Looking at the causes which led Shakespeare to leave Stratford for London, we may conclude that, if Sir Thomas Lucy's hostility was the more immediate occasion of his departure at the moment he did, still he was carrying out a premeditated plan, which would some day have been put in execution, although the above mentioned affair had never happened.

CHAPTER IV.

PUBLIC LIFE-TILL WELL KNOWN AS A DRAMATIST.

1586-1591.

Shakespeare goes to London-Shakespeare's boys-Probable foundation of the story-He enters Blackfriars Theatre-Style of the olden theatres-Greene's Groatsworth of Wit-Shakespeare a Fac-totum His dramas in relation to pre-existing materials-Homer the last of a race of bards-Chettle's apology for Greene.

It was probably in the end of 1586 that Shakespeare bade adieu to his native Stratford, and set out to enter on the world's stage, where he was to play so distinguished a part. The first authentic account we have of him in London is not, however, till three years after this, when we find him a sharer in the Blackfriars theatre. Before mentioning the probable cause of his connection with that theatre, and the mode in which he was at first employed in it, we shall quote a story given by the writer of a Life of Shakespeare published in 1753. The story is said to have come from Sir William Davenant through the actor Betterton. It is to this effect: "When Shakespeare came to London, he was without money and friends, and being a stranger he knew not to whom to apply, nor by what means to support himself. At that time coaches not being in use, and as gentlemen were accustomed to ride to the play-house, Shakespeare, driven to the last necessity, went to the play-house door, and picked up a little money by taking care of the gentlemen's horses who

came to the play. He became eminent even in that profession, and was taken notice of for his diligence and skill in it. He had soon more business than he himself could manage, and at last hired boys under him, who were known by the name of 'Shakespeare's boys.' Some of the players, accidentally conversing with him, found him so acute, and master of so fine a conversation, that, struck therewith, they introduced and recommended him to the house, in which he was first admitted in a very low station; but he did not long remain so, for he soon distinguished himself, if not as an extraordinary actor, at least as a fine writer." Dr. Johnson adds several circumstances, such as that Shakespeare held the horses as a waiter, and that the boys he hired announced themselves, "I am Shakespeare's boy, sir." It would be easy to point out exceptional things in the complexion of this story, and especially in Dr. Johnson's additions. The number of horses which one man could hold, and that for an hour or two while the play lasted, would be small indeed. In fact, the whole story is somewhat incredible; but, as Halliwell observes, it is worthy of remark that the practice of riding to the theatres had long been discontinued when this story was written, and it is unlikely that a fabricator of the eighteenth century would have been acquainted with so minute a piece of antiquarian information. Perhaps the story may have some such foundation as this: Shakespeare must have begun at the lowest step, either as an apprentice or as an actor of inferior standing, and may have had charge of the department which included the calling of the horses. As they might be kept at some

distance, he behoved to summon the boys in charge before the conclusion of the play; and if any gentleman left during the course of the play, he would naturally apply to Shakespeare, or to whoever might be servitor for the time, and looked after those matters. Halliwell* quotes a letter of Dowdall, 1693, which states that Shakespeare was "received into the play-house as a serviture”—that is, as an apprentice to an actor of some standing, or as an inferior actor; and he subjoins an instance in point from Henslowe. We have no doubt that Shakespeare's connection with the Blackfriars theatre was owing to his being introduced by Thomas Greene, his townsman, or by Burbage and Nicholas Tooley, also Warwickshire men. Some notion may be formed of this Blackfriars theatre from the character of the inn-yard theatres, common a few years before it came into existence. At one end of the yard a platform was raised for the actors, and open galleries were run round it for those who paid the higher charge, while the others must content themselves with standing-room in the yard. The public theatres were modelled exactly after this fashion, the boxes being in those galleries, and the pit the open area where the spectators stood, or were accommodated with stools, for the use of which a charge was made. The Globe, a summer theatre, built by the company which owned the Blackfriars one, was roofless, except over the stage. The Blackfriars theatre, on the contrary, being adapted for winter performances, was roofed over. The stage had no

*Page 135.

movable scenery. According to Collier, "tables, chairs, a few boards for a battlemented wall, or a rude structure for a tomb or an altar, seem to have been nearly all the properties it possessed." But it is worthy of remark, that since the times when the scenic representation was of the rudest description, the acting has gradually fallen off, as the devices of art have been progressively put forth to depict the external conditions of the drama which is being acted.

Between the end of 1586, the time when Shakespeare went to London, and November 1589, he had risen from being a servitor in the Blackfriars theatre to be a sharer; that is, one who shared in the division of the daily profits. Leaving out of view a possible allusion to the great dramatist in Spenser's "Tears of the Muses," published in 1591, the earliest contemporary notice of Shakespeare is in a work entitled, "A Groatsworth of Wit, bought with a Million of Repentance." It was written by Robert Greene, and published in 1592, after his death, by a fellow-dramatist, Henry Chettle. Urging Marlowe, Lodge, and Peele to cease writing for the stage, he says, “Base-minded men, all three of you, if by my misery yee bee not warned: for unto none of you (like me) sought those burs to cleave: those puppits, I mean, that speake from our mouths, those Antics garnisht in our colours. Is it not strange that I, to whom they have all been beholden,—is it not like that you, to whom they have all been beholden, shall (were yee in that case that I am now) be both of hem at once forsaken?" Speaking more directly of Shakespeare, he adds, "Yes, trust them not; for there