The Merry Meeting – Vicar Ward’s Diary[1]
It is now November 1662, Shakespeare has been dead for almost 50 years and John Ward has just been appointed as the vicar of Holy Trinity Church in Stratford-upon-Avon. He was wont to keep a diary.
Shakespeare was born in 1564; he died in 1616; the Folio was published in 1623. From the first to the last, history has left no clues. Any way the facts are dissected, history is still stuck with 1) nothing, 2) a possible illness or left with 3) the whole vicar-diarizing-the-47-year-old-tale-about-the-drayton-jonson-merry-meeting-fever-contracted thing. It is time to substantiate, equivocate or obliterate the good vicar’s account.
Recall Ward’s merry meeting entry was writ in 1663 – 47 years after Shakespeare’s death. But the investigation can’t start in 1663; peering back a couple years will shed some light on who John Ward was and put things into perspective before the stage direction is given for Shakespear, Drayton and Ben-Jhonson to either Enter the merry meeting or whether the whole thing was a compositor’s error.
John Ward (1629-1681) – according to Robert Frank in his thorough April 1974 article for the Journal of the History of Medicine – The John Ward Diaries: Mirror of Seventeenth Century Science and Medicine[2] – was born in rural Northamptonshire, studied at and graduated Oxford with his B.A in 1649; he received his M. A. in 1652 in divinity studies. Divinity and matters of the flock were probably his second love notwithstanding he became the ordained Rev. John Ward in 1660 and was sent to Holy Trinity Church in Stratford in late 1662.
Ward’s likely first and deepest love, however – as can be concluded from his diaries and the fact his diaries provided the subject matter for a journal article on the history of medicine – was, in fact, medicine. Or perhaps more succinctly, his love of medicine concentrated on anatomy, physiology, autopsies and whatever discipline you call when you’re interested in the effects of medicine on the body. To this extent he was interested in pharmacology and all that entailed: chemistry, botany, elixirs and potions.
Rev. Ward’s diaries do not read so much as one would expect a country vicar’s diary to read but rather like a diary of someone who was a heavily studied, interested and keen medical student or doctor. Nevertheless, he took the route of God and became a vicar and was posted to Stratford. Maybe the vicar’s cloth paid the bills so he could follow his other passion – an arm-chair, hobbyist medical doctor and amateur historian. The diaries contain far more medical entries than entries on other subjects – and there were many.
Were it not for Ward’s few notations on Shakespeare it is doubtful his diaries would be known outside of the few students who happened to peruse them at the Medical Library of London where they were housed until 1928. Think about the route his diaries took from Stratford in the 1660s to being part of this investigation in the 2020s: a diary was kept by a young, eager, newly-posted vicar to Stratford in 1662; most of the entries relate to medicine; a scant few – six – are about Shakespeare and his family; the diaries end up in the Medical Library of London at some point; in 1928 or thereabouts the Shakespeare entries go public due to someone actually reading them; a bookseller from Philadelphia buys the diaries in 1928; Henry Clay Folger buys them in 1932;[3] and to conclude, this investigation is writing about the young vicar who took more care making notes about what potion to give someone with an illness than he did making notes for his sermon. Ah, life! The roads that are took.
An observation of interest becomes apparent quickly after reading Ward’s entries: he was highly organized to the extent he made lists of things to do – what he had to do, who he had to see, what he had to research, what he had to buy. Much of it reads like an ongoing, daily to-do list. He religiously reminded himself where he heard things and reminded himself of what ingredients to put into poultices or potions.
In V.a. 293, the entries identified at Fol. 105v and thereafter, he tells himself Remember to inquire whether there is such a Book as Strong of the will of man and buy itt if possible and Remember to buy a prettie Large Mappe of London. For an elixir recipe, Ward notes, Rx take 5 Raisins and out with the kernels and lay them in honie, and eat them good against Coughs and phtisick. Location Fol. 106r reminds himself to Remember to buy Saunderson de Juaramento, to ask my Brothers advise about Hebrews and a little further on To buy Carpets, Cushions, Bays, some sweetmeats and the like… He then notes Remember Cyperus grass and make use of itt in Infusion in drinks for Mris. Rawlins and others. Apparently, Mrs. Rawlins was in some sort of need of the healing cypress grass infusion and Ward was going to make sure he remembered to give it to her.
In short, Ward is a sponge; not only for medical information – which is clearly his passion – but he soaks up all matter of information. Ward soaked up information on myriad topics: medicine, history, geography, theology and things that concerned his surroundings depending on whether he was in Oxford, London or Stratford.
To put the source of the diary entries into context, Ward, for the most part, does that himself; not always, but a great deal of the time. That is to say, he would write how he came across the information. A few examples will illustrate.
V.a. 293, Fol. 106r, Ward writes, It is a general Rule as Ned Morgan told mee that when you plant plants you cut the Tops of them as short as may bee, so they will grow much better. Ned told him that. There is no reason to suggest that 1) Ned didn’t tell him that and 2) no reason to think what Ned said was so, wasn’t so. By all accounts, Ned was a half-decent gardener because as gardeners – and grandmothers – will tell you there is no harm in giving plants a good shearing in order to encourage growth. This is a good, simple example of looking at what was said and determining whether it was, in fact, so. In this example, what Ned said was so, was so.
The entry, Mr. Trap told mee that hee was once with Mr. pemble going over to see Erpenius in the Low-Countries: hee was diverted and came to Stratford to teach school but Mr. Pemble went, at V.a. 292, at Fol. 139r, reminds Ward, and tells modernity, Mr. Trap was his source. Trap was apparently a talker as is evidenced in the following diary entry: Robert Steephens his bible as Mr. Trappe says is much better than plantine Remember it.
It’s a not stretch to think Ward was having a conversation with Trap or Trappe about bibles after church one day and Ward might have commented on seeing Plantine’s bible and said it was a fine bible, at which point Trap might have interjected, ‘No, no, Father, Robert Steephens bible is much better than Plantine’s. Remember it,’ while looking Ward in the eye and lightly pushing an index finger into the Reverend’s shoulder. Such are exactly how small-town conversations play out. Of course, Trap didn’t inform the good vicar of the possible backstory, that Trap thought Plantine a no-good scallywag. Those parts – the backstory, if they exist – don’t often get told. No offense to Plantine.
At Fol. 139v, Mr. Leigh lived with Mr. Wheatley in Banburie some time, there hee wrote his Critica Sacra. hee lived in the great house near the gate. And immediately after, hee observes [that is to say, Mr. Leigh observes]of Mr. Wheatley hee was never heard to use greek or Latine in his Sermons or Hebrew except the Lam.5.16…
For the above passages, the various sources for Ward’s entries are Ned Morgan, Mr. Trap and Mr. Leigh.
Other times, if Ward didn’t know – or didn’t want to document – the source of the information, we would say he ‘heard’ it. For instance, at V.a. 292, at Fol. 139r, Ward says, Raphelingius I have heard married plantines daughter and thereof hee took up the presse when hee died. At Fol. 141r, Ward writes, Dr. Harris preacht at Stratford I have heard 2 yeer I have heard other say 4 yeers inquire punctually about it of old Mr. Trap. Ward was therefore told two pieces of contradictory information and, by golly, he was going to find out which one was truth; old Mr. Trap knew things and Ward knew where to go for the best information and set the record straight. Ward, good to his word, did enquire of old Trap punctually for he got his answer forthwith and made sure he noted it: Dr. Harris preachd here about 2 yeer every other week hee had 20 or 30 li per annum. There is no doubting it, good old Trap knew much.
More often than not Ward prefaced his entries with qualifiers: I have heard, I have heard say, So and So told me, inquire further of and so on. If he knew the source, or thought it important enough to mention the source, he’d write that down; if he didn’t, usually, he’d just say he heard it. The picture painted from Ward’s diary is a nice, quaint, small town, conversation-based picture: a young vicar getting to know his Stratford parishioners, learning cough syrup recipes, who had the bigger bible and…Shakespeare.
You didn’t think the new, green, keen vicar of Stratford would omit Shakespeare from his diary when he had to stare at the poet’s wall monument every Sunday in Holy Trinity Church did you? Fear not, Ward dutifully included Shakespeare and/or his family in his diary on six occasions. The entries will be reproduced now and then discussed in full and parsed, as needed.[4]
- Folger MS V.a. 287 at Fol. 95r. Approximate date of entry: anywhere from November 1665 to spring/summer 1666.
A letter to my brother, to see
Mr. Queeny, to send for
Tom Smith for the acknowledgment
- Folger MS V.a. 292 at Fol. 138v. Approximate date of entry: anywhere from late 1662 to April 1663.
Shakespear had but two daughters one
whereof M. Hall the physician married
and by her had one daughter, to with the
Lady Bernard of Abbingdon.
3. Folger MS V.a. 292 at Fol. 140r. Approximate date of entry: anywhere from late 1662 to April 1663.
- I have heard that Mr. Shakespeare
was a natural wit without any
art at all. hee frequented the
plays all his younger time, but
in his elder days livd at Strat
ford: and supplied the state with
2 plays every year and for that
had an allowance so large that
hee spent att the Rate of 1000 l
a yeer as I have heard:
b) Remember to peruse Shake-
spears plays and bee versd
in them that I may not bee ig-
orant in that matter
- Folger MS V.a. 292 at Fol. 150r. Approximate date of entry: anywhere from late 1662 to April 1663.
Shakespear Drayton and
Ben-Jhonson had a merry
meeting and itt seems drank
too hard for Shakespear died
of a feavour there contracted
- Folger MS V.a 294 at Fol. 20r-v. Approximate date of entry: anywhere from November 1665 to late 1666.
Whether Dr. Heylin does well in Reck
oning up the Dramatik poets which
have been famous in England to o=
mit Shakespear:
- Folger MS V.a 295 at Fol. 120r. Approximate date of entry: summer 1666.
Dr. Heylin in reckoning up
the dramatic poets
omits Shakespeare:
Just prior to individually discussing each entry and then the group as a whole, a few factual backdrops are necessary to be aware of in order to fully understand the entries and to be able to put those entries in context. Ward was posted to Stratford in November 1662. It is important to understand all of Shakespeare’s direct descendants were dead by this time, except one, his granddaughter Elizabeth Barnard who was then living in Abington in 1662. A quick who’s who and who’s where in 1662 will help visualize:
- William Shakespeare, dead. He died 1616.
- Anne Hathaway Shakespeare, wife, dead. She died 1623.
- Susanna Hall, daughter, dead. She died 1649; husband John Hall, dead. He died 1635.
- Judith Quiney, daughter, dead. She died February 1662; husband Thomas Quiney, dead, possibly. He died c.1662-1663.
- John Ward, vicar, posted to Stratford, late 1662.
- Elizabeth Barnard, Susanna’s daughter, Shakespeare’s granddaughter, alive. She married her second husband, John Barnard in 1649. They lived in Abington, Northamptonshire. She died in Abington in 1670. She was Shakespeare’s only descendant left alive when Ward got to Stratford; although, she wasn’t living there at the time.
So, by the time Ward got to Stratford in late 1662 no descendant of Shakespeare’s was alive other than granddaughter Elizabeth and she lived in Northamptonshire. Might Ward have met Shakespeare’s only surviving direct descendant? Unlikely. Because 1) she wasn’t living in Stratford, and 2) his diaries give no hint or whiff of the indication theatre or Shakespeareana was of interest to him enough to seek her out and 3) if he did meet Elizabeth, he never made note of it. It can therefore be stated with some measure of confidence Ward never met Elizabeth and had no inclination to do so.
It is possible Thomas Quiney, Judith’s husband, was alive by the time Ward got to Stratford; at present, whether Quiney was alive in late 1662 is unknown. Nor is it known with clear certainty he was even living in Stratford in 1662. The best the historical record reveals is that he died c. 1662-1663. To that end, if he was alive, it is possible Ward might have made a diary entry about meeting him or speaking with him or hearing some story about Shakespeare’s son-in-law; however, Ward records nothing in 1662 or 1663 about Quiney. Does this mean Quiney was dead when Ward got to Stratford? No; just an observation. Now the topic has switched to the Quineys that is the logical starting point – the entry discussing a Quiney.
Diary Entries
Folger MS V.a. 287 at Fol. 95r. Approximate date of entry: spring/summer 1666.
A Letter to my Brother, a Bill for
Mris. Butler, to see Mr. Queeny: to
send to tom Smith for the acknowled=
gment
Ward reminds himself in this particular to-do list to get a letter to his brother, a bill for Mrs. Butler, to see Mr. Queeny and send Tom Smith for the acknowledgment; the “Queeny” inclusion interests the investigation.
“Queeny” has been interpreted to mean Quiney, i.e., the Quineys of Stratford; which is the correct interpretation. However, Edgar Fripp, notes in his 1928 book,[5] that Ward’s entry is written as ‘Mrs. Quiney’. This is an error. The manuscript says ‘Mr.’ The Folger Library transcription team has also read it and transcribed it as ‘Mr.’ Therefore, if the entry of “Queeny” is in fact referring to a Quiney of Stratford it is clear it is referring to a Mr. Quiney and not a Mrs. Is the “Mr. Queeny” of Ward’s diary Shakespeare’s son-in-law, Thomas Quiney? Not likely. Ward wrote this entry around mid-1666; Shakespeare’s son-in-law died in either 1662 or 1663. Could it be a different Stratford Queeny/Quiney? Of course; it’s just not referring to Shakespeare’s son-in-law. The above chronological analysis of the diary entry date rests in part on the previous scholarship of Robert Frank where, in his article 1974 article, he breaks down the four separate time periods when V.a. 287 was written. After his in-depth analysis Frank scholarizes the Queeny/Quiney entry was writ in late 1666;[6] his analysis seems correct and is persuasive. This entry sheds no light on Shakespeare’s death.
Folger MS V.a. 292 at Fol. 138v. Approximate date of entry: anywhere from late 1662 to April 1663.
Shakespear had but two daughters one
whereof M. Hall the physician married
and by her had one daughter, to wit the
Lady Bernard of Abbingdon.
This entry can reasonably be concluded to coincide almost exactly with when Ward arrived in Stratford; which confirms Frank’s chronological analysis. There are a few factors suggesting a narrower entry date of November/December 1662 can be put forth. Manuscript V.a. 292 starts in February 1661 as Ward himself writes at Fol. 179v/back endleaf 1r in V.a. 292.
This Book was begunne. ffeb.
14. 1661: and finished April. The
25. 1663: att Mr. Brooks his house
in Stratford uppon Avon in War
wickshire
Ward was in Oxford – sitting in on chemistry, botany and anatomy lectures – for a good portion of 1661 and was in London from November 1661 to November 1662.[7] He must have made his decision to heed the calling by that point and take up a vicarship in November 1662 – his Stratford posting date.
V.a. 292 is a loose-leaf book, as all his volumes are, with pages measuring approximately 5 ¾ x 3 ¾ inches – not a huge diary in terms of page dimensions.[8] There are 179 pages in V.a. 292. Ward started it on 14 February 1661, see above; he ended it in Stratford on 25 April 1663, see above. The entries concerning Shakespeare and his family start at pages Fol. 138v and thereafter at 140r, 140r and 150r; totaling four entries in V.a. 292. The book itself contained 179 pages. This puts Ward’s first Shakespeare-related entry on page Fol. 138v about 78% of the way through V.a 292; Ward’s last entry about Shakespeare in V.a. 292, at Fol. 150r, is about 85% of the way through V.a. 292.
Using this methodology and Frank’s analysis this puts Ward’s first Shakespeare entries smack dab – within days perhaps, give or take – with his arrival in Stratford in November 1662. Smack dab. It puts his last entry about Shakespeare in V.a. 292 – the one about the merry meeting – around January-February-ish 1663. He finished V.a. 292 on 25 April 1663. That date, reading friends, is a coincidence. A big one, but nonetheless, it is a coincidence all the same and nothing turns on it. This puts all Ward’s Shakespeare references that are noteworthy bunched together in a two to four month period upon arriving at Stratford. And then he never mentions Shakespeare again save for two later references which will be discussed briefly in due course. But back to his first entry about Shakespeare and his family.
Ward knew of Shakespeare, i.e., he knew there was a famous playwright by the name of Shakespeare, from Stratford, but that might be all he knew. His diaries certainly give no indication he was a fan, a theatre-goer or the like. However, upon his arrival in Stratford in November 1662 something must have jogged his memory that he was posted to the birthplace and burial-place of Shakespeare. Could it have been Shakespeare’s face staring at him from the wall monument when he walked into Holy Trinity Church for the first time and every time thereafter he gave a sermon? Possibly.
Regardless, soon after he arrived in Stratford Ward either started asking questions about Shakespeare’s family or he did some research on his own to find out that Shakespear had but two daughters one whereof M. Hall the physician married and by her had one daughter, to wit the Lady Bernard of Abbingdon. Heck, he might have even gotten some of that information from looking at Susanna and John Hall’s grave-markers sitting silently not that far away from Shakespeare’s wall monument inside the church. Can this diary entry shed any light on the investigation? No, zero.
At some point, soon thereafter, but still likely in November or December 1662, the sponge and information-seeking Ward started asking more questions about the town’s famous playwright for 3 pages later, at Fol. 140r, Ward hears from somebody:
I have heard that Mr. Shakespeare
was a natural wit without any
art at all. hee frequented the
plays all his younger time, but
in his elder days livd at Strat
ford: and supplied the stage with
2 plays every year and for that
had an allowance so large that
hee spent att the Rate of 1000
a yeer as I have heard:
And immediately thereafter,
Remember to peruse Shake-
spears plays and bee versd
in them that I may not bee ig-
orant in that matter
From his enquiries, the young vicar have heard about Shakespeare’s wit, the fact Shakespeare spent much of his time in London, spent his elder years in Stratford, supplied the stage with two plays a year and made an enormous amount of money as I have heard. Much of what the vicar heard, generally speaking, is true. However, some commentators have suggested the amount of money Ward records in his diary that Shakespeare received for his plays seemed crazy high.[9] So, some of what Ward heard, and then wrote, seems to be so, i.e., true. Some of it seems to be not so, i.e., not true. If the sum of money Ward records Shakespeare receiving for his plays and then spending is inordinately high, then, someone in Stratford was perhaps having the vicar on, i.e., telling a whopper, saying something that wasn’t so.
It’s clear Ward – just alighted from his horse or the coach – didn’t want to appear uneducated to the good people of Stratford on his arrival so he reminded himself, probably within a short period of time of his arrival,[10] to Remember to peruse Shakspears plays and bee versd in them that I may not bee ignorant in that matter.
The passages show the newly-arrived Ward was doing his homework on the town’s famous playwright. And, because he hadn’t had his nose in Romeo and Juliet or Julius Caesar recently, or ever, and because he really wasn’t quite sure who a Othello was, darn it, he was going to review them. Other than learning about Ward’s very inquisitive mind can the above entries assist the investigation? No, not at all.
And…then…comes…the…big…one: the one that put his diary on the world’s stage. Ten pages after he reminds himself to become versed in Shakespeare’s plays, at Fol. 150r, this appears:
Shakespear Drayton and
Ben-Jhonson had a merry
meeting and itt seems drank
too hard for Shakespear died
of a feavour there contracted[11]
What? Where did that come from? Who said that? Did old man Trap say that? Maybe it was Trap who was fevered. Buckle up readers. Just before that doozy is unpacked, one thing must be illuminated: that’s the last time Ward wrote anything about Shakespeare or his death or his family. Ward did make two bland entries years later, and those will be discussed to the extent is necessary, but the merry meeting-death entry is the last substantive entry he makes about Shakespeare – a comment on his death. And then, nothing. Poof. Like that, he goes silent. Just like everybody else.
Ward wrote that entry, indeed all four Shakespeare-related entries, within the first four months of his Stratford posting, from November 1662 to January or February 1663. Ward died in 1681, in Stratford. From the merry meeting entry in 1663 until his death almost 20 years later he never wrote another thing about Shakespeare or his death. For the next 20 years John Ward commented not. The prolific vicar diarist clammed up, snap, like that. With a snap of the fingers, he succumbed to the silence sickness, on the instant. Would he had a cure for that with one of his potions.
Are you sitting comfortably? Thus, it begins: the merry meeting.
Source
Ward doesn’t name his source for the merry meeting. This is not entirely unusual for Ward; sometimes he does name his source, sometimes he doesn’t. In the main, sources can be audible or visual. That is to say, someone told him or he otherwise heard it audibly or he read it somewhere, visually. Unless Ward read something, like a document, that hasn’t survived, it is unlikely he read it; so, that option can reasonably be stroked off as his source. If he didn’t read it, he heard it. Where did he hear it? Ward doesn’t say.
As shown above, Ned Morgan in the past had been a good source for Ward’s diarizing as has Mr. Trap and Steephens. Ward names them as his sources on various occasions. Morgan seems to be Ward’s go-to guy for botany information; Trap And Steephens for sundry information and for information about the town and people. For whatever reason – there could be many – Ward doesn’t write who his source was. Confidential informants usually like to stay, you know, confidential. Who might have told him about the merry meeting and under what circumstances? Who’s to say? It might have gone something like this, during a friendly conversation with his new parishioners as they exited church one Sunday morning early into the vicar’s tenure:
Steephens: Morning Father, great sermon.
Ward: I thank ye, as does th Lord our God. Oh, by’er leave, a word, I pray you. Please. [They move aside.] Now, ‘bout this rather, itt seems greate esteemed poet and stage writer, Shakespear.
Steephens: Will.
Ward: Yes, yes, that’s th chap. They say hee made a moste excellentt name for himself in London as a playr and author.
Steephens: Yes, Father. His face is on your church wall so it is. Have you seen it?
Ward: Yes, yes, quite right you are; I have, thank you. Wasn’t Hamlet a lovely chap?
Steephens:
Ward: Er, Dogberry.
Steephens:
Ward: Yes, well, ah, how was itt again Shakespear died? I see his face every Sunday.
Steephens: Oh, died, yes, right, William’s death, well you see father, uh, he died after, uh, contracting plague, no, a fever, yes a fever, that’s it, he died of a fever, uh huh, the town is sure of it. Great sermon, Father. Ttyl.
Wanting to confirm the fever theory, the Vicar might have asked Old Man Trap later in the day. Trap’s answer might have gone something like this:
Old Man Trap: Ah, who knows Father, but it wasn’t the night Drayton and Jonson came to town, for did they meet, oh marry, did they meet. For as my father told me Shakespeare, fully sober, for he was never wont to take a drink, Father, not even after the children’s birth, not even after Lear was performed for the King himself, no sir, Father, oh, hello Ned, wonderful day, as I was saying, that one time when Drayton, him being a fellow man from the northern parts of the Werweshir and him and Jonson, as my father told me Father, with those two in town one day, Shakespeare was in a merry mood but it yet did sour when drunkd-up Jonson and Drayton interrupted William as he was planting as yet another mulberry tree down at his new house and had a meeting for some sort of t’other and as my father said William’s mood went from merry at the meeting to as sour as a poisoned pipin cider as you ever tasted.
After a brutally busy Sunday – another Mass, a wedding and two funerals – Ward finally sits down in his study, with his second or maybe third drink down the hatch, and tries his best to remember all he learned that day: something about a fever, a Drayton, a meeting, a Jonson and a merry. But for the life of him, the good-faithed vicar couldn’t just get it right. He wasn’t sure if Steephens said something about Drayton and the meeting or if Trap mentioned the fever and Jonson. Did someone say drink too much or was it drank with much fuss? So, instead of asking it a third time, Ward does his best and just conflates the two and says itt seems this happened to Shakespeare. That’ll be good enough he surmises because, really, who’s going to be reading this stuff anyway. And that’s that.
No? Very well, the above conjecture could be viewed as conjecture. But that is exactly how gossip and rumours get a running start over the truth of an event that happened 50 years prior and ends up just riding the wind for the next 400 years and no one is the wiser. Shakespeare knew the invidious result of rumour running amok; so did Prologue in King Henry IV Part 2:
Open your ears; for which of you will stop
The vent of hearing when loud Rumour speaks?
____________
Upon my tongues, continual slanders ride,
The which in every language, I pronounce,
Stuffing the ears of men with false reports.
I speak of peace, while covert enmity,
Under the smile of safety, wounds the world;
____________
Rumour, is a pipe
Blown by surmises, jealousies, conjectures,
_____________
The posts come tiring on,
And not a man of them brings other news
Then they have learnt of me. From Rumour’s tongues
They bring smooth comforts false, worse than true wrongs.[12]
Or, perhaps, what Ward wrote in his diary is exactly what was told to him, exactly. It’s possible, entirely. If the above conjecture is a little off-base for the sake of completeness Ward’s entire entry, as written, will be parsed. A start-over is required.
Source
Ward never says who his source is. However, he equivocates on the substance of what he hears and says itt seems. Not strong words for confirmation of the truth. Be that as it may, at some point within four months of his vicarship, Ward hears the drinking story and he writes itt seems drank too hard for Shakespear died of a feavour there contractd. Ward, if he writes it according to what he is told, says the death was directly related to the fever which was directly related to drinking which was directly related to a merry meeting and Drayton and Jonson were directly implicated.
Assuming Ward writ what was said, the investigation must ask the question: what was said, was it so? Or was it not so? Remember, just because someone says something is so doesn’t make it so. Maybe Ward’s source wanted to have some fun at the vicar’s expense. Maybe the source, knowing Shakespeare wasn’t a drinker, nor a friend of Jonson’s, told the vicar Shakespeare got hammered haha, with Jonson haha, and died thereafter: two big, enormous whoppers that anybody who knew Shakespeare would guffaw wildly at.
Maybe the source wanted to throw the new vicar off the trail in case he started asking more questions. That could be the hushed, wink-wink, local story as told to the new vicar and put him at ease that Shakespeare was ok to have been interred in his church. ‘Don’t worry, Vicar, even though you have to stare at his face every time you give a sermon and have to tip-toe around his grave-marker, make no mistake, all is good, he just got a little too-much tipsy.’ Because Ward’s source is unknown no in-depth analysis of the person’s character, motives or the like can be undertaken.
Diary Entries Pre and Post Merry Meeting Entry
Might an entry or two in the diary prior to the merry meeting entry or an entry or two after the remark assist? Here are a couple entries immediately before and after the merry meeting entry at V.a. 292 Fol. 150r.
With the spuma of Beer hea
ted I have heard of some
great cures done:
what were the Teutonick Order:
Shakespear Drayton and
Ben-Jhonson had a merry
meeting and itt seems drank
too hard for shakespear died
of a feavour there contractd
hares in the winter time turne white
all over Livonia:
whether a Justice of peace
after hee is made high-
sheriff is ipso facto outed from
being a Justice until hee
get a new Commission, itt
is affirmed that hee is:
Ward is a sponge; interested in everything and anything: heated spuma of beer provides great cures; he wants to know about the Teutonic Order;[13] he allegedly found the cause of Shakespeare’s death; rabbits in Livonia[14] turn white in the winter and finally Ward affirms a justice of the peace after he is made high sheriff must get a new commission to be deemed a justice of the peace again. Shakespeare’s merry meeting is sandwiched between the crusaders of the Teutonic Order and white Livonian rabbits in winter. However, none of that information can shed light on whether the merry meeting, as told, was so. Any evidence pointing to the veracity of the entry must come from the entry itself for entries immediately above and below offer no assistance. That leaves the investigation with just the words in the diary entry: Shakespeare, Drayton, Jonson, merry meeting, drank too hard, fever, died.
Information In the Diary Entry
Names
The first bit of information in the entry are the three names: Shakespeare, Drayton and Jonson. The three knew each other. All three were dramatists intimately involved in the whole London literary-theatre scene. Shakespeare acted in the odd Jonson play. Drayton and Jonson wrote letters to each other. The mention of all three names, together in a sentence, is no cause for initial alarm.
Merry Meeting
Might the three of them have met in Stratford, or London, for a merry night of drinking? Of course it’s possible. Is it plausible? Maybe not; not based on what history knows about Shakespeare, Drayton and Jonson. There is no information in the historical record to suggest the three men had a friendship that would precipitate a get-together. An acquaintance, yes; but not one necessarily that would support a night of drinking.
Drayton, for his part, was a Warwickshire-man as was Shakespeare, but that’s about as close as their acquaintance bears out. While there is no documentary evidence in the record to suggest there was any enmity between Shakespeare and Drayton concomitant to that is there is no evidence to suggest they were drinking buddies.
Jonson, for his part, really didn’t like Shakespeare and he would often fire shots over Shakespeare’s bow and take thinly-veiled barbs at Shakespeare’s work. Jonson never once let it be known while Shakespeare was alive that he liked Shakespeare or admired his work. Jonson’s only thinly-veiled praise for Shakespeare came in his Folio marketing elegy. Jonson, 20 years after Shakespeare died, wrote a few demonstrably suspect lines in his Timber allegedly showing his love for Shakespeare; but these are easily dissected, cross-examined and found wanting anything remotely resembling truth.
Again, is it possible the three met for a sociable? Absolutely, but dubious. However, if Ward’s diary entry said Shakespear Drayton and Ben-Jhonson did run into each other in a merry tavern and thereafter Shakespear was attackd by the drinkd full Jonson for having the better of the stage Drayton got between them and did say for Ben to go homme, that entry would be 100%, entirely, completely believable and substantiated by known facts in the historical record.
Drank Too Hard
Jonson, maybe; he was a drunk.[15] But not likely Shakespeare; he wasn’t known as a drinker.
Is it possible Shakespeare drank too hard at the merry meeting, if there was one? Of course. Is it plausible, based on what the historical record reveals? Not really. First, see above, the three weren’t what you call buddies let alone close friends. Second, Shakespeare wasn’t known to be a drinker. In fact, if the window into his mind regarding drinking can be peered into by reading Othello, it might be said with some measure of plausibility Shakespeare wasn’t a fan of drinking at all. When asked if he wants a drink, Shakespeare has Cassio answer:
Not to-night, good Iago. I have
very poor and unhappy brains for drinking;
I could well wish courtesy would invent
some other custom of entertainment.[16]
After Cassio does, in fact, get drunk he rues his merry making:
Reputation, reputation, reputation!
O, I have lost my reputation! I have lost
the immortal part of myself, and what
remains is bestial. My reputation, Iago, my reputation!
________
O thou
invisible spirit of wine, if thou hast no
name to be known by, let us call thee devil!
_______
O God, that men should put an
enemy in their mouths to steal away their
brains! That we should with joy, pleasance,
revel and applause, transform our-
selves into beasts![17]
Does Cassio’s words prove the vicar a liar? No. Was Shakespeare a drinker? No. Did he write about the stupidity of drinking? Yes. Is this dispositive to say the merry meeting and heavy drinking didn’t occur? No; just an observation. Is it possible for the historical record to be wrong on all the information in Ward’s diary entry? Absolutely. If so, it might have gone something like this: after Jonson and Drayton showed up at his new place one day wanting to have a few it is possible Shakespeare might have said to himself, ‘ah what the heck, I’ll have a merry meeting and drink with Jonson, someone who really dislikes me, but sure, whatever, I’ll have a couple with the drunkard. Christ, all he ever did was bash me. And as for Drayton, sure, what the heck, I’ll drink with him too, gawd, the pair of them look down on their luck and a little disheveled, are those garlands they have around their heads all askance? They seem half-cranked already. Is that a black eye Ben has? God, they look rough. Sigh. Whatever. Oh, Anne, be a doll, bring us some sack in the garden. Ben looks like he could use another.’ Possible, but sort of unlikely.
Fever
According to Ward, fever, brought on by drink culminating in death, is the cause of Shakespeare’s death. It is clear Ward’s diary links the fever with the drinking – itt seems drank too hard for shakespear died of a feavour there contractd. Ward heard, or at least wanted to convey, the fever was a result of the drinking. Is it possible Shakespeare died of a fever not related to drinking? Of course, but 1) that’s not what the diary says and 2) right at the moment the investigation is solely concerned with the veracity of Ward’s entry.
Using the words of the entry itself – the internal evidence – can a dispositive conclusion be made as to the truthfulness of said entry? No. Moreover, after examining what is known in the historical record about the internal components of the entry, the veracity thereof is shading towards it being not so, i.e., not true. However, the examination can’t stop there.
Can External Information Confirm Or Refute The Diary Entry?
Jonson
Did the merry meeting take place as recorded by Ward? Possibly. But, if it did occur, Jonson didn’t write about it, ever. This is important to note. Another important fact to remember is that the whole Shakespeare-died-of-a-fever-there-contracted thing was only mentioned in 1663, for the first time.
There is nothing found in the historical record to suggest in 1616 Jonson and the merry meeting were the cause of Shakespeare’s death; nor in 1623 – the year of the Folio’s publication – were there whispers that Jonson was somehow in part responsible for Shakespeare’s night of drink-induced-fever-and-later-death. There is nothing in the historical record to suggest an alleged meeting in Stratford was looked on unfavourably in either 1616 or 1623, if it took place; therefore, there would be nothing preventing Jonson from speaking about such an innocent afternoon spent with a fellow playwright. In 1616 and 1623, no such allusion was extant – at least, nothing in the historical record links the alleged meeting with Shakespeare’s death. Then, out of the blue in 1663 the diary entry gets writ – not unlike the immaculate conception of the authorship question.
Jonson makes no mention of Shakespeare’s untimely death in 1616 nor did he mention the alleged merry meeting in any of his writings or in his Folio elegy or mention it to Drummond. This is not to say Jonson was under an obligation to write something somewhere alluding to their alleged night of drinking – at least, not in so many, direct, blunt words. But, given who Jonson was and what modernity knows of his character it is not unreasonable to assume Jonson would have let such a monumental meeting with his greatest rival go undocumented.
From Jonson’s perspective, and his proclivity for self-promotion, a meeting in Stratford or London sometime before April 1616 would be seen by Jonson as a badge of honour: the two greatest poets of the sceptred isle having drinks or infused tea at high noon. If Shakespeare really was his beloved and if Jonson really held Shakespeare in the actual high regard as he purports in his Folio elegy the meeting of the literary titans would have been mentioned – for all time.
If Jonson was present at a merry meeting it might not be unreasonable to suggest he would have said something. Somewhere. Perhaps in one of his many letters to other playwrights or perhaps in his conversation with Drummond. Or in his Timber musings. Or, maybe, in his Folio elegy. Remember, there is no indication Jonson was persona non grata because of their meeting, if it occurred. As a corollary to that, if Jonson was blamed contemporaneously in 1616 or 1623 as being in part responsible for Shakespeare’s death Jonson would not have let such an accusation go unanswered. He would have writ – in more places than one – that his reputation was being besmirched by this allegation of him being responsible for Shakespeare’s drinking fever. If that was the story floating around in 1616 Jonson would have answered; that, is irrefutable. And, as of 1623’s Folio, there is no indication that such a story was circulating.
If the meeting happened all innocent-like and Shakespeare just happened to die of a fever or otherwise subsequent to the meeting but with no correlation between the meeting and his death, Jonson would have made sure the entire world knew about it. He could have very easily, and likely would have, conjured up some flattering verse that the two greatest writers of all time were together for a nice afternoon in Stratford. If the merry meeting occurred, Jonson’s allusion to it might have gone something like this:
Would our rendez-vous on the slow Avon
Been witnessed by Muses in pen’s Haven;
Blush’d cheeks and covering eyes would say
Ne’er before did twin Pillars spend a day;
We two, Rhodes granite at us up looks,
And thank Jove of gods for our poet books.
Or something. If Jonson met with Shakespeare, for drink or otherwise, there is a strong possibility Jonson would have let the world know about it – not dissimilar to the flattering, fawning, self-promoting verse above. Instead, in his posthumously published Timber, or Discoveries, all Jonson could come up with was ponder why the ‘unskilful’ audience enjoyed nonsense, presumably nonsense like Shakespeare’s that Jonson goes on to discuss in his next paragraph.[18] Jonson – after Shakespeare’s death in 1616 and after the Folio in 1623 – in 1637 still questioned how it was that Shakespeare’s boisterous entertaining style could so mesmerize the groundlings. And then, too little too late, he tries to redeem himself by saying I lov’d the man.[19] Some modern-day researchers buy it; the Project doesn’t.
Jonson never mentioned the merry meeting ever and he was not one not to speak his mind and keep things under his tongue; if Jonson and Shakespeare were on the mother of all benders, the bender to end all benders, and it ended with the ‘other’ greatest playwright of all time dying would that not be the best bar story ever to be told again and again and again? Jonson’s version of events would have circulated, quickly: Shakespeare, the great, bending with Jonson, the greater, but apparently that last shot of Jag was too much, fever set in and thus, our sweet swan of Avon bravely succumbed. And, it is somewhat curious Jonson never mentioned the meeting to Drummond; this might be the most interesting of external facts to keep in mind. One conclusion can be drawn: if the meeting occurred, then contrary to Jonson’s characteristics, contrary to what the historical record knows about Jonson, he never mentions the merry meeting in 1616, nor in his conversations with Drummond in 1618-19, nor in his 1623 Folio elegy, or in his writings prior to his death in 1637 which would later form his posthumously published Timber in 1640.
No Shame In Dying From Fever Or Alcohol
Another possible reason pointing away from the drinking story being related to the alleged cause of death – fever – was the fact fever was regularly talked about and noted contemporaneously with death in the 17th century. There was nothing hush-hush about dying from fever. It was a common cause of death, nothing to be ashamed of and it was talked about and writ about widely.
Further to that, there is nothing wrong with dying in an alcohol related incident either: see Marlowe’s death in 1593. In fact, that would be a manly way to go. Shakespeare’s friends, if it happened, would no doubt have immortalized their famous last night out. Jonson and Drayton and others can almost be heard in the tavern, after the sorrow wore off sufficiently, yelling, ‘Did we drink? Drink? With great and efficient indulgence did we drink and yet still did retain wit enough to prick the ring ere morn.’ There was no reason to keep a merry meeting a secret, if it occurred.
Unfortunately, no external evidence tends to show Ward’s entry shades towards truth; in fact, it’s inching towards not true and slowly pointing the needle towards rumour, gossip, made-up and not so.
Previous Commentary On Ward’s Merry Meeting
Schoenbaum thinks Ward’s entry can be described as “mythos”;[20] however, he does recognize the merry meeting is not implausible. Later in 1991, in Shakespeare’s Lives, Schoenbaum again comments on Ward’s diary entries about Shakespeare, including the merry meeting. His later analysis really isn’t on all fours with this investigation. He refers to the one diary entry as reading “Mrs. Queeny”;[21] the manuscript reads “Mr.” And, he doesn’t read the diary as linking the fever with the drinking as he suggests maybe Shakespeare contracted the fever at a party or elsewhere. While it is possible to read the diary entry in such a way that doesn’t correlate the two – i.e., the drinking didn’t cause the fever – the plain meaning and preferable reading of Ward’s entry does in fact correlate the fever to the drinking when the passage is read as a whole and read in such a way as trying to understand what Ward was trying to convey: that Shakespeare drank too hard and contracted a fever from said drinking. It is not unreasonable to think if Ward wanted to convey an alternate meaning then it is likely he would have writ that. He didn’t.
Schoenbaum further writes Ward was “the first individual in Stratford to take an antiquarian interest in the poet” and it is “scarcely surprising, therefore, that Ward should interest himself in the great man who had resided in the town a half-century earlier.”[22] To that must be added the following qualifier: Ward wrote his four entries of worth within four months of arriving at Stratford and save for two innocuous passages years later Ward never wrote another notation about Shakespeare over the next 20 years. His diaries contain tens of thousands of entries: four are on Shakespeare spanning a four month period within four months of being posted to Stratford over this 20 year tenure. One questions how interested in Shakespeare Ward really was; not much, it seems.
Schoenbaum doesn’t come down on one side or the other regarding the veracity of the merry meeting, but the sense of his overall scholarship on the matter reveals he probably has his doubts.
Jonathan Bate in 2009 suggests “Gossip usually begins from a grain of truth.”[23] He wasn’t canvassing the merry meeting entry but rather was parsing the entry wherein Ward records Shakespeare was a natural wit, supplied the stage with two plays a year, passed his elder days in Stratford and how much money Shakespeare was purported to have made from his plays. In that regard, generally speaking, this investigation agrees with Bate insofar the entry he was referring to was, more or less, touching on truth; albeit, not without hints of hyperbole.
On the merry meeting entry, Bate posits it could be true and then goes through a conjecture-like-exercise not dissimilar to the one above where Anne brings the revelers some sack in the garden. Shortly thereafter, Bate writes, “Or the whole thing might have been an invention”[24] and goes farther than this investigation and says Jonson didn’t even like Drayton so it would be unlikely Jonson would be out drinking with Drayton; whereas this investigation really only focused on Jonson’s dislike for Shakespeare, not Drayton. Apparently, Jonson didn’t like many – other than himself.[25] Whether Bate thinks there is a grain of truth to the merry meeting or it’s an invention, he doesn’t say, but he does conclude it fanciful to think the story true.
Honan in his three paragraphs discussing Ward’s diary also has his doubts about the veracity of the merry meeting. Curtly, in the space he allots to the vicar, Honan says, “Drunkenness was a topic of jokes – and nothing else confirms that the ‘meeting’ really took place.”[26] Speaking of jokes, this investigation earlier went so far to say this would be exactly the type of joke a local would put over on an unsuspecting, young clergyman who clearly – substantiated by his own words – knew nothing of Shakespeare or his character thereby likely not knowing Shakespeare wasn’t a drinker and Jonson didn’t care for Shakespeare or Drayton. Ward’s source, if they meant it to be a joke, certainly put a good one over on the vicar – because it’s still going strong after 400 years.
Lois Potter is skeptical as well when she says Drayton could have been at a merry meeting “but Jonson’s presence seems less likely.”[27]
The brief review of a few 21st century researchers who have tried to make sense of a diary entry made 400 years ago shows the enduring stubbornness of what is likely gossip and rumour – still posting on the wind, stuffing the ears of men with false reports, coming from Rumour’s tongues which bring smooth comforts false, worse than true wrongs. Smooth comforts false, worse than true wrongs.
The merry meeting entry – the fourth entry out of four in a four month span within four months of getting to Stratford – seemed to end Ward’s very limited interest he had in Shakespeare. With the next two Shakespeare entries, Ward’s interest – whatever that was in the first place – petered out completely and he never mentioned Shakespeare again during his vicarship over the next 20 years. As promised, Ward’s final two Shakespeare entries will be discussed.
Folger MS V.a 294 at Fol. 20r-v. Approximate date of entry: anywhere from November 1665 to late 1666.
Whether Dr. Heylin does well in Reck
oning up the Dramatik poets which
have been famous in England to o=
mit Shakespear:
Folger MS V.a 295 at Fol. 120r. Approximate date of entry: summer 1666.
Dr. Heylin in reckoning up
the dramatic poets
omits Shakespeare:
Frank’s dating of these entries puts them roughly in late 1665 to mid-to-late 1666; anywhere from two and a half to three years after the merry meeting entry.[28] What is clear is that Ward was not really doing any Shakespeare related research at the time; he was, probably, reading Peter Heylin.
Heylin (1599-1662), wrote much about much; topics he wrote about include geography, history, theology, politics and ecclesiastic doctrine – just the kind of book that interested Ward’s sponge-like mind. Based on Ward’s interests and his diary entries it is likely Ward was reading one of two of Heylin’s many publications: Microcosmus (1621) or its later enlarged and expanded iteration, Cosmographie (1652).[29] Both books are informational and encyclopedic based; offering scads of information on almost every imaginable subject, exactly the type of book that appealed to Ward – little bits of information on lots of different subjects.
It is clear from Ward’s diary entry that when Heylin wrote about ‘Dramatik poets which have been famous in England’ Heylin omits Shakespeare. When Ward was reading the famous poets Heylin listed, Ward’s brain harkened back to whatever information he learned about Shakespeare previously and rhetorically asks himself by way of a diary entry if Heylin was correct to leave Shakespeare off the list of great English poets. He asks this question, twice, on separate occasions – once in V.a. 294 and once in V.a. 295.
What is not clear from Ward’s entries is whether he agrees with Heylin, i.e., that Shakespeare should be omitted from the list of great poets or he disagrees with Heylin. One gets the sense Ward disagrees with the decision to omit Shakespeare from the list of great English poets – but that’s just a surmission. Ward, while reading Heylin two or so years after the merry meeting entry, is triggered to make these two entries about Heylin’s list of great English poets in which Shakespeare is not listed. And, that’s that. That’s the end of Ward’s supposed interest in Shakespeare.
For all intents and purposes, Ward’s sponge-like mind stopped soaking up Shakespeare related information within 4 months after arriving in Stratford after his merry meeting entry. Ward would stay in Stratford for almost 20 years – staring at Shakespeare’s face almost daily in the church – but apparently he cared not to discuss the town’s famous playwright anymore beyond four months of arriving. If his diary is any indication, Ward ceased his enquiries about Shakespeare concomitant with the merry meeting entry. A stop so powerful that not even staring at Shakespeare’s face on his monument could overcome.
Fortune sent a highly inquisitive mind to Stratford in John Ward; Fate, however, would have none of it and had other stronger plans: the silence sickness reappeared and overwhelmed the young vicar. This might be the weirdest and most curious and stunning case of the silence sickness of all: the guy who wants to know everything about everything and writes everything down, all of a sudden, upon the first mention of Shakespeare’s death – shuts down his entries of Shakespeare and, presumably, his enquiries. It shouldn’t be that way. Fortune sent Ward there to document for posterity what happened to Shakespeare – because Shakespeare’s contemporaries wouldn’t. However, as Fate would have it, Fortune was outdone: the silence sickness had struck again, descending upon Stratford as it did 47 years prior. Other than an obvious joke, the town of Stratford wasn’t saying boo.
Perhaps it is nigh time – and apt – to conduct a thought-experiment, a supposition of sorts. Suppose the following: suppose Ward’s source, Steephens or the estimable Trap, wasn’t at church that day or Ward wasn’t, or the Vicar didn’t keep a diary, or he was given a vicarship some place else, suppose the conversation about the merry meeting never took place. Suppose there is no drinking entry. That leaves the world with exactly zero primary sources, primary sources once-removed or secondary sources documenting Shakespeare’s death – contemporaneous therewith or 50 years later. Think about that. Surely, there must be a reason.
In ironical fashion, it is almost preferable Ward’s entry wasn’t made because the entry has been just enough to sate researchers and throw everybody off the trail. Whether it was a long-running local joke or the town wanted to deflect yet more questions on Shakespeare’s death or wanted to specifically throw the vicar off the scent the entry has done its job admirably – rumour’s tongues, bringing smooth comforts false, worse than true wrongs.
Another ironical point is if the drinking story is false – which this investigation points and is by and large seen as such by other researchers, with the obvious proviso that anything is possible – is the fact Shakespeare detested deceit and falsehood, unless there was a good reason. Shakespeare, from top to bottom, from beginning to the end, really couldn’t abide falsehood; call it his honest, country upbringing.
With measured likelihood – endorsed by previous researchers and using new analysis – it can be cautiously concluded the merry meeting never took place. This forms the basis of one of the Project’s Investigative Findings:
IF – The merry meeting, as best can be determined, never took place and therefore, corollary to that, Shakespeare’s death was likely not attributable to a fever resulting from drinking too hard. As such, it’s likely the merry meeting wasn’t so.
Though the Project finds no veracity in the merry meeting theory, researching Ward was a necessary and important journey to take; to actually investigate his diary entries instead of relying on custom.
[1] John Ward Diaries, vol. 9, ca. 1662-1663, a semi-diplomatic transcription of selections from the Folger Digital Image Collection, edited by Emily Fine, Mary Hardy, Tobias Hrynick, Timothy Lundy, Kirsten Mendoza, Colin Rydell, Jenny Smith, Margaret Smith, and William Thompson. There are many volumes to Ward’s diaries; the individual transcriptions of those volumes pertinent to, or otherwise cited in, this investigation are identified as Folger MS V.a.292, V.a.293, V.a.294 and V.a.295; pinpointing internal location of entries will occur as needed.
[2] Robert Frank, “The John Ward Diaries: Mirror of Seventeenth Century Science and Medicine”, Journal of the History of Medicine, April 1974, 148.
[3] Frank, Diaries, 174.
[4] Ward did not date most of his individual entries; however, some he did. The overwhelming majority of individual entries are not dated. Occasionally, he would date a volume when he started that individual book or date the end of a volume after he used all the pages in that particular book. Internal dating of entries sometimes can be deduced occasionally from the subject matter of the entry itself or whether he happened to be in Oxford, London or Stratford at the time of the entry. Equally important to note is that manuscript identifiers such as V.a. 287 or V.a. 292 are not numbered chronologically. For instance, V.a. 292 was written 3-4 years before V.a. 287. To that end, Abbie Weinberg, former Research and Reference Librarian, Folger Shakespeare Library and her reference staff have provided assistance. Dating Ward’s entries is part art, part science, part deductive reasoning, part guess-work, part Folger assistance. The approximate dates used in the body of this investigation are just that – approximate. Frank has also painstakingly dated the individual volumes but not all the individual entries therein.
[5] Edgar I. Fripp, Shakespeare’s Stratford (Oxford University Press, 1928), 78.
[6] Frank, Diaries, 176.
[7] Frank, Diaries, 158-59.
[8] Frank, Diaries, 174.
[9] Karl Holzknecht, The Backgrounds of Shakespeare’s Plays, (American Book, 1950), 30; Schoenbaum, Lives, 78.
[10] Using Frank’s dating analysis and this investigation’s methodology.
[11] To be clear, when Ward uses the words ‘merry meeting’ they have nothing to do with, and no connection to, when Shakespeare used those two words approximately 65 years prior in Much Ado About Nothing, 5.1.310, 162.
[12] King Henry IV Part 2, Prologue, 1-40, 514-515.
[13] The Catholic based military group founded in Jerusalem c. 1190 were heavily involved in the Crusades.
[14] Part of modern day Latvia and Estonia.
[15] Jonson visited William Drummond for three weeks in 1618-1619; Drummond took copious notes of the visit which later formed the work colloquially known as his Conversations: see William Drummond, Conversations of Ben Jonson with William Drummond of Hawthornden, ed., Philip Sidney (Gay and Bird, 1900). Drummond hears from Jonson himself during the visit that he is a drinker and Drummond, in his own words, sums up Jonson’s drinking habits succinctly: “…drink, which is one of the elements in which he liveth…”, 63.
[16] Othello, 2.3.29-32, 1126.
[17] Othello, 2.3.254-283, 1129.
[18] Ben Jonson, Timber, or Discoveries, (London, 1640), ll. 634-646. Oxford Scholarly Editions Online accessed via Folger Shakespeare Library, 06 December 2023
[19] Jonson, Timber, ll. 646.
[20] S. Schoenbaum, William Shakespeare: A Compact Documentary Life, (Oxford University Press, 1977), 296.
[21] S. Schoenbaum, Shakespeare’s Lives, (Oxford University Press, 1991), 78.
[22] Schoenbaum, Lives, 77.
[23] Jonathan Bate, Soul of the Age: A Biography of the Mind of William Shakespeare (Random House, 2009), 337.
[24] Bate, Soul of the Age, 405.
[25] Which Drummond confirms, in his own hand, after Jonson’s three week visit.
[26] Park Honan, Shakespeare: A Life, (Oxford University Press, 1998), 406.
[27] Lois Potter, The Life of William Shakespeare: A Critical Biography, (Wiley Blackwell, 2012), 407.
[28] Frank, Diaries, 178.
[29] Heylyn, Peter (1599–1662), Church of England clergyman and historian | Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (oxforddnb.com). Accessed 24 December 2023.