appearance of plays in print, lest to a certain extent the public curiosity should thereby be satisfied.

The point is, of course, liable to dispute, but we have little doubt that "Henry VIII." was represented very soon after the accession of James I., to whom and to whose family it contains a highly complimentary allusion; and “Macbeth," having been written in 1605, we suppose to have been produced at the Globe in the spring of 1606. Although it related to Scottish annals, it was not like the play of Gowry's Conspiracy" (mentioned by Chamberlaine at the close of 1603), founded, to use Von Raumer's words, upon "recent history ;" and instead of running the slightest risk of giving offence, many of the sentiments and allusions it contained, especially that to the "two-fold balls and treble sceptres," in Act iv. scene 1, must have been highly acceptable to the King. It has been supposed, upon the authority of Sheffield Duke of Buckingham, that King James with his own hand wrote a letter to Shakespeare in return for the compliment paid to him in "Macbeth" the Duke of Buckingham is said to have had Davenant's evidence for this anecdote, which was first told in print in the advertisement to Lintot's edition of Shakespeare's Poems in 17101. Rowe says nothing of it in his "Life," either in 1709 or 1714, so that, at all events, he did not adopt it; and it seems very improbable that James I. should have so far condescended, and very probable that the writer of Lintot's advertisement should not have been very scrupulous. We may conjecture, that a privy seal under the sign manual, (then the usual form of proceeding) granting to the King's players some extraordinary reward on the occasion, has been misrepresented as a private letter from the King to the dramatist.

Malone speculated that "Macbeth" had been played before King James and the King of Denmark, (who arrived in England on 6th July, 1606) but we have not a particle of testimony to establish that a tragedy relating to the assassination of a monarch by an ambitious vassal was ever represented at court: we should be surprised to discover any proof of the kind, because such incidents seem usually to have been carefully avoided.

1 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.

The eldest daughter of William and Anne Shakespeare, 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 Edmund2, and his mother in the autumn of the succeeding year.

There is no doubt that Edmund Shakespeare, who was not twenty-eight at the time of his death, had embraced the 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 be under his brother in the management of his theatrical concerns, while he only took inferior parts when the assistance of a larger number of performers than usual was necessary.

Mary Shakespeare survived her son Edmund about eight months, and was buried at Stratford on the 9th Sept. 16083. There are few points of his life which can be stated with more confidence than that our great dramatist attended the funeral of his mother: filial piety and duty would of course impel him to visit Stratford on the occasion, and in proof that he did so, we may mention that on the 16th of the next month he stood godfather there to a boy of the name of William Walker. Shakespeare's mother had probably resided at New Place, the house of her son; from whence, we may presume also, the body of her husband had been 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

1 The terms are these :

"1607. Junii 5. John Hall gentlemȧ & Susanna Shaxspere,

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."

The following is a copy of the register.

"1608, Septemb. 9, Mayry Shaxspere, Wydowe."

66

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 observation will in part apply to "Pericles," which came out in 1609, with the name of the author rendered particularly obvious, although in the ordinary place. Troilus and Cressida," which was published in the same year, also has the name of the author very distinctly legible, but in a somewhat smaller type. In both the latter cases, it would likewise seem, that there were plays by older or rival dramatists upon the same incidents. The most noticeable proof 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 collec tion 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. lxx.) 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 dwelling-house occupied by himself. This is very possibly 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 reg

1 The account (preserved at Dulwich College) does not state that the parties enumerated (consisting of 57 persons) were rated to the poor for dwelling-houses, but merely that they were rated and assessed to a weekly payment towards the relief of the poor, some for dwelling-houses, and others perhaps in respect to different kinds of property it is thus entitled:

A breif noat taken out of the poores booke, contayning the names of all then habitantes of this Liberty, which are rated and assessed to a weekely paiment towardes the relief of the poore. As it standes now encreased, this 6th day of Aprill, 1609. Delivered up to Phillip Henslowe, Esquior, churchwarden, by Francis Carter, one of the ovreseers of the same Liberty." It commences with these names :Phillip Henslowe, esquior, assessed at weekely

Ed. Alleyn, assessed at weekely

The Ladye Buckley, weekly

VOL. I.-O

vjd

ister 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 contributions to the maintenance of the poor; and it is not very unlikely that some arrangement was made under which the sharers in the Globe, and Shakespeare as one of them, would 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, petitioned the privy council in favour of the undertaking, one of their reasons being, that "the erectors were contented to give a very liberal portion of money weekly towards the relief of the poor." Perhaps the parties interested in the Globe were contented to come to similar terms, and the parish to accept the money weekly from the various individuals. Henslowe, Alleyn, Lowin, Town, Juby, &c., who 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 Alleyn1.

The ordinary inhabitants included in the same list, doubt

The account is in three divisions; and in the first, besides the above, we find the names of

Mr. Langworthe

Mr. Benfield

Mr. Griffin

Mr. Toppin

iijd

Mr. Louens [i. e. Lowin]

Francis Carter

Gilbert Catherens

and twenty-one others. The next division includes a list of nineteen names, and at the head of it we find,

Mr. Shakespeare

Mr. Edw. Collins

John Burret

vjd

vjd

vjd

and all the rest pay a rate of either 24 or 14a, including the following

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: Maione (see his "Inquiry," p. 215,) had seen this document, but he mis-states that it belongs to the year 1608, and not 1609.

1 John Northbrooke, in his Treatise against Plays, Players, &c., (Shakespeare Society's reprint, p. 126,) informs us that in 1577 people contributed weekly to the support of the poor "according to their ability, some a penny, some-two-pence, another four-pence, and the best commonly giveth but six-pence."

less, 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 rated to the poor. It is not unlikely that he was the occupier of a substantial dwelling-house in the immediate neighbourhood of the Globe, where his presence and assistance would often be required; and the amount of his income at this period would warrant such an expenditure, although we have no reason for thinking that such a house would be needed for his wife and family, because the existing evidence is opposed to the notion that they ever resided with him in London.

CHAPTER XVII.

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 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 imme