In the kitchen are 4 pans, 4 pots, 3 candlesticks, a chafingdish, a frying-pan, a gridiron; further, an axe, 2 hatchets, 4 casks, 4 pails, a baking-trough, a hand-saw, &c. The inventory of live stock consisted of 8 oxen, 2 bulls, 7 cows and 4 calves, amounting to £24 in value altogether; of 4 horses and 3 foals, estimated at £8; of, probably, some 52 sheep, valued at £7; 9 pigs valued at 26s. 8d.; of bees and fowls, valued at 5s., &c. How simple, nay, how meagre were the possessions of the household! With the exception of the marriage-bed no others are mentioned, so that the daughters probably slept on sacks of straw or coarse mats.' And how few the articles of household furniture! The only things beyond the absolute necessaries of life are two painted cloths in the hall, five similar ones in the chamber, and four others of the same sort are mentioned, without it being specified where they were used. There is not a word about body-linen or dresses, or of vessels for eating and drinking, nor any mention of any articles of silver or even tin. The family probably used wooden spoons and bowls-forks were not then used in England. Nevertheless, this family, although by no means rich, occupied a position higher both as regards rank and wealth than did the Shakespeares, and Mary Arden was decidedly what is called a good match for John Shakespeare.

Mary's marriage, as already said, must have taken place in the year 1557, as her first child was baptized on the 15th of September, 1558. That she was still unmarried at the time of her father's death is proved by his will, where she is mentioned only by her first name. As regards the inequality of station between Mary Arden and the Shakespeare family, it is generally supposed that-owing to her having been left an orphan-Mary could not have been very particular about the social position of her suitor, especially as her stepmother does not appear to have acted very kindly towards the children; at all events, in her will, drawn up in 1579, she leaves no remembrance to any one of them. Whatever the lover may have lacked in rank was compensated for by the state of his worldly circumstances; as early as 1556 he possessed two properties in Stratford, one in Henley Street, the other in

2

1 Compare Harrison's Description of England, ed. Furnivall, p. xxi, seq., and p. 240 seq.

2 Halliwell, Life of Shakespeare, 12 ff.

Greenhill Street,' even though both houses may have been small and unimportant. Then, too, John Shakespeare was, at all events, a man of good parts, of a steady and energetic character, probably also stately and prepossessing, if we may be allowed to draw an inference from the son's good looks-for both Aubrey and Davies' expressly state that the poet was "well-shaped and handsome." The confidence and position of !distinction which John Shakespeare enjoyed among his fellowcitizens are an undoubted proof of the steadiness and trustworthiness of his character, as well as of his capacity in business matters; hence it would seem that the poet inherited the latter quality from both parents. It can hardly be doubted that John Shakespeare's education and schooling were defective, but Mary Arden was not likely to find anything very wrong in that. The one test we have of judging of the schooling given in those days-and as the poet has himself pointed out -may be obtained from the question (to put it in Jack Cade's words): "Dost thou use to write thy name? or hast thou a mark to thyself, like an honest plain-dealing man?"-whereupon the Clerk of Chatham replies: "Sir, I thank God, I have been so well brought up that I can write my name.” 3 But even this criterion often leaves us in doubt, for, according to Lord Campbell, it frequently happened that persons quite able to write their names were content to make their marks. John Shakespeare, too, often availed himself of a mark resembling the letter A, which, as Malone thinks, he probably chose out of courtesy to his wife (Arden); but this supposed sign of affection is as little probable as Halliwell's conjecture that the mark represented an instrument used in the glove trade. Robert Bigsby has corrected Malone's romantic explanation in so far, by declaring that the mark was no other than the so-called caret (A), which was frequently made use of by persons unable to write, and which in John Shakespeare's case had an additional cross line. However, there exists a document in Stratford, a facsimile of which is given by Knight

2

Knight, Wm. Shakspere; a Biography, p. 18; Outlines, i. p. 25.

Compare De Quincey, Shakspeare, 49 ff, where their testimony is supported by other reasons.

Henry VI., Part II., iv. 2.

Shakespeare's Legal Acquirements, London, 1859, p. 15.

Life of Shakespeare, p. 65.

Signature of John Shakespeare in Shakespeare Society's Papers, i.

111 ff.

C

and Halliwell,' at the bottom of which are nineteen names of members of the town council of Stratford; and of these nineteen aldermen, only seven were able to write their names, while the others-the high bailiff too-made their marks. John Shakespeare's name also occurs in this list, and Charles Knight endeavours to prove on palæographical grounds, ingeniously worked out, that John Shakespeare must have written the name himself, and that the mark beside it does not belong to his name, but to the one next on the list. This supposition has also been adopted by Lord Campbell, who believes that John Shakespeare sometimes used his own signature and sometimes his mark. Halliwell, on the other hand, confirms Malone's observation that John Shakespeare usually put his mark a little below his name, and that this is the case also in the document referred to. He even points out that John Shakespeare changed his mark, and that later he made use of the customary cross. If, therefore, John Shakespeare did, in this one case, sign his name, which is scarcely likely, at all events it is certain that as a rule he preferred making his mark, probably because he found it too troublesome to write his name. Halliwell's supposition that he could not write his name seems most probable.

John Shakespeare had removed to Stratford in the year 1551, or even earlier, and was settled in Henley Street as early as 1552. Our first documentary acquaintance with him there is connected with such an exceedingly unpoetical proceeding, that we doubt whether anything of the kind could be said of the father of any other poet. On the 29th of April, 1552, John Shakespeare-together with his neighbours (?) Humfred Reynolds and Adrian Quiney-were each fined twelve pence for having, contrary to the orders of the magis trate, allowed a dunghill to stand in front of their houses in Henley Street. However unpleasant the large fine may have been to those concerned, this dunghill is of advantage to us, in so far as it proves that John Shakespeare was engaged in farm work. As is well known, there has for many years been a dispute as to what his occupation was; this is now

2

1 Wm. Shakspere; a Biography, p. 16; Life of Shakespeare, p. 18.

2 A later regulation (1563) about dunghills (sterquinaria) is quoted by Halliwell, Life of Shakespeare, p. 27, note. As will be shown subsequently, the town council had every reason to make strict regulations with regard to

believed to be a settled point, for on the evidence of a document he is now declared to have been a glover. Rowe's statement that he was a "dealer in wool," would not be incompatible with this, for Halliwell' has pointed out another instance in which the traffic in gloves and wool were carried on together. The document referred to was first published by Malone, and is given in facsimile by Knight and by Halliwell; it is preserved in Stratford, and is dated the 17th of June, 1555, or 1556, as Halliwell more correctly has it; in the midst of the Latin text is the one English word "glover," referring to John Shakespeare, but is so indefinite that Knight even cannot suppress his doubts, and indeed straightway denies the matter. Halliwell, on the other hand, finds the cause of the indefiniteness to have arisen simply from the imperfect facsimile which Knight made use of, and is himself quite convinced that John Shakespeare was a manufacturer of gloves. The supposition, however, will remain doubtful until the genuineness of the document has been further attested, and Knight justly points out that in the numerous other cases in which John Shakespeare is mentioned nothing is said of his having been engaged in that trade; whereas he is, in some instances, spoken of in connection with occupations that can hardly have been combined with the manufacture of gloves-e.g., on the 19th of November, 1556, he brings an action against one Henry Field, on account of his having unlawfully detained eighteen quarters of grain. It is true, that in this case also as Knight himself admits the contents of the document are somewhat doubtful, but this does not affect the force of the objection, and Halliwell has not refuted it, has not even taken any notice of it. The manufacture of gloves may have been a lucrative trade, as gloves were not only articles of luxury worn by knights and on festive occasions, but had, in fact, become articles necessary for everyday wear." That John Shake

Life of Shakespeare, p. 22.

2 Vol. ii. 78.

Wm. Shakspere; a Biography, p. 104; Halliwell, p. 21.

"Thomas

It is an action raised against John Shakespeare for a debt of £8, which was tried "coram Johanni Burbage ballivo." The words are: Siche de Arscotte in com. Wigorn. queritur versus Johannem Shakyspere de Stretford in com. Warwici glover in placito quod redd. ei octo libras, &c." Compare De Quincey, Shakspeare, 26 ff.; Malone's Shakespeare, by Boswell (1821), ii. 79 ff. According to Malone there were at least seven, if not ten, manufacturers of gloves at Stratford in 1618, and their trade,

6

speare was engaged in some trade seems certain from his having moved to Stratford; or did he take this step with a view of disposing more advantageously of the produce of his father's farm? or may not both occupations have been carried on together? At any rate, the various trades were at that time but little developed in Stratford; they were not at all sharply defined, nor was there any thought of any such strict division of labour in the small provincial town as we have

according to him, was by no means a lucrative one. In The Winter's Tale, iv. 3, Autolycus trades in ribbons and gloves; the latter were frequently bought as presents, and were often perfumed for that purpose (“as sweet as damask roses "), especially when presented as tokens of affection or bridal gifts. This we learn, among others, from Love's Labour's Lost, v. 2; from Ben Jonson's Every Man in His Humour, ii. 2; and still more fully from Beaumont and Fletcher's Knight of the Burning Pestle, i. 1:

:--

Anyone but a lover would certainly have thought that money enough, especially considering the value of money at the time. That gloves, which had been received as presents, were worn on hats as a mark of favour is evident among other cases-from Henry V., iv., 7, 8, and from King Lear, iii. 4. When Queen Elizabeth in 1556 came to Oxford, six pairs of very beautiful gloves were presented to her in the name of the University (Nichol's Progresses, i. 211), and, according to Knight, Wm. Shakspere; a Biography, p. 54, at the harvest festival even reapers received presents of gloves. In Brooke's Romeus and Juliet (ed. Daniel, p. 76, 1. 2511), "marriage gloues and "funeral gloues" are mentioned. It is probable the expensive gloves used in falconry were in great request.-S. Harting, The Ornithology of Shakespeare (London, 1871), p. 78. In The Merry Wives, i. 4, Mrs. Quickly compares a large round beard to " a glover's paring knife," which certainly might seem to suggest Shakespeare's intimate acquaintance with glove-making. Shakespeare repeatedly alludes to cheveril gloves and to their elasticity, which latter quality he recommends as a model to wit and conscience, in As You Like It, iii. 1, Romeo and Juliet, ii. 4, and Henry VIII., ii. 3. According to these passages Shakespeare was well acquainted with gloves-but with what was he not well acquainted? How quickly the fashion of wearing gloves became general is shown in Thomas Heywood's If You Know Not Me, You Know Nobody (1606), Part II. i. 1 (ed. Collier, for the Shakespeare Society, p. 77): "Then, your mask, silk lace, washed gloves... as common as coals from Newcastle; you shall not have a kitchen-maid scrape trenchers without her washed gloves."

...