the King's players persisted in acting it; in consequence of which three of the players were arrested, (their names are not given) but the author made his escape. These two dramas were printed in 1608, and again in 1625; and looking through them, we are at a loss to discover anything, beyond the historical incidents, which could have given offence; but the truth certainly is, that all the objectionable portions were omitted in the press: there can be no doubt, on the authority of the despatch from the French ambassador to his court, that one of the dramas originally contained a scene in which the Queen of France and Mademoiselle Verneuil were introduced, the former, after having abused her, giving the latter a box on the ear.

This information was conveyed to Paris under the date of the 5th April, 1606; and the French ambassador, apparently in order to make his court acquainted with the lawless character of dramatic performances at that date in England, adds a very singular paragraph, proving that the King's players, only a few days before they had brought the Queen of France upon the stage, had not hesitated to introduce upon the same boards their own reigning sovereign in a most unseemly manner, making him swear violently, and beat a gentleman for interfering with his known propensity for the chase. This course indicates a most extraordinary degree of boldness on the part of the players; but, nevertheless, they were not prohibited from acting, until M. Beaumont had directed the attention of the public authorities to the insult offered to the Queen of France then, an order was issued putting a stop to the acting of all plays in London; but, according to the same authority, the companies had clubbed their money, and, attacking James I. on his weak side, had offered a large sum to be allowed to continue their performances. The French ambassador himself apprehended

that the appeal to the King's pecuniary wants would be effectual, and that permission, under certain restrictions, would not long be withheld'.

Whatever emoluments Shakespeare had derived from the Blackfriars or the Globe theatres, as an actor merely, we may be tolerably certain he relinquished when he ceased to perform. He would thus be able to devote more of his time to dramatic composition, and, as he continued a sharer in the two undertakings, perhaps his income on the whole was not much lessened. Certain it is, that in 1605 he was in possession of a considerable sum, which he was anxious to invest advantageously in property in or near the place of his birth. Whatever may have been the circumstances under which he quitted Stratford, he always seems to have contemplated a permanent return thither, and kept his eyes constantly turned in the direction of his birth-place. As long before as January, 1598, he had been advised "to deal in the matter of tithes" of Stratford; but perhaps at that date, having recently pur

2 We derive these very curious and novel particulars from M. Von Raumer's "History of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries," translated by Lord Francis Egerton, vol. ii. p. 219. The terms are worth quoting.

April 5, 1606. I caused certain players to be forbid from acting the History of the Duke of Biron: when, however, they saw that the whole court had left town, they persisted in acting it; nay, they brought upon the stage the Queen of France and Mademoiselle Verneuil. The former, having first accosted the latter with very hard words, gave her a box on the ear. At my suit three of them were arrested; but the principal person, the author, escaped.

"One or two days before, they had brought forward their own King and all his favorites in a very strange fashion: they made him curse and swear because he had been robbed of a bird, and beat a gentleman because he had called off the hounds from the scent. They represent him as drunk at least once a-day, &c.

"He has upon this made order, that no play shall be henceforth acted in London; for the repeal of which order they have already offered 100,000 livres. Perhaps the permission will be again granted, but upon condition that they represent no recent history, nor speak of the present time."

3 In a letter from a resident in Stratford of the name of Abraham Sturley. It was originally published by Boswell (vol. ii. p. 566) at length, but the only part which relates to Shakespeare runs thus: we have not thought it necessary to preserve the uncouth abbreviations of the original.

"This is one special remembrance of your father's motion. It seemeth by him that our countriman, Mr. Shakespeare, is willing to disburse some money upon

chased New Place, he was not in sufficient funds for the purpose, or possibly the party in possession of the lease of the tithes, though not unwilling to dispose of it, required more than it was deemed worth. At all events, nothing was done on the subject for more than six years; but on 24th July, 1605, we find William Shakespeare, who is described as "of Stratfordupon-Avon, gentleman," executing an indenture for the purchase of the unexpired term of a long lease of the great tithes of "corn, grain, blade, and hay," and of the small tithes of "wool, lamb, and other small and privy tithes, herbage, oblations," &c., in Stratford, Old Stratford, Bishopton, and Welcombe, in the county of Warwick. The vendor was Raphe Huband, of Ippesley, Esquire; and from the draft of the deed, now before us1, we learn that the original lease, dated as far back as 1539, was "for four score and twelve years;" so that in 1605 it had still twenty-six years to run, and for this our great dramatist agreed to pay 440/.: by the receipt, contained in the same deed, it appears that he paid the whole of the money before it was executed by the parties. He might very fitly be described as of Stratford-upon-Avon, because he had there not only a substantial settled residence for his family, but he was the owner of considerable property, both in land and houses, in the town and neighbourhood; and he had been before so described in 1602, when he bought the 107 acres of William and John Combe, which he annexed to his dwelling of New Place.

A spurious edition of "Hamlet" having been pub

some od yardeland or other at Shottery, or near about us: he thinketh it a very fitt patterne to move him to deale in the matter of our tithes. By the instructions you can give him theareof, and by the frendes he can make therefore, we thinke it a faire marke for him to shoote at, and not unpossible to hitt. It obtained would advance him in deede, and would do us much good." The terms of this letter prove that Shakespeare's townsmen were of opinion that he was desirous of advancing himself among the inhabitants of Stratford.

4 It is about to be printed entire by the Shakespeare Society, to the council of which it has been handed over by the owner for the purpose.

lished in 1603, a more authentic copy came out in the next year, containing much that had been omitted, and more that had been grossly disfigured and misrepresented. We do not believe that Shakespeare, individually, had anything to do with this second and more correct impression, and we doubt much whether it was authorized by the company, which seems at all times to have done its utmost to prevent the appearance of plays in print, lest to a certain extent the public curiosity should thereby be satisfied.

The point is, of course, liable to dispute, but we have little doubt that "Henry VIII." was represented very soon after the accession of James I., to whom and to whose family it contains a highly complimentary allusion; and "Macbeth," having perhaps been written in 1605, we suppose to have been produced at the Globe in the spring of 1606. Although it related to Scottish annals, it was not like the play of "Gowry's Conspiracy" (mentioned by Chamberlaine at the close of 1603), founded, to use Von Raumer's words, upon "recent history;" and instead of running the slightest risk of giving offence, many of the sentiments and allusions it contained, especially that to the "two-fold balls and treble sceptres," in Act iv. scene 1, must have been highly acceptable to the King. It has been supposed, upon the authority of Sheffield Duke of Buckingham, that King James with his own hand wrote a letter to Shakespeare in return for the compliment paid to him in "Macbeth" the Duke of Buckingham is said to have had Davenant's evidence for this anecdote, which was first told in print in the advertisement to Lintot's edition of Shakespeare's Poems in 1710.

5 The only copy of this impression is in the library of his Grace the Duke of Devonshire, and we have employed it to a certain extent in settling and explaining the text of the tragedy. See the Introduction to "Hamlet," Vol. vii. P. 191.

That the story came through the Duke of Buckingham, from Davenant, seems to have been a conjectural addition by Oldys: the words in Lintot's advertisement are these:-"That most learned Prince, and great patron of

Rowe says nothing of it in his "Life," either in 1709 or 1714, so that, at all events, he did not adopt it; and it seems very improbable that James I. should have so far condescended, and very probable that the writer of Lintot's advertisement should not have been very scrupulous. We may conjecture, that a privy seal under the sign manual, (then the usual form of proceeding) granting to the King's players some extraordinary reward on the occasion, has been misrepresented as a private letter from the King to the dramatist.

Malone speculated that "Macbeth" had been played before King James and the King of Denmark, (who arrived in England on 6th July, 1606) but we have not a particle of testimony to establish that a tragedy relating to the assassination of a monarch by an ambitious vassal was ever represented at court: we should be surprised to discover any proof of the kind, because such incidents seem usually to have been carefully avoided.

The eldest daughter of William and Anne Shakespeare, Susanna, having been born in May, 1583, was rather more than twenty-four years old when she was married, on 5th June, 1607, to Mr. John Hall, of Stratford, who is styled "gentleman" in the register', but he was a professor of medicine, and subsequently practised as a physician. There appears to have been no reason on any side for opposing the match, and we may conjecture that the ceremony was performed in the presence of our great dramatist, during one of his summer excursions to his native town. About six months afterwards he lost his brother Edmunds,

learning, King James the First, was pleased with his own hand to write an amicable letter to Mr. Shakespeare; which letter, though now lost, remained long in the hands of Sir William Davenant, as a credible person now living can testify.” Dr. Farmer was the first to give currency to the notion, that the compliment to the Stuart family in "Macbeth" was the occasion of the letter. 7 The terms are these:

“1607. Junii 5. John Hall gentlemā & Susanna Shaxspere.”

* He was buried at St. Saviour's, Southwark, in the immediate vicinity of the