THE Poet retained his interest in theatricals, and spent muck, perhaps the most, of his time in London, for several years after ceasing to be an actor. The Rev. John Ward, who became vicar of Stratford-on-Avon in 1662, tells us, in a passage to be quoted more fully hereafter, that Shakespeare "frequented the plays all his younger time, but in his elder days lived at Stratford, and supplied the stage with two plays every year." That the vicar's information was in all points literally correct, is not at all likely; but there can be no doubt that Shakespeare continued to write for the stage after his retirement from it; and that, though for some years spending a large part of his time in the metropolis, he nevertheless "lived at Stratford."

Our previous reckonings have left eight of his plays to be set down as the dramatic fruits of his retirement. Of these, Macbeth was probably written in 1605 or 1606, though we have no certain notice of it till April, 1610, when Forman saw it performed at the Globe. An entry at the Stationers' ascertains that King Lear was acted before the King at Whitehall on the 26th of December, 1606. That mighty

Shakespeare. Little, or much of what we see, we do;

We are both actors and spectators too.

Ben Jonson and Shakespeare were once at a tavern-club where there were several lords from the Court, who came to hear their wit and conversation. Shakespeare call'd upon Ben Jonson to give a toast; he nam'd that lord's wife, who sat near him the nobleman demanded why he nam'd her. Why not?" replied the Poet; "she has the qualifications of a toast, being both brown and dry" which answer made them all laugh, his lordship having been obliged to marry her against his inclinations.

6.

success.

drama was then, most likely, fresh from the Poet's hand. Three editions of it were made, evidently without the author's consent, in 1608; and the manner in which his name was printed shows that his reputation was still on the increase. The first probable information that we have of Antony and Cleopatra is by an entry at the Stationers' in May, 1608. The texture of the workmanship is such as to infer that this wonderful play was then in its first transports of We learn from Forman's Diary, that Cymbeline was performed some time between April, 1610, and May, 1611, the precise date not being given. The same Diary notes the performance of The Winter's Tale on the 15th of May, 1611; while the accounts of the Master of the Revels show that The Tempest and The Winter's Tale were acted at Whitehall by "the King's players," on the 1st and 5th of November, 1611. King Henry VIII. is not heard of till the burning of the Globe theatre, June 29th, 1613, when it is spoken of as "a new play." The only remaining one is Coriolanus, which is not heard of at all till after the Poet's death: nor has the play itself any allusions whereon to ground a probable inference or argument as to when it was written; though we have little doubt that it grew into being not far from the same time as King Henry VIII.; whether before or after, we cannot even conjecture.

Besides these eight plays written within the period in question, it is highly probable that several of the others were revised. Troilus and Cressida went through two editions in 1609, and in an address prefixed to the first of them the publisher as good as acknowledges the copy to have been stolen. He also calls it "a new play never stal'd with the stage;" but as he pretty much owns himself a thief, or at least a partaker in the fruits of theft; and as a "Troilus and Cressida, as it is acted by my Lord Chamberlain's men," was entered at the Stationers' in February, 1603; the probability is, that he either said what he knew to be false, or else that the play had then been newly rewritten. Pericles,

aiso, was printed in 1609, having been entered at the Stationers' along with Antony and Cleopatra, in May, 1608. That some parts of this play were rewritten at or about that time, is hardly questionable. Nor can we easily believe that the Poet could have put into Othello all the power it now has, so early as 1602. The same year, also, the Sonnets, for the first time, appeared in print. These, we have no doubt, were written at widely different times, and without any continuity of purpose or occasion; some of them, indeed, as expressions of personal feeling, but most of them merely as exercises of fancy or specimens of art. All these points are but touched here, being dwelt upon at length in our several Introductions.

It would seem, that after this time the Poet's reputation did not mount any higher during his life. A new generation of dramatists was then rising into favour, who, with some excellences derived from him, united gross vices of their own, which, however, were well adapted to captivate the popular taste. Moreover, King James himself, notwithstanding his liberality of patronage, was essentially a man of loose morals and low tastes; and it can scarce be doubted that his taking so much to Shakespeare at first grew more from the public voice than from his own preference. Before the Poet's death, we may trace the beginnings of that corruption which, rather stimulated than discouraged by puritan bigotry and fanaticism, reached its height some seventy years later; though its course was for a while arrested by the influence and example of that truly royal gentleman and scholar, King Charles the First, who, whatever else may be said of him, was unquestionably a man of as high and elegant tastes in literature and art, as England could boast of in his time. His mind had taken its first and deepest impressions from that older school, and the good seed had been sown in a pure and generous soil.

The next that we hear of Shakespeare as having a hand m stage-affairs, is in connection with an attempt to dislodge

the Blackfriars theatre. The London authorities had always been hostile to that establishment, which was but a little over the acknowledged line of their jurisdiction. It seems they had applied to Sir Henry Montague, then Attorney-General, who sustained their claim of jurisdiction in that precinct. The question appears to have come in some shape before Lord Chancellor Ellesmere, who required proofs of their right; but, such proof as they brought being deemed insufficient by the highest judicial authority, the case went against them. Unable to oust the concern by legal means, the city authorities, it appears, then undertook to buy it up. With a view to this purchase, an estimate was drafted of the several interests held in the establishment; which draft, or a copy of it, has lately been found among the Ellesmere papers.

From this document it appears that the whole property, besides the freehold and furnishings, was divided into twenty shares, each of which was alleged to yield an annual profit of £33 6s. 8d. Reckoning these profits at seven years' puichase, they made the value of each share £233 6s. 8d. Burbage owned the freehold, which he rated at £1000, and four shares ; the whole amounting to £1933 6s. 8d. Shakespeare held the wardrobe and furniture, which he rated at £500, and four shares; £1433 6s. 8d.: Fletcher, three shares; £700: Heminge and Condell, two shares each; £933 6s. 8d.: Taylor and Lowin, each a share and a half; £700: four others, each half a share; £466 13s. 4d.: in all, £6166 13s. 4d. The estimate concludes thus: "Moreover, the hired men of the company demand some recompence for their great loss, and the widows and orphans of players, who are paid by the sharers at divers rates and proportions; so as in the whole it will cost the Lord Mayor and the citizens at least £7000."

In connection with this attempt, we have another most interesting paper, likewise found not long since in the Ellesmere collection. It purports to be a transcript of a letter

written by the Earl of Southampton to some nobleman, in behalf of the players interested in the Blackfriars, generally, and of Shakespeare and Burbage in particular. Mr. Collier, to whom we owe the discovery of it, remarks upon it as follows: "We may conclude that the original was not ad dressed to Lord Ellesmere, or it would have been found in the depository of his papers, and not merely a transcript of it; but a copy may have been furnished to the Lord Chancellor, in order to give him some information respecting the characters of the parties upon whose cause he was called upon to decide. That it was not sent to him by Lord Southampton, who probably was acquainted with him, may afford a proof of the delicacy of the Earl's mind, who would not seem directly to interpose while a question of the sort was pending before a judge." The paper is without date, but the contents preclude any doubt as to the occasion which elicited it. We subjoin it in full, merely adding that it has Copia vera written at the bottom:

1

"My very honoured Lord: The many good offices I have received at your Lordships' hands, which ought to make me backward in asking further favours, only imboldeneth me to require more in the same kind. Your Lordship will be warned how hereafter you grant any suit, seeing it draweth on more and greater demands.

"This which now presseth is to request your Lordship, in all you can, to be good to the poor players of the Blackfriars, who call themselves by authority the servants of his Majesty, and ask for the protection of their most gracious master and sovereign in this the time of their trouble. They

1 Mr. Knight seems to think it strange that a copia vera should want date and signature, but there is nothing very remarkable in such a circumstance. In the Library of the Society of Antiquaries, No. 201, Art. 3, is preserved "a copye of the comyssion of sewers in the countye of Kent," marked as vera copia, and, singularly enough, written apparently by the same hand that copied the letter of H. S.-HALLIWELL..