On the 30th of October, 1633, the managers of the king's company agreed to pay him the fixed fum of ten pounds day of Ben Jonfon's play of Every man in bis bumour, this 18 of February, 1630, [1630-31]—£. 32. 4. 0. 1631, "Received of Mr. Shanke, in the name of the kings company, for the benefitt of their summer day, upon ye fecond daye of Richard ye Seconde, at the Globe, this 12 of June, 1631,£.5. 6. 6. Received of Mr. Blagrave, in the name of the kings company, for the benefitt of my winter day, taken upon The Alchemifte, this 1 of Decemb. 1631,-£. 13. 0. 0. 1632. "Received for the fummer day of the kings company ye 6 Novemb. 1632,—£. 1. 5. 0. "Received for the winter day upon The Wild goofe chafe, ye fame day,-. 15. 0. O. 1633. "R. of ye kings company, for my fummers day, by Blagrave, the 6 of June 1633, ye lomme of £. 4. 10. 0. I likewife find the following entry in this book: "Received of Mr. Benfielde, in the name of the kings company, for a gratuity for ther liberty gaind unto them of playinge, upon the ceffation of the plague, this 10 of June, 1631,-£. 3. 10.0."—" This (Sir Henry Herbert adds) was taken upon Pericles at the Globe." In a copy of a play called A Game at Chefs, 1624, which was formerly in poffeffion of Thomas Pearson, Efq. is the following memorandum in an old hand: "After nine days, wherein I have heard fome of the actors fay they took fifteen hundred pounds, the Spanish faction, being prevalent, got it suppressed, and the author Mr. Thomas Middleton committed to prifon." According to this ftatement, they received above 1661. 128. on each performance. The foregoing extracts thew, that there is not even a femblance of truth in this story. In the year 1685, when the London theatres were much enlarged, and the prices of admiffion greatly increased, Shadwell received by his third day on the reprefentation of The Squire of Alfatia, only 130l. which Downes the prompter fays was the greatest receipt had been ever taken at Drury lane playhouse at fingle prices. Rofcius Anglicanus, p. 41. The ufe of Arabick figures has often occafioned very grofs errors to pafs current in the world. I fuppofe the utmost receipt from the performance of Middleton's play for nine days, (if it was performed fo often,) could not amount to more than one hundred and fifty pounds. To the fum of 150l. which perhaps this old actor had seen as the profit made by this play, his fancy or his negligence added a cipher, and thus made fifteen hundred pounds. The play of Holland's Leaguer was acted fix days fucceffively at Salisbury Court, in December 1631, and yet Sir Henry Herbert received on account of the fix reprefentations but one e pound nineteen fillings, in virtue of the ninth share which he poffeffed as one of the proprietors of that pounds every Christmas, and the fame fum at Midfummer, in lieu of his two benefits, which fums they regularly pay'd him from that time till the breaking out of the civil wars. 1 From the receipts on thefe benefits I am led to believe that the prices were lower at the Globe theatre, and that therefore, though it was much larger than the winter theatre at Blackfriars, it did not produce a greater fum of money on any reprefentation. If we fuppofe twenty pounds, clear of the nightly charges already mentioned, to have been a very confiderable receipt at either of thefe houses, and that this fum was in our poet's time divided into forty fhares, of which fifteen were appropriated to the housekeepers or proprietors, three to the purchase of copies of new plays, ftage-habits, &c. and twenty-two to the actors, then the performer who had two fhares on the representation of each play, received, when the theatre was thus fuccefsful, twenty fhillings. But fuppofing the average nightly receipt (after deducting the nightly expences) to be about nine pounds, which we have feen to be the cafe, then his nightly dividend would be but nine fhillings, and his weekly profit, if they played five times a week, two pounds five fhillings. The acting feafon, I believe, at that time lafted forty weeks. In each of the companies then. fubfifting there were about twenty perfons, fix of whom probably were principal, and the others fubordinate; fo that we may fuppofe two fhares to have been the reward of a principal actor; fix of the fecond clafs perhaps enjoyed a whole fhare each; and each of the remaining eight half a fhare. On all these data, I think it may be fafely concluded, that the performers of the first clafs did not derive from their profeffion more than ninety pounds a year at the utmoft 3. Shakspeare, Heminge, Condell, Burbadge, that houfe. Suppofing there were twenty-one fhares divided among the actors, the piece, though performed with fuch extraordinary fuccefs, did not produce more than fix pounds ten fillings each night, exclufive of the occafional nightly charges already mentioned. The verye hyerlings of fome of our plaiers," [i. e. men occafionally hired by the night] fays Stephen Goffon in the year 1579, " which Burbadge, Lowin, and Taylor, had without doubt other fhares as proprietors or leafeholders; but what the dif ferent proportions were which each of them poffeffed in that right, it is now impoilible to afcertain. According to the fuppofition already ftated, that fifteen fhares out of forty were appropriated to the proprietors, then was there on this account a fum of fix hundred and feventy-five pounds annually to be divided among them. Our poet, as author, actor, and proprietor, probably received from the theatre about two hundred pounds a year.-Having after a very long fearch lately difcovered the will of Mr. Heminge, I hoped to have derived from it fome information on this fubject; but I was disappointed. He indeed more than once mentions his feveral parts or hares held by leafe in the Globe and Blackfriars playboufes; but ufes no expreffion by which the value of each of thofe fhares can be afcertained. His books of account, which he appears to have regularly kept, and which, he fays, will thew that his fhares yielded him "a good yearly profit," will probably, if they fhall ever be found, throw much light on our early ftage hiftory. Thus fcanty and meagre were the apparatus and accommodations of our ancient theatres, on which thofe dramas were first exhibited, that have fince engaged the attention of fo many learned men, and delighted fo many thousand fpectators. Yet even then, we are told by a writer of that ages, "dramatick poely was fo lively which ftand at reverfion of vis. by the weeke, jet under gentlemens nofes in futes of filke." Schoole of Abufe, p. 22. Hart, the celebrated tragedian, after the Reftoration had but three pounds a week as an after, that is, about ninety pounds a year; for the acting feafon did not, I believe, at that time exceed thirty weeks; but he had befides, as a proprietor, fix fhillings and three-pence every day on which there was any performance at the king's theatre, which produced about £.56. 5. o. more. Betterton even at the beginning of the prefent century had not more than five pounds a week. 4 See his Will in a fubfequent page. 5 Sir George Buc. This writer, as I have already obferved, wrote an exprefs treatife concerning the English stage, which was never printed, and, I fear, is now irrecoverably loft. As he was a friend of Sir Robert Cotton, I hoped to have found the Manufcript in the Cot lively expreffed and reprefented on the publick ftages and theatres of this city, as Rome in the auge of her pomp and glory, never faw it better performed; in refpect of the action and art, not of the coft and fumptuoufnefs." Of the actors on whom this high encomium is pronounced, the original performers in our author's plays were undoubtedly the most eminent. The following is the only information that I have obtained concerning them. tonian library, but was difappointed. "Of this art," [the dramatick] fays Sir George, "have written largely Petrus Viatorius, &c. as it were in vaine for me to fay any thing of the art, befides that I bave written thereof a particular treatife." The third University of England, printed originally in 1615, and re-printed at the end of Howes' edition of Stowe's Annals, folio, 1631, p. 1082. It is fingular that a fimilar work on the Roman ftage, written by Suetonius, (De Spectaculis et Certaminibus Romanorum,) has also perifhed. Some little account of their scenery, and of the feparation of the mimes and pantomimes from comedies, in which they were originally introduced, are the only particulars of this treatife that have been preferved; for which we are indebted to Servius, and Diomedes the grammarian. The latter fragment is curious, as it exhibits an early proof of that competition and jealoufy, which, from the first rife of the ftage to the prefent time, has difturbed the peace of theatres : "Latinæ vero comedia chorum non habent, fed duobus tantum membris conftant, diverbio, et cantico. Primis autem temporibus, ut afferit Tranquillus, omnia quæ in fcena verfantur, in comedia agebantur. Nam Pantomimus et Pithaules et Choraules in comedia canebant. Sed quia non poterant omnia fimul apud omnes artifices qui erant inter actores comœdiarum pro facultate pariter excellere, et arte potiores, principatum fibi artificii vindicabant. Sic factum eft, ut nolentibus cedere Mimis in artificio fuo cæteris, feperatio fieret reliquorum. Nam dum potiores inferioribus, qui in omni ergafterio erant, fervire dedignabantur, feipfos a comedia feparaverunt: ac fic factum eft, ut, exemplo femel fumpto, unufquifque artis fuæ rem exequi cæperit, neque in comediam venire." Grammaticæ linguæ Auctores Antiqui, Putfchii, p. 489. I have faid in a former page (47) that I believed Sir George Buc died foon after the year 1622, and I have fince found my conjecture confirmed. He died, as I learn from one of Sir Henry Herbert's papers, on the 20th of September, 1623. NAMES NAMES OF THE ORIGINAL ACTORS IN THE PLAYS OF SHAKSPEARE." From the folio, 1623. WILLIAM SHAKSPEARE. Having now once more occafion to mention our poet, I shall take this opportunity to correct an errot into which I fufpe&t I have fallen, in a note on the Account of his Life; and to add fuch notices as I have obtained relative either to him or his friends, fince that Account was printed off; to which the prefent article is intended as a fupplement. The words in our poet's will," Provided that if fuch husband as the fhall at the end of the faid three years be married unto," &c. feemed to me to afford a prefumptive proof that Shakspeare, when he made his will, did not know of the marriage of his daughter Judith, (the perfon there fpoken of,) which had been celebrated about a month before: a circumstance, however, which, even when I stated it, appeared to me very extraordinary, and highly improbable. On further confideration I am convinced that I was mistaken, and that the words above-cited were intended to comprehend her then husband, and any other to whom within three years the might be married. The word difcharge in the bequest to Judith, which had escaped my notice," One hundred pounds in difcharge of her marriage portion,"fhews that he must have been apprized of this marriage, and that he had previously covenanted to give her that fum. In the tranfcript of the inftrument by which a coat of arms was granted in 1599 to John Shakspeare, our poet's father, the original has been followed with a Vol. I. Part I. p. 182. fcrupulous |
