the passage in "Hamlet," (brought out, as we apprehend, most of the companies of players who had left London for very shortly before he came to the throne) where it is said the provinces, on account of the prevalence of the plague, of these "abstracts and brief chronicles of the time," that and the consequent cessation of dramatic performances, had it is "better to have a bad epitaph, than their ill report while returned to the metropolis; and it is not at all unlikely that you live." James made himself sure of their good report; Shakespeare was one of those who had returned, having and an epigram, attributed to Shakespeare, has descended taken the. opportunity of visiting his family at Stratfordto us, which doubtless was intended in some sort as a grateful return for the royal countenance bestowed upon the Under Elizabeth the Children of the Chapel (originally stage, and upon those who were connected with it. We the choir-boys of the royal establishment) had become an copy it from a coeval manuscript in our possession, which seems to have belonged to a curious accumulator of matters of the kind, and which also contains an unknown production by Dekker, as well as various other pieces by dramatists and poets of the time. The lines are entitled, "SHAKESPEARE ON THE KING. "Crowns have their compass, length of days their date, We have seen these lines in more than one other old manuscript, and as they were constantly attributed to Shakespeare, and in the form in which we have given them above, are in no respect unworthy of his pen, we have little doubt of their authenticity1. upon-Avon. acknowledged company of players, and these, besides her association of adult performers, Queen Anne took under her immediate patronage, with the style of the Children of her Majesty's Revels, requiring that the pieces they proposed to represent should first be submitted to, and have the approval of, the celebrated poet Samuel Daniel. The instrument of their appointment bears date 30th January, 1603-4; and from a letter from Daniel to his patron, Sir Thomas Egerton, preserved among his papers, we may perhaps conclude that Shakespeare, as well as Michael Drayton, had been candidates for the post of master of the Queen's revels: he says in it, "I cannot but know, that I am lesse deserving than some that sued by other of the nobility unto her Majestie for this roome; and, after introducing the name of "his good friend," Drayton, he adds the following, which, we apprehend, refers with sufficient distinctness to Shakespeare :--" It seemeth to myne humble Kinges companie of comedians, could not with reason pretend to be Master of the Queene's Majesties Revells, for as much as he wold sometimes be asked to approve and allow of his own writings." Having established his family in "the great house" called "New Place" in his native town in 1597, by the purchase | judgement that one who is the authour of playes, now daylie of it from Hercules Underhill, Shakespeare seems to have presented on the public stages of London, and the possessor contemplated considerable additions to his property there. of no small gaines, and moreover him selfe an actor in the In May, 1602, he laid out £320 upon 107 acres of land, which he bought of William and John Combe2, and attached it to his dwelling. The original indenture and its counterpart are in existence, bearing date 1st May, 1602, but to neither of them is the signature of the poet affixed; and it seems that he being absent, his brother Gilbert was his im- | mediate agent in the transaction, and to Gilbert Shakespeare the property was delivered to the use of William Shakespeare. In the autumn of the same year he became the owner of a copyhold tenement (called a cotagium in the instrument) in Walker's Street, alias Dead Lane, Stratford, surrendered to him by Walter Getley3. In November of the next year he gave Hercules Underhill £60 for a messuage, barn, granary, garden, and orchard close to or in Stratford; but in the original fine, preserved in the Chapter House, Westminster, the precise situation is not mentioned. In 1603, therefore, Shakespeare's property, in or near Stratford-upon-Avon, besides what he might have bought of, or inherited from, his father, consisted of New Place, with 107 acres of land attached to it, a tenement in Walker's Street, and the additional messuage, which he had recently purchased from Underhill. Whether our great dramatist was in London at the period when the new king ascended the throne, we have no means of knowing, but that he was so in the following autumn we have positive proof; for in a letter written by Mrs. Alleyn, (the wife of Edward Alleyn, the actor) to her husband, then in the country, dated 20th October, 1603, she tells him This objection would have applied with equal force to Drayton, had we not every reason to believe that before this date he had ceased to be a dramatic author. He had been a writer for Henslowe and Alleyn's company during several years, first at the Rose, and afterwards at the Fortune; but he seems to have relinquished that species of composition about a year prior to the demise of Elizabeth, the last piece in which he was concerned, of which we have any intelligence, being noticed by Henslowe under date of May, 1502: this play was called "The Harpies," and he was assisted in it by Dekker, Middleton, Webster, and Munday. It is highly probable that Shakespeare was a suitor for this office, in contemplation of a speedy retirement as an actor. We have already spoken of the presumed excellence of his personations on the stage, and to the tradition that he was the original player of the part of the Ghost in "Hamlet." Another character he is said to have sustained is Adam, in "As you like it;" and his brother Gilbert, (who in 1602 had received, on behalf William Shakespeare, the 107 acres of land purchased from William and John Combe) who probably survived the Restoration, is supposed to have been the author of this traditions. He had acted also in Ben Jonson's "Every Man in his Humour," in 1598, after that she had seen "Mr. Shakespeare of the Globe" in (as we believe) introducing it to the company; and he is Southwark. At this date, according to the same authority, supposed to have written part of, as well as known to have not hear upon the same or any other authority, but no such drama has come down to us. 1 Boswell appears to have had a manuscript copy of this epigram, but the general position in the last line was made to have a particular application by the change of "a" to the. See Shakspeare by Boswell, vol. ii. p. 481. There were other variations for the worse in Boswell's copy, but that which we have noticed completely altered the character of the production, and reduced it from a great general truth to a mere piece of personal flattery-"But knowledge makes the king most like his Maker." 2 Much has been said in all the Lives of our poet, from the time of Aubrey (who first gives the story) to our own, respecting asatirical epitaph upon a person of the name of John a Combe, supposed to have been made extempore by Shakespeare: Aubrey words it thus :-- "Ten in the hundred the devil allows, But Combe will have twelve, he swears and he vows. Ho! quoth the devil, 'tis my John a Combe." Rowe changes the terms a little, but the point is the same, and in Brathwaite's "Remains," 1618, we have another version of the lines, where they are given as having been written by that author "upon one John Combe, of Stratford-upon-Avon, a notable usurer." We are by no means satisfied that they were originally penned by Brath waite, from being imputed to him in that volume, and by a passage "Heer ten in the hundred lies dead and ingraved : And the couplet is printed in no very different form in "The More 3 A coeval copy of the court-roll is in the hands of the Shakespeare Society. Malone had seen it, and puthis initials upon it. No doubt it was his intention to have used it in his unfinished Life of Shakespeare. 4 See the "Memoirs of Edward Alleyn," printed for the Shakespeare Society, p. 63. 5 See the Introduction to "As you like it." performed in, the same author's "Sejanus," in 16031. This is the last we hear of him upon the stage, but that he continued a member of the company until April 9, 1604, we have In the next year (at what particular part of it is not the evidence of a document preserved at Dulwich College, stated) Sir Leonard Haliday, then Lord Mayor of London, where the names of the King's players are enumerated in backed no doubt by his brethren of the corporation, made the following order: -Burbage, Shakespeare, Fletcher, a complaint against the same company, "that Kempe, (who Phillips, Condell, Heminge, Armyn, Sly, Cowley, Ostler, at this date had rejoined the association) Armyn, and others, and Day. If Shakespeare had not then actually ceased to perform, we need not hesitate in deciding that he quitted that department of the profession very shortly afterwards. ances. CHAPTER XVI. Immediate consequences of Shakespeare's retirement. Of fences given by the company to the court, and to private individuals. "Gowry's Conspiracy:" "Biron's Conspiracy" and "Tragedy." Suspension of theatrical performPurchase of a lease of the tithes of Stratford, &c., by Shakespeare. "Hamlet" printed in 1603 and 1604. "Henry VIII." " "Macbeth." Supposed autograph letter of King James to Shakespeare. Susanna Shakespeare and John Hall married in 1607. Death of Edmund Shakespeare in the same year. Death of Mary Shakespeare in 1608. Shakespeare's great popularity: rated to the poor of Southwark. players at the Blackfriars, have again not forborne to bring upon their stage one or more of the worshipful aldermen of the city of London, to their great scandal and the lessening of their authority;" and the interposition of the privy council to prevent the abuse was therefore solicited. What was done in consequence, if anything were done, does not appear in any extant document. In the spring of the next year a still graver charge was brought against the body of actors of whom Shakespeare, until very recently, had been one; and it originated in no less a person than the French ambassador. George Chapman had written two plays upon the history and execution of the Duke of Biron, containing, in the shape in which they were originally produced on the stage, such matter that Μ. Beaumont, the representative of the King of France in London, thought it necessary to remonstrate against the repetition, and the performance of it was prohibited: as soon, however, as the court had quitted London, the King's players persisted in acting it; in consequence of which three of the players were arrested, (their names are not given) but the author made his escape. These two dramas were printed in 1608, and again in 1625; and looking through them, we are at a loss to discover anything, beyond the historical incidents, which could have given offence; but the truth certainly is, that all the objectionable portions were omitted in the press: there can be no doubt, on the authority of the despatch from the French ambassador to his court, that one of the dramas originally contained a scene in which the Queen of France and Mademoiselle Verneuil were introduced, the former, after having abused her, giving the latter a box on the ear. No sooner had our great dramatist ceased to take part in the public performances of the King's players, than the company appears to have thrown off the restraint by which it had been usually controlled ever since its formation, and to have produced plays which were objectionable to the court, as well as offensive to private persons. Shakespeare, from his abilities, station, and experience, must have possessed great influence with the body at large, and due deference, we may readily believe, was shown to his knowledge and judgment in the selection and acceptance of plays sent in for approbation by authors of the time. The contrast between the conduct of the association immediately This information was conveyed to Paris under the date before, and immediately after his retirement, would lead us of the 5th April, 1606; and the French ambassador, appato conclude, not only that he was a man of prudence and rently in order to make his court acquainted with the lawdiscretion, but that the exercise of these qualities had in less character of dramatic performances at that date in many instances kept his fellows from incurring the displea- England, adds a very singular paragraph, proving that the sure of persons in power, and from exciting the animosity King's players, only a few days before they had brought the of particular individuals. We suppose Shakespeare are to have ceased to act in the summer of 1604, and in the winter of that very year we find the King's players giving offence to "some great counsellors" by performing a play upon the subject of Gowry's conspiracy. This fact we have upon Queen of France upon the stage, had not hesitated to introduce upon the same boards their own reigning sovereign in a most unseemly manner, making him swear violently, and beat a gentleman for interfering with his known propensity for the chase. This course indicates a most extraordinary the evidence of one of Sir R. Winwood's correspondents, degree of boldness on the part of the players; but, never John Chamberlaine, who, in a letter dated 18th December, 1604, uses these expressions:---"The tragedy of Gowry, with all action and actors, hath been twice represented by the King's players, with exceeding concourse of all sorts of people; but whether the matter or manner be not well handled, or that it be thought unfit that princes should be played on the stage in their lifetime, I hear that some great counsellors are much displeased with it, and so, it is thought, it shall be forbidden." Whether it was so forbidden we do theless, they were not prohibited from acting, until M. Beaumont had directed the attention of the public authorities to the insult offered to the Queen of France: then, an order was issued putting a stop to the acting of all plays in London; but, according to the same authority, the companies had clubbed their money, and, attacking James I. on his weak side, had offered a large sum to be allowed to continue their performances. The French ambassador himself apprehended that the appeal to the King's pecuniary wants would be effectual, and that permission, under certain | appearance of plays in print, lest to a certain extent the restrictions, would not long be withheld1. 1 From lines preceding it in the 4to, 1605, we know that it was brought out at the Globe, and Ben Jonson admits that it was ill received by the audience. 2 We may here notice two productions by this great and varicus author, one of which is mentioned by Ant. Wood (Ath. Oxon. edit. Bliss. vol. ii. p. 575), and the other by Warton (Hist. Engl. Poetr. vol. iv. p. 276, edit. 8vo), on the authority merely of the stationers' registers; but none of our literary antiquaries seem to have been able to meet with them. They are both in existence. The first is a defence of his "Andromeda Liberata," 1614, which he wrote in celebration of the marriage of the Earl of Somerset and the Countess of Essex, which Chapman tells us had been "most maliciously misinterpreted:" it is called "A free and offenceless Justification" of his poem, and it was printed in 1614. It is chiefly in prose, but at the end is a dialogue in rhyme, between Pheme and Theodines, the last being meant for Chapman: Wood only supposes that Chapman wrote it, but if he could have read it he would have entertained no doubt. It appears that Somerset himself had conceived that "Andromeda Liberata" was a covert attack upon him, and from this notion Chapman was anxious to relieve himself. The poetical dialogue is thus opened by Pheme, and sufficiently explains the object of the writer. "Ho, you! Theodines! you must not dreame The other production, of which our knowledge has also hitherto been derived from the stationers' registers, is called "Petrarch's Seven Penitentiall Psalms, paraphrastically translated," with other poems of a miscellaneous kind at the end: it was printed in small 8vo, in 1612, dedicated to Sir Edward Phillips, Master of the Rolls, where Chapman speaks of his yet unfinished translation of Homer, which, he adds, the Prince of Wales had commanded him to complete. The editor of the present work has a copy of Chapman's "Memorable Masque" on the marriage of the Palsgrave and Princess Elizabeth, corrected by Chapman in his owh hand; but the errors are few, and not very important. It shows the patient accuracy of the accomplished writer. public curiosity should thereby be satisfied. Whatever emoluments Shakespeare had derived from the The point is, of course, liable to dispute, but we have Blackfriars or the Globe theatres, as an actor merely, we little doubt that "Henry VIII." was represented very soon may be tolerably certain he relinquished when he ceased after the accession of James I., to whom and to whose family to perform. He would thus be able to devote more of his it contains a highly complimentary allusion; and "Mactime to dramatic composition, and, as he continued a sharer beth," having been written in 1605, we suppose to have in the two undertakings, perhaps his income on the whole been produced at the Globe in the spring of 1606. Alwas not much lessened. Certain it is, that in 1605 he was though it related to Scottish annals, it was not like the in possession of a considerable sum, which he was anxious play of Gowry's Conspiracy" (mentioned by Chamberlaine to invest advantageously in property in or near the place at the close of 1603), founded, to use Von Raumer's words, of his birth. Whatever may have been the circumstances upon "recent history;" and instead of running the slightest under which he quitted Stratford, he always seems to have risk of giving offence, many of the sentiments and allusions contemplated a permanent return thither, and kept his eyes it contained, especially that to the "two-fold balls and treble constantly turned in the direction of his birth-place. As sceptres," in Act iv. scene 1, must have been highly acceptlong before as January, 1598, he had been advised "to deal able to the King. It has been supposed, upon the authority in the matter of tithes" of Stratford; but perhaps at that of Sheffield Duke of Buckingham, that King James with date, having recently purchased New Place, he was not in his own hand wrote a letter to Shakespeare in return for sufficient funds for the purpose, or possibly the party in the compliment paid to him in "Macbeth:" the Duke of possession of the lease of the tithes, though not unwilling Buckingham is said to have had Davenant's evidence for to dispose of it, required more than it was deemed worth. this anecdote, which was first told in print in the advertiseAt all events, nothing was done on the subject for more than ment to Lintot's edition of Shakespeare's Poems in 17105. six years; but on the 24th July, 1605, we find William Rowe says nothing of it in his " Life," either in 1709 or 1714, Shakespeare, who is described as "of Stratford-upon-Avon, so that, at all events, he did not adopt it; and it seems very gentleman," executing an indenture for the purchase of the improbable that James I. should have so far condescended, unexpired term of a long lease of the great tithes of "corn, and very probable that the writer of Lintot's advertisement grain, blade, and hay," and of the small tithes of "wool, should not have been very scrupulous. We may conjeclamb, and other small and privy tithes, herbage, oblations," ture, that a privy seal under the sign manual, (then the usual &c., in Stratford, Old Stratford, Bishopton, and Welcombe, form of proceeding) granting to the King's players some in the county of Warwick. The vendor was Raphe Hu- extraordinary reward on the occasion, has been misrepre band, of Ippesley, Esquire; and from the draft of the deed, sented as a pri private letter from the King to the dramatist. now before us3, we learn that the original lease, dated as far Malone speculated that "Macbeth" had been played beback as 1539, was "for four score and twelve years;" so fore King James and the King of Denmark, (who arrived that in 1605 it had still twenty-six years to run, and for in England on 6th July, 1606) but we have not a particle this our great dramatist agreed to pay 440l: by the receipt, of testimony to establish that a tragedy relating to the ascontained in the same deed, it appears that he paid the sassination of a monarch by an ambitious vassal was ever whole of the money before it was executed by the parties. represented at court: we should be surprised to discover He might very fitly be described as of Stratford-upon- any proof of the kind, because such incidents seem usuall Avon, because he had there not only a substantial, settled to have been carefully avoided. residence for his family, but he was the owner of consider- The eldest daughter of William and Anne Shakespeare, able property, both in land and houses, in the town and neighbourhood; and he had been before so described in 1602, when he bought the 107 acres of William and John Combe, which he annexed to his dwelling of New Place. A spurious edition of "Hamlet" having been published in 16034, a more authentic copy came out in the next year, containing much that had been omitted, and more that had been grossly disfigured and misrepresented. We do not believe that Shakespeare, individually, had anything to do with this second and more correct impression, and we doubt much whether it was authorized by the company, which seems at all times to have done its utmost to prevent the 1 We derive these very curious and novel particulars from M. Von Raumer's "History of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries," translated by Lord Francis Egerton, vol. ii. p. 219. The terms are worth quoting. "April 5, 1606. I caused certain players to be forbid from acting the History of the Duke of Biron: when, however, they saw that the whole court had left town, they persisted in acting it; nay, they brought upon the stage the Queen of France and Mademoiselle Verneuil. The former, having first accosted the latter with very hard words, gave her a box on the ear. At my suit three of them were arrested; but the principal person, the author, escaped. "One or two days before, they had brought forward their own King and all his favorites in a very strange fashion: they made him curse and swear because he had been robbed of a bird, and beat a gentleman because he had called off the hounds from the scent. They represent him as drunk at least once a-day, &c. "He has upon this made order, that no play shall be henceforth acted in London; for the repeal of which order they have already offered 100,000 livres. Perhaps the permission will be again granted, but upon condition that they represent no recent history, nor speak of the present time." Susanna, having been born in May, 1583, was rather more than twenty-four years old when she was married, on 5th June, 1607, to Mr. John Hall, of Stratford, who is styled "gentleman" in the register, but he was a professor of medicine, and subsequently practised as a physician. There appears to have been no reason on any side for opposing the match, and we may conjecture that the ceremony was performed in the presence of our great dramatist, during one of his summer excursions to his native town. About six months afterwards he lost his brother Edmund", and his mother in the autumn of the succeeding year. There is no doubt that Edmund Shakespeare, who was deale in the matter of our tithes. By the instructions you can give him theareof, and by the frendes he can make therefore, we thinke it a faire marke for him to shoote at, and not unpossible to hitt. It obtained would advance him in deede, and would do us much good." The terms of this letter prove that Shakespeare's townsinen were of opinion that he was desirous of advancing himself among the inhabitants of Stratford. 3 It is about to be printed entire by the Shakespeare Society, to the council of which it has been handed over by the owner for the purpose. 4 The only copy of this impression is in the library of his Grace the Duke of Devonshire, and we have employed it to a certain extent in settling and explaining the text of the tragedy. See the Intro duction to "Hamlet." 5 That the story came through the Duke of Buckingham, from Davenant, seems to have been a conjectural addition by Oldys: the words in Lintot's advertisement are these:-"That most learned Prince, and great patron of learning, King James the First, was pleased with his own hand to write an amicable letter to Mr. Shakespeare; which letter, though now lost, remained long in the hands of Sir William Davenant, as a credible person now living can testify." Dr. Farmer was the first to give currency to the notion, that the compliment to the Stuart family in "Macbeth" was the occasion of the letter. 2 In a letter from a resident in Stratford of the name of Abraham Sturley. It was originally published by Boswell (vol. ii. p. 566) at length, but the only part which relates to Shakespeare runs thus: we have not thought it necessary to preserve the uncouth abbreviations of the original. "This is one special remembrance of your father's motion. It seemeth by him that our countriman, Mr. Shakespeare, is willing to disburse some money upon some od yardeland or other at Shottery, or near about us: he thinketh it a very fitt patterne to move him to 6 'The terms are these : "1607. Junii 5. John Hall gentlema & Susanna Shaxspere." 7 He was buried at St. Saviour's, Southwark, in the immediate vicinity of the Globe theatre; the registration being in the following form, specifying, rather unusually, the occupation of the deceased. "1607, Dec. 31. Edmund Shakespeare, a player." not twenty-eight at the time of his death, had embraced the dwelling-house occupied by himself. This is very possibly profession of a player, having perhaps followed the fortunes of his brother William, and attached himself to the same company. We, however, never meet with his name in any list of the associations of the time, nor is he mentioned as an actor among the characters of any old play with which we are acquainted. We may presume, therefore, that he attained no eminence; perhaps his principal employment might the fact; but, on the other hand, the truth may be, that he paid the rate not for any habitation, good or bad, large or small, but in respect of his theatrical property in the Globe, which was situated in the same district. The parish register of St. Saviour's establishes, that in 1601 the churchwardens had been instructed by the vestry "to talk with the players" respecting the payment of tithes and contribu be under his brother in the management of his theatrical tions to the maintenance of the poor; and it is not very unconcerns, while he only took inferior parts when the assistance likely that some arrangement was made under which the of a larger number of performers than usual was necessary. sharers in the Globe, and Shakespeare as one of them, would Mary Shakespeare survived her son Edmund about eight months, and was buried at Stratford on the 9th Sept. 16081. There are few points of his life which can be stated with more confidence than that our great dramatist attended the be assessed. As a confirmatory circumstance we may add, that when Henslowe and Alleyn were about to build the Fortune play-house, in 1599-1600, the inhabitants of the Lordship of Finsbury, in the parish of Cripplegate, peti funeral of his mother: filial piety and duty would of course tioned the privy council in favour of the ufrdertaking, one impel him to visit Stratford on the occasion, and in proof of their reasons being, that "the erectors were contented to that he did so, we may mention that on the 16th of the give a very liberal portion of money weekly towards the next month he stood godfather there to a boy of the name relief of the poor." Perhaps the parties interested in the of William Walker. Shakespeare's mother had probably Globe were contented to come to similar terms, and the resided at New Place, the house of her son; from whence, parish to accept the money weekly from the various indiwe may presume also, the body of her husband had been viduals. Henslowe, Alleyn, Lowin, Town, Juby, &c., who carried to the grave seven years before. If she were of full age when she was married to John Shakespeare in 1557, she was about 72 years old at the time of her decease. The reputation of our poet as a dramatist seems at this period to have been at its height. His "King Lear" was printed three times for the same bookseller in 1608; and in order perhaps to increase its sale, (as well as to secure the purchaser against the old "King Leir," a play upon the same story, being given to him instead) the name of "M. William Shake-speare" was placed very conspicuously, and most unusually, at the top of the title-page. The same ob were either sharers, or actors and sharers, in that or other theatres in the same neighbourhood, contributed in different proportions for the same purpose, the largest amount being six-pence per week, which was paid by Shakespeare, Henslowe, and Alleyn3. The ordinary inhabitants included in the same list, doubtless, paid for their dwellings, according to their several rents, and such may have been the case with Shakespeare: all we contend for is, that we ought not to conclude at once, that Shakespeare was the tenant of a house in the Liberty of the Clink, merely from the circumstance that he was him in London. CHAPTER XVII. servation will in part apply to "Pericles," which came out rated to the poor. It is not unlikely that he was the occuin 1609, with the name of the author rendered particularly pier of a substantial dwelling-house in the immediate neighobvious, although in the ordinary place. "Troilus and bourhood of the Globe, where his presence and assistance Cressida," which was published in the same year, also has would often be required; and the amount of his income at the name of the author very distinctly legible, but in a some- this period would warrant such an expenditure, although we what smaller type. In both the latter cases, it would like- have no reason for thinking that such a house would be wise seem, that there were plays by older or rival drama- needed for his wife and family, because the existing evitists upon the same incidents. The most noticeable proof dence is opposed to the notion that they ever resided with of the advantage which a bookseller conceived he should derive from the announcement that the work he published was by our poet, is afforded by the title-page of the collection of his dispersed sonnets, which was ushered into the world as "Shakespeare's Sonnets," in very large capitals, as if that mere fact would be held a sufficient recommendation. In a former part of our memoir (p. xxv.) we have alluded to the circumstance, that in 1609 Shakespeare was rated to the poor of the Liberty of the Clink in a sum which might possibly indicate that he was the occupant of a commodious dwelling-house in Southwark. The fact that our great dramatist paid six-pence a week to the poor there, (as high a sum as anybody in that immediate vicinity was assessed at) is stated in the account of the Life of Edward Alleyn, printed by the Shakespeare Society, (p. 90) and there it is too hastily inferred that he was rated at this sum upon a Attempt of the Lord Mayor and aldermen in 1608 to expel the King's players from the Blackfriars, and its failure. Negotiation by the corporation to purchase the theatre and its appurtenances: interest and property of Shakespeare and other sharers. The income of Richard Burbage at his death. Diary of the Rev. J. Ward, Vicar of Stratford, and his statement regarding Shakespeare's expenditure. Copy of a letter from Lord Southampton on behalf of Shakespeare and Burbage. Probable decision of Lord Chancellor Ellesmere in favour of the company at the Blackfriars theatre. We have referred to the probable amount of the income of our great dramatist in 1609, and within the last ten years a Phillip Henslowe, esquior, assessed at weekely Ed. Alleyn, assessed at weekely • • The Ladye Buckley, weekly The account is in three divisions; and in the first, besides the above, we find the names of The third division consists of seven persons who only paid one penny per week, and among them we perceive the name of no individual who, according to other evidence, appears to have been in any way concerned with theatres: Malone (see his "Inquiry," p. 215,) had seen this document, but he mis-states that it belongs to the year 1608, jd ob. and not 1609. document has been discovered, which enables us to form some judgment, though not perhaps an accurate estimate, of the sum he annually derived from the private theatre in the Blackfriars. From the outset of the undertaking, the Lord Mayor and aldermen of London had been hostile to the establishment of players within this precinct, so near to the boundaries, but beyond the jurisdiction of the corporation; and, as we have already shown, they had made several fruitless efforts to dislodge them. The attempt was renewed in 1608, when Sir Henry Montagu, the Attorney General of the day, gave an opinion in favour of the claim of the citizens to exercise their municipal powers within the precinct of the late dissolved monastery of the Blackfriars. The question seems in some shape to have been brought before Baron Ellesmere, then Lord Chancellor of England, who required from the Lord Mayor and his brethren proofs that they had exercised any authority in the disputed liberty. The distinguished lawyers of the day retained by the city were immediately employed in searching for records applicable to the point at issue; but as far as we can judge, no such proofs, as were thought necessary by the highest legal authority of the time, and applicable to any recent period, were forthcoming. Lord Ellesmere, therefore, we may conclude, was opposed to the claim of the city. Failing in this endeavour to expel ex the King's players from their hold by force of law, the corporation appears to have taken a milder course, and negotiated with the players for the purchase of the Blackfriars theatre, with all its properties and appurtenances. To this negotiation we are proba well as to the widows and orphans of deceased actors: the purchase money of the whole property was thus raised to at least 7000l. Each share, out of the twenty into which the receipts of the theatre were divided, yielded, as was alleged, an annual profit of 331. 6s. 8d.; and Shakespeare, owning four of these shares, his annual income, from them only, was 1331. 6s. 8d.: he was besides proprietor of the wardrobe and properties, stated to be worth 500l.: these, we may conclude, he lent to the company for a certain consideration, and, reckoning wear and tear, ten per cent. seems a very low rate of payment; we will take it, however, at that sum, which would add 50l. a year to the 1331. 6s. 8d. already mentioned, making together 1837.6s. 8d., besides what our great dramatist must have gained by the profits of his pen, upon which we have no data for forming any thing like an accurate estimate. Without including any thing on this account, and supposing only that the Globe was as profitable for a summer theatre as the Blackfriars was for a winter theatre, it is evident that Shakespeare's income could hardly have been less than 366l. 13s. 4d. Taking every known source of emolument into view, we consider 400l. a year the very lowest amount at which his income can be reckoned in 1608. pres The document upon which this calculation is founded is eserved among the papers of Lord Ellesmere, but a remarkable incidental confirmation of it has still more recently been brought to light in the State-paper office. Sir Dudley Carlton was ambassador at the Hague in 1619, and John Chamberlaine, writing to him on 19th of March in that year, and mentioning the death of Queen Anne, states that bly indebted for a paper, which shows with great exactness "the funeral is put off to the 29th of the next month, to the and particularity the amount of interest then claimed by great hinderance of our players, which are forbidden to play each sharer, those sharers being Richard Burbage, Laurence so long as her body is above ground: one speciall man Fletcher', William Shakespeare, John Heminge, Henry among them, Burbage, is lately dead, and hath left, they Condell, Joseph Taylor, and John Lowin, with four other persons not named, each the owner of half a share. say, better than 3007. land3" Burbage was interred at St. Leonard's, Shoreditch, on We have inserted the document entire in a note, and 16th March, 1619, three days anterior to the date of Chamhence we find that Richard Burbage was the owner of the berl made his nuncupative will four freehold or fee, (which he no doubt inherited from his days before his burial: in it he said nothing about the father) as well as the owner of four shares, the value of all amount of his property, but merely left his wife Winifred which, taken together, he rated at 1933l. 6s. 8d. Laurence his sole executrix. There can be no doubt, however, that Fletcher (if it be he, for the Christian name is written the correspondent of Sir Dudley Carlton was correct in his "Laz,") was proprietor of three shares, for which he claimed information, and that Burbage age died worth "better than" 700l. Shakespeare was proprietor of the wardrobe and properties of the theatre, estimated at 500l., as well as of four shares, valued, like those of Burbage and Fletcher, at 331. 6s. 8d. each, or 9331. 6s. 8d., at seven years' purchase: his whole demand was 14331. 6s. 8d., or 500l. less than that of Burbage, in as much as the fee was considered worth 1000l., while Shakespeare's wardrobe and properties were valued at 500l. According to the same calculation, Heminge and Condell each required 466l. 13s. 4d. for their two shares, and Taylor 350l. for his share and a half, while the 300l. a year in land, besides his "goods and chattels:" 300l. a year at that date was about 1500l. of our present money, and we have every reason to suppose that Shakespeare was quite in as good, if not in better circumstances. Until the letter of Chamberlaine was found, we had not the slightest knowledge of the amount of property Burbage had accumulated, he having been during his whole life merely an actor, and not combining in his own person the profits of a most successful dramatic author with those of a performer. Nevertheless, it must not be forgotten, that although Shake four unnamed half-sharers put in their claim to be compen-speare continued a large sharer with the leading members sated at the same rate, 466l. 13s. 4d. This mode of estimating the Blackfriars theatre made the value of it 61661. 13s. 4d., and to this sum was to be added remuneration to the hired men of the company, who were not sharers, as 1 These transactions most probably occurred before September, 1603, because Laurence Fletcher died in that month. However, it is not quite certain that the "Laz. Fletcher," mentioned in the document, was Laurence Fletcher: we know of no person named Lazarus Fletcher, though he may have been the personal representative of Laurence Fletcher. D of the company in 1608, he had retired from the stage about four years before; and having ceased to act, but still retaining his shares in the profits of the theatres with which he was connected, it is impossible to say what arrangement Item. Lowing also one share and an halfe of them 350 00 466 13 4 Summa totalis 6166 13 4 Moreover, the hired men of the Companie demaund some recompence for their great losse, and the Widowes and Orphanes of Players, who are paide by the Sharers at divers rates and proportions, so as in the whole it will cost the Lo. Mayor and the Citizens at least 70002." 3 This new and valuable piece of information was pointed out to us by Mr. Lemon, who has been as indefatigable in his researches as liberal in the communication of the results of them. 4 The passage above quoted renders Middleton's epigram on the death of Burbage (Works by Dyce, vol. v. p. 503) quite clear : "Astronomers and star-gazers this year Write but of four eclipses; five appear. Death interposing Burbage, and their staying, It has been conjectured that "their staying" referred to a temporary suspension of plays in consequence of the death of Burbage; but the stay was the prohibition of acting until after the funeral of Queen Anne. |