A Loyall, Just and Upright Gentleman
Shakespeare’s purchase of New Place located the dramatist firmly in the centre of Stratford life. His wife and daughters moved into their newly refurbished home and looking forward to spending more time with the man of the house. He was, of course, the guiding hand of the family’s finances. He was most likely instrumental for re-entering the suit his father had filed for the recovery of Arden property in his mother’s village of Wilmcote, pressing a case against their relatives, the Lamberts in returning a house that they refused to return. It was a difficult and somewhat technical case.
The witnesses brought forward in the case against the Lamberts were in fact colleagues of William, rather than his father John, which argues his personal investment in the matter. Amongst this tangled procedure it is clear that the Shakespeare’s were energetically pursuing their case to the extent that Lambert accused them of harassment. The case dragged on for more than two and a half years and was eventually settled in Lambert’s favour out of court. During the proceedings, he was rebuked for wasting Chancery time, an indication of just how far Shakespeare would go to defend the family honour and in pursuit of family property. His pursuits were almost relentless.
The new owner of New Place was already a gentleman of financial consequence in Stratford. It seems likely that he was being asked to consider the purchase of the house and land of his wife’s stepmother in Shottery; the old woman died in 1598, leaving approximately thirty acres, as well as the farmhouse now known as Anne Hathaway’s Cottage. He was also considered to be in the market for the purchase of money in lieu of a percentage of crops or farm-stock on land possessed by tithe holders; it had once been a religious obligation which had become a matter of lay ownership.
Later in the year, a town alderman, Richard Quiney decided to approach Shakespeare for a loan on behalf of the Stratford Corporation. Who else to ask but the man who was arguably now the wealthiest householder in Stratford. It seems likely that Quiney needed the money to sustain his advocacy of Stratford’s business in the capital. News of his attempts to borrow money from Shakespeare reached Stratford itself, and eleven days later Stratford’s bailiff, Abraham Sturley wrote to him that he had heard of “our countryman Mr. Wm Shak. Would procure us money, which I will like of as I shall heare when, and wheare, and howe.” It doesn’t take a genius to detect a note of scepticism or caution on Sturley’s part. Did Shakespeare have a reputation for meanness or greed? It is not a possible assumption, as he took small debtors to court or it could be more that his financial reputation could be because of astuteness rather than greed. There have been suggestions that like his father, Shakespeare was a money lender. During this time, in the absence of banks, this was not an unusual thing for a wealthy man to do. It would only seem inappropriate to those who have an excessively romantic opinion of amazing writers.
The letter to Shakespeare and was later found among Quiney’s papers. Perhaps the alderman had decided to pay a call on his countryman. But where was he going to find him? In November 1497 the dramatist had failed to pay five shillings in property tax to the collectors of St. Helen’s Bishopsgate. He was one of those who were “dead, departed, and gone out of the said ward.” It may be that he already remove to Southwark, out of the reach of the Bishopsgate collectors. In 1598 he was listed again by the parish authorities for non-payment of thirteen shillings and four pence. He had certainly moved to Southwark by 1600, for in that year he is reported to the officers of the Bishop of Winchester for having failed to pay his property tax. It was a common enough offence but it is still difficult to understand why the wealthy Shakespeare seems to deliberately to have withheld payment of a standard tax. Was it laziness or cheapness? Or did he feel that he discharged his obligations by paying taxes in Stratford? Did he not consider himself to be thoroughly “settled” in London? Did he feel that he owed London nothing or perhaps more likely, that he owed the world nothing?
No comments:
Post a Comment