"Laz") was proprietor of three shares, for which he claimed 7007. Shakespeare was proprietor of the wardrobe and properties of the theatre, estimated at 500%., as well as of four shares, valued at 331. 6s. 8d. each, or 9331. 6s. 8d., at seven years' purchase: his whole demand was 14331. 6s. 8d., or 5007. less than that of Burbage, as the fee was considered worth 1000l., while Shakespeare's wardrobe and properties were valued at 5007. Heminge and Condell each required 4661. 13s. 4d. for their two shares, and Taylor 3501. for his share and a half, while the four unnamed half-sharers put in their claim at the same rate, 4661. 13s. 4d. This mode of estimating the theatre made its value 61667. 13s. 4d. and to this sum was to be added remuneration to the hired men of the company, who were not sharers, as well as to the widows and orphans of deceased actors: the purchase money of the whole property was thus raised to at least 70007.

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 1331. 6s. 8d.: he was besides proprietor of the wardrobe and properties, stated to be worth 500: 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 1331. 6s. 8d. making together 1831. 6s. 8d, besides what he must have gained by the profits of his pen, upon which we have no data for forming any estimate. Without including any thing on this account, and supposing 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 3661. 13s. 4d. Taking every source of emolument into view, we consider 4007. a year the very lowest amount at which his income can be reckoned in 1608.1

The document upon which this calculation is founded is preserved among the papers of Lord Ellesmere, but an incidental confirmation of it has more recently been brought to light in the State Paper Office. Sir Dudley Carlton was ambassador at the Hague in 1619, and J. Chamberlaine, writing to him 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 3001. land."

There can be no doubt that the correspondent of Sir Dudley Carlton was correct, and that Burbage died worth "better than" 300l. a year in land, besides his "goods and chattels :" 300l. a year at that date was about 1500l. of our present money, and we have every reason to suppose that Shakespeare was in as good, if not in better circumstances. Until the letter of Chamberlaine was found, we had no knowledge of the amount of property Burbage had accumulated, he having been during his whole life merely an actor, and not combining in his own person the profits of a successful dramatic 1 This 400l. in 1609, in the then value of money, is computed as equivalent to 2000l. at present, or above $9000.-NEW YORK EDITOR.

In the Diary of the Rev. John Ward, who was vicar of Stratford-upon-Avon, and whose memoranda extend from 1648 to 1679,' it is stated that Shakespeare "in his elder days lived at Stratford, and supplied the stage with two plays every year, and for it had an allowance so large, that he spent at the rate of 1000l. a year, as I have heard." This passage shows what the opinion

was as to Shakespeare's circumstances shortly after the Restoration. We take it for granted that the sum of 10001. (equal to nearly 5000l. now) is a considerable exaggeration, but it may warrant the belief that Shakespeare lived in good style and port, late in life, in his native town. It is very possible, too, though we think not probable, that after he retired to Stratford he continued to write, but it is incredible that subsequent to his retirement he "supplied the stage with two plays every year." He might not be able at once to relinquish his old habits of composition; but such other evidence as we possess is opposed to Ward's statement, to which he himself appends the cautionary words, "as I have heard." Of course he could have known nothing but by hearsay forty-six years after our Poet's decease. He might, however, have known inhabitants of Stratford who well recollected Shakespeare, and, considering the opportunities he possessed, it is singular that he collected so little information.

We have adverted to the bounty of the Earl of Southampton to Shakespeare, which we have supposed to have been consequent upon the dedication of VENUS

Diary of the Rev. John Ward, etc. Arranged by Charles Severn, M. D.

AND ADONIS, and LUCRECE, and coincident in point of date with the building of the Globe theatre. Another document has been handed down among the papers of Lord Ellesmere, which proves the strong interest Lord Southampton still took, about fifteen years afterwards, in Shakespeare's affairs, and in the prosperity of the company to which he was attached: it has distinct reference also to the pending, unequal struggle between the corporation of London and the players at the Blackfriars, of which we have spoken. It is the copy of a letter subscribed H. S. (the initials of the Earl) to some nobleman in favour of our great dramatist, and of the chief performer in many of his plays, Richard Burbage.

We give a copy of the document in a note: it is without date; but the subject of it shows beyond

The copy is without address: it runs as follows:

"My verie honored Lord. The manie good offices I haue receiued at your Lordship's hands, which ought to make me backward in asking further favors, onely embouldeneth me to require more in the same kinde. Your Lordship will be warned howe hereafter you graunt anie sute, seeing it draweth on more and greater demaunds. This which now presseth is to request your Lordship, in all you can, to be good to the poore players of the Black Fryers, who call them selves by authoritie, the servaunts of his Majestie, and aske for the protection of their most gracious Maister and Sovereigne in this the tyme of their troble. They are threatened by the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London, never friendly to their calling, with the distruction of their meanes of livelihood, by the pulling downe of their plaiehouse, which is a priuate theatre, and hath neuer giuen occasion of anger by anie disorders. These bearers are two of the chiefe of the companie; one of them by name Richard Burbidge, who humblie sueth for your Lordship's kinde helpe, for that he is a man famous as our English Roscius, one who fitteth the action to the word, and the I

dispute that it belongs to this period, while the Lord Mayor and aldermen were endeavouring to expel the players from a situation where they had been uninterruptedly established for more than thirty years. There can be no doubt that the object the players had in view was attained, because we know his brethren were not allowed to exercise authority, and that the "King's servants" continued to occupy the theatre long after the death of Shakespeare.

word to the action most admirably. By the exercise of his qualitye, industry, and good behaviour, he hath be come possessed of the Blacke Fryers playhouse, which hath bene imployed for playes sithence it was builded by his Father, now nere 50 yeres agone. The other is a man no whitt lesse deserving favor, and my especiall friende, till of late an actor of good account in the companie, now a sharer in the same, and writer of some of our best English playes, which, as your Lordship knoweth, were most singularly liked of Quene Elizabeth, when the companie was called uppon to performe before her Maiestie at Court at Christmas and Shrovetide. His most gracious Maiestie King James alsoe, sence his coming to the crowne, hath extended his royal favour to the companie in divers waies and at sundrie tymes. This other hath to name William Shakespeare, and they are both of one countie, and indeede allmost of one towne: both are right famous in their qualityes, though it longeth not of your Lo. grauite and wisedome to resort vnto the places where they are wont to delight the publique care. Their truste and sute is not to bee molested in their way of life, whereby they maintaine them selves and their wives and families, (being both maried and of good reputation) as well as the widows and orphanes of some of their dead fellows.

There seems conclusive proof that almost from the first the Blackfriars theatre had been in the joint possession of the Lord Chamberlain's servants, and of a juvenile company called the Children of the Chapel: also known as "her Majesty's Children," and "the Children of the Blackfriars." It is not to be supposed that they employed the theatre on alternate days with their older competitors, but that, when those acted elsewhere in the summer, the Children of the Chapel commenced their performances. After the opening of the Globe, in 1595, we may presume that the older actors left the Blackfriars theatre to be occupied by the Children of the Chapel from April to October.

The success of the juvenile companies about the commencement of the reign of James I., and end of that of Elizabeth, was great; and we find Shakespeare allud

ing to it in pointed terms, in HAMLET, which we suppose to have been written in the winter of 1601, or in the spring of 1602. They seem to have gone on increasing in popularity, and very soon after James I. ascended the throne, Queen Anne took a company, called "the Children of the Queen's Revels," under her immediate patronage. They continued to perform at the Blackfriars, and in the very commencement of the year 1610 we find that Shakespeare either was, or intended to be, connected with them. At this period he probably contemplated an early retirement from the metropolis, and might wish to avail himself, for a period, of this new opportunity of profitable employment.

Robert Daborne, the author of two dramas that have been printed, and of others that have been lost, seems to have been a man of good family, and of some interest at court: in January, 1609-10, he procured a royal grant, authorizing him and others to provide and educate a number of young actors, to be called "the Children of the Queen's Revels." This was not a new association, because it had existed under that appellation, and under those of "the Children of the Chapel" and "the Children of the Blackfriars," from near the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth. Daborne, in 1609-10, was placed at the head of it, and he had, as was not unusual, partners in the undertaking: those partners

were William Shakespeare, Nathaniel Field, (the celebrated actor, and very clever author,) and Edward Kirkham, who had previously enjoyed a privilege of the same kind. A draft of the warrant, under which Daborne and his partners, therein named, (viz. Shakespeare, Field, and Kirkham, were to proceed,) is found among the official papers of Lord Chancellor Ellesmere;

Nathaniel Field.

and it deserves notice, that "the Children of the Queen's Revels" were thereby licensed not only to act "tragedies, comedies," etc., in the Blackfriars theatre, but "elsewhere within the realm of England;" so that places where the city authorities had jurisdiction were not exempted.

1 He was one of the masters of the Children of the Queen's Revels in 1603-4.

It runs thus:

"Right trusty and welbeloved, &c., James, &c. To all Mayors. Sheriffs, Justices of the Peace, &c. Whereas the Queene, our dearest wife, hath for her pleasure and recreation appointed her servaunts Robert Daiborne, &c., to provide and bring upp a convenient nomber of children, who shall be called the Children of her Majesties Revells, knowe ye that we have appointed and authorized, and by these presents doe appoint and authorize the said Robert Daiborne, William Shakespeare, Nathaniel Field, and Edward Kirkham, from time to time to provide and bring upp a convenient nomber of children, and them to instruct and exercise in the quality of playing Tragedies, Comedies, &c., by the name of the Children of the Revells to the Queene, within the Blackfryers, in our Citie of London, or els where within our realme of England. Wherefore we will and command you, and everie of you, to permitt her said servaunts to keepe a convenient nomber of children, by the name of the Children of the Revells to the Queene, and them to exercise in the qualitie of playing according to her royal pleasure. Provided alwaies, that no playes, &c. shall be by them presented, but such playes, &c. as have received the approbation and allowance of our Maister of the Revells for the tyme being. And these our Ires. shall be your sufficient warrant in this behalfe. In witnesse whereof, &c., 40 die Janij. 1609. "Proud Povertie.

Widow's Mite.

Antonio.

Kinsmen.

Triumph of Truth.

Touchstone.

Grisell.

Stayed."

Engl. tragedie.

False Friends. Hate and Love. Taming of S

K. Edw. 2.

Mirror of Life.

For some unknown reason, perhaps this very contest of jurisdiction, this grant to Daborne and his partners was not carried into effect. The word "stayed" is added at the conclusion of the draft, as if some ground had been discovered for delaying, if not for withholding it. Certain it is, that the new scheme seems to have been abandoned; and whatever Shakespeare may have intended when he became connected with it, he continued, as long as he remained in London, so far as any evidence enables us to judge, to write only for the company of the King's players, who persevered in their performances at the Blackfriars in the winter, and at the Globe in the summer.

It will be seen that to the draft in favour of the directors of the Children of the Queen's Revels, a list is appended, apparently of dramatic performances, in representing which the juvenile company was to be employed. Some of these may be considered known and established performances, such as "Antonio," perhaps the "Antonio and Mellida" of Marston, printed in 1602; "Grisell," for the " Patient Grisell" of Decker, Chettle, and Haughton, printed in 1603; and "K. Edw. 2," for Marlowe's "Edward II.," printed in 1598. Of others we have no information, and only two remind us at all of Shakespeare: "Kinsmen" may mean "The Two Noble Kinsmen," in which some suppose our great dramatist to have been concerned; and "Taming of S." is possibly to be taken for the TAMING OF THE SHREW, or for the older play, with nearly the same title, upon which it was founded.

TROILUS AND CRESSIDA and PERICLES were printed in 1609, and we think that they had been written and prepared for the stage only a short time before they came from the press. With the exception of OTHELLO, which came out in quarto, in 1622, no other new drama by Shakespeare appeared in a printed form between 1609 and the date of the publication of the folio, in 1623. TIMON OF ATHENS, CORIOLANUS, ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA, CYMBELINE, the WINTER'S TALE, and the TEMPEST, seem to belong to a late period of our Poet's theatrical career, and some of them were doubtless written between 1609 and the period, whatever that period might be, when he relinquished dramatic composition.

Between January, 1609-10, when Shakespeare was one of the parties to whom the warrant for the Children of the Queen's Revels was conceded, and the year 1612, when it has been reasonably supposed that he quitted London to take up his permanent residence at Stratford, we are in possession of no facts connected with his personal history. It would seem both natural and prudent that, before he withdrew from the metropolis, he should dispose of his theatrical property, which must neces

1 One copy of the folio is known with the date of 1622 upon the title-page. The volume was entered at Stationers' Hall on the 8th November, 1623, as if it had not been published until late in that year, unless we suppose the entry made by Blount and Jaggard some time after publication, in order to secure their right to the plays first printed there, which they thought might be invaded.

2 We ought perhaps to except a writ issued by the borough court in June, 1610, at the suit of Shakespeare, for the recovery of a small sum. A similar occurrence had taken place in 1604, when our Poet sought to recover 17. 15s. Od. from a person of the name of Rogers, for corn sold to him. These facts are ascer tained from the existing records of Stratford.

sarily be of fluctuating and uncertain value, depending upon the presence and activity of the owner for its profitable management. In his will (unlike some of his contemporaries who expired in London) he says nothing of any such property, and we are left to infer that he did not die in possession of it, having disposed of it before he finally retired to Stratford.

It is to be recollected also that the species of interest he had in the Blackfriars theatre, independently of his shares in the receipts, was peculiarly perishable: it consisted of the wardrobe and properties, which in 1608, when the city authorities contemplated the purchase of the whole establishment, were valued at 5007.; and we may feel assured that he would sell them to the company which had had the constant use of them, and doubtless had paid an annual consideration to the

owner.

The fee, or freehold, of the house and ground was in the hands of Richard Burbage, and from him it descended to his two sons: that was a permanent and substantial possession, very different in its character and durability from the dresses and machinery which belonged to Shakespeare. The nature of Shakespeare's property in the Blackfriars seems to authorize the conclusion, that he sold it before he retired to the place of his birth, where he meant to spend the rest of his days with his family, in the tranquil enjoyment of the independence he had secured by the exertions of five-andtwenty years. Supposing him to have begun his theatrical career at the end of 1586, as we have imagined, the quarter of a century would be completed by the close of 1612, and for aught we know, that might be the period Shakespeare had in his mind fixed upon for the termination of his toils and anxieties.

It has been ascertained that Edward Alleyn, the actorfounder of the college of "God's Gift," at Dulwich, purchased property in the Blackfriars, in April, 1612;' and although it may have been theatrical, there seems reason to believe that it was not, but that it consisted of certain leasehold houses, for which, according to his own account-book, he paid a quarterly rent of 401. The brief memorandum upon this point, preserved at Dulwich, certainly relates to any thing rather than to the species of interest which Shakespeare indisputably had in the wardrobe and properties of the Blackfriars theatre: the terms Alleyn uses would apply only to tenements or ground, and as Burbage valued his freehold of the theatre at 1000., we need not hesitate in deciding that the lease Alleyn purchased for 5991. 6s. 8d. was not a lease of the play-house. We shall see presently that Shakespeare himself became the owner of a dwelling-house in the Blackfriars, unconnected with the theatre, very soon after he had taken up his abode at Stratford, and Alleyn probably had made a similar, but a larger investment in the same neighbourhood, in 1612. Whatever became of Shakespeare's interest in the Blackfriars theatre, as a sharer or as the owner of the wardrobe and properties, we need not hesitate in concluding that, in the then prosperous state of theatrical affairs in the metropolis, he was easily able to procure a purchaser.

1 See the "Memoirs of Edward Alleyn," page 105, where a conjecture is hastily hazarded that it might be Shakespeare's interest in the Blackfriars theatre. Upon this question we agree with Mr. Knight in "Shakspere, a Biography," prefixed to his pictorial edition of the Poet's works.

He must also have had a considerable stake in the Globe, but whether he was also the owner of the same species of property there, as at the Blackfriars, we can only speculate. We should think it probable that, as far as the wardrobe was concerned, the same dresses were made to serve for both theatres, and that when the summer season commenced on the Bankside, the necessary apparel was conveyed across the water from the Blackfriars, and remained there until the company returned to their winter quarters. There is no hint in any existing document what became of our dramatist's interest in the Globe; but here again we need not doubt, from the profit that had always attended the undertaking, that he could have had no difficulty in finding parties to take it off his hands. Burbage, we know, was rich,' and he and others would have been glad to add to their capital, so advantageously employed, by purchasing Shakespeare's interest.

It is possible, as we have said, that Shakespeare continued to employ his pen for the stage after his retirement to Stratford, and the buyers of his shares might even make it a condition that he should do so for a time; but we doubt whether, with his long experience of the necessity of personal superintendence, he would have continued a shareholder in any concern of the kind over which he had no control. During the whole of his life in connection with the stage, even after he quitted it as an actor, he seems to have been obliged to reside in London, apart from his family, for the purpose of watching over his interests in the two theatres to which he belonged: had he been merely an author, after he ceased to be an actor, he might have composed his dramas as well at Stratford as in London, visiting the metropolis only while a new play was in rehearsal and preparation; but such was clearly not the case, and we may be confident that when he retired to a place so distant from the scene of his triumphs, he did not allow his mind to be encumbered by the continuance of professional anxieties.

It may seem difficult to reconcile with this consideration the undoubted fact, that in the spring of 1613 Shakespeare purchased a house, and a small piece of ground attached to it, not far from the Blackfriars theatre, in which we believe him to have disposed of his concern in the preceding year. The documents relating to this transaction have come down to us, and the indenture assigning the property from Henry Walker,

1 We have already inserted an extract from an epitaph upon Burbage, in which the writer enumerates many of the characters he sustained, The following lines in Sloane MS. No. 1786, (pointed out to us by Mr. Bruce,) are just worth preserving on account of the eminence of the man to whom they relate :"An Epitaph on Mr. RICHARD BURBAGE, the Player. "This life's a play, scean'd out by nature's art, Where every man has his allotted parte. This man hath now, as many men can tell, Ended his part, and he hath acted well. The play now ended, thinke his grave to bee The retiring house of his sad tragedie; Where to give his fame this be not afraid : Here lies the best Tragedian ever play'd."

From hence we might infer, against other authorities, that what was called the "tiring room" in theatres, was so called because the actors retired to it, and not attired in it. It most likely answered both purposes, but we sometimes find it called "the attiring room" by authors of the time.