in common with any other association is not so clear; but we learn from Henslowe's Diary, that in 1594, and perhaps at an earlier date, the company of which Shakespeare was a member had played at a theatre in Newington Butts, where the Lord Admiral's servants also exhibited. At this period of our stage-history the performances usually began at three o'clock in the afternoon; for the citizens transacted their business and dined early, and many of them afterwards walked out into the fields for recreation, often visiting such theatres as were opened purposely for their reception. Henslowe's Diary shows that the Lord Chamberlain's and the Lord Admiral's servants had joint possession of the Newington theatre from 3d June 1594, to the 15th November, 1596; and during that period various pieces were performed, which in their titles resemble plays which unquestionably came from Shakespeare's pen. That none of these were productions by our great dramatist, it is, of course, impossible to affirm; but the strong probability seems to be, that they were older dramas, of which he subsequently, more or less, availed himself. Among these was a "Hamlet," acted on 9th June, 1594: a "Taming of a Shrew," acted on 11th June, 1594; an "Andronicus," acted on 12th June, 1594; a "Venetian Comedy," acted on 12th Aug. 1594; a "Cæsar and Pompey," acted 8th Nov. 1594; a "Second Part of Cæsar," acted 26th June, 1595; a "Henry V.," acted on 28th Nov. 1595; and a "Troy," acted on the 22d June, 1596. To these we might add a "Palamon and Arcite," (acted on 17th Sept. 1594) if we suppose Shakespeare to have had any hand in writing "The Two Noble Kinsmen;" and an "Antony and Vallea," (acted on the 20th June, 1595) as it is called in the barbarous record, which may possibly have had some connexion with "Antony and

theatre, as if his presence were necessary for the superintendence of the concern, although he had been an actor at the Blackfriars for many years, and at the Globe ever since its erection.

Cleopatra." We have no reason to think that Shakespeare did not aid in these representations, although he was, perhaps, too much engaged with the duties of authorship, at this date, to take a very busy or prominent part as an actor.

The fact that the Lord Chamberlain's players acted at Newington until November, 1596, may appear to militate against our notion that the Globe was finished and ready for performances in the spring of 1595; and it is very possible that the construction occupied more time than we have imagined. Malone was of opinion that the Globe might have been opened .even in 15943; but we postpone that event until the following year, because we think the time too short, and because, unless it were entirely completed early in 1594, it would not be required, inasmuch as the company for which it was built seem to have acted at the Blackfriars in the winter. Our notion is, that, even after the Globe was finished, the Lord Chamberlain's servants now and then performed at Newington in the summer, because audiences, having been accustomed to expect them there, assembled for the purpose, and the players did not think it prudent to relinquish the emolument thus to be obtained. The performances at Newington, we may presume, did not however interfere with the representations at the Globe. If any members of the company had continued to play at Newington after November 1596, we should, no doubt, have found some trace of it in Henslowe's Diary.

Another reason for thinking that the Globe was opened in the spring of 1595 is, that very soon afterwards the sharers in that enterprise commenced the repair and enlargement of their theatre in the Blackfriars, which had been in constant use for twenty years. Of this proceeding we shall have occasion to say more presently.

3 Inquiry into the Authenticity, &c. p. 87.

We may feel assured that the important incident of the opening of a new theatre on the Bankside, larger than any that then stood in that or in other parts of the town, was celebrated by the production of a new play. Considering his station and duties in the company, and his popularity as a dramatist, we may be confident also that the new play was written by Shakespeare. In the imperfect state of our information, it would be vain to speculate which of his dramas was brought out on the occasion; but if the reader will refer to our several Introductions, he will see which of the plays, according to such evidence as we are acquainted with, may appear in his view to have the best claim to the distinction. Many years ago we were strongly inclined to think that "Henry V." was the piece the Globe was round, and the "wooden O" is most pointedly mentioned in that drama; so that at all events we are satisfied that it was acted in that theatre: there is also a nationality about the subject, and a popularity in the treatment of it, which would render it peculiarly appropriate; but on farther reflection and information, we are unwillingly convinced that "Henry V." was not written until some years afterwards. We frankly own, therefore, that we are not in a condition to offer an opinion upon the question, and we are disposed, where we can, to refrain even from conjecture, when we have no ground on which to rest a speculation.

Allowing about fifteen months for the erection and completion of the Globe, we may believe that it was in full operation in the spring, summer, and autumn of 1595. On the approach of cold weather, the company would of course return to their winter quarters in the Blackfriars, which was enclosed, lighted from within, and comparatively warm. This theatre, as we have stated, at this date had been in constant use for twenty years, and early in 1596 the sharers directed their

attention to the extensive repair, enlargement, and, possibly, entire re-construction of the building. The evidence that they entertained such a design is very decisive; and we may perhaps infer, that the prosperity of their new experiment at the Globe encouraged them to this outlay. On the 9th Jan. 1596 (1595, according to the then mode of calculating the year) Lord Hunsdon, who was Lord Chamberlain at the time, but who died about six months afterwards, wrote to Sir William More, expressing a wish to take a house of him in the Blackfriars, and adding that he had heard that Sir William More had parted with a portion of his own residence "to some that mean to make a playhouse of it."

The truth, no doubt, was, that in consequence of their increased popularity, owing, we may readily imagine, in a great degree to the success of the plays Shakespeare had produced, the company which had occupied the Blackfriars theatre found that their house was too small for their audiences, and wished to enlarge it; but it appears rather singular that Lord Hunsdon, the Lord Chamberlain, should not be at all aware of the intention of the players acting under the sanction of his name and office, and should only have heard that some persons "meant to make a playhouse" of part of Sir William More's residence. We have not a copy of the whole of Lord Hunsdon's letter-only an abstract of it which reads as if the Lord Chamberlain did not even know that there was any theatre at all in the Blackfriars. Two documents in the State Paper Office, and a third preserved at Dulwich College, enable us to state distinctly what was the object of the actors at the Blackfriars in 1596. The first of these is a representation from certain inhabitants of the precinct in which the playhouse was situated, not only against the

* See "The Loseley Manuscripts," by A. J. Kempe, Esq., 8vo. 1835, p. 496 a very curious and interesting collection of original documents.

completion of the work of repair and enlargement, then commenced, but against all farther performances in the theatre.

Of this paper it is not necessary for our purpose to say more; but the answer to it, on the part of the association of actors, is a very valuable relic, inasmuch as it gives the names of the eight players who were the proprietors of the theatre or its appurtenances, that of Shakespeare being fifth in the list. It will not have been forgotten, that in 1589 no fewer than sixteen sharers were enumerated, and that then Shakespeare's name was the twelfth; but it did not by any means. follow, that because there were sixteen sharers in the receipts, they were also proprietors of the building, properties, or wardrobe: in 1596 it is stated that Thomas Pope, (from whose will we have already given an extract) Richard Burbage, John Hemings, (properly spelt Heminge) Augustine Phillips, William Shakespeare, William Kempe, (who withdrew from the company in 1601) William Slye, and Nicholas Tooley, were "owners" of the theatre, as well as sharers in the profits arising out of the performances. The fact, however, seems to be that the sole owner of the edifice in which plays were represented, the proprietor of the freehold, was Richard Burbage, who inherited it from his father, and transmitted it to his sons; but as a body, the parties addressing the privy council (for the

66

petition" appears to have been sent thither) might in a certain sense call themselves owners of, as well as sharers in, the Blackfriars theatre. We insert the document in a note, observing merely, that, like many others of a similar kind, it is without signatures.

5" To the right honourable the Lords of her Majesties most honourable Privie Councell.

"The humble petition of Thomas Pope, Richard Burbage, John Hemings, Augustine Phillips, William Shakespeare, William Kempe, William Slye, Nicholas Tooley, and others, servaunts to the Right Honorable the Lord Chamberlaine to her Majestie.

"Sheweth