His plays, however, must have been not only po

"fail to afford him such supplies as would have set "him above the necessity of holding horses for sub-pular, but approved by persons of the higher order, "sistence. Mr. Malone has remarked, in his 'At- as we are certain that he enjoyed the gracious fa"tempt to ascertain the Order in which the Plays vour of queen Elizabeth, who was very fond of the "of Shakspeare were written,' that he might have stage; and the particular and affectionate patronage "found an easy introduction to the stage: for Tho- of the earl of Southampton, to whom he dedicated "mas Green, a celebrated comedian of that period, his poem of "Venus and Adonis," and his "Rape "was his townsman, and perhaps his relation. The "of Lucrece." On sir William Davenant's authority, "genius of our author prompted him to write poetry; it has been asserted that this nobleman at one time "his connexion with a player might have given his gave him a thousand pounds to enable him to com"productions a dramatic turn; or his own sagacity plete a purchase. This anecdote Mr. Malone thinks "might have taught him that fame was not incom- extravagantly exaggerated, and considers it as far "patible with profit, and that the theatre was an more likely that he might have presented the poet "avenue to both. That it was once the general with an hundred pounds in return for his dedications. "custom to ride on horseback to the play I am like- At the conclusion of the advertisement prefixed to "wise yet to learn. The most popular of the thea- Lintot's edition of Shakspeare's poems, it is said, "tres were on the Bankside; and we are told by "that most learned prince and great patron of learn"the satirical pamphleteers of that time, that the "ing, king James the First, was pleased with his "usual mode of conveyance to these places of amuse- "own hand to write an amicable letter to Mr. Shak"ment was by water, but not a single writer so “speare: which letter, though now lost, remained "much as hints at the custom of riding to them, or "long in the hands of sir William D'Avenant, as a "at the practice of having horses held during the "credible person now living can testify." Dr. Far"hours of exhibition. Some allusion to this usage, mer with great probability supposes, that this letter "(if it had existed,) must, I think, have been dis- was written by king James in return for the com"covered in the course of our researches after con- pliment paid to him in Macbeth. The relator of "temporary fashions. Let it be remembered, too, this anecdote was Sheffield, duke of Buckingham. "that we receive this tale on no higher authority These brief notices, meagre as they are, may show "than that of Cibber's Lives of the Poets, vol. i. that our author enjoyed high favour in his day. "p. 130. Sir William Davenant told it to Mr. Bet- Whatever some may think of king James as a "terton, who communicated it to Mr. Rowe, who, "learned prince," his patronage, as well as that of "according to Dr. Johnson, related it to Mr. Pope." his predecessor, was sufficient to give celebrity to Mr. Malone concurs in opinion that this story the founder of a new stage. It may be added, that stands on a very slender foundation, while he dif- Shakspeare's uncommon merit, his candour, and goodfers with Mr. Steevens as to the fact of gentlemen nature are supposed to have produced him the adgoing to the theatre on horseback. With respect miration and acquaintance of every person distinto Shakspeare's father "being engaged in a lucra- guished for such qualities. It is not difficult indeed "tive business," we may remark that this could not to suppose that Shakspeare was a man of humour have been the case at the time our author came to and a social companion, and probably excelled in London. He is said to have arrived in London in that species of minor wit not ill adapted to con1586, the year in which his father resigned the of-versation, of which it could have been wished he fice of alderman, and was in decayed circumstances. But in whatever situation he was first employed at the theatre, he appears to have soon discovered those talents which afterwards made him

"The applause! delight! the wonder of our stage!" Some distinction he probably first acquired as an actor, although Mr. Rowe was not able to discover any character in which he appeared to more advantage than that of the ghost in Hamlet. The instructions given to the players in that tragedy, and other passages of his works, show an intimate acquaintance with the skill of acting, and such as is scarcely surpassed in our own days. He appears to have studied nature in acting as much as in writing. Mr. Malone, however, does not believe that he played parts of the first rate, though he probably distinguished himself by whatever he performed; and the distinction which he obtained could only be in his own plays, in which he would be assisted by the novel appearance of author and actor combined. Before his time, it does not appear that any actor could avail himself of the wretched pieces represented on the stage.

Mr. Rowe regrets that he cannot inform us which was the first play he wrote, nor is that a point yet determined. Mr. Malone in his first edition, appears to have attained something conclusive; but in his last edition, he has changed the dates of so many of the plays, that we can only refer to the lists given at the end of his History of the Stage. The progress of Shakspeare's taste or genius, it seems to be impossible to ascertain with any certainty.

had been more sparing in his writings.

How long he acted has not been discovered, but he continued to write till the year 1614. During his dramatic career he acquired a property in the theatre, 2) which he must have disposed of when he retired, as no mention of it occurs in his will. His connexion with Ben Jonson has been variously related. It is said that when Jonson was unknown to the world, he offered a play to the theatre, which was rejected after a very careless perusal, but that Shakspeare having accidentally cast his eye on it, conceived a favourable opinion of it, and afterwards recommended Jonson and his writings to the public. For this candour he is said to have been repaid by Jonson, when the latter became a poet of note, with an envious disrespect. Jonson acquired reputation by the variety of his pieces, and endeavoured to arrogate the supremacy in dramatic genius. Like a French critic, he insinuated Shakspeare's incorrectness, his careless manner of writing, and his want of judgment; and, as he was a remarkable slow writer himself, he could not endure the praise frequently bestowed on Shakspeare, viz. that he seldom altered or blotted out what he had written. Mr. Malone says, that "not long after the year 1600, "a coolness arose between Shakspeare and him, "which, however he may talk of his almost idola"trous affection, produced, on his part, from that "time to the death of our author and for many

2) In 1603 he and several others obtained a licence from king James to exhibit comedies, tragedies, histories, &c. at the Globe Theatre and elsewhere.

"years afterwards, much clumsy sarcasm and many "malevolent reflections." But from these, which were until lately the commonly received traditions on this subject, the learned Dr. Farmer was inclined to depart, and to think Jonson's hostility to Shakspeare absolutely groundless: and this opinion has been amply confirmed by more recent critics.

Jonson had only one advantage over Shakspeare, that of superior learning, which might, in certain situations, give him a superior rank, but could never promote his rivalship with a man who attained the highest excellence without it. Nor will Shakspeare suffer by its being known, that all the dramatic poets before he appeared were scholars. Greene, Lodge, Peele, Marlow, Nashe, Lily, and Kid, had all, says Mr. Malone, a regular university education; and, as scholars in our universities, frequently composed and acted plays on historical subjects. 3)

The latter part of Shakspeare's life was spent in ease, retirement, and the conversation of his friends. He had accumulated considerable property, which Gildon (in his "Letters and Essays" in 1694,) stated to amount to 8001. per annum; a sum at least equal to 1000l. in our days; but Mr. Malone doubts whether all his property amounted to much more than || 2001. per annum, which yet was a considerable fortune in those times; and it is supposed that he might have derived 2001. per annum from the theatre while connected with it.

He retired about four years (1611 or 1612) before his death, to a house in Stratford, of which it has been thought important to give the history. It was built by sir Hugh Clopton, a younger brother of an ancient family in that neighbourhood. Sir Hugh was sheriff of London in the reign of Richard III., and lord mayor in that of Henry VII. By his will he bequeathed to his elder brother's son his manor of Clopton, &c., and his house by the name of the Great House in Stratford. *) A good part of the estate was in possession of Edward Clopton, Esq. and sir Hugh Clopton, Knt. in 1733. The principal estate had been sold out of the Clopton family for above a century, at the time when Shakspeare became the purchaser; who, having repaired and modelled it to his own mind, changed the name to New Place, which the mansion-house, afterwards erected in the room of the poet's house, retained for many years. The house and lands belonging to it continued in the possession of Shakspeare's descendants to the time of the Restoration, when they were repurchased by the Clopton family. Here in May 1742, when Mr. Garrick, Mr. Macklin, and Mr. Delane, visited Stratford, they were hospitably entertained under Shakspeare's mulberrytree by sir Hugh Clopton. He was a barrister-atlaw, was knighted by king George I., and died in the 80th year of his age, in Dec. 1751. His executor, about the year 1752, sold New Place to the Rev. Mr. Gastrell, a man of large fortune, who resided in it but a few years in consequence of a disagreement with the inhabitants of Stratford: as he resided part of the year at Lichfield, he thought he was assessed too highly in the monthly rate towards

3) This was the practice in Milton's days. "One of his “objections to academical education, as it was then conducted, "is, that men designed for orders in the church were per"mitted to act plays," &c. Johnson's Life of Milton.

4) The account of this house in Malone's Shakspeare, 1821, is the same which appeared in his edition of 1790, but which he probably would have corrected, had he seen some further information on the subject, by Mr. Wheler, in Gent. Mag. vol. lxxix, and vol. lxxx.

the maintenance of the poor; but being very properly compelled by the magistrates of Stratford to pay the whole of what was levied on him, on the principle that his house was occupied by his servants in his absence, he peevishly declared, that that house should never be assessed again; and soon afterwards pulled it down, sold the materials, and left the town. He had some time before cut down Shakspeare's mulberry-tree, 5) to save himself the trouble of showing it to those whose admiration of our great poet led them to visit the classic ground on which it stood. That Shakspeare planted this tree appears to be sufficiently authenticated. Where New Place stood is now a garden. Before concluding this history, it may be necessary to mention that the poet's house was once honoured by the temporary residence of Henrietta Maria, queen to Charles I. Theobald has given an inaccurate account of this, as if she had been obliged to take refuge in Stratford from the rebels; but that was not the case. She marched from Newark, June 16, 1643, and entered Stratford triumphantly about the 22d of the same month, at the head of 3000 foot and 1,500 horse, with 150 waggons and a train of artillery. Here she was met by prince Rupert, accompanied by a large body of troops. She resided about three weeks at our poet's house, which was then possessed by his grand-daughter, Mrs. Nash, and her husband.

During Shakspeare's abode in this house, his pleasurable wit, and good-nature, says Mr. Rowe, engaged him the acquaintance, and entitled him to the friendship of the gentlemen of the neighbourhood. This may readily be believed, for he was entitled to their respect. He had left his native place, poor, and almost unknown. He returned ennobled by fame, and enriched by fortune.

Mr. Rowe gives us a traditional story of a miser, or usurer, named Combe, who, in conversation with Shakspeare, said, he fancied the poet intended to write his epitaph if he should survive him, and desired to know what he meant to say. On this Shakspeare gave him the following, probably extempore:

"Ten in the hundred lies here engrav'd,

""Tis an hundred to ten his soul is not sav'd; "If any man ask, who lies in this tombe?

"Oh! ho! quoth the devil, 'tis my John-a-Combe." The sharpness of the satire is said to have stung the man so severely that he never forgave it. These lines, however, or some which nearly resembled them, appeared in various collections, both before and after the time they were said to have been composed; and the inquiries of Mr. Steevens and Mr. Malone satisfactorily prove that the whole story is a fabrication. Betterton is said to have heard it when he visited Warwickshire on purpose to collect anecdotes of our poet, and probably thought it of too much importance to be nicely examined. We know not whether it be worth adding of a story which we

5) "As the curiosity of this house and tree brought much "fame, and more company and profit to the town, a certain "man; on some disgust, has pulled the house down, so as "not to leave one stone upon another, and cut down the "tree, and piled it as a stack of firewood, to the great vex “ation, loss, and disappointment of the inhabitants; how"ever, an honest silversmith bought the whole stack of "wood, and makes many odd things of this wood for the "curious." Letter in Annual Register, 1760. Of Mr. Gastrell and his Lady, see Boswell's Life of Dr. Johnson, vol. il. p. 456. edit. 1822. 4 vol.

Steevens, however, treats it with the utmost con- || productions, we should be apt to conclude, either tempt, but does not perhaps argue with his usual attention to experience when he brings sir William Davenant's "heavy, vulgar, unmeaning face," as a proof that he could not be Shakspeare's son.

In the year 1741 a monument was erected to our poet in Westminster Abbey, by the direction of the earl of Burlington, Dr. Mead, Mr. Pope, and Mr. Martyn. It was the work of Scheemaker, (who received 3001. for it,) after a design of Kent, and was opened in January of that year, one hundred and twenty-five years after the death of him whom it commemorates, and whose genius appears to have been forgotten during almost the whole of that long period. The performers of each of the London theatres gave a benefit to defray the expences, and the dean and chapter of Westminster took nothing for the ground. The money received by the performance at Drury-lane theatre amounted to above 2001., but the receipts at Covent-garden did not exceed 100%. From these imperfect notices, which are all we have been able to collect from the labours of his biographers and commentators, our readers will perceive that less is known of Shakspeare than of almost any writer who has been considered as an object of laudable curiosity. Nothing could be more highly gratifying than an account of the early studies of this wonderful man, the progress of his pen, his moral and social qualities, his friendships, his failings, and whatever else constitutes personal history. But on all these topics his contemporaries and his immediate successors have been equally silent, and if aught can be hereafter discovered, it || must be by exploring sources which have hitherto escaped the anxious researches of those who have devoted their whole lives, and their most vigorous || talents, to revive his memory and illustrate his writings. In the sketch we have given, if the dates of his birth and death be excepted, what is there on which the reader can depend, or for which, if he contend eagerly, he may not be involved in controversy, and perplexed with contradictory opinions and authorities?

It is usually said that the life of an author can be little else than a history of his works; but this opinion is liable to many exceptions. If an author, indeed, has passed his days in retirement, his life can afford little more variety than that of any other man who has lived in retirement; but if, as is generally the case with writers of great celebrity, he has acquired a pre-eminence over his contemporaries, if he has excited rival contentions, and defeated the attacks of criticism or of malignity, or if he has plunged into the controversies of his age, and performed the part either of a tyrant or a hero in literature, his history may be rendered as interesting as that of any other public character. But whatever weight may be allowed to this remark, the decision will not be of much consequence in the case of Shakspeare. Unfortunately, we know as little of his writings as of his personal history. The industry of his illustrators for the last fifty years is such as, probably, never was surpassed in the annals of literary investigation; yet so far are we from information of the conclusive or satisfactory kind, that even the order in which his plays were written rests principally on conjecture, and of some plays usually printed among his works, it is not yet determined whether he wrote the whole or any part. Much of our ignorance of every thing which it would be desirable to know respecting Shakspeare's works, must be imputed to the author himself. If we look merely at the state in which he left his

that he was insensible of their value, or that while he was the greatest, he was at the same time the humblest dramatic writer the world ever produced: "that he thought his works unworthy of posterity, "that_he_levied no ideal tribute upon future times, "nor had any further prospect than that of present "popularity and present profit." 8) And such an opinion, although it apparently partakes of the ease and looseness of conjecture, may not be far from probability. But before we allow it any higher merit, or attempt to decide upon the affection or indifference with which he reviewed his labours, it may be necessary to consider their precise nature, and certain circumstances in his situation which affected them; and, above all, we must take into our account the character and predominant occupations of the time in which he lived, and of that which followed his decease.

With respect to himself, it does not appear that he printed any one of his plays, and only eleven of them were printed in his life-time. The reason assigned for this is, that he wrote them for a particular theatre, sold them to the managers when only an actor, reserved them in manuscript when himself a manager, and when he disposed of his property in the theatre, they were still preserved in manuscript to prevent their being acted by the rival houses. Copies of some of them appear to have been surreptitiously obtained, and published in a very incorrect state; but we may suppose that it was wiser in the author or managers to overlook this fraud, than to publish a correct edition, and so destroy the exclusive property they enjoyed. It is clear therefore that any publication of his plays by himself would have interfered, at first with his own interest, and afterwards with the interest of those to whom he made over his share in them. But even bad this obstacle been removed, we are not sure that he would have gained much by publication. If he had no other copies but those belonging to the theatre, the business of correction for the press must have been a toil which we are afraid the taste of the public at that time would have very poorly rewarded. We know not the exact portion of fame he enjoyed; it might be the highest which dramatic genius could confer, but dramatic genius was a new excellence, and not well understood. His claims were, probably, not heard beyond the jurisdiction of the master of the revels, certainly not much beyond the metropolis. When he died, the English public was approaching to a period in which matters of higher moment were to engage attention, and in which his works were nearly buried in oblivion, and not for more than a century afterwards, ranked among the productions of which the nation had reason to be proud.

Such, however, was Shakspeare's reputation, that we are told his name was put to pieces which he never wrote, and that he felt himself too confident of popular favour to undeceive the public. This was a singular resolution in a man who wrote so unequally, that even at this day, the test of internal evidence must be applied to his doubtful productions with the greatest caution. But still how far his character would have been elevated by an examination of his plays in the closet, in an age when the refinements of criticism were not understood, and the sympathies of taste were seldom felt, may admit of a question. "His language," says Dr. Johnson, "not being designed for the reader's desk,

8) Dr. Johnson's Preface.

"was all that he desired it to be if it conveyed his || listened to with veneration, and usually inveighed "meaning to the audience. against all public amusements, as inconsistent with the Christian profession. These controversies continued during the reign of James I., and were in a considerable degree promoted by him, although he,

appendage to the grandeur and pleasures of the court. But the commotions which followed in the unhappy reign of king Charles I., when the stage was totally abolished, are alone sufficient to account for the oblivion thrown on the history and works of our great bard.

Shakspeare died in 1616, and seven years afterwards appeared the first edition of his plays, published at the charge of four booksellers; a circumstance from which Mr. Malone infers, "that no sin-like Elizabeth, was a favourer of the stage, as an "gle publisher was at that time willing to risk his "money on a complete collection of our author's "plays." This edition was printed from the copies in the hands of his fellow-managers Heminge and Condell, which had been in a series of years frequently altered through convenience, caprice, or ignorance. Heminge and Condell had now retired from the stage, and, we may suppose, thought they were guilty of no injury to their successors, in printing what their own interest only had formerly withheld. Of this, although we have no documents amounting to demonstration, we may be convinced, by adverting to a circumstance, which will, in our days, appear very extraordinary, namely, the declension of Shakspeare's popularity. We have seen that the publication of his works was accounted a doubtful speculation; and it is yet more certain, so much had the public taste turned from him in quest of variety, that for several years after his death the plays of Fletcher were more frequently acted than his, and during the whole of the seventeenth century they were made to give place to performances, the greater part of which cannot now be endured. During the same period only four editions of his works were published, all in folio; and perhaps this unwieldy size of volume may be an additional proof that they were not popular; nor is it thought that the impressions were numerous.

||

From this time no inquiry was made, until it was too late to obtain any information more satisfactory than the few hearsay scraps and contested traditions above detailed. "How little," says Mr. Steevens, "Shakspeare was once read, may be understood "from Tate, who, in his dedication to the altered "play of King Lear, speaks of the original as an "obscure piece, recommended to his notice by a "friend: and the author of the Tatler having oc"casion to quote a few lines out of Macbeth, was "content to receive them from D'Avenant's alteration "of that celebrated drama, in which almost every "original beauty is either awkwardly disguised, or "arbitrarily omitted." ")

In fifty years after his death, Dryden mentions, that he was then become "a little obsolete." In the beginning of the last century, Lord Shaftesbury complains of his "rude unpolished style, and his an"tiquated phrase and wit." It is certain that, for nearly a hundred years after his death, partly owing to the immediate revolution and rebellion, and partly to the licentious taste encouraged in Charles the These circumstances, which attach to our author Second's time, and perhaps partly to the incorrect and to his works, must be allowed a plausible weight state of his works, he was almost entirely neglected. in accounting for our deficiencies in his biography || Mr. Malone has justly remarked, "that if he had and literary career, but there were circumstances "been read, admired, studied, and imitated, in the enough in the history of the times to suspend the "same degree, as he is now, the enthusiasm of some progress of that more regular drama of which he "one or other of his admirers in the last age would had set the example, and may be considered as the "have induced him to make some inquiries concernfounder. If we wonder why we know so much less "ing the history of his theatrical career, and the of Shakspeare than of his contemporaries, let us "anecdotes of his private life." 10) recollect that his genius, however highly and justly we now rate it, took a direction which was not calculated for permanent admiration either in the age in which he lived, or in that which followed. Shakspeare was a writer of plays, a promoter of an amusement just emerging from barbarism; and|| an amusement which, although it has been classed among the schools of morality, has ever had such || a strong tendency to deviate from moral purposes, that the force of law has in all ages been called in to preserve it within the bounds of common decency. The church has ever been unfriendly to the stage. A part of the injunctions of queen Elizabeth is particularly directed against the printing of plays; and, according to an entry in the books of the Stationers' Company, in the 41st year of her reign, it is or- || dered, that no plays be printed except allowed by persons in authority. Dr. Farmer also remarks, that in that age poetry and novels were destroyed publicly by the bishops, and privately by the puritans. The main transactions, indeed, of that period could || not admit of much attention to matters of amusement. The Reformation required all the circumspection and policy of a long reign to render it so firmly established in popular favour as to brave the caprice of any succeeding sovereign. This was effected in a great measure by the diffusion of religious controversy, which was encouraged by the church, and especially by the puritans, who were || the immediate teachers of the lower classes, were

His admirers, however, if he had admirers in that age, possessed no portion of such enthusiasm. That curiosity, which in our days has raised biography to the rank of an independent study, was scarcely known, and where known, was confined principally to the public transactions of eminent characters, principally divines, of whom a few brief notices were prefixed to their works; but we are not sure that any of these are of an older date than || 1616. And if, in addition to the circumstances already stated, we consider how little is known of the personal history of Shakspeare's contemporaries, we may easily resolve the question, why, of all men who have ever claimed admiration by genius, wisdom, or valour, who have eminently contributed to enlarge the taste, promote the happiness, or increase the reputation of their country, we know the least of Shakspeare; and why, of the few particulars which seem entitled to credit, when simply related, and in which there is no manifest violation of probability or promise of importance, there is scarcely one which has not swelled into a controversy. After a careful examination of all that modern research has discovered, we know not how to trust our curiosity beyond the limits of those barren dates which afford no personal history. The nature of Shak

9) Mr. Steevens's Advertisement to the Reader, first printed in 1773.

10) Mr. Malone's Preface to his edition, 1790.