mother-in-law, Mrs. Hathaway, of Shottery, then a widow in affluent circumstances. Tradition says that Shakespeare's first employment in London was holding horses at theater doors, and doing odd jobs for theater goers. Be this as it may, we soon find him employed as prompter's attendant, whose duty it was to notify the actors when it was their turn to appear upon the stage, etc., and later we find him filling minor parts in the plays. Gradually he worked his way into more important positions. During these first few years he must have devoted considerable time to reading, as a preparation for the wonderful works he was afterwards to produce. He recast and revised many old plays, began the production of original dramas, and acted some of the leading rôles in his own plays. In company with William Kempe and Richard Burbage he made a successful appearance before Queen Elizabeth at Greenwich Palace in 1594. He acted before her again at Whitehall in 1596, at Richmond and Whitehall in 1600, four times at Whitehall in 1601-02, and at Richmond Palace in 1603, a month before her death. In 1603 he fell under the favorable notice of King James I., who granted him and his company a license to play in London and the surrounding provinces. Later he appeared at court on several occasions, and in 1604 he marched in the royal train when James made his formal passage from the tower to Westminster. On this occasion he and each of his companions received four and one-half yards of scarlet silk, the usual dress allowance of court actors in those days. It is quite evident that as an actor Shakespeare was much more successful, financially, than as a playwright. Whatever may have been Shakespeare's youthful follies and extravagances, in later life he became not only a great poet, but he also developed the instincts of a shrewd business man. Through his acting and the sale of his plays he accumulated a respectable fortune, with part of which he purchased some valuable property in London and elsewhere. After an absence of eleven years he returned to Stratford in 1596, to bury his only son, Hamnet.* At Stratford Shakespeare invested considerable money in houses and lands, and obtained from the government the distinction of a coat-of-arms, but he did not take up his residence there until 1616. In this year he abandoned dramatic composition and began to enjoy, in his beautiful home at Stratford, a well deserved and much needed rest. At the beginning of this year, however, his health began to fail rapidly and by April his end was near. The actual cause of his death is unknown, but it is generally admitted that overwork, and a not too submissive obedience to the laws of health, hastened an all too early dissolution. He died on the fifty-second anniversary of his birth, April 23, 1616, and was buried inside the chancel of Stratford church. On his tomb was inscribed the following epitaph: Good frend for Jesus' sake forbeare The question of Shakespeare's religion has been long, and sometimes furiously, debated. Many eminent writers incline to the belief that he was a Roman Catholic, while many others, equally eminent, maintain that he was a Protestant. At the risk of being considered partisan the editors have decided to insert the following rather lengthy extract from the pen of the distinguished litterateur and scientist, James J. Walsh, M.D., L.H.D. *The direct line of Shakespeare's family became extinct a little over fifty years after the poet's death. Judith married Thomas Quiney, of Stratford. The offspring of this marriage three boys-died before reaching the age of manhood. Susanna married Dr. Hall, and of their union was born Elizabeth, the only granddaughter of the poet. Elizabeth married Thomas Nash, who died leaving no 'children. She then married John Barnard, who was afterwards knighted by Charles II. Lady Barnard died childless in 1669, and thus the immediate family of Shakespeare became extinct. This extract they hope will be instructive to many Catholics, and interesting, at least, to some who are not Catholics: There is no doubt that Shakespeare's mother lived and died a Catholic. Her name was Mary Arden, and many of the Ardens continued to be staunch Catholics even during the dangers of Elizabeth's reign. Indeed, one of the prominent members of the family suffered death for the faith. Shakespeare's mother, moreover, made a will in which there is a mention of the Blessed Virgin, a custom that had gone out of vogue in England at this time except among Catholics. Shakespeare's father, too, is on the list of Stratford recusants who were summoned by the court for not attending the Anglican service on Sundays. Shakespeare's immediate surroundings, likewise, were distinctly Catholic, for the spirit of the old religion had not died as yet in England. Indeed, it was very much alive in the central portion of the country. It is sometimes said, however, that there can be no question of Shakespeare's being a Catholic, for he was married, baptized, and buried in the Anglican Church. But these facts, it must be remembered, have in themselves no such significance as they would possess at the present time. There was no way of having the birth of a child properly registered then in England except by having it baptized in the church by law established. Obsequies also had to be observed according to the Anglican rite, for the only cemetery was close to the parish church. As for Shakespeare's marriage, in recent years the interesting suggestion has been made that the real reason for the circumstances attending the ceremony, which are supposed to carry a hint of scandal with them, is because he was originally married by a Catholic priest. As it was then very perilous for a priest to show himself in public or to perform any official church service, the marriage was, of course, performed secretly. Anne Hathaway's family, moreover, was Catholic by tradition, and about the time of the marriage it is known that a priest, not entirely without the knowledge of the local authorities, used to say Mass privately, in the loft of one of the houses at Shottery. But if Shakespeare was a Catholic should not his plays show it? Unquestionably. And I maintain they do. Commentators have pointed out, for instance, that Shakespeare in Romeo and Juliet follows Arthur Brooke's Tragical History of Romeo and Juliet very closely. He has, however, changed the whole of the play's attitude toward the Catholic Church. Confession instead of being a source of sin actually protects the young people from their own passion in the most difficult circumstances, and almost succeeds in rescuing them from an unfortunate complication. Instead of being "superstitious," Friar Lawrence is pictured as a dear old man interested in his plants and what they can do for mankind, but interested still more in human souls, trying to care for them and quite willing to do everything that he can, even risking the displeasure of two noble houses rather than have the young people commit sin. Friar Lawrence is represented in general as one to whom Romeo and Juliet would naturally turn in their difficulty. But King John, it is maintained, represents an altogether different attitude toward the Church. In that play they assert there are passages which make it very clear that Shakespeare shares the general feeling of the men of England in his time. King John protests, for example: That no Italian priest Shall tithe or toll in our dominions. But as we, under heaven, are supreme head, In this play, too, there are some bitter comments on monks which would seem to prove that Shakespeare shared the opinions of many of his contemporaries regarding monasticism. But let us see: The Troublesome Reign of King John, from which Shakespeare made his play, was probably written in the year of the Spanish Armada when English national feeling ran very high and there was bitter antagonism against Catholicism as the religion of England's greatest enemies. The dramatist-we are not quite sure who it was-shrewdly took advantage of this political situation in order to gain favor for his play. He tickled the ears of the groundlings and attracted popular attention by stimulating the prejudice of his audience. Shakespeare modified all this to a very marked extent when he rewrote the play seven years later, though it can be seen that he used many of the words of the original version and was evidently following it very closely. But for some good reason he was manifestly minimizing all the anti-Catholic bias in it though letting stand whatever sentiments were suitable for such characters as King John and his entourage. In the matter of monks and nuns and their treatment in the original version of King John, Shakespeare has been even more drastic in the changes that he made. But the best evidence of Shakespeare's attitude toward the Anglican Church is to be found in King Henry VIII., one of the poet's greatest plays and the last he wrote. Some of the Wolsey speeches in it are the finest examples of English that were ever penned. It is conceded by all the critics to be the ripest fruit of his mature years. Therefore, if a play can be considered the expression of Shakespeare's settled opinion, that play is Henry VIII. Now it so happens that the subject of Henry VIII. is exactly the story of how the change of religion came about in England. But it is sometimes urged that the fifth act, with its culmination in the birth of Elizabeth, and the high prospects for England and the rejoicings which this occasions, indicates that the writer considered that the marriage of King Henry to Anne Boleyn and the birth of a daughter by that union marked a great epoch in English history and, above all, that the steps that led to this happy termination, though dramatically blameworthy, must be condoned owing to their happy consequences. It is well known, however, that the fifth act by every test known to Shakespearean commentators was not written by Shakespeare at all, but by Fletcher. Our knowledge of Shakespeare's relations with people in London would indicate that a great many of his friends and intimates were Catholics. It is possible that the Burbages, the actors with whom he was so closely joined during most of his dramatic career, belonged to the Warwickshire Catholic family of that name. One of Shakespeare's dearest friends, the Earl of Southampton, who was his patron in early years, and his supporter when he bought the Blackfriars theater, was closely allied to a Catholic family and, as Simpson has pointed out, was cradled in Catholic surroundings. The conversion of Ben Jonson about the middle of the last decade of the sixteenth century showed how easily men might be Catholics in London at this time. Ben Jonson was in the Marshalsea prison on a charge of murder in 1594 and found P R R R R R R |