HOAX OF THE SHAKSPEARE BIRTH-HOUSE;

AND

RELIC TRADE AT STRATFORD-ON-AVON.

BY A WARWICKSHIRE MAN.

THE domusmania of these latter days outruns the bibliomania of the earliest bibliomaniac on record, whom Scott says, "We take to have been none other than the renowned Don Quixote de la Mancha, as among other slight indications of an infirm understanding, he is stated by his veracious historian, Cid Hamet Benengeli, to have exchanged fields and farms for folios and quartos of chivalry." If the Don was deemed of "infirm understanding" for exchanging farms for folios, who can shield from the charge of raging madness, the list of royal, noble, and learned enthusiasts who have given three thousand pounds for an old cottage at Stratford not worth as many hundreds. There has been a struggle too to get possession of "relics" of the poet of all times, and for a certain jug and cane, a particularly fierce one-a word or two about them, in the first place.

These articles which, it is pretended, belonged to Shakspeare, are in the possession of the grand-children of Thomas Hart, who was the fifth descendant of Joan Shakspeare, the eldest sister of William Shakspeare. Thomas Hart died at Stratford on Avon, about fiftythree years ago, at a very advanced age. Mr. Robert Welch, formerly of Stratford on Avon, one of the receiving officers of taxes, whose high character, well known scrupulous accuracy, and strong memory place his statements beyond a doubt, said, in a letter to the Brighton Herald, in 1844, and has repeated the same to me lately, "I knew Thomas Hart, and his house intimately, and can speak to every article in his house. I was constantly in the habit of calling upon him for many years, and I am confident, if these articles were in his possession, I should have seen them or heard of them. They never were in his possession. I have certainly heard him say, that the armchair in which he sat belonged to Shakspeare, but we all treated the assertion as a joke. The make of it was of the period of James II., but not prior, from my knowledge of furniture design. Our impression was that the old man, being in indigent circumstances, would have had no objection to any one bidding him a handsome sum on the credit of his assertion, but no one in the town believed that he had any relic of Shakspeare in his possession. I never heard of his being able to sell this chair as a relic of Shakspeare; but I know we were both surprised and annoyed at his selling four other chairs, a few years before his death, as having belonged to Shakspeare, and that his neighbours were tender in their raillery at the fraud, from compassion on his circumstances and infirmities. The maker of these chairs was more than once pointed out to me; in fact, it was well known. "It may be asked if the jug and cane were the property of Shakspeare, how came they to be in the possession of the Hart family? It will be seen, on reference to the poet's will that he left his sister Joan Hart, twenty pounds and his wearing apparel, and to

her three sons five pounds each. The bequests of the will are clearly set forth; for instance, to his daughter Judith, his silver bowl and a legacy in money; to his wife his best bed; to a gentleman in the town his dress sword; and all his other property of every description to his daughter Susannah. If these articles (the jug and cane of which engravings have appeared in the illustrated newspapers) belonged to Shakspeare, how came they into the hands of Thomas Hart's children? It is certain the old gentleman never had them in his possession, or ever knew of their existence. Had they been in the possession of Thomas Hart or Sarah Hart, his sister, Thomas would have known it; and so should we all who were jealous of the identity of any article belonging to our illustrious townsman."

Shakspeare died in 1616, leaving two daughters, Susannah, married to Dr. John Hall, and Judith, married to Mr. Thomas Quiney. Lady Barnard, the poet's grand-daughter (and only surviving offspring of Shakspeare's daughter) died in 1670, and his brother left no issue; so that in 1670, there was no lineal descendant of the poet; the next of kin being clearly the descendants of his sister Joan. Joan Shakspeare married William Hart, of Stratford, and from this marriage the Harts of Tewksbury, the Harts of Nottingham, and the Harts of London, are descended.

Mrs. Fletcher, of Gloucester, its possessor, is a descendant of the Harts of Tewksbury, a grand-daughter of Thomas Hart, and though she bought the jug from Miss Turbeville, of Cheltenham, for nineteen guineas on the faith of its being a relic of Shakspeare, the strength of her faith adds nothing to its history, nor verifies its identity. Miss Turbeville, bought it from Mr. James Bennett, printer of Tewksbury, for thirty pounds. Mr. Bennett had paid twenty guineas for it in May, 1841, at a sale of Mr. Edwin Lee's, of Forthampton Cottage. It was there stated that the jug had been purchased by Mr. Lee from the daughter of Mr. James Kingsbury, whose wife (formerly Miss Richardson) inherited it from her father Henry Richardson, of Tewksbury. To account for Henry Richardson's possession of the jug, it was said to have been taken in 1787 by his father, John Richardson, cousin of Sarah Hart (who was born in 1750) in lieu of twelve guineas owing to him by the said Sarah, who was then married to Mr. John Mann.

The medallion on the jug was added by this Mr. Richardson, though described, in some of the magniloquent accounts of the engravings, as a cotemporary portrait.

Thomas Hart is now declared to have been the fortunate possessor of the cane as an heirloom; but had this been the case, Hart was not the man to keep his treasure a secret, whilst it was no secret how ready he was to attach a reliquiary reputation to any article by which a penny could be turned. There are several alive who knew him and the contents of his house well; but of either the jug or cane they never heard. It appears that Mr. Fletcher, of Westgate Street, Gloucester, was induced to give five pounds for this cane to Mr. Bennett, who, it will have been seen, made ten pounds profit by his speculation in the jug. In his cane investment he was equally lucky, having bought it from Thomas Shakspeare Hart for two guineas. Thomas Shakspeare Hart was the son of William Shakspeare Hart, grandson of Thomas Hart, who died in 1793.

At each sale or transfer of these articles, entire reliance seems to

have been placed on their "traditionary reputation." As any reputation is better than no reputation at all, the house at Stratford, sold by the Courts the other day, was described by Mr. Robins as resting its character on "traditionary reputation." It happens, too, that all the buyers and sellers of the jug and cane in direct or indirect succession date from their modest era of 1787. Why did not they venture a little further back?

The minute history of the cane and jug, from Sarah Hart, who was born 1750, and who is said to have sold the latter as Shakspeare's in 1787, has nothing at all to do with its identity. Sarah Hart was, in all probability, its very first owner. Shakespeare died in 1616. What is its previous history between these periods ? Where was its traditional reputation at Gloucester or Tewksbury? It was certainly not at Stratford. "I have conversed," says Mr. Welch, "with old Thomas Hart and his son, well known as Jack Hart, many times. His daughters, Jane and Martha, were domestic servants in my father's family. I knew many other descendants of Joan Shakspeare; but I never heard a whisper about the traditional reputation' of the jug." Everyone connected with Stratfordon-Avon knows that the manufacture of relics of Shakspeare is and has been a profitable business, and the persons engaged in it are well known.

The chairs, the chest, the table, which form the furniture of the room shown as the one in which Shakspeare was born, have been placed there within the memory of several the writer could name. Of one of the alleged possessors of the cane Mr. Welch says:"William Shakspeare Hart was I suppose the son of Jack Hart, the old gentleman's only son; at least, I never heard of another, and I have a perfect recollection of this son and his family leaving Stratford for Tewksbury. Had a cane of Shakspeare's been in existence I should have heard of it, and would gladly have given fifty pounds for it, and I believe there are wealthy antiquarians who would give five times that sum for it; yet it was sold, we are told, two or three years ago, for two guineas. If proof were wanting of its spurious origin, this transaction would supply it."

The supporters of the genuineness of the "jug and cane" say they were omitted in Shakspeare's will because they had no intrinsic value; but Shakspeare specified his bequest to the Hart family so minutely, that no mistake can arise about it.

Mr. Welch tells me "there is no doubt that the jug was the property of Sarah Hart, who first propagated the fiction 178 years after her great-great-great-great-great-uncle's death. Not the slightest trace of it can be found before her time. It was never heard of in Stratford-on-Avon until the publication of Sir Richard Philips's book. The proof that this cane was the walking-stick of William Shakspeare-proof to satisfy a jury of the most scrupulous antiquarians, is this:-The widow of William Shakspeare Hart is the existing evidence,' and she can prove that she heard her husband's mother say this was Shakspeare's walking-stick.' So this is the existing evidence,' to 'satisfy a jury of the most scrupulous antiquaries. One old woman heard another old woman say so!-I again assert that old Hart never possessed the cane. was constantly in the habit of going to his house in my early youth, and was acquainted with every article in it. He has told me that

I

the old chair in which he usually sat belonged to Shakspeare, but never said a word about any other article in the house. There was a manuscript which he said was Shakspeare's, and which was at that time in the hands of a near and dear relative of mine as security for a sum of money borrowed by the old gentleman. The manuscript was arterwards sold, and I was present when it was paid for. The purchaser was a stranger to me. I saw him lay down on the table a number of guineas-I believe thirty. I saw my relative hand him a bundle of papers, and then my relative took up some of the guineas. Old Hart took the remainder, and put them in his pocket; and this seasonable relief kept the poor old man from want during the remaining few months of his life. The chair could not then obtain a purchaser. Three chairs had been previously sold, to different individuals, each warranted as the identical chair that Shakspeare sat in; but this fourth chair required time to give it 'traditional reputation.' A few years sufficed for the purpose, for it was sold in 1798 for twenty guineas."

Whether "traditional reputation" will maintain the value of these articles at their next sale, remains to be seen. It is a matter of wonder that this family did not make a search among the old clothes' shops for a few pairs of antiquated garments, and exhibit them as the veritable property of the immortal poet. Here, at all events, they would have had some countenance from Shakspeare's will, for there is no doubt about their ancestor inheriting the whole of his wearing apparel. This hint should not be thrown away upon the committee the fortunate proprietors of this invaluable property" -for it is not too late to collect doublet and hose, in fine moth-eaten condition, from Holywell street, and arrange them under glass cases, as we see Nelson's coat and waistcoat at Greenwich Hospital. The deer stealing, and the harsh punishment inflicted by Sir Thomas Lucy, was a favourite theme for half a century with Shakspeare's biographers. There never was any truth in it. It is not likely that Sir Thomas Lucy would have inflicted the indignity for which the self-roused exasperation of some of these grievancemakers are calling on posterity to visit upon the inheritors of Charlecote. Sir Thomas was on intimate terms with the young poet's father, an alderman of Stratford, and was with him, about that period, on an arbitration concerning their mutual friend Mr. Hanmet Sadler. Mr. Sadler was one of the witnesses to the poet's will. Buck-shooting was a very venial affair in those days. The date of all the traditional lore afloat about Stratford is free from the rust of age. Until the time of Garrick there was little interest attached to the locality where Shakspeare spent the last days of his life; no one can say where he spent the greater number. The room in which he wrote "Hamlet" is worth a visit ten times over, or even the apocryphal cottage where dwelt demure Ann Hathaway, the mature maid of twenty-seven, congratulating herself on the "good catch," when about to marry the eldest son of the most thriving tradesman in Stratford, who had been chief magistrate or bailiff of it too. The shrewd cottager saw the impression she had made on the susceptible boy, and improving her opportunity before it could cool, made herself Mrs. William Shakspeare, consort to the heir-apparent to a thriving wool-stapler. What Mr. Shakspeare, the father, thought when he heard of his son wedding himself, at the age of

Some

nineteen, to a woman of twenty-seven, we are not told. venturesome novelist has written what was called "The Courtship of Ann Hathaway, a Romance, in three volumes." I never heard

of anything more matter-of-fact than the poet's marriage.

A lively and all-believing writer in "The Atlas," a dramatic author of no mean merit, tells us, in a pleasing recital of his visit to Stratford on the eve of the pseudo sale,-" Up the Stour and the Avon, away over the green fields and through the bosky paths to Shottery and Charlecote, to Drayton Bushes and Wellesbourn Wood, the name of Shakspeare is held in reverence by the rural population, and the town itself subsists solely upon the glory of having given him birth-you find some remembrance of him at every turn." Garrick could find none ninety years ago; Betterton could find none, though he went to Stratford on purpose a hundred years ago. Our dramatic author goes on,-"Rude effigies and busts of Shakspeare, prints of his house,"-very modern ones,-" of the grammarschool where he was educated, of the gate of Charlecote, where he is said to have pinned up the lampoon on Sir Thomas Lucy, of Ann Hathaway's cottage, where he so often made love in the chimneynook," where love was made to him, folks said at the time,-" and of every spot known or supposed to be associated with his life, even to the mulberry tree he planted, and the crab tree, under which, a loose tradition says, he once slept after a night's carousal, are scattered about in shops and stalls. Wherever you move you are reminded of the fact that he belongs to Stratford, and Stratford to him. The town, from suburb to suburb, is literally Shakspearean ground." Our author, however, adds symptomatic misgivings, that all is not absolutely true in "floating tradition."

"To be sure, the inhabitants," continues the author, "know scarcely anything about the actual incidents of his life; but they have caught up the floating traditions and hallowed them. The stir made by the committee has drawn crowds of people to the town. From the moment the committee was formed, visitors have increased in a rapid ratio, to the especial satisfaction of the ancient hostelries. And, speaking of hostelries, let me say a word for the White Lion, which stands in Henly Street, within a few doors of Shakspeare's house, and is certainly the most commodious house in the town. Independently of its other claims on the good will of visitors, it has some special attractions in relation to the divinity of the place. It is said to have been built from the materials of NewPlace, the house in which Shakspeare died."

The committee have given the same impulse to the "floating traditions" we read of, that James Watt gave to the steam-engine. Both may take credit for superadding the eccentric movement.

The Visit to Stratford is very pretty,-ben trovato, and that is all. I know Wellesbourne and Drayton, also the Stour, which does not approach within two miles of Stratford, but its banks are innocent of anything Shakspearean. I question, too, if any of the "rural population" of Wellesbourne, which is five miles from Stratford, ever heard his name mentioned until lately; and now certainly, Court's house, passed off on Lunnun flats for Muster Shakspeare's, is a topic of talk at the public-houses in the neighbourhood.

It happens unfortunately for the claims for veneration of the

VOL. XXIII.

X