introduction on the public stage, and it was not inserted by the publishers of the history until some years after the accession of James. Considering the small space that it occupies and its inoffensive character, the omission may appear rather singular, but during the few years that closed the eventful reign of Elizabeth, the subject of the deposition of Richard II bore so close an analogy, in the important respects of the wishes of those who desired a repetition of a similar occurrence, it was an exceedingly dangerous theme for the pen of contemporary writers.

One of the most popular subjects for the historical drama at this period was the story of Richard III. A piece on the events of this reign had been acted by the Queen's Company in or before the month of June, 1594, but there is no evidence that this production was known to the great dramatist. The earliest notice of Shakepeare's play hitherto discovered is in an entry of it as a tragedy on the books of the Stationers' Company in October, 1597, and it was published by Wise in the same year. The historical portions are to a certain extent taken from More and Holinshed, but with an utter defiance of chronology, the imprisonment of Clarence, for instance, preceding the funeral of Henry VI. There are, also, slight traces of an older play to be observed, passages which may belong to an inferior hand, and incidents, such as that of the rising of the ghosts, suggested probably by similar ones in a more ancient composition. That the play of King Richard III, as we now have it, is essentially Shakespeare's, cannot admit of a doubt; but as little can it be questioned that to the circumstance of an anterior work on the subject having been used do we owe some of its weakness and excessively turbulent character. No

copy of this older play is known to exist, but one brief speech and the two following lines have been accidentally preserved "My liege, the Duke of Buckingham is ta'en, = And Banister is come for his reward"-from which it is clear that the new dramatist did not hesitate to adopt an occasional line from his predecessor, although he entirely omitted the character of Banister. Both plays must have been successful, for, notwithstanding the great popularity of Shakespeare's, the more ancient one sustained its ground on the English stage until the reign of Charles I.

Dick Burbage, the celebrated actor, undertook the character of Richard III, a part in which he was particularly celebrated. There was especially one telling speech in this most fiery of tragedies,-"a horse! a horse! my kingdom for a horse!"-which was enunciated by him with so much vigor and effect that the line became an object for the imitation, and occasionally for the ridicule, of contemporary writers. The speech made such an impression on Marston that it appears in his works not merely in its authentic form, but satirized and travestied into such lines as,-"a man! a man! a kingdom for a man" (Scourge of Villanie, ed. 1598)—“a boate, a boate, a boate, a full hundred markes for a boate" (Eastward Hoe, 1605)-"a foole, a foole, a foole, my coxcombe for a foole" (Parasitaster, 1606). Burbage continued to enact the part of Richard until his death in 1619, and his supremacy in the character lingered for many years in the recollection of the public; so that Bishop Corbet, writing in the reign of Charles I, and giving a description of the battle of Bosworth as narrated to him on the field by a provincial tavern-keeper, tells us

that, when the perspicuous guide "would have said, King Richard died, = And called, a horse! a horse! he Burbage cried."

In the autumn of 1597, in the midst of the incipient popularity of this animated drama, John and Mary Shakespeare filed a bill in Chancery against Lambert for the recovery of Asbies, a design that the poet must have been very desirous of furthering to the utmost of his ability. It is most likely that he furnished the means for the prosecution of the suit, a course to which he would have been impelled not merely from a knowledge of the slender resources of his aged parents, but also from his having, as his mother's heir, so large a prospective interest in the success of the litigation. The acquisition of the farm had now become a matter of special importance. There were not merely the associations twining around the possession of a family estate to stimulate a desire for its restoration, but there was nearly at hand a very large increase in its annual value through the termination of a lease under which all but the dwelling was held from 1580 to 1601 at the inadequate rental of half a quarter of wheat and half a quarter of barley. Our knowledge of the course taken by the plaintiffs in furtherance of their object is imperfect, Lambert, in his answer to the above-mentioned bill, declaring that another one of like import had been afterwards exhibited against him by John Shakespeare in his individual capacity, and of this independent action no explanatory records have been discovered. The mere facts, however, of the last-named suit having been instituted, and of John Shakespeare having taken out two commissions under it for the examination of witnesses, show that there was a tolerably

well-furnished purse at his disposal, a circumstance which, unless the expense were borne by the poet, is difficult to reconcile with the plaintive appeal of his wife and himself when they asked the Court to bear in mind that "the sayde John Lamberte ys of greate wealthe and abilitie, and well frended and alied amongest gentlemen and freeholders of the countrey in the saide countie of Warwicke, where he dwelleth, and your saide oratours are of small wealthe, and verey fewe frends and alyance in the saide countie." The terms of this sample of legal policy must be attributed to the Counsel, but the facts, so far at least as they affect the parents of the great dramatist, were no doubt correctly stated. It appears that the suit was carried on for very nearly two years, publication having been granted in October, 1599, but, as no decree is recorded, it is all but certain that either the plaintiffs retired from the contest or that there was a compromise in favor of the possession of the land by the defendants. Had it been otherwise, something must have been afterwards heard of the Shakespearean ownership of the estate.

Queen Elizabeth held her court at Whitehall in the Christmas holidays of 1597, and among the plays then performed was, on December 26, the comedy of Love's Labor's Lost, printed early in the following year, 1598, under the title of,-A Pleasant Conceited Comedie called, Loues labors lost. No record has been discovered of the time at which this drama was first produced, but on the present occasion it had been "newly corrected and augmented," that is to say, it had received some additions and improvements from the hands of the author, but the play itself had not been re-written. A few scraps of the original version of the comedy have been accidentally pre

served, and are of extreme interest as distinctly exhibiting Shakespeare's method of working in the revision of a play. Thus, for example, the following three lines of the earlier drama,—

"From women's eyes this doctrine I derive;
They are the ground, the books, the academes

From whence doth spring the true Promethean fire."

are thus gracefully expanded in the corrected version which has so fortunately descended to us,

"From women's eyes this doctrine I derive;
They sparkle still the right Promethean fire;
They are the books, the arts, the academes,
That show, contain, and nourish all the world;
Else none at all in ought proves excellent."

Love's Labor's Lost is mentioned by Tofte and Meres in 1598, and was no doubt successful on the stage, or otherwise it would scarcely have been revised and published. Burbage, at all events, had a high opinion of the comedy, for when the company to which the author belonged selected it for a contemplated representation before Queen Anne of Denmark at Southampton House early in the year 1605, he observed that it was one "which for wit and mirth will please her exceedingly." That the great actor correctly estimated its attractions may be gathered from its being performed about the same time before the Court.

The Firt Part of Henry IV, the appearance of which on the stage may be confidently assigned to the spring of the year 1597, was followed immediately, or a few months afterwards, by the composition of the second part. It is recorded that both these plays were very favorably received by Elizabeth, the Queen especially relishing the character of Falstaff, and they were most probably among