INTERNAL OBJECTIONS

87

thinks it evidently supposititious. Knight' will not believe it to be the work of a Roman Catholic at all, both because of its uncontroversial character, and because its doctrinal expressions are both raving and offensive. As examples, he quotes in proof" direful iron of the lance," which is, in truth, derived from the line "quae vulnerata lanceæ mucrone diro" of the ancient hymn, " Vexilla Regis," and "Life giving Sepulchre of the Lord's Side," an expression not only common in Catholic devotions, but imitated by Shakespeare in his thirty-first sonnet, where he says to his friend

"Thou art the grave where buried love does live."

The objections to the genuineness of the will on doctrinal grounds arise only from ignorance of Catholic practices and devotion. The phrases and manner pronounced absurd and offensive are precisely those usually employed in testaments of this kind.

But the will is rejected on external grounds as a forgery. It was "composed," Halliwell Phillipps says, as is most likely, by Jordan," while Mr. Sidney Lee calls "the forgery of the will of Shakespeare's father, Jordan's most important achievement." Let (cf. Month, May 1882) as containing a similar protestation abridged. Maskell, Monument. Ritual. Eccles. Anglic., 262, 263, 1846, contains two other brief forms of spiritual wills englished from the Sarum Hora of 1508.

us see how far the history of the document, as far as it can be gathered from Halliwell's extracts from the evidence of Malone, Jordan, and Davenport,' warrants the statement.

(1). In 17572 a small paper book consisting of six leaves, purporting to be the spiritual testament of John Shakespeare, was found by Thomas Moseley between the rafters and the roof when retiling the house of Mr. Thomas Hart, a lineal descendant of the poet's sister. Moseley was a master bricklayer who sometimes worked with his men. He was sufficiently educated to transcribe a portion of the document.

(2). Moseley lent the discovered will to Mr. Alderman Payton sometime prior to 1785, who read and returned it, saying that he wished the name had been William instead of John. In 1785 Jordan made a copy of the manuscript which he sent to the Gentleman's Magazine, but that journal rejected it as spurious, as did also the Rev. T. Green, the rector of Wilford, near Stratford, an antiquary of some repute. In 1788 Moseley died, leaving the original manuscript in the hands again of Payton, who sent it in 1789, through the Rev. T. Davenport, the vicar of Stratford, to Malone.

(3). Malone took pains to investigate the matter thoroughly. He ascertained through Davenport that Moseley was a thoroughly honest, sober, indus

1 "Outlines," ii. 400–404.

2 Jordan says 1757, Malone 1770, but the difference is immaterial, as the supposed forgery was in 1785.

JORDAN'S ALLEGED FORGERY

89

trious man, and had neither asked for nor received. any payment for the document in his possession, and that his daughter, who was still living, and Mr. Thomas Hart, in whose house it was found, both perfectly remembered the fact of its discovery by Moseley. Malone also obtained from Jordan his account of his connection with the document, and with this evidence before him, and with the knowledge that Jordan's copy had been rejected by the Gentleman's Magazine and by Green, he published in 1790 the history of the manuscript in his possession, declared himself perfectly satisfied as to its genuineness, adding "that its contents are such as no one could have thought of inventing with a view to literary imposition."

Such is the history of the will to 1790. On what grounds rests the supposed forgery? Malone, it is said, in 1796 recanted his verdict.

He declares

indeed that he was mistaken as to the writer of the document, for from documents since obtained "he is convinced that the will could never have been written by any of the poet's family." These words of Malone need mean nothing more than that he had satisfied himself that the will was neither in the autograph of John Shakespeare nor in the writing of a member of his family. But a will may be authentic without being an autograph, and the authenticity of the will Malone never calls in question. To suppose, as some have done, that Jordan, instead of making an exact copy of the will, when the

document was lent to him by Moseley, fabricated a will and returned his fabrication to Moseley instead of the original document, is to suppose what is absurd. The original document was already known to Moseley and Payton, and was subsequently again in their possession, and transmitted by them as genuine through Davenport to Malone. They must therefore have perceived at once any discrepancy between Jordan's copy and the original, and it is simply incredible that had such existed, neither Moseley, Payton, Davenport, nor Malone should ever have exposed Jordan's forgery, nor entered a word of protest against its circulation.

Further, we may ask, what motive was there for such a forgery? There was no controversy then as to John Shakespeare's religion, nor did the Ireland forgeries, prompted according to Malone by this very will, appear till eleven years later. The history of the forged will of William Shakespeare offers an instructive contrast indeed to that of the will of John Shakespeare. Ireland produced a will professedly made by William Shakespeare, having found it, he said, in the house of a gentleman whose name he could not give. The contents of this document are of a colourless, stilted character, and Ireland's son Samuel Henry admitted, within twelve months of the publication, that he had himself fabricated the document, though without his father's knowledge. The will of John Shakespeare was found in Mr. Hart's house by Moseley, a man of unimpeachable

WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE'S BAPTISM 91

integrity, and his statement as to its discovery is confirmed by independent testimony. The genuineness of the will is guaranteed by a chain of witnesses during some thirty or forty years, and its contents are in complete agreement, as has been shown, with the spiritual testaments drawn up by Catholics at that period. Against the evidence, internal and external, in favour of the will, the unsupported assumption of its forgery is not, we think, tenable. The will has therefore a right in our judgment to be regarded as genuine till further evidence to the contrary be adduced, and thus we leave it as forming the last witness to John Shakespeare's religious belief.

There is good reason, then, for believing that the poet's parents were Catholics. But it is objected the fact remains that the poet himself, whatever was the religion of his parents, was baptized, married, and buried in the Protestant Church.

First, then, as regards the baptism. Catholic parents knew that if the matter and form were duly applied, that sacrament was valid, by whomsoever administered, lay or cleric, heretic or Catholic. The law enforced the baptism of all children by the minister in the Parish Church, and we shall see in the Recusancy-return how carefully evidence was taken on this head. There was a great difficulty in finding a priest, and Catholics, even the parents of the child, were subjected to severe penalties for conferring that sacrament. Lord Montague, for baptizing