"citizen of London and minstrel of London," to William Shakespeare, "of Stratford-upon-Avon, in the county of Warwick, gentleman," bears date 10th March, 161213: the consideration money was 140.; the house was situated "within the precinct, circuit, and compass of the late Blackfriars," and we are further informed that it stood "right against his Majesty's Wardrobe." It appears to have been a dwelling-house, with a small yard, not in any way connected with the theatre, which was at some distance from the royal wardrobe, although Heminge, the actor, was, with Shakespeare, a party to the deed, as well as W. 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; as on the day after the date of the conveyance, Shakespeare mortgaged the house to the vendor, for 60%., having paid down only 802. on the 10th March. It is possible that our Poet advanced the 80l. to Heminge, Johnson, and Jackson, expecting that they would repay him, and furnish the remaining 601. before the 29th September,

1 It was sold by auction by Messrs. Evans, of Pall Mall, in 1841, for 1621. 158. 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 100%., and it is now deposited in the British Museum. We have a copy of the same book, but it has only upon the title-page the comparatively worthless signature of the reigning monarch.

I*

1613, the time stipulated in the mortgage; but as they did not do so, the house continued his property, and after his death it was necessarily surrendered to the uses of his will by Heminge, Johnson, and Jackson.1

Such may have been the nature of the transaction; and if it were, it will account for the apparent want of means on the part of Shakespeare to pay down the whole of the purchase-money: he only agreed to lend 801., 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 similer description in the deeds by which he purchased one hundred and seven acres of land from John and William Combe in 1602, and a lease of tithes in 1605, although it is indisputable that at those periods he was generally resident in London. From these facts it seems likely that the great dramatist 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 convinced that anterior to March, 1613, Shakespeare had taken up his permanent residence with his family at Stratford.

1 By his will he left this house, occupied by a person of the name of John Robinson, to his daughter Susanna.

77

THE immediate members of the Shakespeare family resident at this date in Stratford were few. Richard Shakespeare had died at the age of forty,' about a month before William Shakespeare purchased 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. 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. Their first child, William, was baptized on 28th August, 1600, and they had afterwards children of the names of Mary, Thomas, and Michael, born respectively in 1603, 1605, and 1608.2 Our Poet's eldest daughter, Susanna, who, as we have elsewhere stated, was married to Dr. Hall, in June, 1607, had a daughter who was baptized Elizabeth on 21st February, 1607-8; so that Shake

1 The register of Stratford contains the following among the deaths in the parish:

"1612. Feb. 4. Rich. Shakspeare.

2 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.

speare was a grandfather before his forty-fifth year: Mrs. Hall had no further 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 (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 the great dramatist's retirement from London, 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 upon his theatrical concerns, he was not without his annoyances of a different kind. We refer to a chancery suit in which he seems to have been involved by the purchase, in 1605, 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," filed a bill before Lord Ellesmere, to compel 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 607. 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 took up his residence in his birth-place. The Globe, which 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 artillery. 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 VIII. It is possible that both may be right, and that Shakespeare's historical drama was that night revived under a new name, and therefore mistakenly called “a new play" by Sir Henry Wotton, although it had been nearly ten years on the stage. The Globe was rebuilt in the next year, as we are told on what may be considered good authority, at the cost of King James and of many noblemen and gentlemen, who seem to have contributed sums of money for the purpose. If James I. lent any pecuniary aid on the occasion, it affords another proof of his disposition to encourage the drama, and to assist the players who acted under the royal name.'

This fact, with several other particulars respecting the fate of the Blackfriars theatre, the Whitefriars (called the Salisbury Court) theatre, the Phoenix, 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. The burning of the Globe is there erroneously fixed in 1612. When 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, stageplays and bear-baiting. The memoranda are thus headed: "A note of such passages as have beene omitted, and as I have seene, since the printing of Stowe's Survey of Londen 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. "The play house in Salisbury Court, in Fleete streete, was palled 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 day of March, 1649, by the same souldiers. "The Fortune play house, between White Cross 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

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 gentlemen in the neighbourhood, 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 there stated to be "eight thousand pounds and upwards."

It is certain that Shakespeare's own dwelling, New Place, escaped the conflagration, and his property seems to have been situated in a part of the town which did not suffer from the ravages of the fire.

His name 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, and possibly was taking some steps in favour of his fellow-townsmen. However, his principal business seems to have related to the projected inclosure of certain common lands in the neighbourhood of Stratford in which he had an interest. Some inquiries as to the rights of various parties were instituted in September, 1614, as we gather from a document which is now before us.

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 refers to Shakespeare, like the rest, is placed under the head of "Auncient Freeholders in the fields of Old Stratford and Welcome."

"Mr. Shakspeare, 4 yard land:2 noe common, nor ground beyond Gospell bushe: noe ground in Sandfield, nor none in Slow Hill field beyond Bishopton, nor none in the enclosures beyond Bishopton."

The date of this paper is 5th September, 1614, and we may presume that it was chiefly upon this business that Shakespeare came to London in November.

It

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 down 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."

1 This 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.

2 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 terra.-SHAKESPEARE, by Boswell. According to the same authority, a yard land in Wilmecote consisted of more than fifty acres.

should appear that Thomas Greene, of Stratford, was officially opposing the inclosure on the part of the corporation; and it is probable that Shakespeare's wishes were accordant with those of the majority of the inhabitants: however this might be, (and it is liable to dispute which party Shakespeare favoured,) the members of the municipal body of the borough were nearly unanimous, and, as far as we can learn from the imperfect particulars remaining upon this subject, they wished our Poet to use his influence to resist the project, which seems to have been supported by Mr. Arthur Mainwaring, then resident in the family of Lord Ellesmere as auditor of his domestic expenditure.

It is likely that Shakespeare saw Mainwaring; and, as it was only five or six years since his name had been especially brought under the notice of the Lord Chancellor, in relation to the claim of the city authorities to jurisdiction in the Blackfriars, Shakespeare may have had an interview with Lord Ellesmere, who seems to have been of a very accessible and kindly disposition. Greene was in London on the 17th November, and sent to Stratford a short account of his proceedings on the question of the inclosure, in which he mentioned that he had seen Shakespeare and Mr. Hall (probably meaning Shakespeare's son-in-law) on the preceding day, who told him that they thought nothing would be

1 The memorandum of the contents of his letter (to which we have already referred on page 79) is in these terms, avoiding abbreviations:

"Jovis, 17 No. My cosen Shakespeare comyng yesterday, I went to see him, how he did. He told me that they assured him they ment to inclose no further than to Gospel bush, and so upp straight (leaving out part of the Dyngles to the field) to the gate in Clopton hedg, and take in the Salisburys peece; and that they mean in Aprill to survey the land, and then to gyve satisfaction, and not before: and he and Mr. Hall say they think there will be nothyng done at all."

from the fire. A petition was also prepared and presented to the privy council, and we may gather that the opposition was effectual, because nothing was done in the business: the common fields of Welcombe, which it had been intended to inclose, remained open for pasture as before.

How soon after the matter relating to the inclosure had been settled Shakespeare returned to Stratfordhow long he remained there, or whether he ever came to London again—we are without information. He was possibly in the metropolis at the time when a narrative poem, founded in part upon his historical play of RICHARD III., was published, which contains the clearest allusion, not indeed by name, to our author and to his tragedy. It is called "The Ghost of Richard the

Third," and it bears date in 1614; but the writer, C. B., only gives his initials. We know of no poet of that day to whom they would apply, excepting Charles Best, who has several pieces in Davison's "Poetical Rhapsody," 1602, but he has left nothing behind him to indicate that he would be capable of a work of such power and variety. It is divided into three portions, the "Character," the "Legend," and the "Tragedy" of Richard III.; and the second part opens with the following stanzas, which show the high estimate the writer had formed of the genius of Shakespeare: they are exceedingly interesting as a contemporaneous tribute. Richard, while narrating his own history, thus speaks:

To him that impt my fame with Clio's quill,
Whose magick rais'd me from Oblivion's den,
That writ my storie on the Muses hill,

And with my actions dignified his pen;

He that from Helicon sends many a rill,

Whose nectared veines are drunke by thirstie men;
Crown'd be his stile with fame, his head with bayes,
And none detract, but gratulate his praise.

And these not on the title-page, but at the end of the prefatory matter: the whole title runs thus:

"The Ghost of Richard the Third. Expressing himselfe in these three Parts. 1. His Character. 2. His Legend. 3. His Tragedie. Containing more of him than hath been heretofore shewed, either in Chronicles, Playes, or Poems. Laurea Desidia præbetur nulla. Printed by G. Eld: for L. Lisle: and are to be sold in Paules Church-yard, at the signe of the Tygers head. 1614." 4to.

"Yet if his scones have not engrost all grace,
The much fam'd action could extend on stage;
If Time or Memory have left a place
For me to fill, t'enforme this ignorant age,
To that intent I shew my horrid face,
Imprest with feare and characters of rage:

Nor wits nor chronicles could ere containe

The hell-deepe reaches of my soundlesse braine." The above is the last extant panegyric upon Shake speare during his lifetime, and it exceeds, in point of fervour and zeal, if not in judicious criticism, any that had gone before it. That C. B. was an author of distinction, and well known to some of the greatest poets of the day, we learn, from the terms they use in their commendatory poems subscribed by no less names than those of Ben Jonson, George Chapman, William Browne, Robert Daborne, and George Wither. The author professes to follow no particular original, whether in prose or verse, narrative or dramatic, in "chronicles, plays, or poems," but to adopt the incidents as they had been handed down on various authorities. As we have stated, his work is one of great excellence; but it would be going too much out of our way to enter here into any further examination of it.

1 It appears from Henslowe's Diary, that in June, 1602, Ben Jonson was himself writing a historical play, called "Richard Crook-back," for the Lord Admiral's players at the Fortune. We have no evidence that it was ever completed or represented. Ben Jonson's testimony in favour of the poem of C. B. is com pressed into a few lines.

81