SHAKESPEARE'S

SON-IN-LAW
JOHN HALL
By ARTHU.R GRAY, M.A.
Master of Jesus College, Cambridge
CAMBRIDGE
W. HEFFER & SONS LTD.
1
939
'"
>fSW
First Published in 193 9
PRINTED AND BOUND IN GREAT BRITAIN AT THE WORKS
W, HIEP'FER a SONS LTD., CAMBRIDGE, ENGLAND
Shakespeare s Son-in-Law
O
N June 5, 1607, John Hall, gentleman, was
married at Stratford church, to Susanna Shake-
speare.
Susanna, his elder daughter, was evidently Shake-
speare's favourite. The ample provision which he
made in his will for her and her husband and issue is in
marked contrast with the hesitating bequests which
he makes to her sister, Judith, and her husband,
Thomas Quiney, who in his later life proved so un-
satisfactory. John and Susanna were executors of
Shakespeare's will, and to them he devised his freehold
properties in London and at Stratford. Their only
child, Elizabeth, was born in February, 1 6o8.
"Something there was of Shakespeare," perhaps, in
John, as well as in Susanna. We should like to know
the man who, in h1s medical capacity, cared for the poet
in his retirement, and must have taken daily part in
conversation with him, and conceivably, imparted
something of his experience and character to the pro-
duction of the plays. Just possibly, some likeness of
him may be intended in Cerimon, the benevolent
physician of Pericles (I 6o8), but the portrait has no
individual features. If little positive evidence be
forthcoming of the relation between the two men
during the years when both were living at Stratford, it
might be expected that from documents some evidence
might be forthcoming to satisfy some obvious questions
about Hall. What of his family and birthplace, his
I
SHAKESPEARE'S SON-IN-LAW
education, when did he settle at Stratford, and what
induced him to start a medical practice there?
In the amplitude of its records concerning the lives
and conditions of even its least distinguished citizens,
Stratford has perhaps as much to tell as any town in
England in the period I 590- I 6 3 5. And Hall was
by no means among the least distinguished. In the
town and neighbourhood his reputation stood almost
as high as Shakespeare's. And what does Stratford
tell of the one man more than the other?
Extracted from a bewildering heap of pure guess-
work the following facts are all that Sir E. K. Chambers
could unearth when he wrote his biography of William
Shakespeare in I 930. John Hall was somehow con-
nected with Acton, Middlesex, where he owned a
house, which he bequeathed to his daughter, Elizabeth.
He was elected in his absence and without his consent
to the Town Council of Stratford, and was displaced
for non-attendance. His age at death (I 6 3 s), as
stated on his monument, was "6o," and he himself
notes that in August, 1632, he was about 57 He was
described as M.A. (in Artibus Magister). As Strat-
fordian biographers naturally postulated that a West
Country man would go to the nearer University, it
was assumed that he was a certain John Haule who
graduated M.A. at Oxford in I 598 and was of
Worcestershire. But the arms of the Worcestershire
family were not those displayed on the Hall monument
at Stratford Church. Sir E. K. Chambers prudently
remarks "the name is too common to make any con-
clusion more than tentative." In the register of
John Hall's burial he is described as medicus peritissimus,
SHAKESPEARE'S SON-IN-LAW
3
"a physician greatly skilled." So far as is known he
had no licence to practise medicine at Stratford or
elsewhere.
But there exists a notebook, written in Hall's hand
and now in the British Museum, of cases attended by
him in his later years, which proves that he had a wide
practice and many distinguished patients. After
Hall's death this book fell into the hands of a pro-
vincial physician, J ames Cooke, who edited it, with
additions of his own, as Observations of English Bodies,
I 6 3 7. One of his notes is that Hall had travelled and
"was acquainted with the French tongue." The
significance of the remark is illustrated by the dis-
coveries made by Mr. I. E. Gray and published by
him in the Genealogical Magazine of September, I 936.
The evidence collected by Mr. Gray is attested by
contemporary documents, collected from many sources,
and leaves no question that the subject of his enquiry
was indeed the John Hall who married Shakespeare's
daughter.
The key that opened the enquiry came from an
altogether neglected quarter. In the invaluable
Alumni Cantabrigienses of the late Dr. John Venn, a
register of admissions and degrees from the earliest
times, occur the following notes :
HALL, DivE. Matric. pens. from QuEENs', Mich. I 589. Of
Bedfordshire.
HALL, JoHN. Matric. pens. from QuEENs', Mich. I 589. Of
Bedfordshire. B.A. I 593-4, M.A. I 597, as Hale.
In college admission books the county stated is in-
variably that of birth. The fact that both brothers
were pensioners indicates that they were of some social
+
SHAKESPEARE'S SON-IN-LAW
standing. Of Dive, more will presently be said. The
remarkable thing in his admission is his Christian
name. It is the surname of a well-known family
living at Bromham in Bedfordshire. Dive may have
been related-possibly a god-son of either Sir Lewis
Dive (d. 1592) or of Sir John Dive (d. 16o7).
The clue offered by John Hall's ownership of the
house at Acton of course had to be followed up. But
the parish register of that place contains no entries of
Halls who could reasonably be connected with the
Bedfordshire family. A flood of light on their origin,
occupations and interests comes from the will of a
certain William Hall "of Acton in the Countye of
M1dd.," dated December I 2, I 607. The testator
was buried at Acton on the following December 2 I.
WILL OF WILLIAM HALL OF ACTON,
MIDDLESEX, GENT.
DATED I 2 DEcEMBER I 6o7
(P.C.C.)
In dei nomine Amen, I William Hall of Acton in the Countye
of Midd. sicke in bodye but of a perfect memorye and
understandmg I thanke god Do ordayne, constitute and make this my
last will and testament in manner and forme folowing. First I
bequeathe my bodye to be buryed in the churche of Acton if I dye
there or in the churche elswhere. My soule I bequeathe unto the
Almightie god whoe hathe created me and gave his sonne to redeeme
me and _therfore he is wholly myne by whose deathe passion and
resurrectiOn I only truste to be saved, and by noe meritte of myne
owne, for he hathe given me of his spiritt sufficiently to call me to
repentaunce for all my former synnes, and hathe given me grace
steedfastly to beleve in hym and unto suche he hathe promised no
condempation but life everlasting saying: Whosoever repenteth and
beleeveth in me I will give hym life everlasting, thoroughe which
SHAKESPEARE'S SON-IN-LAW
5
promise my faithe ys fortified and confirmed. For the whiche I give
hym humble thankes and so I take the whole Cupp of Salvation of
hym with thankes gyving for ever and ever Amen. Concerning my
earthlie goodes I ordayne as foloweth. As concerning my eldest son ne
Dive forasmuche as he requyred his portion longe agoe the whiche ye
receyved and bound hym selfe in a bond to demaunde any more as
appeareth by his bond obligatorye in this house, as allso the many
unkyndnes which he showed unto me heretofore and especially synce
the deathe of his mother; Notwithstanding in regard that he is my
sonne I bequeathe unto hym as a legacey fortie shillings. Item I give
unto the poore of Acton fortye shillings to be distributed by the church-
wardens and cunstables of the parishe of Acton equally where most
neede ys. Item I give and bequeathe to my daughter Elizabeth Sutton
tenne poundes conditionallye that she give the sayed tenne poundes
with her sonne William Sutton to bynde hym an apprentise; Because
they have kept hym home at his owne will and would not suffer hym
to profitt while he mighte, and nowe of necessitie is constreyned to be
put an apprentise because he will not give hym selfe to any other
profession. Furthermore I give and bequeathe unto my sayed
Daughter Sutton twelve poundes conditionally that she shall distribute
yt equally betwene her children called Randall, Mary and Elizabeth
at the ages of eightene yeres ould or at the dayes of theire marriage,
whiche of bothe shall first come. And yf it please god to take any
of theise before the sayed time theire portion so dying shall remayne
to the rest lyvinge equally distributed. And in defaulte of them all
before the forsayed tyme: Then that yt should all remayne whollie to
William Sutton her eldest sonne. And in his defaulte to remayne
whollie to my daughter Welles children successively. Item I give and
bequeathe to my daughter Sara Sheppard fiftie poundes to be receyved
and had from my executors within the space of one halfe yere after
the deathe of her husband that now ys to witte William Shepparde
Doctor of phisicke. Item I give and bequeathe to my daughter
Martha Barlowe nowe wife of Benjamyn Barlowe, one hundred and
twentie poundes, to be receyved from the executor or executors within
the space of one quarter of a yere after the deathe of her said husbande
Benjamyne Bar!owe. Item I give and bequeathe to my sister Cicely
Carter twentie nobles to be payed unto her within one quarter of a
yere after my deceasse. Item I give and bequeathe to my sister
Knighte her sonne, twentye nobles, to be payed unto hym within one
quarter of a yere after my deceasse. Furthermore I give and bequeathe
unto my man Mathewe Morris all my bookes of Astronomye and
6 SHAKESPEARE'S SON-IN-LAW
Astrologie whatsoever conditionally that yf my sonne John do intende
and purpose to laboure studdye and endevor in the sayed Arte, that
the sayd Mathewe should instruct hym in consideracon of his Mr. his
benevolence and free guift. Further I give and bequeathe unto the
sayed Mathewe Morris fower poundes of good and lawfull money to
be payed unto the sayed Mathewe within three moneths after my
deceasse and the foresayed bookes presently after my Deceasse.
Furthermore I give and bequeathe to my mayde Anne Gouldstone that
nowe ys thirtie shillings to be payed unto her within one moneth after
my deceasse. All the rest of my goodes, debts as well by bonde due
as otherwise and all houses, landes, leasses, tenements or whatsoever
myne or due unto me, I give and bequeathe unto my sonne John Hall
whome I make my sole executor of this my last will and testament
condicionally that the sayed John shall dischardge paye or cause to be
executed, discharged and payed the abovenamed legaceys according
to the true intent will and meaning of me the Testator, as allso to
dischardge my funerall expenses and debts. In witnesse whereof I
have putt to my hande uppon the twelveth daye of December in the
f}'veth yere of the Raign of James by the grace of god kinge of England,
France and Ireland and of Scotlande the one and fortithe and in the
yere of our Lord god 1 6o7. Provided further that yf my sayed sonne
John do refuse to be executor and to paye the legaceys abovewritten
That then my sonne Dive should take uppon hym the foresayed
execution of my testament; my will ys paying unto my sayed sonne
John fiftie poundes togither with all my bookes of phisicke, to be
payed unto the sayd John within one or twoe moneths after my deceasse.
Further I give and bequeathe all my bookes of Alchimye unto my
foresaid servaunt Mathewe Morris, to be payed and given presently
after my deceasse unto hym. Allso I ordeyne and constitute that my
executor whosoever shall paye or cause to be payed all my debts
whatsoever and execute and contente all Demaundes whatsoever.
Moreover yf neither of may sayed sonnes will be executor: then my
will ys that my sonne Michaell Welles should be executor paying to
my son John and the Rest the aforesaid Legaceys before rehersed
together with my Debt and funerall expenses. Allso my will ys that
yf neither of my Sonnes be executor, that then my sonne Sutton and
my sonne W elles should be Overseers. And yf my sonne W elles be
executor that then my sonne John Hall and my sonne Sutton should
be overseers. In witnesse whereof (That this is my true and laste will
and testament) I have putt to my hande and seale the Daye and yere
abovewritten per me Guilielmum Hall.
~ ... ,.... .c
~ - '11 .....
I
SHAKESPEARE'S SON-IN-LAW
7
John Hall was clearly not present when the will was
drawn; otherwise the doubt as to his acceptance of
the executorship would not have arisen. He had been
married to Susanna Shakespeare in the previous June
and, no doubt, professional duties kept him at Strat-
ford, just as, at a later time, they prevented his
attendance at meetings of the Town Council. He
proved the will on December 24, I 607, but declined
to act as executor, and in accordance with the will,
his brother, Dive, acted in his room. Dive died at
Acton, apparently in his brother's house, in I 626,
and by his nuncupatory will left all he had to his
relation, Michael W elles. In I 6 2 9 there was
Chancery litigation between John Hall, of Stratford,
gent., and Michael W elles, of Glatton, Hunts. Hall
states that he renounced the executorship of his
father's will "in regard it would be a hindrance in his
profession of being a physician."
From the particular mention in his will of "books of
physic" it would appear that William Hall was a
practitioner in medicine at Acton, then a suburban
village within the jurisdiction of the Royal College of
Physicians. Whether he had a medical degree or was
licensed by that body is unknown. The value which
he attached to his books of Astrology, Astronomy and
Alchymy proves that he had been trained in a school of
medicine which was old-fashioned in I 6o7 but had been
highly popular forty years earlier, when the great
physician, J erome Cardan, associated those sciences
with his medical teaching. We gather from his will
that he was a convinced Protestant.
Dive and John were apparently his only sons
8 SHAKESPEARE'S SON-IN-LAW
surviving in 1607. He had several married daughters
who, with their husbands and families, are mentioiJed
in the will. His most notable son-in-law was William
Sheppard, "doctor of physick," a Buckinghamshire
man, who was an Eton Scholar of King's College,
Cambridge, in I S82, B.A. I S86-7, M.D. c. I S98,
Fellow of King's, I ss S-I S99 His family had
property at Maulden, Beds. Of the rest, Michael
W elles was a Bedfordshire man, related to the Halls,
and mentioned in the will of John Hall's daughter,
Elizabeth, Lady Bernard.
The most interesting name in William's will is that
f " " " " M tth M . t o my man or my servant, a ew orrts, o
whom he leaves his books of Astronomy and Alchymy
with the hesitating condition that if his son, John,
intends to study "that art," Morris is to give him
instruction. Morris, it would seem, is employed in
William's profession as dispenser or secretary.
Whether he was at Acton in December, I 6o7, is not
clear. What is evident is that shortly afterwards he
was at Stratford with John. There, in I 6 I 3, he
married Elizabeth Rogers, and had children Susanna,
John, Elizabeth, and Matthew. The first three
names suggest intimacy with the family of Shakes-
peare's son-in-law. Furthermore, he is brought into
direct connection with Shakespeare in an indenture of
I 6 I 8, relating to the transference of Shakespeare's
house in Blackfriars to the use of Susanna Hall, to
which Matthew IVlorrys "of Stratford on Avon" is
a party.
Mr. Irvine Gray's investigation of Bedforshire
parish registers has brought to light complete evidence
SHAKESPEARE'S SON-IN-LAW
9
of the relationship of the Hall and W elles families.
His attention has been concentrated on the two small
villages of Carlton and Chellington, near Harrold in
Bedfordshire. At a remote period the two benefices
were united, but the registers are distinct. From
I S77 to his death in I 642 the rector was Thomas
W elles, whose tombstone in Carlton church records
that he died "Aged about a Hundred." His son,
Michael, born in IS 7 8, married a daughter of William
Hall, in whose will he is proposed as executor in case
Dive and John decline to act. Michael W elles had a
son, Thomas, and in her will (1 669) Elizabeth Hall,
Lady Bernard, bequeaths so to "my cousin, Thomas
Welles of Carlton, Beds., gent." The registers of
either parish contain many entries of the W elles
family, and two inscriptions of the Carlton branch of
it occur at so distant a place as Elm, Cambs., in I 694
and I7I3. '
The Carlton register witnesses that William Hall
was resident there from I S69 to I S90. During those
years it contains the baptisms of five daughters and one
son, and burials of two daughters and two sons; also
the marriage of Elizabeth Hall to Edmund Sutton, in
August, I 590. After that date there are no Halls in
the register, and it must seem that William Hall
quitted the place. But a Carlton terrier of I 607 has
various references to "the land of Mr. Hall," which
may imply that he still owned property in the parish.
The baptisms of Dive and John are not in the Carlton
register: possibly they may be found at some neigh-
bouring village. William Hall appears in a Lay
Subsidy for Carlton in I 593, and again in I S97, but
10 SHAKESPEARE'S SON-IN-LAW
with a note in the latter year that he has departed. In
the early years of Edward VI, William Hall, generosus,
appears in the neighbouring parish of Turvey.
\Vhen, where, and how did Hall and Shakespeare
become first acquainted? At the Acton house, in
London, or at the New Place where Shakespeare set
up house for himself and daughters in I 597?
Unlike his brother-in-law, William Sheppard, John
took no medical degree at Cambridge. He took the
usual course in Arts, ending with M.A. in I 597, when
he was 22. In the sixteenth century continuous
residence for nine terms (three years) was required for
proceeding from B.A. to M.A., and for so long Hall
must have been at Cambridge. After that he studied
medicine, apparently at a French University, and
could scarcely be engaged in professional work much
before I 6oo.
He had no qualification for practice in Acton or
London. By the Charter of the Royal College of
Physicians it was prescribed that no person should
practise physic in London, or within seven miles of it,
unless with sanction of the President and Fellows.
Graduates in medicine of Oxford and Cambridge might
practise if they had license from the University Chan-
cellor. Graduates in medicine of foreign universities
had no authority to practise in England unless they
had licence from the bishop of the diocese. Until
Post-Reformation times episcopal registers rarely
contain any mention of licences granted, and it is
fairly evident that medical men seldom applied for
them. There is no mention of such a grant to Hall
at Worcester, and we may fairly assume that he had
- .. ~ - - ~ n j - -
SHAKESPEARE'S SON-IN-LAW !I
none. Why, of all places, did he choose Stratford
for a start in his career?
A possible answer to this question is supplied by the
unexpected appearance on the scene of two familiar
Stratford men-Abraham Sturley and Sir Thomas
Lucy of Charlecote.
Abraham Sturley matriculated at Cambridge at
Queens' College-the College of Dive and John Hall
-in the Easter term, I 569. Richard Sturley, who
matriculated from the same College in I 564, was
perhaps hts brother. The facts are derived from the
V niversity Grace Books, and as admissions at Queens'
College do not begin until some years later, we have
no knowledge of the county of their birth. The sur-
name--otherwise spelt Strelly-should imply that
the family was derived from Strelly, Notts. In or
before I 57 5, Mr. Fripp tells us that Abraham was in
the service of Sir Thomas Lucy in a legal capacity
and variously described as the knight's "servant" or
"retainer." His name is familiar to Shakespeare
students for his correspondence with Richard Quiney
on matters of busmess concerning Shakespeare. There
is no reason to suppose that he had family associations
with Bedfordshire, but Mr. Fripp is authority for the
fact that he visited Cambridge and Bedford early in
I 598 in behalf of sufferers from fires at Stratford. A
vtsit to Cambridge would be natural if among scholars
there he retained friends of student days: but why
Bedford?
The Lucy family-including Sir Thomas of legend-
ary fame-possessed ample estates in Bedfordshire,
and it is likely that Sturley acted as estate agent and
12 SHAKESPEARE'S SON-IN-LAW
rent-collector and holder of a manor court. The con-
nection of Charlecote with Bedfordshire was of old
standing and lasted far into the seventeenth century.
Several mentions of Lucy names occur in Beds. parish
registers: one is of Constance, daughter of Richard
Lucy of Charlecote, who married Sir John Burgoyne,
Bart., of Sutton, Beds. It is highly suggestive that
some of the family estates lay in Carlton parish. Here
there were two manors, one called Pabenhams, the
other Carlton and Chellington. Pabenhams passed
by marriage of a de Pabenham heiress into the posses-
sion of the Lucy family. It was alienated by Sir
Thomas (of the legend) in I 569, in which year
William Hall was clearly living at Carlton. An
Inquisitio Post Mortem in I 602 states that at that
date Lord Mordaunt was seised of the 1.\tlanor of
Carlton and Chellington together with appurtenances
and of a close called "long close" lying in Carlton,
which he purchased from William Hall. The Court
Rolls of Carlton Manor state that Sir Thomas Lucy
held his court at Carlton in 8 Henry VI and again in
the following year. In a terrier of Carlton (I 6o7)
there are several references to land of William Hall.
But in his will William makes no mention of property
there and it may be assumed that he parted with it
when he went to live at Acton.
The facts so far ascertained in the early life of John
Hall reveal far more than the Stratford Legend does of
the youth of Shakespeare. The Orthodox interpreta-
tion of the conflicting stories told a century or more
after the events has only fostered the Heretical Schools
which ascribe the authorship of the poems and plays
SHAKESPEARE'S SON-IN-LAW 13
to anyone rather than the Stratford man. The only
evidence of his existence is in the church register of
the baptism of his children, and it is a gratuitous
assumption that he was then resident at Stratford or
present at the ceremony. No mention of him in
municipal records or in letters of
Stratfordians serves to identify him with the dramatist.
In the documents cited in the "Lives" there is only
one which so identifies him, and the witness is Shakes-
peare in his will. The "Centurie of his Prayse,"
beginning with Meres in I 598, is continuous thmugh-
out his literary life. From first to last Stratford was
seemingly unconscious of the splendour of its Star of
Poets. In a letter of Abraham Sturley (I 5 9li ),
addressed to his neighbour, Richard Quiney, he
mentions Shakespeare as a man of substance who
may advance money in the concerns of the town, and
he passes to the topics of markets and "beeves,"
exactly as Shallow talks of fairs and "bullocks" in
connection with the Psalmist's text on the certainty
of death. The Puritan antipathy of the Corporation
to stage performances was so pronounced when
Shakespeare was at the zenith of his fame that they
refused to admit players to the town, and even paid
them to stop away. When Shakespeare died the
local folk put on the flagstone of his grave some
doggerel rimes which might have served for any
tradesman in the town. The monument and bust
were the work of a London mason, and probably were
provided by more scholarly friends at a later time.
When Shakespeare occupied the New Place in I 597
he found homely neighbours in such people as Sturley
'4
SHAKESPEARE'S SON-IN-LAW
and Quiney, and they found in him no more than
was in themselves.
In a society so provincial and unimaginative, John
Hall, from his advent at Stratford, could not fail to
interest Shakespeare. He was young and brought
talk of recent day.; at Cambridge and in France-
almost certainly of Montpellier and its great medical
Professor, Rabelais. Probably when he started in his
profession he lodged with some Dame Quickly, and
was a constant visitor at the New Place. Perhaps he
attended Shakespeare professionally. We know that
he accompanied him on a visit to London in I6I4.
The names of Stratford patients included in Hall's
case book are interesting, but unfortunately it contains
few dates, and none earlier than I 6 I 7. It does not
include Shakespeare or any of the Lucy family of
Charlecote, but mentions "generosa" Hall, uxor mea,
and their daughter Elizabeth. Among others the
following occur:
"Eques Rainsforde," "Domina Rainsforde," and
"Mr. Drayton, poeta laureatus." These were Sir Henry
of Clifford Chambers and his wife Lady Ann, daughter
of Sir Henry Goodere of Polesworth, Warwicks, at
whose house Drayton for many years used to pass
some months in summer; she was the Idea celebrated in
Drayton's sonnets.
"Katherine" Sturley, perhaps a daughter of
Abraham.
"Generosus Nash, aet. 62," perhaps a relation of
Thomas, husband of Elizabeth Hall.
"Anna Greene, 'generosa,' jiliola primogenita Causi-
dici Greene," i.e. daughter of Thomas, a barrister of
i
t

SHAKESPEARE'S SON-IN-LAW
the Middle Temple, in whose diary he calls Shake-
speare his "Cosen."
"Mr. Quiney," perhaps Thomas, husband of
J udith Shakespeare.
Neither in the case book nor from any Stratford
sources do we get any clue as to the date when Hall
began his residence at Stratford. Is it just possible
that in the plays there is incidental evidence to deter-
mine it? Hall was continuously resident at Cam-
bridge, where he did not study medicine, until I 597
After that year a medical course in France could
scarcely have occupied less than two or three years.
It is unlikely that he started in practise at Stratford
before I 599-I 6oo. What plays did Shakespeare
produce about that time?
From external evidence Sir E. K. Chambers in his
William Shakespeare (Vol. I, pp. 248-9) gives the
following dates: Henry 17, I 599; As You Like It, I 6oo;
Twelfth Night, I 6o2; Merry Wives, I 602.
But the first staging and composition of some of
them may be earlier; none of them are in the list of
Palladis Tamia (I598). In their theme they form a
natural group belonging to the period of Shakespeare's
shrewd and mirthful comedy. In them, and in no
earlier plays, there are some odd features of a casual
kind which suggest that Hall's fleeting talk of Cam-
bridge and France has crept into them.
Of the practice of English universities Shakespeare
seems to have had more knowledge than might be
expected of one who was not, as Hall was, a graduate
of Oxford or Cambridge. At Cambridge a graduate
was said to "proceed," when he advanced from a lower
. .. .. ~ - ' - - - -- ~ . . . . . . -
16
SHAKESPEARE'S SON-IN-LAW
to a higher degree, and the cerem h.
admitted to the latter called at w tch he was
Remark how the three t ommencement."
Timon's speech to A erms together in
pemantus .J. tmon IV 3).
' ' .
Hadst thou like fi h
The sweet t tl' swath procudd
natudre dhid comme!lce sin
ma e t ee hard m 't.
There is evidence that Camb 'd .
mind when he made K' Lrt ge Shakespeare's
mg ear complam to Regan
'Tis not in thee-to scant my .
SIZes.
"Size" is a Cambrid e d .
food or drink priv!tel word or a certam quantity of
The word Y ?r ered from the buttery.
qmte pecuhar to Cambrid .
daughter umversities of D bl' y ge and Its
Minsheu in his Gut'd ,.,.. u m, ale and Harvard.
. e .o .1.ongues(I6I7) "I
portiOn of bread and dri k. . . t IS a
Cambridge scholars h n , It ts a farthmg which
with the letter S a . ave at the ?uttery; it is noted
halfe a farthing , ' Oxford the letter Q, for
was "battels." . "Ab e word at Oxford
. atement of stzes w C 11
pumshment alternative to " atin " a o ege
an apparent allu . L g, to whtch there is
ston In ear s next wo d "
the bolt against my corn . , r s, to oppose
I tng m.
n Merry Wives the French docto . Il .
Shakespeare is reckles . . . r ts ea ed CaiUs.
s In gtvmg nam h'
acters and regardless f d. ffi . . .es to ts char-
was the name ori i o Il I e:mg conditiOns. Oldcastle
Falstaff, and Sir ]!h Y gtven to the character of
of Sir John Fastolfen s was suggested by that
course we . . n aster Doctor Caius of
must recogmse the distinguished h . .
p ystctan,
SHAKESPEARE'S SON-IN-LAW
John Caius, the founder of Caius College at Cam-
bridge, who died in I 573 In John Hall's student
days stories lingered in Cambridge of the violent
quarrels of the doctor with the University officials-
particularly of his vehement dislike of Sir Hugh Evans'
countrymen, whom he expressly excluded from the
benefit of his foundation. He was physician to
Edward VI, Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth, just
as his namesake in the play was the court physician at
Windsor. Otherwise there is no resemblance between
the two. John Caius was not a French doctor. As an
ardent Catholic he studied medicine at the Italian
University of Padua, but John Hall at a Protestant
French University. Both John Caius and John Hall
graduated in Arts at Cambridge before they studied
medicine abroad.
When and how did Shakespeare acquire his know-
ledge of French speech such as is employed in Henry V
and Merry Wives and in no play of earlier date? His
scene in earlier plays is often in France, but the
courtiers of Navarre and the royalties of King John
speak English. For French dialogue the talk between
the French King and Helen, daughter of the physician,
Gerard de Narbon, might have given an opportunity
of which Shakespeare did not avail himself. Transla-
tions of French books were common in Tudor days,
and it is just possible that he was acquainted with an
otherwise unknown English translation of Belleforest's
Histoires Tragikes, itself a translation of an Italian
original; otherwise Shakespeare drew his comedy plots
exclusively from Italian literature. The scenes in
Henry r and Merry Wives, in which French dialogue
18 SHAKESPEARE'S SON-IN-LAW
occurs, are partly in English, partly in French. It is
noticeable that in Henry F, Act m, Scene 7, the
Dauphin quotes a text from the French Protestant
translation of the New Testament, a version no doubt
current at Montpellier, but not very likely to be known
to Shakespeare. One scene in Henry V.-that between
the Princess Katherine and her maid-is written
entirely in French of a fairly idiomatic kind. It must
have been "caviare to the general" of the Globe
Theatre. It is irrelevant in its place in the play, for
the Princess has no reason to learn English when the
French court was confident of victory and the English
King and people were regarded with contempt. It is
unfitting to the majestic theme of the play and an ill
introduction of the future Queen of England. Its
sole motive is to introduce an obscene jest which is
uncharacteristic of Shakespeare at his worst. If not
actually written by Hall it was introduced by some one
who was a better French linguist than dramatic artist.
So far as we can learn from the Plays there was only
one French author in whom Shakespeare was interested
-Rabelais. No English translation of Pantagruel is
known to have existed in his day, and there is small
likelihood that he had French enough to unravel the
Rabelaisian jargon which discomfited U rquhart and
even French editors. His acquaintance with Rabelais'
book is casual and general and his notes of names and
incidents seem to be drawn from conversation rather
than the written page. Something of Gargantua was
already known to Shakespeare before the date of his
first introduction to Hall. In Book I, chapter 4,
Rabelais introduces a great Sophister-Doctor, Tubal
SHAKESPEARE'S SON-IN-LAW
Holofernes, who taught the infant Gargantua his
A.B.C. The odd combination of names suggested
the names of characters in Loves' Labours Lost and the
Merchant of Fenice, both written before I598. In the
plays written in I 599 or after I 6o2 we meet with
more conscious association with Rabelais. In As
You Like It, Rosalind wishes that she had Gargantua's
mouth. In Twelfth Night Feste delights Sir Andrew
with the Rabelaisian nonsense about Pigromitus and
the Vapians passing the equinoctial of Queubus.
Rabelais makes Queubus a personal name, translated
Lord Kiss breech by U rquhart. In the last scene of
Henry F the French King's jest about "maiden walh"
is an unpleasant reminder of ribald talk of Panurge.
In King Lear (?I 6o 5) Edgar, in his assumed madness,
says, "Nero is an angler in the lake of darkness,"
which looks like a confused recollection of what
Epistemon says of his vision of the occupations in
after life of historical celebrities, "Trajan was a fisher
of frogs, Nero a base blind fiddler."
All these four plays were written about the years
when John Hall made acquaintance with Shakespeare
at the New Place. He was young and brought fresh
reminiscences of Montpellier and of the tutelary
genius of its University, Rabelais, student and doctor
of medicine there, whose red gown was used to invest
students there on taking a degree; his first two books,
printed in I 54 7, would be in the hands of the scholars,
and it is likely that Hall brought the volume to
Stratford, and gave Shakespeare the benefit of his
translation.
Of course the connection of John Hall with the
.. - - - - ~ ~ ~ . . '" .... _ " - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - ~ - ~ I- '
- ' ~ " .... c -- "
:!0 SHAKESPEARE'S SON-IN-LAW
Plays is matter of surmise, but surmise based on
ascertained and dated facts. The Stratford School
does not approve of surmise unless it is based on the
gossip of the nameless and ignorant gobes-mouches of
Stratford whose grandfathers had buried the poet in
their church. Once again, and not too often, it must
be said that no Stratford document can prove that
Shakespeare was continuously resident in the town
before his retirement in I 597, when half his literary
life was done. If he was, as on good evidence we
are told, "a schoolmaster in the country," it is likely
that he was not present at the baptisms of his children.
Population in Elizabethan days was much more
mobile than is conceived by Stratford enthusiasts. In
a book, A Chapter in the Early Life of Shakespeare,
printed in I926, I developed a theory that Shakespeare
was brought up at Polesworth, in North Warwicks.
In that neighbourhood he mentions many towns and
villages in the plays, one actually in Polesworth parish,
which in some verses of I 6 53 is identified with the
scene of Christopher Sly's tippling, but he never
mentions Stratford or any place near it. Sir E. K.
Chambers in his William Shakespeare dismisses my
theory as "most improbable," since Polesworth is
too far from Stratford. Since I wrote that book I
have discovered a remarkable entry in the P;lesworth
register of the baptism on July 5, I632, of Susanna,
daughter of "Mr" Quiny. The Quiny family were
all resident at Stratford, and there is no other mention
of the name at Polesworth. What brought him to a
place so distant? Apparently he is Thomas, the
unthrifty husband of Judith Shakespeare. In I632
SHAKESPEARE'S SON-IN-LAW 21
he was in financial straits and, as there was a likelihood
that he would part with his house in Stratford, John
Hall and Thomas Nash, husband of Shakespeare's
grand-daughter, Elizabeth, in the interest of Judith
took over the lease of the house. Was Susanna
Quiny Shakespeare's grand-daughter? Nothing
further is known of her. If-which is doubtful-
Mr. Quiny journeyed from Stratford to Polesworth
for the christening of his daughter is it altogether im-
probable that for the baptism of his children Shakes-
peare travelled from Polesworth, or some other
Warwickshire place, to Stratford? Thrice in their
correspondence of I 598 Sturley and Quiny speak of
Shakespeare as their "countryman," inasmuch as they
associated him with the "county" of Warwick rather
than with Stratford. This tallies with William
Beeston's statement that in his younger days Shakes-
peare had been a schoolmaster in the" country." There
were many good schools in Warwickshire, but I have
grave doubts that the apprentice who, according to the
Legend, left Stratford School at the age of thirteen,
had poor qualifications as a teacher-or even as a
writer ot plays.
In his William Shakespeare Sir E. K. Chambers
devotes a long section to what he calls the Shakespeare
Mythos, in which he includes the gossip of Stratford
of a time when "the inquisitiveness of tourists was
beginning to meet with the natural response of local
guides." Sir E. K. Chambers objects that my theory
had "no support from records or probability." Of
the improbability of the Legendary stories my book
gave, I think, ample evidence. Of record there is
:Z2 SHAKESPEARE'S SON-IN-LAW
none at Stratford. Of course, Polesworth has no
municipal records, and its church register only begins
in r 6 3 r. Stratford in its corporation documents has
minute evidence of the lives and conditions of its
inhabitants, and its church register covers the whole
period of Shakespeare's life. Neither source affords
a particle of information about the man who was a
dramatist and also the richest man in the town.
Admitting his doubt of the credibility of most of the
articles of the geocentric Stratford faith, Sir E. K.
Chambers yet believes that authority must be attached
to the testimony of certain writers of the late seven-
teenth and early eighteenth century that traditions,
e.g. of the deer-stealing business, survived in their days
at Stratford, and he does not welcome the suggestion
that the whole of the authoritarian belief is unbelievable.
When I am confronted with the caricature portrait of
young Shakespeare, drawn by Stratford artists, I must
express my concurrence with the justice of the verdict
of Mrs. Betsy Prig about a similar figment-"! don't
believe there was no sich a person."