stroyed literature of the time. We may conclude that this admirable and unequalled production first introduced its author to the notice of Lord Southampton; and it is evident from the opening of the dedication, that Shakespeare had not taken the precaution of ascertaining, in the first instance, the wishes of the young nobleman on the subject. Lord Southampton was more than nine years younger than Shakespeare, having been born on 6th October, 1573.

We may be sure that the dedication of VENUS AND ADONIS was, on every account, acceptable, and Shakespeare followed it up by inscribing to the same peer, but in a much more assured and confident strain, his LUCRECE, in the succeeding year. He then "dedicated his love" to his juvenile patron, having "a warrant of his honourable disposition" towards his "pamphlet" and himself. LUCRECE was not calculated, from its subject and the treatment of it, to be so popular as VENUS AND ADONIS, and the first edition having appeared from Field's press in 1594, a reprint of it does not seem to have been called for until after the lapse of four years, and the third edition bears the date of

1600.

It must have been about this period that the Earl of Southampton bestowed a proof of his high-minded munificence upon the author of VENUS AND ADONIS and LUCRECE. It was not unusual, at that time and afterwards, for noblemen, and others to whom works were dedicated, to make presents of money to the writers of them; but there is certainly no instance upon record of such generous bounty, on an occasion of the kind, as that of which we are now to speak: nevertheless, we have every reliance upon the authenticity of the anecdote, taking into account the unexampled merit of the Poet, the known liberality of the nobleman, and the evidence upon which the story has been handed down. Rowe was the original narrator of it in print, and he doubtless had it, with other information, from Betterton, who probably received it directly from Sir William Davenant, and communicated it to Rowe. If it cannot be asserted that Davenant was strictly contemporary with Shakespeare, he was contemporary with Shakespeare's contemporaries, and from them he must have

42

obtained the original information. Rowe thus gives the statement:

"There is one instance so singular in the munificence of this patron of Shakespeare's that, if I had not been assured that the story was handed down by Sir William Davenant, who was probably very well acquainted with his [Shakespeare's] affairs, I should not have ventured to have inserted; that my Lord Southampton at one time gave him a thousand pounds to enable him to go through with a purchase which he heard he had a mind to."

No biographer of Shakespeare seems to have adverted to the period when it was likely that the gift was made, in combination with the nature of the purchase Lord Southampton had heard our great dramatist wished to complete, or, it seems to us, they would not have thought the tradition so improbable as some have held it.

The disposition to make a worthy return for the dedications of VENUS AND ADONIS and LUCRECE would of course be produced in the mind of Lord Southampton by the publication of those poems; and we are to recollect that it was precisely at the same date that the Lord Chamberlain's servants entered upon the project of building the Globe theatre on the Bankside, not very far to the west of the Southwark foot of London Bridge. VENUS AND ADONIS was published in 1593; and it was on 22d December, in that year, that Richard Burbage, the great actor, and the leader of the company to which Shakespeare was attached, signed a bond to Peter Street for the construction of the Globe. It is not too much to allow at least a year for its completion; and it was during 1594, while the work on the Bankside was in progress, that LUCRECE came from the press. Thus we see that the building of the Globe, at the cost of the sharers in the Blackfriars theatre, was coincident in point of time with the appearance of the two poems dedicated to the Earl of Southampton. May we not, then, believe that the young and bountiful nobleman, having heard of this enterprise from the peculiar interest he is known to have taken in all matters relating to the stage, and having been incited by warm admiration of VENUS AND ADONIS and LUCRECE in the fore-front of which he rejoiced to see his own name, presented Shakespeare with 1000l., to enable him to make good the money he was to produce, as his proportion, for the completion of the Globe?

We think we may conclude fairly, that the construction of the new theatre on the Bankside, subsequently known as the Globe, having been commenced soon after the signature of the bond of Burbage to Street, on 22d December, 1593, was continued through the year 1594: and that it would be finished and ready for the reception of audiences early in the spring of 1595. It was a round wooden building, open to the sky, while the stage was protected from the weather by an overhanging roof of thatch. The number of persons it would contain we have no means of ascertaining, but it was certainly of larger dimensions than the Rose, the Hope, or the Swan, three other edifices of the same kind, and used for the same purpose, in the immediate vicinity. The Blackfriars was a private theatre, as it was called, entirely covered in, and of smaller size; and from thence the company, after the Globe had been completed, was in the habit of removing in the spring, perhaps as soon as there was any indication of the setting in of fine cheerful weather.

Before the building of the Globe, for the exclusive use of the theatrical servants of the Lord Chamberlain, there can be little doubt that they did not act all the year round at the Blackfriars: they appear to have

performed sometimes at the Curtain in Shoreditch, and Richard Burbage, at the time of his death, still had shares in that play-house. Whether they occupied it in common with any other association is not clear; but we learn from Henslowe's Dairy, that in 1594, and perhaps earlier, the company of which Shakespeare was a member had played at a theatre in Newington Butts, where the Lord Admiral's servants also exhibited. At this period of our stage-history the performances usually began at three o'clock in the afternoon; for the citizens transacted their business and dined early, and many of them afterwards walked out into the fields for recreation, often visiting such theatres as were opened purposely for their reception. Henslowe's Diary shows that the Lord Chamberlain's and the Lord Admiral's servants had joint possession of the Newington theatre from 3d June, 1594, to the 15th November, 1596; and during that period various pieces were performed, which in their titles resemble plays which unquestionably came from Shakespeare's pen. That none of these were productions by our great dramatist, it is, of course, impossible to affirm; but the strong probability seems to be, that they were older dramas, of which he subsequently, more or less, availed himself. Among these

66

was a "Hamlet," acted on 9th June, 1594; a "Taming of a Shrew," acted on 11th June, 1594; an "Andronicus," acted on 12th June, 1594; a" Venetian Comedy," acted on 12th August, 1594; a "Cæsar and Pompey," acted 8th November, 1594; a Second Part of Cæsar," acted 26th June, 1595; a" Henry V.," acted on 28th November, 1595; and a "Troy," acted on 22d June, 1596. To these we might add a " Palamon and Arcite," (acted on 17th September, 1594,) if we suppose Shakespeare to have had any hand in writing "The Two Noble Kinsmen ;" and an "Antony and Vellea," (acted on the 20th June, 1595,) as it is called in the barbarous record, which may possibly have had some connection with ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA We have no reason to think that Shakespeare did not aid in these representations, although he was, perhaps, too much engaged with the duties of authorship, at this date, to take a very prominent part as an actor.

Lord Hunsdon.

We may feel assured that the important incident of the opening of a new theatre on the Bankside, larger than any that then stood in that or in other parts of the town, was celebrated by the production of a new play. Considering his station and duties in the company, and his popularity as a dramatist, we may be confident also that the new play was written by Shakespeare. In the imperfect state of our information, it would be vain to speculate which of his dramas was brought out on the

occasion. Many years ago we were strongly inclined to think that HENRY V. was the piece: the Globe was round, and the" wooden O" is most pointedly mentioned in that drama; so that at all events we are satisfied that it was acted in that theatre: there is also a nationality about the subject, and a popularity in the treatment of it, which would render it peculiarly appropriate; but on further reflection and information, we are unwillingly convinced that HENRY V. was not written until some years afterwards. We frankly own, therefore, that we are not in a condition to offer an opinion upon the question, and we are disposed, where we can, to refrain even from conjecture, when we have no ground on which to rest a speculation.

Allowing about fifteen months for the erection and completion of the Globe, we may believe that it was in full operation in the spring, summer, and autumn of 1595. On the approach of cold weather, the company would of course return to their winter quarters in the Blackfriars, which was enclosed, lighted from within, and comparatively warm. This theatre, as we have stated, at this date had been in constant use for twenty years, and early in 1596 the sharers directed their attention to the repair, enlargement, and, possibly, entire re-construction of the building. The evidence that they entertained such a design is decisive; and we may infer, that the prosperity of their new experiment at the Globe encouraged them to this outlay. On the 9th January, 1596, (1595, according to the then mode of calculating the year,) Lord Hunsdon, who was Lord Chamberlain at the time, but who died about six months afterwards, wrote to Sir William More, expressing a wish to take a house of him in the Blackfriars, and adding that he had heard that Sir William More had parted with a portion of his own residence "to some that mean to make a play-house of it."

The truth, no doubt, was, that in consequence of their increased popularity, owing, we may readily imagine, in a great degree to the success of the plays Shakespeare had produced, the company which had occupied the Blackfriars theatre found that their house was too small for their audiences, and wished to enlarge it; but it appears singular that the Lord Chamberlain should not be aware of the intention of the players acting under the sanction of his name and office, and should only have heard that some persons "meant to make a playhouse" of part of Sir W. More's residence. We have not a copy of the whole of Lord Hunsdon's letter-only an abstract of it-which reads as if the Lord Chamberlain did not even know that there was any theatre at all in the Blackfriars. Two documents in the State Paper Office, and a third preserved at Dulwich College, enable us to state distinctly what was the object of the actors at the Blackfriars in 1596. The first of these is a representation from certain inhabitants of the precinct in which the play-house was situated, not only against the completion of the work of repair and enlargement, then commenced, but against all further performances in the theatre.

were enumerated, and that then Shakespeare's name was the twelfth; but it did not by any means follow, that because there were sixteen sharers in the receipts, they were also proprietors of the building, properties, or wardrobe: in 1596 it is stated that Thomas Pope, Richard Burbage, John Hemings, (properly spelt Heminge.) Augustine Phillips, William Shakespeare, William Kempe, (who withdrew from the company in 1601,) William Slye, and Nicholas Tooley, were "owners" of the theatre, as well as sharers in the profits arising out of the performances. The fact, however, seems to be that the sole owner of the edifice in which plays were represented, the proprietor of the freehold, was Richard Burbage, who inherited it from his father, and transmitted it to his sons; but as a body, the parties addressing the privy council (for the "petition" appears to have been sent thither) might in a certain sense call themselves owners of, as well as sharers in, the Blackfriars theatre. We insert the document in a note.1

The year when this petition of the actors was presented to the privy council is ascertained from the date of the remonstrance of the inhabitants which had rendered it necessary, viz. 1596; but another paper, among the theatrical relics of Alleyn and Henslowe at Dulwich College, shows that both the remonstrance and the petition were anterior to May in that year, Henslowe

"To the right honourable the Lords of her Majesties most honourable Privie Councell.

"The humble petition of Thomas Pope, Richard Burbage, John Hemings, Augustine Phillips, William Shakespeare, William Kempe, William Slye, Nicholas Tooley, and others, servaunts to the Right Honorable the Lord Chamberlaine to her Majestie.

"Sheweth most humbly, that your Petitioners are owners and players of the private house, or theatre, in the precinct and libertie of the Blackfriers, which hath beene for many yeares used and occupied for the playing of tragedies, commedies, histories, enterludes, and playes. That the same, by reason of its having beene so long built, hath fallen into great decay, and that besides the reparation thereof, it has beene found necessarie to make the same more convenient for the entertainment of auditories coming thereto. That to this end your Petitioners have all and eche of them put down sommes of money. according to their shares in the said theatre, and which they have justly and honestly gained by the exercise of their qualitie of stage-players; but that certaine persons (some of them of honour) inhabitants of the said precinct and libertie of the Blackfriers have, as your Petitioners are informed, besought your honourable Lordshipps not to permitt the said private house any longer to remaine open, but hereafter to be shut up and closed, to the manifest and great injurie of your petitioners, who have no other meanes whereby to maintain their wives and families, but by the exercise of their qualitie as they have heretofore done. Furthermore, that in the summer season your Petitioners are able to playe at their new built house on the Bankside calde the Globe, but that in the winter they are com pelled to come to the Blackfriers; and if your honorable Lordshipps give consent unto that which is prayde against your Petitioners, thay will not onely, while the winter endures, loose the meanes whereby they now support them selves and their families, but be unable to practise themselves in anie playes or enterludes, when calde upon to performe for the recreation and solace of her Matie and her honorable Court, as they have beene heretofore accustomed. The humble prayer of your Petitioners therefore is, that your honorable Lordshipps grant permission to finish the reparations and alterations they have begun; and as your Petitioners have hitherto been well ordered in their behaviour, and just in their dealings, that your honorable Lordshipps will not inhibit them from acting at their above namde private house in the precinct and libertie of the Blackfriers, and your Petitioners, as in dutie most bounden, will ever pray for the increasing honor and happinesse of your honorable Lordshipps."

(step-father to Alleyn's wife, and Alleyn's partner) seems always to have kept up a good understanding with the officers of the department of the revels; and on 3d May, 1596, a person of the name of Veale, servant to Edmond Tylney, master of the revels, wrote to Henslowe, informing him (as of course he must take an interest in the result) that it had been decided by the privy council, that the Lord Chamberlain's servants should be allowed to complete their repairs, but not to enlarge their house in the Blackfriars.

Thus the whole transaction is made clear: the company, soon after the opening of the Globe, contemplated the repair and enlargement of the Blackfriars theatre: the inhabitants of the precinct objected not only to the repair and enlargement, but to any dramatic representations in that part of the town: the company petitioned to be allowed to carry out their design, as regarded the restoration of the edifice, and the increase of its size; but the privy council consented only that the building should be repaired. We are to conclude, therefore, that after the repairs were finished, the theatre would hold no more spectators than formerly; but that the dilapidations of time were substantially remedied, we are sure from the fact, that the house continued long afterwards to be employed for the purpose for which it had been originally constructed.

What is of most importance in this proceeding, with reference to Shakespeare is, that whereas his name, in 1589, stood twelfth in a list of sixteen sharers, in 1596 it was advanced to the fifth place in an enumeration of eight persons, who termed themselves "owners and players of the private house, or theatre, in the precinct and liberty of the Blackfriars." Thence it seems that the speculation at the Globe had been remarkably successful in its first season, and that the Lord Chamberlain's servants had thereby been induced to expend money upon the Blackfriars, in order to render it more commodious, as well as more capacious, under the calculation, that their receipts at the one house during the winter would be greater in consequence of their popularity at the other during the summer.

Where Shakespeare had resided from the time when he first came to London, until the period of which we are now speaking, we have no information; but in July, 1596, he was living in Southwark, perhaps to be close to the scene of action, and more effectually to superintend the performances at the Globe, which were continued through at least seven months of the year. We know not whether he removed there shortly before the opening of the Globe, or whether from the first it had been his usual place of abode; but Malone tells us, "From a paper now before me, which formerly belonged to Edward Alleyn, the player, our Poet appears to have lived in Southwark, near the Bear-garden, in 1596. He gives us no further insight into the contents of the paper; but he probably referred to a small slip, borrowed with other relics of a like kind, from Dulwich College. This proves distinctly, that our great dramatist was an inhabitant of Southwark very soon after the Globe was in operation, although it by no means establishes that he had not been resident there long before. We subjoin it exactly as it stands in the original: the hand-writing is ignorant, the spelling pe culiar, and it was evidently a hasty and imperfect memo randum:

speare and other inhabitants of Southwark had made some complaint, in July, 1596, which, we may guess, was hostile to the wishes of the writer, who congratu lated himself that the matter was so well at an end. Some of the parties named, including our great dramatist, continued resident in Southwark long afterwards, as we shall have occasion in its proper place to show. The writer seems to have been desirous of speaking derogatorily of the persons he enumerates, probably to indicate that any complaint from them ought to have but little weight. All that we certainly collect from the memorandum is, that in July, 1596, in the middle of what we have considered the second season at the new theatre called the Globe, Shakespeare was an inhabitant of Southwark.