requiring his assistance in one of the branches of the Henley Street business. Rowe's words, published in 1709, are these,-"he had bred him, 'tis true, for some time at a free-school, where 'tis probable he acquir'd that little Latin he was master of; but the narrowness of his circumstances, and the want of his assistance at home, forc'd his father to withdraw him from thence, and unhappily prevented his further proficiency in that language." John Shakespeare's circumstances had begun to decline in the year 1577, and, in all probability, he removed the future dramatist from school when the latter was about thirteen, allowing Gilbert, then between ten and eleven, to continue his studies. The selection of the former for home-work may have partially arisen from his having been the elder and the stronger, but it also exhibits the father's presentiment of those talents for business which distinguished the latter part of his son's career.

The conflict of evidences now becomes so exceedingly perplexing, that it is hardly possible to completely reconcile them. All that can prudently be said is that the inclination of the testimonies leans towards the belief that John Shakespeare, following the ordinary usage of the tradesmen of the locality in binding their children to special occupations, eventually apprenticed his eldest son to a butcher. That appellation was sometimes given to persons who, without keeping meat-shops, killed cattle and pigs for others; and as there is no telling how many adjuncts the worthy glover had to his legitimate business, it is very possible that the lad may have served his articles under his own father. With respect to the unpoetical selection of a trade for the great dramatist, it is of course

necessary for the biographer to draw attention to the fact that he was no ordinary executioner, but, to use the words of Aubrey, "when he killed a calf, he would do it in a high style and make a speech." It may be doubted if even this palliative will suffice to reconcile the employment with our present ideal of the gentle Shakespeare, but he was not one of the few destined, at all events in early life, to be exempt from the laws which so frequently ordain mortals to be the reluctant victims of circumstances.

a

The tradition reported by the parish clerk in 1693 is the only known evidence of Shakespeare having been an apprentice, but his assertion that the poet commenced his practical life as a butcher is supported by the earlier testimony of Aubrey. If the clerk's story be rejected, we must then rely on the account furnished by Betterton, who informs us, through Rowe, that John Shakespeare "was considerable dealer in wool," and that the great dramatist, after leaving school, was brought up to follow the same occupation, continuing in the business until his departure from Warwickshire. Whichever version be thought the more probable, the student will do well, before arriving at a decision, to bear in mind that many butchers of those days were partially farmers, and that those of Stratford-on-Avon largely represented the wealth and commercial intelligence of the town. Among the latter was Ralph Cawdrey, who had then twice served the office of High Bailiff, and had been for many years a colleague of the poet's father. Nor were the accessories of the trade viewed in the repulsive light that some of them are at the present time. The refined and lively Rosalind would have been somewhat astonished if she had been

told of the day when her allusion to the washing of a sheep's heart would have been pronounced indecorous and more than unladylike.

In

Although the information at present accessible does not enable us to determine the exact natures of Shakespeare's occupations from his fourteenth to his eighteenth year, that is to say, from 1577 to 1582, there can be no hesitation in concluding that, during that animated and receptive period of life, he was mercifully released from what, to a spirit like his, must have been the deleterious monotony of a school education. Whether he passed those years as a butcher or a wool-dealer does not greatly matter. either capacity, or in any other that could then have been found at Stratford, he was unconsciously acquiring a more perfect knowledge of the world and human nature than could could have been have been derived from a study of the classics. During nearly if not all the time to which reference is now being made, he had also the opportunity of witnessing theatrical performances by some of the leading companies of the day. But trouble and sorrow invaded the paternal home. In the autumn of 1578, his father affected the then large mortgage of 401. on the estate of Asbies, and the records of subsequent transactions indicate that he was suffering from pecuniary embarrassments in the two years immediately following. In the midst of these struggles he lost, in 1579, his daughter Anne, who was then in her eighth year. It cannot be doubted that the poet acutely felt the death of his little sister, nor that he followed her to the grave at a. funeral which was conducted by the parents with affectionate tributes. In the next year their last child was born. He was christened Edmund on May 3, 1580, no doubt re

ceiving that name from the husband of his maternal aunt, Mrs. Lambert. It was this gentleman who held the mortgage on Asbies, but on John Shakespeare tendering payment to him in the following autumn, the money was refused until other sums due the same creditor were also repaid. This must have been a great disappointment to the worthy glover, who had only in the previous year disposed of his wife's reversionary interests at Snitterfield for the exact amount that he had borrowed from the Lamberts in 1578, a transfer that he had perhaps arranged with a view to the redemption of the matrimonial estate at Wilmecote. It must be borne in mind that it was at that time the practice in mortgages to name a special day for the repayment of a loan, the security falling into the indefeasible ownership of the mortgagee when the terms of the contract were not rigidly observed. There was not then the general equity of redemption which, at a later period, guarded the legitimate interests of the borrower.

The reversion that was parted with in the year 1579 consisted of a share in a considerable landed estate that had belonged to the poet's maternal grandfather, a share to which John and Mary Shakespeare would have become absolutely entitled upon the death of Agnes Arden, who was described as "aged and impotent" in the July of the following year, 1580, and who died a few months afterwards, her burial at Aston Cantlowe having taken place on December 29. In her will, that of a substantial lady farmer of the period, there is no direct mention of the Shakespeares, but it is not unlikely that one or more of their sons may be included in the bequest,-“to everi on of my god-children xij.d. a-peece," the absence of the testator's own christian name from their pedigree being

a sufficient evidence that her baptismal responsibilities were not extended to their daughters. Taking merely a lifeinterest in a portion of the family estates, and Mary having received more than an equitable interest in them, she might naturally have felt herself absolved from bestowing larger gifts upon her Henley Street connections.

It was the usual custom at Stratford-on-Avon for apprentices to be bound either for seven or ten years, so that, if Shakespeare were one of them, it was not likely that he was out of his articles at the time of his marriage, an event that took place in 1582, when he was only in his nineteenth year. At that period, before a license for wedlock could be obtained, it was necessary to lodge at the Consistory Court a bond entered into by two responsible sureties, who by that document certified, under a heavy penalty in case of misrepresentation, that there was no impediment of precontract or consanguinity, the former of course alluding to a precontract of either of the affianced parties with a third person.

The bond given in anticipation of the marriage of William Shakespeare with Anne Hathaway, a proof in itself that there was no clandestine intention in the arrangements, is dated November 28, 1582. Their first child, Susanna, was baptized on Sunday, May 26, 1583. With those numerous moralists who do not consider it necessary for rigid enquiry to precede condemnation, these facts. taint the husband with dishonor, although, even according to modern notions, that very marriage may have been induced on his part by a sentiment in itself the very essence of honor. If we assume, however, as we reasonably may, that cohabitation had previously taken place, no question of morals would in those days have arisen, or