he may have made with the rest of the company for the sovereign: he had many important public duties to discharge regular contribution of dramas, in lieu perhaps of his own personal exertions. In a work published a few years ago, containing extracts from the Diary of the Rev. John Ward, who was vicar of Stratford-upon-Avon, and whose memoranda extend from besides those belonging to his great office; and notwithstanding he had shown himself at all times a liberal patron of letters, and had had many works of value dedicated to him, we may readily imagine, that although he must have heard of Shakespeare and Burbage, he was in some degree 1648 to 1679', it is stated that Shakespeare "in his elder of ignorance as to their individual deserts, which this comdays lived at Stratford, and supplied the stage with two munication was intended to remove. That it was not sent plays every year, and for it had an allowance so large, that to him by Lord Southampton, who probably was acquainted he spent at the rate of 1000l. a year, as I have heard." We with him, may afford a proof of the delicacy of the Earl's only adduce this passage to show what the opinion was as mind, who would not seem directly to interpose while a to Shakespeare's circumstances shortly after the Restora- question of the sort was pending before a judge, (though tion2. We take it for granted that the sum of 1000l. (equal possibly not in his judicial capacity) the history of whose to nearly 5000l. now) is a considerable exaggeration, but it life establishes that where the exercise of his high functions may warrant the belief that Shakespeare lived in good style was involved he was equally deaf to public and to private and port, late in life, in his native town. It is very possible, influence. too, though we think not probable, that after he retired to We have introduced an exact copy of the document in a Stratford he continued to write, but it is utterly incredible notes, and it will be observed that it is without date; but that subsequent to his retirement he "supplied the stage the subject of it shows beyond dispute that it belongs to this with two plays every year." He might not be able at once period, while the lord mayor and aldermen were endeavourto relinquish his old and confirmed habits of composition; ing to expel the players from a situation where they had but such other evidence as we possess is opposed to Ward's been uninterruptedly established for more than thirty years. statement, to which he himself appends the cautionary There can be no doubt that the object the players had in words, " as I have heard." Of course he could have known view was attained, because we know that the lord mayor nothing but by hearsay forty-six years after our poet's decease. He might, however, easily have known inhabitants of Stratford who well recollected Shakespeare, and, considering the opportunities he possessed, it strikes us as very singular that he collected so little information. We have already adverted to the bounty of the Earl of Southampton to Shakespeare, which we have supposed to have been consequent upon the dedication of "Venus and Adonis," and "Lucrece," to that nobleman, and coincident in point of date with the building of the Globe Theatre. Another document has been handed down to us among the papers of Lord Ellesmere, which proves the strong interest Lord Southampton still took, about fifteen years afterwards, in Shakespeare's affairs, and in the prosperity of the company to which he was attached: it has distinct reference also to the pending and unequal struggle between the corporation of London and the players at the Blackfriars, of which we have already spoken. It is the copy of a letter subscribed H. S. (the initials of the Earl) to some nobleman in favour of our great dramatist, and of the chief performer and his brethren were not allowed, until many years afterwards, to exercise any authority within the precinct and liberty of the Blackfriars, and that the King's servants continued to occupy the theatre long after the death of Shakespeare. CHAPTER XVIII. Warrant to Daborne, Shakespeare, Field, and Kirkham, for the Children of the Queen's Revels, in Jan. 1610. Popularity of juvenile companies of actors.. Stay of Daborne's warrant, and the reasons for it. Plays intended to be acted by the Children of the Queen's Revels. Shakespeare's dramas between 1609 and 1612. His retirement to Stratford, and disposal of his property in the Blackfriars and Globe theatres. Alleyn's purchases in Blackfriars in 1612. Shakespeare's purchase of a house in Blackfriars from Henry Walker in 1618, and the possible cause of it explained. Shakespeare described as of Stratford-upon-Avon. in many of his plays, Richard Burbage; and recollecting THERE is reason for believing that the important question what Lord Southampton had before done for Shakespeare, of jurisdiction had been decided in favour of the King's and the manner in which from the first he had patronized players before January, 1609-10, because we have an inour stage and drama, it seems to us the most natural thing strument of that date authorizing a juvenile company to in the world for him to write a letter personally on behalf exhibit at Blackfriars, as well as the association which had of parties who had so many public and private claims. We been in possession of the theatre ever since its original conmay conclude that the original was not addressed to Lord struction. One circumstance connected with this document, Ellesmere, or it would have been found in the depository to which we shall presently advert, may however appear of his papers, and not merely a transcript of it; but a copy of it may have been furnished to the Lord Chancellor, in order to give him some information respecting the characters of the parties upon whose cause he was called upon to decide. Lord Ellesmere stood high in the confidence of his 1 Diary of the Rev. John Ward, &c. Arranged by Charles Severn, M. D. London, 8vo, 1839. 2 Mr. Ward was appointed to the vicarage of Stratford-upon-Avon to cast a doubt upon the point, whether it had yet been finally determined that the corporation of London was by law excluded from the precinct of the Blackfriars. It is a fact, of which it may be said we have conclusive proof, that almost from the first, if not from the first, the and good behaviour, he hath be come possessed of the Blacke Fryers playhouse, which hath bene imployed for playes sithence it was builded by his Father, now nere 50 yeres agone. The other is a man no whitt lesse deserving favor, and my especiall friende, till of late an actor of good account in the companie, now a sharer in the same, and writer of some of our best English playes, which, as your Lordship knoweth, were most singularly liked of Quene Elizabeth, when companie was called uppon to performe before her Maiestie at Court at Christmas and Shrovetide. His most gracious Maiestie King in 1662. 3 The copy was made upon half a sheet of paper, and without ad dress: it runs as follows: "My verie honored Lord. The manie good offices I have received at your Lordship's hands, which ought to make me backward in asking further favors, onely imbouldeneth me to require more in the same kinde. Your Lordship will be warned howe hereafter you graunt anie sute, seeing it draweth on more and greater demaunds. This which now presseth is to request your Lordship, in all you can, to be good to the poore players of the Black Fryers, who call them selves by authoritie the servaunts of his Majestie, and aske for the protection of their most gracious Maister and Sovereigne in this the tyme of their troble. They are threatened by the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London, never friendly to their calling, with the distruction of their meanes of livelihood, by the pulling downe of their plaiehouse, which is a priuate theatre, and hath neuer giuen occasion of anger by anie disorders. These bearers are two of the chiefe of the companie; one of them by name Richard Burbidge, who humblie sueth for your Lordship's kinde helpe, for that he is a man famous as our English Roscius, one who fitteth the action to the word, and the word to the action most admirably. By the exercise of his qualitye, industry, James alsoe, sence his coming to the crowne, hath extended his royal countie, and indeede allmost of one towne: both are right famous in "Copia vera." "Your Lo most bounden at com. Lord Southampton was clearly mistaken when he stated that the Blackfriars theatre had been built nearly fifty years: in 1608 it had been built about thirty-three years. Blackfriars theatre had been in the joint possession of the to proceed; and it is a circumstance deserving notice, that Lord Chamberlain's servants and of a juvenile company "the Children of the Queen's Revels" were thereby called the Children of the Chapel: they were also known as licensed not only to act "tragedies, comedies," &c. in the "her Majesty's Children," and "the Children of the Black- Blackfriars theatre, but " elsewhere within the realm of friars;" and it is not to be supposed that they employed England;" so that even places where the city authorities the theatre on alternate days with their older competitors, had indisputably a right to exercise jurisdiction were not but that, when the Lord Chamberlain's servants acted elsewhere in the summer, the Children of the Chapel commenced their performances at the Blackfriars. After the opening of the Globe in 1595, we may presume that the Lord Chamberlain's servants usually left the Blackfriars theatre to be occupied by the Children of the Chapel during the seven months from April to October. exempted. It will be recollected that this had been a point in dispute in 1574, and that the words "as well within our city of London" were on this account excluded from the patent granted by Elizabeth to the players of Lord Leicester, though found in the privy seal dated three days earlier. For the same reason, probably, they are not contained in The success of the juvenile companies in the commence- the patent of James I. to Fletcher, Shakespeare, and others, ment of the reign of James I., and even at the latter end in 1603. We may be satisfied that the warrant of 1609-10 of that of Elizabeth, was great; and we find Shakespeare to Daborne and his partners was not carried into effect, and alluding to it in very pointed terms in a well-known passage possibly on that account: although it may have been decided in "Hamlet," which we suppose to have been written in the at this date that the lord mayor and aldermen had no power winter of 1601, or in the spring of 1602. They seem to forcibly to exclude the actors from the Blackfriars, it may have gone on increasing in popularity, and very soon after have been held inexpedient to go the length of authorizing James I. ascended the throne, Queen Anne took a company, a young company to act within the very boundaries of the called "the Children of the Queen's Revels," under her city. So far the corporation may have prevailed, and this immediate patronage. There is no reason to doubt that may be the cause why we never hear of any steps having they continued to perform at Blackfriars, and in the very been taken under the warrant of 1609-10. The word commencement of the year 1610 we find that Shakespeare "stayed" is added at the conclusion of the draft, as if some either was, or intended to be, connected with them. At this period he probably contemplated an early retirement from the metropolis, and might wish to avail himself, for a short period, of this new opportunity of profitable employment. Robert Daborne, the author of two dramas that have been printed, and of several others that have been lost," seems to have been a man of good family, and of some interest at court; and in January 1609-10, he was able to procure a royal grant, authorizing him and others to provide and educate a good ground had been discovered for delaying, if not for entirely withholding it. Perhaps even the question of jurisdiction had not been completely settled, and it may have been thought useless to concede a privilege which, after all, by the operation of the law in favour of the claim of the city, migh might turn out to be of no value, because it could not be acted upon. Certain it is, that the new scheme seems to have been entirely abandoned; and whatever Shakespeare may have intended when he became connected with number of young actors, to be called "the Children of the it, he continued, as long as he remained in London, and as Queen's Revels." As we have observed, this was not a new far as any evidence enables us to judge, to write only for association, because it had existed under that appellation, and the company of the King's players, who persevered in their under those of "the Children of the Chapel" and "the Chil- performances at the Blackfriars in the winter, and at the dren of the Blackfriars," from near the beginning of the reign | Globe in the summer. of Elizabeth. Daborne, in 1609-10, was placed at the head It will be seen that to the draft in favour of "Daborne of it, and not, perhaps, having sufficient means or funds of his and others," as directors of the performances of the Children own, he had, as was not unusual, partners in the undertak- of the Queen's Revels, a list is appended, apparently of ing: those partners were William Shakespeare, Nathaniel dramatic performances in representing which the juven company was to be employed. Some of these may be considered, known and established performances, such as "Antonio," which perhaps was intended for the "Antonio and Field, (the celebrated actor, and very clever author) and Edward Kirkham, who had previously enjoyed a privilege of the same kind3. A memorandum of the warrant to "Daborne and others," not there named, is inserted in the Mellida" of Marston, printed in 1602; "Grisell," for the "Entry Book of Patents and Warrants for Patents," kept "Patient Grisell" of Dekker, Chettle, and Haughton, printed by a person of the name of Tuthill, who was employed by in 1603; and "K. Edw. 2.," for Marlowe's "Edward II.," Lord Ellesmere for the purpose, and which book is pre- printed in 1598. Of others we have no information from served among the papers handed down by his lordship to any quarter, and only two remind us at all of Shakespeare: his successors. In the same depository we also find a draft of the warrant itself, under which Daborne and his partners, therein named, viz. Shakespeare, Field, and Kirkham, were 1 See Hist. Engl. Dram. Poetry and the Stage, vol. iii. p. 275, where such is conjectured to have been the arrangement. 2 "The Christian turned Turk," 1612, and "The Poor Man's Comfort," 1655. In "The Alleyn Papers," (printed by the Shakespeare Society,) may be seen much correspondence between Daborne and Henslowe respecting plays he was then writing for the Fortune theatre. By a letter from him, dated 2nd August, 1614, it appears that Lord Willoughby had sent for him, and it is most likely that Daborne went to Ireland under this nobleman's patronage. It is certain that, having been regularly educated, he went into the Church, and had a living at or near Waterford, where, in 1618, he preached a sermon which is extant. While writing for Henslowe he was in great poverty, having sold most of the property he had with his wife. We have no information as to the precise time of his death, but his "Poor Man's Comfort" was certainly a posthumous production: he had sold it to one of the companies of the day before he took holy orders, and, like various other plays, after long remaining in manuscript, it was published. His lost plays, some of which he wrote in conjunction with other dramatists, appear from "The Alleyn Papers" to have been-1. Machiavel and the Devil; 2. The Arraignment of London; 3. The Bellman of London; 4. The Owl; 5. The She Saint; besides others the titles of which are not given. 3 He was one of the masters of the Children of the Queen's Revels in 1603-4. See Hist. of Engl. Dram. Poetry and the Stage, vol. i. p. 352. 4 It runs thus : "Kinsmen," may mean "The two Noble Kinsmen," in writing which, some suppose our great dramatist to have been concerned; and "Taming of S," is possibly to be taken for wife, hath for her pleasure and recreation appointed her servaunts Robert Daiborne, &c. to provide and bring upp a convenient nomber of children, who shall be called the Children of her Majesties Revells, knowe ye that we have appointed and authorized, and by these presents doe appoint and authorize the said Robert Daiborne, William Shakespeare, Nathaniel Field, and Edward Kirkham, from time to time to provide and bring upp a convenient nomber of children, and them to instruct and exercise in the quality of playing Tragedies, Comedies, &c., by the name of the Children of the Revells to the Queene, within the Blackfryers, in our Citie of London, or els where within our realm of England. Wherefore we will and command you, and everie of you, to permitt her said servaunts to keepe a convenient nomber of children, by the name of the Children of the Revells to the Queene, and them to exercise in the qualitie of playing according to her royal pleasure. Provided alwaies, that no playes, &c. shall be by them presented, but such playes, &c. as have received the approbation and allowance of our Maister of the Revells for the tyme being. And these our Ires. shall be your sufficient warrant in this behalfe. In witnesse whereof, &c., 4o die Janij. 1609. "Proud Povertie. "Right trusty and welbeloved, &c., James, &c. To all Mayors, Stayed." Sheriffs, Justices of the Peace, &c. Whereas the Queene, our dearest Antonio. Kinsmen. Triumph of Truth. Grisell. Engl. Tragedie. 5 See Hist. Engl. Dram. Poetry and the Stage, vol. i. p. 212. "The Taming of the Shrew," or for the older play, with close of 1612, and for aught we know, that might be the nearly the same title, upon which it was founded. "Troilus and Cressida " and "Pericles" were printed in 1609, and to our mind there seems but little doubt that they had been written and prepared for the stage only a short time before they came from the press. With the single exception of "Othello," which came out in 4to in 1622, no other new drama by Shakespeare appeared in a printed form between 1609 and the date of the publication of the folio in 16231. We need not here discuss what plays, first found in that volume, were penned by our great dramatist after 1609, because we have separately considered the claims of each in our preliminary Introductions. "Timon of Athens," " Coriolanus," " Antony and Cleopatra," "Cymbeline," "The Winter's Tale," and "The Tempest," seem to belong to a late period of our poet's theatrical career, and some of them were doubtless written between 1609 and the period, whatever that period might be, when he entirely relinquished dramatic composition. Between January 1609-10, when Shakespeare was one of the parties to whom the warrant for the Children of the Queen's Revels was conceded, and the year 1612, when it has been reasonably supposed that he quitted London to period Shakespeare had in his mind fixed upon for the termination of his toils and anxieties. It has been ascertained that Edward Alleyn, the actorfounder of the college of "God's Gift" at Dulwich, purchased property in the Blackfriars in April 16123, and although it may possibly have been theatrical, there seems sufficient reason to believe that it was not, but that it consisted of certain leasehold houses, for which according to his own account-book, he paid a quarterly rent of 40l. The brief memorandum upon this point, preserved at Dulwich, certainly relates to any thing rather than to the species of interest which Shakespeare indisputably had in the wardrobe and properties of the Blackfriars theatre: the terms Alleyn uses would apply only to tenements or ground, and as Burbage valued his freehold of the theatre at 1000l., we need not hesitate in deciding that the lease Alleyn purchased for 5991. 6s. 8d. was not a lease of the play-house. We shall see presently that Shakespeare himself, though under some peculiar circumstances, became the owner of dwelling-house in the Blackfriars, unconnected with the theatre, very soon after he had taken up his abode at Stratford, and Alleyn probably had made a similar, but a larger a take up his permanent residence at Stratford, we are in investment in the same neighbourhood in 1612. Whatever, possession of no facts connected with his personal history2. in fact, became of Shakespeare's interest in the Blackfriars It would seem both natural and prudent that, before he theatre, both as a sharer and as the owner of the wardrobe withdrew from the metropolis, he should dispose of his and properties, we need not hesitate in concluding that, in theatrical property, which must necessarily be of fluctuating the then prosperous state of theatrical affairs in the metroand uncertain value, depending much upon the presence polis, he was easily able to procure a purchaser. and activity of the owner for its profitable management. He must also have had a considerable stake in the Globe, In his will (unlike some of his contemporaries who expired in London) he says nothing of any such property, and we are left to infer that he did not die in possession of it, having disposed of it before he finally retired to Stratford. It is to be recollected also that the species of interest he had in the Blackfriars theatre, independently of his shares in the receipts, was peculiarly perishable: it consisted of the wardrobe and properties, which in 1608, when the city authorities contemplated the purchase of the whole establishment, were valued at 500l.; and we may feel assured that he would sell them to the company which had had the constant use of them, and doubtless had paid an annual consideration to the owner. The fee, or freehold, of the house and ground was in the hands of Richard Burbage, and from him it descended to his two sons: that was a permanent and substantial possession, very different in its character and durability from the dresses and machinery but whether he was also the owner of the same species of property there, as at the Blackfriars, we can only speculate. We should think it highly probable that, as far as the mere wardrobe was concerned, the same dresses were made to serve for both theatres, and that when the summer season commenced on the Bankside, the necessary apparel was conveyed across the water from the Blackfriars, and remained there until the company returned to their winter quarters. There is no hint in any existing document what became of our great dramatist's interest in the Globe; but here again we need not doubt, from the profit that had always attended the undertaking, that he could have had no difficulty in finding parties to take it off his hands. Burbage we know was rich, for he died in 16195 worth 300l. a year in land, besides his personal property, and he and others would have been glad to add to their capital, so advantageously employed, by purchasing Shakespeare's interest. which belonged to Shakespeare. The mere circumstance It is possible, as we have said, that Shakespeare contiof the nature of Shakespeare's property in the Blackfriars nued to employ his pen for the stage after his retirement seems to authorize the conclusion, that he sold it before he to Stratford, and the buyers of his shares might even make retired to the place of his birth, where he meant to spend it a condition that he should do so for a time; but we much the rest of his days with his family, in the tranquil enjoy- doubt whether, with his long experience of the necessity of ment of the independence he had secured by the exertions personal superintendence, he would have continued a shareof five and twenty years. Supposing him to have begun holder in any concern of the kind over which he had no his theatrical career at the end of 1586, as we have ima- control. During the whole of his life in connexion with the gined, the quarter of a century would be completed by the 1 One copy of the folio is known with the date of 1622 upon the title-page. The volume was entered at Stationers' Hall on the 8th Nov. 1623, as if it had not been published until late in that year, unless we suppose the entry made by Blount and Jaggard some time after publication, in order to secure their right to the plays first printed there, which they thought might be invaded. 2 We ought, perhaps to except a writ issued by the borough court in June 1610, at the suit of Shakespeare, for the recovery of a small sum. A similar occurrence had taken place in 1604, when our poet sought to recover 11. 15s. Od. from a person of the name of Rogers, for corn sold to him. These facts are ascertained from the existing records of Stratford. 3 See the "Memoirs of Edward Alleyn," p. 105, where a conjecture is hastily hazarded that it might be Shakespeare's interest in the Blackfriars theatre. Upon this question we agree with Mr. Knight in "Shakspere, a Biography," prefixed to his pictorial edition of the Poet's works. stage, even after he quitted it as an actor, he seems to have If this paper had any relation at all to the theatre in the Blackfriars, it is very evident that Shakespeare could neither grant nor sell á lease; and it is quite clear that Burbage did not, because he remained in possession of the playhouse at the time of his death: his sons enjoyed it afterwards: and Alleyn continued to pay 401. a quarter for the property he held until his decease in 1626. 5 We have already inserted an extract from an epitaph upon Burbage, in which the writer enumerates many of the characters he sustained. The following lines in Sloane MS. No. 1786, (pointed out to us by Mr. Bruce) are just worth preserving on account of the eminence of the man to whom they relate. "An Epitaph on Mr. RICHARD BURBAGE, the Player. 4 It is in the following form, upon a small damp-injured piece of paper, and obviously a mere memorandum. "April 1612, "Money paid by me E. A. for the Blackfryers More for the Blackfryers 126li More again for the Leasse 310li The writinges for the same and other small charges 3li 6s 8d From hence we might infer, against other authorities, that what was called the "tiring room "in theatres, was so called because the actors retired to it, and not attired in it. It most likely answered both purposes, but we sometimes find it called "the attiring room | by authors of the time. been obliged to reside in London, apart from his family, for the purpose of watching over his interests in the two theatres to which he belonged: had he been merely an author, after he ceased to be an actor, he might have composed his dramas as well at Stratford as in London, visiting the metropolis only while a new play was in rehearsal and preparation; but such was clearly not the case, and we may be confident that when he retired to a place so distant from the scene of his triumphs, he did not allow his mind to be encumbered by the continuance of professional anxieties. It may seem difficult to reconcile with this consideration the undoubted fact, that in the spring of 1613 Shakespeare purchased a house, and a small piece of ground attached to it, not far from the Blackfriars theatre, in which we believe him to have disposed of his concern in the preceding year. The documents relating to this transaction have come down to us, and the indenture assigning the property from Henry Walker, "citizen of London and minstrel of London," to William Shakespeare, "of Stratford-upon-Avon, in the county of Warwick, gentleman," bears date 10th March, 1612-131: the consideration money was 140l.; the house was situated "within the precinct, circuit, and compass of the late Blackfriars," and we are farther informed that it stood "right against his Majesty's Wardrobe." It appears to have been merely a dwelling-house with a small yard, and not in any way connected with the theatre, which was at some distance from the royal wardrobe, although John Heminge, the actor, was, with Shakespeare, a party to the deed, as well as William Johnson, vintner, and John Jackson, gentleman. Shakespeare may have made this purchase as an accommodation in some way to his "friend and fellow" Heminge, and the two other persons named; and it is to be remarked that, on the day after the date of the conveyance, Shakespeare mortgaged the house to Henry Walker, the vendor, for 60l., having paid down only 80l. the 10th March. It is very possible that our poet advanced the 80/. to Heminge, Johnson, and Jackson, expecting that they would repay him, and furnish the remaining 60l. before the 29th September, 1613, the time stipulated in the mortgage deed; but as they did not do so, but left it to him, the house of course continued the property of Shakespeare, and after his death it was necessarily surrendered to the uses of his will by Heminge, Johnson, and Jackson2. Such may have been the nature of the transaction; and if it were, it will account for the apparent (and, we have no doubt, only apparent) want of means on the part of Shakespeare to pay down the whole of the purchase-money in the first instance: he only agreed to lend 80l., leaving the parties whom he assisted to provide the rest, and by repaying him what he had advanced (if they had done so) to entitle themselves to the house in question. Shakespeare must have been in London when he put his signature to the conveyance; but we are to recollect, that the circumstance of his being described in it as "of Stratford-upon-Avon" is by no means decisive of the fact, that his usual place of abode in the spring of 1613 was his native town: he had a similar description in the deeds by which he purchased 107 acres of land from John and William Combe in 1602, and a lease of a moiety of the tithes from Raphe Huband in 1605, although it is indisputable that at those periods he was generally resident in London. From these facts it seems likely that our great dramatist 1 It was sold by auction by Messrs. Evans, of Pall Mall, in 1841, for 162l. 15s. The autograph of our poet was appended to it, in the usual manner. In the next year the instrument was again brought to the hammer of the same parties, when it produced nearly the sum for which it had been sold in 1841. The autograph of Shakespeare, on the fly-leaf of Florio's translation of Montaigne's-Essays, folio, 1603, (which we feel satisfied is genuine) had been previously sold by auction for 100l., and it is now deposited in the British Museum. We have a copy of the same book, but it has only upon the titlepage the comparatively worthless signature of the reigning monarch. 2 By his will he left this house, occupied by a person of the name of John Robinson, to his daughter Susanna. preferred to be called "of Stratford-upon-Avon," contemplating, as he probably did through the whole of his theatrical life, a return thither as soon as his circumstances would enable him to do so with comfort and independence. We are thoroughly convinced, however, that, anterior to March, 1613, Shakespeare had taken up his permanent residence with his family at Stratford. CHAPTER XIX. Members of the Shakespeare family at Stratford in 1612. Joan Shakespeare and William Hart: their marriage and family. William Shakespeare's chancery suit respecting the tithes of Stratford; and the income he derived from the lease. The Globe burnt in 1618: its reconstruction. Destructive fire at Stratford in 1614. Shakespeare's visit to London afterwards. Proposed inclosure of Welcombe fields. Allusion to Shakespeare in the historical poem of "The Ghost of Richard the Third," published in 1614. THE immediate members of the Shakespeare family resident at this date in Stratford were comparatively few. Richard Shakespeare had died at the age of forty3, only about a month before William Shakespeare signed the deed for the purchase of the house in Blackfriars. Since the death of Edmund, Richard had been our poet's youngest brother, but regarding his way of life at Stratford we have no information. Gilbert Shakespeare, born two years and a half after William, was also probably at this time an inhabitant of the borough, or its immediate neighbourhood, and perhaps married, for in the register, under date of 3rd February, 1611-12, we read an account of the burial of " Gilbertus Shakspeare, adolescens," who might be his son. Joan Shakespeare, who was five years younger than her brother William, had been married at about the age of thirty to William Hart, a hatter, in Stratford; but as the ceremony was not performed in that parish, it does not appear in the register. Their first child, William, was baptized on 28th August, 1600, and they they had afterwards children of the names of Mary, Thomas, and Michael, born respectively in 16034, 1605, and 16085. Our poet's eldest daughter, Susanna, who, as we have elsewhere stated, was married to Mr. John, afterwards Dr. Hall, in June, 1607, produced a daughter who was baptized Elizabeth on 21st February, 1607-8; so that Shakespeare was a grandfather before he had reached his forty-fifth year; but Mrs. Hall had no farther increase of family. By whom New Place, otherwise called "the great house," was inhabited at this period, we can only conjecture. That Shakespeare's wife and his youngest daughter Judith daughter (who completed her twenty-eighth year in February, 1612,) resided in it, we cannot doubt; but as it would be much more than they would require, even after they were permanently joined by our great dramatist on his retirement from London, we may perhaps conclude that Mr. and Mrs. Hall were joint occupiers of it, and aided in keeping up the vivacity of the family circle. Shakespeare himself only completed his forty-eighth year in April, 1612, and every tradition and circumstance of his life tends to establish not only the gentleness and kindness, but the habitual cheerfulness of his disposition. Nevertheless, although we suppose him to have separated himself from the labours and anxieties attendant 3 The register of Stratford merely contains the following among the deaths in the parish :1612. Feb. 4 Rich. Shakspeare." 4 It appears by the register that Mary Hart died in 1607. When Shakespeare made his will, a blank was left for the name of his nephew Thomas Hart, as if he had not recollected it; but perhaps it was merely the omission of the scrivener. The Harts lived in a house belonging to Shakespeare. 5 It has been generally stated that Charles Hart, the celebrated actor after the Restoration, was the grand-nephew of Shakespeare, son to the eldest son of Shakespeare's sister Joan, but we are without positive evidence upon the point. In 1622 a person of the name of Hart kept a house of entertainment close to the Fortune theatre, and he may have been the son of Shakespeare's sister Joan, and the father of Charles Hart the actor, who died about 1679. upon his theatrical concerns, he was not without his annoyances, though of a different kind. We refer to a chancery suit in which he seems to have been involved by the purchase, in 1605, of the remaining term of a lease of part of the tithes of Stratford. It appears that a rent of 271. 13s. 4d. had been reserved, which was to be paid by certain lessees under peril of forfeiture, but that some of the parties, disregarding the consequences, had refused to contribute their proportions; and Richard Lane, of Awston, Esquire, Thomas Greene, of Stratford-upon-Avon, Esquire, and William Shakespeare, "of Stratford-upon-Avon, gentleman," were under the necessity of filing a bill before Lord Ellesmere, to compel all the persons deriving estates under the dissolved college of Stratford to pay their shares. What was the issue of the suit is not any where stated; and the only important point in the draft of the bill, in the hands of the Shakespeare Society, is, that our great dramatist therein stated the value of his "moiety" of the tithes to be 60l. per annum. In the summer of 1613 a calamity happened which we do not believe affected our author's immediate interests, on account of the strong probability that he had taken care to divest himself of all theatrical property before he finally 1 had often acted, from which he had derived so much profit, and in the continuance of the performances at which so many of his friends and fellows were deeply interested. He must himself have had an escape from a similar disaster at Stratford in the very next year. Fires had broken out in the borough in 1594 and 1595, which had destroyed many of the houses, then built of wood, or of materials not calculated to resist combustion; but that which occurred on the 9th July, 1614, seems to have done more damage than both its predecessors. At the instance of various gentlemen in the neighbourhood, including Sir Fulk Greville, Sir Richard Verney, and Sir Thomas Lucy, King James issued a proclamation, or brief, dated 11th May, 1615, in favour of the inhabitants of Stratford, authorizing the collection of donations in the different churches of the kingdom for the restoration of the town; and alleging that within two hours the fire had consumed "fifty-four dwelling-houses, many of them being very fair houses, besides barns, stables, and other houses of office, together also with great store of corn, hay, straw, wood, and timber." The amount of loss is stated, on the same authority, to be "eight thousand pounds and upwards." What was the issue of this charitable appeal to the whole kingdom, we know not. took up his residence in his birth-place. The Globe, which It is very certain that the dwelling of our great drama had been in use for about eighteen years, was burned down on 29th June, 1613, in consequence of the thatch, with which it was partially covered, catching fire from the discharge of some theatrical artillery1. It is doubtful what play was then in a course of representation: Sir Henry Wotton gives it the title of "All is True," and calls it "a new play;" while Howes, in his continuation of Stowe's Annales, distinctly states that it was "Henry the Eighth2." It is very possible that both may be right, and that Shake tist, called New Place, escaped the conflagration, and his property, as far as we can judge, seems to have been situated in a part of the town which fortunately did not suffer from the ravages of the fire. The name of Shakespeare is not found among those of inhabitants whose certificate was stated to be the immediate ground for issuing the royal brief, but it is not at all unlikely that he was instrumental in obtaining it. We are sure that he was in London in November following the fire, speare's historical drama was that night revived under a and possibly was taking some steps in favour of his fellownew name, and therefore mistakenly called "a new play" townsmen. However, his principal business seems to have by Sir Henry Wotton, although it had been nearly ten related to the projected inclosure of certain common lands years on the stage. The Globe was rebuilt in the next in the neighbourhood of Stratford in which he had an inyear, as we are told on what may be considered good autho-terest. Some inquiries as to the rights of various parties rity, at the cost of King James and of many noblemen and were instituted in September, 1614, as we gather from a gentlemen, who seem to have contributed sums of money document yet preserved, and which is now before us. for the purpose. If James I. lent any pecuniary aid on the occasion, it affords another out of many proofs of his disposition to encourage the drama, and to assist the players who acted under the royal name3. Although Shakespeare might not be in any way pecuniarily affected by the event, we may be sure that he would not be backward in using his influence, and perhaps in rendering assistance by a gift of money, for the reconstruction of a playhouse in which he 1 John Taylor, the water-poet, was a spectator of the calamity, (perhaps in his own wherry) and thus celebrated it in an epigram, which he printed in 1614 in his " Nipping and Snipping of Abuses," &c. 4to. "UPON THE BURNING OF THE GLOBE. "Aspiring Phaeton, with pride inspirde, 2 See "Hist. of Engl. Dram. Poetry and the Stage," vol. i. p. The individuals whose claims are set out are, "Mr. Shakespeare," Thomas Parker, Mr. Lane, Sir Francis Smith, Mace, Arthur Cawdrey, and "Mr. Wright, vicar of Bishopton." All that it is necessary to quote is the following, which refers to Shakespeare, and which, like the rest, is placed under the head of "Auncient Freeholders in the fields of Old Stratford and Welcome." "Mr. Shakspeare, 4 yard land: noe common, nor ground "The play house in Salisbury Court, in Fleete streete, was pulled down by a company of souldiers, set on by the Sectaries of these sad times, on Saturday, the 24th day of March, 1649. "The Phenix, in Druery Lane, was pulled down also this day, being Saturday the 24th of March, 1649, by the same souldiers. "The Fortune play house, between White Crosse streete and Golding Lane, was burned down to the ground in the year 1618. And built againe, with bricke worke on the outside, in the year 1622; and now pulld downe on the inside by these souldiers, this 1649. "The Hope, on the Banke side in Southwarke, commonly called the Beare Garden: a play house for stage playes on Mundays, Wednesdayes, Fridayes, and Saterdayes; and for the baiting of the beares on Tuesdays and Thursdayes-the stage being made to take up and downe when they please. It was built in the year 1610; and now pulled downe to make tenements by Thomas Walker, a peticoate maker in Cannon Streete, on Tuesday the 25 day of March, 1656. Seven of Mr. Godfries beares, by the command of Thomas Pride, then hie Sherefe of Surry, were shot to death on Saturday, the 9 day of February, 1655, by a company of souldiers." 386, and vol. iii. p. 298. 3 This fact, with several other new and curious particulars respecting the fate of the Blackfriars theatre, the Whitefriars (called the Salisbury Court) theatre, the Phenix, the Fortune, and the Hope (which was also at times used for bear-baiting) is contained in some manuscript notes to a copy of Stowe's Annales, by Howes, folio, 1631, in the possession of Mr. Pickering: they appear to have been made just after the last event mentioned in them. The burning of the Globe is there erroneously fixed in 1612. When, too, it is said that the Hope was built in 1610, the meaning must be that it was then reconstructed, so as to be adapted to both purposes, stage-plays and bear-baiting. The memoranda are thus headed: "A note of such 5 The name of his friend William Combe is found among the " espassages as have beene omitted, and as I have seene, since the print-quires" enumerated in the body of the instrument. 'ing of Stowe's Survey of London in 4to, 1618, and this Chronicle at large, 1631." "PLAY HOUSES.-The Globe play house, on the Bank side in Southwarke, was burnt downe to the ground in the yeare 1612. And new built up againe in the yeare 1613, at the great charge of King James, and many noble men, and others. And now pulled downe to the ground by Sir Mathew Brand on Munday, the 15 of April, 1644, to make tenements in the rome of it. "The Black Friers play house, in Black Friers London, which had stood many yeares, was pulled down to the ground on Munday, the 6 day of August, 1655, and tenements built in the roome. 4 We take these particulars from a copy of the document "printed by Thomas Purfoot," who then had a patent for all proclamations, &c. It has the royal arms, and the initials I. R. at the top of it as usual. It is in the possession of the Shakespeare Society. 6 This fact appears in a letter, written by Thomas Greene, on 17th November, 1614, in which he tells some person in Stratford that he had been to see his cousin Shakespeare," who had reached town the day before. 7 Malone informs us, without mentioning his authority, that "in the fields of Old Stratford, where our poet's estate lay, a yard land contained only about twenty-seven acres," but that it varied much in different places: he derives the term from the Saxon gyrd land, virgata terræ. --Shakspeare, by Boswell, vol. ii. p. 25. According to the same authority, a yard land in Wilmecote consisted of more I than fifty acres. |