Shakespeare on the Record: Researching an Early Modern Life 9781350003514, 9781350003545, 9781350003538

Citation preview

Shakespeare on the Record

i

ii

Shakespeare on the Record Researching an Early Modern Life Edited by Hannah Leah Crummé

iii

THE ARDEN SHAKESPEARE Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC 1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway New York. NY, 10018, USA BLOOMSBURY, THE ARDEN SHAKESPEARE and the Arden Shakespeare logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2019 Copyright © Hannah Leah Crummé and contributors, 2019 Hannah Leah Crummé and contributors have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the authors of this work. For legal purposes the Acknowledgements on pp. xv–xvi constitute an extension of this copyright page. Cover design: Irene Martinez Costa Cover image: William Shakespeare’s last will and testament (page 3 of 3) © Ian Dagnall/Alamy Stock Photo All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN :

HB : ePDF : eBook:

978-1-350-00351-4 978-1-350-00353-8 978-1-350-00352-1

Typeset by RefineCatch Limited, Bungay, Suffolk To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

iv

CONTENTS

List of illustrations vii Notes on contributors xii Acknowledgements xv List of abbreviations xvii

Introduction: ‘All saws of books, all forms, all pressures past’ 1 Hannah Leah Crummé and Lucy Munro 1 Neighbours’ petition against the Blackfriars playhouse, November 1596 23 Alan H. Nelson 2 Shakespeare’s coat of arms: The surviving manuscripts in context 33 Heather Wolfe 3 The Quiney papers Lena Cowen Orlin

77

4 Shakespeare indentures and chirographs Alan H. Nelson

109

5 The course of the seals: An elaborate process of procedures and checks 115 Adrian Ailes 6 Shakespeare and the playing companies Lucy Munro

131

v

vi

CONTENTS

7 Shakespeare at court: Audit Office records W. R. Streitberger

143

8 Shakespeare and the Replingham agreement Robert Bearman

165

9 An archival and material reading of Shakespeare’s will Katy Mair 10 The Blackfriars deed and the dawning golden age of accessible documents 199 Eric M. Johnson Notes 207 Bibliography 237 Index 243

179

ILLUSTRATIONS

0.1

London, TNA E 179/146/354. Shakespeare listed as a tax defaulter on a payment of five shillings. 15 November 1597. 7 0.2 London, TNA E 179/146/354. Shakespeare listed as a tax defaulter on payment of five shillings. 15 November 1597. 7 0.3 London, TNA STAC 5/A12/35. Alleyn against Burbage, regarding Shoreditch and Bankside, moving a theatre, possibly the Globe. 11–13 0.4(v) London, TNA CP 25/2/237/44/45 EliziMich (15v). Foot of fine by which Hercules Underhill conveyed New Place to William Shakespeare. 1602. 15 0.4 London, TNA CP 25/2/237/44/45 EliziMich (15). Foot of fine by which Hercules Underhill conveyed New Place to William Shakespeare. 1602. 16 0.5 London, TNA REQ 4/1/4/1 (1a). Shakespeare’s deposition in Bellott v. Mountjoy. 1612. 18 0.6 London, TNA C54/2184 m. 45. Enrolment of a bargain and sale conveying a property (Walker to Shakespeare). 10 March 1613. 20 1.1 London, TNA SP 12/260, f. 176. Petition to the Privy Council against a playhouse in Blackfriars, November 1596. Created in approximately 1633. 25 1.2 London, TNA SP 16/205, f. 38. Petition to the Privy Council against the playhouse in Blackfriars, 21 January 1618/19. Created in approximately 1633. 26 1.3 London, TNA SP 16/205, f. 34. Petition to William [Laud?], Archbishop of Canterbury, against the playhouse in Blackfriars. Created in approximately 1633. 27 2.1 London, College of Arms, Record Shakespeare Draft Grant of Arms 1 (formerly MS Vincent 157, no. 23). William Dethick, Garter King of Arms. First draft of grant of arms to John Shakespeare, 20 October 1596. 34 2.2 London, College of Arms, Record Shakespeare Draft Grant of Arms 2 (formerly MS Vincent 157, no. 24). William Dethick, vii

viii

ILLUSTRATIONS

Garter King of Arms. Second draft of grant of arms to John Shakespeare, 20 October 1596. 2.3 London, College of Arms, Record Shakespeare Draft Grant of Arms 3 (formerly MS R21, no. 347). William Dethick, Garter King of Arms. Autograph draft of confirmation of arms to John Shakespeare, 1599. 2.4 Oxford, Queen’s College, MS 137, folio 54. Copy of William Dethick’s grant of arms to John Shakespeare in ‘Grant of arms to various families from 33 Elizabeth to 8 Car I inclusive chiefly by Sir William Dethick Garter King of Arms’, seventeenth century. 2.5 London, College of Arms, Record MS R21, fol. 285 recto. Ralph Brooke, York Herald. Autograph list of 25 coats of arms granted by William Dethick, in trick. 2.6 Washington, DC , Folger MS V.a.156, front endleaf (detail). Ralph Brooke, York Herald, compiler. Autograph list of arms granted by William Dethick on front endleaf of Coats of arms granted by William Dethick as York herald and Garter king of arms, compiled ca. 1595–ca. 1600. 2.7 Oxford, MS Ashmole 846, fol. 50r. William Dethick, Garter King of Arms, and William Camden, Clarenceaux King of Arms. William Dethick’s autograph copy of Garter and Clarenceaux’s reply to the York Herald, including the Shakespeare coat of arms in trick, 1602. 2.8 London, College of Arms, Record WZ fol. 276 verso (detail). William Dethick, Garter King of Arms, and William Camden, Clarenceaux King of Arms. Fair copy of Garter and Clarenceaux’s reply to the York Herald, including the Shakespeare coat of arms in trick, with autograph corrections by William Dethick, 1602. 2.9 Washington, DC , Folger MS V.a.350, page 28 (detail). ‘Shakespeare the player’ in A note of some coats and crests lately come to my hands given by William Dethick when he was York herald, Peter Le Neve’s ca. 1700 copy of the ca. 1600 original. 2.10 London, College of Arms, Record MS Dethick’s Grants X, folio 28 recto. ‘Shakespeare the player’ in A Noate of some few Coates and Creasts lately come to my hands. Geuen by Willm Dethick, when he was York Herald and sithence he hath executed the Office of Garter King of Armes, copy owned by John Lucas, 1642. 2.11 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Rylands c. 44, p. 82. ‘Shakespeare the player’ in Collections of grants of arms, seventeenth century, the arms in trick and emblazoned.

35

36

40

44

45

48

49

52

53

54

ILLUSTRATIONS

ix

2.12 Washington, DC , Folger MS V.b.92, folio 73 recto (detail). ‘Shakespeare the player’ in Scrapbook of heraldic and genealogical items of sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, collected ca. 1700. 55 2.13 Boston, Harold Bowditch Collection, Mss 1180, R. Stanton Avery Special Collections, New England Historic Genealogical Society, page 66 (detail). Shakespeare’s coat of arms in William Smith, The Book of Coates and Creasts. Promptuarium Armorum. Begonne the 28 of May 1602. P[er] W[illia]m Smith, Rougedragon. 64–5 2.14 London, British Library, Harley MS 5807, folio 82 recto (detail). Shakespeare’s coat of arms in contemporary copy of William Smith, The Book of Coates and Creasts. Promptuarium Armorum. Begonne the 28 of May 1602. P[er] W[illia]m Smith, Rougedragon, 1602–before 1618. 66 2.15 London, British Library, Harley MS 6140, folio 46 verso (detail). Shakespeare’s coat of arms, with falcon’s wings addorsed and inverted, in Pedegrees quartering Crests & grants of Arms p[er] Segar etc., ca. 1614–ca. 1705. 67 2.16 London, British Library, Harley MS 5807, folio 174 recto (detail). Shakespeare’s coat of arms, with falcon’s wings addorsed and inverted, in an armorial bound after The Book of Coates and Creasts. Promptuarium Armorum. Begonne the 28 of May 1602. P[er] W[illia]m Smith, Rougedragon. 68 2.17 London, British Library, Add MS 19,522, folio 91 recto (detail). Shakespeare’s coat of arms on a page devoted to ‘Lances’ in Ordinary of Arms, ca. seventeenth century. 70 2.18 London, College of Arms, William Smith’s alphabet (unpaginated) (detail). Shakespeare’s arms described in shorthand blazon in an Alphabet of Arms ‘per William Smith Rouge dragon 20 Iuly 1604’. 71 2.19 London, College of Arms, Alphabet of Arms in blazon (unpaginated). Shakespeare’s arms described in shorthand blazon in an Alphabet of Arms in blazon, ca. early seventeenth century. 72 2.20 Washington, DC , Folger MS V.a.163, folio 89 verso. Shakespeare’s arms in trick and in blazon in A list of gentlemen and their coats of arms and crests, ca. 1677. 73 3.1 Stratford-upon-Avon, SCLA ER 27/4. Letter from Richard Quiney to William Shakespeare, dated 25 October 1598. 78

x

3.2

5.1 5.2 5.3

5.4 5.5

5.6

5.7 5.8

7.1 7.2 7.3

8.1

8.2

ILLUSTRATIONS

Stratford-upon-Avon, SCLA ER 1/76/2, fol. 80r. The letter from Richard Quiney to William Shakespeare, as originally folded and sealed, as drawn by James Saunders. 89 London, TNA KB 27/1522/2. Portrait of James I from the plea roll of the Court of the King’s Bench, Easter term 1623. 116 ‘The course of the seals’ after 1535. 118 London, TNA PSO 2/22 pt 2. Signet Bill from the Signet Office to the Keeper of the Privy Seal Office, dated 17 May 1603. 121 London, TNA PSO 2/22 pt 2. Detail of signet applied to Signet Bill dated 17 May 1603. 122 London, TNA SO 3/2 p. 15. Docquet Book covering 1603 recording the preparation of Letters Patent for the Lord Chamberlain’s Men. 123 London, TNA C 82/1690 no. 78. Warrant from the Privy Seal Office to the Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, dated 18 May 1603. 124 London, TNA SC 13/N3. Second great seal of Elizabeth I. 127 London, TNA C 66/1608 m. 4. Licence enrolled on the Patent Roll from James I to Laurence Fletcher, William Shakespeare and others of the Lord Chamberlain’s Men, dated 19 May 1603. 128 London, TNA AO 3/908/13, fols 2a–b, Revels Office Ledger book, 1604–5, list of plays and masques. 154–5 London, TNA AO 3/908/14, fols 2a–b, Revels Office Ledger book, 1611–12, list of plays and masques. 156–62 London, TNA E 351/542, m. 207b, Treasurer of the Chamber Declared account, 15 March 1595, payment to Shakespeare. The London, TNA Audit Office copy is A01/33/386. 164 Stratford-upon-Avon, SCLA , ER 27/3. Agreement between William Replingham and William Shakespeare that Shakespeare would be recompensed for any losses he might suffer as a tithe-holder ‘by reason of anie Inclosure or decaye of Tyllage’ at Welcombe, 5 September 1614. 168 Stratford-upon-Avon, SCLA , BRU 15/7/11, as printed in Shakespeare and the Enclosure of the Common Fields of Welcombe, ed. C. M. Ingleby, following p. xiii. Rough plan of the land at Welcombe proposed for enclosure, annotated by Thomas Greene and perhaps drawn by him. 172

ILLUSTRATIONS

8.3

9.1 9.2 9.3

xi

Stratford-upon-Avon, SCLA , ER 1/1/85. Original letter from the Privy Council, signed by its members, to Sir Julius Caesar, Master of the Rolls, and Sir Edward Coke to take action in the dispute between William Combe and the Stratford-upon-Avon Corporation concerning the proposed enclosure at Welcombe. For the Privy Council register copy, see London, TNA , PC 2/30, p. 100. 177 London, TNA PROB 1/4, f. 1–3 of Shakespeare’s original will, photographed after recent conservation work. 186–8 The will photographed at 850nm infrared. 189–1 The will photographed at 1050nm Infrared 192–4

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Adrian Ailes is an Honorary Visiting Fellow at Bristol University having previously been a Principal Record Specialist in Early Modern Records at The National Archives, Kew, London. For his doctorate he studied Elias Ashmole’s heraldic visitation of Berkshire in 1665–6. He is a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London, a Council member of the Harleian Society, Honorary Secretary of the British Record Society and a VicePresident of The Heraldry Society. He has published widely on seals and heraldry, and sits on the editorial board of several international heraldic journals. Robert Bearman, MBE , FRH istS, former Head of Archives and Local Studies at the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, Stratford-upon-Avon, and Honorary Research Fellow, University of Birmingham, is the author of Shakespeare in the Stratford Records (1994) and Shakespeare’s Money (2016). He has also edited for the Dugdale Society, Minutes and Accounts of the Stratford-upon-Avon Corporation, 1599–1609 (2011), and is currently working on a further volume covering the years 1610–20. He is a major contributor to Shakespeare Documented, the online exhibition convened by the Folger Shakespeare Library, and has published articles in Shakespeare Quarterly, Shakespeare Survey, Memoria di Shakespeare and Midland History on issues affecting Shakespearean biography. Hannah Leah Crummé is Head of Special Collections and Archives at Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Oregon. Her work, which focuses on the impact of the Spanish language on the development of poetic and political ideas of the Sidney–Herbert–Dudley network, has appeared in Notes and Queries (2009), the Journal for the Spanish and Portuguese Society for English Renaissance Studies (2011), The Politics of Female Households: Ladies-in-Waiting across Europe (2013) and Studies in Philology (2017). Most recently, she edited Re-examining the Literary Coterie, 1580–1780 (2016). Currently, she is editing The Life and Papers of Jane Dormer, Duchess of Feria (1538–1612). In 2016 she co-curated By Me: William Shakespeare, an exhibition produced by The National Archives and King’s College London. She holds a PhD in Renaissance Literature and an MA in Early Modern Text and Transmission from King’s College London. xii

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

xiii

Eric M. Johnson is the Director of Digital Access at the Folger Shakespeare Library, where he heads the Digital Media and Publications division. He manages the Folger’s various digital initiatives, and oversees the journal Shakespeare Quarterly and Folger Editions series of Shakespeare’s complete works. He became known to the Shakespearean community as the creator of Open Source Shakespeare, one of the most widely used resources in the field. Before coming to the Folger, he developed successful online initiatives for a wide variety of public- and private-sector organizations. Eric holds an MA in English and a BA in history, and heads the board of advisors for the College of Humanities and Social Sciences at George Mason University. He also served as a staff non-commissioned officer in the US Marine Corps Reserve. Katy Mair is Head of Early Modern Records at The National Archives where she was heavily involved in coordinating the commemorations for the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare’s death. Her past publications include work on the letters of Lady Anne Bacon and early modern family relations. Lucy Munro is a Reader in Shakespeare and Early Modern Literature at King’s College London. She is the author of Children of the Queen’s Revels: A Jacobean Theatre Repertory (2005) and Archaic Style in English Literature, 1590–1674 (2013), and the editor of Edward Sharpham’s The Fleer (2006), William Shakespeare and George Wilkins’ Pericles (2007), Richard Brome’s The Queen and Concubine and The Demoiselle (2009), John Fletcher’s The Tamer Tamed (2010) and Thomas Dekker, John Ford and William Rowley’s The Witch of Edmonton (2016). Her essays have appeared in Huntington Library Quarterly, Modern Philology, Shakespeare and Aging and Society, and in collections such as The Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theatre, ed. Richard Dutton (2009), Performing Early Modern Drama Today, ed. Kathryn Prince and Pascale Aebischer (2012) and Childhood, Education and the Stage in Early Modern England, ed. Deanne Williams and Richard Preiss (2017). She is currently completing a book on Shakespeare and the King’s Men. Alan H. Nelson is Professor Emeritus in the Department of English at the University of California, Berkeley. His specializations are paleography, bibliography and the reconstruction of the literary life and times of medieval and Renaissance England from documentary sources. He is author of Monstrous Adversary: The Life of Edward de Vere, Seventeenth Earl of Oxford (2003). He is editor of Cambridge, Records of Early English Drama (1989). He is one of four editors of Oxford, Records of Early English Drama (2004). He is co-editor of Inns of Court, Records of Early English Drama (2010). Lena Cowen Orlin is Professor of English at Georgetown University, Executive Director of the Shakespeare Association of America and past

xiv

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Executive Director of the Folger Institute. Her books include the monographs Locating Privacy in Tudor London (2007) and Private Matters and Public Culture in Post-Reformation England (1994) and the anthologies A Sourcebook for English Studies: The Renaissance (2009) and Elizabethan Households (1995). With Russ McDonald, she edited The Bedford Shakespeare (2015); she has also edited or co-edited nine essay collections. She serves as co-general editor of the Arden State of Play series and the Oxford Shakespeare Topics series. Her current project, a biography, is entitled The Private Life of William Shakespeare. William Streitberger is Professor of English and faculty member in the Interdisciplinary Textual Studies Program at the University of Washington. His most recent book is The Masters of the Revels and Elizabeth I’s Court Theatre (2016). He is currently working on a book-length study of Shakespeare’s censor. Heather Wolfe is curator of manuscripts at the Folger Shakespeare Library. At the Folger, she is curator of Shakespeare Documented, an online database of images, descriptions and transcriptions of all known references and allusions to Shakespeare and his works during his lifetime and shortly thereafter, and principal investigator for EMMO (Early Modern Manuscripts Online), an IMLS -funded initiative to create a free and searchable database of images and transcriptions of early modern manuscripts created in England or written in English. She has curated numerous Folger exhibitions and has written widely on early modern manuscripts and the intersections between print and manuscript. She has edited The Trevelyon Miscellany of 1608 (2007), The Literary Career and Legacy of Elizabeth Cary (2007), Letterwriting in Renaissance England (2004), an exhibition catalogue cowritten with Alan Stewart, Elizabeth Cary, Lady Falkland: Life and Letters (2001). Her current research interests include early modern filing systems and the social circulation of writing paper. She holds a PhD in Renaissance Literature from the University of Cambridge and an MLIS from University of California, Los Angeles.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In 2016 The National Archives (TNA ) celebrated 400 years of Shakespeare with its first major off-site public exhibition, By Me: William Shakespeare. This volume arises from the harried and hurried learning I undertook to contribute to that exhibition as a curator. I am indebted to King’s College London’s Hannah Crawforth, Professor Gordon McMullan and Lucy Munro, whose work as curators of By Me: William Shakespeare shaped my understanding of early modern biography. Coming from a background in rare books, it took me several months to understand the differences between a finding aid, a catalogue and a calendar, and as such, the difference between an archive, a library and the many other collections that surround them. This project is inspired by my confusion, and the time it took me to understand how to locate records at TNA . Although many researchers have learned to use these collections on their own, my own sense of archives was informed by the expertise of Adrian Ailes, Amanda Bevans, Emma Down, Paul Dryburgh, Jess Nelson and the rest of the medieval, early modern and legal teams at TNA , without whom I would never have found anything. For their help I’m infinitely grateful. Above all, I’m thankful to Katy Mair, whose knowledge, energy and style allowed us to create By Me: William Shakespeare, but more than this, encouraged me to understand the complex workings of early modern bureaucracy and TNA’s green notes. The generosity of TNA means that the archival vignettes of this volume are accompanied by images of documents. This is essential. I am particularly grateful to the publishing and image library teams at TNA , who have assured timely delivery of every aspect of this volume. Similarly, my editors at Arden, most notably Margaret Bartley and Susan Furber, have been both understanding and insistent in precisely the right ratios. The Shakespeare Association of America hosted the workshop at which this discussion began; the mentorship of that organization, particularly Lena Cowen Orlin, and its enthusiasm for archives, was essential. Finally, I am grateful for the contributors to this volume. Their patience for my at times distracted correspondence and pedantry has been admirable, and the enthusiasm and expertise they offered has been astounding. I am grateful to the libraries and archives of the old world, the reading rooms of the Hesperides and the people who inhabit them. Any project I complete reflects a tea-drinking network that lives in the rare books reading room of the British Library, most notably Mercedes Aguirre, Ellie Bass, xv

xvi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Julia Cameron and Fariha Sheikh, all of whom protected me from work with chat. Tea may be found around the world, and in the West I am particularly thankful to Parvaneh Abbaspour, E.J. Carter, Karen Gross, Jen Jacobs, Erica Jensen, David Shratter and all the other inhabitants of my library for letting me distractedly wander about in gardens real and imagined. As always, I am grateful to Beth Aronoff, Doug Crummé and Eleanor Crummé, who eagerly await the conclusion of whatever project occupies my mind and time. David Hirsch remains enthusiastic, for which I’m always thankful.

ABBREVIATIONS

BL

British Library

LMA

London Metropolitan Archive

SBT

Shakespeare Birthplace Trust

TNA

The National Archives

xvii

xviii

Introduction ‘All saws of books, all forms, all pressures past’ Hannah Leah Crummé and Lucy Munro

During his lifetime few efforts were made to record the life of William Shakespeare. His personal papers and correspondence have never been found. His plays sometimes seem to reflect themes from his life but are far from autobiographical. Even Ben Jonson’s famous reflections upon his contemporary and the bust that served as a model for subsequent portraits are posthumous, reflecting memory more than fact.1 Despite this, scholars describe where and how Shakespeare lived, identify a likely order in which he wrote the plays, and speculate about his personal and working relationships. This volume asks: how can this be done, given the apparent paucity of evidence, and can we learn anything new about Shakespeare? The contributors to this volume examine the records produced and saved by the acquisitive early modern English bureaucracy to discover why so many Englishmen’s lives have escaped the whips and scorns of time and instead survive, well documented, in archives and records offices. Taking Shakespeare as a case study, we will explore how historians are able to reconstruct the events of an early modern life. The chapters in this volume perform two functions: they announce discoveries in Shakespeare biography and explain how they came about; and they demonstrate how specialist knowledge of entire collections can inform interpretation of early modern records. While many of the contributors to this volume are themselves archivists, and those that are not are scholars who have been enveloped in collections for decades, this volume 1

2

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

will explain how any researcher might begin an archival investigation, the first tool of which is usually a finding aid. This volume explores how to locate records in archives, some of which may organize documents only by date, owner or some other equally unforthcoming identifying feature. As such, chapters in this volume provide detailed explanations of record series, describing not only their content but their arrangement and their relationship to corresponding documents elsewhere. We will explore how the preservation of original order in collections can facilitate researchers’ navigation of even very partially processed collections and in so doing help them make discoveries and fill biographical holes that no catalogues claim to cover. Finally, we will explore the futures of archives. Digitization projects make images of more and more records widely available, creating worldwide access to documents. But as much as we embrace new opportunities it is important to consider what aspects of the record are not transmitted by these resources. Without registering this loss, the ease of the digital may distance students and scholars from original source material, hampering research and leaving important questions unanswered.

‘Take choice from all my library’: archives and libraries, collection and curation How is it that we in the twenty-first century have so much information about Shakespeare? In fact, many early modern lives are well documented. The end of the Wars of the Roses and the reign of Henry VII brought centralization and rationalization to administrative departments of the English government. A new emphasis on bureaucracy was crystalized by the regularization of meetings of the King’s Council in the form of Star Chamber in 1487.2 Throughout the 1530s, Thomas Cromwell instituted a range of reforms designed to make an efficient and well-documented government.3 This new age of ‘government by paper’, rather than solely by military prowess, created a range of new jobs for the literate; many early modern authors earned their income in the secretariats of Queen Elizabeth I’s most trusted advisors.4 Text became a business. Elizabeth Yale describes the ‘broader ecologies of writing, paperwork, and print’ that conjoined in the sixteenth century, fuelling a fascination with both self-documentation and official record keeping.5 This volume thus juxtaposes private users of the pen with those who made a living wielding them for their government. Exploring the many types of records created in early modern England, this book examines the textual culture that both gave rise to Shakespeare’s plays and left evidence of his life. Shakespeare’s life revolved around two places: Stratford and London. Many of the records of his life can be found in institutions in these two

INTRODUCTION

3

cities: the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust (SBT ) in Warwickshire; The National Archives (TNA ), London Metropolitan Archive, the British Library and the College of Arms in London. Because of his celebrity status, however, his works have also been sought by collectors and made their way to institutions far afield, most notably the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, DC . The organization of records at TNA reflects the bureaucratic structures created by the Tudors. TNA identifies the beginning of the early modern period as 1509, or the date Henry VIII ’s administration began collecting State Papers. Record series are organized by the administrative bodies that created them, meaning that records of Shakespeare’s life can be found in series as seemingly disparate as STAC (Star Chamber), REQ (Court of Requests) and AO (Audit Office). Historically, as today, central government relied on local office-holders in its villages, towns and provinces to enact its authority; as such, research into an early modern life is as dependent on arduous work in local records offices as it is on the documents at TNA .6 These may be supplemented, at times, with material historically held in private collection, now found in museums, libraries and stately homes around the world, assuring that no research project – or curated collection – is ever complete. The official repository for the UK government, as well as England and Wales, TNA is guardian to some of the UK ’s most iconic documents dating back more than 1,000 years.7 Its collection may be viewed at Kew, in suburban London. Because it holds millions of documents produced over the course of a millennium, its records are not always digitally accessible, nor are all its finding aids. Detailed explanations of TNA’s records found online can be supplemented with paper finding aids which line the reading rooms at Kew. These guides to the record series can be found nowhere else in the world. These paper finding aids, sometimes called ‘green notes’, can provide detailed provenances of whole collections, explanations of the relationships between records, as well as a hierarchical list of all items in a series. Complete series of documents, created by UK government offices stored in bureaucratic offices and surrendered eventually to the archives, comprise the collection. As such, the records held at TNA that witness Shakespeare’s life often also detail thousands of other individuals’ interactions with the government alongside his own. Generally pecuniary and litigious, concerned with tax, wages and inheritance, TNA’s records not only help scholars know where and how Shakespeare lived but help them develop a picture of the economics of theatre and of life in Britain in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. The College of Arms is a royal corporation consisting of professional officers of arms, with jurisdiction in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and some Commonwealth realms.8 The British sovereign appoints officers of the college, known as heralds, to whom it delegates authority to grant new coats of arms, undertake genealogical research and record pedigrees. Founded by royal charter in 1484 by King Richard III , the College is part of the Royal

4

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

Household, rather than central government, and so its records remain in its own archive, rather than at TNA . With complete records of various official administrative processes in varying degrees of organization and accessibility, college records are best explored in person, with the help of the archivist and paper finding aids. The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust is a charity dedicated to promoting learning and research opportunities into the literature and life of William Shakespeare, as well as into early modern England.9 SBT offers a unique archive and library materials, selected specifically to provide information about Shakespeare. A truly thorough curated collection, SBT operates as museums many of the properties in Stratford-upon-Avon associated with Shakespeare, as well as its extensive library. Like SBT, the Folger Shakespeare Library’s collection reflects Shakespeare and his works from the sixteenth century to the present day. In addition to this, the library has an extensive collection of Renaissance manuscripts and printed books from across Europe.10 Actively acquiring new materials that build on the strengths of the collection, both SBT and Folger Shakespeare Library are simultaneously eclectic and thematic, reflecting the priorities of their curators and patrons. Both collections are digitally catalogued. While the material at TNA , and to some extent the College of Arms, represents the natural accumulation of paper over time in a bureaucratic office, SBT and Folger Shakespeare Library reflect a very specific interest and agenda. Understanding the difference between these two types of collections – the curated and the organic – and how to use each effectively for research is a fundamental concern of this book. Archives, preserved in the order in which their records were produced by the body that created them (or in an associated repository), provide a complete picture of an administrative process and the people who interacted with it. This makes years, like 1599 or 1606, relatively straightforward to research but may make it more difficult to find information on a specific individual (unless the collection is highly processed). Very few bureaucratic processes exist in a vacuum; paper almost always begets paper. This means that, in archival collections, the existence of a record (perhaps referring to Shakespeare) may imply a corresponding record in another series. Curated collections, however, represent items that have made their way to a library or museum first and foremost because of their availability. Libraries apply artificial organization systems to their collections, and items may have no pre-existing relationship to each other or with the institution in which they are located. A curated collection, like the Folger’s digital ‘Shakespeare Documented’, may be much more thorough than an archive ever could be on a given subject, but it also inevitably reflects the intentions of its collector. While libraries cannot present a complete picture of history, neither can archives. Indeed, archives reverberate the biases of the institutions that created their records, conveying an image of history that reflects primarily

INTRODUCTION

5

the experience of those who held power.11 Developing a clear picture of Shakespeare’s life means understanding the documents that witness it, the early modern archives in which they are held and the modern collections they have become. To do so the first question we must consider is who created the documents with which we work, to what end and why and how they have been preserved. As today, the early modern vocabulary of collection was imprecise and ‘archive’ or ‘record’ might be used, as they are by Hamlet, interchangeably with ‘book’, ‘library’ and ‘collection’. Alexandra Walsham explains that, according to classical archival theory, ‘records’ are documents made, received and maintained by institutions or individuals as active evidence of legal obligations; ‘archives’, she says, are collections preserved permanently because of their enduring value as witnesses to history.12 The rigidity of these definitions does not, however, speak fully to the popular imagination or to Renaissance culture. ‘Archive’ does not appear in any of Shakespeare’s known works, but the word ‘record’ recurs 24 times, most commonly in the history plays. In Richard III Prince Edward asks if the history of the tower is ‘upon record, or else reported/successively from age to age’ (3.1 ), comparing written records with oral traditions. In the same play records track English superiority over Breton invaders (5.3) and the murder of Edward (4.4). Records are forgotten or reinterpreted in Antony and Cleopatra as ‘injuries [. . .] written in our flesh [. . . are] remember[ed] / as things done by chance’ (5.2). In both plays, records are fallible and manipulable, yet essential to remembrance of things past. Collections were shaped and reshaped by their creators and keepers. For this reason, even the most authentic witnesses to history must be cross-examined. Below we will consider the role of Elizabeth I’s secretary of state, Lord Burghley, and his role as the creator of both a government archive and a private collection. In so doing we will see that, although this volume is fundamentally concerned with understanding the hierarchical organization of archives as preserved in the original order assigned to documents by the offices that created them, no research would be complete without serendipitous finds in curated collections.13 In early modern England, the relationship between contemporary records and documents stored for permanent archival preservation (either in governmental or private repositories) was fluid; the words themselves, along with a range of other items Hamlet classed with ‘all trivial fond records, / all saws of books, all forms, all pressures past’ (1.5) were used interchangeably.14 As such, all are now the inheritance of the researcher, and all modes of collection must be examined and understood. Elizabeth’s long-standing secretary of state, William Cecil, Lord Burghley, and his son Robert, who succeeded him, kept records assiduously. However, what they considered the property of the state and what they classified as their own often overlapped. Now located at Hatfield House, the Cecil Papers are a private archive of approximately 30,000 manuscripts, documenting the business of government under Elizabeth and James.15

6

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

The early twentieth century was a heyday for archival research into Shakespeare’s life; Charles William Wallace, Charlotte Carmichael Stopes and E.K. Chambers undertook significant and competitive investigations of the evidence witnessing Shakespeare’s life. Their discoveries have shaped all subsequent biographies. Their focus on finding, understanding and authenticating documents, not on explaining those records’ archival contexts – how they were created, preserved and rediscovered – made their findings seem mysterious and the archives in which they worked glamourous if dusty. Chambers’ The Elizabethan Stage (1923) and his later William Shakespeare: A Study of the Facts and Problems (1930) provide transcriptions of portions of documents relating to the theatre, but, useful though these are, they cannot give a full sense of the clues about Shakespeare’s life that can be derived from the full archival records.16 For example, a 1597 lay subsidy roll records Shakespeare’s tax avoidance on his assessed wealth of £5.17 The roll tells us that Shakespeare lived in the parish of St Helen’s Bishopsgate. A snapshot of Shakespeare’s name on this roll does not, however, adequately create a sense of the thousands of other taxpayers amongst whom he is listed; only by consulting the early modern document itself can we extract a sense of Shakespeare’s milieu. Similarly, Roland Lewis’s and Samuel Shoenbaum’s works (1940 and 1975 respectively) both provide large images of some of the documents that witness Shakespeare’s life, and as such have been invaluable for his many biographers.18 However, both take these documents entirely outside their archival contexts. Failing to foster an understanding of why the documents exist or are held by various collections, they leave their reader unaware of the many and varied avenues to which these records might lead or how their counterparts might be found. Shoenbaum’s A Compact Documentary Life has gone through several reprints and is itself a revision of his longer Documentary Life.19 The Documentary Life, while more complete, is unwieldy. Perhaps more concerning, its photographs do not always accurately represent the manuscripts it attempts to reproduce. Shakespeare in the Public Records (1985), written by David Thomas, a former archivist at TNA , and Jane Cox examines 26 of the known Shakespeare documents, but again offers little explanation of their provenance.20 Furthermore, many of the biographical readings Thomas puts forward are now unsympathetic or even known to be incorrect. Elizabethan social contexts are lost in the curated collection of documents produced by Shoenbaum, Lewis, Chambers and Thomas. The luck of early archival studies, and the narrow focus of later works, led to the development of a field in which artefacts are valued as isolated pieces of evidence more than components of larger collections. The potential of digital tools to exacerbate this pattern by increasing access to curated collections of documents is not only a question of this book, but also a philosophical concern facing archivists and the web teams with whom they work the world over.

FIGURE 0.1 London, TNA E 179/146/354. Shakespeare listed as a tax defaulter on a payment of five shillings. 15 November 1597. Shakespeare entry without its larger context. Reproduced by permission of The National Archives.

FIGURE 0.2 London, TNA E 179/146/354. Shakespeare listed as a tax defaulter on a payment of five shillings. 15 November 1597. Reproduced by permission of The National Archives.

7

8

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

Although a general trend has focused on documents rather than their contexts, some recent works, precursors to this volume, focus on the collections and repositories in which Shakespeare documents are found. Robert Bearman’s Shakespeare in the Stratford Records (1994) examines 31 documents in the Warwickshire Records Office and at SBT, explaining why and how they were written and what they tell us about Shakespeare.21 This volume provides insight into SBT itself, how its records have been kept and what questions the changing storage practices of 400 years raise. Similarly, W.R. Streitberger’s Court Revels, 1485–1559 provides a useful introduction to the documents found at TNA that witness performances at court up to the beginning of Elizabeth I’s reign.22 His more recent work introduces changes made to the Office of the Revels between 1570 and 1590 that influenced the culture of patronage in English theatres during Shakespeare’s lifetime.23 It lays a groundwork for study of audit office records, but does not examine the vast majority of Shakespeare documents, over 120 of which are held at TNA . The most recent and compelling collections available to Shakespeare biographers are digital. The Folger Shakespeare Library’s ‘Shakespeare Documented’ website brings together high-resolution photographs of every known Shakespeare-related document with scholarship and record expertise. It vastly improves access to these records, yet its tunnel vision inherits the shortcomings of any collection curated with a single subject in mind; it obscures Shakespeare’s context within Renaissance London and Stratford as it meticulously brings together all known evidence of his life. And when we lose his context, we lose the larger tapestry of his biography. By providing an unassailable dossier of evidence for the existence of Shakespeare, ‘Shakespeare Documented’ reduces the need – the drive – to visit archives and find the records that witness his milieu. Lost are the thousands of other taxpayers and avoiders of the lay subsidy rolls, the records of other performances at court with different props and lighting and costs detailed in Audit Office accounts, the unprocessed boxes of the Court of Requests and the stories they tell. While an excellent resource, the amount of information lost is not compatible with rigorous discovery and research. It will always be necessary to leave our armchairs and offices and return to the reading rooms.

‘Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow’: Shakespeare’s biography and the records that witness it The chapters in this volume all describe three disparate moments or processes: an event (or several) in Shakespeare’s life, the creation of documents that witnesses it and the conditions under which these records

INTRODUCTION

9

were stored. This makes chronological arrangement of the chapters challenging. In many cases, an event was recorded months or even years after it occurred. In the case of the petitions examined by Alan H. Nelson in Chapter  1, a three-decade pause between the events that gave rise to the record and the creation of the documents themselves is a central observation of the chapter and key to interpretation. Because the aim of the archival research described is to gain a better, more robust sense of Shakespeare’s life, I have arranged chapters chronologically by the events that they witness. This is an imperfect approach. Record-keeping practices change over time, particularly between administrations. Any search of the State Papers (those created by the monarch’s secretary and now held at TNA ) should be supplemented by a search of the letters at Hatfield House, but this is only true for subjects from the late sixteenth to the early seventeenth centuries. Understanding these changes in documentation practices is essential and a strong argument might be made for arranging these chapters in order of the dates of the records they investigate. However, this belies the ultimate goal of this type of research, to understand the chronology of an individual’s life – and so is not adopted by this volume. William Shakespeare was born and raised in Stratford-upon-Avon, a market town in Warwickshire. He remained connected with this town for the duration of his life.24 The son of John Shakespeare and Mary Arden, he was baptized on 26 April 1564, a fact witnessed by the baptismal records created by Stratford’s Holy Trinity Church, now held at SBT.25 William Shakespeare’s life offers a case study of the many ways documents reflect, and at times obscure, events. For example, ambiguity in the documents that witness his marriage in November 1582 has added to the mystery that surrounds Shakespeare’s personal life. Biographers often observe that the marriage may have been rushed because Shakespeare’s oldest daughter, Susanna, was born just six months later. The documents seem to confirm this supposition. On 27 November 1582 the Bishop of Worcester issued a licence to William Shakespeare for his marriage to Anne Whateley of Temple Grafton.26 However, a bond dated the next day declares that there was nothing to prevent a marriage between William Shakespeare and Anne Hathaway of Stratford-upon-Avon.27 No record of where the marriage took place has been found. The licence also gives dispensation for a marriage after a single reading of banns (rather than the more typical three readings).28 This might have been partially a product of the time of year when Shakespeare applied for the licence. The extended early modern Christmas period (during which marriage customarily did not take place) was looming and there may not have been time for three readings. While this does not provide a reason for marrying outside the parish church (which is implied by the lack of a record of the ceremony at Holy Trinity), it may have made scheduling more difficult. It is harder to imagine an explanation for the discrepancy in the bride’s name but, Robert Bearman’s understanding of the nature of the

10

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

documents involved allows him to account for a possible source of the confusion: The bond is an original document, and is more likely to be correct. The discrepancy might therefore simply be [. . .] a clerical error made by the man entering the note in the register [. . .] Although this may seem unlikely at first, we need to be clear about when the entry was actually made. The list of licenses covering the years 1579 to 1584, now occupying folios 34–43v, folios 51–58, is in the same neat hand, and certainly does not have the appearance of being made up day-by-day, or even week-byweek. In other words, the clerk must have been writing up the entries (at least in blocks) from either notes made at the time the licenses were issued, or from one of the series of original documents which would have been produced in the process of securing a license. In any event, this process of retrospective copying, or even re-copying, could have well led to errors. In fact, comparison of other register entries with surviving bonds does reveal several other discrepancies.29 Scholars puzzled over the circumstances of Shakespeare’s wedding for nearly 400 years; documentary ambiguity fuelled narratives of an unhappy home, a guilty husband and an already aged wife. Bearman’s explanation of the licence, however, demonstrates how understanding the complex history of archival documents can not only resolve doubt about their authenticity, but put to rest some sources of scholarly speculation. There is little trace of Shakespeare between 1585 and 1592, but sometime during these years he moved to London and began his theatrical career. We do not know when he began writing, but E.K. Chambers points to evidence that several of his plays were on the London stage by 1593.30 Several years later, payments made to Shakespeare’s company, the Lord Chamberlain’s Men, document his accelerating career. Ledger books, held at TNA as part of the E 351 series, show payment dated 15 March 1595 to Shakespeare and others for performing ‘twoe severall Comedies or Enterludes’ before the queen. Pipe Office abstracts, which provide more details about the cost incurred while staging performances, confirm these accounts. William Streitberger shows us how, by understanding the bureaucratic processes that connect these two offices and the record series they produced, it is possible not just to reconstruct aspects of the economics of early modern theatre but also details of specific performances staged at the end of Elizabeth I’s reign. Some years later, performances of ‘Mesur for Mesur’, ‘The Plaie of Errors’, ‘the Moor of Venis’, ‘the Merry wives of Winsor’, ‘Loues Labours Lost’ and ‘Henry the fift’ were recorded in AO 3; from AO 1 we know how much was paid for candles, props and curtains for each production. The connection between these records allows us to develop a sense of each performance and paints a picture of James’s and Anna’s festive court, as well as Shakespeare’s company’s prominence there.

INTRODUCTION

11

FIGURE 0.3 London, TNA STAC 5/A12/35. Alleyn against Burbage, regarding Shoreditch and Bankside, moving a theatre, possibly the Globe. Reproduced by permission of The National Archives.

12

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

FIGURE 0.3 (Continued)

INTRODUCTION

13

FIGURE 0.3 (Continued)

In 1596 some 30 neighbours signed a petition against a playhouse being constructed by James Burbage in the Blackfriars precinct of London. Burbage owned The Theatre in Shoreditch where the Lord Chamberlain’s Men then performed, and it would seem he was seeking to expand to another venue. Though the authenticity of this document has been challenged, Alan H. Nelson’s close analysis of this petition in its full archival context demonstrates that the surviving text is a late copy (ca. 1633) of a lost original. Found in the State Papers, textual details of the copy are presumably correct, but the format of the original cannot be reconstructed from surviving documents. This makes interpretation of the document difficult; for example, Countess Elizabeth Russell has sometimes been identified as this petition’s instigator because her name appears first on a list of signatories, but Nelson casts doubt on the significance

14

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

of the placement of her transcribed signature, arguing that it reflects more her social rank than enthusiasm for the project. His detailed survey of all signatories suggests rather that the instigator may have been the local vicar, Stephen Egerton, a known opponent of plays and players. The document serves as a jumping-off point for research into the Blackfriars neighbourhood, rather than as evidence of a feud between Shakespeare and the Countess, giving rise to questions about the culture and economics of London theatres. The presence of these documents in State Papers is symptomatic of the almost inexplicable variety of records kept by the monarch’s chief secretary. In her chapter, Heather Wolfe explores a component of Shakespeare’s life in which, she has newly discovered, evidence abounds. Having risen through the ranks of local councils and married well, Shakespeare’s father seems to have applied for gentleman’s status. Yet the circumstances and motivations for this application do not seem to be as straightforward as Shakespeare’s biographers have generally assumed. Wolfe examines a conflict between the heraldic authorities William Dethick, Garter King of Arms, and Ralph Brooke, York Herald, in which Shakespeare’s status as a player is cited as a reason to deny his father’s application. Newly discovered iterations of Shakespeare’s arms indicate that, while the heralds at the College of Arms in England made the grant to his father, the playwright himself was intimately involved in the application and the ensuing controversy over the claim’s legitimacy. Wolfe thus offers further evidence of Shakespeare’s interest in shaping his own legacy, a theme which runs throughout the chapters of this volume. By 1602, Shakespeare was referred to as a gentleman in legal documents. The herald William Smith referred to William, rather than John, as the person entitled to bear the Shakespeare arms granted by Dethick. In the same year his plays saw success and he invested in property in Stratford. Wolfe argues that Shakespeare’s diversified wealth may have helped convince Dethick to grant his father, a retired, elderly and poor bailiff, a coat of arms, regardless of the fact that it was primarily derived from inauspicious work in the London theatres. The official records of the College of Arms, in which many of Wolfe’s discoveries were made, include funeral certificates, the records of the heraldic visitations of the English and Welsh counties, registers of changes of name and arms by Royal Licence and deed poll, pedigree registers, as well as records of state ceremonials such as coronations and official enrolments of flags.31 In addition to the official records created by the College, the archive also holds some seven thousand other manuscript volumes, and a similar number of unbound manuscripts which have been deposited at the College or acquired by it over the centuries.

INTRODUCTION

15

FIGURE 0.4(v) London, TNA CP 25/2/237/44/45 EliziMich (15v). Foot of fine by which Hercules Underhill conveyed New Place to William Shakespeare. 1602.

16

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

FIGURE 0.4 London, TNA CP 25/2/237/44/45 EliziMich (15). Foot of fine by which Hercules Underhill conveyed New Place to William Shakespeare. 1602. Reproduced by permission of The National Archives.

As Shakespeare’s career flourished in London, his connections in Stratford saw opportunities. Lena Cowen Orlin explores the only remaining correspondence connected to Shakespeare, which is associated with a Stratford-upon-Avon contemporary. Richard Quiney, a Stratford merchant and alderman, sent and received many letters while conducting town business in London. Letters from Quiney to Shakespeare, beginning in 1598, request loans, discuss land transactions and speculate about how money might be used locally. These private documents were deposited in town archives when Quiney died in office as Stratford’s bailiff (or mayor) in 1602. Orlin considers whether Quiney’s correspondence with Shakespeare was ever sent and, if so, whether Shakespeare made the loan requested. Not only concerned with Quiney, Orlin explains how Stratford’s archives and archivists have preserved these letters despite existential threats to the records in the form of both fire and water. In so doing she introduces the complicated and world-leading library collection at SBT. When James I came to the throne in 1603 the Lord Chamberlain’s men applied for royal patronage. The complex bureaucratic process through which they did so testifies to their ambition and enterprise. Adrian Ailes explains in his chapter that government functioned like a machine, with seals held by internal departments. These departments acted like cog wheels turning each other until the largest wheel – the great seal – was moved and

INTRODUCTION

17

the sovereign’s will enacted. Each administrative stage resulted in records. The documents that led to the 1603 letters patent issued under the great seal authorizing Shakespeare and his companions to perform plays under royal patronage as the King’s Men created a web of records linking governmental departments. The process of issuing the documents that eventually transformed Shakespeare’s company from the Lord Chamberlain’s Players to the King’s Men began with an application, a newly discovered record of which is detailed in Ailes’s chapter.32 This initiated an instruction from the king that in turn caused the Signet Office to produce a formal warrant which both instructed the Privy Seal Office to draw up a further warrant and provided the text for the formal letters patent.33 Next, the Privy Seal Office issued this warrant, instructing the Lord Keeper of the Great Seal of England to further issue the Letters Patent.34 Both the Signet Bill and Warrant for the Great Seal provide the same text for the final document, the Letters Patent under the Great Seal.35 This document was delivered to Shakespeare’s company and does not seem to survive, but was also copied onto another document, the Patent Roll for the year, which was kept in Chancery.36 This administrative process, which took less than a week to complete once it began, authorized the company to perform both publicly and at court under the auspices of the king. Kept in Chancery from 1603 until 1884, all such records are now held at TNA . Understanding this 400-year-old process allowed for the discovery of new documents in the Doquet Books of the Signet and Privy Seal Office, which reveal how much Shakespeare’s company paid to apply for royal patronage. This recently discovered fact changes the way we think about the company’s new status as the King’s Men, which no longer seems as much like an honour bestowed by the new sovereign but rather an investment made by the savvy leaders of the playing company. While it is not surprising that evidence of Shakespeare’s professional life may be found in the records of central government, what is more interesting are clues about his personal trajectory held at TNA . In one such case, records from the Court of Requests identify him as a witness in a lawsuit between Stephen Bellott and Christopher Mountjoy on 11 May 1612.37 The depositions in this case were taken at Westminster, so this is one of the few instances in which Shakespeare’s whereabouts on a specific date are known. Testimony indicates that in 1604 Shakespeare lived with a French Huguenot family in Cripplegate, just north of Cheapside and St Paul’s Cathedral. He lodged in a household that also included Christopher and Marie Mountjoy, their only child Mary, and Stephen Bellott, an apprentice to the family’s hatand wig-making business. In 1604, Bellott had married Mountjoy’s daughter. By 1612, he sued Mountjoy for an unpaid dowry, calling Shakespeare as a witness to the financial arrangements surrounding the marriage. Some of the testimony in the case describes Shakespeare’s role determining the terms of the marriage while others indicate he may have actually performed the betrothal ceremony.

18

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

FIGURE 0.5 London, TNA REQ 4/1/4/1 (1a). Shakespeare’s deposition in Bellott v. Mountjoy. 1612. Reproduced by permission of The National Archives.

The Bellott–Mountjoy case witnesses two separate moments in Shakespeare’s life (his living situation and his apparent role in a Huguenot marriage in 1604, and a courtroom drama in which he gave evidence in 1612). The papers associated with these events were all but lost in the unprocessed records of the Court of Requests until Charles William Wallace discovered them at the Public Record Office, now TNA , in 1909.38 A minor equity court, the Court of Requests heard cases brought by women and

INTRODUCTION

19

those who could not afford to sue in other venues. Its records witness many of the more gruesome details of early modern litigation in domestic life and business, yet more than a century after Wallace’s discovery they remain only partially processed and primarily traceable only with manuscript finding aids held in Kew. Much the opposite of the opportunities for discovery made possible by understanding the course of the seals, in which the location of a document may be deduced by understanding early modern governmental processes, finding material in the records of the Court of Requests depends on persistence and chance. The records of the Bellott–Mountjoy suit share a concern with the technical and legal elements of marriage considered in Measure for Measure, which first appeared in 1604, just months after Shakespeare intervened in his landlord’s personal affairs. As such, Wallace’s discoveries provide some of the only clear evidence that Shakespeare’s life may have informed his work. The importance of these records provides a clear argument for both patience and serendipity in archival work as months or years of painstaking digging in paper potentially offer so great a reward. Like his involvement with various court cases, Shakespeare’s property purchases have resulted in records which make his life traceable. Alan H. Nelson explores the language and form of early modern contracts, called indentures, used in property transactions. Indentures were written out in two or more copies on the same piece of parchment. These copies were separated along an indentured line to create several documents which were distributed to all concerned parties. The records could then be brought together into their original configuration. The unique wavy line allowed the parties holding the copies to demonstrate their authenticity. Nelson’s chapter explores the full implications of indentures and how this form of contract affects early modern modes of authentication of documents, including signatures, as exemplified by Shakespeare’s purchase of the Blackfriars Gatehouse. The Folger now holds Shakespeare’s copy of the deed for his purchase of the Blackfriars Gatehouse in London on 10 March 1613.39 He paid £80 of the £140 selling price up front, and on the day after the conveyance he mortgaged the Gatehouse back to Henry Walker, described as a ‘citizen and minstrell of London’, for the remaining £60.40 The other copy of the bargain and sale, one of six known documents with Shakespeare’s signature, went to Henry Walker, the seller of the property, and is now at the London Metropolitan Archives.41 The bargain and sale was also enrolled in Chancery in the close rolls.42 Letters Close, which conveyed orders and instructions of a private and personal nature, were issued folded and ‘closed’ by the application of the great seal.43 These can be found in the series C 54 at TNA . By the sixteenth century, there was a tendency to enrol private deeds on the dorse of the close rolls, particularly from 1382, when a statute of Richard II enacted that those who had lost deeds, provided they could prove their having once existed, could petition the king for remedy. This practice continued, but by no means restricted to the dorse of the rolls, until the series ceased in 1903.44

FIGURE 0.6 London, TNA C54/2184 m. 45. Enrolment of a bargain and sale conveying a property (Walker to Shakespeare). 10 March 1613. Reproduced by permission of The National Archives.

Property investments, like the Blackfriars Gatehouse, played a major part in Shakespeare’s finances as he became more and more successful and probably provided some financial security. As early as 1597 he bought a large house in Stratford, New Place, and by 1605 he invested in a share of 20

INTRODUCTION

21

parish tithes in Stratford.45 Robert Bearman explores Shakespeare’s attitude towards property in his chapter. Examining an agreement between William Replingham and Shakespeare, Bearman considers a planned enclosure at Welcome, near Stratford. They agreed that the income Shakespeare derived from his leasehold interest in the Stratford tithes would be safeguarded. Bearman shows that the document was altered after its initial drafting, not in Shakespeare’s interest but in those of his fellow tithe-holder, Thomas Greene, who was also Stratford’s town clerk. Greene was also responsible for care of the document. Its abbreviated form raises a question as to what other interests the complete document would have been designed to protect. Yet despite its murkiness, the document reflects Shakespeare’s efforts to create financial security by diversifying the sources of his income. Although, as we have seen, many documents provide evidence of Shakespeare’s career in London, scholars and enthusiasts have always looked for more. Lucy Munro investigates forgeries created by John Payne Collier which sought to insert Shakespeare into two different playing companies, the Elizabethan Queen’s Men and the Jacobean Children of the Queen’s Revels, exploring what surviving documents can tell us about Shakespeare’s interactions with these theatrical institutions. The documents Munro examines, like many of the other records considered in this volume, were written to serve an official purpose and so offer fragmentary narratives rather than a coherent account of one life or institution. However, the official nature of these records and their known provenance makes their authenticity unassailable. Munro uses many of the techniques used in other chapters, including comparisons between corresponding records and record series, to demonstrate how it is possible to distinguish Collier’s forgeries from the original records that they reflect. In so doing, she demonstrates how archival research can be used both to find new evidence about the London theatres and to debunk spurious claims about Shakespeare. Shakespeare retired to Stratford some years before his death on 23 April 1616. Survived by his wife and two daughters, Susanna and Judith, Shakespeare’s will reflects his continuing efforts to protect his family financially. Originally found amongst original Prerogative Court of Canterbury records in PROB 10, and copied into the official register of wills found in PROB 11, the document presents some surprising features.46 Extensive revision of the document has invited centuries of debate about its meaning. Katy Mair’s chapter brings together recent discoveries made using modern technologies in heritage science with archival knowledge and legal history to explore how Shakespeare’s will was revised in the last two years of his life. She examines the composition of the different types of ink used in the document and the characteristics of the paper, in conjunction with an analysis of the manuscript features, in order to reconsider the timeframe during which the will was produced and amended. This provides a new perspective from which to interpret the will’s more obscure clauses, and, while it may never be possible to resolve polarized opinion about the bequest

22

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

of a ‘second best bed’ to Anne Hathaway, it provides more evidence with which to determine the trajectory of the document, its meaning and its implications for the last several years of Shakespeare’s life.

‘If thou wilt hold longer argument, / Do it in notes’: archival skills and digital futures The chapters in this book offer case studies of techniques for archival research. Some – like Heather Wolfe’s – recount painstaking searches in largely unprocessed collections and their results. Some find new Shakespeare documents through methodical investigations guided by finding aids. Others reinterpret known documents informed by a knowledge of a record series or collection, or, like Katy Mair, use new evidence offered by science to derive new insights into Shakespeare’s life and papers. Many of the contributors to this volume establish the date of a document or documents. They are able to use recognition of a later document – a copy rather than a contemporary witness – to better contextualize and thereby understand its contents. All these techniques lead to discoveries of new records and nuanced interpretations of known documents. There is much left to discover about Shakespeare’s life and world. A systematic investigation of Court of Request records alone would reveal much about life in Elizabethan theatres.47 The work that needs to be done is traditional. It is sitting with dusty boxes filled with unprocessed parchment. It is running between finding aids and inquiries desks to try to find files. It is palaeography and persistence and luck. But digital tools also increasingly make these records available outside the reading room. What does this mean for the future of archival study? Generally, records made available digitally are already processed to at least some degree. The records included on ‘Shakespeare Documented’ are already known to contain entries relating to Shakespeare. Perhaps more archivally sound, though less practical, are resources like the ‘Anglo-American Legal Tradition’, which digitizes whole rolls without discrimination alongside their calendars. As these records are explored by scholars and archivists around the world, more and more discoveries about the documents are revealed. This mode of research mimics the use of traditional archives but makes records convenient by the use of digital surrogates. The real question for the future of archives is how can digital tools enable quicker, more effective processing of archives that will make more data about series and their records available, without reducing or editing the information they provide? This volume offers a guide to the type of archival study that will always be necessary to writing an early modern life, and which, as access to early modern records becomes universal through digital surrogates, is increasingly central to rigorous scholarly investigation.

1 Neighbours’ petition against the Blackfriars playhouse, November 1596 Alan H. Nelson

Among the ‘State Papers’ held at The National Archives (TNA ) in Kew, near London, is an undated petition against a playhouse at Blackfriars. Though ‘one Burbage’ is named in the text, and while a date of November 1596 is generally accepted for the document, the exact circumstances that gave rise to the petition, and even its authenticity, have been a matter of critical debate among theatre historians. Most recently, in Shakespeare and the Countess: The Battle that Gave Birth to the Globe (2014), Chris Laoutaris argues that the petition was the work of the dowager countess Elizabeth Russell in all essential respects: she composed it for her own personal reasons; gathered signatures by walking it from door to door through her parish, St Ann Blackfriars; submitted it to the Privy Council; and was thus, more than any other individual, responsible for forcing Shakespeare and his company to abandon a desirable indoor playhouse in Blackfriars for a less desirable outdoor playhouse, the Globe, on Bankside.1 The titanic struggle was ultimately beneficial to both adversaries. Shakespeare got his Globe playhouse as the debut venue for Hamlet, Othello, King Lear and Macbeth. Elizabeth Russell got the quiet neighbourhood she desired, and, thanks to Shakespeare’s generous and forgiving spirit, a complimentary portrait as the Countess of Rossillon in All’s Well that Ends Well, described by George Bernard Shaw as ‘the most beautiful old woman’s part ever written’.2 Elizabeth Russell began life as one of the five famous Cooke sisters, whose father, Sir Anthony Cooke, educated his daughters in Latin, Greek and modern languages. The sisters surpassed the academic accomplishments of most of their male contemporaries, including their own brothers. Gifted by nature with beauty as well as brains, the sisters married well, Mildred to 23

24

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

William Cecil (later Lord Burghley), Elizabeth to Sir Thomas Hoby. After Hoby’s death Elizabeth married John Russell, heir apparent to the Earldom of Bedford. As John Russell predeceased his father, however, he did not become an earl and Elizabeth did not become a countess. She nevertheless styled herself ‘Dowager’ and claimed the rights and dignities of a widowed countess. The ploy succeeded for decades, until, in her final years, she clashed with Charles Howard, Earl of Nottingham and Lord Admiral of England.3 Humbled though never humiliated, Elizabeth Russell still wears – through the image on her funeral monument, which she probably designed herself – the coronet of a countess. Laoutaris cites a wide range of manuscripts and printed books, many unknown to previous biographers. The petition that lies at the root of his thesis, however, remains insufficiently examined. Assuming a date of November 1596, which, as we shall see, is readily confirmed, was Shakespeare in any way the primary target of the petition, and was ‘Elizabeth Russell Dowager’ the primary instigator? This chapter will attempt to answer these questions through a fresh analysis of the petition within its archival context. The undated petition against a playhouse in Blackfriars is one of three companion documents now at TNA . These are, in probable date order: SP 12/260, fol. 176; SP 16/205, fol. 38; SP 16/205, fol. 34. All are written on identical paper. Indeed, an imperfection, visible when each sheet is viewed against the light, reveals that the three sheets were originally drawn from the same stack of blank paper.4 The three documents are written in the same hand. The second document carries the date of 21 January 1618/19, while the third is a petition undated but addressed to ‘William Lord Bishop of London’. William Laud, the first bishop of London since 1505 with that forename, held the office from 1628 to 1633, while William Juxon, Laud’s successor, held the office from 1633 to 1646.5 All three documents must have been written about the same time, in 1628 at the earliest, more probably 1633, the well-established date of another attempt to close the playhouse.6 The first and second document are later copies of earlier documents. The second document, moreover, refers to a petition of November 1596, thus providing a putative date for the first document. A further complication lies in the fact that the first document is accompanied by a counter-petition from members of the Lord Chamberlain’s Players including William Shakespeare. This counter-petition, however, is widely rejected as a forgery created in the 1830s by the notorious John Payne Collier. Among other problems, the counter-petition implies a date of 1596 for the Globe playhouse, some three years too early. The counterpetition is thus demonstrably a fake. For documentary historians, the problem with a forgery is not only that a fake may be accepted as genuine, but also that the fake may put in question the integrity of genuine documents. And indeed, the 1596 petition has itself been suspected of being a forgery.7 The text and list of names from the November 1596 petition are, however, genuine copies of a lost original.

NEIGHBOURS’ PETITION AGAINST BL ACKFRIARS PL AYHOUSE

25

FIGURE 1.1 London, TNA SP 12/260, f. 176. Petition to the Privy Council against a Playhouse in Blackfriars, November 1596. Created in approximately 1633. Reproduced by permission of The National Archives.

26

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

FIGURE 1.2 London, TNA SP 16/205, f. 38. Petition to the Privy Council against the Playhouse in Blackfriars, 21 January 1618/19. Created in approximately 1633. Reproduced by permission of The National Archives.

NEIGHBOURS’ PETITION AGAINST BL ACKFRIARS PL AYHOUSE

27

FIGURE 1.3 London, TNA SP 16/205, f. 34. Petition to William [Laud?], Archbishop of Canterbury, against the Playhouse in Blackfriars. Created in approximately 1633. Reproduced by permission of The National Archives.

28

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

There is little reason to doubt that in November 1596 a petition was mounted against a playhouse in Blackfriars, or that the names that appear in two columns beneath the body of the petition are genuine. Gathering signatures door-to-door, however, is a modern practice. A sixteenth-century petition would more likely have been signed by individuals pre-gathered in a single room. Laoutaris incidentally identifies such a room: the temporary headquarters of St Ann Blackfriars, used in 1596 while an older, decayed church was being rebuilt.8 Whether the surviving paper copy is a close facsimile of the lost original is unknown. It is probable but not certain that the original signatures were written in two neat columns, in their current order.9 But there is no reason to believe that ‘Elizabeth Russell Dowager’ is a more likely instigator of the 1596 petition than any other signatory. The petition contains thirty-one names in two columns.10 One petitioner, Henry Bowes, is apparently repeated as Henry Boice, reducing the number of individuals to a putative thirty. The names of at least two of the petitioners come as a surprise. ‘GH unsdon,’ or George Carey, Baron (or Lord) Hunsdon, inherited the patronage of the Lord Chamberlain’s company on the death of Henry Carey, his father, on 23 July 1596.11 Though the document presents Hunsdon’s ‘GH ’ as a digraph, in which the first letter is ‘tied’ to the second, his signature is recorded elsewhere as ‘G Hunsdon’, with no punctuation after the ‘G’ but with a space between the ‘G’ and the ‘H’.12 Richard Field was William Shakespeare’s countryman, printer of his first poems, and presumably his friend. Why the patron of Shakespeare’s company, and the printer of Shakespeare’s early poems, objected to the proposed playhouse must remain a matter for conjecture. Laoutaris notes that the petitioners’ names occur in two columns, and (6) that ‘G. Hunsdon . . . is given prominence as the second signatory’.13 He continues: ‘Two rows down we come to “Ric. Ffield”.’ Field’s name does indeed occur two rows down, but in the second column. With two columns, an ordered list can run: A C E ...

B D F ...

A B C ...

L M N ...

or

NEIGHBOURS’ PETITION AGAINST BL ACKFRIARS PL AYHOUSE

29

I believe that the names are ordered in the latter fashion, meaning that Richard Field is ranked (disregarding Henry Bowes) nineteenth rather than sixth out of thirty. ‘Elizabeth Russell Dowager’ is the first name in the list. Her claim to the title of Dowager Countess, though doubtful, accounts for her priority. The position of ‘GH unsdon’ as second name is easily explained by the fact that he was a baron. Thomas Browne was probably Sir Thomas Browne of Betchworth Castle near Dorking in Surrey, buried there on 9 February 1597/8.14 His Blackfriars residence was evidently his London pied-à-terre. Less likely, this may have been Thomas Browne, gentleman, buried in the parish on 28 January 1599/1600. Disregarding Henry Bowes for reasons already explained, the next two signatories are John Crooke and William Meredith. Both were Members of Parliament. Crooke (or Croke) was Recorder, or chief legal officer, of London, from 1595 to 1603, MP for London in 1597 and 1601, and Speaker of the House in 1601. Meredith is identified in parliamentary sources as ‘of Blackfriars, London’. Sir Thomas Browne was yet another Member of Parliament.15 Steven Egerton was minister of St Ann Blackfriars, while Richard Lee is identified in the 1599 Subsidy Roll, described below, as a ‘gentleman’ of St Ann Blackfriars. (Thomas Nayle, who appears much further down the list, is almost certainly the Thomas Neale of the same roll.) Disregarding the unidentified Smith, next is William Paddy, a well-known Doctor of Physic, President of the College of Physicians four separate times. Next is William de Lawne, also a physician, an Assistant Minister of the French Church in London. Seven of the first nine signatories (all but Meredith and Lee) have primary or secondary entries in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, while three (Browne, Crooke and Meredith) were, as we have seen, Members of Parliament. Again overlooking the presumably duplicated Bowes and the unidentified Smith (who might have been a man of distinction), the first nine petitioners are clearly ordered by social rank: Countess (Russell) Baron (Hunsdon) Knight, MP (Browne) Esquire, Recorder of London, MP (Crooke) Gentleman, MP (Meredith) Minister of St Ann Blackfriars (Egerton) Gentleman (Lee) Doctor of Physic (Paddy) Physician and Assistant Minister of the French Church (de Lawne) The order presumably reflects the original petition, though the possible intervention of a later scribe cannot be discounted.

30

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

Lay Subsidy Rolls are a primary source for identifying householders in cities, towns and other geographical subdivisions of early modern England and Wales.16 In all, twenty-one of the thirty names occur in the 1599 Lay Subsidy Roll for the parish of St Anne Blackfriars, including five (de Lawne, Bahire, Le Mere, de Renailmire and Edwards) identified as ‘Strangers’ – meaning immigrants.17 John Crooke (or Croke) and William Meredith are listed in rolls for other parishes, respectively St Dunstan, Farringdon Ward Without; and St Albon (Wood Street), Cripplegate Ward. Crooke is identified in Subsidy Rolls from 1598 to 1600 as ‘esquire’ and ‘recorder’. Another important source for identifying householders is the local parish register.18 Though Crooke paid his subsidy tax in the parish of St Dunstan, on 29 December 1596 he baptized a son in the parish of St Ann Blackfriars as ‘Epolonep Crookes son to Master Recorder’. Crooke must have been a genuine eccentric, as ‘Epolenep’ is ‘Penelope’ spelled backwards; perhaps Crooke and his wife had been hoping for a daughter!19 William Meredith baptized a son, Samuel, at St Ann Blackfriars on 24 April 1596. Seven names do not occur in the 1599 Subsidy Roll. As aristocratic magnates, Elizabeth Russell and George Carey Lord Hunsdon were assessed separately. Stephen Egerton, as a member of the active clergy, was also assessed separately. The unidentified ‘Smith’ remains a mystery. John Robinson was definitely a member of the parish in the 1590s, as revealed, for example, by numerous entries in its register of baptisms. It is even possible that there were two men in the parish with this name. Finally, Andrew Lyons and Herman Buckholt, who do not appear in the Subsidy Roll for 1599, do appear in the Roll for 1582. ‘Mr Lyons’ was buried on 21 October 1598, and so had died before the 1599 assessment. Buckholt’s second wife, Marie, was buried on 28 March 1599, but he himself apparently survived. Thus John Robinson and Herman Buckholt are the only two of thirty petitioners who are seemingly missing from the 1599 Subsidy Roll. They are, however, sufficiently attested in the parish register. Despite a few uncertainties, three points are beyond dispute. First, the 1596 petition is a genuine list of contemporary residents in the parish of St Ann Blackfriars, or, in a few cases, of individuals who lived in nearby parishes but had Blackfriars connections. Second, the list is ordered by social hierarchy, in two successive columns. Third, the order of names in the surviving copy, made circa 1633, provides no evidence as to which signatory, if any, initiated the petition. The specific complaint against ‘noyse’ which ‘will greatly disturbe and hinder both the Ministers and the Parishioners in tyme of devine service and Sermones’ suggests that the petition was the brainchild of Stephen Egerton (c. 1555–1622), minister of St Ann Blackfriars. A radical Puritan, Egerton disparaged plays at both the beginning and the end of his long preaching career. In a sermon on false prophets published in 1589 he complained: ‘They had as leaue heare such a one as see a playe, for the one dooth come no nearer the heart then the other.’20 In a posthumous treatise published in

NEIGHBOURS’ PETITION AGAINST BL ACKFRIARS PL AYHOUSE

31

1623 he lamented: ‘let hearers consider how easily without irkesomnesse they can be present at a play, or at some other prophane and idle exercise and discourse of greater length then those Sermons which they doe so much distaste in respect of the tediousness (as they esteeme it) of them’.21 If Egerton’s signature may reflect an opposition to plays per se, other signatures, like those of Lord Hunsdon, Richard Field and the dowager countess Elizabeth Russell, are more likely to reflect pure and simple ‘nimbyism’ – no drums and trumpets in my back yard! Finally, even if she had been the instigator of the petition, Elizabeth Russell made no ‘attempt to put Shakespeare’s company permanently out of business’, nor did she have an ‘audacious scheme to push the Burbages and their principal playwright, Shakespeare, out of the area’.22 In 1596 the Blackfriars playhouse was Burbage’s, and the objection of the petitioners was to a playhouse in this particular neighbourhood, not to all playhouses, or to playing per se. Did Shakespeare, regardless of the petition, base his characterization of the Countess of Rossillon in All’s Well that Ends Well on Elizabeth Russell? Here we are in the realm of pure speculation. The author of Shakespeare and the Countess notes similarities between Countess Russell and the Countess of Roussillon, including similarities between their names. But most of the rest of the story does not fit, as indicated by the ODNB description of the marriage between Elizabeth Russell’s son by her first marriage, Thomas Posthumus Hoby, and the already twice-married Margaret Dakins-Devereux-Sidney, who had rejected Thomas Posthumus’ proposal of marriage five years earlier. Note the reversal of this significant plot-point as, in reality, the woman refused the man. ‘They were married on 9 August 1596 and lived at Hackness, where Hoby established a political powerbase (he was JP and MP ) and a reputation as a humourless puritan and cantankerous opponent of Catholic gentry’.23 The same source reports of Margaret, in contrast to the lively and latterly pregnant Helena: ‘She had no children herself. Puritanism, the household, and property dominate [her] diary, as perhaps her whole life.’ In brief, Burbage not Shakespeare was the primary target of the petition, and Stephen Egerton not Elizabeth Russell was, in all likelihood, the primary instigator.

32

2 Shakespeare’s coat of arms The surviving manuscripts in context Heather Wolfe1

The surviving documents relating to the coat of arms granted to John Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon are a tantalizing mess. As C.W. ScottGiles declared in 1950: ‘But one halfpenny worth of fact to an intolerable deal of supposition – such is the matter for a note on Shakespeare’s arms.’2 In addition to the College of Arms’s two draft grants of arms from 1596 and the draft exemplification of arms from 1599, the Shakespeare coat of arms turns up in a manuscript debate between William Dethick, Garter King of Arms, and Ralph Brooke, York Herald, concerning the proliferation of grants of arms to ‘new gentlemen’.3 Soon after it was granted, the Shakespeare coat of arms also appears in manuscript collections of arms known as alphabets and ordinaries, which were assembled by heralds, heraldic painters and antiquaries to organize and keep track of the designs of previously granted arms. After introducing the documents, this essay addresses some of the key questions about the Shakespeare coat of arms: how typical are the surviving draft grants to John Shakespeare? Would William Shakespeare have known about the controversy over his coat of arms in 1601/2, or was it, as Schoenbaum suggests, ‘a heraldic tempest in a teacup’?4 When and why does the grant of arms come to be associated with William Shakespeare rather than John Shakespeare? An examination of the archival histories of the draft grants and the controversy between William Dethick and Ralph Brooke, as well as a number of previously unrecorded depictions of the coat of arms from William Shakespeare’s lifetime and shortly after, provides a contextual framework for interpreting the grant.5 33

34

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

The grant of arms In 1596, William Shakespeare’s father, John Shakespeare, was granted a coat of arms by William Dethick, Garter King of Arms. Garter King of Arms is the highest ranking of the thirteen kings of arms, heralds and pursuivants that form the College of Arms.6 Two drafts of the grant survive at the College of Arms in Dethick’s hand, both dated 20 October 1596.7 The second autograph draft incorporates emendations made in the first draft, and makes further emendations (Figures 2.1 and 2.2).8 Robert Bearman suggests that the emendations reflect discussion between Dethick and William Shakespeare, who, given his father’s old age and distance from London, most likely instigated the grant. He notes that the generic ancestors who were rewarded by Henry VII in the first draft become John Shakespeare’s unnamed grandfather in the second, and his great-grandfather in the confirmation. In the second draft, the status of Mary Arden’s father is raised from gentleman to esquire.9

FIGURE 2.1 London, College of Arms, Record Shakespeare Draft Grant of Arms 1 (formerly MS Vincent 157, no. 23). William Dethick, Garter King of Arms. First autograph draft of grant of arms to John Shakespeare, 20 October 1596. Reproduced by permission of the Kings, Heralds and Pursuivants of Arms.

SHAKESPEARE’S COAT OF ARMS

35

FIGURE 2.2 London, College of Arms, Record Shakespeare Draft Grant of Arms 2 (formerly MS Vincent 157, no. 24). William Dethick, Garter King of Arms. Second autograph draft of grant of arms to John Shakespeare, 20 October 1596. Reproduced by permission of the Kings, Heralds and Pursuivants of Arms.

36

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

Although the letters patent for this grant – the ornately scripted copy on parchment which would have been commissioned by and made for John Shakespeare – do not survive, we know that the grant proceeded beyond draft stage because, in 1599, a draft grant survives for the confirmation and exemplification, or augmentation, of his ‘ancient’ arms (Figure  2.3). The exemplification allowed John Shakespeare to depict his arms either singly or impaled with the arms of his wife’s family, the Ardens of Wilmcote (that is, in a shield with his arms on the left and his wife’s on the right). We also know the original application succeeded because it was the basis for a dispute in 1602, and because of the survival of a late seventeenth-century copy (see below). The two drafts of the grant, like Dethick’s surviving autograph drafts for other grants (see below), are messy, with multiple deletions, interlineal insertions and ambiguous corrections. Most of the emendations are authorial, although corrections to one line and a note at the bottom of the sheet are written in a different ink, and possibly a different hand.10 The emendations in the first draft are incorporated into the second draft, which is written on a larger sheet of paper. Dethick adds further emendations to this second draft which further strengthen the argument for granting John Shakespeare a coat of arms.

FIGURE 2.3 London, College of Arms, Record Shakespeare Draft Grant of Arms 3 (formerly MS R21, no. 347). William Dethick, Garter King of Arms. Autograph draft of confirmation of arms to John Shakespeare, 1599. Reproduced by permission of the Kings, Heralds and Pursuivants of Arms.

SHAKESPEARE’S COAT OF ARMS

37

Dethick justifies the assignment of the coat of arms with the following facts: John Shakespeare is a gentleman whose ancestor (or grandfather, depending on the draft) was rewarded with lands and revenues by Henry VII for his faithful and valiant service, and whose family continues to enjoy a good reputation and credit, as evidenced by his marriage to one of the heirs of Robert Arden of Wilmcote, esquire. He thus satisfies the general requirements, as stated in the preambulatory section of the grant: To the end that as many gentlemen by their ancient names of families, kindreds, and descents have and enjoy certain ensigns and coats of arms, so it is very expedient in all ages that some men for their valiant facts, magnanimity, virtue, dignities, and deserts may use and bear such tokens of honor and worthiness. Whereby their name and good fame may be the better known and divulged, and their children and posterity (in all virtue to the service of their prince and country) encouraged. John Shakespeare’s grant is typical of new grants from the Elizabethan period, in that the ancestral claims are either exaggerated, fictionalized or adapted from similarly named families. No one has been able to establish which ancestors served Henry VII , and one longs to see the pedigree that Dethick created to go along with the grant. Based on other payments at the time, John Shakespeare would have paid between £5 and £10 for the grant.11 The agreed-upon design of the coat of arms as described in the second draft is: This shield or coat of Arms. viz. Gold, on a bend sable, a spear of the first steeled argent, and for his crest or cognizance a falcon, his wings displayed argent, standing on a wreath of his colors, supporting a spear gold, steeled as aforesaid, set upon a helmet with mantels and tassels as hath been accustomed and doth more plainly appear depicted on this margent. In plain English, this means that the background of the shield is gold, the diagonal stripe is black, and inside the stripe is a gold spear with a silver tip (in the first draft the tip is described as proper, or natural-coloured). The crest on top of the shield consists of a silver falcon with wings open, standing on a wreath, holding a gold spear with a tip steeled argent. Below the wreath is a helmet, with mantels and tassels on either side of the shield. The helmet does not appear in the drafts, but it does appear in the late seventeenth-century copy (see above). The spear in the shield, and the spear being ‘shaken’ by the falcon, are visual puns on the Shakespeare family name. A rather cryptic phrase is written at the top of both drafts in an italic hand in an ink that is indistinguishable from the ink in the rest of the grant. In the first draft, it is written three times, each punctuated differently. ‘Non,

38

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

sanz droict’, ‘Non, sanz droict’ and ‘NON SANZ DROICT ’.12 In the second draft it appears once, above the crest, as ‘non sanz droict’ (with no punctuation). Mottos were not devised by the heralds and were not an official part of the grant of arms, but they often appeared on the letters patent as part of the overall coat of arms. The motto does not appear on Shakespeare’s monument in Holy Trinity Church and there is no evidence that it was ever used. Both drafts have been heavily repaired over the years and are now backed with paper. Because of the backing, the watermark on the first draft is not visible, but the watermark on the second draft is barely visible through transmitted light.13 Stabbed filing holes are visible on the first draft along the top margin, and fold lines are visible in both. Both drafts clearly had an early existence as folded documents before being bound with other papers (see below for what they were bound with). At the bottom of the second draft a note in Dethick’s hand summarizes Dethick’s reasons for assigning the grant to John Shakespeare: This John. A pattern thereof under Clarenceux Cook’s hand in paper 20 years past. A Justice of peace and was bailiff, officer, and chief of the town of Stratford-upon-Avon 15 or 16 years past. That he hath lands and tenements of good wealth and substance, 500 pounds. That he mar[ried] [damage] This note seems to have been added after the draft was fully written, possibly in preparation for the 1599 exemplification, or in preparation for his defence of the grant in 1602, since the information is not included in the grant itself (see below). Despite the reference to a pattern (or patent) by Cooke, one has not been identified.14 Bearman suggests that the reference to Cooke may in fact refer to Cooke’s presence at the 1563 visitation of Warwickshire, in which a patent may have been discussed but never drafted.15 Once the letters patent (the formal version of the grant) were issued by Garter, John Shakespeare and his family could display the coat of arms in various ways. The letters patent no longer survive, but the second draft of the grant explains, in formulaic language, that: it shalbe lawfull for the said John Shakespeare. gent. and for his cheldren yssue & posterite (at all tymes ^ & places convenient) to beare and make demonstracion of the said Blazon or Atchevment vppon theyre Shieldes, Targetes, escucheons, Cotes of Arms, ^Creastes or Cognizances pennons, Guydons. Seales, Ringes, sEdifiteses,Edefices Buyldinges vtensiles, Lyueries, Tombes, or Monumentes. or otherwise for all Lawfull warrlyke factes or Ciuile vse or exercises: according to the Lawes of Arms, and Customes that to gentillmen belongethe:

SHAKESPEARE’S COAT OF ARMS

39

His son William could bear them with a difference; that is, with an added mark that signified he was the holder’s son (no examples of the arms with difference are known to survive). After his father’s death in September 1601, he was entitled to bear the arms without difference. The earliest reference to William Shakespeare as a gentleman (with the understanding that he is using this title because he is entitled to bear a coat of arms) is in a deed transferring the Globe as security for a debt, on 7 October 1601.16 Although the drafts are heavily damaged, a late seventeenth-century copy of the letters patent for the grant (Figure 2.4), possibly made directly from the patent itself given its ornateness and the presence of the helmet, supplies the missing text and tries to resolve one of the key ambiguities in the second draft: ‘antecessors’ and ‘grandfather’ appear next to each other in the phrase ‘whose parents and late antecessors Grandfather for ^his their faithful and valiant service’. Where the second draft is torn at this point with significant loss of text and the first draft contains a shorter version, we learn from this later copy what the missing text in the second draft might have said (new text in bold, not in first draft and probably in the torn section of the second draft, modernized): ‘[^]antecessors[^] Grandfathers antecessors, for his faithfull & valiant Seruice was advanced & rewarded with lands & revennewes giuen him by the most prudent Prince King Henry the Seventh’. The italicized text (italics mine) supplies us with the specific type of reward received by John Shakespeare’s ancestor – lands and revenue, a reward certainly worthy of a gentleman. These additional details are carried over into the 1599 exemplification. Another minor difference between the two drafts and the copy of the letters patent is also significant of the importance of carefully justifying the assignment of arms: in the copy of the letters patent, ‘gent.’ appears after John Shakespeare’s name the first time he is mentioned, while in the first and second drafts, ‘gent.’ is included only at the second mention. An odd transcription error suggests that the copyist was not entirely familiar with the trappings of heraldry: he has transcribed the word ‘Guidon’ as ‘Emidon’, no doubt misreading the curvy majuscule ‘G’ and the two minims of the ‘u’ as a majuscule ‘E’ with a three minim ‘m’. The additional minor tweaks to the text between the second draft and the copy of the letters patent indicate that the second draft was in all probability not the final draft. The volume in which the letters patent appear consists of a compilation of 128 copies of letters patent of grants made by William Dethick between 1590 and 1599, with several undated grants, one dated 1586, and several from the early seventeenth century. The volume once belonged to Sir Joseph Williamson (1633–1701), who left his library to Queen’s College, Oxford, upon his death.17

40

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

FIGURE 2.4 Oxford, Queen’s College, MS 137, folio 54. Copy of William Dethick’s grant of arms to John Shakespeare in ‘Grant of arms to various families from 33 Elizabeth to 8 Car I inclusive chiefly by Sir William Dethick Garter King of Arms’, seventeenth century. Reproduced with permission from The Provost, Fellows and Scholars of The Queen’s College, Oxford.

SHAKESPEARE’S COAT OF ARMS

41

The exemplification of arms In 1599, Dethick drafted an exemplification of arms to John Shakespeare (Figure  2.3). An exemplification contains similar wording to a grant, and then expands upon it in some way. In this case, the exemplification, granted by Dethick and William Camden, the newly appointed Clarenceux King of Arms,18 authorizes John Shakespeare to impale, or combine, his wife’s coat of arms with his own. Like the 1596 drafts, this one is also messy and full of deletions and insertions as Garter tweaked the language to improve its accuracy. Two Arden coats of arms are drawn in the margin. The first, Ermine, a fess checky gold and azure, belonging to the ancient Ardens of Park Hall in Warwickshire, appears on the sinister half of the shield. It has been crossed out and replaced with another coat, Gules, three cross-crosslets fitchy gold, on a gold chief a martlet gules. This differenced form of an Arden coat from Cheshire was less likely to cause problems for John Shakespeare, whose wife Mary Arden was the youngest of Robert Arden of Wilmcote’s eight daughters. Robert himself was from a lesser branch of the Park Hall Ardens.19 As before, the heralds state that they are relying on ‘credible report’ of John Shakespeare’s gentle lineage to justify the exemplification, but this time, the ‘credible report’ has improved: John Shakespeare’s valiant ancestor(s) who served Henry VII , described previously and vaguely as ‘parents and late ancestors’ (first draft) and ‘grandfather’ (second draft) and ‘antecessor’s grandfather’ (copy of letters patent), is here described as a great-grandfather, who was ‘rewarded with lands and tenements’ in Warwickshire (a pedigree of three descents – father, grandfather and great-grandfather – was important). Additionally, John ‘married the daughter and one of the heirs of Robert Arden of Wellingcote [i.e. Wilmote]’. Instead of referring directly to the 1596 grant, Dethick and Camden state that he also ‘produced this his ancient coat of arms heretofore assigned to him whilst he was her majesty’s officer and bailiff of that town’. Ancient is a stretch, but it is an attempt to situate the exemplification as emanating from his appointment as Bailiff in 1568 – bailiffs were one of the offices of dignity that merited a coat of arms if one didn’t already exist – rather than from a new grant made three years previously. It is not known if John Shakespeare ever used this version of his coat of arms, but if so, he would have been entitled to use his arms either impaled or singly, and his children could incorporate the impaled version into their own coats, with a difference during their father’s life: it may and shall be lawful for the said John Shakespeare, gent., to bear and use the same shield of arms, single or impaled as aforesaid during his natural life. And that it shall be lawful for his children, issue, and posterity (lawfully begotten) to bear, use, and quarter & show forth the same, with their due differences, in all lawful war-like facts, and civil use or exercises, according to the laws of Arms and custom that to gentlemen belongeth.

42

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

All later references to the coat of arms refer to the 1596 grant, and all later usages of the coat are to the single coat rather than to the impaled coat. The fact that this exemplification is issued under the names of Dethick and Camden is perhaps a result of recommendations made in 1597 by the Commissioners for the Office of the Earl Marshall to Lord Burghley for reforms in the College of Arms, based on an inquiry requested by the queen in 1595. One of the controversies surrounded Dethick’s self-proclaimed right to grant arms to individuals outside of his jurisdiction, which was limited to peers and knights of the Garter. The other two kings of arms, Clarenceux and Norroy, had jurisdiction over all grants south and north of the river Trent, respectively. The respected antiquary William Camden was appointed Clarenceux in 1597 as part of this reform, much to the consternation of Ralph Brooke, who felt that he deserved the promotion. A compromise might have been reached in which Dethick and Camden agreed to share the rewards from grants made to individuals south of the river Trent.

Ralph Brooke’s complaint and William Dethick’s rebuttal While William Dethick was busily granting arms to various individuals in the 1590s, including to John Shakespeare in 1596, his nemesis Ralph Brooke was busily gathering evidence of Dethick’s improprieties.20 Brooke’s antagonistic relationship with Dethick led to a near constant stream of vitriol between them. As Mark Noble observed in 1804, ‘Their accusations against each other would fill a volume’, and the full record of the Brooke– Dethick dispute deserves proper treatment elsewhere.21 Brooke and Dethick were undoubtedly the most troublesome members of the College during one of the most turbulent periods in the College’s history, and their ‘deadly malice’ towards one another pulled in many victims.22 In 1594/5, Brooke began drafting catalogues of arms improperly granted by Dethick and other kings of arms.23 These treatises were submitted to various individuals, including the Earl of Essex (Earl Marshal from 1597 until his execution in February 1601),24 Elizabeth I and the Commissioners for the office of Earl Marshal (see below), Henry Howard, Earl of Northampton, one of the Commissioners for the office of Earl Marshal,25 and James I.26 Various dated and undated drafts and copies of these treatises survive, showing Brooke fine-tuning his arguments and adding and subtracting names of grantees from his arsenal. In several of the catalogues, Brooke describes the grantees as ‘mean and base’, ‘base and Mechanicall’, and as members of the ‘tribe of what-lake-yee’.27 He worries that the tendency of the kings of arms to grant arms without due cause for ‘pryvate gayne’ will ‘bringe vtter ruine of that worthy profession’.28 Beyond malice and professional jealousy, Brooke’s complaints reflect his anxiety about the abuse of historical evidence, disrespect to noble families and

SHAKESPEARE’S COAT OF ARMS

43

the expansion of privilege to a new class of individuals with dubious pedigrees. This acceleration of ‘the inflation of honor’ was in the financial best interest of the heralds, but could potentially undermine their authority as a regulating agency if they were seen to be indiscriminate in their granting of arms to people willing to purchase them and jump-start their social status.29 The first surviving iteration of Brooke’s catalogue is an untitled circa 1594/5 manuscript that includes seventeen arms tricked (drawn out) in colour, with explanatory captions (Folger MS V.a.156).30 As has been noted by others, Brooke’s captions ‘grossly exaggerated the humble status of some of Dethick’s recent clients’ and Brooke ‘rather disingenuously applies trade designations to grantees as a way of undermining their status’.31 The captions include additional negating factors, such as the fees received by Dethick, the similarity of the arms to the arms of noble families, and a note if the grantee was dead at the time of the grant.32 Brooke made additional notes in this manuscript a few years later, inserting fifteen additional grantees with very rough sketches of their arms and a list of twenty-three names, including Shakespeare’s. This simple numbered list, jotted down by Brooke on the front endleaf of Folger MS V.a.156, includes grants already included in the main text, as well as additional grants made between 1596 and 1600, after the main text was completed (the front endleaf includes the date ‘8 September 42 Elizabeth [1600]’), and seems to have been drafted in preparation for a circa late 1601 catalogue of arms that Brooke claims to have submitted to Queen Elizabeth, in which the twenty-three names appear in the exact same order, with the addition of two extra names at the end (Figure  2.5).33 Two seventeenthcentury copies of the 1594/5 catalogue survive, both of which (like V.a.156) include depictions and descriptions of additional coats of arms added later, including Shakespeare’s (see below for Folger MS V.a.350 and College of Arms MS Dethick’s Grants X). In these copies, the catalogue is titled A Note of some few Coats and Crests lately come to my hands. Given by William Dethick, when he was York Herald and sithence he hath executed the Office of Garter King of Arms. It is not known if or when this catalogue was ever presented or, given the entries added at a later date, if it simply became the basis for later catalogues by Brooke. In late 1601 Ralph Brooke created an illustrated list of twenty-five arms in trick granted by Dethick, with brief explanatory captions, on a single sheet of paper (Figure 2.6). It is labelled by Brooke on the verso: ‘The Armes presented vnto her Maiestie with the first [. . .] per Garter Dethecke.’34 John Shakespeare’s coat of arms appear in the first row, as the fourth entry. Tucked next to his arms is a small coat of arms of the thirteenth-century knight Lord Mauley, which Shakespeare’s arms exactly resembled except for the presence of the spear in the bend.35 Shakespeare’s arms are captioned by Brooke: ‘Shakespeare / see the booke of Differences 61 / See knyghtes of Edward 1 fol. 2: 28: Booke of differences’.36 This caption refers to specific entries in two books, the ‘Book of Differences’ and the ‘Knyghtes of Edward I’, that include the arms of Piers Mauley, whose family line was then extinct.

44

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

FIGURE 2.5 London, College of Arms, Record MS R21, fol. 285 recto. Ralph Brooke, York Herald. Autograph list of 25 coats of arms granted by William Dethick, in trick. Reproduced by permission of the Kings, Heralds and Pursuivants of Arms.

SHAKESPEARE’S COAT OF ARMS

45

FIGURE 2.6 Washington, DC, Folger MS V.a.156, front endleaf (detail). Ralph Brooke, York Herald, compiler. Autograph list of arms granted by William Dethick on front endleaf of Coats of arms granted by William Dethick as York herald and Garter king of arms, compiled ca. 1595–ca. 1600. Reproduced by permission of the Folger Shakespeare Library.

46

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

We know that the Commissioners for the Office of the Earl Marshal received a version of this manuscript broadside because the grantees are identical to the grantees that Dethick defends in the fair copy of his 1602 rebuttal to Brooke’s ‘scroll’, as he calls it.37 In his rebuttal, Dethick addressed each of the arms one by one, and in many cases soundly dismissed Brooke’s claims. Two versions of this survive, a fair copy at the College of Arms with Dethick’s autograph revisions, titled ‘The answere of Garter & Clarenciaux Kinges of Armes to a Libellous Scrowle against certein Arms supposed to be wrongfully given’, and an earlier and more vitriolic autograph draft, titled ‘The answeres of Garter and Clarenceux Kings of Arms to the Scrowle of Arms exhibited by Raffe Brokesmouth called York Herauld’.38 The first sentences of each version also reveal that Dethick moderated his tone as he revised: draft: The exceptions in the Scrowle of xxiij Arms exhibited doth Concerne ether the Arms or the personns that beare the same. (Whom he hathe so iniuriously defamed.) fair copy: Right Honorable. the exceptions taken in the Scrowle of Armes exhibited doe concerne these Armes granted or the persons to whome they haue bin granted. The draft, endorsed ‘xximo: March 1601[2] The aunsweare of Mr Garter and Mr Clarencieulx to the informacion preferred by the rest of the Herrawldes against them for giving Armes’, reveals that the rebuttal was part of a larger defence by Dethick and Camden concerning not only Brooke’s scroll, but also other objections levelled by Brooke and his colleagues. Indeed, these other charges are addressed in the manuscript of which the fair copy was a part: The answer of William Dethick Garter principall King of Armes to two matters amongst others Whereof he was accused by some of the Officers whereof informacion was heard the fift day of May last past before the right honorable Henry Lo. Howard, Sir Robert Sydney Lord Gouerner of Flushing, and Sir Edward Dier Chancellor of the order of the Garter. And day giuen the said Garter to answere namely heere vnto the 10 of May insuing. 1602.39 The date of the draft (21 March) and of the fair copy (10 May) are seven weeks apart. In this span, Brooke supplied the Commissioners with a new paper that included one additional name. Dethick notes in the fair copy, ‘as for Woolger, he was not in the last Rolle and yet being inserted in the new paper Garter answered that he neuer gaue them’. Both versions depict Shakespeare’s coat of arms in the left margin and the arms of Lord Mauley, Harley and Ferrers in the right margin:

SHAKESPEARE’S COAT OF ARMS

47

draft: It maye as well be said That Harley who bearethe Gould a bend 2 Cotizes sable. Or ferrers. &c. or any other that beare silver. or Gould a bend charged in like manner. Vsurpe the Coate of the Lo. Mauley. As for the Speare on the Bend. is a patible difference. And the man was a Magestrat in Stratford vpon Avon. A Iustice of Peace he maryed theA daughter and heyre of Ardern. and was of good substance and habelite/ fair copy: It may as well be said that Harely who beareth gold, a bend between two cotises sables, and all other that Or and Argent, a bend sables, usurp the coat of the Lord Mauley. As for the spear in bend is a patible difference. And the person to whom it was granted hath borne magistracy and was justice of peace at Stratford upon Avon. He married the daughter and heir of Ardern and was able to maintain that estate./ Dethick testified that Shakespeare’s arms were actually quite different from the arms of Lord Mauley (these arms became extinct at the death of the last baron de Mauley in 1415) because they had a spear in the black bend, whereas Mauley’s arms were simply a gold background and a black bend with nothing in it. He also mentioned that John Shakespeare had been granted ‘some magistracy’, was a justice of the peace at Stratford-uponAvon and that his wife came from a gentle family (Figures 2.7 and 2.8). The names included in two of Brooke’s lists are nearly identical to the names defended by Dethick in the autograph draft and fair copy of his reply (Table 2.1). Brooke’s list (Folger V.a.156) and his circa 1601/2 catalogue (College of Arms R21, fol. 285) are identical in order (Shakespeare appears fourth), but Brooke adds two additional names, Dungan and Harborne, to the end of his catalogue. Similarly, Dethick’s draft rebuttal does not include Dungan and Harborne, but the fair copy does. Thus, Dethick appears to be formulating his defence based on a moving target, revising as needed. In the fair copy, Dethick does not include two names that he had previously replied to in his autograph draft, Sanderson and Parr, because, as he explains in his draft: ‘ffor Sanderson. and Parr. order was taken therin with ^all other by the Right honorable late lord Burgley and therle of Nottingham nowe vj yeres past’. Here, Dethick refers to an investigation by the Commission for the Office of the Earl Marshal that was resolved in 1596, in which, according to Dethick, Brooke was ordered to no longer ‘molest’ Dethick ‘nor serve with him at the ffuneralls of the Nobilite bycause of his infamie at Newgate and Turbulent behaviour in that office’.40 At some point between Brooke’s catalogue presented to the Queen (Figure  2.5) and Dethick’s fair copy rebuttal (Figure 2.8), Brooke must have added one additional name, Woolger, to which Dethick replies in the fair copy: ‘As for Woolger, he was not in the last roll and yet being inserted in the new paper, Garter answered that he never gave them.’ We have not yet ascertained if this ‘new paper’ still survives.

48

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

FIGURE 2.7 Oxford, MS Ashmole 846, fol. 50r. William Dethick, Garter King of Arms, and William Camden, Clarenceaux King of Arms. William Dethick’s autograph copy of Garter and Clarenceaux’s reply to the York Herald, including the Shakespeare coat of arms in trick, 1602. Reproduced by permission of the Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford.

SHAKESPEARE’S COAT OF ARMS

49

FIGURE 2.8 London, College of Arms, Record WZ fol. 276 verso (detail). William Dethick, Garter King of Arms, and William Camden, Clarenceaux King of Arms. Fair copy of Garter and Clarenceaux’s reply to the York Herald, including the Shakespeare coat of arms in trick, with autograph corrections by William Dethick, 1602. Reproduced by permission of the Kings, Heralds and Pursuivants of Arms.

50

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

Table 2.1 Names included in Brooke’s complaints and Dethick’s replies, late 1601 to May 1602. Brooke’s draft Dethick’s draft Brooke’s catalogue Dethick’s fair copy list (Folger reply (Bodleian, (College of Arms reply (College of V.a.156) Ashmole 846) MS R21, fol. 285) Arms WZ, fol. 273) 1

Clarke

Clerk

Clarke 1600

Clerke

2

Cowley

Cowley

Cooley

Cowley

Dungan

Dungan

3 4

Elkyn

Elkyn

Elkyn

Elkyn

5

Gibson

Gibson

Gibson

Gibson

6

Hall

Hall

Hall

Hall

Harbrowne

Harborne

7 8

Heyward

Hayward

Hayward

Hayward

9

Hickman

Hickman

Hickman

Hickman

10

Laurence

Laurence

Laurence

Lawrence

11

Lee

Lee

Lee

Lee

12

Lound

Lound

Lound

Lound

13

Macatrot

Murgatrod

Macatrot

Murgatord

14

Molesworth

Mouldesworth

Moulesworth

Molesworth

15

Norton

Norton

Norton

Norton

16

Parre

Parr

Parre

17

Peake

Peake

Peake

Peake

18

Pettous

Pettous

Pettous

Pettous

19

Sanderson

Sanderson

Sanderson

20

Shakespeare

Shakespeare

Shakespeare

Shakespeare

21

Smyth

Smith

Smythe

Smith

22

Thwates

Thwaites

Thwates

Thwaites

23

Whitmore

Whitmore

Whitmore

Whitmore

24

Wythens

Withins

Wythens

Withins

25 26

Woolger Yonge

Young

Yonge

Young

Note: Given in alphabetical order for ease of comparison. See shakespearedocumented.org for transcriptions in original order

SHAKESPEARE’S COAT OF ARMS

51

Brooke’s autograph copy of Dethick arms addressed to the queen (Figure 2.5), written on a single unfolded piece of paper, has terse captions focused mainly on the similarity of the arms to the arms of noble families, and in some cases, the person’s trade. Because Dethick’s rebuttal addresses additional objections by Brooke, it seems plausible that the actual ‘scroll’ that the Commissioners required Dethick to respond to in 1602, which is not known to survive, was similar in content and style to Brooke’s catalogue of arms granted by Segar in trick with supporting narrative, or to his more splendidly presented catalogues from the 1590s.41 While Dethick’s defence of his grant of arms to John Shakespeare responds to objections over the similarity of the arms to those of an ancient noble family and to John Shakespeare’s questionable socio-economic status, Brooke does not mention Shakespeare’s ‘trade’ (a surrogate for status) in the catalogue presented to the queen (Figure 2.5). The addition of Shakespeare’s arms to later copies of V.a.156 (Figures 2.9 and 2.10), where they are identified as the arms of ‘Shakespeare the player by Garter’, and the note at the bottom of the second draft of the grant that ‘he hath lands and tenements of good wealth and substance, 500 pounds’ (Figure  2.2), suggests that there was some slippage on the part of both Dethick and Brooke between the son’s lucrative occupation and property holdings, and the father’s former magistracy. John Shakespeare had been both alderman and bailiff in Stratford, respectable attainments for a man in his position. However, by 1596, when the grant was drafted, he was no longer a man of means, and by May 1602, when Dethick responded to Brooke’s scroll, he was dead. ‘Shakespeare the player’, whether it was included by Brooke in his non-extant ‘scroll’ or added to later copies of Brooke’s catalogues by later heralds or other owners, addresses the social status of the son. As Cheesman notes, ‘no accusation could be built on that prejudice’ since the grant was to the father rather than the son.42 However, as the next section explores, the son most likely acquired the grant on behalf of his father, and therefore Brooke could certainly try to trick the Commissioners into thinking that the grant went to the actor rather than to the magistrate. Prior to 2014, Brooke’s reference to ‘Shakespeare the player by Garter’ was known only through a manuscript at the Folger Shakespeare Library, a circa 1700 copy owned by the herald Peter Le Neve, with his annotations, emendations and additions throughout (Figure 2.9). In 2014, Richmond Herald Clive Cheesman published a previously unrecorded pre-1642 example from the College of Arms (Figure 2.10).43 It shares the same title and arrangement of arms as in the Folger manuscript.44 Both are titled (regularized): A Note of some few Coats and Crests lately come to my hands. Given by William Dethick, when he was York Herald and sithence he hath executed the Office of Garter King of Arms. For generations scholars have known that ‘my hands’ in the title of Le Neve’s copy refers, posthumously, to the hands of Ralph Brooke, but that it was not a direct child of Brooke’s autograph draft, written a century earlier.45 The manuscript at the College of Arms (Figure 2.10) provides the missing link.

52

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

FIGURE 2.9 Washington, DC, Folger MS V.a.350, page 28 (detail). ‘Shakespeare the player’ in A note of some coats and crests lately come to my hands given by William Dethick when he was York herald, Peter Le Neve’s ca. 1700 copy of the ca. 1600 original. Reproduced by permission of the Folger Shakespeare Library.

SHAKESPEARE’S COAT OF ARMS

53

FIGURE 2.10 London, College of Arms, Record MS Dethick’s Grants X, folio 28 recto. ‘Shakespeare the player’ in A Noate of some few Coates and Creasts lately come to my hands. Geuen by Willm Dethick, when he was York Herald and sithence he hath executed the Office of Garter King of Armes, copy owned by John Lucas, 1642. Reproduced by permission of the Kings, Heralds and Pursuivants of Arms.

54

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

FIGURE 2.11 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Rylands c. 44, p. 82. ‘Shakespeare the player’ in Collections of grants of arms, seventeenth century, the arms in trick and emblazoned. Reproduced by permission of the Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford.

SHAKESPEARE’S COAT OF ARMS

55

FIGURE 2.12 Washington, DC, Folger MS V.b.92, folio 73 recto (detail). ‘Shakespeare the player’ in Scrapbook of heraldic and genealogical items of sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, collected ca. 1700. Reproduced by permission of the Folger Shakespeare Library.

A note by Le Neve at the beginning of his copy states that it was a duplicate copy, which he had bound for his personal library at his house in Bow: ‘To be bound / A Duplicate for bow’. This duplicate is quite possibly based on the pre–1642 version at the College of Arms. Most of the text is

56

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

written in an early seventeenth-century hand, but is finished in another hand, which also adds the index. This other hand quite possibly belongs to John Lucas, the brother of the writer Margaret Cavendish, and a royalist landowner who authored a work on military and civic heraldry in 1647.46 Lucas inscribes the book ‘John Lucas his booke 1642’. More work needs to be done on this manuscript, which may have been copied directly from Brooke’s autograph draft at the Folger. Until then, we can say with some certainty that ‘Shakespeare the player by Garter’ was most likely added to Lucas’s manuscript, along with other names included in Brooke’s various catalogues and in Dethick’s 1602 rebuttal, by 1642, if not earlier. Two other seventeenth-century versions of the ‘Shakespeare the player’ depiction appear in heraldic scrapbooks. The first appears in a disorganized compilation of arms and pedigrees cut from other manuscripts pasted onto the pages (Figure 2.11).47 The second example appears on a page with the arms of Bond of Cornwall, Mr. Peter Vandeput, merchant of London, and one Webb (Figure 2.12). They lose the context of Brooke’s attack in these volumes, but at the same time indicate that in the seventeenth century there were additional copies of Brooke’s catalogues in circulation, and that William Shakespeare’s coat of arms resonated with compilers later in the century outside of the dispute. The reference to Shakespeare as a ‘player’ fits with Brooke’s strategy to impugn the social status of the recipient or the motivations of the recipient’s family. Brooke refers to William Sanderson as a ‘fishmonger’ when he was, in fact, a member of one of the most ancient London guilds, the Fishmongers Company, and who had financed the printing of the first English maps for globes. He refers to William Norton as a ‘bookbinder’ when in fact he was Master of the Stationers’ Company.48 In this context, Shakespeare’s identification as a ‘player’ is necessary for Brooke’s argument: it gestures at his actually being something more than, not merely, an actor.

Other evidence of the dispute Was this an internal squabble between argumentative heralds, or were Shakespeare and the other grantees aware of the dispute? When the original draft grants from 1596 and 1599 are analysed in the context of the two volumes from which they were removed, it becomes clear that Shakespeare and other newly recognized gentlemen were probably aware that their arms were being contested as early as 1599. These two volumes include hundreds of draft grants, pedigrees and correspondence that reveal the process of researching, creating and granting a coat of arms. In the case of the second volume, they also show how heralds’ working papers could change hands and be used as evidence against them. On 1 November 1933, Rouge Dragon Pursuivant ‘handed in’ the three Shakespeare draft grants of arms at the monthly chapter meeting of the

SHAKESPEARE’S COAT OF ARMS

57

College of Arms. The three grants had just been separated from the two large volumes in which they had lived for at least three hundred years prior. Because of their new life as Shakespeare relics, they were ordered to be placed in ‘the specially locked presses’.49 At that moment, Shakespeare’s arms, removed from their context, were thrust upon Shakespeareans as biographical treasures without a back story. This section puts the draft grants back into the archive; that is, by removing Shakespeare as the protagonist of his own story, we can begin to understand his place in the heraldic controversies of the Elizabethan period. These contextualizing manuscripts raise the possibility that the feud among the heralds may have spilled into the public during Shakespeare’s lifetime. Were that the case, it is possible that Shakespeare was himself forced to defend (or advocate for) his claim to gentle status in the public eye as the controversy escalated, reaching the attention of the queen and the commissioners. Surviving papers of Dethick and Brooke, still bound in the College of Arms volumes from which the original draft grants of arms were removed in 1933, reveal outrage and consternation by some of the families of other individuals named in Brooke’s attack on Dethick. The two 1596 draft grant of arms to John Shakespeare were removed from a continuously numbered two-volume set of 600 items known as ‘Vincent 157’, where they had been items 23 and 24 in volume 1. This volume was owned by Augustine Vincent, Windsor Herald (died 1626), and then by Augustine’s son John Vincent.50 John Vincent bequeathed his father’s collection to the antiquary Ralph Sheldon, who left it to the College along with circa 260 other volumes in 1684. This volume contains the working papers of William Dethick, even though it is not identified as such. Like many of his fellow heralds, Dethick was meticulous in his research and his record-keeping. At first impression, the manuscripts seem fairly haphazardly arranged within the two volumes, with random blank leaves and orphaned address leaves, as if someone had scooped up piles of his papers and bound them together. This is a product of the binding, however: the bookbinder would have needed gatherings, rather than loose bifolia, to sew through. Dethick’s bundles of draft bifolia grants, pedigrees and correspondence were therefore nested inside of each other so that he could sew the gatherings together. This means that a letter might be conjoined with an address leaf many pages later, and two draft grants for the same person that are sixteen pages apart from each other in the volume might actually be written on two leaves of the same bifolia. It also explains the inconsistent staining on individual leaves, which can be traced to integral leaves within the quire gathering at large.51 While the binding together of the loose papers is undoubtedly why they survive today, the structural requirements of binding masks what was most likely the original organization of Dethick’s files. This manuscript helps to clarify a number of niggling archival questions. Was it normal for a herald to make two drafts? Was it normal for a draft to

58

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

be so damaged? Was it normal for a draft to be in Dethick’s own hand? Was it normal for a grant to be issued by two heralds instead of just one (as in the case of the exemplification)? The answer to all of these questions is yes – there are plenty of drafts in these volumes that are chewed up, waterstained or, in one case, burned. Dethick sometimes made three, four or even five drafts of a grant, often in his own hand. He kept pedigrees, letters of recommendation, suggestions on design from the applicants, and other relevant information, alongside the draft grants so that it is often possible to trace the whole process from application to patent. The volume contains many drafts of grants issued jointly by both Dethick and Camden, chiefly between 1598 and 1600, including the impalement of Shakespeare’s arms with Arden. The richness of these volumes makes it clear that there is one slightly unusual thing about the grant to John Shakespeare: there is no other supporting paperwork filed with the drafts. Of course, it may have got separated, and not all of the grants have additional paperwork. It could suggest, however, that this was not a mail-order application, as many of them seem to be, but an in-person transaction. But by whom? Scholars typically assert that William Shakespeare would have applied on behalf of his aging father, but there is no documentary evidence for this. However, if you start to consider indirect documentary evidence, the story becomes plausible. Dethick’s files include an instance of a son submitting all of the paperwork for his father (no. 459), and two instances of sons applying for a coat of arms for their deceased fathers, including one of the coats included in Brooke’s list alongside Shakespeare’s (no. 495 and no. 508). I also found letters of suitors writing from outside of London, frustrated with how long the process was taking. Dethick’s files for other clients indicate that he often began drafting the grants before he had all of the information. Often, the first drafts will not have a date or a sketch, and in at least one case Dethick didn’t know the full name of the client. In contrast, both of the drafts for John Shakespeare are dated and fully depict the coat of arms and crest – this was not the norm. If Shakespeare were there with all of his information ready, including a motto (which rarely appear on drafts, and are not part of the assignment of arms), Dethick could proceed straight to the draft and then the letters patent, where mottos were sometimes incorporated into the design, making it a fast and efficient transaction, not drawn out by distance.52 Do any of these documents indicate whether or not William Shakespeare was aware of the controversy? His father had died in September 1601, so at the time of the controversy William was newly entitled to bear the arms without a difference.53 Dethick’s working papers in Vincent 157, which include drafts of many of the grants that appear in Brooke’s complaint to the Queen, also include at least two letters to Dethick from individuals on Brooke’s list expressing outrage at Brooke’s attempt to defame them. As we shall see, Dethick used these letters in his defence against Brooke’s complaint.

SHAKESPEARE’S COAT OF ARMS

59

William Harborne writes on 10 May 1602 (the day before Dethick’s rebuttal to Brooke is dated): Sir, Whereas you have certified me, that my late brother Piers Harborn of High Mount, who had our coat of arms from you, hath bin challenged to have fled to the Spaniards, and was a traitor and rebel to her Majesty, I ensure you of my credit, the reporter is accursed of God, and to be hated of all good men, for so murdering the good name of the deceased.54 He closes by writing, ‘Woe to the slanderer and detractor whom god shall judge’. The ‘slanderer and detractor’, Brooke, had prepared his attack on Harborne by obtaining two draft grants by Dethick to Harborne and making notes on them. The first was a draft grant (in Latin) to Harborne in a neat secretary hand, captioned by Brooke: ‘This Pieres Harebrowne (was wre (here wrytten Harborne) was an Englishe fugetyue, and subiect to the king of Spayne, at the makinge of this Patent.’ On the adjoining leaf, Brooke drew a pedigree for Harborne, with another caption: ‘This Pedygree is all faulse, and forged by Garter, for the. 3. last Tho. Wm and Pieres were sons to one Wm Harebrowne of great yarmouth marchant and by that adicon were they bound prentice in London.’55 He endorses the bifolium: ‘A Coppie of Harborers Patent of Armes made by Wm Derick Garter. 1595. to an Englishe fugetyve now Remayninge in Spaygne/.’ A second bifolium in the same volume consists of another draft of the grant (in Latin) of the same date (St James Day, July 1595), along with a pedigree, with Brooke’s note: ‘The Armes of Harborne was first geven to Wm Harborne of London by Clar Cooke 1582.’56 In his rebuttal to Brooke, Dethick argued: As for Mr Harborne, whereas they also say that Garter made a false pedigree for Peirs Harborne, who they evilly and untruly say was a traitor, etc. because he was in Spain. Garter answereth first that the copy which they produce doth not agree but is differing from the original pedigree which he made for Mr Harborne. The pedigree was for many descents, testified and proved at that time in the Office to be true. The Arms witnessed and allowed by the late Cook, Clarencieux, and so confirmed by Garter. Dethick appends an additional sentence to this fair copy: ‘And the said Piers Harborne justified to be a good subject to the Queen’s Majesty as appeareth by a letter’,57 referring to the outraged letter from William Harborne to Dethick, dated 10 May 1602. Similarly, William Dongan, Collector of First Fruits in Ireland, who was not on Brooke’s list but implicated because his relative Richard Dongan, a

60

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

‘plasterer’, was granted an identical coat of quartered arms by Dethick in the same year, 1598,58 writes to Dethick from Dublin on 14 December 1601: Garter vnderstandinge by a frend of myne and of my name that som herrawldes Calumniat at the Coate Armor I beare wherof I haue a testimoniall from yow because I can not be present to make awnser to their oposicions and so iustifie my right I thought good to dilate vnto yow whom I know most worthie the Summarie [. . .] for your pryvate satisfaction and for no Content of eny that baselie and maliciouslie intend imputacion to your doinge or my bearinge.59 The ‘frend of myne and of my name’ is most likely his relative, the queen’s plasterer Richard Dongan. Following this letter is the draft copy of the grant and pedigree that Dethick had sent to Dongan, which Dongan returns with his signature and a note: ‘These Arms sent to me out of Ireland and I devised a Crest.’ In the fair copy of Dethick’s defence against Brooke’s attack, he claims that he did not grant Dungan a coat of arms – ‘As for Dongan Garter answereth that he neuer gaue him any’ – but then clarifies in an autograph marginal note that he exemplified them – ‘But what was exemplefied by Garter is proued by Mr Dongans letter for his antiquite’60. The letter to which he refers is most likely the one mentioned above. In fact, in addition to being the queen’s plasterer (Master Plasterer in the Royal Works), Richard Dongan was Master of the Worshipful Company of Plaisterers and a member of the Common Council of London.61 There appears to have been some confusion by William Dongan and perhaps by Dethick himself about whether William or Richard were the target of Brooke’s attack. Unlike Dongan, Shakespeare had the advantage of being in London, and could have consulted with Dethick in person on the best way to handle Brooke’s complaint. In Dethick’s autograph rebuttal, he describes the individuals on Brooke’s list as being ‘so injuriously defamed’ by him.62 If William Dongan was aware of Brooke’s ‘calumny’ in Dublin, then it is likely that the Londoners in Brooke’s catalogue, including William Shakespeare, would have known as well, and been similarly concerned about their reputations. A note by Dethick on the grant of John Parr, on Brooke’s list, states that he retroactively withdrew his application because it wasn’t worth offending the noble family whose arms he had adopted. This is John Parr, embroider to the Queen. Dethick writes at the top of the draft: ‘Cancelled & returned by himself for fear of the Earl of Pembroke’s displeasure.’63 A note in another manuscript notes another victim of Brooke’s bullying: William Norton, stationer and bookbinder of London, who was granted a coat of arms at his funeral in 1593. Brooke notes, victoriously, that ‘he and his issue relinqueshed it’.64 Norton had in fact been Master of the Stationers’ Company, and perfectly qualified to receive a coat of arms, but his family simply didn’t want to deal with Brooke’s backlash. Dethick

SHAKESPEARE’S COAT OF ARMS

61

himself protests in his defence that ‘this Patent hath long since bin recalled and cancelled with the parties consent’.65 Another note in Dethick’s hand confusingly associates the grant with the son, Bonham, and not the father, William, stating that the arms were ‘invented’ by Segar, another king of arms, ‘for the bookebynder in Paules churchyard that married Judge Owens daughter Before Richard Lee was created Clarentieux 1594 and before the Queen Maiesties comandment’.66 Bonham Norton, married to Jane Owens, went on to receive a new and different grant of arms in 1612. These responses tell us that in 1601 Dethick went back to his old files for these individuals from the 1590s and integrated into them the correspondence generated by Brooke’s complaint to the queen. He then used these files to compile his reply to Brooke’s complaint, incorporating the evidences into his defence. This suggests that Shakespeare would likely have been aware of the kerfuffle. Some of Brooke’s working papers related to the dispute are in the second half of a large folio, College of Arms MS R21, from which the 1599 confirmation of arms, authorizing John Shakespeare to impale his ‘ancient’ arms with those of his wife’s family, was removed. One section of this hefty folio contains drafts and copies of grants gathered and annotated by Brooke, along with notes by him, in his quest to restore honour and integrity to the College by pointing out the faults of his superiors.67 In particular, he targeted grants made by William Dethick and Dethick’s successor as Garter, William Segar. The 1599 confirmation of arms was part of this section of the manuscript, bound between an exemplification and grant by Segar to one Thomas Cook (2 January 1602) and a letter to Segar concerning one Wolby. But why is it not with the 1596 drafts in the other volume, given Dethick’s file-management system? After all, a note at the bottom of the second draft of the 1596 grant indicates that he had it in front of him when he was writing the 1599 draft, since he incorporates information in the note into the 1599 draft. One small note in Brooke’s working papers suggests a possible reason for their separation: ‘Confirmations and patents granted by Master Garter [Dethick] by my procurement, John Jones.’68 This is followed by a list of names of grantees. John Jones was a painter-stainer who may have been operating as a sort of spy for Brooke, securing draft grants and pedigrees from Dethick’s working papers on Brooke’s behalf.69 Shakespeare is not on the list, but it reveals one of Brooke’s strategies for gathering evidence against Dethick.70 The vindictive notes by Brooke written in the margins of these drafts and copies of grants, confirmations and pedigrees, such as the Harborne example and others – annotations such as ‘Be it noted that Mr Garter that now is gave unto one Clark a shoemaker’s son [. . .]’ and ‘This Thomas Lounde unto whom this Patent was given, was by his occupation a cutting taylor of London’71 – indicate his modus operandi: obtain Dethick’s papers and then annotate them in preparation for compiling his official complaints.

62

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

Dethick argued in his rebuttal that the controversy should be in his favour, since six years earlier a similar dispute was resolved in his favour by Burghley, Nottingham and Hunsdon: The right Honorable late Lord Burghley, The Right honorable Earle of Nottingham and the late Lord Hunsdon Lord Chamberlen were informed of these & like other causes by that Man. And Order was ^ taken nowe vi yeeres past first in the Star Chamber. for all suites in lawe discharged And afor hard by ther lordships and comaundementt geven that the said York should not molest the said Garter, nor serve with him at the ffuneralls of the Nobilite bycause of his infamie at Newgate and Turbulent behaviour in that office.72 The following year, despite continuing acrimony amongst the heralds, James I knighted William Dethick. His privileges were retracted multiple times as the commissioners tried to replace him with William Segar. When he finally stepped down in late 1606, his severance package was generous: his annuity was raised to £200 per year.

The Shakespeare coat of arms in contemporary armorials Examples of coats of arms in blazon and in trick circulated abundantly in early modern England. Heralds, painter-stainers, antiquaries and amateur historians alike were all interested in collecting and arranging examples from both ancient and contemporary families. Often rather than start with a book of printed blank escutcheons, they would inherit or purchase a compilation that was already in progress, and continue to fill it with new entries and make additions or corrections to older entries. It is often difficult to date compilations and identify the compiler because the heralds used multiple scripts (formal and informal versions of secretary and italic hands), often very similar to one another, and heraldic compilations can contain entries added over many decades. The essay concludes with a census of Shakespeare’s coat of arms in trick or in blazon (described in heraldic language) in seventeenth-century armorials, including alphabets and ordinaries. Alphabets arrange the arms in alphabetical order by surname, and either include sketches of the arms in trick (without colour, with the heraldic colours of each part noted in abbreviated form) or coloured, or in a form of shorthand blazon using abbreviations and symbols. In an alphabet, then, one would look under ‘Sh’ to check for the presence of Shakespeare’s name. Ordinaries arrange the arms by motif rather than by name. For example, one would expect to find Shakespeare’s arms under ‘spear’ or ‘lance’, or in a larger section devoted to weapons. I located most of the previously unreported examples through browsing armorials and papers

SHAKESPEARE’S COAT OF ARMS

63

relating to William Dethick and Ralph Brooke, which I located by searching online and paper library catalogues of the College of Arms, The British Library, The Bodleian Library and the Folger Shakespeare Library. Undoubtedly, more examples will be found as scholars expand the search to other repositories.73 The surviving examples can be broken into several categories relating to genre, format and provenance. Over half of the examples associate the arms specifically with William Shakespeare or with ‘Shakespeare the player by Garter’, rather than with John or with the family name alone. William was, of course, entitled to the arms when they were granted to his father: in his father’s lifetime, with a small mark of difference, and after his father’s death, in the form as granted to his father. Of the depictions that are described as belonging to William Shakespeare, there are two versions: in one version, the crest depicts a falcon with wings displayed (as described in the grant); in the other, the falcon’s wings are addorsed (on the same side of the body) and inverted (tucked back towards the body). The coat of arms with the falcon with wings displayed appears in an armorial compiled by the Rougedragon Pursuivant, William Smith. Titled The Book of Coates & Creasts / Promptvarivm Armorvm / Begonne the 28 of May. 1602. / P Wm Smith Rougdragon, this ‘storehouse of arms’ survives in both Smith’s autograph and in a contemporary copy (Figures 2.13 and 2.14).74 The title page of the autograph copy is more ornate, but incomplete: it is bordered by four blank escutcheons, which, in other Smith manuscripts, include the arms of his and his wife’s families.75 Both copies have identical pagination, and William Shakespeare’s arms appear on preprinted templates with four rows of four escutcheons (blank shields) each and consist of the same group of sixteen arms.76 Shakespeare’s name is spelled differently in each, but the other features are the same, including the source of the grant: ‘per William Dethick Garter’.77 Smith’s autograph armorial had to have been completed by his death in 1618, and was probably finished closer to 1615, since that is the latest date in the manuscript. All of the arms that share a page with Shakespeare are from 1568–1600 (six of them, including Shakespeare’s are identified as being granted by William Dethick between 1594 and 1600; three of these are noted by Smith as being ‘invented’ by him for Dethick). The similarity in ink and nib on these pages and previous pages, many of which bear additional information by Smith in a darker ink (including the addition of an individual’s death in 1603), suggest that the Shakespeare entry was included as part of the initial drafting of the volume; that is, in 1602. In two other depictions of the arms of ‘William Shackspare’ (Figures 2.15 and 2.16), the falcon on the crest has his wings addorsed and inverted with a tilting spear, rather than wings displayed with the spear upright. In both cases, the arms appear next to the arms of the poet Michael Drayton.78 Like the version in the William Smith manuscripts, the grant of the arms is attributed to Dethick.79 Figure 2.16 appears in an armorial that is bound with the copy of William Smith’s Promptuarium Armorum, meaning that William Shakespeare’s arms are depicted in two sections of the manuscript.

FIGURE 2.13 Boston, Harold Bowditch Collection, Mss 1180, R. Stanton Avery Special Collections, New England Historic Genealogical Society, page 66 (detail). Shakespeare’s coat of arms in William Smith, The Book of Coates and Creasts. Promptuarium Armorum. Begonne the 28 of May 1602. P[er] W[illia]m Smith, Rougedragon. Image courtesy of the New England Historic Genealogical Society, www.AmericanAncestors.org.

SHAKESPEARE’S COAT OF ARMS

FIGURE 2.13 Detail.

65

66

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

FIGURE 2.14 London, British Library, Harley MS 5807, folio 82 recto (detail). Shakespeare’s coat of arms in contemporary copy of William Smith, The Book of Coates and Creasts. Promptuarium Armorum. Begonne the 28 of May 1602. P[er] W[illia]m Smith, Rougedragon, 1602–before 1618. © The British Library Board.

SHAKESPEARE’S COAT OF ARMS

67

FIGURE 2.15 London, British Library, Harley MS 6140, folio 46 verso (detail). Shakespeare’s coat of arms, with falcon’s wings addorsed and inverted, in Pedegrees quartering Crests & grants of Arms p[er] Segar etc., ca. 1614–ca. 1705. © The British Library Board.

68

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

FIGURE 2.16 London, British Library, Harley MS 5807, folio 174 recto (detail). Shakespeare’s coat of arms, with falcon’s wings addorsed and inverted, in an armorial bound after The Book of Coates and Creasts. Promptuarium Armorum. Begonne the 28 of May 1602. P[er] W[illia]m Smith, Rougedragon. © The British Library Board.

SHAKESPEARE’S COAT OF ARMS

69

Samuel Tannenbaum first noted the example in Figure 2.15 in 1908, but was frustrated by his own and his forebears’ inability to date it or otherwise contextualize it, writing in 1909: ‘It is greatly to be regretted that not one of those who have heretofore studied this subject – Malone, Nichols, HalliwellPhillipps, Tucker, Lee – have thought it worthwhile to ascertain when and by whom this entry was written. Our own efforts to do this, though accompanied by the willingness to pay the customary pounds and shillings, have proved fruitless’.80 More work clearly remains to be done on the provenance of these armorials and their relationship to each other, and in particular the circulation of William Shakespeare’s arms with the two versions of the falcon.

Ordinaries and alphabets in blazon Another example of Shakespeare’s arms in trick appear in a seventeenthcentury ordinary where they are illustrated under the category ‘Lances’ (another word for spear) (Figure  2.17). Here, the crest is once again the falcon displayed, as per the original grant.81 All of these examples so far have been in trick (that is, illustrated, with some in colour rather than with their colours signified by heraldic abbreviations). Shakespeare’s coat of arms appears in blazon (described in heraldic language rather than illustrated) in several alphabets as well. One of the Alphabets compiled by the prolific William Smith, begun on 20 July 1604, lists Shakespeare’s coat of arms in a form of shorthand blazon: ‘o on a \ s. a speare a./ p W.d. garter’ (‘or [gold] on a bend sable [black] a spear argent [silver], par William Dethick Garter’) (Figure 2.18). This shorthand blazon appears in other contemporary alphabets as well, including another one at the College of Arms, preceded by Sherman rather than Shorle, but like the first followed by an ancient coat of arms belonging to the ancient earls of Leicester82 (Figure 2.19). A later version of William Shakespeare’s arms in blazon appears to have been written based on the compiler viewing a depiction of the arms without the colour references, as there are factual errors and blanks: he doesn’t know the colour of the field (or background) or the colours of the bend or spear, and is confused about the falcon crest, referring to it as an eagle or dove ‘volant’. Unlike earlier versions, he is certain about the legacy of the arms-bearer: ‘Shakespear, the great Poet and Commedian’ (Figure 2.20).

70

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

FIGURE 2.17 London, British Library, Add MS 19,522, folio 91 recto (detail). Shakespeare’s coat of arms on a page devoted to ‘Lances’ in Ordinary of Arms, ca. seventeenth century. © The British Library Board.

SHAKESPEARE’S COAT OF ARMS

71

FIGURE 2.18 London, College of Arms, William Smith’s alphabet (unpaginated) (detail). Shakespeare’s arms described in shorthand blazon in an Alphabet of Arms ‘per William Smith Rouge dragon 20 Iuly 1604’. Reproduced by permission of the Kings, Heralds and Pursuivants of Arms.

72

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

FIGURE 2.19 London, College of Arms, Alphabet of Arms in blazon (unpaginated). Shakespeare’s arms described in shorthand blazon in an Alphabet of Arms in blazon, ca. early seventeenth century. Reproduced by permission of the Kings, Heralds and Pursuivants of Arms.

SHAKESPEARE’S COAT OF ARMS

73

FIGURE 2.20 Washington, DC, Folger MS V.a.163, folio 89 verso. Shakespeare’s arms in trick and in blazon in A list of gentlemen and their coats of arms and crests, ca. 1677. Reproduced by permission of the Folger Shakespeare Library.

William Shakespeare, gentleman It is not surprising that the living son, William Shakespeare, rather than his dead father, is associated with the original grant in contemporary compilations: ‘William Shakespeare by patent by William Dethick, Garter’ and ‘Shakespeare the player by Garter’. This could be interpreted in two ways. One possibility is that the arms were mistakenly thought to have been granted to William, rather than John, from a very early date, by William Smith and other members of the College of Arms, which would not be wholly surprising if William was the instigator of the application in 1596. The alternative, and perhaps more reasonable conclusion, is that the compilations included individuals who were entitled to arms based on grants made to their predecessors.83 William Smith began his Promptuarium in 1602, just months after John Shakespeare’s death. If he were aware of John’s death, it would make sense for him to refer to William rather than John. In the case of his ‘Shakespeare the player by Garter’ references, Ralph Brooke may have been trying to strengthen his smear campaign against Dethick by deliberately blurring the truth, and referring to the occupation of the son rather than the status of the father. After all, the presence of the draft grants in R21, among other Dethick papers collected by Brooke, shows that

74

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

he knew that the grantee was John. The fact that Dethick, in his reply to Brooke’s complaint, refers to John’s status rather than to William’s also complicates our understanding of Brooke’s reference, especially since all examples of the slur are from a slightly later date than the original controversy. While gentility was not something that could be purchased, Elizabethan heraldic treatises and textbooks made it clear that the doors were opening for individuals wishing to be newly ‘recognized’ as gentlemen. A gentleman, according to Sir Thomas Smith’s well-known definition, is one ‘who can live idly and without manuall labour, and will beare the port, charge and countenenaunce of a gentleman, he shall be called master,. . . . and shall be taken for a gentleman’.84 The path to gentility was the acquisition of a coat of arms, which served as the outward manifestation of one’s inherited, and inward, gentility.85 A herald could, for example, discover that an individual’s ancestors had been gentlemen all along. In his chapter on ‘Gentlemen’ in De Republica Anglorum (first published in 1583), Smith makes it clear that the process could be quite straightforward: ‘the title whereof shall pretende to have beene founde by the said Herauld in perusing and viewing of olde registers, where his auncestors in times past had bin recorded to beare the same’.86 In his preface to Holinshed’s Chronicles (1577), the antiquary William Harrison wryly describes a similar process for lawyers, scholars, doctors, military leaders and others who serve the commonwealth without manual labour, and who are able to bear 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)’.87 The description of Sogliardo in Ben Jonson’s Every Man Out of His Humor (1599) as a man ‘so enamored of the name of gentleman that he will have it though he buys it’ (ll. 74–6) also reflects this sense of destabilized gentility.88 Sogliardo himself proclaims that ‘I thanke God I can write myself Gentleman now, here’s my Pattent, it cost me thirtie pound’. The idea of an actor acquiring social status was met with derision, such as in the university play Return from Parnassus, in which wealthy actors are depicted as being paid to perform other people’s words: ‘with mouthing words that better wits had framed, They purchase lands and now esquires are made.’ The proliferation of arms by this means was a good investment for the heralds, for London artisans and for local communities. Accommodating the desires of aspiring gentlemen meant a steady revenue stream for the kings of arms, heralds, and pursuivants. As Smith argues, new gentlemen were essentially shamed into generosity: ‘In any shew or muster or other particular charge of the towne where he is, he must open his purse wider . . . or else he doth diminish his reputation’. The boost to local and larger economies was substantial and ongoing, depending on the level of visual branding desired (one could display one’s arms on a wide range of household items, weapons, edifices and clothing). The largest financial burden of

SHAKESPEARE’S COAT OF ARMS

75

gentility was one’s own heraldic funeral, with payments to heralds, heraldpainters and others, and the purchase of copious amounts of black cloth for mourners. Newly established gentlemen were an economic and social catalyst, even if their existence went against heraldic tradition and caused a great deal of internal squabbling within the College of Arms. Shakespeare played an active role in defining his legacy, through accumulation of wealth, land and real estate, through his status as a respected business man and investor, playwright, poet and actor, and through the outward recognition of his gentility, a coat of arms.89 In 1602, the year that Dethick was forced to defend his grant of arms to John Shakespeare, William Shakespeare’s works were in high demand: the first edition of Merry Wives of Windsor, the second edition of Henry V, the third edition of Richard III and the seventh edition of Venus and Adonis were all published; Twelfth Night was first performed, Hamlet was first entered in the Stationers’ Register, and other plays were recorded as transfers in the Register (Merry Wives, Titus Andronicus, Henry VI Parts 1 and 2). While earning income as a shareholder in the Globe Theatre, Shakespeare renegotiated his ownership of New Place, the largest house in Stratford-upon-Avon, purchased cottages in Chapel Lane, and purchased 107 acres from John Combe in Old Stratford. Ian Archer describes him as ‘a man embedded in the economic structures of both metropolitan and provincial life, drawing income from a variety of sources’.90 By 1602, William Shakespeare was referred to as a gentleman in legal documents, and in a 1602 armorial, the pursuivant herald William Smith referred to William, rather than John, as the person entitled to bear the Shakespeare arms as granted by Dethick. It was on the basis of Shakespeare’s diversified wealth, rather than his status as a playwright or player, that he could have convinced Dethick to grant his father, a retired, elderly and poor bailiff, a coat of arms. Documentary evidence indicates that the circumstances of how and why he came to bear a coat of arms were typical in terms of process, but extraordinary because of Ralph Brooke’s decision to draw attention to them, and in turn, to their famous bearer.

76

3 The Quiney papers Lena Cowen Orlin

In 1793, the editor Edmond Malone was ‘allowed a complete rummage’ through the muniments of the Corporation of Stratford-upon-Avon and encountered a letter to ‘my Loveinge good ffrend & countreymann Master William Shackespere’. Written by fellow Stratfordian Richard Quiney on 25 October 1598, listed below as document 22, and shown in Figure  3.1, it remains the only known letter addressed to Shakespeare. Malone was underwhelmed. He would have wished for Shakespeare’s response to the letter; this ‘would have been a great curiosity’. The discovery was not made public until after his death, in 1821, when James Boswell included it in a posthumous edition of Plays and Poems. The second of twenty-one volumes was a ‘Life of Shakespeare’, where the letter was introduced with the apology that ‘It is impossible not to express an unavailing regret that while this minute memorial of an obscure bailiff of Stratford has come down to us after the lapse of two centuries uninjured by the accidents of time, we are not in possession of a single manuscript from the pen of his illustrious correspondnet [sic]’. Also featured in the ‘Life’ were six other documents that were closely related to Richard Quiney’s letter (numbers 10, 11, 12, 26, 29 and 45). Two of the six were letters making direct reference to Shakespeare, written to Quiney by his close friend Abraham Sturley. In 1883, James Orchard Halliwell-Phillipps published an additional letter from the same group of materials, addressed to Richard Quiney by his father Adrian and also mentioning Shakespeare by name (document 28). The letter to Shakespeare and the three letters citing Shakespeare are now agreed to constitute much more than ‘minute memorials’. They demonstrate that connections between Stratford and London were closer than we might otherwise have thought and that Shakespeare was still a presence in Stratford even when resident in London. He was known to his ‘countrymen’ as a person with access to money. Richard Quiney’s letter, written while he himself was also in London, was a request for Shakespeare’s help in securing a loan of £30: 77

78

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

FIGURE 3.1 Stratford-upon-Avon, SCLA ER 27/4. Letter from Richard Quiney to William Shakespeare, dated 25 October 1598. Image courtesy of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust.

THE QUINEY PAPERS

79

To my Loveinge good ffrend & countreymann Master William Shackespere deliver thees Loveinge Contreyman I am bolde of yow as of a ffrende, craveinge yowr helpe with xxxli vppon Master Bushells & my securytee or Master Myttons with me. Master Rosswell is nott come to London as yeate & I have especiall cawse, yow shall ffrende me muche in helpeinge me out of all the debettes I owe in London I thancke god & muche quiet my mynde which wolde nott be indebeted. I am nowe towardes the Cowrte in hope of answer for the dispatche of my Buysenes. Yow shall nether loase creddytt nor monney by me, the Lorde wyllinge & nowe butt perswade yowr selfe soe as I hope & yow shall nott need to feare butt with all hartie thanckefullnes I wyll holde my tyme & content yowr ffrende & yf we Bargaine farther yow shalbe the paie master yowr selfe. My tyme biddes me hasten to an ende & soe I committ thys yowr care & hope of yowr helpe. I feare I shall nott be backe thys night ffrom the Cowrte. Haste. The Lorde be with yow & with vs all amen. ffrom the Bell in Carter Lane the 25 October 1598. Yowres in all kyndenes Ryc. Quyney. As an officer of the Corporation of Stratford-upon-Avon, Quiney made frequent trips to London on behalf of the town. He sought to secure relief from taxes and subsidies, to enlarge the royal charter and to prosecute various legal controversies. He wrote the letter to Shakespeare about three weeks into an eighteen-week stay in the autumn and winter of 1598–9. Why did this letter to Shakespeare survive among Quiney’s papers rather than disappearing with Shakespeare’s? Quiney was in the habit of keeping drafts of the expense reports he deposited with the Corporation when requesting reimbursement. There are several versions of petitions he wrote, presumably to Crown officials, regarding what he referred to as ‘ovr townes cawses’, including one that is complete and signed but unsent (document 44). Inasmuch as he did not otherwise retain copies of self-authored correspondence, however, two additional anomalies are pertinent. On 26 October 1598, Quiney’s cousin Daniel Baker sent Quiney some letters that were addressed to Baker’s own London business partners and suppliers. In a cover letter to Quiney, Baker asked, ‘I pray you delivre these inclosed Letters’ (document 24). One, written to Leonard Bennett (document 25), remained in Quiney’s hands; this suggests that it had not been dispatched to Bennett according to request. Indeed, Baker’s subsequent attempts to determine whether his affairs were in order grew increasingly frantic: ‘I heard nothinge from you’, he complained on 7 November (document 30); on 13 November he remained uncertain as to whether, as directed in the undelivered letter of 26 October, Bennett had paid his purveyors for him (document 32). During one of Quiney’s later London trips, on 17 June 1601, Henry Wilson wrote regarding

80

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

town business (document 56). Quiney added a note of his own indicating that he meant to forward Wilson’s letter to legal counsel Thomas Greene, who was also in London at the time. But Quiney is ambiguous; on the one hand, ‘my wante of good health lettethe my comminge to yow att thys tyme’; on the other, ‘I praye yow be att home after suppere’ (document 57). Thus, this letter, too, seems to have been retained among Quiney’s papers because it was unsent, which may suggest that the letter to Shakespeare, even though already folded and sealed for dispatch, was similarly held back by Quiney. Quiney wrote Shakespeare for help with ‘all the debettes I owe in London’. Proposing that ‘yow shalbe the paie master yowr selfe’, he confirmed that the debts were to be redeemed in the capital city, where both men were then located. This seems not to be how Quiney explained things to Abraham Sturley, however, when he wrote to advise that ‘our countriman Master William Shakespeare would procure us monej’. Sturley enthused that with £30 or £40, ‘a lease &c. might be procured’ (document 29). Quiney’s father Adrian also thought in terms of new investment, not old debt: there were ‘warys as yow may selle presently at profit’, knit stockings especially, ‘yff yowe bargen with William Shakespeare or Re[c]eave money there or brynge your money home’ (document 28). Adrian’s ‘if’ suggests that he was not immediately persuaded that the loan would be forthcoming, and Sturley was finally even more sceptical, saying that he would ‘like of’ the Shakespeare loan ‘as I shall heare when & wheare & howe’. Scholars have wanted to believe that Shakespeare honoured Quiney’s request, perhaps as proposed in a personal encounter rather than by epistolary exchange. But the letters fail to demonstrate, as has elsewhere been imagined, that Quiney and Shakespeare met in London. Shakespeare’s ability and willingness to help may never even have been tested. As additional Quiney letters show, Quiney had alternative sources of supply. These were both civic and personal. His attempt to secure tax relief for Stratford – a town beleaguered by bad harvests, high corn prices and two devastatingly destructive fires – was to prove successful on 27 January 1599, when a royal warrant of reprieve was issued (ER 1/1/44). In the interim, however, £24 was paid into the Exchequer. In letters written on 22 and 27 October (documents 21 and 26), Sturley advised that the town’s bailiff (or mayor) planned personally to bring Quiney ‘the reste of the taxe’. By 14 November the bailiff had returned to Stratford, monies presumably delivered (document 33; see also documents 44, 46, and BRU 15/7/110). A second source of funds was Peter Rosswell. He was Sir Edward Greville’s man, and, as Lord of the Manor of Stratford, Greville had agreed to support the town’s relief efforts. In his letter to Shakespeare, Quiney worried that ‘Master Rosswell is nott come to London as yeate’, but in a letter dated 26 October, which Quiney may have received on the very day he penned his petition to Shakespeare, Baker reported that Greville himself would soon arrive in London (document 24). More, Greville stood indebted to Quiney’s wife, Elizabeth, who supplied his family with malt, and Elizabeth had been working to cultivate a third source of cash. By 18 November she had arranged that Lady Greville should write to her husband regarding ‘the

THE QUINEY PAPERS

81

20li which she hopyth Sir edward hath allowed yow’ (document 35). On 23 November Sturley confirmed that Elizabeth Quiney ‘said that Sir Edward Greville should paj v [i.e., you] xxl’, and on 24 November Baker hoped that his own debts might be settled, given that ‘my Aunt Quyne telleth mee that you are to receave 20 or 30li in London’ (documents 37 and 38). In other words, letters from home would seem to have reassured Quiney that it was unnecessary to take on new debt with Shakespeare or his lender(s). Inasmuch as the typical transit time was two or three days, Sturley’s advisory of 22 October, in particular, may have arrived just in time to forestall an appeal to Shakespeare dated 25 October. Quiney may have retained the letter for scrap paper, as he did with other documents. Or perhaps he kept it, as he did his various draft petitions, in case he had future need for a similar rhetoric of request. The Quiney papers show that, in the uneasy transition from a barter economy to a cash-based one, those in his circle were always overstretched. Sturley had gone into hiding from his creditors that year, ‘in the greatest neede of 30l that possiblj maie be’, and he asked for Quiney’s help placating those who meant to sue him in the Court of Arches (documents 7 and 12). Baker needed his suppliers to be repaid so that he could order new stock. Adrian Quiney reported the constant difficulties associated with cash flow in Stratford, as, endlessly balancing credits and debts, Elizabeth Quiney gathered rents and payments from her tenants and customers in order to repay purveyors and lenders. To the three letters concerned with what seems to have been an abandoned request to Shakespeare can be added a fourth that also mentions him. Earlier in the same year, Sturley had written that Adrian Quiney had an idea: It semeth bj him that our countriman Master Shakespere is willinge to disburse some monej upon some yarde land or other att Shotterj, or neare about vs. He [Adrian] thinketh it a very fitt patterne to move him to deale in the matter of our Tithes. Bj the instruccions v can geve him theareof and bj the frendes he can make therefore we thinke it a faire marke for him to shoote att & not vnpossible to hit (document 12). These tithe revenues were town-owned, endowments of the old Stratford College of chantry priests that, following the College’s dissolution, had been transferred to the Corporation by royal charter. Adrian may have imagined that the Quiney family would profit personally from collecting the tithe incomes on Shakespeare’s behalf. As Sturley put it, the tithes ‘would advance him indeede & would do vs much good’. Sometime before 1590, Quiney and Sturley had been made ‘farmers’ of tithes held by the Cloptons, and by 1597 Quiney had partnered with Thomas Combe in a similar arrangement. Again, however, there is no evidence that Quiney put the suggestion to Shakespeare, in person or otherwise. Sturley’s letter, dated 24 January 1598, would not have arrived in London before 26 January at the earliest. But,

82

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

according to an expense account of 30 January, Quiney was already back in Stratford on 26 January (document 13). Given that the letter was to be found among Quiney’s papers, it probably returned to Stratford with the carrier who had brought it. Thus, we cannot know the inspiration for Shakespeare’s purchase, seven years later, of tithe lands. A member of the Quiney family could as easily have mooted the notion with Anne Shakespeare as with Shakespeare himself. And it was probably the case that the Shakespeares needed time to raise or borrow the cash necessary for so significant a purchase. After all, the letter from Quiney to Shakespeare implies not that Shakespeare would have had £30 ready to hand but that he was credit-worthy in London and able to borrow. ‘Yow shall nether loase creddytt nor monney by me’, Quiney had written; ‘I wyll . . . content yowr ffrende’. Shakespeare bought a significant acreage in Old Stratford in 1602 before, in 1605, he finally purchased the Welcombe tithes for £440. He then made Anthony Nash, not Sturley or a Quiney, his farmer. We know that there was once a fifth ‘Shakespeare’ letter, dated 25 October 1598, in which Quiney informed Abraham Sturley of his intention to solicit Shakespeare for the £30 loan. Sturley mentions the date in the letter of 4 November that confirms that he had received the optimistic report that ‘Master William Shakespeare would procure us monej’ (document 29). Having been couriered to its recipient, this letter in Quiney’s hand is now lost. As the preceding discussion illustrates, however, all the Quiney papers are in a larger sense Shakespeare letters, in that they help us interpret our one surviving instance of a document addressed to him. They also fill out the picture of the world Shakespeare inhabited, populating our understanding of his home town with names and events and communal concerns. The Quiney papers illuminate the traffic of persons, goods and correspondence between Stratford and London. And they show how families like the Quineys, the Sturleys, the Bakers and the Shakespeares sought to advance themselves by extending themselves. For this reason, an attempt to provide a full inventory of Quiney materials is given below. The catalogued documents seem to have been bundled together by Quiney with his own finding guides: ‘Theese letters & wryttinges concerne our Towne Buysenes’ (document 6), ‘thees letters pervsed & belonge most to our towne buysenes’ (document 24), ‘concernynge the towne’ (document 60), and ‘Matters concerning ovr town cawsses’ (document 70). In fact, the materials are far more varied than is thereby suggested. The letters from Sturley always discussed personal matters as well as Council controversies. On one occasion, Sturley served as scribe for a letter dictated by Elizabeth Quiney; she detailed financial undertakings relating to her work as a mercer, grocer, maltster, vintner and property manager, and she delegated Quiney to procure supplies for resale in Stratford (document 11). Baker’s letters were largely occupied with his own drapery business. Other correspondents desired Quiney to serve as their London agent for personal concerns. Isabel Bardell, for example, hoped that he would help place her son in an

THE QUINEY PAPERS

83

apprenticeship in the City (document 46). Robert Allen asked Quiney to convey cash to a kinsman to redeem a debt (document 14; per document 15, he did so). William Parsons also wanted Quiney to receive and pay out funds in a personal matter (document 23). Quiney kept records of expenses incurred for the family business as well as those chargeable to the town, and to his notes for the Corporation’s eventual complaint against Sir Edward Greville he added the private admonition, ‘Remember myne owne Buysenes’. This included troubles with tenants in the family’s rental properties, and he observed that he needed to ‘speiek with’ his wife ‘concerning a meyde’ (presumably a maidservant, document 59). In his accounts, we learn some of the expenses and exigencies of travel; Quiney sent his mare home, for example, rather than pay to stable her in London during a protracted sojourn, and he had to hire another horse when she went lame. Quiney’s son asked him to acquire ‘two paper books’ (document 45), and Sturley once thanked Quiney for sending the gift of a pomegranate (document 37). Shakespeare may similarly have been pressed into service for those with legal and procurement concerns in London; he perhaps faced his own practical problems moving between London and Stratford; he probably dispatched or transported desirable urban commodities. In his son’s absence in the autumn of 1598, Adrian Quiney located some papers relating to the family’s legal proceedings against men named Harrington and Upton ‘in the cubborde in the hawll’ (documents 20 and 27). These documents are lost. Quiney probably kept the papers ‘concerning ovr town cawsses’ in a household closet ‘wheare’, Sturley once complained, ‘no man can come without vour kej’ (document 9). When Quiney died in office as bailiff in 1602, his colleagues realized that these materials were of potential value to the Corporation. They represented institutional memory, a subject of keen concern. Preparing a grievance against Sir Edward Greville, for instance, Quiney himself had made a list of those who, like ‘Master Jhon Sackespere’, could corroborate the Council’s view of its recent history (document 58). Once acquired by town officials, Quiney’s letters and accounts were presumably stored amongst other town papers in the great standing ‘cubborde of boxes’ that had been commissioned in 1594–5. The cupboard, which remains in the collections of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, has twelve drawers, double doors and ‘iron hinges, locks, keyes’ (Minutes and Accounts 5, 80). Quiney’s papers, or the greater part of them, were labelled ‘A Bundell of lettres and diuers other matters concerning suiets petitions and other matters concerning the Corporation . . . vnsorted. bound vp Januarij 7 1603’ – that is, 1604 (document 48). It is impossible now to reconstruct the bundle. Malone was probably not the first to sort through what he termed the ‘parcel of letters to and from a Mr. Quiney’. In April 1605, Thomas Greene had been instructed to assemble ‘all the notes’ from an earlier attempt to petition the Master of the Court of Requests, Sir Julius Caesar, for a new town charter (BRU 2/2, p. 123). In Minutes and Accounts 6, Robert Bearman suggests that one of the documents

84

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

so gathered was a memorandum from Caesar himself (document 47). The memo was addressed to ‘Master Quiny’, and it carries an endorsement, in Quiney’s hand, which reads ‘This is all that I haue for this busines. Which is a note of Sir Julius Caesars.’ It was not unusual for Quiney to annotate his own materials: ‘Master H[enr]y [Wilson] hys letter to my s[elf] to london concerninge ovr townes cawses’ (document 56); ‘Theys lettere, dated 22 Julij 1601, speaking of the delivery of our pannell’ (document 63); and ‘Master Greens letter’ (document 66). If, as seems likely, Caesar’s memo was held in Quiney’s closet, it would have come back to town archives via the posthumously deposited bundle or bundles, only to be removed by Greene or for referral to Greene in 1605. One of Quiney’s papers regarding town business shows similar evidence of having been consulted soon after his death, with endorsements in two other seventeenth-century hands reading ‘A breviat of Sir Edward Grevills & the Corporacion proceedyngs:’ and ‘Concerninge the tole coarne and other matters in question’ (document 60). Local antiquaries Robert Bel Wheler (1785–1857) and Captain James Saunders (1775–1830) rediscovered the bundle(s) when they began exploring Corporation archives in the second decade of the nineteenth century. Saunders embarked on the astonishingly ambitious project of copying out many hundreds of documents as well as illustrating local landmarks and antiquities. His wide-ranging interests took in deeds, fairs, horse racing and the Garrick Jubilee. ‘No material relic of the ancient town was suffered to pass away before his pencil had perpetuated it for the information of posterity, and every document that came in his way which appeared to him likely to throw light on Shakespeare or his family was immediately transcribed’, wrote James Orchard Halliwell-Phillipps. Saunders reproduced a volume’s worth of documents involving the Quineys. His interest may have been captured by the marriage of Richard and Elizabeth Quiney’s fourth son Thomas to William and Anne Shakespeare’s second daughter Judith, but he also demonstrated a keen analytical concern to authenticate the letter to Shakespeare. Richard Quiney’s signature and seal, he wrote, ‘stamp an authenticity on the documents not to be doubted, the former by a full correspondence with the writers wonted sign manual, remaining to be seen attached to many papers in the Guild Hall of Stratford, and a comparison of his Seal with the one attached to the counterpart of a lease granted to him by the Corporation of Stratford’. Saunders collected references to the Quineys from the parish register, from a property survey kept in the Corporation’s ‘Bridge Book’, from the minutes taken for Council meetings, from the chamberlains’ financial accounts, from Stratford’s smallclaims Court of Record, from deeds and leases, and from the personal papers that seem to have been gathered in the ‘town cawsses’ bundle. Saunders evidently intended to compile a series of thematized volumes. Three survive in his original bindings. His first volume of ‘Stratfordiana’ shows what he had in mind: a numbered collection of documents with a

THE QUINEY PAPERS

85

title page, page numbers, a ‘Chronological Succession of Contents’, an ‘Index of Persons’ and an ‘Index of Places’ (ER 1/75/10). In another, unfinished, volume, he left space on the first page of each document for the later insertion of a document number, and he began to develop a rough table of contents (ER 1/79/12). But most of his materials seem to have been left loose, to be assembled by Halliwell-Phillipps into more than fifty volumes. Robert Bearman notes that one result of the mass binding project was that ‘several transcripts now break off abruptly in one volume to be resumed in another’. In the volume containing ‘Collections by Captain James Saunders relating to the family of Quyney, of Stratford’, some of the garbling of content order (with document 11, for example, detached from its companion letter, document 10) may thus be due to Halliwell-Phillipps rather than Saunders himself. Like other Halliwell-Phillipps collections, this one lacks the paratextual materials Saunders prepared for his ‘Stratfordiana’. Saunders had probably not completed his work with the Quiney materials. For an 18 November 1598 letter in Adrian Quiney’s difficult hand, for example, he left some blanks that were subsequently filled in, in pencil, by a later writer (document 35). Further evidences are that Saunders had not copied all the Quiney papers he meant to include, or that some of his copies are lost. He and Wheler were in the habit of removing materials from the town’s ‘cubborde of boxes’, and the fact that Saunders worked from home may account for the disappearance of eight of the original documents he transcribed. Forty-one documents, copies complete, were returned to the Corporation, where they were eventually catalogued for the Shakespeare Centre with reference numbers in the ‘BRU ’ family of ‘Miscellaneous Documents’. Meanwhile, Wheler himself withheld many town records. Several years after his death in 1857, these were returned to the archive at the initiative of his surviving sister. The so-called ‘Wheler Collection’ documents were among those catalogued as ‘ER ’ records. All but two of the Quiney papers that have ER designations are omitted from the ‘Collections . . . relating to the family of Quyney’ (one of them the letter to Shakespeare). A plausible scenario is that they were still on Saunders’s desk when he died, awaiting copying. For a document in Quiney’s hand, an ‘ER ’ designation may go to suggest an origin not in the town’s official muniments but instead in the ‘Bundell of lettres and diuers other matters . . . vnsorted. bound vp Januarij 7 1603’. The work of Saunders is significant in several respects. His transcriptions preserved documents that have since been lost. (Admittedly, he may have had a hand in some of the losses.) In addition, his transcriptions rescue the text of documents that have survived but that were rendered nearly illegible by water damage during the Second World War. These include the ‘Shakespeare’ letters written by Abraham Sturley on 24 January 1598 and 4 November 1598 (documents 12 and 29). From surviving papers, it is possible to see that Saunders made some transcription errors, especially with common abbreviations and Latin; some of his omissions and

86

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

inaccuracies are noted below by way of a general caveat that corruption often follows from transcription. But the faults are sufficiently few that his copies can be regarded as fairly reliable. Furthermore, the very notion that there were ‘Collections . . . relating to the family of Quyney’ can be attributed to Saunders. The label was presumably applied by Halliwell-Phillipps when he calendared the town archives, but the guiding intent of Saunders is nonetheless clear. As bound by Halliwell-Phillipps, the volume is in two parts that are materially dissimilar. The part of greater interest, which includes all the documents that are listed and discussed here, is on paper lacking watermarks (as Bearman has noted in private correspondence) but with fore-edge gilding. The earlier part, which includes Saunders’s excerpts from such official sources as the parish register, the Corporation minute books, the Court of Record, and property records, is on paper watermarked 1824–5 and left ungilded. Demonstrating that the letters, accounts, and working notes were thought to be different in kind from the town records, the distinction is of codicological significance. It would seem to identify the materials that had previously been in family hands, with Saunders effectively creating a canon of fifty Quiney papers. For this reason, all documents transcribed in the gilded section of the ‘Collections . . . relating to the family of Quyney’ are included below as ‘Quiney papers’. Other documents are added on the theory that Saunders’s work was unfinished and that the 1604 bundle may already have been disturbed when he inspected it. Saunders’s efforts made possible Edgar I. Fripp’s Master Richard Quyny (1924). This biographical study includes extended extracts from the Quiney letters. With the monograph completed, Fripp determined to publish an edition of documents, ‘The Quyny Papers: being the correspondence, memoranda, etc. of Richard Quyny, Bailiff of Stratford-upon-Avon and friend of William Shakespeare’. The working papers that survive at the Shakespeare Centre include a mocked-up title page and a table of contents that lists forty-nine documents (ER 102/4/1; for unexplained reasons, some of the earliest of the draft transcriptions are lost). Fripp, who credited the transcriptions to his frequent collaborator ‘the late Richard Savage’, was nonetheless responsible for most of them. He seems to have begun with the Saunders transcriptions, even in cases for which originals were available, copying Saunders’s copies, marking them up to expand abbreviations, and beginning to add explanatory notes and glosses. But Fripp was not slavishly faithful to Saunders. He omitted several documents that Saunders had included and substituted others. For the first time, Fripp established a Quiney chronology, mooting dates (or approximate dates) for several items and filling the dates out with their appropriate days of the week. Some emended dates are proposed below. Fripp omitted two documents that had been published by Levi Fox among an edition of Corporation records for 1593–8 (Minutes and Accounts 5). As records kept by Quiney, in his hand, and represented among Saunders’s

THE QUINEY PAPERS

87

gilt-edged pages, however, they had probably derived from materials that Quiney had held privately. Robert Bearman added to the catalogue of personal Quiney materials by publishing three other documents that had not been transcribed by Saunders, Fripp, or Savage. These and other transcriptions and publications are noted below because they show how a ‘Quiney’ canon has developed. Materials newly added here include some additional expense accounts and variant versions of previously transcribed documents, a 7 November 1598 letter from Daniel Baker (document 30), and the previously unknown 23 November 1598 letter from Abraham Sturley that, reading ‘Sir Edward Greville should pay v xxl’, has a direct bearing on our understanding of Quiney’s letter to Shakespeare (document 37). A general principle for all those who have worked with these materials (as also here) has been to omit official documents that are in Quiney’s hand but that would undoubtedly have remained in town archives regardless of his death. He occasionally took minutes of Council meetings, for example, and he compiled the ‘noate of Corne & malte’ that famously listed Shakespeare among those with stockpiles of this valuable commodity at a time of short supplies and inflated prices (BRU 15/1/106). The £20 ‘obligation’ Quiney and Sturley signed on 16 June 1596 (BRU 15/12/56) was archived by the chamberlains as a debt to the Corporation, not held in the ‘bundle’ deposited in 1604. It was probably late 1601 when Richard Quiney compiled a record of ‘menaces’ committed against the town by Sir Edward Greville. Among them was the following report: in the tyme Master Rychard Quyney was bayleefe ther came some of them [Greville’s men] whoe beinge druncke fell to braweling in ther hostes howse wher thei drancke & drwe ther daggers vppon the hoste: att a faier tyme the Baileefe being late abroade to see the towne in order & cominge by in that hurley Burley, came into the howse & commawnded the peace to be kept butt colde nott prevayle & in hys endewr to stitle the brawle had hys heade grevouselye brooken by one of hys men (ER 1/1/50). The brawl has widely been taken as the cause of Quiney’s death in May 1602. But, as Bearman points out, the affray cannot have been fatal to him immediately, for he lived to describe it. If the report is dated correctly, Quiney remained active in town affairs for some months afterwards, taking minutes at a Council meeting of 18 December 1601; making his notes, later that month, about town business to be pursued (document 70); filing an expense account on 8 January 1602 (document 71); drafting a petition to the justices of the peace for Warwick on 13 April 1602 (BRU 15/7/95). Quiney’s health was precarious before the fracas. His stay in London in 1598–9 was disrupted when ‘I was sycke a monethe’, and there was the 1601 reference to his ‘wante of good health’ (documents 48 and 57). Among the British Library’s Sloane Manuscripts is a medical collection that includes

88

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

a recipe for the ‘Chinabroth’ that was brewed for ‘Master Queynye Baylye of Stratforde vppon Aven’, meant to be administered in alternation with ‘a dose of your pylles’ (BL Sloane MS 1658, sigs 13v–15v). The report, dated 12 May 1602, indicates that Quiney ‘coude not eete many tymes for his meals the valew of a sperrows’, but that with treatment he ‘hadd by nature viij or jx stoles’ and ‘became hungrie’. The Sloane physician concludes that Quiney’s ‘wekenes of appetede & such other distempers of his body cam through his moch vse of tobacco’. In hindsight, Sturley’s advice that Quiney should ‘Take heed of tobacco’ seems ominous, as does the fact that Adrian Quiney once sent his son a package of tobacco, presumably acquired from local sources and intended for sale in London (documents 29 and 20). On 27 May 1602, Quiney presided as a recognizance was issued for the next borough sessions; on 31 May 1602, he was buried. The day of his interment, there was an extraordinary meeting of the town council to appoint the man who would serve as bailiff for the remaining four months of his term. Some months later, a ‘bundle of letters and diverse other matters’ was deposited among the Stratford muniments. The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust also holds a silver seal matrix that dates to Quiney’s first bailiffric, a chevron between the faces of three leopards’ heads, circled with the inscription ‘R Queeney Sigillum Stratfordi vpon Auon 1592’. Quiney stamped his letter to Shakespeare not with this official seal but with a private one. Saunders reproduced the wax imprint, which is now damaged, with painstaking care. In his facsimile drawings, he shows the letter as originally folded, the paper torn away from the intact seal (Figure 3.2). For Saunders, a ‘leading excitation of the mind, in contemplating the letter itself, must arise from the consideration that Shakespeare himself received it – that his own fingers broke the paper round the seal, (and, luckily, in so gentle a manner, as not to impair its impress on the wax) – that his own eyes read, what we have read & may read’. Although the letter would seem not to have come to Shakespeare’s eyes, and the careful fingers are more likely to have been Malone’s, Saunders’s ‘excitation’ preserved what then remained to be preserved. Malone, perhaps like those who had preceded him and certainly like those who followed him, had irretrievably adulterated the Quiney bundle. He also, as an archival sleuth, contributed to our store of biographical knowledge about Shakespeare. One reason Shakespeare’s life is well documented for a man of his standing and profession is that eighteenth- and nineteenth-century editors and antiquarians were so assiduous in trawling, ever hopeful, through the archives. Undoubtedly, they would have wished their subject to have been more like Richard Quiney. If not for Quiney’s habit of preserving obsolete paperwork, his imprecise filing system, his involvement in town business that continued after his death, and a closet left unpurged by his survivors, his papers would have vanished like so many of Shakespeare’s. As it is, Quiney’s letter to his ‘countreyman’ expands our notion of the letters, notes and accounts Shakespeare’s own closet may once have contained.

THE QUINEY PAPERS

89

FIGURE 3.2 Stratford-upon-Avon, SCLA ER 1/76/2, fol. 80r. The letter from Richard Quiney to William Shakespeare, as originally folded and sealed, as drawn by James Saunders. Image courtesy of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust.

90

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

Abbreviations The following abbreviations are used below and throughout this chapter: Halliwell-Phillipps

J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps, Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare, 3rd edn (London: 1883)

Malone

The Plays and Poems of William Shakespeare, with the Corrections and Illustrations of Various Commentators, Comprehending A Life of the Poet, and an Enlarged History of the Stage, ed. Edmond Malone, 21 vols (London: 1821)

Master Richard Quyny

Edgar I. Fripp, Master Richard Quyny, Bailiff of Stratford-upon-Avon and Friend of William Shakespeare (Oxford: 1924)

Minutes and Accounts 2 Minutes and Accounts of the Corporation of Stratford-upon-Avon and Other Records, vol. 2, 1566–1577, transcr. Richard Savage, ed. Edgar I. Fripp, Dugdale Society 3 (1924) Minutes and Accounts 4 Minutes and Accounts of the Corporation of Stratford-upon-Avon and Other Records, vol. 4, 1586–1592, transcr. Richard Savage, ed. Edgar I. Fripp, Dugdale Society 10 (1929) Minutes and Accounts 5 Minutes and Accounts of the Corporation of Stratford-upon-Avon and Other Records, vol. 5, 1593–1598, ed. Levi Fox, Dugdale Society 35 (1990) Minutes and Accounts 6 Minutes and Accounts of the Corporation of Stratford-upon-Avon and Other Records, vol. 6, 1599–1609, ed. Robert Bearman, Dugdale Society 44 (2011) Saunders 1

‘Collections by Captain James Saunders relating to the family of Quyney, of Stratford, consisting of extracts from the parish register, 1571–1741, and the Corporation accounts, deeds, and other records; with copies of numerous letters to and from members of the family, circ. 1570–1601.’ Bound by J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps. ER 1/97

Saunders 2

‘Stratford Collections’ [including copies of conveyances, covenants, deeds, letters, surrenders, agreements, and other documents

THE QUINEY PAPERS

91

and records pertaining to William Shakespeare]. Bound by J. O. Halliwell- Phillipps. ER 1/76/2 Savage and Fripp

‘The Quyny Papers: being the correspondence, memoranda, etc. of Richard Quyny, Bailiff of Stratford-upon-Avon and friend of William Shakespeare, Transcribed by the late Richard Savage and edited by Edgar I. Fripp.’ ER 102/4/1

SCLA

Shakespeare Centre Library and Archives (source of all manuscript materials unless otherwise noted) Online exhibition convened by the Folger Shakespeare Library at https:// shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/. Site in continued development; notes current as of writing, 14 June 2017 Edgar I. Fripp, Shakespeare, Man and Artist, ed. F. C. Wellstood, 2 vols (London: 1938)

Shakespeare Documented

Shakespeare, Man and Artist

Calendar of Quiney papers 1 Letter from the Bailiff and Burgesses of the Stratford Corporation [to the Lord of the Manor, Ambrose Dudley, Earl of Warwick], 20 September 1571. Lost. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fol. 97r–v. Published in Minutes and Accounts 2, 53. 2 Letter from [Sir] F[ulke] G[reville] to Sir Edward Greville, 5 October 1592. Lost. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fol. 100r–v. Transcription for Savage and Fripp indexed as no. 1 but lost. Published in Minutes and Accounts 4, 162–3. 3 Account of monies expended on behalf of the town by Richard Quiney, in the hand of Richard Quiney, 1593. ER 3/674. 4 Account of monies expended on behalf of the town, in the hand of Richard Quiney, c. January 1595. BRU 15/1/134. Transcribed in garbled form in Saunders 1, fol. 94v. Published in Minutes and Accounts 5, 23. 5 Account of monies expended by Richard Quiney on behalf of the town, in the hand of Richard Quiney, c. January 1596. BRU 15/1/134. Transcribed in garbled form in Saunders 1, fols 94v–5v. Partially published in Minutes and Accounts 5, 71 (with the incorrect SCLA reference number ER 1/1/134v). 6 Letter in the hand of Abraham Sturley, presumably to Richard Quiney, c. October 1597. Endorsed in the hand of Richard Quiney. BRU 15/2/17; fragmentary. Transcribed by Savage and Fripp, no. 2.

92

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

7 Letter from Abraham Sturley to Richard Quiney, 4 November 1597. Lost. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fols 125r–8v. Transcription for Savage and Fripp indexed as no. 3 but lost. Largely published in Master Richard Quyny (with translation of Latin passages), 117–21. 8 Letter from an unnamed correspondent to Richard Quiney, 7 November [1597]. BRU 15/1/113. Transcribed incompletely in Saunders 1, fol. 115r–v. Transcription for Savage and Fripp indexed as no. 4 but lost. 9 Letter from [Abraham Sturley] to Richard Quiney, 8 November 1597. Lost. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fols 129r–31v. Transcription for Savage and Fripp indexed as no. 5 but lost. 10 Letter from Abraham Sturley to Richard Quiney, 18 January 1598. Lost. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fols 132r–3r. Transcription for Savage and Fripp indexed as no. 6 but lost. Published in Malone, 2: 561–2. Transcription and translation from the Latin published in Shakespeare, Man and Artist, 2: 493–5. 11 Letter from Eliza[beth] Qui[ney] to [Richard Quiney], [18 January 1598]. BRU 15/1/140; currently largely illegible. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fols 142v–4r; Savage and Fripp, no. 32. Mentioned (not published), in Malone, 2: 562–3, with ‘Elisa. Qui.’ misread as ‘Susã. Qui.’ 12 Letter from Abraham Sturley to [Richard Quiney], 24 January [15]98. BRU 15/1/135; currently largely illegible. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fols 148r–50v; Saunders 2, fols 75r–7r. Transcription for Savage and Fripp indexed as no. 7 but lost. Published in Malone, 2: 566–9; in Halliwell-Phillipps, 633–7; and on Shakespeare Documented (with translation of Latin passages). Excerpted in Minutes and Accounts 5, xxi–xxii; Shakespeare, Man and Artist, 2: 496–7. 13 Account of monies expended on behalf of the town, in the hand of Richard Quiney, c. 30 January 1598. ER 1/1/43. Published in Minutes and Accounts 5, 134–5. 14 Letter from Robert Allen to Rafe Allen, 8 October 1598. BRU 15/12/51. Transcribed in Savage and Fripp, no. 9. 15 Receipt issued by Rafe Allen to Richard Quiney, 13 October 1598. BRU 15/12/51. Transcribed in Savage and Fripp, no. 10. 16 Letter from A[braham] S[turley] to [Richard Quiney], 16 October 1598. Lost. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fols 133v–4v; Savage and Fripp, no. 11 (with translation of Latin passage). 17 Letter from Daniel Baker to Richard Quiney, 17 October 1598. BRU 15/5/149. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fol. 162r–v; Savage and Fripp, no. 13.

THE QUINEY PAPERS

93

18 Letter from William Walford to Richard Quiney, 17 October [1598]. BRU 15/1/116. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fols 111v–12r; Savage and Fripp, no. 12. 19 Account of monies expended for private procurement, in the hand of Richard Quiney, c. 20 October 1598. BRU 15/5/149. 20 Letter from Adrian Quiney to [Richard Quiney], 20 October 1598. BRU 15/1/130. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fols 155r–6r; Savage and Fripp, no. 14. Largely published in Master Richard Quyny, 135–6. 21 Letter from Abraham Sturley to Richard Quiney, 22 October [15]98. Lost. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fol. 96r–v; Savage and Fripp, no. 15. Excerpted in Master Richard Quyny, 137. 22 Letter from Richard Quiney to William Shakespeare, 25 October 1598. ER 27/4. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fol. 98r–v; Saunders 2, fols 80r–1r; Savage and Fripp, no. 16. Published in Malone, 2: 485; in Halliwell-Phillipps, 142–3; and on Shakespeare Documented (inter alia). 23 Letter from William Parsons to Richard Quiney, 25 October [1598]. BRU 15/1/114. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fols 113v–14v; Savage and Fripp, no. 17. 24 Letter from Daniel Baker to Richard Quiney, 26 October 1598. Endorsed in the hand of Richard Quiney. BRU 15/1/128. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fols 158v–60r; Savage and Fripp, no. 18. 25 Letter from Daniel Baker to Leonard Bennett, 26 October 1598. BRU 15/1/127. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fol. 160r–v; Savage and Fripp, no. 19. 26 Letter from Abraham Sturley to Richard Quiney, 27 October 1598. BRU 15/1/145. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fols 135r–7r; Savage and Fripp, no. 20. Excerpts published in Malone, 2: 563; Master Richard Quyny, 140–4. 27 Letter from [Adrian Quiney] to Richard Quiney, 29 October 1598. BRU 15/1/133. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fols 151r–2v; Savage and Fripp, no. 21. 28 Letter from [Adrian Quiney] to Richard Quiney, c. 4 November 1598. BRU 15/1/131. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fol. 154r–v; Saunders 2, fol. 122r–v; Savage and Fripp, no. 22. Published in Halliwell-Phillipps, 637–8; and on Shakespeare Documented. 29 Letter from Abraham Sturley to Richard Quiney, 4 November 1598. BRU 15/1/136; currently largely illegible. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fols 144v–7v; Saunders 2, fols 77v–9v; Savage and Fripp, no. 23. Published in Malone, 2: 569–72; in Halliwell-Phillipps, 638–42; and on Shakespeare Documented.

94

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

30 Letter from Daniel Baker to Richard Quiney, 7 November 1598. ER 3/675. 31 Letter from Adrian Quiney to Richard Quiney, 10 November 1598. BRU 15/1/132. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fol. 153r–v; Savage and Fripp, no. 25. 32 Letter from Daniel Baker to Richard Quiney, 13 November 1598. BRU 15/1/126. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fol. 161r–v; Savage and Fripp, no. 26. 33 Letter from A[braham] S[turley] to Richard Quiney, 14 November 1598. BRU 15/1/144; currently largely illegible. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fols 137v–40v; Savage and Fripp, no. 27. Excerpted in Fripp, Master Richard Quyny, 148–51. 34 Letter from William Walford to Richard Quiney, 16 November 1598. BRU 15/1/117. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fols 110v–11r; Savage and Fripp, no. 28. 35 Letter from Adrian Quiney to Richard Quiney, 18 November 1598. BRU 15/1/129. Transcribed, with some ellipses, in Saunders 1, fols 156v–8r; Savage and Fripp, no. 29. 36 Letter from A[braham] S[turley] to Richard Quiney, 20 and 21 November 1598. BRU 15/1/141; currently largely illegible. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fols 141r–2r; Savage and Fripp, no. 30 (with translation of Latin passage). Excerpted in Master Richard Quyny, 152–4. 37 Letter from A[braham] Sturley to Richard Quiney, 23 November [1598]. ER 3/676. 38 Letter from Daniel Baker to Richard Quiney, 24 November 1598. BRU 15/1/124. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fol. 102r–v; Savage and Fripp, no. 31. Published on Shakespeare Documented. 39 Draft letter of petition on behalf of the town of Stratford-upon-Avon for relief from taxes, to an unnamed correspondent, in the hand of Richard Quiney, c. November 1598. BRU 15/1/147. 40 Letter of introduction addressed to Simon Stone, written by Nicholas Raby, c. November 1598. ER 3/677. 41 Draft letter of petition on behalf of the town for relief from taxes, to an unnamed correspondent, in the hand of Richard Quiney, c. November 1598. ER 3/677. 42 Notes regarding town business concerning relief from taxes, in the hand of Richard Quiney, c. November 1598. ER 3/677. 43 Notes regarding private correspondence, in the hand of Richard Quiney, c. November 1598. ER 3/677. 44 Letter of petition on behalf of the town for relief from taxes, from Richard Quiney to an unnamed correspondent, c. November 1598.

THE QUINEY PAPERS

45

46

47

48

49

50

95

ER 1/1/48. Transcribed in Saunders, fol. 99r–v; Savage and Fripp, no. 33. Published in Minutes and Accounts 6, 51–2. Letter from Richard Quiney, Junior to Richard Quiney, c. 1598. Lost. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fol. 106r–v; Savage and Fripp, no. 8, with pasted-in printed ephemera giving transcription and translation from the Latin. Published in Malone, 2: 564. Published with translation in Shakespeare, Man and Artist, 2.498; Fripp’s Shakespeare’s Stratford (Oxford, 1928), 34–5. Letter from Isabell Bardell to Richard Quiney, c. 1598. BRU 15/1/115. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fols 112v–13r; Savage and Fripp, no. 24. Excerpted in Master Richard Quyny, 148. Letter from Julius Caesar to Richard Quiney, c. February 1599. Endorsed in the hand of Richard Quiney. BRU 15/1/125. Published in Minutes and Accounts 6, 52. Account of monies expended on behalf of the town by Richard Quiney, in the hand of Richard Quiney, c. February 1599. BRU 15/1/137. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fols 89v–90v; Savage and Fripp, no. 34. Published in Minutes and Accounts 6, 68–9. Account of monies expended on behalf of the town by Richard Quiney, in the hand of Richard Quiney, 11 January 1600. Endorsed in the hand of Richard Quiney. BRU 15/1/143. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fols 86v–7v; Savage and Fripp, no. 35 (one of a handful of transcriptions in Savage’s hand rather than Fripp’s). Published in Minutes and Accounts 6, 93–5. Account of monies expended on behalf of the town by Richard Quiney, in the hand of Richard Quiney, c. 9 January 1601. BRU 15/1/138. Published in Minutes and Accounts 6, 119–20.

51 Account of monies expended on behalf of the town, in the hand of Richard Quiney, c. 9 January 1601. BRU 15/1/138. 52 Account of monies expended on behalf of the town by Richard Quiney, in the hand of Richard Quiney, c. 9 January 1601. BRU 15/1/139. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fol. 89r; Savage and Fripp, no. 36. 53 Account of monies expended on behalf of the town, in the hand of Richard Quiney, c. 9 January 1601. BRU 15/1/146d. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fol. 123r; Savage and Fripp, no. 37. Published in Minutes and Accounts 6, 107. 54 Account of monies expended on behalf of the town and for private procurement, in the hand of Richard Quiney, c. February 1601. BRU 15/16/44.

96

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

55 Account of monies expended on behalf of the town by Richard Quiney, in the hand of Richard Quiney, c. February 1601. BRU 15/5/148, currently partially illegible. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fols 121v–2v; Savage and Fripp, no. 39. Published in Minutes and Accounts 6, 124–5. 56 Letter from Henry Wilson to [Richard] Quiney, 17 June 1601. Endorsed in the hand of Richard Quiney. BRU 15/1/122. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fols 104v–105v; Savage and Fripp, no. 40. Published in Minutes and Accounts 6, 130. 57 Letter from R[ichard] Quiney to [Thomas] Greene, c. 20 June 1601. BRU 15/1/122. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fol. 101r; Savage and Fripp, no. 41. Published in Minutes and Accounts 6, 131. 58 Notes on town business regarding a dispute with Sir Edward Greville, in the hand of and endorsed by Richard Quiney, summer 1601. BRU 15/5/20. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fols 91r–4r. Published in Minutes and Accounts 6, 131–4. 59 Notes on private business in the hand of Richard Quiney, summer 1601. BRU 15/5/20. Transcribed in Savage and Fripp, no. 38. Published in Minutes and Accounts 6, 134–5. 60 Notes on town business regarding a dispute with Sir Edward Greville, in the hand of and endorsed by Richard Quiney, summer 1601. BRU 15/10/3. 61 Notes on town business regarding a dispute with Sir Edward Greville, in the hand of Richard Quiney, summer 1601. BRU 15/1/148. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fols 117r–21r. 62 Notes on town business regarding a dispute with Sir Edward Greville, summer 1601. BRU 15/1/149. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fol. 116r–v. 63 Letter from Thomas Greene to Richard Quiney, 22 July 1601. Endorsed in the hand of Richard Quiney. BRU 15/1/120. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fols 107r–8r; Savage and Fripp, no. 42. Published in Minutes and Accounts 6, 139–40. 64 Account of monies expended on behalf of the town by Richard Quiney, in the hand of Richard Quiney, 28 August 1601. BRU 15/1/146b. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fols 123v–4v; Savage and Fripp, nos 43 and 53. 65 Account of monies expended on behalf of the town by Richard Quiney, in the hand of Richard Quiney, 28 August 1601. BRU 15/1/146c. Published in Minutes and Accounts 6, 136–8. 66 Letter from Thomas Greene to Richard Quiney, 23 September 1601. Endorsed in the hand of Richard Quiney. BRU 15/1/119.

THE QUINEY PAPERS

67

68

69

70

71

72

97

Transcribed in Saunders 1, fols 108v–9r; Savage and Fripp, no. 44. Published in Minutes and Accounts 6, 146. Letter from Robin Whitney to Richard Quiney, c. October 1601. BRU 15/1/123. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fols 103r–4r; Savage and Fripp, no. 49. Published in Minutes and Accounts 6, 149–50. Letter from Thomas Greene to [Richard Quiney], 24 October 1601. Endorsed in the hand of Richard Quiney. BRU 15/12/60. Transcribed by Savage and Fripp, no. 45. Published in Minutes and Accounts 6, 153–4. Letter from Edward Worthington to Richard Quiney, 24 December 1601. BRU 15/1/118. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fols 109v–10r; Savage and Fripp, no. 46. Published in Minutes and Accounts 6, 168. Notes on town business in the hand of Richard Quiney, c. 30 December 1601. Endorsed in the hand of Richard Quiney. BRU 15/1/142. Partially transcribed in Saunders 1, fol. 88r–v; Savage and Fripp, no. 47. Published in Minutes and Accounts 6, 169–71. Account of monies expended on behalf of the town by Richard Quiney, in the hand of Richard Quiney, c. 8 January 1602. BRU 15/1/146a. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fol. 86r. Published in Minutes and Accounts 6, 188. Account of monies expended on behalf of the town, in the hand of Richard Quiney, 8 January 1602. BRU 15/1/146a. Transcribed in Saunders 1, fols 84r–5v; Savage and Fripp, no. 48. Published in Minutes and Accounts 6, 184–8.

Notes on documents and dating 1 This document, requesting approval from the Lord of the Manor for the election of Adrian Quiney as bailiff in 1571, can seem incongruous in a collection primarily dated 1592–1602. However, it is entirely plausible that Richard Quiney should have extracted a copy from the town archives, or had a copy made for his personal files, given the reluctance of the Lord of the Manor to endorse Richard Quiney’s own election as bailiff in 1592. See also below, document 2. Quiney’s intervention may also be confirmed by the fact that election reports from other years do not survive among town records. Saunders copied the letter on the un-watermarked, gilt-edged paper associated above with the Quiney bundle(s). 2 Sir Fulke Greville’s attempt to mediate the election controversy of 1592 creates a context for the inclusion among Quiney’s papers of document 1.

98

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

4 Misdated by Fox in Minutes and Accounts 5 to June 1594. The draft account, with the general heading ‘Charges Behynde & vnpaid to me which I Laied out aboutes the Chawncell repaier’, is in two sections, the first with the subheading ‘In Iune 1594’ and the second with the subheading ‘for a seconde supplie in Michaelmas terme’ (that is, 29 September to 25 December, presumably 1594). Quiney probably submitted his expenses for both sets of expenses at accounting time, January 1595. 5 Dated by Fox in Minutes and Accounts 5 to c. January 1596. These expenses, headed ‘Rycharde Quyney hys noate to the cham[ber] of Stretforde 1594’ are on the verso of document 4. Saunders reorganized the materials as follows: (a) the heading from BRU 15/1/134v (document 5); (b) the heading and accounts from document BRU 15/1/134r (document 4); (c) the accounts from BRU 15/1/134r (document 5). Fox restored the integrity of the two accounts but, presumably inadvertently, omitted the heading, the first three lines, and a sum from document 5. Dating the document, he referred to expenditures from March, September, and Michaelmas Term 1595. In fact, Quiney itemizes expenditures ‘in Iune 1594’, ‘att Saint Marie daie 1595’ (15 August 1595), ‘in september laste 1595’, and ‘laste michaelmas terme’. The June 1594 expenses were presumably not included in document 4 because they did not concern the chancel repair; here, Quiney instead laid out funds for a trip to London and for legal advice. The use of ‘last’ to refer to events in 1595 suggests that Quiney completed this account in January 1596 at the earliest. Documents 4 and 5, on recto and verso of a single sheet, would have been Quiney’s personal copies, kept among his own papers. (Document 4 is clearly a draft.) He presumably prepared fair copies of both documents, submitting them to the chamberlains of the Corporation in 1595 and 1596, respectively. 6 Dated by Savage and Fripp to c. October 1597. Little survives other than the endorsement in Quiney’s hand, written across the fold of a folio sheet: ‘Theese letters & wryttinges concerne our Towne Buysenes & my warrant to followe some sutes for them.’ Quiney’s ‘warrant’ to pursue some ‘suits’ on behalf of the town was a frequent subject of concern in the correspondence of autumn 1597 (as in documents 7, 8 and 9). If Saunders’s transcription of document 7 is correct, Quiney had set out on his travels before 27 October 1597, when, according to Sturley, he wrote to Sturley in Stratford. For Fripp, the endorsement suggests that this was ‘the topmost letter’ and ‘therefore worn’. The fact that Saunders did not transcribe the document may confirm that the damage dates to the sixteenth century; that is, Saunders may have found too little of legible substance to transcribe.

THE QUINEY PAPERS

99

7 Saunders’s transcription of this lost document opens on folio 125r of the ‘Collections . . . relating to the family of Quyney’ and closes with Sturley’s signature on folio 128r. There follow on folio 128v two paragraphs without date, signature, or endorsement. Fripp interprets these to be postscripts also written on 4 November 1597 (Master Richard Quyny, 120–1). It was not unusual for Sturley to add postscripts, but in other cases Saunders was able to make the sequence clearer by running them in (as in document 9). Fripp probably reads Saunders correctly, inasmuch as the sequence was not an accidental effect of binding. The letter ends on a recto and the two paragraphs follow on its verso. It is cautionary, however, that Saunders did not always sort materials correctly (as is suggested in the notes on document 5). 8 Signed 7 November, dated by Savage and Fripp to 1597. This letter, probably authored by an officer of the Stratford Corporation, confirms that Quiney was to receive an ‘allowance’ of 2s. per day while pursuing town business outside Stratford. The allowance was also reported in chronologically contiguous documents: Sturley’s letters of 4 November 1597 (document 7) and 8 November 1597 (document 9). In his transcription, Saunders omits a marginal note (effectively a postscript) in the hand of the unnamed author. 11 Misdated by Savage and Fripp to c. January 1599. The letter, largely dictated to Sturley by Richard Quiney’s wife Elizabeth, lacks a salutation and was bound into the ‘Collections . . . relating to the family of Quyney’ following an unrelated Sturley letter dated 20 November 1598 (document 36). Noting an internal reference to the advanced pregnancy of Judith Sadler and associating it with 1599, Fripp observed that her son Francis was baptized on 23 April 1599 (Master Richard Quyny, 159). However, Judith Sadler was in a more advanced state of pregnancy in January 1598; her son William was baptized on 3 February 1598. Judith’s ‘want of her husband’ is also described in the letter, and Hamlet Sadler is known to have travelled with Quiney in the autumn and winter of 1597–8 (not 1598–9). The letter fulfils the promise that closes Sturley’s letter of 18 January 1598: ‘even now Sister cometh to me to indite thee a letter in her name. Her news and what is left of mine thou shalt have in the mother tongue’ (document 10, translated from the Latin). Elsewhere, Sturley refers to Quiney as his ‘brother’ (or, as in document 16, ‘frater charissimus’) and Quiney’s wife Elizabeth as his ‘sister’. 12 Signed 24 January, dated by Savage and Fripp to 1598 (Saunders slips, recording the date as ‘1797–8’). The date is confirmed by internal references, as to the ‘dearness of corn’ (the ‘noate of Corne & malte’ was compiled in 4 February 1598); to the broken great bell and damaged pavement on the bridge (the chamberlains’ accounts covering 29 September 1597 through 29 September 1598 include

100

13

15 18

19

21

22

23

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

expenses for ‘mending the bell whell’ and stone, sand, and gravel for bridge repairs); and to Sturley’s personal controversies with Masters Burton and Pendlebury (both are mentioned in his letter of 4 November 1597, document 7). Sturley indicates that he encloses with this letter ‘a briefe of the reckoninge’ between himself and Burton as well as a ‘remembrance’ from Adrian Quiney; both are lost. Alternatively dated by Fox in Minutes and Accounts 5 to c. 26 January 1598. The accounts specify travel between 18 October and 26 January (not, as Fox has it, between 1 October and 20 January); these dates correspond to Quiney’s known absence from Stratford in the autumn and winter of 1597–8. Receipt added to the blank bottom part of document 14. Signed 17 October, dated by Savage and Fripp to 1598. Walford requests Quiney’s help with a suit brought against him at the King’s Bench by Roger Smith, and he indicates that his attorney, Master Court, would soon come to London with funds and instructions. Among his reports of private matters in a letter of 4 November 1598 (document 29), Sturley confirms that Walford ‘sendeth order & money per William Court nowe cominge’ with regard to the dispute with ‘Roger S’. Walford also followed up with a later letter dated 16 November 1598 (document 34). Walford’s first letter to Quiney may have gone by the same carrier as the letter from Daniel Baker dated 17 October 1598 (document 17). Undated notes written on the verso of document 17, which was received by Richard Quiney in London c. 20 October 1598. This list, of the cost of fish, presumably involved private procurement for the family business. Saunders transcribes the date of this lost letter as 22 October 1598. In the letter, Sturley supposedly indicates that he is answering a letter from Richard Quiney dated 6 October 1598, an unprecedented and implausible gap in their correspondence. Saunders likely mistook Sturley’s ‘xvj’ for ‘vj’ – that is, the original probably referred to a Quiney letter of 16 October 1598. On 6 October, Quiney was not yet in London, but he had certainly arrived in time to author a letter on 22 October (see the notes on document 13). The ‘Stratford Collections’ (Saunders 2) include hand-drawn facsimiles of the letter as folded showing its endorsement, as folded showing Quiney’s seal, and as opened. On folio 81r is the pencil note ‘Original in the possession of Mr. Wheler 1859’. Approximately two years after his death, the Wheler papers had apparently not yet been deposited in town archives. Signed 25 October, dated by Savage and Fripp to 1598. Parsons indicates that William Wenlock is to pay Quiney £10 and ‘wilbe with

THE QUINEY PAPERS

24

25

26

27 28

35

36 37

101

you about alsaints day’. In a letter of 4 November 1598 (document 29), Sturley writes that Parsons believes Wenlock to have brought Quiney £10. The transcriptions by Saunders and by Savage and Fripp omit Richard Quiney’s endorsement: ‘thees letters pervsed & belonge most to our towne buysenes’. ‘I pray you delivre these inclosed Letters,’ writes Daniel Baker in document 24. This letter to Leonard Bennett, bearing the same date, would seem to have been enclosed with document 24, as Saunders recognized. His copy of document 24 closes with the note ‘Connected with, and perhaps enclosed within the foregoing letter I find the following directed’; the transcription of document 25 then follows. Fripp pasted Saunders’s ‘Connected with’ note into his transcription of document 25, adding ‘What is this? E. F. I have no such letter?’ As the only one of the ‘inclosed’ documents to have survived, the letter to Bennett evidently went undelivered. Fripp’s translation of Sturley’s Latin passages exists in three different versions: as published in Master Richard Quyny, as emended in his personally annotated copy of Master Richard Quyny (held at SCLA ), and as drafted in the Savage and Fripp manuscript. Two draft endorsements, one largely cancelled, are omitted in the transcriptions of Saunders and of Savage and Fripp. Previously dated by Savage and Fripp to c. 1 November 1598 but with the pencilled query ‘29 Oct?’ The letter refers to news already reported in Adrian Quiney’s letter of 29 October 1598 (document 27), including arrangements to repay a debt to Master Combs. Here, Adrian Quiney also knows of his son’s plans to ‘bargen’ with William Shakespeare, which were reported in a letter received in Stratford on 31 October 1598 (according to Sturley in his letter of 4 November, document 29). Therefore, this letter from Adrian Quiney postdates 31 October. It may have been sent to Richard Quiney by the same carrier who transported Sturley’s letter of 4 November 1598 (document 29). Dated 18 November 1598 by Adrian Quiney, who employed a sheet on which he had started and abandoned another letter. This included little more than the date ‘Ihesus Anno 1598 the 7 of Auguste’ and a profession of ‘hartye commendacyons’. The disused lines are not transcribed by Saunders or by Savage and Fripp. Dated ‘November 20. late att night 1598’, but with a postscript added ‘mane’ – that is, the next morning. Signed 23 November, here dated 1598. Sturley discusses subjects taken up in others of the autumn 1598 letters: the 27 October 1598 request that Quiney send back hats purchased in London (document

102

38

39

40

41

42

43

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

26), for example, and the 14 November 1598 report that Quiney’s mare is lame (document 33). Mistakenly calendared as 14 November 1598 at SCLA , but transcribed correctly in Saunders, in Savage and Fripp, and on Shakespeare Documented. This undated letter of petition, regarding the attempt to secure relief from taxes and subsidies for Stratford-upon-Avon, is not confident of the outcome of the appeal and was thus written earlier than document 41, here dated to c. November 1598. It is, however, closely related to the cluster of November 1598 documents. In this petition, Quiney calculates the ‘totall Som’ of taxes and subsidies; in document 42, he drafts language about ‘the hole’ sum of the taxes and subsidies. Document 44 is a later version of the petition. Undated letter of introduction to Simon Stone, written by Nicholas Raby. Quiney used the same sheet to draft three other documents (41, 42 and 43) that are more susceptible of dating. See especially the notes on document 43. Undated draft of petition written in anticipation of relief from taxes and subsidies. The letter necessarily predates 27 January 1599, when a royal warrant was issued, releasing the borough from various charges (ER 1/1/44). As in document 44, Quiney is concerned that the Exchequer collector Vincent Skinner paid in £24 while the appeal was in process, despite having been assured by Sir John Fortescue that he would be held harmless pending the appeal’s review. In his accounts of February 1599 (document 48), Quiney includes payments to Fortescue’s men and for ‘getteing the xxiiijll agayne which master Skynner soe rashelye paied into the exchequer’. For further information on dating, see document 43. Undated draft of notes regarding relief from taxes and subsidies. The notes suggest an intention to petition for relief additional to that involving taxes and subsidies but do not confirm the release of 27 January 1599. See also below, document 44. Undated private notes by Richard Quiney, a reminder of four letters to be written: to Master Warburton, Master Parsons, William Walford, and his father. Adrian Quiney had asked his son to write to Warburton on 29 October 1598 (document 27) and also discussed Warburton in letters of 10 and 18 November 1598 (documents 31 and 35). In a letter of 16 November 1598 (document 34), Walford had requested a reply ‘soe sone as yow cane’. (Here, Quiney also records an intention to write his father ‘concerninge Thomas Jones’, a name not otherwise represented in the family correspondence.) These notes suggest a date of c. November 1598 for all four documents on the sheet (40, 41 and 42, as well as 43).

THE QUINEY PAPERS

103

44 Previously dated by Bearman to Winter 1598/99 (in Minutes and Documents 6) and by Savage and Fripp to c. January 1599. A more substantive petition than those drafted in documents 39 and 41, this letter anticipates the tax relief granted on 27 January 1599 and represents Quiney’s intent to recover the £24 in tax monies prematurely paid in by Vincent Skinner. 45 Previously dated by Savage and Fripp to c. 5 October 1598. The bulk of Quiney’s correspondence, especially that involving personal matters, can indeed be dated to the trip begun in October 1598. This would plausibly place the letter between 18 October 1598 and 26 January 1599. For unexplained reasons, Fripp was of the opinion that it was ‘written about the boy’s eleventh birthday’ (Master Richard Quyny, 133). Fripp also assumes that when Richard Quiney the younger (baptized 8 October 1587) asks his father to provide two paper books [duos chartaceos libellos] ‘for my brother and me’ [fratri meo et mihi], he refers to Thomas Quiney (baptized 1589), Shakespeare’s future son-in-law (see Shakespeare, Man and Artist, 2: 498). But Adrian, baptized 1586, was also of school age in this period, and, in early 1601, Quiney’s accounts include expenditures ‘for a book for Adrian, iiijd.’ and ‘for a quier of smale paper, ijd.’ (document 54). The latter may have been stock for the Quiney family business, but there remains the outside possibility that Richard Quiney, Junior’s letter was written when Quiney was absent from Council meetings in late 1600 (on 5 November and 12 December) and, according to document 54, paired a trip on Corporation business with goods procurement. 46 Dated by Savage and Fripp to 1598. As with document 45, there is no evidence, internal or external, for the dating of this letter. But most of the letters asking Quiney to help with private business in London date to his stay there in the autumn and winter of 1598–9. 47 Previously dated by Bearman (in Minutes and Accounts 6) to Winter 1598/9. This document shows town initiatives moving on from the subject of taxes and subsidies, relief from which had been granted in 27 January 1599, to the attempt to enlarge the town charter. It is not unrelated to the correspondence of November 1598, however. Quiney refers to ‘the certificat ffrom our Justices’ in document 44, as Caesar does here. Endorsed by Quiney, ‘This is all that I haue for this busines, which is a note of Sir Julius Caesars’. There is also a scribbled ‘her Majesty ye’ on the outer face. Caesar’s memorandum was addressed to Quiney at a time when Quiney was not in office as bailiff but was delegated to represent the town in London; see above for the argument that this document was removed from the Quiney bundle in 1605. 48 Previously dated by Savage and Fripp to c. February 1599 and by Bearman (in Minutes and Accounts 6) to c. March 1599. On

104

49

50

51 52 53

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

27 September 1598, Quiney was charged to seek relief from taxes and subsidies in London, ‘the sute beinge made’, according to this account, ‘in anno domini 1598’. He was still in Stratford on 6 October, if the attendance record for another Council meeting is correct. On 8 October, Robert Allen gave Quiney fifty shillings and a letter to deliver to his brother Rafe Allen in London (document 14); on 13 October, Rafe Allen acknowledged receipt (document 15). Robert Allen’s letter may establish Quiney’s departure date. In the account, Quiney indicates that he was in London for eighteen weeks (and ‘was sycke a monethe’). This would have put his return on or about 11 February 1599. Bearman undoubtedly begins with the terminus ad quem rather than a terminus a quo: Quiney was absent from a Council meeting on 23 February, which could suggest a later return date. However, that absence may equally have been for other reasons, including continued poor health. Indicating that he had expended sufficient monies on Corporation business to counterbalance most of a standing debt to the Corporation, Quiney calculated that on 11 January 1600 he still owed £1 13s. 10d. In town accounts submitted on 9 January 1601 and covering expenses between Michaelmas 1599 and Michaelmas 1600, the chamberlain Daniel Baker confirmed that Quiney held £1 13s. 10d. of Chamber monies (BRU 4/1, p. 58). Quiney endorsed his account on the verso: ‘Rycharde Quyneys accompte to the Chamber of Stratforde made & clearered in anno xlij regine Elizabeth Januarij 1599.’ Dated 9 January 1601 by Bearman in Minutes and Accounts 6, 119–20. The account indicates that 4d. remained unspent of 20s. advanced to Quiney for expenses for various trips. The town accounts for Michaelmas 1599 to Michaelmas 1600 also show that his travels were underwritten in the amount of 20s. Reconciling the accounts on 9 January 1601, the chamberlain Daniel Baker recorded that 4d. was returned by Quiney (BRU 4/1, p. 110). This rough version of document 53 (but with some significant variations), was drafted on the blank bottom part of document 50. Fair copy of document 50, but with less detail. Previously dated by Bearman to Michaelmas Term 1600 (in Minutes and Accounts 6), but here seen as a general settling of accounts c. 9 January 1601. Quiney indicates that this account covers expenses from ‘Michaellmas terme anno 1600’, but the earlier, rough version of the same account, document 51, was written on the bottom portion of a sheet in which the accounts on the upper portion date to c. 9 January 1601, document 50. Quiney seems to have gathered expenditures over a period of time and with some imprecision; he refers in this account, for example, to a trip to

THE QUINEY PAPERS

54

56

57

58

59 60

105

Coventry to consult Justice Glanville, and Bearman indicates that Sir John Glanville died on 27 July 1600 – that is, before Michaelmas term 1600. In their transcription, Savage and Fripp mistakenly incorporate a short, separable account from document 64. This rough account, recording what appear to be purchases of stock for the Quiney family’s private retail business as well as monies laid out on behalf of the town, is datable only because some of the town expenses are also represented in document 55 (which covers travel in January and February 1601). Dated 17 June 1601 and also endorsed by Richard Quiney (on the verso): ‘Master H[enr]y [Wilson] hys letter to my s[elf] to london concerninge ovr townes cawses in June anno 1601.’ Saunders’s interpretation of this damaged endorsement as ‘to my sõn’ is implausible. For ‘The Quyny Papers’, Fripp generally began by copying out Saunders’s transcriptions and then expanding abbreviations; thus, he gives ‘sonne’. Previously dated by Savage and Fripp to June 1601 and by Bearman (in Minutes and Accounts 6) to c. 20 June 1601. Quiney wrote the note at the foot of a letter dated 17 June 1601 (document 56), which would have reached Quiney in London no earlier than 19 June. In the ‘Collections . . . relating to the family of Quyney’, this letter is detached from its context, its transcription given on fol. 101r while the transcription of document 56 is given on fols 104v–5v. (The sequence may have been established by Halliwell-Phillipps, when binding, rather than Saunders, when transcribing.) Quiney seems to have intended to forward the bailiff Henry Wilson’s letter to Greene (‘by thys lettre yow maye perceaue master Baileefes mynde’). As with documents 22 and 25, it is unclear why the letter nonetheless remained in Quiney’s possession. Dated by Bearman (in Minutes and Accounts 6) to summer 1601. Listing John Shakespeare as a potential witness in the town’s case against the Lord of the Manor, the document predates Shakespeare’s burial on 8 September 1601. Endorsed in Quiney’s hand, ‘The pointes of Sir Edward Grevill, plaintiff: agaynste certaine of ye Burg[e]sses, defendants’. Notes regarding what Quiney terms ‘myne owne Buysenes’, included with document 58 and of approximately the same date. An alternative version of document 58, also datable to summer 1601, but without the notes on private business calendared as document 59. Quiney enumerates the points of his arguments concerning Greville, leaving ample blank space after each point for possible further thoughts. Quiney’s endorsement, ‘Concernynge the towne’, is followed by endorsements in two other early seventeenth-century hands, ‘A

106

61

62

63

64

65

66 67

68. 70

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

breviat of Sir Edward Grevills & the Corporacion proceedyngs:’ and “Concerninge the tole coarne and other matters in question’. An alternative version of documents 58 and 60, also datable to summer 1601 and without the notes on private business calendared as document 59. Dated by Bearman to summer 1601, on the grounds that it refers to men Quiney is known to have consulted in London in summer 1601, Robert Atkinson and Francis Morgan, but with the caveat that Quiney had also consulted Morgan earlier that year (Minutes and Accounts 6, 135). The legal advice is recorded in the hand of John Jeffreys but is included here as a document copied by Saunders on to the un-watermarked, gilt-edged paper associated above with the Quiney bundle(s). Thomas Greene enclosed with this letter ‘the Coppy of the Jury, and the particuler of the graunt made to Master Grevill & Master Rosewell’; according to Bearman, this is presumably BRU 15/3/15. Quiney’s faded endorsement reads: ‘Theys lettere, dated 22 Julij 1601, speakeing of the delivery of our pannell & that as the daye Master Harborne wold wryte to Master ffoster to geve us warning to goe to triall.’ This draft version of document 65 includes as a marginal notation near the top of the sheet a short list of monies sent to Richard Quiney in London by Thomas Barber. Saunders correctly includes the list in his transcription (fols 123v–4v). Fripp, however, interprets the list as a postscript to the previous account in the ‘Collections . . . relating to the family of Quyney’ (document 53) and pastes it in with his transcription of that document. Previously dated by Bearman (in Minutes and Accounts 6) to Trinity term 1601. The expenses were incurred during Trinity term, but the draft copy of these accounts (document 64) concludes with a sum of £5 20d. ‘layed forthe’ by Quiney on the town’s behalf and the note ‘Received the 28 of August 1601, vll of Master JS mythe, chamberleyne.’ Endorsed in Quiney’s hand, ‘Master Greens letter’. Dated by Savage and Fripp to c. Spring 1602, and by Bearman (in Minutes and Accounts 6), to c. October 1601. Whitney writes Quiney that ‘some of your brotherwhod . . . haue bine With Sir Edward Greuill my Master and mad a greate complaint of me’. On 16 September 1601, the Corporation had decided that at least four of their number should form a delegation to visit the Lord of the Manor, Sir Edward Greville, regarding a legal controversy with him. Endorsed in Quiney’s hand, ‘payd the carier’. Dated by Bearman (in Minutes and Accounts 6) to [30] December 1601. Quiney’s notes were written on or shortly before a meeting of the Council held on that date. His endorsement reads, ‘Matters

THE QUINEY PAPERS

107

conserning ovr town cawsses’. The Saunders transcription ends with text on the first fold and omits text on the second fold. 71 This draft account is represented more fully in document 72. It is rightly treated by Saunders and Bearman (but not by Savage and Fripp) as an independent document, having been artificially tipped in with document 72. BRU 15/1/146a is a single sheet folded once to form four leaves. The first recto and verso are used; the second recto and verso are left blank. Pasted or taped in between the first verso and the second recto is a separate half sheet of paper with this short account. This is further evidence of what seems to have been considerable curatorial confusion surrounding documents 71, 64, 65 and 53, which were numbered BRU 15/1/146a, b, c and d (respectively) rather than given four separate catalogue numbers. The four ‘146’ documents were actually five, with the tipped-in sheet as the fifth. 72 To the end of the account, Quiney adds (in a different ink and presumably at a later time), ‘soe cleared thys accompte vppon our cownte daie beinge the 8 of Januarij 1601’.

Acknowledgements For information about the holdings of the Shakespeare Centre Library and Archives and about the archival forays of Edmond Malone, James Saunders and James Orchard Halliwell-Phillipps, my sources are Robert Bearman’s Shakespeare in the Stratford Records (Stroud: Phoenix Mill, 1994), especially 62–75; and his ‘Captain James Saunders of Stratford-upon-Avon: a Local Antiquary’, Dugdale Society Occasional Papers 33 (1990), especially 11. For the Stratford Corporation, I am indebted especially to Bearman’s introduction to Minutes and Accounts of the Corporation of Stratfordupon-Avon and Other Records, vol. 6, 1599–1609 and Shakespeare’s Money (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016). I am also grateful to Bob Bearman for advice and guidance in the archive and in private correspondence. With a comprehensive knowledge of the Stratford collections and characteristic generosity, he alerted me to the existence of the Savage and Fripp manuscript transcriptions, for example. My first work with the Quiney papers is represented in ‘Anne by Indirection’, Shakespeare Quarterly 65.4 (2014): 421–54. Bob Bearman and Alan H. Nelson kindly commented on both that essay and this in draft, though all speculations and errors are of course my own. This essay is dedicated to the memory of Elizabeth Walsh, late Head of Reader Services at the Folger Shakespeare Library, in gratitude for thirty-five years of her warm welcomes, research assistance, and great good humour.

108

4 Shakespeare indentures and chirographs Alan H. Nelson

Modern contracts are typically created in multiple copies on paper. After each copy is signed by all parties, each party takes away a copy which is essentially identical to all other copies. A typical contract from Shakespeare’s lifetime, and well before and after, was created as a two-party ‘indenture’. The text of the contract was written out twice on a single piece of parchment, head-to-head, with a blank space between the two copies. After each copy was inspected, sealed and signed, the copies were cut apart through the blank space along a wavy, irregular line, causing each copy to be ‘indented’ or, more literally, ‘toothed’.1 The two copies of a two-party indenture were referred to as ‘a pair of indentures’.2 Neither copy was legally superior. Each copy was said to be a ‘counterpart’ to the other. Sometimes widely spaced capital letters were written in the blank area between the two copies before they were cut asunder. The letters might be written in alphabetical order, for example A to H, or they might spell out the word ‘CIROGRAPHVM .’ Hence the word ‘cirograph” literally meaning ‘written by hand’, but generally signifying any indenture featuring letters of the alphabet intended to be cut by a wavy line.3 Before the two copies of a ‘bipartite’ indenture were separated, each party to the transaction had a legal duty first to confirm that the copies were both accurate and identical, and then to sign or seal one (and only one) of the two copies. After the texts were cut apart, the copy signed or sealed by the buyer (in the case of a property contract) would be handed to the seller, and the copy signed or sealed by the seller would be handed to the buyer. At any time in the future, in the event of a dispute, the two copies could be brought together to test whether they mated perfectly along their wavy margins, and, in the case of a chirograph, whether the wavy line cut the letters at exactly the same points. Any failure to mate perfectly would suggest intervention by a forger. 109

110

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

A single copy of an indenture was valid and legally binding even if only one of the two original copies could be produced as evidence. The validity of a fully executed indenture could be challenged only by producing the counterpart and demonstrating that the two supposed copies did not match. For this and other reasons it behooved each party to keep its copy safe. This is doubtless one reason so many indentures, especially for property transactions, survive today. Indentures could come not only as a pair (bipartite), but in higher numbers, as tripartite, quadripartite and so forth. An indenture with two copies is easily imagined. A tripartite indenture requires more ingenuity. Theoretically it would be possible to write three copies of a text on a single large piece of parchment, meeting head-to-head at 120-degree angles. In practice a three-copy text was written, at least in one form, like the three parts of a tuning-fork. Two copies of the text, called ‘biparts’, were written head-to-head on what would be the tines of the tuning-fork, while the third copy, called the ‘foot’, was written on what would be the handle of the tuning-fork. The two biparts would be cut from the foot along a single wavy line, and then would be severed from one another along a second wavy line. The two biparts could be tested against one another at any time, while either or both biparts could be tested against the foot by matching the wavy line on one side of the bipart against the wavy line at the top of the foot. One version of the tripartite form was called a finalis concordia or, in English, ‘final concord’. In a property conveyance, one of the two biparts was handed to each of the two parties to the agreement, while the foot was filed with a court. The latter is called a ‘foot of fine’. (Here, the ‘fine’ is not a penalty for malfeasance, but a ‘final agreement’ in an essentially friendly lawsuit.) According to Sir Thomas Smith, both of the biparts were handed to the plaintiff, or buyer; but in practice, and more logically, one copy must typically have ended up with the plaintiff, or buyer, the other with the defendant, or seller, while the foot was retained by the court.4 Because either of the biparts could be tested against the foot under supervision of the court, seals and signatures were not required. A quadripartite indenture cut from a single piece of parchment is, perhaps surprisingly, a geometrical impossibility. For indentures beyond three copies, some copies could be matched to others, but it is not the case that every copy could be matched against every other copy. Additional security devices would be required, like signatures and/or seals. With the standard ‘pair of indentures’, neither copy is superior to the other. But with higher numbers, some order of hierarchy must have been observed, just as the ‘foot of fine’ held by a court was superior in authority to either of the ‘tines’ copies of a finalis concordia. An indenture from the reign of Henry VII , dated 1504, is septipartite (seven-part). One copy now resides in the archives of St Paul’s Cathedral,

SHAKESPEARE INDENTURES AND CHIROGRAPHS

111

another at The National Archives (TNA ) in Kew, a third in the British Library (BL ). The indenture was written as a series of parchment booklets, each with a wavy line at the top of each page cutting through letters of the alphabet. Though not all of the originals survive, it seems fairly clear that copies were produced in pairs, though how they matched page-by-page or booklet-by-booklet is a subject for a separate enquiry.5 Where two or three copies of an early modern indenture or ‘chirograph’ survive, they can be tested against one another more than four hundred years later as a guarantee of authenticity. Even when no copy survives, if an indenture is cited in a legal document, it is possible to reconstruct the lost indenture with some confidence. Many indentures, or records of indentures, survive from the lives of Shakespeare and his associates. Here we may consider five examples.

The Globe theatre’s lease When Richard Burbage and his brother Cuthbert leased the site of the Globe playhouse in Southwark in 1599, they negotiated a tripartite lease. The first party to the lease was Sir Nicholas Brend, current owner of the land. The second party consisted of Richard and Cuthbert Burbage, who held half of the lease. The third party consisted of William Shakespeare, John Heminges, Augustine Phillips, Thomas Pope and William Kemp, five senior members of the Lord Chamberlain’s Men, who held the other half of the lease. Although none of the three original copies of the tripartite lease survives, the terms of the indenture are referenced, and sometimes cited, in nearly a dozen subsequent documents ranging from 1599 to 1636. Knowledge of indentures allows us to reconstruct the tripartite indenture with considerable authority. The same knowledge may cause us to lament the loss of the originals, two of which would certainly have preserved the 1599 signature of William Shakespeare. Sir Nicholas Brend probably held the foot of the indenture, while the two Burbages held one of the two biparts, and the five senior players, including Shakespeare, held the other. It is further likely that many if not all of the seven lease-holders held certificates testifying to their part in the complicated arrangement.

Purchase of New Place William Shakespeare purchased New Place in Stratford-upon-Avon in 1597 from William Underhill. Fulke Underhill, eldest son and heir of the seller, was subsequently convicted of murdering his father. Perhaps to forestall any legal misunderstanding, Shakespeare and Hercules Underhill, the younger son, went to court in 1602 to create a fresh finalis concordia. For some

112

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

reason both biparts stayed with Shakespeare, while the foot was filed with the court. Today, the two biparts survive in the Folger Shakespeare Library, while the foot is housed in TNA , Kew.6 The finalis concordia is fully chirographic, letters of the alphabet having been supplied and cut by the two wavy lines. Photographic analysis proves that all three copies are from the same sheet of parchment. Roland B. Lewis acknowledges the relatedness of the three surviving parts: The two copies, one for the vendor and the other for the vendee, are separate, though they are kept mounted together under glass in a wooden frame. The indenture line (the wavy line cut made to separate the different copies of the same legal document) of the one fits exactly into the indenture line of the other; and the indenture line of the ‘foot’ copy in the Public Record Office fits exactly (as full-sized photographs of the three parts demonstrate when placed in proper position to each other) into the indenture line of the vendor’s and vendee’s parts in the Folger collection.7 The Folger Shakespeare Library no longer preserves the biparts under glass. The ‘Public Record Office’ is the former name of TNA . While Lewis leaves demonstration via ‘full-sized photographs of the three parts’ to the reader, Samuel Schoenbaum brings the three parts together photographically, commenting: ‘These copies fit together exactly.’8 For the 2016 Shakespeare, Life of an Icon exhibition at the Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington, DC , all three parts were brought together in their original configuration, probably for the first time since 1602. See images 2, 3 and 4 on the Shakespeare Documented website which can be found on the two website pages listed here:

www.shakespearedocumented.org/exhibition/document/shakespearepurchases-new-place-1602-buyer-and-vendor-copies-final-concord www.shakespearedocumented.org/exhibition/document/shakespearepurchases-new-place-1602-foot-fine

Stratford acreage When William Shakespeare and John Combe agreed upon the sale of 107 acres in 1602, they arranged for conveyance by an indenture dated 1 May of that year.9 Two copies of the indenture survive, both now in Stratfordupon-Avon. But the two copies do not match along their wavy top margins. Also, the second copy is not signed. Presumably each surviving copy had its

SHAKESPEARE INDENTURES AND CHIROGRAPHS

113

counterpart, now lost. These documents can be viewed on the Shakespeare Documented website on the following pages:

www.shakespearedocumented.org/exhibition/document/shakespearepurchases-combe-property-conveyance-john-and-william-combe-william www.shakespearedocumented.org/exhibition/document/shakespearepurchases-combe-property-unsigned-counterpart-conveyance-john-and

Blackfriars gatehouse When William Shakespeare and several associates purchased the Blackfriars gatehouse from Henry Walker in 1613, a pair of indentures was created, dated 10 March of that year. The copy signed by Shakespeare and his associates is now in the London Metropolitan Archives, transferred from the London Guildhall Library, while the copy signed by Henry Walker is now in the Folger Shakespeare Library.10 Photographic analysis proves that the two copies are cut from the same sheet of parchment, and would fit perfectly along their wavy top margins if they could be brought together today. The authenticity of the two copies is thus guaranteed; more important for biographers, the authenticity of William Shakespeare’s signature on the Guildhall copy is guaranteed. Yet another guarantee of authenticity is the registered copy of the indenture now at TNA .11 This can be viewed on the Shakespeare Documented website on the following pages:

www.shakespearedocumented.org/exhibition/document/shakespearepurchases-blackfriars-gatehouse-vendors-copy-bargain-and-sale www.shakespearedocumented.org/exhibition/document/shakespearepurchases-blackfriars-gatehouse-buyers-copy-bargain-and-sale www.shakespearedocumented.org/exhibition/document/enrollmentbargain-and-sale-conveying-property-blackfriars-henry-walker

Mortgage indenture of the Blackfriars gatehouse A mortgage indenture on the same Blackfriars property, dated 11 March 1613 and signed by William Shakespeare, William Johnson and John

114

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

Jackson, would have been matched by a counterpart signed by Henry Walker.12 Fortunately, it is the copy signed by William Shakespeare and his associates that has survived! This can be viewed on the Shakespeare Documented website:

www.shakespearedocumented.org/exhibition/document/mortgage-blackfriarsgatehouse-signed-shakespeare

As we have seen, both Lewis and Schoenbaum recognize that the three surviving parts of the 1602 finalis concordia for New Place in Stratfordupon-Avon were all cut from the same sheet of parchment. While Lewis and Schoenbaum also describe one or the other copy of the Blackfriars gatehouse indenture as a counterpart, neither examines the wavy indenture cut.13 Not until I was invited to join the online Folger Shakespeare Library project ‘Shakespeare Documented’ was it recognized, at least explicitly, that the two counterparts were cut from the same sheet of parchment. Heather Wolfe, project director, incorporated a photographic match in the 2016 Folger exhibition Shakespeare, Life of an Icon. Since the two counterparts are in different collections and have had different histories, including different degrees of shrinkage, the fit between them may not be perfect today. However, a DNA test has the potential of putting the matter beyond any conceivable doubt.

5 The course of the seals An elaborate process of procedures and checks Adrian Ailes

On 19 May 1603 Letters Patent were issued by the new king, James I of England (Figure 5.1), to ‘our servants’ Laurence Fletcher, William Shakespeare, Richard Burbage, Augustine Phillips, John Heminges, Henry Condell, William Sly, Robert Armyn, Richard Cowley and others of the company of actors then known as the Lord Chamberlain’s Men. The Letters Patent, issued ‘by the king’ and under the great seal of the realm, constituted a licence for the company to enjoy royal patronage and perform comedies, tragedies, interludes, morals, pastorals and stage plays at their usual home the Globe Theatre, at court, and in all towns and universities ‘for the recreation of our loving subjects’ once the current plague had subsided.1 However, before Fletcher, Shakespeare and the rest of the company were able to receive the final sealed instrument to this effect – the definitive legal evidence of their new rights – they had first to undergo a series of elaborate bureaucratic and costly procedures drawing upon the authority of everyone from the monarch right down to the various administrative clerks busily involved in the running of early modern government. At each administrative stage interim drafts and instruments known as warrants or bills had first to be drawn up by a series of successive central government departments – the Signet Office, the Privy Seal Office and the Chancery. 115

116

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

FIGURE 5.1 London, TNA KB 27/1522/2. Portrait of James I from the plea roll of the Court of the King’s Bench, Easter term 1623. Reproduced by permission of The National Archives.

THE COURSE OF THE SEALS

117

It is possible that Fletcher had not previously been a member of the Lord Chamberlain’s Men but he had performed twice for the king in Scotland; James had ruled Scotland since 1567.2 On the accession of James VI of Scotland as James I of England, following the death of Elizabeth I on 24 March 1603, Fletcher, an Englishman, accompanied the new monarch southward from Edinburgh. He had known James since at least 1594 and by 1601 was referred to as ‘comedian to His Majesty’. As the new king of England, James was currently bestowing favours in lavish style. In the thirtythree days he spent to reach his new capital he had, for example, created over 300 new knights. On 4 May he finally arrived in London, having ensured that the old queen’s funeral rites were fully completed. Not long afterwards on 19 May, and in one of his first official acts as king of England, he (or rather his officials) had completed the formal process of granting royal patronage to the Lord Chamberlain’s Men, including, of course, one William Shakespeare. By this date the playwright was a man of property, having bought the substantial New Place in his home town of Stratfordupon-Avon. He was also by now an armigerous gentleman, affording him considerable social status.3 A year and a half later the King’s Men (as they were now called) were fully established as the chief entertainers at court with Shakespeare as their leading ‘poet’. Fletcher died in 1608.4 Whether this royal licence by Letters Patent was the result of an initial petition to the king from Fletcher on behalf of the Lord Chamberlain’s Men, or taken on James’s own initiative – the monarch was fascinated with literature and his wife and eldest son were fans of the theatre – is not known.5 Maybe Shakespeare and the others had paid Fletcher to procure the king’s hand in this matter; perhaps it may have come about at the urging of James’s powerful young friend, William Herbert, earl of Pembroke.6 No original petition survives. Had it, it would have probably begun along the lines ‘To the high and mighty monarch James [. . .] The humble petition of [. . .] Sheweth that whereas your petitioner has [. . .], may it therefore please your most excellent Majesty to grant [. . .]’.7 Whatever the exact wording, James (or his Council) clearly agreed to grant royal patronage to the company and would have sent an instruction known as a ‘bill’ or ‘warrant’ to that effect into central government to initiate the process.

The central government machine Central government in the early seventeenth century consisted of several separate administrative departments, each jealously guarding its own official seal of authority and authorization (Figure 5.2).8 The whole acted rather like a sophisticated machine made up of several interlocking smaller cogs ultimately turning a big wheel at the end. The purpose of this (frankly outdated) machine was simple: the formal transmission, authentication and execution of the monarch’s instructions, decisions and (as in the case of the Lord Chamberlain’s

118

FIGURE 5.2 ‘The course of the seals’ after 1535. Reproduced by permission of The National Archives.

THE COURSE OF THE SEALS

119

Men) patronage. In normal circumstances, to turn the big wheel (the great seal) at the end (by which the king’s pleasure and the routine business of much government could be discharged) the smaller cogs (the lesser seals) had first to turn each other. The prime motor for all this machinery was the king’s signature or ‘sign manual’ (e.g. ‘James R[ex]’). Much of this chain of official responsibility for the making of royal grants, known as ‘the course of the seals’, had been confirmed by the privy council in 1444 and was given statutory force by the Clerks of the Signet and Privy Seal Act of 1535 which stated that all petitions and bills should first go to the secretary and pass under the signet before proceeding to the privy seal and then to the great seal. This last measure had also established a scale of fees for the clerks of both the Signet and Privy Seal Offices even where the grant was passed by immediate warrant and did not go through the two offices.9

Signet Office: Signed Bill James, having agreed to exercise the royal patronage and issue the Letters Patent, would have first sent a signed warrant of instruction known as a ‘Signed Bill’ (or ‘Warrant for a King’s Bill’) for its implementation to his principal secretary, currently Sir Robert Cecil, or to one of the four clerks of the signet in the Signet Office. This was a distinct office formed under the king’s principal secretary where a small seal (one of the cogs in the government machine) known as the signet was kept. It was this department that was usually employed for disseminating the monarch’s commands. The principal secretary was the sovereign’s chief minister, a confidential servant in charge of the signet which authenticated the royal correspondence and who was, therefore, usually near to the monarch.10 The king occasionally bypassed the Signet Office and sent his Signed Bill straight to the Privy Seal Office or even to the final department in the government machine, the Chancery, thus jumping the gears and speeding matters up, though in 1603 this would have been contrary to the Act of 1535.11 Not surprisingly the secretary would charge for the preparation of the Signed Bill.12 Payment for drawing up, checking and sealing the various interim and final documents was required at every stage.13 The Signed Bill cranked the government machine into action by requesting that a new document, a ‘King’s Bill’, be drawn up in the Signet Office. Sadly, in 1852 only original Signed Bills sent to the Signet Office after 1661 were transferred from the Signet Office to the newly formed Public Record Office (now The National Archives [TNA ]); they can now be found in TNA record series SO 8 and SO 6.14 Had the then Public Record Office kept preRestoration Signed Bills we might have still possessed the king’s sign manual to bestow his patronage on to the Lord Chamberlain’s Men, including Shakespeare.

120

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

Signet Office: King’s Bill When the clerks of the Signet Office received a Signed Bill they followed its instruction to draw up a new document on parchment called a ‘King’s Bill’. Before this happened, however, the proposed wording of a grant to be included in the draft King’s Bill was sent out to two new and important law officers, the attorney general and solicitor general, for checking against any legal anomalies or requirements and to ensure that it did not infringe any existing rights. This examination, approval and redrafting again could prove expensive.15 The law officers then sent a corrected version of the grant (based on the petition or on precedent) back to the Signet Office with their reports.16 A draft King’s Bill (sometimes known at this stage as an Attorney General’s Bill)17 containing an agreed transcript of the text along with a warrant of instruction was then drawn up and submitted back to the sovereign for his royal sign manual. As soon as this was applied, the document technically became a ‘King’s’ Bill. A brief summary, or ‘docquet’, signed by the law officer or clerk of the Signet responsible for preparing the King’s Bill was entered near its lower left-hand corner. This allowed the monarch a quick and easy method of ascertaining what he or she was granting. Once again, no King’s Bill survives for Fletcher’s patent; these would normally now be found in record series SO 7 or SP 39 in TNA . Nevertheless (as we shall see), it is certain that the Signet Office was involved in the drafting and authentication of the new licence for the Lord Chamberlain’s Men.

Signet Office: Signet Bill The signed King’s Bill, with its sign manual and authorized transcript of the Company’s intended licence, instructed that another document known as a ‘Signet Bill’ (or ‘Signet Warrant of the Privy Seal’) be drawn up in the Signet Office and sealed with the signet; the King’s Bill had in effect turned the first wheel (the signet) in the government process. Like the King’s Bill, a Signet Bill consisted of an approved transcript of the grant and an instruction addressed (this time) to the keeper of the Privy Seal Office, the next government department in the process. This commanded the keeper to make out a further writ or warrant under the privy seal to be sent to the Chancery where it would move the great seal and thus make the grant legally binding. Some King’s Bills were kept by the keeper of the privy seal as their own personal property, but those that survive in the public records can still be seen in TNA PSO 2 and 3.18 The Signet Bill for Fletcher and the rest of the Lord Chamberlain’s Men is listed as PSO 2/22 pt 2 (Figure 5.3). It was issued under the signet at Greenwich on 17 May and examined (presumably checked) by Thomas Lake, an ambitious and particularly efficient clerk of the signet. Like Fletcher he had the ear of the king, who three days later knighted him.19 It begins:

THE COURSE OF THE SEALS

121

FIGURE 5.3 London, TNA PSO 2/22 pt 2. Signet Bill from the Signet Office to the Keeper of the Privy Seal Office, dated 17 May 1603. Reproduced by permission of The National Archives.

Right trusty and beloved counsellor we greet you well and will and command you that under our privy seal in your custody for the time being you cause letters to be directed to the keeper of our great seal of England commanding him that under our great seal he cause letters to be made patent in the form following . . .20 The Signet Bill also states that it is ‘by the king’ and ‘sufficient warrant’ for the keeper of the privy seal to discharge his obligations in this respect. Since Robert Cecil had been appointed both keeper of the privy seal and of the signet on 1 April, the bill is addressed to him.21 The papered impression of the signet (Figure 5.4) applied to the Signet Bill for the Lord Chamberlain’s Men was applied over the tag or ‘tie’ used to secure the folded document. Its design is particularly interesting since it highlights the problems of communication in the early days of James’s reign as king of England whilst he was still in Edinburgh or en route to England and when Cecil was in London. James dreamt of a new imperium, ‘Great Britain’, consisting of his kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland, as well as, of course, France.22 On 27 March he therefore instructed Cecil to have new signets engraved incorporating the arms of both realms united. A few days later, on 4 April whilst James was still in Scotland, Cecil accordingly issued a warrant from Whitehall, London, faithfully following the new king’s commands. Unfortunately, he did not realize that James also wished to include his kingdom of Ireland which had never before appeared on the royal arms in England. Thus, no Irish harp appears on the shield depicted on the signet attached to Fletcher’s bill. Instead the lion rampant of Scotland is repeated in the second and third quarters of the shield. Shortly afterwards the heraldic situation was resolved with new signets appearing with the now familiar Stuart arms incorporating Ireland in the third quarter, but too late to feature on Fletcher’s bill.

122

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

FIGURE 5.4 London, TNA PSO 2/22 pt 2. Signet applied to Signet Bill dated 17 May 1603. Reproduced by permission of The National Archives.

THE COURSE OF THE SEALS

123

FIGURE 5.5 London, TNA SO 3/2 p. 15. Docquet Book covering 1603 recording the preparation of Letters Patent for the Lord Chamberlain’s Men. Reproduced by permission of The National Archives.

124

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

Signet Office: Docquet Books As already noted, each stage of this bureaucratic process had to be paid for, with the clerks of the signet keeping registers of the docquets to calculate their fees. These so-called ‘Docquet Books’ are now amongst the records of the Signet Office and can be found in TNA record series SO 3, with name indexes in SO 4.23 The Docquet Book covering 1603 (SO 3/2) records on page 15 that a licence from the king was prepared for Laurence Fletcher, William Shakespeare and others to perform in all towns and universities after the decrease of the plague (Figure 5.5). The fee for this drafting and authorization process is noted as 6s. 8d. (one-third of a pound), equivalent today to about £70 at a time when a London actor would normally be paid between sixpence and one shilling a day.24 Judging from other entries on the same page this appears to be the standard rate, though whether the same amount or more or less was charged by the next two writing offices, the Privy Seal Office and the Chancery, for their role in processing the licence is not known.

Privy Seal Office: Warrant for the Great Seal The Privy Seal Office, which received the Signet Bills from the Signet Office, was a kind of clearing house. During the fifteenth century it had replaced the much older Chancery as the secretarial centre of government. Having received the Signet Bill for Fletcher, Shakespeare and the rest of the Lord

FIGURE 5.6 London, TNA C 82/1690 no. 78. Warrant from the Privy Seal Office to the Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, dated 18 May 1603. Reproduced by permission of The National Archives.

THE COURSE OF THE SEALS

125

Chamberlain’s Company, it now drew up its own warrant under its own seal – the privy seal. The signet had in effect now turned the next cog in the machine. This new document under the privy seal was called a ‘Warrant for the Great Seal’ (or ‘Writ of the Privy Seal’) and was sent to the lord chancellor (or in his absence the keeper of the great seal) who headed the king’s Chancery where it would move the last cog in the machine – the great seal. Fletcher’s warrant issued under the privy seal was issued on 18 May at Greenwich and addressed to Sir Thomas Egerton who had been reappointed lord keeper on 5 April; he was to be created chancellor on 24 July. As well as including the agreed text of the licence it instructed the keeper to draw up and deliver the formal Letters Patent to which the great seal would be attached. It was checked before being sent out by Francis Mylles, one of the clerks of the Privy Seal Office.25 Thousands of warrants still remain amongst the vast corpus of Chancery records in TNA record series C 82 and C 83. That for the Lord Chamberlain’s Men is in C 82/1690 no. 78 (Figure 5.6). Fletcher’s Privy Seal Warrant is annotated at its head with the date and place of its delivery to the lord keeper of the great seal – 19 May at Westminster. This date is crucial since it provides the issue date for the Letters Patent after which the grant (here a licence) became legally effective. The warrant is also annotated with an abbreviation ‘Irro’ for irrotulatur confirming that a copy taken from the text given here was made on to the Chancery Patent Roll (see below). Most Warrants for the Great Seal were closed by a tag or ‘tie’ cut almost the length of their bottom edge. They were then folded lengthwise and again into three. A slit was then cut through the six folds. The ‘tie’ was then passed through the slits and the privy seal applied over the tie. A shadow of the privy seal can still be seen on the warrant, the original having long disappeared. In its final destination – the Chancery – the warrant was filed according to month using string through the top left-hand corner. As with the Signet Office the clerks in the Privy Seal Office made a note in their Docquet Books giving abstracts of documents issued under the privy seal or passing unsealed through the Privy Seal Office usually with a note of the fees for the new documents. The abstract for the Lord Chamberlain’s Men is in PSO 5/2 but does not include a note of payment made by the company to the Privy Seal office for processing its licence.

Chancery: Letters Patent On the same day, 19 May 1603, the new king issued his first formal statement in England on the Union of the Crowns.26 The text of the incoming warrant would now have been précised in a docquet prepared for Lord Keeper Egerton’s information. When this was signed by him it became the record of sealing. Once he had approved the docquet a clerk in Chancery engrossed and sealed the final Letters Patent with the great seal and would then have

126

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

presented them to a grateful Lord Chamberlain’s Men. The privy seal had thus turned the last cog in the government machine – the great seal – and the king’s formal will and pleasure was enacted. Henceforth, James was the immediate patron of the company and the players, including Shakespeare, could legitimately call themselves the King’s Men. The Chancery, which performed this last task, was essentially the king’s writing office. It was the oldest and most developed royal secretariat.27 The Letters Patent it issued in the monarch’s name were usually addressed to a variety of officials and private individuals. Those to the company begin ‘to all justices, mayors, sheriffs, constables, headboroughs, and other our officers and loving subjects, greetings know (ye) that’. Letters Patent publically authorized, and provided written evidence of, some expression of the royal will, such as the granting or confirmation of rights, appointments, offices, leases of crown lands, pardons or, in the case of the Lord Chamberlain’s Men, a licence. The grantee could pay extra for the Letters Patent to be illuminated, for example with a portrait of the monarch in the initial capital letter. They were issued open with the great seal, hanging pendant from the bottom of the document by a cord or tag rather than it physically sealing the document and having to be broken by the recipient in order to read the contents. Even if not illuminated they were still impressive legal documents. A stage direction in George Whetstone’s comic work ‘Promos and Cassandra’, written in 1578, instructs that ‘the kinges letters patent . . . must be fayre written in parchment with some great counterfeat [stage prop] zeale’.28 They were also patent (or open) in the sense that they were not sealed-up private or personal correspondence. Such was the speed that this royal licence was granted to Fletcher, Shakespeare and the rest of the Lord Chamberlain’s Men – within a fortnight of James arriving in his new capital – that the patent would have been sealed with the superb second great seal of the late queen, rather than that of the new king, which would not be ready until 19 July (Figure 5.7). James had taken physical possession of the old seal on 3 May in Hertfordshire, just before he reached London.29 The original Letters Patent, like so many others of the day, have not survived.

Chancery: patent rolls The Lord Chamberlain’s Men (now the King’s Men) paid extra for a permanent copy of their new licence to be made on the ‘Patent Rolls’ which were drawn up and kept in the Chancery. As already noted the text for this enrolment was supplied by the Warrant for the Great Seal, and it was duly recorded for posterity on the fourth membrane of the first Patent Roll of the reign of James I, TNA reference, C 66/1608 (Figure 5.8).30

THE COURSE OF THE SEALS

127

FIGURE 5.7 London, TNA SC13/N3. Second great seal of Elizabeth I. Reproduced by permission of The National Archives.

128

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

FIGURE 5.8 London, TNA C 66/1608 m. 4. Licence enrolled on the Patent Roll from James I to Laurence Fletcher, William Shakespeare and others of the Lord Chamberlain’s Men, dated 19 May 1603. Reproduced by permission of The National Archives.

THE COURSE OF THE SEALS

129

The final extra cost to enrol the cherished Letters Patent and the various interim charges made as the licence progressed through the central government machine proved to be a sound investment for the ambitious forty-year-old Shakespeare and his fellow actors. In the two revels seasons from 1603 to 1605 the King’s Men performed a staggering twenty times comprising possibly eighteen different plays allowing for repetitions. By contrast, as the Lord Chamberlain’s Men, they had performed only thirtythree times at the court of Elizabeth I between 1594 and the queen’s death. Between 1603 and Shakespeare’s own death the King’s Men were to perform at least 107 times at court with many of the plays written by their leading playwright. Henceforth, they were the pre-eminent acting group touring the country, especially valuable while the Globe was closed for the next year because of the plague then raging in London.31 Clearly Shakespeare and his fellow actors were prepared to pay for the privilege of the king’s patronage and endure the grinding bureaucracy of the government machine to achieve this. Seizing the opportunity of recent success and a new and sympathetic monarch they may have had in mind Brutus’s advice in Julius Caesar, taking the tide of their own affairs when at a flood, which, of course, was to lead on to even greater fortune.

130

6 Shakespeare and the playing companies Lucy Munro

In the early 1830s, a set of documents relating to Shakespeare’s professional career were unearthed among the uncatalogued papers of a noble family. They included two documents that appeared not only to answer some longstanding questions about Shakespeare’s interactions with playing companies, but also to pose entirely new ones. The first, dated November 1589, is a certificate presented to the Privy Council, stating that Her Majesties poore playeres James Burbidge Richard Burbidge John Laneham Thomas Greene Robert Wilson John Taylor Anth. Wadeson Thomas Pope George Peele Angustine Phillippes Nicholas Towley William Shakespeare William Kempe William Johnson Baptiste Goodale and Robert Armyn being all of them sharers in the blacke ffryers playehouse have never given cause of displeasure in that they have brought into their playes maters of state and Religion vnfitt to be handled by them or to be presented before lewde spectators neither hath anie complainte in that kinde ever beene preferred against them or anie of them . . . The players assure their lordships ‘of their former good behaviour beinge at all tymes readie and willing to yeelde obedience to anie command’.1 Apparently dating from just after the Marprelate scandal, this document provides a glimpse of William Shakespeare, then twenty-five years old. Some six years before he appears as the payee with Richard Burbage and William Kempe for performances by the Chamberlain’s Men at court, he is performing at the Blackfriars playhouse, a sharer in the prestigious company patronized by the queen herself.2 Shakespeare, in 1589, is already a company man. Shakespeare comes into view again, some years later, in a royal warrant issued on 4 January 1610: 131

132

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

Whereas the Queene our dearest wife hath for her pleasure and recreacion appointed her seruantes Robert Daborne &c to prouide and bring vppe a conuenient nomber of children who shalbe called the children of her Majesties reuelles Knowe yee that We haue appointed and authorized and by these presentes doe appoint and authorize the saide Robert Daborne William Shakespeare Nathaniel ffield & Edward Kirkham from time to time to prouide and bring vpp a conuenient number of children and them to instruct and exercise in the qualitie of playing Tragedies Comedies &c by the name of the children of the reuelles to the Queene within the blacke ffryers in our Cittie of London & els where within our realme of England . . . and them to exercise in the qualitie of playing acording to our Royall pleasure Prouided allwayes that noe playes &c shalbe by them presented but such playes &c as haue receiued the aprobacion and allowance of our Maister of the Reuelles for the tyme being . . .3 Late in his career, Shakespeare has apparently abandoned the King’s Men in favour of a new role as one of the managers of a children’s company. Taken together, these two documents challenge received ideas about Shakespeare’s relationship with the playing companies of London at the beginning of his career as an actor and playwright and towards its end. They present a Shakespeare who is an established member of the Queen’s Men at the Blackfriars playhouse in 1589, and one who is apparently joining a new enterprise, also at the Blackfriars, in 1609. These documents are also, of course, forgeries, concocted by John Payne Collier, inserted into the papers of the Egerton family, to which he had been granted privileged access, and transcribed and printed as genuine new sources in his 1835 book New Facts Regarding the Life of Shakespeare.4 Public doubt was first cast on their authenticity in 1853 by J.O. HalliwellPhillipps – who describes the certificate as ‘evidently at best merely a late transcript, if it be not altogether a recent fabrication’ and states that the warrant ‘unquestionably appears to be a modern forgery’ – and his opinion has been upheld by later scholars such as C.M. Ingleby and Arthur and Janet Ing Freeman.5 As Halliwell-Phillipps notes, the warrant especially is a clumsy piece of work, its handwriting bearing little resemblance to early modern secretary or italic hands.6 A series of discoveries since the 1850s have also undermined the theatre history on which Collier’s forgeries were based. We know – thanks in part to Halliwell-Phillipps himself – that James Burbage owned The Theatre in Shoreditch, a playhouse that Collier mentions only in passing.7 We know the true composition of the Queen’s Men on their foundation in the early 1580s, thanks to the discovery by C.W. Wallace of a licence from the Court of Aldermen issued on 28 November 1583 authorizing them to play in the City of London.8 The list of company members includes Robert Wilson, John Lanham and William Johnson – whose names Collier probably found in the royal patent issued to Leicester’s Men in 1574 – but

SHAKESPEARE AND THE PL AYING COMPANIES

133

it also has names absent from Collier’s imagined 1589 list: John Dutton, Richard Tarleton, John Bentley, Toby Mills, John Towne, John Singer, Lionel Cooke, John Garland and John Adams.9 Due to the research of Wallace and his wife, Hulda, and Albert Feuillerat, among others, we know that there were two Blackfriars playhouses, one in operation between the 1570s and the 1590s and the other between 1599 and 1642, used exclusively by children’s companies until 1609.10 Only the second was owned by James Burbage, and he did not buy his Blackfriars property or begin work on his playhouse until 1596. Thanks to E.K. Chambers and Roberta Brinkley, we know that the actor who began his career with the Children of the Chapel and Queen’s Revels, and eventually became a member of the King’s Men after Shakespeare’s death, was Nathan Field; Nathaniel was the name of his older brother, a stationer.11 What interests me especially about these forgeries, however, is the light that they shed – perhaps inadvertently – on the documentary record itself, most of which is preserved in the collections of The National Archives. The National Archives and its predecessors – notably the State Paper Office and the Public Record Office – have played crucial roles in both enabling and exploding the forgeries of Collier and others. When Halliwell-Phillipps looked at the Egerton papers and began to doubt the authenticity of the warrant he headed the next day to the State Paper Office and the Rolls Chapel of the Public Record Office.12 Examining the records of the Signet Office, he found that a warrant for Daborne and others to run a company called the Children of the Queen’s Revels at the Whitefriars playhouse had been obtained through the influence of Sir Thomas Monson in December 1609.13 In the Patent Rolls, he located the warrant itself, dated – like Collier’s forgery – 4 January 1610, which appoints Robert Daborne Phillippe Rosseter Iohn Tarbock Richard Iones, and Robert Browne . . . from tyme to tyme to provide keepe and bring vpp a convenient nomber of children, and them to practice and exercise in the quality of playing . . . within the white ffryers in the Suburbs of our Citty of london, or in any other convenient place where they shall thinke fit for that purpose . . .14 Collier had to be familiar with the forms taken by genuine warrants in order to concoct his forgery, but Halliwell-Phillipps similarly depended on his knowledge of – and access to – the records themselves when he sought to discredit it.15 It is telling that Collier sought to intervene at the beginning and the end of Shakespeare’s writing career, since these are the areas where the record is least complete. The earliest documents connecting Shakespeare with the playing companies are entries dating from the early 1590s in the account book of Philip Henslowe, better known as Henslowe’s Diary, which sits at the centre of the rich collection of the papers of Henslowe and

134

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

his son-in-law, Edward Alleyn, at Dulwich College, London.16 Strange’s Men played ‘harey the vj’ at the Rose seventeen times between 3 March 1592 and 31 January 1593, Sussex’s Men played ‘titus & ondronicus’ three times in January–February 1594 and this play returned to the stage at the Newington Butts playhouse in June that year, when it was performed by the Admiral’s and Chamberlain’s Men.17 On 11 June, the combined company performed ‘the tamynge of A shrowe’; this is probably the anonymous play of that title printed in 1594, but it may have some connection with Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew.18 It is around this time that Shakespeare himself comes into view. The Chamberlain’s Men performed at court during the Christmas season of 1594–5, and when they received their payment of £20 on 15 March 1595 for ‘for twoe seuerall Comedies or Enterludes shewed by them before her maiestie in Christmas tyme laste paste viz vpon St Stephens daye & Innocents daye’ the payees were ‘William Kempe William Shakespeare & Richarde Burbage seruantes to the Lord Chamberleyne’.19 The record is part of the accounts of Sir Thomas Heneage, Treasurer of the Household between 1579 and 1596, and the other leading playing company, the Admiral’s Men, is listed earlier on the same membrane, Edward Alleyn, Richard Jones and John Singer collecting £30 for three plays. Unlike some later records, Heneage’s accounts do not only list payments for plays; the entries surrounding the payment to the Chamberlain’s Men record payments to Phillip Biscou ‘marchaunte stranger . . . for bringing of lettres from the partes beyond the Seas’ and to Thomas Greene ‘Coffermaker’ for items including ‘a greate Coffer covered wth hyde Leather lyned wth Canvas and bounde wth iron wth lockes ioyntes & handles to put plate in and a padlock to it’.20 In such records, plays are just one of the commodities with which the court supplies itself; indeed, the payment of £10 for a play perhaps compares favourably with the £6 13s. 4d. paid for the ‘greate Coffer’. Henslowe’s Diary and the court accounts were private records. More public were the first widely circulating documents to associate Shakespeare with the Chamberlain’s Men: the title-pages of printed plays. The first year in which Shakespeare is named on a printed play, 1598, saw three title-pages mention him: Love’s Labour’s Lost, printed by William White and published by Cuthbert Burby; Richard II, printed by Valentine Simmes and published by Andrew Wise; and Richard III, printed by Thomas Creede for Andrew Wise. The title-pages of Richard II and Richard III also name the playing company, claiming that the plays have been ‘publikely acted’ or ‘lately Acted’ by the ‘Right honourable the Lord Chamberlaine his seruants’. Notoriously, the Chamberlain’s Men were to find themselves in trouble in the wake of the Essex rebellion in 1601, after some of the Earl’s adherents commissioned them to perform ‘the deposyng and kyllyng of Kyng Rychard the Second’.21 This is likely to have been Richard II, still circulating in print with its dual ascription to Shakespeare and the Chamberlain’s Men; however, it was not

SHAKESPEARE AND THE PL AYING COMPANIES

135

Shakespeare who represented the company before the authorities, but Augustine Phillips. Aside from printed plays, the most widely disseminated documents linking Shakespeare to the King’s Men were the letters patent granting them King James’s patronage and protection, a copy of which was carried by the company when they toured outside London. The letters patent Doe licence and aucthorize theise our Servauntes lawrence ffletcher William Shakespeare Richard Burbage Augustyne Phillippes Iohn heninges henrie Condell William Sly Robert Armyn Richard Cowly and the rest of theire Assosiates freely to vse and exercise the Arte and faculty of playinge Comedies Tragedies histories Enterludes moralls pastoralls Stageplaies and Suche others like as theie haue alreadie studied or hereafter shall vse or studie aswell for the recreation of our lovinge Subjectes as for our Solace and pleasure when wee shall thincke good to see them duringe our pleasure And the said Commedies tragedies histories Enterludes Morralles Pastoralls Stageplayes and suche like to shewe and exercise publiquely to theire best Commoditie when the infection of the plague shall decrease aswell within theire nowe vsuall howse called the Globe within our County of Surrey as alsoe within anie towne halls or Moute halls or other conveniente places within the liberties and freedome of anie other Cittie vniversitie towne or Boroughe whatsoever within our said Realmes and domynions . . .22 Surviving documents in The National Archives track the progress of the letters patent through the various departments that dealt with their production, from the original petition requesting that the King grant his patronage to the company – which does not survive – to the letters patent themselves, which were issued on 19 May 1603.23 As the reference to the plague suggests, permission to perform across the realms of James VI and I – that is, the territories controlled by both England and Scotland – was of crucial importance in 1603, when the London playhouses were closed. Surviving local records demonstrate that the letters were shown at Coventry, Shrewsbury and Bath in 1603–4.24 Their utility to the King’s Men can also be seen in the fact that forged copies were circulating as early as 1618, when the city clerk in Exeter noted the payment of £2 4s. to ‘martyn Slader on[e] of his majesties players to forbear to playe’.25 Collier had different reasons for his forgery, but the temptation to produce one’s own royal patent is longstanding. If printed plays and company licenses associate Shakespeare with the Chamberlain’s and King’s Men, another set of records now held by the National Archives stress his links with the playhouses in which he and his fellow actors invested: the Globe, built by Richard and Cuthbert Burbage in 1599, and the second Blackfriars, converted by James Burbage in 1596 but not used by the company for some years. The Globe was built with financial

136

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

support from five members of the Chamberlain’s Men. In the tripartite lease of the land on which the playhouse was built, one half (or ‘moiety’) of the lease was held by the Burbages and the other by Shakespeare, John Heminges, Augustine Phillips, Thomas Pope and William Kempe.26 When Richard Burbage regained the lease of the Blackfriars in 1608, he created a similar opportunity for his colleagues to invest in the playhouse. Keeping one seventh part for himself, he then issued six further leases, each for a term of twenty-one years, to his brother Cuthbert, Heminges, Shakespeare, William Sly, Henry Condell and a man named Thomas Evans, who was probably the assignee of Henry Evans, who had formerly managed a children’s company at the Blackfriars.27 Shakespeare’s name features in a series of records relating to these playhouses. Some record inheritance, such as the Inquisition Post Mortem of Thomas Brend – father of Nicholas Brend, who leased the Globe site to the Burbages and their fellow lessees – which specifies that a ‘one house newly constructed’ is now ‘in the occupation of William Shakespeare and others’ (‘vna Domo de novo edificata . . . in occupatione Willielmi Shakespeare et aliorum’).28 Others deal with the sale of property, such as the Close Rolls, which record transfers of the Globe site in 1601, 1608, 1622 and 1624.29 These records typically name only one or two of the lessees; more informative are two other sets of documents: wills and the records of the various early modern law courts. Between 1603 and 1616, six members of the King’s Men died leaving wills. All but one of these wills mention other members of the company or playhouse shares; the exception is the will of Robert Armin, draw up on 5 December 1615, which mentions only family members.30 In contrast, the wills of Thomas Pope (drawn up on 22 July 1603), Augustine Phillips (4 May 1605), William Sly (14 August 1608), Alexander Cook (3 January 1614) and Shakespeare (25 March 1616) all mention shareholders, hired men, apprentices or playhouse shares. Pope left his shares in the Globe and Curtain (where the Chamberlain’s Men performed around 1597–9) jointly to ‘mary Clarke alias wood’ and ‘thomas bromley who was her to fore baptised in the parrich of saint Andrews undershaft in lundone’; he left to the actors Robert Gough and John Edmonds ‘all my wering aparrell and all my armes to be equally deuided between them’.31 Phillips left thirty shillings in gold each to Shakespeare, Condell and Christopher Beeston, and twenty shillings in gold to Laurence Fletcher, Armin, Cowley, Alexander Cook and Nicholas Tooley. With the exception of Beeston, who is called ‘my servaunte’, all of these men are called ‘my fellowe’, including Fletcher, whose involvement with the King’s Men is often thought to have been limited to the immediate period during which the royal patent was granted. To his former apprentice, Samuel Gilborne, Phillips left forty shillings, ‘my mouse Colloured veluit hose and a white Taffety dublet A blacke Taffety suit my purple Cloke sword and dagger And my base viall’; he left to a current apprentice, James Sands, forty shillings ‘and a Citterne a Bandore and a Lute’, to be paid and delivered at the conclusion of Sands’s apprenticeship.32 Phillips also left silver bowls

SHAKESPEARE AND THE PL AYING COMPANIES

137

worth £5 each to John Heminges, Richard Burbage and William Sly, naming them with Timothy Whithorne as the overseers of his will and stipulating that if his wife Anne was to remarry after his death she would cease to be his executrix and Heminges, Burbage, Sly and Whithorne should instead take over the execution of his will.33 Whithorne was a scrivener and the former apprentice of Basil Nichol, one of the executors of Thomas Pope’s will; he was left £20 – the largest cash legacy – by Phillips.34 Sly appears to have died relatively suddenly, as his will is nuncupative, or orally delivered. As a result, it is less full than the other wills discussed here, but his legacies nonetheless present an intriguing picture of his interactions with other members of the theatre industry. Two bequests go to people connected with the King’s Men: £40 to James Sands and ‘his sworde and his hatt’ to Cuthbert Burbage.35 The bulk of his estate is granted, however, to Robert Browne, an actor with other companies who was Sly’s neighbour in St Leonard’s, Shoreditch, and his family: ‘his parte of the globe’ to Browne himself, ‘the howse where he now dwelles’ to his daughter, Jane, and ‘The rest’ to his wife, Cicely, née Sands, who is named as executrix.36 Sly had died only five days after the leases to the Blackfriars playhouse were draw up, and this lease is not mentioned in his will, possibly because he had not yet paid anything in consideration for it. Cecily Browne reportedly surrendered it to Richard Burbage, who divided it between the remaining lessees.37 A rare mention of a share in the playing company, as opposed to those in the playhouses, can be found in the will of Alexander Cook, drawn up in his own hand, in which he leaves to his unborn child £50 ‘which is in the hand of my fellowes as my share of ye stock’; he ‘intreat[s] . . . my master hennings mr Cundell, and mr Frances Caper, (for gods cause) to take into there hands & see it saflye put into grocers hall, for he vse and bringing vp of my poore ornts’.38 Shakespeare’s will includes an interlined legacy ‘to my fellows Iohn Hemynnges Richard Burbage & Henry Cundell xxvj s viij A peece to buy them Ring’.39 Taken together, the wills draw our attention to a series of practical, material and affective interactions between members of the King’s Men. Actors call on their ‘fellows’ to protect the financial interests of their families; they leave professional equipment to current and former apprentices; they grant sums of money for memorial rings. Shakespeare is not perhaps the most collegial of his ‘fellows’ but he is far from being the least attentive to the friendship bonds that could exist between members of a company. In addition to marking these bonds between members of the King’s Men, the wills also demonstrate, in contrast, the ways in which the integrity of the company might be threatened by the circulation of playhouse shares to outsiders. This issue is also at stake in lawsuits, the most informative, intriguing and, often, frustrating of the surviving documents. None of the cases concerning the Chamberlain’s or King’s Men that have so far been located involve Shakespeare directly as complainant or defendant, but he is mentioned by name in a group of important suits: Thomasina Ostler versus

138

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

John Heminges, brought in the Court of King’s Bench in 1616; John Witter versus John Heminges and Henry Condell, brought in the Court of Requests in 1619; Cuthbert Burbage, Richard Robinson, Winifred Robinson, William Heminges, John Lowin and Joseph Taylor versus Matthew Brend, Court of Requests, 1632; and a petition submitted to the Lord Chamberlain in 1635 by three longstanding members of the King’s Men, Robert Benfield, Elliard Swanston and Thomas Pollard, and the responses to that petition from the Globe and Blackfriars sharers. These documents shed light on Shakespeare’s career in three ways: they bear witness to some of his interactions with the company; they offer possible answers to the question of what happened to Shakespeare’s playhouse shares; and they show the way in which Shakespeare became part of the story that the King’s Men told about themselves. In their 1635 petition, Benfield, Swanston and Pollard request that they be ‘admitted Sharers in ye Play houses of the Globe and the Blackfriers’ based on their long service with the company, complaining that ‘some of the sayd Housekeepers who haue the greatest shares, are neither Actors nor his Majesties servants . . . & yet reape most or the chiefest benefit of the sweat of [the company’s] browes’.40 Responding to the petition, Cuthbert Burbage, Richard Burbage’s son William and his widow Winifred Robinson seek to establish their right to control the shares by outlining an alternative history. They first describe the origins of the Globe: The father of vs Cutbert & Richd Burbage was the first builder of Playhowses & was himselfe in his younger yeeres a Player. . . . Hee built this house [i.e. the Theatre] vpon leased ground, by wch meanes the Landlord & Hee had a great suite in law & by his death, the like troubles fell on vs, his sonnes; wee then bethought vs of altering from thence, & at like expence built the Globe wth more summes of money taken vp at interest, which lay heauy on vs many yeeres, & to or selues wee ioyned those deseruing men, Shakspere Hemings, Condall, Philips and others . . . but making the Leases for 21 yeares hath beene the destruction of or selues & others, for they dyeing at the expiration of 3 or 4 yeeres of their lease, the subsequent yeeres became dissolued to strangers as by marrying wth their widdowes & the like by their Children.41 Although the reply is ostensibly written by Cuthbert, William and Winifred, the references to ‘vs, his sonnes’ creates the illusion that Cuthbert speaks in the combined voice of himself and his long-dead brother, adding a peculiar force to his description of the process through which playhouse shares moved from a tight-knit group to a more diffuse network of widows and children. He appears to elide the fact that Richard’s own shares in the Globe had ‘dissolved’ to his son and widow, although perhaps Winifred’s marriage to another member of the King’s Men, Richard Robinson, absolved her from blame.

SHAKESPEARE AND THE PL AYING COMPANIES

139

The combined voice is maintained in the account of the Blackfriars: Now for the Blackfriars that is or inheritance, or father purchased it at extreame rates & made it into a play house wth great charge & trouble, which after was leased out to one Euans that first sett vp the Boyes commonly called the Queenes Mates Children of the Chappell. . . . In processe of time . . . [the Burbages] considered that house would bee as fitt for or selues & soe purchased the lease remaining from Evans wth or money & placed men Players, which were Hemings, Condall Shakspeare &c’. And Richard Burbage, who for 35 yeeres paines, cost, and Labour made meanes to leaue his wife and Children, some estate . . . these new men that were neuer bred from Children in the kings service, would take away wth Oathes & menaces that wee shall bee forced, & that they will not thanke vs for it, soe that it seems they would not pay vs for what they would haue or wee can spare[.]42 A different kind of emotional appeal is made here: a claim that an inheritance built on an individual’s hard labour will be taken from the mouths of his widow and children. In the accounts of the Globe and Blackfriars, Shakespeare is part of a collective past that is recalled in an attempt to shape the present. Like Heminges, Condell and others, he is both a contributor to the Burbages’ schemes and a beneficiary of their generosity. Shakespeare’s part in collective actions undertaken by the early shareholders in the Globe and Blackfriars is stressed in the other two lawsuits. In the King’s Bench suit brought by Thomasina Ostler against her father, John Heminges, he appears in two groups of sharers: those who agreed in 1611 to grant a seventh part in the Blackfriars lease to Ostler’s late husband, William – a former boy actor with the Children of the Chapel and Queen’s Revels who had joined the King’s Men around 1609 – and those who agreed in 1612 to grant Ostler a seventh part of the moiety of the Globe lease.43 In the Court of Requests suit brought by John Witter – who had married Augustine Phillips’s widow, Anne, and claimed an interest in his Globe share – the defendants rehearse the history of the playhouse shares. They describe the process through which the joint tenancy in the Globe lease was drawn up in 1599, the redistribution of shares when Kemp left the company later that year, the agreements through which Sly and Condell (around 1606–8), William Ostler (1612) and Nathan Field (around 1616– 19) were assigned shares in the playhouse, and the circumstances surrounding the rebuilding of the Globe after the 1613 fire.44 In the account of the events of 1599, which quotes from the original leases, Shakespeare is named seven times and is always at the head of the list of Globe sharers, suggesting implicitly his standing within the company. As we have seen, neither Phillips nor Shakespeare mention their shares in their wills. Phillips’s Globe share was apparently inherited by his widow, Anne, as part of the third of his estate that was due to her, but the fate of

140

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

Shakespeare’s shares in the Globe and Blackfriars is unclear. The 1619 Requests suit offers one clue. Heminges claims in his and Condell’s joint answer to Witter’s bill of complaint that they had spent about £120 on the rebuilding of the Globe, and yet the one other sixth parte of the said moitie of the said playhowse galleryes gardens & ground before the said playhowse was burned & Consumed with fier was absolutely sould for lesse money then the halfe of the said charges of the said defendantes in the newe building thereof when there were more yeeres to come therein then there were at the time of the said burning.45 He may have been referring to his own and Condell’s apparent purchase of William Sly’s share in the Globe from Robert Browne, to a purchase of Thomas Pope’s share from his heirs, or to the sale of Shakespeare’s share. A stronger suggestion that Shakespeare had disposed of his Globe share by the time the playhouse was rebuilt appears in the 1632 Court of Requests suit between the sharers and their landlord, Matthew Brend. Here, the plaintiffs claim that in February 1614 ‘Cuthbert Burbadge Richard Burbadge and John Hemings being surviving Leassees and others theire partners interessed in the said lease by assignement from other the Leassees’ went to the thirteenyear-old Brend to try to extend the lease of the ground on which the Globe was built.46 If this statement is correct, and the Burbages and Heminges were the only lessees remaining from the original agreement, Shakespeare may have sold, sub-leased or assigned his share in the Globe to somebody else by February 1614. But this does not mean that he did the same with the Blackfriars share, and either or both of the shares may eventually have gone to Anne Shakespeare as part of her share in the estate as his widow – as Anne Phillips inherited her Globe share – or to Susannah Hall, who was left ‘All the Rest of my goodes Chattel Leases plate Iewels & household stuffe’ after other legacies and debts had been paid.47 As John Payne Collier knew only too well, the available documents shape the stories that we can tell about Shakespeare’s interactions with the playing companies. Because they were not written as biography or theatre history, but to serve an official purpose – to record a payment, to settle an individual’s financial affairs, to bring disputes to an orderly conclusion – they offer fragmentary narratives rather than a coherent account of one life or institution. We are left to ask questions and, perhaps, to draw our own conclusions. Was Shakespeare ever a member of the Queen’s Men? Does his failure to appear in more than one record of payment and his contrasting prominence in the lists of playhouse sharers tell us that he shirked responsibility within the company? Does his bequest to only the longestserving members of the King’s Men mean that he was less fond of newer members, or they of him? Does his failure to mention his shares in his will mean that he was eager to profit financially from them in the years before

SHAKESPEARE AND THE PL AYING COMPANIES

141

his death, to avoid being liable for the expenses of rebuilding the Globe, or to protect his fellows from the discord that leaving them to family members might provoke? Did he even dream of working with a different company? Collier’s forgeries attempt to answer – or, even, to pre-empt – some of these questions, yet they speak to the desire for order and a simultaneous, contradictory, desire to shake up established narratives that are inherent to theatre history as it has been practised over the last two centuries.

142

7 Shakespeare at court Audit Office records W. R. Streitberger

Finding documents relevant to Shakespeare’s role in theatre at the courts of Elizabeth I and James I requires some understanding of the ordinary means by which entertainments were produced, what government offices participated in their production, how these offices were financed, what kind of records they kept, where their accounts were submitted for audit and where they were filed afterwards.

Producing court entertainments At court entertainments, or revels as they are usually called, were held every year at the feasts of Christmastide and Shrovetide and to celebrate diplomatic or dynastic occasions. In 1545 a government office was created to produce these revels. The Master of the Revels made up a schedule of entertainments each year, most of which he devised himself. By the mid-1570s a large share of these revels consisted of plays by professional companies from the commercial theatre. For these the Master devised the scenery, the properties and the costumes, and his under-officers supervised the production work. The Yeoman of the Revels devised and supervised the fabrication of costumes, the Clerk Comptroller oversaw the work of various artists – painters, sculptors, carvers – and artisans who fabricated the scenery and properties. The Clerk kept track of material used for these productions and recorded the amount of time spent on them by workmen. Installing the production at court for its single night’s performance required the co-operation of other government offices – invariably the Office of the Works and occasionally the Office of the Tents and one or more of the royal wardrobes. 143

144

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

The Office of the Works was principally responsible for the construction and maintenance of the royal palaces and houses, but it also undertook the heavy construction projects associated with court entertainments. When banqueting houses were needed to host receptions for foreign dignitaries, for example, the Office of the Works built the basic structure and kitchen facilities. The Office of the Tents covered the structure and the roof with canvas and painted it, and the Revels officers fitted it for the banquet and whatever other entertainments were to be presented. The Works also provided services for entertainments held at the royal palaces during the great annual feasts at Christmas and Shrovetide. Works officers undertook repairs and built whatever large structures were required to fit the hall or chamber for a particular entertainment – a dais for the monarch, haute paces, boarded dance floors, degrees for seating or standings, stages for plays and so forth. After the Works completed their projects the Revels officers and their crew of workmen fitted the chamber and stage with whatever scenery and properties were required and arranged to deliver what costumes were to be used. The Master and his servants attended the single performance of the entertainment to ensure that all went well, and the following day a crew of workmen dismantled the production, cleaned the properties and costumes, and stored them for future use. Crews of workmen did the same for the structures the Works had installed.

Record keeping Three memoranda written during the early 1570s describe the kinds of documents that were to be maintained by the Clerk of the Revels.1 Books were to be kept listing material delivered into the Office from the royal wardrobes and of material and accessories – hats, gloves, face masks, feathers and so forth – purchased from London merchants. ‘Daybooks’ were also kept, showing the names of workmen and number of days each was employed. Small receipts from merchants and workmen for odds and ends were kept as well as bills documenting reimbursements for material bought or fees paid by each of the Revels officers. Patterns or plats, drawn and coloured by artists, depicting the designs for revels were also supposed to be kept as a record of productions.2 Much of the information from these subsidiary documents was to be entered into three larger books: a journal book, an ‘imploy’ book and a brief book of debts, which was to include respectively a summary of work performed by the officers, a list of remains of material and the outstanding debts of the Office. The Clerk used all of these documents to draw up the annual account of the Office, known as the Ledger book, which was signed by the officers and submitted under oath for declaration. Other relevant documents might also be submitted, such as extraordinary warrants for specific work or certificates from the Keepers of the Great and Whitehall Wardrobes documenting what material had been

SHAKESPEARE AT COURT

145

supplied to the Office that year. The rest of the documents remained in the Revels Office. Sir Thomas Cawarden’s papers, which illustrate most of the types of documents mentioned above, came into the possession of his executor, Sir William More, and are preserved in the Loseley collection.3 Similar records were kept by the clerks of other offices, such as the Works and the Tents.

Financing court entertainments, 1560–1642 In the late fifteenth century the Exchequer’s role in national finance was greatly diminished by the rise of the Chamber Treasury. Chamber finance dominated the early part of the Tudor period, and between 1536 and 1542 several new financial courts were created to process the substantial new revenues flowing into Henry VIII ’s coffers – the courts of Augmentations (1536), First Fruits and Tenths (1540), General Surveyors (1540), and Wards and Liveries (1542).4 Government offices like the Revels were now funded by whatever treasury that had the money to pay for them at the time. The comprehensive account for the offices of the Revels and Tents from 1550 to 1555, for example, was paid jointly by the Court of Augmentations and the Court of Wards.5 A royal commission was appointed in 1552 to survey this complicated state of affairs. Reforms based on the commission’s analysis and recommendations were carried out by William Paulet, Marquess of Winchester, Lord Treasurer, 1550–72.6 In 1554 the courts of Augmentations, First Fruits and Tenths, and General Surveyors were dissolved and their responsibilities transferred to the Exchequer. While the Court of Wards and Liveries and the Duchy of Lancaster remained independent, by 1554 most royal revenue was now deposited into Exchequer, making it again, after an eclipse of more than sixty years, the dominant national treasury. The Chamber was reorganized into a much smaller treasury funded chiefly by the Exchequer and made responsible for a specific group of payments, which included preparing chambers for entertainments and rewarding musicians, players and other entertainers.7 The re-emergence of the Exchequer as the national treasury did not signal a return to the system of accounting and declaration that had existed in the fifteenth century, for on 19 January 1560 Elizabeth I appointed by patent two Auditors of the Prests (Imprests). These appointments were modelled on the Auditors of the Prests that had been part of the establishment of the Court of General Surveyors before its dissolution, and who employed a streamlined system of audit and declaration.8 There were now two different kinds of auditors in the Exchequer – five Auditors of the Exchequer and two Auditors of the Prests. Each was assigned different classes of accounts to audit. The new Auditors of the Prests were assigned the accounts of their prototypes in the court of General Surveyors in addition to the accounts of the dissolved Court of First Fruits and Tenths. An Exchequer precedent

146

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

book c. 1603–4 lists the accounts that became the concern of the Auditors of the Exchequer and of the Auditors of the Prests.9 Among the many accounts declared before the Auditors of the Prests were all of those offices involved in producing entertainments at court – the Great Wardrobe, the Works, the Tents, the Revels and the Treasury of the Chamber. This method of finance, in which the Exchequer paid major bills for the government offices involved in producing court entertainments and spectacles and the Chamber Treasury paid for hall or chamber preparations and rewards to performers, was standard practice between 1560 and 1642. The Jacobean and Caroline masques were financed differently, but the Works did the heavy construction for them just as they did for plays and the Revels officers attended the performances and provided lighting.10

Ledger books Ledger books – the annual accounts made up by the Clerks of the Revels, Works, and Treasury of the Chamber – are written on paper, recto and verso, made of two or more sheets folded once to form a codex in folio and then stitched together at the fold. In some of the books the leaves are numbered; in others they are not. The Revels Office Ledgers begin with an introductory paragraph indicating the period of the account before going on to document expenses: attendance of the officers to peruse, select and reform plays and entertainments; wages paid to workmen and officers; material purchased or received from the wardrobes; transport costs; and charges connected with the ‘airing’ – the twenty-day period during summer when the officers cleaned, repaired and aired their inventory of costumes and properties. The Elizabethan books contain itemized lists of wages paid to tailors, master artists, wiredrawers and a host of other artisans together with lists of the materials they used. The only artisans recorded in the Jacobean and Caroline books are wiredrawers who fashioned and maintained lighting during performances. The Ledger books are more valuable to historians than any of the other of the surviving accounts because of the detail they preserve, some of which contain the titles of plays and entertainments with references to playing companies and playwrights.11 The Ledger books prepared by the Tents, the Works and the Great Wardrobe are similar to those prepared by the Revels.12 Those prepared by the Treasurer of the Chamber are larger and organized differently.13 After an introduction recording receipts of money the Treasurer’s books are divided into three main sections. The first is concerned with a long list of wages paid to specified individuals: footmen, musicians, the Yeomen of the Guard, the Master of the Bears and Mastiffs and so forth. The second section is concerned with payments for ‘apparelling’ (making ready) royal and other houses for use by the sovereign and for performances of plays and other entertainments. Details are provided about the locality and sometimes the room itself where the entertainments

SHAKESPEARE AT COURT

147

took place. The third section includes rewards on the Council’s warrants to musicians, playing companies and various other entertainers for performances at court. Despite the detail they provide, Ledger books are financial documents concerned with justifying expenses, not treatises on the form or content of the court’s entertainments.

Declared accounts The Auditors of the Prests and the Auditors of the Exchequer followed different procedures in auditing and declaring accounts. The Auditors of the Exchequer required accountants to appear in person with their accounts and supporting particulars. From this information the Auditor and his clerk drew up a ‘compotus’ on parchment and this was declared before the Lord Treasurer and one of the Barons of the Exchequer. The compotus and supporting documents were then passed to the Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer for enrolment and then to the King’s Remembrancer where the account was again enrolled and the documents filed before passing to the Clerk of the Pipe for recording. The process was inconvenient and slow. The Auditors of the Prests did not require accountants to appear in person. They were required to submit their Ledger book to the Auditor and his clerk who prepared a summary called a ‘Declared account’ which functioned in place of the ‘compotus’ used by the Auditors of the Exchequer. The Auditor’s clerk made at least two copies of the Declared account, one or more on large sheets of paper and another on large sheets of parchment. They are stitched together at the top and rolled, individually for the paper copies and collectively for the parchment copies. The sheets are unnumbered and written on both sides. The writing on the recto proceeds from top to bottom and on the verso from bottom to top, so that the documents can be read conveniently as a roll. Revels accounts were declared yearly until 1615, then every two years until 1623, and thereafter every three years.14 The accounts begin with an introductory passage providing essentially the same information found in the opening paragraph of the Ledger book. The accountant is named and his duties explained; the inclusive dates of the account are mentioned; the fact that the Ledger book was signed by the officers and submitted under oath is cited; and the names of the officials before whom the account was declared are mentioned – usually the Treasurer and Chancellor of the Exchequer. Beginning in 1611, when Sir George Buc became Master, the introductory passage contains an abstract of his patent in Latin. Beginning with the 1623 account when Sir John Astley leased his office to Sir Henry Herbert the tenor of their contract is expressed as well as the rest of the information mentioned above. Following the introduction, the accounts are divided into two major sections: Charges and Allowances. The Declared Accounts of the Office of the Works are similar to Revels accounts. The Ledger books were

148

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

made up by the Clerk and signed by the Surveyor, the Comptroller, the Master Mason and the Master Carpenter. In making the Declared account from the Ledger book the Auditor of the Prests noted what imprests had been received, then he recorded what work had been done on each royal building, always beginning with the Tower of London and then Whitehall and the palaces of Westminster, Hampton Court, Greenwich and so forth.15 A complete run of the Declared Accounts between 1558 and 1542 survives for the Treasurer of the Chamber.16 Declared Accounts also survive for the Office of the Tents, Hales, and Pavilions from 1555 to 1640 and, except for 1615–17, for the Great Wardrobe from 1559 to 1645.17

Declaring accounts The Guide to the Contents of the Public Record Office describes the process of audit and declaration for Audit Office accounts as follows: Two copies of each account were prepared in the Audit Office, the one written on paper and the other on parchment. Both were sent to the Treasury to be declared, and registered in volumes known as the ‘Declared Accounts’ and ‘Auditors’ States of Accounts’. The copy on paper, having been duly signed by the Auditor or Auditors, and by the Lord High Treasurer, Chancellor of the Exchequer, or Commissioners of the Treasury, before whom it was declared, was then returned to the Audit Office, and that on parchment, signed in like manner, to the King’s Remembrancer’s Office, where a ‘state’ or abstract of it was enrolled, and from there to the office of the Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer, where another abstract was entered on the Memoranda Rolls under the heading ‘States and Views of Public Accounts’. Finally, it was forwarded to the Clerk of the Pipe, who . . . enrolled an abridgement of it amongst the Foreign Accounts and retained the original.18 This is a general description of the process at the end of an approximately sixty-year period in which practice was altered several times. Early on the Auditors prepared paper and parchment copies of the Declared account as described above and together with whatever additional particular documents were submitted declared them before the Lord Treasurer and the Chancellor or one of the barons of the Exchequer. There the process stopped. One of the paper copies signed by the Treasurer and Chancellor was supposed to be given to the accountant as his receipt.19 The other documents were retained in the Audit Office. Complaints were lodged about this system by officials because it ignored the ancient traditions of the Exchequer, and it deprived clerks in both Remembrancers of their fees for enrolling accounts. Late in Elizabeth’s reign Thomas Fanshawe, Queen’s Remembrancer (1568–1601), argued that all accounts should pass through the Lord

SHAKESPEARE AT COURT

149

Treasurer’s Remembrancer so that they could be treated like Household and Customs accounts and enrolled in the great foreign roll.20 They were then to be passed to the Queen’s (King’s) Remembrancer for enrolment and where particulars relating to them were to be kept. A copy of the Declared account was then to be sent to the Clerk of the Pipe for retention. In 1597 Lord Treasurer, William Cecil, 1st Baron Burghley, ordered the Auditors of the Prests to deliver the parchment copies of their Declared Accounts to the Clerk of the Pipe, which the Auditors unsuccessfully petitioned against. While the parchment copies did begin to be sent to the Clerk of the Pipe, complaints continued to be lodged about the fact that the accounts were still not being sent to the Lord Treasurer’s or Queen’s/King’s Remembrancers for enrolment. It was not until the early 1630s in Charles I’s reign that an order was drawn up requiring that the accounts be sent to the Remembrancers.21 Pressure was exerted over the period, especially between the 1590s and the 1630s, to bring the new auditing system in accord with older Exchequer practices. As a result Audit Office accounts will sometimes be found classed as Exchequer records at The National Archives. The parchment copies of the Declared Accounts prepared in the Audit Office are so classified (TNA E 351) because after 1597 they were ordered to be kept by the Clerk of the Pipe. According to the idealized system of declaration and filing described in the Guide to the Public Record Office these accounts should also be found enrolled in the Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer and in the King’s Remembrancer where particulars of the accounts should also be found among the miscellaneous documents (TNA E 101) of this department. There is no evidence that this was done during Shakespeare’s lifetime. What Ledger books of the Treasurer of the Chamber that survive from this period, for example, were filed in the Audit Office (TNA AO 3), not in the Queen’s/ King’s Remembrancer. Cook and Wilson could find no documents associated with the Treasury of the Chamber from the period between 1558 and 1642 among the enrolled accounts (TNA E 102). What Revels Office Ledger books that survive were also filed in the Audit Office (TNA AO 3) rather than sent to the Queen’s/King’s Remembrancer. Many of the Ledger books for the Revels Office dating between 1571 and 1635 were discovered in the late 1830s in the archives and cellars of the Audit Office by Peter Cunningham, Clerk in the Audit Office and sometime secretary of the Shakespeare Society.22

Shakespeare at the Courts of Elizabeth I and James I The accounts of the Treasurer of the Chamber, the Offices of the Revels and the Office of the Works provide the principal external evidence for the Lord

150

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

Chamberlain’s/King’s Players’ performances at court and some specific details about Shakespeare’s role in them. The Declared Accounts of the Treasurer of the Chamber record rewards paid to this company for performances at court in every year between 1594 and 1640. During Shakespeare’s working lifetime with this company (1594–1616) John Heminges was the usual payee for rewards, but occasionally other members of the company are named. Heminges and George Bryan were payees in 1597–8; Heminges and Thomas Pope were in 1598–9 and 1599–1600; and Heminges and Richard Cowley in 1600–1.23 Perhaps the most important of these rewards, in terms of an interest in Shakespeare’s biography, was paid on a warrant dated 15 March 1595 to ‘Will~ m Kempe Will~ m Shakespeare & Richarde Burbage seruantes to the Lord Chambleyne’ for £20 ‘for twoe seuerall Comedies or Enterludes’ performed last Christmas ‘vpon St Stephens Daye & Innocentes Daye’.24 The evidence indicates that Shakespeare was one of the original members of this company which had been formed in the fall of 1594 and that he was one of the performers at court this year. The Chamber accounts show that between 1594 and 1616 the Lord Chamberlain’s/King’s Players performed as few as two and as many as twenty-four plays at court each year. The Revels accounts are missing from 1589/90 through 1602/3, and so we know little about the support the Revels Office provided for their performances in this period. An Exchequer Warrant for Issue, dated 28 May 1594, directing payment of £311 2s. 2d. to the Revels Office for the period 31 October 1589 and 1 November 1592, confirms that a ledger book was submitted for that period, but that is the last evidence of the existence of any account until James I’s accession.25 This payment amounted to a major reduction in funding of the Revels Office which averaged expenses closer to £250 a year during the 1580s. The budget was tightened even further. The next payment to the Revels Office came on 11 January 1598 directing payment of £200 for material delivered and work performed between 1 November 1593 and 31 October 1596, or an average of £66 6s. 8d. a year. Another payment for 1597/8 of £66 6s. 8d. for 1596/7 ‘by way of composicion for ye defraying of our said ordinary service within yt office, concerning plays onely’.26 Thereafter, between 1597/8 and 1602/3, the Revels Office was issued a yearly payment of £66 6s. 8d. from the Exchequer for their ordinary charges, including wages, ‘concerning plaies only’.27 A petition written to Lord Treasurer Burghley sometime between November 1597 and January 1598 reveals that the imposition of this new system of finance caused chaos in the Revels Office.28 The creditors and servitors who made the petition claim that they had not been paid for five years for ‘wares deliuered and service done’ because the under-officers in the Revels Office refused to accept the new reduction in budget, making it impossible for the Master to pay bills dating from the 1592/3 season. Only one play was produced at court in 1593/4, making it clear that the Queen’s revels had virtually ground to a halt. However, in the following season Master of the Revels Edmond Tyllney produced five plays at court, two by

SHAKESPEARE AT COURT

151

the Lord Chamberlain’s company and three by the Lord Admiral’s. These two companies – and no others – continued to supply the court with plays for the next five years. The interesting question is how Tyllney managed this when he was unable to pay production costs. E.K. Chambers suggested that the Works and the Wardrobe took over former Revels production duties, but I have found no evidence for this among the surviving Works and Wardrobe accounts.29 However, there is documentary evidence to show that the Admiral’s Players were capable of producing their own plays at court. Philip Henslowe’s Diary shows that by 1598 the company had a large inventory of scenery, properties and costumes stored at the Rose Theatre sufficient to produce plays at a level consistent with what we know about earlier Revels Office productions. By 1602, when Worcester’s Players began supplying plays for the Queen’s revels, Henslowe invested a great amount of money in scenery, properties and costumes for them.30 At James I’s accession the method of funding the Revels Office was altered. A £100 imprest was issued each year along with the balance due on account for the previous year. However, the accounts clearly show that the Revels were not making costumes or properties. Rather, they were simply supplying the lighting and whatever other minor accessories were needed to supplement productions. The circumstantial and documentary evidence suggests that the playing companies invited to court, in this period principally the King’s Players, had the necessary costumes, properties and scenery needed to produce their own plays. Their licence to operate theatres year round in the environs of London where they performed publicly provided the means to fund their court productions. This helps to explain the payment by the Treasurer of the Chamber of £30 on 8 February 1603 to Richard Burbage ‘for the mayntenaunce and releife of himselfe and the rest of his Company’ because they were prohibited from performing plays publicly in London due to the plague.31 The 1604–5 and 1611–12 Revels Office Ledger books preserve important evidence about Shakespeare and the King’s Players. At one time these documents were thought to contain forgeries. Peter Cunningham who published them in 1842 tried to sell them to the British Museum in 1868, stating that he had found them ‘under the vaults of Somerset House – far under the Quadrangle in a dry lofty cellar, known by the name of the “Charcoal Repository”’.32 He claimed a moral right to ownership, having saved the documents from probable destruction. He had already sold a package of three documents relating to the revels to a Fleet Street bookseller. Edward A. Bond, then Keeper of the Manuscripts at the British Museum, believed that the accounts were state property and sent them to the Public Record Office on 26 May 1868 with a note stating that he ‘saw reasons for doubting the genuineness of one, at least, of these papers, from the peculiar character of the writing and the spelling’. On 26 May 1868 they were ordered impounded by the Master of the Rolls, and shortly after on 3 June 1568 the Fleet Street bookseller John Waller voluntarily surrendered the documents he had purchased. The accounts were then were filed at the

152

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

Public Record Office among the Audit Office records, Account Various (TNA AO 3), along with Bond’s note.33 The incident was made worse by the climate of suspicion and disappointment created by the revelation of other forgeries during the nineteenth century. Cunningham’s association with John Payne Collier did not make him popular in scholarly circles. His character was attacked in the ensuing controversy. Cunningham died shortly after, but the debate about the authenticity of the documents dragged on until 1930. J.O. HalliwellPhillipps’ discovery of the ‘Malone scrap’, a note taken for Edmund Malone that seemed to confirm the contents of the 1604–5 account, was also suspected to be a forgery, planted to make these Revels accounts seem genuine. With encouragement from Ernest Law, the Public Record Office undertook a careful examination of the documents. Microscopic and chemical tests were performed at the government laboratory and Law’s belief in the genuineness of the documents was confirmed both by the tests and by the opinions of some of the leading authorities of the day, including Sir George Warner, Professor Albert Feuillerat and Professor C.W. Wallace. Law set out his findings in Some Supposed Shakespeare Forgeries and there provides the most complete discussion of the early history of the controversy.34 Law’s opinion was criticized in a review in the Athenaeum which sparked a running argument in that journal between 1911 and 1912 between Law and Charlotte C. Stopes, using the pseudonym Audi Alteram Partem.35 Law temporarily ended the debate with the publication of his More about Shakespeare Forgeries.36 A new controversy broke out between Law and Stopes with a contribution by Sir E.M. Thompson in 1920 and 1921 in TLS.37 Samuel A. Tannenbaum raised the subject again in Shakespeare Forgeries in the Revels Accounts that essentially repeats Stopes’ arguments.38 Alfred E. Stamp, then Deputy Keeper of the Public Records, addressed the issues raised by Stopes and Tannenbaum in a paper before the Shakespeare Association on 18 October 1929, later published as The Disputed Revels Accounts, reproduced in Collotype Facsimile, with a Paper read before the Shakespeare Association.39 He explained the chemical and microscopic tests that had been done on the documents, the palaeographical arguments which had been advanced, and the comparison he had made between the Ledger books and the Declared Accounts – something no one else had bothered to do. He concluded that the accounts were authentic, and here the controversy came to an end. The Treasurer of the Chamber paid rewards for twenty-two plays performed at court in the 1604/5 season. The Revels Ledger book for that year records titles for thirteen of them.40 The Queen’s Players performed Thomas Heywood’s How to Learn of a Woman to Woo on 30 December 1604, and the Children of the Revels (called the Boys of the Chapel in the Ledger book) performed George Chapman’s All Fools on 1 January 1605. The remaining eleven were performed by the King’s Players: Ben Jonson’s Every Man In His Humor on 2 February 1605 and Every Man Out of His Humor on 8 January 1605; The Spanish Maze (anonymous) on 11 February

SHAKESPEARE AT COURT

153

1605; and Shakespeare’s Othello on 1 November 1604, The Merry Wives of Windsor on 4 November 1604, Measure for Measure on 26 November 1604, ‘The plaie of Errors’ (The Comedy of Errors) on 28 December 1604, Henry V on 7 January, and The Merchant of Venice on 10 February 1605 and a second time at the command of the King two days later on 12 February. The account also lists a performance of Shakespeare’s Love’s Labour’s Lost between New Year’s Day and Twelfth Day, but the performance was not rewarded by the Treasurer of the Chamber.41 This account is the primary external evidence for dating Shakespeare’s Othello and Measure for Measure. It also confirms that Othello was performed in the banqueting house on 1 November, documented by the apparelling section of the Chamber account.42 This banqueting house had been built by the Works in 1581 of timber and canvas for the reception of the French commissioners in England to negotiate a marriage treaty between Elizabeth I and Francis, Duke of Anjou. It had been modified many times over the years, as it was again this year when the Works built a forty-foot stage on wheels four feet high, probably for the Masque of Blackness in January 1605. The Works also charged for making ready the hall and great chamber at Whitehall for plays and shows on several occasions this year, but how any of these preparations specifically related to Shakespeare’s plays is not made clear. The Treasurer of the Chamber paid rewards for forty-two plays performed at court in the 1611/12 season.43 The Revels Ledger book records titles for thirteen of them.44 The Queen’s Players performed John Cooke’s Greene’s Tu Quoque on 28 December 1611 and again on 2 February 1612 (first named ‘the City Gallant’ and second, ‘Tu Coque’); The Prince’s Players performed ‘The Almanak’ (anonymous) on 29 December 1611; The Duke of York’s Players performed William Rowley’s Hymen’s Holiday on 24 February 1612; and Lady Elizabeth’s Players performed ‘The Proud Mayds Tragedie’ (Thomas Middleton’s A Chaste Maid in Cheapside?) on 25 February 1612. The King’s Players performed the remaining eight: Francis Beaumont’s and John Fletcher’s A King and No King on 26 December 1611; The Twins Tragedy (Richard Niccols?) on New Year’s 1612; Cyril Tourneur’s The Nobleman on 23 February 1612; John Fletcher’s Cupid’s Revenge on 5 January 1612 (probably jointly with the Children of Whitefriars); and Shakespeare’s The Tempest on 1 November 1611 and The Winter’s Tale on 5 November 1611.45 The King’s Players also performed two plays jointly with the Queen’s Players before the Queen and the Prince at Greenwich: The Silver Age and The Rape of Lucrece both by Thomas Heywood on 12 and 13 January 1612. The Chamber account does not record rewards for these two performances. This Ledger book provides the primary external evidence to date Shakespeare’s The Winter’s Tale and The Tempest. The Works Declared account contains a general entry for fitting the hall at Whitehall and the banqueting house for a masque, but the apparelling section of the Chamber account shows that the banqueting house was prepared several times for plays in October, indicating that the The Tempest was performed there.46

154

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

FIGURE 7.1 London, TNA AO 3/908/13, fols 2a–b, Revels Office Ledger book, 1604–5, list of plays and masques. Reproduced by permission of The National Archives.

SHAKESPEARE AT COURT

FIGURE 7.1 (Continued)

155

156

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

FIGURE 7.2 London, TNA AO 3/908/14, Revels Office Ledger book, 1611–12, list of plays and masques. Reproduced by permission of The National Archives.

SHAKESPEARE AT COURT

FIGURE 7.2 (Continued)

157

158

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

FIGURE 7.2 (Continued)

SHAKESPEARE AT COURT

FIGURE 7.2 (Continued)

159

160

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

FIGURE 7.2 (Continued)

SHAKESPEARE AT COURT

FIGURE 7.2 (Continued)

161

162

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

FIGURE 7.2 (Continued)

SHAKESPEARE AT COURT

163

The Treasurer of the Chamber paid rewards for thirty plays performed at court in the 1612/13 season. A surviving copy of his Ledger book for this year records the titles of twenty-nine of them. The Prince’s Players performed The Knaves, Parts 1 and 2, on 2 and 5 March 1613; Lady Elizabeth’s Players performed ‘Cockle le Moye’ (John Marston’s The Dutch Courtesan) and Raymond, Duke of Lyons (anonymous) on 25 February and 1 March 1613; the Children of the Queen’s Revels performed George Chapman’s The Widows’s Tears on 27 February 1613, and Francis Beaumont’s The Coxcombe sometime before 24 November 1612, and his Cupid’s Revenge twice on 1 and 9 January 1613. The King’s Players were paid for twenty one undated performances: Francis Beaumont’s and John Fletcher’s The Maid’s Tragedy, A King and No King, Philaster twice (first named ‘Pilaster’ and later ‘Love Lyes a bleedinge’); Cyril Tourneur’s The Nobleman, The Twins Tragedy (Richard Niccols?), The Knot of Fools (anonymous) and The Merry Devil of Edmonton (anonymous); Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing, The Winter’s Tale, ‘The Moore of Venice’ (Othello), ‘Caesars Tragedye’ (Julius Caesar), The Tempest and ‘Sir John Falstaff’ (1 or 2 Henry IV? Merry Wives of Windsor?). By separate warrant they were paid for performing Ben Jonson’s The Alchemist, Francis Beaumont’s and John Fletcher’s The Captain; A Bad Beginning Makes a Good Ending (anonymous); Shakespeare’s ‘Benedict and Betteris’ (Much Ado About Nothing) and ‘The Hotspurr’ (1 Henry IV); and by this and another warrant Cardenio (anonymous) was performed twice (first named ‘Cardenna’ and later ‘Cardenno’).47 Audit Office records provide evidence of the court productions of some of Shakespeare’s plays and of performances by his playing company. They document the fact that Shakespeare was a member of the Lord Chamberlain’s Players by early 1595, that this playing company (after 1603, the King’s Players) performed at court in every year between 1594 and 1641, and that the number of plays they performed there during Shakespeare’s working lifetime (1594–1616) ranged from a low of two in 1594/5 to a high of twenty-four in 1611/12. In the three revels seasons of 1604/5, 1611/12 and 1612/13, ninety-three plays were shown at court. Fifty-six of them (approximately 60 per cent of the total) were performed by the King’s Players, seventeen of which were written by Shakespeare (approximately 18 per cent of the total). The records also preserve some of the titles of these plays, help to locate the spaces at court in which they were performed, provide external evidence to date four of Shakespeare’s plays and give a sense of the details of performance.

164

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

FIGURE 7.3 London, TNA E 351/542, m. 207b, Treasurer of the Chamber Declared account, Pipe Office copy 15 March 1595, payment to Shakespeare. The London, TNA Audit Office copy is A01/33/386. Reproduced by permission of The National Archives.

8 Shakespeare and the Replingham agreement Robert Bearman

It is said so often as to become irritating that the life of Shakespeare is poorly documented, as if everyone else’s, at a distance of 400 years, is recorded in rich detail. What is really meant, of course, is that we simply do not know as much about Shakespeare as we would like, and that in particular we lack any of that archival data – especially frustrating in view of his literary output – that would throw light on his inner beliefs, his convictions, his emotional state or (states) and his views on contemporary society. Some scholars seek to address these issues through a study of his works and others look at the world in which he lived. At the other end of the scale are those who simply make things up or assert that there must be something suspicious about this lack of information. But anyone who has spent time amongst the archives of Elizabethan and Stuart England will know that records relating to the lives of those who were never part of the establishment, from national right down to parish level, nor attached to the households of the great, who never went to university or the inns of court, and who never ran seriously foul of the law, are very thin on the ground. Shakespeare was such a person and this is the simple reason why his life is not well documented. However, as the result of generations of scholarly effort, we nevertheless do have quite a lot to go on. This may not answer those questions to which many biographers would most like answers but it does at least throw some light on the more mundane issue of how Shakespeare made a living and how he sought to provide some security for his dependants in a harsh and unforgiving world. One such document, dated 28 October 1614, is the agreement that William Shakespeare reached with William Replingham of Great Harborough to safeguard the income he enjoyed as a lessee of a portion of the Stratford-upon-Avon tithes, under some threat due to a proposal to enclose some of the open fields to the north-east of the town.1 The format 165

166

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

and archival history of this document is also relevant to the wider study of the nature of documentary evidence and the manner in which, almost by chance, some of this material has come down to us. First, how and why did Shakespeare acquire this interest in the Stratford tithes which he was so keen to protect? Tithes originated in the payment of a tenth of agricultural produce to the parish church. In fourteenth-century Stratford, these parish tithes had passed into the hands of a body of priests serving a chantry in the parish church, leading on to the setting up of a collegiate foundation. As the English Reformation got under way, colleges were deemed religious houses and were therefore suppressed. However, although their property (including any tithes they held) was confiscated by the crown, tithes were not abolished. Instead, the crown sold many of them off to lay figures and institutions, imposing on them some obligation to support the parish church or its clergy. In Stratford, the newly formed Corporation, brought into existence under a charter of 1553, was granted the great tithes (of grains and hay) of Old Stratford, Bishopton and Welcombe (constituent parts of the parish of Stratford-uponAvon), and the privy tithes of the whole parish, valued at an annual rental income of £34. In return the Corporation was required to pay the salaries of the vicar (£20) and assistant minister (£10), and to find the vicar a house.2 The owners of tithes, if they did not wish to collect them themselves, could for a fixed sum let the right to a tenant. This is what happened in Stratford in 1544 (before the suppression of the College) when its last warden, Anthony Barker, sensing perhaps that his institution was on its last legs, leased nearly all its property, including the tithes, to a family relative to hold for ninety-two years at the inclusive rent of just over £120. Although, a few years later, the ownership of this property passed to the Crown, this lease was allowed to stand. This meant that, when the Crown granted a portion of the tithes to the Corporation, it came saddled with the conditions of the 1544 lease for the remainder of the ninety-two years. The situation became more confused in 1580, when the principal tenant, a later member of the Barker family, assigned this lease of all the College property to Sir John Hubaud, subject to the payment of an annuity to the Barkers of £27 13s. 4d. Finally, in 1583, under Hubaud’s will, the portion of the lease affecting the tithes granted to the Corporation was divided between his brother, Ralph Hubaud, and his ‘cousin’, George Digby, each subject to half the £34 rent, plus £5 apiece as their share of the Barker annuity. Then in 1605 Shakespeare purchased Ralph Hubaud’s half, still with twenty-one years to run, for £440.3 His outgoings remained the same as Hubaud’s, that is, £17 rent to the Corporation and £5 to the Barkers. However, as the tithes were by then bringing in far more than that (at least £60 and probably more), it was a sound investment. On the other hand, if circumstances arose which might undermine this income, such as enclosure and the conversion of arable land to sheep farming, this would be a matter of concern. Hence,

SHAKESPEARE AND THE REPLINGHAM AGREEMENT

167

when in September 1614 it became clear that such a scheme was under consideration in the Stratford neighbourhood, Shakespeare took steps to safeguard his interests. The outcome was this agreement with William Replingham, acting on behalf of the instigators of the scheme. This was not the only aspect of the affair in which Shakespeare had an interest as he was also a freeholder of land in the near vicinity. The parish of Stratford-upon-Avon had at its heart a tightly defined township, or borough, laid out in around 1200. The area beyond this was originally made up largely of open fields, most of which remained unenclosed into the eighteenth century. These fields were divided into furlongs and the furlongs into strips, or ‘lands’. Due to the practice of distributing good and bad land equally between tenants or freeholders, any one holding might therefore comprise a collection of such ‘lands’ scattered across several furlongs. Over time, by a process of purchase or exchange, ‘estates’ could become more concentrated, and occasionally enclosed, although by Shakespeare’s time this had not happened in Stratford to any great extent. In 1602, Shakespeare purchased 107 acres of land lying in strips in around fourteen of these furlongs in what were described as the open fields of Old Stratford, Bishopton and Welcombe.4 No map survives to establish quite where these were but the names of the furlongs in which they lay (as recorded in another document discussed below) indicate that they were situated to the north-east of the town.5 When news broke of the proposed enclosure in this general area, the Corporation, who, like Shakespeare, feared for its tithe income if the plan went ahead, called for a list to be made of freeholders in Old Stratford and Welcombe with a view to persuading them not to co-operate in the scheme. Shakespeare, with his 107 acres, topped this list but was found to hold ‘noe common nor grownd beyond Gospell bushe nor grownd in Sandfield, nor none in Slowe Hill field beyond Bishopton’.6 This negative phrasing suggests that at this stage it was not thought that his freehold estate would be affected. Opposition to enclosure came from many quarters, associated as it was in the popular mind with depopulation and loss of common rights, but owners of tithes, or their tithe tenants, had concerns of their own, namely that if enclosure led to the conversion of arable to sheep pasture, the income from tithes, derived largely from crops, would be adversely affected. The Stratford Corporation, as owners of the tithes paid out of crops grown in large swathes of the open fields, certainly took this view and vowed to oppose the scheme. They also hoped that their tithe tenants, William Shakespeare, as lessee of one half, and Thomas Greene (also the Corporation’s steward), who had recently finalized his purchase of the lease of the other half, could be expected to take a similar view. However, whereas the Corporation remained steadfast in its opposition, Shakespeare, as we have seen, immediately reached an agreement with the enclosure party that his interests would be safeguarded, an agreement to which, as we shall see, Greene, the other tithe tenant, was soon made a party.

168

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

FIGURE 8.1 Stratford-upon-Avon, SCLA, ER 27/3. Agreement between William Replingham and William Shakespeare that Shakespeare would be recompensed for any losses he might suffer as a tithe-holder ‘by reason of anie Inclosure or decaye of Tyllage’ at Welcombe, 28 October 1614. The uniform hand used throughout, including the names of the witnesses, establishes that this is a copy of the original. In the top left margin, the words ‘Inter alia’ (‘amongst other things’) further indicate that the scribe had copied only part of the original, as does his use of the word ‘Item’ (‘also’) to introduce the one clause he copied. Image courtesy of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust.

SHAKESPEARE AND THE REPLINGHAM AGREEMENT

169

The agreement, dated 28 October 1614, as it has come down to us, occupies one side of a single sheet of paper measuring 20.5 x 30.5 cm (roughly 8 × 12 inches).7 It is immediately apparent that it is not the original document but a copy, not least because the names of the four witnesses are in the same hand as the body of the document. More significantly, it is clear on a closer examination that it is only a partial copy. The document opens conventionally enough, with the date and the names of the parties, William Shakespeare and William Replingham, but this is followed by a marginal note, ‘Inter alia’ (‘amongst other things’), followed by a clause, prefaced with the word ‘Item’ (‘also’) instead of ‘In primis’ (‘firstly’) which is how the first clause of any such agreement would have been introduced. The clause as then copied out occupies the next eighteen-and-a-half lines, with the final two-and-a-half lines taken up with a sealing clause. In other words, what we have today is only one clause, perhaps the last one, of a more extensive agreement. As part of the heading, we read that this agreement was indented, presumably along its top edge and, in the sealing clause, that there were probably two copies to which ‘the parties . . . to these presents interchangeablie their handes and seales have put’. This full copy (or copies) has not survived. The wording of the clause, albeit complicated, explains how any compensation due to Shakespeare would be calculated and confirms why it might be needed: namely that Replingham will Content & make recompence vnto him the said William Shackespeare . . . for all such losse detriment and hinderance as he the said William Shackespeare . . . shall or maye be thought, in the viewe and Judgement of foure indifferent persons to be indifferentlie elected by the said William and William . . . to survey and Judge the same, to sustayne or incurre for or in respecte of the increasinge [sic] of the yearelie value of the Tythes . . . the said William Shackespeare . . . [doth] hold and enioy in the said fieldes or anie of them by reason of anie Inclosure or decaye of Tyllage there ment and intended by the said William Replingham.8 The first issue to address is why this partial copy was made. The answer is quite simple, namely that it was made, not for Shakespeare but for Thomas Greene, who endorsed it in his fair hand: ‘Coppy of the articles wth Mr Shakspeare’. And on closer analysis it becomes clear that, though the heading declares the agreement to be between Replingham and Shakespeare, the one clause as copied out includes the name of ‘one Thomas Greene Gent’ as well, whose tithe interests appear to be similarly protected. From other sources, we learn that in 1609 Greene had purchased a reversionary interest in the other half of the Corporation tithes by a deed which had come into full effect in September 1614.9 Also we find an undated entry in the notes he kept about the enclosure: ‘Mr Replyngham 28 Octobris articled with Mr Shakespeare & then I was putt in by T. Lucas’.10 Whether this was done straight away or sometime later is not entirely clear but it was doubtless at

170

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

that point that the name of the man whom Greene credited for the manoeuvre, Thomas Lucas, was added to the witness list, together with that of his clerk, or ‘man’, Michael Olney.11 This, then, would have been the occasion when Greene’s name was inserted into the text. This is no longer obvious in the partial copy that was made but in the original version the words ‘and one Thomas Greene, gent.’ would have appeared as an interlineation and, further down, the phrase which must once have read ‘the yearlie value of the tithes he the said William Shakespeare doth hold and enjoy . . .’ was altered to read ‘. . . and Thomas do joyntly or severallie hold and enjoy . . .’. The omission of Greene’s surname at this point and the failure to mention him at all in the warranty clause that follows leaves no doubt that this is what happened. It follows that, if Lucas and Olney were called on to witness the later inclusion of Greene’s name, then the original witnesses to the agreement were Anthony Nash and John Rogers. Nash was clearly close to Shakespeare, and may even have acted for him locally, witnessing Shakespeare’s two Stratford investments, of the 107 acres and a share in the Stratford tithes, and to whom Shakespeare left money in his will for the purchase of a mourning ring. The other witness, John Rogers, is of more interest if he can be identified as the man of that name serving as Stratford’s vicar. However, there was another John Rogers living in Stratford at that time, a skinner occupying a tenement in Church Street as a tenant of the Stratford Corporation.12 That this partial copy was made for Greene in turn explains why it has come down to us. Thomas Greene had been Stratford-upon-Avon’s town clerk and steward since 1602. Though this partial copy of the agreement he reached with Replingham was clearly a private matter, it became subsumed into the Corporation archives when Greene sold up and left the town in 1617.13 This was not the only private item he failed to retrieve but, as on his departure from the town he sold his lease of his half share in the tithes, the agreement to which he had become a party would in any case have become redundant. It was not until the late eighteenth century, when the scholar Edmond Malone and local antiquaries R.B. Wheler and James Saunders began their examinations of the Corporation archives in an effort to discover more data relating to Shakespeare’s life, that it came to light. Malone is known to have borrowed some Stratford material to work on in London but to his credit did at least return it, albeit after several reminders. The young R.B. Wheler, however, the town’s first historian, was not quite so conscientious. There are several known instances where documents once in the Corporation archives later turned up in his own papers. The best documented of these is the famous letter from Richard Quiney to William Shakespeare, undoubtedly in the Corporation archives when discovered by Malone in 1793 but in Wheler’s possession at least by 1848 and doubtless for many years before. The same applies to a single page from Thomas Greene’s account of the Welcombe enclosures: three pages have always been part of the Corporation archives but a fourth sheet, with two references to

SHAKESPEARE AND THE REPLINGHAM AGREEMENT

171

Shakespeare, was known to have been in Wheler’s possession by 1810.14 It must, then, surely have been the case that either Wheler, or his close collaborator, James Saunders, discovered the Replingham agreement during their researches in the borough archives and that this similarly stuck to Wheler’s fingers. The earliest note of its existence dates from about 1821 when it was copied out by James Saunders and was then first published by Halliwell in his 1848 Life of Shakespeare.15 However, it was as one of Wheler’s papers that it was presented to the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust in 1863.16 As the early Corporation archives had been placed in the Trust’s care in 1862, we can take a more generous view of Wheler’s light-fingeredness, interpreting his activities as long-term borrowing rather than something more serious. In any event, the Replingham agreement and other ‘borrowed’ items from the Corporation archives have since descended alongside the collection of which they were once a part. As the agreement survives today as only a partial copy, in effect limited to the one clause that affected Greene’s and Shakespeare’s shared interests, questions inevitably arise as to the content of the other clauses (or at least clause), presumably affecting Shakespeare’s concerns alone. Besides his tithe interests, the only other issue that might have affected him was as a freeholder in the area, stemming from his purchase in 1602 of 107 acres in the open fields of Old Stratford. The survey of freeholders already referred to, carried out in September 1614 when news of the proposed enclosure broke, implied that Shakespeare’s holding was outside the area proposed for enclosure. However, thanks to the discovery (in 1994) of evidence assembled during an investigation in 1626 into the previous ownership of the land that Shakespeare had acquired, we now have precise details of what it comprised, based on the evidence of a deed (now lost) of 1542: namely, seventy-three parcels of land, lying in fourteen named furlongs, together with four acres ‘lying in the Buttes between Welcome Church way and Bryneclose way’, eight acres ‘upon the topp of Rowley’ and ten acres ‘lying under Rowley’ and four acres ‘shooting and lying into Fordes Greene’.17 It is difficult to be sure exactly where these lands lay but, given the findings of the September 1614 survey, and that later surveys show Shakespeare’s descendants continuing to hold strips in unenclosed land, it is probably safe to assume that most of these lands, if not all, were not within the area proposed for enclosure. However, the 1542 deed describes the final ten acres, making up the total of 107, as pasture ground to which were linked other commoners’ rights. These had been described somewhat vaguely in the 1602 conveyance as ‘all the common pasture for sheepe, horse, kyne or other cattle’ but in the 1542 deed they are more specifically defined as ‘in the hame 10 acres of leez ground [grassland] . . . with all the leez lying in the dyngyllis and about Welcombe hilles down to Millway and the p[ro]cession bushe which be unknowne’. The Dingles survives today as a named feature in the landscape and, according to a contemporary account of the boundary of the land to be enclosed, was immediately adjacent to, if not within, the area proposed for

172

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

enclosure. Other features included in this boundary description, ‘a Furlonge of Tyllage grownd there lyeing under Rowley’ and ‘earable Landes more lyeing in Forde Greene’ also link to lands in which, according to the 1542 deed, Shakespeare also had an interest.18 At the very least, this indicates that his land bordered the area where enclosure was planned, and may even have extended into it. Moreover, according to a rough sketch plan made at the same time, the area immediately adjacent to, if not within, the proposed limits of the enclosure was shown at this point as ‘comon Slade’ or ‘Comon greensward’, and therefore likely to have had an effect on Shakespeare’s common of pasture rights ‘in the dyngyllis and about Welcombe hilles’.19 It is therefore more than likely that the missing clause, or clauses, in the agreement that Shakespeare reached with the enclosure party, was designed to ensure that, even if none of his arable ‘lands’ was proposed for enclosure, his common of pasture rights would not be compromised.

FIGURE 8.2 Stratford-upon-Avon, SCLA, BRU 15/7/11, as printed in Shakespeare and the Enclosure of the Common Fields of Welcombe, ed. C. M. Ingleby, following p. xiii. Rough plan of the land at Welcombe proposed for enclosure, annotated by Thomas Greene and perhaps drawn by him in the winter of 1614/15. The plan, orientated roughly north/south, shows the River Avon running across the base and ‘Warwick Way’ (today’s Warwick Road) above it. Much of the land within the area for enclosure is shown as ‘Common Greensward’ or ‘Common Slade’. ‘Rowley’ lay to the west and the feature known as the ‘Dyngles’ is located today just inside the western boundary of the proposed enclosure. Image courtesy of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust.

SHAKESPEARE AND THE REPLINGHAM AGREEMENT

173

In their consideration of this issue, several scholars have sought to excuse Shakespeare of any mundane concern about his income, interpreting his action simply as a routine precaution, perhaps at the suggestion of those managing his Stratford affairs, that any enclosure scheme would not be to his disadvantage. It is very unlikely, of course, that Shakespeare would ever have been actively behind any enclosure scheme, not only because it might undermine his income, but because he may have had some sympathy for those from all levels of society for whom enclosure might represent a threat to their livelihood. However, it is clear that at a very early stage he had decided not to oppose the scheme as long as he did not suffer. Such an agreement should come as no surprise. On the face of it, it was made with William Replingham who, with his kinsman Arthur Mainwaring, were initially identified as the men behind the enclosure proposal.20 However, it soon became clear that these men were simply fronting the scheme on behalf of William Combe, the principal landholder in the area proposed for enclosure. On 17 November 1614 Thomas Greene, worried about the effect of the enclosure on his tithe interests, sent one of his men to a Clements Inn attorney to establish quite who was behind the scheme: he reported back ‘that Mr Repplingham, a dealer for Mr Combe’ had also been to see him ‘about the same busines’;21 and although Mainwaring’s, and particularly Replingham’s, names re-occur in the documentation for a further month or two, it is clear that by at least 5 December, when the Corporation resolved to send a delegation to plead with William Combe, it was generally accepted that it was Combe who was driving the scheme.22 It is therefore very likely that when, a few weeks earlier, Shakespeare had reached his agreement with Replingham, he already knew that Replingham was acting as Combe’s front man. Whether Combe kept out of the direct discussions is unclear but, even if at this early stage Combe’s involvement was only rumoured, Shakespeare’s willingness to co-operate would reflect an existing friendly relationship with the Combe family.23 Back in 1597, John Shakespeare (and doubtless his son William) had chosen John Combe (the encloser’s uncle) as one of the commissioners to take evidence on their behalf in a dispute over the freehold of land in Wilmcote; and in 1602 it was John Combe who had sold to Shakespeare the 107 acres in Old Stratford, making him a freeholder in the immediate vicinity of the proposed enclosure. Better evidence of real friendship, however, is to be found in the will of this same John Combe, who died on 10 July 1614, a few months before the enclosure plans became public, containing a bequest to Shakespeare of £5. Even more significant is a bequest in Shakespeare’s own will to Thomas Combe, William Combe’s brother and John Combe’s nephew. He was deeply involved in the enclosure: on 12 December 1614, when the dispute was entering its liveliest phase, he was reported as having called members of the Corporation ‘dogges’ and ‘Curres’.24 Yet it was this man, just over a year later, to whom Shakespeare bequeathed his sword, a very personal item, which normally would have been left to the testator’s son and heir. Shakespeare, of course, no longer

174

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

had one but he would at least have had the option of substituting his son-inlaw, John Hall. The fact that he chose not to, preferring a member of a local land-holding family in open dispute with the Corporation, suggests not only that he had no great love for the man who had married his elder daughter but also that he had a genuine affection for the young Thomas Combe. Whatever views Shakespeare may have had on the general issue of enclosure, his business and personal relationships with the Combe family had clearly led him to take prompt action to ensure that any enclosure in Stratford would not be to his financial disadvantage. What light this throws more generally on Shakespeare’s personality is, however, another matter. Clearly, both in this instance and on other occasions, he was operating as an efficient man of business, in no way surprising were he a man simply with mercantile interests but a little disconcerting when linked to a man known primarily for his unique contribution to England’s cultural heritage. It can, of course, be argued that, due to Shakespeare’s long absences in London, business decisions affecting his local interests may well have been taken by members of his family or by a local agent. However, though this might have had some substance earlier in his career, his personal involvement in the enclosure controversy is clear enough, particularly from the notes that Thomas Greene made in his socalled diary as the matter was played out, and crucially his entry on 17 November 1614 that he had gone to see Shakespeare, on his coming up to London, presumably from Stratford, in order to discuss the issue. On this occasion Shakespeare explained ‘that they [the enclosers] assured him they ment to inclose noe further then to gospell bushe’ and went on to show how remarkably well informed he was on what was proposed and when things would get under way.25 On 23 December Greene also wrote two notes to Shakespeare, one on behalf of the Stratford Corporation and the other in a personal capacity.26 In this instance at least, then, Shakespeare can hardly be portrayed as a cypher, rubber-stamping decisions made by others on his behalf or as having no personal interest in what was going on. However, simply to portray his attitude as the result of a clinical and hard-headed balance-sheet calculation would be to misunderstand the situation. There is no question that Shakespeare died a man of considerable means but a good case can be made that in the closing years of his life his financial situation was no longer as secure as it had been six or seven years previously. Until 1605, Shakespeare had been able to raise increasingly large sums of money to invest in property – around £120 in 1597 for the purchase of New Place, £320 in 1602 for the 107 acres in Old Stratford and £440 in 1605 for acquiring a share in the tithes. During this period he also came up with around £100 to buy himself into the housekeepership of the Globe Theatre in 1599. However, after 1605, there is no evidence that this upward trajectory was maintained. On the contrary, he thereafter made no other significant additions to his real estate.27 This could be a reflection of a decline in his theatrical income. It has been estimated that, in a good year, his income as a

SHAKESPEARE AND THE REPLINGHAM AGREEMENT

175

sharer and housekeeper in the King’s Men and its theatres could have been as much as £200. However, this does not take into account the frequent closure of the theatres from 1604 due to outbreaks of plague. Whereas in the previous eight years or so there had been no closures at all – the precise period when Shakespeare’s creditworthiness is clearly evident – the years following 1604 were punctuated by frequent closures, some lasting up to eighteen months. At the same time there is clear evidence that any additional income he may have enjoyed for the writing of new plays was undermined not only by a decrease in the overall number that were produced but also by the fact that several of them were co-authored. Finally, it must have been around the year 1613 that he surrendered his theatre interests, traditionally linked to the burning down of the Globe in June. Parting with his shares would have had a serious effect on his income. Even if, due to theatre closures as the result of plague, the theoretical income of £200 was rarely reached during these years, it would still have exceeded by some margin the income from his investments we know about which could hardly have brought in more than £70.28 This was still a substantial sum, but given the significant drop in his overall income on the surrender of his theatre shares, it is scarcely surprising that in 1614, when the enclosure proposals became known, he was quick to take steps to ensure that his financial interests would be safeguarded. There are, of course, other ways of interpreting Shakespeare’s financial situation towards the end of his life. Although he may not have continued to invest in land and similar property, perhaps he just saved any income beyond his immediate need, lent it out at interest, or invested it in trading companies or similar capitalistic enterprises. However, of this there is no evidence. On the contrary, when we turn to his will of 1616, the only document available to us that reflects his financial assets, we do not find convincing evidence of any significant cash reserves or an estate which would bear heavy charges. There are good reasons for not accepting wills as an absolute measure of personal wealth but it can still be argued that the financial bequests they contain reflect in some degree the value of a testator’s estate. In Shakespeare’s case, gifts of money, either in cash or as charges on the estate, total only £350 compared with, for example, sums of well over £1,000 specified in some wills of his fellow Stratford gentry – John Combe, for example, his brother Thomas Combe or Anthony Nash of Welcombe. Even the local woollen draper, William Walford, included pecuniary bequests of over £610.29 In further confirmation of this apparently modest social standing is the fact that, whereas these fellow gentry were forging marriage alliances with other families of similar social status both within and without the town, Shakespeare’s daughters were married to the second son of a doctor and the third son of a mercer, neither of whom is known to have settled any money or property on their respective brides and who certainly did not live out their lives as if possessed of independent means.

176

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

The agreement with Replingham therefore fits neatly into this picture. Shakespeare, until 1605, may have been able to invest in property yielding some £70 a year but only because his theatre income, perhaps three times as much, enabled him to raise the necessary capital. If, as seems likely, he surrendered his theatre interests early in 1613, without which he was thrown back on his investment income of £70 or so (and assuming, of course, that he was still not paying off any money he had had to borrow to make these investments), it is scarcely surprising to find that he was at pains to ensure that his investment income would not be undermined by the proposed enclosure. Indeed, in 1611, he had already been a party in a Chancery suit brought to protect this tithe income.30 Shakespeare, of course, may have been unwell, leading to his decision in 1613 to withdraw from the frontline theatre scene. Be that as it may, it would have been surprising if, now reliant on his investment income, he had not taken steps to make sure he would not suffer financially – nicely reflected in the Shakespeare/Replingham agreement.

Note on central government involvement Enclosure of the commons was a contentious issue and over the previous century attempts to take land out of arable use had frequently led to disputes, sometimes accompanied by outbreaks of civil disorder. The government had not been unresponsive and had legislated to deter further attempts to enclose. In general terms, this has produced a good crop of official archival material at national level, arising out of complaints made against continuing efforts by some landowners to enclose, despite the government’s disapproval. In this instance, however, the documentation in the archives of central government is thin. The Stratford Corporation led the official opposition to the enclosure plans and its first step was to petition the Lord Chief Justice, Sir Edward Coke, at the Warwickshire Assizes held on 27 March 1615. However, Warwickshire’s early assize records are lost and the official response to this appeal would therefore have gone unrecorded if the Corporation had not carefully secured an official copy of Coke’s signed order and then copied it into its order book.31 Coke ruled That noe inclosure shalbe made within the parishe of Stratforde for that yt is agaynst the Lawes of the Realme, neyther by Mr Combe nor any other untill they shall shewe cause at open assises to the Justices of Assise . . . And this order ys taken for preventynge of Tumultes and breaches of his Majesties peace, Whereof in this very towne of late upon theis occasiones there hadd lyke to have bene an evill begynnynge of some great mischief.

FIGURE 8.3 Stratford-upon-Avon, SCLA, ER 1/1/85. Original letter from the Privy Council, signed by its members, to Sir Julius Caesar, Master of the Rolls, and Sir Edward Coke to take action in the dispute between William Combe and the Stratford-upon-Avon Corporation concerning the proposed enclosure at Welcombe. For the Privy Council register copy, see London, TNA, PC 2/30, p.  100. Image courtesy of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust.

178

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

Coke’s ruling, however, had only a limited effect and twelve months later, at the Lent Assizes of 1616, the Corporation petitioned Coke for the second time. Again we have no official record, only the Corporation’s copy of its petition and a record that it was indeed presented.32 In what was becoming an annual event, the Corporation, in response to Combe’s continuing intransigence, petitioned the justices yet again in March 1617, resulting in an order (carefully preserved in the Corporation archives and again the only record) to refer the matter to local arbitrators.33 The final act in the drama occurred in the spring of 1619, following Combe’s failure to observe the recommendations of the arbitrators. This time the Corporation decided to appeal to the Privy Council directly, resulting in two letters from the Council, copies of which are preserved in the central government archives. The first was addressed to Sir Julius Caesar, Master of the Rolls, and Sir Edward Coke, requiring them to take action to sort matters out.34 The original of this letter, signed by members of the Privy Council, found its way into the Corporation archives.35 The second letter was addressed to William Combe whereby Wee doe hereby straightly charge and require you to take presente order that the Inclosures contayned in the Certificate of Sr Richarde Verney [one of the arbitrators] etc and wch have ben made contrary to the foresaid Orders sett downe in open Assizes bee forthwth layed open as formerly they were As alsoe that the Lande converted into pasture be againe made arable for Corne and Grayne according to the course of husbandrie there; And lastly that the Meeres and Banckes be restored and made perfect.36 Only in 1619, then, four and a half years after the outbreak of the dispute, do we find the earliest reference to it in the surviving records of central government now lodged at The National Archives.

9 An archival and material reading of Shakespeare’s will Katy Mair

Research and speculation into Shakespeare’s will has brought a wide range of interpretations to bear on what is, first and foremost, a legal document. Yet the earliest recorded impression of the document was one of disappointment, with Reverend Joseph Greene writing in 1747 that ‘the Legacies and Bequests therein . . . are undoubtedly as he had intended; but the manner of introducing them, appears to me so dull and irregular, so absolutely void of the least particle of that Spirit which animated our great poet; that it must lessen his character as a writer, to imagine the least sentence of it his production’.1 Greene touches upon a speculation that is rife in wider studies of early modern wills – namely how far they can be read as a reflection of the testator’s wishes, or how far they replicate standard formats of will writing used by lawyers and other scribes in the production of texts for clients. Deciphering the likely authorship of the will is even more imperative in the field of Shakespeare studies, as the complexity of the document allows for many different readings that shape Shakespeare’s personal biography. This chapter will hope to ground some of the speculations about the will in an archival and material analysis of the document. Shakespeare’s original will is one in a chain of documents that were created as part of the process necessary to have a will proved at the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, and understanding the probate process can influence our interpretation of the will. The subsequent archival history of the will and related documents is also significant as it provides a material context for the document. Exploring this background will also introduce readers unfamiliar with the series of wills and probate-related documents to this important source for researching early modern subjects. Finally this chapter will explore the material features of the document using new techniques such as multi-spectral imaging, in 179

180

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

order to discover if some of the speculations concerning the timeline can be supported by developments in manuscript analysis.

The archival history of Shakespeare’s will The date of Shakespeare’s death as recorded on the monument dedicated to him in Holy Trinity Church, Stratford-upon-Avon was 23 April 1616; he was buried two days later according to the Parish register.2 Almost two months later on 22 June his will was proved at the Prerogative Court of Canterbury in London, a process that provided the authorization for the executors to proceed with the distribution of goods and bequests as described in the will. Shakespeare’s will needed to be proved at the Prerogative Court of Canterbury in London as Shakespeare held property in the south of England and had a personal estate of more than £5. Although his daughter Susanna and her husband John Hall were both named as executors only John Hall appeared before the court to have the will proved; however, the probate clause explicitly allows for Susanna to be granted probate if she appeared before them at a later date (a standard proviso where there were two executors) but it appears she did not. There was therefore a two-month delay between Shakespeare’s death and the granting of probate. The Prerogative Court of Canterbury assessed whether the will was legally valid and if it was the legitimate last version of the testator’s wishes, and if everything was in order the executor would be granted probate. This decision was recorded in Latin on parchment, and attached by a pendent seal to a new copy of the will made by the court, also on parchment: the two conjoined documents were returned to the executor as his or her authority to act. Further copies of this probate clause were made in both the probate act book (PROB 8/16 f. 155r) and on the original will itself. The executor swore under oath to execute the will in good faith, and this was also noted on the back of the original will. The executor was also required to provide an inventory of the goods within a certain period of time; this document does not survive for Shakespeare’s goods and is presumed to have been lost along with most of the sixteenth-century and early seventeenth-century inventories in the Great Fire of London.3 The executor also needed to submit a copy of his or her accounts at a later stage, and again this document no longer survives. Most executors also paid to have a copy of the will entered into the probate register once the various aspects of the probate process were completed.4 This administrative procedure therefore created several different copies of the same document: the original will, the executor’s copy and the registered copy. The National Archives holds the original will (PROB 1/4) signed by Shakespeare himself and the registered copy (PROB 11/127 ff. 466–7) written by a clerk of the Prerogative Court of Chancery. The original will shows signs of significant revision (lines crossed through, insertions) and the registered copy has silently incorporated these changes.

AN ARCHIVAL READING OF SHAKESPEARE’S WILL

181

There is a later seventeenth-century copy of the will now held by Shakespeare Birthplace Trust and this is a copy of the registered will made for legal purposes; three legal cases involving Shakespeare’s bequests made reference to Shakespeare’s will between 1635 and 1647 and would have necessitated copies of the document to have been made from the will registers.5 When this copy was discovered by Reverend Greene in 1747 he made two transcripts of this document, one is now at the British Library, and one is at the Folger Shakespeare Library.6 Both the original will and the registered copy were kept in the Prerogative Office at Doctors’ Commons in Knightrider Street, and by 1850 the original will was attracting visitors alongside the wills of Napoleon, Inigo Jones and Isaac Newton.7 Doctors’ Commons ceased to be used in 1861 and the original will was transferred to the Principal Probate Registry at Somerset House in London in 1874. At some point prior to 1913 the will was separated from the rest of the original wills and stored in a strong room in an oak and glass frame, where members of the public could pay one shilling to view it.8 In 1962, the will was transferred to the Public Record Office at Chancery Lane (now King’s College London’s Maughan Library) where it was put on display in the museum, until it was withdrawn in the early 1990s for preservation reasons. When Chancery Lane was closed it was moved out to the Public Record Office’s second site at Kew along with the rest of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury records in 1997. Original wills are held in the series PROB 10 at The National Archives. However Shakespeare’s will, along with those of other ‘famous’ testators (including John Donne, Queen Elizabeth of Bohemia and Jane Austen), were accessioned into a separate series, PROB 1. Not all original wills remain in The National Archives; in some cases the original will was returned to the executor and a copy filed instead – this is the case for both the will of Shakespeare’s lawyer, Francis Collins, and the player Augustine Phillips. These are often described as office copies.9 The series of original wills, PROB 10, is organized by date of probate and then alphabetically by name of the testator. They are not catalogued by anything more than month and initial of surname and researchers need to find the date of probate by looking at the registered will in PROB 11 and then order the box of original wills that cover the correct date range and letter range. In some cases no original will survives although there is a registered copy. The practice of keeping the documents in PROB 10 in chronological bundles is almost certainly contemporaneous with the original filing method; however, the bundles have been subject to various rationalizations at different times and they were boxed in their current chronological order in the 1960s. However, there are various folding patterns to be seen on original wills proved in June 1616 (now in PROB 10/332), suggesting their current oblong shape was not necessarily contemporary practice. The name of the testator is written on the outer leaf most probably so they could be accessed easily by the clerks of the court.

182

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

The registered copies were kept in Doctors’ Commons and later the Principal Probate Registry at Somerset House before all registers were transferred to the Public Record Office in 1970, slightly later than the date of the transfer of the original will. The volumes in PROB 11 are bound volumes of parchment membranes with bindings of brass clasps or leather straps. Parchment continued to be used for Prerogative Court of Canterbury will registers throughout the history of the Court partly because of its durability and partly because of the great importance attached by the Prerogative Court of Canterbury to its will registers as documents of record. All of the registered wills in PROB 11 can be searched online by name.10 There are also printed indexes published by the British Record Societies which can be particularly helpful when name searches are unsuccessful as it allows you to browse names more easily and can sometimes provide a more accurate rendering of the names of testators than the online catalogue.

A material description of Shakespeare’s will The original will consists of three folios of handmade laid cotton or linen rag paper. The size of the folios, the measurements of the chain and laid lines, and the space of the margins all show slight but possibly significant differences – outlined in the Appendix. The watermarks also appear in different places on each of the folios (see also Appendix). Previous conservation treatment had included a heavy paper backing and this had blocked analysis of the watermarks and the versos of the folios. The document has been heavily conserved over the last century. A report of 1913 describes how it had suffered from handling damage and had been repaired by a transparent paper. The repair paper is likely to have been pelure d’oignon as it is noted to have darkened since treatment. At some point after this the document received various repairs and was lined with silk. In 1996 the old silk linings and repairs were removed and it was lined with Greenwich repair paper. Conservation work undertaken between September 2015 and January 2016 has removed the heavy paper backing and some of the silk repairs in order to enable further analysis of the material features of the document as well as to return the document to an appearance closer to its original state.

The context and structure of the will The structure of Shakespeare’s will is fairly typical of its period; it is headed with a dating clause in Latin and then begins with the standard preamble to a last will and testament – the identification of the testator, statement proving the testator is of sound mind and a statement of health. The next section details Shakespeare’s wishes concerning provision for his youngest daughter,

AN ARCHIVAL READING OF SHAKESPEARE’S WILL

183

Judith, and this takes up most of the first folio. The will then turns to bequests to his sister, Joan Hart, his nephews and other friends and family at the top of folio 2, before moving to detail his provision to Susanna Hall followed by a long passage detailing the descent of the estate through the male line. The last folio includes two personal bequests, the signature of Shakespeare and the signatures of the witnesses. At various places in the document there are official notes added by clerks at the Prerogative Court of Canterbury. It seems most likely that the writing of the will was directed by Francis Collins, a solicitor, as he is known to have acted for Shakespeare on several previous occasions. Shakespeare leaves Collins a generous bequest and is one of the witnesses to the will. The will was either written by Francis Collins or by one of his clerks.11 We are fortunate that both the original and the registered copies of the will survive, as the original includes deleted lines, interlineations and amendments that would otherwise have been lost if only the registered copy survived. The emendations made to the will have led to numerous speculations about its composition, particularly in terms of the sequence in which the changes were made, and it is this thread of material evidence that I consider afresh via the possibilities opened up by the development of technical manuscript analysis. The dating clause is where we can see one of the most potentially significant changes and one that has driven many of the theories about the composition of the will. The month ‘Januarii’ is crossed out and inserted above it with a caret symbol (this practice is repeated for subsequent interlineations) is ‘Martii’.12 There are then some minor changes throughout the first folio (including the crossing out of ‘son in l’, presumably ‘son in law’) but perhaps the most noticeable textual changes in the first folio occur at the bottom of folio 1 as after the words ‘by my executors and overseers’ have been crossed out the text becomes smaller and smaller as if it is being squeezed to fit the space available. The text of folio 2 appears to be written above the line of the text block as compared with the other two folios and the lines further down the folio, where the text would normally have been expected to start, have been crossed out. There is then a flurry of insertions, most of which relate to bequests to family and friends, and further down the folio are changes of a more legal nature. The text on the last folio does not fill the whole space and is written in a larger hand. This section does include a significant personal bequest (‘my second best bed with the furniture’) and a deletion (‘hand’ for ‘seale’). The document is then signed by the testator and the witnesses. As was common practice Shakespeare signs the bottom of each folio (lower left corner of folio 1 and lower right corner of folio 2). Only the second page is numbered with ‘2’. Comparison to other wills likely to have been directed by Francis Collins can be of some help – John Combe’s will (PROB 10/325) is numbered in the centre of each folio, and although the will is in a neater hand there are plenty of deletions. It seems possible that rather than ascribing

184

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

the deletions and insertions of the will to Collins’s competencies as a lawyer, they should be seen as indicative of an early stage draft and that a fair draft may have been intended to have been written up at a later stage. In an assessment of the will-making process Christopher Marsh suggests that ‘right-first-time will-making, though fairly common, was far from universal . . . [c]onsequently, it appears to have been common for a scribe to carry the first draft away with him, for periods ranging from a few days to several months, in order to make a “fair copy” ’.13 Reasons for the material changes to the document have been put forward by a number of Shakespeare biographers. Although one of the earliest, E.K. Chambers’s interpretation engages with the material and legal aspects of the will and seems to offer one of the most reasonable interpretations even today. Chambers suggests that Collins drafted a copy of the will in January but it wasn’t signed and witnessed until 25 March, and ‘the changes he desired in the opening provisions were so substantial that it was thought best to prepare a new sheet 1’; however, the clerk made the mistake of copying the original date of January instead of March and therefore had to amend it.14 The updates proved longer than the original text and so ran over into two lines on the next sheet. The other folios did not need entirely redrafting although changes were added. Mark Eccles suggests essentially the same solution: that a draft was written in January and then a ‘new first sheet’ was written on 25 March with the incorrect date corrected, and that the other sheets were not recopied.15 Similarly the description on the Folger Shakespeare Library’s Shakespeare Documented website suggests that ‘it is thought that the first leaf was entirely rewritten and then revised, and that the second and third leaves were merely revised’. The timescale of these changes are often believed to be in reaction to the marriage of Judith Shakespeare and Thomas Quiney on 10 February. More recently Katherine Scheil has noted that ‘the changes to Shakespeare’s will may not date from the same time, nor derive from the same cause; the three sheets of paper that comprise the will are all composed on different makes of paper as well’ and that while scholars have ‘looked to the will for inspiration’ they have ‘overlooked its textual instability’. Scheil also suggests that multispectral imaging may help to unravel some of the conundrums presented by the document.16 Alternatively Amanda Bevan, legal specialist at The National Archives, has suggested that it is the second folio that was the original sheet, written as early as 1613, and that folios one and three were rewritten in early 1616, with further changes made in March.17

Multi-spectral imaging of Shakespeare’s will Methods for analysing the material components of manuscripts have developed rapidly in recent years and are beginning to provide an important

AN ARCHIVAL READING OF SHAKESPEARE’S WILL

185

supplement to the historical methods of investigation into the origin, dating and composition of documents. One of the most useful methods for analysing manuscripts is multi-spectral imaging (MSI – sometimes also referred to as infrared-reflectography), a technique whereby the manuscript is exposed to ultraviolet, visible and infrared rays, and a specialized camera captures the results that are not visible to the human eye.18 In their review of the different material analysis techniques now being used on manuscripts Oliver Hahn, Emanuel Kindzorra and Ira Rabin note that multi-spectral imaging can be effectively used to ‘examine the relation between the original text and its amendments, corrections or additions’ as it is particularly useful for ‘distinguishing between different writing materials’.19 The visual differences that are apparent in multi-spectral images indicate a molecular and elemental difference in the composition of the inks being analysed. However, as Hahn and others warn, ‘different writing materials, restoration treatments, and the variation of ink thickness may influence the result and lead to misinterpretation’ and the multi-spectral imaging needs to be used in conjunction with other techniques to provide a more accurate assessment of whether areas of text are written in the same ink. Techniques such as x-ray fluorescence (XRF ), which uses x-ray technology to analyse the elemental composition of the text, and near infrared spectroscopy (NIR ), which uses near infrared to analyse the molecular composition of the ink, are ideal partner techniques to MSI . However the XRF and NRI analysis carried out on Shakespeare’s will produced limited results: the XRF has determined that the ink used by the Prerogative Court of Canterbury is an iron-gall/carbon mix and the rest of the ink on the document is iron gall ink; the NIR analysis was inconclusive because of the past conservation treatment carried out on the document. However, the MSI shows a significant range of different appearances in the ink across the wavelengths, and the rest of this essay will look at several instances that warrant further exploration despite the attendant limitations of using this technique in isolation. This is a very preliminary sketch of some points of interest, and no doubt further research will provide more answers. But hopefully this will serve as an introduction to the material and the scope of its potential for further research. The images were taken at the British Library in January 2016.20 They were photographed under thirteen wavelengths and under each of these wavelengths different filters and methods of illuminations were used resulting in forty images of each folio. The different wavelengths of light interact in different ways with the materials present, and inks of a similar composition will only appear under certain wavelengths. What the images show is that there is a lack of uniformity in terms of the ink and paper and that there appears to be several different sets of ink on the document (excluding the text added by the Prerogative Court of Canterbury).

186

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

FIGURE 9.1 London, TNA PROB 1/4, f. 1 of Shakespeare’s original will, photographed after recent conservation work. Reproduced by permission of The National Archives.

AN ARCHIVAL READING OF SHAKESPEARE’S WILL

FIGURE 9.1 f. 2.

187

188

FIGURE 9.1 f. 3.

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

AN ARCHIVAL READING OF SHAKESPEARE’S WILL

189

FIGURE 9.2 The will photographed at 850nm infrared. Image 4: London, TNAWill-f1-r-1+MB850IR-012. Reproduced by permission of The National Archives, image created by British Library Board.

190

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

FIGURE 9.2 Image 5: London, TNA-Will-f2-r-1+MB850IR_012. Reproduced by permission of The National Archives, image created by British Library Board.

AN ARCHIVAL READING OF SHAKESPEARE’S WILL

191

FIGURE 9.2 Image 6: London, TNA-Will-f3-r-1-ii+MB850IR_012). Reproduced by permission of The National Archives, image created by British Library Board.

192

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

FIGURE 9.3 The will photographed at 1050nm Infrared. Image 7: London, TNAWill-f1-r-1+MB1050IR_014. Reproduced by permission of The National Archives, image created by British Library Board.

AN ARCHIVAL READING OF SHAKESPEARE’S WILL

193

FIGURE 9.3 Image 8: London, TNA-Will-f2-r-1+MB1050IR_014. Reproduced by permission of The National Archives, image created by British Library Board.

194

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

FIGURE 9.3 Image 9: London, TNA-Will-f3-r-1-ii+MB1050IR-014. Reproduced by permission of The National Archives, image created by British Library Board.

AN ARCHIVAL READING OF SHAKESPEARE’S WILL

195

In Figure 9.2 the extent of the different visibilities of inks at 850mm infrared can be seen and it is perhaps possible to begin to differentiate between the different types. I will try and describe each in turn. ●

●

●

●

On folio 1 there is a clear differentiation between several of the interlineations and the main text (Ink 3).21 The interlineations that appear to leap of the page are the deletion of ‘Januarii’ and the insertion of ‘Martii’ in the dating clause, the insertion ‘in discharge of her marriage porcion’ about a quarter of the way down the folio, the insertion of ‘that she’ about a third of the way down the folio, and the last six lines. Looking at the second folio the first two lines match this ink, as does the strikethrough of ‘Tyler the elder’, and the interlineation of ‘for better enabling of her to performe this my will and towards the performans thereof’ about half way down the page. On folio 3 the interlineation of ‘Item I gyve unto my wief my second best bed with the furniture’, and the signatures of two of the witnesses Juilyus Shawe and John Robinson look fairly close to this type of ink as well. The second ink (Ink 1) that can be defined is found on the main text of folio 1 and part of the dating clause. The interlineation of the word ‘of’ on line 14 appears to be in the same ink. This ink is not apparent on folio 2 but can perhaps be seen returning on folio 3 at the top and further down the main block of text. A third ink (Ink 2) appears on folio 2 and makes up most of the document bar the first two lines. This ink is also used for the interlineations for bequests to Elizabeth Hall, Hamlett Sadler, William Raynoldes, John Hemynges, Richard Burbage and Henry Cundell, as well as the addition of ‘in Stratford aforesaid’.22 This ink could also be the same that is used on folio 3. There seems to be a further ink (Ink 4) that is used for ‘By me William Shakspear’ and ‘Witness to the publishing hereof: Fra Collyns’ of folio 3.

Figure 9.2 shows most of the text of the will but with the different quality of the inks starting to become apparent. If we move through the wavelengths the differences are more noticeable, as we can see in Figure 9.3. Here the main text of folio 1 (Ink 1) all but disappears and the Ink 3 of the interlineations remain. On folio 2 the main text (Ink 2) is just visible and the interlineations in Ink 3 are still clear. On folio three most of the text fades out of view, perhaps indicating it is closer in similarity to Ink 1 (the main text of folio 1) rather than Ink 2 (the main text of folio 2). The insertion of second best bed can just be seen. If the visibility of inks under certain wavelengths indicates they are of a similar composition and have been added to the paper at a similar time then it appears that there are a set of interlineations made in March, the timeframe within which Chambers and Eccles suggest that the first page

196

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

of the will was redrafted. However, the dating clause is not in a uniform ink and most significantly it looks as though the correction of January to March did not take place when the rest of the dating clause was written, possibly disrupting the notion that the entire page was rewritten in March. The interlineation ‘that she’ is necessary for the main text to make sense, indicating that this set of interlineations was not only about adding final bequests to the will but was also about correcting the document and suggests that the changes and erasures were considered and not the result of carelessness. The visibility of the main text of the will on folio 2 indicates it was written at a different time from folio 1, and differentiates it from both folios 1 and 3. This may go some way to supporting Bevan’s theory that it is folio 2 (Figure 9.2) that makes up the oldest draft page of the will. However there are odd elements which show how problematic this data can be. On folio 2 the struck through ‘Mr Richard Tyler’ appears to be visible at different spectrums, and the division of the name in this way seems unlikely. The fading of the text at the bottom of folio 1 is also problematic as exposure to different wavelengths tends to expose clear definition between inks rather than the gradual increase of intensity of the ink as can be seen here. One possible reason for this is that the pelure d’oignon repairs on the back of folio 1 have had an effect on the composition of the ink. Folio 3 also puzzled our conservators as the text seems to be faded in a very inconsistent fashion leading to speculation that this folio has been damaged, again these areas of inconsistency may also match the patches that underwent invasive repairs. Shakespeare’s original will provides an unusual level of insight into the process of drafting a will, and hence a greater understanding of the considerations he made concerning his bequests. The document traversed both the most private and most public spheres: from the shaky signatures penned by a dying man in a domestic setting, to its delivery and evaluation at an ecclesiastical court. The record of his wishes was further institutionalized by the entry of the document into the will register. From the eighteenth century the cultural significance of the will was recognized, and it was separated from the rest of the original wills and viewed with such regularity that it was placed in a special frame. The will continues to fascinate audiences, drawing huge visitor numbers to both the Cultural Institute, King’s College London, and Shakespeare Birthplace Trust in 2016 as part of the commemorations for the 400th anniversary of his death. The elevation of the document from simply one will amongst hundreds to something extraordinary is an understandable trajectory but has the unfortunate effect of clouding the connection the original will has to the various other administrative documents that play a supporting role, and this provenance is critical in the face of the Shakespeare doubters. The exploration of the document with new heritage science techniques provides a supplement to this archival understanding, and the differences between inks that are visible through multi-spectral imaging provides extra material for understanding

AN ARCHIVAL READING OF SHAKESPEARE’S WILL

197

how the will was composed. The brief analysis presented above has merely touched on some of the interpretation that could be drawn from the analysis of the ink and The National Archives is planning to make further images available for researchers interested in comparing the many variant images. This work was undertaken with close co-operation between archivists and conservators, and the interdisciplinary nature of the research has also been another challenge, particularly in terms of the interpretation of the results. The research has been made possible by the potential that digitization and new technologies offers us, as this allows us to examine the original document in more detail than before. In this sense the digitization does not distance us from the original, but rather brings us closer to the very elements of which it is made.

Appendix: object description Size:

Object Type: Support Type: Material Specifications:

Margins Description:

Watermarks:

Folio 1: H398 x W306 Folio 2: H402 x W310 Folio 3: H400 x W310 Three folios of handmade, laid paper with iron gall ink text. Paper Laid, light/medium weight, cotton or linen rag handmade paper Width of chain lines: Folio 1: 21mm Folio 2: 18–19mm Folio 3: 18–20mm Laid lines per cm: Folio 1: 12 Folio 2: 13 Folio 3: 12–13 Width of margin (measured from outer edge of paper to main line of body of text) Folio 1: 50–55mm Folio 2: 58–60mm Folio 3: 50–55mm Folio 1 & 2 & 3: A watermark is discernible in the middle of the uppermost flattened fold. Folio 1: The watermark (at highest point) is 101mm from centre of upper edge. Folio 2: The watermark (at highest point) is 104mm from centre of upper edge. Folio 3: The watermark (at highest point) is 91mm from centre of upper edge.

198

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

Acknowledgements Versions of this essay have been presented at the Shakespeare Association of America (2016), Shakespeare Birthplace Trust (with Dr Amanda Bevan, July 2016) and The National Archives World Shakespeare Congress event (August 2016). The author would like to thank Amanda Bevan, Melissa Terras and Kostas Ntanos for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this essay.

10 The Blackfriars deed and the dawning golden age of accessible documents Eric M. Johnson

We live in a dawning golden age of accessible documents. While the efforts of archivists and the allure of reading rooms has had a grip on historians since the nineteenth century, technology has made access to many collections more straightforward and democratic in recent years. Archives have gradually opened themselves: first, holding institutions made their catalogues and finding aids accessible, and then they began creating digital facsimiles of their documents. Some institutions – alongside individual scholars – began transcribing selected documents or portions of documents. Digitization – for both access and preservation – is increasingly integrated into archival institutions’ work, raising the question as to what the next stage of digital tools might be. If the contents of a collection are accessible, can the flexibility of digital organization somehow make them easier to interpret? Digital objects overcome the restrictions of space and security, making phenomenal curation possible. With digital tools, collections may be brought together freely from multiple institutions, which assists interpretation. This might change the role of the archivist, from record specialist to curator, from an expert on finding aids and institutional history to a collector, putting forth an argument through a series of objects and explanations. This in itself could lead to the rapid advance of the discipline, but also creates new liabilities for scholars as the raw data of history – the records left behind – are presented through the lens of the curator. In recent years, cultural archives have pooled their resources by collaborating on publications, exhibitions and the development of digital tools. This book echoes that kind of collaboration, as it started with a seminar at the 2016 Shakespeare Association of America annual meeting 199

200

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

which invited participants to choose a document to explicate. Like my fellow authors, I begin with a single document, the buyer’s copy of the Blackfriars purchase-deed, which sits at the centre of Shakespeare’s public and private lives. It offers a useful departure point for a discussion about the respective roles of the public and private spheres; the facts of the deed are prosaic, as is its prose. It enumerates the purchase of the Blackfriars Gatehouse, a building in a fashionable neighbourhood of London. The Gatehouse’s price of £140 indicated its size and desirability, and it stood near the Blackfriars Theatre, where Shakespeare’s company performed during the winter. There is nothing particularly remarkable about the contents of the deed – it reads much the same as present-day deeds, with all of the particulars spelled out precisely in comma-delimited lists.1 The deed was known and printed in facsimile by the eighteenth century, and was used as a model for one of the forged documents created by William Henry Ireland.2 It changed hands at least four times before it was purchased by Henry Clay Folger for the inflation-adjusted sum of $1.8 million. Its permanent home is now in the vault of the Folger Shakespeare Library. The document is an enduring feature of Shakespearean biographies, as it demonstrates that, in the month before his forty-ninth birthday, Shakespeare could purchase an expensive property that was not his family’s principal dwelling. There is no proof that he resided in the Gatehouse, but there is no evidence against it, and he may have maintained at least one room there to shorten his commute to the playhouse. The location would have also abbreviated his trips to Stratford-upon-Avon, as it obviated the need for a crossing of the Thames. If the Gatehouse was as a centre of Catholic intrigue, as some maintain, then that signifies something about Shakespeare, although it is difficult to say what that might be; he might have been a closet papist, or at least someone sufficiently comfortable with his social standing and royal patronage that he knew he could weather any doubts about his loyalty to a Protestant monarch.3 The buyer’s copy is one of a quartet of related documents. This copy of the deed was kept by Shakespeare, and the vendor’s copy was kept by Henry Walker.4 An indenture, this document conforms to the legal requirements described by Alan H. Nelson in Chapter  1. The transaction was duly recorded by Chancery, literally ‘enrolled’ on a long sheet.5 The fourth document was the mortgage between Shakespeare and Walker, in which the former promised to pay the £60 balance of the purchase price by 29 September of the same year.6 These documents reside in four different archives: respectively, the Folger, London Metropolitan Archives, The National Archives at Kew and the British Library. Numerous printed facsimiles exist for each document, as do digitized copies of varying quality and legal status. As of January 2016, all four can be found in the collaborative online exhibition ‘Shakespeare Documented’. This exhibition, convened and curated by the Folger, began its life as part of the commemoration of the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare’s death. It was originally intended to

THE BL ACKFRIARS DEED

201

be a promotional site for the loose confederation of institutions who were sharing exhibition items for events related to the anniversary, as well as an online complement to a joint exhibition between the Folger and the British Library. When it became clear that the exhibition had to be split in two, because the public spaces in the two institutions were too dissimilar, the online portion of the exhibition came to the forefront. The focus of the Folger’s physical exhibition remained on Shakespeare as he moved through life: the printed texts, manuscripts, legal instruments and other documents that showed how he related to the state, his business associates, his family and the rest of his world. This exhibition, Shakespeare, Life of an Icon, eventually came to include fifty-six items. The Folger had already planned to include items in the online exhibition that would not appear in the physical exhibition as it knew that some item loan requests would be turned down for various reasons. However, as the online exhibition started to take shape, the project team made the fateful decision not only to include selected items from Shakespeare’s life, but also every contemporary reference to him, as well as selected documents relating to his immediate family (such as his father, brother and children), even if those documents did not mention William Shakespeare by name. The digital exhibit would overcome physical and institutional boundaries as well as limits of space and security to create a complete collection of every item that gave direct evidence of Shakespeare’s life. When it made this decision, the team thought that the total number of items was somewhere between 150 and 200, and that the number of references would be somewhat higher. As it turned out, ‘Shakespeare Documented’ ended up with 400 items with 500 total references. Bringing all of the items together under one electronic roof turned out to be a projectwithin-a-project, and an illustration of the challenges involved with creating multi-institutional curated collections. The vast majority of the items are from the principal contributing institutions, named as ‘partners’: the Bodleian Library at Oxford University; the British Library; the Folger; Shakespeare Birthplace Trust; and The National Archives. But there were thirty other institutions that were solicited to contribute, with most of them holding one or two items. The Folger needed to conclude licensing agreements with all of these institutions in order to include digitized images of the items. The exhibition team – mostly the project co-ordinator, Claire Dapkiewicz – spent hundreds of hours over two years in correspondence and negotiation before exchanging agreements. Although we had expected this to be a time-consuming endeavour, we underestimated how much labour would be involved. Archival institutions do not tend to move quickly; smaller archives sometimes took even longer than large ones because they were not used to completing licensing agreements. There was one time-saving grace. Because Shakespeare-related artefacts are among the highlights of any archive, most of these items already had digitized images available. Some needed to be reshot to increase the image

202

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

quality, and some, like Shakespeare’s will, discussed by Katy Mair in Chapter 9, had recently undergone conservation treatments and needed to be reshot in their new condition. In the end, only two institutions declined to contribute, although their items will still have entries on ‘Shakespeare Documented’ (but without accompanying images). The terms of most of the images allow reuse without any licensing fees for non-commercial projects, and some can even be used in commercial works. This means that the wealth of material that ‘Shakespeare Documented’ provides can be incorporated into the work of researchers, students, enthusiasts and theatre professionals, all of which were audiences that the Folger hoped to reach. Over 100,000 people have visited ‘Shakespeare Documented’ since its release, in keeping with the Folger’s expectations for a site of its kind.7 As a repository of primary sources related to Shakespeare, it fulfils the idea of expanded openness that is an aim of many archival institutions in the twenty-first century. Right now, ‘Shakespeare Documented’ is deliberately limited in scope, but let us imagine what it might look like if its boundaries were extended outward to embrace other archives’ material or if its capabilities were deepened. It could include primary sources related to London theatre in general, including legislation such as the Vagabonds Act and the sumptuary laws, and official decrees from the City of London. It could include sources from the regulators of the theatre, such as additional documents from the Master of the Revels, discussed in Chapter 7 by William Streitberger, and the Stationers’ Company. It could pull in dramatic texts in print and manuscript; the records of playing companies and their sharers, and what little we know about the companies’ finances; and information about playhouses. The temporal boundaries could extend from 1562 to 1642, covering the period from the first professional play performances to the closure of the theatres. Essentially, it could present digitally many of the documents discussed in this volume in a coherent fashion, removing them from their larger administrative contexts to make them easily digestible in an exhibition-like format. This future is intriguing, but comes with limitations and liabilities. Like any good exhibition, this future iteration of ‘Shakespeare Documented’ would present an argument about the early modern world through the documents it selected to make accessible. While every effort would be made to make the site representative of the English theatre world in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, decisions would have to be made. Entire subsidy rolls could not be digitized, for example; they would immediately become unwieldy and difficult to use and interpret. Barriers to access would be the size of the files involved rather than the relative difficulty of getting to Kew on the District Line. As such information about Shakespeare’s tax avoidance would remain decontextualized, without being placed in conversation with information, available in the physical document, about the financial health of his many thousands of neighbours in Southwark.

THE BL ACKFRIARS DEED

203

Because the focus of the digital exhibition – its argument – would be on theatre history, this missing information would not be seen as an oversight, but problematically it would be excluded from a digital collection that purported to provide complete evidence of a London subculture when in fact many knowable details of the milieu would be missing. A curated collection always reflects the biases and intentions of its creators. This is as true with ‘Shakespeare Documented’ as with any library. Another way ‘Shakespeare Documented’ might be extended would be if the search function, which now just searches materials within the site, could be a federated search that indexes other archives’ holdings without storing those materials on the site. (That might be acceptable to institutions that do not allow ‘loans’ of their digitized materials.) This would necessitate the construction of a Shakespeare taxonomy that would work across institutions, which would be a worthwhile project in its own right. An expanded site could be a platform for other tools, such as concordances and a patternmatching service. Yet, as is always a problem with search engines, this would introduce a limitation for researchers who would only find the documents that corresponded with the terms they searched, losing the results that might be found by examining an entire archival finding aid. In this volume, several authors follow archival hierarchies, themselves based on historic institutional structures, which lead them to the discovery of new or under-examined documents related to Shakespeare’s life. William Streitberger writes a meta-overview of the multiple original collections that a researcher of entertainments must consider when confronting the related primary sources; all of the documents might reside within The National Archives, but their origins are not self-explanatory. Similarly, Adrian Ailes (Chapter  5) describes the winding administrative pathway of the royal letters patent that transformed Shakespeare’s company into the King’s Men, describing the individual documents’ juridical and political contexts. Their chapters both demonstrate the complexity of Elizabethan bureaucracy and how exact understanding of the processes of government are preserved in the records left behind. This knowledge leads to discoveries – now we must ask how the same type of research might be possible digitally. Further, they demonstrate that following records of financial transactions and money spent is often the best way to reconstruct an historical moment. Robert Bearman (Chapter 8) likewise situates the Replingham agreement within the geography and economy of Warwickshire and Stratford-upon-Avon by tracing a financial arrangement made by Shakespeare through the less hierarchical records of SBT. How might a tool like ‘Shakespeare Documented’ represent the archival hierarchies and institutional knowledge that facilitated these discoveries? It might be said that the digital collection of ‘Shakespeare Documented’, and sites like it, represent an ‘artificial’ collection that could never exist in the physical world, and that something vital is lost when these objects are taken from their archival homes. Indisputably, in transmuting materials

204

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

from the physical to the digital, some of the aspects of their materiality are traded for immediacy. More significant, however, is the loss of archival contexts in this type of digital collection; where (and how) can this material be found? What information can be gleaned from the material that surrounds it? Why was this material stored in the first place and what does that tell us about Shakespeare’s life? But in the physical realm, researchers already encounter early modern archival materials in ‘artificial’ surroundings. When handling the materials, researchers must sit in climate-controlled reading rooms illuminated with electrical lighting, often while using multiple electronic devices – and all of these factors affect how researchers perceive, understand and remember what they see. The books, manuscripts and other materials have usually been displaced from where their original owners or creators kept them. They might be kept in a collection alongside related materials, but that collection lives among many other collections that were born and maintained elsewhere. As discussed earlier in this volume, this is particularly true of curated collections, like those of the Folger and SBT, which represent material brought together with particular collectors’ intentions in mind. To make this more concrete, if Folger granted permission for a reader to study the physical copy of the Blackfriars deed (which is a rare event), it would be retrieved from a vault three floors below the surface of a city that did not exist in 1613. Before entering the private collection of Henry Folger in New York, it had circulated in England through the collections of various previous owners, and before that it was in the hands of Shakespeare himself.8 Since the deed has been in at least eight places, and likely more than that, where is the deed’s ‘natural’ physical home? Alongside Shakespeare’s other personal papers? We have only a few of those, scattered among several institutions, and there is no way to know if he kept them in one place. Should it reside with the vendor’s copy of the deed, the mortgage and the enrolment? Even if it were legally permissible, and if the holding institutions were willing to give up the prestige of holding those documents, the documents were never destined to be in the same location. Quite the opposite, in fact. Yet, as this volume shows, the composition of a digital, multi-institutional curated collection still represents another level of mediation when compared with The National Archives. TNA maintains complete sets of administrative records, in the order in which they were received – generally the order in which they were originally stored – organized by the departments that created them. They are complete records of administrative processes. ‘Shakespeare Documented’ extracts portions of these record series to create a curated collection focused on only one individual. This is much more mediated, not because of its different format, but because of its different organization and the more curated intellectual premise on which the collection is built. There is no pretence that a site like ‘Shakespeare Documented’ represents anything like a physical archive. The web page for each item points back to the holding institution, in case the reader wants to see the holding institution’s full

THE BL ACKFRIARS DEED

205

catalogue record (if available). Nothing is lost if a researcher wishes to spend the time and money to see the item in person, but websites like ‘Shakespeare Documented’ expand access to these records to many thousands who might not be able to travel to the repositories in which they are held. Digital content can provide a document with a new type of curated, researched context. Many of the items included on ‘Shakespeare Documented’ are obscure and barely known within the field of Shakespeare studies, much less outside it. Putting them alongside the copies of the Blackfriars deed and other famous documents calls more attention to them and places them in context – not the context of their current physical situation, which might be largely irrelevant to most inquirers, but the context of Shakespeare’s life and milieu. The search engine cannot replace the finding aid, which provides a clear hierarchical structure from individual item records to general collection descriptions, as well as organizational schema that explain the relationship between the production of the records and their present organization. Yet, when people today create large-scale information systems, they do not create lengthy, rhapsodic, structurally disparate documents to describe their contents. There is still a sizeable amount of intellectual capital locked away in existing finding aids, and that knowledge could be broken into smaller units which would be presented to users as they navigate and search through a digital collection. Technological opportunities demand that we re-examine modes of discovery and consider new routes into collections to avoid losing any of the information held in finding aids, calendars and catalogues. We must ask how this information might be better presented to researchers in a manner that is digestible. There is a myriad of information that is not captured by catalogue records or finding aids that might be stored in a more fluid, narrative-driven container, such as that provided by a wiki. This book tells tales of discovery, not for an individual collection, but for the documents that touch on multiple aspects of Shakespeare’s biography. We must now ask ourselves how to democratize this type of discovery. Lena Cowen Orlin, Lucy Munro and Alan H. Nelson all demonstrate the drive to stitch existing documents together to create a single, unified narrative regarding Shakespeare’s life, the ultimate goal of biography and a task to which ‘Shakespeare Documented’ gestures. Nelson and Munro consider a history of forgery surrounding the Shakespeare documents, engaging with moments at which scholars and enthusiasts have been so frustrated by a lack of evidence that they have created their own. Munro and Nelson use these moments as opportunities for close documentary analysis, demonstrating that there is no need to create new evidence about Shakespeare’s life; existing documentation must be thoroughly understood and it supplies all the clues needed to understand the past. Outstanding potential still exists to understand the documents relating to Shakespeare more completely, and the greater access created by digital tools seems likely to accelerate progress in this field. Finally, in Chapter 3 Orlin describes how Richard Quiney’s famous letter came to be part of a larger collection that he

206

SHAKESPEARE ON THE RECORD

himself compiled, complete with his own quasi-archival categorization of the documents. Her chapter is a case study of why scholars still wish so ardently for Shakespeare’s lost correspondence, drafts and personal papers; Quiney’s letters highlight that, while we can reconstruct many of the events of Shakespeare’s life through the official papers of central government held at TNA and the documents that have found their way into other repositories, these will never give us the window to Shakespeare’s mind that is so sought by biographers. As much as digital tools create access to the documents that exist, there is no indication that either rigorous archival research, or the document analysis that technology makes available will give us any greater insight into Shakespeare’s private thoughts than we have ever had, though Katy Mair’s chapter gives us some hope that, by understanding the documents better, we may gain some small insights into their creator. When they place the digital contents of their collections and interlink them to other institutional collections, and they include descriptive data that will assist researchers whether they are physically or virtually present, institutions fulfil their duty to protect their holdings for future generations. This mode of creating access to documents is in many ways the natural extension of the archivists’ duty to process their collections so that they are findable – they facilitate the process of discovery by creating the best tools for search available. Yet, as Heather Wolfe’s many discoveries of this year indicate, even the burden of processing records have at times been too great for holding institutions. Just as volunteers have sometimes assisted with the processing of archives in the past, so open-source technology gives us hope that more and more records will be identified, processed and made accessible in the future using digital technology. If the archives’ contents are comprehensible to a much wider audience, which sees them as vital resources that can illuminate eternal human questions, they will receive the support they require, and this golden age of accessibility will have reached its full potential.

NOTES

Introduction 1

Ben Jonson, Discoveries, ed. Maurice Castelian (Paris, 1906), 35; Katherine Duncan-Jones and H.R. Woudhuysen, eds, Shakespeare’s Poems (London, 2007), 438, 462.

2

S.B. Chrimes, Henry VII (Berkeley, 1972), 99; S. Deng, Coinage and State Formation in Early Modern English Literature (London, 2011).

3

David Loewenstein and Janel Mueller, eds, The Cambridge Companion to Early Modern Literature (Cambridge, 2003), 345.

4

Ibid.

5

Elizabeth Yale, ‘The History of Archives: The State of the Discipline’, Book History, 18 (2015), 332–59.

6

Mike Braddick, State Formation in Early Modern England, c. 1550–1700 (Cambridge, 2000); Eddie Higgs, The Information State in England: The Central Collection of Information on Citizens since 1500 (Basingstoke, 2004); Paul Slack, ‘Government and Information in Seventeenth-Century England’, Past and Present, 184 (2004), 33–68; Mark Goldie, ‘The Unacknowledged Republic: Office-Holdings in Early Modern England’, in Tim Harris, ed., The Politics of the Excluded, c. 1500–1850 (Basingstoke, 2001).

7

The National Archives, ‘Our Role’, 2016, www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/about/ our-role [accessed 18 November 2017].

8

The College of Arms, ‘About Us’, www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/about-us [accessed 18 November 2017].

9

Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, ‘About Us’, www.shakespeare.org.uk/about-us [accessed 18 November 2017].

10 The Folger Shakespeare Library, ‘About’, www.folger.edu/about [accessed 18 November 2017]. 11 Jennifer Summit, Memory’s Library: Medieval Books in Early Modern England (Chicago, 2008); Alexandra Walsham, ‘The Social History of the Archive: Record-Keeping in Early Modern Europe’, in The Social History of the Archive: Record-Keeping in Early Modern Europe (Oxford, 2016), 10. 12 Walsham, 13.

207

208

NOTES

13 Eric Ketelaar, ‘Archives in and Archives Out: Early Modern Cities, as the Creators of Records and as Communities of Archives’, Archival Science, 10 (2010), 201–10. 14 Alexandrina Buchanan, ‘Strangely Unfamiliar: Ideas of the Archive from Outside the Discipline’, in Jennie Hill, ed., The Future of Archives and Recordkeeping: A Reader (London, 2011), 37–62. 15 Pro-Quest, ‘The Cecil Papers’, http://proquest.libguides.com/cecil [accessed 2 November 2017]. 16 E.K. Chambers, The Elizabethan Stage (Oxford, 1923, reissued 2009). 17 London, The National Archives (TNA ), E 179/146/354. 18 Roland Lewis, The Shakespeare Documents: Facsimiles, Transliterations, Translations, & Commentary (New York, 1940); Samuel Schoenbaum, William Shakespeare: A Documentary Life (Oxford, 1975). 19 Samuel Schoenbaum, William Shakespeare: A Compact Documentary Life (Oxford, 1987). 20 Jane Cox and David Thomas, Shakespeare in the Public Records (London, 1985). 21 Robert Bearman, Shakespeare in the Stratford Records (Stroud, 1994). 22 W.R. Streitberger, Court Revels, 1485–1559 (Toronto, 1994). 23 W.R. Streitberger, The Master of the Revels and Elizabeth I’s Court Theatre (Oxford, 2016). 24 Mark Eccles, Shakespeare in Warwickshire (Madison, 1961). 25 Stratford-upon-Avon, Shakespeare Birthplace Trust (SBT ), DR 243/1, f. 5r. 26 Worcester, The Diocese of Worcester, b 716.093 BA 2648/10 (i), ff. 43v–44r. 27 The Diocese of Worcester, x 797 BA 2783. 28 Robert Bearman, ‘Entry in the Bishop’s Register Concerning the Marriage of William Shakespeare and Anne Hathaway’, on Shakespeare Documented, 2016, www.shakespearedocumented.org/exhibition/document/parish-registerentry-recording-william-shakespeares-baptism [accessed 23 April 2017]. 29 Ibid. 30 E.K. Chambers, William Shakespeare: A Study of the Facts and Problems, 2 (Oxford, 1930), 287–92. 31 College of Arms, ‘Records and Collections’, www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/ about-us/records-and-collections [accessed 13 November 2017]. 32 These may be found in Indexes to the Signet Office and Privy Seal Office Doquet Books in TNA SO 4 and PSO 5. 33 TNA , PSO 2/22, part 2r. 34 TNA , C 82/1690, 78r. 35 For more information on this process see: TNA , ‘PSO 2’, ‘SO 4’, ‘PSO 5’, ‘C 82’, and ‘C 66’, 2016, http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk [accessed 13 November 2017]. Also see: ‘Warrant under The Privy Seal for the Issue of Letters Patent Authorizing Shakespeare and His Companions to Perform Plays throughout the Realm Under Royal Patronage’, on Shakespeare Documented,

NOTES

209

2016, www.shakespearedocumented.org/exhibition/document/king-jamesestablishes-kings-men-warrant-under-privy-seal [accessed 13 November 2017]. 36 TNA , C 66/1608, m. 4. 37 TNA , REQ 4/1/4/1, f. 1ar–4r. Shakespeare’s deposition in this case includes one of only six known instances of his signature. 38 Charles William Wallace, ‘Shakespeare and His London Associates, as Revealed in Recently Discovered Documents’, University Studies, 10/4 (1910), 260–360; Charles William Wallace, ‘New Discoveries: Shakespeare as a Man among Men: The First Complete and Exclusive Account of the Finding of Hitherto Unknown Documents’, Harper’s Monthly Magazine, 120 (1910). 39 Washington, DC , The Folger Shakespeare Library, MS Z.c.22 (45)r. Also see: ‘Bargain and Sale From Henry Walker, Citizen and Minstrel of London,[. . .]’, on Shakespeare Documented, 2016, www.shakespearedocumented.org/ exhibition/document/shakespeare-purchases-blackfriars-gatehouse-buyerscopy-bargain-and-sale [accessed 13 November 2017]. 40 Ibid. 41 London, London Metropolitan Archives, CLC /522/MS 03738r. 42 TNA , C 54/2184, mem. 45. 43 ‘Bargain and Sale from Henry Walker’. 44 The National Archives, ‘Chancery and Supreme Court of Judicature: Close Rolls’, 2015, http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C3614 [accessed 13 November 2017]. 45 Chambers, William Shakespeare, 2, 61–71. 46 Shakespeare’s will is now found in PROB 1, an artificial series that is made up of records that were removed from their position amongst the original documents that now make up the series PROB 10 due to their testators’ notoriety. 47 TNA , REQ 2/706 contains at least one case from 1618 concerning the Blackfriars Theatre that has not previously been discussed by scholars.

Chapter 1 1

Chris Laoutaris, Shakespeare and the Countess: The Battle that Gave Birth to the Globe (London, 2014).

2

Ibid., 392–406, 8.

3

Ibid., 384.

4

I am grateful to Hannah Leah Crummé and Katy Mair for this observation.

5

Anthony Milton, ‘William Laud’, in The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 2004), www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/16112 [accessed 10 October 2013].

210

NOTES

6

Documents relating to the ‘second’ Blackfriars playhouse are cited in Glynne Wickham, Herbert Berry and William Ingram, English Professional Theatre 1530–1660 (Cambridge, 2000), 501–30. For references to events of 1633, see 523–5.

7

Laoutaris, Shakespeare and the Countess, 5–6.

8

Laoutaris, Shakespeare and the Countess, 216.

9

Signatures on some contemporary petitions were written more or less at random in the blank space below the text. Two roughly contemporary exemplars are the ‘Watermen’s Petition’ of circa 1590, and the general petition in favour of King James VI of Scotland signed at the death of Queen Elizabeth in March 1603. The ‘Watermen’s Petition’ is reproduced at www.henslowealleyn.org.uk/images/MSS-1/Article-017/01r.html. The instigator of that petition, Philip Henslowe, did not sign it himself. The 1603 petition is the first item in the domestic State Papers of James I & VI , and is London, TNA SP 14/1, f. 2.

10 Laoutaris devotes four chapters to neighbours who signed the petition: ‘Meet the Neighbors’, ‘Closing Ranks’, ‘Building Ambitions’ and ‘Shakespeare’s Nemisis’. 11 Wallace T. MacCaffrey, ‘Carey, Henry, first Baron Hunsdon (1526–1596)’, in The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 2004), www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/4649 [accessed 6 December 2016]. 12 For the signature ‘G Hunzdon,’ see TNA SP 14/1, f. 2, as described above. 13 Laoutaris, Shakespeare and the Countess, 6–7. 14 R.H. Robbins, ‘Browne, Sir Thomas (1605–1682)’, in The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 2004), www.oxforddnb.com/view/ article/16112 [accessed 10 October 2013]. 15 P.W. Hasler, ed., The History of Parliament: The House of Commons 1558– 1603 (London, 1981). 16 R.G. Lang, ed., Two Tudor Subsidy Assessment Rolls for the City of London: 1541 and 1582 (London, 1993); Richard E.G. Kirk and Ernest F. Kirk, Returns of Aliens Dwelling in the City and Suburbs of London from the Reign of Henry VIII to that of James I, 1–4 (London, 1900–8). 17 TNA E 179/390a; for Crooke, see 146/394b; for Meredith, see 146/390f. Parish strangers are listed in Kirk and Kirk, Returns of Aliens. 18 The names do occur in transcription of the petition on 417. William Meredith is mentioned in an endnote on 452, but not otherwise. 19 Croke’s notoriety is compounded by his appearance in a scandalous poem from 1607, ‘The Parliament Fart’: see Margaret Crum, ed., First-Line Index of English Poetry, 1500–1800, in Manuscripts of the Bodleian Library (Oxford, 1969), D435; see also Early Stuart Libels at: www.earlystuartlibels.net/htdocs/ parliament_fart_section/C0.html. 20 Stephen Egerton, An Ordinarie Lecture (1589), sig. A6v. 21 Stephen Egerton, The Boaring of the eare (1623), 54. 22 Laoutaris, Shakespeare and the Countess, 29, 163, 188.

NOTES

211

23 L.G. Kelly, ‘Hoby, Sir Thomas (1530–1566)’, in The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 2004), www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/16112 [accessed 10 October 2013].

Chapter 2 1

For full transcriptions and high resolution images of all of the figures in this essay, see shakespearedocumented.org. All mistakes and misinterpretations are of course my own, but I am very grateful to Nigel Ramsay, and at the College of Arms, Clive Cheesman, Richmond Herald; Peter O’Donoghue, York Herald; Robert Yorke, former archivist; and Lynsey Darby, archivist, for helping me to understand the nuances of heraldry and the workings of the College of Arms. I am also grateful to Elizabeth DeBold, James Shapiro and Michael Witmore for their comments on earlier drafts of this essay.

2

C.W. Scott-Giles, Shakespeare’s Heraldry (London, 1950), 27.

3

‘New made gentlemen’ is the circa 1613 endorsement on a treatise compiled by Ralph Brooke concerning arms allegedly granted improperly by William Segar, Garter King of Arms (College of Arms, Record MS R21, fol. 286). This list immediately follows the copy of the list by Brooke of arms allegedly granted improperly by William Dethick, which includes Shakespeare’s coat of arms (fol. 285). Officially, gentle status was recognized, rather than conferred by, a coat of arms, but as the last section of this essay describes, this distinction blurred in the Elizabethan period, and in fact, ‘contemporaries regarded the grant as more than a recognition of status; it was a conferral of status’ (Clive Cheesman, ‘Grants and Confirmations of Arms’, in Nigel Ramsay, ed., Heralds and Heraldry in Shakespeare’s England (Donington, 2014), 103).

4

Samuel Schoenbaum, William Shakespeare: A Documentary Life (Oxford, 1975), 171.

5

This essay focuses on Shakespeare’s coat of arms in terms of its circulation in manuscript. For discussions of the possible social circumstances and the timing of the grant, see Katherine Duncan-Jones, Shakespeare: Upstart Crow to Sweet Swan, 1592–1623 (London, 2011) and her Shakespeare: An Ungentle Life (London, 2014). For the general state of unrest at the College of Arms, see Anthony Wagner, Heralds of England: A History of the Office and College of Arms (London, 1967), 191–241.

6

The thirteen officers of arms are of three ranks: three kings of arms (Garter, Clarenceux, Norroy), six heralds of arms (Chester, Lancaster, Richmond, Somerset, Windsor, York) and four pursuivants of arms (Bluemantle, Portcullis, Rouge Croix, Rouge Dragon). Only kings of arms can grant arms.

7

The regnal year in the first draft is incorrect, since 20 October in the 39th year of Elizabeth’s reign is 1597. The second draft copies this mistake, and then emends it to the 38th year. It is also dated ‘1596’ in a contemporary hand, presumably Dethick’s, on both drafts, and is unambiguously dated in the 38th year in the late seventeenth-century copy of the letters patent (Queen’s College, Oxford, MS 137). Curiously, William Dethick was probably not in England on

212

NOTES

20 October. He accompanied the earl of Shrewsbury into Rouen for Henri IV ’s investiture into the Order of the Garter in October. I am grateful to Nina Green for bringing this to my attention. She cites a copy of a privy seal warrant dated 6 September 1596, authorizing payment of travel expenses and rewards to Dethick and William Seager for the journey (College of Arms, L 14, fol. 227v). See also a draft of the warrant (TNA , SP 46/20, fol. 138) and copy of the queen’s commission to Shrewsbury and Dethick, both dated 6 September (Bodleian, Ashmole MS 1113, fol. 114). ‘A breife Discourse of the Place and Time’, cites Dethick’s presence at the investiture on Saturday, 9 October 1596, accompanying the special ambassador (the Earl of Shrewsbury) and the resident ambassador (Sir Anthony Mildmay) (British Library, Harley MS 1355, fol. 24). Shrewsbury departed from Dover on 16 September and did not return until 29 October (Nichols’ Progresses, vol. IV, 30–45, based on manuscript sources and account in Edmund Howes’s continuation of Stow’s Annales (1615), 777–82). Assuming Dethick was with Shrewsbury, Dethick either drafted the grants while he was travelling, or pre- or post-dated them, which is not uncommon (private correspondence with Robert Yorke). Another draft grant in College of Arms, Vincent 157, to Otes Nicolson of London, gent., is dated 7 September, presumably just before his departure. Duncan-Jones argues that the date of 20 October 1596 would have been significant to Shakespeare, who might have felt some urgency to acquire the grant and elevate his social status, since the second edition of Greens Groatsworth, which alluded to Shakespeare as an ‘upstart crow’, was entered into the Stationers’ Register on the same day (Shakespeare: Upstart Crow to Sweet Swan, 103). 8

Nigel Ramsay established that Dethick was the scribe in 2014 through a comparison to other manuscripts in Dethick’s hand. Tannenbaum incorrectly suggests that the first draft ‘bears all the traces of having been written by one inexperienced in drawing up heraldic drafts’ (Samuel Tannenbaum, Shakspere’s Coat-of-Arms (New York, 1908), 10). The drafts were first published in facsimile and in diplomatic transcription in Stephen Tucker, Somerset Herald in Ordinary, The Assignment of Arms to Shakespere and Arden 1596–1599 (London, 1884). See also B. Roland Lewis, The Shakespeare Documents: Facsimiles, Transliterations, Translations, & Commentary (Stanford, CA and London, 1940), 208–17, for a detailed discussion of the two drafts.

9

Robert Bearman, Shakespeare’s Money (Oxford, 2016), 75–6.

10 This hand has filled in blanks left for details relating to the Arden family, supplying the first name of John Shakespeare’s wife, ‘Mary’, Mary’s father, ‘Robert’, ‘Wilmcote’, and ‘said’ before ‘county’. This same shade of ink appears in a minor interlineal insertion to the next line, in a more substantive correction that alters the metal of the spear’s point from ‘argent’ (silver) to ‘proper’ (natural colour of the steel), and in the note at the bottom. See shakespearedocumented.org for full transcriptions of both drafts. 11 This is based on the fees that Ralph Brooke claims that William Dethick received in Folger MS V.a.156, and Dethick’s own notes of fees received in College of Arms, Vincent 157. Cheesman notes that the Earl Marshal in the first quarter of the sixteenth century set a sliding scale of fees. Members of the merchants’ and tradesmen’s livery companies were to be charged £10, while other

NOTES

213

categories were to be charged between £5 and £10. This fee does not include the writing, painting and recording of the patent (Cheesman, 76). 12 Scholars have debated whether the comma, which changes the meaning of the motto from ‘Not without right’ to ‘No, without right’, was meant as an intentional slight or was the work of an ignorant scribe. The second rendering in the first draft appears to be partially deleted. The first Shakespearean scholar to draw attention to the motto was John Payne Collier in The Works of Shakespeare (London, 1844), lxxvi: ‘the motto, as given at the head of the confirmation, is NON SANZ DROICT ’. I am grateful to Nina Green for this observation. The grant was known to Shakespeareans as early as George Steevens in 1778, who mentions the existence of (but does not describe) two drafts ‘in the Herald’s Office’ in a footnote to the transcription of the exemplification of arms (Steevens, vol. 1, 191). 13 The watermark is a sphere surmounted by a trefoil, with a pendant upsidedown heart, similar to Briquet 14036 and 14037 (French paper manufactured in Angoulême, 1590). 14 In a 1598 patent confirming the arms of Robert and William Herick, William Dethick and William Camden explain that the original grant drafted by Clarenceux Lee years earlier had been lost before it was issued, quite possibly a ploy to make the arms seem more ancient (Cheesman, 78). 15 Bearman, 77. 16 The National Archives, C 54/1722, membrane 7. See http://shakespearedocumented.org for the image and description. 17 Additional grants by William Dethick appear in Queen’s College, MS 138–40. Over half of the names included in Ralph Brooke’s complaint against William Dethick also appear in MS 137 (see below). The contents of these manuscripts appear in William Harry Rylands, Grantees of arms named in docquets and patents to the end of the seventeenth century,in the manuscripts preserved in the British museum, the Bodleian library, Oxford, Queens college, Oxford, Gonville and Caius college, Cambridge, and elsewhere, alphabetically arranged by the late Joseph Foster (London, 1915). 18 College of Arms, Record Shakespeare Draft Grant of Arms 3. 19 This mistake has been much discussed. For a brief discussion, see Scott-Giles, 33 and Chambers, 284. Robert Arden was a cadet, that is, from a lesser branch, of the Park Hall Ardens. 20 Details of Dethick’s infractions circulated widely, including altering his patent so that he could grant arms, a privilege previously limited to the other two provincial kings of arms, Clarenceux and Norroy; stealing books from the College’s library; and frequent acts of violence against his family, colleagues and associates. See, for example, ‘Detections and abusesse of William Derike of some called Garter Kinge of Armes’ (Folger Shakespeare Library, MS X.d.313); ‘A Remembrance of Sir William Dethickes, alias Garter Kings of Armes, his abuses since the Tyme he was Yorke Herauld to this present seno./’ (British Library, Add MS 25,247, fol. 291; for another copy, see Stowe 568, fol. 90); ‘Causes why Sir William Dethick was put from his office 1603’, which Wagner surmises is by Brooke (Wagner, 201 cites College of Arms, Anstis’s MS H.5,

214

NOTES

p. 424); and a more general treatise which singles out Dethick numerous times, ‘A briefe discourse of the right use of gevinge armes, with the late abusis about that matter and the beste meane by which they may be reformid orderly’ (Folger Shakespeare Library, MS V.b.7). V.b.7 is attributed to Henry Howard, earl of Northampton on the title page. However, Peter Beal notes that it has also been attributed to Ralph Brooke (CELM , HoH23–25). This seems highly plausible, given the reference on p. 51 – ‘Doctor Hickman was very lately buried’ – and other internal references. Hickman died in 1618, while Northampton died in 1614. Brooke, who died in 1625, continued persecuting kings of arms throughout his long career as York Herald. 21 Mark Noble, A History of the College of Arms (London, 1804), 160. A non-exhaustive sampling of their back-and-forth: Dethick responded to a petition against him by Brooke circa 1593 (TNA , SP 46/19, fol. 87). For interrogatories and depositions in the 1594/95 Star Chamber suit between Brooke, plaintiff, and Dethick, defendant, see TNA , STAC 5/Y4/7, 5/B36/40, 5/B59/22, 5/B70/1, 5/B71/26, 5/B96/21, 5B97/23. Dethick complained to Burghley about Brooke’s suit on 23 December 1594 (BL Lansdowne 77, no. 86), requesting that Burghley peruse the articles exhibited in Star Chamber against him (including, most likely, no. 87, a set of interrogatories by Brooke against Dethick, September 1594, and no. 88, a libel said to be by Dethick against Brooke, ‘A New Yeres Guyfte ffor an Old Yeres Grief, called a Pitfall for Perjurers, or a Spectacle for Brokesmouth called Rougecrosse and his perjured Compagnyons’) as proof of the ‘slanderous reportes actions & suites published & diuulged against me by the malice of Yorke herauld . . . And he hath so comenced his suites by my wrytinges to your lordship whiche are come I knowe not how into his handes’. In his working papers, Dethick recorded conversations at Westminster Hall and Middle Temple, in which Brooke threatened that Star Chamber would punish him for libel by cutting off his ears: ‘the 15 June York syd in Westminster hall in presence of Mr Nevel merchant in Cobam stret & of Robert Hooker & Mr Wryght / To Garter. Thow art a false knave and loke to thy eares for they [sic] case in Starre Chamber. / Item. in the temple also – present Mr Marston. to [cellor?] et alys. Thow art a false knave & shalt lose the eares for thy case in the Starrchamber’ (College of Arms, Vincent MS 157, fol. 12v). The reference to Mr Marston is probably to the playwright John Marston, who was in residence at the Middle Temple at the time, and not to his father, the famous lawyer, who was by this time living in the country (College of Arms, Vincent 157, no. 104, is a draft grant to John Marston, ‘councellor laws, now dwelling in Coventry’). On 5 February 1596, Sir Edward Hoby and Sir George Carew, who had been deputized by the Commissioners to investigate the troubles at Derby House, asked the heralds to bring ‘such Articles with him, as you or any of you shall have taken paynes in for reformacion of disorders since our last conference’ (described in Wagner, 209, from College of Arms, Arundel MS 40, fol. 17). Dethick took the opportunity to complain about many of his colleagues, including ‘Ralph Brookesmouth (that infamous Herauld)’ (Arundel MS 40, fol. 26). Brooke was also the target of a joint complaint by the heralds and pursuivants, and of a particular complaint by Thomas Lant, Portcullis, who records in detail the articles submitted to Hoby and Carew in a manuscript titled, ‘The Observations and collections of Tho: Lant Portcullis, concerning

NOTES

215

the Office and Officers of Arms’ (Arundel MS 40). Wagner quotes copiously from them, 207–21. 22 One of Brooke’s victims, Sergeant Warburton, wrote to Burghley’s secretary, Mr. Hicks, that he had been ‘most spitefully delt withall by York the harold, Betweene whom & Mr Garter there is deadly malice, and although I neuer offended Yorke nor do not know him, yet in his deposicion in the starre chamber betwene my Lord of Kent & Mr Rotheran, he hath deposed that Garter hath geven me the cote of Chesshire . . .’ (British Library, Lansdowne 85, fol. 120, Letter from Peter Warburton to Mr Hicks, 30 April 1597). 23 Brooke later extended his catalogue to included arms granted by the other kings of arms, including William Camden, Clarenceux and William Segar, Norroy (and Dethick’s eventual successor as Garter). Dethick was dismissed from office and Segar appointed Garter by James I in January 1604, but Dethick refused to resign until December 1606; Segar’s patent was eventually granted on 17 January 1607. 24 ‘Dyverse guiftes of Armes passed by Sir William Dethick when he was Garter as they were informed to the Earle of Essex Earle Marshall of England by York herald. A Catalogue of ^a fewe Armes and Crestes as hath byn given by William Derick now called Garter with some note of other his abuses maynteyned . . .’ (British Library, Harley MS 3526, with another copy, Harley MS 1453, fol. 82). Twenty of the names have been carried over from the names in Folger MS V.a.156, and fourteen of the names are carried over into his next catalogue, MS R21, fol. 285. Brooke alludes to the small percentage of names that he includes in this catalogue: ‘if your Honor be desirous to knowe the trewe nomber of all his guifts of Armes wich are many you must haue his booke of enterances of new guifts in wich booke if you find not these entred wich here are presented unto your Lordship you may well knowe that he hath abused the saide booke & your lordship both for that I wilbe redye to Iustifie the same’. An autograph draft of the preface to this catalogue is in College of Arms, MS R21, fol. 275. The Earl Marshal (the Earl of Essex 1597–1601) oversaw the activities of the heralds. The office was held in commission from 1590–7 and 1602–3. It was frequently called upon to investigate complaints by the heralds. For example, James I designated a commission on 2 February 1605, after being ‘informed that divers Errors are commytted’ and that ‘the said Heralds have appoynted Armes Crests and Badges for somme other Persons of base Birthe or of mean vocation and Quallitye of lyvynge’. He appoints the Commissioners ‘to cause due Inquisition to be made of all manner of Armes, by them of late Yeares given to any Person withoute good Warrante . . .’ Printed in Rymer, Foedera, vol. 16 (1704), 608. Similar orders were made on 28 September 1596 and 22 October 1597. 25 Endorsed ‘presented to the Earle of Northampton the 5. of October. 1606’, the catalogue consists of twenty-three grants made by Segar, shortly before he assumed the post of Garter. College of Arms, MS R21, fols 283–4. 26 The subtitle to the treatise ‘A remembrance of Sir William Dethick’s . . . abuses’ describes one of his abuses as ‘the giueing of Armes, yea and of some of the Nobility to base, and Ignoble persons, as Yorke Heraulde hath att Large sett downe in a Booke deliuered to the Kings Maiestie’ (British Library, Add

216

NOTES

MS 25,247, fol. 292v). I have not located this ‘Booke deliuered to the Kings Maiestie’. 27 College of Arms, MS R21, fol. 275r (draft of a letter from Brooke to Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex); fol. 323v (draft of a letter from Brooke to Henry Howard, Earl of Northampton; another copy is BL , Cotton MS Faustina E. I, fol. 141); fol. 284 (catalogue of arms granted by Segar, presented to the Earl of Northampton). 28 College of Arms, MS R21, fol. 284. 29 William Rockett, ‘Britannia, Ralph Brooke, and the Representation of Privilege in Elizabethan England’, Renaissance Quarterly, 53, No. 2 (Summer, 2000), 496. See Rockett for the connection between this dispute and Brooke’s attack on Camden’s Britannia (1594), which included a new section, an index of the barons and added accounts of surnames, descents, and property holdings, which, shows Camden’s awareness of ‘the phenomenon of an unprecedentedly expanded sphere of privilege’ that included ‘new names and new money’ (475). 30 Folger MS V.a.156. All of the grants were made in 1594 or earlier. Robert Leighe is described as ‘now Sheriff of London’ (he was sheriff in 1594/5). 31 Bearman, 79; Cheesman, 87. For example, Brooke refers to the merchant William Saunderson as a ‘fishmonger’. Saunderson was in fact a member of one of the most ancient London livery companies, the Fishmongers Company, but not a fishmonger by trade. In 1592, he financed the construction of Emery Molyneux’s celestial and terrestrial globes, the first to be published by an Englishman in England. He was evidently proud of this contribution to the navigational sciences, as his crest was a globe. Brooke ignores this symbolism, writing ‘The Crest is not fitt for so meane a person: But Rather for one that pocesseth the whole worlde’ (Folger MS V.a.156, fol. 11). Similarly, William Norton, designated as a ‘bookbinder’, was in fact Master of the Stationers’ Company at the time of his death in 1593. William Whitmore (incorrectly referred to as John Whitmore, a haberdasher by Brooke) was a prominent citizen and merchant who owned an estate in Shropshire. 32 Seven of the individuals cited by Brooke were alderman: Thomas Pettous and Robert Gibson (both of Norwich), William Elkin, Henry Hayward, Robert Lee, William Thwaites, Robert Wythens (described as a dead vintner). Edward Clark of Ardington, Henry Hickman and Thomas Peake were all lawyers, while Michael Murgatrod was secretary to Archbishop Whitgift. 33 The late 1601 date is based on a letter from late 1601 found among Dethick’s working papers which complains about Brooke’s defamation. 34 It is not known if Elizabeth actually received such a scroll, as Brooke implies. If she did, she may have forwarded it to the commissioners and ordered them to investigate. It is possible that ‘the first’ indicates that Brooke also submitted arms granted by Segar and Camden, the other two kings of arms. In the manuscript volume in which it appears (College of Arms, Record MS R21), it is followed by Brooke’s catalogue of improper grants by Segar. 35 Record MS R21, fol. 285.

NOTES

217

36 Brooke’s ‘Book of Differences’ most likely refers to a treatise in his handwriting with a title that begins, This Booke is collected and made onlye to shewe the Alteracion and Differences of Armes, in formere tyme borne and vsed of the Nobillitie of this Realme [. . .] (Bodleian Library, MS Rawl B 135, fol. 78, with a later copy at the College of Arms). Brooke dedicates the treatise to Charles, Lord Howard of Effingham, one of the commissioners for the executing of the office of the Earl Marshal, in 1594; see British Library, Lansdowne MS 861, fol. 95v for a reference to Mauley in a book of differences by Robert Glover, Somerset Herald. A treatise called ‘Knights of Edward I’ has not been located, but would presumably also include the arms of Lord Mauley, a knight under Edward I. In his ‘Book of Differences’, Brooke’s careful drawing of the ancient arms of (the third) Peter de Malo-lacu, granted to him in the time of Edward I (fol. 78), elucidates Brooke’s thinking: Shakespeare’s coat of arms is akin to being the fourth son of Peter de Malo-lacu (or Maulay) of Molgraue, after Peter, Robert, and John. The second son differences with three spread eagles on a bend, the third son with three fish on a bend, and Shakespeare’s coat has a spear on the bend. This argument would work slightly better if there were three spears, but younger sons were quite creative in differencing, and not always consistent with each other in terms of how they differenced. 37 College of Arms, MS WZ , fols 276–7. 38 Bodleian, Ashmole MS 846, fols 50–1. 39 College of Arms WZ , fols 273–6. The first question asked by the Commissioners was ‘whether Garter hath inserted or added any wordes in his Patent more then vsually haue bin in the Patentes of his predecessors yea nor no’. This addressed the fact that Dethick had altered his patent to allow him to grant arms, a privilege previously allowed to only Clarenceux and Norroy. Dethick ended his answer to this question by noting that when he produced this patent to the Commissioners, Brooke stole it ‘and hid the same from Garter . . . Garter desireth their Lordships plesures to commaund Yorke to restore him this Indenture againe’. The second matter concerned ‘bookes and Registers whivh he is falsely accused to haue taken out of the Office’. In his response to this, Dethick mentions a comment by Nicholas Paddy, Lancaster Herald, made ‘one monday before his death’. The new Lancaster Herald, Francis Thynne, was created on 22 April 1602, between the writing of the draft and the fair copy. 40 Bodleian, MS Ashmole 846, fol. 50v. 41 Brooke’s catalogue of arms granted by Segar is College of Arms, MS Record R21, fols 283–4. In Folger MS V.a.156, the arms are tricked in colour, and they are also tricked in the catalogue sent to Essex (two copies, Harleian MS 3526 and Harleian MS 1453). 42 Cheesman, 96. 43 Cheesman, 90. Cheesman identifies the manuscript as being ‘apparently prepared by Mercury Patten’ because of the presence of a note on fol. 29, ‘Blewmantle 10 feb 1599’. Patten was Bluemantle Pursuivant 1597–1611. However, it is more likely that this is a later attribution to Patten as the inventor of the ‘etymology’ of each of the coats in the quartered arms of a member of the Gerard family, reproduced and explicated on the leaf. Patten

218

NOTES

produced etymologies for other coats of arms as well. See, for example, his etymology for the arms of Sir John Fortescue, Folger Shakespeare Library, MS V.a.667. 44 For a more detailed comparison, see Heather Wolfe, ‘Shakespeare the Player: A New Discovery Sheds Light on Two Folger Manuscripts’ (collation.folger. edu/2016/07/shakespeare-the-player/). The watermark is similar to Gravell Pot.433.1, a pot watermark with crescent over quatrefoil with the initials GPL . 45 Folger Shakespeare Library, MS V.a.156. For a detailed comparison of V.a.156 and V.a.350, see Lewis, pp. 340–4. 46 ‘London in armes displayed, or the distincons millitary and civill of the comanders of horsse troopes and collonells of the trained bands in the cittie [of] London: There armes blazoned and etymoligies peculiarly pertaining to armes’, dedicated to Sir John Gayer, mayor of London (Bodleian, Rawlinson MS B48). Some of the letter formations are very similar, but misspellings in the later additions to Dethick’s Grants X, particularly in the index, suggests a lack of familiarity with the names included. Another copy to a different dedicatee is at the British Library. I am grateful to Nina Green for alerting me to this work. 47 On the same page are the arms of Thomas Tenison, Archbishop of Canterbury (he became archbishop in December 1694), a list of arms of various ‘Greene’ families described in shorthand blazon, cut from an Alphabet, and a pedigree of Sir William St John, knight (1561–1638). 48 In his defence, Dethick remarked (in his entry for Whitmore) that ‘Neither doth trades derogate more from Gentrie more in England then in Venice’. Of Elkin and Lee, he states that while they ‘are depraued as base trades men’ by Brooke, it ‘is well knowen they haue bin both Sheriffes of London’ (College of Arms, MS WZ ). 49 College of Arms, Chapter Book 19, 189. 50 In his will, William Dethick left to his third son, Henry Dethick, ‘all my bookes papers and Roles any way concerning Armes Pedegres or heraldry’ (TNA , PROB 11/120, fol. 173). It is not known how Vincent acquired them, although perhaps through Jacob Chaloner (see Wagner, Records and Collections (London, 1952), 10–11), who purchased some of Dethick’s manuscripts. It should also be noted that some of Dethick’s volumes, ‘which were deemed to be the official records of the College’, were retrieved in 1597 as part of a library reform that sought to centralize all evidentiary manuscripts. ‘They were cataloged in 1618 by Sampson Lennard, Bluemantle. His inventory is the oldest extant record of the College library’ (Thomas Woodcock, Somerset Herald and John Martin Robinson, ‘Fitzalan Pursuivant Extraordinary’, in The Oxford Guide to Heraldry (Oxford, 1988), 145). 51 I am grateful to Nigel Ramsay for mentioning that an address leaf and letter were sometimes miles apart from one another. 52 Dethick’s draft grant to Thomas Pettous includes a motto from Horace: ‘Neglectis urenda filix innasciture agris’ (College of Arms, MS R21, fol. 276). 53 Prior to his father’s death, he was entitled to bear them with a difference. Each coat of arms belonged to one member of the family, and if it were to be borne

NOTES

219

by others, it needed to look slightly different – this could be something a minor as a crest or star in the upper left corner. 54 College of Arms, Vincent MS 157, no. 278. 55 College of Arms, MS R21, fols 294–5. 56 College of Arms, MS R21, fols 308–9. 57 College of Arms, MS WZ , fol. 277v. 58 For Richard Dungan’s arms, see College of Arms, Dethick’s Grants X, fol. 7 and Folger MS V.a.350, fol. 6. William Dungan’s grant is dated 27 July 1598. Thomas Dungan (63) speculates that William probably stayed with Richard in London in 1598. 59 College of Arms, Vincent MS 157, no. 331. 60 College of Arms, MS WZ , fol. 277v. 61 See Thomas P. Dungan, Richard Dungan Master Plasterer of London in Shakespeare’s Time (Knoxville, 2003). 62 Bodleian, Ashmole MS 846, fol. 50r. 63 College of Arms, Vincent MS 157, no. 476. Brooke includes him in College of Arms, Dethick’s Grants X (copy circa ca. 1642) and MS R21, fol. 285, Folger MS V.a.350 (copy circa 1700) and MS V.a.156, BL Harleian MS 3526, Harleian MS 1453, and Cotton MS Titus BVIII , fol. 294. 64 British Library, Harleian MS 1453, fol. 35. 65 College of Arms, WZ , fol. 277. In his draft rebuttal, he writes, ‘Nota: Segar procurat This Patent Recalled’ (Bodleian, Ashmole MS 846, fol. 50r). 66 College of Arms, Vincent MS 157, no. 93. 67 John Anstis (1669–1744), Garter King of Arms from 1718, owned this volume (and gave it the shelfmark G13). It was purchased by the College of Arms in 1768 at a sale of his papers. The table of contents is in his hand, and appears on paper with the AR cipher as a watermark, suggesting that it dated from the reign of Queen Anne (1702–14). The entry for Shakespeare is ‘Grant of Arms by ^Dethick Garter and^ Wm Camden Clarx. to John Shakespear of Stratford upon Avon, in the County of Warwick. Dated Anno 1599. fo. 347’. 68 College of Arms, MS R21, fol. 275v. 69 In a December 1594 letter to Burghley, Dethick complains that his previous ‘writings’ to Burghley have ‘come I knowe not how into his handes’ (British Library, Lansdowne MS 77, fol. 207). 70 Among the thirty-odd names on Jones’s list for Brooke is Lawrence, who also appears on various Brooke lists. He was a London goldsmith; his impaled arms were confirmed in 1594 for the sum of 5 marks. A grant in the same volume, to ‘Burrell of Norfolk’ by Segar, is addressed on the verso ‘To Mr York Herauld’ (fol. 277). It is annotated in an unknown hand, ‘These Esuche lyke ffollys. are permitted to be made by that Ignorant, Base, payzant, Wm Seagar to the dishonor & disgrace of Nobilite and Armes’. 71 College of Arms, MS R21, fol. 303. 72 Bodleian, Ashmole MS 846, fol. 50r.

220

NOTES

73 One of the most confounding references to a Shakespeare coat of arms is in the second volume of an Alphabet,‘Grafton M to Z’ with additions by Augustine Vincent. The entries in the first volume were counted on ‘22 October 1615’ while the second volume contains a section, ‘coats of Lord mayors who were alderman of Goldsmiths from 1308 to this present year 1611’. The entry is ‘Shakspeare or. 6. lions’ (Vincent MS 160, fol. 90v). 74 In a different hand on the title page, in both, is inscribed ‘Modo Johanis Philipott et Armicorum T:do et S:do’ (‘only John Philipot and heralds’). Philipot (1588–1645) first entered the College of Arms as a pursuivant extraordinary in 1613, and was appointed Rouge Dragon in 1618 and Somerset Herald in 1624. After Philipot, it went to Rowland Williams, who signs his name on the second front endleaf: ‘Rowland Williams his Booke / Memorandum that Hearold Phillipott Black Booke in Collours was sent by me Rowland Williams to Mr Allen at Greatton on the 12th of Nouember Ano Do 1668’ (Gretton is a town in Northamptonshire and Gloucestershire). 75 For an example of a completed title page in the same style as Promptuarium, see William Smith, The Alphabeth, or blason of armes . . . Begon the 20 day of October Anno 1594 and finished the 30 October anno 1597 (Folger MS V.b.217). 76 The page with Shakespeare’s arms contains sixteen grantees, all of whom were granted arms before 1601: John Read of London (Robert Cooke, Clar.); John Read of London (altered by William Camden, Clar., 1599); William Phillips of London, Merchant Taylor (Robert Cooke, Clar.); Robert David of North Wales [Flower, 1581]; Allen Thompson of London (William Dethick, Garter, 1599, invented by William Smith); Richard Perry (William Dethick, Garter, 1599); Lionel Blackley (see fol. 25, William Dethick, Garter, 1600); Wetherhedd (‘A false Information per Dakins’); Laurence Washington (William Dethick, Garter, 1594); John Simings, Doctor; John Simings, Doctor of Phisick (Robert Cooke, Clar., 1574); William Shakespeare (William Dethick, Garter); Rafe Whitfeild of Whitfeild, Northumberland (William Dethick, Garter); Thomas Chabnor of Monsley, Herefordshire (Robert Cooke, Clar., 1586); Andrew Perne, Doctor, Dean of Ely (Robert Cooke, Clar., 1575); Robert Seale [Camden, 1599]. The pre-printed templates and the hands in the British Library copy are different from Smith’s autograph at NEHGS . Other minor differences: the arms of Washington (a descendant of George Washington) and Ralph Whitfield are quartered in the NEHGS copy, but not in the BL copy. Weatherhead is replaced with Sir Thomas Bendish of Bumsted in Essex (see fol. 130) in the BL copy. 77 Smith died in office in 1618, and his successor, John Philipot, owned it afterwards. Philipot died in 1645, and the next ownership mark in the volume belongs to Samuel Gore, 1772. Now located at the New England Historic Genealogical Society in Boston, the manuscript is thought to have been brought to New England by William Crowne, Rouge Dragon Pursuivant from 1638–61, who first came to New England in 1657 and then again in 1661 (he died in 1682). It perhaps then passed to the painter stainer Thomas Child (d. 1706), and eventually to Samuel Gore’s father John Gore, a painter who had a shop in Boston circa 1730. See Walter Kendall Watkins, ‘Boston Folks’ Coats of Arms’, Boston Daily Globe, 7 February 1915.

NOTES

221

78 Katherine Duncan-Jones included the example on the left in Ungentle Shakespeare and Shakespeare: Upstart Crow to Sweet Swan: 1592–1623 (112; commenting on the literary nature of both arms and the emaciated falcon that served as the crest to Shakespeare’s arms). In the second armorial in Harl MS 5807, not necessarily originally compiled by Smith, Shakespeare appears again, on fol. 17 of that section. The sixteen are Michael Drayton of Warwickshire esqr.; William ‘Shackspare’ (Dethick); Dr. Lifeild of Surrey; Edward Trusloue of Sutton and Beverly, Yorkshire; William Young of Baseleton, Berkshire; Rob Aynesworth of Aynesworth, Lancashire; Ferdinando Ric[hard]son of Gloucestershire; John Kinge of London; Walle of Norfolk; Stoner; Capt. Nicolas Victor de Kibberd, Leicestershire, descended from Italy & from Florence; West of Awchton, York; Willmer; Thwinge; Henry Bankes in Craven, near Skipton, Yorkshire; Carteret of Normandy and now of Jersey, 1607. 79 ‘A pattentt per William Dethike Garter Principall King of Armes’ (British Library, Harleian MS 6140, fol. 46v) and ‘P P W D G.’ (British Library, Harleian MS 5807, fol. 174r). Shakespeare’s and Drayton’s arms appear in different layouts. In Harleian MS 6140, there are only four coats of arms per page; in Harleian MS 5807 there are sixteen, of which only one is dated (1607). 80 Samuel Tannenbaum, Was William Shakspere a Gentleman? (New York, 1909), 23. 81 Lances appears in the second volume of a two-volume Ordinary with no title page. The BL catalogue describes it as 17th century arms of English families. The watermark is a Seven Provinces watermark (lion rampant within crowned girdle) with a countermark of ‘IV ’, in use in the later seventeenth century. 82 The watermark is a two-headed eagle crowned (with a round ball/flower above cross surmounting the crown), with shield inside eagle, with pendant HH . For additional versions of Shakespeare’s arms in blazon from the late seventeenth/ early eighteenth centuries, see shakespearedocumented.org. 83 I am grateful to Robert Yorke for this point. 84 Taken from Adrian Ailes, ‘Shakespeare and the Heralds’ Visitations’, in Heralds and Heraldry in Shakespeare’s England, ed. Nigel Ramsay (Donington, 2014), 115. 85 Ailes, 121, summarizing the argument made by John Raven, Richmond Herald in preparation for his visitation of Norfolk in 1612 or 1613 (British Library, MS Harley 1154, ff. 65v–61): ‘A gentleman must have a coat of arms to be recognised officially as such.’ It was generally recognized that although a coat of arms did not confer gentleman status, it was a necessary means to convey that status to others. 86 Smith, 28, in Duncan-Jones, Shakespeare: Upstart Crow, 101–2. 87 Holinshed, Chronicles (London, 1587), book 1, 162, quoted in Cheesman, 68. 88 Puntarvolo’s suggestion that Sogliardo adopt the motto ‘Not without mustard’, thought to be a jab at Shakespeare’s motto ‘Not without right’, is, as Ian Donaldson argues in Ben Jonson: a Life (Oxford, 2011), more likely referring

222

NOTES

to a scene in Thomas Nashe’s Pierce Pennilesse (1592), when someone promises to give up haberdine, or salt cod, if he is saved from dying in a shipwreck (Donaldson, 159–60). When the weather clears, he adds a caveat, promising not to eat haberine without mustard: ‘Not without mustard’. The phrase follows on the usage of ‘without’ throughout the scene – ‘without a brain’, a boar ‘without a head’. Donaldson bases this argument on the assumption that the motto, if it was indeed intended as a motto, did not survive beyond the draft stage, and thus would have been a joke without a punchline in Jonson’s play if Shakespeare were the target. 89 Biographers have interpreted the acquisition of a coat of arms by John Shakespeare in many ways. James Kearney takes the most conservative approach to interpreting the coat of arms application in ‘Status’, in Arthur Kinney, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Shakespeare (Oxford, 2014), 184: ‘All the episode really tells us is that Shakespeare valued armigerous status for his father or himself or his progeny at a certain price, and was not above treating that status as a good to be purchased.’ 90 Ian Archer, ‘Economy’, in The Oxford Handbook of Shakespeare, 168.

Chapter 4 1

Thomas Maddox, Formulare Anglicanum (London, 1702), xxviii–ix; Giles Jacob, A New Law-Dictionary (London, 1729).

2

‘indenture, n’ Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford, 2016), www.oed.com/view/ Entry/94314?rskey=DVVJVe&result=1&isAdvanced=false> [accessed 12 January 2017].

3

Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd ed. (St. Paul, 1910); Thomas Smith, The Common-wealth of England and the maner of government thereof (London, 1589), 74–5.

4

Smith, 74–5.

5

Margaret Condon, ‘God Save the King! Piety, Propaganda, and the Perpetual Memorial [of Henry VII ]’, in Westminster Abbey: The Lady Chapel of Henry VII (Woodbridge, 2003), 59–97.

6

Washington, DC , Folger Shakespeare Library, MSS Z.c.36 (110–11); London, TNA , CP 25/2/237/44/45ELIZIMICH .

7

Roland B. Lewis, Shakespeare Documents, II (Palo Alto, 1940), 353.

8

Samuel Schoenbaum, William Shakespeare: Records and Images (Oxford, 1981), 56.

9

Stratford-upon-Avon, Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, MSS ER 27/1; MSS DR 232/1.

10 London, London Metropolitan Archives CLC /522/MS 03738; Folger Shakespeare Library, MS Z.c.22 (45). 11 TNA , C 54/2184, membrane 45. 12 BL , MS Egerton 1787.

NOTES

223

13 Lewis, 442; Samuel Schoenbaum, William Shakespeare: A Documentary Life (Oxford, 1975) 220; Schoenbaum, William Shakespeare: Records and Images, 43, 45.

Chapter 5 1

Elizabeth had believed such companies existed to serve her at court rather than the general populace: Tarnya Cooper, Searching for Shakespeare (London, 2006), 162. In 1603 an outbreak of the plague killed one in five Londoners in just a few months: Hannah Crawforth, Sarah Dustagheer and Jennifer Young, Shakespeare in London (London, 2015), 28, and the Globe stood empty to 9 April 1604: Katherine Duncan-Jones, Ungentle Shakespeare: Scenes from his Life (London, 2001), 169. London theatres had already been closed since 19 March 1603 owing to the impending death of the queen: Richard Dutton, Shakespeare: Court Dramatist (Oxford, 2016), 235.

2

For Fletcher and James VI see Dutton, Shakespeare: Court Dramatist, 237.

3

For Shakespeare’s property portfolio in Stratford-upon-Avon see Mark Eccles, Shakespeare in Warwickshire (Madison, 1963), 84–111, and Robert Bearman, Shakespeare in the Stratford Records (Stroud, 1994), 15–21. For Shakespeare’s arms see Adrian Ailes, ‘ “A Herald, Kate? O put me in thy books”: Shakespeare, the Heralds’ Visitations and a New Visitation Address’, in N. Ramsey, ed., Heralds and Heraldry in Shakespeare’s England (Donnington, 2014), 105–24.

4

David Thomas, Shakespeare in the Public Records (London, 1985), 14; Duncan-Jones, Ungentle Shakespeare, 166, 170; Cooper, ed., Searching for Shakespeare, 162, 164.

5

For James’s interest in the theatre see Dutton, Shakespeare: Court Dramatist, 268.

6

Argument put forward by Leeds Barroll (Duncan-Jones, Ungentle Shakespeare, 172). See H.C. Maxwell-Lyte, Historical Notes on the Use of the Great Seal of England (London, 1926), 95 for a contemporary example of securing the king’s patronage at £2 6s. for a charter.

7

See Hubert Hall, A Formula Book of English Official Historical Documents: Part I Diplomatic Documents (Cambridge, 1908), 114.

8

See Penry Williams, The Tudor Regime (Oxford, 1979), 39–46, G.R. Elton, The Tudor Constitution: Documents and Commentary (Cambridge, 1982), 117–28, and W.P.W. Phillimore, ed., An Index to Bills of Privy Signet commonly called Signet Bills, 1584 to 1596 and 1603 to 1624 with a Calendar of Writs Privy Seal 1601 to 1603 (London, 1890), v–vi (see this latter for Bills of Privy Signet read Signet Office Docquet Books covering TNA record series SO 4/1–2, PSO 5/2 and IND 1/6744). For the late medieval course of the seals see Gwillym Dodd, ‘Trilingualism in the Medieval English Bureaucracy: The Use – and Disuse – of Languages in the Fifteenth-Century Privy Seal Office’, Journal of British Studies, 51/2 (2012), 253–83 (especially 260–1), Theron Westervelt, ‘Warrants under the Signet in the Reign of Edward IV ’, Historical Research, 83/222 (2010), 602–16, and Christine Carpenter, ‘Henry VI and the Deskilling of the Royal Bureaucracy’, in The Fifteenth Century IX : England and Continental

224

NOTES

Perspectives (Woodbridge, 2010), 1–37 (especially 9–10, 23–4). For the period after Shakespeare see Maxwell-Lyte, Historical Notes on the Use of the Great Seal, 94–6, and Jan Broadway, Richard Cust and Stephen K. Roberts, eds, A Calendar of the Docquets of Lord Keeper Coventry 1625–1640 (London, 2004), vi–viii. 9

See below and Elton, Tudor Constitution, 116. Maxwell-Lyte, Historical Notes on the Use of the Great Seal, 91, 160, 333. For costs at each stage see ibid., 94–7.

10 Williams, Tudor Regime, 39; Elton, Tudor Constitution, 118. 11 This evasion of the intervening stages may have slackened after 1540 (Elton, Tudor Constitution, 116), but in 1604 James appears to have taken measures to control this (Maxwell-Lyte, Historical Notes on the Use of the Great Seal, 162–3). 12 Maxwell-Lyte, Historical Notes on the Use of the Great Seal, 97. 13 Ibid., passim and especially 94–7, 331–42. 14 Information from the ‘green introductory note’ to the SO 8 series list held on the open shelves in The National Archives. 15 Maxwell-Lyte, Historical Notes on the Use of the Great Seal, 94–5. 16 For later examples of their reports see Hall, Formula Book of Historical Documents, 115. 17 Maxwell-Lyte, Historical Notes on the Use of the Great Seal, 95. 18 Some Warrants for the Privy Seal along with petitions to the monarch and Privy Council for the Tudor period can be found in TNA E 28 (Exchequer: Treasury of the Receipt: Council and Privy Seal Records). 19 For Lake see Andrew Thrush and John Ferris, eds, History of Parliament: House of Commons 1604–1629, 6 vols (Cambridge, 2010), 5: 59. 20 London, TNA PSO 2/22 pt 2. 21 Historical Manuscripts Commission Salisbury (Cecil) (London, 1930), 15. 22 For what follows see Adrian Ailes, ‘Signets and Scutcheons: James I and the Union of the Crowns’, Coat of Arms, 1/1 (2009), 15–21, and Maxwell-Lyte, Historical Notes on the Use of the Great Seal, 136–7. 23 The docquet books also contain details of immediate warrants for King’s Bills/ Signed Bills sent from the sovereign direct to the lord chancellor in the Chancery and upon which the clerks took fees, even though the Warrants did progress through the government machine under the signet (seal). The king and his council could also send immediate warrants direct to the Privy Seal Office, the intermediate stage between the Signet Office and the Chancery. For Docquet Books see Maxwell-Lyte, Historical Notes on the Use of the Great Seal, 99 and Phillimore, ed., Index to Bills of Privy Signet . . ., v–vi. 24 The reference to Fletcher, Shakespeare and others was discovered in 2016 by Dr Hannah Leah Crummé. For the fees see Maxwell-Lyte, Historical Notes on the Use of the Great Seal, 34, 94. 25 P.W. Hasler, ed., History of Parliament: The House of Commons, 1558–1603, 4 vols (London, 1981), 3: 115. 26 C 82/1690/1; J.F. Larkin and P.L. Hughes, eds, Stuart Royal Proclamations: Royal Proclamations of King James I 1603–1625 (Oxford, 1973), 18–19.

NOTES

225

James had arrived at his royal palace of Greenwich on 13 May: Peter Ackroyd, Shakespeare: The Biography (London, 2005), 393. 27 Elton, Tudor Constitution, 117. For a summary of the work of the Chancery see Guide to the Contents of the Public Record Office (London, 1963), 7. 28 George Whetstone, The Right Excellent and Famous Historye, of Promos and Cassandra Deuided into Two Commicall Discourses . . . (London, 1578), B1r; quoted in Harry Newman, ‘ “A seale of Virgin waxe at hand / Without impression there doeth stand”: Hymenal Seals in English Renaissance Literature’, Lives and Letters, 4/1 (2012), 98–9. 29 On 5 April James had decreed that Elizabeth’s seal should be used whilst a new great seal was made: W. de G. Birch, ‘On the Great Seal of James I’, Journal of the British Archaeological Association (1870), 218–21. 30 For the enrolment see Thomas, Shakespeare in the Public Records, 14; Cooper, Searching for Shakespeare, 164; Glynne Wickham, Herbert Parry and William Ingram, eds, English Professional Theatre, 1530–1660 (Cambridge, 2000), 123. 31 For the plague see n. 1 above.

Chapter 6 1

San Marino, Huntington Library, MS EL 11752.

2

See TNA E 351/542, m. 207d; David Cook and F.P. Wilson, eds, ‘Dramatic Records in the Declared Accounts of the Treasurer of the Chamber 1558– 1642’, MSC, 6 (1961), 29.

3

Huntington MS EL 11754.

4

John Payne Collier, New Facts Regarding the Life of Shakespeare (London, 1835), 10–11, 41–2.

5

The Works of William Shakespeare (London, 1853), 186. See C.M. Ingleby, A Complete View of the Shakspere Controversy Concerning the Authenticity and Genuineness of Manuscript Matter Affecting the Works and Biography of Shakspere, Published by Mr J. Payne Collier as the Fruits of his Researches (London, 1861), 241–65; Arthur and Janet Ing Freeman, John Payne Collier: Scholarship and Forgery in the Nineteenth Century (New Haven, 2004), esp. 259–62, 644–7. As the Freemans describe, Halliwell-Phillipps had been anticipated in his doubts about the Egerton papers by Joseph Hunter in his New Illustrations of the Life, Studies, and Writings of Shakespeare, 1 (London, 1845), 70–4. Hunter’s later notes, composed after he had consulted all of the forgeries personally in 1846, survive in ‘Shakespeare. Notes on his Life and Writings, Made After the Publication of my New Illustrations, &c. 1846’, British Library Add. MS 24,497, ff. 46v–53r. See Freeman and Freeman, John Payne Collier, 442–5.

6

Works, 186; it is reproduced in S. Schoenbaum, William Shakespeare: A Documentary Life (Oxford, 1981), 141.

226

NOTES

7

See J.O. Halliwell-Phillipps, Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare (London, 1883), 385–99. Further documents were discovered and printed by C.W. Wallace in ‘The First London Theatre: Materials for a History,’ Nebraska University Studies, 13 (1913), 1–297.

8

See ‘First London Theatre’, 11; the document was first published in full in Anna J. Mill and E.K. Chambers, eds, ‘Dramatic Records of the City of London: The Repertories, Journals, and Letter Books,’ Malone Society Collections, 2/3 (1931), 285–320 (314–15).

9

See Mill and Chambers, eds, ‘Dramatic Records’, 314–15; Thomas Payne Collier, The History of English Dramatic Poetry to the Time of Shakespeare and Annals of the Stage to the Restoration, 3 vols (London, 1831), 1: 211–12.

10 See C.W. Wallace, The Evolution of the English Drama up to Shakespeare, with a History of the First Blackfriars Theatre (Berlin, 1912); Albert Feuillerat, ‘Blackfriars Records’, Malone Society Collections, 2/1 (1913), 1–136. 11 E.K. Chambers, The Elizabethan Stage (Oxford, 1923), 2: 316; R. Florence Brinkley, ‘Nathan and Nathaniel Field’, Modern Language Notes, 42 (1927), 10–15. 12 See Freeman and Freeman, John Payne Collier, 644–5, 1114. 13 See Works, 187–8. 14 TNA , C 66/1801; E.K. Chambers and W.W. Greg, eds, ‘Dramatic Records from the Patent Rolls. Company Licences’, Malone Society Collections, 1/3 (1909), 260–84 (271–2). See Works, 187–8. 15 Collier cites and quotes the 1603 warrant to the King’s Men and the 1604 warrant to the Children of the Queen’s Revels, among others: see History, 1: 347–9, 352–4. 16 The archive has recently been digitized in a project directed by Grace Ioppolo: see Henslowe–Alleyn Digitisation Project, www.henslowe-alleyn.org.uk. 17 On ‘harey the vj’ see R.A. Foakes, ed., Henslowe’s Diary (Cambridge, 2002), 16–20; Lawrence Manley and Sally-Beth MacLean, Lord Strange’s Men and their Plays (London, 2014), 96–9. On ‘titus & ondronicus’ see Foakes, ed., Henslowe’s Diary, 21–2; Manley and MacLean, Lord Strange’s Men, 106–10. 18 See Foakes, ed., Henslowe’s Diary, 22. 19 E 351/542, m. 207d; Cook and Wilson, ‘Dramatic Records’, 29. 20 E 351/542, m. 207d. 21 TNA SP 12/278, f. 85r; see Chambers, Elizabethan Stage, 2: 205. 22 TNA C 66/1608, n. 4; see E.K. Chambers and W.W. Greg, eds, ‘Dramatic Records from the Patent Rolls. Company Licences’, Malone Society Collections 1/3 (1909), 260–84 (264–5). 23 For a detailed account of this process see Adrian Ailes’s Chapter 5 in this book. 24 See REED Coventry, ed. R.W. Ingram (Toronto, 1981), 362; Shropshire, ed. Alan B. Somerset (Toronto, 1994), 288; Somerset, ed. James Stokes (Toronto, 1996), 19. The information is usefully collected on REED Patrons and Performers, https://reed.library.utoronto.ca. For an overview of touring practices see also Siobhan Keenan, Travelling Players in Shakespeare’s England

NOTES

227

(Basingstoke, 2002); on the touring circuits of the King’s Men see Andrew Gurr, The Shakespeare Company 1594–1642 (Cambridge, 2004), 54–69. 25 REED Devon, ed. John M. Wasson (Toronto, 1986), 188. Martin Slater, who seems never to have been a King’s Man, probably used the same counterfeit licence again in 1625, when ‘one Slator and his Companie being the Kings Playors’ were paid £1 in Leicester (see Gurr, Shakespeare Company, 63). 26 See Alan Nelson, ‘Lease for the Site of the Globe Playhouse (1599)’, in Shakespeare Documented, www.shakespearedocumented.org/lease-site-globeplayhouse-1599, which lists the documents that recite the terms of the original lease. 27 See Glynne Wickham, Herbert Berry and William Ingram, eds, English Professional Theatre, 1530–1660 (Cambridge, 2000), 502. 28 TNA C 142/257/68; for the translation see Alan H. Nelson, ‘Inquisition Post Mortem of Thomas Brend, Showing Shakespeare and Others Occupying the Globe Playhouse’, in Shakespeare Documented, www.shakespearedocumented. org/lease-site-globe-playhouse-1599. 29 TNA C 54/1722, m. 7; C 54/1682, m. 11; C 54/1947, no. 5; C 54/2471, item 15; C 54/2594, item 15. 30 See E.A.J. Honigmann and Susan Brock, eds, Playhouse Wills, 1558–1642 (Manchester, 1993), 96–8. 31 Ibid., 69–70. 32 Ibid., 73. 33 Ibid., 74. 34 Ibid., 73. On Whitehorne see David Kathman, ‘Citizens, Innholders, and Playhouse Builders, 1543–1622’, Research Opportunities in Renaissance Drama, 44 (2005), 38–64 (54, 58). Kathman speculates that he may have performed with the King’s Men. 35 Honigmann and Brock, eds, Playhouse Wills, 80. 36 Ibid., 80–1. On the Browne and Sands families, see Willem Schrickx, ‘ “Pickleherring” and English Actors in Germany’, Shakespeare Survey, 36 (1983), 135–48; Christopher Matusiak, ‘The Beestons and the Art of Theatrical Management in Seventeenth-Century London’, PhD thesis (University of Toronto, 2009), 37–46; Kathman, ‘Citizens, Innholders, and Playhouse Builders’, 254–5. Cecily may have been related to James Sands, but a definitive link has not yet been discovered. 37 See Ostler v. Heminges, TNA KB 27/1454/1. 38 Honigmann and Brock, eds, Playhouse Wills, 94–5. 39 Ibid. 107. For further detail on Shakespeare’s will see Katy Mair’s Chapter 9 in this book. 40 TNA LC 5/133, p. 44; see Eleanore Boswell and E.K. Chambers, eds, ‘Dramatic Records: The Lord Chamberlain’s Office’, Malone Society Collections 2/3 (1931), 321–416 (362, 364). 41 TNA LC 5/133, p. 50; see Boswell and Chambers, ‘Dramatic Records’, 370–1. 42 See Boswell and Chambers, 371–2.

228

NOTES

43 TNA KB 27/1454/1, rot. 692; see Wallace, ‘Shakespeare in London’, Times, 2 October 1909, 9 and 4 October 1909, 9. 44 TNA , REQ 4/1/2; see Wallace, ‘Shakespeare and his London Associates’, Nebraska University Studies, 10 (1910), 261–360 (315–19). 45 Wallace, ‘Shakespeare’, 321. 46 TNA , REQ 2/706; see Herbert Berry, Shakespeare’s Playhouses (New York, 1987), 198. 47 Honigmann and Brock, eds, Playhouse Wills, 108.

Chapter 7 1

‘A Platte of Orders’ and ‘Ordres for ye Revells’ (London, British Library (BL ) Lansdowne MSS 83, art. 58, fols 155–6) and ‘Of the first Institution of the Revels’ (BL Lansdowne MS 83, art. 59), all printed in Albert Feuillerat, Documents Relating to the Office of the Revels in the Time of Queen Elizabeth, 21 (Louvain, 1908), 5–17.

2

The earliest known drawings of this kind are Inigo Jones’s sketches for his masques. See Stephen Orgel and Roy Strong, The Theatre of the Stuart Court (Berkeley, 1973).

3

Some few of these documents are housed at Loseley manor, near Guildford, Surrey. Most of those related to Revels are in the Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington, DC . Many others, originally deposited in the Guildford Muniment Room, Castle Arch, Surrey, are now in the Surrey History Centre, Woking, Surrey. See Laetitia Yeandle and W.R. Streitberger, ‘The Loseley Collection of Manuscripts at the Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington, DC ’, Shakespeare Quarterly, 38 (1987), 201–8. At one time Master of the Revels Sir Henry Herbert had in his possession many Revels documents from the tenures of Edmond Tyllney (d. 1610) and Sir George Buc (d. 1622), but they have since disappeared. See J.Q. Adams, ed. Dramatic Records of Sir Henry Herbert (New Haven, 1917), and Nigel W. Bawcutt, The Control and Censorship of Caroline Drama: The Records of Sir Henry Herbert, Master of the Revels, 1623–73 (Oxford, 1996).

4

W.C. Richardson, Tudor Chamber Administration (Baton Rouge, 1952). J.D. Alsop, ‘The Structure of Early Tudor Finance’, in Christopher Coleman and David Starkey, eds, Revolution Reassessed: Revisions in the History of Tudor Government and Administration (Oxford, 1986), 135–62.

5

Albert Feuillerat, Documents Relating to the Revels at Court in the Time of King Edward VI and Queen Mary (Louvain, 1914), 272.

6

W.C. Richardson, ed., The Report of the Royal Commission of 1552 (Morgantown, 1974). Christopher Coleman, ‘Artifice of Accident? The Reorganization of the Exchequer of Receipt c. 1554–1572’, in Christopher Coleman and David Starkey, eds, Revolutions Reassessed (Oxford, 1986), 16–98.

7

Frederick C. Dietz, ‘The Exchequer in Elizabeth’s Reign,’ Smith College Studies in History, 8/2 (1923), 65–6, prints a list of the payments that the Treasurer of the Chamber was assigned.

NOTES

8

M. Dorothy George, ‘Notes on the Origin of the Declared Account’, The English Historical Review, 31 (1916), 46–7.

9

The list is transcribed by George, 42–3.

229

10 Ben Jonson’s and Inigo Jones’s Love Freed From Ignorance and Folly illustrates how masques were financed. On 26 November 1610 King James I issued a warrant to the Treasurer of the Exchequer (London, The National Archives (TNA ) SP 39/1, no. 48) to deliver what sums of money were to be demanded by certificate from the Earl of Suffolk, Lord Chamberlain, and the Earl of Worcester, Master of the Horse. Payments for material and workmanship are recorded in a particular book signed by them: Exchequer of Receipt, Miscellanea (TNA E407/57 [1], fols 1–2), showing charges totalling over £718. Some of the payments are recorded in the Order Books, Pells (TNA E403/2730, fols 75v, 77v, 121r, 172v). See C.H. Hereford and Percy and Evelyn Simpson, eds, Ben Jonson (Oxford, 1950), 520, 529–30. 11 Most Ledger books that survive for the Office of the Revels between 1560 and 1642 have been printed. The book for 1558–9 (Washington, DC , Folger Shakespeare Library MS Lb 42) is printed in Feuillerat, Elizabeth, pp. 79–108. The books for 1571/5, 1576–81, 1582/3, 1584/5, 1587/8 (TNA AO 3/907/1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12) are printed in Feuillereat, 129–48, 151–86, 191–221, 225–49, 253–79, 282–312, 319–32, 335–44, 349–60, 363–73, 377–83. The book for 1587–9 (BL Lansdowne MS 59, no. 21, fols 38–42) is printed in Feuillerat, 387–94. The Ledger books for 1604/5, 1611/12 and 1629–35 (TNA AO 3/908/13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20) are printed in W.R. Streitberger, Jacoban and Caroline Revels Accounts, 1604–1642 (Oxford, 1986), 7–15, 47–55, 102–8, 108–13, 113–19, 119–25, 125–31, 131–6. The draft of the 1584/5 account with corrections and additions by Edmond Tyllney (TNA AO 3/907/11), as well as other duplicate or fragmentary accounts have not been published. 12 No relevant Ledger books survive for the Office of the Works (TNA AO 3/1243) during Shakespeare’s lifetime. Those for the Office of the Tents, Hales, and Pavilions (TNA AO 3/1092) are incomplete. Great Wardrobe Ledgers (TNA AO 3/1106–17, 1118–21) survive for every year except 1615–17. None have been abstracted. 13 None of the Ledger books of the Treasurer of the Chamber have been printed: 1560–5, 1568–70 and 1574–5 (TNA AO 3/127); a draft for February to December 1570 (TNA E 101/430/15); 1576/7, 1586–91, 1595/6 and 1597/8 (TNA AO 3/128); 1581/2 (BL , Harleian MS 1644); 1585/6 (BL , Harleian MS . 1641); 1599/1600, 1607/8, 1629/30, 1633/4 and 1639/40 (TNA AO 3/129). The Ledgers books for 1604/5, 1610–13 and 1616/17 (Bodleian Library MSS , Rawlinson A 204 A 239, A 240) have been abstracted by David Cook and F.P. Wilson, Dramatic Records in the Declared Accounts of the Treasurer of the Chamber, 1558–1642 (Oxford, 1962), 49–51, 54–8, 62–8. 14 No Pipe Office copies of the Declared Accounts survive for the Elizabethan Revels Office, and there is only an incomplete series of Audit Office Declared Accounts. 31 May 1572–31 October 1573 (TNA AO 1/2045, 1, 2 – original and draft); 28 February 1574–28 February 1575 (TNA AO 1/2045, 3, 4 – the first incomplete; the second a draft with different details). 14 February 1578 to

230

NOTES

31 October 1579 (TNA AO 1/2045, 5); 1 November 1580 to 31 October 1581 (TNA AO 1/2045, 6); 1 November 1581 to 31 October 1582 (TNA AO 1/2045, 7, printed in Feuillerat, Elizabeth, Table II , following p. 344); 1 November 1583 to 31 October 1584 (TNA AO 1/2045, 8, printed in Feuillerat, Elizabeth, Table III , following p. 360); 1 November 1584 to 31 October 1585 (TNA AO 1/2045, 9). Except for the period 1617–21, when no accounts were declared, either the Pipe Office parchment copy or the Audit Office paper copy of the Declared Accounts survive for every year between 1603 and 1638. Pipe Office series, 1603 to 1615 (TNA E351/2805, mm. 1–32); 1623 to 1638 (TNA E351/2805, mm. 33–52). Audit Office series, 1603 to 1607 (TNA AO 1/2046, 10–13); 1608 to 1617 (TNA AO 1/2046, 14–18 and TNA AO 1/2047, 19–22); 1621 to 1632 (TNA AO 1/2047, 23–6); 1635–8 (TNA AO 1/2047, 27). All are abstracted by Streitberger, Jacobean and Caroline Revels Accounts, and see pp. xxvi–xxix on the form and arrangement of these accounts. See also List and Index of the Declared Accounts from the Pipe Office and the Audit Office preserved in the Public Record Office (London, 1892–1912), 70, 262. 15 Except for the years 1618/19 and 1639/40, the Pipe Office copies of the Declared Accounts of the Office of the Works survive in a complete run from 1560 to 1639 (TNA E351/3200–72). The Audit office copies survive from between 1563 and 1640, omitting the years 1573/4, 1582/3, 1597/8, 1609/10 and 1632/3 (TNA AO 1/2411/1–5, 2412/6–10, 2413/11–15, 2414/16–20, 2415/21–5, 2416/26–30, 2417/31–5, 2418/36–8, 2419/39–41, 2420/42–4, 2421/45–7, 2422/48–50, 2423/51–3, 2424, 53–6, 2425/57–9, 2426/60–2, 2427/63–7, 2428/68–70, 2429/71). They are abstracted by R.F. Hill and F.P. Wilson, The Dramatic Records in the Declared Accounts of the Office of the Works, 1560–1640 (Oxford, 1977). See pp. xi–xv for a description of the form and arrangement of these accounts. Declared Accounts also survive for special projects such as the banqueting houses: 1559 banqueting house (TNA E351/3332; the Revels charges for which are found in the Revels Ledger book for 1559/60); 1572 banqueting house (TNA E351/3206; the Tents charges for which are found in the Revels Ledger book for 1572/3); 1581 banqueting house (TNA E351/3216); 1606 banqueting house (TNA E351/3240–3242); 1622 banqueting house (TNA E351/3256). 16 Except for the year 1576/7 the Pipe Office copies of the Declared Accounts of the Treasurer of the Chamber survive in a complete run from 1558/9 to 1626/7; 1558/9–1578/9 (TNA E351/541); 1579/80–1595/6 (TNA E351/542); 1596/7–1611/12 (TNA E351/543); 1612/13–1625/6 (TNA E351/544). The Audit Office copies of the accounts, except for the years 1562/3, 1569/70, 1573/4, 1601/2, 1626/7, 1631/2, 1636/7, 1640/1, survive in a complete run from 1558 to 1642 (AO 1/382). They are abstracted by Cook and Wilson, xvii–xxiv. 17 The Pipe Office Declared Accounts for the Office of the Tents, Hales, and Pavilions are TNA E351/2935–57; the Audit Office accounts are TNA AO 1/2292/1–23. The Pipe Office Declared Accounts for the Great Wardrobe are TNA E351/3033–102; the Audit Office accounts are TNA AO 1/2339–53. None of these accounts have been abstracted. See also List and Index of the Declared Accounts from the Pipe Office and the Audit Office, 73, 75–6, 277–8, 281–3.

NOTES

231

18 Guide to the Contents of the Public Record Office (London, 1963), i, 70–1. 19 Dietz, 109. 20 In his 1595 memorandum on this subject Fanshawe mentions that he first made this suggestion twenty years before. CSP, Domestic, Elizabeth, 1595–7, 153. T. Fanshawe, The Practice of the Exchequer Court (London, 1658), 83–4. 21 George, 53. 22 Peter Cunningham, Extracts From the Accounts of the Revels at Court, in the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth and King James I (London, 1842). 23 TNA E351/543, mm. 12b, 39b, 55a, 69a, abstracted by Cook and Wilson, 29–31. 24 TNA E351/542, m. 207b, abstracted by Cook and Wilson, 29. 25 Exchequer of Receipt, Warrants for Issue (TNA E404/131), printed by Feuillerat, 396, records that the payment was made based on ‘one lidgier booke subscribed by the officers of the same office [Revels] and remayning with the Auditours of our Imprestes’. 26 Privy Seal Books (Auditors), Vol. 2b, fol. 127v (TNA E403/2560), printed in Feuillerat, 397. 27 Order Books, Pells, Vol. 1, fols 112r, 159r; Vol. 2, fols 34r, 143r, 253r; Vol. 3, fol. 106r (TNA E403/2721–3), printed by Feuillerat, 398–403. 28 BL , Lansdowne MS 83, no. 63, printed in Feuillerat, 417–18. 29 E.K. Chambers, The Elizabethan Stage (Oxford, 1923), 90. W.R. Streitberger, The Masters of the Revels and Elizabeth I’s Court Theatre (Oxford, 2016), 192–9. 30 On the inventory of the Admiral’s company see Henslowe’s Diary, ed. R.A. Foakes and R.T. Rickert (Cambridge, 1961), 316–25; Henslowe Papers, Being Documents Supplementary to Henslowe’s Diary, ed. W.W. Greg (London, 1907), 113–23. On the money spent on costumes and properties for Worcester’s company, see Henslowe’s Diary, 213–25. 31 TNA E351/543, mm. 116a, abstracted by Cooke and Wilson, 39. 32 Cunningham, xlvii, 203–17. 33 Chambers, 136–7, who speculated that Bond had in mind mainly the play-list from the 1604/5 account, quotes from these notes. They were written in ink on blue paper, dated 3 May 1868, and were still bundled with the documents when I saw them in 1980 at the Public Record Office on Chancery Lane. See also The Thirtieth Annual Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records (London, 1869), xxiii. 34 Ernest Law, Some Supposed Shakespeare Forgeries (London, 1911). 35 Athenaeum, 1 (1911), 638–9; 2, 101–2, 130–1, 421–2; (1912), I, 469–70, 655; II , 143–4. Stopes admitted using the pseudonym in TLS (24 Feb. 1921, 128). 36 Ernest Law, More About Shakespeare Forgeries (London, 1913). 37 TLS, 2 Dec. 1920, 798; 24 Feb. 1921, 127–8 (Stopes). 23 Dec. 1920, 876; 30 Dec. 1920, 891; 27 Jan. 1921, 59–60 (Law). 10 Feb. 1921, 91 (Thompson).

232

NOTES

Stopes later set out her arguments in her volume Seventeenth Century Accounts of the Masters of the Revels (Oxford, 1922). 38 Samuel A. Tannenbaum, Shakespeare Forgeries in the Revels Accounts (New York, 1928). 39 Alfred E. Stamp, The Disputed Revels Accounts, reproduced in Collotype Facsimile, with a Paper read before the Shakespeare Association (Oxford, 1930). 40 TNA AO 3/908/13, fols 2a–b, transcribed in Streitberger, Malone Society Collections XIII, 8–9. 41 The rewards paid by the Treasurer of the Chamber are recorded in TNA E351/543, mm. 137b, 138b and Bodleian Library, Rawlinson MS A 204, fol. 252a–b, abstracted by Cook and Wilson, 41–2. Chambers, 140, speculates that Love’s Labour’s Lost was performed before the queen at Southampton’s or at Cranbourne’s house, in which case no reward would have been paid. 42 TNA E351/543, m. 132a, abstracted by Cooke and Wilson, 99. 43 TNA E351/543, m. 267b; AO 1/389/49; abstracted by Cooke and Wilson, 51–4. 44 TNA AO 3/908/14, fols 2a–b, transcribed in Streitberger, 48–9. 45 The Revels account identifies the company performing this play on 5 January as the Children of Whitefriars (TNA AO 3/908/14, fol. 2a, transcribed in Streitberger, 48). However, the Treasurer of the Chamber rewarded the King’s company for a play on this day, not the Children of Whitefriars (TNA E351/543, m. 267b, transcribed in Cooke and Wilson, 52). 46 The Chamber account (TNA E351/543, m. 260a, abstracted by Cook and Wilson, 107) documents the apparelling of the banqueting house. The Works account for 1611/12 (TNA E351/3246) is abstracted by Hill and Wilson, 23. 47 The 1610/11 and 1616/17 Ledger books of the Treasurer of the Chamber (Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson MSS A 204, A 240) provide dates for the performances in those years. The Ledger book for 1612/13 (Bodleian Library, Rawlinson MS A 239) provides both titles and dates for the plays that year. The documents are abstracted by Cook and Wilson, 49–51, 54–8, 62–8.

Chapter 8 1

Stratford-upon-Avon, Shakespeare Centre Library and Archive (SCLA ), ER 27/3.

2

Minutes and Accounts of the Stratford-upon-Avon Corporation, Volume I. 1553–1566, ed. Edgar I. Fripp and Richard Savage (Stratford-upon-Avon, 1921), 14–19.

3

SCLA , ER 27/2. For a transcript, see J.O. Halliwell-Phillipps, Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare, 2 (London, 1887), 19–24, which recites much of the earlier history of the tithes. See also Robert Bearman, Shakespeare’s Money (Oxford, 2016), 119–20.

4

SCLA , ER 27/1. For transcript, see Halliwell-Phillipps, Outlines, ii, 17–19.

NOTES

5

Bearman, Shakespeare’s Money, 114.

6

SCLA , BRU 15/1/94.

7

SCLA , ER 27/3.

8

SCLA , ER 27/3. ‘Increasing’ is likely a copyist’s error for ‘decreasing’ or the clause would make no sense.

9

Robert Bearman, ‘Thomas Greene: Stratford-upon-Avon’s Town Clerk and Shakespeare’s Lodger’, Shakespeare Survey, 65 (2013), 297–8.

233

10 Shakespeare and the Enclosure of the Common Fields of Welcombe, ed. C.M. Ingleby (Birmingham, 1885), 6. 11 He is described as such, by implication, in Lucas’s will: London, The National Archives, Kew (TNA ), PROB 11/146, 28v–29. 12 SCLA , BRU 8/5/15. 13 Bearman, ‘Thomas Greene’, 300–2. 14 Robert Bearman, Shakespeare in the Stratford Records (Stroud, 1994), 73–5. 15 SCLA , ER 1/76, f. 74; J.O. Halliwell-Phillipps, The Life of William Shakespeare (London, 1848), 175. 16 J.O. Halliwell-Phillipps, A Brief Handlist of the Collections Respecting the Life and Works of Shakespeare and the History and Antiquities of Stratford-uponAvon formed by the late Robert Bell Wheler (London, 1863), 61. 17 Mairi Macdonald, ‘A New Discovery about Shakespeare’s Estate in Old Stratford’, Shakespeare Quarterly, 45 (1994), 87–93. The 1542 deed gives a total of 105 acres for the holding but there is no doubt that it represents the 107 acres purchased by Shakespeare. 18 The full description of this section of the boundary reads: ‘to the Furlonge of Tyllage grownd there lyeing under Rowley and so along by the over end thereof to the Dyngles & so directly to the end of a quicksett hedge there lyeing between Trinity peece and Knightes Furlonge, and so from thence to a hade called the Slynge, and alsoe two earable Landes more lyeing in Forde Greene’: SCLA , BRU 2/2, 276–7 (with another copy at ER 1/1/68), printed in Shakespeare and the Enclosure of the Common Fields of Welcombe, ed. Ingleby, xii. 19 SCLA , BRU 15/7/11, reproduced in Shakespeare and the Enclosure of the Common Fields of Welcombe, ed. Ingleby, xiii. 20 For William Replingham, or Riplingham, of Great Harborough, see L.F. Salzman, ed., History of the County of Warwick: Volume 6, Knightlow Hundred (London, 1951), 99–100. He and his father had recently been involved in a controversial attempt to enclose land at Great Harborough. 21 SCLA , BRU 15/13/11. See also Shakespeare and the Enclosure of the Common Fields of Welcombe, ed. Ingleby, 2. 22 Shakespeare and the Enclosure of the Common Fields of Welcombe, ed. Ingleby, 3; SCLA , BRU 2/2, 275–7. 23 Bearman, Shakespeare’s Money, 89, 107–9, 142. 24 Shakespeare and the Enclosure of the Common Fields of Welcombe, ed. Ingleby, 3. 25 Ibid., 1.

234

NOTES

26 Ibid., 4. 27 In March 1613 he did buy the Blackfriars gatehouse but was £60 short of the £140 purchase price which was not paid until six months later. The property was also vested in trustees, including one of Shakespeare’s fellow members in the King’s Men, suggesting some compromise arrangement when Shakespeare surrendered his company shares: Bearman, Shakespeare’s Money, 166–70. 28 Made up of around £20–£25 from his 107 acres, £40 from the tithes, and £3–£5 from his Henley Street property (Bearman, Shakespeare’s Money, 86, 113–14, 120). 29 See Shakespeare’s Money, 162–4. 30 Halliwell-Phillipps, Outlines, ii, 25–31. 31 SCLA , BRU 15/7/13; BRU 2/2, 284. 32 SCLA , BRU 15/7/25; BRU 15/8/2, 182; BRU 15/7/16; BRU 2/2, 305. 33 SCLA , BRU 15/7/8. For the arbitrators’ report, see BRU 15/8/175, submitted to the justices of assize on 2 May 1617. 34 TNA , PC 2/30, 100, printed in Acts of the Privy Council, xxxvi, 370. 35 SCLA , ER 1/1/85. 36 TNA , PC 2/30, 127–8, printed in Acts of the Privy Council, xxxvi, 394–5. The Corporation also acquired, or were sent, a ‘true copy’ (‘vera copia’), now at SCLA , BRU 15/7/6.

Chapter 9 1

London, British Library (BL ), Lansdowne MS 721, ff. 2–6.

2

Stratford-upon-Avon, Shakespeare Birthplace Trust (SBT), DR 243/1 f. 46r.

3

Tom Arkell, ‘The Probate Process’ in When Death Do Us Part: Understanding and Interpreting the Probate Records of Early Modern England (Oxford, 2000), 9, 11; Karen Grannum and Nigel Taylor, Wills and Probate Records (London, 2009), 16.

4

Grannum and Taylor, Wills and Probate Records, 38.

5

Levi Fox, ‘An Early Copy of Shakespeare’s Will’, Shakespeare Survey, 4 (1951), 72.

6

BL , Lansdowne MS 721, ff. 2–6; Washington, DC , Folger Shakespeare Library, MS S.a.128.

7

Peter Cunningham, Handbook of London Past and Present (London, 1850), 409. My thanks to Amanda Bevan for drawing my attention to this reference.

8

Second Report of the Royal Commission on Public Records 2/2 (1914), 137. The oak and glass display frames and oak storage box are held in London, The National Archives (TNA ), PROB 1/4A.

9

The term ‘office copy’ is used to describe the will of Augustine Phillips by Honigmann and Brock. This will is also of interest because it provides an example of where the clerk has apparently mimicked the signature in a

NOTES

235

different hand from that of the main body of the text. See E.A.J. Honigmann and Susan Brock, eds, Playhouse Wills, 1558–1642 (Manchester, 1993). 10 For guidelines on how to search PROB 11 see The National Archives’ research guide ‘Wills 1384–1858’, www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-yourresearch/research-guides/wills-1384-1858/. 11 See Honigmann and Brock, Playhouse Wills, 108. 12 The dating is also problematic because 25 January and 25 March would have fallen in different regnal years; see Amanda Bevan and David Foster, ‘Shakespeare’s Original Will: A Re-reading, and a Reflection on Interdisciplinary Research within Archives’, Archives 51/132–3 (2016), 8–34. All extracts from Shakespeare’s will are taken from the transcription published as an appendix to Bevan and Foster’s essay. 13 ‘In the Name of God? Will-making and Faith in Early Modern England’, in G.H. Martin and Peter Spufford, eds, The Records of the Nation: The Public Record Office, 1838–1988: The British Record Society, 1888–1988 (Woodbridge, 1990). 14 E.K. Chambers, William Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and Problems, 2 (Oxford, 1930), 175. 15 Mark Eccles, Shakespeare in Warwickshire (Madison, 1961), 141. 16 Katherine Scheil, ‘His Wife Anne Shakespeare and the Hathaways’, in Paul Edmonson and Stanley Wells, eds, The Shakespeare’s Circle (Cambridge, 2015), 65–6. 17 Bevan and Foster, ‘Shakespeare’s Original Will’, 16. 18 Oliver Hahn, Emanuel Kindzorra and Ira Rabin, ‘The Study of Manuscripts: a Natural Scientists Approach’, Manuscripts Cultures, 5 (2012–13), 104. 19 Ibid. 20 Many thanks to Christina Duffy and her team at the British Library for taking and processing the images; and to the Kostas Ntanos, Nicola Fleming and Juergen Vervoorst of The National Archives’ Collection Care Department for organizing the imaging and for discussing the results so patiently with me. 21 Here I follow the numbering of the various inks given in Bevan and Foster. 22 My interpretation of the visibility of the inks on folio 2 differs slightly from Bevan and Foster’s.

Chapter 10 1

‘Shakespeare purchases the Blackfriars gatehouse: buyer’s copy of the bargain and sale’, Shakespeare Documented (2016), www.shakespearedocumented.org/ exhibition/document/shakespeare-purchases-blackfriars-gatehouse-buyerscopy-bargain-and-sale [accessed 31 January 2016]. Washington, DC , Folger Shakespeare Library, MS Z.c.22 (45) r. This document, and all the documents referred to in this conclusion, were consulted via ‘Shakespeare Documented’. Manuscript numbers are provided because of the added information they contain.

236

NOTES

2

Jeffrey Kahan, Reforming Shakespeare: The Story of a Theatrical Scandal (Bethlehem, 1998), 56.

3

Peter Ackroyd summarizes the Gatehouse’s connection to recusant Catholicism in Shakespeare: A Biography (496–7). The structure had many hiding places and doors that could be uses for clandestine entrances and quick exits, and the former owners admitted they were Catholic. Shakespeare leased rooms in the Gatehouse to the brother of a Catholic priest who himself was almost certainly Catholic. These were not the actions of a man who wished to distance himself from ‘papists’.

4

‘Shakespeare Purchases The Blackfriars Gatehouse: Vendor’s Copy of the Bargain and Sale’, Shakespeare Documented (2016), www.shakespeare documented.org/exhibition/document/shakespeare-purchases-blackfriarsgatehouse-vendors-copy-bargain-and-sale [accessed 31 January 2016]. Washington, DC , Folger Shakespeare Library, CLC /522/MS 03738r.

5

‘Enrolment of a Bargain and Sale Conveying a Property in Blackfriars from Henry Walker to Shakespeare’, Shakespeare Documented (2016), www. shakespearedocumented.org/exhibition/document/enrollment-bargain-and-saleconveying-property-blackfriars-henry-walker [accessed 1 February 2016]. London, The National Archives, C 54/2184, mem. 45.

6

‘Mortgage for the Blackfriars Gatehouse, Signed by Shakespeare’, Shakespeare Documented (2016), www.shakespearedocumented.org/exhibition/document/ mortgage-blackfriars-gatehouse-signed-shakespeare [accessed 31 January 2016]. London, British Library, Egerton MS 1787r.

7

Google, ‘Google Analytics’, 2017, https://analytics.google.com [accessed 22 May 2017].

8

Folger Shakespeare Library, ‘Bargain and Sale from Henry Walker, Citizen and Minstrel of London, to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon, Gent., and to His Trustees, William Johnson, Citizen and Vintner of London, John Jackson, and John Hemmyng of London, Gents.’, 2017, http://hamnet.folger. edu/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?BBID=227807 [accessed 22 May 2017].

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ackroyd, Peter, Shakespeare: The Biography (London, 2005). Adams, J.Q., ed., Dramatic Records of Sir Henry Herbert (New Haven, 1917). Ailes, Adrian, ‘ “A Herald, Kate? O put me in thy books”: Shakespeare, the Heralds’ Visitations and a New Visitation Address’, in Heralds and Heraldry in Shakespeare’s England (Donnington, 2014), 105–24. Ailes, Adrian, ‘Signets and Scutcheons: James I and the Union of the Crowns’, Coat of Arms, 1/1 (2009), 15–21. Alsop, J.D., ‘The Structure of Early Tudor Finance’, in Revolution Reassessed: Revisions in the History of Tudor Government and Administration (Oxford, 1986), 135–62. Anthony Wagner, Heralds of England: A History of the Office and College of Arms (London, 1967). Arkell, Tom, ‘The Probate Process’, in When Death Do Us Part: Understanding and Interpreting the Probate Records of Early Modern England (Oxford, 2000). Bawcutt, Nigel W., The Control and Censorship of Caroline Drama: The Records of Sir Henry Herbert, Master of the Revels, 1623–73 (Oxford, 1996). Bearman, Robert, ‘Captain James Saunders of Stratford-upon-Avon: a Local Antiquary’, Dugdale Society Occasional Papers, 33 (1990). Bearman, Robert, ‘Entry in the Bishop’s Register Concerning the Marriage of William Shakespeare and Anne Hathaway’, in Shakespeare Documented, 2016, www.shakespearedocumented.org/exhibition/document/entry-bishops-registerconcerning-marriage-william-shakespeare-and-anne-hathaway. Bearman, Robert, Shakespeare in the Stratford Records (Stroud, 1994). Bearman, Robert, Shakespeare’s Money (Oxford, 2016). Bearman, Robert, ‘Thomas Greene: Stratford-upon-Avon’s Town Clerk and Shakespeare’s Lodger’, Shakespeare Survey, 65 (2013), 290–305. Berry, Herbert, Shakespeare’s Playhouses (New York, 1987). Berry, Herbert, Glynne Wickham and William Ingram, English Professional Theatre 1530–1660 (Cambridge, 2000). Bevan, Amanda and David Foster, ‘Shakespeare’s Original Will: A Re-reading, and a Reflection on Interdisciplinary Research within Archives’, Archives, 51/13–23 (2016), 8–34. Birch, W. de G., ‘On the Great Seal of James I’, Journal of the British Archaeological Association (1870). Black, Henry Campbell, Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition (St. Paul, 1910). Boswell, Eleanore and E.K. Chambers, eds, ‘Dramatic Records: The Lord Chamberlain’s Office’, Malone Society Collections, 2/3 (1931), 321–416. Braddick, Mike, State Formation in Early Modern England, c. 1550–1700 (Cambridge, 2000). 237

238

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Broadway, Jan, Richard Cust and Stephen K. Roberts, eds, A Calendar of the Docquets of Lord Keeper Coventry 1625–1640 (London, 2004). Buchanan, Alexandrina, ‘Strangely Unfamiliar: Ideas of the Archive from Outside the Discipline’, in The Future of Archives and Recordkeeping: A Reader (London, 2011), 37–62. Carpenter, Christine, ‘Henry VI and the Deskilling of the Royal Bureaucracy’, in The Fifteenth Century IX: England and Continental Perspectives (Woodbridge, 2010), 1–37. Chambers, E.K., The Elizabethan Stage (Oxford, 1923). Chambers, E.K., William Shakespeare: A Study of the Facts and Problems (Oxford, 1930). Chambers, E.K. and W.W. Greg, eds, ‘Dramatic Records from the Patent Rolls: Company Licences’, Malone Society Collections, 1/3 (1909), 260–84. Cheesman, Clive, ‘Grants and Confirmations of Arms’, in Heralds and Heraldry in Shakespeare’s England (Donington, 2014), 68–104. Chrimes, S.B., Henry VII (Berkeley, 1972). Coleman, Christopher, ‘Artifice of Accident? The Reorganization of the Exchequer of Receipt c. 1554–1572’, in Revolutions Reassessed (Oxford, 1986), 163–98. Collier, Thomas Payne, The History of English Dramatic Poetry to the Time of Shakespeare and Annals of the Stage to the Restoration (London, 1831). Condon, Margaret, ‘God Save the King! Piety, Propaganda, and the Perpetual Memorial [of Henry VII ]’, in Westminster Abbey: The Lady Chapel of Henry VII (Woodbridge, 2003), 59–97. Cook, David and F.P. Wilson, Dramatic Records in the Declared Accounts of the Treasurer of the Chamber, 1558–1642 (Oxford, 1962). Cooper, Tarnya, Searching for Shakespeare (London, 2006). Crawforth, Hannah, Sarah Dustagheer and Jennifer Young, Shakespeare in London (London, 2015). Crum, Margaret, ed., First-Line Index of English Poetry, 1500–1800, in Manuscripts of the Bodleian Library (Oxford, 1969). Cunningham, Peter, Extracts From the Accounts of the Revels at Court, in the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth and King James I (London, 1842). Cunningham, Peter, Handbook of London Past and Present (London, 1850). Deng, Stephen, Coinage and State Formation in Early Modern English Literature (London, 2011). Dietz, Frederick C., ‘The Exchequer in Elizabeth’s Reign’, Smith College Studies in History, 8/2 (1923), 65–6. Dodd, Gwillym, ‘Trilingualism in the Medieval English Bureaucracy: The Use – and Disuse – of Languages in the Fifteenth-Century Privy Seal Office’, Journal of British Studies, 51/2 (2012), 253–83. Duncan-Jones, Katherine, Shakespeare: An Ungentle Life (London, 2014). Duncan-Jones, Katherine, Shakespeare: Upstart Crow to Sweet Swan, 1592–1623 (London, 2011). Duncan-Jones, Katherine, Ungentle Shakespeare: Scenes from his Life (London, 2001). Dutton, Richard, Shakespeare: Court Dramatist (Oxford, 2016). Eccles, Mark, Shakespeare in Warwickshire (Madison, 1961). Elton, G.R., The Tudor Constitution: Documents and Commentary (Cambridge, 1982).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

239

Fanshawe, T., The Practice of the Exchequer Court (London, 1658). Feuillerat, Albert, ‘Blackfriars Records’, Malone Society Collections, 2/1 (1913), 1–136. Feuillerat, Albert, Documents Relating to the Office of the Revels in the Time of Queen Elizabeth (Louvain, 1908). Feuillerat, Albert, Documents Relating to the Revels at Court in the Time of King Edward VI and Queen Mary (Louvain, 1914). Foakes, R.A., ed., Henslowe’s Diary (Cambridge, 2002). Fox, Levi, ‘An Early Copy of Shakespeare’s Will’, Shakespeare Survey, 4 (1951), 72. Freeman, Arthur and Janet Ing, John Payne Collier: Scholarship and Forgery in the Nineteenth Century (New Haven, 2004). Fripp, Edgar I. and Richard Savage, eds, Minutes and Accounts of the Stratfordupon-Avon Corporation, 1553–1566 (Oxford, 1921). George, M. Dorothy, ‘Notes on the Origin of the Declared Account’, The English Historical Review, 31 (1916), 46–7. Goldie, Mark, ‘The Unacknowledged Republic: Office-Holdings in Early Modern England’, in The Politics of the Excluded, c. 1500–1850 (Basingstoke, 2001). Grannum, Karen and Nigel Taylor, Wills and Probate Records (London, 2009). Gurr, Andrew, The Shakespeare Company 1594–1642 (Cambridge, 2004). Hall, Hubert, A Formula Book of English Official Historical Documents: Diplomatic Documents (Cambridge, 1908). Halliwell-Phillipps, J.O., A Brief Handlist of the Collections Respecting the Life and Works of Shakespeare and the History and Antiquities of Stratford-uponAvon formed by the Late Robert Bell Wheler (London, 1863). Halliwell-Phillipps, J.O., Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare (London, 1887). Halliwell-Phillipps, J.O., The Life of William Shakespeare (London, 1848). Hasler, P.W., ed., History of Parliament: The House of Commons, 1558–1603 (London, 1981). Hereford, C.H. and Percy and Evelyn Simpson, eds, Ben Jonson (Oxford, 1950). Higgs, Eddie, The Information State in England: The Central Collection of Information on Citizens since 1500 (Basingstoke, 2004). Hill, R.F. and F.P. Wilson, The Dramatic Records in the Declared Accounts of the Office of the Works, 1560–1640 (Oxford, 1977). Honan, Park, William Shakespeare: A Life (Oxford, 1998). Honigmann, E.A.J. and Susan Brock, Playhouse Wills, 1558–1642 (Manchester, 1993). Hunter, Joseph, New Illustrations of the Life, Studies, and Writings of Shakespeare (London, 1845). Ingleby, C.M., A Complete View of the Shakespeare Controversy Concerning the Authenticity and Genuineness of Manuscript Matter Affecting the Works and Biography of Shakespeare, Published by Mr J. Payne Collier as the Fruits of his Researches (London, 1861). Ingleby, C.M., ed., Shakespeare and the Enclosure of the Common Fields of Welcombe (Birmingham, 1885). Jacob, Giles, A New Law-Dictionary (London, 1729). Kahan, Jeffrey, Reforming Shakespeare: The Story of a Theatrical Scandal (Bethlehem, 1998). Kathman, David, ‘Citizens, Innholders, and Playhouse Builders, 1543–1622’, Research Opportunities in Renaissance Drama, 44 (2005), 38–64.

240

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kathman, David, ‘Shakespeare and Warwickshire’, in Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy (Cambridge, 2013), 121–33. Keenan, Siobhan, Travelling Players in Shakespeare’s England (Basingstoke, 2002). Kelly, L.G., ‘Hoby, Sir Thomas (1530–1566)’, in The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 2004), www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/16112. Kirk, Ernest F. and Richard E.G. Kirk, Returns of Aliens Dwelling in the City and Suburbs of London from the Reign of Henry VIII to that of James I (London, 1900–8). Lang, R.G., ed., Two Tudor Subsidy Assessment Rolls for the City of London: 1541 and 1582 (London, 1993). Laoutaris, Chris, Shakespeare and the Countess: The Battle that Gave Birth to the Globe (London, 2014). Larkin, J.F. and P.L. Hughes, eds, Stuart Royal Proclamations: Royal Proclamations of King James I 1603–1625 (Oxford, 1973). Law, Ernest, More about Shakespeare Forgeries (London, 1913). Law, Ernest, Some Supposed Shakespeare Forgeries (London, 1911). Lewis, Roland, The Shakespeare Documents: Facsimiles, Transliterations, Translations, & Commentary (Palo Alto, 1940). List and Index of the Declared Accounts from the Pipe Office and the Audit Office Preserved in the Public Record Office (London, 1892–1912). Loewenstein, David and Janel Mueller, eds, The Cambridge Companion to Early Modern Literature (Cambridge, 2003). MacCaffrey, Wallace T., ‘Carey, Henry, first Baron Hunsdon (1526–1596)’, in The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 2004), www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/4649. Macdonald, Mairi, ‘A New Discovery about Shakespeare’s Estate in Old Stratford’, Shakespeare Quarterly, 45 (1994), 87–93. Maddox, Thomas, Formulare Anglicanum (London, 1702). Manley, Lawrence and Sally-Beth MacLean, Lord Strange’s Men and their Plays (London, 2014). Martin, G.H. and Peter Spufford, eds, The Records of the Nation: The Public Record Office, 1838–1988: The British Record Society, 1888–1988 (Woodbridge, 1990). Maxwell-Lyte, H.C., Historical Notes on the Use of the Great Seal of England (London, 1926). Mill, Anna J. and E.K. Chambers, eds, ‘Dramatic Records of the City of London: The Repertories, Journals, and Letter Books’, Malone Society Collections, 2/3 (1931), 285–320. Milton, Anthony, ‘William Laud’, in The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 2004), www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/16112. Nelson, Alan H., ‘Inquisition Post Mortem of Thomas Brend, Showing Shakespeare and Others Occupying the Globe Playhouse’, in Shakespeare Documented (2016), www.shakespearedocumented.org/lease-site-globeplayhouse-1599. Nelson, Alan H., ‘London Lay Subsidy Default Roll, St. Helen’s, Bishopsgate, Naming William Shakespeare as a Householder in 1597’, in Shakespeare Documented (2016), www.shakespearedocumented.org/exhibition/document/ london-lay-subsidy-default-roll-st-helen-s-bishopsgate-naming-william. Orgel, Stephen and Roy Strong, The Theatre of the Stuart Court (Berkeley, 1973).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

241

Orlin, Lena Cowen, ‘Anne by Indirection’, Shakespeare Quarterly, 65/4 (2014), 421–54. Phillimore, W.P.W., ed., An Index to Bills of Privy Signet Commonly Called Signet Bills, 1584 to 1596 and 1603 to 1624 with a Calendar of Writs Privy Seal 1601 to 1603 (London, 1890). Richardson, W.C., ed., The Report of the Royal Commission of 1552 (Morgantown, 1974). Richardson, W.C., Tudor Chamber Administration (Baton Rouge, 1952). Robbins, R.H., ‘Browne, Sir Thomas (1605–1682)’, in The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 2004), www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/16112. Rylands, William Harry, Grantees of Arms Named in Docquets and Patents to the End of the Seventeenth Century (London, 1915). Salzman, L.F., ed., History of the County of Warwick: Knightlow Hundred (London, 1951). Scheil, Katherine, ‘His Wife Anne Shakespeare and the Hathaways’, in The Shakespeare’s Circle (Cambridge, 2015), 65–6. Schoenbaum, Samuel, William Shakespeare: A Documentary Life (Oxford, 1975). Schoenbaum, Samuel, William Shakespeare: Records and Images (Oxford, 1981). Schrickx, Willem, ‘ “Pickleherring” and English Actors in Germany’, Shakespeare Survey, 36 (1983), 135–48. Scott-Giles, C.W., Shakespeare’s Heraldry (London, 1950). Second Report of the Royal Commission on Public Records, 2/2 (1914). Slack, Paul, ‘Government and Information in Seventeenth-Century England’, Past and Present, 184 (2004), 33–68. Stamp, Alfred E., The Disputed Revels Accounts, Reproduced in Collotype Facsimile, with a Paper Read Before the Shakespeare Association (Oxford, 1930). Stopes, C.C., Burbage and Shakespeare’s Stage (London, 1913). Stopes, C.C., Seventeenth Century Accounts of the Masters of the Revels (Oxford, 1922). Streitberger, W.R., Court Revels, 1485–1559 (Toronto, 1994). Streitberger, W.R., Jacoban and Caroline Revels Accounts, 1604–1642 (Oxford, 1986). Streitberger, W.R., The Master of the Revels and Elizabeth I’s Court Theatre (Oxford, 2016). Summit, Jennifer, Memory’s Library: Medieval Books in Early Modern England (Chicago, 2008). Tannenbaum, Samuel A., Shakespeare Forgeries in the Revels Accounts (New York, 1928). Tannenbaum, Samuel A., Shakspere’s Coat-of-Arms (New York, 1908). The Thirtieth Annual Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records (London, 1869). Thrush, Andrew, and John Ferris, eds, History of Parliament: House of Commons 1604–1629 (Cambridge, 2010). Tucker, Stephen, The Assignment of Arms to Shakespere and Arden 1596–1599 (London, 1884). Wallace, C.W., ‘New Discoveries: Shakespeare as a Man among Men: The First Complete and Exclusive Account of the Finding of Hitherto Unknown Documents’, Harper’s Monthly Magazine, 120 (1910), 489–510.

242

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Wallace, C.W., ‘Shakespeare and his London Associates, as Revealed in Recently Discovered Documents’, University Studies of the University of Nebraska, 10/4 (1910), 261–360. Wallace, C.W., The Evolution of the English Drama up to Shakespeare, with a History of the First Blackfriars Theatre (Berlin, 1912). Wallace, C.W., ‘The First London Theatre: Materials for a History,’ Nebraska University Studies, 13 (1913), 1–297. Wallace, C.W., ‘Three London Theatres of Shakespeare’s Time’, University Studies of the University of Nebraska, 11/4 (1909), 287–342. Walsham, Alexandra, The Social History of the Archive: Record-keeping in Early Modern Europe (Oxford, 2016). Westervelt, Theron, ‘Warrants under the Signet in the Reign of Edward IV ’, Historical Research, 83/222 (2010), 602–16. Wickham, Glynne, Herbert Parry and William Ingram, eds, English Professional Theatre, 1530–1660 (Cambridge, 2000). Williams, Penry, The Tudor Regime (Oxford, 1979). Yale, Elizabeth, ‘The History of Archives: The State of the Discipline’, Book History, 18 (2015), 332–59. Yeandle, Laetitia and W.R. Streitberger, ‘The Loseley Collection of Manuscripts at the Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington, DC ’, Shakespeare Quarterly, 38 (1987), 201–8.

INDEX

A Bad beginning Makes a Good End, 163 A King and No King, 153, 163 All Fools, 152 Arden, Mary, 9, 34, 41 Arden, Robert, 37, 41, 115, 213 Armin, Robert, 116, 132, 135, 136 Astley, Sir John, 147 Augmentations, Court of, 145 Baker, Daniel, 79, 92, 93, 94, 100, 104 Barker, Anthony, 166 Bears and Mastiffs, Master of, 146 Beaumont, Francis, 153, 163 Bendish, Sir Thomas, 220 Benedick and Beatrice (Much Ado About Nothing), 163 Bennett, Leonard, 79, 93, 100, 101 biparts, 109–12 Bishopton (Stratford-upon-Avon), 166, 167 Blackfriars Gatehouse, 19, 20, 113, 114, 234, 235, 236 Blackfriars Playhouse, 23–31, 131–3, 137, 210 Blackley, Lionel, 220 Bond, Edward A., 151 Boys of the Chapel, 152 Brend, Sir Nicholas, 111, 136 Brooke, Ralph, 33, 42–3, 51, 63, 75, 211, 212, 213, 214, 216 Bryan, George, 150 Buc, Sir George, 147, 228 Burbage, Cuthbert, 111, 135–40 Burbage, James, 13, 132, 135 Burbage, Richard, 111, 115, 131, 135, 137–9, 195 Burghley, see Cecil, William

Camden, William, 41, 42, 48, 49, 213, 215, 220 Cardenio, 163 Carey, George, Lord Hunsdon, 28, 30, 214 Carey, Henry, Earl of Hunsdon, 28 Carey, Henry, Lord Hunsdon, 28 Cawarden, Sir Thomas, 145 Cecil, William, 1st Baron Burghley, Lord Treasurer, 5, 24, 149, 208, 224 Chamber, Treasurer of the, 146, 148–53, 163, 164, 225, 229, 230, 232, 238 chancery, 17, 18, 115, 119, 120, 124–7, 176, 180, 181, 200, 209, 224, 225, 231 Chapman, George, 152 Children of the Queen’s Revels, 21, 132–3, 152, 163, 226 Children of Whitefriars, 232 chirography, 109–14 Coke, Edward, 176–8 ‘Cokle le Moyne’ (The Dutch Courtesan), 163 Collier, John Payne, 21, 24, 132–41, 152, 213, 225, 226, 238, 239 Combe, John, 75, 112, 173, 183 Combe, Thomas, 81, 173–5 Combe, William 173, 177, 178 Cooke, John, 153 Cooke, Robert, 220 Cowley, Richard, 115, 135, 150 Crooke, John, 29–30, 210 Crowne, William, 220 Cunningham, Peter, 151, 231, 234 Cupid’s Revenge, 153, 163 David, Robert, 220 Dethick, William, 14, 34–73, 211–21 243

244

INDEX

Deveureux, Robert, Earl of Essex, 216 Digby, George, 166 docquet book, 123–5, 223, 224 Drayton, Michael, 63, 221 Duke of Anjou, see Valois, Francis Dungan, Richard, 47, 50, 60, 219 Dungan, William, of Ireland, 219 Egerton, Stephen, 14, 30, 31, 210 Elizabeth I, 2, 5, 8, 10, 42, 117, 127, 129, 143, 145, 149, 153, 208, 231, Elkin, William, of London, 216, 218 Enclosure, 21, 166–78, 233, 234 Every Man in His Humor, 152 Every Man out of His Humor, 74, 152 Exchequer, Auditors of the, 145, 147 Fanshawe, Thomas, 148, 231, 239 Ferrers family, 46–7 Feuillerat, Albert, 133, 152, 226, 228–31, 239 Field, Richard, 28, 29, 31 finalis concordia, 110–14 First Fruits and Tenths, Court of, 59, 145 Fletcher, John, 153, 163 Folger Shakespeare Library, 3–4, 8, 19, 45, 51, 52, 55, 63, 73, 112, 114, 181, 184, 200, 208, 209, 213–14, 218, 222, 228, 234, 236, 242 foot, 15–16, 110 General Surveyors, Court of, 145 Gibson, Robert, of Beckham Hall, Norfolk, 216 Globe theatre, 75, 111, 174 Gore, Samuel, 220 Greene, Thomas, 80, 83, 96, 106, 131, 134, 167, 169–74, 233, Greville, Sir Edward, 80, 83, 87, 91, 106 Guildhall Library, 113 Hall, John, of Wilsborough, Kent, 174, 180 Halliwell-Phillips, James Orchard, 84–6, 90, 92, 93, 105, 107, 132–3, 225–6, 232, 233, 234, 239, Hamlet, 23, 75

Harborne, Piers, 59 Harborne, William, 59, 74 Harley family, 46–7 Hayward, Henry, of Tandridge, Surrey, 216 Heminges, John, 111, 115, 136–9, 195, 236 Henry V, 153 Henry VII, 2, 34, 207 Henslowe, Philip, 2, 210 Herbert, Henry, Earl of Pembroke, 60, 117 Herbert, Sir Henry, 147, 228, 237 Heywood, Thomas, 152, 153 Hickman, Henry, 50, 214, 216 Hooker, Robert, 214 How to Learne of a Woman to Woo, 152 Hubaud, John, 166 Hubaud, Ralph, 166 Hymen’s Holiday, 153 indenture, 19, 109–15, 200, 217, 222 James I, 16, 42, 62, 115, 117, 126, 128, 143, 149, 150, 151, 210, 215, 224, 229, 231, Johnson, William, 114, 132, 236 Jones, John, 61 Jonson, Ben, 1 Julius Caesar, 129, 163 Juxon, William, 24 Kemp, William, 111, 132, 134, 136 King Lear, 23 Lady Elizabeth’s Players, 153 Laud, William, 24, 209, Law, Ernest, 152, 231, Lawrence, Thomas, goldsmith, 50, 135, 219, 226, 240 Le Neve, Peter, 51, 52 Lee, Richard, 29, 61 Lee, Robert, of London, 216 Lewis, Roland B., 112, 222 London Metropolitan Archives, 3, 19, 75, 113, 200, 209, 222 Lord Chamberlain’s Men, 10, 16–17, 24, 28, 111, 116–21, 125–6, 129, 134, 138, 151, 163

INDEX

‘Love Lies a Bleeding’ (Philaster), 163 Love’s Labour’s Lost, 10 Lucas, John, 53, 56 Lucas, Thomas, 170 Macbeth, 23 Mainwaring, Arthur, 173 Malone, Edmond, 78, 90, 107, 170 Marston, John, 163, 214 Masque of Blackness, 153 Mauley, Piers, 43–7, 217 Measure for Measure, 19, 153 Middleton, Thomas, 153 More, Sir William, 145 Moulesworth, Mr., 50 Much Ado About Nothing, 163 Murgatrod, Michael, 50, 216 Nash, Anthony, 82, 170, 175 New Place, 15–16, 20, 75, 111, 114, 117, 174 Niccols, Richard, 153, 163 Norton, Bonham, 61 Norton, William, 56, 60, 216 Olney, Michael, 170 Othello, 23, 153, 163 Parr, John, embroiderer to Queen Elizabeth, 60 patent rolls, 17, 126–33, 226, 238 Paulet, William, 1st Marquess of Winchester, Lord Treasurer, 145 Peake, Thomas, 216 Perne, Andrew, 220 Perry, Richard, 220 Pettous, Thomas, of Norwich, 216, 217 Philipott, John, 220 Phillips, Augustine, 111, 115, 135, 136, 140, 181, 182, 220, 234 Phillips, William, of London, merchant taylor, 220 Pope, Thomas, 111, 132, 136–7, 140, 150 Prests, Auditors of the, 145–9 Prince’s Players, 153, 163 Privy Seal Office, 17, 115–25, 208, 223, 224, 238

245

Queen’s Remembrancer, 147–9 Quiney, Adrian, 81, 83, 85, 92, 93, 94, 97, 99, 101, 102 Quiney, Elizabeth, 81, 84 Quiney, Richard, 16, 77–105, 170, 205 Raymond Duke of Lyons, 163 Read, John, of London, 220 Replingham, William, 165, 169, 173, 233 Revels, Office of the, 228, 229 Rossillon, Countess, 23, 31 Rowley, William, 153 Russell, Countess Elizabeth, 13, 22–31 Sanderson, William, of London, 56 Saunders, James, 89, 90, 107, 170, 171 Savage, Richard, 86, 90, 232 Schoenbaum, Samuel, 33, 112, 114 Seale, Robert, 220 Segar, William, 62, 211, 215 Shakespeare, John, 9, 33–42, 47, 51, 57–61, 73, 75, 105, 173, 212 Shakespeare, Judith, 184 Sheldon, Ralph, 57 Signed Bill (or Warrant for King’s Bill), 119–20, 224 Signet Bill (or Warrant for the Privy Seal), 17, 120–4, 223 Signet Office, 17, 115–25, 133, 208, 223, 224 Simings, John, 220 Smith, Sir Thomas, 74, 110, 222 Smith, William, 14, 63–73, 220 St Ann Blackfriars, 23, 28–30 Stamp, Alfred E., 152, 232 Star Chamber, 2, 3, 62, 214 Stopes, Charlotte C., 6, 152, 231, 232 Sturley, Abraham, 77, 80–8, 91–3, 98–101 Tannenbaum, Samuel A., 69, 152, 212, 221, 232 The Alchemist, 163 The Almanak, 153 The Captain, 163

246

INDEX

‘The City Gallant’ (Greene’s Tu Quoque), 153 ‘The Hotspur’ (1 Henry IV), 163 The Knaves, Parts 1 and 2, 163 The Knot of Fools, 163 The Maid’s Tragedy, 163 The Merchant of Venice, 153 The Merry Devil of Edmondton, 163 The Merry Wives of Windsor, 10, 153 ‘The Moor of Venice’ (Othello), 163 The Nobleman, 153, 163 ‘The Play of Errors’ (The Comedy of Errors), 153 ‘The Proud Mayds Tragedie’ (A Chaste Maid in Cheapside), 153 The Rape of Lucrece, 153 The Silver Age, 153 The Spanish Maze, 152 The Tempest, 153, 163 The Twin’s Tragedy, 153, 163 The Widow’s Tears, 163 The Winter’s Tale, 153, 163 Thompson, Allen, of London, 220 Thwaites, William, of London, 216 tithes, 21, 81, 165–70, 174, 232, 234 Tourner, Cyril, 153, 163 ‘Tu Quoque’ (Greene’s Tu Quoque), 153 Tylllney, Edmond, 150, 229

Underhill, Hercules, 15–16, 111 Underhill, William, 111 Valois, Francis, Duke of Alençon and Anjou, 153 Verney, Richard, 178 Vincent, Augustine, 57 Vincent, John, 57 Walford, William, 92, 94, 175 Walker, Henry, 19, 113, 209, 236 Wallace, Charles William, 18, 209 Waller, John, 151 Wards and Liveries, Court of, 145 Warner, Sir George, 152 Warrant for the Great Seal, 17, 124, 126 Washington, Laurence, 220 Welcombe (Stratford-upon-Avon), 82, 166–77, 233, 239 Wheler, Robert Bel, 84, 233, 239 Whitehall Wardrobe, Keeper of, 144 Whitfield, Ralph, 220 Whitmore, William, 216 Williams, Rowland, 220, 223, 224 Williamson, Sir Joseph, 39 Wilmcote, 173 Woolger, Mr., 46–7, 50 Wythens, Robert, 50, 216