rities to jurisdiction in the Blackfriars, it is not impossible that Shakespeare may have had an interview with Lord Ellesmere, who seems at all times to have been of a very accessible and kindly disposition. Greene was in London on the 17th November, and sent to Stratford a short account of his proceedings on the question of the inclosure, in which he mentioned that he had seen Shakespeare and Mr. Hall (probably meaning Shakespeare's son-in-law) on the preceding day, who told him that they thought nothing would be done2. Greene returned to Stratford soon afterwards, and having left our poet in London, at the instance of the corporation, he subsequently wrote two letters, one to Shakespeare, and the other to Mainwaring, (the latter only has been preserved) setting forth in strong terms the injury the inclosure would do to Stratford, and the heavy loss the inhabitants had not long before sustained from the fire. A petition was also prepared and presented to the privy council, and we may gather that the opposition was effectual, because nothing was done in the business: the common fields of Welcombe, which it had been intended to inclose, remained open for pasture as before.

How soon after the matter relating to the inclosure had been settled Shakespeare returned to Stratford,

2 The memorandum of the contents of his letter (to which we have already referred on p. ccxliii) is in these terms, avoiding abbreviations:

"Jovis, 17 No. My cosen Shakespeare comyng yesterday, I went to see him, how he did. He told me that they assured him they ment to inclose no further than to Gospel bush, and so upp straight (leaving out part of the Dyngles to the field) to the gate in Clopton hedg, and take in Salisburys peece; and that they mean in Aprill to survey the land, and then to gyve satisfaction, and not before: and he and Mr. Hall say they think there will be nothyng done at all."

In what way, or in what degree, Shakespeare and Greene were related, so that the latter should call the former his "cousin," must remain a matter of speculation; but it will be recollected that the parish register of Stratford shows that "Thomas Greene, alias Shakespeare," was buried on 6th March, 1589-90. See p. cii. Whether Thomas Greene, the solicitor, was any relation to Thomas Greene, the actor, we have no means of ascertaining.

how long he remained there, or whether he ever came to London again, we are without information. He was very possibly in the metropolis at the time when a narrative poem, founded in part upon his historical play of "Richard III.," was published, and which until now has escaped observation, although it contains the clearest allusion, not indeed by name, to our author and to his tragedy. It is called "The Ghost of Richard the Third," and it bears date in 1614; but the writer, C. B., only gives his initials3. We know of no poet of that day to whom they would apply, excepting Charles Best, who has several pieces in Davison's "Poetical Rhapsody," 1602, but he has left nothing behind him to indicate that he would be capable of a work of such power and variety. It is divided into three portions, the "Character," the "Legend," and the "Tragedy" of Richard III.; and the second part opens with the following stanzas, which show the high estimate the writer had formed of the genius of Shakespeare: they are extremely interesting as a contemporaneous tribute. Richard, narrating his own history, thus speaks:

"To him that impt my fame with Clio's quill,
Whose magick rais'd me from Oblivion's den,
That writ my storie on the Muses hill,
And with my actions dignified his pen ;

He that from Helicon sends many a rill,

Whose nectared veines are drunke by thirstie men ;

Crown'd be his stile with fame, his head with bayes,
And none detract, but gratulate his praise.

3 And these not on the title-page, but at the end of the prefatory matter: the whole title runs thus:

"The Ghost of Richard the Third. Expressing himselfe in these three Parts. 1. His Character. 2. His Legend. 3. His Tragedie. Containing

more of him than hath been heretofore shewed, either in Chronicles, Playes, or Poems. Laurea Desidiæ præbetur nulla. Printed by G. Eld: for L. Lisle: and are to be sold in Paules Church-yard, at the signe of the Tygers head. 1614." 4to.

It is about to be reprinted by the Shakespeare Society, and on every account it well merits the distinction.

"Yet if his scones have not engrost all grace,
The much fam'd action could extend on stage;
If Time or Memory have left a place
For me to fill, t'enforme this ignorant age,
To that intent I shew my horrid face,
Imprest with feare and characters of rage:

Nor wits nor chronicles could ere containe

The hell-deepe reaches of my soundlesse braine"."

The above is the last extant panegyric upon Shakespeare during his lifetime, and it exceeds, in point of fervour and zeal, if not in judicious criticism, any that had gone before it; for Richard tells the reader, that the writer of the scenes in which he had figured on the stage had imped his fame with the quill of the historic muse, and that, by the magic of verse, he who had written so much and so finely, had raised him from oblivion. That C. B. was an author of distinction, and well known to some of the greatest poets of the day, we have upon their own evidence, from the terms they use in their commendatory poems, subscribed by no less names than those of Ben Jonson', George Chapman, William Browne, Robert Daborne, and George Wither. The author professes to follow

• We may suspect, in the last line but one, that the word "wits" has been misprinted for acts. The stanza which follows the above refers to another play, founded on a distinct portion of the same history, and relating especially to Jane Shore :

"And what a peece of justice did I shew

On mistresse Shore, when (with a fained hate

To unchast life) I forced her to goe
Barefoote on pennance, with dejected state.
But now her fame by a vile play doth grow,
Whose fate the women do commisserate. &c.

The allusion may here be to Heywood's historical drama of “Edward IV." (reprinted by the Shakespeare Society), in which Shore's wife is introduced; or it may be to a different drama upon the events of her life, which, it is known on various authorities, had been brought upon the stage. See vol. viii. p. 269.

It appears from Henslowe's Diary, that in June, 1602, Ben Jonson was himself writing a historical play, called “Richard Crook-back,” for the Lord Admiral's players at the Fortune. We have no evidence that it was ever completed or represented. Ben Jonson's testimony in favour of the poem of C. B. is compressed into a few lines.

no particular original, whether in prose or verse, narrative or dramatic, in "chronicles, plays, or poems," but to adopt the incidents as they had been handed down on various authorities. As we have stated, his work is one of great excellence, but it would be going too much out of our way to enter here into any farther examination of it.

CHAPTER XX.

Shakespeare's return to Stratford. Marriage of his daughter Judith to Thomas Quiney in February, 1616. Shakespeare's will prepared in January, but dated March, 1616. His last illness: attended by Dr. Hall, his son-in-law. Uncertainty as to the nature of Shakespeare's fatal malady. His birth-day and death-day the same. Entry of his burial in the register at Stratford. His will, and circumstances to prove that it was prepared two months before it was executed. His bequest to his wife, and provision for her by dower.

THE autumn seems to have been a very usual time for publishing new books, and Shakespeare having been in London in the middle of November, 1614, as we have remarked, he was perhaps there when "The Ghost of Richard the Third" came out, and, like Ben Jonson, Chapman, and others, might be acquainted with the author. He probably returned home before the winter, and passed the rest of his days in tranquil retirement, and in the enjoyment of the society of his friends, whether residing in the country, or occasionally visiting him from the metropolis. "The latter part of his life," says Rowe, "was spent, as all men of good sense will wish theirs may be, in ease, retirement, and the society of his friends;" and he adds what cannot be doubted, that "his pleasurable wit and good-nature engaged him in the acquaintance, and entitled him to the friendship of the gentlemen of the neighbourhood." He must have been of a lively and companionable disposition; and his long residence in London, amid the bustling and

varied scenes connected with his public life, independently of his natural powers of conversation, could not fail to render his society most agreeable and desirable. We can readily believe that when any of his old associates of the stage, whether authors or actors, came to Stratford, they found a hearty welcome and free entertainment at his house; and that he would be the last man, in his prosperity, to treat with slight or indifference those with whom, in the earlier part of his career, he had been on terms of familiar intercourse. It could not be in Shakespeare's nature to disregard the claims of ancient friendship, especially if it approached him in a garb of comparative poverty.

One of the very latest acts of his life was bestowing the hand of his daughter Judith upon Thomas Quiney, a vintner and wine-merchant of Stratford, the son of Richard Quiney. She must have been four years older than her husband, having, as already stated, been born on 2nd February, 1585, while he was not born until 26th February, 1589: he was consequently twenty-seven years old, and she thirty-one, at the time of their marriage in February, 1616'; and Shakespeare thus became father-in-law to the son of the friend who, eighteen years before, had borrowed of him 30%, and who had died on 31st May, 1602, while he was bailiff of Stratford. As there was a difference of four years in the ages of Judith Shakespeare and her husband, we ought perhaps to receive that fact as some testimony, that our great dramatist did not see sufficient

1 The registration in the books of Stratford church is this :

"1615-16 February 10. Tho Queeny tow Judith Shakspere."

The fruits of this marriage were three sons; viz. Shakespeare, baptized 23rd November, 1616, and buried May 8th, 1617; Richard, baptized 9th February, 1617-18, and buried 26th February, 1638-9; and Thomas, baptized 23rd January, 1619-20, and buried 28th January, 1638-9. Judith Quiney, their mother, did not die until after the Restoration, and was buried 9th February, 1661-2. The Stratford registers contain no entry of the burial of Thomas Quiney, her husband, and it is very possible, therefore, that he died and was buried in London.