Bellott v Mountjoy

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  Bellott v Mountjoy is a lawsuit heard at the Court of Requests in Westminster on the 11th of May 1612, and it might be the most unexpectedly revealing document in all of Shakespeare studies. On the surface, it is a squabble about money: a son-in-law trying to collect a dowry his father-in-law had long since stopped pretending he would pay. But tucked inside the case papers is something scholars had spent centuries wishing they could find. A signed deposition, in Shakespeare's own hand, confirming where he lived, who his neighbors were, and what he did for the household he lodged with. How did this deposition end up sitting in an archive for nearly three centuries before anyone noticed? And what does a forgotten family dispute tell us about the private life of the most written-about playwright in the English language?

• 2. The Feud Behind the Filing

  ›

  Stephen Bellott was a Huguenot who had married Mary Mountjoy in 1604, and he believed his father-in-law owed him a great deal. Christopher Mountjoy was a tyrer, which meant he manufactured the ornamental headpieces and wigs fashionable among women of the period. When Bellott and Mary married, Mountjoy had promised a dowry of £50 and a further £200 to be left in his will. Neither sum materialized. By 1612, Bellott had taken the matter to the Court of Requests in Westminster. The case itself was minor by any legal measure. What made it remarkable was that among the witnesses called to speak to the original marriage negotiations was a lodger who had lived in the Mountjoy house eight years earlier: William Shakespeare. The case records list not only Shakespeare but also the wider circle of the household, including neighbors and associates whose names would otherwise never have appeared alongside his.

• 3. Shakespeare's Forgotten Address

  ›

  In 1604, Shakespeare was living at the corner of Silver and Monkwell Streets in Cripplegate, London, a fact that the Bellott v Mountjoy papers confirm. This address is the only documentary evidence yet found of a specific London location where Shakespeare resided. He was a lodger in the Mountjoy home, and he became close enough to the household that Mountjoy's wife, Marie, asked him personally to take on the duties of go-between in the courtship of her daughter Mary and Stephen Bellott. That request placed Shakespeare at the center of the marital negotiations. He confirmed in his deposition that he had played this matchmaking role, just as other witnesses described. His involvement was not peripheral; the other deponents cited his participation when recounting how the betrothal had been arranged.

• 4. The Deposition and Its Limits

  ›

  Shakespeare's signed deposition proved both useful and frustrating to the court. He acknowledged his role in bringing Stephen Bellott and Mary Mountjoy together, but he said he could not remember the specific financial arrangements that had been discussed. That gap in his recollection was the crux of the entire case. Without testimony confirming the exact terms of the promised settlement, the Court of Requests could not adjudicate the matter directly. It remanded the dispute to the overseers of the London Huguenot church. That body awarded Bellott 20 nobles, the equivalent of £6 13s. 4d. Even that modest judgment proved hollow. A year after the award, Christopher Mountjoy still had not paid.

• 5. Discovery in the Archives

  ›

  The case papers lay unnoticed until 1909, when Charles William Wallace, a Shakespeare scholar, found them in the Public Record Office, then located in Chancery Lane and now part of the National Archives. Wallace published his findings in the October 1910 issue of Nebraska University Studies. The significance of the discovery extended beyond the deposition itself. The documents amounted to a roster of people Shakespeare knew personally: the Mountjoy family, their household staff, and their neighbors. Among those neighbors was George Wilkins, who is identified in the source as a playwright and brothel-keeper who may have collaborated with Shakespeare on Pericles, Prince of Tyre. The papers thus placed Shakespeare in a documented social and professional network that had previously been difficult to reconstruct.

• 6. Marie Mountjoy at Court

  ›

  At the beginning of 1604, the same year her daughter married, Marie Mountjoy was working at the royal court. Her task was to provide costuming for the queen, Anne of Denmark, who was taking the role of Pallas Athena in Samuel Daniel's masque The Vision of the Twelve Goddesses. A surviving bill records Marie's work directly: she supplied a helmet for the queen and various trimmings for her ladies for the performance at Twelftide 1603, at a charge of £59. The bill names her as "Marie Mountioye Tyrewoman" and notes that the account was vouched by the Lady Walsingham. Scholars including Charles Nicholl have connected this Marie with a Mary Mountjoy born around 1568 who consulted the astrologer Simon Forman in 1597, on at least one occasion after losing a ring. Marie died in 1606, two years after her daughter's wedding.