By S. William Beck, F.R.H.S.

ENOUGH has been written of the calamities of authors, the mishaps which have befallen precious MSS., their unfortunate mistakes, their afflictions in many and various degrees of misery, but of their consolations, of their happy stumbling on the clue to some historical puzzle, the accidental discovery of some fresh information on a treasured subject, their reward in at last finding some long-sought facts—of all this we have heard little or nothing. But something of such pleasure comes to most students; not so often as could be wished, perhaps, but possibly quite as frequently as is good for study. And such good hap did I hold to have fallen to my lot, when, in the autumn of 1882, I casually came across the announcement in a newspaper that a pair of gloves, once the property of Shakespeare, were on loan to the Worcester Industrial Exhibition then open, to illustrate the oldest-established and yet the most considerable industry of the Fair City. Gloves, and their connection with ceremonials now obsolete, and customs only blindly followed, had long before been a favourite subject of mine; and as I found how it led farther and farther afield into history, and how closely it touched our national life, it became altogether fascinating, and I was even then preparing for publication a book upon it. If I held myself fortunate in chancing upon a reference to so interesting a relic, as these gloves promised to prove, still more cause did there seem for congratulation when a request to their owner for further information led to their being most courteously entrusted to my care to be photographed, and to my being furnished with the several facts relating to their identity narrated on p. 122 of my “Gloves: their Annals and Associations.” I “enthoozed” over these gloves not a little, with no small reverence and half a hope that some reflected inspiration might follow on what many people would regard as little short of sacrilege, I ventured to put them on my hands, holding myself in great measure excused by a very fair descent of them from the keeping of Garrick to their present possessor, and by the undoubted fact that they were at least attributable to the period from which they were said to date. They are, at any rate, relics of undoubted age and value, apart from any other considerations; not like those with which Mr. Black invests “Judith Shakespeare,” in the novel with that title, now appearing in Harper’s Magazine. Here the young lady at one time wears, correctly and properly, a fine pair of gloves, scented and embroidered, that her father had brought her from London, but when (on p. 541) one of her lovers has departed from her in dudgeon, she very prettily—for she is a charming young lady—looks “after him for a moment or two, as she fastened a glove button that had got loose.” This is very unfortunate, for people did not wear buttoned gloves then, nor for a long time after, until it was desired to make them fit closely and display, rather than merely cover, the hand, whereas it was the glove, and not the proportions of the hand, that was made most conspicuous in Shakespeare’s day.

In January of this year I received from Mr. Horace Howard Furness, of Philadelphia, the eminent Shakespearian scholar, the following letter:—

Before proceeding further, let us bring in evidence the extracts adduced to establish the authenticity of these gloves.

(Private Correspondence of David Garrick, vol. i. p. 352.)
Mr. John Ward[22] to Mr. Garrick.
Leominster, May 31st, 1769.

Dear Sir,—On reading the newspapers, I find you are preparing a grand jubilee, to be kept at Stratford-upon-Avon, to the memory of the immortal Shakespeare. I have sent you a pair of gloves which have often covered his hands. They were made me a present by a descendant of the family, when myself and company went over there from Warwick in the year 1746, to perform the play of “Othello” as a benefit, for repairing his monument in the great church, which we did gratis, the whole of the receipts being expended upon that alone.

The person who gave them to me, William Shakespeare by name, assured me his father had often declared to him they were the identical gloves of our great poet, and when he delivered them to me, said, “Sir, these are the only property that remains of our famous relation; my father possessed, and sold the estate he left behind him, and these are all the recompense I can make you for this night’s performance.”

The donor was a glazier by trade, very old, and, to the best of my memory, lived in the street leading from the Townhall down to the river. On my coming to play in Stratford about three years after, he was dead. The father of him and our poet were brothers’ children.

The veneration I bear to the memory of our great author and player makes me wish to have these relics preserved to his immortal memory, and I am led to think I cannot deposit them for that purpose in the hands of any person so proper as our modern Roscius.

I am, Sir,
Your most obedient humble servant,
John Ward.[23]

P.S.—I shall be glad to hear you receive them safe, by a line directed for me in the Bargate, Leominster, Herefordshire.

(Campbell’s Life of Mrs. Siddons, vol. ii. pp. 369-370.)

“The widow of Garrick died in 1822, at a venerable age. She made the following bequest to the great actress, in a codicil to her will, dated August 15, 1822:—

“I give to Mrs. Siddons a pair of gloves which were Shakespeare’s, and were presented by one of his family to my late dear husband during the jubilee at Stratford-upon-Avon.”

Information of the above reached Mrs. Siddons, with this note from Mrs. Garrick’s executors:—

“5, Adelphi Terrace, Oct. 30, 1822.

“Madam,—We beg leave to transmit to you the above extract from a codicil to Mrs. Garrick’s will, and to acquaint you that we will have the honour of waiting on you, for the purpose of delivering the relic therein mentioned, whenever you may be so good as to inform us that it may be convenient to you to receive our visit.

“We remain, with much respect, Madam,
“Your most obedient humble servants,
“Thos. Rackett, } Executors.”
“G. F. Beltz, }

It is unfortunate that we have not the knowledge which led the editor of Garrick’s “Correspondence” to underwrite Ward’s letter with such a pithy postscript, and very regrettable that he should not have been brought to book for his pains, particularly as his name is not given on the title-page. The gloves, which may reasonably be referred to, bear, so far as I can judge from the photograph with which Mr. Furness has since favoured me, every mark of belonging to Shakespeare’s day, and were at any rate of some value, worth too much intrinsically to be lightly given away by an ordinary glazier; for, quoting the description of Mr. Furness, the embroidery upon them, “as well as the fringe is all in gold thread, still untarnished, the edging is of pink silk, which is continued in the inside, an inch and a half in width. They are about fourteen inches long, and six inches wide at the base of the gauntlet.”

There is no conflict of identity between these gloves and those pictured in my pages, for the latter are declared to have been given to Garrick by the Corporation of Stratford at the time of the Jubilee, in a finely carved box of the mulberry tree planted by Shakespeare, and to have been presented by the widow of Garrick to the direct relative of Miss Benson, who now holds them. It is very tantalising that I cannot find a precise testimony to this gift in any account of the Jubilee, although a friend of mine has searched diligently in all the contemporary accounts and county histories that can be thought of. There was, however, undoubtedly such a presentation, for Foote, when Garrick produced “The Jubilee” as an attraction at Drury-lane, determined to burlesque that and his rival together. In this very practical jest, an actor intended to personate Garrick—bearing on his breast a pair of white gloves and other articles presented at the Jubilee—was to be addressed in the very words of the panegyric pronounced on Garrick at Stratford—

when Garrick’s counterfeit presentment was to flap his arms as though they were wings, and crow—

It is pleasurable to write that this burlesque was never placed upon the stage, although Foote plainly had to be coerced into suppressing it, and was not to be hindered from writing “A Satirical Account of the Jubilee,” which may be found in the 39th vol. of the Gentleman’s Magazine, p. 458. There is also no doubt of the freedom of Stratford having been presented to Garrick in a box made from the famous mulberry tree, for the resolution of the Common Council of the borough conferring this honour upon him particularly directs that it should be so conveyed (“Staffordshire and Warwickshire Past and Present,” vol. iii. p. 116).

The friend to whom I have already acknowledged my deep indebtedness in this quest, sends me from West’s “History of Warwickshire” trace of yet another pair of gloves associated, at least traditionally, with the Prince of Poets, and long kept on view in Anne Hathaway’s cottage at Shottery. There were several such articles there, and among them “a chair, termed ‘Shakespeare’s courting chair,’ a purse about four inches square, wrought with white and black bugles and beads; a small inkstand, and a pair of fringed gloves. These articles were said to have been handed down from Shakespeare to his grand-daughter Lady Barnard, and from her through the Hathaway family to those of the present day. Influenced by the currency of this tradition, Mr. Ireland purchased the former two articles, and Mr. George Garrick the latter.” Here again, however, we find a discordant doubt expressed, for the writer continues, “but these reliques will not bear examination. It will be uniformly found, by those who make enquiries, without an effort at self-deception, that there is not a single article of any nature extant that has been proved to have belonged to Shakespeare. There is at present a bedstead with massive pillars, shewn as having belonged to Anne Hathaway, but we consider it in character with the articles attributed to Shakespeare.”

This scepticism and disbelief is doubtless honest enough, but it is certainly too sweeping. These latter gloves are not now, within my knowledge, in existence; as for the other two pairs I leave your readers to judge whether these remarks apply to them, or whether one, or both, may not be fairly considered to be hallowed by the associations claimed for them.