of plagiarism, it is apparent that he was highly incensed at the liberty that had been taken; and a new title-page to The Passionate Pilgrim of 1612, from which Shakepeare's name was withdrawn, was afterwards issued. There can be little doubt that this step was taken mainly in consequence of the remonstrances of Heywood addressed to Shakespeare, who may certainly have been displeased at Jaggard's proceedings, but as clearly required pressure to induce him to act in the matter. If the publisher would now so readily listen to Shakespeare's wishes, it is difficult to believe that he would not have been equally compliant had he been expostulated with either at the first appearance of the work in 1599, or at any period during the following twelve years of its circulation. It is pleasing to notice that Heywood, in observing that the poet was ignorant of Jaggard's intentions, entirely acquits the former of any blame in the matter.

In the course of this year the King's Servants are found playing at Folkestone, New Romney, and Shrewsbury; and early in the following one, 1613, the great dramatist lost his younger, most probably now his only surviving, brother, Richard, who was buried at Stratfordon-Avon on Thursday, February 4. He was in the thirtyninth year of his age. Beyond the records of his baptism and funeral no biographical particulars respecting him have been discovered; but it may be suspected that all the poet's brothers were at times more or less dependent on his purse or influence. When the parish-clerk told Dowdall, in 1693, that Shakespeare "was the best of his family," he used a provincial expression which implied not only that its other members of the same sex were less amiable

than himself, but that they were not held in very favorable estimation.

There is no record of the exact period at which the great dramatist retired from the stage in favor of a retreat at New Place, but it is not likely that he made the latter a permanent residence until 1613 at the earliest. Had this step been taken previously, it is improbable that he would, in the March of that year, have been anxious to secure possession of an estate in London, a property consisting of a house and a yard, the lower part of the former having been then and for long previously a haberdasher's shop. The premises referred to, situated within one or two hundred yards to the east of the Blackfriars Theater, were bought by the poet for the sum of £140, and for some reason or other, he was so intent on its acquisition that he permitted a considerable amount, £60, of the purchase-money to remain on mortgage. That reason can hardly be found in the notion that the property was merely a desirable investment, for it would appear to have been purchased at a somewhat extravagant rate, the vendor, one Henry Walker, a London musician, having paid but £100 for it in the year 1604. If intended for conversion into Shakespeare's own residence, that design was afterwards abandoned, for, at some time previously to his death, he had granted a lease of it to John Robinson, who was, oddly enough, one of the persons who had violently opposed the establishment of the neighboring theater. It does not appear that Shakespeare lived to redeem the mortgage, for the legal estate remained in the trustees until the year 1618. Among the latter was one described as John Hemyng of London,

gentleman, who signs himself Heminges, but it is not likely that he was the poet's friend and colleague of the same

name.

The conveyance-deeds of this house bear the date of March 10, 1613, but in all probability they were not executed until the following day, and at the same time that the mortgage was effected. The latter transaction was completed in Shakespeare's presence on the eleventh, and that the occurrence took place in London or in the immediate neighborhood is apparent from the fact that the vendor deposited the original conveyance on the same day for enrollment in the Court of Chancery. The independent witnesses present on the occasion consisted of Atkinson, who was the Clerk of the Brewers' Company, and a person of the name of Overy. To these were joined the then usual official attestors, the scrivener who drew up the deeds and his assistant, the latter, one Henry Lawrence, having the honor of lending his seal to the great dramatist, who thus, to the disappointment of posterity, impressed the wax of both his labels with the initials H. L. instead of those of his own name.

This Blackfriars estate was the only London property that Shakespeare is known for certain to have ever owned. It consisted of a dwelling-house, the first story of which was erected partially over a gateway, and either at the side or back, included in the premises, was a diminutive enclosed plot of land. The house was situated on the west side of St. Andrew's Hill, formerly otherwise termed Puddle Hill or Puddle Dock Hill, and it was either partially on or very near the locality now and for more than two centuries known as Ireland Yard. At the bottom of the hill was Puddle Dock, a narrow creek of the

Thames which may yet be traced, with its repulsive very gradually inclined surface of mud at low water, and, at high, an admirable representative of its name. Stow, in his Survay of London, ed. 1603, p. 41, mentions “a water gate at Puddle Wharfe, of one Puddle that kept a wharfe on the west side thereof, and now of puddle water, by meanes of many horses watred there." It is scarcely necessary to observe that every vestige of the Shakepearean house was obliterated in the great fire of 1666. So complete was the destruction of all this quarter of London that, perhaps, the only fragment of its ancient buildings that remained to the present century is a doorway of the old church or priory of the Blackfriars, a relic which was afterwards built into the outer wall of a parish lumber-house adjoining St. Anne's burying ground.

rence.

The Globe Theater was destroyed by fire on Tuesday, June 29, 1613. The great dramatist was probably at Stratford-on-Avon at the time of this lamentable occurAt all events, his name is not mentioned in any of the notices of the calamity, nor is there a probability that he was the author of the new drama on the history of Henry VIII, which was then produced, the first one on the public stage in which the efforts of the dramatist were subordinated to theatrical display. It is true that some of the historical incidents in the piece that was in course of representation when the accident occurred are also introduced into Shakespeare's play, but it is not likely that there was any other resemblance between the two works. Among the actors engaged at the theater on this fatal day were Burbage, Hemmings, Condell, and one who enacted the part of the Fool, the two last being so dilatory in quitting the building that fears were en

tertained for their safety. Up to this period, therefore, it may reasonably be inferred that the stage-fool had been introduced into every play on the subject of Henry VIII, so that when Shakespeare's pageant-drama appeared some time afterwards, the prologue is careful to inform the audience that there was to be a novel treatment of the history divested of some of the former accompaniments. This theory of a late date is in consonance with the internal evidence. The temperate introduction of lines with the hypermetrical syllable has often a pleasing effect, but during the last few years of the poet's career, their immoderate use was affected by other dramatists, and although, for the most part, Shakespeare's meter was a free offspring of the ear, owing little but its generic form to his predecessors and contemporaries, it appears certain that, in the present instance, he suffered himself to be overruled by this disagreeable innovation.

When Shakespeare's King Henry VIII was produced, the character of the King was undertaken by Lowin, a very accomplished actor. This fact, which was stated on the authority of an old manuscript note in a copy of the second folio preserved at Windsor Castle, is confirmed by Downes, in 1708, and by Roberts, the actor, in a tract published in 1729, the latter observing,—“I am apt to think, he (Lowin) did not rise to his perfection and most exalted state in the theater till after Burbage, tho' he play'd what we call second and third characters in his time and particularly Henry VIII originally; from an observation of whose acting it in his later days Sir William Davenant convey'd his instructions to Mr. Betterton.” According to Downes, Betterton was instructed in the acting of the part by Davenant, "who had it from old Mr.