Stratford. But it was hardly
likely that he should have changed his trade from shoemaking to
bitmaking, or that he would have been successful in it. The St.
Clement's John might have been a son of the St. Martin's John, but there
is no christening of a John in that parish, or in any other London
parish that I know. So here I thought I might justly theorize, and state
my opinion that he really was the John, son of Thomas, of Snitterfield,
born 1581-82, of whom is no record of further life or burial in his own
neighbourhood. He would be of a suitable age, and there was in his case
a _reason_ for Court success.

William Shakespeare the poet had by this time made his mark, not only in
literature and the drama, but in Court influence and financial
possibilities. His patron, the Earl of Southampton, was in favour with
the King. Supposing this John was Shakespeare's first cousin, as I
believe he was, what more likely than that the poet, who had lost his
only son, would help, as far as he could, his nearest male relative? I
trust to find further proof of this some day, but I may state what I do
know about this St. Clement's John. He had a large family. The registers
record in the baptizings: "John Shaxbee sonne of John 28th Aug. 1605."
"Susan Shasper daughter of John 19th Feb. 1607." "Jane Shakespeer the
daughter of John 16th July 1608." "Anthony Shaksbye son of John 23rd
June 1610." "Thomas Shackspeer son of John 30th June 1611." "Ellyn
Shakspear the daughter of John 5th May 1614." "Katharine Shakspeare
daughter of John 25th Aug. 1616." Now, to set against these we have the
burials of: "Anthony Shakesby the son of John 26th June 1610." "Thomas
Shakspeer the son of John 1st July 1612." "Susan Shakspere daughter of
John 3rd Aug. 1612." "Katharine Shakespeare d. of John 26th Aug. 1616."
Of two of the remaining children, John and Ellen, we have further
information; concerning the other, I believe we have an interesting
error, bearing on the credibility of parish clerks.

Among the burials appears that of "_Jane Shackspeer, daughter of Willm,
8. Aug. 1609_." Now, this might have been a daughter of the Bishopsgate
William, or of some country William up in London for a holiday. It might
even have been a hitherto unknown daughter of the poet himself. But I
believe that the clerk's mind was wandering when he wrote, and that he
was thinking of "William" when he should have written "John," because
John's family seem to have been delica