scription should not have been omitted on the occasion of the letter of H. S., because the letter was for the purpose of introducing two persons to ask a favour of a nobleman high in office. Without such a superscription, the nobleman to whom it was presented might have doubted whether it was intended for his hands. It might have been a current letter of recommendation for the Lord Chamberlain or the Lord Chancellor. How do we know that the letter was addressed to Lord Ellesmere at all? It contains not the slightest allusion to his high legal office, unless the sentence "It longeth not to your Lo. gravitie and wisedom to resort unto the places where they are wont to delight the publique eare," may be especially meant for a Lord Chancellor. The letter is certainly of a very peculiar nature. Mr. Collier says, "I do not recollect any instances of letters of a precisely similar kind of so old a date, but they no doubt exist." If the letter were addressed to Lord Ellesmere in 1608, as Mr. Collier holds, it would appear from legal documents found at Bridgewater House that the question then before the Chancellor was the claim by the City of London to jurisdiction within the Blackfriars. A legal opinion in favour of the claim, and proofs against it, are amongst these papers. But the letter of H. S. deals with a very different question. It asks his very honoured Lord "to be good to the poor players of the Blackfriars," who "are threatened by the Lord Maior and Aldermen of London, never friendly to their calling, with the distruction of their meanes of livelihood by the pulling downe of theire plaiehouse." If the Lord Mayor and Aldermen had even established their jurisdiction, it was utterly impossible that they could have pulled down the playhouse of the Servants of his Majesty. The players could have had no fear of such an issue. A quarter of a century before, the authorities of the City had pulled down the temporary scaffolds for theatrical performances erected in the yards of the Cross Keys, the Bull, and the Belle Savage; but even then, and much less in 1608, they could no more pull down the substantial private theatre of the Blackfriars Company, the fee of which we have seen was valued at a thousand pounds, than they could pull down Lord Ellesmere's own mansion. To avert this evil, the poor players "aske for the protection of their most graceous Maister and Sovereigne in this the tyme of their troble." They needed not that protection; they already had it. A patent was issued to them in 1603, in virtue of a writ of Privy Seal, directed to Lord Ellesmere himself, in which all justices, mayors, &c., were called upon in all places not to offer them hindrance; to aid and assist them; to render them favours. In the following year, this very theatre of the Blackfriars was expressly recognised in a patent for the performances of the Children of the Revels. But even if the protection of the King were needed by the King's servants, it would scarcely be asked through the Lord Chancellor. Pembroke and Southampton were immediately about the King's person; Pembroke was the Lord Chamberlain. H. S. sets out by acknowledging the good offices he has received at the hands of his very honoured Lord. These civilities presume a freedom of intercourse between two equals in rank, if it is Southamptan who writes the letter, and Lord Ellesmere to whom it is written. But how do we know that Southampton wrote the letter? The subscription is H. S. In the Ireland controversy Malone asserted that Southampton signed his name H. Southampton. Chalmers contended that he had written Southampton without the H. But no one pretended that he had ever signed a letter or a document, with his initials only. The formality of that age was entirely opposed to such a practice. "Your Lordship's most bounden at command," is not the way in which an Earl and a Knight of the Garter would subscribe himself to an equal and an intimate. "Affectionate friend," "assured friend," "loving friend," is the mode in which noblemen subscribe themselves in their familiar correspondence with each other. But "most bounden," "most obedient," "most humbly bounden," is the mode in which a commoner addresses a nobleman. "Most bounden at command" is a humility of which we scarcely find a precedent except in the letter of a servant. Such are the points of objection which first present themselves upon the face of the letter.

But there is a peculiarity in this letter which is very deserving of notice; and which would lead us to wish, especially, that no possible suspicion could rest upon its authenticity. It contains a great deal that is highly interesting to us at the present day, but which must have been considered somewhat impertinent by a great officer of state in his own times. Richard Burbage, according to the letter, is "our English Roscius, one who fitteth the action to the word and the word to the action most admirably." It is pleasant to believe that Lord Southampton was so familiar with Hamlet that he had the very words of the play at his tongue's end. Alleyn in his own day was called "Roscius for a tongue,” and Fuller says "He was the Roscius of our age." But H. S. claims the honour for Burbage. This, however, is not a material point in the question about pulling down the playhouse. It is more pleasant to have Lord Southampton calling Shakspere "my especial friend." The description might startle the proud Chancellor; but, passing that, he would scarcely want to know that he was "of late an actor of good accompte in the company." The nobleman, who had himself sent for Shakspere's company to perform Othello before the Queen at Harefield,

could scarcely require to be told that Shakspere was the "writer of some of our best English plays;" that "they were most singularly liked of Queen Elizabeth;" that the players performed before the Court at Christmas and Shrovetide. The Chancellor to King James, who issued the patent to the company within a few weeks after the accession, could scarcely require to be told that the King had extended his royal favour to them. Interesting as the fact is to us, it seems remarkable that a great law officer should be informed, as to two persons whom his gravity and wisdom must hold somewhat cheap, “they are both of one countie and indeede almost of one towne" It is scarcely complimentary to the nobleman who is addressed, be he Lord Ellesmere or not, to assume that he could only judge of the qualities of these men, the poet and the actor, unless he resorted "unto the places where they are wont to delight the publique eare." Was the nobleman addressed never at the Court of James during the performances at Christmas and at Shrovetide? The writer of the letter, whoever he be, had not a very logical perception. He contradicts what he has assumed, disjoins what has a connexion, and associates what is essentially distinct. A real man, telling a real story, scarcely does this. H. S. assumes that Lord Ellesmere knows nothing about the poor players. He describes them, therefore, with a curious minuteness. One is "writer of some of our best English plays;" and it is added, these plays, "as your Lordship knoweth, were most singularly liked of Queen Elizabeth." With such a knowledge on the part of his Lordship, it would have been sufficient to mention the name of one of the men who delivered the letter. And yet his Lordship is left for some time to guess who the man is whose plays, as he knows, were singularly liked of Queen Elizabeth; and other matters are gone into before he is told that his name is William Shakespeare; which he did not want to know if he knew that his plays were so liked. When he is told the name, it is assumed that he has forgotten all his former knowledge; and he is also told that William Shakespeare is right famous, though it longeth not to his Lordship's wisdom to know anything about him, as he could only attain that knowledge by resorting to public playhouses. And yet he could not so attain this knowledge, because the writer has ceased to be an actor, and is no longer "wont to delight the publique eare." The especial friend, late an actor, is "now a sharer." This would imply that when he was an actor he was not a sharer; and yet we know that he was a sharer twenty years before this. Perhaps there is no positive error here; but there is that looseness of construction which seldom accompanies an actual knowledge of present facts; which indeed is characteristic of an attempt to fabricate a document which should deal safely with remote and minute circumstances. Certainly there are several indications of vagueness and inconsistency, which would render us unwilling wholly to rely upon this document, interesting as it is, for any material fact.

But what fact does it tell us that we did not know from other sources? The evidence as to the writer is not distinct. The person to whom it is written is not defined. The time at which it is written can only be inferred. Is there any fact that could not be known, or assumed, by a person writing so vague a letter, some half century ago, with the intention to deceive, and calling it a copy, to get over the difficulty of imitating a known handwriting? We know that there was a man then living who perpetrated such deceptions; who, moving in good society, might readily have had access to the papers at Bridgewater House, and have dropped his cuckoo egg in the sparrow's nest. The failure of William Henry Ireland in the fabrication of a letter from Southampton, might have set a cleverer and more learned man upon trying his hand upon some fabrication more consistent than that of the unlettered forger of the Shakspere Manuscripts, and which should have the safe quality of assuming nothing that was opposed to the belief of those who had written upon Shakspere. If the letter be genuine, it is a singular circumstance that it so entirely corroborates many points of his life with which we had previously been familiar, and tells us so little that was not previously known. It is of a different character in this respect from the important document discovered by Mr. Collier amongst the same papers, showing that Shakspere was a shareholder in the Blackfriars in 1589;-wholly different also from the paper entitled "For avoiding of the Playhouse in the Precinct of the Blacke Friers."

But, on the other hand, there are some facts in the letter of H. S. which have only been brought to light in very recent times. We did not know, until the discovery of the Estimate for avoiding the Theatre, that Burbage had "become possessed of the Blacke Fryers playhouse." We did not know till Mr. Collier published a document in his 'Annals of the Stage,' found in the State Paper Office, that "it was builded by his Father." The statement that it was builded "now nere 50 yeres agone" is contrary to the precise information conveyed in that document. We did not know that the company at the Blackfriars maintained "the widowes and orphanes of some of their dead fellows" till we learnt from the Estimate for avoiding the Playhouse that "the Widowes and Orphanes of Playeres are paide by the Sharers at divers rates and proportions." We subjoin, in parallel columns, some coincidences of statement, and some resemblances of style, which may assist our readers in judging for themselves,

in a question in which it is exceedingly difficult to discriminate between the imitations of forgery, and the habitual phrases and current knowledge of a real person :

[Passages from the Letter of H. S.]

"The many good offices I have received at your Lordship's hands, which ought to make me backward in asking further favours, only emboldens me to require more in the same kind."

"The time of their trouble."

"Never given occasion of anger."

"Our English Roscius."

"One who fitteth the action to the word and the word to he action."

"My especial friend."

"In divers ways and at sundry times."

"They are both of one county, and indeed almost of one town."

"Whereby they maintain themselves and their wives and families."

"The widows and orphans of some of their dead fellows."

[Passages from old and modern writings.]

"I have found your Lordship already so favourable and affectionate unto me, that I shall be still hereafter desirous to acquaint you with what concerns me, and bold to ask your advice and counsel."-Southampton's Letter to Lord Keeper Williams: Malone's Inquiry, 1796.

"The time of trouble."-Psalm xxvii.

"Never given cause of displeasure."-Petition, 1589: Collier's New Facts.

"The Roscius of our age."-Fuller.

"When Roscius was an actor at Rome."-Hamlet. "Suit the action to the word, the word to the action." Hamlet.

"Clepe to your conseil a few of youre frendes that ber especial."-Chaucer.

"Dearest Friend."—Ireland's forged Letter of Southamp ton to Shakspere.

"At sundrie times and in divers manners."-Ep. to Hebrews.

"I suspect that both he [Heninges] and Burbage were Shakspeare's countrymen."-Malone's History of the Stage. "Who have no other means whereby to maintain their wives and families."-Petition of 1596: Collier's Annals. "The widows and orphans of players, who are paid by the sharers."-Estimate, &c. : Collier's New Facts.

We have stated frankly and without reserve the objections to the authenticity of this document which have presented themselves to our mind. It is better to state these fully and fairly than to "hint a doubt." Looking at the decided character of the external evidence as to the discovery, and taking into consideration the improbability of a spurious paper having been smuggled into the company of the Bridgewater documents, we are inclined to confide in it. But, apart from the interesting character of the letter, and the valuable testimony which it gives to the nature of the intercourse between Southampton and Shakspere-"my especial friend"'-we might lay it aside with reference to its furnishing any new materials for the life of the poet, with the exception of the statement that he and Burbage were "both of one county." Confiding in it, as we are anxious to do, we accept it as a valuable illustration of that life. We have on several occasions referred to the letter of H. S.; and in this examination we can have no wish to neutralize our own inferences from its genuineness. These, however, in this Biography, have reference only to the assertion, 1st, That Burbage and Shakspere were of one county and almost of one town: this was a conjecture made by Malone. 2nd. That there was deep friendship between Southampton and Shakspere: this is an old traditionary belief, supported by the dedications of Venus and Adonis and the Lucrece. 3rd. That Shakspere left the stage previous to 1608: this differs little from the prevailing opinion, that he quitted it before 1605, founded upon his name not appearing to a play of Ben Jonson in that year.

THERE is a memorandum existing (to which we shall hereafter more particularly advert), by Thomas Greene, a contemporary of Shakspere, residing at Stratford, which, under the date of November 17th, 1614, has this record :-" My cousin Shakspeare coming yesterday to town, I went to see him how he did." We cite this memorandum here, as an indication of Shakspere's habit of occasionally visiting London; for Thomas Greene was then in the capital, with the intent of opposing the project of an inclosure at Stratford. The frequency of Shakspere's visits to London would essentially depend upon the nature of his connexion with the theatres. He was a permanent shareholder, as we have seen, at the Blackfriars; and no doubt at the Globe also. His interests as a sharer might be diligently watched over by his fellows; and he might only

have visited London when he had a new play to bring forward, the fruit of his leisure in the country. But until he disposed of his wardrobe and other properties, more frequent demands might be made upon his personal attendance than if he were totally free from the responsibilities belonging to the charge of such an embarrassing stock in trade. Mr. Collier has printed a memorandum in the handwriting of Edward Alleyn, dated April 1612, of the payment of various sums "for the Blackfryers," amounting to 5991. 6s. 8d. Mr. Collier adds, "To whom the money was paid is nowhere stated; but, for aught we know, it was to Shakespeare himself, and just anterior to his departure from London." The memorandum is introduced with the observation, "It seems very likely, from evidence now for the first time to be adduced, that Alleyn became the purchaser of our great dramatist's interest in the theatre, properties, wardrobe, and stock of the Blackfriars." Certainly the document itself says nothing about properties wardrobe, and stock. It is simply as follows:

More than half of the entire sum is paid "again for the lease."

If the estimate

For avoiding of the Playhouse," &c.* be not rejected as an authority, the conjecture of Mr. Collier that the property purchased by Alleyn belonged to Shakspere is wholly untenable; for the Fee, valued at a thousand pounds, was the property of Burbage, and to the owner of the Fee would be paid the sum for the lease. Subsequent memoranda by Alleyn show that he paid rent for the Blackfriars, and expended sums upon the building-collateral proofs that it was not Shakspere's personal property that he bought in April 1612. There is distinct evidence furnished by another document that Shakspere was not a resident in London in 1613; for in an indenture executed by him on the 10th of March in that year, for the purchase of a dwelling-house in the precinct of the Blackfriars, he is described as "William Shakespeare of Stratforde Upon Avon in the countie of Warwick, gentleman;" whilst his fellow John Hemyng, who is a party to the same deed, is described as "of London, gentleman." From the situation of the property it would appear to have been bought either as an appurtenance to the theatre, or for some protection of the interests of the sharers. In the deed of 1602, Shakspere is also described as of Stratford-upon-Avon. It is natural that he should be so described, in a deed for the purchase of land at Stratford; but upon the same principle, had he been a resident in London in 1613, he would have been described as of London in a deed for the purchase of property in London. Yet we also look upon this conveyance as evidence that Shakspere had in March 1613 not wholly severed himself from his interest in the theatre. He is in London at the signing of the deed, attending, probably, to the duties which still devolved upon him as a sharer in the Blackfriars. He is not a resident in London; he has come

See page 485.

+ See Note at the end of this Chapter.