parrishe of Stratford upon Avon" is headed "The names of all sutch recusantes as have bene hearetofore presented for not comminge monethlie to the churche according to hir Majesties lawes, and yet are thoughte to forbeare the church for debtt and for feare of processe, or for soom other worse faultes, or for age, sicknes, or impotencye of bodie;" and among the names of nine men subjoined, 22—with a memorandum opposite to them, "It is sayd that these laste nine coom not to churche for feare of processe for debtte," 23—the name of " Mr. John Shackespere" stands third. Hence it certainly would seem that dislike of the established worship was not the cause of his absenting himself from church:24 and we must recollect too, that as a member of the Corporation he had taken the customary oath.— In concluding this account of his embarrassments, it is proper to mention that they were never so extreme as to compel him to part with the freehold houses (or house25) in Henley-street.26 22 Followed by the names of six women. 23 In the original copies of the presentments at Warwick Castle, the memorandum runs thus, "Wee suspect theese nyne persons next ensuinge absent themselves for feare of prosses." 24 Mr. Collier (Life of Shakespeare, p. 109, sec. ed.) thinks that he could not have been arrested on a Sunday; but the words of the document are express to the contrary. 25 See note 17, p. 16a. 26 In Jan. 1596-7 he made over to George Badger a small piece of ground—“ a narrow slip extending the whole length between Henleystreet and the Guild Pits" (see Halliwell's Life of Shakespeare, p. 33, folio ed.): but he would seem to have parted with it merely to accommodate his neighbour Badger. In 1597, John and Mary Shakespeare filed a bill in Chancery, for the recovery of the estate of Ashbies, against John Lambert, son of the Edmund Lambert, to whom in 1578 they had mortgaged that property for forty pounds, on the condition that it should revert to them, if they repaid the money on or before Michaelmas-day 1580. They alleged that the money in discharge had been tendered to Edmund Lambert, who had refused to receive it unless other moneys which they confessed they owed him were also paid: and it was only to be expected that they should contrast the palmy state of the defendant with their own less fortunate condition," the sayde John Lamberte ys of greate wealthe and abilitie and well frended and alied amongest gentlemen and freeholders of the countrey in the saide countie of Warwicke where he dwelleth, and your saide oratours are of small wealthe and verey fewe frends and alyance in the saide countie." In his answer to this bill John Lambert denied that the money had been tendered, and maintained that by his father's death he had become legally possessed of the estate. His answer drew forth a replication from the complainants, in which they reiterated their former statements. How the business ended is not known: perhaps it was settled by some private arrangement, for no decree in the case has been discovered.-That John Shakespeare and his wife should have attempted to carry on so expensive a law-suit without pecuniary assistance from their son the dramatist is altogether unlikely he was then in the receipt of a considerable income; and per haps it was solely by his advice that the proceedings were instituted. In the Heralds' College are two drafts of a grant of arms by Dethick to John Shakespeare, dated 1596, and a draft of another grant by Dethick and Camden, dated 1599; the second grant authorizing him to impale with his own bearings those of Arden.27* 27 If we could rely on a note at the bottom of one of the drafts of 1596, we must believe that long before that date John Shakespeare had been in communication with the heralds: "This John showeth a patierne thereof [i. e. a trick of the arms] under Clarent. Cooke's hand in paper xx. years past." But the said note is no more borne out by facts than the other notes which accompany it and some have not scrupled to assert that these notes originated with Dethick, when he wished to clear himself from the charge of having granted arms improperly, and to John Shakespeare among others. So I wrote in 1857: but, according to The Herald and Genealogist, Part vi., the notes in question are not without "claim to be credited." p. 500. 27* 1863. The subjoined extract is the continuation of what I have cited in note 12, p. 16a, from The Herald and Genealogist, Part vi. "The arms of Arden of Park Hall, in the parish of Curdworth, of which John Arden was chief, were: Ermine, a fess checquy or and azure, -a feudal coat derived from that of the Earldom of Warwick, Checquy or and azure, a chevron ermine. The coat which was granted by Dethick and Camden to be quartered with Shakespere for Arden of Wilmcote was Gules, three crosslets fitchée and a chief or, with a martlet for difference-a coat totally different from the former. There was every inclination on the part of Dethick, or whoever was the herald who made this sketch,* to assign to Mistress Shakespere the coat of the Warwickshire Ardens; but his resolution failed. We see that, after the fess checquy was sketched in the first instance, it is scratched through, and the coat of cross-crosslets and a chief is placed in the margin instead. It evidently occurred to the herald's recollection * "Tricked in the margin of the draft grant of 1599" [and given here in The Herald and Genealogist]. -The mention made in these documents of the ancestors of John Shakespeare having been advanced and rewarded for their services by King Henry the Seventh is not a little perplexing: we find no memorial of any honours or rewards bestowed by that monarch on any person named Shakespeare. Are we, therefore, to refer the expressions, not to the ancestors of John Shakespeare, but to those of his wife? or must we regard them as mere flourishes of the heralds, by whom applicants were sometimes furnished with ancestors as well that the Ardens of Parkhall were still flourishing among the gentry of Warwickshire,—a family of high connections, which in the three generations contemporary with Shakespere matched with "Throckmorton, Corbet, and Fielding; and he could not venture so far as to proclaim, without proof, that their humble namesakes at Wilmcote were an offshoot from them. That such was really the case is still very probable; though not in the way which Mr. Malone and his followers in Shakesperian biography have assumed. If it be inquired how it was that the heralds were so bold in their verbal assertions, and yet so timid in their actual concession of armorial insignia, it may be explained by a state of general knowledge very different to our own. Whilst letters were comparatively little understood, the language of arms was one which was then appreciated by those who had not learned their letters. Besides, it has to be considered that a grant of arms, though termed 'patent,' was really known but to few; and it was a document held by the family in whose favour it was issued; but the arms themselves were actually published to the world, were canvassed by the neighbours, and if unfairly acquired were as certainly disputed. So that in both respects the usages of Shakespere's day placed the undue assumption of arms or of pedigree in a position the reverse of our modern reception and estimation of such matters. The coat of the crosslets fitchée was really that of the Ardernes of Alvanley in Cheshire, and which has descended to the Lords Alvanley of our own day. It first appears upon a seal used by Sir Peter de Arderne of Aldford in the same county in the 17th of Edward I., which seal is as with coat-armour?-In all probability John Shakespeare sought this distinction at the instance of his son. William, whose profession of actor prohibited him from directly soliciting it for himself: and we certainly need not doubt that before 1599 the prosperity of the son had secured the father, during the remainder of his days, against any recurrence of those difficulties which had so long beset him. According to Rowe, John and Mary Shakespeare attached to a charter now in the possession of the historian of Cheshire. There would of course be the same reasons against the coat of Arden of Alvanley being assigned as a quartering to Shakespere, as applied to Arden of Parkhall, besides the greater improbability that the Ardens of Wilmcote had branched off from that more distant race; but, as Cheshire was further away, there was not the same danger of dispute. It is still remarkable that this quartering, so far as we know, was not actually assumed by Shakespere. Upon his monument in Stratford church the arms of Shakespere appear alone. No armorial seal of Shakespere has been discovered; but on that of the Poet's daughter Susanna the coat of Shakespere alone is impaled with Hall. Nor even in any heraldic manuscript has there been found a quartering of Shakespere and Arden. From this it might be argued that the second patent did not pass, but only the first. If so, what becomes of the Poet's passionate love for the distinctions of Heraldry? Some of those writers who have considered these matters have supposed that the grant of 1596 was not perfected, and that therefore the application was resumed in 1599. We are inclined to think that both grants were duly executed. The former bears a precise date, the 20th Oct. 1596; the date of the latter is in part accidentally torn away. A second patent was requisite in order to enable the Shakesperes to quarter arms for Arden; and, as we have already seen, there was great doubt what those arms should be. Therefore it was that a second application was made to the Office of Arms." pp. 503-5. |