("MS. Off. Arm.," W. Z., p. 276; from Malone).

It has struck me that the attempt to win arms for his father was in order tocontinuethem to his mother.

In the Record Office I found the other day a note that explains what I mean: "At a Chapitre holden by the Office of Armes at the Embroyderers Hall in London Anno 4oReginæ Elizabethæ it was agreed, that no inhiritrix eyther mayde wife or widdow should bear or cause to be borne any Creast or Cognizaunce of her Ancestors otherwise than as followeth. If she be unmaried to beare in her ringe, cognizaunce or otherwise, the first coate of her Ancestors in a Lozenge. And during her Widdowhood to Set the first coate of her husbande in pale with the first coate of her Auncestor. And if she mary one who is noe gentleman, then she to be clearly exempted from the former conclusion."[59]

FOOTNOTES:[51]Cooke, Dethicke and Camden.In the description of England prefixed to Holinshed's Chronicles it is stated:"A gentleman of blood is defined to descend of three descents of nobleness, that is to saie, of name and of armes both by father and mother" (p. 161). "Moreover as the King doth dubbe Knights and createth the barons and higher degrees, so gentlemen whose ancestors are not knowen to come in with William Duke of Normandie (for of the Saxon races yet remaining wee now make none accompt, much lesse of the British issue), doe take their beginning in England, after this manner in our times. Whosoever studieth the lawes of the realme, whoso abideth in the Universitie giving his mind to his booke, or professeth physicke and the liberall sciences, or beside his service in the roome of a captaine in the warres, or good counsell given at home, whereby his commonwealth is benefited, can live without manuall labour, and thereto is able and will beare the port, charge, and countenance of a gentleman, he shall for monie have a cote and armes bestowed upon him by heralds (who in the charter of the same doo of custome pretend antiquitie and service, and manie gaie things) and thereunto being made in good cheape be called master, which is the title men give to esquires and gentlemen, and reputed for a gentleman ever after" (Ed. 1586, pp. 161-2).The same is repeated in "The Commonwealth of England and Maner of Government thereof," by Sir Thomas Smith, London, 1589-1594, Chap. XX.In a contemporary play, quoted by John Payne Collier, the herald is made to say:"We now are faine to wait who grows in wealth,And comes to beare some office in a towne,And we for money help them unto armes,For what can not the golden tempter doe?"Robert Wilson:The Cobbler's Prophecy.[52]Sir John Ferne in "The Glory of Generositie," 1586.[53]State Papers, Dom. Ser., Eliz., cxxxvii. 68. The gentlemen and freeholders in the countye of Warwick. Among the freeholders of Barlichway, John Shakespeare, father of William and Thomas Shakespeare, 69. In Stratford-on-Avon John Shaxspere, and at Rowington Thomas Shaxpere, April, 1580.[54]"Miscellanea Genealogica et Heraldica," 2nd Series, 1886, vol. i., p. 109, since published in a volume.[55]The Musters. Archers of Rowington and Wroxall, S.P.D.S.[56]State Papers, Domestic Series, Edward VI., vol. xiv., Docquet.[57]Nichols's "Herald and Genealogist," vol. i., p. 510, 1863; and "Miscel. Gen. et Herald.," Series II., vol. i., p. 109.[58]See the papers in the Bodleian Library, Ashmol. MS. 846, art. ix., f. 50a,b. "The answers of Garter and Clarencieux Kings of Arms, to the Scrowle of Arms, exhibited by Raffe Brookesmouth, caled York Herald," wherein they state that there is "a patible difference."[59]State Papers, Domestic Series, Eliz., xxvi. 31, 1561.

[51]Cooke, Dethicke and Camden.In the description of England prefixed to Holinshed's Chronicles it is stated:"A gentleman of blood is defined to descend of three descents of nobleness, that is to saie, of name and of armes both by father and mother" (p. 161). "Moreover as the King doth dubbe Knights and createth the barons and higher degrees, so gentlemen whose ancestors are not knowen to come in with William Duke of Normandie (for of the Saxon races yet remaining wee now make none accompt, much lesse of the British issue), doe take their beginning in England, after this manner in our times. Whosoever studieth the lawes of the realme, whoso abideth in the Universitie giving his mind to his booke, or professeth physicke and the liberall sciences, or beside his service in the roome of a captaine in the warres, or good counsell given at home, whereby his commonwealth is benefited, can live without manuall labour, and thereto is able and will beare the port, charge, and countenance of a gentleman, he shall for monie have a cote and armes bestowed upon him by heralds (who in the charter of the same doo of custome pretend antiquitie and service, and manie gaie things) and thereunto being made in good cheape be called master, which is the title men give to esquires and gentlemen, and reputed for a gentleman ever after" (Ed. 1586, pp. 161-2).The same is repeated in "The Commonwealth of England and Maner of Government thereof," by Sir Thomas Smith, London, 1589-1594, Chap. XX.In a contemporary play, quoted by John Payne Collier, the herald is made to say:"We now are faine to wait who grows in wealth,And comes to beare some office in a towne,And we for money help them unto armes,For what can not the golden tempter doe?"Robert Wilson:The Cobbler's Prophecy.

[51]Cooke, Dethicke and Camden.

In the description of England prefixed to Holinshed's Chronicles it is stated:

"A gentleman of blood is defined to descend of three descents of nobleness, that is to saie, of name and of armes both by father and mother" (p. 161). "Moreover as the King doth dubbe Knights and createth the barons and higher degrees, so gentlemen whose ancestors are not knowen to come in with William Duke of Normandie (for of the Saxon races yet remaining wee now make none accompt, much lesse of the British issue), doe take their beginning in England, after this manner in our times. Whosoever studieth the lawes of the realme, whoso abideth in the Universitie giving his mind to his booke, or professeth physicke and the liberall sciences, or beside his service in the roome of a captaine in the warres, or good counsell given at home, whereby his commonwealth is benefited, can live without manuall labour, and thereto is able and will beare the port, charge, and countenance of a gentleman, he shall for monie have a cote and armes bestowed upon him by heralds (who in the charter of the same doo of custome pretend antiquitie and service, and manie gaie things) and thereunto being made in good cheape be called master, which is the title men give to esquires and gentlemen, and reputed for a gentleman ever after" (Ed. 1586, pp. 161-2).

The same is repeated in "The Commonwealth of England and Maner of Government thereof," by Sir Thomas Smith, London, 1589-1594, Chap. XX.

In a contemporary play, quoted by John Payne Collier, the herald is made to say:

"We now are faine to wait who grows in wealth,And comes to beare some office in a towne,And we for money help them unto armes,For what can not the golden tempter doe?"

Robert Wilson:The Cobbler's Prophecy.

[52]Sir John Ferne in "The Glory of Generositie," 1586.

[53]State Papers, Dom. Ser., Eliz., cxxxvii. 68. The gentlemen and freeholders in the countye of Warwick. Among the freeholders of Barlichway, John Shakespeare, father of William and Thomas Shakespeare, 69. In Stratford-on-Avon John Shaxspere, and at Rowington Thomas Shaxpere, April, 1580.

[54]"Miscellanea Genealogica et Heraldica," 2nd Series, 1886, vol. i., p. 109, since published in a volume.

[55]The Musters. Archers of Rowington and Wroxall, S.P.D.S.

[56]State Papers, Domestic Series, Edward VI., vol. xiv., Docquet.

[57]Nichols's "Herald and Genealogist," vol. i., p. 510, 1863; and "Miscel. Gen. et Herald.," Series II., vol. i., p. 109.

[58]See the papers in the Bodleian Library, Ashmol. MS. 846, art. ix., f. 50a,b. "The answers of Garter and Clarencieux Kings of Arms, to the Scrowle of Arms, exhibited by Raffe Brookesmouth, caled York Herald," wherein they state that there is "a patible difference."

[59]State Papers, Domestic Series, Eliz., xxvi. 31, 1561.

In the later application to impale the Ardens' arms in 1599, the 1596 draft is repeated in only slightly altered terms. "Antecessors" is changed to "great-grandfather," and the dignity of Mary Arden's family further elucidated. Some writers consider that, following a custom of the day, John Shakespeare treated ashisantecessors his wife's ancestors. The word "great-grandfather" tends to exclude this notion, as may be seen later, but the word "grandfather" would imply, if this had been intended, that Thomas Arden himself had had the grants. It has always been supposed that Brooke, York Herald, had exhibited some complaint against this grant also, as he very possibly did.[60]He was severely critical of the heraldic and genealogic matter in Camden's "Britannia," and very bitter at the slighting way the author speaks of heralds. He wrote a book called "The Discoveries of Certaine Errours in the edition of 1594," which he seems to have begun at once, as on page 14 he states, "If the making of gentlemen heretofore hath been greatly misliked by her Majestie in the Kinges of Armes; much more displeasing, I think, it will be to her, that you,being no Officer of Armes, should erect, make and put down Earles and Baronsat your pleasure." It must have been peculiarly galling to him that by the influence of Sir Fulke Greville, afterwards Lord Brooke, Camden was advanced over his head to the dignity he himself desired. After being appointed, for form's sake, Richmond Herald for one day, Camden was made Clarenceux, October 23, 1597, between the first and second Shakespeare drafts. This probably decided Brooke to publish his "Pamphlet of Errors," which, as he dedicated it to the Earl of Essex, "Lord General of the Royal Forces in Ireland," must have appeared in 1599. He wrote another book against Camden, which was forbidden to be published.

The draft for the impalement is also heavily corrected, probably in comparison and discussion. Of the Shakespeare shield a note adds: "The person towhom it was grantedhath borne magistracy in Stratford-on-Avon, was Justice of the Peace, married the daughter and heir of Arderne, and was able to maintain that estate." The Heralds first tricked the arms of the Ardens of Park Hall, Ermine a fesse chequy or and az., but scratched them out, and substituted a shield bearing three cross crosslets fitchée and a chief or, with a martlet for difference.

I put forward several suggestions concerning this question in an article in theAthenæum.[61]

The critical strictures against the Shakespeare-Arden claim are best summed up by Mr. Nichols:[62]

1. That the relation of Mary Arden to the Ardens of Park Hall was imaginary and impossible, and those who assert it in error. 2. That the Ardens were connected with nobility, while Robert Arden was a mere "husbandman." 3. That the Heralds knew the claim was unfounded when they scratched out the arms ofArden of Park Hall, and replaced them by the arms of the Ardens of Alvanley, of Cheshire. This was equally unjustifiable, but as the family lived further off, there was less likelihood of complaint.

Now we must work out the case step by step on the other side.

Robert Arden, of Park Hall, spent his substance during the Wars of the Roses, and was finally brought to the block (30 Henry VI.,[63]1452). His son Walter was restored by Edward IV., but he would probably be encumbered by debts and "waste"; at least, he had but small portions to leave to his family when he made his will[64](31 July, 17 Henry VII., 1502). Besides his heir, Sir John, Esquire of the Body to Henry VII., he had a second son,[65]Thomas, to whom he leavestenmarks annually; a third son, Martin, who was to have the manor of Natford; if not, then Martin and his other sons—Robert, Henry, William—should each of them havefivemarks annually. This is an income too small even for younger sons to live on in those days, so it is to be supposed the father had already either placed them, married them well, or otherwise provided for them during his life. Among the witnesses to the will are "Thomas Arden and John Charnells, Squires." Thomas, being the second son, might have had something from his mother Eleanor, daughter and coheir of John Hampden, of Great Hampden, county Bucks. This Thomas was alive in 1526, because Sir John Arden then willed that his brothers—Thomas, Martin, and Robert—should have their fees for life. Henry, and probably also William, had meanwhile died, though a William seems to have been established at Hawnes, in Bedfordshire. Seeing that Sir John was the Esquireof the Body to Henry VII., it seems very probable that his brother Robert was the Robert Arden, Yeoman of the Chamber, to whom Henry VII. granted three patents: First, on February 22, 17 Henry VII., as Keeper of the Park at Altcar,[66]Lancashire; and second, as Bailiff of Codmore, Derby,[67]and Keeper of the Royal Park there; the third[68]gave him Yoxall for life, at a rental of £42—afterwards confirmed. Indeed, Leland in his "Itinerary" mentions the relationship,[69]and the administration of Robert's goods proves it.

Martin's family became connected with the Easts and the Gibbons, and his name and arms appear in the "Visitations of Oxfordshire." Where meanwhile was Thomas? There is no record of any Thomas Arden in Warwickshire or elsewhere, ever supposed to be the son of Walter Arden, save the Thomas who, the year before Walter Arden's death, was living at Wilmecote, in the parish of Aston Cantlowe, on soil formerly owned by the Beauchamps. On May 16, 16 Henry VII., Mayowe transferred certain lands at Snitterfield to "Robert Throckmorton, Armiger, Thomas Trussell of Billesley, Roger Reynolds of Henley-in-Arden, William Wood of Woodhouse, Thomas Arden of Wilmecote, and Robert Arden, the son of this Thomas Arden." This list is worth noting. Thomas Trussell, of an old family, is identified by his residence.[70]He was Sheriff of the county in23 Henry VII. No Throckmorton could take precedence of him save the Robert Throckmorton of Coughton, who was knighted six months later.[71]

These men were evidently acting as trustees for the young Robert Arden. Just in the same way this same Robert Throckmorton was appointed by Thomas's elder brother, Sir John Arden of Park Hall, as trustee for his children, in association with John Kingsmel, Sergeant-at-Law, Sir Richard Empson, and Sir Richard Knightley.[72]That a man of the same name, at the same time, in the same county, retaining the same family friends, in circumstances in every way suitable to the second son of Walter Arden, should be accepted for that man seems just and natural, especiallywhen no other claimant has ever been brought forward.

But weknowthis Thomas Arden was Mary Arden's grandfather; this Robert was her father; this property, that tenanted afterwards by the Shakespeares, and left by Robert's will to his family.

As the deed of conveyance of the premises at Snitterfield from Mayowe to Arden has been often referred to, occasionally quoted, but never, so far as I know, printedin extenso, I should like to preserve the copy. It may save trouble to future investigators, and help to clear up the connection between the Shakespeares and the Ardens. It certainly strengthens very much Mary Arden's claim to connection with the Ardens of Park Hall, and her descent from "a gentleman of worship," a claim the heralds allowed.

"Sciant presentes et futuri quod ego Johannes Mayowe de Snytterfeld dedi, concessi, et hac presenti carta mea confirmavi, Roberto Throkmerton Armigero, Thome Trussell de Billesley, Rogero Reynoldes de Henley in Arden, Willelmo Wodde de Wodhouse, Thome Arderne de Wylmecote, et Roberto Arderne filio eiusdem Thome Arderne, unum mesuagium cum suis pertinenciis in Snytterfeld predicta, una cum omnibus et singulis terris toftis, croftis, pratis, pascuis et pasturis eidem mesuagio spectantibus sive pertinentibus in villa et in campis de Snytterfeld predicta cum omnibus suis pertinenciis; quod quidem mesuagium predictum quondam fuit Willelmi Mayowe et postea Johannis Mayowe et situatum est inter terram Johannis Palmer ex parte una et quandam venellam ibidem vocatam Merellane ex parte altera in latitudine et extendit se in longitudine a via Regia ibidem usque ad quendam Rivulum, secundum metas et divisas ibidem factas. Habendum et tenendum predictum mesuagium cum omnibus et singulis terris Toftis, Croftis, pratis, pascuis, et pasturis predictis, ac omnibus suis pertinenciis prefatis Roberto Throkmerton, Thome Trussell, Rogero Reynoldes, Willelmo Wodde, Thome Arderne et Roberto Ardern heredibus et assignatis suis de capitalibus dominis feodi illius per servicia inde debita et de jure consueta imperpetuum. Et ego vero predictus Johannes Mayowe et heredes mei mesuagium predictum cum omnibus et singulis terris Toftis Croftis, pratis, pascuis et pasturis supradictis ac omnibus suis pertinenciis prefatis Roberto Throckmerton, Thome Trussell, Rogero Reynoldes, Willelmo Wodde, Thome Arderne et Roberto Arderne heredibus et assignatis suis contra omnes gentes Warrantizabimus et defendemus imperpetuum.

"Et insuper sciatis me prefatum Johannem Mayowe assignasse, constituisse et in loco meo posuisse dilectosmichi in Christo Thomam Clopton de Snytterfeld predicta gentilman et Johannem Porter de eadem meos veros et legitimos Attornatos conjunctim et divisim ad intrandum vice et nomine meo in predictum mesuagium cum omnibus et singulis premissis et pertinenciis suis quibuscunque et ad plenam et pacificam seisinam pro me ac vice et nomine meo inde capiendam et postquam hujusmodi seisina dicta capta fuerit ad deliberandam pro me ac vice et nomine meo prefatis Roberto Throkmerton, Thome Trussell, Rogero Reynoldes, Willelmo Wodde, Thome Arderne et Roberto Arderne plenam et pacificam possessionem et seisinam de et in eodem mesuagio ac omnibus et singulis premissis, secundum vim, formam et effectum huius presentis carte mee. Ratum et gratum habens et habiturus totum et quicquid dicti attornati mei vice et nomine meo fecerint seu eorum alter fecerit in premisses. In cuius rei testimonium huic presenti carte mee et scripto meo sigillum meum apposui. Hiis testibus Johanne Wagstaffe de Aston Cauntelowe Roberto Porter de Snytterfield predicta Ricardo Russheby de eadem, Ricardo Atkyns de Wylmecote predicta, Johanne Alcokkes de Newenham et aliis. Datum apud Snytterfield predictam die lune proximo post festum invencionis Sancte Crucis Anno Regni Regis Henrici Septimi post conquestum Sexto decimo."[73]

Mr. Nichols' second objection was that in records he is styled "husbandman"; but the word is an old English equivalent for a farmer, in which sense it is often used in old wills and records. And in the examination of John Somerville,[74]Edward Arden's son-in-law (also of high descent), he stated "that he had received no visitors of late, but certain 'husbandmen,'near neighbours." The Arden "husbandman" of Wilmecote in 1523 and 1546[75]paid the same amount to the subsidy as the Arden Esquire of Yoxall[76]in 1590, when money was of less value.

Mr. Nichols' third assertion, that the heralds scratched out the arms of the Ardens of Park Hall, because theydarednot quarter them with those of the Shakespeares, shows that he omitted certain considerations. That family was under attainder then.

Drummond[77]exemplifies many arms of Arden, and traces them back to their derivation. He notices that the "elder branch of the Ardens took the arms of the old Earls of Warwick; the younger branches took the arms of the Beauchamps, with a difference. In this they followed the custom of the Earls of Warwick." The Ardens of Park Hall therefore bore ermine, a fesse chequy, or, and az., arms derived from the old Earls of Warwick; and this was the pattern scratched out in John Shakespeare's quartering. But the reason lay in no breach of connection, but in the fact that Mary Arden was an heiress, not in the eldest line, but through asecond son. A possible pattern for a younger son was three cross crosslets fitchée and a chief or. As such they were borne by the Ardens of Alvanley, with a crescent for difference. They were borne without the crescent by Simon Arden of Longcroft,[78]the second son of the next generation, and full cousin of Mary Arden's father. It is true that among the tombs at Yoxall the fesse chequy appeared, but there is evident confusion in their use. Martin Arden of Euston was probably in the wrong to assume when he did the arms of his elder brother; William Arden of Hawnes, if the sixth son, county Bedford, bore the same arms as those proposed for Mary Arden, and it is implied that Thomas, her father, had borne them. In the Heralds' College is the draft: "Shakespere impaled with the Aunceyent armes of the said Arden of Willingcote" (volume marked R. 21 outside and G. XIII. inside).

If the three cross crosslets fitchée were the correct arms for Thomas Arden as the second son of an Arden, who might bear ermine, a fesse chequy or, and az., the crescent would have been the correct difference, but it had long been borne by the Ardens of Alvanley, in Cheshire, who branched off from the Warwickshire family early in the thirteenth century. The heralds therefore differenced the crosslets with a martlet, usually, but by no means universally, the mark of cadency for a fourth son at that time.[79]Thus, Glover[80]enumerates among the arms of Warwickshire and Bedfordshire: "Arden or Arderne gu., three cross crosslets fitchée or; on a chief of the second a martlet of the first. Crest, a plume of feathers charged with a martlet or." If heraldry has anything, therefore, to say to this dispute, it is to support the claim of Thomas Arden to being a cadet of the Park Hall family, and thereby to include Mary Arden and her son in the descent from Ailwin, Guy of Warwick, and the SaxonKing Athelstan. Camden and the other heralds were only seeking correctness in their draft of the restitution of the Ardens' arms. The hesitation as to exactitude among the varieties of Arden arms was the cause of the notes. See "The Booke of Differ.," 61; see "Knights of E.I.," folios 2, 28, etc., on the draft.

It has been considered strange that, after the application and even after the grant (preserved in MS. "Coll. of Arms," R. 21), no use thereof can be proved, though the heralds added to the former grant: "and we have lykewise uppon an other escucheon impaled the same with the auncient arms of the said Arden of Wellyngcote, signifying thereby that it maye and shalbe lawfull, for the said John Shakespeare, gent., to beare and use the same shields of arms, single or impaled, as aforesaid, during his natural lyfe, and that it shalbe lawful for his children, issue, and posterity, to beare, use, quarter, and shewe the same with their dewe difference, in all lawfull warlyke faites and civill use" (Ibid., G. XIII.).

John Shakespeare did not live long after his application, dying in 1601.

Whether or not the grant of the impaled Arden arms was completed before his death, there is no record of his using them. Whether his son ever used the impalement we do not now know, but it does not appear on any of the tombs or seals that have been preserved. But the Shakespeare arms have been certainly used.

William Shakespeare was mercilessly satirized by his rivals, Ben Jonson and others,[81]about his coat of arms;but it was the recognition of his descent that secured him so universally the attribute of "gentle." As Davies, addressing Shakespeare and Burbage in 1603, says:

"And though the stage doth stain pure gentle blood,Yet generous ye are in mind and mood."[82]

We must not forget there would be possible ill-feeling among the families of the Arden sisters, when the youngest, whom they had probably always pitied and looked down on, because of her comparatively unfortunate marriage, should have the audacity to think of using the arms of their father, to which they had never aspired.

OLD HOUSE AT WILMECOTE, BY SOME SUPPOSED TO BE ROBERT ARDEN'SOLD HOUSE AT WILMECOTE, BY SOME SUPPOSED TO BE ROBERT ARDEN'STo face p. 35.

FOOTNOTES:[60]He tried in every way to prove Camden wrong, but his bitterness only hurt himself. His strictures were confuted before the highest authority.[61]August 10, 1895, p. 202.[62]"Herald and Genealogist," vol. i., p. 510, 1863; andNotes and Queries, Series III., vol. v., p. 493.[63]Dugdale's "Warwickshire," p. 925.[64]Preserved at Somerset House, 8 Porch.[65]Dugdale places the sons in another order.[66]Pat. Henry VII., second part, mem. 30, February 22.[67]Same series, mem. 35, September 9.[68]Pat. 23 Henry VIII., September 24, first part, mem. 12.[69]"Arden of the court, brother to Sir John Arden of Park Hall." "Itinerary," vi. 20, about 1536-42.[70]Sir Warine Trussell held Billesley 15 Edward III. The will of Sir William Trussell of Cublesdon, 1379, mentions a bequest to his cousin, "Sir Thomas d'Ardene" ("Testamenta Vetusta," Sir N. H. Nicolas, vol. i., p. 107). William Trussell was made a brother of the Guild of Knowle 1469, and there is an entry in 1504 of a donation "for Sir William Trussell and for his soul": "To Thomas Trussell, farmer of the said Bishop of Worcester; in Knowle for the Worke-silver 4/4" (37 Henry VIII., Report. "Register of the Guild of Knowle," Introduction, p. xxvi., by Mr. W. B. Bickley). Alured Trussell, born 1533, married Margaret, daughter of Robert Fulwood, and their daughter Dorothy married Adam Palmer, Robert Arden's friend. French thinks that the wife, either of Thomas or of Robert, was a Trussell.[71]His son George succeeded him in 1520. Edward Arden, of Park Hall, was brought up in his care, and married Mary, his son Robert's daughter.[72]See p. 184.[73]Deed of Conveyance of Premises at Snytterfield. (Transcribed from the Miscellaneous Documents of Stratford-on-Avon), vol. ii., No. 83.[74]State Papers, Domestic Series, Elizabeth, 1583, clxiii., 21.[75]In the Subsidy Rolls 15 Henry VII., Thomas Arden was assessed on £12, and Robert Arden on £8 (192/128). Subsidy, Aston Cantlowe, March 10, 37 Henry VIII., 1546, Robert Arden, assessed on property valued at £10; Walter Edkyns, £10; John Jenks, £6; John Skarlett, £8; Thomas Dixson, £8; Roger Knight, £8; Richard Ingram, £6; Thomas Gretwyn, £5; Margaret Scarlet, £5; Richard Edkyns, £6; Robert Fulwood, £5; Nicholas Gibbes, £5; Richard Green, £5; William Hill, £5 (Mr. Hunter's "Prolusions," 37, note). Thomas Arden of Park Hall at the same time was assessed on £80; but Simon Arden was only assessed on £8 (192/179).[76]French, "Genealogica Shakespeareana," p. 423; and Nichols' "History of Leicestershire."[77]H. Drummond's "Noble British Families," vol. i. (2).[78]See Fuller's "Worthies of Warwickshire."[79]"The several marks of cadency which haveof late yearsbeen made use of for the distinction of houses ... for the second son a crescent, the third a mullet, the fourth a martlet" (Glover's "Heraldry," vol. i., p. 168, ed. 1780).[80]Ibid., vol. ii., ed. 1780.[81]In the "Return from Parnassus," 1606, Studiosus says of the players:"Vile world that lifts them up to high degree,And treads us down in grovelling misery,England affords these glorious vagabondsThat carried erst their fardels on their backsCoursers to ride on through the gazing streets,Sweeping it in their glaring satin suits,And pages to attend their masterships.With mouthing words that better wits have framed,They purchase lands and now esquires are made."Act V., Sc. 1.The satire in "Ratsey's Ghost" also may refer to Shakespeare, though Alleyn and others might be intended.Freeman, in his "Epigrams," 1614, asks:"Why hath our age such new-found 'gentles' foundTo give the 'master' to the farmer's son?"But his high praise of Shakespeare elsewhere shows he does not refer to him.[82]John Davies of Hereford's "Microcosmus, The Civil Warres of Death and Fortune."

[60]He tried in every way to prove Camden wrong, but his bitterness only hurt himself. His strictures were confuted before the highest authority.

[61]August 10, 1895, p. 202.

[62]"Herald and Genealogist," vol. i., p. 510, 1863; andNotes and Queries, Series III., vol. v., p. 493.

[63]Dugdale's "Warwickshire," p. 925.

[64]Preserved at Somerset House, 8 Porch.

[65]Dugdale places the sons in another order.

[66]Pat. Henry VII., second part, mem. 30, February 22.

[67]Same series, mem. 35, September 9.

[68]Pat. 23 Henry VIII., September 24, first part, mem. 12.

[69]"Arden of the court, brother to Sir John Arden of Park Hall." "Itinerary," vi. 20, about 1536-42.

[70]Sir Warine Trussell held Billesley 15 Edward III. The will of Sir William Trussell of Cublesdon, 1379, mentions a bequest to his cousin, "Sir Thomas d'Ardene" ("Testamenta Vetusta," Sir N. H. Nicolas, vol. i., p. 107). William Trussell was made a brother of the Guild of Knowle 1469, and there is an entry in 1504 of a donation "for Sir William Trussell and for his soul": "To Thomas Trussell, farmer of the said Bishop of Worcester; in Knowle for the Worke-silver 4/4" (37 Henry VIII., Report. "Register of the Guild of Knowle," Introduction, p. xxvi., by Mr. W. B. Bickley). Alured Trussell, born 1533, married Margaret, daughter of Robert Fulwood, and their daughter Dorothy married Adam Palmer, Robert Arden's friend. French thinks that the wife, either of Thomas or of Robert, was a Trussell.

[71]His son George succeeded him in 1520. Edward Arden, of Park Hall, was brought up in his care, and married Mary, his son Robert's daughter.

[72]See p. 184.

[73]Deed of Conveyance of Premises at Snytterfield. (Transcribed from the Miscellaneous Documents of Stratford-on-Avon), vol. ii., No. 83.

[74]State Papers, Domestic Series, Elizabeth, 1583, clxiii., 21.

[75]In the Subsidy Rolls 15 Henry VII., Thomas Arden was assessed on £12, and Robert Arden on £8 (192/128). Subsidy, Aston Cantlowe, March 10, 37 Henry VIII., 1546, Robert Arden, assessed on property valued at £10; Walter Edkyns, £10; John Jenks, £6; John Skarlett, £8; Thomas Dixson, £8; Roger Knight, £8; Richard Ingram, £6; Thomas Gretwyn, £5; Margaret Scarlet, £5; Richard Edkyns, £6; Robert Fulwood, £5; Nicholas Gibbes, £5; Richard Green, £5; William Hill, £5 (Mr. Hunter's "Prolusions," 37, note). Thomas Arden of Park Hall at the same time was assessed on £80; but Simon Arden was only assessed on £8 (192/179).

[76]French, "Genealogica Shakespeareana," p. 423; and Nichols' "History of Leicestershire."

[77]H. Drummond's "Noble British Families," vol. i. (2).

[78]See Fuller's "Worthies of Warwickshire."

[79]"The several marks of cadency which haveof late yearsbeen made use of for the distinction of houses ... for the second son a crescent, the third a mullet, the fourth a martlet" (Glover's "Heraldry," vol. i., p. 168, ed. 1780).

[80]Ibid., vol. ii., ed. 1780.

[81]In the "Return from Parnassus," 1606, Studiosus says of the players:"Vile world that lifts them up to high degree,And treads us down in grovelling misery,England affords these glorious vagabondsThat carried erst their fardels on their backsCoursers to ride on through the gazing streets,Sweeping it in their glaring satin suits,And pages to attend their masterships.With mouthing words that better wits have framed,They purchase lands and now esquires are made."Act V., Sc. 1.The satire in "Ratsey's Ghost" also may refer to Shakespeare, though Alleyn and others might be intended.Freeman, in his "Epigrams," 1614, asks:"Why hath our age such new-found 'gentles' foundTo give the 'master' to the farmer's son?"But his high praise of Shakespeare elsewhere shows he does not refer to him.

[81]In the "Return from Parnassus," 1606, Studiosus says of the players:

"Vile world that lifts them up to high degree,And treads us down in grovelling misery,England affords these glorious vagabondsThat carried erst their fardels on their backsCoursers to ride on through the gazing streets,Sweeping it in their glaring satin suits,And pages to attend their masterships.With mouthing words that better wits have framed,They purchase lands and now esquires are made."

Act V., Sc. 1.

The satire in "Ratsey's Ghost" also may refer to Shakespeare, though Alleyn and others might be intended.

Freeman, in his "Epigrams," 1614, asks:

"Why hath our age such new-found 'gentles' foundTo give the 'master' to the farmer's son?"

But his high praise of Shakespeare elsewhere shows he does not refer to him.

[82]John Davies of Hereford's "Microcosmus, The Civil Warres of Death and Fortune."

It is unfortunate that we know so little about Thomas Arden, Mary Shakespeare's "antecessor." A quiet country gentleman he seems to have been, marrying for love, and not for property, or his wife's descent might have helped us to clear his own. I do not think she was a Throckmorton, but I think she was very probably a Trussell, which Mr. French also suggests. Joane was a Trussell name, and Billesley held some attraction to the family. We are not sure of anything about Thomas except the purchase of Snitterfield, the year before Sir Walter Arden's death, and his payment of the subsidies in 1526 and 1546. It is probable he was the "Thomas Arden, Squier," who witnessed the will of Sir Walter in 1502; it ispossiblehe was the Thomas Arden who witnessed the will of John Lench[83]of Birmingham in 1525, though it is more likely that this latter Thomas was his nephew, the heir of Park Hall. Thomas of Wilmecote is supposed to have died in 1546, but no will has been discovered. Probably he had handed over his property to his son in his lifetime. There is no trace of another child than Robert.

Robert was probably under age when his father purchased Snitterfield, and hence the need of trustees in association with the purchase. On December 14and 21, 1519, Robert Arden purchased another property in Snitterfield from Richard Rushby and Agnes his wife,[84]and he bought also a tenement from John Palmer on October 1, 1529.[85]One of his tenants was Richard Shakespeare. He and his tenant were both presented for non-suit of court in 30 Henry VIII.

He contributed to the subsidy in Wilmecote in 1526 and 1546. We know no more of his first wife than we know of his mother. She might have been either a Trussel or a Palmer. But we know that he had seven[86]daughters, who all bore Arden family names:Agnes, who married first John Hewyns, and secondly Thomas Stringer, by whom she had two sons, John and Arden Stringer;Joan, who married Edmund Lambert, of Barton-on-the-Heath, who had a son, John Lambert;Katharine, who married Thomas Edkyns of Wilmecote, who had a son, Thomas Edkyns the younger;Margaret, who married first Alexander Webbe of Bearley (by whom she had a son Robert), and secondly Edward Cornwall;Joyce, of whom there is no record but in her father's settlement and will;[87]Alice, who was one of the co-executors of her father's will, but of whom there is no further record; andMary, the other executor, who married John Shakespeare. The exact dates of their birth are not known. Robert may be supposed to have been married about 1520, and it is probable that Mary was born about 1535. It islikelythat she was of age when made executor in 1556, but not at allnecessary.

Robert Arden married again when his family had grown up—probably in 1550—Agnes Webbe, who had been assessed as the widow of Hill of Bearley on £7, in 37 Henry VIII., 1546. On July 17, 1550, RobertArden made two settlements of the Snitterfield estates, probably upon his marriage.[88]In the first,[89]he devised estates at Snitterfield in trust to Adam Palmer and Hugh Porter, for the benefit, after the death of himself and his wife, of his three married daughters—Agnes, Joan and Katharine. In the second, a similar deed,[90]in favour of three other daughters—Margaret (then married to Alexander Webbe of Bearley), Joyce and Alice. Mary is not mentioned, probably because the Asbies estate was even then devoted to her.

Robert Arden, sick in body, but good and perfect of remembrance, made his last will and testament[91]November 23, 1556, and he must have died shortly after. This will of itself answers the question as to his worldly position, and as to the meaning of the word "husbandman" in his case. The wage of a working "husbandman" at the time was from 25s. to 33s. a year.[92]His will discloses property on a level with many "gentlemen" of his time and his county. It gives a strong suggestion that Mrs. Arden was not on the best of terms with her stepchildren. Robert bequeathed his soul "to God and the blessed Lady Saint Mary, and all the holye company of heaven," and his body to be buried in the churchyard of Saint John the Baptist at Aston Cantlowe. "Also I bequeathe to my youngest daughter Marye all my land at Willincote caulide Asbyes, and the crop upon the grownde sown and tythde as hitt is ... and vilixiiisiiiidof money to be paid her or ere my goodes be devided. Also I gyveand bequeathe to my daughter Ales, the thyrde parte of all my goodes moveable and unmoveable in fylde and towne after my dettes and leggessese performyde, besydes that goode she hath of her owne all this tyme. Allso I give and bequethe to Agnes my wife vilixiiisiiiidupon this condysion that she shall sofer my dowghter Ales quyetly to ynjoye half my copyhold in Wyllincote during the tyme of her wyddewoode; and if she will nott soffer my dowghter Ales quyetly to occupy half with her, then I will that my wyfe shall have but iiilivisviiid, and her gintur in Snytterfelde. Item, I will that the residew of all my goodes, moveable and unmovable, my funeralles and my dettes dyschargyd, I gyve and bequeathe to my other children to be equaleye devidide amongeste them by the descreshyon of Adam Palmer, Hugh Porter of Snytterfelde, and Jhon Skerlett, whom I do orden and make my overseers of this my last will and testament, and they to have for their peynes takyng in this behalfe xxsapece. Allso I orden and constitute and make my full exequtores Ales and Marye my dawghters of this my last will and testament, and they to have no more for their paynes takyng now as afore geven to them. Allso I gyve and bequethe to every house that hath no teeme in the paryche of Aston, to every house iiiid. Thes being witnesses Sir William Bouton Curett, Adam Palmer, Jhon Skerlett, Thomas Jhenkes, William Pytt, with other mo." Proved at Worcester, December 16, 1556, by Alice and Mary Arden. It is interesting to learn from the inventory the nature of the furniture, and the prices of the period. There were eleven "painted cloths" in the various rooms, the substitutes for ancient tapestry even in good homes.

The value of the goods, movable and unmovable, independently of the landed property, was calculated to be £76 11s. 10d. This was a large sum for theperiod. Probably even then the goods were worth much more, as the prices entered are relatively low for the date. Certainly it is necessary to multiply the value by ten to translate it into modern figures, and that would give a good estimate for the saleable value of a houseful of furniture now.

After her sister's and her stepmother's legacies of £6 13s. 4d., after the payment of 4d. to every family in the parish, and of 20s. to the overseers, all debts being paid, Alice was to have a third—that is, the third that by old English law belonged to the dead. She would thus have at least £13 worth in kind, along with her interest in Snitterfield and what goods "she had of her own." The others would have about £5 each. It may be noted the widow was left no furniture or goods. She may have claimed the widow's third, though the effect of her jointure was to disturb the law of dower. She seems to have had furniture of her own. She evidently stayed on in her husband's home, and apparently brought her own children there.

Mary Hill was married to John Fulwood, November 15, 1561, at Aston Cantlow. Agnes Arden, widow, made her will in 1578. The opinion that there was no great friendliness with her husband's family is strengthened thereby, yet there was not the absolute estrangement some writers have supposed. Halliwell-Phillipps states that she does not mention a member of her husband's family. She left legacies to the poor, to her godchildren, to her grandchildren, and the residue to her son and son-in-law in trust for their children. She left twelve pence to John Lambert, her stepdaughter Joan's son, and twelve pence to each of her brother Alexander Webbe's children, one of whom, at least, was the son of her stepdaughter Margaret. She left nothing to any of her stepdaughters, and nothing to any of the young Shakespeares. The overseerswere Adam Palmer and George Gibbs; so she had been able to keep friendly with her husband's friend. The witnesses were Thomas Edkins (a stepdaughter's husband), Richard Petyfere, and others. She was buried on December 29, 1580, and the inventory of her goods was taken January 19, 1580-81. The low rate at which it is calculated is remarkable. "Item 38 sheep £3; fivescore pigs £13 4s.," etc. The sum total was £45. The will was proved on March 31, 1581.

The friendliness between the Shakespeares and the other Arden families seems to have been unstable. Aunt Joan's husband, Edmund Lambert, of Barton-on-the-Heath, and their son John, through rather sharp practice for cousinly customs, became owners of Asbies. There is a hazy suspicion even about the bonâ fides of the Edkins. Agnes had settled rather far off at the home of the Stringers, in Stockton, co. Salop. In February, 1569, Thomas Stringer devised to Alexander Webbe his share of Snitterfield. John Shakespeare was one of the witnesses to the indenture. Alexander Webbe, it is true, made John Shakespeare, his brother-in-law, the overseer of his will at his death in 1573.

Joyce Arden and Alice Arden seem both to have died unmarried, without leaving a will. There is no further mention of Alice, the wealthier of the two maiden sisters, resident at Aston Cantlow, neither has there hitherto been made any suggestion concerning Joyce, and her death does not appear in the parish registers. Now, it was an exceedingly common custom of the time for poorer single relatives to enter into the service of wealthier members of the family; for "superfluous women" even, who were not poor, to go where they were wanted in other homes. Might she not have gone in such a capacity to one of the houses of the Ardens of Park Hall? In Worcestershire, near Stourbridge, there is a parish called Pedmore, and ahall of the same name, then inhabited by the Arden family. The registers there record the death of a "Mistress Joyce Arden" in 1557, to whose family there is no clue: and I cannot but think she was Shakespeare's aunt, as the Joyce of Park Hall was married.

The Webbes[93]gradually bought up the reversionary shares of the other Arden sisters in Snitterfield, and held the whole as tenants under Mrs. Arden, widow. But the story of the Shakespeares' transfer is so curiously mixed up with their other actions that they must be taken together, in order to get a contemporary view of the matter. We find that John Shakespeare had apparently pinched himself in 1575 to purchase two houses in Stratford-on-Avon for £40, believed to be in Henley Street[94]. By 1578, for some reasons not explained, he was excused his share in municipal charges[95], and by a will of "Roger Sadler" Baker in that year, we know that he was in debt to him, and under circumstances that necessitated a security. "Item of Edmund Lambert and —— Cornish for the debte of Mr. John Shakesper vli[96]." John Shakespeare mortgaged Asbies to Edmund Lambert for a loan of £40 on November 14, 1578[97], the fine being levied Easter, 1579, the mortgagee treating the matter as a purchase[98].

There is a curious complexity caused by a lease of the same property being apparently granted to George Gibbes, and a double fine levied[99]—i.e., parties brought in who were strangers to the title; and a double fine appears to have been levied for technical purposes when the estate was entailed[100]. These other names were Thomas Webbe and Humphrey Hooper[101]. The mortgage loan was made repayable at Michaelmas, 1580, when the lease commenced to run, and things seemed to have been made safe for the Shakespeares. Then they proceeded to sell a parcel[102]of the Snitterfield property to Robert Webbe for £40 on October 15, 1579. The description is worded loosely: "John Shakespeare yeoman and Mary his wife ... all that theire moietye, parte and partes, be yt more or lesse, of and in twoo messuages," etc. The indenture is long[103], and written in English, and would seem to have been signed at Wilmcote[104].

A bond was drawn up on the 25th of the same month, carrying a penalty of twenty marks against the Shakespeares if they infringed the above conditions, also signed in the presence of Nicholas Knolles, the Vicar of Auston or Alveston[105]. Another deed, the final concord,[106]is drawn up in Latin: "in curia domine Regine apud Westmonasterium a die Pasche in quindecim dies anno regnorum Elizabethe ... vicesimo secundo ... inter Robertum Webbe querentem et Johannem Shackspere et Mariam uxorem ejus, deforciantesde sexta parte duarum partium duorum messuagiorum...idem Robertus dedit predictis Johannis et Marie quadraginta libras sterlingorum." On this sale Robert Webbe paid a fine of 6s. 8d. for licence of entry to the Sheriff of the County.[107]

Now, this apparently second sale has puzzled many Shakespeareans, as well as the "fraction." Even Halliwell-Phillipps[108]supposes that "John Shakespeare had some small interest in Snitterfield of his own," which he parted with for £4, and that "Mary Shakespeare was entitled to a share through an earlier settlement." Others have thought, however, that the first was but a draught deed of the indenture, the £4 the earnest money, and the "final concord" for £40 the conclusion of the whole. This is supported by the absolute indefiniteness of the first as to part or parts in two messuages, and by the apparent definiteness of the second. But the peculiar wording has further puzzled many writers. In referring to Robert Arden's settlements, we find that one tenement is settled upon three daughters, and the other tenement settled upon other three daughters, Mary's name not being mentioned. How, then, was she empowered to sell any share? It could only be by inheritance or by gift from some of her other sisters. The course of events showed it was not of free gift. But Joyce and Alice had apparently vanished from the scene. If they left no will, their shares would be divisible into equal parts among their surviving sisters by common law, and through her fraction of their shares Mary Shakespeare could step in as part owner of Snitterfield. Now, it is quite possible that the first sale of 1579 was an indefinite sale of Mary's share of Joyce's portion; and it ispossible that Alice died in that year, and increased the share of her sisters, so that the two portions were treated together in the deed of 1580. Seeing that the two portions of the property had long been held together by the Webbes, it is quite natural to read "the sixth part of two" rather than "the third of one," as each sister originally read her share. Now, if Mary had lost both of her sisters, it is quite natural to read her share as "the sixth part of twopartsor portions of two tenements." This has not yet been thus simply explained. But it is not strictly correct; for while the share of the first sister would bring Mary "the sixth part of one part of two tenements," the death of the second sister should have secured her thefifth partof one part of two tenements, plus the fraction already inherited by the second from the first, or, more simply, the fifth part of two parts of two tenements. It was near enough, however, for all practical purposes, and Robert Webbe seems duly to have handed over the money to John Shakespeare. Robert Webbe's eagerness to buy, and the Shakespeares' need of the money, seems to have determined the price. Forty pounds was a large sum for such a fraction of the whole. Robert Webbe's readiness may be accounted for, because he was on the eve of marriage. There was a new settlement[109]of estates at Snitterfield on the occasion of his marriage to Mary, daughter of John Perkes, September 1, 23 Elizabeth, and an agreement between Edward Cornwall[110](stepfather to Robert Webbe) and William Perkes, respecting an estate in Snitterfield, and a proviso against any claim from the Ardens.

But it was not from the Ardens that any difficulty arose. Before the death of Mrs. Agnes Arden, she was called to support her claim and that of all her stepdaughters, based on a supposition of entail, againstthe descendants of the Mayowe who had sold his property to Thomas and Robert Arden in 1501. Being described as old and infirm, a Commission was directed to Bartholomew Hales, Lord of the Manor of Snitterfield, and Nicholas Knolles, Vicar of Alveston, to take her deposition concerning it, in July, 1580.[111]She died in December of that year; and in 1582 John Shakespeare,[112]and his brother Henry, and Adam Palmer, with others, were called on to give evidence in the case between Thomas Mayowe and Robert Webbe, before Sir Fulk Grevyle, Sir Thomas Lucy, Humphrey Peto, and William Clopton, Commissioners. Their depositions in support of the deed of transfer seem to have been sufficient, and we hear no more of Mayowe. The newly-married couple settled down on the inheritance of the Ardens, and the old home of the Shakespeares.

Concerning Mary Arden's special inheritance at Asbies, there is a sadder story to tell. Whether John Shakespeare could read or not, he was certainly not a Latin scholar, and though not ignorant of many points of common law, was not up to all the technicalities used at times to confuse the truth. It is evident that there had been some verbal agreement between him and Edmund Lambert on which he relied, but that the written deed was all that John Lambert accepted.[113]On selling the main portion of his wife's property at Snitterfield, John Shakespeare seems to have walked right off with the money to Edmund Lambert, of Barton-on-the-Heath, to redeem his mortgage, and reinstate himself as owner of Asbies, free to grant a lease or sale on his own terms. But through a quibble, which "was not in the bond," Edmund Lambert refused to accept this until certain other debts werealso paid. Thereby he gained the shelter of time, which "was in the bond," and put Shakespeare at a legal disadvantage, though it is evident from the later papers that a verbal agreement had taken place to extend the time, seeing that the money had been tendered. We may be sure that the property was worth more than £40 in hard cash to either, and more, in romantic associations, to the Shakespeares. For it was a part of Thomas Arden's original property. How he came by it, no one is sure. French[114]suggests it might have been given him by the Beauchamps of Bergavenny, who had intermarried with the Ardens, and had been more than once known to have been in friendly relations. The guardian of Robert Arden, his grandfather, had been the Lady of Bergavenny, and Elizabeth Beauchamp was godmother to Elizabeth Arden, daughter of Walter and sister of Thomas, whom we take to be the Thomas of Aston Cantlow.

Edmund Lambert died in 1587, and his son John seems to have been threatened by the Shakespeares with a law-suit for the recovery of Asbies, and proposed as a compromise to pay a further sum of £20, thereby securing Asbies as by purchase. To this, however, the consent, not only of Mary, but of William, her heir, was necessary, and the poet is supposed to have come down to Stratford on the occasion to act with his parents. But probably there was some other hitch: the £20 may have been held to be covered by the "other debts," which already had done service for Edmund Lambert; or the Shakespeares weighed their desire to have back the land, which they probably then wished, with their growing family, to farm themselves. Nothing seems then to have been settled, and they were too poor to risk the perils of a great law-suit. Doubtless, with sad hearts and bitter retrospect, theyregretted their unlucky purchases in 1575, which seemed to have pinched them so, and wished at least they had been contented with the half, with the one tenement in Henley Street that formed part of their residence. For, had they only spent £20 then instead of £40, they could have repaid their hard-dealing relative not only the smaller mortgage, but the "other debts," out of the £40 they received for Snitterfield from the more liberal Robert Webbe.

Back to Index Next