Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

the passage in "Hamlet," (brought out, as we apprehend, most of the companies of players who had left London for very shortly before he came to the throne) where it is said the provinces, on account of the prevalence of the plague, of these "abstracts and brief chronicles of the time," that and the consequent cessation of dramatic performances, had it is "better to have a bad epitaph, than their ill report while returned to the metropolis; and it is not at all unlikely that you live." James made himself sure of their good report; Shakespeare was one of those who had returned, having and an epigram, attributed to Shakespeare, has descended taken the. opportunity of visiting his family at Stratfordto us, which doubtless was intended in some sort as a grate-upon-Avon.

ful return for the royal countenance bestowed upon the Under Elizabeth the Children of the Chapel (originally stage, and upon those who were connected with it. We the choir-boys of the royal establishment) had become an copy it from a coeval manuscript in our possession, which acknowledged company of players, and these, besides her seems to have belonged to a curious accumulator of matters of the kind, and which also contains an unknown production by Dekker, as well as various other pieces by dramatists and poets of the time. The lines are entitled,

"SHAKESPEARE ON THE KING.

"Crowns have their compass, length of days their date, Triumphs their tomb, felicity her fate:

Of nought but earth can earth make us partaker, But knowledge makes a king most like his Maker." We have seen these lines in more than one other old manuscript, and as they were constantly attributed to Shakespeare, and in the form in which we have given them above, are in no respect unworthy of his pen, we have little doubt of their authenticity'.

Having established his family in "the great house" called "New Place" in his native town in 1597, by the purchase of it from Hercules Underhill, Shakespeare seems to have contemplated considerable additions to his property there. In May, 1602, he laid out £320 upon 107 acres of land, which he bought of William and John Combe2, and attached it to his dwelling. The original indenture and its counterpart are in existence, bearing date 1st May, 1602, but to neither of them is the signature of the poet affixed; and it seems that he being absent, his brother Gilbert was his immediate agent in the transaction, and to Gilbert Shakespeare the property was delivered to the use of William Shakespeare. In the autumn of the same year he became the owner of a copyhold tenement (called a cotagium in the instrument) in Walker's Street, alias Dead Lane, Stratford, surrendered to him by Walter Getley. In November of the next year he gave Hercules Underhill £60 for a messuage, barn, granary, garden, and orchard close to or in Stratford; but in the original fine, preserved in the Chapter House, Westminster, the precise situation is not mentioned. In 1603, therefore, Shakespeare's property, in or near Stratford-upon-Avon, besides what he might have bought of, or inherited from, his father, consisted of New Place, with 107 acres of land attached to it, a tenement in Walker's Street, and the additional messuage, which he had recently purchased from Underhill.

Whether our great dramatist was in London at the period when the new king ascended the throne, we have no means of knowing, but that he was so in the following autumn we have positive proof; for in a letter written by Mrs. Alleyn, (the wife of Edward Alleyn, the actor) to her husband, then in the country, dated 20th October, 1603, she tells him that she had seen "Mr. Shakespeare of the Globe" in Southwark. At this date, according to the same authority,

1 Boswell appears to have had a manuscript copy of this epigram, but the general position in the last line was made to have a particular application by the change of "a" to the. See Shakspeare by Boswell, vol. ii. p. 481. There were other variations for the worse in Boswell's copy, but that which we have noticed completely altered the character of the production, and reduced it from a great general truth to a mere piece of personal flattery-"But knowledge makes the king most like his Maker."

2 Much has been said in all the Lives of our poet, from the time of Aubrey (who first gives the story) to our own, respecting a satirical epitaph upon a person of the name of John a Combe, supposed to have been made extempore by Shakespeare: Aubrey words it thus :-

"Ten in the hundred the devil allows,

But Combe will have twelve, he swears and he vows.
If any one ask, Who lies in this tomb?

Ho! quoth the devil, 'tis my John a Combe."

Rowe changes the terms a little, but the point is the same, and in Brathwaite's "Remains," 1618, we have another version of the lines, where they are given as having been written by that author " upon one John Combe, of Stratford-upon-Avon, a notable usurer." We are by no means satisfied that they were originally penned by Brath

association of adult performers, Queen Anne took under her immediate patronage, with the style of the Children of her Majesty's Revels, requiring that the pieces they proposed represent should first be submitted to, and have the approval of, the celebrated poet Samuel Daniel. The instrument of their appointment bears date 30th January, 1603-4; and from a letter from Daniel to his patron, Sir Thomas Egerton, preserved among his papers, we may perhaps conclude that Shakespeare, as well as Michael Drayton, had been candidates for the post of master of the Queen's revels: he says in it, "I cannot but know, that I am lesse deserving than some that sued by other of the nobility unto her Majestie for this roome;" and, after introducing the name of "his good friend," Drayton, he adds the following, which, we apprehend, refers with sufficient distinctness to Shakespeare:--"It seemeth to myne humble judgement that one who is the authour of playes, now daylie presented on the public stages of London, and the possessor of no small gaines, and moreover him selfe an actor in the Kinges companie of comedians, could not with reason pretend to be Master of the Queene's Majesties Revells, for as much as he wold sometimes be asked to approve and allow of his own writings."

This objection would have applied with equal force to Drayton, had we not every reason to believe that before this date he had ceased to be a dramatic author. He had been a writer for Henslowe and Alleyn's company during several years, first at the Rose, and afterwards at the Fortune; but he seems to have relinquished that species of composition about a year prior to the demise of Elizabeth, the last piece in which he was concerned, of which we have any intelligence, being noticed by Henslowe under date of May, 1502: this play was called "The Harpies," and he was assisted in it by Dekker, Middleton, Webster, and Munday.

It is highly probable that Shakespeare was a suitor for this office, in contemplation of a speedy retirement as an actor. We have already spoken of the presumed excellence of his personations on the stage, and to the tradition that he was the original player of the part of the Ghost in

Hamlet." Another character he is said to have sustained is Adam, in " As you like it," and his brother Gilbert, (who in 1602 had received, on behalf William Shakespeare, the 107 acres of land purchased from William and John Combe) who probably survived the Restoration, is supposed to have been the author of this tradition. He had acted also in Ben Jonson's "Every Man in his Humour," in 1598, after (as we believe) introducing it to the company; and he is supposed to have written part of, as well as known to have waite, from being imputed to him in that volume, and by a passage in "Maroccus Extaticus," a tract printed as early as 1595, it is very evident that the connexion between the Devil and John a Combe, or John of Comber (as he is there called) was much older:-"So hee had had his rent at the daie, the devill and John of Comber should not have fetcht Kate L. to Bridewell." There is no ground for supposing that Shakespeare was ever on bad terms with any of the Combes, and in his will he expressly left his sword to Mr. Thomas Combe. In a MS. of that time, now before us, we find the following given as an epitaph upon Sir William Stone:

"Heer ten in the hundred lies dead and ingraved : But a hundred to ten his soul is not saved." And the couplet is printed in no very different form in "The More the Merrier," by H. P., 1608, as well as in Camden's "Remains."

3 A coeval copy of the court-roll is in the hands of the Shakespeare Society. Malone had seen it, and put his initials upon it. No doubt it was his intention to have used it in his unfinished Life of Shakespeare.

4 See the "Memoirs of Edward Alleyn," printed for the Shakespeare Society, p. 63.

5 See the Introduction to "As you like it."

performed in, the same author's "Sejanus," in 16031. This is the last we hear of him upon the stage, but that he continued a member of the company until April 9, 1604, we have the evidence of a document preserved at Dulwich College, where the names of the King's players are enumerated in the following order:-Burbage, Shakespeare, Fletcher, Phillips, Condell, Heminge, Armyn, Sly, Cowley, Ostler, and Day. If Shakespeare had not then actually ceased to perform, we need not hesitate in deciding that he quitted that department of the profession very shortly afterwards.

ances.

CHAPTER XVI.

Immediate consequences of Shakespeare's retirement. Of fences given by the company to the court, and to private individuals. "Gowry's Conspiracy:" "Biron's Conspiracy " and "Tragedy." Suspension of theatrical performPurchase of a lease of the titles of Stratford, &c., by Shakespeare. "Hamlet" printed in 1603 and 1604. "Henry VIII." "Macbeth." Supposed autograph letter of King James to Shakespeare. Susanna Shakespeare and John Hall married in 1607. Death of Edmund Shakespeare in the same year. Death of Mary Shakespeare in 1608. Shakespeare's great popularity: rated to the poor

of Southwark.

not hear upon the same or any other authority, but no such drama has come down to us.

In the next year (at what particular part of it is not stated) Sir Leonard Haliday, then Lord Mayor of London, backed no doubt by his brethren of the corporation, made a complaint against the same company, " that Kempe, (who at this date had rejoined the association) Armyn, and others, players at the Blackfriars, have again not forborne to bring upon their stage one or more of the worshipful aldermen of the city of London, to their great scandal and the lessening of their authority;" and the interposition of the privy council to prevent the abuse was therefore solicited. What was done in consequence, if anything were done, does not appear in any extant document.

In the spring of the next year a still graver charge was brought against the body of actors of whom Shakespeare, until very recently, had been one; and it originated in no less a person than the French ambassador. George Chapman2 had written two plays upon the history and execution of the Duke of Biron, containing, in the shape in which they were originally produced on the stage, such matter that M. Beaumont, the representative of the King of France in London, thought it necessary to remonstrate against the repetition, and the performance of it was prohibited: as soon, however, as the court had quitted London, the King's players persisted in acting it; in consequence of which three of the players were arrested, (their names are not given) No sooner had our great dramatist ceased to take part in but the author made his escape. These two dramas were the public performances of the King's players, than the printed in 1608, and again in 1625; and looking through company appears to have thrown off the restraint by which them, we are at a loss to discover anything, beyond the hisit had been usually controlled ever since its formation, and torical incidents, which could have given offence; but the to have produced plays which were objectionable to the truth certainly is, that all the objectionable portions were court, as well as offensive to private persons. Shakespeare, omitted in the press: there can be no doubt, on the authorfrom his abilities, station, and experience, must have posity of the despatch from the French ambassador to his sessed great influence with the body at large, and due de- court, that one of the dramas originally contained a scene ference, we may readily believe, was shown to his know- in which the Queen of France and Mademoiselle Verneuil ledge and judgment in the selection and acceptance of were introduced, the former, after having abused her, giving plays sent in for approbation by authors of the time. The the latter a box on the ear. contrast between the conduct of the association immediately before, and immediately after his retirement, would lead us to conclude, not only that he was a man of prudence and discretion, but that the exercise of these qualities had in many instances kept his fellows from incurring the displeasure of persons in power, and from exciting the animosity of particular individuals. We suppose Shakespeare to have ceased to act in the summer of 1604, and in the winter of that very year we find the King's players giving offence to some great counsellors" by performing a play upon the subject of Gowry's conspiracy. This fact we have upon the evidence of one of Sir R. Winwood's correspondents, John Chamberlaine, who, in a letter dated 18th December, 1604, uses these expressions:-"The tragedy of Gowry, with all action and actors, hath been twice represented by the King's players, with exceeding concourse of all sorts of people; but whether the matter or manner be not well handled, or that it be thought unfit that princes should be played on the stage in their lifetime, I hear that some great counsellors are much displeased with it, and so, it is thought, it shall be forbidden." Whether it was so forbidden we do

1 From lines preceding it in the 4to, 1605, we know that it was brought out at the Globe, and Ben Jonson admits that it was ill received by the audience.

2 We may here notice two productions by this great and various author, one of which is mentioned by Ant. Wood (Ath. Oxon. edit. Bliss. vol. ii. p. 575), and the other by Warton (Hist. Engl. Poetr. vol. iv. p. 276, edit. 8vo), on the authority merely of the stationers' registers; but none of our literary antiquaries seem to have been able to meet with them. They are both in existence. The first is a defence of his "Andromeda Liberata," 1614, which he wrote in celebration of the marriage of the Earl of Somerset and the Countess of Essex, which Chapman tells us had been "most maliciously misinterpreted" it is called "A free and offenceless Justification" of his poem, and it was printed in 1614. It is chiefly in prose, but at the end is a dialogue in rhyme, between Pheme and Theodines, the last being meant for Chapman: Wood only supposes that Chapman wrote it, but if he could have read it he would have entertained no doubt. It appears that Somerset himself had conceived that "Andromeda Liberata "} was a covert attack upon him, and from this notion Chapman was anxious to relieve himself. The poetical dialogue is thus opened by Pheme, and sufficiently explains the object of the

writer.

This information was conveyed to Paris under the date of the 5th April, 1606; and the French ambassador, apparently in order to make his court acquainted with the lawless character of dramatic performances at that date in England, adds a very singular paragraph, proving that the King's players, only a few days before they had brought the Queen of France upon the stage, had not hesitated to introduce upon the same boards their own reigning sovereign in a most unseemly manner, making him swear violently, and beat a gentleman for interfering with his known propensity for the chase. This course indicates a most extraordinary degree of boldness on the part of the players; but, nevertheless, they were not prohibited from acting, until M. Beaumont had directed the attention of the public authorities to the insult offered to the Queen of France: then, an order was issued putting a stop to the acting of all plays in London; but, according to the same authority, the companies had clubbed their money, and, attacking James I. on his weak side, had offered a large sum to be allowed to continue their performances. The French ambassador himself apprehended that the appeal to the King's pecuniary

"Ho, you! Theodines! you must not dreame Y'are thus dismist in peace: seas too extreame Your song hath stir'd up to be calm'd so soone : Nay, in your haven you shipwracke: y'are undone. Your Perseus is displeas'd, and sleighteth now Your work as idle, and as servile yow. The peoples god-voice hath exclaim'd away Your mistie clouds; and he sees, cleare as day, Y'ave made him scandal'd for anothers wrong, Wishing unpublisht your unpopular song." The other production, of which our knowledge has also hitherto been derived from the stationers' registers, is called "Petrarch's Seven Penitentiall Psalms, paraphrastically translated," with other poems of a miscellaneous kind at the end: it was printed in small 8vo, in 1612, dedicated to Sir Edward Phillips, Master of the Rolls, where Chapman speaks of his yet unfinished translation of Homer, which, he adds, the Prince of Wales had commanded him to complete. The editor of the present work has a copy of Chapman's "Memorable Masque " on the marriage of the Palsgrave and Princess Elizabeth, corrected by Chapman in his owh hand; but the errors are few, and not very important. It shows the patient accuracy of the accomplished writer.

wants would be effectual, and that permission, under certain | appearance of plays in print, lest to a certain extent the restrictions, would not long be withheld'. 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 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 17105. Rowe says nothing of it in his "Life," either in 1709 or 1714, 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.

Whatever emoluments Shakespeare had derived from the Blackfriars or the Globe theatres, as an actor merely, we may be tolerably certain he relinquished when he ceased to perform. He would thus be able to devote more of his time to dramatic composition, and, as he continued a sharer in the two undertakings, perhaps his income on the whole was not much lessened. Certain it is, that in 1605 he was in possession of a considerable sum, which he was anxious to invest advantageously in property in or near the place at the close of 1603), founded, to use Von Raumer's words, of his birth. Whatever may have been the circumstances under which he quitted Stratford, he always seems to have contemplated a permanent return thither, and kept his eyes constantly turned in the direction of his birth-place. As long before as January, 1598, he had been advised "to deal in the matter of tithes" of Stratford"; but perhaps at that date, having recently purchased New Place, he was not in sufficient funds for the purpose, or possibly the party in possession of the lease of the tithes, though not unwilling to dispose of it, required more than it was deemed worth. At all events, nothing was done on the subject for more than six years; but on the 24th July, 1605, we find William Shakespeare, who is described as "of Stratford-upon-Avon, so that, at all events, he did not adopt it; and it seems very gentleman," executing an indenture for the purchase of the unexpired term of a long lease of the great tithes of "corn, grain, blade, and hay," and of the small tithes of "wool, lamb, and other small and privy tithes, herbage, oblations," &c., in Stratford, Old Stratford, Bishopton, and Welcombe, in the county of Warwick. The vendor was Raphe Huband, of Ippesley, Esquire; and from the draft of the deed, now before us3, we learn that the original lease, dated as far back as 1539, was "for four score and twelve years" so that in 1605 it had still twenty-six years to run, and for this our great dramatist agreed to pay 4407: by the receipt, contained in the same deed, it appears that he paid the whole of the money before it was executed by the parties. He might very fitly be described as of Stratford-uponAvon, because he had there not only a substantial, settled residence for his family, but he was the owner of considerable property, both in land and houses, in the town and neighbourhood; and he had been before so described in 1602, when he bought the 107 acres of William and John Combe, which he annexed to his dwelling of New Place.

A spurious edition of "Hamlet" having been published in 16034, a more authentic copy came out in the next year, containing much that had been omitted, and more that had been grossly disfigured and misrepresented. We do not believe that Shakespeare, individually, had anything to do with this second and more correct impression, and we doubt much whether it was authorized by the company, which seems at all times to have done its utmost to prevent the

1 We derive these very curious and novel particulars from M. Von Raumer's "History of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries," translated by Lord Francis Egerton, vol. ii. p. 219. The terms are worth quoting.

"April 5, 1606. I caused certain players to be forbid from acting the History of the Duke of Biron: when, however, they saw that the whole court had left town, they persisted in acting it; nay, they brought upon the stage the Queen of France and Mademoiselle Verneuil. The former, having first accosted the latter with very hard words, gave her a box on the ear. At my suit three of them were arrested; but the principal person, the author, escaped.

"One or two days before, they had brought forward their own King and all his favorites in a very strange fashion: they made him curse and swear because he had been robbed of a bird, and beat a gentleman because he had called off the hounds from the scent. They represent him as drunk at least once a-day, &c.

"He has upon this made order, that no play shall be henceforth acted in London; for the repeal of which order they have already offered 100,000 livres. Perhaps the permission will be again granted, but upon condition that they represent no recent history, nor speak of the present time."

2 In a letter from a resident in Stratford of the name of Abraham Sturley. It was originally published by Boswell (vol. ii. p. 566) at length, but the only part which relates to Shakespeare runs thus: we have not thought it necessary to preserve the uncouth abbreviations of the original.

"This is one special remembrance of your father's motion. It seemeth by him that our countriman, Mr. Shakespeare, is willing to disburse some money upon some od yardeland or other at Shottery, or near about us: he thinketh it a very fitt patterne to move him to

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 usuall to have been carefully avoided.

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 Edmund', and his mother in the autumn of the succeeding year.

There is no doubt that Edmund Shakespeare, who was deale in the matter of our tithes. By the instructions you can give him theareof, and by the frendes he can make therefore, we thinke it a faire marke for him to shoote at, and not unpossible to hitt. It obtained would advance him in deede, and would do us much good." The terms of this letter prove that Shakespeare's townsmen were of opinion that he was desirous of advancing himself among the inhabitants of Stratford.

3 It is about to be printed entire by the Shakespeare Society, to the council of which it has been handed over by the owner for the purpose.

4 The only copy of this impression is in the library of his Grace the Duke of Devonshire, and we have employed it to a certain extent in settling and explaining the text of the tragedy. See the Intro

duction to "Hamlet."

5 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 the compliment to the Stuart family in of the letter.

6 The terms are these:

"1607. Junii 5. John Hall gentlema & Susanna Shaxspere." 7 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."

not twenty-eight at the time of his death, had embraced the | dwelling-house occupied by himself. This is very possibly profession of a player, having perhaps followed the fortunes the fact; but, on the other hand, the truth may be, that he of his brother William, and attached himself to the same paid the rate not for any habitation, good or bad, large or company. We, however, never meet with his name in any small, but in respect of his theatrical property in the Globe, list of the associations of the time, nor is he mentioned as an which was situated in the same district. The parish regactor among the characters of any old play with which we ister of St. Saviour's establishes, that in 1601 the churchare acquainted. We may presume, therefore, that he attain- wardens had been instructed by the vestry "to talk with ed no eminence; perhaps his principal employment might the players" respecting the payment of tithes and contribube under his brother in the management of his theatrical tions to the maintenance of the poor; and it is not very unconcerns, while he only took inferior parts when the assistance likely that some arrangement was made under which the of a larger number of performers than usual was necessary. sharers in the Globe, and Shakespeare as one of them, would Mary Shakespeare survived her son Edmund about eight be assessed. As a confirmatory circumstance we may add, months, and was buried at Stratford on the 9th Sept. 16081. that when Henslowe and Alleyn were about to build the There are few points of his life which can be stated with Fortune play-house, in 1599–1600, the inhabitants of the more confidence than that our great dramatist attended the Lordship of Finsbury, in the parish of Cripplegate, petifuneral of his mother: filial piety and duty would of course tioned the privy council in favour of the undertaking, one impel him to visit Stratford on the occasion, and in proof of their reasons being, that "the erectors were contented to that he did so, we may mention that on the 16th of the give a very liberal portion of money weekly towards the next month he stood godfather there to a boy of the name relief of the poor." Perhaps the parties interested in the of William Walker. Shakespeare's mother had probably Globe were contented to come to similar terms, and the resided at New Place, the house of her son; from whence, parish to accept the money weekly from the various indiwe may presume also, the body of her husband had been viduals. Henslowe, Alleyn, Lowin, Town, Juby, &c., who carried to the grave seven years before. If she were of were either sharers, or actors and sharers, in that or other full age when she was married to John Shakespeare in theatres in the same neighbourhood, contributed in different 1557, she was about 72 years old at the time of her decease. proportions for the same purpose, the largest amount being The reputation of our poet as a dramatist seems at this six-pence per week, which was paid by Shakespeare, Hensperiod to have been at its height. His "King Lear" was lowe, and Alleyn3. printed three times for the same bookseller in 1608; and in The ordinary inhabitants included in the same list, doubtorder perhaps to increase its sale, (as well as to secure the less, paid for their dwellings, according to their several purchaser against the old "King Leir," a play upon the rents, and such may have been the case with Shakespeare: same story, being given to him instead) the name of "M. all we contend for is, that we ought not to conclude at once, William Shake-speare" was placed very conspicuously, and that Shakespeare was the tenant of a house in the Liberty most unusually, at the top of the title-page. The same ob- of the Clink, merely from the circumstance that he was servation will in part apply to "Pericles," which came out rated to the poor. It is not unlikely that he was the occuin 1609, with the name of the author rendered particularly pier of a substantial dwelling-house in the immediate neighobvious, although in the ordinary place. "Troilus and bourhood of the Globe, where his presence and assistance Cressida," which was published in the same year, also has would often be required; and the amount of his income at the name of the author very distinctly legible, but in a some- this period would warrant such an expenditure, although we what smaller type. In both the latter cases, it would like- have no reason for thinking that such a house would be wise seem, that there were plays by older or rival drama-needed for his wife and family, because the existing evitists upon the same incidents. The most noticeable proof dence is opposed to the notion that they ever resided with of the advantage which a bookseller conceived he should him in London. derive from the announcement that the work he published was by our poet, is afforded by the title-page of the collection 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. xxv.) 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

1 The following is a copy of the register.

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

2 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

[ocr errors]

vjd vjd

iiijd

The account is in three divisions; and in the first, besides the above,

we find the names of

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

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

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

3 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."

document has been discovered, which enables us to form | well as to the widows and orphans of deceased actors: the some judgment, though not perhaps an accurate estimate, purchase money of the whole property was thus raised to of the sum he annually derived from the private theatre in at least 70007. 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 immediately employed in searching for records applicable to the point at issue; but as far as we can judge, no such proofs, as were thought necessary by the highest legal authority of the time, and applicable to any recent period, were forthcoming. Lord Ellesmere, therefore, we may conclude, was opposed to the claim of the city.

Failing in this endeavour to expel the King's players from their hold by force of law, the corporation appears to have taken a milder course, and negotiated with the players for the purchase of the Blackfriars theatre, with all its properties and appurtenances. To this negotiation we are probably indebted for a paper, which shows with great exactness and particularity the amount of interest then claimed by each sharer, those sharers being Richard Burbage, Laurence Fletcher', William Shakespeare, John Heminge, Henry Condell, Joseph Taylor, and John Lowin, with four other persons not named, each the owner of half a share.

Each share, out of the twenty into which the receipts of the theatre were divided, yielded, as was alleged, an annual profit of 331. 6s. 8d.; and Shakespeare, owning four of these shares, his annual income, from them only, was 133l. 6s. 8d.: he was besides proprietor of the wardrobe and properties, stated to be worth 500l.: these, we may conclude, he lent to the company for a certain consideration, and, reckoning wear and tear, ten per cent. seems a very low rate of payment; we will take it, however, at that sum, which would add 50%. a year to the 1337. 6s. 8d. already mentioned, making together 1837. 6s. 8d., besides what our great dramatist must have gained by the profits of his pen, upon which we have no data for forming any thing like an accurate estimate. Without including any thing on this account, and supposing only that the Globe was as profitable for a summer theatre as the Blackfriars was for a winter theatre, it is evident that Shakespeare's income could hardly have been less than 3667. 13s. 4d. Taking every known source of emolument into view, we consider 400l. a year the very lowest amount at which his income can be reckoned in 1608.

The document upon which this calculation is founded is preserved among the papers of Lord Ellesmere, but a remarkable incidental confirmation of it has still more recently been brought to light in the State-paper office. Sir Dudley Carlton was ambassador at the Hague in 1619, and John Chamberlaine, writing to him on 19th of March in that year, and mentioning the death of Queen Anne, states that "the funeral is put off to the 29th of the next month, to the great hinderance of our players, which are forbidden to play so long as her body is above ground: one speciall man among them, Burbage, is lately dead, and hath left, they say, better than 300%. land."

Burbage was interred at St. Leonard's, Shoreditch, on We have inserted the document entire in a note2, and 16th March, 1619, three days anterior to the date of Chamhence we find that Richard Burbage was the owner of the berlaine's letter, having made his nuncupative will four freehold or fee, (which he no doubt inherited from his days before his burial: in it he said nothing about the father) as well as the owner of four shares, the value of all amount of his property, but merely left his wife Winifred which, taken together, he rated at 1933l. 6s. 8d. Laurence his sole executrix. There can be no doubt, however, that Fletcher (if it be he, for the Christian name is written the correspondent of Sir Dudley Carlton was correct in his Laz,") was proprietor of three shares, for which he claimed information, and that Burbage died worth "better than" 7001. Shakespeare was proprietor of the wardrobe and 300l. a year in land, besides his "goods and chattels" 3007. properties of the theatre, estimated at 5007., as well as of a year at that date was about 1500l. of our present money, four shares, valued, like those of Burbage and Fletcher, at and we have every reason to suppose that Shakespeare was 331. 6s. Sd. each, or 9337. 6s. 8d., at seven years' purchase: quite in as good, if not in better circumstances. Until the his whole demand was 14331. 6s. 8d., or 5007. less than that letter of Chamberlaine was found, we had not the slightest of Burbage, in as much as the fee was considered worth knowledge of the amount of property Burbage had accu1000%, while Shakespeare's wardrobe and properties were mulated, he having been during his whole life merely an valued at 5007. According to the same calculation, Hem- actor, and not combining in his own person the profits of a inge and Condell each required 4667. 13s. 4d. for their two most successful dramatic author with those of a performer. shares, and Taylor 350l. for his share and a half, while the Nevertheless, it must not be forgotten, that although Shakefour unnamed half-sharers put in their claim to be compen-speare continued a large sharer with the leading members sated at the same rate, 4667. 13s. 4d. This mode of estimating the Blackfriars theatre made the value of it 61667. 13s. 4d., and to this sum was to be added remuneration to the hired men of the company, who were not sharers, as

1 These transactions most probably occurred before September, 1603, because Laurence Fletcher died in that month. However, it is not quite certain that the "Laz. Fletcher," mentioned in the document, was Laurence Fletcher: we know of no person named Lazarus Fletcher, though he may have been the personal representative of

Laurence Fletcher.

2 It is thus headed

of the company in 1608, he had retired from the stage about four years before; and having ceased to act, but still retaining his shares in the profits of the theatres with which he was connected, it is impossible to say what arrangement

[blocks in formation]

350 0 0 466 13 4 Summa totalis 6166 13 4 Moreover, the hired men of the Companie demaund some recompence for their great losse, and the Widowes and Orphanes of Players, who

[ocr errors]

"For avoiding of the Playhouse in the Precinct of the Blacke Friers. are paide by the Sharers at divers rates and proportions, so as in the

Imp. Richard Burbidge oweth the Fee, and is alsoe a
sharer therein. His interest he rateth at the grosse
summe of 10007. for the Fee, and for his foure shares
in the summe of 9337. 6s. 8d.
Item. Laz. Fletcher oweth three shares, which he rateth
at 7007., that is, at seven yeares purchase for each
share, or 331. 6s. 8d., one yeare with another
Item. W. Shakespeare asketh for the wardrobe and
properties of the same playhouse 500l., and for his
4 shares, the same as his fellowes, Burbidge and
Fletcher; viz. 9337. 6s. 8d.
Item. Heminge and Condell eche 2 shares
Item. Joseph Taylor 1 share and an halfe

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

whole it will cost the Lo. Mayor and the Citizens at least 70007."
3 This new and valuable piece of information was pointed out to
us by Mr. Lemon, who has been as indefatigable in his researches as
liberal in the communication of the results of them.

4 The passage above quoted renders Middleton's epigram on the
death of Burbage (Works by Dyce, vol. v. p. 503) quite clear:-
"Astronomers and star-gazers this year
Write but of four eclipses; five appear.
Death interposing Burbage, and their staying,
Hath made a visible eclipse of playing."

It has been conjectured that "their staying" referred to a temporary suspension of plays in consequence of the death of Burbage; but the stay was the prohibition of acting until after the funeral of Queen Anne.

D

« AnteriorContinuar »