SHAKESPEARE AND SPENCER AT ST. MARGARET'S. occurred that flesh might be preserved as well by snow as by salt. He immediately stopped, went into a cottage by the road, bought a fowl, and stuffed it full of snow. Feeling chilly and too unwell to go home, he went to the house of the Earl of Arundel, which was near. There he is said to have been put into a damp bed; fever ensued, and in a few days he was no more. His associations with the close vicinity of Richmond and the stately trees in the reserved grounds of St. Margaret's, hallowed of Shakespeare and Spenser, are worthy objects of admiration and delight, and must, so long as they endure, mark the home as of his ill-fated career. It may seem strange to many that Shakespeare should be found clinging, as it were, 363 beyond the pale of its doctrinal conventionalism, and philosophers like Bacon poring over "the book of God's works" as a derogation to the "book of God's word." Sympathizing with Romanism and Protestantism so far as they were human, Shakespeare could not perhaps be wholly satisfied with either. There may, to his mind, have been something deeper than either, common to both. And whilst the creeds of neither are distinctly enunciated in his writings, whilst neither can claim him as an especial advocate, both recognise a sincere and profound religious element through his writings; not thrust forward to catch applause or gild a popular sentiment, but a pure vestal light, equally free from fanaticism on one side and from infidelity on the other. Hatfield House, the ancient abode of the Salisburys, where Shakespeare visited, and where representation of one or more of his plays was made before Queen Elizabeth. to the older faith, and yet holding chiefly to ministers who had accepted the new, this without cutting himself adrift from the old ties. But who shall measure the religious tendencies of one who had carved out for himself a wholly untrodden path as that designated by Coleridge" the thousand souled"? It is not given to the ordinary mortal to judge of the marvellously gifted. He was living in a sceptical age, when the freshness of faith and that confidence in the glories of Protestantism which had inspired the poetry of Spenser was fast dying out. Many had relapsed into Romanism, many had fallen into Atheism; the narrow creed of Puritanism could not accommodate itself to the larger sympathies and growing intelligence of the age. It viewed with consternation divines like Hooker securely trespassing Shakespeare, according to tradition existing among old Roman Catholic families, frequently visited Richmond at other times than occasions of arranging theatrical performances before Queen Elizabeth. He was a frequent visitor at Isleworth vicarage, close by, where his friend, the Reverend Thomas Brown, held the living from 1605 until 1625. Especially he is tracked there as remaining for several weeks the year before his death, resting quietly with the son of a dear friend of the Shakespeare family, the son of the half-century Vicar of Stratford-on-Avon, the venerable Byfield, to whom the world stands indebted for the institution of its grand old Register of neverdying fame. Nicholas Byfield was instituted Vicar in 1615. He was the son of Richard Byfield, vicar of Stratford-on-Avon, and was born there about 1579. In 1596 he became a butler or servitor of Exeter College, Oxon, during Lent Term, and remained there upwards of seven years, but left it without taking a degree. Being admitted, however, into holy orders, he left the University; and on his way to Ireland, where he purposed settling, and passing through Chester, he was, upon the delivery of a noted sermon at that place, invited to be pastor of St. Peter's Church, which he gladly accepted, and continued there for several years, much followed and admired, says Wood, "by the precise party, who esteemed his preaching profitable and his life pious." He was a strict observer of the Lord's day, on which subject he wrote, and involved himself in a controversy with Edward Brerewood, the mathematician, who, being a native of that city, was sometimes his auditor. From Chester he removed, in 1615, to the vicarage of Isleworth, where he died in 1622, leaving behind him an excellent character for learning, success in his ministry, and a pious and peaceable disposition. Dr. Gouge, of Blackfriars, who drew up an account of his death, and who wrote a preface to the posthumous works of Byfield, says that, on his body being opened, a stone was taken out of his bladder that exceeded thirty-three ounces in weight, measuring about the edge 15 inches, and was in length and breadth about 13 inches, and solid like a flint. Adineram, one of Byfield's sons, was one of the few persons who were by name stigmatized by Butler, in "Hudibras." Astrologer Gadbury. Shakespeare has no just cause to feel aggrieved at any imagined neglect on the part of his Sovereign, who proved herself most kind and appreciative. Catholic sources intimating indifference on his part must be received only for what they are worth. It was not without interest he is represented as cold towards his royal mistress. The most probable version is that more than kind and considerate in endeavours to cause his over-looking the fancied slight. James I. seems to have been a still more ardent lover of the drama than his immediate predecessor; and of all the contemporary writers for the stage, our great poet deservedly received the largest share of his admiration and patronage. On the 17th of May, 1603, close upon Shakespeare's arrival in London, a warrant was issued in his name, by which the Lord Chamberlain's company were taken into his own service, and under which they were thenceforward known as "the King's Players." In this document the first member of the company mentioned is "Lawrence Fletcher," and then follow "William Shakespeare, Richard Burbage," and six others. There can be no doubt that Fletcher was already known to King James, and that it was to that circumstance he owed this mark of Royal favour. King James's appreciation of Shakespeare was rendered in hs capacity as a great writer, not as an actor, and which prompted him to write what was called an "amicable letter." In the advertisement to Lintot's edition of Shakespeare's Poems, publishe in the year 1610, it is stated that this letter, "though now lost, remained long in the hands of Sir William Davenant, as a credible witness now living can testify"; and Oldys alleges that the Duke of Buckingham told Lintot that he had seen it in the possession of Davenant. In connection with this subject an anecdote is preserved of Shakespeare's adroitness and courtly tact. He was personating on one occasion the character of a king in the presence of Queen Elizabeth, at Richmond, who, SHAKESPEARE AND QUEEN ELIZABETH. in walking across the stage, the honoured place in those days, as we have seen, for the higher portion of the audience, dropped her glove as she passed close to the poet. No notice was taken by him of the incident; and the Queen, desirous of knowing whether this procedure was the result of mere inadvertence, or a determination to preserve the consistency of his part, moved again towards him and again let her glove fall. Shakespeare stooped down to pick it up, saying, in the character of the monarch whom he was personating: "And though now bent on this high embassy, Yet stoop we to take up our cousin's glove." 365 1603; and, before the close of that year, Drop from his honied Muse one sable tear, Shakespeare's plays were undoubtedly performed in this old Hall under He then retired from the stage, and presented the glove to the Queen, who is reported to have been highly pleased. It is well known that Elizabeth took great delight in witnessing the poet's dramatic productions; and a story is told of her having been so charmed with the humour and drollery of the character of Falstaff in the First and Second Parts of "Henry IV.," that she commanded the author to represent him in one play more, and show him in love. This anecdote bears all the semblance of truth looked at in the light of Queen Elizabeth's course of life. To this circumstance, if true, the world would be indebted for "The Merry Wives of Windsor." Elizabeth died on the 24th of March, The descendants of Dr. Dee made the most of his connection with the Queen, and it was said by an old clergyman of Mortlake that Her Majesty had interviews with one Simon Forman, also a noted astrologer of the the time, who had been summoned to Richmond for purpose of comparing his forecasts with those of the crafty Dr. Dee, who had well plumbed the depth of his Sovereign's credulity. Forman is said to have named to Her Majesty that astrological ruling in his own case, pointing to his death by ac cidental drowning, and sure enough he did meet his death in the river Thames; but according to some, he expired suddenly in a boat whilst crossing the river; others averred that he was drowned; but so great was the dread of increasing necromancy, that the drowning was denied. Many aver that Shakespeare's refraining from eulogy of the Sovereign whose death fell in his own time, was largely consequent on her connection with Dee and the other charlatans identified with him in working on her weakness. This was clearly the view of Catholics of the time and since, but it does not apply. It is certainly a mystery how such a woman could ever have been brought under their influence. She was not alone in becoming one of Dee's dupes. Education in her case, as in that of others, was insufficient to act as preventive. Mary of Scots was also their victim, and even Burleigh could have his oracle cast. Surprise vanishes when it is remembered that Dee persuaded the Queen that he had foretold the defeat of the Armada. Constant repetition overruled her otherwise clear head, and she became a victim to these necromantic scoundrels. Further, it should be borne in mind that the whole community was in some measure affected, from the richest and greatest downwards. Even the honourable Stationers' Company pocketed a rich annual harvest from this source, their almanacs being little beyond astrological manuals in their worst form. How much better were they than Dee? The palace formerly existing at Richmond rivalled any of the Royal residences in marked historical occurrences. The old name was Syenes, afterwards changed to Sheen, which is still the name of the part of Richmond, where the Duke of Fife has a residence. In the old Saxon, Sheen signifies shining, or beautiful, and old historians considered that the place was so designated from the magnificence of the Royal Palace, though, certainly, the natural beauty of the locality entitles it to any title expressive of beautiful scenery. Henry VII., who rebuilt the palace in 1501, and who, judging from Charlecote, must have employed roguish masons, or it A deeply interesting link between Shakespeare and the performance of his plays at the Globe Theatre in his own time, comes to light through this same astrologer, Simon Forman. It is on record of his own leaving, that he attended a performance of the tragedy of " Macbeth," at the Globe Theatre, in April, 1611, and he tells us that both Macbeth and Banquo appeared on the stage on horseback (no doubt a wooden, or what was then known as a "hobby horse"), and, moreover, that on May 15th, or about a month afterwards, he witnessed a performance of the comedy of "The Winter's Tale," in the same theatre. He also informs us that he saw the tragedy of "Cymbeline, King of Britaine," performed. This valuable legacy of the necromancer establishes some very important facts as to the change and variety of order in the performances at the Globe. Variety was evidently the rule. Shakespeare, who with Burbage formed the governing body, did not press on the spirits Custom House stairs as their landing of the actors by an incessant harping on a one-stringed bow; they had mastered the lines of more than one tragedy, and were ready at command to prove it by a fitting and ready rendering of the great thoughts then first given to the world, then pouring upon the world in a deluge, calling for the exercise of extreme diligence in their calling as in the exercise of their understanding and memory. It is clear from the astrologer Simon Forman's account of himself, that he was a constant frequenter of the Globe Theatre. Probably Dr. Dee, his brother fate-divinator, enjoyed with him the plays "Macbeth," "The Winter's Tale," and "Cymbeline," and that they would boat it together from Mortlake to London. The Globe actors usually used the place. would have survived to be a stronghold until now, named it after his own title of Earl of Richmond. Henry I. had resided in the earlier existing palace. Edward II. is also said to have resided here; Edward III. also, who had a great partiality for the palace, keeping great state here, with a vast amount of bountiful hospitality. Here it was that he died on June 21st, 1377, in his 65th year, from grief at the loss of his son, the Black Prince. Only a few days before his death, the King received the Commissioners from Calais, who came to treat for peace between England and France. At the death of Edward III., his grandson, Richard II., son of the Black Prince, made the palace ROYAL OCCUPANTS OF RICHMOND PALACE. his favourite summer residence, expending vast sums on improvements and buildings. Nothing is more interesting in connection with Richmond than its association with the poet Chaucer, who, in his capacity of Clerk of the Works to the Crown, lived in Richmond, superintending the new buildings. It is traditioned that he wrote the "Canterbury Pilgrims" here, which may explain the masons having used such abominable mortar, the poet's heart being probably more bent on verse immortalization than the creation of edifices to stand any test of time. King Richard, though a thoughtless demolisher, is not responsible for all the destruction; he Associated with Shakespeare, through its pastor being traditioned as assisting him in art study at "Nonsuch." surely must have left many buildings standing. His Gracious Majesty lived in great pomp, and with a degree of hospitality such as knew no parallel, entertaining many thousands of guests of every sort and kind, and, as may naturally be supposed, at ruinous expenditure. His Queen, Anne of Bohemia, died here. Old Stow records: "On June 7th Queen Anne died at Shine, and was buried at Westminster. The King took her death so heavily that, besides eursing the place where she died, he did also, for anger, throw down the buildings, unto which the former 367 Kings, being wearied of the citie, were wont for pleasure to resort." Henry V., when Prince of Wales, lived at Richmond Palace, and rebuilt much of Richard's ruin-making. Henry VI., on his marriage with Margaret of Anjou, made great additions to the buildings, adding a fortress with a moat, and restoring much of Richard's demolitions. In 1461, Edward IV. resided here for a short time. Sir R. Baker's Chronicle, generally reliable, records: "In Henry 7, Ano. D.M. 1501, the King's mannor of Shene was situat near the Thames side, was burned, which afterwards the sayd King sumptuously rebuilt, and called it Richmond, because his father and himself were Earles of Richmond." This sovereign, though of most penurious habits, had no scruples at the outlay. He died here, and was buried in his own magnificent tomb in Westminster Abbey. At his death there was a wholesale find of gold, jewels, and plate, amounting to close on two millions value, hoarded up in the palace. It became a favoured residence of Henry VIII., and here he kept his first Christmas after his accession, appearing for the first time in a tournament, held in the precincts of the palace gardens. In 1511, on New Year's Day, his Queen Catherine gave birth to a son here. In 1523, Charles V., Emperor of Germany, visited Henry VIII. here. Then came the régime of the ambitious, richesloving Wolsey, who, fearing his own hoard, passed Hampton Court over to the King, receiving Richmond Palace as a solace. The Cardinal spent the Christmas of 1525 here, as a place of safety from the plague. Wolsey's death, Henry VIII. granted the palace and £3,000 a year to his divorced wife, Anne of Cleves, who led a quiet, contented life, and even had his company at occasional tête-à-tête dinners. After Henry's death, the palace passed into the hands of Edward VI., who made it his frequent home, greatly preferring it to Windsor, so much so, that "he had it in mind to become his permanent home." In 1550 the marriage of Lady Anne Seymour, daughter of the Protector, was solemnized in the chapel of the palace, the King being present. In July of this same year, King Edward resided here as a hoped escape from the plague. Queen Mary was staying at Richmond when she heard of Wyatt's rebellion, and it was in this palace Mary and her council debated regarding the reception to be given to her future husband, Philip of Spain, and also spent a honeymoon. Memorable above all, Eliza At |