The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.1013 Saturday, 18 November 2006
[1] From: Peter Bridgman <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 16 Nov 2006 23:21:14 -0000
Subj: Re: SHK 17.1005 Shakespeare's Birthday
[2] From: Harry Connors <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Saturday, 18 Nov 2006 03:22:20 +0000
Subj: Re: SHK 17.1005 Shakespeare's Birthday
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter Bridgman <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 16 Nov 2006 23:21:14 -0000
Subject: 17.1005 Shakespeare's Birthday
Comment: Re: SHK 17.1005 Shakespeare's Birthday
Peter Farey writes ...
>The Prayer Book also says: "Nevertheles (if necessitie
>so require) children may at al tymes be Baptized at home"
>so I think we can guess that this was the case with all six
>of those Stratford baptisms?
I don't see why. John and Mary only lived a few yards from Holy Trinity
church.
Peter Farey is correct in saying that babies were baptised as soon as
possible after birth. Infant mortality was incredibly high, and only
baptised babies got into heaven. William's baptismal entry (plus the
one above) reads as follows ...
22 Johannes filius William Brooks
26 Gulielmus filius Johannes Shakspere
The 26th was a Wednesday. The 25th was St Marks day, an inauspicious
day for baptisms as altars and crosses were draped in black. This means
that the 23rd (St George's day) or the 24th are the most likely days for
William's birth. The 23rd if an exhausted Mary needed a day in bed
before she was up, the 24th if she didn't.
Peter Bridgman
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Harry Connors <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Saturday, 18 Nov 2006 03:22:20 +0000
Subject: 17.1005 Shakespeare's Birthday
Comment: Re: SHK 17.1005 Shakespeare's Birthday
I'm not sure that we can conclude that William was baptized at home on
April 26th and that he was, therefore, born on April 25th. I am better
informed about 20th century Catholic practices in this matter than in
16th century Anglican practices, but John may have been Catholic and
Anglican practices are not very different from Catholic practices.
First, anyone can baptize. It doesn't take a priest or a minister. Most
to the point, John could easily have baptized his son. He probably would
have done so if he thought it likely that the baby's life was in danger
or if he was Catholic and wanted his son baptized a Catholic. In either
case, the baby would have been baptized again by the minister and in the
church. It is the baptism by the minister that is recorded in church
records, not the informal baptism by the father. This is the practice
even though the baby is truly baptized at the informal baptism. The
formal baptism doesn't replace the informal baptism, it is more the
church's recognition that it has a new member. If John baptized his son
because John was a Catholic, he is hardly likely to have mentioned the
fact to the minister.
I see no reason to reject the traditional April 23rd date for
Shakespeare's birth based on the possibility that he might have been
baptized at home. A home baptism, if it occurred, isn't what is recorded
in the church records.
Harry Connors
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook,
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>
DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
|
