Sayfadaki görseller
PDF
ePub

that the seal was in common use at the Registry for some years.1 The seals were probably intact when discovered in 1836; but the wax, friable with age, and subject to much careless handling after the bond was removed from the leather thongs upon which it was originally filed, had by 1860 so far crumbled away that the impressions were indecipherable; and nothing remained in 1885, when the bond was enclosed between sheets of glass and framed. The second seal, as figured in 1848 by J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps (then J. O. Halliwell),2 was much damaged. In the later editions of his Outlines, including that of 1887, a little more of the second letter is shown; and this more perfect sketch no doubt correctly represents what remained of the seal when the first drawing was made. In any case, the difference between the two figures proves either that the first was incorrectly drawn, or that the later of two sketches, representing the seal at different stages of destruction, was inserted in the earlier edition. It may be argued that the letter without the right upper limb is an old form of H; but I know of no sixteenth-century capital of that shape. Figures of the seal are given by other writers, but none of these shows that portion of the letter which betrays its original form. The perfect seals and the better preserved fragments now remaining on the bonds for the years 1582 and 1583 prove that at least thirty per cent. bore the impressions of a tree "eradicated" and the letters R.K.5 as figured opposite, the two being generally found together on bonds in which two or more sureties are named.

4

The similarity of the two seals figured in the later

1 Occasionally the letters and devices are impressions of seals belonging to the sureties. The bond signed by Richard Southam, Vicar of Charlecote, bears the letters "R.S."

2 The Life of William Shakespeare, p. 112.

Above and below the letters in the perfect "R.K." seals there is an ornamental flourish which appears only below in the figures by Halliwell-Phillipps. This helps to identify the original from which the letters were drawn.

Charles Knight, William Shakspere, A Biography, 1865, p. 278; A Shakespeare Memorial (Beeton), 1864, p. 4; James Walter, Shakespeare's True Life, 1890, p. 183.

The owner of the "R.K." seal was probably one of the officials of the court or a scribe, whose name I have not found in the records.

[graphic][merged small][subsumed]

A GROUP OF SEALS SIMILAR TO THOSE FORMERLY ATTACHED TO SHAKESPEARE'S

MARRIAGE LICENCE BOND.

(Reproduced from bonds, executed in the year 1582, filed with wills now in the Probate Registry, Worcester.)

[To face p. 31.

THE "R.K." SEAL

35

editions of Outlines to those in common use by the Registry officials at the date of Shakespeare's licence proves that the letter in question was not H., and that the seal is of no value as evidence in the enquiry as to Anne Hathaway's identity.

IV

TEMPLE GRAFTON

IF, as seems certain, the Shaxpere-Whateley paragraph in Bishop Whitgift's Register is a record of the issue of the poet's marriage licence, then either the insertion of Temple Grafton must be an error or the entry is incomplete, for there is no reason to doubt that Anne Hathaway is correctly described in the bond as of Stratford-upon-Avon. The first is probably the correct solution; for the second could be accepted only if some such words as "in the church of" had preceded the name of the parish in the earliest matrimonial entry in the list of licences, and were understood to be afterwards omitted for the sake of brevity. Amongst the attempts to explain this point of difference between the bond and the bishop's register is the suggestion that Temple Grafton was the residence of one Anne Whateley, for whose marriage with a namesake of the poet a licence is supposed to have been granted.2 This does not, however, appear to be a satisfactory explanation; and it becomes necessary to ascertain the meaning intended to be conveyed by the place-name with which most of these licence-entries terminate. For this purpose, I have examined the matrimonial records in the Worcester Diocesan and Probate Registries from May 15th, 1530, to March 31st, 1585, after which latter date marriage licences are not recorded in the bishop's registers. Before 1578 the licences are entered consecutively

1 The beginning of each paragraph is abbreviated in a similar manner. On this subject see Sidney Lee, A Life of William Shakespeare, p. 24. The marriage bonds for this period were filed with the wills, and are now, with a few exceptions, at the Probate Registry.

« ÖncekiDevam »