They seem to have found, that neither their plays nor their players could stand the competition of their rivals, and they removed to a vicinity where no play-house had previously existed.

The Fortune theatre was commenced in Goldinglane, Cripplegate, in the year 1599, and finished in 1600, and thither Henslowe and Alleyn transported their whole dramatic establishment, strengthened in the spring of 1602, by the addition of that great and popular comic performer, William Kempe. The association at the Globe was then left in almost undisputed possession of the Bankside. There were occasional, and perhaps frequent performances at the Rose, as well as at the Hope and the Swan, but not by the regular associations which had previously occupied them; and after the Fortune was opened, the speculation there was so profitable, that the Lord Admiral's players had no motive for returning to their old quarters.1

64

The members of these two companies appear to have possessed so much influence in the summer of 1600, that (backed perhaps by the zeal of those who were unfriendly to all theatrical performances) they obtained an order from the privy council, dated 22d June, that no other public play-houses should be permitted but the Globe in Surrey, and the Fortune in Middlesex. Nevertheless, the privy council registers, where this order is inserted, also contain evidence that it was not obeyed; for in May, 1601, the Lords wrote to certain magistrates of Middlesex requiring them to put a stop to the performance of a play at the Curtain, in which were introduced some gentlemen of good desert and quality, that are yet alive," but saying nothing about the closing of the house, although it was open in defiance of the imperative command of the preceding year. We know also that not only the Curtain, but theatres on the Bankside, besides the Globe, were then in occasional use. It is fair to presume, therefore, that the order of the 22d June, 1600, was never strictly enforced, and one of the most remarkable circumstances of the times is, the little attention, as regards theatricals, that appears to have been paid to the absolute authority of the court. It seems as if restrictive measures had been adopted in order to satisfy the importunity of particular individuals, but that there was no disposition on the part of persons in authority to carry them into execution. Thus, a year and a half after the order of the 22d June had been issued, it was renewed, but, as far as we learn, with just as little effect as before.

Besides the second edition of ROMEO AND JULIET, in 1599, (which was most likely printed from a play-house manuscript, being very different from the mutilated and manufactured copy of 1597,) five plays by our great dramatist found their way to the press in 1600, viz. TITUS ANDRONICUS, (which had probably been origi

It was at the Fortune that Alleyn seems to have realized so much money in the few first years of the undertaking, that he was able in November, 1604, to purchase the manor of Kennington for £1065, and in the next year the manor of Lewisham and Dulwich for £5000. These two sums, in money of the present day, would be equal to at least £25,000; but it is to be observed that for Dulwich, Alleyn only paid £2000 down, while the remaining sum was left upon mortgage. In the commencement of the seventeenth century theatrical speculations generally seem to have been highly lucrative. (See the "Alleyn Papers," printed by the Shakespeare Society.)

66

nally published in 1594,) the MERCHANT OF VENICE, the MIDSUMMER-NIGHT'S DREAM, HENRY IV. (Part II.,) and MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING. The last only was not mentioned by Meares, in 1598; and as to the periods when we may suppose the others to have been written, we must refer the reader to our several Introductions, where we have given the existing information upon the subject. The Chronicle History of Henry V." also came out in the same year, but without the name of Shakespeare upon the title-page, and an imperfect and garbled representation of the play, as it proceeded from the author's pen. Whether any of the managers of theatres at this date might not sometimes be concerned in selling impressions of dramas, we have no means of deciding; but we do not believe it, and we are satisfied that dramatic authors in general were coutent with disposing of their plays to the several companies, and looked for no emolument to be derived from publication. We are not without something like proof that actors now and then sold their parts in plays to booksellers, and thus, by the combination of them and other assistance, editions of popular plays were surreptitiously printed.

We ought not to pass over without notice a circumstance which happened in 1600, and is connected with the question of the authorized or unauthorized publication of Shakespeare's plays. In that year a quarto impression of a play, called "The first part of the true and honourable History of the Life of Sir John Oldcastle, the good Lord Cobham," came out, on the title-page of which the name of William Shakespeare appeared at length. We find by Henslowe's Diary that this drama was in fact the authorship of four poets, Anthony Munday, Michael Drayton, Robert Wilson, and Richard

1 The clothing of Snug the joiner in a "lion's fell" in this play, (act v. scene 1,) seems to have suggested the humorous speech to King James at Linlithgow, on the 30th June, 1617, and as it is a curiosity we subjoin it.

"A moveing engine, representing a fountaine, and running wine, came to the gate of the towne, in the midst of which was a lyon, and in the lyon a man, who delivered this learned speech to his majestie:

"Most royall sir, heere I doe you beseech,
Who are a lyon, to hear a lyon's speech:
A miracle; for since the dayes of Æsop,
Till ours, noe lyon yet his voice did hois-up
To such a Majestie. Then, King of Men,
The king of beasts speaks to thee from his denn,
A fountaine nowe. That lyon, which was ledd
By Androdus through Roome, had not a head
More rationall then this, bredd in this nation,
Whoe in thy presence warbleth this oration.
For though he heer inclosed bee in plaister,
When he was free he was this townes school-master
This Well you see, is not that Arethusa,
The Nymph of Sicile: Noe, men may carous
Health of the plump Lyæus, noblest grapes,
From these faire conduits, and turne drunk like apes.
This second spring I keep, as did that dragon
Hesperian apples. And nowe, sir, a plague on
This your poore towne, if to't you bee not welcome!
But whoe can doubt of this, when, loe! a Well come
Is nowe unto the gate? 1 would say more,

But words now failing, dare not, least I roare."

2 It was a charge against Robert Greene, that, driven by the pressure of necessity, he had on one occasion raised money by making "a double sale" of his play called "Orlando Furioso," 1594, first to the players and afterwards to the press. Such may have been the fact, but it was unquestionably an exception to the ordinary rule.

Hathway; and to attribute it to Shakespeare was evidently a mere trick by the bookseller, Thomas] P[avier,] in the hope that it would be bought as his work. This seems to have been detected and corrected at the time, for more than one copy of the "First Part, etc. of Sir John Oldcastle" has come to light, upon the title-page of which no name is to be found, the bookseller apparently having been compelled to cancel the leaf containing it. From the indifference 58

Shakespeare seems uniformly to have displayed on matters of the kind, we may, possibly, conclude that the cancel was made at the instance of one of the four poets who were the real authors of the play; but perhaps the step may have been in some way connected with the objection taken by living members of the Oldcastle family to the name, which had been assigned by Shakespeare in the first instance to Falstaff.

THE father of our great Poet died September 1601, and was buried at Stratford-upon-Avon. He seems to have left no will, and if he possessed any property, in land or houses, not made over to his family, we know not how it was divided. Of the eight children which his wife, Mary Arden, had brought him, the following were then alive, and might be present at the funeral:William, Gilbert, Joan, Richard, and Edmund. later years of John Shakespeare (who, if born in 1530 as Malone supposed, lived to his seventy-first year) were doubtless easy and comfortable, and the prosperity of his eldest son must have placed him beyond the reach of pecuniary difficulties.

The

Early in the spring of 1602, we meet with one of those rare facts which distinctly show how uncertain all conjecture must be respecting the date when Shakespeare's dramas were originally written and produced. Malone and Tyrwhitt, in 1790, conjectured that TWELFTH NIGHT had been written in 1614: in his second edition Malone altered it to 1607, and Chalmers, thinking neither date correct, fixed upon 1613, an opinion in which Drake concurred. But we have irrefragable evidence, from an eye-witness, of its existence on 2d February, 1602, when it was played at the Reader's Feast in the Middle Temple. This eye-witness was a barrister of the name

of Manningham, who left a Diary, which has been preserved in the British Museum; we have inserted his account in the Introduction to the comedy. In another part of the

same manuscript, he gives an anecdote of Shakespeare and Burbage,' which we give in a note, without further remark than that it has been supposed to depend upon

1 Mr. Collier, in his "Hist. Engl. Dram. Poetry and the Stage," thus introduces the anecdote :-"If in the course of my inquiries, I have been unlucky enough (I may perhaps say) to find any thing which represents our great dramatist in a less favourable light, as a human being with human infirmities, I may lament it, but I do not therefore feel myself at liberty to conceal and suppress the fact." The anecdote is this.

"Upon a tyme when Burbage played Rich. 3, there was a citizen grew so farre in liking with him, that before shee went from the play, shee appointed him to come that night unto her, by the name of Rich. the 3. Shakespeare, overhearing their conclusion, went before, was entertained, and at his game ere Burbage came. Then, message being brought that Rich. the 3. was at the dore, Shakespeare caused returne to be made, that William the Conqueror was before Rich. the 3. Shakespeare's name Willm."

This story may be a piece of scandal, but there is no doubt that Burbage was the original Richard III. As to the custom of ladies

the authority of Nicholas Tooley, but on looking at the original record we doubt whether it came from any such source. A "Mr. Towse" is repeatedly introduced as a person from whom Manningham derived informtion, and that name, though blotted, seems to be placed at the end of the paragraph, without the addition of any Christian name. This circumstance may shake the authenticity of the story, because we know not who Mr. Towse might be, while we are sure that Nicholas Tooley was a fellowactor in the same company as both the individuals to whom the story relates. At the same time it was, very possibly, a mere invention of the "roguish players," originating, as was often the case, in some older joke, and applied to Shakespeare and Burbage, because their Christian names happened to be William and Richard.

The latest

Elizabeth, from the commencement of her reign seems to have extended her personal patronage, as well as her public countenance, to the drama; and scarcely a Christmas or a Shrovetide can be pointed out during the fortyfive years she occupied the throne, when there were not dramatic entertainments, either at Whitehall, Greenwich, Nonesuch, Richmond, or Windsor. visit she paid to any of her nobility in the country was to the Lord Keeper, Sir Thomas Egerton, at Harefield, only nine or ten months before her death, and it was upon this occasion, in the beginning of August, 1602, that OTHELLO' (having been got up for her amusement, and the Lord Chamberlain's players brought down to the Lord Keeper's seat in Hertfordshire for the purpose) was represented before her. In this case, as in the preceding one respecting TWELFTH NIGHT, all that we positively learn is that such drama was performed, and we are left to infer that it was a new play from other circumstances, as well as from the fact that it was customary on such festivities to exhibit some drama that, as a novelty, was then attracting public attention. Hence we are led to believe, that TWELFTH NIGHT (not printed until it formed part of the folio of 1623) was written at the end of 1600, or in the beginning of 1601; and that OTHELLO (first published in 4to, 1622,) came from the author's pen about a year afterwards.

In the memorandum ascertaining the performance of OTHELLO at Harefield, the company by which it was represented is called " Burbages Players," that designation arising out of the fact, that he was looked upon as the leader of the association: he was certainly its most celebrated actor, and we find from other sources that he was the representative of the “Moor of Venice." Whether Shakespeare had any and what part in the tragedy, either then or upon other occasions, is

inviting players home to supper, see Middleton's "Mad World, my Masters," (act v. scene 2,) in "Dodsley's Old Plays,'' last edit. The players, in turn, sometimes invited the ladies, as we find by Field's "Amends for Ladies," (act iii. scene 4,) in the supplementary volume to "Dodsley's Old Plays," published in 1829. 1 See the Introduction to OTHELLO.

2 Above we have inserted the names of some of the principal characters, in plays of the time, sustained by Burbage, as they are given in the epitaph upon his death, in 1619. Our readers may like to see the manner in which these characters are spoken of by the contemporaneous versifier. The production opens with this couplet :

"Some skilful limner help me, if not so,
Some sad tragedian to express my woe:"

which certainly does not promise much in the way of excellence; but the enumeration of parts is all that is valuable, and it is this:

not known; but we do not think any argument, one way or the other, is to be drawn from the fact that the company, when at Harefield, does not seem to have been under his immediate government. Whether he was or was not one of the "players" in OTHELLO, in August, 1602, there can be little doubt that as an actor, and moreover as one "excellent in his quality," he must have been often seen and applauded by Elizabeth. Chettle informs us after her death, in a passage already quoted, that she had "opened her royal ear to his lays;" but this was obviously in his capacity of dramatist, and we have no direct evidence that Shakespeare had ever performed at court.'

James I. reached Theobalds, in his journey from Edinburgh to London, on the 7th May, 1603. Before he quitted his own capital he had had various opportunities of witnessing the performances of English actors; and it is an interesting, but a difficult question, whether Shakespeare had ever appeared before him, or, in other words, whether our great dramatist had ever visited Scotland? We have no affirmative testimony upon the point, beyond what may be derived from some passages in MACBETH, descriptive of particular localities, with which passages our readers must be familiar: there is, however, ample room for conjecture; and although, on the whole, we are inclined to think that he was never north of the Tweed, it is indisputable that the company to which he belonged, or a part of it, had performed in Edinburgh and Aberdeen, and doubtless in some

"No more young Hamlet, though but scant of breath,
Shall cry, Revenge! for his dear father's death:
Poor Romeo never more shall tears beget
For Juliet's love, and cruel Capulet:
Harry shall not be seen as King or Prince,
They died with thee, dear Dick,-
Not to revive again. Jeronimo
Shall cease to mourn his son Horatio.
They cannot call thee from thy naked bed
By horrid outery; and Antonio's dead.
Edward shall lack a representative;
And Crookback, as befits, shall cease to live.
Tyrant Macbeth, with unwash'd bloody hand,
We vainly now may hope to understand.
Brutus and Marcius henceforth must be dumb,
For ne'er thy like upon our stage shall come,
To charm the faculty of ears and eyes.
Unless we could command the dead to rise.
Vindex is gone and what a loss was he!
Frankford, Brachiano, and Malevole.
Heart-broke Philaster, and Amintas too,
Are lost for ever, with the red-haired Jew,
Which sought the bankrupt Merchant's pound of Blesh,
By woman-lawyer caught in his own mesh. ***
And his whole action he would change with ease
From ancient Lear to youthful Pericles.
But let me not forget one chiefest part
Wherein, beyond the rest, he mov'd the heart;
The grieved Moor, made jealous by a slave,
Who sent his wife to fill a timeless grave,
Then slew himself upon the bloody bed.

All these, and many more, with him are dead," etc.

The MS. from which the above lines are copied seems, at least in one place, defective, but it might be cured by the addition of the words, "and not long since."

1 A ballad was published on the death of Elizabeth, in the commencement of which, Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, and Thomas Greene, author of "A Poet's Vision and a Prince's Glorie," 4to, 1603, were called upon to contribute some verses in honour of the late Queen :--

"You poets all, brave Shakespeare, Johnson, Greene, Bestow your time to write for England's Queene," etc.